Crop circle debunking help needed

[Stray Cat]

His studies weren't so easily rebutted , the rebuttal was rejected. So Grasi found a group with the least chance of rejection. Also I remember the editor stating in the rejection of Grasi.."your view", which means any scientist specialized in their field could easily rebute his "view" too, I don't specialize , nor does anyone, in all the aspects and fields of study pertaining to ufology or the study of crop circles. So finding one rebuttal published in a tabloid style journal, "in my view" , is an obvious "clinging to a paper".

The editor gave valid reasons for not wanting the junk science discussion to be continued in his publication (he regretted publishing the original papers).
As for the rebuttal by Grassi, perhaps you could explain in detail how it does not refute the studies by Levengood or Haselhoff.
Like I already said, let's concentrate on the detail in BLT's work and that of Haselhoff (which was entirely based upon BLT's data) instead of getting into a pissing match about who published what, where.
Remembering that it was you who first made mention of peer reviewed publications as if they were important. I don't think they are, I think that good science is good science and bad science is bad science. To make the assumption that just because it is peer reviewed, it must by default be good science is fallacious.
So let's look at the science instead of arguing about where it was published eh?


ETA: And if you don't think anyone specialises in all the fields of study pertaining to crop circles, try me.

 

[chuck4842]

Grassi is listed as an engineer at CICAP... an Italian skeptic organization. What no speciality? Nope ,..an engineer at CICAP, credentials anyone? (sounds of crickets). Hasselhoff..a Physics engineer formerly employed at Los Alamos, Levengood a Biophysicist, aren't biophysicist doctors? Hasselhoffs reply to Grassi's paper as being full of his own work(Hasselhoffs) can be found here..http://www.cropfiles.it/docs/Haselhoff's reaction.pdf , He claims theres an investigation into Grassis paper, probably ethics from the way it sounds.

 

[chuck4842]

The editor gave valid reasons for not wanting the junk science discussion to be continued in his publication (he regretted publishing the original papers).
As for the rebuttal by Grassi, perhaps you could explain in detail how it does not refute the studies by Levengood or Haselhoff.
Like I already said, let's concentrate on the detail in BLT's work and that of Haselhoff (which was entirely based upon BLT's data) instead of getting into a pissing match about who published what, where.
Remembering that it was you who first made mention of peer reviewed publications as if they were important. I don't think they are, I think that good science is good science and bad science is bad science. To make the assumption that just because it is peer reviewed, it must by default be good science is fallacious.
So let's look at the science instead of arguing about where it was published eh?


ETA: And if you don't think anyone specialises in all the fields of study pertaining to crop circles, try me.

Thats a brave challenge coming from someone who knows everything towards just a guy, in case you haven't noticed I'm not a scientist. I know a little math, geometry, maybe some algebra. But what I thought I saw was Grassi just showing how there wasn't enough evidence to make the BOL claim, and some of the results could be faulty but Grassi didn't destroy Hasselhoffs findings by no means. As in his own paper Hasselhoff admits further research is needed and he's doing it. So you want me to , the average Joe, to skip the peer reviewed evidence of scientist? Wow, that's a first for me here at JREF, I could've done that anywhere.

 

[JohnG]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...circle-ever-discovered-in-British-fields.html

This is one example of a circle that guys like "Doug and Dave" can't duplicate. Theres alot more than "pigs" and simple circles to some of these. I've never seen a group of such disinterested , yet obviously interested enough to find any hint of manmade crops evidence. I feel sometimes I'm debating the Robertson Panel. There's radiation in some of these crop circles, bent elongated nodes, blown out, from the inside is the description of most investigators, like have been microwaved. Its not a sensable statement for one to find a counterfeit and declare all to be.

You tell 'em, Chuck! Now I don't know from crop circles, but I believe that the so-called "sawing a woman in half" trick is evidence of the paranormal! Sure, maybe the same effect can be created via a simple illusion, but that doesn't mean that each and every time this feat has been performed throughout history that at least some of the Magicians weren't actual Wizards who were tapping into occult forces to literally saw a woman in half! Investigators who claim that there are conventional (albeit clever) explanations for the "trick" are obligated to investigate every performance throughout history of this feat. Only when they have debunked all of the many thousands (or millions?) of performances can they honestly say that the "sawing in lady in half" phenomenon is nothing but a mere magic trick!

Now granted, there may be a flaw in my reasoning, but since I can't personally see one at the moment, I'm satisfied that I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I've used that buttun b4, but I still have'nt figured how to quote one sentence at a time as you just did, so I can respond to each statement, with that highlighting effect. You're right about other influences , I was going to post something really stupid last night, after a few beers.

Well clearly the only logical explanation is that anyone who has mastered all the intricacies of the "Quote" feature must be either aliens or wizards.

 

[Stray Cat]

Grassi is listed as an engineer at CICAP... an Italian skeptic organization. What no speciality? Nope ,..an engineer at CICAP, credentials anyone? (sounds of crickets). Hasselhoff..a Physics engineer formerly employed at Los Alamos, Levengood a Biophysicist, aren't biophysicist doctors?

They aren't allowed to use "Dr" as a title unless they have passed the relevant qualifications (which Levengood never did). As for "specialities", what qualifications does one need to spot pseudo-science in action?
Anyone with knowledge of scientific methods looking at Levengood's methods protocols and interpretations of the data can see it's badly flawed.

Hasselhoffs reply to Grassi's paper as being full of his own work(Hasselhoffs) can be found here..http://www.cropfiles.it/docs/Haselhoff's%20reaction.pdf , He claims theres an investigation into Grassis paper, probably ethics from the way it sounds.

As this whole event happened years ago, I think the investigation was just hot air... it never happened because Haselhoff realises that an investigation of any kind would only serve to highlight the shoddy work of both him and Levengood. In Fact Haslehoff himself in the article you cited above, states that his samples got all mixed up (he uses this as an excuse for not including them in his final results), odd however, that only the ones which didn't fit his preconceived conclusion were omitted.

But I see we are still concentrating on the personalities, qualifications and publications here... why are you not willing to actually examine the data, methods and protocols for yourself and have discussion based upon those?

 

[Stray Cat]

Thats a brave challenge coming from someone who knows everything towards just a guy, in case you haven't noticed I'm not a scientist. I know a little math, geometry, maybe some algebra.

I'm not a scientist either.

But what I thought I saw was Grassi just showing how there wasn't enough evidence to make the BOL claim, and some of the results could be faulty but Grassi didn't destroy Hasselhoffs findings by no means.

As Haselhoff concludes that Balls of light make crop circles, then Grassi pointing out that there isn't enough evidence to show that crop circles are made by Balls of Light kind of shows that Hasslehoff's conclusion is not as solid as claimed. Furthermore as Haselhoff's premise was taken from Levengood's equally faulty conclusion, it also shows that Levengoods findings must be called into question.

As in his own paper Hasselhoff admits further research is needed and he's doing it. So you want me to , the average Joe, to skip the peer reviewed evidence of scientist? Wow, that's a first for me here at JREF, I could've done that anywhere.

I'm not saying skip it, just don't concentrate on giving it credibility it doesn't deserve by claiming that because it was peer reviewed it is somehow set in stone conclusive proof of something (that even the authors can't prove).
Why not try to understand the methods and data results for yourself instead of relying on a crop circle researcher. That's like asking a UFOlogist for confirmation of the existence of aliens in flying saucers (and broadly the same pseudo-science used to make the conclusion).

 

[chuck4842]

If we skip what everybody published, what do we use to convince each other. Your just going to give me views of skeptical scientist, to wit I waste alot of time, not always a waste, I do learn some great things here. I admit discrediting your references is difficult, because alot of them aren't mainstream. I did alot of reading to find alot of nothing about Grassi lately, however Hasselhoffs bio is an open book. He's playing guitar alot more since the musical scale similarities were noticed in Crop Circles. Grassi is now debunking the Hglaze findings. So one is using what hes found to enrich his life and the other is still arguing they are manmade. If I was totally convinced they were all manmade and a scientist with resources, I'd move on.

 

[Stray Cat]

If we skip what everybody published, what do we use to convince each other. Your just going to give me views of skeptical scientist, to wit I waste alot of time, not always a waste, I do learn some great things here.

I'm not suggesting we skip anything anyone has published. I'm suggesting we don't put the emphasis on where or how it was published and instead look at the data objectively instead of simply accepting the word of the people who wrote it.

I admit discrediting your references is difficult, because alot of them aren't mainstream.

See it's really not about discrediting references, it's about objectively showing errors in the methods and data.

Grassi is now debunking the Hglaze findings. So one is using what hes found to enrich his life and the other is still arguing they are manmade. If I was totally convinced they were all manmade and a scientist with resources, I'd move on.

The H-Glaze findings were 'debunked' a few years ago by Rodney Ashby who reopened the case he had researched years previously when he was approached by Rob Irving, who still had the original bottle of iron filings that were given to him by Jim Schnabel.
There is a link to this article on the BLT website but here it is anyway:
http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/h_glaze_0.htm

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't specialize , nor does anyone, in all the aspects and fields of study pertaining to ufology or the study of crop circles.

Ba-dum-dum-TSSSSSSH!

 

[chuck4842]

I'm not suggesting we skip anything anyone has published. I'm suggesting we don't put the emphasis on where or how it was published and instead look at the data objectively instead of simply accepting the word of the people who wrote it.


See it's really not about discrediting references, it's about objectively showing errors in the methods and data.


The H-Glaze findings were 'debunked' a few years ago by Rodney Ashby who reopened the case he had researched years previously when he was approached by Rob Irving, who still had the original bottle of iron filings that were given to him by Jim Schnabel.
There is a link to this article on the BLT website but here it is anyway:
http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/h_glaze_0.htm

Could I see the link on the BLT site? all I could find was this http://www.bltresearch.com/published/mit.php

 

[Stray Cat]

Could I see the link on the BLT site? all I could find was this http://www.bltresearch.com/published/mit.php

The link is to the url of the article I gave at extremescience.
The link to it from BLT is down the left under "Research Links"

There is also a rebuttal by Levengood and Burke of Ashby's newer report here: http://www.kornkreise-forschung.de/textHglazeNew.htm

But as the original crop circle which the Iron Filings were found in, was made by Rob Irving, the whole of this meteor dust theory is a mute point isn't it.

 

[chuck4842]

The link is to the url of the article I gave at extremescience.
The link to it from BLT is down the left under "Research Links"

There is also a rebuttal by Levengood and Burke of Ashby's newer report here: http://www.kornkreise-forschung.de/textHglazeNew.htm

But as the original crop circle which the Iron Filings were found in, was made by Rob Irving, the whole of this meteor dust theory is a mute point isn't it.

It doesn't explain the glaze. My previous post was a link showing MIT students failure to reproduce the glaze, yet you want me to dismiss it because Rob Irving shows up and says he tossed some iron fillings in the circle.

 

[chuck4842]

You tell 'em, Chuck! Now I don't know from crop circles, but I believe that the so-called "sawing a woman in half" trick is evidence of the paranormal! Sure, maybe the same effect can be created via a simple illusion, but that doesn't mean that each and every time this feat has been performed throughout history that at least some of the Magicians weren't actual Wizards who were tapping into occult forces to literally saw a woman in half! Investigators who claim that there are conventional (albeit clever) explanations for the "trick" are obligated to investigate every performance throughout history of this feat. Only when they have debunked all of the many thousands (or millions?) of performances can they honestly say that the "sawing in lady in half" phenomenon is nothing but a mere magic trick!

Now granted, there may be a flaw in my reasoning, but since I can't personally see one at the moment, I'm satisfied that I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.





Well clearly the only logical explanation is that anyone who has mastered all the intricacies of the "Quote" feature must be either aliens or wizards.

Whats with these pathetic disgusting attempts of distraction? Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges. You're trying to dilute the info with worthless analogies. I haven't learned to multi-quote because it reminds me of someone trying to tear apart a sentence one word at a time. eg.. Clinton-"define sex".

 

[Pup]

From the link:

"An important final note regarding these changes to crop circle plants is the fact that non-geometrically-downed crop -- usually called "lodging" by farmers and attributed to over-fertilization of the field and/or subsequent weather damage -- has sometimes been found to show these same changes"

I didn't add the bold or italics. It's there in the original.

Seems like the best evidence to show that these changes are actually ordinary responses to bending, would be to show that the same changes also sometimes occur in naturally bent-over crops.

According to that link, they do.

I posted the above a few posts back, and I don't think it got the attention it deserved.

chuck4842, do you agree that these changes have sometimes been found in non-geometric "normal" lodged wheat also?

If so, do you think it's evidence that geometric designs are non-alien, or is it evidence that "normal" lodging is also sometimes done by aliens?

 

[Drewbot]

SEALED ORDER FOR COMMUNICATION MISSION

Admiral Zolkar, you are to proceed directly to the third planet of the yellow star-X4183, upon reaching orbit, you are to proceed, under-cloak, to an agricultural field in Southern England, whereupon you will proceed to land in said field, and leave depressions and or minor thermal damage to the contents of that field. You are then to return to home-planet, where upon we will wait for responsive communication from people of planet #3/star-X4183.

 

[RoboTimbo]

SEALED ORDER FOR COMMUNICATION MISSION

Admiral Zolkar, you are to proceed directly to the third planet of the yellow star-X4183, upon reaching orbit, you are to proceed, under-cloak, to an agricultural field in Southern England, whereupon you will proceed to land in said field, and leave depressions and or minor thermal damage to the contents of that field. You are then to return to home-planet, where upon we will wait for responsive communication from people of planet #3/star-X4183.

Sir! Are we to use the standard issue string and stomper boards again?

 

[chuck4842]

I posted the above a few posts back, and I don't think it got the attention it deserved.

chuck4842, do you agree that these changes have sometimes been found in non-geometric "normal" lodged wheat also?

If so, do you think it's evidence that geometric designs are non-alien, or is it evidence that "normal" lodging is also sometimes done by aliens?

I hope I understand this right, my answer would be...I believe normal lodging is found in geometric designs made my hoaxers .

 

[Drewbot]

SEALED ORDER FOR COMMUNICATION MISSION

Admiral Zolkar, you are to proceed directly to the third planet of the yellow star-X4183, upon reaching orbit, you are to proceed, under-cloak, to an agricultural field in Southern England, whereupon you will proceed to land in said field, and leave depressions and or minor thermal damage to the contents of that field. You are then to return to home-planet, where upon we will wait for responsive communication from people of planet #3/star-X4183.

Admiral Zolkar, this is not working, we have repeatedly done minor damage to crops in the semi-urban areas of Southern England, to no avail. Their leaders dare mock our attempts at communication!, you will now proceed to a triangular region of the Atlantic ocean, between Bermuda and Florida, and cause a small sailing vessel to disappear, you will then return and we shall await communication.

 

[Pup]

I hope I understand this right, my answer would be...I believe normal lodging is found in geometric designs made my hoaxers .

Nope. Let me rephrase it and ask again.

The link talks about changes sometimes found within crop circles: expulsion cavities, apical node length increase, etc.. The author believes these changes are abnormal and therefore are evidence that something strange is going in crop circles.

However, the author says these abnormal things are also sometimes found in normally lodged wheat (no circles or shapes, just random lodging, like from wind, over-fertilization, etc.).

So, these supposedly abnormal things are sometimes found in both crop circles and randomly lodged wheat.

Is that evidence that randomly lodged wheat is sometimes bent over by alien forces? Or is it evidence that the crop circles are no different from randomly lodged wheat and the abnormal things really aren't abnormal at all?

 

[JohnG]

Whats with these pathetic disgusting attempts of distraction?

That's a bit strong, isn't it? The last thing I was attempting to do was to distract you or anyone else from the main point. You think I was mocking you (and to be honest I sort of was), but I was also trying to use humor to make you see the mistake you were making. Boy, did you come to the wrong place if you expected people to accept your ideas without question or criticism.

Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges. You're trying to dilute the info with worthless analogies.

How is it a worthless analogy? Both involve a quite ordinary and simple series of steps (which nevertheless take quite a bit of skill and practice to do well) that can give the illusion of something extraordinary. I was once at a party where a frickin' card trick was performed (yeah I go to those sorts of parties) that spooked a guy so much that he was in a shocked and withdrawn state for the rest of the night. I tried to explain to him that it was only a trick but he wasn't buying it. He believed with all his heart that he had witnessed something terrifyingly paranormal, and for all I know he still believes it. I think my "crop circle as magic trick" analogy is actually quite apt. Unless you can explain otherwise I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself. Just because I hurt your feelings doesn't automatically mean that everything I wrote was wrong or irrelevant.

I haven't learned to multi-quote because it reminds me of someone trying to tear apart a sentence one word at a time. eg.. Clinton-"define sex".

What an inane rationalization. Breaking a post into sections to respond to specific points actually makes a response easier to parse, as I think I've demonstrated here. There's no shame in not knowing how to do something. There's not even any shame in not having the will or the wit to take five minutes to learn how to do something, It's when you get all huffy and defensive and attempt to make fairly lame excuses when the embarrassment really begins.