"Exploded Nodes" in Crop Circles

[flyboy217]

to be some sort of insult. Please do explain to me how "my logic" would do this, and what you mean by "you do, don't you?"

Your argument is used often by woo woos to justify their beleifs in the paranormal. Because of this, I suspect you are one of them. If you feel insulted, then it's your own fault.

Or, since the ET argument is overused, how about the meteorite argument from 1790? I'm sure you're familiar with it. There had been anecdotal accounts of meteorites, but no evidence had been collected for them. So Lavoisier supposedly proclaimed that rocks simply could not fall from the sky, as there were no rocks in the sky. Does that mean that "rocks do not fall from the sky" was a fact? Is this in any way different from your comment about crop circles?

 

[RichardR]

Perhaps you would read the post I wrote. I said that

"some of the single circles" might be natural formations.

Obviously I agree that any complex pattern is man-made. That's why I specified single circles.

Thanks for clearing that up. No offence was meant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Or, since the ET argument is overused, how about the meteorite argument from 1790? I'm sure you're familiar with it. There had been anecdotal accounts of meteorites, but no evidence had been collected for them. So Lavoisier supposedly proclaimed that rocks simply could not fall from the sky, as there were no rocks in the sky. Does that mean that "rocks do not fall from the sky" was a fact? Is this in any way different from your comment about crop circles?

Yes, it is very different from cropcircles. First of all, modern science has an entirely different tradition for objectivity that that of 1790. Secondly, the argumentation is very simple:

1) Crop circles exist.

2) Humans exist.

3) Humans are known to make crop circles.

4) No other source of crop circles is known to exist.

Hans

 

[Dr Adequate]

Or, since the ET argument is overused, how about the meteorite argument from 1790? I'm sure you're familiar with it. There had been anecdotal accounts of meteorites, but no evidence had been collected for them. So Lavoisier supposedly proclaimed that rocks simply could not fall from the sky, as there were no rocks in the sky. Does that mean that "rocks do not fall from the sky" was a fact?

The "proclamations" of a chemist about hypotheses in astronomy for which "no evidence had been collected" are not sufficient to establish the facts in that field, no. Not in the least. Personally I would be very very chary indeed of anyone who said "There are no rocks in the sky", because denying the existence of the Moon, etc, is hardly sensible. Sounds a little on the dogmatic side.

Don't worry about thaiboxerken: he's been wearing his kilt backwards for years and thinks a haggis is a sort of fish.

 

[flyboy217]

Yes, it is very different from cropcircles. First of all, modern science has an entirely different tradition for objectivity that that of 1790. Secondly, the argumentation is very simple:

1) Crop circles exist.

2) Humans exist.

3) Humans are known to make crop circles.

4) No other source of crop circles is known to exist.

Hans

What about:
1) Rocks exist, 2) The earth exists, 3) The earth is known to contain rocks, 4) No other source of rocks is known to exist.

Surely modern science is not what it was in 1790, but should that give us the right to declare that "crop circles cannot form naturally" any more than Lavoisier was right in declaring that "rocks cannot fall from the sky?"

And when pressed specifically if one means that "there is insufficient evidence for naturally-formed crop circles" or "it is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally," is it really viable to stand by the second?

 

[flyboy217]

The "proclamations" of a chemist about hypotheses in astronomy for which "no evidence had been collected" are not sufficient to establish the facts in that field, no. Not in the least. Personally I would be very very chary indeed of anyone who said "There are no rocks in the sky", because denying the existence of the Moon, etc, is hardly sensible. Sounds a little on the dogmatic side.

I don't really mean "should museums have listened to Lavoisier and thrown out their meteorite collections?" so much as "was Lavoisier's claim viable?"

But yes, ignoring the planets was kind of stupid. But for the sake of this argument, it should be safe to abstract out the evidence and ask "if we think we have insufficient evidence for X, can we claim that X is not possible?"

Don't worry about thaiboxerken: he's been wearing his kilt backwards for years and thinks a haggis is a sort of fish.

I'm not worried about anybody in particular. But it does seem like every time I get into an argument here, you can point out a flaw in my opponent. That's either because you're trying to defuse the argument diplomatically, or because there really are some strange biases underlying the personalities of many posters here. I'm trying to out the latter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is a fact that humans make crop circles.

Now, flyboy, will you stop your childish game of "everything is possible"?

 

[flyboy217]

It is a fact that humans make crop circles.

Now, flyboy, will you stop your childish game of "everything is possible"?

Yep, since humans have made most crop circles, it's a fact that they've made all of them. To even consider otherwise would make one a woo-woo. Clever one, aren't you?

Since it appears you can't be bothered to actually read my posts (e.g., regarding Lavoisier et al.) and respond reasonably, I'll stop my "childish games" (i.e., rational discourse). Just for you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

flyboy said:
Yep, since humans have made most crop circles, it's a fact that they've made all of them. To even consider otherwise would make one a woo-woo. Clever one, aren't you?

Snap out of it, dude. Of course it's not a fact that humans made all of them. However, is there any compelling reason at all to assume otherwise?

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

"if we think we have insufficient evidence for X, can we claim that X is not possible?"

NO.

I'm not worried about anybody in particular. But it does seem like every time I get into an argument here, you can point out a flaw in my opponent. That's either because you're trying to defuse the argument diplomatically

Yeah, well, that's a hypothesis, but do you ever read your own sig?

or because there really are some strange biases underlying the personalities of many posters here. I'm trying to out the latter.

Well, a sympathetic explanation of thaiboxerken (and not just because he can snap me in half like a twig). As far as I remember from the poll, he's one of the 25% who has never been a flake. Moreover, he's really more interested in martial arts than the paranormal. Unluckily for him, he keeps stumbling across the screaming woos that infest the martial arts. He's good and cross. Unfortunately, rather than present evidence for their views, woos often prefer to tinker with epistemology, and, dammit, talk about meteorites. You've been talking to Peter Morris, haven't you?

 

[EHocking]

EHocking:

An interesting analysis – thanks. Do you have any detailed analyses of when restrictions were lifted in particular areas followed by circles appearing in those areas? Or lists of dates that circles appeared correlated with restrictions being lifted? I'd be interested in any details you have.

The sci.skeptic discussions are all over the shop, it was reall hand-to-hand, doorway-to-doorway skirmishing...

I have restricted myself to merely discussing the 3 examples on the Crop Circle research site that are used as an argument against FMD being a factor in 2001.

Until Paul Vigay, the author of the Crop Circle database site showed up on usenet and and offered some sensible debating the discussion was quite unstructured, so...

As far as a summary or chronology goes, this post (partial) from myself to him is probably the closest I can manage without going back throught the whole process again.

I guess in fairness, I should get the chronology together for just this sort of question.

(No Forum rules being broken here, I hope - it is my article after all)
+++++++++Start quote++++++++++
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=w....0402181927.9ce1fe9@posting.google.com&rnum=1

From March/April RoW were being opened outside of the restriced area.
Rather than give you the complete chronology, here are the salient
news releases and Orders.

[If you want to look up the complete lot, here's the list to review
from February through June:
PR264, 267, 271, 275, 364, 370, 372, 373, 377, 378, 380, 393, 401, 420
Id: 23 3rd May, Id: 35 11th May, Id: 47 24th May, Id: 48&49 24th May
(these are the declarations with the RoW schedules attached)]

To continue:
Id: 18 - Friday 27th April 2001 15:00 - Press Release
PR 373 Latest footpath re opening guidelines

Using the most recent guidelines from MAFF, Wiltshire County Council,
in consultation with local Parish and Town Councils, is continuing to
reopen various lengths of paths and bridleways across the county.
However, at present not all paths are open.
[...]
The public are requested to keep dogs on leads, to avoid contact with
cattle, sheep, pigs and Deer and not to walk through pasture land.

Note - "public are requested ... not to walk through PASTURE land"
(nothing about crops)

Lastly, this Order released by the Wiltshire County Council:
<http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/getnews.php3?id=48>
[...]
Id: 48 - Thursday 24th May 2001 17:10 - General News
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way

Wiltshire County Council
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way In The
District Council Areas Of West Wiltshire, Kennet And Salisbury

Further To Article 37A Of The Foot And Mouth Disease Order 1983 (As
Amended)
Wiltshire County Council declares open the Rights of Way network in
the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet and Salisbury in
the County of Wiltshire WITH THE EXCEPTION OF those Rights of Way
which go through farmyards and/or farm buildings on farms or which are
tracks used to move livestock. This declaration replaces all earlier
declarations in the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet
and Salisbury.

This declaration takes effect at 5 p.m. on Friday 25th May 2001 and
continues in force until further notice.
[...]

So to summarise:

1st circle for 2001 - Hampshire 11th/12th May
FMD restrictions just lifted

15th May status of RoW surrounding field
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>

2nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 25th May- covered above.
FMD restrictions just lifted

3nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 29th May
FMD restrictions lifted 26th May

<http://web.archive.org/web/20010605091722/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/
getnews.php3?id=46>
Id: 46 - Thursday 24th May 2001 09:50 - Press Release
PR 401 Wiltshire opens up for May Bank Holiday
The May Bank Holiday will see the majority of Wiltshire's Rights of
Way legally reopened - the first county in the South West to adopt
such a policy.
[...]
From Saturday 26th May the only paths to be legally closed will be
those
going directly through farmyards or those used as milking tracks.
Farmers
will be issued with new notices to be put up only in those locations.

That just about rounds me out as far as offering references to show
that:

In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
+++++End Quote++++++++

You'll note that many of the URLs no longer exist, thus the reliance on Web Archive copies.

 

[MRC_Hans]

What about:
1) Rocks exist, 2) The earth exists, 3) The earth is known to contain rocks, 4) No other source of rocks is known to exist.

4 is incorrect. It was not incorrect in 1790, but it is now.

Surely modern science is not what it was in 1790, but should that give us the right to declare that "crop circles cannot form naturally" any more than Lavoisier was right in declaring that "rocks cannot fall from the sky?"

We don't. We say: "No known natural mechanism can explain (complex) crop circles." And we add that the existence of crop circles is easily explained in other ways.

And when pressed specifically if one means that "there is insufficient evidence for naturally-formed crop circles" or "it is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally," is it really viable to stand by the second?

And we don't. We say that since we have a well-known source of crop circles (humans) there is no reason to attribute them to hypothetical sources, like aliens or unknown natural pnenomenon.

It is like when speculating about the quart of milk you find on yout door-step in the morning. We cannot absolutely PROVE that it was not put there by the milk-fairie, but.....

Hans

 

[Ashles]

There is, as Hans illustrates, obviously a point at which you make assumptions about things which you have not yourself personally experienced with a team of scientists and researchers with you.

It is a sliding scale for each person as to where they are on the scale. It will never be absolute.

However, for some believers to try and say things like:
"We have no evidence that EVERY crop circle is faked or from natural weather effects so it is POSSIBLE that some are made by paranormal forces" is entirely useless as an argument.
By that 'logic' we don't and can't ever know anything about anything.

We make assumptions based on repeatable known effects and these are useful for furthering our knowledge and are correct to an extent that we can consider them facts.

If somebody believes that crop circles are real then, fair enough, you can have a debate with them and perhaps point out information they are not aware of. At the end of the debate they may still choose to believe in crop circles paranormal origins. Fine.

Bu for someone who doesn't believe that crop circles are paranormal in origin, yet still to push the "Well it's POSSIBLE" argument, seems to me to be an entirely pointless use of mental ability as we already know you can apply this to anything in the logical extreme, but it is realistically a pointless waste of time.

I can state that all crop circles ever created are products of either man or weather and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that belief.
Therefore any debate about the exact way I have put it seems a little redundant.
Having to write "It seems unlikely in the extreme that any mechanism exists outside of human or naturally occurring weather patterns are responsible for the creation of crop circles - also that, while not impossible, it strikes me as absurd and laughable that aliens would choose to communicate to us in this fashion" seems like a waste of time when we are all agreed on a subject anyway.
The only person I would expect to disagree with my initial statement I would have thought would be someone who genuinely believes crop circles are created by something paranormal.

 

[flyboy217]

Snap out of it, dude. Of course it's not a fact that humans made all of them. However, is there any compelling reason at all to assume otherwise?

~~ Paul

Haha... now I'll switch over and point out that it's not viable to claim that it's not a fact that humans created all of them. Maybe they did--how should we know? Okay just kidding, I won't .

I was actually just interested in hearing if there was any good evidence for natural single circles. The random comment that "crops just can't do that" didn't seem to be very enlightening in light of the context of finding such evidence, so I questioned its purpose.

I'm not interested in dragging this out, really. Carry on.

 

[flyboy217]

Yeah, well, that's a hypothesis, but do you ever read your own sig?

Yes, and I'm sad that you're asking me to remove it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yep, since humans have made most crop circles, it's a fact that they've made all of them. To even consider otherwise would make one a woo-woo. Clever one, aren't you?

That's not even close to my point. My point is that humans made all crop circles, not most of them.


Since it appears you can't be bothered to actually read my posts (e.g., regarding Lavoisier et al.) and respond reasonably, I'll stop my "childish games" (i.e., rational discourse). Just for you.

There is nothing rational about your discourse.

 

[Macro]

I've been looking for follow-up research on the claims that plants found in crop circles have been subjected to high-energy radiation of some sort, as evidenced by node elongation and the holes made by apparent steam evacuation. The woo sites are loaded with references, but the scientific sites don't seem to contain any direct answers to this. Most references are in posts in discussion boards, with no real conclusive scientific background to show.

Does anyone know of scientific sites that address this directly?

Thanks

Try to request to Eng. Francesco Grassi of the Italian CICAP (the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal), who is the "head" of the team who is debunking the Crop Circle phenomenon for the Italian Committee.

You can read (in Italian) his works in:
http://www.cicap.org/crops/index.htm
http://www.francescograssi.com/adv/2004_09_07.htm

A synthesis of his works:
- The "node elongation and the holes made by apparent steam evacuation" are present also in crop flattened by wind and bad weather. As is written in the works of the BLT and especially Levengood (in Phisiologia Plantarum and The Journal of Scientific Exploration). They themselves admit that the percentage of “strange” nodes elongation’s and holes is often superior in normal wind damage crops, than in “authentic” circles!!!
In his work Francesco Grassi explored an alternative method of causing the holes… and his research conducted to some “bugs”: the sawflies and his natural enemies (a type of beetles). The first put his larvae into the node, and when the “babe sawflies” are mature, they dig the hole to exit. Instead, the “natural enemies”, dig the hole to reach the larvae. No steam evacuation.
- A research on the “dead flies anomaly”, finding the real cause; the Entomophthora muscae… a disease of the insects, that the “believer” eliminated without proper control. No microwave.

bye bye
Macro

 

[Anathema]

Re: Re: "Exploded Nodes" in Crop Circles

You can read (in Italian) his works in:
http://www.cicap.org/crops/index.htm
http://www.francescograssi.com/adv/2004_09_07.htm

A synthesis of his works:
- The "node elongation and the holes made by apparent steam evacuation" are present also in crop flattened by wind and bad weather. As is written in the works of the BLT and especially Levengood (in Phisiologia Plantarum and The Journal of Scientific Exploration). They themselves admit that the percentage of “strange” nodes elongation’s and holes is often superior in normal wind damage crops, than in “authentic” circles!!!
In his work Francesco Grassi explored an alternative method of causing the holes… and his research conducted to some “bugs”: the sawflies and his natural enemies (a type of beetles). The first put his larvae into the node, and when the “babe sawflies” are mature, they dig the hole to exit. Instead, the “natural enemies”, dig the hole to reach the larvae. No steam evacuation.
- A research on the “dead flies anomaly”, finding the real cause; the Entomophthora muscae… a disease of the insects, that the “believer” eliminated without proper control. No microwave.

Thanks, Macro -- that's the kind of analysis I was looking for. The Google translation is readable, and your summary is helpful.

I did see the television show with the MIT students duplicating the effects in a wheat field in Ohio. They went to the trouble of creating a microwave cannon that did in fact cause the nodes to burst -- but if insects can do the same, all the better

The paranormal believers still hold the burst/elongated nodes out as the best proof that some circles cannot be dismissed as hoaxes. I'm glad to see someone putting effort into addressing their fantasies scientifically.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

IIRC, Lavoisier's reasoning was also very much driven by what the christian church declared to be the truth back then - that g.odd created a perfect heaven with no stones floating about, and hence none dropping to earth. I think his reasoning was just as much that of an apologetic christian believer.

 

[flyboy217]

IIRC, Lavoisier's reasoning was also very much driven by what the christian church declared to be the truth back then - that g.odd created a perfect heaven with no stones floating about, and hence none dropping to earth. I think his reasoning was just as much that of an apologetic christian believer.

I wasn't aware of this. Interesting.

In any case, I took this discussion over to another thread, since it arises so often. Not to mention it sometimes seems to bother people when I point it out.