Scientific Research on Crop Circles

[gs21stc]

I have always thought that crop circles are all man-made. That is simply the best and easiest explanation of the crop circle phenomena. Recently, I am starting to have some doubts about the man-made hypothesis. I discovered that there are actually scientific research going on studying about crop circles which shows that not all crop circles are made via mechanical flattening. They have even published a few papers on this subject.

I have attached one of them in this post. The others can be accessed through:

http://www.bltresearch.com/anatomical.pdf
http://www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html
http://www.bltresearch.com/dispersion.html

The results presented in these papers (including the attached one) are compelling. They all suggest an electromagnetic origin for the formation of crop circles and rule out the man-made (or woman?) hypothesis at least in the crop circles they have studied.

I am aware that some people might say this is pseudoscience. If you are of the following opinion, can you please state specifically what is wrong with their methodology and exactly where they are in the papers so I can check it myself? I am really puzzled by this, and would like to get advice from someone who is very knowledgeable in this field.

 

[The Atheist]

Come on, mate - surely this should be just blindingly obvious. Two minutes' Googling would have pointed you in the right direction.

The "researchers", and Dr Levengood in particular, are lying.

"Ion plasma vortices"? What the hell are they supposed to be? I'm sure Spock could give a good explanation, but a scientist on earth, probably not. Strangely, the only search return for them leads to UFOlogidiot sites.

It's probably not too hard to find anomalies in something made up. The whole thing is a bad joke and rather than pseudoscience, it's simply fairytales using made-up evidence. At least he has the decency to admit as much on his site:

W.C. Levengood's hypothesized plasma vortex energy system

There's no science to debunk because there's no science involved. Anyone can make up a hypothesis - in fact I have one about W C Levengood, author of the articles; my hypothesis states that Dr Levengood is a charlatan and fraud who is pretending to do science. Dr Levengood is so popular that his bio is listed on the Archangel Gabriel's website (fancy him having a website) which may be a guide as to the lunacy of the people involved.

In the first link, lots of data is noted about genetic defects.

Says who? Just because some bozo writes up a .pdf stating that defects exist doesn't mean that they do. Other pages contain clearly made-up stories, so this is likely another.

 

[leonAzul]

please state specifically what is wrong with their methodology and exactly where they are in the papers so I can check it myself? I am really puzzled by this, and would like to get advice from someone who is very knowledgeable in this field.

Right there in the abstract of the "paper" retrieved from http://www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html

appearing shortly after the intense Perseid meteor shower in August. 1993

Do you think the result of such a well known and understood seasonal event might be a coating of meteoric material on the surface of the earth, such as the "paper" describes? I didn't need to read any more.

 

[gs21stc]

Do you think the result of such a well known and understood seasonal event might be a coating of meteoric material on the surface of the earth, such as the "paper" describes? I didn't need to read any more.

I am not an expert on this subject, but I would expect the coating of meteoric material on the surface of the Earth to occur at impact sites, where the temperature is high. However, both the soils and plants in the crop formation are coated with materials from a meteor and the plants were intact! (i.e. not burnt to oblivion).

I think this is a very interesting result which defies any normal explanation. There could be an error in detecting the meteoritic materials using their method. That will invalidate their results. I would appreciate an input from someone who is knowledgeable in this field to comment on their detection method.

 

[gs21stc]

The "researchers", and Dr Levengood in particular, are lying.

That is certainly a reasonable conjecture as Dr. Levengood was involved with "Archangel Michael" whom I think has cultish behaviour and possibly mental disorders (based on the link you posted).

However, to accuse someone of lying based on just that, I think is not enough evidence. His work with Archangel Michael is totally unrelated to the published papers I have posted in the OP. There is no clear and obvious connection between the two of them, and in a court of law you will need more than that to sentence him with the crime of fraud.

Therefore, I am not completely convinced that they are liars until more evidence comes into play.

 

[The Atheist]

Therefore, I am not completely convinced that they are liars until more evidence comes into play.

I did you a couple of other leads. Follow up the plasma vortices. That was the fraud I was talking about. Archangel Gabriel is just a bad joke.

 

[Gravy]

The results presented in these papers (including the attached one) are compelling.

Strange that they're only able to find a home in crackpot journals, then.

Can you point out specifically what you think is not pseudoscientific babble, and why you believe complex geometric shapes in fields can be created by the forces described?

 

[gs21stc]

Strange that they're only able to find a home in crackpot journals, then.

Physiologica Plantarum was ranked 30/147 in 2006 among Plant Sciences Journals (ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking). That is in the top 20% in its own field. I definitely would not consider it as a crackpot Journal.

Can you point out specifically what you think is not pseudoscientific babble, and why you believe complex geometric shapes in fields can be created by the forces described?

The plasma vortex description is just a hypothesis and by no means proven. I do not see any reason to believe in this conjecture. The most compelling part of the papers are in the data, not theory. The anomalies they found in the soils and plants suggests an electromagnetic point source (See Ball of Light.pdf), which origins could not be completely understood. The plasma vortex hypothesis is simply an attempt to explain their data.

I would appreciate it if someone can comment on their data, not theory. This instant fascination with a proposed theory for crop circles is understandable, but this is not what I find compelling about their research. I am mostly intrigued by the plant and soil anomalies they found in crop formation sites, which could not be explained by simple mechanical flattening.

 

[lionking]

More "just asking questions". How many woo threads are you going to start? Is there a record you are trying to break? Seriously.

 

[Lothian]

I would appreciate it if someone can comment on their data, not theory. This instant fascination with a proposed theory for crop circles is understandable, but this is not what I find compelling about their research. I am mostly intrigued by the plant and soil anomalies they found in crop formation sites, which could not be explained by simple mechanical flattening.

They are alien spaceship landing sites.

 

[mhaze]

I have always thought that crop circles are all man-made. That is simply the best and easiest explanation of the crop circle phenomena.

If you are referring to 10-50 foot diameter round crop circle, I've seen those occur naturally in Kentucky many times - always in areas with tall weeds, say 6+ plus in height, overnight. Farmers laugh at people thinking they are anything other than the plant stalks falling down in a characteristic pattern.

The fact they appear overnight is attributed to dew increasing the weight of the stalks, then they fall over.

The big fancy ones are all man made.

How is this complicated, and/or where does it require exotic scientific explanations?

 

[Hokulele]

The plasma vortex description is just a hypothesis and by no means proven. I do not see any reason to believe in this conjecture. The most compelling part of the papers are in the data, not theory. The anomalies they found in the soils and plants suggests an electromagnetic point source (See Ball of Light.pdf), which origins could not be completely understood. The plasma vortex hypothesis is simply an attempt to explain their data.

Good grief. Let's see what their data suggests, the plants that are lying down expose more of their stems to electromagnetic radiation than the plants standing up. The more exposure they get, the more their cell walls show faults (rupturing or whatever). In order for this to be the case, there needs to be some source of EM radiation. So far, this is all plausible.

Where they go wrong is to assume that the source of the radiation is also what knocks the plants down. Let's instead assume the plants were knocked down mechanically, and then lay there on the receiving end of a blast of EM radiation.

Hmm, what could possibly generate that much EM in one day . . .

Don't forget to put on your sunblock!

 

[The Atheist]

I would appreciate it if someone can comment on their data, not theory.

Not possible. How is it possible to comment on flawed data?

Try asking me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's exactly what you're doing. As to real data, like traces of the meteors - you've had that self-expanatory reason given to you.

This instant fascination with a proposed theory for crop circles is understandable,....

Is it? I find it insane, personally, seeing as how the people who make them generally stand up and admit it. Usually after all the UFOlogidiots have claimed some kind of alien manufacture.

And your Dr Frankenstein bloke. He investigates cattle mutilation by aliens.

Come on. These guys have figured out how to cross almost immeasurable distance, using technology light-yeras advanced from ours and they come here to cut up cows?

... but this is not what I find compelling about their research. I am mostly intrigued by the plant and soil anomalies they found in crop formation sites, which could not be explained by simple mechanical flattening.

Again, you are believing data from a known charlatan as opposed to the known fact that they're man-made.

Oh yeah! Maybe the guys that make them are actually aliens - or even more likely, controlled by aliens.

Where the hell is Alf when you need him? Anyone got a spare cat?

 

[James Fox]

Thought about putting some study time into crop circles a few years back. Decided studying the comparative sex lives of Leprechauns and other classified little people would be a lot more fun…, not to mention the profit potential.

Haven't had the nerve to start a thread about the topic however.

 

[leonAzul]

I am not an expert on this subject, but I would expect the coating of meteoric material on the surface of the Earth to occur at impact sites, where the temperature is high. However, both the soils and plants in the crop formation are coated with materials from a meteor and the plants were intact! (i.e. not burnt to oblivion).

That is exactly the expected result of a meteor shower whose particles have been subjected to the heat generated by atmospheric friction.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would appreciate it if someone can comment on their data, not theory.

Sure thing. Their data tells you nothing except that plants flattened in crop circles are different than plants not flattened in crop circles. No effort was made to determine if this difference exists in crop circles which are known to be man-made (ie, hoaxes). Without such a control, their data is meaningless.

I am mostly intrigued by the plant and soil anomalies they found in crop formation sites, which could not be explained by simple mechanical flattening.

They declare that without any evidence, and without having done the very simple test which could have disproved that claim (namely, test some plants which were flattened mechanically). When you don't try the most obvious and most likely means by which your hypothesis might be falsified, that's bad science.

 

[leonAzul]

How about this gem retrieved from http://www.bltresearch.com/dispersion.html:

By 1994 over 80 crop formations had been sampled from the USA, Canada, Australia and England and these plant specimens had been examined and analyzed in detail at the Pinelandia Laboratory at Grass Lake, Michigan, USA. By the time these results were published in the scientific literature (Levengood 1994) it was clear that the plants from more than 95% of the sampled events revealed either single or multiple anomalous and readily apparent structural alterations. In general, these consisted of significant enlargements in the internal cellwallpit structures, expanded and deformed stem pulvini, and gross embryonic malformations.

In plain language, the plants were trampled under foot...

 

[Dr H]

Come on. These guys have figured out how to cross almost immeasurable distance, using technology light-yeras advanced from ours and they come here to cut up cows?

We have better steak here than they can get in the Delta quadrant.

 

[leonAzul]

Ibid

In addition, seeds taken from flattened plants in the formations regularly disclosed either increased or decreased seedling growth. These changes were closely associated with the particular growth stage at the time the crop formation energies became evident in the field.

(my emphasis)

I had no idea that seeds had to be mature in order to germinate..

 

[Ixion]

One of the articles is published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is a fancy way of saying, "We publish woo"