Where's the evidence all crop circles are man made?

Originally posted by Phage

The experimental data published in Levengood and Talbott (1999) suggest that pulvinus length expansion in crop circles is a thermo-mechanic effect, possibly induced by a kind of electromagnetic point source.

Like the sun?

Yeah, Levengood as "proof"... isn't he the "L" in "BLT"?

No bias there.

Mission statement from the BLT Website

The BLT Research Team Inc.'s primary focus is crop circle research - the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies.

Seems like they've already ruled out conventional explanations.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Hmm. "Easily ruled out". That quote seems to be from a different source, not the Haselhoff paper.
Did Levengood mention how are they easily ruled out or what those biological effects are?


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

Hasselhof ruled out these things because the data showed that the distribution came from a point source and it's symmetrical.

Levengood suggested an electromagnetic plane wave but the data pointed to a point source. The node expansion correlates to electromagnetic radiaion intesity distribution on the ground that matches up perfectly with a ball of light being the point source for the node lengthening.

Here's a video of Dr. Hasselhoff talking about what he found and how it's just a simple matter of physics.

www.youtube.com...

The problem is, people are trapped in their belief systems.

They will say, there has to be a natural explanation for these things. Well, a plasma life form would be a natural explanation.

People define what constitutes a natural explanation based on their personal belief systems.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Again, there is no "peer review" of the statement that biological effects can be ruled out.

There is no evidence that a "plasma lifeform" exists. A simulation of what might happen to plasma when it encounters dust clouds in space is interesting but it is not evidence of a new form of life. Nor does it explain how such a lifeform would bend the plants in the first place.

But your are right, the uneven growth effect could be caused by a ball of plasma. A very large ball of plasma. When the Sun is low in the sky in the morning and evening the edges of the circle are shaded by the still standing plants. Throughout the day, the center of the circle is exposed to direct sunlight more than the edges of the circle. Only when the sun is overhead is the circle exposed equally. Plants which have been bent over, when exposed to sunlight, want to grow in such a way as to straighten themselves. This results in uneven growth (one of those "known" biological effects). Plants which are exposed to more direct sunlight (toward the center of the circle) will show more uneven growth because they will grow more in general.

www.ufologie.net...

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

The logic in the paper is completely wrong, it's not because something follows statistically a 1/r² law that it MUST be caused by a point source. No experiments were performed to create a crop circle in such a way. Why? Because it would be obvious that the borders of the circle would not be clear cut, and no rotation of the stems, clockwise or counterclockwise would occur either. Only a mechanical device can make such shapes, not radiation from a central point.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Again, there is no "peer review" of the statement that biological effects can be ruled out.

There is no evidence that a "plasma lifeform" exists. A simulation of what might happen to plasma when it encounters dust clouds in space is interesting but it is not evidence of a new form of life. Nor does it explain how such a lifeform would bend the plants in the first place.

But your are right, the uneven growth effect could be caused by a ball of plasma. A very large ball of plasma. When the Sun is low in the sky in the morning and evening the edges of the circle are shaded by the still standing plants. Throughout the day, the center of the circle is exposed to direct sunlight more than the edges of the circle. Only when the sun is overhead is the circle exposed equally. Plants which have been bent over, when exposed to sunlight, want to grow in such a way as to straighten themselves. This results in uneven growth (one of those "known" biological effects). Plants which are exposed to more direct sunlight (toward the center of the circle) will show more uneven growth because they will grow more in general.

www.ufologie.net...

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

Yes there is and I explained it to you already.

The paper you cited shows it's bias. When people have to say something this silly, RUN!

The second error is to claim that because an article was published in a professional scientific newspaper, then it is inevitably "valid" since, as they inevitably believe, scientists colleagues must have checked the presented work and must have established that it is correct. But actually, I challenge anyone to show me that any collaborator of the scientific newspaper checked it. Actually, every day, ill-founded and non-verified scientific papers are published in the professional scientific journal. Much less than in tabloid newspapers, of course, but to believe that professional scientific journals are some kinds of book of truths containing only verified claims is totally naive: it is on the contrary a matter which makes the headlines regularly: inaccurate studies, erroneous results, false thesis indeed appear in scientific journals. Moreover, I must recall that the same people who applaud such or such "scientific journal" when they like some thesis, are making a big fuss about "official science" which "denies" their "Truth" when the thesis is not in their liking.

When other people write papers in peer reviewed journals it's respected and it's looked at. When someone post a paper in a journal about something like this or ufology or the paranormal, the debunker and the pseudoskeptic mentality is to try and belittle the paper and the evidence as meaningless and unimportant.

This is a red flag that tells you how closed minded and blind people are. When they have to try to belittle peer reviewed journals as meaningless, then you know they don't have an argument.

When Hawking or Kaku post in a peer reviewed journal is it meaningless? This is not comparing the Dr. to Kaku or Hawking but it's making the point that no matter the source the pseudoskeptic mentality is to belittle the source because they have no argument.

When Edgar Mitchell came out about certain things in Ufology the pseudoskeptic called him a senile old man.

They can't debate the issue.

Secondly, the paper did not address the crucial point of the Dr.'s paper.

It glossed over it and made this outlandish claim.

"Haselhoff's research into light distribution, analogous to that of a light bulb, supports the thesis that it's the BOLs that are creating the crop circles."

The fourth error is to assume that a "ball of light" must necessarily be something paranormal or alien. In theory, any ufologist gifted of some reason knows very well that a ball of light isn't inevitably something alien or paranormal.

The fifth error is to almost never mention any contrary opinion. On the skeptical side skeptic, there were indeed some answers, and these answers, no matter what one thinks about it, are practically systematically ignored by the crop circles "experts", and practically never mentioned at all on web sites that claim to offer the "Truth" about extraterrestrial or paranormal crop circles by claiming that "Science" is on their side.

I also want to point out something in W.C. Levengood's statement. It read: "The involvement of microwave radiation was confirmed by the application of the Beer-Lambert model for the absorption of electromagnetic energy by matter." Of course this is a very weird reading of Haselhoff's paper: he never once said it has anything to do with "microwave radiation" or even less "electromagnetic energy". such terms are sure to please the crop circle proponents, but what Haselhoff talked about was a bit less romantic even if it can be pompously called electromagnetic radiation. Basically it was: light.

And finally, it is obvious that none of those who claim that Haselhoff's paper "proves" whatever they claimed it proved read this sentence which appears in conclusion of his paper:

Who assumed that the ball of light was paranormal or alien?

Hasselhoff made no such claim in his paper. This is another red flag.

Hasselhoff showed the node expansion correlates to electromagnetic radiation intensity distribution on the ground.

This shows the height of the light source above the crop circle and to suggest the sun is just silly. Again, this is the case with all three crop circles reported by Levengood.

Why doesn't this show up in man made crop circles?

Doesn't the sun shine on man made crop circles LOL?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I can then weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Yes we can all do that, and when we look at the same evidence we all have different filters and weigh it differently.

That's really the answer to your thread, nobody cares to prove all crop circles are manmade, it's a fool's errand. But some people consider what's most likely knowing that humans exist, and humans made some of them. Not everyone agrees with you we have proof of aliens, we only have proof of UFOs, which are unknown, or as the U stands for, "unidentified" so we don't know if they are alien or not.

The evidence on nodes being microwaved is inconclusive, and I don't see why the sun can't be a heat source to cause the described effects. The source of the paper seems biased to draw other conclusions implying it couldn't be an effect of sunlight.

Some people, who didn't even witness these chalk circles being made, claim that they were manmade. How can they make such claims with no evidence?

Chalk Circles - Stunning Implications for Earth

Well I think it's as you said, even without proof, we weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely, and decide what the probable cause is whether the subject is chalk circles or crop circles. No I can't prove who made them all nor do I care to, but I think I know who probably made both types, and only one type is manmade (the other type, chalk circles, is probably childmade but I can't prove that either, does that mean aliens did it?)

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If you weigh it differently then provide some evidence.

What are you weighing your belief or evidence? Most pseudoskeptics have no evidence just opinion.

It was not the sun. Does the sun refuse to shine on man made crop circles? It's not inconclusive.

It was shown that the electromagnetic radiation intensity density on the ground correlates to a source point that corresponds with a ball of light above the crop circle.

This is not speculation, this is not your opinion, this is physics.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Why?

Because of the evidence.

Real and incontrovertible evidence?

Evidence to support another alien civilization?

Evidence to support them having technology that they can use to both find us, and travel here?

Evidence that they are here?

Please post some! ...if you have some new evidence that no one here has seen.

I don't want to turn this thread into an alien visitation thread because I have already shown that extraterrestrial visitation is the mosty likely scenario to explain these things.

I don't think we can separate the two issues, since the discussion of crop circles being man made or not is inextricably linked to the issues surrounding weather aliens can visit here or not.

In the case of theoretical plasma lifeforms Vs man made crop circles...

We know man is capable of making all the crop circles, although we might not be able to prove that all crop circles are man made.

On the other hand, we don't know for sure that plasma life forms even exist here, let alone what they could be capable of if they did exist.

By the same token, I could say that crop circles are caused by "super-intelligent" rats that escaped from a laboratory. They exist, so at least my claim might have some basis in reality, but between man and rats, which do you think is more likely, based on past experience and proven science?

In this case (if we say plasma-based life-form Vs rats) there is more evidence for rats being responsible, ignoring any hearsay that for what ever reason might be flawed.

If you can demonstrate a hard link between plasma life-forms and crop circles, which does not involve hearsay, then you might have a case. As it is, it's all "ifs", "buts" and "possibilities".

We might find another answer someday is not evidence of anything.

So, you are in effect saying there can only be only two (or other arbitrary and limited number) possibilities as an explanation for UFO sightings?

Unless we know every phenomena that can possibly exist, how can we possibly rule out all other possibilities? Are you saying that we are at the pinnacle of our evolution and existence, and that we know everything there is to know about the world we live in?

There are going to be allot of very disappointed (not to mention jobless) scientists out there when they hear the news that there is nothing more we can discover about the universe!

Can you see now why there could be other possibilities that might explain UFO sightings?

you can't make the leap that all crop circles are man made because some are man made

That's not a leap though. It's a bit like saying that "we know some cars are man made, but that does not mean they all are"... well, I have yet to see any evidence that would stand up to scrutiny, which suggests that some cars (or crop circles for that matter) are not made by humans.

Ingenuity is a feature most humans come with, so it's hardly surprising that a handful of mis-directed souls takes pleasure in fooling the rest of the world in a time when many feel everything in the world is against them, or for what ever other reason.

Some have already admitted to creating crop circles, so it is not a leap to think all other circles are due to man, where as we have had no such admission from these "plasma life-forms", or even proof that they exist in nature.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by C.H.U.D.]

It's simple:

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper

The yellow bars indicate the average node length measured at seven different locations across the crop circle, from one edge (position b1), through the centre (a4), to the opposite edge (b7). Note the perfect symmetry, which is remarkable! Similar graphs were obtained from two different cross sections through the circle, revealing a perfect circular symmetry: long nodes towards the centre of the circle, shorter nodes towards the edges.

The thick, continuous, blueish line represents the theoretical value of the node length across the circle, if it were caused by a ball of light at a height of 4 meters and 10 centimetres. (This height corresponded to the estimate of the eyewitness). Just like the three crop circles analysed by Levengood and Talbott, the theoretical values for the node length (blue line) correspond perfectly to the measurements (yellow bars).

Consequently, the circumstantial evidence left in the fields was in perfect agreement with the words of the eyewitness: the crop circle was indeed created with the involvement of a "ball of light".

www.swirlednews.com...

Again, this is physics. This is the evidence and not speculation about the sun.

The electromagnetic intensity distrubution on the ground tells you the height of the point source.

This is physics.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


"the node lengthening effect may be caused by the involvement of heat, possibly caused by microwave radiation."

MAY BE???? POSSIBLY???

I don't refute speculation my friend, only evidence, and this is speculation, not evidence.

The nodes in the center will get more sunlight and it's not because of the distance of the light source, it's because the still standing crops away from the center provide some shade to the outer nodes but not the nodes in the center. After all the sun isn't always directly overhead, right? The still standing crops will cast shadows.

So even though the pattern of node growth may be consistent with a point light source, there may be other explanations for the same observations which the author fails to consider.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Again, if you have evidence of another source then present. The only source that matched up with the heat distribution on the ground occured when they microwaved the nodes.

Man made crop circles did not show this characteristic. I would think the sun shines on all crop circles.

Plus you have symmetrical distribution made by the point source as determined by the heat distribution.

Why don't we see this effect in crops that don't have crop circles if it's the sun?

We should see this symmetrical distribution throughout the earth wether crop circles are present or not.

You need to read the paper.

Of course he said possible because there could be another possible source but you need evidence not your opinion.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Hasselhoff's paper (published in a journal of plant biology) does not say anything about how other biological effects can be ruled out. It does not address any other biological effects whatsoever. That is probably one of the reasons it was accepted. If Hasselhoff had made such a claim in the paper he would have had to support it.

What the author of the website says is true. A paper being published does not mean that the hypothesis or theory being set forth is true.

It's interesting you should say this;

When other people write papers in peer reviewed journals it's respected and it's looked at. When someone post a paper in a journal about something like this or ufology or the paranormal, the debunker and the pseudoskeptic mentality is to try and belittle the paper and the evidence as meaningless and unimportant.

It is exactly the point that the website author makes. When papers are published by NASA, they are claimed to be "lies" by "believers" when they don't support their ideas.

When Hawking or Kaku publish a paper it is not automatically taken to be "true". There is always discussion and often dissent in the scientific community.

The website Author made no attack on the character or mental condition of Hasselhoff. He made no ad hominem attack on Hasselhoff. He did criticize the science in the paper and that is what science is about.

The website author does not claim that Hasslehoff mentions paranormal or alien origins for the ball of light. He says that proponents of Hasselhoff's theory make that mistake. That statement, along with the one about peer reviewed papers comes under the heading; "Errors in interpretations by proponents of the study by Haselhoff;"

The website author does not say that Hasselhoff is wrong. He says that Hasselhoff's paper does not prove that all crop circles are not man made (just as I said earlier). All Hasselhoff's paper says is that the statistical distribution of uneven growth could be caused by a ball of light. Hasselhoff says nothing about how the circle is created.

Why does the uneven growth not appear in all circles? What was the weather like? Was it sunny or cloudy, dry or damp? How long after the creation of the circle was the analysis made? I'm sure I could come up with a few more important variables, but those will do.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

Again, this is very simple physics.

My statements can be interpreted as follows: Imagine a dark room with one single light bulb hanging on the ceiling. If you switch on the light, you will notice that right below the light bulb the light intensity on the floor will be brightest. Towards the edges of the room, the floor will gradually become darker. This light distribution on the floor is well understood, and can be described with high accuracy.

The exact light distribution on the floor depends on the HEIGHT of the light bulb. When the light bulb is hanging very low, almost touching the floor, the floor underneath the light bulb will be very bright, but the intensity will rapidly become less as you move away from it (see Figure 3, left). When the light is hanging high on the ceiling, however, the light intensity underneath the light will be much less and be more evenly distributed over the floor (see Figure 3, right). Because this mechanism is so well known, one can actually derive the height of the light bulb after measuring the light distribution on the floor.

This is what I suggested. As explained above, the swollen nodes inside the crop circles may be thought of as many little thermometers, expanding their length with increasing heat. If one assumes that the heat was induced by a small spherical shape emitting electromagnetic radiation, the theoretical heat distribution on the floor can be accurately determined (similarly to the case of the light bulb, as discussed above). I demonstrated that the measured node lengths in all of the three crop circles studies by Levengood and Talbott perfectly matched the temperature distribution that would be caused by a small ball of light, hanging in the air above the centre of the circles, emitting intense heat.

This is the key to the study. This is physics.

The heat distribution on the ground determines the height and size of the point source.

Hasselhoff is not making this up. This is just the truth.

You can look at the heat distribution and that will tell you everything.

The crop circle showed that in the middle of the circle the node lengthening was greater and it got smaller as it reached the edges.

This is what occurs with the light bulb. The light under the light bulb will be more intense than the light on the edges of the room. You can determine the size and height of the point source based on this distribution.

The remarkable thing is that this was symmetrical.

This would mean the sun had to jump to the middle of the crop circle, sit there and then jump to the edge of the circle and this would need to be symmetrical.

This shouldn't even be discussed as a possibility it's so silly.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, the pseudoskeptic mentality does try to belittle peer reviewed journals as meaningless when it comes to things like the paranormal or ufology.

Of course you can give a paper weight when it's written in a peer reviewed journal because every article doesn't get accepted. It has nothing to do with believing it's true.

Again, you have confused your opinion with actual evidence. You need to provide evidence to support your claims not wild speculation.

The sun cannot cause this. There's symmetrical distribution from the point source to the edge of the crop circles.This distribution determines the size and the height of the point source. The sun didn't jump to the middle of a crop circle and then cause symmetrical node lengthening. Also, when we find man made crop circles this characteristic is not there. Does the sun hide LOL? This is just silly.

Hasselhoff noted this symmetry:

The yellow bars indicate the average node length measured at seven different locations across the crop circle, from one edge (position b1), through the centre (a4), to the opposite edge (b7). Note the perfect symmetry, which is remarkable! Similar graphs were obtained from two different cross sections through the circle, revealing a perfect circular symmetry: long nodes towards the centre of the circle, shorter nodes towards the edges. The thick, continuous, blueish line represents the theoretical value of the node length across the circle, if it were caused by a ball of light at a height of 4 meters and 10 centimetres. (This height corresponded to the estimate of the eyewitness). Just like the three crop circles analysed by Levengood and Talbott, the theoretical values for the node length (blue line) correspond perfectly to the measurements (yellow bars). Consequently, the circumstantial evidence left in the fields was in perfect agreement with the words of the eyewitness: the crop circle was indeed created with the involvement of a "ball of light".

The theory and study is sound.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This would mean the sun had to jump to the middle of the crop circle, sit there and then jump to the edge of the circle and this would need to be symmetrical.

No it doesn't, I just explained how such a distribution can be achieved through the normal movement of the sun as a result of shadows cast by the crops on the edge of the circles. No shadows in the center means more sunlight. Shadows away from the center means less sunlight. Same distribution just from a normal movement of the sun.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You like peer review. Here's a peer reviewed paper.

We conclude that the claims about the involvement of some kind of electromagnetic radiation in the creation of crop circles are not supported by the available evidence. In particular, the 1/r2 symmetry exists only as a consequence of the unjustified exclusion of unwanted data; even in this favourable condition, the suggested model does not fit the data as well as a simple "best fit" straight line. Even if a l/r2 trend were found, it should not, anyway, be related to a point source radiating the exposed crop field, because this implies a complete transparency of the plants to the striking radiation, so avoiding the absorption of energy. Moreover, the BOL model was selectively applied only to circular imprints, while all other geometric crop formations with rectangular or more complex patterns were deliberately ignored because they cannot fit the BOL hypothesis. The total evidence discussed in this critical review demonstrates nothing but a mere difference in the stem elongation between the flattened plants lying inside the circles and those standing outside it, as we should expect when whatever kind of mechanical force flattens the plants, rope and wood plank included.

www.scientificexploration.org...

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This would mean the sun had to jump to the middle of the crop circle, sit there and then jump to the edge of the circle and this would need to be symmetrical.

No it doesn't, I just explained how such a distribution can be achieved through the normal movement of the sun as a result of shadows cast by the crops on the edge of the circles. No shadows in the center means more sunlight. Shadows away from the center means less sunlight. Same distribution just from a normal movement of the sun.

Again, your barking up the wrong tree against physics.

The intensity distribution will determine the size and height of the point source. Theres not a shred of evidence that the sun can cause symmetrical distribution in three crop circles from the center of the crop circle and then when you check the man made crop circle the sun disappears.

Again, this is physics. If you have evidence that the sun can cause symmetrical node lengthening in the sphere of a crop circle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please present it LOL!

reply to post by Phage


The paper is lacking and here's why.

First, I can't stand papers like this that talk about "believers."

The paper kept saying "believers" in quotations and this is a sign that the underlying argument is weak. If you notice, Hasselhoff did not try to belittle anyone to make his point.

Secondly, the change everything to fit their interpretation. Throughout the paper it's, if you change this or add that. Of course your going to get different results if you change the parameters.


The paper also said "We conclude that plants collected at man made formations can reveal statistical similar features to those of "genuine" crop circles."

This one line shows the paper has nothing. What are these similar features? How similar are the features? Are these based on your revised numbers? What were the results that were not similar?

Again, this paper tries to debate believers with it's own numbers which is silly.

It says "It's normally accepted by "believers" that crop circles are made by intelligent beings , because (allegedly) natural phenomena could not draw such complex patterns."

These people sound like pseudoskeptics on ATS.

Hasselhoffs paper made no such conclusion. It simply presented the evidence. Of course you can change or add things and come up with a different result.

In my without peers opinion most crop circles are made by quantum leaping, time crossed cross referenced stellar plasma fusion generated neutrinosynthesiser sentient cosmic consciousness ET's:
What is the meaning of crop circles?
There are as many meanings as there are crop circle formations:
However, one meaning overrides all other meanings, in my without peers opinion:
Namely: Harvest Time is icumen in, Llude sing cuccu!

temporarytemples.blogware.com...

reply to post by Matrix Rising



Pot, meet kettle.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is a red flag that tells you how closed minded and blind people are. When they have to try to belittle peer reviewed journals as meaningless, then you know they don't have an argument.

So only papers that support Hasselhoff's theory are valid? His paper is perfect? The paper addresses Hasselhoff's science.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]