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

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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?

The text immediately preceding what you quoted explains the basis for the conclusion.

The similar features are shown in the correlation coefficients by applying the ball of light model to both the manmade and the supposedly "genuine" formations. One difference in this paper: see page the bottom of 167 - Haselhoff collected two sample sets, but only published the data on the one set that made the manmade formation appear to have a lower correlation to the ball of light model. Grassi, Cocheo and Russo included both of the Hasselhoff data sets which gives the manmade formation a correlation closer to the "genuine" formation, but in fact neither the manmade nor the "genuine" formations have correlation coefficients to the ball of light model that rise to a level of statistical significance when all the data is considered.

Therefore the ball of light model is not proven in either formation. They cite examples of other models which would fit the data better than the ball of light model but the purpose of the paper was only to evaluate the ball of light model and not to find what model really fits the data best.

Please, please read this most recent Matrix thread. If anyone values their time here, understand what you're getting yourselves into:
Please Read Me

Don't say we didn't warn you. Good luck, pseudoskeptics.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Never mind what skeptics or anyone else thinks or says. Can you or anyone making a claim support the claim with irrefutable evidence?

This notion that agri-glyphs have some connection to non-human agencies is about as silly as human thought can get.

And this comment: "Do you know that crops circles have been peer reviewed?" is about as silly as it gets. Who is qualified to peer review "crop circles" that are rarely "circles"? If they're made by aliens then only aliens can peer review them. Since they're being peer reviewed by humans, then it goes without saying that it's humans who have been creating them. It's an empty statement that goes nowhere.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by The Shrike]

Its not just the fact most crop circles occur in the same geographic area in the UK and the hoaxers have confessed many times. It is also that why exactly would a race of intelligent beings cross god knows how many light years, to contact us through graffiti in farmers crops? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I think it is hoaxers taking advantage of peoples gullibility. Many want contact so badly due to depression or unhappiness they are targets for hoaxers with a giant bulls-eye on their foreheads.

I do believe there is something to UFO's and have seen a couple. They were nothing like the crap posted on the internet however. The balloons, Chinese lanterns and the common video's of birds or lights in the sky. Crop Circles however are a hoax, always. As long as there are people out there who will buy phony books, video's and fall for such nonsense there will be people willing to hoax whether for fun or profit.

There is nothing in any crop circle ever that is even complex. Why people call them complex is really strange to someone thinking clearly. As to how they are done if you paid any attention at all in Geometry or Trig classes you know how they were done. A few roles of twine, a measuring tape and a drawing to work from and voila, a so called complex crop circle.

I used to be an electrician in my youth on industrial projects. We often had to lay out where our equiptment would go on empty ground and the accuracy had to be within an eighth inch. If you knew how you could lay out a grounding grid and mark the stub-ups for the conduit in a couple of hours all by yourself with extreme accuracy. Any trig student could do it. You don't need an Alien. No matter how complex the shape.

It was a sad day for those of us who are serious when these crop circles popped up making the whole thing a laughing stock. Very funny to the hoaxers and those profiting from the madness I suspect.

While I firmly believe in UFOs, I also firmly believe that 99.5% of all crop circles are man-made. Repeatedly, they are proven to be so. The only video of a UFO making one was proved to be a hoax. It's also ironic that old crop circles were just that. Now, aliens are frickin Picasso's out there.

It's like the huge one I saw that was a bunch of circles, and crop circle folks were freaking about how they were all divisible by 3, and also about unbroken stalks. Well.. then a show comes out, and TWO GUYS show their video of them MAKING IT. Turns out the 3 foot thing were them using irrigation ditches as a reference.. which are 6 feet apart.

There is plenty of proof they are man-made. There is NO proof they are alien-made, other than random speculation.

Also, the laughable deciphering makes me chuckle. "It's a sextant!" Right.. because aliens would fully know what a sextant is, and put it in a crop circle to denote meaning to us.

Finally, if they were really trying to "warn" us of something, why in the world would they be so cryptic and confusing about it? "Ok.. you are all going to die unless you decipher this really bizarre crop circle *chortles along with his alien buddies*"

They are cool looking, although I doubt the owners of said crop are pleased about it. And it's finally rather damning when they all tend to occur in the same geographical location. Almost like I dunno.. the same group is making them? Go figure.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by fleabit]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by fleabit]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Your reading into the study something that's not there.

Again, there's a clear difference between the two crop circles. When you look at them seperately the coefficient for the man made crop circle is 0.54. The coefficient for what they call the "genuine" crop circle is 0.97.

It's only when they manipulate the data from both sets is when they get a higher coefficient for the man made crop circles but that's to be expected. Anyone can take data and manipulate it to reach a desired result. They took raw data that Hasselhoff sent them and published their own numbers.

Their conclusion still supports Hasselhoff.

They said "we conclude that plants located at man made formations can reveal statistical features of "genuine" crop circles.

This line says there's a difference between the two crop circles and they said nothing about these differences being statistically insignificant even after they fudged the numbers. They said the man made crop circles showed statistical features similar to the genuine crop circles. This statement means nothing. It's like saying, I have statistically similar features to my next door neighbor. It means nothing and they know it. Their study supports Hasselhoff in saying there's a difference between man made crop circles and these crop circles.

The difference is the symmetry created by intensity distribution. They can't fudge the numbers to change this.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The difference is the symmetry created by intensity distribution. They can't fudge the numbers to change this.

No.
But you can fudge the data, which is what Hasselhoff did. He did not include the data which did not back him up. Grassi used all the data which Hasselhoff had collected.

What was most surprising, however, was the discovery that only a part of the experimental data was published in the article. During the experiment, Haselhoff gathered two sample sets, indicated as A and B, following two orthogonal directions on the same circular imprint, but only set A was published. The correlation coefficient for the BOL model applied to set B is R = 0.71,significantly higher than that of set A.

See, that is what "peer review" means. It means that the data (all of the data) and procedures are reviewed. Hasselhoff's paper failed peer review. On many levels.



[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

When you look at them seperately the coefficient for the man made crop circle is 0.54. The coefficient for what they call the "genuine" crop circle is 0.97.

Phage is right, not only did Hasselhoff not include both the A and B data sets, but he disregarded the data from the very center of the crop circle which would have been closest to the "ball of light" source too!

When you just use all the data collected (not making any changes to it, just stop ignoring the data the researcher doesn't like) there's almost no difference in the correlation coefficients, they are both around the 0.7-0.8 range, and neither near the .95 needed to prove his case for the ball of light.

Originally posted by Dave157
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

so you attack the poster and don't even mention the thread topic? kk.

i mean some people on this site are so full of themselves with their E-rep.

i really think there is a legitimate possibility that many complex and interesting crop circles are not man made in any way.

although there obviously are crop circle hoaxers out there.

but i understand the thread starters perspective, that a lot of skeptics will argue that all crop circles are fake, because some are fake.

that is so wrong, i mean when you searching for truth, you never leave out any possibility because that's how unexpected life is.

I do hope some of the arrogant, narrow-minded people in this world, just accept the possibilities. if we can't do that, we can never advance.

Everything you say is spot on, well done.

reply to post by Phage


No, this is not what peer reviewed study means. The data was insignificant to the study and I will show you why.

What they did was take raw data to make up a number and they still had to admit there's a difference between man made crop circles and genuine crop circles.

So man made crop circles started with a coefficient of 0.54. They then snatched a data point out of the raw data. They included a sample point 10 cm beyond the circles edge. This was excluded because it didn't fit the BOL.

Of course you can go outside the circle to increase the coefficient and that's what they did. The coefficient went up to 0.63.

They then including all the data from inside and outside the circle of both sets and increased the coefficient again to 0.83. This is just a joke. Of course if you take raw data points you can fudge the numbers.

The kicker is they still admitted that there was a difference between gebuine crop circles and man made crop circles even after that included data that wasn't included in the "genuine" crop circles.

They said "we conclude that plants collected at man made formations can reveal statistical features similar to those of "genuine" crop circles." Sure they can when you include samples outside of the crop circle LOL. This is like saying I have statistical features similar to my neighbor. It means nothing and I'm still a different person than my neighbor.

They just admit that there's a difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

and they still had to admit there's a difference between man made crop circles and genuine crop circles.

I wish this kind of silliness would stop. There's no difference in agri-glyphs because they are all man-made. They are all "genuine." If your life depended on it you would not be able to prove beyond a doubt that agri-glyphs are anything but man made images in wheat (or whatever) fields.

Where is the evidence that all crap circles are not man made? Somebody put up or shut up!


[edit on 24-11-2009 by The Shrike]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

No.
Both sets A and B were collected from inside the circle (see figure 3). Hasselhoff did not use set B.

It was Hasselhoff who included data from outside the circle as "affected". It was Hasselhoff who, seemingly arbitrarily (or perhaps not so arbitrarily), decided what should be considered the control and what should be considered affected.

Bent plants inside the formations were considered "affected" (i.e. non-control). As a matter of fact, even some upright plants, taken outside the formations, were considered affected and not control: two samples at the Sussex formation were collected about 6 and 14 m away from the circle limit, and one sample at Devizes was collected 30 cm outside the formation (Figure 2a and c). No justification for this decision is provided in the paper.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by The Shrike

That would be much more productive. Being asked to prove that all circles are man made is being asked to prove a negative. It is a none falsifiable proposition.

Proving that a single circle is not man made is really the crux of the matter. The claim that Hasselhoff's "peer reviewed" paper somehow shows this makes no sense. Hasselhoff himself does not claim it in the paper.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Where is the evidence that all crap circles are not man made? Somebody put up or shut up!

That's the evidence we're looking at, where the author left out the data he didn't like from inside the crop circle, and then included some data from outside the crop circle for no apparent reason other than to presumably fudge the numbers to support his theory.

So yes there's evidence, but it's based on numbers which have every appearance of being "fudged" by selectively including certain data which appears to be irrelevant and excluding other data with no scientifically valid reasons given.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by The Shrike
Where is the evidence that all crap circles are not man made? Somebody put up or shut up!

That's the evidence we're looking at, where the author left out the data he didn't like from inside the crop circle, and then included some data from outside the crop circle for no apparent reason other than to presumably fudge the numbers to support his theory.

So yes there's evidence, but it's based on numbers which have every appearance of being "fudged" by selectively including certain data which appears to be irrelevant and excluding other data with no scientifically valid reasons given.

Sorry to disagree with you but that's not the way that I think. Numbers only remind of the Drake Equation which, to me, is meaningless. Numbers have nothing to do with a bunch of humans having a good time coming up with complex images in wheat fields. Yes, I'm aware of almost every claim made about agri-glyphs since day one. All of those "experts" who claim this or claim that and, really, it's laughable.

On a couple of my UFO videotapes from the '90s I have a "crop circle" being made at night and the camera is on an unbelievably high boom. And they show the "crop circle" being constructed by a small team. It turned out to be a complex image and the experts were all going ga-ga over it making all kinds of outrageous claims about the bending of the stalks, the energies recorded inside the image, the way the batteries of some equipment died, etc. Big joke on them.

Then there is the "crop circle" competion where several teams were given diagrams to construct during the night and when it was all over here were all of these "crop circles" next to each other and some teams had been given duplicate images and everyone came through just fine.

Not for one second do I accept any explanation of anything alien-connected, whether it's abductions, cow mutilations, or "crop circles." Humans are extremely imaginative and have one hell of a sense of humor.

reply to post by Phage


The plants that were included in the affected group had node lengthening that corresponds to the intensity distribution.

The plants outside of the man made crop circle didn't have node lengthening that corresponded to the "genuine" crop circles. Some of them even had shrinkage in the node lengthening.

Again, the paper you quoted shows that all crop circles are not man made and there's a difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles even when you try to fudge the numbers.

I quote the paper again:

We conclude that plants collected at man made formations can reveal statistical features similar to those in "genuine" crop circles.

This statement shows that there's a difference between "genuine" and man made crop circles. Just because you fudge the data to try and say man made crop circles can share similar statistics is like saying I share similar statistics to the guy in the apartment next to mine. It means nothing and it doesn't mean we are the same.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

No.
It means that when all of the data is used there is a statistically insignificant difference between "real" and man made circles.
Hasselhoff knew this so he chose to disregard data.

Now. Prove that a single, just one, crop circle not man made.

reply to post by Phage


Hasselhoff studies shows all crop circles are not man made. He doesn't speculate about the source of the balls of light but he agrees with the difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles.

My paper shows that the node lengthening in several crop circles corresponds perfectly to the effect that would be created by a ball of light, heating up the crop during the creation of the crop circle. This is not the case for a man-made formation. The amount of node lengthening, and in particular its symmetry over the crop circles, lack any trivial explanation. Consequently, the study confirms the words of eyewitnesses, stating that they saw how crop circles were created by "balls of light." My paper does not attempt to explain where the balls of light come from, nor does it explain how the crop is flattened. It does, however, give a strong argument to take the "ball of light" phenomenon, as well as the words of eyewitnesses, very seriously, and I hope will stimulate further study. Finally, it should be mentioned that all these findings and conclusions have been published in ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific journals. In order to guarantee a high level of reliability, such journals employ so-called ‘referees’ (objective, anonymous experts), who accurately check each contributed paper for errors and inconsistencies before it is published. Consequently, conclusions published in peer-reviewed scientific journals can not be simply dismissed as wild fantasy or pseudo-science. Therefore, it is fair to say that recent scientific findings have established considerable progress in understanding the crop circle phenomenon, although many questions still remain unanswered.

www.cropfiles.it...

Yes, it has been shown that there's a difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles as also shown by Grassi, Cocheo, & Russo.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
try and say man made crop circles can share similar statistics is like saying I share similar statistics to the guy in the apartment next to mine.

You do share similar statistics to the guy in the apartment next to yours, that's the point!

And just because you are a little different from him doesn't mean you were made by humans and he was made by aliens. Likewise with the crop circles, if the statistics are similar that's enough to suggest if one is manmade, that both are, and it does NOT as you misinterpret, suggest that one is not manmade.

So good analogy! Follow it through to it's logical conclusion, your neighbor wasn't made by aliens just because his statistics are similar to yours.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, now you are lying on the study you quoted.

It says nothing about the statististics between man made crop circles and genuine crop circles even after they fudged the numbers.

Here's a direct quote:

We conclude that plants collected at man made formations can reveal statistical features similar to those in "genuine" crop circles.

It just says, after they fudged the numbers man made crop circles can share similar features with genuine crop circles.

That's like saying Jerry and Kramer from Seinfeld share similar features. It's a meaningless statement.

Also, your going to have differences between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles so all the data will not correspond in the study.

That's just basic common sense and even when they fudged the numbers they still showed a difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles.




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