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

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Show me one place in that paper where it said the difference between the two crop circles were statistically insignificant.

You and Phage keep repeating this lie and it's not their.

It says:

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


This shows a clear difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles. This is Hasselhoffs point.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

No.
They did not fudge the numbers. They point out that an odd (to say the least) sampling technique was used. They point out that a very small sample was used. They point out that Hasslehoff oversimplifies the physics involved (as I pointed out earlier). They point out that the maximum "natural" gravitropism values used were incorrect. They point out that incorrect control samples were used. They point out that Hasselhoff chose to ignore an entire data set. They point out that when all of Hasselhoff's own data is used there is no significant statistical difference.

Peer review. You accept Hasselhoff and reject Grassi. Your prejudice, your choice.

Now show a single proof of a non-manmade circle.

reply to post by Phage


Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

Even when you fudge the numbers they reach the same conclusion. There's a difference between the two.

The "genuine" crop circles are made by balls of light and they are not man made. Grassi, Cocheo, & Russo even agree with this.

I quote again:

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

There's a difference between the two.

If they had anything they would have said the difference between man made crop cirles and "genuine" crop circles is statistically insignificant. They didn't say this because they can't.



[edit on 25-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Repeating Haselhoff's regression analyses with the original data, we found that the parameter h was not statistically significant at a = 0.05 level (Table 2a); that is indeed a generous limit for an unusual claim. Including the central tufts into the data sets, both the coefficients of multiple determination ( R ~a)n d the statistical significance of the parameter h decrease (Table 2a); thus, the BOL model appears statistically meaningless, or, at least, it is not significant enough to be sufficiently confident in the existence of an electromagnetic point source irradiating the crop circle.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


It says the BOL models appears statistically meaningless. See this is why they fudged the numbers and they look silly.

See, the whole point of the paper is trying to throw raw data into the model anmd make the BOL seem meaningless.

Again, they didn't say the difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles were statistically insignificant because they can't.

See they don't debate that there's a significant difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles even with the fudged numbers.

They try to go after the BOL model but they fail because they still draw the same conclusion as Hasselhoff. There's a difference between "genuine" crop circles and man made crop circles.

They then take two sets of data, combine them and then cherry pick the numbers to try and increase the coefficient. This isn't the case with the "genuine" crop circles.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


They are using Hasselhoff's definition of "genuine" that is why they put it in quotation marks. They are not saying there are any "genuine" circles. The are saying that there is no significant difference between what Hasselhoff claims are genuine circles as opposed to man made circles.

Again, it was Hasselhoff who cherry picked the data. Two sets of data from inside the same circle. Hasselhoff ignored one of the sets. Grassi used both sets.

Question: What's the difference between a genuine circle and a man made circle?

Answer: The node lengthening is different in the genuine circles.

Question: How do you know those are the genuine circles?

Answer: Easy, the node lengthening is different in the genuine circles.

Circles. No kidding.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

In what twisted, convoluted, delusional world does one have to live in to think that "similar" means "a difference"?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Phage

 

Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

similar - showing resemblance in qualities, characteristics, or appearance; alike but not identical

difference - The quality or condition of being unlike or dissimilar.


For matrix since he doesn't seem to know the different meanings of each

Crop Circles are the lamest part of UFOlogy...

BOL - Absolute BS.

There are only two kinds of crop circles... explained and unexplained. There is no such thing as a "genuine" crop circle, therefore there is no statistical frame of reference.

Levengood should have stuck to making Thomas Dolby video appearances.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

In what twisted, convoluted, delusional world does one have to live in to think that "similar" means "a difference"?

This shows you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Do you understand what the sentence means in context to the paper? Did you read the paper?

He said:

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

The paper does not address Hasselhoffs main claim. His claim is some crop circles are man made and some are made by balls of light.

This renders this sentence meaningless in the context of this paper but it does show that they agree with Hasselhof.

There's a difference between man made crop circles and what they call "genuine" crop circles. The two crop circles share similar statistics LOL. That's a silly statement and it's like saying Jerry and Kramer from Seinfeld share statistic features.

What he didn't say is the difference between the crop circles in Levengood study and man made crop circles is statistically insignificant.

This lets the cat out of the bag and shows he is just fudging the numbers with raw data.

Again, you need to read all of the papers.

The context of the debate is the difference between man made crop circles and the crop circles from Levengood. They couldn't knock down this difference between the two so they tried to go after BOL with raw data while fiudging the numbers.

Show me in this paper where it says the difference between man made crop circles and genuine crop circles are statistically insignificant.

This is the point of the study and Hasselhof showed the difference through BOL.

I will be wating from your quote from this paper that directly rebuts the findings of Hasselhof about the difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

In what twisted, convoluted, delusional world does one have to live in to think that "similar" means "a difference"?

I will be wating from your quote from this paper that directly rebuts the findings of Hasselhof about the difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles.

Matrix you provided the quote which does that.

Doomsday Rex interprets the quote correctly but you don't.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope, they point out:

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

This shows a difference between crop circles that are man made and those made by balls of light. This is Hasselhoffs point.

In what twisted, convoluted, delusional world does one have to live in to think that "similar" means "a difference"?

I will be wating from your quote from this paper that directly rebuts the findings of Hasselhof about the difference between man made crop circles and "genuine" crop circles.

Matrix you provided the quote which does that.

Doomsday Rex interprets the quote correctly but you don't.

Pseudoskeptics are delusional. Doomsday was caught lying and reinterpreting what I said in my last thread and you and others are doing it again.

It says:

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

You pseudoskeptics read something into this that isn't there.

I can show statistacally similar features between a hammer and screwdriver. It's a meaningless statement.

Hasselhoff never claimed they didn't share statistically similar features.

This is the absolute, all or nothing mentality of the pseudoskeptic. Hasselhoff said that Levengoods crop circles had characteristics tthat were different than man made crop circles.

The paper never debated against this point and Hasselhoff never said they didn't share statistically similar features.

Of course they do, there crop circles. Why wouldn't they share statistacally similar features? Why wouldn't me and my neighbor share statistically similar features.

You guys are doing what pseudoskeptics do. You are debating against a point Hasselhoff never made.

He never said Levengoods crop circles were 100% different than man made crop circles but the difference between the two are significant enough to publish a study.

The paper never disputes this point.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Pseudoskeptics are delusional.

There's the perfect title for your next thread!

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Pseudoskeptics are delusional...

Speaking of delusional, for those of you keeping score at home, this is what we have learned in this thread...

-- similiar means different.

-- If you think similar means similar, or any other synonym to similar, you are reading into it something that isn't there and you are delusion.

-- if you diasgree with Matrix Rising at all, no matter how minor, you are delusional. And a pseudoskeptic. And a liar. And making things up.

-- a peer reviewed paper is proof, regardless of whether the peer-review agrees or not.

-- God-in-the-Gaps arguments are a valid scientific principle. Not relying on the God-in-the-Gaps argument is delusional and untenable.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Pseudoskeptics are delusional...

Speaking of delusional, for those of you keeping score at home, this is what we have learned in this thread...

-- similiar means different.

-- If you think similar means similar, or any other synonym to similar, you are reading into it something that isn't there and you are delusion.

-- if you diasgree with Matrix Rising at all, no matter how minor, you are delusional. And a pseudoskeptic. And a liar. And making things up.

-- a peer reviewed paper is proof, regardless of whether the peer-review agrees or not.

-- God-in-the-Gaps arguments are a valid scientific principle. Not relying on the God-in-the-Gaps argument is delusional and untenable.

Again Doomsday, your all over the place because you haven't read the studies and that's obvious.

Hasselhoff showed that man made crop circles and Levengood crop circles were different. One showed the characteristics of being made by a ball of light, the man made crop circle didn't.

He never made the argument that these two crop circles don't share statistically similar features and this only occured when the fudged the numbers.

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.

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 difference between man made crop circles and those created by a ball of light is the sum of Hasselhoffs paper. He didn't say anything about these two circles didn't share any statistical similar features. The paper never disputed this point. If there was no difference between the Levengood crop circles and man made crop circles then there wouldn't be any discussion.

You need to read the studies Doomsday because your making yourself look silly.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Hasselhoff showed that man made crop circles and Levengood crop circles were different. One showed the characteristics of being made by a ball of light, the man made crop circle didn't.

And Grassi et. al. showed that Hasslehoff showed that by using improper methods, by ommitting data from his analysis and oversimplifying the physics. The validity of the BOL model is not demonstrated.

Including the central tufts into the data sets, both the coefficients of multiple determination ( R ~a)n d the statistical significance of the parameter h decrease (Table 2a); thus, the BOL model appears statistically meaningless, or, at least, it is not significant enough to be sufficiently confident in the existence of an electromagnetic point source irradiating the crop circle.

Just a reminder about Grassi's conclusion. To clear up some confusion that "some" seem to have about what this paper is saying.

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...

reply to post by Phage


You just proved my point there's a difference and they try to explain it by saying a man made crop circle can cause this difference to occur but this is just wishful thinking.

M.I.T. students couldn't recreate the effects of Levengoods crop circles with night goggles and a microwave emitter. This was on the discovery channel.

In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned five aeronautics and astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes that she believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles, such as those created by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley.[35] These criteria were:

1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes
2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems
3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly

There were actually 5 criteria but the producers dropped two.

To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter, using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3, they built a device - dubbed the "Flammschmeisser" - that sprayed iron particles through a heated ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use, and they were forced to finish the task by using a pyrotechnic charge to distribute the iron around the circle. The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, who noted that the team had only been able to recreate two of the three criteria. Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer.

As anyone who has seen the Discovery Channel production "Crop Circles: Mystery in the Fields" (first aired on Oct. 10, 2002) already knows, none of these 5 expectations (upon which Ms. Talbott's involvement was based) was met.

1. The 3 criteria outlined by Ms. Talbott were changed by the TV producer, with apical node elongation removed altogether as one of the criteria and with "design" of the crop circle inserted instead;

www.bltresearch.com...

Again, the paper does not provide any evidence that man made crop circles show these characteristics.

M.I.T. students needed night vision goggles and advanced equipment that still broke down on them.

Are you saying that all of these hoaxers are going out with night vision goggles, microwave emitters and Flammschmeisser to spray the field with iron particles? LOL

Again, there's a difference and they admit there's a difference and they haven't provided any evidence that man made circles can produce these characteristics without M.I.T. behind them an advanced equipment.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

It was not the purpose of the paper to address Levengood's claims. It is addressing Hasselhoff's paper which claims that the distribution of node lengthening indicates a effect caused by a point source of electromagnetic radiation.

In the OP You presented Hasselhoff's paper as proof that all crop circles are not man made. Hasselhoff's paper itself does not make that claim. Not only that, but Hasslehoff's paper has been shown to be invalid because of his selective use of data, improper sampling, and oversimplification.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Sorry Phage but you just sunk yourself.

There's evidence of crop circles that are not man made. You would need night googles, microwave emitters and M.I.T. backing you to tryo to come close.

Secondly, you can't take raw data from a man made crop circle, fudge the numbers and try to look like you accomplished something.

There's a difference between Levengood circles and man made circles, so all the raw data will not be relevent when comparing the two. So it's silly to merge two data sets, cherry pick your numbers and then try to say it means anything.

Another thing they did is this.

Moreover, using all available data belonging to the outer part of the circles and using as a control value the average of all of the outside samples.

This is a joke. They basically came up with there own test and cherry picked raw data to use as a control value.

So there's evidence that all crop circles are not man made. These crop circles have things like:

1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes
2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems
3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly

Man made crop circles don't share these characteristics without M.I.T. undergraduates and the school behind them.

Sorry Pseudos

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Do all "genuine" crop circles have all of these characteristics? If so please provide the evidence. If not, how can they be considered "genuine"?

Do none of the man made crop circles have any of these characteristics? If so please provide the evidence. If not, how can they be considered man made?


[edit on 11/25/2009 by Phage]