Crop Circles...with some actual evidence

Eltjo Haselhoff...PHd in Physics

Q- In several crop circles, interesting anomalies have been observed: burnt or cooked ears, dead flies inside of plants, background sounds and noises, "genetic modification" of some ears or seeds, and so on. What do you think about it? Which is the reason for this kind of anomalies?

A--No genetic modifications have ever been found as far as I know. But biophysical anomalies are quite clear and abundant in some formations.

The genetc modifications is still up in the air due to levengoods' trival experimentation.
Now some may move to discredit him as well because of the fact that he is the author of two books at the moment. I have seen this happen before, and get labeled as out to make a buck.

Only time will tell.

I'm digging up more on this PHD'er and will get back.

reply to post by Software_Pyrate


Well, I can tell you this much: you won't be disappointed!

Dr. Haselhoff is the man when it comes to CCs.
I was really surprised that he wasn't mentioned. I had intended to use him as my primary source for the thread I thought I'd make

Yours is nearly just as good though!

Ahhh..after searching endless links. I have found the PDF. wish I had this at the beginning of OP.

This is the heart and sole of my POST. Not the"who" but the "how".

This is Eltjo H. Haselhoff's published paper in response to Dr. Levengood's findings. Haselhoff took one aspect of Levengood's node elongation, and verified with out a doubt**FACT** that the node elongation is in direct and equal proportion to an electromagnetic filed-with the source being at the center of the CC.

This is out of Physiologia Plantarum 111: 123-125.2001 and can be found:
Here
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8852b19745bf.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/292cd9cf358a.png[/atsimg]

To summerize his paper.
He theorizes that if a BOL(Ball of LIght) was at the center of a CC and was radiating an electromagnetic field(light); the node elongation was proportional and in direct relation to node elongation from the center of the Circle.

He basically says in other articles that it is a relatively easy formula that calculates field dispersion from a source.

This is a very good find as it entails the "how" and not the "who" but eludes to it.

Thank you Ruad for pointing me in the right direction


So, we have found a direct correlation between node elongation and and electromagnetic field. Note* Not saying node elongation is "caused by" an electromagnetic field, Just PROVING that there is a DIRECT and proportional relationship between the two.

Is there anything else any body would like to add. Phage?....

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]

So ET travels light years just to flatten crops in remote areas of one country?


Have you ever been to any of these areas? They got nothing out there. Just sheep and crops. Miles and miles of sheep and crops with the odd castle thrown in. No tourism, just young adults home from college (if they are lucky), working on the farm. Does this sound like the right place to send a message to the planet?

It’s not hard to pick out the centralized places on our planet. If Google can show us pictures of the White House from orbit I suspect ET can find it as well. Why not flatten the grass there?

All of this talk about isotopes and such is just hand waving.

I would just like to take note on my own personal account of these findings.

At the begining of this search, I believed it was us making these CC's, but doing it in unconventional ways..I.e. Military testing some sort of wireless transmission of energy using microwaves which would effect the fields in the ways I have posted. Microwave transmission of power or energy is currently in use. And the effected crops would lay in line with that train of thought. I just figured it was maybe some testing of the beam or what have you on to the fields--zeroing in on the receiving end of the transmission, in essence, sighting in your scope so to speak, all guesses of course. Just my humble opinion thats all, which lead me down this path.

But as for as the BOL's concern...Now I'm not so sure of my original theory. Maybe the BOL's are still man made..or maybe something more. I am still on the fence at the moment until more evidence is presented.

But we have looked under some rocks and found some interesting things that I can not merely push aside as coincidence. I think this is one of many findings that will discover the truth....and answer the question as to "who" is making them.

Originally posted by samkent
So ET travels light years just to flatten crops in remote areas of one country?


Have you ever been to any of these areas? They got nothing out there. Just sheep and crops. Miles and miles of sheep and crops with the odd castle thrown in. No tourism, just young adults home from college (if they are lucky), working on the farm. Does this sound like the right place to send a message to the planet?

It’s not hard to pick out the centralized places on our planet. If Google can show us pictures of the White House from orbit I suspect ET can find it as well. Why not flatten the grass there?

All of this talk about isotopes and such is just hand waving.

Not once have I said ET's..please read the post .

BOL's does not mean they are alien, just something you and I are not familiar with thats all. Do you think you know of everything the military has under its sleeve's? If so please enlighten us.

But do not go jumping to conclusions as most skeptics would have you do.

reply to post by samkent

Have you ever been to any of these areas? They got nothing out there. Just sheep and crops. Miles and miles of sheep and crops with the odd castle thrown in. No tourism, just young adults home from college (if they are lucky), working on the farm. Does this sound like the right place to send a message to the planet?

There have been several CC's reported inside military installations....were no normal person can go, yet they still appear there...
I do not think it is ET as there is no evidence to suggest this. But there are also unexplainable CC's that a piece of wood and rope will not explain, sorry but thats truth.

reply to post by Software_Pyrate


Nooo problemo, my good piratey Sir!

If all CCs were man-made, I would really like to know why they trod the crop harder closer to the middle of the circle in some of them.
Was it yet another trick they had up their sleeves to make us confused? Huh? Huh?

No, I don't think so.

On a side-track:
The video in my first post in this thread contains a "infamous" footage of BOLs making CCs.
This footage has been labeled as a hoax, but I really don't think so.
I think the photographer had to say it was fake due to the "inquisition-mood" that arose.
The proof was a little too much a little too early.

Besides, it shows more or less exactly what we learn from Dr. Haselhoff's equation! Even if the footage is a hoax, it at least shows a crystal clear version of what the read deal looks like!
Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

A pretty strong eye-opener right there! I understand that this might be little tough for some to handle. My tip: give it some time to sink in. Let it grow on you for a week or so. Then, it's time to accept it.

Thank you for replying.

I do know that his experiments raises a lot of doubt. And the way in which they conducted them raises more doubt. And that his experiments can be categorized as trivial.

Yes, I do agree.

Your statement contradicts the title of your OP, does it not?

Are you saying that what you claim is evidences in your OP is at best doubtful, or to be specific, "raises a lot of doubt"?

The point of providing evidence (and I would say the point of your OP), is in fact inspire confidence in a hypothesis or a theory relating to CC formation and the presence of what you claim is significant factors or characteristics.
BLT does not do this at all, even by their own admission. So why should anyone accept that the nodes are significant when even BLT rule it out.

It does not change the fact that node elongation has occurred in these circles.

So what. BLT explain the elongation as natural, and Haselhoff and BLT are unable to differentiate between know man made circles and "genuine" ones.

So how about this source

How about what?
Mate, it is an interview, that is all it is.
If you need to rely on interviews with Haselhoff as evidence it is an indication that you don't have any real evidence or published works by Haselhoff on the CC phenomena.

Haselhoff has never published any work on Crop Circles, just a commentary on BLT and Levengoode in the same Journal they published in, that is it. And that was almost 10 years ago.
BLT and Haselhoff cannot differentiate node anomalies in any circles. That is actually what the studies say.
Again, here it is.

Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a 'genuine' crop formation (genuine is defined here as being a crop circle produced by external energy forces independent of human influence).

Again, Levenggoode provides you with an explanation for the node length.

This situation was later explained by the crop owner as being due to excessive nitrogen application, resulting in color change, weakened plant stems producing lodging, and enlarged, bent nodes. This sample group was important in several respects. First, it demonstrated that enlarged node ratios cannot be used exclusively as a crop circle verification.

www.bltresearch.com...
This is from the actual BLT study.
This is from YOUR SOURCE that you state in the OP is evidence.
So BLT explain that Node length is no indication of anything and that they can be explained by excessive nitrogen from farmers.

All I'm saying is there is something more going on than wood and rope period

BLT tell you what is happening. Excessive nitrogen.
People use the rope and board as a strawman argument.
No one states that the nodes are elongated by ropes and boards, people are injecting an explanation and claiming the nodes are "anomalies" etc. BLT state that they cannot do that.
So why use this as "evidence" that CC's can not be man made or not done so simply.
This is the same "evidence", that you agree, raises much doubt regarding the scientific process, the results and the validity of its claims.
The strawman is then injected that this "claimed anomaly" cannot be explained by "doug and dave with ropes and planks".
We see this fallacious reasoning regarding CC's all the time.

BLT research cannot even back you up unless you are prepared to set your standard of evidence as this:

I do know that his experiments raises a lot of doubt. And the way in which they conducted them raises more doubt. And that his experiments can be categorized as trivial.

Yes, I do agree.

BTW I included the criticisms of Haselhoffs 2001 opinion piece in my post.
Did you even read it?
Because it appears you missed this specific criticism of the node length relating to Haselhoff and BLT.
Here it is again.

The claims by BLT and Haselhoff that we discussed were based only on those three formations. BLT did mention t-tests for other data (Beckhampton, Maryland) and that is all. Should we – or anybody – be expected to guess about unpublished tests?

we did not dispute the average difference between samples collected in and out of the formation; rather, we highlighted the lack of a reliable criterion for labelling the data as "affected" or "control".

Haselhoff misrepresents his and BLT's work when he states that they just found apparently non-random patterns deserving – in their opinion – of further study. First, the alleged t-tests mentioned by Haselhoff would not support the presence of any pattern anyway, but only the undisputed fact that in any circle – known man-made formations included – inner plants have longer nodes than outer ones. But even if the existence of a generic decrease-with-distance trend should be proved, it would be a very humble and unsurprising conclusion because it would bear no indication of any specific cause; possible causes include mundane factors such as the dynamics of wind near the circle borders and the behavior of circlemakers. On the contrary, the titles of their papers contain words like "anomalies" and "energies" and the texts go far beyond.
www.cicap.org...

I want you to read this again.

First, the alleged t-tests mentioned by Haselhoff would not support the presence of any pattern anyway, but only the undisputed fact that in any circle – known man-made formations included – inner plants have longer nodes than outer ones.

Haselhoff and BLT cannot distinguish between any circles , at all, using nodes.

Again, so that I understand the evidence you provide in the OP, BLT say that in their own research, research that Haselhoff comments on:

Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a 'genuine' crop formation (genuine is defined here as being a crop circle produced by external energy forces independent of human influence).

www.bltresearch.com...

The node anomaly, like the others anomalies claimed to be significant by BLT, do not show a cause and are only used in correlation so as to inspire the most weak speculation.
Again BLT state that clearly in their papers.
Speculation is not evidence.


Thanks again for replying.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Haselhoff has never published any work on Crop Circles, just a commentary on BLT and Levengoode in the same Journal they published in, that is it.

Never?

Really?

NEVER?

I know I shouldn't, but I have to:

reply to post by atlasastro


Let me be more CLEAR.

At first post, I was unaware of the scrutiny that was bestowed upon him(Dr. levengood) from his peers. But I do not and have not jumped on the band wagon saying that everything he has done is all garbage. Haselhoff-PHD, would not have conducted his studies if it was not for levengood's findings.

Which, in conjunction with Haselhoff, to me, is starting to paint a picture of something more than wood and rope.

I am not saying Dr. levengood's findings are all garbage nor am I saying his findings are concrete....but lie somewhere in between. So take it for what its worth.

The most important factor that I was trying to touch base on was the node elongation...which can be found on CC's that levengood has never touched, but clearly, we stand opposed on this matter.
How are your feelings on Hasselhoff? creditable...? not..?

So how about this source

posted wrong link, and edited right after, but yer still flapping

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]

reply to post by atlasastro

This situation was later explained by the crop owner as being due to excessive nitrogen application, resulting in color change, weakened plant stems producing lodging, and enlarged, bent nodes. This sample group was important in several respects. First, it demonstrated that enlarged node ratios cannot be used exclusively as a crop circle verification.

Yes, exactly. Not exclusively. But in conjunction with higher elctromagnetic fields, cavity expulsion, magnetically charged iron deposits, No trace of human interaction with the field itself...

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by atlasastro

 

This situation was later explained by the crop owner as being due to excessive nitrogen application, resulting in color change, weakened plant stems producing lodging, and enlarged, bent nodes. This sample group was important in several respects. First, it demonstrated that enlarged node ratios cannot be used exclusively as a crop circle verification.

Yes, exactly. Not exclusively. But in conjunction with higher elctromagnetic fields, cavity expulsion, magnetically charged iron deposits, No trace of human interaction with the field itself...

The farmers quote has to make you laugh..

Is he spraying his fertilizers in pretty patterns??

reply to post by UKWO1Phot


I was wonder the same thing...

2nd

reply to post by Software_Pyrate


Dude, that post is Haselhoffs commentary and suggestions on BLT's papers.

This is actually what Haselhoff thinks of those BLT papers after critiques suggested that Haselhoff include a more definitive study or approach to the link between BOL's radiation and Plant anomalies

Moreover, the suggestions for extension of the BOL model made by Grassi et al. are not realistic because the results published by BLT (Levengood & Talbott, 1999) are not based on laboratory experiments, performed in a controlled environment, but on an analysis of circumstantial evidence, in the form of an apparent leftover of a largely unknown process. With the currently available data, the implementation of an advanced physical model like Grassi et al. suggest will only raise more questions than it could ever answer.

www.cicap.org...
BLT were not experiments done in a lab, or a controlled environment but analysis of circumstantial evidence.
This relegate the paper you linked from Haselhoff as a commentary and a suggestion on the methods a research paper not basd on lab tests or experiments or done in a scientifically controlled environment but based on the analysis of circumstantial evidence.

What is most disturbing is that Haselhoff actually argues against further and rigorous research or parameters because he believes that they will not answer anything.
So, by proxy, it is safe to assume that Haselhoffs commentary does not answer anything and neither does the BLT research.

What are your thoughts?


[edit on 27/5/10 by atlasastro]

reply to post by UKWO1Phot


I laughed too, because it was from the OP's sources.
It is actually BLT's explanation.

I guess people don't actually read these studies before they start threads claiming they are evidence.

Hello.

I'm kind of a newbie to this website so please excuse me if I'm not posting correctly or, if I'm not backing up the information with evidence....still learning!

As I'm new....I dont have many posts and I'm unable to start a new thread. Since you are discussing CROP CIRCLES I came across this:

www.formationresearch.com...

This link was available by the 'Webbot' guys and it states that if you take the crop circles and 'spin them' it forms shapes....that kinda look like actual ufos....maybe hidden messages can be found this way? I thought you could possibly start a new thread in this (thats if you think its something worth looking into)

Here's a demo of the program: www.youtube.com...

What do you guys think about this???

reply to post by atlasastro


I'm sorry, but I just can't see where you are going at.

Are you "debunking" as in; all CCs are man made?
Do you base this on that there is no other explaination that you could ever accept?
Isn't that what we know as "ignorance"?
Or is it just that you still think all "CC believers" also think all CCs are made by aliens?

Just because "rigorous research" would bring more further questions than real answers, there is "nothing to see here"?

I am being sincere and not as hostile as it might sound.
I just really don't understand what you are trying to prove.

In the midst of lots of controversial "evidence" there some points that are irrefutable and/or thought provoking at the least.

The picture that shows a "ghost" of a previous year's crop circle is evidence that something with far more enduring effect than just boards and a rope was used in the creation of the original crop design. The lingering effect a year later suggests indeed something extraordinary caused the original pictogram.

The correlation of the way light/energy decreases with distance with the amount the plant nodes were changed from centre to outer parts is cause for thought, indeed.

That these seem to be happening in developed countries with advanced military industries would support the notion that said militaries might actually be involved. It is not proof by any means.

That these crop formations do have laser like accuracy makes you wonder if in fact some sort of laser isn't used to make them.

I know this thread isn't about "who", but I think that men with boards is the least likely answer. I am split between aliens and our own advanced military/scientific community. Maybe its a collaboration of both.

reply to post by Raud


Geez, I forgot to say research.

He has put out lots of opinion, though.
Just point out the peer review work.
Thanks.

This one here:
here
Look at the title.

Opinions and comments on Levengood WC, Talbott NP (1999) Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations. Physiol Plant 105: 615–624

I mentioned that when I said this.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Haselhoff has never published any work on Crop Circles, just a commentary on BLT and Levengoode in the same Journal they published in, that is it.

Perhaps it was a little too difficult to comprehend.

Opinion.

Show me what he published like BLT? Maybe I should have made it clear, but as we are discussing evidence I thought you guys actually had some standards.
Where is it.
Is it this.........noop.
Just a book, did you buy it?
The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends (Paperback)
Wow. Paperback. Copywrite in 2001, tsk tsk.

Maybe when I said he has never published any WORK, as in science, you guys like pointing out the Phd he has, so show me the work he did on CC's.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Haselhoff has never published any work on Crop Circles, just a commentary on BLT and Levengoode in the same Journal they published in, that is it.

Just show me one paper guys, that is all, peer reviewed.
Published.
He made a commentary in 2001 has claimed to have studied the field, yet not one published study? 10 years guys.

What.....
What was that?
What do you means he has never published research on crop circles?

O.K.
I guess that makes him an expert.
Experts found here

advanced Search

0 articles with title/keywords/abstract containing Haselhoff E.H. written by Haselhoff E.H. in publications with Crop Circle research in the title

I know you guys will post them here for me.
Thanks.
Really looking forward to reading Mr. Haselhoffs research and published works on Crop Circles.

[edit on 27/5/10 by atlasastro]