Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Yes I agree with you 100% Since "Nothing" has been proven yet( as to who )....
Having an open mind is KEY.
So far I have yet to see you answer any of the criticisms I have pointed out in the "evidence" you present from
BLT and Haselhoff.
I can only consider that this is from a lack of being open minded to the stance that BLT and Haselhoff are incorrect and thus, not reputable as
Being closed minded and set in your ways unable to process new information is in itself IGNORANT.
Your own sources state that they only
speculate and their methods conclude nothing nor are they definitive of information regarding any cause in any way.
In light of the above, what are people being closed minded about exactly?
If, as you claim in the OP, these anomalies are real your sources do not state that they are significant to crop circles as they cannot differentiate
between "genuine" and known man made crop circles.
The fact that some people correlate these anomalies together to make a case ignores and dismisses the fact that BLT cannot find a significance in
anomalies when investigating them individually. So, if they are insignificant in isolation, why are they significant when correlated?
Think about that!
If you bunch a group of anomalies that cannot be shown to be genuine markers of CC's on their own, then when you put them all together, all you have
is a group of different claimed "anomalies" that have no way of signifying a genuine CC.
Remember, the claim in the BLT studies is that they are anomalous, yet in these studies and the commentary of Haselhoff, they clearly say they cannot
show that but it merits more study. Haselhoff states this clearly in his opinion piece.
By no means does the author pretend to present a ‘lithmus
test’ for distinction between a ‘genuine’ crop formation,
whatever it may be, and a hand-ﬂattened area of crop.
But this is exactly what you claimed in the OP.
post by Software_Pyrate
This sounds a little more elaborate than a a couple of guys with some planks, rope, and GPS. Iam not saying aliens did this by any means @ all, just
merely pointing out that these "Genuine" Circles have more to them then a couple of hoaxers making a good joke. This is the hard evidence that I
am having a hard time explaining. Of course the debate comes in as to what actually causes this accelerated growth and expulsion cavities, not who
Haselhoff states that BLT cannot make a claim that the "anomalies" they say exist are typical of genuine CC's. This means that they are also found
elsewhere. BLT point this out in their studeis, as I quoted in earlier posts.
You chose to focus on the Nodes in your OP, Haselhoff and BLT rule these out as markers. Emphatically.
Haselhoff points out specific assumptions in BLT node formula and the He(haselhoff) Omit data, and that other data contradicted their claims. These
ARE YOUR SOURCES.
Here Haselhoff explains that the criteria BLT uses to trend out Node growth is extremely flawed and not based in reality:
Equation 1, however, explicitly assumes that
at low levels of I, that is, at long distances from the source,
or in the case of strong absorption, the pulvinus length, NL,
approaches a value of zero. This, of course, will never be the
What Haselhoff explains here is that BLT have set the node length at 0 in relation to position or distance to the source, all assumed. This is how BLT
get anomalies. When they compare their "node length of the CC " with a human made circle where they measure the actual real node length, BLT come up
with an anomalous growth because they have taken the length of the Node as 0 at the time of the "CC event" and then look at the actual node and
attribute any node length from then on in as being growth from the "crop circle event".
In other words, BLT equation creates its own evidence. Think about that.
But if the actually used the real length of the nodes at the time of the event, this would not support the theory.
If you need to mess with the facts surrounding events, then you are lying. It is that simple.
More from Haselhoff on BLT.
In their paper, Levengood and Talbott (1999) suggest that
With the use of Equation 2, a corrected analysis was
performed employing the values of NL, N0 and the corre-
sponding distances from the epicenters as reported by Le-
vengood and Talbott (1999). As in the latter reference,
data points corresponding to the central ‘tufts’ in the for-
mations were omitted in the analysis. It was found that
the Pearson product moment correlation coefﬁcient, R
(Levengood and Talbott 1999), decreases in one of the
reported cases. In the other two reported cases, however,
no signiﬁcant changes in the correlation coefﬁcients were
found (see Table 1, second column).
Hasselhoff points out that using BLT equations needed a "corrected analysis". His was done by comparing the actual node lengths to a man made circle
to the BLT circles(only three circles BTW). Haselhoff though, omitted areas of data( without an explanation)
and found that when correct one of
the circles argues against the BLT claims, whilst two other circles remained the same. Again, this is dubious because data has been omitted without an
explanation. Why? What effect would that data have on BLT and Haselhoff?
Much more data would have to be analyzed and thorough statistical
studies will be necessary before such a criterion can be deﬁned.
Then why did Haselhoff omit data?
However, the position-dependent pulvinus length, and in
particular the apparent organised character of the data
analysed, is interesting and stimulates further study.
Let me repeat that this is one of your source, Haselhoff on your OP's main source, so as to make it clear. Haselhoff wants more study.
YET- when Haselhoff was criticized in another Journal, he states that further and more rigorous study would only generate more questions?
What about an open mind Mr. Haselhoff? Why is Haselhoff being so closed minded about this?
What say you OP. You seem to be quick to remind others in this thread about not being ignorant and closed minded, how about applying that to your
This is Haselhoff description of BLT, I will offer it again.
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.
I put it to you that you are ignoring the actual evidence presented in your OP and have instead accepted the speculation and inferences offered as a
"conclusion" surrounding specific "anomalies", anomalies that cannot be shown to be significant to CC's. It is suggested that BOL's are
responsible for emitting some sort of energy that would explain the elongated nodes.
And you have repeatedly stated that the node anomaly is significant.
Which leads me to some interesting questions for you.
Do you know how many Nodes there are on a wheat stem(common CC environment).
There can be as many as 6 nodes on a wheat plant.
Does BLT or Haselhoff, or for that matter any CC research group show uniform Nodal elongation on the entire stem of any plants?
Go and have a look. www.bltresearch.com...
They only show ONE node that is elongated, not the entire stem with all the internodal regions showing nodal regions elongated between.
This is significant because according to your sources, BOL and electromagnetic radiation(or some other source) is making the nodal regions expand and
in some cases explode.
It should happen to all nodes.
Isolating just one nodal region can easily be attributed to phototropism and BLT point this out here
Marked bending of the plant stem nodes which can occur at all of the nodes in some cases, is most often observed in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th nodes
down toward the bottom of the stalks. It does occasionally occur in the first, or apical node beneath the seed-head (see above). Usually this bending
(if it is determined to be significant after ruling out natural plant recovery processes) is in the range of 45-90 degrees and considerable care must
be taken to not confuse this node bending with two well-known plant recovery processes:
(1) phototropism (the plant's natural tendency to reorient itself to sunlight) and;
(2) gravitropism (the plant's natural tendency to reorient itself to the earth's gravitational field).
But if it is not phototropism, then the entire stem of the plant will be effected ipsofacto all nodes on the stem will be effected by Electromagnetic
And so we should have images of these crops displaying uniform node elongation over as many as 4 to 7 nodal regions. This would be logical and
expected for the region effected by the BOL, would it not?
Is BLT suggesting that only one node is effected. This would suggest the "source" was specifically targeting just one node
on each plant, but
BLT and HaselHoff are not that specific. BLT and Haselhoff generalize the effect of the source in their formula and in their comments.
The images they present do not support the claims.