Talk:Crop circle/Archive 3

NO science to be found herein
Very interesting...After reading the article, I did not find any mention of any of the scientific findings. Even the most obvious observation, the bending of the node, was reported in the article as a bending just below the node. That is wrong, it is the node itself that bends due to an elongation of one side of the node.

Also interesting is that it is only near the very end of the article that the suggestion of causes other than man made are presented.

THe entire article should be retitled to "hoaxed crop circles"

Tommy Mandel 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on with you, if we want to present a fair and practical Artical here, then we should use all arguments. I think a good artical should contain all information possible. Bending node is one argument and alot of information can be given on it. We should also not stick with couple of reasercher, but all possible informaiton. I suggest, and if possible, to add a section about the possible debate of outside creation of these circals and other not-normal factors. phippi46 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Science of Crop CIrcles
A study of the scientific evidence

This is an attempt to incorporate within the crop circle article those observations which have been reported by serious investigators in the field and the results of scientific analysis of those observations, using the scientific method. We will use the prevailing literature base for our domain of knowledge.

Scientific Investigators

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser".

As a good introduction to the phenomenon from the scientific perspective, Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128,


 * "The Facts:"


 * "In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public infrmation is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presense or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinaty observations, in the form of a radient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinaty evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personall find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on."

At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own conclusions:

Conclusion one: The suggestion that crop circles are all made by practical jokers with simple flattening tools is by no means sufficient to explain all documented observations.

Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenonmenon is often erroneously ridiculted and much undersestimated in its complexity.

Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenonmenon is unknown to the general public.

Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)

Conclusion Five: Small radiation sources with an electomagnetic character ("Balls of Light") are directly involved in the creation of crop circles. (Their origin and exact character remain yet unknown.)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

(A) Principle investigator/sources/reference

(1)Internet reference/source

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis:

http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:

BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.

PURPOSE: 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. Secondly, our intent is to publish these research results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and to disseminate this information to the general public through lectures, mainstream articles and the internet.

Their reports include ---

Reported Observations

A great variety of observations in crop circles have been reported. Some are typical of a class of crop circles, while some are isolated instances. These are characteristics of crop circles that have been reported/found.

History - The earliest reference to a crop circle is a 1678 wood cut which depicts a circle of crop being cut down by a figure of the Devil. They have appeared since the turn of the Century and esitmates of 100 to 300 circles have been found prior to 1980. Some say as much as 10,000 since 1970. Many farmers tell of their fathers talking about crop circles.

Distribution - worldwide, with the majority in the southern UK. Have been found in most other countries including U.S., Canada, Hungary, BVewlgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, JPuerto Rico, New Zealand and Australia.

Location - most often in fields of grain. But also have been found on ice, dried lake beds and snow. It is believed that the natural aquifiers found in England contribute much to their occurance there.

Size - Early crop circles were of modest size, 15 to 60 feet in diameter. Recent circles can stretch as much as 900 feet

Visible Nodal Changes - One of the most prominant features of a crop circle is the bending of the plant usually at the node. Often the nodes have burst. Typically, the length of one side of the node increases up to 200% thereby bending the plant over. (See picture) While the heigth of the bend from the ground is usually close to the ground, a set of three circles had nodes which were bent at different heights as one progressed toward the center forming a pattern which was then repeated over and over until the center was reached. The pattern was identical in each of the three circles. Haselhoff was able to take plants from prescribed positions, measure their nodes using compouter hardware and software, and determine a correlation between distence from center to edge and a hypothetical EMF source above the circle. This is "hard" evidence that the circles were created by an EMF of some sort.

Magnetic Anomalies - In many cases compasses are affected severely, metal becomes magnetized. In one video, Dr. W.C. Levengood, a professor and biophysicist, moves a magnet toward a seed taken from inside the circle. The magnet attracts the seed and holds it off the table.

Battery depletion - In many cases the battery of an electronic device taken into a circle becomes depleted. This has happened even to batteries known to have been fully charged before taking it into the circle.

Energy lines - Usually found by dowsing, confirmed by electronic sensors, the circle's geometry is usually found to line up with these natural lines. Intricate Lay - The crop is laid down in woven and interwoven patterns. As many as four layers of stalks each layer flowing in different directions have been found. In the Julia set circle, a different pattern of lay was found in each of the hundred circles. In one circle, a single standing stalk was found in every square foot of the circle.

vertical patterns - in one circle the bent of the plant varied in a repeatable pattern as they were laid down toward the center. This became obvious when the plants grew upward at these different hieghts.

Eye/ear Witnesses - Most circles being created are not witnessed. There are instances that the circle was observed during it's formation by an eyewitness

Bent Rape Stems - Oil seed rape or canola has a stem structure like celery, it breaks easily. Circles are found in canola fields with bent stalks, here just below a node. One photograph shows a canola plant bent 180 degrees.

Cellular Changes - Laboratory analysis shows several kinds of changes in the cellular structure.

Carbon Blackening - Interestingly, when the node of a stalk bursts, a black ring is often found. Originally thought to be due to charring, it was shown to be a opprotunistic fungus.

Balls Of Light - Lights in the form of a circle or sphere have been seen hundreds of times. In one video two balls of light are seen circling a field and then a crop circle appears in a matter of seconds. It is commonly accepted that these BoL's as they are called, are responsible for making a genuine circle. Heselhoff states that because of the many sightings, and appearence in two journals, the balls of light can legitimately be reagarded as a scientific fact.

Germination Changes - Depending on when the seed is laid down, the germination rate can slow down or speed up, confirmed by laboratory tests of the growth patterns. (Leavengood is now making "super" seeds modified by a similar process...)

Perimeter Stalks - The division of inside to outside is very sharp. (In some circles, bent stalks are found interspersed with standing stalks.)

Crop Selectivity - In the U.K., corn, wheat, carrots, barley. Circles have been found in other environments. A huge "flower of life" was seen in an Oregon dried lakebed. The total length of the lines, 4 inches deep, 18 inches wides with beveled edging, measured 13 miles. After a survey, the lines were bowed out eight inches at the center, duplicating the effects of a point source directly above the design.

Rapid Daylight Appearance - A circle, the Julia Set appeared at Stonehedge in a field in clear view of guards and tourists during a 45 minutes time frame. Consisting of ---circles, each circle with a different pattern of downed plants.

Geometrical theorems - The circle atructure is not random. Precise measurements show that many geometrial relationships can be found in each of the circles. Five new geometrical theorems have been found.

Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios - The level of nitrates is higher in a circle compared to outside the circle.

Clay crystalization - THe crystaline structure of clay has increased

Time Dilation - Reports of unusual time changes have been made

Electro/mechanical Failures - Almost all electronic equipment brought into a circle will fail due to depleted batteries. Sometimes tractors will stop when driven into a circle

Radiation Anomalies - The presence of radiation with a short half life has been found.

Photographic Anomalies - Balls of light appear in photographs. Some of these have been attributed to reflections from the flash hitting dust particles.

Molten metal imprint - In a shipment of grain staks sent to a laboratory, pieces of metal fell from the stalks during the unpacking. The metal was shaped according to the structure of the plant.

Trilling Noise - A high frequency trilling sound is often heard

Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs - A flattened dad porcupines was found in one circle.

Scared Horses & Howling Dogs - Dogs seem to get excited around circles.

Menstrual Disruption -

Endocrine Effects - THe levels of melatonin, a natural hormone found in the body increase. Melatonin production is inhibited by light ans should only increase during darkness.

From Wikipedia... "Normally, the production of melatonin by the pineal gland is inhibited by light and permitted by darkness. For this reason melatonin has been called "the hormone of darkness". The secretion of melatonin peaks in the middle of the night, and gradually falls during the second half of the night."

Miracle Cures =

Insects Stuck To Crop - In one circles hundreds of insects were found with their wings fuzed to the stalks.

Underground Water - The UK has natural aquifiers

White Substance -

Magnetic substance -

Perpetrators - Non/super-human? This is the subject of extensive speculation. No scientific evidence has been found which would point one way or the other.

Deception - The modern history of crop circles is replete with attempts by various media to deceive and discredit scientists. Haselhoff tells of one time he was asked in an interview if a particular circle could have natural causes, his reply was no, it is too complex. Then he was asked if it could have been man made and he replied that it was possible. When the interview aired, the question asked was could the circle have been man made, and the reply edited in the tape was no, it is too complex, then they panned to the hoaxers laughing.

http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148

They write

Crop Circles : A Field Report of the Howell, Michigan Crop Circle Formation

On July 29-31, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence revealing that the Howell Township, Livingston County, Michigan crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.

The team consisted of Jeffrey Wilson, Todd Lemire, and Dr. Charles Lietzau of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana. Arriving at the field on July 29, 2002, we discovered and photographed the presence of several anomalies that cannot be duplicated by hoaxers. Conclusions

Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Howell crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the conclusion that this is an authentic formation. There are other anomalies that were detected in this formation, but until our lab studies are concluded, and we are certain of our findings, we will refrain from reporting those at this time.

Sources

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis: BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC. http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

(2b) The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends. (2001) Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.d. Frog Ltd. Berjekey Ca. ISBN 1-58394-046-4 (2ba) Dr. Haselhoff is a practicing physicist specializing in optical imaging. quote: "Anyone claiming that all crop circles can be easily explained as the work of human pranksters, or hoaxers as they are usually called, reveals that he does not know what he is talking about."

(2c) Secrets in the Fields: The Science and Mysticism of Crop Circles. (2002) Freddy SIlva Hampton Roads, Charlottesvile VA. ISBN 1-57174-322-7 (2ca) Silva has written perhops the most comprehensive book on all aspects of crop circles. Quote:"The astronomer David Darling expresses this elegantly in his Equation of Eternity" 'The conscious mind is crucially involved in establishing what is real. That which reaches our senses is, at best, a confusion of phantasmal energies - not sights, not sounds, or any of the coherant qualities that we project outward onto the physical world. The Universe as we know it is built and experienced entirely within our heads, and until that mental construction takes place, reality must wait in the wings.'"

(2d) The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles (2004) Bert Janssen. Frontier Publishing, Netherlands ISBN 1-93182-34-7

(2da) Janessen focus on the construction of crop circles, specifically how the geometrical elements hang together. Quote "Crop curckes. One of the biggest mystery of our times. They are obviously not the works of pranksters and practical jokers. They are also not a natural phenomenon. Nature doesn't think. But the thought, whoever or whatever is thinking it, has a very strong resemblance to the way in which we humans think. It is very much as if the phenonmenon is just another part of ourselves. One the one hand we are not responsible for the shapes in the crop, on the other hand we are." (p99)

(Question. A reading of the literature tells us of many acts of deception by the media to fool serious crop circle researchers into declaring a hoaxed circle as authentic. If all crop circles were hoaxed, would this deception by the media be necessary?)

The Scientific Conclusion
The search for the truth of crop circles is embedded in controversy, lies and deception thereby smothering our grasp for reality. The implications of a genuine crop circle (all we need is one) are profound, and extraordinary, and deserves, by any measure, a truly scientific investigation.

Science differs from other belief systems in that a scientific hypothesis is tested to determine if in fact it is true. It doesn't matter if the hypothesis is just a guess, what matters if it proves to be correct. This limits science to that which is testable, leaving science with nothing to say about that which is not testable, but what science can say can be considered reliable.

Discussion
Hi, any information of so called Plasma Balls. Why most editors belief that this technology can not be created from humans. We have atleast information on it. We know about the plasma and at least so I know, in early 60s the Russian Military tested aircraft with Plasama technology to make them not visible from Radar. I think as human, we have know alot about the plasama. So why this suggestion, that these Plasama Balls are controlled by some "unknown" forces ? phippi46 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I read in the literature, no one has captured a BoL, much less traced it to it owner. The scientist must admit unknown until it becomes known. Everything else is just conjecture - a guess. The descriptions given so far are consistent with a ball of plasma theory. It looks like plasma and it acts like plasma. Even if they are made of plasma, science has no clue as to who or what is controlling them.

Tommy Mandel 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think only this will remain a "mystery" until some one finds something on it. 15 years ago, if some saw an strange looking flying object somewhere over nevada, can be mistaken and think of UFO. Now we know it may be a stealth Aircraft. with our current knowledge we dont have any idea, but what if after 10 years we discovered something. I just want to say here, that everything is relative and we should not jump on conclusion. Because we just dont know phippi46 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese say that a man who does not know, and knows he does not know, knows. It is far more productive to approach the subject with an open and questioning mind than it is to form preconceived notions and miss out, if wrong, on actuality. A tremendous amount is known about the circles leading scientists such as Haselhoff to conclude that "something strange is going on."


 * Something strange is always going on from the start of world. As humans, if we dont understnad something or feel small in front of some kind of challenge, we creat stories possible explainations. If you see the history, these stories are not difficult to find. May be we are looking totally in wrong direction to clear this thing. I wish that one day we find that we are not alon in our universe but who knows when this moment come. So till we see something, I will like to stay with creative abilities and creating storeis. phippi46 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I admire your choice of activity. I often wondered if the first real thoughts of mankind were to gaze up at the stars and wonder what they are. Keep in mind that this first act also separated the stars from everything else...I suppose that we have to explain everything at least to ourselves, and hey, if it works, who is to say if it is wrong or not. I have a problem, however, with others who wish and sometimes demand to explain it for us. Religion has this problem big time, in particular those who tell us what it is all about. They don't tell you that the answers lie within, and nothing outside can give that answer. Science has this problem as well, because not all science is scientific (See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) apparently science does not slowly evolve, it tends to hold on to the prevailing theory and only when evidence to the contrary becomes overwhelming then they accept the new. And then, it is said, they claim it as their own. Crop circle research also has this problem. Efforts to maintain the mainstream view have resorted in far too many cases to deception. Lies. Well, if they were right they wouldn't have to lie about it. The evidence as I see it is consistant with some circles are man made, they are not difficult to ascertain the "sloppy" construction, and it especially consistant with some crop circles were not made by mechanical means, I found no evidence that all circles are man made, save the testimony of an admitted liar. And even then how would he "know" that alll circles are fakes.

Tommy Mandel 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What some one wants from creating these circlas ? lets say they are not man made, atleast a part of them are not man made. What they want to creat some strange shaped circals in a part of mostly western countries, where they know that they will get some paublicity with that. Atleast they are intelligent enough to know that if they creat circlas some where in Africa, may not get enough attention. I agree, with you that not all circals are man made, and I also agree with you that who ever this intelliegent life form is, is very very creative. phippi46 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good question, is there a message and what is it? Well, the triangle. The triangle is ubiguitous among the circles, does the triangle have any special meaning? Here is where science as a whole is silent, yet the Eastern writings, and the esoteric Western writings attach a significant meaning to the triangle, are circles a way to get this across to the Western mind?

Tommy Mandel 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any connection between Pyramids and Crop circles

 * You suggested about the strange nature of triangle. What you think it may be connected with crop circals ?, in old days when these payramids were created and not only in Egypt, but many other places of the world, you can still find the similerties in design and size etc. Now I have no proov to suggest otherwise, but its seems to me, that at that time there was no mean of communication between these civilizations to share "Technical" information between them, hence you can find amazing similarties in design. its seems they were quite ahead of their time with advance knowledge, or say, advance technical knowledge. Do you see any connection between circals and payramids ? phippi46 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied pyramids in depth but I understand that the great pyramid exibits a high precision, just as the circles do. The great pyramid is a tetrahedron, said by Fuller to be the simplest form in three dimensions. A pyramid is archetypal, that exists all over because of its intrinsic properties. There is one aspect of the pyramids that is extraordinary. The greatest of all pyramids was the first one made. Not a single pyramid made after the first one comes close to the scope and precision of the first one.

Tommy Mandel 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The great pyramid was not created after the Egyptian civilization existed for a great while, but at its very beginning, in the sixth dynasty. 6th dynasty, that would be 2100bc or so. Egypt is said to have begun with the unification of the upper and lower kingdoms in 3100bc. Only 1000 years! So the I guess with the 200 years the US has been around we should have monuments made out of what..? small piles of idiots? -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the wall chart of world history, the beginning of the Egypian era varies from 8000 to 2400 B.C., depending on who you listen to. The actual date of the great pyramid is not known, but the chart places it at 1500 B.C.. Two hundred years before they invented bricks...

Tommy Mandel 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only connection Pyramid of Giza has to crop circles is that they are both man made structures created with primitive tools, which result in amazing views. -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that? Are you just guessing again?

Tommy Mandel 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, i've been reading, here on wikipedia. You should try it. But you probably wouldn't want to. Its difficult to hold onto your little ufo conspiracy theories when you can see pictures of the tools used to lift the blocks, and archeologists explaining how the work was done. Kind of like watching correley explain how he makes crop circles. Or I guess you could believe a guy who makes his living teaching people how to communicate with aliens. *sigh* -- Dark fred Talk to me 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think that I would read Wikipedia if I were doing research? My research came from books I bought and read. Take this article on crop circles, what mention is there made in the article about results of scientific observations? Absolutely none. Is this the kind of information a serious researcher would depend on? Remember that when observation and theory clash, says Einstein, it is the theory that falls. The "scientific" observations made in crop circles is not consistent with all of them being hoaxed. And, as it was said, we do not need a certain percentage, all we need is ONE and the entire theory that they were all hoaxed falls to pieces. As far as aliens, I followed the link given here, and eventually ran across the 1992 conference of the National Press Club at which time the testimony of twenty out of 400 was given. I listened to them. I suggest that you also take a look and listen to the testimony of a commander of a minuteman base explain how eight of his missiles went dead moments after a Ball of light was seen hovering around the front gate. I'm not going to go into details because this isn't about UFO's, but it seems that all the suspicions were right. I don't think you know enough about crop circles to qualify as a liar, so I would not say that you are lieing, but everything you have said is simply not true. (Actually you haven't said anything of substance that can be checked other than melatonin is inhibited by light, not as you claimed, produced by "walking around in the sun all day...".) And what gets me, is that you come across as if you know. You don't know. I can help you, all you need to do is know what you know and what you believe and it will work out.

Tommy Mandel 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you seem to have so far been unable to produce any evidence of non-hoaxed circles. What you painstakingly copy over and over from conspiracy theorists and alien enthusiasts web-sites is not proof of anything. You seem to lack that part of a human mind which enables you to view evidence critically. You simply seem to believe everything you read online. You make scientific claims, or copy them from others, but you havent yet found a single item which the wikipedia guidelines would consider acceptable. With wide eyed belief you consider the ravings of obvious charlatans to be in the same league as Albert Einstein. In a certain respect I pity you, but I envy you as well, the fantasy world you live in seems to be alot more interesting than the real one. -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DDT


 * From Dr. Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project and the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence:


 * A former high official at the NSA (National Security Agency) told me about a protocol informally dubbed DDT - that old poisonous chemical long-banned in much of the world. In this application, it stands for Decoy, Distract and Trash - which is what sophisticated intelligence operatives use to set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject.


 * Tommy Mandel 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An emergency physician (Yes, his Doctorate is an MD, not a PhD in physics, astronomy, geology, climatology) does not scream "qualified" to me. Please cite actual sources (not just names) when supplying evidence.  66.185.168.229 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My sources are scientists which means only that what they say has to be verified by others and thus not the opinion or hypothesis of the author. I have before me a picture of stalks of grain taken from inside and outside of a particular crop circle catalogued and organized as to physical placement. The pictures are of the nodes of each stalk. It is clear to me that the nodes of the stalks within a circle when compared with the sample taken from outside the circle have "elongated" and it is here that the plant bends. The original examination was done by W.C. Levengood, a professor and biophysicist for a professional research team known as BLT Research. This information can be found in a book written by a physicist and on the web at BLT research. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the bending is at the node, and not the stalk as you claim. I think it is our responsibility as editors of Wikipedia to forgo original research, which I have tried to do, and present only those facts which have been established in a verifiable manner. It is a fact that some crop circles have been manmade. It is also a fact that there are some crop circles that have not been made by man. There is no reputable published document which can state in a scientific manner that all crop circles are made by man. There are dozens of published documents which show features of some crop circles can not have possibly made by man, such as the elongation of the nodes, the increase of clay crystalization, radiation levels, molecular changes within the plant. The precision of some crop circles has been well documented and even new theorems have been uncovered. And there is the testimony of those who established the creation of a circle within a fifteen minute time frame. You, on the other hand, have not stated any facts whatsoever, instead relying on insults and discrediting any who do not agree with you. You believe those who lie to us. Does that make any sense to you? You are projecting onto me what your failings are, and that is very telling when it comes to knowing what reality is doing... There are some of us who know how to create reality, and then there are those among us who believe what they believe is reality and thereby limit themselves to the limitations of their beliefs. So be it. If one honestly looks for something, it will come; but if one doesn't look, and even denys it, it will never come to him. And he will die thinking he was right. I don't pity you, I understand you. I have been there too once. And you know what, it turned out to be a big joke on me - the first thing I would come to know, I mean really know, was that I didn't know. i would suppose it will be the same for you.

Tommy Mandel 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Darkfred, it is obvious you do not have a working knowledge of crop circles. You are not qualified to judge what is scientific evidence and what is not. You have not presented even a scientific fact let alone produced a scientific analysis to prove your point. You rely on smoke and mirrors. Actually you do not say anything of a factual nature instead you rely on insults and name calling which tells me that you have no basis to argue your point. If you are just ignorant of the knowledge then your position is understandable, but if you do know then you are presenting disinformation. Tommy Mandel 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say this again, tommy, just so you understand. BLT research is not a scientific organization. It has never been published by a reputable journal and seems to exist primarily to collect donations from the gullible, such as yourself, and to shill for paid convention appearances by Nancy Talbot. The organization is POV and single minded. Every page of "research" is dedicated to proving that crop circles are not man-made. They are not scientific by any definition. Plus, you were cutting and pasting this crap before you even heard of BLT. I told you where the junk originated. You've gotten sucked into the ring of misinformation provided by U.S. UFO convention circuit. Who's motto is "I want to believe"... Its practically a religion here. -- Dark fred Talk to me 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommy, are you aware that, according to BLT's own website, their panel of "Professional Consultants" does not include a professional with a degree directly specializing in the study of plants? No agriculturalists or the sort. What about a botanist? Isn't that pretty suspicious considering they're investigating crop circles? And as for the theory of Plasma Vortexes being involved, where were they during say, the Middle Ages? Somehow I don't think it's a brand new meterological phenomenon that just popped up during the late 20th century. --Waterchan 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How many biophysicists do you need?

Tommy Mandel 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...You're kidding me, right?

--Waterchan 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, as I understand it, They employed Levengood, a biophysicist, to do the plant analysis. I read that he wrote fifty papers, was a professor at the University of Michigan. He probably taught botonists. From the looks of it, the research is centering on the soil with many reports coming. I read that circles might have been in the Bible, and that they were known in the Middle ages. But how many are actually seen and reported when there was no such thing as reporting? Farmers sons tell of their fathers and grandfathers having seen crop circles, and I don't mean wind jobs - any farmer could recognize those. I don't know what is going on right now. The research seems dated or shall I say old news. I understand Colin's 80-20 statement took a lot of wind out of some sails, and it turns out there are liars on both sides of this story. And here is where the scientific method is most useful. It appears that what happens to the soil is more interesting, such as increased clay crystalization usually achieved only by great heat, pressure and time. So there it is. Tommy Mandel 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are in discussion ?
Instead of accusating each other we should find a common point of view, please do not forget this is only a Encylopeida and its not a personal property. We all are same here, every body has a right to say what he think is correct, but at the same time no body is allow to make personal accusation. As you already know how to provide NPOV here, I dont think some body should tell you about it. Now the matter is that the facts are not clear in this subject, it is a mystry how these or atleast some of these circals were made. Untill we find some thing, it will remain like that. We can present theories and thats what we are doing. I think when we say.. oh.. I belief.. then its mean that I have proove too.. so instead of saying belief.. we can use words like .. aussme.. or may be.. just to make a natural point of view and let the readers decide .. thanks phippi46 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the listing. How many of them are nased on a belief? How many of them are based on obsrvations and measurements?


 * There is no meaningful conversation going on here, concensus on the correct npov viewpoint for this article was reached over 2 months ago. And can be seen in the archive. Do not think that simply because of the volume of Tommy-suns spam anything has changed since then. If you do want to have a meaningful conversation I will send you my email or you can correspond on my user page, although that would probably just end up spammed by tommy-sun too. As for your other point, This is an encyclopedia, the discussion pages are geared towards providing content. The current discussion is not producing content therefore it is by nature detremental to the encyclopedia. I am not trying to be a jerk when I point this out but Tommy-sun is not a contributer, and he keeps regular contributers from working in the discussion pages. Therefore I don't think he deserves the civility that I would afford an editor. While he may be genuinely deluded rather than a malicious troll or spammer, the results are the same. -- Dark fred Talk to me 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am building my case using real scientists and their scientifically determined "facts" with the intent to eventually incorporate those findings into the article. This is how it is done in science. I know for a fact that if I do this now you will revert it. Note that your alternative view is based wholly on the testimony of admitted deceivers and, also, it has been shown that their claims are not valid. This is an encyclopedia, and is required by definition to present all the relavent facts as they occur. A NPOV was NOT reached witness the lack of any of the scientific findings produced by serious researchers and scientists. How can the article be neutral if only the negatives are published? There is considerable testimony about trickery and disinformation produced by the media, and obviously any attempt to publish real information will result in concerted efforts by the deceivers to get rid of it.

Tommy Mandel 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommy. Serious researchers do not have web sites selling new-age books. Serious researchers do not spend their lives collecting hearsay. Serious researchers use scientific method, and have their findings evaluated through peer review. What you have been presenting is not serious research. This wouldn't even cut it for a highschool essay. -- Dark fred Talk to me 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Darkfred, you have not presented a single bit of scientific evidence that all crop circles are man made. You have not presented any physical evidence whatsoever. It is you who is basing your logic on hearsay. It is you who are basing your information on websites. It is you who is refusing to consider the scientific findings. And let me use your own words: "It is snake oil bullshit book-selling paranoid delusional tripe. Which you cut-n-paste from google searches." I did not rely on websites, instead I went to the library and book stores and purchased published books. And I read those books. One book I have is by a Phd physicist who is now practicing as the senior scientist in an medical imaging company. The only scientist that I know of who is claiming to know how the circles were created is meaden, and his claim is that they are produced by a plasma vortex - the wind. So show me your sources and where I can find the published papers on the subject. BTW, the personality, activities or hobbies does not have anything to do with the scientific observations they may have made.

Tommy Mandel 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to produce scientific evidence, I am not trying to prove anything. YOU ARE! Answer this: Does the fact that there is no scientific research disproving unicorns prove that they exist? No, it proves that real scientists are simply not interested in inane questions. The burden of proof lies with the "unicorn believers". Regards, -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Darkfred, correct me if I am wrong, but it is you who are claiming to know who is making the crop circles. It is you who are saying this based on the testimony of admitted deceivers. It is you who is refusing to present any sort of evidence of any kind. The serious researchers and scientists do not make any claim, instead they admit one after the other that they do not know. It is you who is saying you know who made them. You are the one making the claim, not I. All I am doing is presenting observations.


 * It is amazing how you can twist things around. I need peer reviewed scientific evidence, but all you need is the claims of hoaxers. And then you throw in some absurd comment and imply by association that I am doing the same. Look, there have been documented observations showing that the nodes of plant within a circle have elongated and it is this elongation that is responsible for the bending of the plant. This change in the node has been evaluated and reported.by a biophysicist. I have seen the photographic evidence.That by itself is proof that the plant was not taken down by mechanical means. As far as proof is concerned, there is no proof that all circles are man made. And all we need to disprove the notion that all circles are man made is one single solitary circle that wasn't. That proof can be found in the Julia set circle of 1996, which was witnessed to have occured in broad daylight within a 45 minute window.

Show me your verification of the claims being made in this article. You won't because you don't have any. All you have is the ability to insult and trash. You sound very scared if you ask me. Tommy Mandel 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The personal activities and hobbies of these "researchers" DOES matter. Anyone who is a UFO enthusiast or a UFO convention speaker is biased. They already believe in the thing they are trying to investigate. There assumption will ruin their objectivity. Second, If they were a real scientist with real evidence they would be speaking at a national press conference or even the United Nations rather than to a room full of tin foil hat collectors. The scientists at SETI have been doing real research for years without sensationalizing it or making outrageous claims. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you familair with Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity? Have you read Popper? This is not about UFO's, I only mentioned that because physicist/researcher considers the balls of light to be a scientific fact, given their inclusion in peer reviewed journals, and that it is curious that most of the UFO's (my opinion) are also balls of light. But since you brought it up, would you say that a conference of the National Press Club qualifies? Does the sworn testimony of government officials with secret and above clearance count? How about the launch officer at a minuteman site who testified that eight of his missles went into a nogo state immediately after his guards reported to him that there were balls of light at the front gate. Then he gets a call from another officer who stated that ten of his missiles went into nogo.

I agree with Tommy here that atleast to start a "research" you have to start from some where, you have to set your reference points on which you can judget your calculations and mistakes, without any reference points we can not go any where. Darkfield, tell me, suppose that you want to start a research about the UFOs. What will be your first step, as you may not be the one who actually see a UFO, so most probably you will start with the work already done by other researchers and set your reference points accordingly and find your results with them. It is not necessary for you to accept those results, presented by other researchers, but they can be for you as tools of work. I think if we talk here on this page, then we should talk about the crop circals and all possiblities, and there is a remot possiblity according to math also, that we may not be alon in this universe. So, we dont have any proove, but who knows some one find some time later, I say again, when you say "Belief" then you must have proove to proove that belief other wise it is just an argument. Tommy you want to work with the research of other leading Sceintist on this subject, well enough, but what you get should be your research and canclusion, if you accept the results of other without checking them, then you are simply believing them, I hope with your efforts you may discorved some thing different. Please I did not want to remind before that this is only enclyopedia, also to remind you that there may millions of users who just want to read these pages to improve their knowledge and knowledge that we as Editors write here, it is our duty to provide best and non-biased information to give them apportunity to think and judget them selves, rather to give them our final judgement, with the conclusion that.. thats it, this is the final info on this topic. There is no universal formula on which we can settle, but, only to work together.. regards phippi46 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you state it that way, because I submitted a paper about a universal principle which was accepted (without comment) and scheduled to be published in December. Unfortunately I am not at liberty to disclose what the principle is, but I can paraphrase it - working together...Working together does not mean one victorious over the other until only the victor survives as far too many believe.

Tommy Mandel 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting video
take a look:  --Striver 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. Interesting, especially the circle which looks exactly like the American Indian four directions circle. The video shows us a crop circle in Germany in which was found three metal plates, one silver, one gold and one bronze. Impressed on them is a drawing of the circles in which they were found. The video is a commercial product and seems to present a balanced viewpoint - question. Also, I saw, in another video, a crop circle forming as two balls of light circled it. Oh, I found this one, a conference of the National Press Club in 1991. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk

Contains direct testimonial evidence of balls of light witnessed by pilots, air traffic controllers, Launch officer, astronauts, including recordings of radar contacts, etc. Haselhoff comes right out and states that balls of light are a scientific fact.

Tommy Mandel 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because something is stated on television doesn't mean it's correct. You must remember that Fox had a show on the Moon landing hoax stating that we never landed on the moon (unless if you believe that as well?). You might consider reading that article if you want to see "scientific evidence" vs. scientists. This section may be of particular interest. Iamthebob 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Human creation of Crop circles
Tommy, you keep asking me to show that any crop circles are man made. There is a lot of documentation on crop circle creation, I will link a few sources here for you. You keep asking for "my research", however this is not a scientific question, it is simply a fact of life. Even you admit that some crop circles are man-made. Since we know that most circles are man-made and we have no evidence of any other source for circles, then it is a logical assumption to conclude that all circles are man-made. And it will continue to be a logical assumption until proof of another method is established.


 * No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BTW, are you familair with such notions as non-locality, quantum vacumn, Dirac's Sea, plasmoids, hyperspace and Zero Point Energy? Furthermore, the balls of light have been witnessed by thousands. Of course some of them were illusions, but some of them were not. Tommy Mandel 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't even know what those scientific phrases mean or you wouldn't have brought up the same concept twice with 2 different names. You got the causality rule correct but ignored the requirement that any causal statement must first be falsifiability. This means, in laymans terms, that you can't apply the causality rule to hoaxable theories. Scientists have another tool for these occasions, Occams Razor.
 * BOLS (in relation to crop circles) have been witnessed by less than a dozen people and photographed on 3 occasions. Since most of the witnesses were admitted crop circle creators, I am sure they would never try tricking the gullible. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bols have been witnessed by so many people they take them for granted. they have been videotaped. On one occasion the video shows a BoL hovering over a circle then veering off towartd a farmer on a tractor and as it passes over him, the video shows himj moving his head to follow it. In another a video a hawk is seen diving toward a BoL and as it come near it quickly moves away. BoL have been witnessed all over the world by thousands, and they even show up in NASA videos.


 * Falsifiablity means that a statement must be in p[rinciple testable in order to be considered scientific. Because, as Popper puts it, proving that 99% of the circles are man made does not prove that the other one persent is also man made. Therefore, he posits that it is better to try and falsify the theory, try and prove it wrong. If manmade circles were a theory, all we would need is one instance to prove that statement wrong. There is much evidence that some characteristics of circles could not have been made by man, such as crystalization of clay, changes in nodes, radiation levels, electromagnetic effects and more. Interestingly, electromagnetic effects have been found in hoaxed circles too which leads to a question, not a conclusion.

Why would you think that the same concept cannot have different names? The different names come from different people observing the same concept but in different contexts. The ZPE has to do with electromagnetic fields, non-locality is a fact proven first by Bell's Theorem and then confirmed by Aspects experiments and since then by (maybe) hundreds. The quantum vacumn is a general term denoting the existence of energy at the quantum level, and Dirac's sea was postulated to account for virtual particles which pop uo out of nowhere. Hyperspace is a term coined to describe all of them in one word. What all of those mean is that there is more than just the classical view of nature which is way out of date. Tommy Mandel 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, according to the old Newtonian physics, a ball of plasma is impossible simply because there is no visible source of energy to sustain it. Thus, in the Newtonian old physics, a ball of light is not plausible. BUT, because the quantum view does have an energy source "inside" empty space, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a ball of plasma to exist. There is no dounbt in my mind that the balls of light are actually balls of plasma. The question remains, however, who or what is "controlling" them. Tommy Mandel 23:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BBC news article on Matthew Williams, about his film Crop circle secrets revealed, which includes video of over 20 crop circles being created by men. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2310127.stm


 * Constitutes proof that "some" were manmade, not all.Tommy Mandel 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Prove that 1 was not man-made and you have yourself an argument. My contention is not the one in need of proof here. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If your contention is that all circles were man made, then you need to prove that. My contention is that not all circles were made by the hand of man (mechanically) aned I submit as proof the Stonehedge Julia Set circle. The proof is that several people testify that it occured within 45 minutes. A pilot and crop circle researcher who flew over Stonehedge without seeing anything unusual, but when the researcher was driving by a few minutes later, the cars were backed up. The guards at stonehedge who testify that on their normal rounds it wasn't there and the next round it was there. That places it within a window of fifteen minutes. The hoaxers claim that the hill slopes down so it would be hard to see it, but that statement is a lie because the hill slopes up and it could be clearly seen from Stonehedge. Dickenson claims to have made it, but when Hasehoff questioned him (or looked at his testimony, Dickenson said that the center of the three arcs were located within the center circle when in fact they are not. I understand that Dickenson has since admitted he didn't make the circle.

Tommy Mandel 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Matt Ridley writes about his investigations of crop circles for Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00038B16-ED5F-1D29-97CA809EC588EEDF . He believes that all circles are man-made after easily creating his own and fooling the experts.

Sorry, I do not trust the media...Tommy Mandel 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You get 90% of your little cut-n-paste spams from UFO fan-zines and you don't trust the "media"? This is Scientific American BTW. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't read UFO fanzines or even do research on them. What knowledge I have about UFO's is accidental. Perhaps one day I shall research them.

Tommy Mandel 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Article by a crop circle researcher who is disillusioned after realizing she has been tricked by other researchers who were actually making all of the circles she was investigating.

She was a croppie, not a serious researcher.Tommy Mandel 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a croppie, therefore I can ignore everything you say? Really she is quite credible. And has letters from the creators. She can account for 90% of the crop circles in a single summer. Why would she lie? She was a believer. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html. In fact please check out the NHNE's entire section on crop circles, this is from a believers magazine, and they conclude that crop circles are man-made.

Some or all? unsigned by tommy
 * ALL. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.circlemakers.org Obviously.
 * Here is a funny one. Crop circle creation contest from the BBC, viewers sent in complex designs (made with chia grow kits) and the winner's design, "mysteriously appeared" in a field. http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/moonraking/gyo_crop_circle_full_scale.shtml . I guess BOLS watch bbc.

I could go on and on but I think I have made my point. Occams razor and all... -- Dark fred Talk to me 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 Here are a few more links regarding topics that have come up in previous conversations.
 * http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html . W.C Levengood's "historical crop circle research" is thoroughly destroyed in this analysis by Joe Nickell, for many of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Including the subjective, uncontrolled measurements and expected error ranges being higher than the differences he claims show paranormal activity.


 * I read the report. The author claims that the experiments were not subjected to a double blind protocol. Therefore, the reasoning goes, experimenter bias may be involved. Well, Hasehoff did his testing with a computer measuring software program, and the mesurement were so precise that he was able to show that the source of energy was a point above the circles. Nickell did not "thoroughly destroy" Leavengood's findings whatsoever. In fact the only claim which he could not replicate was germination rates. However I have seen the comparison photographs and it is clear that there is a difference. Tommy Mandel 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you did not read the report. Either of them in fact. Levengood did not measure using a computer, he used a computer to do the statistics, the plants positions were measured in the field, by hand at random locations. There was operator bias, selection bias, external conditions bias (air moisture can move or expand a plant stem by 50%) Also, Levengood is not a plant biologist or he would know germination is completely random. He didn't even have enough samples to plot a bell curve. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you have a double blind trial when you are testing organisms that don't care what effects they inflict on your trial. Double blind is ONLY used to remove the bias caused by the researchers themselves, usually in medical environments where the scientist may be influenced for personal reasons - for example, knowing the test substance works well on a cancer that is affecting a child who will die if he/she is given the control substance which will have no effect at all on the cancer. It protects the integrity of the trial from bias making both the subject receiving and researcher administering the dose blind to whether or not the subject receives the test substance or the control. Double blind is not applicable in trials on plants as the plant is not going to be influenced by any wish to receive the test substance or the control and indeed won't react out of character no matter what it receives so it cannot screw up your results with personal preference. 81.110.125.223 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Leavengood is a biophysicist. In one of his reports he shows a random growth rate, while the samples selected from the circle were all the same. Air moisture may expand a stem but it will do it all around, and not on one side.Tommy Mandel 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In Nickell, J. "Crop Circle Mania Wanes" in Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 1995, p. 41. Nickell presents evidence that the mandelbrot set was hoaxed (obviously) and also pictures of crop circle creators launching BOLs (flash light illuminated balloons), photographs of which quickly appeared online with paranormal accounts. You can find the article online through http://www.findarticles.com although the photos are not included, you will have to visit your local library.


 * What makes you think that because someone can create the illusion of a bol, therefore all bols are faked? unsigned by tommy
 * What makes you think they aren't? You have no evidence, no theory, no science and no reasons for them to exist. You have your blind faith, I have my physical demonstrations. Personally the later makes more sense to me. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know anything about plasma? Plasmoids? ZPE? Maxwell's quaternions? Plasma is the fourth state of matter, the other three being solids, liquids and gases. Plasma is composed of disassociated atoms, ions and electrons coexisting but separate from each other. 99% of the Universe is made of plasma. Plasma balls are seen coming from earthquake fissures, but one would regularily appear from the contacts of a submarine battery and then float down the passageway. A plasma ball was seen on an airplane, floating down the aisle. Plasmoids are produced in the laboratory and some claim extra energy can be shown to exist in/with/from them. See Morley B King. . Plasma balls can exist because their source of energy comes from "inside" space (my word) just like all atomic particles exist because they have an energy source called by Puthoff (1987) the ZPF. We exist because there is indeed an energy source that is not to be found in the ordinary dimensions. My primary interest with crop circles is not the circle, but the balls of plasma that make some of them. Even the hoaxers admit they have seen them. Hasehoff states balls of light are a scientific fact given that they have been seen so often and they have been written up in the scientific literature. I "believe" that the balls of light everyone talks about are balls of plasma. Tommy Mandel 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy these. -- Dark fred Talk to me 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you have produced evidence, or at least opinions, that some circles have been made by man, Some does not equate to all.

I have never said, and I do not believe, that all crop circles are not made by man. I fully agree with whomever that some crop cirles are indeed made by man. In some cases it is quite obvious given the errors etc. And it appears that some circles were made without errors by the hand of man. I am not arguing that all circles are not made by man. The evidence you produce proves, and I say that with tongue in cheek, granting you the proof, proves that "some" crop circles are indeed made by man. I never doubted that. What is interesting is that even those who have created those circles themselves talk about "paranormal" (correct word is anomalous)events connected with their work. For example, the additions of circles in the morning after they were finished...To me, that is proof of something strange is going on. After all, only they knew where they were and what they were up to, and yet, within a short period of time, new circles appeared which they say they did not do. How do you explain that? "Oh, they were up all night and tired and they were so tired that they forgot they had themselves created the estra circles." I am sorry that a lady was disappointed to find out that the 1998 circles were made by a team of men. Any spiritualist worth his salt will tell you that the truth is not found anywhere outside. And of course the strange things happening to her stopped when she stopped believing in them. That's how it works. If the mind is not open to something, if it already has a preconceived notion of whatever, that is what happens to it. Very simple. We place the limits on ourselves, ourselves. So your evidence is not evidence that all crop circles have been made by man. It is evidence that some crop circles were made by man. I know that. But I also know that there are fgeatures of some crop circles that could not be made by man. I know this because I know enough about science, and how the world works, to be able to tell the difference between real and imagined. The controversy is not about which circle is real or not, the controversy is about who did it. The assumption that is being made is that if man didn't make it, the only thing left are the aliens. So the alternatives boils down to aliens or man. That is what the controversy is about. But guess what, we don';t need aliens. There is enoough strange things going on that it is plausible that we could be doing the circles simply by imagining them. Maybe it is not that simple, but in principle, the human race has the potential capability to harness the energies of the ZPE, and by means of non-local modulations, impress upon the physical a form at a different location. I have no idea about how one could control a ball of plasma. But I do not doubt that it can be done. Either way, aliens or a higher intelligence are responsible for at least some of the circles. The sages have talked for millenias about tapping into the resonance of the universe, I do that myself. I myself have been able to move the universe in nonordinary ways. Specifically synchronicity is something I am quite familair with. So I know there is more going on that we are taught in high school. My interest in crop circles is not who is making them, but how they are made. From the evidence I have read about, it appears that they are made by balls of plasma. plasma is a manifestation of the inside of space. I call it inside of space because the scientists have a dozens different names for it - each one particular to its application as we see it. All of them talking about something they found in empty space, inside empty space. I am convinced that at least one circle was not made bgy man, a picture if it can be viewed at http://www.fixall.org/cerealology/windmillhill_03.jpg What convinced me was not how the circle was made, I recall rading that it was not seen in the morning flight but was seen in the afternoon flight, although I have never read that again. WEhat convinced me was the interference pattern the details of the circle made on my monitor. THe pixels blended in with the pattern and it was very clear to me that the pattern was "picture perfect." The circle is perfect and could only have been made all at once. It was that picture that prompted me to go to the book store. Only then I found that there are more picture perfect circles.

Proof of some is not evidence of all...

Tommy Mandel 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommy You have again completely missed the point. You have yet to produce ANY evidence of non-human created circles. Your blind faith and gut-feeling that some are not man made is not enough for an encyclopedia. We deal in facts not dogma.


 * Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants


 * W. C. Levengood


 * Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363.


 * "Crop formations consist of geometrically organized regions ranging from 2 to 80 m diameter, in which the plants (primarily grain crops) are flattened in a horizontal position. Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes. Near the soil surface the curved stems often form complex swirls with 'vortex' type patterns. In the present paper. evidence is presented which indicates that structural and cellular alterations take place in plants exposed within the confines of the 'circle' type formations. differences which were determined to be statistically significant when compared with control plants taken outside the formations. These transformations were manifested at the macroscopic level as abnormal nodal swelling. gross malformations during embryogenesis, and charred epidermal tissue. Significant changes in seed germination and development were found. and at the microscopic level differences were observed in cell wall pit structures. Affected plants also have characteristics suggesting the involvement of transient high temperatures."


 * Tommy, I am not trying to convince you. I really don't care how crazy you are. I just resent your claim that no evidence of human crop circles has ever been cited here. -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make myself clearer, I believe that a percentage of crop circles have been man made. Let me repeat that, I believe that a certain percentage of crop circles have been created by the hand of man. Sometimes the evidence is just as clear. But YOU are claiming that ALL circles have been made by the hand of man. You have not presented any evidence to back up your claim. And I am getting tired of your childish insults so knock it off my friend. You do not have any working knowledge of science and of crop circles in particular. If you did you would be willing to argue the specifics but instead you attack me as a person. That tells me that your level of intelligence cannot come up with anything better. Your evidence is hearsay and does not rely on observations. It is not a fact that all circles are man made, it is only your opinion. It is a fact that some circles are made by man, but no logical reasoning equates some with all. Besides it is not up to you or me to come to a conclusion, all we can do is present the facts. You refuse to present any observation which does not jibe with your conclusion. And then you turn around and claim I am making dogma. I caught you in an outright lie buddy, so now is the time to knock it off.

Tommy Mandel 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, does there exist a scientific paper, following the scientifc method, with replicated results, published on this subject?


 * Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363. Tommy Mandel 22:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

While the discussion of the non-manmade nature of crop circles are interesting, it would be a much stronger argument if there was actual scientific evidence, not just what someone (or 100 people) says is "scientific". See Pseudoscience, Falsifiability, Occam's razor, Reproducibility, Peer review, and Argument from ignorance. Iamthebob 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are several papers published by Leavengood and BLT has at lest written several papers.But I think the best paper of all has been written n the form of a book by E. Haselhoff. Haselhoof is a practicing physicist, the senior scientist as a medical imaging company. He got his Phd by writting his desertation on lasers. He has worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory. His report is called the Deepening COmplexity of Crop Circles. Subtitled Scientific Research and Urban Legends. It is from that published paper I am taking my data from in the above listing of "Science of Crop Circles."


 * Oh yeah, Tommy, can you clarify the "picture perfect" argument? Iamthebob 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I never paid attention to crop circles. I just ignored them. Then one day I saw a picture of the 2002 windmill crop circle. The resolution of my monitor and printer was such that there was an interference pattern impressed on the picture. There was an intrinsic grain on the screen, and the fine divisions of the crop circle visually interacted with this screen. From that, I could see that all parts of the picture were "perfect", i.e., identical. Picturee perfect, as if it were drawn by a computer. In other words a computer would not draw a better picture. I got the picture from the Internet, but I got the book from the bookstore, There's an interesting story, I was under the impression that a pilot said he didn't see the circle in the morning but did see it in the evening. I haven't heard a confirmation of that so I may have got it confused with some other circle. Tommy Mandel 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will sum up the last month of spam, Tommy has presented 1 scientific paper. It was published in a non-reviewed pay for publish journal. It basically argued that plant stems looked different in crop circles. Other than that we have a ton of anecdotal evidence which tommy presents as research. Some of these "researchers" are also know crop circle creators. I loved the picture perfect argument, especially with the obvious holes in the edges from the tractor lines. I did mention occams razor and falsifiability above, in a move never before used by paranormal advocates tommy turned the falsifiability requirement around. I was so astounded by his logic that I completely gave up on science. It was so profound that when I woke up this morning crop circles were shaved in my chest hair. (as per tommys argument that belief creates reality). -- Dark fred Talk to me 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can believe reality and you can create reality.

Tommy Mandel 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not presented anything, what I am presenting is a reputable scientists findings. It is a fact that he is presenting this information. I haven't learned how to do citations, etc yet, so the listing is incomplete in that regard. Also I am doing a little more research rather than just assume my memory serves me right. Tommy Mandel 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I ask for a specific paper made by this "reputable scientist"? Iamthebob 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363. Abstract Crop formations consist of geometrically organized regions ranging from 2 to 80 m diameter, in which the plants (primarily grain crops) are flattened in a horizontal position. Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes. Near the soil surface the curved stems often form complex swirls with 'vortex' type patterns. In the present paper. evidence is presented which indicates that structural and cellular alterations take place in plants exposed within the confines of the 'circle' type formations. differences which were determined to be statistically significant when compared with control plants taken outside the formations. These transformations were manifested at the macroscopic level as abnormal nodal swelling. gross malformations during embryogenesis, and charred epidermal tissue. Significant changes in seed germination and development were found. and at the microscopic level differences were observed in cell wall pit structures. Affected plants also have characteristics suggesting the involvement of transient high temperatures.

Tommy Mandel 21:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to the full article? I can't seem to find it, sorry. Interesting though, but I would like to read the whole thing first. Iamthebob 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find the article online at www.bltresearch.com . The site is run by nancy Talbott a UFO nut and UFO convention speaker. The article was published in a pay-for-publish journal without peer review. There was not even a proper control group and the findings amounted to a minor difference in lengths of stems. between two seperate crops (at differnt growth times). See http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html for a thorough debunking of levengood's paper. Tommy already knows that this paper is not acceptable under the wikipedia reference rules, he just doesn't have any other evidence, thats why he keeps mentioning it without enough information for you to find it. And the lamest thing is that the article really says nothing about hoax vs real cause levelgood doesn't even try to prove which crop is which. -- Dark fred Talk to me 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How you know that
Tommy if you claim that not all circals were made by humans then it is also a claim from you. It is possible with the technology may be not visible to us at the moment that enables us as Humans to creat such circals, the purpose may be to creat a myth or atleast a story to cover something else. I hope your knowledte is far more deep then me, and you have worked alot on this subject and I appreciated that, however, I assume some time that there are some weapon systems that were placed or atleast suggested to be in Space for some obvious reasons, can be used to creats some of these detailed circlas. The technology may be the result of reversed enginering. I think this possiblity is more likely then to think that Alliens may have created some of these Circlas. Why, what sence it make when they travel far far to us and creat some circals, I think they may do something else rather just creating some circals. If they want to get our attention, there are other ways to get attentions. phippi46 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of aliens, although I think it is obvious that we are not the only ones in this Universe. I would bet that there is an earth like ours in every spirial galaxy. And certainly there could very well be civilizations a million years ahead of us. What do they know? I doubt that the military is involved using a reverse engineered cloaked antigravity propelled ship, at ground level or higher up. What they do is top secret and they would not draw attention to themselves. I think if it were aliens they would be a little more communicative. But then would they be allowed to make contact? Would you?

I don't know if the government is covering it all up. It is scary to think that, like who are they to think for us? I'm afraid that the evidence that I have heard is tilted toward, well, toward what? What are UFO's? Have you noticed that hardly ever is a "ship" mentioned. And in the couple times that a ship was described, it was black, that is, unseeable. What I hear about are lights. Airplane pilots describe lights following them across the North pole. Air controllers describe radar sightings. Military guards describe lights, and flight officers describe missile shutdowns. Twice.

My primary interest is plasma. The Sun is a plasma star. All stars are plasma, that is, superheated balls of ions and electrons flowing or coexisting together. I believe, my theory, that plasma derives it's energy from what I call the inside of space. If you want the technical term it is called the fifth dimension or in old terms the Aether. Hyperspace, a name coined to describe all the various names of the same thing, is not a theory. It is an experimental fact which was discovered utilizing quantum mechanics. You see, things are not all like they have been described. That is why quantum mechanics came about, it was needed to explain the anomalous discoveries. Over one hundred years ago I might add. They have also discovered what they call non-locality. Non-locality, considered a fact of science, means that two photons, if they emerged together, remain together, they act like they are together, even when they are on opposite sides of the Universe. In other words distance does not separate them. They are a single entity and stay that way. Google Quantum entanglement. At the quantum level everything is one.

Did you ever wonder why an atom can go on forever? They tried to find out how long a proton exists for, longer than they could suppose. How does it do that? An electron has magnetic moment, it is moving. How does it move forever? Perpetual motion? Yeah right. I asked that question on a list suggesting that there is an energy source for the atom "inside" space, and guess who replied but Hal Puthoff, who said, it is as you say Tom.

His paper on this was written in 1987. One of the terms used to describe this inside of empty space is ZPE. You see, they measure an energy at absolute zero, when there should be no energy hence Zero point energy or ZPE. The ZPE is actually that aspect which has to do with electromagnetic fields. Others looking at other stuff will have a different name for it. There are hundreds of names, leading everyone to think there are hundreds of things. There is just one wearing a hundred different hats.

The "lights" that everyone is seeing is plasma. Plasma is very hot, so hot it looks like light. It would be a simple affair to create all the anomalous events found in a genuine crop circle with a ball of plasma. All you need to do is control it, location and speed, according to a predetermined computer program and it would be able to doo everything that we talk about. Because plasma is very magnetic, it would create the magnetic fields. Because plasma is very hot it would heat the nodes of the plant. On one side anyway. Plasma would dry out the soil, change the crystalization factor of clay, even melt iron onto the plants. It would leave behind a residual magnetic field. I don't know how batteries are drained. Maybe it's the Lithium Ion thing. All of this is possible in principle.

I monitor a list on which the top people in physics talk about this mathematically. I don't understand the mathematics, but they are trying to develop a means of "surfing the ZPE" a kind of warp drive. As far as I know they haven't even worked out the mathematics let alone actually come up with a working model. Reverse engineering? That would do it. Meanwhile, all those UFO's are lights. The lights are balls of light. Balls of light is plasma.

I have no idea who is behind them. I recently read that it could be the collective consciousness of man that is behind all this. That would explain those instances of thinking of a design and then it appears. But collective does not mean detail.

What is obvious to me is the persistent appearance of the triangle. The triangle is archetypal, it is all over the place. But not to the Western mind... I don't know. I hope I live long enough to find ou what is really going on. Tommy Mandel 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good, you touched pretty much all the bases. Zero-point energy, collective consciousness, aether, good old Putoff, a mention of quantum mechanics and a dismissive mention of "the Western mind" (didn't the Western mind develop quantum mechanics - but I digress). Hmmmmm; you forgot Tesla, surely you can drag Tesla in there somewhere. Whip up another 5,000 words and you can sell it as a pamphlet in New Age stores, alongside the razor-sharpening pyramids. - DavidWBrooks 11:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I come from the Eastern tradition, don't know about Tesla yet and since my research was before the new age stuff, I don't know what that is either. What is it about Tesla that makes the plasmaologists talk about him all the time? And what is the new age? I don't pay much attention to Western interpretations of Eastern philosophy, except for Quantum philosophy. From quantum science I went to general systems theory and from that I somehow moved to plasma. My primary interest is the balls of light. Haselhoff says because of their numerous sightings and iclusion in two peer reviewed ournals, the balls of light can legitimitly be considered a scientific fact. I think they are plasma balls.

Tommy Mandel 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tommy brightens my day every morning when I read his posts. As it becomes clearer and clearer where he gets his ideas it just boggles my mind. I initially thought it was purposeful trolling. But no troll would undermine his own case like tommy has done in the last 2 days, by bringing out all crazy guns at once. It seems possible to believe EVERYTHING, regardless of understanding. I love how the human mind works. Perhaps we are living in a dream, and I am simply limiting my own reality by not being crazy. Or perhaps its friday. -- Dark fred Talk to me 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Tommy, I take from your writings that you do have proov when you use words like, believ, pls dont forget that all the concept you mentioned above are still theories, and nothing concrete. phippi46 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what proof means to you, scientifically, I have read, it means "to convince" I have tried to learn how to make proofs in mathematics, They start with the axioms which are assumptions, or something accepted as true without proof. Two comes after one, for example. And then there is a premise. Using the axioms, the premise can be acted on and if shown to be true, becomes a theorem. I think that is how it goes. A scientific theory seems to very similar. First there has to be assumptions or statements which are accepted without proof as true. The Theory framework/worldview. Then there is a hypothesis which is a statement, and then there is the test/observation, and if true becomes a fact.

If I say I believe then I mean I do not know. If I knew I wouldn't have to believe. I know you are going to ask me how do I know I am knowing? I know that because you are open and honest and asking the right questions. I know that you want to know. So I will tell you.


 * "The sound of one hand clapping"

is a Zen Koan which is not to be analyzed, rather it is an instruction. The Western mind, so say the sages writing in the East, will not understand this Koan, looking instead for some logical description and not finding that, dismiss it entirely. The Eastern wriings talk about the concept, Get it?

Our thoughts, our inner reality, are concepts we have created with our mind. Every idea we have is a particularization of the whole, an "abstraction" Korzybski said. The Westerner mind would understand "The map is not the Territory I would hope." So it is all a dream that we all made up.

To know is to do. Knowing is doing. Doing is knowing. You know what I mean, you said you like to be creative. It is in this sense that our concepts, what we think about the world, our dreaming, is not real. They are only concepts, ideas, thoughts, formulas which have the interesting property of being able to be given to another. But the word is not the thing.

What is concrete is what is happening Now. What is concrete is what I can do. If I can take a stick and measure the length of a node on one side, and measure it on the other side and compare the measurements side by side, I know something. If I repeat the measurement but on a node taken elsewhere, I can know if they are different or if they are the same. I can know the difference between a plant bent at an elongated node and a plant with a broken stem.

That is why Einstein said the observation determines the theory and not the other way around. Korzybski said that sane science is to reverse the reversal of abstract first, observe second to the more sane position of observe first, then abstract.

So what I am trying to do here is present those "observations" that have been made and published n the literature.

"They" have "observed" Bent nodes. magnetics changes, dry soil, extreme precision, intricate interlacing and weaving, nitrates, clay crystalization, short lived radiation, swift construction, together typically in some crop circles. In some crop circles none of these are observed.

Tommy Mandel 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for humans to creat these Circals or not ? if we just see the facts then the answer will be Yes.. the humans are capable of doing that. So, the first avidence is also from humans, yes they have created these circals, and alots of them, you acknlowdge that too. I do not think if Police in NY are not able to solve all murders but 90% of them, then no body suggests that the rest may be the work of some unknown forces, all belief that the rest were also from humans. It is not the question of possiblities but the immediate facts and I see a big cause (humans) doing these things, unless I see otherwise. However, I also think that there may be other possiblities, but still these possiblities are attached with humans one way or another. Can you tell me, that if some body gave you alot of money and time and ask you to use ur capabalities and find a way to creat crop circal in a way that other dont get any clue. Will you be able to do that.. Are you capable of doing that ? It is a simple yes or no answer. phippi46 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, first I say that some circles could not have been made by humans, then I say that some circles could have been made by a collective consciousness and we are back to humans again. "Are circle smades by humans or not?" Humans do not make circles with the observations I outlined above. They are getting better at it, but some crop circles always were made perfect. To answer your question, No, given all the technology I know of, I would not have the capability of creating the elongated and burst nodes which has been shown to be is bending the plant. No human has replicated that event. I would not be able to melt metal into the plant. I would not be able to leave a single stalk standing in every square foot of a three circle formation. I would not be able to change the cellular structure of the plant. I would be able to change the clay in the soil.

But if I had a ball of plasma and a way to move it around in a circle I would be able to create all the observed effects. The big question is not if the balls of light that are seen are actually oplasma balls, the question is who or what is controlling them. The theories brought forward are interesting to say the least.

I do not know who or what is making what is usually called a genuine crop circle. I know the data is not consistent with the theory that ALL crop circles have been mechanically created by the hand of man. The data is consistent with the theory that some crop circles were not made by mechanical means in the hands of man. The wealth of observations belongs in this camp. Just as Dr. Haselhoff concludes, "Something strange is going on."

If the hoaxers were for real they wouldn't hesitate a minute to show you their stuff.. And the ones they did show off did not equal what has become expected of a good crop circle. Occam's razor would ask that the circlemakers demonstrate their skills. Simple as that. Add no hypothesis, show me.

Tommy Mandel 02:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tommy, Plasma is a fourth form of super energetic matter. Plasma would destroy anything that came near it in a ball of fire. It would scorch the crops and annilite everything in its path. That is what plasma is. Please stop using the scientific term "Plasma" for whatever the hell you are talking about. Whatever it is it is not plasma. Even ball lightning destroys everything in its path. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? -- Dark fred Talk to me 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This just in, by Fredie SIlva, a researcher. Can be included as quote. "No hoaxed crop circle has ever produced the singlemost characteristic associated with the genuine phenomenon: plants whose stems are bent, not broken. Other anomalies include alteration in the crystalline structure of the plants themselves, also unfakable, and alterations of the local electromagnetic field There is the ability of the plants to grow after being laid, indicating they are alive and have not been trampled; possible alterations in soil chemical composition; distorted and more rapidly germinating seeds; and severe loss of groundwater, just to mention a few."

Why Tommy then there is a secret, there is myth type of situation, if we assume your "Ball" theory, then who ever controlling those balls, are not visible, they dont like to talk, they dont want to come forward, clear in sun shine and let us make photos or videos, while they were creating these crop circals, it is just not out there. Why there is so secret about it.. The only thing, I can assume, may be the are afraid from us .. phippi46 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Phippi46. How do we know the "Ball" theory works if we can't get it to be duplicated? And why doesn't the plasma destroy anything that comes near it? Why will it knock down crops? Why does it exist? I hope the answer is somewhere in a scientific journal or from another reputable source. Iamthebob 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Making strange claims
Here is a short story from Carl Sagan, one of the wisest men to walk the earth. Once you have read it you will have a better understanding of scientific method than most highschoolers in this country. http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html, it explains through allegory and without naming them the concepts of falsifiability and occams razor. -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting Carl Sagan: "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so." Tommy Mandel 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)
 * Are you agreeing with me or being sarcastic? If belief is all you base this on then why are you even here arguing about science? This is the whole point of the falsifiability. If logic cannot be applied to prove it then it must be inherantly illogical.


 * I am being sarcastic using your own words...incidently, logic is limited, in time for example. It is a step by step process whereas reality happens all at one. Tommy Mandel 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words, if you cannot prove that something actually changes the world in some way, it might as well not exist.


 * The Logical Positivists thought about that a while back. Actually, a scientist cannot say anything about something that he cannot detect. This nondetection does not mean that there is nothing there to detect. Try and find a number that detects infinity? You can't, does that mean infinity does not exist? Tommy Mandel 19:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of like your claimed supernatural powers over the universe. If you do have this power then give me a sign that I can see right here at my computer. If you can't actually do anything with your powers they might as well not exist. -- Dark fred Talk to me 05:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I already did, but you didn't catch it. It is called Synchronicity. What do you know about that? Hmmmm? Tommy Mandel 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So darkfred, we have two assertions: One that you make is that ALL crop circles are manmade. The assertion that I make is that some crop circle were not made by man. Your assertion is not provable, Even if you found 99% of them manmade, that fact by itself does not prove the remainder are also manmade. My assertion can be tested and thus proved at least in principle. All I need do is find those observation of events that are not mechanically made. All I have to do is prove that one circle was not made mechanically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)


 * No we do not have "two" assertions. We have one fact, that circles can be man-made. And one assertion, by you, that not circles are man-made. Since your assertion appears to be entirely unproven, and the purveyors of your assertion do not seem willing or able to physically test it then you my friend have an invisible dragon.

You are taking the words out of my mouth. How do you do that?Tommy Mandel 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am quite glad that you read the essay actually, I didn't get the impression that I was capable of getting across this concept myself. Carl Sagan puts it well. -- Dark fred Talk to me 05:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You realise that the whole point is that a statement is not scientific unless if it is possible to be disproven. If you cannot disprove a statment, it is an invalid hypothesis under the scientific method. For example, saying that God exists is not scientific because we cannot prove the nonexistence of an omnipotent god (see Flying Spaghetti Monster for a more comic example of this idea). For a similar reason, it is not a valid hypotheis to say that UFOs do/do not exist, since there is no way to disprove this statement (even though proving is easy). Hope this clarifies something. Iamthebob 06:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to further expound your point. The statement that "ALL crop circles are made by men" is disprovable. All we need is proof that one was not human created. Not conjecture or exposition about perfection, PROOF. Therefore the viewpoint currently in the article IS the scientific one. You cannot turn this argument around Tommysun. Arguing that we don't have proof is meaningless if noone has presented said proof yet. This is an argument from ignorance a fundamental logical flaw. -- Dark fred Talk to me 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My statement is ALL crop circles are not made by man. The prove this hypothesis all I need do is present one circle that could not have been made by man.Tommy Mandel 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means PLEASE present this circle you keep talking about, you know the one that could not have been made by man? Since you haven't done this yet we have to assume you can't. Your own logic here. -- Dark fred Talk to me 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I already have submitted my candidate, but after looking into I retract that one. THe testimony on both sides changes from person to poerson and from time to time. Tommy Mandel 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What a Philosphy ! here we are declaring ourselves as Big Philosphers. Hey guys, the question if simple are all crop circals are man made or not. first this thing should be cleared. when you say 90% of them are man made, then there is a good chance that the rest are also.


 * But proof that most are X is not "proof" that the remainer are also....The real question is are ALL crop circles man made? Yes or no. We cannot prove yes, but we can prove no with just one circle. Tommy Mandel 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to make story tasty, we can add Plasama Ball, Alliens, UFO and Government agencies. These are all fiction untill a solid hard rock avidence come up. Why we dont hear or see an allien ship captured on video in day light over and over again to say.. aahaan.. there you are, creating all these stuff, why some humans captured in the night on a video camera creating some of these circals..


 * You are messing it up. No conjecture about "how" or "who else" is being made. "Do not add unnecessary hyypothesis" Einstein said. Again, the hypothesis is that ALL crop circles were made by the hand of man. While this statement cannot be proven, it can be disproven. The sum total of the argument I am making lies in finding one circle that could not have been made by the hand of man. It would then no longer be true that ALL crop circles have been made by the hand of man. Tommy Mandel 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is your error, Tommy. The real question is are ALL crop circles man made? Yes or no. We cannot prove yes, but we can prove no with just one circle. The problem is that you assume that because yes is not proved, no must be true, even though no has not been proved yet (or has it?). Iamthebob 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if all the circals were not man made but a good percentage then I have right to imagine the rest may be created by humans because a good numbers were created by humans. If that was the case for so called "non man made" circals then I could imagin for lets say alliens. I live on this planet and I know the capabilities of humans, i saw them making crop circals, and my logic says that this is your proove. Now any body who actually saw something else can belief it too, but I need solid, day light, repeateable evidence. I am sorry if I say that, but what should I say .. any suggestions phippi46 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not looking good, when I found the actual data on the Stonehedge Julia set, it was fraught with errors on both sides. This is a surprise to me but now I think I may have a sense on what has been going on. Both sides are lieing. No different from everywhere else. http://www.ufologie.net/htm/stonehengejuliaset1996.htm

But at the same time I came across another report. The crop circle "dolphins" was made while a helicopter hovered above witnessed by researcher, the mystery lives on... http://cropcircles.galactic2.net/Sistenytt/AndyBuckleyDolphinFieldReport2004.07.25.htm Tommy Mandel 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, after considering the evidence for a while, I picked the wrong circle to bet on. The key element of the Stonehedge Julia Set Circle was the timing. If it were true that it appeared as "they" say it did, then obviously it could not have been made mechanically. The problem is that they tell different stories and who knows what the real story is. First it was the hoaxers who would lie to us, now the other side lies too. Who can you trust anymore? Over and over I am finding that no one can be trusted and this is just another example. Tommy Mandel 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah investigating these is a pain in the ass, everyone lies. The reason I think is that many of the croppies are actually hoaxers as well. Just like the lady in the article I posted said. So they lie to keep up the mystery. England is much to large for 12-15 people to watch all of the crops every night, how do you think the croppies arrive so fast at the scene. They are either tipped off by the creators or they ARE the creators. -- Dark fred Talk to me 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * oh atleast some body is telling the truth.. it is may be relative to know actually who ? Tommy has his arguments and he belief on them, and you have yours. Problem for readers is still there. How can you guys settle on something which is acceptable to both of you ? any thaughts on that phippi46 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How about an independant investigation team? http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148

They write

Crop Circles : A Field Report of the Howell, Michigan Crop Circle Formation On July 29-31, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence revealing that the Howell Township, Livingston County, Michigan crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.

The team consisted of Jeffrey Wilson, Todd Lemire, and Dr. Charles Lietzau of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana. Arriving at the field on July 29, 2002, we discovered and photographed the presence of several anomalies that cannot be duplicated by hoaxers. Conclusions

Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Howell crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the conclusion that this is an authentic formation. There are other anomalies that were detected in this formation, but until our lab studies are concluded, and we are certain of our findings, we will refrain from reporting those at this time.

More than meets the eye
I am somewhat disillusioned, not by crop crcles, but the people around them. I am not surprised, I have found this "deception" in all corners of science. I suppose that should be no surprise, given that deception is found everywhere. I wondered how come the interest on the web just wasn't there this year, and maybe even last year too. I seems like everyone is walking away from it.That may not be the smart thing to do. The crop circles in England are not the only crop circles seen. There is one found on a dried up lake bed in Oregon I think, dug into the dried earth, eighteen inches across, four inches deep with beveled edges, the total length of the cuts is thirteen miles. Some guy said he did it with a tiller...There's a perfect circle etched into quarter inch thick ice. Also, proof that man can do it is not proof that man did do it. Tommy Mandel 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, and just that proof that UFO's can do it isn't proof that they did do it. Problem is, there is no proof that UFOs can't do it, because, well, we don't really know much about UFOs, do we? Iamthebob 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about UFO's, but one can't help but see them on the Internet. But you know what? What is being reported all around the world, by pilots, by FAA investigators, by air controllers, are balls of light. Balls of light were seen by thousands in Mexico city. (There seems to be a different story about flying saucers. As if one is true and one is not.) What is consistent across the board, what everyone reports observing are balls of light. From the looks of it, these balls of light are balls of plasma.


 * I think it is safe to say that balls of light are involved with the crop circles. They have been around since the begining and hundreds of reportings have been recorded. Haselhoff says they are in two peer reviewed journals and it is legitimate to regard them as a scientific fact. The balls of light caught on a video by waylay making a crop circle was created by filming a virgin crop scene, then merging it with the crop circle scene. They dodged the two balls of light into the video as the circle appears. Notice how they don't change in size as they make their circuit...On the Internet, however, it is shown as a video of a balls of light making a crop circle. Which is not true. Well, let me put it this way, I saw another video whch shows how the first video was hoaxed.


 * The video that convinvced me, and I haven't actually seen it, just read about it, is the one where a ball of light is hovering above a circle, then it serves off toward the farmer on his tractor appproching the circle. As the balls of light passes over the farmer, the writer said, the farmer is seen twisting his head to follow the Ball of light as it passes over him. I wonder if there actually is such a video mowdays.Tommy Mandel 04:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy a question to you may be not directly related to this topic, but i think it is important to clear the nature of reality its self and also attached with UFOs or with crop circals. How we know that what we see around us is actually "Reality" is ? we talk alot about the facts that we have to proove of disprove existance of crop circals with different prespektives, but tell me when we can answer this question that what around us is reality then all other things are then just "in air" and nothing. suppose you live in 2200 around Hudnred years ahead and this time mankind is able to have massive computing powers, massive data storage capabilities and are able to creat extremely natural looking simulations. How can you proove that you are not in such simulation right now? what gives you idea about reality around you is your reference points, but there is no way to proove what so ever if you are in living in such simulation to tell that you are living in simulations. I give you one example. Sims, this game is good example if you some how give one of its charecter eoungh intelligence and capabilities with lets say massive computing power and ask him, tell me what is your reality.. what will be his answer. Ofcourse he will tell you that this environment in which this charector is living is his reality. My point is we have no way what so ever to claim that we are also living in so called "Reality". Now that is why when ever I say I belief something and let say I am 100% sure.. it is theoritically not correct.. there is no 100%. These are just clues and nothing else. And by the way there are some physicist who actually think like that, Frank Tipler is one of them, now he is correct or not, i dont know but his argument is important. What you say some time that these circals may have been created by some unknown intelligent forces, lets say our little green men may be correct, but there is no way for any way to say with 100%. phippi46 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One would have to study knowledge in a deep way and after doing so might ask the same question you are asking. Western science has not determined what reality is, at least as a consencus, but Eastern philosophy had it down pat thousands of years ago. If one studies Eastern philosophy is the deep way, it becomes very simple, and is aptly expressed by the Zen Koan "Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon." What you believe, what your mind is teling you, is at the ontological level a symbol system. No symbol is the thing it symbolizes. No knowledge is the thing it is knowledge about. To know is to do. Tommy Mandel 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you might ask, is there more than our symbol/conceptualizing system? This is a question that only you can answer, and only by the direct experience will you know the answer. The literature talks about reality in one way as the "here and now". In that sense our symbol system is "outside" this here and now. It takes time to form/express a thought. This is why ceasing those thoughts is so important, when the thoughts stop, only reality remains. To know is to do. Bevause all doing occurs in the now. If it isn't happening now, it isn't happening.

Tommy Mandel 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If balls of light are related to crop circles, how do they make them? How do balls of light exist? Why do they exist? How do we know the video isn't edited (see Patterson-Gimlin film)? How do you know balls of light in the air aren't a scientific phenomen? Also, some other interesting questions: why have most crop circle observations occurred recently? Did balls of light only start appearing a couple of decades ago? Why is it such a coincidence that crop circles began appearing after the two men started making them? Also, consider this quote in the article: "Bower has said that, had it not been for his wife's suspicions, he would have taken the secret to his deathbed, never revealing that it was a hoax." What if there are other ways of making crop circles that the general public doesn't know of? Wouldn't that explain a lot? Iamthebob 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9293?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=sampledn9293

Physicists create great balls of fire 18:13 07 June 2006 NewScientist.com news service Amarendra Swarup
 * Ball lightning – the mysterious slow-moving spheres of light occasionally seen during thunderstorms – has been created in the lab.


 * Glowing ball


 * Most accounts describe a hovering, glowing, ball-like object up to 40 centimetres across, ranging in colour from red to yellow to blue and lasting for several seconds or in rare cases even minutes. Many scientists believe ball lightning is a ball of plasma formed when lightning strikes the ground, but the exact mechanism is unclear despite the many theories proposed.


 * Earlier in 2006, Israeli scientists created plasma balls by using microwaves to vaporise various materials, but Gerd Fussmann and his colleagues used a different approach that they believe comes closer to the natural phenomenon. “It is likely that lightning flashes and water interact to produce ball lightning,” says Fussmann. “We therefore use a short, high-voltage discharge of 5000 volts to vaporise some of the water in a glass tank and create the plasma ball.”

The above article shows that plasma balls can be created in principle. It also indicates the state of the art. A ball of plasma is not a fiery burning furnace vaporizing anything it touches. They sell them in K-Mart for anyone to play with. Plasma is the interplay of negative and magnetic fields. Apparently, even while the plasma exists in free space as opposed to an electrical conductor, it can form boundaries which it will not flow outside of. So there is nothing "exotic" about a ball of plasma, other than man made versions only last a few seconds at most. To create a ball, the frequency of these fields must be very high, such that they would naturally create a small sphere. Heat is a measure of work and in an electrical circuit wattage is dependant on current as well as voltage. So it is simple to have high voltages and small currents. That's why static electricity with a voltage high enough to zap you doesn't kill you. Also, at high frequencies, the flow is outside rather than inside. That's how waveguides work. Now, our balls of light are different from the balls of plasma created by scientists, they are reported to hover and move around and fly off. More than just a couple seconds. Obviously, the question of the sorce of power comes to mind. The scientists inject this energy into the plasma ball. Clearly this is not what is happening with the Balls of Light. Where is the energy we all know must be there coming from? That is the question....Tommy Mandel 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to "A ball of plasma is not a fiery burning furnace vaporizing anything it touches. They sell them in K-Mart for anyone to play with. Plasma is the interplay of negative and magnetic fields." These globes are flourescing gas at incredibly low pressures (nearly vacuum). The amount of energy necessary to light up one of these globes is minor. The amount of energy necessary to light up the regular earths atmosphere at sea level is astronomically higher. Think lightning bolt, welding torch, burning death high. Lightning bolts only last for milliseconds. A similar amount of energy being focused on one location to create earth atmosphere plasma for 10 seconds would vaporize everything close and burn things many feet away. And I mean BURN there is no oxygen in the play plasma globes. Researchers who created this Ball Lightening didn't even do so in earth atmosphere conditions. see Ball Lightning -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (please excuse the hyperbole, I have oversimplified, i encourage you to read up on it)
 * You may say, "But I have seen someone touch a tesla coil arc". They were INSULATED. And the plasma was only a localized arc which lasted for a millisecond. If a tesla coil accidentally arcs to an external ground or is forced by a large conductive element to focus on a single point, then an incredible amount of damage can be done. Usually this will cause a fire or burn damage even before the circuit breaker flips. It also often damages the device. Even small conductive elements in the vicinity of the coil can cause fire and damage to the device. You've mentioned Ball Lightening but most stories of ball lightening end with a fire. How come BOLs do not follow the same rules? A magnetic field strong enough to prevent a BOL from arcing around it would make it impossible for multiple BOLS to exist in the same area. They would either combine at the sum focus or disperse. They would also not tend to stabilize at 4 feet across. Lab produced ball lightening, which is magnetically stabilized, is tiny because of the exponential falloff.  -- Dark fred Talk to me 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there has been a report and pictures too about a ball of light that hit on a mailbox leaving multiple ares of burns. I mention ball lighning only to make the point that it is not a physical anomaly. Obviously I am assuming that certain parameters have been controlled to allow it to do what it does. My point is that we can assume that it exists, and thus move on to the next question of how does it work and who is controlling it. There are circles which I believe could not have been made by man with mechanical means, and there is much reported sightings of balls of light, and I feel safe in assuming there is a connection. I know that balls of plasma exist, and would be consistent with all the evidence. I do not know who or what is moving them around in this precise manner. My intuition is telling me that this is a product of consciousness, but when we approach the boundaries of our consciousness it may be difficult to differentiate between human and otherwise. If I had to make a choice between human and alien cnsciousness, I would sday human consciousness is doing all this. This is not to say that humans are hoaxing all the circles. Tommy Mandel 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Tommy Mandel 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A quote from the Ball lightning article: "A popular hypothesis is that ball lightning is a highly ionized plasma contained by self-generated magnetic fields... This hypothesis is not initially credible. If the gas is highly ionized, and if it is near thermodynamic equilibrium, then it must be very hot." A visible room temperature plasma requires another gas such as neon or hydrogen, and will dissipate quickly with air mixing. It has been suggested that perhaps lightning releases hydrogen from water at the point of impact and also produces a fine airborn clay powder. This has been duplicated in the lab but only lasts for seconds. Since BOLs don't appear after lightening and in wet areas this is an unlikely explanation. -- Dark fred Talk to me 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the place to research cutting edge science? As you well know, it is good for expressing the prevailing point of view. Notice the word "popular" which means a vote was taken...What does "highly ionized" mean? What are self-generated magnetic fields? My understanding is that plasma is composed in part of nucleons minus the electron, how can one highly remove the electron? Magnetic fields do not self-generate, they work with electic fields. Or so says Maxwell's equations. I would agree that plasma balls would be hot, but hot by itself does not equate to work. And what about those earthquake balls of light? Where did you get the idea that balls of light do not occur in wet areas? It has been reported many times that Crop circles occur most often near water. I don't think the balls of light and ball lightning are the same thing either. A neon bulb uses plasma. Obviously a raw ball of plasma would burn up everything, but tune it up, laser like, and the wattage could be controlled/limited. But I digress, this is original research although it has been reported that some think the balls of light are balls of plasma. Tommy Mandel 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy Mandel 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cutting edge science? This is basic physics Tommy. A. Highly may be a misnomer, but plasma by definition is an ionized gas, which by definition is holding a charge. B. Any electrical circuit creates a magnetic field, this is basic physics. C. You keep changing your definition of plasma, first you said it was a magnetic field now you say it is nucleon minus an electron. Plasma is simply ionized gas. This means that it has been excited enough to lose (or gain) an electron. As long as the gas maintains its charge this electron soup will exist. However in the real world recombination would be swift, so a plasma is not stable. At no point would a nucleon get involved (except perhaps in the case of pure hydrogen plasma). If you could create a field with pure nucleons this would be a plasma, however it would steal electrons so rapidly that it would instantly convert back to hydrogen in a real world application.
 * My point is that Plasma does not explain BOLs the only property they share with plasma is glowing. Now balloons with a hand torch illuminating them, that explains BOLs quite thoroughly.-- Dark fred Talk to me 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think one of you is ball of Plasama :-)) Highly motivated and highly ionized .. what you think phippi46 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Plenary Talk by J. Pace VanDevender, Vice President Emeritus of Sandia National Labs, titled "Ball Lightning: New Physics, New Energy Source, or Just Entertainment."

Dr. VanDevender is a Senior Member of the IEEE and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

VanDevender does not consider ball lightning as "just entertainment." He has launched into what he calls "High Risk Research at the Boundary of Denial and Superstition." His interest focuses on "Extreme Ball Lightning." The term "extreme" distinguishes it from ordinary ball lightning, which lasts less than 10 seconds and is benign. Ordinary ball lightning is probably "normal plasma." It is the kind of ball lightning produced in the laboratory. It spontaneously appears in the open-air, closed rooms, aircraft at altitude, and was seen in at least one submarine. It appears before, during or after lightning. About 5% are seen in clear weather.

However, VanDevender distinguished extreme ball lightning (EBL) by the following characteristics: • it glows in air; • it originates from nothing visible; • it lasts between 10 and 1200 seconds; • it floats at about 1 meter/second; • it is lethal or potentially lethal; • it causes significant damage; • it contains energy estimated at 100,000 to 1 billion Joules, far in excess of the energy density attributable to chemicals or electrostatics; • it penetrates walls, glass and metal, generally without leaving a hole; • it induces large currents but is in radial force equilibrium; • it leaves black streaks on corpses without the spasm of electrocution; • it can excavate tons of earth. Tommy Mandel 23:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, there. Tommy Mandel 23:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommy this pretty much proves my point. Crop circles do not have black streaks, fires, burns or trenches dug. Therefore it seems rather obvious that BOLs are not any of these things you keep pasting information about. The facts simply do not fit. You know what fits the facts though, guys with planks, balloons and a video camera. The whole BOL phenomenon is a weird example of two urban legends trying to combine, but the claims of both just don't mesh. -- Dark fred Talk to me 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding me,Tommy Mandel 06:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought -- if these UFOs were trying to get our attention, why do they always put their crop circles in relatively sparsely populated areas? Why not put a crop circle on the lawn of the White House? And as for balls of light, it's extremely easy to replicate them with kites made out of reflective material. All it takes is the proper angle of incidence of the sun's rays, a certain angle of the kite's plane, and any person standing in the right place can see balls of light floating. And yeah, it's surprising how a plasma ball holding 1 billion Joules of energy didn't excavate any farmer's paddy. --Waterchan 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the geometry...
I just went to the book store and found/bought Bert Janssen's book, The hypnotic powers of crop circles". He writes, not about the observations made so far, explaining that many others have done the job, he wants to approach it from the geometry aspect. He says that geometry itself cannot be used to tell if a circle is real or counterfeit, but once authenticity has been established, then the geometry is of the the utmost importance. He goes on to explain how the geometry could be a language and all we need to do is to understand the language. The language of Nature. Tommy Mandel 03:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that I said the language of Nature. We may as well get rid of that nasty question "Who is doing this>" According to Bert, Nature is creating the crop circles. Not by human mechanical means such as the hoaxers use, or by aliens who don't want to talk to us, but by, well, as he puts it, at some point we are one. He adds that some circles have a geometry which a human intelligence might construct. Janssen is a recognized researcher who deserves mention, and therefore it is not original research to discuss his theory. Granting that some circles are counterfeits, even granting that a majority of them are hoaxed, some circles were not made by humans, especially using the tools they carry around with them. Nor were these inexplicable crop circles made by aliens. They were made by us.


 * If he has no means for establishing authenticity, and doesn't refer to existing circles then what the hell is he talking about? More new-age mumbo jumbo. You just paid 20 bucks to buy a book that even the author admits is fantasy speculation. -- Dark fred Talk to me 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Geometry is not new age mumbo jumbo. He does not speculate except in his conclusions, he uses a ruler and compass and he reconstructs the geometry of certain circles. The geometry he is talking about, what is often being called sacred geometry, is merely what geometrical forms do. It has been determined by precise measurements that authentic crop circles are geometrically perfect. There are no mistakes. Not saying that hoaxers haven't gotten better and now can make a circle without mistakes. But the "precision" lack of mistakes was there from the beginning. Tommy Mandel 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy if I ask you can you think any other possiblity other then the BOL to creat these Circals ? why are you so convince on it. I am not against this theory, but is there any other possibilites or not ? phippi46 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A very brief, but intense burst of heat would produce all the observations that have been reported. In fact, placing the plant into a microwave for thirty seconds did reproduce some of the observations. The reports of balls of light come from the beginning of the modern era of crop circles, are are not a recent invention. There are reports of witnesses who say they saw a ball of light creating a circle. It is reasonable to assume that the presence of balls of light, and the presence of crop circles indicate a meaningful relationship. If the ball of light were made of plasma, it would be very hot. If the plasma were a sphere, it could be working at a frequency with a wavelength the size of a ball of light. So far we have not needed any new physics.

Much can be learned at this point. If we assume that the authentic crop circles are made by some kind of light, leaving the kind of light unanswered, we still can study the design. After all, what we are seeing is a design. Tommy Mandel 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * what i know that almost all of the circals were found in "good" shape and were not burned or visible heat deamge to them. I assume that Plasama can burned these plants and also the heat burst. Also is there any research that you may know to try to understand the meaning of these desgins. If some body is making them, try to tell us something, if not then to appreciate his "art" work. phippi46 19:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't matter "how" the circles are being made, perhaps what matters is the design. The circles depict the various ways a triangle is used. A triangle is also found in the archetypal designs. For example the Yin/Yang goes back three thousand years. Note that the Yin/Yang actually takes the form of R(Yin,Yang) = Whole. In other words there are three conceptual elements on one side of the equation. If we consider only conceptual elements without attributing some property to any of them we can find this pattern in every system of knowledge. The search for a Theory of Everything fails not because there is no Theory of Everything, it fails because in order to be scientific, the theory has to be about something in partricular in order to be tested and verified. Looking for a Theory of Everything i the scientific sense would be like looking for a definition of infinity using some number. In my paper which is in press, I talk about a principle of Everything, and beccause there are a finite number of principles governing the infinite number of things, it is possible to find a principle common to all of them. Because we will have to explain the very simple, the principle cannot be more complex than the simplest it will have to explain. The simplest atom consits of a negative electron and a positive proton form the simplest Whole. But while it loks at first like we are talking about TWO elements, we actually mean three because the two have to be in some sort of relationship and thus that relationship is also part of the whole picture. Our knowledge system, especially in the West, ignores this "relationship" because it is not a thing. It is not a noun, instead it is a verb. Because it is a verb, and not a thing, it is easy to assume that it is nothing, so out of sight, out of mind. What we are left with is a dualism, a reality that is intrinsically separate. This dualism is exemplified in Hegels Triad model, Thesis leads to Antithesis leads to Synthesis. If you count the conceptual elements there are three hence "Triad. But notice that the relationship between Thesis and Antithesis is missing and we all know that there must be a relationship in order for synthesis to occur. The synthesis is actually this relationship. If one looks at the esoteric literature, this relationship is easily found. Tommy Mandel 22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes please, apply deconstructionism to crop circle design, that will help make more sense of it. Nothing helps explain a puzzle like turning to invented words and abstract unexplainable concepts. Ironically you've stumbled across my one other pet peeve. You've got to be kidding right? I can't believe this. You must be trolling, a true believer and a deconstructionist!?! Haha its like a pseudo-intellectual bomb, everyone clear the building and empty your minds. -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we cut the discussion forum?
This page is 120 KB long, produced in about a week. Wikipedia isn't a server to host discussion forums - can you guys take this somewhere else? Start a MySpace page or something. - DavidWBrooks 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * lets archive again, I started a while back, see the top of the page. -- Dark fred Talk to me 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did archive disappear?
Seems that a section of the discussion is missing. Where is the archive between April and July? And now someone has appointed himself in charge and our discussion will disappear again?

Adding sections to article
So, hoping no one objects, I will place a new section into the article titled "Reported observations of crop circles world-wide." and a section titled "Reported observations in crop circles." I use the word "reported" because it is impossible to prove every observation and state it as a fact. The fact is that a report was made. We cannot/should not say if what so and so says is true or false, that is not our responsibility, what we can say is what so and so has said. For example:


 * "Some say that all crop circles are made by humans. Colin Andrews researched crop circle made in 1999 and concluded that only eighty percent were made by humans, twenty percent were not made by the traditional mechanical means humans use to create circles."

Tommy Mandel

Are you saying you actually want that added to the article? After admitting that you can't find positive proof for a single non-human created circle? Give it up tommy. BTW: I was not the one who deleted part of the archive, I saw it when it was done, its possible that it got moved to the end of the existing archive, or just not linked. I really don't care since its just more cut-n-paste spam from your favorite web sites. -- Dark fred Talk to me 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it added, I am going to add it. I suggest, darkfred, that you do some research yourself, buy some books and read them. I didn't admit that proof can't be found, I said that the one I choose to be my proof was not consistent and thus a bad example. If you would have read the next entry you would read that a researcher witnessed a crop circle being made while helicopters hovered above. There is a farmer in Wisconsin who looked out his window and saw a crop circle forming before his eyes. That is positive proof if accepted as reported. What I am saying is that his testimony by itself is not proof that he saw it, another independant witness would be required to verify the first one. Just like that ball f light video showing the farmer turn his head as the flew over him. You say it was a balloon lighte by a torch. If you are serious about debunking, you will have to become knowledgable about the subject, looking at it from a level of ignorance of the facts is not reliable and produces absurd allegations. Some of you arguments are absurd/ridiculus and I hope you are not serious about those. You have to know what you are talking about well enough to find the inconsistencies. What was inconsistent about the Julia set was the reported time it occured. That varied all over the place, and right away I saw that the data was not reliable and obviously could not be used as proof. Therefore, again, it is not our responsibility, nor is it yours, to decide for the reader what is the truth. We are obligated to present what has been reported - all of it. The data that you put into the article does not reflect the state of knowledge of crop circle research. It reflects, ironically, the testimony of self-acknowledged liars. Tommy Mandel 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ohh please provide some references for these claims. I and others will continue to revert them as long as you continue to make them up. If you had any references you probably would have provided them by now. It is difficult for me to "read some books and research" stuff that you appear to be just making up. Thank you, -- Dark fred Talk to me 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will include the references as soon as I learn how to do that. My references will be published books, one of which was written by Colin Andrews, who has been researching circles the longest, Freddy Silve whose book is encyclopedic in itself, and E.H. Haselhoff, who is a practicinf physicist. The material I have presented came from those books. I don't have to make anything up, the evidence is adequate.


 * Wikipedia does not include all the wild claims and random bullshit available on the web. There are rules as to what type of references, citations and sources are allowed. Please see WP:REF. Specifically the sections on valid references and verifiability. Your changes so far have not met these requirements and were reverted by others. They will continue to be reverted unless you can provide sources. This is why I continue to ask you for your references. Citing of Urban legends of the type you keep mentioning is rarely allowed unless the legend itself has reached the point of encyclopedic notariety. If you can provide the name of said farmer, and his interviewer then it becomes far more citeable. (although if his interviewer is the weekly world news it still will not be includable see Reliable sources). -- Dark fred Talk to me 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can provide the name of the farmer, http://www.bltresearch.com/eyewitness2.html I didn't, as you say, make it up. References do not, according to wikipolicy, have to be from peer reviewed scientific journals, it only has to be reliable and verifiable in the sense that the reader can go to the source himself. It is not up to you, and violates wikipolicy, to say what is true and what is not true. BTW, where are these reliable and verfiable sources for all the comments made in the article? To be more specific, please provide me with the verifiable source for the statement that "all crop circles were manmade." Tommy Mandel 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ARTICLE INSERTION

Inserting in Article, comments are invited begin here--- Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, one of which is "Crop Circles, Signs of Contact". In 1999, the Rockefeller (sic) family asked Colin to investigate crop circles and report back to them. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, the 80/20 percent comment. has become controversial in itself, disappointing to both sides, and fueling yet another controversy.

Concerning the now famous 80/20 statement, he writes in his book: "Based in our research, I concluded that approximately 80 percent of all the crop circles we investigated in England from 1999 through the year 2000 were manmade. This was one of the most important research findings to date because it cut to the core of what is truly important: the remaining 20 percent of the crop circles showed no sign of human hands." (p154) Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X -30-