TommySun's Evidence page
editIntent to edit Hi, I have read the research on crop circles and intend to add my comments to Wikipedia in accordance with Wikilaw. Is there going to be any problem with doing that? I will be citing scientific sources and I will not end with aliens. For example I will discuss this article found at http://www.bltresearch.com/ohio.htm
Tommy Mandel 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC) My name is Tom Mandel, I am a nobody. However, during the past 34 years I have read a whole-lot of Eastern philosophy, quantum science, general systems theory and complexity science. I created the wholeness seminar 2000 at http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminar.html and was the founding webmaster of isss.org for seven years. I am the chairman of the Primer Group within isss, and our home page is at http://projects.isss.org/Main/Primer You can know me by what I did.
I am not a Wikipedian, I am a researcher who followed a link to Wikipedia. I am a Wikireader. I started at the plasma cosmology page, and tried to correct errors and insert evidence that the big bang was falsified by quantized redshift discovered by Tifft.. Turns out that the big four there are big bang supporters. Not much we can do about that...Still interested in plasma I found crop circles in Wikipedia. I had already researched drop circles and even wrote an essay about the Real crop circles are unreal. They are inexplicable. They have features that cannot be explained by our ordinary physics. But the article in Wikipedia clearly gives the impression that they are all hoaxed. It was written as if the case were closed, all crop circles were hoaxed. End of story.
A good summary of the situation was stated by Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer of Stonehedge fame, in an interview during which he said "...It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside...There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time...It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.
I have tried to build an article section which would include the serious investigations, especially the scientific investigations. This is one of my edits--
A controversy has developed around the question of who are the creators of the crop circles. Some claim that the crop circles are made by causes yet unknown while others claim that crop circles are made by hoaxers. Everyone seems to agree that some of the crop circles are extremely well constructed and incredibly beautiful.
This edit and almost all of the rest have been reverted by Darkfred et al. I do not revert back, I simply edit in another entry, and they simply revert it back out. I've added the dispute tag several times, they revert it back out.
Interestingly, one of my edits did stay in the article, the only one --"Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, including Crop Circles, Signs of Contact. In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin to investigate crop circles. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, 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." [1]
I included this information to make a point that serious investigators are baffled as any honest inquiry of the field will show. Problems arise, however, when one speculates who or what are making the circles - then it is off to the races with just about every possibility being put out. I have tried to stay away from the speculation, although I go into detail on the talk pages, well, I am into plasma....
What I am attempting to do is include the scientific research, including the results of the serious researchers. Darkfred has thwarted every effort I made, he continually reverts by "scientific investigations" heading, my edit of Dr E.Haselhoff Phd work, my edits og W.C. Levengood, a biophysicist, the BLT organization, a group doing scientific methodology and others. They revert me all the time.
This is what they say-- "As far as real scientists are concerned there is not much question left. All of the techniques used in classic circles have now been demonstrated as human creatable and there remains no real mysteries or unexplainable events. Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people. Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease. However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles.
Please don't give me all the credit, I couldn't have done it alone. Many other hard working editors have also deleted junk you posted. And if you are reading this now, thanks. :) --Darkfred Talk to me 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
First how about not quoting out of context with just the bits you like and instead focusing on the fact that you called me a liar and I just provided the evidence you said I could not. The fact that this proves that researchers and witnesses are creating the circles seems to have just flown in one ear and out the other. How about an apology for your accusations? Or better yet how about just shutting up already. The article provides all the info for or against that people need. Your stupid little POV war is not going to make a difference because you can't possibly remove all of the evidence you disagree with. And you can't seem to provide anything that isn't already referenced in the article. I have had it with your bullshit. You call me a liar repeatedly and I have repeatedly proven you wrong. To the other wikipedia editors I apoligise. I am sorry for the spectacle of this argument. --Darkfred Talk to me 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Current revision (23:40, 13 September 2006) (edit) Darkfred (Talk | contribs) (rv, daily cleansing, ongoing single user pov crusade, see talk page)
I don't really feel like replying to tommysun directly. As they say you can lead a fool to knowledge but you can't make him think. Follow this link and read it if you want the truth. It explains how one researcher found out that the other investigators and their witnesses were actually making the crop circles. It includes a written confession by one small group for 90% of the crop circles made in england in one year. enjoy. http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html --Darkfred Talk to me 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Tommysun
Tommy sun believes that crop circles are made magically by balls of energy created by some universal consciousness. He also believes that he has magic powers and can send messages and move objects from a distance using only his mind.
That's a lie Darkfred. Tommy Mandel 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No actually you can read it right above on this very page. Are you afraid that people will think you are a lunatic? Its probably to late for that now. And please stop ruining my comments by writing inside of them it is very bad etiquette. --Darkfred Talk to me 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
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. - - 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...)
We have arrived at the grand finale: I found a Science News article on a website dated Oct 12 1996. It is about astronomer Gerald Hawkins work with the geometry of the early circles. Darkfred changed the quotes such that it appeared that Hawkins supported the Hoaxer theory. This is how he does it = the text in bold is Darkfreds edit. But in my original article the way it is written is "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry".
Curiously, Hawkins could find no reference to such a theorem in the works of Euclid or in any other book that he consulted. When he challenged readers of Science News and The Mathematics Teacher to come up with his unpublished theorem, given only the four variations, no one reported success.
This past summer, however, "the crop-circle makers . . . showed knowledge of this fifth theorem," Hawkins reports. Among the dozens of circles surreptitiously laid down in the wheat fields of England, at least one pattern fit Hawkins' theorem.
The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.
Hawkins was not able to find any reference to the new theorem or a mention of the other relationships in the works of Euclid or the work of any other text he consulted. Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry". According to the article, "The Hoaxers apparently had the requisite knowledge not only to prove a Euclidean theorem, but also to conceive of an original theorem in the first place. [2] "Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself" [3] Also in Science News, Feb. 1, 1992, Hawkins remarked to mathematician Ivars Peterson that he believed the circles were made by "hoaxers", albeit ones with a remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek mathematics.
You wrote: Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry".
The actual quote said: The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown.
You wrote: According to the article, "The hoaxers apparently had enough knowledge to not only prove Euclidean theorems but also to conceive an original theorem.".
The actual quote said "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments. The article concludes with: " Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.
Nothing in the article mentions the word "hoaxer"
The article mentions hoaxers every time
Scientific investigations
Many researchers have studied the crop circle 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."
TWO
THis is a transcript of the talk pages in the archives that have not been deleted
All active members of Wikimedia projects are invited to vote in the - - : These cereal reverters (bad pun!) should note that an encyclopedia article is not the place for fruitcake nonsense. Consipracy theories deserve nothing more than a cursory mention and possibly one link. To paraphrase The X-Files - "The proof is out there". --Mal 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - - I have warned the guy on his talk page about adding nonsense, he keeps doing it. I am gonna warn again. I donno what we can do, just keep reverting till the troll gives up. He is just deleting anything that doesn't fit his theory references and all. --Darkfred Talk to me 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - - : I've got this article on my watchlist. The guy has no respect for compromise, so I'll be reverting any changes he makes to this article as I cannot be bothered to wade through it all to see if there is anything useful added. --Mal 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - - Well we have 3 or 4 editors consistently reverting his version. This seems like a consensus to me. The fact that he is removing valid information along with his pov changes seems to indicate that he is actually consciously trolling rather than just pov pushing. We could ask for administrative action. His account has not made any non-reverted changes in its history. But ignore and revert works in the long run just as well. --Darkfred Talk to me 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - - : I simply loved this edit comment by our troll here: "Attempt to keep this page factually acurate." It made me laugh! --Mal 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - - Someone is at it again, rather more subtly now though. I am assuming this is in good faith and simply attempting to match their contributions with counter arguments from our existing sources. I may have slightly skewed it skeptical, and the stuff is still located in the wrong section. And the grammar sucks, so feel free to edit me. --Darkfred Talk to me 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) - - : I think your edits are particularly admirable to be honest. I'll maybe look later to see if the newly added stuff belongs in another section. I do think this last edit was an effort to compromise though, so all credit to them too. --Mal 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) - - :: Well the anonymous editor did not like my compromise, in fact they deleted it along this every other section in the article they didn't agree with. I will admit they made a few valid changes to neutralize wording, I will attempt to add these back later. There is just such a mess of changes, most blanking. *sigh* --Darkfred Talk to me 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) - - : To be honest Darkfred, I'm just going to be reverting any edits made to this article I see by non-members of Wiki for the forseeable future. Well - I might check to see if they're useful edits, or edits from people who live in the Twilight Zone! --Mal 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) - - : It seems to me that you could both be inadvertently tilting the article without due consideration to proper evidence. The emphasis on John Lundberg's organisation is disappointing given that there is insufficient evidence to credit him and his associates with the formation of new complex crop formations. There is no evidence to link them with more complex geometric formations such as the Catherine Wheel and other large symmetrical formations. The coverage of crop circle designs in the article is also weak as there have been new complex geometric formations which have occured over the last five years. I suggest a distinction between advertising designs from complex geometric formations. Is it only me that notice the gulf in design complexity or are you guys biased? --Trueffort 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - :: Ohh I will admit I am biased, I have never believed in them, when I was in college we went out and made crop circles ourselves. The geometry of the thing fascinates me, as does the fact that many of the groups insist on leaving extras around to confuse paranormal investigators (we never did this ourselves). There was a time when I was a believer (in UFOs not necessarily crop circles), I really do want to believe, but this issue has pretty much been wrapped up in the press and in books even before the internet came along. --Darkfred Talk to me 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - :::Just for the record, as to your concerns. Most of the webpages only blog about "commercial" circles. For the real high complexity ones like the Julia set you see only Tongue in Cheek references to the methods aliens used to construct them etc. This is kind of a hallmark of the crop circle groups, never take direct credit for official circles. Informally Rod Dickinson is credited with the Mandelbrot and Julia set circles. If you look at the backdrop for circlemakers.com you can see the geometric instructions for one of the most complex circles. So its basically an open secret. --Darkfred Talk to me 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - - :::: Trueffort, "It seems to me that you could both be inadvertently tilting the article" - possibly because we are sticking with known facts, and not concerned with frankly wild speculative theories. As for your assertion that the more complex designs of recent years could not possibly have been made by humans, I put it to you that crop circle design has evolved. I'd also like to let you know that humans have designed rockets capable of taking people to the Moon. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to leave a comment here alluding to the conspiracy theory that man never actually walked on the Moon. --Mal 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - - ==Working on the Article (References)== - - I have made some additions to the design section, I notice that we are not using the inline <ref> system for citation. We should probably convert over. I have made my additions using it, but a </reference> section still needs to be added, and the existing references need to be inlined. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) - - ==Contending beliefs== - Could we get some cites for people who belief the various 'theories'? As it is this section seems a bit too much like a forum where people just add and critique any theory they've heard or dreamed up. WP:Verifiability & Reliable Sources. Not that the individual theories have to be true or likely, but that belief in them is a significant phenomenon. - - Also the word 'pseudoscience' is being used incorrectly to mean 'wrong'. Pseudoscience is a specific way or thinking and/or arguing and is different to religious belief or just believing because you like the idea. Ashmoo 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC) - - What Pseudo science is and why it is used are different things. It is usually used in the service of a personal belief argument, which cannot be proved via real science/fact or logical argument argument. In this Argument from ignorance and Anecdotal evidence are used quite often. Both are logical fallacies and in a broader sense when claims are taken individually demonstratably wrong. So its not a huge leap to go from Pseudoscience to wrong. The term was not invented by Pseudo scientists to describe work they considered correct, they still think of themselves as real scientists. Plus Ceriology (sp) is perfectly defined by pseudo science. Some of these people do literally believe that they are scientifically investigating UFOS. Although this belief is more faith than fact they still do consider themselves scientists. They are labeled pseudo scientists not because they lack scientific methadology but because they have already arrived at a conclusion and seek only evidence which supports it. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) - - : "However, backed by their allies in the media, they set up a false impression to the world which lasts to this day." - - : CATCH A GRIP!!! --Mal 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) - :: You've got a point. Teenagers vandalizing corn fields doesn't sell newspapers does it? (at least no in the UK) Now Ufos and aliens, those move papers. The "media" (in quotes because serious papers don't cover crop circles anymore) is more interested in how to get batboy involved then in disproving the "cereologists". :) ... --Darkfred Talk to me 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Current revision Contents [hide] 1 Hoax discussion 2 critic 3 a good PD image of a crop circle? 4 Hardly NPOV 5 How do you consider these "scientific" facts? 5.1 History 5.2 Distribution 5.3 Perpetrators - Non/super-human? 5.4 Eye/ear Witnesses 5.5 Visible Nodal Changes 5.6 Cellular Changes 5.7 Carbon Blackening 5.8 Germination Changes 5.9 Perimeter Stalks 5.10 Crop Selectivity 5.11 Bent Rape Stems 5.12 Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios 5.13 Time Dilation 5.14 Magnetic Anomalies 5.15 Electro/mechanical Failures 5.16 Photographic Anomalies 5.17 Menstrual Disruption 5.18 Endocrine Effects 5.19 Balls Of Light 5.20 Miracle Cures 5.21 Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs 5.22 Scared Horses & Howling Dogs 5.23 Underground Water 5.24 Intricate Lay 5.25 Radiation Anomalies 5.26 Trilling Noise 5.27 Rapid Daylight Appearance 5.28 Insects Stuck To Crop 5.29 White Substance 6 Article Cleanup 7 US has them, people HERE in the US are... 8 Hoax?? 9 Use of 'Hoax' 10 Ice Circle / Argument against Hoaxes 11 Signs 12 "Conclusions" 13 Investigation 14 NSA Related Topics 15 Intent to edit 16 External links
[edit] Hoax discussion The article seems to dismiss the entire phonomenon as a hoax. While some crop circles most certainly are created by hoaxes, this doesn't seem to the the case with all formations. Some of the formations are much too complex (one had 104 cirles arranged in a complex pattern). It would need a team of dozens of people working in close coordination to achieve it within a single night. Other complex formations have appeared just next to busy highways. It would be virtually impossible for a team to create it without being detected. I'm no easy believer in such phonomenon, but this one really needs more analysis. Anyone who has spent some time in studying this can say that it's not a hoax. - muvu
Exactly. IOf one really studies everything out there, crop circles are inexplicable. The list below is actually a very good summary of what has been found. There is a authentic scientific investigation going on by BLT research. There are verifiable observations of stuff that could not possible be made by the human hand such as crystalization of clays in the soil within a circle. That cannot be faked by any means. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I got the opportunity to see a video that shows how Crop Circles are made. They are made by flying white orbs. Anyone interested?
...Anyone?... anyone?... anyone?... Usually they are called "Balls of Light" or BoL's. From the various descriptions over the years they appear to be plasma balls. The video of a ball of light hovering over a circle and then zooming over to an approaching farmer, mentioned below, on a tractor leaves out the part where as the BoL passes over the farmer, he turns his head to watch it go by...Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- that video is a fake made by a FX studio team .... other non-fake videos exist, showing "balls of light" flying around (one passing in front of a farmer on his tracktor) but no direct relation with the making of the circles.
Some information in this article was obtained from "Crop Circle Confession" Scientific American, August 2002, page 25 --mav 02:11 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Other information in the article has come from visiting a dozen or more crop circles in England and studying the phenomena first hand.--User:217.36.14.132
I just read this from the article and got the biggest laugh of the day.
"One theory is that crop circles are created by flying saucers landing in a farmer's field and flattending(sic) a neat circle of the crop -- however the increasing complexity of formations makes this theory less likely. " ..yeah 'cos extra-terrestrials who have can fly thousands of light years from other planets, would find it really hard to draw geometric patterns other than circles. If crop circles were only circular it would be much more likely that aliens created them. Mintguy 13:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) -see the whole picture by looking at the different repositories of crop circle photos : some are made qith hundreds of circles, some are made qith some "scanline" manner ... Lucy Pringles got some beautifull aerial picture of it.
What would be the advantage to aliens of having such oddly shaped ships? r3m0t 20:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) -irrelevant question : crops are not landing path but more signs for us to see...(interpretation regarding the huge amount of data contained in the designs)
An anonymous IP came by and added a bunch of fairly POV material to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Crop_circle&curid=56206&diff=0&oldid=2786672
Why do you say POV? They are actual observations that were made. Isn't it POV to claim that they all are hoaxes?Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think some of it can be salvaged, and I'll try to come back here and fix it another day, but others are encouraged to take a crack at it. Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 04:45, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
I removed the statement that religious people love conspiracy theories because I think it is not true and because the statement was unreferenced. Please add a reference for this statement before re-adding it. Andries 15:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"This sparked controversy that they were merely trying to confuse the issue and in so doing made crop circles seen as a 'fringe' or 'esoteric' field of research, because the sort of people who have a religious need to believe in things like "crop circles" and loathe Occam's Razor."
does anyone know what the second half of that sentence is trying to say? does it make sense to anyone?
I think it's missing a "they are" after "because". It's probably just your average hard-core atheist's POV. --Ssokolow 07:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [edit] critic this article urgently needs some organization. it's confuse. needs headings, bolds, history.
I would love to do that, but my experience has been such that it might mean going to war with whoever is in charge here. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
== critic critic == pot, kettle, black
Yeah, because we all know ordinary message discussions should be held to the same standards as articles. (Sarcasm) [edit] a good PD image of a crop circle? Does anyone have a good, public domain image of a crop circle that could be displayed as part of this article? - Bevo 21:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can feel free to use any of my pictures from my website, petersorensen.com (there are a couple of hundred going back to 1996). Contact me at croppie2@yahoo.com if you want written permission. All the best, Peter Sorensen
"When the surveys photographed ripening crops or drought-stressed terrain they revealed what were soon termed "crop marks", the differential ripening of the crop that revealed differences in the subsoil caused by the buried remnants of ancient buildings. Archaeological were soon instigated, but, though many previously unsuspected archaeological sites were found, no crop circles were ever recorded."
Archaeological were soon instigated? What does this mean? -- claviola 00:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Archaeological investigations were soon instigated" My bad. Fix him up good now. --Wetman 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Among proponents today, most suggest that there are both natural and hoaxed circles. They suggest that natural ones tend to be simple and seem untouched and seem to have unusual electromagnetic properties and that the hoaxes are more complex and have definite signs of manhandling.
I think that it is incorrect to say that natural crop circles tend to be simple. We have examples of extremely complicated ones.
Varnav 18:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it POV to state that on a certain afternoon, a few hundred yards from Stonehedge, a crop circle consisting of dozens of circles appeared within a time frame of 45 minutes. The guards at Stonehedge said it wasn't there on their rounds, and then it was. Also sen by an airplane pilot,Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hardly NPOV I'm putting npov on this article, since to me the overall tone is an assertion that belief in the authenticity of circles amounts for the most part to unscientific New Age kookery. Not only do I not agree, but this is not at all what I consider NPOV.
Sounds right to e.Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Petrus4 12:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I would consider myself a "believer". (I don't think all Crop Circles were made by man. Although, I'm not about to claim it's aliens.) However, I have to agree that this aricle isn't NPOV. For a start the section named "Hoaxed circles" suggests that some circles aren't hoaxed, which is hardly a proven fact. I don't think this article will be that hard to fix. I might even give it a go myself. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC) I have to say that I think this article leans towards "beliving" not the other way round and I disagree with your last edit. We must maintain a scientific viewpoint, no matter what we persoanlly believe. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC) While the word "unscientific" is technically correct (The alien/other beings hypothesis is untestable), it does bear a huge amount of negative connotation with it. I must say, though, that no matter how you write this entry, if you rely on a factual based way ("Some people believe..." etc.), the circle-making-aliens believers will come off in a negative light.--Jonthegm 18:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC) "Unscientific" in its sense of unprovable or depending upon supernatural forces is not merely "technically" correct, it is perfectly correct and colorlessly neutral at every level of cultural literacy. Any opinions to the contrary are misguided. --Wetman 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC) NPOV doesn't mean that you have to be gullible. Crop circles are a gag, and they were never anything more than that. Would you want an article on three-card Monty to say that it's a "game of chance"? [edit] How do you consider these "scientific" facts? [edit] History Crop circles go back at least to the 1920s, if not beyond (earliest report so far discovered date back to 1590).
So what? People have had boards and rope for millennia. SSo what does that mean?Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [edit] Distribution They occur worldwide (e.g. 1997; USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Nether lands, Belgium, UK).
Again, so what? People see them on TV, see the woo-woos getting all excited about it, and decide to do the gag themselves. So what does that mean?Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it means that people see them on TV, see the woo-woos getting all excited about it, and decide to do the gag themselves. *shrug* --Mal 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I applaud your masterful use of reiterative logic. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Perpetrators - Non/super-human? They have appeared in a field cordoned off by infra—red cameras and motion detectors; no human activity was detected.
citation, please?
[edit] Eye/ear Witnesses At least a dozen people have witnessed formations occurring in front of them. In one case — Vivien & Gary Tomlinson — this was accompanied by an extremely loud noise like “pan—pipes”, which actually perforated Vivien s eardrums.
Twelve people, out of over six thousand million, have claimed to have seen these "formations"? All the while, someone was playing pan pipes? Freaky! --Mal 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I have seen talking Bananas --84.13.246.206 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Visible Nodal Changes Nodes on the stems of plants from a formation often show nodal elongation or enlargement far beyond explicable natural causes, such as phototropism or negative geotropism. Sometimes, large holes or “expulsion cavities” are evident, where moisture has exploded out.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
[edit] Cellular Changes Over 90% of samples from formations studied every year show microscopic pit-holes in the nodal cells, indicating flash heating in a micro-second.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
This could also suggest a severe temperature change in the samples after being taken from the particular location. Strangely enough, over 90% of all crop circles are explained as hoaxes, nothing more. Very difficult to believe we are alone, but as human nature exists, so does the ability to trick one another for selfish reason.
All you need is ONE Tommy Mandel
[edit] Carbon Blackening Some plants in crop formations have been found covered with a thin layer of carbon.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
There was a UK documentary which follow a team of crop circle creators. They mentioned that they often added charcoal and sulfer dust afterwards just to confuse the paranormal "scientists". --Darkfred Talk to me 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Germination Changes Seeds from within a crop formation show marked differences in germination to that of control samples. The germination rate is either vastly increased, or slow and inconsistent, or even refuses to germinate at all.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
Because the seeds originated from different crops and thus were created with different amounts of water and nutrients a test of this kind would be scientifically impossible. Germination is highly dependant on local weather and crop conditions. Even between bags of seed and adjacent plants there is huge varience. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Perimeter Stalks Some stalks are pulled into the flow from beyond the perimeter stalks - this does not happen when the formation is made with boards or rollers.
And sometimes standing stalks are found with flattened stalks all around.
lol these guys are funny! I'm starting to respect crop circle makers more and more! --Mal 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Crop Selectivity It has been observed on several occasions that odd stalks of another crop, or sometimes, other plants, such as thistles, remain standing, while the crop is laid flat.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
[edit] Bent Rape Stems Early UK formations are often in oilseed rape, in which the stems are found to be bent right over. This is an impossible effect to hoax, since rape stems are very brittle. Some samples taken from formations continue bending into a 360 degree curl.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
Done by draggin a soft tarp, one person at each end, weighted at the end with a light board. One person stands still the other moves to form the circle.--Darkfred Talk to me 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios In 1995, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service found an increase in the nitrogen/nitrate ratios inside some formations, but the ADAS department which did the tests was immediately shut down afterwards. This research has since been taken up again by Jim Lyons, who stated in 1998 that the results again showed an increase, and that they would soon be published. (I haven't found them yet).
[edit] Time Dilation 2 separate groups of experiments have been performed showing that clocks inside formations lose or gain time compared to those outside. This could be due to an extreme electromagnetic field contained inside these formations.
One researcher ws watching a tractor approach, he turned around and when he turned back it was several minutes closer. Time warp is often discussed.Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't even have to bother with this one. :) --Darkfred Talk to me 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Magnetic Anomalies Magnetic effects can be seen in some formations using a compass, which can deviate several degrees from true North. If a magnet is dragged round the formation, there will sometimes be iron particles found sticking to it. Also, minute, partially melted particles of meteoritic magnetite have been found in a centrifugally distributed pattern.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
Magnetic compasses don't point to true north! They always deviate by a few degrees and instead point to magnetic north. (although this varies even depending on the local magnetic field). Second point, iron filings, even if not left by the hoaxers to confuse you have an obvious reason for being there. Combine blades have been used over this spot of terrain for 40 years at least. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Electro/mechanical Failures Many electronic gadgets have been found to fail inside crop formations, including cameras, video equipment, power-packs, and tape recorders. They often function perfectly just outside the formation. Several TV crews have picked up severe interference. Mobile phones, if the batteries work, often won’t transmit or receive in the formation. Combine harvesters have also broken down several times while harvesting formations.
Many electronic gadgets have been found to fail outside crop formations, including cameras, video equipment, power-packs, and tape recorders. They often function perfectly just inside the formation. Several TV crews have picked up severe interference. Mobile phones, if the batteries work, often won’t transmit or receive in the formation. Combine harvesters have also broken down several times while harvesting. --Mal 01:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Photographic Anomalies Many photographic anomalies have occurred in formations, but the most inexplicable one shows a ghosting effect in part of the image; the people photographed inside a formation are recorded in 2 images, but in the ghosted one, they have moved relative positions!
Many photographic anomalies have occurred outside formations, many inexplicable ones show a ghosting effect in part of the image; the people photographed outside a formation are recorded in 2 images, but in the ghosted one, they have moved relative positions! [edit] Menstrual Disruption Some formations have caused disruption of the female menstrual cycle, and in some cases, even post- menopausal bleeding following a visit to a crop formation.
Some events other than crop formations have caused disruption of the female menstrual cycle, and in some cases, even post- menopausal bleeding having not ever visited a crop formation. [edit] Endocrine Effects Lucy Pringle has announced the results of a test in which the melatonin levels in 2 subjects had been found to rise significantly after visiting a crop formation. Melatonin is produced in the pineal gland, and has many effects, including pituitary gland output, and thence the hypothalamus, these last 2 in turn, inhibiting gonadal hormone output. This could explain the menstrual effects. Melatonin can also cause elation and REM sleep — the dream states that correspond to theta activity in the brain. There may also be a connection to the magnetic anomalies, since Serena Roney Dougal has found that electro magnetic fields can affect melatonin production.
Wow you mean standing outside all day looking at crop circles can cause Melatonin changes? Who would have thought that standing outside would affect a hormone which is controlled by sun exposure? --Darkfred Talk to me 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Balls Of Light Many people have reported seeing balls of light at night, over crop fields in which new formations are discovered the following day. Several videos have been filmed of balls of light in crop formations, apart from the infamous Oliver’s Castle footage. Even crop-circle hoaxers have admitted encountering ‘flashes of light, pillars of light, and balls of light‘, while out in the crop fields. But then again, they are "hoaxers".
But they never went out to investigate? Perhaps to chase off the college students who were ruining their crops? Too deathly afraid of these balls of like (flashlight beams)? --Darkfred Talk to me 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Miracle Cures Lucy Pringle reports having taken many people with arthritis and rheumatism into the formations, who, she suggests, have subsequently recovered. A woman who had Parkinson’s disease stopped shaking for 24 hours, and one deaf person permanently recovered their hearing.
Many people with arthritis and rheumatism (and other ailments) report having improvments to their health or condition following having drunk water from a particular source, having visited a holy shrine and various other things. --Mal 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) SOURCES!!
[edit] Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs In the 1991-93, in Canada, (in 2 separate events), 2 porcupines were found dead in crop formations. One was blackened and almost disintegrated. The other was squashed flat. (links to dead porcupines and decapitated dogs)
lol ok .. leaving a single blade of a crop standing is one thing.. killing animals is a bit cruel tbh! I wonder what caused these mysterious deaths, menstrual bleeding and, conversely, miracle cures. It doesn't seem to be very consistant, does it? Perhaps its the effect of the aliens' time machines or warp drive signatures left behind by their visits. I wonder if they get sick/miraculously cured on board their spaceships. --Mal 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the "timewarp" cause the poor porcupine to perish of old age? But really I doubt the hoaxers killed them, prolly just picked them up off the side of the road on the way to the crop. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
SOURCES!
[edit] Scared Horses & Howling Dogs Horses have been observed to refuse to go into a crop formation, even while being whipped by a humiliated farmer's wife. Dogs often bark madly the night of a formations arrival. One farmer s dog stopped 15 metres from a fresh formation and howled when its owner went in. On the 2nd day it went down to 10m, on the 3rd day, 5m, and on the 4th day, the dog entered the formation.
Horses have been observed to refuse to go to location x, even while being whipped by a humiliated farmer's wife. Dogs often bark madly. --Mal 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Underground Water According to Glenn Broughton and Steve Page, who have continued research started by Brian Grist., 90% of formations in Southern England lie on aquifers (water-carrying rocks — mainly chalk, limestone and greensand).
Does that 90% include all the known and verified man-made patterns? (as if there are any other type lol!) --Mal 01:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Oh hey - perhaps the people that make the crop circles are under alien influence. --Mal 01:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 99% of england is positioned over limestone and chalk aquifers, I am surprised the number was only 90%. You can dig down 5 feet in most of Southern England and hit water. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Intricate Lay The crop in a genuine formation is often found to be in layers, with each layer swirled in a different direction. Some of the smaller, outlying circles are often found swirled into cones with a hollow in the centre — the stems are woven together like corn dollies. Bundling is another effect, where the crop is twisted into bundles as it is laid down, with the leaves coiling round groups of 4 or 5 stems.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
I didn't realise there were disingenuous formations! They have certainly developed the art extremely well since it was started back in the 70s. --Mal 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Radiation Anomalies The Grasdorf formation in Germany 1992, registered a radiation level 76% above the safe legal limit in German work-places; it dropped back to a lower reading later, which is normally impossible - radiation levels usually stay constant. Michael Hesemann suggested that the Geiger-counter may have been picking up “a hitherto unknown energy”.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
What are the radiation levels in the other ninety million crop circle formations..? Michael Hesemann's equipment may have been acting up.. or he's just seeking his 15 minutes perhaps. --Mal 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Trilling Noise A 5 to 5.2 KHZ buzzing, or “trilling” sound has been heard and recorded in several formations. It was detected by a BBC sound engineer, and recorded on his tape, just before his camera broke down. Although it has been said to be identical to the call of the Grasshopper Warbler, the BBC tape has been analyzed by a NASA specialist, who said it is NOT birdsong. What is more, in the famous Billy Meier UFO case, in 1975—76, Meier had recorded a 5.2 KHZ buzz.
Birds in a corn field? My God call the government! --Darkfred Talk to me 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Rapid Daylight Appearance The “Julia Set”, a fractal pattern of 151 circles that appeared at Stonehenge in July 1996 appeared in broad daylight, between 5.30 p.m. and 6.15 p.m., according to a pilot who flew over the area, and back again 45 minutes later. Two other witnesses — a farm worker, and a security guard at Stonehenge confirmed that there was definitely nothing there earlier in the day.
And despite the fact that a docuemntary of the Hoaxers was shown on BBC the next month people still insist that it was real, it baffles the mind. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Insects Stuck To Crop In some formations, flies have been found stuck to the crop, by their wings, as if the wings have partially melted, or by their tongues.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
[edit] White Substance A white sticky substance, or white crystal powder or sometimes a white cob-web-like substance reminiscent of the UFO-related "angel-hair", is sometimes found in formations. Dr. Levengood has tested some of these, and found a silicon-hydrogen compound which had been formed at over 3000 degrees Celsius.
Citations available at BLT Research Tommy Mandel
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.188.163.3 (talk • contribs) JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC).
= If the Ailen Beings who fly to earth from -literaly- billions of miles away, use advanced laser or microwave-beam technology, and leave large diagrams in the fields of honest, hardworking farmers, can do ALL of that, why not simply leave us something more permanent and tangeible, say, like a pair of stone tablets? Or perhaps Technium, somthing that can be only produced by an advanced technological civilization?
My point is that if something wanted to go to the efort to fly over and talk to us, why would they try to hide it or obfusicate (sic) it with bizzare geometric symbols? -PTTG (PS: I DO belive in aliens, just not UFOs) =
Just because they may be an advanced life form, why assume that they know how to communicate with us? Have you ever tried talking to a bee or a cat? I find it funny when talking about aliens in this way. I mean, if the do exist, they probably come from a completely different solar system. Don't you think questionioning there motives is a bit presumptuous? These marking might purely be for their own benifit as reference points or something. Hell, for all we know it could be young alien vandals! Soupisgoodfood 01:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-because they want to talk to the ones that will understand, and leave the other in the mist. All the UFO field is covered by this disinformation signals from diverse sources and lead to believe that "we are not ready" (as a specie) but that "some have been contacted" as people and subject. for common people, it could be synthetised as this : "the best proof that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the galaxy is that they never tried to contact us" (bill paterson)
Just a wee comment on the person above's belief in aliens and not in UFOs. I believe in UFOs. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. There are simply loads of them. The possibility that they are piloted by aliens is however not my first instinct!
As for aliens - I think the law of probability suggests that it is more likely than not that there are other animals out there, somewhere, that have a level of intelligence and consiousness on a par with (or even exceding) that of human beings. However, just because its possible doesn't mean that is is. --Mal 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Article Cleanup
I removed the NPOV tag and replaced it with a cleanup tag. The article seems to be reasonably neutral. Remaining POV statements are mostly isolated and need to be fixed during cleanup. IMO, this is what still needs to be done to clean the article up:
Crop the external links a lot to fall in line with Wikipedia:External Links Split-up the Conclusions section and merge in to other (or new) sections Copyedit the whole article with a emphasis on NPOV and prose. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [edit] US has them, people HERE in the US are... The US has these things, even appearing in snow and ice.
In the US, people tresspassing on other's property will likely end up shot and killed,especially in Texas,LA.,AR.,certain other states, yet there are these glyphs. If the owner is "merciful", the offender(s) will end up in prison for a wide variety of charges, if the property owner is not "merciful", the offender(s) is shot and killed. I used to live in some of these places.Martial Law 04:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Trampling the crops is equivalent to "B&E w/ intent to commit a worse crime" in some people's minds.Martial Law 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Hoax??
Well, here there are mentions of some being a hoax some not being a hoax, in my opinion they are all hoaxes.
Firstly no one has ever provided a valid theory which proves that this crop signs have been made either naturally or by extraterrestrial influence, leaving theories just pointless theories.
Observations supercede all theories. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And Secondly, I strongly belief on Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, they claim to be the early makers of these designs.
From above: "The “Julia Set”, a fractal pattern of 151 circles that appeared at Stonehenge in July 1996 appeared in broad daylight, between 5.30 p.m. and 6.15 p.m., according to a pilot who flew over the area, and back again 45 minutes later. Two other witnesses — a farm worker, and a security guard at Stonehenge confirmed that there was definitely nothing there earlier in the day." 'Conclusive' (At least I think so) evidence was given on a TV program last night (Monday 19 December 2005) on Sky One (UK), the program is called "Danny Wallace's Hoax File" and is a program made by Danny Wallace, where he mentioned his favourite hoaxes of all times, obviously this was his number one, and I would have to agree with him on that.
Some good evidence was provided on the program, which reinforce my opinions on this signs.
Furthermore there has never been any evidence to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life, and in my opinion this is just a dream fuelled by Hollywood Paddy :-) 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Use of 'Hoax' This article refers to manmade circles as hoaxes, but there is nothing to support the notion that any crop circle has ever been anything but manmade. How then are hoax and hoaxers applicable terms? Crop circles are art akin to graffiti, and the article should reflect that reality. Wpjonathan 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is because they were considered to be made supernaturally, and the creators didn't come forth to explain the phenomenon. They were intially hoaxes and/or pranks. AFTER one of the hoaxers revealed himself, it has obviously become an 'art form' or graffiti. Of course, despite this, conspirationalists still contend that most/many/all/some of the crop circles are not man-made... and so the hoaxes continue. --Mal 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Ice Circle / Argument against Hoaxes Want to see a ice circle ? See this link: Ice Circle Martial Law 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)
You get a hoaxer trying that here in the States, he/she will get shot. Not only that, these things are getting really complex, and extremely LARGE. Farmers here in the States don't put up with these shennanigans, since crops are harmed, if not destroyed by hoaxers. Danny Wallace should come to the States and see our crop glyphs placed on the of property of people who will shoot to kill any intruders trying to create these things. US laws give the farmers the right to use lethal force to stop criminals breaking into their property. This is NOT vandalisim, personal attacks, etc., just the cold steel hard truth. Martial Law 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
IF the hoaxer survives, the hoaxer can look foward to being in prison for MANY years for fraud, Conspiracy(if more than one hoaxer is involved), inciting a riot, criminal mischief, vandalisim, burglary, tresspassing, other charges under US law. Martial Law 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC):)
The ice circle is in Canada. Cheers. Martial Law 21:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)
Could you BE more incoherent?--Deglr6328 09:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Martial Law?? I don't doubt the law in the US allows trespassers to be shot legally. But this does not prove that they are not hoaxes. If no one finds out you are doing it, you can't be shot? right? Paddy :-) 20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As farmers,ranchers,others tend their land, they often do catch intruders, and kill them or let the Sheriffs' Office have them for prosecution, if the owner is so inclined. Martial Law 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As if legal ranchers and farmers are'nt bad enough about killing intruders, those growing illegal drugs(pot,weed, grass, that sort of thing) will surely kill tresspassers, and have been known to use booby traps on tresspassers. I'm a evidence man myself. Martial Law 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
In the US, if you're caught, you will get shot. Posted land. Violet and purple paint splashed on trees and the like on the property owners' property also means posted. Some states, such as Texas has made it legal to kill tresspassers, and if the property owner believes his/her life, loved ones, property is in danger, he/she is justified in killing the intruder. That is US law. Martial Law 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, in the US you cannot be shot for trespassing. The shooter would go to jail for the rest of their lives. In only one state Texas are you allowed specifically by law to shoot someone who breaks into your home. To avoid going to jail you still need to prove that you were in danger at the time. We have laws in this country, I don't know where you come from. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Signs No mention of the film Signs on this article? It would be a good addition to the article, showing the importance of these signs for today's society.
I don't know much about this film, and I don't have the time now, but once I get to see the film and I research a bit into it, I will add something to the article, maybe someone can add a bit about it here. Paddy :-) 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Conclusions" This article looks pretty good, though I'm not particularly familiar with the material. However one section heading caught my eye - "Conclusions". It isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to draw decide which version of the truth is correct. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I suggest that we should refactor the section, which has good material, so that it does not make its own conclusion. That's the job of the reader. -Will Beback 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Investigation I'm currently investigating a plant glyph that happened in Louisiana, near Barksdale USAF Base. This thing was found in a area that is full of woody weeds native to the area. This may not be a hoax, due to the nature of these plants. Of course, I am wondering why there is no plant glyph found in a forest. Trees are just plants, just like any other plant. If one is made in a forest, that should settle this matter. Go to the Coast To Coast AM Gallery. There is a pix on this plant glyph.Broken plants are used to track elusive criminals who may have escaped prison. Martial Law 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
A crop circle in tr3ees has been found. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Using damaged plants is a requirement in tracking skills. Tells what happened, when it happened to the tracker. Martial Law 23:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Still does not prove if these are a hoax or not. Martial Law 23:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Some are counterrfeits, some are not. Only need ONE real one case is closed.
[edit] NSA Related Topics How can the NSA tap into what appears to be a alien communications signal ? Do "We" really have that capability ?! Is there something going on here ? Martial Law 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
scientific evidence
editA number of practicing scientists have investigated the crop cicle phenomenon including Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer who investigated Stonehedge reported on the geometrical formations; William Levengood, a biophysicist and University professor studied the plant structure, E, Haselhoff, an experimental and theoretical physicist studied the patterns of crop bending. The organization BLT research, utilized the scientific method. These investigations involved what has been observed in the field.
I don't really feel like replying to tommysun directly. As they say you can lead a fool to knowledge but you can't make him think. Follow this link and read it if you want the truth. It explains how one researcher found out that the other investigators and their witnesses were actually making the crop circles. It includes a written confession by one small group for 90% of the crop circles made in england in one year. enjoy. http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html --Darkfred Talk to me 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Regarding Tommysun Tommy sun believes that crop circles are made magically by balls of energy created by some universal consciousness. He also believes that he has magic powers and can send messages and move objects from a distance using only his mind.
That's a lie Darkfred. Tommy Mandel 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No actually you can read it right above on this very page. Are you afraid that people will think you are a lunatic? Its probably to late for that now. And please stop ruining my comments by writing inside of them it is very bad etiquette. --Darkfred Talk to me 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with a rudimentary education can see that you are posturing with your talk of Plasma Balls and Zero point quantum energy. You have no idea what these words mean. You cannot fake your way through this tommy, noone is going to let you put this crap in the page.
In Hawkins own words Taken from an interview of Gerald Hawkins his opinions in his own words.
ML: What about the more recent formations? H: Now we enter the other types of patterns — the pictograms, the insectograms. Exit Gerald S. Hawkins. I don’t know what to do about those. "ML: Your investigations leave off at the geometric patterns.
"GH: The investigations are continuing, but I haven’t gotten anywhere. I see no recognizable mathematical features. I’m approaching it entirely mathematically, because there is the strength of numbers. There’s the unchallengeability of a geometric proof of a theorem, for example. The other patterns involve other types of investigation, such as artistry and images. But everything I’ve told you here shows that we’ve got a developing phenomenon, starting from the very simple arrangement of diatonic ratios, to a very intricate way of showing diatonic ratios in the geometries, and now to something which I think hardly anybody would claim to understand — the pictograms, insectograms, and so forth.
"ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these?
"GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.
"ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?
"GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.
"It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.
A serious message - PLEASE READ Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Copyright violation in [[:{{{1}}}]]
edit Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]] without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]], you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on [[:{{{1}}}]]. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.
Revision as of 20:39, 8 September 20
06 (edit) Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (typo) ← Older edit - 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 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-
- BLT Research - A scientific breakdown on non man made crop circles.
Creators of hoaxed crop circles ==
Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, including Crop Circles, Signs of Contact. In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin to investigate crop circles. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, 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-
'Reported Observations +
In the October 12, 1996 issue of Science News a section entitled "Mathematics" [4] described the numerical relationships found in crop circles by astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, who looked for mathematical relationships among the various shapes making up the patterns.
- - 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. - - 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...)
Revision as of 16:33, 9 September 2006 (edit)
Darkfred (Talk | contribs)
(remove request quote, i will put a link to the scanned article on the talk page as per request)
Newer edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
- Crop circles are areas of cereal or similar crops that have been systematically flattened to form various geometric patterns. The phenomenon itself only entered the public imagination in its current form after the notable appearances in England in the late 1970s. Various scientific and pseudo-scientific explanations were put forward to explain the phenomenon, which soon spread around the world. In 1991, two men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, revealed that they had been making crop circles in England since 1978 using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools. Circlemakers.org [5] a UK based arts collective founded by John Lundberg have been creating crop circles since the early 1990s. Although the commonly accepted view today is that crop circles are a man-made phenomenon, paranormal explanations, often including UFOs, are still popular. + Crop circles are areas of cereal or similar crops that have been systematically flattened to form various geometric patterns.
+ + The phenomenon itself only entered the public imagination in its current form after the notable appearances in England in the late 1970s. Various scientific and pseudo-scientific explanations were put forward to explain the phenomenon, which soon spread around the world. In 1991, two men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, revealed that they had been making crop circles in England since 1978 using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools. Circlemakers.org [6] a UK based arts collective founded by John Lundberg have been creating crop circles since the early 1990s. Although the commonly accepted view today is that crop circles are a man-made phenomenon, paranormal explanations, often including UFOs, are still popular. In paranormal circles the study of the crop circle phenomena is called cerealogy. Cerealogists commonly refer to these designs as agriglyphs. In paranormal circles the study of the crop circle phenomena is called cerealogy. Cerealogists commonly refer to these designs as agriglyphs.
Line 43: Line 43:
Some crop-circle photographs are hoaxes, created using image manipulation. Some crop-circle photographs are hoaxes, created using image manipulation.
- Some enthusiasts argue thagns have a degree of complexity that humans would not be able to easily recreate on paper, let alone in a field at night. They argue that the shapes of these formations are far too complex, and display a tremendously high level of symmetry which make it extremely difficult for a team of humans to create using just simple hand tools. Circle makers respond by noting that the only tool necessary for perfect symmetry is a measured length of rope rotated around a central pivot point. [7] + Some enthusiasts argue that some designs have a degree of complexity that humans would not be able to easily recreate on paper, let alone in a field at night. They argue that the shapes of these formations are far too complex, and display a tremendously high level of symmetry which make it extremely difficult for a team of humans to create using just simple hand tools. Circle makers respond by noting that the only tool necessary for perfect symmetry is a measured length of rope rotated around a central pivot point[8], and more complex asymettrical shapes are created by using marked ropes as straight edges to position elements.
+ + One argument for the unconventional origin of crop circles is a strong continued military interest in and investigation of new formations in both the United States and United Kingdom.[9][10] == Crop circle designs == == Crop circle designs ==
Line 66: Line 66:
Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, including Crop Circles, Signs of Contact. In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin to investigate crop circles. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, 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." [11] Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, including Crop Circles, Signs of Contact. In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin to investigate crop circles. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, 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." [12]
- The October 12, 1996 issue of Science News published a section in "Mathematics" which told of the work astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins conducted on the geometry of some crop circles. He found express specific numerical relationships among the areas of various circles, triangle, and other shapes making up the patterns. (Science News: Feb. 1st, 1992, p. 76). The article continues with: "Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in these patterns." But Hawkins found more than four theorems, "He also discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four." Hawkins was not able to find any reference to the fifth theorem in the works of Euclid or any other book. His challenge to the readers of Science News to find the fith given the four was not met. Yet, in the summer, of a few dozed patterns laid down, at least one pattern fit Hawkins theorem. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments. The article concludes with: " The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness. From http://www.gaiaguys.net/ffgeom.htm
Scientific Investigations
-
- - Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alamos 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. Page 128, + Geometrical Relationships
-
- - Crop circles have become highly controversial, especially after it was revealed that some of the circles were man-made. The controversy gave birth to the extreme views: from all crop circles are not man-made, to the other extreme that all crop circles are man-made. In between these two are those who hold that some circles are man made and some circles are not man-made. Haselhoff explains: "Unfortunately, much of the public information is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. " Haselhoff has investigated the crop circle phenomenon and concluded, "some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, The lack of any indication of human presence or mechanical flattening, The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. " Yet, as Haselhoff points out, ""extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." + In the October 12, 1996 issue of Science News a section entitled "Mathematics" [13] described the numerical relationships found in crop circles by astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, who looked for mathematical relationships among the various shapes making up the patterns.
- - and in support of his claims he writes: "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. He concludes with , "Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personally find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on,"
-
A controversy has developed around the question of who are the creators of the crop circles. Some claim that the crop circles are made by causes yet unknown while others claim that crop circles are made by hoaxers. Everyone seems to agree that some of the crop circles are extremely well constructed and incredibly beautiful.
All active members of Wikimedia projects are invited to vote in the 2006 Election to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Who or what is creating the crop circles has become controversial and is hotly disputed. It is generally agreed that some crop circles are man-made, what is in dispute is whether some crop circles are not man-made.
Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry".,[need quotation to verify], According to the article, "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments.
Crop circle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Difference between revisions) Jump to: navigation, search Revision as of 02:05, 13 September 2006 (edit) Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (added hawkins quote from interview) ← Older edit Current revision (23:40, 13 September 2006) (edit) Darkfred (Talk | contribs) (rv, daily cleansing, ongoing single user pov crusade, see talk page)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
 | This article's factual accuracy is disputed. |
+
Crop circles are areas of cereal or similar crops that have been systematically flattened to form various geometric patterns. Crop circles are areas of cereal or similar crops that have been systematically flattened to form various geometric patterns.
Line 20: Line 20:
==Creators of crop circles == ==Creators of crop circles ==
- - A controversy has developed around the question of who are the creators of the crop circles. Some claim that the crop circles are made by causes yet unknown while others claim that crop circles are made by hoaxers. Everyone seems to agree that some of the crop circles are extremely well constructed and incredibly beautiful.
In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomena began, two men announced that the phenomenon of crop circles was an idea thought up one evening in a pub in Southampton, England in 1978. World War II veteran Doug Bower and his friend Dave Chorley revealed that they made their crop circles using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools. Bower and Chorley stated to reporters that a small group of people can stomp down a sizable area of crop in a single night using simple tools. In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomena began, two men announced that the phenomenon of crop circles was an idea thought up one evening in a pub in Southampton, England in 1978. World War II veteran Doug Bower and his friend Dave Chorley revealed that they made their crop circles using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools. Bower and Chorley stated to reporters that a small group of people can stomp down a sizable area of crop in a single night using simple tools.
Line 41: Line 39:
The first people to be charged with creating a crop circle were Hungarian teenagers Gabor Takacs and Robert Dallos, both 17 and from the St. Stephen Agricultural Technicum, a high school in Hungary specializing in agriculture. On the night of June 8 1992 they created a 36 meter diameter crop circle in a wheat fie The first people to be charged with creating a crop circle were Hungarian teenagers Gabor Takacs and Robert Dallos, both 17 and from the St. Stephen Agricultural Technicum, a high school in Hungary specializing in agriculture. On the night of June 8 1992 they created a 36 meter diameter crop circle in a wheat field near Szekesfehervar, 43 miles southwest of Budapest.
- On September 3rd they appeared on a Hungarian TV show and exposed the circle as a hoax showing photos of the field before and after the circle was made. As a result Aranykalasz Co. the owners of the land that the corp circle was created on sued the youngsters for Fts.630,000 (approx 5,000 UK pounds) in damages. The court eventually ruled that the boys were only responsible for the damage caused in the 36 meters diameter circle, amounting to about Fts.6,000 (47 UK pounds). They concluded that 99% of the damage to the crops was caused by the thousands of visitors that flocked to Szekesfehervar following the media's promotion of the circle. The fine was eventually paid for by the TV show, as were the boys' legal fees. + On September 3rd they appeared on a Hungarian TV show and exposed the circle as a hoax showing photos of the field before and after the circle was made. As a result Aranykalasz Co. the owners of the land that the crop circle was created on sued the youngsters for Fts.630,000 (approx 5,000 UK pounds) in damages. The court eventually ruled that the boys were only responsible for the damage caused in the 36 meters diameter circle, amounting to about Fts.6,000 (47 UK pounds). They concluded that 99% of the damage to the crops was caused by the thousands of visitors that flocked to Szekesfehervar following the media's promotion of the circle. The fine was eventually paid for by the TV show, as were the boys' legal fees.
While paranormal enthusiasts argue that some designs have a degree of complexity that humans would not be able to easily recreate on paper, let alone in a field at night. They argue that the shapes of these formations are far too complex, and display a tremendously high level of symmetry which make it extremely difficult for a team of humans to create using just simple hand tools. Circle makers respond by noting that the only tool necessary for perfect symmetry is a measured length of rope rotated around a central pivot point[14], and more complex asymettrical shapes are created by using marked ropes as straight edges to position elements. While paranormal enthusiasts argue that some designs have a degree of complexity that humans would not be able to easily recreate on paper, let alone in a field at night. They argue that the shapes of these formations are far too complex, and display a tremendously high level of symmetry which make it extremely difficult for a team of humans to create using just simple hand tools. Circle makers respond by noting that the only tool necessary for perfect symmetry is a measured length of rope rotated around a central pivot point[15], and more complex asymettrical shapes are created by using marked ropes as straight edges to position elements.
Line 71: Line 69:
While investigating a series of crop circles Hawkins discovered a number of geometrical relationships that corresponded to new geometric theorems. "Hawkins was able to use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in these patterns." During his investigation he was able to devise a new more general theorem from which any of the four he discovered could be derived. Hawkins was not able to find any reference to the new theorem or a mention of the other relationships in the works of Euclid or the work of any other text he consulted. Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry". According to the article, "The Hoaxers apparently had the requisite knowledge not only to prove a Euclidean theorem, but also to conceive of an original theorem in the first place. [16] While investigating a series of crop circles Hawkins discovered a number of geometrical relationships that corresponded to new geometric theorems. "Hawkins was able to use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in these patterns." During his investigation he was able to devise a new more general theorem from which any of the four he discovered could be derived. Hawkins was not able to find any reference to the new theorem or a mention of the other relationships in the works of Euclid or the work of any other text he consulted. Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry". According to the article, "The Hoaxers apparently had the requisite knowledge not only to prove a Euclidean theorem, but also to conceive of an original theorem in the first place. [17] "Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself" [18] Also in Science News, Feb. 1, 1992, Hawkins remarked to mathematician Ivars Peterson that he believed the circles were made by "hoaxers", albeit ones with a remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek mathematics. "Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself" [19] Also in Science News, Feb. 1, 1992, Hawkins remarked to mathematician Ivars Peterson that he believed the circles were made by "hoaxers", albeit ones with a remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek mathematics.
- - In an interview of Gerald Hawkins [20] - he was asked if he is focusing on crop circles, Hawkins replied: - - "Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside. " - When asked if anyone else was investigating them, he replied: - "No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time. - It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon." -
Just examined your source,
I found an interview of Hawkins at http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm and part of went like this --
Intellectual profile ML: That eliminates natural processes and Doug and Dave. What’s left? GH: Lord Zuckerman [former science adviser to the British Government] wrote a review of Colin Andrews’ and Pat Delgado’s book. He said that before we start building theories we should first investigate what would be perhaps the most pleasant solution for scientists, which is that the formations were made by human hoaxers. In a way, he’s not stating that that is his notion. He thinks it would be the simplest explanation. In fact, I am not supporting the theory that they are made by hoaxers. I am only investigating it. The interview concluded with this comment. This is how real scientists think Darkfred.ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these?
GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside. ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues? GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time. It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon. From the December 1992 issue of Share International
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&action=edit§ion=15
Numerous investigators have conducted analysis on crop circles. they include: Colin Andrews, Amamiya Kiyoshi, Dr. Jean-Noel Auburn, Robert Boerman, Andrews Colins, Pat Delgado, Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff, Gerakd Hawkins, Dr. Simeon Hein, Michael Hesemann, Ron Jones. Wiliam Levengood, Maki Masao, Terence Meaden, Lucy Pringle , Archie Roy, Peter Sorensen, Freddy Silve, Nancy Talbott, Busty Taylor, Andy Thomas, Paul Vigay, George Wingfield, James Withers and many more.
Gerald Hawkins was the astronomer who figured out Stonehedge. In an interview by Monte Leach [1]
Hawkins gives us a good apprasial of the situation as he saw it :
(rv the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader. A note: non peer-reviewed fringe science shouldn't be presented as authorative.)
The mad ravings of a lone POV crusader
are the words of Darkfred
The two pillars of Wikipedia are reliability and verification. Verification does not mean truth, because Wikipedians do not do original research and thus are not the arbiters of true and false. Verification means that what was said in the article was in fact said as reported. Verification is something the reader does. It is the responsibility of the editor to provide the link to the verification.
Reliability is a measure of trust. Can the statement and verification be trusted? It is assumed then, that a statement appearing in Wikipedia is trustworthy, i.e., it says what was said; and who said it is trustworhy.
Science is not authoritative. Science is a verb, a process, a methodology. Science is doing science. Objectivity in science means repeatability. Science is not peer reviewed journals. Journals are supposed to publish all sides, but as Thomas Kuhn points out in his "structure of scientific revolutions, the mainstream science is a matter of opinion of those scientists who review the submitted papers. What happens is that an obsolete viewpoint is sustained not by science, but scientists who have a vested interest in maintaining that view. According to Kuhn. The authority of science is not the authority of scientists.
The basis of science is testability. Logical positivism held that if the conjecture was not testable, then it was meaningless. This has evolved to become testable at least in principle. It is the test that the scientist uses to verify his hypothesis. Keep in mind that before verification, the conjecture is a hypothesis, and not a fact waiting to be proved.
So it is not the authority of the scientist, although that authority can help us determine truatability, science is what the scientist does. Anyone can do what a scientist does, given the necessary infrastructure. Anyone can compare a feature of a plant with a ruler and use that ruler to determine a value.
So what science really means is that anyone, given the tools, can do it. This is what objective evidence is. Evidence that anyone, given the right tools, can replicate (verify).
Darkfred dismissal of a theoretical and experimental physicist, once employed at Los Alamos, now the senior scientist at a medical imaging company, is not reasonable or logically justified. Anyone can pick up Haselhoff's book/report see that it is extremely professionally done, both in typography and content. Anyone can see what he does and given the right tools would be able to duplicate the testing.
There are some circles where the bending occurs at different heights. Using a computer program to measure the heights, Haselhoff was able to find a relationship between the heights and the distance from the center. This relationship matched the relationship theoretically achieved by a point energy source above the center of the circle.
There is another instance of this feature which can serve as a duplicate. A circle was cut into a dried lake bed in Oregon made of intertwined triangles. The total length of the lines measured thirteen miles. A survey of the lines showed that the centers of the lines were bowed outward eight inches, exactly matching the energy distribution of a point source above the center.
Both of these "features are objective evidence. Anyone can duplicate the test and verify it. At least in principle.
However the authorative Darkfred considers all this "the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader."
was said
From the December 1992 issue of Share
MLSo the major focus of your work right now is looking into these? (picographs and insectographs)
GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.
ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?
GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.
It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.
Yet, in the summer, of a few dozed patterns laid down, at least one pattern fit Hawkins theorem. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments. The article concludes with: " The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness. From http://www.gaiaguys.net/ffgeom.htm
- As far as real scientists are concerned there is not much question left. All of the techniques used in classic circles have now been demonstrated as human creatable and there remains no real mysteries or unexplainable events. Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people. Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease. However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles. --Darkfred [[User_talk:Darkfred|Talk to me</strong
Regarding TommysunTommy sun believes that crop circles are made magically by balls of energy created by some universal consciousness. He also believes that he has magic powers and can send messages and move objects from a distance using only his mind.
I don't really feel like replying to tommysun directly. As they say you can lead a fool to knowledge but you can't make him think. Follow this link and read it if you want the truth. It explains how one researcher found out that the other investigators and their witnesses were actually making the crop circles. It includes a written confession by one small group for 90% of the crop circles made in england in one year. enjoy. http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html --Darkfred Talk to me 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
First how about not quoting out of context with just the bits you like and instead focusing on the fact that you called me a liar and I just provided the evidence you said I could not. The fact that this proves that researchers and witnesses are creating the circles seems to have just flown in one ear and out the other. How about an apology for your accusations? Or better yet how about just shutting up already. The article provides all the info for or against that people need. Your stupid little POV war is not going to make a difference because you can't possibly remove all of the evidence you disagree with. And you can't seem to provide anything that isn't already referenced in the article. I have had it with your bullshit. You call me a liar repeatedly and I have repeatedly proven you wrong. To the other wikipedia editors I apoligise. I am sorry for the spectacle of this argument. --Darkfred Talk to me 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence Sounds a load of BS, without anything even approaching an WP:RS. Jefffire 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself" [21] Also in Science News, Feb. 1, 1992, Hawkins remarked to mathematician Ivars Peterson that he believed the circles were made by "hoaxers", albeit ones with a remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek mathematics.
However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles.
Please don't give me all the credit, I couldn't have done it alone. Many other hard working editors have also deleted junk you posted. And if you are reading this now, thanks. :) --Darkfred Talk to me 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I make the claim that Darkfred is POV pushing, copying copyrighted text into article without attibution, modification of copyrighted material to support his POV, Modification of quoted material to support his POV, removal of evidence that does not support his POV, deletion of archives,[2] misrepresentation of evidence, defamation of character of known scientists, repeated and severe personal attacks, trolling, disruption of the editing process and lieing. He does all this as if it is proper. To disagree with him is trolling. Darkfred demonstrates that he is not knowledgable about the research and is not qualified to determine what evidence is valid evidence. He is a threat IMO to the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia.
this article urgently needs some organization. it's confuse. needs headings, bolds, history.
I would love to do that, but my experience has been such that it might mean going to war with whoever is in charge here. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hardly NPOV section link--
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_1&action=edit§ion=4
wow mwlatonin lonk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_1&action=edit§ion=23
scientific replies link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_1&action=edit§ion=5
Won't even bother with this one link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_1&action=edit§ion=5
julia set section link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_1&action=edit§ion=5
admits hw is biased lonk
Ohh I will admit I am biased, I have never believed in them, when I was in college we went out and made crop circles ourselves. The geometry of the thing fascinates me, as does the fact that many of the groups insist on leaving extras around to confuse paranormal investigators (we never did this ourselves). There was a time when I was a believer (in UFOs not necessarily crop circles), I really do want to believe, but this issue has pretty much been wrapped up in the press and in books even before the internet came along. --Darkfred Talk to me 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently deleted by him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrop_circle%2FArchive_1&diff=57228991&oldid=53870368
- What Pseudo science is and why it is used are different things. It is usually used in the service of a personal belief argument, which cannot be proved via real science/fact or logical argument argument. In this Argument from ignorance and Anecdotal evidence are used quite often. Both are logical fallacies and in a broader sense when claims are taken individually demonstratably wrong. So its not a huge leap to go from Pseudoscience to wrong. The term was not invented by Pseudo scientists to describe work they considered correct, they still think of themselves as real scientists. Plus Ceriology (sp) is perfectly defined by pseudo science. Some of these people do literally believe that they are scientifically investigating UFOS. Although this belief is more faith than fact they still do consider themselves scientists. They are labeled pseudo scientists not because they lack scientific methadology but because they have already arrived at a conclusion and seek only evidence which supports it. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- These cereal reverters (bad pun!) should note that an encyclopedia article is not the place for fruitcake nonsense. Consipracy theories deserve nothing more than a cursory mention and possibly one link. To paraphrase The X-Files - "The proof is out there". --Mal 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
They are labeled pseudo scientists not because they lack scientific methadology but because they have already arrived at a conclusion and seek only evidence which supports it. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
at
- ^ (p154) Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X -30-
- ^ http://www.gaiaguys.net/Science_News_2.92.htm pg2 top right column
- ^ http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/10_12_96/note1.htm
- ^ Science News: Feb. 1st, 1992, p. 76
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1134&category=Environment
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQYL25pEKx8
- ^ (p154) Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X -30-
- ^ (p154) Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X -30-
- ^ Science News: Feb. 1st, 1992, p. 76
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.circlemakers.org
- ^ http://www.gaiaguys.net/Science_News_2.92.htm pg2 top right column
- ^ http://www.gaiaguys.net/Science_News_2.92.htm pg2 top right column
- ^ http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/10_12_96/note1.htm
- ^ http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/10_12_96/note1.htm
- ^ http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm
- ^ http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/10_12_96/note1.htm