Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 3 votes

Crop circles are not the work of hoaxers

greg jefferys crop circles

  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#151    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:46 PM

First up, thanks, Ciriuslea for debating in good faith despite my terseness!

View Postciriuslea, on 21 June 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

I think the trouble with the argument, if man can make it then its obviously man made falls short, true no real evidence exists to prove anything other than groups of hoaxers/artists are running around creating pretty pictures in the landscape, so before people bust a vessel lets just make that clear.
OK, agreed.

Quote

(Thinking out loud)
That usually gets me in trouble... :D

Quote

As I understand it the hoaxers haven't managed to show how they created all the differences found within a formation ?
That's the bit that needs something specific.  What differences, which formation?  Yes, I've seen this claim made before, but never, not once, did they elaborate in a way that was verifiable or analysable...

Quote

they might have described how it could or was done
To be fair, they've videoed it and given quite extensively detailed explanations that are quite logical.  I don't think that is in any way questionable.

Quote

but have they actually had a sample test like an experiment where the hoaxers/artists produced all the same stuff found in formations to compare to formations thought not to have been hoaxed ?
I don't know - and unless you can provide a link to a challenge that has never been accepted or show the formation that you think is undoable.  But I would also ask you this - *why* would an artist/prankster/hoaxer *want* to engage in such a challenge?  If I challenged you, would you do it?

Think about it - I'm betting the challenge would be a large and complex design that would take not only a few hours to do, but much pre-planning and a crew of volunteers who get nothing for their work except the 'satisfaction' that - in *this* case - they have helped to reduce the magic and mystery of what they like to do...

And then there's the simple and inescapable fact that even if they successfully achieved a match, the tinfoilhat brigade will simply change the goalposts and say "ah yes, you managed that one, but now look at this!!!"  That's how the tinfoilers work, I'm afraid..  And that's why I think the better path to follow is these claims about radiation/ultrasonics/microwaves.  If they are true (and frankly, I don't think they are, then the evidence (including the methodology used, the equipment, the actual data and comparison/baseline data) should have been properly recorded.  Can you find any of that?  I can't.  And I think I know why - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on..

Quote

What's interesting is how the word of a hoaxer carries more weight than anyone else
The word of ANYONE who can back it up with video evidence, logic and examples will always carry weight, and so it SHOULD.  I'll happily listen to those I know are hoaxers and if they come up with the goods and prove themselves beyond reasonable doubt, then I'll also happily give credit where due.

Quote

surely by the very nature of being a hoaxer your intention is to deceive
But by examining the evidence properly, they will not be able to deceive..  And if you choose in advance who you regard as the (primary) hoaxers, you are showing Confirmation Bias (a bad thing).

Quote

Ok then what is the purpose of the node and germination changes
Woah - there's one of those claims that requires proof - where is the data/evidence/methodology to support that?

Quote

or any of the little details when small details are not really important to create a large image
Again, can you be specific?

Quote

There is something that's bugging me with this line of thought, if its an art installation, the little details are redundant
??? Why?  Why would the 'artist' not want you to see more interesting stuff as you get closer?  And if you use that logic, why would an alien/non-human?  You can't have it both ways...

Quote

unless the purpose is to deceive
No, that's not the only possible reason, so you seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

#152    jaskatiaja

jaskatiaja

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:19 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australian East Coast

  • "Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
    Lewis Carroll, (1832 - 1898), Alice in Wonderland.

Posted 22 June 2013 - 01:09 AM

I personally have no idea how crop formations are formed, but I do tend to lean towards 'man made' - at least for the majority of them. Having said that, I really, really (REALLY!) doubt that the more complex designs are made using 'board and ropes', and if they are man made, then they are using something a little more advanced...
Maybe some sort of heat emitting tool (a giant iron, perhaps. Lol)? I just don't know.
Regardless, here are a couple of links to some of the more recent peer-reviewed journal articles (that are available online). I'm sure there are more, but I do not have the time or inclination to do any sort of comprehensive search at the moment.

This first one is written by an author who does cop a lot of flak from the skeptic websites, although, it is still an interesting article. It concerns the atmospheric energy present in crop formations :
http://iccra.org/lev...s-Levengood.pdf

This second one is in regards to the possibility of a sub microscopic, inter-terrestrial level action being responsible. Very interesting:
http://03482a2.netso...a_2_323-335.pdf

Enjoy :-)


#153    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:49 AM

Just a quick comment...  While you can point to that Levengood paper as being peer-reviewed, there is a bit of a problem...  The editor of that Journal (which is hardly what could be called 'mainstream', has since used these words, and I quote, about the 'regrettable' publication of that paper and the fact that it has never been cited elsewhere by any reputable scientific organisation (with good reason)..

Quote

The 1994 Levengood paper was self-cited in the follow up paper in 1999, which in turn was only ever cited in Haselhoff's and Deardoff's comments in 2001.
In other words, these folks are citing their own work, and no-one else ever has.  He continues..

Quote

...you have been more polite than I would be, in describing this as "questionable science", I think we agree that this topic is more suited to the popular press than to a scientific forum.The original papers were submitted to the journal and were subjected to the normal peer-review and were, regrettably in my view, recommended for publication and therefore published...
...The original papers by Levengood were published, and comments/criticisms of these were also subsequently published (Haselhoff 111(1) & Deardorf 111(1))
...clearly from the citation record there is not a scientific discussion in progress...

In other words, they blew it when they published that paper, they know it, and now wish to disown it.  It is a very flawed paper (see here for a quick summary of why, and I'm happy to elaborate), and is a pretty 'good' example of really bad and biased 'research'.

I didn't 'enjoy' that one - it put me off reading the other.  Maybe later..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

#154    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

First up, thanks, Ciriuslea for debating in good faith despite my terseness!


OK, agreed.


That usually gets me in trouble... :D


That's the bit that needs something specific.  What differences, which formation?  Yes, I've seen this claim made before, but never, not once, did they elaborate in a way that was verifiable or analysable...


To be fair, they've videoed it and given quite extensively detailed explanations that are quite logical.  I don't think that is in any way questionable.


I don't know - and unless you can provide a link to a challenge that has never been accepted or show the formation that you think is undoable.  But I would also ask you this - *why* would an artist/prankster/hoaxer *want* to engage in such a challenge?  If I challenged you, would you do it?

Think about it - I'm betting the challenge would be a large and complex design that would take not only a few hours to do, but much pre-planning and a crew of volunteers who get nothing for their work except the 'satisfaction' that - in *this* case - they have helped to reduce the magic and mystery of what they like to do...

And then there's the simple and inescapable fact that even if they successfully achieved a match, the tinfoilhat brigade will simply change the goalposts and say "ah yes, you managed that one, but now look at this!!!"  That's how the tinfoilers work, I'm afraid..  And that's why I think the better path to follow is these claims about radiation/ultrasonics/microwaves.  If they are true (and frankly, I don't think they are, then the evidence (including the methodology used, the equipment, the actual data and comparison/baseline data) should have been properly recorded.  Can you find any of that?  I can't.  And I think I know why - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on..


The word of ANYONE who can back it up with video evidence, logic and examples will always carry weight, and so it SHOULD.  I'll happily listen to those I know are hoaxers and if they come up with the goods and prove themselves beyond reasonable doubt, then I'll also happily give credit where due.


But by examining the evidence properly, they will not be able to deceive..  And if you choose in advance who you regard as the (primary) hoaxers, you are showing Confirmation Bias (a bad thing).


Woah - there's one of those claims that requires proof - where is the data/evidence/methodology to support that?


Again, can you be specific?


??? Why?  Why would the 'artist' not want you to see more interesting stuff as you get closer?  And if you use that logic, why would an alien/non-human?  You can't have it both ways...


No, that's not the only possible reason, so you seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions..


I'm looking at it from an artists perspective, the conclusion is that formations are man made, then the artists should be able to recreate all of them, every specific, every detail experts study and have found that they can say exist within them, because they dont just turn up in one or two, these differences are what determines real v hoax to the experts who go out into the fields and study them, there should be no room for doubt, but lets just deal with the changes to the plants themselves as studied here although this site has quite an argument going into more than just plant changes, I'm merely interested in the reasons why certain attributes known to occur with the formations that are redundant in creating an art installation. or at least what I consider redundant.

People have their own opinions on this, but being an artist practically all my adult life, and even studying other artists who make art in the landscape and with nature, I have never come across anything even similar, I just fail to see the purpose when the purpose is the art if we are to believe a simple plank and string are being used, do we ever see other instruments being carried in any of the videos made of formations, such as a device, a generator..anything that can be attributed to create the changes to the plants, It should be quite easy to then go into any field of crop with device and say this is how its done and we do it for this reason,

Edit: There seems to have been some real effort by these hoaxers/artists to say we made them, websites, youtubes and many other sources..so why not take the experts into a field with all the equipment they use to make them and address all the issues of the experts, it really doesn't need to be a huge issue..this would put to bed the whole 'mystery' of who is making them and not just have to rely on the word of a hoaxer/artist or even have to rely on the explanation of the people who study them, who in respects of the plant changes, I don't think they actually have come up with a satisfactory explanation how it occurs ?
Maybe this has happened...if anyone has a link to a site that has a conclusion or what was found after such a test please supply it

Edited by ciriuslea, 22 June 2013 - 10:57 AM.


#155    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:45 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 22 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Just a quick comment...  While you can point to that Levengood paper as being peer-reviewed, there is a bit of a problem...  The editor of that Journal (which is hardly what could be called 'mainstream', has since used these words, and I quote, about the 'regrettable' publication of that paper and the fact that it has never been cited elsewhere by any reputable scientific organisation (with good reason)..

In other words, these folks are citing their own work, and no-one else ever has.  He continues..


In other words, they blew it when they published that paper, they know it, and now wish to disown it.  It is a very flawed paper (see here for a quick summary of why, and I'm happy to elaborate), and is a pretty 'good' example of really bad and biased 'research'.

I didn't 'enjoy' that one - it put me off reading the other.  Maybe later..

"Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing “double-blind” studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously the many dubious claims that Levengood makes," one quote I found from the link provided I think this has to be applied to all claims until there is no room for doubt, doubt being on a level of proof, some might need absolute, some just use the premise no alien or whatever supernatural might be making these exist so they must be man made.


Edit: change bold to hoaxer/artist or anyone who is making claims concerning crop circles

Edited by ciriuslea, 22 June 2013 - 10:47 AM.


#156    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:07 AM

Fair enough, but the problem is that all of the so-called 'anomalies' are only reported by Levengood - the page you linked to also refers only to his work, so it keeps going in circles.  And there is no question that Levengood's 'study' has never been replicated or verified and that it is devoid of some very, very basic scientific methodologies - the things that real scientists MUST use (eg those essential double-blind tests) to avoid things like confirmation bias.  And his paper has never been cited by any other serious research organisation, only paranormal-pushing websites..

I did read a significant portion of the Levengood paper, and if necessary I can point out exactly where it goes horribly wrong, but I'm not sure if this is the right forum for that - without some plant biologists to verify it one way or the other, it's going to be a bit dry and heavy going..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

#157    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:35 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 22 June 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Fair enough, but the problem is that all of the so-called 'anomalies' are only reported by Levengood - the page you linked to also refers only to his work, so it keeps going in circles.  And there is no question that Levengood's 'study' has never been replicated or verified and that it is devoid of some very, very basic scientific methodologies - the things that real scientists MUST use (eg those essential double-blind tests) to avoid things like confirmation bias.  And his paper has never been cited by any other serious research organisation, only paranormal-pushing websites..

I did read a significant portion of the Levengood paper, and if necessary I can point out exactly where it goes horribly wrong, but I'm not sure if this is the right forum for that - without some plant biologists to verify it one way or the other, it's going to be a bit dry and heavy going..

I think we can clearly see with our own eyes bent and blown nodes within a formation, so we don't really have to rely on the world of any expert that they exist





I'm not really concerned with who studied them, more in that the acceptance that they exist in a circle at this moment in time anyway, and if its accepted then previous applies, the hoaxers should be able to provide study that is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing “double-blind” studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols as to how they managed to achieve this....


#158    Oppono Astos

Oppono Astos

    Overlord of Delgon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beyond your dimension

Posted 22 June 2013 - 12:02 PM

The Burke Levengood and Talbott (BLT) analysis was held up as a major step forward back in the mid-late 90s; however when the same type of plant anomalies were found/confirmed in samples from known man-made circles and indeed even lodging the theories soon lost appeal in the crop circle community.  For recent discussions on the subject by Colin Andrews and others - see Andrews' website.
.

Edited by Oppono Astos, 22 June 2013 - 12:18 PM.

Who is the skeptic: the realist who won't accept belief, or the believer who won't accept reality?

#159    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 22 June 2013 - 04:35 PM

View PostOppono Astos, on 22 June 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

The Burke Levengood and Talbott (BLT) analysis was held up as a major step forward back in the mid-late 90s; however when the same type of plant anomalies were found/confirmed in samples from known man-made circles and indeed even lodging the theories soon lost appeal in the crop circle community.  For recent discussions on the subject by Colin Andrews and others - see Andrews' website.
.

Are these anomalies accidental then if they have been found in test formations, as going back to them being art installations they don't really serve any purpose...and if the makers are just using string, planks of wood an GPS they must be, not that it matters how they are created if all the same anomalies exist in known man made circles..that's pretty conclusive


#160    angi chiesa

angi chiesa

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2011

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:31 AM

Well two things that have caused the making of corn circles. The first was when farmers stuck to TRACTOR TRACKS in order to spray and later reap the harvest with minimal damage to their crops. So these circle makers could reach well inside a field without making entry tracks. These crude patterns developed into some inspired crop circle art work with the advent of more and more accurate hand held GPS. It must of taken some planning and a skilled team to carry out these designs. THESE ARE NOT FORGERIES they are original works .  Lets see the next ones due when the current crops ripen.Maybe they are already planned.  Messages from Aliens....oh come on LOL


#161    slaughtr

slaughtr

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 84 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • I Doubt Nothing!!

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:32 PM

Here we go again the skeptis boys come out to play! but I'm not one of them.As always I say there are things of this world we cannot find an answer to and this answer to crop circles is clear to see=ufo phenomena.As much as folks don't want to believe it there's the proof in the pudding no scientific bull just pure evidence. Now how in the heck a human can make a crop circle the size of a football field over in 6hours is stupid and and when I see scientist or regular civilians trying to immulate crop circles is sloppy.Crop circles are to elaborate for a human overnight to complete especially in long stretches.In turn we have have evidence but as always somebody will try to kill the theory but it's always expected.What isn't expected is one day it will be caught on film just as a real spaceship from another galaxy will hit earth ground as if it hasn'y happened. Among us right now there could be alien life how would we know.Well I always knew crop circles were not man made so really there isn't to much more to say and off we go with gibber jaber skeptic talk.I'm out.


#162    slaughtr

slaughtr

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 84 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • I Doubt Nothing!!

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

Just like I told you everybody thinks they have the answer and running there mouth saying nothing you saw the proof live with it.All the giberish and fake know it all's why are you on this site?????????????????????????????????????????????????


#163    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:59 AM

View Postslaughtr, on 24 June 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Just like I told you everybody thinks they have the answer and running there mouth saying nothing you saw the proof live with it.All the giberish and fake know it all's why are you on this site?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Keyboard stuck?

It's a discussion forum, slaughtr - do you understand what that means?  You would rather censor people and drive them away, just because your pet beliefs are being challenged?

You might find Youtube or a personal blog much more to your liking..  Block anyone you don't like, and enjoy your 'freedom'.

Or, and here's a wildly imaginative suggestion - instead of throwing insults and telling people to go away..

Why not try engaging in polite discussion and see if you can get your viewpoint across by communicating it with logic, citations, knowledge, wisdom?

Yes, I know that's pretty radical and off-the-wall, but some folks (not me personally, of course) manage it..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users