It's exactly like someone who hoaxes UFO images claiming that they and friends are responsible for all sightings.
It's just pure crap.
For any opinion on this subject to be taken remotely seriously it would have to explain the following enigmas:
1) Spherical balls and soil anomolies.
2) Microwave damage.
3) Balls of light witnessed before and after crop circle formations.
4) EM radiation effects
5) Creation of circles in very short time frames without trace of human intrusion.
Then we go back to the experts and those who have spent a long time researching the subject.
When you have looked into the above phenomena and reviewed Rob's work maybe an informed discussion would be possible on this thread.
All we have at the moment is uninformed casual dismissal. That is arrogant and unscientific.
I will not respond to that; please do not be offended. I will just refer people back to this post.
In reverse order:
5. As near as I can ascertain, the short time frame claim is based on the best time manageable by one of the aforementioned old duffers, who, being an old duffer, could hardly be expected to move very quickly on foot under the described conditions at the time. Nor did he or his companion appear to have access to night vision equipment, which would've allowed considerable ease of navigation without drawing attention.
4. I'm not personally aware of any independent verification of these magnetic readings which would tend to question there validity though I could be mistaken on that point. I did however notice you charitable refrained from mentioning the similar measurements obtained by dousing.
3. Second hand accounts and therefore unverifiable
2. We have a plausible natural explanation for the blown and stretched nodes being the result of solar heating and regrowth of damaged stalks post-flattening. The estimated interval between creation and discovery might be worth examining for any correlation.
Which just leaves
1. Here again we have limited verification. There is as yet no reason to suppose the samples aren't legitimate. The question becomes then how hard would this be to fake? On the surface, not hard at all. In theory one needs only to go to a region where such material is common and run a magnet over the ground to collect it, then broadcast it over the site in a significant manner. The incrusted and imbedded material is more difficult to account for, though when you're looking for anomalies, they tend to turn up, regardless of their origin. A couldn't help but notice though how a slight soil encrustation suddenly became a covering of melted material, which I shouldn't have to tell you is not particularly good for plant tissue.