Crop Circles are Man Made, and here is why!

reply to post by Daisy-Lola


yyes yes. so this is just a centuries old hoax carried from one family member to the next.

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola



Actually, it wouldn't be the same evidence which is about 20 years old and was never researched or touched again for undisclosed reasons is it?

Why is no one screaming for disclosure of that!
Gold daisy.
Pure Gold.

Its probably Levengood.

In several technical papers, W. C. Levengood purports to show that “Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes.”[1] Unfortunately, there are serious objections to Levengood’s approach. First of all, while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers I reviewed [1,2,3,4] is there any mention of the work being conducted in double-blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. (As one “cereologist,” the Earl of Haddington, said of another laboratory that claimed to detect different “energy levels” between crop-circle and non-crop-circle areas [a concept that appears to have begun with dowsers], “When they are not told which sample came from a Crop Circle and which from a heap of grain in my back yard they are either unable or unwilling to give a result.”[5])

Although Levengood finds a correlation between “structural and cellular alterations” in plants and their location within crop-circle-type formations (as opposed to those of control plants outside such formations) [1], he should know the maxim that “Correlation is not causation.” As the noted Temple University mathematician John Allen Paulos recently demonstrated-quite tongue in cheek-there is a direct correlation between children’s math ability and shoe size! [9] Comments statistician Rand Wilcox of the University of Southern California: “Correlation doesn't tell you anything about causation. But it’s a mistake that even researchers make.” [9]

What about the Nodes I hear you say, the nodes.

That Levengood’s work does not go beyond mere correlation in many instances is evident from his frequent concessions: For example, “Taken as an isolated criterion,” he says, “node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation.” [1] Again he admits, “From these observed variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used as a validation tool.” [1]

This is your own Man people, debunking himself.
www.csicop.org...

reply to post by atlasastro


I do believe very much that some are man made,,just not every circle.
Im not one for trying to prove that either man or alien is the one behind it but theres plenty that are trying to prove its not alien.

What have we to gain if there was definite proof the circles were/are all man made? Not much,,just another genius that will go down in history.

What have we to gain if they are all alien made? Help? Answers? Insight? probably more.

Also I aint a bro or dude lol

Im a lass

reply to post by Alienmindflare


I am not trying to prove it is not aliens.
I believe it is man.
I have evidence that shows that. Which is why I claim they are man made.
People are claiming Aliens are doing it.
I simply would like proof, before accepting that or even considering it.
Is that unreasonable.
To ask for reasons to believe any claim made.

Originally posted by Faiol
I really dont have any idea about this, because I dont know how to make crop circles, I never saw someone doing it and really, its easy to say "I did it"

but lets use the so called logic that the op used to answer some guys

1 - crop circles are something used by farmers and group of people to make money
2 - a group of crop circles maker create a website claiming all crop circles are not alien, ending the debate, therefore, making all the people who would buy into it (we) have some doubts about it and not waste money into it


well, if you put 1 + 2 together, I dont think it will get u a 3

some people may say thatthey are showing themselvesfor possible farmers that would like to buy their service, but, ... since its all a conspiracy to make money like you guys said, its much more easy to talk directly to farmers and present the "project" since it will make it rain money literally for them

I really dont know what is going on, I am just using logic

UP

reply to post by atlasastro


yes I know what your saying and I know theres real proof man can make a crop circle,its a bit harder to get solid proof that aliens have made them but with all the UFO activity that goes on alot of people including myself will point at E.T's behind the intelliegence of crop circles

reply to post by Alienmindflare


I accept that mate!

My OP points out people who promote and exploit those beliefs.
I try and point out that this is ample reason why man made crop circles exists and that they are sold as being Alien or Otherwise.

Thanks for your time, I respect and appreciate your honesty.

reply to post by atlasastro


np

Hopefully one day we'll find out but yeh in the meantime no-one should be sure of who or what are making em,,I can understand why people would question aliens making them but cant really understand someone who believes an alien can make them but say man cant :/

Maybe the aliens are us in the future and this is where we learn to do them then s'pose they all are man made lol

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by atlasastro

 

ok then...Lets see you prove it

second

EDIT: So I'm guessing those pictures are of a man-made crop circle? 9 days to complete?

[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]

your kidding right? I kinda thought he proved it with his post.

reply to post by SuperSlovak


You "kinda" thought he proved it with his post... ... ...mmmkkk...as I said before...he proved nothing except the simple fact that SOME (usually the less mind boggling ones) are man made...nothing more...nothing less...the logic being used here is appalling...

reply to post by atlasastro

I believe it is man.
I have evidence that shows that. Which is why I claim they are man made.

Hmmm...yep...pure infallible logic right there...if we prove some are made by man...they instantly all are?!? That's a load of BS...have you ever considered that maybe the really odd ones with weird phenomena are actually made by Aliens...and humans also take pleasure in the construction of crop circles...or maybe the first CC's were made by Aliens...monkey see monkey do maybe?

[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]

How can you even say that without explaining the mysterious stem growth followed by the electromagnetic readings that unexplainably make peoples electronics fail and become unusable. Because we would do that on purpouse yeah...

Originally posted by CHA0S

reply to post by atlasastro

 

I believe it is man.
I have evidence that shows that. Which is why I claim they are man made.

Hmmm...yep...pure infallible logic right there...

It is better logic then inventing a cause.Basing a belief from evidence is better than making a belief up.

if we prove some are made by man...they instantly all are?!? That's a load of BS...

The Load of B.S. is making a claim without the evidence to show the cause.

have you ever considered that maybe the really odd ones with weird phenomena are actually made by Aliens...and humans also take pleasure in the construction of crop circles...or maybe the first CC's were made by Aliens...monkey see monkey do maybe?

[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]

I have considered that the circles are made by aliens, but based on what I see, there is no proof that aliens are making them.
You need people to consider Aliens possible, you need people to place faith in your explanation, you need to invent scenario's like " Aliens did it first and humans are copying them" as arguments because, that is all you have.
The argument is weak, it is terribly weak.
I don't need to create maybe's or scenario's.
I have evidence to support my belief. It is a belief derived from the truth not a belief that looks for a truth to fit it.

Thanks again CHAOS, for adding your thoughts.

reply to post by TheSeYeR


How can you say that and not even read the thread and this post.
post by atlasastro

The question is can you show that all crop circles are not man made. The answer is yes.

A team of college kids from M.I.T. couldn't recreate Levengood crop circles with all kinds of equipment. So we are to believe Joe and Jim Bob have more advanced equipment than students at M.I.T.? Are we to believe that Joe and Jim Bob are microwaving the corn stalks?

In 2002 an unsuccessful (and as it turns out, an insincere) crop circle experiment was carried out by three M.I.T. undergraduates, who accepted a TV challenge to reproduce three specific plant and soil abnormalities consistently observed in crop circle plants and soils worldwide -- abnormalities also presented in three peer-reviewed scientific papers. Although the undergraduates and their two graduate-student "advisors" were unable to reproduce any of the criteria specifically required (elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils) they and the TV production crew did--quite accidentally--produce evidence that exposure to microwave radiation does cause electronic equipment failure.

The 3 criteria outlined by Ms. Talbott were changed by the TV producer, with apical node elongation removed altogether as one of the criteria and with "design" of the crop circle inserted instead;

no clear, close-up photos of apical node elongation or expulsion cavities in plant stem nodes was shown; and, instead of even one enlarged photomicrographs of iron spheres adhereing to one another (due to being magnetized), a few video shots of a dish of what looked like ordinary rough-edged iron filings were briefly shown on-screen;

www.bltresearch.com...

The students used things like night vision goggles. Do you think Joe and Jim Bob have night vision goggles and they are running around microwaving corn stalks?

You also have the peer reviewed study that balls of light are responsible for some crop circles.

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper…

www.swirlednews.com...

There's also evidence that these elongated nodes occur in standing plants and plants surrounding the crop circle. This couldn't come from flattening of the plants by a mechanical source.

Seeds taken from the plants and germinated in the lab showed significant alterations in growth as compared to controls. Effects varied from an inability to develop seeds to a massive increase in growth rate, depending on the species, the age of the plants at the time the circle was created, and the intensity of the energy system involved.

These anomalies were also found in tufts of standing plants inside crop circles - a result clearly not caused by mechanical flattening - and in patches of randomly downed crops found near the geometric designs. These facts suggested some kind of natural, but unknown, force at work.

www.unknowncountry.com...

Also, where's all the human error? Do crop circle makers just become experts over night? Where's all the practice runs and mistakes?

You can't prove that all crop circles are man made. You can show through evidence that all crop circles are not man made. Is the origin some natural force or extraterrestrial, that has yet to be determined. But you can't prove they are all man made because the evidence doesn't support this conclusion.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You crack me up dude.
Let me start here.
In regards to Levengood Cirlcles and the "research".

Before starting the discussion, we believe it important to highlight that the
three articles above mentioned are actually considered by the crop circle
community to be the ‘‘scientific reference point’’ on the subject. Physiologia
Plantarum Journal played a crucial role in publishing all three articles and
giving these authors scientific support and credibility. Furthermore, our article
was first submitted to Physiologia Plantarum Journal and its editorial board
agreed with our comments about the pseudoscientific contents of the three
articles (Physiologia Plantarum Journal, communication to the authors, 2004),
but it refused to publish our article with the surprising motivation that ‘‘there is
not a scientific discussion going on the crop circle subject’’.

www.cicap.org...

The question is can you show that all crop circles are not man made. The answer is yes.

Ok, show me one not made by man, being made by that which is not man.
Pretty simple.
Show me what makes them if it is not man, rather than creating a straw man argument claiming that "some circles" could not have possibly been made by man.

That is how science works. You have a hypothesis that there are circles that have characteristics that could not have been made by man, so falsify the findings with a test. Show me the evidence that something else made them and is responsible for the characteristics(never mind that the characteristics are based on assumptions and flawed studies). Show me the cause.

A team of college kids from M.I.T. couldn't recreate Levengood crop circles with all kinds of equipment. So we are to believe Joe and Jim Bob have more advanced equipment than students at M.I.T.? Are we to believe that Joe and Jim Bob are microwaving the corn stalks?

I am not asking you to believe any of that.
Strawman again
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. "
Firstly, it was a doodgy T.V. special, lets be clear about that. Even BLT admit that the whole thing was a poor attempt.

The criteria are flawed and the whole argument you post is a strawman.
Levengood himself said the evidence is in no way a proof of any cause.

“Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation.From these observed variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used as a validation tool.” [1]

W. C. Levengood, “Anatomical Anomalies in Crop Formation Plants,” Physiologia Plantarum 92 (1994): 356-363.
This is the criteria you wanted the students from MIT to replicate. Levengood concedes it is not even a valid criteria to measure "genuine" CC's.


This is your own Man people, debunking himself.


This link is a review of the studies and contains links to other cereologists that have opinions that should be considered by those that site these studies as some kind of proof that HUMANS are not the cause. www.csicop.org...

But there is one fundamental problem with the studies done by Levengood even whilst considering the many others.
It is that correlation of site data do not prove cause.
They simply could not replicate the correlation of characteristics in the sites as claimed by Levengood as being "genuine" CC characteristics.

It also does not infer any cause at all, ever. So it can not infer that HUMANS did NOT make the circles any more then does it infer that Aliens or Balls of Light or plasma vortices(that is Levengood"s belief as cause for CC, yep, plasma Vortices) DID cause them.
Correlation is not causation. This is basic science, science for dummies, science 101. Yet crop circle enthusiasts site this stuff like a broken "proof" record.

Here is an open debate about BLT and Haselhoff and Grassi et al on the problems and flaws in BLT's studies and Crop Circle research and the way they misrepresent the findings.www.cicap.org...
Here is the refutation of Levengood et al.
www.cicap.org...

They are from this group here:Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Scientists that research many topics that relate to forums and topics that also appear on ATS.

This is a must read if you are a believer of te BLT research group and the findings.

I'll leave you with what CC believers need to do.

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

CC believers should be asking for this level of scrutiny instead of regurgitating bad science.

BTW, do you know Levengood believes that it could be Plasma Vortices that create circles.

"Is it possible that a pair of these downward directed, counterclockwise plasma vortices intersected and captured meteoric dust along the way, which in turn, was maintained or heated back to a semi-molten state by the microwaves of sub-vortices which carried it to the ground with its subsequent crop flattening energies? If so, this would indicate a heretofore unknown phenomenon of ionospheric plasma vortices descending to the Earth's surface."

www.tonyrogers.com...
Now that would make a cool youtube Video.



[edit on 22/12/09 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


You are the one making an absolute claim that makes no sense.

You quoted someone elses opinion and then you act like it's fact.

Again,

The M.I.T. students could not duplicate Levengood crop circles with night vision goggles and other equipment. Why should I think Joe and Jim Bob has better equipment than the M.I.T. students?

Again, you are making the absolute claim that all of these crop circles are man made. So you would have to believe any tom, dick or harry has night vision goggles and they are out there microwaving corn stalks.

This is an argument that's predicated on your silly absolute.

Where's all the human error? Where's the crop circle makers practice runs? Do all crop circle makers just become experts overnight?

What about the standing crops that have elongated nodes? This didn't occur because of mechanical flattening, so how did this occur?

Of course Levengood is going to ask questions, because he's not stupid. He's not going to make an absolute statement like you did.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. This is your claim.

You have to rebutt the contrary evidence with facts that support your absolute. You are just quoting from a website and then acting like it's fact.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Again, the burden of proof is on you. This is your claim.

I am claiming Humans make crop circles.
I can show you humans.
I can show you crop circles.
I can show you humans who make crop circles.

If you claim they are not made by humans.
Show me the cause.
Not a straw man argument based on correlations and claims.
It really is that simple.

You have to rebutt the contrary evidence with facts that support your absolute. You are just quoting from a website and then acting like it's fact.

What evidence am I rebutting.
You don't have any.
All you have is strawmen arguments and fallacies.

You quote Levengoods BLT site like it s fact or something.

reply to post by atlasastro


Jeezes Christ...can you not understand what people are trying to tell you in this thread? Of course you can show us people...and crop circles...and people that make crop circles...but you are making an ABSOLUTE claim and providing no ABSOLUTE evidence my friend.

OF COURSE SOME PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CROP CIRCLES...AND OF COURSE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SHOW US SOME OF THESE PEOPLE...ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN COULD WORK THAT MUCH OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then...we have you come along telling us something we already knew...but then making outrages claims..."Look...see this...some people make crop circles...therefore I must conclude ALL crop circles are man-made"...your claims are rediculous and unfounded.

I don't even go around making absolute statements like you do...I do not claim as fact that some crop circles are made by Aliens...but I state there is a very high chance of it when examining all the evidence...and that doesn't just include evidence about CC's...it's information that relates to the existence and presence of Aliens here on Earth. It's simple logic and application of Occam's Razor.

[edit on 23/12/09 by CHA0S]

Regardless of who makes them, the "how" of the matter needs to be explained. It has apparently been shown that the crop in "genuine" circles has been affected by some kind of electromagnetic radiation that measures in a linear fashion, typically with the most concentrated readings at the center of the formation and a progression of weaker readings as one approaches the perimeter. Significant changes are also claimed to have been found in the surface soil within the circles. Additionally, the crop is said to be laid down without being damaged and continues to grow and flower normally, albeit horizontally, and the crop is still harvestable. It is clear that whoever is making the circles displaying the above traits, if these traits are indeed found in the circles, are not using boards and rope. So the question remains, how do they do it?

Here is an interesting documentary that explains what supposedly is anomolous about some crop circles:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by CHA0S

I don't even go around making absolute statements like you do...I do not claim as fact that some crop circles are made by Aliens...but I state there is a very high chance of it when examining all the evidence...and that doesn't just include evidence about CC's...it's information that relates to the existence and presence of Aliens here on Earth. It's simple logic and application of Ockham's Razor.

Where is the evidence?
You have none.
How can you conclude that there is a high chance of aliens creating CC's.
Have you seen aliens?
Have you seen aliens creating CC's?
You are right though, you go around making statements that have nothing to support them. I don't make statements like that, so I agree with you.
I cannot believe you quote Ockham's in here.
All things being equal, the simple answer is often the right one CHAOS. But all things are not equal CHAOS, consider that. The scales are so heavily tipping to man made CC's that you need to stack your side with assumptions and "possibilities" that your argument is a joke.
Do you even understand what you dribble.
Do you actually know that the principle of Ockham's logic is this:"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

Ockham's require that we make as FEW assumptions as possible.
So lets apply Ockham's to our debate.
Me: Man as cause- not assumed as we can show man.
Man making circles- not assumed as we can show men making circles.
Result-Men make all crop circles as a hypothesis or theory.

You refute my theory that is based on evidence with assumptions.

You: atlasastro is wrong in his theory and my theory is- not all crop circles are man made and some are made by ET.
ET as cause- no evidence that ET exist. Assumed.
ET making circles- no evidence of ET's making CC's. Assumed.
ET's make some crop circles as a hypothesis or theory is totally assumed.

All your assumptions are based in an assumption that not ALL the circles are man made, and that this assumption leads you to the next assumption that it must be ET, then you assume that ET exist and not to mention we can include you assume they must be technologically advanced enough to travel here and make circles.
Really great application of Ockham's there CHAOS. Just awesome.

You are injecting an entity into the CC equation with absolutely no evidence. In other words you are multiplying entities in the discussion of what creates CC's. You do this unnecessarily in that there is not evidence to support the injection of the entity in order to explain CC's.

I clearly state that my OP is a belief that MAN is the entity responsible for CC's.
I then go on to say why using EVIDENCE.

If you would like to refute that evidence with your OWN evidence showing why I am wrong then do so, show me YOUR entity that you have include in the equation to explain CC's.

I am not claiming an absolute. Show me where I do. I am expressing a belief.
I am simply saying there are no other causes because there is no evidence to show these causes or even evidence that these causes exists.

You are the one claiming that it is an absolute that not all the crop circles are made by man.
You are absolute in that matter, that not all the crop circles are done by man.
It is you guys that plaster things like "there is no way these are man made", "they are too complex", "they get done too quickly", etc etc. Like you have absolute certainty, with nothing to show that supports that.

My argument is that logic apply. We have evidence. We have humans as a cause. We have crop circles.
But you cannot do the math because you are adding things in there that just do not exist.

You want people to consider YOUR cause for crop circles based on a "belief".
You insert a "belief" as being a possibility.
You want others to consider this possibility.
Then you get upset when people like me say things like:
Why do I need to consider something you only think is a possibility as creating Crop Circles when I know for a fact men are making crop circles.

It is an Idea not based on evidence in that they cannot show any other cause.
There is no evidence.
None, of any other cause.
If there was, you wouldn't need to come in here and squabble over the idea that my argument is absolute, because you would have an alternative to show that I am wrong.

But all you have is a belief.
Like religion.
Come back when you want to discuss the facts and no preach your beliefs.

I find your hypocrisy and ignorance astounding.