Decoding the Mystery of Crop Circles: A Look at the Skeptics and Real Phenomenon

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Circles
In summary: In summary, the phenomenon of crop circles goes back centuries. Some years ago, a documentary showed that meteorologists in the US studied this phenomenon as early as the 1940s. Some people believe that the circles are created by wind, earthlights, or some other unknown process. Skeptics can only speculate about the source of the evidence. The earliest accounts of crop circles date back to the 1800s.
  • #36
Originally posted by Zero
Hey, Russ, don't read any of the other links, either...on eof them 'comfirms' crop circles by using dowsing. That's like confirming the existence of UFOs by talking to an astrologer.
Too late, but it was good for a laugh.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Well, the thread has moved on since I posted. Sorry for being so dilatory.

I can certainly accept whirlwinds or dust devils occasionally making a circular pattern in standing grain. I'll even give you another possibility, seiches. Usually a seiche is a lake phenomenon, where the water suddenly rises around the shore. It's caused by a hunk of cold dense air falling down through the warmer atmosphere and going ker-plunk. It has been established that they happen on land too. A garage was destroyed by one in my old neighborhood a few years ago. There was a professor at the U. of Chicago who was an expert on them.

I too find the microwave explanation unbelievable. In fact I doubt the effect it was brought into explain. Who says these plant tissues are swollen? How were they treated in bringing them to the lab? Is there anywhere where we can look at the original tissues, not just labelled photos? But then displays can be faked too.

The reason my default opinion is "fake" is that crop circles are a famous new-age phenomenon, and lots of people have interests in keeping the story going.
 
  • #38
Russ, Zero,
OK. Let's turn this around.

Where are the arrest records, photographs, soil compaction studies, debris sweeps, and admissions of guilt to prove that people are making more than 0.1% of crop circles.

This ain't like UFOs: That crop circles happen is beyond doubt. Where is the evidence to support your explanation? I don't consider 0.1% convincing. I can probably find a greater percentage of honest used car salesmen. When you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, please post the informatioin. Until then I consider your explanation debunked.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Originally posted by russ_watters
A tour guide site for Stonehenge doesn't pass my credibility test as being a reliable source of scientific information.
It wouldn't pass mine either. Where is this tour guide site to stonehenge you speak of? The link has the word "stonehenge" in it and you have invented the "tour guide site" part from thin air. You are distorting the facts, then criticizing the facts for the distortions you added yourself. This is completely unacceptable.

Here is the link again:
scienceofcropcircles
Address:http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm
Where is the "tour guide site"?

Therefore I refused to even read the link.
You refused to even read the link based on a distortion you invented in your own mind. This is completely unacceptable by all standards of academia and science. If you read the site then your criticisms have the potential of being dead on. As it is, everything you say about it is completely worthless.

Ok, first sentence: So, this "article" makes the same assumption that Ivan does. It ignores step 1 of the process:

Step 1: Prove that not all crop circles are man made.
The article presents evidence upon which a convincing argument can start to be built. It presents two eyewitness accounts, the first by a spectroscopist who finds roughly circular formations in a field after a storm, and which he believes were the direct result of the storm, the second by a farmer who actually sees a whirlwind make this kind of formation in a field of crops.
I have copied these two accounts into this thread in my post addressed to selfAdjoint above. (10-25-2003 12:32 A.M.)

Whirlwinds and dust devils are exceptionally common phenomena. Crop fields are exceptionally common. It would be nice to have a video of a whirlwind touching down and swirling some crops into a flat rough circle, but, since it is already so well known that they do touch down briefly in one spot and then retreat back into the sky, it is pretty much obvious what kind of pattern they would leave in a crop field, if they did it there.

The two guys with the board and a rope who admitted to hoaxing them for years said they were inspired by reports of people finding circles in their crops. I strongly suspect all the pre-hoax reports of crop circles arose from ones made by whirlwinds.

Now, by your reasoning, it is OK to dismiss a whole article based on the first sentence. Let's apply this to another article. Here's the first sentence:

"In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember - perhaps with more respect than love - the magnificent structure on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers."

What kind of pseudo-scientific nutcase starts off a supposedly scientific paper with a sentence full of lame poetic cr*p like this? "...the lofty staircase of which you were chased for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers." Sounds like a veiled reference to pederasty to me. By Russ-Watter's, reakoning, therefore, we can dismiss everything that follows. I think, though, there are a lot of people a PF who are glad this paper wasn't dismissed based on this bad first sentence.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well, the thread has moved on since I posted. Sorry for being so dilatory.

I can certainly accept whirlwinds or dust devils occasionally making a circular pattern in standing grain. I'll even give you another possibility, seiches. Usually a seiche is a lake phenomenon, where the water suddenly rises around the shore. It's caused by a hunk of cold dense air falling down through the warmer atmosphere and going ker-plunk. It has been established that they happen on land too. A garage was destroyed by one in my old neighborhood a few years ago. There was a professor at the U. of Chicago who was an expert on them.

I too find the microwave explanation unbelievable. In fact I doubt the effect it was brought into explain. Who says these plant tissues are swollen? How were they treated in bringing them to the lab? Is there anywhere where we can look at the original tissues, not just labelled photos? But then displays can be faked too.

The reason my default opinion is "fake" is that crop circles are a famous new-age phenomenon, and lots of people have interests in keeping the story going.
Thanks selfAdjoint.

As with many such claimed phenomenon, the hustlers swarm like flies. This makes it very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The original work that produced the microwave hypothesis was done at the University of Michigan. By all appearances, this was handled in a professional manner. I was not able to find the original work yet [again] - I have been too busy with my own work - but I will try to find this information in the next couple of days. I think the work is properly credited in one of the links, but other people have followed up on this work. I know nothing about the people producing the more recent reports so I am being cautious here.

It may be as simple as whirlwinds; but this does seem to contradict the evidence. I know the ionic vortex stuff is pretty far out - I am still grasping for straws in this respect. I am interested in the potential for static charge accumulation. It seems to me that a wheat field might function as a fairly effective static generator. Perhaps some other kind of high voltage discharge takes place. Also, multicolored lights are often reported - interpreted as UFO lights - that could be due to some kind of electric/plasma event. The reports are reminiscent of swamp gas lights and earthlights reports.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whirlwinds and dust devils are exceptionally common phenomena. Crop fields are exceptionally common. It would be nice to have a video of a whirlwind touching down and swirling some crops into a flat rough circle, but, since it is already so well known that they do touch down briefly in one spot and then retreat back into the sky, it is pretty much obvious what kind of pattern they would leave in a crop field, if they did it there.

Even more to support this point: It appears that the genuine formations are really anti-donuts - the center of the circle is relatively undisturbed. This is surrounded by the flattened circle, and then a fairly abrupt edge along the perimeter.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Even more to support this point: It appears that the genuine formations are really anti-donuts - the center of the circle is relatively undisturbed. This is surrounded by the flattened circle, and then a fairly abrupt edge along the perimeter.
That actually sounds like evidence that it is faked... Seems like it would be hardest to flatten that patch in the middle!
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Zero
That actually sounds like evidence that it is faked... Seems like it would be hardest to flatten that patch in the middle!
I'm pretty sure Ivan is referring to what you'd expect to find left behind by a whirlwind touchdown: the center, the low pressure "eye" would leave the crops unflattened.

The elaborate, neat and geomtric hoaxed ones always have the center nicely flattened down. This would be easy to do by having a spike in one end of the board: stick the spike in the ground and pivot the board around it in increments, stepping on it each time to flatten the crops.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I'm pretty sure Ivan is referring to what you'd expect to find left behind by a whirlwind touchdown: the center, the low pressure "eye" would leave the crops unflattened.

The elaborate, neat and geomtric hoaxed ones always have the center nicely flattened down. This would be easy to do by having a spike in one end of the board: stick the spike in the ground and pivot the board around it in increments, stepping on it each time to flatten the crops.

Yes. As I remember, the scientist who first did this work said that one could almost be sure that this feature wouild be absent on faked circles; where the swollen nodes and such were also absent.
 
  • #45
Ummmm...ok. Now, what's this about microwaves? I don't get it, it doesn't seem logical that there would be random bursts of radiation...can someone explain that mechanism to me, or at least point me to a spcific link?
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...ok. Now, what's this about microwaves? I don't get it, it doesn't seem logical that there would be random bursts of radiation...can someone explain that mechanism to me, or at least point me to a spcific link?

We are guessing at a mechanism. We only know that it appears to be true that something causes damage to the stalks that is consistent with exposture to microwaves.

There is so much cr*p about crop circles out there, I haven't found the original work on this yet. However, the pictures in the link given are what I have seen in the past. There are also some interesting microscopic pictures that I will get when I find them.

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/blt1.htm

Here is the list of consultants for this particular information.
http://www.bltresearch.com/proffcons.html

OK this is the guy. He started the organization linked above. He did the orignal work that I saw years ago. I don't know what to make of this website though. It looks like they make claims he never did.

LEVENGOOD, W.C ............ Biophysicist
M.S. in Biophysics, University of Michigan--1970
M.A. in Bioscience, Ball State University--1961
Research physicist at the Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 1961-1970; Director of Biophysical Research for private-sector companies, 1970-1983. Has published 50+ papers, in professional scientific journals, including Nature and Science. Three papers (1994; 1995; 1999) present results of laboratory work on crop circle plants and soils.
Currently: pursuing multiple research interests at Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory, Grass Lakes, MI
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Here are some skeptical links and some additional information. I am still trying to find the original work. Levengood is who impressed me.

Investigative Files
Levengood's Crop-Circle Plant Research
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html


Special Report
Circular Reasoning: The 'Mystery' of Crop Circles and Their 'Orbs' of Light
http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/crop-circles.html

Skeptics Dictionary:
http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html

Text © Freddy Silva 1998 & 2000. Extracts from the book Secrets In The Fields.
http://www.lovely.clara.net/biophysical.html


Theories on the Formation of
Crop Circles
http://www.paradigmshift.com/theories.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Taking away from the CSICOP criticism of Leavergood two sensible points:

1) The research needs to be replicated,
2) Experimental protocols need to be in place to reduce the appearance, if not the actuallity, of experimenter bias.

Until this is done, given the rather believer-centric attitude they seem to find in Leavergood's work, I think we have to treat the cellular modifications as Not Proven.

BTW, the tone of this CSICOP essay reminds me why I stopped reading Skeptic. They behave all too much just like the people they criticise. True believers every one.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Russ, Zero,
OK. Let's turn this around.

Where are the arrest records, photographs, soil compaction studies, debris sweeps, and admissions of guilt to prove that people are making more than 0.1% of crop circles.

This ain't like UFOs: That crop circles happen is beyond doubt. Where is the evidence to support your explanation? I don't consider 0.1% convincing. I can probably find a greater percentage of honest used car salesmen. When you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, please post the informatioin. Until then I consider your explanation debunked.
That line of reasoning works for graffiti too, Ivan. Its flawed. And you can't burden-of-proof-shift this. Its you who are making an extrordinary claim and its you who must supply the extrordinary evidence.
Here are some skeptical links and some additional information. I am still trying to find the original work. Levengood is who impressed me.
The first link really blasts Levengood. And he impressed you? Does he still impress you? Now I'm confused. In any case, doesn't this vindicate my credibility test criteria? If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where is this tour guide site to stonehenge you speak of? The link has the word "stonehenge" in it and you have invented the "tour guide site" part from thin air. You are distorting the facts, then criticizing the facts for the distortions you added yourself. This is completely unacceptable.
Easy there. You could have stopped at the first sentence and I would explain: When given a site I've never seen before, the first thing I do is look at the home page. If there is no link to the home page, just delete everything after the domain name in your address bar and hit enter. Doing so for this link takes you to the homepage which has this subtitle:
Avebury and Stonehenge Guides and Tours
So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time. Sometimes you can tell from the domain name what it is before even reading it. Anything on geocities.com for example is a personal website.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by russ_watters
That line of reasoning works for graffiti too, Ivan. Its flawed. And you can't burden-of-proof-shift this. Its you who are making an extrordinary claim and its you who must supply the extrordinary evidence.

Not true. First, this is not an extraordinary claim. There is nothing about this that requires any fantastic leaps of faith - like how ET would get here. As Zooby has argued, this may be due to nothing more than some unusual brand of whirlwinds. There are observations of formations that go back decades or centuries. You propose an explanation for this. In the 1970's, a couple of people started replicating these phenomena - one of the two famous British hoaxers indicated this. As a farm boy, he knew about crop circles. This claim is just as credible as the claim that they made the circles. So, in no way does this account for the evidence. The burden of proof for your theory lies with you. Where is the evidence? Next, even your two hoaxers are suspect. Perhaps they were lying for the publicity. Prove that they made all those circles.

Why don't more people EVER get caught? Why would they bother going to all that work when often nobody may even notice their efforts? You are proposing a solution that has virtually no evidence to support it. Also, people get arrested or caught, or at least are seen making graffiti all the time. I used to see this in LA myself.

The first link really blasts Levengood. And he impressed you?

Ten years ago; and yes, he did. One link hardly constitutes a balance perspective. Why is this link any more credible than any other; because you like it? It appears that the author is not even a scientist.
• Joe Nickell,* senior researh fellow, CSICOP
I’m not about to jump on this guys word. A community college teacher reviewed the paper.

Does he still impress you? Now I'm confused. In any case, doesn't this vindicate my credibility test criteria? If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless.

Since I followed his work the skeptics have attacked. IMO, it remains to be seen if the criticism is valid or not. I admit that objections are made that are worthy of review. First though, this does not mean that all or any of the accusations are true. Next, it does not mean that the information or all data is bogus. I pretty much agree with selfAdjoint on this. Finally, I posted skeptical links because I am interested in the truth. I often try to post differing points of view on controversial issues that I debate; especially in cases like this. When have you ever done this?
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Originally posted by russ_watters Easy there. You could have stopped at the first sentence and I would explain: When given a site I've never seen before, the first thing I do is look at the home page. If there is no link to the home page, just delete everything after the domain name in your address bar and hit enter. Doing so for this link takes you to the homepage which has this subtitle:

So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time.
I must concede, then, that you did not invent the "tour guide site" aspect out of thin air. This looked to be the case since there is nothing at the page Ivan linked to to suggest it is anything but a site unto itself.

So, my other two questions remain: what do you object to in the two quotes I extracted from the site and posted here, and do you still maintain it is possible to dismiss, with confidence, a piece of writing based exclusively on a reading of the first sentence?
 
  • #52
Originally posted by russ_watters
If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless.
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."
Russ-Watters lost me when he asserted he could judge a piece of writing by its first sentence alone.

He really isn't a skeptic: one who approaches with an attitude of doubt, he is, in fact, one who judges without knowing what he is judging. Prejudiced.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."

You guys seem to think I am pushing one particular explanation. I'm not.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by russ_watters
So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time. Sometimes you can tell from the domain name what it is before even reading it. Anything on geocities.com for example is a personal website.


Yes, here is their secret agenda:
These pages are maintained in the international public interest by the Megalithic Society for the benefit of visitors, enthusiasts and scholars who require the most recent, reliable information on these major prehistoric sites. They have been prepared for the Society by Prof. / Dr. Terence Meaden. Local tourist information is provided for people wanting to visit megalithicWiltshire to see the stones for themselves. As with all scholastic scientific endeavours the Society makes the best informed interpretations based on the material evidence in accordance with the latest findings from the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology and comparative ancient religion.

You also completely ignore that the pages are chocked full of scientific citations.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes, here is their secret agenda...
Ivan, I implied nothing sinister about their motives. I simply stated that a tourist website is not one that you can attach scientific credibility to.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
do you still maintain it is possible to dismiss, with confidence, a piece of writing based exclusively on a reading of the first sentence?
Yes.
So, my other two questions remain: what do you object to in the two quotes I extracted from the site and posted here,
I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.
He really isn't a skeptic: one who approaches with an attitude of doubt, he is, in fact, one who judges without knowing what he is judging. Prejudiced.
I prefer "biased." I consider myself to be biased in favor of the scientific method/process.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Originally posted by russ_watters I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle.
I'm not sure why you aren't sure what I'm talking about. First, since you, zero, and selfAjoint wouldn't read the article, I went to the trouble of extracting the quotes for you. Then since it appeared you still hadn't read them I referred you back to the specific post (date and time) in which I had quoted them.
To call any "roughly circular" patch of flattened crops a "crop circle" does not loosen the definition. The word "circle" when applied to crops has been loose all along. The shapes described in the 1880 report were of interest to the man who reported them because they seemed more orderly than what you'd expect from wind phenomena.
I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.
This, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important thing you've said. I think it reveals the true cause of your side-stepping and refusal to even consider a non-hoaxed cause for crop circles. You are suspicious that it is a bait to get you into some position where you have to admit there is some vague possibility of causes you now find unacceptable to consider.

I have been looking at stuff posted by Ivan for months now, accepting it where it makes sense and picking it apart where it doesn't. The notion that someone might have to shield their eyes from something he posted is pretty comical. The first time I responded to one of his crop circle threads I flat out said I thought they were either hoaxes or some completely natural process, and had nothing to do with any flying saucers. He agreed, and we started speculating about what might be making the non-hoaxed ones. He has never once raised the possibility it could be flying saucers. You, and Zero, and selfAjoint would have found out the same thing if you hadn't jumped to the rigid conclusion that he must be up to something.So, here's that sentence again:

"In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintaince with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember - perhaps with more respect than love - the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers."

This is the first sentence of a thing that is supposed to be a scientific paper. By your criteria, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of it based on how bad this first sentence is, right?
 
  • #58
Russ won't participate in my remote viewing test because if he wins he might be labeled a psychic.
 
  • #59
Same here. There's the remote chance I'll guess right and unintentinally vindicate you. Can't have that.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I have been looking at stuff posted by Ivan for months now, accepting it where it makes sense and picking it apart where it doesn't. The notion that someone might have to shield their eyes from something he posted is pretty comical. The first time I responded to one of his crop circle threads I flat out said I thought they were either hoaxes or some completely natural process, and had nothing to do with any flying saucers. He agreed, and we started speculating about what might be making the non-hoaxed ones. He has never once raised the possibility it could be flying saucers. You, and Zero, and selfAjoint would have found out the same thing if you hadn't jumped to the rigid conclusion that he must be up to something.
Just a clarification - I never said that Ivan was hiding an adjenda here. Indeed, I often have no clue as to what his real position is. He sometimes takes the devil's advocate position or the no position position. I personally consider that to usually be a cop out (not to mention annoying), but then, I have an opinion about EVERYTHING, I'm always up front about it, and have a lot of trouble arguing anything else.

In any case, its the conspiracy theory websites that try all sorts of trickery to advance their position. Ivan has cited several, but I certainly don't expect that he believes everything he sees on them.
So, here's that sentence again:... This is the first sentence of a thing that is supposed to be a scientific paper. By your criteria, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of it based on how bad this first sentence is, right?
Well, I guess you misunderstand my criteria. That sentence doesn't really say anything at all. Its not so much bad as it is just plain useless. But a useless first sentence isn't something I'd dismiss the rest of a paper for.

The sentence I had a problem with was far different. It made an affirmative statement about its own validity.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Originally posted by russ_watters Just a clarification - I never said that Ivan was hiding an adjenda here.
Not by name but you can't be referring to anyone else when you said the following:
To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.

Well, I guess you misunderstand my criteria. That sentence doesn't really say anything at all. Its not so much bad as it is just plain useless. But a useless first sentence isn't something I'd dismiss the rest of a paper for.
It is actually not the least bit useless. The author builds on it directly in the next sentence, and by the sentence after that the premise of his discussion is laid down. It is however, unnecessarily peppered with the irritating, lame "poetification" that makes the whole thing much harder to read than it needs to be.
The sentence I had a problem with was far different. It made an affirmative statement about its own validity.
This is true, and I am aware of the difference. If you read the rest of the article,(the crop circle article) though, you realize this is the result of the author being a poorly organized writer. The assumptions inherent in the first sentence are supported by the eyewitness accounts he presents later. My point is that it turns out to be true, sometimes, that people who express themselves badly have valid things to say. As far as I'm concerned, aside from the service of presenting those two quotes, the article hasn't got much at all to reccomend it. I have, throughout this thread, simply been trying to bring people's attention to those two quotes. Instead of just reading them and commenting, you throw up a Byzantine system of "credibility checks",first sentence policies, overly suspicious comments on what other people's motives appear to be, and veiled pressure on the other participants in the thread not to get drawn in.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Same here. There's the remote chance I'll guess right and unintentinally vindicate you. Can't have that.

Did you vibe my motives through ESP?

Vindicate?
 
  • #63
Originally posted by russ_watters
Indeed, I often have no clue as to what his real position is. He sometimes takes the devil's advocate position or the no position position. I personally consider that to usually be a cop out (not to mention annoying),



Russ, you've got the wrong idea. First, Socrates convinced me that now and forevermore, I [and everyone else] know nothing. I am trying to explore subjects, not [for the most part anyway] prove a point. Sometimes [often] I argue the difficult position simply because someone should. I can see points that should be made. This does not necessarily mean that I "believe" the implications of these arguments. Consider the John Edwards thread: The guy turns my stomach to watch anymore. Still, I don't consider my personal reaction the end all of objectivity. If he actually does good as many claim, then perhaps this is worth examining. Nothing more should be inferred. This line of reasoning applies most of what I do. This is not so say that have managed to purge my system of all opinions...as my wife will testify I have not.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, I implied nothing sinister about their motives. I simply stated that a tourist website is not one that you can attach scientific credibility to.

This is an example of how you fail to characterize a source in the proper context.
Simple Circles of the Late 1970s and the 1980s.
During the period of intense crop-circle studies undertaken over a hundred years later, many single circles and some groups of crop circles were discovered which had identical characteristics to those mentioned by Rand Capron, namely
(1) "prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside these (2) a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered". In addition, several crop circles of the 1980s were found which also had
(3) "a few standing stalks as a centre".
As a 20th-century example, a splendid set of six small circles with these characteristics was sighted from the air on 5 August 1989 in North Wiltshire, and investigated soon afterwards by Drs. Tokio Kikuchi (Kochi University, Japan) and Terence Meaden (Physics Professor, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada). Photographs are given as Figures 5 and 6 (page 16) and Figure 2 (page 60) in the book Circles from the Sky (Proc. First International Conference on the Circles Effect at Oxford 1990, published by Souvenir Press, London, 1991). Besides these, four similar circles with a twist of central standing stalks were found at other sites that summer. [However, note that since 1991, due to a change in research priorities, no additional airborne searches have been undertaken by CERES, the Circles Effect Research Organisation].
From quite another source comes another example of a small tuft of standing stems at the centre of flattened circular corn. This is given in the second edition of Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved (page 224, J. Randles and P. Fuller; published by Robert Hale).
...Journal of Meteorology (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp 20-21: "...Such observations are what would be expected of a descending ring-vortex of air, as proposed theoretically by Professor John Snow (Purdue University) and Dr Tokio Kikuchi (Kochi University): (Circles from the Sky, pp 54-67); see also J. Meteorology, UK, volume 17, 109-117, 1992). This refers to the development of instability in an eddy vortex leading to breakdown of the core and the production of a well-defined ring vortex, followed by its sudden descent to ground level. Under ideal conditions a small cone of stalks remain in the middle, but often slight oscillations or drift of the swirling agent can knock the pyramid over. ...G.D. Freier: The electric field of a large dust devil. J.Geophys.Research, vol.65, 3504 (1960).
W.D. Crozier: Electric field of a New Mexico dust devil, ibid. vol. 69, 5427-5429 (1964) and vol.75, 4583-4585 (1970)...It was the celebrated physicist Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University who declared in 1991 that "Corn circles are either hoaxes or formed by vortex movement of air". Cambridgeshire Evening News, 30. 9.1991

This is written by Prof Terence Meaden. The citations look to be good and plentiful. This agrees with much of what I have seen in the past...I say this site is credible. Prove its not. Otherwise, you have no right to dismiss the work of someone more qualified than you.

Yes. I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.

Russ, don't you see that it is you, not me who has the ulterior motive? You aren't aware of the proper information related to this subject because assume that everything crop circle is nonsense. I think this clearly is what caused the evolution of the hoaxes. Also, I can even imagine that slightly more sophisticated formations [more than a simple donut] could be possible by some of these proposed, very earthly explanations.

I prefer "biased." I consider myself to be biased in favor of the scientific method/process.

One classic cop out used in pseudoskepticism is to simply deny any evidence that you don't like. This is what I think you do. If you can show that the citations for the "tourists" are bogus, I will agree to do more research before posting such sites for as a reference.

Note that when I started this thread I fully expected to find the original work that I saw. It is rare that I can't find any direct links. When I have more time I will still look for this; but I think the Stonehenge link lists many of the related studies and work.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Ivan,

I notice one citation of a man named Freier: "The Electric Field of a Large Dust Devil". This may be the man I saw a show about who proposed the notion that dust devils may be primarily electric phenomena; i.e. the "ionic vortex" you suggest once in a while. As I recall the man in the show wasn't able to get any evidence that the electric field came first and entrained the air and dust second.

Temperature differences seem to be the only thing that will generate a dust devil or whirlwind, and the electric field arises from the collision of air or dust particles.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

I notice one citation of a man named Freier: "The Electric Field of a Large Dust Devil". This may be the man I saw a show about who proposed the notion that dust devils may be primarily electric phenomena; i.e. the "ionic vortex" you suggest once in a while. As I recall the man in the show wasn't able to get any evidence that the electric field came first and entrained the air and dust second.

Temperature differences seem to be the only thing that will generate a dust devil or whirlwind, and the electric field arises from the collision of air or dust particles.

There is on the average about a 100 volts per meter vertical potential all around us. Dust particles at different elevations should acquire different potentials accordingly. Perhaps he was playing to this idea. If he was wrong, this does not imply bad science. In fact, if he proved himself wrong, or if he made his work available for scrutiny and to later be disproven, this is likely an example of good science. Remember, a well considered explanation that is proven wrong is good. This is science at its core. Also, this by no means automatically discredits other data and information available through his work. Science builds upon failures. This is also good science. The key is to recognize the difference between efforts that are wrong, and bad science.

I think this is pretty well understood - the formations of small vorticies - but there may still be some unresolved issues. It sounds like it was an idea worth checking; assuming of course that he had a reasonable model for this. Also, I'm not really pushing the ionic votex idea; I don't know if this idea is really feasible or not. It is often mentioned and there are certain elements of this business that make the idea tempting, but there are many other ways that we might explain the evidence. I have also wondered about things like earthlights [not the seismic stress type] and ball lightning. Perhaps there is some related or similar mechanism at work.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is on the average about a 100 volts per meter vertical potential all around us.
Are you saying that there is an average 100 volt difference between a point one meter off the ground and a point two meters off the ground? That seems like way too much.

If he was wrong, this does not imply bad science.
Course not. I didn't say anything to the effect it did. He had an idea, looked for evidence to support it, but didn't find any. That's all. It dosn't mean he proved himself wrong, either. It just means he didn't find any evidence to support his idea.
It sounds like it was an idea worth checking; assuming of course that he had a reasonable model for this. Also, I'm not really pushing the ionic votex idea; I don't know if this idea is really feasible or not.
I agree that it was worth checking. What occurred to me, though, is that if an ionic vortex were to begin for purely electrical reasons it would instantaneously entrain air. I don't see how anyone could separate the chicken from the egg in natural situations.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Are you saying that there is an average 100 volt difference between a point one meter off the ground and a point two meters off the ground? That seems like way too much.


I know. Surprising isn't it. Yes, near the surface of the earth, the average is between 90 and 120 volts per meter on a clear day. See the Feynman Lectures on Physics; vol II, p9-3. The average current in the air on a clear day is about 10-12 amps per meter2

Course not. I didn't say anything to the effect it did. He had an idea, looked for evidence to support it, but didn't find any. That's all. It dosn't mean he proved himself wrong, either. It just means he didn't find any evidence to support his idea.

Considering the rope I just gave Russ, I wanted to be sure.

I agree that it was worth checking. What occurred to me, though, is that if an ionic vortex were to begin for purely electrical reasons it would instantaneously entrain air. I don't see how anyone could separate the chicken from the egg in natural situations.

I guess we would have to show that we can stop the votex from forming by somehow shorting out the field. I would want to check first though and see if any mystery remains about how these form. His work and the questions addressed could simply be out of date. I think a lot of progress has been made in the study of tornadoes and the like in recent years.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I know. Surprising isn't it. Yes, near the surface of the earth, the average is between 90 and 120 volts per meter on a clear day. See the Feynman Lectures on Physics; vol II, p9-3. The average current in the air on a clear day is about 10-12 amps per meter2
I was really into elecrostatic motors for a while. I know that people had no trouble powering them by putting something sharp up on top of a 30 foot pole to collect the charges. The trouble was that the amount of voltage was so erratic from one minute to the next the motors wouldn't operate smoothly. I guess I never heard a figure given for the average potential difference. That's pretty amazing.

Site on Dust Devil formation:

Dust Devils, Alaska Science Forum
Address:http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF2/227.htmlThs site, strangely, gives a very different mechanism:

What are dust devils?
Address:http://www.videoweather.com/weatherquestions/What_are_dust_devils.htmThis one is pretty comprehensive:

Inside Britannica
Address:http://newsletters.britannica.com/august_articles/whirlwind.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I was really into elecrostatic motors for a while. I know that people had no trouble powering them by putting something sharp up on top of a 30 foot pole to collect the charges. The trouble was that the amount of voltage was so erratic from one minute to the next the motors wouldn't operate smoothly. I guess I never heard a figure given for the average potential difference. That's pretty amazing.

Site on Dust Devil formation:

Dust Devils, Alaska Science Forum
Address:http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF2/227.html

The first thought that hit me after reading the link was that any disturbance could conceivably include electrostatic effects.

As for the voltage, one can see this effect by hanging a metal water bucket - full of water - from the limb of a tree using a good insulator. Poke a small hole in the bottom of the bucket that allows drops to form and then fall off. The excess charge on the bucket accumulates around the sharp radius of the water drops which then carry away the charge. Eventually the water bucket will approach the 100 volt per meter value; depending on the height of the bucket.

THIS CAN BE DANGEROUS. DO NOT TOUCH THE BUCKET; USE A HIGH QUALITY VOLTMETER WITH SAFE PROBES TO MEASURE THE VOLTAGE.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top