You forgot "www." at the beginning of the server name! You have accessed this page though an incomplete server name: ufomind.com instead of www.ufomind.com --- so some services may not work. Please go to the correct address for this page to make this message go away.

Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:09:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:03:18 -0400
>From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake

>>Thanks for listing them, Tony. I suppose if there were as many
>>as 500 such reports, they would still be dismissed as anecdotal,
>>for the same reason that several hundred thousand screened UFO
>>reports are treated the same way by negative skeptics. But it
>>would be interesting to interview these four persons and form
>>one's own opinion as to their sincerity and character.

>>But at least Terence Meaden thought these witnesses' reports were
>>worth noting, which is more than most anti-UFO advocates would do.

>Do you have the full details of what these eyewitnesses actually
>claim to have seen? If so, I'd like to view their accounts and
>details of the alleged formations that were created.

>I have noted it also but a few names, dates and vague areas
>doesn't constitute worthwhile testimony. Where are the full
>accounts of what these people saw?

Tony,

I don't know who, if anyone, has any written reports, full or
partial, from these four. I suppose Colin Andrews or other
British crop-formation investigators would be the ones to
contact on that.

>...
>Secondly, have you actually tried to create a circle in oil-seed
>to test your theory?

No, I leave that up to the crop-circle experts. But my own
opinion, after examining a stand of it that I didn't want to
tromple, was that it would be a hopeless task to do an
impressive hoax job on it.

>You mentioned 'Circular Evidence'
>before, Colin Andrews explained how crop can not be flattened
>using string across the radius as the pressure is too great, so
>we have evidence that what the circle makers say is likely to be
>correct.

The supposed "string" technique was first offered up by negative
skeptics as a hoaxing technique because of the circular shapes
of many of the earlier ones, before Colin dispelled that one.

Here's one for you to  ponder, since you have Noyes' (editor)
_The Crop Circle Enigma_. Go to p. 22 of that book and you'll
see diagrams made by Terence Meaden and Colin Andrews of the
crop circle of 1 Aug. '86 at Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire. It
was a two-layer system, with an underlayer swirled one way and
an upper layer above it, covering it, swirled such that the lay
of the stems was at right angles to that of the layer just
underneath. The diagrams depict the direction of the respective
swirls. The photograph of it is shown on p. 36 of _Circular
Evidence_ by Delgado & Andrews.

You won't find any crop-circle naysayer talking about this one,
or speculating on how it could have been hoaxed, or trying to
demonstrate how it might be hoaxed. That's because it's pretty
mind-boggling just to wonder about. You have to imagine that
somehow every other crop stem out of the many thousands was
first bent over (without breaking the stems) in one direction of
swirl while the remaining stems all around stood intact. Then,
these intact stems were bent over with a swirl at right angles
to the swirl given to the other stems.

>Thirdly, what of the alleged tell tale signs that a circle is genuine
>can be found in the oil-seed formations, i.e. exploded nodes, etc. ?

Such tell-tale signs have been found most notably in other
crops, with wheat receiving the most attention, I believe. You
could write the BLT research team for more details on that.
Recall that posting from Nancy Talbott I originally was trying
to bring to your attention, with excerpt below:

>Yes, control studies have been conducted; BLT has made circles
>with feet, planks & rope,and cement rollers, then sampled the
>crop as we normally do to look for the regularly-found plant
>anomalies.

>We did _not_ find (1) node elongation of the plant stems, (2)
>expulsion cavities at the nodes of plant stems, (3) altered
>redox ratios (measurements of mitochondrial respiration rates),
>or (4) altered germination characteristics in the downed plants
>when compared with controls taken elsewhere in the test fields.

> Nancy Talbott
> BLT Research,
> Box 400127,
> Cambridge, MA
> 02140, USA.

The "B" stands for John Burke, the "T" stands for Talbott, and
the L for Dr. Wm. C. Levingood, who did manage to get a paper or
two (or more since 1994?) into the peer-reviewed literature on
it, and in it he does describe some of the anomalies in detail.
His paper is "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants,"
_Physiologia Plantarum_ 92 (1994), pp. 356-363.

>>Do you mean, Why did the formations evolve from circles and
>>formations of circles to much more complex patterns?

>I didn't actually, I meant why the vortex theory, ley line
>theory, eti theory, none can be hoaxed, some can be hoaxed, most
>can be hoaxed, only the true geometric formations are genuine,
>those which aren't are significant etc. etc. It seems that each
>time the cerealogists are caught out they come back with an
>alternative theory which claims a mystery. Doesn't it seem that
>they are literally clutching at straws to make a mystery out of
>something that is purely man made?

It's the other way around. There is a lot of conclusive evidence
that the real crop-circle formations can't be hoaxed, because
hoaxers can't reproduce any of the extremely important details.
All they can do is make a pattern that, if they do it carefully,
may look OK when photographed from an airplane. But that's good
enough to satisfy those who don't want to admit that
beyond-human intelligence is at work. They're the ones who don't
want to mention or discuss Levingood's work, or that two-layer
crop-circle system I mentioned above, or the braided systems, or
the several cases where the stems were all bent over from one to
several inches above the ground, or why, in thousands of cases
of "genuine" crop formations, no hoaxers have been caught making
them, etc.

Jim Deardorff
http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj