Colin Andrews - Crop circles and New Age 'energy'

[Constance]

Gene Steinberg said: ↑
"It's the guest's viewpoint that crop circles are largely man-made, but inspired by outside forces. You did realize that, right?"


Trained observer replied: "I think that is the last refuge for the Crop Circle Researcher/Believer. After the "alien cause" has been eliminated and all you have are man-made works of art, you have to reach for some other justification to continue your fascination with destructive crop graffiti. I think they are "inspired" by people's fascination with them and that is about as far as it goes."


Actually it's also become the last refuge of the human ccmakers themselves who, having spent or misspent decades of their lives producing crop circles in Wiltshire, don't want to give up what's left of the spotlight on an enquiry they have almost destroyed. At this point, they have another alternative -- to finally demonstrate what they have and have not been able to produce in the cropfields by a) reproducing the most daunting of the formations of the last 45 years [which they refuse to attempt to do] and b) bringing forward the still-anonymous mathematical geniuses who have been designing them. It seems that they won't do either of those things, instead producing a vague screen of usually anonymous claims and hearsay that they have been experiencing paranormal phenomena all along during their circlemaking activities, the very thing that the old school circlemakers at Circlemakers.org attempted to write out of existence in tortuous essays such as the one by Rob Dickinson cited in the first page of this thread. Is all this irony or bad faith? My vote is for the latter.

 

[Constance]

. . . At least BLT really tried to throw a lot of science at the exploding nodes on the wheat and all those distorted genetic mutations that had nothing to do with people with boards and ropes. But then when we found out that was all invention, just like the human made circles they said had phenomenal scientific implications present, we also found out that those claiming scientific interpretations don't take us too far either (see alien implants). What's always needed with these phenomenon is not an individual vision of what is taking place, but critical competing voices that clearly state, independent of each other, what real features, purposes and evidence are actually present.

Exactly. Well said. Btw, can anyone cite the scientific paper(s) that demonstrated that Levengood's research "was all invention"?

 

[trainedobserver]

Is all this irony or bad faith? My vote is for the latter.

The entire Crop Circle subculture is based on and runs on deceit. Many honest "truth seekers" who discovered that they were man-made often converted to makers themselves and entered into the "joke" that had been played on them.

There is nothing magic or really that astounding about the designs or the execution. Human beings make them. I had a Spirograph at the age of seven that would make some pretty amazing designs. It's essentially a mechanical process.

Are you holding out for non-human created formations Constance? Can you name a formation that you feel isn't explained by human construction? Or did I misinterpret your post?

 

[Constance]

Are you holding out for non-human created formations Constance? Can you name a formation that you feel isn't explained by human construction? Or did I misinterpret your post?

I'm holding out for sufficient scientific research to account for physical anomalies in many crop circles. I think it's vital to account first for those anomalies rather than to blink them away. Beyond that there remains the larger question of whether (and what kind of) 'intelligent agency' could be involved in presenting the range of information that has appeared in crop circles. That's why I think it's incumbent on the human ccmakers in Wiltshire to bring forward the designers of many significant crop circles to discuss the ideas and information they've used in the construction of their designs.

 

[Burnt State]

June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot | The Paracast Community Forums

This thread has quite a different look at Talbot as circle researcher than what other links or the BLT space is promoting. When you look at the material, which is simply overflowing with as many differ kinds of charts, measurements and data enough to satisfy a statistician, you have to know that you've just stepped into the Blinded Me With Science zone. This is Roger Leir's schtick as well, to talk confidently about measurement and results to make claims that are out of this earth, literally.

To ask for science papers to challenge these so called 'anomalies' is to ask a lot. I always think that if outstanding events were really going down then other scientists would also be getting really interested in this material. Because they are not, I always assume then that their specific version of science must be only sounding in the ears of those who really want to believe and may not have their own scientific capacity to disprove what they are reading.

If you really want to do the work it is worthwhile to read through Nancy's discussion on crystalline structural formations in soil and then to go and look up these processes and see if what's going on here is legit or simply fudged, or interpreted in such a way that sounds amazing. Leir makes claims on certain tests that really don't have the ability to prove the things he says they are proving. If crop circles were anything other than man made then a lot more real research would be carried out by gov't $$$.

Wasn't Levengood's phd invention?

 

[Constance]

Burnt State, I'll read the thread on Nancy Tabott, but wonder why the participants were not discussing the Levengood articles as well. As I recall, NT wrote up a summary report on the Lawrence Rockefeller-funded research, which involved the findings of Levengood and a number of other scientists on the mineralization anomaly.

You wrote:

"If crop circles were anything other than man made then a lot more real research would be carried out by gov't $$$."

Such research does indeed appear to have been carried out by government agencies, but like government research concerning ufos is not shared with the public in the US and UK.

"Wasn't Levengood's phd invention?"

NT has a statement at the BLT site concerning L's adoption of the "Dr." himself after many years of being addressed as such by his scientific colleagues far and wide. He has never misrepresented his two Master's Degrees, one in plant physiology and the other in biophysics. And his education and research over many years led to his bibliography of 50 articles in peer-reviewed science journals, several of them in Nature.

 

[SoCalGNX]

The most interesting part of this show was the information on British tourism. This tells me the British government knows what is going on and who is making these.

 

[Burnt State]

Such research does indeed appear to have been carried out by government agencies, but like government research concerning ufos is not shared with the public in the US and UK.

If any research had merit from these bodies, then certainly they would still be researching these and easily confirming Levengood's findings, as what's suggested by BLT is an outside agent capable of messing with a primary food source. If this was true then big black vehicles would be seen near all 'real' crop circles with some frequency.

"Wasn't Levengood's phd invention?"

NT has a statement at the BLT site concerning L's adoption of the "Dr." himself after many years of being addressed as such by his scientific colleagues far and wide. He has never misrepresented his two Master's Degrees, one in plant physiology and the other in biophysics. And his education and research over many years led to his bibliography of 50 articles in peer-viewed science journals, several of them in Nature.

Levengood’s Crop-Circle Plant Research - CSI

Did William Levengood of the BLT crop circle research team fake his PhD credentials? - JREF Forum

I feel a little 'unclean' for having visited these sites but the points are valid.

 

[Constance]

If any research had merit from these bodies, then certainly they would still be researching these and easily confirming Levengood's findings, as what's suggested by BLT is an outside agent capable of messing with a primary food source. If this was true then big black vehicles would be seen near all 'real' crop circles with some frequency.

Actually it's the helicopters that are black. There have also been large white vans (unmarked like the helicopters) parked at the edge of a field in which an impressive formation had gone down, to which men in white jumpsuits were carrying armfuls of samples of crop. One of these individuals ordered other visitors out of the field and blocked them from entering the formation. Later, after the white vans had departed, black helicopters dive-bombed the visitors then in the formation, spraying them with a noxious pink-colored substance that provoked panic and/or vomiting by the people in the formation. I don't remember which formation it was, but these events were reported by Linda Moulton Howe, who was there for them.

Levengood’s Crop-Circle Plant Research - CSI

Did William Levengood of the BLT crop circle research team fake his PhD credentials? - JREF Forum

I feel a little 'unclean' for having visited these sites but the points are valid.

You're easily satisfied then. Really, Joe Nickell? Re: this from Randi:

"Also did Levengood really think that he could get away with this remark:
"Levengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)"??"

What L. said, as I recall, was that the NAS had in effect recognized his two Master's degrees and subsequently published research as a Ph.D. equivalent on an occasion when he was invited to read a paper to the NAS. In filling out the paperwork, which asked for the institutions at which he had obtained his degrees, he saw a blank for his Ph.D. institution and wrote to the NAS to explain that he did not have a doctorate. He was informed that that was no problem and my understanding is that he read the paper. I read this information years ago so it was certainly available to Randi, but one gathers he'd rather not have read it since it would make it harder to discredit Levengood.

 

[Constance]

Re this, Burnt State: "what's suggested by BLT is an outside agent capable of messing with a primary food source."

Not anywhere that I've seen. Levengood hypothesized the interaction of a number of purely physical forces and fields to account for the anomalies he found in crop circle plants, seeds, and soils and possibly for their geometric organization. I think agencies in the UK have been interested to find out what they could about the anomalies by studying cc plants and perhaps soils. While they might have been properly cautious to ascertain whether there was any toxic substance in crop circles, I doubt that they've found anything toxic in them. If that had been the case, one hopes they'd have put out the word.

 

[Constance]

Are you expecting me to respond to that post? Don't hold your breath.

 

[Constance]

Ah, but now that you've added this to your post . . .

"The article, by the way, completely demolishes Levengood's unsupported and never replicated work."

. . . I will respond to say that only replication of his research by qualified scientists in several fields could 'demolish' L's research and rule out his hypothesis.

 

[Constance]

. . . Replication of Levengood's claims would SUPPORT his hypothesis. Replication was attempted (as the article you dismissed by ad hominem pointed out). But the results could not be replicated. In science this leads to the discarding of the hypothesis by science and everyone else who is not a moron or silly zealot.

Really, replication was attempted? I confess to not reading the linked piece by Joe Nickell but will do so to find out what this purported replication of L's research procedures amounted to.

Btw, Lance, you are a fully fledged asshole.

 

[Constance]

I read the Nickell 'article'. There's no claim there [except the one accompanying footnote 10*] of any attempts by scientists to replicate Levengood's research procedures reported in three peer-reviewed scientific papers. And Nickell himself writes:

Apparently no one has yet independently replicated Levengood’s work.

What follows in that paragraph is based on information provided by Levengood himself in a telephone interview with 'J.A.S.' :

One scientist from Colgate did attempt to verify his seed germination claims using some of his seeds but without success.[10] Apparently few mainstream scientists take Levengood’s work seriously other than one or two friends who wish “to remain anonymous because of the ridicule. [10]

Then Nickell concludes as follow:

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, including his similar ones involving plants at alleged “cattle mutilation” sites.[10]

There's that footnote 10 for the third time. Apparently L also informed J.A.S. that he was finding some of the same anomalies at some cattle mutilation sites that he had found in some crop circles.


So, what have you got, lance? No replication of L's research procedures yet, and an admission by Nickell that only such replication by "qualified scientists" can determine how seriously to take L's research. You probably haven't read L's papers and reports far enough to notice how often Levengood has appealed to other scientists to replicate his research procedures.

Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[Constance]

The article, which I would encourage anyone to read, lists and details several objections to the Levengood papers (two of which, by the way were later repudiated by the editor of the Physiologia Plantarum and disavowed).

Not true and not even logical, lance. If Physiologia Plantarum's editorial board had wanted to 'repudiate' or 'disavow' the two Levengood papers they had published in 1994 and 1999 they would by all means have accepted and published Grassi et al's paper critiquing those two papers and a third cc paper by Haselhoff that they published in 2001. Instead they declined to publish Grassi's paper and expressed the intention to publish no further crop circle research. Do try to be accurate and to make sense.

Have you now figured out what the word "replicate" means?

It looks like I understand the meaning of that word better than you do.

From a 2011 post by your truly here:

Constance dutifully fills her role as I outlined it then.

Lance

?? I don't remember dropping in here that long ago, but I have been getting the impression that you hold some kind of grudge against me from somewhere. Where?

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm holding out for sufficient scientific research to account for physical anomalies in many crop circles. I think it's vital to account first for those anomalies rather than to blink them away. Beyond that there remains the larger question of whether (and what kind of) 'intelligent agency' could be involved in presenting the range of information that has appeared in crop circles. That's why I think it's incumbent on the human ccmakers in Wiltshire to bring forward the designers of many significant crop circles to discuss the ideas and information they've used in the construction of their designs.

What "physical anomalies" have not been sufficiently explained?

What "information" do you see as having been presented in crop circles?

Your request for crop circle makers to come forward has been honored. Are you familiar with circlemakerstv? There are several interviews there with crop circle makers past and present explaining various aspects of crop circle making and specific circles. To think these people are going to publicly reveal themselves, if that is what you mean, is unreasonable given the fact that what they do is basically criminal graffiti for the most part. Everything you need to know to completely understand where crop circles come from and the various scams being run concerning them is all out there. I too had some hope that there was a real mystery in the things. Sad to say, after digging into it the answer becomes obvious. This is why Collin isn't the only crop circle researcher who has conceded their human origin.

 

[trainedobserver]

The odd thing about the crop circle subculture phenomenon itself is that the answer to the question, "Who is making the crop circles?" was obvious from beginning. It was and continues to be human artists.

The fact that they were playing to another mystery with ready made believers was probably instrumental in the accidental creation of what came to be a world-wide phenomenon that gained the interest of government and the general public. Now, even when the makers tell the truth and explain circle making from a to z they aren't believed by some because of the belief system that has sprung up around the "art form."

The crop circle subculture is religion in microcosm. It has the greater invisible non-human entity communicating coded messages (actually human artists) to the priests and adepts (the researchers) who dole out the received wisdom (their misconstrued "findings") to the believers. Many are in on the joke, and those who aren't at first are often invited into the inner circle if you will. "Come, learn the greater truth here." But it seems like quite too often the offer is rejected for the comfort of their established beliefs about the alien or paranormal origins of crop circles. I think Linda M. Howe accused Matthew Williams of being a CIA agent or some such when he offered to show her his ropes and board. You would have thought she would have jumped at the chance to bring truth to light, but the crop circle industry isn't about truth, it is about mystery.

 

[nameless]

Like the ufo stuff, how this phenomenon plays out definitely has its analogy to religion.

And like ufos, there definitely is a real phenomenon, a hijacked or replicated facet but unlike ufos there are nor accidental sightings or mistaken.

I think people are having a laugh but I also think there was/is a sinister clandestine campaign to make crop circles seem more ETH involving the "spoiling" and disinformation of crop circle researchers and the general public. I think operation "piggyback" doesn't just apply to the obfuscation of UFO sightings to cover up black projects.

 

[trainedobserver]

Williams does a good job of showing you how to do basic design analysis on a crop circle. Crop circles are "perfect" and of miraculous origin only to the starry-eyed believer ignorant of the facts.

 

[Constance]

Like the ufo stuff, how this phenomenon plays out definitely has its analogy to religion.

And like ufos, there definitely is a real phenomenon, a hijacked or replicated facet but unlike ufos there are nor accidental sightings or mistaken.

I think people are having a laugh but I also think there was/is a sinister clandestine campaign to make crop circles seem more ETH involving the "spoiling" and disinformation of crop circle researchers and the general public. I think operation "piggyback" doesn't just apply to the obfuscation of UFO sightings to cover up black projects.

Hi nameless. I find your post very interesting because you seem to have followed a lot of the background intrigue and manipulation involved in the history of crop circles in Wiltshire. I'm especially interested in some issues you're getting at in your last paragraph and I wonder if you'd be willing expand on and clarify what you're referring to there. Have you seen the Charles Hall video concerning evidence of MI5 connections with CCmakers.org?