Weird crop circle sighting... (page 8)

skeptic2

Big Dog - 'totally yammering' - have I touched a nerve?

SWALKER

I thought I had read that some of the circles had elements that were hard to reconcile as was pointed out.

I saw a program here in the States a few months ago about crop circles that pointed to the above. Scientists here could not prove or disprove some of the circles as being man-made, but they couldn't really offer a scientific explanation either. Some were clearly hoaxes, but others were not.....

Swalker

skeptic2

I saw a program here in the States a few months ago about crop circles that pointed to the above. Scientists here could not prove or disprove some of the circles as being man-made, but they couldn't really offer a scientific explanation either. Some were clearly hoaxes, but others were not.....

I soooooo bet they weren't scientists, pseudo-scientists at best. These shows almost never feature the skeptics (who usually are scientists, i.e. people who practice science) who could easily destroy the fantasies involved.

Remember how the Watchtower can always find a seemingly impressively qualified and well regarded crank to back up any of their nonsense.

Big Dog

Big Dog - 'totally yammering' - have I touched a nerve? Not at all, I just get a kick out of listening to people pontificate. I have plenty of clients that are doctors who love to expound on the science of medicine, until the latest discovery comes along and they have to reverse themselves. Oh, yes, ahem, er, we used to believe that but now we KNOW it to be thus. I just find it humorous at how little we really know about anything. I was in a surgeon's office the other day and I picked up some materials left by a drug rep, way down at the end in the fine print it said that the drug company wasn't sure exactly how the drug did what it did and so on. I find the science fantatics as funny as the religious fanatics because really by the geological clock we have barely swung down from the trees and we really know next to nothing about how the universe works.

Big Dog

For each Einstein there are a million cranks. Your opinion is, because one in a million does know what he's on about, we have to believe everyone?

No, that's not the point, the point is that "credentials" are not the be all and end all as was implied above. Who are these people, what have they published, etc. etc. There are plenty of published scientists that are nothing more than parasites making their reputation off the backs of their grad students and collegues. Yes, I put credence in credentials, but not to the point where I would out of hand discount an idea just because it wasn't put forth by someone with alphabet soup after their name.

troubled mind

The scientist that is taking soil samples here is Joanne Scarpellini , she is a retired Neurochemist and works with BLT Research Team INC. She is a feild researcher and is intrigued by the impact on the plants found inside crop circles.

skeptic2

I admit that qualification of a claimant is a crude way of making an instant assessment of the validity of a claim. I wouldnt ignore a claim if a claimant wasn't qualified in that field, but if they are qualified that is a useful piece of information.

So let's ignore that, and concentrate on the two more important factors: peer review and replication.

There are many ways in which a single piece of research, or single finding, or group of findings from the same researcher, can be very flawed.

Thats why the scientific process demands not only peer review, but replication of the experiment by other scientists, to see if the same results are found. You can't make much of any experimental results until these two things have happened.

So the question is, has Joanne Scarpellini published her findings in a peer-reviewed journal, and what is the opinion of the community of scientists who work in this field?

skeptic2

Joanne Scarpellini is described as a fieldworker of BLT Research, Inc.

The following papers have been published by this group (led by W.C. Levengood):

Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations in Physiologia Plantarum (1999)
Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation in Journal of Scientific Exploration (1995)
Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants in Physiologia Plantarum (1994)

This research has been examined by CSICOP (the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in 1996 and found wanting:

skeptic2

Big Dog, are you proposing that we throw away the scientific method? If so, what would you replace it with? How do you suggest we evaluate claims made by others?

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have. - Albert Einstein

skeptic2

Comment on BLT Research by James 'The Amazing' Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation (an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the supernatural):

STOCK REPLY FROM KSTP AS EXPECTED

Reader Ted Vriezen of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, wrote to his local TV station KSTP in Minneapolis/St. Paul, re their 10 p.m. news coverage of a "crop circle" story:

To whomever at KSTP (please forward this to the appropriate responsible person):
I was very disappointed by your recent crop circle story as seen at www.kstp.com/article/stories/S1897.html?cat=1
I consider this crop circle story an example of very irresponsible reporting. Crop circles have been debunked a number of times as hoaxes done by people walking with boards under their feet, not dragged as the farmer in the story suggested. And using ropes, a variety of geometrical patterns can be made. You made absolutely no mention in your story of the possibility of a hoax which is, by far, the most reasonable explanation for crop circles. The proposed pseudo-scientific theory from BLT Research about plasma vortices descending from the upper atmosphere causing the crop circles has absolutely no legitimate scientific support. I suggest you talk to someone in your meteorology department.
Why was this story of the crop circle occurrence presented in this way? Were any legitimate scientists consulted? Someone from the U of M perhaps?
Do you intend to have a follow-up story of any kind to bring any kind of closure to the story?
Please. Someone respond to this.
Thank You.
P.S.: Look at these web sites.

Ted listed a few sites that would explain the true nature of this "phenomenon." In response to his 194-word, well-stated and clear inquiry, he received 37 words back from KSTP spokesperson and assignment editor for 5Eyewitness News, Nicole Bonanni:

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you disagree with the presentation of the crop circle story. Currently there are no plans to do any kind of follow-up. We do appreciate your comments and concerns.

Obviously the meteorology department was not consulted, the U of M was not called, and scientists were left out of consideration; the story was too good to investigate too carefully — or at all. I really don't think that KSTP's Ms. Bonanni really appreciated Ted's "comments," nor had any respect for his "concerns," despite her assurances. He is, after all, only a consumer — not an advertiser. As for "BLT Research," who gave them the "plasma" claptrap" that they embraced, I see they have parapsychologist Bill Roll working with them. That explains a lot.

That was a stock lawyer-vetted response from KSTP that translates as, "Though we represent to our public that we present facts and valid information to them, we really don't care, and we choose to ignore any criticism that interferes with our uncritical promotion of pseudoscience, quackery, and superstition."

This is not evidence for anything, but serves as a warning that BLT Research, Inc, and it's research conclusions are potentially not supported by the scientific community at large.

Weird crop circle sighting...

Share this