Chia suggested that "It seems that you did mishear me, because I spoke with clear (or so I thought) reference to your overall opinion of crop circles, not any single example. Sorry if I wasn't actually as clear as I recall myself to have been, though."
This is nit-picking really (as is what follows). No, you didn't mention Cherhil [
sic – only one "L"] by name, but that's where the iron powder that you mentioned was found -- and where it was dropped by Rob (as he clearly stated), not by one of his friends. If you imply (a) that not all complex crop circles are man-made and, on getting an unsatisfactory answer, say "What about the case of the iron filings?" (or words to that effect), then you do seem to be suggesting to the man who put them there that he didn't. Granted you may not have known Rob's background or achievements at the time, and that's not a crime, but you can surely see how it came across in this way to one who did. I remain baffled as to how saying words approximating "Speaking as the man who scattered the iron [powder] in question" amounts to "a very shallow analysis".
My apologies for presuming that you were defending a particular point of view. I'll leave you to figure out why both Rob and I did so. Personally, I am just trying to save you some time in re-inventing the wheel here, in pointing out that Levengood's research doesn't prove
anything and (as shown by Ron Ashby's work, which I hope you've looked up) is based on some very strange assumptions that scientists don't recognize. What Nancy Talbott means in her endless references to "peer-reviewed scientific journals" I can't imagine -- well, I can, but if she means what I think she means, then we're not talking
Nature or its ilk, are we? Or any other recognized institutional academic publication.
I am not sure I'd trust the work of someone who bigs up his qualifications, either. Note this from
Saucer Smear of 2 Dec 2002:
"When Levengood's doctorate was recently called into question by Dr. Kevin Randle, (of Roswell fame) and others, Levengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This would be fine if it were true, but when that prestigious body was contacted, they made it known that the NAS is not a academic institution and does not issue "degree equivalents" of any kind. This sort of leaves 'Dr.' Levengood out on a limb!"
www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v49/ss021201.htm
Naturally this puts his other claims to fame in doubt, even if he reallly was a professor of biophysics and head of department at Michigan U.
You also say, indirectly quoting me, "node abnormalities are the result of mechanical flattening and he laments that BLT haven't checked this out, but according to BLT, these abnormalities were not replicated by MIT undergrads planking at the behest of the Discovery Channel (
http://www.bltresearch.com/published/mit.html). You make a good point here, though - I should go flatten some crops myself and see what happens, so if I can get permission from a farmer next summer, I'll give it a try and report back."
Excellent. But you really should do all the things I suggested as well, and more probably (consult a real experimental scientist or two to reduce any variables and increase any controls I may have missed). I confess I omitted to specify that some of the effects alleged to be anomalous by BLT are the result of the weather, even if that would still count as "mechanical". Why the MIT students didn't observe the same effects I do not know. But I do know that you're citing Nancy "peer reviewed" Talbott here, and she has not just an agenda but an
A g e n d a.
Somethng else I missed. "Equipment failure" really means anything only if
all such equipment
consistently fails and fails
in exactly the same way, when encountering a crop circle. No doubt plenty of cameras, cellphones, &c., fail inside Sainsbury's in the King's Road, Chelsea, but that doesn't make Sainsbury's the cause thereof -- unless you are blind to excluded middles.
It seems to me that one of the ironies of this discussion is your initial presumption -- a long-jump conclusion -- that Rob and I were presenting all crop formations as man-made, in the first place. We weren't. We were talking about hoaxes. What the word "hoax" means in the language of cerealogists is itself a strange phenomenon. However, and whatever oblique, ambiguous and allusive reply Rob may make in due course on the question, I see no reason not to think they are human artefacts. Extraordinary explanations that would cause me to doubt that have not been forthcoming.
I sincerely hope all this has bored Stormkhan so goddam stiff he has had to crawl into the fridge to defrost.
