Of Flattened Flora and Expulsion Cavities: The crop circle controversy continues


Greenpeace's GM Crop Circle from Circlemakers.org

In an earlier post I reviewed some possible explanations for the crop circle phenomenon, and I noted the various theories left several issues unanswered: Who are the hoaxers and what is their exact role in the charade? If a technology is involved, how does it work to actually make the designs? Could it be directed from space or simply from an aerial platform? And why would anyone develop such a beam in the first place? What seemed to me like simple questions raised a surprisingly emotional and occasionally venomous storm of comments on this blog and on other, more specialized, lists. Since we have obviously hit a nerve it may be interesting to drill a bit further.

While New Age believers and skeptics feel passionate about the issue, the educated public and the scientific and technical community have firmly pushed it out of their mind, convinced that all the circles were hoaxes. Even the people who have studied the circles or commented on them may argue for or against their paranormal nature, the possible role of Aliens or the idea that the designs hide an experiment in military electronics, but there is no disagreement about the fact that most of the designs have been made by hoaxers.

Among these fakers are two men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley whose "revelations" were picked up by the international press with great eagerness (front-page treatment in major newspapers, interviews on CNN and BBC, etc.) when they stated they had fooled believers in saucer landings since 1978 with their technique for flattening crops with a wooden board and a piece of string.

 Imgs Today2 As researcher Patrick Gross writes, "These early crop circles were round, because flying saucers were circular, as "everybody knows", in people's imagination if not in reality." His analysis of the phenomenon can be found on this page, where he articulates the proposition that ALL circles are the result of hoaxers, some of whom are actually artists. Mr. Gross provides links to many other useful references.

I once met several of these artists at a conference in Switzerland, where they were presenting their techniques and the resulting data. When I asked them, "How dare you fool people this way?" they answered that art in general was about fooling people to create a sense of awe, beauty or simply a brief, healthy disconnect with ordinary reality. One of them pointed out that "When you look at the Mona Lisa you think you look at a woman, but you have been fooled: there is no woman there; someone just applied some paint to a rectangular piece of canvas. Well, we do the same thing, except that our canvas happens to be a cornfield."

When you put it that way it is perfectly all right for teams of artists to run through the fields at night and produce things like the spider, the bicycle or more elaborate geometric designs. People like Jim Schnabel have participated in the game and there are even international competitions in circle making, with recognition for the most complex productions. No wonder people are convinced that all the circles are made for fun by a team of humans crushing the corn for kicks when the subject comes up in discussions among scientists or businessmen today. The difficult question is, "does this explain ALL the circles, or only the relatively simple ones?" The artists I spoke to in Switzerland confessed that some of the extraordinary designs were beyond their ability to produce them. While the initial "weather phenomenon" theory of Terence Meaden and others has not survived, there are still people who firmly believe the complex designs are made by Aliens and some who state they are a warning from Gaia. Among the technical community there are also those who pursue the idea first expressed by Dr. Jean-Pierre Petit, Jean-Jacques Velasco and others, looking to military electronics as the key to the mystery.

 Images Crop Crop10 My own feeling about the New Age interpretations is frankly negative. Why assume that Aliens are at work here, when the designs show universally human symbols? Even the Mandelbrot set, one of the most perfect displays, is a representation of a human concept. There is nothing new or scientifically profound in any of this. We are not being taught anything. Similarly, the Gaia hypothesis doesn't work for me. When the Earth teaches us something it is usually brutal and very explicit, like the volcano in Iceland, which leaves little to the imagination.

Which brings us back to the beam weapon hypothesis. Until recently it seemed rather far-fetched, which is why neither Velasco's presentations nor my early articles made any impact. Now that disclosures about actual beam weapons are available, including devices acting from the sky and beams capable of harming humans and stopping engines, we have to revisit the issue and look a bit more seriously at the hard facts left unexplained by the hoax explanation.

The first piece of interesting data has to do with systematic differences between those circles where plants are broken by mechanical action and those where some form of energy has exploded the nodes in the stalks. A detailed study of so-called "expulsion cavities" in corn with exploded nodes is found in the report where the authors note: "During the 1990s multiple specific and distinctive plant abnormalities were repeatedly documented in several hundred different crop formations which had occurred in various European countries as well as in the States and Canada. Extensive laboratory examination of thousands of these crop circle plants and their controls by American biophysicist W. C. Levengood established the presence of consistent changes in the circle plants which were not present in the control plants (plants taken at varying distances outside the crop formations, but in the same fields) -- changes which control studies revealed were not caused by simple mechanical flattening of the plants (with planks, boards, cement rollers or human feet)."

For detailed discussion of earlier plant (and subsequently soil) anomalies documented between 1990-2002, see here and here: That particular line of analysis gets increasingly complex and the controversy is likely to continue for a long time, but other data tends to support the idea that military research is involved.

I have mentioned before that I interviewed a reliable witness who described to me a rather extraordinary device hovering above the fields in an area where circles were commonly found. This man is a professor of physics who is also an avid glider pilot. On that particular occasion he was happily taking advantage of some thermals above the English countryside, admiring the landscape, when he was surprised to see his aircraft reflected in something like a perfect mirror hanging vertically in mid-air. Being of a logical turn of mind he decided to verify the image was not a hallucination, and then he tried to determine the shape of the object by making several turns around it. The thing was cylindrical and covered with a perfectly reflective surface.

While some of my theoretical physics friends continue to argue that a beam capable of causing crop circles could be activated from space, it seems much more likely to me that a low-observable, optically stealthy, hovering platform would be more practical in situations like a battlefield or an urban guerilla flashpoint. Admittedly we are dealing with hypotheticals here, but this would explain the proximity of the circles to classified facilities: the controllers of the device would want to minimize chances that it would wander off and perhaps crash, resulting in premature exposure.

A third argument needs to be mentioned, in answer to the obvious question, "Why would anyone want to develop a beam weapon, and why would it have to come from above?" Part of the answer has already been given in the two disclosures I have quoted before from New Scientist. However the requirements for extremely sophisticated beams go well beyond the applications mentioned in the magazine. In the complex, dangerous range of threats we face today one may need to destroy targets with devices that can create very concentrated areas of extremely high temperature without blowing up whatever building or facility is targeted. Bombing a biological warfare lab, for example, is not a good idea if the result is to disperse a dangerous microbial agent. One could also think of beams that would be used to control the trajectory of a ball of plasma (possibly created by a small atomic explosion) targeted at objects in the atmosphere, in space or on the ground. All such applications would require a long period of development and testing, and would probably be designed as multi-country experiments.

Indeed, during the eighties and nineties there were discreet exchanges of expertise among government agencies concerned with the UFO phenomenon in the U.S., France and Great Britain (and perhaps others). One of the French experts detached to work on this topic with American Intelligence is said to be visible on one of the crop circle videos, mingling among New Age enthusiasts and civilian researchers. Interestingly, much of the classified research conducted in these three countries (while any official interest in UFOs was denied in public statements) was done by microwave experts, including medical researchers specializing in the effect of radiation on living tissue.

From the point of view of rational analysis the weight of evidence is still on the side of the skeptics who assure us that all crop circles are made by artists and lovable, jolly old men like Doug and Dave. But there are facts that don't quite fit, and the alternatives are worth considering. They lead into very disturbing areas, not all of which have to do with physics. In a concluding (fourth) post, I plan to come back to the initial issue raised by the crop circle problem, which is that of the construction and manipulation of belief systems.


  1. And once again we still have zero explanation of why a beam weapon would be tested this way repeatedly over many years. I’m sure the normal way we test a weapon is to make pretty designs in crops. The claim that some military is using beam weapons (never mind what sort of beam?) to make these crop circles is even less plausible than the claim that aliens are making them.

  2. You admit that at least a significant number of crop circles were made by hoaxers, but you still seem to want to believe that some fraction of the circles come from some mysterious, possibly alien source. This reminds me of a great xkcd comic:


    1. No, he is not “wanting to believe” any such thing. Did you read the article?

      I feel like I need to put this in blink tags:


      1. Then please do some more blinking text to explain what he means with the insinuations about government UFO experts being seen in crop circle crowds?

  3. “Now that disclosures about actual beam weapons are available, including devices acting from the sky and beams capable of harming humans and stopping engines, we have to revisit the issue and look a bit more seriously at the hard facts left unexplained by the hoax explanation.”

    Except that the “actual beam weapons” don’t do the things you imagine they’re capable of doing. They’re just normal microwaves, not magical bending rays. They can heat things up, and disrupt electrical circuits. If crop circles were composed of areas where the stalks were scorched from top to bottom or vaporized, then you hypothesis might have some merit. But since they consist of stalks that are folded over in a uniform direction, your “beam weapon” explanation makes no sense.

    1. Since when does the world have to revolve around technology that works the way you think it does? In other words you are saying that just because the crop circles don’t show signs of consumer grade microwaves, must mean that there are no other types of microwaves available that could affect things differently. It’s idiotic! It is the typical skeptic and or materialist scientists view that just because he doesn’t know about something must mean it is not in existence.

  4. caveat: I am not an “expert” on crop circles. However, my stepfather is an enthusiast and I only can pass on what he has told me.

    When determining whether a crop circle is the work of an artist, the biggest distinction is the way the stalks have been flattened. In the case of a hoax, the stalks have been broken to lay flat, while in “true” crop circles, the stalks are still intact and have (supposedly) been laid over as a result of accelerated growth on the opposite side (i.e., stalks are unbroken). Some New Age-y publications have even shown diagrams of plants with larger cells on one side, though I haven’t seen any actual photographs to corroborate this particular theory.

    Additionally, “true” crop circles supposedly have many dead insects within the circle (perched on leaves, etc.) who have not suffered any apparent trauma. This seems to be in-line with the “focused energy beam” idea.

    Finally, “true” crop circles do not just appear at night and have been formed, not only in broad daylight, but in close proximity to would-be observers. One such example is a circle that formed / was created in close proximity to Stonehenge, in the middle of the day, with many visitors at the monument.

    I personally don’t have a good theory for what goes on with crop circles. Certainly some are hoaxes; some/all of the rest may be man-made. Or not. I’ll wait and pass judgment when more reliable data is available.

  5. It seems like a really big assumption that that crop circle creation is done from the sky or the surface. It could just as well be from underground. My theory is that they are created by gnomes displaced by mining and tunneling.

  6. I love that these guys haven’t changed their site in 10 years or more. http://www.circlemakers.org/

    They explain their techniques for making the most intricate patterns (I’m afraid most just involve using a long rope tied to a board, making one circle then moving to another).

  7. Some people believe that ETs and UFOs are not from “out there”, but “beside here”… another dimension adjacent to our own, or perhaps another timeline.

    If they’re right, it would make sense for the symbolism to be, essentially, human.

  8. “The difficult question is, “does this explain ALL the circles, or only the relatively simple ones?””

    Calling this a difficult question is like saying that “Gravity explains the orbits of some planets, but does this explain ALL orbits or celestial movements?” Why add complexity without evidence?

    Essentially, “Pics or Occam’s razor applies.”

    1. +1. The “controversy” exists only for a few fringe individuals. Unfortunately, they benefit from stirring it up periodically, so they refuse to let it die.

    2. “CROP CIRCLES DON’T EXIST — THEY’RE ALL DOCTORED PHOTOS AND IT’S A MEDIA CONSPIRACY!” That’s just about as plausible as that they’re anything but human-created. If you’re going to trumpet one paranoid theory, you might as well cite all of them.

  9. Thanks for digging into this more deeply, Jacques. I appreciate your ability to look at such phenomena from as many different angles as possible without fixating on a belief in any of them.

    It’s very fascinating to me how many commenters are fixated on their own dogmatic assumptions without enjoying the mental flexibility to consider things from as many different angles as possible. For some, even suggesting that there may be things we don’t fully understand apparently is too demeaning to their rationality to even be considered. Many are quick to jump to assumptions that if you don’t accept that all crop circles are a hoax, then you clearly *must* believe in aliens/military/angels/flying cats etc… as if it’s impossible to question something without having belief in it’s antithesis.

    I look forward to your next post on how this topic offers a fascinating mirror on belief. May there be many more commenters so willing to participate in your experiment!

    1. Those little red phrases at the bottom of the post denote a continuing series on this subject.

  10. If the people making them say they are artists and not trying to fool people then why don’t they take credit for it? Why do they sneak into fields at night instead of doing it in the light of day? If it is a matter of pissed off farmers then maybe they should do the right thing and get permission first.

    One guy uses the analogy of the Mona Lisa but the difference is that Leonardo took credit for it and didn’t try to hide his role.

  11. Oh good lord! It’s two old guys with rope and sticks and math at night time. They went public a long time ago. Next thing you know there’ll be people who actually think psychics can predict the future… oh wait, crud.

    1. Er, you mean the guys referenced in the article? Wait, did you read the article? No, of course you didn’t.

  12. The beam hypothesis has one glaring problem: the stalks are bent near the base, not higher up along their length. A beam would have to be focused precisely at the base of the stalks to do this. That would involve the same technique used in CD players to read the pits while ignoring scratches on the surface of the plastic.

    But a CD player has the laser mounted a only dozen disc thicknesses above the surface so that it can achieve the narrow depth of focus required, and the disc is made of transparent plastic. These conditions are not likely to be met in a field of crops, which are most decidedly not transparent.

    Now, imagine a beam machine that can focus its beam well enough to cause cell node explosions in the base of each stalk while leaving the rest of the plants untouched, at a sufficient altitude to not be visible to mere mortals driving down the nearest motorway.

    I’m frankly having trouble imagining such a machine.

  13. Two and and a half full pages on Crop Circles.
    Crop Circles! Not a mention of Pyramid Power OR Energy Vortexes.

    How did this happen.

  14. Let us do a though experiment assuming that crop circles are created by a governmental organization as a test of a technological system. How would this be accomplished by the a governmental organization?

    The Government is a Bureaucracy. This means there is a government contract somewhere that says “Your may destroy civilian crops.” The contractor doing the testing would require this contract signed and authorized at the highest levels, because they are destroying private property and they aren’t going to do that without a serious degree of CYA.

    There would of course be a contractor doing this work because the military and government don’t do this kind of work on their own, they hire experts who develop new technology and do testing to meet specifications for deliverables. But, even it is done purely in house, there is still someone who has signed off on the idea of destroying civilian property.

    If there is a contract there is a contracting officer, there is also a lawyer checking the contract, there is a project manager. There is a supervisor for the project manager. There is a program manager and a department head. There is very likely an elected official that signs off on the idea, because again, bureaucrats cover their ass.

    There is the air traffic control liaison, and the air traffic control supervisor who sees to it that any record of the testing that might show up in air traffic control logs don’t appear to the public. Since these people probably live fairly near the control center where they work they will demand that the proper authorities have said it is OK for their neighbor’s crops to be destroyed.

    There are also all the engineers working on the project, and the pilot flying the test platform. There are hundreds of people involved in the program and most all of them need to say “Destroying civilian property and creating crazy designs in crops is a great idea. Let’s do that, what could go wrong?” otherwise they would just choose to do the tests on military reserve property and avoid the risk of embarrassment.

    If anyone thinks that it is more likely that the highly bureaucratic government would be willing to do anything with so many risks of discovery, failure, civilian backlash, etc, than it is that a group of talented artists would go through great pains to create a wonderful piece, just doesn’t understand how bureaucracy works, or how innovative and dedicated artist can be.

    1. I used to work for a defense lab (AF) and you can hide much of what you stated. First, all true black jobs are lumped together in a single budget item to hide them. Second, as much of the outside work is done with existing, secure, contractors as needed, much of it is done in-house. Also, all those lawyers and such are lab employees. Secrecy is pretty good, especially at the details level. People didn’t know about stealth technology until it was about to go into production (wait for stealth detection work next). Of course once you need a number of units and for things to go into production then the cat has to come out of the bag at that point. It would be pretty hard to keep wraps on more than a handful of “death-ray crop circles”.

    2. Your bureaucracy does not apply to things like MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, and other programs. You are talking Government, the author talks about military secrecy, military intelligence ops.

  15. Given the recent Pringles commercial that shows crop circles being created to look like the Pringles logo, I hardly think anyone really thinks its aliens. More likely bored farmers out to make a few bucks by charging people to look at their crop circles.

  16. Question: Why would the military or whomever test these devices in civilian agricultural areas, rather than on bases?

  17. “For some, even suggesting that there may be things we don’t fully understand apparently is too demeaning to their rationality to even be considered.”

    Or maybe the alternatives to hoaxing really are wrong? Deciding how much evidence constitutes sufficient proof to discount other possibilities is rarely a simple matter, but there certainly are phenomena with good explanations and those with very little. To argue that hoaxing is not a sufficient explanation is not inherently unreasonable, but it requires strong evidence that doesn’t seem to be present.

    I like the elegant way another poster put it: “Pics or Occam’s Razor applies.”

  18. so some people create them in their spare time, and others choose to worship them in theirs – they’re all crazy :)

  19. In your previous post, I pointed out that the “node explosions” have already been debunked and that they DO occur during mechanical flattening. But let’s address this:

    “Why would anyone want to develop a beam weapon, and why would it have to come from above?”

    There would be a number of theoretical uses for a beam weapon. The real question is “If someone developed a beam weapon, which would certainly cost in the billions, why would they SPEND DECADES MAKING HIGHLY PUBLIC, INTRICATE CROP DESIGNS WITH IT?” Do you think research labs around the world, all somehow conspiring to work together in secret on a fantastic flying beam weapon, just like messing with people?

    Additionally: explain how it would be remotely possible for a microwave or other EM beam to cause corn stalks to fold over, all in the same direction, at a point near their base.

    1. The flattened stalks going in the same direction imply mechanical force.
    2. Beams, by definition, work on line-of-sight. How do they hit precise points at the bottom of a plant in a tightly packed crop?

  20. Since crop-based alien messages, Tesla beam tests, and hoaxes are indistinguishable, the answer is D: all of the above.

  21. “When you put it that way it is perfectly all right for teams of artists to run through the fields at night and …” vandalize private property, destroying people’s hard work causing real economic damage. Sure it is.

  22. Like, what if 2+2 really does equal 5? I mean, man, you gotta totally have an open mind about math. What if like the 5000th time you add 2 to 2 it’s not 4? Dude, you can’t prove it’s not going to do that, with quantums and shit.

    On a completely different note, even 10 years later I still love the look and layout of the circlemakers.org website.

  23. Assume the existence of a pub. That’s a much easier assumption.

    In particular, assume the existence of the Barge Inn, in Wiltshire, right in the middle of crop circle territory. This is not an exotic assumption as the place is right there.

    When I went in there a few years ago, having toured the previous night’s crop circle, I was immediately made aware of the true cause of crop circles: the regulars at this pub. The room which would ordinarily be the “snug” is a shrine to crop circles, plastered with newspaper clippings and photos, some decades old, chronicling the history of crop circles in the area.

    And the place does a land-office business.

    It’s obvious that “the boys”, who are, like locals everywhere, invariably underestimated by outsiders, have been doing this for years, for all the reasons one might imagine. I dare say it’s a fair way to get the wind up a rival farmer one doesn’t like, too, because as soon as a crop circle appears, all the surrounding crops are promptly trampled the next day by gawping yahoos such as myself.

    No, for the true explanation of crop circles, one has to look no further than the one place which most avidly and completely chronicles them.

    It’s a self-propagating system.

  24. “One of them pointed out that “When you look at the Mona Lisa you think you look at a woman, but you have been fooled: there is no woman there; someone just applied some paint to a rectangular piece of canvas. Well, we do the same thing, except that our canvas happens to be a cornfield.”

    When you put it that way it is perfectly all right for teams of artists to run through the fields at night and produce things like the spider, the bicycle or more elaborate geometric designs.”

    Bull. Bull, bull, bull. It is not “perfectly all right” when they know that they are saying nothing to discourage the large number of people who think that they are looking at not art, but the creation of an alien race. Those people are not enjoying art – they are being purposefully deceived. Art is not some vast shield between which someone can lie or otherwise harm others by using the “But I was doing art!” canard. That this is more benign than most harmful actions still does not excuse it.

    The Mona Lisa comparison is rank equivocation – everyone can see that the Mona Lisa is a DEPICTION of a woman, not a woman herself (leaving aside the concerns of critical theory). Amazement certainly can come from the accuracy of the depiction – but a depiction it remains. It is like the difference between a novel, which has depictions of people who may not exist, and something like the Priory of Zion hoax, which was put forward (and, despite being disproven, is still being put forward) as a hoax. Now, people might become confused and think the novel is real, but the writer did not intend such and took every reasonable precaution.

    If the artists (like Bower & Chorley) come out and say, “Hey, I just made a cool design,” I’m all for it. But when they make something that adds to the confusion of the world and leave it that way, equivocating isn’t going to cut it.

    1. Now this is getting interesting! Where is the line between fun prank and hurtful deception? (By the way, I think you mean “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” not the Priory of Sion. Although combining the two, as my friend Vann Hall once did many years ago in an email to me, would make a terrific conspiracy theory.

      1. “Now this is getting interesting! Where is the line between fun prank and hurtful deception?”

        That does get difficult, doesn’t it? I mean, it does seem clear that there are extremes – with the Mona Lisa on one side and something like the Protocols on the other – but there’s certainly room for grey area in the middle. I think the question becomes whether it is good or bad for the experiencer of the “art” in question. Contributing factors would be the longevity of the deception, the general response to resolving the deception (pleasure, disillusionment or pain), whether physical harm came from it (like a wrong governmental policy change or a pogrom). Of course, the experiencer can also be culpable – did the “artist” make it reasonably clear, either during or after, that the piece was satire or a prank, or did he allow harm to continue when it was clear that it was going on? It’s a complicated question – I don’t think there’s any one clear discriminating rule – but I certainly stand against the equivocation of those “artists'” statement. I also think crop circles are a much less harmful example of hurtful deception than many others.

        In any case, that part jumped out for me – I’m less interested in the rest of the discussion in the comments about the truth of crop circles as a whole.

        “By the way, I think you mean “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” not the Priory of Sion. Although combining the two, as my friend Vann Hall once did many years ago in an email to me, would make a terrific conspiracy theory.”

        Arg, I totally did! The guys who wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail (a major source, perhaps plagiarized, for the Da Vinci Code) actually did combine them.

        1. “By the way, I think you mean “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” not the Priory of Sion. Although combining the two, as my friend Vann Hall once did many years ago in an email to me, would make a terrific conspiracy theory.”

          Arg, I totally did! The guys who wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail (a major source, perhaps plagiarized, for the Da Vinci Code) actually did combine them.

          Actually, if memory serves, I think I actually wrote “Protocols of the Elders of Scion” in that email to Pesco, et al. I was hoping that by tossing out the punchline, I might inspire someone to do the heavy lifting of laying pipe for the joke. Didn’t work.

  25. @12: Radiotherapy treatments are designed to target specific regions and types of tissue using protons, electrons, or electromagnetic radiation. It’s conceivable that you could do the same thing to target a certain portion of the corn stalks, but it would probably require a rather large reflector dish or other method of collating multiple beams into one focal point.

    Another option would simply be localized microwave emissions, e.g. a comb structure with standing waves between the teeth of the comb that could be swept through the field to explode the stalks and then push them over.

    1. True, that.
      But the radiotherapy that I know of uses two beams which are aimed (and focused) so they interact to get the precision necessary.
      This would mean targeting each stalk separately, or sweeping through the field in a rather overcomplicated manner requiring a stability of the carrying platform which no airborne device has (helicopters are FAR from stable enough for this sort of application, and their stability is even worse at very low altitudes due to the downwash effect created by air circulation).
      It would STILL not control the direction of bending.

      Of course these circles MIGHT have been created by aliens, or by the Loch Ness monster.
      Seems more likely, in the absence of extraordinary evidence, that artists and pranksters are responsible for these beautiful works of art.

  26. Using a steam wand at the base of the crop stank would also be another innovative way to create the circle without mechanical damage, and would dry the top soil out from the heat. The problem would be boiler size and temp, and steam velocity.

  27. Obviously the way to solve this once and for all is to send a bunch of middle-aged men out to one of these things, armed with machines that have a bunch of knobs and dials. (I’m thinking like one of those Ghost Hunters type shows)
    Then, the token hot woman on the show can say something like ‘I think I’m feeling something- yes! There’s totally something here right now!’ And one of the little machines can have its dial jump around a bit. The men can conclude that yes, there is indeed something here, not capture it on film, and then everyone can leave and forget the story utterly.

    nrltdly, t’s prtty lm tctc t ttck smn fr nt bng ‘pn-mndd’ ngh whn thy wn’t blv yr dtc prms.

  28. Looks like a bit of a typo in the article.

    “but there is no disagreement about the fact that most of the designs have been made by hoaxers”

    Please change most to ALL. Thank you.

  29. “the controllers of the device would want to minimize chances that it would wander off and perhaps crash, resulting in premature exposure.”

    So why are they flying them over public farms again? Certainly it would be much safer if they few them around the vast territories of a secure military facility. And if they really want to test the abilities, why do it on public crops? It makes it impossible to do a detailed study of the effects and leaves lots of messy evidence around. After spending billions of dollars and decades to build the Wacky Flying Crop Flatener, maybe they could just plant their own crops on a government owned farm and do the experiments in a controlled environment.

    This is stupid.

  30. Oh, good. This again.

    OK, let’s imagine your space-based corn-bending beam is fully operational and deployed over a nice, attractive, un-bent cornfield.

    1) How would it target a point near the bottom of each stalk? If it’s a beam, it will certainly intersect along the entire length of some stalks? Why aren’t any stalks bent at the top or in the middle?

    2) How would all of the stalks be bent in a coherent, circular pattern? If the stalk explodes at a certain point, it will fall in a random direction. If a neighboring stalk falls on another stalk, it will be bent in the same direction. There is no mechanism that would account for a circular bending pattern.

    3) We already know people make these things with rope and boards. Why are you so insistent that a space-borne corn-bending beam has been developed by the military-industrial complex, at great expense to the taxpayer, but somehow also in total secrecy (except for your hang-gliding physicist friend who claimed to be circling a giant cylindrical mirror hovering in the sky)?

    4) Why is Boing Boing the proper forum for any of this nonsense?

    1. 4) Because I find it interesting to think about and, fortunately, that’s the only filter I need as an editor of this site.

      1. +1 to Pesco.

        Funnily enough, I get the feeling that Jacques is more interested in the sociological aspects of the comment responses than the crop circle ‘mystery’. It’s certainly interesting to see so many logical fallacies being presented in order to debunk what (IMO) is a fairly tenuous hypothesis. Beliefs are of many kinds, and they make us respond in rather irrational ways…

    2. David’s reply is, of course, the correct one. But explain how this fails to be “Media Culture Brainwash for Now People”? I think it fits that requirement admirably!

  31. This is going to sound totally weird, but I actually have a corroborating (urban) anecdote.

    See, I own this warehouse downtown. Every few days I’ll notice that, during the past night, some manner of entity has spray-painted a penis onto it. Now, one totally sensible hypothesis is that the local juvenile delinquents, who have in the past been caught decorating other buildings with just such dickish veneers, are partly to blame. You can even make the case that they or their ilk are responsible for ALL the genital-themed graffiti on the local buildings. But I think there’s still room to wonder. Perhaps the mystery is simply not something that can be solved with our secular worldview.

    Science doesn’t tell us everything, you know.

    1. EXACTLY!

      See, you have now spawned a new field of conspiracy theories about penis graffiti (or Penograff as those now in the know refer to it)

  32. Crop circles are an extraterrestrial conspiracy meta-hoax, created by human pranksters at the behest of their alien masters in order to discredit belief in their own existence.

  33. For some, even suggesting that there may be things we don’t fully understand apparently is too demeaning to their rationality to even be considered.

    There are lots of things we don’t understand. We don’t know if P=NP for example. We don’t understand gamma ray bursts. We don’t understand protein folding. We don’t understand a lot about how lightning actually forms and interacts with the ground and clouds beyond a very rough level (work in the last few years for example suggests that lightning is sometimes accompanied by the creation of positrons in the clouds and there are a lot of ideas). We don’t understand the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. We don’t fully understand how epigenetics impact evolution.

    However, we do understand crop circles.

  34. In the words of Dara O’Briain, sciences KNOWS it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it would stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

  35. Let me take you down,
    ’cause I’m going to
    Crop Circle fields
    Nothing is real
    And nothing to get hung about
    Crop Circle fields forever
    Living is easy with eyes closed
    Misunderstanding all you see
    It’s getting hard to see the one,
    but it all works out
    It doesn’t matter much to me
    Let me take you down,
    ’cause I’m going to
    Crop Circle fields
    Nothing is real
    And nothing to get hung about
    Crop Circle fields forever
    Someone, I think, is in my field
    I mean, he must be high or low
    Microwaves you can, you know, tune in,
    but it’s alright
    That is, I think it’s not too bad
    Let me take you down,
    ’cause I’m going to
    Crop Circle fields
    Nothing is real
    And nothing to get hung about
    Crop Circle fields forever
    Always, no, sometimes, think it’s them
    But, you know, I know when it’s a dream
    I think, er, no, I mean, er, yes, but it’s all wrong
    That is, I think I disagree
    Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to
    Crop Circle fields
    Nothing is real
    And nothing to get hung about
    Crop Circle fields forever
    Crop Circle fields forever
    Crop Circle fields forever

    With apologies, John, but I know you had something to do with this. You left clues. I know you were taken in to the sidereal universe without proper notice with one foot still in our door, and your spirit still walks the Earth messing with the normals. You always were a Smartist, although you probably only heard the whispers behind your back calling you a Smartass. You know about the UFO people too, and you know that things change when you have something more than an opinion to make yourself feel warm, chuff and comfortable to have one. Things changed when they came around your balcony that day, August 23rd, 1974, with May Pang witnessing. You had a bigger family than you knew. And now, as you look back, seeing things from the sidereal universe, you wonder how long it will take for us all to catch up. Now that you know that Energy is Consciousness and it never goes away and every push gets an equal response from any direction we go, you keep filling in our blank circles to make a point. You learned something. If you’re going to be a real Smartist here, it’s best not to sign your name, best not to let them even know who you are, or they might come looking and spoil it all. Open our eyes, John, and keep us guessing, it’s better that way. You’re dancing with the Nefilim, the lords of the grain, and the heavens reflect in each pattern, in perfect touching order. We’re coming, John. Don’t get caught.

  36. Which brings us back to the beam weapon hypothesis.

    That was where the whole post went wrong. Why does anything that precedes this line in the post “lead us back to the beam weapon hypothesis”. What strange, unexplained phenomena are there that require anything remotely approaching the utter improbability of a weapon being tested by drawing geometric images in crop fields? Vallee mentioned several in his first post on the subject, all which seemed to be totally debunked by links provided in responses to that post. Why is Vallee, or anyone else, even wondering about beam weapons in this context? Why not electric cars? Or weather control experiments? Or psyops? Or TV marketing? Or a myriad of other possible explanations for something that appears to need no further explanation whatsoever.

  37. Hi Jacques,
    Fan of your writing.
    Just wanted to make a small correction.

    “Even the Mandelbrot set, one of the most perfect displays, is a representation of a human concept.”

    Actually, this is not true. Mandlebrot himself has stated that this set exists independent of our “discovery”. It simply is.

    There are other beings on this planet-hope you never meet them.

  38. Jaques seems to be behaving much like a creationist or evolution denier. He doesn’t seem to read or understand contrary evidence. He believes the personal experience of a acquaintance to be all the proof needed for his irrational belief that a prototype British military weapon system is being tested on private fields in Britain, America and other nations around the world for the past thirty (30!!!) years.

    The stem evidence has been debunked earlier. I have seen grass stems like the ‘weapon system test’ stems in long grass I’ve crushed and knocked over just by rolling around in it when I was young.

    We all ready know why farmers actively participate in crop circle making. The farmers make money from the new age people that go to the farms.

  39. Angela, I’m not sure that you can credit the farmers with that goal. There have been multiple situations where someone who didn’t own a farm made a crop circle or set of crop circles on land owned by someone else doing serious damage to crops. Also, there have been problems with trespassers coming to look at crop circles and tromping over other crops in the process. There have even been lawsuits over these issues. Some people just want their land left alone. See for example http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/towns/devizesheadlines/4495278.Norwegians_tell_of_crop_circle_gun_incident_near_Devizes/

    Imputing motivations for farmers or claiming that the farmers themselves are making the crop circles seems generally unsupported.

  40. “I can assure you that, given they exist, these flying saucers are made by no power on this Earth.”
    -President Harry S. Truman, 4 April 1950, at a press conference.

    “While working under President Eisenhower,I discovered that Eisenhower had a keen interest in UFOs, but that he came to realize that he had lost control of the subject”.
    -Brigadier General Steven Lovekin

    “The US Airforce assures me that UFO’s pose no threat to National Security.”
    -President John F. Kennedy

    “We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination.”
    -J. Edgar Hoover

    “I certainly believe in aliens in space, and that they are indeed visiting our planet. They may not look like us, but I have very strong feelings that they have advanced beyond our mental capabilities.”
    -Senator Barry Goldwater (1965)

    “I’m not at liberty to discuss the governments knowledge of extraterrestrial UFO’s at this time. I am still personally being briefed on the subject!”
    -President Richard M. Nixon

    “The phenomenon of UFOs does exist, and it must be treated seriously.”
    -Mikhail Gorbachev

    “The UFO phenomenon being reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious”
    -General Nathan Twining Chairman, Joint chiefs of staff, 1955-1958

    “I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets which obviously are a little more technically advanced than we are here on Earth.”
    -Colonel L. Gordon Cooper (Mercury 9,Gemini-5 Astronaut)

    “Mission control, We have a UFO pacing our position, request instructions!”
    -Astronaut Cady Coleman NASA transmission shuttle mission STS-73

    “I speak from three years of detailed, personal research involving interviews with more than five hundred witnesses in selected UFO cases,chiefly in the United States. In my opinion the UFO problem,far from being the ‘nonsense problem’ it has been labelled by many scientists,constitutes an area of extraordinary scientific interest”.
    -Dr. James McDonald
    Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
    Quoted in “UFOs – a Scientific debate”

    “I’ve been asked about UFO’s and I’ve said publicly I thought they were somebody else, some other civilization.”
    -Commander Eugene Cernan, Commanded the Apollo 17 Mission. (LA TIMES, 1973)

    “We have contact with alien cultures.”
    -Astronaut Dr. Brian O’leary

    “The Air Force has never denied the possibility that interplanetary spacecraft exist. There are many people in the Air Force who believe in UFOs”.
    -USAF Press Liason Albert M Chop

    “In my official status, I cannot comment on ET contact. However, personally, I can assure you, we are not alone!”
    -Charles J. Camarda(Ph.D.) NASA Astronaut

    “The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating even higher than the H Bomb. Flying saucers exist. Their Modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.”
    -Wilbert Smith in a top secret Canadian Government Memorandum,
    21st November 1950

    “It isn’t a question of whether or not flying saucers exist. The question is what are they and who do they belong to?”
    -George Flier
    Air Force Intelligence Officer 1958 -1978

    “Of course it is possible that UFO’s really do contain aliens as many people believe, and the Government is hushing it up.”
    -Professor Stephen Hawking

    “All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin – flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence.”
    -Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems

    “We all know that UFOs are real. All we need to ask is where do they come from, and what do they want?”
    -Apollo 14 Astronaut Capt. Edgar Mitchell

    1. I always wondered of the logic behind beings that seemingly were able to travel faster than light or similar, with anti-gravity drives and more, but were unable to cloak their craft from human sight.

      1. “I always wondered of the logic behind beings that seemingly were able to travel faster than light or similar, with anti-gravity drives and more, but were unable to cloak their craft from human sight.”

        When you see them it’s not a “coincidence”. They have freedom of movement in “time”. Bargain hunters I suppose;)

        You were being facetious about “wondering”, but if you want to learn more about vibrations here’s some good links to get you started.

        Burkhard Heim (Heim Theory)
        Henry William Wallace (GE Aerospace patents)
        Ning Li (M.I.A.)
        Norman L. Dean (Dean Drive)

        Faraday effect

  41. Finally we have an explanation for why building 7 collapsed! A stealthy airborne microwave beam controlled by the CIA was used to melt all the steel in its rebar. Tinfoil hat on!

  42. This is getting fun. Invite a homeopath next, will you, BB? (Because they recently discovered that nothing heals death, and homeopathy is pretty near nothing, so the technology is there)
    “Now that disclosures about actual beam weapons are available[..]”
    Now? Lasers are beams, and have existed for a long time; the specific beam weapon able to affect a flat, geometrically shaped area at ‘first node’ height (varying…) is not disclosed, nor even intimated.
    “When the Earth teaches us something it is usually brutal and very explicit[…]” I would have let that one go, but it is just too NewAgey to ignore. So only the stuff that hurts is a lesson? Gaia is into evil-pedagogics, is she? Lessons are only taught by flinging glowing mountains a mile high, but not by the (precise, geometric and micrometer-sized) Diatomees? I like.
    “[…]so-called “expulsion cavities”[…]” – Please, heed my call. Walk into a field (non-alien/military/prankster visited. I know, hard to find) and look at areas downtrodden by animals, blasted by rain etc., notice 1.) the bending but not breaking at some points, indication that it is, indeed, possible to bend without breaking; 2.) the weirdness of the nodes, expulsions everywhere.
    “[…]I interviewed a reliable witness[…]” there are only not-immediately-discountable witnesses. Think about how many Nobel-prize winning scientist went gaga.
    “One of the French experts detached to work on this topic with American Intelligence is said to be visible on one of the crop circle videos, mingling among New Age enthusiasts and civilian researchers.” Is said? Wow. So the researcher is actually on site? Must be true then. Governments also looked into ESP and communism; gotta work.

  43. Food for thought: how is it that the disputed circles seem to get less intricate the farther they are away from their epicentre in Britain? The beam weapon is obviously not (completely) airborne, but dependend on some sort of land based generator, the pattern-capability is thus lessened by distance.
    Are there alternatives?

  44. Sciensism vs. Science:

    Science accepts that anything might be possible. It is open to all possible hypothesis, unless and until they are disproved or an alternative is positively proven to be true. Even then, it is open to going back and reevaluating any conclusions.

    Science, for instance, accepted the nearly absurd and crazy conclusions of quantum theory once a body of evidence was built to support it. It accepted enquiry into this matter even when it seemed absurd.

    Sciensism declares that if something is generally regarded by rational folks as not being true and scientifically valid, it must not be true and it is stupid to even visit the issue.

    There is much “sciensism” on this post, as there is on any discussion of crop circles. Certainly, some were made by hoaxers: groups have admitted doing it for various reasons. But we cannot say for certain that they were all made by hoaxers, many of them are too large, intricate, and well constructed for the ropes and boards hypothesis to seem feasible.

    If the evidence you have seen causes you to come to the conclusion that they were made by hoaxers, that’s all well and good. But there are other people who have examined different evidence from you and come to a different conclusion. I completely respect your right to feel that the issue is settled and not waste any time examining it, but to say unequivocally that they must be made by hoaxers and that no other possibility is valid is simply ignorant thinking.

    1. Please. Go into the nearest field and do some private science about exploded nodes.
      There is no evidence propping up the claim that the military did the circles using beam weapons, or at least it is as much and as good evidence as to the claim that the farmers did it (always near agricultural installations), using transportable microwaves (exploded nodes!), constructing the circles on a computer (complexity rises with available computing power!).
      The ‘evidence’ is mostly non-physical and non-proven (distance to installations of military waits to be shown + correlation is not causation) not evidence at all (rising complexity of patterns just shows the plan is made on a computer), or, in the single case of physical effects – mind-bendingly bad science (before you scold me for discarding the science offhand: I read the papers, all three of them, do the same before disrespecting my right to feel about them)

    2. zyodei,

      You are making a variant of the “respect me views” gambit. So let’s be clear: If people are going to make arguments for an extremely unlikely viewpoint then others have a perfect right to respond in a comments thread explaining just why that viewpoint is unlikely.

  45. I see that you have now posted an entire, lengthy post without providing any further details about the pseudo-citation-like references in your previous post. I, and others, repeatedly asked you to provide sufficient evidence for us to verify the claims you made — and you repeatedly responded, without ever providing any such details.

    I am further saddened, if not particularly surprised, that you have still failed to respond to my three very easy questions regarding the supposed talk at Stanford that you claimed to have been a participant at. For the benefit of other readers, I’ll repeat them here.

    I am particularly puzzled by your lack of additional comment regarding the Stanford presentation, since you stated that you, personally, introduced the speaker.

    Let me be very specific. Here are three questions that should be easily available in your notes and records of the presentation.

    1 What was the title of the presentation?

    2) What is the name of the department at Stanford that sponsored the presentation?

    3) What is the name of the “French lab” whose results were presented?

    I look forward to your prompt responses to these “legitimate questions”.
    —- (quoted from http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/08/crop-circles-part-de.html#comment-758902 )

    I would still be delighted to get answers to these basic, simple questions. Until they are provided, it is rather hard to believe that you have much of any interest in the subject at all, or in being taken seriously. Such vague demagoguery is actually rather disrespectful to people, on any sides of the question, who actually do care about the details.

    (accidentally first posted to the previous thread; sorry about that.)

    1. Geller did not do all of them. But i respect your having that theory. It can not be disproven.

  46. It’s possible he has a secret training program of select students being schooled in the dark art of ‘Bending’.
    Poised, ready to show the world once and for all that he’s not a toady fraud.

  47. This reminds me of those awful ghost hunting shows. “I can’t explain why it’s cold right here, so GHOST!” That’s what is happening here. “I can’t 100% explain how people are making all kinds of crop circles, so FLOATING LASER PLATFORMS!” Huh?

  48. The multinational brewing companies are behind this – all they had to do was develop an orbitally based precision charged beam weapons system to remotely bend crops so guys would no longer leave pubs to go out in fields with boards and ropes. See, they had to put their beer down for a while and so it cut into sales.

  49. Belief systems can be manipulated and are, unless the answer is apparent, all this is one form of propaganda versus another form of it. If this is a weapons system again the stability of the platform must be considered as the accuracy could be effected by drift. The weak portion of this proposition is the platform more than the beam, which then would have to be differentiated, which could be done as far as the counts of node bundles that could be counted. So, then we have the focusing mechanism..which would have to have an extraordinary accuracy. A very small minority of these patterns represent an anomaly. No one is interested in solving this as it is a tourist sink. The presence of a person with intelligence ties could be evident of curiosity as simply blending or being with a crowd does not constitute an analysis of the effect.If he has known ties, this is clumsy. Unless that person is suggesting to the public that this is an “alien” product. While close, I am not convinced this is the answer at the exclusion of others.

  50. I’m always amazed at how adamant proponents of the entirely-man-made hypothesis are when they clearly haven’t seriously studied the phenomenon to any extent.

    Speaking of Occam’s Razor, I’ve realized that – at least regarding many of these formations – the wooden plank explanation just isn’t the simplest explanation.

    Considering the time, effort, and coordination required to accomplish this accurately and covertly, every season for several years, in many locations, never being caught, never leaving one formation obviously incomplete…that theory quickly becomes naive. And that’s without even considering the science of the blown nodes and so forth.

    Anyone wishing to submit an opinion on this issue should read up on it first. I would specifically recommend the work of Michael Glickman and Allan Brown.

    1. Mike, I see so you don’t think this is man-made at all? So you disagree with the beam weapon hypothesis also?

      Regarding Occam, you think it is simpler to posit the existence of intelligent non-humans than to explain the use of wooden planks and boards? I’m curious as to how that logic works.

      1. I should have clarified: By “man-made”, I meant “made by pranksters with boards and rope”. I’m leaning toward the beam weapon hypothesis.

        My point is that many researchers have considered the boards-and-rope hypothesis (of course) and have concluded that it doesn’t explain many of them.

        In studying the phenomenon, I’ve concluded that suggesting that the boards-and-rope hypothesis is the simplest explanation for all of them makes as little sense as suggesting that wind vortices is.

    2. “[…]never being caught, never leaving one formation obviously incomplete…that theory quickly becomes naive. And that’s without even considering the science of the blown nodes and so forth.[…]”
      ‘Never’ as in ‘Many times, not counting the ones where they actually are filmed’ ? ‘Researching’ for incomplete circles is as easy as googling. And about the nodes. Go. out. into. any. field. Have a look at flattened crop, see the nodes.

      1. Yes, some have been filmed, obviously. But I have yet to see any such footage of impressive formations created at night in about 4 hours of darkness (average amount of darkness at night in England during crop season, I believe) assuming these are created when no one is able to see. If you have links to any such footage, please share.

        If I were hoaxing these formations, I would document the creation of a very impressive one, wait until it’s pronounced genuine by researchers, and then reveal my documentation. I find it intriguing that this has not happened (with undeniable documentation) as it would give those hoaxers enormous credibility. Architect Michael Glickman, for example, has said that if people are making these by ordinary means, then they are architectural geniuses.

        >Go. out. into. any. field. Have a look at flattened crop, see the nodes.

        Are you claiming that in any flattened crop, the stalks are bent at the nodes? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

        1. “If I were hoaxing these formations, I would document the creation of a very impressive one, wait until it’s pronounced genuine by researchers, and then reveal my documentation.”
          Hungary, 1992. Plus, this argument is only valid for one kind of drive. The hoaxers might be revelling in the technique and publicity alone. Read the circlemakers.org site to get a feel for what drives those people.
          “Are you claiming that in any flattened crop, the stalks are bent at the nodes? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.”
          I am claiming that even in unflattened crop, bending may occur at the nodes. Nodes are for bending, that’s what nodes are for. Read the (abyssmally bad) papers on the site I linked in the older thread (and J.V did later, and again in the entree to this thread). The authors acknowledge the natural bending of nodes, and on that count, it then all comes down to their sampling technique (which is laughable). They go on to talk about all kinds of other spurious differences (soil constitution, crop liveliness), but again, it’s all about their sampling.

          1. Thanks for the Hungary reference loonquawl. I’m not sure that I would put the Hungary circle on par with something like the Milk Hill one, or Crooked Soley:


            Milk Hill:

            Crooked Soley:

            You’re right about hoaxers getting a kick out of the anonymous publicity though.

            Interesting about the nodes, too.

    1. I’ve seen the Firefox logo. It is impressive. It took 19 hours to create and was not done in daylight and at night with cooperation from the farmer.

      If all crop circles were created under those conditions, don’t you think more of them would be discovered in mid-construction?

    1. The working-in-darkness argument is not just because of fear of trespassing; there are all kinds of pilots of aircraft that pass over those areas on a regular basis – some of whom are researchers themselves I believe – who would presumably notice this stuff going on. Perhaps not every time, but over the 20-year span of the phenomenon, surely often. Although that argument contradicts my position that most are hoaxed, so that’s something for me to think about. ;)

      Thanks for that link. Fascinating!

  51. “…I mastered the technique of high potentials sufficiently for enabling me to construct and operate, in 1899, a wireless transmitter developing up to twenty million volts. Some time before I contemplated the possibility of transmitting such high tension currents over a narrow beam of radiant energy ionizing the air and rendering it, in measure, conductive. After preliminary laboratory experiments, I made tests on a large scale with the transmitter referred to and a beam of ultra-violet rays of great energy in an attempt to conduct the current to the high rarefied strata of the air and thus create an auroral such as might be utilized for illumination, especially of oceans at night….,” from “Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy Through Natural Media,” by Nikola Tesla.

    Just remember, these ideas were conceived at the turn of the last century, by a person who’s patents in radio, electrical logic circuits, and electrical power transmission are still in use over one hundred years later. Though Tesla failed to light up the night sky (thankfully) a lower, shorter distance (in his high elevation laboratory in Colorado Springs of 1899) use of such experiments were apparently fruitful enough for him to try to extend the range of effects.

    More is known about the electrical properties of the earth nowadays. Though long distance wireless transmission of electrical power over the earth’s surface might be considered laughable by some electrical engineers due to more complete knowledge of the earth’s surface conductivity, shorter range effects might be practicable.

    For instance, the electrical boundary layer of the earth’s surface might be agitated somehow within a few centimeters of the ground, which would affect the stalks at this level. From “The Earth’s Electrical Environment,” by Hoppel, Anderson, and Willett (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=898&page=150): “The primary source of ions in the PBL [primary boundary layer–of the earth] over land is natural radioactivity originating from the ground… It is obvious that radiation directly from the ground will vary greatly depending on the geographical variations in ground radioactivity. Ground radiation intensity also decreases with height; ‘alpha’ ionization is confined to the first few centimeters, ‘beta’ to the first few meters, and ‘gamma’ to the first few hundred meters….”

    Food for thought, which is the point here (and… this is another issue).

    1. To see what patterns electrical effects usually give rise to, microwave a CD.
      Ants can reach the nodes (Textbook: Ants). Ants can disperse chemicals (Textbook: Ants). Chemicals can influence the bending of nodes (Textbook: Plant Phys). Dumb agents, working by very simple rules, can achieve very complex geometrical designs (Textbook: Information Theory). This knowledge is more than 100 years old, save for the last bit, which has been incepted right about at the time when the crop circling started. Just food for thought of course…

    2. Re: “More is known about the electrical properties of the earth nowadays. Though long distance wireless transmission of electrical power over the earth’s surface might be considered laughable by some electrical engineers due to more complete knowledge of the earth’s surface conductivity, shorter range effects might be practicable.”

      Resonance animates all that we experience in the physical Universe.

      If it is possible to create complex and refined crop pattern by directed microwave bursts, the question also remains of how these patterns are propagated, having also achieved a high degree of directed influence in the lay patterns.

      Most of the patterns are now dismissed by the serious researchers as being recognizably man made. The remaining few classified as enigmas exist because of the differences that set them apart… either by the time constraints and impracticality of doing highly complex labor intensive patterns under reasonably consistent potential scrutiny, or the questionable application of visible signatures or lack thereof, such as the signs of energetic discharge at the nodes that differentiate them from the nodes commonly found in otherwise broken or flattened crops, and other signs of human trespass such as the powdery breaking of surface clay at the ground to indicate the applied pressure of a board or foot… but we’ve touched on all that.

      What interests me more here is that the most impressive patterns are those that display not only a complex pattern, but also the careful layering of stalks in a pattern that resembles 3 dimensional weaving more than the simpler 2 dimensional application of a given design template, and this gives the entire process a whole level of magnitude higher assignment of complexity in execution. On the face of it, this kind of care in application seems beyond the limitations of Boarders and Microwaves, but if there is any kind of known analog for this kind of pattern existing in a motion applied environment, where a complex pattern could be forced to behave as though it were being teased by energetic influences in to highly complex patterns in general, one need look no further than the simple experiments anyone could do with magnets or surface resonance.

      Resonance also brings us back to Tesla and the comment by “ives” I’m responding to. Concerning the long distance wireless transmission of electrical power, one need only look at the spread of microwave towers across the surface of the globe to see it’s broadest range of application for today. Tesla also spoke of having a method of being able to transmit or collect electrical energy remotely from significant distances and with a high order of specification as to location, in a manner he described as being as simple as transmitting radio waves designed to intersect at a specific location. He also was the first to discover the actual resonant frequency of the ionosphere.
      See http://www.teslasociety.com/cosmos.htm
      He discovered the use of the Earth’s specific ionospheric resonant frequency, and by creating a radio wavelength that matched it, he proved that the resulting synchronization of that wave pattern made it possible to have perfect uninterrupted low power communication around the world from any location without any significant degradation of signal. In fact that frequency bandwidth was deemed proprietary for a long time, reserved for military use, particularly by submarines, and then as the world standard SOS frequency. Tesla also produced a device the size of a pack of bandaids containing an electromagnetic “tapper” hammer coupled to a frequency counter he used for parlor tricks. By his use of frequency dependent resonance, he would attach it to a large ship’s chain link as a party joke, and had it beating like a heart ready to jump off the ground and explode in a matter of minutes. He also attached it to the grid iron structure of a new high rise building construction in New York, and had the whole structure ready to dance itself apart in a short period of time. These experiments culminated in his eventual work at Wardenclyffe Tower…

      To quote him, “As soon as [the Wardenclyffe plant is] completed, it will be possible for a business man in New York to dictate instructions, and have them instantly appear in type at his office in London or elsewhere. He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment. An inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song, the speech of a political leader, the address of an eminent man of science, or the sermon of an eloquent clergyman, delivered in some other place, however distant. In the same manner any picture, character, drawing, or print can be transferred from one to another place. . . .” — Nikola Tesla

      In this, his final grand experiment, he did manage to light up the sky for several nights, as the lightening power channeled through the tower was so luminous as to be described as approaching daylight, causing extreme concerns throughout the area. It may have also been his final salvo against Edison and the growing proliferation of Edison Power Stations Tesla felt had spread a blight of dangerous power cables destroying the natural beauty of the world’s surroundings, while also chaining people to the ultimate power consortiums in control of all related electrical services to come. When this tower was brought to it’s full realized potential, it shorted out all the existing grounding cables at all the power stations, and that got Tesla shut down for life. What the average person doesn’t know, is that his experiment in “free power”, and everything alluded to in the above quote, was never intended for surface transmission at all. What he did was entirely different in concept and execution. He built Wardenclyffe to pump current in to the ground, using the Earth’s internal resonant frequency as the propagator, and the Earth itself as a giant capacitor to store and amplify the energy via natural resonance, the result of which would have made it possible to drop a steel rod in to any resonant frequency node point, anywhere on Earth, to draw free power directly from the Ground, and the entire system could have been maintained indefinitely by a handful of resonance amplifiers at other key nodes around the world, to insure the stability of available current in an everlasting free grid. Instead, we used the Ground to dump random excess energy, which is why all those Edison Plants had their cables melt. The tower operated for a few days, long enough for him to prove the concept, and then be denied funding for the rest of his life by the very people he had made filthy rich from his inventions.

      What I’ve always found interesting is that there actually exists a type of construction around the world that would arguably be the ideal kind of structure to maintain that kind of resonant field effect for free power, and their locations seem to follow the necessary pattern of node points… the Pyramids. But that’s another story.

      I love science, and adore science fiction equally because it’s the land of dreams for scientists of every caliber. They meet in a land of speculative correlations and grand designs, so I hope I never have to be driven to apologize for any speculative interests or observations of meaningful coincidences out in the fields…

      See Helioseismology. also…

      Sound Pattern Resonance –

  52. Looks like I may have forgotten where I read the mirrored magician’s cabinet account and I apologize for that. Some of these circle being made by way of a small platform, beam of some sort, that seems “well within the state of the art” (borrowed that phrase from an author on this thread, sorry). Let’s assume for a moment that’s happening. Why? Success with psy ops (or whatever we want to call social control efforts) can mean national security success and that’s important. Psy ops works when they keep the public puzzled. It may be to some entity’s advantage to keep other elements of “government” puzzled or in some state of “belief” in crop circle/ufo paranormality. Maybe some elements are making circles, asking for further replies from what they think is a non-human source because they are wondering if they’ve had genuine replies before.

  53. Dear Dr. Vallée,

    Yesterday I made a pilgrimage to the New York Public Library, to the lovely Main Reading Room where Charles Fort used to sit and ponder all those old newspaper clippings, to renew my acquaintance with your books. What a treat to read these again after so many years! I’ve just stumbled upon your post regarding crop circles and was curious to ask if you are familiar with an alternative explanation for this phenomena — elemental beings working in concert with angelic beings. You pioneered the recovery in the 20th century of the knowledge of the “daimonic” realm as a way to understand the phenomena of UFOs and “alien abductions,” recognizing what so few did — that there was a distinctly sinister, _demonic_ dimension to the doings (and “sayings,” the deceptive pronouncements) of the infraterrestrials. I have searched your books for citations that suggest you have equally explored the life-sustaining, creative activity of the benevolent elemental beings. I have not found you discussing this, though I am sure that my cursory search yesterday might have missed it. Down through the millennia, the cultures of the world have had as intimate a relationship to the “good fairies” — the unfallen (for this Christian term is indeed an apt expression for the malevolent nature of these demonic elementals) gnomes, undines, sylphs and salamanders — as to the demonic elementals. (I highly recommend the work of Rudolf Steiner for a full elaboration of this taxonomy of the daimonic; if you are interested I can send you references). A good deal of traditional ritual activity — particularly in hunter/gathering cultures, but also in early agricultural societies — was directed toward communication with these “nature spirits.”

    I have only been in a crop circle once, and before my experience, I had absolutely no interest in them, having been put off by the narrowness (and tendentiousness!) of the debate about them. Since that experience (in May 2000, in Wiltshire), I’ve come to understand that the main “developmental” line of crop circles is a playful (remember, the Faerie Realm is first and foremost characterized by a certain capriciousness as well as intelligence) conversation with human beings. Where the demonic elementals routinely employ uncanny deception in their communication, their benign cousins are wed not to deception but “indirection,” a kind of coyness that hearkens back to what traditional people have always said about the fairies — don’t look straight at them, and never use their names! Robin Goodfellow demands always that we approach them in quiet, reverent, “sideways” manner. Unfortunately, we have shown the circle-making Goodfellows the shadow side of our hospitality, with all the contentious noisemaking about “whodunnit”!

    Many thanks for your continued courage — and good humor — in penetrating this modern mystery.

    Best wishes,
    Dr. Kevin Dann

  54. After a Century, These Secrets Are No Longer Hidden! More Than 236,000 people in 160 countries have realized the power of the Genius and now, it is time for you to bid farewell to huge utility bills

Comments are closed.