![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Cyberbot II has detected links on Crop circle which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcirclemakers\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In my edits the past few months, I've tried to balance the scientific consensus with the alternate theories. The article is easier to read if we start off by saying human beings make crop circles - either as hoaxes or for artistic/commercial reasons. But we should not endorse this POV.
We must provide room for alternate ideas such as aliens from outer space or (as yet unknown) physical processes.
I'm even thinking it might be good to have a section on the controversy over whether the "hoaxers" are right or not. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk (Fig.5) ; CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY ‘SAUCER NEST’, CYCLONE ‘JOY’, UFO
TVERD ( talk) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wibble
|
---|
"saucer nests" nature has created. Man is not created "saucer nests". The mechanism of creation of "saucer nests" forces of nature have been described in «CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY ‘SAUCER NEST’, CYCLONE ‘JOY’, UFO» ( http://nyos.lv/f/uploads/RED-text-t-Ru-EN-Transl-ARTICLE-TULLY-Ru--Microsoft-Word-Document.pdf ). Another mechanism of creating "crop circles" forces of nature described in «Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk» ( http://nyos.lv/f/uploads/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf). In addition to these, there are other mechanisms for creating natural "crop circles". People only imitate nature. TVERD ( talk) 06:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It is shown that the appearance of UFOs and Crop Circles «Tully 'Saucer Nest'» is a consequence of the resonant oscillation of reed stalks under the influence of infrasound. Cyclone 'Joy' was source of infrasound. The distance from the Crop Circle «Tully 'Saucer Nest'» till Cyclone 'Joy' is almost two thousand kilometers…”. 188.112.170.48 ( talk) 10:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Wibble
|
---|
What nonsense. We still have this comment about there being a scientific consensus that crop circles are hoaxes. Follow the reference - you find "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters" - how does that establish a scientific consensus on anything? And it's from some amateur on-line 'skeptic's' 'dictionary'! What fuzzy-headed would-be scientists are pushing this fantasy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.122.101 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 September 2015 |
Edit summaries such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Crop_circle&type=revision&diff=676012615&oldid=676012489 "who you gonna believe? A journalist or a professor of physics?" are not helpful. For example, William Penhallow is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rhode Island. It hasn't stopped him writing some astonishing nonsense about the "astronomical significance" of the Newport Tower (Rhode Island). Just an example to bear in mind when pretending that a paper qualification is the same as common sense. Ghughesarch ( talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No, see, that's not how it works. The 1880 claim is clearly forteana in the sense that there is zero independent notice of this claim outside of the crazies who believe crop circle nonsense. The 1932 Bow Hill report clearly identifies the phenomena as crop marks which is a different thing, and the 1963 claims are similar to the 1880 claims with a lack of independent notice outside of the WP:FRINGE crop circle community. These are post facto claims, and the fact that they were described after the fact without reliable evidence that they ever existed is simply not good enough for an article at Wikipdia which requires much better sources for such extraordinary points. You have not met your WP:BURDEN. There simply aren't any good sources which claim that crop circles are anything but manmade. jps ( talk) 04:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to explain this. In science, you are allowed to be wrong. Patrick Moore's 1963 article was a statement of his views at the time, but a great deal of subsequent data has shown that there is no remotely plausible non-human explanation for crop circles, and that article is of purely historical curiosity value now: we can say that opinion was at one time X, but that does nto change the fact that it is now Y. Even the claims of localised meteorological effects are speculative and largely unsupported by hard data, claims of extraterrestrial origin are simply bonkers. The only crop circles for which a cause has been definitively established, are of human creation. Guy ( Help!) 08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source:
With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these articles state:
“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011
“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011
For the source of both these articles the journalists reference a report by Professor Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 (see reference 67 in the Wikipedia crop circle article) and both newspaper items have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also Richard Taylor doesn’t say that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens.’
Richard Taylor actually says:
“Independent studies published in 1999 and in 2001 reported evidence consistent with what you would expect to see if the crops had been exposed to radiation during the formation of patterns...... ................Intriguingly, a group of crop-circle enthusiasts called the BLT Research Team claims to be able to replicate the observed changes to pulvini using 30 s exposures to microwaves generated by magnetrons from readily available microwave ovens. Today’s magnetrons are small and light, and some require only 12 V battery power supplies. Haselhoff and Levengood used the Beer–Lambert principle, which relates the absorption of radiation to the properties of the material, to model the radial dependence of the pulvini swelling. For a typical 9 m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4 m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted.”
So Professor Taylor says the basis of his microwave theory is the work of the BLT Research Team and their theoretical models. I contacted the BLT Research Team to ask for clarification. Amendment: I had reproduced the email here from BLT Research however they have asked that I don't reproduce the full email here (so I've removed it) which is fair enough but basically they've calculated that you'd need a huge number of microwaves (500+) to make an average size crop circle that this isjust not practical. Also the BLT research team have requested that people are made aware that members of the BLT Research Team have published 3 papers in the peer-reviewed literature presenting their findings regarding changes to the crop circle plants and soils.
Therefore unless there’s objections I’ll correct the misleading statement to:
“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens. However this theory is controversial because of the large amount of energy needed.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Doug and Dream Focus. Just to clarify my update, the statement that researchers at the University of Oregon had recreated crop circles using magnatrons is wrong. Richard Taylor did a piece in the magazine 'Physics World' in which he cited the work of the BLT Research Team to suggest it was possible to use magnatrons to make crop circles. The two British newspapers cited by the Wikipedia crop circle article then incorrectly reported the 'Physics World' article to suggest that Richard Taylor/University of Oregon researchers had developed/used a magnetron to mimic the microwave radiation effects found in some crop circles.
Next paragraph amended following request by BLT Research to remove r
BLT Research suggest hand held magnetrons have not been used to make crop circles for the reasons described in their email. As Richard Taylor uses the work of the BLT Research organisation to support a theory they disagree with then surely Richard Taylor's theory is controversial? This is apart from the fact no one's ever been recorded of having made a crop circle with a magnetron (nor should be encouraged to do so as there's big health and safety concerns if using microwaves in an unprotected way).
Dream Focus - you said you couldn't access Richard Taylor's article because its behind a paywall. This is incorrect (at least in the UK). You can read Richard Taylor's article from Physics World by clicking on reference '67' at the bottom of the Wikipedia crop circle article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the message Dream Focus. I did a search in Google for "University of Oregon" "crop circles" but they all seem to refer either directly or indirectly to the article in 'Physics World' by Richard Taylor and as mentioned above, his article doesn't mention that "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron." only that hand-held magnetrons are available. The proposal that microwaves could cause the odd 'elongated pulvini' feature in wheat stalks in some crop circles is accepted (see the work of W C levengood and E H Hasselhoff). But to do this Richard Taylor quotes the theoretical work of others (not Oregon University researchers): Richard Taylor says "For a typical 9m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted." So the hand held devices would need to be raised 4m above the crop circle (the guys who make them must be very tall!).
Also Dream Focus, you mention that "But he claims others at his university did this on their own". I've looked through the article again but can't see where he says this. I would be grateful if you could tell me where he said this in the 'Physics World' article or if not there, where? 2.29.163.52 ( talk) 08:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and links Dream Focus. With regards both the 'Time' magazine item and the 'Livescience' item they both are from July/August 2011 and reference for their information the Physics World article which came out at this time. So again, 'Livescience' the reference "In fact, another research team claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using a handheld magnetron, readily available from microwave ovens, and a 120-Volt battery." is incorrect, Richard Taylor in his article in 'Physics World' doesn't say this. Perhaps Live Science got their information from the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph who also mis-reported the article? Similarly with the Time magazine statement "Richard Taylor and his team from the University of Oregon" is incorrect (don't believe everything you read in the papers!), the article in 'Physics World' is Richard Taylor's observations on the crop circle phenomenon and not his team's. With regards your comment that the article itself mentions 'experiments by others' the only reference I can find in the article that you may possibly mean is the 'experiments carried out by biophysicts' which relates to measuring the effects of microwave radiation but doesn't include creating crop circles with hand held magnetrons.
However to move forward, would the following be amendment be acceptable:
“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens. [6]"
Hope this allays your concerns. 2.29.163.41 ( talk) 07:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Update 3/6/2015:
Today I updated the page with the above comment, correcting the previous false information. However the person who looks after the page for Wikipedia didn't appear to like it and changed it to:
Cereologists discount on-site evidence of human involvement as attempts of discrediting the phenomena.[47] Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles.[47] When scientific writer Matt Ridley wrote negative articles in newspapers, he was accused of spreading "government disinformation" and of working for the UK military intelligence service MI5.[31] According to Matt Ridley, many cereologists make a good living from selling books and making personal tours through crop fields (they can charge more than £2,000/person), and they have a vested interest in rejecting what is by far the most likely explanation for the circles
Obviously disappointed my correction wasn't put in but at least the mistake has been removed even if the replacement text seems a bit of a rant at cereologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Dream Focus, I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:
======================================== Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM From: "Richard Taylor" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons Hi, You are correct. Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles. 1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique. 2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of course, if i deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy! Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it best wishes Richard ======================================== Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM From: "Cardiff2015" To: "Richard Taylor" Cc: On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Dear Professor Taylor, I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.
One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Wikipedia 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source: With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state: “Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011 “An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011 For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Wikipedia crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Wikipedia have used your report incorrectly to back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Kind Regards
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.
Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselves Cardiff2015 ( talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This para:
References
I do not think this belong sin the article. It describes a theoretical mechanism to create something similar to crop circles, but which there is precisely zero evidence has ever been used to create any. This is an article about crop circles, not about hypothetical mechanisms for creating them. As noted above, the originators make no pretence to have even tried to show that this has actually happened, there is no credible reason for including this non-sequitur.
Three "sources" are cited. One is a press release and not independent, one is the Daily Mail, a perennially unreliable source, and the third, which is an RS, merely regurgitates the press release. There is no independent evidence of the significance of this claim. This basically applies to all the sources discussed above: they are merely repetitions of the claim, they do not challenge it and none of them credibly establish relevance for this article. Guy ( Help!) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Dream Focus, As noted in the previous section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' your statement Your statement Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens is wrong, Professor Taylor does not claim researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron.
I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:
======================================== Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM From: "Richard Taylor" To: "Cardiff2015" Cc: Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons Hi, You are correct. Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles. 1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique. 2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of course, if |I deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy! Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it best wishes Richard ======================================== Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM From: To: "Richard Taylor" Cc: On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Dear Professor Taylor, I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.
One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Wikipedia 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source: With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state: “Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011 “An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011 For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Wikipedia crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Wikipedia have used your report incorrectly to back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Kind Regards
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.
Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselves Cardiff2015 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dream Focus, obviously its disappointing that you're saying I'm lying, I assure you absolutely I'm not and I'd suggest you email Professor Richard Taylor yourself. His email address is shown in the Physics World article: rpt@uoregon.edu. I've never tried to change anything before on Wikipedia so I'm surprised at your abuse when all I'm trying to do is replace/remove incorrect information. Cardiff2015 ( talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:
"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."
best wishes Richard
Hi Dream Focus, again you're wrong I'm not lying, I'm informing you of the truth which you're having surprising difficulies understanding so I'll again try to explain. Your proposed phrasing at the start of this section is absolutely wrong. You say "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Nowhere has Professor Richard Taylor said that 'Researchers were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron'. Nor is there anyone else who claims to have direct knowledge of researchers actually going out and making crop circles with magnetrons. References on the internet all point to Professor Richard Taylor's work and he only says that 'magnetrons could be used to make crop circles' which is totally different to 'magentrons have been used to make crop circles'. Also in your partial quote from Professor Richard Taylor's email to you RT says "The wording used below in your email is incorrect." What was the incorrect wording you left out? Cardiff2015 ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Crop_circle
Someone has claimed you emailed them, and posted your response on the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Crop Circles.
He claims that you stated you never said that a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles.
Can you verify this please? Has anyone ever done experiments to prove its possible to do?
There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:
"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."
best wishes Richard
Hi Dream Focus - With regards your comment, firstly, I agree with Guy's statement above.
Secondly, you were wrong in your email to Professor Richard Taylor to say I claimed he 'never' said a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles. I said the entry on Wikipedia didn't tie-up with what he said in his Physics World' article. Wikipedia had said (now removed) ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ and I queried whether researchers at the University of Oregon had actually replicated a crop circle with a magnetron and he confirmed to me they had not and, to quote from his email to me "Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made."
Thirdly, you are wrong to suggest to use links to (1) the Telegraph and (2) the Daily Mail as they both were doing a story on Professor Richard Taylor's article in Physics World and both wrongly reported it (as explained above in this section and in the section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears to me that crop circles and corn mazes are related. Because they are both artistic designs in crops to be see from above.
QuentinUK ( talk) 08:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been reverted but was not vandalism - Edis, T. Science and Nonbelief. Prometheus Books. 2008, p. 138. ISBN 1-59102-561-3 "Skeptics begin by pointing out that many paranormal claims are the result of fraud or hoaxes. Crop circles — elaborate patterns that appear on fields overnight — appear to be of this sort. Many crop circle makers have come forth or have been exposed. We know a great deal about their various techniques. So we do not need to find the perpetrator of every crop circle to figure out that probably they all are human made. Many true believers remain who continue to think there is something paranormal — perhaps alien — about crop circles. But the circles we know all fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes. Nothing stands out as extraordinary."</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by A little angry ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a general observation, not restricted to the topic of crop circles. Laymen need to realize that scientists often do not behave very scientifically. They often have private flaws which make them support silly ideas, and they then try to use their qualifications to browbeat the layman into submission. For instance, many of the greatest scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries backed various fraudulent psychics (not that there are any genuine ones). Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel Prize for undergraduate (sic) research believes in the paranormal. Many creationists have impressive scientific credentials. There are employees at Boeing who think that gyroscopes truly defy gravity (they do not). The bottom line is that the views of individual scientists should be ignored when discussing 'mystical' subjects. As the scientific consensus is that all crop circles are man-made, that is the only view which matters: non-scientists are not qualified to weigh evidence and the occasional maverick scientist is certainly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.90.206 ( talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that someone thinks that this
A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern created by people flattening a
crop such as
cereal,
rapeseed,
reeds,
grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds.
[1]
[2] Although obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by
conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations. Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists.
Is a better version than this:
A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern formed by the flattening of a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. [3] [4] Natural causes or even alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists.
Since neither source quoted actually states that crop circles are "created by people", or that "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists", the second version must surely be the more acceptable version for the lede of the article? Ghughesarch ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how a simple and plain WP:ASSERTion of the facts that crop circles are made by humans can be plausibly argued against here. Claiming that the current wording is a "sweeping statement of fact" is classic special pleading. Go ahead and identify a plausible argument from a reliable source from the last fifteen years that does not identify crop circles as being human caused. The article as is is fully consistent with the skeptic's dictionary. jps ( talk) 20:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
References
jps - Are you going to provide a link on this page to the discussion you have stated on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, so that the discussion can involve those interested in a sensible resolution that does not merely push your POV? Ghughesarch ( talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that we have "Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people." from "sceptical" side with partial agreement "That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made." from "non-sceptical" side, wouldn't it be possible to write something like that agreed part into the article?
Let's say, "Although other natural causes or alien origins of crop circles have been proposed, in all cases where the exact cause was established they were man-made, created by hoaxers and artists."? Is there anything disagreeable for any side in such formulation?
I guess that would also make repetition of "created by people" in the definition unnecessary, unless someone claims that something similar created by some other cause will have to have a different name... -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In the Modern times section it says "Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), wrote to a journalist that the "saucer" was probably debris lifted by the causing willy-willy". I presume this is a bit of schoolboy vandalism - what should it say? Richerman (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," from the lead because it is a verbatim lift from the reference, IOW a blatant copyvio. I left a message on User:Ghughesarch's talk page saying why, but he/she restored it, so I have reverted again. Moriori ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits give the impression (entirely wrong on both counts) that only one person (a journalist on a RS national newspaper) believes that a non-human natural cause for some crop circles is open to dispute, and that only one obscure professor at an American university believes that they "fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" (which is not the same as stating that they are all hoaxes). So I'm suggesting reverting back to the last edit which was the subject of sensible discussion here. Ghughesarch ( talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Guy's version is better and a better point to start from than Ghughsearch's version. jps ( talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I support the 03:11, 15 August 2015 version by jps because the "remains open to dispute" text was just a throw-away line in a space-filler which could be read as suggesting there may well be a dispute. However, per WP:REDFLAG, there is no dispute about such a fringe topic unless solid-gold reliable sources say so. The current text is phrased much more appropriately to show the obvious, namely that no one has determined the cause of every crop circle, so some may have natural causes. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Cyberbot II has detected links on Crop circle which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcirclemakers\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In my edits the past few months, I've tried to balance the scientific consensus with the alternate theories. The article is easier to read if we start off by saying human beings make crop circles - either as hoaxes or for artistic/commercial reasons. But we should not endorse this POV.
We must provide room for alternate ideas such as aliens from outer space or (as yet unknown) physical processes.
I'm even thinking it might be good to have a section on the controversy over whether the "hoaxers" are right or not. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk (Fig.5) ; CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY ‘SAUCER NEST’, CYCLONE ‘JOY’, UFO
TVERD ( talk) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wibble
|
---|
"saucer nests" nature has created. Man is not created "saucer nests". The mechanism of creation of "saucer nests" forces of nature have been described in «CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY ‘SAUCER NEST’, CYCLONE ‘JOY’, UFO» ( http://nyos.lv/f/uploads/RED-text-t-Ru-EN-Transl-ARTICLE-TULLY-Ru--Microsoft-Word-Document.pdf ). Another mechanism of creating "crop circles" forces of nature described in «Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk» ( http://nyos.lv/f/uploads/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf). In addition to these, there are other mechanisms for creating natural "crop circles". People only imitate nature. TVERD ( talk) 06:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It is shown that the appearance of UFOs and Crop Circles «Tully 'Saucer Nest'» is a consequence of the resonant oscillation of reed stalks under the influence of infrasound. Cyclone 'Joy' was source of infrasound. The distance from the Crop Circle «Tully 'Saucer Nest'» till Cyclone 'Joy' is almost two thousand kilometers…”. 188.112.170.48 ( talk) 10:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Wibble
|
---|
What nonsense. We still have this comment about there being a scientific consensus that crop circles are hoaxes. Follow the reference - you find "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters" - how does that establish a scientific consensus on anything? And it's from some amateur on-line 'skeptic's' 'dictionary'! What fuzzy-headed would-be scientists are pushing this fantasy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.122.101 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 September 2015 |
Edit summaries such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Crop_circle&type=revision&diff=676012615&oldid=676012489 "who you gonna believe? A journalist or a professor of physics?" are not helpful. For example, William Penhallow is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rhode Island. It hasn't stopped him writing some astonishing nonsense about the "astronomical significance" of the Newport Tower (Rhode Island). Just an example to bear in mind when pretending that a paper qualification is the same as common sense. Ghughesarch ( talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No, see, that's not how it works. The 1880 claim is clearly forteana in the sense that there is zero independent notice of this claim outside of the crazies who believe crop circle nonsense. The 1932 Bow Hill report clearly identifies the phenomena as crop marks which is a different thing, and the 1963 claims are similar to the 1880 claims with a lack of independent notice outside of the WP:FRINGE crop circle community. These are post facto claims, and the fact that they were described after the fact without reliable evidence that they ever existed is simply not good enough for an article at Wikipdia which requires much better sources for such extraordinary points. You have not met your WP:BURDEN. There simply aren't any good sources which claim that crop circles are anything but manmade. jps ( talk) 04:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to explain this. In science, you are allowed to be wrong. Patrick Moore's 1963 article was a statement of his views at the time, but a great deal of subsequent data has shown that there is no remotely plausible non-human explanation for crop circles, and that article is of purely historical curiosity value now: we can say that opinion was at one time X, but that does nto change the fact that it is now Y. Even the claims of localised meteorological effects are speculative and largely unsupported by hard data, claims of extraterrestrial origin are simply bonkers. The only crop circles for which a cause has been definitively established, are of human creation. Guy ( Help!) 08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source:
With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these articles state:
“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011
“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011
For the source of both these articles the journalists reference a report by Professor Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 (see reference 67 in the Wikipedia crop circle article) and both newspaper items have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also Richard Taylor doesn’t say that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens.’
Richard Taylor actually says:
“Independent studies published in 1999 and in 2001 reported evidence consistent with what you would expect to see if the crops had been exposed to radiation during the formation of patterns...... ................Intriguingly, a group of crop-circle enthusiasts called the BLT Research Team claims to be able to replicate the observed changes to pulvini using 30 s exposures to microwaves generated by magnetrons from readily available microwave ovens. Today’s magnetrons are small and light, and some require only 12 V battery power supplies. Haselhoff and Levengood used the Beer–Lambert principle, which relates the absorption of radiation to the properties of the material, to model the radial dependence of the pulvini swelling. For a typical 9 m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4 m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted.”
So Professor Taylor says the basis of his microwave theory is the work of the BLT Research Team and their theoretical models. I contacted the BLT Research Team to ask for clarification. Amendment: I had reproduced the email here from BLT Research however they have asked that I don't reproduce the full email here (so I've removed it) which is fair enough but basically they've calculated that you'd need a huge number of microwaves (500+) to make an average size crop circle that this isjust not practical. Also the BLT research team have requested that people are made aware that members of the BLT Research Team have published 3 papers in the peer-reviewed literature presenting their findings regarding changes to the crop circle plants and soils.
Therefore unless there’s objections I’ll correct the misleading statement to:
“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens. However this theory is controversial because of the large amount of energy needed.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Doug and Dream Focus. Just to clarify my update, the statement that researchers at the University of Oregon had recreated crop circles using magnatrons is wrong. Richard Taylor did a piece in the magazine 'Physics World' in which he cited the work of the BLT Research Team to suggest it was possible to use magnatrons to make crop circles. The two British newspapers cited by the Wikipedia crop circle article then incorrectly reported the 'Physics World' article to suggest that Richard Taylor/University of Oregon researchers had developed/used a magnetron to mimic the microwave radiation effects found in some crop circles.
Next paragraph amended following request by BLT Research to remove r
BLT Research suggest hand held magnetrons have not been used to make crop circles for the reasons described in their email. As Richard Taylor uses the work of the BLT Research organisation to support a theory they disagree with then surely Richard Taylor's theory is controversial? This is apart from the fact no one's ever been recorded of having made a crop circle with a magnetron (nor should be encouraged to do so as there's big health and safety concerns if using microwaves in an unprotected way).
Dream Focus - you said you couldn't access Richard Taylor's article because its behind a paywall. This is incorrect (at least in the UK). You can read Richard Taylor's article from Physics World by clicking on reference '67' at the bottom of the Wikipedia crop circle article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the message Dream Focus. I did a search in Google for "University of Oregon" "crop circles" but they all seem to refer either directly or indirectly to the article in 'Physics World' by Richard Taylor and as mentioned above, his article doesn't mention that "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron." only that hand-held magnetrons are available. The proposal that microwaves could cause the odd 'elongated pulvini' feature in wheat stalks in some crop circles is accepted (see the work of W C levengood and E H Hasselhoff). But to do this Richard Taylor quotes the theoretical work of others (not Oregon University researchers): Richard Taylor says "For a typical 9m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted." So the hand held devices would need to be raised 4m above the crop circle (the guys who make them must be very tall!).
Also Dream Focus, you mention that "But he claims others at his university did this on their own". I've looked through the article again but can't see where he says this. I would be grateful if you could tell me where he said this in the 'Physics World' article or if not there, where? 2.29.163.52 ( talk) 08:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and links Dream Focus. With regards both the 'Time' magazine item and the 'Livescience' item they both are from July/August 2011 and reference for their information the Physics World article which came out at this time. So again, 'Livescience' the reference "In fact, another research team claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using a handheld magnetron, readily available from microwave ovens, and a 120-Volt battery." is incorrect, Richard Taylor in his article in 'Physics World' doesn't say this. Perhaps Live Science got their information from the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph who also mis-reported the article? Similarly with the Time magazine statement "Richard Taylor and his team from the University of Oregon" is incorrect (don't believe everything you read in the papers!), the article in 'Physics World' is Richard Taylor's observations on the crop circle phenomenon and not his team's. With regards your comment that the article itself mentions 'experiments by others' the only reference I can find in the article that you may possibly mean is the 'experiments carried out by biophysicts' which relates to measuring the effects of microwave radiation but doesn't include creating crop circles with hand held magnetrons.
However to move forward, would the following be amendment be acceptable:
“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens. [6]"
Hope this allays your concerns. 2.29.163.41 ( talk) 07:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Update 3/6/2015:
Today I updated the page with the above comment, correcting the previous false information. However the person who looks after the page for Wikipedia didn't appear to like it and changed it to:
Cereologists discount on-site evidence of human involvement as attempts of discrediting the phenomena.[47] Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles.[47] When scientific writer Matt Ridley wrote negative articles in newspapers, he was accused of spreading "government disinformation" and of working for the UK military intelligence service MI5.[31] According to Matt Ridley, many cereologists make a good living from selling books and making personal tours through crop fields (they can charge more than £2,000/person), and they have a vested interest in rejecting what is by far the most likely explanation for the circles
Obviously disappointed my correction wasn't put in but at least the mistake has been removed even if the replacement text seems a bit of a rant at cereologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Dream Focus, I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:
======================================== Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM From: "Richard Taylor" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons Hi, You are correct. Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles. 1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique. 2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of course, if i deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy! Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it best wishes Richard ======================================== Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM From: "Cardiff2015" To: "Richard Taylor" Cc: On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Dear Professor Taylor, I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.
One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Wikipedia 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source: With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state: “Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011 “An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011 For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Wikipedia crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Wikipedia have used your report incorrectly to back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Kind Regards
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.
Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselves Cardiff2015 ( talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This para:
References
I do not think this belong sin the article. It describes a theoretical mechanism to create something similar to crop circles, but which there is precisely zero evidence has ever been used to create any. This is an article about crop circles, not about hypothetical mechanisms for creating them. As noted above, the originators make no pretence to have even tried to show that this has actually happened, there is no credible reason for including this non-sequitur.
Three "sources" are cited. One is a press release and not independent, one is the Daily Mail, a perennially unreliable source, and the third, which is an RS, merely regurgitates the press release. There is no independent evidence of the significance of this claim. This basically applies to all the sources discussed above: they are merely repetitions of the claim, they do not challenge it and none of them credibly establish relevance for this article. Guy ( Help!) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Dream Focus, As noted in the previous section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' your statement Your statement Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens is wrong, Professor Taylor does not claim researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron.
I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:
======================================== Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM From: "Richard Taylor" To: "Cardiff2015" Cc: Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons Hi, You are correct. Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles. 1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique. 2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of course, if |I deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy! Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it best wishes Richard ======================================== Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM From: To: "Richard Taylor" Cc: On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Dear Professor Taylor, I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.
One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Wikipedia 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source: With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state: “Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011 “An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011 For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Wikipedia crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Wikipedia have used your report incorrectly to back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Kind Regards
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.
Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselves Cardiff2015 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dream Focus, obviously its disappointing that you're saying I'm lying, I assure you absolutely I'm not and I'd suggest you email Professor Richard Taylor yourself. His email address is shown in the Physics World article: rpt@uoregon.edu. I've never tried to change anything before on Wikipedia so I'm surprised at your abuse when all I'm trying to do is replace/remove incorrect information. Cardiff2015 ( talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:
"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."
best wishes Richard
Hi Dream Focus, again you're wrong I'm not lying, I'm informing you of the truth which you're having surprising difficulies understanding so I'll again try to explain. Your proposed phrasing at the start of this section is absolutely wrong. You say "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Nowhere has Professor Richard Taylor said that 'Researchers were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron'. Nor is there anyone else who claims to have direct knowledge of researchers actually going out and making crop circles with magnetrons. References on the internet all point to Professor Richard Taylor's work and he only says that 'magnetrons could be used to make crop circles' which is totally different to 'magentrons have been used to make crop circles'. Also in your partial quote from Professor Richard Taylor's email to you RT says "The wording used below in your email is incorrect." What was the incorrect wording you left out? Cardiff2015 ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Crop_circle
Someone has claimed you emailed them, and posted your response on the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Crop Circles.
He claims that you stated you never said that a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles.
Can you verify this please? Has anyone ever done experiments to prove its possible to do?
There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:
"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."
best wishes Richard
Hi Dream Focus - With regards your comment, firstly, I agree with Guy's statement above.
Secondly, you were wrong in your email to Professor Richard Taylor to say I claimed he 'never' said a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles. I said the entry on Wikipedia didn't tie-up with what he said in his Physics World' article. Wikipedia had said (now removed) ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ and I queried whether researchers at the University of Oregon had actually replicated a crop circle with a magnetron and he confirmed to me they had not and, to quote from his email to me "Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made."
Thirdly, you are wrong to suggest to use links to (1) the Telegraph and (2) the Daily Mail as they both were doing a story on Professor Richard Taylor's article in Physics World and both wrongly reported it (as explained above in this section and in the section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears to me that crop circles and corn mazes are related. Because they are both artistic designs in crops to be see from above.
QuentinUK ( talk) 08:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been reverted but was not vandalism - Edis, T. Science and Nonbelief. Prometheus Books. 2008, p. 138. ISBN 1-59102-561-3 "Skeptics begin by pointing out that many paranormal claims are the result of fraud or hoaxes. Crop circles — elaborate patterns that appear on fields overnight — appear to be of this sort. Many crop circle makers have come forth or have been exposed. We know a great deal about their various techniques. So we do not need to find the perpetrator of every crop circle to figure out that probably they all are human made. Many true believers remain who continue to think there is something paranormal — perhaps alien — about crop circles. But the circles we know all fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes. Nothing stands out as extraordinary."</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by A little angry ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a general observation, not restricted to the topic of crop circles. Laymen need to realize that scientists often do not behave very scientifically. They often have private flaws which make them support silly ideas, and they then try to use their qualifications to browbeat the layman into submission. For instance, many of the greatest scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries backed various fraudulent psychics (not that there are any genuine ones). Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel Prize for undergraduate (sic) research believes in the paranormal. Many creationists have impressive scientific credentials. There are employees at Boeing who think that gyroscopes truly defy gravity (they do not). The bottom line is that the views of individual scientists should be ignored when discussing 'mystical' subjects. As the scientific consensus is that all crop circles are man-made, that is the only view which matters: non-scientists are not qualified to weigh evidence and the occasional maverick scientist is certainly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.90.206 ( talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that someone thinks that this
A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern created by people flattening a
crop such as
cereal,
rapeseed,
reeds,
grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds.
[1]
[2] Although obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by
conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations. Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists.
Is a better version than this:
A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern formed by the flattening of a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. [3] [4] Natural causes or even alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists.
Since neither source quoted actually states that crop circles are "created by people", or that "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists", the second version must surely be the more acceptable version for the lede of the article? Ghughesarch ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how a simple and plain WP:ASSERTion of the facts that crop circles are made by humans can be plausibly argued against here. Claiming that the current wording is a "sweeping statement of fact" is classic special pleading. Go ahead and identify a plausible argument from a reliable source from the last fifteen years that does not identify crop circles as being human caused. The article as is is fully consistent with the skeptic's dictionary. jps ( talk) 20:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
References
jps - Are you going to provide a link on this page to the discussion you have stated on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, so that the discussion can involve those interested in a sensible resolution that does not merely push your POV? Ghughesarch ( talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that we have "Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people." from "sceptical" side with partial agreement "That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made." from "non-sceptical" side, wouldn't it be possible to write something like that agreed part into the article?
Let's say, "Although other natural causes or alien origins of crop circles have been proposed, in all cases where the exact cause was established they were man-made, created by hoaxers and artists."? Is there anything disagreeable for any side in such formulation?
I guess that would also make repetition of "created by people" in the definition unnecessary, unless someone claims that something similar created by some other cause will have to have a different name... -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In the Modern times section it says "Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), wrote to a journalist that the "saucer" was probably debris lifted by the causing willy-willy". I presume this is a bit of schoolboy vandalism - what should it say? Richerman (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," from the lead because it is a verbatim lift from the reference, IOW a blatant copyvio. I left a message on User:Ghughesarch's talk page saying why, but he/she restored it, so I have reverted again. Moriori ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits give the impression (entirely wrong on both counts) that only one person (a journalist on a RS national newspaper) believes that a non-human natural cause for some crop circles is open to dispute, and that only one obscure professor at an American university believes that they "fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" (which is not the same as stating that they are all hoaxes). So I'm suggesting reverting back to the last edit which was the subject of sensible discussion here. Ghughesarch ( talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Guy's version is better and a better point to start from than Ghughsearch's version. jps ( talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I support the 03:11, 15 August 2015 version by jps because the "remains open to dispute" text was just a throw-away line in a space-filler which could be read as suggesting there may well be a dispute. However, per WP:REDFLAG, there is no dispute about such a fringe topic unless solid-gold reliable sources say so. The current text is phrased much more appropriately to show the obvious, namely that no one has determined the cause of every crop circle, so some may have natural causes. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)