Talk:Crop circles

This article appears to me to be Original Research, extremely biased, completely unscientific, and a ripe candidate for either extreme rewriting with extreme skepticism -- or complete deletion. Hayford Peirce 20:20, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

You are kidding. Obviously you have not read any of the literature nor have a grasp on the scientific methodologies conducted by dozens of real scientists around the world. Be a little more specific. Personally I find your attitude somewhat disturbing like, you want war, let's go Show me your sources.Thomas Mandel 01:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Thomas, this obviously has been taken from [1] -- Oh, I see now on [2] that this is your website.

There is an obvious and serious problem with the original, which states: "I write this paper with the assumption that a percentage of crop circles are 'authentic' or NOT man made." This is obviously a minority view. I'm going to spend a little Write-a-Thon time and see if this article can be rescued or is irremediably biased. I shall endeavor to keep an open mind on that precise question. --Larry Sanger 06:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Biased and poorly researched

As editor-in-chief, and in view of the fact that we probably don't have any relevant experts on hand, I might simply delete this, on grounds that it is not just biased, it is extremely biased, and poorly researched as well. Thomas, you should be aware that writing such obviously biased material can get you banned from CZ. But I've decided to keep it and just edit it. I've gone through and simply deleted several parts--I'll explain my deletions briefly below.

most often in Southern UK. Usually appearing during the night, one crop circle appeared within view of Stonehedge, around five PM within a forty five minute time frame, guards at Stonehedge stated

"Most often in Southern UK"? I'm skeptical. Story re Stonehenge: obviously demands a source.

Crop circles have been rigorously scrutinized using scientific methods and protochols which indicate that some crop circles have features which cannot be hand made.

This is the single most biased line in the article. I mean, really. If you think they have been so "rigorously scrutinized," then cite a study in a serious journal that says they have. Indeed, if something so dramatically surprising had actually been rigorously scrutinized, you should be able to find this claim supported in a standard textbook.

Hoaxing a crop circle is in most cases is deceiving and lying and criminal activity.

Sure, it's destruction of private property, but it's "deceiving and lying" only to those people who actually believe crop circles might be made by anything other than bored teenagers.

The scientific studies clearly show that there are significant and measurable differences between a hoaxed and an authentic crop circle. Some of which, they say, could not have been hand made.

Cite one!

"In Conclusion:: Something strange is going on: ” writes Dr I Haselhoff in his book The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles” And in his book “Vital Signs,” Andy Thomas subtitles it as “A Complete Guide to the Crop Circle Mystery and Why It is NOT a HOAX. Over 10,000 crop circles have been found since the 1970’s writes Freddy Silva in his book “Secrets in the fields.” “Eighty percent of those are man-made,” announced Colin Andrews, prominent researcher of crop circles..

Explain why CZ should cite these as authoritative references. They could be cited, yes, as examples of what crop circle researchers believe. Not as evidence for CZ's conclusion that something strange is going on. Gimme a break.

The only way to write an article like this is to explain the history of the "phenomenon," or who said what when. You can't write it as if there are scientific conclusions to report--because there aren't any. What you can do is write it as an account of what crop circle "researchers" believe--together with, of course, scientists' explanation of why this is all hogwash.

What they are saying, if we do the math, is that the physical evidence revealed in scientific studies identifies at least 2000 crop circles that have features that cannot be man made or even explained by known physics. There are abrupt biological changes that are found in the downed crop. There are analmalous chemical changes found in the soils within the circles. There are electro-magnetic/static fields measured and felt in and around a crop-circle. There are significant differences in moisture inside compared to outside the crop circle. And of course there are precise geometrical crop circle formations from which five new geometrical theorems have been derived. Some of these features cannot be explained with “our” ordinary physics or technology. The stalk of grain are bent, not broken. Excess nitrites found in the soil occur through great heat. Crystalization of clay only occurs from great heat and pressure. These features cannot be replicated by the hand of man. Hence, 2000 circles are inexplicable. After years, even decades, of investigation by biologists and physicists, the general concensus seems to be summed up in one sentence - "we do not know what is causing them."

This is ludicrous. We know precisely what is causing them: farmers wanting to cash in, and lazy teenagers. If you want to claim what you do above, then cite the scientific studies.

--Larry Sanger 07:54, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Deleted

I thought that there would be something in this article I could save. There really wasn't--maybe four or five sentences, total. I have, on my own authority as editor-in-chief, decided to delete it.

Just as serious of a problem as its thoroughgoing bias is the lack of citations, when many and varied factual claims were made, claims that are such that it should not be difficult to find citations if they are true. If there were citations here, we might have enough factual information to work with. But as it stands, this article was just a long series of opinions and polemics. CZ need not waste its time with such stuff. --Larry Sanger 08:08, 1 August 2007 (CDT)