Talk:Crop circle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High traffic

On 15 September 2009, Crop circle was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Animal Activity[edit]

This section needs better sources or needs to be removed completely. All references to this on the web appear to only come from that highly suspect bbc article that is cited. There are no credible pictures of a wallaby created crop circle. Also, I not sure you çan make crop circles in a poppy field.

Bottom line, it seems like a hoax, and should be removed unless some reliable sources can be found.

Way back when, there was some mild speculation here and there that rutting deer or hedgehogs might make circles in fields. No-one took it seriously of course, but it sometimes got a mention in articles on the subject. This current one about wallabies comes into the same category. It's just a pointless remark with no bearing on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I just don't get it, let's be serious: there is a phenomenon, there are no explanations, proofs, only speculations. Let's just say it as it is. Or you mean dancing deer is a plausible explanation of a 500 m butterfly man crop circle. I am laughing as I write — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

scientific consensus[edit]

A recent edit claims: scientific consensus is that crop circles are made by light balls.

The source is Eltjo H. Haselhoff, the author of "The Crop Circles: Facts and Fictions" and "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends"

The publisher is Frogs Books, a "Leading publisher of books on alternative and holistic health, martial arts, bodywork, psychology and spirituality. Other publishing strengths include politics, science, sports, fiction and metaphysics"[1]

The author is the chairman of the Dutch Centre for Crop Circle Studies. Now, Peter Jan Margry, a "Senior Researcher Religious Culture at the Meertens Institute", wrote a scholar book in an academical publisher, and he said that this organization is a "New Religious Movement" belonging to New Age. He also says:

The Dutch cereologist Eltjo Haselhoff and former chair of the DCCCS, who had a PhD in physics, made the balls-of-light theory accepter within the international frontier science community. An article on the subject of the balls of light was accepter in the peer-reviewed journal Physiologia Plantarum, and Haselhoff explains his theory once more in his book The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles (...) The balls of light use the Earth's energy lines, or 'ley lines', to imprint a pattern in a crop. (...) A growing number of witnesses, photos and videos may back up the theory - but skeptics have all kinds of other explanations for sightings of balls of light. (...) Nonetheless, the sighting of light phenomena is well known in folklore and folktales (...). In the past, beings of light have received such names as fairy (light), ball of light, pixie, will-o'-the-wisp and jack-o'-lantern.

Note that he says "international frontier science community". I found this definition: "'frontier science' is not completely reliable. It is just the latest information that has been made widely available through scientific publishing. (...) Frontier science may be unreliable and fraud occurs in the domain of 'frontier science', but the final filtrate ('textbook science') is always very reliable and useful." [2]

I think that this author represents a fringe viewpoint. That the viewpoint got famous only because the author has a PhD in physics (as Margry implies). And it's based on ley lines, which are a New Age concept and are rejected by scientist consensus. This theory is not generally accepted by the scientists in general.

Haselhoof's paper in Physiologia Plantarium [3] does not assess scientific consensus. And the end it says that "By no means does the author pretend to present a ‘lithmus test’ for distinction between a ‘genuine’ crop formation, whatever it may be, and a hand-flattened area of crop" and the data is "interesting and stimulates further study." --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasselhoff's "paper" is in fact just some remarks on the earlier Levengood paper. It's not a peer-reviewed piece of research. In it, he mentions "balls of light" briefly, and gives three points of reference: Van den Broeke; personal communication; Meaden 1991.
Van den Broeke refers to Robert van den Broeke, a Dutch individual who claims all sorts of preposterous supernatural abilities and effects, and who has produced fabricated photos from beyond the grave of crop circle researchers. He is clearly profoundly deluded. There is plenty of info available online.
Personal communications are impossible to evaulate so we have to disregard them.
Meaden 1991 is an abscure book called "Circles from the Sky". I have a copy. Meaden does discuss Balls of Light briefly, but in necessarily vague terms, in respect of a few reports he has had from people claiming to have seen aerial luminosities where crop circles formed, with more extensive remarks from his co-authors on how such things might have implications for UFO reports. This is what Hasselhoff apparently relies on in his published piece, in suggesting Balls of Light are involved in the process of crop circle formation.
I've not read his book, but there is no evidence at all to my knowledge (and I know a lot about the subject) to suggest that there is any scientific consensus whatsoever that crop circles are made by Balls of Light. It is a pure fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There should be more information on the organizations engaged in crop circle research: No scientific material is being presented beyond general claims of scientific consensus, which is a barrier to continued research & education by the broader community. either way, there should be more commentary around the 'microwaves' and control studies, whether or not it's currently debated. The central point delivered by this article is that 2 people successfully created hoaxes.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there shouldn't be a section on research organisations, but you will struggle with "scientific material". There is hardly any. The microwaves idea is just that - speculation based on vaguely implied findings. The control studies, by which I presume you mean Levengood's, are scientifically meaningless because they aren't samples of manually flattened crop. He uses untouched crop stems for "controls". The fact that flattened stems differ from undamaged ones is to be expected, but as control studies, manually flattened samples are needed to see what happens to crops when pushed down by humans, and to see if it is different. As for the "2 people" (Doug and Dave) idea - it's ludicrous, but so many people have been taken in by it that it's almost impossible to rectify the slant in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs formatted, refs and notes split, OR in lead section???[edit]

I have formatted the references fairly uniformly. I also split the notes out of the references to a separate section. In the process I found many of the refs are far from WP:RS. I tagged 2 that look like unpublished WP:OR. I am particularly concerned about the Northcote reference. I understand some of the information available on the subject comes from enthusiasts, so I didn't tag many self pub questionable sources but Northcote is used for content in the lead section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Northcote reference is an odd one. It looks like someone dropped it in only to push the hoax view. Virtually all crop circles appear in farm land or open countryside, so of course they are easily accessible. How could they not be? There are cases of circles being found in extremely remote places, and even in a field of thistles which investigators couldn't get to because of the sharpness of the plants. He might be right statistically, as we would expect, but the implication is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Before I make my comment I first want to say that I personally believe that they are all man made. The Explanation section contains the following: "While it is not known how all crop circles are formed, the most likely theory as put forth by a variety of scientists and sceptics is that all, or virtually all, of them were made by people." How, exactly, is it being determined that it's "the most likely theory"? I concur with the view myself but information on Wikipedia isn't determined by personal opinions. The quote could be "according to scientists and sceptics", or "amongst scientists and sceptics", but to simply state that one particular theory is most likely - without specifying the person or group who is making the assertion - surely isn't right? FillsHerTease (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"I think the phrase "the most likely theory as put forth by a variety of scientists and sceptics" means the theory according to them. The theory they put forward.

"... While it is not known how all crop circles are formed ..."? This statement is not correct. It Proved, that «crop circles» are created by people The Crop Circle Making Competition , and are created by the abnormal natural phenomena Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk , CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY 'SAUCER NEST', CYCLONE 'JOY', UFO . Does not exist only one mechanism to create «crop circles». Even people use fundamentally different technologies for creating «crop circles». Hence can’t be «... the most likely theory ...». (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantial prove for lies?[edit]

However, in 1991, two hoaxers, Bower and Chorley, claimed authorship of many circles throughout England and one of their circles was certified as impossible to be made by a man by a notable circle investigator in front of journalists.

Where's the proof of this claims? Anybody can say anything. In fact, it was me who created the circles. Bower and Chorley are just liers. -- (talk)

The proof that the hoaxers made this claim is in the New York Times article linked in the footnote. There's no proof that they actually made the circles, but the article doesn't say that they did. --McGeddon (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move "Archeological remains" text?[edit]

I just wondered if this text in the 2nd paragraph:

Archeological remains can cause cropmarks in the fields in the shapes of circles and squares, but they do not appear overnight, and they are always in the same places every year.

...should be moved elsewhere, as it seems to be only one comment of many re possible crop-circle origins. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence should be moved to the body of the article. I didn't move it because I don't know where to put it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to move it yourself to an appropriate place, or make a new section. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)