Mysterious Suburban Chicago Crop Circles

NBC 5 Chicago ^ | 7/26/02 | NBC 5 Chicago

[PatrickHenry]

As far as the mathematical relationship to the circles goes, one researcher claimed that a NEW Euclidean? theorem had been derived from the crop circles (I'm no expert on mathematics, so someone else would have to confirm this).

I've heard of that new theorem. It involves something about "the angle of the dangle."

[FormerLurker]

Jedi Master Yoda 3. As far as the mathematical relationship to the circles goes, one researcher claimed that a NEW Euclidean? theorem had been derived from the crop circles (I'm no expert on mathematics, so someone else would have to confirm this).

balrog666 I am. It's utter crap.

So balrog, you're claiming that you're more of an expert in Euclidean geometry than astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, former Chairman of the astronomy department at Boston University?

From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :

Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in crop circles. He also discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four (see diagram, left). "This theorem involves concentric circles which touch the sides of a triangle, and as the [triangle] changes shape, it generates the special crop-circle geometries," he says.

Hawkins' fifth crop-circle theorem involves a triangle and various concentric circles touching the triangle's sides and corners. Different triangles give different sets of circles. An equilateral triangle produces one of the observed crop-circle patterns; three isoceles triangles generate the other crop-circle geometries.

What is most surprising is that all geometries give diatonic (musical) ratios. Never before have geometric theorems been linked with music.

Curiously, Hawkins could find no reference to such a theorem in the works of Euclid or in any other book that he consulted. When he challenged readers of Science News and The Mathematics Teacher to come up with his unpublished theorem, given only the four variations, no one reported success.

---

Jedi Master Yoda 4. The researchers also claimed a relationship between the crop circles and music.

balrog666 One "researcher". Of course, it's only interpretable by him. Just more crap.

Again you're wrong balrog.

From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :

"Three other patterns also displayed exact numerical relationships, all of them involving a diatonic ratio, the simple whole-number ratios that determine a scale of musical notes. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments.

See also:

DIATONIC RATIOS:

You really should research a topic before you claim to be an expert in it, otherwise you might find your foot in your mouth...

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting interview with Gerald S. Hawkins: HERE. I can't figure out if he's just a gullable ivory tower guy, or what. The fact that he could figure out a theorem (if he did) from seeing a geometrical design doesn't prove that the makers of the circle had any such thing in mind when they made the design. People drew circles and other figures for thousands of years, without knowing anything about Euclidian geometry.

[Momaw Nadon]

I saw the program also.

You are correct that the evidence was presented by mostly, if not all, "true believers." I wish that the skeptical point of view had also been presented.

I suspect that the film of the light crossing the field was an abberation of the camera, since I did not see it passing behind any trees in the region. It seemed to just go in front of all the trees. However, I don't believe that the light was ball lightning since the film did not appear to have been taken during stormy weather.

It would be interesting to find out if any of the "old" crop circles were as complex and intricate as the ones that have appeared during the past few years. The crop circle in Australia that those two British gentlemen were referring to did seem rather simple and crude compared to more modern circles.

I hope that the program on The History Channel tommorrow will present a more even-handed treatment of the subject.

[FormerLurker]

I can't figure out if he's just a gullable ivory tower guy, or what.

Thanks for that link PH. Out of curiosity though, have you ever considered the fact that there's something to this and Dr. Hawkins is simply brilliant?

[Lx]

I just saw this program as well. Didn't the hoaxer mention when he was talking about the floating lights that there was a lot of RC activity in the area?

One interesting thing a 'researcher' mentioned was that all of the seed pods inside the circle were barren. I don't know if he checked plants outside the circle to compare--kind of like a control maybe?

Another interesting thing was the part of the plants that looked like they were 'blow out' from the inside. Again, of course they didn't mention any control and the 'believer's' explanation about it needing a high amount of energy to accomplish it left a little thing like a reasonable scientific explanation out or even an unreasonable one. I'm surprised at that since no theory is too unbelievable to them.

I don't remember what they said exactly but I think they said that their 'theory' of the circles' creation was that it was by an electrical energy field???

I was similarly unimpressed with the crop circle music. What did they do, assign a note in the scale to a shape? Then, of course, the music wasn't something you'd listen to.
Maybe because it sounds like a random scale?

Sorry if I remain completely unimpressed. What exactly was the new geometrical theory?

[PatrickHenry]

Out of curiosity though, have you ever considered the fact that there's something to this and Dr. Hawkins is simply brilliant?

Any professor of astronomy is a bright fellow. Often, they're the easiest to hoax, because in the ivory tower world, there's a lot of gullability. Scientists tend to trust one another's data, and genuine hoaxes are quite rare. So a "street hoaxer" is likely to pull one over on those guys. The magician, Randi, has a ball showing how easy it is to fool academic types.

Anyway, I'll keep an open mind. If some signicant, verifiable evidence turns up, a bit more persuasive than mere craftsmanship in the bean fields, I'll pay more attention.

[PatrickHenry]

It's possible, you know, that as these crop circles gain press attention, the hoaxers who make them seek out knowledgable people to make their designs for them on paper. College kids could design circles that are laced with "hidden meaning" and then the galoots could get out there with their strings and snowshoes and stomp around, thus mystifying the "researchers." This isn't difficult to imagine, and I see no need to leap to more wild explanations.

[FormerLurker]

Often, they're the easiest to hoax, because in the ivory tower world, there's a lot of gullability.

I'd say the opposite is usually true, where they can see through a hoax clearer than most. They can also see what isn't a hoax clearer as well.

That's the whole entire reason why they ARE scientists, to sift the wheat from the chaff....

[FormerLurker]

College kids could design circles that are laced with "hidden meaning" and then the galoots could get out there with their strings and snowshoes and stomp around, thus mystifying the "researchers."

You forget however that the "galoots" can't make a properly constructed crop circle, at least any of which have been documented. The best of the best couldn't construct a crop circle formation that was geometrically correct or symmetrical, so we are back to the fact that we just don't know exactly who IS creating these things...

[PatrickHenry]

'd say the opposite is usually true, where they [scientists and academics] can see through a hoax clearer than most. They can also see what isn't a hoax clearer as well. That's the whole entire reason why they ARE scientists, to sift the wheat from the chaff.

It should be as you say, but alas, it's not. A clever con man can often fool trained scientists.

[FormerLurker]

A clever con man can often fool trained scientists.

Care to share any examples you might have?

[PatrickHenry]

Care to share any examples you might have [that a clever con man can often fool trained scientists]?

Well, there's cold fusion, global warming, N-rays, E-rays, and all those predictions of how we're running out of resources, but there's always James Randi. Read the last story at this site: HERE.

[FormerLurker]

Well, there's cold fusion,

That is still under investigation, as there WERE some observations that have merit.

global warming,

You don't know that shelves of ice are breaking off of Antactica? Haven't you noticed that our winters are getting more like spring and our summers are getting noticebly hotter?

N-rays,

Neutron beams? We use them all the time..

E-rays,

E field? Basic Physics.

and all those predictions of how we're running out of resources,

Maybe we are, maybe we aren't..

but there's always James Randi. Read the last story at this site: HERE.

Randi proves how gullible the US Government is. Although he claims that Physicists are gullible, he offers no such proof. In fact, in his example, he concedes that Sandia labs refuted certain disreputable claims. Here's an excerpt from what you posted concerning Randi...

Randi continued, explaining that the device could be tuned to find drugs, bullets, weapons etc. and that the manufacturer demonstrated how they could copy the "DNA" of bullets, drugs etc. on to "special" paper that when cut-up and glued to the device could tune the device to find those items. Selling for $60,000 apiece, they were snapped up by several federal government agencies, including the Border Patrol and Customs. The problem according to Randi was that they did not work or do anything that the manufacturer claimed they could do, which was the same conclusion Sandia reached after spending a lot of time and resources to test the device. Randi asked, "Am I living on the other side of the looking glass?" in response to what he considers to be the obvious question, why would people believe such nonsense?

[PatrickHenry]

Well, no one can accuse you of being a skeptic.

[FormerLurker]

Well, no one can accuse you of being a skeptic.

Au contrare(sp?), I evaluate everything, and form my opinion on my own. I don't let anyone else decide for me...

[balrog666]

I'd say the opposite is usually true, where they can see through a hoax clearer than most. They can also see what isn't a hoax clearer as well. That's the whole entire reason why they ARE scientists, to sift the wheat from the chaff....

BWAAAAAHAHAHA. You don't know many scientists, do you?

Most have a very deep understanding of a very small slice of the universe - common sense is sometimes in short supply. They're like sheep on anything outside of their field - eaily led to the slaughter. And that has been shown many times, as Patrick Henry keeps pointing out to you.

[balrog666]

So balrog, you're claiming that you're more of an expert in Euclidean geometry than astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, former Chairman of the astronomy department at Boston University?

Yep. Poor guy, he's gone senile. It's no wonder he published his geometry claims and his "challenge" in a teacher's journal. I'm sure any respectable journals he submitted his article to would have tried to disuade him from making a fool of himself.

From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :

Euclidean geometry is about as ironclad, nailed down, and played out as it gets in mathematics, so I tracked down the essence here. Unfortunately, they don't have the slightest clue what constitutes a theory.

All they really have is some rules derived from crop circles from years ago (presumably to tell "true" circles from the "artistic" ones). Given that later circles display none of these rules, I see no reason to even bring it up. I guess having a formerly respectable scientist say something that agrees with your beliefs is hard to let go of - the creationists have the same problem.

But why do you keep posting this link as if it means something to anybody else? It's clearly as meaningless as your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, and the rest of your junk.

[balrog666]

I hope that the program on The History Channel tommorrow will present a more even-handed treatment of the subject.

Yes, it was a much more balanced presentation including short interviews with believers, multiple circle makers, a book-selling author, and multiple researchers.

One standout impression was that it's the smaller, old-type, totally-round crop circles that seem to be unexplained (and may be a real natural phenomenon). One researcher claimed that at least 80% of the complex ones are human made, begging the question of whether any of the complex ones are not.

Another was the illustration of the idea that believers think that "Doug and Dave" were the only hoaxers from 1978 to 1991 which we already know isn't true.

Also amusing was the believer idea that people seeking fame (as makers) would admit which ones were theirs. While from the other side, a prolific circle maker said "It's problematic. If we admit it's ours, we destroy it (as art)."

Yesterday's show was designed for maximum sensationalism as part of "The Unexplained" TV series. I forgot to catch who made this one, but it's worth watching.

[FormerLurker]

BWAAAAAHAHAHA. You don't know many scientists, do you?

BWAAHAAHAAAHAA. Do you mean the ones I've worked with, studied under, or hung out with?

Most have a very deep understanding of a very small slice of the universe - common sense is sometimes in short supply.

Some are just as normal and down to earth as anyone else. Some are rather snotty and stuck on themselves, while others are just plain bizarre..

They're like sheep on anything outside of their field - eaily led to the slaughter. And that has been shown many times, as Patrick Henry keeps pointing out to you.

PH gave me a link to an article concerning this Randi fellow who had been invited by a GOVERNMENT LAB to speak to a bunch of physists. While Randi make proclamations as how gullible physists are, he only gave examples of how gullible GOVERMENT OFFICIALS are. One example was how a company had swindled several agencies for $60,000 a whack on an item that was worthless, EVEN THOUGH SCIENTISTS at Sandia Labs had already told them that the item was in fact worthless.

If anything, the BUREAUCRATS that invited this fool should be forced to listen to him lecture them on how government bureaucrats are a bunch of idiots.

Neither you or PH have shown anything here except for your propensity towards character assassination and groundless assertions.