Mysterious Suburban Chicago Crop Circles

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

[balrog666]

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

Real world scientists in industry often have their sh!t together, so to speak, otherwise they end up on the bottom of the heap just like everybody else. We're talking about academicians - you know, teachers, the absent-minded-professors, those-who-can't-do syndrome. Mostly anyway.

And, by the way, Randi is world renowned as a professional magician, con-man, and professional skeptic. Since you seem to have trouble looking up things, here's his site: James Randi

[snip} ... character assassination and groundless assertions

I must have missed something, I thought we were discussing your belief in the otherworldlyness of crop circles.

And speaking of groundless assertions, do you have an explanation of the non-existent geometry theories that you claimed existed? And shall we revisit your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, etc?

Oh, and did you watch the crop circle show on the History channel? Were they all liars, conspirators, or charlatans? Even the ones on your side?

[FormerLurker]

FormerLurker: 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?

balrog666: Yep.

Wow, you're better educated than a radio astronomer who was the Chairman of the Astronomy department at Boston University, eh? How many degrees so you have balrog666? And where do you conduct your research and teach class?

balrog666: Poor guy, he's gone senile. It's no wonder he published his geometry claims and his "challenge" in a teacher's journal.

You're forgetting that he published his "challenge" in Science News as well..

Science News Online

balrog666: I'm sure any respectable journals he submitted his article to would have tried to disuade him from making a fool of himself.

Well obviously HE didn't make a fool of himself even though he was published in a highly regarded publication, while YOU just did here on FR..

balrog666: From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :

Ok, you said "From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES", but you didn't post anything from there..

balrog666 : 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.

You're saying that mathematicians and scientists haven't the slightest clue what constitutes a theory, but balrog666 does? You think quite highly of yourself don't you...

Additionally, it is quite obvious that you wouldn't be very successful as either a mathematician or a scientist due to your inability to understand that there is MUCH that remains to be discovered.

balrog666: All they really have is some rules derived from crop circles from years ago (presumably to tell "true" circles from the "artistic" ones).

From the link I posted to Science News:

Several years ago, astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, now retired from Boston University, noticed that some of the most visually striking of these crop-circle patterns embodied geometric theorems that express specific numerical relationships among the areas of various circles, triangles, and other shapes making up the patterns (SN: 2/1/92, p. 76). In one case, for example, an equilateral triangle fitted snugly between an outer and an inner circle. It turns out that the area of the outer circle is precisely four times that of the inner circle.

Sounds to me like Dr. Hawkins is doing it in his spare time as a hobby now that he's retired..

balrog666: Given that later circles display none of these rules, I see no reason to even bring it up.

You're wrong, they do.

From Some fairly recent circles:

---

 

Part 4

 

Andrews Catalog T482

 

This combines the side of a hexagon, OB, with the side of a pentagon, AB, to get the radius of circle 1, OA. From Ptolemy's theorem of chords, with G equal to the golden mean and OF=1, we can prove that: 20A= G+AB (square root 3), or OA= 1,82709. Therefore by Rule 2, circles 1 and 3 give a ratio of 3.338, note A in the second octave. By crop circle theorem 4 the hexagon circles 1 and 2 give a diatonic ratio of 4/3, note F.

Is the raised circle a clue? D is the center of the arc of the crescent E. Angle CFD is 72 degrees, so CD is also the side of the pentagon.

This example of mathematical art gives the same diatonics as T448, notes F and A2, but the design is better. The diatonic circles now go through the tips of the moon, not the center, and the accuracy is 0.1%, not the previous 0.5%. Artistic as it is, the pattern contains math, and no previous artist has used mathematics as a theme. Ptolemy's theorem of 150 AD is a prehistoric landmark, because it is the foundation of trigonometry.

 

T487 (Andrews Catalog)

By rule 2, the area of the outer circle is four times the area of the inner circle, giving a diatonic ratio of 8/1, note C''', and letter C by the crop circle code. It is a double application of crop theorem 2, one equilateral triangle drawn inside another.

(Note that due to angle of original photo, correction is slightly off- FS)

Photo correction & diagrams © Freddy Silva 1997. Photos: T482 © Lucy Pringle, T487 © Steve Alexander.. Text © Gerald Hawkins.

 

Return to Part 1 of Latest Work

Return to Part 2 of Latest Work

Return to Part 3 of Latest Work

Return to Gerald Hawkins' main page.

 

e-mail for Gerald Hawkins

---

balrog666: 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.

Dr. Hawkins never lost his respectablity, whereas you lost yours long ago with your unsubstantiated claims and remarks.

balrog666: But why do you keep posting this link as if it means something to anybody else?

Is there something about this that you want to hide balrog666? I've only posted this link ONCE, so is that ONE time too many for you to deal with?

balrog666: It's clearly as meaningless as your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, and the rest of your junk.

So if the facts are difficult to refute, resort to labelling it all as nonsense and junk. Spoken like a real trooper.

[FormerLurker]

Since you seem to have trouble looking up things, here's his site:

Since you apparently have a problem following links it seems (even though you refer to it as your source of information), I'll just post the article itself..

From Patrick Henry's James Randi Article:

---

"The Amazing" Randi vists the Lab again

Who says physicists and other scientists are gullible? Amazing Randi that's who. Self- proclaimed professional liar, cheat and thief, James "The Amazing" Randi spoke before a packed house at the Laboratory's Administration Building Auditorium Tuesday afternoon. This was his second visit to the Lab.

He spoke about the gullibility of people and how he believes physicists are the most gullible of all. Randi quoted Bob Clark of the American Physical Society who said, "physicists are the most likely people to fall for this kind of quackery". "We, as practicing scientists, encourage the public to view us as a priesthood" said Randi noting that much of science remains mysterious and magical to the public.

"There are two important things about human nature that allow people to be deceived, said Randi. The first is how easily we are deceived and the second, how we deceive ourselves. He pointed out that making assumptions is perfectly natural and that we do this everyday. Randi used the example of waiting at a traffic light and when the light turns green automatically stepping on the accelerator and driving forward. "We assume that the other drivers will stop and not run the red light and that the road in front of us is not made of strawberry jello 8 feet thick, covered with gravel", said Randi. Unfortunately, Randi pointed out, "assumptions can cost you money, your emotional well-being or your life".

Randi gave several examples of quackery and pseudo-science. The first example he gave was the "Lifeguard" study done by Sandia National Laboratories (see full story) http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN04-24-98/detector_story.html. He described "Lifeguard" as a device much like a dousing rod that contained electronics but had no connectors or power supply. Randi explained that the purpose of the device was to detect the presence of missing people in the rubble of collapsed buildings and that it could do this by detecting the electric signals from a human heart beat up to 600 meters away. 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?

He also talked about the "patented counterfeit pen" that was supposed to be a fail-safe way to check for bogus currency. He demonstrated how the pen worked and how the ink changed color to black when it came into contact with the starch found in the sizing used to make common types of paper last longer. As a joke, Randi said he liked going to the bank and withdrawing several $50 bills that he covered with Niagara spray starch and then returned to the bank that same day, so as not to lose any interest on his account. Of course, the starch made the bills suspect and anyone using them might be accused of counterfeiting. Once again he points out we are fooled into thinking that the technology really works, after all the manufacturer claims it works and not only are we fooled but the government has bought into this deception too. As Randi explains, even after his repeated warnings to the Secret Service they still found it hard to accept and would not admit publicly that the pen did not work and as a result a lot of counterfeit currency is still being circulated.

Randi also talked about other quack devices and technologies such as the ESP Clapper -- the so called mental on-off switch and magnetic insoles, which are better at attracting paper clips on the floor than they are at improving your circulation or easing pain.

But these are just a few of many quack products or devices that the Patent Office has granted patents for, according to Randi. "The Patent Office has gone berserk," said Randi. "They have patented five, count-em, five perpetual motion machines," said Randi. This happens because the patent office no longer requires a working prototype of the item being patented, he explained.

Randi then entertained and informed the audience with some magic and slight-of-hand. He demonstrated a trick that made it appear as though he could through mental telepathy make a matchbox rise and fall slowly on the back of his outstretched hand. This he explained was the same illusion that psychic Ronnie Marcus, successor to Uri Geller, had performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Unfortunately the scientists at LLNL believed Marcus had real telekinetic powers. Another example Randi said of how " scientists can be fooled and are more easily fooled than many lay people".

For his next trick Randi handed a stainless steel spoon to a member in the audience. He asked the audience member to hold it in both hands and raise his arms up toward the ceiling. Then Randi put his thumb and index finger on the middle of the spoon and he began to move it up and down creating the illusion that the spoon was becoming soft and flexible. Randi then took the spoon walked back on to the stage and continued to wiggle the spoon up and down until it started to bend sideways and eventually broke in two. This was the same trick Geller, who in his biography said he got his divine power from the planet "Uva", used to perform.

Randi also tricked the audience into to believing time really does fly. Through slight-of-hand he was able to borrow an audience member's wristwatch and made it appear as though the watch had magically moved an hour ahead just in the short time that Randi had held it in his hands. After doing the trick the first time, Randi let the audience in on the secret by doing the trick again this time in slow motion.

He also revealed the truth behind the miracle of "The Blood of San Genero of Naples." According to legend, the blood of San Genero remains in solid form in it's bottle and only becomes a liquid when it is touched by the Archbishop of Naples. Randi demonstrated with his own bottle filled with water and some volcanic material found in an area nearby Naples. Laying the bottle down on an overhead projector Randi pointed out how the blood-like substance in the bottle appeared to be solidified and stuck at the bottom of the bottle. Then Randi shook the bottle 10 times­10 was the magic number­and lo and behold the substance in the bottle began to liquefy and flow just like blood. Was this a miracle or had he simply used the same materials and techniques that the Archbishop had employed all along?

His last trick used Extra Sensory Perception cards, an envelope and a piece of folded black paper and involved another member of the audience. Through the use of slight-of-hand he was able to convince the audience and predict exactly which cards were in the envelope and on which side of the envelope each card was, even though he had less than a 1 in 20 chance of doing so. Fooled again.

In an effort to expose fakes and debunk quackery, Randi created the James Randi Educational Foundation in Ft. Lauderdale. Offering a $1 million prize to anyone who can prove scientifically any paranormal phenomenon, Randi said, "I cannot prove ESP doesn't exist, but I've got a million bucks if you can prove it exists." Randi said he thought there would be lots of takers, but he has yet to give any money away.

In closing, Randi asked the scientists to help educate the public about quackery. "We're well over the edge toward another dark age," said Randi. He told the audience that if this continues we will go back into the caves with the astrologers and soothsayers or we can become enlightened and join him and go forward into the stars.

--Edwin Vigil

---

[FormerLurker]

And speaking of groundless assertions, do you have an explanation of the non-existent geometry theories that you claimed existed? And shall we revisit your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, etc?

Are you serious? Do you have some type of reading comprehension problem balrog? Please point out any assertions that I've made about any "non-existent" geometry theories. And what was it about the Golden Ratio (itself a componant of Sacred Geometry) and the Fibonacci Sequence that you didn't understand?

Oh, and did you watch the crop circle show on the History channel? Were they all liars, conspirators, or charlatans? Even the ones on your side?

Didn't get to watch it. I'll have to wait for a rerun...

BUT, I seriously doubt your characterizations are accurate, as nothing you've ever posted is...

[balrog666]

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.

Prove me wrong by posting one.

[balrog666]

Since you apparently have a problem following links it seems (even though you refer to it as your source of information), I'll just post the article itself..

Not my source. Check my link if you want to learn anything about The Amazing Randi and his educational foundation.

[balrog666]

Don't get hysterical, dude!

Tell me about the Sacred Geometry in this one:

Boo!

[FormerLurker]

Prove me wrong by posting one.

I suppose I'll prove you quadruplely wrong by posting four of them...

You might want to refer to the list of shapes below in relation to the theorems..

From Dr Gerald Hawkins' Elusive Fifth Theorem

Theorem I

The ratio of the diameter of the triangle's circumscribed circle to the diameter of the circles at each corner is 4:3.

The Pattern consists of these 3 Circles not quite touching, with the following geometry overlaying it: Connect the centres of the bottom 2 circles with a straight line, then join the left and top centres, and finally the right and top ones. This is the triangle referred to. Now, find the centre of the triangle and using it, draw a circle on top of these three such that its circumference passes through the centres of each of the 3 circles. This fourth circle is the triangle's circumscribed circle. Referring again to the theorem: The ratio of the diameter of this fourth circle to the diameters of each of the others is 4:3.

(Is that neat, or What?! But there's even more magic here: each of 3 tangents drawn between the three circles is tangent to each of the 3 circles - that's the kind of precision that regularly happens in our fields, even on moonless nights! It would take too long for me to try to describe these tangents precisely enough for you to draw them, but I'm trying to obtain a scanned copy of this graphic.)

Theorem II

(re: an equilateral triangle with a circumscribed and inscribed circle)
For an equilateral triangle, the ratio of the areas of the circumscribed and inscribed circles is 4:1. The area of the ring between the circles (the annulus) is 3 times the area of the inscribed circle.

Theorem III

(re: a square with circumscribed and inscribed circles)
For a square, the ratio of the areas of the circumscribed and inscribed circles is 2:1. If a second square is inscribed within the inscribed circle of the first, and so on to the mth square, then the ratio of the areas of the original circumscribed circle and the innermost circle is 2-to-the-m:1.

Theorem IV

(re: a hexagon with circumscribed and inscribed circles)
For a regular hexagon, the ratio of the areas of its circumscribed and inscribed circle is 4:3.

Theorems I, II, and IV all deal with 4:3 ratios. (Even in writing it just now, I see that I, II, and IV = [I+II=III] and IV.) In last year's Julia Set at the Stonehenge, all flanking Circles along the 'spine' were evenly balanced (one inside the phi curve one outside it, two and two, three and three) - except in one case, where there were 3 smaller Circles on the inside, but 4 Circles on the opposite side ...

There were three Formations in 1995 which held this 3-and-4 theme: a 'Double Vesica Pisces' in Wherwell, Hants consisted of 4 3-sided petals around a square; at the centre of the Vector Equilibrium (Winterbourne Bassett, Wilts) was a triangle, each of whose faces was also the face of a square, and each face of each square was also the face of an adjacent triangle - the VE presents a resolution of oddness and evenness, the YinYang of Three and Four; and finally, the next-to-last Formation of the year on the Avebury Avenue was one we'd seen (most of) before:

All lines should touch the Circles, and the Path to the bottom-most Circle begins on the cross-bar and slants a bit from left to right. We have seen the 3-Circles-in-a-Triangular pattern at least three times now, but this is the first time of which I'm aware that the fourth was added: a clear 3 --> 4.

[FormerLurker]

Check my link if you want to learn anything about The Amazing Randi and his educational foundation.

Was he your mentor balrog?

[discostu]

Interesting that neither the TLC (very much pro-woovy groovy) nor the History Channel (vaguely neutral though still leaning towards woovy groovy) got into any serious discussion of the "quality" issue. The History Channel one did briefly discuss in the beginning how most crop circles (and other "mystic" circle ala Stonehenge) are actually oval. But they didn't dig into that.

[discostu]

The Hitler diaries, Piltdown man, cold fusion. The list is endless.

[PatrickHenry]

Those diagrams prove nothing. The galoots who stomp these patterns in the soybeans with their plywood snowshoes could have copied the diagrams from any geometry book. Or from any of thousands of pattern books that are readily available in art stores. Then the "reseachers" get all google-eyed and exclaim about the hidden geometric messages. It's all too easy.

[balrog666]

Ha, trivial observations do not a "theory" make. BTW, look up the mathematical definition of "trivial" while you're thinking about it.

And where's the meaning with respect to crop circles? (You might want to look up "meaning" too).

[balrog666]

Was he your mentor balrog?

I coulda done worse and ended up brain-twisted like you.

[FormerLurker]

Ha, trivial observations do not a "theory" make.

Just because you have no idea of what Dr. Hawkins is saying doesn't mean his theorems are "trivial"..

In fact balrog, can you give me ANY of Euclid's theorums? I'd be surprised if you could even present one of them.

In case you are still confused as to the meaning of the word theorem, and since you usually don't follow links that are posted for you, I'll simply present the definition here...

5 entries found for theorem.

---

the·o·rem   Pronunciation Key  (thr-m, thîrm)
n.

1. An idea that has been demonstrated as true or is assumed to be so demonstrable.
2. Mathematics. A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.

---

[Late Latin therma, from Greek, from therein, to look at, from theros, spectator. See theory.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

theorem

\The"o*rem\, n. [L. theorema, Gr. ? a sight, speculation, theory, theorem, fr. ? to look at, ? a spectator: cf. F. th['e]or[`e]me. See Theory.] 1. That which is considered and established as a principle; hence, sometimes, a rule.

Not theories, but theorems (?), the intelligible products of contemplation, intellectual objects in the mind, and of and for the mind exclusively. --Coleridge.

By the theorems, Which your polite and terser gallants practice, I re-refine the court, and civilize Their barbarous natures. --Massinger.

2. (Math.) A statement of a principle to be demonstrated.

Note: A theorem is something to be proved, and is thus distinguished from a problem, which is something to be solved. In analysis, the term is sometimes applied to a rule, especially a rule or statement of relations expressed in a formula or by symbols; as, the binomial theorem; Taylor's theorem. See the Note under Proposition, n., 5.

Binomial theorem. (Math.) See under Binomial.

Negative theorem, a theorem which expresses the impossibility of any assertion.

Particular theorem (Math.), a theorem which extends only to a particular quantity.

Theorem of Pappus. (Math.) See Centrobaric method, under Centrobaric.

Universal theorem (Math.), a theorem which extends to any quantity without restriction.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

---

theorem

\The"o*rem\, v. t. To formulate into a theorem.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

---

theorem

n 1: a proposition deducible from basic postulates 2: an idea accepted as a demonstrable truth

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[FormerLurker]

I coulda done worse and ended up brain-twisted like you.

At least I don't take my advice and inspiration from a self-proclaimed professional liar, cheat and thief.

And to you, anything to do with math and science is brain-twisted...

[FormerLurker]

The Hitler diaries, Piltdown man, cold fusion. The list is endless.

The Hitler diaries I've heard mentioned briefly on a commercial, I have no idea what a Piltdown man is (any relation to Piltdown_Woman?), and the jury is still out on cold fusion.

[FormerLurker]

Those diagrams prove nothing. The galoots who stomp these patterns in the soybeans with their plywood snowshoes could have copied the diagrams from any geometry book.

And for n^th time, there has never been any documented hoaxed formation that had the geometrical characteristics, precision, and symmetry of those that are considered to be real.

[PatrickHenry]

And to you, anything to do with math and science is brain-twisted...

Let me jump in here. Frankly, crop circles have nothing to do with math and science. As I've said before, they are apparently the products of galoots stomping through the fields, using increasingly clever diagrams as their guide. People tend to see significance in pretty patterns. They even convince themselves that they see patterns when there really aren't any. Consider the constellations in the sky. For thousands of years, before modern astronomy "researchers" found deep meaning up there, but it was all nonsense. Consider Rorschach ink-blot tests, which have no meaning, but which shrinks use to get their patients talking. These things reveal more about the "researchers" than they do about anything else.

[FormerLurker]

Frankly, crop circles have nothing to do with math and science.

Bzzt. You obviously have been sleeping for the better part of this thread.