You have written a paper that supports the idea that some crop circles are not man-made because these crop circles contain features that could not be created by man, or you have written a paper that leaves room for the idea that there are some anomalies that cannot be reasonably explained. Do we really have good reason to think that any crop circles actually have features that cannot be created by humans?

As you go through the task below, remember that "cereologists" are just people who claim that cropcircles cannot all have been made by humans. The fact that someone writes a lot about crop circles does not, by itself, make her an expert, nor does it automatically make her a reliable source. Any claim made by a "cereologist" has to be backed up by evidence, just like any claim by anyone else. Furthermore, any claim that requires you to believe in anything contrascientific, or in something that is highly unlikely according to science, will require very good evidence indeed.

Finally, any claim that can be reasonably explained through scientifically known causes, such as people making mistakes, or making stuff up to get you to believe them, or simply to get attention, should logically be explained by such causes.

The fact that there are people who do make up wild claims of extraordinary events is enough to mean that cereologists bear a very heavy burden of proof. The question is, do they produce actual physical evidence that could not have been faked? Do they produce unimpeachable testimony from clearly identifiable people who clearly have no reason to lie or be mistaken? Do they produce anything that cannot be easily explained away?

Now, consider the following questions. (If you've already done one or more of these issues in sufficient depth, skip it and do another issue. If you can redo an issue in even more depth, do so.)

1. In considering the issue of whether or not some crop circle really has some anomalous features, can we really take the word of the "cerealologists" or should we ask for independent confirmation by genuinely unbiased observers?

2. In the case of some particular alleged anomalous feature, can we be sure that it is actually anomalous? For instance, magnetic "anomalies" can be created by scattering iron filings over the site. If we can come up with a reasonable explanation for some "anomaly," then it isn't really an anomaly.

3. In the case of some particular alleged anomalous feature, can we be sure that it actually exists? For instance, it is often claimed that corn stalks in crop circles exhibit features, such as strange bends and crystallization, but are there any independent witness reports of these features? Where pictures are produced, can we be sure that the pictures are genuine?

4. It is said that in genuine circles the wheat stalks bend, but do not break, and continue to grow. Is this really an anomaly? Wheat, the circlemaker's crop of choice, is a form of grass. Find a long stalk of grass and bend it. Does it break when bent by human hand? Does it stop growing when bent?


If you think these features cannot be mimicked by humans, you will have to answer several questions about that feature.

Footprints

It is said that "no evidence of a human presence (such as footprints or disturbances in nearby crops), is left near or around the site. If you think this is a genuine anaomaly, you have to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions:
1. How carefully are these circles examined for signs of human presence?
2. Can you prove that it is impossible for humans to pass through a cornfield, which usually has dry, hard ground, without leaving traces that would be found by such examinations?
3. If it is impossible, what is it about all human beings that makes all of us incapable of moving through a crop without leaving visible traces?


Weaving

It is said that the plants are laid down in a complex, interwoven, weave-like pattern, and the implication is that humans cannot do this.
1. Can you prove that humans cannot do this?
2. Can you prove that the weave-pattern is not simply a natural result of certain human circle making techniques?


Bending

It is said crops in genuine crop circles are bent, not broken as in human-made
hoaxes, and that the bent stalks contiue to grow.
1. Can you prove that it is impossible for humans to bend moist green growing stalks in a manner that does not break them?
2. Can you prove that it is impossible for humans to bend moist green growing stalks in such a manner that the stalks do not stop growing?


Node Elongation

It is said stalks in genuine crop circles bend at elbow-like nodes, and that the side away from the bend becomes elongated.
1. Can you prove that the samples produced were actually taken from crop circles?
2. Can you prove that it is impossible for humans to bend moist green growing stalks at the nodes?
3. Can you prove that node elongation is not simply a natural result to the plant continuing to grow after it was bent?

Write a paper in which you discuss each of the alleged anomalies and come to conclusion as to whether any of these alleged anomalies really support the claim that some crop circles are not man-made.

Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: