How I got duped by crop circle science. Nancy Talbott vs. Matt Williams

#81
Malf, it's just relatively young barley, not ready to be cut for another month or so. I put it up here because it presents a different appearance to the examples Trancestate put up. The lines you see are, yes, tractor lines but for spraying rather than cutting.
Yes, it's true that experienced circle makers can construct formations whose man-made origin is undetectable using photo analysis. And some formations might be so skillfully devised that onsite detection of such fails as well. All that goes without saying. Despite this, it is still the case that Nancy Talbott examined crop specimens from formations easily discerned as man-made, and determined their abnormalities were most likely caused by hypothetical plasma vortices. This gives "blind sampling" a whole new meaning.

Doug
 
Last edited:
#83
Yes, it's true that experienced circle makers can construct formations whose man-made origin is undetectable using photo analysis. And some formations might be so skillfully devised that onsite detection of such fails as well. All that goes without saying. Despite this, it is still the case that Nancy Talbott examined crop specimens from formations easily discerned as man-made, and determined their abnormalities were most likely caused by hypothetical plasma vortices. This gives "blind sampling" a whole new meaning.

Doug
While there's nothing wrong with checking an aerial photo for construction flaws that could be attributed to people, if by implication a 'flawless' crop circle is assumed to be 'genuine' (i.e. not man-made) then the methodology itself is flawed for the simple reason that man-made circles spawned the very aesthetic
– symbolic design, precise edges, a smoothly flowing and layered floor, etc – that defines the genuine. Nowadays, that is. The fact that crop circles gripped popular imagination based on comparatively simple messy circles shows how much subsequent analysis has been a slave to fashion.

(I'm not suggesting that that's what you're implying Doug, but many others have been quick to make that leap.)

In critiquing B, L & Talbott's work, it's worth bearing in mind that it wasn't them that hypothesized the Plasma Vortex – that idea was hijacked from Meaden, a real doctor, just as they hijacked the concept of swollen, bent, and exploded nodes as an indicator of genuineness from Kay Larsen, a retired biology teacher. All BLT did was to reflect the fashionable beliefs of their audience, which worked all the time their audience believed.
 
Last edited:
#84
I think this illustrates why you need to pick your evidence. Even if you find a perfect crop circle aerially flattened by some nonreproducible to you mechanism, there's alway the possibility that some guy in a maker lab made a plasma accelerator out of a weedeater. In addition, sorting through these in any kind of consistent way would take tons of resources. Then there are going to be so many people publishing "agressive" analysis of some circles that anyone doing research is just going to get bogged down.

Just like a real UFO could fly over pheonix and we still couldn't tell if it was real or a photoshop.

Or orb photography.

There's so much productive evidence out there like NDEs, parapsychology, lucid dreams, etc.

Also, evidence doesn't necessarily need to be scientific in my view, but it does need to be examined much heavier for consistency bias self interest etc if it isn't. I make the case myself for expanded consiousness starting with parapsychology and expanding outwards.
 
#85
It seems simple to me but maybe I'm a simpleton! Claims are that the nodes in "non-human" crop circles have been heated by short bursts of energy (possible microwave) and that the nodes then expand or even blow out. Should be very simple to compare a known man made circle plant to a supposed unknown plant by looking at the nodes under a microscope. Nancy claims to have done this. Why no others have tried to reproduce this work, I can only assume, as with most topics like this, no MS scientist would touch it with a ten foot pole.
The work done by Levengood is good to look at from another (not Nancy Talbot) angle
https://pennykelly.com/my-books/consciousness-and-energy-vol-2/

Interesting stuff and surprising conclusions
 
#86
#87
fascinating. do you know if anyone else has been able to add/confirm Levengood's findings? I mean, I don;t want to discount the possibility that he was this singular genius, but it would be nice to someone confirming what he's done.
I know the (co) author of the books linked in my post above. She has been working for I think 10 years with Levengood. Maybe this video gives some ideas and you can make up your mind

But mail me privately if you need to know more, I can't seem to find a private messaging option on this forum otherwise I would use that.
 
#88
I know the (co) author of the books linked in my post above. She has been working for I think 10 years with Levengood. Maybe this video gives some ideas and you can make up your mind

But mail me privately if you need to know more, I can't seem to find a private messaging option on this forum otherwise I would use that.
see conversations link
 
#89
The work done by Levengood is good to look at from another (not Nancy Talbot) angle
https://pennykelly.com/my-books/consciousness-and-energy-vol-2/

Interesting stuff and surprising conclusions
I note with interest that Penny Kelly also refers to Levengood as 'Dr.'. It might be wise to contextualise this error in terms of Kelly's own doctorate from the Clayton College of Natural Heath, whose 'use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions' (according to Wiki).
 
#90
I note with interest that Penny Kelly also refers to Levengood as 'Dr.'. It might be wise to contextualise this error in terms of Kelly's own doctorate from the Clayton College of Natural Heath, whose 'use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions' (according to Wiki).
I hear you... I have stopped caring about titles as I have seen enough people with titles doing lousy research or being non-scientific. And this on all sides of course. I also rather have people call themselve by firstname - lastname or if they really have to use Miss, Mrs or Mr. I do get your point and these things certainly doesn't add to ones confidence level. Regardsless of all that the findings remain interesting.
 
#91
I hear you... I have stopped caring about titles as I have seen enough people with titles doing lousy research or being non-scientific. And this on all sides of course. I also rather have people call themselve by firstname - lastname or if they really have to use Miss, Mrs or Mr. I do get your point and these things certainly doesn't add to ones confidence level.
Jeroen, an accredited PhD is at least an indication that your ability to argue your case has been well articulated and has stood up to criticism in an academic environment. A correspondence course, like that offered by the Clayton College of Natural Health, doesn't do that. And it says something about anyone, like Penny Kelly, who pretends that it does.

Regardsless of all that the findings remain interesting.
It would be interesting if there was any truth to it. Alas, there isn't. Here's a link to something that is interesting that I think everyone who dabbles in this industry should read: http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
 
#92
The things I try to get across here and seemingly fail to do so are:
  1. there is another Levengood angle aside that of Talbot
  2. there are interesting findings
 
#94
yes, at this moment it is as I am working on some deadlines. Maybe when I got time again I look up what I found interesting and she it with you.

...from my memory:
their conclusion pointed to the effects being caused by the earth itself
the causes of those effects, some form of energy (nothing very special) also seem to cause rapid seed development

But I think you can find it at the site I linked to in an earlier post.
I just do not have the time to go through the book again
 
Last edited:
#96
Thanks Rob, they are nice projects but I love to have them behind me asap.
I raced through the article and 2 people I respect a lot, Bohm and Sheldrake, are mentioned so I am very interested. Good stuff!
 
#97
To me, crop circles have been an open and cut case.. D. When I saw this documentary on crop circles, it pretty much shows that man made crop circles are fields of bent, broken crops. The "alien" crop circles are those that seem to have been microwaved at a certain point on the plant. The reason why, as I understand it that this is linked to the UFO phenomenon is that the shape of the craft just happens to be the same shape of the crop formation.

I wish you would of asked the crop circle maker the following questions...
1. Do you know of people making these circles during the middle ages?
Have you ever encountered a circle that made you ask, who made this one?
And when you make your crop circle, do you see any of the microwave burns on the crop you just flatten.

As to your answer to why neither party really talks to each other, is that there's this unwritten rule in the paranormal research that Bigfoot isn't related to UFOs yet there's plenty of UFOs sightings with Bigfoot. Life after death researchers don't talk to ufo researchers even though Streiber himself talks about how both are linked.
But the good news is that it's changing with researchers like David Paulides coming on hand and the reporting from Linda Moulton Howe are continuing to report how things overlap.
 
Top