From: Dave Haith <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:56:24 +0100 Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:45:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Vallee On Crop Circles - Haith Below, with his permission to post, is a piece sent to me by Montague Keen, who from 1990 to early 1994 was on the UK's Council of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies and acted as their scientific advisor. ----- From: MKeen7225@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:34 PM Subject: (no subject) Interesting speculation by Jacques Vallee, but littered with misunderstandings and dubious assumptions. Here goes: The massive publicity accorded Doug and Dave's exploits in Sept. 1991 arose from a world exclusive claimed and staged managed by the Today Newspaper (decd). The Mandelbrot set, found in a field several miles south of Cambridge, UK, in '92, was almost certainly the work of a Cambridge maths student althouugh I (as about the only person who was able to locate and examine it before it was combined) got quite excited about it at the time. "Vegetation is bent becaused the nodes are exploded. The stalks are not broken and indeed plants are often reported to grow again." The first statement is a misleading summary of W.C. Levengood's work from 1990 onwards, when he found apparently exploded microscopic pits (not to be confused with much larger, surface stomata) in the parenchyma tissue of some nodes of grass pants (mainly wheat and barley) from formations in Southern England, and concluded that the plants had been struck by a powerful force which vaporised the moisture instantaneously, and was therefore inconsistent with a man-made hoax. Whether the stalks are broken, and whether the plants recover, depends on the growth stage, or degree of senescence (and hence turgidity or brittleness) of the stems, i.e. the moisture content and degree of lignification. Up to a certain stage in their development, plants will normally recover and grow upwards after crushing. Levengood's methodology and conclusions were later challenged, chiefly by me, but the most recent discoveries, of which Vallee is apparently unaware, look as though the old pioneer might be vindicated after all. The statement that all significant formations have been observed in areas close to major defence research facilities is highly questionable. It all depends, among other things, on what you mean by significant. One might be forced to the desperate hypothesis advanced by Terence Meaden in defence of his vortex theory, that all formations bearing characteristics inconsistent with it were hoaxes. This is to fit the facts to the theory, not the theory to the facts. Vallee's assertion is bland, and not supported by evidence. In any event, the implications are that there are scores of such establishments in England, all of them interested and involved in this highly specialised and totally secret method of creating criminal trespass on farmers' crops; and that these tests had been carried out furtively for twenty years or more from invisible space ships of which there has been neither disclosure nor suspicion. Morever, formations have been reported from scores of countries where even the British defence establishment's writ doesn't run. We don't know how many of them are mad-made on the ground, of course, but it's pushing things to argue that they must all be spurious because they're not within easy reach of a secret British weapons development, research or testing establishment. All very negative, especially since the alternative hypothesis must be even more incredible if the everything's-a-hoax assumption is found unacceptable. But I trust this moderate clarification may help to confuse the issue -:) Montague Keen ----- Dave Haith
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
[ This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index ]
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last names to email@example.com
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.