May 6, 2013

Posted by in Crop Circles, Nancy Talbott, The Crop Circle Challenge | 0 Comments

BLT’s Response to “The Crop Circle Challenge 2013”

“The Galaxy” crop circle. 409 circles on a rainey, miserable night,

Below you will find Nancy Talbot’s opinion (as the representative of BLT Research Team, Inc.) regarding the CROP CIRCLE CHALLENGE 2013 project which apparently remains as an actively pursued strategy towards challenging the human circlemakers to “stand up and deliver”. While the intentions of those who are behind the CROP CIRCLE CHALLENGE 2013 are to bring an increased public awareness of the many false claims that have been made by human circlemakers over the years, Ms. Talbot does not believe that such an approach will add in a positive way to what we know to be true about the crop circles. I concur.

Hi, Richard,
Here’s my response to Janez Ferjancic’s email to BLT, asking for my thoughts (since I am the public representative for BLT) about his group’s proposed “crop circle challenge.” As you can see, I don’t think it’s the best course of action and I did ask that Janez post my reply on his Facebook page about all this, but I gather he has not. You may post my response if you’d like to.

Kind regards,
Nancy
Subject: Re: The Crop Circle Challenge 2013

Dear Janez Ferjancic,

I heard from a colleague about this “crop circle challenge” and am glad you have contacted the BLT Research Team for our opinion on the matter. We are not involved in any “social media,” so our response must be to you directly.

As I assume you know, the BLT Research Team’s crop circle work has focused on the physical abnormalities found in the plants and soils of many crop circles (see: http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php, and http://www.bltresearch.com/magnetic.php, and http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.php), abnormalities found in over 200 crop circles in 7 different countries over a 10-year period which explicitly rule-out mechanical flattening (“pranks with planks”) as the causative mechanism for those crop circles in which the plants and soils exhibit these well-documented anomalies.

You are probably also aware that BLT has published 3 papers presenting our crop-circle-related findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals (http://www.bltresearch.com/published.php), the only crop circle research to-date published under the stringent requirements of the scientific peer-review process.

Because the only scientifically-established method for determining “authenticity” (non-mechanical flattening of the plants) of any crop circle is by establishing the presence, or lack, of these physical changes, this is the only method we are able to regard as significant in establishing whether a formation is man-made or not.

Although some of the “geometric” analyses conducted by others is sometimes quite interesting we know that Nature produces “geometry” in biological systems constantly–“pattern” is an inherent aspect of natural processes at work. And in spite of the fact that much effort has been expended by others on “interpretation” of various glyphs we regard these interpretations as highly speculative and non-conclusive in establishing the “creative” source of any given formation. And, regarding the “complexity” of many UK crop circles, we are certain that many of these more “complex” designs are well within the capability of organized groups of people to produce using mechanical flattening agents such as planks and boards.

The massive size of a few of the formations, particularly when given the time constraints, weather conditions and multiple other features presented by some of these, does seem to rule-out mechanical means of creation–but no effort has been expended by people who consider this variable to be significant to get plants and/or soils from most of these formations properly sampled and analyzed. Which makes it impossible for BLT to consider size and/or complexity as reliable indicators of “authenticity.”

Therefore any “crop circle challenge” to prove authenticity which does not utilize, as its basic approach, the scientifically-derived and professionally documented plant and soil abnormalities indicative of non-mechanical causation would be inadequate in our opinion, and essentially pointless. In fact such an exercise is likely, instead, to misinform and additionally sensationalize the crop circle phenomenon, further obscuring the known facts regarding the actual mechanism responsible for non-manmade circles.

It is our opinion that no effective “challenge” can be mounted without utilizing the known scientific facts regarding abnormalities constantly documented to be present in “authentic” crop formation plants and soils–and therefore is a not constructive. Further it is our opinion that the money apparently available for this proposed “challenge” would be much more wisely spent by investing in additional scientifically-rigorous research.

If you’d like to read the results of our most recent examination of UK crop circles, please see our evaluation of some of the 2009 UK circles: http://www.bltresearch.com/fieldreports/uk2009.php.

You have my permission to publish this email, in its entirety, on your Facebook “discussion page,” and in fact I would hope you would do so.

Sincerely,
Nancy Talbott
BLT Research Team Inc.
www.bltresearch.com

P.S. Regarding the 2001 Milk Hill formation a few plant samples were submitted for analysis and they did reveal the presence of some of the anomalies we expect to see in non-manmade formations. But the plant sampling was inadequate (particularly in light of the fact that no soil sampling was conducted) and the lab work carried out on the few plant samples submitted was not extensive enough to make an unequivocal statement regarding authenticity from a scientific standpoint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.