BLT’s Response to Seed Germination Tests, 2009–Overgeneralized, Undersampled, and Tautological

Several months ago I published a rough draft on this blog of our 2009 crop circle seed germination tests. Researcher Nancy Talbott recently commented on our these tests and offered some ideas and critiques. I appreciate that she found a typo in the last paragraph of the rough draft on my blog  (yes, Silbury Hill was the formation with the larger effect compared to Waden Hill, as the accompanying data clearly show.) And her suggestions to increase the sample sizes are good ones. However, for the most part, her analysis is off the mark and her criticisms are irrelevant to our study. Why? Because we were doing exploratory research, something Ms. Talbott failed to take into account. (Read about the difference between exploratory and causal research.) As such, we were not attempting to draw definitive conclusions, but rather to see if there was ANY difference at all between seeds in the interiors of crop circles, and those in the exteriors. Thus, the conditions Talbott expects us to meet are not pertinent to this particular study. They would be if we were attempting to draw definitive conclusions about the causal effects of crop circles on seed germination rates. That would require a much larger study with a higher sample size and more carefully delineated scientific methodology.

Now exploratory research isn’t immune from all causal scientific criteria. But the main point is too look for patterns in entirely new areas of scientific inquiry: where there is little empirical data and the main variables are yet to be identified. There has to be consistency, unbiasedness, and transparency: conditions that we clearly meet. In this case, we sampled three comparable crop circles: all were from Wiltshire, U.K., they all formed and were sampled in July, 2009, and seed heads were taken in same manner from each formation: four seed heads from laid crop inside the circle, and four seed heads from standing crop a few feet outside the periphery of the circle. This sampling system yielded the necessary minimum of 30 seeds per control and test sample each, more than enough for performing basic Student t-tests using a single-tailed distribution at p < .05. (The number of seeds heads sampled was originally suggested by Applewood Seed Labs though Gene Milstein and I later agreed the number was insufficient for making definitive conclusions due to the presence of moisture and other variables that adversely effect seed germination rates independent of crop circle formation processes.)

The study was designed to see if there was any difference between germination rates, at all, between the inside and outside of crop circles.  It was done in conjunction with Applewood Seed Labs and it’s subsidiary, Precision Seed Testing.  We found substantial differences in two of the formations, Martinsell and Silbury Hill, but not at Waden Hill. All three formations were created and sampled in July. Therefore, this leaves open the possibility that some crop circles may have an effect on or be associated with wheat seed germination rates: but from this study alone, we can’t say exactly how or why.

But Talbott is not content to just touch on the methodological issues here. She goes on to claim that her previous 1999 study with BLT actually shows how crop circles are created. The problem is that Talbott et al. mention the idea of “genuine crop circles” without adequately defining or “operationalizing” what those are, and thus her critique totally loses credibility and can more accurately be described as a “narrative.” If you think there is such a thing as a genuine crop circle, can you tell me what a “genuine person” is? A “genuine automobile?” Why not? This is classic example of BLT’s tautological reasoning which is at the heart of so much of their “research.” The problem is that they attempt to use scientific techniques to validate their preconceived ideas: something known as “researcher bias.” The whole point of science is to let the data tell you what is going on and to consider a variety of theories: not just to force the data to fit your pet theories.

Talbott claims in her response that seed germination speeds are more important than germination rates. This is highly questionable. If some process like “ion avalanches” causes seeds to germinate faster, but the experimental seedlings don’t live as long as the controls, what’s the point? It would be analogous to athletes taking steroids to run faster but then later suffering from organ failure after the race. Germination rates are always relevant, no matter what else you are testing for.

I’m aware that some of BLT’s research has been peer-reviewed but how many of these peer reviewers are familiar with crop circles or have even been in one?  They may have expertise in plant physiology but can they claim to be experts in crop circle  research per se? I doubt it. Peer review isn’t perfect and reviewers can get things wrong: just look at the number of corrections and retractions seen in the weekly magazine Science. And contrary to the claims of those like Eltjo Haselhoff, who have also published similar research in this area, having an article peer-reviewed and published does not make its contents automatically attain the status of scientific “facts.” It just means that other peers agreed with your methodology or interpretations. For further criticism of Haselhoff and other BLT research in general, see this article.

And peer review isn’t the only criteria that qualifies research as “scientific:” there is the whole issue of third party, independent replication of results. If you claim to have uncovered a previously unidentified cause or relevant variable in a phenomenon you are investigating, other researchers need to be able to duplicate your results on their own. With respect to crop circles, I am unaware of any other credentialed research labs duplicating or even supporting BLT’s ideas. Where is the third-party verification?

An example. In 1993, a crop circle appeared at Cherhill, U.K. with a strange iron substance, the so-called “H-Glaze” on the center part of the laid crop (H stands for magnetic field strength, by the way). Researcher Peter Sorensen took some samples for Mr. William Levengood of BLT Research who concluded it was “molten” meteoric iron that came down in the formation with an ionic plasma, i.e. electrically charged air. (Quite a bold claim originally proposed by researcher Terence Meaden and others. After the 1991 Barbary Castle formation, Meaden renounced the “Plasma Vortex” theory of crop circles as the latter had become too complex to be simply explained by swirling, charged plasmas.) Some years later, a circle maker by the name of Rob Irving claimed to have made the circle and painted on the “molten” iron by mixing pure, ground scientific-grade iron filings with tap water. He also claimed to have dusted the crop circle area with such particles throwing a paper bag full of the stuff onto the ground before leaving. Sorensen originally didn’t believe him. Irving met with Peter Sorensen to show him some samples he had recently made in his kitchen. According to Irving , he had recently taken pebbles from the Cherhill site and prepared them the same way as he had in 1993. Peter compared it to the original Cherhill rock samples he had and concluded that the two glaze substances were identical. For Peter this validated Irving’s story. According to Sorensen, Irving simply dusted the iron powder onto the rocks and wheat: rain water did the rest. “In at least one location he poured quite a lot on the ground, which had hardened into a big lump which Busty Taylor found with a magnet .” Sorensen also described see lots of iron dust around the circles, in addition to the glaze on the rocks and wheat stalks. The “molten” iron had indeed become that way from repeated exposure of the iron dust to rain water and the elements, not heat inducing microwaves or plasmas. (See photos below of the original samples and Sorensen’s diagram of the formations and where the samples were found.)

Sorensen contacted Levengood and BLT with this new information but they refused to change their story: for them, the ’93 Cherhill iron deposits were too good to give up, and to this day, despite no solid evidence, they continue to claim it supports their ideas, even though the person who took the samples for them and saw the evidence first-hand no longer believes it either.  An isotopic analysis of the iron deposits with a mass spectrometer would show whether the pure iron substance was from a chemistry supply store or had a extraterrestrial origin (meaning it came from a meteor) as BLT claim. In the JSE article, Levengood and Burke explicitly state that using Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on the H-Glaze samples showed it was NOT consistent with being from a meteor. Research by researcher Rodney Ashby actually traced the samples to Clarendon Laboratory, part of Oxford University. (Read their interpretation of the “Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron”  in the Journal of Science Exploration, 9, no 2 (1995) and on their website). For a very thorough discussion of this subject, including new tests and Ashby’s replication of the H-Glaze stones as part of his experiment, all of which supports Irving’s version of events, see  Ashby’s comprehensive and detailed article on the H-Glaze.

I could give many other examples of this type of undersampled and misinterpreted data common in their research, such as the 1996 Stonehenge Julia Set study (we’ve found plenty of enlarged nodes over the years in our manmade formations–see some at our Cherhill 2003 formation here), and John Burke’s static electricity study of a few formations (totally undersampled–five formations is not enough to draw the conclusions that he did), and the use of volunteers who are not blind to the intent of the research to collect wheat stalks and seeds. But I think you get the point. You need a lot of data and an open mind to make sense of a complex area such as crop circle research, and BLT just don’t get there. They seem to feel they already know what’s going on and just force the data to fit their preconceived ideas.

Just look at the example that Talbott points to in her response, mentioned above. That William Levengood exposed wheat plants to “ion avalanches” and found faster germination times and increased yields, over many samples in mature plants at the end of the growing cycle. Fair enough. But then she goes on to claim that this explains faster germination rates and higher yields in seeds taken from mature plants in some “genuine” crop circles. If you don’t know what created the crop circle in the first place, how do you know it’s the same process affecting the seeds as you created in your lab? This is a little like saying: “Some cars are blue, therefore everything blue is a car.” This type of logical error, discussed in-depth by Bertrand Russell, is known as the “Problem in Induction” (See Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable for a thorough discussion of this logical error that so often permeates scientific reasoning.) For more on the Problem of Induction, read this insightful article.

And finally, to further discredit her critique, Talbott makes reference to what she calls “hard” science in contrast to other types of science. This is typical pre-Newtonian thinking that characterizes her critique. Has Ms. Talbott never heard of quantum mechanics and it’s idea that solid matter is ultimately made up of a vacuum space. And what of the works of Drs. William Tiller, Brian Josephson, Dean Radin, Larry Dossey, Rupert Sheldrake, and many others who have either empirically shown or credibly suggested that human thought affects physical reality. As a result of this recent research, the clean cut distinction between hard and soft science is seen by many as increasingly irrelevant and a throw-back to an outdated Newtonian paradigm.

Another example comes from Social Network Theory,  developed by Harrison White and Mark Granovetter of Harvard  and Columbia Universities among other researchers. Originally used in sociology as an empirical technique for measuring “connectedness, ” it is now applied in many fields including epidemiology, wildlife biology, neurology, and materials science including crystallography. Is it a hard or soft science? Does it really matter as long as the results are useful and credible?

Let’s look at the time several years ago when William Levengood was given samples from both wind-damaged crops and a crop circles and ask  in a blind test to tell the difference. He wasn’t able to. Yet if I took you up 1000 feet over these areas in a helicopter you would immediately be able to tell the difference between the two. So in this case, the “soft” approach is more reliable in telling difference between crop circles and other phenomena that affect crops.

Now crop circles seem to come from a variety of sources. I’ve spoken with farmers in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. who have seen UFOs near crop circles. I’m been with human circle makers in the U.S. and the U.K. whose circles emanate some ineffable energy that effects electrical equipment. And I’ve read or heard about apparently real reports from witnesses who have seen small crop circles form in a matter a seconds, often in association with balls of light. But to pick one of these types of crop circles and say it is more “genuine” that the others is just too oversimplified. Therefore, who’s to say that biology, sociology, physics, or psychology are the more relevant here: the topic is inherently interdisciplinary requiring data from all branches of science.

I don’t mean to put BLT Research down: they certainly do good work in the lab. Crop circles, however, are complex structures with truly weird energies and effects on cameras and equipment, no matter what their origin. BLT Research in this area is just too reductionist and as a result, they make methodological errors and come to premature conclusions. And in this case, though her intentions seem genuine, my overall feeling is that Talbott’ s response to our seed test doesn’t demonstrate the necessary scientific empirical know-how or theoretical depth to adequately convey the points she is trying to make. A flight of graduate level methodology and statistics courses in any scientific field might do the trick.

(Dr. Simeon Hein is a former assistant professor of sociology and teacher of statistics and research methods at Washington State University, Pullman, WA. His Master’s Degree is from the University of Arizona. Since receiving his Ph.D. in 1992 he has explored such diverse subjects as remote viewing, crop circles, UFOs, and subtle energy sciences and published a book, Opening Minds, about the subjects.)