227 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
227 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: CROP CIRCLES IN NORTH AMERICA FILE: UFO1231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NAICCR Report: Crop Circles in North America
|
|
|
|
|
|
North American Crop Circles and Related Physical Traces in 1990
|
|
by Chris Rutkowski et al.
|
|
|
|
Released February 1991 by the North American Institute
|
|
for Crop Circle Research. 40 pp.
|
|
|
|
Reviewed by Michael Chorost
|
|
Published June 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early in 1991, Chris Rutkowski and his colleagues set out to
|
|
produce the kind of report cereologists have been aching to see: a
|
|
tabular list of 1990 crop circles. They also wanted to search the
|
|
data for patterns, and locate the methodological challenges of doing
|
|
so.
|
|
|
|
They were confronted with several difficulties from the outset.
|
|
One was the problem of cobbling together usable data from diverse
|
|
sources of varying completeness and reliability. Another was the
|
|
challenge of deciding how to organize it, since no one knows which
|
|
data structure will best bring buried truths to the surface. Still
|
|
another was the sheer unprecedentedness of what they were doing,
|
|
since there were no successful analyses to emulate, no failed analy-
|
|
ses to learn from. In such a situation, tables of data take on an
|
|
aspect of terror. They can be sorted in infinite ways, yet only a
|
|
few of those ways are likely to lead to the truth. One might walk
|
|
across Antarctica blindfolded with greater confidence.
|
|
|
|
This terror may well account for why no one has published and
|
|
attempted to analyze tables of data, even though the circles have
|
|
been the focus of sustained public attention for at least four
|
|
years. Rutkowski and his colleagues, then, are to be commended for
|
|
the ambition and bravery of this first attempt, which sets a signal
|
|
example. England has produced nothing of comparable completeness
|
|
and integrity. Bigger and better reports should follow, but this
|
|
one sets the pace.
|
|
|
|
The report's raw data is presented twice, in two different
|
|
forms: by element, and by formation. In the first set of raw data,
|
|
the authors list each element of a formation marking separately, so
|
|
that, for example, a group of ten circles found in Warsaw, Indiana,
|
|
is listed as ten separate elements. The elements are recorded as a
|
|
dense table of 86 "unusual ground markings" (UGMs) listed by date,
|
|
location, circle diameters, direction of swirl, crop type, associat-
|
|
ed UFO sightings, and whether samples were taken and tests per-
|
|
formed. Dates range from March to October 1990; locations span the
|
|
continent, from Pennsylvania to British Columbia, with a preponder-
|
|
ance in the Ameican Midwest and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
|
|
Diameters range from 1.7m (Warsaw, Indiana) to 38m (Odessa, Mis-
|
|
souri.) Samples and tests are noted but the results are not speci-
|
|
fied; hopefully future reports will have more to say about their
|
|
results.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the first data set's mode of organization is not
|
|
followed consistently. A formation in Leola, SD, which consisted of
|
|
four separate elements (a "reverse question mark" and three rectan-
|
|
gles) is listed as only one element, and the same is true for sever-
|
|
al other multiple-element formations. Rutkowski and his coauthors
|
|
are not entirely to be blamed for this flaw, however. It is often
|
|
difficult to decide how many elements a formation consists of, and
|
|
which to measure. A quintuplet formation obviously has five ele-
|
|
ments and is made up of circles, but what about a circle with four
|
|
spokes and two rings, with another circle 125m away (Northside,
|
|
Saskatchewan, Aug. 28)? How many elements are there and what are
|
|
they? Only two elements of the Northside formation are listed in
|
|
the table, because it's set up to record only circle diameters and
|
|
ring widths. It can't accomodate rectangular elements.
|
|
|
|
It looks like a numerical-tabular format created more headaches
|
|
for Rutkowski and his colleagues than it solved, because it assumed
|
|
more uniformity than was the case, and used an awkward mode of
|
|
representation. The circles are diverse and spatially complex
|
|
objects which resist simple numerical representation. It would seem
|
|
more sensible to tabulate them visually, in annotated diagrams.
|
|
This would lead one to record formations on a case-by-case basis,
|
|
creating new data categories as appropriate, rather than trying to
|
|
define all of the relevant data categories in advance. Colin An-
|
|
drews has made a start in this direction with his computerized
|
|
visual catalogue. I think Rutkowski et al. made a basic mistake,
|
|
yet much can be learned from it, e.g.: We should not ache so much to
|
|
see data in numerical-tabular format. We can develop more flexible
|
|
and useful ways to represent our knowledge.
|
|
|
|
The other set of raw data is the more immediately useful one,
|
|
because it lists whole formations, not elements. It lists 45 forma-
|
|
tions by date, location, and brief verbal description. About thirty
|
|
are English-style crop circles; the rest are circular burns, areas
|
|
of flattened and burned crops, areas of missing vegetation, holes,
|
|
etchings in dry soil, and patches of stunted growth. Since no one
|
|
knows whether these diverse phenomena are related, Rutkowski et al.
|
|
sensibly chose not to segregate them.
|
|
|
|
The reliability of the documentation is obviously uneven. Some
|
|
formations have been extremely well-documented by the authors them-
|
|
selves; others are reported on little more than hearsay. For exam-
|
|
ple, one item reads merely, "It was claimed that a crop circle was
|
|
discovered near this town" and lists the source as a TV station.
|
|
This is no fault of the authors, who clearly decided that it was
|
|
better to risk reporting rumor than to leave out potential truth.
|
|
The shortcomings of the data say more about the primitive state of
|
|
cereology than anything else. Since sources are listed, it is
|
|
usually possible for the reader to decide how much weight to give
|
|
each report.
|
|
|
|
The two sets of data are listed in the back of the report. In
|
|
the front of the report, Rutkowski et al. attempt a preliminary
|
|
analysis of the data. They present five tables breaking the data
|
|
down in different ways: type versus country, type versus direction
|
|
of swirl, type versus crop, country versus crop, and country versus
|
|
direction of swirl. Perhaps the most interesting result is that
|
|
grass elements predominated over wheat elements in the US (46 grass
|
|
elements vs. 2 wheat ones), but the reverse held in Canada: 16 wheat
|
|
elements vs. 4 grass ones. Other interesting results are that
|
|
concentric rings almost always formed in wheat (9 in wheat vs. 1 in
|
|
grass) and that burned and flattened circles almost always happened
|
|
in grass (9 in grass vs. 1 in wheat.) One must view these discover-
|
|
ies with caution, however, because of the uneven reliability of the
|
|
data, the analysis by element rather than formation, and the low
|
|
total numbers involved. They may make more (or less) sense when
|
|
compared to English data, if and when it becomes available, and in
|
|
the light of future data.
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that grass crop circles are much more common
|
|
in the U.S. than in England. This is easily explained by the fact
|
|
that England is so intensively cultivated that there is very little
|
|
freestanding grassland left. However, it is more difficult to
|
|
explain why so few grass circles were reported in Canada, a country
|
|
with abundant grassland. It could be due to the fact that there are
|
|
fewer people in Canada to discover circles in grassland.
|
|
|
|
The authors also note that the peculiar effects seen in English
|
|
crop circles, such as strange noises and flashes of light, have not
|
|
been reported in North American formations. Nor do they exhibit the
|
|
same level of complexity seen in England (ringed and spoked circles
|
|
seems to be the maximum.) In sum, it is quite unclear whether the
|
|
45 cases listed belong to one phenomenon or several totally separate
|
|
ones, and whether any of them are truly groupable with the English
|
|
version of the phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
In an intelligent and cautious discussion, Rutkowski analyzes
|
|
the debate about the cause of the circles, and argues that no theory
|
|
adequately explains the phenomenon. He writes that "there was no
|
|
evident trend in any characteristic of the UGMs [unusual ground
|
|
markings]." Nor do "statistical studies conducted on the
|
|
data...suggest any particular unifying explanation." He notes that
|
|
only 4 of the 45 formations have UFO sightings associated with them,
|
|
and a perusal of the data shows that none of the sightings are
|
|
clearly of "nuts and bolts" spacecraft: two sightings were of glow-
|
|
ing lights, the other two go unspecified. Glowing lights fit in
|
|
just as well with meteorological theories, which presuppose hot,
|
|
glowing plasma vortices, as with ET theories. And yet meteorologi-
|
|
cal theories themselves can explain very little: "Is Britain's
|
|
change in weather so incredibly dramatic that hundreds of circles
|
|
can form in 1990, compared with only a handful a decade ago?"
|
|
|
|
Rutkowski notes just how many complicating factors there are:
|
|
winds do cause crop damage, yet crop circles do resemble classic
|
|
"saucer nests"; many crop circles have been considered genuine
|
|
despite their great complexity, yet there have been notorious hoax-
|
|
es; crop circles may be an effort at communication, yet nobody
|
|
understands them. And there are, in addition to crop circles, many
|
|
other kinds of anomalous ground markings. Do they have the same
|
|
basic cause, or are they caused by an entirely unrelated phenomenon?
|
|
No one knows.
|
|
|
|
Rutkowski tries to break down the theories into four types:
|
|
extraterrestrials, wind phenomena, hoaxes, and "other." The first
|
|
three are certainly the best-known. "Other" subsumes less popular
|
|
theories, such as military activity and mating hedgehogs. However,
|
|
there are more categories than Rutkowski notes. Some people in the
|
|
CCCS (Centre for Crop Circle Studies) subscribe to the theory that
|
|
"earth energies" create the crop circles. Richard Andrews, a pro-
|
|
fessional dowser, is perhaps the best-known of these theorists. It
|
|
is certainly not clear (to me, anyhow) what "earth energies" are,
|
|
nor how they could create the complex forms we have seen, though
|
|
Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetic fields and James
|
|
Lovelock's "Gaia" theory of planetary intelligence have both been
|
|
invoked as explanatory factors. In addition, there are significant
|
|
splits within the theoretical camps: for example, Terence Meaden has
|
|
accepted that the more complex formations are meteorological in
|
|
nature, while his followers Paul Fuller and Jenny Randles still
|
|
think most or all of them must be hoaxes, with only the simpler
|
|
formations being "genuine."
|
|
|
|
As George Wingfield astutely notes in The Crop Circle Enigma,
|
|
the "exotic" theories tend to fall into two classes: those invoking
|
|
earth mysteries, like earth-energy theories, and those invoking sky
|
|
mysteries, like alien-intelligence theories. The English have a
|
|
pronounced tendency toward earth mysteries, whereas Americans tend
|
|
to favor sky mysteries. Perhaps this can be explained by historical
|
|
and cultural differences between the two nations. The English tend
|
|
to look down into the earth where generations of ancestors are
|
|
buried, whereas Americans, a younger and spacefaring race, look up
|
|
into a sky which may house their descendants. Perhaps Canadians,
|
|
being of the New World yet still Commonwealth citizens, fall some-
|
|
where in between.
|
|
|
|
Certainly the Canadians have shown considerable good sense in
|
|
this landmark report. It has significant shortcomings, as I have
|
|
noted, but they are counterbalanced by the pioneering nature of the
|
|
work. Bigger and better reports should follow from both sides of
|
|
the Atlantic, but this one sets the pace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available for US $3.00 from P.O. Box 1918, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C
|
|
3R2, or 649 Silverstone Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2V8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reviewer may be contacted at:
|
|
|
|
Michael Chorost
|
|
North American Circle
|
|
P.O. Box 61144
|
|
Durham, NC 27715-1144
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |