Electromagnetic Anomalies Rule Out Prosaic
Explanations
Because of a perennial lack of funding and the National Enquirer aura surrounding
crop circles, few studies on crop circles have been conducted. However,
some intriguing observations have been reported by Michigan biophysicist
Dr. W.C. Levengood, of Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratories. Since 1989,
Dr. Levengood's research group has collected and analyzed samples from
various crop formations, proving to their satisfaction that non-naturally
occurring electromagnetic anomalies are present in many of the crop circle
samples. In 1992, Levengood, a plant and seed development specialist, teamed
up with astrophysicist John Burke and colleague Nancy Talbott to form BLT
(Burke, Levengood and Talbott) Research Team, Inc.
Over the next several years BLT conducted a systematic survey of crop circle-related
scientific literature and, using a strict field-sampling protocol, the
team completed studies (many of them "blind") on grain samples
from over 200 crop formations discovered in the U.S., Canada, England,
Australia and Israel. BLT's studies showed a number of statistically significant
differences between normal plants and those taken from crop circles, leading
the team to conclude that the observed electromagnetic changes are impossible
to hoax through mechanical flattening of crops. For example, BLT found
that samples from affected crop exhibited structural anomalies rarely or
never found in control samples, including:(1)
1. An abnormal enlargement of cell wall pits
in bract tissue (the thin, protective membrane surrounding the developing
embryo).
2. The presence of "expulsion" cavities
(holes at the plant stem nodes blown from the inside-out). No such cavities
have been found in controls examined by the researchers. These "blown
nodes" appear to be the result of the plants having been exposed to
a very brief (perhaps as brief as a few microseconds) blast of energy capable
of causing the watery material in the cells to heat up quickly. This rapid
heating may then produce steam, which, particularly in older plants with
less elasticity in the fibrous node covering, creates holes as it escapes.
3. Grossly enlarged (both laterally and longitudinally)
plant stem nodes in conjunction with a marked bending of the plant stem
nodes, from as little as 10° to an extreme of 90° or more, occurring
at some or all of the nodes of a stem. In an October 20, 1995 20/20 interview,
Levengood described how node length on affected plants can reach a 200-300%
increase over control plants-the most extreme increases being found in
the less geometric, more randomly-downed crop formations.
In some of the more geometric formations, node length increases on plants
were found to decrease exponentially with distance from the apparent energy
source. This finding-that the degree of change in the plant stem node appears
to be related to its proximity to the energy source and, thus, to the intensity
of energy affecting it-is in accordance with the Beer-Lambert principle
of absorption of electromagnetic radiation by matter, clearly indicating
the electromagnetic nature of the system involved in crop circle formation.
4. Malformed seed-heads, in which in some cases
the seeds are missing or, more often, in which the seeds are severely stunted.
In his examination of samples from a crop circle referred to as the Newton
St. Loe formation, Levengood discovered a high incidence (40%) of seed
malformation, compared to an almost zero incidence in the control seeds.
This is a common finding in crop formation plants.
5. Significant changes in germination, or seedling
growth, rates. Growth rates in seeds taken from crop formation plants range
from no germination at all to markedly increased growth of seedlings. These
abnormalities appear to be related to the affected plant's species, its
age at the time of the formation, and the apparent intensity and complexity
of the energy system involved. In general, the younger an affected plant
is, the more damaging the effect on seed production and development.
Based on Dr. Levengood's analysis, the researchers
feel that they can reliably differentiate between mechanically-hoaxed formations
and genuine ones by examining the number of blown nodes, malformed seeds
or electromagnetic anomalies present in the formation in question. "Very
definitely," Burke says, "we've got some kind of a real phenomenon
going on."
Levengood stresses that simply flattening grain
with planks or rollers does not produce cell wall pit enlargement, expulsion
cavities, stunted or seedless seed-heads, significantly elongated stem
nodes, or gross alteration in germination results. There is no possibility,
he says, that the observed intercellular changes in crop circle samples
could be replicated by hoaxers using these tools. Other anomalies found
both in grain samples taken from crop formations and within the formations
themselves support BLT's conclusions that the crop circle phenomenon is
a genuine unknown, most likely having to do with an unidentified electromagnetic
force. For example:
· Equipment malfunctions are common
within and around the enigmatic formations. Many instances of electronic
and mechanical component failure (such as jammed camera shutters, failed
flashes, blanked-out film, etc.) have been documented by several crop circle
researchers. Magnets and compasses often behave erratically inside or near
a formation. Physical side effects have been reported by visitors to crop
circle formations during and after exposure, e.g. nausea, headaches and
other pains, dizziness, loss of balance and euphoria.
· Colin Andrews' own crop circle analyses include fluxgate magnetometer
surveys conducted on seven large formations. The results of those tests
show anomalous readings of increased magnetic field intensity within the
formations. Inside the seven patterns, Andrews reported in a recent Sightings
Online interview, the magnetic field registered up to 300% of the planet's
normal field. At the center of these circles the radiation measured 40-50
nanoTeslas, or ten times the radiation level of a normal field.
· Marshall Dudley, a systems engineer
for Tennelec/Nucleus of Oak Ridge, TN has identified two short-lived isotopes
(the non-naturally occurring yttrium-88 and bismuth-205) in soil samples
taken from an August 2, 1991 Beckhampton, U.K. formation. According to
Chorost, soil from the formation showed radioactive particle readings of
up to twice the normal values.(2)
· Frequently, a high-pitched sound or
"trilling" either preceding or accompanying a formation is reported
by witnesses in the vicinity of the crop circle. Several cases, as documented
by Andrews and others, involve a ball or point of light reported hovering
above or moving through affected crops.
Given the preliminary evidence accumulated
by crop circle researchers, even the most dyed-in-the-wool skeptic must
agree that the crop circle issue is far from settled. In fact, this conclusion
is echoed in official studies of the crop circle phenomenon: the British
government ADAS Department has taken an interest in crop circles, citing
high nitrate levels discovered in formations throughout Great Britain.
Clearly, the crop circle phenomenon currently falls safely outside the
known limits of science knowledge.
(continued in Chapter 8 of The Monkey and
the Tetrahedron...)
====== References=======
(1) Nancy Talbott, "Crop
Formations: A Biophysical Investigation," BLT Research Team information
packet (Spring 1997): 2; available from BLT Research, Box 127, Cambridge,
MA 02140; personal communication 24 May 1998.
(2) Michael Chorost, "The
Summer 1991 Crop Circles: The Data Emerges," Fund for UFO Research,
1991; available from FUFOR, P.O. Box 277, Mt. Rainier, MD 20712.
