TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 371.fidonet_ufo@1:3634/60 2db25b00   
   PID: Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 master/a2a9dc027 Jan  2 2022 MSC 1928   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Win32 master/a2a9dc027 Jan  2 2022 MSC 1928   
   BBSID: RICKSBBS   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   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 *   
     **********************************************   
      
   Carol,   
   telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23   
   http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080   
   --- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32   
    * Origin: Rick's BBS - telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23 (1:3634/60)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 50/22 105/81 106/201 123/0 126 180 525 755 3001   
   SEEN-BY: 123/3002 124/5016 128/187 129/14 305 153/757 7715 154/30   
   SEEN-BY: 154/110 203/0 218/700 220/6 221/0 222/2 226/30 227/114 229/110   
   SEEN-BY: 229/112 134 206 317 426 428 470 664 700 705 240/1120 5832   
   SEEN-BY: 250/1 263/1 266/512 280/464 5003 5006 291/111 292/854 8125   
   SEEN-BY: 301/1 320/219 322/757 341/66 234 396/45 423/120 460/58 256   
   SEEN-BY: 460/1124 5858 633/280 712/848 1321 770/1 902/26 2320/105   
   SEEN-BY: 3634/0 12 56 57 60 61 5020/400 8912 5054/30 5075/35   
   PATH: 3634/60 12 222/2 263/1 280/464 460/58 229/426