By Joe Nickell (CSICOP Senior Research Fellow.)
In several technical papers, W. C. Levengood purports to show that "Plants from crop
formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by
assuming the formations are hoaxes."[1] Unfortunately, there are serious
objections to Levengood's approach. First of all,
while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers
I reviewed [1,2,3,4] is there any mention of the work being conducted in
double-blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. (As one
"cereologist," the Earl of Haddington, said of another laboratory that claimed to
detect different "energy levels" between crop-circle and non-crop-circle
areas [a concept that appears to have begun with dowsers], "When they are
not told which sample came from a Crop Circle and which from a heap of grain in
my back yard they are either unable or unwilling to give a result."[5])
The question of bias is important since Levengood's attitudes and assumptions reveal him as a
partisan crop-circle "believer" of the Terence Meaden,
ion-plasma-vortex variety. Alas, Meaden-who wrote
several articles and books advocating the vortex hypothesis-was increasingly
forced to conclude that great numbers of crop circles, especially the elaborate
pictograms, were produced by hoaxers, and he reportedly abandoned interest in
the subject. [6] Levengood's colleague, John A.
Burke, seems particularly defiant towards "alleged hoaxers" [7], as
if there were not powerful evidence that most-probably all-of the crop patterns
were man-made.[8]
There is, in fact, no satisfactory evidence that a
single "genuine" (i.e., vortex-produced) crop-circle exists, so Levengood's reasoning is circular: Although there are no
guaranteed genuine formations on which to conduct research, the research
supposedly proves the genuineness of the formations. But if Levengood's
work were really valid, he would be expected to find that some among the putatively
"genuine" formations chosen for research were actually hoaxed
ones-especially since even some of Meaden's most
ardent defenders admit there are more hoaxed circles than "genuine"
ones. [6,8] In fact, there is now evidence that a major formation that Levengood believes genuine and uses as a basis for
theoretical discussion-the "Mandelbrot" formation-was the work of
hoaxers. [6]
Although Levengood finds a
correlation between "structural and cellular alterations" in plants
and their location within crop-circle-type formations (as opposed to those of
control plants outside such formations) [1], he should know the maxim that
"Correlation is not causation." As the noted
That Levengood's work does
not go beyond mere correlation in many instances is evident from his frequent
concessions: For example, "Taken as an isolated criterion," he says,
"node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a
`genuine' crop formation." [1] Again he admits, "From these observed
variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used
as a validation tool." [1]
Even his alleged correlations are suspect. Citing
variations in pit expansion and node size in plants from within the formations,
he states: "These energy distributions are by no means uniform."[10]
Again, he cites formations where there were increases in plant pit size well
outside the formations, saying that "some
He thus gives the impression that, like Meaden, he is constantly rationalizing new data and
attempting to fit it in to preconceived vortex notions. Apparently no one has
yet independently replicated Levengood's work. One
scientist from Colgate did attempt to verify his seed germination claims using
some of his seeds but without success.[10] Apparently
few mainstream scientists take Levengood's work
seriously other than one or two friends who wish "to remain anonymous
because of the ridicule. [10]
Until his work is independently replicated by
qualified scientists doing "double-blind" studies and otherwise
following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously
the many dubious claims that Levengood makes,
including his similar ones involving plants at alleged "cattle
mutilation" sites.[10]
I am grateful to Franklin D. Trumpy, professor of physics,
1.
W. C. Levengood, "Anatomical Anomalies in Crop Formation
Plants," Physiologia Plantarum
92 (1994): 356-363.
2.
W. C. Levengood, "Technique for Examining
3.
W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Delineation of
Electromagnetic Energy Influencing Crop Formations," Report No. 24, Pinelandia and Am-Tech Labs, September 28, 1994.
4.
W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Study of Simulated Crop
Formations, 1994," Report No. 27, Pinelandia and
Am-Tech Labs, October 10, 1994.
5.
The Earl of Haddington, letter to The Cereoloqist
(Spring 1991), quoted in The Skeptics UFO Newsletter
10 (July 1991): 7.
6.
Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative
Update," Skeptical Inquirer, in press.
7.
John A. Burke,
Introduction to W.C. Levengood's Report No. 18 (see
ref. 2).
8.
Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer, "The Crop-Circle
Phenomenon," chapter 11 of Joe Nickell with John
F. Fischer, Mysterious Realms: Probing Paranormal,
Historical and Forensic Enigmas (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), 177-210.
9.
"Statistics
Often Misused to Cite Links as Causes,"
10.
W. C. Levengood, telephone interview by A. J. S. Rays, December
8, 1994.