Nancy Talbott

[Gene Steinberg]

On the afternoon of April 19th (Eastern time), we'll be recording an episode with crop circle investigator Nancy Talbott.

During this session, we'll be reporting the very latest developments in her research, including key lab reports. Much of this material is already up at her site:

BLT Research - Crop Circle Science

We'll also be adding links after the show to illustrate specific areas of discussion.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gene - I recently sent a show idea that this illustrates perfectly you will remember. I cannot think of a better example than crop circles. It will really add to the feeling of participation in the discussion on the show and help discussion in the forums. I hope this type of thing can be done whenever possible, time and material permitting of course.

I have a two questions for Nancy - I shall put it in the question bank too, though I realise it may be a little late.

Nancy, whenever the 'crop circle hoax' crowd were filmed demonstrating their techniques, I always felt the results were poor imitations of the better formations. My question is, how many times have any more advanced formations been deliberately documented while being hoaxed? Many of them are very complicated and large and I wonder how long it would take hoaxers to make such formations and whether the end result is of the same quality. The mandlebrot set type formation is a good example.

Nancy, the results of the planting of crops from formations made at various stages of growth seemed to show remarkable increased growth from seedlings. Is it still the case that no large seed company is interested in the research of W.C Levengood?



A comment: Node length increases, expulsion cavities, linear deposits of magnetic particles, reports of light and sound phenomena in the vicinity of formations, geometry and pictograms - I think the crop circle mystery has turned out to be as complicated as the UFO mystery, having many facets and no easy answers. Nancy's last appearance on the Paracast made a fantastic episode and I have been looking forward to Nancy's return for some time.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Sorry, I went straight to a link without realising I already was in the Question Bank. Doh!

 

[Dave Murphy]

Many think that for scientific research of anomalous phenomena to be legitimately accepted by the scientific community it must first appear in accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Dr. Levengood did publish his evidence for super-heating and changes in the cellular structure of crops within these formations in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, "Physiologia Plantarum." His findings not only failed to bring the debate to a close, but in fact, were largely ignored by the Scientific community. Given Levengood's experience, what are your thoughts about the role peer-reviewed scientific journals play in bringing legitimacy to frontier science within the scientific community?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This has come up regarding the debate on Ray Stanford witholding his evidence until scrutinised by the scientific community.
It is a chicken-and-egg situation. To get taken seriously, the UFO or crop formation subject need the interest of a fair amount of credible scientists but these same scientists wont touch the subject until it becomes credible! Go figure.
I blame scientific lack of gonads for the failure of science to take a subject seriously that has already been documented as a real subject by various governments and military organisations, despite their best efforts to keep that fact from the public (UFO's).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

OK, moved the remaining posts to the appropriate thread:

April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott | The Paracast Community Forums