Cicap Extra
CICAP
Rubriche
Notizie
Rivista
Enciclopedia
Articoli
Indagini
Scuola
Video
BookShop
Liste
Links
Uff. Stampa

Balls of Light at Hoeven?
An analysis
of the Hoeven crop circle case: is there really any evidence that it has
been created by a ball of light?
(October 2005)
[Updated June 2006]
by Paolo Russo
Those who think that not all crop circles are made with
simple tools, such as ropes and wooden planks, cite some
alleged anomalies that would be identifiable in "genuine"
crop circles (whatever that word may mean) in support of
their view. Stem node lengthening stands out among all
anomalies, not only because it is one of the most
frequently cited, but also because, according to the Dutch
engineer Eltjo H. Haselhoff, a mathematical analysis of
node lengthening would let us deduce its origin: a
radiation emitted by some unspecified kind of ball of light
(BOL).
Nodes and Lengthening
Nodes are small stem segments with particular features
and look like rings whose color is different from the rest
of the stem. They are usually a few (twofour) millimeters
long. One of their functions consists in allowing the stem
to bend, which is useful in some situations: the plant may
bend towards the light and can rise again (partially at
least) after it has been flattened to the ground. In these
cases the nodes change their shape and bend the stem
towards the desired direction. The shape change is actually
a lenghtening of one side of the node. In the plant there
is a hormonal control system that controls node lengthening
and is sensitive to light (phototropism) and gravity
(geotropism); both tropisms may get active in the
case of a crushed plant.
Some crop circle researchers noticed long ago that nodes
look very long in crop circles  in some of them, at least.
Although this fact is often mentioned as an anomaly, it
does not look very strange, since lengthening is a normal
function of nodes and they look very long also in plants
that have been flattened to the ground by wind, rain and
bad weather in general. Somebody, such as Nancy Talbott of
the BLT group (Burke, Levengood & Talbott, one of the
main crop circle research teams), tries to cope with that
observation by claiming that irregular areas of flattened
plants, that peasants and agronomists ascribe to bad
weather or excessive fertilization, are not due to these
causes at all but to the same phenomenon that produces the
geometrical formations, i.e. the real crop circles. This
idea implies a few conceptual and methodological problems,
the most important of them being the risk of circular
reasoning: a circle is considered genuine because
nodes are lengthened, lengthening is an anomaly because it
occurs only in genuine circles... The basic thesis
that node lengthening is an anomaly should be demonstrated
some other way.
In 1994 Levengood published an article in the scientific
journal Physiologia Plantarum [1].
The article was about various anomalies that would have
been found in crop circles; one of them was node
lengthening, of course.
The subsequent article published in 1999 by Levengood
and Talbott [2] was entirely devoted to node lengthening.
It reported the results of an experiment of corn bending
with ropes and planks: after the bending, a progressive
node lengthening was observed, about 2% a day. After a
whole week the lengthening was still less than 20%, while
in circles considered genuine the authors claimed to
have measured lengthenings between 30% and 200% in just
three days since the circle creation. Is this the so
desired proof that the anomaly is anomalous? We'll
see later on. The paper by Levengood and Talbott cited
three crop circles (Devizes 1993, Chehalis 1994 and Sussex
1994) where node lengthening seemed to vary according to
the distance from the center of the formation; longer nodes
in the center, less long near the borders. The paper also
suggested a plasma vortex mathematical model to address
this dependence on the distance. The idea was that a
hypothetical plasma vortex in the middle of the circle,
besides bending plants with the air displacement, radiated
electromagnetic waves and that these caused the node
lengthening due to thermal dilation. Under this respect it
may be the right time to discredit a rather widespread
myth: Levengood did put some stems in a microwave oven, but
never wrote in any of those articles that he could
reproduce the node lengthening. On the contrary, he claimed
he reproduced the enlargement of cell wall pits,
microscopic structures that have nothing in common with
nodes. If he ever reproduced node lengthening too, why
would he have omitted so important a detail from his paper?
Another misunderstanding too is rather widespread among
crop circle enthusiasts: some snapshots of stems from crop
circles show nodes that are not only lengthened, but bent
as well, so there are people who think that some mysterious
phenomenon acts on nodes, lengthening and bending them just
in order to create the circle. Those snapshots actually
show the longest nodes, which, according to Levengood's
data, are the last ones (those highest along the stem) or
the penultimate ones; they are not in the bottom part of
the stem, where plants have been bent to create the circle.
The tropisms activated by the plant after being crushed to
the ground often cause the top nodes to bend: it is a well
known phenomenon. In 2001 Haselhoff wrote a comment [3] to
Levengood and Talbott's last article, published in the same
journal, where he (correctly) criticized their analysis,
pointing out a couple of serious errors, and put forward
his own model: not a plasma vortex but a pointlike or
spherical source of radiation (fig. 1).
Figure 1. BOL radiating the ground.
According to this model, node lengthening should be
proportional to the inverse square of the distance
r; thus, it should be maximum just under the BOL and
decrease with distance, following a bellshaped trend.
Haselhoff used his model as a base for a new analysis of
the data of the three formations published in the 1999
article. He then compared them to the data he collected in
the Nieuwerkerk circle (aka "Dreischor circle"), whose
human origin is commonly accepted, where he did not find
the same mathematical trend.
All of these (questionable) papers and comments have
been published in a peerreviewed scientific journal, which
is extremely rare in the field of crop circle studies. Node
lengthening is thus the anomaly with the highest claim of
scientificity. Therefore, it can be considered convenient
to criticize those articles in the pages of a scientific
journal. Is is just what Francesco Grassi, Claudio Cocheo
and I did not long ago [4]. For this reason, the rest of
this article will not deal with those three articles, which
have been already analyzed, but with some other texts by
Haselhoff, not published in any scientific journal.
The Hoeven Circle (aka NoordBadant Circle)
Haselhoff wrote [5],[7] that a young Dutch man claimed
he saw, at about half past one AM of June 7, 1999, a small
pink light that moved in the air, then turned into an
elliptic shape and slowly faded, leaving a crop circle of
about nine meters of diameter, still hot (literally). The
following morning the young man saw a second circle of
about 60 cm of diameter near the first circle. Five nights
later, the supposed eyewitness saw a flash of pale blue
light coming from a single point; this time the witness
found another circle of nine meters of diameter, still hot.
The following day Haselhoff arrived and collected 25 plant
samples from each of the major circles, two from the small
circle and nine far from the circles as a control group.
Every sample consisted of about twenty stems collected
close to one another. The samples in the major circles were
collected following a starlike scheme. The star of the
oldest circle is composed by the "transects" (sets of
samples collected in straight lines) A, B and C, while the
second circle star consists of transects D, E and F (fig.
2). Transects A, B and C share the central sample
(A4=B4=C4); transects D, E and F do too.
Figure 2. Sampling scheme of the two major
circles. The small circle (transect G) and control samples
are not shown.
After allowing some months for the samples to dry,
Haselhoff measured the nodes, computed their lengthening
with respect to the control samples, compared the trend
with his radiating sphere model and concluded that there
was a significant match. In his book The Deepening
Complexity of Crop Circles [5], Haselhoff supplies the
data about the node lengths of transects A, B and C as
colored bar charts (pp. 8485). Those data are shown in
fig. 3 in a similar form; for simplicity, I omit the
standard deviations, not used in this analysis.
Figure 3. Node
lengths in transects A, B and C.
No graph about transects D, E and F is present in the
book; their patterns are left to the reader's imagination.
Haselhoff reports the result of a statistical analysis of
the single transect B (p. 88): the maximum degree of
matching between the BOL model and the data corresponds to
a hypothetical BOL floating at 4.1 meters above the ground.
The resulting Pearson coefficient (what it is will be
clearer later on) is 0.988, a value which is very close to
the unity that would be obtained if the match were perfect.
Haselhoff wrote he also performed a similar analysis on the
data of a surely manmade crop circle (Dreischor, 1997); he
did not report the obtained coefficient, but he claimed it
was "absolutely unsatisfactory" (my translation from the
Italian edition, p. 89).
Haselhoff does not put forward any hypothesis about how
a BOL can bend the plants; of course he does not claim that
the BOL radiation is responsible for it, it would be quite
physically implausible. Neither he specifies the nature of
this radiation; he suggests that it might be a mix of
infrared or microwaves and ionizing radiations (these last
ones are called in to justify other alleged anomalies, p.
130).
The Enquiry Begins
I could find the following sources of information about
the Hoeven circle and Haselhoff's analysis:
 Haselhoff's aforementioned book [5]. Published in
several languages and editions, largely advertised in the
site of the Dutch Center for Crop Circle Research
(www.dcccs.org; ONLINE UPDATE: in the last few
months the DCCCS web site and other online sources of
Haselhoffrelated issues seem to have become unaccessible;
the bibliography at the end of this article has been
amended with alternative links where possible) and quite
famous in the crop circle world, it can be certainly
considered as the magnum opus of the Dutch
researcher (i.e. his largest and most outstanding piece
of work);
 some online articles [6] written by Haselhoff
that just report his conclusions, but almost nothing
about the data and calculations they should be based on;
 an online report [7] available in the DCCCS web
site that describes in good detail Haselhoff's analysis of
the Hoeven crop circle. There are at least two versions of
this report; they differ just in the page layout and
header. A version looks like a private communication to
Levengood, the other version has a more generic header and
looks like a real article. Apart from the version, this
text is the most complete source I could find about the
Hoeven crop circle and is the basis of my analysis.
Getting the Data
Unfortunately, data have not been supplied in numerical
form, neither in the book nor in the report; it has been
necessary to read them back from the bar charts. Of course,
this procedure may have introduced some small errors of
about one pixel, and the JPEG format certainly did not help
(a GIF would have had sharper edges), but... this is the
form chosen by Haselhoff to publish his data and this is
all that anybody has at his/her disposal to verify
Haselhoff's conclusions. I wrote to Haselhoff asking for
the original data, but I never received a reply. The values
I obtained are in tab. 1.
Table 1. Node length in millimeters. "Co" =
controls. The last digit is not significant but it has been
included in the table for a scruple of perfect
reproducibility of the analysis. A4, B4 and C4, which
should coincide, give some clue about the error introduced
while reading back the data from the charts. E4 and F4 are
mere copies of D4.
It is evident at a first glance that transects D, E and
F (fig. 4), present in the report but omitted from the
book, look very different from A, B and C.
Figure 4. In the original chart the samples of F
are numbered 0, 7, 6, 5, [4], 3, 2, 1, 8, for unknown
reasons. I assumed that the correct spatial order
corresponded to the chart and numbered again the samples
from 0 to 8.
The nodes in these transects are just a little longer
than the control ones (which are about 2.054 mm on average)
and there is no trace of the bell curve that should be
typical of a BOL. That's probably why the Pearson
coefficients of these transects are not even mentioned in
the report. As opposed to the Hoeven circle, I did have the
original data of the Dreischor circle, sent to me by
Francesco Grassi, who received them from Haselhoff.
Method of Analysis
After obtaining the data, the next step consists in
verifying the calculations.
In order to evaluate how a mathematical model fits the
real data you have to compute the values predicted by the
model and compare them to the real ones, calculating a
unique number that summarizes all differences. This number
is called "mean square error"; I will indicate it as
S. The smaller is S, the better is the model.
The "correlation coefficient" (or "Pearson coefficient")
R is often preferred to S, because its value
is always between 1 and 1 and it is easier to interpret: 1
means that there is a perfect correlation between the two
data sets, 0 means that there is no linear correlation, 1
means that correlation is negative (the model seems wronger
than a random one). The square of R, indicated as
R^{2}, is often adopted instead of R.
Haselhoff uses R or R^{2} in his
works. The Pearson coefficient lets you compare models
using different data, but it has a disadvantage: a greater
R (or R^{2}) does not always imply a
smaller S, i.e. a better correspondence between the
model and the data. When different models are compared
using the same data (in our case, the data of the same crop
circle) it is better to look at S. This is the model
proposed by Haselhoff:
y = k / r^{2} = k / (d^{2} + h^{2})
that is to say, the node lengthening (y) is
assumed proportional to various factors (total emitted
energy, degree of absorption by the vegetable tissue...)
represented by a unique parameter k, and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance r
(this would be the "signature" of a spherical
radiation source). The distance r between the BOL
and the plant, according to Pythagoras' theorem, can be
obtained from the distance d of the plant from the
center of the circle and the height h of the BOL,
which is supposed to be floating over the center of the
circle (fig. 1). The problem is that we do not know
h nor k, so what did Haselhoff do? He
actually computed the values for h and k that
a BOL should have had in order to produce the observed
effects, or, more exactly, to produce the effects that are
most similar to the observed ones (smallest S when
comparing the model to the data). This procedure is named
regression, it is widely employed in science and is
completely proper; however, we must consider that, the more
numerous free parameters a model has, the easier it is to
adapt the model to any data set and  as a consequence 
the less significant the result is from a statistical point
of view. Therefore, some caution is mandatory when judging
the results.
But how can these h and k be computed? If
the model is simple enough you can do it analytically, i.e.
working on the model with paper and pencil to deduce a
formula for computing them. It is the best way, because it
yields the exact solution. If the model is too complex you
can go the numbercrunching way, letting a computer try a
(huge) lot of possible combinations of values of h
and k and pick up the best combination. As a last
resort, you can look for the best values by trial and
error, by hand, with paper and pencil (and a calculator),
which is the most uncomfortable and imprecise method. In
the case of the BOL model I deduced a formula that computes
the best k for any h and then looked for the
best h with a computer.
Once the optimal values for h and k have
been found, it is easy to compute S or R; but
then? It is not so easy to understand how significant a
value of S or R is in absolute terms; for
example, if R=0.9, does this let us conclude that the data
confirm the hypothesis? Or, better, that they
demonstrate it? In order to have a touchstone I
compared Haselhoff's model to the simplest possible
twoparameter model:
y = ad + b
which is a trivial straight line. I think it is
reasonable to demand that Haselhoff's model fits the data
better than a straight line, otherwise I cannot really see
how it can be claimed that the data yield an empirical
evidence supporting that model. The comparison with the
straight line is aimed at answering a question: is the BOL
curve objectively deducible from the data, or is it just a
subjective interpretation? Here I am not even requiring
that the BOL model gives the best data fit among all
twoparameter models; as a preliminary test, I just expect
it to be better than the simplest one.
Data Processing
50 samples are available, 25 for each circle. Since the
BOLs possibly responsible for the two circles might have
had different parameters h and k, the two
sets of 25 samples should be analyzed independently from
each other. For each circle the optimal values for h
and k and the resulting S and R should
be computed. The method adopted by Haselhoff, on the
contrary, seems affected by three serious errors:
1) The 25 samples of the second circles are ignored;
they are not analyzed and not even shown in the book. It is
not very difficult to understand the reason: their
correspondence to the BOL model is very low. It is not
allowable to ignore the data unfavourable to a theory.
2) The six most external samples of the 25 remaining
samples are excluded from the analysis. Indeed, in every
transect the samples from 1 to 7 were taken at regular
intervals of one meter and a half. Samples 1 and 7 were
taken near the circle border, while samples 0 and 8 were
taken just out of the circle, as close to 1 and 7 as
possible (that is what Haselhoff wrote in the report,
without specifying the exact distance; my request for
details remained unanswered). This sampling scheme is very
good, since the direct comparison between 08 and 17
allows to understand whether the node lengthening abruptly
ends at the circle border or goes on a little farther. The
latter is what one would expect of an energy source with
spherical symmetry: a slow decay following the inverse
square of the distance. Data speak for themselves: the
lengthening abruptly ceases at the circle border. This fact
is not evident at a first glance in Haselhoff's charts
because, strangely, they do not show the line of the
control sample average length, which would allow for an
easier comparison. Moreover, strangely, they are bar charts
instead of Cartesian  as would be normal in these cases 
and thus they do not show the real distances among samples.
In the book, strangely, under any bar chart there is even a
sampling diagram indicating wrong distances among
samples: the distances between samples 0 and 1 and between
7 and 8 seem equal to all other distances. A few pages
earlier (p. 81), thus harder to look up, there is a small
diagram which is both three times smaller and less
misleading than those under the charts, but probably still
not scaledrawn. Curiously, the text in the book does not
mention the difference in distances. There is just an
enigmatic paragraph: "The sample a0 (2025 stems) was
collected at the edge of the circle; samples a1, a2 and a3
were taken at the same distance from one another, towards
the center of the circle; a4 was collected at the center;
a5, a6 and a7 in the opposite direction, off the center; a8
at the opposite edge of a0" (my translation from the
Italian edition, p. 84). Haselhoff excludes all external
samples from the analysis, in spite of their considerable
relevance.
3) The remaining 19 samples are incorrectly processed.
They are split up in three distinct sets of seven samples
(transects A, B and C, with the central sample in common)
and each set is analyzed independently, finding three
different couples of parameters h and k. That
would be fine if each set were supposed to have been caused
by a distinct BOL, but in Haselhoff's model a circle is
created by one BOL radiating one energy
(k) at one height h, thus it is
meaningless to perform three distinct analysis. Even if it
were correct, the model fits only the data of B and C
better than a straight line; much better for B, not so
better for C. The seven internal samples of transect B are
the only ones shown in Haselhoff's "popularizing" web pages
[6]; however, the remaining 43 samples tell a different
story.
Results
Tab.2 reports the results of the analysis on both
circles, with or without external samples (I assumed a
distance from the internal samples of 30 cm), on single
transects or putting them together.
Table 2. The best values (smaller S or greater
R^{2}) are indicated in bold, the values
corresponding to meaningless analyses are in italics.
The BOL model never works better than a straight line,
except for the (meaningless) cases of transects B and C
singled out and with the external samples removed. The
minimum I can say is that the data do not support the BOL
hypothesis. The data of A, B and C and the lines of the BOL
and the straight line that most closely approximate the
data are shown in fig. 5, so that it is possible to
evaluate at a glance too how much the BOL "springs out" of
the data.
Figure 5. Graphs with external samples (top) and
without them (bottom). Data of transects A, B and C are
shown as dots, their averages as circles. The horizontal
line represents the average level of control samples.
A few comments are mandatory. The values of
R^{2} for A and C, as computed by Haselhoff,
do not coincide with those in tab. 2, computed by me. The
differences may be due to the data having been read back
from the charts or to a more accurate optimization
procedure for h and k; in fact, the values I
obtained are more favourable to the BOL hypothesis
than the original ones. The greatest difference is about
transect C: R^{2}=0.95 (h=3.3 meters) for me,
R^{2}=0.85 (h=6.6 meters) for Haselhoff. I too
obtain a similar value (0.86) for h=6.6 meters, therefore I
suppose that the researcher simply missed the best
parameter combination, which I suppose he searched by hand,
by trial and error.
It should be pointed out that the BOL analysis of the
Dreischor data which have been published in the book yields
a higher R^{2} (0.549 with external samples,
0.505 without them) than transects D, E and F. Therefore,
if Haselhoff regards this value as "absolutely
unsatisfactory", he should have a similar opinion about the
DEF circle, but an explicit admission cannot be found in
the book nor in the report. ONLINE UPDATE:
afterwards, Haselhoff claimed that the Dreischor data
published in the book are incorrect because an incident
mixed them up; he actually wanted to publish another data
set, but made a mistake (more details
here). Even accepting
his point, the "correct" data set gives a lower
R^{2} (0.410 with external samples, 0.312
without them) but still comparable to D, E and F.
Haselhoff remarks the symmetry present in any single
transect, but that symmetry does not correspond to the BOL
model. Haselhoff admits it in the report (and only there),
suggesting that the model may be just an approximation of a
more complex reality. Maybe, but a completely different
reality may be responsible for those data as well. If and
when Haselhoff will have a better model, we'll discuss it;
currently, the claim that the data support the BOL model
looks unjustified.
Conclusions and Hypotheses
At this point one may wonder what the collected data
actually demostrate, assuming they are fully reliable. Not
much, actually:
 nodes of bent plants are lengthened;
 the lengthening is correlated to the distance
from the center of the circle;
 there is some symmetry, not perfect and not circular;
 the lengthening abruptly ends at the circle border.
Haselhoff introduces point 1 as a mysterious effect. He
claims that tropisms can lengthen the nodes but not so much
in so little time; at most 1020% in a week (p. 84). The
only source of this estimate is Levengood's plant bending
experiment [2]. However, the occurrence of natural factors
cannot be excluded on that basis; tropisms are known to be
affected a lot by contingent factors such as light, wind,
moisture, planting thickness [8] and more; Levengood's
estimate was obtained in unknown conditions that might have
been not optimal for the lengthening. Is there any evidence
at all about this possibility? As of this writing, there is
one: the Dreischor circle, made by people who got the field
owner's permission, where Haselhoff found a lengthening of
30% in just three days. Strangely, the Dutch researcher
cites Levengood but not his own data. Tab. 3 reports
the maximum lengthening for Hoeven and Dreischor, the
(claimed) time between formation and measurement and the
ratio of those two numbers. It can be noticed that the
computed lengthening paces are not so different as would be
required for suggesting radically different mechanisms,
especially considering that the Dreischor conditions are
not known too.
Table 3. Data about node lengthening in various
formations.
Points 2 and 3 just demonstrate that the lengthening is
affected by some factor that varies according to the
position in the circle. Haselhoff writes that a plant
cannot know where in the circle it is, but this claim is
somewhat excessive. As an example, the wind intensity may
change (bent plants closer to the border are less exposed);
the wind might bend the plants that try to rise again and
cause the nodes to lengthen again. Maybe whoever bent the
stems stomped the central ones more than other ones,
probably stimulating a greater reaction. The temperature of
the plants or the soil might change; after all, horizontal
stems intercept the light differently (in fact crop circles
are clearly visible at a noticeable distance); since heat
tends to flow from hot regions to cold ones, a gradient of
temperature might form between the inner and outer areas of
the circle. Even rain might be collected differently...
there are lots of possibilities. As already noted, it is
impossible to demonstrate the inexistence of unspecified
factors.
Point 4 just proves that, if a BOL created the
circle, it would not have radiated in all directions but
just the circle, in a cone. That does not disprove the BOL
hypothesis, but demolishes the idea of a BOL that bends
plants with a mysterious power and additionally emits light
and radiation in all directions just because of its very
nature (because it is "of light"). One would be then forced
to think that the emission is intentional, but for what
purpose, since it cannot bend anything on its own? Just for
lengthening the nodes and making people who measure them
happy?
But there is another pretty serious problem. Haselhoff's
thesis  which was also Levengood's  is that node
lengthening is due to thermal dilation of the liquids
inside the nodes (basically water). Here we have two
possibilities. If the alleged heating just heated water a
bit without turning it into vapor, there would be something
wrong: the thermal dilation coefficient of water is far too
low to justify the measured lengthening. On the other hand,
if water boiled, the plants, that cannot bear more than
about 70 degrees centigrade, would immediately die. It is
useful to remember that Levengood, who put plants into a
microwave oven, neither wrote that nodes lengthened, nor
that the plant did survive, nor of course that both things
ever occurred at the same time. In fact, somebody who tried
reports a very different outcome [8], although an ultimate
conclusion cannot be reached, since it is impossible to
test all possible conditions: as already pointed out, a
negative assertion cannot be demostrated on these bases.
Anybody can draw his/her own conclusions. Mine are that
the Hoeven circle data do not support the BOL hypothesis
and do not disprove more "traditional" possibilities such
as the use of strings and planks.
Bibliography
 Levengood, W. C. 1994. "Anatomical anomalies in
crop formation plants". Physiologia Plantarum 92: pp.
356363.
www.bltresearch.com/anatomical.html
www.ecn.org/cunfi/Levengood1994.pdf
 Levengood, W. C., Talbott, N.P. 1999.
"Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations".
Physiologia Plantarum 105: pp. 615624.
www.bltresearch.com/dispersion.html
www.ecn.org/cunfi/LevengoodandTalbott1999.pdf
 Haselhoff, E. H. 2001. "Opinions and comments on
Levengood WC, Talbott NP (1999) Dispersion of energies in
worldwide crop formations. Physiol Plant 105: 615624".
Physiologia Plantarum 111: pp. 123125.
archiv.fgk.org/01/Eltjo/Haselhoff.pdf
www.ecn.org/cunfi/Haselhoff.pdf
 Grassi, F., Cocheo, C., Russo, P. 2005. "Balls
of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles". Journal of
Scientific Exploration (19) 2: pp. 159170.
www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159170_2005.pdf
 Haselhoff, E. H. 2002. La natura complessa
dei cerchi nel grano, Reggio Emilia: Natrix Edition.
In English: The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles, www.deepeningcomplexity.com
 Typical "popularizing" web pages, in English and
in Italian:
Haselhoff, E. H. Scientific Studies Confirm:
Crop Circles Made by "Balls of Light". www.dcccs.org/bols.htm
www.cropfiles.it/docs/CropsbyBols.pdf
Haselhoff, E. H. GLI STUDI SCIENTIFICI CONFERMANO: i Cerchi nel Grano sono
creati da "Sfere di Luce". www.cerchinelgrano.it/newsdetails.php?idNews=10
www.natrix.it/articoli/scienza/cng/Scng027/main.htm
 Haselhoff, E. H. 1999. Node Length
Measurement.
www.dcccs.org/node_length_measurements.htm also
as: Haselhoff, E. H. 1999. Hoeven Report. www.dcccs.org/hoeven_report.htm
archiv.fgk.org/99/Berichte/Hoeven99/index.shtml
 Campaniolo, M. Cum Grano Salis. (In Italian)
www.margheritacampaniolo.it/cumgranosalis.htm
Paolo Russo Programmer, develops system and realtime software.
He is member of CICAP Friuli Venezia Giulia and, as could be argued, of the
CICAP Study Team on Crop Circles.
Article published onto Scienza & Paranormale (S&P
N. 63  Anno XIII  Set/Ott 2005).

Go to:
SPECIALE Crops
Email:
crops@cicap.org
