|
Avec l'aveu de "Doug et Dave", voila plus d'une dizaine d'années que nous pensions connaître la façon de fabriquer les "cercles dans les blés". Pourtant, Eltjo Haselhoff, un scientifique hollandais, vient de publier (juin 2002) une version française de son livre résumant 14 années de recherches sur ces agroglyphes.
Son constat est formel : l'étude statistique des plantes montre qu'il reste une grande part de mystère dans ce phénomène.
Bien qu'ayant un peu honte de mon anglais presque typique "vache espagnole", voici une interview électronique de Eltjo Haselhoff.
1] you are a Ph.D. in Theoretical and Experimental Physics, working in a nearly abstract domain for people like me, research on the Magnetic Resonance, and you pay attention to a mysterious phenomenon, the so called famous crop circles. The "Doug and Dave" method seems to leave many questions unanswered. But we know that complexity of figures could not be used to explain their origin.
Despite this, most scientists think all formations are man-made, with simple tools. Is there any event in your life, any "special" observation that made you take interest to these agroglyphs ?
I think that the opinions of many, if not most scientists would have been different if they would take the trouble to go and visit a few crop circles personally. Perhaps not the ones in Britain in the tourist season, but, e.g. the Dutch formations. Many people with very explicit opinions on crop circles (journalists, scientists etc.) never saw one from close by! I was immediately struck by some very simple observations. E.g., I could impossibly make the standing crop lie as flat as in the circle, no matter how hard I jumped on it, whereas, the soil underneatch the crop in the circle was still completely "virgin", with little crumbs and sharp ridges. That awoke my curiosity in the first circle, and made me decide to go check out a second one. If you have ever been in a carrot or potato circle, as described in my book, you simply know for sure they were made from a distance, without anyone walking in the field. Anyone who would have been with you, would have had the same opinion - but all the people who were not there have a hard time believing you!
2] A lot of "specialists" uses complex methods to analyse formations, mesuring magnetic deviations for example, and giving genuiness to later revealed hoaxed circles, like the pizza ZDF TV made. Could you explain us how different is your method ?
The entire approach to develop methods in order to prove a circle is "not man made", I believe, is senseless. How can you prove something is not made by men, unless you know what or who created it? I think anyone who follows this approach should not be called a "specialist". My point is that I observe things in crop circles, that cannot be explained by the way people say they make them. I am talking about the biological anomalies such as node length increase and germination anomalies. I am not stating that these findings prove that the formations wer not made by men. My point is, that I cannot explain these anomalies and I would like to know how they occur. No-one has been able to answer that question yet. However, the apparently fantastic "Ball of Light" theory does combine many observations (the node length distributions, the burn marks, the germination anomalies) as the result of one single event, which is supported by eye-witnesses. That makes it an interesting hypothesis, despite the fact that we do not know who or what creates these balls of light.
3] Some people are still conviced that the same node lengthening could be obtained simply walking on the plants, did you try to reproduce effects using no heating, with simple tools ?
You can create a similar effect, but not the same effect. The effect in man-made circles is much less, and is uniform. That means, there is no significant relationship bewteen the amount of node lengthening and the position in the circle. You also would not expect that. So the first thing these people should explain, is a mechanism that would make the nodes swell more in the center of the circle, and gradually less towards the perimeter. Efforts so ar (e.g., the light of the sun and the shadows at the edge, the "forces" of the flattening board being "different" in the center of the circle) have all been shown to be irrelevant so far. I could not think of a simple reason either. And even if you can, then then you still have to explain the germination anomalies, which follow the same symmetry.
4] Did you see something more than differences in the nodes of plants ? We heard about strange stories about flies stuck on plant, small perfect microscopic balls of quartz ?
Germination anomalies, both in seeds collected from the circles, as well as in the fields during the next year(s), and a plethora of weird events, such as dead and flattened birds (with thousands of feathers interlaced wth the crop in a long, narrow line exactly following the flow of the crop), a flattened and completely dehydrated rabbit, my watch slowing down inside the circles, my cameras acting up, people getting sick, and yes, the dead flies (again last summer here in Holland), magnetite and quartz spheres, burn marks, etc. etc. Because all these events were not observed in a controlled manner, it is hard to reach conclusions, however, there are so many of these events reported, and all so similar, that it would be inappropriate to simply ignore them.
5] Did all this "affaire" had made bad changes to your professional life ? You work for a very important and modern industry, and for a very high level physic purpose : since your different publications have you been able to always keep the same relationships with co-workers ?
Absolutely. My boss was the first one to receive a copy of my book! I also give lectures at scientific conferences that I attend for my regular work (radiology, cardiology, MRI technology), albei during the 'social' events, after my regular presentations, as the crop circles are off-topic there. However, the audience is the same. My lectures are always very well received and lead to many interesting discussions with, and questions from my peers. The only occasional skeptical reactions usually come from non-scientists!
And why would that not be the case? There is nothing in my publications that conflicts with the rules of science. Only the subject is somewhat unusual. But multilateral interests are much appraciated in my line of work.
6] There is something we don't understand in this phenomenon, despite all the debunking arguments. What is your opinion about Matt Williams from the Satan circlemakers ?
My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to leave people like Williams out. First of all, they are historically proved to be capable of never telling the truth. They have received so much attention in the past for things they have not done, and it is the focus on the hoaxers which has made the subject more complicated than it is. BLT alone will show research which concludes there IS a real phenomeon anyway. The debunking argument is like saying that first came the forgers, and Picasso copied their work! You'd have a stronger statement by allowing the research to shine through. If all else fails, get a copy of my book. There's enough reference there for a
whole number of documentaries.
7] What would be your message when you think about messages of circlemakers ? In a metaphysical way, or poetic one, a last think about all that Eltjo ?
If there IS a message in the crop circles, it is definitely a suggestion to have a critical look at ourselves and what we are doing with our lives and with the Earth, and learn to see the difference between what we THINK we do and what we are ACTUALLY doing.
|
|
Ci-dessous quelques graphiques illustrants le livre "Les cercles dans les blés et leurs mystères" par Eltjo Haselhoff, éditions Favre (Lausanne).
Ces graphiques sont aussi présents sur le site internet du centre hollandais de recherche sur les crop circles :
www.dcccs.org
|
 |
Figure 20 : Entre 20 et 25 échantillons de plantes à chaque point, en rouge, ont été pris dans le cercle de l'agroglyphe
|
|
 |
Figure 22 : Mesure optique par ordinateur de chaque noeud
|
|
|
 |
Figure 23 : En vert, la longueur moyenne des noeuds des plantes prises à neuf endroits à l'extérieur de l'agroglyphe est de 2 mm. En rouge, variation moyenne d'environ 0,3 mm (erreur de typo dans le livre)
|
|
|
Conspiration
