NIDS Review of "Clay-Mineral Crystallization Case Study:
1999 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Crop Formation"BLT Research Team Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts (USA)Introduction
An X-ray diffraction study of clay minerals in crop circle soils (begun in 1999 and completed in late 2001) was recently published by the BLT Research Team Inc. on their website (http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.html). The report is 30 pages long (i.e. 43 pages with pages 15 through 26 appearing blank in printed form) and is divided into ten sections: 1) Study Objectives & Results; 2) Study Background; 3) Study Case Selection; 4) Sampling Procedure; 5) Plant Analysis; 6) X-Ray Diffraction Analysis; 7) Statistical Analysis; 8) Mineralogical Review; 9) Discussion; 10) Study Personnel. There is no list of references, although one journal publication and one BLT report are cited with details in the text. Seven people were involved in this study: Mike and Judy Arndt (BLT Inc. field-team); Diane L. Conrad Gleason (geologist); Dr. Sampath S. Iyengar (geochemist/mineralogist); William C. Levengood (biophysicist); Dr. Ravi Raghavan (chemical engineer/statistician); Dr. Robert C. Reynolds, Jr. (geologist/clay mineralogist); Nancy P. Talbott (study director).
Soil samples and controls, consisting of approximately 1/2 cup of surface soil at each location (down to a depth not exceeding 1/2 inch), were taken immediately around each plant sampling location and then placed in plastic bags and labeled. Sixty eight soil samples were collected from within three different crop circles (designated A, B, and C) of the same formation, although seven of those samples were lost in the mail. Twenty four control samples were collected outside the crop circles (two of those were lost in the mail). Thus, the study is based on a total of 83 soil samples.
Plant samples and controls were taken and analyzed by a separate laboratory for measurable alterations. Plant samples, consisting of 15-20 plants/sample, cut off at just above the soil level, were taken along multiple diameters at precise intervals (which varied, depending upon overall circle size) in three of the seven circles that made up the Edmonton crop formation. Plant controls, also consisting of 15-20 plants/sample cut off at the base, were taken along four different control lines beginning at 75 ft. away from the flattened edges of various sections of the formation and continuing to between 175 ft. - 265 ft. away from the flattened edges, at 25 ft. intervals.
The soil samples were analyzed by Dr. Sampath Iyengar at his Technology of Materials laboratory in San Diego, CA. Since the time of analysis his laboratory has moved to Wildomar, CA. A website for his lab can be accessed at http://www.xraydiffrac.com.
Discussion
NIDS staff have spoken to three of the coauthors concerning their report (Nancy Talbott, Sampath Iyengar, and Diane Conrad Gleason). Dr. Reynolds is retired and was unavailable for interview due to illness. Talbott said the report was not written in standard scientific format with references because she wanted to get the information out quickly, and it had taken four years to get the analyses done and the results reviewed by Raghavan for statistics and Reynolds for scientific validity. She also said that the authors are planning to submit a formal paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal in the future. Talbott and Iyengar said that getting the money to run the samples for X-ray analysis took time and cost about $20,000 (constant delays due mostly to financial constraints). Talbott and Gleason said the results were so unexpected that Reynolds was brought into the study, because of his recognized expertise in clay mineralogy and analysis. Reynolds was sent slides for only about 15 out of the 83 samples, but according to him the results were conclusive beyond any doubt: The clays from soil samples within the crop circles had been subjected to recrystallization temperatures of 600° to 800° C for several hours (based on known laboratory experiments), which was clearly not the case since the surrounding plants had only minor heat damage at their leaf nodes. The plants were collected immediately around each plant/soil sampling location, and only the top 1/2 inch of soil was collected between the plants.
The results of the study also showed that there was a strong correlation between plant damage (nodal elongation and rupture) and clay mineral alteration, which was expected once it had been determined the clays had been heated. However, the extreme difference in differential heating was not expected. The mechanism by which the clay minerals could be heated to such a high temperature, while the plants growing in the same soil were not killed or incinerated, is a major scientific quandary, not unlike the crop circle phenomenon itself.
Statistics Required
If the Kubler (KI) Index data (degree of crystal development) in the tables of the report are examined, there does not appear to be any significant differences between the crop circle samples and the control samples. Even the X-ray spectrograms do not show any clearly obvious differences. Because Gleason is a geologist who did her graduate work in clay mineralogy (thesis: Heat Effects on Clay Minerals), she knew that statistics would be required to see any significant differences between the samples and the controls. When Dr. Raghavan was asked to do a statistical comparison, Talbott, Gleason, and Iyengar all said they were surprised by the results. That is when Dr. Reynolds was brought into the study as an independent objective examiner. Even though he looked at only about 15 samples, the statistical results combined with his examination tipped the balance of caution and skepticism to a realization that the apparent results were real and not due to sampling error, operator error, analytical error, or researcher bias.
Limitations of This Study
The limitations or shortcomings of their study are given below, followed by explanations.
- Plant roots not collected to examine evidence for heat damage from adjacent clay minerals.
- Not enough samples were collected and analyzed to overcome uncertainty.
- Results from one crop formation are not enough to validate conclusions.
- Their report does not reference clay mineral studies that show clay mineral alteration due to heating.
- Their report does not reference clay mineral studies that show why statistics are needed for Kubler Index analysis.
- Their report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
1. Only the aerial portion of the plants collected were studied. No roots were taken and examined for damage due to heating or other causes. Root tips are the fastest growing portions of plants, and the most sensitive to damage from heat. Soil samples were taken only as deep as 1/2 inch, which would have been above most roots and root tips. A second set of soil samples with roots should have been collected to show if the clay mineral effects are limited to the top of the soil, or penetrated down as far as the root tips. Damaged root tips would be a secondary method of verification that clay samples experienced extreme although temporary (flash) heating.
2. More sampling is needed, since 83 soil samples are not enough to assure skeptics that another 50-100 samples wouldn't have changed the statistical results. Even if money to process only 83 samples could be obtained, additional samples should have been collected and stored as backup for later study, especially by another laboratory. Because nine samples were lost in the mail, a backup set of samples would have provided replacements.
3. Because a significant number of crop formations have been hoaxed, it is important to show that the results obtained for the 1999 Edmonton crop formation can be reproduced in unhoaxed formations, and also show that similar results cannot be obtained from hoaxed formations. This report and study should be regarded as a pilot study that indicates scientifically valid and important information can be obtained in larger studies. With more comprehensive sampling, questions raised in this review could be answered.
4. Information from other relevant studies needs to be added, along with references, when this study is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is important to show that only through heating to high temperatures do clay minerals change crystallization characteristics.
5. Information from other relevant studies needs to be added, along with references, when this study is published in a peer-review scientific journal. It is important to show that statistics are needed to detect clay mineral changes in laboratory experiments, and that these changes correspond with what is found in nature.
6. To gain recognition, consideration through peer debate, and ultimate acceptance in the scientific community, this study must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Conclusions
Even though the results of the BLT Research study on clay mineral changes in crop circle formations are limited and therefore inconclusive, they provide an incredible opportunity for science to extend the boundaries of knowledge and understanding of natural and unnatural geologic and biologic processes. This study conforms with and meets standard scientific methods of investigation and analysis, making its results highly relevant. It is hoped that other scientists will become interested enough by this study to want to become involved in similar research. Crop circle formations continue to appear in certain parts of the world, especially in the U.K. We think that this type of research and its potential results warrant additional studies by other research groups. Independent testing and verification are needed. Whenever costs of scientific research are $20,000 or higher per crop formation ($200 to $300 per sample), knowing that results such as these not only can be obtained but have been obtained goes a long way in justifying such expenditures.
Note: NIDS has no plans to fund a crop formation study at this time.