Addendum

Following the posting of this revision of my H-glaze report, W.C. Levengood and John Burke released a response (hereafter referred to as the response) which they stated was intended to correct some additional errors of mine.   After reading it, I carefully considered what they had written and concluded that, although I disagreed with almost everything they had said, I would take no further action.

However, having considered the matter further and in the light of more recent developments, I feel that some issues need clarification.

 

First of all, neither of my postings were intended as a critique of the 1995 paper by W.C. Levengood and John Burke entitled "Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation" published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE).   In fact, it would not have been possible to fully evaluate their claims because they seemed to have material that none of my contacts could supply or even recognise; for example, none of the samples that I have seen had 'mud cracking' and none of the wheat stems exhibited 'impact zones'.

I investigated this deposit out of personal interest and without regard to any preconceived ideas or previous claims as to its origin.  I did, however, make it plain that theories involving plasma vortexes and meteoric iron would not be considered for the reasons given.

I was soon struck by the presence of small beads of iron and iron oxide. This seemed to conflict with the common assertion that hoaxers do not employ sophisticated techniques and that circle making is basically a low-tech' business. These beads had obviously formed from the molten phase and, although I could see how such a deposit could be manufactured, the only claimant to its authorship was stating that he had used iron filings.   This, I knew for certain, was not the material used.  When I finally obtained a sample of the powder that Rob Irving had claimed to have used, it was on the clear understanding that I would make an independent assessment and publish the results whether they agreed with his claim or not.

The following headings are taken in the same order as they appear in the response.

 

(1)  Possible Mixing of Samples:   In the first of their observations, Burke/Levengood refer to the exchange of samples between Peter Sørensen and Rob Irving.   They ask, "Perhaps Mr Ashby was unaware that Rob Irving, the self-proclaimed hoaxer of this event, met with Sørensen some time after W.C. Levengood had already received his samples -- and that Sørensen and Irving exchanged some samples with each other."   The response goes on to state that, "...the sample-pool was now contaminated for any future examination" and that, "... Sørensen's samples must have contained material (perhaps material other than that actually found at the Cherhill crop circle?) provided by Irving."

(1.1) In the first place, it should be obvious that I was aware that this meeting had taken place because I had described it in the conclusion to this report.

(1.2)  Secondly, I think it is very unfortunate that Mr Burke should find it necessary to allege that the sample pool was contaminated because that strongly implies that Peter Sørensen hadn't the sense to keep the samples separate.   In my first posting, I stated that Sørensen had supplied me with all of the few remaining samples in his possession.   These were clearly labelled and contained in separate plastic bags.   It was quite apparent that Peter had taken the necessary steps to protect his samples from damage and 'contamination'.

(1.3)  Moreover, Rob Irving had given Sørensen only one coated pebble sample.  It is shown in the 'Observations and Conclusions' to this report.  His technique for preparing it was to simply drop the powder onto the chalk.   In other words, he didn't attempt to uniformly coat the pebble by a cloud of dust as I did in my distribution test.  The differences between the coatings produced by these two methods are quite obvious and, as I stated in the both reports, there is no possibility that the second sample could have been produced by simply dropping the powder onto the stone.  So, it is most unlikely that the second sample described in my first report was produced by the Rob Irving.

It is also possible to simply observe that the exchange sample and the second sample in my first report are not the same.   The image of Irving's sample may be small but it is possible to see that it is smaller than the second sample (which was 3.5 cm long), more irregularly shaped and the coating patterns are different.

(1.4)  Finally, in the response, Mr Burke states that I examined one sample provided by Busty Taylor and additional samples provided by Peter Sørensen.   The implication, which most readers have drawn from this, is that I obtained the second sample from Sørensen's 'contaminated' stock.   This is not true.  The fact is that I borrowed it from Mr Nick Riley who had originally obtained it from Sørensen in 1993, a year before the exchange took place.  Most readers, including Mr Burke, seem not to have noticed that I stated the source of this sample in the first paragraph of the section entitled "Distribution Test" in this report.  After news of the discovery had leaked out, Peter was repeatedly asked for samples and, being one of the nicest people you could wish to meet, usually obliged.   Nick Riley received his sample in 1993, the year of the discovery of the deposit and one year before the so-called contamination of Peter Sørensen's samples by Rob Irving.  This sample remained in Riley's possession until I borrowed it, so Mr Burke's doubts as to the authenticity of this and the remaining samples I tested are quite unfounded.

(2)  The Term H:  In the second item of the response, it is claimed that,  "Mr. Ashby seems to misunderstand the meaning of 'H' in the term 'H-glaze.'  H is the scientific symbol for magnetic field strength, not for magnetic susceptibility".  The fact is that I have never said that H stands for susceptibility.   However, susceptibility is the only magnetic property that the glaze has exhibited.    The response goes on to state that, "The fact that you can pick something up with a magnet means it has magnetic susceptibility, not that it possesses magnetism."   Throughout the response, and in all other text produced by BLT on this subject that I have seen, the authors use the term 'magnetism' when they obviously mean 'permanently magnetised'.   As I shall show, the material from which the H-glaze was formed was not capable of being permanently magnetised but, like all 'soft' magnetic material, it did possess high magnetic susceptibility.

(2.1)  Also, in the second section of the response, there is a plainly erroneous claim.   Mr Burke states, "The black beads reported in our journal paper were often strung out in single file in graceful, arching filaments like so many black pearls on a necklace.  ..... each sphere acting like a tiny bar magnet."   Now, there is no mention of this in their JSE report and there is no picture that shows this feature.  However, there is a very good picture of a feature like this on the BLT web page www.bltresearch.com/magnetic.html.  If this picture had been obtained from an H-glaze sample, it would be hard to understand why such an interesting image was not included in the JSE report.  BLT do not state the source of the sample from which this image was obtained.   Instead, they tell us that, "After this 1993  (H-glaze) discovery, regular soil sampling was instituted at most crop circles sampled by the BLT Team.  Subsequently, tiny 10-40 micron diameter spheres .... of unusually pure iron have been regularly found in soils from crop circle sites.   Sometimes clusters of these very small, perfectly spherical, magnetic particles are found ... which are strongly magnetic, .."   The above mentioned image also appears in a BLT hand-out entitled 'MAGNETIC MATERIAL IN CROPCIRCLE SOILS' in which that photo is referred to with the text, "Regular soil sampling at cropcircle sites since 1993 has revealed .... tiny (10-50 micron diameter) spherical particles which are highly magnetic."   BLT also describe a cluster of particles in their Lab Report #52 on the Blaine, Minnesota formation of 1994 in which they show a "Pillar of magnetite particles showing mutual magnetic induction".    So, contrary to Mr Burke's assertion in the response that the H-glaze contained magnetized black beads strung out like pearls, it would seem that this feature was not seen in the H-glaze samples sent to Levengood but only observed later in samples obtained elsewhere.

(2.2)  Another inaccuracy in the response, and throughout BLT reporting, is the assertion that iron beads can be permanently magnetized.   The fact is that pure iron does not make a good Permanent Magnet.   It falls into the category of what are known as 'soft magnetic materials' which includes iron alloys like permalloy (a mixture of iron and nickel).  They are used to make Temporary Magnets.  They can be magnetized very easily, even with a weak field.  However, when the magnetizing field is removed, their magnetism is lost.  Even if iron were heated and cooled in a strong magnetic field in the way described by Burke/Levengood, it would rapidly lose any residual magnetism.  To make a permanent magnet, iron has to be alloyed as in 'alnico' (an alloy of aluminium, nickel, iron and cobalt) or constituted as a ferritic alloy (a ceramic like material containing iron oxides compounded with strontium and barium).   In the above web page, BLT state that analysis had revealed the spheres to be pure iron.  If they were pure iron, they could not become sufficiently permanently magnetized to hold themselves in the way they are depicted.  This situation does not change significantly if we assume that the beads were composed of iron oxides.    Strictly speaking, the name magnetite refers to the mineral which has a black octahedral crystalline structure that is formed under high geological temperature and pressure.   If ferroso-ferric oxide should form on iron beads, although it has a similar chemical composition to magnetite, it does not have the same magnetic properties as the mineral because it has none of its crystalline structure.  It is the regular arrangement of the atomic structure into domains within the magnetite crystals that enables it to be permanently magnetized.   Rust formed from pure iron may have magnetic susceptibility but it cannot form a permanent magnet, not even if it is heated to some supposed curie point and allowed to cool in a magnetic field, as Burke/Levengood claim in section 6 of their response.

(2.3)  One final point - had any of my samples of H-glaze been permanently magnetized, I would certainly have observed it.   Neither the samples themselves nor the residue in the containers that held them exhibited any evidence of having been permanently magnetized.

(3)  The Term Glaze:   In this section of the response, it is claimed that there is a misunderstanding of the term "glaze".   In fact, I do see a problem with the evidence that Burke and Levengood present in their JSE report that relates to this topic.  This report can be seen at: www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html

(3.1)  In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the section entitled "Results", the authors describe how the plant contacting side of the deposit becomes cracked as a result of a temporary tension stress that develops in the outer surface of the glaze.   These cracks are indicated in the report in figure 3b.  The problem is that this picture shows none of the beaded structure that is clearly visible everywhere else.  In the initial phase of the accretion, any impacting material would have encountered cold, damp plant material and, therefore, undergone the most rapid cooling.   In other words, the first semi-molten iron to impact the plant would have cooled most rapidly.   Further semi-molten iron falling on top of it would have cooled less rapidly.  Thus, if there was insufficient heat to allow the outer surface to fuse into a continuous layer, the plant contacting side of the deposit would certainly not have been able to form a continuous layer. The individual beads of iron would not have had time to properly fuse together and the outline of those beads should be visible on the underside of the glaze.    Yet, in figure 3b, there is no evidence of this.   Instead, apart from the cracks and the undulations caused by the plant's epidermal layer, the surface is surprisingly featureless.    However, the outer surface of a section of glaze seen in Fig 2a clearly shows that the particles did not fuse together to form a smooth surface.    A moment's consideration reveals the contradiction here.   If the inner surface of the deposit was hot enough the fuse into a continuous layer, the outer surface should have done the same.  Alternatively, if the inner surface was not hot enough to fuse into a continuous layer, the outline of the beads should be visible.

(3.2)  If the Burke/Levengood interpretation of Fig 3b is incorrect, then we have to ask whether there is another and more plausible explanation for these features.   The answer can be found in the author's comment that, under the glaze, the plant surface had a faint red haematite stain.   In fact, all the plant and soil samples that I have seen had been stained by the glaze.  As I have already explained in this report, during the first stage of the rusting process, cations (atoms of iron with two electrons removed) enter water in contact with the iron.   These migrate through the solution and eventually give rise to a deposit of reddish brown ferric hydroxide.  It is this deposit that causes the reddish staining of the plant fibre, not haematite.  Also, as accretion on the plant's epidermal layer continues, it will form an impression of that surface.  For as long as there is moisture between the epidermal layer and the particles of iron covering it, this corrosion product will continue to thicken and eventually be incorporated into the rust developing around the particles to form an integral layer.   When, eventually, the specimens are dried and the deposit examined, the underside of the H-glaze is found to be an inverse replica of the plant's epidermal layer.   In other words, the plant contacting surface of the H-glaze is nothing more than corrosion product formed over days and not some magnetic glaze formed in seconds.

An example of the ability of the hydroxide to replicate a surface over which iron powder is spread can be seen on the right.   The two images are of the same small flake of corroded iron powder that had formed on a smooth surface.   The top image shows the rough top surface of the flake.   The lower image shows its smooth under surface.  As the powder corroded, the particles became bonded together to form an integral layer and the gaps between the particles on the under-surface were filled with reddish-brown ferric hydroxide to form a continuous smooth surface.   The darker patches are the particles of iron visible through the hydroxide layer.

(3.3)  There is another point that confirms this conclusion.  We know that only iron and its oxides were present in the H-glaze.   Both the JSE report and my analysis confirm this.  So only iron or its oxides had the opportunity to produce the staining that Burke/Levengood report.  However, only iron is capable of producing staining because only iron releases the cations into solution.   In oxide form, iron does not release significant cations into solution and therefore could not have stained the plant tissue (see section 5.2).   Therefore, the material that originally landed on the plants was iron - not magnetite or haematite as Mr Burke claims. 

(3.4)  The "mud-cracks" that Mr Burke refers to are certainly not caused by rapid cooling when the glaze was formed.   There are any number of more credible alternatives that give the same effect.  For example, the hydroxide is extremely brittle and would crack very easily, either when being removed or when the plant material dried out.   Alternatively, it could well be that the surface would crack naturally as the hydroxide converts slowly to ferric oxide. Ferric hydroxide undergoes substantial shrinkage if it is heated to form ferric oxide - a fact that leads us to the most credible explanation for the mud cracks.  Most people who ask for scanning electron microscope (SEM) pictures to be taken tend to assume that any micrograph produced must be a true image of the specimen.  Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true because specimen preparation can introduce artefacts - man made features that were not on the original specimen.  After several years of driving one of these machines, I am only too well aware of this problem.  Preparing a specimen for the SEM involves placing it in a vacuum and evaporating (or sputtering) a very thin conducting layer onto its surface - usually carbon.  The specimen is then transferred to the SEM and evacuated again.   As the electron beam scans the specimen, some heat is generated.   This is not a problem if the specimen is robust or can conduct the heat away.  Unfortunately, the surface layers of the ferric hydroxide would soon convert to ferric oxide under these conditions causing the surface to shrink and crack.

(3.5)  There is another factor to be considered.   If the cracks had been formed when the H-glaze was deposited, there would have been plenty of time for them to be filled with corrosion product.  It is clear from the degree of corrosion and staining that moisture would have permeated into those cracks.   So, there is no reason to suppose that ferric hydroxide would not have formed in those crevices just as it had done everywhere else.   That being the case, the "mud-cracks" should have filled with corrosion product.  The fact that they show no signs of having been filled is a clear indication that the "mud-cracks" were formed after the samples were removed from the field and dried out.

(3.6)  Without doubt, the most credible explanation for the "mud-cracks" is not that they were caused by temporary tension stresses in solidifying iron but were simply artefacts created during the preparation and subsequent examination in a scanning electron microscope.

(4)  Failure to carefully read the 1995 paper:   Mr Burke is quite correct in saying that spherules are described throughout their JSE paper.   However, when the authors describe the H-glaze, they refer only to black spherules of magnetite or haematite.   They do not state that they found metallic (uncorroded) iron spherules of the type I described in the second (Nick Riley) sample nor the type I was referring to in the Observations and Conclusion section of this report.   In fact, Mr Burke states (twice) in the response that, "None of the material provided to W.C. Levengood  contained shiny metallic spheres."   That being the case, I fail to see how Levengood and Burke could have reported on them.

(5)  Magnetite vs. Haematite:   Contrary to what is stated in the response, magnetite does not rust into haematite.   In fact, magnetite is very stable - after all, it has been lying around in outcrops on the surface of the earth for millions of years.   Where do the authors of the response think that magnetite comes from?

(5.1)  Also, as I have stated, none of the samples of H-glaze that I examined showed any signs of having been permanently magnetized, nor could they be permanently magnetized by exposing them to a strong magnetic field.   In view of the fact that only naturally occurring magnetite has the crystal structure necessary to become permanently magnetized whereas rust does not, it would seem to be self evident that the H-glaze contained rust and not magnetite.

(5.2)  The fact that all the H-glaze samples showed signs of staining is also an indication that it was formed from elemental iron.   Here is a simple demonstration.   I took a filter paper and placed on it a small pile of powdered mineral magnetite (M) and a small heap of laboratory grade ferric oxide (H for haematite).    Finally, at the top, I placed a small amount of Rob Irving's reduced iron (Fe).   I then moistened the filter paper and let it stand for three days.  At the end of this period, I removed the loose powders and examined the filter paper.
As can be seen, staining only occurred under the iron powder.   That was because, as I have already explained, only iron releases cations into solution which then convert to reddish brown ferric hydroxide.    The iron in the oxides is molecularly bonded with the oxygen and unable to escape into solution.   Now, all of the samples of the H-glaze that I examined were stained to some degree.   Also, Burke and Levengood reported in their JSE paper that the plant surface under the glaze was stained.  But, as the above test proves, ferric oxide does not stain (especially not red) - nor does magnetite.   Only iron stains.   Therefore, elemental iron must have been present in the original deposit.

Moreover, if the H-glaze had been formed from meteoric dust, it would certainly not have contained elemental iron.   For example, in their JSE paper, the authors stated that X-ray powder spectroscopy of such iron spherules had shown lines of only magnetite, while others have shown both magnetite and hematite.   This is to be expected.  Pure iron does not occur naturally.  It is always found in combination with other elements - in this case, oxygen.  So, the pure elemental iron that produced the H-glaze staining could not have occurred naturally.   It must have been put there by some other means.

(6) Meteoric Origin:   In this section of the response, it is claimed that, "Contrary to Mr. Ashby’s assertion, .... tiny black spheres of magnetite are one of the most common by-products of the breakdown of meteors in our atmosphere due to heating by air friction."   In fact, what I pointed out was that the iron could not have come from the Perseid meteor shower because cometary tails are composed largely of dust, ice and gas.   I drew attention to this because, in the original JSE report, the authors stated that the presence of only iron and oxygen suggested a possible meteoric origin - a conclusion supported by the coincidence of the Perseid meteor shower.    In section 9 of the response, however, the authors now claim that a certain percentage of iron-bearing meteorites, which were not of cometary origin, just happen to arrive at the same time.    Unfortunately, even with this redefinition of the source of the iron, there are still problems in accounting for the black spherules of magnetite.

(6.1)  As I stated in the first report, sporadic meteors enter the atmosphere at random.   "Most are vaporized but some are large enough to reach the ground. These are called meteorites. Broadly, there are three types: stony, stony-iron and iron. Stony meteorites are the most abundant, constituting over 90% of all meteorite falls."   There are a number of informative web pages where readers can verify this for themselves.   I would suggest www.solarviews.com/eng/meteor.htm where stony meteorites are estimated at 92.8% and iron meteorites at just 5.7%.

(6.2)  Analysis of the H-glaze produced no evidence that it contained any of the additional elements, such as nickel, that are commonly found in iron meteorites.   Burke and Levengood explained this deficiency with a 1957 (1961 in the JSE report) reference by Buddhue which, incidentally, even the British Library cannot locate.     Essentially, their proposition was that the fusion crust, which forms as a very thin solidified glassy coating on the leading edge of meteorites, was instrumental in preventing these signature elements from being included in the ablated material.   In the response, they state, "... such meteors heat to form a fusion crust on the outside composed primarily of magnetite, with the nickel and other elements being left behind".   These elements are chemically bonded into compounds and alloys within the meteor. When the surface of the meteor starts to melt, all these elements are bound to be included within the melt and ablated away with the rest of the material.  After all, what would remain when most of the meteor has been atomized? Are we to assume that we are left with a lump of pure nickel?

(6.3)  The existence of steady state metal abundances (as they are called) in the mesosphere and upper stratosphere is clear evidence that the ablation process does remove all material from incoming meteoroids.   Carbon, Magnesium, Aluminium, Silicon, Sulphur, Potassium, Sodium, Calcium, Titanium, Chromium, Manganese, Iron and Nickel metal vapours have all been detected by laser and Lidar (Light Detecting and Ranging) observations.    In fact, the emission lines from the sodium layer are used to correct images in astronomical telescopes that would normally be distorted by fluctuations in the upper atmosphere.  These atomized elements, particularly sodium and iron, spend about two weeks at about 80 kilometres during which time they react with water, oxygen and carbon dioxide to make compounds that then join up or 'polymerize' to form 'smoke' particles of a few nanometres that drift in the high speed tidal air currents of the upper atmosphere without sedimenting (falling to earth).   There is now good evidence that these particles eventually descend over the winter pole in what is known as the polar vortex.   Some are thought to contribute to the formation of noctilucent and polar stratospheric clouds.   As these nanometre size smoke particles would be about ten thousand times smaller than the beads found in the H-glaze, it is most unlikely that they could be responsible for that deposit.  Readers can find more information on the net - as a start, I would suggest:
 http://www.misu.su.se/~gumbel/magic.html .

(6.4)  Also, there are established industrial processes that rely on an ablation process that mimics meteoric conditions.    Flame spraying of metals is one such.   In this process, a wire of the metal to be sprayed is fed coaxially into a powerful oxy-acetylene flame.   As the wire melts, small droplets of metal are carried forward in the flame onto the workpiece.   This process has been used for pure metals and alloys for nearly one hundred years without any suggestion that the composition of the sprayed metal is any different from that of the wire.

(6.5)  The fusion crust to which Burke and Levengood refer is, in fact, the thin solidified remains of the last melt to have cooled when the meteorite slowed to the point when ablation stopped.  An excellent example can be seen at:
 http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/meteorwrongs/fusioncrust.htm.
When meteorites have lain undiscovered for a long time, weathering can cause secondary elements within the material to leach out of the surface layer.   This can give the false impression that the fusion crust formed without them, "with the nickel and other elements being left behind", as can be seen in some books on the subject from the late 1950s.

(6.6)  As I have shown in the above staining demonstration, the red stain associated with the H-glaze was produced by ferric hydroxide.   This hydroxide will convert to ferric oxide (haematite) but only very slowly.    There was certainly not enough time for any significant conversion to take place in the H-glaze.    The process can be accelerated by heating, which results in black ferric oxide.   Burke and Levengood claim that magnetite, ablated from meteors, rusts into red haematite.  As I have stated, magnetite is a stable compound.   It does not rust.   Also, although finely reduced red haematite occurs as a mineral, if it is strongly heated, it turns black.

(6.7)  There is one other characteristic of magnetite that should be noted.    It does not melt and cannot therefore form into beads.    At 1538°C, magnetite decomposes into black haematite which does melt at 1565°C  (Kaye and Laby,  Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants).   In cases where meteoric dust has been found to contain "magnetite", it was most probably created either from ablation at lower temperatures or by oxidation of elemental iron.  In cases where analysis has found "haematite", it could well have formed by the high temperature decomposition of magnetite.  Either way, neither of these oxides could have produced the red staining found under the H-glaze.

(7)  Misunderstanding of Plasma:   In this section, Mr Burke states that I seem to be, "unaware that excitation to the point of glowing is not required to identify a plasma".

(7.1)    The term plasma is from the Greek, "to shape" or "to mould", and was first coined by Irving Langmuir in 1928 (1) to describe the glowing discharge that moulded itself to the shape of its container.   A neutral atom contains an equal number of negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons.   Any process that removes electrons from a neutral atom results in it being ionized.   Heat, electrical discharge, X-rays, cosmic rays and atomic radiation (from radio active elements - radionuclides) are all capable of creating ionization. Ionized atoms - or ions - readily recombine with electrons to become neutral again.   In a stable plasma, ions are being created at the same rate that other ions are recombining resulting in an approximately constant overall number of ions.   When an electron recombines with an ion, it does so in discrete steps, each one of which is accompanied by the emission of a quantum of energy.  These energy emissions take the form of a spectrum of discrete wavelengths (colours) of light.  In other words, photons of light are always produced during recombination.   Now, the "ionization energy" required to remove an electron from an atom increases with the number of electrons that have already been removed from that same atom (or ion).   It must therefore follow that the photon energy radiated by recombining electrons drops as the atom approaches neutrality.   So, in any weakly ionized gas, recombining electrons will emit low energy, or red, photons.   In other words, atmospheric gasses can emit light - red light - even when the level of ionization is very low and insufficient to create a full plasma.   Interestingly, the "sprites" referred to by Mr Burke in this section are just such an example.   Spectroscopic analysis of sprites has conclusively demonstrated that they are only weakly ionized.   Their red colouration results from neutral nitrogen molecules being excited by colliding electrons, a process known as nitrogen first positive emission.  However, the base of sprites have a bluish colouration as a result of an increased level of ionization.  Called nitrogen first negative emission, it is caused by electrons impacting N2+  nitrogen ions.  So, as light is emitted from a gas even before it becomes strongly ionized, it must be obvious that plasma, which is strongly ionized, must emit light - contrary to what Mr Burke would have you believe.

(7.2)  Also, it is a particular characteristic of plasma that it is ionized sufficiently to easily conduct an electrical current.  In short, it should have a low impedance.  Without the level of ionization reaching the point where current can easily flow through the gas, the 'pinch' effect that is described in the JSE report or the magnetic field postulated by its authors could not exist.  At the level of ionization necessary to allow a current to flow through a gas, there is always a visible glow - after all, how else could a neon light function?

(7.3)   At this stage, it is necessary to repeat one point that I had explained in the first report. Plasma is not a source of energy.   It is a gaseous state that is induced by the release of energy by some other means.   For example, the aurora is caused by the dissipation of energy in cosmic particles, plasma in lightning is created by the discharge of electrical energy and a flame contains plasma that is created by the release of energy when gas burns.  Only by nuclear fusion can plasma release energy but that requires the heat and pressure found in the centre of a stellar object or the special conditions created in the JET project (http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html).  In view of the fact that the authors make repeated reference to the involvement of plasma, it would have been reasonable to expect them to explain what source of energy sustains it, especially in the lower atmosphere.  Unfortunately, no convincing explanation appears in either the JSE paper or the response.

(7.4)  Perhaps it is in an attempt to redress this deficiency that Mr Burke now introduces the subject of sprites that have been observed above thunder clouds.    It was in 1925 that a Scottish physicist, C.T.R. Wilson, first predicted the existence of  brief flashes of light above thunderstorms but  it wasn't until 1989 that the first pictorial evidence was produced by J. Winckler at the University of Minnesota.   Since then, sprites, elves, jets, trolls and glowing discharge tubes have been studied worldwide.   These all occur 50-100km above the earth's surface over active thunder storms.   Sprites appear as cone shaped luminous red diffuse clouds of glowing gas.  Only about 1 in 200 regular lightning discharges produce sprites and these are predominantly from the more energetic positive lightning strikes that take place between the top of thunder clouds and the ground.  Sprites last only about 17 milliseconds and, as I have said, spectroscopic analysis of their red emission has shown that they are only very weakly ionized.   Unfortunately, interesting though this phenomenon may be, there is absolutely no reason to believe that sprites or any of the other attendant emissions are capable of collecting meteoric dust, let alone deliver it in quantity and in a molten state to a field in Wiltshire whilst finding time to create a crop formation.

(7.5)  Mr Burke also claims that, "Mr. Ashby’s statement that contact with a plasma would have to scorch the crop is simply not true."   In fact, what I actually wrote was, "... plasma does not occur in the atmosphere at ground level except in extreme conditions, such as a lightning strike, arc welding or in vigorous combustion.   By whatever means it is induced, it cannot sustain itself without receiving considerable energy from somewhere and inevitably involves temperatures high enough to incinerate the crop.   The moment this energy is removed, the plasma extinguishes."    In other words, the atmospheric pressure at ground level ensures that considerable energy has to be used to create and maintain plasma.   Energy sources that create plasma in the upper atmosphere, like the aurora, are quite incapable of maintaining it at ground level.   Apart from strongly radioactive material, whose emissions can ionize air, the only ways of creating plasma at ground level involve considerable heat.  Mr Burke states that, "The energy levels involved in the H-glaze deposits would be expected to be more in the low-energy range, similar to the aurora, or even less."   Well, as the aurora does not extend below the thermosphere (80km) because the incoming cosmic particles are stopped by the increasing atmospheric pressure, it should be obvious that energy levels far in excess of those that create the aurora would be needed to create plasma at ground level.

(7.6)  Another claim that plasma had "...  captured meteoric dust along the way, which in turn was maintained or heated back to a semi-molten state by the microwaves of sub-vortices which carried it to the ground, with its subsequent crop flattening energies", is a direct contradiction of his earlier claim that very low energies were used.    Each one of the four stages listed here would require considerable energy.  Taking just one example, heating the iron to its melting point (1540°C) would require massive energy simply because the heating process would be so inefficient.  It has to be remembered that, when iron is melted in industrial processes, an enclosed furnace is used to reduce heat loss.   The hotter the process, the greater the heat loss.  Also, the greater the surface area, the greater the energy loss.  Small droplets of iron are going to lose heat much more quickly than one consolidated lump of iron.   The scenario described by Burke and Levengood would place molten droplets of iron swirling around in the atmosphere with nothing to prevent their heat being lost by radiation and cooling by the air through which they are falling.   In the page of this report headed 'Beads', I described a manufacturing process where iron was reduced to small droplets and allowed to fall to the bottom of a chamber.    Despite the high temperature that develops in that chamber, the iron spherules still lose heat so quickly that they solidify almost immediately after they are formed.

(7.7)  Also, any magnetic field created by currents within plasma or any 'pinching' within those currents distributions would not have any effect on meteoric dust.   Magnetically susceptible dust particles can only be drawn together by their mutual magnetic attraction. This requires that they are close enough for their mutual magnetic attraction to have an effect.   In the case of meteoric dust, that would be in the order of a millimetre or so.  There is no mutual attraction between particles distributed across the several kilometres of a meteoric trail.   Also, it should have been noted that the Distribution Test that I described in this report involved dropping iron powder, that exactly matched the H-glaze, in the presence of the earth's magnetic field without being affected by it in any way.  If Mr Burke's claims are correct, the powder should have, at least partially, bunched together instead of spreading apart as can be seen in the picture.

(7.8)  Plasma cannot heat, collect or deliver meteoric dust.   Plasma is created and sustained by the release of energy and collapses the moment that energy is removed.   Substantial energy would have been required to create an atmospheric plasma at ground level, let alone melt iron and create a crop formation.  So, the question remains unanswered, if a plasma ever existed, where did the energy come from that created it?

(8)   Incorrect claim that Plasma has no Ability to flatten Grain:   In this section, it is stated that Mr Burke and Levengood think that plasma is, "... the best candidate for being able to flatten plants in the manner regularly observed in crop formations."   Apart from being disingenuous to ignore the fact that men with planks of wood have repeatedly proven themselves capable of making very complex formations, this statement and the following attempt to describe how a plasma vortex would flatten crops only accounts for circles because vortices are, by definition, circular.   It does not explain how crop can be flattened linearly which is the way a large proportion of crop is flattened.

(8.1)  Moreover, Mr Burke also introduces a new and challenging concept with the statement, "Plasma tends to organize itself into shells of opposite charge."   Apart from the fact that plasma, by definition, is neutral with equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles, Mr Burke contradicts himself in the same section by saying, correctly, that, "... opposite charges attract."   Why should particles of opposite charge separate into shells when those same particles are attracting one another?  

(8.2)  This section also provides us with a speculation on the crop flattening capability of electrostatic force.  It is certainly the case that, of all the tests devised by investigators to validate the authenticity of crop circles, electrostatic measurements are the ones least likely to give reliable results.   Static charge is produced by an accumulation or dearth of electrons on the surface of a near perfect electrical insulator.   As the name suggests, this charge remains in a fixed location only for as long as none of the electrons can 'leak' away through the insulator.   In other words, static charge can only build up on good, clean and dry electrical insulators and once it has dispersed, by whatever means, nothing remains of that charge.   There are very few examples of vegetable matter that have anything approaching the required insulating properties to hold a static charge.   All growing plants are incapable of retaining an electrostatic charge simply because the fluids they contain provide an easy path for a charge to leak down to earth.  For this reason, for electrostatic purposes, all parts of a growing plant are at earth potential. Puzzlingly, W.C Levengood published a paper in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry which described monitoring the electrochemical activity within mature plants(2).  Also, BLT were claiming that changes in the electrical conductivity of bracts could not be reproduced in man-made formations.   It is hard to understand how someone who has done such work could ever believe that mature plants could retain a static charge while, at the same time, have electrical conductivity or electrochemical activity that would certainly short that same static charge to earth.  Even if the plants were dead, their tissue would absorb sufficient moisture from the air to negate their insulating properties and when we remember that crops can be rained on and become covered in early morning dew, it should be apparent that no electrostatic charge could ever become established on a cereal crop.

(8.3)  In the response, Mr Burke describes some tests that he conducted using an electrostatic meter in the 1993 "Wheelchair" formation in which he states that he got results consistent with his hypothesis.   Perhaps he is unaware that others have conducted identical tests and got results inconsistent with his hypothesis.    In fact, so many people have conducted such tests that, if they were ever likely to produce consistent or meaningful results, they should have done so by now.   Regrettably, the wide variations in readings that investigators have obtained were almost certainly due to a failure to observe the strict procedures necessary when monitoring something as ephemeral as static charge.  Those of us in the electronics industry are well acquainted with the problem of dealing with the build-up of electrostatic voltage.  Modern micro-circuitry is very vulnerable to the electrostatic charge that can build up on all of us and which, for the most part, we are completely unaware of.  Technicians working on such circuitry - for example, computers - should wear a wrist band that electrically connects then to earth in order to avoid discharging themselves through the circuit they are working on.  Some groups have used instruments intended for use in the electronics workplace.   Such instruments have to be used with care.    Simply holding the instrument and pointing it at the crop takes no account of the static charge that can build up on the operator himself or on his clothing; nor does it make allowance for wind speed, humidity or the disturbance that the operator himself makes in the natural atmospheric static gradient.    Unfortunately, those trials that I have observed were not conducted with the attention to procedure that would have produced reliable results and nothing that Mr Burke has written in the response leads me to suppose that he would have done any better.

(8.4) Also, it is worth noting that the wheelchair formation was a very poor example to choose.   As I have said, the vortex theory can only account for circles but at least half of the wheelchair formation was of linear construction.  Also, the wheelchair design would suggest that an intelligence was behind its construction.   However, nothing in the JSE report or the response accounts for the involvement of an intelligence.

(8.5)  Mr Burke also gives us his interpretation of the crop flattening process which involves 'rustling' the wheat with spinning positively charged shells and then getting "an extremely good grip on the wheat" with a negatively charged core of plasma.  Apart from the fact that electrostatic attraction is very weak and can't possibly get an extremely good grip on anything, the picture that Mr Burke paints of a force capable of levelling crop is a direct contradiction of his earlier statement in section 7 that, "The energy levels involved in the H-glaze deposits would be expected to be more in the low-energy range".   Those who have created crop formations can certainly testify that it involves a considerable amount of hard work.   The suggestion that something as weak and ephemeral as electrostatic attraction could ever level a cereal crop is, frankly, absurd.

(8.6)   There is another contradiction that is so obvious that I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned before.   I have said that a static charge cannot be established on anything that is damp.   Even if the plant tissue could support a static charge, it would have to be desiccated.  Any dampness in the plant tissue would allow the charge to leak down to earth.  Yet, in the JSR paper, the authors tell us that, "The high water content of the plant cells would insure the rapid formation of an insulating, steam layer between the plant tissue and the glaze film."   So, if the plants were damp, no static charge could become established on them.  On the other hand, Levengood and Burke are telling us that the reason the plants were not incinerated was because they had a high water content.

(8.7)  In my original posting, I stated the following:  "... such ionic movement has negligible mechanical impetus and is quite incapable of flattening one single stem of corn, let alone levelling the swaths of crop attributed to it.     Whatever caused the swirls of crop found at the location of the H-glaze, it was not a plasma vortex."   Nothing that the authors state in their JSE paper or in their response changes this and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

(9)  Association with the Perseid Meteor Shower:  In this section, Mr Burke states that the Perseid meteor shower is important for crop formation because of the high degree of ionization it produces.

(9.1)   He states, "Meteor trails are highly ionized and persistent".   Also, in the JSE paper, the authors state that meteor trails are highly ionized and that they can be detected by radar and enhance radio communications.   By radio communications, the authors are probably referring to a phenomenon known as 'meteor trail propagation' or alternatively  'meteor trail scatter'.   The problem here is that, far from demonstrating that meteor trail ionization is persistent, as Mr Burke claims, this phenomenon actually provides absolute proof that the ionization in a meteor trail is very short lived, lasting for only a few seconds at the most.

(9.2) Due to the curvature of the earth, a signal leaving a transmitter (T) may not be detected at the receiver (R). On occasions when the signal cannot be received by refraction (bending of the signal path due to changes in air temperature and humidity with height) or ionospheric propagation (diurnal reflections of the signal from ionized ionospheric layers), the signal may simply escapes into space.  However, the ionization in a meteor trail can also reflect a radio signal to the remote receiver.  These signals are heard briefly for a second or two and then fade away.  They are, in fact, of little practical value due to their brevity and unpredictability.  However, they do provide us with proof that the ionization in a meteor trail is short lived because reflection can only occur for as long as the ionization persists.   The fact that the received signal is short lived demonstrates conclusively that the ionization is short lived.

(9.3) Radar observation of meteor trails also confirm this conclusion.  The Naval Space Surveillance Radar at Kickapoo, Texas (http://science.nasa.gov/audio/meteor/navspasur.m3u) and the 67 MHz meteor radar at Roswell, New Mexico were both providing live audio on the web during the last Perseid meteor shower.   Each meteor produced a short 'ping' lasting only for as long as the ionization persisted.   Also, scientists from Bath University, in a joint project with the British Antarctic Survey, are currently using the rapid decay of radar signals from meteor trails to infer the temperatures in the upper atmosphere.

(9.4) It has to be remembered that the only energy available to create the ionized trail is the momentum of the meteor as it enters the atmosphere in excess of 100,000 miles per hour. Once the meteor has passed, there is no source of energy to sustain the ionization that it created.  All the energy from the momentum is soon dissipated as light and heat.  The fragmented and widely dispersed remains of the meteor then rapidly cool to the frigid temperatures of the lower thermosphere (-90°C).

(9.5)  Mr Burke also reminds us of the effect called 'curl-over' that occurs at the ends of aircraft wing-tips and states, "it is a classic result of a high velocity projectile in air".  In fact, it is a unique feature of aircraft wing design and bears no relationship to the random turbulence produced by projectiles.  Also, the implication in Mr. Burke's reference is that there are sufficient ionized air molecules to overcome the inertia of neutral (un-ionized) air molecules.   In fact, neutral air molecules far exceeds the ionized molecules.    In sprites, for example, the upper limit of nitrogen ions at an altitude of 70 km has been estimated at 100,000 per cubic centimetre.   That corresponds to fewer than one ion for every 10 billion neutral nitrogen molecules.     That means that the ions would have negligible influence on the body of un-ionized air and their movement would be subject only to normal tidal movements of that air.  They certainly could not organize themselves into a plasma vortex or anything else, for that matter.

(9.6)  Mr. Burke's argument then jumps to spiral plasma as he states that, "Spiraling plasmas can create their own magnetic fields, which can then draw in any iron particles in the surrounding air".   In fact, as I have stated, the plasma in a meteor trail is randomly turbulent due to the turbulence of the air and dissipates within seconds.   If there were a magnetic field, it would fade away with the ionization.   More to the point, however, is that it is highly questionable whether any magnetic field would exist in the first place.   It has to be remembered that plasma is composed of both positive and negative particles in approximately equal numbers.  Any movement of the plasma resulting from turbulence would carry equal numbers of oppositely charged particles in the same direction resulting in the overall cancellation of their respective magnetic fields.     A magnetic field can only be generated by applying a potential gradient which causes the movement of oppositely charged particles in opposite directions.    As there is no potential gradient and the movement of the particles is dictated solely by the turbulent air flow which carries all particles in the same direction, irrespective of their charge, there cannot be any significant magnetic field.

(9.7)   Also, to repeat an important detail, even if we accept that there was an attendant magnetic field, iron particles can only be drawn towards each other by their mutual magnetic attraction.  They have to be within millimeters of each other to coalesce.   As the ablated remains of meteors are distributed across kilometers and blown about by the high speed tidal air currents at that altitude, there is not the slightest possibility of particles being drawn in as Mr. Burke describes.

(10) Differential Heating:   In this section, Mr Burke tells us that, "metal would have been heated," by the, "microwave generating plasma vortex", and that the,"electrons in the plasma, swirling around the geomagnetic field lines, would generate microwaves".      I have already covered some of the errors in this section but I'll go through each point for the sake of coherence.

(10.1)  Mr Burke seems to be under the impression that microwaves would heat the iron powder in the same way that a domestic microwave oven heats water.   In fact, the two processes are quite different.  Metals are heated electrically by 'resistive' heating.   For example, a 1000 Watt element in an electric fire may have 200 Volts across it.   The heat generated in it would be determined by the product of the voltage across it and the 5 Amp current through the element which is limited by the resistance of the element.   In other words, the energy dissipated across the resistance of the element is 200 x 5 = 1000 Watts.  Now, current can be induced to flow in a metal in various ways, one being to place it in an electro-magnetic (or RF - radio frequency) field such as a microwave.   However, as I stated in my original report, "the resistance of the H-glaze was too high for the required currents to be induced into it." and, "it is only possible to induce sufficient current into a ‘circuit’ if it is larger than the wavelength of the RF energy".  In other words, because the beads in the H-glaze were much smaller than microwave wavelengths, they would not have had sufficient current induced into them to cause them to heat and melt.  Mr Burke tells us that, "the reason it is not safe to place metal in a microwave oven is because metal often interacts powerfully with microwaves."  Current is always induced into metal objects if they are larger than the microwave wavelength and this accounts for the small firework display when unsuitable containers are used during cooking.  However, these containers are much larger than the 80 micron beads found in the H-glaze.

(10.2)   The domestic microwave oven employs a process called dielectric heating which is used to dissipate power in a non-conducting medium through dielectric hysteresis.   This does not apply to metals because they are conductors.   Pure water, though, has high resistively.   It would not be possible, or practical, to heat it by trying to induce currents into it.    Instead, microwave ovens exploit the fact that water molecules are bipolar (they are more positively charged on one side of the molecule than the other) and therefore there is a particular microwave frequency at which water molecules resonate creating a high loss factor.   In other words, there is a particular frequency at which water stops behaving like an insulator and starts absorbing energy.   That frequency is 2.450 Giga Hertz and that's the frequency generated by the magnetrons installed in domestic microwave ovens.  In fact, Raytheon, who patented the microwave oven, called it a 'High Frequency Dielectric Heating Apparatus'.    The name didn't catch on.

(10.3)  So, as can be seen, the ferrous beads in the H-glaze could not have been heated either by resistive or dielectric heating.  In the first case, they were too small and, in the second, the beads were not made of a suitable dielectric material.

(10.4)  Mr Burke seems to be under the impression that the earth's magnetic field is sufficiently strong to induce electron flow to generate microwaves.   The extraordinary aspect of this claim is that he ignores the fact that, throughout the history of the thermionic valve and right up to the present day, there have been billions of devices built and used that have employed the flow of electrons and all of them operate in the geomagnetic field without ever generating microwaves.  The only thermionic devices that generate microwaves, because they have been specifically designed for that purpose, employ their own very powerful magnets.  Perhaps we should look at the one that Mr. burke attempted to describe when he wrote, "This is the same way a microwave oven works, swirling electrons around the magnet in the center of the oven’s interior roof".

(10.5) Strictly speaking, the proper name for the device in our microwave ovens is 'Cavity Magnetron'.  The original magnetron was a simple device with a metal tube and coaxial filament.  The cavity magnetron has a block of metal, usually copper, with a central hole and a coaxial cathode. Surrounding the central hole are an even number of parallel holes each with a slot connecting it to the central hole.   These are the cavities.  A powerful magnetic field, usually about 2000 times stronger than the earth's magnet field, is aligned coaxially.
A high voltage, usually about 1800 Volts, is set up between the cathode and the block (Anode).   As electrons leave the cathode, they are turned by the magnetic field and establish a revolving space-charge in the gap between the block and the cathode.  Small perturbations in the potentials across the entrances to the cavities develop which have an effect on the shape of the revolving space charge.  Very quickly, there develops an interaction between the two.  Powerful oscillating currents develop in the cavities that create alternating potentials across the entrances to the cavities. These in turn modify the shape of the space-charge so that it resembles the spokes of a wheel.  As these revolving arms of the space-charge pass the entrances to the cavities, they in turn drive the oscillating currents in the cavities.   It is basically an unstable system that cannot help but oscillate.    Mr Burke may feel that using the domestic microwave oven as an example was unfortunate as I happen to be well acquainted with my local Birmingham University where, in 1940, they invented the Cavity Magnetron.

(10.6)  The important point to note is that the microwave oscillation is generated in the cavities and the frequency of the oscillation is determined exclusively by the size of the cavities.   The microwaves are not generated by the revolving electrons in the space-charge. The electrons merely induce microwave oscillation in the cavities.    Also, there is only one frequency of oscillation.   This is quite different from the situation that exists on distant stellar objects where an interaction between a solar flux and magnetic fields, far in excess of our geomagnetic field, produce a broad spectrum of radio frequency emissions.   Not only do these emissions result from conditions that do not exist on earth but they also cover a wide radio frequency (RF) spectrum.

(10.7) Another inevitable implication of the Burke/Levengood hypothesis, which is ignored by its authors, is that of radio interference.   Domestic microwave ovens produce a lot of interference but, because the cavity magnetron produces microwave energy at one specific frequency, it does not cause a significant problem.    In nature, however, there are no cavities to limit the RF emissions to one frequency and so a very wide spectrum of frequencies is generated.    There is nothing in the Burke/Levengood hypothesis to suggest that these microwave frequencies are going to be conveniently located at some point in the RF spectrum where they won't interfere with civilian aviation or military radar or any of the other users of the congested radio frequency spectrum.   In fact, it is inconceivable that any such gap could be found.   Authorization to occupy space within the RF spectrum is valuable and any interference that prevents legitimate use of allocated bandwidth is quickly dealt with.  There is no doubt that, if some natural phenomenon did exist that generated microwave energy as part of a process that heated iron to melting point and keep it molten for the entire period of its decent, it would undoubtedly produce so much wide-band interference that it could not possibly go undetected.   Yet, despite comprehensive studies and experience in the use of the radio frequency spectrum, no such phenomenon has ever been detected.

(11)  Domes:   In this section, Mr Burke points out that domes were found on the chalk substrate and not the on the plants.  He states that this discrepancy is incompatible with my assertion in this report that the domes formed from corrosion product.

(11.1)  In fact, I have observed domes forming on most surfaces that could support a small droplet of water as I fully described in this report.   All that was required was for the bead of water to settle in electrical contact with iron and not soak into the surface.   However, I have observed that domes form more readily if the water is also in contact with the chalk substrate.   As I stated in this report, this could well be due to the fact that ferrous hydroxide precipitates more readily from alkaline solutions and so the shell of hydroxide would form more quickly if the bead of water was in contact with chalk rather than plant material.

(11.2)  The authors of the JSE paper prefer to account for this 'discrepancy' by noting that limestone is used as a high temperature flux in the smelting of iron.   This is partially true but the main  reason for adding limestone is to extract mineral silicates from the ore:
                                              CaCO3 + SiO2 → CaSiO3 + CO2
The ore is mixed with limestone and coke (about 1 ton of limestone and 2 tons of coke to 5 tons of ore) before being fed into the top of the blast furnace.    This process takes place at temperatures in excess of 1200°C.    Now, Burke and Levengood also claim that, when the oxide mixture struck the soil, there would have been a brief fluxing interaction with the limestone substrate and that such interaction would account for the domed tubes.   In other words, we are being asked to accept that, when the molten iron hit the ground, it was capable of heating cold, wet limestone to 1200°C but, at the same time, when it hit the plants, it didn't even scorch them.

(11.3)  Mr. Burke goes on to states that, "None of the referee scientists of our paper had any disagreement with this statement".   I understand that the JSE refuses to disclose the names of their referees who have requested anonymity.   It's situations like this that confirm my own instinctive opposition to secrecy.   I would really like to know why the referee(s) think(s) that this claim is credible.

(12)  Ferrous Deposit in Crack:   In this section, Mr Burke reminds us that, in my first report, I showed a cross section of a lump of chalk revealing that, "ferrous glaze even infiltrated into cracks in the substrate".    My first and incorrect assumption was that hoaxers were unlikely to use material so fine that it could penetrate those microscopic cracks.   In the event, when I examined the sample of reduced iron powder supplied by Rob Irving, I found that it contained particles quite small enough to penetrate the narrowest crevice.

(13)  Effect on Seed Growth:   I recognised from the start that it was not likely that I could do any meaningful tests on the viability of seeds that were eight years old.  Even if I believed that such tests could ever significantly influence the overall conclusions, there was no possibility of getting control samples.  None the less, Mr Burke seeks to discredit my observations by stating that I had not addressed their claim that, "...the rate and uniformity of the growth of seeds taken from the formation was better than that from seeds taken well outside the formation in the same field. These differences were statistically significant at the 95% level.  This means that the odds are 20 to 1 against this being a random, chance effect."   In fact, the original JSE report made no mention of statistically significant results at 95%, or at any other level.   We are not told how this figure was arrived at nor any details of what, if any, statistical analysis was performed.    In fact, it would not have been possible to do a credible comparative analysis because the 1993 formation at Cherhill had been harvested by the time samples were taken.

(14)  Leaf-Grain Impression on the H-glaze:   As I have already explained in section 3.2 of this addendum, the impression of the wheat leaves on the underside of the H-glaze is perfectly explicable as a deposit of ferric hydroxide.   If, as Mr Burke states in the response, the electron micrograph of this feature, " was selected by the journal’s editors for its importance", perhaps the editor should be referred to section 3.2 of this addendum.

(15)  Droplets of Iron Gouged Into the Wheat Stalks:   None of the samples of wheat stalks that I have seen have shown this feature.   Also, the picture in the JSE report was not clear enough to form any conclusions.

(16)  Other Similar Incidents:   In this section, I am taken to task for not addressing the 'fact' that there were two similar incidents.

(16.1)  Firstly, Mr. Burke states that, in Trans-en-Provence, "a glowing ball of light left a residue on the ground remarkably similar to that of the H-glaze".  This case is well documented and, although there are some slight variations between each account, the essential details remain the same.  To start with, there was no glowing ball of light.   The description that Renato Nicolai gave to the Draguignan police and others was of a dull grey (like lead or zinc) craft about 1.7 to 1.8 metres high and 2.5 metres in diameter.  There was no light, smoke or flame.  It left two concentric circles, 2.2 and 2.4 metres in diameter.   Between them were two diametrically opposed sections, about 10cm wide and 80cm long, with black striations that turned out to be one micron thick slivers of iron adhering to the limestone.  Larger (100 micron) black particles were also found but they turned out to be combustion residue.   The preliminary report attributed the circular outline to a soil fracture caused by the combined action of strong mechanical pressure and heat not exceeding 600°C.   The vegetation within the area seemed to have the, "biochemical characteristics of advanced senescence, or old age".   Nothing like the H-glaze deposit was ever found and the only iron present was a microscopic residue that looked as if it had been left behind by something that had been scraped over the limestone surface causing the striations.    For example, the report refers to black striations similar to abrasion traces and also striations indicating that the dirt had been exposed to a rubbing effect that resulted in abrasion.    It is revealing to note that these observations can be found in the Velasco report on the Trans-en-Provence event that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the same journal that published Burke and Levengood's paper which lists the JSE/Velasco report as a reference.  Yet, both the editorial staff at the JSE and those who peer reviewed the Burke/Levengood paper for the JSE seemingly failed to notice all of these discrepancies.
See for yourself at: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/velasco/toc.html

(16.2)  The response goes on to state, "In another case (in Minnesota several years after the 1993 Cherhill incident--the details of which would have been made available to Mr. Ashby if he had made any inquiries) another find strikingly similar to the original H-glaze was made."   As it happens, I do have a BLT Lab Report written by W.C. Levengood and John Burke on the 1994 Blaine, Minnesota crop formation.   I assume this is the one to which Mr. Burke is referring.   However, having read it again,  I'm at a loss to see any similarity with the H-glaze incident.  Firstly, the crop was full grown maize (Zea Mays) - not wheat.   The report states that a plethora of magnetic particles had been found in and around the formation suggesting that the field had a naturally high content of ferrous particles.   This is totally different from the Cherhill field that yielded virtually nothing when I did a similar sweep.  The small ferrous particles shown in the report were not spherical and therefore had not solidified from the liquid phase.   Also, they were obtained in 1995, the year following, when there was no crop formation and after the field had been ploughed.   There was no evidence that any of the crop or the ground had received any form of ferrous coating in the way that the H-glaze samples had been coated.   Finally, a peculiarity unique to the Blaine formation was the presence of 'white granules' and 'amber crystals'.   All in all, I fail to see any similarity whatsoever between the Blaine, Minnesota finds and the H-glaze .

(16.3)  This section of the response concludes with the statement, "Hoaxers never claimed to have been involved in these other cases."   This is a curious argument.  Are we to assume that a formation must be genuine if no hoaxer owns up to it?

(17)  Self-Contradiction:   Apparently, my most glaring self-contradiction in this revised report on the H-glaze is that, as Mr. Burke puts it, "... the method of manufacturing of the iron fillings material (which contains these shiny metallic spheres also) now supplied to him by Irving is the one most commonly in commercial use today".

(17.1)    The method of manufacture is indeed in common use, but, more to the point, the variety of powders that can be produced is virtually limitless.   A vast range of alloys can be reduced in the way I described and the range of particle sizes can be varied by adjusting the air flow, melt flow and filtration methods.   In fact, contrary to Mr. Burke's assertion that, "... any iron filings provided by Mr. Irving would be likely to contain such spheres", it is highly improbable that any reduced metal powder would so exactly match the material used to create the H-glaze.  Also, I thought that I had made it abundantly clear by now that iron filings do not contain spherules.

(17.2)   Mr. Burke states that there is another contradiction in the Distribution Test in this report saying that, "in an experiment he conducted using a dry powder, thrown onto a dry surface", I had failed to take into account that, "... there was a “fine drizzle” on the night Mr. Irving purportedly made the formation".

(17.3)   Had Mr. Burke carefully read my report, he would have seen that, "I took seven damp chalk pebbles and arranged them in a circle".  In fact, I was very careful to duplicate the weather conditions in all of the tests that I conducted.    By chance, when I did the distribution test, it was drizzling and, when I took the photograph,  I had to take the sample tray into the green-house to avoid getting the camera wet.    Rob Irving has always said that it had started to drizzle during the construction of the formation.   A bag of powder in his pocket would have remained dry assuming, of course, he was not soaked to the skin.   When he removed the bag, it would not have taken long for the paper to become sodden but there would have been time enough for powder to be spread onto the few swirls.   Finally, as I said in the conclusion to this report, the presence of the 'Splotch', that Peter Sørensen described, fully corresponds with and even supports Irving's account of events.   He would not have disposed of the remainder of the powder in that way if it had not become impossible to distribute in the way he had intended.

(18)  Acceptance at Face Value of Mr. Irving's Statements:    In this section, we are told that Irving's account cannot be believed because he is a "self-proclaimed hoaxer" and someone who tries to "muddy the waters for sincere researchers".  

(18.1)  My main reason for investigating the H-glaze was that, having read the JSE paper by Levengood and Burke, I didn't believe their explanation for the deposit.   Rob Irving's account was no more credible because he was claiming that he had used iron filings.  I am only now able to say with certainty that Irving's account is true because he supplied me with a sample of his iron powder.    However, even if Irving's sample had turned out to be totally incompatible with the H-glaze, that would not have made the BLT account any more credible.

(18.2)  I do not believe that it is justifiable for scientists to ignore Irving's claims simply because they disapproved of his nocturnal activities.   If a scientist truly lives up to the tenets of his profession, he will not allow personal feelings to interfere with his pursuit of the truth - nor will he wilt before the embarrassment of having to admit that he was wrong.

(18.3)  In the conclusion to the response, Mr John Burke and W.C. Levengood wrote, "We remain committed to the pursuit of knowledge wherever and with whomever we find it."   A fine mission statement.   However, let us not lose sight of the fact that Rob Irving has always been prepared to supply samples of his iron powder for testing.   In 1994, he had sent a sample to Montague Keen on the understanding that he (Keen) would try to get BLT to agree to independent testing of the material.   In the same year, Keen wrote to Paul Fuller confirming that he had written to both Levengood and Burke asking them to submit the iron evidence to independent laboratory testing.  In 1995, Irving wrote an open letter to Levengood offering to cooperate with an independent analysis of the powder in his possession.   All these offers were ignored by BLT.
                                                Read Irving's Open Letter Here
 Montague Keen had also published his concerns and again offered to coordinate an independent examination of the evidence.
                       Read Montague Keen's Letter and the BLT Response Here
 BLT's response made clear  their understandable concerns that the tests may not be conducted scientifically but they could at least have asked for some of Irving's iron powder to do their own tests - as I did.   Failing to do so suggests that, having delivered their verdict on the 1993 Cherhill formation and the deposit, they were not prepared to reconsider the matter despite their declared mission statement.

(18.4)  It is curious that the plasma vortex hypothesis, which was largely discredited and abandoned by its creator in the early 90s, should still find favour with BLT.   Likewise, it is hard to understand the fascination with meteoric dust as a litmus test for the authenticity of crop circles.  If the scientific community, or anyone with reasonable acuity, is to be persuaded that these demonstrably flawed and speculative theories can, in any way, explain the appearance of crop circles or ferrous deposits, then it will take a more credible argument than that proffered by W.C. Levengood and John A. Burke.

Other Matters:     Throughout the response, the authors make repeated reference to the fact that their 1995 report in the JSE had been peer reviewed.  Indeed, in the introduction to the response, the authors explain the process of peer reviewing to make sure that the readers have not missed the point.

Now, I have been fortunate to have had access to comprehensive technical library services throughout my working life.  Significantly though, I cannot recall ever having seen the Journal of Scientific Exploration among the wide ranging titles to be found on the magazine shelves. Perhaps the reason for this omission can be found in the index list of articles published in that journal.  That list is available on the net and can be seen at:
 http://www.austheos.org.au/indices/JSCEXP.HTM

The following are a few of the titles in that list:

A Case of Severe Birth Defects Possibly Due to Cursing -- Ian Stevenson
What I See When I Close My Eyes -- Russel Targ
Case alleging ability to materialize objects -- Swami Gyatri Swami
Six Modern Apparitional Experiences -- Ian Stevenson
Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles (1) Historical Evidence  --  Stephen M Phillips
Cases of the Reincarnation Type: An Evaluation of Some Indirect Evidence with Examples of "Silent" Cases -- Jurgen Keil
Wishing for Good Weather: A Natural Experiment in Group Consciousness -- Roger D Nelson

 

It would not surprise me if all of the above authors could claim legitimacy by peer review.

 

References

(1)   I.  Langmuir,  "Oscillations in Ionized Gasses".      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.    Vol. 14,   P. 628,   1928.

(2)  W.C. Levengood,   "Redox-responsive electrodes applied during plant morphogenesis".  Journal Electroanalytical Chemistry.   1988,  Vol. 253,  Part 19,  Pages 461-476.

 

My grateful thanks to Russell.

R. Ashby.
25th October, 2005