Mainstream reporting on the crop circle phenomenon

I was just listening to an afternoon news/talk station in Seattle, hosted by two really good talk-jocks. These guys are always careful not to spread rumors about anything and they do their best to check facts when a story hits the news. Now, that being said, one of the reporters for the station comes on the air with them periodically just to announce some "breaking" story. Sometimes it's a serious, hard-hitting story and sometimes it's a just what is generally called a human interest story.

Today that reporter got about 2 minutes of air time to announce a "breaking" story (probably supposed to be categorized as human interest) about a crop circle that appeared in England. Being a long-tim Croppie, myself, (Man, has it really been 30 years???) I was excited to hear the news. I don't remember the location of this crop circle but that doesn't matter. What matters is how this "breaking" news was announced and how the subject was handled.

The reporter clearly had no clue about the crop circle phenomenon as she seemed genuinely surprised that crop circles are still appearing after all these years. She said, "Apparently these things appear every year." Then the two hosts of the show laughed and made comments like the following:

"Come on. Everyone knows they're made by teenagers and college kids with string and paddles strapped to their feet. I saw it on a TV documentary. They showed people doing it."

The reporter said, "But they're so geometrically perfect and they appear overnight and no one ever sees people making them."

One of the hosts responded, "Nobody sees them being made because they're out there in the middle of nowhere. There's no one around to see them. And they don't appear overnight. It probably takes days or weeks to make them but no one sees them being made because they're way out in the middle of nowhere. Who's gonnna see anybody out there making the circles?"

I'm paraphrasing the conversation but this is nearly word for word what was actually said. The conversation only lasted about 3 or 4 minutes before moving on to another topic. Clearly, they felt there was no point wasting air time on something as silly and unimportant as crop circles.

Now, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by this but it got me to thinking. I was tempted to email them and point them to what many believe is the best evidence that there is, indeed, something "unusual" about the few crop circles that are deemed as "genuine", that is to say, "not made by humans". That evidence is the lab analyses made by biophysicist William Levengood. But I didn't email them. Why? Because here's the problem:

Knowing these two guys (the hosts of the show) they might very well have decided to check it out. Of course they would do what we all do these days, we'd do an internet search. The first thing they would do is google something like "William Levengood, crop circles, research". And what would they find? If they really dug into it (as they are likely to do with a given topic), they'd find page after page of controversy over the claims that Levengood either faked his PhD credentials or falsely claimed to have a PhD in biochemistry. They might discover that Levengood does not, in fact, have a PhD (it's true, he doesn't). And to make matters worse, they might find that Levengood has sometimes stated that he has what is known as a "PhD equivalent", which he doesn't. He has a Master's degree and that's all.

Okay, so he doesn't have a PhD. Should that matter? Not really. What should matter is the findings of his meticulous lab analysis of the affected crop from inside the formations as compared to the unaffected crop from outside the formation. Right? Well, sort of right. Here's what I mean:

To date, as far as I know, aside from Levengood's scientific research, no one else with any scientific credentials has even bothered to replicate Levengood's findings.

Independent replication of analysis, as well as the results of that analysis, is essential to any scientific research. Levengood's research seems to be the only research of its kind that anyone can point to. That's a big problem. It leaves a gaping hole in the establishment of any "credibility" concerning the crop circle phenomenon, especially in the eyes of the mainstream media and the general public.

Given that this is the case, not only will we not learn anything more about the "genuine" crop cirlces (if, indeed, any of them are "genuine") but the mainstream media will continue to mock, or totally ignore the phenomenon, and the general public will be left with the now accepted assumption that all the crop circles are elaborate hoaxes by teenagers and college pranksters with paddles strapped to their feet, trespassing on private property and ruining the crops that the farmers depend on for their financial income.