Couldn't micro wave produce high heat in one material next to another unaffected material based on their different consistency and structure?

Ok, joe... You hit upon a week spot in the CC hoaxers side. As I said before, I do know that there has been a wide variety of "relatively successful" glyphs created over the years produced by human hands. Both MIT and the Oregon state "FireFox"(which, by the way was created in BROAD DAYLIGHT-www.youtube.com/watch formations were widely publicized.
With the MIT's, I have to refer you to the other side of the coin....www.bltresearch.com/published/mit.html
Basically NOT ONE of the five criteria established with the participants and Ms.Talbott was actually achieved!!!!!!!
To quote the article:
When Ms. Talbott left the MIT lecture hall that afternoon she left with the understanding that:

1. The TV producer would clearly present to the audience the 3 criteria outlined by Ms. Talbott as constituting the challenge to the MIT undergraduates;

2. The undergrads would be taken to a wheat-field somewhere here in the States by the TV producer, where they would attempt to make a crop circle under conditions which mimicked those in the Alton Barnes area of Wiltshire in mid-summer (i.e., where only about 4 hours of total darkness exist each night during the summer months and where crop circle enthusiasts from all over the world are out in the fields at night, watching for any sign of human activity);

3. The MIT undergrads would seriously attempt to reproduce the 3 plant/soil abnormalities outlined in the lecture hall, under the constraints above (4 hours of total darkness, no visual displays which would signify their presence);

4. That plant samples and controls from the students' crop formation would be provided to Ms. Talbott, as well as soil samples, for evaluation;

5. That Ms. Talbott's evaluation of the success or failure of the students' efforts would be included in the final TV show.

-----------------

As anyone who has seen the Discovery Channel production "Crop Circles: Mystery in the Fields" (first aired on Oct. 10, 2002) already knows, none of these 5 expectations (upon which Ms. Talbott's involvement was based) was met.

1. The 3 criteria outlined by Ms. Talbott were changed by the TV producer, with apical node elongation removed altogether as one of the criteria and with "design" of the crop circle inserted instead;

no clear, close-up photos of apical node elongation or expulsion cavities in plant stem nodes was shown; and, instead of even one enlarged photomicrographs of iron spheres adhereing to one another (due to being magnetized), a few video shots of a dish of what looked like ordinary rough-edged iron filings were briefly shown on-screen;

2. The TV announcer states that the students spent only 4 hours out in Jason Boeckmann's Careytown, Ohio wheat field. But Ms. Talbott was told by an observer who was present at the Ohio farm-field during the students' exercise that the students spent "3-4 hours during the night of June 20th" out in the field, and then "worked for several more hours the following day." In a "real" crop circle situation in England daytime work would almost certainly have been spotted.

But the most amusing aspect of the entire show was the apparent notion that the brilliant plume of fire produced by the students' "particle shooter" (in their attempt to produce the tiny magnetized iron spheres in the soil) would have gone unnoticed in the darkness of the Wiltshire countryside. [Not to mention the extreme likelihood of subsequent fire which, in the M.I.T. exercise, had necessitated the presence of fire-trucks (off-camera of course) at the Ohio farm.] The fact that the M.I.T. exercise included this wonderfully dramatic TV moment -- as if it could possibly represent the manner in which all crop circles are created -- is, at the very least, absurd.

I cannot believe that these M.I.T. students actually accept such an idea, in spite of what they say on-camera. It appears to me that they--at such a young age--have already lost their intellectual independence, pliantly yielding to conventional wisdom.

3. Apparently because of the students' failure to reproduce the plant abnormalities listed as criteria, "design" of the crop circle was substituted instead, as being significant--it was this criterion which the TV announcer (and the 2 graduate-student "judges") presented as representing the overall "success" of the project--in spite of the fact that producer John Tindall and the 3 kids had all clearly heard (and the video team had taped) Ms. Talbott's crystal-clear statements to the contrary;

4. No plant samples or controls, and no soils, were ever provided to Ms. Talbott for evaluation;

5. No evaluation by Ms. Talbott was permitted and she was not allowed to contact the two graduate students utilized by the TV producer as "judges," once she had learned of their involvement. She was also denied any further contact with the three undergrads with whom she had met earlier in the summer.

Thank you Sila. I will be in touch- The link you posted in broken tho =(

thanks jahvan ... i'm in that tribe too! ... not too much gon on there .. but i am way into cymatics!
happy 1st friday!