Dear Mr. Fuso,

I hope you don't mind me writing in English. I manage to express myself in
Italian and I read it well, but I write it pretty poorly. If you prefer to
communicate with badly-written Italian from my side, please let me know. You
may respond in Italian if you want - no problem.

I feel I have to react on an article you published on
http://www.cicap.org/rubriche/esperto/esperto.php?./010310.html, under the
caption: l'Esperto Risponde. With all respect, this title is in painful
contrast with the avalanche of nonsense that follows. You are clearly not an
expert, and I think, therefore, you ought to refrain from comment. Moreover,
you seem to be badly informed, and apparently you don't bother to verifiy
the reliability of your sources.

A few examples:

1. Your mention of lack of "double blind tests" in Levengoods work,
demonstrates profound ignorance of what he is doing, and total lack of
knowledge about the phenomena we are after. This argument has been used a
lot, also to criticize my own work, and certainly impresses the layman. But,
for your information: the data variation of some of our studies is over
115%, with a standard deviation of some 10% only. That is comparable with
the body length of adults and two-year old children. What YOU are stating
here, is that "double blind tests" must be employed to demonstrate the
difference in body length between 25 grown-ups and 25 children of 2 years
old. There are many more argument against your statement, but I think this
one should suffice for the moment.

2. Your statement that "...le riviste scientifiche con referees esercitano
senz'altro un'azione di filtraggio, ma non necessariamente questo filtraggio
è infallibile." shows that you are REALLY running out of arguments. Sorry -
this is a pathetic remark. This statament holds for ALL scientific
publications! First, the complaint of skeptics is that no crop circle
related work was ever published in peer-reviewed journals, and when they ARE
published, all of a sudden peer-review does not have so much value anymore.
What's next?

3. You wrote: "Eltjo Haselhoff, nei suoi lavori, sostiene di aver rivelato
un aumento della quantità di magnetite (fino a 600 volte la concentrazione
normale) all'interno dei "crop circles".
My comment: interesting. Someone else is doing crop circle work and has the
same name as I do. I have NEVER done any soil analysis whatsoever. Please,
make sure that you are at least well informed before you judge. Your
amateuristic approach here is in painful contrast with your attitude.

4. You wrote: "Anche ai lavori di Haselhoff può essere rivolta la stessa
obiezione basata sul totale disinteresse del resto della comunità
scientifica."
My comment: how do you know this? I have lectured many times in front of
hundreds of scientists. Where you there? My last paper has only been out
half a year or so. Have you read it? Have you polled the opinions of
scientists that read it? At a physics congress in Firenze, end of October
2001, a lot of turmoil was reported in the scientific communicty, because a
new technology was presented: lung imaging with MRI and hyper-polarized
Helium. I spoke with the inventor of this technique over four years ago, in
Sydney, Australia, where it was presented at the ISMRM Conference.
All your cheap remark shows here, is that apparently you don't know how the
scientific world works.

Nothing personal, just professional correction.
If you would like to have an in-depth discussion about my crop circle work
and my conclusions, I will be happy to educate you. You may want to have a
look at www.dcccs.org. Some useful information can be found there too.

Best regards,
and a Buon Natale,

Dr. Ing. Eltjo Haselhoff.





x. I think your simple referral to the opinions of people such as Joe
Nickell, Paul Fuller and others, demonstrates your lack of expertise. I
treated the prose of Nickell in my previous book, and his reasoning, much
likes yours, is based on wrong information and misinterpretation of
concepts. Too much to repeat here. But I think that if YOU are the expert,
YOU should deliver the arguments. Responding that: "other people also agree
with me" only shows that you are not the person to comment.