CROP CIRCLES: LOSING SIGHT OF THE GOAL! & AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLIVER'S CASTLE CROP CIRCLE VIDEO

Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:06:57 -0500 (EST)
Source: Paul Vigay

CROP CIRCLES:
LOSING SIGHT OF THE GOAL
by Paul Vigay


Nineteen ninety six has been a very fruitful, even reflective, year for crop circle research. The year started very slowly with a couple of formations appearing in Cambridge (see Enigma 9), but soon got underway in full swing in mid June when the (arguably) best formation of the season appeared in East Field on the 17th.

DNA or Physics?
---------------
With the arrival of the massive 700 foot 'DNA' formation coiling it's way across East Field, one could almost sense the awe and wonder of the early 1990's returning. I shall never forget the sight of nearly twenty parked cars alongside the field when I re-visited the formation after media coverage sparked new enthusiasm into the subject, rejuvenating it and introducing a new generation of 'croppies' to the mystery and puzzlement of the continuing enigma.

A Bumper Year
-------------
As this issue goes to press over one hundred formations have been logged in my database and reports are still being collated.

Where are we then?
------------------
However, we are still no closer to solving the elusive meaning behind the circles. True, hoaxers have claimed some - albeit with no evidence - and scientific research continues to find new anomalies. Sceptics still desperately try to debunk the subject whilst true believers rant and rave about how ALL crop circles are totally genuine.

What is Genuine?
----------------
What is genuine though? Sure, all crop circles are genuine - if we're talking about flattened corn yielding artistic shapes in farmers fields. However, most croppies would agree that the term "genuine" refers only to those formations made by some non-human entity.

Sceptical Ignorance
-------------------
Sceptics and closed-minded scientists pour scorn on the mere thought that even one circle may be non-human in origin, but to date not a single hoaxer has ever been caught, despite years of organised night watches and the threat of prosecution by irate farmers.

Still Searching
---------------
On the other hand however, still no 'smoking gun' evidence has been forthcoming to demonstrate that crop circles are of paranormal origin. We have numerous reports of anomalous events and strange sightings and feeling associated with crop circles, but we still haven't had the unequivocal mothership landing or the nuts and bolts alien artifact recovered.

Creative Discussions at The Barge
---------------------------------
With the discovery of each new crop circle, researchers and enthusiasts eagerly meet and discuss theories at The Barge or other meeting places. The sound of eager voices discussing quantum physics, spirituality, the raising of consciousness and alternative, possibly even free, energy echoes around packed bars and backrooms, but where are we at the end of the day when the door is closed and the croppies have returned home?

The Magic is still there
------------------------
There are some that would argue, myself included, that the subject is still as wonderful as it's always been, with new theories to discuss and new research experiments to carry out, but also some people who find themselves getting depressed at the lack of solid answers.

"Why aren't they landing on the White House Lawn?", "We know they exist, why don't they show themselves?"

The crop circles are still elusive and enigmatic, yet still provide a plethora of new ideas and theories. What do we actually want from the subject?

One cannot argue that an untold number of people have obtained great personal enlightenment from the crop circles. It is an undeniable fact that the circles have added a new dimension to peoples lives, promoting greater communication and spirituality amongst those who choose to believe in the subject.

Why then is there an occasional feeling of despondency amongst believers? Is it a time to re-evaluate our understanding of the subject?

Communications of Consciousness
-------------------------------
It is my belief that the crop circles are a form of communication. Not necessarily between us and the circle makers but within ourselves. They help us communicate with our higher selves. We think more, we study new subjects and learn new physics and mathematics.

I think we are all on a path to a higher level of consciousness, a thought many now seem to agree with, and the crop circles are merely acting as catalysts to our own awakening.

The Answers Lie Within
----------------------
The answers lie within our own awareness, but the problem seems to be that accessing the ultimate answer is not as easy as we would like it to be. We often catch a glimpse of it, but when we focus upon it, it slips away into the deeper realms of our soul.

This seems similar to meditation - in that the harder you concentrate and try to meditate, the harder it actually is. It's almost as if it's teasing us. Take your mind off it and temporarily forget about it and up it pops. Stare at it straight on and instantly it's invisible.

Belief Systems
--------------
The whole crux of the phenomena lies in our embedded belief systems. What we perceive to be the origin of the crop formations. Some people have likened the subject to religion. This is actually not a bad analogy, for religions are also based entirely on beliefs. Some people believe there is a God, some people don't. Either way, there is no proof of either scenario so at the end of the day it's whether you believe that your thoughts are right or wrong.

Beliefs are also the foundation of many a heated argument. This is because there cannot be a right or wrong objective outcome. It is always down to what the individual believes to be the case. A subjective decision 'in the eyes of the beholder'.

Network Marketing
-----------------
For example, some people would argue that Network Marketing schemes such as Amway work. Others would claim them as a con. Again, unless you have personal experience to help you decide, any individual comment is as good as any other.

This is exactly the same in the world of crop circle research. Hoaxers claim they are all man-made, researchers claim they are not. Unless you have first -hand experience of anomalous events, the only way to form an opinion is to weigh up all the available research material and decide which scenario 'feels' best to you.

At the end of the day, hoaxers cannot prove that crop circles are man-made any more than researchers can prove that all are genuine. The only outcome is to follow research and decide that some may be man-made whilst some may be genuine. Any more than that, again comes down to individual belief.

Here we are down to a stumbling block again. Belief, being built on experience, has a habit of changing now and again. This is perfectly normal and is a sign of an open-mind.

However, when you start to build faith in a particular belief system, you can start to 'expect' things to progress at your own rate. For example, you may believe that crop circles are a sign from extra-terrestrials. You may then feel that you are ready for something else - the elusive 'landing on the Whitehouse lawn'.

Take a Step Back
----------------
When this fails to happen a shift in belief can occur which can cause depression or disillusionment. If this occurs, I believe it is worth taking a step or two backwards and re-evaluating the scenario.

What is the origin? Are we in control of it? Obviously not. If crop circles are a sign from ETs then why should they proceed at the pace of human thinking. We don't know their plans and aims. Perhaps things are happening but we are unaware of them because we are looking for a different kind of sign. Whilst we are busy looking at the Whitehouse lawn, the aliens are busy preparing awareness and higher consciousness.

While we are meditating, the ETs are probably flying around the Whitehouse lawn, but we don't notice them.

Intergalactic Chess
-------------------
They could be merely playing games. If, as many people believe (myself included), that the extra-terrestrials are preparing the people of Earth for a new level of consciousness to ascend, what right have we got to assume that we have reached the top of the ladder when we don't know what the final message is, or will be.

It!
---
If you think you've witnessed and understood everything there is, and you now want something 'more' to happen, then you should re-evaluate your belief. This has always been man's misunderstanding:- That of thinking he knows and understands it all. In reality we don't even know what 'it' is.

I think we will instinctively know when the time is right, but we are growing impatient. Have we missed something? is there really a message? Are we on the right path after all?

Inner or Outer?
---------------
This is the mistake religious teaching had made throughout the centuries; that the answer lies from without, the outer; God, Jesus, the Messiah. People have been taught not to think for themselves but to behave well and worship 'someone' who will come to save them from themselves.

New Age teachings however, suggest that we look to ourselves, the innerself for the answers. This always causes disagreements between proponents of the two sets of teachings. We must learn to look within and without for the answer.

Those who seek the elusive 'mass landing' should perhaps look to their inner tuition more and those who look too much to meditation and consciousness, making themselves depressed if progress isn't as rapid as they would like should perhaps try examining some of the more physical evidence to re-assure their inner belief structure.

Many Varied Paths
-----------------
We are all seeking answers to many questions, but we are also all at different points along the path. We didn't even all start at the same time or place, so why should everything slot into place just when we want it to.

The crop circles are a sign for all of us. The message is quite often a personal one and is interpreted by different people in different ways. Make of the subject what you will, and don't forget that at the end of the day it's the circle makers who are defining the learning curve.

At the end of the day I would like everyone to enjoy the subject as much as I do, and to accept it for what it is. Don't bother arguing with people who hold different views. Simply agree to differ and say you'll meet up with them again at the end of the path. Happy travelling!

Paul Vigay, October 1996

===============================================

AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLIVER'S CASTLE CROP CIRCLE VIDEO
by Paul Vigay
October 1996


Reproduced from "Enigma" magazine, issue 11

On the early morning of Sunday 11th August 1996, perhaps the most controversial event ever, occurred in the world of crop circle research.

A six petalled crop formation appeared beneath the slopes of Oliver's Castle hill fort, just to the north of Devizes in Wiltshire. Not unusual you may think. But this time, the whole event had been caught on video.

Less than twelve hours later, a young man, initially wanting to remain anonymous, turned up in The Barge public house with what was soon to become one of the most hotly discussed video's in the history of cerealogy.

The video was a short sequence, only some twenty four seconds long, but showing not only the creation of the crop circle (see front cover for diagram), but also the movement of alleged UFO balls of light. Could this be the Holy Grail of crop circle research?

The Video Sequence
------------------
The brief clip started with a wide view of the valley lying to the west. This then zoomed down to an empty field below, and then zoomed back to the original wide shot of the valley. This was presumably to show the local terrain and was filmed before the crop circle appeared.

There then appears to be a brief edit in the film, because it immediately jumps to a zoomed in view of the field (still no crop circle present) with two balls of light travelling from right to left across the field of view. As they reach the left side of the frame they circle round travelling away from the camera and fly towards the top right of the frame. As they get to about half way across the frame, the crop formation starts to appear.

First the large central circle appears, followed by the outer satellite circles, before the interlocking paths are laid down last. The whole creation sequence lasts just two to three seconds. Throughout the formation of the circle, the balls of light continue to move to the top right, before veering to the left and appearing to go through the hedge on the opposite side of the field. Their brightness appears to dim slightly at this point.

Just before they leave the frame at the top of the screen, a third ball of light appears from nowhere, seemingly from the hedge in about the middle of the screen. This moves rapidly towards the right, just missing the top right part of the formation. It disappears off the screen to the right, only to re-appear travelling to the left slightly lower down, circling around the formation.

As it moves to the left it is joined by a fourth ball just above it. Both balls fly past the formation and disappear off the left hand side of the frame. A second later they re-appear, flying to the right, obviously having circled round in an arc wider than the zoom setting on the camera.

One appears to fade out at this point, whilst the last one continues to fly to the right before leaving the frame on the top right, just below the level of the hedge.

The video clip then stops.

[photo and diagram of ball movements]

Observations
------------
When I first viewed the video in The Barge I was initially impressed. In fact, who wouldn't be? The video appears to show indisputable proof of a non man-made crop formation. Just what researchers have been looking for!

However, I never take things at face value and, fearing another Doug and Dave type scam to try and set the subject back again, I wanted to take a much closer look at the video and do my own analysis, especially as my professional line of work is with computers and graphical effects.

The first apparent flaws I noticed in the video concern the actual view of the field. At all times during the creation and subsequent flight of the balls of light, the camera remains stationary fixed at a preset zoom. By coincidence the zoom is exactly set so that the completed crop formation exactly fills the field of view without having to zoom out or move the camera.

In fact the camera shows a distinct lack of movement, almost as if mounted on a tripod. For example, the balls of light fly out of view a couple of times and no attempt is made to follow their movement - surprising if the cameraman was witnessing actual UFOs flying around.

If you get the chance to watch the video for yourself, use the telegraph pole in the field as a marker for movement. It remains in exactly the same position throughout.

Also, the action on the video seems to contradict actual ground observations. Visiting the formation on the ground, the outlying pathways go underneath the lay of the satellite circles, presumably being formed first. However, on the video, the satellite circles can be clearly seen to form before the pathways.

The shadows in the inner, large circle also don't seem right, but due to the quality of the video I viewed, it was difficult to analyse them to satisfaction.

On 11th August sunrise was at 5.44am, which is after the time when the video was allegedly filmed. The sun would rise from behind the cameraman's back, to the East - and don't forget that it was filmed looking down the valley, so Oliver's Castle itself would mask the sun's initial rays. Before sunrise there would be no visible shadows, and in fact I'm doubtful if the light would be as bright as it seemed on the video, but this is my subjective view in the absence of an interview with the cameraman.

The Cameraman
-------------
Although initially wanting to remain anonymous, I can reveal the cameraman's name as John Wheyleigh (JW), from Bath. I'm revealing this because all attempts to contact him have so far failed, and I believe knowledge of his name may help others identify him.

Initially when he arrived at the Barge on the day of the formation he was very nervous and visibly shaken, fearing that the MOD or CIA may be after him. He wanted to speak to Colin Andrews or Peter Sorensen. Peter was in the Barge and was one of the first people to view the video.

Colin Andrews subsequently obtained the video by signing a contract with John Wheyleigh. The details of this contract are unknown, but it was alleged to allow Colin to handle world-wide media interest in the video.

The Doubt
---------
Initially, people were impressed. Word got around and quickly the entire crop circle community knew of the footage. However, after a subsequent showing in the Barge approx one week later, when I was present, the general opinion was beginning to turn to doubt, especially when I pointed out some of my observations.

How did JW know where the crop formation was going to appear in order to preset the zoom on his camera before it appeared? Why didn't he naturally follow the balls of light around the field? After all, they could be about to create another crop formation in a nearby field.

Both myself and Peter Sorensen decided to analyse the film in greater detail. We played it through on a high quality, single frame video. The first thing I noticed was that freezing on a single frame revealed that the balls of light were perfectly formed with no motion blur. As they were moving quite rapidly across the field of view, you would expect to see some kind of blur on a single frame.

Technical Analysis
------------------
A video film is made up of a number of frames, individual images being shown in quick succession, if you like. In fact, a normal video runs at 25 frames per second.

Generally each frame of video consists of what is known as two fields. If you look carefully at a TV picture, you'll see that the picture is made up from a great many lines going vertically down the screen. 625 in all, forming a complete picture.

These 625 lines form two fields - one consisting of all the evenly numbered lines and the other with all the odd numbered lines. The two fields together form what is known as an 'interlaced' picture.

The initial sequence of the video, ie. that showing the zoom, seems to be interlaced. ie. both fields are present. However, the animation bit (where the crop circle actually appears) seems to be non-interlaced, only consisting of a single field. This then reverts back to interlaced at the end of the sequence.

This is highly suspicious and would imply that some kind of computer effect could have been used to generate the crop circle appearing - with no interlace.

This leads to two possibilities; Either JW was involved in the hoaxing of the video, by setting up the camera and filming the empty field before it was made, then making it himself or waiting whilst friends made it and then filming the completed crop formation before editing together the two pieces using a video mixer with a circular wipe facility and finally superimposing the balls of light over the top, or he was lucky enough to visit the formation just after it had already appeared, filmed the formation and then manually removed it in a studio on a computer, before again superimposing the balls over the top.

Out of these two scenarios, the first is more likely, and easier. However, in the interests of research and amid growing arguments as to the genuineness of the video, I decided to produce my own video, just to see how difficult to make it really would be. Some 'believers' had claimed that it would be impossible to fake without expensive, professional video and computer equipment - something presumably JW didn't have access to.

Well, neither do I, except a home computer fitted with a PAL video mixer and genlock card (to output and mix computer graphics with a TV picture). If I could do it within twelve hours, then I reckon any hoaxer intent on debunking the subject and with access to a video studio would easily be able to produce it.

I set myself a limit of four hours, just to see if it was possible. To my surprise, my end result was quite acceptable, and would be even higher quality had I given myself more time. As it happened, I completed it in just under three hours.

Reproducing the Video
---------------------
For reference, and for those who haven't seen my version, I visited the field later in the day, after creation, and filmed some ten minutes of footage on a Hi-8mm camcorder. This was for my own research and reference. Being a computer programmer I was able to write my own animation software as I couldn't find any suitable 'commercial' software. This may be one reason why people say it can't be done.

I took a sequence of footage from my original 8mm tape and digitised it into the computer to obtain a static colour 'scan' of the field in question - in broad daylight and containing the completed crop circle. I then darkened the video to make it look like early morning. This was easy, using a standard 'grey' fade set to approx 85% fadeout. I then re-scanned this into the computer and 'painted' out the crop circle using a paintbox package - so as to obtain a field with no crop circle in it. (see below)

Having obtained a 'blank' field in the computer, I then wrote a small program to take a real-time video source (my original 8mm tape) and do a circular fade of the computer image with no crop formation. I did this in three parts to replicate the JW video. ie. the main circle appears, then the outer circles and finally the pathways. The computer handled all the animation sequence here and I recorded the output onto VHS tape. I recorded onto standard VHS tape and not professional tape so that the graininess of the copy would make the end result look more authentic. This gave me a VHS video copy of the crop formation appearing in the field. I now needed to add the balls of light.

Adding the balls of light was the easiest job, again, having written my own computer software. I played the VHS tape of the crop formation appearing (in approx 3 seconds) through the computer and whilst it was going through the computer I moved the mouse around the screen to trace out the movement I wanted the balls to take.

I could edit the path if I made mistakes. The computer stored the mouse movements and allowed me to replay the sequence, substituting a 'ball of light' for the previous mouse movements. I then replayed it and edited it until I liked the result. At this stage I could also edit the fade between video and computer, to make the balls of light seemingly grow dim or brighter depending on position. It would also be possible using my software to add 'random' X/Y movements to the path of the balls, to simulate camera shake.

Again, I replayed the sequence in the computer until I liked it. When complete, and I was happy with it, I re-recorded the whole thing back onto VHS tape - being careful to simulate the correct interlace information in each frame (this is manually controllable on my computer system).

The whole sequence took me just under three hours to produce from start to finish, and includes camera-shake and camera-movement to follow the balls of light around the field - which the original JW video did not. In all, I was reasonably pleased with it, and I could certainly produce a better version given a longer time. I deliberately rushed it because I wanted to see just how quickly it would take to produce acceptable results.

Free copies of my 'computer created' version are available by sending me a blank VHS tape and return postage. Only PAL versions are currently available.

Conclusions
-----------
>From a technical viewpoint, the video is very well made. The movement of the balls of light is very 'fluid' and smooth. The action appears to take place in real-time and it looks impressive. However, when subjected to scrutiny and technical analysis, major flaws start to appear. I am personally convinced that it is a hoax.

Whoever perpetrated the hoax obviously had access to fairly elaborate video equipment and computers, although it would not require large amounts of money, as has been suggested by some researchers. I estimate you could do it with under £3000.00 worth of equipment. However, it is well made and was obviously planned. Was it an attempt to fool Colin Andrews? who was first researcher to be approached. Colin has a high profile in the world of crop circle research and any organised attempt by the hoaxers to discredit him would surely need careful planning.

At the time of printing, Colin has publicly stated that he too is sceptical of the footage, following his own analysis. If the hoaxers aim was to mount another Doug and Dave blow, then it has back-fired.

We can't really analyse the video much further without interviewing, at length, John Wheyleigh, who took the video. However, he seems less than willing to come forward. To date, no one has managed to track him down to ask him further questions.

One further, interesting, observation was made by Joachim Koch, a German researcher, who noticed that the name of John Wheyleigh's colleague was a certain John Wabe - an unusual surname.

Readers who are familiar with the Alice Books - written by Lewis Carroll in the Victorian Era, may be interested in the following coincidence.

Alice falls asleep and dreams, both "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass".

Alice Through the Looking Glass
-------------------------------
Alice finds a book in which there is a nonsense poem called Jabberwocky which goes on a bit but the piece we're interested in is this bit; Later she meets up with Humpty Dumpty who looks like a big egg with a face and arms and legs.

"You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir," said Alice. "Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called 'Jabberwocky'?"
"Let's hear it," said Humpty Dumpty. "I can explain all the poems that ever were invented - and a good many that haven't been invented just yet." This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borograves
And the mome raths outgrabe."

"That's enough to begin with," Humpty Dumpty interrupted: "there are plenty of hard words there. 'Brillig' means four o'clock in the afternoon - the time when you begin broiling things for dinner."

"That'll do very well," said Alice: "and 'slithy'?"
"Well, 'slithy' means 'lithe and slimy'. 'Lithe' is the same as 'active'. You see it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings packed up into one word."

"I see it now," Alice remarked thoughtfully; "and what are 'toves'?"
"Well, 'toves' are something like badgers - they're something like lizards and they're something like corkscrews."

"They must be very curious-looking creatures."
"They are that," said Humpty Dumpty; "also they make their nests under sun-dials - also they live on cheese."

*(Now we're getting there, folks)*

"And what's to 'gyre' and to 'gimble'?"
"To 'gyre' is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To 'gimble' is to make holes like a gimlet."
"And 'the wabe' is the grass plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?" said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
"Of course it is. It's called 'wabe' you know, because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it -"

"And a long way beyond it on each side," Alice added. "Exactly so."

*So here we have Mr. Wabe* - a grass plot around a sundial with toves going round and round in circles like a gyroscope.

An interesting coincidence I think you'll agree. Expect further reports in future issues.

I am in the process of producing a 'making of' video, illustrating with examples the techniques of video and photographic manipulation available by using computers. This will include, as an example, my reproduction of the Oliver's Castle video. This will be available early in December.

There have also been some recent discussions on the Internet as to the possible visibility of a second video camera in the pan shot towards the end of the original sequence, indicating that Mr Wheyleigh had two camera's setup. This is not visible in the copy I have, which extends to 24 seconds.

There are also rumours of a second, longer video clip available, extending to 49 seconds. Again, I have not seen this clip, so my analysis is only relevant to the original, short, sequence I saw in The Barge. Enigma readers can be sure of more information as and when I get it.

Paul Vigay, October 1996


All rights reserved to WUFOC and NÄRKONTAKT. If you reprint or quote any part of the content, you must give credit to: WUFOC, the free UFO-alternative on the Internet, http://www.wufoc.com