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