linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/general/crop-watcher/cw-18.txt

Text File | 1995-01-17 | 151KB | 2,872 lines

Crop Watcher #18

Doug Bower at the Nafferton Hall, Marlborough, July 28th 1993

Driving up to Marlborough one sunny evening in July I wondered
whether I was about to attend the crop watcher's morgue or one
giant punch-up. How would the cerealogists react to having Doug
Bower there in person ? Would they believe his tale ? Or would
they physically assault him for his treachery ? And what would
they do to someone like me who had dared to publicly accept
Doug's claim that he and Dave Chorley began making crop circles
in the mid 1970s ?

Nafferton Hall was difficult to find, located up a dark unlit
alleyway opposite Marlborough Town Hall.  The hall itself was
raised above surrounding back gardens up some steep iron steps. I
paid my fiver and went in. Surprise number one was the size of
the place. The doors had just opened and already all the seats
were taken ! I guess there were less than a hundred people in the
room and I struggled to reach friends and acquaintances as people
pushed and shoved their way round what little space remained.
Many tried to inspect the two large display boards that Ken Brown
and Doug Bower had obviously spent a good deal of time preparing.
So great was the crush that I was barely able to examine this
photographic evidence, let alone Doug and Daves' circle making
equipment positioned on the far side of the room. Nevertheless
what I saw on that board convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this was no "fraudulent sham" as George Wingfield would have
it but a well-organised presentation of Doug and Daves' case.
With some
misgivings I soon realised that I was possibly the most senior
"cerealogist" there.  Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews were
conspicuous by their absence, as was Michael Green, Jim Schnabel
(back at CIA headquarters in the States) and Terence Meaden
(sunning himself at his luxurious French Villa - paid for by MI5
of course). Also missing was George Wingfield, who had somewhat
inconveniently stepped on a nail a few days before (typically,
George had forgotten to send his apologies).  Oh dear ! Looks
like I'll have to defend the "science" of "cereology" all on my
own !!

Ken Brown welcomed everyone to the meeting, which began promptly
at 7.30. Brown began by warning everyone present that this was an
opportunity for Doug Bower and himself to present their evidence,
not for anyone to interrupt their presentation, to promote their
personal theories or to cause a disturbance, which would not be
tolerated. Almost immediately, as if the crop spirits themselves
had been aroused, his introduction was interrupted by someone's
tape recording loudly misbehaving. Such was Ken Brown's good
nature that this was quickly brushed aside as "NOT the
Grasshopper Warbler".

Brown explained that he was Doug Bower's "amanuensis" - his
"taker of notes" - and that he had realised that all circles were
hoaxes after discovering underlying tracks at the 1991 double-
ringed flower at Cheesefoot Head. He explained that in January
1992 he had subsequently approached Doug Bower in order to
clarify certain aspects of his claim. Over the next 18 months
Brown repeatedly visited Doug Bower's picture-framing shop in
Southampton, sometimes spending whole days there. What Ken Brown
discovered in these meetings only convinced him further of the
truthfulness of their claim.

Ken Brown then made an astonishing statement about the absence of
Dave Chorley, stating that Chorley had deliberately not been
asked to attend the meeting. Doug Bower explained "During the
past 22 months it has become obvious that David's memory is not
as clear and accurate as it could be - and there are those who
would use this to their own advantage. This type of meeting
relies upon answers being as accurate as possible, so we thought
it best not to give anyone an opportunity to confuse the issue.
That's the real reason why Dave is not here tonight.... ". Ken
Brown clarified this statement by explaining that Doug Bower was
the mastermind who was responsible for "99 per cent" of  the crop
circle hoaxing. By contrast according to Brown Dave Chorley would
be the first to admit that he was "just another pair of hands who
happened to be there".

Brown then asked what he believed to be the most important
question - has there ever been a genuine crop circle or did these
two men invent the phenomenon in the mid 1970s ? Brown stated
that if all crop circles are hoaxes then ALL attendant phenomena
can also be dismissed. He then introduced the display of Doug
Bower's own photographs taken during every year since 1980.
According to Brown this was primary evidence which proved their
case. These
photographs were debated repeatedly as the evening progressed.

Throughout his presentation Brown was scathing about the crop
circle researchers, dismissing "Pope" Andrews and Delgado as
"those self-seeking, publicity-pushing, self-styled 'expert'
circle researchers" who had quickly "corralled" themselves into a
"clique of powerful high priests and a flock of willing sheep"
who were "highly enthralled by a hyped-up load of nonsense".
Brown commented "And we all know what happens when power and
position and pennies are up for grabs - we get a brand new
hierarchical religion". According to Brown these so-called
researchers "jealously guarded" their "temples" - the crop circle
databases which were "locked away" from the "unbelievers" - and
they published their own "parish magazines", holding their own
"prayer meetings" and "swooning" at the "shrine" of a mere crop
formation, where "miracles" were said to have happened. "God help
us ! We're back in the middle ages walking bare footed to
Walsingham".

Next Brown alleged that in a meeting with Colin Andrews, some
time after the Doug and Dave story had broken, Andrews had
claimed that "There are probably only a dozen circles out of all
the circles we have ever had - that I can put hand on heart and
say I think they are absolutely genuine". Andrews allegedly
confirmed this on 18th January 1993 in a telephone call to Brown.
Later, Lucy Pringle and Pat Delgado are alleged to have stated
that Ken Brown was playing with people's "faiths" and
"irrationalities" and that by
investigating the Doug and Dave claim there was a "danger" that
Brown was destroying the beliefs of "90 per cent of the crop
circle believers". Brown alleged that Delgado and Pringle were
keen to hush up the truth about the Doug and Dave claim and
simply "worry about people's faiths and dreams" in case they
ended up "like the Bishop of Durham". It was this desire which
had led to "screaming abuse" from the "circle establishment", who
had accused Doug and Dave of telling "a pack of lies" and of
being "government secret agents". According to Brown, "The circle
establishment has always fabricated its own form of The Truth.
They resort to diatribe and innuendo, and - worst of all -
finally to the last resort of paranoia, where everybody and
everything can be explained away as The Enemy".

Ken Brown took the opportunity to explain why Doug and Dave had
not - as had been their original plan - written a book about
their circle-making. Apparently they had been advised by a
solicitor that a written confession that they had made a specific
circle at a specific site in a stated year would be interpreted
by the courts as a clear admission of trespass and whilst the
final proof that financial loss had been incurred would be the
responsibility of an individual landowner it was quite possible
that a judge would seek to make an example of Doug and Dave,
perhaps with a fine of # 10,000 or a 3 month prison sentence.
Despite this in early 1993 Ken Brown had given Jurgen Kronig a
full written account of  Doug and Daves' story which, for reasons
the German publishers never made clear, was dropped from the
second edition of Kronig's book in May. These two meetings were
thus the only opportunity the crop circle community would have to
question Doug Bower personally.

Apology

Doug Bower then read out a prepared statement which read "I'd
like to apologise to farmers and landowners, and to thank them
for the tolerant and good-humoured way in which they've viewed
the
escapades of two middle aged pranksters who became obsessed with
an idea - it was nothing more than a practical joke from the
start".

During his opening remarks Doug Bower bitterly attacked the "so-
called" researchers and experts for their commercialisation of
the phenomenon. He claimed that he and Dave Chorley stopped
making circles because they were "so disgusted" with the huge
amounts of money that these "researchers" had made from their
promotion of his circles. "I've had the biggest insight into the
human being ever in the last few years ... We've been insulted,
my wife's been
insulted. What a defence these people have put up ! Government
agents ! We've not called anyone any names at all ! All we've
said is the truth - in the [news]paper. But we've been insulted
left, right and centre, we're [accused of being] frauds, we're
[accused of being] liars, government agents ! They're trying to
hold on to something that's been gathered in. I tell you right
now that its finished ! Because had the crop circle hoaxers in
Wiltshire stopped making their circles when we put our story over
in 1991 they'd be no more circles for them to research....  It
had to finish
sometime, it can't go on forever. I don't see why we should do it
for 14 years and not publicise it that we were the culprits. Lots
of people have had a good laugh but it was us - lots of people
don't believe us ...".

Biographies

Thanks to Ken Brown's research we now know more about Doug and
Dave's lifestories. Doug Bower was born on 25th June 1924 in
Southampton and became an apprentice wood machinist. He
volunteered for flying duties in the Royal Air Force when he was
18, passed out as a wireless operator, air gunner and volunteer
reserve. During the war he became a cabin steward on RMS
Acquitainier and crossed the Atlantic 56 times helping to ferry
GI brides and Canadian Soldiers to and from the European war.
Then he returned to live in Southampton as a wood machinist and
married Ilene. On Trafalgar Day 1958 Doug and Ilene set sail from
Tilbury Docks on a # 10 per person emigration package to
Australia where Doug became a
woodcutter and picture-framer. Doug built his own house and owned
a small plot of land. However, both Doug and Ilene became acutely
home sick and returned to Southampton in the autumn of 1966.
Within 18 months they'd taken over a small shop in Bassett where
they sold pictures and picture frames. In his spare time Doug
became an expert wild-life sound recordist, travelling throughout
the British Isles capturing bird songs on tape ("so he knew all
about the grasshopper warbler"). In his time he has won many
awards for his sound recordings and has even had some of his bird
songs published by the National Sound Archives and the Hamlyn
Publishing Group.

Dave Chorley was born on 26th August 1929, left school at 14 and
became a storeboy on Southampton Docks. His apprenticeship to
become an electrical engineer was interrupted by National Service
but he also served two years as a wireless operator with the RAF.
Afterwards he returned to the Docks and helped modernize the old
Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary ships. Dave Chorley also sailed
across the Atlantic and during this time developed his love of
painting. At 26 he became the youngest trades unionist shop
steward in Southampton Docks. He married Terry in 1960 and raised
a family of three sons and a daughter. After 30 years working in
the docks Dave Chorley left and made his living "scratching
around", working on colourings and steel engravings, even being
employed by Rose Kennedy, mother of President John Kennedy, to
colour antique prints of the early American west. Later Dave
divorced but still lives in Southampton and works as a freelance
artist.

The  Evidence

Taking each year in turn Ken Brown prompted Doug Bower to recount
his story. There were many new revelations which rung true to all
but the most avid crop circle  believers. One particular story
concerned the creation of a circle at Micheldever next to the
main Southampton-Waterloo railway line. The following day Doug
and Dave travelled from Winchester to Micheldever on a train to
view their creation. Unfortunately the train was travelling so
fast they hardly caught a glimpse of their creation, much to the
amusement of a child and her mother travelling in the same
compartment, so the following day they returned to the site and
made the circle that much bigger ! This incident became known as
"Von Ryan's Express" after the film. This event - along with many
others - was later featured in a Christmas card drawn by Dave
Chorley, which was on display in the corner along with other
Christmas cards featuring other circle-making expeditions.

Bower described how he and Chorley began their crop circle career
in 1975, not the 1981 previously referred to in the TODAY
newspaper. Here are some of these revelations:-
(1) Doug and Dave used to take food and coffee with them, later
even taking a frying pan to cook a meal after making their
circles !

(2) Doug was the catalyst for the circle-making, drawing up the
plans before-hand, making all the circle making equipment, even
providing Dave Chorley with a pair of Wellington Boots and a
waterproof coat !

(3) Doug initiated every circle by (almost always) constructing
the centre first and then working outwards.

(4) Doug first met Dave a year or so after opening his picture-
framing shop. They used to visit public houses for ten years
before they began making crop circles.

(5) It was Doug who knew about the Tully circles and who
suggested that they make a circle to make people think that a
"flying saucer" had landed.

(6) They began making circles by using the iron security bar from
his shop. They used the bar by kneeling on the corn and pushing
the bar half way up the corn. This first method hurt their knees
so they changed over to the stick and rag method shown on TV.

(7) The "first circles" they created must have predated 1976 by
several years because Doug Bower remembers Dave Chorley refusing
to go with him on one of their "regular" circle making journeys
because Dave Chorley's  son wanted him to watch him playing in a
school match that year.

(8) There had to be a layby located close by the circles in the
early years. Later, as more and more researchers were visiting
circle prone areas, Doug and Dave would leave Doug's car in the
lane adjacent to the caravan park by the Percy Hobbs pub and then
walk two miles into Cheesefoot Head bottom to avoid being
detected.


(9) After making the centre the circle was made by a series of
concentric rings pushed down.

(10) the Alfriston circles of 1984 appeared close to Dennis
Healey's garden purely by accident, neither Doug or Dave knew
about Dennis Healey or the suspicious proximity of  "Cradle
Hill".

(11) Dave Chorley's ex-wife Terry knew nothing about the circle-
making until she saw the "Today" exclusive.

(12) D&D made no more radial swirls after the problems they had
making the 1987 Chilcomb "cheese wedge"

(13) Doug used to telephone Colin Andrews the morning after he
had made a circle to tell him about it !

(14) Doug and Dave's circle at Childrey, Wantage (1985?) circle
displayed a "runway" and "hole" to make it look as though the
aliens had taken soil samples. The soil and corn removed from
this hole was dumped on the A33 Chandlers Ford by-pass on the way
home.

(15) D&D admitted making the "WEARENOTALONE" message in the
Cheesefoot Head  punchbowl in 1987.

(16) to avoid detection D&D used to park their car in the dead-
end road by the caravan site at the Percy Hobbs pub and then walk
up into the punchbowl via the A31 back route.

(17) As Dave had to watch his son playing football Doug did the
1987 South Wonston oilseed rape circle on his own.

(18) The only time Doug and Dave were "caught" was at the Long
Man of Wilmington in 1987, when Doug and Dave were preparing to
make a circle and were interrupted by a stranger who thought they
were about to put up a tent. This was on the same night as Jenny
Randles' remote sensing experiment advertised in "The Unknown".

(19) The first non Doug and Dave circle was beneath the White
Horse at Westbury in August 1987 - but the circles were too far
from the hillside to be Doug and Daves' efforts. This was the
year that they made "COPYCATS" . Ken Brown claimed that he had a
list of "over a dozen" circles from 1987 which were not D&D's
circles and that -somewhat paradoxically - "maybe they were
genuine".

(20) The triangular triplets at Corhampton and the Cheesefoot
Head punchbowl in 1988 were based on the triplet in Billy Meier's
book "Light Years" which were publicised in an article in the
September 13th 1987 "News of the World" colour magazine. Of
course the earlier triplets were all three-in-a-line rather than
in formation. D&D used a method similar to that used by the
"Dambusters" by using string attached to rods to get these three
circles precisely positioned in an equilateral triangle.  Because
the rods bent as they pulled the string the Corhampton circles
were less well positioned than the punchbowl circles.

(21) Christmas 1988 D&D fell out so Doug had to make all the
earlier 1989 circles, including a failed circle in rape at
Chilcomb and the infamous contra-rotating circle that appeared
out of sight of the cameras during Operation Whitecrow.

(22) There is some confusion about the "swastika" on the front
cover of "The Crop Circle Enigma". Ken Brown believes that D&D
made this formation and the earlier "swastika", although Doug
Bower can only recall having made the second formation. This was
laid down by laying the outer rim first then using the cross-
piece to mark out the angles. This was another formation where
mistakes were made when laying down the corn. It is for this
reason that Ken Brown believes D&D returned to have a second
attempt.

(23) On one occasion, in 1990, D&D were making a circle in the
punchbowl when they were fired upon by farmers shooting at
rabbits from a Landrover.

(24) The pictograms were based on a modern art painting. It was
Ilene who proposed making the flower patterns.

(25) After being struck by the toilet bomb Doug and Dave carried
on making their circle to avoid leaving a half-completed circle.
Ilene had to shampoo Doug's hair to remove the muck.

(26) It was one of Dave Chorley's sons who accidentally let the
Doug and Dave story out of the bag to a reporter from the Daily
Mirror. D&D owned up on 3rd September 1991 to the Daily Mirror,
who were not interested in the story, and then to the TODAY
newspaper.

(27) Ilene discovered Doug Bower's circle-making activities in
1984. Thereafter Doug was able to go out making circles on
several nights of the week.

Photographs

One of the strongest pieces of evidence revealed were the
photographs Doug Bower had taken in every year since 1980. There
was a previously unknown photograph of a single circle in the
Cheesefoot Head punchbowl in 1980 along with Doug Bower's own
photograph of the 1982 single at Litchfield. Also there were
(apparently) photos of Doug and Dave half way through making the
infamous Sevenoaks circles - the ones which led to TODAY's
exclusive expose of their circle-making claims. Ken Brown has
obtained copies of the TODAY photographs which (apparently) show
Doug and Dave half way through this hoax. In addition there were
two photographs of the 1982 Cley Hill circles which had
subsequently been identified by Meaden plus a previously
unpublished photograph of a single in the punchbowl in 1987. [Ken
Brown has subsequently circulated photocopies of some of these
photographs].

Westbury 1980

Another highlight of the evening was Doug Bower's three
photographs of the 1980 Westbury circles. The first of these
three circles probably appeared in May but had been harvested by
the time of the "Wiltshire Times" article of August 15th. Terence
Meaden has confirmed that this "first" photograph was in
precisely the right place according to his records. The second
and third circles were discovered by the farmer, John Scull, on
August 13th, and may have appeared on July 21st and 31st. For
these reasons neither Ian Mrzyglod or Terence Meaden have ever
possessed or even seen photographs of this very "first" of the
"first" circles. In question time I pointed out the importance of
this evidence (which didn't go down too well with some of Doug
Bower's accusers). How could Doug Bower have obtained these
photographs unless he was the person who created them? How could
he have known that he would have had to drive 60 miles up from
Southampton after these circles appeared unless he made them ? No
one presented an argument to falsify this evidence.   On display
were a cross-piece and torch, for positioning the outer
satellites of the quintuplets, which Doug demonstrated. In
addition Doug demonstrated the use of his
extendible pole, which had been used to ensure that annular rings
were always equidistant from the outer edge of the circle. This
was four feet long - which apparently coincided with the width of
standing crop in many of the ringed formations.

One of the highlights of the evening was Ken Brown's impromptu
request for a brief statement by Matthew Lawrence, the discoverer
of many of the original Cheesefoot Head circles sensationalised
in "Crop Circles, Conclusive Evidence" and "Crop Circles, The
Latest Evidence". Lawrence made the following statement about the
state of the circles he discovered:-
"I used to get up to [Cheesefoot Head] at about half past four on
numerous occasions, just as the sun came out, and I was quite
surprised when I went in because I knew that I was one of the
first people in there and they weren't as immaculate as they'd
said in 'Circular Evidence'. There was quite a lot of damage on
the crop, there was tracks I could see in places, sometimes mud
on the actual crop around the edges, which would suggest that
someone had been in before .. so [perhaps] I wasn't the first one
there ... ".

This statement demands a public explanation from Colin Andrews
and Pat Delgado, who have repeatedly stated that the circles they
discovered at Cheesefoot Head were pristine, undamaged and showed
no sign of human entry.  If it can be shown that Andrews and
Delgado misrepresented the condition of the circles in the
Cheesefoot Head punchbowl this would be evidence of a cold
calculated fraud which should be dealt with by the courts [see
article on page 30].

Another important piece of evidence discussed was the "red dot"
maps compiled by Ken Brown. These were Ordnance Survey 1:50 000
maps with the locations of all the circles Doug and Dave can
recall having made. According to Brown the maps contain over 40
locations which have never been published anywhere. Brown alleged
that  Don Tuersley and Richard Andrews had both approached him
and confirmed the existence of previously unpublished circles on
these maps.

Unfortunately 3 hours was not enough time to present all the
evidence. The audience may have missed the large poster showing
the pavement at Westminster Abbey. The pattern on this pavement
looked very similar to the quintuplet patterns that Doug Bower
claims to have invented in 1981. For some reason this poster was
not
discussed during the presentation.

Question Time

By 10 o' clock the audience had grown increasingly impatient and
Ken Brown, realising he had over-run his own schedule, wisely
invited questions. By any standard the question and answer period
was heated, although most members of the audience at least
refrained from making open insults. Polly Carson launched a
fierce attack on Doug Bower, claiming that she could not accept
his story because of the lack of photographs showing him half way
through making a circle. Later she accused Bower of being a crop
"vandal" who had maliciously tricked two genuine, contentious
researchers, Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado. She vowed that the
farmers would push for a prosecution. A number of people
expressed their total disbelief in Doug Bower's story. Chad
Deetken from Vancouver challenged Bower to demonstrate how to
make crop circles at night with complex layering effects. Doug
Bower stated that he would be prepared to start making circles at
midnight and carry on until 6.30 or 7 in the morning whilst
Deetken watched. This acceptance of Deetken's challenge drew
applause from the audience. In response to a question from
Michael Hesseman Ken Brown admitted that Doug Bower and Dave
Chorley had made the 1992 formation at East Meon. A woman at the
back described a new eye witness account. Montague Keen stated
that he accepted "most if not all" of Doug Bower's story but he
expressed his puzzlement at to why we were being asked to accept
Doug Bower's story without any photographic proof yet at the same
time we were being asked to dismiss the testimony of farmers
dating back decades when they too had not been able to furnish
photographic proof that they had seen crop circles decades ago.
Keen observed that whilst Doug Bower's story may account for much
of the phenomenon it didn't explain the reported luminosities and
other strange effects reported in the literature. In response to
another question from Michael Hesseman Brown admitted that he was
intrigued by UFO films such as the Concorde flight. Asked whether
Doug and Dave had made any more circles after the 1992 East Meon
formation Ken Brown responded "no comment, and you can take the
correct inference if you wish".

Error

Ken Brown made his only real error of the night when he claimed
that there were no photographs of sharply defined pre 1975
circles despite more than a decade of research. This, in his
opinion, only proved that "corn circles were Doug Bower's
original idea". He repeated this heresy by claiming that the
Tully reeds circle was a "dish-shaped" depression in reeds that
was not like the circles that Doug and Dave had "invented" in
1976. He then dismissed my historical crop circle photographs by
claiming that they showed "slanting edges" ! Contradictory Brown
claimed that he didn't really care what had caused the Tully
circles and that perhaps they had been "blown down by some kind
of force" ! In the question and answer session I too challenged
Ken Brown's claim by presenting my photographs of the Rossburn,
Bordertown and Wokurna circles [which all feature in the 2nd
edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery
Solved"]. At last ! Here was my opportunity for a well-planned
piece of cerealogical espionage.  I loudly passed around my
photos to disprove Ken Brown's treason and this only enraged the
audience all the more. Snigger, snigger !


































The cross-sectional sketch of the single at Wokurna, South
Australia, December 1973  (drawn by Peter Horne and Stephen
Bolton) After it was all over I chatted to various crop circle
personalities, some of whom I had only conversed before by
letter. I began by challenging one of the most vociferous of Doug
Bower's tormentors, someone I had guessed to be none other than
Chad Deetken from Vancouver (the discoverer of the famous
porcupine-in-a-circle discussed in CW17). Deetken and I had a
short but
unconstructive conversation. Deetken informed me that he took
more note of Colin Andrews' "13 years of research" [!!!] than the
false claims of a fraud like Doug Bower whose inability at
creating layered crop circles was obvious from the photographs of
the Chilgrove demonstration that were on show. I told Deetken
about the U.B.I. and the "two dozen" other groups of crop circle
hoaxers, but he was utterly disinterested. When I asked him what
the eye witnesses were seeing he admitted that they might be
seeing circles created by whirlwinds. In the end I just gave up,
for here was the epitome of the True believer - someone who had
read Andrews and Delgados' books and was not going to let little
things like facts detract from his belief in alien intelligences.


I spoke to others and discovered that several were outraged at
what they saw as Ken Brown's "arrogant" presentation of the
evidence. For these people it was not enough to see photographs
or to hear Doug Bower describe his circle-making techniques.
These people wanted Proof and could not accept that there was no
proof. Like Polly Carson they too were unimpressed with the lack
of photographs of Doug and Dave half way through one of their
hoaxes. Then there were others, perhaps less emotive and more
willing to accept the word of a confessed trickster, who quietly
accepted what they had been told with some mirth.

Overall I found the evening's entertainment both informative and
rewarding. The crop circle research community owes a debt to Ken
Brown for spending time and money researching Doug and Daves'
case and for presenting this evidence in such an organised and
calm manner. I wish there had been more time to question Doug
about certain aspects of his circle making and to properly
assimilate the material on the display boards. In my opinion
there can be little remaining doubt that Doug Bower really did
create those "first" circles at Westbury in 1980. For this reason
the very reality of the whole phenomenon must be called into
question. It was therefore a pity that Ken Brown chose to ignore
evidence which has already been published (eg in "The Crop
Watcher"). By ignoring this evidence - particularly the Wokurna
photograph and sketch published on page 9 of issue 4 - Ken Brown
risks discrediting Doug Bower's own story as well as condemning
the debate to further polarisation. But these criticisms aside it
was a splendid evening. I should take this opportunity of
correcting the incorrect claim made in John Vidal's article in
The Guardian concerning the alleged profit from these two
lectures. Ken Brown assures me that he and Doug Bower actually
lost # 5 - which they shared - for the cost of hiring the halls
and buying the photographs etc. The Covent Garden lecture will be
reviewed in CW19. PF.


Book Review

"Round in Circles; Physicists, Poltergeists, Pranksters and the
Secret History of the Cropwatchers" Jim Schnabel, Hamish
Hamilton, # 16.99, 294 pages, 18 b&w photos

Although this is his first venture into publishing Jim Schnabel
has produced an excellent and highly detailed account of how the
crop circle myth was conceived and promoted by two sets of rival
researchers - the "Delgadonians" and the "Meadenites". Unlike
earlier crop circle books Schnabel concentrates  almost entirely
on the researchers themselves rather than the phenomenon itself.
The result is a hilarious romp through a series of disastrous
mistakes, desperate eccentricity and outrageous storytelling.
Jim Schnabel deserves the fullest praise for being brave enough
to publish where others feared to tread, citing case after case
where the crop circle "experts" pulled the most outrageous stunts
in a bid to convince an agog world of their egocentric belief
systems. In years to come this book will presumably become a
classic sociological study of how the scientific method fails
when confronted with anomalies - proof positive that Science
cannot be conducted in a blaze of media scrutiny. It will also be
quoted as yet further proof that Science avoids tackling issues
that have become tainted with the emotive UFO mythology. In this
respect alone Jim Schnabel has done anomaly research a great
service, for only by studying how Science fails to tackle
anomalous phenomena can we ever hope to change things for the
better.

The great strengths of this book are its treatment of the history
of the subject, its portrayal of the crop circle players and its
analysis of the politics of circles research. The book is
presented more-or-less in historical sequence, beginning with the
"first" circles at Westbury in 1980, the Warminster connection,
Ian Mrzyglod's role in the early promotion of the whirlwind
theory and Meaden's attempts to deal with the evolution of
patterns. Slowly the reader is introduced to all the main crop
circle researchers and their peculiar personal problems. The book
is abundant with major revelations. These include the antipathy
and jealousy between Andrews and Delgado, the full story behind
Fuller's legal battle with Flying Saucer Review, Andrews' alien
implant and Delgado's channelling of an alien entity called
"Zirkka". There is also the full inside story of Meaden's
suicidal flirtations with Andrews and Delgado, the egotism and
betrayal which eventually destroyed the original gang of four and
the previously untold story of the rise of the CCCS. On top of
this Schnabel even confesses to having created numerous crop
circles, including the Silbury Hill "charm bracelet" of 1992.

All this material is treated remarkably frankly, with extensive
verbal transcripts of what might have taken place. Historical
events such as Operation Whitecrow (1989) and the Blackbird
disaster (1990) are treated well. To have portrayed these events
so accurately Schnabel undertook considerable archive research in
the literature and spoke to all the key people involved. Reading
this book I discovered all kinds of things I never knew - such as
the fact that Colin Andrews first became involved in circles
research following his attendance at BUFORA's 1986 crop circle
symposium. According to Schnabel (page 37), Andrews rang Meaden a
few days later and asked if he could join "Meaden's group". Since
this took place in July 1986 Andrews' subsequent claim (eg on the
cover of his "Undeniable Evidence" video) to have been
researching the subject "for more than a decade" is shown to be
no more than a blatant and cynical lie. It also exposes Andrews'
repeated false claim to have been the leading member of this
group. Neither Jenny Randles or myself knew that Meaden had
attended a meeting at Colin Andrews' house where the subject of
writing a book about the phenomenon was first mooted. This is
also the first time we have heard of Meaden's TORRO colleague
Derek Elsom publishing a
favourable review of "Circular Evidence" in the Geographic
Magazine !

There are many highly amusing anecdotes in this book, perhaps too
many to review properly. I was even amused to read those about
myself !  However, I was a little disappointed to see Schnabel
refer to my "UFO" sighting on page 36 as I am sure I also told
Schnabel about its true origin. I saw the light late one night in
October 1967 - when I was only 7 years old - it was this sighting
which triggered my interest in UFOs. But when I was 15 I finally
discovered that my "UFO" was merely a noctilucent cloud - a
glowing cloud illuminated by the rays of the set sun. I wish
Schnabel had included this explanation because the average reader
will assume from what is written that I am a believer in
spaceships rather than a UFOlogist who seeks explanations. I was
also disappointed to read that I had allegedly described Rita
Goold's UFO sighting as that of a "plasma vortex" (page 203), as
I certainly do not recall using such a phrase. This is one of
several occasions in the book when Schnabel makes assumptions
about other researcher's claims and beliefs without actually
checking those claims.

Throughout the book the conflict between reason and pseudo-
science becomes a key motif. Schnabel demonstrates convincingly
that the supernatural researchers were gifted publicity seekers,
their hugely inflated egos driving them on and on towards more
ridiculous and sensational claims.  Throughout Andrews and
Delgados' rise to media stardom Schnabel paints a graphic picture
of how these two men almost single-handedly created a mythology
that triggered one of the greatest UFO frauds of all time. In
this way Schnabel captures the mood of the moment. He also
examines the way that established scientists such as Terence
Meaden and Archie Roy helped to legitimise Andrews and Delgado by
allowing themselves to be publicly associated with these men's
activities. In this respect Schnabel's failure to discuss the
NFU's unintentional and badly judged promotion of CPR and CCCS in
their "Code of Practice" is an unfortunate omission.

One disappointment of the book is that Schnabel avoids making the
direct accusation that Andrews and Delgado deliberately
suppressed evidence, although he discusses several occasions when
their knowledge of unwelcome evidence becomes apparent (eg page
123). Schnabel omits to mention the fact that both men knowingly
omitted proof of crop circle hoaxing known to them in 1987 (see
CW16 page 15-18). He also omits to point out that both men knew
they couldn't tell "real" circles from man-made circles as long
ago as 1987 (ref their promotion of the 1986 Cheesefoot Head hoax
and Delgado's false claim on page 155 of "Circular Evidence"). In
correspondence with me Schnabel denies hinting in his book that
evidence was deliberately contrived by the crop circle
researchers. This denial will surprise many cerealogists as it
has been an open point of discussion for some years and
Schnabel's book certainly reads as though he is making such an
accusation.

Schnabel's treatment of contentious material is highly
illuminating. On some occasions - such as when debating Fuller's
legal correspondence - he merely presents the evidence, leaving
his readers to judge the truth for themselves. On other occasions
he is more open, labelling Colin Andrews a "shaman" and Michael
Green a "pagan" (page 137). I was astonished to read about
Andrew's belief that he had an alien "implant" in his forehead as
this is a story that never did the rounds in the CERES camp. His
description of Pat Delgado writhing in the energies during
Operation Whitecrow is one of the funniest parts of the entire
book.

Crop circle researchers everywhere will know that for the past
few years Schnabel has been seen tape recording interviews with
all and sundry. Now we know why ! His account of a visit to the
Waggon and Horses (pages 198-203) is one of the most revealing
and amusing in the book. Foolishly Schnabel asks Wingfield what
he thinks of Meaden's atmospheric vortex theory. Wingfield's
predictable reply - "Meaden's theory is crap" - totally
demolishes Wingfield's claim to be an objective scientific
researcher.

One problem with writing a book about the personalities of
circles research is that outsiders - such as Robin McKie of The
Observer -mistakenly assume that Schnabel's book is just as
authoritative and comprehensive about the phenomenon itself. For
this reason McKie wrote in his review of Schnabel's book ("Making
hay with
gullibility", 11th July 1993) that "... The fact that the circles
only appeared in Britain should have been a give-away, of course
...". Similar sentiments have appeared in other reviews of the
book. Perhaps with a little hindsight Schnabel should have
included more overseas cases, particularly those that predate
Doug and Daves' circle-making activities. It would also have been
more constructive to include some of the alleged historical eye
witness claims - such as Paul Germany's (1935-7) and Christine
Dutton's (1912-1956). Although these are retrospectively reported
claims they are still important and form an important part of the
crop circle evidence.

Unlike some of the more successful crop circle books "Round in
Circles" has only a few relatively uninteresting black and white
plates. These plates include the first publicly available
photograph of the United Bureau of Investigation, the major group
of hoaxers unmasked by Schnabel and Irving in 1992. This
photograph challenges Wingfield and Andrews' continuing claims
that the so-called "pictograms" are "genuine". If so who are the
people in plate 14 ? CIA agents ? Or crop circle hoaxers ?

Well, these are all the things I like about the book. Its
amusing, readable and full of delicious anecdotes. Sadly though,
I have some dislikes. One minor drawback is the lack of an index,
which makes the reviewer's task that much more difficult. Another
criticism of the book is that Schnabel frequently describes
events or quotes statistics without giving due credit to his
source. In many cases the source is - of course - a CERES
researcher (such as Andrew Hewitt or Peter Rendall) so perhaps
this omission is
understandable. Many of the hoaxes exposed by BUFORA's
researchers over the past decade or so are not mentioned,
although Schnabel has a copy of the text of Fuller's 1992 lecture
to BUFORA where he gave credit for over 20 hoaxes exposed by
BUFORA investigators during the preceding decade.

More importantly there are several errors which need to be
corrected in any future reprint of the book. We have drawn
attention  to these errors in our page by page analysis. Another
problem is the omission of important events and issues. There is
no mention of Andrews' allegation that Taylor deliberately tried
to run him off the road on the Winchester By-pass when a black
crow flew in front of his car (circa 1989). There is no mention
of Andrews and Delgados' apparent membership of the Masons or the
manner in which Delgado obtained the "official" statement from
the Royal Meteorological Society for inclusion in "Crop Circles,
Conclusive Evidence" and amended this statement to discredit
Meaden's atmospheric vortex theory (see CW13 page 7-11). The book
should have examined the attitude of the farmers and their
surprising disinterest in solving the mystery. There should have
been some comment about the police and their failure to take
hoaxing seriously. Strangely the role of the media in creating
the mythology is downplayed rather than being a major theme. In
my view there is disappointingly little sociology in the book.
Why did the crop circle myth occur ? How does it compare with
similar anomaly myths (like Warminster or the Gallipolis flap
described by John Keel) ? What forces were involved and who were
the major players ?

However, by far the most serious criticism we can make of this
book is that Schnabel argues throughout that the entire crop
circle community consisted entirely of gullible buffoons who
missed important clues that pointed to hoaxing, who failed to
apply Occam's razor and who allowed their irrationality to take
them into pathological flights of fantasy. We have detailed
numerous
occasions in our page by page analysis where Schnabel makes this
claim by ignoring contrary evidence. In this respect Schnabel has
done a grave disservice to those researchers who consistently
argued that widespread hoaxing was a possibility. By ignoring
these "successes" Schnabel has successfully turned a grey
argument into a black and white argument. Of course we cannot
blame Schnabel for seizing on the mistakes and errors of our
field - afterall we have all been guilty at some time or other of
making grave mistakes and errors of judgement - but it is not
acceptable to ignore this evidence simply to make the evidence
fit the claim. By ignoring the warnings of mass crop circle
hoaxing carried in the first edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery
Solved" (where the pictograms were (a) predicted and (b)
dismissed as hoaxes) and by ignoring the numerous exposes of
hoaxing carried in The Crop Watcher Schnabel
successfully obscufates the fact that not all cerealogists were
taken in all the time. For history's sake this important lack of
credit needs to be rectified.

To sum up ? A super book, one well worth buying. We award 8 out
of 10 for giving us such a good laugh. Well done Jim ! We now
present a page by page analysis for the record. This review and
analysis has been compiled with helpful comments and suggestions
from Terence Meaden, Peter Rendall and Jenny Randles.  In this
page by page review the following abbreviations have been used:-
A&D Andrews & Delgado, PF Paul Fuller, GTM Terence Meaden, JR
Jenny Randles, PR Peter Rendall, JS Jim Schnabel. PV Plasma
Vortex. PF.

Page      Comment

7    Actually Aime Michell introduced the concept of Orthony in
1958, not the mid 1960s. Jacques Vallee      later wrote about
Orthony in his books but had not invented the concept.  10  Was
TORRO really just an "amateur research organisation" in 1980 ?
This is a bit unfair.

We think Chapter 1 is very good, detailing the discovery of the
original 1980 circles at Westbury and describing Meaden's
academic and professional background in astonishing detail. It
also
introduces Ian Mrzyglod and PROBE, portraying them as reasonably
rational compared with the mass of UFO groups which developed in
the wake of the Warminster waves of the 1960/70s. It is somewhat
unfortunate that JS still presents the PROBE group "obviously"
considering an "extraterrestrial spaceship" as the cause of the
"first" circles (page 9), as this is not a true reflection of the
group's beliefs. PF checked this with Ian Mrzyglod on 23rd August
1993.

16   Its a bit unfair to describe "The Unexplained" as a
"paranormal enthusiasts journal". It was in fact a     part-work
which built into an encyclopedia of the paranormal, and in many
respects it was certainly     more skeptical than many newsstand
magazines devoted to anomalies. 17      The description of the
Tully reeds circles doesn't fully agree with the description and
plan we published   in  CW10, which is based on primary sources
of information. 18     In our opinion it is not fair to say that
Queensland was "by then famous for its waves of UFO sightings
 and the apparently related nests in swamp reeds and
cornfields", as this implies some kind of    dubiousness. It must
not be forgotten that two independent researchers (JR and Claire
Nobel) have both    uncovered evidence that crop circles predated
the first media-reported crop circle event at Tully in      1966.
This is vitally important evidence for a naturally occurring
phenomenon which JS should have    discussed in more detail. 18
Whirlwinds (ie tornadoes) DO glow and buzz due to the presence of
electrostatic fields. It is fair to say   that they don't "flit
about hypersonically".
20   PF's understanding of the Sheppard's hoax quintuplet was
that not only had the hoaxers left obvious   trails through
adjacent crop but the crop was DAMAGED, unlike crop in allegedly
"real" quintuplets.   The Sheppard's hoax was also a daylight
hoax done with the farmer's permission rather than a   nocturnal
hoax done by stealth under threat of discovery, so its poor
quality only helped to lend   credence to the idea that
(nocturnal) circles were not man-made. It is obviously important
to  demonstrate how and why mistakes were made so that history
will benefit from our errors. We      therefore fail to
understand why these facts are not
mentioned. 21  Did Meaden really "shrug" off Mrzyglod's
"deflection" ? PF and JR never knew that Mrzyglod had
     "deflected" as he never publicly rejected GTM's theory. PF
spoke to GTM about Mrzyglod on many     occasions but never
received the slightest hint that Mrzyglod had actually rejected
his theory. JR recalls       Ian Mrzyglod's resignation from
UFOlogy back in 1984. Mrzyglod  was sickened by the unscientific
     attitude of UFOlogists and the way they simply wouldn't
listen to the truth. JR recalls that there was not       the
slightest indication at this stage that he believed all crop
circles to be hoaxes. Recently Ian     Mrzyglod confirmed to PF
that he rejected all crop circles as hoaxes after writing his
last article in       "Probe Report" Vol IV No 2, but he also
confirmed that at the time of writing this article he was still
prepared to consider a meteorological explanation for perhaps 10
per cent of the data (ie the singles).  22    PF is not sure its
fair to blame the "UFO hysteria" on just the tabloids - some
highbrow press also got       involved in the media game - as
well as numerous TV and radio stations in the south and west.
JS' treatment of the media's role is intriguing. There is no
doubt that many media sources -particularly   the BBC - have a
lot of explaining to do to those farmers whose fields were later
invaded by hundreds    of
sightseers or who suffered from crop circle hoaxing. Without the
help of the BBC the crop circle    fraud would never have reached
take-off following the launch of "Circular Evidence". 23    The
"War of the Worlds" broadcast was not merely touched off by the
sound of the "human voice" -       like crop circles there were a
host of very special circumstances that triggered the social
response       mechanism. This is an example where JS could have
drawn out more of the sociological aspects, eg    he could have
contrasted the crop circle mythology with the Warminster Thing -
every generation    has a sudden paranormal fad like crop circles
- and in every case the media are largely the guilty    party -
JS could have referred to "Folk Devils and Moral Panics", the
classic sociological study  of how the Mods and Rockers myth was
largely created by media reporting (it had gone on for years
before the media decided to label it and create a scare story
about how the youth were subverting    the nation's moral fibre,
etc etc).  23   Surely there were more cases in 1984 than JS
reports ? PF has some cases submitted to BUFORA from     around
this time in Surrey which D&D could not have made. These will be
published in a future CW. 23/24 PF is not sure its fair to state
that the location of the 1984 quintuplet on top of  Cheesefoot
Head caused      Meaden to "expand his theory again" - he had
already "expanded" his theory with reference to   earlier
quintuplet patterns. The precise positioning of the pattern on
top of the hill was never a   problem for the meteorological
explanation.
27/29     The Wessex Skeptics dismissed the Delgado Effect by
referring to much earlier promotions of this      effect (dating
back to the early 1920s, see David Fisher's article in The
Skeptic, Vol IV, no 2). 34   JS misses out the fact that PF also
attended the Alresford Park meeting ! Delgado was not the first
  person to suggest that the "apparent recentness" of the circles
"was an illusion due to reporting",  it    was PF (in "Exploring
the Supernatural" April/May 1987) !  Delgado was always very
reticent to   discuss historical cases - as JS correctly
demonstrates on page 130. JS misses out a number of     important
events - eg Omar Fowler's promotion of the Mrs Jones case (see
CW16) and the fact that PF   spoke up about hoaxing (therefore
the last few sentences are wrong). PF has this meeting on tape so
 can prove all of this. JS fails to mention that when PF
criticised Delgado for naming an already known       effect after
himself  PF was threatened with a lawsuit ! 37   Its a bit
misleading to say that GTM was
"professorially reluctant to appear in public with people who
 believed in UFOs". Afterall, JR and PF both believe in UFOs (ie
as misperceived natural phenomena)       and GTM was not
"reluctant" to attend BUFORA's 1986 and 1987 events, or to invite
JR and PF to the    Oxford Conference in 1990 (see below).
37   ERROR. The first anti-clockwise circle was NOT discovered at
Headbourne Worthy in 1986.  The    Wokurna circle of 1973 in
South Australia was anti-clockwise (see CW3). So were the
Bordertown       circles of 1972 (discussed in CW5) and the
Tooligie Hills case from 1971 (CW6). 38 This section misses out
PF's letter to the Winchester Extra (21 August 1986) and the
article in the    Daily Telegraph (9 July 1986). This first
letter demonstrates BUFORA's hoax/whirlwind stance and     our
desire to uncover accounts of pre 1981 crop circles. This section
also omits Jenny Randles'
     interview in "The Guardian" (18 July 1986), where she stated
that "the circles' evolving patterns are     'very suspicious'".
This important article was the first national media coverage of
our promotion of   a joint explanation encompassing both
meteorological and hoax theories.  39   Actually there are
documented accounts of animal mutilations and crop circles pre-
dating Delgado's
     statement - see CW17 pages 3-5.
46   The small white object in Taylor's photo was suggested to be
a notepad by a number of other     commentators (eg Terry Wilson
in CW12 page 35, published in July/August 1992). There is a
similar  photo in the first edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery
Solved" ! 47   Ref the "unusual professional suffix of MASEE,
AILE" - has anyone found out what it stands for ? 49     ERROR:
Wingfield worked at Herstmonceux in Sussex, not Scotland. 52
Actually dowsing is apparently accepted in Germany - see Tom
Williamson's book on Dowsing     reviewed it in CW17. It is
important not to tarnish all dowsing claims with the same brush,
the    dowsing of "genuine" crop circles is certainly open to
criticism but PF wouldn't be so dismissive     of other dowsing
claims having read Williamson's sceptical and open-minded resume
of the literature      (which includes well documented double
blind experiments that produced results that had only a tiny
probability of occurring by chance alone).
63   It is surely not correct to state that by 1986 the circles
had an "increasingly broad territory". This claim     omits the
overseas cases we have documented that predated 1980 as well as
the crop circle cases in     other parts of  Britain that we
discovered (eg in Gloucestershire, Cheshire, Cumbria, etc). This
creation   of the Mythical "Wessex Triangle" by the concentration
of hoaxers in Hampshire and Wiltshire was a      major issue
which PF and JR debated repeatedly. We still maintain that when
the hoaxers leave the       subject alone there will be
occasional crop circles spread throughout Britain. 64 We disagree
with JS' comparison between GTM's interpretation of the Windmill
Hill air crashes and       Colin Andrews' speculations about the
Harrier Pilot. Recent research into some major aircraft crashes
discusses the role of a horizontally moving ring-vortex developed
in a thunderstorm cloud. GTM's   speculations at least have a
firm meteorological basis whereas Colin's speculations were
merely    "intuitive". It is important to distinguish between
legitimate scientific
speculation based on current       scientific research and
pseudo-scientific speculation, but JS seems to blur these two
claims together. 67   Actually PF talked about hoaxing at the
Devizes meeting. Why isn't this mentioned ? This is another
example of how JS seems to have omitted facts which turn a black
and white argument into a grey one      - not everyone involved
in circles research promoted everything as "genuine". PF and JR
repeatedly      debated hoaxing and repeatedly suggested that
many circles might be man-made.  68   Actually PF made no "public
attacks" until AFTER A&D refused to reply to his letters (1988).
The way   JS has written this makes it look as though PF was
spoiling for a fight. The truth is that when people      simply
refuse to respond to new evidence or to debate the issues what
can you do ? PF gave A&D every     opportunity to debate the
evidence, but A&D left PF with no choice but to publicly
criticise their    actions and claims. PF's decision has proved
quite correct given the enormous damage they have done      to
sensible UFO research with their
irresponsible and reckless promotion of the subject.
68   Actually PF also tried to convince A&D that hoaxing was a
possibility in his letters. See CW16 pages   15-18.
69   PF and JR don't agree that the BUFORA/TORRO Survey was
"mostly fruitless" at all ! It demonstrated     that a mixture of
explanations was perfectly acceptable to the farming community.
This evidence was   also suppressed by A&D - as was anything else
which spoilt their fantasies. 70   We are not sure its fair to
describe MUFON UFO Journal as the "primary organ of American
UFOlogy". What about International UFO Reporter ?
70   There is no mention of Gordon Creighton's numerous and
unprovoked public attacks on PF and JR,      who he accused of
being "two of the most egregious liars at large in our country
today". By excluding     this seriously defamatory statement JS
makes it look as if PF and JR were looking for a fight and were
   guilty of escalating the disagreement. Neither does JS mention
the fact that in 1983 JR was removed    from her position at FSR
by the (then) new Editor Gordon Creighton without any reason
being given.    This coincided with her public promotion of a
prosaic explanation for the crop circles and Pat     Delgado's
appointment as a "consultant".
72   This section misses out the fact that after supplying these
statements via their respective solicitors   A&D carried on
making these false claims to the public in "Circular Evidence".
Neither does JS   mention the fact that Andrews' boss' boss was a
Chief Officer - making Andrews' claim to be the "chief
electrical engineer" (ie a Chief Officer) totally false.  72 This
section also misses out the fact that Andrews was in breach of
the terms of his conditions of       employment with Test Valley
Borough Council, as it is not permitted for local government
employees     to associate one's personal views with one's
employers in the public arena (hence the statement at the   start
of "Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved").
74   PF recalls being furious with GTM for not telling him that
A&D were planning to write a book. This     was one of three
major disagreements PF recalls having with GTM.  78     JS's
claim that tornadoes emit "sparks and luminous balls" contradicts
his earlier claim on page 18    that whirlwinds don't glow. 79
We believe that in fact it was JR who first realised that the
plasma-vortex theory might be capable of    explaining numerous
UFO reports. 97   PF and JR were very unhappy with GTM continuing
to share information with A&D in 1989, as we     believed that it
compromised GTM's scientific status. Despite the fact that
"Controversy of the Circles"       had just been published PF and
JR didn't speak to GTM for nearly 6 weeks because of their
annoyance ! 97 The water tank "circle" was actually PF's mistake,
not GTM's ! 99 A good point. Archie Roy's encouragement to
Andrews gave CPR the illusion of scientific respect- ability
which  A&D used to good effect - we think JS rightly apportions
blame here in what he says.  101  This section misses an item on
the ITN 10 o' clock network news which featured Operation
Whitecrow  and a video sequence of an orange pulsating light
(probably an aircraft approaching Eastleigh Airport)     This too
was an early example of A&D beginning to realise the media power
they wielded, as well   as it being another excellent example of
how the media falsely led the public to believe that crop circles
   were associated with UFOs (ie flying saucers).
103  This section is potentially very misleading as we failed to
understand how Harry Harris' name could be   associated with the
Whitecrow letter, particularly as JS claimed in his lecture to
Essex CCCS that it       was actually Rita Goold who sent the
Whitecrow letter ! JS has since claimed in correspondence with
PF that Rita Goold used Harry Harris' name to "deflect suspicion"
from her involvement in the   Whitecrow letter. The fact that we
failed to understand this implication demonstrates the problems
of       writing in such a cryptic style !
114  The Sussex University con is not explained in full. See CW
11 page 33. 114   Was the surveillance equipment really worth #
28,000 ? Given Andrews' other exaggerations this    seems to be
another claim which could have been confirmed or denied. 115   We
believe that Don Tuersley had worked with A&D for more than 3
years. 116 We had no idea that Derek Elsom had favourably
reviewed Circular Evidence in the "Geographic   Magazine". Yes,
GTM confirmed to PF that he never informed other members of TORRO
about    his problems with A&D.
117  The second Parliamentary question was designed to answer
claims made on A&Ds' behalf in the      "London Evening Standard"
about official help from the constabularies of Hampshire and
Wiltshire.     This claim, like so many others, turned out to be
quite false. Why did A&D not issue a public  retraction of this
claim ? 122    So why is "Crop Circles A Mystery Solved" not
mentioned ? It sold 30,000 copies in the UK, Germany   and
Hungary, and unlike all other books on the subject prior to 1991
it
contained a whole chapter on  hoaxing, successfully predicting
the arrival of the pictograms and talking extensively about
hoaxing.      Also BUFORA's 1989 report "Controversy of the
Circles" was not a "book", it was a home-produced   booklet that
was never sold in the shops. JS makes it look as though our point
of view was irrelevant     and rightfully ignored. We believe
this is very unfair. 123    We were very pleased to see JS'
demonstration of Andrew's suppression of eye witness testimony.
This was an important part of what they did.
123  Actually it was JR who queried this claim with 10 Downing
Street, not PF. 123 Actually, in October 1989 PF avoided a direct
confrontation with Andrews because of the outstanding  threat of
litigation. PF took part in a recorded interview on BBC Radio
Solent which Andrews respond- ed to live a few days later.
Andrews defamed Fuller and BUFORA several times in his response,
     claiming, for example, that he had never swopped data with
BUFORA (despite the fact that he had    helped with the
BUFORA/TORRO Survey) and claiming that BUFORA had a "very well
known     reputation for trouble making", a claim which almost
resulted in legal action by BUFORA against   Andrews for libel.
125/6     This excludes PF's documentary proof that Andrews
knowingly omitted hoaxing and eye witness    testimony from
Circular Evidence, a crucial part of how these two researchers
misled the public and    helped spawn a supernatural myth.  130
This is an excellent description of how the Mowing Devil case was
discovered (something which    Fortean Times and The
Cerealogist later obscufated). The case was also discovered by
Andy Roberts   at about the same time. JR and PF do not recall JR
mentioning any worries she may or may not have    had about
Gordon Creighton using the case to support his own theories. We
were more concerned with      the way A&D were bringing UFOlogy
into
disrepute than with Creighton's writings in FSR. We had no  idea
that A&D knew about the Mowing Devil case. Why did this not
appear in  their  subsequent books   or media promotion of the
subject ? This is an excellent example of their data suppression.

137  The Oak Dragon camps were held on the Carsons' farm at Alton
Barnes as well as at Glastonbury. 138   PF and JR were never
invited by the CCCS to join them or to contribute to "The Crop
Circle Enigma" -    further proof of their suppression of
evidence. GTM was only asked right at the very last moment - just
   when he was busy travelling around visiting and surveying crop
circles. This too was a difficult      decision for GTM, whether
to risk giving the CCCS scientific legitimacy or whether to miss
an       important opportunity for disseminating important
scientific evidence to the public.  The Carsons claimed they'd
made # 7,000 in some newspaper accounts, not # 5,000. 149    This
is very unfair. Hilary Evans has degrees from both Birmingham and
Cambridge Universities.  He can hardly be described as an
"amateur
scientist".  150    Actually GTM warned H. Kikuchi about Andrews
and Andrews was quietly "dropped" from the URSI   Conference
(although his name still appeared on the Conference Agenda). We
were pleased to see JS'  inclusion of the footnote which
demonstrates Andrews' intense egotism. 151Footnote: If Colin
Andrews is a Chief Officer, why does he have a "head of
department" ? 151/52  The issue of the central clumps is still
very important, as both Doug and Dave and one or two of our
historic witnesses (eg Paul Germany) claim to have invented
them/seen them in the 1930s. Which is       correct ?
153  ERROR. PF and JR were asked to talk at the Oxford Conference
before Easter 1991 so it is quite false      to claim that we
were only asked to attend to make up the numbers. According to
PF's diary entry for     13th April 1990 he "Spent all day
writing article for Oxford Conference". This means PF and JR must
 have been invited at least 10 weeks before the Conference to
submit a paper (probably about 12      weeks).  JS presents no
evidence to show that PF and JR were only invited after all the
other lecturers      had been invited.
153  ERROR: PF didn't plead with GTM to only invite "Meadenites",
PF pleaded with GTM to refuse entry     to A&D, who were
libelling all of us in the press and who PF thought would try to
steal GTM's       thunder in the press. GTM didn't tell PF that
A&D were attending until the day before the conference -   PF was
furious with GTM and Derek Elsom witnessed the resulting argument
between PF and GTM     (although PF didn't know who Derek Elsom
was, and later had to explain to him the problems GTM      had
not told him about).
154-6     Is this on tape ? Snow or Church (PF can't remember
which) accosted PF at the end of Conference to    ask about
hoaxing following our comments in our lecture (which, again, JS
makes no reference to).      Snow/Church was very concerned  on
hearing our comments. Again this is proof that JR and PF did
not accept everything GTM said and were prepared to consider
hoaxing as a solution. Afterall, GTM       points this out in the
"Afterword" of the first edition of our book ! PR recalls that PF
and JR claimed      that pictogram boxes were "additions" by
"hippies". He also recalls that GTM dismissed the case of the
"sprouting ring" as a hoax. These claims are proof that we all
considered hoaxing to varying degrees. 156     PF, JR and PR all
disagree with this description of the argument between CA and
GTM. See CW3     pages 8-9.  PF and JR do not recall the
scientists watching "in
astonished silence" at this confrontation.        We were still
stood at the lectern at the front of the hall and could see the
faces of all the attendees. We     feel they were more annoyed by
Andrews' confrontational manner than by anything GTM had done. PR
    recalls the fact that a member of the audience gave Andrews
the opportunity of asking his question. 159  In fact Andrew
Hewitt's survey of the 1990 circles demonstrated that almost
three quarters of circles      were mere singles. Why is Hewitt
not credited for this work ? See CW10 and CW11. Hewitt was also a
     member of CERES.
161  Actually the Gorleston formation only further convinced JR
and PF that some circles were hoaxes - JR actually condemned this
formation as a hoax in CW3 page 12 so why does JS miss this out ?
    Again Andrew Hewitt's survey statistics are not credited. 163
We didn't know that Tom Gwinnet had seen circles before - and in
an area very prone to whirlwinds     and waterspouts !! Also see
G.E.M. 16 page 19.
164-169   Done very well indeed !
172  It wasn't Wingfield's "sources" which reported the bizarre
event involving Bill Drummond - this was     reported in numerous
Wiltshire newspapers the day after the Blackbird hoax.  173 We
just love the comment about "the alleged informant allegedly told
Wingfield" - brilliant !!! 174     This is a missed opportunity
to point out that the 2 of the 3 ministries concerned have denied
  Wingfield's ludicrous allegations about a government cover-up.
See CW16 page 28. 175   Another missed opportunity to tell the
story of how Andrews procured the film from Alexander.     We
were informed that Andrews borrowed the tape from Alexander then
later sent # 25 "for expenses".     Apparently Alexander had to
threaten Andrews with an injunction to prevent Andrews abusing
his      copyright but Andrews still showed the film at the MUFON
Conference.  187  JS seems unaware that GTM promoted this as a p-
v on TVS and in various newspapers ! Again PF, JR     and PR were
very annoyed with GTM's treatment of the data. 188    PF and PR
never knew of it as the Devizes Conference, GTM promoted it as a
circles "workshop" ! PF      has the names of everyone who
attended this meeting.
190  The b&w photo of a "circle in ice, in Turkey in 1975" may
have been PF's photo from Svahn of the ice   ring from Sweden,
which PF seems to recall taking to the conference as proof that
natural phenomena      CAN be precisely-defined and circular.
This is the photo reproduced on the back cover of CW8. 191    PF
doesn't recall Ohtsuki discussing motor cars being dragged along
or above road by UFO beams - we      thought this was material PF
discussed ! Ohtsuki only had limited contact with Japanese
UFOlogists   and didn't know PF or JR at all before he came to
the UK in 1991. We believe that Ohtsuki dismissed     the
pictograms as hoaxes at this "workshop". This too should have
been mentioned, as it demonstrates      that Ohtsuki was also
suspicious of the more complex
formations (he dismissed all the "pictograms" as  hoaxes on the
"Equinox" TV documentary filmed the following year). 191    JS
omits the fact that at the end of the meeting PF talked for a
minute or so about hoaxing  ? Again this     is proof that JR and
PF did NOT accept everything as genuine - we were very open to
the idea of  wide- spread hoaxing and were repeatedly prepared to
say so. 193   PF and JR were very pleased to see JS mention our
annoyance with Goldman over their use of von      Daniken's name
on the front cover of our German paperback edition. It is strange
therefore that JS   chose not to highlight the way that the CCCS
prevented PF and JR from presenting our evidence at the     joint
meeting in Hamburg  (see CW5 pages 16-17).  Throughout the crop
circle debate FSR's      supporters repeatedly refused to allow
us to present our evidence - even though BUFORA invited them   to
present their evidence on numerous occasions. This undeniable
suppression of contrary evidence was    another key part of what
FSR did. It deserved to be discussed at length as a lesson in
what happens   when unwelcome evidence is suppressed by the true
believers. 194 JS misses out the fact that PF, JR and Peter
Rendall all publicly dismissed Andrews' description of    the
confrontation at the end of the Oxford Conference as grossly
inaccurate, see the early CWs. 194 Actually PF "kept mum" about
A&D because he didn't want people to think he held a grudge
against     them, not because he was concerned about further
litigation. Of course now JS has published      everything we'll
say what we like about A&D !! 195  CW had a circulation of c 150
at one stage. Now down to 130 or so (including shop deals). 196
 Not the best diary entry JS could have chosen. PF, PR and GTM
stayed up all night several times       taking  continuous
measurements and watching for hoaxers. 197-203   Very very
amusing ! One of the best bits in the whole book ! 199
Wingfield's version of the facts - as usual -directly contradicts
everything that has been published
     elsewhere.
206  Yes, we heard this story too ! George was allegedly drunk
when he fell off  Shirley Maclaine's yacht   into the Pacific !
Presumably someone must have rescued him !! 206   Yes, Rita told
PF the story about the hippies making the face - PF published
this in CW3 page 24.   Again JS ignores the fact that some
researchers recognised the event as a hoax and published the
evidence that demonstrated a hoax well before D&D came on the
scene in late 1991. 216  JS should have pointed out that JAD saw
the first fish being made and the CCCS, CPR, MUFON and
Michael Chorost suppressed this unwelcome evidence in everything
they published whilst PF and JR   published this event in CW8
page 28. 218     PF and JR are very pleased JS included GTM's
dismissal of the Barbury Castle formation here. 233 These are
super placebo effects !
241  West Woods was the location of one of "Ron Smither's"
nocturnal meeting points in his infamous UFO hoax. This is
something of a coincidence. 242    We were very pleased to see
some degree of confirmation for the animal mutilation stories
carried in       CW. Is this a hint that Michael Green (or
perhaps his group) was responsible for the animal     mutilations
? JS is superbly vague leaving the reader to work it out for
themselves. 244 This is the same story that Rita told PF.
Delgado's channelling was allegedly the reason why Central   TV
changed their mind and invited Colin Andrews to the 1991 TV
programme instead of Delgado. 244-5     This is one of the most
contentious parts of the book. JS seems to imply that John
Michell is     involved in black magic !! As for his accusation
about the CCCS being a "religious
organisation" -     this is mere opinion - true for the leading
members perhaps - but not necessarily true for all members. 246
This "letter of reprimand" led to an apology from CCCS in The
Circular which JS fails to mention. 259 This is further damming
proof that "travellers" are involved in making circles -
something PF, PR  and    JR  have known for several years (which
we published in CW) but which JS omits to give credit for.  260
 Actually these stories about letters of encouragement from John
Major, the Queen and other members  of the Royal family are all
gross
exaggerations of what really happened. To our knowledge they have
     never been published and do not appear to be the
endorsements the cerealogists claim. Chapter 22 is   really very
very funny. Superb !!!
274  Again it is not true that the Meadenites embraced virtually
all of the formations except the pictograms. 278  Why is there no
mention of CW's review of Chorost and Levengood's work ? Again
all crop circle    researchers are made to look stupid whereas in
fact some criticised this claim and its promotion by   other
researchers.
280  PF is very pleased to see JS refer to the CCCS continuing to
quote Dudley Marshall's results in their     public lectures
after Dudley had publicly withdrawn them - it was actually George
Wingfield in his    lecture at Essex University - this was
willful and irresponsible scaremongering by a prominent member
 of the CCCS which partially led to more farmers closing their
fields to researchers and sight seers. 282   JS omits to point
out that PR and GTM were also on "Ron Smither's" trail. The rest
of the book is fine,     although we think the closing sentence
is a bit hard on poor Terence. The last chapter allows all the
paranormal protagonists to give a position statement but with the
exception of Meaden the remaining     serious researchers are not
credited with any opinion. Why not ?

CONFERENCE REPORT:
THE TORRO BALL LIGHTNING CONFERENCE

held at Oxford Polytechnic on July 11th, 1992

by David Reynolds

The fourth TORRO Conference on ball lightning (BL) brought
together a set of first-class speakers, many well-known for their
contributions to the subject. The meeting was chaired by Bob
Pritchard of the London Weather Centre, whose voice is instantly
recognisable to anyone who listened to the weather forecasts on
Radio 4 [until about two years ago when the B.B.C. television
forecasters work was expanded to include radio broadcasts]. The
conference was structured into two parts, BL reports and BL
theory.

BL Reports

The Conference commenced with Dr. Eric Wooding (Department of
Physics, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of
London) who stated that very few scientific observations of BL
had been made, and it was necessary to obtain accurate
measurements in order to develop a model which would adequately
explain BL. The best methods to maximise the chances of observing
BL under
scientific conditions were discussed - which is made rather
difficult by conflicting basic analyses, e.g. one source reports
that 95 % of BLs were observed during thunderstorms, while
another reports that only 2.6 % occur during thundery weather and
the bulk - 90 % - during dry, cloudy weather (these radically
differing figures are believed to be the result of the use of
differing criteria, such as the latter which may contain a high
number of earthquake lights, marsh gas reports, etc). Eric
concluded that at a site in central England, a camera left
running during
thunderstorms would record BL once in 1,000 years !

Next, TORRO's own Adrian James (BL Division, Archives Director)
reported on fatalities attributed to BL, drawing on TORRO's BL
database of almost 500 reports; again a difficult area to handle,
as data quality is often low - when a newspaper reports a ball of
fire, does it mean BL, the flash from a very close lightning
discharge, the vapourisation of material or St. Elmo's Fire ?
There are a number of reports of BL causing death, but many
reports can be interpreted as death by conventional lightning; a
number of ambiguous reports were quoted as examples. An
interesting statistic is that the average time lag between the
occurrence of a BL event and the report ending up in the TORRO
archives is 60 years ! Adrian also concluded that BL events must
be well-documented for detailed comparisons to be made.

Quite interestingly, it was not until the third lecture that the
very existence of BL was considered (were we all wasting our time
by being at the conference?),  by someone whose name will
probably be familiar to many UFOlogists - sceptic Steaurt
Campbell.
Actually, I was impressed with Steaurt's presentation, which I
found well-argued. By means of examples, he believed that BL
(which he assumed to be an electrical phenomenon) could be
explained by conventional lightning, optical effects, etc., or by
the erroneous reporting of the event (by the witness, media,
etc.). Damage attributed to BL and photographs and video footage
believed to show BL could likewise be explained. Steaurt
concluded that as there is no conclusive evidence to support the
existence of BL, it is likely that BL does not exist. (Yes, it
looked like we were wasting our time !). There followed an
interesting discussion, as one of the later speakers (Prof.
Jennison) reported that he had experienced BL on more than one
occasion at close quarters, including once in an aircraft and on
another occasion when the BL moved down his back and arm !! So
perhaps we weren't wasting our time after all.

Prof. Roger Jennison (Department of Electronics, University of
Kent) discussed the assessment of BL reports, which encompassed
observation, theory and experimental techniques. He pointed out
that it is very difficult to assess the diameter of BL, unless it
moves in front of relatively close objects - and consequently, BL
reports should include indicators of data reliability. One
thought-provoking comment was that BL may occur quite frequently,
but as an invisible entity; the electromagnetism believed common
to luminous BL is present, but is not strong enough to create
luminosity. (Now, what would be the result of an invisible, and
therefore weak, BL structure entering someone and then
intensifying to a point beyond the threshold of luminosity -
spontaneous human combustion by any chance ?! [Jenny, Jenny !]).

We then all broke for lunch in Oxford Polytechnic's dining hall,
where business cards were being passed left, right and centre,
the finer points of plasma physics were being discussed and the
very existence of BL was still being debated. However, one thing
certain to me was that the gateau was some of the best that I've
ever tasted !

The afternoon session commenced with Mark Stenhoff, TORRO's BL
Division Scientific Director, who considered the physical
evidence for the existence of BL. One important point that was
made was the limited usefulness of particularly anecdotal BL
reports, as the accuracy of a witness' recollection drops rapidly
after the observation. In fact, after one day, about half the
reports are clearly erroneous while after five days more
imagination than truth is reported. Consequently BL (and UFO!)
reports need immediate investigation if the reports are to prove
useful for research. An example of a spectacular satellite re-
entry in 1968 highlighted reporting distortions; many observers
reported seeing windows and hearing noises (things which seem to
recur with regularity in UFO reports!). The TORRO BL database was
utilised in this presentation, but again the problem of damage
interpretation was emphasised; assuming BL does exist, damage
caused by it may be
indistinguishable from that caused by a ground flash or side
flash - which, if this is the case, will make the understanding
of BL considerably harder. Furthermore, most of the damage
reported to have been caused by BL could be attributable to
ordinary lightning - so a BL suspected to have caused damage
consistent with a high energy may actually have been the result
of a low-energy BL and an ordinary lightning strike. In
conclusion, it was stated that most of the damage reported to
have been caused by BL could also have been caused by linear
lightning; there were only a few cases where the damage was more
likely to have been caused by BL than by linear lightning.

BL THEORY

The second part of the conference considered BL theory and not
surprisingly the technicality moved up a gear, stalling the
brains of a few delegates in the process I suspect. Dr Geert
Dijkhuis of Zeldenrust College and Convectron NV (The
Netherlands) considered BL statistics and structure. With
increasing numbers of BL reports being published (especially from
Europe, U.S.A. and Japan), structural theories must take into
account the variability of BL and experimental work needs to
produce BL which mimics the
behaviour of natural BL; laboratory-created BL is still smaller
and shorter-lasting than its natural counterpart.

It was at about this time that an active cold front cleared the
area; the passage was marked by heavy rain and gusty winds.
Conference participants were seen to glance out of the windows,
perhaps expecting a BL to materialise and join the congregation.
I suppose it was asking a bit too much for BL to appear during a
TORRO BL conference, but nevertheless a tornado did occur only 15
miles away and a site investigation was already underway by the
evening. If only BL investigations were executed with such
rapidity ... A brief history of electromagnetic plasmoid models
of BL was given by Dr. Geoff Endean (School of Engineering and
Computer Science, University of Durham), and who then outlined
the problem of energy containment in BL - how sufficient energy
could be contained in a small space and be not just emitted
continuously and steadily, but also sometimes very suddenly. He
then presented some of his own recent work which may explain the
energy containment problem for the electromagnetic plasmoid model
of BL. He pointed out that a very-rapidly rotating electric field
can exist in a plasma without a magnetic field and with no
apparent limit to the electrical field strength; this helps to
construct a realistic model of BL.

The conference was concluded by Dr. Xue-Heng Zheng (Department of
Engineering, University of Cambridge), who discussed how BL could
exist for the time-span reported by observers (typically 10
seconds). The long life of BL may be explained by the existence
of a maximum rate for microwave radiation to be transferred into
heat in plasmas. If I remember rightly, this ended up in a lively
and rather top-gear mathematical discussion which, for the
layman, boiled down to "you can't do that" and "oh yes I can".

All in all, a very enjoyable conference; those interested in BL
but who were unable to attend certainly missed something. But
they'll be glad to know that copies of the 88 page softbound
Conference Proceedings with 8 figures and 13 tables are available
from the TORRO Ball Lightning Division at P.O. Box 164, Richmond,
Surrey, TW10  7RR, and are priced at # 10 each plus # 1.10 p&[
(in the U.K.; plus # 3.00 p&p overseas). Please make cheques
payable to TORRO Ball Lightning Division.

AND DON'T FORGET - ANY RECENT BL EVENTS SHOULD BE REPORTED TO
TORRO A.S.A.P. - THE BL DIVISION HAS A 24-HOUR ANSWERPHONE ON
(081 940 9413. Older reports (from any year and any continent)
should be posted to the address above. David Reynolds. TORRO.
Staffordshire.

Advertisment

High quality aerial photographs of crop circles available from
Richard Wintle, Calyx Photo News, Marlborough House, 26 High
Street, Swindon, SN1  3EP. Telephone [phone].  Book Review

Alien  Update

by Tim Good

Arrow,  # 4.99, 296 pages, 14 photos, numerous diagrams/maps etc
+ index

This is the sequel to "Alien Liaison", Good' best selling 1992
book devoted to promoting the alien myth. Consisting of 13
chapters and a highly selective "World Round-Up of Selected
Reports" Good's book is one of UFOlogical extremes - from George
Wingfield's libellous and deceitful "Circular Condrums of 1992"
to an intriguing and well written account of some peculiar lights
witnessed and photographed by numerous people above the centre of
Montreal, Canada's largest city. Its almost impossible to review
a book a varied as this so instead we've chosen - like Good - to
review highly selected sections to see what we can find ! Let's
begin with George
Wingfield.

Wingfield's article is typified by numerous errors of fact and
critical omissions - omissions which some reviewers might
consider to be part of a cold calculating  fraud. Here's a
selection of Wingfield's more outrageous claims:-
(1) On page 52 Wingfield dismisses the Bower and Chorley claim
with "It was subsequently demonstrated that most of their claims
were fraudulent". What an absurd statement ! WHO has demonstrated
that Bower and Chorley's claims are "fraudulent" ? How and where
have they done this ? Regular readers will be used to being
presented with arguments like this. Wingfield has an uncanny
ability at conjuring up arguments out of thin air which always
support his cause.

(2) On page 51 Wingfield omits to point out that Busty Taylor
ALSO failed to identify the Wessex Skeptics' hoax at Clench
Common, concentrating his attack on Terence Meaden. This is a
classic case of the cereologists rewriting crop circle history to
cover-up their own failures whilst belittling their opponents.

(3) On page 53 Wingfield states: "Terence Meaden's attempt to
find a middle path, to the effect that simple and ringed circles
are 'genuine', and that pictograms and complex circles (which do
not fit his plasma vortex theory) are 'hoaxes', is equally
unacceptable and cannot seriously be entertained. Indeed, there
are people, desperate to salvage the discredited vortex theory,
who have engaged in the hoaxing already described, with a view to
disparaging the pictograms". This too is a complete rewriting of
crop circle history - for Meaden did NOT dismiss the pictograms
merely because they did not appear to fit his theory. With the
exception of a handful of the most complicated formations Meaden
ACCEPTED the pictograms as 'genuine' and only later concluded
that they were hoaxes.

Wingfield's allegation that "supporters" of the plasma vortex
theory were so "desperate" that they resorted to hoaxing is a
wicked slur and quite untrue. Meaden, myself and all other
members of CERES never indulged in hoaxing (we have been severely
criticised by the Wessex Skeptics, for example, for NOT trying to
make circles). If by this accusation Wingfield is accusing
Schnabel and Irving of being "supporters" of the plasma-vortex
theory then this too is not true as neither are "supporters" of
the plasma-vortex theory.

(4) On pages 52 and 53 Wingfield hammers the last nails into his
own coffin with his sarcastic and overwhelming praise for the
makers of the Froxfield hoax, stating that "It was indeed
magnificent. One could scarcely fail to admire the craftsmanship
and dexterity of the circle-fakers who had painstakingly
reproduced many indicators of genuine circles".  In this single
ill-judged statement Wingfield admits that "genuine circles" are
capable of being made by humans. On the following page Wingfield
continues:

"What has become abundantly plain is that no one currently has
any guaranteed sure-fire method of distinguishing the genuine
article from the cleverly made fake."

This too is a clear admission that - by implication - all circles
are capable of being made by humans, although Wingfield tries to
cover his acceptance of this fact by engaging in semantics.
Wingfield then goes on to discuss that demonstrably false
argument about how "if we are lucky enough to find a virgin
formation" we'd find "a dozen telling characteristics which are
indicators of true circles". Wingfield doesn't seem to understand
that these "dozen telling characteristics" are now known to be
false characteristics because the circles used to establish these
characteristics were themselves man-made hoaxes ! Wingfield then
admits that it is unlikely that a test will ever be found which
is capable of distinguishing between real circles and fakes. This
hotch-potch of discarded arguments, false claims and wishful
thinking disguise the fact that Wingfield himself no longer
believes in real circles. Why don't you just come out and admit
it George ?

(5) Earlier Wingfield alleges that two un-named researchers
(presumably Irving and Schnabel) conducted an obsessive campaign
whose main aim over the past year or two was to set up and
discredit leading circles researchers and CCCS officials (namely
Michael Green, Colin Andrews and - quite naturally - Wingfield
himself).  Wingfield's acute paranoia is well demonstrated by his
description of how the "sceptics and circle-fakers now went to
great lengths to dupe their victims... Before making one large
formation at Hyden Hill near East Meon in Hampshire, they
actually dowsed a major earth energy line in the field and
carefully constructed their pictogram on top of it...".  George,
the sceptics don't believe in "major earth energy lines" or
dowsing so how would they be able to dowse one and then place a
pictogram on top of it ???

(6) Wingfield continues re-writing crop circle history by
referring to The Cerealogist's one contribution to the subject -
the West Wycombe hoax farce. To be fair Wingfield at least begins
quite sensibly (page 56):

Although no one expected the [competition] to provide conclusive
answers, it taught us two things. Firstly, impressive geometric
formations can be produced at night by diligent fakers,
indicating that circles which many of us too readily accepted as
'genuine', could have been hoaxed..." - George at his sensible
best perhaps, but next George simply rewrites history by claiming
that "at least half the teams" left behind  small items after
making their circles - something which I have never seen repeated
elsewhere.

(7) Wingfield's distortion of crop circle history continues with
his claim (page 56) that none of the competitors admitted making
the formations at Alton Barnes, Barbury Castle and the Mandelbrot
and his nieve promotion of Dr Stephen Greer's CSETI project (page
62-66). We publicly challenge George George to justify in writing
why his article failed to tell Good's readers about the
following:-(a) that a group known as the United Bureau of
Investigation admitted in numerous taped interviews that they had
made many of the most famous Wiltshire pictogram formations; (b)
that they admitted to faking UFO incidents by using a set of
disco-lazer lights (see point 12 on page 35); (c) that the
Mandelbrot was "predicted" in a letter to the New Scientist a
year before it actually appeared; (d) that numerous other groups
of hoaxers are being unmasked all over Britain; and that (e)
Irving and Schnabel claim to have made several formations in the
Alton Barnes area.

All these facts are critical pieces of evidence which strongly
influence how the man-in-the-street assesses the evidence, yet
Wingfield suppresses this evidence for reasons we can only guess
at.

(8) On page 57 Wingfield uses that favourite old chestnut about
how the Thatcher Government allegedly received "many documents"
from Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado. Nowhere has any of this
material ever been published by Andrews and Delgado - we only
have their word as researchers that they sent this material to
Nicholas Ridley, the then Minister of the Environment. Once again
Wingfield claims - without supplying the slightest degree of
documentary proof - that there was a secret government meeting to
discuss the crop circle phenomenon in September 1990. We have
already published the fact that we obtained denials from two of
the three ministries involved that they were involved in such a
meeting (CW16 page 28) and we have twice challenged Wingfield to
publish documentary evidence to support these claims without
response. Readers will draw their own conclusions from
Wingfield's failure to supply this documentary proof.

Well we could go on and on and on .... To conclude, this is a
grossly deceitful and misleading account which seems deliberately
contrived to deceive Good's readers by perpetuating a mystery at
any cost. We call on George Wingfield to apologise in The
Cerealogist for this bigoted sham. As long as Wingfield is
allowed to continue deceiving people The Cerealogist can only
become a tool of further disinformation  and censorship. We also
demand that Tim Good apologise to his readers for allowing
Wingfield to write such a disgraceful article.


Cluster of Lights Seen over Montreal

By contrast this is an excellent article summarising voluminous
documentary and photographic evidence of an unusual visual
phenomenon seen over the centre of Montreal on the night of 7
November 1990. The authors  are Richard Haines, a behavioural
psychologist, and Bernard Guenette, who present  meteorological
data, an analysis of photographic evidence, drawings by numerous
eye witnesses and a map of the sighting location. The phenomenon
consisted of a cluster of up to 8 lights arranged in a semi-
circular arc. Each light extended a white ray covering a span of
many tens of degrees of arc.  This phenomenon was probably
stationary and observed over a densely urbanised area for a
period of 2.5 hours.

Now let's ask some sceptical questions. Throughout their report
Haines and Guenette repeatedly refer to an enormous hovering
object - mainly because one of the (dozens of) witnesses drew an
object with lights on it. But this is not true ! The witnesses
all reported seeing lights - that is what the photos show. Have
UFOlogists still not learnt that witnesses "read in" structured
objects when witnessing light displays?

Whilst there is some excellent case work here Haines and Guenette
don't appear to have contacted local universities to see if
anyone was testing some kind of device. Neither do they appear to
have contacted local airports in case someone had flown an
airship with bright searchlights above cloud cover. How about
some kind of aurora borealis effect ? What did the local
astronomical
observatory have to say ? A superb case, but one which I feel
sure will eventually be shown to have a relatively prosaic
explanation.

Bob Oechsler's "Cosmic Journey: The Aftermath"

With the exception of  "Round in Circles" this is probably the
funniest article I've read for some time.  This is another fine
demonstration of how far down the line of lunacy people's belief
systems will take them when presented with facts that don't meet
with their previously stated position. In "Alien Liaison"
Oechsler (pronounced "X-ler") describes a prolonged telephone
conversation he held with someone called "Admiral Bobby Ray
Inman" - allegedly a former Deputy Director of the CIA and (of
course) a member of the super-secret MJ-12 organisation that was
allegedly responsible for the recovery of crashed alien
technology by the US Government back in the late 1940s.  Much of
this sequel is taken up with a very one-sided conversation
between Oechler and "Inman" whereby Oechler claims to have
demonstrated "Inman" 's involvement in the greatest government
deception of all time. The result, in my opinion, is a very
peculiar conversation between two men talking entirely at cross
purposes !

It seems that the primary reason for this total breakdown in
communication is that Oechsler deliberately avoided using terms
like "Aliens, ETs and UFOs" because he was worried about scaring
the Admiral off into thinking he (Oechler) was "some sort of
kook" (page 207). Instead he makes veiled comments about
"crafts", "phenomenon", "recovered vehicles" and "intelligence
behind the crafts". Not surprisingly, "Admiral Bobby Inman" -
whoever he is -was completely bewildered. Take these excerpts for
example:-OECHLER:-      ... Yes, thank you very much for
          returning my call.
INMAN:-   You're most welcome.
OECHLER:-      Do you remember who I am ?
INMAN:-   Unfortunately I do not, I apologize.
OECHLER:- OK, well we met at the University
          of  Science - University of
          Maryland Science and
                    Technology...
INMAN:-             I do pull out, now, I thank you.

[Oechler's "clarifying commentary"] This sudden abrupt
recollection is important because it indicates that the Admiral
did in fact consider our brief meeting in May of 1988 to be
worthy of
recollection. It was during that brief encounter that I asked if
he would be good enough  to have someone get in touch with me,
relative to how I could get closer to MJ-12,  again indicating
that MJ-12 meant something to him ..."

As you can see, the moment "Admiral Inman" realises who he is
speaking to he tries to hang up - something Oechler uses to
demonstrate "Inman" 's knowledge of MJ-12 (an issue which Inman
never actually mentions in his responses to Oechler's comments).

Later, when discussing former British Chief-of-Staff Lord Hill-
Norton, Oechler states that

"Admiral Lord Hill-Norton is, as the way he's expressed it to me,
quite furious with his inability to gain knowledge on these
issues..."

INMAN:-  [Muffled acknowledgement]

[Oechler's clarifying comments] It is important to note that, by
his muffled acknowledgement, Admiral Inman appears to understand
the dilemma here and recognises the inferred subject matter."

So, even a "muffled acknowledgement" is used to support Oechler's
belief in recovered alien technology ! Later on, their
conversation reaches the heights of  hyperbole when Oechler
detects a "smile .. heard on tape" (page 212) whilst Oechler
discusses the alleged  "cultural dialogue"between humans and
aliens ...

And so this bizarre conversation continues, with neither man
understanding what each other is talking about, until "Inman"
tries to pass Oechler off onto his successor - Everett Hineman
(allegedly the current Deputy Director of Science and Technology
at the CIA HQ in Arlington, Virginia). Later Oechler even meets
someone called Everett Hineman at CIA Headquarters, who makes a
few pseudo-confirmatory remarks about Bob Lazar (another dubious
character who claims to have worked on captured alien
technology), but like Inman we have no proof that either man is
really who they say they are and neither really have much to say
about crashed saucers and pickled aliens.

All this bizarre testimony is used in a strongly worded rebuttal
to Jerold Johnson's superb review of the "Cosmic Journey" chapter
in Good's previous book "Alien Liaison" in MUFON UFO Journal
(issue 279, July 1991).  Johnson tracked down this same "Admiral
Inman" and learnt that "Inman" had thought he was discussing
underwater craft with Oechler, not alien craft.  Later, when
challenged by "Dr Armen Victorian" and various other UFOlogists
"Inman" (whoever he is) denies having confirmed the existence of
extraterrestrial vehicles:-
"Throughout 22 years of service in the intelligence community, I
have never encountered any credible evidence of the existence of
extraterrestrial or interplanetary entities, individuals, crafts,
vehicles, or persons..." (page 221). He also denies having ever
heard of the alleged MJ-12 group (page 220).

Of course Oechler himself is an unusual person holding unusual
views. He freely admits (a bit like Pat Delgado) to having an
"unclassified employment with NASA". He alleges that his earlier
involvement with the Barnum and Bailey travelling circus
exhibition [which featured the "Cosmic Journey" Project of a
"captured Extra-terrestrial/alien in a cryogenic tank"] was a
project that he was asked to evaluate on behalf of NASA in order
to consider the likely sociological consequences (something NASA,
quite naturally, deny).  Oechler even had a psychic "battle" with
an alien that intruded into his brain in Dallas (where else?).

To give an idea of how ridiculous this story is, even Dr Armen
Victorian enters the fray, obtaining the following statement from
"Inman":-
"Having no prior knowledge of Mr Oechlers interest, I did not
understand until well into his dialogue that his research was
into Unidentified Flying Objects...".

But Oechler comes back, dismissing Victorian as someone who will
go to whatever extent necessary to discredit Timothy Good as a
UFO researcher. Meanwhile, all the key CIA and NASA people
mentioned in this article have denied speaking with Oechler,
something Oechler freely admits to being baffled by.

This is a fascinating argument that seems set to run and run
until all the parties involved fall over from sheer exhaustion !
PF.

Swangate Update 2

George Wingfield has had a letter published in the HUFON Report
(June 1993 issue).  He states

"Well, golly, shucks, folks.. yes, indeed ! First we get Jim
Schnabel telling Armen Victorian on the notorious tape that he's
part of some great disinformation conspiracy involving the CIA,
etc., and then hotly denying it in terms of hurt and outrage.
Next we get Dan Smith hotly denying that he's part of some CIA-
sponsored conspiracy (not that I ever accused him of that anyway)
and then, in the same letter telling us about a great conspiracy
(the Eschaton Conspiracy) in which the CIA group known as the
Aviary -with which he appears to be closely associated - 'heavily
disguised by its own surrealistic smoke screen ... functions best
by
amplifying people's own misconceptions about the paranormal.'

That last bit sounds awfully like disinformation to me ! Well, I
guess that I'm just a simple country boy who doesn't see the need
for all this disinformation and deception and wishes someone
would explain to me what's really going on. If Dan's end-of-the-
world scenario is for real and is understood by certain
departments of the US government, why can't they treat us as
adults and tells us what the score is ?

At the September, 1992, Conference on UFO Research in
Springfield, Mo., I took strong issue with someone who suggested
that the  government was justified in covering up the truth about
UFOs since the public might be 'unable to face it'. Whatever the
truth might be, it should never be suppressed, I said,  and this
drew prolonged applause from the audience.

In showing the photo of Rosemary seated next to 'the Pelican' at
that CIA lunch in Arlington, Va., I'm not accusing her or Dan of
any conspiratorial involvement. I was only trying to  illustrate
CIA interest in these matters at a time when certain people like
Mr. Schnabel are trying to make out there is no CIA interest and
spread disinformation to the effect that all the crop circles are
man-made hoaxes. I'm delighted that Dan has attempted to clarify
the position, though I suspect that most folk will be more
puzzled than before. Anyway, thanks Dan, and thanks Aviary, for a
most enjoyable and stimulating lunch ! Would someone now like to
explain what this is all about ?

I enjoyed Elaine Douglas' article on 'Is PSI TECH for real or
just a new disinformation project?' In it, she refers to the
Roswell episode as being something Dames calls 'brain wave
entertainment'. Well, I know it might seem that way, but what he
told me was 'mass brain-wave entrainment - the term he uses to
describe an alien-induced mass illusion ! G.W."

Other News

We've received information about the "largest ever" crop circle -
discovered in Samera (northern Spain) in September 1992.
According to our sources the formation was approximately one mile
across and consisted of five concentric rings (each 20-30 feet in
width). The formation was discovered by an Englishman who videoed
the formation from the air. The crop is unknown.

Readers' Letters

Dear Editor, I was surprised to see in CW16 the claim that the
disappearance of the Royal Norfolks was a hoax. I can assure you
that this is not so. They disappeared for the simple reason that
they were all killed ! The facts are as follow. The 163rd Brigade
consisting of the 1st/8th Hampshires, the 1st/5th Suffolks and
the 1st/5th Royal Norfolks (not the 1st/4th) were ordered to take
part in the attack on Tekke Tepe ridge. They advanced at 4.45 pm.
Heavy casualties were suffered, but the Norfolks, under Col. Sir
Horace Beauchamp, continued to push on before disappearing into
thick mist. The Colonel, 16 officers, and about 250 men, were
never seen alive again, although a few wounded managed to find
their way back during the night. It was not until September 1919
that the mystery was solved, when the area was visited by a party
of men from the British Graves Registration Unit. Their officers
wrote in his report "We have found the Royal Norfolks, but can
only identify two. The remains are scattered over about one
square mile, about 800 yards behind the old Turkish front line".
Obviously what had happened was that the Turks had not seen them
in the mist and they must have penetrated a thinly held part of
the Turkish line, only to be massacred by Turkish second line
troops. The Turks, a fierce Islamic people, had refused to touch
the Christian bodies, which they regarded as unclean, and four
years of the climate and predators had reduced the, to
practically nothing. I got the above information from "Gallipoli"
by the military historian Capt. Eric Bush, D.S.O. Jenny Randles
has since told me that the whole thing was also thoroughly
explained by Paul Begg in Fortean Times, No 27 (Autumn 1978). The
so-called mystery was also discredited by the UFO writer Harold
Wilkins, writing in the 1950s, so Jenny tells me. How do these
tales survive ? Best Wishes, Roy Sandbach, Stockport.

PF: They survive because people want them to survive !

Dear Paul, I have a few comments about TCW16 (March/April 1993).
Sorry mate but you'll have to do better than that 486 DX-33 you
mentioned, as I have on order a 486 DX-50 with 16 Mb RAM and a
240 Mb hard disk, etc, etc. Pity I've no magazine to produce it
on now ... but it should speed up my fractal generator, and what
more could one ask ?

Regarding the Wingfield/Schnabel/Irving/Henry saga - and this is
meant kindly - if you take such a dim view of the affair, why not
simply deny it "the oxygen of publicity" ? I'm sure George and Co
will find plenty of other outlets for their views ...

Actually, I hope you'll let me offer a few words in George's
defence. George has always struck me as an honest person -
somewhat inclined to obsessiveness, but that's a tendency shared
by many of us (isn't it Paul?!). Speaking personally, I don't
think George is deliberately trying to obscufate the crop circle
scene. I do believe that there are people who have taken a cruel
pleasure in misleading him - and others - when the opportunity
has arisen. The last time I spoke to him (a few months ago), he
seemed frustrated by the constant torrent of misinformation that
was being directed his way and he was pretty fed up with it. I
don't blame him.

All he wants, like the rest of us, is to know what's really going
on - and I think it would be foolish to dismiss out of hand the
notion of some kind of governmental intervention. The case
against such interference has not been proved - at least, not to
my satisfaction. Yours paranoiacally, Bob Kingsley. Whitehill,
Hampshire.

PF: Actually Bob its impossible to prove a negative, but the onus
of proof is surely on George to prove his case - afterall, I
challenged George to publish proof of his allegations in two Crop
Watchers but without reply. To many people this failure seems
just further proof that the "disinformation" comes from George -
not from some mythical government conspiracy. But as Peter
Rendall said - if I was a Government Agent I would say that
wouldn't I !

Comment on CW15: I was surprised you accepted for publication
Andy Collins' article entitled "A Major Project to Test the
Orgone Solution to earth Energy, Crop Circles and UFOs", and even
more surprised that you accepted Alan Watson's article entitled
"Some Notes on the 1990 Alton Barnes Pictogram". The former
doesn't merit commenting on, but the latter is worth a few words.
You will have probably already realised that Circle A ('Mercury')
was not there originally, as the formation ended with the small
off-line circle. He identifies in the formation the rings of
Saturn, note also that 'Neptune' is ringed in the formation, but
real-life Jupiter and Uranus are too. Every planet from Earth to
Pluto inclusive has at least one moon, but the formation only has
'Neptune' with moons ! As for "some gravitational distortion on
Jupiter", I ask by what -and if by the Sun, what about the
remainder of the planets ? Oh, the Great Red Spot is now almost
unanimously regarded as being ... of  meteorological origin ! Why
does Charon get 'represented' as a discrete circle while the
other moons don't ? What is the
significance of the second ring around "Pluto", and why has he
included the track hammered out by visitors from 'Pluto' to
'1992QB1' ? He's included '1992QB1' but why not the main
asteroids (between Mars and Jupiter) and the many, many others on
irregular orbits (mainly between Mercury and Saturn) ? On second
thoughts, perhaps the article wasn't worth commenting on. Tell me
its a joke - isn't it ?!

PF: Actually I thought Alan Watson made some very fair points.
Doug and Dave occasionally made mistakes when constructing
circles so I've no doubt that the U.B.I.  did too. Don't forget
that both major groups consisted of people who were not always
entirely sober whilst they were constructing circles - and of
course we don't all have such an excellent understanding of the
structure of our solar system. Perhaps the U.B.I. believe that
their pictogram accurately represented the solar system ?

Claude Mauge has written in to correct the following material
published in CW16:-
Case 013: 12.06.1730 at Alencon. Christine Peins (Les OVNI du
passe, Verviers, Belgium, Nouvelles Editions, Marabout, 1977;
81-82) is very skeptical about the event:-
- her investigation by the Orne Departement Public Record Office
in Alencon discovered no mention of the affair nor of Inspector
Liabeuf;

- the case appeared firstly in the Italian magazine Clypeus, with
no original reference; the author of the paper lived in Lybia
since 1966 and his address was unknown;

- Later, another search in the Orne Public Record Iffuce by its
archivist again found no reference to the case (letter from
Elisabeth Gautier-Desvaux to UFOlogist Patrice Cubeau, GRC INFO,
no 1, June 1985: 3-4).

Case 704- Oskar Linke case: The 1952 date for the case is a long-
lasting myth in UFOlogy ! The real date is June 17, 1950. Some
references giving it are: Ted Bloecher, "Herr Linke and the
flying warming pan", MUFON UFO Journal, no 153, November 1980:
6-9. R.J. Stevens, "Une nuit de terreur a Kelly (1)", Inforespace
no 48, November 1978: 30. Letter from O. Linke to Leon Davidson,
November (?) 3, 1959. Personal communication by Jacques Bonabot,
December 31, 1984 (he had at the time an extensive file on the
sighting).

Case 057. 04.09.53. Tonnerre (not Tennerre): These traces have
nothing to do with crop circles. There were four well visible
cylindrical imprints in the ground, with very hard soil.

Case 662- 04.01.54, Marignane airport, Marseille: Although he
gives no details, Michel Figuet [believes that] the case is a
hoax (Michel Figuet and Jean-Louis Ruchon, OVNI: Le premier
dossier complet des rencontres rapprochees en France, Nice,
France: Alain Lefeuvre, 1979: 68). In any case, the "trace"
consists of many metal pieces, not in effects on the vegetation.

Case 097. 12.12.54, Campinas: As far as I can re-member, this
case has nothing to do with crop circles. Some people consider
that the material was not of earthly origin, but others that it
was solder (see for instance Charles Maney in FSR vol 8 no 3).

Claude Mauge, FIGEAC, France.

Many thanks to Claude for putting me straight on these cases and
for correcting my spelling mistakes. David Reynolds has written
in to suggest that case 014 was a tornado, whilst the "Fire in
the Sky" case can be explained by Travis Walton encountering an
illuminated tornado which sucked him up into the air,
centrifugued him (sounds fun doesn't it) and left him dazed with
acute loss of memory. David admits that this is a solution based
on limited information, but that it is "more likely than being
abducted by aliens". Listen carefully and you'll hear Occam's
Razor being sharpened by the Skeptics ....

Dear Paul, I feel I should write and say what a very good evening
I had at Doug Bower and Ken Browns' meeting in Marlborough on
July 28th last. Since the Doug and Dave story broke, my initial
reaction of annoyance has changed. Now I think that they have
given us much, and we should be grateful !

Remember the excitement of those times, early in the season,
wondering where the first circles would appear, and what new
shapes the year would bring ? Well all is not lost ! A sizeable
proportion of the people at Marlborough seemed determined to
carry on, believing that aliens, UFOs or mystical earth energies
are creating the circles. Just because Doug  was unable to show a
photo of Dave and himself actually making a formation, many
claimed they could not prove they had done any of them ! Never
let the truth get in the way of a good belief ! I find myself
getting  more and more cynical these days. So who was this Ken
Brown who was "hogging" the stage so much ? Several people said
it would have been better if Doug had done all the talking. Could
it be that Ken was Doug's Minder (No ! No ! I wasn't suggesting
an M.I.5 connection !). What intrigued me was the way Ken totally
denied the existence of pre Doug and Dave (sharp-edged) circles,
and demanded to be shown evidence. When you produced the Wokurna
photos Paul I don't believe Ken even looked at them. I know I did
not hear him comment on them.

Which ever way you look at it, Doug and Daves' activities were
quite bizarre and the whole subject is becoming more so. Well,
now I must go and do some more work on my crop circle film. Its a
Grasshopper Warbler production to be distributed by MBF.
Suggested titles so far are "I'll be you if UBI" and "East of
Meaden". In the scenario a CCCS girl falls in love with a Wessex
Skeptic. They make love in a corn circle on the edge of
Rendlesham Forest (we had a lot of trouble at this location when
we set up our lights back in December 1980). I would welcome any
suggestions for a title, plot or casting. Keep up the good work !
George Thorman, Trowbridge.

How about "Life of Terence" or "The Search for the Holy Grail" ?
PF.


Ted Phillips Physical Trace Catalogue: Part III


Case 153. May 24, 1962 ARGENTINA, La Pampa. Woman saw an object
on the ground with two robot-like creatures. Grass singed in a
circle 18 ft. wide. (FSR 10-62)

Case 154. May 24, 1962. VENEZUELA, Ocumare, del Tuy. Diamond-
shaped marks, scorched. (NICAP)

Case 155. July 30, 1962. ARGENTINA, Bajeola Grande. Roberto
Mievres, 17, was riding his motorcycle when a tall being appeared
as the engine stalled. The being snatched the boy's scarf, the
boy ran away and came back with a group of people. They found the
scarf on the ground and discovered traces and observed an unknown
object flying away. (VALEE III).

[PF The evidence here rests a great deal on whether the group of
people were known to the witness prior to the encounter and how
long the witness had to fabricate the traces.]

Case 488. November 21, 1963. ENGLAND, Sandling Estate [Kent].
Keith Croucher, 17, saw a solid oval light in the center of a
golden mist crossing a football pitch. Two nights later, John
McGoldrick and a friend went to Sandling Woods to investigate.
"They found a vast expanse of bracken that had been flattened;"
they also found three giant foot-prints, clearly defined, 1 inch
deep, 2 foot long and 9 inches across. (The Humanoids).

[PF. A very famous case. Does anyone know if it was ever exposed
as a hoax ?]

Case 164. December 27, 1963. ENGLAND, Epping. 16.00 Hrs. Pauline
Abbott, a trainee riding instructor, saw on the ground a white
object 8 foot long, 3 foot thick at the center, tapering to a
point at both ends, glowing slightly.  A window on one side
glowed brighter than on the other. A "squelching noise" was heard
as the object rose in a shallow climb and flew horizontally for
100 feet before it was hidden from view.

Marks "like three large fingerprints pushed together into mud"
were found, forming a square with 8 foot sides within an 11 foot
circular depression which contained a 3 foot central circle.
Grass was found flattened. These marks were only 150 foot away
from the site of Case No 123, in 1958. (Vallee III and Eileen
Buckle in "The Scoriton Mystery" via Fred Merritt).

[PF Well following John Barrett's lecture at BUFORA's 25th
birthday party I know that anything connected with the Scoriton
mystery is probably a hoax.]

Case 165. 1964. CANADA, Ballantrae, Ontario. Claus Slade and a
friend found an area 50 foot in diameter cleared. At the outer
edge of the circle [a ring, PF ?] the ground was seared to a
crisp, leaving bits of charcoal. The outer circle [a ring ? PF]
was about 3 foot wide. Five years later, no vegetation grows.
Above the circle, tall 100 foot high oak trees still grow, but
the branches which hung over the circle are dead. It is estimated
[that] the time of the landing was June, 1964, as numerous UFOs
were reported in that area. (UFORC)

[PF, So just because "numerous" UFOs were reported in June the
trace just HAD to be related, didn't it !]

Case 166. 1964. U.S.A., West Unity, OHIO. Rings of sterile soil,
located near a tree line and in the corners of a field. (Brent
Raynes)

Case 681. April 23, 1964. U.S.A., Rivesville, WV. Mrs Ivah
Frederick observed a landed object for 15 minutes 600 foot away.
It was a disc with dome, revolving clockwise and humming. A
central la ding shaft was seen and a human-like figure 3 to 4
foot tall. Ascended vertically, 3 foot circular imprint found
(shaft) and footprints 6 to 8 inches long with four toes.
(NICAP).

Press Release

"May 24 1993 CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH  UK-USA-CANADA-
AUSTRALIA-BELGIUM

Colin  Andrews, author of the best-selling book "Circular
Evidence", and formerly from Andover, is flying out of America on
Tuesday (25th May) and will spend until 28th August in Hampshire
and Wiltshire, UK, with the largest gathering of international
scientists yet, to further investigate the Crop Circles [note
capitals, PF]. He will fly to make presentations in a number of
countries during the period, including Malta [now guess who he's
going to meet there ! PF], Ireland, Iceland and the USA. The
research project will include measuring the electrostatic field
and the Magnetic field at sites in Hampshire and Wiltshire. Very
secret projects involving well known mediums will also be
undertaken and has [sic !] been planned by Scientists who
discovered unusual markings and geometry on Mars [!!!!]. These
findings were presented to the United Nations in New York during
summer 1992, by Dick Hoagland - NASA consultant. Colin can update
you further when he arrives in the UK.

The following is a press statement just released by CPR
International, in America. It relates to Colin Andrews' address
to the United Nations, which has been officially announced for
21st October 1993 at UN headquarters in New York. Yours
Sincerely, Synthia Ramsby - Director U.S.A. (for Colin Andrews).

Mohammad Ramadan, president of the parapsychological group at the
United Nations who recently sponsored Richard Hoagland's
presentation to the U.N. on the Mission to Mars, met Colin
Andrews at the United Nations building in New York several months
ago. At the meeting, Mr Ramadan set Colin the almost impossible
challenge of discovering the meaning behind the crop circles and
ancient writings, the findings of which to be presented at the
U.N. in October. Many front line research contacts have already
been drawn up to assist in bringing together the vast data pool
of information by research groups and governments around the
world.

Numerous governments have studied and collected information
related to the UFO and crop circles. They have clearly found it
difficult, if not impossible, to make any public statement on
matters
associated with both. Unusual patterns, assumed as writings (i.e.
languages) have appeared in fields in the form of crop markings
and have been scratched on metallic surfaces following alleged
abduction cases. These etchings resemble markings on Sumarian
Tablets and petroglyphs on stone and rocks in several parts of
the world. The mammoth task  is to try and place these together
and see if there is a cohesive message. Those who claim
extraterrestrial contact and communication with such through
symbols are to be part of a four month blitz on the world's data
bank. This may represent one of the first opportunities to bring
major information regarding such events into the realm of the
public through a non-political figure under the auspices of the
U.N. Ultimately a situation of such immense proportion must
certainly be addressed through the resources of this assemblage.

Careful assessment of all the facts known to us will be studied
before the presentation is given at the United Nations on 21st
October. The presentation will be attended by delegates and U.N.
officials and is open to the general public. For more information
Mohammad Ramadan at the U.N., tel. [phone]. I intend to
present the information at Reykjavik in Iceland on 3-7th
November. For more information [contact number deleted, PF] "

END  OF  PRESS  RELEASE

Well, if readers find this pack of lies amusing here are some
more - according to the bibliography attached to an article by
Andrews in "International UFO Library Magazine" (11684 Ventura
Blvd, #708, Studio City, CA. 91604, U.S.A.) :-
"Colin Andrews is one of the world's leading experts on the crop
circle phenomenon. Co-found[er] of the Circles Phenomenon
Research Group, his scientific investigations are responsible for
much of the current information available on the  subject.

Andrews is a former senior officer in local government as Chief
Electrical Engineer with the Test Valley Borough Council in West
Hampshire, England. For three years Colin advised the British
Government on the circles phenomenon, supplying technical and
scientific reports to the Undersecretary of State for the
Margaret Thatcher government. As a result of his persistence, the
subject was raised in the House of Commons and, under Andrew's
supervision, the largest surveillance project of its kind was co-
ordinated with the British army to capture the formation of a
circle on film.

Colin Andrew became involved in the circle phenomenon in 1983
when he saw an arrangement of five circles in a natural
amphitheatre. Intrigued by the engineering aspects of creating
the circles, he began investigations with Pat Delgado, a retired
NASA engineer. In 1989, they co-authored "Circular Evidence", the
first book written on the subject. This was followed by their
equally successful book "Crop Circles, The Latest Evidence" in
1990."

Editorial Comments

Perhaps we should offer a prize to the reader who detects the
highest number of falsehoods in this outrageous trash ! Readers
will already know from reading Jim Schnabel's "Round in Circles"
that Colin Andrews was NOT a "senior officer" at Test Valley
Borough Council. Nor was he the "Chief Electrical Engineer".
According to legal correspondence in my possession he was the
"Technical Support Services Officer" not the "Chief Electrical
Engineer". In 1990 his boss, a Mr Orchard, was deputy to Mr
Burvil - the Director of Test Valley Borough Council Technical
Services Department (a proper Chief Officer Colin). Thus Mr
Andrews was two stages removed from a Chief Officer position. We
have also been informed by Gary Kandinsky - a District Auditor -
that at one stage Colin Andrews was actually a storeman.

Next Mr Andrews claims that he "advised the British Government on
the circles phenomenon, supplying technical and scientific
reports to the Undersecretary of State for the Margaret Thatcher
Government". This too is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts
by Mr Andrews. We accept that Mr Andrews may well have supplied
reports to the then Environment Minister Nicholas Ridley, but we
believe he was never officially requested to supply reports to
the Ministry and no evidence has ever been produced which proves
that Nicholas Ridley read Andrews' submissions.

Mr Andrews goes on to claim that "as a result of his persistence,
the subject was raised in the House of Commons". This is simply a
lie, for it was in response to questions from myself and Jenny
Randles that questions were asked in the Commons by Sir Teddy
Taylor (Con, Southend) and Michael Colvin (Con, Romsey and
Waterside). Andrews had nothing whatsoever to do with these
questions.

Lastly Andrews claims that he began investigating crop circles in
1983 and that "Circular Evidence" was the "first book written on
the subject". Both of these claims are also untrue - Colin
Andrews did not begin regularly visiting crop circles until 1986
(he has never published proof of his alleged visit to crop
circles in 1983) and the honour for writing the first book about
crop circles goes to BUFORA - for their 1986 report "Mystery of
the Circles".

Every now and then I receive a letter from someone challenging me
as to why I write so vitriolically about certain well known crop
circle researchers. Perhaps these same people can explain what I
am supposed to do when leading crop circle personalities just lie
and lie and lie again to get their name in the papers. Am I
really supposed to just sit back and let them get on with it ?

MJ-12 News

According to the Skeptics UFO Newsletter (published by Philip
Klass, 404 'N' St. Southwest, Washington D.C. 20024) "Nearly six
years after William L. Moore, Stanton T. Friedman and Jamie
Shandera released the famous "Top Secret/Eyes Only" MJ-12 papers,
which seemingly showed the U.S. Government had recovered two
crashed saucers from New Mexico, the Office of the Secretary of
the Air Force has officially designated and stamped them: "NOT AN
OFFICIAL USAF DOCUMENT, NOT CLASSIFIED, SUSPECTED FORGERY OR
BOGUS DOCUMENT." The same stamp has been applied to other bogus
documents, referred to as "Aquarius" and "Snowbird", which began
to circulate even before MJ-12 was released.

The reason it took so long is because only the agency which
originates a classified document has the authority to declassify
it. CIA, NSA or the National Security Council, none of these
agencies felt it had the authority to act, or sufficient
interest.  Finally, Col. Richard L. Weaver, Deputy for Security
and
Investigative Programmes in the Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force, decided to bite the MJ-12 bullet and buy an
appropriate rubber stamp. When UFO magazine contacted Moore for
his reactions, he reportedly responded:- "Since the MJ-12
documents are not Air Force, Colonel Weaver cannot label the
documents as forgeries".

The Thin Reaper

A Report on the Crop Circle Making Demonstration given by Jim
Schnabel at Pentlow, Nr. Sudbury, Suffolk, on July 3rd, 1993. by
Anthea Holland. C.C.C.S.

It was a hot, do-nothing kind of day. A day in which dogs panted
on porches and cats languished on garden walls. A day in which
Jim Schnabel cavorted in a corn field.

Well, not cavorted, exactly. In fact he struggled under a hot
summer sun and strained against the handle of a garden roller in
an effort to make a crop formation worthy of a professional
hoaxer.

The day had been organised by Montague Keen, agronomist for the
CCCS. Jim Schnabel, at a talk to the Essex Crop Circle Studies
Group, had been asked (or was it challenged?) by Monty to visit
his farm in Pentlow, Suffolk, and create a formation which could
then be studied by the experts.

The names of those gathered expectantly to await Schnabel's
arrival were synonymous with the crop circle world: Busty Taylor,
pilot and photographer, one of the "originals"; Lucy Pringle,
"Human Effects" expert and CCCS council member; Stanley Morcom
and his wife, Suzy, both familiar faces where crop-circlers are
gathered together; Jo Holland and Una Dawood, both well known to
all those circle enthusiasts who descend on Beckhampton from
spring to autumn, and last, but not least, a character known as
"Bill Bailey", another (in)famous figure in the Circlefaking
world.

Schnabel arrived late, and who could blame him ? The later the
start, the further the sun from its zenith and the less
uncomfortable his job would be. Or could it have been because (as
someone suggested) a late arrival creates a more dramatic
entrance ?

Schnabel had previously announced that he would probably attempt
a similar formation to last year's Silbury Hill "charm bracelet"
and some people had taken this to mean that he intended to create
a replica. Their disappointment when he said that this was not
his intention was obvious and seemed, to some, to prove their
theory that Schnabel's claims to have created the "charm
bracelet" were false.

Armed with a small rucksack, a few white tubular posts and a
plastic garden roller (which, surprisingly enough, did not melt
in the heat) Schnabel entered the field, climbed to the brow of
the hill and began his work. Peter Sorenson, armed with video
recorder, accompanied Schnabel throughout the day and recorded
dutifully his every move.

The view from the lawned area where most of us sat was poor, and
we contented ourselves with general discussions and chat. There
was, however, a tubular framed viewing/video platform, from which
a much better view could be obtained. From the ground it was
possible to see the crab-like movements used by Schnabel as he
formed the thin circle which was to link the various "charms",
and it was
interesting to note how many times he took the diagram of his
planned creation from his pocket to check on his next course of
action. (A point to note - this would probably need a torch in
the hours of darkness !).

Throughout the day it became apparent that the "audience" was
made up of a real cross section of Circle Watchers. There were
some who thought that all crop circles may be man-made but felt
that that in itself constituted a phenomenon; others who believed
that although some were man made there were still a large number
formed by other means; and some present obviously believed that
all crop circles were created by outside forces and seemed
totally unprepared to believe the claims of any who professed to
have been instrumental in creating any of them at all. This
latter group hardly deserved to be referred to as "investigators"
as their tunnel vision must prevent them from accepting any
evidence contrary to their personal beliefs. Indeed, one of them
was overheard to express the desire that she hoped the real
circle  makers were watching and would strike Schnabel down.

In the course of the afternoon we were kept refreshed with cold
drinks and, later, cups of tea. Meanwhile, "Bill Bailey" bemoaned
his lack of fame and showed snapshots of impressive formations in
Northamp-tonshire which he claims to be the creation of his team.
Presumably he was hoping to pick up (or maybe pass on ?) a few
tips.

It was early evening but still swelteringly hot, when Schnabel
made his way from the field, his boyish, normally pale face red
with exertion and the sun.

By this time we had already been informed by those on the viewing
platform that the formation included a garden roller and a UFO
and we eagerly made our way up the tramlines and into this new
formation.

At first sight, it could only be described as "rough". However,
it must be remembered that the crop was still green and was over
six weeks earlier than the crop at Silbury Hill when the "charm
bracelet" was formed last year.

There was some evidence of layering but little more than would
occur naturally, and a bunch of flattened crop had fallen across
the standing corn - an event which would, in normal
investigation, point to a hoax. There were some right angled
turns, not common in formations, in which the corn had been
forced to follow the angle and had subsequently broken. The
white, dust-like substance found on the stalk of the corn was
obliterated in places, presumably where it had been trodden on,
but further investigation showed it also to be missing from some
of the undisturbed corn.

Before heading off for a, no doubt, welcome shower, Jim answered
a few questions, mainly put to him by Grant Wakefield (keeper of
the much worshipped "East Field" at Alton Barnes). Things got a
little heated until Montague Keen intervened, pointing out to
Wakefield that the afternoon was "not a confrontation". Wakefield
reluctantly backed off and Montague Keen hustled Schnabel away.

In this investigator's view the day provided a wonderful
opportunity to bask in the sun and enjoy the company. The
experiment, though interesting, was inconclusive, proving only,
to me at least, that yes, Jim Schnabel may have hoaxed the events
to which he lays claim, particularly given more time (he had
spent only three and a half hours in the field on this occasion),
less pressure and one or two willing helpers. Anthea Holland,
Clacton-on-Sea.

Then Came Ken Brown

A Study of the Cheesefoot Head Pictograms

by Matthew Lawrence

I first became interested in crop circles in 1986 when my father
and I were driving back from Petersfield one evening along the
A272 and through the Cheesefoot Head area. Passing the car park
and looking down into the now famous Devils Punch Bowl I was
amazed to see two flattened, ringed depressions in the cornfield
below us. We stopped the car and took several photos before
returning home.

The impression this left in my mind at the tender age of 14 was
incredible, so much so that I knew I wanted to get more involved
with the phenomenon in the future, but it wasn't until four years
later, when I had passed my driving test, that I got the chance
to investigate the subject in any depth.

In my eagerness to see the circles when they were fresh and not
damaged by admirers, I started to visit Cheesefoot Head first
thing in the morning from around the beginning of May 1990, just
before going to College in Winchester. It was on these morning
runs that I started to meet all the main researchers who were
doing similar sorties around this area.

These included Richard Andrews, Busty Taylor and George
Wingfield, but it wasn't until the appearance of the first circle
in the Punch Bowl that I met Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews. I
found this circle very impressive and wanted to go down into the
field to get a closer look, but Pat and Colin advised me against
this, warning that the land owner would not welcome my presence.
I took their advice and visited the circle at night and under the
cover of darkness measured the circle with my good friend Nigel
Beckett.

A few days later I decided to show a few of my other friends the
giant Doughnut circle and was driving up the road from the Percy
Hobbs pub when we noticed a massive crowd of  people standing by
the side of the road at Chilcomb Farm. Pulling up behind a BBC
film crew's van we ran up to the boundary fence to see what all
the fuss was about. Looking over we could hardly believe our eyes
- there was an amazing pattern in the field, and unlike any
previous ones this one had pathways and boxes ! Our first
impressions were "its got to be man-made", but my thoughts were
changed when Pat Delgado later walked out from inside the circle
and proclaimed it
"genuine". I have great respect for Pat and his judgement of the
circles, after all he's been researching them longer than almost
anyone else in the business.

After all the fuss had died down Nigel and myself started to
measure and observe the formation. We noticed a few odd details.
Between the boxes and central path were a few bent stems of crop
which seemed to show where someone had walked into each box. We
ignored these putting them down to all the people who were
visiting the circle. Another thing we noticed was that each box
measured four feet in width and had a strip of crop running down
one edge in the opposite direction of flow to the rest of the
box.

Just as we were about to leave the formation an old fellow with a
'cine 8' camera walked in filming. His name was Doug Bower and he
said he was a sound recordist of wildlife and had spotted the
pattern from the road. After chatting about crop circles in
general and asking us what we thought had caused this pattern he
drove off and left us. This was May 23rd, the same day that the
formation had been discovered.

On 24th May Pat Delgado rang to inform me of a new circle at
Morestead, near Cheesefoot Head. Nigel and myself visited the
circle later that day and it was here that Nigel discovered some
underlays of corn coming from the tramlines to the circle centre
and back out from the centre to the edge of the circle underneath
the main flow of corn. We both accepted these as part and parcel
of a genuine circle as we had heard them mentioned briefly by the
"experts".

Over the next few months I discovered several circles in the
Cheesefoot Head area and found similar dimension correlations
involving four foot pathways and rings and similar ring and box
spacings and underlays. I also met Doug Bower and his friend Dave
Chorley on numerous occasions. They had the canny knack of
showing up just after the circles had appeared - give or take a
day or two.

On one occasion I visited Cheesefoot Head at approximately 11.00
pm. to measure up some recent formations and to my surprise found
Doug and Dave near the Punchbowl. When I told them I had come to
measure some circles in the dark due to problems with land owners
they wished me luck and departed after talking to me for half an
hour or so about tales of UFOs that people had related to them in
connection with the circles.

Through my involvement in the crop circle scene, Nigel and myself
became members of a local group called the Cheesefoot Head
Monitoring Group - a silly name as only Nigel and I seemed to go
up there on a regular basis ! I found the views in this group
interesting but realised that they really only wanted to talk
about UFOs and "cover-ups". It was only when Ken Brown joined the
group in late 1990 that I found someone who I could relate to in
terms of their views about the phenomenon. As far as I was
concerned he brought in some northern down-to-earth thinking and
sanity that the group needed to keep its feet on the ground.

1991 started with a bang at Cheesefoot Head with the second
"laddergram" of the year on Chilcomb Down fields. I discovered
this formation at approximately 6.00 am on 7 June and was almost
certainly the first to enter it due to heavy rain and mist
keeping people from firstly, seeing it very easily  and secondly,
getting soaked by entering the field.

After taking a few photographs outside the pattern I walked into
the large ring and was surprised at what I found. There was a
very obvious "stepping" effect around the edges of the circles
and rings and also several broken stems especially around the
edges and centres, but most of all in the ladder section which,
although complicated in flow directions, was quite rough in
places (not "undamaged" as told by the "experts").

I also noted that the magic four foot dimensions were present in
all pathways and indeed some of the circles seemed to have
multiples of four as their dimensions, but not always. Mud was
also on the surface of some of the crop.

I brought up this dimension consistency on numerous occasions at
crop circle meetings but seemed to be wasting my time as everyone
else had gone metric and had not noticed ! So I decided that the
"circle makers" used Imperial dimensions; that was the extent of
my theory.

Then came Ken Brown.

Ken had also noticed the underlays and consistencies that I had
found, but by the end of 1991 - just days before Doug and Dave
went public - Ken had formulated a much more terminal theory from
the same evidence, so by the time the Doug and Dave story broke
he was 100 per cent sure they were telling the truth, and after I
had seen the research Ken had done into their story, so was I.
The fact that I had seen them up there on so many occasions just
after circles had formed was almost enough to convince me alone.

The nail in the coffin was the second "flower" pattern at
Cheesefoot Head. I studied Technical Drawing to "A" Level and
knew straight away when I saw this flower pattern how it had been
constructed and what a "cock-up" had been made of it. With the
radius dimension being measured incorrectly the creators had
stepped the distance around the circumference of the circle and
discovered that the points did not meet where they should have
done, thus creating thin arcs between several petals. This
formation also had the characteristic stepping effect on its
rings and "signatures" and also several underlays for which Ken
has a detailed model.

So it appears that Doug and Dave are telling the truth about the
circles in the Cheesefoot Head area. As far as circles in other
areas I cannot comment as it doesn't look that good for any other
pictograms wherever they may be.

As for plain circles, if they have underlays or stepped patterns
I would be very suspicious of human origin.

Do "genuine" crop circles exist ? We may never find out.

Matthew J. Lawrence, Winchester


Crop Circles in 1993

OK folks I have to confess that for the first time since 1985
I've managed to go through the whole of a summer without visiting
any crop circles ! However, my network of spies and informants
have sent me all the following cases:-
(1) There are plenty of large formations in Wiltshire and I've
had lots of calls about one large formation seen near the A34
junction with the M4.  (2) There have been rum goings-on at
Codecote near Welwyn Garden City in Hertfordshire. There is a
field with several circles, a triangle plus multiple rings, UFO
sightings and all kinds of odd goings on. These circles have been
reported to The Crop Watcher by Marcus Parades and have been
publicised by the "Welwyn and Hatfield Times". (3) On my way up
to the IUN Conference in Sheffield on August 13th I noticed a
large circle in wheat (?) in full view of the M1 motorway.
According to Chris Haighton of Wakefield this was at OSGR 452632
and was about 50 feet across.  (4) Bob Kingsley and others have
told me about numerous pictograms appearing close to the M25 and
other motorways. Perhaps we have some long distance lorry drivers
involved in hoaxing ? (5)
According to TODAY newspaper (August 6th) a giant "porn circle"
has appeared near Chequers - John Major's country residence. This
Penis was two hundred feet long and was literally in the field
next to Chequers itself (a subtle political comment perhaps ?).
According to TODAY a spokesperson at Downing Street doubted
whether John Major had seen this "thing" and that she "stiffly"
doubted that he might be amused. Perhaps someone in the Amersham
group (see CW10) read Clive Potter's article in CW13 ? According
to the Bucks Free Press (9 July) a large face has appeared in
stages in a field owned by Don Jarvis at Bury Farm, Amersham. The
face has a mouth, nose, two eyes and two ears. This is the farm
where the Amersham Group were caught red handed last year.  (6)
Various circles appeared near Weymouth in Dorset just as I was on
holiday there in mid June ! Jo-Anne Wilder reported seeing
circles at Maiden Castle near Dorchester that same week.  (7)
There is a pictogram shaped like a large wheel at Goodworth
Clatford which (according to the
infallible Andover Advertiser of 13 July) appeared on July 1st.
Apparently "The yearly phenomenon is back, bringing with it
groups of experts, religious fanatics and a language all of its
own". (8) There have been at least three formations in
Northamptonshire. The "Kettering Evening Telegraph" (the E.T.) of
6 August describes circles at Irchester, Burton Latimer and
Slipton. Expert Chris Bird is quoted dismissing "many" circles as
"pure hoaxes". All three are singles ranging from 40 foot to 59
feet in diameter. (9) Clas Svahn has rung me from Sweden to tell
me about the six formations appeared there in mid August. One was
definitely known to be a hoax whilst four others were suspected
hoaxes. I'll hold back on details about the sixth formation as
their are some interesting features of this case which are still
being investigated. These circles all received massive media
coverage in Sweden. (10) Jenny Randles tells me that the first
circle to attract widespread publicity in Northern Ireland
appeared at St Patrick's Hill near Drummock in County Antrim in a
barley field. Eight days previously an
orange/red light was seen in the early hours of the morning in
the same area.  (11) Ian McCormack of Leyton in Lancashire has
sent me photographs of a single that appeared at Walton Hall
farm, Walton Le Dale, Preston, OSGR 553283 sometime before July
7th. Ian contacted the farmer but wasn't allowed access as the
farmer believed that the circle had been made by employees at a
local cinema. Ian considers this a little unlikely as the circle
is actually invisible from the cinema, although it is located
only 60 feet into a field adjacent to one of the busiest roads
into Preston. The circle is in a field of ripe barley and is only
the fifth Lancashire circle to be added to the CERES database.
Our thanks to Ian for sending this information. (12) There is an
intriguing new crop circle video that was first shown at the
Sheffield IUN Conference. It shows a series of flashing lights at
Urchfont south east of Devizes. The film was shot at night and
there is a good deal of camera shake. However, during the film
you can see cars passing by which gives some degree of scale. If
I wasn't such a huge evil skeptic I'd say these were disco lights
set up by the U.B.I. - they were seen by CERES' Peter Rendall at
this location during 1992.  (13) Andy Collins' Orgone '93 Project
has produced some very interesting results, eg anomalous objects
recorded on Infra Red film, unusual VLF signals and anomalous
fluctuations in background radiation counts. Jenny and I await
the publication of a full report on these commendable experiments
with great interest. For a copy of a preliminary newsletter
describing this work write to ABC Books, PO Box 189, Leigh-on-
Sea, Essex SS9  1NF or ABC Books, St Aldhelm, 20 Paul Street,
Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DX. Magazine News

GEM is out with an entirely new format. Issue 16 costs # 2.00 for
40 excellent pages containing more on John Michell's interesting
retirement from cereology, a review of Jim Schnabel's book "Round
in Circles" and a review of the Doug Bower's meeting in
Marlborough. Also includes reprints of John Michell's article in
The Oldie and Meaden in J.Met. Excellent value for money. Write
to PO Box 258, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL53  0ET.

The August 1993 issue of MUFON UFO Journal carries full reports
on Project Argus by Michael Chorost and Ralph Noyes (on
"luminosities") plus a comparison of British and Canadian crop
circles by Chad Deetken. Write to 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin,
Texas 78155-4099, USA.

The Southampton UFO Group Newsletter contains more crop circle
info plus a list of formations at Hogs Back, Oadby, Herne Bay,
Meon, Avebury, Cherhill, Cheesefoot and Warminster. Write to
Steve Gerrard, 25 Weston Grove Road, Southampton, SO2  9EE.
According to the "Southern Evening Echo" of August 20th Richard
Andrews
apparently claims that the formations at Cheesefoot Head are
"genuine". Of course they are Richard...

Fortean Times no 70 has an alternative review of Jim Schnabel's
"Round in Circles" but little else on crop circles. Probably a
wise decision Bob !

Rumours and Rumours of Rumours

Jenny Randles works for MBF Services near Marlborough, her
treachery will not go un-noticed ... George Wingfield has been
seen at Another Waggon and Horses, he was not amused ... The
Greatest Conspiracy in British UFO History has been put into
Action ... Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World TV documentary has
been saved and extended ... Ken Rogers has left the UFO scene for
good

Advertisments

Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved has been completely updated and
republished in a second edition. Available from Robert Hale Ltd,
Clerkenwell House, Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R  0HT, price #
7.99. Contains previously unpublished photographs of the Wokurna
(1973), Bordertown (1973) and Rossburn (1977) circles, along with
numerous historical cases, new eye witness testimony and a
detailed account of the crop circle crash of 1991-1993. Get it
please, Jenny and I had to accept reduced royalties to get this
evidence into the public domain. Thanks !

The Crop Watcher is an independent non-profit-making magazine
devoted to the scientific study of crop circles and the social
mythology that accompanies them. All articles are copyright to
the authors and should not be reproduced without obtaining
written permission from the authors. Articles appearing in The
Crop Watcher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor
or other contributors. Readers are welcome to submit articles for
publication. Offers of exchange magazines are always welcome.

Subscriptions

The Crop Watcher is published six times a year and costs # 1.50
to UK subscribers and # 2.50 to overseas subscribers. A full
year's subscription costs # 9.00 for UK subscribers and # 15.00
for overseas subscribers. Please make cheques payable to "Paul
Fuller" not "The Crop Watcher". Overseas subscribers should not
send cheques drawn on overseas banks as these attract a
commission of about # 10.00 each. Subscriptions can be sent via
an International Money Order. All correspondence should be sent
to 3, Selborne Court, Tavistock Close, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51
7TY.