Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/ftp-stuff/auscirc1.txt

Text File | 1992-01-29 | 6.0 KB | 92 lines

   From: Bill Chalker Ufora Associate NSW, Australia
     To: Sheldon Wernikoff
Subject: Crop Circles Down Under
Sheldon, Further to your comments and message to Keith re topographic
considerations in Australian cases.  I will limit my comments to 3 cases of
prominence in the "circles" argument.
1. Tully, 1966 - the topography does not fit the originally stated Meaden
theory.  The Horseshoe lagoon involved is part of an extensive flat coastal
area.  The nearest hill/mountain/highground is literally miles away.
2. Rosedale, 1980 - once again the topography does not fit, plus in this case
we are dealing with a very long duration event with respect to the UFO
observed, which sat on the ground long even for the farm caretaker to get
dressed, ride his motorbike down to a gate approximately 400 metres from the
house, then ride up to within 10 to 15 metres.  A duration of at least 5
minutes, and there I think we are being conservative.
3. Mallee/Speed in Victoria (the Jolly property) scene of some of the most
complex "circles" phenomenology in Australia, once again the topography
appears to be unsuitable - gentle slightly undulating countryside, which would
be characterised as largely flat.
It seems to me that certainly in the cases of 1 & 2 above attempts to
reconcile both to Meaden vortex events are quite flawed and rely on inaccurate
characterisations of the UFO events involved and grossly unwarranted
extrapolations of the topographic restrictions of the theory. I think these
days Dr. Meaden has made the topographic conditions for his vortex formations
so weak that the energy generation/votex development become very tenuous.
My position on crop circles can still be best represented by by March, 1989
statement to Jenny Randles, part of which she used in her/Paul Fuller's
"Controversy of the Circles" (1989).  As she deleted most of my arguments re
Tully due to space, I have quoted the whole of my original statement as
follows:
STATEMENT ON THE BRITISH MYSTERY CIRCLES CONTROVERSY
The evolution of the vortex theory for the mystery circle formations in
English corn fields is a good model of co-operation  of scientific specialists
and UFO researchers. It appears to be a possible explanation for many of the
circle formations, that fit the topographic restrictions of the theory.
The controversy that surrounds the British circles is a classic example of the
problem of UFO myth making on evidence that is poor.  Virtually all of the
British circles have no direct evidence of a UFO cause.  In cases where there
is no direct correlation, then speculation has to be sensible and cautious.
It strikes me that the vortex model is a cautious approach.  It is not however
proven, but is certainly a better fitting explanation than the
"extraterrestrial" suggestions.
In any case where there is an interesting physical trace, that lacks a direct
UFO correlation, the physical evidence has to be extraordinary if we are to
entertain the possibility  of an exotic stimuli.  So far the British circles
do not provide such evidence.
I remain open minded, but must say on the current evidence I would lean
towards a mixture of vortex formations and hoaxing.  I have not seen any
compelling evidence that would support a UFO connection.  If there is any
available I would be happy to assess it.
I would suggest that protogonists should consider my comments presented in my
"physical trace" chapter in "UFOs - 1947-1987".
While I see the vortex model as being a credible response to the circle
controversy, I must however caution about applying it too dogmatically.  For
example Jenny Randles applied the vortex theory to the classic Australian
Tully UFO nests of 1966.  See her (book) "The UFO Conspiracy".
I have spent some considerable time assessing the evidence of the 1966 Tully
CE2 cases that involved farmer George Pedley. I have reviewed the original
data, the RAAF files, interviewed George Pedley - the witness, Albert Pennisi
- the property owner, and the original investigators, particularly Stan Seers,
and I have to state that the vortex model does not apply for the following
reasons:
1.The topography  does not fit the theory. The Horseshoe lagoon is part of an
extensive flat coastal area.  The nearest hill/mountain/highground is
literally miles away.
2. There was no prevailing wind conditions.  In fact the weather had been fine
and sunny.
3. The witness saw a UFO described as 2 saucers end on end, in broad daylight
at close proximity for some 1- to 15 seconds.  To arge thast he saw a "vortex"
is to categorically reject his evidence and the physical evidence at the site.
The reeds did not disappear from the site. They were floating on the surface.
There was no evidence that sufficient quantity of reeds were lifted up to
create the impression of the UFO Pedley saw.  He saw it directly above the
"nest".  It then rose up and then moved of at speed rotating as it went.  I
think it is extremely difficult to reconcile this to an observation of a
"vortex". The RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) suggested this as an
explanation at the time.  It did not fit the facts then, nor does it fit the
"vortex" model as it is currently understood...
Providing researchers understand the limitations of the vortex theory, then I
see it as a reasonable hypothesis for investigation and possible explanation
of mystery circles found in suitable topographic conditions.
END OF 1989 STATEMENT
Since then Meaden's hypotheisis has evolved arguing for a "plasma vortex"
which might account for some anomolous lights at the site of circle
formations.  Once again this evolved theory does not adequately account for
the Tully event and certainly does not fit Rosedale as Jenny Randles tried to
do in her coauthored book "Crop Circles".  Her analysis of the Rosedale case
in that book was flawed and a correct interpretation of the data re that event
finds the Meaden vortex as an usuitable explanation.
I agree with you position on the more complex patterns that they are most
likely hoaxes.