CROP CIRCLE GEOMETRY AND CONSTRUCTION LINES

By repeating this entire process of line construction, we can construct a long, continuous line that forms exactly the outside of the East Field formation.

The result can be seen in Diagram 22.

In Diagram 23 the redundant lines were removed, after which the continuous line was filled up.

What you now see is the East Field formation.

For this construction we needed (among other things):

- the circle of Diagram 2,

- the circle of Diagram 12,

- and the subsequently created larger circle of Diagram 13.

Diagram 24 shows these elements in the formation.

 Diagram 24

Once again we see that the elements needed for the construction were actually there in the field as the underlying construction lines. Some aerial shots clearly show these lines.

 Diagram 25 Diagram 26

Diagram 25 shows - apart from the construction lines of the East Field formation - also the construction lines of the Tawsmead Copse formation.

Diagram 26 shows both formations in correct proportion.

 Diagram 27

Diagram 27 shows Diagrams 25 and 26 fused together.

Conclusions

The East Field and Tawsmead Copse formations are strongly related. Not only do they have the same basic geometry, the one also evolves from the other.

It is relatively difficult to construct the East Field formation. However, when we take the Tawsmead Copse formation as a starting point, the construction of the East Field formation becomes quite easy all of a sudden. In other words, starting with the Tawsmead Copse formation, the East Field formation is relatively easy to construct!

This makes the first appearing of the East Field formation very strange indeed! After all, it appeared a month before the creation of the Tawsmead Copse formation. The logical order, as we have seen, is exactly the other way round!

Furthermore I used a construction technique that made some elements strictly necessary. These elements also appeared in the fields as underlying construction lines. However, let me repeat what I wrote in my article "Back to Basics".

The construction techniques that I used cannot be repeated in the fields without leaving their traces. Look for instance at the large number of seven-fold stars that I needed and that can no longer be found in the end result. It is absolutely impossible to erase those figures in the fields. And yet, the underlying construction lines indicate that exactly the same construction techniques were used when the formations were actually created!

Of course, hoaxers might claim that they actually can mark out those large figures in the fields - like for instance the large seven-fold stars - without leaving a trace.

Although this is quite unlikely to be true, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just for now... Suppose it is indeed possible to make those constructions without leaving a trace. This means one can make absolutely fascinating formations: formations without underlying construction lines!

From a hoaxer's point of view, those are the ultimate formations!

In other words, if a hoaxer has the possibility to leave out construction lines, he will definitely leave them out!

If he can make large seven-fold stars without leaving any construction lines, he will never make smaller seven-fold stars which do show construction lines!

This puts any hoax claim in a catch-22 situation.

1. Either hoaxers can make large seven-fold stars without leaving construction lines, but that means we would not have found any construction lines in the formation at all. However, we did find them!

2. Or the hoaxers cannot make seven-fold stars without leaving construction lines, but that means we should have found the construction lines in the large seven-fold stars as well. However, we didn't. They weren't there!

Whichever way you look at it, any hoax claim drops out for good.

Which leaves us with the question:

Why did we find those construction lines?

Because of what I've written above, I can only draw one conclusion:

This however is not only an astonishing, but also a far-reaching conclusion!

The presence of the construction lines inside the formations and the absence of those lines outside the formations, are precisely what proofs the formations are not man-made! In other words:

The construction lines that make most people suspicious, are indeed the ultimate proof that a formation is not a hoax.

You could even consider the construction lines to be a message of the 'circle makers'. A message with which they show us that a formation is genuine and not the work of a couple of hoaxers. If the construction lines would have been absent, any hoax claim would be much more difficult to refute.

My final conclusion therefore is:

construction lines: bless them!

In a future article I will explain how seven-fold geometry can be constructed.

Furthermore I will evaluate the seven-fold geometry crop circle formation at Danebury Ring.

Bert Janssen, 1998

Email: ossebaard@wxs.nl