Hard factual evidence for three paranormal crop circles: could Michio Kaku, Richard Taylor and Physics World all be advocating an incorrect theory?  

“We must work on evidence and not conjecture”---Rod Bearcloud  

Summary. A new article was published in Physics World last summer, saying how microwave ovens and GPS (rather than rope and boards) are being used to make crop circles (field pictures) all over the world (see www.telegraph.co.uk). This came as a surprise to many human crop artists in England, because they still use rope and boards, even though the fallen plants in certain crop circles sometimes show a signature of microwave heating. Whenever microwave generators have been tested by human crop artists, those energies essentially kill the plants, or set them on fire, just as for excess heating of food or drink in your microwave oven at home.  

So now there are two competing theories of “rope and boards” versus “microwave energies”: which could be correct? In fact, none of those distinguished professors (or news sources) actually listed the detailed facts of crop circle formation in southern England, or other countries, while making their reports. They simply speculated, without much detailed knowledge or evidence, that local humans were making fifty or more crop pictures each summer for the past 20 years, through the use of microwave ovens and GPS.  

Yet sometimes crop pictures have appeared very silently and quickly, with no humans present in the field or nearby. Here we will summarize the hard facts of crop circle formation for three field pictures from Stonehenge 1996, East Field 2007 or Cherhill Down 2011, which were multiple eyewitness or filmed accounts. The evidence shows that they all probably have a paranormal origin, by any reasonable standards of testimony or documentation as would be accepted in court. We will also list a whole series of single eyewitness accounts or other unusual films, which are more anecdotal in nature, but serve to confirm that something of a paranormal nature is going on.  

Why has mainstream science so far rejected the evidence for paranormal crop circles, or at least refused to examine it? One can see a close analogy here as to how mainstream science regarded “meteorites” in the 18th century. A large body of evidence concerning meteorites had been accumulating for hundreds of years. Yet it was ignored or even scorned by mainstream science, because “everyone knew” that rocks could not fall from the sky! Even if many reliable witnesses gave first-hand testimonies about meteorites, or if the chemical compositions of such fallen rocks were found to be highly unusual, such observational and/or experimental evidence did not fit into an 18th-century view of how our world worked. It was not until 1803, when 3000 stones fell at once in front of dozens of witnesses in France, that the French Academy of Sciences finally capitulated, and began to study an extensive body of data which had been available to them for many years (see www.meteoris.de ).  

A new theory of crop-circle making was proposed last summer   

“In judging between two different scientific theories, what else is there but the details?”---Sir Aaron Klug  

Last summer in the August 2011 issue of Physics World, volume 24, number 8, pages 26-31, Professor Richard Taylor proposed a new theory of crop-circle making entitled “More than mere patterns? The science behind crop circles”. Several observations from the peer-reviewed literature had suggested that a previous theory was either inadequate or incorrect. To be specific, mainstream scientists had previously attributed all English (or other) crop pictures to human fakers with rope and boards, who would supposedly sneak into various fields late at night, to make large and intricate patterns without ever (or almost never) being seen or caught.  

Now however by 2011, it had become clear that the previous theory was untenable. Many new crop circles were appearing with a (i) high complexity and/or (ii) high speed that the slow, laborious, rope-and-boards method could not account for. Also, biophysical investigations of fallen plants had sometimes shown evidence for local microwave heating. In some cases this was due to heating of internal liquids, which would cause outer parts of the plant to expand or explode. In other cases it was due to burning of the plant tissue, which would cause outer parts of the plant to appear black or charred (see for example www.bltresearch.com or www.swirlednews.com  or Deepening-Complexity-Crop-Circles-Scientific).  

Professor Taylor first cited evidence from the literature, to suggest that microwave energies (rather than rope and boards) were being used to create certain crop pictures. Then as a corollary to that hypothesis, he speculated that human fakers might be making crop pictures much faster and with a greater complexity than ever before, by using portable microwave generators and GPS (see http://physicsworld.com or www.popularmechanics.com):  

A “rope and boards” model was therefore discarded, while a new “microwave energy” model was favored, on purely scientific grounds. This new article appeared in a leading, peer-reviewed physics journal, and was reported widely among mainstream news media, thereby giving the impression that it was factually well-researched (see for example www.physorg.com or www.dailymail.co.uk).  

Professor Michio Kaku quickly lauded Taylor’s new theory on Fox News. He argued that “physics” could now explain crop circle formation, which was previously regarded by mainstream science to be an unexplained mystery (see www.youtube.com or www.youtube.com).  

Martin Durrani, the Editor of Physics World (see http://physicsworld.com), likewise praised the new theory: “Taylor is trying to act like any good scientist, examining evidence for the design and construction of crop circles, without getting carried away by a sideshow of UFOs, hoaxes and aliens. He is the latest in a long line of physicists taking a serious, objective look at topics that critics might claim are beyond scientific understanding.”  

One big problem with the new theory of microwave ovens and GPS  

Now here comes the rub regarding Taylor and Kaku’s new theory. On hearing about “microwaves and GPS”, there was widespread surprise in the crop-circle community, even among field artists who had been making crop circles for many years. Those experts all use rope and boards for their daylight (or sometimes night-time) constructions, while several attempts to use microwave energies have essentially set the plants on fire (see www.bltresearch.com or http://colinandrews.blogspot.com). No known human crop artists have ever made a complex field picture using microwave ovens and GPS.  

Still there are many well-documented examples of microwave-created crop circles, some of which have appeared quickly and silently during broad daylight (or at night) with no humans visible in the field or nearby. A few of those have been multiple-witness or even filmed events. Others have been single-witness testimonies.  

Perhaps the factual “microwave” theory is right, while its speculative “human artist” corollary is wrong? Detailed evidence concerning the design and construction of new crop circles was not presented in the Physics World article. For that reason, we will present here three well-documented examples, where large and complex crop circles were created quickly in the absence of any detectable human involvement, and hence can probably be classified as “paranormal in origin”.  

We would encourage the students and/or friends of Michio Kaku, Richard Taylor, Martin Durrani, Physics World and Fox News to bring such hard facts to their attention, and to that of the general scientific community. Personally as a Caltech Ph.D. and well-known structural chemist, who analyzed the first high-resolution x-ray structures of DNA, plus a small part of the genetic code (having to do with DNA curvature), I find it embarrassing that modern scientists cannot move forward from the dogmatic attitudes of several centuries ago, and investigate these new subjects freely with an open mind.  

Analogy to skepticism in mainstream science about “meteorites” before 1800  

There have been a huge number of accounts of “stones falling from the sky” since ancient times (see www.meteorite.fr). Yet only in the 19th century did mainstream science begin to take those accounts seriously, and accept the existence of “meteorites” (see www.meteorite.fr or http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com). That controversy was eventually resolved close to the end of the 18th century in the following way:  

“On December 13, 1795, a stone of 25 kg was seen to fall in Wold Cottage, England by several eyewitnesses. The fall had occurred in broad daylight out of a clear blue sky, thereby refuting current explanations for the formation of meteorites by lightning or condensation in clouds. Subsequently the fallen rock was analyzed by a British chemist, Edward Howard. He found that it contained grains of nickel-iron, similar to other iron meteorites described in Chladni's book. By 1802 Howard published his results, and convinced a growing number of scientists that meteorites might represent extra-terrestrial matter falling from the sky. Yet a large number of conservative scientists kept denying the obvious facts, among them some of the most influential members of the French Academy of Sciences. Their mockery and sarcasm was not silenced until April 26, 1803, when a shower of 3000 stones fell in broad daylight near L'Aigle, France, witnessed by countless people”:  

There have likewise been many accounts of crop circles appearing throughout modern history, for example the “mowing devil” in 1678 (see www.swirlednews.com ) or “weather damage” in Nature magazine 1880 (see www.bltresearch.com). We do not know yet of an example where 3000 crop circles have appeared in one night, as witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people! The greatest number of crop circles to appear in one night has been three or four. Until such a world-shattering event does occur, our best evidence will probably come from studying a few well-characterized examples: where large and/or complex crop pictures have appeared suddenly during day or night, in front of multiple eyewitnesses or cameras, with no humans detectable in the field or nearby. 

Multiple eyewitness or filmed accounts 

Daylight crop circle near Stonehenge on July 7, 1996  

Light aircraft pilot Rod Taylor of Weyhill, Hampshire was flying a passenger over Stonehenge at 5:30 PM on July 7, 1996. No crop circle could be seen yet in the field nearby. This was confirmed by security guards at Stonehenge, who said that a crop circle had not been seen there earlier in the day. The pilot next landed at Thruxton Airfield, where his passenger disembarked. When he took off and crossed the same field again at 6:15 PM, he saw an enormous crop formation in the wheat below:  

By 6:15 PM, his former passenger was driving on the A303 past Stonehenge. He looked out of his car window, and saw the same new crop formation in a field to his left. He also saw many cars pulled off by the side of the road. Police emergency lines had received several calls just before 6.00 PM, reporting that a number of vehicles had pulled off the road, so as to create a safety hazard. Nothing unusual was reported or seen earlier in the day by anyone at Stonehenge, despite it being a national monument under 24-hour guard (see www.colinandrews.net).  

A woman has come forward to say that she and her son’s friend were among the vehicles parked near Stonehenge on that day. They claim to have watched for 20 minutes, while a large crop circle formed under a swirling cloud of mist: “There was a mist two to three feet off the ground. It was spinning around, while on the ground a circular shape in crops was appearing. It seemed to get bigger, as the mist got bigger and swirled faster. Everyone was discussing it, while more and more traffic was building up. We didn't understand at the time what we were seeing” (see www.lucypringle.co.uk).  

Possible explanation of the strange symbols drawn at Stonehenge in July 1996   

The strange symbols which were drawn in crops near Stonehenge on July 7, 1996 seem almost alien in nature. How can we possibly understand what they mean? Three weeks later on August 2, 1996, a helpful two-part explanation appeared in crops at Chiseldon, somewhat like for a traditional Rosetta Stone. In one part on the right of Chiseldon, we can see our conventional symbols for a “full Moon” or “half crescent Moon”:  

Then in another part on the left of Chiseldon, we can see their alien symbols, which resemble those drawn at Stonehenge three weeks earlier. Because of this helpful clue, such symbols become easily interpretable as “lunar phases” from the current month of July 24 to August 6, 1996. The Moon was “full” three days earlier on July 30, and would reach a “half crescent phase” on August 6 four days later. A central “pointer” was drawn so as to point directly at the current lunar phase, near midnight on August 2 to 3, when the crop picture appeared.  

In summary, one may conclude that these are “lunar phase symbols”, where the size of each major circle along the curve varies in proportion to any lunar intensity or phase. When we compare the solved crop picture from Chiseldon to Stonehenge of three weeks earlier, and study the two diagrams carefully side-by-side, we can deduce that Stonehenge shows one complete lunar phase cycle of 29.5 days from “new” to “full”, then below the horizon at sunset and back again to “new”:  

Some of its small circles at lower right (1) represent a “new Moon”, while some of its large circles at upper left (15) represent a “full Moon” fifteen days later. Earth’s horizon at sunset is suggested by a crop tramline (white dashed line). Other circles at lower left (red crosses) represent the passage of our Moon below the horizon at sunset, proceeding to lesser and lesser values of phase until day 29, when it reappears again on the lower right as “new”. One small circle at lower right even shows “day 0.5”, because our Moon has a phase cycle of 29.5 days rather than an integral 29.  

Stonehenge was used long ago as a monthly lunar observatory, so it makes perfect sense for the crop artists to place their “lunar phase diagram” nearby. Furthermore, it has always been suggested that the first communications between humans on Earth and an alien civilization would involve abstract symbols from science or mathematics (see www.seti.org). Once again the Stonehenge crop picture makes perfect sense in that context:  

"We are talking about two civilizations communicating their finest achievements, their deepest beliefs and attitudes. I feel we should send something about our level of scientific attainment, and understanding of how the world works. Some fundamental physics, maybe some biology, but primarily physics and astronomy” (see www.guardian.co.uk).  

Subsequent claims of human fakery and the fractal “Julia set”  

Rod Dickinson, a human crop-circle maker, subsequently claimed on October 27, 1996 that the large and complex crop picture near Stonehenge had been made on the night before by unknown parties, none of whom he was willing to identify (see www.circlemakers.org). Relevant to such claims, three months after the fact, one may wish to recall that: (i) no security guard at Stonehenge saw any human fakers in that field on the night before, or saw any crop circle nearby in daylight until 6:15 PM, (ii) no one driving in a car on the busy A303 road saw either the crop circle or a “swirling mist” until 6:00 PM, when it apparently caused a traffic jam, and (iii) none of the many pilots flying over Stonehenge all day saw a crop circle until 6:15 PM, although not 45 minutes earlier at 5:30 PM. Thus there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever to support any of Dickinson’s remarkable assertions.  

In the first few weeks after Stonehenge 1996 appeared, it was given a catchy name “the Julia Set”, because it looked somewhat like a geometric shape from modern fractal mathematics (see http://paulbourke.net or http://video.google.co.uk). When we compare those two images more carefully however, we can see that any similarities are just superficial, since both are “spirals”:  

This large and amazing crop picture was shown on the cover of Physics World in August 2011, and interpreted there as a “Julia set”. Three explanations of its “lunar phase symbols” had been posted on Crop Circle Connector in 2007 or 2008, yet such prior work was not cited or discussed (see www.cropcirclearchives.co.uk or www.cropcirclearchives.co.uk or /northdown2003). It might seem reasonable for human fakers to lay down a “Julia set” in crops. Yet would they really lay down strange symbols for “lunar phases”, more akin to what we would expect for alien communications? In studies of human psychology, the refusal to consider other points of view, even from experts in another subject, is known as “cognitive narrowing” (see www.all-about-psychology.com).  

A real video, or an attempt to discredit the crop circle phenomenon one month later?  

One month after the daylight crop circle at Stonehenge, another crop circle appeared at Oliver’s Castle on August 11, 1996. It was supposedly filmed by a young amateur photographer, and showed a large crop formation created by several moving balls of light (see http://video.google.com). That interesting video was later suggested to be of doubtful authenticity, or even an attempt to discredit the real crop-circle phenomenon (see Sorensen). National Geographic produced a TV episode to debunk it, which itself included false claims (see www.cropcirclesandmore.com). Given the many confusing testimonies concerning that Oliver’s Castle video, it cannot be regarded as reliable information at present. 

Night-time crop circle in East Field on July 7, 2007  

Winston Keech, Gary King and Paula Presdee-Jones were watching all of East Field in the early morning darkness of July 7, 2007, both visually and with the use of light-enhancing cameras. They could see clearly into the large field below until about 1:35 AM, when they were able to determine factually that there were no lights, human activities, or crop formations present. Then at 3:08 AM, they all saw a bright flash of light akin to sheet lightning, which also registered on their cameras. By 3:20 AM, their cameras could see the faint shadow of a large crop picture in the field below. By 3:45 AM, they could all see a large crop picture plainly with their naked eyes, as well as in considerable detail on three different cameras:  

At 4:00 AM, Gary and Paula decided to walk down the hill to investigate the new crop picture more closely, as well as to take camera images from the ground. It contained 150 separate circles spread over 300 meters (1030 x 490 feet) of flattened wheat. All of its large circles appeared as “perfect circles” when photographed later from above; but due to the rolling hillside, they were laid out as “slight ellipses” when measured on the ground (see Crop Circles An Elliptical View99). The maximum length of time for humans to have potentially created such a large, complex crop formation would be 1 hour and 45 minutes, or from 1:35 to 3:20 AM when it was too dark to see clearly (see www.youtube.com or www.earthfiles.com  or www.kornsirkler.org). 

Personal testimonies by Gary or Paula are listed here (see www.wccsg.com or Gary_King_Testimony). There was also a laboratory analysis of wheat taken from various locations in that crop picture, to look for possible effects of microwave radiation (see 070707_East_Field_Wheat_Formation_Levengoods_report). Some of these findings were reported in a press conference at Alton Barnes on July 19, then in two Wiltshire newspapers on July 20, 2007 (see the_crop_circle_mystery or Crop-circles-creators-caught-camera). No national or international news organization carried this important and highly verified story, of which they surely would have been aware.  

Several “debunking claims” have been made about the East Field crop picture, some as late as 2011, based on unverified or even bizarre personal testimonies. Those do not belong in an objective scientific report. The primary observational data speak for themselves (see also www.youtube.com or www.youtube.com).  

Possible explanation of the strange symbols drawn at East Field in July 2007  

The most probable interpretation of East Field in 2007 seems to be astronomical. Its two largest “arcs” show 29 major circles of varying size, along with two tiny satellite circles on each side (and between) most major circles. Each large “arc” can therefore be interpreted as a lunar phase cycle of 29 days, proceeding from “new Moon” to “full Moon”, then back again to “new Moon”. There were three “arcs” (or phase cycles) shown in total, matching three months during the summer of 2007: from a new Moon on May 16, to another new Moon on August 12. Following that date, we can see six small circles “rising up” between its two largest arcs. Those suggest six more days from August 12 to August 18, when there was an inferior conjunction of Venus with our Sun:  

Several crop circles later in the season noted the same date. For example on August 1, 2007, a schematic depiction of 18 cubes appeared at Sugar Hill, suggesting that there were “eighteen days left until August 18”. Then on August 12, 2007, a schematic depiction of the Mayan number six appeared at Stanton St. Bernard, suggesting that there were “six days left until August 18”. The Mayans or Aztecs used periodic Sun-Venus conjunctions as a basis for one of their calendars, namely the 52-year Calendar Round (see Dresden_Codex).  

Two years later on July 19, 2009, an amusing “starfish” shape appeared in crops at Martinsell Hill. Each of the six “arms” from that “starfish” showed lunar phase symbols similar to those drawn at East Field in 2007, along with two tiny satellite circles on each side (and between) the major circles. Each “arm” contained 18 major circles of varying size, perhaps to match the 18 years of any Saros eclipse cycle (another common theme in crops). Two of its six “arms” ended with missing or half-missing end-circles, in order to describe total or partial eclipses that summer. Four other “arms” ended with an Earth-Moon orbital diagram.  

Despite the many liberties taken by those crop artists in portraying astronomical information (for example, symbolizing lunar cycles in terms of a “starfish”), still we can see that these are typical SETI types of diagram. During the first stages of contact between any two disparate civilizations, the first messages to be exchanged will be of a universal scientific character, rather than culturally specific (say football or basketball scores).   

Certain enthusiasts in 2007 noted a qualitative similarity between the new East Field crop circle and a Sanskrit phase “Aum”. Yet on close inspection, that approximate relation seems doubtful:  

Daylight crop circle near the Cherhill White Horse on July 20, 2011  

This crop circle was first spotted from the air by a microlight pilot, Andy Jones, at 10:55 AM on July 20, 2011. A second pilot, Tony Hughes, first saw the same crop picture on his flight back to Wiltshire Microlight Centre at approximately 11 AM. The field had been clear 30 minutes earlier on his flight out around 10:30 AM. The weather was cloudy, thus eliminating any possibility that reflections from a bright Sun could have prevented him from seeing the new circle on his flight out:

Several passengers (Monique Scholten, Annemike Loots or Jan Willem Vekerk) had flown separately over Cherhill Down during the morning of July 20, earlier in the day from 9:20 to 10:15 AM. All of them reported that there was no crop circle in the field prior to its discovery at 10:55 AM. The flattened circle was 98 feet in diameter, with a curious overlaid pattern to the lay (see yatesbury or www.cropcirclesnorway.com)  

There have been no debunking reports concerning this daylight crop circle (so far), perhaps because the observational evidence is so strong. The field lies in a very open space, and may be seen easily from a small hill that features the Cherhill White Horse, which many tourists climb daily. Any new crop circle in the surrounding fields would be seen immediately.  

Possible explanation of the strange symbols drawn at Cherhill Down in July 2011  

Those strange symbols drawn at Cherhill Down on July 20, 2011 may perhaps have been meant to represent a “giant storm” on the planet Saturn, which was raging fiercely at the time (see www.sciencedaily.com):  

Once again, any space-faring visitors to our solar system would probably be much more interested in a giant storm on Saturn, than football or basketball scores.  

Astronomy or mathematics, not just geometric field art    

An article from Physics World of August 2011 gave the impression that “crop circles” are mainly concerned with geometry and shape. That was true to some extent for early crop circles in the 1990’s, as studied by Gerald Hawking, Nick Kollerstrom or Bert Janssen (see www.youtube.com or www.hypermaths.org or www.bertjanssen.nl). Even in those early days, however, there was considerable astronomy in crops as studied by Jack Sullivan, Andy Thomas or Kris Sherwood (see Cetus or www.swirlednews.com  or scorpious_hour).  

For example, some of the earliest “dumbbell” crop pictures from 1990 to 1993 symbolized local astronomical events in our solar system (see time2007f). Likewise, a spectacular two-part crop picture near Avebury Manor in 2008 showed a schematic image of our solar system for December 23, 2012, along with a more detailed map of Earth and Moon, suggesting that some large “comet” will fly past on a similar date (see www.lucypringle.co.uk). The detailed content of those astronomical crop pictures is not something which local humans could easily have produced, because they do not have enough knowledge (see time2007j).  

Certain astronomical crop pictures have even seemed to predict the future, for example the outburst of comet 73P in 1995 (see time2007a). First they showed us in crops (at Longwood Warren on June 26) a diagram of our inner solar system for the date of June 21, 1995. There a round symbol for “planet Earth” was omitted or missing. Three months later on September 22, 1995, comet 73P Schwassman-Wachmann 3 exploded in space in almost exactly the same location, where a symbol for “planet Earth” had been omitted three months earlier:  

Another series of crop pictures from the summer of 2005 seemed to predict the outburst of comet 17P Holmes in 2007 (see /time2007g or time2007h). One of those crop pictures identified comet 17P Holmes specifically, by showing its location at perihelion on May 4, 2007, six months before it outburst:  

Other crop pictures have shown original mathematical constructions which no one on Earth had ever conceived of (see for example Easy-pi-Astrophysicist-solves-riddle-Britains-complex-crop-circle or www.earthfiles.com ). This one showing “pi to ten digits” appeared in a muddy field of barley with no footsteps visible anywhere, and no excess soil on the crops (see www.earthfiles.com): 

“A crop formation showing ‘pi to ten digits’ emerged immaculately clean and untouched in a barley field near Barbury Castle, after a night of persistent rain, which left the surrounding crop field so muddy, that people who tried to approach the new formation became wet and dirt-stained all over their jeans. Yet there was no mud anywhere in the formation that had appeared on that rainy night” (from Linda Howe).  

The key to design of that crop picture is to recognize that the sum of ten digits (3 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 5 + 9 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 4) = 40. Then four turns of a rotary encoder, with each digit equal to 36o, will give the construction as shown. A nearby bridle path was located tangent to one side of the crop picture. When seen from the air, it helped to recapitulate a famous geometric proof by Archimedes.  

None of these important facts were presented in the Physics World article of August 2011. Most mainstream academics probably do not even know about them. When is such unwarranted scientific censorship going to end? Surely mainstream physicists are not going to panic or riot in the streets, if they learn the truth?  

Single eyewitness accounts or other unusual films  

Single eyewitness accounts of crop circle formation are not as convincing as multiple eyewitness accounts, especially if there is no additional photographic or physical evidence. Yet we will list here a whole series of single eyewitness accounts and/or unusual films, to give a general impression of what many people seem to have observed.  

Terry Wilson has collected hundreds of reports on crop circles prior to 1978, when two old gentleman “Doug and Dave” claimed in tabloid newspapers or TV to have “invented” the phenomenon (see http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com). Their own wives admitted later in 1991, that the two men had made just a few crop circles in Somerset County for a couple of summers. Examples of much older crop circles include Bow Hill 1932, a government report from the USA 1952, Charlton 1963 and Warminster 1966. “Taken as a whole, this body of evidence is beyond reasonable dispute. Crop circles have been appearing for as long as anyone can remember.”  

From Hugh Manistre's Crop Circles - A Beginner's Guide (see Crop-Circles-Beginners-Hugh-Manistre): “Tom Gwinnett was driving by his organic wheat field, when his car stalled and the lights died. He then observed flashes of light among the wheat heads, converging on an orange-yellow light which was spinning, and emitting noise like an old-fashioned sewing machine. After a minute or so, the light blinked out and his headlights came on again. On the following day, an eight-meter-wide crop circle was discovered in the same location where that strange light had been observed.” A friend of mine interviewed Tom, and believed he was telling the truth (contributed by Rob Irving).  

Steve Alexander on July 29, 1990 captured a high-resolution video of a “ball of light”, flying just above the crops near Milk Hill, which was also seen at close range by a local farm worker (see milk-hill-ufo).  

From Winston Keech in 1991 (see www.youtube.com): “This occurred at the corner of East Field near the village of Alton Barnes at 3:00 in the morning. A small, dimly illuminated disk moved across the top of the corn quite leisurely. Then it expanded to a diameter of 20 feet. At that point the corn shook. You could hear the corn rattling and shaking. Next as if in synchronization, it all fell. The total time was approximately three seconds, from expansion of the light to falling of the corn. After the corn fell, the light retracted to a small dinner-plate size, and glided away across the top of the crop. Afterwards I found a simple circle about 20 feet across, or the same size as the expanded light. I felt as through it was taunting me.”

W.C. Levengood in 1994 published an article called “Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants” in Physiologia Plantarum 92, 356-363. He noted several important biophysical changes within fallen plants, for example abnormal swelling of growth nodes (caused by microwave heating), expulsion cavities in growth nodes (caused by microwave heating), and significant changes to seed germination or development.

Levengood in 1995 published another article called “Semi-molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation” in the Journal of Scientific Exploration 9, 191-199. He found that a magnetic iron glaze had spread like ‘spray paint’ over the soil and plants of a crop formation near Cherhill in 2003, shortly after an intense Perseid meteor shower. In other crop formations, he found concentrations of magnetic iron up to 700 times higher than of normal soil. He hypothesized that ionic plasmas, spinning high in the atmosphere, and had descended toward Earth carrying meteoric dust, microwaves or other complex energies, so as to produce the effects observed (see www.earthfiles.com or www.earthfiles.com  or paranormal-tv-dr-levengood-and-the_shortfilms).

Don Fletcher in August 1999 captured another high-resolution video of a “ball of light”, flying just above a newly-made crop picture at Barbury Castle (see www.youtube.com). A detailed analysis of the video by Martin Keitel seems to support its authenticity (see www.martinkeitel.net).  

From Nancy Talbott in August 2001 (see www.rense.com): “At 3:15 AM a brilliant, intense, white column of light, eight inches to one foot in diameter, flashed down from sky to ground, illuminating my bedroom as if by helicopter searchlights. Approximately one second of total darkness elapsed. Then a second tube of the same brilliant white light, edged with a bluish tint, appeared slightly to the left of where the first tube had appeared. Again the room and outside lit up spectacularly, leaving that tube of light visible for about one second. After another second of darkness, a third tube of light descended to the ground. We headed for the back fence and field. There over the fence, about 15 feet into the bean field, and barely visible in the darkness, was a new crop circle” (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUh9lWJIeGc).

From Art Rantala in July 2003 (see http://psiapplications.com): “Directly across the street, a group of trees started swinging. As he watched the trees blowing around, his gaze went to the wheat field, where three circles appeared one by one, right in front of him. All of the circles were flattened in roughly 12 seconds. There was no apparent reason for the wheat to have been swirled and flattened: nothing unusual in the sky, no lights, no unusual sounds. Whatever force was causing the circles to form, it was beyond the range of visible sight.”

From Rod Bearcloud in July 2005 (see www.starnationgallery.com ): “I drove to my favorite field in England called East Field. From there, I decided to wait for the first light of the morning Sun to awaken Turtle Island (Earth). When it was light enough, I started a drive, searching for any new star glyphs in the fields. It was now 4:00 to 4:15 AM. With a still lingering thought, and compelling feeling about a star glyph at Waden Hill, I wanted to return to see if anything might have appeared on the backside of the hill, where I couldn't see earlier? When I arrived, I saw that a star glyph had appeared exactly where I had looked only an hour or so earlier. It was near the top, where I had earlier followed the line of the hill in the dark night with my monocular. Half an hour to forty-five minutes later, I took photos of the Sun beginning to rise over that field. In the quiet morning, the lay of the fallen wheat looked like water flowing all around.”  

David Pratt in 2005 (see http://davidpratt.info) posted a broad collection of informal but interesting witness reports.  

In August of 2008, a large saucer-shaped UFO was filmed on videotape, while flying rapidly over the “swallows” crop picture in South Field (see www.youtube.com).   

Winston Keech on July 7, 2010 captured another high-resolution video of a “ball of light”, rising up from a field near Milk Hill (see www.youtube.com).   

In summary, there have been so many reports of non-human-made crop circles, from centuries ago until today, that the Physics World article of 2011 became factually wrong even in its first paragraph. Modern physicists have been denying the obvious facts about “crop circles” for a very long time now, just as leading members of the French Academy ignored obvious facts about “meteorites” during the 18th century.  

Two SETI types of crop picture appeared near Chilbolton Observatory on August 13, 2000 then August 19-20, 2001 

We were talking above about “SETI types” of communication between disparate civilizations. These would first be of a general scientific or mathematical nature, rather than culturally specific. Many crop pictures do seem to show SETI types of messages, which are concerned with universal concepts from math, astronomy or science.  

The ultimate SETI message was transmitted into space (toward globular cluster M13) by the Arecibo radio telescope in 1974, at the instigation and design of Frank Drake and Carl Sagan (see Arecibo_message). Surprisingly enough, two apparent responses to that message were drawn in crops next to the Chilbolton radio telescope in southern England, over two successive years from 2000 to 2001. Neither crop picture was witnessed to form in daylight, or at night with the cameras rolling. Yet since the subject matter seems so relevant, we feel that it will be useful to summarize each crop picture here.  

The first SETI-type crop picture appeared on August 13, 2000, and showed something like a “multiple laser array” which they may use for interstellar communication, rather than a simple radio dish:  

One year later, a similar “laser array” image appeared in crops in the same field, except in much smaller form as part of a larger message (see above at lower right).  

The second SETI-type crop picture appeared next to Chilbolton radio telescope on August 19-20, 2001 in two separate parts:  

One part showed the “face of Carl Sagan”, drawn with many small dots as if copied from a lithograph in a printed newspaper (see www.starnationgallery.com ). The other part showed a radio telescope message which Drake and Sagan had sent out into space in 1974, with certain variations (see arecibo  or www.youtube.com or www.youtube.com or www.youtube.com).  

Frank Drake later commented: “There is no chance whatsoever that this is a legitimate message”. First, he said that the novel structure of DNA shown there is chemically impossible. Secondly, he said that the visitors had not knocked on the door of the radio telescope, to deliver their message in person (see www.youtube.com). We cannot comment on Drake’s second objection, which concerns his perception of alien psychologies. As to his first objection, it seems factually incorrect. The novel DNA structure shown at Chilbolton appears to be something known from origin-of-life experiments on Earth: namely a chemical variant of DNA called 2’, 5’ with only six nucleotides per single-stranded turn. One would have to be an expert DNA scientist to know that, and not a physicist or astronomer.  

Five reasons were given by mainstream astronomers for the rejection of such strong evidence  

“Man has an aberrant mind”---Fritz Zwicky 

There were five reasons why SETI astronomers refused to consider such strong factual evidence, located in two successive years next to a radio telescope in southern England: (1) why don't the visitors use radio waves? (2) why should the visitors appear roughly humanoid like us? (3) if we assume that aliens cannot travel faster than the speed of light, then they must live within 13 light-years of Earth to have received a 1974 radio message, (4) silicon was implied in the crop picture as an element of life, but does not enter into a chemical formula for alien DNA, and (5) the whole matter of crop circles fails a “baloney test”, since there is no convincing evidence that anyone apart from local humans has made them (see www.cropcircleresearch.com  ).

Their fifth objection, saying how crop circles fail a “baloney test”, is an example of what psychologists called opinionated rejection. Long ago in 1955, trying to understand aberrations of human behavior during World War II, Milton Rokeach wrote: “Beliefs in positive and negative authority, the elite and the cause, all have to do with authority as such. Coordinated with such beliefs are other beliefs concerning groups of people, and the authorities whom they line up with. The most clear-cut behavioral manifestation of opinionated rejection is the use of opinionated language, when communicating beliefs or disbeliefs to others: ‘Only a simple-minded fool would think that,’ ‘A person must be pretty stupid to think,’ ‘The idea is pure hogwash (or poppycock, nonsense, silly, preposterous, ridiculous).’ These considerations lead us to postulate that opinionated rejection varies with the level of dogmatism” (see dogmatism).

Ten years later in 2012, all of those academic objections seem like “cognitive narrowing”. For example, Leslie Kean and the History Channel have produced an excellent film called “Secret Access: UFOs on the Record”, which documents the best cases to suggest that we do have extra-terrestrial visitors in our solar system (see www.youtube.com or http://ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html):

Likewise, computer technologies have developed very rapidly since 2001, so listing silicon as one of the “elements of life” now seems quite reasonable, and it does not have to be part of our DNA. (The second form of DNA shown at Chilbolton had six nucleotides per single-stranded turn, instead of ten nucleotides for each strand of a double helix. It was perhaps a known variant called 2’, 5’ rather than 3’, 5’.) Finally, we have summarized here three examples from 1996, 2007 and 2011, to show that there is indeed convincing observational evidence for the non-human construction of certain crop pictures.

The rejection of paranormal crop circles by mainstream science is based on dogmatism rather than objective facts

The Editor of Physics World, Martin Durrani, expressed his own opinionated rejection during August of 2011: “Crop circles in Physics World? Before anyone crumples up their copy, or flings down their iPad in disgust, rest assured that our feature article about these phenomena is not the start of some whacky new editorial direction for the magazine. Having last year written about crop circles in Nature 465 (693), Taylor was subsequently the subject of anonymous hate-mail from UFOlogists and others, accusing him of spreading misinformation. That is a shame, though hardly surprising, given the proliferation of conspiracy websites on the Internet, and cranks with time of their hands.”

In just a few sentences, the editor of a contemporary physics journal uses the words “disgust, whacky, hate-mail, conspiracy and cranks” to describe “crop circles” and the very sane people who research them. Nowhere in his editorial, or in the feature article, were the true facts of crop-circle formation objectively presented, to let his subscribers make up their own minds. Is this how “science” is supposed to work? Does a journal editor make up his mind for the readers, or can some modern physicists actually think for themselves? I certainly imagined that the latter was the case, but could be wrong.

Strong and convincing evidence for paranormal crop pictures (or UFOs) is being ignored, misrepresented or even censored by academic journals and mainstream news sources

To conclude, there is strong, convincing evidence that certain crop pictures (or UFOs) do have a non-human, paranormal origin. Most of Earth’s leading scientists in 2012 seem unable to accept such evidence: not because they have examined it closely to confirm or deny its veracity, but because they have refused to look. This was exactly what academics from the University of Genoa did in 1610, when confronted with new evidence from Galileo’s telescope concerning the phases of Venus, or the four moons of Jupiter: "My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who replete with the pertinacity of an asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through my telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh or shall we cry?" (see galileo).  

This new crop-circle (or UFO) evidence cannot psychologically become an accepted part of their academic worldview, which denies the existence of all life forms other than on planet Earth. At the same time, most mainstream scientists will find it very difficult to change their rigid patterns of thought, in accord with the classical theory of dogmatism. And so as it was 400 years ago, it is still the same today:  

“In February 1616, a theological advisory committee determined that the heliocentric theory of Copernicus contradicts Catholic faith, and is philosophically foolish or absurd. A congregation of church theologians then issued a public edict, which declared the heliocentric, Sun-centered theory of our solar system to be false. Galileo's books were not mentioned at all” (see prohibition_helioce)

While governments may wish to keep their subjects ignorant as a means of controlling them, such censorship becomes morally wrong and indefensible when it goes too far: for example by keeping their subjects unaware that Earth orbits the Sun, or unaware that other intelligences have been contacting us through UFOs since 1950, or through crop circles since 1990. Sometimes a single individual can reform an entire ruling system as Martin Luther did in 1517. Let us therefore post these hard facts on the “wall” of Crop Circle Connector, and see how the regular people and/or their rulers respond?  

Red Collie (Dr. Horace R. Drew, Caltech 1976-81, MRC LMB Cambridge 1982-86, CSIRO Australia 1987-2010)  

P.S. We would like to thank Steve Alexander, Colin Andrews, Karen Douglas, Winston Keech, Charles Mallet, John Montgomery, Lucy Pringle and Peter Sorenson for use of their aerial or ground photographs, and Linda Howe or Mike Reed for their helpful comments.  

Appendix 1. A few other examples of SETI-type messages in crops 

To expand the reader’s awareness, we will show here a few other examples of SETI-type messages in crops. Some crop pictures have shown advanced concepts from molecular biology involving DNA or chromosomes:  

Other crop pictures have taught us about multi-dimensional spaces:  

Still other crop pictures have taught us how to solve complex puzzles:  

All of the eight puzzles shown above are well understood. Certain other puzzles which have been shown in crops remain a mystery. The intellectual complexity behind some of these crop pictures runs so deep, that there is practically zero chance that any local faker in Wiltshire could have made them, even with help in design from all of the great University Professors in London or Bristol. If scientists today really cared about truth and knowledge, then they would not ignore these important field messages from another unknown and advanced intelligence, no matter what government authorities or mainstream news outlets might say.   

Appendix 2. If you wish to make a crop picture with rope and boards, wait until the English weather turns dry!  

One Professor did make a clever geometric design for those rope-and-boards artists in 2009, but field researchers identified it as a “shabby fake” almost immediately. How were they able to do so? Because it was covered with mud!  

“We were recently asked to participate in a documentary being made for National Geographic TV. They asked a mathematician from University College London to draw a design, which we would reproduce under the cover of darkness in a four-hour window of time. The design we were sent shows the 'Circles of Apollonius'. That TV show will air internationally on the National Geographic channel early next year. Above is a photo of the completed design, and here is the diagram we worked from” (see www.circlemakers.org).  

Unfortunately it had been raining in southern England on the previous night (as it often does), so field researcher Tim Ginger was able to comment on the next day: “There are some nice swirls and weavings, but given the evidence on the ground, I would have to say that this crop circle is definitely a poor man-made attempt. I conclude this mostly due to the systematic deposit of large amounts of mud on the entire upper surface of the crop circle, consistent with it being trodden flat by muddy boots and a board” (see www.cropcirclearchives.co.uk).  

Even using microwave ovens and GPS, as Professors Richard Taylor and Michio Kaku suggest, those human crop artists would have to wait for dry, clear weather in southern England before making any crop pictures, or else their field creations would be covered in mud and muddy footsteps! Still many crop pictures do appear in southern England on days of heavy rain: so heavy that few people wish to go outside, but stay inside with tea and scones. The fallen plants in those rainy-day crop pictures usually remain completely clear of mud or debris, with no human footsteps detectable in the picture or nearby (see for example www.earthfiles.com ).  

How would Physics World or Fox News like to explain this? Can their postulated human crop artists also fly? These simple observations remind us of how the prophet Daniel detected similar trickery, by the priests of Bel in Babylon long ago:  

“Daniel commanded his servants to bring in ashes. They spread those ashes throughout the temple, in the presence of the king alone. Then they all went out, shut the door, and sealed it with the king's signet. Later that night, in came the priests with their wives and children (through secret passages). They ate and drank all of the food which had been left for the god Bel. In the morning, the king arose and Daniel with him. The king asked, ‘Daniel, are those door seals still intact?’ Daniel replied, ‘Yes, the seals are still intact’. When the king broke the seal and opened the door, he saw an empty table and cried in a loud voice (because the food had all been eaten), ‘Great are you, Bel. In you is no deceit!’ Daniel just laughed, held the king gently so that he could not enter the temple, and said, ‘Look at the floor, O king. Whose footsteps are those?’ The king said, ‘I see the footsteps of many men, women, and children’. Then the king became very angry, since he realized that had been fooled” (see www.earlyjewishwritings.com).  

Appendix 3. An essay on paranormal versus man-made crop pictures from the perspective of a professional artist 

Rod Bearcloud is a professional artist who specializes in native American themes. He has been studying crop circles since 1996. After the 2003 season, he wrote an insightful essay “A Matter of Man Made” (see www.starnationgallery.com ) from which selected excerpts have been copied below:  

“In my estimation, very few crop formations are man-made. Now that I have been working on them for seven years, I believe that it is not possible just to walk into a formation, and make that kind of judgment.”  

“We must work on evidence and not conjecture. There are too many people willing to lie about creating them. Unfortunately, there are also too many researchers who are willing to say they are man-made. They do this to support a personal belief which has no foundation.”  

“Researchers have found there is no apparent single energy which creates them, but rather a combination of influences. Energies such as microwave, and something similar to lightning, are being used. Their levels of intensity are so gentle as to not harm the plants.” 

“Several formations have had intricate weaves which left a texture that could be seen. Each shaft of wheat was bent at different heights up the stalk, to produce a flowing texture and three-dimensional aspect which could be seen from the air. It is my belief that the equipment which those star people use to place crop formations in a field can produce individual styles of art.”  

“What emerged for me, over a period of time, is that there are different artists involved in sending these symbols. The artistic differences of style from star glyphs are like comparing the differences of style between human artists such as Norman Rockwell or van Gogh. There is no right or wrong.”  

“This concept has eluded most researchers. They have based their understanding of crop formations, not being man-made, on a state of perfection which may or may not be found in any field. Who says that crop circles have to show perfect elements in order to be star-made? I believe that their equipment can replicate even an informal artistic rendering such as a sketch. Until further proof is obtained, the remainder of this year’s formations should be regarded as unexplained anomalies.”

Appendix 4. Further evidence of paranormal crop pictures: the effects of unknown energies on plant morphologies in oilseed rape or wheat 

Since posting the first part of this review, several researchers have sent me further evidence of paranormal crop pictures in oilseed rape or wheat, based on altered plant morphologies caused by crop-circle formation. By all means, students or friends of Michio Kaku, Richard Taylor or Matin Durrani should bring these and other experimental data politely to their attention!  

A list of Physics World employees is given here (see physicsworld.com). Once they learn what is really happening, surely some of those leading scientists will go out into the fields of Wiltshire to investigate first-hand for themselves. Isn’t that what “science” is all about?  

Unknown energies and their effects on oilseed rape plant stems  

Wheat plant stems are fairly thin and flexible, so it is easy to imagine how they could be flattened smoothly with rope and boards. By contrast,  oilseed rape plant stems are thick and rigid as for “celery”. They require a great deal of physical force to be bent or flattened. This may cause them to snap inelastically as for a “broken bone”.  

What kind of energies could cause large tracts of oilseed rape to bend precisely and smoothly along their stems, while expanding at their nodes, as seen for example at Golden Ball Hill on May 1, 2005? (see www.culture-crop.com or goldenball2005 or goldenballhill2005)  

For comparison, we may examine another crop picture in oilseed rape, which was made using rope and boards near Silbury Hill on May 1, 2011 (see silbury). There we can see messy lines and many broken stems, as expected for a mechanically flattened crop picture:  

During the summer of 2009, two impressive “bent stem” pictures appeared in yellow oilseed rape at Morgan’s Hill on April 24 (see report), or in blue linseed flax at Knoll Down on June 28: “Inside the 70-foot (spiral) circle, a vast majority of delicate plants were totally undamaged. It was more or less impossible to walk within this circle, without causing massive damage to the laid or standing crop” (see knol):

Some “bent stem” pictures in oilseed rape have been quite complex. For example, Wilton Windmill of May 22, 2010 showed a clever code in eight-bit ASCII for Euler’s Identity (see wilton2010 or Planck-found-Eulers-Identity-Crop-Circle). Who might be making these paranormal crop pictures, using microwave or unknown energies? Local fakers with microwave ovens and GPS, or other intelligences more advanced than ourselves?  

Typical changes to plant morphology in oilseed rape versus wheat  

Oilseed rape stems are thicker and more rigid than for wheat, so the two kinds of plant respond in a slightly different way to crop-circle-making energies. This subject has been studied by researcher Janet Ossebaard (see www.circularsite.com). Oilseed rape stems may be bent smoothly by unknown crop-circle energies, yet they “break” if anyone tries to bend them by hand (as shown on the left below):  

Wheat stems by contrast are thin and flexible in the early summer. While they remain green, they tend to bend at their “nodes” (or joints) when subjected to crop-circle making energies (as shown on the right above). This may be consequence of local heating, since those nodes will sometimes outburst or explode, just as for an boiling kettle, leaving small ruptured holes as evidence of their temporary expansion.  

Unknown energies and their effects on wheat seed heads  

In addition to these well-known effects on plant morphology, by unknown crop-circle making energies, there is another subtle effect which may be seen only in late summer. Seed heads in fallen wheat from paranormal crop pictures sometimes appear “straightened”, relative to seed heads in standing crop nearby which remain “rigidly curved” (see www.earthfiles.com ). For example at Whitefield Hill on August 3, 2010: “More or less all of the laid wheat, over the entire event, showed plant seed-heads straight and rigid in line with the flow of laid crop. All of the standing stems out in the field, surrounding the formation, showed their seed-heads curved down toward the ground in a very rigid position” (see 7966rc):  

As a control, we can see for a crop picture made with rope and boards (at Stanton Bridge on August 8, 2010) that seed heads in both the standing crop and fallen crop remain “rigidly curved” (see stan1):  

Thus the “straightening” phenomenon seen at Whitefield Hill and in other paranormal crop pictures may be due to unknown crop-circle-making energies, which seem to induce a temporary flexibility in the wheat stems due to excess heat and/or humidity.

In other crop pictures, fallen seed heads have appeared “bent to the left” relative to the direction of overall energetic flow (see www.cropcirclearchives.co.uk). One can only detect such effects in late summer, when the wheat stems become dry and rigid, and seed heads curve naturally downward under their own weight.  

In early summer, when the wheat stems are still green and flexible, some crop pictures have shown large “exploded nodes” or even “knotting” (see the previous slide or ick). Could microwave and/or magnetic energies be causing such profound effects on plant morphology (see also www.circularsite.com or www.bltresearch.com)? Or might we be seeing the effects of other physical energies which are not yet known on Earth?  

During the 1990’s, several researchers carried out surveys of the local magnetic field within freshly-made crop circles (see Research-Magnetometer or key99). Colin Andrews reported: “Four years ago, I began measuring the Earth’s magnetic field in and around crop circles. The project was initiated by on-going reports of anomalous magnetic phenomena such as (i) spinning compass needles inside crop circles (witnessed by me among others), (ii) unusual failures of electronic equipment, or (iii) radio frequency interference. Our results show a descriptive magnetic signature in a handful of simple crop circles or basic geometric patterns. This signature consists of an increased magnetic field which replicates the design, but out of sync by 3-5 degrees in a clockwise direction” (see www.ufoevidence.org ).  

Those data would be very interesting if confirmed. Unfortunately the experimental data have never been released, while further research has found it difficult to distinguish paranormal from man-made crop pictures by means of local magnetic fields.  

The Lazarus effect: fallen wheat being lifted up after people were walking on it all day

Large tracts of wheat were lifted up in two “scorpion” shapes at Honey Street in the early morning of July 5, 2011, after people had been walking on it all day (see honeystreet2011 or “six pi crop pictures” on Stanton S tBernard). Several members of a tour group from Holland watched that crop picture for most of night, from midnight on July 4 until 5 AM on July 5. They expected to see further changes to its shape, yet they did not see any human activity during that long night-time period. Daylight in southern England during mid-summer begins at about 5 AM.

On the following morning of July 5 by 9 AM, there were two different lifted-up regions in “scorpions” 1 or 5 (the new one from Stage II). The larger of those two lifted-up regions is labelled below with a yellow or blue symbol for “up”. Dashed yellow lines show the extent to which the original wheat was flattened:  

When we looked closely last summer at that lifted-up wheat, to determine how fallen or walked-on stems could possibly be standing again, we noticed that many of the fallen stems had been twisted into bunches to keep them erect (since singly-broken stems would fall over). Even if human plankers had made a gross error, and flattened two parts of that crop picture incorrectly in Stage I, it is hard to see how they would have had enough time to meticulously lift and twist so many fallen stems into bunches for Stage II, in early morning daylight from approximately 5 to 9 AM without being noticed? Especially since the crop picture was watched all night from midnight until 5 AM?  

A mathematical crop circle commissioned by National Geographic in 2009 appeared in paranormal form nine years earlier 

On the night of July 7, 2009 at Yatesbury, a team of human plankers made a large and complex crop picture as follows: “We were asked to participate in a documentary being made for National Geographic TV. They asked a mathematician from University College London to draw a design, that we would reproduce under the cover of darkness in a four-hour window of time. The design which we were sent uses the 'circles of Apollonius'. The show will air internationally on a National Geographic channel early next year” (see www.circlemakers.org).  

That human-made crop picture is shown in the lower part of the slide below. It appears fairly impressive on first sight, but was easy for experienced researchers to pick it out as “human made”. The English weather had been rainy on the previous day, so fallen plants were covered by a thin layer of mud (see www.cropcirclearchives.co.uk):  

Strangely enough, a similar crop picture had appeared nine years earlier at Jack and Jill Windmills in West Sussex on August 22, 2000: see the upper part of the slide above. That crop picture from 2000 seems to have been paranormal in origin, based on a careful investigation of its lay by Martin Keitel:  

“Fallen crop was flowing in a circular manner around the centre of each circle, slightly elevated above the ground. Its overall geometry was easy to figure out: a large central circle some 35 meters in diameter, embraced symmetrically by 13 smaller circles from about 18 meters to 2.5 meters in diameter. Most unusually, the flow of crop in all circles was anti-clockwise relative to any centre. The floor displayed a clear bundling effect. A clear majority of seed heads were bent anti-clockwise (or left) relative to the overall flow” (see hassocks2000 or hassocks).   

There is no indication that the mathematician from London knew about a similar paranormal crop picture, made nine years earlier in 2000. It was only mentioned obscurely in the Crop Circle Connector Archives, and never referred to as the “circles of Apollonius”. How did he choose essentially the same diagram nine years later? Or alternatively, how did the paranormal crop artists know about his choice nine years in advance?  

Here is the photograph of another commission by National Geographic, made under much drier conditions at Juggler’s Lane near Yatesbury in July 2007 (see jugglers or www.lucypringle.co.uk). It appears fairly clean in style, yet may be deduced as human-made (from an aerial photograph) by a series of one-meter-wide “stripes” in its outer regions. Those stripes match the width of a board used to flatten the crop through a series of circular turns. One can also see small irregularities elsewhere in its central parts. The grid accuracy of flattening by rope-and-boards is at best one foot (30 cm), whereas the grid accuracy of flattening by paranormal energies may be as small as one inch (3 cm).  

Mud versus no-mud: why not a more stringent test? 

If National Geographic really wishes to provide a stringent test for paranormal crop circles, perhaps they should ask their human artists to try and recreate a famous crop formation from Milk Hill in 2001? It contained 409 individual circles spread over 300 meters (see www.lucypringle.co.uk):  

It appeared on the rainy night of August 12, 2001 in less than four hours of darkness: “This was the worst night of the summer, yet there was no evidence of any mud on stems of fallen plants within the Milk Hill crop formation that morning.” Local researchers found dozens of expulsion cavities in the flattened wheat, which they attributed to intense heat during the process of formation (see Milk Hill). 

Come on, National Geographic, no experienced investigator takes your TV documentaries seriously! Why not perform a real test? Nancy Talbott and others conducted previously a letter-writing campaign to N.G. management, about the poor quality of their crop-circle documentaries. They have provided a list of contact addresses here, if any readers wish to encourage them to commission a more stringent test (see www.bltresearch.com).  

By all means, the readers of this article (or the previous one) should write or email Michio Kaku, Richard Taylor, Physics World and/or National Geographic, but they must be unfailingly polite while doing so. Simply inform them of the hard factual evidence, and encourage them as true scientists to look into it more closely, because thus far their research efforts have not been very good.  

Red Collie (Dr. Horace R. Drew, Caltech 1976-81, MRC LMB Cambridge 1982-86, CSIRO Australia 1987-2010)  

P.S. We would like to thank William Betts, Charles Mallet and Janet Ossebaard for use of their ground or plant photographs.

Red Collie


Mark Fussell & Stuart Dike

Hit Counter