OPEN STATEMENT FROM MICHAEL GLICKMAN

Colin Andrews is truly one of the pioneers of crop circle research. His early commitment and his early work is the foundation on which all subsequent studies are built. We owe him a debt of gratitude and respect.

Thus it is doubly painful that, instead of adopting the role of elder statesman which is his due, he allows his paranoia, insecurity and urge for self-publicity to damage and squander his position.

I avoid his noisy and superficial statements. It is widely accepted that Colin’s hasty declarations will be withdrawn, disowned or ignored by their author within weeks. It is a sad spectacle.

On this occasion my name is mentioned. I must respond to set the record straight.

It is my view that we all have the right to our own opinions. As far as the Oliver’s Castle video is concerned I believe it to be real. A belief only, but a belief I share with many decent, intelligent and well-balanced people. I have been characterised by Colin Andrews as "delusional" for holding views which differ from his own. Like the journal SC for which I write, my opinion and my judgement is based on the available evidence and on the reasonable balance of probability. And for our daring to disagree with him he calls us "hardened believers". This is a term of abuse used exclusively by hoaxers. It is both telling and abhorrent that Andrews now employs it.

As a crop circle researcher, I share the information I have as widely and as quickly as possible. Colin Andrews’ statements are full of allusions, promises of future revelations at unspecified dates and - always - matters kept back for reasons of "security". If he was more open, if he could give us a few more facts, we might have a reason to share his opinions.

Let me repeat my position.

I spent more time in the Oliver’s Castle formation than anyone else. I measured it, which nobody else did and I discovered remarkable geometric information there. I have over nine years of dedicated study and field work behind me and it is my opinion that the formation was real. There is much evidence to support that view and very little to contradict it. Colin Andrews did not visit the formation though he makes much of his neophyte "team" which did.

Like Colin Andrews I have no video expertise but I have real respect for the special effects houses and the video experts I have talked to. There is a consistency about their approval of the video. Above all, I am impressed and moved by the invariable reaction of audiences to the qualities of the footage. The video debunkers seem blind to those qualities. If it is real, it might be the most important footage on earth. If it is eventually shown to be a hoax, it will remain a work of artistic genius and technical prescience. My current opinion (which again I seem to share with many people) is that the video is real. It is only my opinion and I - and others - have a right to it. That opinion is substantially strengthened by the failure of the video’s critics to produce

Glickman - 2 -

conclusive evidence, despite 2 1/2 years of tabloid-style allegations and paparazzi-style "investigations". It is
strengthened by the simple artistic quality of the footage. It is strengthened by the widespread support of leading video technicians.

Above all - after more than two years - there is no explanation of motive. I have been a supporter of the video from the start and, despite Colin Andrews’ claims, I have been in no way diminished, attacked or humiliated. Against whom is this conspiracy aimed? There was always the possibility that my opinion might be incorrect. When I see the evidence that would make me change my view I will publicly acknowledge it and get
on with my work. I am comfortable, working with the unknown, with the possibility of being "wrong". Perhaps Colin would be slightly less frantic if he, too, confronted that possibility.

Returning to his ponderous statement, beneath all the high-flown claims and implications, what do we learn? What is new? Simply, John Wabe - or someone - has filmed a confession, Colin Andrews has seen it and, always gullible, believes it! This is hardly riveting news. The Wabe confession was promised us over a year ago and even then it was not taken too seriously. Colin Andrews, above all people, should be wary of "confessions". How does he feel now about Doug and Dave’s 1991 confession? What about Doug’s continuing "confessions" that he or his imitators are responsible for the whole phenomenon? Where do Lundberg and Dickinson’s "confessions" fit in? Is Colin in any way embarrassed by the way he swallowed Rob Irving’s "confession" about Stonehenge? The latest Wabe event has been promised, withdrawn, repromised literally for years. Yes, it might indeed contain irrefutable information which ends debate on the matter but - somehow - I doubt it.

We need to hear much more. We need to have it confirmed that Wabe and Weyleigh are indeed one. There is real doubt about that. We need to know why the supposed author of this hoax publicly said where he was going and invited others to accompany him on his night-watch. We need to know how Wabe/Weyleigh moved so quickly to back-engineer - so immaculately - a video fake. We need careful information about the time line. We need to hear how Colin feels now about being associated with "producers" who are notorious debunkers and would like nothing better than to pull off  another confidence trick.

With his desperation for scoops and grandiose announcements, his self-importance and uncontrollable ego, his readiness to criticise fellow researchers, his repeated trust of known deceivers does it occur to him that HE is being set up? Again.

Michael Glickman
Santa Monica January 1999