Michael Glickman replies conclusively to Colin Andrews and deals in detail with Freddie Silva’s geometric errors and misapprehensions.
THE GEOMETRY OF OLIVER’S CASTLE
I believe that there is a possibility that Colin Andrews has in fact received what he sees as "conclusive evidence" that the Oliver’s Castle video is a fabrication. But why is it so difficult for him to grasp that - as we have not seen it - it remains inconclusive for us, especially after years of his loudly trumpeted and eventually disappearing "scoops"?
Why, I wonder, was the confession video sent by its "owners" only to Colin, the softest of targets? Why, if the evidence is so conclusive, was a copy not sent to Jim Dilettoso, the video analyst in Arizona, to Andy Thomas, the editor of SC in Sussex, to Francine Blake, editor of The Spiral in Wiltshire, or to myself, the hardened believer, in Santa Monica?
I restate also that if, after I have seen the evidence, it is conclusive, compelling or even merely relevant I undertake to acknowledge it widely. I will take responsibility for my errors. Will he?
And now, talking of soft targets, to Freddy Silva. Since Freddy arrived in the fields a season or two ago his arrogance and his desperation to play with the big boys has been a real embarrassment. He needs just a little time, study and - above all - humility. He aligned himself quickly with Colin Andrews and, always the Robin, the Boy Wonder to Colin’s Batman, here he is again when the Caped Crusader needs support.
I dignify his piece with a response only because it is so outrageously misleading. I do not want others to be misinformed.
He states that the Oliver’s Castle formation was "bloody messy" and his perceptive and insightful field report ends there. On the basis of its bloody messiness it is implied that the formation itself is hoaxed. This astonishing view, uniquely held by the neophyte Freddy, flies in the face of all evidence. Evidence which, in this case, is available to all. I would draw his attention to Stuart Dike’s early pole shots, which show a flawless lay. He should also view the ground video footage made by Peter Sorensen who, though also an OC video critic, is absolutely equivocal in his approval of the formation. Peter’s footage shows Adrian Brown dowsing in the centre of the formation and receiving the most powerful dowsed reaction from a crop circle that I have ever witnessed. He should ignore the views of Andy Thomas, Patricia Murray, Francine Blake, myself and several other experienced researchers who inspected and surveyed the formation at length. We are all hardened believers.
And now the geometry. Freddie Silva needs to read a book or two. He is so far out of his depth it is pitiful.
The misuse of the phrase "Sacred Geometry" is widespread and we need to be clear here about language. Professor Hawkins’ work is concerned, essentially with Euclidian geometry. John Martineau does not claim that his early seminal on the crop circles was Sacred Geometry.
I have never heard of Silva’s "regenerative geometry" which he claims "encompasses the systems of sacred geometry". What are the systems of sacred geometry? His regenerative geometry must be very important if it encompasses them.
He states a belief that some sort of blueprint can be overlaid on the circles and that compliance with Oliver’s Castle this will indicate whether a circle is real or a hoax. This is utter nonsense. Another desperate attempt to find a "litmus test" to distinguish the real from the false. This kind of concern is only relevant to those who believe that there is a hoax component of significant magnitude. All evidence - and experience - proves that this idea too is utter nonsense.
Every circular crop formation is slightly oval. Every geometric formation is warped, distorted or irregular in some way. A few more seasons will convince him of this. Perhaps he should actually survey a formation or two. If compliance with geometric rectitude were to be a yardstick, every formation would fail immediately. What does he say about the kinked, north-eastern side of the Barbury Castle equilateral? This is the kind of deliberate mistake that remains unexplained. The new Silva Method would consign Barbury to the hoax waste basket!
The precursor to the Oliver’s Castle formation was the Etchilhampton Snowflake of 1993. Did Freddy Silva see it? Measure it? Know about it? It was based, like Oliver’s Castle, on a radial six-fold geometry. The angles between spokes (reading clockwise from magnetic north) were 51, 60, 64, 60, 60 and 65. What does this show?
The Oliver’s Castle formation has nothing to do with a "hexagonal framework." It is based on six-fold geometry, not hexagonal geometry. To my knowledge, there have been only two hexagonal formations, Stonehenge and Cley Hill, both in 1997. Hexagonal geometry is, by definition, six-fold. Six-fold geometry is not necessarily hexagonal. Any school kid knows that six-fold radials, when connected, form hexagons.
His overlay diagram, which frankly is no more than high-school busywork, shows that he does not understand the fundamental significance - especially with crop circles - of the difference between radial geometry (that is the spokes radiating from a centre) and concentric geometry (that is the concentric circles which establish ratio and proportion in the formation.) The generator of his diagram is the centre circle, which was about 85 in diameter. (Incidentally, he totally misses the Euclidian connection. If an equilateral triangle is drawn to enclose the centre circle its points will define the circle locating the centres of his six outer circles. This locator circle will be twice the diameter of the original circle.) But, in developing his diagram outwards, no significant coordination with the crop formation is established. It teaches nothing.
He asks me to explain why Oliver’s Castle did not comply rigidly with his geometric drawing and, again, I have to say, they never do! The distortions exhibited here are no more nor less than those found in every crop circle when it is overlaid with geometrical grids. His estimate of a 14 discrepancy is inaccurate. Forgive me. I actually measured it. The discrepancy on the NE arm was in fact larger at about 19. This represents an angular shift of about 6.5. What does this prove? The "errors" are, in many cases, a response to topography, to manufacture sequence and to energy flux. (The Oliver’s Castle formation displayed significant evidence of energy flux. The satellites were distinctly rougher and less precise as they moved outwards and the energy of manufacture decreased.) These irregularities are the - often telling - thumb-print of a made object. The distortions are very different from the mistakes a human team might be expected to make. However, I cannot comment further on this as there is so little evidence of human manufacture.
Here is an illuminating little exercise for those who might be interested. Freddy Silva would benefit from doing it, too. Take a print-out of Freddy’s diagram and, from the centre of the formation, use a compass to draw the circle which just encloses the first six, largest, satellites. It should go outside the six circles and just touch them. (There is still significant distortion in the photograph. The compass point will need to be slightly below the middle of the centre circle. Take care.) Using a protractor, divide this new circle into seven. This needs an internal angle of 51.42857 but 51.4 will do here. Oliver’s Castle. Number the points 1 to 7 around the perimeter. With a straight-edge, connect 1 to 4, 4 to 7, 7 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 1. You have now constructed a thin heptagram, or seven-pointed star. What you will notice immediately is that the arm-crossing of this star precisely locates and sizes the central circle of the formation. The Oliver’s Castle formation was based, principally, on six-fold radial geometry. The star we have just constructed sizes the centre circle by virtue of its seven-fold concentric geometry. If the outer circle from which the star was generated is of diameter 1, the diameter of the central circle of the formation will be of diameter 0.357. This ratio accords with my own measurements.
This was the first indication we had of seven- fold geometry, the geometry of Spirit and Revelation. At this point, having derived the heptagram and inscribed it on the Oliver’s Castle drawing, we might be entering the realm of Sacred Geometry. That is a larger question.
Is it merely a coincidence that this was the formation which revealed to us the long awaited mystery of how the circles are made? I find it very difficult to deal with ideas as simplistic and erroneous as those expressed in Freddy Silva’s contribution and my participation in this mindless debate ends here. However, I am always happy to discuss the crop circles and their geometry with serious researchers and students who are not overwhelmed by hoax paranoia.
Michael Glickman Santa Monica January 1999
