Crop Watcher #18 Doug Bower at the Nafferton Hall, Marlborough, July 28th 1993 Driving up to Marlborough one sunny evening in July I wondered whether I was about to attend the crop watcher's morgue or one giant punch-up. How would the cerealogists react to having Doug Bower there in person ? Would they believe his tale ? Or would they physically assault him for his treachery ? And what would they do to someone like me who had dared to publicly accept Doug's claim that he and Dave Chorley began making crop circles in the mid 1970s ? Nafferton Hall was difficult to find, located up a dark unlit alleyway opposite Marlborough Town Hall. The hall itself was raised above surrounding back gardens up some steep iron steps. I paid my fiver and went in. Surprise number one was the size of the place. The doors had just opened and already all the seats were taken ! I guess there were less than a hundred people in the room and I struggled to reach friends and acquaintances as people pushed and shoved their way round what little space remained. Many tried to inspect the two large display boards that Ken Brown and Doug Bower had obviously spent a good deal of time preparing. So great was the crush that I was barely able to examine this photographic evidence, let alone Doug and Daves' circle making equipment positioned on the far side of the room. Nevertheless what I saw on that board convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was no "fraudulent sham" as George Wingfield would have it but a well-organised presentation of Doug and Daves' case. With some misgivings I soon realised that I was possibly the most senior "cerealogist" there. Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews were conspicuous by their absence, as was Michael Green, Jim Schnabel (back at CIA headquarters in the States) and Terence Meaden (sunning himself at his luxurious French Villa - paid for by MI5 of course). Also missing was George Wingfield, who had somewhat inconveniently stepped on a nail a few days before (typically, George had forgotten to send his apologies). Oh dear ! Looks like I'll have to defend the "science" of "cereology" all on my own !! Ken Brown welcomed everyone to the meeting, which began promptly at 7.30. Brown began by warning everyone present that this was an opportunity for Doug Bower and himself to present their evidence, not for anyone to interrupt their presentation, to promote their personal theories or to cause a disturbance, which would not be tolerated. Almost immediately, as if the crop spirits themselves had been aroused, his introduction was interrupted by someone's tape recording loudly misbehaving. Such was Ken Brown's good nature that this was quickly brushed aside as "NOT the Grasshopper Warbler". Brown explained that he was Doug Bower's "amanuensis" - his "taker of notes" - and that he had realised that all circles were hoaxes after discovering underlying tracks at the 1991 double- ringed flower at Cheesefoot Head. He explained that in January 1992 he had subsequently approached Doug Bower in order to clarify certain aspects of his claim. Over the next 18 months Brown repeatedly visited Doug Bower's picture-framing shop in Southampton, sometimes spending whole days there. What Ken Brown discovered in these meetings only convinced him further of the truthfulness of their claim. Ken Brown then made an astonishing statement about the absence of Dave Chorley, stating that Chorley had deliberately not been asked to attend the meeting. Doug Bower explained "During the past 22 months it has become obvious that David's memory is not as clear and accurate as it could be - and there are those who would use this to their own advantage. This type of meeting relies upon answers being as accurate as possible, so we thought it best not to give anyone an opportunity to confuse the issue. That's the real reason why Dave is not here tonight.... ". Ken Brown clarified this statement by explaining that Doug Bower was the mastermind who was responsible for "99 per cent" of the crop circle hoaxing. By contrast according to Brown Dave Chorley would be the first to admit that he was "just another pair of hands who happened to be there". Brown then asked what he believed to be the most important question - has there ever been a genuine crop circle or did these two men invent the phenomenon in the mid 1970s ? Brown stated that if all crop circles are hoaxes then ALL attendant phenomena can also be dismissed. He then introduced the display of Doug Bower's own photographs taken during every year since 1980. According to Brown this was primary evidence which proved their case. These photographs were debated repeatedly as the evening progressed. Throughout his presentation Brown was scathing about the crop circle researchers, dismissing "Pope" Andrews and Delgado as "those self-seeking, publicity-pushing, self-styled 'expert' circle researchers" who had quickly "corralled" themselves into a "clique of powerful high priests and a flock of willing sheep" who were "highly enthralled by a hyped-up load of nonsense". Brown commented "And we all know what happens when power and position and pennies are up for grabs - we get a brand new hierarchical religion". According to Brown these so-called researchers "jealously guarded" their "temples" - the crop circle databases which were "locked away" from the "unbelievers" - and they published their own "parish magazines", holding their own "prayer meetings" and "swooning" at the "shrine" of a mere crop formation, where "miracles" were said to have happened. "God help us ! We're back in the middle ages walking bare footed to Walsingham". Next Brown alleged that in a meeting with Colin Andrews, some time after the Doug and Dave story had broken, Andrews had claimed that "There are probably only a dozen circles out of all the circles we have ever had - that I can put hand on heart and say I think they are absolutely genuine". Andrews allegedly confirmed this on 18th January 1993 in a telephone call to Brown. Later, Lucy Pringle and Pat Delgado are alleged to have stated that Ken Brown was playing with people's "faiths" and "irrationalities" and that by investigating the Doug and Dave claim there was a "danger" that Brown was destroying the beliefs of "90 per cent of the crop circle believers". Brown alleged that Delgado and Pringle were keen to hush up the truth about the Doug and Dave claim and simply "worry about people's faiths and dreams" in case they ended up "like the Bishop of Durham". It was this desire which had led to "screaming abuse" from the "circle establishment", who had accused Doug and Dave of telling "a pack of lies" and of being "government secret agents". According to Brown, "The circle establishment has always fabricated its own form of The Truth. They resort to diatribe and innuendo, and - worst of all - finally to the last resort of paranoia, where everybody and everything can be explained away as The Enemy". Ken Brown took the opportunity to explain why Doug and Dave had not - as had been their original plan - written a book about their circle-making. Apparently they had been advised by a solicitor that a written confession that they had made a specific circle at a specific site in a stated year would be interpreted by the courts as a clear admission of trespass and whilst the final proof that financial loss had been incurred would be the responsibility of an individual landowner it was quite possible that a judge would seek to make an example of Doug and Dave, perhaps with a fine of # 10,000 or a 3 month prison sentence. Despite this in early 1993 Ken Brown had given Jurgen Kronig a full written account of Doug and Daves' story which, for reasons the German publishers never made clear, was dropped from the second edition of Kronig's book in May. These two meetings were thus the only opportunity the crop circle community would have to question Doug Bower personally. Apology Doug Bower then read out a prepared statement which read "I'd like to apologise to farmers and landowners, and to thank them for the tolerant and good-humoured way in which they've viewed the escapades of two middle aged pranksters who became obsessed with an idea - it was nothing more than a practical joke from the start". During his opening remarks Doug Bower bitterly attacked the "so- called" researchers and experts for their commercialisation of the phenomenon. He claimed that he and Dave Chorley stopped making circles because they were "so disgusted" with the huge amounts of money that these "researchers" had made from their promotion of his circles. "I've had the biggest insight into the human being ever in the last few years ... We've been insulted, my wife's been insulted. What a defence these people have put up ! Government agents ! We've not called anyone any names at all ! All we've said is the truth - in the [news]paper. But we've been insulted left, right and centre, we're [accused of being] frauds, we're [accused of being] liars, government agents ! They're trying to hold on to something that's been gathered in. I tell you right now that its finished ! Because had the crop circle hoaxers in Wiltshire stopped making their circles when we put our story over in 1991 they'd be no more circles for them to research.... It had to finish sometime, it can't go on forever. I don't see why we should do it for 14 years and not publicise it that we were the culprits. Lots of people have had a good laugh but it was us - lots of people don't believe us ...". Biographies Thanks to Ken Brown's research we now know more about Doug and Dave's lifestories. Doug Bower was born on 25th June 1924 in Southampton and became an apprentice wood machinist. He volunteered for flying duties in the Royal Air Force when he was 18, passed out as a wireless operator, air gunner and volunteer reserve. During the war he became a cabin steward on RMS Acquitainier and crossed the Atlantic 56 times helping to ferry GI brides and Canadian Soldiers to and from the European war. Then he returned to live in Southampton as a wood machinist and married Ilene. On Trafalgar Day 1958 Doug and Ilene set sail from Tilbury Docks on a # 10 per person emigration package to Australia where Doug became a woodcutter and picture-framer. Doug built his own house and owned a small plot of land. However, both Doug and Ilene became acutely home sick and returned to Southampton in the autumn of 1966. Within 18 months they'd taken over a small shop in Bassett where they sold pictures and picture frames. In his spare time Doug became an expert wild-life sound recordist, travelling throughout the British Isles capturing bird songs on tape ("so he knew all about the grasshopper warbler"). In his time he has won many awards for his sound recordings and has even had some of his bird songs published by the National Sound Archives and the Hamlyn Publishing Group. Dave Chorley was born on 26th August 1929, left school at 14 and became a storeboy on Southampton Docks. His apprenticeship to become an electrical engineer was interrupted by National Service but he also served two years as a wireless operator with the RAF. Afterwards he returned to the Docks and helped modernize the old Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary ships. Dave Chorley also sailed across the Atlantic and during this time developed his love of painting. At 26 he became the youngest trades unionist shop steward in Southampton Docks. He married Terry in 1960 and raised a family of three sons and a daughter. After 30 years working in the docks Dave Chorley left and made his living "scratching around", working on colourings and steel engravings, even being employed by Rose Kennedy, mother of President John Kennedy, to colour antique prints of the early American west. Later Dave divorced but still lives in Southampton and works as a freelance artist. The Evidence Taking each year in turn Ken Brown prompted Doug Bower to recount his story. There were many new revelations which rung true to all but the most avid crop circle believers. One particular story concerned the creation of a circle at Micheldever next to the main Southampton-Waterloo railway line. The following day Doug and Dave travelled from Winchester to Micheldever on a train to view their creation. Unfortunately the train was travelling so fast they hardly caught a glimpse of their creation, much to the amusement of a child and her mother travelling in the same compartment, so the following day they returned to the site and made the circle that much bigger ! This incident became known as "Von Ryan's Express" after the film. This event - along with many others - was later featured in a Christmas card drawn by Dave Chorley, which was on display in the corner along with other Christmas cards featuring other circle-making expeditions. Bower described how he and Chorley began their crop circle career in 1975, not the 1981 previously referred to in the TODAY newspaper. Here are some of these revelations:- (1) Doug and Dave used to take food and coffee with them, later even taking a frying pan to cook a meal after making their circles ! (2) Doug was the catalyst for the circle-making, drawing up the plans before-hand, making all the circle making equipment, even providing Dave Chorley with a pair of Wellington Boots and a waterproof coat ! (3) Doug initiated every circle by (almost always) constructing the centre first and then working outwards. (4) Doug first met Dave a year or so after opening his picture- framing shop. They used to visit public houses for ten years before they began making crop circles. (5) It was Doug who knew about the Tully circles and who suggested that they make a circle to make people think that a "flying saucer" had landed. (6) They began making circles by using the iron security bar from his shop. They used the bar by kneeling on the corn and pushing the bar half way up the corn. This first method hurt their knees so they changed over to the stick and rag method shown on TV. (7) The "first circles" they created must have predated 1976 by several years because Doug Bower remembers Dave Chorley refusing to go with him on one of their "regular" circle making journeys because Dave Chorley's son wanted him to watch him playing in a school match that year. (8) There had to be a layby located close by the circles in the early years. Later, as more and more researchers were visiting circle prone areas, Doug and Dave would leave Doug's car in the lane adjacent to the caravan park by the Percy Hobbs pub and then walk two miles into Cheesefoot Head bottom to avoid being detected. (9) After making the centre the circle was made by a series of concentric rings pushed down. (10) the Alfriston circles of 1984 appeared close to Dennis Healey's garden purely by accident, neither Doug or Dave knew about Dennis Healey or the suspicious proximity of "Cradle Hill". (11) Dave Chorley's ex-wife Terry knew nothing about the circle- making until she saw the "Today" exclusive. (12) D&D made no more radial swirls after the problems they had making the 1987 Chilcomb "cheese wedge" (13) Doug used to telephone Colin Andrews the morning after he had made a circle to tell him about it ! (14) Doug and Dave's circle at Childrey, Wantage (1985?) circle displayed a "runway" and "hole" to make it look as though the aliens had taken soil samples. The soil and corn removed from this hole was dumped on the A33 Chandlers Ford by-pass on the way home. (15) D&D admitted making the "WEARENOTALONE" message in the Cheesefoot Head punchbowl in 1987. (16) to avoid detection D&D used to park their car in the dead- end road by the caravan site at the Percy Hobbs pub and then walk up into the punchbowl via the A31 back route. (17) As Dave had to watch his son playing football Doug did the 1987 South Wonston oilseed rape circle on his own. (18) The only time Doug and Dave were "caught" was at the Long Man of Wilmington in 1987, when Doug and Dave were preparing to make a circle and were interrupted by a stranger who thought they were about to put up a tent. This was on the same night as Jenny Randles' remote sensing experiment advertised in "The Unknown". (19) The first non Doug and Dave circle was beneath the White Horse at Westbury in August 1987 - but the circles were too far from the hillside to be Doug and Daves' efforts. This was the year that they made "COPYCATS" . Ken Brown claimed that he had a list of "over a dozen" circles from 1987 which were not D&D's circles and that -somewhat paradoxically - "maybe they were genuine". (20) The triangular triplets at Corhampton and the Cheesefoot Head punchbowl in 1988 were based on the triplet in Billy Meier's book "Light Years" which were publicised in an article in the September 13th 1987 "News of the World" colour magazine. Of course the earlier triplets were all three-in-a-line rather than in formation. D&D used a method similar to that used by the "Dambusters" by using string attached to rods to get these three circles precisely positioned in an equilateral triangle. Because the rods bent as they pulled the string the Corhampton circles were less well positioned than the punchbowl circles. (21) Christmas 1988 D&D fell out so Doug had to make all the earlier 1989 circles, including a failed circle in rape at Chilcomb and the infamous contra-rotating circle that appeared out of sight of the cameras during Operation Whitecrow. (22) There is some confusion about the "swastika" on the front cover of "The Crop Circle Enigma". Ken Brown believes that D&D made this formation and the earlier "swastika", although Doug Bower can only recall having made the second formation. This was laid down by laying the outer rim first then using the cross- piece to mark out the angles. This was another formation where mistakes were made when laying down the corn. It is for this reason that Ken Brown believes D&D returned to have a second attempt. (23) On one occasion, in 1990, D&D were making a circle in the punchbowl when they were fired upon by farmers shooting at rabbits from a Landrover. (24) The pictograms were based on a modern art painting. It was Ilene who proposed making the flower patterns. (25) After being struck by the toilet bomb Doug and Dave carried on making their circle to avoid leaving a half-completed circle. Ilene had to shampoo Doug's hair to remove the muck. (26) It was one of Dave Chorley's sons who accidentally let the Doug and Dave story out of the bag to a reporter from the Daily Mirror. D&D owned up on 3rd September 1991 to the Daily Mirror, who were not interested in the story, and then to the TODAY newspaper. (27) Ilene discovered Doug Bower's circle-making activities in 1984. Thereafter Doug was able to go out making circles on several nights of the week. Photographs One of the strongest pieces of evidence revealed were the photographs Doug Bower had taken in every year since 1980. There was a previously unknown photograph of a single circle in the Cheesefoot Head punchbowl in 1980 along with Doug Bower's own photograph of the 1982 single at Litchfield. Also there were (apparently) photos of Doug and Dave half way through making the infamous Sevenoaks circles - the ones which led to TODAY's exclusive expose of their circle-making claims. Ken Brown has obtained copies of the TODAY photographs which (apparently) show Doug and Dave half way through this hoax. In addition there were two photographs of the 1982 Cley Hill circles which had subsequently been identified by Meaden plus a previously unpublished photograph of a single in the punchbowl in 1987. [Ken Brown has subsequently circulated photocopies of some of these photographs]. Westbury 1980 Another highlight of the evening was Doug Bower's three photographs of the 1980 Westbury circles. The first of these three circles probably appeared in May but had been harvested by the time of the "Wiltshire Times" article of August 15th. Terence Meaden has confirmed that this "first" photograph was in precisely the right place according to his records. The second and third circles were discovered by the farmer, John Scull, on August 13th, and may have appeared on July 21st and 31st. For these reasons neither Ian Mrzyglod or Terence Meaden have ever possessed or even seen photographs of this very "first" of the "first" circles. In question time I pointed out the importance of this evidence (which didn't go down too well with some of Doug Bower's accusers). How could Doug Bower have obtained these photographs unless he was the person who created them? How could he have known that he would have had to drive 60 miles up from Southampton after these circles appeared unless he made them ? No one presented an argument to falsify this evidence. On display were a cross-piece and torch, for positioning the outer satellites of the quintuplets, which Doug demonstrated. In addition Doug demonstrated the use of his extendible pole, which had been used to ensure that annular rings were always equidistant from the outer edge of the circle. This was four feet long - which apparently coincided with the width of standing crop in many of the ringed formations. One of the highlights of the evening was Ken Brown's impromptu request for a brief statement by Matthew Lawrence, the discoverer of many of the original Cheesefoot Head circles sensationalised in "Crop Circles, Conclusive Evidence" and "Crop Circles, The Latest Evidence". Lawrence made the following statement about the state of the circles he discovered:- "I used to get up to [Cheesefoot Head] at about half past four on numerous occasions, just as the sun came out, and I was quite surprised when I went in because I knew that I was one of the first people in there and they weren't as immaculate as they'd said in 'Circular Evidence'. There was quite a lot of damage on the crop, there was tracks I could see in places, sometimes mud on the actual crop around the edges, which would suggest that someone had been in before .. so [perhaps] I wasn't the first one there ... ". This statement demands a public explanation from Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado, who have repeatedly stated that the circles they discovered at Cheesefoot Head were pristine, undamaged and showed no sign of human entry. If it can be shown that Andrews and Delgado misrepresented the condition of the circles in the Cheesefoot Head punchbowl this would be evidence of a cold calculated fraud which should be dealt with by the courts [see article on page 30]. Another important piece of evidence discussed was the "red dot" maps compiled by Ken Brown. These were Ordnance Survey 1:50 000 maps with the locations of all the circles Doug and Dave can recall having made. According to Brown the maps contain over 40 locations which have never been published anywhere. Brown alleged that Don Tuersley and Richard Andrews had both approached him and confirmed the existence of previously unpublished circles on these maps. Unfortunately 3 hours was not enough time to present all the evidence. The audience may have missed the large poster showing the pavement at Westminster Abbey. The pattern on this pavement looked very similar to the quintuplet patterns that Doug Bower claims to have invented in 1981. For some reason this poster was not discussed during the presentation. Question Time By 10 o' clock the audience had grown increasingly impatient and Ken Brown, realising he had over-run his own schedule, wisely invited questions. By any standard the question and answer period was heated, although most members of the audience at least refrained from making open insults. Polly Carson launched a fierce attack on Doug Bower, claiming that she could not accept his story because of the lack of photographs showing him half way through making a circle. Later she accused Bower of being a crop "vandal" who had maliciously tricked two genuine, contentious researchers, Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado. She vowed that the farmers would push for a prosecution. A number of people expressed their total disbelief in Doug Bower's story. Chad Deetken from Vancouver challenged Bower to demonstrate how to make crop circles at night with complex layering effects. Doug Bower stated that he would be prepared to start making circles at midnight and carry on until 6.30 or 7 in the morning whilst Deetken watched. This acceptance of Deetken's challenge drew applause from the audience. In response to a question from Michael Hesseman Ken Brown admitted that Doug Bower and Dave Chorley had made the 1992 formation at East Meon. A woman at the back described a new eye witness account. Montague Keen stated that he accepted "most if not all" of Doug Bower's story but he expressed his puzzlement at to why we were being asked to accept Doug Bower's story without any photographic proof yet at the same time we were being asked to dismiss the testimony of farmers dating back decades when they too had not been able to furnish photographic proof that they had seen crop circles decades ago. Keen observed that whilst Doug Bower's story may account for much of the phenomenon it didn't explain the reported luminosities and other strange effects reported in the literature. In response to another question from Michael Hesseman Brown admitted that he was intrigued by UFO films such as the Concorde flight. Asked whether Doug and Dave had made any more circles after the 1992 East Meon formation Ken Brown responded "no comment, and you can take the correct inference if you wish". Error Ken Brown made his only real error of the night when he claimed that there were no photographs of sharply defined pre 1975 circles despite more than a decade of research. This, in his opinion, only proved that "corn circles were Doug Bower's original idea". He repeated this heresy by claiming that the Tully reeds circle was a "dish-shaped" depression in reeds that was not like the circles that Doug and Dave had "invented" in 1976. He then dismissed my historical crop circle photographs by claiming that they showed "slanting edges" ! Contradictory Brown claimed that he didn't really care what had caused the Tully circles and that perhaps they had been "blown down by some kind of force" ! In the question and answer session I too challenged Ken Brown's claim by presenting my photographs of the Rossburn, Bordertown and Wokurna circles [which all feature in the 2nd edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved"]. At last ! Here was my opportunity for a well-planned piece of cerealogical espionage. I loudly passed around my photos to disprove Ken Brown's treason and this only enraged the audience all the more. Snigger, snigger ! The cross-sectional sketch of the single at Wokurna, South Australia, December 1973 (drawn by Peter Horne and Stephen Bolton) After it was all over I chatted to various crop circle personalities, some of whom I had only conversed before by letter. I began by challenging one of the most vociferous of Doug Bower's tormentors, someone I had guessed to be none other than Chad Deetken from Vancouver (the discoverer of the famous porcupine-in-a-circle discussed in CW17). Deetken and I had a short but unconstructive conversation. Deetken informed me that he took more note of Colin Andrews' "13 years of research" [!!!] than the false claims of a fraud like Doug Bower whose inability at creating layered crop circles was obvious from the photographs of the Chilgrove demonstration that were on show. I told Deetken about the U.B.I. and the "two dozen" other groups of crop circle hoaxers, but he was utterly disinterested. When I asked him what the eye witnesses were seeing he admitted that they might be seeing circles created by whirlwinds. In the end I just gave up, for here was the epitome of the True believer - someone who had read Andrews and Delgados' books and was not going to let little things like facts detract from his belief in alien intelligences. I spoke to others and discovered that several were outraged at what they saw as Ken Brown's "arrogant" presentation of the evidence. For these people it was not enough to see photographs or to hear Doug Bower describe his circle-making techniques. These people wanted Proof and could not accept that there was no proof. Like Polly Carson they too were unimpressed with the lack of photographs of Doug and Dave half way through one of their hoaxes. Then there were others, perhaps less emotive and more willing to accept the word of a confessed trickster, who quietly accepted what they had been told with some mirth. Overall I found the evening's entertainment both informative and rewarding. The crop circle research community owes a debt to Ken Brown for spending time and money researching Doug and Daves' case and for presenting this evidence in such an organised and calm manner. I wish there had been more time to question Doug about certain aspects of his circle making and to properly assimilate the material on the display boards. In my opinion there can be little remaining doubt that Doug Bower really did create those "first" circles at Westbury in 1980. For this reason the very reality of the whole phenomenon must be called into question. It was therefore a pity that Ken Brown chose to ignore evidence which has already been published (eg in "The Crop Watcher"). By ignoring this evidence - particularly the Wokurna photograph and sketch published on page 9 of issue 4 - Ken Brown risks discrediting Doug Bower's own story as well as condemning the debate to further polarisation. But these criticisms aside it was a splendid evening. I should take this opportunity of correcting the incorrect claim made in John Vidal's article in The Guardian concerning the alleged profit from these two lectures. Ken Brown assures me that he and Doug Bower actually lost # 5 - which they shared - for the cost of hiring the halls and buying the photographs etc. The Covent Garden lecture will be reviewed in CW19. PF. Book Review "Round in Circles; Physicists, Poltergeists, Pranksters and the Secret History of the Cropwatchers" Jim Schnabel, Hamish Hamilton, # 16.99, 294 pages, 18 b&w photos Although this is his first venture into publishing Jim Schnabel has produced an excellent and highly detailed account of how the crop circle myth was conceived and promoted by two sets of rival researchers - the "Delgadonians" and the "Meadenites". Unlike earlier crop circle books Schnabel concentrates almost entirely on the researchers themselves rather than the phenomenon itself. The result is a hilarious romp through a series of disastrous mistakes, desperate eccentricity and outrageous storytelling. Jim Schnabel deserves the fullest praise for being brave enough to publish where others feared to tread, citing case after case where the crop circle "experts" pulled the most outrageous stunts in a bid to convince an agog world of their egocentric belief systems. In years to come this book will presumably become a classic sociological study of how the scientific method fails when confronted with anomalies - proof positive that Science cannot be conducted in a blaze of media scrutiny. It will also be quoted as yet further proof that Science avoids tackling issues that have become tainted with the emotive UFO mythology. In this respect alone Jim Schnabel has done anomaly research a great service, for only by studying how Science fails to tackle anomalous phenomena can we ever hope to change things for the better. The great strengths of this book are its treatment of the history of the subject, its portrayal of the crop circle players and its analysis of the politics of circles research. The book is presented more-or-less in historical sequence, beginning with the "first" circles at Westbury in 1980, the Warminster connection, Ian Mrzyglod's role in the early promotion of the whirlwind theory and Meaden's attempts to deal with the evolution of patterns. Slowly the reader is introduced to all the main crop circle researchers and their peculiar personal problems. The book is abundant with major revelations. These include the antipathy and jealousy between Andrews and Delgado, the full story behind Fuller's legal battle with Flying Saucer Review, Andrews' alien implant and Delgado's channelling of an alien entity called "Zirkka". There is also the full inside story of Meaden's suicidal flirtations with Andrews and Delgado, the egotism and betrayal which eventually destroyed the original gang of four and the previously untold story of the rise of the CCCS. On top of this Schnabel even confesses to having created numerous crop circles, including the Silbury Hill "charm bracelet" of 1992. All this material is treated remarkably frankly, with extensive verbal transcripts of what might have taken place. Historical events such as Operation Whitecrow (1989) and the Blackbird disaster (1990) are treated well. To have portrayed these events so accurately Schnabel undertook considerable archive research in the literature and spoke to all the key people involved. Reading this book I discovered all kinds of things I never knew - such as the fact that Colin Andrews first became involved in circles research following his attendance at BUFORA's 1986 crop circle symposium. According to Schnabel (page 37), Andrews rang Meaden a few days later and asked if he could join "Meaden's group". Since this took place in July 1986 Andrews' subsequent claim (eg on the cover of his "Undeniable Evidence" video) to have been researching the subject "for more than a decade" is shown to be no more than a blatant and cynical lie. It also exposes Andrews' repeated false claim to have been the leading member of this group. Neither Jenny Randles or myself knew that Meaden had attended a meeting at Colin Andrews' house where the subject of writing a book about the phenomenon was first mooted. This is also the first time we have heard of Meaden's TORRO colleague Derek Elsom publishing a favourable review of "Circular Evidence" in the Geographic Magazine ! There are many highly amusing anecdotes in this book, perhaps too many to review properly. I was even amused to read those about myself ! However, I was a little disappointed to see Schnabel refer to my "UFO" sighting on page 36 as I am sure I also told Schnabel about its true origin. I saw the light late one night in October 1967 - when I was only 7 years old - it was this sighting which triggered my interest in UFOs. But when I was 15 I finally discovered that my "UFO" was merely a noctilucent cloud - a glowing cloud illuminated by the rays of the set sun. I wish Schnabel had included this explanation because the average reader will assume from what is written that I am a believer in spaceships rather than a UFOlogist who seeks explanations. I was also disappointed to read that I had allegedly described Rita Goold's UFO sighting as that of a "plasma vortex" (page 203), as I certainly do not recall using such a phrase. This is one of several occasions in the book when Schnabel makes assumptions about other researcher's claims and beliefs without actually checking those claims. Throughout the book the conflict between reason and pseudo- science becomes a key motif. Schnabel demonstrates convincingly that the supernatural researchers were gifted publicity seekers, their hugely inflated egos driving them on and on towards more ridiculous and sensational claims. Throughout Andrews and Delgados' rise to media stardom Schnabel paints a graphic picture of how these two men almost single-handedly created a mythology that triggered one of the greatest UFO frauds of all time. In this way Schnabel captures the mood of the moment. He also examines the way that established scientists such as Terence Meaden and Archie Roy helped to legitimise Andrews and Delgado by allowing themselves to be publicly associated with these men's activities. In this respect Schnabel's failure to discuss the NFU's unintentional and badly judged promotion of CPR and CCCS in their "Code of Practice" is an unfortunate omission. One disappointment of the book is that Schnabel avoids making the direct accusation that Andrews and Delgado deliberately suppressed evidence, although he discusses several occasions when their knowledge of unwelcome evidence becomes apparent (eg page 123). Schnabel omits to mention the fact that both men knowingly omitted proof of crop circle hoaxing known to them in 1987 (see CW16 page 15-18). He also omits to point out that both men knew they couldn't tell "real" circles from man-made circles as long ago as 1987 (ref their promotion of the 1986 Cheesefoot Head hoax and Delgado's false claim on page 155 of "Circular Evidence"). In correspondence with me Schnabel denies hinting in his book that evidence was deliberately contrived by the crop circle researchers. This denial will surprise many cerealogists as it has been an open point of discussion for some years and Schnabel's book certainly reads as though he is making such an accusation. Schnabel's treatment of contentious material is highly illuminating. On some occasions - such as when debating Fuller's legal correspondence - he merely presents the evidence, leaving his readers to judge the truth for themselves. On other occasions he is more open, labelling Colin Andrews a "shaman" and Michael Green a "pagan" (page 137). I was astonished to read about Andrew's belief that he had an alien "implant" in his forehead as this is a story that never did the rounds in the CERES camp. His description of Pat Delgado writhing in the energies during Operation Whitecrow is one of the funniest parts of the entire book. Crop circle researchers everywhere will know that for the past few years Schnabel has been seen tape recording interviews with all and sundry. Now we know why ! His account of a visit to the Waggon and Horses (pages 198-203) is one of the most revealing and amusing in the book. Foolishly Schnabel asks Wingfield what he thinks of Meaden's atmospheric vortex theory. Wingfield's predictable reply - "Meaden's theory is crap" - totally demolishes Wingfield's claim to be an objective scientific researcher. One problem with writing a book about the personalities of circles research is that outsiders - such as Robin McKie of The Observer -mistakenly assume that Schnabel's book is just as authoritative and comprehensive about the phenomenon itself. For this reason McKie wrote in his review of Schnabel's book ("Making hay with gullibility", 11th July 1993) that "... The fact that the circles only appeared in Britain should have been a give-away, of course ...". Similar sentiments have appeared in other reviews of the book. Perhaps with a little hindsight Schnabel should have included more overseas cases, particularly those that predate Doug and Daves' circle-making activities. It would also have been more constructive to include some of the alleged historical eye witness claims - such as Paul Germany's (1935-7) and Christine Dutton's (1912-1956). Although these are retrospectively reported claims they are still important and form an important part of the crop circle evidence. Unlike some of the more successful crop circle books "Round in Circles" has only a few relatively uninteresting black and white plates. These plates include the first publicly available photograph of the United Bureau of Investigation, the major group of hoaxers unmasked by Schnabel and Irving in 1992. This photograph challenges Wingfield and Andrews' continuing claims that the so-called "pictograms" are "genuine". If so who are the people in plate 14 ? CIA agents ? Or crop circle hoaxers ? Well, these are all the things I like about the book. Its amusing, readable and full of delicious anecdotes. Sadly though, I have some dislikes. One minor drawback is the lack of an index, which makes the reviewer's task that much more difficult. Another criticism of the book is that Schnabel frequently describes events or quotes statistics without giving due credit to his source. In many cases the source is - of course - a CERES researcher (such as Andrew Hewitt or Peter Rendall) so perhaps this omission is understandable. Many of the hoaxes exposed by BUFORA's researchers over the past decade or so are not mentioned, although Schnabel has a copy of the text of Fuller's 1992 lecture to BUFORA where he gave credit for over 20 hoaxes exposed by BUFORA investigators during the preceding decade. More importantly there are several errors which need to be corrected in any future reprint of the book. We have drawn attention to these errors in our page by page analysis. Another problem is the omission of important events and issues. There is no mention of Andrews' allegation that Taylor deliberately tried to run him off the road on the Winchester By-pass when a black crow flew in front of his car (circa 1989). There is no mention of Andrews and Delgados' apparent membership of the Masons or the manner in which Delgado obtained the "official" statement from the Royal Meteorological Society for inclusion in "Crop Circles, Conclusive Evidence" and amended this statement to discredit Meaden's atmospheric vortex theory (see CW13 page 7-11). The book should have examined the attitude of the farmers and their surprising disinterest in solving the mystery. There should have been some comment about the police and their failure to take hoaxing seriously. Strangely the role of the media in creating the mythology is downplayed rather than being a major theme. In my view there is disappointingly little sociology in the book. Why did the crop circle myth occur ? How does it compare with similar anomaly myths (like Warminster or the Gallipolis flap described by John Keel) ? What forces were involved and who were the major players ? However, by far the most serious criticism we can make of this book is that Schnabel argues throughout that the entire crop circle community consisted entirely of gullible buffoons who missed important clues that pointed to hoaxing, who failed to apply Occam's razor and who allowed their irrationality to take them into pathological flights of fantasy. We have detailed numerous occasions in our page by page analysis where Schnabel makes this claim by ignoring contrary evidence. In this respect Schnabel has done a grave disservice to those researchers who consistently argued that widespread hoaxing was a possibility. By ignoring these "successes" Schnabel has successfully turned a grey argument into a black and white argument. Of course we cannot blame Schnabel for seizing on the mistakes and errors of our field - afterall we have all been guilty at some time or other of making grave mistakes and errors of judgement - but it is not acceptable to ignore this evidence simply to make the evidence fit the claim. By ignoring the warnings of mass crop circle hoaxing carried in the first edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved" (where the pictograms were (a) predicted and (b) dismissed as hoaxes) and by ignoring the numerous exposes of hoaxing carried in The Crop Watcher Schnabel successfully obscufates the fact that not all cerealogists were taken in all the time. For history's sake this important lack of credit needs to be rectified. To sum up ? A super book, one well worth buying. We award 8 out of 10 for giving us such a good laugh. Well done Jim ! We now present a page by page analysis for the record. This review and analysis has been compiled with helpful comments and suggestions from Terence Meaden, Peter Rendall and Jenny Randles. In this page by page review the following abbreviations have been used:- A&D Andrews & Delgado, PF Paul Fuller, GTM Terence Meaden, JR Jenny Randles, PR Peter Rendall, JS Jim Schnabel. PV Plasma Vortex. PF. Page Comment 7 Actually Aime Michell introduced the concept of Orthony in 1958, not the mid 1960s. Jacques Vallee later wrote about Orthony in his books but had not invented the concept. 10 Was TORRO really just an "amateur research organisation" in 1980 ? This is a bit unfair. We think Chapter 1 is very good, detailing the discovery of the original 1980 circles at Westbury and describing Meaden's academic and professional background in astonishing detail. It also introduces Ian Mrzyglod and PROBE, portraying them as reasonably rational compared with the mass of UFO groups which developed in the wake of the Warminster waves of the 1960/70s. It is somewhat unfortunate that JS still presents the PROBE group "obviously" considering an "extraterrestrial spaceship" as the cause of the "first" circles (page 9), as this is not a true reflection of the group's beliefs. PF checked this with Ian Mrzyglod on 23rd August 1993. 16 Its a bit unfair to describe "The Unexplained" as a "paranormal enthusiasts journal". It was in fact a part-work which built into an encyclopedia of the paranormal, and in many respects it was certainly more skeptical than many newsstand magazines devoted to anomalies. 17 The description of the Tully reeds circles doesn't fully agree with the description and plan we published in CW10, which is based on primary sources of information. 18 In our opinion it is not fair to say that Queensland was "by then famous for its waves of UFO sightings and the apparently related nests in swamp reeds and cornfields", as this implies some kind of dubiousness. It must not be forgotten that two independent researchers (JR and Claire Nobel) have both uncovered evidence that crop circles predated the first media-reported crop circle event at Tully in 1966. This is vitally important evidence for a naturally occurring phenomenon which JS should have discussed in more detail. 18 Whirlwinds (ie tornadoes) DO glow and buzz due to the presence of electrostatic fields. It is fair to say that they don't "flit about hypersonically". 20 PF's understanding of the Sheppard's hoax quintuplet was that not only had the hoaxers left obvious trails through adjacent crop but the crop was DAMAGED, unlike crop in allegedly "real" quintuplets. The Sheppard's hoax was also a daylight hoax done with the farmer's permission rather than a nocturnal hoax done by stealth under threat of discovery, so its poor quality only helped to lend credence to the idea that (nocturnal) circles were not man-made. It is obviously important to demonstrate how and why mistakes were made so that history will benefit from our errors. We therefore fail to understand why these facts are not mentioned. 21 Did Meaden really "shrug" off Mrzyglod's "deflection" ? PF and JR never knew that Mrzyglod had "deflected" as he never publicly rejected GTM's theory. PF spoke to GTM about Mrzyglod on many occasions but never received the slightest hint that Mrzyglod had actually rejected his theory. JR recalls Ian Mrzyglod's resignation from UFOlogy back in 1984. Mrzyglod was sickened by the unscientific attitude of UFOlogists and the way they simply wouldn't listen to the truth. JR recalls that there was not the slightest indication at this stage that he believed all crop circles to be hoaxes. Recently Ian Mrzyglod confirmed to PF that he rejected all crop circles as hoaxes after writing his last article in "Probe Report" Vol IV No 2, but he also confirmed that at the time of writing this article he was still prepared to consider a meteorological explanation for perhaps 10 per cent of the data (ie the singles). 22 PF is not sure its fair to blame the "UFO hysteria" on just the tabloids - some highbrow press also got involved in the media game - as well as numerous TV and radio stations in the south and west. JS' treatment of the media's role is intriguing. There is no doubt that many media sources -particularly the BBC - have a lot of explaining to do to those farmers whose fields were later invaded by hundreds of sightseers or who suffered from crop circle hoaxing. Without the help of the BBC the crop circle fraud would never have reached take-off following the launch of "Circular Evidence". 23 The "War of the Worlds" broadcast was not merely touched off by the sound of the "human voice" - like crop circles there were a host of very special circumstances that triggered the social response mechanism. This is an example where JS could have drawn out more of the sociological aspects, eg he could have contrasted the crop circle mythology with the Warminster Thing - every generation has a sudden paranormal fad like crop circles - and in every case the media are largely the guilty party - JS could have referred to "Folk Devils and Moral Panics", the classic sociological study of how the Mods and Rockers myth was largely created by media reporting (it had gone on for years before the media decided to label it and create a scare story about how the youth were subverting the nation's moral fibre, etc etc). 23 Surely there were more cases in 1984 than JS reports ? PF has some cases submitted to BUFORA from around this time in Surrey which D&D could not have made. These will be published in a future CW. 23/24 PF is not sure its fair to state that the location of the 1984 quintuplet on top of Cheesefoot Head caused Meaden to "expand his theory again" - he had already "expanded" his theory with reference to earlier quintuplet patterns. The precise positioning of the pattern on top of the hill was never a problem for the meteorological explanation. 27/29 The Wessex Skeptics dismissed the Delgado Effect by referring to much earlier promotions of this effect (dating back to the early 1920s, see David Fisher's article in The Skeptic, Vol IV, no 2). 34 JS misses out the fact that PF also attended the Alresford Park meeting ! Delgado was not the first person to suggest that the "apparent recentness" of the circles "was an illusion due to reporting", it was PF (in "Exploring the Supernatural" April/May 1987) ! Delgado was always very reticent to discuss historical cases - as JS correctly demonstrates on page 130. JS misses out a number of important events - eg Omar Fowler's promotion of the Mrs Jones case (see CW16) and the fact that PF spoke up about hoaxing (therefore the last few sentences are wrong). PF has this meeting on tape so can prove all of this. JS fails to mention that when PF criticised Delgado for naming an already known effect after himself PF was threatened with a lawsuit ! 37 Its a bit misleading to say that GTM was "professorially reluctant to appear in public with people who believed in UFOs". Afterall, JR and PF both believe in UFOs (ie as misperceived natural phenomena) and GTM was not "reluctant" to attend BUFORA's 1986 and 1987 events, or to invite JR and PF to the Oxford Conference in 1990 (see below). 37 ERROR. The first anti-clockwise circle was NOT discovered at Headbourne Worthy in 1986. The Wokurna circle of 1973 in South Australia was anti-clockwise (see CW3). So were the Bordertown circles of 1972 (discussed in CW5) and the Tooligie Hills case from 1971 (CW6). 38 This section misses out PF's letter to the Winchester Extra (21 August 1986) and the article in the Daily Telegraph (9 July 1986). This first letter demonstrates BUFORA's hoax/whirlwind stance and our desire to uncover accounts of pre 1981 crop circles. This section also omits Jenny Randles' interview in "The Guardian" (18 July 1986), where she stated that "the circles' evolving patterns are 'very suspicious'". This important article was the first national media coverage of our promotion of a joint explanation encompassing both meteorological and hoax theories. 39 Actually there are documented accounts of animal mutilations and crop circles pre- dating Delgado's statement - see CW17 pages 3-5. 46 The small white object in Taylor's photo was suggested to be a notepad by a number of other commentators (eg Terry Wilson in CW12 page 35, published in July/August 1992). There is a similar photo in the first edition of "Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved" ! 47 Ref the "unusual professional suffix of MASEE, AILE" - has anyone found out what it stands for ? 49 ERROR: Wingfield worked at Herstmonceux in Sussex, not Scotland. 52 Actually dowsing is apparently accepted in Germany - see Tom Williamson's book on Dowsing reviewed it in CW17. It is important not to tarnish all dowsing claims with the same brush, the dowsing of "genuine" crop circles is certainly open to criticism but PF wouldn't be so dismissive of other dowsing claims having read Williamson's sceptical and open-minded resume of the literature (which includes well documented double blind experiments that produced results that had only a tiny probability of occurring by chance alone). 63 It is surely not correct to state that by 1986 the circles had an "increasingly broad territory". This claim omits the overseas cases we have documented that predated 1980 as well as the crop circle cases in other parts of Britain that we discovered (eg in Gloucestershire, Cheshire, Cumbria, etc). This creation of the Mythical "Wessex Triangle" by the concentration of hoaxers in Hampshire and Wiltshire was a major issue which PF and JR debated repeatedly. We still maintain that when the hoaxers leave the subject alone there will be occasional crop circles spread throughout Britain. 64 We disagree with JS' comparison between GTM's interpretation of the Windmill Hill air crashes and Colin Andrews' speculations about the Harrier Pilot. Recent research into some major aircraft crashes discusses the role of a horizontally moving ring-vortex developed in a thunderstorm cloud. GTM's speculations at least have a firm meteorological basis whereas Colin's speculations were merely "intuitive". It is important to distinguish between legitimate scientific speculation based on current scientific research and pseudo-scientific speculation, but JS seems to blur these two claims together. 67 Actually PF talked about hoaxing at the Devizes meeting. Why isn't this mentioned ? This is another example of how JS seems to have omitted facts which turn a black and white argument into a grey one - not everyone involved in circles research promoted everything as "genuine". PF and JR repeatedly debated hoaxing and repeatedly suggested that many circles might be man-made. 68 Actually PF made no "public attacks" until AFTER A&D refused to reply to his letters (1988). The way JS has written this makes it look as though PF was spoiling for a fight. The truth is that when people simply refuse to respond to new evidence or to debate the issues what can you do ? PF gave A&D every opportunity to debate the evidence, but A&D left PF with no choice but to publicly criticise their actions and claims. PF's decision has proved quite correct given the enormous damage they have done to sensible UFO research with their irresponsible and reckless promotion of the subject. 68 Actually PF also tried to convince A&D that hoaxing was a possibility in his letters. See CW16 pages 15-18. 69 PF and JR don't agree that the BUFORA/TORRO Survey was "mostly fruitless" at all ! It demonstrated that a mixture of explanations was perfectly acceptable to the farming community. This evidence was also suppressed by A&D - as was anything else which spoilt their fantasies. 70 We are not sure its fair to describe MUFON UFO Journal as the "primary organ of American UFOlogy". What about International UFO Reporter ? 70 There is no mention of Gordon Creighton's numerous and unprovoked public attacks on PF and JR, who he accused of being "two of the most egregious liars at large in our country today". By excluding this seriously defamatory statement JS makes it look as if PF and JR were looking for a fight and were guilty of escalating the disagreement. Neither does JS mention the fact that in 1983 JR was removed from her position at FSR by the (then) new Editor Gordon Creighton without any reason being given. This coincided with her public promotion of a prosaic explanation for the crop circles and Pat Delgado's appointment as a "consultant". 72 This section misses out the fact that after supplying these statements via their respective solicitors A&D carried on making these false claims to the public in "Circular Evidence". Neither does JS mention the fact that Andrews' boss' boss was a Chief Officer - making Andrews' claim to be the "chief electrical engineer" (ie a Chief Officer) totally false. 72 This section also misses out the fact that Andrews was in breach of the terms of his conditions of employment with Test Valley Borough Council, as it is not permitted for local government employees to associate one's personal views with one's employers in the public arena (hence the statement at the start of "Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved"). 74 PF recalls being furious with GTM for not telling him that A&D were planning to write a book. This was one of three major disagreements PF recalls having with GTM. 78 JS's claim that tornadoes emit "sparks and luminous balls" contradicts his earlier claim on page 18 that whirlwinds don't glow. 79 We believe that in fact it was JR who first realised that the plasma-vortex theory might be capable of explaining numerous UFO reports. 97 PF and JR were very unhappy with GTM continuing to share information with A&D in 1989, as we believed that it compromised GTM's scientific status. Despite the fact that "Controversy of the Circles" had just been published PF and JR didn't speak to GTM for nearly 6 weeks because of their annoyance ! 97 The water tank "circle" was actually PF's mistake, not GTM's ! 99 A good point. Archie Roy's encouragement to Andrews gave CPR the illusion of scientific respect- ability which A&D used to good effect - we think JS rightly apportions blame here in what he says. 101 This section misses an item on the ITN 10 o' clock network news which featured Operation Whitecrow and a video sequence of an orange pulsating light (probably an aircraft approaching Eastleigh Airport) This too was an early example of A&D beginning to realise the media power they wielded, as well as it being another excellent example of how the media falsely led the public to believe that crop circles were associated with UFOs (ie flying saucers). 103 This section is potentially very misleading as we failed to understand how Harry Harris' name could be associated with the Whitecrow letter, particularly as JS claimed in his lecture to Essex CCCS that it was actually Rita Goold who sent the Whitecrow letter ! JS has since claimed in correspondence with PF that Rita Goold used Harry Harris' name to "deflect suspicion" from her involvement in the Whitecrow letter. The fact that we failed to understand this implication demonstrates the problems of writing in such a cryptic style ! 114 The Sussex University con is not explained in full. See CW 11 page 33. 114 Was the surveillance equipment really worth # 28,000 ? Given Andrews' other exaggerations this seems to be another claim which could have been confirmed or denied. 115 We believe that Don Tuersley had worked with A&D for more than 3 years. 116 We had no idea that Derek Elsom had favourably reviewed Circular Evidence in the "Geographic Magazine". Yes, GTM confirmed to PF that he never informed other members of TORRO about his problems with A&D. 117 The second Parliamentary question was designed to answer claims made on A&Ds' behalf in the "London Evening Standard" about official help from the constabularies of Hampshire and Wiltshire. This claim, like so many others, turned out to be quite false. Why did A&D not issue a public retraction of this claim ? 122 So why is "Crop Circles A Mystery Solved" not mentioned ? It sold 30,000 copies in the UK, Germany and Hungary, and unlike all other books on the subject prior to 1991 it contained a whole chapter on hoaxing, successfully predicting the arrival of the pictograms and talking extensively about hoaxing. Also BUFORA's 1989 report "Controversy of the Circles" was not a "book", it was a home-produced booklet that was never sold in the shops. JS makes it look as though our point of view was irrelevant and rightfully ignored. We believe this is very unfair. 123 We were very pleased to see JS' demonstration of Andrew's suppression of eye witness testimony. This was an important part of what they did. 123 Actually it was JR who queried this claim with 10 Downing Street, not PF. 123 Actually, in October 1989 PF avoided a direct confrontation with Andrews because of the outstanding threat of litigation. PF took part in a recorded interview on BBC Radio Solent which Andrews respond- ed to live a few days later. Andrews defamed Fuller and BUFORA several times in his response, claiming, for example, that he had never swopped data with BUFORA (despite the fact that he had helped with the BUFORA/TORRO Survey) and claiming that BUFORA had a "very well known reputation for trouble making", a claim which almost resulted in legal action by BUFORA against Andrews for libel. 125/6 This excludes PF's documentary proof that Andrews knowingly omitted hoaxing and eye witness testimony from Circular Evidence, a crucial part of how these two researchers misled the public and helped spawn a supernatural myth. 130 This is an excellent description of how the Mowing Devil case was discovered (something which Fortean Times and The Cerealogist later obscufated). The case was also discovered by Andy Roberts at about the same time. JR and PF do not recall JR mentioning any worries she may or may not have had about Gordon Creighton using the case to support his own theories. We were more concerned with the way A&D were bringing UFOlogy into disrepute than with Creighton's writings in FSR. We had no idea that A&D knew about the Mowing Devil case. Why did this not appear in their subsequent books or media promotion of the subject ? This is an excellent example of their data suppression. 137 The Oak Dragon camps were held on the Carsons' farm at Alton Barnes as well as at Glastonbury. 138 PF and JR were never invited by the CCCS to join them or to contribute to "The Crop Circle Enigma" - further proof of their suppression of evidence. GTM was only asked right at the very last moment - just when he was busy travelling around visiting and surveying crop circles. This too was a difficult decision for GTM, whether to risk giving the CCCS scientific legitimacy or whether to miss an important opportunity for disseminating important scientific evidence to the public. The Carsons claimed they'd made # 7,000 in some newspaper accounts, not # 5,000. 149 This is very unfair. Hilary Evans has degrees from both Birmingham and Cambridge Universities. He can hardly be described as an "amateur scientist". 150 Actually GTM warned H. Kikuchi about Andrews and Andrews was quietly "dropped" from the URSI Conference (although his name still appeared on the Conference Agenda). We were pleased to see JS' inclusion of the footnote which demonstrates Andrews' intense egotism. 151Footnote: If Colin Andrews is a Chief Officer, why does he have a "head of department" ? 151/52 The issue of the central clumps is still very important, as both Doug and Dave and one or two of our historic witnesses (eg Paul Germany) claim to have invented them/seen them in the 1930s. Which is correct ? 153 ERROR. PF and JR were asked to talk at the Oxford Conference before Easter 1991 so it is quite false to claim that we were only asked to attend to make up the numbers. According to PF's diary entry for 13th April 1990 he "Spent all day writing article for Oxford Conference". This means PF and JR must have been invited at least 10 weeks before the Conference to submit a paper (probably about 12 weeks). JS presents no evidence to show that PF and JR were only invited after all the other lecturers had been invited. 153 ERROR: PF didn't plead with GTM to only invite "Meadenites", PF pleaded with GTM to refuse entry to A&D, who were libelling all of us in the press and who PF thought would try to steal GTM's thunder in the press. GTM didn't tell PF that A&D were attending until the day before the conference - PF was furious with GTM and Derek Elsom witnessed the resulting argument between PF and GTM (although PF didn't know who Derek Elsom was, and later had to explain to him the problems GTM had not told him about). 154-6 Is this on tape ? Snow or Church (PF can't remember which) accosted PF at the end of Conference to ask about hoaxing following our comments in our lecture (which, again, JS makes no reference to). Snow/Church was very concerned on hearing our comments. Again this is proof that JR and PF did not accept everything GTM said and were prepared to consider hoaxing as a solution. Afterall, GTM points this out in the "Afterword" of the first edition of our book ! PR recalls that PF and JR claimed that pictogram boxes were "additions" by "hippies". He also recalls that GTM dismissed the case of the "sprouting ring" as a hoax. These claims are proof that we all considered hoaxing to varying degrees. 156 PF, JR and PR all disagree with this description of the argument between CA and GTM. See CW3 pages 8-9. PF and JR do not recall the scientists watching "in astonished silence" at this confrontation. We were still stood at the lectern at the front of the hall and could see the faces of all the attendees. We feel they were more annoyed by Andrews' confrontational manner than by anything GTM had done. PR recalls the fact that a member of the audience gave Andrews the opportunity of asking his question. 159 In fact Andrew Hewitt's survey of the 1990 circles demonstrated that almost three quarters of circles were mere singles. Why is Hewitt not credited for this work ? See CW10 and CW11. Hewitt was also a member of CERES. 161 Actually the Gorleston formation only further convinced JR and PF that some circles were hoaxes - JR actually condemned this formation as a hoax in CW3 page 12 so why does JS miss this out ? Again Andrew Hewitt's survey statistics are not credited. 163 We didn't know that Tom Gwinnet had seen circles before - and in an area very prone to whirlwinds and waterspouts !! Also see G.E.M. 16 page 19. 164-169 Done very well indeed ! 172 It wasn't Wingfield's "sources" which reported the bizarre event involving Bill Drummond - this was reported in numerous Wiltshire newspapers the day after the Blackbird hoax. 173 We just love the comment about "the alleged informant allegedly told Wingfield" - brilliant !!! 174 This is a missed opportunity to point out that the 2 of the 3 ministries concerned have denied Wingfield's ludicrous allegations about a government cover-up. See CW16 page 28. 175 Another missed opportunity to tell the story of how Andrews procured the film from Alexander. We were informed that Andrews borrowed the tape from Alexander then later sent # 25 "for expenses". Apparently Alexander had to threaten Andrews with an injunction to prevent Andrews abusing his copyright but Andrews still showed the film at the MUFON Conference. 187 JS seems unaware that GTM promoted this as a p- v on TVS and in various newspapers ! Again PF, JR and PR were very annoyed with GTM's treatment of the data. 188 PF and PR never knew of it as the Devizes Conference, GTM promoted it as a circles "workshop" ! PF has the names of everyone who attended this meeting. 190 The b&w photo of a "circle in ice, in Turkey in 1975" may have been PF's photo from Svahn of the ice ring from Sweden, which PF seems to recall taking to the conference as proof that natural phenomena CAN be precisely-defined and circular. This is the photo reproduced on the back cover of CW8. 191 PF doesn't recall Ohtsuki discussing motor cars being dragged along or above road by UFO beams - we thought this was material PF discussed ! Ohtsuki only had limited contact with Japanese UFOlogists and didn't know PF or JR at all before he came to the UK in 1991. We believe that Ohtsuki dismissed the pictograms as hoaxes at this "workshop". This too should have been mentioned, as it demonstrates that Ohtsuki was also suspicious of the more complex formations (he dismissed all the "pictograms" as hoaxes on the "Equinox" TV documentary filmed the following year). 191 JS omits the fact that at the end of the meeting PF talked for a minute or so about hoaxing ? Again this is proof that JR and PF did NOT accept everything as genuine - we were very open to the idea of wide- spread hoaxing and were repeatedly prepared to say so. 193 PF and JR were very pleased to see JS mention our annoyance with Goldman over their use of von Daniken's name on the front cover of our German paperback edition. It is strange therefore that JS chose not to highlight the way that the CCCS prevented PF and JR from presenting our evidence at the joint meeting in Hamburg (see CW5 pages 16-17). Throughout the crop circle debate FSR's supporters repeatedly refused to allow us to present our evidence - even though BUFORA invited them to present their evidence on numerous occasions. This undeniable suppression of contrary evidence was another key part of what FSR did. It deserved to be discussed at length as a lesson in what happens when unwelcome evidence is suppressed by the true believers. 194 JS misses out the fact that PF, JR and Peter Rendall all publicly dismissed Andrews' description of the confrontation at the end of the Oxford Conference as grossly inaccurate, see the early CWs. 194 Actually PF "kept mum" about A&D because he didn't want people to think he held a grudge against them, not because he was concerned about further litigation. Of course now JS has published everything we'll say what we like about A&D !! 195 CW had a circulation of c 150 at one stage. Now down to 130 or so (including shop deals). 196 Not the best diary entry JS could have chosen. PF, PR and GTM stayed up all night several times taking continuous measurements and watching for hoaxers. 197-203 Very very amusing ! One of the best bits in the whole book ! 199 Wingfield's version of the facts - as usual -directly contradicts everything that has been published elsewhere. 206 Yes, we heard this story too ! George was allegedly drunk when he fell off Shirley Maclaine's yacht into the Pacific ! Presumably someone must have rescued him !! 206 Yes, Rita told PF the story about the hippies making the face - PF published this in CW3 page 24. Again JS ignores the fact that some researchers recognised the event as a hoax and published the evidence that demonstrated a hoax well before D&D came on the scene in late 1991. 216 JS should have pointed out that JAD saw the first fish being made and the CCCS, CPR, MUFON and Michael Chorost suppressed this unwelcome evidence in everything they published whilst PF and JR published this event in CW8 page 28. 218 PF and JR are very pleased JS included GTM's dismissal of the Barbury Castle formation here. 233 These are super placebo effects ! 241 West Woods was the location of one of "Ron Smither's" nocturnal meeting points in his infamous UFO hoax. This is something of a coincidence. 242 We were very pleased to see some degree of confirmation for the animal mutilation stories carried in CW. Is this a hint that Michael Green (or perhaps his group) was responsible for the animal mutilations ? JS is superbly vague leaving the reader to work it out for themselves. 244 This is the same story that Rita told PF. Delgado's channelling was allegedly the reason why Central TV changed their mind and invited Colin Andrews to the 1991 TV programme instead of Delgado. 244-5 This is one of the most contentious parts of the book. JS seems to imply that John Michell is involved in black magic !! As for his accusation about the CCCS being a "religious organisation" - this is mere opinion - true for the leading members perhaps - but not necessarily true for all members. 246 This "letter of reprimand" led to an apology from CCCS in The Circular which JS fails to mention. 259 This is further damming proof that "travellers" are involved in making circles - something PF, PR and JR have known for several years (which we published in CW) but which JS omits to give credit for. 260 Actually these stories about letters of encouragement from John Major, the Queen and other members of the Royal family are all gross exaggerations of what really happened. To our knowledge they have never been published and do not appear to be the endorsements the cerealogists claim. Chapter 22 is really very very funny. Superb !!! 274 Again it is not true that the Meadenites embraced virtually all of the formations except the pictograms. 278 Why is there no mention of CW's review of Chorost and Levengood's work ? Again all crop circle researchers are made to look stupid whereas in fact some criticised this claim and its promotion by other researchers. 280 PF is very pleased to see JS refer to the CCCS continuing to quote Dudley Marshall's results in their public lectures after Dudley had publicly withdrawn them - it was actually George Wingfield in his lecture at Essex University - this was willful and irresponsible scaremongering by a prominent member of the CCCS which partially led to more farmers closing their fields to researchers and sight seers. 282 JS omits to point out that PR and GTM were also on "Ron Smither's" trail. The rest of the book is fine, although we think the closing sentence is a bit hard on poor Terence. The last chapter allows all the paranormal protagonists to give a position statement but with the exception of Meaden the remaining serious researchers are not credited with any opinion. Why not ? CONFERENCE REPORT: THE TORRO BALL LIGHTNING CONFERENCE held at Oxford Polytechnic on July 11th, 1992 by David Reynolds The fourth TORRO Conference on ball lightning (BL) brought together a set of first-class speakers, many well-known for their contributions to the subject. The meeting was chaired by Bob Pritchard of the London Weather Centre, whose voice is instantly recognisable to anyone who listened to the weather forecasts on Radio 4 [until about two years ago when the B.B.C. television forecasters work was expanded to include radio broadcasts]. The conference was structured into two parts, BL reports and BL theory. BL Reports The Conference commenced with Dr. Eric Wooding (Department of Physics, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London) who stated that very few scientific observations of BL had been made, and it was necessary to obtain accurate measurements in order to develop a model which would adequately explain BL. The best methods to maximise the chances of observing BL under scientific conditions were discussed - which is made rather difficult by conflicting basic analyses, e.g. one source reports that 95 % of BLs were observed during thunderstorms, while another reports that only 2.6 % occur during thundery weather and the bulk - 90 % - during dry, cloudy weather (these radically differing figures are believed to be the result of the use of differing criteria, such as the latter which may contain a high number of earthquake lights, marsh gas reports, etc). Eric concluded that at a site in central England, a camera left running during thunderstorms would record BL once in 1,000 years ! Next, TORRO's own Adrian James (BL Division, Archives Director) reported on fatalities attributed to BL, drawing on TORRO's BL database of almost 500 reports; again a difficult area to handle, as data quality is often low - when a newspaper reports a ball of fire, does it mean BL, the flash from a very close lightning discharge, the vapourisation of material or St. Elmo's Fire ? There are a number of reports of BL causing death, but many reports can be interpreted as death by conventional lightning; a number of ambiguous reports were quoted as examples. An interesting statistic is that the average time lag between the occurrence of a BL event and the report ending up in the TORRO archives is 60 years ! Adrian also concluded that BL events must be well-documented for detailed comparisons to be made. Quite interestingly, it was not until the third lecture that the very existence of BL was considered (were we all wasting our time by being at the conference?), by someone whose name will probably be familiar to many UFOlogists - sceptic Steaurt Campbell. Actually, I was impressed with Steaurt's presentation, which I found well-argued. By means of examples, he believed that BL (which he assumed to be an electrical phenomenon) could be explained by conventional lightning, optical effects, etc., or by the erroneous reporting of the event (by the witness, media, etc.). Damage attributed to BL and photographs and video footage believed to show BL could likewise be explained. Steaurt concluded that as there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of BL, it is likely that BL does not exist. (Yes, it looked like we were wasting our time !). There followed an interesting discussion, as one of the later speakers (Prof. Jennison) reported that he had experienced BL on more than one occasion at close quarters, including once in an aircraft and on another occasion when the BL moved down his back and arm !! So perhaps we weren't wasting our time after all. Prof. Roger Jennison (Department of Electronics, University of Kent) discussed the assessment of BL reports, which encompassed observation, theory and experimental techniques. He pointed out that it is very difficult to assess the diameter of BL, unless it moves in front of relatively close objects - and consequently, BL reports should include indicators of data reliability. One thought-provoking comment was that BL may occur quite frequently, but as an invisible entity; the electromagnetism believed common to luminous BL is present, but is not strong enough to create luminosity. (Now, what would be the result of an invisible, and therefore weak, BL structure entering someone and then intensifying to a point beyond the threshold of luminosity - spontaneous human combustion by any chance ?! [Jenny, Jenny !]). We then all broke for lunch in Oxford Polytechnic's dining hall, where business cards were being passed left, right and centre, the finer points of plasma physics were being discussed and the very existence of BL was still being debated. However, one thing certain to me was that the gateau was some of the best that I've ever tasted ! The afternoon session commenced with Mark Stenhoff, TORRO's BL Division Scientific Director, who considered the physical evidence for the existence of BL. One important point that was made was the limited usefulness of particularly anecdotal BL reports, as the accuracy of a witness' recollection drops rapidly after the observation. In fact, after one day, about half the reports are clearly erroneous while after five days more imagination than truth is reported. Consequently BL (and UFO!) reports need immediate investigation if the reports are to prove useful for research. An example of a spectacular satellite re- entry in 1968 highlighted reporting distortions; many observers reported seeing windows and hearing noises (things which seem to recur with regularity in UFO reports!). The TORRO BL database was utilised in this presentation, but again the problem of damage interpretation was emphasised; assuming BL does exist, damage caused by it may be indistinguishable from that caused by a ground flash or side flash - which, if this is the case, will make the understanding of BL considerably harder. Furthermore, most of the damage reported to have been caused by BL could be attributable to ordinary lightning - so a BL suspected to have caused damage consistent with a high energy may actually have been the result of a low-energy BL and an ordinary lightning strike. In conclusion, it was stated that most of the damage reported to have been caused by BL could also have been caused by linear lightning; there were only a few cases where the damage was more likely to have been caused by BL than by linear lightning. BL THEORY The second part of the conference considered BL theory and not surprisingly the technicality moved up a gear, stalling the brains of a few delegates in the process I suspect. Dr Geert Dijkhuis of Zeldenrust College and Convectron NV (The Netherlands) considered BL statistics and structure. With increasing numbers of BL reports being published (especially from Europe, U.S.A. and Japan), structural theories must take into account the variability of BL and experimental work needs to produce BL which mimics the behaviour of natural BL; laboratory-created BL is still smaller and shorter-lasting than its natural counterpart. It was at about this time that an active cold front cleared the area; the passage was marked by heavy rain and gusty winds. Conference participants were seen to glance out of the windows, perhaps expecting a BL to materialise and join the congregation. I suppose it was asking a bit too much for BL to appear during a TORRO BL conference, but nevertheless a tornado did occur only 15 miles away and a site investigation was already underway by the evening. If only BL investigations were executed with such rapidity ... A brief history of electromagnetic plasmoid models of BL was given by Dr. Geoff Endean (School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Durham), and who then outlined the problem of energy containment in BL - how sufficient energy could be contained in a small space and be not just emitted continuously and steadily, but also sometimes very suddenly. He then presented some of his own recent work which may explain the energy containment problem for the electromagnetic plasmoid model of BL. He pointed out that a very-rapidly rotating electric field can exist in a plasma without a magnetic field and with no apparent limit to the electrical field strength; this helps to construct a realistic model of BL. The conference was concluded by Dr. Xue-Heng Zheng (Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge), who discussed how BL could exist for the time-span reported by observers (typically 10 seconds). The long life of BL may be explained by the existence of a maximum rate for microwave radiation to be transferred into heat in plasmas. If I remember rightly, this ended up in a lively and rather top-gear mathematical discussion which, for the layman, boiled down to "you can't do that" and "oh yes I can". All in all, a very enjoyable conference; those interested in BL but who were unable to attend certainly missed something. But they'll be glad to know that copies of the 88 page softbound Conference Proceedings with 8 figures and 13 tables are available from the TORRO Ball Lightning Division at P.O. Box 164, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7RR, and are priced at # 10 each plus # 1.10 p&[ (in the U.K.; plus # 3.00 p&p overseas). Please make cheques payable to TORRO Ball Lightning Division. AND DON'T FORGET - ANY RECENT BL EVENTS SHOULD BE REPORTED TO TORRO A.S.A.P. - THE BL DIVISION HAS A 24-HOUR ANSWERPHONE ON (081 940 9413. Older reports (from any year and any continent) should be posted to the address above. David Reynolds. TORRO. Staffordshire. Advertisment High quality aerial photographs of crop circles available from Richard Wintle, Calyx Photo News, Marlborough House, 26 High Street, Swindon, SN1 3EP. Telephone 0793 520131. Book Review Alien Update by Tim Good Arrow, # 4.99, 296 pages, 14 photos, numerous diagrams/maps etc + index This is the sequel to "Alien Liaison", Good' best selling 1992 book devoted to promoting the alien myth. Consisting of 13 chapters and a highly selective "World Round-Up of Selected Reports" Good's book is one of UFOlogical extremes - from George Wingfield's libellous and deceitful "Circular Condrums of 1992" to an intriguing and well written account of some peculiar lights witnessed and photographed by numerous people above the centre of Montreal, Canada's largest city. Its almost impossible to review a book a varied as this so instead we've chosen - like Good - to review highly selected sections to see what we can find ! Let's begin with George Wingfield. Wingfield's article is typified by numerous errors of fact and critical omissions - omissions which some reviewers might consider to be part of a cold calculating fraud. Here's a selection of Wingfield's more outrageous claims:- (1) On page 52 Wingfield dismisses the Bower and Chorley claim with "It was subsequently demonstrated that most of their claims were fraudulent". What an absurd statement ! WHO has demonstrated that Bower and Chorley's claims are "fraudulent" ? How and where have they done this ? Regular readers will be used to being presented with arguments like this. Wingfield has an uncanny ability at conjuring up arguments out of thin air which always support his cause. (2) On page 51 Wingfield omits to point out that Busty Taylor ALSO failed to identify the Wessex Skeptics' hoax at Clench Common, concentrating his attack on Terence Meaden. This is a classic case of the cereologists rewriting crop circle history to cover-up their own failures whilst belittling their opponents. (3) On page 53 Wingfield states: "Terence Meaden's attempt to find a middle path, to the effect that simple and ringed circles are 'genuine', and that pictograms and complex circles (which do not fit his plasma vortex theory) are 'hoaxes', is equally unacceptable and cannot seriously be entertained. Indeed, there are people, desperate to salvage the discredited vortex theory, who have engaged in the hoaxing already described, with a view to disparaging the pictograms". This too is a complete rewriting of crop circle history - for Meaden did NOT dismiss the pictograms merely because they did not appear to fit his theory. With the exception of a handful of the most complicated formations Meaden ACCEPTED the pictograms as 'genuine' and only later concluded that they were hoaxes. Wingfield's allegation that "supporters" of the plasma vortex theory were so "desperate" that they resorted to hoaxing is a wicked slur and quite untrue. Meaden, myself and all other members of CERES never indulged in hoaxing (we have been severely criticised by the Wessex Skeptics, for example, for NOT trying to make circles). If by this accusation Wingfield is accusing Schnabel and Irving of being "supporters" of the plasma-vortex theory then this too is not true as neither are "supporters" of the plasma-vortex theory. (4) On pages 52 and 53 Wingfield hammers the last nails into his own coffin with his sarcastic and overwhelming praise for the makers of the Froxfield hoax, stating that "It was indeed magnificent. One could scarcely fail to admire the craftsmanship and dexterity of the circle-fakers who had painstakingly reproduced many indicators of genuine circles". In this single ill-judged statement Wingfield admits that "genuine circles" are capable of being made by humans. On the following page Wingfield continues: "What has become abundantly plain is that no one currently has any guaranteed sure-fire method of distinguishing the genuine article from the cleverly made fake." This too is a clear admission that - by implication - all circles are capable of being made by humans, although Wingfield tries to cover his acceptance of this fact by engaging in semantics. Wingfield then goes on to discuss that demonstrably false argument about how "if we are lucky enough to find a virgin formation" we'd find "a dozen telling characteristics which are indicators of true circles". Wingfield doesn't seem to understand that these "dozen telling characteristics" are now known to be false characteristics because the circles used to establish these characteristics were themselves man-made hoaxes ! Wingfield then admits that it is unlikely that a test will ever be found which is capable of distinguishing between real circles and fakes. This hotch-potch of discarded arguments, false claims and wishful thinking disguise the fact that Wingfield himself no longer believes in real circles. Why don't you just come out and admit it George ? (5) Earlier Wingfield alleges that two un-named researchers (presumably Irving and Schnabel) conducted an obsessive campaign whose main aim over the past year or two was to set up and discredit leading circles researchers and CCCS officials (namely Michael Green, Colin Andrews and - quite naturally - Wingfield himself). Wingfield's acute paranoia is well demonstrated by his description of how the "sceptics and circle-fakers now went to great lengths to dupe their victims... Before making one large formation at Hyden Hill near East Meon in Hampshire, they actually dowsed a major earth energy line in the field and carefully constructed their pictogram on top of it...". George, the sceptics don't believe in "major earth energy lines" or dowsing so how would they be able to dowse one and then place a pictogram on top of it ??? (6) Wingfield continues re-writing crop circle history by referring to The Cerealogist's one contribution to the subject - the West Wycombe hoax farce. To be fair Wingfield at least begins quite sensibly (page 56): Although no one expected the [competition] to provide conclusive answers, it taught us two things. Firstly, impressive geometric formations can be produced at night by diligent fakers, indicating that circles which many of us too readily accepted as 'genuine', could have been hoaxed..." - George at his sensible best perhaps, but next George simply rewrites history by claiming that "at least half the teams" left behind small items after making their circles - something which I have never seen repeated elsewhere. (7) Wingfield's distortion of crop circle history continues with his claim (page 56) that none of the competitors admitted making the formations at Alton Barnes, Barbury Castle and the Mandelbrot and his nieve promotion of Dr Stephen Greer's CSETI project (page 62-66). We publicly challenge George George to justify in writing why his article failed to tell Good's readers about the following:-(a) that a group known as the United Bureau of Investigation admitted in numerous taped interviews that they had made many of the most famous Wiltshire pictogram formations; (b) that they admitted to faking UFO incidents by using a set of disco-lazer lights (see point 12 on page 35); (c) that the Mandelbrot was "predicted" in a letter to the New Scientist a year before it actually appeared; (d) that numerous other groups of hoaxers are being unmasked all over Britain; and that (e) Irving and Schnabel claim to have made several formations in the Alton Barnes area. All these facts are critical pieces of evidence which strongly influence how the man-in-the-street assesses the evidence, yet Wingfield suppresses this evidence for reasons we can only guess at. (8) On page 57 Wingfield uses that favourite old chestnut about how the Thatcher Government allegedly received "many documents" from Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado. Nowhere has any of this material ever been published by Andrews and Delgado - we only have their word as researchers that they sent this material to Nicholas Ridley, the then Minister of the Environment. Once again Wingfield claims - without supplying the slightest degree of documentary proof - that there was a secret government meeting to discuss the crop circle phenomenon in September 1990. We have already published the fact that we obtained denials from two of the three ministries involved that they were involved in such a meeting (CW16 page 28) and we have twice challenged Wingfield to publish documentary evidence to support these claims without response. Readers will draw their own conclusions from Wingfield's failure to supply this documentary proof. Well we could go on and on and on .... To conclude, this is a grossly deceitful and misleading account which seems deliberately contrived to deceive Good's readers by perpetuating a mystery at any cost. We call on George Wingfield to apologise in The Cerealogist for this bigoted sham. As long as Wingfield is allowed to continue deceiving people The Cerealogist can only become a tool of further disinformation and censorship. We also demand that Tim Good apologise to his readers for allowing Wingfield to write such a disgraceful article. Cluster of Lights Seen over Montreal By contrast this is an excellent article summarising voluminous documentary and photographic evidence of an unusual visual phenomenon seen over the centre of Montreal on the night of 7 November 1990. The authors are Richard Haines, a behavioural psychologist, and Bernard Guenette, who present meteorological data, an analysis of photographic evidence, drawings by numerous eye witnesses and a map of the sighting location. The phenomenon consisted of a cluster of up to 8 lights arranged in a semi- circular arc. Each light extended a white ray covering a span of many tens of degrees of arc. This phenomenon was probably stationary and observed over a densely urbanised area for a period of 2.5 hours. Now let's ask some sceptical questions. Throughout their report Haines and Guenette repeatedly refer to an enormous hovering object - mainly because one of the (dozens of) witnesses drew an object with lights on it. But this is not true ! The witnesses all reported seeing lights - that is what the photos show. Have UFOlogists still not learnt that witnesses "read in" structured objects when witnessing light displays? Whilst there is some excellent case work here Haines and Guenette don't appear to have contacted local universities to see if anyone was testing some kind of device. Neither do they appear to have contacted local airports in case someone had flown an airship with bright searchlights above cloud cover. How about some kind of aurora borealis effect ? What did the local astronomical observatory have to say ? A superb case, but one which I feel sure will eventually be shown to have a relatively prosaic explanation. Bob Oechsler's "Cosmic Journey: The Aftermath" With the exception of "Round in Circles" this is probably the funniest article I've read for some time. This is another fine demonstration of how far down the line of lunacy people's belief systems will take them when presented with facts that don't meet with their previously stated position. In "Alien Liaison" Oechsler (pronounced "X-ler") describes a prolonged telephone conversation he held with someone called "Admiral Bobby Ray Inman" - allegedly a former Deputy Director of the CIA and (of course) a member of the super-secret MJ-12 organisation that was allegedly responsible for the recovery of crashed alien technology by the US Government back in the late 1940s. Much of this sequel is taken up with a very one-sided conversation between Oechler and "Inman" whereby Oechler claims to have demonstrated "Inman" 's involvement in the greatest government deception of all time. The result, in my opinion, is a very peculiar conversation between two men talking entirely at cross purposes ! It seems that the primary reason for this total breakdown in communication is that Oechsler deliberately avoided using terms like "Aliens, ETs and UFOs" because he was worried about scaring the Admiral off into thinking he (Oechler) was "some sort of kook" (page 207). Instead he makes veiled comments about "crafts", "phenomenon", "recovered vehicles" and "intelligence behind the crafts". Not surprisingly, "Admiral Bobby Inman" - whoever he is -was completely bewildered. Take these excerpts for example:-OECHLER:- ... Yes, thank you very much for returning my call. INMAN:- You're most welcome. OECHLER:- Do you remember who I am ? INMAN:- Unfortunately I do not, I apologize. OECHLER:- OK, well we met at the University of Science - University of Maryland Science and Technology... INMAN:- I do pull out, now, I thank you. [Oechler's "clarifying commentary"] This sudden abrupt recollection is important because it indicates that the Admiral did in fact consider our brief meeting in May of 1988 to be worthy of recollection. It was during that brief encounter that I asked if he would be good enough to have someone get in touch with me, relative to how I could get closer to MJ-12, again indicating that MJ-12 meant something to him ..." As you can see, the moment "Admiral Inman" realises who he is speaking to he tries to hang up - something Oechler uses to demonstrate "Inman" 's knowledge of MJ-12 (an issue which Inman never actually mentions in his responses to Oechler's comments). Later, when discussing former British Chief-of-Staff Lord Hill- Norton, Oechler states that "Admiral Lord Hill-Norton is, as the way he's expressed it to me, quite furious with his inability to gain knowledge on these issues..." INMAN:- [Muffled acknowledgement] [Oechler's clarifying comments] It is important to note that, by his muffled acknowledgement, Admiral Inman appears to understand the dilemma here and recognises the inferred subject matter." So, even a "muffled acknowledgement" is used to support Oechler's belief in recovered alien technology ! Later on, their conversation reaches the heights of hyperbole when Oechler detects a "smile .. heard on tape" (page 212) whilst Oechler discusses the alleged "cultural dialogue"between humans and aliens ... And so this bizarre conversation continues, with neither man understanding what each other is talking about, until "Inman" tries to pass Oechler off onto his successor - Everett Hineman (allegedly the current Deputy Director of Science and Technology at the CIA HQ in Arlington, Virginia). Later Oechler even meets someone called Everett Hineman at CIA Headquarters, who makes a few pseudo-confirmatory remarks about Bob Lazar (another dubious character who claims to have worked on captured alien technology), but like Inman we have no proof that either man is really who they say they are and neither really have much to say about crashed saucers and pickled aliens. All this bizarre testimony is used in a strongly worded rebuttal to Jerold Johnson's superb review of the "Cosmic Journey" chapter in Good's previous book "Alien Liaison" in MUFON UFO Journal (issue 279, July 1991). Johnson tracked down this same "Admiral Inman" and learnt that "Inman" had thought he was discussing underwater craft with Oechler, not alien craft. Later, when challenged by "Dr Armen Victorian" and various other UFOlogists "Inman" (whoever he is) denies having confirmed the existence of extraterrestrial vehicles:- "Throughout 22 years of service in the intelligence community, I have never encountered any credible evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial or interplanetary entities, individuals, crafts, vehicles, or persons..." (page 221). He also denies having ever heard of the alleged MJ-12 group (page 220). Of course Oechler himself is an unusual person holding unusual views. He freely admits (a bit like Pat Delgado) to having an "unclassified employment with NASA". He alleges that his earlier involvement with the Barnum and Bailey travelling circus exhibition [which featured the "Cosmic Journey" Project of a "captured Extra-terrestrial/alien in a cryogenic tank"] was a project that he was asked to evaluate on behalf of NASA in order to consider the likely sociological consequences (something NASA, quite naturally, deny). Oechler even had a psychic "battle" with an alien that intruded into his brain in Dallas (where else?). To give an idea of how ridiculous this story is, even Dr Armen Victorian enters the fray, obtaining the following statement from "Inman":- "Having no prior knowledge of Mr Oechlers interest, I did not understand until well into his dialogue that his research was into Unidentified Flying Objects...". But Oechler comes back, dismissing Victorian as someone who will go to whatever extent necessary to discredit Timothy Good as a UFO researcher. Meanwhile, all the key CIA and NASA people mentioned in this article have denied speaking with Oechler, something Oechler freely admits to being baffled by. This is a fascinating argument that seems set to run and run until all the parties involved fall over from sheer exhaustion ! PF. Swangate Update 2 George Wingfield has had a letter published in the HUFON Report (June 1993 issue). He states "Well, golly, shucks, folks.. yes, indeed ! First we get Jim Schnabel telling Armen Victorian on the notorious tape that he's part of some great disinformation conspiracy involving the CIA, etc., and then hotly denying it in terms of hurt and outrage. Next we get Dan Smith hotly denying that he's part of some CIA- sponsored conspiracy (not that I ever accused him of that anyway) and then, in the same letter telling us about a great conspiracy (the Eschaton Conspiracy) in which the CIA group known as the Aviary -with which he appears to be closely associated - 'heavily disguised by its own surrealistic smoke screen ... functions best by amplifying people's own misconceptions about the paranormal.' That last bit sounds awfully like disinformation to me ! Well, I guess that I'm just a simple country boy who doesn't see the need for all this disinformation and deception and wishes someone would explain to me what's really going on. If Dan's end-of-the- world scenario is for real and is understood by certain departments of the US government, why can't they treat us as adults and tells us what the score is ? At the September, 1992, Conference on UFO Research in Springfield, Mo., I took strong issue with someone who suggested that the government was justified in covering up the truth about UFOs since the public might be 'unable to face it'. Whatever the truth might be, it should never be suppressed, I said, and this drew prolonged applause from the audience. In showing the photo of Rosemary seated next to 'the Pelican' at that CIA lunch in Arlington, Va., I'm not accusing her or Dan of any conspiratorial involvement. I was only trying to illustrate CIA interest in these matters at a time when certain people like Mr. Schnabel are trying to make out there is no CIA interest and spread disinformation to the effect that all the crop circles are man-made hoaxes. I'm delighted that Dan has attempted to clarify the position, though I suspect that most folk will be more puzzled than before. Anyway, thanks Dan, and thanks Aviary, for a most enjoyable and stimulating lunch ! Would someone now like to explain what this is all about ? I enjoyed Elaine Douglas' article on 'Is PSI TECH for real or just a new disinformation project?' In it, she refers to the Roswell episode as being something Dames calls 'brain wave entertainment'. Well, I know it might seem that way, but what he told me was 'mass brain-wave entrainment - the term he uses to describe an alien-induced mass illusion ! G.W." Other News We've received information about the "largest ever" crop circle - discovered in Samera (northern Spain) in September 1992. According to our sources the formation was approximately one mile across and consisted of five concentric rings (each 20-30 feet in width). The formation was discovered by an Englishman who videoed the formation from the air. The crop is unknown. Readers' Letters Dear Editor, I was surprised to see in CW16 the claim that the disappearance of the Royal Norfolks was a hoax. I can assure you that this is not so. They disappeared for the simple reason that they were all killed ! The facts are as follow. The 163rd Brigade consisting of the 1st/8th Hampshires, the 1st/5th Suffolks and the 1st/5th Royal Norfolks (not the 1st/4th) were ordered to take part in the attack on Tekke Tepe ridge. They advanced at 4.45 pm. Heavy casualties were suffered, but the Norfolks, under Col. Sir Horace Beauchamp, continued to push on before disappearing into thick mist. The Colonel, 16 officers, and about 250 men, were never seen alive again, although a few wounded managed to find their way back during the night. It was not until September 1919 that the mystery was solved, when the area was visited by a party of men from the British Graves Registration Unit. Their officers wrote in his report "We have found the Royal Norfolks, but can only identify two. The remains are scattered over about one square mile, about 800 yards behind the old Turkish front line". Obviously what had happened was that the Turks had not seen them in the mist and they must have penetrated a thinly held part of the Turkish line, only to be massacred by Turkish second line troops. The Turks, a fierce Islamic people, had refused to touch the Christian bodies, which they regarded as unclean, and four years of the climate and predators had reduced the, to practically nothing. I got the above information from "Gallipoli" by the military historian Capt. Eric Bush, D.S.O. Jenny Randles has since told me that the whole thing was also thoroughly explained by Paul Begg in Fortean Times, No 27 (Autumn 1978). The so-called mystery was also discredited by the UFO writer Harold Wilkins, writing in the 1950s, so Jenny tells me. How do these tales survive ? Best Wishes, Roy Sandbach, Stockport. PF: They survive because people want them to survive ! Dear Paul, I have a few comments about TCW16 (March/April 1993). Sorry mate but you'll have to do better than that 486 DX-33 you mentioned, as I have on order a 486 DX-50 with 16 Mb RAM and a 240 Mb hard disk, etc, etc. Pity I've no magazine to produce it on now ... but it should speed up my fractal generator, and what more could one ask ? Regarding the Wingfield/Schnabel/Irving/Henry saga - and this is meant kindly - if you take such a dim view of the affair, why not simply deny it "the oxygen of publicity" ? I'm sure George and Co will find plenty of other outlets for their views ... Actually, I hope you'll let me offer a few words in George's defence. George has always struck me as an honest person - somewhat inclined to obsessiveness, but that's a tendency shared by many of us (isn't it Paul?!). Speaking personally, I don't think George is deliberately trying to obscufate the crop circle scene. I do believe that there are people who have taken a cruel pleasure in misleading him - and others - when the opportunity has arisen. The last time I spoke to him (a few months ago), he seemed frustrated by the constant torrent of misinformation that was being directed his way and he was pretty fed up with it. I don't blame him. All he wants, like the rest of us, is to know what's really going on - and I think it would be foolish to dismiss out of hand the notion of some kind of governmental intervention. The case against such interference has not been proved - at least, not to my satisfaction. Yours paranoiacally, Bob Kingsley. Whitehill, Hampshire. PF: Actually Bob its impossible to prove a negative, but the onus of proof is surely on George to prove his case - afterall, I challenged George to publish proof of his allegations in two Crop Watchers but without reply. To many people this failure seems just further proof that the "disinformation" comes from George - not from some mythical government conspiracy. But as Peter Rendall said - if I was a Government Agent I would say that wouldn't I ! Comment on CW15: I was surprised you accepted for publication Andy Collins' article entitled "A Major Project to Test the Orgone Solution to earth Energy, Crop Circles and UFOs", and even more surprised that you accepted Alan Watson's article entitled "Some Notes on the 1990 Alton Barnes Pictogram". The former doesn't merit commenting on, but the latter is worth a few words. You will have probably already realised that Circle A ('Mercury') was not there originally, as the formation ended with the small off-line circle. He identifies in the formation the rings of Saturn, note also that 'Neptune' is ringed in the formation, but real-life Jupiter and Uranus are too. Every planet from Earth to Pluto inclusive has at least one moon, but the formation only has 'Neptune' with moons ! As for "some gravitational distortion on Jupiter", I ask by what -and if by the Sun, what about the remainder of the planets ? Oh, the Great Red Spot is now almost unanimously regarded as being ... of meteorological origin ! Why does Charon get 'represented' as a discrete circle while the other moons don't ? What is the significance of the second ring around "Pluto", and why has he included the track hammered out by visitors from 'Pluto' to '1992QB1' ? He's included '1992QB1' but why not the main asteroids (between Mars and Jupiter) and the many, many others on irregular orbits (mainly between Mercury and Saturn) ? On second thoughts, perhaps the article wasn't worth commenting on. Tell me its a joke - isn't it ?! PF: Actually I thought Alan Watson made some very fair points. Doug and Dave occasionally made mistakes when constructing circles so I've no doubt that the U.B.I. did too. Don't forget that both major groups consisted of people who were not always entirely sober whilst they were constructing circles - and of course we don't all have such an excellent understanding of the structure of our solar system. Perhaps the U.B.I. believe that their pictogram accurately represented the solar system ? Claude Mauge has written in to correct the following material published in CW16:- Case 013: 12.06.1730 at Alencon. Christine Peins (Les OVNI du passe, Verviers, Belgium, Nouvelles Editions, Marabout, 1977; 81-82) is very skeptical about the event:- - her investigation by the Orne Departement Public Record Office in Alencon discovered no mention of the affair nor of Inspector Liabeuf; - the case appeared firstly in the Italian magazine Clypeus, with no original reference; the author of the paper lived in Lybia since 1966 and his address was unknown; - Later, another search in the Orne Public Record Iffuce by its archivist again found no reference to the case (letter from Elisabeth Gautier-Desvaux to UFOlogist Patrice Cubeau, GRC INFO, no 1, June 1985: 3-4). Case 704- Oskar Linke case: The 1952 date for the case is a long- lasting myth in UFOlogy ! The real date is June 17, 1950. Some references giving it are: Ted Bloecher, "Herr Linke and the flying warming pan", MUFON UFO Journal, no 153, November 1980: 6-9. R.J. Stevens, "Une nuit de terreur a Kelly (1)", Inforespace no 48, November 1978: 30. Letter from O. Linke to Leon Davidson, November (?) 3, 1959. Personal communication by Jacques Bonabot, December 31, 1984 (he had at the time an extensive file on the sighting). Case 057. 04.09.53. Tonnerre (not Tennerre): These traces have nothing to do with crop circles. There were four well visible cylindrical imprints in the ground, with very hard soil. Case 662- 04.01.54, Marignane airport, Marseille: Although he gives no details, Michel Figuet [believes that] the case is a hoax (Michel Figuet and Jean-Louis Ruchon, OVNI: Le premier dossier complet des rencontres rapprochees en France, Nice, France: Alain Lefeuvre, 1979: 68). In any case, the "trace" consists of many metal pieces, not in effects on the vegetation. Case 097. 12.12.54, Campinas: As far as I can re-member, this case has nothing to do with crop circles. Some people consider that the material was not of earthly origin, but others that it was solder (see for instance Charles Maney in FSR vol 8 no 3). Claude Mauge, FIGEAC, France. Many thanks to Claude for putting me straight on these cases and for correcting my spelling mistakes. David Reynolds has written in to suggest that case 014 was a tornado, whilst the "Fire in the Sky" case can be explained by Travis Walton encountering an illuminated tornado which sucked him up into the air, centrifugued him (sounds fun doesn't it) and left him dazed with acute loss of memory. David admits that this is a solution based on limited information, but that it is "more likely than being abducted by aliens". Listen carefully and you'll hear Occam's Razor being sharpened by the Skeptics .... Dear Paul, I feel I should write and say what a very good evening I had at Doug Bower and Ken Browns' meeting in Marlborough on July 28th last. Since the Doug and Dave story broke, my initial reaction of annoyance has changed. Now I think that they have given us much, and we should be grateful ! Remember the excitement of those times, early in the season, wondering where the first circles would appear, and what new shapes the year would bring ? Well all is not lost ! A sizeable proportion of the people at Marlborough seemed determined to carry on, believing that aliens, UFOs or mystical earth energies are creating the circles. Just because Doug was unable to show a photo of Dave and himself actually making a formation, many claimed they could not prove they had done any of them ! Never let the truth get in the way of a good belief ! I find myself getting more and more cynical these days. So who was this Ken Brown who was "hogging" the stage so much ? Several people said it would have been better if Doug had done all the talking. Could it be that Ken was Doug's Minder (No ! No ! I wasn't suggesting an M.I.5 connection !). What intrigued me was the way Ken totally denied the existence of pre Doug and Dave (sharp-edged) circles, and demanded to be shown evidence. When you produced the Wokurna photos Paul I don't believe Ken even looked at them. I know I did not hear him comment on them. Which ever way you look at it, Doug and Daves' activities were quite bizarre and the whole subject is becoming more so. Well, now I must go and do some more work on my crop circle film. Its a Grasshopper Warbler production to be distributed by MBF. Suggested titles so far are "I'll be you if UBI" and "East of Meaden". In the scenario a CCCS girl falls in love with a Wessex Skeptic. They make love in a corn circle on the edge of Rendlesham Forest (we had a lot of trouble at this location when we set up our lights back in December 1980). I would welcome any suggestions for a title, plot or casting. Keep up the good work ! George Thorman, Trowbridge. How about "Life of Terence" or "The Search for the Holy Grail" ? PF. Ted Phillips Physical Trace Catalogue: Part III Case 153. May 24, 1962 ARGENTINA, La Pampa. Woman saw an object on the ground with two robot-like creatures. Grass singed in a circle 18 ft. wide. (FSR 10-62) Case 154. May 24, 1962. VENEZUELA, Ocumare, del Tuy. Diamond- shaped marks, scorched. (NICAP) Case 155. July 30, 1962. ARGENTINA, Bajeola Grande. Roberto Mievres, 17, was riding his motorcycle when a tall being appeared as the engine stalled. The being snatched the boy's scarf, the boy ran away and came back with a group of people. They found the scarf on the ground and discovered traces and observed an unknown object flying away. (VALEE III). [PF The evidence here rests a great deal on whether the group of people were known to the witness prior to the encounter and how long the witness had to fabricate the traces.] Case 488. November 21, 1963. ENGLAND, Sandling Estate [Kent]. Keith Croucher, 17, saw a solid oval light in the center of a golden mist crossing a football pitch. Two nights later, John McGoldrick and a friend went to Sandling Woods to investigate. "They found a vast expanse of bracken that had been flattened;" they also found three giant foot-prints, clearly defined, 1 inch deep, 2 foot long and 9 inches across. (The Humanoids). [PF. A very famous case. Does anyone know if it was ever exposed as a hoax ?] Case 164. December 27, 1963. ENGLAND, Epping. 16.00 Hrs. Pauline Abbott, a trainee riding instructor, saw on the ground a white object 8 foot long, 3 foot thick at the center, tapering to a point at both ends, glowing slightly. A window on one side glowed brighter than on the other. A "squelching noise" was heard as the object rose in a shallow climb and flew horizontally for 100 feet before it was hidden from view. Marks "like three large fingerprints pushed together into mud" were found, forming a square with 8 foot sides within an 11 foot circular depression which contained a 3 foot central circle. Grass was found flattened. These marks were only 150 foot away from the site of Case No 123, in 1958. (Vallee III and Eileen Buckle in "The Scoriton Mystery" via Fred Merritt). [PF Well following John Barrett's lecture at BUFORA's 25th birthday party I know that anything connected with the Scoriton mystery is probably a hoax.] Case 165. 1964. CANADA, Ballantrae, Ontario. Claus Slade and a friend found an area 50 foot in diameter cleared. At the outer edge of the circle [a ring, PF ?] the ground was seared to a crisp, leaving bits of charcoal. The outer circle [a ring ? PF] was about 3 foot wide. Five years later, no vegetation grows. Above the circle, tall 100 foot high oak trees still grow, but the branches which hung over the circle are dead. It is estimated [that] the time of the landing was June, 1964, as numerous UFOs were reported in that area. (UFORC) [PF, So just because "numerous" UFOs were reported in June the trace just HAD to be related, didn't it !] Case 166. 1964. U.S.A., West Unity, OHIO. Rings of sterile soil, located near a tree line and in the corners of a field. (Brent Raynes) Case 681. April 23, 1964. U.S.A., Rivesville, WV. Mrs Ivah Frederick observed a landed object for 15 minutes 600 foot away. It was a disc with dome, revolving clockwise and humming. A central la ding shaft was seen and a human-like figure 3 to 4 foot tall. Ascended vertically, 3 foot circular imprint found (shaft) and footprints 6 to 8 inches long with four toes. (NICAP). Press Release "May 24 1993 CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH UK-USA-CANADA- AUSTRALIA-BELGIUM Colin Andrews, author of the best-selling book "Circular Evidence", and formerly from Andover, is flying out of America on Tuesday (25th May) and will spend until 28th August in Hampshire and Wiltshire, UK, with the largest gathering of international scientists yet, to further investigate the Crop Circles [note capitals, PF]. He will fly to make presentations in a number of countries during the period, including Malta [now guess who he's going to meet there ! PF], Ireland, Iceland and the USA. The research project will include measuring the electrostatic field and the Magnetic field at sites in Hampshire and Wiltshire. Very secret projects involving well known mediums will also be undertaken and has [sic !] been planned by Scientists who discovered unusual markings and geometry on Mars [!!!!]. These findings were presented to the United Nations in New York during summer 1992, by Dick Hoagland - NASA consultant. Colin can update you further when he arrives in the UK. The following is a press statement just released by CPR International, in America. It relates to Colin Andrews' address to the United Nations, which has been officially announced for 21st October 1993 at UN headquarters in New York. Yours Sincerely, Synthia Ramsby - Director U.S.A. (for Colin Andrews). Mohammad Ramadan, president of the parapsychological group at the United Nations who recently sponsored Richard Hoagland's presentation to the U.N. on the Mission to Mars, met Colin Andrews at the United Nations building in New York several months ago. At the meeting, Mr Ramadan set Colin the almost impossible challenge of discovering the meaning behind the crop circles and ancient writings, the findings of which to be presented at the U.N. in October. Many front line research contacts have already been drawn up to assist in bringing together the vast data pool of information by research groups and governments around the world. Numerous governments have studied and collected information related to the UFO and crop circles. They have clearly found it difficult, if not impossible, to make any public statement on matters associated with both. Unusual patterns, assumed as writings (i.e. languages) have appeared in fields in the form of crop markings and have been scratched on metallic surfaces following alleged abduction cases. These etchings resemble markings on Sumarian Tablets and petroglyphs on stone and rocks in several parts of the world. The mammoth task is to try and place these together and see if there is a cohesive message. Those who claim extraterrestrial contact and communication with such through symbols are to be part of a four month blitz on the world's data bank. This may represent one of the first opportunities to bring major information regarding such events into the realm of the public through a non-political figure under the auspices of the U.N. Ultimately a situation of such immense proportion must certainly be addressed through the resources of this assemblage. Careful assessment of all the facts known to us will be studied before the presentation is given at the United Nations on 21st October. The presentation will be attended by delegates and U.N. officials and is open to the general public. For more information Mohammad Ramadan at the U.N., tel. (212) 963-6506. I intend to present the information at Reykjavik in Iceland on 3-7th November. For more information [contact number deleted, PF] " END OF PRESS RELEASE Well, if readers find this pack of lies amusing here are some more - according to the bibliography attached to an article by Andrews in "International UFO Library Magazine" (11684 Ventura Blvd, #708, Studio City, CA. 91604, U.S.A.) :- "Colin Andrews is one of the world's leading experts on the crop circle phenomenon. Co-found[er] of the Circles Phenomenon Research Group, his scientific investigations are responsible for much of the current information available on the subject. Andrews is a former senior officer in local government as Chief Electrical Engineer with the Test Valley Borough Council in West Hampshire, England. For three years Colin advised the British Government on the circles phenomenon, supplying technical and scientific reports to the Undersecretary of State for the Margaret Thatcher government. As a result of his persistence, the subject was raised in the House of Commons and, under Andrew's supervision, the largest surveillance project of its kind was co- ordinated with the British army to capture the formation of a circle on film. Colin Andrew became involved in the circle phenomenon in 1983 when he saw an arrangement of five circles in a natural amphitheatre. Intrigued by the engineering aspects of creating the circles, he began investigations with Pat Delgado, a retired NASA engineer. In 1989, they co-authored "Circular Evidence", the first book written on the subject. This was followed by their equally successful book "Crop Circles, The Latest Evidence" in 1990." Editorial Comments Perhaps we should offer a prize to the reader who detects the highest number of falsehoods in this outrageous trash ! Readers will already know from reading Jim Schnabel's "Round in Circles" that Colin Andrews was NOT a "senior officer" at Test Valley Borough Council. Nor was he the "Chief Electrical Engineer". According to legal correspondence in my possession he was the "Technical Support Services Officer" not the "Chief Electrical Engineer". In 1990 his boss, a Mr Orchard, was deputy to Mr Burvil - the Director of Test Valley Borough Council Technical Services Department (a proper Chief Officer Colin). Thus Mr Andrews was two stages removed from a Chief Officer position. We have also been informed by Gary Kandinsky - a District Auditor - that at one stage Colin Andrews was actually a storeman. Next Mr Andrews claims that he "advised the British Government on the circles phenomenon, supplying technical and scientific reports to the Undersecretary of State for the Margaret Thatcher Government". This too is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts by Mr Andrews. We accept that Mr Andrews may well have supplied reports to the then Environment Minister Nicholas Ridley, but we believe he was never officially requested to supply reports to the Ministry and no evidence has ever been produced which proves that Nicholas Ridley read Andrews' submissions. Mr Andrews goes on to claim that "as a result of his persistence, the subject was raised in the House of Commons". This is simply a lie, for it was in response to questions from myself and Jenny Randles that questions were asked in the Commons by Sir Teddy Taylor (Con, Southend) and Michael Colvin (Con, Romsey and Waterside). Andrews had nothing whatsoever to do with these questions. Lastly Andrews claims that he began investigating crop circles in 1983 and that "Circular Evidence" was the "first book written on the subject". Both of these claims are also untrue - Colin Andrews did not begin regularly visiting crop circles until 1986 (he has never published proof of his alleged visit to crop circles in 1983) and the honour for writing the first book about crop circles goes to BUFORA - for their 1986 report "Mystery of the Circles". Every now and then I receive a letter from someone challenging me as to why I write so vitriolically about certain well known crop circle researchers. Perhaps these same people can explain what I am supposed to do when leading crop circle personalities just lie and lie and lie again to get their name in the papers. Am I really supposed to just sit back and let them get on with it ? MJ-12 News According to the Skeptics UFO Newsletter (published by Philip Klass, 404 'N' St. Southwest, Washington D.C. 20024) "Nearly six years after William L. Moore, Stanton T. Friedman and Jamie Shandera released the famous "Top Secret/Eyes Only" MJ-12 papers, which seemingly showed the U.S. Government had recovered two crashed saucers from New Mexico, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force has officially designated and stamped them: "NOT AN OFFICIAL USAF DOCUMENT, NOT CLASSIFIED, SUSPECTED FORGERY OR BOGUS DOCUMENT." The same stamp has been applied to other bogus documents, referred to as "Aquarius" and "Snowbird", which began to circulate even before MJ-12 was released. The reason it took so long is because only the agency which originates a classified document has the authority to declassify it. CIA, NSA or the National Security Council, none of these agencies felt it had the authority to act, or sufficient interest. Finally, Col. Richard L. Weaver, Deputy for Security and Investigative Programmes in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, decided to bite the MJ-12 bullet and buy an appropriate rubber stamp. When UFO magazine contacted Moore for his reactions, he reportedly responded:- "Since the MJ-12 documents are not Air Force, Colonel Weaver cannot label the documents as forgeries". The Thin Reaper A Report on the Crop Circle Making Demonstration given by Jim Schnabel at Pentlow, Nr. Sudbury, Suffolk, on July 3rd, 1993. by Anthea Holland. C.C.C.S. It was a hot, do-nothing kind of day. A day in which dogs panted on porches and cats languished on garden walls. A day in which Jim Schnabel cavorted in a corn field. Well, not cavorted, exactly. In fact he struggled under a hot summer sun and strained against the handle of a garden roller in an effort to make a crop formation worthy of a professional hoaxer. The day had been organised by Montague Keen, agronomist for the CCCS. Jim Schnabel, at a talk to the Essex Crop Circle Studies Group, had been asked (or was it challenged?) by Monty to visit his farm in Pentlow, Suffolk, and create a formation which could then be studied by the experts. The names of those gathered expectantly to await Schnabel's arrival were synonymous with the crop circle world: Busty Taylor, pilot and photographer, one of the "originals"; Lucy Pringle, "Human Effects" expert and CCCS council member; Stanley Morcom and his wife, Suzy, both familiar faces where crop-circlers are gathered together; Jo Holland and Una Dawood, both well known to all those circle enthusiasts who descend on Beckhampton from spring to autumn, and last, but not least, a character known as "Bill Bailey", another (in)famous figure in the Circlefaking world. Schnabel arrived late, and who could blame him ? The later the start, the further the sun from its zenith and the less uncomfortable his job would be. Or could it have been because (as someone suggested) a late arrival creates a more dramatic entrance ? Schnabel had previously announced that he would probably attempt a similar formation to last year's Silbury Hill "charm bracelet" and some people had taken this to mean that he intended to create a replica. Their disappointment when he said that this was not his intention was obvious and seemed, to some, to prove their theory that Schnabel's claims to have created the "charm bracelet" were false. Armed with a small rucksack, a few white tubular posts and a plastic garden roller (which, surprisingly enough, did not melt in the heat) Schnabel entered the field, climbed to the brow of the hill and began his work. Peter Sorenson, armed with video recorder, accompanied Schnabel throughout the day and recorded dutifully his every move. The view from the lawned area where most of us sat was poor, and we contented ourselves with general discussions and chat. There was, however, a tubular framed viewing/video platform, from which a much better view could be obtained. From the ground it was possible to see the crab-like movements used by Schnabel as he formed the thin circle which was to link the various "charms", and it was interesting to note how many times he took the diagram of his planned creation from his pocket to check on his next course of action. (A point to note - this would probably need a torch in the hours of darkness !). Throughout the day it became apparent that the "audience" was made up of a real cross section of Circle Watchers. There were some who thought that all crop circles may be man-made but felt that that in itself constituted a phenomenon; others who believed that although some were man made there were still a large number formed by other means; and some present obviously believed that all crop circles were created by outside forces and seemed totally unprepared to believe the claims of any who professed to have been instrumental in creating any of them at all. This latter group hardly deserved to be referred to as "investigators" as their tunnel vision must prevent them from accepting any evidence contrary to their personal beliefs. Indeed, one of them was overheard to express the desire that she hoped the real circle makers were watching and would strike Schnabel down. In the course of the afternoon we were kept refreshed with cold drinks and, later, cups of tea. Meanwhile, "Bill Bailey" bemoaned his lack of fame and showed snapshots of impressive formations in Northamp-tonshire which he claims to be the creation of his team. Presumably he was hoping to pick up (or maybe pass on ?) a few tips. It was early evening but still swelteringly hot, when Schnabel made his way from the field, his boyish, normally pale face red with exertion and the sun. By this time we had already been informed by those on the viewing platform that the formation included a garden roller and a UFO and we eagerly made our way up the tramlines and into this new formation. At first sight, it could only be described as "rough". However, it must be remembered that the crop was still green and was over six weeks earlier than the crop at Silbury Hill when the "charm bracelet" was formed last year. There was some evidence of layering but little more than would occur naturally, and a bunch of flattened crop had fallen across the standing corn - an event which would, in normal investigation, point to a hoax. There were some right angled turns, not common in formations, in which the corn had been forced to follow the angle and had subsequently broken. The white, dust-like substance found on the stalk of the corn was obliterated in places, presumably where it had been trodden on, but further investigation showed it also to be missing from some of the undisturbed corn. Before heading off for a, no doubt, welcome shower, Jim answered a few questions, mainly put to him by Grant Wakefield (keeper of the much worshipped "East Field" at Alton Barnes). Things got a little heated until Montague Keen intervened, pointing out to Wakefield that the afternoon was "not a confrontation". Wakefield reluctantly backed off and Montague Keen hustled Schnabel away. In this investigator's view the day provided a wonderful opportunity to bask in the sun and enjoy the company. The experiment, though interesting, was inconclusive, proving only, to me at least, that yes, Jim Schnabel may have hoaxed the events to which he lays claim, particularly given more time (he had spent only three and a half hours in the field on this occasion), less pressure and one or two willing helpers. Anthea Holland, Clacton-on-Sea. Then Came Ken Brown A Study of the Cheesefoot Head Pictograms by Matthew Lawrence I first became interested in crop circles in 1986 when my father and I were driving back from Petersfield one evening along the A272 and through the Cheesefoot Head area. Passing the car park and looking down into the now famous Devils Punch Bowl I was amazed to see two flattened, ringed depressions in the cornfield below us. We stopped the car and took several photos before returning home. The impression this left in my mind at the tender age of 14 was incredible, so much so that I knew I wanted to get more involved with the phenomenon in the future, but it wasn't until four years later, when I had passed my driving test, that I got the chance to investigate the subject in any depth. In my eagerness to see the circles when they were fresh and not damaged by admirers, I started to visit Cheesefoot Head first thing in the morning from around the beginning of May 1990, just before going to College in Winchester. It was on these morning runs that I started to meet all the main researchers who were doing similar sorties around this area. These included Richard Andrews, Busty Taylor and George Wingfield, but it wasn't until the appearance of the first circle in the Punch Bowl that I met Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews. I found this circle very impressive and wanted to go down into the field to get a closer look, but Pat and Colin advised me against this, warning that the land owner would not welcome my presence. I took their advice and visited the circle at night and under the cover of darkness measured the circle with my good friend Nigel Beckett. A few days later I decided to show a few of my other friends the giant Doughnut circle and was driving up the road from the Percy Hobbs pub when we noticed a massive crowd of people standing by the side of the road at Chilcomb Farm. Pulling up behind a BBC film crew's van we ran up to the boundary fence to see what all the fuss was about. Looking over we could hardly believe our eyes - there was an amazing pattern in the field, and unlike any previous ones this one had pathways and boxes ! Our first impressions were "its got to be man-made", but my thoughts were changed when Pat Delgado later walked out from inside the circle and proclaimed it "genuine". I have great respect for Pat and his judgement of the circles, after all he's been researching them longer than almost anyone else in the business. After all the fuss had died down Nigel and myself started to measure and observe the formation. We noticed a few odd details. Between the boxes and central path were a few bent stems of crop which seemed to show where someone had walked into each box. We ignored these putting them down to all the people who were visiting the circle. Another thing we noticed was that each box measured four feet in width and had a strip of crop running down one edge in the opposite direction of flow to the rest of the box. Just as we were about to leave the formation an old fellow with a 'cine 8' camera walked in filming. His name was Doug Bower and he said he was a sound recordist of wildlife and had spotted the pattern from the road. After chatting about crop circles in general and asking us what we thought had caused this pattern he drove off and left us. This was May 23rd, the same day that the formation had been discovered. On 24th May Pat Delgado rang to inform me of a new circle at Morestead, near Cheesefoot Head. Nigel and myself visited the circle later that day and it was here that Nigel discovered some underlays of corn coming from the tramlines to the circle centre and back out from the centre to the edge of the circle underneath the main flow of corn. We both accepted these as part and parcel of a genuine circle as we had heard them mentioned briefly by the "experts". Over the next few months I discovered several circles in the Cheesefoot Head area and found similar dimension correlations involving four foot pathways and rings and similar ring and box spacings and underlays. I also met Doug Bower and his friend Dave Chorley on numerous occasions. They had the canny knack of showing up just after the circles had appeared - give or take a day or two. On one occasion I visited Cheesefoot Head at approximately 11.00 pm. to measure up some recent formations and to my surprise found Doug and Dave near the Punchbowl. When I told them I had come to measure some circles in the dark due to problems with land owners they wished me luck and departed after talking to me for half an hour or so about tales of UFOs that people had related to them in connection with the circles. Through my involvement in the crop circle scene, Nigel and myself became members of a local group called the Cheesefoot Head Monitoring Group - a silly name as only Nigel and I seemed to go up there on a regular basis ! I found the views in this group interesting but realised that they really only wanted to talk about UFOs and "cover-ups". It was only when Ken Brown joined the group in late 1990 that I found someone who I could relate to in terms of their views about the phenomenon. As far as I was concerned he brought in some northern down-to-earth thinking and sanity that the group needed to keep its feet on the ground. 1991 started with a bang at Cheesefoot Head with the second "laddergram" of the year on Chilcomb Down fields. I discovered this formation at approximately 6.00 am on 7 June and was almost certainly the first to enter it due to heavy rain and mist keeping people from firstly, seeing it very easily and secondly, getting soaked by entering the field. After taking a few photographs outside the pattern I walked into the large ring and was surprised at what I found. There was a very obvious "stepping" effect around the edges of the circles and rings and also several broken stems especially around the edges and centres, but most of all in the ladder section which, although complicated in flow directions, was quite rough in places (not "undamaged" as told by the "experts"). I also noted that the magic four foot dimensions were present in all pathways and indeed some of the circles seemed to have multiples of four as their dimensions, but not always. Mud was also on the surface of some of the crop. I brought up this dimension consistency on numerous occasions at crop circle meetings but seemed to be wasting my time as everyone else had gone metric and had not noticed ! So I decided that the "circle makers" used Imperial dimensions; that was the extent of my theory. Then came Ken Brown. Ken had also noticed the underlays and consistencies that I had found, but by the end of 1991 - just days before Doug and Dave went public - Ken had formulated a much more terminal theory from the same evidence, so by the time the Doug and Dave story broke he was 100 per cent sure they were telling the truth, and after I had seen the research Ken had done into their story, so was I. The fact that I had seen them up there on so many occasions just after circles had formed was almost enough to convince me alone. The nail in the coffin was the second "flower" pattern at Cheesefoot Head. I studied Technical Drawing to "A" Level and knew straight away when I saw this flower pattern how it had been constructed and what a "cock-up" had been made of it. With the radius dimension being measured incorrectly the creators had stepped the distance around the circumference of the circle and discovered that the points did not meet where they should have done, thus creating thin arcs between several petals. This formation also had the characteristic stepping effect on its rings and "signatures" and also several underlays for which Ken has a detailed model. So it appears that Doug and Dave are telling the truth about the circles in the Cheesefoot Head area. As far as circles in other areas I cannot comment as it doesn't look that good for any other pictograms wherever they may be. As for plain circles, if they have underlays or stepped patterns I would be very suspicious of human origin. Do "genuine" crop circles exist ? We may never find out. Matthew J. Lawrence, Winchester Crop Circles in 1993 OK folks I have to confess that for the first time since 1985 I've managed to go through the whole of a summer without visiting any crop circles ! However, my network of spies and informants have sent me all the following cases:- (1) There are plenty of large formations in Wiltshire and I've had lots of calls about one large formation seen near the A34 junction with the M4. (2) There have been rum goings-on at Codecote near Welwyn Garden City in Hertfordshire. There is a field with several circles, a triangle plus multiple rings, UFO sightings and all kinds of odd goings on. These circles have been reported to The Crop Watcher by Marcus Parades and have been publicised by the "Welwyn and Hatfield Times". (3) On my way up to the IUN Conference in Sheffield on August 13th I noticed a large circle in wheat (?) in full view of the M1 motorway. According to Chris Haighton of Wakefield this was at OSGR 452632 and was about 50 feet across. (4) Bob Kingsley and others have told me about numerous pictograms appearing close to the M25 and other motorways. Perhaps we have some long distance lorry drivers involved in hoaxing ? (5) According to TODAY newspaper (August 6th) a giant "porn circle" has appeared near Chequers - John Major's country residence. This Penis was two hundred feet long and was literally in the field next to Chequers itself (a subtle political comment perhaps ?). According to TODAY a spokesperson at Downing Street doubted whether John Major had seen this "thing" and that she "stiffly" doubted that he might be amused. Perhaps someone in the Amersham group (see CW10) read Clive Potter's article in CW13 ? According to the Bucks Free Press (9 July) a large face has appeared in stages in a field owned by Don Jarvis at Bury Farm, Amersham. The face has a mouth, nose, two eyes and two ears. This is the farm where the Amersham Group were caught red handed last year. (6) Various circles appeared near Weymouth in Dorset just as I was on holiday there in mid June ! Jo-Anne Wilder reported seeing circles at Maiden Castle near Dorchester that same week. (7) There is a pictogram shaped like a large wheel at Goodworth Clatford which (according to the infallible Andover Advertiser of 13 July) appeared on July 1st. Apparently "The yearly phenomenon is back, bringing with it groups of experts, religious fanatics and a language all of its own". (8) There have been at least three formations in Northamptonshire. The "Kettering Evening Telegraph" (the E.T.) of 6 August describes circles at Irchester, Burton Latimer and Slipton. Expert Chris Bird is quoted dismissing "many" circles as "pure hoaxes". All three are singles ranging from 40 foot to 59 feet in diameter. (9) Clas Svahn has rung me from Sweden to tell me about the six formations appeared there in mid August. One was definitely known to be a hoax whilst four others were suspected hoaxes. I'll hold back on details about the sixth formation as their are some interesting features of this case which are still being investigated. These circles all received massive media coverage in Sweden. (10) Jenny Randles tells me that the first circle to attract widespread publicity in Northern Ireland appeared at St Patrick's Hill near Drummock in County Antrim in a barley field. Eight days previously an orange/red light was seen in the early hours of the morning in the same area. (11) Ian McCormack of Leyton in Lancashire has sent me photographs of a single that appeared at Walton Hall farm, Walton Le Dale, Preston, OSGR 553283 sometime before July 7th. Ian contacted the farmer but wasn't allowed access as the farmer believed that the circle had been made by employees at a local cinema. Ian considers this a little unlikely as the circle is actually invisible from the cinema, although it is located only 60 feet into a field adjacent to one of the busiest roads into Preston. The circle is in a field of ripe barley and is only the fifth Lancashire circle to be added to the CERES database. Our thanks to Ian for sending this information. (12) There is an intriguing new crop circle video that was first shown at the Sheffield IUN Conference. It shows a series of flashing lights at Urchfont south east of Devizes. The film was shot at night and there is a good deal of camera shake. However, during the film you can see cars passing by which gives some degree of scale. If I wasn't such a huge evil skeptic I'd say these were disco lights set up by the U.B.I. - they were seen by CERES' Peter Rendall at this location during 1992. (13) Andy Collins' Orgone '93 Project has produced some very interesting results, eg anomalous objects recorded on Infra Red film, unusual VLF signals and anomalous fluctuations in background radiation counts. Jenny and I await the publication of a full report on these commendable experiments with great interest. For a copy of a preliminary newsletter describing this work write to ABC Books, PO Box 189, Leigh-on- Sea, Essex SS9 1NF or ABC Books, St Aldhelm, 20 Paul Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DX. Magazine News GEM is out with an entirely new format. Issue 16 costs # 2.00 for 40 excellent pages containing more on John Michell's interesting retirement from cereology, a review of Jim Schnabel's book "Round in Circles" and a review of the Doug Bower's meeting in Marlborough. Also includes reprints of John Michell's article in The Oldie and Meaden in J.Met. Excellent value for money. Write to PO Box 258, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL53 0ET. The August 1993 issue of MUFON UFO Journal carries full reports on Project Argus by Michael Chorost and Ralph Noyes (on "luminosities") plus a comparison of British and Canadian crop circles by Chad Deetken. Write to 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099, USA. The Southampton UFO Group Newsletter contains more crop circle info plus a list of formations at Hogs Back, Oadby, Herne Bay, Meon, Avebury, Cherhill, Cheesefoot and Warminster. Write to Steve Gerrard, 25 Weston Grove Road, Southampton, SO2 9EE. According to the "Southern Evening Echo" of August 20th Richard Andrews apparently claims that the formations at Cheesefoot Head are "genuine". Of course they are Richard... Fortean Times no 70 has an alternative review of Jim Schnabel's "Round in Circles" but little else on crop circles. Probably a wise decision Bob ! Rumours and Rumours of Rumours Jenny Randles works for MBF Services near Marlborough, her treachery will not go un-noticed ... George Wingfield has been seen at Another Waggon and Horses, he was not amused ... The Greatest Conspiracy in British UFO History has been put into Action ... Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World TV documentary has been saved and extended ... Ken Rogers has left the UFO scene for good Advertisments Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved has been completely updated and republished in a second edition. Available from Robert Hale Ltd, Clerkenwell House, Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R 0HT, price # 7.99. Contains previously unpublished photographs of the Wokurna (1973), Bordertown (1973) and Rossburn (1977) circles, along with numerous historical cases, new eye witness testimony and a detailed account of the crop circle crash of 1991-1993. Get it please, Jenny and I had to accept reduced royalties to get this evidence into the public domain. Thanks ! The Crop Watcher is an independent non-profit-making magazine devoted to the scientific study of crop circles and the social mythology that accompanies them. All articles are copyright to the authors and should not be reproduced without obtaining written permission from the authors. Articles appearing in The Crop Watcher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or other contributors. Readers are welcome to submit articles for publication. Offers of exchange magazines are always welcome. Subscriptions The Crop Watcher is published six times a year and costs # 1.50 to UK subscribers and # 2.50 to overseas subscribers. A full year's subscription costs # 9.00 for UK subscribers and # 15.00 for overseas subscribers. Please make cheques payable to "Paul Fuller" not "The Crop Watcher". Overseas subscribers should not send cheques drawn on overseas banks as these attract a commission of about # 10.00 each. Subscriptions can be sent via an International Money Order. All correspondence should be sent to 3, Selborne Court, Tavistock Close, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 7TY.