From: "William Sawyers" <wsawers@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:50:01 +1300
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:28:40 -0500
Subject: Crop Circles: Hoaxes? 1/3

Please excuse me if I am wasting bandwidth but I hadn't seen this, so just
in case newer members havent seen it either I post it (again?). Rather sad
eh that most if not all CC are hoaxes? Especially for Colin Andrews and his
dowsing.

William Sawers
"The Truth is ....Hidden!" (sometimes)

The Crop Watcher
Number 23  Autumn 1994

Editorial

First let me begin by apologising yet again for the unacceptable
lateness of this issue. The reason for this delay is quite
simple. Regular readers will know that in August I visited the
National Monument Record in Swindon to see if I could find any
evidence of historical crop circles in the aerial photographic
archive. To my pleasant surprise I did find something important,
but unfortunately I have faced a succession of frustrating
problems in evaluating this important evidence. To begin with, it
took three attempts and six weeks for my local photographic shop
to enlarge the wrong parts of the photograph. Then I had to
contact some aerial archaeologists to gain their professional
opinion on what I had found. One archaeologist promised he would
respond by mid November but unfortunately his workload prevented
him from doing so. I have therefore decided to hold this article
back to my next issue, something I should have done in October. I
am very sorry for this and can assure readers that it won't
happen again. Hopefully issue 24 will be ready for printing by
late January.

At this stage I must emphasise that the value of the photographic
evidence I have discovered hangs very much in the balance. One
aerial archaeologist who has inspected the print is convinced
that the circular traces are all archaeological in origin.
However, two other archeologists disagree. You'll have to wait
and see before deciding for yourselves !

Now onto more important things.

Wiltshire Crop Rings
in the 1920s

The following article appeared in the Reading-Evening Post on
August 4th 1994 :-

"Corn Fairies played tricks in the 1920s

Crop circles have been around for at least 100 years, according
to a Reading woman. The claim comes after circles were discovered
recently on a farmer's field at Ipsden near Reading. Constance
Wheeler, 78, of [address deleted], remembers the mysterious
patterns being discovered in the 1920s when she lived in
Wiltshire. This contradicts the belief repeated in the media that
they started appearing about a decade ago. But Mrs Wheeler said
they were known as fairy circles at the time because no one knew
who made them.

She said 'I was eight years old when I first heard of fairy
circles. My uncle, Teddy Lawes, came into tea laughing. It was a
Thursday market day and he had been with his farmer friends at
the Bear Hotel in Devizes market place. There they had met a
farmer who had been swearing like a trooper because he had found
four big circles and some small ones in his corn'. The farmer was
shouting what he would do with the person who had made them. But
Mr Lawes told him jokingly he would never catch them because the
fairies had made them. He explained that he had seen a spate of
them 20 years previously and his family had tried to make the
corn stand up again but could not. Mrs Wheeler said 'I do not
know what causes corn circles. I do not believe in fairies myself
but I believe the circles existed 70, even 100, years ago'."
(courtesy, Reading Evening Post).

This superb account immediately suggests parallels with the
numerous other claims of historical crop circles which have been
published in the literature. To take just one example compare
this account with the claim published by Andy Collins in The
Circlemakers (pages 104-5). As a child of six Gwen Horrigan
recalls seeing "fairy rings" at Whitequarry Hill near Kingham on
the Oxfordshire/Gloucest-ershire border during the early years of
the Second World War (page 104-5). The circles were up to 50 feet
in diameter and exhibited swirl patterns and sharp cut-off edges.
The Kingham circles were associated by local people with fairy
lights seen in a local wood, which was said to be frequented by a
witches coven. In 1960, less than 3 kms from this location, two
concentric rings were found on Bill Edward's farm at nearby
Evenlode.

It seems significant that both these cases involved circles which
were described as "fairy rings" but which did NOT involve fungal
growths. In both cases the witnesses were emphatic that they were
describing flattened corn laid down in circles or rings. In both
cases the witnesses describe the fact that the crop was pressed
down very firmly - something which other witnesses to historical
crop circles have mentioned in their accounts. Bob Rickard and
Andy Collins have both wondered whether circular fungal growths
and crop circles have both been lumped together into one common
folklore motif - the fairy ring. Doug Bower's admission on
Cropcircle Communique II that natural lodging can frequently look
very much like the crop circles he and Dave Chorley began making
in the mid 1970s again lends credence to the idea that we have a
masking effect, one which might be capable of obscuring the
existence of the rare crop circles which have been reported by
numerous  people who have come forward to report historical
cases. For the official Skeptics the existence of this most
unwelcome evidence continues to be brushed aside as irrelevant.

This is one of the primary reasons why The Crop Watcher exists -
to continue researching and publishing evidence which other
researchers seem so uncomfortable with.

On November 26th 1994 I visited Constance Wheeler to find out
more about this important historical case. Constance was born in
1916 and lived until she was 11 with her two uncles, Edward and
William Lawes, and her two aunts, Kathleen and Margaret Lawes, at
Craven House in Devizes. Her mother had secret aspirations to
become a teacher and, with the help of a local clergyman, she
secretly took a correspondence course at Reading University.
Eventually she passed her exams and went to live and teach at the
Pigott School at Wargrave near Reading. In those days it was
almost unheard of for young women from rural farming communities
to leave home and work elsewhere. In 1918 Constance was sent to
live with her uncles and aunts when her brother was born.
Originally it was intended that she should only stay for three
weeks but her uncles and aunts had no children of their own and
doted on her. They pleaded with Constance's mother to allow her
to stay a little longer, and as this seemed to suit everyone
concerned, the arrangement continued.

Constance's uncle "Teddy" Lawes was an important figure in the
Devizes area in the 1920s and 1930s. He was an auctioneer at
Devizes market place as well as an estate agent and a property
valuer. He was in partnership with Harry Ferris and must have
been an imposing figure, weighing in at 17 stone. During the
depression years Teddy Lawes valued many farms which went
bankrupt in the Devizes area.

Constance was probably eight years old when the corn circles
appeared. This dates the event to August  1924 (during the school
holidays). Unfortunately although Constance was fascinated when
she learnt of the appearance of the circles, her intention to
visit them was thwarted by a great storm which lashed down the
crop and destroyed most of the evidence. For this reason
Constance never saw the corn circles herself, but it is clear
from her story that her two aunts and uncles did. Unfortunately
they are no longer alive to question, but Constance recalled with
great clarity the events of that summer as this was the first
time she had ever heard of "fairy" circles. She particularly
remembers asking her Aunt Kathleen about the circles. Apparently
Aunty Kathleen replied that "We haven't heard of these (circles)
for years".

The circles appeared at Great Cheverell - within a couple of
miles of Melvyn Bell's 1983 observation of a whirlwind creating a
corn circle - and the precise location was probably on a farm
owned by a Mr Shepherd. Unfortunately the Reading Evening Post
article confuses Constance's description of the 1924 event with
an earlier event recalled by her Aunty Kathleen (see below) but
Constance recalls quite clearly that her uncles and aunts
examined two quite large rings in an unknown crop (probably
wheat). Like many modern circles the heads of the crop were
undamaged and there was no indication that the rings were
man-made. Unfortunately Constance does not recall any mention of
how sharply defined the rings were but she was adamant that
according to her aunts all the crop pointed in one direction.

I questioned Constance very carefully about how her relatives
tried to rationalise the "fairy circles". According to her uncles
and aunts, no one knew how the rings were made and it was a
complete mystery to everyone in the local community. By contrast
the farmer, Mr Shepherd, was convinced that the rings were made
by vandals and - as the Reading Evening Post article suggests -
he was very angry and knew exactly what he would do if he caught
them ! Apparently no one ever came under suspicion for having
made the circles and no prosecutions were ever bought. According
to Constance Wheeler Teddy Lawes did consider it possible that
the rings were made by a whirlwind but this was no more than a
guess.

Unfortunately the Reading Evening Post article mistakenly
attributes the "fairy ring" explanation to Constance's uncle,
Teddy Lawes. However, the claim had actually been made by an
Irish tinker who had briefly worked in the district. His
suggestion that Shepherd would never catch the fairies who made
the circles on his land was treated as a joke by everyone
concerned.

I questioned Constance carefully about some of the claims that
have been made about rural superstitions which have been linked
by some writers with the crop circle phenomenon. She recalls
nothing to support the claim that crop circles were believed to
be dangerous to enter or were associated with the Devil. In her
opinion they were just viewed as an unusual local mystery.

The Earlier Crop Circles

As a child of eight Constance was naturally very curious about
the crop rings and she eagerly pressed her aunts and uncles for
more information about the fairy circles they recalled from
earlier years. This earlier event took place some twenty years
previously - around the turn of the century - and is also
referred to in the Reading Evening Post article. This event
occurred on Constance's grandfather's farm - known to the family
as Lawes' Farm, but which was was also called Cornbury Farm. This
farm is still located near Tilshead in the middle of Salisbury
Plain and retains its name to this date (OSGR SU 005499). The
earlier event involved six rings in wheat which almost touched
eachother. Constance recalled her aunt's description of the crop
being laid down "in perfect rings" which looked as though they
had been "made by a compass" - exactly the same description used
by John Llewellyn to describe the double rings he saw at
Evenlode, Gloucestershire, in June 1960. The rings were laid out
in a line and the four larger rings were adjacent to eachother at
one end of the formation.

Cornbury Farm is only four miles south of Great Cheverell and is
surrounded by the rolling downland of Salisbury Plain. The
Cornbury Farm rings were not as big as those which featured in
the 1924 event but were as big as a room - perhaps 15 feet or
more in diameter. Constance's aunt recalls that they tried to
lift the fallen wheat with walking sticks and umbrellas but it
had been flattened so hard that whenever the crop was lifted it
flopped down again.
Constance moved to Reading during the 1930s and for many years
was employed as a civil servant in the Ministry of Works at
Whiteknights Park, Reading.
Assessment

Constance Wheeler told her story to the Reading Evening Post
because although she didn't know what caused the circles recalled
from her childhood she wanted to contradict media claims that
corn circles first appeared about a decade ago. It seems quite
astonishing in the light of numerous repeated consistent claims
like this that the official Skeptics continue to claim that crop
circles are "new" and have no reliable historical precedents. It
seems even more astonishing that the same motifs - the
association of the circles with the fairy folk - should arise in
both the Gwen Horrigan case and the Constance Wheeler case. With
coincidences like this we are surely dealing with consistent
accounts of a rare natural phenomenon. In the 1920s life in rural
England was hard and it would have been unlikely that locals
would have made crop circles for a game. It is important to
remember that both these events occurred many years before the
invention of the flying saucer mythology in 1947 so if, for sake
of argument, these events were both the product of hoaxers, the
only supernatural mythology available to them would have been the
Irish tinker's "fairy" rings.

Looking through the UFO Research Manitoba database there are
several historical accounts of multiple ring formations dating
back to the 1960s which are comparable to the earlier account by
Constance Wheeler. In 1967 seven flattened rings appeared in a
grass field at Duhamel, Alberta (Canada) . The rings were 10
metres in diameter and 15 cms wide. That same year six concentric
rings were discovered in a wheat field at Willen, Manitoba
(Canada). The rings were 3.9 metres in diameter and nearly 2
metres wide. In 1974 seven flattened rings were discovered at
Langenburg, Saskatchewan, in a field of grass. The rings varied
between 3 and 4 metres in diameter and were 46 cms wide. Readers
will recall that this was the controversial UFO case discussed in
CW15 and IUR volume 17 no 2.

Both the earlier case and the 1924 case discussed above formed on
or near rolling downland - one of the prerequisites for Meaden's
atmospheric vortex theory. The 1924 event took place 36 years
before an eye witness claims that he saw a crop circle being
created by a whirlwind on a hot summers afternoon only a few
miles away. It is known that under stable atmospheric conditions
natural ring-shaped vortices can form which would be perfectly
capable of creating the phenomena described by Constance
Wheeler's relatives, particularly if they were located close to
hillslopes. It seems clear that these are excellent candidates
for an atmospheric explanation, although it has to be accepted
that the involvement of six almost-touching rings in the earlier
case begs important questions about how multiple ring vortices
can be generated at the same time. Our thanks go to Constance for
her courage in coming forward with this important account.


Dr W.C. Levengood, John A. Burke, Lab Report No 18, the FE3
Project and the H-Glaze Report

Yet another major controversy has hit the troubled world of
"cereology" with the publication of the H-Glaze Report by Dr W.C.
Levengood and his co-worker John A. Burke, in the United States.
Readers will already know from lengthy articles in The
Cerealogist and The Circular about the controversial work being
conducted by Dr W.C. Levengood and John A. Burke at Pinelandia
Biophysical Laboratories (an impressive sounding name, but in
fact merely a laboratory attached to Dr Levengood's private
address). Over the past few years a number of "Lab Reports" have
been issued proclaiming the latest discoveries by these
researchers. As someone with postgraduate training in
experimental design methods I was naturally interested in what
Levengood and Burke have been up to !

Lab Report No 18

In "Lab Report No 18" Levengood and Burke describe what they call
a "Technique for Examining Crop Circle Energetics". Readers will
recall that one of the major criticisms made against the crop
circle researchers by sociologists in the "Equinox" documentary
was this vague use of that term "energy". So far my attempts to
find out what kinds of "energetics" are being analysed by
Levengood and Burke have met with failure. In the meantime it is
perhaps safe to say that as a professional statistician I found
their description of their methodology confusing and disquieting.

Levengood and Burke claim that they have developed two
verification methods that are capable of distinguishing "genuine"
crop circles from fakes. These two tests are the amplitude
coefficient (also referred to as the "alpha test") and the use of
seedling development rates (ie growth rates). These tests have
apparently indicated that "something is altering the rate at
which ions flow through the affected crop". Levengood and Burke
state that they have established that trampling cannot produce
the statistical results they are discovering in "genuine" circles
because they have compared their test results with results
produced by provably man-made circles. Strangely, this finding
didn't stop them from promoting crop taken from Jim Schnabel's
Dharmic Wheel as genuine products of the rapid heat-inducing
circle-making mechanism.

In this reviewer's opinion, there are many problems with the
claims made in Lab Report No 18. To begin with, Levengood and
Burke appear to confuse the terms "sample" and "population".
Also, they appear to have exaggerated the importance of the
results they have obtained. Quoting chances of "less than one in
a million" for their test results Levengood and Burke do not
appear to appreciate that it is inappropriate to calculate
binomial probabilities when ratio data is available.

Reading through Lab Report No 18 I must admit that I have found
it difficult to understand how these two researchers have
analysed their data. They claim that

"Each sample run involves five alpha values per trace. The
current procedure involves six replicate tests on individual
bracts (each selected from a different plant if available).
Controls and crop circle samples are ran [sic] in alternate
tests. The 30 data points (alphas) are entered into a computer
program ("Statview") which provides a convenient means of
statistically analysing many aspects of the data population. The
most reliable, consistent information from the thirty alpha
values is based on a statistical analysis of the paired, thirty
data point alpha populations".

Again Burke and Levengood use the term "population" when they
mean "sample". I have read this statement over and over again,
and I still don't understand how one can apply a "paired"
analysis of "six replicate tests" on each plant. A "paired"
analysis involves comparing two values, not six !

The correct method of analysing the kind of data discussed in Lab
Report No 18 is to conduct a two-way analysis of variance. In
this way one can test whether or not there are statistically
significant differences between samples of crop taken inside the
formation and samples of crop taken from outside fformations,
taking into account the natural variations in the alpha values of
samples in both groups. Such an analysis would only be
representative of crop circles in general if the samples taken
were truly independent of eachother within each formation and if
these tests were repeated in numerous formations chosen at random
across the world. Unfortunately Lab Report No 18 examines samples
taken from just one formation, the 1993 ringed circle in oats at
Albertsville in Canada.

Unfortunately, by taking "six replicate tests" on the same plants
it is debatable whether or not these researchers have collected a
truly random sample. For this reason not only have Levengood and
Burke conducted the wrong statistical test but they may well have
invalidated any results they obtain because they failed to
satisfy one of the primary assumptions underlying almost every
statistical test ever conducted !

However, the greatest problem with Lab Report No 18 is Levengood
and Burkes' curious decision to alter PROX-10 from a control
reading into a circle reading in their Figure 4 (approximately
reproduced in Figure 1 on page 6). This decision cannot possibly
be justified because it completely alters the outcome of the
results of the alpha test !

In the top half of Figure 1 we have reproduced Levengood and
Burkes' results by drawing the average alpha value for each
sample. Levengood and Burke have drawn a line through the highest
control average (Cont-7) to emphasise how all the average alpha
values taken inside the circle and ring are higher. However, this
decision ignores the fact that PROX-10 - a sample taken in
unaffected crop close to the formation - produces an average
alpha value which is higher than four of the six circle and ring
samples !

If we redraw Figure 1 by correctly treating PROX-10 as a control
sample (rather than a sample taken from inside the formation),
then the true test result becomes clear. There is little evidence
that the average alpha values are significantly higher inside the
circles and rings than in surrounding, untouched crop. In other
words, the alpha test provides no evidence of unusual effects.
This decision to alter PROX-10 from a control sample to a
"circle" sample is scientifically dishonest, for it alters the
whole outcome of the experiment. It is true that two of the alpha
values are higher than the PROX-10 average (CIR-1 and RING-6),
but in this reviewer's opinion it must surely be expected that a
two-way analysis of variance will demonstrate that there is no
statistically significant difference between the average alpha
values found inside the formation and those found in the
surrounding crop. I say this because it is clear that there are
wide variations between the average alpha values in both groups
(e.g. the average alpha readings in the control samples vary from
approx. 0.022 and 0.075, whilst the average alpha values of
samples taken within the circle vary from 0.038 to 0.090).

Unfortunately Levengood and Burke have failed to publish the data
they used in Lab Report No 18 so I cannot test this conclusion
properly.

The True Extent of Hoaxing

One of the problems with this research is that it is apparent
from their own published work that Levengood and Burke seem
blithely unaware of the true extent of hoaxing in Britain.
Levengood's recent promotion of Jim Schnabel's Dharmic Wheel
formation seems an excellent example of the way in which the crop
circle myth continues to flourish because of the mass suppression
of pro-hoax evidence by leading cerealogists. Of course Levengood
and Burke claim to be searching for an infallible method of
distinguishing real from fake - something we would all love to
see - but this is no excuse for not having done their homework on
recent events.

The H-GLAZE REPORT

In July 1994 an even bigger controversy broke with the
publication of what has been called the H-Glaze Report. The
author, John A. Burke, begins by claiming that he and Levengood
have made an "extraordinary discovery" following their analysis
of some reddish-brown glazed chalk found by Peter Sorensen in two
formations that lay close to the 1993 Cherhill pictogram.

Sorensen would have preferred to examine these circles
immediately but -  unfortunately - Busty Taylor had to return
home that evening for an appointment. Sorensen returned to the
site two days later, accompanied by a neighbour.  According to an
amicable farmer the circles had arrived a week or so earlier and
that originally parts of the circles had been covered by "a dark
grey mist" which had been largely washed away by heavy rain.
When Sorensen arrived both formations had been harvested. The
first formation was shaped like a tear-drop (in fact like a
"Nautilus") and exhibited multiple swirls and complex layering
effects. Sorensen noted that the dust was concentrated inside the
swirls and resembled soot. As he videoed the formation Sorensen
largely dismissed the possibility of a prank because the dust
appeared "almost accidental". However, as he looked more closely
Sorensen discovered a "reddish-brown, dull glaze" on lumps of
chalk and pebbles. A smaller concentration of dust and coated
chalk was discovered in the second formation, a circle with an
arc, which lay close by.

Levengood's Analysis

According to the H-Glaze Report, Levengood subjected the glaze to
a spectroscopic analysis. He discovered that the particles were
composed of iron and oxygen (FE). According to Levengood's
reasoning this didn't make any sense, because had these
originated from the soil there should have been traces of calcium
and silicon as well, but strangely there was none. Microscopic
study revealed that the glaze was composed of "thousands of
partially-fused tiny spheres" which contained both magnetite (Fe
O) and hermatite (Fe O). As the particles were magnetized, the
"glaze" acquired an "H" - the chemical symbol for magnetism.
Finding no evidence of a "terrestrial system" that could account
for such unusual particles Levengood and Burke mounted an
"extensive" literature search to discover if such material had
been discovered before. Astonishingly they concluded that the
only way particles containing both iron and oxygen could have
appeared in a crop formation was if it had been deposited during
a meteor shower ! In their preliminary report Levengood and Burke
go into great detail about how the surface of a meteorite would
become molten as it enters the earth's atmosphere. During this
state the outer surface of the meteorite is blown off and
solidifies into tiny spheres that oxidise (rust) and fall to
earth. Somewhat conveniently this process is said to take days or
even weeks.

Levengood and Burke hypothesize that this dust was released
during an unusually intense Perseid meteor shower, which
apparently peaked nearly two weeks earlier. During their
microscopic examination of the particles they noticed "mud-crack"
patterns and bubbles where the molten meteoritic droplets had
partially refused. Attempting to explain why the molten droplets
had failed to burn the wheat Levengood and Burke propose that the
moisture inside the stems evaporated and produced water droplets
on the stems, thus insulating them from the effect of the heat.

This "Leidenfrost effect" insulated the stems from burning.
Levengood and Burke were so excited by their discovery that they
quickly circulated the H-Glaze Report to numerous sources, urging
cereologists to "make magnets a standard part of their field
equipment" to locate more meteoric dust. Furthermore, the authors
claim that "This incident provides rare, direct evidence for a
theoretical model of crop formation - the plasma vortex - that
had previously been indicated only in an indirect way." They go
on to cite confirmation of their results by stating that the
affected wheat stems exhibited "dramatic differences" to control
samples in terms of the alpha test and measured growth rates.
In their conclusions Levengood and Burke grandly claim to
represent "the scientific community of the world" and they
challenge hoaxers to explain how they managed to "scavenge the
atmosphere for meteoric dust, re-heat it and lay it down just
right with no contamination". They predict that crop formations
will appear more frequently following meteor showers than at any
other time.

The Sting ?

Well, if all the claims made by Levengood and Burke were really
supportable we would have a major breakthrough which would make
one giant conceptual leap in our understanding of the crop circle
phenomenon. However, as we have come to expect in this business,
the circlemakers were not about to let Levengood and Burke get
away with such an astonishing claim without some kind of
fightback - oh no !

On July 25th 1994 Robert Irving wrote to John Burke. Irving's
letter stated :-

"It is not our primary interest to contradict your findings ...
It is instead our intention to use your report as textual source
material for an upcoming exhibition to be held on behalf of The
Agency Gallery, in London. The piece in question (entitled 'Fe3')
will comprise a museum style glass cabinet with text displayed on
the glass. Inside the cabinet, beyond the text, will be a
standard Oxford University chemistry laboratory bottle containing
fine-grade iron filings. This bottle was originally addressed,
labelled, and postmarked to correspond with the crop formation
which constitutes the subject of your report ... and will be
displayed in it's original state. Remaining samples of the 'grey
dust' will also be shown. All text will be fully credited to you,
citing the tests and conclusions of Dr W.C. Levengood. The
context of the piece can be loosely summarised by the following
theoretical equation: If science is incongruous to mysticism, and
the mystical is represented through art, should 'bogus' science
be elevated to an art form ? Certainly the gallery concerned
seems to think so, and our fingers feeling the pulse of a growing
trend towards millenialist awareness would seem to confirm this."

We have reproduced Irving's own photograph of the laboratory
bottle on page 8. This bottle was exhibited at a London Art
Gallery on the South Bank during September and the accompanying
text is reproduced on page. BBC2's "The Late Show" took an
interest in the iron fillings exhibit and they filmed an
interview with Irving during September [for proof, ring Matthew
Collings at the Beeb]. Meanwhile, a furious argument has
developed between Levengood and Burke, on the one hand, and
Irving and Montague Keen, on the other.

Irving has sent samples of the original batch of iron filings to
Montague Keen and offered them to Levengood and Burke, who so far
have failed to accept this offer. Irving's intention is to allow
all three to compare these samples with the glaze discovered in
the Cherhill formations. Keen has very sensibly suggested that
these samples, and those found in the Cherhill formations, be
subjected to an independent test by a reputable laboratory to
establish whether or not they are one and the same thing.

Tellingly, at the time of writing, Burke and Levengood have yet
to respond to this offer. Furthermore, both Burke and Levengood
have failed to supply full answers to a series of detailed
statistical questions I sent to them during late September
(letters available as usual).

It is perhaps not surprising that these researchers have refused
to be drawn into this affair any further considering their
promotion of "dramatic differences" between Irving's iron
filing-coated seeds and controls. Were they to do so, and if
Irving's claims are true, then the fallacy of the much vaunted
alpha tests would be exposed for all to see.

Conclusions

The H-Glaze Report is yet another amusing story in the
long-running crop circle hoax, another testament to the failure
of researchers to attain true objectivity in their work, and
another telling lesson to the power of the anomaly myth. No one
can doubt the sincerity of Levengood and Burke, and their
dedication to their work deserves praise. But this work is
fatally flawed for two primary reasons - the desperate desire to
find an anomalous explanation on the part of Levengood and Burke,
and their seeming naivety when it comes to understanding the true
extent of the hoax evidence and the mass cover-up of that
evidence by the believer groups these past few years. Oh well,
all's fair in love and war !

Stop Press

Dr Levengood has had an article published in Physiologia
Plantarum 92 - a properly refereed scientific journal of the kind
that even the Wessex Skeptics presumably take seriously. This
article again promotes the alpha test and enhanced growth rates
as measures of how to verify "genuine" crop circles. A full
article will appear in our next issue discussing this astonishing
development.

The Wiltshire Crop Circle Farce

Regular readers will already be aware of the numerous claims and
counter claims about hoaxing in deepest Wiltshire over the past
few years. It doesn't take a PhD or two to work out that Southern
Britain is now completely saturated with mischievous yet benign
"circlemakers" keeping the UFO myth alive and kicking as they run
rings around the True Believers. These circlemakers have
infiltrated all the believer groups and - as with Doug and Daves'
deft tactics - they learn how to satisfy the needs of the True
Believers by simply listening to them at believer conferences and
in smokey public houses.

This year your Editor has learnt that there are many new groups
of circlemakers operating from the Beck-hampton area of
Wiltshire. These new circlemakers meet at The Barge public house
in Honey Street (half a mile to the south of Alton Barnes).
Despite the fact that the general public lost interest with the
crop circle subject several years ago an entertaining battle
continues to rage between two directly opposed belief systems - a
religious war between the growing numbers of circle makers and
the True Believers desperate to deny the reality of the Great
Crop Circle Hoax. Where this war will take us, nobody knows.
On the humorous side The Crop Watcher has learnt that one group
of  True Believers are driving around the darkened lanes of
Wiltshire in a vehicle marked as the "Hoax Buster" (it has a
distinctive flashing light and is based on the "Ghostbusters"
film). In another celebrated incident a well known farmer's wife
stuffed a potato up the exhaust pipe of a car belonging to Adrian
Dexter. We have also learnt that during one night of bitter
recriminations at The Barge plans were well developed to push
Adrian Dexter's car into the Kennet and Avon canal as a
punishment for his alleged nocturnal activities.

During interviews with several sources your  Editor has been
informed of numerous names of people allegedly engaged in making
crop circles. These names include Andy Batey, Rod Dickinson,
Robert Irving, Vince Palmer, Simon Shedlar, Paul Pilson (??) and
Lee Winterson.  Some of these names appear as bona fide witnesses
in Andy Collins' controversial new book Alien Energy (to be
reviewed in full in our next issue).

In a lengthy interview with a "deep throat" source The Crop
Watcher has learnt that Andy Batey has admitted to making the
seven legged formation in East Field this summer. From what I can
tell it is common knowledge that

- Andy Batey claimed that he was intending to make a circle with
keys at Lurkeley Hill which subsequently appeared;
- "Paul Pilson" has admitted to overlaying a circle on top of a
pre-existing "nautilus" at Cherhill in 1994;
- Lee Winterson has boasted that he made several formations in
the Alton Barnes area; and
- Andy Batey has admitted that Vince Palmer has made circles in
Wiltshire.

Readers may also be interested to learn that Paul Vigay, a CCCS
Council member and field officer who runs something called the
Independent Research Centre for Unexplained Phenomena (IRCUP)
from an address in Portsmouth, mixes with these circle makers at
The Barge but makes not the slightest mention of this fact in
Enigma, the magazine Vigay edits and publishes on behalf of his
"world-wide" research organisation (the letter heading features
an artist's impression of the alleged "Grey" alien of UFO
folklore). In a recent letter to your Editor Paul Vigay admits
that he has seen hoaxers placing "artifacts" inside crop circles
in Wiltshire. For some reason Vigay refuses to name these circle
makers or how he seems to know who these hoaxers are. It is
suspected that Vigay has film of these circlemakers in the
process of making circles, a claim which Vigay has not denied.

In several extensive interviews with a second "deep throat"
source your Editor has learnt that a group of around one dozen
circlemakers are claiming responsibility for having made every
single formation which has appeared in Southern Britain this
summer. This claim is supported by the fact that many of the 1994
formations were based on a common theme - the so-called Scorpion
- and that some of these designs appear in a booklet titled "A
Beginners Guide to Crop Circle Making", which has been produced
by the Wiltshire Circlemakers "with assistance from Fe3" (see
review on page 19).

Speaking to our second "deep throat" source at length one is left
in not the slightest doubt about his extensive knowledge of  the
circumstances surrounding the appearance of this summer's most
entertaining formations - eg the ever decreasing circles at
Ipsden, north of Reading, a similar formation at East Dean near
Goodwood in Sussex, and the Galaxy formation near Avebury in
Wiltshire - to name but three examples. With each formation there
is a story to tell and an amusing anecdote to recall. With each
formation there is abundant mirth at the foolishness of those who
continue to cling to the crop circle faith and who continue to
deny evidence which the result of the world accepted long, long
ago.

It appears that this loose group of circlemakers are fascinated
by the "false science" of the belief-centred cerealogists. It is
this "false science" which provides the main motivation for the
Circlemakers' activities. Whilst most people respond to the
cerealogists' incredible claims with outright derision it is
clear that the Wiltshire Circlemakers have decided that a more
appropriate response is to "set up" the cerealogists by faking
evidence for the alien intelligence believed to be responsible
for the "genuine" phenomenon. A good example of the circlemakers'
campaign is the furore surrounding the notorious H-Glaze report
(see page 8), but it seems clear that other projects have been
executed and that other, more outrageous projects, are planned.

In an interview with a farmer located right in the heart of the
Beckhampton area your Editor has learnt that the activities of
the Wiltshire Circlemakers do not meet with the approval of local
farmers. Some have spent hundreds of pounds installing new
fencing in an attempt to keep the circlemakers and cerealogists
at bay. Many farmers seem surprisingly unaware that the names of
many leading circle makers are known, that some have confessed to
having made specific circles and that allegations of complicity
with local farmers have been made. The farmer I spoke to
described circlemaking as "mindless destruction". He also felt
that it was extremely unlikely that genuine farmers would damage
their own fields.

Unfortunately, because of the terms of his tenancy agreement,
this particular farmer felt that it would be unwise to speak out
publicly against the circlemakers and their activities. However,
he was adamant that once the names of the circlemakers are known
and once these names can be tied to specific formations then
actions for trespass and criminal damage would undoubtedly
follow. The effect of the new Criminal Justice Act, which became
law in November, will be an interesting additional component to
this battle of the belief systems in darkest Wiltshire. Until
this Act came into force circlemakers ran the risk of a civil
action in the courts. Now, however, circlemakers can expect to be
prosecuted under the criminal law, with much tougher sentences.

[contd. Pt 2]