This superbly illustrated book is a must for anyone interested
in UFOs. With over 30 colour plates and another 70 black &
white plates this is one of the most glossy and attractive books
on the market. It introduces the subject of UFOs to a general
audience, particularly to those who have sightings to report and,
more importantly, to those who would like to have sightings. All
the major components of the UFO controversy are dealt with in
Jenny's usual lucid manner.
Jenny begins with a brief trip through UFOlogy's chequered
past, incorporating Ezekiel's sighting of a "whirlwind"
(which Jenny complains has been "hijacked by the experts to
establish their own version of the truth"), Foo Fighters,
mystery airships and ghost rockets. Enter Kenneth Arnold ! The
late 1940s and early 1950s were a critical time in the
development of the UFO mythology that dominated the subject in
years to come, and Jenny treats this well.
Part II is devoted to identifying UFO sightings, Jenny's
favourite pastime ! All the major IFO stimuli are dealt with,
most with photographs. There is also a flow diagram to assist
witnesses to explain their own sighting. In this way the book
serves a useful purpose. Jenny completes Part I with a short
introduction to Skywatching - something that Jenny considers
"a very rewarding pastime, if properly organised, and if
entered into with the right expectations". In this section
Jenny touches on the kinds of theories that may be capable of
explaining naturally-produced UFOs - Persinger transients,
earth-quake zones, and the passage of frontal systems. As this
book is intended for a general readership rather than the
seasoned UFOlogist these topics are dealt with all too briefly.
Part II Hotspots examines 'The Most UFO-Haunted Places in the
World'. This is a selection of some of the more intriguing cases
reported in the literature, including the Gran Canaria 1976
sighting, the McMinnville 1950 daylight disk and the celebrated
disappearance of Frederick Valentich. Even the Ilkeley Moor
entity photo gains an appearance on page 108. Usually Jenny
touches on possible explanations for these cases but all too
often cases are presented but explanations glossed over. In my
view this only encourages readers to believe that UFO sightings
must be alien.
Several times throughout the book Jenny introduces crop
circles. There is an entire chapter devoted to this subject and I
recommend all serious researchers of the subject to examine Peter
Horne's photograph on page 83. This is the montage we discussed
in CW3 and CW4 of the 1972 circle discovered at
Wokurna in South Australia. Proof perhaps that crop circles
predate Doug and Dave?
Jenny's discussion of UFO photographs is rather brief for my
liking. Too many of the photographs in this book are known to be
dubious at best, yet only 7 pages are devoted to the illusion of
authenticity generated by photographic evidence. Finally Jenny
introduces the six most commonly reported UFO shapes, something
the US Air Force had great difficulty doing thirty years ago in
Project Blue Book's Special Report #14 . Here Jenny sensibly
suggests possible explanations for IFO sightings.
I suppose if I were to criticise this book at all I would
question whether or not UFOlogists need a book which, by its very
title, seems destined to produce more IFO reports to swamp the
UFO "message". I also feel that some of the cases are
presented in such a way that the reader is left in no doubt that
some UFOs must be alien in origin and that a more prosaic
explanation is still out-of-the-question. I doubt whether Jenny
meant to give this impression, but it is a criticism which will
nevertheless be made.
This is a new series of articles containing previously unpublished documentary material from The Crop Watcher's vast archives. We begin this series with a peep into the flurry of correspondence between Paul Fuller and Colin Andrews in early 1988, more than a year before Andrews launched the best selling Circular Evidence onto an unsuspecting market. This correspondence arose after an astonishing article by Andrews in Flying Saucer Review
claiming numerous links between crop circles and UFO
sightings. Although I had known Andrews for nearly two years this
was the first time that I realised that Colin Andrews adopted a
pro-UFO explanation for the phenomenon. On February 8th 1988 I
wrote a five page letter to Andrews appealing to him to
reconsider his position. Here are some excerpts from that first
letter:
"Dear Colin, I was concerned to read your recent article in FSR about the circles and feel I must write to you to warn you about the damage you are doing to your own credibility and that of UFOlogy's credibility in general.
"As you know, I too believe that there are previously unrecognised phenomena in the UFO data, indeed I would be the first to stand up and say so if given the opportunity. However, I think my approach to the investigation and evaluation of UFO reports differs considerably to your own, as illustrated in your FSR article, and this is my primary reason for writing to you. ....
"What I found disturbing about your article in FSR was your unquestioning acceptance that every UFO report you discovered represented 'real' (or 'paranormal') UFOs. This cannot be so, and I must ask you to reconsider your position carefully."
After discussing the Cornishmen's hoax at Cheesefoot Head in
1986 and the Westbury 1983 hoax I stated:
"I was disappointed to read in your article that it was a 'sad, sad fact' that the 'Tornado & Storm Theory just won't stand up'. Apart from not knowing the name of the theory (the vortex theory), or describing it in any detail so that your readers could judge the theory for themselves, I wonder why you deliberately ignored the eye witness accounts of stationary vortices creating circles. Terence cites two in his Journal of Meteorology (the Melvyn Bell report and Arthur Shuttlewood's report), I remember that last year a correspondent wrote to the 'Daily Telegraph' and described their observation of a vortex bouncing across a field close to their home in the Malvern Hills [actually at Ross-on-Wye in Herefordshire, PF] creating two circles."
As you can see, I already feared the worst ! Sadly, Andrews
failed to respond to this letter, perhaps fearing a prolonged
argument, so on March 7th 1988 I wrote again, enclosing a copy of
the BUFORA/TORRO Survey Report into the Incidence of
Geometrically Shaped Crop Damage. In my brief covering note I
stated "As you know, I am currently writing several articles
summarising BUFORA's involvement and research into the
phenomenon and I intend sending the report to interested
scientific bodies in the very near future. For this reason I
would appreciate some response to my letter of February 9th and
the issues I raised". Andrews replied by return of post.
This letter (dated 9th March 1988) stated: "Dear Paul, thank
you for the TORRO/BUFORA survey document. I will study the
contents in the next day or so.
"It is not my intention to comment in the contents of your letter of 9th February. "I am receiving more reports of similar ground markings from other countries, hitherto not known. I have two new sites in this country and a superb eye witness report of a clockwise circle forming within a few meters (sic) of a Person (sic) out for a walk with a dog. "It has been a very busy winter, we await summer with baited breath. Once again, thanks for my copy, I do appreciate it.
Yours Sincerely "
This is the first proof that Colin Andrews knew of eye witness
testimony and proven hoaxes before he wrote Circular Evidence
in 1988. My response, dated 17th March 1988, read as follows:
"Dear Colin, thank you for your letter of March 9th. I am sorry you feel unable to deal with any of the points I raised in my letter to you. Quite apart from the time it took to write my letter I would have thought it was in everyone's interests for yourself and Pat [Delgado] to deal with our difference of opinion in a mature and responsible manner rather than to disregard eachother's viewpoints and research in this way.
"I am particularly concerned about your personal interpretation of the circles phenomenon because I have been a member of BUFORA for over ten years now and I have seen what happens to other UFOlogists when they make quite sensational claims about our data. I cannot understand your support of a UFO link with the circles when so many of our reports turn out to be simple misidentifications and when such a low proportion of circles have associated (and perfectly explicable) UFO sightings. Do you not consider that you have a duty to UFOlogy to present our subject in its very best light, and that by ignoring all the evidence I have presented to you in my letter you are not running a very great risk of discrediting our subject altogether ?
"Returning to your FSR article, I was sorry to see that you claimed that I said that 'No UFO sightings have ever been made in connection with the Goodworth Clatford site'. I certainly don't remember saying this because I knew of the 1985 sighting by a Mrs Jones in Stockbridge (it is afterall described in 'Mystery of the Circles' as a misidentification of Venus). "Furthermore, I was surprised that Gordon Creighton should consider Archie Roy's withdrawal from circles research to be ominous. I interpret his action as resulting from his realisation that natural vortices were fully capable of producing such effects and that established scientists had been investigating the phenomenon with this in mind. His action only serves to emphasise how the scientific community reacts to sensational claims by the UFO movement (thereby resulting in a dismissal of all our data).
"I hope you were open minded enough to watch Q.E.D. on TV this week. Again this showed some of the remarkably stable vortices which can be created by topography (and aircraft !) and how whirlwinds often remain motionless and operate in pairs. I have this week obtained Corliss' 'Tornadoes, Dark Days and Anomalous Precipitation' - it has some very interesting reports which Terence has not sent me, for example waterspouts with double walls and whirlwind with double sheaths. Furthermore there are many accounts of natural phenomena (eg clouds) which were precisely defined. Clearly we have much to learn about a whole range of anomalous (but obviously) meteorological phenomena.
"As I pointed out in my last letter to you, I am currently writing up all my circles involvement over the past 3 years for the UFO literature. I have sought the views of my colleagues on the National Investigations Committee (some of whom have been investigating UFO reports for far longer than I have) and they are unanimous that I should continue to put over our view that the postulated UFO link with the circles is, at its very best, quite dubious. For this reason I again invite you to comment in detail on my previous letter to you, Yours etc"
Well, I suppose I was just asking for trouble really, for
Colin Andrews has NEVER explained to me why he refused to answer
the issues raised in these letters. He has NEVER justified why
his series of best selling books make no mention of the eye
witness testimony mentioned in my letter of 9th February 1988.
Perhaps more damaging was the article in Flying Saucer Review
Vol 31 No 1 (remember them Colin ?), which was published in March
1989, just before Circular Evidence was unleashed on the
world. This article, which discussed rumours about the A.P.E.N.
hoax, constituted an actionable breach of confidence by Andrews
and was written by an anonymous "John Squareman". It
stated:
"It has recently been learnt that, in a letter addressed to Mr Colin Andrews on February 9th 1988, by a Mr Paul Fuller of Romsey, Hampshire, widely known [eh ???] as Britain's second-most important and second-most prominent expert on the UFO Problem [I'm flattered Gordon], Mr Fuller has indicated that he has secured the 'Scoop of the Century'. .."
This disgraceful article is a second proof that Colin Andrews
received my letter of 9th February 1988 and, in addition, it is
proof that he read my letter to the very end. So, why did these
eye witness accounts and the 1983 Westbury hoax not appear in
Andrews' allegedly "definitive" book that he wrote
during 1990 with Pat Delgado ?
From these documented facts we can conclude that :
(1) Yes, Andrews fully knew that there were alleged eye
witnesses to circle-forming events more than a year before Circular
Evidence was published. He even admits to independently
uncovering an eye witness account that has NEVER appeared in his
public promotion of the subject. Why not ? We invite Andrews to
comment.
(2) Yes, Andrews also knew about the 1983 Westbury hoax
by the Daily Mirror. This too has NEVER appeared in his
public promotion of the subject. Indeed Colin Andrews went out of
his way to DISMISS hoaxing as a possible cause for the phenomenon
in numerous media interviews.
This deeply embarrassing evidence proves that Andrews must
have temporarily forgotten about the contents of my letter of 9th
February 1988 when he was interviewed on the "Gloria
Hunniford" show on 3rd August 1989. We discussed this
episode in Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved (page 79):
Randles: ...[one of the] real reasons why we believe that [circles are being formed by natural forces is] because there are EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS - which [Andrews and Delgado] studiously avoid mentioning in their book - of people who have actually SEEN circles being formed in daylight by wind vortexes [sic]
Hunniford: Let me stop you there, Jenny. Now what about this point, Colin ? Andrews: There are so many, aren't there ? I mean the lady just doesn't...
Hunniford (interrupting): Well, let's take that eyewitness report and the weather aspect.
Andrews: Yes, indeed, there's ONE eyewitness report.
Randles (interrupting): There's more than one, MANY more than one.
Forced to discuss this most unwelcome evidence Andrews went on
to state that "... I must say, Gloria, this is very
important, the only one ... isn't it a strange coincidence ? ...
[was] an employee of Dr Meaden's. We're not prepared to accept
one eyewitness account". Andrews has never publicly
withdrawn this inference or corrected this error. Now that the
crop circle circus is over we think its high time Colin Andrews
publicly apologised to everyone who has bought his allegedly
"definitive" book Circular Evidence. Andrews
must apologise for knowingly omitting proof of crop circle
hoaxing, for knowingly omitting proof of multiple eye witness
testimony, and for slandering people who merely report seeing
events which appear to contradict Andrew's previously stated
support for an exotic UFO-related explanation. It seems that some
UFO researchers never learn. By suppressing evidence which we can
prove Andrews was aware of Andrews helped to spawn an
international fraud which now involves many dozens of hoaxers all
over the world. We think its time Andrews apologised.
Readers of BUFORA's 1989 report Controversy of the
Circles will recall our controversial analysis of the Mrs
Jones case from 1985 (described on pages 57-58). Briefly,
according to SIGAP's version of the story, Mrs Jones
reported seeing a large central light surrounded by four
satellite lights from her home near Stockbridge in Hampshire.
According to the SIGAP team this allegedly coincided with
the discovery of a quintuplet formation just a mile or two away.
Sadly our suggestion that 94 year-old Mrs Jones had merely
seen the planet Jupiter shining brightly through broken cloud
cover didn't go down too well with certain UFO groups. I know
this because in 1987 I had been threatened with an action for
slander by three of Flying Saucer Review's supporters for
daring to question the standard of investigation into this
relatively innocuous case. This was not to be the only time that
Jenny and I would discover how the "dark gods" at FSR
would respond to our attempts to find reasonable explanations for
crop circle events.
Shortly after publication of "Controversy" Mrs
Jones' daughter contacted me to correct errors of fact in the
account the SIGAP team were publishing. The most important
error was SIGAP's claim that the "UFO" had
resembled five stationary lights in the form of a quintuplet
formation. In fact she had observed a mass of SWIRLING lights, so
why did SIGAP report stationary lights formed into a
quin-tuplet shape ? Of course this is yet another early crop
circle case which Doug and Dave lay claim to having created, so
any UFO-related explanation seems desperate in the extreme. Like
so many other UFO cases something perfectly identifiable was
mis-represented (presumably by accident) and turned into
something far more exciting. Now SIGAP, isn't it time you
owned up and apologised to the international UFO community ?
(SIGAP = The Surrey Investigation Group into Aerial
Phenomena)
Gloucestershire Earth Mysteries has just published an
interesting letter from Pat Delgado. Thanks to Danny Sullivan and
Jo-Anne Wilder for allowing me to reproduce his letter in full:
"This is to give a light resume of part of the overall crop circle and other associated situations as I see it in January 1993.
It is because so many phenomena are inter-related that it is impossible to isolate and pursue just one, progress made along any one avenue of thought automatically opens doors on either side. Through any of these doors are further similar networks and so on ad infinitum, hence the chaotic universe.
There have been a great many changes in time that has passed, changes in people, attitudes and events, some inevitable others significant in their own right. During the autumn of last year I could foresee the pattern of events and situations that were to take place this year. Consequently I decided to observe from the side lines and to become involved with visits to crop circle sites on a limited basis, even so, I met many old friends and made many new ones.
There is no doubt that the hoaxing element has created some confusion, but it is amazing such a high percentage of people see that as the natural progression of humanity. Beneath the maelstrom of manual replication and the insincerity it brought with it, the true simple crop circle phenomenon continues as serenely as ever as it probably has done for thousands of years.
Not only have we seen the evolution of crop circles keep pace with the expectations of ascending interest but parallel with this and because of it, has been the expansion of the human minds in many directions. This is a minor miracle in itself because it has elevated many thousands of people's thinking capacity to heights unattainable by usual mundane standards.
Regardless of how crop circles are created, the proof is everywhere that they touched a nerve that caused a world-wide explosion of curiosity and lateral thinking unequalled in modern times. The latent and enormous desire for people wanting to unit and communicate about subjects orthodox science cannot explain has been made blatantly obvious. Because the door to the hitherto unexplained has been flung wide open, it can also be said that some religious, political and security factions are not without some concern as it may be seen that a certain amount of 'control' may be at risk.
Some crop circle groups have petered out, possibly through the inability to see beyond crop circles or not recognising the mandatory requirement to embrace a wider scope of mysteries that run parallel to the original subject. I am sure that at whatever level people are aware of crop circles their minds have benefited to some degree of positive expansion. Again this year many people have experienced the continuance of inexplicable sights and sounds, both in and away from crop circles. My analysis shows that mysterious phenomena can occur almost anywhere at any time. It would be true to say that certain categories of phenomena are associated with certain localities and this may be related to expectancy. Photography also continues to reveal anomalies that defy the experts and specialists. There are individual prints of crop circles developed from an otherwise perfect roll which have all-over hues or bands or blobs of red or blue. Other photos have captured mysterious objects in the sky or at ground level. Tape recorders are continuing to record a variety of strange sounds in and out of doors.
It is not uncommon at the beginning of each year to wonder what the future holds and the crop circle subject is at the forefront of many people's minds. Of course we can only wait and see despite the attraction of speculation. Whatever occurs we should accept it with an open mind and realise we are witnessing, not only the evolution of this particular subject, but the evolution of mankind and all of its confusing facets. It is a wonderful thing to communicate in this way through this publication [GEM], it provides the opportunity to progress together in seeking a broader awareness and the truth."
Pat Delgado.
So, if I read these musing correctly, Pat Delgado now accepts
that crop circles have been around for "thousands of
years" and (presumably) he too accepts that there must be a
natural solution for the non-hoaxed formations. As for the rest
of this letter, if any readers have the slightest clue what this
Delgado is talking about I'd love to know. Please write to the Editorial address on page 2 so that
we can enlighten everyone. Our thanks to GEM for allowing
us to reproduce this letter.
Also in GEM 15 there is the following letter from BUFORA's
Doug Cooper:
Berry Pomeroy Hoax Exposed
"I have reason to doubt the authenticity of the crop circle formations at Berry Pomeroy, South Devon last year. My reasons are based purely on my findings, having researched the events surrounding these formations and a certain gentleman called Peter Glastonbury (PG). During last summer, starting in June, a number of formations of laid crop were found at Berry Pomeroy by PG. PG lives or rather did live at a place known as True Street House which is adjacent to the field where all the formations were found. The first formation (a dumb-bell) cam to my notice via a local TV report (8th July). During this report a discussion took place between a reporter and PG who stated that at the time of the dumb-bell's formation three motorcycle accidents had taken place and in each case the rider had been killed. He also stated that two hay barns had caught fire within the area at the same time !
I contacted PG that evening and visited Berry Pomeroy on July 13th. On arrival PG escorted us to the formation and told us about the three accidents and the barn fires. On inspecting the dumb-bell I was not impressed and it was my impression that the formation was man-made. Whilst at Berry Pomeroy PG informed me of another dumb-bell he had found at a place called Guzzledown, near Broxham. Again on visiting the site I got the impression it was man-made. Some two weeks later this formation was mysteriously visited and the letters FT were added to the top of the circle. What FT meant is anybody's guess, but in view of later events, i.e. an article that appeared in Fortean Times, October 1992, I assume there has to be some connection !
During the next few weeks a number of other circles/formations were found at Berry Pomeroy, all by PG. There was even one found in a field that I had suggested to PG would make a good site - I'll say no more than that!
Because of the extraordinary claims made by PG, i.e. the accidents and the fires, I wrote to all the local Police, Fire and Ambulance services seeking confirmation. Needless to say, I did not receive any confirmation from these agencies and have to conclude the whole story was a fabrication by PG.
There is also the case of the so-called mysterious photograph depicting a 'bright star-like formation' over the first dumb- bell. This photo was published in Fortean Times, October 1992, with a report from PG concerning the accidents. In August 1992 I was informed by PG that he had been involved in the production of a similar 'star formation' on the front cover of Kindred Spirit magazine. Some time later during a telephone call PG told me he knew how to produce the type of effect seen on the photograph, simply by double exposure and light enhancement. I then of course asked him if he had faked the photograph, but sadly he still insisted that it was genuine."
Once again it seems clear that UFO hoaxers already know what
kind of "effects" UFOs are supposed to leave behind -
in this case some kind of residual energy field. This same motif
crops up (sorry) in most of the popular crop circle books (it
even crops up in our own book, but that's a closely guarded
secret). Taylor's photographs of "two black-ribbon
darts" (described on page 98 of Circular Evidence)
demonstrates that Taylor also knew what UFOs are supposed to be
capable of doing.
Regular readers will know that in addition to Fortean Times'
promotion of Glastonbury's photograph The Cerealogist also
promoted this hoax on page 9 of its Winter 1992 issue. I suppose
this just goes to show that in anomaly research nothing has been
learnt from the lessons of history. I gather too that John
Michell was none-too-pleased at the suggestion in GEM that
whoever created the Barbury Castle formation did so as some kind
of "wind up" aimed at himself. This is something which
one or two other researchers (not connected with CERES)
have also suggested to me. Now what kind of so-and-so would do
something like that ? A sociologist perhaps ?
If you want to know what's going on crop-circle wise in
Gloucestershire I suggest you obtain a copy of GEM as
Danny and Jo-Anne are both on the boil. See the address on page 36.