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.
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 CW11
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 responded 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.
151 Footnote: 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?
