Readers of Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved will recall
that the Wokurna case of 1974 features heavily as an early
example of a sharp edged swirled circle. Following the dismissal
of this case by a number of researchers I have recently written
to Peter Horne, one of the original investigators of this case,
and this is what he has to say :
Letter dated 4th March 1994
... I must admit that I couldn't help but have a bit of a
chuckle when I learnt about the 'political' hoo-ha which seems to
be going on over there in good 'ol 'Mother England' re. the work
which Keith, Steve and I carried out more than twenty years ago !
Our 'critics' are running around screaming that our photos don't
show 'sharp edges' ?!? Whoopee-DO !! My God, surely these people
who want to believe that aliens are using crop circles for
communication can come up with something a bit more significant
to whinge about than THIS ?!?
[Actually its the Skeptics who are making this claim, not
the alien intelligence believers, PF].
Personally - and I've said this almost from 'Day 1' - I feel
that the Wokurna marking probably has a relatively simple natural
explanation, compared with the markings which Keith [Basterfield]
and Gary Little investigated at Bordertown at the same time.
Those markings were evidently much more spectacular and would've
entailed 4 times the effort which Steve and I put into recording
the Wokurna marking, had we gone there instead and pegged and
photographed each marking. I think that it is significant to note
that Keith mentioned a true tornado had passed through the area a
short time before (ie a week or so ?) the markings were
discovered at Bordertown; hence the possible obvious connection
with Dr Meaden's theories re. vortices etc. But anyway, for what
it's worth, we described the Wokurna marking in as much detail as
time and resources allowed, for posterity.
I wish I could precisely describe the Wokurna marking to you
now in the terms which are most desirable (including that they
definitely had sharply-defined edges or whatever), but
unfortunately the passage of 20-odd years of time has meant that
the photos are about as good a memory-jogger as they are
raw-data-producers for you ... that is, I can only look at the
photos and my field notes, as you can, to see what I said at that
time, because I really can't remember those details now. From my
data, it appears that the flattened area outside of the
bare-earth region and its associated raised rim was much less
than a metre wide before it abruptly reached the edge of the
'untouched', vertically-standing crop; the bare-earth centre also
meant (to me, at least) that it probably wasn't created by
exactly the same force/s as the 'swirled-wheat' Bordertown
markings, unfortunately.
PF: Readers are welcome to see copies of this
correspondence and the original case file if they write to the Editorial Address.
Here's another historical case from my files. Following an
article in the Dorset Evening Echo (February 7th 1992) I
wrote to Graham Brunt of Weymouth, Dorset. His response dated
17th March 1992 is reproduced below :
Dear Paul, Thank you for your letter about crop circles, and
also for your magazine. I can confirm that it was either 1951 or
1952 that the circle appeared at Charlton, as it was definitely
when we lived on the Salisbury Road outside Shaftesbury, and we
left there in December 1952.
Unfortunately I did not actually see the circle, but was told
it was in a field belonging to Mr. Blanchard, as it was necessary
to go from the Shaftesbury direction as far as Charlton Church,
then turn right and go some distance along that lane.
Yours Sincerely,
Graham Brunt.
PF Notes: Mindful of the more famous event at Charlton
in 1963 (see CW13 page 31) I checked with Graham Brunt that he
was not confusing his "1951 or 1952" crop circle with
the 1963 event, but as he specifically recollects seeing the crop
circle prior to moving house in 1952 these dates seem reasonably
reliable. However, I must admit that now I've re-read the account
in FSR Vol 19 No 6 (November/December 1963) of the hoax
claim that was made about the Charlton crater the significance of
this historical crop circle case must be debatable. It also seems
curious that farmer Roy Blanchard was involved in both the
1951/52 and the 1963 events. I find this rather dubious ! Could
he have known that both events were UFO hoaxes ? We hope to carry
more revelations about the Charlton Crater in our next issue.
John Vidal's amusing little piece describing the demise of the
great British Crop Circle (July 30) is pure invention. He claims
that 'only 45 crop circles have been found this year compared
with more than 400 in each of the last two years'. The CCCS
has kept a comprehensive database of all reported occurrences.
There were about 250 events in Britain in each of the last two
years. So far this year we have had more than 80 accounts from
more than a dozen English counties and also Scotland, America and
Switzerland, compared with between 100 and 120 reports received
by the same time last year.
As Vidal chuckles over the gullibility of crop circle loonies,
he appears to accept unquestioningly the claim that pensioners
Doug Bower and Dave Chorley made 'most of the 5,000 circles in
Britain in the last 10 years after drinking sessions'. This would
require them to average at least five crop circles for every
night of the growing season for 10 years, and to be able to
operate simultaneously in East Anglia, Yorkshire and Cornwall.
(The gentlemen themselves only claim to have made up to 200,
mostly in Hampshire).
While Doug and Dave were accomplishing this super-human feat,
who, I wonder, was busy making the circles in Japan, Siberia,
Canada, South Africa, Australia, Hungary and all the other
countries where they have appeared before the 1980s ? There are
numerous eye witness accounts going back as far as the 1930s and
two descriptions of something similar from the 17th century.
So are we dealing with a huge international conspiracy which
has been in operation for at least 60 years ? Am I so very loony
in thinking that this explanation is as far-fetched as any other
?
Diana Clift
C.C.C.S.
93 Peperharrow Road
Godalming, Surrey.
PF Notes: Its strange, isn't it, how the existence of
"numerous" eye witness accounts and alleged historical
cases have both suddenly become a respectable part of the crop
circle evidence. Strange because only two years ago anyone on the
meteorological wing of the crop circle movement who dared to
discuss this evidence was ridiculed and insulted for doing so !!
Diana Clift's estimates of the number of circles that have
appeared over the past decade is probably the highest estimate
I've yet seen ! As John Macnish rightly points out, crop circle
statistics are political property. There is evidence to suggest
that the figures have been grossly exaggerated in order to
protect the phenomenon from the Doug and Dave claim. Is no one at
the CCCS prepared to actually ask Doug and Dave how many
circles they claim to have made ? How many circles are there in
the CCCS database ? This sounds like another great crop
circle myth in the making.
Dear Paul,
OK, I know that the crop circles have (nearly) all been
dismissed as hoaxes (except by the lunatic fringe), but surely
not the Mowing Devil ?
Well, after some thought I cannot believe it was caused by a
natural phenomenon (ie a plasma vortex). With (perhaps) over 90
per cent of circles being man-made, the genuine weather formed
article must be very rare indeed. What would you think the odds
might be against a vortex striking this exact field, the very
night after the farmer uttered those fateful words ? If you
prefer the original "Devil" explanation, then wouldn't
you agree that "his" work is usually done by human
beings ? Once the Mower realized his mistake in asking too much
for the work, he went to great lengths to try and repair the
damage. Once he saw there was no chance the Farmer would relent,
I think he became bitter and vowed to get even with him. So what
about the flames ? Well, electric torches had not been invented
in 1678, so firebrands might have been used to see by. The tale
says the Mowing Devil was done:
"... that no mortal man was able to do the like ..."
but we've heard that said quite recently about our so-called
"genuine" circles, haven't we ... ?! So we know the
Mower created circles and if it was the intention to make the
Farmer believe it was the Devil's work. my claim that it was the
world's first crop circle hoax is entirely justified. So how
could MBF have been involved ? The rumour says the Mower belonged
to "Mowing and binding field Services" !
On the other hand, of course, if 17th century journalists
regard for the truth was as scant as it is with today's press ...
Sincerely,
George Thorman,
Trowbridge, Wiltshire.
PF Notes: Readers may not be aware
that on March 2nd the Salisbury auctioneers Woolley and Wallis
sold an early 19th century reproduction of the Mowing Devil for
£ 280 to a Wiltshire farmer. We hope to carry a full account of
this fascinating development in our next issue. See The Daily
Telegraph, 19th March for further details.
Dear Paul,
You mention in CW20 that sceptical UFOlogists have
dismissed the "UFO" debris at Roswell as a crashed Fugo
balloon from Japan. As far as is known there were 9,300 launches
from November 1944 to May 1945, with 300 reaching mainland
America. And that one balloon bomb had somehow stayed airborne
until July 1947, while a nation-wide surge of flying saucer
sightings was occurring. We are led to believe that this bomb
detonated, thereby scattering its debris and there was a need to
gather all this up and keep it secret.
My contention is that exactly because flying saucers were
newsworthy, there existed an opportunity to launch a hoax
balloon. (I presume it drifted miles away from population centres
for which it was presumably targeted). Two weeks after the Arnold
report, on July 8th a press release stated the discovery of a
disc that landed on a ranch in Roswell region. This disc, I
believe, was the faked discoidal attachment from the balloon
(who's to say how odd that material was made to appear ?). The
balloon device was of sufficient interest as to be one example
responsible for the disc reports. Several hours later on the same
day, General Ramsay held up the explanation that it was a
high-altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector. It was
accepted as the answer because it could, while floating silently
high, reflect light in the fashion of a silvery saucer, but not
sufficiently convincing to explain how a grounded one could
appear as such.
Most people don't like ambiguity; they take available
information and make sense of it. People are liable to believe in
unsupported assertions because of a desire to understand and
simplify complicated events that follow each other with
bewildering speed as did occur on July 8th 1947. Are we not the
better off for having the true version of the "facts" ?
Regards,
Peter Brazinskas
Rochdale, Lancashire.
