(Circlevision 1993, 250 pages, 46 b&w plates, 2 figs, Available from P.O. Box 36, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 3ZZ. Price £ 12 for UK residents, £ 15 or $ 23 (US) for overseas residents. ISBN 09522580 3X).
Cropcircle Apocalypse - John Macnish's "ultimate
book" on the crop circles - seems destined to win few
friends in what is left of the declining British crop circle
community. Apocalypse is a book designed to end all
speculation and mystery by revealing what "really
happened" during John Macnish's five year involvement with
the crop circle phenomenon. With such a provocative title readers
will not be surprised to learn that Apocalypse contains
further damming revelations about the way in which the crop
circle myth was created, but like Schnabel's Round in Circles
in this reviewer's opinion Apocalypse leaves many
unanswered questions and many stones unturned.
Some overseas readers may not know that John Macnish was the
producer of the BBC TV programme Daytime Live, which first
launched Andrews and Delgado on their road to fame and infamy in
1989. He also produced the best-selling video Cropcircle
Communique in 1991. Macnish's promotion of Andrews and
Delgado is a major theme in Apocalypse as Macnish slowly
comes to terms with their obsessions and deceptions. In many ways
Macnish's own actions come under scrutiny too.
One problem with Apocalypse is that it is home grown.
The book is full of glaring grammatical errors and dreadful
spelling mistakes (my favourite is "man-mad", page 83).
There are misaligned paragraphs and changes in line spacing (page
136). Even the Index is confusing and, in some cases, includes
incorrect page numbers. These errors are presumably because the
book was put together relatively quickly to coincide with the
launch of Cropcircle Communique II.
Apocalypse contains many dark revelations. There is
much that is new and of value. The major strength of this book is
its photographic record. Like Schnabel's Round in Circles, Apocalypse
leaves already damaged reputations in absolute tatters ! Here are
some of the highlights ...
Apocalypse contains ... the full inside story of the
Operation Blackbird farce, the failure of Operation Chameleon to
catch hoaxers in the act, Doug Bower's own photographs of the
circles he made at Westbury and Cheesefoot Head in the early
1980s (plates 15-18), the exposure of more groups of hoaxers and
there is a vivid account of what happened in the "green
room" after the acerbic Granada TV "Up Front"
debate between Doug and Dave and Delgado and Wingfield.
I was impressed with John Macnish's ingenious explanation for
the von Durkheim UFO film (page 188) and pleased to see that the
Canadian researcher Chad Deetken is exposed for dismissing Doug
and Daves' claims without actually presenting any evidence (page
181) ! Furthermore Schnabel and Irving are exposed for
perpetrating numerous crop circle hoaxes and for flying lighted
balloons to fool the "believers" during the CSETI
watch in 1992. For once George Wingfield was right !!
This reviewer was pleased to see that at last someone has
researched the story about the two cars which allegedly were
parked suspiciously close to the Barbury Castle formation on the
night it appeared (page 205). According to rumours this reviewer
has heard the two cars were checked by the military police
because someone had committed suicide close to this spot some
months earlier. This story is yet another piece of negative
evidence which this reviewer discussed in correspondence with
leading CCCS officials but which for some unfathomable
reason has never been published in The Cerealogist or The
Circular. Macnish also reveals that small post holes were
discovered in the centres of the mini circles on the edge of the
Mandelbrot. Again this negative evidence appears to have been
kept from the public. Why?
One of the most important issues in Apocalypse is dealt
with on page 81. According to Macnish the night before TODAY
published its exclusive story about Doug and Dave Pat Delgado was
fully prepared to accept that "all" crop circles were
hoaxes. According to Apocalypse Delgado stated that:
" ... [Doug and Dave] have given me details which leaves little room for doubt ..."
Later (page 182) Delgado admits that Doug and Dave must have
made "99 per cent" of the pre 1987 crop circles whilst
Colin Andrews is alleged to have claimed that there are only
about "a dozen" formations upon which he would
"stake his reputation". Presumably TODAY's
devastating photographs of Doug and Daves' pictogram at Sevenoaks
are not included due to copyright restrictions.
This reviewer was surprised to learn that an early visitor to
the great Alton Barnes pictogram of 1991 had found a suspicious
hole at the centre of one of the circles (page 204). This
reviewer and his colleagues examined all the circles in this
formation within two days of its appearance and found no such
holes. Meaden believes that these post holes were left by himself
and David Reynolds during their survey of the formation shortly
after its discovery. This reviewer recalls Meaden and Reynolds
telling him about their early morning survey a few days later. If
these holes were not left by Meaden and Reynolds presumably
someone else covered-up the holes in order to make the formation
appear authentic.
One of the highlights of Apocalypse is the time lapse
sequences of giant pictograms appearing at night which were
subsequently promoted as "genuine" by Michael Green,
George Wingfield and innumerable "experts" at the CCCS.
These sequences include the 1992 formations at Sutton Scotney,
East Meon and Whitchurch. There are further nocturnal sequences
showing how Jim Schnabel made huge pictograms that were also
promoted as "real" by the "experts". It seems
that some people just never learn!
In chapters 2 to 5 John Macnish describes how he first became
involved in the phenomenon and its researchers. It is important
to record the actual words spoken by Andrews and Delgado during
this crucial event and even more important to have a photograph
of them as they discover Merlin's "Zodiac" board games
in the centre of his hoax!
On page 22 Macnish claims (without naming names) that his
decision to launch Andrews and Delgado as the leading researchers
of the subject caused "considerable anxiety and animosity
from those less privileged in the crop circle community".
Later, on page 34, he accuses this reviewer of having a
"serious personality clash" with Andrews and Delgado.
In this respect Macnish is quite right, for I do have a serious
personality problem with any researchers who knowingly omit reams
of contrary evidence from their public presentation of the
evidence, who scaremonger without conducting proper scientific
tests and who deceive the public by making false claims about
themselves and their abilities at detecting hoaxes. Although John
Macnish is big enough to admit that he too became
"obsessed" with the circles (page 56) and that he was
wrong not to give an opposing point of view to that promoted by
Andrews and Delgado on Daytime Live (page 216) I was very
disappointed to see the way in which he appears to question my
motives in writing to him and his co-producer David Morganstern
in 1989 (see copies of my letters to Daytime Live on pages
23 and 24).
As someone in a position of exceptional media power John
Macnish surely had a public duty to give equal access to ALL
researchers and to broadcast ALL the evidence in 1989 ? Instead
he gave two alien intelligence believers free reign to deceive
millions of people ! On page 23 Macnish admits that right from
the start he wondered whether the crop circles Andrews &
Delgado were promoting were made by people. Did it not occur to
Macnish that by promoting a supernatural explanation he could be
encouraging mass crop circle hoaxing ? Did he not have the
slightest regard for the increasingly outraged feelings that were
being expressed by some sections of the farming community at the
time?
Of course we will never know what might have happened had John
Macnish acted upon the evidence contained in BUFORA's 1989
report Controversy of the Circles. This reviewer accepts
that someone else would have quickly filled John Macnish's place
and promoted the phenomenon elsewhere ! Nevertheless had Macnish
read our report he would have discovered that both Delgado and
Andrews had already decided that crop circles were caused by
alien intelligences in their writings in Flying Saucer Review.
He would also have discovered that Delgado was unable to identify
the Cornishmen's 1986 Cheesefoot Head hoax - the one I considered
as a possible hoax during my interview on BBC TV's South Today
in July 1986. Of course we will never know what might have
happened had John given us (the straight guys) a hearing -
perhaps Andrews and Delgado would never have initiated mass crop
circle hoaxing around the globe!
For some reason no explanation is offered in Apocalypse
as to why Daytime Live falsely promoted the Sandy Reid
case as the "first" eye witness account. Jenny Randles
recalls telling a researcher at the programme about other eye
witness accounts the day before Sandy Reid was screened. She also
has notes taken during this interview which record the fact that
she was told that it was "artistic licence" to promote
Reid as the "first" eye witness to the formation of a
crop circle. John Macnish has told this reviewer that it was not
his decision to promote Reid and that presenter Alan Titchmarsh
may not have been aware of these other accounts. Nevertheless
someone at Daytime Live must have known that there were
other alleged accounts, and that there were proven hoaxes which
had been promoted as "genuine" by some researchers.
It is perhaps a tragic part of crop circle history that this
evidence was not aired at this crucial stage in the development
of the crop circle mythology. Of course the public have a right
to be fascinated by unusual phenomena.
But do they have a right to be seriously misled? On several
occasions throughout Apocalypse Macnish is brave enough to
admit that he too wanted to believe in an exotic explanation, and
that this all-too-human desire tainted his treatment of the data.
At the end of Apocalypse Macnish confesses that he too
must take his share of the blame for "prolonging" the
mystery of the phenomenon. This is the brave act of an honourable
man.
In this reviewer's opinion the early chapters are well written
and informative. There is an important description of how Daytime
Live tried to investigate the "electronic sparrow"
noise that was recorded in the Firs Farm formation (when
broadcast on the 1 o'clock news it caused a sensation). The full
inside story of Operation Blackbird and its successors makes
interesting reading.
Enter the CCCS. Macnish describes how he was introduced
to Michael Green and Stanley Morcom, two of the Centre's founding
members. There is an amusing account of how Green announced that
the CCCS had managed to "establish contact" with
"the circlemakers" in front of some astonished diners
at a posh London restaurant. Ironically Andrews and Delgado are
described as being "suspicious" of the CCCS
"newcomers" who were aiming to "jump on the
bandwagon" (page 73) !
Throughout Apocalypse Macnish reveals his growing
distrust of the crop circle researchers and their obsessive quest
for fame and glory. One of the most revealing comments is
Macnish's description of Colin Andrews' aspiration to
"celebrity status" at the first "Cornference"
at Glastonbury.
"As I sat back listening I noted the atmosphere in the crowded assembly rooms. It bore more similarity to a religious gathering than to a scientific conference."
According to Macnish crop circles became:
"a vehicle by which [the researchers] obtained some degree of fame, the books, the lecture tours, the videos".
As I read Apocalypse time and time again I groaned as
Macnish gradually discovered what was really going on - in some
cases several years after Jenny and I had realised ! On page 66
he explains that it was not until mid 1991 that he began to
realise that "even Delgado and Andrews could make mistakes
when analysing circles". This was four years after the Southern
Evening Echo's 1987 exposure of Delgado's promotion of the
Cornishmen's hoax at Cheesefoot Head in 1986. This too was
information relayed to Daytime Live by Jenny Randles and
myself which, for some reason, was never discussed on air!
It seems that Macnish never truly understood what I instantly
realised that awful day back in 1988 when Meaden told me on the
phone that Andrews and Delgado were writing a book about the
phenomenon. Writing a book? Yes! This is disastrous! Why? Surely
you know what they are going to do? Yes, they're going to write a
book!
It was no use arguing with Meaden, so I immediately rang Jenny
Randles and she agreed - these two men were going to launch
themselves and the subject into orbit. They would attract
hundreds of hoaxers and the whole subject would become utterly
discredited - just like UFOs were in the 1950s!
On many occasions the extent of the cereologists' deceptions
become clear. On page 208 Macnish accuses the major crop circle
research groups of:
"a conspiracy from within the organisations who purported to be investigating the crop circles. Over the years I had seen some evidence of this but now, viewing things from the flipside it became much clearer what was happening".
It is not clear from the way this is written whether CERES
and BUFORA are included in this accusation; however,
Macnish goes on to demonstrate that Colin Andrews, Busty Taylor
and George Wingfield were all fully aware of evidence which
pointed towards hoaxing but which was kept out of the public
domain for reasons which these researchers have never justified.
He also reveals (page 45) that the CCCS knew that the 1990
Etchilhampton formation was created by two people more than a
year before the U.B.I. had their cover blown by Irving and
Schnabel in The Independent magazine, so why did the CCCSrefrain
from disseminating this information to farmers and the public?
Even by the cereologists' low low standards the public
deception that was used to protect the anonymity of hoaxer
"Bill Bailey" is an astonishingly deceitful act - one
for which a case can surely be made for bringing a prosecution
against leading cereologists for perpetrating a fraud on the
British public.
One of the more controversial claims made in Apocalypse
concerns the demonstration circle that Schnabel made on Montague
Keen's farm in 1992. According to Macnish he had tried to
dissuade Schnabel from taking part in the demonstration but
Schnabel had insisted on taking part :
"Keen told us (Circlevision) in no uncertain terms that we were not welcome. I wasn't surprised since word had just filtered through to him that we had commissioned the East Meon formation, and he believed it was a deliberate deception to catch cereologists, and would undermine serious scientific investigation".
"I was fast realising how dedicated these believers were, not only in self deception, but also in their determination to mislead the public. Their so-called scientific project would only include plants from formations which were of 'unknown' origin, the main motive being, presumably to reduce the chances of anyone producing evidence that a circle they diagnosed 'genuine' was man-made. "
This reviewer looks forward to seeing a response by the CCCS
to these criticisms.
One of the book's main weaknesses is that Macnish seems
surprisingly unaware of large sections of crop circle history.
There is no mention of Flying Saucer Review's involvement
in the creation of the crop circle myth. No mention of BUFORA's
open debates held in 1986 and 1987. No mention of the historical
crop circle cases investigated by UFO researchers prior to the
1980s and no examination of the numerous specific case histories
examined in our all published work. Neither is the "Circles
Effect Conference" organised by TORRO in 1990. Why?
I was amused to read (page 207) that in 1993 Colin Andrews and
George Wingfield had recently developed a "craze" for
UFOs whilst on page 78 Colin Andrews is described as being
"humble to the opinion of others" ! Presumably even now
- 5 years after initially promoting the phenomenon - Macnish
still has no idea that Andrews, Delgado, Taylor and Wingfield had
already made their beliefs in alien intelligences quite apparent
with their numerous articles in Flying Saucer Review!
The Authentic History of the Circles Phenomenon (pages
255-237) omits numerous important events which surely have some
bearing on people's&127 judgement on the phenomenon. BUFORA's
1986 report is not mentioned, neither are the Australian circles
that triggered Doug and Daves' hoaxes, or the historical cases
discussed in our published work. Do the crop circle statistics
include circles claimed by eye witnesses? If so why are earlier
cases apparently excluded from these figures?
I was astonished to read on page 167 that the
"hallmark" of a "genuine" circle was the
S-shaped swirl pattern ! Actually it was the lack of damage that
convinced this reviewer that in many cases circles were not
hoaxes. The promotion of this myth is actually a major theme in
the way the crop circle myth developed yet Apocalypse
brushes this aside almost as an irrelevance.
In some ways Apocalypse suffers from the same faults
that Round in Circles contained. There is no credit for
those researchers who discussed crop circle hoaxing in the public
arena as long ago as 1983 and 1986. This reviewer and his
colleagues are treated as if we never once mentioned the word
"hoax" in any book, lecture or TV interview. There is
virtually no credit for CERES or BUFORA for
uncovering hoaxes and dismissing circles before Doug and Dave
confessed in the TODAY newspaper (the one exception is a
brief reference to Philip Taylor's dismissal of the Alfriston
circles on page 229). No credit is given for our suspicions about
the Childrey formation (page 160). Neither Jenny Randles or
myself are credited for being the first researchers to suggest
that the evolving patterns were due to hoaxers tailoring their
patterns to fit people's concept of UFO landing marks. No credit
is given to us for producing reports in 1986 and 1989 which
bought us no financial return and which bought the facts to the
public.
Although John Macnish accidentally stumbles across several
unknown groups of hoaxers making circles during his nocturnal
filming of known hoaxers eye witness testimony of other hoaxers
at work which have been published by CERES and BUFORA
(eg Alan Ridgely and JAD) are not mentioned. On page 63 Macnish
wrongly states that CERES dismissed the Butleigh Wootten
hoax "because the farmer dismissed it as a hoax". In
fact CERES dismissed the circle as a hoax because the
police had caught the hoaxers red-handed ! As someone who
dismissed the pictograms as hoaxes even before they appeared I
was sorry to see myself labelled as just another gullible
believer in the crop circles. This seems a classic case or
rewriting crop circle history !
This reviewer was surprised at the ease with which John
Macnish accepts Colin Andrews' interpretation for the
"circles" found at Thruxton Airport in 1986 (pages
185-6). According to Macnish Andrews found rook feathers at one
site and used this to dismiss all four zones (3 oval shaped areas
and a circular zone underneath an oak tree). In fact in
"Circular Evidence" (page 145) Andrews conjectures that
crows may have attacked a pre-existing circle. Neither is it
clear from what is written that Andrews extended his crow theory
to account for more than a single circle at this site.
In Apocalypse Macnish begins by getting the year wrong
and extends Andrews' argument to cover all four events. Macnish
fails to explain why Meaden found evidence of vortical
circulation in all three oval-shaped areas whilst Andrews (who
had already dismissed Meaden's atmospheric vortex theory) found
none. Macnish also fails to explain why the third area of damage
exhibited a central twisted pyramidal structure - the same kind
of structure claimed by Paul Germany for the circles he claims he
saw in the 1930s. Meaden maintained that the main axis of flow in
the twin-oval system was exactly perpendicular to the orientation
of the main runway. How can crows do all this ? Can they create
precisely circular zones of damaged crop ?
On page 77 Macnish alleges that Meaden proposed a plasma
vortex explanation for the flower patterns that first appeared on
top of Cheesefoot Head. This is quite untrue - as is the
ridiculous claim made on page 120 about how "all"
circle research organisations continued to accept Doug and Daves'
1992 formations as "genuine" even after they had come
clean in TODAY. On page 232 it is claimed that Circular
Evidence reached number 8 in the best sellers list. In fact
it reached as high as number 5.
A more important weakness of this book is Macnish's treatment
of the historical evidence. On page 216 Macnish describes (quite
correctly) how I spoke out on behalf of the truthfulness of Doug
and Daves' claim at the 1993 Marlborough meeting. He then
describes how I passed around my photographs of the Bordertown,
Rossburn and Wokurna circles (photographs which I do not recall
Macnish even examining !). He states :
They showed areas of circular damage similar to the Thruxton incident which Terence Meaden felt was caused by aircraft wing tip vortices. Ken [Brown] like me felt they were not the same as the classic crop circles which everyone now recognised".
Macnish then quotes Ken Brown's letter to this reviewer of
20th August 1993 :
"The photographs in your possession are all of angle-sided impressions. Your whole case seems to be built aaround occurrences which bear little resemblance to the sharp upright-edged circles ..."
On page 88 Macnish states that this reviewer has found
"... nothing which shows [that] crop circles eexisted in the
UK before 1978".
On page 184 the historical cases are described as a "more
random type of damage consisting of ovoid or very rough circle
shapes and rings".
This is quite astonishing ! Just what is the point of
researchers publishing material in the public domain if it is
just going to be ignored by other researchers ? I have already
asked Ken Brown to explain why he ignores the Wokurna photograph
in his analysis of the evidence but to date I have received no
response. John Macnish should have known that this evidence
existed because he has a copy of the second edition of Crop
Circles, A Mystery Solved plus the early Crop Watchers
which included this evidence.
By quoting from Ken Brown's letter (page 216) but not from
this reviewer's response (opposite) Macnish gives the false
impression that this reviewer was unable to challenge his
assertions. This is most certainly not the case!
I again challenge John Macnish and Ken Brown to re-examine the
colour montage that was reproduced in Jenny Randles' book UFOs
and How To See Them (Anaya, 1992, page 83). Also look closely
at the edges in the background of plate 4 in Crop Circles, A
Mystery Solved (2nd edition). Take a look at the plan and
section published in CW3 and CW4. Does the plan not
show a sharp edged circle ? Doesn't the photo and section show a
sharp edge with a swirled zone around the rim ? Remember, these
were drawn by the UFO Australia team at the time, not many years
later !
Despite the claims made in Apocalypse this case study
is absolute proof that at least one sharp edged swirled circle
predated Doug and Dave (the "white&127 crow" that
disproves Macnish's argument !). Of course this is no guarantee
that this circle too was not a man-made hoax [the photo also
shows two footprints inside the circle], but it is not acceptable
to simply dismiss this evidence in the way Macnish and Brown have
done. I have other cases which suggest that photographs of
sharply defined circles have yet to be tracked down. I have seen
the drawing John Llewellyn made of the double rings he examined
at Evenlode, Gloucestershire in 1960. Does this not count as
evidence of pre 1978 circles in the UK ? Why didn't Macnish use
the enormous resources available to him at the BBC to search for
further evidence of these events?
Of course by not searching for historical photographs or
asking this reviewer to send him evidence Macnish successfully
avoids addressing embarrassing questions or debating unwelcome
evidence. Is no one prepared to meet the challenge this data
poses?
I was sorry to see Macnish repeat the claim that all modern
day crop circle hoaxes displayed sharp edges. This is yet another
example where John Macnish seems unaware of contrary evidence
that has already been published (see Figure 37 in The Circles
Effect and its Mysteries). Presumably Macnish can prove
beyond doubt that the 81 flattened circle/ring/concentric ring
cases listed in the UFO Research Manitoba database which predated
Doug and Daves' "first" circles all displayed flayed
edges ?
On page 87 Macnish summarises his analysis of the historical
evidence :
"But search as he could, Fuller, was unable to find any photographic evidence which proved the same circles which we know and love existed in the UK before 1978".
Although Macnish goes on to acknowledge the discovery of
photographic evidence from other countries (which is strangely
contradictory to his basic argument) John Macnish forgets that
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". He
also seems to think that this reviewer has spent hundreds of man
hours searching through photographic archives and newspaper
records for photographs of old crop circles ! John Macnish must
surely understand that this reviewer has never had the time or
the money to undertake such a task because he was too busy
dealing with the "anomaly spill" of Macnish's TV
activities! (1)
Another failing of this book is its treatment of the 1966
Tully circles. According to Macnish Doug and Dave based their
hoax on the media presentation of this event. This is fine, but
if this is true what were the Tully circles - were they somebody
else's hoax ? By leaving open-ended questions such as this Apocalypse
fails to debate the key issues that remain unanswered.
This reviewer is also disturbed at the ease with which Macnish
disposes of eye witness accounts (page 186) :
"Many of the eye witnesses to circle formation have proved less credible than they first appeared, nevertheless they fit more closely with a meteorological explanation than with a supernatural one. To my knowledge not one eye witness has ever photographed the resulting circle which they witnessed being formed, this is a bit surprising since each witness describes the experience as unforgettable".
Again this is not really supportable, particularly as Macnish
avoids dealing in specifics. Which cases appear "less
credible" and Why ? Have all the eye witnesses really
claimed that what they saw was "unforgettable" ?
Do we really expect witnesses to rare and unexpected events to
have cameras ready and loaded ? Remember there are only about
thirty alleged eye witness cases. In addition, without exception,
the eye witnesses claim that the events they observed lasted for
a very short time (which Macnish accepts on page 39). It seems to
this reviewer that skeptics are only too happy to accept the
unconfirmed eye witness testimony of hoaxers at work but totally
unprepared to accept the eye witness testimony of people who
claim to have seen circles forming. Doesn't this sounds like a
classic double standard !
Still, let us play the skeptics game for a second. Does the
alleged lack of convincing photographic evidence really disprove
the existence of ball lightning and meteorites ? It was not until
October 1992 that multiple independent video evidence was
obtained which proved beyond doubt that stones could fall from
the sky (afterall, previously obtained still photos could easily
be hoaxes !). By applying the Skeptics' own argument it is
possible to "prove" that the numerous eye witnesses to
meteorites are all mistaken ! (2)
By ignoring unpalatable eye witness testimony the skeptics
open up a real old can of worms - a key issue in the debate
between logical positivism and official skepticism. How was
Science practiced before cameras were invented to record eye
witness testimony ? If skeptics reject eye witness testimony
shouldn't they also reject the eye witness testimony of
scientists reading the output from machines during laboratory
tests ? Is it legitimate scientific practice to simply dismiss
eye witness accounts without saying what they must have seen if
they DIDN'T seen crop circles being formed by atmospheric
vortices [to falsify the claim]? These are all well-rehearsed
arguments which Apocalypse simply avoids.
Of course with a subject like crop circles it is all too easy
to become a Great Skeptic (something which - ironically - this
reviewer has been accused of on numerous occasions !). It is all
too easy to assume that because we are currently dealing with
(perhaps) hundreds of hoaxers all around the globe that in every
single case human beings were responsible. Of course it&127
is not acceptable to automatically extend this argument to crop
circles which predated Doug and Daves' "first" circles
in 1975/78. Neither is it acceptable science to adopt the
position that nature cannot create precise circular ground traces
when evidence exists which suggests that Nature certainly can !
[eg the 1909 case on page 221 of Crop Circles, A Mystery
Solved or the ice ring cases that feature in Fortean Times
74]
In this review I have tried hard to present a balanced
picture. It has been very difficult - and my loyalties have also
been "severely strained" - because Apocalypse is
a book of cereological extremes - some of the material is
excellent and well presented, but some is shoddy and badly
argued. Apocalypse is certainly worth adding to your
collection because it is the first book to make a strong case for
the acceptance of Doug and Daves' claim. Apocalypse also
exposes the cereologists for their extreme gullibility and public
deceptions. The book is an invaluable guide to how the crop
circle myth developed from someone who was closely involved with
the phenomenon's most active researchers.
However, the real problem with Apocalypse is that
although John Macnish has bravely stuck his neck out and admitted
to his own errors of judgement, his conclusions about the
phenomenon have swung from one unjustified extreme to another.
Having actively promoted the supernatural interpretation by
giving acres of air time to the likes of Andrews and Delgado,
Macnish has now realised his mistake and swung 180 degrees to
support the official skeptics. He lacks the perspective of
Fortean researchers, who are all too familiar with the way in
which an exotic mythology obscures ill-understood phenomena on
the edges of scientific understanding (like ball lightning, for
example). There seems no understanding that anomalies often
become discredited by the social response mechanism. No
understanding that anomalies become discredited BECAUSE they are
presented in black and white terms ("either its a hoax OR
its something unknown to science").
Fortean researchers know that anomalies are poorly documented
throughout history (otherwise they wouldn't be anomalies, would
they). John Macnish seems unaware that Science rarely explains
things in absolute terms and that all the evidence may not yet
have been gathered in. We have long suggested that crop circles
are a combination of hoaxing and meteorology, because from the
very beginning there was evidence to support both explanations.
In this reviewer's opinion nothing has changed, only the
perspective of the commentators.
Let us hope that Apocalypse is not guilty of throwing
the crop circle baby out with the crop circle bath water. This is
a good book which summarises the negative evidence superbly, but
the positive evidence is in many respects given remarkably short
thrift.
Paul Fuller
1. Of course Colin Andrews and Pat
Delgado made several tens of thousands of pounds from their
promotion of the subject so why didn't they undertake a proper
archive search to establish the facts?
2. See "Amateur videos catch a
falling meteorite" by Elisabeth Geake, New Scientist, 12
March 1994. "The first ever filmed record of a falling
meteorite that was recovered after it hit the ground has revealed
that it broke up in a far more complex way than expected".
3. Circlevision have informed us that
Prince Philip has ordered a copy of Apocalypse and that
sales are going very well.
Readers will be interested to learn that Cropcircle
Apocalypse has already won cautious support from, of all
people - Colin Andrews !!!! - who on March 2nd published a press
release entitled "Now the work really begins". Andrews
states that Apocalypse contains "substantial evidence
of hoaxes perpetrated over the past two years which [John
Macnish] obtained with the co-operation of the major teams of
hoaxers, primarily Doug and Dave ... "
He continues :
"I am totally convinced there is a real and important phenomenon amongst the chaff we have seen over the past few years. Whilst John gives excessive focus to those [crop circles] which he has evidence of having been hoaxed, he steers well clear of discussing any [crop circles] in his book which appear unexplained. During our discussions, I pointed out to [John Macnish] construction details on several more complicated patterns and said I felt these represented the real phenomenon. Although he admitted they were unclaimed and unexplained, he avoided discussing them in his book ... He was well aware that formations claimed by Doug and Dave were withdrawn immediately I challenged them to explain certain details which had impressed me ... He also avoided discussing the Alexander footage of the disk in the field, focusing instead on footage from Communique that was easily explainable as seeds blowing in the wind."
I am sure that regular readers will be surprised to learn that
Colin Andrews had already publicly dismissed the von Durkheim
film as merely showing seeds blowing in the wind ! Andrews
carries on:
"The work ahead is clear. All the information presented in John's book has to be carefully collated to the database to look for discrepancies. Now we may see the real value in the stamp collecting of the past 11 years [ my emphasis, PF]. In 1991 when Doug and Dave originally came forward to claim the circles, they stated that they began making them in 1980. Now that we have given evidence of the phenomenon existing prior to that date, including a photograph taken by a farmer in 1978, they conveniently discovered they began work earlier than they thought, at least back to 1978. If back engineering is going on, details in the data base may provide the evidence."
Andrews concludes:
"It will take several months to complete these enquiries and collaborations back beyond 1978. When we have finished we will be able to make a detailed statement as to the validity of (or not) of John's claims. In the meantime, it is most wise for those passing information to the public to be prudent. There are few who have access to early information or who have the experience of early site work to support their views when under questioning. In our attempt to resolve the true nature of the phenomenon, the evaluations will be based on the best available evidence for a genuine phenomenon vs. that for hoaxing, not on privately held beliefs."
Readers will also be interested to learn that in the CPR
International Newsletter Vol 1 No 4 Colin Andrews has finally
discovered that there are eye witness accounts of crop circles
being created. He even promotes Melvyn Bell's account, although
it is noticeable that there is no public apology for the serious
allegations Andrews made against Bell on the Gloria Hunniford
show in 1989.
Sadly Colin Andrews' apparent support for Apocalypse
has not been repeated elsewhere. We gather that Canadian
researcher Chad Deetken has vehemently dismissed the book as
"crap" ! George Wingfield has not yet responded to my
letter of March 12th discussing the allegations in Apocalypse
about him fabricating evidence and covering up "Bill
Bailey" 's identity. Neither have we seen a public statement
from Pat Delgado, the "father of cereology". According
to this reviewer's sources both Deetken and Wingfield have yet to
actually read Apocalypse!
Your Editor understands that the CCCS has not yet
commented on the allegations contained in Apocalypse due
to an astonishing row that has developed over the promotion of
the Bythorn formation (a photograph of this multi-ringed
star-shaped formation features on the front cover of The
Cerealogist, no 10). Apparently some senior members of the
organisation have accepted Julian Richardson ("Bill
Bailey")'s claim to have created the formation whilst others
believe some nonsense about a farmer with a shotgun and some
terrified sheep !! No doubt we will read more about John
Macnish's new-found liaison with MBF Services, the FBI
and the CIA in the next edition of The Cerealogist.
