Dear Crop Watcher, I write in response to Rob Irving's
informative letter review of my new book Alien Energy,
published last November. He raises several points which need
discussion, and in brief these are as follows:
(i) that the close-proximity light burst he and Pam Price
witnessed (their names are not included in the text) when making
the Shaw Farm formation of July 1992 was seen 'overhead' Rob, not
to one side as suggested by the text. Secondly, that Pam Price
also witnessed this inexplicable flash of light;
(ii) that he did not, as I stated, witness 'a ball of light at
close quarters' with three other circlemakers when out making a
formation in Wiltshire during August 1993;
(iii) that the peculiar 'fishing reel' noise stated in the
text to have been heard by Pam Price, Rob, my partner Debbie and
myself when standing at the barn on the southern edge of East
Field, Alton Barnes, in May 1992, following the witnessing of a
flash of light above Knap hill moments beforehand, was in fact
the road noise of passing vehicles. Further, that the flash
itself did not take place;
(iv) that the UBI group did not just make a total of three
circles/formations, but a great many more between the years
1990-2, as alluded to in his article 'Rolling your own' written
by Jim Schnabel and published in The Independent magazine during
late 1992;
(v) that it was I who 'informed us that John Martineau had
claimed authorship of the Dharmic Wheel' formation of 1992, but
that I now suggest that this same person, who had open links with
UBI, did not do any formations either on his own or with the
aforementioned group;
(vi) that he, Rob, was conducting his 'infamous' balloon
experiments as early as July 1992, coincident to anything
witnessed by Steven Greer, John and Julie Wakefield et al, a
point unqualified and overlooked by the text of Alien Energy.
In turn then, please allow me to answer these queries:
i) in respect to the burst of light seen at Shaw Farm, I have
no recall at all of you telling me that it came from overhead as
opposed to one side, or that Pam Price also witnessed this event.
I do, however, clearly remember the conversation we had on this
subject. Sadly, I did not record this interview; however, I am
happy to update this account in any subsequent editions of Alien
Energy;
ii) the incident concerning the ball of light allegedly seen
at close quarters when constructing a formation in 1993 was told
to me by Rod Dickinson, one of your closest circlemaker friends.
He suggested I might like to take the matter up with yourself,
which I did indeed that same day. Your words were that you would
need to speak to the three other people involved before any
detailed information could be given. Sadly this was not to occur.
You now say this event did not happen in the first place, so
where does this leave me ? The brief reference to this incident
will be dropped from any subsequent editions of Alien Energy,
unless I receive a detailed account of what really did occur,
whether in respect to yourself or to anyone else.
iii) concerning the incident in May 1992 in which we witnessed
a flash of light above Knap Hill and heard, straight afterwards,
a strange 'fishing-reel'-like noise. My recall of this event is
crystal clear, as is my partner's Debbie's. Not only did all four
of us witness the unusual flash, but we even went up to Knap Hill
car-park to find out whether anyone might have been responsible.
Finding it devoid of vehicles or activity, we gave up and moved
to The Waggon and Horses at Beckhampton. Don't you recall this,
Rob ? Why should it still be clear in my mind, and not yours ?
As for your explanation of the recurring 'fishing-reel' sound
being 'road noise from an approaching, then arriving, and then
departing vehicle', this is not only news to me, it is completely
absurd. No, I have no recollection of you making this suggestion
at the time of the incident, or of putting it to the test. What's
more, there were no vehicles in the vicinity when the noise was
heard, and secondly, it was mainly heard over the heads of the
wheat, not in the direction of the road; only on one occasion,
its very last occurrence, was the strange noise heard behind us
in the field beyond the road. I am not suggesting this sound was
definitely paranormal (indeed, I make mention of it possibly
being a bird startled into flight by the flash), however, it
concerns me slightly that your memory of this incident is so bad.
I spoke with you face to face on Saturday, 5 November 1994
concerning this matter. You made no mention of this 'car noise'
theory and accepted that my recall of that night 'is obviously
much better' than yours;
iv) in respect to the UBI group's activities, having
extensively interviewed all four members of the group, viz. Paul
Randall, Matthew Watkins, Andrew Potter and Cornelius Crowley, on
more than one occasion, I have found no good reason to doubt
their claim that since they first met at Operation Blackbird
during the summer of 1990, they have collectively been
responsible for only an insignificant 'stick-man' formation in
wheat at Bishops Canning in late 1990, a small grass circle at
Warminster in 1991, additions to the Avebury Trusloe formation of
1991 and a 400-feet long formation in rape at Urchfont in 1992.
No other claims made against the UBI by yourself and Jim
Schnabel have so far been substantiated and unless Paul Randall
and his colleagues are extremely good actors, then the various
occasions I have chatted at length with them have shown no
indication whatsoever that they are collectively concealing
untold secrets concerning mass hoaxing activities. Any
insinuation that these youths were the A-team of 1990-2 is, I
feel, simply absurd. The purposes for their limited circle-making
activities was purely communication with alleged
extra-terrestrial influences, and having gained no dramatic
responses to their handiwork, they subsequently changed direction
and began concentrating on crystal-linked meditational work.
Claims that you have tapes incriminating Paul Randall and his
colleagues are eagerly awaited. Any statements made on these
tapes will be taken up with the individuals concerned. Until such
times little more can be said on the matter;
v) your suggestion that I 'informed us that John Martineau had
claimed authorship of the Dharmic Wheel' of 1992 is simply
untrue. From a very early stage I was aware that Jim Schnabel had
constructed this formation close to Silbury Hill, and have never
thought otherwise. What I did say is that rumours were
circulating to suggest that Martineau was the culprit and that he
was doing little to quell them, thus allowing the guilty finger
to be pointed in his direction.
During my investigations into the activities of the UBI group
during 1994 I interviewed Martineau at length - the fruits of
which are contained in Alien Energy. I am satisfied that,
despite his affiliation to UBI in its early stages, as well as
his continued friendship with Paul Randall, there is no real
evidence to suggest that Martineau is responsible for the
construction of any known crop formation. Any evidence to the
contrary is simply the result of his own failure to dismiss the
rumours out of hand;
vi) claims that your 'infamous' balloon experiments of 1992
began when Steven Greer, John and Julia Wakefield and many others
were witnessing mysterious balls of light above Tawsmead Copse in
July that year are still unsubstantiated. No written account of
these events has ever appeared in any journal and those featured
in the video Cropcircle Communique II relate to balloon
activities in 1993, not in July 1992.
Even if you were letting off balloons around this time (and I
accept as much in the text of Alien Energy), then this in
no way accounts for the quite specific sightings of aerial lights
I have featured in the text. I have gone to great length to
investigate these cases first hand, and can find no obvious
evidence that what people saw were mistaken balloons. other cases
left out of the text were disregarded as they were either
second-hand accounts or interpretable as mundane or man-made
phenomena. When balloons were the obvious answer to sightings in
the Alton Barnes area, as in the case of 27/28 July 1993, then I
plainly state it.
However, I think it is perhaps pertinent to mention that when
we spoke of this subject face to face on Saturday, 5 November
1994 you openly admitted that: 'I have never said that any of our
balloons were responsible for the UFOs reported in 1992.' By this
admission, I feel we should accept that your ballooning
activities are of little importance to the principal incidents
reported in and around Alton Barnes during this or any other
summer.
It is also perhaps relevant to point out that when John and
Julie Wakefield watched Cropcircle Communique II they
became even more convinced that the orange ball(s) of light they
witnessed on three occasions at two separate locations around
Alton Barnes on the night of 28/29 July 1992, bore no resemblance
whatsoever to the illuminated balloons demonstrated in this
video. What they saw was something different altogether, whatever
its true nature and origin.
Lastly I wish to point out that although I can completely
understand (but cannot condone) the draw of illegally
manufacturing crop circles and crop formations at the dead of
night in the name of art or psychic communication, this
understanding does not extend to the deliberate creation of
aerial luminosities of the sort described above. Such acts can in
no way be seen as extensions of the artistic talents of those
concerned, simply outright deception and trickery aimed at making
a mockery of a subject that relies heavily on the accuracy of
witness testimony to further its knowledge of the phenomena under
study.
This, I feel, answers each of the points raised by Robert
Irving in his letter to CW23
concerning the privately published, research edition of Alien
Energy. Obviously comments such as these do get my back up,
but it is important to iron out any teething problems before this
book reaches some form of commercial publication.
I also hope that in the future a closer liaison might be kept
between circlemakers such as Rob and the crop circle community as
a whole, for only then can queries such as these be eradicated
before the publication of such material, and not afterwards. very
Best Wishes, Andy Collins. Essex.
PF Notes: Despite my repeated attempts to persuade
Robert Irving to respond in full to Collins' letter he has simply
replied by submitting the following.
"Tolstoy once said, 'I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread-by-thread, into the fabric of their lives.' "
Unfortunately Irving's quote applies to all the crop circle
researchers, not just to Collins.
Following the article we published in CW23 about crop circle
hoaxing in Wiltshire we have received the following letter from a
member of the crop circle community who has been falsely accused
of being one of the "deep throat" sources mentioned in
this article. We would like to make it clear that this person was
not the source of the information we published. Furthermore, it
is my Editorial decision to anonymise what follows :
"Apparently, during the winter months the 'circle
believers' meet at the Barge every third Sunday for informal
UFO/crop circle meetings, a fact of which I was unaware until
actually arriving there. My only reason for being there was that
I was providing transport for two overseas friends and they had
arranged to meet with a well known crop circle researcher who was
to take them to the airport later that afternoon.
Having arrived there early, I was largely unaware of the
number of 'croppies' that had subsequently gathered in another
part of the pub. Upon a short departure to Marlborough I was
conscious that a keen eye was at the window to see which car I
would get into, as I had rented one for the weekend and my usual
vehicle had obviously not been spotted.
On returning to the Barge I visited the lavatory and, as I was
about to leave, two people came in and blocked my exit in a
rather aggressive manner. One of the two men explained that on a
previous meeting with myself (last summer) he had used a
pseudonym in order to 'test' if we would impart his
'confidential' information to anyone else. I was then accused of
being the 'deep throat informer' mentioned in issue 23 of The Crop Watcher,
and that I was a complete c**t (all expletives theirs, not mine
!) for informing on them, and that just by being in The Barge I
was pi**ing everyone off. At this stage I was planning to try and
talk my way out of the situation, which was becoming increasingly
hostile. Fortunately, one of my friends emerged from the toilet,
unaware of the exact nature of our impromptu lavatorial meeting.
I motioned for him to stay, thinking that I had less chance of
being hit if there were two of us. At this stage the situation
improved, but I was further threatened: 'Everyone here thinks you
are a c**t and if you ever come in here again you and your car
will be done in' ! The two men suggested that it would make
things easier for myself if I explained to everyone exactly why I
was there that afternoon. I said that if people had a problem
then I was quite approachable, and that this moment in time was
an ideal opportunity for them to talk to me. This was met with
the rejoinder, 'They think you're a c**t, so they won't want to
talk to you !'.
It was apparent that they were furious about The Crop
Watcher and the fact that it seemed that the 'hoaxers' had
won the day. A well known member of the crop circle community
then entered the lavatory and saw what was happening. His advice
to the two men was to wait until they actually caught the hoaxers
red-handed, and then they could 'get them', knowing that they had
caught the right culprits instead of just accusing people without
any real evidence.
And so ended an intimidating experience which had lasted for
ten minutes or more. Considering it is generally known that X was
responsible for the very first small circle to be made in East
Field last summer, I find his threatening behaviour somewhat
rich'.
Mr Anonymous 2.
Dear Paul, I have read with great interest., and a certain
amount of despair, the latest issue of Crop Watcher, and
there are a few points in it which I would like to comment.
First of all, what is an 'official' sceptic ? If you mean a
member of one of the CSICOP-related sceptics
organisations, does this mean that any member of BUFORA or
Quest UK or the Neasden UFO Club is an 'official' ufologist ?
As a cowardly, jeering, know-all from Magonia, I'd just
like to know what the hell you're talking about. What is this
'help from the more rational elements of the UFO community'
you're talking about ? Magonia has actually written very
little on the subject of corn-circles for the simple reason that
from fairly early on we decided that they were not very
interesting except as artworks. I have just checked through the
back issues, and found the following references :
Issue 27 contained a review by John Harney (who works at the
Met. Office, Bracknell) of the original BUFORA booklet by
Jenny Randles and yourself. Although doubtful of the
meteorological explanation, he recommended the booklet as 'an
interesting and useful summary of the facts and theories on this
particular topic?' Damning with faint praise, perhaps?
Not exactly the cavalry riding to your aid, but in issue 31 we
did print your article 'Mystery Circles, our Golden Opportunity',
which allowed you to express at some length your criticisms of
other ufologists and cereologists.
In issue 34 (October 1989) a review, again by John Harney, of
your revised booklet, Delgado and Andrews first book, and
Meaden's The Circles Effect, Delgado and Andrews are
trashed, Meaden is taken seriously and you and Jenny are
commended for 'revealing the activities of the myth-makers and
the more irresponsible ufologists who constantly air their absurd
notions in the tabloids and in the barmier UFO journals".
In issue 37 (October 1990) both Peter Rogerson and I begin to
have our doubts about the meteorological/plasma hypothesis. In a
review of Jenny's talk to that year's Sheffield Conference Peter
says: 'what is lacking from Meaden is a clear mathematical model,
with testable predictions.' In my review of the first edition of
Crop Circles a mystery solved my doubts are expressed over the
lack of crop circle phenomena in Warminster during the late
sixties and early seventies. At this point I first express my
view that the crop-circles are largely the work of 'hoaxers'.
Issue 39 (April 1991) contains a review of a clutch of corn
circle titles by Peter Rogerson. Although not impressed by any of
them (well we don't have to be, do we? ) he concludes 'I suspect
Meaden's ideas may have more relevance to general ufology than to
the crop circles themselves.'
In November 1991 I decided that I've had enough of corn
circles, and in the piece Corn Flakes set out why I think they
are all artistic creations. I think my arguments still hold, and
have been reinforced by subsequent events. In the next issue (No.
42) some readers criticise the Corn Flakes article, and I
respond, defending my position, and conclude: 'I feel reluctant
to impose too much of this argument on the long-suffering readers
of Magonia... this correspondence is now closed.'
Undemocratic, but there you are ! Issue 44 contained Magonia's
last word on corn circles - a sarcastic little back-page piece by
yours truly. After that we got down to the really serious stuff
like skinned cats and Satanism, and the only time since that corn
circles have darkened our pages was when I reviewed Schnabel's
book.
So there you have it, a fairly desultory record, and I make no
apologies for it. I'm not quite sure what you think I should have
done: giant front page headlines saying 'Paul Fuller is right,
you bastards, listen to what he's saying' ? Certainly up to the
Corn Circles piece we were supportive of a 'hoax based on a rare
meteorological phenomenon' explanation, which you now tell us you
believed all along (although that's not the impression I got from
our correspondence in 1992). I'm sorry you don't think we gave
you any help, but that's hardly our job. We were just printing
what the various contributors to Magonia thought of the
subject at the time, and its a pity if you can't accept that.
I'm even more puzzled by your other comments on Magonia:
after describing how your asthma prevented you making hoax corn
circles (sorry to hear about that - it's a bugger, as I know from
experience) you say 'of course there were no official Skeptics
[there you go again] or Magonians to assist me ... they were too
busy sitting at home watching TV'. Well, maybe I was too
engrossed in Coronation Street to bother answering the
phone when you range me to say 'Hey John, why don't we drive down
to Wiltshire and make a few corn circles just to show those
dead-beats how easy it is to fake one!', because if you had I
would have jumped at the chance. Mind you, you would have had to
provide transport, as John Harney, Roger Sandell and myself are
all confirmed non-drivers. But were we asked ? Were we hell - so
what right do you have to make such a statement ? I seem to
remember you being pretty self-righteous and NFU about people who
made 'fake' circles and damaged poor starving farmers' profits.
Now you're claiming it was only your health that prevented you
from making experimental circles. Just who are you kidding ?
There are a couple of other points I'd like to raise: In your
review of Alan Watts peculiar book, you say that BUFORA
should hang its corporate head in shame 'at allowing a member of
the Association to produce such a dishonest, fraudulent book...'
Since when has BUFORA had control over what its members do
in their own time and been able to veto publication of any book ?
They've got quite enough to hang their heads over with the books
they have put their name to or 'allowed' senior officials to
write without also having to take responsibility for books
written by private individuals who hold no official post in the
Association.
Where do you get this peculiar idea that the circle
controversy has 'set UFO research back by 50 years' ? Apart from
the fact that this takes us to before the Arnold sighting [1947],
what is your evidence ? UFO research is quite capable of shooting
itself in the foot, with or without circles, and at the same time
is making significant progress in fields totally unrelated to
corn circles. To many ufologists corn circles are just an
interesting and amusing irrelevance.
I feel that eight years immersion in the world of corn circles
has had a serious, but not irreversible, effect on your sense of
proportion. I would recommend that on first awakening each
morning you repeat out loud three times CROP CIRCLES ARE NOT ALL
IMPORTANT. As they say, Paul, 'get a life'. Things are much more
interesting outside the world of crop circles.
Yours,
John Rimmer,
London.
The Crop Watcher has received a letter expressing
similar sentiments from Graham Harrop of Gosport, who writes
".. do you really believe that a few crop circle researchers
have put the UFO research back 50 years ? ... you must not let
emotions blind you from the truth. Do you feel this helps the
issue to go round calling people cowards and UFO traitors ? Come
on Paul get a grip." Readers who wish to see my written
responses to these letters should send a SAE with a 25p stamp to
the Editorial address.
Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved by Jenny Randles and
Paul Fuller, Robert Hale Ltd (2nd edition), ISBN 0-7090-5267-7,
price £ 6.99.
The Crop Watcher is printed by the Catford Copy Centre,
3 Bellingham Road, Catford, SE6 2PN, telephone 0181-695-0101.
Photographs of Anomalous Ground Markings which have been
interpreted by some researchers as historical crop circles.
Dellroy, Ohio, U.S.A. 1965 Tully, Queensland, Australia 1966 Wokurna, South Australia 1973 Bordertown, South Australia 1973 Rossburn, Manitoba, Canada 1977
Sites supplied by Paul Fuller for the National Monuments
Record Coversearch.
List A) Specific Sites/Dates, including the Ordnance
Survey Grid Reference and years requested.
1) Evenlode, Gloucestershire. SP 220290. June 1960
2) Eastwood, Essex. TQ 850886. July 1964.
3) Maiden Bradleigh, Wiltshire. ST 810390. Any post 1945
years.
4) Little Chervill, Wiltshire ST 970525. July 1983 (site of
Melvyn Bell's eye witness account).
5) Charlton, Dorset/Wiltshire border. ST 900210-910210. 1951,
1952, 1963.
6) Earl Shilton, Leicestershire, SP 480980. 1940, 1941, 1942.
List B) Generalised Sites/Dates, including the Ordnance
Survey Grid Reference and years requested.
7) Cheesefoot Head, SU 525828. Any year 1950-1980, but
particularly 1959-91.
8) Cheriton, Hampshire, SU 590290. Any year 1940-70.
9) Beacon Hill, Corhampton, Hampshire, SU 598210. Any year
1940-70.
10) Bratton/Westbury, Wiltshire, ST 880510. Any year 1940-80,
particularly 1976-78.
11) Cley Hill, Wiltshire, ST 840450. Most years 1940-80.
12) Pepperbox Hill, Wiltshire, SU 210250. Particularly
1958-91.
Table 2: Number of Plates Inspected
Site Location Vertical Oblique Specialist
Total
Number Collection Collection
1 Evenlode 4 0 4
2 Eastwood 6 0 6
3 Maiden Bradleigh 32 24 56
5 Charlton 6 0 6
7 Cheesefoot Head 21 33 54
8 Cheriton 27 0 27
9 Beacon Hill 19 5 24
10 Bratton/Westbury 15 2 17
11 Cley Hill 11 46 57
12 Pepperbox Hill 3 11 14
Total 144 121 265
Robert Irving writes :
My correspondent in the Meteorological Office has sent me a
note which may be of interest to your readers; especially those
promoting claimed sightings, and, indeed, those attempting to
dispute them. It reads: Regarding Andy Collins' contributions to
the 'Woodborough Hill sighting'; irrespective of what Greer and
Mansell did or did not see from Woodborough, I thought you might
be interested in some comments regarding visibility.
a) For a particular station (e.g. Lyneham), the
convention is for a met. observer to record the minimum
visibility in any direction. If, for example, he can see 10 km to
the north but only 5 km to the south, then the visibility is
officially 5km. Therefore, even accepting Collins' assumption
that '...the same conditions almost certainly prevailed' in the
Pewsey Vale as at Lyneham, a visibility of 6km at 1am would
ensure a visibility of at least 6km in the direction of Urchfont.
b) Visibility readings are generally obtained by
judging the clarity of dark objects at known distances, without
using visual aids. A series of bright light sources, especially
viewed through binoculars, would obviously been seen at ranges
greater than the official visibility.
c) Since there was no met. observer on Woodborough Hill
at the time in question, I looked back to Mansell's account in
Vol. 3 No. 3 of The Circular. Referring to an 'estimated
flightpath' in the Urchfont direction, he reports that the lights
'became stationary at a position just above the horizon'. In
other words, according to a 'level-headed' eye-witness, the
horizon was visible. Robert Irving, London.
