Some time ago, I posted a piece called Discernment in which I stated my view - no, my conviction - that the Vesica formation of 6th June by the Kennett Longbarrow was not only a hoax but a remarkably poor one.


This is a recurring dilemma for me. The overwhelming lesson that the crop circles have brought me is that there are no certainties and certainly no Certainties; the phenomenon seems to speak of Perhaps, of Maybe, or of What If? I come away from these years depressed by those who are convinced of their unquestionable Truth and yet, here I was, offering my own version.

As I said, in mitigation, I feel myself to be reasonably qualified to give an opinion on design and geometry matters and in particular as they relate to the circles. I normally try to stay out of it, but in this case no less than three commentators were praising this deeply crummy effort to the sky. I offered a dissenting voice. 

But now I find I appear not for the prosecution but for the defence.

08.08.08
Last year the East Field events of 7th July, now widely known as 07.07.07, caused great excitement. This season many felt there would be a matching occurrence on 08.08.08 and, with equal excitement on the evening before, dozens of teams disposed themselves around the hills and fields in the hope of witnessing a similar event. (In the interests of thoroughness I checked through the archive to see if there had been an 06.06.06 crop circle or indeed an 05.05.05 or an 04.04.04. There was nothing. Are we to expect an 09.09.09?) 

Now I am a jaded old cynic and I have watched too many hopes dashed and predictions fail. I wished them well but did not hold my breath. In the event I was wrong and the optimists were dramatically right. A gargantuan formation, perhaps a double ring, perhaps an infinity symbol but most certainly acceptable as a figure 8 appeared below Milk Hill.   

The behaviour of Earthlings is remarkable in its consistency. East Field of last year, at over 1000 feet in size one of the largest crop circles ever, was quickly claimed by the usual suspects. The brief flash in the sky was stated to be caused the ignition of one of the hoax crew's hair which he had lit instead of his cigarette. (If this is, as I certainly know it to be, yet another foul lie, it shows just how stupid they must be to believe it would be swallowed. If, stretching imagination beyond breaking point, it is true, it shows just how dumb they must be to set their hair on fire while trying to make a circle at night. Or indeed at any time doing anything!) 

But, yet again, the volume of mindless chatter doubting this year's astonishing gift was deafening. Not this year from hoax claimants but from researchers. And listening carefully, what was the complaint? They simply didn't like it! The critical dialogue is so limited and illiterate that it presumes that, if you do not "like" it, then, without question, it must be man made. 

THE FIRST AXIOM
We must pause here. We know that the crop circles touch us deeply and personally. We all have favourites. Equally, there are formations which simply do not appeal to certain individuals. But why can we not calmly examine this and digest it? Why do we always run to the knee-jerk hoax nonsense?

Down here on Planet Earth, it is difficult to change material reality. Ours is a dense and sticky realm. And yet, broadly speaking, we assume that crop circle fakers live in an easy and ideal domain. There, in Fraud World, mistakes are never made, everything runs according to plan, projects are finished precisely on time, people do not leave essential equipment at home, batteries do not run out and nobody sets scalps on fire.

Anyone who has made anything knows the problem. Anyone who has built a model aeroplane for their kid (the last bit never fits) or anyone who has assembled an Ikea flat-pack desk (one bolt is always missing) knows that the material world is a sneaky place with endlessly inventive pitfalls. Architects, engineers and surveyors live with this and have a realistic and perhaps slightly jaundiced view. Only the innocent and naieve would so easily reach for the pathetic old hoax story. These people have never, I suggest, made anything bigger or more demanding than a Christmas tree decoration. 

EVERYTHING YOU EVER HEAR ABOUT A HOAX IS A LIE
In the early 1990s I published The First Axiom of crop circles: "Everything you every hear about a hoax is a lie."  I have checked and rechecked this axiom over nearly twenty years and it has never failed. On the very rare occasion it is even questionable it is the exception that proves the rule. Why then are we, the supposed crop circle fans, the first to blurt nonsense, without evidence? Each time we do this, we support the hoaxers. We add a feather to their cap, a trophy to their wall. 

The Milk Hill 8 is not a favourite of mine. I did not like it. However it is without question one of the most remarkable feats of surveying and precision in circle making that we have ever seen. It was, in my opinion, aeons beyond the ability of human fakers. 

SOMETHING ABOUT SETTING OUT
Imagine that we wish to position 11 posts at 6 foot centres along a straight line. There would be 10 spaces between the posts and the whole array would measure 60 feet in length. There are two distinct methods of setting it out: sequential measurement and running measurement.

Using sequential measurement we would measure 6 feet from the first pole to position the second and then measure another 6 feet from the second pole to position the third. We would continue, step-by-step, in the same way.

In running measurement, the tape is fixed at the start and each pole is placed in order along the tape at 6 feet, 12 feet, 18 feet and so on.

The problem with sequential measurement is that small incremental errors can accumulate and it would be easy, after repeating a six foot measurement ten times simply to multiply a mistake ten times. Many small incremental errors become a large cumulative error. 

Running measurement is self correcting. It allows dimensions to be checked at every stage. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I mention these two methods because I feel they represent two significantly different ways of working. It is my view that they help to illuminate the chasm between a crop circle and a man-made fake. The real formation always brings with it a decisiveness, a will and an intent.  The real formation carries a sense of completeness. Nothing needs to be added or taken away. There is never the spirit, often found in a fake, of an improvised enterprise.

The fakes, by definition, because they are made in the real three-dimensional world, suffer because they carry the evidence of laborious step-by-step construction.

I do not know why the circles arrive here or how they are made. However, it is clear that they come from elsewhere, they are designed elsewhere and their appearance in our reality takes only moments. When a crop circle is delivered, it arrives fully formed. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If we apply the logic of sequential and running measurement to the radial division of circles, the problems are greatly amplified. Let us assume we want to place 10 circles around a ring of, say 100 foot diameter. We use the centre of the ring to mark the 50 foot radius. 

The first idea would be to accurately calculate the ring's perimeter, divide it by ten and then  locate each of the ten circles. Here are the problems.

1    The length of the perimeter of a 50 foot radius circle is 2πR or 2 x π x 50 or 100 x 3.1415... ie 314.14 feet. The distance between circle centres would therefore be one tenth of 314.14 feet or 31.414 feet. 
 
Look at the diagram (1) showing two circles positioned on the ring. What is immediately apparent is that the 31.41 feet distance between the centres of circles A and B is an arc (AcB), 1/10 of the perimeter. To measure the exact dimension, you would have to carefully lay the measuring tape along a curve (in a wheatfield, in the dark, but let's forget about that!).



2    The straight line between the circle centre A and B is the chord AdB and of course, being a straight line, it could be easily measured. It would be 30.9 feet in length but I have never seen any evidence of straight lines between circle centres in these circumstances.

3    The placing of equally spaced elements around a curve is a recurring problem. Look at the decorative pattern on, say, a ceramic plate. If it is mechanically applied, you will always be able to see see the join, the pattern's start/finish gap. 

The North Down shield of 5th July 2003 (2) is a wonderful example. It was made of 11 concentric rings. Looking carefully, the rings can be seen to be an egg-and-dart pattern, a simple linear decoration in which small circles are separated by thorn-like concave elements. 


 
The innermost ring had 17 elements and the outermost 72. A full circle has 360° and therefore we can calculate that the angle between the innermost elements was 21.176...° while the angle between the components of the outer ring was exactly 5°. I have studied each ring individually and at length and I have never found an irregularity in spacing though  I notice that some of the rings, number ten particularly, are wider than their neighbours. How is that done? I never personally had the courage to try and draw it. Allan Brown produced a drawing but even he admits that it is idealised.

4    Bearing all this is mind, and remembering that there is no such thing as a crop CIRCLE (they are all slightly oval), the real difficulties in disposing circular elements around a ring become clear. 

5    Ten or fifteen years ago I would have suggested that the only way circles could be positioned around a ring would be with a surveyors theodolite or transit placed at the centre giving accurate angular readings around a pre-made ring. Nowadays with the astonishing development of GPS equipment, points can be indicated on the surface of the earth with uncanny accuracy. Most modern building and engineering contracts are set out by satellite. This requires enormous professional preplanning and above all it cannot be done in the field in the dark.

THE GEOMETRY OF MILK HILL 08.08.08
Look at the photograph of Milk Hill (3). You will see that the two large circular chains of circles are similar. The only difference is that one of them has the small strokes, commas or teardrops on the outside while the other has them on the inside. In other respects they are identical.



The two rings join at an elaborate buckle-like feature which contains a Celtic Cross. But the most remarkable feature is that each ring is made up of twenty one circles of different sizes and - stare at the photograph - there is no discernible irregularity in the space between circles. The circles grow but the gaps between them are absolutely consistent. Diagram (4) shows a quadrant of one of the rings and the angles (from the centre) between them. Of course we must also bear in mind that the average crop circle is not only a crop oval but that it rarely displays its geometric centre.



I believe this would be a massively difficult enterprise to engineer so exactly on perfectly flat ground, in daylight and with no limit of time. I believe that anyone who suggests it was a hoax is a loudmouthed fool. I breathlessly await evidence to the contrary.

But, as always, everything you every hear about a hoax is a lie.

MG.