First, matters arising.

In “The return of the Ratchet Spiral” I suggested that the length of the spiral path was 2,880’. I was wrong and, in mitigation, I did say “by rough calculation”. I hope nobody was seriously misled and I hope that you can forgive me.

Now, in a substantially calmer frame of mind, I have recalculated and the path length is about 2,298’. This is extrapolated from an accurate measurement of the centre circle diameter which was 43’. I would have liked to have walked it but did not. The ratchet-steps are 10’9” from centre-to-centre of paths. The spiral path, throughout its length, is 3’4” wide and the internal diameters of the ellipsis circles are 34’8”, 26’8” and 16’8”. I hope this information is useful.

I am so thrilled by the richness, wit and articulacy of the Barbury Castle stepped spiral that it pains me to address the following subject.

From the Sublime to the Pathetic.

I drive regularly along the A4 and it is a real sadness to have to see the mess passing itself off as a crop circle, in the field at West Kennett (June 6th), surely by an amateur planker pretending to be an “artist”. I take some comfort from the fact that this graceless effort has grown out and is now largely invisible.

It is my view that the “Vesica Pisces” of 6th June was not only a hoax but a bad hoax, an ignorant hoax and a transparent hoax.  What hurts - even more than having it ruin a prominent field - is the blanket acceptance of this so called fraud by the internet crop circle community, a total eclipse of discrimination by supposed researchers. 

This will upset several people. I stated “it is my view” and, of course, I must always accept the fact that I might be wrong. If however my opinion is incorrect, then an abysmal new low for a “real” crop circle has been established here.

To preempt the "who does he think he is?" crowd, let me state my credentials. I have taught architecture, design and geometry in several universities and colleges in the UK and the USA for over 30 years. Since 1990 I have been measuring and drawing the crop circles and my book "Crop Circles", now in its third edition, deals with the geometry and typology of the formations. If nothing else this qualifies me to an informed opinion on these matters.

Back to West Kennett.

The standard of manufacture on the ground was unquestionably bad but, above all, the design is of a spectacular crudeness. The central semi-circle and the pathetic half ring that accompanies it are superficial ideas badly made. The encompassing border is uncharacteristically wide while the lines forming the Vesica are strangely thin and underplayed. The radiating sunbeams are crudely conceived and executed. We all, in our humanness, make mistakes but who could have fallen for this obvious confection? Who could possibly imagine that this pedestrian design could be from the same pen as the noble Barbury 2 formation?

Within the radiating sunbeams there is clearly a mistake; someone flattened the wrong part leaving a thin out-of-place line. This line is cited by one researcher as part of an eclipse connection. If that line was meant to be truly significant then why, in formal terms, is it so inconsequential? Why does it look like an afterthought? Surely we have learned that the majority of circles work at a higher level than this. 

I claim no knowledge of eclipse cycles and I defer to the scholarship of others. But, here on earth, we already know the dates of future eclipses and we can be sure that the crop circle authors know that we know. Is it suggested here that the crop circle phenomenon is simply a goofy date-book? Can we expect confirmation from a future formation that, yes, Christmas Day will fall on December 25th?

The Golden Section, however, is something I do have some knowledge of and, having read - several times - the attempt by “Green Shepherd” to connect this formation with the divine ratio, I must state (and again this is no more than my opinion) that this is over simplistic, over enthusiastic, busy work.

The almond-shaped vesica at the centre of this classic form can contain two equilateral triangles. These triangles can generate the two hexagons which can lead to the so-called Flower of Life diagram. The Vesica Pisces, the second diagram of the sacred geometry canon symbolises the Division of Unity, the primal act of creation. It is, by its essential nature, a part of three-fold and six-fold, triangular and hexagonal geometries. Is it seriously claimed by “Green” that the assembly of one, six, one and then eight random components implies a meaningful relationship with Phi, the Golden Ratio, 1.618?

As we know, five-fold pentagonal geometry is inherently bonded to Phi but it occurs rarely, superficially and only occasionally in relation to the Vesica and no last-minute Googles of Wikipedia or obscure Masonic texts will support his flimsy idea.

Nick Kollerstrom at least puts his own name by his contribution. We know that “Red Collie” is really Horace Drew but who is Green Shepherd? From now on, perhaps I will write as Norwegian Blue Parrot!

Maybe it is appropriate to write glowingly of false circles using only false names.

The information on the circles is eagerly digested by tens of thousands of people, hungry for reliable intelligence. Those of us who are privileged to write, lecture or comment carry the obligation of teachers to separate our speculations and conjectures from accepted fact. We should think carefully before we put out either questionable information, or idle speculation. We should take our responsibilities - and priorities - more seriously. The crop circles have already been sufficiently trivialised by others. Do we really need to do it ourselves?

Above all, discernment should be exercised. Perhaps we can start by insisting that we all use our real names.

Footnote

I finished this piece last night and was pleased to be rid of it.

This morning I got a call from Gary King who had found a new formation at Horton  in a field only metres from my house. Look at it and then look at West Kennett. Little more needs to be added.


Jay Goldner has shown that the Horton formation is precisely contained by Golden Section rectangle. Obviously, the rectangle at Horton includes, and is sized by the extensions to the Vesica. This goes to clarify my point that the unelaborated Vesica Pisces has only a tenuous relationship to Phi.

The circle phenomenon has illustrated my argument much more eloquently than I ever could. Horton is simple witty and inventive. It takes the idea of the Vesica and weaves playful, elegant but above all new ideas from it.

Is the difference not screamingly obvious?