When I posted “Discernment” a couple of weeks ago I knew, deep down, that a can of worms would be opened. I did something I do not recall ever having done before in sixteen or seventeen years of writing. I stated that, in my view, a specific formation was man-made. 

Now, in mitigation, your honour, there are several points that should be put forward.

First. The accused Glickman, does not usually spread negative rumours about particular circles.

Second. The wretched accused stated, very clearly, that this was no more than his opinion.

Third. The pitiable Glickman advanced several coherent reasons for that opinion.

Fourth. After all these years, he is not bothered by the occasional pedestrian hoax; they are, after all, generally boring. His real concern was that people who should know better were using this fake formation as a coat hook for their favourite 
theories. 
_____

The lovely Horton Vesica arrived with its six small limbs defining a containing Golden Section rectangle and thus, by inference, blowing out the half baked ideas of Green Whatever who claimed that the Vesica emboided an inherent assiciation with the Golden Section. Within days there was another bombshell. Horace Drew (whose silly canine nickname I will not use here) wrote yet again to pursue his eclipse theory and stated that Horton was man-made!

This must be a record. A person praises the most obvious and pathetic hoax one week and the next week suggests that an exemplary and innovative formation is man-made.  And what were the reasons for this outrageous calumny? Simply, the formation was not exactly the way he would have liked it to be in support of his his much-vaunted eclipse theories. 

This is yet another example of a person who is determined to make the crop circle phenomenon support his pre-existing theory rather than consider that his pre-existing theory might be flawed.

I find it painful to give much energy to this stuff. The internet is such a powerful global tool. And whilst the crop circle phenomenon is served by several excellent websites, the inability of some to exercise editorial control over what is posted is trivialising the phenomenon with tangible consequences.

And here is an prime example of what happens. The farmer of the Horton field is a close neighbour of mine. When the formation arrived he was furious and, in the way of all farmers, he assumed it was “vandalism”. Crop circle researcher Janet Ossebaard met him in the field, cooled him down a little, and suggested he put up a collection box by the field. I spoke to him the next morning and said that he had two choices. First, he could pass by this prominent and accessible crop circle daily, fume with rage at the inevitable visitors over the five or six weeks before harvest and give himself a cardiac arrest. Or second, he could collect money every day from the box which would bring him far more (even in these days of increased wheat prices) than the downed crop in the circle was worth. The clincher was my assurance that it was a great formation and not a hoax. 

The next day I met him and he was even more furious. “So it is man-made!” he snarled. I asked him what he meant. He had read it on the internet and, like thousands around the world, he assumed it to be the unquestionable truth simply because it had been posted with no caveat or disclaimer on a prominent website.

Small events like this can cause formations to be cut our or closed off to visitors.

Earlier this year (the Internet working its charms again) a message went around suggesting that a group of farmers in the Beckhampton/Avebury area had agreed that they would immediately cut out any formation they found this year. This caused a flurry of anxiety among those croppies who do not remember that this very notion bubbles to the surface every couple of years or so. It is no truer this year than it ever was but imagine, for a moment that my neighbour (whose name - out of respect for him - I will not disclose) was a member of this mythological farmer-vigilante group.

What excitement there would then be! This ill-considered and hastily published statement might well have become incendiary. Having given angry farmers their justification to destroy a beautiful circle, would the website demand an abject apology from the author?

I implore websites to consider their wider responsibilities and exercise a tiny amount of editorial care and judgment. I beg contributors, thrilled at the possibility of seeing their ideas in print, to consider just a moment what might be the repercussions.    

Cans of worms are waiting to be opened.