The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL about UFOs

The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL

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

SPECIAL ISSUE #2: "A Looney a Look"

December 1992 ISSN 0707-7106

===============================================================

Following numerous requests for additional information regarding UFOs

and crop circles in North America, I decided to make available the

original manuscript of "A Looney a Look". This article was just

recently published in the INTERNATIONAL UFO REPORTER (CUFOS), Volume

17, Number 5, Sept/Oct. 1992, pp. 9-12. The IUR version is slightly

different from the manuscript, and includes two photogrpahs which are

not reproduced here. Readers are recommended to obtain the published

version from the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies at: 2457 West

Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659. I think the single issue

cost is $25.00.

The article was written to show a different approach to the crop circle

phenomenon, and the describe what a typical investigation is like.

For further information, contact UFOROM or NAICCR at Box 1918,

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3R2. The Swamp Gas Journal is copyright

Journal do not represent the opinions of the University of Manitoba or

the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Address email correspondence

to: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca

=======================================================================

"A Looney a Look"

I had just settled into bed, and was going to forego

watching the late news. I was bone-tired; the kind of tired only

a parent with an eight-month-old baby can appreciate. It was

about 10:30 PM, Sunday, August 16, 1992.

The phone chirped (telephones don't "ring" anymore). It was

Roy Bauer, an associate and good friend who has accompanied me on

many an investigation, and vice-versa. He told me that a teaser

for the news had a story about new crop circles in Manitoba.

Film at eleven.

Several days earlier, he and I had gone with another NAICCR

associate to Friedensruh, Manitoba, where we investigated the

claims of a crop "triangle" in a pasture surrounded by an

electric fence. We had concluded that the UGM there had been

caused by cattle accidentally herded within the fenced area.

Still earlier in the summer, various NAICCR reps had visited

other crop formations closer to Winnipeg, which were heralded by

their discoverers and the media as being communications from the

space aliens. As soon as we had seen them, we knew they were

lodging, a common field effect created by a combination of wind,

rain, and weak plant stems.

But the story on the news that night spoke of actual

formations: circles with arrows and rings. Now these were more

unusual, and sounded more like their better-known British

cousins.

NAICCR (North American Institute for Crop Circle Research)

was formed as a sister group of UFOROM (Ufology Research of

Manitoba) in 1990, in response to requests from British

cerealogists wanting information about crop circles in North

America. We had realized that, although there were a number of

people in North America who were independently investigating crop

circles, there was no comprehensive gathering of data underway.

Furthermore, like most UFO or Fortean groups, UFOROM members had

been studying crop circles for decades, long before they were

popularized in Britain. Ted Phillips' catalogue of physical

traces listed many such swirled circles, along with other traces,

going back before the turn of the century. These UGMs (unusual

ground markings) had been cropping up (pardon the pun) from time

to time in North America, sometimes with an associated UFO

sighting.

So, NAICCR began investigating Canadian crop circles and

soliciting information on American cases from other investigators

and groups. (The phrase "pulling teeth" comes to mind.) With

the co-operation of several researchers, NAICCR has published

reports and an annual review of North American UGMs, a feat still

lacking on the British scene. (Sure, they publish lots of pretty

pictures, but what about the data?)

But I digress ...

After Roy called me, I turned on the TV and flipped channels

until I found a provincial newscast. Sure enough, there was a

short blurb about crop circles near a town named Strathclair. I

thought hard about where that was in relation to Winnipeg. I had

a funny feeling I was going to be driving a long, long way.

There was little more that could be done that night, so I

jotted down a few notes, and turned in. Again.

The next morning, I drove to work early, fearing that a

barrage of phone messages from the media would await me. On the

way in, I heard a brief clip of a radio interview with a woman

who had observed a UFO at the circle sites. This was a rarity in

cerealogy, and was a supporting datum for the ETH with regards to

crop circle creation. Colin Andrews would be pleased, I mused.

There were surprisingly few media calls at work, and I dealt

with them quickly. Curiously, the local TV networks were not

really interested in the new cases. I had hoped to get their

help in obtaining aerial videos of the formations, as NAICCR

hardly has enough money for gas, let alone airplane rental. But

it turned out the media were gun-shy; they had been "burned" by

their coverage of the previous non-events, and were not going to

do anything further on the story. This was okay, since it would

mean we could carry out an investigation without the cameras

following us around, as in other years.

I phoned the editor of the Strathclair area newspaper, Greg

Nesbitt, and got more details about the cases. There were said

to be seven separate sites, plus a handful of UFO sightings.

Since they had been found, at least two or three hundred people

had visited the formations. Well, so much for finding any useful

clues. But, because of the unique shapes involved, we still felt

it was worth a look. I told Greg that a NAICCR team would be out

the next day.

On Tuesday morning at around 8:00 AM, Roy Bauer, Guy

Westcott and I left Winnipeg for Strathclair. The town is about

275 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, and it took us exactly four

hours to reach the area. We had been told that one of the sites

was clearly visible from the highway, but we didn't notice it on

our way in. We arrived in the town of Shoal Lake, where we were

to meet Greg, at around noon.

Greg was going to be our guide, but we had an hour to kill

before he was ready to lead us out. So, being hard-working

investigators, we went to the local bar. During lunch, we made

casual inquiries about the crop circles. Everyone had at least

heard of them, and some people admitted visiting the sites. We

went over to the RCMP office and inquired if they had received

any official reports. The commanding officer barely contained

his amusement with the situation. He joked that he had the

aliens in a jail cell. He did admit, though, that they had

received some calls about some bright lights that weekend.

We met Greg around 1:00 PM in his print shop cum newspaper

office. He grabbed a tape recorder and we headed for our

vehicles. This was big news. Not only had the aliens landed,

but investigators had come all the way from the "big city" to see

them.

Greg led us back down the highway to a patch of field

halfway between Shoal Lake and Strathclair, just outside a hamlet

named Ipswich. (It was interesting how the first crop formation

in the area was at a site named for a British city.) We had

missed it because from the road, the site looked just like a

patch of lodging. We had seen many such patches on the drive

out, and in fact had stopped to examine one closely.

But this wasn't lodging. Once we were led in on the well-

trodden path, the shape of the formation became quite clear.

Slightly elliptical, the site had diameter axes of 26 and 24.5

feet. On a northeasterly heading of 65 degrees, an arrow

protruded away from the crop circle, giving the effect of the

symbol for Mars, or "male". The wheat was about four feet tall

outside the formation, and was neatly bent and swirled

counterclockwise inside the circle. The wheat was bent away from

the circle inside the arrow, and toward its end points. The

width of the arrow corridor was about 28 inches. While we

measured, took samples and photos, two truckloads of visitors

arrived. They tramped through the neatly-woven grain, and added

to the disturbed state of the site.

The site was only 40 feet away from the nearest access road,

and about 100 feet from the highway. It had been found on

Saturday, August 16, 1992, by the owner of the land, and reported

to the media the following day. By that time, word had spread

anyway. Once the circle news had got out, a woman reported that

she had seen a UFO over the field on Friday evening. She had

been driving from Shoal Lake to Ipswich, and had been passing the

field when she observed a dark object with two "headlights" and a

flashing "taillight". The UFO moved slowly over the field at an

estimated height of a telephone pole, and about 250 feet away

from the witness. After a minute or so, it moved out of sight

behind some trees. Two other people driving along the highway

also glimpsed the object before it disappeared.

After we had finished our work at the Ipswich site, Greg led

us to the next site, nearer Strathclair. This formation was

visible from the highway, situated on a slight hill so that it

was visible to eastbound travellers. It, too, was a Mars symbol.

This time, the main circle was perfectly circular, about 24 feet

in diameter. The arrow was thicker than the one at Ipswich, and

pointed on a bearing of 120 degrees, away from the highway.

Guy, Roy and I began musing about how one would go about

making such a formation. Greg made a comment about how skeptical

we seemed to be. After all, wasn't it obvious that only aliens

could have made the formation? He related how one of the first

people on the scene had found a "dinosaur footprint" at the point

of the arrow, and how it had been suggested that the arrow could

have been made by a ramp extended from the landed, circular UFO.

Of course, the numerous visitors to the site had eradicated any

sign of the print.

I thought about the arguments which were raging on the other

side of the Atlantic, one of which was about whether or not it

was possible to hoax a crop formation. On impulse, I sat down

abruptly in the field. I was completely out of view of my

colleagues, a few feet away. "Let's try making a circle," I

offered. Greg was doubtful. No human could make such a

formation, surely. (I told him not to call me ...)

I looked at the wheat closely. It was planted in neat rows

about four inches apart. I got up and walked about thirty feet

away from the site, carefully stepping between two rows. I

looked back. There was no sign of my entry. I began walking in

what I thought was a circle, met my own path and began spiralling

inward. Roy joined me, and we performed a triticale pas de deux,

trampling the wheat in a circle twenty feet in diameter. In five

minutes, we had made a fair copy of the "real" circle. Stems

stuck up here and there where we had missed them, and we did some

touch-ups. I was surprised to find that our effort was almost

exactly circular.

Greg and Guy compared our handiwork with the "real" site,

and declared it a reasonable facsimile. ("Maybe someone could

have made it," Greg mumbled.) I bent down to look at the newly-

trampled wheat, and was greatly surprised. One of the points of

contention in debates over "real" and hoaxed British circles is

that wheat stems in "real" circles are bent, not broken. When

one crushes wheat underfoot while walking in a field, it is

assumed that the wheat stems would show numerous kinks and

breakage. Virtually none of the wheat in our new crop circle was

broken. Somehow, the stems were neatly bent over in a

counterclockwise direction, swirled into the center, and showing

no evidence of having been trodden upon.

I never intended to show that hoaxers had made the formation

this way. Indeed, I would expect that there would have been some

basic tools used instead of one's own feet. But this formation

had been made a few days after a full Moon, and the wheat was

tall enough to afford cover if a car had chanced to pass on the

highway ...

There were still a few other questions about the formation,

though; the hoax theory wasn't completely fleshed-out enough to

my satisfaction. What was the motive? How was it done, really?

Why would anyone bother? And what about the UFO sightings?

We headed for the other sites. They were all approximately

three miles south of the main highway, along a farming road. Two

were directly across a road from one another. As we drove up, we

saw that some boys were standing in front of a formation,

wielding a hand-painted sign. As we walked over, it became

readable: "A LOONIE A LOOK". ("Loonie" is a Canadian slang term

for a dollar coin, because of the image of a swimming loon on one

side.)

The boys turned out to be a gold mine of information.

Contrary to what we had been told earlier, this particular

formation (another arrowed circle) had appeared over a week

before. The one across the road had appeared first, a week

before that. After the second had been found, the boys had

thought to make a ringlike path around the whole formation, so

that visitors could examine the site without disturbing it.

Unfortunately, their idea didn't work, and what's more, the ring

had been assumed to be part of the original formation.

The arrow from this circle pointed on a bearing of 260

degrees. When we later plotted all the formations on a map, we

were disappointed to discover that the directions indicated by

the arrows didn't converge. Furthermore, none of the arrows

pointed toward a significant local feature such as a native

midden, burial mound, mountain, or new age mystic site. (Now, if

I was going to make such an elaborate hoax ... )

The fifth site was clearly lodging. However, because it was

only a mile from the two nearest formations, many people had

visited it. While there, more visitors came by, and we asked

them about other sites. We were given directions to other fields

where formations were said to have been found, but we were unable

to verify any others.

On the drive back to Winnipeg, we stopped in at a TV station

in Brandon. The news director told us of another circle site in

the area. As it was already late, we decided to ask another

NAICCR rep, Jeff Harland, to investigate. He lives in Brandon,

and had investigated some UGMs in the area a few years ago. We

dropped by his house (by some remarkable timing) exactly at

dinnertime, and found ourselves graciously invited for supper.

During the meal, we compared notes and swapped ideas about the

crop circle scene. We drew up some maps of the formations, and

talked for hours about our findings.

We learned that a TV special on British crop circles had

been aired on the Friday night that the Ipswich circle was

probably made. It could be that someone got the idea to hoax a

circle from that show, but then, two circles were found before

the show was aired. Other than that program, there had been very

little media attention given to crop circles. There was no

national or international coverage of the North American circles

during the summer, and the media were staying away from the

British formations in droves.

We had taken both VHF and AM/FM radios into the formations.

No interference was heard. A compass was not deflected by any

magnetic anomaly. A tape recorder worked fine, and there were no

beepings or strange signals left on the tape. Animals were not

wary to enter the sites, and there was no lack of insects at the

sites. None of us felt any "bad vibes", unlike some circle

investigators at other formations. All of these effects were

checked because some cerealogists are insistent that anomalous

phenomena plague such sites. Apart from the fact they were

there, there was nothing particularly unusual about the sites.

("Another mysterious crop circle. Yawn.")

The wheat samples we collected will be sent to various

researchers for testing. Now that cerealogists have finally

conceded that spagyrical analysis (the "tests" which showed a

change in the "crystalline structure" of the plant cells) is

spurious and unscientific, and the supposed radionuclides found

in crop circles have been shown to be glitches in the data, the

only remaining anomalous effects associated with crop circles are

the growth studies done by Dr. Levengood at the Pinelandia

Biophysical Labs. He claims that wheat from crop circles will

grow more readily than control samples. This is easy enough to

check, since we now have more seed samples. Of course, these

will be double-blind tests.

Since our expedition to the Strathclair formations, we have

kept abreast of the British scene, and read with interest the

reports of investigations by the Project Argus group. North

America has only had one complex crop circle formation, and it

was distinctly different from the British experience. My biggest

concern with the British circle scene was the overabundance of

formations in southern England compared with the rest of the

world. Why does Britain have so many crop circles, and why do

they look as they do?

From my correspondence with other researchers, between 50

and 75 percent of all British formations are suspected to be

hoaxes. I would suggest that the actual fraction is much

higher - probably around 90 percent. Either way, there is no

question that the British data is badly contaminated. What is

needed is a comprehensive list of the British sites with

indications of which ones are likely or proven hoaxes. It seems

that people are delving into mystical philosophy and Gaiean

premonitions without first sorting out the "good" data from the

"bad" data, whatever the two sets may be. (Paul Fuller, editor

of The Crop Watcher, a British circlezine, has just reported that

many "expert" cerealogists have grudgingly begun considering the

fact that most, if not all, crop circle formations are likely

hoaxes.)

So far in 1992, less than two dozen North American crop

circle (rather, UGM) sites have been investigated. Despite low

media coverage and a number of hoaxers' admissions, about two

hundred sites have been found in Britain this year. What gives?

The infamous circle hoaxers Doug and Dave probably made less than

ten formations, despite their earlier claims which were accepted

wholeheartedly by the general public. Two NAICCR investigators

caught a hoaxer here in Manitoba. Big deal. We know that crop

circles can be hoaxed, and that cerealogy "experts" cannot tell a

"real" circle from a hoaxed one. Why haven't the circles gone

away? And a better question: why is there still so much

interest in these peculiar UGMs?

Cerealogy has attracted at least as many loonies as ufology,

unfortunately. We seem to be looking at another sociological

phenomenon, perhaps a reaction to our confused technological age.

I'm not particularly convinced that crop circles are alien

hieroglyphics, plasma vortex traces or patches left by mating

hedgehogs. Actually, I'm more fascinated by those who think that

there is enough evidence to adhere to a certain theory.

So with that, at least until I get my next phone call, I

will lay back and reflect on all this circular reasoning. Pun

intended. (Again.)

A Looney a Look, Part 2

Where, exactly, is cerealogy heading? Well, according to Paul

Fuller, editor of the CROP WATCHER, a British circlezine, cerealogy

could be in for some real trouble. In a recent issue of CW, he had

this to say:

"Even the paranormally-inclined cerealogists have admitted that 1992

produced fakes galore, with few prepared to stick their necks out and

claim that a single (NB!) British circle qualified as 'genuine'. In

some ways, this restrained response could be construed as an

over-reaction to last summer's hoax revelations, but in reality the

awful truth has dawned on cerealogists everywhere - that most modern

crop circles really are man-made hoaxes and that if there ever was a

'genuine' phenomenon in the first place it has now been utterly swamped

by a smokescreen of wishful thinking and media-inspired mythology. Sad

words indeed but a fact which most researchers now seem to be accepting

with some reluctance."

Later on, Paul notes that "leading cerealogists accept that they have

lost the crop circle battle and that it is time to flee the sinking

ship." A number of cerealogists are said to be emigrating to the USA!

As for the remaining "meteorologically-caused" circles, Terence Meaden,

that theory's main proponent has now stated that: "Anything other than

a simple circle is definitely a hoax", and he has now restricted the

number of 'genuine circles' to "fewer than a dozen a year". Paul

further notes: "It remains to be seen whether Meaden's meteorological

theory can survive such trauma."

Later in the issue, there appears a map of England, showing the

locations of "Known Crop Circle (Groups of) Hoaxes". Paul noted

that "there are so many known hoaxers that we couldn't

squeeze them all in!" Good old Doug and Dave, who got all the

publicity, are on there wih their small number of formations.

In North America, we know that Rob Day made a few hoaxed circles in

Alberta, a farmhand was caught by my colleagues and I in Manitoba, and

at least one set of hoaxers admitted to some circles in the American

midwest.

But what about all the physical evidence for crop circles? As noted

earlier, the radionuclide issue is very nearly dead. When I had first

been told of the unusual readings inside crop circles, I was very

surprised. Crop circle "experts" were convinced that their readings

were correct, and that there was something abnormal about the creation

mechanism for crop formations that resulted in bizarre nuclear

reactions. Yttrium? Protactinium? Tellurium? As soon as I saw the

list of the elements, I knew the cerealogists were off on a wrong

track. In order to create such elements, the proposed mechanism (a

neutron beam) would have had to make other elements as well. But these

weren't detected. Therefore, I knew the findings were probably

spurious. There had rarely been any detectable radiation associated

with circular, swirled impressions previous to the cerealogy furore, so

it was odd that these new versions of UGMs were suddenly littered with

unstable elements. For those researchers insistent that crop circles

were something other than the traces catalogued by Ted Phillips, the

radionuclide discoveries were proof that the crop circles were

abnormal, and a new phenomena altogether. For those who considered the

British crop circles as only a new twist on an old phenomenon, the

radionuclides were only red herrings.

What about the unusual characteristics of the circles? Things like

the woven nature of the wheat and the claims that the stalks were

"bent", not "broken"? The fact that "expert" cerealogists were fooled

on more than one occasion suggests that these characteristics are not

as cut-and-dry as one would like. And, as Paul Fuller points out, the

1992 formations are very suspect, and no one is willing to declare them

authentic. As my experiment at the Strathclair site indicates, wheat

stalks can be bent by manual or mechanical means in ways that would not

leave breakage. To complicate matters, the quality of the wheat will

affect this characteristic. The diameter of the stalk, the moisture

content, the weather, the soil nutrients and a host of other factors

will all affect the bending/breakage.

One oft-repeated mystery is the abnormal "crystalline structure" of

wheat stalk sections, as discovered by a British laboratory.

Micrographic photos of these sections were reproduced in a number of

cerealogy books and zines as proof of a mysterious force at work in the

circles. But as soon as the photos were published, some researchers

became suspicious. What, exactly, was the procedure which generated

the crystalline analyses? What devices were used? It was reported in

some circlezines that questions about the analyses were rebuffed by the

reporters of the information. It was only through continued requests

that it became known that the procedure was actually "spagyrical

analysis", a techniques developed by an alchemist hundreds of years ago

and without much scientific credibility. Colin Andrews, in an

interview published in the summer of 1992, conceded that the analyses

were not acceptable as scientific methodology, and that the results

were suspect.

Finally, the remaining physical evidence: the appearance and

abnormal growth of wheat seeds taken from within crop circles.

Reported originally by Michael Chorost, the seed tests were performed

by Dr. Levengood at Pinelandia Laboratories in the USA. Seed samples

were obtained from circle sites in Canada, the USA and England.

Microscopic examination showed that the outer seed shells were

irregular in shape, with many "pits". When grown in a laboratory, the

seeds from inside crop circles grew better than control samples. It

was therefore concluded that some force probably caused an alteration

in the genetic structure of the wheat.

It will be interesting to see if this claim stands the test of time.

Samples from Canadian crop circle sites are being prepared for sending

to Dr. Levengood and other researchers in a double blind test of this

theory. One would wonder if the samples from last year were from sites

which were actually hoaxed. Because of the difficulty in establishing

the "genuineness" of a site, it would be very odd to have all the

previously-tested samples produce consistently positive results.

Another claim that is often hawked is the similarity between crop

circle formations and ancient hieroglyphics. Some cerealogists have

"translated" crop formations and discovered a warning from space

beings, communications from Sumerian priests and "diatonic ratios".

The most scientific of these interpretations was published in Science

News, written by a noted archaeologist. He made the observation that

whatever was creating the crop formations in England had a knowledge of

geometrical theorems. Four theorems were "proven" through the

appearance of some sites, while a fifth theorem was postulated. It was

argued that random hoaxers could not possess such abilities.

If most crop formations are hoaxes, then ANY discussion about

"translating" the formations' text is pointless. Aside from a few

definite arabic lettering examples at sites (and one "reply" to the

aliens/Sumerians), reading obscure alphabets into crop formations has

led only to confusion over whether the circle creators were Hebrew,

Sumerian, Egyptian or alien. Of course, if the circle creators knew

enough about terrestrial alphabets to begin with, one would think that

a better medium could have been selected. And, since the

identification of circle formations with old alphabets involve some

liberal artistic licence, advanced circle creators might make their

attempts at communication more precise and open to less interpretation.

All this is hair-splitting compared to the real problem of why crop

circles seem to be most prevalent in southern England. Some records

(such as they are) suggest over two thousand circles have been

discovered during the late 80's and early 90's. Yet, the numbers or

complexity of the formations are not evident in other areas of the

world. A puzzling aspect of the UFO phenomenon is its presence

around the globe, with cases in Asia as well as America. Indeed,

simple crop circle UGMs have been found in virtually all corners of the

globe. But complex crop formations are really only in England. Why?

Is this an indication of a profound, new kind of physical phenomenon,

as some cerealogists propound?

Probably not. As the ratio of suspected crop circle hoaxes to

"real" circles climbs higher with each new evaluation, it is my guess

that the British crop circle wave will boil down to a flap of standard

flattened grass/wheat UGMs, to a level comparable with worldwide

activity. There MAY BE a new phenomenon at work in southern England,

but the data so far presented does not bear this out. A recent

excellent analyses of British data (finally available) published in the

Crop Watcher went to great length to attempt to support the Meaden

vortex hypothesis. It was shown that there was a predominance of sites

in geographical positions favourable to wind-realted effects, as per

the theory. But data was supplied by Meaden, and there was no mention

of a filtering for hoaxes. This would be of particular importance

since Meaden has now reduced the number of "real" sites under

consideration, according to Paul Fuller.

The bad news is that there is NO definitive evidence that suggests

there is a "real" crop circle phenomenon at work in Britain. Physical

evidence is debatable, "expert" opinions are questionable, and proposed

theories are not supported by known physical mechanisms. But WHO,

then, is responsible?

Certainly not Doug and Dave, for one thing. An army of

technically-skilled hoaxers? Hard to imagine? During the crop circle

peak, estimates of a dozen new formations per day were considered

accurate, if not conservative. One thing generally forgotten is that

most crop circle sites were only singles or doubles. Such UGMs are

painfully easy to hoax. Why weren't they seen? How did they do it at

night? Hard to say.

The good news is that labelling crop formations as "hoaxes" does not

eliminate or solve the problem. How WERE some of the sites made in

darkness and in fields supposedly under surveillance? Furthermore,

there is a possibility that the vortex theory CAN account for some

simple formations. Which ones?

As for the possibility that aliens were responsible, that remains

intact - as a possibility. The ETH is almost always invoked when a UGM

is discovered, with or without a UFO sighting. There are some videos

of lights bobbing about British fields around crop circle sites, and

one disputed video of a small "probe" Daylight Disk flitting across a

British field. In rebuttal, vortex theorists produce eyewitness

testimony of winds creating flattened circles. Can both sides be

right?

As much as debunkers would like to believe the crop circle issue is

solved in terms of Doug and Dave, there's more to the problem. The

much broader "phenomenon" of cerealogy is still in need of examination.

Is there a residue of unexplained cases among the hopelessly

contaminated data? Why has the subject attracted such attention? Why

has there been such a preponderance of sites in southern England? If

hoaxers were behind so many of the formations, what was their

motivation? How does the crop circle fervour compare with that of

other historical and mythological physical traces such as fairie rings,

megaliths, witches' sabbaths, linear mounds and petroforms? And on and

on and on.

While this article will be interpreted as having a very negative,

skeptical tone, it is only because such an attitude is natural when

faced with an overwhelming amount of published comments and literature

that do not seem to have addressed the core of the cerealogy problem.

Instead, there have been coffee-table books of marvelous photographs and

exciting speculation about the messages from the alien scribes or the

new atmospheric mechanism responsible. But in very few cases have the

Emperor's New Clothes been examined very closely. Debunkers very

quickly pointed out the absurdity of such claims, but cerealogy refused

to listen. This was one of the causes of the embarrassment faced by

cerealogists during the days of the hoax expose. Researchers were too

keen to expound upon the circles' mystery without taking a tip from

ufology: try a conventional explanation first. Note that this is not

debunking - just rational investigation. And it applies to all areas

of Fortean research, not just cerealogy. Ufology and cryptozoology are

just as prone to these problems.

Waht is the solution? I certainly am not about to offer one. It

has to come from the entire cerealogy or ufological community, from the

relevant peer groups who are sincere about their research efforts.

Until such time, we will be continued to be regaled with experts

talking about mysterious energies at work inside circles, invisible

alien scout craft with rotating landing gear, secret military aerial

microwave beam platforms, ancient Sumerian hieroglyphics, witnesses of

perfectly circular wind vortices and, of course, the infamous mating

dance of hedgehogs.