Posts Tagged ‘Crop Circles’

Intricate Modern Crop Circle Formation________________________________________

“There should be a Pulitzer Prize category specifically created so that filmmakers like Gazecki can be properly recognized.”  — Roger Ebert


“Original and objective, Filmaker William Gazecki is one of the finest documentaries of all time.”  — Sundance Institute



Best crop circle documentary ever made. If you only see one, make it this one. Covers all the bases leaving no stone unturned: the history, the research, the theories, hands-on formation and sample analysis, decoding and more. All the heavy hitters are here, such as Lucy Pringle and Colin Andrews.

Begins at the beginning with the first simple modern formation discovered in Great Britain, and progresses in linear fashion to the present day, as it explores the ever-more-intricate complexity of the formations, while the field of cereology itself was experiencing it’s own evolution along the way: from simple visual observation and crude measurement of the early crop circle formations, to the current state-of-the-art research, such as spectrum analysis of soil and plant fiber samples and more.

The scientific field of cereology was born the day of that first discovery made in England. Although arguably still in its infancy, cereology has made great strides toward not only achieving a solid scientific understanding of this mysterious phenomenon and its implications, but toward establishing itself as a legitimate field of scientific endeavor in its own right as well.       





Okay, I had watched this particular video a few times and really liked it. The quality is good, the content is good, it does a good job of covering the Chilbolton and Crabwood Farm House crop circles, and it features an appearance by Paul Vigay, the cracker of the Crabwood disk code, who died not long afterward under mysterious circumstances.

I was deleting a lot of stuff that had accumulated on my favorites list when I stumbled across it again and decided to give it another viewing, thinking I might stick it somewhere on my site.

And that’s when it happened. After viewing this video I don’t know how many times and never catching it, this time something caught my eye around midscreen beginning at 3:14, as the producers were flying over the Crabwood “alien face” crop circle and shooting footage for the video. I watched as it moved to the right in a roughly horizontal trajectory and finally off the frame at 3:19. It is visible for 5 full seconds, travelling at a constant, moderate rate of speed.

To be a little more specific in terms of the UFO’s location within the frame: if you draw an imaginary line across your screen horizontally at the midpoint, and another one vertically at the midpoint in order to form four equal quadrants, you will be watching the upper right-hand quadrant. If you consider the top of your screen to be north, the bottom south, the right side east and the left side west, the UFO exits the treeline at the midpoint of the screen, pretty much where that white tower is located on the south side of the treeline. Then the UFO traverses the field where the crop circle is located, moving east-northeast, passing just to the right of that black pylon in the crop circle field and contining along a steady course and out of the frame.

Is this just the shadow on the ground of the airplane or the helicopter that the film crew is travelling in?  Judging from the shadows of the underlying ground obstructions, it is in about the right location. It is also moving in the same general direction, and travelling at around the same velocity. So that is surely the most plausible explanation.

There’s only one problem, however. If it’s simply a shadow, then why is it glowing? Where is all the luminescence coming from? In fact, when the “object” first enters the frame, all you see is the luminescence, but that is also coming from a darker field of view, or back-ground, so the aircraft’s shadow itself might tend to be inconspicuous at that point, leaving only the peripheral luminescence visible to the naked eye.

If the film crew’s aircraft were really shiny, say unpainted aluminum or pehaps metallic silver in color, with the sun behind it as it is throughout this sequence, would it result in a ground shadow that’s ringed by reflected light?

Honestly I don’t think I’ve seen that effect before, and I’m certainly no expert image ana-lyst, so I’m asking you: what do you think? We’ve got to have the fastest, easiest, most confidential comment-uploading system available on the web today. I tried it out myself to see what it was all about, and managed to get a comment up online in around 30 seconds or less, using only my initials as personal information — no sign-up, no log-in. no email adddress, no nothing…


Some scientists believe that glyphs like these contain formulas for ET technology  


Okay, I hesitated to post up the following the following video series — a lecture / presen-tation by Maurice Osborn on the more technical aspects of crop circle analysis and the interpretation of scientific data that at least some of them are apparently transmitting — simply because the quality isn’t up to my usual standards for inclusion on this site. I have several problems with this “copy” of the presentation, chief among them the fact that the audio track lags behind the video in a most inconvenient way, particularly given the visual content.

But I had to do it anyway, because the content itself is the best I’ve ever seen so far in terms of the technical analysis of genuine crop circle formations and their scientific interpretation, although the series doesn’t start really heating up until you get into the second or third video. So stick with it, you’ll be glad you did.

Meanwhile, I’ll be searching for a better quality copy, and if and when I find one I’ll swap this one out for it. But don’t hold your breath, as this is a very obscure video and a better copy may not even exist. Until then, this one does get the job done, substandard quality aside…   








           This “crop circle” was the first to deliver its message in unmistakable terms

Well, if we were just too unintelligent or unimaginative to grasp any intended meaning behind its ubiquitous global predecessors, we couldn’t fail with the one which is depicted above, which appeared in a wheat field at Crabwood Farm House on Lanham Lane outside of Winchester, England on August 12, 2002: a pictogram of the instantly recognizable albeit infinitely elusive alien “gray” and a disk encrypted in binary code. According to the late Paul Vigay of Southsea (Portsmouth), England, who is credited with solving the riddle through the application of ASCII, the code on the stylized CD translates into English as follows:

“Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES. Much PAIN but still time. (Damaged word). There is GOOD out there. We OPpose DECEPTION. Conduit CLOSING (BELL SOUND)”.

Note:  The “damaged word” has been generally translated as BELIEVE.


I believe this particular formation to be a hoax (along with the rest of them), as Vigay and some other researchers apparently did as well. Vigay gave his reasons as follows:

1) Although the “workmanship” appears quite sterling with a little elevation and therefore distance, at ground zero it’s actually somewhat crude, particularly as far as the coded disk goes. Crude enough that it was actually difficult to decipher, even when the formula was known. 2) The alien’s head is far off-center within the frame, being much closer to the left-hand side than the right. 3) The bottom two corners of the frame are not 90-degree ang-les. 4) A local witness told him that a helicopter had been heard in the vicinity around 2:00 am on the night the formation appeared in the wheat field. 5) A battery-powered, handheld “sighting device” was found in the field the next morning by one of Vigay’s associates.  

Vigay, who was the webmaster of a hard hitting British anti-NWO website and a leading crop circle and paranormal investigator, died under mysterious circumstances a couple of years ago at the age of 44. His body was found washed-up on a Southsea beach near his home on Manners Road on February 20, 2009. The local constabulary ruled there was “nothing suspicious about it” and chalked it up to apparent suicide, as just before he was last seen the night before, he’d suffered an emotional break-up with his long-time girl-friend, Andrea Smith. He’d also fallen into debt.

The coroner in the case, David Horsley, however, admitted the whole thing was something of a mystery, and recorded an “open” verdict, stating for the record: “I cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that yes, Paul has taken his own life.”

Perhaps the strangest element of the case was that, although anything resembling a tradi-tional suicide note was conspicuously absent, a note was  found in the house addressed to Andrea, saying only “I love you”, and listing all of his computer and cell phone passcodes. But when the police and family tried to use them, they found that none of them worked.


But apparently somebody’s keeping the lights on as you can still access his website. He was into some really heavy-duty stuff, not the least of which was pioneering research and cut-ting edge investigation into the crop circle phenomenon. For instance, he considered the destruction of the World Trade Center and the London subway bombings to be NWO false-flag attacks and was very outspoken on the subject. You can find enough material on his website to keep you going for awhile, and will more than likely stumble across an angle or two that you hadn’t yet heard about or considered. I’ll include a link to it here —


There are two generally accepted categories which these crop circles fall into: “genuine”, and “hoaxed”. According to, genuine = real. And in the largest and truest sense, all crop circles are “real”.  While many claims have been made about crop circles from mild to wild, I’ve never heard anyone posit the theory that they are either a mass hallucination or a figment of the collective imagination.

If we can all agree — at least for the purposes of this discussion — that all crop circles are “real” in the most fundamental sense, and not at all imaginary or fictitious, then our next question should be: “Well then, how do we go about classifying any of them as hoaxes?”

For all intents and purposes, a true science and accompanying investigative methodology has been developed along the way by serious researchers of these formations, who call themselves cereologists. That investigative method includes established scientific proto-cols through which these researchers discriminate what they consider to be genuine crop circles from those they consider to be hoaxed. So suffice it to say, from the viewpoint of the cereologists, all crop circles may be real, but not all of them are genuine.

The most dedicated cereologists utilize on-site visual inspection and collection of soil and grain samples, the latest high-tech instruments, and fully-equipped scientific laboratories in order to distinguish between the genuine article and the hoaxed. There is in fact bonafide evidence of enormous differences between the two generally acknowledged methods of creating these formations, which we shall classify here as either high-tech or low tech. While the low-tech methods typically used by hoaxers are known and include ropes and boards used to crush the grain and various sighting devices used to lay out the patterns, the actual high-tech methods utilized by what is generally attributed to nonhuman or extra-terrestial intelligence are currently unknown, though they manage to leave behind certain clues which can be qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed and documented. These include changes to the underlying soil indicative of a high-heat source, alterations within the grain itself at the cellular level, and the presence of measurable electromagnetic anomalies. The general consensus among the cereologists is that these clues collectively point to technolo-gy not currently present on this world — at least not in the hands of human beings.

This is where the typical cereologist and I hit the proverbial “fork in the trail”.  I’ll insert here a quote from Vigay’s website and then we’ll leave off from him, at least for the time being, although in a future article we may examine more closely the mysterious details surrounding his rather abrupt departure from this world:

“Because hoaxers can’t replicate some of the measurable electromagnetic effects being de-tected, and orthodox scientists are either uninterested or closed-minded to our results, Paul has continued investigating the electromagnetic effects in and around crop circle sites.”

I think this statement tends to sum up the general attitude of most cereologists, i.e: that the chief distinguishing characteristics of genuine crop circles cannot be duplicated by hoax-ers. And it is here where we part company in terms of our diverse belief systems.

My primary outlook is simply this: the only solid fact in existence thus far regarding the origin of the “genuine” crop circle formations and the methods utilized in order to create them is that both are presently unknown. Or pehaps better put: known only to the crea-tors, et al. So in the absence of an authentic, verifiable source, there can be no verifiable attribution. In a very large sense, determining what is genuine and what is counterfeit becomes a physical impossibility. Let’s go back to the dictionary for a moment, our best available resource of what words really mean. I didn’t cover everything in my previous definition of genuine, so now let’s go over a very important part I left out:

From Merriam-Webster —


b : actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author: the signature is genuine

Contemplate this passage for a moment and you’ll begin to see where I’m coming from. How could you determine an authentic Stradavarius, or Picasso, or Rembrandt, without Stradavarius or Picasso or Rembrandt in the picture? In their absence, what artworks could be certified as genuinely attributable to them by any ways or means? It is only through comparing any item in question to certifiable examples from a verifiable source that we can render any valid judgment as to its authenticity. No verifiable source = no valid authen-ticity. 

The tacit — if not blatent — inference by cereologists is inevitably that only nonhuman &/or extraterrestrial intelligence could be responsible as the source of the “genuine” formations’ creation. But that is a theory, not a fact. It’s a hypothesis and nothing more. In the event that hypothesis were ever definitively proven false (a very real possibility), all  crop circles would consequently be categorized as hoaxes and their creators as hoaxers. Until then we can err on the side of Occham’s Razor, the investigative principle which suggests that the simplest and most plausible explanation is usually the best. And that leaves little big-head-ed reptilian humanoids from Zeta-Reticuli cleanly out of the mix.

A reasonable facsimile of one of the communicators used in the Star Trek episodes I used to watch as a kid is now nestled snugly in my shirt pocket. I just watched a documentary the other night where they were going over how the laser gun mounted on one of our latest aircraft works to shoot down missiles in mid-air. Yes boys & girls, we now have ray guns. We’ve repeatedly landed robots on Mars in order to send back images and scientific data. Scientists are now able to clone any living organism. For many years now we’ve had an electromagnetic pulse gun which will turn off the engine of any speeding automobile with the simple pull of a trigger. Why the police continue to refuse to use them to safely end car chases I’ll never know — I guess they just love driving fast and kicking ass. And in virtually every kitchen in virtually every home in this nation sits a modern-day wonder device which creates a cellular alteration of plant material akin to what scientists have been witnessing with the grains found within crop circle formations: it’s called the microwave. 

But that’s just the short list, obviously. And it doesn’t even enter into the realm of black-box projects and super-secret classified technology. Those guys are now working with an almost unlimited expense account, in deep underground military bases scattered all over the country, out of sight, out of mind. And they’ve been at it for decades.

And you’re telling me these guys can’t etch a pictogram into a grain field in such a way that would leave a whole lot of people scratching their heads and wondering over who did it and how it was done?

Please …


To close out the article we’ll address the false-flag element with two instructional videos, the first from William Cooper and the second featuring Dr. Carol Rosin, Cathy O’ Brien, and Nick Pope —