Authors: Joe Nickell
Delgado s use of the word “bandwagon” seems appropriate, since the term refers to an increasingly popular trend or fad. It was in an attempt to quantify and assess such perceptions that we decided to create a data bank of information on the circles. We used the data in Delgado and Andrews’s
Circular Evidence
, which reviewers praised for its “level of detail” (Shoemaker 1990). Of course, we considered that the incidences of the phenomenon in their book did not represent a complete list, but we intended to look at other sources of data as a cross–check on the sample.
With these caveats in mind, a copy of
Circular Evidence
was provided to computer expert Dennis Pearce, an advisory engineer with Lexmark International. Plotting the number of circles per year, he deter–mined, showed a definite (i.e., significantly greater than exponential) increase in the number of crop circles annually from 1981–1987 (Pearce 1991). This was well supported by data from Meaden s (1989–1990) article in
Fortean Times
, “A Note on Observed Frequencies of Occurrence of Circles in British Cornfields.” Figures for the four years from 1980 to 1983 were, respectively, 3, 3, 5, and 22; Meaden (1989–1990) does not give exact figures for the next few years but notes they were “rising”; then, during the years from 1987 to 1989, the totals went from 73 to 113 to “over 250” annually. For 1990, the figure had again jumped remarkably—to 700 circles in Britain, at least according to Randies (1991a). Small wonder that even moderate voices in the controversy insisted the phenomenon was increasing.
Dennis Pearce also examined statistics on crop–circle articles that appeared in the London
Times
from 1986 to 1990, and he specifically commented on “the rapid rise in both locations and number of circles in the years following the London
Times
reports,” which, he said, “is to me evidence of human intervention.”
Geographic Distribution
A second observed feature of the patterned crops phenomenon is its predilection for a limited geographic area. As we have seen, prior to the mid–1970s, crop circles appeared sporadically at scattered locations in various countries, but since then they have flourished in southern England—in Hampshire, Wiltshire, and nearby counties. It was there that the circles effect captured the world’s attention.
In plotting the occurrences of formations among English counties, Pearce confessed that he was “surprised at how localized the phenomenon is.” Although there are known exceptions, such as an occurrence in adjacent Wiltshire in 1980, all the pre–1986 cases published by Delgado and Andrews in
Circular Evidence
were in Hampshire, with the vast majority remaining there during the period surveyed (Pearce 1991). Other sources provide additional evidence for this geographic preference. In 1989, Time magazine concluded: “While there have been reports of circles from as far away as the Soviet Union, Japan, and New Zealand, by far the greatest number have appeared in Hampshire and Wiltshire” (Donnelly 1989). The Associated Press, citing a total of 270 circles for the summer of 1989, reported that “two–thirds appeared in a square–mile zone near Avebury in Wiltshire’s rural terrain, including 28 in one field” (“England” 1989).
Looking beyond the Wessex area, just as the popular media’s increasing reportage of the cornfield phenomenon appears to have produced an increase in circle totals—as even Jenny Randies concedes—it also correlates well with the spread of the phenomenon elsewhere. In view of just the data in
Circular Evidence
, Dennis Pearce observed that the number of reported geographical locations in England each year grew at a faster than exponential rate. “I would suspect,” he said, “that a natural phenomenon would be either consistently localized or consistently spread about, but not spreading rapidly over time.” Also, whereas the circles’ pre–English distribution was exceedingly sparse, after newspaper and television reports on the phenomenon began to increase in the latter eighties, circles began to crop up in significant numbers around the world. For example, in September 1990 two circles appeared in a Missouri sorghum field and were immediately followed by reports in three other fields—one in Missouri and two in Kansas (McGuire and Adler 1990). About this time they also had begun to appear in significant numbers in Japan and Canada.
A third characteristic of the patterned–crops phenomenon is the tendency of the configurations to become increasingly elaborate over time. Looking first at the data in
Circular Evidence
alone, we see a definite trend. Delgado and Andrews (1989) themselves state, “Before the late 1970s it looked as though single circles were all we had to consider; but, as has always been the pattern, and as we have learnt over the years, something, maybe some intelligent level, keeps one or more jumps ahead” (122). Again they say, “As soon as we think we have solved one peculiarity, the next circle displays an inexplicable variation, as if to say, ‘What do you make of it now?’” (12).
While there were some moderately complex forms in earlier periods, the overall evolution of forms within the Wessex area still seems well established, and worldwide the emergence of the pictograms in 1990 clearly represented a new phase. According to Meaden, “Admittedly, 1990 does look to be exceptional, but just because the reasons for this wait to be clarified, it would be fatuous to decree [that] an alien intelligence is at hand” (Meaden, in Noyes 1989, 85).
The pictograms are wildly elaborate forms with a distinctly pictorial appearance. There have been circles with key shapes and clawlike patterns; complex designs, consisting of circles and rings linked by straight bars and having various appendages and other stylized features; and still other configurations, including free–form “tadpole” shapes and even a crop triangle (“Field” 1990; Noyes 1990). Small wonder that Delgado and Andrews, as well as others, suspect that the force making the designs is being “intelligently manipulated” (“Mystery” 1990).
At least the pictograms enabled Jenny Randies to wake up to the unmistakable evidence that hoaxes were not only occurring but were running rampant. She has admitted (1991a), “I do not believe that wind vortices created the pictograms, though serious research into that possibility continues…. I can think of very good reasons why the pictograms might well be expected, based on our sure knowledge that crop–circle hoaxing was greatly increased from just a few known cases before 1989 to a far higher figure deduced from my own personal site investigations in 1990.1 would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the total.” However, Randies still believes that beyond the hoaxes is a genuine, wind–vortex–caused phenomenon, whereas there seems no need
to postulate such. If the “experts” like Meaden, Delgado, and Andrews cannot tell the genuine crop circles from hoaxed ones in fifty percent of the cases, one wonders just what the other 50 percent consist of.
The Shyness Factor
A fourth characteristic of the patterned–crop phenomenon is its avoidance of being observed in action. There is considerable evidence of this fact. First, there is its nocturnal aspect. Delgado and Andrews (1989, 156), who appear to have done the most extensive documentation of the phenomenon, state, “Many… confirmations of nighttime creations come from farmers and people living near circle sites. ‘It wasn’t there last night, but I noticed it first thing this morning,’ has become almost a stock statement. The evidence is overwhelming that circle creations only occur at night.” Randies and Fuller (1990,53) agree that “most seem to form during the night or in daylight hours around dawn.”
Not only does the circle–forming mechanism seem to prefer the dark, but it appears to specifically resist being seen, as shown by Colin Andrews’s Operation White Crow. This was an eight–night vigil maintained by about sixty cereologists at Cheesefoot Head (a prime circles location) beginning June 12, 1989. Not only did the phenomenon fail to manifest itself in the field under surveillance, but—although there had already been almost a hundred formations that summer, with yet another 170 or so to occur—not a single circle was reported for the eight–day period anywhere in England! Then a large circle and ring (the very set that, being swirled in the same direction, seemed to play a joke on Meaden by upsetting his hypothesis) was discovered about five hundred yards away on the very next day! (Noyes 1990, 28; Michell 1989–1990, 47–58)
The following year, the cereologists attempted to profit from their mistakes. This time they conducted a “top secret” operation termed Operation Blackbird, which lasted three weeks beginning on July 23,1990. They took $2 million worth of technical equipment–including infrared night–viewing camera equipment–to an isolated site where they maintained a nighttime vigil. Reuters quoted the irrepressible Colin Andrews as explaining what happened in the early morning hours: “We had many lights, following that a whole complex arrangement of lights doing all sorts of funny things. It’s a complex situation But there is undoubtedly something here for science” (L. Johnson 1991). Pressed by reporters, Andrews denied that his group could have been fooled by a hoax.
However, when they and reporters converged on the site, they discovered a hastily flattened set of six circles, with a wooden cross and a Ouija board placed at the center of each.
The Hoax Hypothesis
Taken together, the characteristics we have described—the escalation in frequency, the geographic distribution, the increase in complexity, the “shyness effect,” and other features—are entirely consistent with the work of hoaxers. That there are hoaxed crop circles no one can deny; the question is of the extent of the hoaxing—that is, whether, if all the hoaxes were eliminated, there would still be a residue of genuine circles that would require postulating some hitherto unproved phenomenon, such as wind vortices or extraterrestrial visitations.
In several technical papers, W.C. Levengood (1994) purports to show that “Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes.” Unfortunately, there are serious objections to Levengood’s approach. First of all, while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers I reviewed is there any mention of the work being conducted in double–blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. There is, in fact, no satisfactory evidence that a single “genuine” (i.e., vortex–produced) crop circle exists, so Levengood’s reasoning is circular: although there are no guaranteed genuine formations on which to conduct research, the research supposedly proves the genuineness of the formations. But if Levengood’s work were really valid, he would be expected to find that some among the putatively “genuine” formations chosen for research were actually hoaxed ones—especially since even some of Meaden’s most ardent defenders admit there are more hoaxed circles than “genuine” ones.
Although Levengood finds a correlation between “structural and cellular alterations” in plants and their location within crop–circle–type formations (as opposed to those of control plants outside such forma–tions), he should know the maxim that “Correlation is not causation.” That Levengood’s work does not go beyond mere correlation in many instances is evident from his frequent concessions: for example, “Taken as an isolated criterion,” he says, “node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation.” Again he admits,
“From these observed variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used as a validation tool.” Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing “double–blind” studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously the many dubious claims that Levengood makes, in–cluding his similar ones involving plants at alleged “cattle mutilation” sites (Nickell 1996).
If the cereologists cannot offer much in the way of positive evidence, they nevertheless make several negative claims, notably that hoaxers cannot produce circles with the qualities of the “genuine” ones. But what are these qualities? When I debated Delgado on a Denver radio program, it was difficult to get a straight answer from him on this issue. Delgado s main argument was the alleged lack of broken–stemmed plants in the “genuine” formations, a point he and Andrews make repeatedly in Circular Evidence. For example, they say of one circle that “the root end of each stem is bent over and pressed down hard with no damage to the plants, which is why they continued to grow and ripen horizontally” (138). In response, his various equivocations were pointed out; e.g., in one instance “most” of the plants were undamaged (or rather unbroken; some had “serration” marks on them!) (51). His contradictions were also noted. For instance, Andrews states of one crop ring, “Between the two radial splays was a line of buckled plants. Each one was broken at the knuckle along its stem length.” Did he regard the formation as a hoax? No. He only said, as mysteriously as possible, “These collapsed plants appeared to have suffered whiplash damage, possibly caused by opposing forces meeting” (63–64). In other words, if the plants are unbroken, that is a mystery; if broken, that is another mystery.
It is entirely possible that the circles with broken plants are merely the less skillfully hoaxed ones. Also, the moistening effect of dew on plants bent at night might mitigate against breakage, while agronomists I talked with pointed out that from mid–May to early August the English wheat was green and could easily be bent over without breaking—indeed, could only be broken with difficulty (Blitzer 1990; Daugherty 1990). Another supposed impossibility is for hoaxers to produce circles without leaving tracks—there allegedly being none in the case of “genuine” circles. But a study of numerous crop–circle photographs in the various publications reveals that virtually every circle would have been accessible by the tractor “tramlines” that mark the fields in closely spaced, parallel rows. In
any case, one can carefully pick one’s way through a field without leaving apparent tracks.
In several cases, hoaxers have come forth and confessed; although, often the reaction of cereologists is to doubt them. Then, in September 1991, two “jovial con men in their sixties” claimed they had been responsible for many of the giant wheat–field patterns made over the years. In support of their claim, they fooled Delgado, who declared a pattern they had produced for the tabloid Today to be authentic; he said it was of a type no hoaxer could have made. The men said their equipment consisted of “two wooden boards, a piece of string and a bizarre sighting device attached to a baseball cap” (Schmidt 1991). They demonstrated the technique for television crews, e.g., on ABC–TV’s
Good Morning America
, September 10,1991, and their proclaimed hoax was publicized worldwide.