mass of air which has accumulated a significant fraction of electrically charged matter.” When the electrically charged, spinning mass strikes a crop field, Meaden contends, it produces a neat crop circle (1989, 3, 10–11). Variant forms, he asserts, are also allowed by his postulated vortices. However, as even one of Meaden’s staunchest defenders concedes, “Natural descending vortices … are as yet unrecognized by meteorologists” (Fuller 1988). Meaden himself acknowledges that “some from among my professional colleagues who have expressed surprise at the discovery of the circles effect and questioned why it has not previously attracted the attention of scientists, prefer to deny its existence and reject the entire affair as a skillful hoax” (Meaden 1989,15).
In contrast to Meaden’s approach is that of Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews (1989), two engineers who have extensively studied and recorded the crop–circle phenomenon. The pages of their Circular Evidence are filled with digressions and irrelevancies—all calculated to foster mystery. Overall, Delgado and Andrews hint most strongly at the UFO hypothesis—perhaps not surprisingly, since both have been consultants to Flying Saucer Review (Grossman 1990). Although they profess “guarded views” about whether circles and rings have an extraterrestrial source, they frequently give the opposite impression. For example, they go out of their way to observe that a 1976 circle “appeared about seven weeks before a Mrs. [Joyce] Bowles had seen a UFO [and a silver–suited humanoid] just down the road.” Again, after visiting one circle Andrews met two teenagers, one of whom had earlier seen “an orange glowing object” nearby. Other mysterious lights and objects are frequently alluded to in connection with crop circles (Delgado and Andrews 1989, 17, 63, 98).
Almost predictably, a hybrid of the main theories has appeared in “eyewitness” form. Late one evening in early August 1989, or so they claimed, two young men witnessed a circle being formed near Margate, Kent. One of them, a nineteen–year–old, described “a spiraling vortex of flashing light” (a nod to Meaden et al.), which, however, “looked like anupturned satellite TV dish with lots of flashing lights” (a gesture to flying saucer theorists). The youth kept a straight face while posing with the circle for a news photo (“A Witness” 1989–1990).
As the crop–circle phenomenon entered the decade of the nineties—bringing with it the emergence of ever more complex forms that earned the sobriquet “pictograms”—the main circular theorists rushed into print their various “Son of Crop Circles” sequels. For example, Paul Fuller and Jenny Randles (who are Meaden’s disciples, although, ironically, they are ufologists) followed their Controversy of the Circles with Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved . Several periodicals devoted to the phenomenon also sprang up, such as The Cereologist, The Crop Watcher, and The Circular , which was published by the Centre for Crop Circle Studies (Chorost 1991). If critics of the main theories were not capitalizing on an expanding market of interest in crop circles, they were nevertheless busily poring over the data and pointing out that the prevailing circle theories were, well, full of holes.
Data Analyses
Forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I launched an investigation into the crop–circle mystery. It soon seemed apparent that the crop–circle phenomenon had a number of potentially revealing characteristics. Cereologists—whether of the “scientific” or “paranormal” stripe—tend either to deny these characteristics or to posit alternative explanations for them, for the implications are serious. While any single attribute may be insufficient to identify a phenomenon, since other phenomena may share that feature, sufficient multiple qualities may allow one to rule in or out certain hypotheses so as to make an identification.
The
In contrast to Meaden’s approach is that of Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews (1989), two engineers who have extensively studied and recorded the crop–circle phenomenon. The pages of their Circular Evidence are filled with digressions and irrelevancies—all calculated to foster mystery. Overall, Delgado and Andrews hint most strongly at the UFO hypothesis—perhaps not surprisingly, since both have been consultants to Flying Saucer Review (Grossman 1990). Although they profess “guarded views” about whether circles and rings have an extraterrestrial source, they frequently give the opposite impression. For example, they go out of their way to observe that a 1976 circle “appeared about seven weeks before a Mrs. [Joyce] Bowles had seen a UFO [and a silver–suited humanoid] just down the road.” Again, after visiting one circle Andrews met two teenagers, one of whom had earlier seen “an orange glowing object” nearby. Other mysterious lights and objects are frequently alluded to in connection with crop circles (Delgado and Andrews 1989, 17, 63, 98).
Almost predictably, a hybrid of the main theories has appeared in “eyewitness” form. Late one evening in early August 1989, or so they claimed, two young men witnessed a circle being formed near Margate, Kent. One of them, a nineteen–year–old, described “a spiraling vortex of flashing light” (a nod to Meaden et al.), which, however, “looked like anupturned satellite TV dish with lots of flashing lights” (a gesture to flying saucer theorists). The youth kept a straight face while posing with the circle for a news photo (“A Witness” 1989–1990).
As the crop–circle phenomenon entered the decade of the nineties—bringing with it the emergence of ever more complex forms that earned the sobriquet “pictograms”—the main circular theorists rushed into print their various “Son of Crop Circles” sequels. For example, Paul Fuller and Jenny Randles (who are Meaden’s disciples, although, ironically, they are ufologists) followed their Controversy of the Circles with Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved . Several periodicals devoted to the phenomenon also sprang up, such as The Cereologist, The Crop Watcher, and The Circular , which was published by the Centre for Crop Circle Studies (Chorost 1991). If critics of the main theories were not capitalizing on an expanding market of interest in crop circles, they were nevertheless busily poring over the data and pointing out that the prevailing circle theories were, well, full of holes.
Data Analyses
Forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I launched an investigation into the crop–circle mystery. It soon seemed apparent that the crop–circle phenomenon had a number of potentially revealing characteristics. Cereologists—whether of the “scientific” or “paranormal” stripe—tend either to deny these characteristics or to posit alternative explanations for them, for the implications are serious. While any single attribute may be insufficient to identify a phenomenon, since other phenomena may share that feature, sufficient multiple qualities may allow one to rule in or out certain hypotheses so as to make an identification.
The
Similar Books
