Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:29:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:56:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Characteristics - 'Real' vs. Fake
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:28:46 +0100

>I have been following this debate with interest, as I trust has
>Paul Fuller.

Hi Jenny

At this point I should explain why we're particularly looking
for physical evidence found in crop formations. Myself and Sue
Addison run a UFO group in Hertfordshire, and in addition to our
own research we aim to replicate others research findings. For
example we have soil samples for the alleged landing site at
Capel Green, Rendlesham Forest which are currently undergoing a
full chemical analysis. We'll be comparing these to the findings
that Larry Warren and peter Robbins unearthed (pardon the pun
<g>).

Due to varying standards to the acceptance of evidence we feel
there is a gap in research which will either help prove physical
traces or disprove them as being bias. The group we run is split
over the possibilities of the

origin of crop circles, although you've probably guessed what my
view is <g>. Despite each individuals viewpoint we are all in
agreement to look objectively at any evidence without bias and
sieve out the relevant data from the irrelevant. For example,
we've seen photo's of exploded nodes, but these have all been
laid out on tables, and not whilst the crop is still in the
ground. Those that believe in the possibility of crop circles
being made by unknown forces agree that we can't rule out that
the crop may have been tampered with after it was taken from the
formations.

So far we have found that we step on the sceptics toes because
we are open minded, and we are just sceptics to those who have a
lower standard and accept anecdotal evidence. Anyway, I thought
it was time to clarify the need for the information.

>Paul and I have written three books on circles and
>been involved since before Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado even.
>We have spent a lot of time collating eyewitness accounts and
>both of us have interviewed some. Dozens of cases exist and you
>will find plenty in the l993 updated edition of our book 'Crop
>Circles: A Mystery Solved?'  (Robert Hale).

Strangely enough I have a just received copy of your book which
was our next port of call to extract physical evidence and
eyewitness accounts.

>In essence eyewitnesses describe glowing rotating dome shaped
>lights at night (often with electrical effects) and dark, grey,
>misty lens shapes in daytime (often generating electroststic
>fields).

Sounds interesting.

>One vital key is that we never found a single case where a
>witness saw a complex formation created. Nearly all eyewitnesses
>are to simple, single circles. Eyewitness cases date back a long
>time and we have examples from pre 20th century.

Well, I'll certainly have a read of the book and check out the
information on the eye witness formations.

If the only formations made by natural forces, or 'other' forces
are single circles, then this seems to negate the more complex
formations as mysterious messages from the aliens <g>

Tony