Some of you have no doubt been following the recent ‘fake crop circle photographs’ brouhaha, and the allegation that Steve Alexander is the culprit. He isn’t, though that hasn’t stopped the Crop Circle Connector publicly accusing him. Twice. Yesterday afternoon a most curious statement was posted by one ‘Paul Smith’ on the Against the Grain Facebook group. The statement disappeared quickly, though some of us managed to get a copy first.
“I have a confession the image being shared around is indeed a fake made in photoshop. And not the first.
For years art has been high jacked by photographers and “researchers” creating negative energy around the subject for their own personal gain.
We the circle makers are fed up with the infighting and manipulation of our art by those who will attempt to own the subject. Those who force people to subscribe to view past works, or by profiteering by selling our art.
We are aware many pieces are never seen as they are photographed but unreleased by photographers on all sides. We know some are paid for and commissioned by some to fill gaps in their own research.
Our art is free for everyone to enjoy, and not a way for you to make money. We will no longer accept payment or goods in exchange for our time and effort.
Art is free.”
“We the circle makers”? That’s rather presumptuous of you, Paul, as if you had any form of authority to speak on behalf of them all. Your words are your own. They certainly don’t echo the sentiments of any circle makers I know or have spoken to. You are not their voice.
Your arguments are tired, and have been debunked elsewhere on this blog (see for example the articles Must Be Funny and The Alexander Lie), with the exception of charging a fee to access archives, which indeed is a criticism I have also raised. But once a circle is made, all connection with its maker is severed. If you don’t like what people do with your circles after that, perhaps a more efficient form of protest would be simply to not make them?
It’s not often that RACCF and Whack-A-Mole Williams and I agree on something, but it does happen. Clandestine Esoterical [sic.] Mysterious Universe and their practices are indeed preposterous, and pointless. What next? Circle makers engaging agents to negotiate rights to view their circles?
So where does the “stagggering hypocrisy” come in? Because being informed about new circles by their maker, being first to photograph them and keen to be exclusive announcer of their presence, is exactly what RACCF and Williams and their Crop Circle Connector chums do. Don’t you like it when someone else plays your own game and cuts you out of the chain, guys?
In an odd way I’m relieved that someone other than Matt Williams is being a muppet at the moment, as it gives me something else to write about. Matt is getting rather tiresome, and my posts do start to feel like a broken record at times. He has dominated this blog too much of late.
Some of you will be aware of a new crop circle Facebook page, entitled Clandestine Esoterical [sic.] Mysterious Universe (and which came up in my post Staggering Hypocrisy # 2 – readers of that post will see that Matt Williams and I agree on something). Here’s CEMU’s most recent Facebook post:-
This is the second time they’ve done this, post pictures of a circle with the location withheld, and hold competitions to guess the locations from cryptic clues. And the purpose of this exercise is what, exactly, gentlemen?
“We have been informed…” they say. No they haven’t. They made it. Make a circle, tease its location, turn it into a guessing game. What is the point of that? And with the game becoming the focus, the circle itself is relegated to an afterthought. Will anybody care about this circle by season’s end? Will it even be remembered?
No one cares about circles they know are, or which can be proven to be, man-made. People like mystery. People like circles that have mystery. It’s in that ambiguity, that space between, that circles thrive. At the end of the season, Clandestine Esoterical [sic.] Mysterious Universe’s circles will just be remembered as “that bunch of hoaxers who played games about the locations of their hoax circles”. No one will give a damn.
Ah, Matthew Williams, the “gift” that keeps on giving… In my last post, I highlighted Williams’ criticism of the Clandestine Esoterical Mysterious Universe page, and his accusation of their making then self-promoting circles, and in the process killing any mystery. Within days, on 24 June, that piece-of-crap shark crop circle appeared at Hackpen Hill. An article appeared on The Plymouth Herald website the very same day, featuring an interview with Williams in which he celebrated the circle as circle maker support for the EU exit.
I hate crop circles like this. Clearly a joke, proclaiming their “look at us, aren’t we clever!” hoaxer nature, taking the piss not just out of themselves but the poor farmer whose field it happens to be,too. Unsurprisingly, Williams loves it.
The interview with Williams, although short, is so stuffed full of crap it’d need an industrial-strength laxative to clear it out.
“…a massive crop circle.” – No it isn’t. Judging by the tramlines, it’s barely 150′ if that.
“Local Matthew Williams, 45, was stunned when he discovered the cheeky circle while out flying his drone.” – No, he didn’t. The people who made it told him it was there.
“It clearly shows proud British fish swimming free despite being circled by EU sharks.” – No it doesn’t. It clearly shows two sharks, around a Celtic trinity symbol. Who says the centre motif represents fish? Nothing “clearly” about it at all. For all you know, it could “clearly” show sharks circling followers of Celtic faiths or Wiccans (who use said symbol for spiritual reasons). My personal theory is that shows a sharknado, with the trinity symbol representing the eye of the storm. Or is it “clearly” because that’s what your mates told you after they made it?
“The three fish in the middle represent Britain, staying strong and representing the terrifying Eurocrat sharks” – Do they now? Besides, see above – it isn’t even clear that the centre motif represents fish, let alone symbolises Britain. And let’s say it does symbolise Britain – what has that got to do with fish? Fish are not a thing synonymous with Britain, therefore the symbolism is far from clear. And “terrifying Eurocrat sharks”? Matt, have you been reading the Daily Mail again?
[Addendum: Since first posting this article, it has been pointed out to me that the triquetra is both a Celtic symbol and early Christian one, and can thus be seen as representing Celtic Christianity. In this context, the triquetra can also be seen to symbolise fish. My thanks to Nurit Nardi].
[Addendum # 2: I’ve since also been informed, by a source close to the maker, that the ‘sharks’ circle had nothing to do with the EU exit at all, and that this is merely Williams’ interpretation of it).
Williams has used circle forums to promote his support of the EU exit, and the political party UKIP, previously, but this time round he doesn’t just take the biscuit, he scoffs the whole packet and leaves the wrapper behind for everybody else to see. Here’s a screenshot from when he was helping UKIP in local elections, in April 2015:
Williams’ support for UKIP was praised by Mike Davies, who as some of you may know is the former husband of Sue Davies. Sue is a close associate of Andrew Pyrka and Report A Crop Circle Formation, and “totally not co-admin of Crop Circles The People The Mystery The Truth”.
What a vile man… Mike and Sue, when they were still a couple, are known to have been members of the BNP. I’ve highlighted racism and xenophobia in the crop circle community in previous posts, especially with regard to the despicable persecution of Monique Klinkenbergh. Please see in particular my post ET Go Home.
Keith Walkin, barely-literate-and-ignorant-views-for hire-extraordinaire, who some of you will know from the many Facebook crop circle pages he frequents, can’t resist joining in either, in his fondness for both Sue Davies and for her foul views.
Sue was of course also at one point shacked up with Roger Wibberley, who once referred to posters on Report A Crop Circle Exposed as “the lower breeds”. Roger has strenuously denied this, but his words were captured by Crop Circles Anonymous as can be seen here.
Jeez, this crop circle stuff can be nasty at times. I feel like I need to go and take a shower after writing that lot.
In my last post I likened dealing with Matthew Williams to playing whack-a-mole. No sooner has one dealt with one thing than the numpty springs up again somewhere else. Whack! Pop! Whack! Just after posting, the following article appeared on Yahoo.
Sigh. Is it even worth countering all this cobblers? Sometimes I really don’t have the enthusiasm, but I do think it important, if only for the historical record, that an alternative perspective is available. That is one of the purposes of this blog.
As I’ve mentioned before, a key element of Williams’ criticism of circles is his not knowing who made them or where they came from. There’s nothing wrong with these particular circles. They’re fine, and all par-for-the-course. The Silbury Hill and first Mere ones are rather lovely, and I also have quite a fondness for the East Field singleton.
Since Williams is so quick to criticise other people’s work, I think it worth taking another look at the calibre of circles he is capable of, from his nineties oeuvre.
Quite a difference in quality. Notice that I didn’t include the famed Bishops Cannings “Basket” of 1999. Williams’ claim to it is baloney. Sure, he may have been there, helping out, but that’s a long way from it being his circle to claim. A look at the aerials should easily demonstrate this. It’s in a whole other league compared to what we know he can muster.
Also of note in this article is the sentence “Despite having made circles himself for about 20 years, he’s steered clear of making them ever since he became the first person successfully prosecuted for the offence”, the two parts of which flatly contradict each other. Williams’ first claimed circle was in 1991. “About 20 years” takes us to 2011. Williams’ prosecution was in 2000. It’s been said before that his claim to have ceased circle making following his prosecution is a lie (it is), and this would seem oblique confirmation.
Whack! Pop! Whack! I doubt it’ll be long before the chump is back for more.
One would think that after the smacking he receives every season (literally so last year) Matt Williams would have gotten the point by now, but every spring the guy pops back up like a whack-a-mole. Making the same arguments which have been proven to be bullshit, and utterly oblivious to the fact that much of the croppie scene considers him a bollocks-talking troublemaker who has brought nothing but destruction to a subject they hold dear.
He seems to have moved away from talk of any Wiltshire boycotts this time round – perhaps even he’s having difficulty putting a pro-Matt spin on the fact that every single UK circle so far this year has been in Wilts. He’s also shut up about Monique Klinkenbergh and the “circles being cut is all her fault” lie he’s been spouting for the last three years, having finally admitted late last season and by-the-by that it wasn’t true. Is he going to apologise to Monique? No. Why? Because – in his words – “she’s a cunt”.
So what’s got him in a lather now? Circles he considers wonky. Same old. Matt, no one cares. What’s more, you don’t care either.
Why do I say that? Because, Matt, if you really cared, you’d have posted a similar YouTube video and RACCF criticism regarding that piece-of-crap bird circle from last July, instead of heaping praise upon it as you did (see my post Flippin’ The Bird). These circles get ripped apart for alleged imprecision, whereas your mates can bang out any old shite and get patted on the back for it. It’s got nothing to do with wonky circles. It’s because these two 2016 circles weren’t reported to you. Because you don’t know who made them. Because you imagine them the work of people you’ve fallen out with. Because, Matt, as ever you’re more transparent than a window.
Even the Connector can’t help themselves this time round, as exhibited by their latest and breathtakingly hypocritical post:
I’m guessing the ‘RC’ initial here is Red Collie. It’d be too much to expect the Connector admins to actually put something together themselves instead of merely posting things other people send them. Collie, you do know that most of the other circles which the Connector gets the exclusive on are made by Matt’s mates and reported directly to him so he can photograph them, don’t you?
I’m long in the tooth enough to have lived through several ends-of-the-world that weren’t, so eyelids were scarce batted when Report A Crop Circle Formation’s predicted ‘2015 Armageddon?’ did not come to pass.
RACCF’s banner image* is both hilarious and confounding, a collection of straw-men the likes of which have not been seen since the legendary Wiltshire Farmers’ Scarecrow Convention of 1989.
Let’s start with their “every truth” hyperbole, and note that ‘truth’ is one of RACCF’s favourite words. By any logical analysis this is flat-out incorrect. ‘Truth’ is entirely relative, and throughout human history there have been many commonly accepted ‘truths’ that were never “violently opposed”. This statement is an intellectual nonsense.
Next, we get to their analysis of 2014 – regular readers of my blog, and other “counter to RACCF” news pages, will know that every line of this is baloney.
What ‘truth’ – that word again! – has been hidden? Since the 1980s there has been a tremendous amount of investigation into and public exposure of circle making – not only via rent-a-rant Matthew Williams and the circlemakers.org gentlemen, but by crop circle researchers. To name but some – Jenny Randles, Paul Fuller, Ian Mrzyglod, Ken Brown, George Wingfield, Rob Irving, Jim Schnabel, John Macnish, Terence Meaden, Jurgen Kronig, Peter Rendall, Peter Sorensen, Terry Brown, Freddy Silva, Simeon Hein… I have little doubt that most of these names – let alone their work – are unheard of to RACCF.
Have circle makers been ignored? If RACCF’s feed is anything to go by, the buggers couldn’t shut up even if they tried, and silence should of course be the creed of any circle maker worth their salt in the first place. If anything circle makers should be ignored if they want their circles to be taken seriously, to stand and be considered on their own merits. If they don’t like this, and want artistic acclaim, they shouldn’t make circles. Simples.
As for “start selling tickets”, “farmers cut out circles”, and “act like not your fault [sic.]”, I shan’t go over these points again here as they have all been dealt with previously on this blog and I don’t wish to needlessly repeat myself. Instead I refer you to the articles Farmers, Lies and Videotape, The Boycott That Still Never Was, and “Sadly It Has Come To This”, amongst others.
Andrew Pyrka likes to imagine himself a shepherd of men, a table-turning messiah come to spread the ‘truth’ amongst the ignorant. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him – or any of his RACCF brethren – that anybody could possibly have ever considered crop circles to be man-made in the past, despite more than 20 years of extensive investigation into and documentation of this aspect of the subject before he bumbled onto the scene. His ignorance of the subject and its history is sometimes breathtaking. Oh how we laughed when for example he discussed the ‘malting stage’ of barley. Oh how we laughed when he accused for example Rob Irving (yes, the same Rob Irving who has publicly espoused a human origin since 1992, producing countless articles, two books, and numerous TV appearances) of distorting evidence in order to deceive others into believing a non-human origin of crop circles. Oh how we laughed again and again.
Like most messianic wannabes, Mr Pyrka’s world-view is depressingly black and white. In his mind, either one knows the ‘truth’ that all crop circles are made by human artists, or one believes that all crop circles are made by aliens. In reality, of course, different people believe a great many diverse things, and even those who entertain the view that some crop circles may have a non-human origin hold a wide and arrayed range of opinions as to the essence of that source. Only for a few is it aliens.
Let the people consider Exhibit # 1, the massively magnified to the point of blurring photographs of bits of field and hedge and tree-line, in which Mr Pyrka’s pareidoliac eyes see ‘aliens’. If we couldn’t see them too we were simply wrong. Here are some examples. Mr Pyrka claims to have never digitally manipulated his images. I don’t believe him.
Let the people consider Exhibit #2, the blog Andrew Pyrka Watch, which documents more examples of Mr Pyrka’s chicanery than I have the time, space, or enthusiasm for here.
Let the people consider Exhibit #3, #4, #5, and #6, Mr Pyrka’s own website and Facebook pages, Crop Circle Wisdom (a great deal of which has been doctored or deleted over the years though thanks to The Way Back Machine we can still read it as originally written), Report A Crop Circle Formation, the Crop Circle Wisdom Facebook page, and Crop Circles The People The Mystery The Truth (note that Mr Pyrka denies any association with this latter page. Note also that that its unique, ungainly, pidgin grammatical style is identical to those of himself and his RACCF colleague and close associate Sue Davies).
Let the people consider Exhibit # 7, Report A Crop Circle Formation Exposed, which, like Pyrka Watch, has done a great deal of work in uncovering Mr Pyrka’s and RACCF’s sleight-of-fact.
Let the people assess all the above evidence, and make up their own minds as to the ‘truth’, and as to whether Mr Pyrka is indeed the chosen one or merely a deluded Cheltenham taxi driver.
I’ve touched in other posts on the subject of control, which in my opinion is the real underlying message here. RACCF’s relentless silencing of any dissenting view via post-deletion and banning on their pages. The persecution of Monique Klinkenbergh, Steve Alexander, and Silent Circle, all of whom provide information and commentary on the circles which runs counter to RACCF. The inane ‘Wiltshire Boycott’ and the seamy ‘Wellygate’. The vile personal attacks on the above individuals, and against Suzanne Taylor, Michael Glickman, Francine Blake, Gary King, Terry Hall, and numerous others, simply because they happen to hold differing opinions on the subject of crop circles, all the while championing themselves as the only source of ‘truth’. They want total control of the subject. They want theirs to be the only views you hear. They want to be the one and only source of information for new circles, for commentary on those circles, and to know (and to have the right to sometimes hint at) the authorship of all circles. If they can’t have that, if they can’t shape the crop circle phenomenon into a product of their own management and guidance, they want to destroy it.
If there is to be an Armageddon, it is one of these chumps’ own making.
(Posted on CCPMT, October 2014)
*Note that in between the first draft of this article and my finalising and posting it, RACCF changed their banner image – here is the current version.
Money, money, money. Regular readers of RACCF, CCPMT and their ilk will know the stance these pages take on this aspect of the crop circle subject, though it’s less a stance and more an obsession. To them, croppiedom is brimming with sinister shysters who are only in it for the dosh, who will lie and distort to fleece you of every penny. Steve Alexander, flying and photographing circles, producing photo-books and running conferences? He’s only doing it to make money. Monique Klinkenbergh and her Crop Circle Access scheme? Your Wallet Access scheme, more like. Charles Mallett and Silent Circle? He’s just after your hard-earned, too. Circlemakers.org? The greatest sinners of all; they make crop circles for profit!
Part of the problem here is that RAPMT (as I will now collectively call them) cannot comprehend that others view the subject differently to them, and find it difficult to understand why people would want anything to do with it if there wasn’t a profit motive. Therefore it can only be the case that these people are hiding the truth from you in order to rob you blind. This says a lot more about RAPMT than it does about those it criticises. Whether it was RAPMT’s intention to profit from the subject themselves at one point or another in the past is also worth bearing in mind, though not the subject of this article.
Let’s look at this calmly, taking each of the criticised individuals named above in turn.
Steve Alexander does what he does because he loves crop circles and wants to document them. He has a passion for the subject, and wants to share that passion with others. Why does he use helicopters and not drones or microlights? Because the quality of the images acquired is far superior to images obtained using the latter. He’s a very skilled photographer who knows what he’s doing. And with all respect to the drone flyers (or droners, as I sometimes like to call them), Steve’s photos are far better than yours. Do the yearbooks and conferences make money? Perhaps a little, once all the costs are taken into account, not to mention the expenditure of time, but I’d imagine any profit goes into funding helicopter hire, which is far from cheap.
Regular readers of my posts will know that Monique Klinkenbergh has been criticised in some quarters since the very inception of her Crop Circle Access Pass scheme, which has degenerated to the level of bullying and harassment on the part of RAPMT. So why does she do it? Monique’s intentions are right, in my opinion. The situation in Wiltshire was a dire mess, with angry farmers cutting circles as soon as they appeared or were reported. Monique was not the reason circles were being cut. I’ve also covered this before. But to RAPMT, it’s always somebody else’s fault. Blame Monique. Blame Steve Alexander. Blame Team K Hole. Blame Charles Mallett. No. Blame yourself. Take some responsibility for once.
I applaud Monique’s efforts at building bridges with farmers. The Access Scheme, however, is unworkable in practice and doomed to fail in my opinion. Is she doing it for the money? No, she’s doing it because the situation in Wiltshire is in dire straits and somebody needs to save it. Does she make any money? I’d expect that once you take out her time and expenses any profit is non-existent. In fact I’d be very surprised if the access scheme hasn’t cost her far more personally than she’s made or is likely to make.
Charles Mallett and Silent Circle? Money-making scam? In what universe has that ever been remotely true? With apologies to Mr Mallett, let’s look at the Silent Circle’s history. Those of us who’ve been on the scene a long time remember when the Silent Circle began as a cafe along the side of the A4. We remember its constant closing, reopening, relocating from venue to venue. How could it ever be a profitable venture? Its target clientèle are only around for a few months of the year, and there aren’t exactly a great deal of them. It always functioned more as an information service and ‘drop-in centre’ anyway. Does anybody honestly imagine selling cups of tea and slices of cake and the occasional book or postcard could be a profit-making business? Try taking that one on Dragon’s Den; you’d be laughed out of the building. And each year Silent Circle got smaller, from dedicated venue to pub room to Yatesbury Village Hall to Barge Inn portacabin to Yatesbury Airfield. It wouldn’t surprise me if this year Charles is running it out of a deckchair in his front garden. So why do it? Because Charles is fascinated with crop circles. An information centre showing locations and images of the season’s circles is something Wiltshire has had for two decades, and a good thing for visitors, not all of whom check the internet every five minutes for the latest circular arrivals. Silent Circle and Monique, along with the Henge Shop in Avebury, are the only people currently providing this. Note also that Charles is often very critical of UK crop circles, especially those in Wiltshire, dismissing them as man-made. He’d hardly say that if he was trying to make money from the gullible, would he?
Circlemakers.org? These guys have been making circles commercially since the 1990s. And what of it? Anybody could have done what they’ve done. Anybody can present themselves as a commercial circle maker for hire. If you have the skill. That’s the thing. These gentlemen have formidable circle making ability. It’s too easy to sit on the sidelines grumbling, rather like musicians whose band never got anywhere while a similarly styled outfit had great success. If you can do it, do it. If you can’t, shut up.
Having written all that, I can’t help but feel a resounding “so what?”
Two reasons – first off, if someone makes a profit from the subject, good luck to them. There are many others who have done so, past and present, who I notice are not the subject of RAPMT’s ire. Colin Andrews, for example, oft boasts of how many copies Circular Evidence sold, which no doubt netted him a decent sum. The Crop Circle Connector charge a fee to access their archives, sell DVDs, and are one of the most advert-heavy websites I’ve ever visited. That’s how things go. Some farmers have profited from circles on their land, too, and nobody has a quibble with that. I especially applaud those farmers who donate profits recieved from circles visitors to charitable causes.
Second reason – this is crop circles we’re talking about. A rather minor interest subject, with far fewer dedicated followers than most and certainly compared to 20 or 25 years ago. There simply isn’t a large enough audience there for somebody to make stacks of wonga.
“The circle makers aren’t making any money”, Matt Williams has previously carped (with the exception of the .org chaps, of course). Well why the hell should they? What they do is illegal. They choose to do it, for their own reasons, and once they leave the field at the end of a night’s work that circle doesn’t belong to them any more. It’s out in the world, for all to see and visit and do as they wish with and have their own opinions on. “It’s yours because it’s free”, the Diggers famously said. And that is how it should be with crop circles.
So there you go. Money doesn’t come in to it, except in the case of a handful of individuals who are obsessed with the subject. More to the point, are disgruntled that they never made any. Whether they lacked the ideas, or the nous, or the skills, it never happened. And that makes them bitter. They see profit everywhere. Especially where there isn’t any.
I’ve been meaning to put up a post covering last season’s events on the bafflingly-named Crop Circles: The People, The Mystery, The Truth page for a while, but other things have intervened. Why ‘bafflingly-named’? By “people”, they mean “the half-a-dozen people we don’t like”. I don’t know what “mystery” has to do with anything, since the page admins seem to have convinced themselves they know the minutiae of everything circles-related, so by that definition there cannot be any “mystery”. By truth, they mean “ill-informed personal opinions, bigotry, re-posts from RACCF and whatever Matt Williams has pulled out from between his butt-cheeks this week”. Let’s have a look at what they have to say.
I’m not sure why CCPMT are so happy that Matt Williams has announced that all photographs marked Copyright Crop Circle Connector these days are taken by him, since it has severed the last threadbare strand of credibility the Connector still had as a cereological research body. Matt knows this, and seems content to let his friends fall on their sword – why else would the images be captioned with Connector copyright if not to obscure the fact that Matt took them and therefore knew about the circles before anybody else did?
Oddly, Matt has stated in the past that his images are free for anybody to use, so how can there be “large scale photo theft” taking place? He didn’t specify “they’re free to use, unless your name is x, y, or z”. The “Alexander… Database website” referred to here is www.cropcirclesdatabase.com, and despite RACCF/CCPMT’s allegations, I have yet to see any evidence that this site is run by Steve Alexander. Neither have RACCF/CCPMT, but they prefer to let their prejudice against Alexander make up their minds for them. Williams also seems confused as to exactly what “image theft” entails – all photos on said Database site are credited, with a URL to the site of their origin. Reproducing them without permission constitutes a breach of copyright, but is hardly “image theft”.
Personally, I consider the Crop Circles Database site an excellent and valuable research resource, whatever its legality or otherwise. Their images are taken not just from the Connector but from a number of other websites, including Steve Alexander’s Temporary Temples. Of all these websites, the Crop Circle Connector is the only one that charges a fee to access their archive.
While we’re on the subject of the Crop Circle Connector, what do Messrs Gibsone, Fussell, and Dike do, exactly, other than administer the page? They don’t take the photographs, they don’t draw the diagrams, they don’t write any of the reports or commentaries. All of this is given to them gratis by others, then disappears into the vaults and can only be viewed if you pay. Why do RACCF/CCPMT have no problem with this, when they are so vehemently critical of anybody else charging money for any aspect of the crop circle subject? Extraordinary, and extraordinarily hypocritical.
The majority of CCPMT’s posts are regurgitations from RACCF, despite their claim that the pages have no affiliation whatsoever (a claim that is utter hogwash, as anybody who studies both pages closely can easily deduce). This example is pitiful, and shows how slight is their grasp of the crop circle subject.Sure, circle 2 pictured here is a bit of a cock-up and looks incomplete. Circle 1 is fine if a little askew (many formations, including those acclaimed by RACCF on account of being made by their mates, are askew to one degree or another). Circle 3 is one of the finest of the 2015 season and a very long way from being “an absolute mess” (see my June 27 2015 post A Rose By Any Other Name for a more detailed look at this formation). Every week, month, year, the quality of crop circles varies. Your point is what, exactly? “Created by a bunch of amateurs”? Every circle maker, including your fabled “master”, is amateur. The only individuals who could be considered professional circlemakers are the .org guys, who you despise for reasons I’ve yet to fully fathom.
I’ve previously written an entire post addressing the allegation of Steve Alexander commissioning circles. Nothing has been “proved.. before”. No, “Stevie hasn’t been a naughty boy”. “Yet again hes [sic.] been caught out”? What were the other times, pray tell? Williams is not “100% correct”. He is “100% conjecturing”.
Not content to accuse Steve Alexander of commissioning circles – which is Bollocks with a capital B – it appears that other “business’s [sic.] in the Avebury area” are also now colluding in illegal activity for profit! If this is the case, CCPMT, your duty should surely be to take all the evidence you have gathered to the police. You do have evidence, don’t you? Thought not. You also have no proof whatsoever, despite “good suspicion” (i.e. guesswork), “that the owner of Silent Circle and others in the area and his shady friends are making crop circles to prop up their business’s [sic.]”. It’s a lie. If you have any proof, show it. You can’t, because you made it up. I know the circle pictured above had no connection whatsoever with Silent Circle or any other “business’s” because I know who made it. Do you? No, you don’t. You’re just talking cobblers.
Of course, everything Matty says about this squalid event is “all very true” and Gary is “a liar” and we should not believe “a word [he is] saying”. Thing is, for the most part their accounts of the event concur. Does that mean they cancel each other out,or connect and explode like matter meeting antimatter? Do tell!
Isn’t it uncanny how everything that was crummy about last year’s otherwise fine and business-as-usual crop circle season is gleefully proclaimed on this page and on RACCF? I do wonder why these people even remain on the croppie scene. They clearly feel no joy at a subject that has enriched and transformed the lives of a great many people.Their smug and bitter jottings exist only to mock. All who do not share their beliefs are considered fair game. Their only pleasure is in the superiority they feel over others. I sincerely wish they would just fuck off into the ether, and leave the rest of us to peacefully enjoy the circles in whichever way we choose to participate, be it researcher, observer, croppie, maker. Because despite everything there is still a great deal of wonder to be found, provided one puts in the effort, knows where to look, and trains one’s senses to shut out the fucktards shouting one down.