Crop Formation Assessment
A sensible guide.
It's not quite so bewilderingly, mind bogglingly incomprehensible as you may think...LOL...please read on...
Example: Uffington CF.
An example of the recurring 'Energy Leak' probability anomaly were on (in the above photo) immature along one side of tramline crop remains standing.
But why does it remain standing?
The 'Energy Leak' feature has been persistent over the years which suggests it is significant. My considered theory here is that this could be due to moisture/mass differentials. Where it occurs it is always present early on day one which rules out 'spring-back' of crop or positive phototropism.
Although I have now had to personally accept that the vast majority of CFs are mysterious in origin based on the burden of clear and obvious evidence, as a matter of course I will always look out for certain features that add to the building probability data. Within the (new) G2 group of visiting population, many who have little or no first-hand experience there will be some dis-information/media promoted, 'human-made' issues to a greater or lesser degree still lingering in their minds. I feel it may be helpful to go over fundamentals (and some not quite so) that may be used for reference. The increasing numbers of G2s or second generation enthusiasts (my primary 'target' group for educational purposes) who are beginning now to easily outnumber G1s should be especially interested in these observations. Some of this should already be known to many of the G1s as some is common knowledge and other I have spoken about before.
Checklist for Appraisal.
- Is overall geometry convincing/accurate from an aerial perspective?
Look at the top-shots.This is the only way to sensibly assess the geometric challenge in terms of magnitude, overall technical accuracy of the event...and more crucially if there is a 3D aspect to the design. With the latter the very subtle variants are totally impossible to recognise at ground level let alone implement or replicate on the ground. As an example: if in a art museum one would never be able to really appreciate a Master's work by standing say, 6 inches or a foot away from it; it is only when we put some distance between it and ourselves that perspective and the sheer magnificence becomes apparent.
- What is the topographical status upon which the CF was created?
Is the field upon which the event occurred on a slope, dished or on undulating ground? If so, design will need to be very subtly adjusted to compensate, especially in larger CFs, so as to appear technically correct when viewed from above. This compensation is often present in CFs. However, the mind-numbing accuracy required for such a practical application, for me at least seems quite unimaginable in terms of human execution...even if using TST (Total Station Theodolite.)
- How many hours of daylight? Day or night-time event?
Time restraints are a primary factor that many seem not to consider sensibly. Approx. 5 hours of darkness max. in southern UK in mid summer. I have read so many times people casually 'throw-away-commenting' on an event as having been 'man-made', a hoax, just quickly writing it off seemingly without considering ALL of the possible mitigating factors. These comments really cannot 'hold water' or credence, they have just added fuel to the social hysteria. 'Witnessed Event at Salthrop took 3 men nearly 9 hours in broad daylight to do a simple 70 foot pattern very close to the road. ...' illustrates this point perfectly as it demonstrates Man's limitations well. When one understands the sheer practicalities/process of achieving an accurate and complex design in crops in reality, one then realises the true incredulity in my observations. We need to think the actual process through properly. Not meaning to be harsh but the people that take this view are clearly not well versed/up to speed in the subject. We all need to do our homework thoroughly in this complex topic if we are to end up with a measured and sound view of it.
- Complexity of design.
Example: Ansty CF of 2016 Obviously, the more complex the design the more challenging the task. From a human perspective coupled with time restraints common sense dictates any successful outcome becomes less probable relative to the complexity factor. The utter nonsense/propaganda surrounding many complex CFs could have only been driven by those wishing to disinform or distort the truth, for whatever reason...usually self-serving. For me as a genuine and sincere researcher (or at least I try to be ) these events are useful in as much as we can then not take too seriously and identify those promoting individuals, those with perhaps questionable motive/topic skills which may help with judgements of them in the future if they offer an opinion. I have personally learnt who most of these unhelpful individuals are by now and regard them as betrayers of their fellow Man quite frankly, in such an unprecedentedly important topic such as this.
- Are bent/altered stem nodes present? ( Biophysical anomaly.)
Stem node bending/elongation/explosion is well documented. Bent nodes are common. These are unnatural features in some CFs that can in no way be replicated by human practice en masse and in situ. These are classic features that are indisputable signs of a mysterious event. (Not to be confused with positive phototropism which takes several days. When these features are present in the CF they are always found early on day one...not forget...early on day one!.)
- Is the 'Energy Leak' feature present? (see top of article photo.) (Probability anomaly.)
This is something that I observed as being of real significance back in 2009 but it's importance curiously still seems unregistered with many G1s. My article on this will explain in detail here.
- Is 'split edging' feature present? (Probability anomaly.)
This feature again falls within the bounds of a probability anomaly. In my observations it is a recurring feature, a recurring aspect that adds nothing to the geometric point of view on the ground but could well add subtle accuracy from an aerial perspective. See photo below..
- Is crop seed head straightening present? (Biophysical anomaly.)
Sometimes we find that the seed head has been straightened in line with the flow of the CF ground lay area only. Seed heads outside the CF will fall over naturally, increasingly as the crop nears maturity. A true anomaly.
- Solitary still standing stem in otherwise laid crop area? (Probability anomaly.)
Again, falls within probability realm. When I've seen this it always seems quite 'creator deliberate' though and has been a recurring theme over the years.
- Is standing/undamaged and thriving, still growing through 'other species', amongst the laid crop present on day one? ( Biophysical anomaly.)
Not that common but when you see this it is always present early on day one, still growing, often with flowers, in pristine condition. You realise something quite extraordinary and perplexing, over and above the magnificence of the CF as a whole, has occurred .
- Is there a tidiness/consistency/sophistication of ground-lay present over the whole event that somehow seems so familiar?
A non variant 'machine-like' quality that I've described many times within a CF's ground lay. You learn to recognise after many CF experiences the finer aspects, the detail within those features of finesse and wonder such as weaving, ties, swirling, nests and tufts. I always look out for trends and recurring features as they can be helpful markers/pointers. Sometime 'untidiness' can be misinterpreted by observers as variance can add texture and often shading, quite staggering when considers the 'agent' craftsmanship necessary.
- Has the crop within the CF been wholesale-evenly-crafted ie. crop either completely or partially eased down or with random areas/stems less effected/still standing?
Some CFs have a combination of lay qualities/styles. Others are laid overall in a uniformed manner. One very interesting lay style was found in the 'Sharks' CF of last year on Hackpen Hill where myself with CGI spent several weeks of service to the farmer. Literally all stems were partially bent on two nodes so as to lower the CF laid crop by about 25cms. This unusual 'considerate' lay as I call it (because it can still be harvested up by farmer when ripe) afforded a shading/texture quality to the design which stood out from the surrounding crop, a style that also ensured a farmer would be happier as the crop still standing at this height was entirely undamaged and harvestable. An emerging trend...I have seen this before.
- Does the overall feel/appearance/familiarity cross reference with many other CFs witnessed?
Again, referencing other CFs perhaps of a more sophisticated design but with the same features can link events/creators style together sometimes. For these types of subtleties to register one needs to be location-present in this bio-environment with some continuity.
- Weather conditions at time of creation.
An obvious consideration which can, if inclement conditions prevailed at the time of creation can only add weight to the likelihood of any potential mystery. The most extreme example of this was the so called 'Galaxy' CF of 2001 above the White Horse, on Milk Hill, Alton Barnes which had no less than 409 separate circles in the design and was over 1000 feet (approx) in diameter! On the night it occurred the weather was awful, raining hard and windy. For me, this one was an absolute 'no brainer'...no question! If we never had any other CF events in the world ever, the fact that this one did occur, and under these circumstances of limited night-time in summer proves without any doubt that something mysterious was indeed at work here, something way beyond Human capabilities. The hard realities just cannot be argued with. Math for manual creation would be 409 circles in approx. 300minutes (approx. 5 hrs darkness). Divide 300 by 409 = 0.7334 minutes for each circle. From a human point of view a bit unlikely I would say.
- Was farmer paid for event i.e.. documentary etc.
Linked with the above; occasionally a farmer will be approached with an offer of payment to create a pattern in his crop, usually a short documentary style video used for debunking reasons. I personally documented a Salthrop, Wiltshire CF (7July 2013) event when a French film crew did just that. I regard this event as my research 'control' involving human attempts at CF creation. This wretched little scam took these people over 8 hours to complete a 70ft simplistic pattern in broad daylight!
- Is there a story associated with the event?
Quite often a story associated with an event that plays on the gullible/uninformed nature of people and is designed to preoccupy their attention more than the formation itself. It relies on people's ignorance in the subject; as with all good propaganda there is an element of partial truth quite often that is just about believable or sentimentally charming. This is cynical manipulation. It is commonly spun to put people 'off the scent' as it were, to maintain the doubts and lies that supports the primary deception ie. that human-made is a real and genuine option for all CFs. The perfect example would be Yatesbury 2012 whereon the farmer was directly involved in a scam alleging local youth club members had made a complex CF on his land. Incredibly this story even fooled many of the quasi-experts and lead commentators. I am completely aware of the common offenders who are both long term commentators and also this one farmer in particular who feels the need to be proactive/directly involved in helping with the confusion/disinformation effort. This man was also involved in the French funded disinformation video I monitored at Salthrop a few years back. I've come across these story-based debunking attempts many times. These types strenuously assert to maintain in the public mind that human CF creation is still a strong possibility where in reality it is not unless the design is small and simple. I for one will investigate any such story and relate my findings to readers on this site, elsewhere and in the field. Please take CF stories with 'a pinch of salt'.
- Mud and/or footprints in or approaching a new CF are red herrings.
This is an old scam/misunderstanding. This cannot accurately mean more than anything over and above whatever you wish to read into it...could simply be an indicator of earlier visitors. Bottom line is when doing a comprehensive appraisal of a new CF one needs to use common sense, consider many or all of the above, to use an aggregate of all pointers and not to just cherry-pick one or two points that may help or support perhaps a self serving personal theory. Some say the word conclusion in this subject is not something they wish to use or arrive at, cautious of being too confident or imprudent in an unprecedented topic. I now feel we can/need to move on from that old fashioned position if we are to make any progress. After all, we cannot be 100% confident of so many things in life, yet our lives hinge and go along quite happily with such premise because there is sound reason to accept. Probability plays an important part in almost every aspect of life. Personally, and in truth I need only one common feature in a CF to 100% convince me of an unnatural event, and that is the presence of wholesale node bending ...on day one! One simply cannot argue with this fact. In theory this should close the debate...end of! For those that ask for EVIDENCE...here it is!!! This is simply scientific fact.
-Practice runs. (Probability)
In all my time of being involved with the phenomenon I have never known of any abandoned 'practice runs' being reported and photographically recorded as such. If humans were to be involved with the making of these patterns over the years one would expect at least a few aborted missions whereon something went wrong as people are not perfect and the tasks usually very complex; we humans do actually make mistakes often in truth. Standing crop (and snow) is unforgiving, unlike say sand where we can smooth over the mistake and start again to some extent. I feel this observation is a very significant one.
Opinions are just that, a subjective point of view not necessarily based on factual evidence or reasoned criteria. I've been around this subject on the ground for enough time now to realise that some 'experts' who I know and are very eager to express an opinion publicly ( usually G1s, especially in front of a videocamera...ego!...ugghh!) and thus, do so for the wrong reasons...no question. So please watch out for those 'wise' people that seem to 'cherry-pick' some aspects of an event and dismiss others very compelling as some (not all) are out to intentionally deceive and gain personal points and exposure for themselves. The main culprits here sadly seem to be old-school G1s...some names you may be familiar with. I've seen this happen so many times and I think it is low-frequency and wicked quite frankly within such an important subject as this. Also, we have a choice when it comes to encouraging such people by hanging out or not at Wiltshire crop circle 'cafes', certain pubs and venues etc where these types tend to look out for an audience to self-promote targeting the uninformed, impressionable and vulnerable. I personally try not to fall into the trap of offering opinion but rather offer a position with reasons and evidence as back up. To accept an opinion based just on just trust and notoriety, especially in a subject as important as this, is probably unreliable, unwise.
I think the simplest way to interpret this in context is the example of flipping a coin. If a human being flips a coin, say 100 times it will usually be a random mix of heads and tails...non-predictable variation in other words (within certain parameters.) Now imagine if we flipped the same coin under the same circumstances another 100 times and the results showed say 98 heads or 98 tails! What would you then think? Well, in reality this is unlikely to happen unless we continued the trial for say 1000 years + for example and even then the result is unlikely to be hugely different, non-repeatable or predictable. Yet strangely with crop formations in any weather conditions the high-end, many times exquisite nature and quality, without mistakes or aborted efforts seems to be a predictable constant with only one or two (on average) obvious and crude publicity attempts to discredit the phenomenon each year. The time frames, qualities, trends and features have remained the same over its whole history...nearly four decades now (long trial period!) So in terms of probability the burden of evidence seems to suggest non-human involvement. We know people make mistakes, we know what humans are capable of. See control example as observed and recorded by myself in the Salthrop event.
If you follow these basic guidelines you should arrive at the most logically correct answer. Also please do watch out for the people using discrediting tactics i.e. "We found mud, broken stems, looks messy, untidy" etc (this means nothing)... you will then begin to recognise those characters in the CF world who are up to no good or just do not know the subject well, although some have been deliberately conning around for years. I think I have recognised them all by now!
This is the only site on the internet where you will get up-to-the-minute, front-line accurate, truthful and non biased research/information on the subject with any continuity as much as is humanly possible.
Above example of 'split edging'.
Not utter proof but an interesting pointer and recurring theme.
Above, bent nodes, two bends on each stem.
Proof of an unnatural event when present on day one and not recovered from the tram-line, which was the case here.
Explosion cavities on nodes.Not common.
Whole area of formation lowered by 25cm due to bending twice on each stem. Crop still standing and still harvestable. ( 'Considerate' lay.)
Example of dished topography where it was necessary for the creators to compensate lest the result be oval in shape when viewed from above. The perfect circle is shown in it's phase 2 above. The minuscule adjustment required is just unimaginable.
Sophisticated curved stem 'sine-wave' ground lay.
Reference Jubilee Field Formation
August 15 2011
Aerial photo Copyright CCC with thanks.
Last note: As said, this list serves as both strong pointers/indicators and sometimes utter proof towards the mysterious. It would be utterly futile and indeed quite pointless to attempt to discover the actual M.O or process by which CFs are formed. Botton line is we would have no way of validating any theory in situ rendering the whole thing useless and a complete waist of time. Words like' microwave' and 'electro-magnetic' have been many times used by 'clever' people who wish to explain the physics but unless practical demonstration occurs these are just words and perhaps missing the whole point of the crop formations.
All material on these pages copyright Paul Jacobs
unless otherwise stated..