Posted by Michael Glickman on September 19, 2019

The circles have taught many things over the years but two stand out:

first, certainty is to be avoided at all costs and,

second, whenever Intuition whispers in your ear (for she is always sitting there on your shoulder) consider her advice seriously.

I believe that the Preston Candover formation of 11^th August 2019 (1) & (2) will be remembered as one of the most articulate communications the crop circle phenomenon has ever offered us. Karen Alexander of Temporary Temples, no doubt listening to her own whisperings, saw that the Pi number was clearly alluded to and was struggling towards its own completion.

BARBURY CASTLE  

Of course the most beautiful and eloquent formation of this outstanding and persistent message-chain was the Barbury Castle Pi formation (3) of 1st June 2008. The Pi number, which mathematicians tell us now calculated to several million digits, was exquisitely encoded to reveal 3.l41592654…

The diagram (4) shows how the formation displayed both a ten-fold radial geometry (that is sliced like a pizza into ten equal wedges) and a ten-fold concentric geometry (that is like the circular ripples generated when a pebble is thrown into still water). The path was swept outwards from the central circle and the number of pizza slices touched by each of the increasing arcs formed the Pi sequence. The presence in the field of the correctly positioned decimal point and the three dots of the ellipsis were confirmatory clues.

KAREN’S EARLY ANALYSIS

While Barbury counted pizza wedges, Preston Candover opened the Pi number by an inventive reference to the numerical value of geometric forms.                                            

Reading outwards from the centre, Diagram (5) gives us a yellow triangle (obviously three) followed by a blue inner circle (clearly one) then a green square (evidently four) followed by another circle, exulting in its oneness. 3141. Where is the five? Where is the decimal point? And more importantly, what might be the origin and purpose of these two inventive and playful representations of Pi?

THE SEARCH FOR FIVE

My regular readers will know by now that I regard many intuitions (New Age Bliss Bunny that I am) as messages or nudges from Elsewhere. I am pleased to accept that some will snort derisively at this notion but it has served me well and I choose to run with it.

As soon as I started looking for a hint of five in the formation I was “told” that the inner circle would be sized and positioned by a pentagram (a five pointed figure) while the larger circle would be sized and positioned by a pentagon (a five sided figure). It was not true! I spent more than a week testing five-fold overlays in impossible locations. Nothing worked and, massively disappointed, I gave up. As I have often asked, “Who do you complain to?”

The 2019 crop circle season was remarkable for the fact that nearly half of the formations were sixfold. The consistency of this was intriguing and I realised that this might be the key to my Preston Candover dilemma. I tested a hexagon (6) against the smaller circle and it fitted precisely. A hexagram (7) against the larger circle was equally exact.

Another confirmation of the importance here of six is that 3.1415 is followed by 9. If the intention was to keep it to 5 digits then 5 followed by 9 would be rounded up to 6. Thus 3.1416.

PI: A SHORT DIGRESSION

Here in Britain the dot at the end of a sentence is called a full stop. In America it is called a period while in France it is called a point. Talking of Pi, Americans never say “Three period one four one five…” nor do we British say “Three full stop one four one five…” One explanation might be that the French, while we were still preoccupied with fractions, were promoting the decimal system and metrication.

Could it be possible that the circle authors, whose witty and learned games with number geometry and form have long been familiar to us, are now introducing word games into their repertory?

GETTING THE POINT

Diagram (8) the three rhombuses, shown here in blue, seem (excusing the pun) pointless. The central equilateral triangle (1) perfectly embodies the sixty degree points at its three corners and yet much is made of these rhombuses, diamonds or spear-points. The three bars (2) form another larger triangle while the three forms (3) seem to have no purpose other than the organizing and emphasising of the rhombuses.

Why are these rhombus corner pointers so prominently celebrated and displayed? Diagram (9) is nervously included here. It certainly is a stretch but it might be of interest.

A BADGE OF SHAME

This summer a misguided Chinese film group decided to commission yet another man-made crop circle. A moment’s research (or some responsible advice!) would have shown that dozens of previous similar exercises have proved absolutely nothing. They should have saved their time and their money. Presumably even now this abomination is being foisted on the Chinese public as representative of these mysterious, elegant and generous events.

Who was responsible for this disgrace?

The formation itself (10) was as usual a travesty. I shudder to look at this sham for even a moment and I apologise, Dear Reader, for suggesting that you give it your attention.

The two concentric rings are randomly sized and have no meaningful relationship with each other. Giving a nod to geometry, a negligently drawn and made Flower of Life is placed within the smaller annulus. It is then completely compromised by a small and badly constructed circle plonked unceremoniously at the centre. And then, most incongruously of all, a large  and crudely conceived capital “M” is smashed down into the centre.

What might this “M” stand for? It has been suggested that it might be the initial of a member of the “community” but I find it hard to believe that anyone could have such arrogance and vanity. Perhaps it stands for Mediocre Mistake or Miserable Mess. I could go on but it’s too depressing.

Do what I did: go back and compare photograph (1) with (10). That should restore balance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Photography: Nick Bull, Lucy Pringle
Diagrams: Michael Glickman, Ofmil Haynes Jr,
Web Design: Anthony Lovell de Souza
Consiglieri: David Bell, Jineen Cronin, Albert Lamb