Posted by Michael Glickman on August 10, 2016

Who might they be? (Part three)

A BRIEF PRELUDE

I apologise, as I always seem to do, for the delay in this post. At least this time I have a good reason! This season, 2016, has been remarkable. The quality and variety of this year’s offerings was excellent and indicates, I believe, a return to Crop Circle Abundance in Wiltshire. The dire and paranoid warnings about “the end of the English circles” is once again (like all certainties) proved wrong and The Devizes Summer Lectures, though attendance was low, was spectacularly successful.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

About a year ago I posted Incongruous Siblings on this site and I have become more and more preoccupied with it ever since. The subjects of the article were two formations of June 2014. I cannot recall why these two in particular were chosen for attention at the time and it was only the passage of some months that illuminated for me the importance of their juxtaposition and their contrasting nature.

(1) Chilcomb Down 6th June 2014

(2) Chilcomb Down diagram

The Chilcomb Down formation of 6th June 2014 (1 & 2) was a spiral along which were placed small circles (dots) and lozenges (dashes). It was clearly a message in Morse code; tightly coiled because, if laid out straight, it would have been several thousand feet long. When decoded it read simply NO MORE WAR. There is no way to signify capital letters in Morse so the capitals here are mine. They seem appropriate for such a simple and powerful injunction.

(3) West Kennett Longbarrow 22nd June 2014

The Longbarrow formation of 22nd June 2014 (3) was a simple concentrically ringed circle of remarkable elegance. This formation was of more importance than we can understand; it was repeated twice after the initial appearance. A little geometric work revealed (4) the hidden seven-fold geometry which accounted for the restrained elegance and proportion of this crop circle.

(4) Longbarrow geometry

It became clear that these two formations might represent clearly separate systems of graphic communication and, in investigating these two types, I want to be clear that I do not for a moment suggest that these two examples are in any way limiting or definitive. There are many dozens of crop circle types awaiting classification.

INJUNCTIONS AND WARNINGS

The first category is the “Injunction and Warning” formation of which Chilcomb Down is an appropriate example. I suggest that this group of crop circles has two defining characteristics:

1. It must clearly convey a message or warning.
2. The content is carried in a terrestrial format which can be quickly and easily understood by us.

In the case of Chilcomb Down, as already discussed, the message (or warning) is “no more war” and the readily understood format is Morse code.

(5) Milk Hill early August 1991

The Milk Hill script 1991

In early August 1991 the formation (5) appeared below Milk Hill. It immediately excited interest for several reasons. First, it clearly seemed to be a script or text, an idea somehow encouraged by the fact that it was displayed along a tramline, rather like writing on lined paper. Second, Jon Erik Beckjord (about whom more later) had in late July, with a farmer’s permission, stamped into a local field some the message “Talk to us”. I did not witness this event but apparently, like Milk Hill, it was positioned along a tramline.

Erik was a familiar visitor during the early ‘90s. He ran, in Malibu, California a small museum of strange phenomena which seemed to centre on Bigfoot sightings but which he was expanding to include crop circles. When the Milk H Erik felt, quite reasonably, that this was a response to his request. Apparently they were, at last, talking to us!

But what were they saying? Erik initially claimed that the Milk Hill script was Korean, though what it said was never made clear. When John Michell refused to publish the “Korean” material in the Cerealogist, Erik moved on to claim it was “Tifinag”, an ancient language of the Berbers. Again, what was said in Tifinag was never revealed.

Meanwhile Professor Gerald Hawkins became interested. He was a professor of astronomy in Washington DC whose first degree was in physics and mathematics. He was interested in ancient science, had investigated the Nazca lines and had published a controversial book, Stonehenge Decoded. He was naturally drawn to the crop circle mystery and had already produced seminal work on the circles, Euclidian geometry and diatonic harmonics when the Milk Hill script appeared.

He quickly assembled a team of twelve academics including linguists and cryptographers. Their work, detailed in the 9th issue of The Cerealogist (Summer 1993) suggests that the script or cipher read, in Latin, “oppono astos” which means ‘I oppose acts of Craft And Cunning”. English does not have a word which echoes the Latin astos but in current French “astuce” means craft, guile or cunning.

The message was most prescient for, just weeks later, Doug and Dave’s “confession” that they had made all the circles appeared in the UK press and this was the start of the enormous act of craft and cunning that has haunted the subject to the present day.

The Milk Hill script poses more questions than answers but I believe it to be real and of significance. Why? Because the tone of its brief message is so precisely consistent with later injunctions and warnings.

(6) Chilbolton Face13th August1991

(7) Chilbolton reply 19th August 1991

The Chilbolton Face and Response, 13th & 19th August 2001

The Face and Response (6 & 7) were referred to in Part One and are included in this group because, while there is no injunction or warning, there is a clear message. It was carried in a format which must be earthly as it was devised by Drake and Sagan of SETI, the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. They had intended to signal information about our world and our species to the inhabitants, if any, of Star Cluster M13. The message was reduced to 1679 binary pulses and broadcast from the Arecibo array. It was assumed that the recipients would recognise this as the product of 23 and 73, two prime numbers, and would convert the message to the illustrated rectangle (8).

(8) Chilbolton reply analysis

We might learn something from this. It had not occurred to SETI that the recipients of the transmission had been familiar with this material for centuries if not millennia and would have known these facts since their equivalent of nursery school! The SETI transmission was a sad reflection of our view of our own species, referring only to quantities, sizes and chemical constituents. Is this the way humanity chooses to introduce itself to the cosmos? I imagine they know that we are worth more than SETI’s bleak catalogue. We assumed that the limits of our technologies (radio) must be the limits of theirs. And when their response arrived substantially faster than we imagined possible, we could not imagine it was anything but a hoax.

Some years into the future some historian or philosopher will look back and review how humanity dealt with the cataclysmic shock of having to face (or at least accept the reality of) non-earthly others. The Chilbolton events, and our reactions, will inevitably form a shameful part of their studies.

A correction. In Part One I suggested that the two rectangles in the Chilbolton field were at an angle of 51.4857…° to each other. I was wrong. Jay Goldner kindly informs me that the angle is in fact about 42°. I apologise.

(9) Crabwood 15th August 2002

Crabwood 2002 (ASCII)

The Chilbolton face used the half-tone system to produce in the field what must be one of the most photo-realistic images we have had. The Crabwood (or sometimes Sparsholt) formation of 15th August 2002 (9) was similarly photo-realistic but used a scheme of fine parallel lines, subtly changing thickness along their length.

What it showed was the now–conventional image of what we recognise as a small grey. Small greys are widely held to be involved in abductions, invasive experiments and the hybridisation programme. These widely reported aspects of the story are disturbing and often terrifying to many, and the Crabwood image confirms and magnifies their nervousness.

The Chilbolton face could never be seen as scary. It simply gazes out through the wheat at us: enigmatic, neutral, and above all unthreatening. Crabwood however is at least sinister and, perhaps, menacing. He (she? it?) prominently holds and displays a disc which, in ASCII code, reading from the centre and spiralling outwards reads: “Beware the bearers of false gifts & their broken promises. Much pain but still time. Believe there is good out there. We oppose deception. “

(Note. The initial translation of the code had some words in capital letters, a mystery word and an indicator of a bell sound at the end. Most of these elements remain enigmatic and so for clarity I present it in its edited and comprehensible form.)

What are we to make of this? The arrival of Crabwood one year and two days after Chilbolton deepens the mystery. The faces are clearly those of different groups or species; why then is there so specific a coordination of dates? And why, uniquely in crop circle history do they use these complex graphic systems of portrayal?

A suggestion is that while Chilbolton stares frankly and innocently at us, Crabwood is more like the Wanted posters of old western movies. The illustrated face perhaps shows us a bearer of false gifts.

Chilcom Down 6th June 2014
This formation, which was first referred in more detail in Incongruous Siblings
(20th June 2015) has intrigued me ever since and has been, in some way, the motive behind this series of blogs.

A SMALL EPIPHANY

I have spent so much of my time over so many years studying and, above all, drawing the circles that I now feel a closeness, almost an intimacy, with their authors and engineers. Many will take this as hard evidence of my delusion! Be that as it may, I must report that I have found the last months of immersion in the Injunctions and Warnings group both confusing and depressing. Not because of their less than cheerful content but because, throughout the exercise, I sensed an uneasiness, even a frustration, coming through.

Let me explain. Over time, I confess that I have been so impressed, with the quality and inventiveness of their designs that I credited them, the circlemakers, with almost superhuman characteristics and abilities. This, of course, tends to cloud judgement!

My experience with the formations has so consistently suggested the mastery and ease with which they are devised and manifested that I found it difficult to understand the awkwardness that seemed to emanate from this group. And, again, it was less the bleakness of the content than a difficulty with the crop formation itself.

And then it became clear. I have experienced (as all close to the circles will have) the coincidences and synchronicities, the telepathies and interactivities that involvement with this phenomenon brings. I suddenly realised how different, and in many ways difficult, it must be for their evolved, fifth-dimensional consciousness to step down to deal with, not only our aggressive behaviours, but also the requirements of our sequential, linear third- dimensional thinking and communication systems. What I was sensing was the collision of their 5D consciousness with our own 3D protocols.

This simple perception opens the door to a deeper understanding of the nature and meaning of the crop circles and I will explore that in the fourth (and final!) episode of “who might they be”.