Matthew Williams, Circlemaker

[Constance]

How many crop circles are created with the intent to make someone believe they were other than man-made? I'm thinking a very low percentage. If true then man-made crop circles are not hoaxes. They aren't paranormal, but they are not hoaxed paranormal events either.

As Matt has stated, he has distanced himself from the practice of the earlier generation of Wiltshire circlemakers (centered at CCmakers.org) who did indeed long maintain their anonymity and, to coin their oft-repeated dictum, "Keep Shtum" concerning their authorship of their circles.* As I reported earlier in this thread, one of their associates who had been a crop circle designer stated in the Connector forum several years ago that the goal had been to duplicate elements of sacred geometry appearing in nonmanmade circles in order to lead people to think that the human-made formations were 'genuine' ones.

*I think that this rule became increasingly difficult to maintain as more ccmakers were recruited by CCmakers.org or followed their prescripts (this is clear even in your documentary about circlemakers some years ago, Matt). As I recall one or two of the younger ccmakers in the documentary expressed frustration at not being able to take credit for circles he worked on. And it was there I first heard the now more common ccmakers' complaint that they are not paid to make their formations, whereas researchers and conference organizers make money 'off of' their accomplishments.

 

[mike]

Mike,

The problem of "Are all complex crop circles man made?" might better be expressed in a better way.

We don't have to make statements like "all crop circles are man-made" or "some crop circles are not man-made."

We can ask a more definitive question:

Do known complex crop-circles contain hallmarks of human construction?

My answer would be, "All complex crop-circles that I have looked at, do contain hallmarks of human construction."

If you have a particular crop circle that you think is not man made now would be the time to ask Matthew to look at it.

I would love to see Matthew return to the Paracast and address particular circles that forum members submit.

By all means share the hallmarks with us, im sure it would be helpful info.

And while i totally agree the simplest way to sort through this would be for us to post those circles that we think dont contain these hallmarks, we none the less have to come full circle again. to make the case all complex CC's contain hallmarks of human construction, one would need to present "all" the circles with footnotes on each and every one as to these hallmarks.

If the claim is "all" CC's are man made, then we need to see "all" the CC's with evidence to support the claim in every case.

Even if one in a thousand CC's is not made as a prank with a plank, the best we can say is the vast majority are man made, which is not the same and zero zilch none of them are made by anything but human hands.

Zero is an absolute, and as such is very hard to pin down

Understand my POV stems from my criminal law studies many years ago.

Im not making any claims here

I'm not claiming all complex CC's are man made
I'm not claiming some CCC's are made by ET

My view is i dont know.

To use the court room example again, say the crown, charged Matthew with having made "all" CCC's........
It would not be up to his defense counsel to present those CCC's that "dont" have the hallmarks of his work.
In order to make the case he has made "all" the CCC's the Crown would have to provide evidence to support that claim on each and every CCC in the brief.

The burden of proof is always on those making the claim.

In order to make the case "all" CCC's contain the hallmarks of human hands, you need to present evidence to support that for each and every single CCC.

Dont get me wrong, its a very very close call.
On the balance of probabilty i think you have a strong case to the civil standard, that is reasonable doubt.
But to the criminal standard beyond a shadow of a doubt its simply not possible for me to "hang my hat" on the claim ALL CCC's are man made.
Without definative beyond a shadow of a doubt proof in every single example, doubt must remain
Thus i remain in the "i dont know" camp

You at least have your answer, case closed. you have resolution
I however must continue to wonder........ would that i could have the conviction you enjoy

 

[Constance]

If you have a particular crop circle that you think is not man made now would be the time to ask Matthew to look at it.

I would love to see Matthew return to the Paracast and address particular circles that forum members submit.

I too hope he returns for another interview. I would like to ask Matt what he knows about the quite mind-boggling Garsington cc of May 7, 2005, shown at the link below, and also about a Swedish crop circle from 1995 that is very similar and appears to be still more impressive. Charles Mallett is going to post the source of those two photographs on the Silent Circle: Paranormal and Political site soon.

Untitled Document

 

[Burnt State]

I'm curious about the language "mind boggling" @Constance as the images in the link seem to have all the signs of human agency - the combing patterns Williams highlighted as well as errors and sloppiness in the design. Is it really that amazing, these human designers that find innovative ways to complete their weaves? We may report these as magical but then the artist steps out from behind the curtain and does it still seem mind boggling or is it just a strong effort, some creativity and a good plan? I ask as I'm interested in the various features and progression of mundane events into the mystical or paranormal. It strikes me that cc's need to be dialed down to a less substantial story of people with boards and ropes in the fields and not causes for wonder.

 

[trainedobserver]

By all means share the hallmarks with us, im sure it would be helpful info.

And while i totally agree the simplest way to sort through this would be for us to post those circles that we think dont contain these hallmarks, we none the less have to come full circle again. to make the case all complex CC's contain hallmarks of human construction, one would need to present "all" the circles with footnotes on each and every one as to these hallmarks.

If the claim is "all" CC's are man made, then we need to see "all" the CC's with evidence to support the claim in every case.

Even if one in a thousand CC's is not made as a prank with a plank, the best we can say is the vast majority are man made, which is not the same and zero zilch none of them are made by anything but human hands.

Zero is an absolute, and as such is very hard to pin down

That is precisely why you have to ask the right questions in the right way so that they can actually be answered, if there is an answer.

It is impossible to answer the question, "Are all complex crop-circles man-made?" Therefore it is pointless to ask it.

It is better to ask, "Does [insert crop-circle name here] have features that indicate that it is man-made?" and "Are there any known complex crop-circles that do not bear the hallmarks of human construction?"

I know of none. Do you or anyone else have crop circles that do not have the indicators as outlined in Matthew William's video that was posted earlier in the thread. "How to tell a crop circle is man-made, guaranteed?

I think you're spinning on a minor point. It doesn't matter about hypothetical absolutes. I've come to believe that any crop-circle I come across will prove to be man-made. However, to be honest I have to ask the question anyway. "Does the circle I'm looking at have features that indicate that it is man-made?" I haven't found one that doesn't. I would love to see one that doesn't.

 

[Constance]

Mike wrote:

If the claim is "all" CC's are man made, then we need to see "all" the CC's with evidence to support the claim in every case.

Alas {and I mean Alas!!! in spades}, the crop circle phenomenon is ephemeral. Crop circles lie in the fields -- at best -- only until harvest (though some appear for a season or two afterward as what are called 'ghost circles', also sometimes visible in winter if there is snow because the snow melts more quickly on the laid portions of the formation). These days many crop circles are cut out by the farmers as soon as they appear (why some efforts have been made to pay farmers to not cut them out, from funds accumulated in advance by selling passes to the fields of cooperating farmers). The farther we go back in the 45-year-history of cc in Wiltshire the less photographic evidence exists, and considerable numbers of close-up photographs of the laid and woven crop are required to assess those features (and others) that can help to identify manmade circles.

 

[mike]

this is a good example

2 Crop Circles Crop Up On The Same Day In Brazil

Youd think the pranking plankers would want the 20,000

In response to critics who quickly condemn the ground designs as the work of hoaxers, Gevaerd has announced that his publication will award $20,000 to anybody who claims to have made these crop circles and can show how they did it.
The final determination of this most recent case is still up for grabs, and nobody has yet to claim the $20,000 reward.

Matthew ?

If someone offered you 20,000 for you to reproduce one of your works, and or provide documentation of its creation would you do it ?

 

[trainedobserver]

Here you go Mike.

 

[mike]

It is impossible to answer the question, "Are all complex crop-circles man-made?" Therefore it is pointless to ask it.

Exactly, this is the very heart of my point, not only is it pointless to ask it, You cannot claim it either, as opinion absolutely , as fact ? no that case can never be made

 

[mike]

I might posit this case might qualify as lacking the hallmarks, since according to the pilot it was laid down in 45 mins or less.......

The speed at which this was laid down seems to be beyond human ability

Eye witness watches crop circle form near Stonehenge.

Witness's also claim to have seen it laid down before their eyes.


compare

crew of 6 circlemakers with a photographer and journalist from the newspaper set off from News International's HQ in Wapping on Friday evening and speeded down to Dover in the Mini's to catch the train over to Calais. On Satuday we got up at the crack and drove to Campigneulles les grandes where we'd managed to find a wheat field to create the formation in. It took around 7 hours to create

and a very early start 4 circlemakers were able to craft the standing Shredded Wheat logo inside a flattened heart shape in a back breaking 14 hours in a wheat field in Puckeridge, Hertfordshire.

If time is a hallmark, then this CC is lacking that hallmark

 

[mike]

Here you go Mike.

On any crop circle......well..... almost any crop circle....im sure theres going to be some exceptions to the case.......

Even in this example, the "proof" is not absolute

 

[Constance]

I'm curious about the language "mind boggling" @Constance as the images in the link seem to have all the signs of human agency - the combing patterns Williams highlighted as well as errors and sloppiness in the design.

Maybe we should wait for Matt's explanation of how this cc was done, but I don't see the 'combing patterns' that result from the pressing down of rows of crop by boards; I see crop built up in a continuous spiral through some means that looks somewhat like weaving of the crop. Moreover, the seedheads are lined up all along the upper outer edge of the spiralled braids of crop. It's a very intricately made formation. The radial lay toward the center of one of the circles in the formation is also interesting. If the crop had been stomped down toward the center with boards, we would see a combing effect there and also board marks, but we don't. At least I don't. Let's see what Matt thinks.

 

[mike]

I might posit this case might qualify as lacking the hallmarks, since according to the pilot it was laid down in 45 mins or less.......

The speed at which this was laid down seems to be beyond human ability

Eye witness watches crop circle form near Stonehenge.




If time is a hallmark, then this CC is lacking that hallmark

Now to keep it balanced we have this guy who claims the pilot simply didnt see it, and his only proof is

ML: "What evidence could they show for that?" I asked.

RD: "Well, there is a diagram of the formation, which I've seen. That's about all."

A diagram, thats about all...........

A claim but no evidence whatsoever, and hearsay at that, the "artists" remain unnamed

His "testimony" in a court would be worthless

Lets flip this on its head for a moment.
Matthew gets charged with making the stonehenge julia set, he makes no admissions on his lawyers advice.
The Crown prosecutor produces this guy, who testifys Matt did it

"Were you present when he did it ?" he's asked
"No, no i wasnt"
"How do you know the defendant did it then ?"
"Oh i spoke to this bloke who was"
"Is he here in the court ?"
"No, no he isnt"
"Whats his name"
"Cant say your worship"
"Any other evidence the defendant did it"
"Oh yes, yes your worship, he showed me a diagram......"
"And thats it ?"
"Yes thats about all......"

If thats all the prosecutor has, Matt walks free.





And then he goes on to say......

There was one more thing I wanted to know. "What about reports of strange energies and paranormal events in the crop formations. Have you ever seen lights or felt anything strange while you're out there?" RD: "Yes, I have," Rod said. "And so have most of the other circle makers. On several occasions I've seen sudden flashes of light -- like a flashgun going off in your face. There's no apparent source or direction -- just a brilliant flash. I have no idea what it is."

As Rod himself said, even if he's telling the truth (and I think he is), this doesn't prove that all crop formations are human made. In fact, Rod mentioned that the two most (in)famous circle makers, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, are both avid UFO enthusiasts. One of them (Rod couldn't remember which one) had visited Australia years ago and seen a "UFO nest," an apparently authentic UFO landing site in tall reeds that had left a mysterious bowl-shaped impression. Rod Dickinson says this experience was the original inspiration for Doug and Dave's noctural artwork in the fields of England. RD: "Some of the simple circles could be the real thing," Rod said. "I really don't know." A final caveat: CNI News takes no position on whether or not some of the large pictograms are authentically anomalous. However, we are deeply impressed by the apparent ingenuity of the circle makers. According to "The Circle Makers" web site, these "artists" sometimes even dowse the fields they work in to make sure their formations are aligned with dowsable earth energies (dowsing rods are listed among the recommended equipment for circle making). "With a little practice," the web site declares, anyone can "produce genuine, dowsable, scientifically proven un-hoaxable circle patterns."

¤ c i r c l e m a k e r s ¤

 

[Constance]

Exactly, this is the very heart of my point, not only is it pointless to ask it, You cannot claim it either, as opinion absolutely , as fact ? no that case can never be made

That's correct, and it's why I asked near the beginning of this thread why it is so important to make the claim that "all crop circles are manmade" (and to engage in character assassination of researchers who continue to question that claim and provide reasons to doubt it). This a battle (that's not too strong a word for it) that has gone on for decades in Wiltshire-centered crop circle discussion, particularly virulent in the last five years. What motivates those who seem to devote much of their lives to the effort to persuade the world (well, the part of it that follows the cc subject) that "all crop circles are manmade"? It has led to the creation of a Crop Circle Challenge in the last year, offering a $100,000 prize (translate that into pounds) for a team that can reproduce the Milk Hill Galaxy formation of 2000, in daylight, on the original site {for which the owner of the field was paid 10,000 lbs. to plant wheat there and allow the challenge to be conducted there}. No team has taken the challenge.

 

[mike]

That's correct, and it's why I asked near the beginning of this thread why it is so important to make the claim that "all crop circles are manmade" (and to engage in character assassination of researchers who continue to question that claim and provide reasons to doubt it). This a battle (that's not too strong a word for it) that has gone on for decades in Wiltshire-centered crop circle discussion, particularly virulent in the last five years. What motivates those who seem to devote much of their lives to the effort to persuade the world (well, the part of it that follows the cc subject) that "all crop circles are manmade"? It has led to the creation of a Crop Circle Challenge in the last year, offering a $100,000 prize (translate that into pounds) for a team that can reproduce the Milk Hill Galaxy formation of 2000, in daylight, on the original site {for which the owner of the field was paid 10,000 lbs. to plant wheat there and allow the challenge to be conducted there). No team has taken the challenge.

Yeah and i dont find this answer very compelling

RD: "There have been contests in England before. There have been prizes offered. It really doesn't do any good. It only leads to negativity," Rod argued. "Once you identify the artist, all the mystery and magic is gone. Before, you had something beautiful that inspires people; afterward you've just got disillusioned believers and artists in trouble. Nobody wins. Why should the artists come forward?"

 

[Constance]

Because JimiH - has tried to defnd a rational position you now seem to be saying that he is rigidly defending me. I do not know JimiH. Is it not just that he is trying to put forward a rational rather than a conspiratorial position?

My impression is that he wants to represent you as the last word on all things crop circle, and that he wants to think you have the last word on it all because what you argue corresponds with what he prefers, as an apparently thorough-going skeptic, to think about crop circle origins.

 

[trainedobserver]

this is a good example
2 Crop Circles Crop Up On The Same Day In Brazil
Youd think the pranking plankers would want the 20,000
Matthew ?
If someone offered you 20,000 for you to reproduce one of your works, and or provide documentation of its creation would you do it ?

We need to ask ourselves, "Is that the right question?" The questions should involve the evidence at hand rather than the motivations of the hypothetical makers.

I might posit this case might qualify as lacking the hallmarks, since according to the pilot it was laid down in 45 mins or less.......

The speed at which this was laid down seems to be beyond human ability

Eye witness watches crop circle form near Stonehenge.

Witness's also claim to have seen it laid down before their eyes.

compare

If time is a hallmark, then this CC is lacking that hallmark

I think Williams addresses this one, the Julia Set’, Stonehenge, Wiltshire, 7 July 1996 in one of his videos. Maybe he will do so again here.

Yes, this one is man-made. You can look at it and tell.

 

[mike]

We need to ask ourselves, "Is that the right question?" The questions should involve the evidence at hand rather than the motivations of the hypothetical makers.

In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.
Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged.

In the case of the SH julia set , we have the testimony of the pilot who says it wasnt there 45 mins earlier

We have

The Wiltshire Police who are alleged to have said that the police emergency lines received several 999 calls just before 6.00 PM reporting a large number of vehicles pulled off the road causing a hazard.

Now while i personally wouldnt hang my hat on this, ive yet to see proof that refutes this Testimony

In this matter i can only reserve judgement, until evidence to support the claim it was man made can be presented.

I cant call apon Matthew as an "expert witness" since

an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the court.

His criminal conviction in matters relating to the subject is also problematic.

Even if i did, the defense and or the prosecution could call apon this

On any crop circle......well..... almost any crop circle....im sure theres going to be some exceptions to the case.......

To cast further doubt on any testimony he may give

The circumstantial evidence that might support the claim the SHJS were not man made, has not yet been undermined by any direct evidence to the contrary. that is direct evidence it was man made (photos/video of it being made, testimony of those who made it, witness who saw people making it)

 

[trainedobserver]

In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.
Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged.

All I'm saying Mike is that one doesn't need to jump to conclusions about someone's motivations to figure out "what" made them, all you have to do is look at the crop circle or a photograph of it.
To address why someone would not come forward, there could be any number of reasons.
1. It's illegal. Aside from any legal ramifications, confessing to a crime might endanger their job, relationships, etc.
2. They might be unaware of the reward.
3. They might suspect that the reward is not genuine.
I could go on, but you get the idea.

Many Crop Circle "reports" provide something most UFO and alien abduction reports do not, actual photographic evidence. Examining these photos for known signs of circle construction is the way to answer the questions about their origin.

 

[Constance]

I think Williams addresses this one, the Julia Set’, Stonehenge, Wiltshire, 7 July 1996 in one of his videos. Maybe he will do so again here.

Yes, this one is man-made. You can look at it and tell.

Out of interest, as they say in the UK, would you identify the signs that you believe unambiguously point to manmade construction of the Julia Set?