Part 5: Support for D&D
If general opinion on the origins of the circles were surveyed, I think the majority would conclude "hoax", and cite D&D as the inventors. I am not aware of any research to these ends, but the D&D story is widely accepted as truthful, for example being presented as given fact in the UK television programme Qi in 2010.
But how are their claims regarded within the crop circle arena? Opinion varies widely, but since 1991, D&D have enjoyed vocal support from certain individuals. I would like to look at some of this now, and see how D&D's sponsors manage to reconcile the story with the known facts about the subject's past. We might forgive newspapers for being insufficiently informed to spot problems in their account, but those familiar with the subject ought to know better.
Support has come from three main sources - Ken Brown, who presented with Bower at public meetings in 1993; film maker John Macnish, who went hoaxing with them and published a book purporting to be a "case closed" account, and finally the hoaxers/professional circlemakers who adopt the latter moniker as their trade mark and speak of D&D as the originators of the whole phenomenon.
Let's see what they have to say...
But how are their claims regarded within the crop circle arena? Opinion varies widely, but since 1991, D&D have enjoyed vocal support from certain individuals. I would like to look at some of this now, and see how D&D's sponsors manage to reconcile the story with the known facts about the subject's past. We might forgive newspapers for being insufficiently informed to spot problems in their account, but those familiar with the subject ought to know better.
Support has come from three main sources - Ken Brown, who presented with Bower at public meetings in 1993; film maker John Macnish, who went hoaxing with them and published a book purporting to be a "case closed" account, and finally the hoaxers/professional circlemakers who adopt the latter moniker as their trade mark and speak of D&D as the originators of the whole phenomenon.
Let's see what they have to say...
Ken Brown
Ken Brown’s involvement in the D&D saga is largely centred on the two public meetings of 1993 which I have already mentioned several times. I do not have full transcripts of the proceedings, but Paul Fuller published detailed summaries of what was said. At these two events, Brown joined Bower in front of an audience, to present evidence and argue the case that D&D’s story was truthful.
The most significant issue which arose in the meetings was the underlying plausibility of Bower’s story. Regardless of this or that individual formation, let’s remind ourselves of what D&D had so far said about starting the circles in the UK:
This is completely unequivocal, and there are many more examples in the record. All of these quotes are prior to the two meetings and there is no uncertainty in Bower’s version. He even recalls the exact field it was in, the Strawberry Field near Cheesefoot Head.
The most significant issue which arose in the meetings was the underlying plausibility of Bower’s story. Regardless of this or that individual formation, let’s remind ourselves of what D&D had so far said about starting the circles in the UK:
- “The first one we did was in the summer of 1978” (Today, 1991)
- “We started it in this country in 1978” (Today, 1991)
- “This was 1978, [when] we thought, oh, we’ll try one in a field.” (Canadian radio, 1991)
- “We started them in 1978” (Debate with George Wingfield, 1991)
- “We started the actual circle phenomenon in 1978” (Clas Svahn interview, 1992)
This is completely unequivocal, and there are many more examples in the record. All of these quotes are prior to the two meetings and there is no uncertainty in Bower’s version. He even recalls the exact field it was in, the Strawberry Field near Cheesefoot Head.
|
Move this video on to 5:22, to hear where and when Doug Bower made his first circle.
|
The Strawberry Field is located between the Percy Hobbs Pub and the Punchbowl at Cheesefoot Head. It's slap-bang in the area Doug and Dave claimed as their home patch, and in the footage above, he's standing in that very spot, overlooked by Telegraph Hill and a short walk from the Punchbowl. Standing right there, Bower emphatically states, "We went into this field, one lovely night, and we put the first circle down."
I personally don’t accept Bower's story, but presumably Ken Brown did? Actually, no – he didn’t seem to accept it either. When left to his own devices Bower invariably gave 1978 as the year he started, but at these two meetings, the story has mysteriously been re-shaped to set back the starting point by some years. Of course, I only have Paul Fuller’s recounting of events to go by, but what we find is pretty clear:
- “Brown then asked what he believed to be the most important question... did these two men invent the phenomenon in the mid-1970s?” [my emphasis]
- “Bower described how he and Chorley began their crop circle career in 1975”
- “The first circles they created must have predated 1976 by several years”
- “Ken Brown... claimed that there were no photographs of sharply defined pre-1975 circles” [my emphasis]
- “Circles as we know them – our crop circles – since the mid-1970s are straight rigid sided affairs” [Ken Brown’s words, my emphasis]
This turn of events changes a definite starting date of 1978 to a vague mid-1970s, or a specific 1975, or an uncertain pre-1976, depending which version one opts for. Ken Brown confusingly claimed there were no photographs of sharply defined pre-1975 circles, not pre-1978 circles – which is the fact of the matter (see Circular Evidence for the earliest). It is very strange indeed that the repeated claim of 1978 has disappeared completely, and equally strange that in later years, Bower simply resumed saying what he had said in the first place as if nothing had happened:
- “We started in 1978” (Countryfile, 1998)
- “The first circle was put down in 1978” (Countryfile special, 1999)
- "There were no circles anywhere in existence before 1978, when we put the first one down" (Circlespeak DVD, 2001)
The other thing to note about these meetings is the first presentation of Bower’s photographic evidence. Mounted on large display boards, the photos were offered as proof of D&D’s story, but it must be recognised that these first photographs, which were in fact the earliest evidence of any sort to be offered, were dated 1980 or later. As Fuller recounted, “Brown... introduced the display of Doug Bower's own photographs taken during every year since 1980.”
If Ken Brown believes Bower started hoaxing crop circles half a decade prior to that, one might question why this was the earliest available evidence. The fact that his "evidence" (which proves little anyway) commences in 1980 is more than a little surprising. Circular Evidence has its first photo and case study two years earlier than this, and Bower can bump his story back to 1978 - but 1975?? Why is there not a single photograph of any circles anywhere for five whole years, if this revised version of the story is true?
I remind readers that when we analysed Bower's photos of the 1980 circles at Westbury, we discovered something Ken Brown would presumably have had no idea of - namely, that D&D must have Driven 100 miles to Westbury and back, not once but twice, just to take photos. And yet we are asked to accept that for half a decade they never once grabbed a photograph of a single circle they made, summer after summer, in places they frequented all the time. Their photographic record only begins in 1980, with those very important circles, as it turned out years later?
What happened at these meetings is that Bower and Ken Brown have realised that the original version of when the circles began is untenable, and have re-shaped it. But before and after these meetings, Doug Bower did not say this, and so we are left nonethewiser about the true facts of the matter and are left puzzling over what is going on here.
And recall how the 1980 Cheesfeoot Head photographs above upset Bower's version of events before and after, whereby his first circles in that location were the ones found by Delgado in 1981. The story given here - and only here - is a unique reinvention of Bower's tales.
John Macnish
I turn now to the film maker and author John Macnish, who involved himself in the subject around the time D&D were preparing to step forward. He ended up forming an alliance with them, colluding in their post-1991 circle making and eventually penning a book, Crop Circle Apocalypse (1993), in which their version of events is given as a final answer to the mystery, and issuing the home video, Crop Circle Communiqué in which their claims are laid out.
There is very little testimony from D&D in the movie or the book, which mainly contains Macnish's own third-party re-telling of their story, and it is fair to say that he comes across as keen to believe it!
There is very little testimony from D&D in the movie or the book, which mainly contains Macnish's own third-party re-telling of their story, and it is fair to say that he comes across as keen to believe it!
There are numerous examples of Macnish arguing his case with logic of the flimsiest sort, for example on page 160 of his book: It is proposed that the circles in Circular Evidence and elsewhere in the 1980s repeatedly exhibited dimensions which were multiples of 1.2m (supposedly the precise length of Doug's "4 foot" stomper board). No statistics are given to back this up, and indeed, Macnish himself states there aren't any available, but he still asserts it as fact.
One or two cases are cited where this dimension happens to almost turn up, for example a 1986 circle at Cheesefoot Head, which was apparently sized by Andrews and Delgado at a precise 19m diameter. Macnish immediately commutes this to 19.2m, which is exactly 16 times a 1.2m stomper board.
One or two cases are cited where this dimension happens to almost turn up, for example a 1986 circle at Cheesefoot Head, which was apparently sized by Andrews and Delgado at a precise 19m diameter. Macnish immediately commutes this to 19.2m, which is exactly 16 times a 1.2m stomper board.
But look at the floor lay in that particular circle (Circular Evidence p41, reproduced right). It doesn't show repeated concentric flattening, so even if the diameter did happen to be roughly a multiple of 1.2, it is obviously pure chance. And even if it had been constructed with a round-and-round technique which kept adding to its diameter with each circuit, it is absurd to suppose that building a circle, with all its variations and imperfections, all the imprecision of pushing a board with a foot, and all the inevitable overlaps here and there, will produce a centimetre-perfect multiple of the length of the board being used.
|
Interestingly, Macnish also has his own position on when D&D invented the circles. On page 87, he states, "Doug and Dave claimed to have started the phenomenon in 1978. This date is highly significant as it is exactly when the [historical] anecdotal evidence for circle formations in Britain is replaced by photographic evidence." But in fact, there is just one confirmed image between 1977 and 1980, so it is a nonsense to say that in 1978, a body of photographic evidence replaced a body of anecdotal evidence.
He also omits to point out that this one isolated photo happened to be taken by the farmer himself, and was kept and then published many years later by pure luck. The very survival of this lone fragment of evidence is a sheer fluke, as is the fact that it happens to be from 1978 and not some other year. Indeed the farmer himself reported having circles on his land two years prior to this, in 1976!
Above, we saw how Ken Brown asserted there were no photographs before 1975. Here, Macnish cites 1978. Bower himself has photos starting from 1980. None of the three seem to know the year the photographic record supposedly begins, and yet they are all certain that they, not everyone else, have possession of the truth.
Macnish's timeline is underscored in his year-by-year chronology of the subject on pages 225-237, which he describes, with no hint of irony, as "The authentic history of the circles phenomenon". His version of events includes a couple of obvious clangers:
He also omits to point out that this one isolated photo happened to be taken by the farmer himself, and was kept and then published many years later by pure luck. The very survival of this lone fragment of evidence is a sheer fluke, as is the fact that it happens to be from 1978 and not some other year. Indeed the farmer himself reported having circles on his land two years prior to this, in 1976!
Above, we saw how Ken Brown asserted there were no photographs before 1975. Here, Macnish cites 1978. Bower himself has photos starting from 1980. None of the three seem to know the year the photographic record supposedly begins, and yet they are all certain that they, not everyone else, have possession of the truth.
Macnish's timeline is underscored in his year-by-year chronology of the subject on pages 225-237, which he describes, with no hint of irony, as "The authentic history of the circles phenomenon". His version of events includes a couple of obvious clangers:
- 1978, a quintuplet design was found, and "This is exactly what they claim they made". In fact, Bower has repeatedly insisted the quintuplet was devised in response to Dr Meaden, dating it to some point in the early 1980s. Bower has never claimed to have devised it in 1978, before he'd ever heard of Dr Meaden; on the contrary, he stated it was introduced in 1983 - for example, on a display board at the 1993 meeting (note the title of the display was "1983 - quintuplets are born").
- "1981: the 'Punchbowl' at Cheesefoot Head is planted." Incredibly, Macnish printed a photo of a 1980 circle in that very spot, on page 89 - so it couldn't possibly have been planted for the first time a year afterwards!
And so we see that in a similar way to Ken Brown before him, John Macnish weaving in his own dates and 'facts' to try and assemble a plausible version of events. To do so he has to reject Bower's own statement about, for example, the quintuplet, and the Punchbowl formation which ensnared Pat Delgado.
And he reverses logical facts - for example asserting that because the "earliest" photo dates to the same year as D&D's claimed "first" circle, the story is proven - rather than spotting the obvious: that their version is based on that very photo. With this kind of analysis, he thinks he has solved the mystery - "case closed", as the cover of the book claims.
It would be wrong at this point, not to mention one image from Macnish's video, Crop Circle Communiqué II: Revelations, in which a slide show of Bower's photos is given. Without comment, some random circle is shown with the caption, "1978".
We have not been able to find a matching circle yet, to identify what year this is actually from, but we do not take the caption as correct. The next slide shown after this one was captioned 1979, which is definitely not true - it's as if Macnish is trying to convince the viewer of things he has no evidence of. Again, from his book, Macnish wants us to accept that, "Doug and Dave claimed to have started the phenomenon in 1978. This date is highly significant as it is exactly when the [historical] anecdotal evidence for circle formations in Britain is replaced by photographic evidence."
This supporting "1978" photo has never to our knowledge been published - or mentioned - anywhere else, and we do not know where Bower claims the photo was taken.
I will end my remarks on Mr Macnish there, since there is a more important case which needs to be discussed - that of D&D's main champions, The Circlemakers...
We have not been able to find a matching circle yet, to identify what year this is actually from, but we do not take the caption as correct. The next slide shown after this one was captioned 1979, which is definitely not true - it's as if Macnish is trying to convince the viewer of things he has no evidence of. Again, from his book, Macnish wants us to accept that, "Doug and Dave claimed to have started the phenomenon in 1978. This date is highly significant as it is exactly when the [historical] anecdotal evidence for circle formations in Britain is replaced by photographic evidence."
This supporting "1978" photo has never to our knowledge been published - or mentioned - anywhere else, and we do not know where Bower claims the photo was taken.
I will end my remarks on Mr Macnish there, since there is a more important case which needs to be discussed - that of D&D's main champions, The Circlemakers...
The Circlemakers
This group of circle hoaxers is well known, and has published a book about the subject, in at least three different editions. The last version was in 2006, and included new interview material with Bower, as discussed elsewhere on this site.
Overall, their book, The Field Guide is the most comprehensive advocacy of hoaxing as the total solution ever to have been written. |
Apart from the interview with Bower, it contains a full telling of crop circle history through the lens of its authors, and for this reason, is of special interest to me. As advocates of Bower, again one would have thought that they at least believed his version of events – and note that by now he had gone back on record to re-assert 1978 as his starting point, once the Ken Brown meetings were a distant memory.
But again, we are surprised to find that no, they do not believe it either. They do not merely manifest a blind spot over the issue of 1978, they do what John Macnish did, and re-tell Bower’s story to better fit the facts. Since this is all in print, we can examine it at length.
Leaving 1978 out of Bower’s story
Despite the fact that Bower is interviewed in the book over some 35 pages, it is astonishing that nowhere can we read a statement from him of when he made his first circle! In the interview transcript we are given, the question is not asked or answered, which is strange to say the least, considering this book purports to be the first true telling of the whole of crop circle history. As we saw above, John Macnish is pinning his hopes on 1978 and that one published photo, but in The Field Guide we see none of this. However, if we do a bit of analysis we can see that 1978 is still consistently Bower’s version of events, albeit we have to use a bit of deduction to find it:
Bower: “We decided to make Friday evenings our night to go out and have a drink... this we did every Friday night from 1968 to 1978” (p214-5)
Comment: Bower speaks of going for a drink up until 1978, when, as we know, his outings changed to crop circle making. If this isn’t what he meant, what happened in 1978, such that it was a turning point worth mentioning? Compare, for example, what he said on Countryfile in 1999: “Dave Chorley, my friend, and I sat in this pub every Friday night for ten years, just talking about art.”
Bower: “Turn the clock forward two years and still nobody spotted them!... [Then I saw] the Devil's Punchbowl... I saw that they were ploughing it for the first time. ” (p218-9)
Comment: This is absolutely consistent with Bower’s story as given elsewhere. Their first circle at the Punchbowl was (allegedly!) in 1980 - so the first circle was in 1978, because, two years later, the Punchbowl was first ploughed
Bower: “As I said to Dave time and time again in those first 14 years...” (p245)
Comment: Bower is clearly reminiscing at this point in the interview, and is speaking of his circle making up to the confession of 1991, exactly 14 circle-making summers if 1978 was the starting point.
So, we can see that Bower hasn’t changed his story. He is still sure he started in 1978, still says that the Punchbowl was ploughed two years later, and still counts 14 summers before the 1991 exposé. But what do we find when the book’s authors are telling the story themselves? Something rather different:
This sounds familiar. It is another revision of the story, not from Bower himself, you will note, but from his supporters. They do not accept Bower’s own version, and we can easily understand why. And let's be clear on this matter: nowhere can we find a trace of 1976 given by Bower himself as the year he made his first circle.
But again, we are surprised to find that no, they do not believe it either. They do not merely manifest a blind spot over the issue of 1978, they do what John Macnish did, and re-tell Bower’s story to better fit the facts. Since this is all in print, we can examine it at length.
Leaving 1978 out of Bower’s story
Despite the fact that Bower is interviewed in the book over some 35 pages, it is astonishing that nowhere can we read a statement from him of when he made his first circle! In the interview transcript we are given, the question is not asked or answered, which is strange to say the least, considering this book purports to be the first true telling of the whole of crop circle history. As we saw above, John Macnish is pinning his hopes on 1978 and that one published photo, but in The Field Guide we see none of this. However, if we do a bit of analysis we can see that 1978 is still consistently Bower’s version of events, albeit we have to use a bit of deduction to find it:
Bower: “We decided to make Friday evenings our night to go out and have a drink... this we did every Friday night from 1968 to 1978” (p214-5)
Comment: Bower speaks of going for a drink up until 1978, when, as we know, his outings changed to crop circle making. If this isn’t what he meant, what happened in 1978, such that it was a turning point worth mentioning? Compare, for example, what he said on Countryfile in 1999: “Dave Chorley, my friend, and I sat in this pub every Friday night for ten years, just talking about art.”
Bower: “Turn the clock forward two years and still nobody spotted them!... [Then I saw] the Devil's Punchbowl... I saw that they were ploughing it for the first time. ” (p218-9)
Comment: This is absolutely consistent with Bower’s story as given elsewhere. Their first circle at the Punchbowl was (allegedly!) in 1980 - so the first circle was in 1978, because, two years later, the Punchbowl was first ploughed
Bower: “As I said to Dave time and time again in those first 14 years...” (p245)
Comment: Bower is clearly reminiscing at this point in the interview, and is speaking of his circle making up to the confession of 1991, exactly 14 circle-making summers if 1978 was the starting point.
So, we can see that Bower hasn’t changed his story. He is still sure he started in 1978, still says that the Punchbowl was ploughed two years later, and still counts 14 summers before the 1991 exposé. But what do we find when the book’s authors are telling the story themselves? Something rather different:
- “One Friday evening in the summer of 1976, two friends from Southampton, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, were out for their weekly get-together at the Percy Hobbs pub ... the following Friday they ... got down on their hands and knees and ... flattened a swathe of wheat into a small circle” (p61-63)
- “It was not until August 1980, after nearly five summers of Doug and Dave’s weekly efforts” (p64)
- “[In the context of the 1990 season] perhaps the pair subconsciously desired some credit for all they had done for the last 15 years” (p81)
- “One summer evening in the mid-1970s... so it began” (p211)
This sounds familiar. It is another revision of the story, not from Bower himself, you will note, but from his supporters. They do not accept Bower’s own version, and we can easily understand why. And let's be clear on this matter: nowhere can we find a trace of 1976 given by Bower himself as the year he made his first circle.
Above, a direct quote in the TODAY story. The Circlemakers would also have been familiar with D&D's claims from other sources, for example as filmed and included in the video, Crop Circle Communiqué: "There were no circles at all before 1978" ... "The circles that we created in 1978".
Those with a copy of the DVD, Circlespeak, will see and hear Bower sitting right next to the book's co-author, John Lundberg, and insisting yet again, with abolutely no ambiguity whatsoever: "There were no circles anywhere in existence before 1978, when we put the first one down. There’s archaeological aerial photographs [which have] been examined, thousands of them, prior to, er, 1978, and not one single circle has ever been spotted from the air". Lundberg says nothing.
This took place prior to Lundberg writing in the book, “One Friday evening in the summer of 1976..." - which is hard to see as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of Bower's story.
Those with a copy of the DVD, Circlespeak, will see and hear Bower sitting right next to the book's co-author, John Lundberg, and insisting yet again, with abolutely no ambiguity whatsoever: "There were no circles anywhere in existence before 1978, when we put the first one down. There’s archaeological aerial photographs [which have] been examined, thousands of them, prior to, er, 1978, and not one single circle has ever been spotted from the air". Lundberg says nothing.
This took place prior to Lundberg writing in the book, “One Friday evening in the summer of 1976..." - which is hard to see as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of Bower's story.
The real history
I noticed in the small print of the book, Rob Irving’s comment, “I would like to thank ... Terry Wilson ... for helpful insights and way with words, some of which I stole.”
Unless there is another Terry Wilson involved in the subject, which would be news to me, I think this implies that Irving has read my book, The Secret History of Crop Circles (he doesn’t know me otherwise). If that is so, Irving will know of literally hundreds of historical cases which demonstrate that the circles have a substantial history to them.
It is to Irving’s credit that he and his co-authors go through some of this historical data. They do not simply ignore it, as Macnish did. In the book, the authors take a hop, skip and a jump through the cases in Secret History and look into some of the evidence we have available. We read first-hand the excellent witness statements of Rand Capron (1880) and Patrick Moore (1963), see a photograph of Tully (1966) and find mention of the well-known circles which Arthur Shuttlewood wrote about in the 1960s. Several other cases are presented too, so the authors are offering a grounding in some of the better known historical cases, all of which, to put it mildly, “at least raise some interesting questions” (p21).
The authors seem to get it. Old circles apparently existed and the phenomenon did not just start from nothing in 1978, or 1976, or 1975; there is evidence of circles long beforehand. Still they wish to endorse Bower for some reason known only to them, but their statements are qualified by knowledge of the subject’s past: “[Persuading Chorley to make the first circle] Doug Bower uttered the words that would herald a new era in the history of crop circles” (p62, my emphasis); “[Doug and Dave] can be credited with inventing the crop circle phenomenon as we know it today” (p211).
This is good because it openly acknowledges that there are two eras in crop circle history, and not one; there is the “historical” record, with textual accounts, ground-level photos, sketches by witnesses and UFO-flavoured press cuttings – and there is the “modern” record, full of circles-only magazines and books and copious photos taken from elevated views. Two sets of evidence for what is, essentially, a continuous phenomenon both before and after 1978, which merely morphed in the public consciousness over a period of some years, from a strange UFO side-effect to a phenomenon in its own right.
Dismissing it again
I find it exasperating that in The Field Guide, the authors don’t seem to grasp the significance of this, and instead fall back on what they must realise is the untenable D&D version instead, namely, that there were no crop circles prior to 1978 (or 1976, as they would assert). Although there is compelling evidence in the historical records, the authors can be seen to dismiss much of it with weak, if not groundless arguments. The greater majority of the historical record is disposed of with this single explanation: “There are many accounts of circular ground traces – too numerous to go into individually here. They are mostly anecdotal...” (p44).
Many accounts, too numerous to go into! This is a significant and true statement, making its immediate rebuttal all the more incomprehensible – but what, we may ask, is meant by “anecdotal” such that this one word means that the great body of evidence can be disposed of without further consideration? In this context it means evidence which consists of verbal statements without empirical facts to verify them. The authors rightly differentiate between scientific evidence, which is independently verifiable, and anecdotal evidence which is not, and are justified in disregarding anecdotal evidence if they wish to be rigorous in their analysis of the subject’s history.
All of which is fine, but they do not apply this rigour when it comes to D&D, all of whose testimony is anecdotal by their definition. The only empirical evidence D&D offer are the 1980 photos, which we have dealt with elsewhere on this site, and which the authors make ridiculous statements about (for example stating that a photo taken several years after the event proves that D&D were there before anyone else).
In terms of specific historical cases, take as an example, their coverage and assessment of the Meeker County event of December 1974. In The Field Guide the case is described only as “a mysterious series of circles” (p159) without further elaboration. It is not clear if these are the author’s words or a quotation, but whoever wrote them concluded, “further investigation into the circles found that they were actually snow-covered silage” (p160) – which the authors think is adequate to settle the event, which is not discussed again. No image is provided, and the reader is given only these statements on which to form an opinion.
But look at the facts, as we (and presumably the authors, who read my own book) know them: at this location, some 47 (!!) individual circles were discovered in a single field, all regular, and virtually the same size as one another. We also have the benefit of a half-decent aerial photo taken from a plane, showing that all the circles appear to be practically identical, and arranged seemingly purposefully in chains and pairs, rather than being distributed randomly.
Whatever the photo shows, it is obvious that the circles are definitely not snow-covered silage. Silage – animal feed usually kept in a silo – is a frankly bizarre attempt at explaining away the event, and the false claim of snow-coverage speaks of a refusal to evaluate the known evidence. And I will do here what the authors of the book did not do, and show you, the reader, the photo - which speaks for itself. Is this a picture of snow-covered animal feed?
Their efforts to dispose of the historical cases is understandable given the chapter which follows – Bower’s anecdotal telling of how he created the circles phenomenon in the second part of the 1970s – but the methods they use to avoid assessing the photographic evidence are encapsulated by comments such as: “Not one unambiguous photograph of a pre-1960s crop circle has come to light” (p21).
I think the statement is literally true. I know of only one pre-1960s photograph, and it shows a ring rather than a circle, so we can allow the term “ambiguous”. It's not important - what we have to face up to is the insertion of an arbitrary condition: “pre-1960s”. What has 1960 got to do with anything? (More shades of Ken Brown here, who is quoted above claiming “there were no photographs of sharply defined pre-1975 circles", and also John Macnish who asserts 1978 as the first photo.) If they want to believe D&D, they would say, as Macnish did, “not a single photograph exists before 1978”. But of course, they can’t say that – because they know there are pre-1978 photographs. Here is one, showing a circle in oats in 1973, and I don’t see anything ambiguous about it:
It proves Bower did not invent crop circles. On the same page they are on even weaker ground, when they mention, “the first press reports of the early 1980s”. Firstly, we should ask, what research has ever been conducted on the subject of media coverage of crop cirlces and when it began? To my knowledge, none - but perhaps the Circlemakers will one day enlighten us on this point, so we know they aren't inventing convenient 'facts'.
As it happens, I myself have conducted a little research, and found several earlier examples of press reportage. Most of the historical cases were interpreted in the papers as landing marks made by UFOs (for what other frame of reference was there?). Here are a few examples, concerning circles in the 1960s and 1970s, which happen to use the then prevalent "flying saucer" angle, but which all detail circles of flattened, swirled vegetation (click to enlarge):
As it happens, I myself have conducted a little research, and found several earlier examples of press reportage. Most of the historical cases were interpreted in the papers as landing marks made by UFOs (for what other frame of reference was there?). Here are a few examples, concerning circles in the 1960s and 1970s, which happen to use the then prevalent "flying saucer" angle, but which all detail circles of flattened, swirled vegetation (click to enlarge):
I feel sorry for the Circlemakers over their ill-thought-out decision to back Bower. Most of what they have to say on other matters is reasonably well informed, but their misguided acceptance of Bower’s anecdotal tales has forced them to tie themselves in knots. Having initially believed Bower’s claim to have invented the circles to fool the UFO boys, they must also disbelieve him since his stories are contradicted by hard evidence such as the 1973 photo above. And having looked at the historical evidence and decided that Bower’s circles only amount to a “new era” rather than the creation of the phenomenon itself, they have to simultaneously discount the historical cases as anecdotal. Having rejected the many anecdotal accounts on the basis that they are unsubstantiated, they are forced to pick one anecdotal and unsubstantiated account – D&D’s – and treat it as if it is gospel, which is not a bad analogy to draw where such convoluted faith is involved.
Despite offering barely a shred of viable evidence to support his claims, Bower is addressed by John Lundberg (p244) without reservation: “You are my artistic hero. I think you and Dave really were the greatest artists of the twentieth century.” Just to jog our memories, this is what the greatest artists of the 20th century were capable of at the culmination of their career in 1991, in their first public appearance:
Despite offering barely a shred of viable evidence to support his claims, Bower is addressed by John Lundberg (p244) without reservation: “You are my artistic hero. I think you and Dave really were the greatest artists of the twentieth century.” Just to jog our memories, this is what the greatest artists of the 20th century were capable of at the culmination of their career in 1991, in their first public appearance:
Even though the authors won’t accept Bower’s claims about the 1978 genesis of the phenomenon, Lundberg’s co-author Mark Pilkington describes Doug Bower, in his introduction to The Field Guide, entirely unequivocally as, “The original crop artist... the man who started it all”. They reject or ignore his story of going down into the Strawberry Field in 1978 to create the first crop circle with his pal, because they know it can’t possibly be true. But when it comes to Bower, they are in logical disarray, and claim he started a phenomenon which they know has a proven history prior to 1978, and their own 1976, and Ken Brown's 1975, and the meaningless "pre-1960".
So what, we might ask, became of rational evaluation of evidence over faith in unsubstantiated anecdotes? I'll quote from the book's 2004 introduction by Mark Pilkington:
"Some people will believe anything if you tell them it in the right way, even if it runs contrary to all the available evidence."
Indeed - pity his co-authors didn't heed his words, when an old man started telling them tales of inventing crop circles!
I end this section here. I hope that I have given enough information on this page to highlight the impossiblity of setting down the D&D story for posterity, in the face of the overwhelming problems which arise at every turn. It is untenable in its details, which their most vocal supporters cannot even agree on among themselves, and who, while ostensibly backing the duo, merely end up exposing the implausibility of the account. Whichever version of events one opts for, the facts are simply at odds with what is being claimed.
ON TO PART 6 - Summing up >
So what, we might ask, became of rational evaluation of evidence over faith in unsubstantiated anecdotes? I'll quote from the book's 2004 introduction by Mark Pilkington:
"Some people will believe anything if you tell them it in the right way, even if it runs contrary to all the available evidence."
Indeed - pity his co-authors didn't heed his words, when an old man started telling them tales of inventing crop circles!
I end this section here. I hope that I have given enough information on this page to highlight the impossiblity of setting down the D&D story for posterity, in the face of the overwhelming problems which arise at every turn. It is untenable in its details, which their most vocal supporters cannot even agree on among themselves, and who, while ostensibly backing the duo, merely end up exposing the implausibility of the account. Whichever version of events one opts for, the facts are simply at odds with what is being claimed.
ON TO PART 6 - Summing up >