PART 2: Evidence
We've heard D&D's claims, from the mundane to the outlandish, but what evidence has been presented in support of them? Not a great deal as it turns out, although we might expect that. After all, there is little tangible evidence remaining when one flattens some crop, and they would hardly have been filming themselves! Nevertheless, certain artefacts exist which are generally taken as physical evidence in support of their story, most of which is pictorial. This is all examined here, starting with Doug Bower's diagrams and illustrations of circle formations he claims to have made, and one or two other items...
2.1 Diagrams and drawings for circles up to 1991
Let's remind ourselves that Bower was apparently mastermind of several important crop circle innovations, including the invention of quintuplets, a couple of attractive triangular groupings, the first-ever pictograms with boxes, and so on. I have taken screen shots and scans of everything I have come across in respect to his drawings and paintings, but how do they match up with the crop formations they depict? Since these are drawn up by the designer of all those formations, he should at the very least know the anatomy of all the formations. This is what he has in relation to formations up to the point he went public. He claims all of these:
1983 Quintuplet
This formation has its place in crop circle legend. It was believed (wrongly) by many to have been the first five-on-a-dice quintuplet configuration ever seen. It's the first such photo in Circular Evidence, where it is printed across pages 26 and 27.
Bower's diagram has two problems: Firstly, the proportions do not correspond to the actual crop circle. In the field, the satellite circles are much further away from the central circle, and in fact, the distance is almost equal to the diameter of the main circle, which may not be coincidence, depending on how it was constructed. Bower draws them badly out of scale.
Secondly, for some reason he has elected to draw himself in the process of walking out a ring on which the satellites are positioned. But any experienced crop circle hoaxer would know, you don't walk a full circle if you wish to minimise the traces you might leave in the standing crop. To make this formation, you only need to walk three quarters of a circle. Walking that final quadrant is pointless, as the sketch shows – all the satellite circles are already in place. To do what is illustrated in the sketch would be the action of someone inexperienced at circle making.
Below are some stills from the 2002 interview footage, where the camera scans across a double page in Bower's files. I have sequenced them to give an idea of what is shown in the film, with the drawing and photo positioned together, proving that the drawing pertains to this quintuplet. Note that this isn't his photograph. It is the same one featured in Circular Evidence. (It's not clear where he got it from; his copy is not simply lifted from the book, since that image has been cropped along the top edge, but it's the same photo nonetheless.)
Bower's diagram has two problems: Firstly, the proportions do not correspond to the actual crop circle. In the field, the satellite circles are much further away from the central circle, and in fact, the distance is almost equal to the diameter of the main circle, which may not be coincidence, depending on how it was constructed. Bower draws them badly out of scale.
Secondly, for some reason he has elected to draw himself in the process of walking out a ring on which the satellites are positioned. But any experienced crop circle hoaxer would know, you don't walk a full circle if you wish to minimise the traces you might leave in the standing crop. To make this formation, you only need to walk three quarters of a circle. Walking that final quadrant is pointless, as the sketch shows – all the satellite circles are already in place. To do what is illustrated in the sketch would be the action of someone inexperienced at circle making.
Below are some stills from the 2002 interview footage, where the camera scans across a double page in Bower's files. I have sequenced them to give an idea of what is shown in the film, with the drawing and photo positioned together, proving that the drawing pertains to this quintuplet. Note that this isn't his photograph. It is the same one featured in Circular Evidence. (It's not clear where he got it from; his copy is not simply lifted from the book, since that image has been cropped along the top edge, but it's the same photo nonetheless.)
1988 Triangular triplets
There are two triangular triplets in the pages of Circular Evidence, and both are noted at the top of Bower's drawing: Corhampton, and Cheesefoot Head. Both appeared in 1988. I intend to speak more about the Corhampton triplet in the "Case Study" section of this site (Part 4), so I will not dwell on it here. But what we have to point out is the precise triangularity of the real crop formation. See Bower's drawing though; it is badly out of proportion, with the uppermost circles so far apart that the shape of the triangle is comically distorted. In fact, compared to the actual circles, it is horrible! One might have expected the architect to have done a proper equilateral sketch, or at least tried to. The drawing is particularly poor considering Bower is supposed to be an artist.
1989 'Swastika' and 'Prototype Swastika'
The two formations known as the 'Swastika' and 'Prototype Swastika' appeared close together in 1989. The Swastika is shown above, and has a small central swirl, with the rest of the floor swept into four quarters. But let's look first at what became known as the Prototype, a slightly earlier circle with a similar design, but without the sharp quadrants in the floor lay:
In the Clas Svahn interview of 1992 Svahn showed Bower a photograph of the full Swastika design, but Bower stated that he was only behind one of them: "We just trod it down into sections, and then after that when the crop circle book The Corn Circle Enigma [sic] was published, lo and behold the circle that we did was on the front cover! But we were told later than that that there were two of these ... the people from Wiltshire had copied our first attempt and they made a better job of it than us and that was what they used." This is somewhat unclear but the implication is that the second one, the better one – the fully-fledged Swastika, in other words – was a copy made by someone else. He says he made a mess of his first attempt, so it's difficult to interpret this in any other way than that D&D claim only the Prototype, and someone else did the perfected one.
I have never seen an aerial shot of the Prototype Swastika, and it is doubtful that Bower has either. The image above is a pole shot, and I think is the only view available, but to clarify what it looked like, here is a detailed sketch drawn up by Terence Meaden, side-by-side with Bower's own:
I have never seen an aerial shot of the Prototype Swastika, and it is doubtful that Bower has either. The image above is a pole shot, and I think is the only view available, but to clarify what it looked like, here is a detailed sketch drawn up by Terence Meaden, side-by-side with Bower's own:
Bower's sketch is typically out of scale, with the central swirl shown much too big. He says he made a mess of it in the field, and that the second, imitation version, was a "better job". This unavoidably implies that the full Swastika was closer to what Bower had in mind when doing the Prototype, with the floor supposed to be laid in right-angled swathes. That being so, what are we to make of his sketch? An adaptation of the mediocre photographic record it would seem, and not a plan for executing a circle floor with quadrants.
Now look again at the image of the full Swastika at the top of this section. This image is of one of the display boards at the 1993 Marlborough meeting. Bower is now claiming it - and has his sketch of the circle pinned up next to the photo! This was in 1993, but a year earlier he had said "the people from Wiltshire had copied our first attempt and they made a better job of it than us". So did he make it or not? It seems he can't decide!
Incidentally, his sketch of it incorporates the displacement of the quadrants - see how they are not in line with the geometrical centre of the circle. But, he has offset them the wrong way! The line leading straight up is shifted to the right in his drawing, but it is to the left in the circle itself!
Now look again at the image of the full Swastika at the top of this section. This image is of one of the display boards at the 1993 Marlborough meeting. Bower is now claiming it - and has his sketch of the circle pinned up next to the photo! This was in 1993, but a year earlier he had said "the people from Wiltshire had copied our first attempt and they made a better job of it than us". So did he make it or not? It seems he can't decide!
Incidentally, his sketch of it incorporates the displacement of the quadrants - see how they are not in line with the geometrical centre of the circle. But, he has offset them the wrong way! The line leading straight up is shifted to the right in his drawing, but it is to the left in the circle itself!
1990 'Doughnut' at Cheesefoot Head
This is one of a couple of formations which Bower has gone so far as to make a water-colour painting of. (He is an artist, after all!) The first thing we notice about Bower's illustration is that he includes an outer ring. The actual formation had no such ring, so the two do not match. Otherwise it is a reasonable attempt.
Bower was apparently quite proud of this little painting, and used it as a kind of prop when he was being photographed or interviewed. Here it is in the centre of a posed shot of Bower with Chorley (left) and again at the 1993 Marlborough meeting (right):
Bower was apparently quite proud of this little painting, and used it as a kind of prop when he was being photographed or interviewed. Here it is in the centre of a posed shot of Bower with Chorley (left) and again at the 1993 Marlborough meeting (right):
And again in a posed photo outside the Percy Hobbs pub:
All of these images were taken on different occasions!
1990 The World's First Pictogram!
Bower's painting
|
Photo of the actual formation
|
As with the "Doughnut" formation above, this pictogram at Cheesefoot Head – the first one known anywhere – was commemorated in paints by Bower, and was published in colour in the original Today report. There are compelling reasons to think that this was based on photographs of the formation, without Bower's knowledge of what it looked like when made. To begin, here is a scaled version of Bower's painting next to an accurate diagram of the pictogram itself.
The first difference we see is quite obvious – Bower has
made the central shaft the same width all the way along. In reality it featured
a step about halfway up, which was important to the overall design, as it
marked the point at which the four boxes were aligned. But there is a more
damning error. See below, two drawings of the formation made by Terence Meaden
and George Wingfield respectively.
Both have incorporated the same mistake; they show the central shaft joined to the upper circle. In the field, it was separated, although the presence of the tramline gives the false impression that there is a link. Both Meaden and Wingfield were presumably working from rough photographic images. In fact, I think we can identify the specific photograph Wingfield's sketch is based on:
Had he realised which parts of the photo were merely
markings made by visitors (eg the cross-bars linking the four boxes together),
he could have omitted them. Likewise he need not have shown the shaft linked to
the top circle – if he had known. Does not the same apply to Bower? He
would not have linked into that top circle, had he known that it was
really unconnected! Bower, of course, claims to have actually designed and made the
formation, along with all its disconnected features!
1990 Quartered Rings
There were two of these formations made, one in 1990, which is very well known, the other a close copy made in 1993. We will assume Bower has drawn the first since that appeared during the time he was supposed to be actively hoaxing. Also, his sketch is closer to that first version – but again, it's not right. The scales are incorrect and the central circle is too small.
There is in fact another drawing of this known (arrowed):
There is in fact another drawing of this known (arrowed):
This one is even less accurate: he's forgotten the central circle completely!
1991 Insectogram at Chilcomb Down
This "insectogram" appeared in early June 1991. Photographs of it in decent condition are surprisingly hard to find. I hunted and hunted for one to go here, eventually locating the above image in a small paperback featuring photos by Busty Taylor. Fortunately, good scale diagrams exist to tell us how this looked when new.
The diagram above is taken from Bower's own files, which he was filmed leafing through in 2002. Below, I have placed it next to a proper scale diagram done by Michael Green for comparison.
The diagram above is taken from Bower's own files, which he was filmed leafing through in 2002. Below, I have placed it next to a proper scale diagram done by Michael Green for comparison.
The two diagrams are almost exactly the same, and the accuracy of Bower's makes a striking contrast with the inaccuracy of his other illustrations. He's carefully illustrated the uppermost avenue with its gentle curvature, slightly displaced the top large circle over to the right, and seen to it that the two 'feelers' at the top are the right length and angle. There is no doubt in my mind that whoever prepared this drawing copied Green's scale diagram, rather than illustrating something conceived in Bower's imagination. It's logical to think that in its execution in the field, the formation would have had unintentional errors and variations - an element displaced here or there, or a line not correctly to scale. But this diagram is virtually equivalent to the meticulous scale diagram which must have been the reference point (and after all there was no photograph available to Bower to consult at that point).
But a silly mistake: Bower has straightened the ladder. But in the field it really was bent, so Bower has "corrected" a non-existent flaw in Green's version! As an artist, such as he, would say, he's "idealised" it.
But a silly mistake: Bower has straightened the ladder. But in the field it really was bent, so Bower has "corrected" a non-existent flaw in Green's version! As an artist, such as he, would say, he's "idealised" it.
1991 Insectogram at Stonehenge
This bizarre cut-out reconstruction of the Stonehenge insectogram appeared in the original TODAY report. Why on earth Bower would make this, except for the benefit of the camera, is anyone's guess. It is certainly of no practical use while circle making.
Above, I have juxtaposed the photo of D&D with a photograph of the actual formation taken from a comparable angle. Side-by-side, the two seem to match on a superficial level, apart from the fact that Bower's recreation of the ladder is way too big. But when the actual shapes are compared, the differences are immediately clear:
Above, I have juxtaposed the photo of D&D with a photograph of the actual formation taken from a comparable angle. Side-by-side, the two seem to match on a superficial level, apart from the fact that Bower's recreation of the ladder is way too big. But when the actual shapes are compared, the differences are immediately clear:
Above, I have recreated Bower's version as close as I can tell, to how it actually was. Next to it is an accurate drawing of the real formation, scaled so that the length of the main tripartite "body" is the same as in Bower's diagram. Notice, for example, how crudely Bower has made the twin discs at the very top, so that they are the same size as the main circle beneath. He had probably never seen an aerial photograph of the formation when the photo of he and Dave was taken (September 1991). The representation he had made at that point shows a lack of knowledge about how the actual formation appeared, as if he needed to see it from above to even know what it was really like.
This collection of paper cut-outs was treasured by Bower and wheeled out for effect at various times. Below we see it in a posed image with Chorley, and each component part has a code number - for what reason, I have no idea. It was also taken on tour in 1993 and assembled on a display board for all to see (below right) - alongside the photo used in TODAY.
This collection of paper cut-outs was treasured by Bower and wheeled out for effect at various times. Below we see it in a posed image with Chorley, and each component part has a code number - for what reason, I have no idea. It was also taken on tour in 1993 and assembled on a display board for all to see (below right) - alongside the photo used in TODAY.
And so I end this survey of D&D's pre-1992 drawings and diagrams. In most cases the drawings seem to be based on photographs Bower has seen in books and magazines, or form his personal inaccurate impressions, rather than illustrations of what was actually in his mind when he went out into the fields. It is striking that all of the diagrams above are problematic somehow, and none are convincing evidence that the makers of the formations were the same people who made the diagrams, since on several occasions Bower not only betrays a lack of acumen in executing the geometries, but a dearth of knowledge into the anatomy of the formations he supposedly designed - distorting equilateral triangles, linking unconnected features, upsetting the relative sizes of elements, missing parts out, and so on.
The implication is that the diagrams were not made by the designers and executors of the formations. We know that Bower made the diagrams – but who made the actual circles??
2.2 Other evidence put forward by D&D
We have looked above at the main evidence put forth by D&D and their supporters (meagre though it is), and found it to be far from convincing. However there are a few more items to mention, which we ought to take a look at.
More photographs
When the 1993 meetings took place, display boards were placed on show, which carried photos not just of the Westbury circles, but of another 1980 formation as well, at Cheesefoot Head – six photographs of the same circle, which had not been published, and show a formation which is otherwise not known.
More photos were also presented, showing a smattering of apparently original shots. Note how many, though, are literally cut out of Circular Evidence (framed in blue) and various newspapers running through the 1980s (framed in red) - in other words, already known and publicised formations, while others are just home-made drawings (framed in green):
The remaining photographs are offered as primary evidence to back up D&D’s claims. But the meaning one must attach to them is questionable. The existence of photos proves nothing about who made the circles. In fact, I own my own photographs of crop circles which to my knowledge have never been published. Here is one from 1991 (this one was included in video footage on a TV show - but I've never seen a published photo).
How did I obtain it? Simply because I was out and about in Wiltshire and I spotted it in a field! I didn’t make it, and the fact that I own the photograph isn’t evidence that I did. Bear in mind D&D also were interested in the circles and were also driving around Hampshire in areas where other circles were known. The fact that they photographed a couple is meaningless.
Even the level-headed Paul Fuller was prompted to describe Bower's photos as, "one of the strongest pieces of evidence" (Crop Watcher issue 18, p6). How is it that D&D are able to convince so many people, with only the slenderest of circumstantial evidence? Fuller himself must have had countless photos of his own, showing circles which had never been publicised! And he didn't make them, any more than I made the one above. There's no independent reason to think D&D made the circles in their photos either.
Here's another of my never-published photos, this one showing the Butler's Cross formation of 1991, which appeared in the grounds of the Prime Minister's country retreat, Chequers. According to Michael Heseman (The Cosmic Connection, 1996, p36), this appeared "within a maximum-security zone guarded 24 hours a day against terrorists and infiltrators."
But look here - I made it! Here is the "proof" - a "never seen or recorded before, even by Delgado and Andrews" photograph. What a story I could tell about the night I made this one!
Even the level-headed Paul Fuller was prompted to describe Bower's photos as, "one of the strongest pieces of evidence" (Crop Watcher issue 18, p6). How is it that D&D are able to convince so many people, with only the slenderest of circumstantial evidence? Fuller himself must have had countless photos of his own, showing circles which had never been publicised! And he didn't make them, any more than I made the one above. There's no independent reason to think D&D made the circles in their photos either.
Here's another of my never-published photos, this one showing the Butler's Cross formation of 1991, which appeared in the grounds of the Prime Minister's country retreat, Chequers. According to Michael Heseman (The Cosmic Connection, 1996, p36), this appeared "within a maximum-security zone guarded 24 hours a day against terrorists and infiltrators."
But look here - I made it! Here is the "proof" - a "never seen or recorded before, even by Delgado and Andrews" photograph. What a story I could tell about the night I made this one!
(I didn't really make it, by the way)
Files of cuttings
Bower owned files of cuttings and photos, which at one stage, he showed to his wife in order to convince her that he and Chorley were making all the circles.
These have never been put into the public domain although film exists of him leafing through some of them, where we see a few of his dubious sketches and newspaper reports. It seems these are akin to scrapbooks, where he has collected together bits and pieces to do with crop circles, some from the press, others seeming to be original photographs - but without being able to go over them it is impossible to evaluate them.
Nevertheless, we ought to point out that same logic applies to these as to the publicly-shown photographs. Merely owning newspaper reports and the like offers nothing about who created the circles. I too have lever arch files full of documents, press cuttings, photographs and so on, because I am interested in the subject and sometimes keep items I come across. I also take photos – but I didn’t make any of the circles!
These have never been put into the public domain although film exists of him leafing through some of them, where we see a few of his dubious sketches and newspaper reports. It seems these are akin to scrapbooks, where he has collected together bits and pieces to do with crop circles, some from the press, others seeming to be original photographs - but without being able to go over them it is impossible to evaluate them.
Nevertheless, we ought to point out that same logic applies to these as to the publicly-shown photographs. Merely owning newspaper reports and the like offers nothing about who created the circles. I too have lever arch files full of documents, press cuttings, photographs and so on, because I am interested in the subject and sometimes keep items I come across. I also take photos – but I didn’t make any of the circles!
Above left: pages from Bower's folders; above right: pages from my folders, with numerous original photographs. So what?
Bower's map
Another piece of physical evidence is a map in Bower’s possession, which has a red dot marking the location of each circle D&D made. Unlike the photos of the 1980 Westbury circles, this evidence was mentioned straight away. In fact, a day after the Today story broke, Bower was on BBC radio, claiming, “I can show you a map where we’ve put a red dot, in the 13 years we’ve been doing them, on all the places that we’ve been to.” I believe this map was also shown in the 1993 public meetings.
Once again, I draw on my own experience to make a point about this evidence. In the summer of 1991, I spent a good deal of time driving around the Beckhampton region of Wiltshire, looking at the many formations from Barbury Castle to the so-called “dolphinograms” which were popping up all over. (Incidentally, that's when I took the Wiltshire photo above, at a field north-west of the A4 roundabout at Beckhampton.) For interest, and to help remember them all, I bought a map of the area, pinned it to my wall at home, and used little coloured stickers to mark the location of every formation I found – and there were many of them. I don’t have that map anymore, but I am sure I am not the only person to have done this. For example, in the book Signs of Contact by Colin Andrews (p42) the author states, "What I did do, however, was mount a large map of England on my office wall and, when a new crop circle appeared, I would place a coloured push pin on the map at its location." So Andrews had a similar map to Bower's, and so did I. What does it prove? Nothing.
Consider Bower’s statement in 1992, in the Clas Svahn interview: “I can remember, even to this day, every location that we went to over the thirteen years.” So even by his own account the map proves nothing. He could very easily have put one together from memory. I still recall the precise location of that field close to Beckhampton where I took the above image, and could put a red dot there right now. There was a second formation in the same field – three circles linked by a straight line – so that's another red dot. Across the way, on the road to Devizes was Firs Farm and another circle 'never before seen on publicised' – so there's another red dot... and so on. The map, like the books of cuttings, like the photos, does not validate his claims; it is merely circumstantial.
And here we have to end out survey of the evidence, for there is nothing more pertaining to the period before 1991.
Once again, I draw on my own experience to make a point about this evidence. In the summer of 1991, I spent a good deal of time driving around the Beckhampton region of Wiltshire, looking at the many formations from Barbury Castle to the so-called “dolphinograms” which were popping up all over. (Incidentally, that's when I took the Wiltshire photo above, at a field north-west of the A4 roundabout at Beckhampton.) For interest, and to help remember them all, I bought a map of the area, pinned it to my wall at home, and used little coloured stickers to mark the location of every formation I found – and there were many of them. I don’t have that map anymore, but I am sure I am not the only person to have done this. For example, in the book Signs of Contact by Colin Andrews (p42) the author states, "What I did do, however, was mount a large map of England on my office wall and, when a new crop circle appeared, I would place a coloured push pin on the map at its location." So Andrews had a similar map to Bower's, and so did I. What does it prove? Nothing.
Consider Bower’s statement in 1992, in the Clas Svahn interview: “I can remember, even to this day, every location that we went to over the thirteen years.” So even by his own account the map proves nothing. He could very easily have put one together from memory. I still recall the precise location of that field close to Beckhampton where I took the above image, and could put a red dot there right now. There was a second formation in the same field – three circles linked by a straight line – so that's another red dot. Across the way, on the road to Devizes was Firs Farm and another circle 'never before seen on publicised' – so there's another red dot... and so on. The map, like the books of cuttings, like the photos, does not validate his claims; it is merely circumstantial.
And here we have to end out survey of the evidence, for there is nothing more pertaining to the period before 1991.