PART 4.1 - Case study 1: Westbury 1980
The circles of Westbury 1980 have a unique place in crop circles history. The first proper crop circle researcher was Terence Meaden, and these were the first circles he ever visited, making them the effective starting point of research into the subject. By the time Doug Bower went public in 1991, he knew all this – he was fully aware of the very special status of these circles, which was well documented in the years which followed.
According to D&D’s version of events, they made these circles – and of course they had to say that. They made all of them, they say, and no-one knew about crop circles until after the much later media coverage. If these were not the work of D&D, it would be the end of their claims to have created the phenomenon.
According to D&D’s version of events, they made these circles – and of course they had to say that. They made all of them, they say, and no-one knew about crop circles until after the much later media coverage. If these were not the work of D&D, it would be the end of their claims to have created the phenomenon.
Basic facts
Not one, but three circles appeared at Westbury in 1980, all on different dates. For the sake of convenience we will call them, in order of appearance, Westbury 1, Westbury 2 and Westbury 3.
The known information is a little sketchy, but by referencing the details in Journal of Meteorology (no. 57, March 1981) and the books, Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved (p12-13) and The Crop Circle Enigma (p18-19) we can piece together a pretty accurate timeline of events:
The known information is a little sketchy, but by referencing the details in Journal of Meteorology (no. 57, March 1981) and the books, Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved (p12-13) and The Crop Circle Enigma (p18-19) we can piece together a pretty accurate timeline of events:
- Mid-May: Westbury 1 appears, probably in barley
- July: Westbury 1 is harvested and gone forever
- 21 July: Westbury 2 is discovered, in oats, in the adjacent field
- 31 July: Westbury 3 is discovered, in the same field as Westbury 2
- 13 August: Farmer, John Scull, contacts the media about the circles
- 15 August: Wiltshire Times reports all three, together with a photo of Westbury 2
- 16 August: Ian Mrzyglod and Mike Seager visit the site and take photos, and Dr Meaden is alerted, and proceeds to make a site visit
Map of the location
To help establish the locations of the three circles, the plan view below is useful. (The photograph is a modern one, but the field boundaries are essentially unchanged.) Note the sharp hillside where the White Horse is situated – the circles are all on flat ground in clear view from the hillside.
Note: the precise position of Westbury 1 is not known - no-one other than the farmer (who has never gone on record) is known to have seen it, although we do know which field it was in.
Note: the precise position of Westbury 1 is not known - no-one other than the farmer (who has never gone on record) is known to have seen it, although we do know which field it was in.
Step forward, Doug Bower
These very important circles would have been a feather in the cap of Doug Bower – they gave rise to the whole world of crop circles research, and are among the most famous circles of the 1980s. It is a curious fact, then, that Bower barely ever mentions them when telling his tales – but no matter. The fact is, he has definitely claimed to have made them.
Doug Bower was in possession of four photographs of circles at Westbury. He never produced these images, or even mentioned them, in the two years after the original newspaper report, but then in mid-1993 they were suddenly unveiled, as proof that D&D had indeed hoaxed these circles.
Here is the first presentation of these photos before the public in 1993, as showcased at the Marlborough meeting of July 1993 (see under ‘testimony’ for more details).
Doug Bower was in possession of four photographs of circles at Westbury. He never produced these images, or even mentioned them, in the two years after the original newspaper report, but then in mid-1993 they were suddenly unveiled, as proof that D&D had indeed hoaxed these circles.
Here is the first presentation of these photos before the public in 1993, as showcased at the Marlborough meeting of July 1993 (see under ‘testimony’ for more details).
Paul Fuller was at the meeting and saw these photos for himself. He addressed the audience from the floor, asking a very pertinent question: “The 1980 photographs up there prove Doug and Dave’s story, because the first circle was harvested the next afternoon, and none of us had any photographs of that circle; Doug has. So where did he get it from? … It was there less than 24 hours.”
He’s referring specifically to Bower’s photo marked ‘The 1st of 3, probably laid in May and harvested early’. Recall that Westbury 1 was destroyed before the newspapers or Terence Meaden ever heard about it – there are no other images or witnesses known.
Ken Brown seized on this and challenged anyone in the room to disagree: “It was harvested by the farmer. The question is, how did Doug Bower, who lives in Southampton, know that circle was there to be able to photograph it?”
His point is crystal clear; Bower must have known it was there before anyone else did, which all but proves he made it. (Bower remained silent thoughout all of this, incidentally.)
Once the images and story were out of the bag, the photos passed into Doug and Dave lore. Paul Fuller would shortly write that these photos were, "one of the strongest pieces of evidence" in D&D’s favour (Crop Watcher issue 18, p6).
Two of the photos were also quickly reproduced in John Macnish's book, Crop Circle Apocalypse (1993), and three were reproduced in a late edition of the book The Field Guide (Irving et al, 2006), with the emphatic caption:
"By [the time Terence Meaden arrived on the scene] the earlier barley circle [Westbury 1] had been harvested, but it can be seen here in Doug Bower's photo taken as the combine harvesters close in. Its location was subsequently confirmed by the farmer. The image is evidence that Doug & Dave's involvement preceded the media interest and any subsequent crop circles research."
So, the matter appears to be settled, as these photos effectively prove the D&D story. The circle was there, Bower photographed it as the harvesters arrived, and it was never seen again -- that's what we are told. Anyone reading the above would be forced to agree – the evidence is so strong, D&D must have been the creators of the circles. End of story, you may think…
Bower's photos
Let’s begin by pointing out a simple truth. Somebody possessing photographs of crop circles does not inform us of who photographed them, let alone who actually made them. Photographs can easily change hands, and there is no reason to conclude that the current holders of the images were, of necessity, also the photographers and creators of what the photos depict.
The fall-back logic is that Bower’s photos are earlier than anyone else’s, therefore supporting his tales. But is that even true? The answer is, no - here is a photo I have, genuine and previously unpublished, which pre-dates at least one of Bowers. It shows not one but two of the Westbury circles - proof then, that I hoaxed them?
It's definitely earlier that at least one of Bower's, which shows the field during harvesting. No harvesting is underway in my photo.
We’ll now do something none of D&D's supporters have ever bothered with - some basic analysis of Bower's claimed photos. What do they actually show? Here they are again, in the best reproductions available to me (click to enlarge).
Westbury 1
|
Westbury 2
|
Westbury 3
|
Westbury 3
Here again is Bower’s claimed photo of Westbury 3 (above, left), next to my own. Something to note – look at that very dark field across the road in my photo. It’s not so dark in Bower’s photo though. Why not? Maybe we can assume that the field had been harvested by the time Bower photographed it, and his photo therefore has the soil showing through?
Here’s the real answer. Below is one of Ian Mrzyglod’s photos from 1980, taken from the opposite side of the circle, and looking down from above. You can tell this is definitely not Westbury 1, which had the main road running right next to it, or Westbury 2, which was snug in the corner of the field. It is definitely Westbury 3, and definitely from 1980. It’s therefore the same circle as shown in my own photo.
And now let’s invert it, so we get essentially the same point of view as per Bower’s photo. And let’s put them side-by-side and see what we learn:
The same circle? The location’s roughly the same – look at the hedgerow, and the relative position of the trees. What damns Bower’s photo is:
1. His circle is much further from the hedge than in Mrzyglod’s genuine image. This is beyond argument. Look at this quick analysis:
Mrzyglod’s image on the left shows the distance of the circle edge to be less than a diameter from the field boundary. Bower’s, however, has the circle perhaps twice the diameter away – note how the lines we drew meet the field boundary at about the same point, a little to the left of centre in that gap between the trees – the difference is beyond honest dispute. The circles are in different places – they are different circles.
2. Mrzyglod’s photo shows the field in the early stages of harvesting. The combine has cut across the foreground and up the right-hand side of the circle as we look, clipping the edge. This was definitely 1980 (the photo was published in Probe magazine on 29 August, 1980). Now compare with Bower’s photo. In his, the harvesting is also underway, but entirely different sections of the field have been cut. There is absolutely no doubt this is a different circle, and therefore has to be from a different year entirely.
Bower and his supporters are passing off bogus imagery, falsely claiming to have evidence that he made the 1980 circle.
When did Bower’s photo actually originate? We don’t know for sure, but the best guess we have is 1984. Here’s an excerpt from Journal of Meteorology number 97, from March 1985:
Note the description: “a single circle … within 10 meters [of] the multiplet set of August 1980”. We think this is a viable description of the circle in Bower’s photo, and would welcome further evidence or information on this matter. (We have been unable to find a comparison photo from 1984, thus far.)
So much for Westbury 3, which Bower apparently does not have a genuine photo of.
Westbury 1
Photo in widest view available
|
Same photo, in best resolution available
|
Let's rewind to the very beginning - the first site visits by Dr Meaden and Ian Mrzyglod. We have direct testimony from both (see Journal of Meteorology issue 57 and The Probe Report vol. 1 no. 2 and no. 3, respectively), in which they describe circles 2 and 3 in great detail. But Meaden can say only of this circle 1, "The first (of the circles) appeared in mid-May, probably during the third week and was destroyed in July, when the grain was harvested before an investigation could be made."
Meaden did not visit until August, and there is no evidence that circle remnants were seen or examined by him, which we would have expected, had anything still been there for investigation. Similarly, Mrzyglod states, "We never saw the first circle but Mr Cooper [the farmer] told us that it measured roughly the same as the later two." And, "By that time, one field had been harvested, obliterating one of the circles leaving only two."
Again, the indication is that nothing was left of it - "We never saw the first circle" it had been "obliterated", "destroyed" - no investigation could be made, or at the very least, none was - and Mrzyglod could not say himself roughly how big it was - he had to take the farmer's estimation of it. Neither of them make any mention whatsoever of seeing anything left on the ground, which would, for example, have enabled them to examine the direction of swirl. There was, we must suppose, nothing there to examine. Mrzyglod and Meaden never saw it.
Strange, then, that when Bower’s alleged photo of Westbury 1 was put up on the display board back in 1993, it was captioned thus:
We are reassured that "The positioning of the 1st circle has been confirmed by Terence Meaden". Yet, it’s a known fact that Terence Meaden never even saw the circle. How could he look at a photo for the first time, some 13 years after the event, and positively identify something he’d never laid eyes on?
The finer detail is that Meaden, they claim, only identified its position. He didn’t ever see it, so far as we can tell, so the only way for this to make sense is if the farmer provided Terence Meaden with a location. But how precise would it have been? If it was just a case of "over there, on the edge of that field" (which is more likely than measurements and co-ordinates), Meaden would be in no position to positively identify a circle no-one, including him, had seen – but it’s possible he could confirm a rough ‘position’.
The circle in the photo is presumably in the right field. But the fact is, it was a ‘repeater’ site, and numerous other circles appeared there in other years too. Here’s an image of crop circles from 1984, side-by-side with Bower’s image.
It’s clearly not the same formation as in Bower’s photo, not least because it's a quintuplet set, but look at the gap in the nearside hedge, and the telegraph poles to the left and right – it’s certainly in about the same place in the same field.
How many others were made around there over the years? You and I simply do not know, but any singleton in about that location could presumably be 'confirmed' in this blind way.
Out of interest, below are a few lines from the Andrews Catalogue of crop circles (and Andrews would never even claim to have a complete data set from these years, so this is probably only a smattering).
To explain, the code number in column 1 indicates the year (eg, 82-xxx was from 1982). The second-from-last column indicates the design type - 001 is a single plain circle and 149 an oval. So we see the three 'circles' from 1980, of course, followed by another in 1982, and another three in 1983, two of them considered to be oval (and it's quite possible judging from the photo that Bower's "circle" could indeed be classed as elliptical)...
How many others were made around there over the years? You and I simply do not know, but any singleton in about that location could presumably be 'confirmed' in this blind way.
Out of interest, below are a few lines from the Andrews Catalogue of crop circles (and Andrews would never even claim to have a complete data set from these years, so this is probably only a smattering).
To explain, the code number in column 1 indicates the year (eg, 82-xxx was from 1982). The second-from-last column indicates the design type - 001 is a single plain circle and 149 an oval. So we see the three 'circles' from 1980, of course, followed by another in 1982, and another three in 1983, two of them considered to be oval (and it's quite possible judging from the photo that Bower's "circle" could indeed be classed as elliptical)...
...and a remark from Bob Skinner in his overview of the phenomenon for Fortean Times issue 53 (Winter 1989):
So, numerous circles in that location, roughly speaking, over several years, and this is just one of them. There’s nothing, however, to show it’s from 1980 and not some other year. To imagine it constitutes positive proof of Bower’s stories is to become a "believer" rather than a rationalist.
So, we’re identifying Bower’s photo as Westbury 1 on the basis of… what? Given that no-one knows what the 1980 circle looked like, it’s likely that many believed this when they read The Field Guide (the authors of which had also never seen it):
The caption reads: "The image is evidence that Doug & Dave's involvement preceded the media interest and any subsequent crop circles research." Clearly the circle pictured in The Field Guide is not Westbury 1, as the authors claim. In fact, it's Bower's bogus image claiming to be of Westbury 3. In case anyone is confused as to which is which, we can compare the image in The Field Guide to my own: note the trees, indicated by the red arrows. The road (green arrow) curves down from the left, while a field boundary (blue arrow) can be clearly seen in the field opposite.
Obviously, the authors don’t know what they are looking at - little wonder, since no-one ever saw Westbury 1. The authors see harvesting going on, and know Westbury 1 was harvested early, so they jump to the unfounded conclusion that Bower’s photo pre-dates the ‘media interest’, and make the logical blunder you see in the scan above. They support their false claim with, “Its location was subsequently confirmed by the farmer” – in fact the photo was of a different field entirely. Similarly, above, Bower's photo was captioned, "The positioning of the 1st circle has been confirmed by Terence Meaden".
Let's recall what we were told in The Field Guide: "The image is evidence that Doug & Dave's involvement preceded the media interest and any subsequent crop circles research." What utter nonsense. This statement could not be less true. Even ignoring the fact that they don’t know which of the three circles they are discussing, the photo they printed was taken probably years after the “media interest” began.
Make of all this, what you will.
Westbury 2
Finally, Bower's photo of Westbury 2, above. (In fact he has two photos of it, practically identical, and presumably taken minutes apart.)
Is this photo proof that Bower made the three circles, or was there before anyone else? Look at these three images, and decide for yourself - which of these three is proof of anything?
Is this photo proof that Bower made the three circles, or was there before anyone else? Look at these three images, and decide for yourself - which of these three is proof of anything?
One was taken by the local press, one of them is my own, and the other was supposedly taken by Doug Bower. You can't tell which is which, without cross-referencing the information higher up this page. There's nothing inherent in Bower's photo which is any more special or meaningful than the other two. It's just a photo of something which was in full view of anyone and everyone.
Logisitcs
A notable problem in accepting photos of this nature as proof of creation is that they are taken in broad daylight. There is a corollary to this: Bower, apparently to his supporters’ complete disregard, was there on the scene, camera in hand, photographing circles from the hillside during the day – as, incidentally, were countless other passers by. The circles were just there, for anyone to look at and photograph. But the story goes that these circles were made in the dead of night; so how does it follow that the photographer in this case must have also made them, and in what sense are the photos proof of anything?
We should consider this further. Here’s another look at one of Bower's images.
We're looking roughly south-west. You may disagree, but I would contend that the shadows around the circle wall are darkest at the upper left as we look. So the sun is to our left, roughly due south. But in addition, the short shadows on the ground caused by the trees at the top-left of the photo, and the highlights on top of the trees, indicate that the sun is fairly high in the sky. If the sun is high, and roughly due south, the photo was taken in the middle of the day. Had (and let’s dream up a scenario) D&D just stayed there several hours until dawn, for some strange reason, and grabbed the photo then, before heading back to Southampton, it would show long, obvious shadows caused by the low sun.
Since the photo was taken at around midday, it must have been on a separate visit. I want to return for a moment, to what we heard at that public meeting. Speaking of this particular photo, Fuller remarked, “the first circle was harvested the next afternoon, and none of us had any photographs of that circle; Doug has. So where did he get it from? … It was there less than 24 hours”, and Ken Brown continued, “It was harvested by the farmer. The question is, how did Doug Bower, who lives in Southampton, know that circle was there to be able to photograph it?”
We know that Bower must have made a separate journey to the site and back in the daytime, but it's perhaps 50 miles from Doug's home to Westbury. That’s a 100-mile round-trip through the countryside, realistically taking 2-3 hours. If the circle really was harvested within 24 hours, as they all seem to agree, then Bower (who, incidentally, had not bothered to take a single photograph of any circles before now) having driven 100 miles into the early hours of Saturday, got up in the morning, having lost a few hours’ sleep, and rather than open up his shop, got back into his car and set straight off for a second 100-mile trip just to get a photo.
Is this plausible? Didn’t he have a business to run? How could he possibly have known the field was to be harvested later that day, to make him shoot back there as soon as he possibly could – and in any case, what was so special about this one circle that he wanted a snapshot of it so badly? He'd made dozens before this, so he claims, much closer to home, with not a single photo to show for any of them.
To broaden out this point, let's consider the logistics of all this. Assuming the dates in our timeline above are largely correct, including the rough dates for Westbury 1, Doug (and sometimes Dave) would have had to make at least the following journeys from Southampton to Westbury and back again – 100 miles every time. Three treks were to make the circles, on different nights, of course, and at least two more were just to obtain the photographs:
(We are ignoring the claim that Westbury 1 was gone in a day. I am not aware that it is possible to establish any such thing – no-one knows which day Westbury 1 was made or harvested, including Doug Bower. So let’s be generous and suppose it was still there after Westbury 2 was first made, but before that second circle was discovered by the farmer – and so Bower could get a snap of both on the same trip, and it’s not necessary for us to factor in yet another journey.)
It’s a matter of fact that the location of the site was a long way away from D&D’s area, and to their certain knowledge, no publicity was being generated by their ongoing circle making – no-one was taking any notice of these, or any other circles they had been making for at least a couple of years.
Certainly, they could have played such a seemingly pointless prank in their own locale much, much easier – and yet for the story to hold together, they would have needed to make at least five separate treks to Westbury and back – total: half a thousand miles – three of them in total secret, and two more (at least) solely to obtain some snapshots, and all this over a period of, perhaps, two months.
- May: to make Westbury 1 (on a Friday night)
- July: to make Westbury 2 (on a Friday night)
- July: to photograph Westbury 1 and 2 in daylight
- July: to make Westbury 3 (on a Friday night)
- Early August: to photograph Westbury 3 in daylight
(We are ignoring the claim that Westbury 1 was gone in a day. I am not aware that it is possible to establish any such thing – no-one knows which day Westbury 1 was made or harvested, including Doug Bower. So let’s be generous and suppose it was still there after Westbury 2 was first made, but before that second circle was discovered by the farmer – and so Bower could get a snap of both on the same trip, and it’s not necessary for us to factor in yet another journey.)
It’s a matter of fact that the location of the site was a long way away from D&D’s area, and to their certain knowledge, no publicity was being generated by their ongoing circle making – no-one was taking any notice of these, or any other circles they had been making for at least a couple of years.
Certainly, they could have played such a seemingly pointless prank in their own locale much, much easier – and yet for the story to hold together, they would have needed to make at least five separate treks to Westbury and back – total: half a thousand miles – three of them in total secret, and two more (at least) solely to obtain some snapshots, and all this over a period of, perhaps, two months.
Further problems
There is another odd matter we could raise – the fact that Bower virtually ignores these important circles when weaving his tales – doubly odd given the extraordinary lengths he claims to have gone to, both to make and photograph them. For example, Bower has repeatedly claimed that their circle in the Punchbowl was a breakthrough because it could be seen from a vantage point. But these Westbury circles were also in clear view of onlookers, right under a large, well-visited hillside where the famous tourist attraction, the White Horse is carved. So if D&D were to claim them, wouldn’t it be logical to think they would also be going to lengths to emphasise their efforts in travelling such a long way, to such eventual success and publicity?
But in The Field Guide, for instance, Bower talks about his circle-making career, and recalls making his first circle in Hampshire (p217), then complains that no-one was noticing, and by p219, has completely overlooked these very important 1980 circles to speak instead about the Punchbowl triplet of 1981 – and this narrative is pretty much consistent every time he has told it. He very rarely discusses those prize 1980 circles, nor the press coverage which they attracted – the very first time "his" work had been published, and which led to the development of the entire research community – and which by the time he was doing interviews, he most certainly knew about.
I am reminded at this point of an odd statement which Bower made in the original TODAY story: "Once the papers started saying a UFO had landed we started to go down to Warminster in Wiltshire.” What’s he talking about here? There is generally thought to have been no press coverage before these Westbury circles were made – and these were apparently the first to appear in British newspapers. Yet Bower implies he only went down to Warminster (for which, read Westbury) to make circles, subsequent to reading newspaper stories. How could this be?
It made no sense at first, but now makes perfect sense. If he didn’t make the 1980 circles, then of course he could head down to the area at some later point (in, say 1984?), after the press were reporting other circles. Note that his circles are all taken from the publicly accessible hillside, and not for example, in the field itself. They are taken by an onlooker, whoever it might be.
Of course, if you are now doubting D&D's claim to have made the three 1980 circles above, it follows that their entire story is in question; if they did not make every one of the Westbury circles there is no basis to the claim that they were making all the English circles before 1987, and there were clearly other hoaxers around before the circles were publicised.
We can summarise Bower's photographic 'proof' as follows: one photo of some unrecognisable circle, one definitely not from 1980, and two images of the late one, which was well-publicised in the local newspaper.
We will wrap up this survey of the 1980 photographs with reference to an exchange at the Marlborough meeting of 1993. John Wakefiled challenged Bower over the credibility of this 'evidence':
"Like that 1980 one, say you went up there on one of your jaunts, to do your painting or whatever, and you saw it and you took a photograph – doesn’t prove you made it though."
Bower is silent; Ken Brown replies, "That’s true, doesn’t prove he made it – proves Doug was there though.’”
The first part of the statement is true - the photos do not prove Bower made the circles. The second part is false - they don't even prove he was there. They merely prove someone was there, at different points in time, in different years, after the circles had been made and lay in the open fields.
But in The Field Guide, for instance, Bower talks about his circle-making career, and recalls making his first circle in Hampshire (p217), then complains that no-one was noticing, and by p219, has completely overlooked these very important 1980 circles to speak instead about the Punchbowl triplet of 1981 – and this narrative is pretty much consistent every time he has told it. He very rarely discusses those prize 1980 circles, nor the press coverage which they attracted – the very first time "his" work had been published, and which led to the development of the entire research community – and which by the time he was doing interviews, he most certainly knew about.
I am reminded at this point of an odd statement which Bower made in the original TODAY story: "Once the papers started saying a UFO had landed we started to go down to Warminster in Wiltshire.” What’s he talking about here? There is generally thought to have been no press coverage before these Westbury circles were made – and these were apparently the first to appear in British newspapers. Yet Bower implies he only went down to Warminster (for which, read Westbury) to make circles, subsequent to reading newspaper stories. How could this be?
It made no sense at first, but now makes perfect sense. If he didn’t make the 1980 circles, then of course he could head down to the area at some later point (in, say 1984?), after the press were reporting other circles. Note that his circles are all taken from the publicly accessible hillside, and not for example, in the field itself. They are taken by an onlooker, whoever it might be.
Of course, if you are now doubting D&D's claim to have made the three 1980 circles above, it follows that their entire story is in question; if they did not make every one of the Westbury circles there is no basis to the claim that they were making all the English circles before 1987, and there were clearly other hoaxers around before the circles were publicised.
We can summarise Bower's photographic 'proof' as follows: one photo of some unrecognisable circle, one definitely not from 1980, and two images of the late one, which was well-publicised in the local newspaper.
We will wrap up this survey of the 1980 photographs with reference to an exchange at the Marlborough meeting of 1993. John Wakefiled challenged Bower over the credibility of this 'evidence':
"Like that 1980 one, say you went up there on one of your jaunts, to do your painting or whatever, and you saw it and you took a photograph – doesn’t prove you made it though."
Bower is silent; Ken Brown replies, "That’s true, doesn’t prove he made it – proves Doug was there though.’”
The first part of the statement is true - the photos do not prove Bower made the circles. The second part is false - they don't even prove he was there. They merely prove someone was there, at different points in time, in different years, after the circles had been made and lay in the open fields.