PART 4.2 - Case study 2: Cheesefoot Head, 1981
This second case study concerns the formation which was made at the Punchbowl at Cheesefoot Head. Bower says he noticed the field had been ploughed after a period in which it had been used for grazing animals, with grass growing on the ground. Once he saw it was being prepared for crops, he realised he had the perfect canvas to make a circle where the public would see it.
The Punchbowl, usually described as a 'natural amphitheatre', is a bowl-shaped depression in the landscape, surrounded by higher ground on all sides, so that it can be looked down on from the edges. And this, so the story runs, got the circles spotted and into the media.
Bower has recounted his story many times. In a nutshell, he says the Punchbowl was ploughed, he went down there once the crop was growing and made his circle - Pat Delgado saw it and it was immediately featured in the media. For example, in his 1992 interview he recounted it to Clas Svahn,
"They planted corn [in the Punchbowl], which gave us a wonderful opportunity to put a circle down in there so that all the passing motorists could see it on their way through, and within 24 hours the first report in the newspaper was of this circle."
In the original Today story, we read essentially the same thing:
The Punchbowl, usually described as a 'natural amphitheatre', is a bowl-shaped depression in the landscape, surrounded by higher ground on all sides, so that it can be looked down on from the edges. And this, so the story runs, got the circles spotted and into the media.
Bower has recounted his story many times. In a nutshell, he says the Punchbowl was ploughed, he went down there once the crop was growing and made his circle - Pat Delgado saw it and it was immediately featured in the media. For example, in his 1992 interview he recounted it to Clas Svahn,
"They planted corn [in the Punchbowl], which gave us a wonderful opportunity to put a circle down in there so that all the passing motorists could see it on their way through, and within 24 hours the first report in the newspaper was of this circle."
In the original Today story, we read essentially the same thing:
And Bower was consistent ever since. As another example, several years later in the book, The Field Guide, Bower is quoted:
"I knocked on [Dave Chorley's] door and said, 'I've got some good news. They're ploughing the Punchbowl' ... the first crop appeared in the Punchbowl that June and we went straight down there with our iron bar ... the first time that we did one in the Punchbowl, Pat Delgado spotted it one morning going into Winchester and it was on the TV news that same evening."
So far, we can believe the story if we wish. There's nothing controversial about the idea that he made the formation, the first one ever in that newly-planted field, and Delgado saw it soon after. So, let's take a look at it.
The first Punchbowl circle
Fortunately we have more than one source to check. Bower himself displayed numerous images of it on display boards in his 1993 public meetings. It is very clearly annotated, and shows six views of what is described as a previously unseen circle at Cheesefoot Head.
Doug's supporters have helped too - they have reprinted a couple of the photos in their books - I'm referencing John Macnish and the Circlemakers respectively. Here is what they put on record. Firstly, Macnish, from his book, Crop Circle Apocalypse (1993).
And likewise, the Circlemakers' book, The Field Guide...
One problem arises immediately we see these clearer images. It's possible to discern that they are of different circles. Bower presented the lower of these, showing the circle from behind some overhanging tree branches, on his display board, with the caption, "Same circle - different angle".
This is flatly false. One can tell by examining the tractor tramlines, that the upper circle has two sets of intersecting tramlines, running at right-angles to each other. The other photo shows just parallel tramlines. They are not the same circle. If they are not the same circle, which is the true 1980 one, and how can we know?
This misrepresentation is not fatal to Bower's story of course. It's possible that photos of the circles got mixed up over the years, but it highlights the carelessness of not only Bower himself (who supposedly made and photographed both the circles) but also Ken Brown, who presumably stuck them on the display board and wrote the caption, and Macnish and the Circlemakers - none of whom noticed or checked - and it should be pointed out that these are the very authorities who claim to be presenting factual evidence.
But let's overlook this contradiction and hear again what really happened back in 1980 - straight from the horse's mouth.
Enter, Pat Delgado
Bower stated time and again, that the very first circle at the Punchbowl was discovered by Pat Delgado. He must mean one of the two above - whichever it was, it was a 1980 singleton. On the reaction it got from Pat Delgado, he could not be clearer:
Spot another problem? Bower's display board said of this circle(s), "Never seen or even recorded before - even by Delgado and Andrews". But Bower also keeps claiming, as above, "The first time that we did one in the Punchbowl, Pat Delgado spotted it".
Fortunately, we know enough about Pat Delgado's interest in the subject that we can identify the very formation which was the first he saw. He's written about it several times, and the evidence is entirely unequivocal. Here's the photo and write-up from Circular Evidence, detailing Pat's first direct encounter with the crop circle phenomenon.
Everyone who knows the history of crop circles will know that this all happened in 1981. Yet Bower is claiming he made the first Punchbowl circle a year earlier, and that it was shown on TV that very night. Obviously, Bower's version of events has to be a fiction. Pat Delgado never saw the 1980 circle(s) and so he could not have reported them to the TV stations.
Confusion reigns
How to make sense of this? It would help if Bower had just stuck to his story, but he and his supporters routinely mix up these two different events, which were in different years, so that none of them seem to be clear on which circle(s) they are discussing.
Macnish, for example, states in his "authentic history" of the subject that in 1981, the Punchbowl was planted and Pat Delgado saw the results. Likewise, on page 91, he states: "Then in 1981 the 'holy of holies', the Punchbowl at Cheesefoot Head near Winchester was planted with cereal crop for the first time ... [and passers by] had breathtaking views of three clean cut circular depressions in the crop, courtesy of Doug and Dave." To support this tale of the first Punchbowl circles ever, in 1981, this 1980 image is printed in the adjacent photo pages.
Macnish, for example, states in his "authentic history" of the subject that in 1981, the Punchbowl was planted and Pat Delgado saw the results. Likewise, on page 91, he states: "Then in 1981 the 'holy of holies', the Punchbowl at Cheesefoot Head near Winchester was planted with cereal crop for the first time ... [and passers by] had breathtaking views of three clean cut circular depressions in the crop, courtesy of Doug and Dave." To support this tale of the first Punchbowl circles ever, in 1981, this 1980 image is printed in the adjacent photo pages.
|
|
Similarly, The Field Guide presents Bower's account verbatim on pages 219-221 - that the Punchbowl was ploughed for the first time, and Pat Delgado saw the formation they made... and literally between these lines of text, they printed their (impossible) photograph from a whole year earlier.
|
|
Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a further twist. John Macnish was author of the book in which he claimed to have a photo of a Punchbowl circle from 1980 (below left). He was also the man behind the video, Crop Circle Communiqué II: Revelations - and see what he dropped in there, without explanation (below right)...
|
|
Same photo, and now he's claiming it's from 1979!
I honestly do try to be fair to Doug and Dave in analysing their claims. If there is a benefit of the doubt to be had, they do get it. In this case, we could help Bower out by supposing that yes, he did make the first single circle there, but not in the Punchbowl itself - just in some adjacent field, casually labelled "at the Punchbowl". And then he made the actual first Punchbowl circles in 1981. This would at least lend a bit of consistency to the story.
So, let's see if we can prove whether the 1980 circle really was situated in the Punchbowl itself - it's not just some random circle from another location in the vicinity. This we can do: we're fortunate to have a relatively decent image of the 1980 single circle (below left) and copy of Kit Neilsen's photo of the 1981 triplet - the same photo used in Circular Evidence, but before it was cropped to size for the book.
I honestly do try to be fair to Doug and Dave in analysing their claims. If there is a benefit of the doubt to be had, they do get it. In this case, we could help Bower out by supposing that yes, he did make the first single circle there, but not in the Punchbowl itself - just in some adjacent field, casually labelled "at the Punchbowl". And then he made the actual first Punchbowl circles in 1981. This would at least lend a bit of consistency to the story.
So, let's see if we can prove whether the 1980 circle really was situated in the Punchbowl itself - it's not just some random circle from another location in the vicinity. This we can do: we're fortunate to have a relatively decent image of the 1980 single circle (below left) and copy of Kit Neilsen's photo of the 1981 triplet - the same photo used in Circular Evidence, but before it was cropped to size for the book.
Doug Bower's photo from 1980
|
Kit Neilsen's photo from 1981
|
You can see beyond doubt that these circles are in the very same place, in the very same field. Look at the position of the trees at the field boundary, and particularly, the break in them with the white markings behind. The 1980 circle was in the very same Punchbowl field which Bower told us he made the 1981 triplet in - in fact, almost the precise same spot.
The confusion over the years is endless and endlessly frustrating. Again in The Field Guide, we read about Terence Meaden (pages 65-66), following on from his interest in the 1980 Westbury circles:
Spot the (not) deliberate mistake - they describe the "three more circles" - in other words the Punchbowl triplet of 1981 - as arriving "the following week" after Westbury - so they are asserting the triplet itself was seen by Meaden in 1980, as per the photo they printed - of what is clearly just a single circle. (We might point out that the authors of this little volume presented photos from a different year to "prove" D&D had made the 1980 Westbury circles, too.)
Obviously there is no reliability to any of this; it's not merely careless, its openly contradictory and strongly implies the authors do not know their basic facts.
If Bower himself would be more clear, we may find a resolution to this, but as we have come to expect, his remarks on the matter tend merely to confuse things further. For one, without any explanation or clarification, he also claims to have created the 1981 triplet, a photo of which he also stuck on his display boards.
Obviously there is no reliability to any of this; it's not merely careless, its openly contradictory and strongly implies the authors do not know their basic facts.
If Bower himself would be more clear, we may find a resolution to this, but as we have come to expect, his remarks on the matter tend merely to confuse things further. For one, without any explanation or clarification, he also claims to have created the 1981 triplet, a photo of which he also stuck on his display boards.
|
The image above is not very clear in this reproduction, but we do have a slightly better version, shown right. This actually is the 1981 formation, the second time circles had appeared at the Punchbowl - although he doesn't point this out of course. |
|
So did Bower make this one? We're back to the same sort of problems we encountered when looking at his Westbury photos - the sole photo he produced as 'proof' tells us nothing. If we were to believe Bower had driven at least half a thousand miles in 1980 to secure his Westbury photos, we may wonder why this one measly snap is the sum total of all his evidence of all circle making throughout 1981. Just this one famous formation - and nothing else.
What does it show us? Well, it's a long-shot taken from the surrounding hill (sound familiar?) and was captured during the day. Does it prove he made the circle? Hardly - it isn't even evidence to that effect. It was definitely taken after the event, by someone standing at the roadside.
Just by doing some basic research, I was able to assemble five different images of the Cheesefoot Head triplet, from various sources, not including Doug Bower's. So why is Bower's photo any more meaningful than any of these? Why does his photo prove he made the circles, when these photographers did not? (We can see one of them actually walked into the field at least once - which is more than we know in Bower's case!)
|
|
|
|
The one pictured bottom-left of the above selection was taken by Kit Neilsen. This is the same photo which was used (in colour) in Circular Evidence. We believe it is also the photo which appeared in the local press (cuttings of which are also on Bower's boards).
We can compare it to Bower's photo, shown below in slightly better quality (left). Next to it, we've placed Neilsen's, this time as reproduced from the pages of Circular Evidence, and converted into black and white:
|
|
Note how remarkably similar these are. Practically the same vantage point means they were taken from basically the same convenient place for a photographer to stand.
We are looking roughly north east. You may disagree, but to me, Bower's photo on the left has darker shadow around the circle wall to the left-hand side, while the other photo has darker shadow to the right-hand side. From this, we can suppose that in Bower's photo the sun is somewhat to the left - to the west, in other words, implying it was taken late in the day - on a Friday evening drive, perhaps.
The photo in the newspaper would have been taken earlier in the day - also logical. We don't know much about Kit Neilsen, but he seems to have been a professional journalist (Delgado described him as, "Mr Kit Neilson of The Alton Herald") and so would have photograhed the circle during working hours, we would expect.
As with the Westbury photos, we're left scratching our heads. What exactly is Doug Bower's photograph meant to prove? D&D claim they made this circle in darkness during the Friday night, and the only "proof" we get is a single photo taken by someone on a subsequent summer evening.
We might also consider this from Bower's own point of view, as expounded in the interview with Nicky Campbell in 1981. Bower stated, "[The night after making a new circle] when it’s [still] daylight, about half past seven or something, we go up to see what we’ve done – because we haven’t been able to see what has… because it’s been done in the dark, you see. And of course, by the time we get up there to have a look at them, there’s probably 20, 30 people or more, cars parked all along the road, they’re all looking at it as well, so we join in the fun, as another spectator."
Of course none of the photos which any of these onlookers might have taken (many of whom got there before Bower) would be considered evidence of any sort - the sole exception, we are told, being the single photo taken by Doug Bower.
Timeline
It's not easy trying to work out scenarios in which Bower's tales might hold together, but we could try another one.
Let's forget about 1980 completely (it helps to do this!). Let's just accept that Doug and Dave made the 1981 triplet, Delgado spotted it, and it was on TV the same day and/or in the papers the next day (depending which version we opt for). At least this much could be true, right?
We are fortunate again to have a chronology of 1981 from Pat Delgado himself, which was published in 1983. Here's his story about how he came to know of these circles, and it differs from Bower's quite significantly:
Let's forget about 1980 completely (it helps to do this!). Let's just accept that Doug and Dave made the 1981 triplet, Delgado spotted it, and it was on TV the same day and/or in the papers the next day (depending which version we opt for). At least this much could be true, right?
We are fortunate again to have a chronology of 1981 from Pat Delgado himself, which was published in 1983. Here's his story about how he came to know of these circles, and it differs from Bower's quite significantly:
To recap, D&D would have made the formation on the Friday night - they only ever made circles on their Friday outings. But Delgado recounts how associates of his saw them some time before he had, on or around Monday 17 August, or so far as Delgado could say, "a couple of days earlier" from the Wednesday when he learned about them. Pat didn't go to visit them immediately, however:
Assuming they were made the previous Friday, a whole week has now gone by. However, Delgado did nothing about it over the weekend, and more time passed...
It's now 10 days after that Friday outing for D&D, and at last, Delgado has contacted the local news. And then finally, on Tuesday 25 August, some media coverage:
According to Terence Meaden (Journal of Meteorology , Feb 1982), a report without a photo was published in the Southern Evening Echo the next day (ie Wednesday 26). More time goes by, and then we get to the conclusion:
It's now Friday 28 August, and these circles are pictured in the papers for the first time. All-in, from Delgado's friends discovering the circles on Monday 17, some 11 days had passed - and a whole two weeks since the supposed creation of them on Friday 14 August.
To recap Doug Bower's version of events, "Within 24 hours the first report in the newspaper was of this circle"; "Pat Delgado spotted it one morning going into Winchester and it was on the TV news that same evening".
Et cetera. It's amusing enough, but simply not true.
To be fair, you may consider this error trivial. After the passing of many years, Bower was perhaps just confused; maybe he'd over-hyped events in his own imagination.
That's not really the point though - the issue is, can we attach any meaning to anything Bower or his supporters have to say on the matter? None of it is reliable or stands up to any scrutiny. Some sections cannot possibly true. What really happened back in the day is anyone's guess, and a guess is all it will ever be.
To recap Doug Bower's version of events, "Within 24 hours the first report in the newspaper was of this circle"; "Pat Delgado spotted it one morning going into Winchester and it was on the TV news that same evening".
Et cetera. It's amusing enough, but simply not true.
To be fair, you may consider this error trivial. After the passing of many years, Bower was perhaps just confused; maybe he'd over-hyped events in his own imagination.
That's not really the point though - the issue is, can we attach any meaning to anything Bower or his supporters have to say on the matter? None of it is reliable or stands up to any scrutiny. Some sections cannot possibly true. What really happened back in the day is anyone's guess, and a guess is all it will ever be.
A possible scenario
I don't know what happened in 1980/1981, but I can suggest a plausible scenario. I wondered above, why Bower only had one road-side shot of this celebrity formation to show off. Here's something Pat Delgado also mentioned in 1983:
Suppose D&D knew nothing of the circles before the first TV and press reports of Tuesday 25 and Wednesday 26 August - their only opportunity to go and see them would follow on the evening of Friday 28, and indeed we can tell that their one photo was taken in the evening.
Friday 28 was the day a photo was first printed in the local papers. I can imagine Doug Bower saw it. I can also picture D&D deliberately driving past the field out of curiosity (a very minor detour for them), pulling over and taking a photo of their own.
They might have been interested enough to go back, but that same weekend the field was cut. No time for further investigation - the circles were gone forever.
Bower kept his snapshot all those years, but in terms of being the actual maker of the circles - there's no reason to believe that - and every reason to doubt it.
Friday 28 was the day a photo was first printed in the local papers. I can imagine Doug Bower saw it. I can also picture D&D deliberately driving past the field out of curiosity (a very minor detour for them), pulling over and taking a photo of their own.
They might have been interested enough to go back, but that same weekend the field was cut. No time for further investigation - the circles were gone forever.
Bower kept his snapshot all those years, but in terms of being the actual maker of the circles - there's no reason to believe that - and every reason to doubt it.