Go on, consume!

NEW DOCUMENTSWITNESSES
CASE HISTORYEXHIBIT A
PERPETRATORSTESTIFY









pair.com
HOME PAGE

THE NEXT INSTALLMENT
 
Researcher Colin Andrews takes up the baton once more and replies to our further criticisms:
 
Circlemakers text is italicised:
 
Rod Dickinson:
In your media appearances this summer you were portrayed as a scientist conducting a scientific experiment. If it is a bonafide scientific experiment, following scientific protocol (with double blind tests etc) how could you possibly know the results of the experiment before it had concluded. After all it was whole year ago in Nottingham when we spoke together and you told me you thought 80% of circles were man made and 20% were not.
 
Colin Andrews:
I think you are confusing two different things. First though, regarding the media choosing to call me a scientist, they often do refer to me as a scientist. I always tell them that I am an engineer but they often insist upon the term scientist. Actually if you look in the dictionary for the meaning of scientist you will find that with my background and my work it easily does in fact fall well within the use of that term. However because most people in Britain generally identify a scientist with a Ph.d qualification I do not use the term to describe myself.
 
Regarding why it was I was discussing the result of a scientific experiment (as you incorrectly call it) before I had completed it, you are confusing the 80/20 finding with scientific experiments I have been doing for more than 3 years on the Earth's magnetic field. The 80/20% would not and as far as I am concerned, has not been referred to as the result of any kind of scientific experiment. The fact that I referred to 80/20 a full year ago and ahead of the investigations of this last year, was the fact that the results of each of the past years was the same - hence why I was confident enough to share the consistent findings.
 
Several avenues of research were undertaken to evaluate how many might be man made. One of those was to look carefully from the ground and/ or air for obvious construction marks. Where these logically agreeing with the positioning needed for man to make them, they were ascribed a points marking in that direction. I think in good time the 80% figure might in fact rise as my own techniques and those of other avenues of inquiry improve.
 
Another storm on the horizon perhaps.
 
Rod Dickinson:
A whole year that your experiment had left to run. Yet you were already announcing the results...
 
Colin Andrews:
See above.
 
Rod Dickinson:
Both in your recent statement and at the conference in Andover you gave the impression that 6 or 7 formations from the 2000 season were going to be exposed on TV. In fact the only formation to be shown being made this year will be our Wrexham formation (which is hardly an expose-since we announced it in advance), which we made for Channel 4. And the only other two formations to be filmed were the "r" symbol (which was a paid commission of a company logo, made in daylight) and one other. That's 3 not 6. With no expose!
 
Colin Andrews:
In addition to those I mentioned in my last reply, there are two others which you have not included above and you are wrong when you say I have not spoken to any of the production staff concerned.
 
The production staff of two programs not shown on your list was that they were engaging your services and that the results would be shown on the same programs as I was also filmed doing interviews. Regarding not talking to production staff, I spent in one case half a day with them and in the other a full day. One of those programs has been aired and was a news item for BBC1 and showed John doing his usual stomping. The second program called 'Conspiracies' will air on BBC1 early next year and BBC2 later. This will also show in the USA they said. If I remember correctly they said that your people would be meeting them somewhere along the M25 outside London.
 
Rod Dickinson:
We too have invested 10 years in circlemaking as part of our artform. You may feel we think it is fun, but that is not the way we have portrayed our work to you or anyone else. Our position is taken with a good deal more thoroughness and seriousness than many crop circle researchers!
 
Colin Andrews:
I think in part I agree with you.
 
Rod Dickinson:
I am still amazed that after your dealings with John Macnish, and after talking with oursleves you give any credence to the idea that any circles have a non human origin.
 
Colin Andrews:
Rod, crop circles go much further afield than England and your own work and that of Doug and Dave. I traveled to the outback of Australia to look at a site several years ago where 11 were discovered. I could give many similar example of sites where I do not think people like yourselves were involved. I am convinced that there is a mystery remaining here and a much more wide spread and important one than yourself, all be the numbers small in contrast with man made. I think that what you are doing though is perhaps more important in of itself than you also realize. There is still work to be done. For me to write everything off without evidence to support 100% hoax would be wrong. I think that is the very point you were making against me in the first place. I have not seen that evidence yet.
 
Rod Dickinson:
Your comment,   "With those who just want to know, I have been a welcome breath of fresh air in a very heavily contaminated scene."   is very disingenous. Often, as in your last press release, your statements are misleading and confusing (when as we do, one knows the history and current development of the subject). I have a myriad of other examples of similar statements you have made that are misleading.
 
Colin Andrews:
I do not mean to be misleading but accept that often being on the spot or in front of a camera or audience, is not always easy to be clear and precise - but I do try to be.
 
Rod Dickinson:
You are reponsible for perpetrating the myths that surround the circles - to this very day! Not us, the Circlemakers. It was not ourselves or Doug Bower who attempted to convince governments, indigenous peoples etc that the circles had a non human origin. If our circles and designs have moved people in the past years I am also convinced that it was because (perhaps unconsciously) of their instinctive reponse to magnificent artworks, rather than solely the belief that they have a non human origin.
 
Colin Andrews:
I strongly disagree. Unless the art work is declared publicly in an open and honest manner then you and others are setting out with the knowledge you are deceiving. At a minimum you are happy to allow your fellow man to remain blind to your input which is irresponsible. Its irresponsible to watch people like myself trying to find answers and take what ever actions thought necessary to that end, when you could just as easily approach your work with the agreement of all those land owners and allow the public to enjoy your undoubted talents without the implications of the last two decades. I accept that some of my statements and actions have caused unnecessary myths to be formed, but that has been because of the unacceptable behavior of others like yourself. You can not run away from the fact that I would not have spent so many years looking at this if I had received a telephone call from Doug/Dave/John/Wil/Rod/Rob etc... to say that this or that we are responsible for, leaving qty. to research.
 
We are now where we are and with improved communication and responsibility I am hopeful that the public, researchers and artists alike can see this whole thing through to a logical conclusion. It is not going to be easy or straight forward. I have a feeling that 10 years down the road we will all see that we have played a part in a quite extraordinary experience with some definite positive learning coming out of what has taken place!!
 
Rod Dickinson:
We circlemakers have been the most open and most thorough in informing those who do not have our insiders view of the subject. Our thoroughness resides in the lack of personal belief we have at stake (beyond an enthusiasm for the subject), unlike every other self appointed crop circle spokesperson...
 
Colin Andrews:
I disagree when you say you have been open as far as informing the public or researchers of which patterns constitutes your work. Telling them and even showing them you can bend plants is not the same thing. I don't underestimate your concerns for the actions of the police should all your operations become known after years of illegal trespass. That is not my particular problem but what I am saying is that I can see it is a reason you find yourselves locked into the deception from where your team was born.
 
[ Coming soon The Circlemakers Retort... watch this space ]

Top