Stonehenge Reported 9th May 2010

Truly amazing new formation at


Video blog showing some of the

most amazing lay ever seen in Rape

coming soon.

Thanks to Steve Alexander

for the use of this great shot.

    • Anne Lightheart
    • May 29th, 2010

    “The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. Albert Einstein, 1949 – “The World as I See It”

    • David
    • May 25th, 2010

    To Nancy Talbot,

    To add, without going on indefinitely, to what I have already said in reply to you –

    At first, I thought that your assumption that I had not been to your site was correct. But then, upon going there, I realized that I’ve been there many times. Probably not since sometime last season though. So, wrong again I’m afraid. No doubt there’s one or two CC sites that I haven’t visited – as there always is.

    The first thing that I noticed on yours was that the last update was in April and that there is no info whatsoever (yet, understandably, I guess) on the new season or on the second and third formations that were specifically called into question.

    It’s a great site, though, full of valuable, essential research and photos. Respect for the work that you all do in your chosen area. I’ve read much of it and taken it on board years ago and, I suppose if you are preaching to the converted like me, I’m not likely to visit it every day. However, I will watch for any results on the two formations in question down the line.

    You say my comments are “indicative of unreasonable (or uninformed) assumptions on (my) part.”

    Firstly, my unreasonable, uninformed assumptions are based upon everything that reputable people like Stuart Dike, Andrew Pyrka, Janet Ossebaard, CMM (EXCELLENT, relevant post on Yarnbury) and other respected people have written on Stonehenge and Yarnbury. They might have even been based on your writings too, but I do not see, on CCC or elsewhere, any comment or input from either yourself (until now) or BLT on either of these two formations or on the subsequent debate (until now). You, yourself take no position in the open debate, yet you criticize me for having and expressing one. Inform myself? I did and do so.

    Secondly, you seem, quite clearly, to mistake my comments and valid skepticism on those two specific formations as representing or indicating my opinion of the whole phenomenon. Indeed, once you latch on to that notion, you seem to quite run with it – which has resulted in a lengthy, slightly smug info session on BLT’s more than a decade old, but completely valid, research papers.

    Furthermore, if I was to sit here and list the number of assumptions and judgements you have made about me personally and address them all, Nancy, without knowing the first thing about me, it would be a long list and we’d be here all day. I don’t think either of us or anyone else feels the need for me to do that but, if you do, just say and I will oblige. Suffice to say that I am sure you do not apply the same mindset or “perameters” to your research.

    Are you having that “good chuckle” yet? I hope so. I was serious about a sense of humour – especially when it comes to ourselves.

    Don’t worry or be offended. I see, from your writing, that it was, indeed, heart-felt. I see the strength of your belief and passion . It just ran off the rails there for a second, if you don’t mind me saying so. I can be prone to that too, I must say. And understandably – it’s very exciting!

    “…old age (and crop circle research) are not for sissies”, you say? I disagree. They are both for everybody – all of us. Old age if we are lucky and blessed enough to get there. Crop circles because, whatever they are and whoever the author may be, they are given to all, engraved into the fields of the Earth, meant for all, not just some.

    I think that’s about it for now, so… I hope I haven’t bored everyone else to tears. Sorry if I have.

    We are here on the same page, Nancy. You can be assured of that – I am.

    With respect – here’s to a great season, amigo!

    “Those that have eyes… let them see.”

    • David
    • May 25th, 2010

    Thank you, Nancy, for your second comment.

    I am busy with work just now but will write at length later. You have left me much to address

    Thank you for your invitation to call personally. Found your number. However, you have publically taken me to task both personally and in content. I therefore reserve my right to reply – publically.

    I agree that forums like this can sometimes be prone to degenerating and I, for another, will not be here if that happens. I hope the moderator is better than that.

    But hang on, who was it that got personal – NANCY?

    My temperament?

    My tone? My “tone” was addressed to no one. Not michael, Gary or you.

    I should inform myself… I should get involved… I should raise funds… SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS. Not just assumptions, but personal ones.

    You “don’t have the time for it”. Funny, you made plenty of time for it in your first comment to me. I’m afraid you don’t get to let yourself off the hook that easily my friend.

    Were I to be personal in my response, Nancy, it would be justified.

    But have no fear. That’s not me and that is not what either of us is here for. I have the greatest of respect for Michael, Gary and yes, you too.

    Now then, work to do. I’ll get back to you. Please don’t write a 3rd one – let me catch up on your first two first.

    Cheers and good will – and a sense of humour!

  1. Anne, I too love the elusiveness, the mystery of the circles; if they do nothing else at all, they seduce everybody who pays attention to them to think at least a bit outside the box. My personal experience has been that they also help individuals “see” themselves more clearly than perhaps they did pre-circle experience.

    David, I’m so sorry you found my totally heart-felt email above patronizing and defensive. I guarantee you that neither attitude was present in my thoughts. I was only trying to be helpful, and precise. I meant “dear thing” as something funny….

    One of the main reasons I have never participated in various forums is because they always seem to degenerate into this sort of mis-communication. I don’t have the time for it so, if you feel you’ve really got some points you must make, why don’t you call me? Once we’ve established contact, I’ll call you back to save your dime. OK?

    • David
    • May 24th, 2010

    Thank you to Nancy Talbot (seriously) for your lengthy, interesting comment – albiet somewhat patronising, defensive and containing numerous mistaken personal and other assumptions, “dear thing”, which I will address later when I have more time. Getting defensive will do that – even to a scientist.

    For now, let me say how much I appreciated Gary’s post and apology for the delay on the Stonehenge vid. Not only an apology, but an explanation – and not a hint of defensiveness to my realistic, honest OBSERVATION (not assumption) that, with respect, as this rate, we’ll be in September and Michael and Gary will still be putting up vids for June. That is not a criticism – it’s a relevant, valid observation. I don’t have a problem with it, if that is the case – it’s fine. Just establishing what’s to be expected. Thank you, Gary – it’s clear and apparent that you got it.

    But it’s true – I couldn’t have made 6 Blair Witch Projects in the same time. Only 3 probably.

    Another essential ingredient for all this is A SENSE OF HUMOUR. I suggest some people get one.

    Back later to address more specific issues.

    Have a great day all!

    • Anne Lightheart
    • May 24th, 2010

    Nice reading.

    I can only give thanks, over and over and over, for the marvellously elusive quality of the crop circles, that they just can’t be touched by man. Can’t be caught, pinned down, dissected and scrutinized to our satisfaction.

    No. Matter. What.

    Much as it seems to look like we have, we still have to come up for air, scratching our heads. I love that.

    And then I give further thanks for those of you who stand up to the challenge this imposes. Not only the challenge you feel to unravel this delightful mystery, but the challenge to better yourself the hard way.
    That you show your appreciation for their existence in this way. I applaud that.

    But most of all, I love the gift of these formations. We so need something on Earth which is going to bring us safely into aligment.

    Let’s continue to celebrate that, no matter what.

  2. This comment is directed to both David, above, and also to Igor. To Igor, I agree with you totally that it would be the best possible scenario if–when a new formation is reported–entry into it could be delayed until at least 2 or 3 of the most seasoned cc investigators could arrive so that all would then witness the same situation. This is in the “best of all possible worlds.”

    But we don’t live in this “best of all possible” anything. Most of the serious investigators are not only examining the formations from a variety of often widely-divergent viewpoints, they may be spread out over a relatively large area at any given moment and are not necessarily in touch with each other–much less available–at any given instant in time. Remember that ALL of the work done by ALL of us (except for a very few brief examples of “financially supported” research) is not only funded by each of us personally, our cc work must be sandwiched into our “regular” lives and responsibilities, not to mention jobs.

    This being the case, the BEST scenario I can come up with would be for any of those investigators who are posting information publicly about various circles include both the DAY and the TIME they examined and/or photographed the formation. If, in addition, the Crop Circle Connector (or whomever is first notified) would make the day/time they were FIRST INFORMED about the new formation available, the rest of us could then use this info intelligently.

    Until a properly-funded umbrella organization of some sort appears on the scene the public must deal with the facts as they are–we investigators are all individually using our own resources to pursue whichever aspect of the phenomenon we personally find most interesting. No one is paying any of us a salary to do this work. Each of us then offers whatever information we derive back to the public in whichever fashion we can (a) either afford or (b) feel is most productive.

    Now, to David. I’ve read through your various postings here and want to diplomatically suggest that the tone of some of your comments seems unnecessarily critical, as well as indicative of unreasonable (or uninformed) assumptions on your part. I do appreciate the fact that you sound sincerely interested in the phenomenon and I do understand your desire for “conclusive” proof. But, dear thing, you must get in line here….this is what ALL of us would like.

    Because the circles interest different people in different ways, and because we are all volunteering our time and money to follow those aspects of the phenomenon in whichever manner seems most interesting to each of us individually, you will of course observe debate. Since there is no currently 100% accepted-amongst-all-researchers method for determining an individual crop circle’s “authenticity” It is up to YOU to both inform yourself regarding the various approaches to the circles, and then up to YOU to decide which of these methods of investigation seem the most informative. And if you find yourself still not satisfied, then my suggestion is for you to dive in yourself–get involved, do your own work.

    Those of us who have been seriously involved for years will get a good chuckle when you come to recognize just how incredibly complex the circle phenomenon is…and we will welcome another hard-working, serious inquiry which is quite likely to result in raising more questions, just as has occurred for most of us.

    For those individuals only (or most) interested in scientific work, only 3 peer-reviewed papers have, so far, been published in refereed journals–those published during the 1990s by members of the BLT Research Team (see the “Published Papers” page on the BLT web-site). Several years ago Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff wrote a “comment” in response to BLT’s 3rd paper (1999, coauthored by W.C. Levengood and myself), and his remarks were published in a “Letter to the Editors” column of Physiologia Plantarum (the journal in which our 1999 paper was published). Dr. Haselhoff’s comments DO NOT CONSTITUTE a peer-reviewed “paper,” they were published simply as remarks, not original, peer-reviewed work.

    So if it fits your temperament to stick to “accepted scientific research” (work that has followed scientifically-accepted protocols and has undergone rigorous scientific review by peers prior to being accepted for professional publication) you have to stick with the BLT findings published in those papers. At the moment these results are the only scientifically-established facts.

    Personally, although I use the BLT plant/soil results as a base-line, I am well aware that there are many aspects to the circle phenomenon which have not yet been (and many never be) examined scientifically. Science, after all, is set up to deal only with the physical realm–not the spiritual or metaphysical. However, the emerging science of consciousness (and some of the most extreme work now being done in physics) looks like it may be beginning to make inroads into areas that may be meaningful to a greater understanding of the crop circles. I await these new discoveries with real anticipation, but since the scientific method is incredibly meticulous, and sometimes unbelievably tedious, I expect it may be a long wait.

    Rather than criticizing crop circle investigators for whatever failures or inadequacies we exhibit I most sincerely suggest that you, David, inform yourself fully about the work that has been done by dozens of different people–keeping in mind that we are ALL volunteers, doing the best we can with out OWN money, time and grey matter–and then decide for yourself what of that work is worthwhile, or meaningful, to you. Further, why don’t you get involved yourself? God knows there are MANY approaches which have not yet been explored. Or, perhaps you could concentrate on raising money to help fund whatever ongoing research you find of value?

    I have a feeling that you have not yet read through the BLT web-site…in fact I am certain you have not. I, of course, would suggest that you start there, particularly if your primary interest is the scientific knowledge currently available. But there is a great deal more to learn…much of it, although not yet “scientifically” established, is quite thorough and, I think, important. I spend every moment when I am not working on my own stuff reading the other researchers’ work, listening to other ideas, other opinions, other discoveries.

    If you are, in fact, serious in your interest about the circles, you will find a great deal of good material available. But, at this instant in time, it is up to YOU to determine for yourself what to make of each arena of inquiry, each individual’s work and ideas. The grand POO-BAH of crop circle info does not yet exist–or at least none of us (so far as I can tell) have yet made its acquaintance.

    There’s a saying that old age is not for sissies….from my vantage point I think crop circle research isn’t either. The phenomenon is incredibly challenging. Be grateful for the work that has been done, and offer thanks to those of us who have done, and are doing, it. And if you’re really intrigued, jump in and join us. Another brain paying serious attention can only help.

    Nancy Talbott
    BLT Research Team Inc.

    • David
    • May 24th, 2010


    While it is well intentioned and honest, I’m afraid your suggestion is idealistic and misguided to the point of naivete and I agree with Anne Lightheart. No offense.

    That said, it troubles me a great deal that, on reading all the analysis on CCC, and having had either one or TWO fakes that we know of – it’s VERY disturbing that people do supposed science and mathematical, geometric, cosmic analysis based on NO SOLID PREMISE WHATSOEVER. What kind of “science” do we call that?

    There is new evidence from CMM that Yarnbury is a fake. And no word from Janet Ossebaard that she may have been hasty… we all make mistakes… But no. She apparently stands by her word. What are we to make of it all? If we don’t have faith in the credibility of the glyph, in it’s validity – then we have nothing but assumptions and surmising. I am yet to be impressed by the glyphs or subsequent analysis this year. Fingers crossed for Wilton Windmill.

    Now, did someone say something about a video blog…? Are you guys making a feature film or something? I could have made 6 Blair Witch Projects in this time! Ever heard of “losing your audience”?

    • John Davidson
    • May 23rd, 2010

    In response to what Igor has said I can see the need for clear and considered research. That such research method gives credibility to findings in science and academia is certain.

    But this begs the question as to what we are perceiving. If we are wanting to proceed as in materialistic science then that approach has some grounds. Do we see the circles as an object to be studied or something to be experienced.

    Are we in a laboratory situation or is it more akin to the art gallery, or the temple?
    If, as I believe, we are seeing something mysterious and wonderful then the phenomena is surely as open to study as sculpture in a park, as art in a gallery, as the atmosphere in a place of worship. We come with no better research tools than ourselves and our ability to make of it what we will.

    • Anne Lightheart
    • May 22nd, 2010

    I am not sure if I should respond here to Igor’s post, but here goes…

    Although your words are gentle, and you speak well, you have inadvertantly added yourself to the imagined (?) controversy on the net!
    And so what – it is a forum at best, and unreliable at worst. Nature of the beast, I suppose.

    But honestly, what are you suggesting? Words like ‘other respected researchers’ are very provocotive. Who is going to decide that? And are they going to show up wearing a badge, cap and shirt saying it? Will a sticker be given to the first one?
    Is not anyone who bothers to show up at a crop circle out of pure curiosity, a researcher? Aren’t we all doing that?

    I am afraid your post implies exclusivity, and I don’t think you meant it, but it is there. Your suggestions actually have a good foundation, but again, it is not doable (is that a word?)as you are dealing with the human race. This was a small oversight.

    And finally, your wanting to package up the researching of crop circles, misses the whole point. These events are magical, spontaneous, mysterious, and always surprising. This is how the are. This is also part of their gift.

    Nothing on earth can touch this, no human endeavour can muddy or take away from it, and the designers of the crop circles certainly do not need our protection.
    I don’t believe.

    • Anne Lightheart
    • May 22nd, 2010

    Truly wonderful seeing you up there in the sky flying about.

    Anne xx

    • Igor
    • May 22nd, 2010

    Hello everybody,

    A suggestion that could help in appreciating the delicacy of the field situation and avoiding unnecessary discussions on the net.

    When a new crop circle is discovered and the first researcher arrives at the field, he or she waits outside the formation until 2 or 3 other respected researchers have arrived. They then enter the field together.

    This has several advantages. First, this will prevent that other people will leave imprints in the crop before the formation is well researched. Second, they are then able to coordinate the best way to enter and research the ‘pristine formation’. Third, everybody has his/her own approach. Different eyes and other senses will discover more when working together. Forth, The marks of the first researcher in the field will not mislead the impressions of the researchers coming after him or her. Fifth, this will improve the quality of the discussions on the net, which can then more focus on the possible content of the design.

    There are other advantages that this approach will lead to.

    I’m sure this suggestion is not new, but it would be great at the start of this new season if experienced researchers would be able and willing to coordinate their activities a little bit more, especially on this topic.

    The individuals, the crop circle community, the wider public following the researchers, and most of all, the phenomenon itself, would benefit very much of such an approach.

    With all respect and gratitude,


    • David
    • May 21st, 2010

    In the meantime…

    A facinating, long, explanatory post/article from Andrew Pyrka on his site. VERY interesting –

    • David
    • May 20th, 2010

    What else besides “planking” creates the “board marks” as seen in Janet’s photos? Not to mention all the other damage.

    And yet, Andrew Pyrka says the same thing about Yarnbury – total fake.

    It’s not saying a great deal for credibility, consensus or confidence , is it?

    Is “planking” the only known method of faking formations? Or do we just assume this? Are we wrong? Are we sure?

    Some formations are, indeed, just messy. But wholescale damage…?

    I agree that it’s unlikely to be a fake – across the road from Stonehenge.

    No doubt, you are now all having the same debate over Yarnbury. Someone please give a “hoy” when there’s some consensus…? Thanks.

    Watching with interest.

    • Marianne Krüll, Germany
    • May 18th, 2010

    Looking forward to your information, Gary, to correct Janet’s observations.This exquisite formation can NEVER be planked by 20 people – right in front of Stonehenge!

    • David
    • May 18th, 2010

    A link has now been posted on CCC to Janet Ossebaard’s report(as some will know). Others seem to think this formation was genuine. Or, at least that appears to be what we are meant to assume. I think… No one’s talking except for Andrew Pyrka. Respect.

    Those in the know might spare a moment to let the rest of us know the verdict.

    Bare in mind that we may not all be members of the CCC forum – for whatever reason. And I, for one, hope that this may become a very active new forum. But pretty quiet so far.

    Not asking for a running commentary, mind you. Just – Is the Stonehenge formation real or not? Genuine but messy? Subsequent human damage? Total fake? And is Yarnbury the first or the second fake?

    I agree strongly with Colin Andrews in his most recent post. Only truth will do now.

    • David

      Thank you for your comments. There is of course much controversy over Janet’s statements. The video footage that I took of this formation within a few hours of discovery is stunning, the best I’ve seen in Canola, and will be posted in our next video blog. You will hear and see our full commentary and opinions on this matter very soon. Best regards Gary King

        • David
        • May 19th, 2010

        Thanks, Gary.

        I find it fascinating in itself that there is already so much dissent between long term, respected researchers. Not just Stonehenge, but also Yarnbury, where Stuart Dike’s field report directly contradicts Andrew Pyrka’s. Perplexing, to say the least.

        Teething problems for the beginning of a powerful season – hopefully.

        Cheers, all.

    • David
    • May 16th, 2010

    Congratulations, gentleman.

    A very impressive site indeed. Having browsed for a while, I can only say that I wait with baited breath for what such a welcome and timely addition to CC research can bring us over the next, imminent, 3 seasons (10, 11, and 12 – and beyond). Great to see you being more prominent, Michael, and thank you, Gary

    I particularly like your logo and initials – it reminds me of Creedence Clearwater Revival – old fav band. They even provide you with a “theme song” – “It Came Out of the Sky”!

    Re: the Janet Ossebaard report. It has been taken down on CCC with no subsequent explanation whatsoever. Very confusing.

    Cryptic behaviour is the last thing that any of us needs. Openness and clarity are imperitive and non-negotiable at all times. “They” oppose deception. So should we.

    So… what’s the verdict folks? Is it real or fake?

    All the best –

  3. I second Nancy’s remark about date/time stamping one’s visit to a formation if one is commenting publicly on it. Especially for the research into authenticity.
    Having said that though, and even though I do wish for conclusive evidence of authorship, I have also come to some resolution around supposed hoaxes as also having a place among the phenomena. When the Human Butterfly appeared last year in Holland, on the same day as the launch of Bruce Lipton and Steve Bhearman’s book “Spontaneous Evolution” with the same image on the cover, whether it was “real” or not became less relevant to me since I still saw a beautiful synchronous universe in motion. This current formation at Stonehenge clearly echoes several past glyphs and continues to expand my mind and spirit, man-made or not (although I can’t help but think “not”).

  4. To Lawrence and Stephen (above), many thanks for your kind words. To Lawrence I want you to know that not ALL modern scientists are corrupt and that there definitely IS hope. I have just finished a long phone call with a British plant expert who has now “joined the fray” (he will be helping to design some very exciting work we will be carrying out this season) and he informs me that many of his colleagues are not only well-aware of the BLT crop circle plant & soil results, they are cognizant of it’s import.

    I see that Janet Ossebaard has posted a report on the CCC about the Old Sarum crop circle in rapeseed…and she shows many photos which seem to indicate mechanical flattening–lots of breakage, scuff marks, etc. If she was one of the very first people into this formation these findings do not bode well for the circle’s “authenticity.” If other visitors had been in it BEFORE she took her photos (it would be extremely helpful if fieldworkers would indicate the day & time of their photos in these various formations) one cannot come to any reasonable conclusion.

    We are truly living in extraordinary times–with extraordinary challenges–but also extraordinary opportunities. Do not lose hope that the knowledge gained by those of us who have paid serious attention to the circles over the years (regardless of which approach we have taken) WILL eventually reach the general public. This information will prevail…there are a LOT of us working toward this goal, each in our own fashion.

    Nancy Talbott
    BLT Research Team Inc.

    • Lawrence
    • May 12th, 2010

    wonderful formation, right on Stonehenge! And it’s just the beginning of the season…Second one straight in canola and we all know that’s the most difficult to hoax one in.

    To Nancy above, I for one have always appreciated your tireless efforts in trying to bring this mystery within the purview of the scientific community through the work of the BLT team. In a sane world you and your team and associates would have millions of dollars at your disposal to investigate this phenomenon as thoroughly as it deserves. Of course in a sane world BLT articles and papers woud be frontpage news in the scientific journals, in Nature, Science, Scientific American, the New Scientist etc. I know we all realise the absurdity of the wilfull blindness by the world of science and society at large to the phenomenon, but it is difficult to eloquently express just how absurd and unreal the denial of the crop circle mystery is. There is a level of surreal humour to it, almost as surreal and incredible as the mystery of crop circles itself. This deserves its own topic of discussion in the sociology of scientific knowledge/SSK.

    To Nancy again, sorry to hear of John Burke’s passing so recently. I didn’t know him nor any of you for that matter (I’m not in the UK nor North America), yet he is missed even by people he never knew, like myself. His work will live on after him. Hopefully in a future age, a future generation not conditioned in scientism and other idiotic isms will come to appreciate just how important and groundbreaking his work was, and people like him. I hope BLT (you are keeping the name?) continues to do among the most important scientific work of our time, even though I can guess just how difficult it must be for you, exiled to the wilderness (but that’s the best place to be! especially given the sad state of much of academia today and the corruption of science). If there is ever a more enlightened society in the future, a future generation of science historians will look back on all this (from a sociology and social history of science angle) with bemusement.

    Oh yes Michael appreciate all your work too in this regard!

      • Stephen
      • May 12th, 2010

      Thank you Lawrence, most eloquent words of yours; they speak my heart as well. And yes, Nancy, Thank You for your work and exquisite reports from your friendship with Robbert van den Broeke. You have both brought so much to Light.

    • Tita Martinez
    • May 12th, 2010

    Hola Michael & Gary! I’m LOVING your new website!! Indeed it seems these early formations show more intricate designs for this early in the season.

    Upon first seeing the formation of Stonehenge, my brain immediately recognized the same elements from the 1st formation at Old Sarum, but these now “in motion”… as some sort of evolution of the 1st design.

    And I think we all agree on the basket weave center as the same as last year’s July 14 formation… I kept waiting for the Circle Makers to add on to that one, but it never happened… till now. 🙂

    I can’t wait to be there in Wiltshire in June and again in July-Aug for the lectures.

    Lots of love for you both…. Namaste

    • Diane Marcotte
    • May 11th, 2010

    Thanks to Glenn & Cameron for pointing me in the direction of your website. I’m looking forward to following along.

    Wishing you much success…

  5. Hi, Gary & Michael,
    I am SO excited to find your new site. What a thrill. This wonderful-looking new formation next to Stonehenge hit me like a lightning bolt. It looks so much “in the style of” the May25th 2009 formation at Windmill Hill (barley) which I thought was quite beautiful, and which our fieldworker did visit, but whose plant examinations did not allow us to come to any firm conclusion regarding authenticity based on visible plant changes (see the “2009 UK Crop Circle Report” on the BLT website–, link at top of our Home Page).

    The fact that a similar-looking formation has now occurred in rapeseed–and your statement (above) that the lay in this formation is incredible & that you’ll be posting a video soon–makes me immediately think this new formation may be a response to my still-present questions regarding our lack of certainty regarding the ’09 Windmill Hill formation.

    If your investigation (and video) shows the plants just bent-over and not broken at the bases…and if the flowers are not markedly disturbed….I would have to conclude THIS one cannot be mechanically-flattened. And, if this is the case, then either the ’09 Windmill Hill one was ALSO genuine OR the real circle-makers have now made one in the same “style,” but in rapeseed–where, because of the type of plant, it is much easier to make an accurate assessment.

    How incredibly exciting. I can’t wait to see your video and close-up shots of the plants and lay…for those of us who cannot afford to be in the UK each summer this sort of fieldwork and coverage is incredibly appreciated. Thank you SO much.

    Nancy Talbott
    BLT Research Team Inc.

  6. Tuning and Toning for the Rhythms of the Cosmos
    Thanks for the views

  7. I am very excited about this formation for MANY reasons… can’t wait to hear both of your thoughts in the next blog… Sending Love, Bradfield

  8. Wow! Literally on my doorstep!
    Look forward to this season of magic and to be informed by two wise men.


    Anna Marie

    • Sue Butterfield
    • May 10th, 2010

    Hi Gary and Michael,
    Thank you for the great shots and for creating this site. This is such an exciting time and I can’t wait to see what crop circles will be appearing.I have a request, I am an energy healer and I have been using the Crop Circle energies in my work. I would like to use your pictures of the formations. How do I go about this?
    In Gratitude, Sue

    • Kris Murdock
    • May 10th, 2010

    Bravo Gary and Michael and thank you so much for this site!! Will look forward to all your updates and analysis. This is extremely important work you are doing and no better representatives to share your insights with the world.

    Many blessings and much success!
    Kris – Bear River, NS, Canada

    • Stephen Maye
    • May 10th, 2010

    Greetings Gary and Michael, thank you for your ongoing work and this site! An early video of the plant stems at Stonehenge appears to show mechanical abrasions. I look forward to your close-up inspections and discerning eyes to get more of the full read on this one. Peace, Stephen,, Connecticut

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: