Posted July 9th, 2004
Attempted Contacts With Field's Owners On July 3
I delivered a small neat package to the field owner's personal residence. This package contained a lab report and a couple of brief excerpts from scientific journals offering a sobering view of valid Cereology research. I was met at the door by a friendly young lady I believe may have been his daughter. Initially she went to get Mr. 'Owner'____, but returned stating he was not available. I explained who I was and that I was seeking permission to access the field for a quick non-intrusive survey and sampling. I assured her it would only be myself and require no more then 2 hours of time. I also explained that the packages were for Mr. Owner___ to offer some valid considerations regarding non-hoaxed circles. I handed her a simple release of liability & non-disclosure form to secure any of his concerns. She seemed quite receptive in receiving the package stating she would ask him to call me with an answer. I haven't received a call yet, as of this posting.
In attempts to call the only number available to this ranch I would only reach a fax machine. I did successfully manage to send a fax communication on through earlier this morning around 6 AM. With this being the first communication I had attempted since the 3rd, when I had gone out to their residence, the fax affirmed in friendly terms that I was still awaiting a response to my inquiry. I also made note how they could receive a free soil analysis report from a reputable lab for allowing us to collect a few samples.
Additionally I made note in the fax of a recent article printed in the Vacaville Reporter, which contained several pertinent points relative to this case. These 'points' involved direct quotes from Mr. & Mrs. Owner__, and at the very least that I would appreciate their granting me 15 min. of time to confirm and expand on these details to aid in the case's closure. As of 11:30 AM there is still no response back from them.
New Vacaville Reporter Article Reveals Unknown Details
The Vacaville Reporter's July 7th edition contained the article written by Catherine Moy based on a direct interview with the owners of the field, and actually shed a complete new light on this case. Evidently Catherine Moy grew up in this farming valley area and consequently has come to know a lot of folks out there through time. This along with a toned pre-disposition towards debunking Cereology appears to have made an attractive combination for Mr. & Mrs. Owners___ to grant her this revealing interview. As a respected freelance journalist I'm sure the quotes are accurate, and reveal details that were not known until now. Details, which if true definitely turn the tide towards a hoaxed formation on this one.
The following italicized excerpts are taken directly from the article published in the Vacaville Reporter's Tuesday, July 7th, 2004 edition, the 'Local' section, page 3 A, titled "New Crop Circles Banish Amid Farmers Privacy". These excerpts are very relevant to our research and investigation here and are legally being presented here under the 'fair use' provisions of Copy Right Law.
..........The Cordelia farmer and his wife- who requested their identity be withheld - said they discovered the circular patterns June4, but shunned any kind of media exposure. They had witnessed last years media blitz that followed......
.....In the latest incident, the farmer's wife, who asked not to be identified, said, "We were checking it out, then my husband said, 'We better get out of here before somebody sees us and everybody starts coming. We don't need people in our field wearing aluminum-foil hats."
....The farmer and his wife are sure that humans created the circles. ..."You could see two sets of foot marks and another dragging mark where the people walked into the field to make the circles," the wife said. "I didn't get any alien feelings at all."
Other pertinent details revealed further in the article are :
.......The Cordelia farmer's wife said the formation in her field at first only included three larger rings and eight smaller ones that connected.
....."They must have come back a second time to make the string of smaller ones," the farmer's wife said, referring to the published pictures.
The last 5 paragraphs of the article tactfully discusses my involvement in last years Rockville (R-1) formation, referencing our press release statements on positive results from scientific testing, and the ensuing debates that occurred over four teenage boys who claimed they made the formation. Of significance to this investigation and research the last 3 paragraphs state:
....The same team of boys did not make the latest circles, according to one of the boy's mother. One of the boys was in jail when the circle was formed, she said. ....Moreno reportedly is studying this year's crop formation, though the farmer's wife said he is not allowed on their property and has not even asked for permission to investigate the area. (note it was mentioned earlier in the article she first talked to the 'Reporter' last week, which would have been prior to my seeking permission on the 3rd...at least I assume this is the case)
......"Neither he nor anybody else is allowed on our property," she said. "This is how wse make our living. People need to understand that making these things can cause fire; it hurts our crops."
Posted July 11, 2004
Analysis & Conclusion
As of this day I still have not received a reply from my fax communication to the field's owners on July 9th. Without being able to personally interview them or sample their field, I am only left with the information contained in the Catherine Moy's article.
It was obviously made clear through direct quotes from the owners of the field how they feared a potential public onslaught that would create a 'circus atmosphere'.
They emphatically indicate the formation is human made, evidenced by '2 sets' of foot tracks and a 'dragging mark' they found clearly left in the field on their June 4th discovery of it. Also of important note made by the owners - that the 28 smaller circles were not there until several days later when they state the circle makers 'came back to finish their work'.
It is interesting to note that Catherine had checked with the mother of one of the 'boys' from last year's hoaxing claim on R-1, finding out they had no part in it. So up to this point no one has claimed responsibility, but then who would knowing how these farmers feel about it, and would certainly go full bore in pressing charges if found out?
On the other side of the coin...it is entirely possible Mr. & Mrs. Owner__have taken this very strong stance of 'knowing this is a hoax' , entirely motivated out of their own personal sentiments and fears . This may be indicated through their immediate measures to eliminate the designs imprint on the ground, refusal to respond back to me even with an answer of 'no', etc.... So is it further possible then they may have confabulated the 'tracks' story to further underscore this hoax? Certainly these combined elements would eliminate any remaining public or research interest in the formation.
I fully realize this may appear as pure speculation, however my thoughts on this are not totally unfounded when considering the following circumstances:
1) The same impression of the owners demeanor on all of this was relayed to me by both Tharee Davis and Ron Cole, who were the first to publicly talk to the owners about the formation. 2) The owners made no mention of seeing tracks to either of them at that time, which would have seemed important given their interest in the formations authenticity.
3) The 'tracking' story seems constructively created how there are 2 sets of foot prints and a 'dragging' mark. The dragging mark is what cues me the most, as it seems to be a fore thought on the creator's behalf trying to insert proof of a utilized instrument into the story. And certainly any circle makers capable of this level of sophistication would not leave such 'obvious' marks, when in actuality it can simply just be carried. Of course someone that's not familiar with the 'circle making' process wouldn't necessarily know this fact, and thereby attempt to cover the bases by inserting this 'dragging mark' aspect into the story.
4) The owners have totally ignored all our respectful inquiries requesting an interview or permission to sample their field. It is clear after this period of time, and through the nature of communication attempts, that this lack of response is willfully intended, most likely to avoid any contact with us, or having to deal with the issue of addressing our reasonable request asking for legal access for quick non-intrusive sampling. This seems an unlikely and unreasonable response under any "normal circumstances", but could however be a more rationalized reaction possibly being generated out of a fear based motivation that any such sampling and subsequent testing might yield positive results that could confirm its status as authentic.
Another interesting note in the article is the statement regarding the 28 circle 'tail' not being present when they initially discovered the formation, and how it didn't appear until a few days later when the circle makers 'came back to finish it'. This is really a moot issue anyhow with respect to any authenticity vs hoax considerations, since other past formations, which were considered authentic, also had 'additions' appearing at a later time.
Considering all of the above we now recognize this case has only 3 possible avenues left that still might be worth pursuing to aid in our determining its status:
1) Obtain the original digital images from Tharee for an extended analysis on the highest quality resolution images.
2) Pursue Seed Vigor Tests if it's determined we have an ample sampling that's worthy of it.
3) Pursue further near site periphery interviews with any witnesses or neighbors who may have seen something, or have knowledge or pertinent information, and would respond in a more amicable manner then the owners have to any of our inquires.
Beyond all of that, we should consider the related elements we DO KNOW to be fact:
1) There's not a shred of 'good faith', or cooperation demonstrated here on the owners behalf. Not even the courtesy of a response, positive or negative, to our polite inquiries requesting permission to sample or a brief interview.
2) What they have made clear instead, is their disbelief in the validity of any of this research, seeming to associate it as 'nonsense'.
3) Further it has been directly expressed by the owners that neither 'I personally' nor anyone else has been given permission to access the field. We are left with the firm impression that anyone who IS caught there will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!
4) One last thing is also true in all of this................I guarantee that it will not be me! (-:
So now with all this in mind, based only upon the limited information we do have, with no permitted field surveys or real samplings, and in lieu of any other pertinent results which might be pending from further digital image analysis or seed vigor tests, I declare this case to be virtually 'Closed', with its current status having to be issued as 'Hoaxed'.
Unfortunately, even if those 3 remaining avenues manage to deliver something positive contrary to this status, given the owner's statements along with a complete lack of further needed collaborating scientific 'tests', the best we could fairly expected this status to change to would be 'Unsolved'.
So it goes in the world of Cereology............And I say......On with the next one!
Investigation and Report by:
Director Psi APPLICATIONS
an ICCRA Associated Member