The following is Dr. Aubrun initial conclusions after conducting a brief anaylitical overview of the formation searching for any of the extended significant geometric theroems or elements that have been found by the late Gerald Hawkins to be associated with some formations. In paticular Gerald Hawkins discovered 5 new theroems which existed beyond Euclidian Geometry and tied into diatonic ratios, which are akin to the white notes on the musical scale of a keyboard. All of these were found by Dr. Aubrun to exist in last years R-1. See
In this particular formation, Dr. Aubrun reports a complete lack of any of these significances, while making note of certain obvious imperfections in just the overall basic's, such as alignment and symmetry.
This isn't necessarily a preclusion towards a hoaxed or authentic formation, but is more so just additional 'data' for consideration. This informal report is copied from email exhanges we had in discussion of these factors. First is Dr. Aubrun's preliminary anaylisis with a diagram showing what he observed. What follows is discussions we had regarding those observations and what there relevance might be towards either a hoaxed or authentic formation.
Well,well well! I did a quick analysis of the formation and it does not look very good. Reminds me of my dual barrel carburetor with the gasket lines and the whole bit! Anyway, the geometry is very poorly executed, you can see all the mistakes and raggedy edges. The main circles are all in ratios of 2, (big deal!), except "they" really botched up the on of the right which is all over the place! That is too bad, I was started to get excited about it! There was a similar pattern in Wiltshire in 1998 that Colin kindly just sent to me, but much better execution. So much for now.
Provided Courtesy Colin Andrews
Dr. Aubrun's Anaylisis of Solano Circle 6-04
From: Steve Moreno To: Jean-Noel Aubrun Cc: Michael Miley ; Ruben Uriarte ; Alan Weiblen ; Jeff Wilson ; CHARLES LIETZAU Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: Re: Solano 2004 CC
Greetings my friend. Thank you for informing me on
your findings. Interesting how were working in tandem
here as a true team. However, you've popped my
'croppie' bubble, and I'm having a hard time getting
over it! (-:
I have also been intrigued with this formation,
initially at least, given its connection to the high
voltage, and what at first appearances seemed to be a
pristine geometrical layout. However, as they say
appearances can be deceiving and only expert anaylisis
will tell. This year I approach the 'field' as a
seasoned layperson, who knows very well what to look
for, and what's required as far as solid 'scientific
evidence' on these things, such as the extended
theorems and diatonic ratios, node elongation and
expulsions, seed vigor changes, magnetized ironite
increases and or crystalline diffractions in the soils
I find the 'diatonic ratios / geometric significances'
factor to be the most fascinating of all. Probably
because its relatively new in the scheme of things,
and as well seems to be more indicative in an
evidentiary way towards the 'intelligence' factor
playing in. All the other evendentiary factors could
somewhat be considered 'effects' type evidence,
indicating the reality of an anomalous source of
energy being the causal agency behind the formations.
All roads do seem to lead to Levengood's hypothesis
that a 7 fold plasma based energy system is at work in
the real formations. However, just what is
'utilizing' this energy to create these imprints is
I was intending to ask if you would mind examining
this formation to these ends, so I'm actually quite
happy you have. Jean that's really funny your
reference to its similarity to a dual barrel carb! I
also saw this when I first looked at it. (-:
You have satisfied my curiosity as to any significant
geometric aspects, or even a degree of appreciable
articulation may even exist.
I wonder though what your opinion is on if 'all'
authentic formations should classify in passing the
geometric significance factor or not? I assume that
this factor being demonstrated would preclude an
authentic formation but not be entirely necessary in
all of them. For instance R-2, or any randomly downed
formations, .....I'm pretty certain there are
formations that passed the other solid scientific
tests but didn't have the geometric significance
factor. What's your input or knowledge on this Jean?
One thing is for certain though, the law of 'Steve',
'what it is...is what it is', and luckily we have the
experts to help us to determine that! (-:
Still though I also thought of possible significance
in representing a possible schematic 'cross section'
of something, or a possible technological icon
representation, or something of this nature. There
was this one fellow who was discovering all sorts of
potential relationships like that with formations, and
had numerous high end visitations to his site
portraying his work expressing interest and some
confirmations of it. These folks appeared to be from
the likes of the military, classified developments,
engineering, etc... This fellow had indicated some
resemblance in R-1 to something like a 'hydrogen'
generator, if I remember right. But it crossed my
mind, 'I wonder if this might be another aspect
related to that,like 2 parts to a whole sort of thing,
as this was his theory on how many of these were
seeming to fit together...'. Not sure what the stat
is currently on his line of research but I will be
sending him our research files to see what his input
Here's a few notes on what I've come up with so far on
1) I did a 21 minute video interview with Tharee
Davis, the person who 'publicly' discovered this while
driving by on the side road. Were releasing this
today, I hope, with a litany of excellent images she
took the next day from an air flight she acquired.
Alan and I formatted the audio portion of the
interview to go with a slide show of her talking and
pointing out things to the various images etc... This
way we kept the file down to 14 megs and anyone can
listen to it in its entirety if desired. The bare
bones audio file will also be available as well as a
small summary of the highlights.
2) Seems like the farmer is completely against any
publicity and went ballistic when he realized that
Tauri had discovered his secret. Within two days
after wards he completely scrambled and 'etched' the
formation out of the field. This was evidenced by an
overflight I did this morning of the field. It was
clear he didn't just do a harvesting, but truly
intended to put an end to any existence of this
3. It seems he has always kept a vigilant eye on this
field, like perhaps there are views from the hill
above or something, and nothing goes unnoticed. For
instance both times Tauri tried to access the field
she met trouble within 20 minutes.
4. According to her testimony she was not able to find
any obvious signs of entry points, and she makes
several solvent points on other aspects related to the
potentials of a 'hoax' in the interview. To her all
indicators are authenticity, of course not really
based on a scientific foundation or anything, but she
does have a B.A. in art from U.C. Davis, so this is
5. Jeff may bring some of these images I'll be
uploading over to Levengood so he can examine them and
advise where the best locations are to acquire soil
samples for analysis. His knowledge of how these
plasma energies work is extensive, as demonstrated
through dozens of his published papers in scientific
journals on the matter. Once I try to attain an 'in'
with this cranky farmer, perhaps I'll be able to
acquire these along with enough seed heads in the
control and formation areas for him to conduct seed
vigor tests. It appears the 'harvesting' was not
totally deep into the ground and there may still be
the chance of acquiring any evidence of potential node
elongations or expulsions. Any of these could serve
well as potential evidentially factors.
6. I still need to conduct 'on-site' interviews with
the farmer, ranch hands, close neighbors, etc...both
to try and determine an exact 'window of time' for
creation, and for any other pertinent bits of
information that may help reveal indications of a hoax
or anomalous activities. We have determined the
formation was discovered approximately around the 1st
through the 3rd, according to the farmer stating to
Tauri he first noticed it 2 weeks prior to her arrival
on the 17th. What needs to be determined now is when
the closest prior time to this,he took notice of the
field, and with certainty, saw a 'normal' field.
That's about it for now Jean-Noel.....Guess I'm off to
try and catch another few hours of sleep here before I
send this preliminary off. If this is a hoax...I hope
to determine it quickly so as to not spend to much
time and effort on it....I'll be interested to get
your input on what I was talking about above,
regarding any pretensions to the geometric
significance being required. Also I wonder if Colin
might have gave you any feedback on if this design
might match any standard templates for circle makers
||"Jean-Noel Aubrun" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
View Contact Details
||"Michael Miley" <email@example.com>, "Ruben Uriarte" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Alan Weiblen" <email@example.com>, "Jeff Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "CHARLES LIETZAU" <email@example.com>, "Colin Andrews" <CPRAndrews@worldnet.att.net>
||Re: Solano 2004 CC
||Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:50:22 -0700
Thank you for your very interesting and very pertinent comments about the geometry issue. There are no easy answers to the validation of the formation based on one single criterion (e.g. geometry). It is the case that very intricate geometry was found in hoaxed formations, while very simple figures were found in some clearly "real" ones. To me, geometry means intelligence, but here we also have to be careful to distinguish between "natural" geometry (e.g resonance patterns, crystals, biological constructs, etc), and more arbitrary mathematical constructions. The diatonic ratios are a good example of "unnatural" geometry because these ratios are specific to human musical brain and not normally found in nature as pointed out by the late Gerald Hawkins.
The method I have been following is essentially to first establish whether or not there is a geometry! To that end,the pattern on the ground does not have to be perfect. After all, as my old math teacher used to say, geometry is the art of deriving precise conclusions based on imprecise drawings!
Once what I called the "intended geometry" is found, then we have to look at the execution. And this is really where the rubber meets the road. I was privileged to see pristine formations (Colin will certainly remember the incredible "star map"), and it is such an unbelievable experience to contemplate the absolute perfection of those. The way the plants were gently and seamlessly laid down, like a stream or a river, a continuous flow with no singular points or lines. And then of course the "cookie cutter" edges, also flawless.
Compared to these, we are faced with constructions that have so many flaws that is not even funny. At that point, one cannot escape the "human" factor. Of course when construction marks are found, this is enough of a proof. But what does it really proves? In the big picture, there is still the possibility of a creative intelligence directing the human artists in some fashion.
Or it could just be a bloody hoax!
Now if we look at other measurable factors, such as node elongation, soil changes, magnetic anomalies etc, we may end up with either a confirmation (OK, they hoaxed it!) or a painful conundrum generated by conflicting sets of data (who the blip done it!).
So you see Steve, I wish I had a "cookie cutter" answer myself, but I am not sure there is one. All we can do is to use all the tools we have and come up with the most probable answer. May be we should have some kind of rating system, so we will not waste time with formation that have 80% probability of being a hoax, and concentrate our time and effort to study the other 20%.
I have attached a better geometry analysis with annotations concerning the major flaws, there are many others.
We got to be very cautious and aware of a possible setup. I have no problem with random patterns like R2, because it was what it was (to borrow from the great Steve himself!) with no pretense. But when there is an intent of showing some geometry and hidden messages ( the dotted line from "carburetor" to power lines) and the guys who have supposedly traveled through millions of light years cannot even draw, that is hard to swallow! Frankly, when I first read the story, I was not even sure that the circle existed. I will have to fly other there and see it myself (or whatever is left of it!).
To be continued. Always a pleasure to read from you all.