Crop Circle Research               

Saturday 12 Sep, 2015  
Search CCR  

Enigma Issue 21: Editorial

by Paul Vigay | Summer 2000

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the late arrival of this issue. This was caused by a number of technical problems in the editorial office, primarily caused by the failure of my laser printer. However, I have now purchased a new one, and future issues should arrive back on schedule.

As you will see from reading though this issue, the 2000 season was a hectic one, not only in terms of ground research and analysis, but also in terms of controversy and politics, something dedicated crop circle researchers will no doubt be aware of.

By far the most controversial statement of the year was issued by Colin Andrews when he declared that he believed that 80% of formations he had investigated from the 1999 and 2000 seasons were hoaxed, leaving the remaining 20% as possibly 'unexplained'.

The first thing that happened was of course the media getting it all wrong (what's new there!) and proclaiming that 80% of ALL crop circles were hoaxed, which is not what Colin said at all, being quite careful to specify the times of his own examination window period. And, to be honest, looking back on my own research from 1999 and 2000, I do tend to broadly agree with him.

This is totally different to claiming that 80% of all crop circles are hoaxed though. As I've said in previous issues, the extent of hoaxing seems to fluctuate from year to year, probably depending upon the level of public interest. Some years could quite often yield an 80% level of hoaxing, yet other years I think there was much less hoaxing going on. Either way is, I feel, missing the point entirely though. We should not be arguing about mere numbers, but researching and investigating the 20% which are unexplained.

As I've said in the past, you don't ignore all £20 notes because one or two hoaxed ones have been discovered (or if you do, please post your unwanted ones to me...)

I believe that just one, single, lonely 'genuine' crop formation deserves our continued research efforts. Considering that I now have in excess of 2000 formations logged in my database, I'm of the opinion that many, many more than just one formation was genuine - but either way, numbers don't matter. The fact we have an enduring and continuing mystery does matter.

I would advise people not to believe the hype, the misinformation and the hoaxers claims. Research the evidence, do your own experiments and above all, keep an open mind. There might just be something we don't know after all.

Add a comment to this article

If you wish to add a comment to this article, please use the form below. Please note that by submitting comments using this form you are allowing all of the information submitted to be visible on this website. Your comment will be published immediately, so please proof-read before you add. Any comments deemed to be abusive or irrelevant to the topic of the article may be removed without warning.

Posted by: (optional)

Email or Web site: (optional, email is mangled to deter spambots)

Comments: (maximum length 2000 characters)

If you would like to add a URL to another site, please enter the address (without http://) inside square brackets. Use an optional closing curly bracket to add a description. eg. to link to enter [}]
Back Top 
Valid HTML 4.01!
Valid CSS
Powered by Sun Microsystems 

The contents of this site, and communications between this site and its users, are protected by database right, copyright, confidentiality and the right not to be intercepted conferred by section 1(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The use of those contents and communications by Internet Service Providers or others to profile or classify users of this site for advertising or other purposes is strictly forbidden.