 | |
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 ]
| | |
