NAICCR Report - Crop Circles in 1992

Magazine Overview

This document is a report titled "NORTH AMERICAN CROP CIRCLES and RELATED PHYSICAL TRACES REPORTED IN 1992", published in February 1993. It is a study conducted by the North American Institute for Crop Circle Research (NAICCR) in conjunction with Ufology Research of Manitoba (UFOROM).

Introduction and Background

Since 1990, NAICCR has been collecting information on Unusual Ground Markings (UGMs) in North America. Their previous reports from 1990 and 1991 were widely circulated and even reprinted globally, encouraging continued data gathering. NAICCR makes its UGM and crop circle data available because comparable reports from Britain are scarce, despite various factions and cerealogists reportedly maintaining extensive databases. The report notes the difficulty in obtaining raw data from Britain, citing alleged "hoarding" and selective case presentation by some researchers. NAICCR's approach focuses on gathering data from the entire North American continent, a task considered more challenging than in Britain due to the larger area and the impossibility of "stakeouts" as might be done in England.

The guiding principle for NAICCR is the open exchange of information within the field of ufology and cerealogy. However, in practice, relatively few researchers respond to information requests, often channeling data through regional directors within their organizations. The variability in investigation quality and style presents a challenge for comparative studies, highlighting the need for standardization of investigative techniques.

Information about UGMs often comes from second-hand sources like newsletters, magazines, and media reports, with some reports being mere rumors. Despite these limitations, NAICCR believes the collection and publication of this data are crucial for the development of the field, allowing researchers to grasp the broader scope and variety of cases. The report also addresses the issue of "experts" who may lack sufficient background, leading to unscientific claims and misconceptions. The field is further complicated by the delineation of various "camps" (vortex theorists, UFO adherents, skeptics, ultraterrestrialists), emphasizing the need for an objective presentation of raw data for a complete understanding.

NAICCR maintains a neutral stance on theories, not favoring any single explanation. This contrasts with the skeptical view that "all crop circles are hoaxes" and the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) supporters who believe they are alien communications. The report acknowledges the ongoing debate among cerealogists regarding the fraction of "genuine" formations.

The Hoaxing Debate

The report delves into the complexities of determining the fraction of hoaxed crop circles, noting the impossibility of an exact figure, especially when comparing with Britain's reported numbers. It discusses the concern that hoaxers have become so proficient that distinguishing "genuine" from "fake" circles is nearly impossible, implying all could be hoaxes or all could be real. The report argues that claims of hoaxing are not proof of hoaxing, and while Ockham's Razor might suggest hoaxing as the simplest explanation, the problem is more complex. Few hoaxers admit their involvement or detail their methods, leading to a "doubting Thomas" attitude among many cerealogists.

In North America, few individuals claiming to have hoaxed crop circles have met the "doubting Thomas" criteria. The situation in Britain is considered worse due to the higher number of sites. A common argument against widespread hoaxing is the sheer number of formations, which would require "huge armies of hoaxers" capable of creating intricate patterns undetected, even under surveillance.

The report questions the logistics of hoaxing, considering that many formations are discovered days or weeks after creation, potentially without witnesses and with tell-tale signs trampled. It poses the question of how many of the reported UGMs are considered highly reliable.

To illustrate the absurdity of mass hoaxing, the report presents a hypothetical scenario of a single determined hoaxer in Britain creating one crop circle per night for 100 nights, potentially accounting for 1000 circles. The report dismisses this as ridiculous due to time, cost, secrecy, and other factors, but uses it to highlight the challenges in accepting hoaxing as the sole explanation.

Alternative Theories

The report then explores alternative theories for crop circle creation.

Vortex Theory

Several dozen cases of eyewitness accounts of strong, spiralling downdraughts creating circular patches in wheat or tall grasses exist. Researchers like Ohtsuki and Meaden have presented physical arguments suggesting wind vortices could create simple crop circles, hypothesizing conducive physical conditions. However, the theory requires refinement due to the difficulty of separating "genuine" circles from "dross" in the data. A "natural" mechanism would also imply formations globally, not just in Britain.

Theory of the Intelligent Force (TIF)

This theory is supported by eyewitness accounts and videos of unusual lights or structured objects near crop circle sites. While some vortex theorists might attribute these to plasmas, TIF proponents argue that complex patterns and weaving suggest a non-natural mechanism.

Physical Changes and Study Results

Tests for physical changes within crop circles have yielded interesting but not entirely satisfying results. No residual radioactivity has been found, contrary to earlier claims. Spagyrical analyses, attempting to show "crystallization" of plant cells, are not considered highly credible. Analyses by Dr. W. Levengood of Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratories have reportedly shown "changes" or abnormalities in samples from circle sites, which are considered exciting but require confirmation by independent laboratories.

Results of the 1992 Study

As of January 31, 1993, 93 UGMs were reported or communicated to UFOROM or NAICCR during the 1992 calendar year. These occurred at 40 different sites. The UGMs include features commonly called "crop circles" as well as "saucer nests", "space cookies", "burn marks", and "landing traces".

The UGMs were classified into 11 categories: Flattened Circle (FC), Flattened Ring (FR), Burned Circle (BC), Burned Ring (BR), Burned and Flattened (BF), Concentric Ring (CR), Vegetation Missing (VM), Vegetation Dead (VD), Yellowing of Grass (YG), Stunted Growth (SG), and Enhanced Growth (EG). Other categories included Depression (DP), Hole (HO), and Other (OT).

The classification system is not mutually exclusive, and sites can contain multiple UGM types. A significant problem in statistical tabulation is the lack of standardization in counting UGMs, with some researchers counting individual features and others counting entire sites. Complex features like "agriglyphs" also pose counting challenges. NAICCR presents data with both counting schemes.

The number of UGMs per year has remained relatively constant since 1990 (86 in 1990, 87 in 1991, 93 in 1992), suggesting UGMs are a continuing phenomenon similar to UFOs. The number of sites also shows a similar trend (45 in 1990, 37 in 1991, 40 in 1992).

In 1992, of the 93 total UGMs, 47 (50.5%) were in Canada and 46 (49.5%) were in the United States. The distribution of sites was similar: 21 (52.5%) in Canada and 19 (47.5%) in the United States. The data suggests a constant average of around 90 UGMs per year and a ratio of UGMs/sites near two, indicating typical cases involve at least two impressions or effects, often called formations.

The report suggests that the constancy of North American UGM data indicates a "background" level of activity, contrasting with the potentially anomalous high numbers of crop circles reported in Britain. This contrast leads to two interpretations: either widespread hoaxing and contamination of British data, or that British phenomena are unique and incomparable to North American UGMs. The constancy of American numbers suggests American and British UGM activity, particularly crop circles, may have different causes.

• Distribution of UGMs in States and Provinces in 1992:
• Alberta, Canada: 18 UGMs, 3 Sites
• Arizona, USA: 3 UGMs, 1 Site
• California, USA: 2 UGMs, 1 Site

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this report are the collection and analysis of unusual ground markings (UGMs) and physical traces, the ongoing debate surrounding the causes of crop circles (hoaxing vs. natural vs. intelligent phenomena), and the challenges of standardization and data dissemination in ufological research. The editorial stance of NAICCR, as stated in the report, is one of neutrality regarding theories, emphasizing the importance of objective data collection and open exchange of information to foster a better understanding of the phenomenon.

This document, likely an issue of a publication titled "Ufology" (based on context and common themes), presents a detailed statistical analysis of Unidentified Ground Markings (UGMs), commonly referred to as crop circles, for the year 1992. It also touches upon the broader context of UFO connections and physical effects associated with these phenomena.

UGM Distribution and Characteristics in 1992

The data for 1992 reveals an uneven distribution of UGMs across North America. While Manitoba and Saskatchewan reported significant numbers of cases, Illinois recorded the highest number of cases, consistent with previous years. The analysis also highlights a strong difference in the direction of swirl reported for crop circles: 28 were counterclockwise, and only one was clockwise, with all swirled UGMs occurring in Canada.

The publication challenges the public perception that crop circles appear exclusively in wheat, presenting data that shows a diversity of affected crops. The British label of "corn circles" is also identified as a misnomer for North American cases. Researchers, such as those in AUFOSG, are noted for their efforts in proper crop identification. A significant increase in wheat formations was observed in the United States in 1992, with 21 instances compared to only 1 in 1991.

Further statistical breakdowns are provided for UGMs by crop type and by formation type. In 1992, the average diameter of UGMs was 10.62 meters, a notable increase from 7.06 meters in 1991 and comparable to the 10.7 meters average in 1990. Formation types include "Flattened Circle," "Flattened Ring," "Hole," "Vegetation Dead," "Vegetation Missing," "Yellowed Grass," and "Other."

UFO Connection and Explanations

The document critically examines the alleged connection between UFOs and crop circles. The 1992 data indicates a weak link, with UFOs reported in conjunction with only 4 UGM sites, representing 10% of the cases. This is compared to Ted Phillips' "Catalog of Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings" from the 1970s, which also showed a similar fraction of cases with no associated UFO activity. The author suggests that the overall characteristics of trace cases and UFO effects have remained consistent over the years, with the primary evolution being the change in terminology from "physical traces" to "crop circles."

Several potential explanations for UGMs are discussed. Winds were noted as a possible explanation for 28% of UGMs (at 8 sites, 20%). Probable explanations were given for 19% of UGMs (at 8 sites, 20%). Cerealogists are noted for gaining expertise in crop effects like lodging and blights.

The characteristics of 1992 UGMs varied, with 12% (at 7 sites, 17.5%) described as possessing "corridors." No complex formations comparable to the 1991 Coalhurst structure were discovered, though smaller oddities like "dumbbells" and "Mars symbols" were noted.

Physical and Physiological Effects

The question of physical or physiological effects at UGM sites is also addressed. Claims of electronic interference, particularly in British crop circles, are mentioned but described as debated. Such effects are sometimes noted as indicators of UFO involvement, with vortex theorists suggesting a link to plasma activity. In North America, some UGM sites in 1991 and 1992 were claimed to exhibit positive effects when dowsed or produce eerie "energy." However, these effects are noted as inconsistent and not experienced by all witnesses.

Data Limitations and Future Research

The document acknowledges limitations in the data, stating that the listing of UGM data does not include detailed investigations or conclusions regarding the cause of the features. The limited information available precluded extensive discussion of individual cases. Researchers are cautioned that NAICCR cannot vouch for the accuracy of the reports. Sources of information are provided, but users are advised to conduct their own studies.

It is hoped that future research into UGMs will benefit from the raw data presented, encouraging researchers to examine it and develop their own interpretations regarding the origins of UGMs and crop circles.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the statistical analysis of UGM data, the debunking of common misconceptions (like crop circles only appearing in wheat), and a critical examination of the UFO connection to these phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous data analysis and a cautious, evidence-based approach, distinguishing between phenomena and their speculative interpretations. There is an emphasis on the evolution of terminology and the importance of accurate data collection and reporting.