SC

Magazine Overview

This issue of SC, The Monthly Journal of Crop Circles and Beyond, issue number 59 from December 1996, is a special investigative issue dedicated to the alleged video of the Olivers Castle crop circle formation. The cover features the 'SC' logo and a grainy image of the snowflake-like formation, with headlines highlighting the video and the investigation into its authenticity.

Editorial and Contents

Editor Andy Thomas apologizes for the late arrival of the issue due to a house move, providing a new editorial address. He introduces the focus on the Olivers Castle video, acknowledging it might seem like overkill but asserting the need for a comprehensive examination of its pros and cons. Thomas also briefly mentions other controversies, including a hoax claimant's statement about the 'Julia Set' and 'fractals' formations at Stonehenge, and the lack of Jupiter photos from the Galileo probe. He also corrects a caption from the previous issue.

The main feature, "FLAKY: THE FULL STORY OF THE OLIVERS CASTLE VIDEO" by Andy Thomas, delves deeply into the alleged video, which purportedly shows glowing lights forming the 'snowflake' pattern in seconds. Thomas aims to clarify the sequence of events and examine the arguments for and against its authenticity, noting that much of the initial coverage, particularly on the internet, has been skeptical.

The Video Sequence and Technical Analysis

The article details the alleged events of Saturday night, August 10th, 1996, when John Wheyleigh reportedly saw lights and filmed them. The video sequence itself, as described from a bootleg version, shows two glowing white balls of light moving across a field, followed by the appearance of the snowflake formation. The sequence is approximately 40 seconds long, with the formation appearing in about 18 seconds and fully forming in 7 seconds.

Several accusations regarding the video's authenticity are addressed:

• Camera Centering: Accusation that the camera remains central, allowing the formation to appear suspiciously centered. Explanation: The camera might have been focused on the initial lights, and tracking a moving object on full zoom is difficult.
• Lack of Wobble: Accusation that the image is too stable for a hand-held camera. Explanation: Modern cameras have anti-shake facilities, and the amount of shake present is argued by some to be difficult to fake.
• Soundtrack: Accusation that Wheyleigh doesn't sound excited enough. Explanation: People react differently, and the bootleg copies lack sound. The original audio reportedly includes muttering and breathing.
• Shadows and Light: Accusation that the shadows and light on the field are incorrect for the time of day. Explanation: The formation was confirmed to exist by midday, so the video could have been filmed then.

The Video's Dissemination and Wheyleigh's Disappearance

The video first came to public attention when Wheyleigh contacted friends, including Lee Winterston and Peter Sorenson. Colin Andrews was also contacted and met Wheyleigh, receiving a copy of the tape and a contract granting him permission to use it. Wheyleigh's subsequent disappearance and incommunicado status have fueled suspicion.

Conflicting accounts emerge regarding the video shown to researchers. Some, like Winterston and Sorenson, believe it showed the formation appearing. Others, like Nick Nicholson and Michael Hubbard, claim the video they saw did not show the formation appearing, or that the lights were seen from a different angle, with no formation visible. This has led to speculation about the existence of two different videos.

Investigations and Accusations

Colin Andrews, suspecting a hoax, conducted private investigations into Wheyleigh's background, including checking with Nottingham Trent University, where no record of a 'John Wheyleigh' was found. He also hired a private detective agency, which reportedly led to a dead end regarding a person named John Wabe.

Accusations of Wheyleigh being part of a wider hoax attempt to discredit crop circle research are discussed, particularly by Andrews and Sorenson. The article counters these by noting Wheyleigh's apparent distress and the difficulty of faking such a sequence within the given timeframe.

Technical and Scientific Opinions

Experts from Jim Henson workshops, who have produced special effects for Hollywood movies, stated that if the video is fake, it would require sophisticated equipment, money, and time. They were impressed by its authentic feel. However, some, like Lee Winterston and John Huckvale, have raised concerns about 'double field intensity' and 'single field intensity,' suggesting potential digital manipulation. A Brighton video editing company cautioned that analyzing copies might not be reliable, and only the original master tape could provide accurate scientific analysis.

Scenarios and The Formation

Two scenarios are presented if the video is a fake:

1. Fabrication within hours: If Wheyleigh filmed the empty field and then faked the formation and lights, he would have had a very limited time (around 6-7 hours) to create the elaborate sequence, which experts deem highly improbable.
2. Hoaxer creates pattern: If the pattern was created by hoaxers to match the video, it would require extreme precision to align with the topography and camera angle.

The Olivers Castle snowflake formation is noted for its similarity to a 1993 formation at Etchilhampton and its symbolism, described as representing multidimensional reality. The formation was approximately 390' across and appeared in wheat.

Counter-Arguments and General Conclusions

The article refutes claims that the formation was a "complete disaster" or "messy," citing observations from those who visited it, including Michael Glickman and Patricia Murray, who found the lay impressive. It also addresses the accusation that the floor lay was messy, suggesting that the 'messy' outer circles might indicate a natural process rather than a hoax.

George Wingfield suggests that Rob Irving, Rod Dickinson, and John Lundberg might be involved in both the formation and the video hoax, linking them to the 'alien autopsy' video. However, the article states there is no conclusive evidence of human hoaxing.

Andy Thomas concludes that much paranoia surrounds the video. He criticizes the immediate assumption of a hoax, suggesting it reflects a negative mindset within the crop circle community. While acknowledging the murkiness surrounding Wheyleigh's identity and whereabouts is a cause for concern, he argues it doesn't automatically prove the video is fake. He notes that no convincing evidence of fakery has been presented, and that Wheyleigh's disappearance could be due to fear or a desire for privacy.

The article considers the possibility that the video is genuine, representing a significant advancement in crop circle research and a sign of the phenomenon becoming more accessible to observation. It suggests that a negative reaction to the video might betray a lack of readiness for such revelations. The author also contemplates the future, predicting an increase in hoaxed videos and the possibility of more witnesses and multiple videos of formations appearing.

Ultimately, the article acknowledges that the video could be a fraud, but emphasizes that, at the time of writing, no definitive proof exists. It presents the video as a fair articulation of what a non-human creation process might look like, leaving the reader to ponder how the community will react to future genuine events.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the authenticity of UFO/UAP evidence, the nature of crop circle phenomena, the role of researchers and their potential biases, and the challenges of distinguishing between genuine events and hoaxes. The editorial stance, as presented by Andy Thomas, is one of critical investigation, aiming to present all sides of the argument and encourage readers to form their own conclusions, while also expressing a degree of frustration with the immediate skepticism that often greets potentially significant findings in the field.