Monthly Archives: June 2015


The Crop Circle Connector have become rather embroiled in controversy of late, thanks to Matthew Williams explicitly stating that all photos that appear on their website marked ‘copyright The Crop Circle Connector’ are taken by him. See Facebook screen captures below.

raccf mw cc photos

This is an edited version of the post; we were unable to get screen captures of it before it was changed. The original was much more explicit in stating that all photographs marked as (c) Crop Circle Connector were taken by Williams. The whole thread has since been deleted. This next post was from some days later, but makes the position clear. Only the first few lines are relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

raccf mw cc photos 2

Unsurprisingly, Charles Mallett has picked up the ball and run from one side of Wiltshire to the other with it:


Nancy Talbot and the BLT research team have also formally and publicly withdrawn their support for the Connector (this screenshot is from Monique Klinkenbergh’s Facebook group and also shows her stance):


How have the Connector themselves reacted? With their usual stock policy whenever courted by criticism, i.e. ignore it and wait for things to quieten down. The same can’t be said of Matthew Williams, however, who responded with ‘so what?’ and ‘no big deal’ RACCF posts, which have since been removed (though see our second screen capture above for a flavour).

The thing is, this story isn’t really news; we’ve known about the Connector’s photography source for some time, and we suspect quite a few of our readers have, too. Though regardless of how many videos and RACCF posts Williams makes, we can’t help but think he has missed the point. This isn’t about him. It’s about the Connector. They’re the ones being criticised, not him. He may say ‘so what’ but we doubt many of the Connector’s regular readers or paying subscribers, many of them far from the fields of Wiltshire and reliant on the Connector for research data, would see it that way.

It’s been said before on this blog, but bears repeating. The Crop Circle Connector has long abdicated their supposed role as crop circle researchers. They’re a PR company for circle makers.

A Rose By Any Other Name [MC]

2015.06.22_19.26.36_-_Steve_AlexanderIf ever confirmation were needed that Matthew Williams is clueless when it comes to analysing crop circles, his comments on the Uffcott solstice circle should seal the deal.

According to a recent YouTube video of his, this circle was “a complete fuck-up” because the standing sections are of differing shapes and sizes. Even a cursory glance at the photos should indicate that this is intentional, a fact borne out by the analysis and untangling of its geometry undertaken since its arrival.

Which leaves us with a frightening question; is Williams being deliberately antagonistic here, or is he really that dumb?

With regard to a different circle (Yatesbury. 24 June 2015) Williams commented “If people can’t make the effort to get it looking right they are just courting scorn.” With that in mind, I well-remember following each season through the mid to late 1990s – as now, each of those seasons had an abundance of very poor quality circles in the fields of Wiltshire. The difference back then being, of course, that Williams made most of them. Here’s a selection.

1999april30woodboroughhill1999july21bishopscannings1999june12allcannings2000july30blackland  Miles Challett

The Boycott That [Still] Never Was [mc]

bull+monique+article+headerChrist on a bike, how many times do we have to banish this demon before it finally stays down?

The Western Daily Press recently ran an article claiming that circle numbers were down to an all-time low due to circle maker protest. Consisting chiefly of an interview with Matthew Williams, it regurgitates all the tired bull debunked in the past. The article has since been removed – I suspect due to Monique Klinkenbergh protesting and the Western Daily Press realising they’d run little more than an opinion piece- but you can read it below. You may need to enlarge the image to read the text, depending on your browser/device, but it’s all there.


Williams has been coming out with this stuff for over a year. There is no boycott. There never was, outside the minds of Williams and his RACCF chums. Circles numbers have been steadily declining for a while, as makers retire and any would-be newcomers no doubt look at the sorry state of the scene at present and think “bugger that for a game of soldiers”. Some have also chosen to work more locally, rather than hammer the same handful of Wiltshire farmers year after year, which can only be a bonus and indeed was how things always were until +/- ten years ago, but neither of these factors amounts to anything approaching a ‘boycott’. Lest you think this is just my opinion, let’s look at what Williams actually says.

“By this time in a year, you would expect there to have been at least 40 formations in the area. But we’ve had just two this year. The circlemakers are angry that someone is trying to cash in on something they do for free and for a laugh.”

If this were the case, a simple look at the number of circles this year compared to previous years should prove it.

Here are the total numbers of circles up to the end of May in the UK since 2005 for comparison (figures courtesy of The Croppie). Total in Wilts is first (since Williams did specify Wilts), followed by totals for the UK:

2015 – 2 (4)

2014 – 1 (4)

2013 – 0 (0)

2012 – 4 (5)

2011 – 8 (11)

2010 – 6 (6)

2009 – 14 (15)

2008 – 4 (5)

2007 – 7 (8)

2006 – 0 (2)

2005 – 2 (9)

As you’ll see, none of these years had anything like 40 circles – it’s barely more than 40 over ten years. Allowing for a general decline in circles numbers since the end of the last decade, and the fact that due to weather conditions and other factors some seasons start later than others, there’s nothing particularly remarkable about these numbers (of minor note is a rising spike from 2007, peaking in 2009 and then declining – anybody with an actual insider knowledge of the Wilts scene will know the reason for this, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of this debate).

What else does Williams have to say?

“The farmers are cutting out circles faster than every [sic] before as well, because they don’t want the hassle of bus-loads of tourists traipsing around their land.” – Williams knows – or at least should know – that the reason farmers are cutting circles is nothing of the sort. What is the reason? I’ll be covering that in a future article.

“It’s a shame, but the whole crop circle industry is dying around here now, thanks to other people’s greed.” – There are many reasons for said decline, but “other people’s greed” isn’t one of them. Aside from Williams and RACCF, nobody cares.It’s become an utter obsession for them.

Following the article’s removal, Williams’ next RACCF post saw him rolling around in his cot screaming and tossing his toys around :-



“100% opinion”? You ain’t wrong there… Note also the ‘just plucked this out of my arse’ last paragraph. There are no such ‘rumours’. He’s trying to scare circlemakers out of making circles, knowing they don’t care about his alleged ‘boycott’, because he doesn’t want there to be any circles.

Face it, guys, there ain’t no boycott. That’s your fantasy, supported only by a couple of your friends. Most circlemakers thinks it’s nonsense, and no amount of threats and circle vandalism will change that.

Miles Challett