Category Archives: BOLs

Robbert’s Dodgy BOL video

Screen-Shot-2016-08-12-at-13.52.22-400x162Though we decided early on that the remit of this site would be to primarily cover the UK crop circle scene, we do occasionally feature overseas news and events when they catch our eye and warrant reporting.

Robbert van den Broeke – a name we are sure will be familiar to many of our readers – has produced a video purporting to show a ball of light creating a crop circle in Holland. You can read all about it on the Silent Circle, and view Robbert’s video below. It looks like very dodgy CGI to us, but have a look and see what you reckon.

We find Robbert a fascinating character – one of the most interesting things happening on the crop circle scene at the moment (though not for the same reasons the likes of Nancy Talbot do), and intend to cover his activities in greater detail in the future. In the meantime, this primer article from our friends at Circular State of Mind makes for valuable reading.


2001 documentary by Bert Janssen and Janet Ossebaard focussing on BOL and orb reports, featuring plenty of footage and eyewitness accounts, and interviews with Charles Mallett, Donald Fletcher, Robbert van den Broeke, Eltjo Haselhoff, Kerry Blower, Stuart Dike, Simeon Hein, amongst others.

BOL over Westbury

An interesting piece of footage of a BOL filmed from a drone by Westbury white horse in September 2015 (i.e. outside of crop circle season). We don’t know what to make of this one; CGI? A bird? Something else? It is certainly in keeping with other pieces of BOL footage filmed in and around crop circles over the years.

News Round-Up

Herewith a round-up of some of the cerealogical news that has come our way in the last month or so.

It would seem that Swirled News has closed shop for the foreseeable future; their latest update (1st February 2008) reads in part “Due to work, life and all sorts of other amazing and concerning things in the world that need attention, Swirled News isn’t currently active as a news service. However, it is a very valuable source of archive information.” We hope that doesn’t mean that the SCR team – and in particular Andy Thomas – have retired from crop circle research. We’ve always enjoyed their contributions and think cerealogy will be a poorer place without them. If it’s time for them to move on to other things, of course, then we wish them well in their future endeavours.

Things are looking up for Colin Andrews, though, with the apparent forthcoming release of the Circular Evidence “widescreen movie”.  You can view what is described as a ‘promo trailer’ here, though it looks more like a pre-production reel to us, and the film’s official website appears to still be seeking investors. We look forward to seeing the finished film, if indeed there ever is a finished film.

The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network have revamped and relaunched their site. We have a certain respect for these guys; they just get on with their research and, in general, don’t bang on about it. Which makes a change.

Bert Janssen has also launched a new website, called Crop Circles and More, described as “a quantum leap forward in crop circle research. CCaM adds new dimensions to the mysterious crop cirlce [sic.] phenomenon. It opens the doorway to the ‘bigger picture’ of crop circles by displaying the interconnectiveness of space (location, shape, geometry) and time (years and dates) of crop circles and much, much more. This website will in the end bring us much closer to, or possibly give us, the final answer to the crop circle mystery. Every one of you is needed to find this answer.” What doesn’t get mentioned in this blurb, however, is that being part of “this answer” will cost you 30 euros a year. Which doesn’t mean that in effect Janssen is asking you to pay for the privilege of doing his research for him, of course; that’s just being cynical.

While we’re on the subject of Bert Janssen, in our net-rovings we recently came across a report from 2001 of him and (then partner) Janet Ossebaard, amongst others, scaling Silbury Hill and climbing down the hole caused by the then-recent collapse to examine the interior (read about it here). This may be old news but we’ve never seen it before and have to say we agree entirely with the writers of that article and consider it a very stupid thing to have done. So what do they find? Secret chambers (which had already been examined and catalgued by archaeologists), apparently significant measurements and compass bearings (though exactly why these are significant isn’t explained) and the inevitable photographs of orbs (though considering the combination of dust, damp, poor lighting conditions and flash photography, we’d be far more surprised if they didn’t get orbs on their photos). It’s also possible that their entry into the hill caused the second, much larger collapse. Yes, we know this was a while ago but it was a terrible and irresponsible thing to have done and they should be thoroughly ashamed. Outside of its archaeological significance Silbury Hill is a site of great awe and beauty and should be left well alone. Never mind Matthew Williams and his crop circle prosecution; why weren’t these imbeciles also prosecuted for criminal damage?

Hold On A Minute # 2

An occasional feature in which we present some of our favourite ‘You what, mate?’ cerealogical moments.

Let’s Play Master & Servant

We spotted an article from Share International magazine (volume 22, number 9, November 2003) pinned to the wall in the Barge Inn. The article was titled ‘Crop Circles: A Unique View’, with accompanying photos of formations from Adam’s Grave, Wilts (4th August 2003), Litchfield, Hants (4th July 2003), Beckhampton, Wilts (10th August 2003), and Avebury Trusloe, Wilts (13th July 2003). The caption at the end of the article read:

“All photographs show formations authenticated by Benjamin Creme’s Master as being created by Martian spacecraft, except the ‘Swallows’ formation [Adam’s Grave, 4th August] which was made by a Venusian spacecraft.”

Crop circle research is, sadly, riddled with nonsense like this. Where do we start?

“Authenticated”? Authenticated how? For more than 25 years croppies have been arguing about a method of quantifying ‘genuine’ from ‘hoax’, if indeed there is a difference. What method was used here, and how do we know it was any more credible than anybody else’s?

“Benjamin Creme’s Master”? Who is Benjamin Creme? Who is his Master? Indeed, why does Mr Creme even have a Master? Is he an S&M practitioner? Is he a dog?

“Created by”? Created how? See “authenticated” comments above.

“Martian spacecraft”? “Venusian spacecraft”? In the face of abundant astronomical evidence that there are no advanced lifeforms – let alone ones capable of producing “spacecraft” – on either of those planets, please provide any and all evidence. I’m sure NASA would love to hear it. We’d love to hear it, too.

Lucy Rocks

“Many people mistakenly believe that crop circles are a recent phenomenon. Yet ancient images carved into stone reveal evidence of them dating back to AD800.”

Hold on… The ‘ancient images’ referred to here show rings and circles. They don’t show crop circles. There’s a fundamental difference. Are we the only people who can see that?

Mind you,the book from which the above quote was taken (Crop Circles by Lucy Pringle, published by Pitkin in 2004) – indeed, the same page from which this quote was taken (page 2) – also states that the Mowing Devil dates from 1687 (at first we thought this was a typo,though Pringle makes the same mistake on page xii of her 1999 book Crop Circles: The Greatest Mystery of Modern Times) and that ‘often on the nights that crop circles appear, strange lights are seen hovering over the field’ (no they aren’t; very occasionally they might be, but ‘often’? Nope) and that ‘In the Yemen in 2002, a formation was found in sand “which the wind could not blow away”‘. No sources are given for the Yemen case, but ‘that the wind could not blow away’ is, we suspect, hyperbole (and sounds an awful lot like ‘the owner has not power to spirit them away’ from the Mowing Devil account).

The notion that crop circle designs were echoed in ancient rock carvings is one that was much-explored by Michael Green amongst others in the 1990s (see The Crop Circle Enigma and Crop Circles: Harbingers Of World Change, together with numerous articles in The Circular and The Cerealogist). We’d merely add that rings and circles on rocks are just that; rings and circles on rocks. Their carvers were likely inspired by geometry and mathematics and shape and not by patterns that appeared in fields. It’s possible, of course, but – in the face of no, ahem, concrete evidence – unlikely.

Indian Summer

In 1996 Colin Andrews excitedly reported that he had details of 2,000 (yes, two thousand) formations that had been reported in India over the years. Full details were promised shortly, though the few line drawings that were presented were most pleasing. Ahem, twelve years on, Colin, are you any closer to getting the information out?

2006 Season Update

The rape in the UK is now in bloom, but if you want to see 2006 crop circles you need to go to Australia, where a grass formation appeared in March in Conondale. We doubt it’ll be long before the first UK reports come in, however.

In other non-UK news, Andreas Muller writes about a number of circles that have allegedly appeared in Africa here. Shame there aren’t photographs to support any of it.

  Rape field, Weedon, Buckinghamshire, May 2006.  Shame there isn’t a circle in it.  Note the very prominent BOL hovering above the field. Photograph by Darren Francis.

Hold On A Minute

An occasional feature in which we showcase some of our favourite “you what, mate?” cerealogical moments.

Ed Sherwood’s BOLs

Ed Sherwood claims to have seen ‘approximately one hundred’ balls of light, and to see “‘etheric light forms’… almost daily” (The Cereologist 35, pgs 10 and 12). How could this be? Here are some non-exclusive and non-all-encompassing possibilities: i) Ed is, serendipitously, always in the areas where lights appear; ii) (corollary of i) Ed has a symbiotic relationship with the lights, whereby they frequently appear to him (which is implied in the article from which the quotes above are taken); iii) There are lights around us all the time, but few people other than Ed notice them; iv) Ed mistakes many other things for lights. Which is it? Ed, pray tell us!

Michael Glickman & Matthew Williams

Matthew Williams offered to take Michael Glickman out into a field one night and show him a formation being made. Yes, we know the degree of animosity between these two. Yes, we know of the black and insidious correspondence; how could Mr Glickman let us forget it? But we’re surprised Glickers turned down the offer. That he couldn’t put the antagonism aside, if only to see first-hand an aspect of the circles that we doubt he knows much about. He could even have used it as an opportunity to shop Williams to the police again. Here’s how; Michael, take up the offer. Take a mobile phone with you. When you’re in the field, and whilst Matt is busy measuring up angles and flattening crop, send a text message to a friend, telling them where you are and asking them to summon the local constabulary. Voila!

The First Pentagram

Pretty much every source we read cites the Bythorn, Cambridgeshire, September 1993 formation as the first pentagram design. There’s a lot of controversy about this formation, with claims it was made by Julian Richardson, counterclaims that the techniques he says he used wouldn’t have worked, but this isn’t the place to go into that aspect of the story. Much of this formation’s alleged importance, in the history of crop circles, lies in the fact that not only was it the first formation to feature a central design bounded by a circle, it was also the first formation to feature a pentagram.

132477_137250659668277_4980914_oHold on a minute… What about the August 1992 Cranford St Andrew formation (pictured), featured on the cover (and on page 211) of John Macnish’s Crop Circle Apocalypse book? This c.500′ formation features a pentagram within a ring, with rings overlapping the pentagram, and a much wider outer ring, with various circular components placed between inner and outer ring. So why has it been ignored? Because it’s known to have been man-made (see Macnish’s book, referenced above, for the details). Yet does it not chuck a spanner in the works of more than a few ‘evolution of crop circles’ theories? We suspect so.

Michael Hesseman & The Din-Gir

Michael Hesseman loved the July 1992 East Meon pictogram, describing it as “the most beautiful pictogram of the year… it not only shows two connected spheres, but also a symbol which resembles the Sumerian cuneiform script sign ‘Din-Gir’… [which] means ‘the fiery chariot of the gods’.” The only snag – that said pictogram was made by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley – didn’t seem to make much difference. “Doug and Dave claimed – without proof – to have drawn the ‘Din-Gir’ at East Meon – but where did the precise knowledge about the planet Nibiru come from, depicted correctly at East Meon with three moons and the remainder of the fourth moon which collided with Tiamat? Where did the depiction of the heavenly ship come from, with the Sumerian Din-Gir symbol? I asked Bower whether he had read any Zecharia Sitchin books. Answer: No.” (The Cosmic Connection, Michael Hesseman, pg 152).

Hold on, Michael… We’ll leave your (in our minds dubious) interpretation of this formation’s symbolism aside for now, but… ‘without proof’? They were filmed making it! The farmer consented! In John Macnish’s Crop Circle Apocalypse (which you’re probably familiar with, since you cite various Macnish videos in your book), there’s a lengthy write-up – with photographs – of the construction! Or is it that you’re prepared to ignore / disbelieve all this because it doesn’t fit into your pet theory of what the circles are and where they’re from?

The Dead Airman

First noted in Circular Evidence by Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado, and regurgitated without thought by other authors since then (“it’s appeared in other crop circle books, so we’ll stick it in ours too, since it must be true”), the gist of this story is that on Thursday 22nd October 1987, a military pilot took off from an airbase in Surrey for a routine test flight over Salisbury Plain. Somewhere over the Salisbury / Winterbourne Stoke area, where a crop circle had appeared two months previously, contact with the pilot was lost. The plane eventually ditched, pilotless, into the Atlantic, and the pilot’s body was recovered close to the treacherous Winterbourne Stoke circles field. To quote from Circular Evidence: “The following are the known facts. Four circular areas of flattened corn appeared in this field on Friday, 21st August 1987; most of our evidence tends to indicate a mysterious aerial component is responsible. On Thursday, 22 October… a Harrier jump jet mysteriously loses its pilot over the same spot… With the Ministry of Defence, we are left to ponder two inexplicable events over the same field within weeks. Their evidence lies below the Atlantic Ocean, ours is pressed firmly into the field concerned.”

Yeah, right. Mr Andrews, Mr Delgado, allow us to retort. We laugh in the face of your “known facts”. Firstly, we doubt the Ministry of Defence gave two hoots about a few circles in a wheat field when carrying out their investigation into this unfortunate and tragic event. Secondly, is there any evidence whatsoever – and let us repeat that for the sake of effect, is there any evidence whatsoever – that the two events, separated by two months and not ‘within weeks’ as you claim, were in any way connected? Do you have proof that the event occurred directly above the field concerned? And even if it did, how many other planes do you think flew in the vicinity in the same period? It’s a military training area. And thirdly, if we follow your line of thought to its obvious conclusion, one would expect planes to be falling like rain, considering the amount of crop circles there are all over the place. And does this happen? No.