Category Archives: Matthew Williams

“Farmers Tell Of Stress And Anguish Over Unwanted Crop Circle”

As a counter to our last post, here’s an article from Farmer’s Weekly wherein the farmers of the field hosting the 4 August Hannington circle express their distress at its arrival. How much this contradicts their stance in the BBC article is open to the reader to judge. Article here, screens below.

As usual Matthew Williams couldn’t resist wading in to the comments section, and his post has likely done more damage than good in our estimation. In the current climate, and in an effort to save as many circles as possible from the blades of the combine, such comments should be kept to oneself.

CircleSpeak

Along with Croppies, perhaps our favourite circles documentary. Its subtitle, “A Journey Into The Heart Of Crop Circle Country”, says it all. Featuring one of the biggest cast lists of any circles doc, including Steve Alexander, Charles Mallett, Michael Glickman, Colin Andrews, Matthew Williams, Lucy Pringle, Terence Meaden, Pat Delgado, Busty Taylor, Peter Sorensen, Doug Bower, John Lundberg, George Wingfield, Francine Blake, Karen Alexander, Freddy Silva, Andy Thomas, William Levengood, Ed Sherwood, Kris Sherwood, Ron Russell, Simeon Hein, Suzanne Taylor, Polly Carson, Tim Carson, Isabelle Kingston, John Wabe, Dan Darby, Geoff Stray, amongst others. Recommended viewing.

Staggering Hypocrisy # 4 [mc]

It’s not often that RACCF and Whack-A-Mole Williams and I agree on something, but it does happen. Clandestine Esoterical [sic.] Mysterious Universe and their practices are indeed preposterous, and pointless. What next? Circle makers engaging agents to negotiate rights to view their circles?

RACCF 8 Jul 16

So where does the “stagggering hypocrisy” come in? Because being informed about new circles by their maker, being first to photograph them and keen to be exclusive announcer of their presence, is exactly what RACCF and Williams and their Crop Circle Connector chums do. Don’t you like it when someone else plays your own game and cuts you out of the chain, guys?

Miles Challett

Staggering Hypocrisy # 3 [mc]

Ah, Matthew Williams, the “gift” that keeps on giving… In my last post, I highlighted Williams’ criticism of the Clandestine Esoterical Mysterious Universe page, and his accusation of their making then self-promoting circles, and in the process killing any mystery. Within days, on 24 June, that piece-of-crap shark crop circle appeared at Hackpen Hill. An article appeared on The Plymouth Herald website the very same day, featuring an interview with Williams in which he celebrated the circle as circle maker support for the EU exit.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/crop-circle-celebrating-eu-referendum-result-discovered-in-wheat-field/story-29439401-detail/story.htmlshark 1

shark 2

shark 3

shark 4

shark 6

I hate crop circles like this. Clearly a joke, proclaiming their “look at us, aren’t we clever!” hoaxer nature, taking the piss not just out of themselves but the poor farmer whose field it happens to be,too. Unsurprisingly, Williams loves it.

The interview with Williams, although short, is so stuffed full of crap it’d need an industrial-strength laxative to clear it out.

“…a massive crop circle.” – No it isn’t. Judging by the tramlines, it’s barely 150′ if that.

“Local Matthew Williams, 45, was stunned when he discovered the cheeky circle while out flying his drone.” – No, he didn’t. The people who made it told him it was there.

“It clearly shows proud British fish swimming free despite being circled by EU sharks.” – No it doesn’t. It clearly shows two sharks, around a Celtic trinity symbol. Who says the centre motif represents fish? Nothing “clearly” about it at all. For all you know, it could “clearly” show sharks circling followers of Celtic faiths or Wiccans (who use said symbol for spiritual reasons). My personal theory is that shows a sharknado, with the trinity symbol representing the eye of the storm. Or is it “clearly” because that’s what your mates told you after they made it?

“The three fish in the middle represent Britain, staying strong and representing the terrifying Eurocrat sharks” – Do they now? Besides, see above – it isn’t even clear that the centre motif represents fish, let alone symbolises Britain. And let’s say it does symbolise Britain – what has that got to do with fish? Fish are not a thing synonymous with Britain, therefore the symbolism is far from clear. And “terrifying Eurocrat sharks”? Matt, have you been reading the Daily Mail again?

[Addendum: Since first posting this article, it has been pointed out to me that the triquetra is both a Celtic symbol and early Christian one, and can thus be seen as representing Celtic Christianity. In this context, the triquetra can also be seen to symbolise fish. My thanks to Nurit Nardi].

[Addendum #2: I’ve also since heard, via a source who knows the maker of this circle, that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the EU referrendum and that MW has merely added this interpretation himself]

Williams has used circle forums to promote his support of the EU exit, and the political party UKIP, previously, but this time round he doesn’t just take the biscuit, he scoffs the whole packet and leaves the wrapper behind for everybody else to see. Here’s a screenshot from when he was helping UKIP in local elections, in April 2015:

mw ukip

Williams’ support for UKIP was praised by Mike Davies, who as some of you may know is the former husband of Sue Davies. Sue is a close associate of Andrew Pyrka and Report A Crop Circle Formation, and “totally not co-admin of Crop Circles The People The Mystery The Truth”.

MD racist

Mike and Sue, when they were still a couple, are known to have been members of the BNP. I’ve highlighted racism and xenophobia in the crop circle community in previous posts, especially with regard to the despicable persecution of Monique Klinkenbergh. Please see in particular my post ET Go Home.

nasty

raccf-racism

Keith Walkin, barely-literate-and-ignorant-views-for-hire extraordinaire, who some of you will know from the many Facebook crop circle pages he frequents, can’t resist joining in either, in his fondness for both Sue Davies and for her foul views.

10308240_716168051755403_4474016313474049460_n

10322833_716111665094375_2257568217427797145_n

Sue was of course also at one point shacked up with Roger Wibberley, who once referred to posters on Report A Crop Circle Exposed as “the lower breeds”. Roger has strenuously denied this, but his words were captured by Crop Circles Anonymous as can be seen here.

13595719_10209915355304378_1811578926_n

Jeez, this crop circle stuff can be nasty at times. I feel like I need to go and take a shower after writing that lot.

Miles Challett

Countryfile – Crop Circle Special 1998

new_yell1998 BBC documentary interviewing Doug Bower, featuring a potted history of the subject, and two commissioned circles, one made by Bower and the other by the circlemakers.org team. Also incudes interviews with Terence Meaden, Michael Glickman, Francine Blake, John Lundberg, Matthew Williams, Rod Dickinson, and others. See also this article on the circlemakers.org website for more information on their formation (image right).

Whack! Pop! Whack! [MC]

In my last post I likened dealing with Matthew Williams to playing whack-a-mole. No sooner has one dealt with one thing than the numpty springs up again somewhere else. Whack! Pop! Whack! Just after posting, the following article appeared on Yahoo.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/can-you-see-something-wrong-with-these-crop-115137141.html

yahoo matt crap

yahoo matt crap 2

yahoo matt crap 3

yahoo matt crap 4

Sigh. Is it even worth countering all this cobblers? Sometimes I really don’t have the enthusiasm, but I do think it important, if only for the historical record, that an alternative perspective is available. That is one of the purposes of this blog.

As I’ve mentioned before, a key element of Williams’ criticism of circles is his not knowing who made them or where they came from. There’s nothing wrong with these particular circles. They’re fine, and all par-for-the-course. The Silbury Hill and first Mere ones are rather lovely, and I also have quite a fondness for the East Field singleton.

Since Williams is so quick to criticise other people’s work, I think it worth taking another look at the calibre of circles he is capable of, from his nineties oeuvre (photos by Steve Alexander except where indicated; Bishops Cannings ‘grey head’ photo by Peter Sorensen).

1999-june-19-silbury-steve_alexander

1999july17silburyhill

1994-july-23-steve_alexander

1999-july-31-avebury-janet_ossebaard

1999april30woodboroughhill

1999june12allcannings

1999july21bishopscannings

2013-01-11_20-53-46_-_ulrich_koxQuite a difference in quality. Notice that I didn’t include the famed Bishops Cannings “Basket” of 1999 (photo by Ulrich Cox). Williams’ claim to it is baloney. Sure, he may have been there, helping out, but that’s a long way from it being his circle to claim. A look at the aerials should easily demonstrate this. It’s in a whole other league compared to what we know he can muster.

Also of note in this article is the sentence “Despite having made circles himself for about 20 years, he’s steered clear of making them ever since he became the first person successfully prosecuted for the offence”, the two parts of which flatly contradict each other. Williams’ first claimed circle was in 1991. “About 20 years” takes us to 2011. Williams’ prosecution was in 2000. It’s been said before that his claim to have ceased circle making following his prosecution is a lie (it is), and this would seem oblique confirmation.

Whack! Pop! Whack! I doubt it’ll be long before the chump is back for more.

Miles Challett

Staggering Hypocrisy [mc]

One would think that after the smacking he receives every season (literally so last year) Matt Williams would have gotten the point by now, but every spring the guy pops back up like a whack-a-mole. Making the same arguments which have been proven to be bullshit, and utterly oblivious to the fact that much of the croppie scene considers him a bollocks-talking troublemaker who has brought nothing but destruction to a subject they hold dear.

He seems to have moved away from talk of any Wiltshire boycotts this time round – perhaps even he’s having difficulty putting a pro-Matt spin on the fact that every single UK circle so far this year has been in Wilts. He’s also shut up about Monique Klinkenbergh and the “circles being cut is all her fault” lie he’s been spouting for the last three years, having finally admitted late last season and by-the-by that it wasn’t true. Is he going to apologise to Monique? No. Why? Because – in his words – “she’s a cunt”.

So what’s got him in a lather now? Circles he considers wonky. Same old. Matt, no one cares. What’s more, you don’t care either.

wonk-7-june-16

wonk-18-jun-16

Why do I say that? Because, Matt, if you really cared, you’d have posted a similar YouTube video and RACCF criticism regarding that piece-of-crap bird circle from last July, instead of heaping praise upon it as you did (see my post Flippin’ The Bird). These circles get ripped apart for alleged imprecision, whereas your mates can bang out any old shite and get patted on the back for it. It’s got nothing to do with wonky circles. It’s because these two 2016 circles weren’t reported to you. Because you don’t know who made them. Because you imagine them the work of people you’ve fallen out with. Because, Matt, as ever you’re more transparent than a window.

Even the Connector can’t help themselves this time round, as exhibited by their latest and breathtakingly hypocritical post:

june16-2016-fake1

I’m guessing the ‘RC’ initial here is Red Collie. It’d be too much to expect the Connector admins to actually put something together themselves instead of merely posting things other people send them. Collie, you do know that most of the other circles which the Connector gets the exclusive on are made by Matt’s mates and reported directly to him so he can photograph them, don’t you?

Miles Challett

…Must Be Funny [MC]

Money, money, money. Regular readers of RACCF, CCPMT and their ilk will know the stance these pages take on this aspect of the crop circle subject, though it’s less a stance and more an obsession. To them, croppiedom is brimming with sinister shysters who are only in it for the dosh, who will lie and distort to fleece you of every penny. Steve Alexander, flying and photographing circles, producing photo-books and running conferences? He’s only doing it to make money. Monique Klinkenbergh and her Crop Circle Access scheme? Your Wallet Access scheme, more like. Charles Mallett and Silent Circle? He’s just after your hard-earned, too. Circlemakers.org? The greatest sinners of all; they make crop circles for profit!

MoneyCropCircle

Part of the problem here is that RAPMT (as I will now collectively call them) cannot comprehend that others view the subject differently to them, and find it difficult to understand why people would want anything to do with it if there wasn’t a profit motive. Therefore it can only be the case that these people are hiding the truth from you in order to rob you blind. This says a lot more about RAPMT than it does about those it criticises. Whether it was RAPMT’s intention to profit from the subject themselves at one point or another in the past is also worth bearing in mind, though not the subject of this article.

Let’s look at this calmly, taking each of the criticised individuals named above in turn.

Steve Alexander does what he does because he loves crop circles and wants to document them. He has a passion for the subject, and wants to share that passion with others. Why does he use helicopters and not drones or microlights? Because the quality of the images acquired is far superior to images obtained using the latter. He’s a very skilled photographer who knows what he’s doing. And with all respect to the drone flyers (or droners, as I sometimes like to call them), Steve’s photos are far better than yours. Do the yearbooks and conferences make money? Perhaps a little, once all the costs are taken into account, not to mention the expenditure of time, but I’d imagine any profit goes into funding helicopter hire, which is far from cheap.

Regular readers of my posts will know that Monique Klinkenbergh has been criticised in some quarters since the very inception of her Crop Circle Access Pass scheme, which has degenerated to the level of bullying and harassment on the part of CCPMT. So why does she do it? Monique’s intentions are right, in my opinion. The situation in Wiltshire was a dire mess, with angry farmers cutting circles as soon as they appeared or were reported. Monique was not the reason circles were being cut. I’ve also covered this before. But to RAPMT, it’s always somebody else’s fault. Blame Monique. Blame Steve Alexander. Blame Team K Hole. Blame Charles Mallett. No. Blame yourself. Take some responsibility for once.

I applaud Monique’s efforts at building bridges with farmers. The Access Scheme, however, is unworkable in practice and doomed to fail in my opinion. Is she doing it for the money? No, she’s doing it because the situation in Wiltshire is in dire straits and somebody needs to save it. Does she make any money? I’d expect that once you take out her time and expenses any profit is non-existent. In fact I’d be very surprised if the access scheme hasn’t cost her far more personally than she’s made or is likely to make.

Charles Mallett and Silent Circle? Money-making scam? In what universe has that ever been remotely true? With apologies to Mr Mallett, let’s look at the Silent Circle’s history. Those of us who’ve been on the scene a long time remember when the Silent Circle began as a cafe along the side of the A4. We remember its constant closing, reopening, relocating from venue to venue. How could it ever be a profitable venture? Its target clientèle are only around for a few months of the year, and there aren’t exactly a great deal of them. It always functioned more as an information service and ‘drop-in centre’ anyway. Does anybody honestly imagine selling cups of tea and slices of cake and the occasional book or postcard could be a profit-making business? Try taking that one on Dragon’s Den; you’d be laughed out of the building. And each year Silent Circle got smaller, from dedicated venue to pub room to Yatesbury Village Hall to Barge Inn portacabin to Yatesbury Airfield. It wouldn’t surprise me if this year Charles is running it out of a deckchair in his front garden. So why do it? Because Charles is fascinated with crop circles. An information centre showing locations and images of the season’s circles is something Wiltshire has had for two decades, and a good thing for visitors, not all of whom check the internet every five minutes for the latest circular arrivals. Silent Circle and Monique, along with the Henge Shop in Avebury, are the only people currently providing this. Note also that Charles is often very critical of UK crop circles, especially those in Wiltshire, dismissing them as man-made. He’d hardly say that if he was trying to make money from the gullible, would he?

Circlemakers.org? These guys have been making circles commercially since the 1990s. And what of it? Anybody could have done what they’ve done. Anybody can present themselves as a commercial circle maker for hire. If you have the skill. That’s the thing. These gentlemen have formidable circle making ability. It’s too easy to sit on the sidelines grumbling, rather like musicians whose band never got anywhere while a similarly styled outfit had great success. If you can do it, do it. If you can’t, shut up.

Having written all that, I can’t help but feel a resounding “so what?”

Two reasons – first off, if someone makes a profit from the subject, good luck to them. There are many others who have done so, past and present, who I notice are not the subject of RAPMT’s ire. Colin Andrews, for example, oft boasts of how many copies Circular Evidence sold, which no doubt netted him a decent sum. The Crop Circle Connector charge a fee to access their archives, sell DVDs, and are one of the most advert-heavy websites I’ve ever visited. That’s how things go. Some farmers have profited from circles on their land, too, and nobody has a quibble with that. I especially applaud those farmers who donate profits recieved from circles visitors to charitable causes.

Second reason – this is crop circles we’re talking about. A rather minor interest subject, with far fewer dedicated followers than most and certainly compared to 20 or 25 years ago. There simply isn’t a large enough audience there for somebody to make stacks of wonga.

“The circle makers aren’t making any money”, Matt Williams has previously carped (with the exception of the .org chaps, of course). Well why the hell should they? What they do is illegal. They choose to do it, for their own reasons, and once they leave the field at the end of a night’s work that circle doesn’t belong to them any more. It’s out in the world, for all to see and visit and do as they wish with and have their own opinions on. “It’s yours because it’s free”, the Diggers famously said. And that is how it should be with crop circles.

So there you go. Money doesn’t come in to it, except in the case of a handful of individuals who are obsessed with the subject. More to the point, are disgruntled that they never made any. Whether they lacked the ideas, or the nous, or the skills, it never happened. And that makes them bitter. They see profit everywhere. Especially where there isn’t any.

Miles Challett

Crop Circles: The Pillocks, The Muppetry, The Tosh [MC]

I’ve been meaning to put up a post covering last season’s events on the bafflingly-named Crop Circles: The People, The Mystery, The Truth page for a while, but other things have intervened. Why ‘bafflingly-named’? By “people”, they mean “the half-a-dozen people we don’t like”. I don’t know what “mystery” has to do with anything, since the page admins seem to have convinced themselves they know the minutiae of everything circles-related, so by that definition there cannot be any “mystery”. By truth, they mean “ill-informed personal opinions, bigotry, re-posts from RACCF and whatever Matt Williams has pulled out from between his butt-cheeks this week”. Let’s have a look at what they have to say.

ccpmt mw pics jun 19 15

I’m not sure why CCPMT are so happy that Matt Williams has announced that all photographs marked Copyright Crop Circle Connector these days are taken by him, since it has severed the last threadbare strand of credibility the Connector still had as a cereological research body. Matt knows this, and seems content to let his friends fall on their sword – why else would the images be captioned with Connector copyright if not to obscure the fact that Matt took them and therefore knew about the circles before anybody else did?

Oddly, Matt has stated in the past that his images are free for anybody to use, so how can there be “large scale photo theft” taking place? He didn’t specify “they’re free to use, unless your name is x, y, or z”. The “Alexander… Database website” referred to here is www.cropcirclesdatabase.com, and despite RACCF/CCPMT’s allegations, I have yet to see any evidence that this site is run by Steve Alexander. Neither have RACCF/CCPMT, but they prefer to let their prejudice against Alexander make up their minds for them. Williams also seems confused as to exactly what “image theft” entails – all photos on said Database site are credited, with a URL to the site of their origin. Reproducing them without permission constitutes a breach of copyright, but is hardly “image theft”.

Personally, I consider the Crop Circles Database site an excellent and valuable research resource, whatever its legality or otherwise. Their images are taken not just from the Connector but from a number of other websites, including Steve Alexander’s Temporary Temples. Of all these websites, the Crop Circle Connector is the only one that charges a fee to access their archive.

While we’re on the subject of the Crop Circle Connector, what do Messrs Gibsone, Fussell, and Dike do, exactly, other than administer the page? They don’t take the photographs, they don’t draw the diagrams, they don’t write any of the reports or commentaries. All of this is given to them gratis by others, then disappears into the vaults and can only be viewed if you pay. Why do RACCF/CCPMT have no problem with this, when they are so vehemently critical of anybody else charging money for any aspect of the crop circle subject? Extraordinary, and extraordinarily hypocritical.

ccpmt solstice circles jun 24 15

The majority of CCPMT’s posts are regurgitations from RACCF, despite their claim that the pages have no affiliation whatsoever (a claim that is utter hogwash, as anybody who studies both pages closely can easily deduce). This example is pitiful, and shows how slight is their grasp of the crop circle subject.Sure, circle 2 pictured here is a bit of a cock-up and looks incomplete. Circle 1 is fine if a little askew (many formations, including those acclaimed by RACCF on account of being made by their mates, are askew to one degree or another). Circle 3 is one of the finest of the 2015 season and a very long way from being “an absolute mess” (see my June 27 2015 post A Rose By Any Other Name for a more detailed look at this formation). Every week, month, year, the quality of crop circles varies. Your point is what, exactly? “Created by a bunch of amateurs”? Every circle maker, including your fabled “master”, is amateur. The only individuals who could be considered professional circlemakers are the .org guys, who you despise for reasons I’ve yet to fully fathom.

ccpmt steve a jul 21 2015

I’ve previously written an entire post addressing the allegation of Steve Alexander commissioning circles. Nothing has been “proved.. before”. No, “Stevie hasn’t been a naughty boy”. “Yet again hes [sic.] been caught out”? What were the other times, pray tell? Williams is not “100% correct”. He is “100% making it up”.

ccpmt avebury business jun 26 2015

Not content to accuse Steve Alexander of commissioning circles – which is Bollocks with a capital B – it appears that other “business’s [sic.] in the Avebury area” are also now colluding in illegal activity for profit! If this is the case, CCPMT, your duty should surely be to take all the evidence you have gathered to the police. You do have evidence, don’t you? Thought not. You also have no proof whatsoever, despite “good suspicion” (i.e. guesswork), “that the owner of Silent Circle and others in the area and his shady friends are making crop circles to prop up their business’s [sic.]”. It’s a lie. If you have any proof, show it. You can’t, because you made it up. I know the circle pictured above had no connection whatsoever with Silent Circle or any other “business’s” because I know who made it. Do you? No, you don’t. You’re just talking cobblers.

ccpmt gary king 11 aug 15

Of course, everything Matty says about this squalid event is “all very true” and Gary is “a liar” and we should not believe “a word [he is] saying”. Thing is, for the most part their accounts of the event concur. Does that mean they cancel each other out,or connect and explode like matter meeting antimatter? Do tell!

Isn’t it uncanny how everything that was crummy about last year’s otherwise fine and business-as-usual crop circle season is gleefully proclaimed on this page and on RACCF? I do wonder why these people even remain on the croppie scene. They clearly feel no joy at a subject that has enriched and transformed the lives of a great many people.Their smug and bitter jottings exist only to mock. All who do not share their beliefs are considered fair game. Their only pleasure is in the superiority they feel over others. I sincerely wish they would just fuck off into the ether, and leave the rest of us to peacefully enjoy the circles in whichever way we choose to participate, be it researcher, observer, croppie, maker. Because despite everything there is still a great deal of wonder to be found, provided one puts in the effort, knows where to look, and trains one’s senses to shut out the fucktards shouting one down.

Miles Challett