The meaning of Crop Circles

1999 05 02, Milk Hill

  Milk Hill, Wiltshire, U.K.

Milk Hill, May 2nd 1999. © Steve Alexander.

Milk Hill, May 2nd 1999. © Steve Alexander.

  

   This rather outstanding design has always intrigued me a lot. I’ve always been associating it with some kind of technical devise or a part of such, but until today, I haven’t seen an object similar to the depiction.

Having communicated with Charles R Mallett about this formation, in which he had a stunning encounter with a yellowish orange light ball, I started to move away from the technical devise assumption. I tried to describe the various elements in a very direct way in order to maybe gain a better understanding. The report of Charles’ encounter can be read at the Norwegian Crop Circle Group website.

The encounter. © picture: Charles R Mallett.

The encounter. © picture: Charles R Mallett.

The best way to begin seemed to me to start with the most eye-catching element, which I consider the disk that has multiple little “nines” attached to it. I would like to think of it as the dominant or essential element. When we look at the lay in this disk, we find it is unusual as it is swirled to the ground like it could refer to many larger circles or spirals. This way, it suggests a continuation on ground level. Therefore, the disk could, in my opinion, literally represent the crop circle phenomenon as such.

The disk with the little nines, diagram and picture.

The disk with the little nines, diagram and picture.

Around the disk we find a collection of fourteen smaller disks. It is as if the little “nines” attached to the central disk relate to the smaller disks as they match in number with the exception of one extra little nine. The extra little nine seems related to another aspect of the formation. The smaller disks vary in size, which probably point to different qualities. About the little nines; it strikes me how they seem similar to the grape shots that can be found in and around the Yarnbury Castle formation of 2010. The only problem is that our nines occur to be grape shots with a pathway that binds them to the central disk.

Yarnbury Castle, 2010 5 16. © Steve Alexander.

Yarnbury Castle, 2010 5 16. © Steve Alexander.

In my Yarnbury Castle study I have come to the conclusion that these grape shots most likely represent “data points” or “observations”. For this Milk Hill formation I propose to use the more universal idea of “observations” as the better explanation so far for these nines. More precise, observations linked to the observed central disk, that might represent the crop circle phenomenon as such.

Jumping from the object of observation (the observed) to the observations, it becomes apparent that the fourteen smaller disks might represent the observers… But wait, as logic as it may sound, I have been given a correction here from inner deep space. The fourteen smaller disks represent lenses instead. Considering each one different in quality, it can tell us how the observations as well will vary from each other and be subjective to the actual object of observation. For some reason, I like to think each lens represents the angle from which each independent crop circle visitor, or student, looks at the phenomenon. However, the constellation presents us a possibility to examine each observation as though we could see through each separate lens.

Left: the 14 lenses. Middle: the 15 observations. Right: the observed phenomenon.

Left: the 14 lenses. Middle: the 15 observations. Right: the observed phenomenon.

Next step in the attempt to crack the mysterious code, is to theorise about the extra “nine” and the relation it seems to have with a very characteristic element in the shape of some kind of bold capital “E”. The “E” of which it is the question it should really be perceived as such, most definitely points to the extra “nine”. Would we want to understand this element as another lens, then, taking its shape in account, we have to admit it doesn’t look like a lens whatsoever. But what we cán say is that the big E is not only related to the extra nine, but on its other side also to a large disk. The diameter of this disk matches the height of the E, which accentuates, if not, confirms the relation. Therefore, my guess would be that this disk will be the lens one likes to find to complement the extra “nine” or observation.

Exceptional lens.

Exceptional lens.

What we can say of the E related disk is that it looks very much the same as the disk with the “nine”-shapes attached to it. Of course it doesn’t has the “nines”, but it also differs from it because of a standing tuft of crop in the middle. The lay, however, is very similar. Also the size occurs equal to me, so that we might as well interpret it the same as done with the other one, by perceiving it as the crop circle phenomenon as such. Would that be a valid thing to do, than it begs the question why is the crop circle phenomenon in this case not being observed? Also, in case this disk should be interpret as a lens, then it conflicts with the option of representing the crop circle phenomenon as such. Or doesn’t it? Are we allowed to think of the phenomenon as a big lens? Now, this is what I would call food for speculation. To extrapolate on this, I hope it is needless to say that all interpretations are to a degree forms of speculation. So, every single element of the total interpretation has its own percentage of plausibility.

At the other end of the central disk with its “nines” and smaller disks, we find some more attributes. First we notice a medium size disk, again with the typical lay, connected to one of the smaller disks. I have no idea if the gate between the two disks was formed due to the behaviour of a human visitor or that it really belongs to the design. I left it out in the diagram.

Medium size disk, connected to one of the smaller disks.

Medium size disk, connected to one of the smaller disks.

  

The medium size disk seems, by its position, relating to only one of the smaller disks. The funny situation with this disk is that it could represent either another “lens” or again “the crop circle phenomenon”. I put the terms “lens” and “the crop circle phenomenon” in quotes here, not because of the speculative use so much, but because this disk doesn’t relate to an observation, nor does it relate to the observed crop circle phenomenon. This means that one may think of it as not representing the totality of the phenomenon and also not representing a lens.

The above sentences indicate quite clearly matters of absence and/or ignorance and/or taboos when it comes to the issue of the crop circle phenomenon or “concentrated seeing” as what a lens could stand for.

   To continue our search for answers, we come to view another element. I would describe it as odd, but more than that, looking twisted. At the end of the formation the element is connected to another medium sized disk. This one is a little larger than the medium sized disk at the other side of the odd element and also the lay looks considerably more messy. I suspect it to be eligible for representing the “man made crop circle phenomenon”. Also because of the tramlines that are involved.

Left: A twisted element. Right: Little larger medium sized disk.

Left: A twisted element. Right: Little larger medium sized disk.

 

   Taking the two medium sized disks together with the twisted element, a possible interpretation for that combination could sound maybe as: “An unobserved man made crop circle phenomenon is linked to a twisted element pointing to a smaller unobserved crop circle phenomenon.” Would we like to associate the smaller medium sized disk with a lens through which no observations are made, then the interpretation would sound as: “An unobserved man made crop circle phenomenon is linked to a twisted element pointing to an lens through which no observations are made.”

Options such as these, I consider quite risky and at the same time humorous in their speculative nature. Still, while having illuminated all the different elements of the formation, I think we now have valuable material to construct a set of interpretations that come close to a message of the plausible kind.

If I have to formulate an interpretation that I can live with, it will go as followed: “There’s an observed crop circle phenomenon. It is observed through many different lenses of which one in particular is extremely exceptional and objective, almost as objective as the phenomenon itself. This outstanding lens provides us an “Extra” observation by means of the capital “E”. Opposed to this, there’s an unobserved (possibly man made) crop circle phenomenon linked to a twisted element pointing to a lens through which no observations are made.” 

A more free interpretation goes like this: “A crop circle phenomenon is observed by many different visitors of which one in particular is extremely exceptional. This visitor or observer can be identified as ‘E’, initially thought of as ‘Extra’. On one side, an ‘E’ related crop circle phenomenon which seems very identical to the initial observed crop circle phenomenon is not noticed as such. On the other side (thus opposed to this) there’s a human related crop circle phenomenon that links to a twisted element pointing to an entity that doesn’t observe. Also this human related crop circle phenomenon goes unseen…” 

The more I get familiar with the language of crop formations, the more I realise how much I am in Babylon.

   P.S.: The formation was in companion with another formation that arrived a few days earlier.    

  

Milk Hill, May 1999. © Steve Alexander.

Milk Hill, May 1999. © Steve Alexander.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randell, meaning of crop circles

No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>