Observations from the
& Code formation, Crabwood
found Aug 15, 2002
Why do others believe it is manmade?
It appears that the Chibolton and Crabwood formation have been generally
judged to be manmade. This opinion is shared by some Crop Circle researchers
in addition to the skeptics. There are many arguments to support such
a conclusion and I agree with some of them (after all, I initially
used similar arguments to support the same conclusion myself). Here
I'm going to take a look at some of these arguments and check their
The "human style", compared to other crop formations
These formations clearly differ from the "other-wordly"
style of the other Crop Circles. These clearly display a human logic
both within the consruction and the design of their message.
This is true. However, this does not prove anything about the source
or motive of these patterns. I would like to make some remarks:
1. Crop Circles in general are likely made by several sources. There
are people with different motives and styles, there are probably (I
personally am very assured of this) many different non-human sources
with different motives and styles.
2. Manmade formations are often symmetrical, abstract geometric patterns,
imitating the serene "other-worldly" beauty of the genuine
flower and fractal designs. Perhaps it would be reasonable to say
that since a manmade formation doesn't have to be "human"
in style, a non-manmade formation doesn't have to be "alien"
3. The skeptics have considered the abstract patterns to be unlikely
forms of E.T. communication. Rather they have expected a clear message
in the same format as we use: "If the E.T. want to communicate
with us, why don't they make it so that we can clearly understand?"
Perhaps now a group of aliens (which I generally don't see a proper
word to describe the genuine Circle makers), have decided to give
such a clear message?
Binary code and ASCII code - unlikely methods of alien communication?
Why would the E.T. use binary code or English as ASCII code instead
of plain English?
1. Why did WE send the Arecibo message in binary code? It is not
just because the receivers would not understand English, but because
a binary sequence is simple to transmit, as it is just a series of
1's and 0's (or two different pulses). A binary sequence may also
be more practical to "transmit" into a crop field. Imagine
how much space a 151 character English message would take in crop
as plain letters. Considering the resolution of the crop, one character
would have to be about one meter wide to be clearly distinguished.
Whether applied as linear text or as a spiral, this would take more
space and more work than a spiral binary code (in this case about
40 m in diameter).
2. ASCII code actually IS plain English. To understand the message
you have to be familiar with computer technology, but if you are,
ASCII is the most obvious way to binary code English.
3. This way the aliens may want to inform they are familiar both
with our most commonly used international language, its digital coding
and our computer technology. This information, together with the actual
written message (and the apparent hidden code beneath it, more about
this later) are delivered all at the same time.
4. IF the message had been written in plain English characters, would
it really be more convincing? Would it not be considered too "human"
5. "If they can make a rasterized photo in the crop field, surely
they can make a row of letters!" Yes, obviously, because letters
can also easily be converted to binary streams. Both in the Chibolton
and the Crabwood formations not only the code is binary, but also
the face. To make a rasterized image, a binary matrix is needed to
point out which dot is painted (flattened) and which is not. An additional
definition is needed for each pixel to define its apparent darkness.
In Chibolton it was dots with various diameters, in Crabwood it was
lines with various thickness.
Couldn't it be, that these particular "aliens" use binary
streams to transmit Crop Circles? Perhaps they sweep the crop field
with a computer controlled ray or energy impulse. The sweep can be
done either in linear or spiral fashion. A binary data can be used
to control the intensity of the beam, defining which areas to be flattened
and which not. So why convert letters into visual characters, since
they can simply be swept down as a binary sequence? Sure it requires
a little more work from us to decode it, but maybe that's not their
problem. Or perhaps they think the message is more effective if we
work on it a bit? Or perhaps they suppose we run the message through
a computer anyway, and also for our computers a binary code is much
easier to read than visual characters!
The differences between the Chibolton and Crabwood formations
The Chibolton and Crabwood formations are clearly executed in
different style. The former was rasterized in newspaper style, the
latter in television style (more advanced). Why would there be such
a progress within one year?
Why would there? Obviously for some reason, WHOEVER made these formations.
Obviously these two are connected, but does it mean they are made
by the same folk, whether human or not? If they were manmade, why
would these PEOPLE change theirs style? If they would, why not E.T?
If people can use several kinds of rasterization, why not E.T?
Perhaps the first formation was manmade, but the second is not (there
is still a connection)? Perhaps the first formation was made by a
different group of people than the second. Perhaps the first was made
by different group of ALIENS than the second. Apparently this arguments
The triviality of the English decoded message
The English message does not contain any important information
and furthermore it is written in a strange, naive style with odd use
of capitals and lowercase characters.
Even if this was true, would it be truly evidence against the E.T.
origin of the message? If you suppose it is made by people, why do
you think THEY would not give a meaningful logical message? If a group
of people went through all this trouble, wouldn't they at least try
to convey a message that says something profound? After all, they
are clever enough not to get caught from deception!
From the viewpoint of a skeptic or a scientist the message may not
contain any relevant information. From a spiritual viewpoint it is
very relevant. When I initially thought this formation was most likely
manmade, I still said "I like the message". If the E.T.
want to advice us to stay away from the deceptive people and institutions
running this world, if they want to say we still have time to make
a change, if they want to say there is GOOD out there and we must
not lose our faith, is this NOT RELEVANT?
If they say "We oppose deception", they also say "We
are not deceiving". If this formation was manmade, it WOULD be
deception. Would they really finish their message by saying "We
are not deceiving"? To me this sounds a bit ridiculous at this
Finally, if we look at this message from a human angle, we should
soon enough recognize that the plain English message is just the surface.
Using short "oracle style" sentences, with capitals here
and lowercase there, with '&' instead of 'and', with some extra
bits in some characters, doesn't that ring a bell? Either there is
another message encrypted underneath, or we are at least led to think
that way. In any case, to omit this message just because it is written
in a naive style (even if it eventually turned out to be a joke),
would be really shortsighted!