UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 27

Re: CCCRN News: 2000 UK Magnetometer Survey

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:43:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:24:40 -0500
Subject: Re: CCCRN News: 2000 UK Magnetometer Survey

 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >From: Paul Anderson <psa@look.ca>
 >Subject: Re: CCCRN News: 2000 UK Magnetometer Survey Results
 >Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:52:56 +0000

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:08:58 -0500
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>Subject: CCCRN News: 2000 UK Magnetometer Survey Results

 >>Hello Paul,

 >>Fascinating and compelling results! If I may, I'd like to ask
 >>several questions. (Knowing beforehand that there may not be any

 >>1. How many other crop circles have been 'mapped' in this way?

 >>2. Have any randomly selected (unaffected/virgin) areas been
 >>mapped in order to determine if the magnetic anomalies are
 >>possibly endemic to the region? It's possible that the phenom is
 >>attracted to pre-existing local anomalies and not the 'creator'
 >>of them.

 >>It's important to try to determine which may be the case. In the
 >>latter scenario (that the circle-makers introduce magnetic
 >>anomalies by their circle-creating activities/intervention) it
 >>makes a very strong case for the presence of some unknown kind
 >>of 'technology' that may be responsible for initiating the local
 >>magnetic alterations. (If) they are rapidly appearing
 >>'alterations' and not in fact a pre- existing condition in the

 >>3. Thirdly and I realize most unlikely, have any crop circle areas
 >>that demonstrate these magnetic anomalies been surveyed _prior_
 >>to a crop circle's appearance?

 >>If unaffected areas have been surveyed and mapped prior to the
 >>appearance of an agriglyph, and the subsequent readings differ
 >>greatly from the "before" readings, it would prove conclusively
 >>that the magnetic changes are tied _directly_to the appearance
 >>of a crop formation.

 >>4. Have any formations that are known to have been hoaxed been
 >>measured in the same way? Just as a 'control' reading. It would
 >>be interesting to find out if such magnetic anomalies are
 >>present in formations that are known to have been

 >>Very interesting results. In combination with the other
 >>oddities; the way stalks are 'bent', genetic alterations to
 >>vegetation etc. the case for, (and accumulating evidence for,) a
 >>genuine, as opposed to man-made 'anomalous phenomenon' continues
 >>to strengthen.

 >>One more question please:
 >>Have any language/philologists/code breakers tried to decipher
 >>any meaning (rhyme or reason) from the agriglyphs? I appreciate
 >>any time you take to respond to my inquiries. I find the whole
 >>subject to be most compelling and completely fascinating. My
 >>best to you, and to Collin.

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

 >Hi John,

 >Sorry for the few days in responding, just very busy these days
 >as usual.

I've been busier than usual with web jobs myself. We have to
"make hay while the sun shines" I suppose. ;) I would imagine
that many other Listerions are equally preoccupied judging by
the small number of daily posts being submitted the last couple
of weeks. No need to explain the delay. I understand. I also
want you to know that I appreciate the time you took to compose
your thoughtful and detailed response.

 >Colin or Paul Vigay would be better able to answer
 >these questions in terms of studies done in England.

Yeah. After talking to Nancy Talbot on Saturday night regarding
the quality of the research coming from the Andrews camp I think
I'm better off talking to you. :) Nancy is a pip. The lady
speaks her mind and has a 'damn the torpedoes' attitude about
it. I like that!

 >In Canada, our studies so far have been more limited, by funding
 >and time (or lack thereof), etc.

Nancy has managed to track down 'some' funding according to her
statements Saturday night. You might want to approach those same
funding sources to finance your own research efforts. Talk to
her. What could it hurt?

 >We have, however, documented magnetic
 >anomalies in some formations here over the last few years, and
 >other anomalies as well, including the physical changes to
 >affected plants and so on. I would like to pursue these areas in
 >much more depth as I do think they are important. One factor
 >that BLT has noted over the past few years is that a significant
 >number of formations (from studies in England) appear to be
 >related to underground aquifers, with more or less formations
 >appearing in a given year depending on the height of the water
 >table in that given area.

I would imagine that many of these aquifers have been
'mapped/surveyed' over the years, and that areas that have
already been affected by crop formations could be compared to
existing survey maps. No need to even go out into the field.
Strictly an academic study using existing data. Compare
agri-glyph locations with local subsurface water surveys. Farms
(where crop circles appear) usually depend on on-site water
wells. When someone is sent out to investigate a formation they
can inquire with the property owner if they have any survey maps
of underground water sources and how they flow through the
property. Correlations will either manifest or not. Until the
grunt work of making the comparisons is done though, we'll just
never know for sure.

 >I like the idea of mapping areas prior
 >to a formation's appearance, except that you don't know exactly
 >where a new formation will appear next. This is even more
 >difficult in Canada, where there is much more land area to cover
 >on the prairies, etc., even in Saskatchewan alone, than in
 >southern England.

I know. I had sites like Avebury in mind when I made the
suggestion. Farms and areas that experience crop circle
formations from year to year. It would be easier to 'pre-map'
such contained areas and have a shot at a crop circle forming at
a later date when you're dealing with a much smaller over-all
area of real estate.

 >Some hoaxed or known man-made formations have
 >been mapped in this way from what I understand, with negligible
 >or no results, but more needs to be done. I would be interested
 >in doing a test formation made by one of our teams here, and
 >mapping it afterward for comparison as well.

If you do, please let us know on-List. It would either make or
break the case for 'artificially' or 'mechanically' induced
magnetic anomalies in connection with circle making. If a hoaxed
circle presents the same set of magnetic anomalies we'd still
have a conundrum, but it would prove to be much less
'paranormal' in nature.

 >I'm quite interested in the 'blur' anomaly I found on two of the
 >still (35 mm) photos I took over one of the formations at
 >Midale, Saskatchewan this summer. I call it a 'distortion' but
 >it looks more like one of those fuzzy spots you see on TV
 >sometimes to blot out someone's face, etc. to hide their
 >identity. Same colour as background field (or else no colour,
 >just opaque) and roughly circular in shape. It is beside the
 >formation in the photos, largest in the first one and about half
 >the size in the second shot. It is also in the digital video
 >footage taken at the same time as the still photos, just looking
 >through two different windows on the same side of the plane. In
 >the video, it moves across the field of view from upper right to
 >lower left in about three seconds or so. That the formation was
 >situated between two electrical towers in the field may be
 >significant? Could this be related to magnetic/electrical
 >disturbances, either captured on film or affecting the film
 >itself? Any thoughts on this would be welcome.

You should compare notes with Roy Hale who recently got pix of a
similar nature in Avebury. It's a current thread on the List.
Jump on in. :)

 >Copies of both the prints and video can be provided.

As an experienced graphics professional I would be interested in
studying the pix. Contact me privately and tell me how I might
secure copies for further study.

 >We were flying fairly low,
 >within a few hundred feet at most of the ground. Not seen in any
 >other photos or video sequences at all except over that
 >formation, and only in those two photos over the formation. I
 >also noted that the shutter would not work on my camera whenever
 >I tried using the zoom lens while we were circling the patterns
 >in the plane. It seemed to work ok afterwards for the most part.

Many others report strange effects when taking photos inside of
recently made formations. They too report that their equipment
seems to work just fine once outside the affected area.

 >Re language, communication, etc., my own take is that we need to
 >be able to separate the genuine formations from known or likely
 >man-made ones, which admittedly has been frustratingly
 >difficult, before we can go about 'deciphering' them, otherwise
 >the data pool is contaminated by hoaxes, and makes any
 >'translation' mute for the most part. Some formations have been
 >more obvious religious/sacred symbolism, etc. but most are not,
 >and can be interpreted differently by different people (but
 >maybe that's the point?). Many have tried deciphering them, with
 >a wide range of results as may be expected.

It would be really neat to turn loose a team of philologists and
code breakers on this question. In a 'better world' maybe. Hope
you secure the funding you need to continue and to advance your
own studies.

 >Relating to this though, we are planning some new experiments
 >for next summer in Saskatchewan with BLT. The specific idea came
 >about during a lunch discussion with John Mack while at the
 >Journeys Beyond conference. Details to be worked out yet, but it
 >would involve a system of more specific criteria in terms of any
 >'responses' to what we initiate. While this seems radical to
 >many I'm sure, even me, I've had enough experiences myself now,
 >as well as others I know, that do suggest an interaction of some
 >kind between us and who or whatever is making these patterns,
 >implying there is intelligence involved somehow or that at least
 >our own conciousness is somehow connected to all this.

Yep. In addition to myself you should talk to Bill Hamilton
about this aspect of the phenom too. I have first-hand
experience with an unidentified flying object (apparently)
responding to my own thoughts. It gave me the willies then, and
talking about it is still hard because of my own incredulity
that such things should be possible. But then there you are. If
it's happening, then it needs to be considered as a real
possibility and investigated. You have to go where the evidence
leads you regardless of your own dogma's or prejudices eh. :)

 >question is how to proceed from that point, if indeed this is
 >the case. On a related note, relating to your area of research,
 >it was good to finally meet John Mack and Budd Hopkins in person
 >at the conference, I have a lot of respect for the work of both
 >gentlemen. I've also had many unusual experiences going back to
 >my childhood and continue today.

Write to me privately Paul. I'd be interested in hearing them.
And yes, both Budd and John, (Dave Jacobs too) are extremely
bright and interesting people to spend time with and interact
with. Especially Budd who _loves_ to talk and ruminate about the
subject. It was an education for me to spend all those years
working with him. We'd spend hours together sometimes just
travelling to and from speaking engagements and it was like
sitting in a classroom dedicated to UFO and abduction related
studies/information. Over time he poured an encyclopedia of info
into my head about his own cases and research. His own and that
of others. It would just flow out of him like running water. An
education I couldn't have 'bought' if I'd wanted to. The more
time you get to spend around those guys the more you learn. Time
well spent if you ask me. ;)

 >Btw, please note again too that I forwarded the report for
 >information purposes; CCCRN (formerly CPR-Canada) is no longer
 >directly associated with Colin/CPRI, although we still
 >correspond, share information, etc. Our 'split' did not have
 >anything to do with Colin's statements on his position of 80% of
 >formations in England being hoaxes which caused so much
 >controversy, it was simply an internal organizational change
 >within CPRI itself, having no more affiliate offices in other

Yeah I got the unedited version of that from Nancy on Saturday.
She tells it like it is. Nothing wrong with that my friend. It's
the way I do business myself. ;)

Warm regards, best of luck in your work, and thanx for all the
time and labor you invest on our behalf. (Keeping us informed)

John Velez

UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
Errol Bruce-Knapp

UFO UpDates Archives are available at:

'Strange Days...Indeed' - available 'live' via
Windows Media Player 10:00 Eastern, Saturday nights at:

Coming soon..... The Virtually Strange Nework

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com