Circle-making Matthew Willams defends his ‘art’…
In reaction to Michael Glickman’s page, Michael asks the question when did such a 180 degree turnaround take place amongst his former friends/researchers to make them believe the man-made stance of myself and other circlemakers...
The time that this happened was the time that these people were approached and offered more substantial evidence that circles were being made by people. If Michael chooses to remember, I came to his house and offered to explain it to him in person too. Michael put me off saying that he was busy at the time. I re-extended the offer to meet with him in e-mail and gave him the offer that I would take him out and show him a formation being made under real conditions.
Michael Glickman then chose to totally twist my words into "He wanted to take me out, and I don't think he meant to dinner." Was this meant as a joke, or does Michael Glickman really think that a sincere offer to see a circle being made is a death threat? How sad.
Now Michael Glickman, in his column asks what is the substance of the evidence that we create circles to the degree that it would change some researchers’ minds. Well, apart from the fact that Michael chose not to find out for himself, I will make it clear here.
The evidence that we can make circles of a complex nature, exactly as they appear in our designs on paper, has been shown to certain researchers. These complex formations can be created at night, within the hours of darkness. The formations do not appear to be damaged and are regarded by many researchers as being of a standard far superior to those which people could create (how researchers use this standard when most believer researchers won't come out and see one done by humans is beyond me - but I digress). Some of these formations exhibit weird plant changes. Some people experience paranormal effects in our circles - which goes to show that the origins of many circles are mistakenly thought to be paranormal, just because paranormal effects are present afterwards.
Lastly the explanations we can give to researchers are capable of answering many of the questions that researchers have. Indeed we have demonstrated to a standard which has been accepted by researchers that we are not lying and can create circles which have paranormal and energy effects in them. Would it therefore not be fair for these researchers to change their minds?
The reason that Michael Glickman, Andy Thomas, Francine Blake and others do not come on board and change their minds too, is because they have their heads firmly cemented (at their own request) in the sand. I would hate to think that these people would never be able to accept the truth, and would go on for many years believing circles are made by aliens/fairies/higher dimensional beings or microwave plasma vortex. To deny the fact that humans create circles is to deny human potential. What we are managing to do is a fantastic thing - which enriches the lives of people who come into contact with crop circles. We should stop arguing and start researching why man-made circles carry energy. People like Michael Glickman need to realise that humans can do fantastic things like create complex patterns in the corn - and that these patterns can hold spiritual or magical power.
I also wish that Michael Glickman would stop attacking those researchers who he used to respect, and that he would start asking them what evidence they have collected. This would be far better than writing personal attacks on a very base level in his articles for Swirled News etc.
SWIRLED NEWS REPLIES:
No-one has denied that there are man-made circles, or stated that certain levels of quality are not attainable by the likes of Matthew. However, there are many formations which simply cannot be accounted for by the human component of this phenomenon due to time-frames, circumstances, sightings, etc.
Matthew’s fundamental mistake is to assume that because he shows certain formations can be made in certain ways that this is how ALL formations are made, when it is quite clear this is not the case. He has publicly stated before (unless he was lying) that he himself does not believe all formations are man-made, so what’s the argument? Simply about percentages, that’s all.
Why is it ‘cementing our heads in the sand’ to disagree with Matthew’s general conclusions? Many researchers hear what he says, assess the evidence on both sides, and find his narrow one-tone sweeping explanations wanting, it’s as simple as that.
If people don’t want to spend time in Matthew’s company to hear him out, he only has himself to blame by his anti-social behaviour, rumour-spreading and unpleasant communications (which many outside the immediate research community are unaware of).
As for “what we are managing to do is a fantastic thing which enriches the lives of people who come into contact with crop circles”, little in Matthew’s actions seems to suggest such high aspirations are really his main motivation – if so, why all the dark subterfuge, deception, criminal damage and leafleteering with defamatory comments about researchers? Why not come out and perform his craft openly, creating honest works of art without the trickster mentality?
In response to the personal comments made above, Michael Glickman writes: “As usual, Matthew displays contempt for the truth, and rewrites history to his own whim and advantage. In the last two years he has brought not a single tiny item of information or wisdom to the work. This letter, again, adds nothing to our developing understanding. As usual, he shows more interest in attacking and condemning others than anything else. This - I am sure - is his main interest.”
In response to the reference to biological effects allegedly present in man-made formations, Barry Reynolds writes: “Then why haven't these been tested under laboratory conditions? I've never seen any of these changes and I'm sure BLT haven't [BLT Research have tested all manner of humanly-crushed stalks in test conditions and have been unable to reproduce the effects found in many unexplained formations]. In answer to the comment "to deny the fact that humans create circles is to deny human potential", personally I've never denied this, but the humans have never been able to say how they create pitting in the cell wall structure or swollen nodes that have exploded from the inside out. When are people like Matthew going to remove THEIR heads from the cement and realise that humans don't make all formations?!”