‘HYPERSPATIAL’ doesn’t like Michael Glickman’s recent comments on the 1996 Oliver’s Castle balls of light video... Michael Glickman doesn’t like the comments!
I wish to take issue with some points in Michael Glickman's current article concerning the 1996 Oliver's Castle (I refer to this as OC from here on) footage. He makes several ill-informed assertions regarding this footage.
Firstly, the statement regarding the alleged hoaxer's 'prescience' in seemingly predicting future events concerning the sightings of luminosities in the vicinity of crop formations. This is obviously a misleading statement because Andy Thomas's excellent book 'Vital Signs' mentions several videotaped sequences in which these luminosities appear, which predate the OC footage, most notably Steve Alexander's footage from Milk Hill, shot in 1990, six years prior to the OC footage, and also footage shot by Andrew Collins (I do not know the year, but I assume this was prior to OC), plus some footage shot by Dutch tourists in 1994, again predating the OC footage. This information was in the public domain quite early on and any hoaxer following the crop circle research would have been aware of this. This, of course, negates Michael's assertion that the hoaxer must have been psychic or precognitive to fake such footage.
Secondly, Michael tells us that he has shown it to highly qualified technicians who were impressed with the film’s authenticity, which may well be the case, yet the software and hardware necessary to fake such footage is actually very cheap and even a non-technical person such as myself could easily recreate similar footage using a 3D design program such as Truespace, which can integrate analogue videotape footage with digitally generated video.
To make an accurate assessment of this footage the ORIGINAL tape would need to be analysed carefully, because in this age of digital technology, the old chestnut "The Camera Never Lies" just does not reflect reality (if it ever did).
Thirdly, I did a search on the name 'John Weyleigh' which returned several documents referring to his unmasking as a certain 'John Wabe' a (surprise, surprise) video effects designer, who has apparently gone on record and admitted faking it. Some of these documents also refer to a ground analysis of the OC formation which suggests it was faked. See here:
Michael Glickman should provide links to this information in the article so that readers can make up their own minds about this footage. I am totally convinced this video is fake, and I think Michael should stop flogging this particular dead horse if he wants people to take him seriously. It is also apparent that Michael does not pay much attention to previous events in the crop circle world, even literature written by your own Andy Thomas!
I do believe that these balls of light are connected to crop formations, but all I see in this particular article is just a load of balls, to be frank. You must shape up and get real, it really does not do this phenomena any justice to be passing this fake off as genuine. Please, please, sort it out guys!
MICHAEL GLICKMAN REPLIES:
As a rule I will not enter conversations with people who do not have the balls (his word) to give us their name and let us know who they are. Reading this sad letter I understand why "Hyperspatial" chooses to cower behind a pseudonym. But our editor felt I should set the record straight.
I know luminosities were seen before the Oliver's Castle footage. My argument is that their movements seem more choreographed and purposeful on the occasions I cite.
I know software is available and I know there is no shortage of people who promise us they could duplicate the footage. Even a non-technical person like himself could do it? Hot air! REAL technicians, making their living in Hollywood special effects, have told me that they find it flawless. Specialist video analysts with sophisticated laboratories (not "very cheap" software such as Truespace) have stated that it was real.
The Weyleigh/Wabe issue remains unresolved. Wabe did not "admit" he made it. It was reported that he CLAIMED he made it. Where have we heard that before? The sites he notes are all part of the intense debunking that followed this event.
’Hyperspatial’ is "convinced this video is fake" and, bless him, he is welcome to his "conviction", as groundless and superficial as it may be.
For my part, having visited the formation three times, I was convinced of its quality. Did Hyperspatial visit the formation, or are his opinions based – as elsewhere – on strident, widespread but fundamentally unsound prejudice? Having measured it and done geometrical analysis of the drawings and having spent the last years speaking to people better qualified than me about the footage, I am convinced of only one thing: The jury is still out.
After six years the debunkers have produced much noise but little hard fact. As events unfold, the challenges to the Oliver's Castle footage fall away and the supportive material becomes more and more impressive – MG