Antsy (but not nasty) about Antsy
ANTSY (BUT NOT NASTY) ABOUT ANSTY
The 12th August 2016 formation(1) at Ansty, Wiltshire, sets up many more questions than answers.
In the old days at the end of the season, people often looked for a remarkable and elaborate formation that they could call “the Grande Finale”. This indicated, I fear, our tendency to view the crop circles as a show or a spectacle for our amusement. With the benefit of hindsight, I feel that these “finales” should be considered much more as our homework than our entertainment. And Ansty, both remarkable and elaborate, leaves us with a homework task of monumental proportions.
DESIGNING AND MAKING
Before going any further I must reiterate my view that an absolute prerequisite of crop circle studies should be a grasp of the separation between the design of a formation and its realisation or manufacture. There is a real possibility, and this was touched on in my last blog, that, for the Fifth Dimensional creators of the crop circles, there might in fact be no such separation. Their evolved consciousness might be such that the initial idea (the design) and the implementation (the making) are somehow instantaneously united.
However, here in our dense and sticky material world a solid and impenetrable wall exists between the two. If the importance of this separation were more widely understood our hoax fixation would quickly diminish or disappear. We might start to understand just how implausible are the assertions of the hoax claimants and their shameless supporters.
A BRIEF HISTORY
The Ansty crop circle appeared on 12th August in a field which, for our purposes, starts with three particular defining characteristics. First, the field is very close to, and in full view of, the farmhouse and shop. The owner was adamant that no activity had been observed in the area prior to the arrival of the formation. Second, the owner Karen Price, a straightforward and honest woman, had over the years constructed several mazes in exactly the same field for the amusement of the shop customers. This is, I believe, the only occasion a crop circle has arrived directly in front of an area where food and drink were served. And here at Ansty the price for admission included a cup of tea! Third, the location was unusual in its overwhelming feeling of containment. Photograph (2) shows how this relatively large formation was positioned in such a small field. Unseen and close to the right of the image is the hill (7) that, with the farm shop and the pick-your-own fruit area completed the framing of the crop circle.
The extraordinary event was visited and examined by several well-qualified researchers. One group of five saw the formation some days after its arrival. They have, between them, just under one hundred years of crop circle experience. They were all impressed with the quality, intricacy and lay of the formation.
THE MOTHERSHIP GLASS CONNECTION
We were soon to see that this beautifully made crop circle is an almost exact replica of a logo of “Mothership Glass”, a California company producing exquisitely manufactured and very expensive items for smoking marijuana. The logo had gone through several changes, but there could be no doubt that the formation was an accurate copy of one of them.
An earlier version bore the word “MOTHERSHIP” twice in a stylised sans-serif font. The word is repeated and is positioned symmetrically towards the rim of the logo. Mothership sells t-shirts, belt buckles, posters and stickers featuring their logo. In the later version replicated in the Ansty field the ten letters of “mothership” (still repeated on opposite sides) were replaced by elegant and imaginative glyphs (6).
These have been the subject of much speculation. At first we thought that these gracious and enigmatic letterforms might have come from our cousins the circle makers but it became clear that the glass company had designed the alphabet, or at least the required nine letters.
Mothership Glass is a very secretive company. They have not commented on the Ansty events. They clearly employ talented designers in their own field and the invented alphabet is remarkable. However, there are design flaws in the logo and the formation that accurately copies it.
Predictably, the usual debunkers asserted that the formation was man made and had been commissioned by the company for PR and advertising. Were this true, it would prove to be the most ineffective advertising expenditure ever. I write towards the end of November. Over four months have passed
without evidence that the event is being exploited in any way by Mothership Glass. The only people who are aware of this enterprise are crop circle students. This nonsense will be dealt with later.
THE IMPECCABLE CENTRE
Having preached for years against certainty, I am positive that the Ansty formation could not be man-made. It is a historic, though confusing, addition to the crop circle narrative. The Ansty formation, like many, is circular. Additionally it is concentric; there are at least six circles of varying diameters within it. These circles share the same centre but that centre (3) is perfect and undamaged. Could somebody tell me how this is done? This question is further compounded by the peripheral ring and its 33 bars meticulously placed at 10.9090…° separation. This could have been achieved, in my view, only by using a theodolite, transit or similar surveying tool on a tripod at the centre. This instrument, and the activity it generates around it would have further damaged the impeccable centre.
Explain this! Each of the upper three leaves has a fine pattern of veining tapering to points at the end. It is repeated perfectly on each leaf. This could not be achieved by either planking or stomping. A perfectly positioned part of the Flower of Life pattern is perfectly contained within each of the lower three “transparent” leaves. There are no marks to the leaf edges. This in my opinion is also unachievable. I repeat, the Ansty formation was clearly not man-made. We have been given another series of enigmas.
ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN
I have looked carefully at various design aspects of the logo/formation. Some elements manifestly could not emanate from the “real” crop circle studio while others, several others, could not conceivably be from anywhere else. There is no evidence that this formation, or any part of it, was man-made. Starting at the centre, I will deal with four elements:
1. The central trefoil motif
At the centre of the design, both logo and crop formation (3), there are three leaf devices repeated in differing sizes and styles. The smallest at the very
centre is extremely small and clearly represents three young leaf shoots. Underneath these shoots are three mature leaves. I am unable to identify the plant. Below this trefoil group there is a beautifully made ring. This would suggest the rim of some kind of container but three more leaves seem to emerge from under it. These three are transparent, with only their two outer edges indicated. Part of the Flower of Life pattern is clearly visible as though the surfaces of these leaves were transparent.
2. The Flower of Life
I cannot be certain of anything. In some respects I envy those debunkers from across the Atlantic. They are able, with no visit to Ansty and with no discussion with those who have seen it, conducted interviews and carefully researched the matter, to declare that it is a hoax. It must be a real comfort to be so sure of yourselves.
The Flower of Life diagram has been a familiar part of the crop circle repertoire for decades but it has always been handled with absolute respect.
This year’s example at Popham, 27/6/16 (4) shows how the individual six-petalled flower is always complete. After many Flower of Life examples I do not recall a single occasion where the integrity of the flower or its petals has been compromised. Here in both the formation and the accurately copied logo, the Flower of Life is treated like a wallpaper pattern to be brutally cut to fit into the leftover space. I believe his could never be designed by our cousins the circlemakers. It could, however, be made by them if they felt there was a good reason to do so. What this good reason might have been is a further mystery.
It is curious that a company so wedded to the spirit of Marijuana with its elegant 7-fold leaf (5) chose to use the six-fold Flower of Life in its logo. 7-fold geometry will not interconnect as easily as the Flower of Life but I feel the Mothership designers might have given it a try.
3. The glyph ring
There is little to say about this other than to repeat my admiration for the stylish and inventive letterforms and my respect for the designer at Mothership who produced them. Diagram (6) shows the ring with its duplicated ten letter word. There are two Hs in “mothership” and so there are four in both the logo and the formation. Image (7) is a groundshot of one of the four.
4. The two fine rings
Something magical happens here!
Between the rim of the formation and the outer ring are 33 equally spaced standing rectangular blocks separated by 33 long laid rectangles. The laid areas are about 2’3” wide and about 12’ long and the wheat within them maintains a clockwise sweep. As always in laid rectangles the four right angle corners are beautifully defined.
If we assume (and at this point I think we must) that the Mothership Glass logo, and thus its replica crop formation, was devised by an in-house designer, there are many questions I would like him or her to answer.
Why was 33 chosen as the number of surrounding elements? That gives an angle between each pair of 10.9090…°! 30 elements would offer an angle of 12° while 36 would simply give 10°. This was a decision bound to bring complexity in its wake. 33 is the third number of the Master Number Series. Is Mothership trying to tell us something?
THE TRAMLINE INTERSECTIONS
This is important though complicated. Please give it some time and attention.
Photo (8) has been rotated a few degrees to bring the tramlines to approximately horizontal. A red spot is placed on photograph (1) to help orientation. While staring for hours at this image I noticed that a tramline was tangenting one of the 33 blocks. That is, the tramline was touching it,kissing it, as it went by. Observing this more carefully I found that all five of the tramlines crossing the formation formed a particular association with the blocks on the perimeter.
Referring regularly to (8) I will go through each of the five tramlines and their two intersections. Obviously, each tramline is formed of two parallel tracks; I will refer to them here as the upper or lower track. For more detail, each of the ten intersections is shown enlarged with the relevant blocks marked with a red dot (1A-5J).
A shows that this block is perfectly contained between the upper and lower tracks. At the other end, B shows that the upper track touches the base of a
block while the lower track touches the top of a block. There is no ambiguity about these contacts. They are precise.
C shows the lower track positioned against the upper side of a block while D shows the upper track against the lower side.
Like a reverse of Tramline 2, E shows the upper track relating to the lower side of a block while F shows the lower track relating to the upper side of a block.
Here in G lower track connects with upper side of block while at H upper track relates to lower side of block.
This one is especially distinctive in that at both ends and at both intersections, I and J, the tramline passes meticulously between a pair of blocks, touching each as it passes.
I hope that none of you have given up on this as either tedious or irrelevant or both. For me it is one of the most extraordinary revelations the circles have ever presented. It takes my breath away. Imagine two pre-existing and entirely unconnected geometrical systems. The first is a ring with 33 blocks disposed meticulously around its circumference and the second is five equally spaced agricultural tramlines. The suggestion that these two entirely disparate patterns could be overlaid, superimposed and coordinated with precision, grace and wit defies logic and challenges everything I have learned as a designer.
Inevitably two characters declared Ansty to be a hoax. Neither of them left the US to either examine the formation or to speak directly to those involved. It is hardly reassuring that in both cases, their“informants” or “witnesses” chose to remain anonymous.
The group of five I mentioned earlier visited and examined the Ansty formation. They were all impressed. Unlike the debunkers’ informants I am happy to name names. They were Steve and Karen Alexander, Prof Jonathan Paul de Vierville, Albert Lamb and Daniel Rozman. As I mentioned, this group has an aggregate of almost 100 years of crop circle experience. My friend Gary King (20 additional years) visited Ansty on seven different occasions and interviewed the shop owner. He is convinced of the formation’s authenticity and has written a comprehensive report of his and his team’s conclusions.
Why do these debunkings happen every year and why do these people claim to be interested in a subject they repeatedly condemn?
A TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
Before the Ansty formation appeared, Mothership Glass had designed, developed and published both the logo and the invented alphabet around it. For the moment this appears incontrovertible and the Ansty formation replicates the logo to a high degree of accuracy.
I did not visit the Ansty formation but I have spent weeks contemplating and studying both photos and videos. This is, I suppose, my professional activity. The crop circles have never so precisely duplicated an earthly artefact, but why shouldn’t they? This is why Ansty gives us more questions than answers and this is why it is so important.
Why, now, are we offered so gigantic a conundrum?
Why, for the first time, are they replicating a man-made artefact?
What is the marijuana connection?
Well, school is out. The summer term is ended and, once again, we have left the classroom. The authors of the crop circles have shown themselves to be brilliant teachers and we pupils have been set an almost impossible assignment. If, as I believe, their prime purpose is to facilitate the stretching of human consciousness, it would be reasonable to assume that they would wish to leave us, during the quiet months, an important puzzle to contemplate.
When I saw Ansty, I was impressed with its size, positioning and the obvious quality of its making. Paradoxically I found that the design, though elaborately executed in the field, was somehow empty. It seemed to be – in comparison with other major formations – an exercise in decorative
busywork. I refer back to the Designing and Making section and I realise how uniquely paradoxical this formation is.
It appears that here at Ansty the design was entirely earthly while the flawless making was by the genuine operatives. This leaves a daunting winter task on our desks. Instead of unpicking clues from an exquisite design we must unravel the background story that produced this turnaround. There is a classic joke category called “switcharooney” and I suggest that to stretch our imaginations even further they have pulled a switcharooney on us.
For some time I have felt that, generous and patient as they are, they were becoming bored with our hoax fixation. Is this, perhaps, their ironic comment? Perhaps the crop circle phenomenon has decided it would present us with its own hoax?