US crop circle researcher Peter Sorensen lays his cards on the table in a revealing new statement…


Peter Sorensen is a very familiar figure in the world of cerealogy, annually seen roaming the fields of Wiltshire, camcorder in hand. His video compilations and drawings have become valuable records of this strange phenomenon.

It is well-known to insiders that Peter has, over time, become more sceptical in his attitude towards what creates the crop circles, despite the protests of those who continue to ‘keep the faith’ – now, it seems, he has finally declared his personal truth.

In a new statement on his web homepage, he states “After a dozen years of studying the circles, in my opinion, they are probably all man-made. I could be wrong – I’ve been wrong before! And I haven’t given up all hope for an extra-terrestrial/angelic connection”. The article goes on to explain that he has witnessed human circlemakers at work, which has suggested to him a human origin for the formations, though he insists they are still important as inspirations to humanity.

Many among the crop circle community are of the opinion he is seriously misguided in his views on hoaxing and that he has been exposed to The Barge pub rumour-mill for too long, unable to ‘see the wood for the trees’, spending too much time with people who have persuaded him they are the whole answer, rather than just a small part of it, which is all the evidence shows when properly scrutinised. (Evidence, incidentally, is something Peter does not give.)

We at Swirled News know Peter's views well (we exchanged long published correspondence with him in our SC journal days) and still fail to see the logic of his arguments in the face of so much evidence for a real phenomenon.

Peter is a good bloke, and entitled to his opinions, as is everyone. However, let’s hope that this altered stance is not allowed to prejudice the new people his work reaches out to – they should be allowed to enter the realms of mystery in the same way he once did, and left to reach their own conclusions by examining the evidence, not listening to hearsay. There’s nothing more boring and destructive than jaded researchers trying to spread their own disillusionment to the innocent, as we have seen before. We wish Peter well in his aspirations and hope that he will avoid this particular stony path.


(Peter’s homepage is: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/Sorensen/PeterSorensen99.html)