Our Feedback section currently carries some strong reactions from Peter Sorensen, Colin Andrews and Ron Russell against Michael Glickman’s recent comments in ‘The Voice of Reason’. Here are Michael’s thoughts on the matter…


When I first got involved with the crop circles in 1990 everything was radiantly simple. We were all enchanted by this majestic and mysterious gift and we all felt privileged to be working on such a diverse, eccentric and wonderful team. I remember that two things were clear; first, it was our task to spread the word of these astonishments as widely as possible. Second, it was universally agreed that hoaxers, hoax claimants and hoax supporters were liars and falsifiers. Their aspiration was the deception and, if possible, the humiliation, of others. Perhaps Colin Andrews remembers this?

We were happy to be working together on the same side of the street.

What happened? When did things change? At what point were these malicious tricksters, these hoaxers, transformed into ‘spiritual gurus’? At what point did my former colleagues switch sides? And if the evidence for their 180-degree turnabout was so obvious and compelling, why are so few of us persuaded? Why do their actions seem so bizarre? Why have we been kept in the dark?

We know by now that people can make formations, but the widely-held view in my society circle is that they make very few. It is my experience that Colin and Peter relentlessly promote their mass-hoax hypothesis without an atom of substantiation. We might bear in mind here that they have never provided absolute proof for ONE man-made circle that wasn’t a public demonstration.

Why, when we tried to explain how bewildering their position had become to the community and to the public, could they not simply clarify their new findings? Why do Colin, Peter and Ron find it impossible to understand that their names and their position carry obligations and responsibilities?

I called them to task. As a commentator, I asked Peter (as I have been asking Colin for years) to explain their turnaround to the community to which they owe their position. And, when called to task, they behave like cornered animals. Do they truly believe that demonisation of Michael Glickman and reiterated falsehoods about me will help their position? Their abusive replies are deeply saddening. They illuminate the torment of men who realize they have taken a tragically wrong path.

Ron writes of “petty squabbles”, Peter of “petty squabbling” and Colin dreams of a “united happy family”. Weasel words! I am so angry because THEY, with neither discussion nor justification (or even the civility of prior warning), are weakening the structure which many of us felt we were supposed to be building together.

There is nothing to add. Read my piece again. Read their replies again. I will not waste any more of your time on this.