With his last word on the 80% / 20% business, Michael Glickman closes off his recent past and looks to the future…


HERE WE ARE AGAIN, AS HAPPY AS CAN BE!


I received several thankyous for ‘80% Proof’ [see Michael’s previous columns by clicking on the link at the foot of this page] in which I dealt with the Colin Andrews issue, and I am truly grateful to all those who took time to write. To date I have heard not a single correction or argument, neither explanation nor regret, no apologies to the research community or to the public at large. I have had no legal letters, nor have I been threatened with litigation. I have had no whinging claims of “character assassination” and the usual claque of supporters has been remarkably quiet.

I have, though, with Andy Thomas, been misrepresented by Colin Andrews on the Art Bell ‘Coast to Coast’ radio programme in America. Sycophantically interviewed by the ill-informed George Noory, Colin declares, clearly referring to myself and Andy: “…and I can tell you, and just go on to the other websites and have a look, and you’ll find that the people that are giving me the hard time, the percentages which they have stated themselves all come out at 100% and that is, they’re all 100% real which is of course total nonsense.”

This, broadcast to several million trusting US listeners, is a naked falsehood, and he knows it. Neither of us have ever stated “100%” of formations are genuine, nor is there anyone we know with that opinion.

When challenged by Andy, Colin responded by denying he was referring to us! But I have a recording of the transmission. He continues: “I would make that very, very clear; it doesn’t probably need to be made clear to your listeners, but there are really just two sources that are causing a lot of bad feeling…”

The reference, made obvious by the fact that a challenging caller had already referred to us by name, is clear. Yet are we truly expected to believe that Andy and I are the only sources of criticism that he has noticed?

As I pointed out in ‘80% Proof’, these are the standards of veracity adopted by this investigator of the phenomenon, the self-proclaimed “world’s leading crop circle whatever.”

There is a widely held view that his fifteen minutes are almost up.

I believe I have spent more time studying Andrews insubstantial 80%/20% idea than anyone else. I know of nobody else who owns his ‘The Assessment’ CD ROM and, indeed, on the basis of my investigation of his flimsy “research”, I can confidently state that I know more about it than he does himself.

Is there anyone out there who can draw my attention to any errors I have made, to any of Andrews’ discoveries or insights that I might have overlooked, or to any way that I dealt unreasonably or unfairly with his claims? If so, I will immediately and publicly correct my mistakes and apologise.

The whole matter of hoaxing, of the man-made formation, is based on fraud and the intention to deceive. It is hardly surprising then that over the years we have all been caught out at one time or another. However it is a truly foolhardy individual who would try to put a hard percentage to the extent of questionable events claimed by slippery people.

But Colin Andrews now proudly announces that the liars, fakers and claimants are his friends, consultants and advisors. He still refuses to see that he has been royally duped. He acts as the enthusiastic mouthpiece of the hoax gang, working hard to give their lies a veneer of respectability.

I challenge him to show evidence for his discredited opinion: ‘The Assessment’ CD ROM most certainly provides little! I remind him that the relentless repetition of his tired old buzz-words such as “detective agencies”, “Rockefeller”, “night vision cameras”, “scientist” and “80%”, is neither evidence nor proof. Until that evidence is available I challenge him also to stop spreading word of it. I challenge him to apply his massive PR skills to either providing the evidence or a retraction and an apology. Not for myself, but for other researchers and for the public record.

However, enough! Please, enough! I have more important things to do. We all should have more important things to do.

The research for those two articles took six months. It was truly one of the most tiresome and unpleasant tasks I have ever had to undertake. From now on I will devote myself to the study of what I consider to be a divine and inspiring phenomenon. I choose to avoid hypocrisy, limitation and falsehood. It is my intention never again to be distracted by the trivialisers, traducers and debunkers.


* * *

The crop circle community has been divided, split, riven by this entirely hollow man-made nonsense and I am pleased to state that I will no longer engage it. The First Axiom seems particularly appropriate here: Everything you ever hear about a hoax is a lie.

However, I allow myself one final observation.

I have noticed that those who are enchanted by the circles feel no overwhelming compulsion to find feeble “explanations”. We (because I am proud to be an enchantee) are happy to come along for the ride, wherever it might take us. We accept that the circles will not, cannot, be battered into a comfortable, consensual 20th Century reality and we are happy to work on exploration, common sense and hypothesis. As a group, we seem – generally - to be happy. We have fun!

Those, however, who are unable to accept the phenomenon as it is and who are desperate to explain it away as man-made seem overwhelmingly to be depressed, envious and embittered. They appear to be driven by an overwhelming urge to contain and encapsulate the circles into something deeply ordinary.

Bless them all! Despite their relentless abuse (of me, of my colleagues, of the circles) I feel neither anger nor resentment, only boredom and pity. And, with the benefit of hindsight, I am ashamed that I have given their weak and fraudulent position so much of my energy.

I apologise to you all for having wasted your time. Goodbye to all that.