In the second part of her thoughts on the recent Discovery Channel crop circle documentary, GURO K PARVANOVA looks deeper into the misrepresentation of the show and the arrogance of the students involved…


In addition to Nancy Talbott's previous comments about the scientific aspects in my first piece, which are clearly the most important, I, being an observer who is interested in every aspect of crop circles, would also like to present some practical and general views on the show; after all it turned out to be just that - A SHOW.

My first reaction to the claim made by one of the junior students that the crop formations would be easy to make was: "What an arrogance!" He simply cannot know what he is talking about. He said this while looking through photos of the most beautiful and complex crop formations that have been found in the UK during the last decade. It was obvious that neither the students nor the TV company had ever been in a crop formation before - not even seen one. The junior students seemed very content with themselves, and so did the graduate students, but they obviously knew nothing about "the real thing"!

According to MIT's web site, Rizzo, one of the juniors, said, "I think they [crop circles] are a result of free time, boredom and a good sense of humour." I find this very arrogant indeed due to how little he seems to know about this phenomenon, and the poor results they achieved both scientifically and otherwise.

There is much more to a crop formation than what can be measured scientifically, like beautiful layers of stems, which are an important part of the aesthetics as well as the geometry, making the shadows and subtle lines visible. Sacred geometry is found again and again in crop formation ‘designs’ - sacred because it is the geometry of life itself. Even if this film was supposed to be a strictly scientific study, just mentioning it would have made the viewers aware of the complexity of this phenomenon. In my opinion it would have made both the students and the film makers look more familiar with the object of their study, and therefore more serious.
Walking through crop without leaving a trail is easier in some parts of the world, as in the USA and Canada, I have been told. In England and Norway, as in many other countries, this is considered very difficult if not impossible, because the fields are planted more densely. In many other parts of the world where crop circles occur, there will be a very clearly visible trail if people walk in a field like these students did.

The students, and obviously the TV company as well, found the design of this experimental crop formation interesting and complicated. I did not. Being ‘spoilt’ with the huge and geometrically intricate formations in Wiltshire and Hampshire, I found the design very simple and not very large. The problem is that the whole film is presented in such a way that it is difficult for the viewers to get the right perspectives and proportions in order to judge. Is this done deliberately?

The students failed, concerning their own time limit of four hours, even with head lights or night vision goggles and a lot of fancy gear. Has anyone ever met people with particle projectors and portable microwave units around Wiltshire? If you have, please let us know. Has anyone ever seen a huge fire where crop circles are formed? Please let us AND THE FARMERS know.

If this were the way crop circles form - made by bored people with a good sense of humour - or junior students with a big ego - WHO started to make all these very difficult geometric designs and those very strange changes in the plants and soils in the first place? WHY did they start doing this? WHY did they make it so difficult for themselves?

Especially in Wiltshire, there are many people out on night watch every night during the summer months, sitting on strategically important places with a clear view over fields where crop formations often form year after year. This area of England is populated, which means that people are looking out of their windows, sitting outside in their gardens looking over fields, visiting neighbours, family, and friends, going to and from work and so on. There are also a lot of tourists around during the summer months. It can not be easy to keep making a crop formation for hours on end without being spotted. The big fire that the MIT students made with their device towards the end of their crop circle experiment would probably have caused quite a stir in any populated area.

Heavy rain is also an obstacle to count with in England, as well as in many other places on Earth where crop circles occur, but the circle makers do not seem to mind rain. Many big, beautiful, and very complex crop formations have formed during rainy nights without anyone noticing, but the first people to enter the next morning have sunk into the mud! How would the MIT students' equipment have worked in heavy rain? How many hours would they have needed if they had sunk into mud while working? How would that crop circle have looked, apart from being very muddy?

It is said towards the end of the film that this is just an experiment and should be regarded as such, which is perfectly alright. The problem is that the students behave and speak as if they have solved the riddle.