ROBERT HULSE and DAVID CAYTON reply to Janet Ossebaard’s recent anguished remarks about their work, discussing cattle mutilation, man-made formations, and NON man-made formations along the way…
It was with some sadness that we read the comments made about us by Janet Ossebaard both on Swirled News and on her own website. We have always considered it a great pleasure to be in her company, and we would like to think that with goodwill on both sides, that state of affairs may prevail once more. However, we feel that it is only fair that we be allowed to answer her criticisms of us, and to correct some inaccuracies and misconceptions in her accounts, particularly those made on Janet's website.
The driving force behind all our investigations into the alien involvement with this planet is our desire to find the truth, and in so doing, we may come to know their ultimate aims for mankind. Over many years, we have studied "ALL" aspects of their involvement here. We believe that the crop circle phenomenon is just one of them. This last sentence, which we have repeated on numerous occasions is an affirmation that we believe some crop circles to be the work of aliens.
On Janet's website, she asks; "Why did two men roam around the Wiltshire countryside - David Cayton and Robert Hulse, known for their involvement in the cruel cattle mutilations - spreading their opinion in and out of season that all formations were hoaxes? "
We contend that it is quite normal and necessary for any crop circle researcher to seek out and visit as many formations as possible. So much for "roaming" around the Wiltshire countryside. Janet states that we are involved in the “cruel cattle mutilations”. Whether Janet likes them or not, animal mutilations perpetrated by aliens are an ongoing reality. It does not follow that just because we investigate cases which have occurred in the UK, that we are somehow accomplices of the aliens responsible for these deaths. Surely, no one would suggest that a policeman was encouraging a murder just because he investigates it? Animal and human mutilations are a reality, and have been so since at least the early 1950s. Just because Janet finds it unpleasant does not make it any less real. It is a matter of record that the highly respected researcher Linda Moulton-Howe took samples of grass from around the carcass of a mutilated cow. She gave these samples to W C Levengood of the BLT Research team. He found that changes to the cell structure in those grasses were the same as was found in samples taken from within a crop circle. This would suggest that a similar technology was used in both cases. We are not saying that the aliens who do the mutilations are the same ones who create genuine crop formations. After all, it is generally agreed that there are at least 20 different species of alien visiting and perhaps living on or within planet Earth. The truth is that we do not know which aliens create crop formations, and no one can be certain of their motives for so doing.
Janet entreats us to use our intuition and to trust our hearts. We would respond by saying that there can be few nicer places than a golden field of wheat or barley set in the beautiful Wiltshire countryside on a summer's day. The borders of the fields are strewn with poppies, daisies and cornflowers, where many species of colourful butterflies and bees alight. Add to that the company of many wonderful people drawn to the crop circles from all over the world, and you have a mixture that is hard to beat. Little wonder then, that some people have almost made a religion out of the crop circles. Unfortunately, most religions do not take kindly to criticism, whether well-meaning or not. Unlike many crop circle devotees, we are not content to stand in front of the king and applaud his beautiful new suite of clothes, when it is perfectly obvious that all he is wearing is a smile! The Etchilhampton formation which Janet asserts was full of dowsable energy, was in fact littered with board marks. These were kindly pointed out to us by Andreas Muller's colleague, Werner. As a very experienced researcher, he was able to advise us that the board marks are a chemical reaction in the plant stem to the stimulus of being damaged by the leading edge of the stomping board. These marks on the stem do not appear immediately, and only show after ten hours or so. In view of the fact that we were examining this formation at around 11.00am on the morning of its discovery, we consider it reasonable to assume that the board marks were inflicted by the people who created it.
We would like to apologise for our lack of judgement in offering certain people the evidence which we have gathered, and which proved to us that certain formations were man-made. Our naive assumption that they would be interested in our findings was misplaced. However, we believe that it is unfair of Janet to state that we were "spreading their opinion in and out of season that "ALL" formations were hoaxes."
THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE.
We regularly stated to other researchers and visitors to the formations that we considered it likely that the Honey Street, ‘Bee’ and ‘Swastika’ formations were genuine, ie. not man-made. We also stated that there may be two or three others in 2004, but that the evidence for them being genuine, which we had been able to gather, was less strong. We fully recognise that we are not infallible and that this is "just our opinion". However, we contend that our opinion is based solely on careful examination of the evidence available. Though we have been genuinely disappointed to find evidence of hoaxing in some formations, we do not believe that the path to true knowledge and understanding lies with our gut feeling and distorting and ignoring facts which show certain formations to be hoaxes. Though we readily concede that to some people there is no difference between an alien-made and man-made formation, for us it is of the utmost importance. The former undoubtedly is of major significance to mankind, while the latter is no more than an exercise in deception. We cannot accept them as being of equal significance, for by so doing, we devalue the genuine formations.
Janet asserts that, “we should respect each and every formation as a Divine tool to our own evolvement and evolution." We are surprised that she considers the work of Team Satan to be worthy of such a high accolade, for surely they have been responsible for at least some of the formations!
In previous years, we have taken great pleasure in examining certain formations which we have no doubt were genuine. In 2003, we had the North Down ‘Shield’ which was full of blown and bent nodes. In many cases, as many as four nodes on a single stem were bent. These bends were in the horizontal plane, completely ruling out phototropism. Even the sugars in some of the barley seed heads had been caramelised, made sticky and darkened by the heating process involved in forming genuine formations.
In 2002, we had the ‘Nautilus’ at Pewsey where the uniform quality of the lay was added to by the mystery of our Geiger counter readings, which rose to more than 20 times normal background radiation on one occasion. These readings were only found within the laid area, and we were amazed to see the meter drop suddenly down to normal after we had taken a dozen or so paces away from the edge of this beautiful formation.
On the 9th of August 2001, we were privileged indeed to be the first people, along with Andy Buckley, to set foot in the ‘Hubcap’ formation, which occurred between Woodborough Hill and the canal. Careful analysis of the evidence left us all in no doubt that we were the first humans to set foot in it.
In 2000,we were amazed by the intricacy of the lay found within the ‘Pin Cushion’ formation below Windmill Hill. We have no doubt that this was way beyond the ability of hoaxers, and these examples are but a few of the many genuine formations taken from those years. There can be little doubt that the massive and totally genuine ‘Galaxy’ formation of August 2001 was the most impressive of all.
Surely, there is overwhelming evidence that many formations were not made by the hand of man. Is our certainty of this fact so fragile that it cannot stand the criticism of an honest appraisal? We have no agenda save that of uncovering the truth which we will continue to strive for. However, in a genuine attempt at reconciliation, we pledge not to offer our opinion to Janet and others unless it is specifically requested. We reserve the right to comment at lectures, in publications and on websites.