From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:12:12 UT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:50:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Vallee On Crop Circles - Hamilton


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:38:35 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Vallee On Crop Circles

 >>From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:25:34 +0100
 >>Subject: Vallee On Crop Circles

 >>Hi Friends and Researchers

 >>I have been sent the below article by the well-respected UFO and
 >>paranormal researcher, Jacques Vallee.

 >>He tells me it can be freely distributed. It has already been
 >>posted on the NIDS website.

 >>This may not be a popular theory for the formation of crop
 >>circles and raises a thousand issues.

 >>CROP CIRCLES: "SIGNS" FROM ABOVE OR HUMAN ARTIFACTS?
 >>(by Jacques Vallee)

<snip>

 >Up to here we have a recitation of the data. Now comes the
 >suggested explanation.

 >>All the significant formations were observed in an area in close
 >>proximity to major research facilities of the British defense
 >>establishment, often in controlled airspace.

 >>So much for Aliens and Druids. These studies point to the crop
 >>formations as the result of sophisticated electronic warfare
 >>experiments conducted by defense contractors. The answer to
 >>question (1) provides the first clue:

 >>If you are trying to calibrate a beam, drawing a pattern on a
 >>wheat field can yield precision information within the diameter
 >>of one stalk over hundreds of feet, an ideal test situation.

 >In my opinion this form of the "Defense - Circle Connection"
 >is really 'Waaaay Oouttt'.

 >Here he is saying that the answer to the first question above
 >(Is there a change in the nature of the constructions as time
 >goes on?) is an indication of improvement British defense
 >technology. At first the patterns were simple.

 >Then they got complex.... ergo the technology improved.

 >As a researcher involved with military lasers (or microwave
 >beams) I would say that "calibrating" a beam weapon by drawing a
 >pattern in a grain field would be by far the LEAST likely
 >method. (A) they would use a "target board" or some special
 >device to measure beam steering accuracy, not a field of grain
 >and (B) if in the unlikely event they decided to use a grain
 >field they wouldn't use a privately owned field... they would
 >"grow their own".

 >I am, I must admit, flabbergasted that Jacques would extrapolate
 >from the factual presence of a military establishment set up for
 >electronic warfare to the use of weapons to draw pictures in
 >farmers' grain fields. "Electronic Warfare" does not mean beam
 >weapons., The terminology refers to detecting the enemies signal
 >transmissions and either listening in or jamming (such as radar
 >jamming).

<snip>

Bruce, I agree with you and just wanted to add my two cents. I
posted this response to speculations that military satellites
were behind crop formations:

It has recently come to my attention that some individuals are
advancing the idea that crop glyphs are being made by the
military (branch is unspecified) and laid down by using a laser
or maser beam from an orbiting satellite.

Aside from the waste of taxpayer expense such behavior is
explained in terms of perpetrating the concept that an alien
presence is responsible for the crop glyphs.

History has shown that the military has repeatedly denied any
evidence of extraterrestrial visitation and does not affirm it,
not even for disinformation purposes (what purpose?).

Let us think about this. A satellite is in a 100-mile orbit
around earth (an example). It is travelling at a velocity that
maintains its orbit - approximately 18,000 mph or 26,400 feet
per second so that to make a simple circle of 100 feet in
diameter, the laser would operate for a 1/264th of a second, but
NO, that would make a line across the earth. It would have to
have a beam that spread into a circle with a 50-foot radius
instantly - and that is just a simple circle.

England is usually very foggy.

The biggest issue for a free space laser is fog. While the laser beam
transmits through fog, the moisture particles are so small and dense and
like many tiny prisms to distort and dissipate the signal. This problem
makes the light with information distort and produces an error bit.

Although the liquid content of a heavy shower is 10 times that
of a dense fog, the radius of a raindrop is about 1000 times
that of a fog droplet. This is the primary reason that
attenuation via rain is 100 times less than that of fog.

The effects of snow on a laser transmission fall somewhere in
between those of fog and rain, depending on the degree of water
particles in the snow.

Even more devastating to holding your writing utensil on target
is Shimmer: This is the direct result of a combination of
factors, including atmospheric turbulence, air density, light
refraction, cloud cover, and wind. The combination of factors
will cause a similar disturbance when a laser beam is
transmitted through the atmosphere.

Then there is the matter of laser energy. The power density
required at the target site has to be precise so as not to
ignite a dry crop and yet penetrate the atmosphere. Even by
penetrating the atmosphere and attenuating below ignition
temperatures, how is the beam focused on the lower point of
stalks?

Some of these arguments also apply to masers.

What about using UAVs? More probable than satellites, but still
having problems as a hypothesis. UAVs are also in motion, though
more controlled than a satellite.

Most of these alternate hypothesis come from those who outright
state their disbelief in the ET-origin hypothesis or support
some other exotic hypotheses involving earth energies or extra-
dimensional entities.

The crop glyphs (other than the confirmed hoaxes) remain a
mystery to be further investigated, but I think it is highly
unlikely that we will find a military source behind this
phenomenon.

-Bill Hamilton