Analysis of the Oliver's Castle Crop Circle Video
Paul Vigay
AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLIVER'S CASTLE CROP CIRCLE VIDEO
by Paul Vigay
October 1996
Reproduced from "Enigma" magazine, issue 11
On the early morning of Sunday 11th August 1996, perhaps the most
controversial event ever, occurred in the world of crop circle research.
A six petalled crop formation appeared beneath the slopes of Oliver's Castle
hill fort, just to the north of Devizes in Wiltshire. Not unusual you may
think. But this time, the whole event had been caught on video.
Less than twelve hours later, a young man, initially wanting to remain
anonymous, turned up in The Barge public house with what was soon to become
one of the most hotly discussed video's in the history of cerealogy.
The video was a short sequence, only some twenty four seconds long, but
showing not only the creation of the crop circle (see front cover for
diagram), but also the movement of alleged UFO balls of light. Could this
be the Holy Grail of crop circle research?
The Video Sequence
------------------
The brief clip started with a wide view of the valley lying to the west.
This then zoomed down to an empty field below, and then zoomed back to the
original wide shot of the valley. This was presumably to show the local
terrain and was filmed before the crop circle appeared.
There then appears to be a brief edit in the film, because it immediately
jumps to a zoomed in view of the field (still no crop circle present) with
two balls of light travelling from right to left across the field of view.
As they reach the left side of the frame they circle round travelling away
from the camera and fly towards the top right of the frame. As they get to
about half way across the frame, the crop formation starts to appear.
First the large central circle appears, followed by the outer satellite
circles, before the interlocking paths are laid down last. The whole
creation sequence lasts just two to three seconds. Throughout the formation
of the circle, the balls of light continue to move to the top right, before
veering to the left and appearing to go through the hedge on the opposite
side of the field. Their brightness appears to dim slightly at this point.
Just before they leave the frame at the top of the screen, a third ball of
light appears from nowhere, seemingly from the hedge in about the middle of
the screen. This moves rapidly towards the right, just missing the top right
part of the formation. It disappears off the screen to the right, only to
re-appear travelling to the left slightly lower down, circling around the
formation.
As it moves to the left it is joined by a fourth ball just above it. Both
balls fly past the formation and disappear off the left hand side of the
frame. A second later they re-appear, flying to the right, obviously having
circled round in an arc wider than the zoom setting on the camera.
One appears to fade out at this point, whilst the last one continues to fly
to the right before leaving the frame on the top right, just below the level
of the hedge.
The video clip then stops.
[photo and diagram of ball movements]
Observations
------------
When I first viewed the video in The Barge I was initially impressed. In
fact, who wouldn't be? The video appears to show indisputable proof of a non
man-made crop formation. Just what researchers have been looking for!
However, I never take things at face value and, fearing another Doug and
Dave type scam to try and set the subject back again, I wanted to take a
much closer look at the video and do my own analysis, especially as my
professional line of work is with computers and graphical effects.
The first apparent flaws I noticed in the video concern the actual view of
the field. At all times during the creation and subsequent flight of the
balls of light, the camera remains stationary fixed at a preset zoom. By
coincidence the zoom is exactly set so that the completed crop formation
exactly fills the field of view without having to zoom out or move the
camera.
In fact the camera shows a distinct lack of movement, almost as if mounted
on a tripod. For example, the balls of light fly out of view a couple of
times and no attempt is made to follow their movement - surprising if the
cameraman was witnessing actual UFOs flying around.
If you get the chance to watch the video for yourself, use the telegraph
pole in the field as a marker for movement. It remains in exactly the same
position throughout.
Also, the action on the video seems to contradict actual ground
observations. Visiting the formation on the ground, the outlying pathways
go underneath the lay of the satellite circles, presumably being formed
first. However, on the video, the satellite circles can be clearly seen to
form before the pathways.
The shadows in the inner, large circle also don't seem right, but due to
the quality of the video I viewed, it was difficult to analyse them to
satisfaction.
On 11th August sunrise was at 5.44am, which is after the time when the
video was allegedly filmed. The sun would rise from behind the cameraman's
back, to the East - and don't forget that it was filmed looking down the
valley, so Oliver's Castle itself would mask the sun's initial rays.
Before sunrise there would be no visible shadows, and in fact I'm doubtful
if the light would be as bright as it seemed on the video, but this is my
subjective view in the absence of an interview with the cameraman.
The Cameraman
-------------
Although initially wanting to remain anonymous, I can reveal the cameraman's
name as John Wheyleigh (JW), from Bath. I'm revealing this because all
attempts to contact him have so far failed, and I believe knowledge of his
name may help others identify him.
Initially when he arrived at the Barge on the day of the formation he was
very nervous and visibly shaken, fearing that the MOD or CIA may be after
him. He wanted to speak to Colin Andrews or Peter Sorensen. Peter was in
the Barge and was one of the first people to view the video.
Colin Andrews subsequently obtained the video by signing a contract with
John Wheyleigh. The details of this contract are unknown, but it was
alleged to allow Colin to handle world-wide media interest in the video.
The Doubt
---------
Initially, people were impressed. Word got around and quickly the entire
crop circle community knew of the footage. However, after a subsequent
showing in the Barge approx one week later, when I was present, the general
opinion was beginning to turn to doubt, especially when I pointed out some
of my observations.
How did JW know where the crop formation was going to appear in order to
preset the zoom on his camera before it appeared? Why didn't he naturally
follow the balls of light around the field? After all, they could be about
to create another crop formation in a nearby field.
Both myself and Peter Sorensen decided to analyse the film in greater
detail. We played it through on a high quality, single frame video. The
first thing I noticed was that freezing on a single frame revealed that the
balls of light were perfectly formed with no motion blur. As they were
moving quite rapidly across the field of view, you would expect to see some
kind of blur on a single frame.
Technical Analysis
------------------
A video film is made up of a number of frames, individual images being shown
in quick succession, if you like. In fact, a normal video runs at 25 frames
per second.
Generally each frame of video consists of what is known as two fields. If
you look carefully at a TV picture, you'll see that the picture is made up
from a great many lines going vertically down the screen. 625 in all,
forming a complete picture.
These 625 lines form two fields - one consisting of all the evenly numbered
lines and the other with all the odd numbered lines. The two fields together
form what is known as an 'interlaced' picture.
The initial sequence of the video, ie. that showing the zoom, seems to be
interlaced. ie. both fields are present. However, the animation bit (where
the crop circle actually appears) seems to be non-interlaced, only
consisting of a single field. This then reverts back to interlaced at the
end of the sequence.
This is highly suspicious and would imply that some kind of computer effect
could have been used to generate the crop circle appearing - with no
interlace.
This leads to two possibilities; Either JW was involved in the hoaxing of
the video, by setting up the camera and filming the empty field before it
was made, then making it himself or waiting whilst friends made it and then
filming the completed crop formation before editing together the two pieces
using a video mixer with a circular wipe facility and finally superimposing
the balls of light over the top, or he was lucky enough to visit the
formation just after it had already appeared, filmed the formation and then
manually removed it in a studio on a computer, before again superimposing
the balls over the top.
Out of these two scenarios, the first is more likely, and easier. However,
in the interests of research and amid growing arguments as to the
genuineness of the video, I decided to produce my own video, just to see
how difficult to make it really would be. Some 'believers' had claimed that
it would be impossible to fake without expensive, professional video and
computer equipment - something presumably JW didn't have access to.
Well, neither do I, except a home computer fitted with a PAL video mixer
and genlock card (to output and mix computer graphics with a TV picture).
If I could do it within twelve hours, then I reckon any hoaxer intent on
debunking the subject and with access to a video studio would easily be able
to produce it.
I set myself a limit of four hours, just to see if it was possible. To my
surprise, my end result was quite acceptable, and would be even higher
quality had I given myself more time. As it happened, I completed it in
just under three hours.
Reproducing the Video
---------------------
For reference, and for those who haven't seen my version, I visited the
field later in the day, after creation, and filmed some ten minutes of
footage on a Hi-8mm camcorder. This was for my own research and reference.
Being a computer programmer I was able to write my own animation software
as I couldn't find any suitable 'commercial' software. This may be one
reason why people say it can't be done.
I took a sequence of footage from my original 8mm tape and digitised it
into the computer to obtain a static colour 'scan' of the field in question
- in broad daylight and containing the completed crop circle. I then
darkened the video to make it look like early morning. This was easy, using
a standard 'grey' fade set to approx 85% fadeout. I then re-scanned this
into the computer and 'painted' out the crop circle using a paintbox
package - so as to obtain a field with no crop circle in it. (see below)
Having obtained a 'blank' field in the computer, I then wrote a small
program to take a real-time video source (my original 8mm tape) and do a
circular fade of the computer image with no crop formation. I did this in
three parts to replicate the JW video. ie. the main circle appears, then
the outer circles and finally the pathways. The computer handled all the
animation sequence here and I recorded the output onto VHS tape. I recorded
onto standard VHS tape and not professional tape so that the graininess of
the copy would make the end result look more authentic. This gave me a VHS
video copy of the crop formation appearing in the field. I now needed to
add the balls of light.
Adding the balls of light was the easiest job, again, having written my own
computer software. I played the VHS tape of the crop formation appearing
(in approx 3 seconds) through the computer and whilst it was going through
the computer I moved the mouse around the screen to trace out the movement
I wanted the balls to take.
I could edit the path if I made mistakes. The computer stored the mouse
movements and allowed me to replay the sequence, substituting a 'ball of
light' for the previous mouse movements. I then replayed it and edited it
until I liked the result. At this stage I could also edit the fade between
video and computer, to make the balls of light seemingly grow dim or
brighter depending on position. It would also be possible using my software
to add 'random' X/Y movements to the path of the balls, to simulate camera
shake.
Again, I replayed the sequence in the computer until I liked it. When
complete, and I was happy with it, I re-recorded the whole thing back onto
VHS tape - being careful to simulate the correct interlace information in
each frame (this is manually controllable on my computer system).
The whole sequence took me just under three hours to produce from start to
finish, and includes camera-shake and camera-movement to follow the balls of
light around the field - which the original JW video did not. In all, I was
reasonably pleased with it, and I could certainly produce a better version
given a longer time. I deliberately rushed it because I wanted to see just
how quickly it would take to produce acceptable results.
Free copies of my 'computer created' version are available by sending me a
blank VHS tape and return postage. Only PAL versions are currently
available.
Conclusions
-----------
From a technical viewpoint, the video is very well made. The movement of
the balls of light is very 'fluid' and smooth. The action appears to take
place in real-time and it looks impressive. However, when subjected to
scrutiny and technical analysis, major flaws start to appear. I am
personally convinced that it is a hoax.
Whoever perpetrated the hoax obviously had access to fairly elaborate video
equipment and computers, although it would not require large amounts of
money, as has been suggested by some researchers. I estimate you could do
it with under £3000.00 worth of equipment. However, it is well made and was
obviously planned. Was it an attempt to fool Colin Andrews? who was first
researcher to be approached. Colin has a high profile in the world of crop
circle research and any organised attempt by the hoaxers to discredit him
would surely need careful planning.
At the time of printing, Colin has publicly stated that he too is sceptical
of the footage, following his own analysis. If the hoaxers aim was to mount
another Doug and Dave blow, then it has back-fired.
We can't really analyse the video much further without interviewing, at
length, John Wheyleigh, who took the video. However, he seems less than
willing to come forward. To date, no one has managed to track him down to
ask him further questions.
One further, interesting, observation was made by Joachim Koch, a German
researcher, who noticed that the name of John Wheyleigh's colleague was a
certain John Wabe - an unusual surname.
Readers who are familiar with the Alice Books - written by Lewis Carroll in
the Victorian Era, may be interested in the following coincidence.
Alice falls asleep and dreams, both "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice
Through the Looking Glass".
Alice Through the Looking Glass
-------------------------------
Alice finds a book in which there is a nonsense poem called Jabberwocky
which goes on a bit but the piece we're interested in is this bit; Later she
meets up with Humpty Dumpty who looks like a big egg with a face and arms
and legs.
Article Unavailable
Love Lies Squealing
On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:58:42 +0000 (GMT), Paul Vigay
<pvi...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>*So here we have Mr. Wabe* - a grass plot around a sundial with toves going
>round and round in circles like a gyroscope.
And here the plot grows cold and lumpy; I refer you to:-
"Like the slithy toves that these gentlemen are, they don't muchchange
their habits or their blueprint for deception ...
George Wingfield"
Eeeek!
Conspiracy!
L O V E L I E S S Q U E A L I N G
Oh children don't you weep and moan,
Children save your breath, You'll
draw a pretty pension, when your daddy
meets his death. - Trad. Ballad.
Ken Wessels
In article <ant041642f7fq#H...@pvigay.interalpha.co.uk>, Paul Vigay
<pvi...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLIVER'S CASTLE CROP CIRCLE VIDEO
> by Paul Vigay
> October 1996
>
> Reproduced from "Enigma" magazine, issue 11
>
>
> On the early morning of Sunday 11th August 1996, perhaps the most
> controversial event ever, occurred in the world of crop circle research.
>
> A six petalled crop formation appeared beneath the slopes of Oliver's Castle
>
> -------------
The
> first thing I noticed was that freezing on a single frame revealed that the
> balls of light were perfectly formed with no motion blur. As they were
> moving quite rapidly across the field of view, you would expect to see some
> kind of blur on a single frame.
>
> I have seen the film also. It is a bona fide film made in night time light.
I have worked under many conditions with many kinds of cameras in the last
10 years. Many had zooms of 12x and more and also high speed options.
Your surmises about "blurs" are meaningless in this discussion. You
quite simply have the authentic goods at hand and your mind refuses to
accept it and masquerades that as "technical analysis".
There the evidence sits and you need not say it is not what it is.
I would add that the light appeared to go through the tree-tops and not
through a hedge row. It was an eery project and the balls of light
appeared to be a sort of satellite working on a project. Try to envisage
the "aliens" working around this planet in the way that the US Space
Agency worked around the Moon and Mars, making use of working satellite
robots. The next challenge is to figure out what message is being sent in
these patterns.
Michael Edelman
In our continuing discussion of why it's pointless to try to teach a pig
to sing:
Ken Wessels (ca...@inav.net) wrote:
: In article <ant041642f7fq#H...@pvigay.interalpha.co.uk>, Paul Vigay
: > AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLIVER'S CASTLE CROP CIRCLE VIDEO
: > by Paul Vigay
: > October 1996
: >
[snip]
: The
: > first thing I noticed was that freezing on a single frame revealed that the
: > balls of light were perfectly formed with no motion blur. As they were
: > moving quite rapidly across the field of view, you would expect to see some
: > kind of blur on a single frame.
: >
: > I have seen the film also. It is a bona fide film made in night time light.
: I have worked under many conditions with many kinds of cameras in the last
: 10 years. Many had zooms of 12x and more and also high speed options.
: Your surmises about "blurs" are meaningless in this discussion. You
: quite simply have the authentic goods at hand and your mind refuses to
: accept it and masquerades that as "technical analysis".
Now here's someone who claims some sort of expertise, and yet doesn't seem
to understand the criticism. There's just no way a moving image is not
going to blur in these conditions.
I wonder who is really the person whose mind refuses to accept the facts?
Michael Reynolds
Michael Edelman <m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu> wrote in article <567e69$a...@cwis-20.wayne.edu>...
:
: Now here's someone who claims some sort of expertise, and yet doesn't seem
: going to blur in these conditions.
What were "these conditions"? It's an elementary calculation to determine
if an object should blurr, just divide the object's speed by the shutter speed.
Was the shutter speed of the camera known? If not, you have to deduce
what the shutter speed was from the amount of exposure vs. the speed
of the film. Is the speed of the film known?
You must have one of these two pieces of data in order to have any
certainty that an object travelling at that speed should blur.
Andrew Gay
In article <01bbd01f$892fdec0$bc9c...@mreynol.symntec.com>, "Michael
Reynolds" <mre...@news.symantec.com> wrote:
> It's an elementary calculation to determine
> if an object should blurr, just divide the object's speed by the shutter
speed.
Bear in mind that the video was allegedly filmed using a PAL video camera.
Each video frame consists of 2 interlaced fields, with the fields 20 msec
apart. When viewing a single frame, you would expect to see a significant
displacement of any moving objects between the even and odd numbered scan
lines. It has been reported here that the expected displacement is not
apparent on the video. I have only seen a reduced-size mpeg version which
does not give sufficient resolution to confirm whether this is or is not
in fact the case.
> Was the shutter speed of the camera known? If not, you have to deduce
> what the shutter speed was from the amount of exposure vs. the speed
> of the film. Is the speed of the film known?
Like I said, it was allegedly shot with a video, not a cine-camera.
Since alternate scan lines are separated in time by 20 msec, the lack
of any displacement of moving objects between adjacent scan lines
would be totally conclusive evidence of a forgery.
> You must have one of these two pieces of data in order to have any
> certainty that an object travelling at that speed should blur.
It can be quite frightening to realise that life only exists on the
surface of this planet and nowhere else.
Paul Vigay
In article <cati-10119...@news.inav.net>, Ken Wessels
<URL:mailto:ca...@inav.net> wrote:
> The
> > first thing I noticed was that freezing on a single frame revealed that the
> > balls of light were perfectly formed with no motion blur. As they were
> > moving quite rapidly across the field of view, you would expect to see some
> > kind of blur on a single frame.
> >
> I have worked under many conditions with many kinds of cameras in the last
> 10 years. Many had zooms of 12x and more and also high speed options.
> Your surmises about "blurs" are meaningless in this discussion. You
> quite simply have the authentic goods at hand and your mind refuses to
> accept it and masquerades that as "technical analysis".
I would therefore question your expertise in this area. I stand by my
comments, as you would certainly expect to see motion blur in such a video.
For a start, the video was supposedly shot at 5am in the morning, which would
have very low light levels, thus you would have a slow shutter speed and NOT
a high speed option.
I use 20x zooms and on all you get a motion blur, especially when the camera
doesn't pan to follow the objects, but rather remains stationery, as though
fixed to a tripod.
I am a qualified photographer and have worked with photography for over 15
years, not that that means anything in this context.
--
_
|_|
|aul - using ANT Marcel v1.09
Acorn Archimedes Programmer/Consultant and Paranormal Investigator
WWW homepage: http://rainbow.medberry.com/enigma/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to have an argument unless you consent to it.
Paul Vigay
On 11 Nov 1996, m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu said,
>: I have worked under many conditions with many kinds of cameras in
> the last : 10 years. Many had zooms of 12x and more and also high
> speed options. : Your surmises about "blurs" are meaningless in
> this discussion. You : quite simply have the authentic goods at hand
> and your mind refuses to : accept it and masquerades that as
> "technical analysis".
> seem to understand the criticism. There's just no way a moving
> image is not going to blur in these conditions.
Well, I stand by my original claim. For a start, the cameraman doesn't
pan his shot therefore the camera position stays stationary whilst the
balls of light fly from left to right. As the lighting conditions were
very low (supposedly 5am) he would have had a slow shutter speed
resulting in motion blur on individual frames. There was none.
I have also reproduced the same video using my own camera (20x zoom) and
it does indeed give motion blur. However, if the original consisted of a
number of individual frames (ie. a computer animation), it would be
consistant with the video we have been presented with. I maintain that
it is a hoax.
_
|_|
|aul, using (and writing) !NetReader v1.03
.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| Director of Operations |
| The Independent Research Centre for Unexplained Phenomena |
| Equinox BBS (UK): (01705) 871531 (24 hr) |
| WWW URL: http://rainbow.medberry.com/enigma/index.html |
| (for the latest UFO, Crop Circle and Paranormal Research) |
'-----------------------------------------------------------'
Michael Reynolds
Andrew Gay <and...@ssynth.co.uk> wrote in article <andrew-1211...@domitian.ssynth.co.uk>...
: In article <01bbd01f$892fdec0$bc9c...@mreynol.symntec.com>, "Michael
: Reynolds" <mre...@news.symantec.com> wrote:
: It can be quite frightening to realise that life only exists on the
: surface of this planet and nowhere else.
The rest of your statement was quite factual and logical, but this statement
is very illogical. Accounts of alien interaction with human beings are generally
of a horror movie quality involving rape and complete violation of one's free will.
What you refer to here is not frightening at all, it is what one would naturally
assume.
Michael Reynolds
Paul Vigay
> Michael Edelman <m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu> wrote in article <567e69$a...@cwis-20.wayne.ed
> u>...
> :
> : going to blur in these conditions.
>
> if an object should blurr, just divide the object's speed by the shutter speed.
> what the shutter speed was from the amount of exposure vs. the speed
> of the film. Is the speed of the film known?
>
> certainty that an object travelling at that speed should blur.
I would say that the shutter speed was in the order of 50-100th second, if he
used an 8mm video recorder with automatic exposure. Of course he may have
used manual override (if his camera had it), but most video cameras have auto
exposure.
The speed of the balls of light can be calculated from the video. The whole
formation was some 400' across and we know the time taken for the ball to fly
over it.
--
_
|_|
|aul - using ANT Marcel v1.09
Acorn Archimedes Programmer/Consultant and Paranormal Investigator
WWW homepage: http://rainbow.medberry.com/enigma/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
A million tears have been shed, for what people thought but never said.
Jim Rogers
Paul Vigay wrote:
> In article <01bbd01f$892fdec0$bc9c...@mreynol.symntec.com>, Michael Reynolds
> <URL:mailto:mre...@news.symantec.com> wrote:
> > Michael Edelman <m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu> wrote in article <567e69$a...@cwis-20.wayne.ed
> > u>...
> > :
> > : Now here's someone who claims some sort of expertise, and yet doesn't seem
> > : to understand the criticism. There's just no way a moving image is not
> > : going to blur in these conditions.
> >
> > What were "these conditions"? It's an elementary calculation to determine
> > if an object should blurr, just divide the object's speed by the shutter speed.
> > Was the shutter speed of the camera known? If not, you have to deduce
> > what the shutter speed was from the amount of exposure vs. the speed
> > of the film. Is the speed of the film known?
> >
> > You must have one of these two pieces of data in order to have any
> > certainty that an object travelling at that speed should blur.
>
> I would say that the shutter speed was in the order of 50-100th second, if he
> used an 8mm video recorder with automatic exposure. Of course he may have
> used manual override (if his camera had it), but most video cameras have auto
> exposure.
With video, streaking is trickier than just shutter speed, because
there's image latency between frames for high-contrast objects. The old
vidicon tubes are notorious for leaving a big, fat trail that persists
for a large fraction of a second when a highlight moves, but CCD chips
are not immune from it; I don't have data on-hand to quantify it,
however.
With film, shutter speed is the only important parameter, because you
project onto a fresh imaging medium with every frame; not so with video.
Another telltale that's already been raised is that interlaced video
implies that the image should shift between vertical scans-- if it
doesn't, but shifts only for full frames, then it was concocted
full-frame by full-frame.
Jim
ilyes
Greetings, Paul -
Would you reconfirm the diameter of the Oliver's Castle Formation for me? Your posting
says 400' .
The figure I first heard and have been using was that the central Circle was 85' in diameter.
That would rough out to an overall 270'-300'. Do you have more accurate figures from a
survey?
Thanks. -i-
Ron Hill
ca...@inav.net (Ken Wessels) wrote:
....snip...
> Try to envisage
>the "aliens" working around this planet in the way that the US Space
>Agency worked around the Moon and Mars, making use of working satellite
>robots. The next challenge is to figure out what message is being sent in
>these patterns.
Another thought - The Circlemakers are trying to tell us that the
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy got it wrong. The real answer to
everything is not 42 but FIVE ! (Well that's as good a reason as any
so far)
R.H.
Ron Hill
ca...@inav.net (Ken Wessels) wrote:
.......snip
>robots. The next challenge is to figure out what message is being sent in
>these patterns.
Maybe one of the Greek gods in a game of dice up above rolled a five!
Phil Shulkind
Andrew Gay <and...@ssynth.co.uk> writes
>
>It can be quite frightening to realise that life only exists on the
>surface of this planet and nowhere else.
The chances of that being true must be millions to one against (at least)!
Phil Shulkind
Partner, Phildee Enterprises
Love Lies Squealing
>The speed of the balls of light can be calculated from the video. The whole
>formation was some 400' across and we know the time taken for the ball to fly
>over it.
Paul, _if_ the balls flew over the formation.