By Freddy Silva

Several years ago Colin Andrews pointed to an interesting anomaly in crop circles: the appearance of crop circles atop watersheds or aquifers and the subsequent displacement of large volumes of water. This observation led to the suggestion of microwave energy as a prime motivating force behind the creation of crop circles.

Tests were subsequently done in Japan where stalks were placed in microwave ovens and baked to achieve similar physical effects found on the fields. Unfortunately, after about thirty seconds, the plants blew up and caught fire. This led me to believe that the reason why there was so much watershed displacement in the first place was that the water was literally being sucked out of the ground to counteract the burning affect of the microwave. After all, how could you explain that the ground inside a new, genuine formation is bone dry while the night despite heavy rain overnight? And that when cut, the bottom of the affected plant stems smells of a cooked, malty odour?

This is where I came in with the idea of using infra red film to help prove or disprove this theory. I had worked with infra red film years ago in college, mostly as an art form, but I was aware of the film's scientific capacity to capture heat in plants. In a nutshell, infra red film penetrates just below the surface of objects to retrieve heat-sensitive information. Consequently it is not too distracted by surfaces warmed by sunlight (the tarmac of a road surface, for example, will always show as black regardless of its surface temperature because the medium itself is lifeless). Its trademark is the bright red colour denoting the high chlorophyll heat dissipation present in foliage. It is a very contrasty film, so bright sunlight tends to wash out some of the results, so it is hard to scan properly onto a computer, so I apologize for the discrepancy of the quality of pictures here. Most annoying of all, it is very expensive to shoot.

On July 7,1995, Colin and I set out to cover a batch of formations from the air. These photos were shot within an hour of each other under similar weather conditions, so the protocol is consistent. First off was image A (Overton, 12 May), already decimated by visitors after almost two months on the ground. The flatness of this image denotes no unusual activity. Next was B (Telegraph Hill, 11 June); here I thought I had picked up something as the watershed was seriously disturbed. However, upon cross-referencing my standard film shots it was obvious that the patches were actually caused by passing clouds and not anomalous to features below the soil. The results in C (Alresford, 21 June) showed very minor patches of water displacement. However, D (Longwood Warren, 22 June) showed immense displacement moving towards the central area of the formation; this formation was just two weeks old when shot.

Then things began to get very interesting. At E (Cheesefoot Head, 4 July), the watershed was seriously disrupted, especially at the point where the formation began- the tip of the tail. Then came F (Litchfield, 7 July), where not only was there serious disruption but the central strip actually showed up the dry chalk. Interestingly, a planned hoax at Whitchurch (G) on the same day showed no watershed disruption, as did another, older hoax near Andover (H).

Close-ups of the two most recent formations- Litchfield and Whitchurch- revealed a difference in the heat distribution of the plants. Similar in age and crop, shot under identical conditions, the Whitchurch (Ga) formation exhibited normal distribution of heat throughout the plant stems, as one would expect of a plant in its normal growing phase. At Litchfield (Fa), the heat pattern was disturbed from the ground up, as if the lower portion of the plants had been 'cooled down'.

By no means a conclusive discovery, these results nevertheless set up two interesting possibilities for future observation. Shot from the air, genuine formations show disturbance of the watershed within 48-hours of creation which, after a couple of weeks, gradualy revert to normal. Hoaxed formations, on the other hand, reveal nothing unusual, regardless of the time period. On the ground, the difference was also obvious....continue