The croppie world awaits with bated breath the next move in a controversy which has arisen between two
top researchers of the phenomena, Nancy Talbott of the BLT group and Colin Andrews.
Colin says some of the conclusions of BLT's researcher William Levengood are plain wrong and the
group should admit the mistake.
He claims to have filmed proof that circle plants Levengood said showed good evidence of the genuine
"crop circle making energy" were in fact from a fake circle made by Nancy's own plant samplers.
Nancy sparked the dispute in a piece she wrote for the Report a Crop Circle Facebook page responding
to questions about published papers by her BLT group.
She suggested "No reputable professional scientist would challenge already published work without
having carried out research replicating the research they are challenging"
She adds: "And if some of the lay-people involved in the crop circle situation are themselves raising
questions about the scientific work, such questions are basically insignificant...precisely because these
lay-people do not have the academic or scientific training needed to correctly understand what the
published material actual says."
But weighing in with his own statement headed: "BLT got it wrong and should admit it and move on", Colin
argues: "It does not always necessitate replication of a finding to prove the scientist is heading
down the wrong road".
He claims he filmed Nancy's crop circle samplers making a crop circle, sending samples to her from it and
then finally viewing Levengood's findings back to them.
Writes Colin: "Mr. Levengood concluded that the plants from this circle were among the best examples of
the real phenomenon and showed the highest crop circle making energy. But the team and I knew
differently. Whatever the science and protocols, whatever his findings, the plants came from a man made
crop circle. The results showed whatever they showed but the interpretation
He adds that downed plants from wind and rain in the same field were also judged by Levengood to show
a "very high level" of the mysterious energy.
In an email exchange, I asked Colin why Nancy's team were making their own crop circle.
Colin responded: "It was a legitimate blind test of BLT analysis. I asked the sampling team to join me to
blind test Levengood. BLT received samples as normal as they would from any other crop circle. I have it
all on video and sent Nancy a copy. I've not wanted to make it bad for Levengood but its important to get
some balance back into this."
I have forwarded Colin's Facebook statement to Nancy and will report further her reaction if she chooses
The full text of Nancy's statement is here: http://tiny.cc/dts6b
The full text of Colin's statement is here: http://tiny.cc/97umy - also below with photographic evidence.
|She further claimed that challenges must contain replicated experiments to be valid.
Her approach I considered was patronising and arrogant, so I felt justified in revealing
some firm facts which cast doubt on BLT and Levengood's work - information that I have
sensitively kept out of the public domain for many years. Talbott fails to include in her
provisions for significant challenges the importance of using double blind protocols in
evaluating the scientific merit of experimental results, something Levengood refused to
I therefore set out my views on another section of the same Report a Crop Circle
Formation Facebook page and it was picked up and circulated round the net by retired
journalist Dave Haith from the UK.
Below I run his report on the affair and then at the bottom of his report I reproduce the two
statements - Nancy's and mine - which have caused all the fuss.
I am awaiting Nancy's defense of this - if she has one - but apparently she has declined to
publicly comment further on the issue to Dave.
She asks that people address their questions to her directly through the "Report a Crop
Circle" form on the BLT web-site.
This seems a very strange way of dealing with a black and white issue now in the public
domain, but I will do as she suggests and challenge her via her website form.
If I and others do not get a satisfactory response, then folk must draw their own
But it truly is time for the full truth to be told.
|Crop Circles: "Nancy Talbott and BLT
got it wrong and they should just admit it"
"Nancy Talbott recently posted a statement appearing
on Facebook - now abruptly removed but find it HERE
which suggested that public questions about BLT's
protocol were "insignificant" because lay people don't
have the scientific knowledge to understand.
Retired journalist David Haith
|Two Crop Circle Experts Lock Horns
By David Haith
August 26, 2010
BLT got it wrong and should admit it and move on.
by Colin Andrews on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 at 16:04
There is a great deal I could say here but briefly in response to Nancy's here.
I come from a family of scientists and engineers and am the latter myself. Training in scientific
protocols is the starting point of each of our careers, but its not the BLT science so much I would
question here but the very materials they are testing.
As Nancy knows but has never engaged publicly, I worked with Pat Delgado and Levengood (See
side note left panel) on plant analysis before Nancy was even aware of crop circles. My family
members visited his lab and inspected his protocols and my own research colleagues were in fact
engaged by BLT as the first sampling team in England. I give this short back drop to my point and its
It does not always necessitate replication of a finding to prove the scientist is heading down the wrong
road, it takes evidence that his interpretations (conclusions) are wrong and that does not require
replication of results. A simple test of conclusions is established using a blind study. However, Mr
Levengood and the BLT team refused to accept blind samples. They insisted on knowing which
samples came from crop circles, wind damage and controls. Through the years I, and the team of
BLT samplers, became suspicious of Mr. Levengood's results because samples taken from circles we
knew to be hoaxes were coming back as the genuine phenomenon. Consequently, we established
our own blind study by making a circle and sending the plants for analysis. Below are the results.
In two important cases, as Nancy Talbott is aware, while working myself with Rockefeller funding, I
filmed her own crop circle plant samplers making a crop circle, sending samples to her from it and
then finally viewing Levengood's findings back to them. These were very important and I think the
reason for so much doubt. Mr. Levengood concluded that the plants from this circle were among the
best examples of the real phenomenon and showed the highest crop circle making energy. But the
team and I knew differently. What- ever the science and protocols, what -ever his findings, the plants
came from a man made crop circle. The results showed what- ever they showed but the interpretation
|The small crop circle made by BLT's own plant samplers as a blind test of
Levengood's analysis. Normal lodging on the right - Longstock Farm near
Danebury Ring, Hampshire. Plants removed for sampling on 3rd August 1995
Copyright: Colin Andrews 1995.
To add salt to the scientific wound, a small area of plants which had lodged after heavy rain in the same
field were also sent by BLT samplers to Levengood, via Nancy Talbott. Again he concluded that his
findings showed a very high level of crop circle making energy – The real thing and very important.
I will not engage the points made by the Italian skeptics here, but in the interest of truth and common
sense and regardless of my own qualifications, like Nancy herself I am not a biologist, but something
went very wrong in the BLT work during their early days and I'm not sure things are yet straight.
I don't think many would doubt that we have learned a great deal more about flattened plants than we
ever knew before crop circles showed up. Also as long as we can all be big enough to adjust our work
to account for new findings and move forward, its clear that organizations like BLT should be supported
in its efforts to work on this subject. Scientists adjust to current findings and facts. Dr. Terence Meaden
back in the early 90s found to his loss that adjusting the data or findings simply to hold onto a theory or
position is not what science is about.
None of the above is news to Nancy, she has had the tapes showing all of this since shortly after those
NOTE: All of the photographs shown here are frame grabs from the video
|Farm foreman Geoff Smith arrives to supervise the making of a
small crop circle and to show us some lodging on his farm.
Copyright: Colin Andrews
|Colin Andrews interviewing farm foreman Geoff Smith in front of
the empty wheat field before the crop circle is made. The small
area of normal lodging was less than 100 feet away in the same
|The Daily Mail national newspaper in Great Britain dated the August 3, 1995, the same day as the
blind test was carried out. Filmed in the field that day and seen on video. Copyright: Colin Andrews
|James Withers, one of BLT's plant sampling team carrying the
stomper board into the wheat to make the crop circle, watched
closely by farmer Geoff Smith. Copyright: Colin Andrews
|James Withers, BLT plant sampler about to make the small crop
circle from which plants were sent to William Levengood for
analysis. Copyright: Colin Andrews
|Shelly Keel and Yvonne Withers also members of the BLT plant sampling team, remove wheat samples ready to be sent to Nancy Talbott at
BLT for analysis by William Levengood. Copyright: Colin Andrews
|BLT sampling team remove samples from the normal lodging area on
the edge of the wheat field - confirmed by the farmer as lodging after
heavy rain washed off the highway (left). Copyright: Colin Andrews
|A sketch by BLT samplers of what they called wind damage for
purposes of blind testing William Levegood at BLT.
|Dr. Simeon Hein reports HERE
|B.L.T. is named after three of
its founders: Mr. John Burke,
Dr. William Levengood (Note
01) and Ms. Nancy Talbott.
Note # 01:
During 1994 researchers for a US
national television documentary
discovered that Dr. William
Levengood was not a doctor. This
they told me personally. Further
claims alleging this fact came
from Matthew Williams who
carried out his own research into
I dont have evidence one way or
the other personally but note that
while he used to sign his name as
Doctor and his official
correspondence also carried the
title, this ceased during 1996
following the alleged discovery.
Select to see correspondence
from him dated 1993.
|Contact with B.L.T.
If you have questions of
Nancy/BLT she asks you fill in
a form on BLT Website HERE.
Dr. Simeon Hein: "The problem is that Talbott et
al. mention the idea of “genuine crop circles”
without adequately defining or “operationalizing”
what those are, and thus her critique totally
loses credibility......." (More below)
Dr. Simeon Hein: ".....they (BLT) attempt to use
scientific techniques to validate their preconceived
ideas: something known as “researcher bias".
|Matthew Williams: "Doctor William Levengood
faked his credentials and The National
Academy of Sciences confirmed that he was
not awarded an Honorary title of Doctor"
|Continued: The all important findings from BLT
Both the man made crop circle and the normal lodging following heavy rain and wind BOTH were
found to be SIGNIFICANT AND HAD RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT HIGH LEVELS OF TRANSIENT
ENERGY. (Read official Report from William Levengood at BLT below)
April 18, 2015
After 20 Years and prompted by George Knapp
on Coast to Coast AM, BLT Chairwoman finally
responds to Colin Andrews double blind test
of BLT analysis. Shamefully the best she could
do was to try and belittle Andrews and then
lied and fabricated the facts - this prompted
Colin tto make the private video public so that
everyone, including Talbott can be reminded of
the important result, that being William C.
Levengood and BLT claims to know the
difference between real and man-made circles
to be wrong.
|Mr. Levengood claims his research
“suggests that over 95 percent of
worldwide crop formations involve
organized ion plasma vortices . . .”
(Levengood and Talbott 1999)
|From scientists with the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal: A damning finding on BLT 'Science'.
CICAP–Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal via Pascoli,
1, 35125 Padova, Italy
Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri–IRCCS, Centro di Ricerche Ambientali via Svizzera 16,
35127 Padova, Italy
CICAP–Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal via Pascoli,
1, 35125 Padova, Italy
"Three papers published by W. C. Levengood (1994), W. C. Levengood and N. P. Talbott (1999) and by
E. H. Haselhoff (2001) suggested the involvement of some kind of electromagnetic radiation during the
creation of crop circles. Here we discuss the methods and conclusions of the three
articles, pointing out the misrepresentation of the experimental protocols, the misleading application of
statistical procedures, the arbitrary discarding of unwanted results and the weakness of the proposed
physical model to the suggested hypothesis". Full report HERE
|Scientists at CICAP referring to the three
papers published by Levengood and Talbott: :
" Misrepresentation of the experimental
protocols, the misleading application of
statistical procedures, the arbitrary discarding
of unwanted results and the weakness of the
proposed physical model to the suggested
|After Colin Andrews sent the video of the blind test to BLT, he asked Nancy Tabott several times in
February 1999 and again in April for her comments about the material seen in the video. He
attempted to open a dialogue to discuss the findings and the blind test video so that each party could
learn by them. One of these Faxes is seen HERE.
BLT sampler Shelly: "James and I
had our doubts about the results of
several samples sent to Levengood,
that is why we wanted to give him
some blind samples. What he said
about them confirmed our suspicions".
I am sorry to say I don`t have any of the reports that I received from BLT not
that there were that many anyway, we never seemed to get much in return for
all the work we did for them.
I do remember that the samples that we took from some wind damage and the
circle that James and I made that time near Danebury Ring, according to
Levengood they were all circle related because they had the so called 'circle
energies' in them.
James and I had our doubts about the results of several samples sent to
Levengood, that is why we wanted to give him some blind samples. What he
said about them confirmed our suspicions. We didnt do a lot for BLT after that
because we thought we were wasting our time.
I am sorry that I have not got any of the crop research papers anymore, they
got lost when I moved to North Wales. I am just presuming the boxes got thrown
away in the move.
BLT's Own Primary Sampling Team Had Grave Suspicions and Speaks Out.
Dr. Simeon Hein: ".....they (BLT) attempt to use
scientific techniques to validate their preconceived
ideas: something known as “researcher bias".
In Search of the Significant Truth
By George Bishop
This article is in response to recent claim and counterclaim on the internet. The first part
is an excerpt from a page on face book, but relates to BLTs published material available
elsewhere on the net. I also refer to recent news that a conference has been called off
because some people took exception to another presenter.
BLT's Nancy Talbott responds to questions about published papers by Report A Crop
Circle Formation on Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 11:02pm
“......And if some of the lay-people involved in the crop circle situation are themselves
raising questions about the scientific work, such questions are basically insignificant...
precisely because these lay-people do not have the academic or scientific training
needed to correctly understand what the published material actual says.”
Before everyone gets too excited, I am merely using BLT’s statements as an indication of
the type of problems we encounter when we delve into the crop circle mystery. BLT are
no better and no worse than a number of similar organisations. Many of them are not
much more ‘scientific’ than the people they despise. They hanker to get their name in
print, and to become the latest and foremost guru to welcome the adulation of their fans.
Presumably these fans are a better grade of ‘insignificant’ than the rest of us?
The paragraph I clipped however, does give an indication of the manner in which so
called scientists view the lay public. They depend upon us for information, photographs
etc and the general reporting of observations in the field, and then dismiss us as
“insignificant”. They suggest we do not have the intelligence to “..correctly understand
what the published material actually says.”
Is this a neat smokescreen to cover up their inaccuracies as typos perhaps?
If we are not intelligent enough to know what we are reading, then why present it for us to
read in the first place? Why charge us money for publications that we are unable
interpret? Are they dependent upon our donations and adulation, but do not want us to
trample on their field of ‘expertise’ or to question their authority?
If the ‘insignificant’ Wright brothers had followed that formula along with the ‘insignificant’
Watt and Stevenson, we would be still spending two or three months crossing the Atlantic.
Do I detect a whiff of elitism in their statements?
Colin Andrews believes that 80% of crop circles are manmade. He has no 100%
empirical evidence, but relies on his observational skills and the information supplied by
others. His data could be tested by other researchers at any time. However, it seems that
not all ‘researchers’ want to accept that there are any hoaxed formations at all. They are
no better informed than Colin, in fact I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THEY ARE
FAR LESS WELL INFORMED.
I believe his figures are conservative. I believe that there is a genuine phenomenon, but
most of the genuine incidences are masked by the photogenic activities of the hoaxer.
Some complex formations date back to the historic past, but there is little doubt that there
has been a steady progression of complicated formations over the last 30 years. Some
styles of formations seem to have almost tribal characteristics and common themes of
development can be followed in a steady progression over decades. Having said that,
there are some formations that seem to represents one-ofs that stand out starkly from the
more common themes. The Mandelbrot, The Milk Hill Script, Oliver’s Castle and so on.
Is there also an air of desperation in their elitist behaviour? After all it is in their own
interest that the phenomenon is ‘seen’ to be genuine. What guru having declared that
“All circles are the gift of God” can do anything other than couple that to the statement
that “All hoaxers are liars?” Once they admit that some circles are hoaxed, the inevitable
next question is; “How many?” One or two? A few? Some? It is a slippery slope towards
Purveyors of photographs, CDs, books, conferences and seminars have an interest in
perpetuating the veracity of crop circles. I think we all agree that there is a genuine
phenomenon, and whether we believe it is a craze started by two geriatric con men or not,
there is always that nagging doubt, what inspired them to hoax crop circles in the first
place? They claim it was UFO nests in Australia, which raises the question of whether
there were an Australian duo playing the same game? Even if there were, who were they
Those of us who believe, have a valuable part to play in the discovery and reporting of
formations in our own areas. If some people would like to believe we are insignificant or
not, they would be lost without our very important input. I suspect they already know
that. The distraction seems more to do with discrediting anyone who claims that some
formations are hoaxed.
Some years ago in Andover, Matthew Williams came to me at a CCCS conference on
crop circles. He asked to be allowed to address the audience. When news got around,
some of the presenters and stall holders came to me and stated that if he spoke, they
would withdraw their presentations and stalls from the conference. What on earth were
they afraid of? If all hoaxers are liars, he would make a fool of himself. If what he claims
is true, then surely it makes scientific sense to hear him out and then test the veracity of
his statements. Or doesn’t scientific testing apply to such a scenario?
At another CCCS conference I was seen to talk in public to a member of Team Satan,
Horror of horrors! Once I moved away I was accosted by a presenter and stall holder
demanding to know what we had been discussing. When I told them that I had been
sounding him out about making a presentation I was warned off in no uncertain terms.
Now Colin Andrews has had a similar event happen to him prior to a conference; just what
are the contesters to his presence afraid of? Could it possibly be that they are so afraid
of the truth that they will go to such extraordinary lengths in order to suppress it?
Recently I have questioned the belief of a prominent purveyor of crop circle related
material. Some time ago I questioned the claims of Nancy Talbott about crystal/clay
changes in a Canadian Crop Circle. Needless to say both helpful queries ended in
vituperative blasts from them and not a mention in print of my points of view. In fact I got
the idea that I was being censored and sidelined as an inconvenience – silly me!
Are we ‘insignificant’ people questioning the claims of all sides in the field, such a
challenge to the industry that has grown up around the crop circle phenomenon that we
shake the very pillars of the temples and ivory towers they are constructing? Are they so
afraid of the open minded researcher? What if we insignificant people are right, what will
they do then?
One thing I don’t expect to see - is an apology!
Incidentally when a similar situation arose in an archaeological tome and my insignificant
suggestions were pooh poohed by the authorities, I got a very handsome and fulsome
apology in the reprint!
|George Bishop, the former Chairman of The Center for Crop Circle Studies,
also the longest serving editor of its magazine 'The Circular' Speaks out about
|"Is this a neat smokescreen to
cover up their inaccuracies as
|"Some time ago I questioned the
claims of Nancy Talbott about
crystal/clay changes in a
Canadian Crop Circle. Needless
to say both helpful queries ended
in vituperative blasts from them
and not a mention in print of my
points of view"
Researcher for, and member of CCCS
since 1990. Longest serving editor of
CCCS magazine The Circular.
Chairman of that organisation for
many years. Archivist of the CCCS for
almost 20 years. Chairman of the
Devon Crop Circle Group, Editor of
Cyderspace the Devon Crop Circle
Group magazine, and one time
member of the Cornwall Crop Circle
Group and of Cornwall Two its
successor. Organiser of several
Andover and one Bristol Crop Circle
Has taken many crop circle
photographs in Cornwall & Devon, on
the ground and in the air. Has masses
of experience of both the genuine and
hoaxed formations. Has co-operated
with many authors on the subject.
Editor of Terry Wilson's The Secret
History of Crop Circles. Has been
involved in proof reading and advising
for many manuscripts on the subject.
Currently co-operating with two
authors on projected publications. He
believes that there is a genuine
phenomenon, but the evidence is
being swamped and adulterated by an
increasing number of hoaxed
One time Comptroller and Trustee of a
local museum, he is the author of
many books on local history. Currently
residing in southwest France, he is
eagerly awaiting a genuine French
|Coast to Coast AM Presented by George Knapp - Interview with BLT Research
Chairwoman, Nancy Talbott. Aired January 17, 2015.
|George Knapp raises the thorny allegations by Colin Andrews Blind Test seen
on this page at time marker:
|Colin Andrews filming two blind tests with BLT's primary and extensively used plant
sampling team. Filmed at Longstock farm, Stockbridge, England on 3 August, 1995
|Over 2 million, 500 thousand viewings.
|Please Consider making a donation towards the ongoing research, now into its thirty second year - also the upkeep of this free website. Thank you - Colin Andrews DONATE
|This page is incomplete and under
update construction - Please check
back shortly. - April 18, 2015
|Please consider making a donation to ensure
this 32 year long research continues
|He has not always been popular, but its been
Andrews persistance that has brought him to
learn most of the moving parts to this mystery.
The following are points to look for in this video as supportive of Colin Andrew’s rebuttal to Nancy
Talbott’s comments in a Coast-to-Coast AM interview on 1/17/15 regarding blind testing of Mr.
Levengood’s plant analysis. All points are backed up with material on this page of my website at this
1. Shelly Keel and James Withers collected plant samples from crop circles for BLT and W.C.
Levengood for a considerable number of years as part of an ongoing BLT team. They are not related
to Colin Andrews or in any way part of his family. They were originally part of Colin’s site team, helping
him measure circles and sample plants. Talbott first met Shelly and James in the early 90’s as part of
Colin’s team. As a result of their experience in the fields and their excellent work, Colin recommended
them to Talbott to collect samples for Levengood. (web link)
2. Scientific relevance requires blind or double-blind testing which Levengood refused to conduct.
When serious doubts emerged in the minds of Talbott’s collecting team as to the legitimacy of
Levengood’s results, this experiment was devised. The intent was to blind test Levengood’s analysis of
crop circles by submitting samples from an area of plant lodging (wind damage)and a man-made circle.
3. Colin Andrews took the video of James Withers making the circle and then of the team collecting
samples from the circle as well as from a section of lodged plants nearby. These samples were sent
according to the BLT protocol to Levengood’s lab. They were labeled as a crop circle and wind
damage as seen on the video and supported with documents on the website link.
4. Levengood’s report on these samples (published on the website) states that they were ‘among
the best examples of the real crop-circle forming energies’ seen to date. He disputed that the lodged
plants were caused by wind damage and postulated that the lodging was caused by the same energy
as created the crop circle, but that the energy was interrupted before a crop circle formed.
5. Prior to any public discussion, this video was sent to Nancy Talbott of BLT for an opportunity to
explain. Communication of this sort is standard scientific procedure. Talbott refused to comment,
suggesting it was beneath consideration, and has maintained that stance after repeated requests (see
website). She continues to refuse a serious discussion and even the latest interview on Coast to Coast
does not address why two separate and clearly defined areas of flattened plants were found to be
formed by real crop circle energy, when, as seen on the blind test video, they were not. This most
important point was missed by George Knapp.
6. In 1999, Colin was given a grant by Laurence Rockefeller for two projects: to look at hoaxing
and to conduct research into magnetic anomalies found in crop circles. He was told to keep the source
of funding in confidence and it was not disclosed to him that others were also being funded.
7. Rockefeller’s personal assistance, Marie Galbraith, asked Colin what he thought of Levengood’s
work. Colin responded by expressing his doubts and sending this video. Galbraith sent the video to
Talbott for explanation. Apparently Talbott believes this was an underhanded attempt to disrupt BLT
funding. It was not.
8. On the video you will note that Colin makes references to Dr. Levengood. At the time the video
was made, Levengood was presenting himself as holding a PhD in Biophysics. In fact he held a
Masters degree. Contrary to Talbott’s claims that Levengood did not call himself a doctor but was so
labeled by the media, letters Colin received from him were signed as Dr. Levengood.
9. The blind testing categorically revealed that the assessment of his findings were incorrect and
raises many questions that are not the subject of this rebuttal. However, science should not be afraid of
making mistakes, but consider all results as informing the next stage of hypothesis in the search for
10. Talbott claims that Colin does not have the scientific qualifications to understand Levengood’s
report. Rather than discuss Talbott’ level of qualification, it should be noted that Colin worked with
many plant biologists who did have the qualifications for analyzing the results(see website).
This video should be viewed alongside the article on this page. For those not on my website that link is
|The sampling team did not give the
impression that all the samples came
from different parts of the same
flattened area as Talbott stated in her
Coast to Coast efforts to avoid actually
confronting BLT's failure to understand
what they were doing. IThe samplers
sketched the wind damage and
labelled it as such and also the crop
circle and even drew Levengood's
attention to the fact that the circle was
100 feet away from the wind damage.
They also took photographs which
were also sent and each sample
position inside both areas were clearly
labelled as were the samples
contained in the bags - see actual site
drawing sent to BLT..