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
was wrong".
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
to respond.
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.
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
was wrong".
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
to respond.
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 participate in. 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 conclusions. But it truly is time for the full truth to be told. Colin Andrews --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Crop Circles: "Nancy Talbott and BLT got it wrong and they should just admit it" Colin Andrews August, 2010 |
"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.
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
this.
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
was wrong.
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
this.
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
was wrong.
| 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
events occurred.
Colin Andrews
NOTE: All of the photographs shown here are frame grabs from the video
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
events occurred.
Colin Andrews
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 field. |
| 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 |
| Shelley 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 Levengood's qualifications. 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. |
Colin Andrews
Nancy Talbott
| 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)
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".
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" (view YouTube) |
| 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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| FURTHER UPDATED: April 25 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 to make the private video public so that everyone, including Talbott can be reminded of the important result, that being William C. Levengood and BLT's claims to know the difference between real and man-made circles were wrong. Further updated - April 25, 2015 Angry rebuttal of Talbott's untrue statements on Coast to Coast by one of the original sampling team: HERE |
| 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'. FRANCESCO GRASSI CICAP–Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal via Pascoli, 1, 35125 Padova, Italy e-mail: grassi@cicap.org CLAUDIO COCHEO Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri–IRCCS, Centro di Ricerche Ambientali via Svizzera 16, 35127 Padova, Italy PAOLO RUSSO 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 hypothesis" |
| 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 Shelley: "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".
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. Shelley CA Comment: Fortunately I do have a number of them in the Archives. |
BLT's Own Primary Sampling Team Had Grave Suspicions and Speaks Out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Shelley Keel |
Dr. Simeon Hein: ".....they (BLT) attempt to use
scientific techniques to validate their preconceived
ideas: something known as “researcher bias".
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 “All”. 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 emulating? 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. |
| 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 BLT research. |
| "Is this a neat smokescreen to cover up their inaccuracies as typos perhaps?" |
| "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" |
| George Bishop 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 Conference. 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 formations 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 formation. |
| 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. Begins at time marker: 1Hr:06mins:10secs |
| The original footage of Colin Andrews blind testing BLT's plant analysis and useing BLT's own sampling team. Filmed at Longstock farm, Stockbridge, England on 3 August, 1995 |
| HOME CONSCIOUSNESS UFOs PHOTOGRAPHY CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS FARM MONITOR STORE MEDIA BIOGRAPHY 2012 DEBATE CLIMATE CHANGE QUOTATIONS LETTERS BLOG CONTACT OBSERVATORY WELLNESS |
| Over 2 million, 500 thousand viewings. |
| Website is dedicated to my wife Synthia |
| 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 |
| 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. |
SELECT >>>
<<< SELECT
The following address some of the many inaccuracies of the portion of Talbott’s Coast-to-Coast AM
Interview on 1/17/15 that specifically related to the blind testing of Mr. Levengood’s plant analysis. All
documentation can be found on this page of my website.(http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-
Wrong.html)
1. Shelley Keel and James Withers collected plant samples from crop circles for BLT and W.C.
Levengood for a number of years as part of the ongoing BLT team. They are not related to me, Colin
Andrews, or are in any way part of my family. They were part of my original site team and helped me
measure circles, sample plants and more. Talbott first met Shelly and James in the early 90’s as part of
my team. As a result of their extensive field experience and excellent work, I recommended them to
Talbott for the job of collecting samples for Levengood. She certainly did know at the time that they had
previously worked for me and were not relatives. Read recent email from Shelley Bourne (Keel) HERE
2. Scientific relevance requires blind or double-blind testing which Levengood was adamantly
opposed to in regards to his research into crop circles. (What he was afraid of is another subject).
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.
To ease the minds of those who think this unethical, Levengood himself blind tested others working
with him as can be seen in this letter he sent to Pat Delgado in 1991.
3. I video-tapped James Withers making the circle, 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. Despite Talbott's assertions otherwise, they were clearly labeled as a crop
circle and wind damage and as two separate events in the same field. This can be viewed on the video
and is supported with documents on the website link. They were also photographed and the images
were included with the samples. It is disingenuous indeed to claim Levengood thought the samples
were different areas of the same circle.
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, as is clearly
seen in his report. (above link)
5. Prior to any public discussion about the blind test, the 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, understandable because this is not
his subject of expertise.
6. In 1999, I received a grant from Laurence Rockefeller for two crop circle projects: to look at
hoaxing and to conduct research into magnetic anomalies found in crop circles. I was told to keep the
source of funding in confidence. I was asked who else might be doing interesting research, but was not
told who else was being funded. At some point in the early stages of writing the grant, Rockefeller’s
personal assistance, Marie Galbraith, asked me what I thought of Levengood’s work. I expressed my
doubts and sent the video, suggesting further research would need to address the double blind
problem. Galbraith passed the video to Talbott for explanation. Apparently Talbott believes this was an
underhanded attempt to disrupt BLT funding. It was not. It was an honest answer to the question.
8. On the video you will hear me making reference to Levengood as 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. The
discovery of falsified credentials furthered my concerns over his results.
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: all results are information that lead to the next stage of hypothesis in the search for
truth.
10. Talbott claims that I do not have the scientific qualifications to understand Levengood’s report.
Rather than discuss Talbott’s level of qualification, it should be noted that I worked with many plant
biologists who were extremely qualified to analyze the results(see below). In actuality, there was no
analysis on my part- I quoted Levengood's paper, the analysis I used was his. I don't think it takes a
degree to do that!!!
This video should be viewed alongside the additional articles on this page. For those on social media,
my website link is HERE: http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-Wrong.html
Interview on 1/17/15 that specifically related to the blind testing of Mr. Levengood’s plant analysis. All
documentation can be found on this page of my website.(http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-
Wrong.html)
1. Shelley Keel and James Withers collected plant samples from crop circles for BLT and W.C.
Levengood for a number of years as part of the ongoing BLT team. They are not related to me, Colin
Andrews, or are in any way part of my family. They were part of my original site team and helped me
measure circles, sample plants and more. Talbott first met Shelly and James in the early 90’s as part of
my team. As a result of their extensive field experience and excellent work, I recommended them to
Talbott for the job of collecting samples for Levengood. She certainly did know at the time that they had
previously worked for me and were not relatives. Read recent email from Shelley Bourne (Keel) HERE
2. Scientific relevance requires blind or double-blind testing which Levengood was adamantly
opposed to in regards to his research into crop circles. (What he was afraid of is another subject).
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.
To ease the minds of those who think this unethical, Levengood himself blind tested others working
with him as can be seen in this letter he sent to Pat Delgado in 1991.
3. I video-tapped James Withers making the circle, 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. Despite Talbott's assertions otherwise, they were clearly labeled as a crop
circle and wind damage and as two separate events in the same field. This can be viewed on the video
and is supported with documents on the website link. They were also photographed and the images
were included with the samples. It is disingenuous indeed to claim Levengood thought the samples
were different areas of the same circle.
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, as is clearly
seen in his report. (above link)
5. Prior to any public discussion about the blind test, the 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, understandable because this is not
his subject of expertise.
6. In 1999, I received a grant from Laurence Rockefeller for two crop circle projects: to look at
hoaxing and to conduct research into magnetic anomalies found in crop circles. I was told to keep the
source of funding in confidence. I was asked who else might be doing interesting research, but was not
told who else was being funded. At some point in the early stages of writing the grant, Rockefeller’s
personal assistance, Marie Galbraith, asked me what I thought of Levengood’s work. I expressed my
doubts and sent the video, suggesting further research would need to address the double blind
problem. Galbraith passed the video to Talbott for explanation. Apparently Talbott believes this was an
underhanded attempt to disrupt BLT funding. It was not. It was an honest answer to the question.
8. On the video you will hear me making reference to Levengood as 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. The
discovery of falsified credentials furthered my concerns over his results.
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: all results are information that lead to the next stage of hypothesis in the search for
truth.
10. Talbott claims that I do not have the scientific qualifications to understand Levengood’s report.
Rather than discuss Talbott’s level of qualification, it should be noted that I worked with many plant
biologists who were extremely qualified to analyze the results(see below). In actuality, there was no
analysis on my part- I quoted Levengood's paper, the analysis I used was his. I don't think it takes a
degree to do that!!!
This video should be viewed alongside the additional articles on this page. For those on social media,
my website link is HERE: http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-Wrong.html
| Nancy Talbott's January interview with George Knapp on Coast to Coast AM radio was recently brought to my attention by someone from my website. I listened to the interview with interest and was disturbed by the many inaccuracies, some of which were clearly libelous. Although my website has a longstanding article documenting the blind testing of W.C. Levengoods plant analysis, Talbott's interview deserves an update. If you're viewing this article on social media, you might want to click on this link to my website for the complete documentation: http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-Wrong.html |
------------------------------ Below is the original article which George Knapp was referring ----------------------------
| Colin Andrews is not a biologist but has worked with many who are. One such renouned scientist who he has sought advise during the 1990's was Dr. Milton Wainwright - Senior Lecturer, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, The University Sheffield, UK. Seen here with Dr. Rachel Davey. And below Colin seen with laboratory technician Matt Moniz at Springbourne Labs, MA, USA who was himself working with William Levengood. |
| Below is Colin and Pat Delgado carrying out research in the early days. The very first plant samples analysed by Levengood came from them. This was nearly ten years after they started the research into crop circles but even then the results of Levengood's analysis were signed as Dr.W.C. Levengood |
| BLIND TESTING INCREDIBLE CLAIMS FROM BLT ANALYSIS OF PLANTS FROM CROP CIRCLES & WIND DAMAGE. Colin Andrews - updated April 23, 2015 |
| TRANSCRIPT Coast to Coast AM interview by George Knapp with Nancy Talbott Jan 17, 2015 Reference to comments by colin andrews starts: 1hr 6 minutes: GK: Just as folks were coming after him (RvdB), for a variety of reasons, they came after you too. NT: Oh sure. GK: I read online . . I can imagine this crop circle research, gets .. very intense rivalries, just as in the ufo field which have developed that i know of. I saw colin andrews has written something pretty nasty about you, saying ..accusing you of doing what national geographic did.... NT: don't pay attention to colin GK:.. that someone had gone out in the field, created a crop circle, took some samples out of it, sent them to BLT . . NT: that's colin being colin. Its not worth discussing George.. . . GK: well I am asking about it anyway. NT: wa wa what is your question? GK: My question is, what is your response to colin andrews saying that you guys took these samples, that you guys made, and and analyzed it and said that it had been something anomalous. That the nodes had been exploded and...... NT: OK, OK, Ive got it, Ive got the question. GK: OK NT: He got it a little wrong there... GK: OK NT: what happened was. One year I hired a number of workers in england to do some of the plant sampling for me. One of the teams I hired was a nephew and niece of his. Never occurred to me that they would cheat, never. And they, along with several others were hired to do certain circles and I decided which circles were to be sampled. And when a circle would appear, I would decide every fifth or tenth one or what ever and I would send a team out to do it. In this case it was one his niece and nephew ...were chosen to sample. They went to the formation and while they were there, colin went along with a video camera, had them make another circle near the one that was there anomalously. He video taped the entire thing and then the sampled both the one they had made and the thing that was there anomalously but they indicated that the entire thing had been there. In other words they didn't tell me or Levengood that these samples came from two different types of thing. They implied that the two circles were part of the original anomalous thing and all the labels were all labelled that way. OK, it comes in here into the States and I don't know what has happened, only what the field workers tell me, and Levengood is even blinder than I am because I am handling all of the samples. Levengood only takes it from me, as it gets it as to what the truth is. So, as far as he knows he's gotten samples from two parts of one crop circle. And as he is doing the work, he is finding the difference. The node length changes between these two things were different. It wasn't the same. Then he started doing other tests and found differences also. Very confused because as far as he knew, these were two parts of the same thing, right. In his report which he wrote up, he clearly indicates that these variations between the two sets of samples. Him of course being completely ignorant that one has been man made by colins niece and nephew. He sends the report out, the second colin gets it, he pops himself down with one of his video cameras and holds the thing up and starts to talk about how Levengood has made a mistake, has mistaken because colin doesn't understand the report. He doesn't realize (laughing) in the report Rob... I mean Levengood has clearly identified there is a difference between circle A and circle B. And not only did he record all this as if he was . . you know, some sort of authority, he then sent a copy of this tape that he has all put together, of his niece and nephew making the circle. They are setting Levengood up, Levengood goes for it, he doesn't understand it, bla bla, and they send it to Rockefeller. Colin sent it to Rockefeller, in an attempt to see to it that Rockefeller would not fund the project. Our project. It didn't work because his lady who gets all Rockefeller's mail, sent me the video tape, so I knew what colin and done. I don't know if Laurence ever found out, ever saw the video at all but the particular one Colin sent was sent to me and I then knew what I was dealing with. That his niece and nephew had participated in this when they were being paid by me. You know, all their expenses and stuff, to do this work for Levengood. So that's my reply. How do you like that? GK: Well I think it was a good explanation and I think it was important for you to say it. That was one of the things that colin had said online, I had read it earlier today that he couldn't get a response from you. (at this stage in discussion time marker: 1hr, 10 mins, 51 secs ) continued: Are there patterns . . (NT interrupts) NT: I don't like to get into this nasty stuff, it doesn't . . the circles are not about this kind of thing. I know this . what ever they are, this isn't what they are about, and Colin tries to keep himself relevant by injecting himself into these things and its so distasteful to me. The CA references end: 1hr, 11mins, 12 seconds. GK: Can you talk about where the phenomenon might be heading? um, I'm wondering if there is a larger pattern. For example with UFOs there are waves where these things happen. Is there anything like that, ah has anyone . . Talbott interrupts.. NT: I don't know, plus what ever it, it is that the most interesting stuff that I know of is, going on crop circle wise is going on around Robbert (Robbert van den Broeke). Interview continued. To listen to whole interview select Coast to Coast AM link. top center End: |
| Colin worked in the 1990's with Dr. Milton Wainwright - Senior Lecturer, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, The University Sheffield, UK. Seen here with Dr. Rachel Davey |
| STATEMENT: April 23, 2015 Colin is still in recovery following his serious health emergency in late March. He thanks everyone for their wonderful support and kind messages. While his current focus must be on full recovery, which is proceeding well, regrettably he feels strongly about a recent Coast to CoastAM interview with Nancy Talbott, hence the following: Colin Andrews responds to the Coast to Coast AM radio interview with Nancy Talbott (BLT): ANDREWS BLIND TESTING OF BLT's INCREDIBLE CLAIMS FOLLOWING ANALYSIS OF PLANTS FROM CROP CIRCLES AND WIND DAMAGE. Why did Talbott fail to answer the most important questions, instead create a myth in her attack on Andrews and fabricate all of the facts? All of them. Andrews video of the 1995 Blind Test is released now for the first time and more documentary evidence that Levengood got it very wrong and even took part in blind testing those around him!!!!. Colin comments: Its important for those who have and are studying crop circles and the consciousness connections to know what information to trust and what not to. If we can’t pin down the here and now, what hope have we to push into the frontiers of other much less visible realities? That is why I am incensed by the false material emanating from Nancy Talbott and BLT. I would want to have confidence that I could believe hard black and white facts related to the here and now, such as flattened plants, before I am prepared to venture into the territory she claims is real and which she also claims comes in messages from the deceased Elvis Presley, John Lennon, JFK, Dutch Royalty and many more, even my deceased friends and former crop circle researchers, Pat Delgado, Paul Vigay and David Kingston, etc. This rebuttal relates only to plant analysis and her false claims. |
| UPDATED April 25, 2015 Angry response from original sampling team member HERE |
YouTube video removed by Coast to Coast AM. Interview available on Coast to Coast website: |
| THIS CASE IS CLOSED |