Dec 23, 2010

Posted by in CCRF Objectives, Scientific Community, The Letter | 3 Comments

Please Join Us. CCRF Welcomes Your Voice!

There are many voices on this planet. Let yours be heard.

Please accept this post as your invitation from CCRF to participate in this project. The Genuine Crop Circles are the signposts letting us know that ET is here and that Contact can happen if we choose to make it so. CCRF does not believe that any single individual or even a few individuals seeking to promote Contact with the ET civilization(s) visiting here and observing our civilization will be successful in bringing about Contact. Contact will initiate profound changes to our own civilization. ET is bound to be aware of this fact, and once it occurs it cannot be undone. The invitation for open Contact must come from not one or a few, but rather from thousands of us who are aware of the truth, understand the implications, and are willing and ready to invite this new paradigm into our reality.

Most importantly, if you have expertise in satellite communications systems and /or computer programming, please conact richard@cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org. Our ET downlink consists of a Hughes HN7000s Ku band satllite dish antenna receiving at 1330 MHz connected by RG-6 cable to a Hughes HN7000s modem connected to a Dell Inspiron laptop with Windows 7 OS via ethernet cable. I need to install a software program on this computer that will enable the computer to “wake up”, record, and store any incoming data received through the antenna. I have contacted SETI (our world’s experts in setting up just such a system) to ask for their advice, but they have not responded to my e-mail. If anyone out there has any clue about how to make this happen, I need to hear from you ASAP.


If you would like to become a contributing author to this website, please email richard@cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org. Please attach a sample article. Serious authors only. Spam or inappropriate content will not be published. All submissions subject to editorial approval before publishing.

Your article comments are always welcome. CCRF enjoys hearing from our readers.

We look forward to your participation. It is vital to the process of Contact. None of us can do this alone.

Richard O’Connor, M.D.
Executive Director, CCRF,Inc.

  1. Jay Dufrechou says:

    Great website — thanks for starting this effort. I’m in for calling for contact.

  2. George Bishop says:

    In Search of the Significant Truth
    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 a 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!

  3. Generally I do not read article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it!
    Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, quite nice post.

Leave a Reply