Posted by Richard O'Connor in Crop Circles, Evidence, Featured | 5 Comments

# Wilton Windmill: An Invitation To Communicate!

The Crop Circle (CC) discovered on May 22, 2010, which appeared in a field of canola opposite Wilton Windmill, may be interpreted as an invitation from the Circle Makers. The invitation was sent through the CC, asking us to communicate and interact with the Circle Makers, via the formation itself.

The Wilton Windmill CC formation is an elegant representation of a particular derivision (Euler’s Identity) of a more general mathematical formula known as Euler’s formula. Never heard of it? Well, I hadn’t either until this CC was presented to the human race. I suspect that only a very small percentage of our population would have even been aware of the existence of Euler’s Identity (some mathematicians), but we all are now! Could such an imaginative method, presenting such an obscure mathematical formula be created in the dark of night, without anyone being caught in the process of vandalizing this canola crop and tresspassing on this farmer’s land, while laying out a beautiful and precise formation such as this without any errors (depending on one’s interpretation of this event), be accomplished by humans? I do not think so, but you must decide for yourself.

Please copy and paste the URL below to view a short video, created by **Richard Andrews** at **logosmythos.net**,which illustrates how the Wilton Windmill Crop Circle uses binary code so creatively to represent Euler’s Identity.

http://logosmythos.net/wilton_windmill_crop_circle_may2010.html

As you will note, the Wilton Windmill formation is a very close, but not quite correct, representation of Euler’s Identity. The CC formation itself writes Euler’s Identity as **e^(hi)pi)1=0**, but the formula should actually be presented as **e^(i)pi+1=0**. There are two apparent discrepancies which appear to be “errors” in the way Euler’s Identity is presented in the Wilton Windmill CC. The first “error” involves the inclusion of the letter “h” in the CC formula, and the second is the substitution of an “)” where there should be a “+”. Were these misrepresentations of Euler’s Identity by the Circle Makers truly errors, or were these “errors” placed intentionally? I believe they were intentional, and the intention was to send the human race an invitation to establish a simple form of interaction, or communication, with them. How?

The first “error” in the CC, the inclusion of the letter “h”, tells us two things about the Circle Makers. It tells us that they are smart (which we already know), and it tells us that they have a sense of humor. They have used an obscure mathematical formula, Euler’s Identity, to simply, but elegantly, say “hi” to the human race. To all of us!

The second “error”, the substitution of a “)”, for what should correctly be a “+”, is our invitation. In binary code, the difference between “)” and “+” is but a single digit (bit) in the ASCII translation of “)” and “+”. That is, “)” is represented by the 8 bit byte 001010**0**1. “+” is represented by the 8 bit byte 001010**1**1.

In order to have Euler’s Identity presented correctly in the CC, all that needed to be easily done was to go to the field and **lay down** crop in the appropriate position within the formation which would then change the “0” to a “1”, thus changing the “)” to a “+”, and thereby correcting the formula. (Also, please consider that laying down crop is easy, but standing it back up again, if it has already been laid down, doesn’t work). With this simple correction, the formula would have read correctly (except for the “hi”), and we would have collaborated with the Circle Makers in laying out a completed and correct representation of Euler’s Identity.

If you find this hard to follow, please be assured that I have gone through this analysis and this is in fact true, and explains why I believe this CC was an invitation from the Circle Makers to communicate and collaborate with them to correct the formula from the configuration in which they (deliberately) presented it “incorrectly”. I do not know if anyone went out to the field and responded to this invitation, but I feel relatively certain that we were being presented with an opportunity to actually “come out and play” with the Circle Makers!

The Circle Makers know Euler’s Identity, they knew that we (or rather a few of us) knew this formula, and with this CC they presented to us an opportunity to work together to make the formula for Euler’s Identity read correctly in the crop field! Brilliant, magnificent, imaginative thinking! I am so sorry that I could not make it to that event to make the correction myself, but **I thank the Circle Makers for their invitation!**

We should not be afraid of these people, whoever they are, wherever they come from, or whatever they look like. I have a strong intuition that they mean is no harm.

For additional commentary about the Wilton Windmill CC, please go to http://cropcircleconnector.com.

### Trackbacks/Pingbacks

- Círculos de las cosechas, ¿de verdad son todos falsos? | amanecer2012 - [...] estructuras fractales y formaciones que encierran mensajes en código binario y ASCII, como el de Wilton Windmill que hace…
- Círculos de las cosechas, ¿de verdad son todos falsos? | erraticario - [...] estructuras fractales y formaciones que encierran mensajes en código binario y ASCII, como el de Wilton Windmill que hace…

Beneficial info and excellent design you got here! I want to thank you for sharing your ideas and putting the time into the stuff you publish! Great work!

I imagine how you arrived at the binary code using the left hand edge of each radii in the circle. (or another way of saying it the left edge of each wedge of the pie.) I noticed that there may be more binary code if you use the inside of the next radii or the right hand edge of each wedge of the pie. What is the additional message if there is one? I am neither a mathematician or familiar enough with binary code to attempt it. It just seems logical that since you only used the information on the left hand side of each wedge that the right hand side may say something more. (Eager to hear your conclusion)

…and there is the whole other half of the circle.

I just read an article by a “mathematician” that brought me here. As Ken B and others have observed, it seems like rather selective reasoning to ignore half of all the “information” in this formation and base a conclusion of “hoax” on the remaining information. With that kind of thinking the “mathematician” would make a better “politician.”

There is no “other half” of the circle. I sat down to decode it. After the 4th segment, I realized something. For every line that radiates out from the center, if you take the left side as the ASCII value, the other side of the line is just the opposite. It is the logical negation of the bit pattern on the other side of the line.

As ASCII, it makes no sense. Every byte on the “other half” is extended ASCII. It comes out with the following gibberish:

¡×ÖÖÎÂÏ”Ï”