Crop Circle - Oliver Castle Video truquée

Publié le par Telgar

Regardez moi ça:


Sauf que cette  seule vidéo ayant montré un lien entre des UFOs et les Crop Circle est un hoax. 

Il est regrettable que ce type d'hoax existe pour deux  plusieurs raisons. 

Il détruit la crédibilité du phénomène, que ce soit UFO ou Crop Circles. Quelque soit la nature de ces 2 familles de phénomènes, cela nuit à une approche objective et scientifique.

Il crée un lien non prouvé à ce jour entre UFOs et Crop Circles, car même si c'est un hoax, on garde quelque part dans l'esprit cette relation. Vu les incertitudes sur ces 2 familles, il est facile de jouer sur la crédibilité et les doutes, en faisant des associations sans fondement scientifique.

      Un enqueteur, Colin Andrews, a travaillé sur le sujet.  Le réalisateur du sujet, un dénommé John Wabe, a réalisé ce film. 2 films existent, un montrant le phénomène, tel qu'il a pu être vu dans de nombreux reportages et sur de nombreux sites de videos, et l'autre montrant comment il a été réalisé. 2 personnes impliquées dans la révélation de ce film, de bonne foi au début, ont évolué puis ont travaillé avec Nippon Television pour interviewer ce John Wabe et le démasquer.

John Wabe travaille dans l'industrie de l'image, avec son collegue Jon Lomas. Une simple recherche sur le web pointent les sites suivants

La société First Cut (mentionnée également dans les informations complémentaires ci-dessous).

La société Magic Films

Des 'credits' sur un jeu/fiction: où son nom apparait.

Dans l'ensemble des textes cités ci-dessous, j'ai mis en ROUGE les parties les plus importantes, pour les lecteurs pressés :)


Déclaration de Colin Andrew, depuis ce site.



Colin Andrews response to Michael Glickman - Olivers Castle Confession.

I accept that I am about to break my golden rule, which has been not to react to angry commentary or back bighting. 

Michael Glickman has a reputation for irrational outbursts. This is just one more, but needs some redressing. 

My only thought in placing a statement on the Internet about The Oliver's Castle video, was to make my own findings available to those who claim to be researchers. It is not my opinion that John Wabe is responsible for this hoax, as Michael Glickman says, John Wabe has admitted to it, with very ample evidence. How can Wabe's confession be confused with Colin Andrews ego and unsubstantiated statements? 

Michael is correct to point out that he is entitled to his opinion, be it based upon incomplete data. He makes so many unsubstantiated and highly charged statements that I will simply not respond to them all. The only thing that is important to say, in the public's interest, is that John Wabe is on the record (filmed) as telling the media that he and the studio in Bristol made this video and how. There is much more on the video, including the filming of telephone calls to The Barge Inn and to Lee Winterson and Freddy Silva etc... Many researchers here accepted my invitation three weeks ago to view the filmed confession which I had flown to my USA office. 

All the inquiries carried out by investigative professionals proved this film to be a hoax and John Wabe to be at the centre of it. When all the evidence points to this and the man involved admits to it, most rational people would accept that the mystery had been solved. My statement was based upon first hand investigation and viewing of the original film, the confession film, expert analysis in Las Vegas and an interview with John Wabe - not from behind a desk somewhere at the end of a computer terminal taking a stab at it. 

There is no question in my mind that when Wabe or the media who hold this confession film go public with it (as I hope they will) it will convince most people. 

I negotiated with the media to have this footage surface so that the rumours of its existence could be satisfied. That was done not for Colin Andrews ego ,but to progress our knowledge. 

The confession material has been viewed by a number of researchers here and my invitation holds for other interested parties to come and view it. I can not do more than that as I do not have permission to show it on television or to send copies to people. 

Issuing my original statement had its risks, but my intention was to inform. 

Finally, I am aware of some video experts who are impressed with the Olivers Castle video. I have twice visited one such expert Jim Dilettoso, in Las Vegas and have looked at his analysis. It is impressive work he has done, but all that he has discovered can be accounted for in the account of it's construction by Wabe and First Cut studio. The methods employed by them were filmed and are included in the confession video. 

Where so many different points of view surround such a situation, it is obvious that many will be eventually seen to be just plain wrong when all the facts are known. If we can not accept factual information and truthful discovery, then we close down our options to mature.

Regretting the necessity to make this placement - Sincerely 

Colin Andrews.



            Vers la fin du texte, il est mentionné Jim Dilettoso. Cet homme est connu pour avoir 'expertisé' les lumières de Phoenix. Mais il est peu considéré, pour rester correct, pour le sérieux de ses analyse. On lit entre les lignes de ce passage que tout ce qu'il a pu trouvé doit être mis au crédit du talent de John Wabe. 

Un autre texte de Colin Andrew est assez clair.


Coincidental to your comments about Michael Glickman still putting out the Oliver's Castle video as real, I have just viewed the confession interview by John Wabe.

It is clear by what I have witnessed in this filmed interview, that his confession was made as a direct result of my own findings. As you know, two years ago, my investigations uncovered his real name, and the studio where he works as " First Cut" studios in Bristol, England.

I have been in close contact with the owners of this film for some while and recently agreed to have it flown to my offices in the USA. Wabe says why he did it and how. Two versions of events were prepared to cover the film as authentic (the original story) and later the second version, when it was obvious I had found him out.

After all the mileage had been made out of the camp who believed in it, and the various television stations had run with it for all it was worth,he then decided to concede to my findings. It is revealing to see both plans at work in the video from Wabe and the "First Cut" studio.

Subsequent to my earlier findings, Nippon Television and Lee Winterson acting upon my information set about checking them out. They confirmed the findings (see statement issued by Lee Winterson). 

I am now in possession of the promotional tape put out by Wabe. Two versions of events had been filmed by Wabe and his studio. The first to cover the original story, had any of us been silly enough to fall for it, and the second being the confession and how they made it and why.

This filmed confession with other material it contains, plus additional information I discovered in England during August this year, confirms all my earlier findings, those being that the Oliver's Castle video is a fraud.

While conducting further inquiries in England this August, I came across more incriminating and important (but confidential) information about Wabe. This was given to Attorney Mr. Peter Gersten. 

Apart from those who just so badly want to believe it is real against all the evidence, this brings the whole issue once and for all to an end. Now we know, that it will live on in the eyes of hardened believers, but it is important the public are not deceived any further.

The biggest laugh John Wabe has got out of this production has been at the expense of people like Michael Glickman, and perhaps the "Sussex Circular" who go on month after month digging themselves further and further into disrepute with it - Unfortunately along with the important phenomenon itself - that remains with us through all ego's and other human stuff.

The filmed interview and other filmed material from Wabe, is being shown by C.P.R. to interested researchers here in Connecticut this week end. C.P.R. does not have authority to make copies of the film, which has been sent to us for research purposes only.

Paul - In view of the nonsense that some people are still putting out about the video, I think it is important we release a statement. Why not get a few more eyes onto your site by posting to all the big crop circle sites the fact that they should link back to CPR Canada for an important statement on the John Wabe Video??


Un reportage de Nippon Television est mentionné. Lors de ce reportage, l'équipe du documentaire (dont Lee Winterson) a été voir la société First Cut mentionnée plus haut, et ont rencontré Jon Lomas puis plus tard John Wabe. John Wabe avait utilisé un pseudo lorsqu'il diffusé son montage, et ce sont les recherches de Colin Andrew qui ont permis de l'identifier et d'établir sa relation avec First Cut.




The Oliver's castle video controversy exposed

By Lee Winterson 
knopka.php3?site_id=27961  top100.cnt?595370

In the Barge Inn, Wiltshire, England, on Tuesday July 22nd, 1997, Peter Sorenson, and Lee Winterson had a public meeting which puts to rest the controversy of the validity of the infamous "Oliver's Castle" video footage which shows lights flying over a field "making" a crop circle appear on August 11th of last year. Peter Sorenson and Lee Winterson, in cooperation with Nippon (Japanese) Television, went into the First Cut post production studios located in Bristol, England in a guerrilla style attempt to get the suspected maker of this video- the alleged John Whaley, real name John Wabe. He is employed and co-partner of First Cut studios, which supplies video post services and animation to professional media productions. Due to his expertise in computer graphics it was not difficult to seem completely real to untrained eyes. However, it was the investigative footwork of Lee Winterson which sleft no doubt as to the culprit, hence the cornering of John Wabe. Here's how the expose occurred in detail:

From the beginning, John Wabe used his pseudonym when presenting his amazing "footage". Yet, the phone number he gave was traced to belong to a John Wabe. Thus, from this name Lee tracked John down to First Cut studios in Bristol after many months. The real trick was to get John to admit his involvement! Lee and his business partner John Huckvale of AVP Studios ( a video facility) took in a camcorder under the pretense of "seeing the facility". While innocently taking shots of the equipment, John and Lee covertly focused on a framed photograph on the wall inside the office. This photo is in actuality a portrait of John Whaley, "alias" John Wabe himself. When they saw the footage they knew this was the very same man who brought in the Oliver's Castle footage nearly a year ago at a meeting with Peter Sorenson, at the Wagon and Horses pub, Avebury, England. Peter was later shown this footage and confirmed the identity of John Wabe (however John had changed his hair and grown a beard since their meeting). Now the plan fell into place - a live taping of an admission from the one and only John Wabe was needed to seal the mystery of WHO made this remarkable video and most importantly WHY.

On Friday, July 18th , 1997, at approximately 730 AM, Lee, Peter, and seven Nippon TV camera crew people made their way to Bristol and the First Cut Studios. The film crew went inside with cameras rolling, while Lee and Peter sat outside in a car park with communication devices, sensing every move. There was a technical problem with the communications devices, so it was difficult to ascertain what was occurring inside. However Lee was relaying to Peter the events which were taking place which was this: The business partner of John Wabe, John Lomas, was shown the footage by the TV crew and confronted about John Wabe's connection to it. He said that "Yes, John was involved", but that the film crew would have to talk to John Wabe personally. John Lomas left the room at this point to consult with John Wabe, relating the nature of the film crew inquiry. While the film crew was unaware, John Wabe fled out of his office, leaving a client there on the spot.

Peter Sorenson, patiently waiting with his camcorder in the car park, saw a man coming from the building, enter a car and start the ignition. His memory raced - then clicked. Yes, this was the man he met last year and - he was attempting to escape the cameras. Peter jumped out, camera starting to roll as John drove away. At a crucial moment of eye contact John saw Peter, recognized him, waved and smiled gallantly to the camera as he sped away in safety. Lee ran after the fleeing car, shouting requests if he was responsible for the footage...but to no avail.

After this daring escapade , a request was made with John Lomas for John Wabe to come clean and admit his involvement. Afterwards, John Wabe has been in phone contact, stating he WAS involved in the production of this video but could not comment further due to an exclusive contract with a broadcast production, DISCOVERY CHANNEL, USA. He did make it clear that he would like this all to "Just go away". He is not hiding the fact that it IS a HOAX.

In our opinion he has been paid well to perform this duty, and he almost go away with it.

The British side of this hoaxed production team has raised questions as to the exclusive use of the Oliver's Castle footage. They were to air this program on August 11th or 12th. However, due to a phone conversation just after Lee's Barge Inn announcement, we found out that the DISCOVERY CHANNEL USA have moved ahead of schedule to air their program titled ?? "Oliver's Castle Fraud Explained" on Monday night, July 28th, 1997. Look in your listings and stay tuned for the next chapter of disinformation! As an aside, the woman heading the Discovery Channel production team named "Jane" has talked to us by phone, but is reluctant to give the real production name, or WHO is really behind it. Are they on the run because we are into their game? Were they or SOMEONE aware of Lee's announcement tonight?? 


      L'article ci-dessus mentionne un Sorenson qui a été effectivement en contact avec John Wheyleigh,  l'auteur présumé de la vidéo, au moment ou elle est 'sortie'.  IL a reconnu factuellement la voiture de John Wheyleigh comme étant la même (plaque d'immatriculation incluses) que celle dans laquelle il va voir fuir John Wabe lors de la rencontre à First Cut décrite plus haut.  Confronté à ces preuves, John Wabe avouera qu'il est l'auteur de la video.

On notera que l'auteur soupçonne Discovery Channel d'être le donneur d'ordre de John Wabe. 

Sorenson a décrit dans cette page la rencontre initiale et la rencontre aux studios First Cut, et je la cite intégralement ci dessous.


The Case of the Vanishing Cameraman

Hammering the final nail into the coffin of the Oliver's Castle video


A First-Hand Report by Peter R. Sørensen
(Originally written in the spring of 1997 – revised in March 1999.)

© 1997 Peter R. Sørensen

(The first-hand bit will begin shortly, but first, a fantasy prologue in the style of a 
detective novel, for the purpose of speculating on the motives of the perpetrators.)


Who’d-A-Thought It
[Prologue supprimé, n'apporte rien au dossier. Pour le consulter, voir directement sur le site origine mis en lien plus haut]


    Is there anyone in the crop circle universe who does not know about the chap who mysteriously appeared -- and then promptly disappeared -- after circulating a videotape which purports to show a crop circle materializing beneath flying balls of light at a place called Olivers Castle, in England, back in 1996?  I thought not.  The brouhaha in the wake of this video monopolized everyone’s attention all the following winter.  Circle researchers were soon divided into camps; those who felt it was a fraud, and those whoknew it was the Circle Maker’s gift to humanity.  A staggering hodgepodge of conflicting reports and opinions has poured from this Pandora's box ever since.

    Because I have possibly been closer to the intrigue than anyone else on the croppie side of the mystery, I have no option but to stand up and relate for history the saga as I experienced it in the waning heat of that amazing summer.  I do so reluctantly, as my only previous public statement on the matter gained me little but animosity from many of my friends.  


    It all began on the foggy morning of August 11th, 1996, when tantalizing phone messages were left for me and another researcher at The Barge Inn (the pub in Wiltshire which is the most popular meeting place for us lovers of crop circles).

    The caller, who gave his name as one Jonathan Wheyleigh, briefly described to Lee Winterston (a dark and enigmatic character in his own right) and to pub manager June Potts, what he said happened to him at dawn that morning.  Supposedly he had been camping at the ancient hill fort known as Oliver’s Castle, some 10 miles away, and had seen and video's balls of light flying around over the field below, after which he realized there was a crop circle in the field which had not been there before!  Presumably because I am known as a maker of crop circle documentaries, he wanted to show me the video in the pub that evening.

    When I arrived at the pub for lunch I got the messages, and immediately went to see the actual crop formation with Nick Nicholson, the good natured, cigar wielding, editor of Circular Review magazine.  Sure enough, from atop the steep hill where the ancient fort is located, a six-armed snowflake design could clearly be seen in the field below.

OliversCastleTrams.jpg (83430 bytes)

    (While the crop formation may in fact be genuine, I was not especially impressed with its design.  Some people will tell you it was only a sloppy hoax; others say it was among the best formed and most beautiful in history.  Be that as it may, it’s the video, notthe circle, that concerns us here.) 

    By the time we returned to the smoke filled pub that evening, rumor and speculation were flying thick and fast.  But as the evening wore on, and Wheyleigh hadn't arrived, it seemed like the phone messages had been nothing but a joke. 

    You see, a film showing a crop circle forming would be nothing less than a dream come true for us Croppies.  There have been anecdotal reports of the circle creating phenomenon in action, but it has never been captured on camera.  Not only would we all love to see such a thing, but if it were irrefutably genuine, it would be the proof needed to demonstrate, once and for all, that crop circles are not just a clever hoax. 

    That's exactly why someone with nothing better to do, would consider it a good prank to leave such a message at The Barge, to get everybody all excited. – and then simply sit back and watch everyone impatiently waiting to see the non-existent video.  So, as 10:00 PM came and went, I felt that was indeed the situation.  I looked around the crowd, wondering if some weak-minded character in a far corner of the pub, was having a laugh at our expense.  I decided to call it a night, downed my fourth Scrumpy Jack (a delicious hard cider), and departed with a few other disappointed croppies.

    Unfortunately, I was wrong about the nature of the joke, since Wheyleigh did in fact show up about an hour later, after "last bell" (pubs ring a bell to let the customers know when the final orders for drinks can be placed).  The young man passed his camera around to the people who were still there, and they viewed the exciting shot played back through the cameras B&W viewfinder.  Some of those people say that what they saw then was different from the video footage which was subsequently given to me andColin Andrews by Wheyleigh.  (Colin is the best known crop circle researcher.  His report about the video in his CPR Newsletter, Volume 5, Number 2, covers additional, tantalizing angles of the intrigue.) 

    You can imagine how I wanted to kick myself in the butt when I learned that I missed my opportunity to see such an historic video.  

"I’m the man who shot the lights..."

    Three days later, I was having lunch with a friend at The Barge, when a bashful young man of about 22 years, sat down at the table with us.  He said very little for about half an hour, and then he leaned over close to me and spoke in a hushed voice, "I’m Jonathan Wheyleigh, the man who shot the lights making the crop circle."

Wow!  My pulse raced!  Maybe I’d get to see the miraculous video after all!

    He confided that, in addition to the tape he was giving to Colin, he wanted me to have one for analysis – a job I was delighted to take on.  (I wouldn't have been so eager if I had known how the fiasco would monopolize my life for months to come, and how it would plague me to this very day!)  Since he hadn't brought the tape with him, he suggested we meet at a secret location in a few days, where he promised to provide me with my copy. 

    Continuing to speak quietly so as not to catch anyone else's ear, John told us what supposedly had happened to him at Oliver’s Castle.  He said he had left the pub and gone to spend the night at the hill fort, despite the fact that it had been raining, using only a big piece of plastic to cover his sleeping bag.  Early in the morning he heard a strange noise, like the classical "electronic cricket" (a sound frequently reported in association with crop circles).  The rain had already stopped, so he crawled out of his bag to see what was happening. 

    There, way down in the valley below the steep slope of the hill, were balls of light flying around over the crop.  He watched dumbfounded for a few moments, and then grabbed his video camera out from inside the sleeping bag, where he had stashed it safe from the rain.  At first it wouldn't work because of moisture condensation.   (Most video cameras have a dew sensor and they won’t function if moisture has condensed inside the mechanism.  Normally a camera must be put in a warm, dry room for an hour or more to evaporate the moisture.)  But luckily, after a few moments his camera began to function properly.  By that time the lights had disappeared.   But they soon reappeared, and that’s when he started shooting.  He added that I would definitely be able to see the crop circle forming while the lights were flying around above it.

    After the lights finished their job they flew away, leaving him breathless.  Some minutes went by, and then along came a squad of army men on a morning exercise run.   As they ran by, the Sargent cryptically asked him, "Did you get what you came for?"  Which John said he thought implied that the Army knew what had just happened.  That made him frightened, so he hurriedly packed his gear and drove out of the area. 

    The whole time we talked he seemed nervous, his hands visibly shaking at times.  He confided that he was afraid that reporters would hound him, and asked me to keep his name secret.  He would only give me a number for a mobile phone which belonged to a friend, but promised to return my calls (which he did, up to a point).   He anxiously asked me if I thought that the CIA or MI-5 might break into his home to try to steal the video.  Since such a tape would be the most important evidence of non-human involvement in the circles, I replied that his fears might be justified, and advised him to keep the original footage hidden at another location.  (Many people gave him the same advice, and yet, weeks later he was still showing the original tape in his camera -- a camera which he said sometimes chewed up tapes!)

    I must say that John came across as very convincing, and on this emotional basis I tended to believe he was for real, and thus the video was probably all we hoped for. 

    After he left, my friend, Ulrich, a crop circle investigator from Germany, who had been there all during this discussion, said that he remembered seeing Wheyleigh, a complete stranger to the crop circle community, in the pub the night before the Olivers Castle formation arrived.  And Ulrich observed that Wheyleigh had announced conspicuously that, despite the wretched weather, he was going to camp out at Oliver’s Castle in hopes of seeing something.

    A few days later, John called to let me know that he was going on a trip to France for a couple of weeks, and he would give me a copy of the tape when he got back.  I would have to endure the suspense a while longer!  Meanwhile, everyone was engaging in "telephone whispers" about the mysterious video.  Some reported it showed a crop circle being born beneath a complicated structure of lights, like a Christmas tree; others said it showed nothing that could be seen clearly at all.

Viewing IT at last!

    Three weeks later I was starting to worry that John had forgotten about me, but then he called and suggested we have a secret meeting at The Wagon and Horses.  The Wagon [yes, they spell it with two Gs] is a beautiful thatched roof pub near Avebury, which used to be the favourite croppie haunt until the more secluded Barge became the hip hang out.   But researchers still go to the Wagon occasionally, so it didn’t seem the very best choice for a clandestine meeting (he secretly met Colin there, too).

    Ulrich and I arrived at the colourful old pub 15 minutes early, and before we had time to order drinks, Wheyleigh walked in.  From a battered attaché case he withdrew a VHS copy of the coveted video and handed it to me.  There was no videotape player available at the pub, but John had brought his camera along with the original 8mm tape still in it. 

    Like most people seeing it through the camera’s eyepiece, all I saw on the first viewing, was little balls of light zipping around over the field and flying off.   Then, lo! I realized there the formation had appeared in the field while I was distracted by the lights.  I rewound the tape and watched again, ignoring the lights this time, and I could see the design materialize.  It was all beautiful and magical to behold!

    Then Ulrich watched it twice, and since I now had a VHS copy that we could watch to our hearts content back at the house, I resisted the urge to play the original yet again.

    I dearly wanted to be able to use the video in a TV program that I would be making about the year’s crop circles.  But I also knew the footage would be much too important to the world for me to just keep it to myself, and I told John so.  He said he was glad I felt that way, and suggested that I try to get it distributed as widely as possible, both in England and around the world, as soon as the tests proving its authenticity had been performed.  We ultimately agreed that I would be his exclusive agent (he didn't say that he had made that same arrangement with Colin, already).

    Then, into our supposedly secret meeting, walked Lee Winterston, who somehow knew we would be there.  Lee had also been shooting a crop circle program that summer.  He was one of the people who had stayed at The Barge after the last bell on that night when the camera had been passed around, and he wanted very much to get his hands on the astonishing footage, too.  (An American circle investigator, Marge Krstien, recalls talking to Winterston a few days before the event, and gazing into the distance, he had told her he wished he could film a crop circle forming.  Make of that what you will.)

    When Lee learned John had the original video with him, he suggested we should all go to a TV facility that Lee used, up in Swindon, where we could view the footage on professional equipment, with slow motion and enlargement capability.  The place was only half an hour away, and Lee offered to make a high quality copy of the tape for John, so the original wouldn't have to be used any more.  John asked me if we should, and I advised him that it was an excellent idea. Before long we were all driving North in three separate vehicles.

WabesCar1996.jpg (20388 bytes)

    Along the way I took some documentary footage of our cars driving to this historic first analysis of the mysterious footage.  My shots of John’s car later turned out to be evidence that Wheyleigh wasn’t who he said he was.


    Once we arrived at the video facility, Lee quickly got one of the technicians to set up the slo-motion and enlarging equipment.  As soon as I started to document the studio with my video camera, John asked me not to get him in the picture, reminding me he wanted to be anonymous.  I pleaded that this was an historic moment, and I wouldn't use shots of him without his permission, but he insisted I shouldn't film him at all.  He also asked me not to use the shots I had taken of his car.  However, as fate would have it, he walked across my camera’s field of view on his way to the "loo" [that’s English slang for "toilet].

    Then, a telling little thing happened in this room full of equipment.  John took his 8mm cassette out of his camera, and without hesitation, went over to one of the racks full of many different kinds of professional video machines, popped his tape right into the only 8mm machine in the room, and immediately punched the play button – just like he was familiar with the industrial equipment.  Id bet dollars to donuts that he had prior experience with that particular brand of professional machine, in order to recognize and use it so effortlessly. 

    Then the tape was copied over to the Slow-mo system, and our careful inspection of the footage began.  It certainly made a difference to see it in colour and on a big, high resolution monitor.  The brief drama looked like something out of Disney's "Fantasia," the sprightly little pixie lights glowing a bright, bluish white.   We watched them fast and slow, forward and backwards, and at times under high magnification, for over an hour.

    The crucial shot begins with two balls of light (BOLs), which appear to be about three feet in diameter, already in the lower middle of the screen ("A" in the diagram), skimming clockwise over the field of wheat at something like a hundred miles an hour.



    Lee soon discovered a third BOL, which appears on only the (suspiciously) first frame of the shot.  Trivia fans, take note: it is near the bottom of the frame (X on diagram), to the right of CENTRE, next to the trees.  It is gone in the second frame, never to be seen again.

    About two seconds into the shot, the crop formation starts to materialize, centre screen.   And at the same time, in the extreme upper part of the picture a very dim light (B) flies behind a tree, reappears, crosses the distant hedge, and flies towards the middle hedge.  (This light is visible only on good copies of the video.  In fact it may be difficult to spot until it reaches point C.  By then it has spawned a smaller partner.) 

    Meanwhile, some five seconds into the scene, the first pair of lights has swerved away from the crop formation, one, apparently flying lower, goes through the middle hedge at the far side of the field, and they glide off into the distance.  While it’s difficult to see the effect of the light going through the hedge on some home televisions, we looked carefully at it under digital magnification in the studio, and there is no doubt that the light is made to appear as if it goes through, not over, the shrubbery.   This is important, because it indicates how low the lights would be flying. 

    So, the BOLs are only a few feet above the wheat, yet they throw no light on the crop, even though they are several orders of magnitude brighter than the ambient illumination. 

    After the second set of lights (B) flies around over the crop formation, they zip out of the picture frame twice (D and G).  The camera makes no attempt to follow them (!) as they zip off the edges of the frame and disappear briefly from sight.   Everyone who sees the tape remarks that this seems very odd – hardly human!   Wouldn’t you have tried your best to keep the lights in your viewfinder?  (Defenders reply that Wheyleigh must have been guided by the circle-making intelligence to point and hold his camera where the crop formation was about to appear.  Later, I’ll tell you what I think was the cause of this exceptionally peculiar camera work.)

    The reader should know that I have been involved in computer animation since the pioneering days, more than 20 years ago.  I’ve witnessed the technology evolve from its crude beginnings into the photo-realistic dinosaurs of Jurassic Park

    One thing that troubled me greatly the whole time we were scrutinizing the slow-mos and enlargements, was the fact that the lights were not blurred in the direction of their motion.  They should have been elongated into fuzzy ovals by their rapid movement.   Only a high-speed shutter could have that result, yet the predawn light would have required a slow shutter speed, especially with video.)

    I admit that I deviously kept this problem to myself for the moment.  I realized, if the tape was real, John might be insulted or embarrassed by my doubts, and besides, these were technical matters that video engineers would certainly be better qualified to address than he.  Furthermore, if it was a fake, I didn't want to let on that I smelled a rat.

    As soon as I got back to Alton Barnes, I made calls to invite everyone who might be interested to come and view the famous tape at The Barge the next two evenings. Countless people came to see it, and we practically wore out the rewind button, playing the scene over and over. 

    Inevitably, the pro-and-con debate began.  At that point, the fact that the lights were not blurred in the direction of motion seemed the strongest argument against it, while apparent hand-held wiggling of the camera suggested to the contrary, that it was probably real.  (We all believed it would be extremely difficult to match layers of computer graphics with the shaky camera – more  on this shortly.)


    But, the more I thought about it, the more the prognosis didn't look good at all.  Then, a few days later I got a call from John Huckvale, who owns the Swindon video studio where we had been, and he had discovered what I refer to as the smoking gun.  His discovery makes it very, very, nearly impossible for the video to be genuine.  ALL other arguments are moot and meaningless unless this point can be adequately addressed.  I shall explain:

    We all know how movie film is a long strip of tiny pictures called frames.  Video frames, on the other hand, are recorded on tape as electromagnetic pulses – which are invisible, so you can’t hold the tape up to the light and see the pictures.   Duh.

    Now, here's the crucial technical quirk of video that you must understand to realize why the Olivers Castle tape is a fraud: Each video frame is composed of two "fields," which are the odd numbered lines and the even numbered lines that comprise every TV picture.  All the odd lines (first field) are scanned initially, and then the even lines (second field) are scanned.  These fields are recorded and displayed sequentially, one after the other (1/50th of a second apart on the British, "PAL" system, which displays 25 frames per second).  Each field shows the whole scene at a slightly different moment in time.  THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY TWO SEPARATE FRAMES in their own right, except that they can’t be viewed separately when you pause your VCR. 

    When you stop a movie projector you get a single still picture.  But a frame of video, composed of those two fields – two separate pictures captured an instant apart – often flickers if there's significant motion during that time.  Try pausing a shot of a football in flight, or anything moving fast, and you'll see what I mean. 

    The balls of light on the original video show no such flickering when the tape is paused, despite their apparent hundred-mile-per-hour speed!  This could not possibly be if they were captured with a normal video camera.  This isn't my personal opinion, this is a matter of fact.  Video frames have two fields.  The lights should move slightly between each of the fields.  They do not!

    But computer animation can produce exactly that result.  In fact, computer systems have the option to render scenes with, or without, motion between the fields.  But it takes longer for the computer to render with the fields properly.   It also takes considerably longer to render motion blur.  And time was a very important factor in this job, because Wheyleigh was committed to showing the tape at the Barge that night. 

    At the risk of beating a dead horse long into oblivion, consider if, instead of a video, we were dealing with motion picture film here.  And what if the lights on the film were motionless for two frames, then jumped to another position in the third frame, where they again held still for two frames before jumping again, and so on.  Everyone would immediately realize that something was very seriously wrong.  Well, the exact same thing is afoul with the Olivers Castle tape, except the abnormality is hidden within the two overlapping fields of each video frame.  If only I could hold the tape up to the light and show you the pairs of motionless fields! 

    So, basically, the lights had to be animated with a computer and added to the scene afterward, as was the appearance of the crop formation itself.  Its not unlike how Tom Hanks was put into the scenes with JFK in "Forrest Gump."  The OC video is a hoax, plain and simple.  

    I realize that the True Believers have found animation experts who have said that it would take days or weeks to fake the 8-second scene.  I don’t know how to politely respond!  (I reach for my gun when people say they are experts!)  They are just, flat wrong.  Period.  You don’t have to be an expert to know that there is supposed to be motion in the pairs of fields in a video frame.   (To give the "experts the benefit of a doubt, the motionless fields are very subtle.  It took us some 20 man hours to discover them – and months to reverse engineer the whole video.)  

    Unless you are very familiar with computer animation, it doesn't matter how long you puzzle over the problem.  For example, a certain motion picture director (who'll remain nameless to spare embarrassment), stated after several viewings, that s/he thought the video had to be real because, in order to do the special effects the video would first have to be transferred to film, and the efx done using rear-screen projection.  Then the film would have to be transferred back to tape again!   Obviously the film developing time alone would preclude a hoax being done in one day – so I had to be wrong.  Sadly, this movie professional obviously hadn't a clue about the recent advances of computer animation.  (No matter how wrong I might be about everything else, film and rear-screen projection are dinosaur technologies that don’t hold a candle to the speed and quality of digital effects.)


    Special effects experts and amateurs alike realize that the one, really big hurdle the hoaxers faced was the shaky hand-held camera effect.  It’s absolutely true that it would be formidably difficult, and very time consuming to combine animated effects with a live action shot that wiggles like this one apparently does.  But is it what it appears?   Experienced efx technicians get a kick out of coming up with end runs around problems like this one, and there is a brilliant solution to this little puppy.  Namely: don’t shoot the actual live action hand held, stupid, use a tripod!  

    I believe that rock-steady footage was shot at Oliver’s Castle, so the animated lights and materializing crop formation could be easily superimposed.  Finally – get this – the multi-layered scene was re-videoed off of a high quality studio monitor with the 8mm video camera!  This is where the wiggle was introduced to make it look like a genuine hand-held shot.  This trick doesn’t, even remotely, require the skill or resources of a George Lucas, as some crusaders confidently proclaim.

    It also explains why the cameraman doesn't follow the flying lights, as human nature would demand – because the original shot would have had to "pan" left and right.   

    The most impressive technical analysis on the video has been done by Jim Dilettoso, a well known electronics analyst who has studied hundreds of UFO tapes and films in recent years.   Not having heard about Huckvale’s discovery of the motionless fields, Jim concentrated on the non-image portions of the video signal (the so-called vertical interval, blanking pulse, sub carrier, and pedestal).  He found no evidence of the video having ever been in the digital realm.  If the video had been manipulated by a computer, he insisted, there should be a "digital fingerprint" in the vertical interval, but there was none. 

    When I met him later, in 1998, I told him about the trick of re-videoing the scene to create the hand-held effect, and pointed out that this would also result in a vertical interval with no digital fingerprint.  He acknowledged this was a simple, low-tech solution to the problem.


    [If you’ve had enough tech-talk, you can skip this section, in which I’ll briefly describe some of the other efx techniques that were probably employed in making the video]  

    The balls of light and their graceful flight paths were easy as pie to create, using computer animation.  Perfectly smooth curves, with acceleration, deceleration, and gradual changes in luminosity, are trivial to control within the digital 3-D environment.   Creating flight paths which have only to approach from the distance, then curve approximately around the place where the formation appears, and finally fly away, would take an experienced computer operator only about an hour to achieve.  If the lights had been animated to precisely trace out the shape of the formation while each circle appeared, then it would have taken much longer to do.  (Who among us was not surprised that the lights didn't actually define the design?)

    Making the lights look like they fly though the hedges was a nice touch.  The easiest way to achieve that effect would be to utilize a program like "PhotoShop."   A little dab of colour that matches the hedge would be painted over the layer with the lights.  The digital paint can have adjustable transparency, so the lights can appear to shine through the leaves as some of them do, rather than totally disappear.

    Viewers frequently point to the lights going through the hedges as an indication that the video is probably real, because they think it unlikely that an animator would take the time to include such small details, or to even think of them.  On the contrary!   Animators take pride in coming up with subtleties exactly like this.  Going beyond the obvious lends authenticity to their artwork.  Many viewers don’t consciously notice the lights going through the hedges until it’s pointed out to them.  But subliminally, the effect adds greatly to the realism of the scene.   "The best special effects are the ones you don’t recognize are effects," as we say in Hollywood.

    The appearance of the crop formation is quite another matter from the lights.   Whether the formation itself was genuine or hoaxed by accomplices, a technique called "digital cut and paste" would be used to make the crop formation invisible at the beginning of the sequence.  Areas of the picture that contain standing crop can be electronically copied and moved to cover all the various parts of the formation.  Unlike paper cut-outs, these patches have their edges perfectly blended, are virtually undetectable, and each takes only seconds to do.  Later the patches were dissolved away to reveal the circles, one at a time.

    A soft-edged, oval wipe would be used to make the big circle appear to expand from the middle.  The fact that standing crop at the edge of the expanding circle is not seen until the circle reach full size, is a consequence of the oval wipe technique.   Animating expanding wipes for all the circles would have been prohibitive, time-wise, so they all simply fade on.

    Having thousands of hours experience with computer animation and video production, I submit, with confidence, the following conservative timeline for the creation of the Oliver’s Castle Lights video:

5:00 AM - Shot of the crop formation taken

8:00 - Arrive at studio in Bristol (with time out for a good breakfast!)

9:00 – Video footage transferred from the camera into the computer

10:00 – Experimentation with color and shape of lights 

10:30 - Light flight paths created

11:30 - Wipes and related effects for crop circle materialization 
(sandwiches ordered in for working lunch)

3:00 PM - Digital paint box work for lights going through hedges

5:00 – Camera-shake added ( "digital fingerprint" simultaneously removed) 

6:00 - Job done (take an hour for a well-deserved dinner)

    The finished tape could easily have been at The Barge by 9:00 PM.  Since "Wheyleigh" didn't actually get there until after 11:00, I suspect something went wrong, and he needed a couple of additional hours to perfect his handiwork.

    The venerable pilot and photographer, Busty Taylor says the shadow angle in the scene suggests that the shot was taken in the afternoon, rather than the morning.   He may well be right.  If so, then the shortened working time due to the late acquisition of the footage would require the animation studio to be nearby.  With little more than a powerful desktop computer and a high resolution monitor being required to do the job, "Wheyleigh" could have used a B&B in the vicinity as his clandestine studio.


    Desperate to maintain the supernatural reputation of the video, some Believers have suggested that the CircleMakers somehow caused the motionless field/frame aberration on purpose.  Well, sigh, I concur that it would be trivial for an advanced technology to detect when Wheyleigh’s camera was about to capture each frame, and to then position anti-gravity balls of light motionless while each pair of video fields were being recorded – repositioning them for each succeeding frame (exactly like some extraterrestrial Wallace & Grommet clay animation!).  But, why?!  Well, to impress us with their awesome, alien powers, by creating this wonderful, mind-boggling puzzle, of course! 

    One of the people who has put this theory to me is a computer-savvy professional who concluded, "We just don’t know the motivations of the intelligence we are contemplating."  And I must say that it is not absolutely, utterly inconceivable that we could be tested in this way – perhaps as a test of our blind faith. 

    But I doubt it.  Confronting us with a video aberration that exactly mimics the appearance of computer graphics would be a very underhanded trick!  The CircleMakers know us well enough to realize that such a thing would only cause confusion and acrimonious arguments among us.  The Circle Maker’s renowned sense of humour is subtle, but not sadistic.  There would be much better ways for them to prove their technical superiority.  If they wanted to, they might even have levitated the camera right out of Wheyleigh’s hands and flown it out and around, following the lights!   And, while our faith is most certainly being tested by the Circle phenomenon, blind faith, I hope, would be one of the things being weeded out! 

    No, I’m sure the video was made by mischievous or malevolent humans, and their goal was precisely to cause confusion and acrimony!  They've been laughing their asses off ever since.


    John Wheyleigh had refused to give me, or anyone, his personal phone number or address.  As I said earlier, he did provide the cell phone number of "a friend" of his.  And he did call me back on four different occasions, after I left messages at that number.

    Then, late in August, I left one message, tactfully saying that I thought there might be some digital artifacts on his video.  He was never been heard from since by any of us (not as "Wheyleigh," anyhow!).  To no avail, I left more messages, pleading that, even if his video was an animation, it still was a beautiful illustration of what a crop circle forming might look like.  The phone number was disconnected a month or so later.

    The following summer, Nippon TV decided to make a documentary about the Olivers Castle video.  Don’t ask me how, but they had reason to suspect that "Wheyleigh" was actually a man named John Wabe, who is the co-owner of a video special effects studio (!) in Bristol.  The NTV producers made an appointment to have Wabe do some efx work for them – with the intent of showing him the video without warning, and catching his surprised reaction on camera.  

    While they went into the studio, I was stationed outside, waiting to be called in to identify Wabe as Wheyleigh when the time came.  But Wabe discovered that a trap was being set, and sneaked out the back door while the TV crew was talking with his partner.   He had changed his hair colour and grown a little beard, but after a few seconds I recognized him.  I grabbed my camera and turned it on, but before it was ready to record, Wabe had started his car and begun to back out of his parking space.  He saw me running towards him, and did a double take.  Then he waved at me, with an expression that said, "Nya, nya, you can’t catch me!" and sped off with a smile on his face. 

    As he zoomed away, I got a shot of his car – the very same as the one "Wheyleigh" had been driving the previous year.  

WabesCar1996.jpg (20388 bytes) WaybesCar997.jpg (26311 bytes)
"Wheyleigh’s" car in 1996     Wabe’s car in 1997

    Although these pictures should be proof that would put the whole matter to rest, there are people who insist that I must be mistaken (or lying).  Or the CIA paid off the real Wheyleigh, took his car, and gave it to Wabe, to set me up so I would continue to spread disinformation like this essay here.  What can I say?  Believe what you will.

    A day or so later (I don’t remember exactly) Lee Winterson made a presentation in The Barge about the bungled Nippon "raid."  Lee had helped the Japanese TV company to locate Wabe’s studio, and he had been outside in their van with me when Wabe rushed out of the building.  Lee had ran after the fleeing car, shouting, "Why did you do it?  Come back and talk to us!"

    The room at the pub that night was packed with curious croppies.  Lee began by announcing that Wabe had refused to grant an interview with Nippon, because he was under contract with one of the largest American TV networks.  Wabe said he was making a program with NBC, about how he fooled the world (shades of Doug & Dave).  After the Barge presentation (which concluded with my shot of Wabe’s car), heated debate broke out among the Believers in the OC Video vs the Believers of Lee and I.

    Nearly everyone agreed that the NBC program should clear everything up.  Several people knew what "Wheyleigh" looked like, from that night when he passed his camera around at the Barge.  If Wabe were the same guy, there would be many beside myself who could testify to the fact.  (Pre-emptive damage control by the conspiracy theorists began that evening, when they floated the idea that Wheyleigh and his video were still absolutely real, but he had been bought off or threatened by the forces of evil, made to change his name, and forced to work at the video special effects studio.)   

    To my frustration, Wabe’s "How I Fooled The World" program never materialized.  More than one supporter of the OC video has smugly rubbed my nose in the fact.  Wabe is a fraud, and his car is a hoax, they insist.  Sigh.   

    Now, in 1999, Colin reports that Wabe has made a program with Nippon TV, "confessing" that he created the video.  Colin has seen it and confirms that my analysis of how the video was fabricated is essentially correct.  I am confident that the truth will come out at last, that the people who saw Wheyleigh at the Barge will identify him as Wabe, and the matter will finally be buried.  (I also know that some people will not accept any evidence whatsoever that challenges their heartfelt beliefs – no way, no how.  [I love you!])  It saddens me to think of all the sweat and tears that have been shed by both sides in this debate.  From the beginning I truly wished I were wrong.


    Late in the last century someone put the fossil jaw of a primitive man together with the skull of an ancient ape, and proclaimed to have discovered "the missing link."  Despite rational arguments that it was hoax, the Piltdown skull held a place of honour in the British museum for several decades.  Supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution wanted desperately for the skull to prove them right, and clung tenaciously to the fossil.   Ultimately, of course, Piltdown Man was acknowledged to be a fraud.  But Darwin survived the fiasco, thank you very much.  And the Circles will survive the Oliver’s Castle Video.



La aussi, si on ne veut pas croire à cette version, je ne peux plus rien. 

Un commentaire important : Le film date de 1996, à cette époque, il n'y a pas de caméra numérique en dehors de modèl

es très spécifiques et très professionels. On commence juste à voir les premières caméras numériques grand public.  Ce film a été tourné en VHS. D'où l'analyse sur les frames paires et impaires, ce qui n'est plus d'actualité sur les caméras numériques actuelles. Il était possible de rendre le 'motion blur', mais dans ce cas le calcul des trucages prenaient un temps beaucoup plus considérable, non compatible avec une 'release' le jour même. 

Enfin, un texte de Lee Winterson lui-même, précisant comment tout ça s'est passé. On notera que il y a eu à un moment une grosse méprise de Colin Andrew qui a visiblement, en tout cas dans un premier temps, considéré que Lee Winterson était impliqué dans le Hoax. Mais ce  n'est pas la partie la plus importante.



Circular Times WebMag 1997

Dr. Colette Dowell



CTFw200.jpgInquiring Minds Need to Know:

John Whaley (Wheyleigh/Wabe) and the Oliver's Castle

Video Hoax Exposed -- United Kingdom, October 1997

By Lee Winterson; containing excerpts from Colette Dowell's 96 report.

On August 11th, 1996 at the Barge Inn in Alton Barnes a telephone call was received by the bar staff inquiring the whereabouts of Peter Sorensen and Colin Andrews. I took the call and spoke with a man who identified himself as a Mr. John Whaley. He claimed he was ringing to report a new formation in the area of Oliver's Castle. He also claimed he witnessed and was able to video strange balls of light hovering over the same field the morning the formation appeared. I suggested for him to come to the Barge and bring the video with him and in the mean time I would arranged to locate the people he requested to view the video. My first impression was it was like a roose to trick researchers to enter yet another formation and try to fool them into believing it was a genuine formation.

With in minutes after receiving the phone call, others and myself left for Oliver's Castle. Sure enough a formation was there. We began tramping down the hill in the pouring rain to take a closer look. Upon entering the formation I found it to be quite messy and appeared to be of poor quality. The formation did not rank very high in my standards. Upon entering the formation we did create a lot of mud, however the rain washed away our muddy footprints. The arguments that people typically use for whether a formation is hoaxed or not, is if there are any footprints to be found inside a new formation. We left the formation feeling very disappointed. I was debating at that point whether to leave Wiltshire or return to the Barge and await this mysterious caller. Due to the fact I was making a new film related to UFOs and the crop circle connection, I decided to stay.

Approximately at 10:45, John Whaley and a young chap (who quietly remained in the background) entered the pub carrying an aluminium camera case. I immediately approached him and asked if he was John, which he confirmed. Many people who were at the pub awaiting John's arrival had already left. Who remained were Freddy Sylva, Jane Ross, Michael Hubbard, Nik Nickolson and myself. John proceeded to show us in turn, through his camcorder viewfinder, his video, which he claimed to have filmed that morning. My immediate reaction was "Wow, I thought I was the luckiest man in the world." Here I was producing a film and now I had a chance to secure some rights to use the footage, but I did not push it at the time.

   Oliver's Castle Photo Courtesy and Copyright 1996 Steve AlexanderOliverCC.jpg

Everybody's reaction was similar to mine. I saw the video twice that night. The first time I just focused on viewing the lights, I was not aware of the formation underneath the lights. The second time I viewed the film I focused on the formation. It did not appear to synchronistically lay with the movements of the lights. I then suggested and offered John Whaley, 100 pounds cash for him to come to AVP Studio in Swindon, where I would supply him with a broadcast copy of his master so he could make copies from a master dub, as opposed to using his master. I also offered to put in writing that I would not use the footage if he would come to Swindon. He refused and said he was tired. He then left the pub leaving his telephone number with Freddy Sylva for the purpose of contact with Colin Andrews.

Then I had a meeting with Colin Andrews a couple of days later at my caravan to discuss how we might combine efforts in relocating John Whaley in the attempt to obtain copies of this footage and secure it. I phoned John everyday and left messages on his message machine, however he did not return my calls. I believe he got in contact with Colin Andrews directly and supplied him with a copy and a contract for distribution as he saw fit. As Colin stated to "execute detailed analysis of the film and to handle world wide media interest in the footage...."

He further stated that several major inquiries including the British Military (who might have been present at Oliver's Castle), were now commencing. Colin also made it clear that until detailed analysis of the footage was complete, the video would not be available; therefore the first 'classified' conclusions of the tape would be released through CPRI.

However Colin impressed the fact;

"The whole filmed sequence is just a few seconds long

and shows either a very elaborate attempt to fraud or we have

secured the most incredibly important UFO and crop circle film footage ever!"

Shortly after words Peter Sorensen was approached by John Whaley referencing to view the film and offer his comments. AVP studios in Swindon, received a phone call tipping them off to the secret meeting between John Whaley and Peter Sorensen. Who was responsible for that phone call tip? John Huckvale contacted me and suggested I intercept that meeting for the purpose of obtaining the footage for the new program on UFOs and crop circles. When I entered the pub to the astonishment of Peter Sorensen, I stared exchanging pleasantries with Mr. Whaley. I suggested that we could go to the studio in Swindon and view the footage through a broadcast monitor and view the footage more clearly with an image enhancement program. Under the advice of Peter Sorensen he agreed. We went off to the studio and proceeded to analyze the footage.

John Whaley was holding his 8-mm master tape and inserted it directly into the professional 8-mm master machine, as if he knew exactly how to handle studio equipment. I found that unusual because it is unlike any domestic equipment. We transferred the footage to a broadcast quality tape and proceeded to enhance and check the footage. Suddenly John became agitated and with a brief goodbye, exited the studio as quick as he entered it, he was very keen to leave. He obviously showed signs of discomfort. For days we continued to check and look at the footage. We became more and more suspicious as the days went on.

John Huckvale pointed out there was field discrepancies on the video suggesting at some point the video had been rendered as an animation sequence.


A video film has two fields of lines sequenced a fraction of a second apart. The two fields are recognizable because each field corresponds to a designated 'line'. One field's lines are characterized by 'odd' numbers and the other field from 'even' numbers. One video frame consists of these two fields of lines; thus creating in affect, actually two images contained within the frame. This is known as double image and this is what causes jitter on the screen. If you overlay a second sequence of film/computer images etc., on top of the original video film footage, the edited frames read out as single images,

 not double. The spheres of light on the video are of single imaging, not double.

In the mean time I faxed Colin Andrews expressing the need of caution in handling this film. We also issued Peter Sorensen a brief written report of our findings. At that point I felt no need to pursue the analysis of the film any further. Throughout the winter I continued to research ufology, have a child and recover from a brief illness totally unaware of the controversy that existed over the film on the Internet and the crop circle community. In May of 1997, while I was accessing the Internet I came across the article, "The Oliver's Castle Fraud, the Final Word" by Colin Andrews.

I was totally amazed and disappointed with the allegations Colin Andrews

made stating my alleged involvement

in making the hoax film based on circumstantial evidence.

It was clear that Colin overstepped his ground and made some false statements due to his lack of thorough investigation of the matter. However, I do not blame Colin totally as he relied on a third hand witness, Matthew Williams. Matthew Williams was employed by me as a cameraman for my film and was terminated from his duties due to certain curious activities involving a crop circle formation, which appeared in the Alton Barnes area in 1996. There were various other questionable acts of behaviour and issues I need not go further into.

All the rumours and speculations about my involvement in the Oliver's Caste footage

 was due to Matthew's false accounting of the story along with him saying

he witnessed me make the animation at AVP studio.

Whenever I am questioned in regards to my involvement of the footage only one person's name, that who's is Matthew Williams, consistently comes up as the perpetrator of the falsehoods made against me.



This is unreliable and poor quality journalism from a man who demands respect for his great knowledge and understanding of any major events involving crop circles.

Colin Andrew's article was very inappropriate and contained a lot of false statements, which have personally affected in a negative way, friends, family and myself.


There is no place for irresponsible journalism especially when people are out there seeking truths, only to be told stories which are anything but the truth.

However through all of this I will commend Colin for hiring a private detective to pursue and locate John Whaley.

(Although, commending Colin for finally hiring a detective still does not detract fromthe fact Colin Andrews

caused great harm with his punitive damaging false statements

against me (and others) serving his greed and megalomaniac mind.)

I had to turn the pages and use his detective to my advantage.


Colin Andrew's article on his home page stated the fact that his private detective had found the name of John Whaley to actually be John Wabe. He also stated John Wabe was employed by a film and animation studio in Bristol. It was at that point I decided to further Colin's investigation and take it one-step further.

From basic logical deduction I proceeded to make a list of all of the companies in Bristol and the surrounding areas which had the capabilities to produce such a film. There were very few possibilities. I began to check the facilities closest and most accessible to Oliver's Castle (due to time and location). The first company I contacted was BDC in Bath. By ringing them and simply asking if it was possible to speak to John Wabe, to my surprise, they stated that John Wabe did not actually work there but did use their facility quite often for the purpose of digital postproduction and graphic animation. They asked the nature of my inquiry and I told them I was referred to John for some price quoting on animation and just left it at that as to not arouse any suspicion. They mentioned he worked for a company called FIRST CUT based in Bristol. It was so easy to find this guy. Is it possible that BDC Studio in Bath was the facility John Used to produce the video?

There are very few companies with the capabilities to produce 3D animation. I proceeded to inquire through operator's assistance, telephone directory… the telephone number of FIRST CUT Studios, however there was no such listing. By coincidence, I was riding a bus through Bristol on my return journey home pass the HTV studio complex, which houses various digital postproduction companies. Listed on the companies index board was FIRST CUT TV. I rang the bell on the bus and jumped off immediately on the next stop. At that point I was so eager to throttle with John ,I decided to go to the information department of HTV and inquire about FIRST CUT TV…. what facilities did they provide and so on. They suggested I speak to them direct and patched me through to the FIRST CUT TV Receptionist.

I spoke to a gentleman called John Lomas, he suggested we meet me at the reception area where he would take me for a tour of his TV facilities. Lomas asked me why I was interested in the facilities, I told him I was a film producer and was looking for a local facility to cut a program. He showed me an avid 8000 Video Editing Suite and pointed to an adjoining door stating the graphics workstation was linked though a separate room. There was a client in the room with a gentleman with blonde hair who I immediately recognized as John Whaley, (John Wabe). I stood out of view from John Wabe as to not have him recognize me and suggested when I had more time I would come back at a later date and completely tour the facilities.

In order to further my investigation I had to be sure I had the right person as John Wabe whom now had blonde hair. When I first met John, his hair was quite dark. I thought it was appropriate to conduct some surveillance in the private members bar directly below FIRST CUT Studio where I went in and ordered a drink. The entire complex is protected by security cameras and guards, I was asked who I was and claimed I was working in the complex. I was not questioned any further.

I spent several days hanging out around the bar at teatime in order to get a better look at John. From that point onwards, when I felt I was satisfied I had the right person, John Huckvale and myself orchestrated a plan in which he would carry a camera and enter the studios with the intention of getting John Wabe on film behind his workstation. This was attempted on June the 4th and was successful in that respect. Later that day we reentered the FIRST CUT Studio and it was at that point I made my identity aware to John Wabe.

His first look at me entering the studio was that of displeasure while I asked him if it was possible we could discuss a piece of footage. He asked me to set up an appointment, which I did for the following Tuesday. On the Monday before the meeting he rang AVP Studio in Swindon and cancelled the appointment stating he was too busy. I contacted John Wabe via telephone and asked him why he cancelled the meeting and he suggested we not do this by telephone. I asked him directly what was his involvement in the Oliver's Castle footage. He denied any knowledge of the film. I told him we had film of him in the studio at Swindon as John Whaley and further at his workstation as John Wabe. I told him he was one of the same and left it at that. He was very evasive. I gave a great deal of thought of how I was to continue my investigation….Next…


Nippon TV contacted me as a witness for their production of the Oliver's Castle footage.

I offered the information I achieved while tracking John Whaley

and they were very keen to be involved with the expose.

We teamed our efforts and planned our doorstep challenge

and direct confrontation with John Whaley/John Wabe.

On the wall of the studio was a picture of John Wabe, of how he used to look. I filmed the photo and showed it to Peter Sorensen who identified the man's photo as the John Whaley he had met. On that basis we proceeded with the expose. To follow…. On Friday July 18th 1997, at approximately 7:30am, Lee, Peter, and seven Nippon TV camera crewmembers made their way to Bristol for the FIRST CUT Studios. The film crew went inside with cameras rolling while Peter and I sat outside in the car park maintaining communication devices. There was a technical problem with some of the communications devices, so it was difficult to ascertain what was occurring inside. However, I was able to relay to Peter some of the events which were taking place in the studio.

The business partner of John Wabe -- 'John Lomas,' was shown the footage by the TV crew

 and confronted about John Wabe's connection to it. He said that "Yes, John was involved,"

 but that the film crew would have to talk to John Wabe personally.

John Lomas left the room at this point to consult with John Wabe, relating the nature of the film crew inquiry. While the film crew was unaware, John Wabe fled out of his office, actually leaving the client he was attending there on the spot. Peter Sorensen, patiently waiting with his camcorder in the car park, saw a man coming from the building, enter a car and start the ignition. His memory raced - then clicked. Yes, this was the man he met last year and - he was attempting to escape the cameras. Peter jumped out as the camera starting to roll as John drove away. At a crucial moment of eye contact, John saw Peter recognized him, waved and smiled gallantly to the camera. As he sped away in safety I ran after the fleeing car, shouting requests if he was responsible for the footage…but to no avail. After this daring escapade, a request was made to John Lomas for John Wabe to come clean and admit his involvement.

Afterwards, John Wabe was in phone contact, stating he WAS involved

in the production  of this video but could not comment further due to an

exclusive contract with a broadcast production, DISCOVERY CHANNEL, USA.

John Wabe did make it clear that he would like this all to "Just go away."

He is not hiding the fact that it IS a HOAX.

In our opinion he has been paid well to perform this duty, and he almost got away with it.

I personally believe that this is not only a cynical attempt to extract vast sums of money from broadcasters, I believe there is a deeper darker reason for this hoax. WHO commissioned this footage and WHY? However, it reeks of a previous scent of the DOUG & DAVE scenario campaign which presented itself in 1991. Some very interesting circumstantial evidence has developed since this expose. Through inquiries in relation to John Wabe's photograph in the studio it has been revealed that it is in fact a publicity photograph for an optician company. The photograph was taken several years ago for an advertising company (Mcan Erickson) in relation to an optician's advertisement. It may be worth stating the fact that any statements I make now are purely assumptions and should not be taken as fact, however there does appear to be some interesting coincidences.

During a conversation with renowned crop circle hoaxer Robert Irving, (and who also created a cut and paste UFO photo for a Fortean Times article) in late July of 97, at the Barge Inn, I asked if he had ever been commissioned by an optician company for advertisement photos. He replied "yes, many". I also questioned if he had ever been involved with the company Mcan. He finished the title of the company (Erickson), which he agreed he had taken photos for opticians through that company.

Maybe I am grasping at straws at this moment, but could it be possible that there may be a connection between John Wabe and Robert Irving through this photo. Has their paths crossed before? In addition, John Wabe has lived in Bath where as Rob Irving has family in Bath and has lived there also. It is also a place, Bath, where Jim Schnabel has spent a great deal of time schooling in Journalism. I apologize in advance if the conclusions I have reached in regards to John Wabe and Robert Irving are totally co-incidental, however I will pursue this photograph matter and get 100 percent confirmation of whether it is Robert's photograph or not.

To many of the crop circle researchers who want to believe this is a genuine film,

it must be understood that it is not and that it should not be revered as such.

I suggest the researchers who continue spreading false statements of

"genuine footage of balls of light creating a crop circle formation..."

 despite the evidence presented;

should reevaluate their own personal agenda and

take into account the dis-information they are spreading.

We all have a responsibility of presenting factual accounts and not irresponsibly selling fairy tales to the public who intrust us for factually based information. I suggest they pack their suitcase and return home with the film and review it in the privacy of their own home.

This article is written in the attempt to portray actual events and to clear up any misleading previous articles. It was very hard for me through all of these negative allegations to continue and complete my investigation about the truth of the video. At times I felt overwhelmed and wanted to pack it up, but I felt the need to expose the truth and let dead dogs lie. I would like to thank the very few people who have reserved judgment and waited patiently for all of the facts to be collected. These are the sort of people who should be promoting crop circles and not the "opinionated", "judgmental" and "lack of evidence" grade researchers. I am undecided to where my research will go at this point. Maybe Roswell!

By Lee Winterson

Colette Dowell

Circular Times


Un dernier commentaire. On peut facilement trouver sur les sites de Videos un documentaire de National Geo, en cherchant avec Oliver's castle. La 5e partie du docu (il est découpé pour rentrer dans les tailles limites) porte partiellement sur ce hoax.  2 choses sont mises en évidence:

La caméra est fixe tout le long de l'observation. Par un mystérieux coup de bol, elle est cadrée fixe sur ce champ  AVANT que les boules arrivent. Sacré coup de bol.  Ensuite elle ne suit jamais les boules, restant cadré sur le champ. Je ne crois pas une seconde qu'un cameraman voyant un phénomene comme celui-ci n'essaierait pas de suivre les boules.  

Ensuite le commentaire audio (It as amaaaaazing) n'est pas crédible. Dans les lumières de Phoenix, on entend les gens crier, s'exclamer, car ils sont à ce moment persuadés de voir un phénomène hors de leur compréhension et références. Ce sont des "LOOOK LOOK AT THIS", ou des "WOAWOAWOAWOAW WHAT's THAT" mais un un tranquille 'it's amaaaaazing".  Que ces lumieres soient des flares où non ne change rien à l'affaire, au moment où ils le voient.


Maintenant, la vraie question est:

Pourquoi? Et qui? Apparemment John Wabe était sous contrat avec DIscovery Chanel. Faire du sensationnel? Leur vendre un film comme étant authentique, mais en fait un fake? On peut imaginer un contrat avec Discovery Chanel, pour une exclu, puis apres avoir fabriqué ce fake (ce qui est avéré) le diffuser dans le 'milieu' du Crop Circle (ce qui est avéré aussi, voir les textes de Winterson et de Sorensen), pour lui donner de la texture et assurer le coup aupres de Discovery Chanel.  Ou bien une commande pour un film clairement Fake, puis apres projection dans le reportage, montrer comment on peut faire de faux films...

En tout cas le contrat d'exclu existant selon les dires même de John Wabe pue franchement. 

Rien de bien établi sur le sujet, mais Colin Andrew semble avoir son idée, et il pointe vers les Services secrets MI5.

Ca méritera un article ultérieur. 

Publié dans Debunking

Commenter cet article

Van Roof Bars 19/09/2012 14:37

There are a lot of people who will tell you, with great conviction, that crop circles are created by balls of light. I've heard people say that they give off microwave radiation, that makes the
crops wilt in certain chosen spots, creating the formations we see in aerial photos, on the news and on the internet.

Telgar 19/09/2012 19:22

It might be. I dont want to doubt about wht people witnesses. But for THIS video, which has been a number of time reproduced in documentaries as an authetic one, it is a fake. Problem is that
believers want to believe, and are angry if you break their dream. So reason is not here, it is all about passion and believe, not far from religion, and we know what excess can do in religion. I
respect witnesses, not fakers. :)