On his "Swirled News" web site, under the title "'PROCLAMATION INITIATIVE' - PEACEMAKING OR WITCH-HUNTING?", Andy Thomas writes:
Researcher Colin Andrews and assorted supporters have issued a 'Proclamation Initiative', which purports to be a plea for peace and decency in the crop circle world - but will this be its true function, or the beginning of a new cerealogical McCarthyism..? Three Swirled News contributors, MICHAEL GLICKMAN, KAREN DOUGLAS and BRIAN DAMERELL give their own very different views on this controversial development...
The proclamation reads:
"We the undersigned have agreed to re-launch crop circle investigations and public communications into the study of crop circles with a renewed spirit of respect for others and to pursue the truth by all reasonable means possible. This timely initiative comes when the final outcome of the various crop circle investigations and 'land-design' experiments is thought by some to offer humanity new positive potential. There IS something to be learned here."
After curious references to the dangers of global environmental pollution and wars, it goes on to say:
"The crop circle community is no different to any other and it has its share of these same problems. These are now being challenged openly. This is a concerted effort to resolve these problems, existing close to home, and in so doing we hope to inspire a trustworthy dialogue with the public and cordial and respectful relations with each other.
We are taking the high road in all aspects of our studies and associations with this phenomenon. We hope to inspire trust, respect, integrity and friendship with all of those who arrived in the fields to research the circles, visit and enjoy them, or make them with the co-operation of farmers as experiments in social and mechanical studies.
The aim is to learn what there is to be learned and to enjoy all the fun they offer in so doing. All achieved with respect and integrity.
...Division and Deception has run its course."
On the surface, this 'proclamation' appears to be a reasoned and well-intentioned plea for peace, but there are ambiguous and potentially shadowy elements, highlighted by the contributions below. Implicit in the document, for instance, is the assumption that human circlemaking is now an integral and accepted part of the phenomenon - a notion challenged by many.
More disturbing is the inherent risk of potential witch-hunting which could arise from such a clear creation of what amounts to a self-elected elite, a clearly-defined faction. Certainly, some of the worryingly aggressive tones in a few of the statements from signatories which follow the main proclamation is hardly encouraging, and clearly imply threats to those who they feel have crossed them. Does this mean that if anyone steps out of line from the acceptable positions declared by the 'proclamation' body, there will be official reprimands issued from some sort of new McCarthy-ite board?
If the ethics implied by the proclamation are followed to the letter, perhaps this could be the overture to a new era of peaceful negotiation and discussion in the crop circle world. However, given that the statement has been issued by somebody who just in recent weeks sent out a circulated e-mail which sank lower into personal abuse than anyone ever before them, it is hard for us at Swirled News (largely the targets of the abuse) to feel much confidence. However, we shall see...
In the interests of fairness, however, here follow three quite different views on the new proclamation, starting with Michael Glickman's characteristically personal response...
"...a 'Proclamation Initiative', which purports to be a plea for peace and decency in the crop circle world..."
The Proclamation does not "purport" to be anything other than what it is - a straightforward proclamation of intent. It is not a plea for anything - therefore the question,
"...but will this be its true function, or the beginning of a new cerealogical McCarthyism..?"
becomes redundant.
"...curious references to the dangers of global environmental pollution and wars..."
The "curious" references are actually a contextual lead-in to:
'The crop circle community is no different to any other and it has its share of these same problems...'
But this is only apparent from reading the passage not quoted by Thomas. (Full text here.)
"On the surface, this 'proclamation' appears to be a reasoned and well-intentioned plea for peace..."
The Proclamation is a statement, not a plea.
"Implicit in the document...is the assumption that human circlemaking is now an integral and accepted part of the phenomenon..."
It depends on what one means by "human circlemaking", of course. The term "hoaxing" is noticeably avoided here. The Proclamation refers to 'land-design experiments' and formations made 'with the co-operation of farmers as experiments in social and mechanical studies'.
It does not refer to those formations which are created secretly and without permission, with the intention of masquerading (an essential part of the definition of "hoax") as being of unknown origin.
(Of course, there is another category, hard to define, whereby a formation is made secretly - but as an experiment. Like the quintuplet formation created by Steve Alexander, Karen Douglas, John Holman and Anthony Horn at West Stowell in 1995: "Project Maxim". And my own feeble efforts some years ago, which, although so small they remained undiscovered - or at least, not considered worthy of reporting! - yielded research data which has proved essential in field investigations.)
Nowhere does the Proclamation imply that it accepts hoaxing.
"...a clear creation of what amounts to a self-elected elite, a clearly-defined faction."
There is no "elite" (self-elected or otherwise) or "faction" - simply a number of people who have in common that they agree with the Proclamation and have put their names to it. Even Andy Thomas, Michael Glickman and Karen Douglas were among those invited to "sign up".
"...some of the worryingly aggressive tones in a few of the statements from signatories which follow the main proclamation...clearly imply threats to those who they feel have crossed them. Does this mean that if anyone steps out of line from the acceptable positions declared by the 'proclamation' body, there will be official reprimands issued from some sort of new McCarthy-ite board?"
The very fact that added to the Proclamation are individual, widely different, supplementary statements from some of the signatories makes nonsense of the question of whether "there will be official reprimands issued" by a non-existent "board".
"...given that the statement has been issued by somebody who just in recent weeks sent out a circulated e-mail which sank lower into personal abuse than anyone ever before them..."
"...than anyone ever before them..." is grossly inaccurate, as will be seen from the quotes soon to be posted on this site. Moreover, the e-mail referred to was a private one - not put out on the Internet for the general public. A copy was "leaked" to Thomas, who asked that a particular reference be retracted and apologised for, which it was, in a follow-up e-mail to the original recipients. Apologies and reparations having been made, however, Thomas now draws public attention to it. One wonders why.
It's hard to understand why this Proclamation, a simple statement of intent about crop circle investigation, should stir up such paranoia (Michael Glickman's critique, referred to by Thomas, is even more vitriolic). Why should anyone envisage a "witch-hunt"?
'The Study of Crop Circles - a Proclamation Initiative' is not being signed by a "self-elected elite" who are answerable to a "McCarthy-ite board" or who are engaged in a "witch-hunt".
It is being signed by people who simply agree with what it says.
(Just setting the record straight.)