Toward the end of Nancy Talbott's three-page report,
PLANT ABNORMALITIES INDICATE PLASMA DISCHARGE IN 2009 UK CROP CIRCLES, she lists 16 cases in which crop formations were sampled and evaluated (and one that wasn't). I list them here for convenience:
(01)
June 12th, Yatesbury "Phoenix"..........plasma discharge
(02)
June 13th, Milk Hill #2............................plasma discharge
(03) June 27th, Honey Street circle..................plasma discharge
(04)
July 6th, Honey St. "addition"...............possible plasma discharge
(05)
June 21, 23 & 30, Milk Hill "3-phase"..possible plasma discharge
(06) June 21, Milk Hill small circle.....................no data
(07)
June 23, Milk Hill "addition" (#4).........plasma discharge
(08)
July 5th, Silbury Hill "Mayan Mask"....possible plasma discharge
(09)
June 24th, Rough Hill "Mushroom"....plasma discharge
(10)
June 27th, South Field...........................possible plasma discharge
(11) July 28th, Winterbourne Bassett (cut).......likely plasma discharge
(12)
July 31st, Winterbourne Bassett #2....plasma discharge
(13) July 29th, Ogbourne St. Andrew................inadequate data
(14) July 19th, Martinsell Hil..............................inadequate data
(15) May 25th, Windmill Hill...............................mechanically flattened
(16) July 14th, East Field "woven"....................mechanically flattened
(17) July 24th, Smeathe's Plantation................mechanically flattened
For those cases in which Talbott thinks a plasma discharge was (or possibly was) the causative factor in producing plant abnormalities, I found nine formations (names bolded above) for which there are online photos that I could evaluate for evidence of human construction. In seven of them I think the evidence is good enough to dismiss Talbott's findings, and suggest that the abnormalities she and BLT have documented are probably a lot more common than expected. If this is indeed so, her methodology is useless for distinguishing "genuine" from man-made formations.
What follow are the photos I've found that I think best set forth the man-made evidence for Talbott's sampled formations, and in most cases, directly contradict her findings. For each formation I offer my evidence, and when pertinent, Talbott's comments. Finally, it should be noted that she wrote this caveat prior to describing her findings:
Because in-depth sampling and subsequent intensive laboratory work was not carried out in 2009 we cannot be 100% certain that the visible plant changes we found are absolute proof these formations were genuine. But an educated estimate can be offered in several instances.
1) 2009 YATESBURY PHOENIX (CHERHILL)
Evidence for man-made origin:
a: Stomp marks, fairly well defined on left side.
b: Enlarged foot lines for inner boundaries of tail feather section, apparently leading to the center of the circle located between the bottom halves of the wing feathers. Also, a partially obliterated foot line at the top of the circle.
c: Circles on either side of the creature's neck are not symmetrical. The group on the right appears to be arranged badly.
2) 2009 MILK HILL #2, (ALTON BARNES)
Evidence for man-made origin:
a: The intersections of outer partial rings.
I'm guessing the main order of operations here was to first lay down the small center circle, followed directly by the inner ring. Next the six-pointed star was formed. After that the outer partial rings were formed by connecting each star point with the next-plus-one point. After all the rings were finished, the ring intersections were used as the centers for the formation of the outer circles. Finally, the crop inside these circles was stomped down, leaving shadows of the ring intersections.
b: Another view of the same formation, showing concentric stomp marks for two of the outer circles.
Talbott's comments:
Even with only three sets of samples and controls we can be very close to certain -- with clearly visible apical node elongation in nearly all the samples and expulsion cavities not only in nearly every 2nd but also 3rd node--that this formation was not flattened with planks or boards.
4) 2009 HONEY STREET, PHASE 2, (ALTON BARNES)
Evidence for man-made origin:
a: Very faint stomp marks appear to be visible along the lower outer rim of this formation, as well as in some of the structural lines within. Regrettably, the resolution of this image is too low to state anything definitive.
Talbott's comments:
We thought it would also be helpful to note Charles Mallett's usually very reliable field observations regarding this formation: he states he observed a "significant number" of biological anomalies ("blown" nodes and/or elongated nodes) in Phase #2 (http://www.silentcircle.co.uk/rpt092.html).
5) 2009 MILK HILL #3, 3-PHASE (ALTON BARNES)
Evidence for man-made origin:
a: Fairly well defined stomp marks.
Viewed from another angle, showing:
a: Stomp marks.
b: Faint foot line across circle. The line was laid down first, then the circle was centered on it.
c: A crudely made branching line.
Another view showing stomp marks and a much clearer trace of the widened foot line crossing the large lower circle (sorry, forgot to mark it with a letter!).
Talbott's comments:
And so, in spite of my original impression that this extraordinary formation was almost certainly mechanically created (not least because it's appearance was so singular), after seeing the clearly elongated apical nodes in all the sample sets from all 3 phases, and after seeing the control plants for Milk Hill #4 which were all taken from the SW corner of this same field, I think it's possible this one could be the "real McCoy."
7) 2009 MILK HILL #4 (ALTON BARNES)
Evidence for man-made origin:
a: Widely spaced outer rings, vs.
b: Narrowly spaced outer rings.
There's really not much to say about this simple formation except its apparent errors, and the perspective might have something to do with that. I would not say this photo is good evidence for man-made crop formations.
More pics to come! :)
Doug