This could be a real milestone in the crop circle saga, where the assault on the legitimacy of the phenomenon grows ever more virulent. Maybe the escalation of assault is a sign of an impending shift of awareness, given the forces of conservatism typically get stronger as liberal breakthroughs threaten to occur.
I got this email:
Suzanne,
My name is R.J. Vigoda. I’m an anthropologist specializing in the assessment of transpersonal phenomena and the critique of transpersonal theory. In January, 2011, I was jointly engaged by the philosophy and anthropology departments of a university in the eastern United States (terms of employment forbid specific disclosure) to critically assess the current literature on crop circles to determine its “scholarly character” and whether it contained “adequate argumentation supporting the contention that crop circles are the result of alternate agency.” I was given nine months to complete my evaluation at which time I made an oral interdepartmental presentation and relinquished my research notes.
During the course of this project I quickly became familiar with your name, reviewed your work and sat in on the web seminar you presented last summer in conjunction with Evolver Intensives. While I’m retained to be highly dispassionate and skeptical my conclusions remain my own. Having finished my research I was deeply affected and intrigued by the results. The thrust of my report offered two distinct conclusions: certain crop circles seem very likely the result of alternate agency and such a potentially important field demands a more immediate, intensive and measured degree of critical investigation. With this in mind and wanting to contribute directly to the study, having discharged my responsibilities I independently authored an article encapsulating the essence of my research for a general audience. I believe a paper examining the rationality and defensibility of the arguments present on both sides of the circle debate could be valuable towards placing circle research on firmer intellectual footing.
Knowing your sympathies and profile within the field I was hoping you might better direct me toward the most appropriate and advantageous outlets for a paper of this kind. The article is approximately 8,000 words. I’m not interested in any kind of compensation. I can be contacted at: rhera@comcast.net.
Thank you for your time and involvement. I hope to hear from you.
R.J. Vigoda
Reality Sandwich has received the submission I suggested R.J. make, but it doesn’t exactly fit their format and it may not be published there. If anyone has any other good ideas for publication, let R.J. know. In the meantime, here is this wonderful document. May it help to open humanity’s eyes to the mystery that prevails: Crop Circles Legitimacy.
Follow
Why RJ and not the name?. And why:”a university in the eastern United States (terms of employment forbid specific disclosure)”.First time I heard this.
Exciting and encouraging. Will give it some thought. All best, Jay
I suggest very strongly that you look into this. With your eyes wide open.
Great. It is encouraging to note that RJ Vigoda thinks that “such a potentially important field demands a more immediate, intensive and measured degree of critical investigation.” Can we assume, though, that this scholar reviewed the extensive literature and documentaries on this subject carried on over the past nearly 30 years? At last count, I have at least 35 books and scores of dvds on the subject. So there actually have been ‘intensive and measured’ investigations of this phenomenon. But, if a bona fide academic is interested in keeping an open mind about the crop circle, then that is a welcome sign.
In dealing with him, where I actually made a few suggestions for his paper, I discovered that he knew things I didn’t know. He spent nine months working on it and we can presume he was quite thorough.