With reference to that controversial BBC ‘hitpiece’ on the Today

program which aroused so much criticism and discussion earlier
this month.

Like many, I wrote complaining how it was utterly biased and
made no effort to contact people actually involved in the
Rendlesham incident.

I have just received the following reply saying in effect,

“Yes it was meant to… be biased. ”

Here’s the actual  BBC response:

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding the ‘Today’ programme
broadcast on 11 August.

“We forwarded complaints on this issue to Dominic Groves, one
of the output Editors for the ‘Today’ programme. He explained
in response that this was meant to be an impressionistic piece
describing how an avowed sceptic on these issues reacted when
placed at the scene of a well-known incident such as the one in
Rendlesham Forest.”

He further added, ”This was not intended to be, not did it claim

to be, an in-depth analysis of the rights and wrongs of that
particular case.

“Please be assured we’ve registered your complaint on our
audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s
circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC
Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

“Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views
with us.

“Kind Regards

“BBC Audience Services”

So, there we have it. The show was meant to “describe how a sceptic
reacted” when placed in the Forest along with two other sceptics….

Surprise, surprise……he reacted……sceptically!

How fortunate we are to have the BBC to enlighten us in this way.

I would be interested in feedback from other people who complained
as to whether my reply from the BBC was a ’round robin’ or whether
we all got individual responses.

Dave Haith

Here’s a story from UFO Digest, analyzing a particular crop circle. (Photo by Lucy Pringle of a glyph from 2004.) I pass it along not because I expect non-scientists to pore over what it says, but to show you a typical sort of thing the circles give rise to. Many pieces are written about many circles to describe intelligence that is embedded in them.

People frequently wonder what the message is of the circles, as if they are a giant jigsaw puzzle and we will get the picture when we get all the pieces fitted together. Or that they are something like hieroglyphics, and we’ll get their message when we get everything translated. I don’t think so. My speculation is that each formation is its own bundle of encoded smarts. It’s not about deciphering the master message, but about getting it that some source is trying to get attention to itself. Intelligence, intelligence intelligence pulses at us. I think of the circlemakers scratching whatever passes for the heads in wonderment that we haven’t realized, en masse, that they exist: “We see you, we understand you, we are feeding back evidence. When are you going to get it that that’s what’s going on?”

I was especially impelled to pass on a story about this particular formation because this one has a featured spot in my movie. It was perfect on the ground, with all the stalks laid in a gorgeous carpet, nothing damaged, no evidence of any human tampering. “Yes, there is a real phenomenon,” says Andy Thomas, who is using this perfect glyph in his presentation to a conference audience about the fact that there incontrovertibly is a real phenomenon.