Correspondence with Colin Andrews over his erroneous and misleading postings about me

Colin Andrews has a proclivity to misquote people. He posts misleading items on his website where there is no way to Comment back.

If you read what is now an extensive body of excerpted material from our recent email exchanges, you likely would think I was the misguided soul that he portrays me to be. So, for the record and to relieve me of having to personally answer people who contact me about what Colin has posted, I am posting the entire correspondence between us.

To summarize:

It started with me responding to Colin’s praise of Matthew Williams and his web broadcasts where Matthew’s postion is that all circles are made by people. As part of that, Colin wrote a widely circulated article, in which I am featured, that mistakenly includes me in a group of three croppies he takes aim at who are, “The hard core proponents of the myth that most crop circles are real.” I emailed Colin with a heads up about the danger of endorsing Matthew. Also, since for years I have been on the fence, declaring that I don’t know the extent of the hoaxing, I asked Colin amend the article to take my name out of that group.

He did not change the article. Instead, he posted an infuriating News Update (dated May 22) saying, “filmmaker Suzanne Taylor asked I make it clear that her position has now changed and she believes most crop circles could be human made,” making it seem like I am going along with him in endorsing Matthew’s contention that all circles are human made. That still stands on his site.

What also now stands on his site is what Colin has added of our email exchange that is below. He didn’t post anything from his emails to me, but just posted excerpts of my responses, where, without what he wrote to me, I sound like a crazed person.

He in fact describes me that way. Here is what he maddeningly says about those excerpts:

I included Suzanne Taylor because of her public (and non-public) statements to this effect, these speak for themselves without any help from me. However she made contact with me the following day and since then numerous long emails have ensued, some of them in very threatening tone. I have tried to understand exactly what she is saying and what her position is. I posted what she said her current view is (Note #1 above) and that was at her request. My goal as always, is to work with facts and to establish truth in this subject and to try to move forward with some level of coherence across the various perspectives etc..

I have posted below some of the correspondence from Suzanne Taylor in an attempt to be fair to her also to allow you to formulate for yourselves what she is trying to convey. I will admit she lost me, but she is clearly still very agitated, saying things like she could sue me etc etc… even though I have updated the original article to include her new statements. [Note: Colin did not change the article but put asterisks by my name to point to the excerpts he posted…ST]

I will leave you to make your own assessment. She did in fact asked that I post ALL the correspondence between us which I refuse to do only because I don’t like in-fighting at the best of times and I find placing ones dirty linen out in public repugnant and to be honest, rather boring. So Ive tried to keep it to a fact finding exercise. There are also extraordinarily serious things happening on our planet and between our peoples that deserve urgent attention. This kind of dispute can become all too personal and usually so unnecessary BUT I want to be fair and so Im trying to be accurate here goes – good luck:

Here is the original material.

From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:53 PM
To: Colin Andrews (
Subject: current situation

For whatever you think now about what makes the circles, heads up about being collegial with Matthew Williams. Showing up as endorsing him casts a dark pall on the circle situation that surely you wouldn’t want to happen.

I would argue with you that the human-made explanation is the be all end all – too much that’s inexplicable is going on. So, even if the preponderance of them are made by people and some aren’t we have a phenomenon worth attention. It’s somewhat the same argument as when the 80% figure got tossed out without emphasis on the 20%, so that a cynical media only heard hoax. (What happened to your findings about 20% that contradicts your new stance?) But all that aside, I don’t think you want to be patting Matthew on the back.

He’s tame on the internet show he is doing, but if you get into everything he spews out in text you would not want to legitimize him.

Here’s just the latest that I cut and pasted from the Connector Facebook page, where he takes off on me. Even this vitriol is somewhat milder than the coarseness and vulgarity and abusiveness with which he typically operates, but it does give the flavor of it. Below is all him but for the one comment I made.

You have done your fair share of misrepresenting the truth for your own agenda. Using your money to hire movie crews to make biased documentaries but now you are seen by most as the researcher retard you are. Hence why we need shows like Circlemakers TV to get the facts out there because people like you are completely incompetent and unable to do so.

Suzanne, its a great shame you didnt use your money to hire a field for a controlled experiment with real human circlemakers then you would have found the truth. Instead you chose to interview circlemakers and then not include a word they had to say in your Docu and instead make fun of them saying “they proved nothing”. Did you even give Circlemakers a chance. NO. Why… because this is how you work, its your show, your world, your money and your like a spoiled child about the way you work. You have got brass balls to tell an award winning director who he can have in his documentary but after you threatened to pull out which means he doesnt get paid, he did what you asked. People get fired from Journalism for that sort of CORRUPT shit, you realise that dont you Suzanne. Hello Suzanne??? Earth calling mighty companions.

ME: Matthew, your data is almost laughable in that I had no control over Gazecki. If I had, he would have made a different movie. Money was in his pocket and he called the shots. But I think it matters little to deal with info – that’s not what you are interested in. You are on the attack no matter what. I will sign off with you now, whatever you go on to say.

Suzanne, he told me what you were up to my dear. With his own lips… Why would he make it up that “someone has a problem with me being in the documentary and wants you pulled out but theres no fucking way I am doing that.” the someone was YOU… and he did pull me out. So you can say what you like. he denied having said this to me later on which means he didnt want to cause further friction. However it told me that he was prepared to take a backhander in effect and mistell a story because someone was putting pressure on him. What you also forget is that you were bragging about how you were going to remove Circlemakers from the docu. In the group you were bragging to was someone friendly with the Circlemakers who passed back exactly what you had said. Remember your little hired house where you used to invite select guests over adn wine them and dine them and then see if you could interview them. This is the time and place that your inetntions were revealled. In fact gazecki wanted initially to make an unbiased docu which is why he actually did interview circlemakers. When you found out you went apeshit and were bragging it wasnt going to happen. I asked Gazecki would you have the power over him to make those changes. he told me the “no fucking way” stood outside the Barge Inn pub. to paraphrase he seemed to think he was in charge of the docu and would say what went in and what didnt. Seems he wasnt as in charge as he thought. Now come on Suzanne you memory isnt that bad is it. Any of this ringing any bells. Derpa derpa.

So if my “data” is laughable what does that make CROP CIRCLES a quest for TRUTH then. Lets repeat the word TRUTH a few times and then think about the producer who made it and how far from the truth she was determined to keep herself. She was going to tell a whole different story, one of fake professors like Glickman who lied about being a professor. She was going to big up the fraudsters who have been peddling Alien made crop circle theories. Where exactly is any of this data wrong. is Michael Glickman a professor then? is he… a hundred times IS HE????? So if he isnt then why arent you reporting his fraud in your docu???? Why not. hes a fraud. Why not tell people that? Why not Suzanne???? What about Dr Levengood. Hes not a Doctor. Why not report that Suzanne. Why not????

Ill tell you why not, because yoru agenda is to tell the story your way even if it is not the facts laying all around you that you clearly know and choose to ignore… just to tell your twisted little fairy tale. Everyone knows what colour your cloth is Suzanne and Facebook is the best place in the world to have your dirty laundry aired. Welcome to the Internet and people who think instead of taking TV waffles with lots and lots of SYRUP.

You have a radio show. I bet as a journalist if i trwaled through every one of your shows id find no mention of Glickman faking his being a professor. I bet theres not a whiff of Levengoods not being a Dr so his research being called into question. Should I bother listening to all your shows to see if I can find any mention of these things. Or do I possibly already know the answer. When it comes to pro circle buddies they can do no wrong. When it comes to Circlemakers nothing we ever do is right. Thats how it is with you isnt it Suzanne. You see all that money cannot hide the truth. I do hope you enjoy CirclemakersTV, your silly docu is mentioned on our show quite a bit. Infact the fact that believers at a conference took serious a circle which i showed a design of 6 month before, which proved it was man made, kind of shows that the people who you take as able to tell man made circles from “alien” dont know what their talking about and somehow circlemakers were spot on with their “data” in the form of designs that we must have read from the future eh… My name must be Dr Who. How could I have known… Dont think about it too hard.

There’s more, when someone else enters the conversation, challenging Matthew, and he takes off on both of us:

What part of basic common sense dont you two muppets have…So what the **** are you two non-researchers on about. If you need me to spell ity out any clearer perhaps I can buy you a picture book with nice big letters…Quite frankly anyone like Suzanne or Constance who is desperate to have Levengoods work taken seriously afte all these flaws have been constantly repeated to them over the years clearly is in shut down mode, ears closed, eyes refusing to look… acting like a bunch of brainwashed Scientologists – and with the same ignorant arrogance that black is white and also trying to take money for peddling bullshit.

I think Suzanne in the way she produced her fake documentary is a blight on the world of truthseeking and open research. She has chosen the path which hides truth and glosses over facts in order to glorify the subject she has chosen to latch on to.

This type of cultist behaviour is dangerous and also using it to try and make money and win minds is not only cultist but despicable IMO.

IMHO is the common parlance and how consistent with Matthew’s style that he would leave out the H!

And by the by, I am not one of the hardcore of proponents who think most are real. I’d appreciate your amending your communication that identifies me that way. In fact, I only have one circle from 2007 and one from 2008 in my movie, and none from years thereafter because I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now, and the ones I used were as carefully chosen as I could for having no taint on them.

Most importantly, the percent isn’t what matters, and if indeed we have a paranormal phenomenon that involves other intelligence it would change our worldview – what my movie says, and why I am interested in the phenomenon. Humanity is in danger in its entrenchment in an outmoded worldview, and anything that might shake us loose from it is worth our attention. That the hoaxers would succeed in burying this possibility would be a sorry situation for the world.

From: []
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 7:11 AM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: current situation – Gag order on Matthew Williams – Truth is where???


I am a researcher coming from a professional background in engineering. My function is research, investigation and truth. My priority is to identify what is going on and to work to understand the value of it and perhaps even apply the findings.

During one of my appearnces on the Coast to Coast radio program those years ago, you came on air as a caller and stated to millions of listeners that I was lying and deliberately distorting the truth when I announced my findings that at that time 80% of circles in England were man made. That act and that statement were far more obnoxious and untrue than anything Matthew Williams has ever said. I’ve known a great deal of the truth about this subject for many years and some of it I owe to Matthew Williams, who perhaps is sometimes a rough diamond, but has nonetheless offered real information. You don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to who represents the kind of person I should be in touch with. I don’t think it’s my job either to tell people how to use language. I think he agrees that there are times when he uses bad language, but my goodness the forces against him would drive most in that direction. This is not a time for you to create more division, this is a time to come together to work on what exists here.

If you are now agreeing with me after all these years of being so rude to those like me who made public similar conclusions, then I’m pleased. I will, as you requested, add to my current article about the recent Circemakers TV program, that you also now believe many are man-made.

You tell me that other mysterious things are going on around the crop circles as if this is news to me. I published that fact in 1989 (Circular Evidence) and it’s why the subject took such a hold in the first place and why it it has sent the direction of my work into that of consciousness. The realization that people making circles are having the same strange experiences as researchers and the public are profound, but shocking only to those who have refused to embrace every part of the crop circle phenomenon. Excluding any discussion with human circle makers, like Matthew Williams, who has been offering this to the so called research community for a long while doen not promote understanding. The advise you are offering me now does nothing to move the subject forward. Putting gag orders on people is why you have been so far behind the ‘truth’ curve. If your nitch is producing nice films of the extraordinary crop circle patterns, and I believe it is, stay with it, but be honest. Your best judge will ultimatly be you.

The rounded 80/20 percentages of 1999 and 2000 stand for the period of the study. Like any open-minded scientist, the data and findings dictate progress and today the situation is different.

Today, even those who took outspoken positions over the years that they were all real, are coming to accept my earlier findings, which now are even more compelling towards the man-made than they were back then, but the truth today has arrived into the spot light of this moment by those like Matthew Williams and dare I say myself, others also like George Wingfield, Pat Delgado, Simeon Hein, Ron Russell, George Bishop, Busty Taylor, John Macnish and Pete Sorensen, etc, etc.

I am truly happy to be on better terms with you now than in the past and I sincerely wish you well with your latest film which I do accept was intended to produce a film of spiritual quality. So, to keep this focus upon Terje’s appearance on Circlemakers TV, I admire his courage and his honesty. I also think you would be well served by looking yourself in the mirror and appearing there also to announce your own current position. Meanwhile, I will continue with my work which will include listening to those people making crop circles and who are helping me make better sense of my 30 year investigation.


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:30 AM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: current situation – Gag order on Matthew Williams – Truth is where???

It is erroneous that I have long held to a position of them all being real or even that a high percentage are. I told you what I did in my movie, and that footage was selected in 2008, before post-production that took a couple of years longer. For the next couple of years, before the final cut, the loveliness of the patterns provided temptation to sandwich them in, especially to keep the movie current to its ultimate release, but I did not do that because of my concern with the hoaxing situation. Let’s keep straight on the data.

Repeating now that your 80% did not emphasize the 20%. If you had, you would not have gotten a critique from me, however you arrived at you findings. My voice has only been in support of the genuineness of visitations, whatever the percent. And, even now, on behalf of the contribution the circles could make to the world, this is not a personal argument with you but a plea that you not let the hoaxing situation eclipse the fact that there is other intelligence in the universe that has made contact with us – i.e. the 20% when you made that finding. As long as that remains as a substantive part of what you discuss, you would not find me alarmed.

If you think that the way Matthew Williams communicates is acceptable, then you and I live in very different universes. He has stooped so low as to email a highly unflattering profile photo he took of Michael Glickman with a “kike” label on it. That you would find the disgusting, vicious nature of his vile mouth to be superior communication to any critique I’ve made of you I would think is cause for rethinking. Uniting with hate mongers, whatever their conclusion are with which you might agree, is the kind of bargain with the devil that never works out well.

Your “as if this news to you” comment doesn’t make sense to me. I said that there are inexplicable things going on – like your 20% and all the things we can’t explain, some of which are in my movie — as my urging you not to be the voice that puts the nail in the coffin of the circles being cause for pause for this civilization. Whenever statements are made by people who are paid attention to that point to the predominance of hoaxing, the media immediately translates that to eradicate everything about the phenomenon. Your 80% was taken as if it was 100%, and the circles became of less interest than they had been before that. It takes emphasis on what we can’t explain to prevent the media from doing that, and I urge you to keep a focus on the fact that there is much we cannot explain that points beyond the human hand.

From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Colin Andrews (
Subject: must fix your misstatement
Importance: High

This is an erroneous posting on your website:

May 22, 2010
Filmmaker Suzanne Taylor asked I make it clear that her position has now changed and she believes most crop circles could be human made. My posting May 20th has received a large amount of interest (Top rated article) and defines the current situation in crop circle research.

This is typical of why, over the years, I have taken issue with you. First of all, you got the data wrong in your article. I was not someone who believed them all to be the real thing, as you erroneously reported. That’s what I asked you to make clear. Here’s what I said:

“I am not one of the hardcore of proponents who think most are real. I’d appreciate your amending your communication that identifies me that way. In fact, I only have one circle from 2007 and one from 2008 in my movie, and none from years thereafter because I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now, and the ones I used were as carefully chosen as I could for having no taint on them.”

Now, you have totally fabricated the idea that my position has changed, making it appear that I have seen the light and not that I am criticizing you for printing something that wasn’t true.

This is such a graphic demonstration of your distorted reporting, where you are like a tar baby, compounding one misstatement with another, that perhaps you will let up on the periodic attacks you make on me for challenging you. Particularly as such a vocal proponent of truth, it is very disturbing that you are so fast and loose with it.

From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:47 PM
To: Colin Andrews (
Subject: another fix FW: must fix your misstatement

You have another error in your report, giving the wrong name to my movie:

Suzanne Taylor, produced the movie ‘What on Earth is Going On’

My movie is “What On Earth?”

And the link you have on the movie name is to a post on my blog about Terje’s movie, not to my movie, which, as a link from a name, it should do. Here is the proper link:

Also, since your article so widely circulates it behooves you to fix the copy and not just print a correction in another place, as accurate as you make that correction to be.

You know, Colin, you have so misrepresented me that perhaps, in compensation, you would do what I asked when the movie came out, which is to give it some promotion. You have material in it, and it does not offend your sensibilities given I made no claims to “the truth” in it. Now, it has gotten a favorable review in the New York Times, the most prestigious review site in the world: You could do a piece with a reprint of that review and a link to the site,, where people can see the trailer and buy the DVD.

From: []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: another fix FW: must fix your misstatement


The reason the link goes to your blog about Terje’s movie is because my article is about Terje being courageous enough to state his new position – the link brings the two filmmakers together and is ideal for what I want to convey. The article, as you know, is about Terje not you. Your position is well known by many in the cr ccl community, many of the well known researchers have contacted me with long statements and personal experiences following the website article. They speak of your extreme views against any circles being man made and your bad attitude towards them and others, including myself for considering let alone researching that possibility. I must be honest, none of the e-mails Ive had the last couple of days are complimentary towards you. I could always open the discussion up and post reactions (with their permissions) as I usually do with articles on my site – I encourage free speech not suppress it. Truth is all I am after and that takes an open mind and an investigative approach.

Its curious how you ignore completely your own behavior in these exchanges. Even though you now agree that most could be man made you have no conscience or apologies for telling millions of listeners on Coast to Coast that I was deliberately telling lies when I said 20% were not resolvable at that time but 80% were and that they had been made by people. Its all about you and your movie in your eyes isn’t it. Its not even about the crop circles it seems, its about Suzanne Taylor.

I am happy to post all the feedback I am getting if that is your wish – it will make for an interesting debate. How about you taking part in an upcoming Circlemakers TV program with me? We can work out the wrinkles on air and in a forum where others with experiences and views can also participate?

I will correct the name of your movie, sorry for that.

The statement remains otherwise as is, along with the note (#1) you asked me to make. If you would like to publish something from you on the site also, I will consider it but because as I said I encourage all points of view, others who take different views and opinions to yourself will also be included. My personal view is that you are not actually doing yourself any good by your outburst. Most of us know exactly what your views on man-made circles have been over many years, you have never been delicate in expressing them.


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 4:15 PM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: another fix FW: must fix your misstatement

It’s not legitimate to link that way. The link promises my movie. If you want to point to my Terje blog post, although I don’t see what point you are making, then say, “Here is a post where Suzanne tells people about Terje’s movie” – or something that makes more sense about what you have in mind as to why you are linking there.

Anyone who misstates my understanding is as misinformed as you are. Try “a lot of people told me what you thought” as testimony in a legal proceeding for pinning ideas on someone. If you want to go to where I didn’t believe that they were human made, you’d have go back to before 2004. When the first Mayan circle came in during two nights near Silbury Hill, and it was understood that hoaxers had been recruiting people to make it, my ears perked up. Now that we are seven years past that, my change of opinion, reported as if it was recent, wouldn’t be a legitimate way to describe what was going on with me.

I would be very pleased if you posted our entire correspondence, plus any comments you have received, and we can make it a forum — there or anywhere else in print. I would not stoop so low as to do anything with Matthew Williams.

I don’t know what Note #1 is that you are planning to add, but whatever you post should convey my statement that you misunderstood the situation and that for the last seven years I have been open to there being a considerable amount of hoaxing going on. If you want to add the statements by everyone else that say something to the contrary, be my guest. I told you about how I kept the last few years out of my movie from my belief that indeed hoaxing was virulent, my movie being testimony to the veracity of what I am telling you.

From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:42 PM
To: ‘’
Subject: FW: must fix your misstatement

This misrepresentation, which people are emailing me about, is still on your site:

May 22, 2010
Following my posting on May 20th, filmmaker Suzanne Taylor asked I make it clear that her position has now changed and she believes most crop circles could be human made. The article has received a large amount of interest (Top rated article) and defines the current situation in crop circle research. HERE.

I asked you to fix the article that said I believed most formations to be of mysterious origin, not to say I had changed my mind. Please tell me when this will be removed or corrected, and that you are going to correct the article in which you misrepresented me.

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:56 AM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: must fix your misstatement


On May 23 you said: I only have one circle from 2007 and one from 2008 in my movie, and none from years thereafter because I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now, and the ones I used were as carefully chosen as I could for having no taint on them.”

Do you see where you say: “I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now”. You say that you have only one circle from 2007 and one from 2008 in the movie and none from years thereafter, carefully chosen, presumably you thought they were real (having no taint on them). These are your words not mine.

While Im trying to help you understand yourself, you talk of seeing it quite possible that most circles are human made now and that you made efforts to select just one from 2007 and 2008 for your movie “What on Earth” and yet Ive just listened to a 2010 radio interview of yours on the Internet where you say you believe most are real, calling hoaxers ‘like terrorist’s and much more. I think what Im going to do is rather than spend more time on your intrusion into Terji’s story, is post the 2010 radio interview and let the audience hear your position from your own mouth.

I have tried to be fair and run corrections against the original article. Ive done it that way and not modified the original because the overwhelming evidence (as per the radio interview) supports my original statement. To be honest, I dont think you know exactly what you do think anymore. You have placed yourself into a corner, which is of your own making. In life we have to own our positions, just like Terji so bravely did.

So in two sentences, how do you think most circles are made and for how long have you held this view?


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:09 AM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: must fix your misstatement

You grouped me in your article with people who today cling to the belief that almost all of the circles are human made. I asked you to remove me from that grouping because I did not belong there. I did not ask you to tell the world that I have changed my mind. That’s you putting the wrong slant on me. This is what you can post – and also please change the article:

I made a mistake in my article about Suzanne Taylor being a diehard who does not believe many circles are hoaxed, and I also erred in my previous notice, which implied that Suzanne has had a sudden change of heart. To set the record straight, Suzanne in fact only asked me to change the article and did not ask me to post anything that said she had a change of heart, because she has been uncertain for some years now about how much hoaxing is going on.

You never heard me say I believe that most are real, and indeed the hoaxers are a plague on serious research of the phenomenon. Yes, you may post anything I have said, without editing.

I told you that my concern about hoaxing took a turn in 2004. And I have no idea how many are hoaxed, but I see the possibility that a lot of them are. I always say that. You may post the 50 or so radio shows I’ve done in the last few years where over and over that is what I say.

Colin, if you continue to distort me and malign me, I will do some posting, too. I have 7,000 people on my mailing list and my blog is widely read. I’ll dredge out that horrible perpetration you did about Nancy Talbott some years ago, where you also distorted what she was saying, to show the pattern of how you operate.

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: must fix your misstatement

Im going to cut through your nonsense Suzanne.

I will do better than what you say, I will post a radio interview in 2009 (some five years after you claim to have believed things had taken a turn towards hoaxing – stated below and in previous email). That will be the end of this. Ive more important things to do than to slice words with you.

Its insulting to say that this is the way I operate. I usually stay well out of the fray, I step forward only occasionally when I believe its necessary. Again you talk of the way I operate and refuse to acknowledge your own words or positions. Regards your statement:

You never heard me say I believe that most are real, and indeed the hoaxers are a plague on serious research of the phenomenon…..snip

Untrue. You have said this many times. For example take a listen to the recording on my website when you said hoaxers are a plague in the recording. You speak of hoaxers being like terrorists etc etc All I am trying to do like any investigative journalist is record facts, you seem to own none and are in denial, let along have no personal conscience what so ever.

Im sure you agree sharing my website page with your own radio interview (2009 – 20 mths ago) is best it comes – after all these are your own words.

I will be moving on now, our planet is in trouble and taking time digging you out of your hole isn’t going to help it things much.

Let me just add that had it not been for double blinds like I and others did with BLT, we would not have known the overall picture as soon as we did. Nancy Talbott has her own day of reckoning ahead but she is a big girl and Im sure she will fight her own corner when the chips fall. Levengood camp sits on dynamite, if half of it was known by the public, BLT would never have come this far with any level of perceived credibility. Any way, believe it or not we do actually agree on some things we just don’t like each other very much. Shame.


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:54 PM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: must fix your misstatement

Colin, you keep misreading me. “ indeed the hoaxers are a plague on serious research of the phenomenon…” Where are you getting that I deny saying that?

I say that all the time. What I don’t say is that I think most of them are real. It is infuriating to just try to get you to hear what I am saying, let alone to get you to correct your errors.

What my sentence would have to have been for your interpretation: You never heard me say I believe that most are real and that hoaxers are a plague on serious research of the phenomenon

What I did say was this: You never heard me say I believe that most are real, and indeed the hoaxers are a plague on serious research of the phenomenon

I am not mincing words but what’s happening is that you are taking my words and giving them different meanings. I was an English major and I graduated from the university with the highest honors. I got just about 100% on everything. I was clear in what I said and you decided I said something different.

Nancy never endorsed your 80/20 as you erroneously reported and then refused to change your website to reflect that – same kind of thing you are doing with me.

Please stop saying such abusive things. That is the way Matthew operates and I would think you are a cut above his vileness. Don’t tell me I am saying nonsense when I am correcting your errors. You really owe me an apology.

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:23 PM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Take a deep breath and move on. “Its possible all crop circles are human made – your statement not mine”.

Ms Taylor, now settle down for a moment. Im not getting at you or deliberately misquoting you. As always Im trying to demonstrate facts but you get very personal and seemingly self centered – im trying to show where we have gotten and you are part of the scene. Below
These are the words you wrote to me: “I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now”.

This is what I then said on my website (simply cut and pasted from your email): ……In fact, I only have one circle from 2007 and one from 2008 in my movie, and none from years thereafter because I see it as very possible that most of the circles are human made now, and…………..

And you are now saying that this does not mean you think its possible all crop circles are human made. Are you on weed or what?. Does this not mean that you now think its possible all crop circles are made by people?. I mean, own it Suzanne, if this is what you think, say so.
Your interview now on the site should speak for itself and that is where Im leaving it. Im bitterly disappointed in you and your lack of courage to state your true belief clearly and then attacking me for simply stating it as it is.

No of course Talbott did not state the actual words that she endorsed my 20/80 findings. The material findings related to simple designs was the nub of my comment. She also came to other conclusions surrounding the interactive that our team established as fact almost 25 years before, that was before she had even heard of crop circles. Dont get me going, she is the most arrogant person I know.

You should write an article and discuss how you came to the conclusion that its possible most circles are human made. What proof do you have, who’s research are you using to come to that conclusion etc????. Go for it girl.


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:44 AM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: Take a deep breath and move on. “Its possible all crop circles are human made – your statement not mine”.

Colin, What are you talking about? Once again, here is where I am at. I have no idea how many are hoaxed — it could be most of them and it could be much less than that. I am not one of the holdouts who believes there isn’t much hoaxing going on, and haven’t been for years. And I absolutely believe there is a real phenomenon. What are you doing to twist my words to create meanings I have not intended? I speak excellent English.

Lack of courage? Are you mad? I’ve invested all my money and my time in spreading the word that we have something that could change human consciousness which is what we so desperately need for the human race to not destroy itself. And I’ve made myself a target for abuse by the hoaxers. Why are you fighting with me and warping what I say and think and do?

Your engagement with Nancy was an abomination. You announced she endorsed your idea which she hadn’t done. She wrote a public statement to correct you and you left your erroneous report on your website. Just like you’re doing with me. Whatever else Nancy may be or do or say is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

If you want to have a dialogue in which we could compare notes, like I think the whole croppie community should be engaged in, that would be healthy. But to keep throwing challenges to me is ridiculous, especially after over and over I answer you. You are buffered on your website by not allowing any comment, so whatever distortion you post goes unchallenged, and you are a popular destination so we fall victim to you in this internet age when wrong information spreads everywhere. I keep getting emails where, one at time, I have to explain what I think that isn’t what you report. This is a horrible position to force me into. I could sue you for libel.

Personal? Damn right. You are painting me as someone I am not. Self centered? Are you crazy? It is my reality that you are distorting. You demonstrate facts? You are insane. Very possible most are human made? Yes, and it’s very possible that they aren’t. I care about not misleading people, and since I couldn’t determine which ones were hoaxed I left them all out of my movie – I care enough about reflecting the closest to truth I can come that I hurt my own movie by not including more of the current formations. That doesn’t mean I thought they all were hoaxed, but that I couldn’t determine. I doubt that you are on weed, since that produces insight. Maybe anti-depressants, because they dull your senses.

I am going to post a statement on all the crop circle Facebook pages, that attests to your distorting my position and your refusing to deal with it, if you do not do right by me.

From: []
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 7:36 AM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: Take a deep breath and move on. “Its possible all crop circles are human made – your statement not mine”.


Im not going to take the bait and get personal with you although I do have issue with some of the things you have said.

I am going to post what I think is my best shot at understanding your position, as you don’t answer the questions I have asked in my attempt to be fair.

I acknowledge that you have put an extraordinary effort into your film and you are commended for that. You are a strong woman and I admire that also. I don’t agree with a great deal you have said about the subject or myself, but that is life and I can deal with it. All I am doing is continuing my research and sharing my journey through the disciplines that I work with, to the public. In that respect I want to be fair and accurate. That’s all.

My new post will hopefully go up today. I do hope that it does convey all you are asking and somehow, according to you, I’m not getting. I will post your words and so presumably that will suffice.


From: Suzanne Taylor []
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:33 PM
To: ‘’
Subject: RE: Take a deep breath and move on. “It’s possible all crop circles are human made – your statement not mine”.

“Take the bait” is a provocative and pejorative thing to say.

You’re a smarmy one, Colin. What I said was in response to insults and misstatements about me, and with only quotes from me posted on your site it sounds like I am a broken record. But at least, over and over, I do say the same thing – even on the radio interview quote. Usually when people play Gotcha, they get you, but mercifully there’s nothing I would object to about what I think in what you quoted. Why I still confuse you, as you state on your site, confuses me, but it is very Colinesque so at that level I understand.

Maybe you really want to be accurate but you just make errors because of limitations in your cognition or ability to use English. You continue to report me as someone “who asked I make clear that her position has now changed.” I never asked you to say that. This is what I asked: “I’d appreciate your amending your communication that identifies me that way.”

And this of yours on your site is really insufferable: “I have posted below some of the correspondence from Suzanne Taylor in an attempt to be fair to her also to allow you to formulate for yourselves what she is trying to convey. I will admit she lost me, but she is clearly still very agitated, saying things like she could sue me etc etc… even though I have updated the original article to include her new statements.”

Oh Colin, you are such a sleaze. You say you won’t post your emails to me because you don’t like in-fighting – aren’t you the noble one — but you leave me, who was responding to your attacks and your misstatements, sounding agitated, crazed, and having lost you: i.e. no provocation from you but just this ranting fool blubbering at you. If people had read what I was responding to none of that would wash. Very crappy way to do it, Colin – and, again, why you have incurred my wrath over the years. You distort to serve yourself. And you have a holier than though attitude that is particularly offensive given the way you conduct yourself.

Perhaps you would add this correspondence to your post – your email to me and mine back to you. Short of your posting all of our correspondence, which would be preferable, at that point I would feel like we were finished.

From: []
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 6:52 PM
To: Suzanne Taylor
Subject: Re: Take a deep breath and move on. “It’s possible all crop circles are human made – your statement not mine”.

We are finished – Im out of time with this and done my best. You are lost in your own world. Good luck with your movie, God save the Queen.


Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube IconSubscribe on YouTubeTwitter Icontwitter follow button