Initial Field Report of the July 4, 2003 Kekoskee / Mayville, Wisconsin Crop Circle Formation

[Aerial photo of Kekoskee / Mayville crop circle formation facing North.]

Introduction
On July 23-24, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence that confirmed Art Rantala’s eyewitness observation that the Mayville/Kekoskee, Wisconsin crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.

The team consisted of Gary Kahlhamer of Horicon, Wisconsin, Dr. Charles Lietzau and Jeffrey Wilson of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana. Arriving at the field on July 23, 2002, we discovered and photographed the presence of several anomalies that cannot be duplicated by hoaxers.

Eyewitness Account
Art Rantala, a retired truck driver, on July 4, 2003 at approximately 7:30 AM Central Daylight Time (CDT), was up early making coffee in his workshop and watching a weather front that was moving across the Dodge County, Wisconsin area. His workshop is located a few miles from the town of Mayville and the village of Kekoskee, and situated at the top of a hill overlooking a wheat field across the street (owned by a Mrs. Schraufnagel, and farmed by a third party). Art poured his first cup of coffee at 7:35 AM CDT noticing the time on his coffee maker. A few minutes later (approx. 7:40 AM CDT), as the rain was falling, the wind picked up, and Mr. Rantala noticed that the bark began flying off a hickory nut tree that was about 10 feet outside his open, East-facing workshop window.

[View from Mr. Rantala’s workshop of the hickory nut tree with missing bark.]

He leaned out the window to take a closer look. Mr. Rantala then noticed that directly across the street, a group of trees “started swinging every which-way.” He said that as he followed the trees blowing around, his gaze naturally followed down to the wheat field where the circles appeared one by one, right in front of him.

 

 

 

 

 

[View of the circle formation from Mr. Rantala’s workshop window.]

The Northern-most circle, farthest away from the road (what we have named Circle #1 in order of appearance), formed first, appearing as a ‘black hole’ in the standing wheat that was created when the circle of wheat was flattened down. Next, the Southern-most circle closest to the road formed (Circle #2), followed by the one in the center (Circle #3). Mr. Rantala said all the circles were flattened in roughly 12 seconds, but no more than 15 seconds. Mr. Rantala’s important eyewitness observation to the crop circles forming may be the first ever recorded in the USA, and is certainly one of only a couple of dozen reported worldwide in the last 50 years. Mr. Rantala reported that there was no apparent means for the wheat to have been swirled and flattened – nothing unusual in the sky, no lights, no unusual sounds, and no unusual odors. Whatever the energetic force was that caused the circles to form, it was beyond the range of visible sight.

Plant Anomalies
Many of the plants inside these circles, though, bear witness to the formative energies in the form of ‘blown node collars’ or expulsion cavities. The joint or node collars were flash heated by so much energy, that their internal moisture turned to steam causing them to explode and rupture like popcorn. We also located plants with blown node collars inside ‘randomly-downed’ patches of flattened wheat that were also found in the field as far away as 500ft from the circle formation.

[View of one of the many blown node collars from the flattened stalks of wheat found inside the formation.]

Blown node collars have never been found in any hoaxed crop circles, nor in any control samples that have ever been studied. There is no known technology that is able to duplicate this blown node collar effect on thousands of plants in these downed areas of crop fields. However, this effect has been reproduced by putting stems into a microwave oven, and cooking them for a short time. The appearance, then, of these blown node collars is conclusive evidence - in itself - that these circles were not flattened by human-mechanical means.

We also discovered several wheat stems with ‘seed axis deformities.’

[View of one of the stalks of wheat found in the formation with a seed axis deformity in the stalk just below the seed head.]

These seed axis deformities are affected sections of the stalk just below the seed head, and have been twisted around in a ‘curly-q’ effect. This has been reported in only a few crop circles worldwide, and was first reported in 1999 in a crop circle formation in the UK near Avebury in Wiltshire County. This deformity has also never been found in standing plants or control samples.

We also followed the L-NEAT (Levengood Node Elongation Analysis Test) scientific protocol to determine if there was a statistical difference in the measurement of growth nodes of plants inside the circles as compared to the measured length of growth nodes of control plants taken from outside the circles in the standing wheat. This test positively identified the fact that the growth nodes of plants found inside the circles were statistically larger than the growth nodes of plants measured from outside the circles in the standing wheat. This elongation or enlargement of the growth nodes of these plants cannot be duplicated by any demonstrated hoaxing techniques. This positive result from L-NEAT test, then, independently and conclusively confirms that no human-mechanical means were used in the creation of these crop circles. [For the statistical data, see the Appendix.]

Our team also obtained plant samples and control samples for further analysis. We also understand that plant samples were collected by researchers from the University of Wisconsin - Eau Clare and Madison, and have been forwarded to biophysicist W.C. Levengood of Grass Lake, Michigan, and to Nancy Talbott of the BLT, Inc. Research Team of Cambridge, Massachusetts. We look to them to carry out many of the time consuming studies necessary to document the characteristics of the formative energies, but those laboratory results will take months, and we wanted to conclusively determine the authenticity of the formation while it was still fresh. Bent growth nodes in the past have been used as a determination of the authenticity of crop circle formations, but that methodology does not always work. Both phototropism and geotropism can cause node bending after crops are flattened, although it has been shown experimentally to take several days for those processes to exhibit a noticeable growth node bending effect. Because we arrived at the formation almost three weeks after it formed, we did not use node bending as a criteria for authenticity, nor as it turns out, did we need to.

Soil Anomaly and Sampling
Further, we carried out the collection process for obtaining soil samples and conclusively noted another anomaly. Roger Sugden did a preliminary field test of the soil using a magnet and discovered that the soil showed a high magnetic response.

[The left photo is of soil inside the formation which shows a HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE; complete, multi layer coverage of the probe. The right photo is of soil outside the formation used as a control showing a low magnetic response; demonstrating incomplete coverage of the magnet.]

As we continued the field test, we obtained soil samples on a North-South line across the formation, and we again tested the soil for this magnetic effect. Every sample from inside the circles was found to consist of soil that showed this highly magnetic response. We also applied this test to the control samples we obtained from outside the circles beginning with soil just outside the flattened wheat areas, and continuing to several hundred yards away to the back of the field. Only two of the samples close to the circle formation showed this property of being highly magnetic, while the others taken farther away showed signs of having some magnetic particles but at a much lower proportion. Using the statistical Fisher Exact Probability Test, the soil samples are significant at p = 0.0147. This in-the-field observational test shows that the soil inside the circles anomalously consisted of more magnetic particles than the control soil outside the circles in the same field. We are planning to further analyze the soil samples in a lab environment.

GPS Anomaly
The crop circle formation is located at approximately 43?31.81m N latitude, and 88?31.59m W longitude. This location was confirmed through using two different Global Positioning System (GPS) units. However, we were unable to conclusively obtain an approximate feet-above-sea-level measurement from within the formation. Our attempt resulted in a constantly changing measurement ranging from –242ft below sea level to over +1142 ft above sea level (the area is approximately +566ft above sea level). This effect on the GPS system was witnessed by the entire team and videotaped. The effect was not noted in GPS control readings taken from outside the formation. Noting the anomaly, we carried out a statistical test from several areas from within Circle #2 and compared them to readings taken with the GPS from outside the circles that conclusively determined the anomalous effect existed.

Considering that our team arrived nearly three weeks after the crop circles formed, we did not expect to find the presence of any residual Electro-Magnetic anomalies. In fact, we did conduct a preliminary Electro-Magnetic field measurement soon after arriving at the location. We took measurements from inside the formation and from outside the formation which showed no elevated measurements of either electric field strength or magnetic field strength. So, due to time constraints, and considering our past experience of not finding high E-M readings more than approximately 10 days after circle formation, we abandoned those tests. It was only later that we noted the GPS anomaly, which remains unexplained, and may not have been caused the presence of high Electro-Magnetic fields, but by some other undetermined cause.

Crop Circle Formation Description and Measurements

[Overhead aerial photo of the circle formation.]

The Kekoskee / Mayville, Wisconsin formation is interesting in several aspects – although Mr. Rantalla described the formation event as each circle flattening individually one by one, the three circles are related to each other through their design form. Circle #1 and Circle #3 are connected by a pathway that was part of the original formation -creating a classic ‘dumbbell’-type (two circles connected by a pathway) shape aligned in a North-South direction. Circle #2 was isolated in the field (and offset from the N-S alignment), but was related to Circle #3 in an interesting way. The obvious feature of Circle #3 is the standing crescent of wheat that has been created through the offset flattening of a circle of wheat. The obvious feature of Circle #2 is the standing circle of wheat which then creates a flattened ‘crescent.’ Although all the circles (including the standing one) when measured prove to be elliptical, when you compare the flattened interior circle’s diameter of Circle #3 with the diameter of the standing circle of wheat in Circle #2 along their NE/SW, they both measure 22’ in diameter. Circle #2 and Circle #3 are in alignment NE/SW. All the circles when measured along their E/W diameter were 42’exactly.

Pathway – measurements: 18’ long (Flattened from South to North) by 2’2” wide.

We believe that this formation began to be formed with this pathway. We could clearly follow the pathway’s flattened wheat into the lay of Circle #1, where there was a ‘ring’ of flattened wheat that was layered over the top of it swirled counter-clockwise. All of the wheat in Circle #1’s ‘central circle’ was flattened directly to the North, which was at the Northern-most point flattened over the top of the flattened ring.

Circle #1 – measurements: (‘ring’ swirled counter-clockwise, interior ‘circle’ flattened South to North)

N/S – 42’ diameter	N/S interior ring 6’6”/4’9”	N/S Center diameter 30’9”
NW/SE – 43’ diameter	NW/SE int. ring 6’2”/9’	NW/SE Center dia. 27’10”
E/W – 42’ diameter	E/W int. ring 8’/6’	E/W Center dia. 28’

Circle #2 – measurements: (flattened areas swirled counter-clockwise)

N/S – 46’2” diameter	N/S standing wheat dia. 17’	N/S ring to stand. 3’8”
NW/SE – 40’6” diameter	NW/SE stand. wh. dia. 22’	NW/SE ring to stand. 3’
E/W – 42’ diameter	E/W standing wh. dia. 17’	E/W ring to standing 8’6”

Circle #3 – measurements: (both exterior ‘ring’ and interior circle swirled counter-clockwise)

N/S – 40’6” diameter	N/S interior ring 2’8”/4’9”	N/S Center diameter 22’
NW/SE – 44’ diameter	NW/SE int. ring 3’1”/3’	NW/SE Center dia. 22’
E/W – 42’ diameter	E/W int. ring 8’/6’	E/W Center dia. 23’

Circle #3’s central point of the swirl was offset from the ‘true’ center by about 3 feet (N radius 11’, S radius 11’, E radius 10’, W radius 13’).

There were also many areas of ‘randomly-downed’ sections of flattened wheat in this same field where there exhibited the weaving and swirls associated with crop circle formation, but without any geometric design to these areas.

Crop Circle Location Geology and Context
The second day of our investigation began with the team splitting up to gather additional context information. Roger Sugden rented a plane and hired a pilot to take several aerial photos of the formation. Dr. Chuck Lietzau and Gary Kahlhamer went back to the formation site to examine more plants and take additional samples. I (Jeffrey Wilson) went to investigate several nearby Indian mound formations and gather information about the area from the local chamber of commerce in nearby Horicon, Wisconsin. The local area, we learned is very unique, and may have had a contributing role to play in why the crop circle formation appeared in the location it did. Dodge County, Wisconsin happens to have one of the largest concentrations of existing Indian burial and effigy mounds in the United States. In relation to the crop circle formation, there are more than 500 Indian mounds within a 15-mile radius. Nearly all exist on private property, and most remain unmarked, un-surveyed, and unidentified. The closest grouping of Indian mounds to the crop circles is one of these unidentified groupings. We noted four geometrically aligned mounds approximately 1 mile from the formation that point in close alignment to the crop circles.

The closest communities to the crop circles of Mayville, Kekoskee, and Horicon all lie along the southern edge of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and the Horicon Marsh State Wildlife Area. Combined, these two protected parks make up the largest freshwater cattail marsh in the USA – some 36,000 acres. The area is an extinct glacial lake carved out during the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, and had been used by Native Americans since at least that time as a sacred hunting ground. For thousands of years the marsh existed as a haven for wildlife that made it attractive to the Native Americans. In the last two hundred years, though, the marsh has undergone dramatic changes by the white settlers to the region. The marsh at one time was almost completely drained in an attempt to use the land for farming, but the experiment failed. The marsh had also been dammed up to create a 50-mile lake, but owners of the inundated land successfully sued to take down the dam to recover their property. Over the past few decades reconstruction and conservation efforts have helped the marsh to recover, but overpopulation in the area, industrial pollution, and farm runoff are again posing as threats to the Horicon Marsh.

Also just south of the crop circle formation are two notable geologic formations: Ledge Park in which the Niagara (rock) Escarpment rises up and becomes exposed from under the Great Lakes, and Iron Ridge, a notable concentration of iron ore that was so accessible, it became the site of the first iron mining in the Midwest. Ledge Park is also the site of a series of Indian petroglyphs – at least one of which was conclusively determined to align to the rising of the sun on the solstices.

Directly under the crop circle formation however, and in much of the general area is a vast formation of limestone deposits, which have been continually mined for at least the last 150 years. Crop circles around the world have been noted to occur along aquifers, or water-bearing rock formations, notably limestone and greensand. This appears to be the case with this formation. The eyewitness, Art Rantala, told us of how he had dug into the field in which the formation was found several years ago while participating in a government project. They dug into the ground and exposed limestone just two feet under the soil at the bottom of the hill on which the crop circles formed. At the top of the hill, the limestone was found to be down just 10 feet deep.

Crop circles have also been noted to appear near some sort of body of water: a creek, a pond, a drainage ditch, etc, and with this formation, water also appears to be in close proximity. Not only does the formation occur directly above a limestone aquifer, but directly at the bottom of the hill, West of where the formation appeared is a drainage ditch. East of the formation, just one field away, is the north branch of the Rock River.

Crop Circles have also been known to form in close proximity to power lines, and again this circle site is no exception – less than a hundred yards from the circles runs a power line, and just up the hill, the closest transformer box was less than 100 feet from the workshop where Mr. Rantala watched the crop circles form.

Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Mayville/Kekoskee crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the eyewitness testimony given to us by Mr. Rantala.

US Military Visits Crop Circles
Roger Sugden and I arrived at the formation after Roger’s aerial photo flight, meeting Dr. Lietzau and Gary Kahlhamer who were already there. We were surprised by the appearance of a military helicopter circling the formation very low to the ground.

[View of the military helicopter circling over the crop formation.]

The helicopter circled the formation for a few minutes (with our team in excited amazement), at which point it then flew off in the direction of the Horicon Marsh. It looked as if it flew the length of the marsh, and then flew back in our direction, but not as close. It then flew off towards the Southeast where we eventually lost sight of it. In all the crop circle reports in the USA in my database (over 250) I have never seen one that mentioned overflights by US military helicopters, or that the US military might be interested in crop circle reports. Of course, we have seen this repeatedly in the UK, but not in the USA.

[Blurred photo of Air Force soldier watching us with binoculars.]

After the helicopter left and our team settled down, we returned to gathering additional soil and plant samples from the field. After about 40-45 minutes, I noticed that we were also under surveillance on the ground. Looking up the hill towards Mr. Rantala’s workshop, I noticed a man in a camouflage uniform watching us with binoculars.

After I informed the rest of the team that we were being watched, the uniformed soldier got into his car, drove down the hill towards where we were parked, and slowly passed us noting our license plates. He drove to the end of the block, turned his car around, drove back to where we were standing and parked his car. He got out and walked directly into the formation. Dr. Lietzau was practically jogging after him into the field. We decided on the spot that since we were going to publish our results on the Internet for everyone to share, we were not going to hold back anything from the military.

[Photo of US Air Force soldier in crop circle.]

As we chatted with this soldier from the US Air Force (who we had now identified by his uniform), he told us that he was part of a Special Crop Circle Investigative Unit in the US Air Force, and that they had been looking into this formation for the past couple of weeks, temporarily based out of a hanger in Milwaukee. He also told us that this unit was originally based out of Scott Air Force base located in Illinois (southeast of St. Louis, Missouri). He further told us that this team had investigated two crop circles that appeared near “Downing, Illinois” last summer (2002), but that he hadn’t participated in that investigation -- but others had. We had not heard of that crop circle report in Illinois, so we are checking to verify that information. As far as we have uncovered, there is a “Downing Park, Illinois” which isn’t too far from Scott A.F.B., but no “Downing, Illinois” (using MapQuest and MS Streets), so Downing Park is what he may have meant. [If anyone has information about this reported formation please contact us and let us know so we can confirm this piece of information.]

I played tour guide, and walked him around the formation -- pointing out the various crop lay anomalies, our ideas on where the formation began to be flattened, and how various parts of it were flattened in which order. We told him of some of our plant anomaly findings, and asked several questions (including a few rather silly ones) most of which he dodged or declined to answer. I offered my contact information to him, which he took, and our team offered to cooperate with his investigative team by providing them with any information we might find (and hoping they might reciprocate). I told him that we had traveled up from Michigan, and that our investigative report would be published on CropCircleNews.com. He said he was familiar with the web site, and believed that someone from his team would most likely get in contact with me soon about the formation. He said he knew we were from Michigan (most likely from our license plates), and that their team was familiar with CropCircleNews.com. He stayed in the formation about 10-15 minutes, at which point he seemed satisfied, and he returned to his car and immediately got on his cell phone, and left.

One of the questions we asked him has left us with a nagging inconsistency: we asked him if he had been on the helicopter when it had overflown us about 45 minutes before he appeared. He said he had been on board the helicopter, and that besides himself there were two other members of this special crop circle investigative unit, a pilot, and a co-pilot on board. He had also told us that they were operating out of a hanger in Milwaukee. Milwaukee is at least an hour and a half drive from where the crop circles were located. From the time we lost sight of the helicopter to the time he appeared, he couldn’t have flown all the way to Milwaukee, got in a car and driven all the way back to the site. Either he wasn’t on board the helicopter, or the helicopter landed elsewhere closer by for him to drive back to the formation in the allotted time. We don’t know at this point. Of course, we are working to confirm all the details of this soldier’s freely-given information.

Over the next few days we will be in the process of filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for additional information about this possible USAF special investigative crop circle unit, and any crop circle information they may have uncovered. Of course, any information we obtain we will share with the crop circle community.

Acknowledgements
Our scientific research team would like to thank the people of the communities of Kekoskee, Mayville and Horicon for their incredible hospitality and cooperation in allowing us to conduct our research! We absolutely enjoyed the wonderful time we spent in and around their beautiful communities, and around the amazing Horicon Marsh. Oftentimes, as crop circle investigators, we struggle to conduct our investigations and face ridicule, but in this case the people we met were wonderfully interested, collaborative, cooperative, and supportive of us, and our investigative work. We hope that by sharing this report with them - and the world - about the crop circle formation in their community, we can build a broader understanding of the causative nature of crop circles worldwide.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Wilson, M.S.
jwilson10369@comcast.net
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jwilson10369
Dexter, Michigan, USA
734-426-3802

Charles Lietzau, Ph.D.
clietzau@sprynet.com

Gary Kahlhamer
enjoymarsh@powerweb.net
gary@enjoyhoriconmarsh.com
http://www.enjoyhoriconmarsh.com/

Roger Sugden
Indiana MUFON Assistant State Director
zulu@rexnet.net

[All photos are ? 2003 Roger Sugden, Gary Kahlhamer, Charles Lietzau, and Jeffrey Wilson, and may not be reprinted, republished, or reused without permission.]

Additional analysis from Charles N. Lietzau, Ph.D

ANALYSIS I: NODE (COLLAR) LENGTH: CONTROLS --VS--FORMATION:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS, LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

FORMATION, (4 SETS, CIRCLES TWO AND THREE):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN, JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE: FORMATION CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC :

Taken as a unit, one set from standing inner circle of CIRCLE TWO,

together with two sets from the standing crescent and one set from the downed circle/epicenter of CIRCLE THREE register as highly significant when compared with 4 sets of Long Distance Controls in a corrected Student’s-t Test. Each set consists of 10, (rarely 9) samples. This test was carried out on the apical leaf node of the winter wheat plants. measurements were made in the field after each set was collected. A single significant difference is sufficient to conclusively verify a formation as authentic.

Only "unbent" nodes were used in the determination. Most apical nodes of downed formation plants showed advanced bending (estimated at approximately 30 degrees or more) which requires the outer surface of the curve to elongate. This would have resulted in highly significant differences with virtually every sample. If these samples were taken within a week of the circles’ formation, such measurements would have been used. Controlled experiments by Levengood, et al., have determined that recovery bending by wheat does not reach the level of significant elongation of the node collar, (pulvinus), within that time period. However, the formation WAS WITNESSED to have formed on July 4th, 2003, and these samplings were made three weeks later between July 23rd and July 26th, 2003.

Therefore the highly significant bent apical nodes were inadmissible as evidence since sufficient time had elapsed for any genuine heating effects to be masked by subsequent recovery bending due to photo- and (negative), geo-tropism. Unbent nodes were the rule in standing plants, but the exception in downed formation plants. Thus using only unbent nodes was similar to carrying out a statistical test to determine if professional basketball players are, on the average, taller than the general population. The catch is, that you are only allowed to use the two shortest members from each team. You would find some individual samples that were sub-marginal, that is, fairly tall but not, by themselves, outside the range of a random sample of average humans. However, taken as a unit, the set of professional basketball players would, most likely, display a pattern of significantly greater average height, despite the restriction in the sampling. This turned out to be the case with the formation samples as well.

Over 15 sets of samples were collected, and their lengthy analysis will allow precise graphing of the energy distribution and other patterns. However, a valid sample for the determination of authenticity by the L-NEAT Process, "Levengood Node Enlargement Analysis Test," only requires a combined sample size of 31, yielding 29 degrees of freedom, to approximate infinity in a Student’s-t Test. Thus,

-2-

on the 1st day, just two samples were measured in the field after having been randomly selected, but before being packaged. One was collected in the standing wheat outside the formation, but only at a distance of about 30 yards which is not sufficient to avoid a possible Peripheral Beer-Lambert Spillover effect, and thus is considered to be a Peripheral sample rather than a control. More formation samples were taken on the third day, along with 5 Long Distance Controls from the same field, but at a distance of about 1/4 mile from the formations. The 1st LD-Control sample, the one with the smallest average node collar length was judged to have been "depauperate" due to wind exposure and has not been included in the calculations as that would skew the results away from the controls in favor of the formation samples. Similarly, the actual sampling process was random from within a "typical" portion of the source. There were only two selection criteria, both of which would have tended to skew the outcome in favor of the controls. First, only essentially unbent nodes were selected to be measured. Second, it was a rule to include at least one, but no more than two "smaller" plants to ensure a fair sampling distribution. Both of these "strictures" against the formation plants mean that a fairly large difference beyond normal must be present for any of the formation samples to prove significant, and some might be expected to be "sub-marginal." Both of these proved to be the case. Failing to apply these strictures which are called for by the time delay between the origin of the formation and its sampling, would result in more highly significant results, but they might technically, run the risk of being invalidated.

The exact measurements and average lengths of the apical node, excluding bent ones, is given on the data page. However, it will be noted that two of the formation samples, have an average length just barely shorter than the longest LD-Control, but still greater than the other 3 LD-Controls. These are considered sub-marginal, and, by themselves, are suggestive but not significant. However, taking into account that the energies are variable even within the same formation, two more formation samples, measured in the field, proved to be significant on their own. When all four of the formation samples are treated as a unit and compared with all four of the LD-Controls, the "trend" of the sub-marginal samples proves strong enough that the complete unit displays a pattern of longer node collars which is highly significant, and thus, L-NEAT::POSITIVE. Using the Student’s-t Test, the difference proved significant at the two-tailed level of p = 0.005.

As indicated elsewhere, the Circles are numbered in order of APPEARANCE as described by witness, Mr. Arthur Ratala. The first was the uniform circle with a straight pathway. This circle formed at the northernmost end of the formation. The second was at the southernmost end of the formation and consists of a flattened circle with a smaller standing circle off center toward the north. The third circle to form is roughly between the first two although not quite in a linear orientation. It consists of an outer ring with a downed circle at the north end, leaving a standing

-3-

crescent in between. It formed at just the exact location to join the pathway formed with the first circle, thus creating a connected corridor between them, which is

centered in the open space between the ends of the crescent. In addition, circles 2

and 3 are seen to be negative images of each other. If circle 2 were able to be lifted and used to "cover" circle 3, the raised inner circle of 2 would fit nicely into the downed inside of the crescent of circle 3. Similarly, the raised crescent of 3 would match the downed portion of circle 2.

FORMATION CIRCLE 2; SAMPLE 5: This sample of 10 standing stalks with unbent apical nodes came from within the standing smaller circle, just far enough inside its easternmost edge so that it was beyond any downed stalks or leaning marginal ones. Measured in the field after samples 1 through 4 had been collected and wrapped in brown mailing paper for storage and later analysis, the mean node collar length was 3.99 mm. Collected on Wednesday, 7/23/03.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE 1: This sample of 10 stalks was taken from the inside of the standing crescent, just east of its center. The mean node collar length as measured in the field was 4.56 mm. Measurements were made using magnifying reading glasses and a plastic metric ruler. Collected and measured in the field on Friday, 7/25/03.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE 2: Also taken from the standing crescent just to the west of its center. Although only a few yards away from the previous sample, the mean collar node length was only 3.91 mm. This proved to be less than the largest Long Distance Control Sample, but greater than the other three in this series of statistical analyses. Not significant on its own, it is considered to be sub-marginal as it does have a strong contribution towards the combined formation samples.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE 3: This sample consisted of 10 specimens taken from the downed plants in the circular patch within the standing crescent in the immediate area of the "epicenter" of the swirled pattern. It was anticipated that this would be the region of maximum energy deformation in an authentic circle. Nine of the 10 stalks were carefully selected following the protocol and avoiding any noticeable bent nodes. Specimen #4 was purposely taken because it was characteristic of the highly bent nodes, approximating 40 degrees, which made up the overwhelming majority of the downed plants. As expected, the bent condition resulted in a greater degree of node collar lengthening and its measurement was one of the largest at 6.0 mm. This specific specimen has been purposely excluded from the statistical analyses as it does not belong to the same population of plants with unbent apical nodes which makes up all the rest of the samples. With specimen #4 excluded, the mean node collar length was 4.47 mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL; SAMPLE 2: In-field measurements of one sample taken on 7/23/03 as far as practical in a westerly direction confirmed that it needed to be treated as a PERIPHERAL sample due to Peripheral Beer-Lambert Energy Spillover as documented by Levengood. Since the formation was near the southeastern edge of the field, it was only possible to sample the standing peripheral plants within a range of less than about 50 meters. As a result, on Friday, 7/25/03,

-4-

five Long Distant-Control samples were taken from appropriate areas in the same field but located about 1/4 mile north of the formation. The first sample was taken

from about 2 yards within the western edge. After sampling, a quick check of the visually longer apical nodes showed that the majority would be under 3.5 mm. in

length. This sample was set aside until Sample 2 was taken further in at a more "typical" location. Measurement of Sample 2 which had a mean node collar length of 3.56 mm. made it clear that Sample 1 should be disregarded as depauperate due to being too close to the margin of the field and exposure to prevailing winds.

However, it was noticed that at another 6 meters or so to the east, lay an irregularly shaped downed patch of approximately 8 feet to a side in a roughly triangular formation. This was recognized as possibly being an example of a patch downed by RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING, a phenomenon also documented in work by Levengood, Burke, and Talbott. This proved to be the case when a sample was collected and subsequently measured in the field. The recognition of likely authentic areas ahead of time might cause some researchers to posit the need for blind or double blind experiments to avoid inadvertent bias. This would be the case were the values decided by some form of subjective rating system. However, when using a recognized international standard as simple as a metric ruler, one is equipped with a uniform measuring device and a applies a standard procedure. Measurements are expected to vary within plus or minus one unit in the last estimated decimal place. However, it is impossible with skew the results, even inadvertently, without misreading the ruler. If this danger is consciously avoided by scrupulous technique, "blind-type" experiments are uncalled for regardless of the anticipated outcome. A credible scientist recognizes that the conclusion must be based entirely upon the experimental outcome whether it matches their expectations or not. If the technique is applied capably, neither the hypothesis, anticipated outcome, reputation of the researcher, nor any other factor can diminish the significance of the data.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL; SAMPLE 3: This set of 10 specimens was collected about 10 yards into the west edge of the field about 40 yards further north than the previous one. An effort was made in each case following sample 1 to make sure that a typical healthy location was sampled. The distance from the formation would be in excess of 300 yards. The mean node collar length was 3.85 mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL; SAMPLE 4: This was taken at the greatest linear distance possible, from within the northern edge of the wheat field half way between the western and eastern borders, and about 6 yards into the crop. The mean of this sample was 3.56 mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL; SAMPLE 5: Taken from the upper or western edge of the field at great distance. This sample was collected from the vicinity of another previous soil sample collection site using a borderline tree stump as a marker. While only 3 yards into the crop, an area of robust healthy growth was purposely chosen. The mean node collar length was 4.01.

-5-

Interestingly enough, apparently due to proper crop management, there were not enough apparent naturally downed stalks to collect for use as a comparison with the other samples.

ANALYSIS II: NODE (COLLAR) LENGTH: CONTROLS --VS--PERIPHERAL

BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY SPILLOVER:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS, LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY SPILLOVER, (1 SET):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN, JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE: PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY

SPILLOVER CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC:

SAMPLES:

CONTROLS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE:

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 2 = 1-10; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 3 = 11-20; MEAN = 3.85 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 4 = 21-30; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 5 = 31-40; MEAN = 4.01 mm.

PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY SPILLOVER SAMPLE:

This sample was taken from the standing wheat near the formation on the first day of collection, Wednesday, 7/23/03. Before sampling, it was recognized that due to the nearness of the formation to the western edge of the field, there was insufficient distance to ensure that the crop was free from the effects of energy spillover as determined by Levengood, since the distance to this sample location was limited to about 30 yards. Levengood has plotted the degree of plant tissue and seedling/germination effects as a function of distance from the epicenter. This shows that there are at least two distinct energy effects. The first is a "flash heating" effect that extends outwards beyond the boundaries of the formation following a distribution described by the Beer-Lambert Law. The second is a directional force that actually downs the plants within the formation. As a result, plant tissue and other changes are common beyond the margins of the formation in standing crop which appears otherwise normal. This factor must be taken into account to ensure that control samples are taken from a great enough distance that this effect is no longer significant. This sample was purposely collected and measured in the field to serve as a guideline to determine the possible presence of this peripheral energy spillover effect. Even though the apical nodes were unbent on nine of the specimens, their node collar lengths proved to be greater than the formation sample, Circle 2; Sample 5, taken next in sequence from a relatively short distance away.

-6-

The mean node collar length of this Energy Spillover sample was 4.54 mm. As in other cases, a single specimen, #5, was eliminated from the statistical calculation due to demonstrating noticeable bending and therefore, an increased node collar length beyond the rest of the sample population. Even so, the increased node lengths of the peripheral sample proved significant at the level of p = 0.022 by means of the t Test.

ANALYSIS III: NODE (COLLAR) LENGTH: CONTROLS --VS--RANDOM

ENERGY SCATTERING:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS, LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING, (1 SET):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN, JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE: RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING

CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC:

SAMPLES:

CONTROLS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE:

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 2 = 1-10; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 3 = 11-20; MEAN = 3.85 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 4 = 21-30; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE 5 = 31-40; MEAN = 4.01 mm.

RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING SAMPLE:

While approaching LD-Control Sample 2, located beyond 150 yards north of the formation as already described, a "randomly downed" patch was observed about 15 yards into the formation in an area of healthy growth. Levengood et al. have documented the fact that not all authentic energy effects are limited to geometrical formations. Many randomly downed patches, either in conjunction with a recognizable formation, or by themselves, display authentic energy signatures which have been determined by controlled experiments to be absent from formations created by any demonstrated hoaxing techniques. This patch was one of several examples observed throughout the formation field. Since its location was ideal in terms of being in the vicinity of a control sample and at sufficient distance from the formation to eliminate the Beer-Lambert energy spillover, it too was sampled. Its shape was irregularly triangular with a distance of less than 10 feet per side. Within, the downed stalks radiated outwards from an apparent, off center, epicenter. One clump of wheat had stalks downed in opposite directions. Some of the downed stalks were gently curved over from the base, whereas others were definitely kinked between the nodes. The remoteness of this location and the lack of

-7-

any disturbance in the surrounding wheat ensured the likelihood that Dr. Lietzau, who collected, evaluated, measured, and stored all plant samples, was the first person to approach this downed patch. Once again, only downed stalks which did not display a bent apical node were collected for statistical analysis. Interestingly enough, specimen #9 which displayed a massive expulsion cavity on its apical node, also possessed in that same node, the single largest measurement for a node collar length at 7.0 mm. Since, despite the massive expulsion cavity, the node maintained a straight orientation, it was included in the sample measurements. As can be seen in the statistical analysis, however, this sample would also have had the single largest mean node collar length, even if specimen #9 had been eliminated. Field time was limited and determination of any peripheral energy spillover was not a primary priority, so the immediate periphery was not sampled. The mean node collar length for this sample was 5.1 mm. Not surprisingly, when compared to the LD-Controls this was significant with p <0.001.

ANALYSIS IV: SOIL SAMPLES; FIELD TESTS OF MAGNETIC RESPONSE: CONTROLS + EXTRA-FORMATION --VS--FORMATION SAMPLES

USING 2 x 2 CONTINGENCY TABLE:

CONTROLS, (4 TESTS, LONG DISTANCE; 1 TEST, "EXTENDED PERIPHERAL") --VS--FORMATION SAMPLES, (12 TESTS):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN, JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: FISHER EXACT PROBABILITY TEST::SIGNIFICANT; UNIFORM

FORMATION HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE PATTERN,

CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC:

SAMPLES:

CONTROLS AND EXTENDED PERIPHERAL; COLUMN 1

ROW 1 = HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE

ROW 2 = LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE

EXTENDED PERIPHERAL = LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE

(PROVIDED DEMONSTRATION PHOTO IN REPORT)

CONTROL SAMPLE 1 = LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE

CONTROL SAMPLE 2 = HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE

CONTROL SAMPLE 3 = LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE

CONTROL SAMPLE 4 = LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE

-8-

FORMATION SAMPLES:

MINIMUM OF 4 SAMPLES PER CIRCLE FROM ALL 3 CIRCLES, FROM ALL PARTS INCLUDING BOTH STANDING AND DOWNED AREAS AND FORMATION PATHWAY.

ALL SAMPLES = HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE.

While most of these samples and more were preserved for more exacting later analysis, an effort was made to utilize a field test for magnetic response so that this factor could be conclusively analyzed on site. An extendable probe with a 1 centimeter diameter cylindrical magnetic tip was employed. This device is capable of lifting an 8 pound load. In evaluating a sample site, the soil was loosened to a depth of approximately 1 inch with the blade of a pocket knife, and the probe inserted into the sample. The magnetic response was often observed before any soil preparation was undertaken, however the actual test recorded followed a strict protocol. In addition, the presence of low magnetic response samples in the controls confirmed that the act of homogenizing the soil with a steel blade was not responsible for the magnetic effects. The field test criteria are depicted by actual photos in the report. In the case of a High Magnetic Response, the probe became deeply covered and completely obscured under multiple layers of adhering soil particles, even after gentle tapping. In contrast, in a Low Magnetic Response, the soil particles failed to completely cover the surface of the probe and the magnetic head was unobscured in many areas. The difference was visually dramatic and no intermediate samples were encountered which would require the use of personal judgment. Visually, the Low Response appeared to be less than 25% of the High Response by bulk volume.

The photo showing a Low Magnetic Response was taken by flashlight at the southern periphery of the field about 40 yards from the formation. Plants at this distance were within the range of the peripheral Beer-Lambert energy spillover effect. It is possible that the distribution of the magnetic effect follows a different law. It is also possible that there is a spillover effect that will be discovered during laboratory analysis, but that its intensity had dropped low enough to provide a strong visual contrast with the formation samples. In any case, this peripheral sample can be validly included with the controls as an "Extra-Formation" population.

CONTROL SAMPLE 1: Taken from the edge of the field on the northeastern margin. This location was uphill by about 3 meters and at a distance of over 100 yards from the formation. This sample displayed LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE, with an anecdotal visual estimate of 25% the strength of a typical formation sample.

CONTROL SAMPLE 2: Also from the upper edge but at a distance of approximately 50 yards further north. Long Distance Control Sample 5 for node length used the same tree trunk in the distance as a location marker but was taken

-9-

from farther into the field. This control sample exhibited HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE.

CONTROL SAMPLE 3: This sample also came from the northeastern

portion of the field at an estimated distance of over 250 yards. Visually, the field test was entered in the notes as "barely magnetic."

CONTROL SAMPLE 4: This sample was taken by entering the field at the far northern edge about midway between the sides and in line with the distant formation, approximately 300 yards to the south. It was also described in the notes as visually "barely magnetic."

Although the number of Extra Formation samples is fairly low, the distinctiveness of the response categories coupled with the uniformly high formation responses, provided a sufficient sample for the valid application of a 2 x 2 contingency table using the Fisher Exact Probability Test which is designed for smaller samples with cells that may include values below five, including zero. The uniformly HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE rating of the formation samples displays a significant difference from the more random distribution in the Control samples at the level of p = 0.0147 for a two-tailed test.

ANALYSIS V: PRESENCE OF MASSIVE EXPULSION CAVITIES:

CONTROLS, (4 LONG DISTANCE SAMPLES, total expulsion cavities present, n = 0) --VS--FORMATION SAMPLES, (n = 29 ):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN, JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: CHI-SQUARED TEST::SIGNIFICANT; PRESENCE OF

MASSIVE EXPULSION CAVITIES;