Geometrical lay details of
3 formations close up
plus honest common sense
as evidence for/against authenticity

copyright Jonah Ohayv, Jan. 2004

Click on photos for enlargement.

Part 2

Example 2:

Hackpen Hill teardrops underpaths

aerial photo by Busty Taylor

aerial photo by Lucy Pringle

Hackpen Hill, July 20, 2003

From the aerials, I was interested in both what felt like a sort of imbalance in the inner design, and also in construction relations between the formation's parts.

Here is what a several hour on-the-spot examination of this formation revealed:

1. The outer rim's circles are of various sizes between ca. six and a half and eight yards, in no particular sequence.

2. The largest "teardrop" form's pathway does not reach the outer ring.

3. The curve at the turn of each teardrop's one side is cleanly, gracefully made, not broken off and hacking.

4. Every even spoke is laid from the formation's loose center area outwards to the rim, and every odd spoke laid inwards from the rim.

5. No spokes continue within teardrops, nor underlay any circles. On the contrary, the spokes overlay the edges of both the circles found outside teardrops and of the teardrops' defining paths.

6. By exception, closest to the formation center, the spokes do touch the smallest teardrop's inner circle, and when continuing on the other side of that teardrop, are off-line.

7. At the formation center, the spokes do not meet at a point. One has to make small steps unevenly around an area, sometimes backwards and sometimes forwards, to follow their meeting points.

What does this tell us?

Point 1 looks like a noticable mistake. Points 6 and 7 seem to be unapparent and unintentional inaccuracies. Many associate the grace of point 3 with genuineness.

Points 2 and 5 tell us that the circles inside the formation and the teardrop forms were made first, from the formation's central patch outwards, and independently of the outer ring.

The ring was made separately. Then the spokes were added back and forth from the central area and ring, "walking" around the teardrop paths where they met them. And the ring's circles were added last, accounting for their varying diameters.

Up to now, we have no definite evidence, though the inaccuracies lean toward hoaxing.

Then the field was harvested. I think the farmer intentionally let me finish my investigations first, because as I left he came driving up - if so, many thanks!

The formation's largest circle just before harvesting, and again when I came back twice after harvesting, to examine it closer. Note that it's so big that the closest tramline (to the left) is very far from its center. You can't make a circle's perimeter (unless you drop it from above already finished) without finding its center first. So a hoaxer would have to initially walk to this largest circle's center, leaving an underpath on the way in. The dark splodges are shadows from me and the day's helper, Miles Johnston.

Systematically examining all the way around that circle's center, within a couple feet outwards, I found the underpath - coming in from the direction of the total formation's center and starting a couple steps from the teardrop's curving path.

In these photos, I've lifted the upper lay (flatter after the harvesting) into a ridge, to show on its right parts of the discovered ca. 18 foot-long, crooked underpath, which started quite near the circle's edge and progressed almost to its center. It's width varied between 8 to 12 inches. There's absolutely no need for the genuine energy to make this jagged under-route, but every need for hoaxers to - so this is proof of hoaxing.

Here's the lifted ridge beside the underpath in its entirety.

A similar but incomplete, shorter underlying path was also found to the central area of the largest circle in the second largest teardrop, again starting from the direction of the total formation's center. This circle had no tramlines at all running through it for entry.

In addition, it was apparent after harvest that the spokes had varying widths and some were not straight.

An interesting side-note is that I know a woman who had a stupendous personal vision, while meditating in this formation. Which, I think, goes to show that we can't be sure that a formation is genuine, because someone experiences something strongly spiritual in it.

Click: Part 3 - Example 3