by Richard Hoagland
This Summer, precisely one year after a
fractal "crop glyph" appeared in a field just outside the
Chilbolton Radio telescope grounds, in Hampshire, England, another,
even stranger glyph appeared (above). According to Darcy Ladd,
Manager of the Chilbolton Radio Observatory, in an interview with
Colin Andrews, the image appeared “suddenly on the morning of August
According to Mr. Ladd,
“No unusual activity was seen that
morning, in the field or [in terms of] aircraft overhead, etc ….”
According to the Manager, Chilbolton does have security cameras, but
they are not equipped for night vision surveillance. The cameras
captured “nothing unusual.”
The image which confronted the Telescope personnel that morning bore
a striking resemblance to the July, 1976 Viking image of the "Face
on Mars" (below image) - right down to the appearance of asymmetry and "erosion"
on the right hand side.
Curiously (considering what was to happen
next) this “Cydonia resemblance glyph” appeared just four days after
our own publication of a provocative, new, comprehensive theory of
Mars - our
Mars Tidal Model Paper (that detail will become important
Though first noticed by the telescope employees on the 14th,
the Chilbolton "Face" was not reported (and NOT by the facility
staff) until Sunday, August 19th.
Its announcement in England caused an immediate worldwide sensation
on the Internet - not the least, because it struck many observers as
a deliberate effort to remind everyone of the infamous Face on Mars.
For one thing, the Face crop effort seemed to be designed to
replicate the light and shading of the original Viking Cydonia image
The Face turned out, under a "Gaussian blur filter"
(thanks to Paul Lowrance - below, left), to bear a strong
resemblance to a somewhat primitive human face - not unlike the
left hand side of the
human/feline hybrid of the Face on Mars ... if
the Face’s erosion was removed. But, the Chilbolton glyph lacked a
key feature of the Cydonia Face - the distinctive "platform" around
the base. In place of this, however, it was obviously carefully
placed within a frame (see above).
Was this done to underscore its
connection to the prior Viking pictures?
But there were other, far more sophisticated aspects, which drew
people to this glyph. The whole thing seemed to be made up of cells,
which bore a striking resemblance to the half-tone “dots” used to
create newspaper pictures, or the pixels of a digital image.
"pixels" were made up of a series of darker standing tufts of wheat,
with the bright "pixels" created by the gently swirled down stalks
The deliberately-created illusion in this glyph (below) -– that the
lighting is coming from the upper left (as in the original Viking
Cydonia frame), when in fact Steve Alexander’s aerial photograph was
taken with the sunlight on the field coming from the lower right - is further testimony to the superb optical physics embodied in this
And, remember - -this was achieved in a waving field of
wheat, not the most permanent medium to work with.
And there was
another "cute" touch: the Face glyph was placed in the field in such
a way that the “tramline” scanned across the “nose” cuts it almost
exactly in half - another subtle reminder of the dual-Face image at Cydonia?
Yet there are other reasons to take this possible "Chilbolton-Cydonia"
As noted previously, precisely a year before the
“Face glyph” was created in this English field, another glyph
suddenly appeared (below).
Michael Lawrence Morton, carrying on the
work of Carl Munck (first presented by Richard C. Hoagland at the
UN, in 1992), found a stunning "geometric matrix" connection between
these two sites - the Chilbolton field and Cydonia.
In fact, in
decoding the location of the fractal glyph from the year 2000
(below), Morton determined an
astonishing set of linkages on his
grid system between Chilbolton and literally the Face on Mars
This array of circumstantial evidence has led us to conclude that
the Face-glyph, appearing in the same field on August 14th, 2001, a
couple hundred feet away from the 2000 glyph, may indeed have been
intended as a “reminder” of the Cydonia Face (below).
But why there… and why now?
Face/Glyph comparison by Andreas Müller
According to Manager Ladd, five days after the Face initially
appeared, a second striking - and strikingly different - glyph
suddenly materialized in the same field (below) - only a few
hundred feet from the "Face."
But this second glyph, at first dubbed
the "Persian carpet," had a far more compelling story to tell than
the mere appearance of “a “face.” Crop circle investigators in
England quickly realized that this second glyph was a near dead
ringer for a “SETI” (Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
message composed and transmitted from the Arecibo Radio Telescope in
Puerto Rico in 1974 - 27 years before and thousands of miles away
from this Chilbolton field (below, left).
That original Message,
conceived by Frank Drake, the late
Carl Sagan, and a few other
colleagues at Arecibo, contained information about the human race,
our solar system, and our means of communication.
Yet, after a
second look, there were subtle but crucial differences between this
historic SETI transmission, and the apparent “alien response”
appearing at Chilbolton in 2001.
The obvious question that’s been on everybody’s mind is: “Are these
for ‘real,’ or a just clever hoax?” Since the first appearance of
“crop circles” in England, in the early 1970’s, this question has
hovered over every new appearance... now numbering in the literal
Eventually, samples from “circles” compared with planets
from unaffected fields, revealed puzzling physiological and
molecular changes in “circle” crops that are
simply impossible to
attribute to “boards and chains.”
But, since there are no scientific
studies of the plants from the Chilbolton glyphs as yet, what other
clues can be used to ascertain the probability that something truly
remarkable has happened there?
James Deardorff, former Senior Scientist at the
National Center for
Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado has attempted to
calculate such odds. He begins by asking some very basic, common
[What is] the probability that hoaxers could:
be creative enough to construct a new type of glyph like that,
involving rectangular "binary units" in the "Arecibo" response, and
repeatedly practice making the Arecibo glyph first,
in some field(s), without these practice attempts being spotted from
the air and reported
actually carry it out, producing all those
right-angle corners in the Arecibo-like pattern, without making any
do it all in just a few hours overnight
without showing up on the security cameras there, one or more of
which looked out towards the relevant direction …
do it without
leaving undesired trampled stalks or stake holes, etc., behind, from
having accessed the location along some tram line and laying out the
surveying lines, etc., which would be necessary
credit for it afterwards and not offer to show skeptics just how
they did it by being willing to quickly reproduce the same designs
within a pristine area of a wheat field while under the watchful
eyes of veteran crop-circle researchers.
Concerning the probability of (a), we have, on a couple occasions,
seen the handiwork of crop-circle hoaxers in a contest. Their
patterns consisted of the same elements, and were of the same type,
as in (genuine) preexisting crop-circle formations (circles,
triangles, stars, and such). Very little creativity. Thus I would
estimate the probability of (a) as being p(a) = 0.3 - possible, but
not very likely. (Here, p=0 would mean no chance whatsoever it could
be a hoax, and p=1 would mean absolute certainty it was a hoax.)
Concerning the probability of (b), since most of the crop-circle
formations apparently do get noticed, including hoaxes, so would
practice attempts be noticed and reported as either genuine or
Surely several practice attempts would be needed in this
case, and this would give away hoaxers' final version unless they
trampled down each practice attempt right away after making it,
without being noticed. However, such trampled areas would themselves
likely be noticed from the air and/or the perpetrators reported. I
estimate the probability of such going unnoticed and unreported as
less than 50-50, say 0.3.
Concerning the probability of (c), I notice that there are some
700-1000 right-angle corners of standing stalk involved, on a
relatively small scale, in all those binary units of the "returned"
Arecibo message. It would be difficult to generate even 30 of them
without making a mistake - and once a mistake is made, with the
wrong stems bent over to stay, they can't be raised again. If the
chance for error was only 0.5 (50-50) for each succession of 30
corner units, then the probability of making just one right-angle
corner come out right is quite high, 0.9782.
probability of one or more persons continuing the process on 800 of
them without botching any of the corners or trampling down the wrong
spot would be this figure raised to the 800th power, which is only 2
x 10-8 = p(c).
the time to attempt to accomplish
this would be on the order of 20 seconds to correctly emplace each
of some 2 x (23 + 73) = 192 tall stakes around the periphery (64
minutes in all)
two minutes to string each of 23 parallel "grid"
lines (cords) lengthwise and one minute each for 73 shorter parellel
lines crosswise (119 minutes in all)
2 minutes each to flatten
stalks around the roughly 800 "binary units" of wheat to be left
standing (this includes the time necessary to identify where to move
to next without trampling the wrong area in the dark, and ducking
under the various criss-crossing lines to get there - 1600 minutes
some 20 minutes for a couple of rest breaks
to remove all stakes and cords and carefully exit without leaving
access tracks behind in the field.
This is some 31 hours, suggesting
the need for a team of 5 or 6 people, each knowing what their
specific tasks are. Since this seems possible, this consideration
doesn't rule either against the hoax or against the "real thing,"
which means p(d) = 0.5.
Concerning (e): for a team of 5 or 6 people to do this at night
would require a good deal of artificial lighting, along with
walkie-talkies so that the head hoaxer could orchestrate the entire
endeavor, directing each worker on where to step next or not to
The odds are not good that such lighting would not have been
detected when the security-camera video tapes were examined. Here I
estimate p(e) = 0.2 that hoaxers could have done this without their
night lights showing up.
Concerning (f), I believe that no stake holes were reported, but the
probability that so many of them could have been filled in prior to
the hypothetical hoaxing team's departure without the disturbed
ground being noticed and reported later, and similarly for no
disturbances along any tram lines showing up on the aerial photos,
suggests a low probability of hoaxers getting away with this aspect,
say p(f) = 0.1.
(Bear in mind that if hoaxers get to a genuine
formation prior to serious crop-circle researchers, such hoaxers
could deceptively make stake holes, leave behind some string and
cigarette butts, etc.)
Concerning (g), I believe the chances are less than even that, if
hoaxers had made such unique crop glyphs, they wouldn't wish to
claim credit for it (or them) within a couple weeks afterwards - after a goodly number of paranormal researchers had offered their
opinions that the formations were not man-made. This hasn't
So I would estimate p(g) = 0.4, with this value decreasing
somewhat as time rolls on without any viable confession forthcoming.
… it turns out that there's a mathematical way of combining
individual probabilities on a yes-no type of hypothesis, in this
case a hoax or no-hoax hypothesis, to arrive at an overall
probability, P. That's because probabilities p(a)...p(g) involve
independent elements all bearing on the same question of hoax or
The simple formula is:
P = M1/(M1 + M2)
where M1 = p(a)*p(b)*...*p(g) and M2 = [1 - p(a)]*[1-p(b)]*...*[1-p(g)],
where the asterisks denote multiplication.
Plugging in, we get:
P = 7 x 10-11
That is - less than two chances out of 10 billion (U.S. billion).
So why is the “hoax” hypothesis given any credence at all?
I read somewhere on the Internet that our 1974 Arecibo message
contained a few mistakes, and that these were replicated in the
agro-glyph, from which the conclusion was drawn by some person that
it must be a hoax, since true aliens would surely(!) both know
better and would tell us the truth and nothing but the truth. But
aren't the aliens visiting us the past 54 years known for leaving a
few crumbs behind for negative skeptics to glom onto?
E.g., UFOs that look somewhat like airplanes except the navigational
lights are all wrong and perhaps no wings, or black "helicopters"
flying way too low and perhaps making no noise whatever, or
crop-circle formations that start out simple and become more complex
(as if hoaxers were teaching themselves), etc.
Surely we have to
allow that since they could be millions of years advanced over us in
their evolution and science & technology, they could also be a bit
smarter than us, and have a strategy of dealing with us that
includes some feature(s) in their sightings/glyphs that will allow
skeptics a way out from believing what they are incapable of
believing without going berserk. Hence, if such "mistakes" were
indeed present in the glyph, they do not support the hoax hypothesis
any more than they oppose it, and do not enter into the above
(If you include some item in the formula that
has probability 0.5, it doesn't alter the mathematical result. If
interested in the formula's derivation, you can find it at:
Obviously, the answer one gets with such a probability analysis
depends entirely on the individual probabilities estimated for the
independent components of the hypothesized hoax. If you were to do
it, your numbers would no doubt be different, yet still yield an
outcome of very slim odds of success for a hoax, I'll wager.
is handy to have a formula by which you can obtain an overall
probability estimate after the individual probabilities have been
hashed over and agreed upon.
Colin Andrews, an electrical engineer now living in the United
States (after formerly working for local government in Britain), has
for over 30 years attempted to scientifically understand the
baffling “crop circle enigma.”
Returning recently to the United
States from a first-hand investigative survey of Chilbolton, Andrews
reported the following observations:
“… The 'face' and the 'message' at Chilbolton presented different
clews [from the previous Milk Hill formation]. The farmer, at my
request, when harvesting the field, lowered his harvester cutting
boom to approx 1 inch above ground level. In my experience, this is
an excellent method of finding underlay. What I found was VERY
Each pattern was set out first using a very
accurate grid on which the designs were then formed or made. I will
show photographs of the under lay later …. What we saw was a
beautiful grid, all visible after the overlay of flattened plants
had been cut and removed by the harvester.
There is no doubt in my
mind that we have a different hand at work in these last three
designs and IF it is people, then they certainly have military style
precision and even possibly technology. Too soon to draw conclusions
but its certainly dammed interesting working through the increasing
volume of data ...”
So, leaving aside for the time being just “who” might have done
this, what can we discern from attempting to analyze the “glyph
The original "SETI Message" (below, right) shows a variety of binary
images (colorized here, for easier visualization) –- composed of
“ones” and “zeros” –- meant to tell a story to any ET civilization
To begin with, the digital “pictogram” (below, right) is the product
of two Prime numbers: 23 and 73.
This sets the “raster” of pixels - 23 across and 73 down.
After (arbitrarily) assigning “black” to the
“ones” and “white” to the “zeros” (below, left), decoding can begin
The “zeros” and “ones” from right to left produce on the top line
the decimal numbers 1-10 (representing the binary equivalents)
the second line are atomic numbers of the basic elements which
humans thought (in 1974) made up the foundations of Life - hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus
Below that, the
formulas for the basic chemical make-up of the five main molecules
Then, a vertical depiction of the DNA double helix wrapped
around a central binary spine designed to reveal that we have about
4 billion nucleotides in our own DNA
Below that, a humanoid figure
[which comes with a code (to the right] depicting the correct
average height of human beings, as well as the 1974 population of
the Earth (to the left)]
Then, on the next line, a map of our
entire solar system (showing Earth elevated above the line of other
planets, indicating our own “inhabited” planet of origin)
The last, curved symbol at the bottom of the array is our means of
transmitting the Message: a schematic of the Arecibo radio telescope
itself - complete with binary scale (below it) to communicate how
large it is.
Here is how
Sagan himself described the Arecibo Message, about four
years after it was transmitted:
“The decoded message forms a kind of pictogram that says something
‘Here is how we count from one to ten. Here are five
atoms that we think are interesting or important: hydrogen, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus. Here are some ways to put these
atoms together that we think interesting or important - the
molecules thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine, and a chain
composed of alternating sugars and phosphates.
building blocks are put together to form a long molecule of DNA
comprising about four billion links in the chain. The molecule is a
double helix. In some way this molecule is important for the clumsy
looking creature at the center of the message. That creature is 14
radio wavelengths or 5 feet 9.5 inches tall.
There are about four
billion of these creatures on the third plant from our star. There
are nine planets altogether, four big ones toward the outside and
one little one at the extremity. This message is brought to you
courtesy of a radio telescope 2,430 wavelengths or 1,004 feet in
In the crop glyph “response” that appeared a few days ago (below),
there have been some changes made to the original Message.
diagram and comparison are kindly provided by Paul Vigay, the
Crop Circle Research in England. Paul actually walked the
remarkable “Arecibo Response” glyph (as it has now been termed), and
his tabulation of the standing and fallen tufts of wheat,
corresponding to the binary “ones” and “zeros,” we consider the most
accurate because of this literal “ground truth.”
So, what about those changes?
To begin with, the first line - the
decimal equivalents of the binary code - were unchanged. But the
atomic numbers of the elements composing the basis of Life had been
altered: silicon, an element with an atomic number of 14, was added
precisely in the correct sequence - between oxygen (atomic number
8) and phosphorus (atomic number 15).
This was a most curious and
However, additional work by other
such as Dustin
Brand, a software engineer highly familiar with binary coding who
painstakingly compared both multiple aerial and ground photographs
(below) to create a precise two-dimensional “grid” of the “Arecibo
Response” - has revealed some basic errors in Paul’s original
mapping and decoding.
So, for the sake of completeness, we also reproduce
Brand’s Chilbolton grid (below).
So, what about those changes?
To begin with, the first line
decimal equivalents of the binary code - were unchanged from the Arecibo original. But the atomic numbers of the elements composing
the basis of Life had been altered: silicon, an element with an
atomic number of 14, was added precisely in the correct sequence - between oxygen (atomic number 8) and phosphorus (atomic number 15).
This was a most curious and significant addition.
Because… in 1969,
the late Ben Volcani - a renowned microbiologist
at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography - discovered the
crucial role of silicon in carbon based Life. His work and that of
his colleagues (like Charles Mehard, also at Scripps, and Edith
Carlisle in the early 1970’s at UCLA) showed that the presence of
silicon is critical in a variety of terrestrial life forms, as well
as human cell structure: for instance, in the binding of the
cartilage and mineral aspects of bones.
Without silicon, we would
have rubbery, bendable skeletons - and probably couldn’t even stand
erect in Earth’s gravity at all.
The point is, unlike the claim made by the current SETI's
Shostak in his ‘Coast-to-Coast” radio debate with the author, that
the presence of silicon in the response glyph is just "science
fiction," silicon is a crucial but almost unknown ingredient in the
terrestrial “soup of life.” And it is a rock solid certainty that
Drake and Sagan did not know this - otherwise, why exclude it from
their own Message? Moreover, whoever created this glyph was clever
enough to add this crucial but subtle difference.
Paradoxically (for some), the coding of bases and sugars in the DNA
section remained unchanged between both versions of the Message;
significantly, the crop glyph version did NOT contain any references
Some critics have used this apparent inconsistency to
attempt to invalidate the entire Chilbolton Message, asking,
is a valid communication of an alien DNA, why would silicon only be
present in the atomic elements replication, and not in the
associated sugars and bases as well?”
Our answer: because the
terrestrial criticality of silicon is NOT represented in our DNA - but in other proteins and enzymes making up the molecules of Life.
Reading the original Arecibo selection, listing “hydrogen, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus” as applying ONLY to the DNA itself,
is just too limiting - as the Scripps research now proves. It is our
reading that whoever composed the “Arecibo response” at Chilbolton
may have been gently trying to expand our 1974 biochemical
And, in fact, Neal Sullivan - a Scripps graduate student
at the time - demonstrated (simultaneous with Volcani’s work) that
silicon is essential in the production of DNA-polymerase - an enzyme
required for DNA synthesis in diatoms.
And diatoms (which come in
literally thousands of varieties - one of which is pictured below)
are one of the photosynthetic marine organisms lying at the base of
the food chain of all life on Earth. In 1997, Mark Hildebrand, a
marine biologist at Scripps, announced a critical extension of Volcani’s work
- isolation of the specific genes responsible for the
role of silicon in diatoms.
Hildebrand noted in the paper published
in Nature on the new work, that the information learned also may be
applied “to mammals,
Moving on …
In contrast to the apparently unchanged listing of sugars and bases
in DNA itself from the original to the glyph version, the center
vertical column - denoting (again in binary code) the total number
of nucleotides in the human genome - has been changed in the crop
version: there are significantly more nucleotides in the “alien”
What does this mean?
The difference has to be linked to another
key change in this same section of the “message”: the twin DNA
“double helix” strand depicted in the original, is asymmetric in the
glyph; the left hand side appears to be a triple helix - as if
communicating some key differences in the sender’s genetic make-up.
But, another possibility also looms…
a US patent was issued to Enzo Biochem, Inc., of
The Patent (#5,958,681) announced a new process for
modifying DNA, a technique that calls for the addition of a third
strand to the classic double helix, making it a temporary triple
helix. The triple helix holds the desired new sequences in close
proximity to and at a precise point in the original gene, long
enough according to Enzo Biochem for “recombination, exchange or
insertion to take place with a high frequency.”
Is this “triple helix” in the glyph trying to tell us that some
“aliens” performed similar “genetic engineering” experiments on
humans… some time in the past?
This theory is consistent with the
enhanced number of nucleotides in the “response” human DNA section
(above the counterpart to the human figure in the Arecibo original);
for this alteration in the crop glyph seems to refer directly to the
humanoid figure depicted just below this crucial sequence. In place
of the “human figure” in the original Message, a small bodied,
big-headed figure -
resembling a classic "gray” - has been carefully
substituted in the glyph version… complete with a binary code
denoting its apparent height (about 3.3 feet).
Or, if you can’t buy that idea, an alternative theory for this
“altered” glyph DNA was posted recently, by an anonymous “research
"Many people have been speculating whether the new Arecibo crop
pictogram in Chilbolton is a
hoax or real. The purpose of this message is:
to explain why the
DNA part of that pictogram was altered
from Sagan's original
to suggest a return message
central part of the Chilbolton pictogram
shows that a DNA double helix as found on Earth, with 10 base pairs
per turn, has been replaced on one side
by a novel single-stranded helix with just 6 bases per turn
I had to work hard for several
days, to discover that the single-stranded helix with 6 bases per
turn refers to 2', 5'-linked RNA or DNA,
as opposed to the normal 3', 5' variety. This is known to hardly any
molecular biologist, and I found out only
by making an accurate model. Since the chemical formula of the
6-base helix remains the same as before, I
guessed that any difference might be one of stereochemistry: change
the sugar-phosphate connection.
single-digit change in the central "rod" of that pictogram, located
between the two nucleic acid strands, may
confirm such a change in stereochemistry once it is mapped
“In any case, there is no other plausible way of constructing a
6-fold helix as indicated.
of 2', 5' ligoribonucleotides," Nucleic Acids Research 1992, vol.
20, pp. 1685-1690. This paper shows
that 2', 5'-linked RNA will form double helices, but prefers to
remain single stranded.
biological activities of 2', 5'-oligoadenylate," Nucleic Acids
Research 1995, vol. 23, pp. 3989-3994.
This paper explores the use of 2', 5' RNA as an antiviral drug; it
seems we have been exposed to such strange
molecules in the past, and have evolved an interferon-RNAase L
system against them.
"2', 5' linked
deoxyribonucleosides: thermal stability", Nucleic Acids Research
1997, vol. 25, pp. 3310-3317.
This paper shows that 2', 5' DNA will form a double helix with RNA
but not DNA; hence any 2', 5' infectious
agents would not be detectable by PCR.
“Recall that origin-of-life experiments in the 1980's [?] by
Leslie Orgel, found that RNA would often
polymerize into two different forms, namely 2', 5' versus 3', 5';
and it was a mystery to chemical evolutionists
why 3', 5' was favored on Earth.
Note that many
the central figure in the “response”
version of the Arecibo Message looks like a classic “gray”] remain
ill with chronic fatigue, which generally
includes a high level of RNAase L; just as if their immune systems
have been activated by contact with 2', 5' RNA.
The clear implication is that 2', 5' RNA may represent an
alternative system of genetic coding to 3',5' RNA or
DNA as found on Earth; and that the makers of the Chilbolton
pictogram wished us to understand that fact [emphasis
added]. Whether a secret band of elite scientists could hoax such a
result seems doubtful; since 2', 5' nucleic acids
are mentioned rarely in the literature, and nowhere does it say that
they form a single-stranded helix with 6 bases perturn, that I found only recently, by painstakingly constructing an
“If the message is authentic, one must wonder whether it was sent by
radio some time ago, yet not made
public? Finally… let me suggest a ‘return message’ that could open
I suggest that you ask
people all around the world to write the following in deserts,
beaches, forests, crops, and on all frequencies of
amateur radio: ‘2', 5' ---6 ‘… ‘3', 5' --- 10 ‘ Or simply ‘6 /10’ if
they are lazy.
But the full message is better ...”
If the single/triple helix DNA representation in the Chilbolton
glyph seems confusing, it is no more so than the Arecibo Message
The intensive examination of Drake and Sagan’s original
“binary message” by so many on the Internet has now turned up
certain puzzling “errors” in the original 1974 Arecibo transmission.
Most (but not all) of these seem to be concentrated in the coded
description of terrestrial DNA.
DNA is one of a vast group of organic (carbon-containing) molecules
known as “polymers.” The sub-molecules of DNA (monomers) are called
“nucleotides.” The entire DNA polymer, comprised of varying numbers
nucleotides (depending on the complexity of the life form) is
known as a "polynucleotide." Each nucleotide in this polymer
consists of a 5-carbon sugar (deoxyribose), a nitrogen-containing
base attached to the sugar, and a phosphate group.
There are four
different types of nucleotides found in DNA, differing only in their
These four nucleotides are given one-letter
abbreviations as shorthand for the four bases:
Two spiraling strands of
this polynucleotide - like two spiral staircases climbing around
each other, with the bases as the “stairs” - form the well-known
“double-helix” of DNA
Model of a double-helical DNA.
One chain is shown in green and the
other in red.
The purine and pyrimidine bases are shown in lighter
than the sugar-phosphate backbone.
(a) Axial view. The
structure repeats along the helix axis (vertical) at intervals of 34 Å,
which corresponds to 10 residues on each chain.
(b) A schematic
"ribbon" representation of an axial view of DNA.
(Courtesy of M. Meselson and F. W. Stahl)
(c) Radial view, looking down the helix
Some investigators have now claimed to have discovered serious
errors in the binary coding of several of these crucial monomers in
DNA in the original Arecibo Message. They insist that “mistakes”
seem to have been made in the basic binary codes for Deoxyribose,
Adenine, and Guanine.
Deoxyribose (below) has five Carbon atoms, but
the binary coding for it in the Arecibo transmission shows seven
Adenine has five carbons (below, left), but it’s binary
designation in the Message shows only four. Guanine (below, right)
contains five carbons, but in the original Drake/Sagan Message there
are again only four carbon atoms shown.
Because of bonding, within
the polynucleotide DNA molecule itself (as opposed to it in
isolation) Adenine contains only four hydrogen atoms (two attached
to a nitrogen and one each attached to a carbon) - but, remarkably,
the Arecibo Message illustrates it with five hydrogens.
These, if true, would not be trivial genetic errors. Their discovery
in the original Arecibo transmission, after 27 years, would be
simply inexplicable. Without knowing that these sequences were
supposed to be describing molecules bonded in a polymer called
“DNA,” it would essentially be impossible to rectify the apparent
“errors” in the Message with that structure.
Now, if you’re claiming to send the genetic code of the life forms
on your own planet to a completely alien species (which may have a
genetic code based on molecular sequences completely different from
what we know as “DNA”, such repeating nucleotide errors would
simply make it impossible for any alien recipients to successfully
unscramble your genetic code, let alone the basis of that code.
this was supposedly a key objective of the entire 1974 Message: to
send accurate genetic information about the human species, if not
the foundations of all Life on Earth, into deep space…
These investigators, on finding these perplexing “fundamental
errors,” have gone on to claim that Drake and Sagan “deliberately
included such mistakes” as a means of “catching hoaxers.”
For a radio transmission aimed at a globular star cluster some
26,000 light years distant?! Just who could possibly successfully
“hoax” any received radio response? And when… in 50,000 years!?
To borrow a recent phrase from Seth Shostak (of the SETI Institute),
this whole idea simply “fails the baloney test, as Sagan would put
In fact, these apparent “errors” in the Message are explained quite
simply: they come from the fact that these nucleotides are NOT “free
molecules” (as these investigators have erroneously assumed) - but
are bonded in the larger DNA molecule itself. If their amalgamation
into the DNA polymer is properly deduced (from other aspects of the
binary), the apparent “missing atoms” in these “isolated”
nucleotides is completely understood.
A real potential problem was discovered by Chris Joseph, who noted
that the entire original Message was filled with “binary
inconsistencies and counter intuitive symbolization.”
Not only did
the binary notation change without warning from line to line
(below), but interspersion of non-binary graphical elements - such
as the “humanoid figure,” the “solar system line,” and the “curved
schematic of the Arecibo telescope” - added, according to his
“non-mathematical symbols which would surely puzzle any
genuine aliens who happened to receive this particular
Talk about “mixing your metaphors” …
A far more serious problem is the addition of “silicon” to the list
of elements in the glyph.
As noted previously, one can’t help
wondering - based on Ben Volcani’s and his colleagues’ work - what
happens if you now insert silicon directly into those “erroneous”
At least one investigator - Dustin D. Brand - has already
published a remarkable answer to such musings:
a plausible “alien”
DNA chemistry, based on a careful tally of the information in the
glyph, utilizing a silicon-oxygen tetrahedral molecule in place of
the phosphate in our DNA (graphic, below).
His fascinating analysis, in part, reads:
The formulae for the molecular structure
that make up every single DNA strand remain identical to the human
template, with one exception. In Alien DNA, the Phosphate ->Deoxyribose
(Sugar) Hydrogen Bond is replaced with a Silicon Oxygen 4
(Tetrahedron) -> Deoxyribose (Sugar) Hydrogen Bond.
This is directly
connected to the Aliens inserting Silicon in its proper place in the
Atomic Numbers Grid. This indicates knowledge of the
Deoxyribonucleic Acid strand, and the basic fundamental properties
of life on earth. The exact formulas for the molecular DNA structure
that form each link in a DNA strand are as follows. Deoxyribose
C5OH7; Adenine C5H4N5; Thymine C5H5N2O2; Phosphate PO4 (in Human
DNA) - Silicon Oxygen SiO4 (in Alien DNA); Cytosine C4H4N3O; and
The molecular structure of the DNA is demonstrated
by the repeating pattern of DeoxyRibose and Phosphate (a Nucleotide)
or Silicon Oxygen 4 on both the right and left hand sides of the
templates. The Molecular DNA Bases each form a NucleoSide with the
Deoxyribose, and then a Base Pair with each adjacent Base.
DNA change is evident in the Binary ->Decimal conversion of the Alien
DNA Data, which = 4,294,966,110 DNA Sequences or links or base
pairs. This is a + 524,288 from the human DNA number which is
4,294,441,822. The human genome project currently estimates 3.5
Billion Base Pairs or links in human DNA. This is an interesting
fact because in 1974, and according to Frank Drake and quotes by
Carl Sagan, we sent our human DNA base pairs number indeed as about
4 billion - NOT 3 billion.
Again, in the Alien DNA, this number
actually increases from 4.2944 Billion which we sent to 4.2949
Billion. The point is, had we wanted or intended to send our DNA
Base Pairs or Nucleotides number as 3.5 Billion, we would have ….”
Why did Sagan et al. think (in 1974) that “our” DNA consists of
about 3 billion more base pairs (4,294,441,822) than the entire
genetic community at large acknowledged at the time? And, why did
they apparently choose to send that “erroneous” information into
space in their historic Arecibo Transmission?
Before we open that very significant can of worms, let’s complete
our tally of the differences between the Arecibo original and the
Chilbolton “answer glyph” ….
Below the line containing the distorted “gray alien” figure in the
glyph, lies the “solar system” code - also NOT in binary, but as a
simple line schematic. From right to left, the glyph version also
has a “sun” and two “inner worlds” (below). This is followed by
three elevated icons, indicating that three worlds in the sender’s
“solar system” are/were inhabited. One of these is, in fact, not a
“pixel planet” like the others but a blank space surrounded by four
black pixels at right angles.
Then, outside this elevated group, lie
two larger “twin” planets, followed by two smaller “twins.”
This is another controversial aspect of the “message in the wheat.”
Does this “alien solar system” represent a different star and
planets… “theirs?” Or, is it in fact, our own - but at a different
time… the past?!
Again, leaving aside for a moment the sticky question, “Who sent
this message - genuine extraterrestrials, or humans?,” we are
tending to believe at this point that the “altered solar system”
depicted in the glyph refers in fact to this one… but sometime
before 65 million years ago. There are several reasons for this
First, it would be extremely coincidental to also have two inner
planets, counterparts to Mercury and Venus, in our first “alien”
communication of another solar system. Recent studies of
60 extra solar systems have revealed, with only a couple of
quasi-exceptions, NONE which even begin to resemble our own. The
second reason for believing this is our own system, lies in the
“twin planets” in the glyph.
Since Pluto is thought by many
astronomers now to be either an escaped moon of Neptune or merely an
errant member of the so-called “Kuiper Belt” of outer solar system
asteroids (which at one time wandered too close to Neptune and has
been captured in a peculiar “resonance pattern” with that planet),
if the depiction of the system is from before this “escape/or
capture event,” then the remaining outer planets should correspond
to the two “twin outer planets” in this solar system - Uranus/Neptune, and Jupiter/Saturn.
And that is what we find in the
glyph: two pairs of outer ‘twins’ - minus an errant moon, “Pluto.”
A first impression of this schematic might be that these three
elevated “inhabited” planets in the glyph correspond to “Earth,”
“Mars” and “Jupiter.”
The four dark “pixels” at right angles to the
“Jupiter icon” would then correspond to
the Jovian moons - Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. The major problem with this initial
interpretation is the “missing Pluto,” and the outer “twins.”
An alternative interpretation is that this line represents this
solar system with additional, now missing members… including an
unknown fourth and fifth planet, the latter orbiting where the
current asteroid belt resides. As noted earlier, the timing of this
glyph is startling - and highly “suspicious.”
In our recently
published “Tides” paper, the original fourth and fifth planets have
been destroyed. This destruction then releases Mars (a satellite of
one of these former worlds) to become a new “fourth planet” on its
This identical scenario eerily seems to be depicted in the
Chilbolton glyph. Why? And… why NOW?
It is the explosion/collision of the fourth and fifth planets 65
million years ago which, in our model, result in the literal
vaporization of the bulk of these two planets, and the few orbiting
fragments we see as current asteroids. Of course, such a catastrophe
would have been devastating to any life/populations of these former
worlds (depicted in binary in the glyph as “upwards of 12 billion”).
In such a horrific scenario, these catastrophic events might have
triggered a desperate attempt to survive by sending refugees to
Earth (the only inhabitable planet remaining in the solar system).
So, is the glyph trying to tell us that an effort was made to
implant the dying populations genetic code in terrestrial life forms
here on Earth - thus accounting for the inference of “genetic
engineering” higher in the glyph… ultimately resulting in
Leaving aside further speculation on this delicate subject for a
moment, the final section of the glyph “response” appears - in place
of the Arecibo Telescope in the original - to be
crop formation from one year ago (below)… with some important
Again, the initial impression might be,
"this is our
technological means of making the glyphs… the counterpart to your
‘electromagnetic radio wave transmissions’ …”
But, we suspect
there’s more ….
If you compare the 2000 formation with the 2001 “schematic,” you’ll
note some significant alterations. In place of the central “dot and
double ring” formation in the 2000 Chilbolton crop circle (below),
the center in the “Arecibo Response” is another blank “pixel” - surrounded by four dark “pixels” at right angles… exactly like the
last “raised planet” in the solar system line above it.
Or, someone’s means of telling us that these two things somehow are
It has been our supposition for some time that the exquisite array
of real “crop glyphs” (denoted by altered molecular compounds,
physiological changes in the plants, the appearance of
radioactive isotopes, etc.) have been created by the technological
application of some form of
Hyperdimensional Physics to the living
This suspicion has been reinforced by peer-reviewed papers
scientifically documenting these mystifying phenomena, published by
among others, Dr.
W. C. Levengood (“Anatomical Anomalies in Crop
Formation Planets,” Physiologia Plantarum 92:356-363, 1994;
“Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation,”
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, N0 2, pp. 191-199, 1995),
Eltjo H. Haselhoff.
Our suspicion that these phenomenon were associated with
Hyperdimensional Physics began with our discovery of the same
geometric and mathematical information in the “crop glyphs,” as we
had decoded at Cydonia and published many years ago in “The
Monuments of Mars.”
This theoretical connection was backed up years
later by our discovery of the experimental work of physicist Bruce DePalma.
we have written elsewhere, HD Physics above all is a
physics of rotation. DePalma’s decades of remarkable experiments in
basic science specifically focused on “anomalous rotation”… and its
anomalous energy production.
But it was at a Tesla
Society Conference in the 1980’s where DePalma first publicly
described some remarkable rotational experiments involving living
systems - and where the potential “connection” between his earlier
work - and the production of “crop circles” - came together.
Correspondent Jerry Decker
describes DePalma’s fascinating
“DePalma also showed one of his original suspended gyroscopes which
showed a distinct variation
in the weight and movement of a spinning mass long before the
Japanese experiment which gained so much
publicity. Bruce told of one of his experiments which used grass as
a gravity detector [emphasis added].
built a mount above a rotating phonograph turntable which held a pie
pan with earth and grass seed. When the
turntable spun, it caused the grass to grow higher. A large weight
was added to the turntable, the grass grew
even higher as if the gravity in the area were somehow reduced.
“Another experiment using a similar technique was to mount the pie
pan holding the earth and grass
seed directly onto the spinning turntable.
“As the turntable spun, the grass grew higher than normal and
slightly in TOWARDS the axial shaft of
the turntable, this EVEN THOUGH THE PAN AND THE TURNTABLE WERE NOT
When a weighted mass was added to the spinning turntable and pie
pan, the grass grew at a
definitely increased angle towards the axial shaft of the spinning
mass ….”shaft of the spinning mass ….”
These experiments effectively demonstrated the remarkable effects of
simple rotation on living systems ... which began our own attempts
to model the effects of a potential Hyperdimensional technology on
biology ... a technology which (among other things) might be able to
create “crop glyphs.”
If DePalma’s experiments demonstrated the natural flow of some kind
of “unknown energy” into living plants, “gated” only through
rotation, what did the 300-foot wide, 2000 crop glyph (composed of
rotated wheat!) then signify? Was someone attempting to communicate
- in the virtual shadow of a large, terrestrial “electromagnetic
device” (the radio telescope at Chilbolton) - that the physics which
could create a genuine crop glyph was based on “their” equivalent of
And, why was the same glyph now
carefully placed at the bottom of the “Arecibo Response” in
precisely that same location in the field? And why did this small
replica appear to contain at its center exactly the same 90-degree
arrangements of “pixels” as the planet in the solar system line
Was the “sender” of this “Arecibo glyph” attempting to illustrate
schematically a deep connection between the Physics which can create
a genuine crop glyph… and the same physics which can cause entire
planets to explode?!
These are still in large part “educated guesses” - especially the
interpretation of the “solar system,” the potential communication of
“genetic engineering,” and the true nature of the “alien being”
depicted in the glyph.
At the very least, the sudden appearance of
these two remarkable formations in the field at Chilbolton - an
archaic, human-looking “face” deliberately reminding us of our own
evolutionary past… and Mars, followed by an eerie “response” to the
27-year-old Arecibo Message - finally seems to be a
not-so-subtle-attempt at direct communication of critical
information about US - as many of us have noted, a startling
departure from any previous “crop glyphs” of the past 26 years.
key question is, of course: from whom?
Thirty years ago, Eric Burgess and I were fortunate enough to be in
the right place, at the right time, to suggest to Carl that the
first spacecraft from Mankind destined to escape the solar system - Pioneer 10 - carry an historic “Message from Mankind” (below). Carl
kindly acknowledged that genesis in SCIENCE, March 1972.
later, Sagan and Frank Drake created the second “message” to be
deliberately sent into the Galaxy - the now famous Arecibo radio
transmission of 1974.
Then, in 2001 - 27 years after that original radio transmission - an “answer” suddenly appeared in a wheat field in central England …
Having had this experience with “interstellar messages,” it is my
opinion - based on a careful review of all the evidence presented
above - that the Chilbolton glyphs are NOT an “alien answer” to the
original Arecibo transmission of some 27 years ago (or, even to
their deliberate rebroadcast from a
Russian Radio Telescope facility
two years ago.
Colin Andrews’ first-hand report from Chilbolton
(above) certainly supports this theory. I also believe, however,
that they ARE an important, new “communication” from “someone” who
wishes us to consider (at this crucial moment in our history - 2001
…) some very new important information about the entire field of
“extraterrestrials” - and who has known what… and for how long.
So, if they weren’t made by “ETs” - who did create the Chilbolton
glyphs… a literal “stone’s throw” from a 1960’s British radio
facility, sitting on MOD (Ministry of Defense) grounds? Who indeed
…. How about… “someone in the black intelligence community”… also
equipped with HD technology, capable of making “genuine” crop
There are elements here which make me want to say “Folks, we’ve been
through this before: remember EQ Peg ..?”
In late October of 1998, a dramatic website suddenly appeared
- describing the ostensible discovery (by an anonymous “amateur radio
astronomer”) of a genuine SETI
radio signal coming from a faint
northern star called “EQ Pegasi.”
At first, even the BBC became
excited; about a month earlier, on September 17th, the major
non-profit California SETI research team - the SETI Institute’s
“Project Phoenix” - had reported a previous signal from this same
star, using borrowed time on the 1000-ft Arecibo telescope…
minutes however (according to the SETI Institute) it was concluded
that the September 17th Arecibo EQ Peg signal (at 1210 MHz - megahertz) was merely “interference.”
Now, a month later, EQ Peg was back!
In a couple days after the original October 26th posting, the story
leaked that the “amateur radio astronomer” was actually a British
engineer named “Paul Dore,” and that he worked for “a major British
aerospace company.” Over the next few days, a remarkable drama
played itself out electronically around the world - with some folks
believing the “Dore” discovery was real, others instantly dismissing
it as a hoax. Additional “amateur” confirmations were soon posted on
the “Dore website, only later to be removed because they proved to
be outright hoaxes - using stolen identities of real amateur
astronomers elsewhere in the world!
Meanwhile, “Dore” hinted in his
own e-mails that he was about to hold “a major press conference” on
November 4th, complete with two professional radio astronomers - who had apparently confirmed his observations “at a large European
radio telescope observatory.”
On November 3rd, a major non-anonymous research facility - the
Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA)
November 2nd observations of EQ Peg. Despite observations with the ATCA’s six 22-meter “dishes” of a whopping big signal (below) at
1451.8 MHz (megahertz), Dr. Ray Norris, who conducted the
observations, dismissed it as “mere satellite interference.”
based his dismissal on two facts: the signal was NOT on the original
frequency posted by “Dore” - 1453.1 MHz; and, the source picked up
by the ATCA array was “several degrees away from EQ Peg.” Since the
standard SETI paradigm is that “ET” will “phone from home ,..”, the
idea that the source could be moving and changing frequency (which
would imply it was close-by, and decelerating… toward Earth) was
On the same day (November 3rd), “Dore” suddenly cancelled his press
conference, claiming a,
“visit by British and American intelligence
authorities had convinced him that he had actually picked up a
secret satellite transmission ….”
Simultaneously, another Britisher - claiming to be the REAL “Paul Dore”
- popped up on the Internet,
vehemently claiming that the entire affair had been a hoax… with
HIS stolen identity ... and that we’d done it!!
This strange sequence of events then caused the SETI Institute’s
Seth Shostak (who had made the original September 17th erroneous EQ
Peg observations) to post a detailed timeline of the whole affair - including my small role (see below) - and his reasons for
concluding that the latest story involving EQ Pegasus
was in all
likelihood “merely a hoax.”
Alerted early on by the fact that one half of EQ Peg’s celestial
coordinates are “19 hours, 56 minutes” north Declination (“19.5”
anyone ..?), our take both privately and publicly (on Art Bell’s
“Coast to Coast” for instance) was that we all had been subject to
some kind of “extremely sophisticated ‘black’ agency intelligence
That possibly, a group of “insider” dissidents
wanted to get key information made public, either as a “test” of our
reactions to an imminent SETI contact… or as a means of “leaking”
real information on an imminent hoaxed “landing of an incoming
interstellar probe” -– had staged the entire “Dore Affair” simply to
“blow the cover” on the operation. This assessment was based, in
part, on independent “inside” information I had been given from a
DOD source months before, regarding just such a bizarre scenario.
After “Dore’s” sudden cancellation of the November 4th press
conference, which not only mentioned direct involvement of both
British and American intelligence agencies, but also made curious
references to “bad weather,” we posted a detailed “decoding” of his
rambling e-mail… with
some surprising results.
Remarkably, everyone who attempted to seriously probe into the EQ
Pegasus affair was either immediately tarred with the “hoax” brush
themselves, or promptly (after beginning their investigations …)
claimed it was simple “interference” and not worth scientifically
Both radio professionals and amateurs alike (the SETI
League, for instance) exhibited a remarkable lack of curiosity over
the details of this “detection” - even after ATCA’s independent
confirmation of “something” intriguing out there - and promptly
also refused all further discussion of the signal.
I even had a
trusted friend and senior radio astronomer (formerly under contract
to NASA on a major planetary mission), refuse further contact with
me… after he made a few exploratory phone calls to other colleagues
on the subject (I’d quietly asked him for information on any
additional NASA or professional radio astronomy confirmations of the EQ Peg signal, apart from Australia).
Then, just when it couldn’t get much weirder ... the entire “Dore”
website disappeared, replaced with a site containing the logo of the
National Security Agency… and MY initials at bottom! Shortly, that
page disappeared, to be promptly replaced with another… this one
sporting three upside down flags (universal symbols of “distress”)
with my initials still in place
(click below image).
It’s still there …
In the end, it seemed that we had all been involved in some kind of
bizarre “intelligence” operation. And, at least part of it seemed to
have specifically targeted Enterprise… But - to what end?
There are now unmistakable overtones of this infamous 1999 “EQ Peg
Affair”… surrounding the current 2001 Chilbolton glyphs.
First: the location is essentially at a government-contracted
facility - dealing specifically with “radio communications” and
with “weather”… both key subjects of the EQ Peg soap opera two
Second: the latest “alien communications in the crops”
once again involves the Arecibo Radio telescope, just as the whole
EQ Peg scenario actually began with Arecibo’s detection of a false
SETI signal in September of 1998 (for, if it had not been for the
initial Arecibo “false alarm,” it is highly doubtful that mainstream
media - including England’s own BBC - would have been so quick to
spread the second report of an EQ Peg SETI signal a month later …).
Third: Enterprise research once again seems to be involved
time, the appearance of these two glyphs pointing suggestively
toward Mars… and a previously unknown chapter in our solar system’s
history… a chapter we had just unveiled in our latest “Tides
Which - given the extraordinary optical sophistication and execution
of this communication in the wheat (below) - raises once again the
specter that, if this is NOT a bonafide “ET Chilbolton signal,” the
only other likely source (because of the need for high technology)
is once again our friends in the intelligence community ….
there have been rumors regarding the viability of such “exotic”
technologies under the
intel community’s control. What is lacking,
of course, is any proof (we’re awaiting results of crop sample
analyses of the Chilbolton glyphs - which would provide evidence of
such “high-energy” manipulation of the crop - even as we write …).
If it is “intel agents” (and NOT “ET”) - this, of course, brings us
back to the crucial question: why?
If the eerie similarity with “EQ Peg” (including the repetitious
accusation once again that Art Bell and I “somehow” hoaxed these
glyphs ourselves!) is accurate, our analysis leads now to two
possible motivations for an “intel community” involvement in the
glyph’s appearance - either separately or combined:
to seed important new information, regarding our own solar system
history and our evolution, into the general population - from a
“dissident” faction of that intel community. Information known only
to a few… and until now censored from the rest of us. The contents
and timing of the glyphs - immediately after publication of our new
Mars Tidal Model - would suggest that this “someone” wanted more
attention paid to the possibilities raised by that new model, to
underscore our own collective heritage on Mars.
to highlight the increasingly inconsistent events surrounding the
original “Arecibo Message” - “who’s” known “what”… “when.”
As independent researchers have poured over that original Message
and shared their insights across the Internet, it has become
increasingly obvious that “something” (though not what some have
claimed) was curiously wrong with its construction, 27 years ago.
These real “errors” now center on the representation in the binary
code of the number of nucleotides in the human genome, as it was
known and published by the scientific genetic community in 1974.
Remarkably, these fundamental “errors” have apparently gone
unrecognized and unchallenged for over a quarter of a century--
Until the “Arecibo Response” glyph suddenly appeared in the
There were, however, prior clues …
On the 25th Anniversary of the original Arecibo Transmission in
1999, one of the participants, Donald Campbell, now a Cornell
University professor of astronomy, but a research associate at the
Arecibo Observatory at the time, said “It was strictly a symbolic
event, to show that we could do it.”
earlier, Carl Sagan himself noted (only four years after the
“The Arecibo message was clearly not intended as
a serious attempt at interstellar communication, but rather as an
indication of the remarkable advances in terrestrial radio
technology [emphasis added].”
Not intended as a “serious attempt” …?
That’s not what everyone’s believed (certainly those involved in
SETI) for the last 27 years! In fact, many of those present at the
actual Ceremony on that afternoon of November 16, 1974 took the
event VERY seriously, according to Harold Craft, Cornell's current
vice president for services and facilities, who was also physically
at Arecibo in 1974.
"We translated the radio-frequency
message into a warbling audio tone that was broadcast over speakers
at the Ceremony.
When it started, much of the audience spontaneously
got up and walked out of the tent and gazed up at the telescope …"
And Frank Drake, Director of Arecibo when the Message was
transmitted, described the scene in “Murmurs of Earth” this way:
“… It took 169 seconds to send, and as the warbling of the message
changed to the steady tone that marked the end of the message, the
emotional impact on many of the audience was evident - there were
tears in many eyes and sighs to be heard. Brighter than the fires of
our own sun, the message was on its way …”
Because of this conviction, that the Real Era of Interstellar
Communications had begun that afternoon, in the wake of the Arecibo
Message an entire Paradigm was born - convincing professionals and
laymen alike around the world that if “extraterrestrials” existed,
their ONLY means of interstellar communication with us (or us with
them) would be via the “practical” long distance technology of
So, was the “Arecibo Response” at Chilbolton really designed to
reveal (through the world-wide attention it would bring) some
important “curious inconsistencies” regarding “Mankind’s first
Interstellar Radio Transmission?” And, was that in turn designed - after almost 30 years - to make us ask some hard questions about
the larger nature of “SETI” itself …?
The more researchers probe into the original Message (remember,
prompted solely by the appearance of its “answer” at Chilbolton),
the more we find that simply does not fit with a previously presumed
“careful, thoughtful composition” 27 years ago…
Take, for example,
the original scientific paper on the event written by “the staff” of
Arecibo (but actually by Drake and Sagan) - which has now come
under its own scrutiny, after 27 years.
This key description of the
historic experiment was duly published after the Transmission, in
1975, in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal, Icarus.
Carl Sagan not only was one of the paper’s authors ... he was also
the Editor of Icarus at the same time - a fact which shall become
highly significant in a moment.
In this Icarus paper, there is a familiar (by now!) reproduction of
the digital “ones” and “zeros” of the original binary Prime (below,
left). Right alongside it (below, center, in this slightly modified
version) was a black and white “cartoon” of the same “23 by 73
pictorial digital message.” But—
The “cartoon” - which had by then circulated around the world in
newspapers, television and magazine coverage -– contained several
fundamental errors. The most obvious, the central “spine” - denoting
the number of nucleotides in human DNA - was missing a critical “0”
(below, center). Compared to the actual binary signal that was
transmitted (below, left), this represented a specious increase in
the number of nucleotides in the human genome of over half a million
- a not insignificant error.
And, that transmitted binary nucleotide
number (below, left) - representing 4,294,966,110 base pairs - was
in and of itself also extremely curious… as you will see below.
Given the nature of the peer-review process
- let alone the fact
that one of the paper’s key authors was the journal’s Editor - such
a set of obvious “mistakes” is puzzling.
Oh, yes, and this wrong
“cartoon” (representing the binary message) was also printed in Icarus backwards… from the actual transmission sequence of the
original binary code (above, left and far right).
In light of Carl’s extensive biological background, these repeating
“errors” are unfathomable. Given his dual position as the Editor of
the major scientific journal which published the paper, they are
Sagan wrote his first published scientific paper, "Radiation and the
Origin of the Gene" (1957) while still an undergraduate. As
documented by one of his biographers,
Keay Davidson (“Carl Sagan: A
Life,” Davidson, Keay; 1999), Sagan completed
this important paper with guidance from Nobel Prize-winning
geneticist H.J. Muller of Indiana University, for whom Sagan worked
one summer as a lab assistant.
According to Davidson,
“The paper was
published in the journal Evolution, an auspicious venue for a
22-year-old researcher still a few years shy of his doctorate.”
Years later, in the “Message Construction and Transmission” section
of the Arecibo Icarus paper, the “staff” would note,
suggestions for improvements [to the Message] were given by a number
of people, but particularly by Carl Sagan. “
knew more about biology than any astronomer I'd ever met, and was
fast making a never-before-heard name for himself as an 'exobiologist.'"
Which makes these redundant “biological errors” in the Message even
more perplexing ….
Prior to his highly visible involvement in SETI research, Sagan had
been a vigorous proponent of actual interstellar travel and
visitations (as opposed to merely radio searches of deep space)!
1963, he wrote (and had published) a landmark paper on the subject
["Direct Contact among Galactic Civilizations by Relativistic
Interstellar Spaceflight," Planetary and Space Science 11 (1963):
485-98], which proposed sending humans to other stars and (long
Zecharia Sitchin) suggested similarly that aliens might have
actually visited the Earth sometime in the past.
In fact, this was
the first paper he sent to me (RCH), after I initially called him at
Harvard for some advice in 1964 …. It was one key reason why Eric
and I, years later, took our idea for a “message” on Pioneer 10 - destined to be the first physical emissary from Mankind into the
Galaxy –- to Carl, that historic afternoon in November 1971.
But there are other aspects of Sagan’s diversified background which
may give us important new perspectives on how these “Arecibo errors”
might have taken place: his now-documented early recruitment into
the so-called “black world” of high-level military space
According to Davidson’s biography:
“… a turning point in his [Sagan’s]
career came when he won the two-year Miller Fellowship at the
University of California at Berkeley, starting Sept 1, 1960.
Berkeley was perfect. It had many distinguished departments,
It thronged with the right people, especially Nobelists and future Nobelists:
E. O. Lawrence,
“In the fierce competition for the Miller Fellowship, Sagan needed
an ace, something truly distinctive, something that would make the
Miller judges sit up and take notice. So he decided to confide to
them information that he was required by federal law to keep secret.
He revealed his research at a Midwest institute on the remote
detection of lunar nuclear explosions. He must have known the risk
he was taking.
The information was classified; he had previously
cautioned Muller [his Nobel mentor at Indiana University] not to
discuss it with others. After all, the cold war was still ‘hot,’ and
Washington did not look kindly on the leaking of nuclear
information. But the risk was worth taking if it would get him to
California [emphasis added].
“The risk paid off. On March 7, 1960, William R. Dennes, chair of
the executive committee for the Miller Institute for Basic Research
in Science, informed Sagan that he had won the two-year fellowship
starting in September 1960 …” had by then circulated around the
From this we learn that Sagan,
a) was involved in high-level
classified research from his earliest academic years
apparently not hesitate to use this classified information - even at
the risk of breaking federal restrictions - if it would further his
c), he could apparently get away with it!
last point is crucial for what we’re going to explore now ….
Let’s think the “unthinkable” for a moment:
Given this history, and Sagan’s previously documented eager
enthusiasm for actual interstellar travel (as opposed to simply
sending signals …), were these “mistakes” in the 1974 Arecibo
transmission… actually carefully designed… and by Carl Sagan?! Did
Sagan subtly, deliberately - through his “improvements” - clandestinely place classified information in the Arecibo Message
(as well as its later publication in Icarus)?
Was this his own
“message to the future”… to ultimately reveal to History that he - Carl Sagan
- knew some extraordinary “secret,” not generally known
to the scientific community or public… a secret that, among other
things, one day would also demonstrate the ultimate hypocrisy of SETI?
Was Carl - long before the mysterious appearance of a sophisticated
“message” at Chilbolton in 2001 - trying to tell us something about
real communication with “aliens,” known only to a few in 1974… including Sagan?!
This question is not as outrageous as it might seem.
According to Drake:
“Carl knew I was constructing this [Arecibo] message, and since he
was very interested in it, he volunteered to be a proxy
extraterrestrial. So one day we went off to the campus faculty club
and had a long lunch while I silently laid out the rough drawing of
the message in front of him …. He had a few suggestions for
improvements, but the message worked.
I felt full of confidence this
time as the computers at Arecibo went to work constructing the
commands needed to control the radio transmitters [emphasis added]
From this first-hand account, by the then-Director of Arecibo
himself, we learn that Sagan was the last person Drake consulted… before coding the actual Message into the Observatory’s computers.
So, what were those last minute “improvements” that Carl suggested
at that luncheon?
I’d be willing to bet that one of them entailed the total number of
nucleotides in human DNA ….
If you carefully examine the central “human genome” section of the
original Message, you will count a little over 4 billion nucleotide
sequences coded there [by whom? Drake, when recently questioned on
this point (see below) said “from a standard biology text”]. Yet, in
1974, the commonly accepted number of these base pairs was “about 1
billion” (see also Francis Crick’s comments, below).
In fact, this
identical (wrong) number of base pairs is written in the text of the
Arecibo Icarus paper (click below images):
“… there are some four billion such pairs in
a single human chromosome.”
Here, then is an undeniable historical
record of “multiple, redundant errors” in Mankind’s First Deliberate
Interstellar Radio Message - in the original Transmission; in the
scientific paper’s authorship on that Message… and in its final
What was going on?!
Proof that this was not a “one-time error” came quickly… and from
A few months after the November transmission of the Message, Drake
and Sagan in May, 1975 co-authored
an article in Scientific American
titled “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In the
original magazine (as opposed to the web version) an illustration of
the famed Arecibo Message was used (below).
It carried the same
binary “mistake” - “four billion nucleotides in the human genome” - originally transmitted in November, 1974… and another “pictogram”
version of the same erroneous comparative diagram published in Icarus itself. The fascinating aspect of this diagram is that, while
the binary is clearly wrong (too many nucleotides for 1974)… the
black and white “pictogram” claiming to represent that binary
version is even “wronger!”
The digital version (bottom, right), as we have mentioned, encodes
4,294,441,822 base pairs in the human genome; the “cartoon” version
(bottom, left) curiously illustrates 4,294,966,110 base pairs… 524,288 more.
Four years later, in 1978, in an article in Smithsonian Magazine
Sagan would again personally reiterate this curious DNA mistake:
“… these molecular building blocks [in the Message] are put together to
form a long molecule of DNA comprising about four billion links in
the chain [emphasis added].”
Remarkably, in the same time frame (1978), Sagan also published the
previously mentioned “Murmurs of Earth” - the official history of
the creation of the “Voyager Records” (the spacecraft messages that
physically followed the first Pioneer Plaques out of the solar
system on Voyagers 1 and 2).
In Chapter 2, authored by Drake himself
and titled “The Foundations of the Voyager Record,” the former
Director of Arecibo would write about the nucleotides incorporated
in the Arecibo Message:
“That DNA is important to us is clear. Of equal importance, a large
number placed within the DNA molecule [in the Message] tells of the
number of nucleotide pairs, or code bits, in the typical DNA
And Drake illustrated this “large number” (which, significantly, he
didn’t describe further) with the same wrong (too large) binary
number used in the original Transmission and in the original Icarus
publication (below, left).
But, for the first time, it was at least
paired with a consistent black and white “pictogram” representing
that same wrong number (below, right).
A logical inference from this pattern of events is that Drake left
the biological aspects of the Message strictly up to Sagan (“He knew
more about biology than any astronomer I'd ever met ….”) - only
insisting on a consistency between the binary number transmitted and
the pictorial version printed in his Chapter.
In every other
representation of the Message controlled by Sagan, the preceding,
inexplicable inconsistency was faithfully maintained… for over six
So, what was Sagan up to?!
If these had simply been one-time “stupid mistakes,” either in the
original Message or in the original Icarus “Message paper,” you
would have thought that Sagan himself (as Editor!) would have
eventually caught them. Instead: he again reinforced that key wrong
number - “4 billion nucleotides in the human genome” - in repeated
publications that he authored.
And, he also repeatedly published - in Icarus and in all subsequent articles
- the bizarre,
contradictory transmitted binary data side-by-side with the wrong
“pictogram.” This forces us to consider the “unthinkable”: that the
erroneous encoding of “four billion nucleotides” in the original
Message, its repetition in the Icarus paper… and in every
subsequent book or article that Sagan wrote or edited about this
subject, from 1974 on… was NOT an “error”… but was part of a
carefully calculated plan ….
But to accomplish what?
In 2000, Celera Genomics (a private biotech corporation founded in
1998) finally announced at a major White House ceremony (along with
the 16-year government-funded “Human Genome Project”), preliminary
results for this long-awaited number:
from actual DNA sequencing,
there now appear to be approximately
3.2 billion nucleotides in
human DNA… and counting...
This, though far above the
official estimates in 1974 (see below) is only 75% of the number
that Sagan coded in the Arecibo transmission in 1974.
estimates now place it as high as 3.5 billion nucleotides… with a
still existing “twenty percent error.” So, the eventual totally
sequenced number of actual nucleotides in the human genome (they’re
not done yet!) could ultimately reach Carl’s “magic” number of 4.29
Twenty seven years after the Transmission, in the “Arecibo Response”
glyph appearing at Chilbolton in 2001, the “alien DNA” (above the
clearly “alien” figure) is pictured as being composed of “4.2949
billion base pairs”… only about half a million more than the
precise number Sagan digitally coded in the original Arecibo Message
But - the “alien” base pair number is exactly equal to the
conflicting “erroneous pictogram” that Sagan insisted on publishing
over and over and over again.
Obviously, he wanted us to pay special attention to that
contradiction… and the “alien DNA number”… which has now
mysteriously reappeared in an English wheat field, in 2001.
So, the crucial questions now become:
Why did Sagan deliberately send the wrong “human” base pair number
into space in 1974… a number fully 25 percent larger than that
recently-announced, but still remarkably close to the actual “3.2
billion base pairs in human DNA” and counting …?
And, why did he
illustrate that “erroneous” digital number (in 1974) with another,
even-more-in-error “pictogram” in Icarus and elsewhere?
why is the “Arecibo Response” glyph - appearing 27 years after all
this happened - now less than 0.0001 percent larger than the “human
base pair number” Sagan transmitted toward M-13 in 1974??!!
I mean, there are only two possible explanations for Carl’s
otherwise incomprehensible, repeated “mistakes” in this sequence of
events surrounding the Arecibo Message: outright stupidity… or… deliberate “covert actions” - based on key “inside information”
that Sagan deliberately wanted to call to our attention… at an
From personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that Carl was NOT
a stupid man. Which only leaves the “double agent” explanation ….
But, of course, this raises its own profound and extraordinary
Where did Carl acquire - over a quarter century ago
potentially accurate information on the human genome, when no one
else in the biological community (see below) could possible know
that precise number?
Did Sagan - as he had demonstrably done before
(when classified information was critical to his agenda) - deliberately use the Arecibo Ceremony as a clandestine means of
transmitting a secretly-known human DNA code into space, in hopes of
provoking a deliberate response from those out there who already
possessed that code??
And finally, was he trying to tell us that a
genuine “alien” genome - perhaps the most important to the human
species other than our own, because “they” have had the most to do
with our own evolution on this planet - was only slightly larger
than our own… in fact, closer to us than even chimpanzees or
And, if that’s the explanation… where did he get his “alien”
Can you say… Roswell?
Leaving aside Sagan’s precise “source” of this astonishing
information for a moment, Seth Shostak - Carl’s “heir apparent,” in
terms of carrying on the SETI “myth” - seems now to have taken a
page or two from Sagan’s “double agent” play book ….
Certainly, Shostak’s misleading public comments re the “Arecibo
Response” at Chilbolton, if not his own contradictory actions
regarding the original 1974 Message (see below), have only deepened
suspicions regarding SETI’s decades-long lack of serious scientific
interest in real “messages” ….
Evidencing not one whit of scientific curiosity in the striking,
inexplicable, geometric figures appearing literally around the world
for the last thirty or so years, Shostak instead has repeatedly (and
seriously) misstated the facts concerning the “crop glyph
phenomenon” in general, and the appearance of the Chilbolton glyphs
in particular - both in recent media interviews
and in print.
From vastly understating the total
number of mysterious glyphs world-wide, to completely disregarding
the presence of highly significant and completely inexplicable
“molecular markers” and “anatomical anomalies” in the majority of
“real” circles - evidence for the application of some type of high
technology, “high-energy phenomenon” to the standing crop in the
process of the creation of the glyphs - Shostak has maintained the illusion that ALL are
“simple hoaxes,” casually done by “college kids.”
And in so doing,
he has attempted to perpetuate the myth - successfully launched at Arecibo 27 years ago
- that the ONLY means of valid communication
with another intelligence is through
Yet, Dr. Shostak - responsible for the SETI Institute’s “public
outreach” program - has curiously perpetuated the identical errors
in his “debunking” article on Chilbolton that Carl Sagan allowed in
Icarus 26 years ago; in his recent rote “defense” of the current
radio SETI paradigm, combined with his casually dismissive
commentary on the Chilbolton glyphs, Shostak (for some reason)
ironically chose the same, erroneous “four billion nucleotides” (and
the “alien” version at that!) in the backwards “cartoon” that Sagan
used so many years before (below).
Is Dr. Shostak trying to send us his own “message?”
Further, when informed of this
error personally by Dustin Brand (in a recent phone conversation), Shostak has done nothing to remove the erroneous “cartoon”
he is still representing on the SETI website as the real Arecibo
transmission of 27 years ago.
In fact, a couple days after his
conversation with Brand, Shostak authorized another article on the
SETI website, featuring again the same mistaken, “alien” visual
version of the 1974 Transmission.
Frank Drake is the current Chairman of the Board of the Shostak’s
SETI Institute. When Brand attempted to contact Drake directly, to
ask him some key questions about these curious “inconsistencies” in
the original Message, Drake did not respond. Instead, he had Shostak
act as a go-between.
When asked how Drake (or whomever) had arrived
at the “four billion nucleotides” transmitted in the original Arecibo Message, this was when Shostak said Drake simply told him,
“We consulted a standard biology reference on the subject.”
The problem is… there were no “standard biology texts” from this
time frame, which specifically assigned “4 billion nucleotides” to
the human genome!
For, in 1962, James Watson, Francis Crick (and their research
associate, Maurice Wilkins), shared the Nobel Prize for the
discovery of the precise nucleotide structure of DNA.
In a press
interview after his acceptance speech in Stockholm, one of these
“fathers” of DNA, Francis Crick himself, explained:
“DNA is a polymer. That is to say it has a regular, repeating
backbone with side groups called ‘bases’ projecting at regular
intervals. However all the bases are not the same, there are four
kinds of them and the genetic information is conveyed by the precise
order of the different sorts of bases along the DNA.
In other words,
the genetic message is written in a language of four letters.
Incidentally, the total length of the message for man is not short,
it is probably more than
a thousand million letters long [emphasis
In 1968 - less than six years before the Arecibo
Message was designed - James Watson, in his classic work describing his and
Crick’s discovery of DNA,
“The Double Helix,” reiterated this same
number ... “a thousand million (a US billion) ….”
Given these clearly authoritative references, it has been a real
mystery trying to identify what “standard DNA reference” - with the
much higher number that was Transmitted - Drake could be
Curiously, six years after the Transmission, in 1980, Sagan himself
would publish (in a book called “Cosmos” - from his immensely
popular PBS TV series of the same name) a new number for this
crucial aspect of human DNA.
In Chapter 2 of “Cosmos,”
suddenly “recant” his previous assertion regarding the “four billion
base pairs” in the human genome, this time clearly agreeing with Crick’s statement in 1962:
“Human DNA is a ladder… a billion nucleotides long …”
Later on the same page, however, he would carefully blur the issue,
“… This major influence on the function of the blood
striking as to be readily apparent in photographs of red blood cells
- is the result of a change in a single nucleotide out of the ten
billion in the DNA of a typical human cell [emphasis added].”
Clearly, he was not only now providing a conservative range of
possibilities (as opposed to the two precise numbers he had
previously published), Sagan was now attempting to camouflage his
previous, too-accurate assertions.
This raises the question: “who”
finally tumbled to what he had been doing for the previous six
years, forcing him to ultimately appear to support the
“conventional” genetic view …?
For, later in the same volume, Sagan
would reproduce another version of the Arecibo “cartoon” - this one
in color, but without the accompanying binary data - and, for the
first time, this one would be the correct representation of the
binary message actually transmitted…
the one that now appears on
the official Cornell University website.
The one that Frank Drake
for some reason still refuses to exchange for the erroneous “alien”
version on the current SETI website ….
It would certainly appear, from all this, that the creators of the
“Arecibo Response” glyph at Chilbolton - whoever they may be - had
a well-developed sense of humor… in both their choice of a human
interstellar communication to finally “answer” (Sagan’s mysterious
“hidden Arecibo Message”)… as well as in their location for
carrying it out: in the virtual shadow of an example of the REAL
quarter-century “hoax” for practical interstellar communications - a
“primitive” terrestrial radio telescope!
One more item:
The original Arecibo Message took only three minutes to transmit
towards the globular star cluster, M-13 - a collection of over
300,000 stars located about 24,000 light years away in the
constellation of “Hercules.”
With intense scrutiny now focused on
the contents of that message, and the discovery that some kind of
“hidden agenda” apparently went into its construction (What did Sagan say, “… clearly not intended as a serious attempt at
interstellar communication …”?), it’s only logical to also ask “What
about the destination?
How was M-13 chosen as the target for this
A little research turned up the fact (again,
from Sagan himself)
that the Message was transmitted on the afternoon of November 16,
1974. The ostensible reason for choosing M-13 was that it would pass
almost directly overhead at that time of year, at the time of the
planned Arecibo Telescope “upgrading and resurfacing Ceremony” (the
ostensible reason for the Transmission in the first place).
Arecibo’s “dish” is a 1000-foot diameter spherical metal reflector,
lying fixed across a water-carved limestone valley (a “karst”) in
northern Puerto Rico. Being immobile, it can only view the sky
passing almost directly overhead (below).
Observations of (or
transmissions to) stars and other objects from Arecibo depend on the
Earth’s rotation to bring its targets into view across the span of
one full day.
Specific experiments thus have to be timed for a brief
two-hour period (plus or minus ~20 degrees) out of every 24 hours - when these objects pass close to the zenith “pointing” of the
movable “feed” of the otherwise fixed reflector.
A bit of further research indicated that, beginning at 12:56 PM on
November 16, 1974, for two brief moments… M-13 stood precisely 19.5
degrees away from the zenith of the Arecibo Telescope (below) ….
between, starting a few minutes later, from 1:11 PM to 1:13 PM local
time, Regulus - the “Heart of the Lion” in the constellation of Leo,
symbolizing Mars and Horus - was just setting in the West.
Thus, the Arecibo Ceremony itself (and the hurriedly created and
transmitted “Message from Mankind”) was, in hindsight, obviously
carefully carried out in direct compliance with the ancient Egyptian
rituals that we’ve discovered
in so many other space activities...
between 12:56 and 1:13 PM, that key afternoon.
With its Ritual transmission toward
M-13 (Messier 13 - M13, NGC
6205 - also called the 'Great globular cluster in Hercules')… at 13:13 that afternoon
(on a string of “Hyperdimensional 13’s …”), the “facade of SETI” was
No wonder there were “hidden messages” encoded in its contents: it
was obviously designed from the beginning as another aspect of the
Ritual - to successfully “capture” the hearts and minds of anyone
interested in true interstellar conversations… as the ONLY
“practical” (but totally controllable) means of Mankind’s ultimate
“connection with the stars“….
Which Sagan (and now, someone at Chilbolton) obviously thought
should ultimate be exposed ….
Finally, we’ve noticed something else that’s interesting: the first
“formal” Message actually delivered into space was on Pioneer 10,
launched in the Spring of 1972. A few months later - in the first
growing season after launch - the first modern crop circles
began to appear in fields across the British Isles ….
succeeding decades - and now in over 70 countries around the world - they have escalated into the thousands, and in a dazzling array
of increasing mathematical, geometric, and esthetic complexity and
Until..., the Chilbolton glyphs appeared
- and completely shattered all
preceding patterns for such “messages.”
Shortly after the successful launching of the first interstellar
Message that Eric and I suggested (aboard Pioneer 10), Carl
published “The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspecive” in
In it he wrote,
“The greater significance of the Pioneer 10 Plaque is not as a
message to out there; it is as a message to back here [emphasis
And later, he would add:
“In the deepest sense, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence
is a search for ourselves [emphasis added]."
It seems he meant that… literally.
In the short run, it does not matter whether the Chilbolton glyphs
are “genuine” extraterrestrial communication… or… the product of
an extremely sophisticated “intelligence agency operation” using the
same physics (below).
It’s 2001… and “someone” is obviously
attempting to communicate “something” extremely important… on the
The Message - in this unfolding year of the “awakening” of Humankind
- is truly ramping up.