What has happened to the National Geographic?

In the spring of 2007 I was approached by North One Television to appear in a programme they were producing on behalf of the National Geographic called 'I Didn't Know That'. One of the subjects to be investigated was crop circles. I made careful enquiries as to the content of this programme and their approach to this subject. I was told they were interested in the scientific aspect and the work I had conducted in this area.

I also asked if I was going to be the only person interviewed and was told that I was the only person. As I have grown increasingly sceptical about the motives behind so called `scientifically` based programmes` I felt it was necessary to obtain this assurance.

The interview was conducted in theYatesbury barley formation, nr Avebury Trusloe. Not long after I questioned North One Television about a crop formation that had appeared in an obscure corner of a field near Yatesbury. They admitted that they had commissioned this circle to be made.

Clearly I was not the only person to be interviewed.

Worse still was to come when I was sent the CD of the programme. National Geographical CD, © NGC Network LLC. Produced by North One Television Midlands. (After it had been released and shown to the public).

In the Introduction we are told that this programme is going to reveal surprising facts that are guaranteed to make you say `I didn't know that .` We are then introduced to two industrial scientists Richard Ambrose and Johnny Phillips `who don't mind getting their hands dirty when it comes to establishing the facts`.

There were three trailers during the programme; the first one says `strange goings on the night. What really creates crop circles? And then proceeds to show men in the field making the commissioned man made formation.

The second trailer titled `Still to come` asks `Are aliens the designers of these amazing crop circles?` shows two stills of the 22 June 2006 Lurkley Hill, Nr Lockeridge and the 23 June 2006 Windmill Hill circle. It also shows men in dark clothes lurking in the darkness in a field and hedgerow thus giving the unmistakable impression of human involvement.

The third trailer shows us Richard Ambrose putting forward several theories, some fairly ridiculous as to the origin of crop circles. Following this I come on and speak for 42 seconds. Using clever photography it then shows me distorted and looking an idiot.

No mention was made of my research.

Next we see John Lundberg, Will Russell and Robert Irving assembling in the field of wheat with their planks and a 100 metre surveyors measuring tape; the tools they need to construct the circle.

To add insult to injury, presenter Richard Ambrose then joins the trio and proceeds to take part in stomping down the wheat. All this takes approx: 2 and a half minutes of viewing time.

When I queried why one the trailers had shown the commissioned circle being made I was told `That is what the public wants to see`.

I would suggest that the general public wants to hear the truth and that the announcement at the beginning of the film that they were going to `establish the facts` was just as dishonourable and dishonest as the producers had been to me. We all know that man made formations do exist, but why do programme producers run scared of revealing the scientific facts and figures that show beyond all doubt that a real phenomenon exists. Of what are they frightened or what is their hidden agenda for concealing this information?

I believe I was misled into appearing in a programme that not only was heavily weighted in favour of the man made element but was also disinterested in presenting the public with any scientific research results.

There was a time when the programmes produced by or for the National Geographic were programmes of scientific integrity and fact. They were a scion of truth. Sadly this is no longer the case, they are as bad as the worst tabloids pandering to what they consider the public wants to see and hear. They are no longer to be trusted with the truth.

Important Notification

Janet Ossebaard ~ The Evidence

May 2010

I recently received a copy of Ossebaard’s new book `The Evidence` in which she discusses the evidence behind the crop circles.

Earlier in the year she had written to me saying she had read all my copyright articles on my web site and would like to write up my research. On reflection I wrote saying that I did not feel the time was right and that I would write it up myself when I considered this to be appropriate. I also wrote asking her to send me copy prior to publication of anything she wrote that might relate to my research. She promised to do so.

This never happened.

Ossebaard’s reason for not sending copy as promised: `I was too busy, I was too stressed` is totally inadequate, unprofessional and an abuse of my trust.
On reading the published book, I saw that an entire chapter `Effects on People` (p.66-87) had been devoted to the research I have conducted over the past 20 years. To my dismay the many excerpts from my articles when read in her edited form, do not give an adequate account of proceedings.  Taking this problem of context together with the numerous inconsistencies and errors found throughout this chapter, it is clear that Ossebaard  is not competent to evaluate my research.

Examples:
On  p 84 she writes: “Could it be that crop circle visitors who suffer from Parkinson’s experience a certain degree of healing due to the increased dopamine production in the brain?”  Firstly, to give the impression that any such healing might take place is the worst sort of tabloid sensationalist journalism and gives false hope to desperate people. Secondly I adamantly refute this conclusion, since it is based on an inaccurate analysis of my research: in 20 years there has only been one single case reported where the person experienced a very temporary relief from their condition. There have been NO cases of Parkinson sufferers experiencing any degree of actual healing as a result of visiting a crop circle.

In her chapter `Furher Research’ ((Further?)  she discussed the research I organise on a yearly basis. In the piece `ESR-measurements: Electrical Skin Resistance` she gives the false impression that the process is similar to a lie detector test. This is not the case, see the description in `Best system V Lie Detector Tests. http://cropcircles.lucypringle.co.uk/articles/passage/ .

As regards any other matter Ossebaard discusses in this book the reader would be well  advised to verify the original research material, for while Ossebaard is entitled to her own opinions, her behaviour in my case demonstrates that she knew perfectly well that I would take a dim view of her particular edit of my material and ask for substantial rewrites.  Her actions also demonstrate that she does not hold her readership in high regard, since she is apparently happy to supply crop circle researchers with highly selective data.  In fact, given her attitude towards my research material, doubt must surely be cast on the validity of the remaining material in this book?