|
 STUART DIKE/MARK
FUSSELL |
FURTHER STATEMENT FROM 'SC' JOURNAL
In response to recent comments about the opinions of SC journal team members regarding the
continuing Oliver's Castle 'confession' debate:
John Sayer has a strange talent for taking apart the literary construction of any written
piece to the bare bones and the point of abstraction. In this tradition, he has chosen to
deconstruct our recent statement from the 'SC team' that we have never corporately
supported the validity of the OCV, pointing out the inherent contradiction of Michael
Glickman, who has openly claimed it as real, being a part of that team. If John is
concerned about the amount of "personal attacks" in cerealogy, he might like to
consider his own actions more carefully.
To clarify then: with several people working closely together, if one of those people
voices an opinion, does this therefore reflect the collective opinion of the whole? No.
Not unless a statement to that effect is made on behalf of the team. So, if Michael's
comments on the OCV had been signed 'The SC Team', there would be a valid case for saying
we corporately supported the opinions expressed. However, Michael has always signed his
OCV views as being his own - anything by 'The SC Team' and any other individual under that
banner besides Michael has indeed always 'sat on the fence'. So, yes, there was a very
minor contradiction in our recent statement but most understood it quite clearly.
As for Andy Thomas' article in issue five of 'Sightings' magazine, printed shortly after
the initial news on the OCV broke, we refer John and other web readers to Andy's published
reply (which John seems to have forgotten) to a letter from John himself printed in a
later issue, part of which read as follows:
"John Sayer's letter in the last issue voicing concerns about my mention of the
controversial alleged video of a crop circle forming, relates to my earlier article in
issue 5 of 'Sightings'.
A more balanced view, which addressed some of the negative opinions on the footage was
given in my further article in issue 6. When I made my original comments, the story had
just broken and I simply reported the information available, most of which had been
released by researcher Colin Andrews, who most certainly gave the impression in his press
releases that he believed the footage was genuine, and there was no reason then to doubt
this. This had nothing to do with attempting to undermine anyone's "reputation"
as Mr Sayer suggests. When Andrews later came out against the video, I pointed out his
revised views in my second piece."
The headline on the cover about "Startling new evidence on the crop circle
phenomenon" did a) not necessarily refer to the OCV (which made up only a tiny part
of the 'Fields of Dreams' article), and b) was made up by the 'Sightings' editorial team
and not Andy Thomas who was never offered it for approval. Cover headlines are not
generally written by freelance contributors.
As for Colin Andrews suggesting in his recent March 5th statement that anyone who might
have supported the genuineness of the OCV is part of some "larger plan" - for
which, read "conspiracy", he might like to remember his part in starting all
this (he faxed SC and many others the original news of the OCV in 1996). By the time he
realised he might have been caught out by a possible hoax it was too late to retrieve
some of the more sensationalist claims he originally made, hence their legacy in the
original 'Sightings' article. By so vigorously opposing the OCV since, is he now implying
we should never believe anything he says at the time? Just because he changed his mind so
quickly, it seems a bit much to start accusing others of conspiracy. As for the alleged
significance of "well-dressed men" stalking Colin around Las Vegas toilets, the
less said the better.
Frankly, the whole OCV business has gone on so long now, the truth is no-one at SC besides
Michael Glickman, who is quite entitled to his views, cares one way or the other about its
authenticity these days. It's the deliberate misrepresentation of our views we feel
compelled to correct.
THE SC TEAM
