Chibolton 2001 - Sophisticated Hoax?
in the posted article, dr. bruce cornet raises some interesting points to
suggest that the chibolton 20001 crop message could be from advanced hoaxers
instead of a true et intelligence. now - after nearly everyone has bit into
this hook, line and sinker and the diagram itself has earned a solid,
exalted presence on ab's homepage.
remember a few days ago when i stated that i felt this whole thing was a
hoax, and everyone was so surprised? since then i've heard richard several
times on art bell and started to feel pretty convinced - okay, really
convinced. however, "all that glitters ain't gold" and there was a definite
aspect to this that felt as if it were an elaborate setup to discredit our
entire field. does the technology exist in blk prjcts to create something
like this? it certainly appears so. is it as perfected as the et version?
probably not - which might explain why certain lines inside seemed to lack
the sharpness that we've seen in so many other formations. would those in
such prjcts have interest and access to morton's writings that show the 2000
formation being connected to the mars face? yes - of course they monitor
things like that.
the three things that concerned me the most were:
1. the inconsistencies in the quality of the outer lines on the formations.
2. the apparent silliness of the hyper-large grey-style head on the
"response glyph," as well as the lack of a pixel for a neck, despite what
most people later inserted on their own when reconstructing it.
3. the overly "hard angular" appearance to the "new" dna strand, which was
featured only on the left. (many inferred that this indicated a
triple-strand dna, and i felt there could be some validity to that - i've
done a lot of research and printed things out today and will bind it all
into a book next.)
so when all the dust settles, this may have been yet another very elaborate
attempt to "reel everyone in and then deal the death blow." what we have
here from dr. cornet might be the "death blow" part... and frankly it makes
me glad that i didn't make public statements in writing or on ab before this
on the one hand he raises some good points. on the other hand, i know that
michael lawrence morton has been trying for a long time to get cornet to
re-post his original analysis of a mars face analog, badly degraded, that
seemed to appear in upstate new york. morton had found solid connections
between the archeo-matrix grid values between the ny face and the mars face.
cornet's refusal to re-post this data was on the grounds that he was "trying
to get in good" with people in nasa and so forth and therefore didn't want
to have it posted anymore. so, like colin andrews who was sponsored by the
rockefellers and subsequently claimed that most crop circles are hoaxes,
there may be more here than meets the eye.
peace be with you -