The 'making of' a cover-up?
If it really were all that easy to solve the complexities of the logistics involved
of making this stunning, mega-sized and very accurate work of art during a short
6 hour summer night, as claimed by "xld-sign" with a bunch of inexperienced folks
as insinuated in the BNN video, why then is it so hard for those claiming they
created this CC to provide some actual convincing evidence they did so?
Why wouldn't the "crop circle artists" want to show off to the world,
tell about their historic unprecedented achievement?
Claimant "xld-sign" is never mentioned during the 6 minute BNN "movie"
that was broadcast on Dutch national TV?
Broadcast company BNN has made it clear in this video they were not involved with
the "initiative" of creating the Butterfly CC, all they state/claim is that they
were merely present just to shoot some footage featuring "Geraldine".
Meaning, BNN has officially retracted a previous unconfirmed rumour
of their alleged involvement.
So, going by the revelations of this stunning BNN reportage, all we know now
is that a guy named "Ron" claims he created this CC, "xld-sign" is no longer mentioned,
yet we have not been provided with any actual convincing footage, we have not seen
a single image of the process of creation nor of any aspect of the logistics involved.
"xld-sign" has not posted nor mentioned the BNN broadcast at their website.
A segment of the CC establishment continues to ignore the many odd facts
surrounding the "xld-sign" claim, in particular the complete absence of actual
solid evidence that would show/prove how this Butterfly CC was made.
Crop Circle Connector website has never explicitly denied nor confirmed
the authenticity of the Human Butterfly CC.
They have mentioned the Human Butterfly CC at their "rumours" section,
adding a link to the "xld-sign" website where no facts can be found and
a link to a Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl" where neither any facts can be found.
Another link was added to an image gallery no longer available online which contained
the infamous group-shot of the alleged "artists" posing in front of the camera.
The infamous group-shot has never been posted at the "xld-sign" website
nor did they ever add a link to this now no longer available image gallery.
The 2009 CC year is now archived at CCC and only accessible to paying members.
As mentioned earlier, researcher Colin Andrews has hailed the 6 minutes of BNN bliss
as the anticipated "movie" that would prove the Butterfly CC to be man-made.
Of interest here is the highly peculiar fact that Dutch crop circle organization "DCCA"
has been supporting and promoting the "xld-sign" claim, yet, without ever offering
a reasonable indication for their motivation to do so.
- "DCCA" has never posted any photographs nor any other facts/details
as to show that the Human Butterfly CC would have been created by "xld-sign".
- "DCCA" has never published any statement nor facts at their website
as to point out why they support the unsubstantiated "xld-sign" claim.
- All "DCCA" has ever offered at their website is a single direct link
to Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl", merely redirecting the inquiring visitors
in search for facts/details to rumours posted at a Dutch fringe-board.
At the Dutch fringe board "Niburu.nl" it is implied that "DCCA" associates
are the "specialists" who have established that the Butterfly CC would be man-made.
Initially, Peter Vanlaerhoven and Sjaak Damen, two "DCCA" associates, stated that they
had talked to the land-owner who allegedly explained to them being involved and that
the creation of the Butterfly CC would be part of an anniversary related land-art project.
The "land-owner/land-art project" rumour has turned out to be false
and has in fact later been retracted by "xld-sign" associate Manfred Koeleman.
It is indeed the only statement ever made by "xld-sign" since August 7th 2009
and when considering who is the actual land-owner it becomes clear why "xld-sign"
had to make this statement and why they had to retract this false rumour.
Landowner KMWP is closely associated with Dutch government, the fields they own
are used for advanced agricultural scientific research, they have never stated
to be involved with the Butterfly CC nor with any "crop circle artists".
It is clear that land-owner KMWP, bearing a Royal honorary name
("K" in KMWP means Koninklijk = Royal), did not much feel like getting
caught up in any 'rumour games' and controversy relating to crop circles.
Last year, while discussing the Butterfly CC controversy, I have pointed
out to the dubious nature of the "land-owner/land-art project" rumour
and more detailed information can be found at the following links:
None of these rumours were ever posted at the "xld-sign" website,
neither were they retracted at their website, the stage of the 'rumour game'
is Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl" in association with the 'CC researchers' of "DCCA".
You can still read these statements at link below, it is in Dutch so you may need
to use google translate. This page at Dutch fringe forum "niburu.nl" is the
one and only source of all rumours relating to the "xld-sign" claim.
Bottom-line, all the "specialism" DCCA has ever offered since August 7th 2009 relating to
researching the Butterfly CC is posting a mere single direct link to the "Niburu.nl" fringe forum
without providing any information nor any reasonable explanation/motivation why they do so.
The English section of the "DCCA" website no longer mentions the Butterfly CC,
any Dutch visitors are merely redirected to the "Niburu.nl" fringe forum.
More info about DCCA and their research:
Another Dutch crop circle organization, DCCCS, has never posted any statements
regarding the Butterfly CC, they have neither confirmed nor denied its authenticity.
The Human Butterfly CC was one of many rather graphical CCs which
have appeared during the 2009 CC year like the Dragonfly, the Jellyfish,
the Phoenix bird, the Owl, just to name a few.
Is it all that reasonable to consider the Human Butterfly to be
"too good to be true" in the light of the stunning 2009 CC year?
Is it reasonable to ignore the facts relating to a highly dubious
and so far unsubstantiated "xld-sign" claim?
Is it reasonable to ignore the dubious nature of the entirely unconvincing
BNN footage in which "xld-sign" is not even being mentioned?
My intention is not to prove the authenticity of the Human Butterfly CC.
I don't think anyone can prove the authenticity of any particular CC,
all we can do is take a close look at the facts surrounding a case
and draw our own private conclusions.
It seems only few people realize the tremendous size of the Human Butterfly CC,
the accuracy in the way it is laid out in a field of wheat, the extremely complicated
task of solving and executing the logistic issues involved, in particular, when considering
the "xld-sign" claim of having created this very accurate work of art during a short 6 hour night.
Anyone looking at the facts of this case will have to conclude
that the "xld-sign" claim does not hold any water.
Besides "xld-sign" no one else has made any claims.
The controversy surrounding the Butterfly CC points out that
there seems to be a massive interest to keep the public uninformed
about the many unanswered questions that surround this case
which point out that we are dealing with a CC like most others
in the sense that the origin and method of creation is unknown.
Some people will continue to argue that this CC has to be man-made
and that it was created to further some unspecified agenda.
I don't see how any agenda is being furthered when all the talking-heads
and "specialists" have unanimously agreed this Butterfly CC is man-made,
regardless the absence of any facts pointing out to this,
and the Butterfly continues to be ignored into oblivion?
I do see how an agenda is being furthered when considering
the Human Butterfly a genuine CC and that the agenda involved
is to keep it low-profile by means of spreading false rumours and
promoting an utterly dubious and unsubstantiated "man-made" claim.