I cannot tell you who I am or for whom I work because to do so would violate certain confidentiality agreements and I would face reprisal, but what I tell you is true. I worked for an organization for which I analyzed crop circles. When I was brought into the project, it had already been running for a number of years.

Apparently since the early years of responding to crop circles, the agency had ascertained that certain crop circles displayed characteristics that could easily be used for validation. Certain crop circles were bent at the base and left unbroken. The cellular structure of the base of the stocks had been altered, appearing slightly melted. The stalks were bent so that they lay at different angles, with stalks that originated beside each other on the ground lying in the crop circle at varying angles to each other. Elevated levels of radiation were also found. These crop circles were judged to be "genuine," although we did not understand what was their "genuine" signification. Other crop circles were judged to be "hoaxes." In such cases, the bases of the stalks were often broken, no elevated radiation levels were found, and the stalks lay broken on the ground in separate bunches. In such cases, an individual or group of individuals was believed to have stood on the crops to flatten them, each step flattening the stalks in the same direction. As a result of these differences, crop circles could easily be categorized as hoaxes or genuine. A cursory examination of the field and the base of the stalks would suffice. A simple Geiger counter reading typically could be used by itself to distinguish between the two types. Even in photographs of crop circles in obscure locations, an experienced examiner could see whether the stalks were flattened in bunches by human feet or were flattened at odd angles in a swirl pattern. Whether the crop circle was genuine or a hoax, it consistently exhibited all of the symptoms of its type. A crop circle was never found lying in bunches but with bent rather than broken bases and elevated radiation. In sum, genuine and hoaxed crop circled were two discreet and easily differentiated groups.

A number of theories circulated to explain the genuine crop circles, but the project had not formally adopted any as conclusive. Of course, one was that experimental planes or extraterrestrial spacecraft had landed in the crops, using the flat fields as landing strips. This theory was supported by the fact that lights were sometimes seen in the skies over fields during the nights in which genuine crop circles had appeared. This theory necessitated that these vehicles landed and took off vertically, creating an impression on a field like a stamp. It had been suggested that the configuration of these vehicles and their landing systems radiated heat that melted the base of the stalks, leaving a residual trace of radiation. It had been further suggested that fans or blades beneath the crafts created the swirl effect found in the pattern of the stalks laying on the ground, and that this system allowed the crafts to hover slightly above the stalks, leaving them on the surface of the soil instead of compressed into it, as would have been the case with an actual landing of a presumably heavy vehicle upon the ground. This seemed the most likely theory of causation, since it posed a hypothesis for each of the elements of the genuine crop circle. This theory, however, failed to explain the origin of these vehicles or the purpose of the often rural landings.

Other theories suggested that the genuine crop circles were produced naturally, perhaps due to electromagnetic fields within the planet's crust. The genuine crop circles were hypothesized to be a venting of such energies, melting the base of the stalks from beneath the ground and causing them to droop over rather than be crushed from above. The swirl pattern might be explained by the shifting nature of the electromagnetic fields themselves, perhaps tied to the planet's rotation. Lights in the sky might more easily be explained as a byproduct of such venting, not unlike the Aurora Borealis, rather than clandestine vehicles signaling their secret arrivals. The complex geometries of certain genuine crop circles was more difficult to explain by this theory, but this theory hypothesized that they were naturally occurring patterns reflective of subterranean stresses. That genuine crop circles were a recent phenomenon might be explained if modern pollution had somehow affected these subterranean fields. While intriguing, this theory increasingly seemed less likely because the precision of the genuine crop circles seemed impossible due to natural processes.

The initial genuine crop circles had been relatively simple, but by the time I began working with them, there was a large database of genuine crop circles ranging from a simple circle to elaborate designs of multiples circles, typically lying in straight lines, sometimes with straight bars on their side or running from one of the circles in the design to a smaller, "satellite" circle. Occasionally, smaller circles appeared as accents in geometrically precise distances around the main design. Each genuine crop circle had its design mapped and fed into a database, which maintained the outline of each genuine crop circle, from the most simple to the most complex, of which our project was aware. The scale of these designs was also determined to the best of our ability so that various crop circles could be laid over others on the computer screen. It was well-known, at least by the time I arrived, that certain designs were identical. A crop circle in Ireland might match one in Australia and one in China, both in terms of geometric design and also the precise measurements of that design. I have not seen this information in the popular press, but it was well-known by those with access to such a database.

What was more interesting was that certain of the more elaborate genuine crop circles contained elements that were duplicated precisely in other genuine crop circles. This, by itself, might not surprise: obviously, the simple circle would be seen in more elaborate designs. What made this surprising was that the exact dimensions of an element such as a circle would be duplicated as a part of a larger design. This became self-evident when one saw the computerized outlines of certain designs laid over others. One could rotate a design and find that it or a portion of it matched precisely a portion of another design. Eventually, a database was constructed of recurring elements, cross-indexed to the designs in which they occurred. What had been discovered was that certain elements, such as a small bar to the side of a circle but parallel to the main line of the design, only occurred under certain conditions. Such a bar, for example, would not occur alone around a single circle, but instead only when circles were arranged in a line within a larger design, and then more often around the larger circles, particularly those circles of with circles of unaffected stalks within them. Moreover, such a bar would not occur to the side of a circle that had around it satellite circles, or circles not arranged along the main line of the design. In other words, there was a grammar to the designs.

When I was brought into the project, the linguistics experts were already hard at work. There were a lot of them at computer banks, figuring out the subtle differences between various bars and satellite circles. For example, a single connected satellite circle, one not along the main line of the design but connected by a line, typically thinner than the main line, to a larger circle, might angle outward to the left or the right of the main design. The linguists could tell, looking at the grammar of a crop circle, which way was up, although this designation was itself arbitrary. There was an up and a down, with certain rules governing what appeared on one side and the other, as well as to the top and bottom along the main line, but which end of the main line was up had been an arbitrary determination. I realized this some time after my arrival and thought amusingly that, if the genuine crop circles were indeed the product of extraterrestrial life, one of our linguists or someone briefed in the grammar of the crop circles might indeed recognize patterns on a plate inscribed with these alien characters, but might find those characters, from his perspective, upside-down -- or even sideways, since we had simply assumed that the main lines of the circles ran up and down rather than side to side.

The linguists believed that this was a language of some sort and that each design was like a syllable, containing different sounds or elements of meaning that were duplicated in other syllables and even as their own syllables. Of course, there was no guarantee that a "syllable" corresponded to a group of sounds that we would recognize as a syllable, but this was how the language was constructed. This was the way in which we could understand it. Each design was a word or a syllable of a word, but these words or syllables contained numerous elements that functioned like letters, arranged in a line to form a single unit of meaning.

It was while I was there that the linguists, having essentially parsed the rules governing these geometries written in other people's crops, began in earnest to decode their meaning. In came the code-breakers in a new wave of personnel. The task was understandably daunting, and few knew where to begin. It was like trying to decipher hieroglyphics one symbol at a time, or to learn English from a set of magnetic letters or children's blocks.

I remember a non-linguist expressing optimism on the grounds that Hitler's elaborate coding system had been broken during World War II, only to have a code-breaker remind him that the Nazi code had not been broken but that its key had been stolen. A linguist added that, if we were indeed looking at an extraterrestrial language, it was unlikely that extraterrestrials would have a word for cheese, for example, and even possible that their language lacked such basic words as "and."

Various attempts were made to arrange these designs, these syllables, into something resembling sentences. We had to have larger units of meaning in order to attempt a translation. These methods were both chronological and spatial. Certain areas of the world were selected and their patterns placed in chronological order, with notation made of when two had occurred during the same night and their chronological sequencing was therefore dubious. A massive text was made of all of the genuine crop circles we knew of in the world, arranged in such a row, with temporal notations, including any substantial gaps between appearances, above that row. We were piling the blocks on top of each other, trying to form a word, a sentence. And there were certainly patterns, certain elements of designs that would always be followed by certain other elements, or that would never be followed by a particular kind of element, although exceptions were noted and the overall significance eluded us.

It was a linguist who, looking at the worldwide text showing every genuine crop circle we had in our database, asked the question. He had observed that they had started simple and that the more elaborate patterns came later. This made sense if the crop circles were hoaxes and people were acclimating to the process of making them, but it seemed at odds with what we knew. First, the designs being examined were the genuine crop circles and could not be reproduced. Second, this was almost assuredly a language of some sort, its patterns discernable if not intelligible. The early, simpler designs presented a problem: what sentences could one make out of those little things? And so, staring at those early designs, after prefacing his remarks to make sure we understood that he was not crazy, he offered a hypothesis. "What do you do," he asked, "when you want to teach someone your language? You start simple."

He said later that he had been struck by the fact that we were trying to figure out this language, and the idea had popped into his brain that this was the point of the crop circles and that those making them were working toward the same goal, albeit from the other side. The suggestion was insane, but it could also be right. It alone seemed to explain the early and simpler, yet genuine designs. Later, I thought more cynically that we had realized that translation would be impossible without a key, and so we began looking for that key, hoping that had been included.

The key was to understand that the symbols of the language were separated chronologically instead of spatially. Rather than laying out the symbols on a sheet of paper, or a computer screen, one after another, a bit of white separating each two letters, here we had a syllabary with characters separated in time. We had earlier noticed that certain sequences of patterns were repeated in certain geographical areas: this had been the basis for developing our understanding of the syllabary itself. Examining the database again with our new hypothesis yielded interesting results: recurring sequences could be construed as the key to the syllabary, repeated again and again until we "got it."

The theory must have panned out because word came down that most of us we were no longer necessary; most of us were being canned. Rumor was that a response had been called for by the crop circles and that it had been given; a line of communication had been opened between our project and those intelligences making the crop circles. Debriefings were occurring and the firings were bad for morale. I was retained as part of the skeleton crew that logged new crop circles and continued to analyze them in case something had been missed. Whatever the truth to the rumors, our mission had suddenly changed. What had also changed were the crop circles. The "key" sequence no longer occurred; the patterns began to become more complex, more elaborate. We were expected to mind our own business, to not ask questions, and to do our jobs.

By writing this, I am violating that job. I do not know what the deciphered messages from the crop circles were. But it's clear to me that they were deciphered. I can offer no startling ending to my story, no "take me to your leader" or "the invasion begins in five minutes." I can only tell you, with all certainty, that someone knows. And if our project knows, it's possible that, analyzing the same data, other organizations and governments know, even if they figured out later and thus missed their chance to establish contact. If I knew what the messages said, I would tell you that too.

This isn't a conspiracy theory -- it's solely the fact of my experience. I have no dramatic answers. I can only tell you that, no matter what those answers are, someone has them. And, with any luck, it's only a matter of time before someone who has them writes their own anonymous confession.

YOUR WEEKLY ASSIGNMENT

WARNING: This column is a work of fiction. It plays with the genre of exposés and conspiracy theories. This is the first Apollonian Bacchanalia to be "fictional" in a strict or conventional sense. Originally, this was going to be the first of a new column entitled Fictive Furtive, but the truth is that Apollonian Bacchanalia was designed to embrace both non-fiction and fiction, both Apollonian and Bacchanalian, and to be part of a project that blurs and integrates the two in fairly complex ways. So here you have it, the first outright ficitonal Apollonian Bacchanalia. Expect more to come.

Most of this short story was written on (Sunday) 4 August and (Monday) 5 August 2002. The story was concluded on (Tuesday) 22 October 2002.

Beginning with #25, this column went bi-weekly. It has been maintaining a weekly schedule despite this, although there have been no "Sequential Culture" columns on continuitypages.com in that time. In fact, if it were still weekly, this column would be the one due on Halloween, 31 October. Since I'm doing so well, and the column has expanded (at least officially, given that this was always my intention) into fiction, let's retroactively make this column weekly again. Given this, the next column is due on 7 November.

I'm still working on the five-part series I promised you, which won't count for the regular columns.

Your weekly assignment this week is to tell someone about this column. Since the departure of The Continuity Pages to continuitypages.com, hits are down here and I'm really craving an increase for the egoism necessary to continue my (unpaid) work.

Discuss this column online on the message board.