Balls of Light (BOLs)
and Oliver's Castle
Balls of Light have been seen a number of times around crop formations. They seem to be yellow-orange, floating around circles with signs of pattern or intent. The Oliver's Castle video was a 4-second clip taken by a young man early one morning from Oliver's Castle, near Devizes in Wiltshire. It showed a crop circle being formed in seconds, with interesting small craft flying around it. Many contest it was a hoaxed video film - I disagree.
I want to weigh in on these two issues. I have no proof to back up what I say below except my own experience from my psychic adventures and my intuitive read-outs of things. Yes, I am mad.
I've investigated these lights 'from within', and my take is that they are intelligent 'remote devices' used by dimensional beings ('circle-makers') to get a look into our physical reality. In my experience, when interacting with our reality, they normally perceive only those 'reality-levels' where they themselves function or into which they can reach. Therefore, with a crop formation they will see its energy-resonance fields rather than the physical-visual form of a crop formation, and they will judge its success by the clarity of its 'thrum' and the way this converts into physical shape. This will be calibrated from human responses and from the 'holo-data' gained from 'probes' such as these BOLs or 'craft'.
As with our remote explorations undersea or in space, 'control room' operators know enough of what's going on down there to achieve some results, but they don't have direct contact or natural aptitude in that milieu - and there are glitches and operational limitations. The circle-makers and BOL originators cannot perceive our reality as we do, from within it, 'physically', except in two ways: experiencing it through us (by reading off our sensory inputs and psyches) or through such an independent 'remote device' or 'probe' as a BOL.
Once, I managed to 'get inside' one of these balls of light. It happened as a by-product of something else, in some psychic work I was doing with some others. I had had to go into a deeply altered state where my own mind and personality had no sway at all (something I can do only occasionally). Without doing this I could not 'enter the space' of the BOL - my own energies couldn't level with it. Inside, the BOL was very large - towards infinite - and did not have clear outside edges of 'light' from the inside as it had seemed to have from the outside - it was a 'space' of consciousness. (I have experienced this when visiting babies inside human pregnant wombs, too - it's a mini-world, an insulated consciousness-module).
The beings using the BOL seemed to be, in terms of our concepts of space-time, 'very far away' - 'not of this galaxy', and not just 'a few dimensions over from us'. Neither do they adopt forms or clear personalities by which we can experience them. Yet their awareness was very much there within these BOL 'spheres'. I could sense it clearly, and felt a guest within it. It feels incorrect to attempt to give it name or shape, since 'presence' is hard to describe accurately with these guys. When I left the BOL, the short 'distance' through the 'membrane' was actually a major transit from another world to this one. I find the best way to effect such a transit is to 'fall backwards' into it, rather than go forwards into it.
'They' have an 'engineering department' or 'away team' working with them, 'closer' to us - another variety of beings who are capable of more direct interaction with our own earthly reality-spectrums. Though it's still a stretch. We might recognise these 'field engineers' as 'ETs' if we chose to see them that way, but I regard them as 'dimensional beings' with the capability of manipulating things in our reality under certain conditions. They do a morphogenetic planetary keyhole surgery which skillfully and exactly extrudes data-holograms into physical reality as a crop formation. Yet the formation is the tangible outer manifestation of a 'consciousness space' within the formation, and this space is, as it were, a half-way space between their space and ours.
It's a way in which we can dip in their world - without even needing to be aware of it or to suffer great contortions. Though they happen. Once, when I was sitting entranced in the middle of 'The Eye' on the East Field, a few years ago, and knowing 'they' don't give many answers when they're asked, I slipped in a question "Where are you?". They replied, while popping a plug from the top of my head, "Fifty miles to a hundred kilometers straight above your head!". I nearly peed my pants. It was a split-second taste, and no more.
Visible light, in one aspect at least, is a manifestation of the interface between widely differing realities - light is how our perception sees this interface. If a consciousness-hologram wishes to interact directly with our physical or next-to-physical subtle reality, it would manifest to us as light. But it isn't light to itself and, to it, our world looks like an intensely-textured, phantasmagorical, interactive cartoon, with 'visibility' or 'access' inversely proportional to what we'd call solidity. (In other words, the more solid, the less 'visible'.)
The subtle-level energy-engineering aspects of crop formations and related phenomena are more intricate and advanced than we currently appreciate. We're receiving a bigger gift than we now realise. I think many of us know this instinctively. The formations involve a careful energy step-down procedure with precision mathematical programming, leveraged with earth- and human psychic energies, helped by now by a few years' engineering experience. There seem to be intelligences who serve in an engineering and 'fieldwork' capacity, and others who are the architects and brains behind all this - and there's a major difference of 'reality-level' between them. This picture is an over-simplification.
I believe these balls of light to be consciousness-modules of some sort, multilevel 'holo-cameras' and 'robots' with an interactive and proactive capacity, and with innate intelligence or 'presence'. And here's the rub: in a sense, consciousness knows no distance, and so they're not so 'remote' as the analogy might suggest.
About the Oliver's Castle video. I believe it's for real. My own first indicator was my spontaneous and unexpected emotional reaction when I first saw it. Hoaxes tend not to do that for me - there's something with hoaxes which is disjunctive and lacks an intricate finesse, so they leave an unsatisfactory, uncomfortable, lost feeling. My breath was taken away by that video, and my posture shifted - and the feeling lasted longterm. I find hoaxes to be quite easily forgettable.
The second indicator, to me, was the sheer artistry of the trajectory these 'craft' followed, and the pattern of their varying speeds. There is something 'artistic' in these trajectories, and in crop formations too, which hoaxing, however artfully done, does not emulate well. To me, at least. There's something compelling in the natural irregularity of those trajectories on that video. I've seen similar movement during a classic and memorable UFO experience I had when I was young: the acceleration, deceleration and navigation of 'craft' might be dramatic or instantaneous yet it is always somehow elegant. There's something unique, awesome and unrepeatable about this pattern of movement - even Startrek can't quite get it right.
Finally, there was something 'right' about the laying of the formation - though I don't feel so strongly for this. This part seemed more an accessory to the main point of the video clip - to demonstrate that while the 'craft' may be facilitative in the process of making the formation, the formation is actually 'building itself'. Perhaps they were saying that the 'craft' were not essential, only accessory, to the cereological process, that it is not to be inferred that they are to be sought at all formations. That's what I read from the video.
I think the video was a great gift, and an answer to many people's wishes. To some it constitutes 'proof' and a forward step, and to others it does not. I think the event will endure and be looked back on as a landmark in future decades. My own perceptions presented here are 'subjective' and thus to some 'meaningless'. Yet they might still jiggle something. Thanks for your consideration.
© Copyright Palden Jenkins 2001.
This material may be downloaded, printed out in single copies for personal use and forwarded by e-mail or posted on websites unaltered and with proper attribution and a link to this site. All other uses require permission of the author, Palden Jenkins.