From the beginning of this investigation, I have been looking for the one piece of physical evidence that could explain the strikingly different properties of different samples of H-glaze.  Finally, thanks to being given the opportunity to examine the iron powder in Rob Irving's possession, I can offer a credible explanation for this deposit. 

In the preceding pages, I have demonstrated the following:

• The spherical shape of the iron particles was due to the manufacturing process and not to heat generated in the H-glaze.

• The same process produced a very fine particle size that allowed deep penetration into cracks in the soil.

• Also, penetration beneath the glumes and behind the seed of the wheat was possible.

• The particle size, shape and distribution was identical to that observed in the H-glaze.

• Dome shaped features and their broken remains observed on the ferrous deposit are finally correctly identified as corrosion product.

• The uniform distribution and coverage of lumps of chalk by H-glaze could have been the result of scattering clouds of powder.  However, any moderate rain-fall could have removed it.

• In all trials, some prepared samples proved resistant to rusting.   The reason for this remains unclear.  However, it could explain the reported grey areas of H-glaze and it does account for the elemental iron found in various samples and described in my first report.

• Reports that the H-glaze had been thick enough to flow were probably based on descriptions of one particularly thick deposit created when Irving threw away the remains of the powder in his paper bag.

• Regions of  glaze consisting of an agglomerate of oxide, chalk and silica were probably produced by the churning effect of the wheels of farm vehicles   The same probably accounts for the coating of chalk and silica found on top of the relatively pure oxide.

In addition to these conclusions about the material evidence, some other aspects of this case are worth mentioning.

Analysis
Both Levengood and I had the H-glaze analysed.  The results of my Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of Busty Taylor's H-glaze sample can be found here: Analysis
It has been repeatedly claimed that analysis of the H-glaze has shown it to have the same chemical composition as meteoritic iron.   This is not true.   On pages 196 and 197 of Levengood and Burke's 1995 report in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, they have a clear EDS analysis of the "... magnetic glaze showing presence of iron and oxygen only".  They also go on to say that, "The elements Ni, Cr and Mn, normally significant components within any iron-bearing meteor, were absent in the EDS analysis".   The same is true of my analysis of Busty Taylor's sample.   No trace of these meteoric signature elements was ever found either in the glaze or in the soil.   However, both results confirm that the H-glaze, in its purest form, contains only iron and oxygen.  This is exactly what would have resulted from exposing iron powder to damp conditions and allowing it to rust.

Photographic Evidence
Shown below is a picture supplied to me by Rob Irving.  He stated that he took this picture when driving past the Yatesbury field on the day after he created the formation.    What can we tell from this picture?
• It is the correct field and the formation is in the right place within the field.
• The crop had not been harvested.
• The blurred foreground confirms that the picture was indeed taken from a moving vehicle so the photographer must have known where the formation was and had his camera ready.
• Anyone seeing the crop formation for the first time and being curious enough to photograph it would surely have stopped to get a better view.  There was, after all, a convenient lay-by which is visible in the foreground.
• Also, there seems to be little point in taking this photograph if the intention was to reveal the detail in the design, which is what most newcomers would want to do.  All that can be seen at this distance is a depression in the crop.  It would, however, make perfect sense for Rob Irving to take such a photograph if he wanted to have a pictorial reminder of his previous night's activities without drawing attention to himself.
• To the best of my knowledge, no one else discovered this formation or photographed it until after it was harvested.   There has always been a lively demand for photographs and I suspect that, in view of the considerable interest in the H-glaze, if anyone else had photographed the formation, the pictures would have emerged by now.

Putting it more concisely, Rob Irving was one of very few people who knew about this formation before it was harvested.  His photograph indicates a familiarity with it.  Also, this very formation was the only one ever to have an H-glaze deposit and he has in his possession fine iron powder ideally suited to creating this H-glaze.

Exchange of Samples
On or soon after the 11th of September 1994, the year following the discovery of the H-glaze, Rob Irving and Peter Sørensen met by prearrangement at the Barge Inn near Alton Barnes.  During that meeting, they discussed the H-glaze and Irving showed Sørensen some samples he had produced.   The picture on the left was taken at the time.  It shows two seed-heads, one (right) taken from the Yatesbury field and the other (left plus a stone) produced by Rob Irving. Peter Sørensen has stated that he was surprised at how knowledgeable Irving was about the site as he didn't think that many people knew about it.  One of the questions Peter asked Rob Irving was whether he could account for the large deposit found by Busty Taylor.   Irving was readily able to provide an explanation recounting his experience with the bag of iron powder becoming sodden with rain and having to discard its contents.   Now, many have argued that Rob Irving simply invented this explanation but it has to be remembered that he wasn't there when the deposit was dug up.   In a way, Busty Taylor's retention of this main exhibit has helped to make Rob Irving's account more credible.   If Taylor removed this deposit before anyone except Sørensen had a chance to see it and has subsequently refused to let anyone examine it, how was Rob Irving able to account for it so comprehensively?

R. Ashby
January 2005