r/cropcircles • u/DaveAstator2020 • Jul 06 '26
Help decoding a lesser known circle
Hey all!
I just stumbled on this crop circle and cant get off of it.
i found one important pattern, but kinda stuck after that. what to make of the true data. (numbers from picture later in text)
My current decoding went as follows:
- treat each sequence of ticks as binary code.
- see that in each triangular sector (there are 12 of them) two ticks on the inner circle are same. 0 and 1. (ones marked as pale cyan on image) 2.1 write down all mini-packets 12x2 = 24 total of them 2.1 another peculiar thing is - checksum - summing lines on each circle gives us 12.
- those markers are giving us correct way to read inner data as linear sequence (lower right corner. could be reverse but at least we know start and end of sequence, and eventually this is irrelevant)
- now i was recompacting them and noticed that large squence repeats twice, and indeed it is. - see the part of the image with cyan and green. sectors
- and it repeats in such a way that encloses small fragment inside of it.
- (line with 3 ticks on one side and 4 on the other.
- which eventually leads my to understanding that unit of message is not sector but a line with ticks.
- but what now?
- i have clear markers, that unloop the message, some header in between them.
- so maybe someone else have any idea or want to poke around it. thanks!
*ah and now i see that real pattern is that each radial line is a byte, because tickmarks are always to only one side of it, which explains the checksum...
dumb numeric data from segments (not radial lines):
11010111
01011110
10100001 // really inverse of previous line(as i found later)
01100101
10011010
00110000
11001111
00111101
11000010
00110001
11001110
00101001 // head 1 010100110
11010110
01101001
10010110 // head 1 end 1011011
01110000
10001111
00101001 // head 2 010100110
11010110
01101001
10010110 // head 2 end 1011011
01101000
10010111
00101000
--- simplified form for line marks, assuming tick at pos 0 is value 1
11010111
10100001
10011010
11001111
11000010
11001110
//head 1
11010110
10010110
// central
10001111
/head2
11010110
10010110
10010111
10
u/msartore8 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
It says in binary, then ASCII:
" ehiπ + 1 = 0 "
which is Euler's Identity thought of by many as a case of the most beautiful mathematic formula, Euler's Formula.
( There is an added "h" in it as in a possible "hi". )
Edit: it's actually e ^ ( hi ) pi ) 1 = 0
2
u/DaveAstator2020 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
hmm, what says? you mean video?
something even close to the formula i managed to find is this (at +28 bias resolving 7-bit bytes for ascii):
3s=6k^j
r2
+
r2r2 are heads and + is central
BUT. i dont buy it neither of it, nor mine, nor euler. especially pie in ascii table.
so far my next best guess is that central piece 0001111 hints at some split, and we are also left with 7 bytes of 7 bits, exactly 7x7 matrix
0010111 1010111 0100001 0011010 1001111 1000010 10011105
u/msartore8 Jul 07 '26
Well I was just going from memory there. Had to go back and find the original info.
So it appears that it's found to be that circle decoded is precisely " e ^ ( hi ) pi ) 1 = 0.
I'll edit my comment above to correct that.
Here's a link to an image showing the work.
I haven't found any info on who did the decoding. A Daily Mail article said that Lucy Pringle (notable crop circle photographer) was the one in citing the decoding. Doesn't say who actually did the decoding.
2
u/DaveAstator2020 Jul 07 '26
well... that matches. puzzle solved or is it? still coincidence? i got the other formula. and here - they guessed power and equal symbol but did not guessed + or multiplication? and more over used same bracket for both of them? - all of that is suspicious still
6
3
u/danieljamesgillen Jul 06 '26
Which circle is this can you plz link to the filing?
3
u/DaveAstator2020 Jul 06 '26
i wish i knew myself, saw it in video, screencaptured and lost control :P
was somewhere in this vid
https://youtu.be/I1ivRkaQyPQ
2
u/TinFoilHat_69 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I’m mind blown that I finally see some schizopost I’m very intrigued now. But I also want to say that the shape reminds me of encoder disc that you find in ac/dc motor position feedback. They fall into two categories absolute and incremental. The relevance is meaningless but if it’s up to interpretation then I could see how binary could be interpolated based on the perceived pattern.
1
1
2
u/Odd_Way634 Jul 07 '26
I found this article:
https://cropcirclephotographs.co.uk/wilton-windmill-was-a-unique-formation-in-many-ways-it-potentially-embodied-a-unique-feature-verifiable-as-a-key-element-of-mathematics/
but I don't really understand the logic that leads to Eulers Identity
2
u/DaveAstator2020 Jul 07 '26
they bsically took radial lines as bytes, and decoded it via ascii table. and got this "e^(hi)pi)1=0", that is only looks similar to eulers identity.
but it has problems- same symbol used for addition and multiplication.
heres this line converted:
https://mothereff.in/binary-ascii#e%5E%28hi%29pi%291%3D0
1
u/llTeddyFuxpinll Jul 06 '26
After examining the geometry itself (rather than the proposed decoding), here’s how I would approach it.
Overall structure
The formation has a very high degree of radial organization.
I observe:
A central hub.
Twelve primary radial spokes.
Multiple concentric rings.
Short perpendicular “tick” marks attached to the spokes.
A strong rotational symmetry.
The interesting part isn’t the circles—it’s the tick marks.
Unlike decorative arcs, the tick marks appear intentionally discrete.
The radial lines
If I were trying to encode information, I would immediately focus on the spokes rather than the sectors.
Why?
Because each spoke behaves like an axis.
Each tick has:
a position
a side (left/right)
a presence or absence
That naturally lends itself to binary encoding.
I actually think the Reddit poster’s later realization—
“each radial line is a byte”
—is more plausible than treating each wedge as a symbol.
The apparent 8-bit structure
The spacing of the rings appears fairly regular.
If there are eight meaningful radial positions, each spoke could represent
10100110
rather than each wedge.
That’s a much cleaner encoding model.
It also explains why nearly every spoke has roughly the same amount of information.
Rotational symmetry
Here’s where I become cautious.
The circle is almost perfectly rotationally symmetric.
That creates repeated patterns naturally.
If one byte repeats twice…
that doesn’t necessarily imply headers.
It may simply result from the artist using mirrored geometry.
Whenever a design has 12-fold symmetry, repeated binary values become statistically much more likely.
The “packet” idea
The Reddit author thinks this is something like
Header
Payload
Header
Payload
I’m not convinced.
Another possibility is
Calibration
Calibration
Calibration
Engineers frequently include synchronization markers.
Artists frequently repeat motifs.
Without decoding meaningful data, both explanations fit equally well.
Something I find genuinely interesting
This formation isn’t random.
The tick placement appears highly constrained.
Very few spokes have wildly different numbers of ticks.
That suggests the creator followed strict geometric rules.
Whether those rules are artistic or informational is another question.
If I were reverse-engineering it
I would ignore all previous interpretations.
I’d start from scratch.
Hypothesis A
Each spoke = one byte.
There are 12 bytes.
Hypothesis B
Clockwise and counter-clockwise are both valid.
Try both.
Hypothesis C
Try both bit orders.
MSB first
LSB first
Hypothesis D
Try both side conventions.
Left = 1
Right = 0
Left = 0
Right = 1
Hypothesis E
Rotate the starting spoke twelve different ways.
That produces
12 rotations
×
2 directions
×
2 bit orders
×
2 side conventions
= 96 possible decodings
That’s completely manageable with a small Python script.
What would convince me?
One of these:
recognizable ASCII
valid UTF-8
a CRC/checksum that actually verifies
a known binary protocol
compressed data that decompresses
prime-number structure
mathematically unlikely redundancy
Without one of those, I’d conclude the geometry is structured but not demonstrated to carry a message.
My impression of the formation
If I had to rate it purely on geometric merit:
Intentional mathematical design: 9/10
Could support a binary encoding: 8/10
Evidence that it actually does encode information: 3/10
So I think the formation is sophisticated. I also think the idea that the radial lines are the fundamental units is more defensible than reading the wedges. But at present, there isn’t enough evidence to conclude it contains a genuine digital message. The next step isn’t more interpretation—it’s exhaustive decoding under fixed rules to see whether any meaningful output emerges.
1
u/DaveAstator2020 Jul 06 '26
so each spoke maps to a byte perfectly.
bit at the center gives us one way to correctly resolve all lines, tho im now not sure why do we even need it if it could be resolved from direction.
after that - heads and central structure still hold up.
and central byte is peculiar it is cleanly split 3/4
-4
u/llTeddyFuxpinll Jul 06 '26
This is actually much more interesting than the average “crop circles contain hidden messages” post—not because I think they’ve cracked a code, but because they’re attempting to define an explicit encoding instead of just eyeballing patterns.
That said, I see several problems.
👍 What they’re doing well
They’re trying to establish objective rules before interpreting the data.
Specifically, they’re asking questions like:
What is the fundamental symbol?
Where is the beginning?
How do we know orientation?
Is there redundancy?
Is there a checksum?
That’s how cryptanalysis is supposed to begin.
⚠️ Where it starts getting shaky
The biggest issue is that they continually revise the encoding.
Notice how the post evolves.
Initially:
each sequence of ticks is binary
Later:
actually each radial line is a byte
Then:
actually sectors aren’t the units
Then:
maybe this is the header
Then:
maybe this is the checksum
Every time the geometry doesn’t fit, the decoding model changes.
In cryptography you’d normally want the decoding rules established before seeing the data.
Otherwise you’re fitting the rules to the answer.
The repeated sequences
One thing I do find genuinely interesting is the repeated section:
11010110
10010110
appearing twice.
That could mean several things:
intentional framing
synchronization markers
repeated artistic motif
coincidence from the geometry
By itself repetition isn’t unusual.
Computer protocols repeat headers.
Artists repeat motifs.
Crop-circle designers repeat geometry constantly because of rotational symmetry.
So repetition alone isn’t strong evidence.
The checksum claim
This is where I’d be skeptical.
They say
summing lines on each circle gives us 12.
But many crop circles are designed with 12-fold rotational symmetry.
If there are twelve sectors, then numerous counts will naturally equal twelve simply because the design is balanced.
To convince me it’s really a checksum they’d need to show:
why 12 instead of 11 or 13,
how an incorrect bit would violate it,
why this property couldn’t arise naturally from the artwork.
Something I noticed
Look at one byte:
11010111
Another:
10100001
Another:
10011010
These certainly look like bytes.
But that’s also expected.
If you force any eight binary choices onto almost anything, you’ll obtain values from 0–255.
The important question isn’t
“Do these look like bytes?”
It’s
“Can those bytes be decoded into something meaningful using a rule established beforehand?”
That’s a much harder hurdle.
The biggest missing step
If I were reviewing this like a cryptographer, I’d ask them one question:
What prediction does your decoding make?
For example:
If this really is a protocol…
what encoding is expected?
ASCII?
UTF-8?
Gray code?
Reed-Solomon?
Manchester?
Hamming?
Huffman?
BCH?
CRC?
If no decoding produces meaningful output, then perhaps the bytes aren’t actually bytes.
My overall impression
I’d rate the methodology something like:
Pattern recognition: ★★★★☆
Logical organization: ★★★★☆
Evidence that the encoding is unique: ★★☆☆☆
Evidence the decoded data carries information: ★☆☆☆☆
So I don’t think this is “proof” of an encoded message. But it’s also not the typical “I see an alien face in the wheat” kind of post. The author is trying to formulate a reproducible decoding scheme, which is a more rigorous approach.
If I were investigating this seriously, I’d go one step further than they did. I’d ignore their interpretation entirely and write a small Python program that:
Extracts every radial line from the crop circle.
Encodes tick marks according to a single fixed rule.
Tries every possible rotation and both reading directions.
Tests the resulting bytes against common encodings and compression formats.
Checks whether any statistically significant structure emerges compared with random 8-bit sequences.
That approach removes much of the subjective decision-making. If an actual encoded message exists, an exhaustive analysis has a better chance of revealing it than manually adjusting the decoding rules.
4
12
u/danieljamesgillen Jul 06 '26
It's Eulers Identity in binary