A critical appraisal of george adamski the man who spoke to the space brothers revised and enlarged by HALLET Marc

A Critical Appraisal of

George Adamski The Man Who Spoke to the Space Brothers by

Marc HALLET with Richard W. HEIDEN as translator and documentalist

Revised and enlarged edition

The author - Internet - July 2016

A Critical Appraisal of

George Adamski The Man Who Spoke to the Space Brothers by

Marc HALLET with Richard W. HEIDEN as translator and documentalist

Revised and enlarged edition

The author - Internet - July 2016

This book is a freely downloadable, non-profit venture. It was written with the sole purpose of enlightening people about one of the most extraordinary flying saucer stories ever. Nevertheless, the author retains his moral and artistic rights and his work cannot be reproduced, for commercial purpose or not, in any form, even partially, without his written consent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 In the biginning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Contact in the desert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The return visit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A strange message. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 December 13, 1952, and after. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Inside the space ships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Other contactees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Straith letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 World tour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 More extraordinary stories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Another trip to Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 The schism.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 The movie films. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Death and after. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Summary and conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 APPENDICES Appendix 1 (Marc Hallet’s credentials). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2 (Declassified FBI documents).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3 (Ray Stanford’s testimony). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4 (Hans Petersen’s Moon pictures). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 5 (Psychology of Adamski’s followers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 6 (Herman Oberth’s testimony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 7 (About Colin Bennett’s book). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 8 (About Dolores Barrios). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 9 (U.S. Government replies concerning George Adamski).. . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 10 (Professor and former scientist).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 11 (H.P. Wilkins and D. Leslie).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 12 (The book of Michel Zirger and Maurizio Martinelli). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 13 (About a letter written by J.P. Maxfield). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189 191 203 211 219 223 225 227 229 233 235 243 249

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 -3-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

SOME IMPORTANT DATES TO BEAR IN MIND... 1891 - Birth of Adamski 1933 to1940 - Days at Laguna Beach 1949 - Publication of Pioneers of Space 1951 - First article in Fate Magazine 1952 - First contact claimed in the desert 1953 - Publication of Flying Saucers Have Landed 1954 , summer - His wife died and Desmond Leslie paid him a visit 1955 - Publication of Inside the Space Ships 1957 - The "Straith Letter" 1958 - Creation of the International Get Acquainted Program (IGAP) 1959 - World tour 1961 - Publication of Flying Saucers Farewell 1963 - Adamski went to Europe and pretended to meet the Pope Oct 1963 - Break between Adamski and Honey, and the schism February 1965 - The Rodeffer film April 1965 - Death of Adamski 1980 - Death of Alice K. Wells 1991 - Death of Fred Steckling

-4-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

INTRODUCTION

he famous Belgian surgeon Albin Lambotte married his wife Emmaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;who later became a well-known writer and artistâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in 1895. They had a daughter they named May. It was for her that her mother wrote a fantasy novel in 1937 entitled May et le monstre du Loch Ness (May and the Loch Ness Monster). May married a medical doctor named Morlet who gave her two sons, Patrick and Philippe. In 1953 she began to exchange friendly letters with Polish-American contactee George Adamski and became one of his first co-workers anywhere in the world. These co-workers officially represented the contactee and spoke in his name. May founded a UFO group, the BUFOI (Belgian UFO Informations), and published a small Frenchlanguage bulletin of the same name. BUFOI was a member of the IGAP (International Get Acquainted Program) founded by George Adamski and Hans Petersen of Denmark. May met Adamski in person several times: with her first husband she paid him a visit in California; she received him in her home in Antwerp (Belgium); and she accompanied him to Rome when he pretended to meet Pope John XXIII. After her first husband died, May married Australian Keith Flitcroft, who had come in Belgium to earn a living. So she became May Flitcroft. Consequently, in the following pages, the same person will be called either May Morlet or May Flitcroft, depending on her name at the time of the reported events. Keith Flitcroft was an Adamski follower who had previously worked with the Queensland Flying Saucer Research Bureau and who had published -5-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

some articles in Light, their small periodic newsletter. I was a teenager in 1968 when I met May and Keith Flitcroft for the first time. Adamski was already dead for three years. As years passed, I became more and more deeply involved in BUFOI activities (see Appendix 1), and the day came when May asked me to write a book about Adamski. I accepted. But my main concern was to do a very serious job. So I began to put all my archives and notes about Adamski in chronological order, as one is accustomed to do when dealing with a historical study. At that time I was still convinced that everything Adamski had said was true, but as I made many verifications my certainties vanished one after another.

May and Keith Flitcroft

May, Keith, and I had many debates about my new discoveries. It was clear that my friends were always trying to find an explanation in order to keep their beliefs intact. This was an understandable attitude because a great part of their lives had been devoted to Adamski and his claims. For me, the situation was easier because I wanted to stand only on facts and not on beliefs. So I had no preconceived thesis or “hero” to admire or protect. The day came when, looking at a first-generation copy of the Adamski-Rodeffer film under a microscope, I discovered it was incontestable that that film had been faked. At that time, May and Keith were visiting Alice K. Wells, Adamski’s long-time secretary. They surely told her about my embarrassing questions and the fact that they had given me their precious copy of the Adamski-6-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Rodeffer film in order to ask an expert to take a look at it. That idea would have frightened Alice, who surely knew that the film had been faked. Was Alice the first to suggest that I had to belong to the Silence Group, as Adamski labeled those who disregarded his claims or considered them to be lies? The fact is that upon their return from California, May and Keith were more or less sure that I was now working with the Silence Group. From that day on, our friendship was only a memory. I gave them their film back and left BUFOI. Fortunately, a young French editor by the name of Michel Moutet contacted me a few weeks later and offered to publish my work and also French translations of Adamski's two books that had never been published in French: Inside The Space Ships and Flying Saucers Farewell. I worked hard on these translations and on my own book. This was in 1976-77. However, for many reasons my critical book was not published until 1983. As years passed, I made new discoveries about Adamski and his colleagues. So I published other works on the subject, the last one being Le cas Adamski (September 2010). All of my critical works about Adamski have been published only in French, except for a short text on my personal Website and a chapter in the anthology UFO 1947-1997, edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy for Fortean Times. So my friend Richard Heiden (who had first written me after acquiring a second-hand copy of my 1983 work) offered to work with me on an American translation. Our project started in earnest in 2013, but it soon changed completely: we decided to work together on an entirely new version written by me in English. Richard did a difficult and marvelous job: he edited the manuscript (my English requires a lot of polishing), corrected many details and provided a great amount of useful genealogical data. I am deeply indebted to him for his work and thank him for that. I also want to thank my friend Wim Van Utrecht for the corrections and suggestions he made for this new and final version of the book.

-7-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

May et le Monstre du Loch Ness, dedicated by the author, Emma Lambotte.

-8-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

IN THE BIGINNING...

ue to the wishes of the contactee himself, there is very little information concerning the life that George Adamski actually led until 1952. The short biographical sketch inserted in his book Inside the Space Ships sheds only a little light on his “hidden years.” It was written, as was the remainder of the work, by Charlotte Blodget, who had come from the Bahamas to become one of his followers, and who died in California in March 1968. Besides this “official” biography, which is at the very least watered down and relatively artificial, Adamski himself and some of his close collaborators provided many anecdotes and details. Some of them were total inventions. George Adamski was born Wojciech Adamski on April 17, 1891, in Bydgoszcz, Poland (then part of the German Empire). His parents, Jozef and Franciszka (Anglicized as Joseph and Francis in the census records and city directories through the years), emigrated with the family to the United States from Poland in the mid-1890's, sailing out of Bremen, Germany. The father came first, arriving in New York City aboard the ship Braunschweig on Dec. 24, 1895. The rest of the family (Francis and four children) followed three and a half month later, arriving in New York aboard the Halle on April 10, 1896. They settled in a Polish neighborhood in Dunkirk, in up-state New York. Joseph and Francis had seven children: three boys and four girls. (An additional eight children had died by the time of the 1910 census.) At the time of the 1900 census, Joseph Adamski was a laborer, and by 1910 he had become a boilermaker. Young George probably attended school for a short time (one source says that economic hardship forced him to drop out of school in the 4th grade). By 1910 he was already a coal maker, working for a locomotive works, as his father. It has been said that at least one of the brothers became a priest (according to what May Flitcroft told me, the priest -9-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

brother later reproached George for his activities in connection with the space people). However, this could not be confirmed—in fact, both of Adamski’s brothers (Walter and Sylvester) were married. Both Siegfried (“Fred”) Steckling and Louise (“Lou”) Zinsstag have it that at the age of eight, young George came to the attention of a couple. For unknown reasons, these people offered him the opportunity to go to study in a Tibetan lamasery. According to Steckling, this school provided the highest level of teachings of the Cosmic Laws and it is there that the young boy would have met his first extraterrestrial instructors! According to what Alice Wells said after the death of Adamski—and Fred Steckling would take this up later—Adamski was himself an extraterrestrial who accepted incarnation on Earth in order to carry out here, during his lifetime, a mission of cosmic importance. It was at the end of six years of studies in the Tibetan lamasery that young Adamski would have started using the title of “professor,” which he used later. It is interesting to point out how this account resembles that of the “lost years of Jesus,” which was invented and told long ago by Nicolas Notovitch in his infamous work The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, published for the first time in 1894 and often commented on by esotericists ever since. Concerning Adamski’s alleged time in Tibet and the generous couple who assumed the expenses of the schooling, there was never the least proof, nor even the least trace. Adamski spoke only in English, and never said anything about knowing an Oriental language—not even a little—which he would not have failed to do if he had really spent six An old business card of the "Professor." y e a r s w i t h T i b et an teachers! Plus, the 1900 census shows nine-year-old George living in Dunkirk, N.Y., with the rest of his family. As for the title of “professor,” which he used less and less as polemics were raised against him, he said, according to his official biography by Blodget, that it was bestowed upon him by his “students” in Laguna Beach in the 1930s. Moreover, nothing about the Polish-American contactee’s Tibetan episode appears in his official biography written by Charlotte Blodget; but obviously this does not mean that Adamski had never spoken about things like this in private. Thus, for example, he verbally confided to May Morlet that -10-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

he remembered his previous incarnations and that during of one of them he had been close to Jesus. He confided to others that he had been John, the disciple that Jesus loved. In the Special New York Census of 1915, Joseph Adamski appeared as a blacksmith while his son George was in the U.S. Army. Charlotte Blodget wrote that George Adamski served from 1913 to 1919 in the 13th U.S. Cavalry Regiment at the Mexican border. May Flitcroft, who apparently heard it directly from Adamski in person, told me an anecdote about this: One day, a group of soldiers that included Adamski was taken prisoner. They were about to be executed when the celebrated Pancho Villa arrived. For an unknown reason, he ordered the release of the prisoners. This is certainly possible. But, again, it could be one of those extraordinary accounts Adamski liked to spread about himself. At the time that Adamski registered for the draft on June 5, 1917, he was working in Yellowstone Park as a laborer. He said he had served TWO years in the Cavalry, with the rank of private, and gave his home address as General Delivery in Los Angeles. (1) In an official document dated December 16, 1953, concerning an investigation carried out by the FBI about him (see Appendix 2), it said that George Adamski arrived in the United States in 1893, that he did not obtain any diploma, that he served in the army from 1913 to 1916, that that same year he worked as a painter in Yellowstone National Park, that he did the same thing in 1918 in Portland (Oregon), and that he finally ended up as a masonry worker in California, in 1921, before launching his informal philosophical lectures. In any event, Adamski himself was quite likely the source of the information in the document. Charlotte Blodget does not say anything different, though she says it in a more watered-down way, when she writes that after five years in the army (actually 3 at the most!) “...which served but to strengthen his longing to grow in understanding and wisdom that he might be of service to his fellow man... but realizing that the student was not yet equipped to be the teacher, for many years he traveled around the nation, earning his living at any job that offered. It was a good way to study the problems and frustrations from which no man is free.” Charlotte Blodget went on to say that on Christmas Day 1917, Adamski married Mary A. Shimbersky. Nothing more. Strangely, that individual who should have been essential in the life of the famous contactee seems to have dissapeared in a black hole just after their marriage. Those in Adamski’s entourage hardly ever spoke about Mary again. Except for Adamski himself, who, long after she had died, said that he saw her again, reincarnated on Venus! Mary Adamski was born on September 15, 1878. Therefore, when Adamski was 26 years old, he married a woman who was soon going to reach -11-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

40. This is something to keep in mind for what follows. Mary died in the Los Angeles County General Hospital on July 18, 1954, at the age of 75. She was cremated and buried in Forest Hill Cemetery in Eau Claire, Wis., near her parents and several siblings. In the revised and enlarged version of Flying Saucers Have Landed that was published in London by Neville Spearman in 1970, Desmond Leslie wrote (pages 240-241): “Firstly I went to California in 1954 [from June to the end of August] and spent some months sharing the lives of George Adamski, Alice Wells and Lucy McGinnis; I came to love and respect them as I found, by the quality of their lives, their actions and reactions, their simplicity and their mental and spiritual values... That was the summer of 1954 after this book had been published and had become an overnight best-seller. A strange summer. Three months on the side of Mount Palomar with the enigmatic, fascinating, and at times infuriating, Mr Adamski. Lovable, provocative, evasive at times; and at other times overshadowed by a profundity that was quite awesome. You had to get him alone and relaxed to discover this deep inner Adamski...” Not a single word about Mary who was apparently no more there when Leslie came. At first, one would be tempted to think that the couple, which never had children, had separated very early on. However, that was not the case. Thanks to her death certificate (see below), we know that Mary and George had the same address: Star Route, Valley Center, San Diego, California (“Star Route” was a nationwide designation for carrier routes where mail was delivered by contractors rather than by postal employees). The death certificate gives George’s name as both the present spouse and informant.

Mary' certificate of death

-12-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

In 2014 I asked Ray Stanford if he had ever heard of Mary during all the visits he paid to Adamski at Palomar Terraces. Here is what he wrote to me: “I neither heard nor saw any evidence or suggestion that Adamski had a wife named Mary, or any other wife in that period. (...) I think I might have a vague recollection of someone mentioning that Adamski having had a wife MANY YEARS BEFORE, but certainly not in the period beginning in 1953 or 1954 when at age 15 I began corresponding with Adamski and, perhaps a year or two later with Ric Williamson...” The first clue to explain the veil of silence that descended on Mary is from Laura Mundo. She was an American flying saucer fanatic who circulated in contactee groups for many years and who, in 1954, had just created the Interplanetary Foundation. Toward the end of her life, Mary sometimes talked with Laura one-to-one. In a tone of confidence, she told her: “You look like a nice lady, Laura. Don’t have anything to do with my husband; he is an evil man!” Laura Mundo, who reported this anecdote in her book The Mundo UFO Report, did not point out one essential thing: when Mary confided that to her, her husband was right in the middle of preparing Inside the Space Ships, a book in which he said that he had been taken on trips by space people in their flying saucers. Laura Mundo heard Mary’s counsel with only one ear, explaining that this woman had not yet risen to the spiritual level that her husband had reached. Another important clue to understand what happened has been given by Tony Brunt. In his book about Adamski he explained that Mary was apparently a devout Catholic and became more and more uncomfortable about what her husband was saying. He said (citing the testimony of Lou Zinsstag who had probably received that confidence from Adamski himself) that one day, Mary fell on her knees begging him to stop meeting with his space friends and to discontinue his writing on the subject. It is clear that at that time, a few months before Mary passed away, George and his wife were in complete disagreement. So, as Tony Brunt said, “Mary's passing soon after, had about it the quality of deus ex machina, a providential release from marital attachments that freed Adamski for more than a decade of relentless service to his mission.” Just after Mary died, Adamski (who had not yet invented the fable of his wife’s reincarnation on Venus) confided to Laura Mundo that the space people had brought Mary back to life before taking her to live on Venus with them, after she had served her negative purpose down here. Why did Adamski speak about that negative destiny if not because his wife certainly objected to his activities? (2) We have there many details that might explain why Mary became a kind of taboo about whom nobody spoke. But let’s go back to the 1920s. -13-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

It seems that at that time Adamski was deeply influenced by Helena Blavatsky’s theosophical books and probably also by the famous Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East by Baird T. Spalding, which was first published in book form in 1924. At the time of the 1920 census, George and Mary were in Portland, Oregon, where George identified himself as a house paiter. In 1928 they had moved to Los Angeles. In 1930, for the first time, George called himself a lecturer and in 1934 the couple moved to Laguna Beach. In 1980 Richard Heiden met an elderly Milwaukee psychic named Lillian (“Myrah”) Lawrance, who was able to help fill in some details from this part of Adamski’s life. She had known him in 1926 when they both lived in St. Paul, Minn., and Myrah also knew his wife and sister-in-law there. (This would be Mary’s younger sister Ella B. Rasmussen.) According to Myrah, Adamski was an ordinary milkman then and was also into the psychic. The St. Paul directories include a George Adamski in St. Paul in 1924-25 and then at another adress in 1927. His occupation was given as “painter.” Curiously—unlike for many other entries in the city directory—his wife was not included. Mary was as obscure then as she was later in the pages of Adamski’s books. On November 17, 1933, the South Coast News of Laguna Beach, Cal., announced that the Claude Bronner home, on Manzanita Drive had been purchased through professor George Adamski, to became the headquarters of the Royal Order of Tibet. Professor Adamski, it was said, had been -14-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

lecturing until then at the Little White church in Laguna Beach, representing the Order of Loving Service. The article also said that Mrs M. Lalita Johnson [which the newspaper mispelled Lolita], of The Order of Loving Service, who had a number of followers in Laguna Beach, will temporarily reside in the house until it is ready for use as a monastery, something which was expected for January 1934. Things proceeded according to schedule, because another article in the South Coast News, dated from January 26, 1934, told about the joyous inauguration of the Royal Order of Tibet headquarters and the first public lecture there, on the same January 26 by Professor George Adamski.

The house that had been bought from Claude Bronner and known as El Castillo Mio was a vast residence located at 758 Manzanita Drive, Laguna Beach. It was transformed into a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Temple of Scientific Philosophy.â&#x20AC;? American ufologist George M. Eberhart found it on a photographic postcard sent on August 22, 1939, which had undoubtedly been bought by a visitor. -15-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Professional genealogist Will Johnson has traced Claude D. Bronner, who had lived in Portland (Oregon) in 1910 and was arrested there in 1912 as part of a citywide crackdown on middle-class gay men. That may be why he moved to Laguna Beach in 1916. In 1918 he became the owner of a restaurant there, which he sold in 1926. With the cash from that sale, he built the house at 758 Manzanita Drive. In voter-registration lists for 1930 through 1934 he is listed as retired and now living at 700 Virginia Park, Laguna Beach. In 1944 he was still living in Laguna Beach, but at 360 Second Street. He seems to have left Laguna Beach for Los Angeles in 1952, and lived there from then on with his adopted son George and Catherine, George's wife. Bronner died in Los Angeles in July 1955. On June 11, 1933, Bronner sold his house and left it for another one. Who was the new owner who paid for that purchase? Tony Brunt says that Alice K. Wells was the backer of the little community founded by Adamski. But she met Adamski later and she never had enough money to buy a so vast residence. In fact, behind Adamski and his Royal Order of Tibet was really Mrs Lalita Johnson and her Order of Loving Service, the true backer for that purchase. We must remember that the South Coast News of November 17, 1933, said that Professor Adamski was lecturing on behalf of the Order of Loving Service. On April 8, 1934, the Los Angeles Times published another article with more information about the Royal Order of Tibet's project. It said the project was estimated at one and a half million dollars (a considerable sum for the time), and consisted of the pending establishment of a vast complex intended to become the monastery of the Royal Order of Tibet. And although it specified that the headquarters of the Order were then in London, they would be moved to California, under the charge of none other than “Prof. George Adamski,” presented in the article as a rather mysterious man with a Polish father and Egyptian mother. Adamski’s mother, 1868-1946, was still very alive when Adamski said she was Egyptian but was actually born in Poland, -16-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1934

-17-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

to the Kwiatkowski family! The article stated, without comment, that as a child Adamski had studied in Tibetan monasteries. He asserted that he intended to teach only the “scientific” part of the religion of the lamas, from which he had removed all the weird rites and bestial superstitions. In his monastery, he explained, everyone would wear purple or golden robes, and the women would “wear a twenty-four-point yellow star and the men a similar pendant of pure white crystal.” Mrs Alice K. Wells received the Los Angeles Time article from a friend of hers at a time when, according to her, she was intending to leave for India “in search of what is not written.” She came to attend Adamski’s lecture in Pasadena, and was convinced to take the man as her guide. She scrubbed the idea of going to India and became his most stalwart partner. She was to remain so until his death, when she took over and continued his work until her own death in 1980. Alice had been born in Tennessee to Jefferson and Annie Kelley on July 31, 1900. The family moved to Los Angeles before she was 10. At the age of 22 she married Addison E. Q. Wells—according to the 1930 census—but we have not been able to learn more about Addison or the marriage. During the period 1936-1940 (at least), “Mrs Alice K. Wells” was living at the Royal Order of Tibet address on Manzanita Drive, according to voter lists and city directories. Several times between the ages of 19 and 21, Ray Stanford visited Adamski’s place at Palomar Terraces, at a time when the latter had already claimed extraterrestrial contacts. One day, in a vein of confidence, Adamski acknowledged to him that at the time of Prohibition, under the cover of a religious order which would have required alcohol for its ceremonies, he had manufactured and sold considerable quantities of alcohol. To such an extent that he became the biggest bootlegger in all of Southern California, he claimed. Adamski went on to say that his lucrative work collapsed when President Roosevelt ended Prohibition, which is why he got “into all this saucer crap.” Ufologist Richard Heiden, to whom Ray Stanford had written a letter about this in September of 1976, tried to confirm this with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The answer was that no license to manufacture alcohol had been granted to either the Royal Order of Tibet or to George Adamski. But there is more: Prohibition began in January 1920 and ended in April 1933 and as we have seen, the Royal Order of Tibet was only created in 1934. So Adamski couldn’t have done what he boasted to Stanford. One can nevertheless think that there was some truth in what Adamski told the young Stanford. One thing is sure : he hated Roosevelt and it had something to do with the end of the Prohibition. (Even though for several years after this, both George and Mary were Democrats in the voter registration lists.) -18-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

In 1936, Wisdom of the Masters of the Far East - Questions and Answers appeared, a booklet published under the banner of the Royal Order of Tibet. The cover of the booklet specified that it had been “Compiled by Professor G. Adamski.” As all the texts signed by Adamski have been written by ghost writers, one can reasonably think that it was Alice Wells who wrote this text at the time under the dictation of the “Professor.” The series of Questions-Answers formed a literary style that Adamski was fond of, as later, when he claimed to be in contact with space people, he again published a series of new booklets entitled Questions-Answers. In 1937, Adamski published Satan, Man of the Hour, a philosophical parable. He republished the text, without any comment and without explaining why, in 1961 in his book Flying Saucers Farewell. Also in 1937, he published The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, a short philosophical text (now available on the Website of the George Adamski Foundation) and Petals of Life, a 16-pages booklet of poems. Again, both of them came out under the banner of the Royal Order of Tibet. During the 1930s, the activities of the Royal Order of Tibet, although undoubtedly rather regional, seem however to have been prominent enough, since during that period George Adamski gave talks on two radio stations: KFOX of Long Beach and KMPC of Los Angeles. It is not clear why Adamski suddenly abandoned his easy life in Laguna Beach. Richard W. Heiden found that, in October 1935, Lalita Johnson sold her property to a Marguerite H. Weir who herself transferred a part of it to Ida J. Haley in January 1938. Finally, in August 1941, the two sold their house to Mr. Marshall Beach and his spouse Aletrice. One year earlier, Adamski and his -19-

Adamski in the thirties

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

wife had left Laguna Beach for good. They established themselves first in Valley Center, on the road leading to Mount Palomar. There, without a great deal of money, and leading a simple lifestyle, the couple and Alice Wells tried to establish a little community to provide for its own needs thanks to a small farm with both animals and crops. There is a government document that partly confirms this: When Adamski completed his draft registration card on April 15, 1942 (shortly after the start of World War II), he wrote that he was self-employed on a farm there. But the project was evidently not viable, because in 1944 the small group sold everything and moved again, closer to Mount Palomar to a place (they?) called Palomar Gardens and which was again bought by Alice K. Wells. There they settled in rather precarious buildings spread over a large piece of land. As the road alongside took the streams of tourists up to the large observatory of Mount Palomar, 11 miles away, they built a little cafĂŠ where visitors could find sandwiches and beverages.

The Palomar Gardens Cafe as it was in 1952

On several occasions, both in interviews and in his own publications, Ray Palmer maintained that, in the early 1940s, when he was an editor of -20-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

science-fiction magazines, he had received from one George Adamski a fiction manuscript about Jesus returning to Earth on board an interplanetary vessel to again spread his message of love and peace. Palmer said that he had rejected the work and returned it to its author. Adamski always denied that and claimed that he would never have written such a thing, so great was his respect for Christ. According to what he explained at the beginning of the account of his first contact with the pilot of a flying saucer in the book Flying Saucers Have Landed, which he co-authored with Desmond Leslie, Adamski had “always” believed that the planets were inhabited and constituted successive “classes” in a vast universe-school in which beings progressively advanced. So it is logical that in 1946 he circulated a text entitled The Possibility of Life on Other Planets (now available on the Website of the George Adamski Foundation), which developed such ideas but without speaking about the possibility of extraterrestrials coming here. In 1949, Adamski ordered the Leonard-Freefield Co. of Los Angeles, a printing company, to print for him a philosophical science-fiction novel 260 pages long entitled Pioneers of Space: A Trip to the Moon, Mars and Venus. It was signed by “Professor George Adamski.” I will offer a summary of this work later, right before speaking about the contacts that Adamski claimed in Inside the Space Ships. And I will show that these alleged contacts were simply copied from the previous science-fiction novel. But let’s not go too fast... In June 1947, Kenneth Arnold was flying near Mount Rainier, Washington, when he thought he saw several strange flying machines. To describe them, a reporter coined the term “flying saucers,” and consequently imaginations went wild. Previously, space people belonged only to the realm of science fiction. Now, thanks to Arnold, everybody knew that they were really visiting us in these circular-shaped machines! Due to the fact that Pioneers of Space dealt with space ships similar to our probes and did not use the term “flying saucer,” one can conclude that the manuscript, published in 1949, had been written before the famous Arnold observation of 1947. Consequently, between the day Adamski left Laguna Beach and the day Pioneers of Space was written, there is a gap of several years during which the manuscript about which Palmer spoke could have been written. Remember that in 1937 Adamski wrote a strange allegorical account entitled Satan, Man of the Hour in which the devil was described with human -21-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

features. Was it more scandalous, one might ask, to suggest that Jesus returned to Earth in an interplanetary craft? I do not think so. Page 127 of Pioneers of Space has a passage in which Adamski’s fictional Venusian spaceship pilot says, “Many centuries ago, after the last of our messengers, whom you call Jesus, was crucified…” Thus, around 1944 when Pioneers was written, Adamski did not consider it disrespectful to assert that Jesus had been nothing more than a spaceman. Given these facts, I think that the existence of a novel based on the scenario summarized by Ray Palmer is at least possible. Conversely, I do not see why Palmer would have risked saying such an incredible thing knowing that without any proof, it could not harm Adamski. The existence of Pioneers of Space, probably written around 1944, also appears to me to be an additional argument in favor of the real existence of the manuscript about which Palmer spoke. Because if Adamski wrote two philosophical texts in the form of novels in 1937 (Satan...) and around 1944 (Pioneers...), it appears logical that he could have written another between 1937 and 1944. Otherwise, there would have been a break in novel-writing activity. More than that: couldn’t it be that Pioneers was in fact a new less scandalous version of the manuscript Palmer talked about? A new way for Adamski to convince an editor to publish the philosophical ideas he wanted to teach? A final argument in favor of the real existence of the manuscript Palmer had read: Adamski’s co-worker in Japan, Hachiro Kubota, who began corresponding with Adamski in 1953 and who always remained his supporter, gathered from several sources in the United States (among them Alice B. Pomeroy) information that the Venusian Orthon who Adamski pretended having met in the desert in 1952 (Flying Saucers Have Landed) was none other than a reincarnation of Jesus. The meeting in the desert could thus be regarded as more or less the scenario put forward by Palmer... (4) Concerning this unpublished manuscript, I concede that it is speculation, and I ask my readers not to make too much of it. If I spoke about it, it is only with the aim of being complete, and to not be accused of leaving any stone unturned that could clarify Adamski’s story. In fact, Pioneers of Space had been written in good English by Lucy McGinnis, Adamski’s secretary. Lucy was born Lucy E. Rutt on December 9, 1901. On February 15, 1923, at the age of 21, she married Edward H. McGinnis, age 23. They had two sons, Roy and Robert, born in about 1923 and 1925, respectively. In 1930 they lived in Kansas City, Mo., where Lucy was a secretary for the Unity School of Christianity. That school was a cult founded there in 1889 by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. They were influenced by -22-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Christian Science doctrine and Hinduism. Unity School of Christianity taught reincarnation and the idea that each of us possesses the Christ consciousness within us. They denied the deity of Jesus and taught that he had been a man with such a state of spiritual consciousness that he became the ethical Messiah of the world. More or less the same things that Adamski always said. By 1935 the McGinnises left Kansas City for Compton, in Los Angeles County. The voter-registration list depicts Lucy then as a housewife and Edward as an electrician. She was probably living there when she heard about George Adamski and became one of his followers. Then she probably left her husband because it is well-known that since the begining of the fifties she was living at Palomar in a separate building near the one where Adamski and Alice were living. Lucy was a very good touch typist and was able to capture perfectly what Adamski thought but couldn’t precisely explain in good English; so she was for him the most valuable secretary that he could dream of. Edward H. McGinnis died on December 7, 1960, in Los Angeles, and in 1961 Lucy finally broke with Adamski for reasons I shall explain later. She died on November 3, 1982, in Escondido, San Diego Country. Near the Palomar Gardens Cafe, Adamski had set up two telescopes: a 6-inch one, which he had received as a gift when he was stillt in Laguna Beach, and a 15-inch one, which he had bought second-hand and placed under a rather decrepit dome. The bigger one was there only to attract the attention of tourists and earn some money from them. On an unknown date, but certainly after 1952, after having spent the night at the great observatory, celebrated telescope maker Thomas R. Cave stopped early one morning at Alice Wells’s cafe. It was there that Adamski liked to chat and brag. Cave was accompanied by astronomers Robert S. Richardson and Milton Humason. While ordering hamburgers, the three men noticed that the walls of the place were decorated with photographs of flying saucers. They inquired about them, and a man who identified himself as Adamski engaged them in conversation. He launched into in a long speech in which he unctuously explained to them that he was “just a stupid Polack,” but that the people at the observatory who were sworn to secrecy knew much more about the subject than he did. The three men followed Adamski and discovered not far from there the 6-inch telescope mounted in so absurd a way that it made the instrument almost useless for tracking any celestial object. They then visited the decrepit dome housing the 15-inch telescope. They left the place with the impression that this Adamski was somebody who was really not very serious. Let us remember the name of Thomas R. Cave, because we will meet him again later. Adamski liked to give himself an importance that it did not have. He said that during the war he had helped the government of his country by -23-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

watching for possible enemy air raids. He forgot to say that thousands of Americans had done the same thing, for free, within the context of a patriotic action encouraged by the President. With the tourists passing through Alice Wells’s cafe, he ended up saying that he helped the astronomers by watching the Moon and reporting what happened there. It was absurd, but it strongly impressed the naïve who saw Adamski’s telescope under its cupola. According to Adamski’s account in Flying Saucers Have Landed, it was on October 9, 1946, at the time of a meteor shower that had been announced in the media, that he saw his first alien space-ship. He said he was with some of his close friends when they saw a large dark cigar-shaped object, motionless in the sky. According to Loren E. Gross, one of the witnesses in San Diego was the medium Mark Probert (February 5, 1907 - February 22, 1969), who immediately phoned Mayde Layne, the head of the Borderland Sciences Research Associates. Layne (September 8, 1882 - May 12, 1961) who had an excellent academic background (he had been English Department head at Illinois Wesleyan University), was a disciple of Charles Fort’s interested in parapsychology, and believed that interplanetary etherian creatures visited the Earth. He asked Probert to attempt a telepathic contact with the spacecraft and after that he called the radio station and told about Probert’s attempt. During the following days, some “witnesses” called Mayde Layne or wrote to their local newspapers. And, finally, the Los Angeles Daily News printed that Probert had received a telepathic message from the object, saying that its pilots were from outer space and were seeking contact but were worried about the hostile instinct of mankind. So they sought out a meeting with Earth scientists at a remote site. Nothing more is known about that old UFO case, which didn’t attract much attention in UFO circles. (5) A few weeks after the meteor shower, again as related by Adamski in Flying Saucers Have Landed, six military officers stopped by Alice Wells’s cafe. When the conversation turned to the mysterious object, one of the men spoke up, saying that it could not be a ship of this world. Adamski later explained that that was then he realized the object was really of extraterrestrial origin (or “interplanetary,” as it was called then), and decided to spend much more time watching the sky in the secret hope of seeing and photographing other craft of this type. Is the anecdote genuine, or does it once again present the facts untruthfully? The least one can say is that the aplomb with which the military officers implied the extraterrestrial origin of the object is eminently suspect. How could the military authorities have reached such a conclusion, given the fact that very few curious events of this type had been reported until then? It is also remarkable that they would have talked so openly about something so extraodinary.

-24-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Still according to what he said in Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski saw his patience rewarded by again observing mysterious craft in August 1947. He said he called four other witnesses and, with them, counted 184 objects in groups of 32 apparently following each other in Indian file. One of his friends—a skeptic, Adamski added—even observed the same phenomenon from another location in the company of several more witnesses. Unfortunately, Ted Bloecher's enormous compilation on the UFO wave in the United States in the summer of 1947 stops at the end of July. So I could not compare Adamski’s statements with information collected in California from other sources. However, the description of the phenomenon is so astonishing that it is quite strange that it did not generate a vast UFO literature. Everything seems to indicate, therefore, that only Adamski and his friends witnessed this extraordinary phenomenon. In Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski added that soon after, two scientists going up to the big observatory asked him if he had seen vessels from space that night. Adamski said he answered them in the affirmative and quoted the figure of 184. The two scientists then responded by saying that that was not the correct figure. Adamski then gave them the figure counted by his friend (204), and the two men commented that it was closer to the correct one. Then, before leaving, they said that these crafts were not of terrestrial origin, but rather were interplanetary. This episode of the two anonymous scientists is quite simply unbelievable, in the literal meaning of the word! Again in Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski said that in late 1949 Messrs. J.P. Maxfield and G.L. Bloom, from the Point Loma Navy Electronics Laboratory, passed by his place in the company of two other men, one of whom wore an officer’s uniform. They declared to him that they were going to the large observatory to propose a co-operative program for the observation of saucers. They asked him whether, on a purely personal basis, he could collaborate on it, because he had the benefit of a very maneuverable instrument, and could perhaps obtain better results than the large observatory could. After a long discussion, the men agreed with Adamski that the Moon could be a base for the interplanetary vehicles and that it therefore deserved special attention. In 1988, ufologist Jan Eric Herr interviewed Gene L. Bloom, who indeed remembered having stopped by Alice Wells’s diner in the company of Mr. Maxfield, who had since died. He made it clear that before stopping there, none of them knew of Adamski and in no way did they ask his assistance in observing saucers, no more than they had directed such a request to the astronomers at the large observatory. Mr. Bloom thus confirmed to Herr what James W. Moseley et James McDonald had already respectively learned from him and Maxfield in 1953 and 1969. In a letter accompanying the article he -25-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

wrote for the Flying Saucer Review, M. Herr wrote this : “It continues to puzzle me that so many people still believe George Adamski; if they lived in his home town as I do, they would have ample opportunity to learn otherwise. At the least, Desmond Leslie and anyone else interested in the facts should have written to the various persons mentioned by Adamski before accepting his statements at face value.” (6) We see here with this example that Adamski could skillfully mix the true and the false to make up apparently solid testimony (See Appendix 13 for more about that). Yet again according to what Adamski said in Flying Saucers Have Landed, soon after this meeting he succeeded in obtaining his first two telescopic photographs of unknown objects, which he gave to Mr. Bloom. Some time later, on March 21, 1950, in La Mesa (California), Adamski gave a lecture about flying saucers. Reports were published in the day's San Diego Journal and Tribune newspapers. After that two newspapers contacted Adamski, and asked for the two pictures. Then they made inquiries around the Point Loma Navy Electronics Laboratory, where they denied having received such documents. The matter seems to have created a stir for a few days. Adamski was already becoming controversial. Adamski himself said that starting in 1949, he gave lectures on flying saucers, but they did not earn him much money. Little by little he showed telescopic photographs at his lectures that did not convince his audiences. But the hour of glory finally arrived, thanks to two articles published in Fate Magazine, which specialized in the publication of sensational articles on “forbidden knowledge.” Under a photograph of Adamski in the first of these articles, published in July 1951, the caption reads: “Professor Adamski beside his 15-inch telescope in his Palomar Gardens observatory.” It was necessary to read the article carefully to realize that this individual, who co-authored the article with one Maurice Weekley, was no more than an amateur living in the shadow of the large observatory. The article reported that How Adamski appeared in Fate

-26-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Adamski had photographed strange lights in the sky and that he had entrusted these photographic plates to a scientist. It was, to some extent, a hook thrown out to the readers. Was the fish going to bite? It seems so, since, soon after that, Adamski had enough support in his new role to publish, this time by himself, a new article entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;I Photographed Space Ships.â&#x20AC;? He seemed to prove it by publishing telescopic photographs showing points and spots appearing against the Moon. Some readers disputed these photographs, but that did not prevent Ray Palmer from including them in the book that he and Kenneth Arnold published soon afterwards, entitled The Coming of the Saucers. These telescopic plates of UFOs were not the only ones that Adamski circulated and sold to the curious. Others were reproduced later, in particular the ones that were eventually printed in Flying Saucers Have Landed. One of them, supposedly taken on June 6, 1950, was strongly disputed by amateur astronomer Lonzo Dove, who pointed out that on that date the Moon absolutely did not appear as seen in the photo. But there was something more: observed through a telescope, objects are reversed. For example, the lunar North Pole is at the bottom. And as the Moon in that Adamski picture was as it appears in a telescope, it meant that when the saucer in the picture had its dome facing upwards, the saucer had to really be flying upside down to look like that. These inconsistencies showed the picture was obviously a fake carried out by somebody who really did not know much about astronomy!

Left : a chart of the Moon made by the French astronomer Lucien Rudaux as it appears in the book by Alphonse Berget entitled Le Ciel (Paris, Larousse, 1923). The North Pole is down because the image of the Moon as seen in a telescope is always reversed. Right : a picture taken by George Adamski on June 6, 1950. The two arrows point to the same crater and, between them is a flying saucer with a cupola. But as the Moon is reversed on these images the saucer is depicted as if it were traveling in our skies upside down (with the cupola below), which seems absurd.

REFERENCES: 1) Will Johnson posts genealogical information about celebrities, as used in this paragraph and

-27-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI elsewhere. See for example https://sites.google.com/site/theosophyhistory/george-adamski We also found much information ourselves independently, using Ancestry Library Edition. Sometimes we interpret the original handwritten records differently than Johnson did. Tony Brunt: George Adamski - The Toughest Job in the World; Auckland, New Zealand, Vailima Press, 2010, p. 7. 2)Laura Mundo: The Mundo UFO Report; New York, Vantage Press, 1982, pp. 21-22 Tony Brunt: George Adamski - The Toughest Job in the World; Auckland, Vailima Press, 2010, p. 7 Will Johnson on http://www.countyhistorian.com/ 3) Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1934, p. 5 of Part II. Reprinted in Delve (Gene Duplantier of Willowdale, Ont., Canada) no. 5, (1990), p. 11. 4) UFO Contactee, GAP-Japan, no. 8, November 1992, pp. 5-6. 5) Loren E. Gross: The Mystery of Unidentified Flying Objects—A Prelude, Fremont, California, The Author, Sept. 1971, pp. 228-229. 6) James W. Moseley: The Wright Field Story; Clarksburg, Saucerian Books, 1971, p. 34. Mufon UFO Journal, no. 264, April 1990, p. 13. Flying Saucer Review,London, 34:3, September 1989, p. 15 and 26 UFO Contactee, GAP-Japan, no. 8, November 1992, pp. 5-6. Personal letter from Jan Eric Herr to Loren Gross, November 12, 1992. Personal letter from James McDonald to William T. Sherwood dated from February 7, 1969 Jerome Clark: The emergence of a Phenomenon, Omnigraphics Inc, 1990, article “Adamski”

Adamski's second article in Fate Magazine.

-28-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

CONTACT IN THE DESERT

n Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski explained that he met Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Bailey for the first time in late August of 1952. They told him about Mr. and Mrs. George Hunt Williamson, who were also interested in flying saucers. The four of them had already gone into the desert in the hope of seeing saucersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as Adamski had also doneâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;because, according to a rumor, sometimes they landed there. In June 1952, even Walter Winchell (a famous newspaper and radio gossip commentator of the day) had claimed that a Mount Palomar scientist met extraterrestrials there. The Baileys and Williamsons ended up visiting Adamski together for several days. There is no doubt that, during that period, the crafty Adamski could test the credulity and suggestibility of these people, who asked him to tell them the next time he returns to the desert. The idea of them all going there together seemed to excite them a great deal. On October 20, 1952, Jerrold E. Baker, a young instructor in the Air Force, was discharged. He introduced himself to Adamski to help in his work of popularizing the flying saucer phenomenon. Baker was allowed to settle in a corner of the property, close to where Adamski lived with his wife. A few days later, Baker witnessed a strange scene. In a kind of trance, Adamski revealed to those who were there (the Baileys and Williamsons among them) that he would soon have contact with a being from another world. He explained that it was necessary to get ready for it, in particular by acquiring plaster of Paris. This plaster was bought in Escondido by Jerrold Baker and Lucy McGinnis shortly before November 20, 1952. This scenario was also described in the same way by Williamson to Ray Stanford several years afterwards (see Appendix 3). -29-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Another day, Baker heard something even more astonishing: a sound recording on which the future extraterrestrial contact was related in the manner of a metaphysical speech. (1) This all leads one to believe that Adamski was cleverly suggestively influencing his future â&#x20AC;&#x153;witnessesâ&#x20AC;? before venturing with them into the desert. On the evening of November 18, 1952, Adamski telephoned G.H. Williamson and arranged with him for everyone to gather at a certain meeting place on the 20th. That morning he left Palomar Gardens in the company of his faithful Lucy McGinnis and Alice K. Wells, who took turns at the wheel as Adamski did not drive. A little after 8 a.m., everyone was near Blythe, Cal., and they all agreed to follow Adamski and his hunches, and ended up at an isolated place outside the town of Desert Center. They arrived there around 11 a.m. and walked around the area for about thirty minutes. Then they decided to eat their picnic lunch.

It was a little past noon when they took some photographs and movie shots, the latter with a small movie camera rented by the Baileys. Right after watching a small two-motor plane go by, the group saw what seemed to them to be a gigantic elongated space ship without wings. The excitement increased quickly, each person suggesting new speculations and opinions. They thought of filming the object, but Betty Bailey was so excited that she could not handle the movie camera. But they took turns looking through the two pairs of binoculars they had with them. Williamson could make out a dark mark on the fuselage of the craft that he did not recognize, although he was familiar with aircraft insignia from his service in the Air Force during World War II. Several years after the event, Williamson told Stanford they had probably been fooled because of their own enthusiasm. In fact, in his opinion all they saw was probably a large distant aircraft, with its wings and tail obscured by distance and the atmospheric haze. It just flew on a straight course, which sounds quite ordinary for a large aircraft, and it did not display any extraordinary change of course or motion as a mothership could have done (see Appendix 3). -30-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The excitement of Betty Bailey and the others is not astonishing. We have to remember they were young people at the time and they were also true UFO enthusiasts, easy for a self-assured Adamski to “get started” with only a few words suggestive of a strange phenomenon happening. Indeed, Adamski maintained his self-control the whole time. But suddenly he ordered somebody to drive him down the road because the space ship had come for him and he could not make it wait. A saucer might already be there, somewhere, farther on, hidden from the inquisitive eyes of the motorists driving by on the road. Adamski explained later that it was intuition! Lucy immediately got behind the wheel, Al Bailey climbing in next to her and Adamski in the back with his equipment. This equipment consisted of a tripod, his six-inch telescope with a camera to attach to it, seven photographic plates, a small Kodak Brownie, and a large corrugated box which he had with him from the start of the trip, with the explicit message that absolutely nobody else was to pick it up or even touch it. What was in that box? Nobody knows. But it must have been very important and secret because Adamski never spoke about it in his writings or in his lectures about his first contact. We know about that box only thanks to George Hunt Williamson and Ray Stanford (see Appendix 3). While the others remained behind at the side of the road, Lucy drove a half mile down the highway until Adamski asked her to turn right, off the pavement. After driving another half mile, through an area with sharp stones and broken glass, they reached a place 200 feet from Adamski’s chosen spot, near the base of a low hill. There they stopped and Al helped Adamski unload and set up his equipment. Then Adamski sent Lucy and Al back to the others, who were still at the side of the road, that is to say, rather far away. Lucy asked how long they should remain there to be sure not to disturb Adamski in case something really happened. He told them to come back in an hour, unless he signaled to them sooner. During all this time, as Adamski wrote later in Flying Saucers Have Landed, the large space ship had seemed to be following the car. But when the car started again, it went away in the opposite direction, surrounded now by several planes that seemed to be trying to circle it. This is pure invention. In fact none of the witnesses ever saw such things. From this moment on, Adamski remained alone, far from his companions and not very visible to them. According to what he told them afterwards, this is what happened next: Not five minutes after the car had left, he saw a small craft come, -31-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

drifting through the saddle between two mountain peaks, and then settling into one of the coves half a mile away. Adjusting his telescope very quickly, he took his seven plates in succession, slipping them one after the other into his right-hand jacket pocket. This last detail might appear curious today. So I should add for clarity (though I will return to this later at greater length), that Adamski had a camera that could take only one plate at a time. Each plate, consisting of only one shot, thus had to first be introduced into the camera, then exposed, and then removed, before the next plate could be taken. After that, Adamski disconnected his camera from the telescope and put it back in its box. He then grabbed his Brownie and took a shot of the dome of the saucer visible right between two rocky ridges. At that moment it flashed brightly and moved away over the same saddle, as two more planes roared overhead.

The picture taken by the Brownie with an enlargement of the saucer dome.

The picture was undoubtedly faked. When you photograph a landscape with a fixed-focus Brownie, every detail, both near and far, is more or less sharp. But here, the closest details of the landscape are very fuzzy, which indicates that they were exceedingly close to the lens, just as it would be if it were a very small portion of landscape with a little dome sitting on it. Adamski remained there, he said, without much knowing what to do, until the moment when he saw a man a quarter of a mile away who gestured to him to approach. Advancing little by little, Adamski finally came near the stranger. He quickly understood that he had in front of him a man from space. He measured approximately five feet, six inches tall, had long sandy-colored hair -32-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

that reached his shoulders, and appeared about 28 years old. His outfit, made in one piece, was tight at the ankles, the wrists, and the neck. At his waist, he wore a belt eight inches wide. The two men greeted each other by gently touching the palms of their hands. They communicated using gestures, sounds, and a little telepathy. Essentially, the extraterrestrial explained that he came from Venus, that all the planets of the solar system were inhabited, and that it was necessary to be careful with nuclear tests because they threatened to destroy the balance of the entire Universe. Alice K. Wells was supposedly able to make a drawing of the space pilot. In fact, even with binoculars, neither she nor the other “witnesses” who were far away could see the two men “conversing” with each other. All they could see, for a certain time, was Adamski by himself, as George Hunt Williamson explained to Ray Stanford years afterwards. According to Williamson, the drawing was not made there in the desert, and it could even have been made later by Adamski (See Appendix 3). The year before the alleged Desert Center contact, in 1951, a spectacular science-fiction film directed by Robert Wise and entitled The Day the Earth Stood Still came out. It told the story of an extraterrestrial who came to explain to our scientists and politicians that our nuclear experiments were likely to cause terrible damage to other planets and other solar systems. If we compare Adamski’s spaceman to Klatuu, the spaceman of the sciencefiction film, there are marked similarities regarding the suit.

A comparison between Klatuu and the drawing of the Venusian.

Not only was Adamski inspired by Klatuu’s costume, but his account even included the theme of the film, dealing with the danger of our nuclear tests. The typical well-proportioned man and beautiful extraterrestrial, -33-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

looking like Adamski’s Venusian and Klatuu, had already been described in 1949 in a book written by Oscar J. Friend entitled The Kid from Mars. Here is what that author wrote: And what a fantastic man! Fully two inches taller than six feet, broadshouldered and rangy of build, he stood there and surveyed the mass of people whose faces were turned up toward him. On his head was a close-fitting metal helmet which completely covered his hair, and which shone in the afternoon sun like burnished gold. It was a rakish and oddly becoming sort of head-piece, with a pair of wings like those of Hermes, plus a pair of earphones that rested against the wearer’s ears in strictly twentieth-century fashion. The stranger wore a rather loose-fitting blouse which fitted snugly at neck, wrist and waist, molding his magnificent torso beautifully. His trousers fitted him the same way. His feet were encased in a pair of glittering arctic-style shoes which looked much as if they had been fashioned of malleable glass. Around his waist, which tapered to narrowness from his broad shoulders, was a magnificent girdle or sort of wide belt of the same material, yet containing an unusual design of studs and buttons that made it look for all the world like an instrument panel. But the queerest part of the stranger’s attire was the shiny nature of his clothing, and its vivid, iridescent colors. Many of the things described there were exactly the same as Adamski described. This is enough to show that the Adamski-Wells Venusian was unoriginal, except maybe for the long blond hair, and that is reminiscent of the youth movement in Nazi Germany which, before World War II, extolled the myth of the Aryan superman or “new man.” Several drawings symbolizing that myth and its ideas were made by well-known German artist Fidus and then circulated on postcards. And we know that the same myth had a great influence on American science fiction. (2) It should be pointed out that at the time Adamski told his story, the man in the street still believed that the term “chain reaction” meant that all the atoms of the Universe could one day ignite in a true cosmic fire following a nuclear accident. No space probe had been sent into space yet, and knowledge of other planets was still strictly theoretical. Even in astronomical circles their exact atmospheric composition and their temperatures were still a subject of lively controversy. Though what Adamski’s extraterrestrial stated was absurd in the light of our One of Fidus's drawings depicting the young Aryan new man.

-34-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

current knowledge, that was not the case then. But it is an obvious indication that the story was manufactured, based necessarily on the knowledge of the time. Again according to Adamski’s statements in Flying Saucers Have Landed, the extraterrestrial also revealed that he believed in a Creator, although the word “God” did not mean anything to him. He explained that flying saucers were transported to Earth in immense flying cigars (which was something that UFO specialists believed in then), and he seemed to explain that part of our being survives death, and that he himself had formerly lived on this planet before living today on Venus. Thus Adamski skillfully introduced into his account a topic that was dear to him: that of reincarnation and of planets considered as schools where one goes from birth to birth in order to learn. The being then showed Adamski the strange footprints that he had left in the ground, and then beckoned to him to follow him. A short distance away, his saucer hovered just above the ground. Another pilot had remained on board, though Adamski could see him only as “a shadowy form.” Poor Adamski got too close under the outer edge of the craft’s flange and a “force field” jerked his right arm upward. Worried that it might have fogged his photos, he took them out of his right-hand pocket in order to move them. Seeing them, the Venusian asked for one to take with him, making Adamski understand that he would return it later. That was how the first contact with a “space brother” ended. After the saucer had left, Adamski returned to the road and waved his hat at his friends for them to come. It was in fact unnecessary, because exactly an hour had passed since he had sent Lucy and Al back to the others. An amazing coincidence compared to what Adamski had told Lucy.

Adamski alone in the desert.

Before continuing further, I would like to ask several questions that have never been raised before. Thus let us imagine the scene. Why did Adamski, who had taken, only three photographs with his Brownie, as he said, not try to photograph the saucer closer? He claimed only to have wanted to photograph the Venusian, but the latter would have doubtlessly refused in order to not risk being recognized. Indeed, there was a persistent rumor that extraterrestrials lived on Earth in the strictest -35-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

anonymity. Adamski falsely claimed that his friends saw the saucer leave. But he did not say anywhere that they saw it come twice. Why didn’t the Baileys, if they had seen the saucer leave, try to film it? Wouldn’t Mrs. Bailey have calmed down within an hour? That demonstrates that at no time did the witnesses to the contact see the saucer that Adamski spoke about. But let us return to the events as they unfolded. To avoid puncturing the tires, this time the cars stayed at the edge of the road. Adamski met his companions there, and he briefly related his adventure. All together, they went on foot to retrieve Adamski’s equipment and make casts of the Venusian’s footprints.

Making a cast of the footprints, and a drawing of them.

According to what Adamski wrote in Flying Saucers Have Landed, George Hunt Williamson, who was an anthropologist, was accustomed to taking plaster of Paris with him whenever he went someplace where there might be something interesting to take a cast of. This explanation is a pure invention, as we have learned from Baker and Williamson that it was Adamski who, while in a trance that was more than likely feigned, had recommended carrying plaster to the desert. As for Williamson, he was not really an anthropologist but a self-made man who used of the title of “Doctor” as Adamski himself used that of “Professor.” According to Adamski, there were more than a dozen good prints of the Venusian walking from the ship and back again. Williamson made three casts of the footprints—one good complete set and two partial sets. Williamson kept two of them, including the one good set. It was said that they were broken during successive changes of residence. Adamski kept the third set, which he exhibited at his place under a large transparent dome. In the book by Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good, there is a photograph of one of the casts, in very bad condition, belonging to Desmond Leslie. I do not know where Leslie got it from, or even if it is an original. -36-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

After spending several hours there overcome with great excitement, they all decided to leave. What happened next is not clear. Who had the idea to tell a newspaper about what happened? According to Adamski, George Hunt Williamson and Al Bailey asked permission to do that and he accepted. But maybe it was Adamski himself who suggested that idea. In any event, Adamski gave Williamson two of the photographic plates he had allegedly taken just before his conversation with the Venusian and told him to take them with him for processing. So, after the two groups had separated, the Williamsons and the Baileys went to the Phoenix Gazette, in Arizona where they lived. There, they told the story as Adamski had told them and the plates were processed. But the pictures were so bad that only one of them was included with the article.

Above: On the left, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey; and on the right, Mr. and Mrs. Williamson. The four are looking at the plates that had just been processed. Right: The picture published in the Phoenix Gazette. I have used several electronic means to restore it and give it more or less the appearance it should have if it had been printed on a good photographic paper.

In 2014, Ray Stanford wrote me that he learned from Williamson that soon after his visit to the Phoenix Gazette, he got a telephone call from Adamski. The latter was worried about what had become of his plates. Williamson said that he had kept them, but they were of such poor quality that the Gazette had decided to publish only one of them. Adamski then told him to destroy the plates â&#x20AC;&#x153;because it will cause people not to believe,â&#x20AC;? and that he knew that the saucer would return and he could take much better pictures. -37-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Such confidence amazed Williamson, but at the time he was so enthralled with Adamski that he went along with this argument (see Appendix 3). Did Williamson really destroy the plates? There is a mystery about that. In the revised edition of Flying Saucers Have Landed that Desmond Leslie published in 1970, he wrote that when he paid a visit to Adamski in 1954 he could see the original plates. At first sight they appeared completely black. But holding them up against bright sunlight, Leslie was able “to make out the faint image of some rocks and the shallow bell-shaped scout craft in front of them, tilted slightly and hovering a few feet higher than the observer; its three balls extended as if for landing.” And Leslie went on: “I pointed out this image to George who seemed quite surprised there was anything there at all. I don’t think he’d noticed it before.” (3) To put it bluntly, it is completely impossible that Adamski had never looked at his plates in front of the sun or even a lamp! But that is not a big deal. The fact is that even if the plates were almost black, the photographer at the Phoenix Gazette managed to print one of them clearly. So it should have been possible to print all of them afterwards. One thing is sure: it was not an electric discharge that blackened the plates; it was most certainly caused by a bad choice of exposure time. It is curious that the photograph published by the Phoenix Gazette never interested ufologists. I was the first to include it in a monograph about Adamski that I published in the year 2000, and since then it has been reprinted on the Internet, often without giving the source. My thanks go to Prof. Michael Swords, who graciously sent me a copy of the original article published by the Phoenix Gazette. So it was that on November 24, the Phoenix Gazette published the first report of the contact that was going to become the most famous one in the history of ufology. Thus ended the first episode, the Desert Center contact. Adamski’s second contact was to occur on December 13. But before talking about it, it is appropriate to examine in deph the “evidence” that Adamski proposed in favor of the veracity of the first contact. In Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski reproduced three affidavits written in March 1953. The two first were signed respectively by Alice K. Wells and Lucy McGinnis. The last was signed by four people: the Baileys and the Williamsons. These six people stated that they had read Adamski’s account, and found it to be in accord with the experience that they had had with him in the desert. These affidavits had been made in front of notaries -38-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

public and had been countersigned by Adamski. Adamski’s followers regarded these three documents as strong support for the veracity of his statements, since it would have been quite difficult and dangerous for him, they said, to find six false witnesses willing to perjure themselves like this. In fact, these affidavits do nothing to demonstrate anything about the truthfulness of Adamski’s statements, but, as we will see, they were still an extraordinary maneuver to try to convince people. According to what Williamson has said to Ray Stanford several years after the event, none of the “witnesses” had seen either the Venusian or his scout ship. They only saw Adamski alone for a while, and then nothing more than some flashes of light which could have been made by Adamski himself with a little mirror (see Appendix 3). Questioned by Jerrold Baker’s wife Irma in April 1954, Williamson told her that he had not seen anybody in the desert besides Adamski and that the whole thing had probably been of a psychic nature. In a letter that Al. Bailey wrote to Jerrold Baker on June 1, 1954, he stated that he clearly remembered the position that each of them had occupied that day in the desert, and that in his opinion nobody had been able to see more than he did—that is to say, nothing special. Questioned by Jim Moseley, Al. Bailey acknowledged that he had seen only the large flying cigar, but not the saucer or the Venusian; at most, just luminous flashes in Adamski’s direction, a mile and a half away from them. (4) In 1958, Richard Carl Ogden wrote to Al. Bailey to ask if these statements were true. Bailey, who must have known that the letter-writer was a follower of Adamski’s, did not even answer him. Ogden used this to denounce Moseley, who had originally published the letter from Bailey to Baker. Unfortunately for Ogden, Bailey was not the only one to recognize that he had not seen anything extraordinary that day. (5) A careful reading of Adamski’s account seems to precisely corroborate what Al. Bailey stated. According to the contactee’s statements, when the Venusian appeared between the rocks, he gestured to him to come meet him, instead of going forward himself. Once together, the two men would have passed behind the rocks, thus necessarily being hidden from the view of the “privileged witnesses of the meeting.” But there could be more because this lack of witnesses would apply even to Alice K. Wells. Around 1966-1967, the Canadian radio program “Atoms and Galaxies” devoted several episodes to the flying saucer mystery. -39-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

My Canadian correspondent François Beaulieu reports that when Wells was interviewed on the program she admitted that she had not really seen the Venusian in the desert. (6) What did the six “witnesses” really see? Located very far from Adamski, they saw him move towards the hills, disappearing behind them and then returning an hour later. The majority of the six witnesses could not even see this scene distinctly—apart from the luminous flashes— because Adamski was then very far away from the group, and it seems there were only two pairs of binoculars for six people. In fact, it all happened a bit like how illusionists do it: Adamski started by creating a climate of general excitation, persuaded his friends that a saucer was going to come, prevented them from watching from too close, and pretended to meet somebody. The suggestion, the excitement, the deep desire to believe, and some bright flashes did the rest: these credulous people were persuaded that they had really been present at their friend’s meeting with a man from space. In good faith, they thus signed affidavits in which they said that Adamski’s account agreed with what they had experienced with him in the desert. And it was true! But look: between what they had really seen and the interpretation that had been suggested to them by Adamski, there was the same difference as between what a witness to a magic show thinks he sees and what really occurs. The casts of the Venusian’s shoe prints have resulted in a vast literature. In 1972, Éditions Travox of Biarritz (France) put out a posthumous book by Jean-Gérard Dohmen, a veteran of Belgian ufology, entitled A Identifier et le Cas Adamski (To Identify and the Adamski Case). The second part of the book was primarily about a study that the author had previously submitted as a long exclusive article to the Belgian Adamski group BUFOI, for which I worked for several years. Jean-Gérard Dohmen was an expert in shoemaking, which he taught at a vocational school in Brussels. When he first saw the drawing of the Venusian’s shoe-prints, he had burst out laughing, thinking that prints like that could not be anything but false, as they did not appear to be able to correspond to shoes for humanoid feet. Partly as a game, and partly as a challenge, he had then decided to reconstruct the shoes starting with the prints. So this craftsman set to work, and, as the days passed, he finally came to the conclusion that the prints attested to the existence of shoes which were to some extent a model of perfection, both from a physiological point of view and from the point of view of the technique of making them. In fact, the honest teacher Dohmen finally discovered little by little only what he was already subconsciously convinced of. He himself recognized, and this is significant from an expert, that the reconstruction -40-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

work had never been tried before because it was almost unrealizable. Here we have a marvelous example of delusion based primarily on imagination. The circumstances under which Adamski required somebody to go and buy plaster of Paris before going to the desert clearly indicate that he had a hidden, well-prepared plan. No doubt he had carried with him, probably in the corrugated box, the basic material that enabled him to make such prints. Curiously, it is estimated that the Venusian’s depression in the ground corresponded to a weight greater than that of a being 5'-6" tall with that physique. Which told some people that Venusians had a density greater than ours. Wouldn’t the weight of Adamski himself explain the depression more simply? George Hunt Williamson was the first one who tried to provide a kind of translation of the signs and symbols that covered the prints. He did that in a book that is today forgotten, entitled Other Tongues - Other Flesh (Amherst Press, Amherst, Wis., dated 1953 but not published until 1957). There is another attempted explanation of the symbols, comparing them with other symbols, which will be discussed later. In 1956 Richard Ogden was the first one who had the idea of asking the Air Force if, like Adamski had said, an attempt at intercepting a UFO had been carried out on November 20, 1952, in the area of Desert Center, California. The U.S. Air Force replied that on that date and in that area, there had been a report of a pilot in connection with the sighting of a UFO. Ogden tried to learn more, but ran up against the bureaucracy, and for the time being he stopped his investigations there. The results of his inquiry were published by the renowned Flying Saucer Review, of London, in its September-October 1958 issue. They had the effect of dropping a bombshell on Adamski’s detractors. They seemed to prove that at least part of the account of the Desert Center contact was well-founded, and that disturbed the reductionists who at that time preferred to insist, without proof and in the name of simple good sense, that this whole business was only one huge hoax. It is little known that Richard Ogden continued his investigations on this subject after publishing the article. Thus he ended up coming into contact with Edward J. Ruppelt. For several years Ruppelt had been the head of the USAF’s official UFO investigation, called Project Blue Book. Ruppelt explained to Ogden how he had personally made several trips to California to investigate Adamski, but that he had not been able to find anything to corroborate his statements. He added that all the bases from where the fighters could have taken off to pursue a UFO over the desert had been contacted in vain: at none of them could be found any pilots belonging to a group of planes that chased a UFO. And no pilot remembered having seen a saucer on the ground in the desert, either on that day or any other. Ruppelt -41-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

concluded by acknowledging that there had been UFO reports that day in Southern California, but that none corresponded with what Adamski had described. At the time, taking into account the climate of obsession with UFOs that reigned, it was common to have two or three reports a day without it seeming to be anything special. Ogden, who was a true fan of Adamski’s (something he had concealed in his article for Flying Saucer Review), considered that Ruppelt was a liar. So he started to badger the Air Technical Intelligence Center by even writing letters full of absurd threats. He ended up receiving a very firm reply from Major Lawrence J. Tacker, explaining to him that on November 20, 1952, there had been a UFO alert, but that it had been over the Salton Sea, more than ten miles away from the place indicated by Adamski. However, it was discovered that this alert had been caused only by a sonde balloon. Major Tacker added that planes had indeed flown over the place indicated by Adamski, but that the pilots had not seen any UFO. To cut short Ogden’s harassment, Major Tacker told him that the Air Force did not see any problem with him publishing all the letters that he had received from them on the subject. Ogden did not keep trying, undoubtedly understanding that he would not get anything more, and concluding that everyone was lying shamelessly—except Adamski of course! Ogden was completely wrong, but his enthusiasm was contagious: many people took for proof something that, in fact, proved nothing. The Air Force had never given credit to Adamski’s account in any way whatsoever. It is particularly significant that even Timothy Good, in the book that he wrote in 1983 with Lou Zinsstag to defend the memory of Adamski and the reality of his contacts, gave up on Richard Ogden’s conclusions and accepted Major Tacker’s opinion. (7) Before examining the sequel to Adamski’s first contact, it is necessary to think again for a moment about the saucer. That saucer in the desert presented landing gear consisting of three hemispheres forming an equilateral triangle. Such landing gear had been described previously in a book by Frank Scully entitled Behind the Flying Saucers, published in 1950. The author claimed that flying saucers had crashed in the desert and had been recovered by the Air Force. It was later shown that the book was a joke from start to finish. But the book had additional details that seem to have been useful to Adamski from then on. Scully claimed that the dimensions of the saucers indicated a numerical system based on the progression 3-6-9, which Adamski spoke about in his last book, Flying Saucers Farewell. When Scully’s book appeared, a great number of people believed what he reported. It seems that Adamski found it natural from then on to borrow data from Scully’s book to construct his hoaxes.

-42-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI REFERENCES : 1) Saucer News, Fort Lee, N.J., “SPECIAL ADAMSKI EXPOSE ISSUE,” October 1957, pp. 7-14. (Reprinted in James W. Moseley & Karl T. Pflock: Shockingly Close to the Truth: Confession of a GraveRobbing Ufologist; Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books, 2002, pp. 339-346) 2) Oscar J. Friend : The Kid from Mars; New York, Frederick Fell Inc., 1949, pp. 21-22 (first published in Startling Stories Magazine, September 1940). 3) Desmond Leslie and George Adamski: Flying Saucers Have Landed-Revised and enlarged edition; London, Neville Spearman, 1970, p. 241. 4) James W. Moseley and Karl T. Pflock: Shockingly Close to the Truth, pp. 61 and 348 5) Richard Ogden: The Case for George Adamski’s Contacts; Seattle, Wash., The Author, 1981, p.125. 6) Personnal correspondence from François Beaulieu to Marc Hallet dated November 5, 2014 7) Richard Ogden: The Case for George Adamski’s Contacts; pp. 110-116. Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski : The Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983, pp. 146-148.

-43-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-44-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THE RETURN VISIT

ere is the story Adamski told in Flying Saucers Have Landed about the events of December 13, 1952.

That morning, after having heard the roar of jets overhead, he saw a flash in the sky. He then informed the others present that something was about to happen and, around 9 o’clock, he saw the Venusian saucer gliding towards him. When it was 300-500 feet above the valley and 2,000-3,000 feet away, it stopped a few moments, which gave Adamski enough time to expose two photographic plates using the camera mounted on his telescope set up outdoors. Realizing that the entire saucer would not fit in the photograph, he moved the camera slightly and took a third photograph. He was taking a fourth when the craft started to move. In Flying Saucers Have Landed, Adamski commented: “the first three of these pictures proved to show good detail, while the fourth—taken in motion—turned out fuzzy, but is still good.” According to Adamski, the saucer kept approaching and was soon within a hundred feet of him. A porthole opened slightly, a hand came out, and the photographic plate, in its holder, was dropped to the ground. Then the saucer left towards the north and flew over another part of the property, where it was photographed by Jerrold E. Baker using a simple Kodak Brownie. Adamski gave to his regular photographic lab the four pictures that he had just taken, and the plate that the Venusian had returned to him. After they were processed, it was discovered that with the latter, which Adamski had previously exposed in the desert, the image had been “washed off” and the emulsion restored so that a new image could be put there. This new -45-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

image consisted of a strange oval drawing surrounded by unknown symbols. Such is the account that Adamski gave in Flying Saucers Have Landed. Except for Jerrold E. Baker, Adamski did not say anything about any reaction by his friends, even though he said he had informed them of the probable imminent arrival of the saucer. It is all the more strange. The very same day Baker signed a declaration in which he acknowledged that, informed by Adamski of the arrival of a saucer in the distance, he had quickly gotten the Brownie that the contactee had lent him and that he had then succeeded in photographing the ship passing by nearby. He signed it with an eagerness that the witnesses to the desert contact had not demonstrated, because they did not sign their affidavits until March 1953. Known as “Sergeant Baker’s photograph,” it was reproduced later in Flying Saucers Have Landed, along with the three best shots out of the four taken by Adamski that day.

Sergeant Baker’s photograph.

Sergeant Baker’s photograph shows a blurry object that seems to be passing in front of foliage. The fuzzy appearance of the “saucer” is not due to motion. Taking into account the type of lens that Brownies had, only objects placed too close could be blurry, the rest of the shot still being reasonably sharp. This immediately makes one think of a small model placed too close to the camera. -46-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

It is appropriate, now, to examine the four telescopic pictures that, according to Adamski, he had taken on December 13, 1952.

-47-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The three pictures the reader can see here are the ones that Adamski chose to publish in Flying Saucers Have Landed. Remember that he said the fourth one lacked sharpness because it had been taken when the saucer moved. Thus we have here photos number 1, 2 and 3 the latter having been taken after Adamski turned his camera on its axis. In 1970, in his revised and enlarged edition of Flying Saucers Have Landed, Desmond Leslie published for the first time what he claimed was the fourth picture taken on December 13, 1952. Thanks to my friend Wim Van Utrecht, it is now proved that that picture was the same as picture 1, -48-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

photographed again but this time with a camera shake and probably at a small angle in order to produce a distorted image. Here is that image.

It is not surprising that Leslie would have done this; as we will see later, he was capable of worse. The true fourth photo finally appeared for the first time many years later in a book written by German ufologist Michael Hesemann, entitled UFO’s: Die Kontakte (2000-Dokumentation, Verlag Michael Hesemann, Düsseldorf, 1990, p. 24). Since then, a better copy has come to light on the Internet. Here it is:

This fourth picture deserves to be called the “killer photo” because, thanks to it, one can now conclude definitively that Adamski told a fictitious account about what had happened that morning. Recounting the order in -49-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

which he took the four photographs, Adamski was very clear: he took two when the camera was set a certain way, then he modified the framing, took a third photo, and finally a fourth, a blurry one, because the saucer had started to move. Now when we look at the four pictures, none of them is really more blurry than the others. But more interestingly, three were taken at more or less the same angle and only one at a completely different angle. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t match with Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s account, that he changed the framing after taking two of the four pictures, because we have only one picture in a vertical format instead of two. It is totally incredible that if he had really lived moments as fantastic as these, Adamski then completely mixed up his explanations even with the four photographs right in front of him, photos that should constitute the best kind of mnemonic aid. Therefore everything indicates that before getting the plates processed, he constructed around them an account as coherent as possible that he was stuck with, perhaps without even realizing that this account was inadequate compared to the photographs themselves. And probably that's why he never published that fourth picture. Thanks to Fred or Glenn Steckling, that fourth picture has now come to light. It is appropriate now to clearly understand how the picture could have been taken. And here again, there are some surprises... The reader who is familiar with a modern camera (electronic, automatic, light-weight, and easy to handle), can only imagine with difficulty the methods Adamski had to use to take a picture with his primitive equipment. I will thus try to start by describing the operation.

Adamski and the camera mounted on his telescope.

As can be seen in a captioned picture in Flying Saucers Have Landed, and according to what he explained himself, Adamski had an old Graflex type -50-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

camera, a Hagee model, made in Germany by Ihagee Kamerawerk Steenbergen & Co. (Multiple editions and printings of Flying Saucers Have Landed identified the camera incorrectly as “an old Hagee-Dresden Grafles type.” For example, p. 193 of the British Book Centre edition published in New York in 1953.) That camera was a kind of box with a simple hole without a lens on the front and whose back, opposite the opening, was replaced by a system of runners for sliding a frosted glass or a light frame containing a photographic plate. This apparatus, provided with a shutter, was attached to the telescope. With this equipment, here are the steps that Adamski had to take to photograph the saucer. The first problem to be solved was to frame the saucer in the field of the telescope. For that, Adamski had to first locate it using the “finder,” which is a small sight attached to the principal tube of the telescope. Once the saucer was located, Adamski had to refine the framing by correctly positioning the telescope on its tripod. Even for a skilled man, these various operations could not be carried out in under ten seconds. Once that was finished, photographic manipulations in the strict sense could begin. First, Adamski had to adjust the focus of the image. For that, he introduced frosted glass in the camera’s runners; for a few moments it constituted the back of the apparatus. While working under a black cloth, to keep out light, he then had to observe the image that formed on the frosted glass, adjust its sharpness by means of the optical system between the photo box and the telescope, and then close the shutter. Then he had to withdraw the frosted glass and replace it with a photographic plate slid in on the runners, with its frame. In order to not spoil the photographic plate by light during this handling, it was covered with a lid, which was then necessary to withdraw, being careful to not move the unit, lest everything be put out of order. Once the lid was removed and the photographic plate was ready to be exposed to light, the shutter was actuated using a mechanical release functioning with a button that had to be pressed. As soon as the plate was exposed, the lid of the plate-carrier frame was put back on and the lid-frameplate unit was withdrawn and then put under cover. A second frame covered with its lid could then be slipped into the back of the apparatus so that another photograph could be taken. But, during all this time, the saucer could have moved. It was thus necessary to verify first of all that it was still in the field of the telescope, and that could be done only by looking through the viewfinder, which in practice required completely bypassing the apparatus. I seriously invite my readers to try to imagine, step by step, the complexity of the operations and all the motions necessary to take four photographs in this manner, making sure each time that the saucer is still in the field of the telescope. That takes a considerable time. However, Adamski claimed to have made it more difficult yet when he once modified the framing in order to get the entire saucer. That required him to again adjust the focus on the frosted glass, which thus had to be placed again and then withdrawn -51-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

in the back of the apparatus before the third photograph could be taken. If the reader has the patience to do a diagram to summarize all the operations necessary to take these four pictures, he will find more or less 40 different operations! If we think that some of these operations required several motions, that they had to be made with extreme meticulousness and without any error, and moreover that Adamski needed to carefully arrange each of his plate-carrier frames before taking the next one, one can only remain speechless at his account, which seems to indicate that all of these operations were carried out in the space of a minute or two, which was how long the saucer stopped over the valley. The reader will allow me to return for a moment to the contact in the desert. There, it is a set of seven photos that Adamski claimed to have taken during the time that the saucer moved between two hills. In this case, one can frankly say that what Adamski did would have been miraculous! But a careful reading of his account reveals that the wind blew in gusts and made the telescope move. If one takes this latter element into account, it was a miracle defying all the resources of human ability! Let us return to the telescopic photographs of December 13, 1952. I have explained the way in which Adamski said they were taken, but I did not say anything yet about their design features. My friend Michel Monnerie, who is not only a famous French ex-ufologist but especially an amateur astronomer, who is passionate about astronomical photography, gave me a number of technical details on this subject that I will share with my readers. I will summarize them by saying that the telescope used by Adamski was absolutely not designed for astronomical photography and that its use for that purpose, was still an imperfect makeshift job, even if Adamski had had excellent photographic material, which was absolutely not the case. Taking into account the design features of the telescope, a photographic image would have been not very clear, not very bright, or very small, compared to the broad surface of the photographic plate used, depending on the circumstance. Michel Monnerie considered the various solutions that could have been used by Adamski to solve the problems inherent in the material that was supposedly employed. None seemed really satisfactory to him. I still need to speak about one important thing: the sensitivity of the plates used by Adamski. As he and his disciples hardly worried about rigorous technical information, we do not know anything about this subject. The only thing that is certain is that at that time the sensitive photographic plates available in the trade and to which Adamski had access never had a -52-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

sensitivity exceeding 200 ASA, which is too low to undertake telescopic photos which have been described as “snapshots.” The conclusion to be drawn is that the material described by Adamski was completely unsuited to carry out a series of four short exposures of an object that remained still for only one or two minutes. These technical considerations were never pointed out, either by those who defended the authenticity of Adamski’s photos or by those which wanted to denounce their trickery by means of simplistic arguments. When Flying Saucers Have Landed appeared, it included, at the end of Adamski’s part, an “Appendix” relating to an official meeting on June 1, 1953, with the participation of Al Chop, who had been Air Force press officer for Project Blue Book. These lines can be read there: Chop was shown photographs that Adamski had taken with his telescopic camera near Palomar. Pev. Marley, cameraman for Cecil B. De Mille’s ‘Greatest Show on Earth’,... who had served as a photographer with the Enemy Interceptor Command in the Second World War and who could identify Jap Zeros and other enemy planes at a glance, testified that Adamski’s pictures, if faked, were the cleverest he had ever seen, rivalling a Houdini. Marley pointed out that the shadows on these saucers, and also on the ground, corresponded to such a remarkable degree that they could not be faked, and that to fake such pictures would require costly equipment which Adamski, obviously, does not possess and which, even then, could not assure such a result. DeMille (the correct spelling of the name) is better known today as the director of the 1956 Biblical epic The Ten Commandments. John Peverell Marley (1901-1964) was a famous American cinematographer who has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The testimony of such a man is thus very important—or at least, it would be if it were true. It is simple to disprove Marley’s alleged comments quoted here as a pure invention, because it is a fact that the ground is not even visible anywhere in the photographs of December 13. The false information that it contained was nevertheless often used by Adamski’s followers, without even realizing how absurd it was. (1) In January 1955, in his ufological magazine Nexus, James Moseley published an article entitled “Some New Facts About ‘Flying Saucers Have Landed.’” It was followed by two others, signed respectively by Irma Baker and Lonzo Dove, which appeared in the issues of June-July and OctoberNovember. All of them were reprinted by Moseley in October 1957 in a -53-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

special issue of his Saucer News magazine (the magazine’s name having changed from Nexus), which was called the “SPECIAL ADAMSKI EXPOSE ISSUE.” In 2002 it was reproduced as an appendix to Shockingly Close to the Truth (pp. 333-352), a book with devastating humor published by Prometheus Books, which James Moseley wrote with Karl Pflock. At that time, Moseley wrote that it had been his “only major contribution to the field as a Serious Ufologist” (page 68). As long as I was working with the BUFOI group, I never saw there a single document on that famous “exposé,” and when I asked about it I received vague answers and was told that it was, for the most part, just a myth. In fact, it was taboo. In his exposé, Moseley said that when he asked Marley about his statement in the appendix to Flying Saucers Have Landed, the latter denied ever having said such a thing, nor had he wasted his time making enlargements of the photos, something else that some of Adamski’s followers later claimed. Anyway, it is interesting to note that the appendix about Pev Marley was withdrawn from the revised and expanded version of Flying Saucers Have Landed published in 1970 by Desmond Leslie. In addition to many points raised by Lonzo Dove about Adamski’s telescopic photographs, the “Adamski exposé” includes a complete retraction by Jerrold E. Baker, on which Adamski and his close followers brought down a wall of silence. Thus, for example, nearly thirty years later, Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good’s book summarized the event in a single sentence and tersely insinuated that Baker had yielded to pressure from the Air Force. (2) Here is the complete story... At the end of the month of October 1952, as I mentioned above, Adamski let Jerrold Baker stay in a corner of the Palomar Gardens property. Baker (1929-1993) was 23 years old at that time and had only meager financial resources. Thus it is reasonable to think that Adamski consequently exerted on him a certain amount of psychological pressure, carefully meted out. According to what Baker revealed in his retraction, published for the first time in 1955, on December 13, 1952, Adamski made him sign a document in which he acknowledged having seen the Venusian saucer and photographed it with a Kodak Brownie. At the time, Baker believed he was serving the cause of UFOs and did not imagine that this photograph would ever be published in a book. This photograph, added Baker, was not taken the 13th, but rather the 12th or even a few days before; and not by him but by Adamski, without any witnesses present. Baker made it clear that this picture had not been the only one. Others, less successful ones, were destroyed by Lucy McGinnis under Adamski’s orders. Baker went on to state that he never saw an object -54-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

such as the one in Adamski’s pictures, except once when he and a certain Karl Hunrath (about whom more later) discovered behind Adamski’s cabin a modestly-sized object “that closely resembled a skeleton for a saucer mockup.” Questioned by the two men about it, Adamski “grew somewhat uneasy” and assured them that it was his television antenna. When ufologists later asked Adamski about this episode, he always stuck to this explanation. On January 31, 1954, which was one year before he publicly recanted, Baker wrote this to Frank Scully: “The Brownie Snapshot: You are presently familiar with this episode so I will not have to go into it again. However, in talking with this man (Adamski) when we met in town last week, he urged me to continue using my name on the picture because, ‘You have to enter the back door sometimes to get the truth across.’ What kind of fool does he think we are, Frank? And actually, what kind of imbeciles are we to pledge our support to such stories? Is not all this a corruption of the truth? I say it is! I know it is! I will not condone it or support it any longer.” What had happened to cause this remarkable reversal in Baker’s attitude towards Adamski? The documents published by Moseley, considered alongside other publications of the time (and an FBI memo dated Jan 28, 1953), clarify the facts perfectly. Just as he had provided Baker with lodgings, Adamski also authorized Karl Hunrath to move to the Palomar Gardens property. That must have occurred at the beginning of January 1953. Hunrath presented himself as a kind of inventor. On January 3, Williamson also arrived, with weapons and luggage but without his wife. He seemed to have personal problems. It was then that Baker, Hunrath, and Williamson discussed for the first time the creation of a George Adamski Foundation. On January 12, things took a dramatic turn: in a panic, Lucy telephoned her friend Irma to tell her that her fiancé, Jerold Baker, was mixed up with the other two men in what seemed to be a project to shoot down jets in flight, using magnetic frequency machinery similar to the weapons that flying saucers might have. Irma contacted the OSI (the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations), and the OSI and FBI turned up at Adamski’s place later the same day. Insane with rage, Adamski gave an astonishing speech. For example, he claimed that he was a medium and that Williamson was not, he was just posing as one. He also accused the three men of having tried to steal his mail. Later, on another occasion, he even claimed that these men had tried to steal his money. None of these charges would have resisted a quick investigation. All these people living on the same property had the same postal address and shared the same post-office box. Adamski, who liked others to serve him, had -55-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

authorized Baker to pick up the mail from the post office in nearby Escondido, sort it, and then bring what was addressed to him. Adamski received checks (as donations!), but he could not show that Baker or Hunrath had stolen a single one. Hunrath for his part, was a disciple of the famous psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich and, like him, he tried to manufacture “orgone cannons,” with which he hoped to make rain or force saucers to land on the ground. These “cannons” were only hollow pipes connected to each other and to the ground by some cables (several models existed). But nothing like that could frighten down-toearth OSI and FBI agents, who laughed at it! The cause of Adamski’s rage might be understood by comparing the testimony of each of the opposing parties. According to Adamski’s followers, it was he who tried to drive out the three men by accusing them of wanting to steal documents from him and of conspiring against the American state, on the property where he lived. However, it seems that on January 11 or 12, Baker and Hunrath were just gathering up some old wet papers that Adamski had vainly tried to completely destroy in a fire. Seeing that, Adamski accused them of wanting to grab things that were his property. Right after that, having realized that Adamski was a liar, Williamson, Baker and Hunrath decided to leave. A violent argument broke out, which did nothing to change their decision. Lucy McGinnis uttered various threats against them, to try to make them remain, but she failed. That is why she panicked, and got the idea to call Irma. Exonerated by the FBI, which closed the case, Williamson, Baker and Hunrath left for Los Angeles with the aim of finding work there. Thanks to his technical training, Hunrath found a job for an airline company. The other two thought of mounting a kind of show based on the Native American dances that Williamson knew well, but that did not go well, and the latter left to return to his wife, whom he had left despite her pregnancy. Baker ended up settling in an apartment with Hunrath, and in March they were joined by a certain Wilbur Wilkinson who had previously known Hunrath well. The three of them then made some trips to Prescott to visit Williamson, who believed he was receiving extraterrestrial messages in a mediumistic trance, a method that he had surely copied from Adamski. Engrossed in these new experiences, the four men believed themselves “possessed” by entities from other worlds and took extraterrestrial names: Markon for Baker, Mark III for Williamson, and Firkon and Ramu for Hunrath and Wilkinson. It is important to note that the names Firkon and Ramu appeared soon afterwards in Adamski’s book Inside the Space Ships, so it is probable that these imaginary characters had already been invented when Baker and Williamson still lived on Alice Wells’s property, well before Adamski began to speak about his new contacts.

-56-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Carried away by their collective delirium, the four men ended up having strange dreams and visions. Fortunately for Baker, it was then that he learned that his mother was seriously sick, and he left the group. Soon afterwards, Wilkinson and Hunrath became persuaded that they were going to establish physical contact with the occupants of a flying saucer. For this purpose, they rented a light plane and took off… to disappear without leaving a trace! It was thought that they had found death in an accident over the ocean or in the mountains. But, according to Moseley, the FBI thought they skipped across the border to Mexico for reasons that did not have anything to do with ufology. For his part, Baker married Irma and, after having published his retraction, he gave up ufology completely. In the company of Alfred Bailey, who had been one of the “witnesses” to the contact in the desert, Williamson continued his experiments, entering into radio contact with the saucers. For this purpose, he created the Telonic Research Center with Dick Miller, and then published on this topic a book entitled The Saucers Speak. Miller, for his part, was the subject of ufological debate for having mounted several hoaxes. The most famous was a magnetic tape that he claimed was a recording of the Martian Mon-Ka. The vicissitudes of life took Williamson to Peru, where he created an esoteric group that he called The Brotherhood of the Seven Rays. After the death of his wife—which Moseley insinuated was not natural—he remarried and knew a succession of periods of obscurity, between which he reappeared in certain UFO cult groups. He died in Long Beach, California, in January 1986. (3) What was in the papers that Adamski had tried to burn and which apparently showed Baker, Hunrath, and Williamson that he was a liar? These papers must have proven the falsehood of the account of the Desert Center contact, since the other contacts had not been announced yet. Therefore they could not be Pioneers of Space, whether printed copies or in manuscript form. So was it rather a manuscript dealing with a being getting out of a flying saucer, dated before the events in the desert? One thinks immediately of the famous manuscript about Jesus coming out of a saucer, about which Ray Palmer spoke several times. Just a hypothesis, of course; but it has the merit of being consistent with the known facts. But what was it that Adamski photographed? There were many people who claimed to have identified the object that the faker used as a model. I have gathered on this subject a collection of widely disparate explanations: chicken brooder, gas streetlight, top of a vacuum cleaner, metal ceiling light, etc. Not even mention other “explanations” like the bottle cooler that did not even exist until 1959. Let us recall that Adamski was above all a laborer able to many jobs. He was also an artist, as Ray Stanford discovered when he visited him (see -57-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Appendix 3). Thus he was perfectly capable of building himself a model of different materials and different provenances which could be then covered with a good coat of metallic paint. That was what Joel Carpenter, an American UFO skeptic, was pondering when he had an idea. What about the purpose of the holes in the dome of the saucer, he thought? Maybe they were designed to remove heat. But heat from what? Could it be that it was some kind of camping stove or oil lamp? He thought that that kind of design was surely an old one. Following this line of research, Carpenter discovered some old pressure lamps manufactured by the Turner Brass Company. In fact, he was not the first one to follow that trail. An anonymous researcher nicknamed Strato seems to have been the first to have spoken about that on April 19, 2010, on the Internet forum nousnesommespasseuls (French for â&#x20AC;&#x153;we are not aloneâ&#x20AC;?). But Carpenter was undoubtedly the one who went furthest in this study. He made contact with numerous specialists and collectors who explained to him that these old lamps (made in the 1930s) were not manufactured to exact specifications, and that two of them of the same model could have some differences between them. Also, there were several models which were sold under several brands and names. So, it could be that many different lamps of a same general model existed. To find one just like what Adamski used was consequently hard if not impossible. Carpenter began to search for a lamp of this kind, and finally he was able to buy one. He set to work on it at once. Left: Advertising for a lamp sold in 1935 under the Sears brand. Abovee: The lamp that Carpenter bought. Look at the hole made for the passage of the

Carpenter could not find what Adamski had made the cupola and the three-part landing gear at the bottom of the saucer out of. So he made plastic -58-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

pieces which he mounted on the metallic structure of the lamp. He painted the whole thing and made some comparisons.

Photographs of Adamski and Carpenter, to compare.

To his great astonishment, the hole for the handle to hold the lamp matched perfectly with something which until then seemed to be a light reflection or glare on the Venusian scout ship! Nevertheless those who have carefully examined the two pictures in order to do their own comparisons have found some discrepancies between them. But as said before, two identical lamps of the same model may not exist, especially so many years later. At this time, it is not always clear which objects served to complete the part of the lantern to come up with a model with the upper dome and the lower part with its three landing gears as depicted in Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pictures. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the genius of the creator of this model was precisely to assemble different objects that had no relationship between them. This was the best way to spread confusion and to prevent immediate identification of the real origin of the model. Joel Carpenter is now deceased, and his extraordinary attempt to discover how Adamski manufactured his model could not be completed. But he took us a great leap forward! (4) But did Adamski really take the photographs he spread around the world? Some doubts exist, and here is why: In 1994, while discussing the photos supposedly taken with the 6-inch telescope, ex-ufologist Michel Monnerie (an astrophotography buff) explained to me why he thought that Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s telescope would not even have been capable of allowing the American contactee to obtain most of his -59-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

saucer photos. The French amateur astronomer pointed out to me that Newtonian telescopes of the time were not at all designed to take photographs, for optical reasons. He added other technical details, including, for example, the fact that the surface of the plates used by Adamski was 25 cm (ten inches) or farther away from the body of the telescope, making it impossible to photograph in focus without increasing the focal distance by means of another eyepiece, which would have appreciably decreased the opening and would thus have required very long exposure times. At the end of our discussion, Monnerie concluded that most probably Adamski had not even used his telescope, but had imitated the result that he would have obtained if he had used it. This could also explain a detail that had been pointed out early on by amateur astronomer Lonzo Dove: on some of Adamski’s photographs showing the saucer, one could see that part of the object sometimes seemed to extend beyond the dark rounded edge supposedly formed by the edge of the very field of view of the telescope. Such a thing could obviously occur only if this dark circle were not really the edge of the field of view of the telescope but something else. Famous British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke also noticed this. Writing about Adamski’s Plate 3 in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (March 1954, p.121; misquoted in the Adamski exposé issue of Saucer News), he said, “one of the saucers appears to be inside his telescope.” In August1965, Thomas Cave, a famous American telescope maker, attended the annual meeting of a group of amateur astronomers, where he encountered one of his former customers for whom he had built a 16-inch Newtonian reflector telescope, one of the largest telescopes made at Cave Optical to that time. This former customer was Martin Sloan, who lived in Escondido, California, 30 miles north of San Diego. He had the reputation of being an excellent photographer, and operated a photo supply store there, as well as a commercial and portrait photography studio with a processing laboratory. The two men shared memories and, by chance, the subject of Adamski and his hamburger stand on the road to the Mount Palomar observatory came up. Adamski had in fact died only a few months before. Sloan confided to Cave that now that “dear old George” was dead he felt free to divulge the fact that back in the early ’50s he had photographed the models of the flying saucers and motherships from Venus that Adamski had claimed to have photographed through his telescope. Sloan regarded Adamski as a very likeable rogue and was greatly amused by the attention the photographs had generated. Sloan, who seemed to regard this as a simple amusing professional anecdote, did not say any more, and Cave did not ask for more information about it, because even though he was already convinced that Adamski was a charlatan, this revelation caught him by surprise. Years passed. Before his death in 2003, Cave visited the home of his friend Tom Dobbins many times to be interviewed by him. Dobbins is a -60-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

research chemist who is well known in the world of American astronomers. The two men hoped that these talks could one day make possible the writing of a full biography devoted to the astronomical work of Thomas Cave. So it was that by chance, one day in 1996, Cave related the preceding incident to his friend Dobbins, who as usual recorded the conversation on magnetic tape. Dobbins did not doubt that this information could be useful one day, and he carefully preserved it while waiting for the right opportunity. That presented itself when he discovered my writings on Adamski. He contacted me and authorized me to use this information as I thought best. Thomas Cave did not have any reason to invent such a thing because he was not interested in UFOs, or even in Adamski, and he did not seek to disseminate this information in any way. It also seems that Sloan would not have had any reason to invent that in order to tell it only to Thomas Cave, knowing that Cave did not care about the subject of flying saucers in the least. However, here is something that could confirm Sloan’s statements: amateur astronomer Lonzo Dove, who was an ardent critic of Adamski’s claims, had previously asserted that the photos allegedly taken on December 13 were already in circulation on the 6th, as shown by the postmark. (5) Dove was unfortunately satisfied with quoting documents without showing them, which greatly decreases the significance of his arguments. But it should be pointed out that this man was never caught lying about anything he said against Adamski’s photographs. That, as well as the fact that he belonged to the American community of amateur astronomers, is nevertheless perhaps not unimportant: perhaps Sloan had sent to a limited number of people interested in astrophotography one or the other of the photos that Adamski had ordered from him, even before December 13. Were Adamski’s “telescopic” photographs really taken by Sloan (at least some of them) or was Sloan pulling Cave’s leg, and if so, why? It is hard to decide. There is also the testimony of Ray Stanford who said that one day, Adamski showed him his workshop where he could see some little fluorescent saucers hanging in front of a black mass shaped like the mothership Adamski claimed to have photographed (see Appendix 3). All those things seem to contradict each other. But Adamski was for sure a master of confusion. It is known that the photographer who developed most of Adamski’s photographs was Mr. D.J. Detwiler of Carlsbad, California. To better perfect his hoaxes, is it possible that Adamski used this man by having him develop the originals ordered from Martin Sloan? It is not provable. The only thing that is certain, however, is that Adamski’s famous photographs were never taken under the circumstances that he described, nor did they show what he claimed. -61-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Was this picture taken in the Adamski’s workshop, as Ray Stanford has suggested?

Maybe the most extraordinary thing about all these pictures is that the Polish-American contactee succeeded in gaining recognition for the traditional models of a flying saucer, a flying cigar, and a particular type of extraterrestrial, all at the same time. For a long time, it was enough to speak of “Adamski-type” saucers or cigar-shaped motherships to describe them. The same went for the “long-haired Venusian-type” of extraterrestrial. Thousands of people saw such craft and such extraterrestrials. And though there are no claimed photographs of Orthon, there are however plenty of photos and films showing saucers or cigar craft that are “Adamskian” in shape. Some of these photographs seem to resemble Adamski’s saucer so closely that one almost wonders whether they were by other hoaxers who discovered at least certain key parts of the object on which the famous contactee based the model he worked with. REFERENCES : 1) Saucer News, Fort Lee, N.J., “SPECIAL ADAMSKI EXPOSE ISSUE,” October 1957, p. 7. James W. Moseley and Karl T. Pflock, Shockingly Close to the Truth; Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 339. 2) Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski: The untold story; Beckenham, Kent, Ceti Publication, 1983, p. 13. 3) James W. Moseley and Karl T. Pflock, Shockingly Close to the Truth; Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 2002, pp. 340-348, 62-63, 136-138 Nick Redfern: Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind: Suspicious Deaths, Mysterious Murders, and Bizarre Disappearances in UFO History, New Page Books, Pompton Plains, N.J., 2014, pp. 59-68. 4) Personal communications by Joel Carpenter and François Beaulieu to Marc Hallet. 5) Richard Ogden: The Case for George Adamski's Contacts; Seattle, Wash., The Author,, 1981, p. 151

-62-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

A STRANGE MESSAGE...

hen the photographic plate that the Venusian returned to Adamski on December 13, 1952, was developed, it was discovered that it bore a strange oval drawing with many incomprehensible symbols. Adamski explained that the emulsion had been regenerated by an unknown method, necessitated by the fact that he had previously exposed the plate by photographing the saucer in the desert. To say such a thing, Adamski had to be seriously ignorant of the chemical processes that govern photography. This “regeneration” of the photographic chemicals is just as credible as the transmutation of alchemists! The strange photographic “message” was printed in Flying Saucers Have Landed, along with the footprints “message.” As I have said before, the first one who tried to provide a “translation” of the signs and symbols that covered the prints and the emulsion was George Hunt Williamson in his book Other Tongues - Other Flesh dated 1953 but not published until 1957. A work which was not very convincing. In 1958, Marcel F. Homet, a former professor of Arabic in Algiers who had become an amateur archaeologist, suddenly attracted the attention of Adamski’s followers. In a book he had just published in German (Die Sohne Der Sonne; Sons of the Sun for the English translation published in 1963) where he told about an expedition he had made to a lost archeological site in the middle of the Brazilian Amazon. There, scattered in different locations, he said he had found a diagram and a number of unknown signs he put -63-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

together in the same illustration. Comparing it to the “writing from another planet” visible on the Adamski emulsion, that illustration revealed remarkable similarities.

The Brazilian signs.

Writing from another planet.

Marcel Homet said that the symbols he had discovered were so eroded that they had to be at least 10,000 years old. Wow! We will pass over this dating by “guesstimate.” When asked about the extraordinary resemblance between his sketch and the “writing from another planet,” Homet seemed astonished and confirmed what he had said in his book: he had found the symbols in scattered locations at the excavation site and, not knowing what else to do with them, he had collected them randomly in the same drawing. It is hard to imagine an archaeologist finding a relatively complex diagram containing a swastika and not finding anything better to do than to throw it down on paper with other symbols collected from many different places without even ordering or aligning them. But the most extraordinary thing was undoubtedly the fact that due to that matter of chance (according to what Homet explained) the sketch was so similar to the photographic plate. It smelled suspiciously like a forgery, at least with regard to Homet. In short, if it were not for Professor Homet’s astonishment, one could have said that he had done it all so that his book would receive unexpected publicity in certain circles that it would never have attained otherwise. A debate was born, carried on primarily in the pages of the British Flying Saucer Review. In the middle of the controversy that erupted, Hubert Malthaner, a disciple of Homet’s, let something slip. In a personal letter, Homet told him that he had read Adamski and Leslie’s book before publishing his. Quoting from Homet’s letter : “Only the oval is completely identical to that of Adamski’s. The other symbols I found in the course of my expeditions, but they were scattered, and I only put them together with the oval to demonstrate that all the same symbols I found in the Amazon region.” This showed that the professor’s astonishment had been feigned when -64-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

he was later told that the symbols that he had found resembled the ones in Flying Saucers Have Landed. So Mr. Homet was not telling the truth... In April 1962, the debate about the mysterious signs started up again. Basil van den Berg, of Johannesburg, declared that he had deciphered both the symbols on the Venusian’s shoes and the ones on Adamski’s photographic plate. This man, 41 years old at the time, explained that he had used these symbols a little like parts of a puzzle. He had put them together in all possible ways until getting the veritable plans from which he could build an antigravity engine that needed no fuel. Questioned by Phillip J. Human, a ufologist in his area, he showed diagrams that gave the impression of being serious technical plans. He even gave the man a motor that seemed to be “alive.” van den Berg claimed that to carry out his research, he had been in constant telepathic communication with space people, and that one day he had even met one of their “Masters,” like Adamski did (see later). This all smelled like a hoax. In 1963, van den Berg was expected in the United States, where he was to show his motors to a group of researchers interested in anti-gravitation. Similarly, in the United Kingdom a laboratory had been placed at his disposal. But in the end, van den Berg’s research was never pursued in either country. Instead, he disappeared, The anti-G motor of van den Berg. never to be heard from again. Of course, Adamski’s very paranoiac followers declared that van den Berg had been removed by MIB or even the KGB. Others who were more optimistic said that he went on a mission for the space brothers. Most probably, the man was a skilful actor. When the same South African ufologist who was cited above asked him about Homet and the Amazonian symbols, van den Berg too feigned enormous surprise. But as he was a reader of Flying Saucer Review and was in regular contact with Adamski (and with space brothers!), he obviously could not be unaware of the Homet affair. (1) In his last book, Flying Saucers Farewell, Adamski spoke warmly of Basil van den Berg and of another contactee whom he did not name but who, he explained, had received an object with engraved symbols similar to those that he himself had popularized. Adamski was referring -65-

The Spanish message.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

to a Spaniard named Alberto Sanmartín. This man had claimed that on November 17, 1954, in Madrid, he had met a being with long hair wearing a one-piece outfit. Before departing in a flying saucer, he expressed himself using gestures and gave to Sanmartín a heavy porous “stone” measuring 12 x 4 x 2 centimeters (4.7 x 1.6 x 0.8 inches), on which strange symbols were engraved. Sanmartín’s account had only been inspired by Adamski's. (2) Since these events, many UFO researchers have tried to compare the “Venusian symbols” to other symbols reported in UFO cases. This is obviously a vain task. REFERENCES : 1) Flying Saucer Review, London, Jan.-Feb. 1962 (8:1, pp. 7-8), May-June 1962 (8:3), July-Aug. 1962 (8:4, p. 32), Sept.-Oct. 1962 (8:5, pp. 28 and 31-32), Nov.-Dec. 1962 (8:6, pp. 3-5, 21 and 30), Jan. Feb. 1963 (9:1, pp. 2 and 27), March-April 1963 (9:2, p. 27), and March-April 1964 (10:2, p. 26) 2) Severino Machado: Los Platillos Volantes Ante la Razón y la Ciencia; Madrid, Editorial Gráficos Estades, 1955. Cuadernos de Ufología, Santander, no. 3, Sept. 1988, pp. 36-41. El Alcázar, Madrid, Feb. 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11, 1955. El Ojo Crítico, La Coruña, Spain. No. 76, July 2014, pp. 29-33 (José Antonio Caravaca: “La Piedra de Sanmartín:Un Fraude Compartido”).

-66-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

13 DECEMBER 1952 AND AFTER...

he account of Adamski’s contact published in the Phoenix Gazette started to circulate, sometimes supplemented by the alleged events of December 13. It was used here and there by local newspapers, and then finally rewritten completely by Clara Little John. Mrs Walton C. John, a widow about 62 years old at the time who was better known to her friends as “Clara,” was the editor and publisher of a Washington (D.C.) publication entitled The Little Listening Post, which dealt with a variety of esoteric and strange items including flying saucers. Around 1955 she came into contact with Thomas Townsend Brown, an American physicist who discovered what is called the Biefeld-Brown effect and who conducted personal research on antigravity. Maybe it was she who gave him the idea to use the Venusian scout ship design as a prototype for the The Thomas Townsend Brown "saucer." antigravity machine he was working on with Agnew Bahnson. Some ill-informed UFO researchers have said the reverse, that Adamski had copied the Townsend-Brown model. Actually, Adamski's pictures are older. (1) Clara Little John’s rewritten text eventually reached the desk of Waveney Girvan, who at that time was working as editor-in-chief at Werner Laurie in London. It was a captivating account, but much too short for a book. However, at about the same time, Girvan received another manuscript on -67-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

flying saucers. This one was signed by Desmond Leslie and proposed a kind of modern and ancient history of visits of extraterrestrial crafts to Earth. Adamski’s manuscript seemed to beautifully supplement this historical material, and Girvan had the idea of publishing the two texts together. He got in touch with the authors immediately. As Girvan and Adamski corresponded by mail, it took a few months to develop the project, sign the contracts, and print the book. The advertising campaign celebrating the book’s release started on September 30, 1953. An American edition came out very soon afterward by the British Book Centre of New York. The book was an immediate best-seller and went through many printings. (2) The work unleashed passions as well as new testimony. On February 15, 1954, a 13-year-old boy in Britain, Stephen Darbishire, and his cousin Adrian Myer (age 8), returned very excited after a walk in the country near Stephen’s home in Coniston, Lancashire, saying they had seen and photographed a flying saucer. Less well known is that shortly after that young Stephen claimed again to have seen another flying machine, this time with a cigar shape. At the time, the boy swore that until then he had never heard of flying saucers and cigars, but it was later proved that he had seen Adamski’s pictures of these types of flying objects, which had been reproduced in the British press. Desmond Leslie decided to meet Stephen at his home in Coniston and examined the negatives and prints. After that he gave them to an engineer, Leonard Cramp, who later claimed to have demonstrated, through orthogonal projections, that the saucer photographed at Coniston was similar in all respects (shape and proportions) to the saucer photographed by Adamski in December of 1953. That seemed to prove the accuracy of the pictures of both Adamski and Darbishire.

One of the Darbishire pictures.

-68-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Later, during the summer of 1954, Leslie flew to the United States, where he spent several months in the company of Adamski and his followers. After that Leslie and Darbishire developed a friendship, despite their age difference, which was maintained until the death of Leslie in February 2001.

Orthographic comparison made by Leonard Cramp.

In 1959, when Adamski came to London, Leslie introduced the Californian to astronomer Patrick Moore and also to Stephen Darbishire, who was then a brilliant student in art school. Stephen said later that he was not at all impressed with Adamski. Instead, he had the impression that the old American was crazy (“mad as a hatter,” he said). The psychological shock that resulted from this meeting led Stephen to realize that his ufological activities were no more than a waste of time. He had also seen the dramatic change in his parents’ lives because of his involvement in the subject of UFOs. His father, who was an esteemed doctor, had met so many people who loved mysteries of all kinds that he became more and more interested in them himself, plunging into the world of the occult. As a result, he ended up building strange machines by which he thought he could treat people by working on their auras with revolving lights. Stephen’s mother, too, had fallen into a strange form of spirituality. As a result of all these negative things, Stephen finally decided to cut all ties with ufologists and UFOs. The best way to do this definitively, he thought, was to admit that his own pictures had been faked. But his -69-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

confession was not taken seriously by Adamski’s partisans, who claimed that he was “following orders from some secret government department” or “working with the ‘Dark Powers.’” Due to these new developments, Stephen Darbishire decided that the best thing to do was keep silent. So he drew back more and more from talking about his famous experience, and even skeptical researchers such as David Clarke and Andy Roberts could not really obtain definitive information from him. In 2001, when they asked Darbishire what his pictures really showed, he answered them, ambiguously, “an object.” Thanks to “Strato” and Joel Carpenter, there is no longer any doubt today that the photos of December 13, 1952, were faked using a small model made from several components, the main one being a kind of lampshade from a gasoline pressure lantern made in the 1930s. Consequently, it is clear that the pictures taken by Stephen Darbishire, so identical in form and proportions to the Adamski Venusian-type saucer, were also faked. It is also clear that engineer Cramp’s study demonstrates nothing more than the fact that Stephen was a very talented trickster able to judge the precise shape and proportions of an object which he had seen only in a picture. It is no surprise that Stephen Darbishire became renowned as a talented landscape painter. What did Stephen Darbishire photograph? He never said. Presumably, thanks to his artistic talents already developed at the time, he assembled some objects (including a drawing) to create the saucer and its scene. One researcher has observed, for example, that the “vegetation” in the foreground of the lesser-known picture looks like a carpet. Perhaps the small size of the whole scene would have required a very close-up picture, which, with the fixed-focus camera used by Darbishire, would explain the blurring of his two photographs. I said earlier that Desmond Leslie and Stephen Darbishire had developed a sincere friendship. In an email to me dated February 29, 2004, David Clarke explained that according to what Stephen Darbishire had told him and Andy Roberts when they met him, it might have been during Leslie’s talk with Stephen’s father, that he realized that the child was not telling the truth. Perhaps the friendship between Leslie and Stephen Darbishire was born at that time, founded on this sense of humor, joking, and mocking they had in common with Sir Patrick Moore (see later). According to what Darbishire told Clarke and Roberts, he kept in touch with Leslie until his death in 2001. One of the final notes that the later faxed him read (according to Darbishire’s memory), “Dear Stephen, how lovely to hear from you again; you know it’s extraordinary that there are still people taking pictures of the old flying saucers... where can they find those 1930s lampshades from, I thought they had all gone out of production.”

-70-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Amazing! These sentences clearly show that Leslie knew, probably for a long time if not from the beginning, that Adamski’s photos had been faked with a lampshade produced in the 1930s. And the fact that he spoke openly of that with Stephen Darbishire seems to indicate that Stephen knew that too. Since when? Maybe since Leslie’s return from his trip to the US. Nevertheless, Leslie always defended the authenticity of the pictures taken by Adamski, Stephen Darbishire, and even Madeleine Rodeffer (see later). On YouTube one can see him talking about these things and looking as serious as only a good actor could have been! A biography of Desmond Leslie by Robert O’Byrne appeared in Dublin in 2010 (Desmond Leslie: The Biography of an Irish Gentleman, Lilliput Press). From this book, we now know that the life of Desmond Leslie was an extraordinary romantic epic. But we also know that Leslie, like Charles Fort, liked to swing back and forth between truth and joke. No doubt, when he realized that Adamski was a rogue, he was not really offended. Maybe he was even greatly amused by that revelation, laughed at it with its perpetrator, and decided to carry the joke further. It was not the only one he perpetrated or participated in in ufology. For example, in the revised edition of Flying Saucers Have Landed that was published in 1970, he wrote (pages 248-249) that his friend Patrick Moore knew an American astronomer who practically stumbled upon a UFO rising from the ground and managed to photograph it at close range. For more informations about that, see Appendix 11 in this book. Another fun fact: in 1954, before going to visit Adamski in California, Leslie took part, as advisor, in a British science-fiction film entitled Stranger from Venus. REFERENCES : 1) Saga UFO Report, May 1978 (William L. Moore: The Man Who Discovered how UFO’s Are Powered) 2) Waveney GIRVAN: Flying Saucers and Common Sense; New York, Citadel Press, 1956, p. 82. 3) Magonia, London, no. 75, July 2001 (David Clarke and Andy Roberts: UFO Hoaxing - Stephen Darbishire and Alex Birch,) Timothy Good: Above Top Secret - The Worldwide UFO Cover-up; New York, William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1988, p. 377

-71-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-72-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

INSIDE THE SPACE SHIPS

few months after he took his most famous flying saucer pictures, Adamski said he met his Venusian friend again. It was on February 18, 1953. This time, Adamski felt—he said—that he had to urgently go to Los Angeles. There, in the Hotel Clark (where Adamski always stayed when in Los Angeles), he was accosted by two men who revealed themselves to be space people. They drove him to an isolated place where the Venusian saucer with its long-haired pilot waited. From there, Adamski was taken to a gigantic Venusian flying cigar from where he could look at the near-Earth outer space and where he met a “Great Master” who began to teach him cosmic philosophy. Fortunately, as the reader is made to understand, all these space people spoke perfect English (and many other Earth languages). For several reasons they didn’t want to let Adamski know this on the day of the first contact in the desert. Another contact of this kind took place on April 22, 1953. This time Adamski again felt the need to urgently return to the same Los Angeles hotel, from where a Martian friend took him in a Saturnian saucer and then in a gigantic Saturnian flying cigar. There, Adamski could meet another “Great Master” who taught him more Cosmic Philosophy. But above all, he visited a laboratory from where he could remotely observe the area at the edge of the Moon. Month by month, George Adamski’s accounts grew more detailed, as if reporting a series of events in permanent evolution. Little by little, he spoke about these things while lecturing here and there. In December 1953 Adamski was questioned by FBI agents charged -73-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

with carrying out an investigation into his credibility (see Appendix 2). The contactee declared that he had received a kind of official “clearance” to speak about flying saucers with complete freedom, and attempted to prove it by showing an official-looking document. The report that was made following this interview specified that Adamski claimed to have gone on a trip around the Moon and that he was in no way a credible man. In a four-page FBI memorandum written on December 16, 1953, it says that the document that Adamski had shown was found to be fraudulent. It was actually a document initialed by three government agents who were witnessing Adamski’s acknowledgment that the authorities had not given him such “clearance.” It is a copy of this document (which Adamski had requested of the three agents) that he thus used for exactly the opposite purpose! Caught red-handed, Adamski was admonished severely by the FBI. This time he took it seriously, and did not dare show the alleged document any more. Nevertheless, he presented a new claim that the FBI had come to threaten to put him in prison. After learning about that, Waveney Girvan spoke about it on pages 120 and 121 of his book Flying Saucers and Common Sense, which appeared in 1955 in England and 1956 in the USA. Under Girvan’s pen, the three government agents who had paid a visit to Adamski were compared to the three “Men in Black” (MIBs) who had supposedly visited ufologist Albert K. Bender to frighten him into silence. Thus lies support other lies! As for Adamski’s disciples, they knew that he was not being bothered by MIBs anymore, so they concluded that the space brothers were protecting him, which of course proved that he was really in contact with them. That is how a very simple truth can be distorted to include it in a paranoid scenario. Nowadays, some Adamski believers claim again he had an official clearance to speak about flying saucers. As I said before, Adamski’s wife died during the summer of 1954, which was for him something like a true liberation. From then on he could do and say everything without fear of reproaches. So in the spring of 1955 he submitted a new manuscript to an American publisher, which was immediately accepted and published soon afterwards under the title Inside the Space Ships. A British edition came out a few months later, in 1956. This book, which summarized new contacts from February of 1953 to August 1954, was written in good English by Charlotte Blodget, who also signed the introduction. This woman, who was born on August 16, 1895, came from the Bahamas. She wrote the book during the summer of 1954 at Palomar Terraces. This was the new settlement of -74-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

George, Alice, and Lucy, a little farther up the road leading to the large observatory. Here, with money flowing in, they had built modest buildings for their own use and for the use of the increasingly numerous guests who visited them. Among them had been Desmond Leslie, who stayed there during the summer of 1954, but was not authorized by the space people to take part in a contact with them. The last great contact of this series took place, again according to the book, on August 23, 1954. Adamski’s team of space people was going to be changed and a large banquet was organized in the Saturnian flying cigar. On that day, Adamski had the privilege of meeting the “Great Master” again. Then his space brothers had him remotely observe a vast portion of the lunar surface, including part of the side that is hidden from us. There—Adamski said—he saw snow-covered mountains, forests, lakes and large buildings intended to accommodate the large cigar-shaped space vessels. Such were the contents of Inside the Space Ships, which was also a bestseller that has been republished many times. On April 25, 1955, when the American edition of the book was going to press, Adamski had the opportunity to meet his space friends again, who offered to take surprising photographs for him, to illustrate the work. These pictures were added in a “Postscript.” Adamski probably got the idea to give the editor the “Postscript” when he realized that his account needed some kind of physical proof. Let us summarize the events related by him about these pictures. According to what he explained, Adamski was taken in a flying cigar and placed behind one of its portholes, with one of his space friends settling in at another porthole. Being in outer space, the cigar was plunged in absolute blackness. At this point a flying saucer came in front of the portholes, brightly lit up a very small portion of the fuselage of the cigar, and a space man in the saucer took several Polaroid shots through one of the saucer portholes. These photos showed the heads of Adamski and his space friend at the cigar-craft portholes. Another attempt to take photographs in the control room of the large flying cigar ended in failure, the powerful electromagnetic field which reigned there totally spoiling the pictures.

-75-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

These photographs drew almost no attention because they were unconvincing, though Adamski’s partisans thought otherwise. Jacques Bonabot, of Belgium, undertook a “technical study” of one of these photographs, which seemed to show part of the edge of the porthole of the saucer at which the space-brother photographer supposedly was. Bonabot concluded that this edge indeed corresponded to a porthole of the same size as in the Venusian scout craft photographed by Adamski in December 1952. (1) According to Adamski, the cigar craft had a double wall, with a broad space between. Therefore the portholes were in the form of long tubes connecting these two walls, with lenses at the ends of each one. A third lens in the middle of the tubes was used to enlarge the images from outside that were collected by the lens in front, explained Adamski. One needs to consider it only briefly to realize that the pencil of light emitted by the saucer would have been reflected by the lenses and would have prevented seeing whatever was behind the tubes. What Adamski explained was an optical impossibility. In fact, the pictures were probably what they appeared to be: a rather simple setup obtained by means of dark cardboard with round holes. It was not these new photographs but rather certain passages in the book that caught the attention of readers. They were used as arguments in favor of or against the veracity of the account in general. Against the account, for example, one notes an aberrant apparent size of the Earth seen by Adamski through the porthole of the large flying cigar craft. But as Adamski could have seen only an artificial distant image of the Earth thanks to the built-in optical systems in the tubular portholes of the cigar craft, it was not a decisive argument. Adamski was the subject of more criticism in connection with his description of the Moon and in particular of its breathable atmosphere as well as its lakes, snow, and forests which he claimed to have seen. However Adamski’s partisans found in certain popular astronomy books the traces of controversies and of theories that seemed to give credence that such things were possible at the lunar terminator, like Adamski had said. Adamski himself had probably drawn inspiration from sources like that. It was in order to substantiate Adamski’s claims that in the 1970s Hans Petersen, one of his long-time co-workers, published a series of NASA photos (reprinted later in a book by Fred Steckling) with which he attempted to show that there were forests, lakes, and buildings on our natural satellite. In Appendix 4 of this book is an analysis of the Petersen series, to demonstrate that that work is far from serious. In favor of Adamski, some noted his description of small luminous particles (which he compared to fireflies) circling in space. Indeed, many -76-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

astronauts reported that luminous particles accompanied their space capsules, though they described the quantity, color, and motion somewhat differently. But if the Adamskians had consulted documents that were more scientific than the mainstream press, they would have learned that these particles had two very ordinary origins: ice crystals resulting from several sources; and paint becoming detached from the surface of the capsule. It should also be noted that Adamski had previously included these “fireflies” in his acknowledged work of fiction, Pioneers of Space, though without using that term (see later). Again in support of Adamski, some pointed out that his descriptions of extraterrestrial technology seemed to precede terrestrial inventions by a long time. Among them: cooking with microwaves, cleaning with ultrasound, and the recording of images on magnetic tape. In fact, Adamski was a little like Jules Verne: a curious spirit. Thus his book made use of some technological projections still in the laboratory in order to impress a public who could not imagine that these things would one day be marketed. In fact, the laboratory development of cooking with microwaves closely followed the development of the first radar. In the same way, the cleaning of clothing with ultrasound was already a reality since 1950; and the first videotape recorders also appeared in 1950. Adamski had even left a clue about his methods in writing about future inventions when, in Chapter VII, he quoted what one of his space friends had told him, “We do not cook our food in the same way as you. Ours is done quickly by means of rays or high frequencies, a method with which you are now experimenting on Earth” (Emphasis added.) (2) When Adamski argued in his last book, Flying Saucers Farewell, in support of the reality of the accounts in Inside the Space Ships, he cited not only the “proof” of the “fireflies of space,” but also the fact that he had been the first in the world to speak of the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the Earth and which were discovered only in 1958. The argument appeared so solid to Adamskians that they then systematically repeated it without checking it. In fact, what Adamski had spoken about in Inside the Space Ships was really a zone of artificial radioactive pollution that the space people were warning us about, and not the naturally-occurring radioactive zone around the Earth that was discovered in 1958. Inside the Space Ships also contained some “pearls” that showed how much this book really belonged in the science-fiction genre. Thus, at a certain point, Adamski said he had been deposited on the side of the huge flying cigar and he had been able to walk inside. This kind of “walk in space” had been made possible due to the fact that the cigar-craft generated its own atmosphere, which surrounded it in the same way as the atmosphere around a planet. However, if this was really the case, one wonders why the saucers themselves went through an airlock to enter the flying cigar! -77-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The “Postscript” contained another pearl: Adamski explained that the unsuccessful attempt to take photographs in the control room of the flying cigar was due to the strong magnetic field there. In fact, even a very strong magnetic field would not have been able to spoil the chemical in Polaroid film. Richard Heiden took advantage of a detail given by Adamski in Inside the Space Ships. In one passage, he specified the date and time of his contact, and added that the weather was “blustery.” Heiden checked the weather bureau report and, unfortunately for Adamski, the wind that day was completely different! (2) A careful examination of Adamski’s claims in Inside the Space Ships does not reveal anything that is really new, or that exceeded the imagination of science-fiction writers of the time. This is strange for a man who claimed to have been in contact with an alien civilization far ahead of our own. For example, the descriptions of the Moon buildings or the interiors of the flying cigars are devoid of a clearly alien technology. Adamski would have said more or less the same things if he had described one of our submarines or one of our technological centers. That lack of imagination is particularly evident in the descriptions of the Venusian and Saturnian scout ships, with their central lens through which the pilots could observe the ground. It is for the most part exactly the same design that French scientist Alexandre Ananoff imagined in 1950 for the interior of our future space probes. It also seems to be directly inspired by science-fiction books, articles and comics of the time, as for example Buck Rogers.

This drawing, dated 1949, was published in L’Astronautique by Alexandre Ananoff (Paris, Fayard, 1950).

-78-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

A couple of years after Inside the Space Ships was published, Ray Stanford and friends of his were chatting with Adamski when the latter told them : “You know boys, I never had to have any physical contact with the space brothers, because I already knew all about them and even wrote a book, Pioneers of Space, describing all these things, years ago.” Then he told the young men to go up to Lucy’s office where they could find that book on her bookshelf. They did so and read through the book, discovering with amazement that in that fictional story they found the same things that Adamski had written later in Inside the Space Ships. Thunderstruck, they asked Adamski, who simply said: “You see, I learned all that through a unified state of consciousness with what is out there and I never had to have any physical contact with the space brothers to know what you have read in Inside the Space Ships.” Pioneers of Space, a 260-page book printed by the Leonard-Freefield Co. of Los Angeles, California, in August 1949 had been ghost-written in good English by Lucy McGinnis around 1944. It was not a well-kept secret in 1952-53 because, in chapter 14 of Flying Saucers Have Landed, Desmond Leslie had written: “But in 1949 Adamski speculated that the moon had a breathable atmosphere in his book Pioneers of Space.” Leslie may have heard about the book when he exchanged correspondence with Adamski in order to publish Flying Saucers Have Landed with him. Between August 16, 1950, and May 8, 1952, that is to say before the first contact in the desert, Adamski wrote eight long letters to one of his favorite students: Miss Emma Martinelli of San Francisco. These letters, which ended up coming into the hands of Lucius Farish, teach us how Adamski claimed to have written Pioneers of Space. I quote from Adamski’s letter of Jan. 16, 1952, ten months before his first alleged contact with the Venusian Orthon: “… speaking of visitors from other planets, you see, in the physical I have not contacted any of them, but since you have read Pioneers -79-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

of Space you can see how I get my information about these people and their homelands.” In an earlier letter to her about Pioneers of Space, he wrote “...one may venture from one place to another, while his physical is one place and he is in another. That is the way I have written this book. I actually have gone to places I speak of. To you I can reveal this since your letter reveals much, while to others I keep silent about this.” (3) Thus, before the contact of Desert Center, Adamski was explaining openly to his closest students that he had employed what occultists call the technique of astral travel (the conscience projecting oneself out of the body through spaces) to visit the Moon, Mars, and Venus. But when he claimed to have REALLY traveled in space ships, he quickly understood that he had to become more discreet about his science-fiction novel because, as we shall soon see, it had been something like the draft of Inside the Space Ships! The first of his trips in space ships took place, said Adamski, on February 18, 1953. One can thus think that soon after this date, in order to make his statements seem more credible, Adamski had to tell his close friends about the event. Through the UFO bulletin Saucers, published by Max B. Miller in December 1953, we know that on August 16, 17, and 18, of that year a flying saucer convention was held in Hollywood. Adamski was a speaker there. Commenting on those days afterwards, he wrote in that bulletin that he had met space people there who were mingling incognito with the attendees. So he was already talking openly about his new contacts. But in the editorial in the same issue, Miller wrote that Adamski was author of the book Pioneers of Space, which shows that this work was still clearly associated with the space concerns of its author. In 1958, when Richard Ogden asked his friend Adamski how to get a copy of Pioneers of Space, the contactee replied that that was not possible anymore. The work was out of print, he explained, and had not been distributed commercially, since it was intended exclusively for his students. (4) This explanation, which Adamski probably also gave to other people, does not stand up. Why would he have printed a novel only for his students when for other things it was enough for him to distribute booklets with questions and answers, as he had done before? The truth was that contrary to what the contactee claimed, Pioneers of Space had been intended primarily for a wide audience. Adamski hoped to find new “students” interested in his philosophy, hence the address to write him, something that would be totally useless if the book was to be sold only to those who were already his students. Any lie has its use. By claiming that this novel had been printed for his students, Adamski tried to discourage people from trying to get a copy of it. Thus, after having spoken widely about the novel to which his name was -80-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

attached until at least 1953, he ended up playing down its importance and even sought to limit its circulation among his followers. The day came when he completely stopped speaking about it, and acted as if it had never existed. Ray Stanford may be one of the last who heard about that book from the mouth of the author himself. At the time few UFO researchers tried to acquire a copy of Pioneers of Space to have a look at it. So its true amazing contents were revealed to the UFO community for the first time in my book Desert Center, published in France in 1983. Pioneers of Space was later reprinted by Timothy Green Beckley, as part of a work entitled Pioneers of Space - The Lost Book of George Adamski: A Trip To the Moon, Mars and Venus (New Brunswick, NJ, Global Communications, 2008). Let me now introduce the novel, summarize it, and compare it to what was written in Inside the Space Ships.

Two pages from original copy of Pioneers of Space.

In the introduction, the author reveals to some extent his creed: creation would be absurd if only the Earth were inhabited. A multitude of planets, everywhere in the Universe, must therefore be inhabitedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and with humanoid beings, the human form being universal and perfectly adaptable to all kinds of different mediums. Then the story begins.

-81-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

A space ship leaves Earth bound for the Moon, which, according to the author, is surrounded by an atmosphere. On board the vessel are four earthlings. The Earth is soon nothing but a bright disc lost in dark space, where meteorites gleaming with amber light sometimes pass. Once at the neutral gravity point between the Earth and the Moon, the earthlings observe strange particles or “fireflies” of various sizes, but which do not offer any resistance to the passage of the craft. The craft slows down and comes to the lunar limb. “As we have been descending, we find what we expected, a belt-like section extending as far as we can see around the Moon that has a natural growth of trees and vegetation. In this zone, just at the edge of the crater area, we see a small lake and not far distant up the valley is apparently a small city. Skirting the lake on the side away from the valley in which this city lies, extends a large forest of trees or heavy brush beyond which lies a broad plateau which we have chosen as our landing place.” The earthlings leave their craft and manage to breathe, although with a certain amount of difficulty, as if they were on a tall mountain on Earth. They explore the area for several hours. They meet a kind of kangaroo, and then reach the shore of the lake they had seen at the time of their descent. On the shore, they meet a humanlike inhabitant of the Moon that the author calls a Moonalite. The being seems about 70 years old, though he is really 190. By means of gestures and drawings in the sand, the earthlings explain where they come from, and then return to their vessel. After a certain period of time, two tribes of Moonalites pay visits to the earthlings. All these people wear clothing finer than silk, encrusted with gold and jewels. The head of the Moonalite troop carries a mysterious crystal that can both rejuvenate and levitate. The earthlings undertake a flight with the main representatives of the two tribes, during which they observe snow on the high lunar peaks. After that, the earthlings also discover the existence of a second Moon which, because of its position, is not visible from Earth. A few days later, they fly to a large city where, right before them, another space ship in the shape of a V2 lands. This craft is coming from Mars. As the earthlings and Moonalites have learned each others’ languages, the conversation opens with the Martians speaking the Moonalite language, which they know too. In the large city, the earthlings see a sophisticated telescope that had -82-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

been constructed by the Martians. Thanks to an octagonal crystal lodged in the middle of the tube, this apparatus, which is extraordinarily powerful, is able to analyze the exact components of the atmospheres of the planets towards which it is directed, and it also gives the exact distance. The Martians explain that it is because earthlings are warlike that space people do not regularly visit us. The earthlings are invited to visit the Martian craft. It is propelled by four engines that are fed by solid fuel. The craft takes off and through adjustable lenses the earthlings discover a close-up view of the lunar ground. There is a device that lets them clearly hear the people down there talking to each other. Even better: another device analyzes the sound vibrations emitted by people and transforms them into graphs that allow the decoding and comprehension of foreign or unknown languages. This same device can also perceive the vibrations of a meteor speeding through space and, in this case, it immediately engages a powerful repulsive field able to move this dangerous space traveler away. Back on the ground, the four earthlings are taken to the observatory by means of a vehicle without wheels that glides above ground-level. Thanks to the large telescope, they can follow the flight of the Martian craft to Earth’s second Moon. Then, with another device that records historical events, they show the earthlings the old civilizations that followed each other on Earth. They recognize the Atlanteans, the Lemurians, and also other unknown people, about which a scientist explains: “This race is known as the Triterian race. The only symbol that you have on Earth today of this civilization is a deity called Triton, worshipped by one of your tribes who picture the deity half human and half fish, symbolizing master men over all elements of nature. This race transported itself from Earth to other planets in space ships at a time when they knew the Earth would have to be evacuated…” Later, a new expedition takes the earthlings to the hidden side of the Moon. There, the snow-covered summits and lakes are numerous. There is also a large city with houses and roads. Elsewhere, the earthlings observe a gigantic astroport where 12 space ships are lined up. They decide to land there, and are welcomed by Jupiterians who take them to visit a Venusian craft. In the cockpit of this craft, the earthlings discover the portrait of an androgynous being appearing 28 years old. Asked about it, the space people reply that it is the Supreme Intelligence. The earthlings are then introduced to the Venusians, with whom they take a short trip in space. The Venusian cigar-shaped craft consists of three hulls or “skins” that protect the crew from extreme temperatures. Some apparatuses embedded in the triple-thick walls automatically draw from space all the components of the atmosphere. The craft uses light energy and -83-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

travels along a luminous ray from the Sun towards the place where the pilots wish to go. After that the earthlings are brought back to the Moon just in time to watch the landing of another space ship which carries on its side a symbol representing the planet it comes from, which is Saturn. The pilots of this vessel are very tall and wear a badge in the shape of a sort of winged balance. To prevent the earthlings from having a breakthrough in the secrets of their space flight technology to use it for bad, the Saturnians refuse to let them board their space ship. This meeting somewhat cools the friendly atmosphere that had reigned up to that point. A Venusian is then forced to admit that those they had sent to Earth in the past, which we called the Messiahs, were always destroyed by the criminals they had come to save. At this, the earthlings return to their craft and soon decide to leave the Moon. Right before takeoff, a message arrives from Mars: the earthlings are invited there. The next day a Martian ship picks them up. While crossing a neutral gravity point, the earthlings see myriads of particles being assembled to form what will one day be a planet that will replace another when the time comes for its existence to end. On Mars, the earthlings are invited to a reception given in their honor by the Martians, who are vegetarians and use telepathy. But now Venus, in turn, invites the four men. On board a Martian craft pushed towards Venus by a light ray from the Sun, the four earthlings reach their new destination. During the trip, they get an explanation of the true nature of light, which does not exist as such without an atmosphere. Right after disembarking on Venus, the earthlings are invited to a banquet. Across the table from them are three spiritual leaders, from Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. Each of the three sages rises and gives a speech starting with “My Brothers…” Each one emphatically exhorts the earthlings to transmit to their kind a message of peace and love. The following day, after another banquet, a group comes to perform in front of the four men a series of dances, each movement expressing a manifestation of life. Finally, the earthlings are taken back to the craft that brought them, and they leave Venus. During the journey to Mars, they can contemplate several solar systems, each one with a different number of planets. Another stop on Mars. Another banquet. More lessons. The earthlings learn that spectroscopy is ineffective in learning the composition of the -84-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

atmosphere on bodies far from Earth. On board another craft, they are taken back to the Moon. During the trip, they watch on screens the magnetic currents of space and the tiny particles that are kept in a state of constant agitation. Back on the Moon, the earthlings contact Earth to report their adventures. Then a Martian scientist speaks with Earth. Finally, twenty hours after their return to the Moon, the earthlings start up their ship, which takes off, escorted for a short time by the Martian ship. The craft from Earth lands in California. The pioneers of space are taken to make their report and are informed that in a few days they will have to tell their adventures to the whole world. Thus ends the story. By way of commentary, I will limit myself to a list of five different topics discussed by Adamski, pointing out descriptions or ideas that appeared first in Pioneers of Space and which were then found in one or more of his later books, without any modification. Principally in Inside the Space Ships but also in Flying Saucers Have Landed, Venus Trip, and Saturn Trip; the reader will read more about these last two later. 1) What Adamski said about the space people: A) In Pioneers of Space: Space people use telepathy to communicate with each other. They always look younger than they are, and their physical appearance is so human that they could pass unnoticed on Earth. Venusians have an incredible beauty. Saturnians are very tall and wear badges that represents Saturn and the pans of a balance. B) Elsewhere: The first idea is found in Flying Saucers Have Landed. The others, including the very specific description of the Saturnian insignia, can be found in Inside the Space Ships.

2) What Adamski said about the extraterrestrial ships: A) In Pioneers of Space: The Martian ship takes off without any perceptible movement and, in the center of the cockpit, a large lens opens which, combined with other instruments, makes it possible to see and hear everything that people say on -85-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

the ground. In the walls of the ship, graphic analyzers allow all kinds of studies, among them the analysis and comprehension of languages. The ship is equipped with a system capable of repelling meteors. The Venusian ship consists of three walls or “skins.” All kinds of devices are placed between the “skins” that use molecules collected in space to reconstitute a breathable atmosphere for the crew. The Saturnians refuse to let the earthlings inside their ship for fear that a simple glance would let them understand the flight system and use it for bad purposes. Certain extraterrestrial ships are driven along the force fields circulating between the Sun and planets. B) Elsewhere: The description of the interior of the Martian ship corresponds exactly with that of the Venusian and Saturnian saucers in Inside the Space Ships (takeoff without apparent movement, central lens, and graphic analyzers). Only the shape of the engines differs. In Inside the Space Ships, the Venusian and Saturnian flying cigars are described exactly like the Venusian ship in Pioneers of Space (lengthened form, multiple “skins,” and the supplying of air). These cigars were equipped with a system to repel meteors just like the Martian ship in Pioneers of Space, and moved along the magnetic currents circulating between the Sun and planets. In Inside the Space Ships, Adamski specified that for reasons of safety concerning the secret of the mode of propulsion of their ships, there is much that the space brothers did not show him, or which they forbade him from describing. The same thing will be said later about the Rodeffer film.

3) What Adamski said about space and celestial bodies: A) In Pioneers of Space: The Moon has a thin atmosphere comparable with what one finds on our higher mountains. To adapt to it, the earthlings are subjected to a slow process of depressurization during their flight. The surface of the Moon has a dusty appearance. At the lunar limb, there is an annular zone where vegetation and trees grow. Beyond that, on the hidden face, there are many lakes, cities, and astroports. The earthlings see snow on the mountaintops and a kind of kangaroo. Space is dark, or—to be strictly accurate—there is no light there. Meteors are visible, but their light is not amber-colored like the ones that come to earth. There are also myriads of luminous particles that do not offer any resistance. In certain neutral zones of space, particles assemble slowly to form celestial bodies, which will replace older ones when they reach the end of their existence. Taking into account all the activity of space, the spectroscope used by astronomers on Earth cannot accurately teach them anything about the atmospheric composition of other planets. -86-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

B) Elsewhere: - In Inside the Space Ships, Adamski claimed that space people told him the Moon has a thin atmosphere comparable to that on our tallest mountains. He added that he could not land there because his short travel time in space did not make it possible to adapt his body to the lunar atmosphere by means of the slow process of depressurization. He claimed to have seen vast forests in an annular zone located at the lunar limb. He also spoke about the lakes and cities on the hidden face. He saw vast hangars built to shelter the flying cigars. He even caught a fleeting glimpse of a small animal running on the apparently dusty lunar ground. In the chapter of Inside the Space Ships where Adamski described his first look at space, on board a space craft, he used the very same terms he had employed in Pioneers of Space. He also claimed to have received from his space brothers the same information that he had already given in Pioneers of Space about the ineffectiveness of the spectroscope and the formation of new planets.

4) What Adamski said about the philosophy and way of life of the space brothers: A) In Pioneers of Space: - The earthlings learn about the existence of true temples that are used as their schools on other planets. While walking on a Martian beach, they note that space people do not make any distinction of social class or race. They are vegetarians and do not smoke because, according to them, that would harm the brain. One of their ships has the portrait of a young-looking androgynous being who is the Supreme Intelligence. During the several banquets given in their honor, the earthlings enter the presence of spiritual leaders who make emphatic speeches to them, always starting with â&#x20AC;&#x153;My Brothers...â&#x20AC;? The sages bless the assembly in general and the earthlings in particular. During one of these banquets, the assembly exhorts the earthlings to wake up in the conscience of their Father. It is from a Moonalite scientist that the earthlings learn about the existence of an old Earth race known as the race of the Tritons. After one banquet, the space people perform a dance in front of the earthlings, in which each movement expresses one of the manifestations of life. B) Elsewhere: In Inside the Space Ships, Adamski described an androgynous portrait representing the Cosmic Intelligence on the wall of a Saturnian ship. The -87-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

space people showed him 3D images of a Venusian beach and talked to him about the large school-temples on other planets. He learned that only earthlings have the bad practice of smoking, and that our space brothers were vegetarians. Again in Inside the Space Ships, Adamski was invited to banquets during which the “Masters,” who were very old, gave him emphatic speeches starting with “My Brothers...” That was how Adamski learned of the existence of the old race of the Tritons. These “Masters” were described as blessing not just the contactee but also the entire assembly, which in turn exhorted the contactee to spread over the entire Earth the lessons received during the contacts. After one of these banquets, Adamski saw the space people perform a dance which—it was explained to him—expressed a manifestation of life in each movement

5) Still more things reported by Adamski: A) In Pioneers of Space: On the Moon, the earthlings drink water from a lake with anti-tiredness powers. They meet a Moonalite who carries a mysterious crystal with tremendous powers. It is a crystal that, when put at the center of a telescope, makes it possible to amplify the image and to carry out remote analyses. Throughout the work, the number 12 appears several times, associated with certain rites or descriptions of all kinds of things. B) Elsewhere: - In Inside the Space Ships, Adamski said that one day, in a flying cigar, he was given a liquid that resembled water but which had an energizing effect on him. In several of his speeches and writings, he referred to a crystal that made it possible to amplify telepathic waves and human radiation in general. Some of his closest collaborators, among them May Morlet (who passed the information on to me), saw a crystal that Adamski claimed to have received to facilitate telepathic communication with space people, or possibly to improve his health when he was ill. In Inside the Space Ships, Adamski said that an instrument placed in a kind of telescope made it possible to increase its magnifying power and carry out remote analyses. He explained that the portholes in the multiple walls of the flying cigars, acted like a magnifying system, thanks to a third lens located at the center. He also explained how the lenses located at the center of the saucers were provided with a similar system, appearing to depend on cables that crossed each other and ran towards the landing-gear spheres. Throughout Inside the Space Ships and in other subsequent writings, -88-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

including the famous semi-confidential report on the voyage to Saturn (see later), Adamski often used the number 12 as if it had a special kind of magical-symbolic quality of a cosmic nature. For example, he maintained that all solar systems have twelve planets. * * * All the foregoing demonstrates clearly that the ideas and the topics developed in the fiction novel Pioneers of Space were used later to write Flying Saucers Have Landed and—mainly—Inside the Space Ships. It is likely that when Charlotte Blodget wrote Inside the Space Ships, she was looking at parts of the text of Pioneers of Space, which she recycled. Was she aware of the forgery she was undertaking? It is difficult to say, because Adamski could have well provided explanations to convince her. On the other hand, it is clear that Adamski could not ask Lucy McGinnis, the true writer of Pioneers of Space, to also write Inside the Space Ships: she would have realized immediately that he was making fun of her. The reader can now understand why, for a spell, Adamski explained openly to his closest students that he could have written Inside the Space Ships even if he had not been physically contacted and taken aboard the space ships. It was a bit difficult for down-to-earth people to swallow, but most Adamskians were naïve people who only believed marvelous things about our protective space brothers. REFERENCES: 1) Bulletin du GESAG, Bruges, Belgium, January 1964. 2) George Adamski:Inside the Space Ships; New York, Abelard-Schuman, 1955, p. 117. A.P.R.O Bulletin, Tucson, 32:5, Aug. 1984, p. 5. Fate,Lakeville, Minn., Issue 718, 64:5, Sept.-Oct. 2011, pp. 26-28 (Richard W. Heiden: “George Adamski and the Blustery Day”). This is a shortened version of manuscript, with errors. Corrections in Issue 722, 65:2, May-June 2013, p. 91.) 3) AFU Newsletter, Norrköping, Sweden, no. 31, Jan.-June 1988, pp. 14-15, (Håkan Blomqvist: “Verdict on Adamski?/ He Who Spoke with Venusians,” citing Elsa Martinelli’s correspondence with Adamski.) http://www.afu.info/Downloads/Magazines/Sweden/AFU%20Newsletter/AFU_1988_31.pdf Reprinted in Focus (William L. Moore) 3:3, March 1988, pp. 1,3 and 6 4) Richard Ogden: The Case for George Adamski’s Contacts; Seattle, Wash., The Author, 1981, p. 196

-89-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-90-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

OTHER CONTACTEES

n astonishing book was published in 1954 by Frederick Muller of London: Flying Saucer From Mars. Its author was Cedric

Allingham.

Before telling his own adventure, the author, who presented himself as a British amateur astronomer, introduced it with a long review of the known facts concerning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, George Adamski, and Stephen Darbishire. He thus tried to create a climate of trust, after which it was easier for him to introduce his extraordinary testimony. He said that on February 18, 1954, he saw a flying saucer in Scotland, photographed it through his telescope, and spoke with its pilot who explained to him through gestures that he came from Mars. This Martian, who seemed anatomically the same as one of us, nevertheless carried a simplified breathing apparatus that helped him get around on our planet without a spacesuit. The book included three photographs of the saucer, as well as one of the Martian seen from behind and an affidavit from a farmer who said he had seen the whole thing. The book was an immediate best-seller. Allingham then wrote to Adamski, as if to request his sponsorship. In spite of the fact that he already said that extraterrestrials spoke most of the principal languages of Earth fluently, and did not need any breathing apparatus to get around on our planet, Adamski affirmed that what his -91-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

British counterpart had said was true. Allingham, who had achieved what he was looking for, then promised to pay Adamski a visit. The success of Allingham’s book obviously led to attempts to contact the author. But he was extremely discrete. It seems that he gave just one lecture, in Tunbridge Wells (Kent, England), which well-known British astronomer Patrick Moore attended. Moore asked where to find the farmer who had signed the affidavit reproduced in the book. Allingham seemed flustered and acknowledged that nobody had ever been able to find him. The English UFO publication Flying Saucer News reported (citing Desmond Leslie, but second-hand) that the alleged witness, James Duncan, had retracted his statement. A short time after these events, Allingham suddenly disappeared from circulation. There was a widespread rumor that he had died in a sanatorium in Switzerland. Some fanatics asserted that he had been removed by the MIB. Things were both more simple and more complex... There were disconcerting similarities between Cedric Allingham’s testimony and what Adamski had put forward in Flying Saucers Have Landed. Like Adamski, Allingham had provided three telescopic photographs of the saucer. Like Adamski, he had published an affidavit written by an eyewitness. And like Adamski, he had “proven” his status as an amateur astronomer by posing beside his telescope.

The Martian saucer.

Cedric Allingham.

There was immediate consternation at the London headquarters of the British Astronomical Association: that telescope belonged to none another than the already famous young British astronomer Patrick Moore (19232012)! But who was the man with the big moustache, nose and glasses? It had -92-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

to be an accomplice. Some of the members of the Association were furious. A joke like that could destroy the reputation of their scientific institution. Moore had to do something. In 1952, Moore had written and published his first science fiction book, The Master of the Moon. The same year, he had been approached by a publisher who contracted him to write a popular book that appeared under the title Guide to the Moon. This book achieved such great success that the author gave up his teaching job to start a literary career. From that day on, he never ceased to write. Throughout his life he wrote more than three hundred books! Now dedicated to living by his pen, and noting that his friend Arthur C. Clarke had already achieved some success in the field of science fiction, thirty-year-old Moore then wrote in quick succession three books of science fiction under his own name (Frozen Planet, the Island of Fear and Out into Space) and two popular books (the Boy’s Book of Space and Suns, Myths and Men) which appeared in 1954. Having noticed at the same time that flying saucers were a subject that could pay big, since there seemed to be a huge audience for it, he also wrote, under the pseudonym Cedric Allingham, the famous Flying Saucer from Mars, which brought him a great deal of money. Anxious to ensure commercial success, Moore implemented major publicity. First, before the book was even published, he didn't hesitate to say around that the author had contacted him to tell him his extraordinary adventure. Second, he organized a meeting between him, his friend Desmond Leslie, and engineer Leonard Cramp. Moore, who had always been interested in strange things and the possibility of extraterrestrial life, had woven a friendship with Desmond Leslie just after Flying Saucers have landed became a bestseller. At this meeting, Moore revealed to Cramp that he had been in contact with Allingham. When Cramp repeated that information in UFO circles, it diverted people from thinking that Allingham was Moore himself and that the name could be read as “calling’em = calling the aliens.” Moore probably realized very quickly that it had been very careless of him to use his own telescope to simulate the photograph depicting George Adamski looking in his telescope. Presumably he cleverly managed to curb the anger of those members of the BAA who had discovered his trickery and would denounce it in shock. No doubt he pleaded his case by emphasizing the humorous spirit that the British like. He explained that his book was a kind of time bomb whose only purpose was to ridicule the ufologists who would take Allingham’s story seriously. Consequently he was not immediately denounced and rejected by his peers; but on the contrary they covered up his actions. A “secret pact” was eventually concluded between Moore and key members of the British Astronomical Association in order never to reveal the -93-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

true identity of Allingham. Books dealing flying saucers were sometimes received at the headquarters of the Association. Moore did not fail to send his own, and in the April 1955 issue of the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, he wrote a critique of his own book! He spoke in a mocking tone about Donald E. Keyhoe’s Flying Saucers From Outer Space, saying that it could serve as a yardstick for measuring the depth of human credulity; and he also said in a mocking tone that Cramp’s first book, Space Gravity and the Flying Saucers, contained a chapter on human levitation. Concerning his own book, he commented that it was very well written, but its content was so amazing it would have been better placed in a collection of science-fiction books. Moore had saved his reputation! He then systematically adopted a sarcastic tone about flying saucers and those who believed in them. At least in public, because it is known that privately he was always very interested by the enigmatic observations reported here and there. In those years, The British Astronomical Association was shaken by another scandal. In early 1954, the President of its Lunar Section, Hugh Percy Wilkins, told interviewer Bernard Forbes of the BBC that he had seen a gigantic bridge on the Moon. He said it in a way that everybody understood it to be an artificial bridge! It made headlines in the international press and Wilkins planned a lectures tour of the U.S. He aggravated his case when, during his stay there, he thought he saw a UFO and told reporters about it. Back in London, he had to explain himself to his peers. It was also rumored, without proof, that he could be the UFO writer who signed his books H.T. Wilkins (Harrold Tom Wilkins). Hugh Percy Wilkins tried to save his reputation but finally he was ridiculed by astronomer W. H. Steavenson (onetime President of the Association) and, some months later, forced to resign.

Desmond Leslie's record of strange music

Old Wilkins and young Moore had been good friends and remained so. Nevertheless, these events convinced Moore to keep his interest in flying saucers discreet. His friendships with Arthur C. Clarke and Desmond Leslie never ended either. When Clarke wrote the famous “2001: A Space Odyssey,” it was a friend of Leslie’s, Stanley Kubrick, who produced and directed the film, it was Leslie who worked on the special sounds, and it was Moore who suggested the music. -94-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

One can guess what Leslie and Moore would laugh about when they met in their London club and spoke about flying saucers, George Adamski, Stephen Darbishire, and Cedric Allingham. Years passed. Rumors, originating with unknown members of the British Astronomical Association began to spread here and there. It was British UFO writer Robert Chapman who first suggested that Allingham could have been Moore. Finally, around 1995, two UFO skeptics, Christopher Allan and Steuart Campbell, decided to undertake a serious investigation about this, and soon found journalist Peter Davies, who had re-written Flying Saucer from Mars for the purpose of camouflaging for Mooreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s literary style. As soon as their first findings were revealed, Moore became angry and threatened to sue anyone who would dare claim there was no doubt he had been Cedric Allingham. Then he calmed down. He probably understood that it was too late for this case to harm him anymore: in the meantime, he had become an important person, very popular, admired and respected in England. His literary hoax, originally based solely on the financial interest of the thing, was therefore interpreted as a fine joke that had been intended to make fun of ufologists and their naive beliefs. While this may have a partial basis given the caustic spirit of Moore, it was still giving him a starring role in an act that had been designed in a hateful way. (1) There have been others (claimed) contactees before and after Allingham. It is interesting to examine the stories of some of them...

GEORGE VAN TASSEL In 1947, George Van Tassel leased from the U.S. Government some land in the high desert of California that had previously belonged to a kind of hermit of German origin who had committed suicide there. The place was called Giant Rock because of the enormous boulder there that was known as the largest freestanding rock in the world. In the living quarters under the rock, starting in January of 1952, Van Tassel said he received psychic communications from a variety of starship commanders. Then, in August of 1953, a large flying saucer landed and Van Tassel was taken aboard for a ride in space. There he learned -95-

George Van Tassel

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

that the Council of Seven Lights, an organization that reigned over the entire Universe, was alarmed at how we had used the atom, because it could result in the destruction of our solar system. Following this contact, Van Tassel created the College of Universal Wisdom, published his own bulletin (Proceedings), and authored a hardcover book called The Council of Seven Lights. He also launched the construction of a large building in the shape of an observatory dome, intended to house machinery to cure all kinds of diseases and rejuvenate human life, which he called the Integratron. To raise the necessary funds, Van Tassel had the idea of organizing UFO conventions, during which large numbers of UFO enthusiasts and contactees could lecture and sell their publications. Participation in these huge gatherings was free, but donations were of course strongly encouraged. Once, a lawyer from New York created false UFO photos and sent them to Van Tassel, who affirmed that they were authentic. On a radio program hosted by Long John Nebel, Van Tassel repeated this assertion in front of the lawyer, who then revealed his hoax. The contactee died in 1978 without ever having completed his Integratron, which remains visible to this day, on the road that skirts his vast desert property. It is now a tourist attraction where one can take sound baths. (2)

SALVADOR VILLANUEVA MEDINA In mid-August 1953, while driving through northern Mexico, Salvador Villanueva Medina was working on his cab when he claimed to have seen two short individuals, dressed in one-piece outfits with wide metal belts. As each one carried a helmet under his arm, he took them for pilots, without being astonished too much by their size since in the area there are many George Adamski and Salvador Villanueva Medina people of small stature. He discussed various things with one of the two men in Spanish, and then when it started to rain, he invited them both inside his car. At dawn, the two men, -96-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

who in the meantime had acknowledged to him that they were space people, got out of the cab and led Villanueva to their saucer, which rested on three spheres and had a dome with portholes. In his first account, the cabdriver said he refused to get in the craft, which then rose with the motion of a dry leaf in the wind. But in 1958, he published a small book entitled Yo Estuve en el Planeta Venus, in which he claimed not to have refused the invitation of the two extraterrestrials, who took him to Venus. This book created a certain stir, and was even translated into German in 1962.

S. Villanueva (left) and R. W. Heiden (right).

Desmond Leslie and Adamski met him in 1954 and said they were convinced that he was telling the truth. The translator of the present work, Richard Heiden, had the opportunity to speak with Villanueva in March 1986, at his sonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s auto repair shop in Mexico City. The extent with which he was taken with celebrity was almost alarming; at one point in the conversation he spoke about the busload of Japanese tourists who visited him. (3)

TRUMAN BETHURUM Truman Bethurum was born in California on August 21, 1898. Orphaned at a very young age, he received a poor education. In the middle of the night in July of 1952, he met ten extraterrestrials in the Nevada Desert. Each of them was about 5 feet in height. They led him to a lenticular flying saucer commanded by a very beautiful woman with the soft name of Aura Rhanes. This contact was the first in a series of thirteen which lasted until December 5, 1955. Aura Rhanes explained that she came from Clarion, a planet in our solar system Truman Bethurum that could not be seen from Earth because it was hidden behind our Moon (something which is scientifically absurd). Throughout the contacts, she was particularly concerned about the wars rife on our planet. Bethurumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first small book about his contacts appeared in 1954 and was entitled simply Aboard a Flying Saucer. This was followed by two others: The Voice of the Planet Clarion in 1957 and Facing Reality in 1958. They brought in enough money to allow him to leave his career as a road builder and spend his time with lectures and publications relating to space people, before dying peacefully in 1969. (4)

-97-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

EDITH JACOBSEN AND AASTA SOLVANG In August 1954, in Norway, two young women claimed to have met a man with long fair hair dressed in a khaki tunic (tight at the neck) and wearing a wide belt around his waist. He smiled at them while speaking in an unknown language and seemed to make a sketch to show where he came from; but the two young women were too excited to see it clearly. Then the man got in a craft resembling two plates together, which rose quickly. At the time, there was an attempt to explain this encounter as involving a helicopter pilot, but once the pilot was identified, he denied it. There was no further talk of these women in connection with UFOS. (5)

DANIEL FRY Daniel Fry was born in 1908. In 1954, this selfmade man published his first work about a contact with extraterrestrials, entitled The White Sands Incident. This first contact had occurred in 1950, said the author, but years later he changed it to 1949. At the end of his first account, Fry indicated that if his book was a success, he would write another work. At least that had the merit of a certain frankness! And, in fact, he did write more of them. To Man on Earth, in which he reported the messages of a spaceman named Alan, appeared later that same year. It was Daniel Fry followed in 1956 by Steps to the Stars, in which Fry presented himself as an expert rocket physicist, and which included only an allusion to extraterrestrials. Finally, in 1960, he published a fourth work entitled Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding. In it, the author did not refer to extraterrestrials at all anymore, as he was now attempting to popularize science. But his competency was very limited. For example, his doctorate in physics was from St Andrews University in London, which was just a religious institution that sold sheepskins for pseudo university doctorates for $100.00. Fry also made at least two films showing the maneuvers of a UFO, but Ray Stanford demonstrated that they were deliberate hoaxes. (6)

AN ANONYMOUS RETIREE In May of 1955, an investigator with the French UFO magazine Ouranos received a letter from an artist who asked him for an interview during which -98-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

he wished to reveal to him information of the utmost importance. Thus began a strange case in the course of which a retiree related how on several occasions he had met a woman from another world who had ended up giving him an object in the shape of a cathode ray tube that was able to act like a very high-magnification instrument. The Ouranos investigator claimed to have seen this object, but then he disappeared, as did the retiree. Marc Thirouin and Jimmy Guieu made inquiries to locate the two men, but could not find anything concrete. (7)

KELVIN ROWE Kelvin Rowe started to hear “voices” in his head in 1953. He thought that these voices came from the “Guardians of Space” and telepatically asked to meet them. In 1955, during the Giant Rock Interplanetary Space Ships Convention, he thought that three people there were in fact these “Guardians of Space.” A message in his head confirmed that to him. Kelvin Rowe In 1958, he wrote a book entitled A call at Dawn: A message From Our Brothers of the Planets Pluto and Jupiter (Understanding Publishing Co., Le Monte, California) where he told about his many trips in flying saucers with a lovely “Lady of Pluto” and the charming “Sister from Jupiter.” Kelvin Rowe was the sole contactee who claimed to have once seen Adamski in a flying cigar where he himself had also been invited. (8)

CARL ANDERSON In 1956 New Age Publishing of Los Angeles published a small book by Carl Anderson, entitled Two Nights to Remember. The author related there that on April 3, 1954 he left to go camping in the California desert with his wife, their two children, and four others (Mrs Anderson's brothers and their wives). While driving, Anderson felt a curious feeling inside, accompanied by tingling along his spine. After making a stop at a café, Anderson, with his car again in front of the group, heard a voice “in his head” which said to turn, proceed three miles, and stop. He carried it out while making sure that it was not his wife who had spoken, and finally -99-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

stopped for the night. Everyone settled in and fell asleep. That night, Anderson, his wife, and one of their children suddenly woke up to see a flying saucer with a dome and portholes. The tent had become transparent. The craft took off from the ground and the tent lost its transparency. Two of the other Drawing of the scene by Frederic R. Aber. witnesses, lying down in a car nearby, had a similar experience: the vehicleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sheet metal had become transparent! Two others, sleeping in the third car, did not wake up. In the morning, Anderson noticed that his watch was fifteen minutes behind the actual time. Anderson wrote that in 1955 he saw more flying saucers go by in the sky. But it was on October 2 that an extraordinary incident occurred. With his wife and brother-in-law James (Jim) Stewart, he drove towards Desert Hot Springs, where they had decided to spend the night out in the open, under the stars. Suddenly, Anderson felt the tingling that had appeared at the time of all his UFO sightings. His gestures became automatic and the mysterious voice was heard again, directing him towards a side road, to the great astonishment of his passengers. The engine stalled. Anderson concluded that he had reached the place where the voice wanted him to go. The car was quickly unpacked and when the campfire started to die out, everybody got into his sleeping bag. It was close to midnight when a light identical to the one previously observed in the desert came. When the object was about one hundred feet in height, Mrs. Anderson became afraid for some unknown reason, sprang towards the car, and shouted. The craft rose slightly. Jim Steward poked the fire while his sister calmed down. He took a flare, lit it, and waved it to signal to the pilot of the craft that he could come down. The machine again started to lose altitude. Unfortunately, Jim was burned by the flare. He was so upset, and in such pain, that he ran to the car to examine his wound. At this point the edge of the craft shone brighter, and the saucer suddenly disappeared, like a light bulb going out. Extraordinarily, the burn that was there the moment before was no longer visible. All trace of pain had also disappeared.

-100-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

At the end of Carl Anderson’s small book were five affidavits signed by Stella Anderson, Bettyann Anderson, Harold Stewart, Eleanor Stewart and James Stewart. There were also some interesting illustrations and two sketches of a Venusian saucer made by Frederic R. Aber of Garden Grove, California, who had had the opportunity to see such an object on another occasion. Just like Salvador Villanueva, Carl Anderson was to embroider his original account. Invited to Europe in October of 1960 for the Wiesbaden UFO Congress, he claimed to have contacted a Martian named Kumar who explained to him that thousands of people from Mars, Venus and Clarion are living on Earth, all working to save the world from being destroyed. (9)

ELIZABETH KLARER Elizabeth Klarer was born in Natal, South Africa, in 1910. Sometimes she had mediumnic flashes and then saw a flying saucer pilot: Akon. In 1955 and 1956 a flying saucer flew over her farm in Natal. In 1957 she dissapeared and come back one year later, pregnant. She explained that she had encountered Akon, the flying saucer pilot who had taken her to his planet, Meton, from the Proxima Centauri star system. Harassed by Russian and American secret services which wanted to kidnap her future star child, she telepathicaly called Akon and got back with him again on Meton where the baby was born. But it was difficult for her to acclimate to the vibratory rate of that planet, so she came back to Earth again with her son Ayling. Elisabeth Klarer’s extraordinary autobiography was published in 1980 under the title Beyond the Light Barrier. She had plans to write another book but died from cancer, in 1994, before it could be completed. (10)

DINO KRASPEDON Dino Kraspedon’s only book appeared in 1957. It was an enormous success in the countries of South America. The author claimed many contacts with space people from our solar system, about which he expounded many ideas in a pseudo–scientific jargon. In 1965, after having disappeared for many years, he resurfaced under the name of Aladino Félix to announce a natural disaster centered on Rio de Janeiro. During the months that followed he declared that a wave of terrorism was going to break out in Brazil; then, soon after, he was himself arrested as a terrorist. In front of television cameras, he exclaimed that even if they had to destroy half the Earth, the Venusians would get him out of prison. (11) -101-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

REINHOLD SCHMIDT People in UFO circles started to talk about Reinhold O. Schmidt in 1957 after he began to tell about his contacts with Saturnians. The talk continued during the following years with his successive claims about being taken in a flying saucer to the North Pole and the Great Pyramid. In the latter place, he was shown the (true) cross of Christ and the destiny of the world... written in English! In 1959 he told his story in a book entitled The Kearney Incident and to the Artic Circle in a From the film "Edge of Tomorrow" Spacecraft. In 1961-62, following several complaints, he was convinced of fraud and imprisoned. He had succeeded in persuading some credulous people to invest a million dollars in a mine with free-energy crystals, which he had discovered during an excursion in flying saucer. Schmidt played himself alongside professional actors in a little-known film called “Edge of Tomorrow” which related his alleged contacts. (12)

JOÃO DE FREITAS GUIMARÃES João de Freitas Guimarães was professor of Roman law at the Catholic Faculty of Law of Santos (Brazil) in 1957 when he claimed to have seen the landing of a flying saucer when he was out for a walk. He claimed that when he was invited aboard, he went on a journey beyond our atmosphere. There he saw the stars twinkling in the depths of black space, which is an absurdity, as it is well-known that this phenomenon is caused by the Earth’s atmosphere, which does not exist in space. He then returned to his starting place and noted that his watch no longer showed the correct time. During the voyage, the space people warned him against nuclear dangers. Although the craft was described very differently from Adamski’s, the latter’s fans, especially Walter Buhler, one of his co-workers in Brazil, did not hesitate to see in this testimony an obvious confirmation of the contactee’s accounts Pressed by the reporters, Guimarães claimed that the space people promised to return. But on the appointed day, he followed the suggestion of an air force colonel and did not go to the meeting, because the Brazilian Air Force would have two squadrons of fighter jets waiting for the visitors. Not to mention all the reporters and curiosity-seekers! (13)

-102-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

HOWARD MENGER Howard Menger’s book From Outer Space to You appeared in 1959. Its author claimed to have met space brothers since childhood. Once an adult, he saw saucers, photographed them, and made several trips in space and could even walk on the Moon (without a space suit!) where he photographed a dome-shaped construction. Howard Menger presented himself as an intermediary between space people and earthlings. It was he who welcomed them, provided them with clothing and money, and even cut their long hair which would have made them too conspicuous (!). The black and white Polaroid photographs scattered throughout the book were of rather poor quality and did not prove anything. They all showed what seemed to be cutout pieces of cardboard stuck to panes of glass and placed in front of landscapes that were either authentic or constructed models. Menger also explained the cause of his divorce: he was a reincarnated Saturnian who had previously promised to marry a Venusian. However, the Venusian had also reincarnated on Earh, hence the remarriage. Marla Baxter, the Venusian, also wrote a book, entitled My Saturnian Lover, that was published by Vantage Press of New York in 1958. Menger even pressed a 33a rpm record where one can hear a piano playing rather monotonous “space music.” Truly gifted, Menger also made paintings representing his contacts, and took a movie film showing the maneuvers of a very bright object that to some extent resembled an egg on a plate.

Cover of the Howard Menger 33 1/3 rpm record with pictures of the contactee and Marla Baxter.

The career of contactee Menger was both turbulent and pathetic. Sometimes he recanted, admitting that he had invented everything; sometimes he accused the intelligence service of having manipulated him. On still other occasions he said he was misled by bad extraterrestrials. Then, -103-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

finally, he returned to his initial claims. Howard and Connie (Marla) Menger finally grew old together in Florida, continuing to proclaim the reality of their stories. They even found in their daughter Heidi the most devoted of PR agents, since she created a Website that continues to sell the coupleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publications. (14)

EUGENIO SIRAGUSA An Italian reporter first wrote about Eugenio Siragusaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first two contacts in October of 1962. According to him, they had occured in April and September of that year on the slopes of Mount Etna. In September 1963, the same reporter announced a third contact from the previous August, which Eugenio Siragusa had informed him about in a letter. A skillful man, Siragusa started to profit from his accounts and, like Adamski, he endlessly embellished them during the following years. Thus he rewrote his history little by little, later talking about a contact going back to 1952 and his past lives when he had been successively a High Priest in Atlantis, Hermes Trismegistus, Cagliostro, and Rasputin. Unlike Adamski, Siragusa never sought to convince with photographs or films of saucers. And perhaps that was the proof of his great skill. Siragusa gathered around himself a vast circle of admirers that he provided with teachings that were both captivating and simplistic, definitely less abstract than the sometimes confused metaphysical topics that Adamski offered to his disciples. Generous donors allowed him to live well while spreading free periodicals and booklets which assured his publicity in several languages in various countries. However, his aura started to fade in 1978 when he was imprisoned under a cloud of fraud and rape though he was later acquited. (15)

LUCIANO GALLI When he related his adventure in 1962, Luciano Galli did not remember anymore if it was dated 1957 or 1959. He said that he had been invited by friendly strangers to get in a car, and was then taken to a flying saucer and went inside. There he immediately saw a large lens through which he looked at the Earth, getting farther away. Then, looking through a porthole, he saw a gigantic flying cigar on which the saucer came down. Galli was then led to several large rooms, but he did not say what space people told him there. He could only specify that he did not even remember if they offered him a beer or a cigar! Asked about it, Galli affirmed under oath that he did not know anything -104-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

about Adamski at the time of the events. Nevertheless, his account followed in detail what Adamski had written in Inside the Space Ships. But did Luciano Galli really exist, or was he nothing more than a journalistic hoax? To tell the truth, to my knowledge no ufologist ever saw Galli or interviewed him, and there is no photograph of him. (16)

BILLY MEIER Billy Meier was born in 1937. After having taken many saucer photographs, he claimed contacts with their pilots in relatively deserted places, and then created on his property a veritable meeting center where all his disciples could come to talk with him. As with Adamski’s, Meier’s accounts slowly grew more diversified. Thus the contactee ended up claiming that he had been able to travel not only in space but also to the past, and to have taken photographs there. These latter photos are surely the least known, because they are harder to swallow than ordinary saucer photographs. They actually show… dinosaurs! In 1995, Prometheus Books of New York State published American skeptic Kal Korff’s complete refutation of all of Billy Meier’s claims. He showed how the contactee had faked his photographs and how easy it was for him to create landing traces of UFOs.

CLAUDE VORILHON A.K.A. RAËL Claude Vorhillon, who called himself Raël (hence the name of the Raëlian sect) started, like Siragusa, with a relatively ordinary contact story. Then he claimed ongoing contacts and soon offered to those who gathered around him very concrete teachings. Raël knew how to combine physical and spiritualistic contacts with down-to-earth realities like sexual liberation. Where Adamski never managed to build in Mexico his “Science of Life school,” Raël succeeded in creating several active training centers throughout the world to teach the principles that he claims to have received from space people. The Raëlian sect is big business. Its charismatic leader was denounced by two Canadian journalists who courageously infiltrated the organization in order to better discover its many internal workings and prepare a caustic photographic report. (17) * * * I could without any difficulty extend indefinitely the list of contactees who were more or less inspired by Adamski’s accounts. Some put forward -105-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

stories that were completely wacky, such as Buck Nelson, who claimed to have interacted with extraterrestrial dogs; or Dana Howard, who claimed to have married an extraterrestrial on another planet. Others sank into a form of self-destructive madness, such as poor Gloria Lee, who died of thirst and starvation because she was convinced that a total fast was necessary to obey the orders of one of her contacts from Jupiter. But among all these contactees, Wilbert Smith deserves a special place...

WILBERT SMITH This man was a technician who had been put at the head of Project Magnet by the Canadian autorities. The purpose of Project Magnet was to study what was behind the mystery of UFOs. After four years of work, the official investigation was stopped, undoubtedly because of not being able to provide results that were either clear or practical. From that time on, Smith started to say strange things. Especially in the famous British UFO magazine Flying Saucer Review, where he published a curious series of articles in which he claimed absurd inventions and discoveries. Smith never met space people face to face. His contacts seemed to have been done by means of magnetic tapes and through a psychic practicing automatic writing. After Smith’s death, some of his articles, along with completely delirious articles by other writers, were collected in a work entitled The Boys from Topside, published in 1969 by Timothy Green Beckley. REFERENCES : 1) Magonia, London, no. 23, July 1986, pp.15-18 (Christopher Allan and Steuart Campbell: Flying Saucer from Moore’s?) Flying Saucer News (Richard Hughes, Bristol, England) n° 9, summer 1955, p. 20 Martin Mobberley: It Came From Outer Space Wearing an RAF Blazer!; London, Springer, 2013. 2) David Michael Jacobs: The UFO Controversy in America; Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University Press, 1975, pp. 120-122 and 124-125 Flying Saucer Review, London, 4:3, May-June 1958, pp. 30-31. 3) Bryant and Helen Reeve: Flying Saucer Pilgrimage; Amherst, Wis., Amherst Press, 1957 and 1965, pp. 57-64. Flying Saucer Review, London, 2:2, March-April 1956, pp. 8-13. 4) Gavin Gibbons: They Rode in Space Ships; London: Neville Spearman, Ltd., 1957 and New York, Citadel Press, 1957. Part II. 5) Gazette Fortéenne, Paris, Vol. IV, 2005, pp. 138-143. 6) Gavin Gibbons: They Rode in Space Ships; London: Neville Spearman, Ltd., 1957 and New York, Citadel Press, 1957, Part I. http://danielfry.com (site created by Sean Donovan, where one finds a mass of useful documents)

-106-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI 7) Jimmy Guieu: Black-Out Sur les Soucoupes Volantes; Paris, Editions Fleuve Noir, 1956, pp. 215-221. Personal correspondence between the author, Marc Hallet, and Marc Thirouin. 8) Several Websites. 9) Flying Saucer Review, London, 7:1, Jan.-Feb. 1961, p. 31. 10) Laura Mundo: The Mundo UFO Report; New York, Vantage Press, 1982, pp. 36-37. Hilary Evans: Gods, Spirits, Cosmic Guardians; Wellingborough, England, Aquarian Press, 1987, pp. 152-153. 11) Dino Kraspedon: My Contact with Flying Saucers; London, Neville Spearman, 1959; and New York, The Citadel Press, 1959. Flying Saucer Review, London, The Humanoids (Special Issue), Oct/Nov. 1966, p. 32 Flying Saucer Review, London, 18:4, July-Aug. 1972, pp. 27-28. Flying Saucer Review, London, 18:3, May-June 1973, p. 29 12) Reinhold O. Schmidt: Edge of Tomorrow-The Reinhold O. Schmidt Story; n.p. USA, 1963. Flying Saucers, Amherst, WI, Ray Palmer Editor, Oct. 1959 pp. 31-45 13) Flying Saucer Review, London, 7:5, Sept.-Oct. 1961, pp. 18-20. Flying Saucer Review, London, 3:6, Nov.-Dec 1957, p. 2. Flying Saucer Review, London, 29:4, 1984, pp. 13-16 14) Jerome Clark: Hidden realms, lost civilizations, and beings from other worlds; Canton, Visible Ink Press, 2010, pp. 177-178 Flying Saucer Review, London, 4:5, Sept.-Oct. 1958, pp. 16-17. Phénomènes Spatiaux, Paris, September 1966, p. 6. 15) Ovni Présence, Aix, France, no. 21, February 1981, pp. 14-17. 16) Domenica Del Corriere, Milan, Italy, no. É’, June 17, 1962, p. 24 (Translation in Flying Saucer Review, London, 8:5, Sep-Oct. 1962, pp. 29-30). Jack Perrin: Le Mystère des OVNI; Paris, Pygmallion, 1976, pp. 60-64. 17) Brigitte McCann: Raël - Journal d'Une Infiltrée, Outremont, Québec, Editions Stanké, 2004 Susan J. Palmer: Aliens Adored: Raël’s UFO religion, New Brunbswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press, 2004

IMPORTANT NOTE The bibliographical references of this chapter were reduced to the bare essentials. Supplementary references can be found in Desert Center, by the same author; and also in Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia, especially Volume 2/ The Emergence of a Phenomenon: UFOs from the Beginning through 1959, Omnigraphics, Inc., Detroit, Mich., 1992

-107-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-108-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THE STRAITH LETTER

arol Adin Honey was born in Idaho, Oregon, on March 30, 1928. For a long time he worked for Hughes Aircraft Ground Systems as an Electronic Designer. Working on space-related programs, he had a secret clearance with the government for 25 years. After his retirement from Hughes Aircraft, he opened a TV repair shop in the city of Ontario, California, and ran it for 18 years. He was the first in the state of California to receive credentials to teach and train hypnotists. Carol Honey had known Kenneth Arnold well and was interested in UFOs ever since Arnold's sighting. When he met Adamski in 1957, he thought the man was honest and he wanted to help him. The letters that were coming in to Adamski from all over the world had reached such proportions that his faithful secretary, Lucy McGinnis, could not handle them any more. So Adamski chose Honey to become his new secretary and ghostwriter. For Adamski, Honey wrote Flying Saucers Farewell and Saturn Trip I & II. He also published a Newsletter called Cosmic Science - Newsletter.

Carol A. Honey.

In the last years of his life, Carol and I developed a sincere friendship. We exchanged many emails and each day I learned to appreciate his intellectual honesty. I can now reveal that he helped me by writing an important text for my Website entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why I can say that Adamski was a liar,â&#x20AC;? which shows that he had a true open-minded attitude towards the personal opinions of everyone.

-109-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Carol Honey died on August 6, 2007. His orbituary in the Ontario (Cal.) Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Aug 12, 2007, says : “Carol Honey was a loving and caring man who helped many family members get through and deal with their own personal problems throughout the 28 years married to his second wife Ellen. He was a quite [sic; evidently an error for quiet] man with great wisdom.” It was important to say these things here in order to understand what follows. In December of 1957, Adamski received a letter signed by “R.E.Straith” that seemed to come from the Cultural Exchange Committee of the State Department in Washington. The signatory of the letter encouraged Adamski to continue his work and stated that the State Department had evidence of his good faith. For Adamski and his friends, that strongly seemed to be a kind of official recognition, which was very tempting to exploit. But first it was necessary to make sure that this document was really an official one. Several of Adamski’s close friends, among them Carol Honey and Richard Ogden, therefore tried to determine if this Straith really existed, and if he worked in the State Department. They thought it was enough to send him registered letters with return receipt requested. Those letters were actually delivered, but nobody replied and as for the return receipt, none was signed by Straith. Adamski and his close collaborators concluded from this that Straith indeed existed, but had such important duties that it was a subordinate who received and handled his mail. On February 12, 1958, ufologist James D. Villard received a telephone call from Clara John, the editor of Little Listening Post who had rewritten the story of the first contact in the desert. She, too, wanted to know if there was a man called Straith in the State Department. Villard, who would not normally have known anything about the “Straith letter,” would have asked his father, who was an official in the State Department. His father would have then made some telephone calls. His investigation proving fruitless, the older Villard would have concluded that if Straith existed, he must have had a very secret position. This is what James D. Villard eventually wrote to Clara John. The latter passed it on to Adamski, who was reinforced in his belief that Straith had important secret duties at the State Department. Adamski thus decided to circulate the letter as widely as possible. Sharp criticism arose immediately, and Adamski was again visited by FBI agents! At first, ufologists accused Adamski of having manufactured a forgery. Some critics pointed out that the letter had not been typed according -110-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

to official standards for official mail, and they decided it was a joke on Adamski. Adamski retorted by saying that he did not see how he could have used stationery with the Department of Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s watermark and said that according to his own investigation, Straith indeed existed and had a high position.

In turn, some critics tried to check it out through official authorities, but in vain: they were always told that the individual did not exist and that -111-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

the State Department did not even have a Cultural Exchange Committee. Ufologist James D. Villard wrote the first major article on this subject for the winter 1958-59 issue of Saucers, Max B. Miller’s UFO bulletin. Thanks to his father, he was able to draw on high-level information and explained that, contrary to what Adamskians had maintained, the paper on which the Straith letter had been typed was not the Secretary of State’s private stationery. Not only was the same paper used in all the embassies; it was part of a batch that was out-of-date. Villard added that there was in fact no Cultural Exchange Committee in the State Department; but there were many civil servants there whose job description included activities like what members of such a Committee would do. Consequently, letters sent to this phantom Committee could well have been accepted and even answered. Villard also wrote to Adamski to explain to him that the Straith letter stationery was, in the final analysis, rather common. Adamski was convinced otherwise, and simply replied that he did not believe it. In June of 1959, Lonzo Dove sent to James Moseley an article for his Saucer News in which he accused Gray Barker of being the author of the “Straith Letter,” as it was now called. Not only had Dove undertaken a comparative analysis of the writings and signatures of Barker and Straith, he had also identified Barker’s typewriter. Moseley didn't publish the article. And for good reason. In February 1985, shortly after Gray Barker’s death, James Moseley confessed that the Straith letter had indeed been written by Barker and that the idea had come to the two of them one day when they enjoyed a meal together with a bit too much to drink. They knew somebody who could get them the watermarked stationery they would need to work with. They did it and sent out some crank letters to Adamski, Coral Lorenzen, Laura Mundo, Manon Darlaine, Ted Bloecher and Lex Mebane. Adamski was the only one to bite the hook, while the others had kept to themselves what they thought were fakes that might be too dangerous to use. Of course, Moseley’s confession did not bother the Adamskians, who saw in it just another maneuver by their old enemy to discredit the contactee. Gray Barker’s files went to the public library in Clarksburg (West Virginia), where he lived for many years. It is there that Michael D. Swords studied them over the course of three days. And what he found does not leave any doubt: there was a collection of letters and copies of letters in which Barker and Moseley wrote openly about their prank, and included correspondence between Barker and the person who had provided them with the material necessary to carry it out. -112-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

It was James Villard himself. In 2002, in the book that he wrote with Karl T. Pflock, Moseley revisited the affair and once more confirmed his previous statements, stressing the panic that had overcome Barker when he was questioned by FBI agents. It has been said that he even destroyed his typewriter by putting it in the concrete of the foundation of a building. As for the official investigation, it seems not to have succeeded because it was halted due to the intervention of James Villard’s father who, having understood what had occurred, sought to avoid trouble for his son. To Moseley’s confession can be added what John C. Sherwood—a friend of Barker’s—wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer of May/June 1998 in an article entitled “Gray Barker: My Friend, the Myth Maker.” Sherwood explained how Gray Barker, who was a man of the theater (he ran movie theaters), had the practice of presenting fiction in the form of fact. It was an intellectual game that greatly amused him. And Sherwood himself, at Barker’s request, had published various lies concerning the famous Men in Black. In late September 1958, Adamski received from the State Department a letter clearly informing him that the Straith letter was a forgery. He was consequently advised to cease speaking about it. But Adamski paid no heed to this courteous warning and spouted off about it again and again. After Moseley made his confession, Carol Honey ended up discussing the subject with him at length. Honey was convinced by Moseley, radically changed his opinion, and spread news about it electronically. In sharp contrast to this, on the Website of the George Adamski Foundation, Glenn Steckling rewrote history by asserting that the Straith letter was authentic, and that Barker and Moseley were liars. REFERENCES: -James W. Moseley and Karl T. Pflock: Shockingly Close to the Truth; Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 2002, pp. 124-127. -Gray Barker: Gray Barker’s Book of Adamski; Clarksburg, W.Va., Saucerian Books (cover says Saucerian Publications), 1967, pp. 61-78. -Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski: the Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983, pp. 148-153. -Richard Ogden: The Case for George Adamski’s Contacts; Seattle, Wash.: The Author: , 1981, pp. 163177 -Daniel Cohen: UFOs - The Third Wave; New York, M. Evans & Company, Inc., 1988, pp. 62-63 -Saucers, Los Angeles, Vol. VI:2, Aug. 1958, p. 8-12 and VI:4, Winter 1958/59, pp. 2-6 -Saucer Smear, Key West, Fla., Moseley, 32 :1, January 10, 1985, pp. 1-2 and December 1, 2001 -International UFO Reporter, CUFOS, 17:6, Nov./Dec. 1992, p. 10; and 18:1, Jan./Feb. 1993, p. 19. -Carol Honey: Correcting False History, Internet, 2003 -Flying Saucers, Amherst, WI, Ray Palmer Publ., August 1960, pp. 34-37

-113-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Moseley & Pflockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s book humorously dedicated to the author.

-114-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

WORLD TOUR

n 1956, Adamski spent a few months vacationing in Mexico, where he had a rich follower by the name of MarĂa Cristina V. De Rueda, who later translated some of his writings to Spanish. During his stay there it seems that he made several films showing apparently the maneuvers of alien spacecraft. The best-known of these films, made in September 1956, was supposed to show a B-52 airplane going up into the sky in pursuit of two gigantic spacecrafts very high in the atmosphere. But some imagination was necessary to see the two spacecrafts. Adamski sold prints from this film for fifty cents each at his lectures. Three stills (see below) were reproduced without comment in the November-December 1957 issue of Flying Saucer Review.

Adamski returned to Palomar Terrace in early 1957. Starting in October 1957, and through much of 1958, he self-published five booklets of Questions and Answers to give his followers the answers to all the questions that were most often asked of him about space people. Thus he lightened his workload while at the same time easy money came in. In 1958, he self-115-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

published a telepathy course in three more booklets. These privatelypublished works were of course recommended and sold by him. At the same time, to further reduce his work and to better distribute his publications, Adamski decided to create a worldwide network of devoted collaborators who could centralize their activities in their respective areas. He called it the International Get Acquainted Program (IGAP). It was quickly put into place, and certain people who had become staunch followers of Adamski’s agreed at once to represent him, or, mainly, to defend him. These few people around the world became those who were usually called “coworkers.” There were one or more co-workers in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Holland, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. In 1958, following the creation of IGAP, Adamski received an interesting offer from his representatives in Australia. They proposed financing a trip to visit them there if he agreed to give some lectures. Adamski immediately spoke about it to his representatives in other countries and, of course, the majority of them made similar proposals. Thus a world tour was organized around a series of lectures. Things did not go as well as Adamski claimed in his last book, and it is sometimes necessary to read between the lines to realize that there were many problems that he carefully concealed. On January 13, 1959, he left Los Angeles for Hawaii, where he spent two days mainly sightseeing with his followers there. Then he took the plane again for New Zealand, where serious things were about to begin. The well-organized UFO group that represented Adamski in New Zealand was led by Henk and Brenda Hinfelaar. A whole series of lectures had been arranged there, spanning a period of six weeks. Several newspaper articles had announced Adamski’s visit well in advance, which made anticipation mount. Adamski had just arrived when he was questioned about a message of distress said to have been found in a bottle thrown into the sea by one of the sailors of the Joyita, a boat that had mysteriously disappeared in 1955. If this message was to be believed, the crew had been removed by a circular metal object. It was obviously a joke, but Adamski took it seriously and declared that the event was quite possible. Later he confused a Maori legend with a real event and was led, in one of his lectures, to talk about young Maoris who had been taken away by a flying saucer. Of course, the press reported these ridiculous things. -116-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The lectures began. Although many people came to listen, there were often bursts of laughter. As for Adamski's films, they were regarded as unconvincing. Some impetuous persons or even hoaxers jumped on the bandwagon and claimed to have seen flying saucers. Adamski took advantage of it, explaining that the UFO sightings were because the space brothers were watching his trip closely and were always nearby, just in case. Harold H. Fulton who was then a prominent UFO researcher in New Zealand had the oppurtunity to listen to Adamski on four occasions in Auckland during his visit. In a letter to Major Keyhoe at NICAP dated March 30, 1959 he said : â&#x20AC;&#x153;...now being certain in my own mind that his tales are largely if not wholly of his own fabrication. Absolutely disgusted in the whole Adamski business... He made the most idiotic and fantastically stupid statements while here.â&#x20AC;? (1) After New Zealand, Adamski flew on to Australia where, among others, his faithful supporter Roy Russell was waiting for him. Contrary to what Adamski had requested in advance, he was not lodged in a hotel but in a private house belonging to a lady astrologer. It greatly upset Adamski, and the courteous relationship that he could have had with the lady seriously suffered. While in Australia, he gave private or public lectures in several places (Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane) and some newspapers again reported the presence of UFOs in these areas. From a letter Physicist James McDonald wrote to William Sherwood on February 6, 1969, we learn a very interesting thing. Here is what McDonald wrote : I am reminded of what Peter Norris and his colleagues in Melbourne told me about their experiences with Adamski. He left a meeting that they had set up for him, claiming that he was going out to communicate with the Space People. One of the members followed him and reported later that he went out of the building looked in a few store windows casually, and then came back in and gave his report on the Space People. On April 16, Adamski left Darwin (Australia) for London, with short stopovers in Singapore, Bangkok, Calcutta, Karachi, Cairo, Athens, and Rome on the way. Adamski was greeted in Calcuta by Dr. Sisir Kumar Maitra, of the University of Benares, who was one of his long-standing supporters. In his company, Adamski had just enough time to visit the university campus before getting on the next plane. Adamski considered his world tour a vacation, and was very disappointed not to be able to go to the pyramids, which he saw only from the air. Nor was he able to visit the Parthenon in Athens. In Rome, where the stopover was also extremely short, he declared that he would have liked to meet the Pope. -117-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

When he arrived in London on April 18, Adamski was welcomed by Desmond Leslie and John Lade. The weekend was reserved mainly for sightseeing and friendly meetings organized by Desmond Leslie. On Monday, April 20, on a popular television program, Adamski was confronted by Patrick Moore. As I have said before, Patrick Moore and Desmond Leslie were good friends. Both were keen amateur astronomers, exRAF staff, and excited by everything about alien life. Both knew that Adamski was a cranck, but only Moore said it openly. Back in 1955, BBC producer Paul Johnstone had been put in charge of a TV report with a debate about George Adamski. He wanted to find someone who could present the “voice of reason” of the scientific establishment, and Leslie suggested Patrick Moore. The choice proved to have been the best possible one for Johnstone to make, and it gave him the idea to propose to Moore that he host a show dedicated to astronomy. That was how “Sky at Night” became one of the most popular BBC programs. It started in April 1957 and very soon Patrick Moore became a TV star. Now in 1959, face-to-face with Adamski under the spotlights, Moore treated things with humor and courtesy, as was his habit. But he clearly showed that he did not believe one word of what he was hearing from Adamski. The British astronomer later spoke about Adamski in two of his books. In A Survey of the Moon, Moore recalled that Adamski had seen some dog-like creatures on the Moon and added, in a mocking tone, “He also told me that the inhabitants of Saturn play table tennis.” In Can You Speak Venusian? which was published in 1972 and which was devoted to mild lunatics, Moore explained that he regarded Adamski not as a true hoaxer, but rather as a great pathological liar, being caugh up in his own game and becoming a victim of paranoia. (2) The following day, in Tunbridge Wells, Adamski was received by Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding, who was very interested in UFOs and the occult. Lord Dowding hosted Adamski’s lecture before a large audience of curious people, during which the contactee could show his films. An extended question-answer period followed. In1997, the British monthly magazine Fortean Times published a letter from Mark Dowding, the grandson of Lord Dowding. (Issue no. 102, dated September 1997, p. 54.) He wrote that his grandfather had the somewhat undeserved reputation of being an eccentric, but also added that his father, Derek Dowding, was—unlike his grandfather—a die-hard skeptic who did not believe in UFOs at all. After having taken Adamski in his car one day, Derek Dowding said to some close friends that the American had acknowledged to him face-to-face that he had made up his stories out of whole cloth. If this is true, when did it occur? In the 1950s, when Derek was an attaché at the Pentagon, or in 1959, at the time of Adamski’s visit to England? The latter seems more likely. Alas, nothing can -118-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

confirm these alleged avowals. A digression is now necessary to understand what comes next. Adamski had barely left California when a tremendous controversy broke out. In December 1958, the contactee had gotten on a train in Kansas City, headed for Davenport. He claimed that he got off the train after an unscheduled ten-minute stop was announced just twenty miles outside of Kansas City. He supposedly met an extraterrestrial there, and completed the trip in a waiting flying saucer. Based on information provided by the railroad company, a member of the American UFO group NICAP proclaimed it a hoax. All of the railroad personnel that the NICAP member obtained statements from (the conductor and two attendants) said that there was no such stop, nor was the door of the car left open (its design did not even allow for closing from the outside). Moreover, the train could not have made up the lost time. This last point was corroborated additionally by the engineer, the fireman, and the brakeman. With Adamski out of the country, Lucy McGinnis personally wrote a long letter to Donald Keyhoe, who was then the head of NICAP. The matter ended in a statemate, with the arguments on each side completely irreconcilable. So with Adamski in England, there was a serious incident when British ufologist David Wightman (editor of the UFO bulletin Uranus) publicly questioned him concerning the controversy raised by his train trip from Kansas City in Davenport. Furious, Adamski wanted to seize the documents that his opponent presented to him, then he claimed that Wightman was a CIA agent come to discredit him. It is amusing to note that sometimes Adamski said he was protected by the secret service and sometimes that he was discredited or even threatened by them! (3) Adamski complained about not to being able to meet the Queen of England. The Palace had been contacted about this, but had refused, very diplomatically. The Belgian royalty had also been contacted, but, also diplomatically, ruled it out. Only the Queen of Holland accepted. Adamski arrived to Amsterdam on May 15, and was welcomed there by co-worker Rey dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Aquila. On the morning of the 18th, an official car took Adamski from his hotel and at 11:00 a.m. deposited him at Soestdijk Palace. Adamski was shown to a library, where Queen Juliana was standing in the company of her Secretary, Prince Bernard, Lieutenant-General Schaper (head of Aviation), professor Jacob Jongbloed (of Aviation Medicine), Dr. Rooy (of Telecommunications), and Mr. Kolff (President of the Royal Dutch Association for Aviation). The audience lasted two hours, after which the -119-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Polish-American was taken back to his hotel, where he was immediately beset by reporters. Adamski did not want to make any comment, saying that respect for the Queen required letting her speak first. Furious, the journalists wrote articles in which some did not hesitate to invent out of whole cloth the complete dialogue that supposedly took place between the Queen and her guest. Others condemned the Queen, who had previously received at the Palace another quack, a faith healer by the name of Greet Hofmans. Of course, Adamski wanted to let people believe that the audience had turned to his favor. However, in his own summary of the meeting there are indications that let us think that the contactee was covered with ridicule and that the Queen, curious to meet such a controversial man, quickly realized the type of man she was dealing with. After Holland, Adamski went to Switzerland, where he was welcomed by his faithful co-worker Lou Zinsstag on May 23. There, people already knew all about the scandal resulting from his audience with Queen Juliana. So tempers were hot, and one lecture almost turned into a riot. As always in such cases, Adamski explained that the “Silence Group” had been at work against him. By “Silence Group,” Adamski meant all his opponents who, without realizing it, took part in the vast plan of untruth concocted by powerful world bankers to keep the truth about flying saucers from the public. Why? Because if one finally admitted the existence of space brothers, the latter would give us their secrets of free energy, and the oil tycoons and bankers would be ruined. In his last book, Flying Saucers Farewell, in which he recounted his world tour, Adamski titillated the latent paranoia of many of his supporters: Wasn’t Switzerland the country of bankers? Weren’t Geneva and Zurich gigantic strong-boxes? Weren’t these cities therefore the dens of the Silence Group? All these absurd explanations involving the Silence Group and the bankers also had a strong anti-Semitic air. Frequently in private, and sometimes also below the surface in some of his writings, Adamski would specify that the big bankers of the world were (of course!) Jews. George Hunt Williamson said the same things in some of his writings. It has been said that Adamski was once ideologically close to the -120-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

American Nazi leader William Dudley Pelley. That is inaccurate. In July 1953, in his publication Valor, Pelley published an article on the desert contact based on a newspaper clipping that contained many errors. First Lucy McGinnis and then George Hunt Williamson responded by writing directly to Pelley. The latter, who sought only to publish the truth about it, urged Adamski himself to write to him, which he did. And Pelley then published all these responses in his publication, explaining his ignorance as being due to the fact that he had heard about Adamski only in the press. In the 1930s, Guy Warren Ballard (1878-1939) endorsed the ideas of W.D. Pelley. This Ballard founded in California a religious movement called “I AM,” which talked about the mysterious Brotherhood of Mount Shasta, the French Count Saint German, and the Venusians previously popularized by Madame Blavatsky. Perhaps some authors confusingly combined these things. (4) Adamski was getting tired from all his traveling and lectures, and he appeared to be very weak from a persistent cold. Lou Zinsstag decided to take him to see a doctor. The verdict fell: if the lectures did not cease, he would return home in a coffin! Adamski was thus stuck in Basle. Two of his followers came to join him there as quickly as possible: Karl Veit of Germany and Dora Bauer of Austria. Both were sorry to learn that the lectures in their countries had to be cancelled. As a way to make it up to them, Adamski offered to give them copies of his films. He did the same thing for Alberto Perego of Italy and Hans C. Petersen of Denmark. For his close foreign co-workers, he nevertheless gave a private lecture that was quickly organized by Lou Zinsstag. After that, Adamski rested a few days in Locarno (on Lake Maggiore), where he had time to dwell on his disappointment at having to stop his European trip so suddenly. Wasn’t everything that had just happened to him a consequence of the fatigue imposed by the ceaseless operations to discredit him? On June 12, Adamski left for Rome, where he was welcomed by Dr. Perego, who invited him to take part in a single meeting during which the contactee briefly spoke. An enthusiastic priest applauded him and thanked him for the information. According to Flying Saucers Farewell, published in 1961, the small number of people in the room included soldiers and clergymen. However, only two years later, in 1963, during a lecture he gave in Denmark at a SUFOI convention, Adamski claimed to have been given an ovation in Rome by forty cardinals! This extravagant lie was repeated by his followers, who never stopped to think how absurd it was. (5) On June 17, 1959, Adamski left Rome for Denmark where, before changing planes, he met with two representatives of H.C. Petersen. At the -121-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

time, Petersen was a Captain in the Danish Air Force and a supporter of Adamski’s. It was really then that IGAP, which until then was a loose-knit organization, became organized at a Europe-wide level, with Hans Petersen at its head. From Copenhagen, Adamski flew over the pole to Winnipeg, and, finally, to Los Angeles and San Diego. The contactee’s world tour had lasted five months. Five months during which he had been received by a Queen. Five months during which he had been vilified by reporters, it is true, but during which, above all, he had been surrounded daily by the attention and admiration of people of all levels, who sincerely believed his stories. And, finally, five months during which he had tasted all kinds of cuisines and had traversed the most beautiful landscapes. It was Adamski himself who used the word “vacation,” to describe those five months, but he failed to point out that it had been entirely organized and paid for by the poor souls who had placed their naïve confidence in him. In one of his books, noted ufologist Jacques Vallée wrote that Adamski carried a passport that bore special privileges. In fact, according to an email Vallée wrote to Richard Heiden on June 8, 2015, the source of that information was nothing else than Adamski’s follower Hans Petersen or Ian Norrie whom he met at the Acapulco UFO meeting in April 1977. (6) REFERENCES: 1) James R. Lewis: The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds; Albany, N.Y., State University of New York Press, 1995, pp. 177-181. Australian Ufologist,Earthlink Publiching, Australia, 3 :2, 2nd quarter 1999 issue (Bryan Dickeson: The 1959 George Adamski World Tour). Journal of UFO History, Brentwood, MD, Richard H. Hall, Donald E. Keyhoe Archives, 1:6, Jan-Feb 2005, pp. 8-9 2) Patrick Moore: A Survey of the Moon, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York, 1963, pp. 180-181 (This is a revised edition of Guide to the Moon, originally printed in 1953.) Patrick Moore: Can you Speak Venusian?, David & Charles Ltd, Newton Abbot, Devon, 1972, p. 99 Patrick Moore: The Autobiography, History Press, London, 2005, Chapter 4 3) UFO Investigator, Washington, D.C., NICAP, 1:8, June 1959, pp. 1 and 3-4. Approach, Pretoria, South Africa, Sagittarius Press, Dec. 1959, pp. 50-54. 4) International UFO Reporter, CUFOS, Chicago, 30:1, Oct.. 2005, p. 15 Valor, V:13, July 25, 1953 and V :18, August 29, 1953 5) SUFOI-Hans C. Petersen: Report From Europe; Denmark, pp. 34-38. 6) Jacques Vallée: Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contacts, Contemporary Books, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1988, p. 248

-122-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

MORE EXTRAORDINARY STORIES

nce back in the United States, Adamski surely thought about the marketing benefits for him from his meeting with Queen Juliana. Thus he tried to suggest that he had meetings with other great world figures. Starting in 1960, he said ambiguously that he had met with John F. Kennedy. To smaller groups and without going into detail, Adamski explained that Kennedy had suddenly disappeared for a while during his presidential campaign. Adamski left his more imaginative listeners with the impression that the purpose of this disappearance was a meeting between Kennedy and himself. In 1983, in the book that she wrote with Timothy Good, Lou Zinsstag explained that Adamski had been entrusted with a written invitation for President Kennedy to visit one of the space peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s huge motherships at a secret air base at Desert Hot Springs, California. She said that Adamski had taken the invitation to the White House himself, entering by a hidden door in front of which a spaceman was waiting for him. Kennedy accepted, but did not undertake a space flight because the craft remained on the ground. At least, this is what Adamski had told her. American ufologist Richard Heiden looked into a possible meeting between Kennedy and Adamski, or a simple exchange of correspondence between them. He learned that according to the official files (housed in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum), Adamski and Kennedy had never met, nor had they even exchanged any letters. Heiden also wanted to check if Adamski had spoken before the Senate Aeronautical and Space Committee (also called the Senate Committee for Space Research), as claimed by certain Adamskians. Again, Richard Heiden received the reply that Adamski had never been received by the Committee. Senator Margaret Chase -123-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Smith of Maine, who was a member of the Committee at the time, explained to Heiden how she remembered that Adamski had come to her office to show her his photographs; but that she had never supported any of his statements, nor did she remember that he had ever appeared before the Committee. One again notes that Adamski or his supporters, who were either naïve or dishonest, as the case may be, had a way of presenting the most ordinary things as extraordinary. In the United States, any citizen can meet with a senator (even if it isn’t HIS senator) to present a request, and if the senator is politically skillful, he will then make a gesture, even a small one, to give to his constituent the impression that he understands. (See Appendix 9) Adamski also spread the story that Dag Hammarskjöld, SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, had invited him to visit. However, he could not show the telegram that allegedly bore the invitation for February 19, 1960, and he never provided any proof of his meeting with Dag Hammarskjöld either. When Hammarskjöld disappeared in a mysterious airplane crash, Adamski again took the ball and announced, without further comment, that a man who had known about extraterrestrials for a long time had just disappeared. But let us leave these exaggerations and return one last time to Adamski's first big trip outside the United States. The fires sparked by the various controversies that he had caused during his world tour did not go out quickly. In New Zealand, for example, there were Adamskians who had to reflect on some of his claims that they had until that point blindly supported. A controversy between local Adamskians followed, and their group split into two opposing camps. Phyllis Dickeson soon rejected Adamski, followed by Harvey Cooke. New Zealand ufology, which had been dominated up to that point by Adamskian ideas, made a complete about-face, and only Henk Hinfelaar and those close to him remained faithful to the contactee.(1) It was in 1961 that Flying Saucers Farewell, Adamski’s last work for the general public, was published by Abelard-Schuman (London, New York, and Toronto). It had been ghost-written by Carol Honey. In this book, thanks to Honey's pedagogical talents, Adamski answered some of his critics and told about his world tour. He also proposed some new ideas. One of them was that our Sun was a little like the cathode in a cathode ray tube; the planets being anodes. Solar flux was thus channeled from the cathode towards the anodes, without anything being lost in space. Adamski explained that in this manner, each planet, regardless of how far from the Sun it might be, receives as much heat and light as it needs to maintain life. Adamski said he had learned that from the space people. But... -124-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Three years before, in 1958, in his series of Questions and Answers booklets, he had written that the space brothers knew little about the Sun but that it seemed to consist of a solid mass. In 1963, when he lectured in Europe, he no longer talked about his cathodic theory, but instead explained that the Sun was dark and that it emitted a kind of black light. Three months after that, back in the United States, he said that the Sun was not a hightemperature ball of gas, and that it was its atmosphere that gave it the appearance of being illuminated. As he insisted on the electropositive nature of the Sun and that a cathode, as is well-known, is actually negative, one must logically conclude that all the statements summarized here betrayed at the very least a great confusion in his ideas! But here is the icing on the cake: after Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s death, his faithful secretary, Alice Wells, looking for something to publish, pulled some writings from his old archives. So it was that she published in her Cosmic Bulletin an article in which Adamski said that during a trip in space, the space brothers had explained to him that the Sun was a high-temperature ball of gas operating roughly on the principle described today in any good popular science book. Not being very concerned about precise chronological details, Alice Wells did not say exactly when this text was written, which is a pity. It is clear, however, that it totally contradicts everything that has been summarized here, which shows that Adamski radically changed his theories about the Sun several times after having claimed to have been informed about it by the space people themselves! (2) One might conceivably credit (or blame) Honey for the passage in Flying Saucers Farewell that compared the Sun to a cathode. However, looking at all these other examples of Adamski talking about the Sun, it is clear that he had no trouble saying foolish and contradictory things, all by himself. When Adamski called his last book for the general public Flying Saucers Farewell, he explained that it was because from then on he wished to deal more with philosophy than with flying saucers. This is why, still in 1961, he self-published a small book called Cosmic Philosophy, distributed by the George Adamski Foundation. Of course, during that period Adamski continued to speak about his contacts with space people. Under the compulsion to keep inventing new things, he sometimes slipped towards the outrageous. Thus, in a text that dates from this time but which was not published until 1973, he explained how the space people had taken some of our medicines to study their effects, such that some of them became half insane, and urgently had to be taken back to their home planets. In 1963, at the time of his second trip to Europe, he showed to Hans Petersen a piece of a Polaroid photo showing the torso of a young woman, wearing a kind of bodysuit. He explained that she was a Venusian living on Earth who had agreed to cover her spacesuit for him when he paid her a visit. But it turned out that the photograph showed too many -125-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

technical details of the apparatuses that the young woman carried on her hips, so the Venusian decided to remove them with the snip of a scissors! (3) On March 31, 1961, Adamski sent out a confidential circular letter to his co-wortkers in which he claimed to have been taken to Venus. He went so far as to say that there he met, in her new incarnation, his wife who had died in 1954!

Mary’s gravestone in Forest Hill Cemetery, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (photographed by Sue Butterfield Picard for www.findagrave.com).

One suspects that even his stronger partisans did not dare speak about this letter for fear that they and their leader would be ridiculed. Perhaps Adamski, who was remarkable at manipulating the latent paranoia of his partisans, had anticipated this reaction and knew that the best way to “keep his sheep” was to provide them with information so extravagant than they would wrap themselves in silence and confidentiality, mixed with admiration, respect, and fear. On August 24, 1961, Adamski wrote a letter to all of his co-workers which was published in the January 1962 issue of Honey’s S.P. Newsletter. This is what it said : I, George Adamski, going into another field of service teaching Cosmic Philosophy and Abstract Science, have turned my previous work over to C.A. Honey. Mr. Honey will be my representative in the United States. Should I settle in some other part of the world, I will give him information from time-to-time so he can keep interested -126-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

people posted on the events of the time. I have been given a new assignment by the “brothers” and their approval of C.A. Honey taking over the first part of my work. This will give me the freedom necessary in these crucial days to be on the alert for any eventuality. I can work in close contact with Cosmic Principles, which I can then convey to those who desire such information for study. Many people may be needed in days to come to guide those who wish to fulfill their cosmic destiny. I hope all who desire to help this work along will cooperate to the best of their ability with Mr. Honey. I find him reliable and I’m sure you will too. You will always be able to contact me through him. (4) There was a second reason for choosing Carol Honey, which Adamski did not point out: his faithful secretary, Lucy McGinnis, had left, in complete discord with him; and since her departure he lacked the personnel to answer the many letters that were sent to him. Lucy was intelligent and sincere. Perhaps too sincere, because she had never thought that Adamski was lying from the beginning. She had scarcely been astonished to discover that Inside the Space Ships closely resembled the novel Pioneers of Space that she had written (for Adamski) long before. But doubtless Adamski explained to her, as he explained it to others, that because he had gathered the information contained in Pioneers of Space using the “astral travel” technique, it was to be expected that it would contain truths that were also found later in Inside the Space Ships. And she accepted it as truth. Lucy was so sincere and believed so strongly in the Venusian ships that one day, when she was alone and had just woken up at Palomar, where she lived with Adamski and his inner circle, she thought she saw the Venusian saucer up close. One has to wonder whether, in this particular case, she did not confuse a simple dream with reality. For a long time Lucy McGinnis remained convinced that Adamski had met space people, mainly because she thought she had witnessed his Lucy McGinnis. first contact, with the Venusian in the desert. Little by little, however, she came to realize that the Polish-American’s contacts were not physical but spiritualistic in nature. She was particularly shocked by the fact that more and more often Adamski went into trances to be in contact with Orthon, his Venusian brother. In those cases he claimed that Orthon was talking through his vocal chords. Lucy found that in fact he was acting more and more like those he had always denounced, -127-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

who used trances and other things of the kind. (5) That was why Lucy left Adamski. Among those who lived at Palomar Terraces about that time was a * young woman by the name of Sonya Lyubicin . Sonya told strange stories. In particular, she claimed to have sexually serviced many space brothers one night in a real orgy. At least this is what she told Ray Stanford and others. According to the files of the Australian Security Intelligence Agency, Sonjia Ljubicin (the un-Anglicized spelling used in the files) was a native of Yugoslavia, and left Australia on July 21, 1959, “to join George Adamski” in the United States. According to the Intelligence Agency files, she “was carried away to the extent that she believed she had travelled in space craft to other planets.” (6) According to Ray Stanford, neither he nor those who accompanied him to Palomar Terraces ever saw where Sonya was sleeping. Some rumored that she was sexualy servicing Adamski himself. One day, after having heard that Adamski was waiting for one of his space brothers, Sonya spent all night hidden in his room, watching the contactee. She became convinced that he was not physically in contact with space people because she saw nothing special except Adamski pacing around the room with his hands behind his back. She spoke about it openly and even told Ray Stanford about it (see Appendix 2). Finally, it seems that Sonya married a friend of Carol Honey's and returned to Australia, where she eventually died. At least that's what Carol told me in our e-mail exchanges. The friend would have been Robert L. Long, to whom Sonya was married from 1960 until their divorce (in Los Angeles) in 1973. Since 1956, Adamski had cherished the dream of settling in Mexico to start a school of philosophy founded on the alleged teachings of the space brothers. In fact, he wanted to re-create, in a slightly different form, the monastery of the Royal Order of Tibet of Laguna Beach. He claimed that it was urgent to educate, in a Cosmic Philosophy school, a kind of elite so they would know what to do at the time of the arrival of the end of the cycle that was being announced. Somewhat like all the apocalyptic prophets, he predicted great upheavals and catastrophes: The polarity of the Sun was *

Various spellings of the woman's name have circulated. This is how she typed it when she gave her name and adress to Ray Stanford before going back home to Brisbane. -128-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

being reversed, there would be earthquakes and floods etc. In March of 1962, he asserted that only nine places in the world would be saved in the event of nuclear catastrophe. One of them was Guadalajara, Mexico, where he intended to acquire land to establish his Cosmic Village. He said that it would be expensive to buy, but he believed that somehow it would be achieved. He would settle there as soon as it was ready; not because he was a coward, but because after everything that was going to happen, the people who remained would need his help. That was the brothers’ plan, he concluded. (7) In other words, Adamski envisaged nothing less than a sort of end of the world followed by a new start for Humanity, with him as one of its leaders and prophets! At the start of 1962, he announced to his co-workers that he would soon attend an interplanetary conference on Saturn. In March, he announced that it had taken place. One afternoon soon after, he recounted his trip to a group of five people at Clara John’s home in Washington. That evening he did the same before a larger audience. But those who had heard the story both times counted six or eight detailed statements in the evening that totally contradicted statements made in the afternoon. (8) Clearly, this time, the information was disseminated with less discretion than that concerning his trip to Venus, which had undoubtedly been used as a trial balloon. Adamski announced the news in Carol Honey’s bulletin Cosmic Science Newletter, which had been launched in January 1962. However, saying that the general public lacked the discretion that was required for such information, this important new “spiritual food” was put forward not in a commercial form, but in the form of two privately-printed booklets entitled Saturn Trip I & II. In exchange of good money, of course! Although the booklets were sold to whoever wanted to read them, purchasers were led to believe that it was confidential and could be revealed only to people who “feel themselves worthy.” It was how Adamski created in his more naïve readers a psychological climate where mystery, mysticism, secrecy, and initiation were all marvelously mixed. What is found in Saturn Trip I & II? Adamski explained that the trip had taken place on March 26, 1962, in a type of craft that was so new that the spacemen themselves were just testing it. It functioned according to a kind of principle of dematerialization and traveled at the speed of thought. The immense vehicle was controlled entirely by its pilots’ thoughts, and it moved instantaneously to wherever their thoughts transported it. This machine thus realized, through an unspecified technological prowess, a kind of miracle located between the -129-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

bilocation and astral travel in vogue in occult and mystical circles. To be able to move instantaneously to wherever oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mind is fixated (as in Richard Bachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s book Jonathan Livingston Seagull) is an old dream of humanity which the machine described by Adamski had thus solved. According to his statements, Adamski arrived on Saturn with other earthlings whose names he could not give. There, they attended the meeting of a great Interplanetary Council. There were twelve tables representing each of the twelve planets of the solar system, with a Master from each planet at the head of the table. But there was also a thirteenth Master, who both encompassed and synthesized the minds of the other twelve. In other words, he was a Christ. Not the Christ whom the Earth had known under the name of Jesus, specified Adamski, but a being who had attained the same psychic and moral development that Jesus had previously attained. This idea was borrowed from Baird T. Spalding's Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East (Foreword, Vol. 1; first published in 1924). The subject under discussion was the turmoil that was going to take place rapidly throughout the solar system because the Sun seemed to be leaving its own orbit little by little. The situation was analyzed and it was decided that in the event of great danger, the planets would be evacuated. The earthlings thus had an interest in putting an end to wars, and instead in considering the construction of interplanetary vessels. During this conference, Adamski was placed under a special helmet to help him memorize every word that was spoken. On both the outbound journey and on the return, the earthlings were subjected to a machine that balanced the frequency of their bodies to perfectly adapt them to the frequency on Saturn. The experience was described by Adamski as being very painful. The two booklets appeared with a lapse between them. In the first, Adamski announced that very recently two of his collaborators, though thousands of miles apart, had made the same criticisms about him, implying that they had fallen under the influence of the Silence Group. In the second, he said that it was obviously possible to learn many things from books, but added that it is never as efficient as learning from a Master and never with the same degree of certainty. Some times, continued Adamski, it is important that those who learned only from books correct themselves, even if it is unpleasant. However, he said, some of his students who should have made such corrections had turned to external sources who did not know anything about the processes that were taking place. Much confusion resulted from it, concluded Adamski, who ended up inviting his partisans to completely trust him from then on and rely on him completely.

-130-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

One can say that during those few months Adamski’s writings plunged even some of his most faithful followers into doubt. They noticed more and more contradictions and confusion. For example, the second installment about his trip to Saturn contained a series of precise details about the distant past of our Earth that certainly did not match the teachings on the same subject that Adamski had put forth in Inside the Space Ships. This time, it was the Martians who taught earthlings to make war, and the inhabitants of Jupiter and Mercury revolted, which had given rise to the myth of Hell being located in a very hot place like Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun. After asking Adamski for permission, his co-worker in New Zealand, Henk Hinfelaar, reproduced the text of the trip to Saturn in his bulletin. Criticism immediately came from all sides, and Hinfelaar’s eyes started to open. As for Lou Zinsstag, she became convinced little by little that Adamski’s experiences were more of a psychic nature (unreal) than of a physical nature (real). For this reason, Lou Zinsstag and Henk Hinfelaar distanced themselves from Adamski, even while continuing to think that at least some of his contacts had been real. Moreover, during that same year of 1962, there were two more events that started to cast suspicion on Adamski. Several co-workers had received by surface mail a “message” made up of complicated symbols under which appeared what seemed to be a translation, saying: “You do good work. G Adamski is the only one on Earth, that we support.” I could examine the copy received by May Morlet. It came from P.O. Box 885 in Glendale, California. (Glendale is about 112 miles northwest of Valley Center, on 2014 roads.) Nothing about it looked alien in origin; it seemed more like a childish joke. Some co-workers did not stumble, judging the message to be authentic. It provided them with additional encouragement to stick with Adamski. Others did not flinch, because they figured it was just a forgery, or perhaps a joke. If one compares some of the “characters” with Adamski’s signature , certain similarities are obvious!

Lou Zinsstag tried to establish contact and wrote to the address, but never heard back. Undoubtedly the contactee was trying, in a simplistic way, to re-establish the confidence of his co-workers, as by then there were things that seriously affected it. Lou Zinsstag has written about this: “Looking back, I now see the entire Glendale business as a helpless pathetic gesture of a -131-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

harassed man—badly advised—who, perhaps wanted to give a new impetus to his work, some encouragement to his co-workers in making it clear that he was accepting new ideas from his 'new set of boys', only to discover later that he had himself fallen for their tricks.” A second event, related to the first, shows rather clearly that Adamski had “lost it.” He ordered hundreds of small cards to distribute at UFO gatherings. The text of these cards said: “Space people need contacts. Can you qualify? Write for free particulars. Box 885, Glendale, Calif.” The same box that the message “Adamski is the only one...” had come from! On the cards was the name “Carol,” with two initials. Honey protested the use of his first name, but Adamski explained to him that it was the middle name of Martha Ulrich. So the post office box had been rented by Martha Ulrich, but for none other than George Adamski! Using to the Library Edition of Ancestry.com Richard Heiden learned that Martha Carolina Ulrich was born in Illinois on April 21, 1894, and was living in Vista, Cal., at the time of her death on June 11, 1984. She lived in Glendale from about 1951 until at least 1970. She had worked as a public school teacher until her retirement in about 1963. So Adamski’s explanation was only partially true. One does not know what happened to those who wrote and offered their services. One can only conclude that Adamski was trying to recruit new followers, or even new collaborators —albeit in a strange way. (9) As I said before, in January 1962, Carol Honey had started to publish Cosmic Science Newletter, a periodical newsletter with Adamski’s writings and also with his own answers to the questions posed by all the people who were curious about anything to do with the space brothers. By his own statement, the man had never been interested in philosophy before meeting Adamski, and everything that he wrote on the subject obviously came from the contactee. But he knew about various fields like the history of civilizations, technical things, and religious beliefs. He sincerely tried to push his readers to inform themselves on these subjects by providing lists of -132-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

recommended books. Soon, to help them understand the essential differences between Christian dogmas and Adamski’s Cosmic Philosophy, he tried to show that the Christian religion has as its historical foundations a collection of the previously-known religious myths of past civilizations. In a series of articles entitled “The Origin of Beliefs,” he launched, in good faith, a work to undermine Christian beliefs. On a personal basis, it was not hard for him to adopt Cosmic Philosophy without being Christian. But for many of his readers, this questioning of beliefs and Christian dogmas was considered true blasphemy! Honey was an honest man who said what he thought and had had the naïveté to trust and defend a liar who never stopped twisting the most obvious truths or realities to use them for his own profit. There was a wide gulf between the two men who had once thought that they were on the same wavelength. It was inevitable that a dispute would end up pitting them against each other... REFERENCES: 1) James R. Lewis, editor: The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds; Albany, N.Y., State University of New York Press, 1995 pp. 181-183. 2) SUFOI-Hanc C. Petersen: Report from Europe; Denmark, 1964, pp. 138-139. George Adamski: Questions and Answers; Privately printed, 5:95 Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later; Victoria, B.C., Canada, Trafford Publishing, 2002, p. 210 Cosmic Bulletin, George Adamski Foundation, Sept. 1971, p. 2. 3) UFO-Contact, IGAP, Denmark, 2:4, Aug 1974 and 3:5, Oct. 1974. 4) Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later, pp.198-199. 5) James W. Moseley and Karl T. Pflock: Shockingly Close to the Truth; Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 61. Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski- the Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983, pp. 8 and 194. 6) Keith Basterfield's post of July 12, 2011, at http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.be/2011/07/contactee-george-adamski-in-new-zealand. html (accessed July 2, 2015) 7) George Adamski: George Adamski Speaks; George Adamski Foundation, Privately printed, Jan/Feb/March 1962. 8) Harold Salkin : George Adamski-Cosmic Saint or Sinner?, in UFO Universe, 2:4, winter 1993, p. 22 9) Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later; pp. 202-203. Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski-the Untold Story; pp. 72-75.

-133-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-134-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

ANOTHER TRIP TO EUROPE

arol Honey was working hard for Adamski, but he was no longer happy. Like others before him, he had begun to think that Adamski had had physical contacts with space people in the past but had not anymore. He had been shocked by Saturn I and II, which he had put into good English. Little by little, Carol began to think that Adamski had been hypnotized to say what he was saying now. (1) In April of 1963, Adamski left the United States for Europe, where he had been invited by the people in charge of IGAP (the International Get Acquainted Program)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;all expenses paid. He first went to Denmark, where he was received by Hans C. Petersen. Adamski told him in private that he was glad to come to Europe because he had to attend an important meeting in the Vatican. In response to his hostâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s questions, he told him that he did not know yet if he would see the Pope, but it was Hans Christian Petersen and George Adamski. possible. And he added that Orthon, the Venusian, would be there too and that he had already landed -135-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

three times at the Vatican: twice during the time of Pius XII and once during the time of John XXIII. One look at the Vatican City State (see above) is enough to conclude that no flying saucer could land there—not even in its gardens, as Charlotte Blob said one day to me (see later)—without alarming hundreds of people. Adamski gave several lectures in Denmark. He planned to go from there to Finland (where he had been assured that he would be received by the leaders of that country), and from there to Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and, finally, Great Britain. But one day when he returned to his hotel accompanied by some of his fans, Adamski found an envelope containing an “anonymous” note, printed in capital letters, with this message: “ADAMSKI YOU MUST NOT GO TO FINLAND THIS TIME PROPAGANDA TROUBLE FOR YOU CSA U.S.A.C.” The next day, a fisherman saw him talking at length with a stranger on the beach. After that, the Polish-American simply The "anonymous" message with its envelope. cancelled his visits to Finland and even Germany. He asked that his Belgian co-worker be notified that he would be coming straight there, and from there to Rome. He also explained that, according to what the stranger had told him at the beach, he had to take a package to the Vatican. Who was this stranger on the beach? No one ever tried to find out. Adamski’s followers were both so respectful and so naive. What was the exact meaning of the letters in the warning that had seemed to disturb Adamski? Nobody asked Adamski about that. One possibility: that the message was a new forgery created by Adamski himself. This possibility cannot be ruled out, because the letters “R,” “S,” and “M” closely resemble the way Adamski wrote when he wrote in capitals. (2) In any event, these last-minute changes put May Morlet in a very -136-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

awkward position. She had to improvise two lectures for Adamski, in her large villa in the suburbs of Antwerp. Dora Bauer, the Austrian co-worker, joined them there.

From left to right : George Adamski, Suzy Peeters (who worked for BUFOI as treasurer), May Morlet and Dora Bauer.

During his stay in Belgium, Adamski once found himself in a restaurant in the company of May Morlet and Dora Bauer. The contactee pointed out a nearby table, and said that the man there was the same one he had spoken with on the Danish beach. Of course, nobody could verify that! During one lecture in Denmark, when he was responding to somebody who asked if he had any objects from another planet, the contactee declared that he had a special crystal from Venus. Once in Belgium, he showed it to May Morlet, but naturally she could not appraise it. In his hotel room she also saw a long robe hanging in the clothes closet whose door had been left partly open. This robe may have been one of the ones he wore at the time he was leader of the Royal Order of Tibet. And it was also the kind of robe worn by the Masters at the Saturnian Council. These details show that Adamski had a knack for titillating the curiosity of his close followers. He also told May Morlet that he bore a strange mark at the level of his navel. She did not dare ask him to let her take a look for herself. But Desmond Leslie claim to have seen it. He said it consisted of â&#x20AC;&#x153;raysâ&#x20AC;? emanating in all directions from a navel that was in the shape of a flat -137-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

disc. The FBI files say simply: “3" scar on navel” which is less extraordinary! (See Appendix 2) On May 24, Dora Bauer and May Morlet accompanied Adamski to Basle, where they joined Lou Zinsstag. There was alarming news then about the health of Pope John XXIII. However, Adamski did not seem to be in a hurry to get to Rome. “But George,” Dora Bauer told him, “the Pope could die before you arrive.” He answered, “No, he is not going to die yet; he must see me first.” Can anyone imagine an answer with more egotism and megalomania? At a hotel in Basle, Adamski pointed out the man from the Danish beach again. Was he deceiving his overly-credulous companions or was he really followed or preceded by somebody in charge of keeping an eye on him? Either is possible. On May 30, Dora Bauer returned to Vienna while Lou Zinsstag and May Morlet left for Rome with Adamski. They went to the Auriga hotel, where they took two rooms, one for Adamski and the other for the two women. It was the next day, Friday, May 31, a little before 11 o’clock in the morning, that the great event seemed to take place. In front of the Dome of Saint Peter, Adamski made a gesture in some direction. “There is my man,” he said, and he left his two co-workers, telling them to wait there for him. Then he proceeded to do much as he had done in the desert that day when he pretended to meet a Venusian. Adamski walked straight into the crowd, passed through, and went to a place on the right of the Dome. I was able to interview May Morlet about the alleged audience at the Vatican at length on several occasions, and she told me she saw a man with a colored round surface on his chest. Was that man really waiting for Adamski, as he told his co-workers later? May was so vague about that and other things that I am obliged to say that her testimony really tell us nothing. My friend could not even tell me through which door Adamski entered. In August of 1983 two French UFO researchers, Yves Bosson and JeanPierre Troadec, interviewed Lou Zinsstag about this at my request, starting with a questionnaire I had written for them. Forced to answer my specific questions, this lady—who had previously always appeared so sure of herself—immediately began to hesitate, then got angry, and finally concluded that she was happy to not know me because I was “too complicated.” To the request that she show on a map the exact place where Adamski had entered, -138-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

she started by saying that this question was interesting and then made an attempt, but did not find the place and declared that she could not pinpoint it! (3) About 30 or 60 minutes later, Adamski came back and joined the two ladies, saying merrily “I've seen him! I've seen the Pope!” After that, Adamski and his two faithful co-workers went to a restaurant. Both ladies had their hearts pounding, but dared not ask many questions. They were happy, which was enough. After eating, all three returned to their hotel. Tired, the two ladies went up to their room to get some sleep. Adamski, though definitely older, remained in the lobby. May Morlet went down again at about 5:30 p.m. Adamski told her that she should have stayed with him, because during the afternoon a dignitary had come from the Vatican to join him. But, in order to test the receptivity of his co-worker, as was his practice, he did not say any more right away. At breakfast the next morning, a more talkative contactee took out from the inside pocket of his jacket a transparent plastic case with a medal in it. It was what the emissary from the Vatican had come to bring him, he said. On the case there was a Latin inscription and a “Latin symbol,” as British co-worker Ronald Caswell later called it. On the other hand, Lou Zinsstag spoke about letters she had never seen before but which were not Gothic, Chinese, Arabic, or Russian. The daughter of a jeweler, she recognized that the medal was certainly pure gold of 18 or even 22 carats. It was euphoria!

The “Adamski Vatican Medal” as it was badly reproduced in UFO Contact (IGAP journal) of October 1966. (Artificially lightened.)

Around three in the afternoon, the trio paid a visit to Desmond Leslie’s brother, who lived in Rome. The following day Adamski discussed the Pope’s health with Dr. Alberto Perego. He stated that the Pontiff was far from being at the edge of death, that he had a pink complexion, and in no way resembled -139-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

cancer patients in the final stage of the disease. He confided that when he entered the Pontiff’s room, the latter said, “This is what I have been waiting for.” He proceeded to take the package, and told Adamski, “My son, don't worry, we will make it!” After this very short interview, Adamski spoke with the man who had let him in and who, according to the contactee, “seemed to know a lot about it all.” On Monday, the trio split up. May Morlet took the train to Belgium and Adamski left for London. It was then that John XXIII died, providing a cruel contradition to Adamski’s medical report. But it did not seem to surprise either May Morlet or Lou Zinsstag. In London, Adamski met with Desmond Leslie again, showed him his medal, and then returned to the United States. Concerning Adamski’s visit to the Vatican, for a long time we had the slightly different written testimonies of only Lou Zinsstag, Desmond Leslie, and Ronald Caswell (who resigned from his charge as co-worker when he entered the priesthood in the 1970s). Only one of these three testimonies was first-hand, and the interview made by Yves Bosson and Jean-Pierre Troadec showed how imprecise—and thus unreliable—it was. (4) Before I seriously looked into this business, nobody had ever worried about whether the medal shown by Adamski was really awarded by the Vatican, as the contactee had claimed. However, after investigation through specialists in Italy, I was the first who established and published (in 1983, in Desert Center), that this medal had been struck by a commercial company in Italy. Here, now, are the facts in all their splendor. Thanks to the numismatic Website www.coinarchives.com which describes a considerable number of medals from throughout the world according to their actual sales, I have found that the famous medal was part of a collection of five, each with a different diameter (22.5, 27, 31.5, 40 and 45mm), and sold in a set or separately, each in its own case. They had been designed by R. Signorini and struck in 1962 by the company Numismatica Ticinese based in Rome. As that website is not completely free of charge, let me also mention other places on the Internet with descriptions of these medals. For example, on www.stacks.com one can freely download the catalog of the public auction sale that was organized at the Doubletree Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois, on April 24, 2008. This auction sale was that of the Alicia and Sid Belzberg Collection. On page 146 is the Medal Adamski claimed to have received from a Vatican -140-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

emissary.

Taken from page 146 of Belzberg Collection auction sale catalog.

It should be noted that when she was interviewed by Yves Bosson and Jean-Pierre Troadec, Lou Zinsstag declared that the medal in question had been struck by the Vatican, but had not yet been sold by banks. This last sentence is very important because it clearly shows that Lou Zinsstag knew that that medal was not a Vatican gift to honor its recipient, but was rather a strictly commercial object. And she necessarily knew that because it was probably she who bought that medal! On March 2, 1963, the Swiss daily newspaper L'Impartial published this advertisement:

-141-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Thus, by a remarkable coincidence the medal was for sale at banks throughout Switzerland—precisely where Lou Zinsstag was living—some weeks before she went to Rome with Adamski in order, he had said, to meet the Pope.

-142-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

For a long time Adamskians (among them Ronald Caswell, for example) were satisfied with writing to the Vatican to try to obtain a confirmation of the meeting between John XXIII and George Adamski. The clumsy responses they received betrayed more astonishment and amazement than annoyance, and the Adamskians invariably concluded that the Vatican was embarrassed, which itself constituted partial confirmation. In fact, when asked about a subject like that, the religious authorities must have surely wondered what this tall story meant. This was obviously the explanation behind the convoluted answers. When American ufologist Richard Heiden sent his own inquiry to the Vatican, it caused the same embarrassment. But this time the reply (via his local archbishop, split between two letters in October of 1976) categorically denied the meeting, and included a statement that there was no reason to think that the medal was of Vatican origin. Timothy Good obtained copies of the letters, which spurred him to write to the Vatican himself the next year. He, too, obtained a flat denial of the meeting, but nothing about the medal. From this he concluded that since the medal proved the meeting, the Vatican was lying. Lastly, French UFO researcher Jean Sider (who had not read my 1983 book) obtained the same flat denial, supported by the fact that the Pope’s health was then too poor for him to have granted an audience to anybody. One has to think that between 1965 and 2003 (the date of Sider’s inquiry), because of still receiving inquiries about it, the Vatican ended up informing itself about the situation, and from then on was able to unambiguously deny the meeting. (5) It is enough to simply read about John XXIII’s final days as published in the press of the time and compare it to Adamski’s assertions, to demonstrate that the meeting between the Pope and the contactee was nothing more than an invention by the latter. Indeed, Adamski stated that he had been received in a room facing the Vatican gardens. However, the bed of the dying man was actually located in a room looking out on Saint Peter’s Square. An hour and a half before the Polish-American claimed to have seen the Pope, Dr. Pietro Valdoni noted that his patient had suddenly taken a turn for the worse, and death was imminent. Aware of his condition, the Pontiff then summoned his confessor, with whom he spoke at length. Then Msgr. Petrus Canisius van Lierde administered the last rites to him. After reciting numerous prayers, John XXIII prayed out loud with Msgr. Alfredo Cavagna for half an hour. In the apartments of the Pontiff, who was suffering considerably, there then followed in turn Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Cardinal Fernando Cento, Cardinal Gustavo Testa, professor Mazzoni, Cardinal Angelo Dell’Acqua, and Msgr. Loris Capovilla. Moreover, the Pope’s two valets continuously stayed in the room. It is not until 2:00 p.m. that the Pontiff started to doze. However, Adamski did not see any of these people and -143-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

described his audience as if he had been alone with the Pope all that time! One may think that in this matter Adamski was acting the same way he had in Desert Center. After telling his two co-workers to wait for him, he walked through the crowd towards somebody who could be just a guard, a priest, or even a tourist with whom he spoke for a moment before disappearing in a corner or behind a column. There is an abundance of such things there. The two obedient ladies, who had been getting ready for something like this for a long time, and who were undoubtedly enthralled with Adamski, stayed right there, waiting for him. When the American reappeared later, he seemed as happy as a child. This is all the two women really saw, and it falls far short of witnessing a meeting between the Polish-American and John XXIII.

Rome airport. May Morlet and Adamski.

As has been stated, Lou Zinsstag knew that the medal was a strictly commercial one. Did she also know that Adamski was lying all along about that claimed meeting with the Pope? As with Alice Wells, Jerrold Baker, and even Desmond Leslie, she was to some extent his accomplice. And it could explain why she was so irritated with my questions about the simple plastic case that contained the medal. REFERENCES : 1)Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later; Victoria, B.C., Canada, Trafford Publishing, 2002, p. 201. Carol Honey Internet publication no 237 (no longer available). 2) UFO Contact, IGAP, Denmark, 3:4, Aug. 1974, p. 9. UFO Contact, IGAP, Denmark, Oct. 1966, pp. 2-5. 3) The whole text of that interview, taped on audio-cassette, was reproduced for the first time in my booklet Choc en Retour, Liège, Belgium, Sept. 1984, pp.9-16. A copy of the audio tape is now in Archives for the Unexplained (AFU) in Sweden. 4) Ufo Contact, IGAP, Denmark, Oct. 1966, pp. 2-5 (Ronald Caswell: ”Vatican Visit 1963“). Flying Saucer Review, London, 11:6, Nov.-Dec. 1965, pp. 22-23, (two lines that belong on p. 22 are printed on p. 24 by mistake). (Lou Zinsstag: “Adamski in Rome”). Later reprinted in Probe-The Controversial Phenomena Magazine, Rhode Island, Joseph L. Ferriere, editor, March-April 1966, special Adamski issue. Ufo Contact, IGAP, Denmark, Sept. 1968, pp. 135-138 (Lou Zinsstag: “On George Adamski-A lecture given in London, June 1967“). Orbit, Journal of the Tyneside UFO Society, England, March 1965 (Desmond Leslie: “George Adamski-a Reassessment”). Reprinted in the Canadian UFO Report, 2:6, 1973. 5) Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski-The Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983, chapt. 7 and pp. 155-156. Gazette Fortéenne, Paris, Vol. II, 2003, pp. 185-292. Gazette Fortéenne, Paris, Vol. III, 2004, pp. 332-336.

-144-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THE SCHISM

ne day Carol Honey went into a snack bar with George Adamski. They were served by a lovely young woman of small stature and exotic appearance. Her smiles and answers to Adamski led Honey to believe that she was a space sister, which Adamski confirmed. This was enough to convince Honey that Adamski really had physical contacts with space people. But things changed after the publication of Saturn I and II: Honey become suspicious about what Adamski said. Some time after the Saturn trip was published, Adamski asked Honey to publish in his Cosmic Science Newsletter a notice that for $5.00 he would give an “analysis,” using a person’s date of birth and a recent photo. He said it was something that he had just learned from the space brothers. In other words, he wanted to get into the business of “fortune telling.” This time it was too much for Honey. He refused. Some time after that the two Glendale incidents occured. The two men were not on the same wavelength anymore. As Honey was convinced that it was a necessary part of the instruction of all of Adamski’s disciples, he continued to publish his relentless criticism of religious dogmas in order to show that Adamski’s Cosmic Philosophy was superior to religious beliefs. Honey based most of his knowledge of religious criticism on the book The Two Babylons, written by a Protestant pastor named Alexander Hislop. This pastor, who sought to mercilessly disparage the Roman Catholic Church, claimed to show that most Catholic dogmas originated in old Babylonian beliefs and that the Babylon of the Apocalypse was none other than the -145-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Roman Catholic Church, whose heart was in Rome, the city with seven hills. Honey was not enough of an expert in the historical criticism of Christianity (which would have required reading hundreds of scholarly works) to understand how tendentious and exagerated this book was. Honey also published a series of articles Adamski had written on black magic, voodoo, how to influence people at a distance, etc. It was through these psychic means that Adamski tried to explain the maneuvers and the underground influence of the Silence Group on certain ufologists, or even on simple people hungry for the truth about space people. Back to the United States, Adamski wrote several texts about John XXIII (specifically his death) and his successor: two Popes that he said the space brothers liked. So, in Honeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bulletin, one soon read, in rapid succession, articles that condemned all superstitions and Catholic dogmas inherited from the distant past, and others that on the contrary glamorized superstitious beliefs and magnified the role of the Catholic Church. Readers did not know what to think! Some of the co-workers throughout the world reprinted articles from Cosmic Science Newletter in their own UFO bulletins. One of them was May Morlet in Belgium. But under pressure from readers who threatened to cancel their subscriptions if such articles continued to be published, she stopped publishing them, as other co-workers were also obliged to do. Many complaints and anguished questions reached Adamski. When the old tricky man realized that things were getting out of hand, he lost his temper and accused Honey of having tried to supplant his authority. Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s malicious charges shocked Honey, who decided to break with the man he had helped so much. He announced this rupture in his newsletter of October 1963. There he explained that the writer of the two Saturn Trip booklets was none other than himself, and that at no time had he believed that the account was true. If he had agreed to write the reports based on the notes and commentaries provided by Adamski, he said, it was above all so that all co-workers would be informed of reality and because he had reason to think that most of them would not swallow such a story. Honey added that he was so sure of the falsity of Saturn I-II because at the same time that Adamski had claimed to be on Saturn, the two of them were together in California! Honey explained that this story was probably nothing more than a fantasy resulting from a trance or self-hypnosis, and that Adamski had been misled or even hypnotizeded to say such absurd things.

-146-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

According to Honey, additional proof that Adamski was being completely led astray, was the history of the post-office box in Glendale with the fake message from the brothers to the co-workers, and the small cards to recruit people. Adamski understood that Honey risked destroying the entire edifice that he had patiently built. So he circulated a tract under the title â&#x20AC;&#x153;To whom it may concern,â&#x20AC;? in which he said that when he had turned his flying saucer work over to Honey, the space people with whom he worked did not agree completely with his choice. This was another lie, contradicting what Adamski had written in his co-worker letter dated August 24, 1961 (see pages 126127). Adamski also claimed to have received a stab in the back from Carol. Long-standing Adamskians found that strange. They wondered, why hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the space brothers warned him? So they began to doubt that their guide was really always in contact with the space brothers, or wondered about the possibility that he was being manipulated by new ones who were not at all benevolent. As he could not admit that some of the articles he had published contained false information, Adamski continued his diatribe by saying that the space brothers had not approved the articles that Honey had written about religion, not because they were false, but because it was more urgent to deal with the changes that were taking place in the solar system. To tell the truth, this awkward argument did not really satisfy the complaints of his Christian co-workers. Wanting to prove that he was still learning from the same space brothers he had met before, Adamski claimed that the satellites of Mars were artificial. It was a theory that radioastronomer Iosef Shklovski had proposed in 1958 and which had circulated in the press around the world in 1960-62. But later that theory proved to be false, based on inaccurate data. Once again, Adamski was betting on a lame horse, about which his followers of today do not seem to be informed. For sure, the George Adamski Foundation will not help them to open their eyes. The contactee concluded his official statement with an argument that was supposed to explain the confusion supposedly created by Honey: some bad space people with hostile intentions were living among us, mainly to sow confusion. It was a very paranoiac shift that hit the target, but not exactly the way Adamski imagined. If he had already said that it was necessary to be suspicious of the Silence Group, the CIA, and the scientists controlled by the government, he now said that it was also necessary to be suspicious of all space people and of all contactees. And it is in the latter argument that some -147-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Adamskians found the reply to some of their questions: Adamski himself could be misled by a new group of space people, very different from the first ones he had met. In fact, this is what Carol Honey claimed and said until his death. Adamski’s pamphlet, combined with the articles published in Honey’s bulletin, with the many letters exchanged among confused co-workers, and with a whole series of various small incidents, created a formidable tidal wave within the Adamskian groups. The very structure of the organization burst. Shortly after Adamski’s first world tour, Dr. Maitra (in India) and some close followers in New Zealand had stopped following him. Now that Honey had left, other co-workers were also distancing themselves from Adamski little by little, even if they remained faithful to him in theory. Among these were Dr Perego in Italy, Karl Veit in Germany, Lou Zinsstag in Switzerland, and even Henk Hinfelaar in New Zealand. Suspicion and mistrust also settled in certain co-workers who stopped corresponding with each other, but who maintained contact with former members of Adamski’s inner circle, like Honey or Lucy McGinnis. In Europe, only three co-workers remained deeply committed: May Morlet, Dora Bauer, and Hans Petersen. In the April 1964 issue of his Cosmic Bulletin, Adamski seemed to announce again that he was going to delegate his saucer work. This time he did not give a name, but it was obvious that he had chosen a woman. The next month May Morlet paid a visit to Adamski with her (first) husband. It was a fifteen-day visit during which the Belgian co-worker thought very seriously of settling beside Adamski in the future “Cosmic Village.” Adamski, undoubtedly fearing that this time things were going too far, ended up dissuading this housewife (with two children) from joining him. I have had the opportunity to carefully read the letter that he sent her about it. After that there was no longer any question of an unspecified new delegation of work. Adamski went to Mexico City again in December 1964 to look into the possibility of establishing a Science of Life school there. In 1956, when he first had that idea, he had received invaluable help from Ian Norrie (a Scotsman resident in Mexico). But he later fell out with him. Though his rich admirer in Mexico María Cristina V. de Rueda was passionately dedicated to him and his work, Adamski knew that she also liked idleness and was not really inclined to devote herself to his projects. So he contacted Norrie again in 1964, acknowledged some mistakes, and again asked him to take part in the project. Adamski also asked Hans Petersen, by now a major in his country’s -148-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Air Force, to consider the creation of such a school in Europe. Land was finally found in Denmark and, in the seventies, Hans Petersen fully believed he could still reach his goal. However, neither of these two projects worked out. It was also in 1964 that Adamski published his Science of Life Study Course, which —he said— contained the quintessence of the information communicated to him by the space Masters. In November 1979, Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good visited Carol Honey at his home in California. On this occasion, he showed them a copy of Wisdom of the Masters of the Far East , published by Adamski in 1936. There, in his own handwriting, Adamski had made corrections for the purpose of updating the text for publication under the title of Science of Life Study Course. The hoax was obvious. Again, Adamski had recycled one of his old publications.

It was a very clever hoax because when the new version started to circulate, its author made clear to his readers that to obtain the maximum benefit from the course, it should not be lent to anybody, so that the vibrations of one reader would not mix with those of another. Each copy of the course was to be regarded as a kind of “condenser of personal vibrations,” so it was necessary to sell as many copies as there were readers. An intelligent marketing system! -149-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

But here is another example of his recycling method, and I was the only one to notice it. In 1961, Adamski published his work entitled Cosmic Philosophy. After the death of her spiritual guide, Alice Wells, running out of ideas, started to republish little-known texts written by Adamski in the Thirties. I got the idea to compare one of them to a chapter in Cosmic Philosophy, and discovered that the two texts matched perfectly.

Left: A text from the Thirties republished in the March 1966 issue of Cosmic Bulletin. Right: From Cosmic Philosophy, published in 1961.

When Lou Zinsstag asked Honey in 1979 about the origin of the space people, Honey stated that Adamski knew that they did not come from Venus, Mars, or Saturn, but he had used these names a little like codes to conceal their real origin. As we will not be able to leave our solar system to bother the space people for a very long time (if ever!), that precaution was completely unnecessary. On the other hand, it was easy to use fictitious names, as Adamski had done with the names of his space friends (Orthon, Firkon, Ramu, Kalna, Ilmuthâ&#x20AC;Ś). The simple truth was undoubtedly that Adamski felt the wind was changing, and that in the face of modern astronomical discoveries by space probes, he was preparing to announce that Venus, Mars, and Saturn were not really inhabited. After these events of 1963, Carol Honey did not remain silent, but his -150-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

activities were covered up as much as possible by those faithful to Adamski, especially the successive leaders of the George Adamski Foundation. When Honey started to disseminate information on the Internet, Glenn Steckling, at the time head of the George Adamski Foundation, attacked him by claiming that Honey had not been Adamski’s ghost-writer, and that he had even stolen documents. At the same time, Steckling started circulating a new watereddown version of Saturn Trip with certain passages that were simply rewritten. Carol Honey reacted to these maneuvers by redoubling his efforts on the Internet and, especially, by putting out a work which, although published in 2002 by a small on-demand publisher, is less likely to disappear than the electronic posts. The book included a complete reprint of Saturn Trip I-II. Carol Honey died on August 6, 2007. After that, Glenn Steckling, then in charge of the George Adamski Foundation, claimed to possess all the files of the deceased man. That is hard to believe. But now that Honey is no longer here to say otherwise, as is his habit Glenn Steckling is re-writing history to speak about Honey warmly, calling some of his publications “excellent” and going so far as to say that for 25 years Honey was a government UFO investigator with a Secret Clearance. Yes, Honey had had a Secret Clearance, but it was after he had stopped working with Adamski, and it had nothing to do with UFOs! REFERENCE: - Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later; Victoria, B.C., Canada, Trafford Publishing, 2002, chapter 14. - Carol A. Honey: Correcting False History, e-publication #287, Feb. 2003 (By Oct. 2014, the Web site had disappeared from the Internet.) - http://gratisenergi.se/steckling.htm (Accesed July 5, 2015)

-151-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Honeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s book dedicated to the author (Now in AFU archives, Sweden).

-152-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THE MOVIE FILMS

n order to earn money giving lectures, Adamski had to make them more attractive. He understood it was better to show movie films of flying saucers than only photos taken through a telescope. Soon after Flying Saucers Have Landed and Inside the Space Ships were published, he obtained a 16mm Bell & Howell camera and began to â&#x20AC;&#x153;produceâ&#x20AC;? saucer films... The first ones were taken as early as 19551956. They showed only solitary spots of light or pairs of lights crossing the night sky. The solitary spots of light were most probably airplanes, helicopters, or even birds, filmed under unusual conditions. The pairs of lights could have been reflections in window panes or airplanes lights. I have had the opportunity to examine an 8mm copy of a film showing several sequences like this (made directly from the original films). They were totally unconvincing. One of the sequences -153-

A solitary light in the sky.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

showed two pairs of lights slowly crossing the sky. At a certain point, they seemed to go behind a cable. But when I looked at these images under a professional Olympus microscope, I could tell that, in fact, they were encroaching on the cable exactly like a glare of light reflecting on a pane of glass.

Another strange thing was that the two pairs of light always remained the same distance apart, as light reflections on a window pane would also have done. As it has been said before (see our chapter â&#x20AC;&#x153;World tourâ&#x20AC;?) the bestknown of all the films that Adamski made during that period is the one he took in September 1956, which supposedly showed a B-52 airplane going up into the sky in pursuit of two gigantic spacecrafts very high in the atmosphere. About the same time, in Mexico, Adamski took a 16-mm film that he said showed a huge domed spacecraft hovering near the highway. The film was so unconvincing that when he projected it during his first world tour he was roundly hooted! It was necessary for Adamski to change the appearance of his movies and thus the way he faked them. So there followed a new wave of films. This time dark saucers could be seen moving in different landscapes.

-154-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Adamski provided his co-workers with reels in which several different sequences of that kind were spliced together. But precise information about each sequence was desperately lacking. I have reasons to think that the oldest film of the new series was taken at Boston, Massachusetts. It showed again a pair of saucers, but this time they were completely dark. The two objects were maneuvering above a road, keeping the same distance between them. It was so strange that my friend May Flitcroft told me â&#x20AC;&#x153;It looks like a trick but it is certainly not one. Nevertheless I prefer not to show it to people who are not as conviced as we are.â&#x20AC;?

Three stills from a film that could have been taken in Boston. A passing truck can be seen in the right corner of the middle picture.

It was probably in 1963 or 1964 that Adamski made two short sequences showing the rapid maneuvers of a single UFO in flight. It seems that one was made at Vista (California). Below are two stills taken from that film; the UFO is easily recognizable because of the relatively featureless landscape.

The film shows an oval black object zigzagging at great speed from left to right and then from right to left over a horizontal landscape. At first sight, the film seems impressive. The second sequence was made at a location I am unsure about (maybe from the back of the Holiday Inn in Appleton, Wisconsin) and is less known that the preceeding one.

-155-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

That film shows an oval black object zigzagging above a landscape crossed by several power lines. Below are six pictures taken from that film. I have partially restored them because all available copies are terribly scratched and spotted.

It is almost certain that these two films were taken through a window pane on which an elliptical black 2D object had been drawn or stuck. A piece of the edge of the windows pane can be seen briefly at the left edge of the Vista film and a piece of what seems to be a roof is briefly seen in the upper part of the other film, possibly taken in Appleton. See below.

The red arrows point to the "saucers."

It is easy to trick a film this way. When one uses a simple plate of glass, it suffices to move it in front of the camera. And if one films through a window pane, it suffices to move the camera. A more sophisticated result may be obtained if the cameraman changes his angular point of view with respect to the object stuck on the window. In 2010, UFO enthusiast Phil Langdon put on YouTube a very good video in which he explained this wellknown trick (see on YouTube â&#x20AC;&#x153;George Adamski footage debunkedâ&#x20AC;?). -156-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Unfortunately, Langdon didn’t convince those who knew only a portion of the so-called Rodeffer film which I am about to discuss at length and which shows a saucer apparently very near the camera. Below are three stills taken from the Langdon video.

The saucer seems to move from left to right, and even change altitude, providing that the cameraman constantly change his perspective. None of his faked films was completely convincing, and Adamski knew that. He was a perfectionist and he wanted to do better. Then came the famous so-called Rodeffer film. This event occurred on Friday, February 26, 1965. But there are three versions of the story! The first version, and the one that is generally published, is that of Madeleine Rodeffer, approved by Adamski. I will call this first story “Rodeffer-I.” An interwiew of Madeleine Rodeffer conducted by Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good in October 1978 gave a new version, somewhat different. I will call it “Rodeffer-II.” Then, Glenn Steckling gave his own version. According to Rodeffer-I, Adamski and Madeleine were in the latter's villa when a loud noise drew their attention outside. They had previously been advised by the “space brothers” to always remain on alert with a camera ready to shoot. They both rushed out to the porch and saw, very close to the villa and at a very low altitude, a Venusian saucer. Madeleine took her camera and filmed. The saucer then moved away slowly until disappearing from their sight. The film was quickly taken to a laboratory and was developed. It was extraordinary. Unfortunately, later, while Adamski was staying in a hotel on the way to Rochester in order to make copies of the film, his room was searched and the best film sequences were cut out. Those that remained were then spliced together. Nevertheless, most people know only the first sequence of that film, when the saucer is very close to the camera. There, one can see the saucer gently zigzagging over some trees and apparently deforming itself under the influence of the force field surrounding it. The copies of the film that are circulating on the Internet are generally -157-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

of very bad quality and are terribly scratched or spotted. Below is a very good picture, in which I have tried to render the special greenish-blue tone as near to the original as possible.

According to Rodeffer-II, Adamski and Madeleine were in the villa when a car arrived in a hurry. Three â&#x20AC;&#x153;space brothersâ&#x20AC;? came out and alerted George and Madeleine that a spacecraft was coming. They both ran to the porch with their cameras. This time, it is said, Adamski had a Kodak 16mm camera and Madeleine had a Bell & Howell Animation Autoload Standard 8mm, Model 315, with an f1.8, 9-29mm objective. She knew little about that device, as it was new to her and at that moment it refused to function! Very nervous, Madeleine turned it over to Adamski, who set down his own camera, took Madeleine's, and started to film. When the saucer was gone the three space people left, adding that they hoped not to have to do such a demonstration again, as it was too dangerous because of military airplanes. The film had been purchased by Madeleine's husband Nelson, who knew nothing about photography. Unfortunately he had chosen inexpensive Dynacolor film designed for indoor use with artificial light, instead of film for outdoor use. This might explain the greenish-blue tone of the Rodeffer film. As it was the start of the weekend, it was not easy to get the film developped immediately. George phoned his friend Bill Sherwood, who worked for Kodak. Sherwood couldn't help, but gave them the address of a company in Alexandria, Virginia, that could do the work.

-158-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The film was left there the next week and picked up the day after. It was viewed for the first time at Madeleine's home in the absence of outside witnesses—it was just George, the two Rodeffers (Madeleine and her husband Nelson), and Adamski’s new friends, the three Stecklings (Fred, his wife Ingrid, and their young son Glenn), who had emmigrated from Germany to the USA in 1960. Madeleine found “her” film very disappointing and did not even recognize what she remembered seeing, as she told Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good in 1978. Some sections seemed so incontestably faked that Adamski himself seemed extremely disappointed and said that it was obviously not their original film. He explained: “That looks awfully strange. I must have filmed the shadow of the ship...” After a long discussion, everybody present concluded that the laboratory had Three poor-quality frames, showing the included faked sequences in the film in saucer deforming itself and its landing gear going up and down. order to discredit the whole. But for Madeleine it was incomprehensible how the Silence Group had been able to film those sequences at her own home and garden in the space of only 24 hours. Then it was decided to cut the film in several pieces in order to keep the true ones and to destroy the faked ones. That work was done at night by George Adamski and Fred Steckling, and the good portions of film were taken to Bill Sherwood in Rochester, with the request to make several 16mm copies of them, all mounted together as a whole. In Rodeffer-II, Madeleine added that after these events, Adamski said to her : “Don’t tell anyone that I helped you because they will pick on you. Don’t even tell people that I was there.” Of course, in the end Adamski could not avoid saying he was there; but for the rest he stood mute. And Madeleine, for herself, continued to spread her pious lie. Years passed. It seems that Nelson ceased to support Madeleine’s beliefs about the space brothers and what Adamski had said. They divorced. Long after Adamski’s death, Madeleine thought she could tell the truth about -159-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

how it all happened. But she was not anticipating Glenn Steckling, who spread his own version. In an interview put on the Internet, copyrighted Oct. 21, 2010, Steckling claimed that due to Madeleine Rodeffer's distress after Adamski died and her marriage failed, she confused what had happened to “her” film with another one that a military official had given to Adamski in order to ridicule him. Glenn Steckling added that this was just after Adamski returned from seeing U Thant, who had offered him a seat at the UN which Adamski declined! So, according to Glenn Steckling, Adamski was very suspicious about that unknown film and he (Adamski) and Fred Steckling went through it frame by frame. They found it badly faked and finally burned it. That was the film and the episode that Madeleine had confused with the film Adamski took at her home. Without providing any evidence, Glenn Steckling added that he and his mother stayed with Madeleine for two weeks just two years before she passed away. Every day they went over the events to reawaken her memory, until she finally conceded that she had confused the two events and had thus damaged Adamski in many ways. Contrary to what Madeleine explained to Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good, Glenn Steckling's version of the events was that the film was quickly developed at a 24-hour Dynacolor service in Rockville, and that the following evening Nelson and Madeleine Rodeffer, George Adamski, and the three Stecklings saw it for the first time at the Rodeffer home. At the time, he said, the film was complete, exactly as George and Madeleine had witnessed and filmed it, nothing being faked or substituted. Then Adamski went to Rochester to make some copies. But when he returned from there he explained that he had been approached by his space contacts who demanded he cut out the section with the saucer hovering overhead showing its revolving rings, something which could have given some interesting clues to military engineers. That is the fiction Glenn Steckling gave to contradict the final version of the events given by Madeleine Rodeffer. I use the term “fiction” because it is completely incredible that Madeleine could have been so extraordinarily confused. How could she have confused his disappointment at seeing the film she had taken with Adamski with an episode that did not concern her at all? What Steckling says does not match the facts and defies simple logic. However, Glenn Steckling added an interesting detail. He said that at Adamski's request, his father sent a first-generation16mm copy of the film to the following co-workers: Madeleine (Rodeffer), May (Morlet, in Belgium), Hans (Petersen, inDenmark), Ronald (Caswell, in England) and one more in -160-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Europe, probably, he thought, Dora (Bauer, in Austria). I think it was not Dora who received this last copy, but more likely Rey d’Aquila or Netty DeBruyn, in the Netherlands. (1) When I was still working closely with May Flitcroft, she allowed her 16mm copy to be examined by a friend of mine who was an expert in such things. May had two reels of Adamski films. The first one was the original 16mm copy of the Rodeffer film. The other, in 8mm, contained a number of different sequences taken by Adamski in different places, and probably received from him well before he took the so-called “Rodeffer film.” Let me say two important things. The original Rodeffer 16mm copy was of course of excellent quality but the contrast seemed too high. So the saucer seemed too black and without volume, as if it was a black cardboard stuck on a window pane. The original film, with less darkness and contrast, showed that the object was 3D (as seen on the good reproduction above). Strangely, the four sections of the film had been mounted in reverse chronological order. First there was a section showing trees and nothing more. After that there was a short section which showed the saucer disapearing in the distance, passing behind a tree. Then there was a section with a disc-shaped saucer zigzagging between the trees at some distance from the house. And, finally, there was the more notorious section with the saucer very close to the observers. In the classroom where he taught photography, my friend projected the Rodeffer 16mm copy and the 8mm reel. He made numerous comments. He was particularly suspicious because of some of the ships' very fast moves or their apparent size according to the landscape and the lenses which Adamski seemed to have used. Finally, pointing to the section of the Rodeffer film where the saucer seemed to pass behind a tree, he commented that it would be very interesting to look at these pictures under a microscope.

The saucer apparently passing behind a tree from left to right

I had a professional Olympus microscope and it was the first thing I did when I got back home.

-161-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Fortunately, the saucer passed not only behind the wide trunk of the tree, but also behind a small branch. And at that very point I could see that the branch and the â&#x20AC;&#x153;saucerâ&#x20AC;? were superimposed, forming a large dark spot on the emulsion, clearly visible here below on a black and white reproduction.

The red arrows point to the "saucer" passing behind a branch.

A trick using a double exposure was evident! This concerns the last shot with the saucer disapearing in the distance. Now, let's look at the two shots with the saucer as a black lenticular disc zigzagging between the trees. Both sequences show the saucer zigzagging here and there. The better known of these two shots is relatively dark and shows only the saucer zigzagging between the trees. Below are three pictures taken from it.

The second film sequence is lighter. It shows the saucer, some trees, and, very briefly, the corner of a roof. Below are three pictures taken from that film sequence. Please note that I have corrected their colors in order to better match the natural ones.

-162-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

In the two first pictures above, the saucer seems inclined at about 30Â°, but in the third one it is horizontal. But it is really the cameraman who changed his angular point of view. The proof is in the inclination of the trees. At the start of that sequence, one can see a portion of the roof as it appeared from the porch. Note that it seems that the film was reversed horizontaly left-to-right when the copies have been were made.

Left: a part of the roof as it appears in the film. Right: the image reversed. Middle: in the red circle, the part of the roof that is visible in the right image.

The roof of the porch and a short portion of the white wall of the house both being visible, it is clear that this sequence was made from the porch and not downstairs in the garden as Madeleine sometimes explained. These two sections could have been done with the simple technique of an object stuck on a window pane, but I think that they could also have been obtained by double exposure. Jun-Ichi Takanashi, from Japan, was the first one to explain how Adamski made the film sequence where one can see a 3D saucer close to the camera. (2) Here is how Adamski almost certainly proceeded. He took a model of his well-known Venusian saucer (many of them were available at the time, but maybe he used his first model) and cut it in two parts. But he glued all three landing gears on that half model. Then he stuck that half model on a glass pane. So the assembly looked like this: -163-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

That model was used by Adamski as he had usually done for his previous frauds. By changing the position of the glass in front of the camera, not only did the saucer seem to move in all directions, but it also distorted itself in the strangest way. Here at the left are some pictures from the Rodeffer film compared to those obtained by Jun-Ichi Takanshi. One can see how these distortions could be obtained very easily. In the beginning, Adamski probably planned to show a saucer close to him and then slowly moving away. It is impossible to do that with the classical window pane trick explained before. To do that, it is necessary to make a double exposure and use the zoom when filming the object. But Left: pictures from the Rodeffer film. there is a danger in doing that: Right: pictures obtained by Jun-Ichi Takanshi. if the two superimposed sequences are not filmed with great care, the images are too bright and the object may look transparent and able to pass “through” some parts of the landscape. It could explain Adamski's comment: “I must have filmed the -164-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

shadow of the ship,” which sounds absurd otherwise. Most probably Adamski encountered these problems and it was why he was forced to cut his film in several pieces. The Rodeffer-II version of what took place on that famous day of February 26, 1965 allows us to understand more or less how the fraud was made. Adamski had probably set up his trickery—or the first part of it, anyway—when Madeleine was not present. He used her camera and locked it so that Madeleine couldn’t film with it. When she gave him her camera, he made as if he was filming, or else he filmed the trees, the film being already exposed one time. Of course, filming this way was dangerous: some sections of the film could show the object passing “through” a tree, for example. This let him to conclude that the film was “faked,” as Madeleine Rodeffer said. Hence the editing. But what did Madeleine see? The second version of the events, given to Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good, is a clue that she was not a liar but rather a very naïve woman. A friend of Madeleine’s, my Canadian correspondent François Beaulieu, is also sure that the film was a fraud but that Madeleine sincerely believed she had seen something extraordinary. How that was possible, he doesn’t know or else dared not tell me. Nevertheless we have to remember that Carol Honey was a hypnotist. It is possible that Adamski learned from him how to hypnotize those who are very receptive. According to Harold Salkin, who wrote it in 1993, the film was shown to several experts before Adamski’s death later in 1965. Some said that the craft did not seem to be totally three-dimensional, but rather like a model with a partially rounded rim. Moreover, an expert located in Philadelphia who owned a theater projected the film onto the 30-foot theatrical screen and could stop it several times. For several reasons (some of which were explained here), he concluded that it was a fraud made with a small model superimposed on a background of trees. (3) The film found an extraordinary defender in the person of William (“Bill”) T. Sherwood, a optical physicist who worked for Kodak in Rochester and who was an Adamski follower. On February 27, 1967, Madeleine was able to project “her” film in front of a score of specialists at Goddard Space Flight Center and it was claimed -165-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

that it had convinced them. But when Timothy Good tried to verify that with Paul Lowman who had been present that day, he learned from him that everybody had judged the film to be a forgery. (4) Madeleine wrote everywhere, including to the White House, to speak about “her” film. Her persistent activity about that resulted only in various problems, including her divorce. The day came when she demanded the coworkers return all the copies of the film to her. Some were, but not all, fortunately. I said above that I could put one of the original 16mm copies under a microscope. In fact, I had received it from May Flitcroft, the Belgian coworker. As I was discovering that the film was a double-exposure, May and her second husband were flying to California where they had decided to pay a visit to Alice K. Wells. On their return from there, I received an ultimatum: I had to return the film immediately! What was going on? I began to understand when I met May and Keith Flitcroft to give them back the film. Their attitude was hostile. I told them that the film had been faked and that one day I would publish the whole truth about it. They looked both furious and frightened. For sure, they had naïvely told Alice that the film was well on its way to be assessed by an expert. Something which would have frightened Alice, who, undoubtedly knew the truth. I suppose she told my two friends that I was with the Silence Group or something of the kind. Only this would explain why their attitude changed so abruptly. A microscope cannot lie. My photos are the definitive proof that the Rodeffer film is double-exposed and, consequently, a fraud. The details of how it was made are of less importance and weight. Nevertheless I have given enough of information here to allow my readers to understand what probably happened. The Rodeffer-Adamski film obviously gave some ideas to other hoaxers. On July 23, 1966, a man who was driving with one of his associates near Lost Creek, close to Clarksburg, Virginia, claimed to have filmed a flying saucer in all respects similar to the famous Venusian saucer. At least, that is the story that was told. Copies of this film were soon offered for sale by Gray Barker. One of its creators later confessed that this film had been made by Gray Barker himself with James Moseley. A plaster model covered with aluminum paint, hanging from a fishing rod, had been used. The model is still on display today in the Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library, where Gray Barker's files are collected.

-166-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Six frames taken from the so-called “Lost Creek film.”

On May 30, 1967, another saucer, perfectly identical, was again filmed in West Virginia, this time close to the Benedum airport (near Clarksbburg). This film was much longer and showed a flying saucer following an airplane. As with the Lost Creek saucer, the object seemed to have a pendular motion as if attached to a wire—which was the case! This time, only Gray Barker, who sold the film, was involved in the fraud. (5)

Six frames taken from the so-called “Benedum Airport film.”

Other contactees have made their own UFO films. They include Daniel Fry, Howard Menger, and Billy Meier. But this is not the place to speak about these tricks. REFERENCES: 1) http://gratisenergi.se/steckling.htm Tony Brunt: George Adamski - The Toughest Job in the World; Auckland, New Zealand, Vailima Press, 2010, p. 38. Lou Zinsstag & Timothy Good: George Adamski -The Untold Story; Kent, Ceti Publications, 1983,

-167-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI chapter 16. 2) http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/ufo-photos/ufo-photos-adamski-footage/ http://homepage3.nifty.com/hirorin/ufofakescontactee.htm 3) UFO Universe, Vol 2 n°4, Winter 1993, p. 23. 4) Timothy Good: Above Top Secret, New York, William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1988, pp. 371377. 5) James Moseley & Karl Pflock: Shockingly Close to the Truth; Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books, 2002, pp. 200-201. http://www.jimmoseley.com/2014/07/

Gray Barkers’s models in the Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library.

-168-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

DEATH AND AFTER

damski continued to escalate his claims. For example, he said U.S. officials had given a camera to the space brothers, who used it to take pictures on Venus before returning it to the authorities. After astrophysicists located pulsars, Adamski claimed that they were artificial beacons to guide the space ships. Nowadays, Glenn Steckling does not talk about these fantasies anymore. (1) On April 17, 1965, when Adamszki blew the candles out on his birthday cake, he was disturbed: two of the candles remained lit. Being superstitious as he was, he decided that he did not have much time leftâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;only two months, two weeks or two days to live. Overworked by his lectures and the constant stress that his hoaxing activities subjected him to, he took sick again. As he was a heavy smoker and drinker, whenever he caught cold his bronchi were quickly affected and the rales and respiratory difficulties were followed by coughing fits. He became exhausted. He again retreated to Madeleine Rodefferâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s luxurious villa, which was surely much nicer than the modest dwelling where he lived with Alice Wells. He suffered a serious heart attack there on April 23. Adamski was taken urgently to the hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland, where he was admitted under the name of George Adams. He never regained consciousness and died later the same day. George Adamski was cremated and buried in Arlington National Cemetery, which he was eligible for as a military veteran. He is in section 43, -169-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

grave 295, in the far northern part of the cemetery. It was apparently Alice Wells who made this decision, and who dealt with the arrangements relating to his death. One advantage of the Arlington burial was that the federal government covered all of the expenses. That would be the case for any veterans cemetery, but Adamski was already near Arlington when he died. Of course, Alice Wells probably also had in mind the implied honor of a burial in Arlington.

Strange destiny—Adamski was buried far from his wife Mary. Because Mary had been buried with her parents in Wisconsin. Perhaps all along Adamski was planning to be buried separately from her. Paranormal writer Hans Holzer wrote that Adamski was autopsied and growths were found in his brain that could have been extraterrestrial “implants.” It is useless to try to argue! (2) Distraught by the death of their leader, Adamski’s inner circle circulated writings praising him. Alice Pomeroy, Madeleine Rodeffer and Fred Steckling did not hesitate to describe him as Professor of Cosmic Philosophy and Astronomy, Space Lecturer, and “Explanator of Religions.” In her Cosmic Bulletin of June 1965, Alice Wells, whom Adamski had named in his will, went even further. She explained that everybody should have realized, with the publication of Saturn Trip, that Adamski was himself one of the members of the Interplanetary Council. She went on to explain that he had been allowed to continue his mission by changing his body, not by being reborn as a baby, but by somehow exchanging his corporeal body form for another adult body, thus retaining the possibility of immediately continuing his cosmic mission. -170-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The famous hoaxer Cyril Henry Hoskin, who wrote under the pseudonym Lobsang Rampa and who claimed to have been a Tibetan lama, had described the same thing for himself in 1960 in his book The Rampa Story.

Alice Wells concluded her â&#x20AC;&#x153;obituarysâ&#x20AC;? by saying that the headquarters of the George Adamski Foundation would be maintained at the old address in Vista, where she remained, and that checks to obtain material should be made payable to her. A very important thing indeed!

-171-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Alice Wells circulated another obituary which was reproduced here and there, for example, in the special Adamski issue of Probe Magazine of March-April 1966. This one didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t contain the more astonishing passages about Saturn Trip I-II and the migration of Adamski's soul in a new form that was not a baby. This shows how Alice was cautious and calculating.

-172-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

As soon as the terrible news reached Buffalo, N.Y., a group of fans there decided to observe a religious memorial service. During it, somebody distinctly saw the “ghost” of the Master, while another felt a spectral hand on his shoulder. (3) Barely a month after Adamski’s death, contactee Laura Mundo claimed that the Californian had not really died: he had simply been taken by his space friends and would return with them soon. Laura Mundo had received the confirmation from Adamski himself, telepathically. (4) But an even more surprising claim came from the United Kingdom. There, in Scoriton, a strange story started to circulate after Adamski’s death. One Ernest Arthur Bryant, who lived in that town, had seen the landing of a flying saucer, and three men come out. One of them, who looked about 14 years old, gave his name as Yamski and said, “If only Des were here, he would understand” and added something like “it is only now that we appreciate the work that he did with the Sanskrit writing.” Bryant was led inside the saucer, where he saw a purple robe with a red rose beautifully embroidered on the sleeve. He was warned against the “forces of Epsilon” and promised that “we will bring you proof of Mantell” (In January 1948, while in pursuit of what he thought was a UFO, young Kentucky Air Guard pilot Thomas Mantell crashed with his plane). The saucer supposedly came back and Bryant received several objects, including a message inserted in a glass tube with the words “Adelphos Adelpho.” Alice Wells was immediately asked about this. In her usual mystical jargon, she replied that the entity did not seem to have as deep a knowledge as Adamski about the cosmic laws. Consequently, this story would not be taken seriously, she thought. She repeated the same thing in 1967 when she learned that a book written by British UFO researchers Eileen Buckle and Norman Oliver was coming out on the subject. The book turned out to be a thick one, written by two persons that sincerely believed the story was true. However, a little later, Norman Oliver discovered some curious facts that led him to re-investigate the case. In May of 1967, Bryant had an emergency operation for a brain tumor and died soon afterwards. The truth came out little by little: Bryant had invented it all based on his extensive UFO reading, including an English magazine that reported that Adamski planned to reincarnate as a teenager. For his part, British ufologist Lionel Beer discovered in the home of one of Bryant’s friends a real UFO cultist library with, among other things, models of flying saucers. (5) * * *

-173-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

After the death of Adamski, his former close collaborators tried to reorganize. Alice Wells's authority was not challenged, but there was a big problem. As Alice Wells had never claimed a contact with the space brothers, Adamski followers were all deprived of first-hand information about what was going on with the space brothers program. To solve this problem, several persons then claimed to have had contacts with the space brothers. This was the case with Fred Steckling, Charlotte Blob and Steven Whiting. It has been said that Madeleine Rodeffer claimed to sometimes meet the Venusian Orthon. But according to François Beaulieu, my Canadian correspondent who knew her very well, it was never the case. As wily as Adamski, Alice Wells observed all these things without expressing an opinion. Alice K. Wells was soon helped by Alice B. Pomeroy who gave her three years of volunteer service. During that period, the latter bravely worked with Whiting for six months, taking him to mysterious appointments in secluded places where she never saw so much as a saucer. Little by little Whiting changed. He went with the Stecklings and Charlotte Blob to Mexico to look for land. But finally Charlotte Blob split with Fred Steckling, and Fred and Steven joined Alice Wells. Alice B. Pomeroy decided that these men now had very negative thoughts that caused confusion, so she left Alice and went home to Northborough, Massachusetts. In November 1968, Alice B. Pomeroy circulated a letter to the coworkers in which she explained that she had been unintentionally caugh up in the opposition and had learned a great deal from it. When asked to explain, she honestly summarized what she had observed with Steckling, Blob and Whiting. She didn’t want to condemn and criticize, but only analyze the facts and the attitudes for the purpose of better understanding. She concluded that the opposition had gotten in and was negatively influencing certain individuals. She received a lot of questions from those who were far from the United States. So in another letter dated September 8, 1970, Alice B. Pomeroy wrote to co-workers: “The confusion seems to be centering around the group in Mexico (Fred) the group in Valley Center (Charlotte) the group in Europe (Hans Petersen and Dora Bauer) and Vista (the two Alice's). All of these groups, exept Vista, seem to differ in their loyalties and each one has certain others he wishes to support, pushing the rest aside. (...) All, except Vista, apparently agree that “Vista” is the opposition. “Vista” seems to be the only one that is for keeping the Unit of Service, accepting all equally as a part (opposite). This confusion is the same confusion which GA and Honey had, and it grows increasingly wider and broader. First Steve and Alice B., as individuals. Then Fred and Charlotte as part -174-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

of a group. Then Fred's group against Charlotte's group, and now Europe against the USA! The opposition should be very pleased, whether they have contacted any of us or not! (...) We are the victims, all of us, of those who are trying to break it up!â&#x20AC;? Clearly, Alice B. Pomeroy seemed sincerely bothered by what was happening. She didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t even think that each individual was personnaly responsible for the confusion; on the contrary she thought that all of them were the victims of the opposition, which was, of course, the Silence Group, as it had always been pointed when Adamski had problems. Alice B. Pomeroy tried to get people back together, but her letter produced the opposite effect: certain European co-workers became suspicious of her, as did Alice Wells herself! Worn out, Alice Pomeroy formed her own group: The International Council for Universal and Cosmic Brotherhood. It did not have any success. She also published a periodic newsletter entitled The Roundletter in which in 1972-73, she published Universal Law, the Consciousness of All Life, Love and Unity. The best way for the new contactees to rally Adamskians outside the U.S. to their cause was to make their own publicity tours. That is why Steckling went to Europe in 1966, and made several lectures there. During a train trip there, he said he filmed a flotilla of saucers. That film was probably so unconvincing that it is among the least known UFO films. After returning to the United States, he wrote a book (Why Are They Here?, New York, Vantage Press, 1969) full of philosophy in connection with the Bible, extraterrestrials, and saucers. Charlotte Blob wrote its preface. In the book were two pictures taken from his film, but contrary to what the caption said, the trees in the foreground didn't rule the possibility of lights reflections in a window pane. (6) Charlotte Blob (birth name: Charlotte Modersohn) herself went to Europe to visit co-workers there. It was in 1970, when I was still working with May Flitcroft in Antwerp. With dismay I heard her claiming that Orthon, the Venusian, sometimes landed his saucer in the Vatican gardens and that John XXIII had been poisoned by his cardinals. I had the clear impression that that agitated and very talkative woman was insane or, at the very least, a pathological liar. She also claimed to have filmed a large flying cigar during her trans-Atlantic flight, a film that I have never seen anywhere. In the 1970s, Charlotte Blob joined with Thomas Heiman to found the UFO Education Center of Valley Center, California, with Midwest Headquarters in Appleton, Wisconsin, and a branch in Guadalajara, Mexico. This cultist group eventually ended up being treated in the press as a cult, -175-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

with deprogramming of members. In 1971, Steckling announced that he would return to Europe soon. He also said that some of the satellites of Saturn were artificial because they rotated in the opposite direction from the natural one. It was total nonsense, proving his lack of understanding of astronomy (and the very size of these celestial bodies!) Unfortunately for Steckling, it was at this time that his Cosmic Village project in Mexico, inspired by Adamski, completely collapsed. There was a financial crash in which lawyer Norman Stone lost a lot of money. Steckling then abruptly returned to the shadows and the European co-workers stopped talking about him openly. He became a taboo subject. It seems that it was in 1976 that he again put his hand out to Alice Wells. A little later, European coworkers were pleased to announce that he “was back.” I found it amusing because they had previously not dared to say that he “had left!” (7) So in 1977, Fred Steckling returned to Europe with his small family and a new Science of Life Study Course under his arm. He was selling it for $ 140! Today, his son, at the head of the George Adamski Foundation sell the original 12 lessons of some pages each for only $ 55. On August 26, 1980, Alice Wells died at the age of 80. She was cremated and her ashes were scattered at sea. According to her will, Fred Steckling took charge of the George Adamski Foundation. On August 21, 1991, Fred Steckling (born on September 4, 1906) died, at the age of 84. His son, Glenn, took over the Foundation. He is still there. REFERENCES: 1) UFO Contact, IGAP, Denmark, Jan. 1968, pp. 58-59. Controversial Phenomena Bulletin, May-June 1965, p. 5-6. 2) Hans Holzer: The Ufonauts; London, Granada, 1979, p. 75. 3) Probe-The Controversial Phenomena Magazine, Rhode Island, Joseph Ferriere Editor, March-April 1966, Commemorative Issue, p. 12. 4) The Interplanetary News, May 25, 1966. 5) Eileen Buckle and Norman Oliver: The Scoriton Mystery; London, Neville Spearman, 1967. Norman Oliver: Sequel to Scoriton; London: Privately printed, 1968. Orbit, Journal of the Tyneside UFO Society, England, Vol. 8, no. 2, Sept. 1967, pp. 4-5. 6) http://www.igap.dk/observationer.htm (Accessed May 3, 2015) 7) BUFOI, Antwerp, no. 25, pp. 13-14.

-176-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

aba Premanand Bharati was among the first Hindu teachers to come to United States. A follower of the Krishna Consciousness Movement, he arrived there from Bengal around 1902. He lectured in New York City and Los Angeles and had a profound influence on Theosophists. He died in 1914. Long after that, a California mystical group called The Order of Loving Service, devoted to Baba Premanand Bharati, settled in a beautiful place in California, where many religious groups had their headquarters. This place was Laguna Beach. That mystical group was greatly influenced by a famed esoteric writer of the time, Maud Lalita Johnson (born Maud Lalita Schlaudeman on February 2, 1875), who had divorced from Elbert Evans Johnson in 1906. She had already published a book entitled From Those in White (1912), and another one entitled Unto Thee O Lord (1933). In 1934 she wrote a book entitled Square, which was dedicated by the author as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;To Baba Premanand Bharati, who by his love, patience, and continued watchfulness has led me out of darkness into Light, out of weariness into Rest, out of confusion into Understanding, out of continuous striving into Perfect Peace.â&#x20AC;? The publisher of that hardbound book of 145 pages was the Order of Loving Service, Laguna Beach, California. The same year, in April, the Los Angeles Times announced the creation of the Royal Order of Tibet, headquartered in Laguna Beach, at 758 Manzanita Drive. In 1936, this Order published, under the name of George Adamski, a booklet entitled Wisdom of the Masters of the Far East. It was -177-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

followed in 1937 by Satan, Man of the Hour; Petal of Life; and The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, also written by George Adamski. Maud Lalita Johnson wrote another book entitled Transmitted Light - Latoo the Instrument, Lalita the Recorder, which was published that very same year of 1937 “by the Order of Loving Service associated with the Royal Order of Tibet.” Long after that, in the files Adamski gave to Carol A. Honey when he turned over to him a part of his work, there was a 71-page hardcover book entitled The Sacred Symbol, written by Maud Lalita Johnson at an unknown date. In that book, the author claimed to be the medium of a being called Celestor who had lived for half a million years on the 116th plane and has manifested at different times on Venus, Mars, and other planets and places. The publisher was: “The Order of Loving Service, affiliated with the Royal Order of Tibet, Laguna Beach, California, USA.” (1) How Adamski and his Royal Order of Tibet become “associated” or “affiliated” with the Order of Loving Service, devoted to Baba Premanand Bharatis teachings, is a mystery. One can only say that it happened at Laguna Beach around 1933-1934 and that it is a further evidence of the influence that oriental teachings have had on Adamski’s spiritual evolution. A possibility should not be ruled out: Maud Lalita Johnson may have been —at least partially—Adamski’s teacher rather than her student. She had a son, Josef Jerome (born in 1899), who was an instructor at Cal Tech Pasadena and was involved in the Mount Palomar Observatory project. Adamski spent many evenings with that man, discussing a great deal about space. It was Dr Johnson who offered to Adamski his first six-inch telescope. Adamski, who devoured books, was greatly influenced by the pseudoOriental teachings that he found in many Theosophical books and in the infamous Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East by Baird T. Spalding (published for the first time in 1924 by De Vorss and Company). The Life of Jehoshua the Prophet of Nazareth, by Franz Hartmann, published in Boston by the Occult Publishing House in 1888, also seems to have influenced him. In 1940 Adamski left Laguna Beach and settled with his wife Mary and some followers in Valley Center, on the road leading to Mount Palomar, where the gigantic astronomical observatory was planned. Maud Lalita Johnson died in India, on September 26, 1943. In 1944 Adamski, his wife and his followers moved to Palomar Gardens, closer to the observatory which was under construction and which was already attracting many tourists. Alice Wells built a small café there in order to earn some money from these tourists. -178-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Around 1944 Lucy McGinnis wrote, as ghost-writer for Adamski, a science-fiction novel entitled Pioneers of space, which was not published until 1949. The book gained negligible library success. Shortly after that Adamski realized that the flying-saucer business could be an easy source of money. He found there a new vocation for himself: student and observer of saucers. Enthusiastic, he talked more and more about them and his telescopic UFO photos, which he quickly produced in great numbers. The Palomar telescope became operational in 1948. More and more tourists came there and ate at the café, where Adamski spoke openly about the flying saucers he said he had photographed. He had begun to give lectures about the subject, but he earned little money. Luck turned with the first article published about his saucer work in the July 1951 issue of Fate magazine. Thanks to that article, Adamski attracted some naïve UFO enthousiasts who came to visit him. Finally, taking into account the rumors about alleged crashes and landings of saucers in the desert, he had the brilliant idea of feigning a contact with a being from another planet. He conditioned his future witnesses and little by little, persuaded them that he would soon be contacted by a space visitor with them as witnesses. The event would take place on November 20, 1952. Adamski thought he had prepared his trick well, but one part of it failed—his photographic evidence proved unconvincing. So he made or ordered more convincing pictures. Flying Saucers Have Landed, which was published in 1953 and which contained the story of the contact with the pictures, became a best seller. The saucer business finally began to make money! So Adamski had an idea: to attract new followers, he used Pioneers of Space—which had been printed in a limited edition and was not known outside UFO and esoteric circles—as the basis for a new book which would be presented as a report about true events. That was Inside the Space Ships, this time rewritten by Charlotte Blodget, one of his followers. From then on Adamski was obliged to ceaselessly give new extraordinary information and stories to keep his followers interested in his saucer work. But he was not really interested in saucers himself. What he wanted to spread was his pseudo cosmic philosophy. So he turned over one part of his job to Carol Honey and took a new path, publishing and lecturing more and more about philosophy. But that new discourse was insufficient for his followers who wanted to learn more and more about space people. So Adamski had to keep giving his followers new accounts to keep them interested. It was for that reason that he eventually claimed to have been to Venus and after that to Saturn, mingling all these stories with a philosophy -179-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

supposedly originating with Christ-like space Masters. In private, and to his closest disciples, Adamski knew how to distill the most cockeyed information, depending on the degree of credulity of his listeners. For example, he told his inner circle about his previous incarnations, and even their own incarnations. He also told them about his initiation in Tibet and other things of the kind. But he could go even further: It is known that one day the contactee showed Lou Zinsstag a photograph of Orthon taken in profile. Honey saw something even better: a photograph that Adamski had supposedly taken on the Moon showing a building with people in the background. When would Adamski have made this trip to the surface of the Moon? He said nothing about that! The end of Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life was probably painful. He had thought that the Rodeffer film was going to silence his detractors, but it was not the case. The film, consisting of short sequences, seemed too strange, too artificial. The majority of his old supporters had already turned their back on him by then, or had prudently distanced themselves from him. Many said that his later contacts were with negative space people who took the place of the first benevolent ones. After the death of their mentor, Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disciples tried to reorganize, and and some of them got the idea of proclaiming themselves contactees in turn. But scientific knowledge naturally continued to progress. Thanks to increasingly sophisticated space probes, a clear image was obtained of what the Moon really looked like. It was so different from what Adamski had described! So some Adamskians displayed their ample imaginations trying to show that the Silence Group was being more active than ever. Hans Christian Petersen, one of the oldest co-worker and founder od the IGAP, even completed an astonishing work: with a series of pictures he said he had obtained from NASA, he tried to prove there were a number of strange objects and places on the Moon, including forests and waterfalls. Later, Fred Steckling jumped on that bandwagon and published a book entitled We Discovered Alien Bases on the Moon, which had a good success in the UFO community. But the pictures were strange only on the surface, owing to the deliberate poor quality of the reproductions and skillful croppping, in an attept to deceive people. (See Appendix 4) Scientific knowledge kept evolving, and space probes were sent out farther and farther, providing no support for what Adamski had claimed about Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Adamskians kept fighting the fight for a long time, claiming, for example, that the probes had been doctored by the CIA to send us false information. However, they admitted -180-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

that they were working correctly when, luckily, they seemed to give information that could still let us believe that things were really the way Adamski had said. But eventually an agonizing reappraisal was necessary: the space brothers could not have come from where Adamski claimed. It did not appreciably traumatize the die-hard Adamskians, who explained that when the contactee had spoken about planets in our solar system as the space people’s places of origin, it was to protect them so that when the day comes that we can travel long distances in space, they would be safe from our conquering activities. This example, by itself, shows how people convinced of something absurd can act in an illogical way when it is a question of somehow preserving their intellectual tranquility. It is called acting like an ostrich. Throughout this book, I have shown how Adamski was able to condition and persuade his followers that they were part of extraordinary events. To some extent Adamski had the gift of manipulating his entourage by playing on two sensitive strings: first, he flattered people by giving them the impression that they were experiencing with him an adventure of cosmic importance; and, second, he appealed to the latent paranoia in his disciples by making them believe that although the Silence Group was at work everywhere, the space brothers took care that nothing bad happened. Thus, any incident, whether good or bad, was used by Adamski to validate his claims. Adamski was not a brilliant forger like were, for example, the painters who succeeded in fooling experts for a long time. The alleged physical evidence that he provided was, by itself, poor, and, in the final analysis, rather easy to discredit. But where he had genius was in the way he always landed on his feet, like a cat, even when he was in serious trouble. One might say that he raised the lie to the level of an art. After Adamski’s death, his disciples continued to interpret all kinds of events in this same way. Thus some believed sometimes that they were victims of the Silence Group and sometimes they felt protected by the “brothers” or even felt that they were in the presence of a space brother or sister. Various common incidents in public places could be interpreted in this manner by Adamski’s followers as meetings with the space people living among us. It is obvious that some adventurers benefited from this gullibility. This explains—for example—the many “contacts” during which long-haired passed young men pretended to be Orthon in order to have sexual -181-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

intercourse with naïve young women. Sonya Lyubicin was not the only victim of this kind of thing. Laura Mundo, who also claimed to have met Orthon, cited other cases similar to that of Sonya’s in The Mundo UFO Report (New York, Vantage Press, 1982), without posing the real questions that such things raised! Adamski’s personality was complex. In Desmond Leslie's “Commentary on George Adamski,” written for the revised edition of Flying Saucers Have Landed, which he published in 1970, he dared to frankly ask if Adamski was schizophrenic. In his opinion, there was the “Little Adamski,” who expressed his ideas poorly, and the “Big Adamski,” who was incredibly wise and patient and who spoke in a deep beautiful tone of voice. Adamski was probably megalomaniac, but certainly not a pathological liar. He was above all a good actor who, nevertheless, when he was confronted with a significant contradiction, could forget to continue to play his role and turn into an angry screaming man whose eyes truly flashed. One proof of his talents as an actor was reported by a witness who unexpectedly saw him bursting into tears one day while telling a group of people about his reunion with his wife, Mary, who had reincarnated on Venus. But there are, of course, contrary opinions, like that of academic psychologist Robert A. Baker who met Adamski when the latter gave a lecture in Louisville, Kentucky, in the late 1950s. He wrote afterwards: “Anyone familiar with the seriously mentally disturbed would have recognized immediately that Adamski was not in full possession of his faculties.” (2)

An advertisement in Flying Saucer Review (May-June 1960).

-182-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Adamski’s aficionados present him as a great teacher who thought only to help our poor humanity and who never thought to gain money with his activities. That is inaccurate. Even if his saucer business did not really make him rich, it still helped him to live simply without really working hard. The royalties from his three commercial books were not revealed publicly. To speak only about Inside the Space Ships, for example: according to a statement which I have (in the receipts accompanying the first and final account of his estate, which is public), the royalties amounted to $2,533.43 between January 1966 and October 1968, well after this book was at its peak. It is nothing to sneeze at. Moreover, Adamski could make money on everything, and he knew that small brooks make great rivers. Thus, when he had his small observatory near Alice Wells’s restaurant, he offered to the many tourists who were going to or from Mount Palomar Observatory the opportunity to look through this telescope for a modest remuneration. That is how he found a way to make some money from this object which, obviously, would not otherwise be very useful to him. In the same way, he sold photographs of saucers—at low prices, to be sure, but many of them. He also sold quantities of small printed booklets at low prices and offered to give lectures for free, but only if there was an opportunity to sell books and booklets at them. He also simply accepted gifts, sent in by admirers from all the corners of the world. Lou Zinsstag has written an amusing anecdote about that: “On the first evening, when we were alone for a few moments, I handed him some pocket money which, I thought, he would be glad to spend on himself. He looked at the money, much astonished. It was two hundred francs in two bills. ‘Thank you very much, ‘he said,’ but I don’t know what to do with it.’ And he put the two bills in his trouser pocket. He did not even own a wallet. I never saw this money again although I could swear that he never used it.” Is it possible to be more naïve? (3) Ted Bloecher has given very significant testimony concerning the way in which Adamski could handle people, to extort money out of them. Bloecher personally experienced the following series of events: Initially, Adamski agreed to give a lecture; then, after the room was secured, he explained that unfortunately he could not come that day because he had an important meeting with some VIPs. Nevertheless, he managed to make it understood that if they paid him money for an airplaine ticket, that is to say $100, he could manage it. In order to avoid a still greater loss, of course they gave him the money, even though it seemed clear that he was not going to take the plane. (4) Another aspect of Adamski’s life was discussed only briefly. I am referring to his love life or even sexual life. He did not have children with his wife, who was somewhat older than he. It is the only thing known for certain about the couple. For the rest, it is surprising how Mary was always kept apart from the social life of her husband, starting at least with the beginning -183-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

of his career as a philosopher. Was this the will of the husband or, more probably, the will of Mary herself, because of a total lack of agreement with his teaching activities? After Mary died, Adamski was surrounded mostly by women of a certain age, except for one: Sonya Lyubicin, whom he had persuaded to come to California. Ray Stanford wondered if Sonya was sexually servicing the contactee. Why not? But it is pure supposition. In June 1963, after Sonya had left him, Adamski stayed with Desmond Leslie at his St John's Wood flat in England. It was here that he met Mollie Thompson, a young attractive female UFO believer, for the first time. For an entire day, Mollie and George chatted together, also in private. Eventually, Adamski asked her if she would be prepared to go to the States to work with him there. He even added confidently : "The Brothers have work for you." But as Mollie had just taken up her first teaching post, she declined the offer. (5) During Adamski’s trips alone to Los Angeles, or during his trips elsewhere in the world, he always needed to stay at hotels, because, he claimed, if space people wanted to contact him suddenly, it was the best place for it to happen without attracting attention. In Europe, his co-workers noticed that he received visits from young men in his room. Adamski said that they were space brothers. But according to what he had said about the space brothers on other occasions, the latter seemed to be older—about thirty or forty years old, such as those he pointed out at restaurant tables or in a crowd, saying they were space people. Here again one can only make suppositions, knowing that some old heterosexual males become sexually attracted to boys or young men when their sexual potential decreases. One thing is sure: when Ray Stanford met Adamski, he and his friends were teenage boys, but Adamski never had an inappropriate attitude towards them. * * * Well-built Saturnians or fleshy Venusians in sexy form-fitting translucent dresses are no longer in fashion; they have been replaced first by bigheaded dwarfs and now by unpleasant androgynous “small greys” with insect eyes. Orthon no longer seduces naïve young love-starved women; there are now plenty of very ordinary men and women who complain of sexual mistreatment at the hands of alien monsters. The fashion is no longer peaceful Venusians coming to Earth to spread simplistic and reassuring philosophical ideas; it is invaders whose hybrid clones will one day come down in their space ships to invade Earth and put its inhabitants at their mercy. New times, new stories, new fantasies...

-184-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The place where Adamski had lived is now known as The Oak Knoll Campgrounds, a property which boasts numerous improvements such as cabins, a pool, and camping facilities. This property encompasses both Palomar Gardens and Palomar Terraces. Manifesting his desire to support Adamski’s work, Glenn Steckling made a contract with the proprietors of that place. Outdoor speaking activities, a new observatory with a telescope, and a building “entirely dedicated to the housing of authentic and factual Adamski materials” are planned. (6) “That saucer crap” about which Adamski spoke is up and running as much as ever! REFERENCES: 1) Carol A. Honey: Flying Saucers 50 years later; Victoria, B.C., Canada, Trafford Publishing, 2002, p. 227. 2)Robert A. Baker: Hidden Memories-Voices and Visions from Within; Buffalo, N.Y., Prometheus Books, 1992, p. 121. Lumières dans la Nuit, Chambon-sur-Lignon, France, no. 287-288, May-June 1988, p. 18. 3) Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good: George Adamski-The Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983, p. 30. 4) La Gazette Fortéenne, Paris, Vol. II, 2003, pp. 207-212. 5) Phenomena 27, www.phenomenamagazine.co.uk, July 2011, p. 10. 6) San Diego (Cal.) Union-Tribune, Aug. 13, 2003. <http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20030813-9999_7m13ufo.html>.

-185-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-186-

APPENDICES

187

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

188

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 1 The document below, signed by May Flitcroft, says that in 1974 I was the representative for BUFOI-IGAP for the French-speaking part of Belgium.

-189-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-190-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 2

n this appendix are reproductions of declassified official documents about investigations and reports undertaken concerning George Adamski.

Several of these documents show that Adamski, who is described as “mentally unbalanced” and “a crackpot,” was emphatically admonished that he cease referring to the FBI and OSI as having given him approval to speak on flying saucers or having cleared any of his speeches, material or writings. The last document informs us that Adamski had three sisters and two brothers, that he had passed for “a minister” about 1943, that his right eye had a cataract, and that he had three scars at the level of the navel.

-191-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-192-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-193-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-194-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-195-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-196-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-197-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-198-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-199-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-200-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-201-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-202-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 3

uring the year 2014, I exchanged many e-mails with Ray Stanford. He was kind enough to answer numerous questions about things I had read about him and some of his oft-repeated claims in the UFO literature. Here are some of his remembrances which I have tried to keep in his own words for the most part. When Ray Stanford graduated from high school in May of 1956, he wanted to travel around, to meet people involved in his favorite subject, which was UFOs. He was then 18 years old. His first stop was Prescott, Arizona, and George Hunt (“Ric”) Williamson. After that, with his brother Rex or with friends, he met George Adamski several times. At the time of his last visit to Adamski he was almost 21, or maybe already 21 years old. Ray and his friends drove a long way from Texas and arrived at Adamski’s in the evening. Adamski invited them into the living room of his cottage, where the visitors began to chat with him, Lucy McGinnis, and Alice K. Wells. At some point during the conversation, Adamski declared : “Oh, you boys should have been up here the other day! Up over the mountain, there was a mothership! Lucy and Alice, here, they saw it. Mr. and Mrs. Black from San Diego were here and saw it too. It was as big as the side of a house! Hell! That was the closest I ever been to one of these things!...” Then Adamski seemed embarrassed at what he had just said and added, “... uh, excepting when I been inside!” One morning, Adamski called the young men into the dining area of the little cottage. He seemed to have just finished his breakfast and Alice was serving him cup after cup of what Adamski called, in his Polish accent, “Ek -203-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

nok” (eggnog) which smelled as though it might have been well spiked with something like whiskey. He seemed to be in a very unguarded talkative mood, perhaps because of the alcohol, and he said: “You know boys, I never had to have any physical contact with the space brothers, because I already knew all about them and even wrote a book, Pioneers of Space, describing all these things, years ago.” And he told the young men to go up the hill, to Lucy’s office, and take a look at her bookshelf in order to find the book. They did so and read through the book, discovering with amazement that in that fiction book were the same things that Adamski wrote about later in Inside the Space Ships. They came back and asked Adamski about it. He told them: “You see, I learned all that through a unified state of consciousness with what is out there and I never had to have any physical contact with the space brothers to know what you have read in Inside the Space Ships.” That was when it became clear to Ray Stanford that Adamski had never had the physical contacts described in Inside the Space Ships. It was maybe on the same day that Adamski told them: “You boys are too young to know how bad that goddamn man Roosevelt was. Hell! He knocked out the Prohibition. I had the Royal Order of Tibet at that time, so I could make wine claiming it was for religious purposes. Hell! I was the biggest bootlegger in all the Southern California. Hell! If it hadn’t been for that goddamned man Roosevelt, I wouldn’t have had to get into all this saucer crap.” At the time, Ray Stanford accepted the information given by Adamski. But as years passed he realized that what Adamski told them was impossible because Roosevelt had ended Prohibition in 1933, years before Adamski ran the monastery of Laguna Beach where his Royal Order of Tibet had its headquarters. Why did Adamski give them these explanations? It remains a mystery. Shortly after that, Adamski told the young men: “Come with me. I want to show you my workshop.” They followed him around the house to the side nearest the road (the road that went up to the Palomar Observatory), where a small room had been built in the space under the floor of the main house, which was available because of the slope of the hill down toward the highway. He opened the door and there, right in front of them, they saw several tiny models of UFO discs covered with fluorescent paint and suspended by black-painted fine nylon strings before a black-painted shape of a mothership leaning against a vertical surface. Indeed, it was what had been photographed long before by Adamski and used for the illustrations in Flying Saucers Have Landed! Then, without a word, Adamski showed them a canister, just to the left of the door, on which was a sign warning of radiation hazard. He took a nearby screwdriver and used it to remove the lid. When the -204-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

lid was off, the whole contents of the canister glowed rather brightly in the nearly total darkness. Thinking that it was radium, Ray said : “George, please, close that thing up. That’s dangerously radioactive.” Adamski did so and Ray asked, “Where did you get that?” “Some scientists down in San Diego brought it to me when I told them what I needed,” was the reply. Adamski was boastful and he liked to dupe people. That morning with the young men, he was surely messing with their heads. For one thing, he showed them, with a certain pride, how crafty he had been to make some of his photos and, for another, he probably greatly exaggerated by pretending to possess dangerous radioactive substances. Nevertheless, Ray Stanford is still convinced that the substance was really radium. Having seen that and judging from other things that Adamski had said or showed them as reported here, Ray then understood that Adamski was a liar and that his contacts had been only spiritual, if that. Consequently, it was his last visit to the California contactee. During previous visits to Adamski, Ray Stanford also met the famous Sonya who lived there at that time. Unlike with Alice and Lucy, Ray never knew where she slept and wondered if, maybe, she sexually serviced Adamski. She freely related to the young men the night she sexually serviced Orthon and twenty (or maybe thirty, Ray doesn’t remember anymore) other space brothers who lived in Australia. Discussing it later, Ray and his friends thought that maybe she was implying that they could avail themselves of her services as well. But the young men chose to give no positive response to her. Sonya told Ray that one evening she heard that Adamski expected a visit, in his own room, from one of the space brothers. (Ray does not remember if she said Firkon or another one cited in Inside the Space Ships). So she decided to hide in Adamski’s closet that night to see if any space brother would show up there. In the middle of the night, Adamski got up and for a very long time, he paced around the room, his hands often clasped behind his back. Sonya told Ray that she stayed awake all night long but nothing else strange happened. Nevertheless, the next morning, Adamski said that a space brother had come to see him. A very strange tale! Was Adamski a kind of somnambulist or was Sonya a mythomaniac? A final important clue that Ray Stanford noted during his visits to Adamski has to be stressed here: Adamski had great artistic talents. He showed Ray several paintings depicting a voluptuous nude woman, which he had made with an airbrush. On the wall of Lucy’s office, there was also a very nice oil painting he had made years before. Unfortunately, Ray did not take any photographs of this artwork.

-205-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Probably not painted by Adamski...

Some have said that Adamski had painted the portrait of Jesus that is reproduced above. Asked about that, Ray wrote me : “I must say that it is very crudely done, technically, and because I saw only works by Adamski that are considerably more sophisticated, I find it hard to believe that he would have painted so poorly.” According to Lou Zinsstag, the painting (5ft x 3 ft) had been made by Adamski and offered to his mexican co-worker Maria Cristina de Rueda (George Adamski-The Untold Story, Beckenham, Ceti Publications, 1983, p. 51) (See also the short additional note at the end of this Appendix). * * * As has been said before, Ray Stanford also had many contacts with George Hunt Williamson. The last time he paid him a visit was in California in 1959 or 1960. Ray told me that Williamson was extremely paranoid, with incredible delusions of grandeur. He claimed successively being the reincarnation of Tutankhamen, Mark the disciple of Jesus, the Inca Atahualpa etc. As years passed, more and more things began to make Ric (George Hunt Williamson) suspect that he and the other “witnesses” had been fooled by Adamski in the desert. He was naturally hesitant to say that publicly, though, because it would make him look very naive and foolish. Thus, what he said in public -206-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

lectures and what he wrote was somewhat different from what he confessed to those he knew well. Clearly a time came when Williamson had had enough of Adamski and his fake voice channeling. Maybe also was he a bit jealous because he wanted to consider his own voice channeling as the only genuine one. So, little by little, he began to tell Ray how really he felt. For example, he explained to Ray that the weekend before the pseudo contact in the desert, the Baileys and Williamsons (Ric and his wife Betty) were at Adamski’s place when the latter set them up to be dupes in what could have been his upcoming desert contact hoax. Adamski went into a trance and began channeling his “Tibetan Master.” Through Adamski’s voice, the “Tibetan Master” told the group that they must go to the desert on November 20 to facilitate a contact between the “Professor” and a space visitor. The channeled message specifically told Williamson that he must bring some plaster of Paris and a jug of water with which to mix it, because the space visitor would have a “symbolic message” on the soles of his shoes to leave as imprints in the sand, and Williamson should be prepared to make plaster casts of them. Williamson also told Ray Stanford that the day they went into the desert, Adamski took with him a large corrugated box with the explicit message that absolutely nobody else was to pick it up or even touch it. It was only much later that Williamson suspected that the box, which was left with Adamski and his telescope at the contact site, contained a saucer model for faking the pictures and shoes with the “message” carved into the soles. Williamson also said that none of them could see anything like Adamski talking with somebody, even through binoculars. All they could see were some bright flashes coming from the edge of the hill behind which Adamski was located, and the flashes looked as though Adamski could have easily accomplished them with a small mirror. So the famous drawing of the Venusian, supposedly made by Alice K. Wells, could not have been based on her own observations, and was maybe not even made by Alice herself. One remembers that the group saw a gigantic mothership passing in the sky before the contact. But Williamson told Stanford they only thought that because of their enthusiasm. In fact, all they saw was in his opinion probably a large distant aircraft, with its wings and tail obscured by the distance and possibly the atmospheric haze. It just flew on a straight course, which sounds quite ordinary for a large aircraft, and it did not display any extraordinary change of course or motion as a mothership could have done. When the pretended contact was over, Adamski gave Williamson the photographic plates he had allegedly taken just before his conversation with the Venusian and told him to take them to the Phoenix Gazette for processing, -207-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

besides telling their story there. Williamson did as requested. But the pictures were so bad that only one of them was included with the article. After that, Adamski and Williamson had a phone exchange. Adamski wanted to know what about his pictures. When he learned that they were of such poor quality, to Williamson’s amazement Adamski told him to burn them because he was sure he could get better ones in the near future. * * * Of course, Ray Stanford told me many more things about Adamski, his inner circle and Williamson, but I have not included them here because they are of a too private nature and not really essential to an understanding of the Adamski saga.

SHORT BIOGRAPHY From 1970 through 1985, Ray Stanford was employed by a non-profit research corporation that focused largely upon his ability to enter a meditation-induced altered state. Stanford says that sometimes while in that altered state, his unconscious mind would seemingly masquerade as “individual characters,” expressing individual “personalities” and even distinct foreign accents and voices. Toward the end he became annoyed by how seriously everything was being taken, with every word being treated as though it were “ex cathedra.” So, he quit doing the psychic work, even before the organization’s leaders became extreme, fundamentalist Christians and began declaring that all psychic research is “of the Devil.” In contrast, Stanford only declared that much of what “came through” him should not be taken seriously. After retiring from that in 1985, he has spent time trying to convince alleged UFO researchers that it is ridiculous to just catalog cases of hear-say and rumors and scream “ET IS HERE!!!” He declares that the only way to bring the study of anomalous aerial objects into mainstream physical science is through the application of scientific procedures and optical and electronic instruments, to determine what things are or aren't moving in our skies. Ray Stanford is now best known, world-wide, for his precedent-setting paleontological discoveries which have been well-documented in his published, peer-reviewed scientific papers. He is the discoverer of Maryland's previously unknown footprints and trackways from the Early Cretaceous (specifically 110 to 112 millions of years old) of dinosaurs, pterosaurs (aka, pterodactyls), mammal and other vertebrate. Several of these were on the grounds of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. -208-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Within the Washington, D.C. beltway, Ray Stanford discovered, correctly interpreted, and scientifically described in peer-reviewed journals a new species of dinosaur, Propanoplosaurus marylandicus, an armored dinosaur, a nodosaur. It is displayed in the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., and is the only hatchling nodosaur ever found anywhere. Beside it, one can see the very rare footprint of a sub-adult nodosaur (also found by Stanford) and a large photograph of the finder, Stanford beeing the first amateur paleontologist in US history to be so honored. Although he has written several scientific papers on those discoveries, published in major, peer-reviewed journals of science, Ray Stanford is proud to point out that he is only a highly observant amateur self-educated, paleonthologist, without no academic degrees whatsoever. Aside from graduating from high school and achieving the Texas Junior Academy of Science's top award in state-wide competition in physical science (for research titled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Experiments with the Multi-Stage Principle of Rocketryâ&#x20AC;?), while in high school in 1955, he point out that he has always been highly motivated to study physics, archaeology, and other sciences on his own. But it was only decades later, at encouragement of his three children that he began to research dinosaur footprints and subsequently made important discoveries in Maryland and Texas.

ADDITIONAL NOTE There exists a picture showing Adamski next to a painting of Orthon, the Venusian described in Flying Saucers Have Landed. Some believe that this painting was made by Adamski himself, or even by his secretary Alice K. Wells. The truth is that it was made by Grace May Betts (1883-1978) who was a well-known painter of Western and Southwest landscapes and Indians. Between 1904 and 1921, she did artwork for the Theosophical Society and Universal Brotherhood headquarters at Point Loma, California, and between 1936 and 1946 she lived in Laguna Beach were she probably met Adamski for the first time.

-209-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-210-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 4

remember the day, I think it was in 1974, when Maj. Hans Christian Petersen and I had an extensive face-to-face discussion at May Flitcroft’s house in Antwerp. We talked about the impressive series of slides of the Moon that he was going to present the next day to a group of about forty “privileged” individuals. At the time of our conversation, H.C. Petersen showed me black-andwhite enlargements (180 x 240 mm, or 7.1 x 9.4 inches) of several Moon pictures, each with the NASA stamp on the back, which he had. As the major showed me the photographs with the help of a special viewfinder (these pictures were stereoscopic images), it was possible to observe the lunar craters with an extraordinary three-dimensional effect, as if one were gliding right above the lunar surface. For me, it was obvious that with documents of such high quality, nothing out of the ordinary could escape the major’s scrutiny. Consequently, these slides that were believed to show strange things on the Moon seemed unquestionable to me. So I bought myself a set of Major Petersen’s slides (as did others), and began to search for other evidence of the same kind. Since my predecessor had examined primarily photos taken by the Lunar Orbiter probes before man had set foot on the Moon, I thought it would be useful to focus my attention on photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. After a few months of personal research, I gave five or six lectures in Brussels and Antwerp on the topic previously exploited by Petersen. I added my slides to a selection of his photos in an attempt to persuade my audience that there were artificial things on the Moon. That is, until the day when a member of the audience pointed out to me that what I claimed was impossible. -211-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Repeating one of Petersen’s claims, that one of his slides showed a plume of smoke that undoubtedly had escaped from a tall chimney whose shadow fell at a certain angle on the surface of the Moon, my opponent pointed out that, to the left of the supposed mouth of the chimney, there was a crater with a shadow of its own that, when compared to that of the supposed chimney, showed that the chimney was not at all vertical, but inclined, which would have been at the very least absurd. Back home, I decided to get to the bottom of it. Using information provided by Petersen that I had not yet checked because I thought it would be useless, I managed to identify the area of the Moon that was depicted in the slide and found the picture in the famous Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon (hereafter referred to as LOPAM). This splendid large-size work, prepared for NASA by David E. Bowker and J. Kenrick Hughes of Langley Research Center, contains 675 photographic plates and weighs nine pounds. It was published in Washington in 1971. The explanation for the chimney with its smoke was immediately obvious: there was not smoke, just an elevated area of ground, more than 20 kilometers in length, illuminated by the Sun. Though this ridge could have created the impression of a trail of smoke that is positioned above ground-level, this was only so because the slide had contrasts that were terribly different from the original photo. Here is slide number 24 in Petersen’s series, compared with a detail of photograph IV-182-H2, which is plate 153 in LOPAM.

From Petersen

From LOPAM

After my skepticism was awakened by this example, I decided to systematically check all of Petersen’s slides. It was then that I realized that none of the mysteries pointed out by this man would withstand careful investigation. Initially, I believed that the Danish major had simply been mistaken. I hastily put out a small monograph in which I compared photos from the Petersen series with those in the NASA catalog. Two copies were sent to May Flitcroft, who immediately passed one of them on to Hans Petersen. His -212-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

response was as short as it was scornful and insulting: he simply advised me to study the cosmic philosophy of the space brothers in greater depth! Such an answer made me reconsider my admiration for Hans Petersen. If I examined the facts in a neutral way, where would that take me? Petersen’s slides seemed to reveal things that did not exist on the original photographs. If these things appeared, it was because he had made them appear, mainly by exploiting contrasts and by selective cropping to eliminate contradictory clues. So Petersen had not been fooled by the low quality of the reproductions; he had created these reproductions in such a way as to make them confirm things that he himself was convinced of, or—worse—he created them with the will to deceive. I will now offer other examples to show to what extent Hans Petersen’s series of slides was hoaxed. Let us start with another example of a “plume of smoke” appearing to come from the bottom of a crater and passing over its wall. This is photo number 21 in Petersen’s series. When we compare this image with what Lunar Orbiter photograph IV-161-H1 shows (plate 266 of LOPAM), it is clear that this alleged smoke is actually only an irregular pile of rocks, its exaggerated contrast giving it an extraordinary appearance.

From Petersen

From LOPAM

Hans Petersen was right to say that a black spot on a black-and-white aerial photograph bears a certain resemblance to an immense stretch of water, but he mistakenly concluded that lunar craters that looked like that WERE gigantic lakes. He offered many examples of this, including several photos showing the well-known Plato Crater and the large Tsiolkovsky Crater on the Moon’s hidden face. But it was all based on a subterfuge: the deliberate darkening of the photographs in order to get rid of obvious indications that prove that the craters are completely dry. For example, here is an enlargement of the floor of the Tsiolkovsky Crater with smaller craters inside.

-213-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

The black Tsiolkovsky from Petersen

The bottom of Tsiolkovsky from LOPAM

Petersen went completely off the rails during his lecture in Antwerp. He projected several slides that appeared to show a white structure shaped like a “Gemini capsule” at the base of the rempart of the large Plato crater. Next to it, there was a deep gully that resembled a riverbed extending from the “Gemini structure.” But even more amazing was that above the “Gemini structure” was a white strip that gave the impression of a waterfall. The whole thing was interpreted by Hans Petersen as a hydroelectric power station. And the Danish major offered “proof” of it: the “waterfall” was not always at the same angle. Indeed, when looking at various photographs of the site, the “waterfall” seemed to fall sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right. Amazing!

Plato Crater from Petersen

Plato Crater from LOPAM

Once again, it was only an illusion created by the poor overall quality of the documents used. An enlargement of the same region taken from LOPAM indisputably shows that the “Gemini structure” was a nondescript relief and that the “waterfall” was only the illuminated edge of a small crater. If this “waterfall” moved from one photograph to another, it was quite simply because part of the illuminated edge of the crater varied according to the angle of the Sun. Petersen continued his lecture by showing black objects which, according to him, seemed to be artificial pools with specially designed white walls to retain the water. -214-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

From Petersen

From LOPAM

In fact, these strange “structures” appear more or less randomly in the Lunar Orbiter photographs—but each time in the center—because they are directly traceable to the method of film development and transmission process of the pictures, as is explained in the chapter “Imperfections,” on page 4 of LOPAM. In the course of his lecture, H. C. Petersen showed many more strange “objects.” For example, the Danish major said that his slide 8 depicted strange luminous objects flying in the shadow of a lunar mountain. These “objects” too were imperfections due to the picture’s development process. To prevent their identification as such, the trick consisted of isolating them from the larger surrounding area. Here is another Lunar Orbiter picture with the same defects which, by chance, seems to depict the schematic interior of an enormous extraterrestrial spaceship or, if looked at from another angle, a humanoid wearing a hat.

From Petersen

From LOPAM

But there is more. In photograph 45 of the Petersen collection, there is a strange luminous filament in a crater that seems to stick out towards the sky from an angular structure right in the middle of the crater. What could it be? Here again, there is no mystery; but it took some thought to figure out how H.C. Petersen got it totally wrong. The original photograph, numbered IV-181-H3, is plate 538 in LOPAM. In the portion used by Petersen, which is reproduced on the right below, we can distinguisch simple sunlit rock -215-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

formations. In order to obtain the more extraordinary appearance proposed by Petersen, it was necessary to turn the picture upside down and exaggerate the contrast.

From Petersen

From LOPAM as it is (right) and turned upside down (left)

Throughout his lecture, Hans Petersen spread false mysteries through the magic of his poor-quality reproductions. For example, he pretended to find flying luminous cigars where there were only illuminated ramparts of craters. There was also an enormous “mine entrance” in the shape of a cat’s head, which was only an ordinary crater with the two typical photographic defects superimposed on it. Like I said, such an accumulation of nonsense could only have been achieved by either a certified hoaxer or an incompetent man blinded by preconceived ideas. Readers will understand that Hans Petersen’s series of slides was intended primarily to provide proof that Adamski’s descriptions of the Moon were in line with what was later photographed by the Lunar Orbiter. Years passed. Other books and articles devoted to strange lunar artifacts came out (such as George Leonard’s Somebody Else Is on the Moon published by David McKay Company in New York in 1976), but none of their authors was able to provide solid evidence to support his/her allegations. Next came Fred Steckling’s second book, first published in 1981 by the George Adamski Foundation, and entitled We Discovered Alien Bases on the Moon. This book presented on its cover a NASA photograph supposedly showing a large cigar-shaped craft flying over the Moon. In reality, it was the mass-spectrometer boom attached to the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), blurry because it was very close to the lens system, -216-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

unlike the surface of the Moon that the camera was focused on. Here is a picture, taken from a film that the astronauts took in orbit. It gives a clearer view of the same mass-spectrometer boom and the space craft’s floodlight.

Taken from the film Apollo 16 - Mass-spectrometer boom that one can find on YouTube.

Many pictures in Steckling’s book were taken from the Petersen’s slide collection. The other lunar pictures were in the same vein and, for the most part, quite fuzzy. The book also contains three pictures taken from the Rodeffer film and some of the well-known “telescopic” photographs taken by Adamski. This book was a huge success and was reprinted several times. When Steckling wrote it, he wisely refrained from pointing out that he had been in regular contact with Martians, Venusians, and Saturnians. Today, many crackpots and naïve fanatics use these pictures on their Websites to prove that NASA is lying and that the Moon has been colonized by an extraterrestrial civilization. For a certain time there was a Website page (http://www.boomslanger.com/rants.htm) in which its author, Jack Arneson, showed—as I have done myself for more than 40 years—how Petersen transformed some NASA pictures in order to prove that Adamski had given a truthful description of the Moon in Inside the Space Ships. Arneson, who seemed unaware that Petersen was the first to have erred, wrote: “Glenn Steckling got on the show because of his dad, Fred (RIP) who started this BS. And why doesn't he and others like him have their own web sites with analysis of their claims? Because they know it's crap! They only have links -217-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

to buy their books... Sorry Glenn... well, not really... but you know I'm right. And shame on you for taking peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s money on such easily proven manipulated illusions. And since these photos have been manipulated, the people that were duped into buying his book(s) have a fraud case. And I hope they follow it through. Start by demanding your money back from the publisher. But you'll find Steckling owns the publishing company.â&#x20AC;? Unfortunately, Jack Arneson died on October 19, 2014, and his Webpage has been closed.

-218-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 5

he texts reproduced below are excerpts from a chapter I wrote for a collective work which was edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy under the title UFO 1947-1997; Fifty Years of Flying Saucers (London, John Brown Publishing Ltd, Fortean Tomes, 1997).

(...) Some of my critics have asked me openly: How was it possible for me to believe the absurd claims of this ridiculous “contactee”? First of all: I was young when I discovered Adamski. At that time there was no historical criticism in the UFO field: cases were judged only by the standards of simple logic and scientific feasibility. When I began to exchange letters with May Flitcroft, and later when I delved into her personal files and library, I found so many apparent proofs that Adamski was not a liar, that I allowed myself to be convinced. In a short time, I learned that he had taken films “impossible to fake”; that he had been congratulated for his work by a senior official of the U.S. Department of Cultural Exchange (the famous “Straith Letter” which was later revealed as a hoax); that he had been granted a royal audience by Queen Juliana of the Netherlands; that he had been privileged to pass the message of the Space Brothers to Pope John XXIII and had been awarded the prestigious Vatican Medal in acknowledgement of his work. There were even suggestions that he had been taken seriously by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by President Kennedy - how could I fail to be impressed?

-219-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Bear in mind, moreover, that the stories that Adamski told were far more believable than those being told today by the abductees, who claim to be raped by strange grey monsters who can pass through walls and land their spaceships wherever they choose without being seen. On a scientific level, too, Adamski’s claims had not yet been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired by our space explorations. As recently as the 1970s, the possibility of life on Mars and Venus was still a matter for debate: a substantial literature existed about “strange things on the Moon” and “Transient Lunar Phenomena.” Some of the descriptions given by Adamski concerning the Moon and space itself were uncannily accurate. The “fireflies” which he described, for instance, seemed to be the same as those subsequently reported by the astronauts. It took me a certain time to discover that the fireflies reported by the astronauts couldn't be the same phenomenon as that described by Adamski. It took a while, too, to obtain certain proof that Adamski’s “Vatican Medal” was not an official award, because nobody before me had thought of directing an inquiry to professional numismatists at Rome. Above all, it took time to persuade May Flitcroft to lend me her precious films: Adamski had told her the CIA would steal them if anyone tried to make copies in a professional laboratory! (...) Of all his stories, there was one which particularly excited his followers. Many of the Space Brothers, he assured them, actually live on Earth, where they have “missions” of all kinds to accomplish. So, for the Adamski believer, there was always the possibility one might meet a brother or a sister from space. Imagine we are in the Sixties, and that a friend of yours, John Smith, is a dedicated Adamski believer. He has a desperate longing to meet a space person; the thought obsesses him. He even sends, through intersideral (sic) space, telepathic messages to the Space Brothers. Then one day John is queuing at his post office. Just to his left, in another line, there is a tall man, well dressed. His skin is tanned, his hair is brown, he has blue eyes. He wears no glasses, no hat. To you and me he looks perfectly normal; but to John he looks strange ... there is something "special", indefinable, about him. He thinks, “Maybe he could be one of them.” He is flooded with a strange feeling; his feverish anxiety confirms the reality: this man is a Space Brother, for sure. The man looks around him. His eyes fall on John, who is so convinced he is looking at a space man that he smiles at him, like a child. The stranger is surprised, but politely he smiles in return. Now John is certain: He is one of them! “He has captured my thoughts telepathically!” The man looks at his watch, decides to leave. You and I would conclude that he has an -220-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

appointment and can't wait any longer, but John interprets his departure differently. “He knows that I know who he is, but for reasons of security he cannot make contact with me!” John is delighted by the episode. He has met a Space Brother. They have exchanged telepathic messages. A Brother has given him a sign. It is all proof that Adamski is right. Incredible? Yet I heard many such stories in the 1960s and 1970s, from the friends and followers of George Adamski. But do not think that those friends and followers had lost all their critical sense, that they believed every contactee story they heard. Quite the contrary. Adamski had warned them that many contactees were cranks and frauds who wrote about saucers only to make money. For he regarded contacteeism as his personal copyright: no one else could meet the Space Brothers without his blessing. One day he learnt that Elizabeth Klarer in South Africa had met a Space Brother. He exploded with fury and said, in the presence of contactee Laura Mundo, “She has stolen my idea!” (...) Some of Adamski’s friends were intelligent liars who claimed contacts with the space people only to make money and to be cherished by naïve followers. Others deluded themselves and became the victims of the adventurers and intriguers. Some naïve women welcomed young men into their homes and gave them money because they told them they were Venusians, recently landed on Earth and, of course, without financial resources. In some cases, the young men would explain they were here to accomplish a special mission which consisted in “crossing the energies” between Venus and Earth. This was effected by performing sexual acts with Earth-women. No doubt some of these ladies were delighted to make love with the young men in such a good cause.

-221-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-222-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 6

eorge Adamski often declared that people in high places in political or scientific circles had been contacted. In several of his lectures, he said that he had met the scientist Hermann Oberth, who had been helped in his research by the space brothers. Adamski seemed to imply that Hermann Oberth himself was a contactee. Questioned on this subject, Oberth denied having met Adamski or having exchanged correspondence with him. He also explained that though he believed in the existence of the UFO phenomenon, he was however very cautious as to the possibility that they were space vehicles. Here is a letter he wrote on the subject.

-223-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-224-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 7

ome readers might be surprised that I have never quoted the book Looking for Orthon: The story of George Adamski, written by Englishman Colin Bennett (New York: Paraview Press, 2001). The reason is simple: this book, though considered by some as a “must,” does not deserve to be quoted! Bennett's documentation is extremely limited. For example, on pages 128 and 188 of his book, quoting Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good’s book, he speaks about Pioneers of Space and the Report from Saturn. But it is clear that he never read either one! And instead of quoting from the original Flying Saucers Farewell, he seems to know only its paperback edition retitled by the publisher Behind the Flying Saucer Mystery. On page 17 of his book, referring to an FBI document, Bennett says that Adamski had three sisters but no brothers. Readers who have carefully examined Appendix 2 can see that Bennett used a truncated document. The book closes with an appendix devoted to the alleged reappearance of Adamski in front of Ernest Arthur Bryant. But British author Bennett is unaware of the latest developments in the affair, as summarized above. It’s a shame! Bennett is not a serious critical historian because when he has to summarize Adamski’s world tour or the pseudo Vatican meeting, he simply copies what the contactee and Lou Zinsstag said about these events.

-225-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-226-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 8

n August 7-8, 1954, a flying saucer forum was held on Mount Palomar. Three famous contactees spoke: George Adamski, Truman Bethurum and Daniel Fry. Desmond Leslie also participated. As was his habit, Adamski explained that space people were exactly like us and lived unrecognized among us. At the end of the first day, some people noticed the presence of a strange woman and two men, all exotic-looking. The rumor started that they were Venusians. So one of the attendees asked them, “Are you or are you not Venusians?” The woman smiled and calmly answered, “No.” Questioned by a reporter, she said her name was Dolores Barrios and she designed dresses. The names of her friends were Donald Morand and Bill Jackmart, who were musicians. The three of them lived in Manhattan Beach, California. The reporter asked if he could photograph her, but she refused. Nevertheless, at the end of the meeting, she accepted, as did her two friends. Some say that the reporter photographed the young woman with a flash, which startled her. So she ran to the nearby forest, from where a flying saucer then took off, it was said. Dolores Barrios as she appeared in O Cruzeiro

-227-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

An article about these events was published in the Rio de Janeiro magazine O Cruzeiro on October 16, 1954, and since then, the story was repeated again and again, sometimes saying that the â&#x20AC;&#x153;womanâ&#x20AC;? was in fact a man: Orthon himself, who, according to what Adamski had said in Flying Saucers Have Landed, had an androgynous look! The story survives on the Internet.

-228-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 9

ere are reproductions of three important letters received by Richard Heiden.

The first one is about the “wine permit” that the Royal Order of Tibet or Adamski supposedly received during the time of Prohibition. Adamski’s statement about that was questionable anyway, because Prohibition had ended already in April 1933, months before the Royal Order of Tibet had even started. The second one is about the non-existence of contacts between Adamski and John F. Kennedy. Other inquiries decades later elicited these replies: “I searched through the White House Central Name File, which holds correspondence sent to and from the White House, but I did not see anything from George Adamski.” (Email to Richard Heiden from Corbin Apkin, Textual Archives Reference, May 11, 2015.) “I checked the White House Appointment Books for meetings with President Kennedy, and did not find Mr. Adamski listed. Unfortunately, we do not have an index of calls to the President that is searchable by name. (Email to Richard Heiden from Reference Staff, unsigned, June 29, 2015.) The third one is from Sen. Margaret Chase Smith and is about her meeting with Adamski. Richard H. Hall of NICAP said that the organization had written to Sen. Smith about the meeting with Adamski at the time (when -229-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

her recollections would be much fresher), but her reply might have been lost when NICAP folded. Evidently the senatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own copy of the letter was lost as well, if she had even made a copy of herself.

-230-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-231-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

-232-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 10

t the begining of his carreer as a saucer lecturer, Adamski used not only the term “professor” but also pretended to be a former scientist at the Palomar Observatory with a degree of “Doctor.” Four different press clippings attest that he was using these terms when he presented himself at lectures.

Corona Daily Independent, Friday, April 27, 1951

-233-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Corono Daily Independent, Thursday, March12, 1953

Corona Daily Independent, Friday, March 13, 1953

-234-

Corona Daily Independent, Monday, March 16, 1953

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 11

n 1970, London-based editor Neville Spearman published a new version of Flying Saucers Have Landed, revised and enlarged by Desmond Leslie. On page 248, it reads : My friend, Patrick Moore, F.R.A.S., that chronic disbeliever, told me that in 1955 he too had been shown a set of photos of a ‘scout ship’, even better ones than those taken by Adamski and Darbishire. They were taken, I was told, by a world-famous American astronomer who desired to remain anonymous as he feared the ridicule of his colleagues. Patrick Moore has given a pledge of secrecy regarding this eminent man’s identity, so I did not press the point. We compromised by referring to him as ‘Dr. X’. At my request, Moore kindly wrote to ‘Dr. X’ asking if I might be permitted a sight of his photos (while preserving his anonymity) but this, to my regret was refused. However, I gathered that ‘Dr. X’ had taken some of his series through a telescope, as did Adamski, and had once when out for a walk, practically stumbled upon a UFO rising from the ground and had managed to photograph it close at hand. ‘Of course,’ said Patrick, with that famous raising of the eyebrows. ‘It was obviously an earthbuilt secret aircraft. That’s the only thing it could have been!’ Perhaps? Unfortunately that was fifteen years ago. If it was made on earth what has happened to it since ? In October 1989, Desmond Leslie wrote a short article about the subject and submitted it to the Flying Saucer Review. But, according to the editorial staff, as far as Adamski was concerned, the “climate” then, was such -235-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

that they chose not to publish it. They changed their mind in 1998 and published it in their summer issue (Vol 43 No 2). In his article, Leslie explained that a little after he had heard about these pictures, Moore introduced him to Hugh Percy Wilkins. The two men appreciated each other and met several times afterwards. During their last meeting, shortly before his death, Wilkins showed Leslie some of the drawings he had made of the Gassendi Moon crater using the French Meudon telescope. The astronomer explained that he had noticed huge tunnels and even shafts in the crater’s rim and he certified that more than once he had observed large luminous objects moving about in that area. In his revised and enlarged version of Flying Saucers Have Landed, Leslie had already referred to that meeting and had written (page 139) that, on more than one occasion, Wilkins had observed “a very bright point of light emerge from one of these ‘tunnels’ or ‘caverns’ to leave the crater floor and fly away into space at considerable speed.” In his October 1989 article, Leslie added that on the same day, towards the end of their meal, Wilkins gave him a 35mm slide of a photo depicting two UFOs. This picture, which was reproduced in the article for the first time, amazed Leslie considerably because of the strange grid-like appearance of the object. He asked Wilkins where he got that picture from, and Wilkins replied that a family member had taken it.

The photo Wilkins gave to Leslie

Examining the picture, Leslie asked : “That streaky effect suggests that they were rising rapidly? Or else the camera was shaking?” “They were rising rapidly” Wilkins replied but added nothing more.

-236-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Hugh Percy Wilkins died soon after that last meeting and Leslie wrote that he stood persuaded that the picture had been taken by someone of Wilkins’s family. However, he explained that he had written this article because Patrick Moore had just revealed to him that “Dr. X” the man who had taken the shots, was in fact Hugh Percy Wilkins himself ! So, that information was known to the editorial staff of the Flying Saucer Review since October 1989 but was published only in 1998. In fact, Leslie had already spoken about that meeting with Wilkins and about a picture depicting a UFO with a grid-like structure. Here is what he wrote in 1970 page 139 of the revised and enlarged version of Flying Saucers Have Landed: Before our meeting ended, Wilkins kindly gave me a colour transparency taken by his son, a night shot of a UFO composed of honey-comb, or geodesic lines, rather like the eye of a fly. This must surely be unique in UFO sightings as there are no other recorded appearances of a similar object. Strangely, in 1970 Leslie clearly referred to Wilkins’son as the author of the photograph, but in 1989 this became “one of his family.” In 1970 he spoke of one UFO, and changed this in 1989 to two UFOs as can be seen on the picture that was then published. The least we can say is that Leslie was not a very accurate reporter, but the most astonishing thing is that, if we compare what is said on pages 139 and 248 of the book published in 1970, it is clear that Leslie was referring here to two different UFO cases, whereas in 1989 he merged them into one! Clearly, going by what is said in the book, the UFO with the grid-like structure is not the one photographed by ‘Dr. X’, whose pictures were said to have been better than those of Adamski and Darbishire. By merging two different UFO cases into one, Leslie faced a difficulty: in 1970 he spoke about an American astronomer, whilst in 1989 he explained that it was the British Wilkins. So he needed to straighten that out by saying that, before Moore told him who ‘Dr. X’ really was, he had erroneously THOUGHT that the mystery man was an American astronomer. Once again we find that Leslie rearranged the truth to serve his purpose of tellig us a fanciful story. The first time we noted something similar was when he had used a blurred reproduction of one of the pictures Adamski claimed to have taken in December 1952, and passed it off as to the fourth one that had not been published until then (see Chapter “The return visit”). Following the publication of Desmond Leslie’s article, Richard Haines wrote to Gordon Creighton, then editor of Flying Saucer Review. His letter was -237-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

published in autumn 1998 (Vol 43 No. 3). Speaking about the fractal geometry and regular geometric patterns which are visible on some UFO pictures, Haines said he had carefully studied the picture taken by Hugh Percy Wilkins and had found that it was that of a basically flat object, which had rolled about a linear axis within the plane by perhaps 10-15 degrees during the exposure. Obsessed with finding images of UFOs with regular geometric patterns, at no time did Haines suspected the picture to have been faked. In my opinion, the picture is a hoax made with two ice cream wafers. Here is what I made with such a thing in just a couple of minutes.

Let me explain the trick. If you look at Wilkins’s picture, you can see that the main object is not equally sharp everywhere. The right part is more blurred than the left one, and a kind of vague corona seems to surround the lot. That effect can be easily duplicated with a special so-called “center spot” filter which gives a sharp image in the center and shows the rest of the image blurred. It is enough to shift the filter to move the sharp part off-center. Who took the picture(s) that Leslie said were taken by Wilkins? We don’t know. But as Patrick Moore died in 2012, and said nothing contradictory about the whole affair until that, we can be sure that he agreed with what Leslie wrote. Remember that the two men knew some incriminating facts about Allingham, Darbishire and even Adamski... But let’s turn to Hugh Percy Wilkins again. I quickly mentioned here what kind of difficulties he experienced after -238-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

having said in early 1954 that he had seen a bridge on the Moon (see Chapter “Other contactees”). But the story about Wilkins does not end there. While on board of an airliner during his lecture tour in the United States, he saw three metallic-looking UFOs flying together, and openly spoke about this sighting. After that, in a book entitled Mysteries of Space and Time, published in 1955, he wrote about that observation again. All this, together with the “bridge” affair, discredited Wilkins completely in the scientific community. Because of this, he had to resign iun 1956 as Director of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association. But there was more shame to come. In September 1957, Wilkins argued to have seen another UFO over Mount Etna, and in 1958 he agreed with the Director of NICAP that there was a conspiracy of silence going on about UFOs. Whatever their nature, he said, they certainly existed. And he added : The fact is we do not know what the surface of Venus is like. It may be a dusty wind-swept area... a moist world with vegetation, even animal or reptiles... Our knowledge has been confined to just as far as we can penetrate the cloud layer, and that is not much. For all we know, Venus may at the present time be the abode of living creatures of an advanced type. (...) By contrast, conditions on Mars are much better known since it has a thin atmosphere and definitive surface markings. The changes our telescopes show are due either to the growth of some sort of vegetation or to the deliberate activity of intelligent beings. (1) This was what Wilkins stated at the end of 1957. He died in January 1960. During the meeting he had with Leslie shortly before he passed away, he is believed to have said strange things about the Moon and the Gassendi crater in particular. It is my opinion that he was the source of rumours regarding artificial phenomena in the Gassendi crater. At least, in UFO circles. In 1954 he had published a popular booklet entitled Our Moon (F. Muller editor, London). It was immediately celebrated in UFO circles as a kind of compendium of strange and mysterious phenomena seen on our natural satellite by a great many observers. In 1955, with Patrick Moore, he published The Moon (Faber and Faber, London), this time for the serious observers. This enormous work was based upon their observations at Meudon and included a strange drawing of Gassendi. Compared with a Lunar Orbiter 4 picture, one can easily see that the British astronomer had a vivid imagination. On his drawing, many structures which do not exist, are clearly represented and most of the surfaces features are straight as if they had been made artificially.

-239-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Left : Gassendi drawn by H. P. Wilkins (Taken from “The Moon”) Right : Gassendi photographed by Lunar Orbiter 4

The reader who is ascquainted with all this can now understand why the renowned astronomer Charles A. Wood has written that Wilkins was a poor scientist and an even a worse cartographer, which is quite the opposite from what Leslie wrote in his article for the Flying Saucer Review, namely that Wilkins was “the most eminent lunar astronomer of our time.” (2) On february 5, 1960, less than two weeks after Wilkins had died, Desmond Leslie spoke to the BBC. He explained that he had a picture of the Gassendi crater which showed parallel lines and geometric features that looked a lot a Moon base. He added that H.P. Wilkins had seen that picture and had told him that on several occasions he had seen luminous objects coming out of tunnels in the crater’s rim shooting away into space. Around 1970 I began to correspond with a French pioneer of ufology. His name was Alfred Nahon. Born in 1911, he pretended to be professor of psychology and graphology. He was the first to present a French translation of Inside the Space Ships in the columns of his publication Le Courrier Interplanétaire. Nahon wrote me that he was working on a book about Moon mysteries and that someone in England had sent him a fantastic picture on which the Gassendi crater looked like an interplanetary base. I helped Nahon to obtain some photo reproductions and offered him a series of seemingly strange pictures which had been taken by a female Belgian Adamski believer who was a friend of May Flitcroft. In return, Nahon offered me a dedicated copy of his book soon after it was released in March -240-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

1973. It was entitled La Lune et ses défis à la science (The Moon and its Challenges to Science, Mont Blanc, Geneva, 1973). Nahon was so convinced that the Gassendi picture was a hard evidence of the fact that the Moon was inhabited that he used it to illustrate the cover of the book. It was immediately clear to me that it was not a picture but a drawing made by astronomer Krieger (1865 - 1902) and published posthumously in the second volume of his Mond-Atlas (Wien, 1912). Krieger worked with low-contrasted Moon photographs and added the finer details manually whilst keeping the eye on the telescope. That way he obtained beautiful representations of the lunar surface that resemble true pictures. But this talented cartographer signed and dated his artworks as can be seen on the original printed below. Evidently, the picture Alfred Nahon had received from England had been cropped on the left side to prevent the naïve or the ill-informed to understand the trick. But who was responsible for that trick? Leslie? Wilkins? The tandem Leslie-Moore? It is hard to say. I immediately sent a letter to my friend Nahon, explaining him that he had been deceived. Maybe the blow was too hard for him : he never wrote me again! That’s how researchers work...

some

UFO

In its Winter 1999 issue (Vol 44 No. 4), Flying Saucer Review published another short article by -241-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Desmond Leslie. This time, the author spoke about his trip to the United States in 1954. He explained that he had been received by Donald Menzel at his home. The eminent astrophysicist would have told him “I’ve seen hundreds of UFOs. They were all birds or clouds or optical illusions.” And here is how Leslie said he reacted to that... Thereeupon I drew his attention to some careful drawings, sent to me by a well known British astronomer, and showing V-shaped formations of very bright objects similar to Adamski’s. (At high magnification each was seen to have a turret, a dome, and four brightly lit windows. The lead-ship flashed a red light from the top of its dome). What follows is a dialogue aimed at making Menzel to look like a shortsighted individual or an idiot. The words Leslie put in Menzel’s mouth are so absurd that it is unnecessary to cite them here. What Leslie described is more interesting. Why was it necessary to use a powerful magnification glass to see the saucers’ domes? When an observer wants to make a drawing to show what is really there, he does not make it with the help of a magnification glass! That seems ludicrous, as if the drawing was in fact a photograph, whereas Leslie clearly stated it was a drawing. That detail is so strange that it seems to indicate it was created for the sole purposes of giving more weight to the story. And the absurd dialogue reinforce the impression that the whole story was a pure invention. The facts listed here seems to indicate that nor Wilkins nor Leslie were credible people. For sure, Leslie had a very good sense of humor, just like his friend Moore; but it is possible that, as time passed, and having frequently mixed truth and false, he began to believe part of the false himself. For Wilkins, the conclusion has to be more severe. What Charles A. Wood said about him is clearly the truth: not only did he not have a sound scientific background, he was also a poor astronomer and a poor selenographer. Like the astronomer Gruithuisen who thought he had seen cities on our Moon, Wilkins too had a vivid imagination and probably very few abilities to identify flying objects or singular phenomena in the sky. REFERENCES: 1) Flying Saucer Review, London, 14:4, July-Aug. 1968, p. 28 UFO Investigator, I:3, January 1958, p. 12 2) G. Favero: On the Reliability of the Lunar Drawings Made by Hugh P. Wilkins, Journal of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, 29:1, pp. 26-30, Winter 2007

-242-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 12

xtraterrestres, le contact a déjà eu lieu ! (Extraterrestrials, Contact Has Already Taken Place), subtitled “The Life of George Hunt Williamson,” published in March 2015 by JMG editions in Agnières (France) was written by Michel Zirger and Maurizio Martinelli. It is the French edition of a book previously published in Italian (an English version also seems to be in the works). This book aims to be the definitive work about George Adamski and George Hunt Williamson. Unfortunately it is far from achieving this objective! On the third page of the first chapter of the book, Michel Zirger writes: “It was he (Williamson) who, without Adamski’s explicit approval, decided to go with his wife and the Baileys to the principal daily in Phoenix, Arizona, to relate their adventure and entrust the staff with two of the photos taken by Adamski that supposedly show the arrival of the saucer.” This statement totally contradicts Adamski’s story to which Zirger nevertheless refers, and where it says that on the site of the supposed contact with the Venusian, “George (Williamson) and Al (Bailey) asked permission to give a report to an Arizona paper and I (Adamski) granted it. But to substantiate their report, I gave them a couple of the holders with the exposed film in them for the paper to develop and use, if they so desired.” Michel Zirger later quoted several texts and words by Adamski without giving their source, without dates, and without placing them in a historical and geographical context. On page 74, Michel Zirger admitted his bias: “For our part, we do not question a priori the sincerity of George Adamski and the six people who accompanied him that day, among them the future spiritualist author George Hunt Williamson. So we place ourselves in the assumption that these tracks were made by a human being from another world. This will be our starting premise.” So right away we realize that this book is clearly nothing like a well-argued historical study. -243-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Discussing the circumstances in which the “Venusian footprints” were molded and photographed, Zirger wrote (pages 63-64) that these photos were published for the first time only in 1956 in a book by Williamson, and that this “reinforces the feeling of credibility of the events of 20 November 1952.” And he explains why: “Indeed, why keep such evidence for 4 years, if it was only a hoax? And why all this staged photography if the main person, Adamski, did not profit from it? Because he did not use any of those photos, and never even spoke of them.” The argument has little weight because these photos prove only one thing: there were footprints in the ground, but nothing to indicate who had made them! Zirger later concluded (page 69) that the photographs of the footprints and picnic in the desert (the shadows attest to the time when they were taken) totally overlap the story of the contact as it was reported soon after in the Phoenix Gazette. After which, Zirger lists the “evidence” that makes this case a “perfect case”: 1) six witnesses who signed affidavits before notaries; 2) pictures of the craft and of its pilot’s footprints; and finally 3) the official statement by a pilot of the U.S. Air Force who reported seeing a UFO over an area nearby. Now, the photos he is talking about actually prove only one thing: these people were where they said they were, on that day or another. Nothing more and nothing less. As to the famous official report, the Air Force showed that it had no connection with the Adamski story because the incident had occurred in a different area. Zirger, who had read my previous book on the subject (see below) cannot be unaware of that. Then repeating the often-refuted fable that Williamson always carried a bag of plaster with him on his research trips (page 79), and echoing the speculation that this amateur anthropologist proposed in his book Other Tongues Other Flesh (1957), Zirger wrote that Williamson had fully demonstrated that the symbols on the Venusian soles made explicit reference to the vision of Ezekiel which concerned an Adamski-type flying saucer (page 88). Commenting on one of the footprint pictures, Zirger adds that three bars are visible, which “could symbolize our Earth, the planet in the third orbit, or in a Messianic sense, the resurrection of Jesus Christ after three days” (page 64). And to conclude masterfully: “if this was a joke instigated by a small hamburger seller, we acknowledge that it demonstrated unequaled genius” (page 69). Concerning whether the three bars could symbolize either our planet or the resurrection of Christ, I leave my readers to judge the relevance of this assertion. And there are many other such assertions in the book. As for the rest, that is to say, the comparison of Ezekiel’s vision to a UFO, I confine myself to pointing out that there is a consensus among biblical experts that the description by the prophet Ezekiel was that of the cosmological system of the Chaldeans. I explained this in great length in June 1977 in the first issue of La Revue des Soucoupes Volantes published by my friend Michel Moutet by relying on various scholarly works dating back to the eighteenth century. Thus, the exact understanding of the text of Ezekiel is not recent. Yet it still means a lot of things to those who prefer a completely fanciful interpretation of it. After that, Michel Zirger speaks of Adamski’s visit to Rome. He writes on page -244-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

98: “Let us recall that the most famous of the contactees had, in all likelihood, the privilege of being received by His Holiness John XXIII in private audience at the Vatican.” We have to wonder about that “in all likelihood.” Already in 1983 I explained why the meeting was impossible, but Zirger had no use for my explanations, even though he knew about them (see below); he simply prefers the claims of the “contactee” because, as he said (see above), he does not doubt his sincerity. This is what led him believe that the medal exhibited by Adamski constitutes proof of his meeting with the Pope. Michel Zirger argues that this medal could not have been the commercial one that I identified because the two objects do not have the same diameter. But the commercial medal was struck in several diameters, as specialized numismatic websites make clear. Therefore, Michel Zirger’s argument is worthless. Though Zirger names Adamski’s main opponents in his book, he does not include me. However, speaking of the medal displayed by Adamski, he writes: “Another even slyly implied as the culmination of his argument that Carl Gustav Jung’s cousin, Lou Zinsstag, obviously in collusion with Adamski, could have or had previously bought the medal for him from a Swiss bank some time before” (page 103). This “another” can only be me, because these details are included only in the first version of the present book. And that obviously proves that Zirger read this book, which is by far the most complete of all those I have written on the subject. Therefore, one may wonder why he ignores the considerable amount of evidence included in this work about each of Adamski’s lies. And why not even mention my name? Is it out of fear that the more curious readers will get the idea of comparing my arguments with his? Or is it because he thinks that by concealing my identity he can cast both me and my writings into oblivion, the same way some people think they can avoid disaster by making a simple sign of the cross? Well, I would ask that you compare Zirger’s arguments with mine, because I fear nothing from such a confrontation. Also, before he wrote his book, I had already personally responded to Michel Zirger’s arguments in an exchange of long emails that are now in the AFU library in Sweden. Any serious researcher can consult these archives and see how this correspondence progressed and why M. Zirger abruptly ended it. A passionate of photographic techniques will quickly realize that the explanations Michel Zirger provides with regard to Adamski’s pictures are, at the very least, incomplete and flawed. He fails to mention some essential details (such as the technical impossibilities related to the telescope and the camera used by Adamski, both of which I dealt with at length), but lingers on inconsequential details (like the distinction between emulsions on glass plates and on film). Worse: he provides inadequate technical explanations like when he speaks (page 62) of the perspectives compression due to a small camera that was not equipped with a long focal-length lens. This Adamskian also implicitly admits his ignorance of photographic techniques when, on page 37, concerning the simple photographic -245-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

reproductions he had to make, he acknowledged: “we followed the advice of Yves Bosson, a professional photographer...” That he needed the advice of a professional to perform a so simple task with a Canon 350D (which is not even a semiprofessional equipment) shows what kind of photographic expert we are dealing with! In a special chapter at the end of the book (pages 367-374), Michel Zirger attempts to answer the arguments put forward only by me that the account given by Adamski about the four pictures of December 13, 1952, was pure fiction. Unsurprisingly, there as elsewhere, Zirger cites neither my name nor my work. He explains that by placing them in a certain order, the four pictures exactly match Adamski’s story. But this seeming proof succeeds only by ignoring an essential element of the story: Adamski related having seen the saucer appear in the distance and taking advantage of the moment when it remained stationary. “... it seemed to stop and HOVER MOTIONLESSLY” [emphasis added] wrote Adamski who claimed to have taken his first two shots at that time. Then, realizing that part of the craft did not fit in the frame, according to him, he turned his camera on its axis to take a third shot. It was only when he tried the fourth in the series that the saucer resumed moving toward him, which created a blur in the last shot he said. Consequently, his first two shots would show the saucer from virtually the same angle and perfectly sharp, while the third and fourth would show it from another angle, with the last image blurred. If two shots in the series seem to corroborate the end of Adamski’s story, it is not the case for the other two, since they show, both of them, the object under two very different angles. If Michel Zirger assures his readers that the four shots perfectly match Adamski’s story, it is because he completely ignores the term “hover motionlessly,” which lets him suggest that while taking the first and second shots, the saucer oscillated enough to be seen at extremely different angles of inclination. Zirger then explains that all attempts to reconstruct the shots have failed because they do not show exactly the same details of bright reflections at the bottom, or at the top of the dome. The problem here is that NO ONE has ever proposed such an attempt at reconstruction! Only researcher Joel Carpenter sought to show the striking STRUCTURAL similarities between the object photographed by Adamski and another that he had discovered in a secondhand shop. He photographed the secondhand object at exactly the same angle as Adamski’s photos, but with no intention to reconstruct the lighting. Zirger’s argument therefore again falls completely flat. In several places in the book, Michel Zirger strongly insists that Williamson repeated many times he saw Adamski talking with the Venusian. However, he disregards the important testimony of Irma Baker and Ray Stanford, who both separately claimed that in private Williamson admitted not having actually seen the Venusian, and even admitted that the contact was probably psychic in nature. Ray Stanford testified to this on many websites. Irma Baker’s testimony, published for -246-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

the first time in the James Moseley’s famous exposé, figures prominently (page 348) in the book Shockingly Close to the Truth that Moseley and Karl Pflock wrote together. In addition, these testimonies have been corroborated by a letter that one of the other witnesses, Al Bailey, wrote to Jerrold Baker, in which he said that none of the witnesses could actually see Adamski and his alleged visitor, because of their respective locations (page 339 of Moseley and Pflock’s book). This is also evident from a careful reading of Adamski’s story, and the contrived reconstruction of the events now offered by Michel Zirger cannot change this. Though Michel Zirger wrote a lot about the Adamski’s first successful book, and a little about the alleged private meeting between him and John XXIII, he made sure to avoid the many improbabilities and inconsistencies of the contactee’s stories, and by saying nothing or almost nothing about a host of embarrassing things directly related to Adamski. Nothing about his second book, which was an obvious remake of a novel he had published years before. Nothing about the complete discrepancy between his description of the weather on the day of one of his contacts and official weather records. Nothing about the nonsense contained in the stories of his voyages to Venus and Saturn with his alien friends. Nothing about the material evidence that the alleged philosophical teachings of space brothers were copied verbatim from texts previously written and distributed by Adamski before his alleged contacts. Nothing about the reasons why some of his closest supporters defected. Nothing about Adamski’s alleged trip by train and flying saucer, exposed by NICAP. And, finally, nothing about his movies, some of which were so lacking in believability that his Belgian co-worker would not even show them. After the chapters dealing with Adamski’s alleged desert contact, Michel Zirger and Maurizio Martinelli’s work addresses issues related to the eventful life of George Hunt Williamson. Even the most inattentive reader realizes that Michel Zirger offers nothing but a kind of historical novel based mainly on what Williamson reported in personal documents which Zirger had purchased from a well-known American bookseller. Throughout these stories we find ourselves immersed in a fantastic atmosphere where dreamers really get their money's worth: UFO sightings where Williamson was, various mystical or psychic phenomena (including appearances of the ghost of his deceased wife), a race of extraterrestrial giants visiting Earth in ancient times and even today, a Cyclops race, underground alien bases in various countries, etc. Having read in a letter from Williamson that he claimed authorship of the theory about ancient astronaut visiting Earth in the distant past (page 356), Michel Zirger, as a perfect disciple of his hero, takes up this assertion. However, he proposes a completely false view of the evolution of ideas in this area. In fact, Williamson was only a follower, bringing occasional news in a current of ideas already common in the fields of Atlantis, Theosophy, and Forteana. These ideas had already been exploited in science fiction stories abounded in U.S. pulps when -247-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

Williamson was still a young man. I will cite a famous example that greatly influenced fledgling ufology in 1947: the stories of Richard Shaver that Ray Palmer assured of widespread publication. It is when the book finally addresses the central issue, namely the extraordinary life of Williamson, that texts signed by Maurizio Martinelli finally appear. And then you realize that the entire work is an assemblage of disparate texts which seem to have been written at different times by two authors who worked independently of each other. The result is that each of them often relates the same things as the other, offering the same quotes. And as each of these authors may explain the same thing several times in his own different chapters, the reader is left with a constant feeling of déjà vu. For some time now, Michel Zirger has published articles in various UFO journals. He wrote there as much about himself as about his heroes Williamson and Adamski. In one of these articles he revealed that he felt himself contacted because one day in a café, a young woman smiled and stirred her coffee just after he had sent her a telepathic request to do that, as a way of confirming that she was really from another planet. I regret having to write at such length about such things. My time could be better spent, but it is necessary to share things with people in order to help them distinguish between historical truth and tall tales. Shortly after the free online distribution of the first version of this study, a Fortean Times reader reported in the “reader’s section” of that magazine that after having lived many years with the certainty that there was something solid in Adamski’s statements, he now had the satisfaction, thanks to my work, of being able to replace his fanciful beliefs with a more truthful account. This happy outcome is obviously more valuable than the battery of insults the same book inspired two fanatics to write.

-248-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

APPENDIX 13

French Adamski follower who was out to convince me that I am totally wrong with my opinion about Adamski sent me numerous impassioned (though not always polite) mails. In one of them he tried to proof that Mr. Bloom was a liar because what he said about himself and Mr. Maxfield (see pages 25 and 26 of this book) contradicted what was written in a letter Maxfield had sent to Adamski. The last sentence of this letter, says my opponent, is the decisive proof that Adamski and Maxfield had known each other for some time and had already exchanged letters regarding UFOs. That, concludes my opponent, matches perfectly well with what Adamski stated in Flying Saucers Have Landed, namely: â&#x20AC;&#x153;They asked me if I would co-operate with them in trying to get photographs of strange craft moving through space, since I had smaller instrument than those at the big Observatory. I could manoeuvre mine more easily than those on top could be moved, especially my 6-incher, which was without a dome (...) They said that they were going up to the top and ask for the same co-operation from the men at the big Observatory. (...) We discussed the pros and cons of the possibility of bases being on the moon for interplanetary craft...â&#x20AC;? It seems that my French contact is unable to stick to the bare facts. According to my opponent, the letter he is referring to, stems from the George Adamski Foundation. It is dated June 6, 1950, that is to say several months after Maxfield, Bloom and the two other unnamed men met Adamski at his home in California. In the letter, which is an answer to what Adamski wrote him a couple of days before, Maxfield explains that since the -249-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

responsibility for investigations into the type of phenomena Adamski described had been assigned to the Air Force, he had logically forwarded his request to them. The last sentence says: “Again, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your many courtesies in the past. Very Truly yours,...” In essence, this is little more than a polite way to end an official letter, while at the same time putting emphasis on the fact that more than one letter about the same subject was exchanged. Not only is there nothing in there that contradicts what Bloom had testified, it also doesn’t proof that what Adamski had claimed in his book about the co-operation between himself and the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory was true. It’s another example of how blind or stubborn Adamskians are, taking everything Adamski said at face value and being incapable to appeal to reason!

-250-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

eorge Adamski’s books and booklets were the subject of many successive editions in many languages. In this work, only the first editions (in general, American) have been cited. Some books devoted entirely to Adamski, but not (ghost-)written under his name, need to be considered. Along with a few important titles that include other topics, they are :

ANONYMOUS: The Adamski files; Otley West Yorkshire: Quest Publications Int. Ltd, n.d. Little known, this small publication reproduced some FBI files. This is probably another version of the photocopies sold by William L. Moore. BARKER Gray: Gray Barker’s Book of Adamski; Clarksburg, W. Va., Saucerian Books, 1967 This work was circulated soon after Adamski’s death. It is a heterogeneous work with a long chapter about the famous Straith letter. BENNETT Colin: Looking for Orthon; New York, Paraview Press, 2001 See Appendix 7 (above) about this work. BRUNT Tony: George Adamski - The Thoughest Job in the World; Auckland, New Zealand, Vailima Press, 2010 Written by a true disciple. Well-documented.

-251-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

HONEY Carol A.: Flying Saucers 50 Years Later; Victoria, B. C., Canada, Trafford Publishing, 2002 A print-on-demand book full of first-hand information. MOSELEY James W., & PFLOCK Karl T.: Shockingly Close to the Truth! Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist; Amherst, N. Y., Prometheus Books, 2002 A book full of first-hand revelations... O'BYRNE Robert: Desmond Leslie - The Biography of an Irish Gentleman; Dublin, Ireland, The Lilliput Press, 2010 A must for those who want to understand the man behind the name. OGDEN Richard: The Case for George Adamski's Contacts With Flying Saucers; Seattle 99, Wash., The author, 1981 This work was barely circulated. It contains the precise description of the many investigations made by the author about Adamski. PETERSEN Hans Christian: Report From Europe; Denmark, SUFOI, n.d. This work contains the text of the public lectures (followed by questions/answers) given by Adamski in Denmark and Belgium during his trip to Europe in 1963. It also contains two texts by Marcel Homet which show at what point this man started being affected by ideas about UFOs. STECKLING Fred: Why Are They Here?; New York, Vantage Press, 1969 The contactee’s first book. ZINSSTAG Lou, and GOOD Timothy: George Adamski - The Untold Story; Beckenham, Kent, England, Ceti Publications, 1983 This work is full of invaluable information obtained first-hand by Lou Zinsstag, as well as from Lucy McGinnis, Madeleine Rodeffer, Carol Honey and Fred Steckling after Adamski’s death. * * * I personally published several studies on Adamski. Here is the list: Desert Center - George Adamski, Régusse, France, Michel Moutet editor, 1983 This work was for the most part written in December 1977 when I still accepted the reality of the Desert Center contact. But publication was delayed until 1983. My editor was regularly informed of the evolution of my opinions (in June 1978, May 1981, March 1983 and April 1983), but he did not let me re-write it. -252-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

I then wrote several studies on the subject, mostly self-published, each one supplementing the preceding ones. Les Sectaires d'Adamski, Liege, Belgium, January 1984 (republished in January 1988). Contains a summary of the trips to Venus and Saturn, as well as a look at the psychology of Adamskians. Choc en Retour, Liège, Belgium, September 1984. Mainly consists of the long interview of Lou Zinsstag carried out by Yves Bosson and Jean-Pierre Troadec. George Adamski - Dernière Synthèse, Liège, Belgium, December 1994. Contains many new documents never published before. Biographie d'un escroc - George Adamski, Liège, Belgium, January 2000. Le Cas Adamski, Paris, France, Oeil du Sphinx, 2010.

I also authored a chapter entitled “Adamski and His Believers” in UFO 19471997 Fifty Years of FLYING SAUCERS, edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy, London, John Brown Publishing Ltd, 1997 (published the same year in Sydney, Australia by Red Sparrow, under the title A World History of UFOS).

-253-

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GEORGE ADAMSKI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-254-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

In 1952, George Adamski pretended to meet a Venusian and photograph his flying saucer. In 1954 he said he made several trips in alien spacecrafts. Later he claimed to have been warmly received by Pope John XXIII, Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, President John F. Kennedy... Who was George Adamski, really? This book offers all the answers to understand the true authentic story behind the world-famous UFO contactee.

About the author: Marc Hallet, born in 1952, was a teenager when he became a UFO enthusiast and met one of Adamskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s longest co-workers. He worked several years for her little UFO group but became more and more skeptical about the whole UFO problem. Since then, he has published, in French, many articles and books about all kinds of beliefs.

BACK COVER