It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adamski's "Scout Ship" identified

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by draknoir2
 


The match is very close. It is a pity because I always thought it was one of the coolest looking ufos! But does the fact that he faked things mean he faked everything? Adamski claimed he had contact with aliens on a psychic level before his physical encounters so maybe the fakery was just a way of trying to substantiate otherwise real things? I still have not thrown in the towel with him.


It's still a cool looking UFO.

No, it doesn't mean he faked everything because he faked some things... it just makes it more likely that he did.

A similar thing happened with the Ed Walters and his Gulf Breeze UFO sightings.



The discovery of the model all but destroyed his credibility, yet questions still remain.

edit on 16-1-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Arbitrageur


It's also interesting to see the resemblance in old sci-fi shows. Doesn't this flying saucer from the 1967-1968 TV show "The Invaders" look like Adamski's lantern model?


That's interesting what the Gut posted about Adamski possibly being a CIA operative. If the CIA built the model for Adamski to film I wonder if they had any influence over how the model for "The Invaders" came about.
edit on 15-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Adamski's design was hugely influential. Indeed, Leonard G Cramp tried to theoretically "back engineer" it in his book Space Gravity and the Flying Saucer (1954).

One wonders what Adamski must have thought knowing it was nothing more than a lantern shade. Was he chuckling behind his hand or was there an element of guilt?

The notion of a connection between Adamski and other contactees with the CIA is interesting, though the claims may be nothing more than self-aggrandisement. The hoax Straith letter sent to Adamski may also be the origin of his perceived government involvement and furtive approval.

However, the possibility that Adamski may have been used and manipulated by agents as was Paul Bennewitz is intriguing.

The Invaders tv series has also been attributed to Fred Crisman, it being allegedly based on incidents in his life. Crisman seems to have preempted Richard Doty as a "disruption agent." He's been associated with the Maury Island UFO incident (which pre-dated Kenneth Arnold and Roswell though was soon admitted to be a hoax (a double bluff according to some)), Richard Shaver's subterranean Dero and Tero, and the assassination of JFK (the grassy knoll trigger man)!



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


So, does this mean all ufo pictures with 3 half spheres underneath are hoaxes or does this trilateral arrangement predate Adamski's photo? Did he get the idea from real sightings?

And what about this?


edit on 16-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by torsion
 

So, does this mean all ufo pictures with 3 half spheres underneath are hoaxes or does this trilateral arrangement predate Adamski's photo? Did he get the idea from real sightings?

The hoaxes are post-dated in an attempt to bolster their legitimacy. Sort of the way "grey" aliens have been oddly incorporated into various Roswell stories, even though that type of alien wasn't popularized until much later.

Some people will actually say, "Well, they both have three spheres underneath, so they must both be true," rather than recognizing them both as hoaxes. If you believe in one, you gotta believe in the other one, right?



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by torsion
 


So, does this mean all ufo pictures with 3 half spheres underneath are hoaxes or does this trilateral arrangement predate Adamski's photo? Did he get the idea from real sightings?

And what about this?


edit on 16-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


I'm sure it's safe to say that everything in that video is a hoax.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


This has come as a massive shock to me.

If the Adamski Venusian scout ship really is nothing more than part of a gas lamp then it now throws great doubt on space faring humanoids living on Venus
.

Nice find torsion.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

mirageman
reply to post by torsion
 


This has come as a massive shock to me.

If the Adamski Venusian scout ship really is nothing more than part of a gas lamp then it now throws great doubt on space faring humanoids living on Venus
.



On the positive side it throws light on humans living here on earth.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Hello OP & The Gut: Thanks for clearing the waters, keep up the good work!

And now to a little detail in the excerpt of the "Flying Saucer Review" from 1960 which The GUT posted, that easily is overlooked, because it is overlaid by the proof that Adamski was a puppet of the CIA.

A really tiny detail, and possibly of no relevance, but...

Did you notice the reason, why Allen Dulles would have prevented anyone from testifying in court concerning Adamski's book?

"because maximum security exists concerning the subject of UFOs"

That is quite a bit remarkable, isn't it?

With this detail and another detail in the excerpt from Coppens article posted by The Gut:



[...]

Menger also admitted that he had worked for the CIA and that his story was part of an experiment to test public reactions to the idea of extraterrestrial contact. In short, Menger‟s story was a CIA experiment to see how easily and whom specifically could be fooled into believing anything. [...]

(Emphasis by me)

I have to say, that Adamski's story might have gotten it's last nail in the coffin - but that another box just has oppened, if it's true what can be gathered from the informations in this thread.

Because they proof at least one of two things:

Either - that the CIA as early as in the 50ies used Psy-Ops not just to manipulate foreign people, but also people of the US, and as far as I know, the CIA usually is prohibited from doing so (and Menger's account, that his story was a CIA experiment to see how easily and whom specifically could be fooled into believing anything give's someone chills considering topics like "Tonking Incident", "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" and everything else that happened since then and before...).

Or - they had strong reason to test the ground for the people's reaction to the idea of extraterrestrial contact. Because the people's reaction to finally possibly not just the idea might have led to consequences that indeed would have affected national security.

Cheers!

edit on 16/1/14 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Don't you know that aliens ships are modeled after every day objects? They do this to trick us humans.
The Greys design spaceships that look like lanterns, light fixtures, pie pans, hats, etc...

Just a few years ago i spotted a 40 foot UFO hovering over my house. The object had a frisbee appearance, opaque neon-green, no windows with the words "Whamo" on the very top..

I was going to take a picture but everybody would just try to debunk it.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Predictive programming ... Orson Wells , radio play , War of The Worlds ... Nothing but a social experiment ... He was hired by government to do that show and pull the commercials .... They were watching what the public reaction would be. Adamski same deal ... Just social experiment ... The question is what are they doing with the data .



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Adamski is an interesting case from a psychological perspective. While I am fully convinced he was a fraud, I don't think he viewed himself as such. I think he honestly believed he was engaged in "contact experiences". He could have possibly viewed his hoaxed photos as some sort of gift to humanity. He probably rationalized what he was doing (if he didn't feel he was being directed) as being justified to further expose people to his "space brothers". I don't think of him as being a con, per say. More so I regard him as being conned.
edit on 17-1-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Peloquin
... Adamski was a puppet of the CIA.



Here's a mind-controlled puppet if I ever saw one! Toward the end of the video (8 min mark) William T Sherwood explains how he scientifically verified Adamski's imagery. He appears nervous and unsure of himself. But look at Madeleine Rodeffer (Adamski acolyte), she is clearly mouthing the words that Sherwood speaks before the camera pans and zooms to cut her from the frame.




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Just wanted to point out, the lantern in the original post has holes all around the edge. The second photograph against Adamski's 'scout ship' has the holes in groups of 3, like Adamskis 'ship', but are of a different diameter.

Interesting find, non the less.

What I find even more interesting is, as stated in the PDF, there isnt just one lamp that bears a resemblance to Adamskis 'ship', but many, and in an era when these lamps were more common than now, why did nobody make the connection? Adamski must have been living in fear of being found out (or laughing up his sleeve). I suppose it isnt a complex shape, and even the author of the PDF says he had assumed it was a lampshade initially. I have seen metal ashtrays that look similar also (the type you press the top and a disc spins down).

One thing I have yet to see explained in any way is, the strange distortion of the 'ship' in Adamskis film. On first seeing the film, I almost laughed out loud at how childish it seemed- it looked like a 2D paper cut-out. Its not until you see it slowed down (its in the film linked above) that you can see these 'balls' move in and out, and this lopsided 'distortion' becomes visible. This obviously doesnt make it a Venusian scout ship, but it would be interesting to know how or why it appears like this.

Torsion, Im not seeing what you mean about William T Sherwood being a 'mind controlled puppet' and being nervous and unsure of himself. He clearly explains how he came to his findings, and his manner could be due to appearing on film (I know I would be nervous). Wouldnt have thought Kodak Eastman employed mind controlled UFO 'nuts' in senior positions, but I could be wrong...

edit on 17-1-2014 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by Thunda because: spelling/grammar/addition



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Thunda


Interesting find, non the less. Do we have a date for the advert?


1930s. There are no ventilation holes at the sides of the shade where the handle fits - probably so the handle doesn't get too hot? The advert only show the front view of the lamp.


Torsion, Im not seeing what you mean about William T Sherwood being a 'mind controlled puppet' and being nervous and unsure of himself. He clearly explains how he came to his findings, and his manner could be due to appearing on film (I know I would be nervous). Wouldnt have thought Kodak Eastman employed mind controlled UFO 'nuts' in senior positions, but I could be wrong...


ha ha- look at the lady sitting next to him. She is mouthing the same words Sherwood speaks. She's like a ventriloquist, hence Sherwood the puppet!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Thunda
reply to post by torsion
 


Just wanted to point out, the lantern in the original post has holes all around the edge. The second photograph against Adamski's 'scout ship' has the holes in groups of 3, like Adamskis 'ship', but are of a different diameter.


If you look at the Adamski photo you'll notice a slot - that's the slot for the handle. There are no vent holes on that model lamp on the sides directly behind where the handle is attached. The catalog illustration is a front view where the gap in vent holes is not visible. A side view would make the holes appear to be in groups of three.



edit: Torsion... looks like we owe each other a Coke.
edit on 17-1-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Ah- seems we were all typing at the same time- had the PDF open in another window so was reading and typing (you will see Ive edited my post!)

Yes, I see the woman mouthing something- dont know if its the same as what he is saying, but you wouldnt want to ad-lib a whole interview, so of course he will have written down what he was going to say in the interview- probably practiced in front of the wife- doesnt make him a MKULTRA victim.........



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Thunda
reply to post by torsion
 


One thing I have yet to see explained in any way is, the strange distortion of the 'ship' in Adamskis film. On first seeing the film, I almost laughed out loud at how childish it seemed- it looked like a 2D paper cut-out. Its not until you see it slowed down (its in the film linked above) that you can see these 'balls' move in and out, and this lopsided 'distortion' becomes visible.


The very first time I saw the footage I too couldn't believe how unconvincing it was. It looks like half a "saucer" glued to a pane of glass. Because the side attached to the glass has to be flat a story of distortion is invented to explain it. If the propulsion system created distortion why didn't it affect the whole ship? The rising and falling ball could be a simple solenoid of some sort.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

draknoir2

Thunda
reply to post by torsion
 


Torsion... looks like we owe each other a Coke


Or a cigar (shaped object)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

torsion

Thunda
reply to post by torsion
 


One thing I have yet to see explained in any way is, the strange distortion of the 'ship' in Adamskis film. On first seeing the film, I almost laughed out loud at how childish it seemed- it looked like a 2D paper cut-out. Its not until you see it slowed down (its in the film linked above) that you can see these 'balls' move in and out, and this lopsided 'distortion' becomes visible.


The very first time I saw the footage I too couldn't believe how unconvincing it was. It looks like half a "saucer" glued to a pane of glass. Because the side attached to the glass has to be flat a story of distortion is invented to explain it. If the propulsion system created distortion why didn't it affect the whole ship? The rising and falling ball could be a simple solenoid of some sort.


Well, thats the weird thing- the distortion does affect different parts of the 'ship' (or should we say 'lamp'?). It initially is on the right hand side then moves to the left, making the model seem lopsided. I remember thinking ' wow, they couldnt even make it appear round' when at full speed, then being really puzzled when seeing it frame by frame. The female witness in the film you linked comments how the 'distortion' made the 'ship' appear lopsided.

The best I can come up with is that, the camera they used had a physically very small lens, and when the model got close to the edge of the lens, it distorted it- pure conjecture from me, and still doesnt explain the 'balls' moving in and out (unless your idea of 3 solenoids flies). Guess we will have to wait and see for that one. Only took 60 years to work out the first bit!!!



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join