While I don't expect much enthousiasm for this topic, I thought it might be interesting for some to take another look at the George Adamski contact case.Even though he's widely dismissed as a charlatan there are some aspects that need a much better clarification because, if put into proper perspective, they point to something else then a hoax.
I want to make it clear that I don't take everything for granted concerning Adamski and some elements were probably not true, in my book that doesn't automatically mean everything is untrue.
Controversy (or dirt) can be found on every 'contactee', just like dirt can be found on the 'ordinary'
citizen, keep that in mind.
I've put together research from several investigators.Please forgive any grammatical errors because English isn't my native tongue.

TerraX

George Adamski was the first contactee to become known to the
general public.This fact alone can be considered important
since there was no-one to copy.
George Adamski was born in Poland in 1891 and at the age of
two his parents emigrated to Dunkirk, New York State.In 1913 he
joined the 13th US Cavelry Regiment.He also held the jobs of
caretaker and painter at Yellowstone National Park and entered
the National Guard in 1918.In 1921 he lectured philosophy in
California.Adamski founded the monestary of the 'Royal Order of
Tibet' at Laguna Beach in 1934, where he taught 'Universal
Laws' and 'Universal Progressive Christianity'.At this time his
students gave him the title 'Professor'.For the record, Adamski
never claimed to be an academic professor.
In 1940 he moved with his wife and devotees to Palomar
Gardens, on the southern slopes of Mount Palomar,
California.On that location the group had a 6-inch telescope and
a 15-inch telescope which caused some confusion since the
Palomar Observatory with its 200-inch telescope was only 11
miles away.Adamski was friendly with some of the staff
members of the Observatory who presumably let him access the
premises at times.Adamski has been referred to by his
numerous detractors as a mere 'hamburger seller'.This is true,
to the extent that he did help serve at the Palomar Gardens Cafe,
which was owned by one of his devotees, Alice Wells.

When reviewing the Adamski case it's important not to forget the
'state of mind' of the time.Some 50 years ago the people were
much more religious and patriotic.When looking back we
shouldn't dismiss the case on the grounds of being old
fashioned.Various unfounded theories have sprung from the
Adamski case but to give these any credit we should first look at
the case itself thoroughly.

While in the desert on 20 November 1952, George Adamski
along with 6 friends witnessed a large cigar shaped craft.After
the big craft disappeared a smaller one was seen disappearing
in the distance.Adamski went to investigate but not out of sight of
his friends.Adamski then noticed a man motioning to him and he
proceeded to walk up to him.In close proximity Adamski noticed
that the man was unusual looking.His trousers were much like
ski-trousers and his hair was long, reaching to his shoulders.
First communications seemed diffecult but with the aid gesturing
and expressioning combined with telepathy the contact gained
progress.The visitor left a footprint with signs in the ground.
At this time the small craft came into sight, the Venusian
scout.(this ship was later on much debated and debunked but
also photographed around the world) Adamski getting to close to
the ship was hurt.His arm was lifted up and thrown down due to
the forces eminating from the craft.The visitor, later named
Orthon, asked for one of Adamski's photographic plates which
was handed out.Adamski had also noticed two more persons in
the craft, he had heard them talking and described their voices
as music.Orthon then boarded the craft and it took off.

Adamski was later on often branded as a hoaxer but take a look
at this.Alice Wells, Lucy McGinnis, Alfred&Betty Bailey,
George&Betty Hunt Williamson all were witnesses to the event
and signed an affidavit which goes as follows;

"I, the undersigned, do solemnly state that I have read the
account herein of the personal contact between George Adamski
and a man from another world, brought here in his Flying Saucer
- 'Scout' ship.And that I was party to, and witness to the event as
herein recounted."

So we have the sworn testimonies of 6 people, which is in my
book is very important.I wonder about something, if you make an
affidavit deliberately false, meaning you lie, is that punishable by
law in the U.S.?

In 1979 researcher Timothy Good interviewed Lucy McGinnis,
here's what she said some 27 years later;
"Here came this great big ship that looked like a dirigible, she
confirmed.And George said, quick, get me up there.I want to go
and set up the telescope.So I drove him and Al Bailey up to
where he said we should go.I kept looking out of the car and that
ship turned and just followed us.And he said, here stop! So I
stopped, and he got out, and that dirigible stopped - quite a ways
away.I couldn't very well judge how far away it was.And he set up
the telescope.And after he got everything set up, he said, Now
you go back."

"My attention was attracted by a flash in the sky and almost
instantly a beautifull small craft appeared to be drifting through a
saddle between two of the mountain peaks and settling silently
into one of the coves about half a mile from me.It did not lower
itself entirely below the crest, while the upper, or dome section,
remained above the crest and in full sight of the rest of my party
who were back there watching.Yet it was in such a position that I
could see the entire ship"

Timothy Good asked Lucy how much she was able to see of the
face-to-face contact itself;
"You couldn't see very much detail that far away, she explained,
they were far away enough to look like fenceposts.But they stood
talking to each other, and we saw them turn and go back to the
ship.Now I didn't see (Orthon) get into the ship.And when it left, it
was just like a bubble or kind of like bright light that lifted
up.Then George went out on the highway and he motioned for us
to come out.He told us that he got too close and his arm had
caught in the radiation from the craft.And he suffered from that
quite for a while....You could see where the two of them had
walked on the ground.There's no question about that at all."


Later on even the eye-witness testimonies in the Adamski case
were debunked, denied or explained away using the most ridiculous
theories by some.If Lucy McGinnis had made this testimony in
court and put her hand on the bible it would have been
admissable as evidence.
What some people don't seem to realise is that if a group of
people witnesses a car accident there might be variations in the
details by the observers but all(!) report the accident.
Considering that Lucy still sticks by her story many years later
and she isn't the only one, I can only conclude that something
did happen.

On the morning of 13 December the visitors returned.This time
Adamski had his telescope with camera set up near Palomar
Gardens.Again other witnesses were present including Jerrold
Baker.After seeing a flash in the sky the telescope was aimed in
that direction and an iridescent glass-like craft was
visible.Adamski took several shots which are known all over the
world.The craft was estimated to be 35 to 35 feet in diameter and
15 to 20 feet in height.As the craft was within a 100 feet a
porthole slightly opened and a hand extended out, dropping the
photographic plate which was borrowed earlier.The craft moved
towards the base of the mountains to the north where it was
seen by witnesses and photographed by one.The photograph,
supposedly taken with a Brownie box camera by Jerrold Baker,
who had been staying on the property since the end of October,
was (along with Adamski's photos) the subject of much
controversy.On this particular picture the image of the craft is
blurred, but given the slow shutter speed of the Brownie, even
slight movement of the craft would have let to this result.Baker
signed a statement testifying to the event which in part states;

"Suddenly in the corner of my eyes, I saw a circular object skim
over the treetops from the general area where the Professor was
located.I waited momentairily, mostly because of shock I guess,
as it continued to coming closer.It then hung in the air not over
12 feet high at the most, and about 25 feet from where I was
standing.It seemed as if it did this knowing I was there waiting to
photograph it.I quickly snapped a picture and as I did it tilted
slightly and zoomed upwards over the tree faster than anyone
can almost imagine.
These things I know for certain: 1.The saucer made no sound.
2.It was guided by a superior intelligence. 3.There was a slight
odor present as the saucer sped upwards. 4.It had portholes
and three huge ball-bearings, presumably landing gears."

Later on the relationship between Adamski and Baker turned
sauer and the latter denied haven taken the picture.Much
controversy originated from this.Some claimed that Adamski
was responsible for the picture and had asked Baker to take
credit for it.Lucy McGinnis who was a witness from the early stages
still claims that Baker openly took credit for the picture and didn't
deny it before her.The photographic plate which was dropped from
the craft was later on taken to the local photographer.The finishing
was done with witnesses present and a strange photograph
with symbols became visible.

Most researchers have denounced Adamski's famous 'fifties'
scoutcraft photo's as fakes.Descriptions of the 'model' used
cover a wide range of utensils; lampshade, operating theatre
lamp, saucepan lid with ping-pong balls, tobacco humidor,
chicken feeder, the top of a 1937 canister-type vacuum cleaner,
and a bottle cooler made in Wigan, Lancashire.
The problem is that no one has yet produced examples of any of
the above items which resemble proportionately the pictured
craft.Adamski, incidentally, offered $2000 to anyone who could
prove his photos were fakes.There were no takers...


(Continued in Part 2)
TerraX

Adamski was also the first to report a boarding method which
was in later years also described by other abductees and
contactees;

"I had the experience to be lifted up into the space craft while the
ship was hovering.It feels as if something is surrounding you
like a transparent or plastic curtain, yet you can't touch it and you
don't see it, and like a magnetic force it lifts you like an elevator
into the ship.And they can do this from a thousand miles away if
they want, but usually it is only two or thee hundred feet.You can
take bagage and everything with you, as if you are standing on a
platform, even though you can't see it.This only works in the open
and the person being lifted is visible the whole time."

Adamski also claimed that the space people were involved in
neutralizing harmful radiation from our nuclear tests.

"From one of their space laboratories in a mothership, green
balls are being sent out (they have been observed all over the
world).This is being done in order to counteract or neutralize or
even absorb concentrations of radiation created through our
bomb experiments."

Green fireballs have indeed been observed in the vicinity of
nuclear test sites and installations.These were the subject of
secret studies by military and scientific intelligence personnel.An
Army Intelligence memo from the period reveals;

"Agencies in New Mexico are greatly concerned over these
phenomanon.They are of the opinion that some foreign power is
making 'sensing shots' with some super-stratosphere device
designed to be self-disintegrating."

(Being in Europe I recall that after the Tsernobyl nuclear disaster
'green fireballs' were reported.I vividly recall seeing a footage on
the 8 o'clock news were a cluster of green flashing light balls
flew at low altitude over the country side.They were reported back
then in Germany, Belgium and Holland.Interesting coincedence.)

Sadly, Adamski's claims became more ludicrous.Very few of his
co-workers could accept his story of his trip to Saturn.Lou
Zinsstag regarded the Saturn story as 'a mental
experience'.Henk Hinfelaar, a New Zealand co-worker, was
equally doubtfull.Hinfelaar and Zinsstag came to the conclusion
that Adamski had 'got into the wrong hands'.He himself had
admitted that he was now dealing with a 'new set of boys'.
Lou Zinsstag elaborated;

"Either, we reasoned, his 'new set of boys' was an extremely
clever fake organization, a group of secret agents (not
necessarily governmental), trained experts in mind control and
hypnosis, or else George was dealing with a new group of
space people who were deliberately feeding him false
information in order to confuse an issue which had been
established by the earlier, friendlier group.Why not? 'They're no
angels',George had said."

Author John Keel is convinced that all contactees were lied to by
the 'ufonauts', this being 'part of the bewildering smoke screen
which they have established to cover up their real origin, purpose
and motivation.I might add that in all of the accounts by the
contactees, in many cases certain pieces of the information are
hard to accept not to mention that it could outright 'deflect' the
reader who holds a certain point of view.

Former contactee Ray Stanford claims that in 1958, as a devoted
15 year old follower of Adamski, he was visiting Palomar
Terraces with his brother Rex one morning when Adamski
started reminiscing;

"During the Prohibition I had the Order of Tibet.It was a
front.Listen, I was able to make wine.You know, we're supposed
to have religious ceremonies, we make wine for them and the
authorities can't interfere with our religion.Hell, I made enough
wine for half of Southern California.In fact, boys, I was the
biggest bootlegger around.If it hadn't been for that man
Roosevelt, I wouldn't have to get into all this saucer crap."

This statement was offcourse 'the smoking gun' for Adamski's
detractors.It seems to me that this is also the sort
of statement one would make when having consumed a glass of
wine or two, but that is a personal opinion.His co-workers and
supportes attributed such a comment to his sometimes earthy
sense of humor.Even some of Adamski's critics conceded that
he was a man totally dedicated to his mission and
philosophy.Stanford himself found Adamski to be a likeable man
and believes that there is much in favour of Adamski's original
contact claim.

Allthough negative evidence from Carol Honey is often cited by
Adamski's detractors as conclusive proof of Adamski's
charlatanism, the positive evidence is invariably overlooked.In
1979, Honey wrote (and pay attention) ;

"In Adamski's own words he did not 'go off the beam' until many
years after his original contacts.Because I am interested only in
the truth I told Adamski many times that I would support only that
which had been proven to be true.Adamski turned over to me
many manuscripts, most of his library and nearly all of his
original files.For several years every word Adamski published
came through my typewriter.His unpublished manuscripts
remain unpublished because in my opinion they were 'off the
beam' and not compatible with what I knew to be the truth.
On various occasions, Adamski produced photographs, artifacts,
recordings, laboratory reports, etc, which I examined
closely.None was ever revealed to the public or press, so far as I
am aware, yet all were more convincing than those things he did
release.
He claimed he was told not to 'reveal them untill the proper
time'.If he was fraudulent in all his claims, why didn't he reveal
this stronger material? What happend to these items when he
died? George Adamski met men from other planets and his
photographes were genuine.Later his contacts ended and he
misled the public rather than admit that the initial phases of the
'program' were over.

Adamski's sci-fi book 'Pioneers of Space' was another last
strawl for most detractors.Written in 1949, prior to his contacts
yet bearing a resemblance to 'Inside the Spaceships' though be
it not entirely.Based on these facts many people concluded that
Adamski must have been a fraud.One could ask him or herself if
it isn't the other way around.Why write a fictional book and later
another similar one based on facts? There's no apparent logic in
deliberately 'throwing in one's own window'.Was Adamski really
that foolish in assuming that he would get away with it? There
could be a more incredible explanation for this.

Author Timothy Good suplies us with highly interesting
information.In company with abductees decades later, Adamski
claimed privately to have been contacted by extraterrestials as a
child, and to have received instruction from them in Tibet by way
of preparation for his mission in later life.Publicly, Adamski
made no such claims, though he hinted at having had 'mental'
contact prior to the Desert Center encounter.'Speaking of visitors
from other planets', he wrote to a correspondent in early 1952, 'in
the physical I have not contacted any of them, but since you have
read Pioneers of Space you can see how I get my information
about these people and their homelands'.
In 1958 Adamski is reported to have made an interesting
statement to Ray Stanford which has been interpreted as an
admission of fraud.'Ray, listen', he said, 'I did not ever have to go
out in space to know about the spaceships.Hell, I knew about
the spaceships and what was in 'em years ago.........Pioneers of
Space will tell you everything, just like Inside the Spaceships.All I
did was project my consciousness to the beings out there and I
could see them and know what was in their ships.

There's an interesting factor.Those contactees with a profound
message seem to have been contacted at an early age.Howard
Menger and Billy Meier also claim to have met extraterrestials in
their childhood.Adamski hinted to this but never stated so
publicly.It becomes more plausible that he had earlier contacts
of which he disclosed nothing, the time simply couldn't have
been ripe for such a story.

Adamski never denied making trips into space, he seemed to be
implying that it wasn't absolutely necessary for him.Secondly,
apart from those similarities, Inside the Spaceships is a very
different book, full of much more richly detailed
descriptions.Thirdly those who knew Adamski over many years
said he never retracted having been inside the spaceships.
Lucy McGinnis, Adamski's secretary for many years had this to
say about the two books;

"I have often wondered about that.The first book was definitely
written as fiction, and it might have been his way of breaking into
the subject.He might have known something more, I don't
know.It never bothered me to the extent that I made an issue of it
because, you see, I could have made an issue of it if I hadn't
seen those ships."

In addition to having witnessed the Desert Center contact, Lucy
had another sighting of a craft, similar in configuration to the
classic scout which she saw at Palomar Terraces several years
later.She had this to say;

"I was in my room lying down one afternoon.I don't know what
date it was but for some reason I got up and went out.As I got out
the door, I looked up and there was this great big saucer-like
thing.I was amazed.As I looked up I could see through it.It was
two stories, you could see the steps where they would go up and
down.I don't remember how many people I saw, but they were
moving around.It seemed they had kind of ski-suits, fastend
around the ankle.Then suddenly it started just drifting away."

Lucy was asked for her opinion as to why Adamski had begun
telling such ridiculous stories in the early 1960's.She replied that
his oversized ego was to blame and offered her belief that the
original group of extraterrestials had left him for just that
reason.She also felt that he was simply lying about the trips to
Saturn and Venus by way of bolstering his ego, which had
become seriously deflated when the original group left
him.Although this explanation is convincing, it still falls short of
answering all the questions about this complex man and his
even more complex claims.



(Continued in Part 5)
TerraX

Why didn't you just post a link to all that?

Originally posted by reflux
Why didn't you just post a link to all that?

Because there isn't a single link to the entire story above, I compilled it using
many excerpts from books and webpages.

Originally posted by TerraX

Originally posted by reflux
Why didn't you just post a link to all that?

Because there isn't a single link to the entire story above, I compilled it using
many excerpts from books and webpages.

There's even a lot of material I didn't put into the report such as more
comments by (former) associates and sightings such as these;

Desert Sightings

George Adamski's journey toward contact began October 9, 1946, as he
and several friends observed a meteor shower through a 6" Newtonian reflector
telescope from his home at Palomar Gardens, eleven miles from the 200"
telescope at Mt. Palomar's HaleObservatory. They witnessed a gigantic
cigar-shaped object hovering above the mountains to the south. Adamski
guessed the object to be a government dirigible, perhaps studying
the meteor shower from the upper atmosphere. But when they turned on
the radio, it was announced that a large, cylindrical spaceship had been seen by
hundreds of people, hanging silently in the air over nearby San Diego.

In August, 1947, Adamski was out in his yard one evening when, "Suddenly a
bright light object appeared, moving through the sky from east to west above the
mountain ridge to the south. And then another! And another!" He called his friends out
of the house.Together, they counted 184 saucers moving across the sky in regimented
squadrons of 32 ships each. Tony Belmonte, a Soil Conservation employee working in
the area, confirmed the sighting the next day, estimating the number of saucers at 204.

With cameras attached to his 6" and 15" telescopes, Adamski had been attempting to
photograph the ships ever since the October, 1946 sighting, with limited success. At the
request of the military, he had even sent several pictures to the Point Loma Navy Electronic
Laboratory near San Diego for analysis. The photos disappeared, and the Navy denied ever
receiving them. After the "squadron sighting," Adamski devoted himself to full time saucer
research, taking hundreds of photographs, many of which provided clear, undeniable
proof of flying saucers in our atmosphere and in space.

Hi Gazrok,

The book you're looking for, and which I commented on above, is the fictional work 'Pioneers of Space' written prior to his acclaimed encounter yet baring a striking resemblance.I can see how that would trouble a person since it can indeed point to fraud.If you want to take the easy way out then surely this is the readers chance.I don't even claim everything in the Adamski case is true but I do believe there's more to it then a simple hoax.
I've wondered about the first book as well.Why write a fictional book and then a similar one claimed to be fact? Surely even Adamski must have realized that it would look strange? At this point I can't provide a satisfactory answer, only speculation.More importantly is the support by other people for his second book 'Inside the Space Ships'.Perhaps you read the interviews I provided, where a few decades later people still supported the desert encounter as a true event.That's not all, even former associates of Adamski who had a falling out with him and went on their seperate ways, still state that the original claims of Adamski were not only truthful but that they experienced encounters/sightings as well.More on that later.

Sure Gazrok, you can take the easy way out if you so desire.No-one is squeeky clean and 'dirt' can be found on every person, that not only includes Adamski but you and me as well.What I mean by that is, if you look for a negative approach, you're probably going to find it.

TerraX

It's not "dirt", or the "easy way" out...

If I published a work of fiction about a a reptoid society under the Earth, about the sites there, etc. and then, 4 years later, claimed to have met reptoids, seen their cities, etc. would YOU take me seriously??? I seriously doubt it.

It's more than a red flag...it's an entire field of waving red flags...

Also, while a sighting (mentioned later, not at the time) may have occurred in '46, he still wrote fiction of meeting Venusians in '49, but he claims his first meeting with Venusians took place in '52...hence the fiction before the claim.

I'm not talking about dirt, such as bad finances, relationship problems, etc. I'm talking about issues that DIRECTLY relate to his credibility, not just in general, but in specific regards to his "UFO encounters".

You're also failing to mention numerous witnesses who have since recanted their supporting stories for Adamski's sightings as well... All in all, there's simply WAY too much that smells foul about his alleged encounters, for him to be regarded as a credible UFO witness.

Although I firmly believe aliens exist, and visit Earth on a continual basis, I find it more than just a little incredible that they would traverse light years just to reveal all to such individuals....

P.S. What the heck happened to this UFO, did someone whack it with a hammer??? It's completely misshapen....(Adamski pic)




[edit on 22-11-2004 by Gazrok]

So from your words I gather that Adamski's credibility is an issue, especially in relation to the fictional book 'Pioneers of Space'.While I already commented on that issue above and in the report, you seem bend on focusing on that aspect, showing your intent quite nicely.Also Adamski's long military service to his country seems to do nothing in that regard.No, that particular issue smells fishy, therefore it is fishy and a red flag for the entire case regardless of the pro's.

Me personally, and this is just speculation on my part, I suspect Adamski knew a bit more then he let on.In other alleged contactee cases the person in question was sometimes contacted at an early age, well before they came out with their stories.Meaning they already had some knowledge and experience involving encounters.Adamski might have belonged in that category although he never stated so openly.Why do I suspect that? Because Howard Menger, another contactee who seemed to be involved with the same ET group and photographed the same ship, had similar experiences.
Still, this is speculation on my part and open for debate.

Gazrok;
""You're also failing to mention numerous witnesses who have since recanted their supporting stories for Adamski's sightings as well... All in all, there's simply WAY too much that smells foul about his alleged encounters, for him to be regarded as a credible UFO witness.""

Really? Did I fail to mention recanted supporting stories? Look again, I listed both negative and positive elements to the case, that included recanted stories such as the one of Jerrold Baker.You on the other hand seem to focus on those and conveniently skip the supporting testimonies.Maybe your own approach is what's lacking credibility.Everyone can play that game Gazrok.If you're objective you weigh the positive and negative elements equally.

Wow, you believe in aliens and UFO's? You hardly gave me that impression but alright, what cases do you find credible?

TerraX

P.S. The picture is taken from a segment of film, taken in 1965 near Silver Spring.If you followed the link I provided above and looked at the film, you'd see the ship (or model if it makes you happy) change shape.Madeleine Rodeffer however, still claims to this day that she saw a full-sized ship, including the occupants.

Wow, you believe in aliens and UFO's? You hardly gave me that impression but alright, what cases do you find credible?

Roswell
Rendlesham
Socorro
Betty and Barney Hill (one of the few abduction cases I find to be highly credible)
Gun camera sightings and video
many others, as well as my own sighting as a child, witnessed by plenty of other children at the time (which I've posted here before). In fact, it's what got me so into the subject.

All in all, it is the majority (not all) abduction cases that I find the most difficult to believe, ESPECIALLY multiple abduction cases, involving a variety of craft with seemingly nothing in common, which seem to only involve one guy (and the occassional witness, who is closely identified with the one guy).

Not to mention how these guys (Ed Walters, George Adamski, Billy Meier, etc.) seem to be SO close to these aliens as to pretty much have them materialize out of thin air, yet can't seem to get one photo of them, the interior of their craft, pics of Venus when saying they went there, etc.

I don't know about you, but if I was boyscout enough to carry around wet plaster of paris in my pockets (as Adamski was when making a cast of the little boot prints of the Venusian in his 1952 encounter ) then I'd damn sure be swift enough to grab a camera when hopping a ride to Venus...but maybe that's just me.

Really? Did I fail to mention recanted supporting stories? Look again,

Sorry 'bout that...I've read and re-read Adamski material several times, so only skimmed through the novel above, hehe... Yes, for me that ONE point is a damning piece of evidence. Now add the recanted testimonials, numerous falling outs with former supporters, etc. On the scale of weighing fact or crap, that one fact weighs a lot more than other crap Adamski's put forward. Likewise, we can keep piling on to the fact and the crap side, and for me anyhow, the fact side still tips the scales...

No, one falsehood doesn't make the rest of it bogus...but it certainly taints it. This is more than a little white lie though, it's basically his published story admitted as fiction, but then later passed off as fact...

I WANT to believe everyone that comes forward on UFOs. Had I not witnessed my own sighting, I wouldn't believe it. There aren't likely to be any Coast Guard records on it, even though at a Coast Guard compound, as we were told by the adults to never bring it up. Though they seemed to be under some kind of sleep paralysis during the sighting, there was apparently something mentioned about it at the base the next day. I don't exactly know the last names of the other kids involved (it was more than a couple decades ago), etc. However, I've seen far too many hoaxers completely destroy the field of UFOlogy, and so I prefer to accept the mundane before leaping to the fantastic.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Gazrok]

Hey Gazrok,

The cases you list have been targeted by scepticists as well.Recently I saw a program on Discovery Channel where the Roswell case was scrutinized, and the notion was made that memories can be highly inaccurate after a few decades.(The case got rolling in the 70's.) Even Kenneth Arnold's sighting and the Thomas Mantell case was scrutinized on that channel.Think the program was called 'Unsolved History'.

The Rendlesham forest incident also had it's share of alternate versions which were eagerly taken in by the sceptics.A lighthouse in the distance was responsible for fooling many soldiers including the base commander.Another version I came across is that one soldier played a prank on his comrades, amazingly some sceptics took that one account and then stated the case was a hoax, dismissing the rest of the accounts.That's how the sceptics sometimes work, take an item that doesn't work for the case and go from there.

It's usual that controversy surrounds a UFO case.Betty&Barney Hill seemed very sincere and honest people, their character wasn't in question.The hypnotic regression therapy however was.You know what I'm getting at.Ed Walters was also severely scrutinized, the polaroid camera he used could easily make double exposures.A model was found in his house, note!, six months after he had moved out and finally a witness came forward saying Walters hoaxed his photographs.Strangely there were also people who said they saw the same thing that Walters had photographed but sceptics don't focus on that.They also didn't focus on the many sigthings near Gulf Breeze and the other photographs and film footage.It's safe to say that a persons focus, determines their reality.

Billy Meier also had its share of controversy.In fact Adamski is a sunday school boy compared to him.I'm a little bit surprised that the sceptics just took such a poor pot-shot at him and left it at that.If you look indepth, you'll find out that the Meier case has more controversy then all of the other contact cases put together.Ironically this shows how some sceptics work, they're satisfied with the few items which enables them to debunk.

To summarize, people often 'taint' a case.I readily admit that controversy is inherent in every case but the people who look into it often find a way which suits their convictions.

Interesting corrolary there...I remember those German UFO designs... Of course, how authentic they are is still up in the air, as is which came first...the chicken or the chicken brooder, hehe....

The cases you list have been targeted by scepticists as well.Recently I saw a program on Discovery Channel where the Roswell case was scrutinized, and the notion was made that memories can be highly inaccurate after a few decades.(The case got rolling in the 70's.) Even Kenneth Arnold's sighting and the Thomas Mantell case was scrutinized on that channel.Think the program was called 'Unsolved History'.

Roswell simply remains. The Air Force explainations get more laughable (dummies from tests years later, a balloon project still classified after half a century...please, who do they think they are kidding?) It still stands as a case where (at least temporarily) the US Army came out and said we captured a flying disc. The witnesses, including numerous high ranking military personnel, the paper trail, the events, etc. simply continue to stand out as the most remarkable UFO case in history.

Mantell: I still have a hard time believing a trained pilot would ignore safety protocals just to chase Venus.

The Rendlesham forest incident also had it's share of alternate versions which were eagerly taken in by the sceptics.A lighthouse in the distance was responsible for fooling many soldiers including the base commander.Another version I came across is that one soldier played a prank on his comrades, amazingly some sceptics took that one account and then stated the case was a hoax, dismissing the rest of the accounts.That's how the sceptics sometimes work, take an item that doesn't work for the case and go from there.

Men wouldn't be interrogated at length for mistaking a lighthouse, nor would they be intimidated, threatened, and ordered into silence.

It's usual that controversy surrounds a UFO case.Betty&Barney Hill seemed very sincere and honest people, their character wasn't in question.The hypnotic regression therapy however was.You know what I'm getting at.

Yes, Bud Hopkins...but the map, the details given, the matching stories under hypnosis, etc. still lend more credibility to the story than it's detractors.

Ed Walters was also severely scrutinized, the polaroid camera he used could easily make double exposures.A model was found in his house, note!, six months after he had moved out and finally a witness came forward saying Walters hoaxed his photographs.Strangely there were also people who said they saw the same thing that Walters had photographed but sceptics don't focus on that.They also didn't focus on the many sigthings near Gulf Breeze and the other photographs and film footage.It's safe to say that a persons focus, determines their reality.

I still rank Walters right with Adamski and Meier. Such individuals can seemingly summon up UFOs on a whim...which obviously leads one to conclude that they are faking them.

If genuine, it was likely a conceptual drawing. There are a variety of German saucer craft built late in the war, more conceptual than working models, and some used for film propaganda....VRIL comes to mind.