• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

George Adamski

Adamski: Real or Fake?

  • Real

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Fake

    Votes: 12 80.0%
  • Some of it is Real

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15
T

TerraX

Guest
Mindsky said:
It's rare that I see someone who buys into Adamski's stuff.
It's not as rare as you might think. Besides, in this thread I mentioned several times that I can't support every claim Adamski made but do believe something truthful is in the heart of the matter. That's totally different then supporting everything Adamski uttered.
It's one of the worst hoaxes of all time I think.
Suit yourself. Personally I think it's not that easy to label the entire thing as a hoax while there were many people who claimed to have witnessed events or saw similar ships as to what Adamski reported. The great thing about ufology is that everyone can set the standard where it suits them and like lawyers can bend the truth to their convenience. So if you want to declare the whole thing as a hoax and sleep better at night, go right ahead.
 
M

Mindsky

Guest
Been a long time since I've heard someone ask if Adamski is legit. The reason being that it's obvious to most what the answer is. I came to the conclusion long ago that he's one of the worst hoaxers on the planet.
 
U

ufoman

Guest
With my further study of the Mr. Meier case. I happened on some info which was some what shocking. Apparently Billy Meier and his alien friend met with Adamski. This stuff gets weirder and weirder all the time.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
ufoman said:
With my further study of the Mr. Meier case. I happened on some info which was some what shocking. Apparently Billy Meier and his alien friend met with Adamski. This stuff gets weirder and weirder all the time.
Correct. Meier took it upon himself to visit Adamski while he was lecturing in Switzerland. But, it gets even weirder because Meier doesn't have one positive thing to say about Adamski. Personally I gave some thought about the mechanics at work here.
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
Meier doesn't have one positive thing to say about Adamski.
Meier and his alleged contacts have very little good to say about any other contactees (links from line items removed).

CONTACT 43
[Tuesday, January 27, 1976, 2:03 a.m.]
Contact person: Semjase

NOTE: full informational reliability on any given topic, quotation or event can only be had from a careful reading of the German-language Contact Reports; the following topical listings do not represent the entire contents of this Contact Report.

Contactees List - true, false & "unknown" contactees
Truman Bethurum - false
Narciso Genovese - false
Karl Michalek - false
George Adamski - false:
Dr. George Hunt Williamson - true/false
Hans Klotzbach - "unknown" [Switzerland, 1962]
Howard Menger - false
Bob Renaud - false
Salvador Villanueva Medina - false
Francisco Castillo - false
Fernando Sesma Manzano - "unknown"
Ing. Reeve - "unknown"
Cedric Allingham - false
D. Marachi - true
Lawrence W. Vinther - true
Captain Thomas Mantell - true
Lieutenant George Gorman - true
Stefan Denaerde - "unknown"
Jeff Greenhaw - "unknown"
Antonio Villas-Boas - "unknown"
Eugenio Siragusa - false
Orfeo Angelucci - true, with reservations on added religious thought
"Orfeo Angelucci" - fake/impersonator, false
Emanuel Cihlar - false
Dick Miller - "unknown"
Buck Nelson - false
Alberto Sanmartin - true, with reservations on added religious thought
Henrique Castillo - "unknown"
Herbert Nielson - "unknown"
Carl A. Anderson - true, with reservations on added religious thought
"Carl A. Anderson" - fake/impersonator, false
Igo Etrich - true
P. Leopold ["Homogenius Rho"] - "unknown"
Frank E. Stranges ["Valiant Thor", "Jill" & "Donn" from Venus] - false
Reinhold O. Schmidt - false
Haruhiro Tsukamoto (Harushi Tsukamoto) - false
K. Gosta Rehn [book "UFOs Here and Now!", 1974] - "unknown"
Joachim Pahl - "unknown"
The Contact Reports of "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier: a topical listing

The number of "unknowns" is most revealing, inasmuch as Semjase and her crew would have quick ways of verifying all of them. Conclusion: if One-Armed Billy didn't like what contactees said or wrote, they're false. If he did, they're true.

People who reside in dwellings of fused silicon dioxide should eschew manually propelling masses of mineral aggregates.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
The number of "unknowns" is most revealing, inasmuch as Semjase and her crew would have quick ways of verifying all of them. Conclusion: if One-Armed Billy didn't like what contactees said or wrote, they're false. If he did, they're true.
That's essentially correct. Personally I think Meier wants to be the final authority on alleged ET information and therefore tries to debunk his 'fellow contactees'. From day one Meier tried to discredit Adamski and others from 'the Space Brothers' generation. Ashtar, an alleged ET contact channeled by George van Tassel was a criminal ET outlaw according to Meier. The list of false contactees goes on and on, finally culminating in this;
http://www.figu.org/de/figu/bulletin/s25/the_newest.htm

"Billy:...So, you have spent the last three years investigating contacts in regard to beings foreign to earth and found that no contacts have taken place between beings foreign to earth and human beings of earth - except in the few cases that are known to me and pertain to you Plejarens and your federation."

Basicly he's saying; 'I'm the only one with a truthful story to tell, don't listen to anyone else'.

Years ago I took this up with Meier's US media rep and other Meierites. While they energeticly resist criticisements directed towards the Meier case they are perfectly fine with Meier's unfounded and unsubstantiated debunking comments on others. Especially Michael Horn's conduct started to show some very hypocritical aspects. Basicly I had to prove Meier's comments wrong and Meier didn't have solidify his claims. Horn's favorite pet argument was 'how do other cases compare with the Meier case', starting on the premise that the Meier case is squeeky clean and in order.
Needless to say that with people who arbiteraly set the standard where it suits them you can't have a fruitful discussion.
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
Thanks for the link. One wishes that these superbly advanced beings would learn the benefit of using paragraphs in their windy orations, but I guess we can't have everything.
 
U

ufoman

Guest
From my understanding of the Meier case. Meier will call a person false even if they are in contact with an earth based ET group like the group he calls the Giza group that lived under the Pyramids in Egypt.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
ufoman said:
From my understanding of the Meier case. Meier will call a person false even if they are in contact with an earth based ET group like the group he calls the Giza group that lived under the Pyramids in Egypt.
Yes, but it doesn't really matter. He criticises everyone who goes public with ET related stories and the inner circle of his supporters help him with that angle. He tries to blame it on the "Giza group", secret U.S. craft, milabs or just calls others downright frauds.
Within Meier's mythology the Giza group allbeit ET in origin, is labeled as a highly negative group bend on conquest and using religion to create friction and wars. (Nevermind that Meier's Plejarens allegedly accidentally created Christianity) Meier has lots of tales concerning this Giza group but not an ounce of substance. Sadly that doesn't stop some people swallowing the myth.

I came across this comment on the BlackVault forum by a poster which sums it up rather nicely in my book;
"Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: It's just a game...
There is no way that any truly advanced civilization would give Billy Meier (or indeed any one single human) what amounts to exclusive franchise rights to spread the 'Good Plejaran Word' for $$$. Billy wants to be acknowledged as a prophet (for profit, of course), and the whole 'sacred anointed spokesperson' scenario being played out here is what is keeping humanity marooned on Earth.

I can only compare Billy's rehashed hierarchical biblical drivel to the stance taken by Lisette Larkins, who also claims personal ET contact: in her three self-authored books about her experience, she basically says 'If you want to meet ETs, take up whatever kind of meditation suits you, calm your mind, and do it yourself.' While she has spoken about her own experiences, she has done so from an inclusive point-of-view, and actively encourages others to come forward with their own contact experiences. The number of people who have responded to her invitation (myself included) easily show that BM is not at all unique or special insofar as ET contact goes.

Given the numbers of people who have been 'visited' in one way or another, Billy could have very well been contacted once upon a time, just like many other people have been. The main problem for me-- ignoring the photos and such-- is in Billy being merchandised as 'Lord High Priest of the Plejarans on Earth', and the promotion of his experiences as the Only True Ones. At present he is a front, pure and simple, to 1) keep people involved in 'is it true/false' bickering, 2) disempower other contactees (as in Billy is The Official Spokesperson from 'them' to 'us') and 3) to make double-damn sure none of the rest of us step out of the 'we must all follow a Single Leader' paradigm, by trying to set Billy up as One. It's grandiose, pure and simple. I for one will be foregoing the latest Plejaran-burger-with-fries served up by offensively sexist big-breasted Plejaran space-babes as channeled through humanity's latest bearded biblical wanna-be, BM."

Amen to that.
 

Mark F

Paranormal Novice
I have a couple of his books, but never read them in their entirety. He lost me on the credibility issue with his observations of the Moon and local planets while "traveling in the spaceships."

Still, he is an interesting figure in ufology.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
Gene, why do you think the story of Adamski gets repeated over time?


______________________
"With no power comes no responsibility" - Jay&Silent Bob
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
TerraX said:
Gene, why do you think the story of Adamski gets repeated over time?


______________________
"With no power comes no responsibility" - Jay&Silent Bob
People forgetting the history of the case, I suppose.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
Gene Steinberg said:
People forgetting the history of the case, I suppose.
Well, both the pro and con angle is readily accessible on the internet. I think there's also some sort of historical connection to it. Kinda like being 'icons' in ufology. Kenneth Arnold, Betty&Barney Hill, Adamski, they're sort of markers in the field. I think that's why people pick it up. Those stories being right or wrong is something else of course.
I was pleasantly surprised that Jeff Ritzmann spoke positively about the Rodeffer footage and personally I suspect there was more going on but starting the become a veteran in discussions about this particular subject I've come to the opinion that it's pretty much futile to make a case for it. And becoming a "he who shall not be named" is the last thing I want to do. So I'll just put a little of my personal conviction here and there. :)
 

valiens

Skilled Investigator
Gene Steinberg said:
My opinion is that some of these so-called contactees may have either had a genuine experience of one sort or another or certain beliefs that they wanted to express. They either extrapolated a series of contacts from scratch or enhanced the experiences they really had.
I'm writing my next article for ufo mag about my recent meeting with a famous contactee. For 3 1/2 hours he told me his stories and it became apparent what the trick is. I'll give you the psych 101 skinny for free here as I'm sure something similar to this applies to most of these guys (who aren't obviously hoaxing like Adamski was).

The following outline is based on everything he & his wife shared with me (as well as their demeanor and interactions with each other):

He probably had some real experiences initially. (Or at least psychic phenomena happened to him or within him as a child.)

When he related these things to classmates he got picked on. Badly. They called him a Martian and it stuck.

He retreated into his head space where the stories grew.

He related some of them publicly in a forgiving New Age setting.

That went well so he brought them to the public at large.

He was mocked for being too esoteric.

He gained a fan. He married her. For years she picked his brain about his experiences--that was the nature of their relationship.

Wife is dominating. Contactee is submissive.

Contactee wants to please wife so he keeps spinning these yarns for her and because he has a photographic memory, these imaginings become the reality he shares in great, convincing detail.

He is definitely lonely as most of his contactee friends from days of old have passed away. He's toying with the idea of speaking again just to meet new people with similar interests.

I think he believes his own stories.

I think he's a "good" person, not an overt liar.

I think this explains most contactees.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
valiens said:
Gene Steinberg said:
"My opinion is that some of these so-called contactees may have either had a genuine experience of one sort or another or certain beliefs that they wanted to express. They either extrapolated a series of contacts from scratch or enhanced the experiences they really had."
"I think this explains most contactees."
While I would love contactee stories to be absolutely true I can't escape the notion that there was and is a great deal of embellishment on the part of most contactees. Seriously, I wonder about that.
When you look at most contactee stories in the books and forgetting for a moment the 'well-known names', you'll see that there are dozens - maybe hundreds of people - that claim to have seen or met occupants of UFOs/flying saucers while there wasn't any verbal communication or nothing of anything importance was shared. That in turn fuels the notion that some people might have experienced something and started expanding on that. Maybe that's also the world we live in and is something to be considered.
 

Siani

Despiser of religious nuts
If George Adamski was a real contactee, then so was Billy Meier. I can't believe people are still giving credence to either of those guys, yet I frequently meet people who believe their stories implicitly. I think that tells us more about the need in certain people to believe, than about the real UFO enigma, whatever may lie behind it.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
Siani said:
If George Adamski was a real contactee, then so was Billy Meier. I can't believe people are still giving credence to either of those guys, yet I frequently meet people who believe their stories implicitly. I think that tells us more about the need in certain people to believe, than about the real UFO enigma, whatever may lie behind it.
Maybe you need to relax about it. In Ufology you get all kinds of people who believe this or that, or are willing to go to a certain extent. You're no exception. I've made my position on Adamski quite clear in previous posts. Even I think he embellished yet there's something at the core of his story. That's simply my opinion. If you don't like it than that's to bad.
Comparing Meier to Adamski is also a pretty long stretch. There are some major differences but I suppose you can lump them together as 'alleged contactees' or even 'frauds'. Both definitions may very well proof accurate.
You know what's funny? Nobody asked me why I have a 'soft spot' for Adamski. The answer is quite simple actually but none of you 'intelligent ufo-researchers' ever bothered to come up with that notion. Maybe I know something more?

Sleep tight,
TerraX
 

Siani

Despiser of religious nuts
TerraX said:
Maybe you need to relax about it. In Ufology you get all kinds of people who believe this or that, or are willing to go to a certain extent. You're no exception. I've made my position on Adamski quite clear in previous posts. Even I think he embellished yet there's something at the core of his story. That's simply my opinion. If you don't like it than that's to bad.
Comparing Meier to Adamski is also a pretty long stretch. There are some major differences but I suppose you can lump them together as 'alleged contactees' or even 'frauds'. Both definitions may very well proof accurate.
You know what's funny? Nobody asked me why I have a 'soft spot' for Adamski. The answer is quite simple actually but none of you 'intelligent ufo-researchers' ever bothered to come up with that notion. Maybe I know something more?

Sleep tight,
TerraX
Hey - I don't want to get into a fight over this. Adamski may well have had some kind of genuine experience, which triggered off his yarns - I don't dispute that. And what's to say that he didn't embellish his story out of desperation at being disbelieved regarding his real, less spectacular experiences? However, he claimed his visitors were from Venus, and if I recall correctly, he even claimed to have gone to Venus with them. Considering that the surface temperature of Venus can rise to as much as 464° C, and the planet is shrouded by dense, impenetrable clouds of carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds, is it any wonder he's seen as a fake? Not to mention that dubious UFO photograph, which shows nothing but the alleged UFO - no background, no sense of scale, etc. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter :).

Take care.
 

valiens

Skilled Investigator
I've been arguing this (what to me seems an obvious) point about Meier with some dude the last few days, which applies to Adamski:

If you can prove one of his photos were faked then why bother with the rest? Who cares what more you know about him? He killed his credibility and the baby goes with the bathwater.

I know something more about both of those guys. You ready? here it is... None of their extraordinary and ongoing contact with pleasant spiritual space brothers and sisters has made a whit of difference in the world. So even if their stories are true they are irrelevant. One might think the nurturing space family might want more out of their contact than that, especially given all of the spiritual doctrine they've imparted to us.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
valiens said:
I've been arguing this (what to me seems an obvious) point about Meier with some dude the last few days, which applies to Adamski:
If you can prove one of his photos were faked then why bother with the rest? Who cares what more you know about him? He killed his credibility and the baby goes with the bathwater.
Well, these are "contactees" right? "They" can afford no blemish on their records whatsoever. Apparently "contactees" are even more highly judged than lets say you for example. Did you ever embellish during a jobinterview? For example spoke highly of your last boss while you hated his guts? Did you leave a couple of things out about your life when you were courting a new girlfriend? Ever smoked pot or got drunk and did something stupid? If I was a hard-ass I could play the credibility card just as well.

Apparently "contactees" are even judged a couple of degrees higher then politicians. LOL. I don't think I have to expand on that, right? I mean, the president of the US goes to war under false pretence and gets re-elected. Where was the moral highground on that one for most Americans? Adamski probably embellished his accounts but noone got really hurt. Not in the sense of bodybags anyway. Catch my drift?

The thing is, know where you set your standard. See how your standard in ufology applies to other matters. I'm not saying you shouldn't point out mistakes. I'm saying take a look at yourself at how you do things.
 


Top