U
ufoman
Guest
How many people here believe he had real contact?
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus 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! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
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.
Well, certainly there is no evidence that Adamski's reported contacts occurred. At the same time, how are we to know that nothing ever happened to him? We don't! At worst, he used the contacts as a means to express his own political and religious viewpoints.ufoman 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.
Its amazing how many times I've heard this over the years for different cases. It almost like no one can really 100% debunk these contactee guys.
They were actuallyi not close enough to see anything, and the reputations of one or two of the people who signed that document were suspect. I believe the contents of that expose issue are included in Jim's book from several years ago, "Shockingly Close to the Truth."TerraX said:Gene, six people did sign an affadavit that they witnessed the original desert encounter. Would that fall under the category of a 'notarized document'? Since I don't live in the states I wonder if you sign an affadavit which is deliberately false, would the person be punishable by law?
Hi Gene, while you didn't address the question regarding the matter of the affadavit I've also read comments in one of Timothy Good's book by one of the witnesses that they did see something and even more to the point, Lucy McGinnis describes something similar as to what your friend David Biedney experienced.Gene Steinberg said:They were actuallyi not close enough to see anything, and the reputations of one or two of the people who signed that document were suspect. I believe the contents of that expose issue are included in Jim's book from several years ago, "Shockingly Close to the Truth."
Love to hear about it. Maybe Howard Menger is something to be discussed in a seperate thread.Then there is the case of Howard Menger and the peculiar lunch meeting Jim Moseley and I had with him way back in 1964 or 1965 or thereabouts. I'll talk about that elsewhere.
When this issue was published, Jim was in his mostly serious mode, and that particular issue was very serious. I would look it up before you take Good's report seriously. I mean, do you really think Adamski met people from Venus?TerraX said:Seems to me Gene that Moseley's account differs from one of the witnesses but if I'm not mistaken Moseley first took the path of the researcher yet later became a kind of journalistic (skeptic) commentator that approached the subject with humour and sarcasm.
Timothy Good has an excellent reputation as an author and ufology-researcher and wrote several books that topped the bestsellers lists;Gene Steinberg said:When this issue was published, Jim was in his mostly serious mode, and that particular issue was very serious. I would look it up before you take Good's report seriously.
No, I don't think they are 'from' Venus.I mean, do you really think Adamski met people from Venus?
I would suggest that you also check pages 333 through 352 in Moseley's book, which is available from Amazon Books at this link:TerraX said:Timothy Good has an excellent reputation as an author and ufology-researcher and wrote several books that topped the bestsellers lists;
Timothy Good - UFO Authority
Timothy Good - Book Reviews
Before you conclude that Good is strictly a 'believer' it's also worthy to mention that Good has a lot of criticism on the Adamski case and isn't reluctant to point out the discrepancies.
We all only have so much energy and time to investigate all the claims. In this case, the alleged object seems to be in better focus than the background, which would be a classic indication of using a small model for this particular venture in fakery.ufoman said:This video by Adamski looks pretty suspect to me. I wish David would take a look. I will say that when I evaluate a case I look at everything not just the video or pictures.
David raises an extremely important issue here: Virtually every UFO photo I've seen is blurry, shaky, and ambiguous. Where the image is clear, it is most often faked; rather poorly in fact. The photos tend to be controversial, and it always leaves room for skeptics to question their authenticity.David Biedny said:Folks,
I've been thinking about this whole issue of UFO footage, and overall believability.
Here's something to consider:
Remember 9.11 and the images we saw that day? They were like nothing that had ever been seen before. I can't remember ever watching a movie were jet airliners crashed into skyscrapers. Now think about the footage that came out of that day, especially all shots of the second plane hitting the south tower. One of the most striking things about that imagery was the sense of hyper-reality, the idea that "oh, man, that looks like it belongs in a movie", but no movie anyone had ever seen. There was nothing fake about the way those planes impacted those towers, and there's a story about my experiences that day, when one of my closest friends, Scott Myers, who lived in a penthouse apartment 1.5 blocks away from the towers had the cool, calm state of mind to set up his DV camera on a tripod after the first impact, and the camera was recording when the second plane hit. His footage was the closest shot to the actual episode, in terms of proximity, and also had the benefit of being completely stable. The NIST used Scott's footage to determine that the south tower swayed for minutes after collision, and there's a whole secondary story about how I was the first person who Scott was able to reach on the phone that day, and how I had to spend significant time with the FBI to get them to Scott and the footage (his wife was 8 months pregnant, laying in their bed looking right up at the towers)...
Anyway, that footage was hyper-real, your brain _knows_ when it's seeing something genuine, even though it has no direct reference for what it's seeing. There's a feeling of lack of breath, intense focus and something akin to paralysis in that moment, like nothing else I could describe. I've watched those seconds of video many, many times, and it never fails to make me feel like how I just described. It's not the knowledge that people were dying at that moment, it was that it couldn't really be happening, but it was, and my eyes let my brain know that this was genuine. It's the exact same feeling that one gets the moment of seeing a UFO, especially in a situation where your brain knows it ain't Venus, a balloon or a flock of birds. There really is no way to completely describe that feeling. It's totally unique.
Think about what your mind does when you see footage like this junk, and much of the other stuff passed off as genuine UFOs. Your brain does more of the work in that first moment or two than you are aware of, and instantly tells you something is wrong. We seem so bent on ignoring our intuition, and instead look for external validation and confirmation.
I say follow your gut reaction, 9 out of 10 times it's right, especially when it comes to visual sensory input, our main interface to the external world and probably the most evolved of the human senses. Millions of years of fine tuning is a useful thing.
Does any of this make sense?
dB
With all due respect, I don't need to read Moseley's book to have some knowledge of the case. Moseley took the approach of the skeptic pretty early on in his investigation and tried to set up Adamski with his 'Straith Letter'. As far as I'm concerned Moseley isn't the one here conducting a balanced investigation and deliberate fraud (Straith Letter) doesn't work for his reputation. And this is the same guy that claimed other peoples reputations weren't in order? What's "illuminating" about him? Geesh Gene.Gene Steinberg said:I would suggest that you also check pages 333 through 352 in Moseley's book, which is available from Amazon Books at this link:
Once you've done that, we can talk about this matter in a more illuminating fashion. Bear in mind that Moseley's magazine was published in 1957, originally, and is thus closer to the actual reports.
The Adamski Expose issue is not a hoax, and Jim is not the only person writing content for it. Read the issue, and then we'll talk.TerraX said:With all due respect, I don't need to read Moseley's book to have some knowledge of the case. Moseley took the approach of the skeptic pretty early on in his investigation and tried to set up Adamski with his 'Straith Letter'. As far as I'm concerned Moseley isn't the one here conducting a balanced investigation and deliberate fraud (Straith Letter) doesn't work for his reputation. And this is the same guy that claimed other peoples reputations weren't in order? What's "illuminating" about him? Geesh Gene.Gene Steinberg said:I would suggest that you also check pages 333 through 352 in Moseley's book, which is available from Amazon Books at this link:
Once you've done that, we can talk about this matter in a more illuminating fashion. Bear in mind that Moseley's magazine was published in 1957, originally, and is thus closer to the actual reports.
Sorry Gene, I don't feel obliged to purchase Moseley's and Pflock's book since a lot of controversy surrounding Adamski's tales and conduct is visible in other books and on the internet by various people. I do find it a little awkward that you insist I should read Moseley's book in order to continue the conversation. On the internet there's a lot to be found on Moseley, Pflock and Barker including their past CIA affiliations. Makes me wonder in turn how far you must look for government interest in the UFO field. Here's an interview with Moseley where he comments about his carreer in the field. I suspect that Barker's 'charming' poetry also doesn't go well with the 'politically correct' but that's not what these guys are about, right?Gene Steinberg said:The Adamski Expose issue is not a hoax, and Jim is not the only person writing content for it. Read the issue, and then we'll talk.