UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Adamski's Flying Saucer and Heflin's UFO

ada.jpg

The November/December 1976 Beyond Reality (Special UFO Report) magazine had a Guest Editorial by Brad Steiger (on Page 4), in which another “identification” for George Adamski’s iconic flying saucer is provided:

ad1a.jpg

To read the Editorial clearly, which says Adamski’s flying saucer photo was of a bottle cooler lid, click HERE.

The other “identifications” include a chicken brooder, a humidor, and a Christmas ornament.

How or why, then, did some UFO spotters see UFOs that look like Adamski’s flying saucer:

ad2a.jpg
Drawing by Spanish witness, 1977 [Beyond Reality UFO Update, Fall 1978, Page 13]

ad3ajpg
Muhammad Ali’s drawing of what he saw in 1972 [Beyond Reality, March/April 1978, Page 34]

And the same thing happened with Rex Heflin’s alleged UFO:

heflin1a.jpg

Warren Martin drew a craft that he and four friends saw:

heflin2a.jpg
Beyond Reality UFO Update [Ibid, Page 34]

Both Adamski’s photos of flying saucers and Heflin’s photos of a UFO are said to be fakes, Heflin’s photos less so than Adamski’s arguably.
Nonetheless, if such photos are, indeed, fakes, why do some credible UFO sighters see or draw objects (or craft, if you will) “things” that smack of faked UFO photos?

RR

58 Comments:

  • More contemporary versions here of original art;
    http://www.crystalinks.com/beamships.gif
    Re: Don't forget the Sears Chicken Brooder light fixture alleged to be the primary metallic form in Adamski's folk art.
    The UFO in 1951's classic film "When the Earth Stood Still, is nearly a dead ringer for the Heflin "craft."
    There was an excellent essay on forgery and the motives that leads to what is a anti-structural art form... which I think is still in the on line archives at Fortean Times. Orson Welles "F is for Fake" comes to mind.
    Inserting oneself into a enigma as an inflationary figure of importance as a witness assures a sort of immortality as a footnote. Many slightly more examples of this "me too" abound and the effectiveness of this continues on with photoshop and CGI technology.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • "Nonetheless, if such photos are, indeed, fakes, why do some credible UFO sighters see or draw objects (or craft, if you will) “things” that smack of faked UFO photos?"

    Because the photos were well-propagated as what UFOs were supposed to look like? I don't know the details of those sightings, but consider how one resolves something unidentified in the sky that doesn't seem to be a normal craft when one doesn't have the luxury of a leisurely close viewing. What the witness draws or describes is an interpretation of their observation which leans towards the propagated models of UFOs.

    The Heflin model has a history that goes back aways, although I don't recall an earlier photo of one.

    The Adamski thing reminds me of buildings in 17th century paintings, perhaps by the Brueghels, or something from the neoclassical period cupolas.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • I'm not so sure, fellows, that your explanations cover the waterfront, as they say.

    There are other interpretive explanations which I'll submit should no one else do so.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Bruce,

    It is "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) and, I'm sorry, the ship in the movie looks nothing like the Heflin UFO.

    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1330874112/tt0043456

    By Blogger Dominick, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Bruce: "The UFO in 1951's classic film "When the Earth Stood Still, is nearly a dead ringer for the Heflin "craft."

    The saucer in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (1951), I think comes before the Adamski photos. I disagree with Bruce that it is a "dead ringer" for Heflin's. It's a saucer as imagined by Frank Lloyd Wright, and rather high-concept.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • I think any media can be a form as a means of defining and bestowing a self referential credibility. Gerd Heidemann or Clifford Irving as "folk art" biographers for Hughes and Hitler come to mind. They were not writing about invented fictional characters, but their superimposing a false structure on a already established one that has it's parallels here with Adamski etc.
    The phenomenon appears to be anti-structural which is the perfect opening to open it further
    by mimicking this attribute which is easily done. We are voyeurs in the sense where the evolution of media has largely invaded the territory of direct experience, so we have layer upon layer of secondary or third sources directing the traffic flow of information that are given an equal footing. Once repetition as an imprint takes place, it cannot be dislodged or affirmed by direct experience unless you yourself see Venusians coming forth from a chicken brooder. We "see" many things without seeing them by way of indirect inferences that simply are set by our projection bias whose anticipations are a matter of consensus that also change over time. Where are these saucers now?
    Here in the post exclusively "now", which seems to be an affirmation of this premise,the process of "choices" in perception dictated from without by superimposition.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • The fact that the Heflin photos appears to me to be similar to that in the film and not to others perhaps attests to the associative process of pattern seeking, "similar to" is a randomized process that leads us back to the interpretation of art. Some see extraterrestrials in a variety of types, some see the same in "craft shapes" while not having a definitive image of either.
    How is this explained?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Dominick,
    I was referring to "the hat prototype" of form. There are many variations of a hat The forest may be more important than an individual tree. The flat bottom, the curvature leading from the brim to the crown,as well as the angularity of the brim. We can quibble about the absence of domes on the crown, as there are domes and then there are no domes on "the hat" which seems to have gone out of fashion, much like the "chicken coop " type which has transferred ownership from the Venusians to Billy Meirer.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Here is another Adamski saucer quote, this time from Frank Edwards in "Flying Saucers Here and Now", who says:
    "After eight years of patient search I finally came to the conclusion that his spaceship was in reality the top of a cannister-type vacuum cleaner made in 1937. I doubt that many persons are travelling through space in vacuum cleaner tops".

    Indeed, but maybe Adamski's Venusian was one of the few exceptions that DID travel through space in a vacuum cleaner top.

    See how opinions differ all the time. That is why analysis of UFO pics has proved next to useless, so far anyway. People simply cannot agree. Neither can they agree on the Heflin or Trent photos.

    Enough said.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • But CDA...

    Here we have, not photos, but drawings by people who claim to have seen a flying saucer or UFO and then depict what they saw in ways that mimic some alleged faked UFO photos.

    What's the mechanism(s) at work here?

    Bruce approaches an explanation, but I find it wanting somewhat.

    It takes a lot of mental gyrations to overlay the recreation of a visual sighting with elements derived from memory archetypes.

    That doesn't do it or me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • 'Nonetheless, if such photos are, indeed, fakes, why do some credible UFO sighters see or draw objects (or craft, if you will) “things” that smack of faked UFO photos?'

    Deep down it's a real puzzler.

    If we set aside all the obvious frauds and BSers, there's still a chicken and egg conundrum at work.

    No doubt the fakers took inspiration from contemporary sightings reports. It could be argued that those reports were, in turn, inspired by media depictions dating back to the late '40s.

    Even these were preceded by the pulp fiction and sci-fi covers published from the late '20s. Discs, saucers and cigar-shapes were right there on the covers.

    Years back, I read an article about (or by) Brecht and how he thought life can imitate art. With UFOs in popular culture, there's little doubt that this is often the case.

    Where the chicken and egg idea comes in is when we read accounts of discs that pre-date the modern UFO era by decades or centuries. In that light, we have typical saucers being described without any cultural/social impetus.

    I don't subscribe to the view that some UFOs represent our conceptions of potential technology and yet the parallels remain. A puzzler.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • What struck me, Kandinsky...

    Was the Cassius Clay (Muhammed Ali) drawing.

    Ali never suggested to me a wild eye kinda guy.

    That he saw something, when drawn, that looks a lot like Adamski's concoction, I have to wonder where the connection is.

    Was and is Ali a UFO buff?

    What about the Spaniard? His detailed drawing comes from a rendezvous with Adamski literature and hype?

    It is, as you write, puzzling.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • This is somewhat related as a then and now snaky game. I agree with CDA that photographic evidence is a seeming quagmire to avoid, especially within a specific dynamic that is a now decades old cold case. I recently explored the similarity of roles between Howard Hughes and now Robert Biglow occupys as venture capitalists who perform work in close coordination with both the military (and NASA which provides a neat cover for the USAF) as private contractors. The space treaty was sidestepped by a military shuttle than can stay aloft for 9 months. The so called outlawed weaponized space platform..Bigelow's pay to play funding of public research while hiding in the privatization angle of space is an end run around the need to plant intelligence operatives in APRO, now MUFON.. The bottom line is Bigelows absolute certainty that he has both hard proof and confirmation that UFO's exist.He said so. Whom is playing whom on both sides of the fence? Where are the investigative journalists now? The game of mirrors continues.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Ali's belief in flying saucers would be a product of his involvement with the Nation of Islam - Elijah Muhammad taught that the wheels described in the Book of Ezekiel were a kind of UFO which he called the Mother Plane. That doesn't tell us much about the veracity of his sighting,but is where his interest in the subject would probably derive from.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Thanks, Tristan...

    That's an interesting, and maybe important, tidbit.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • I may be accused of being pedantic here, but hardly any of the UFO images referred to as photographs are photographs, although they may have been at one time.

    Reproductions of photos in newspapers, magazines, and books are not photographs. Neither are the jpgs made by scanning these reproductions. Nothing can be learned about the original photograph from such source material.

    Some here complain about the lack of consensus. Considering that those analysing actual photographs, like Paul Trent's or Heflin's, are either in debunker or believer mode should explain that.

    So, where are all the actual photographs of all these reproductions? Where are Adamski's slides and negatives?

    Discussing actual UFO photographs stops with a few examples. Hardly any of the "best UFO photographs" exist as photographs. Or is there an archive somewhere of UFO photographs -- real photographs? If not, then ufologists have dropped the ball.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Don:

    You're missing the gist or point.

    What we're discussing, or should be, are not THE photographs but the things supposedly photographed.

    The photographs are sidebars and you, among others, keep getting sidetracked by your need to spell out some kind of photographic expertise.

    The point is that an "image" is said to be a flying saucer or a UFO.

    A photograph displays the "image" said to be a flying saucer or UFO.

    A drawing mimics that "image" -- why?

    The photograph is a medium for the image. The drawing is a medium for the image.

    I don't understand why the concept is so difficult to understand.

    I can't seem to get a sensible discussion going here, when you and others are immersed in the medium and not the image the medium is portraying.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Rich: "I can't seem to get a sensible discussion going here, when you and others are immersed in the medium and not the image the medium is portraying."

    In my experience, all that is ever discussed is the subject, and the medium and method rarely.

    Why do people make images of UFOs, and why do their UFOs have specific kinds of shapes and thus might look kinda the same in such ways as we can categorize them by shape and in specific timeframes? Is that what you are wondering about?

    Besides tracing the development of a facet of pop culture, is there more?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Don,

    There are photographs of UFOs and later sightings that match those photographs, by description, by drawings, and often by similar photographs.

    Why?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Rich: "There are photographs of UFOs and later sightings that match those photographs, by description, by drawings, and often by similar photographs.

    Why?"

    My first response to this discussion is my answer to "why"


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Don:

    Your first response was obtuse and simplistic at the same time.

    It presupposes that the newer viewers were familiar with the earlier UFO photos and/or Bruegel paintings -- an argumentative premise that is a stretch, for me at least.

    To be gently blunt, your first comment was and is glib/facile.

    There are "faked" photos of flying saucers -- the consensus is that they're fakes, at least Adamski's photos -- but then credible, honest people have a sighting and draw what appears to be a similar craft as that which is fake, or hoaxed.

    You, and I think Bruce, believe that the second sightings, the later sightings, derive from the archetypal photos that have circulated to the point that they've become fixed in the mental bank of the later sighters, who incorporate those mental images atop what they saw.

    That is not impossible, but so improbable, that it begs a laugh.

    Some even go so far as to duplicate the earlier images by faking their own photos.

    But what is the mechanism, the mind-set, that causes such chicanery, unconsciously or consciously, duplicitously?

    Why would Muhammed Ali, for instance, draw an Adamski craft in place of what he really saw or thought he saw?

    Why would the Spanish man draw an elaborate duplicate of the iconic Adamski craft, instead of what he saw or what he's pretending he saw?

    Instead of addressing the matter psycho-forensically, we are being shallow and dismissive, just to get on with whatever it is we wish to convey about our own superiour UFO intelligence or acumen.

    No one drills down into the possible multiplicity of hypotheses to see what we might discover.

    Instead, we present a superficial observation and think we've been astute or brilliant, when all we've been is insipid, banal.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Rich: "Instead of addressing the matter psycho-forensically, we are being shallow and dismissive...No one drills down into the possible multiplicity of hypotheses to see what we might discover."

    We are capable of describing things because language has the facilities of analogy and metaphor. This is true, as well for visual imagery; there are visual 'analogies' and 'metaphors', too.

    Consider your analogy quoted above. There is something with a surface ("superficial") and it has depth below the surface ("drill down"). You want to leave the surface and go deeper into the 'something'.

    I don't find your analogy useful. My first reply is not well said, but I don't think of it as being superficial. It is about the way information is replicated -- and the issue of the real photograph you disdain, is a metaphor for the accumulation of errors in reproduction. Errors can 'survive' and replicate themselves, becoming new lineages -- and a jpeg artifact becomes a cult-object.

    The 'surface and the depths' analogy does not work for me, as it does for you. That is all I think there is here.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • One might contemplate the horrid possibility of the theory that Adamski was an Itelligence "plant", and in that capacity knew what to fake?

    It is one explanation for your mystery, RR.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Don:

    I get the impression that Marshall McLuhan's thesis has bitten you deeply: The medium is the message.

    The jpegs and photos are merely artifacts of media that replicate something, hopefully something tangible and real.

    Unfortunately, some people use media to hoodwink others, and today that is more easily done than back in the 40s, 50s, or even the 60s.

    Adamski provided photos of flying saucers, fake saucers, thus fake photos.

    Helflin may have done the same thing, but his fakery is arguable and iffy to many.

    In the drawings provided in my text, some credible persons provided some images that bear striking similarity to the Adamski craft and the Heflin UFO.

    How did this come about?

    Now don't drag me into your obession with the medium, photography or the photos.

    It's the image that I'm concerned with -- photographed, drawn, or verbally described.

    Why are there a plethora of photos, drawings, and descriptions almost exactly like the fake photos of Adamski, or even Heflin's UFO (or the Trent photos)?

    The repilication of a visual meme doesn't do it for me, as I stated.

    If all the similar drawings or photos or descriptives are phony, even from such a person as Muhammed Ali, where are we with UFO stories and sightings?

    Or is the similarity attuned to something else?

    That's the question.

    We're talking about the similar depictions, not the photo paper or photography, but the image, aside from the medium used to display it.

    You really don't have an interest in such things, I know.

    But the psychology of the circumstances are grist for others of us.

    Or the "reality" that Adamski, Heflin, the Trents et al. offer.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • The truth, despite our expectations through heightened anticipations can at times, turn out to be insipid, banal and the stuff of pipe dreams fostered by self deception in others or in ourselves. Having been on both sides of this coin, well,we could shoot each other and ourselves in the foot as a reaction to messengers whose speculations don't coincide with a desire to be immediately gratified with answers that suit us all.Beating ourselves over the head doesn't seem to any more productive than any other methodologies. I don't expect any silver bullets whether it is a photograph or a drawing will suffice with critical thinking in mind. It's like peering into a mirror. As an existentialist, I am surprised that this comes as a rude intrusion to your expectations which are laudably high. Ask 50 people to draw a UFO. I would think they would be very similar to one another, and so does this prove to be useful?
    It's analogous to drawing water from a contaminated well to see what a normal range of chemical balances are. There is an interesting paper by Jacques Vallee who talks about the wane of predictable sequences toward the measurement of probability toward future events. Have these drawings proved to be predictors? No. And so I ask honestly, what is the point of turning them over again and again?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 25, 2011  

  • Bob:

    Yes, that's one explanation for Adamski's fakery, but it doesn't address the issue I'm raising.

    (See my comments for Don.)

    We're not discussing why Adamski did what he did....that's another dsitraction and another area for debate perhaps.

    I can't seem to get you fellows to focus; which is my fault apparently.

    I must be confusing you guys with my discursive discourse.

    Do I have to dumb it down? Or do I need to be more cogent?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Yes, Bruce...

    You make a valid, important point, several actually.

    And I bet CDA agrees with you.

    What I'm driving at, trying to create an hypothesis maybe, is that there might be a reality in this -- even inside the Adamski foolishness, which Bob hints at.

    That is, the fakery may be less fakery than we've all come to accept as such.

    Or the fakery is the reality, and flying saucers are, after all, fakery, in toto -- in essence.

    By whom, and for what reason are questions that one might ask and have (many times as you indicate), but to no avail, and ultimately useless as a paradigm for living or purposeful existence.

    It is, existentially, Being and/or Nothingness...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • You need to be more cogent as you relate Adamski's images directly to what others have witnessed as potential, while calling the original imprint a fake. As for myself I have said that there is a quantum relationship between this phenomenon and what is reported by observation. That does not answer where it originates, an image is simply an incomplete representation of any phenomenon, and in this case the fact that there are so many images that follow our anticipations, I think this is one attribute of several of this. I don't see a sentience there as a projection bias but a naivety between the observer and the observed. It appears to be chemically reactive and exhibits high energy output demonstrated by luminosity studies, so simply put it is an unknown spectrum of energy whose nexus is randomized much like a weather pattern. Its effects are exponential to a surface proximity. Waves and particles are a singularity organized by the act of observation. This is no theory. And, so what exactly do images regardless of their source and veracity tell us of this phenomenon? Even if we had the best quality digital image it would tell us nothing if taken by a camera used by a person. The camera is a technical extension of the observer, a medium. The energetic molecular quality of the atmosphere as it's medium, well how many mediums does it pass through each with their own lens of quantification, the atmosphere, the observer, the camera, the drawing are effects, relationships..to an anti- structural form of unknown energy that is superimposed very specifically on the atmospheric sheath that can make potentially create any image,,we anticipate flying machines, spacecraft while the most arcane accounts ..their origins in a agrarian world have consistent images ,such as dragons being sighted in societies that had no cross cultural connections and yet these images were very similar...yet where are the dragons? Where is Heflins saucer? In a quantum equation they are both material and not material..a rich source for the inventions of myth now and way back then.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Rich: "I get the impression that Marshall McLuhan's thesis has bitten you deeply: The medium is the message."

    No. I don't even know how to respond to that.

    "In the drawings provided in my text, some credible persons provided some images that bear striking similarity to the Adamski craft and the Heflin UFO.

    How did this come about?"

    To answer those specific instances requires study of the cases. I wrote I am not familiar with those cases.

    "The repilication of a visual meme doesn't do it for me, as I stated."

    If I were asking the question, it would be why those images succeeded in replicating themselves while others did not,for example, Arnold's. Why don't people replicate Arnold's? On numerous occasions you've noted the replicators, but rarely the non-replicators. Aren't they both parts of a whole? How can you consider one type without referencing the other?

    Why the one-sidedness?

    "We're talking about the similar depictions, not the photo paper or photography, but the image, aside from the medium used to display it."

    Yah. I got it and dropped it, but thanks for the callback, in case I forgot already.

    "Or is the similarity attuned to something else?

    That's the question."

    Well, then. Discuss, rather than criticize when someone else (such as myself) doesn't write your thesis. It's your blog.

    The superficial/deep analogy leads me to guess you want to bring up (from the depths) the unconscious.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Rich "That is, the fakery may be less fakery than we've all come to accept as such.

    Or the fakery is the reality, and flying saucers are, after all, fakery, in toto -- in essence."

    What is the evidence Adamski's photos are fake?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Terence and Dennis McKenna were in the Amazon basin once upon a time. In the cold light of day (not high on anything), Terence was advised to watch the sky. Out of nowhere came what he described as a 'fake Adamski' craft.

    "I recognized this thing," he says."It looked like the end cap of a Hoover vacuum cleaner, exactly the same fake saucer as in George Adamski's photos. This thing flew right over my head, and it was as phoney as a three dollar bill. I knew it was a fake."

    Whether this anecdote is helpful likely depends on how McKenna is regarded and I'm pretty cautious. If true, it's more of a puzzler. His brother told the story 'as true' in a Paratopia interview.

    I think Bruce might find it interesting as it possibly supports a couple of his ideas.

    http://deoxy.org/t_swiss.htm

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • CDA - I've often wondered why, if Frank Edwards had really discovered that Adamski's saucer was the top of a vacuum cleaner, he didn't give us details of the make and model, and publish photos and engineering drawings of it. I have the same problem with the beer cooler explanation - why no photos?

    By Blogger John Harney, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Let's face it, Adamski's photos are assumed to be fake because the narrative that went with them is so dotty and wild. He met Venusians.

    Had Adamski merely had a close-up UFO sighting and taken the photos he did, they probably would still have been denounced as fake, but not with the same ferocity. It was the Venusian story (and the book that followed) that sank Adamski, not the photos.

    Similarly, had Heflin met Venusians, his photos would have been denounced as phoney straightaway. I doubt that a single ufologist who now supports his pics would do so if Heflin was a contactee.

    Concerning RR's claim about Mohammed Ali, how do we know he is a credible witness? Why should we assume this? He can fabricate a story (or embellish a UFO sighting) just like anyone else.
    I am not saying he did so, but the possibility is there.

    Stephen Darbishire fabricated his UFO story and the photos that went with it. He was an unknown 13-year old at the time (but well above average intelligence), so there is no way he could possibly fake a photo and fool people like Prince Philip, was there? At least so people said at the time. Yet he did. He did it, based on Adamski's photo which he had seen in a magazine.

    RR: Is this a partial answer to your question? Probably not. But it will have to suffice for now.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Hi guys,

    Adamski was destroyed in Moseley's expose. I think that exposure is why his images are widely seen as fake, not his story. His later motion picture work (with a saucer obviously hanging from a string) confirmed him as a fraud for everyone except the most fragile and silly.

    These multlple identifications of what Adamski used to make his craft are annoying. Sometimes people testify just to hear themselves talk.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Okay...

    CDA makes an important point; that is, Adamski was chastened and excoriated because of the Venusian aspect of his sightings.

    How his photos became fakes, Don, I'd like the methodology for that too.

    John H asks, sensibly, why the alleged items that Adamski used to create his saucers have not been produced, so we can see the similarity to his photos: a very good point.

    Bruce thinks that quantum realities intercede in all this.

    Even a quantum-nut, as I am, I find that to be possible but, like Einstein, iffy.

    Kandinsky's anecdote should be examined further.

    So, why and how, exactly did Adamski's photos come to be fakes?

    Why have his images become ingrained in the collective unconscious?

    And what about those images that don't mimic Adamski's, as Don mentions?

    And Bob K's hint that Adamski was a patsy for the AF, used as an agent to present the reality that the AF knew, can't be dismissed out of hand.

    The UFO world is strange, and those of us involved even stranger.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Kandinsky,you beat me to the punch on the McKenna anecdote, but the way I heard it, he had been taking large doses of magic mushrooms for about two weeks straight when he saw the Adamski saucer.

    Nevertheless,McKenna's experience is interesting,and I would recommend checking out Terence McKenna: The Definitive Ufo Tape on Youtube to get a proper insight into McKenna's highly speculative, but fascinating ideas about UFOs.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • McKenna's saucer story is in his book True Hallucinations. A good read on several levels.

    I figure Mckenna was able to distinguish between being under the influence and not.

    "I recognized this thing," he says."It looked like the end cap of a Hoover vacuum cleaner, exactly the same fake saucer as in George Adamski's photos. This thing flew right over my head, and it was as phoney as a three dollar bill. I knew it was a fake."

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Rich,

    Why isn't it as simple a question of "Why did Adamski choose THAT representation, rather than another?" in his fakes?

    UFOs have been represented as circular objects long before Adamski's fakes.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • Parakletos...

    Adamski's went much further than a mere circle.

    He created port holes, a circular "antenna," and landing gear that was unique at the time.

    And he produced cigar-shaped UFOs too.

    The man was ingenious, as a SciFi emulator, even though his creation was not futuristic (rather primitive actually).

    But your question is a good one:

    Why DID he choose the shapes and designs he used?

    There's something else going on in the whole Adamski thing...

    What that something is makes for an interesting study, if one can get by the excoriation heaped upon the charlatanry of Mr. Adamski.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • I doubt it mattered what the thing looked like or how it was made.

    Two interesting players latched on to Adamski. One, the state with its ideological concerns. Two, the occultists with their paralogical agendas. It was a strange brew.

    It might be worth the effort to gather up all the reports of 'Adamski Saucer' sightings, and see if we can find anyone reporting such who wasn't involved in a variant of occultism, and therefore receptive to paralogical language. McKenna? Fershure. Even Ali, whose religious tendency is mystical, Sufism.

    A large part of the answer to "why?" will be found in understanding just what is implied by 'magical thinking'.

    The issue of the state and ideology, for another time.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 26, 2011  

  • I believe he got the idea of the 3 landing pods, and maybe the portholes, from Frank Scully's book of 2 years earlier.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • I agree with Don that occultists specifically, in his home state, took that Hoover and ran with it as a populist ground swell. I can think of at least three groups that were pseudo "religions" that equated enlightenment with the phenomenon during the counter-culture years. That image was reproduced in various media at that time in CA. One group ran a popular organic restaurant in Berkley CA but I cannot recall their name. Good food.
    The McKenna episode brings to mind
    1. The recognition that the image was a fake, yet it was there. This seems to denote appearances are not to be trusted, which I agree with.
    2. The early scientific experiments with LSD-25 brought out a relation a greater ( enhanced) proclivity to PSI effects, which I suspect are one layer of this phenomenon.
    3. Its a shame that this episode did not have a sober witness.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • One question that displays my lack of a more keen interest but were the Heflin photos taken from a flat bed truck? I seem to dimly recall that. If they were, do we know what camera he used?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • A minor correction The Nation of Islam was not Sufi. It was a home brew of conservative Islam that was independent of various schools of Sufism that stressed empowerment, Malcom X was it's spokesman until he saw through the money making franchise that my native Chicago hero journalist Mike Royko exposed.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Heflin took his pictures from the cab of his highway work truck, with a Polaroid 101 camera.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Bruce: "I agree with Don that occultists specifically, in his home state, took that Hoover and ran with it as a populist ground swell."

    Thanks, I thought I might be alone on that.

    Ali's religious and mystical interests developed over time.

    Bruce, you should look for fullframe images of Heflin's photos (the JSE pdf, has them). Three were shot from the cab of a van (Ford Econoline?) with a Polaroid 101 Automatic in 15 seconds according to Heflin and 25 seconds according to whatever test the USAF gave him.

    It might be possible to get off 3 shots with that camera in 25 seconds under those circumstances. Maybe.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Bruce:
    "1. The recognition that the image was a fake, yet it was there. This seems to denote appearances are not to be trusted, which I agree with."

    Adamski might have had a similar experience. Paralogical objects cannot be photographed, but they can be faked. Paralogically, they aren't phony fakes because they were perceived. They are real fakes.

    "2. The early scientific experiments with LSD-25 brought out a relation a greater ( enhanced) proclivity to PSI effects, which I suspect are one layer of this phenomenon."

    McKenna's experiments were with the DMT class of chemicals, not LSD. He was in the Amazon searching for plants containing them, and their use by shamans. How he charactierized their effects are the essence of his paralogical thinking.

    see

    http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal.shtml

    "3. Its a shame that this episode did not have a sober witness."

    By definition, a sober witness would not have seen the Adamski object because it was not a material object delineated by material light. It was a paralogical object, and one has to go through an induction -- trained in paralogical perception -- to see them. Some people with the right bio-chemistry have a natural ability to perceive paralogically.

    I don't think McKenna exploited his knowledge to become a magician the way Castaneda did, maybe becaue he had the 'gift of gab' (as did Leary) 8-) I think he enjoyed playing with language, not using it to induct others into a paralogical reality...which is to say, he was "sober".

    The occultists we are referring to were advocates of a paralogical reality, did practice magic, and did induct others into their system of perception. I think this was of great interest to the counter-intelligence agencies both military and civilian who saw it as being very useful in their ideological wars.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Don, since you and Bruce are getting sidetracked by psychodrugs, you might check Anthony Bragalia's take and research about that aspect of the UFO panoply.

    His posting(s) can be found in the archive here (via Google if that makes it easier for you).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Rich: "Don, since you and Bruce are getting sidetracked by psychodrugs..."

    I don't think so. We have another Adamski object sighting by someone who was investigating shamanic plants in the Amazon, is all. I think we all recognize McKenna's sighting was not drug-induced.

    Is there something else you are criticizing here under cover of drugs being off-topic?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • No, Don, I'm citing your tendency and others to go off topic, at the slightest whim.

    The topic is the rendering of images similar to Adamski's and Heflin's.

    But since someone introduced a psycholgically or chemically induced sighting that referenced Adamski's craft, this seems to provide a reason to become discursive, a bad habit of UFO mavens I'm sorry to say (and exampled at UFO UpDates or Kevin Randle's blog regularly).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Okay. I give up. First I'm criticized for being "superficial" and "obtuse" because I write about photography "instead of addressing the matter psycho-forensically" So, I address it "psycho-forensically" and that turns out to be off-topic, too.

    Sorry, I can't make every sentence of every post all at once encompass drawing images of saucers like Adamski's. That's a dreadful thing to require, and it means that you would rather I not post here.

    Sometimes we have to develop ideas over time and over many interchanges.

    Maybe you should take my advice and write something yourself, giving a lead as to what is "on-topic" and what is not.

    It's your blog. Take as many shots at Randle and Updates as much as you want. But I don't have to provide the opportunity for you.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Don:

    We're having, you and I, I hope, a quasi-academic discussion.

    My broadsides are NOT personal or meant to be.

    I'm merely noting that UFO people, you among them, like to go off topic whenever possible.

    I don't know why exactly, but I can guess.

    So don't brood or get angry with my wayward observations here.

    It's strictly business as Michael Corleone told us....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • "I'm merely noting that UFO people, you among them, like to go off topic whenever possible."

    The "Off-topic" thrust is internet-discussion sword play. Maybe a newbie will be impressed.

    My parry is to decline to play.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Sorry to read that Don...

    But it might assuage a few who won't get immersed in discussions here when they go all wacky, into areas that are so peripheral to the posting at hand that they (the comments) become esoteric to the point of irrelevancy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • What is to be made of the last bit of information shared in this puzzling and thoroughly incomplete newspaper clipping?

    Am I missing something here? (and everybody threw whatever they had at him)

    Jeff Davis

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Jeff:

    I assume you're referring to the magazine editorial by Brad Steiger.

    I've uploaded the full page so you can read it in toto.

    Go to:

    http://query.homestead.com/brads.jpg

    Let me know if this is what you wanted to see.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 27, 2011  

  • Rich,
    What I really found interesting is Steiger's claim that the "cooler lid" was fashioned AFTER Adamski's saucer photo. Was this photo ever proof positive confirmed as a fake? If it's not a confirmed fake, that would possibly explain subsequent sightings.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Wednesday, September 28, 2011  

  • Jeff:

    I've never seen a definitive exegesis of Adamski's photos, any of them.

    Should someone find an evaluation that isn't just conjecture or opinion, I (and Jeff too) would like to see it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 28, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home