Is ET nuts or just sloppy?
Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.
Inside Max Miller’s 1967 magazine, Flying Saucers, pictured here…
is a piece by Bob Grant entitled “George Adamski: First Ambassador to Outer Space?" [Page 61 ff.]
The piece contained many of the (in)famous photos taken by Adamski, allegedly of flying saucers, mother ships, and alien message, like this one:
The caption indicates that Adamski’s alien visitors left this encyrypted of undecipherable message on a roll of film, in place of the photo that was originally there.
It purports to be an explanation of how flying saucers are propelled: their propulsion system.
Of course the message is loony.
All of Adamski’s messages from his Venusian visitors are as loopy and sloppy as this one, including the message imprinted by Orthon’s shoe in the desert:
Here are a few examples of other messages, allegedly left by alien visitors:
This from a 1988 “visitation”
Two, one from John Reeves in Brookesville, Florida, 1965 (upper) and one from Sao Paolo in 1959.
(We’ve placed these “symbols” online earlier here)
The question arises: why would anyone see these as messages from a supposedly advanced alien, extraterrestrial race or races?
Of course, no one did or does now.
And why, we’ve asked before, would an extraterrestrial culture leave markings similar to those, sloppy as they are, to Earthian scribblings – particularly scribblings by psychotics and/or schizophrenics?
Either the progenitors of the sightings – Adamski, Granchi, Reeves, et al. – created the scribblings or markings – almost a certitude – or alien visitors are pathologically malformed.
It has to be the progenitors, doesn’t it?
Or are those “beings” that keep showing up in UFO encounters, like those provided by UFO researcher Jose Caravaca, just insane intruders from outer space, time dimensions, parallel universes, or our imaginations?
No matter where they come from, they are messy, sloppy message-leavers.
And what would we human beings get from them that’s worthwhile? They’re nuts.