UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

The Ubiquitous Adamski Flying Saucer

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

George Adamski’s iconic flying saucer photo:

Colin Bennett, in Looking for Orthon, has a footnote[36] pointing out that writer Christopher Allan [CDA] thought [and thinks?] that noted British astronomer Patrick Moore was the creator/instigator of the Cedric Allingham “Flying Saucer from Mars” affair, which I’ve addressed here a weeks ago.

The Allingham/Moore “Martian Flying Saucer”:

And Christopher, like many of us, is convinced that the UFO photo taken by teenager Stephen Darbishire, February 15th, 1954, was a concocted (hoaxed) photo.

Bennett, however, quotes this from a letter to Timothy Good from Darbishire and provided in Good’s Beyond Top Secret:

“When I said that I had seen a UFO I was laughed at, attacked, and surrounded by strange people…in desperation I remember I refuted the statement and said it was a fake…It happened a long time ago, and I do not wish to be drawn into the labyrinth again. Unfortunately the negatives were stolen and all the prints are gone.” [Page 199]

The Stephen Darbishire UFO:

I don’t wish to debate the authenticity or lack there of Adamski’s vast contrivance or tale(s), or whether or not Patrick Moore was Cedric Allingham, or whether young (at the time) Stephen Darbishire’s photo was contrived (even getting attention from the Duke of Edinburgh’s staff).

Bennett seems to be making the case in his Looking for Orthon book that George Adamski’s stories were not outright falsehoods but, rather, that Adamski (and maybe Darbishire) were privy to and manipulated by alien mischief-makers or something wishing to create a pseudo-reality, the agenda of which or purpose for remains elusive.

What intrigues me is the use of Adamski’s model (or flying saucer photo) as proof of a sighting or event, or as a supplemental element in a hoax.

Did Allingham/Moore and/or Darbishire feel that Adamski’s scout ship was authentic?

Did they believe that Adamski, even if making up his elaborate scenario(s), had produced what could be seen as a real, extraterrestrial space ship, even if a model?

What was it about Adamski’s scout ship that allowed others, back then and even now, to see a bona fide space ship from outer space – one that has all the vicissitudes of a Victorian contraption, something not unlike George Pal’s Time Machine?

While Darbishire’s photo is amorphous but configured like Adamski’s and the Allingham/Moore Martian ship is virtually identical, how is it that both “photographers” were able to approximate the Adamski model/photo?

Making a like-model was surely daunting and difficult in many or some ways.

Why not create a unique ship or make one that looked like those in the Trent/McMinnville photos, which were extant at the time, and had a ring of authenticity about them?

It strikes me as odd that Adamski’s hokey saucer was (and still is by some) seen as a prototype for a space ship that came to Earth from places far, far away.

What is it about the Venusian ship, real or not – and it’s not real surely -- that still resonates with some who know better or should?

I ask you…



  • Of course we know better, or should. But what fascinates, I think, is the absolute clarity of the Adamski photo, especially back in the 1950's when there were so few clear UFO photos. The story was absurd...but the clarity of the photo! It established a "reality" in our brain about the phenomenon that simple word reports could never do. Same with the Billy Meier photos. Absolutely crazy stories but the (first) impressions the photos make on something in our brain simply "fascinates" and may say something important about how "beliefs" are formed and how hard it is to change them with "facts". Some of us get over it; some never do.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, September 03, 2013  

  • What are you thinking about te book, Rich?


    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, September 03, 2013  

  • Your view, Dominick, is not unlike that of "Looking for Orthon" author Colin Bennett.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • Lance,

    The book is not quiet unreadable, as you noted, but it is pretty bad, especially for those who appreciate fine literary output.

    Author Bennett is so determined to let his readers know he's allegedly well-read -- he inputs every book he's read or knows about -- and hip -- he references every current scandal and/or news story he can muster -- that one gets lost in the hazy milieu of his mind-set and point of view.

    However, just the CDA material, short as it is, made the purchase worthwhile.

    And there are a few citations that led me to items I didn't know: Adamski's bi-sexuality for instance or how Blue Book's Ruppelt saw Adamski.

    The book is not, therefore, a total loss -- only $16.99 -- and although without photos or illustrations of any kind, it provided me with a few laughs and some minutiae that was and is useful, perhaps.

    The footnotes -- 197 -- were more interesting that the main copy, something I mentioned earlier here about my readings over the years.

    But it's not a book for the sane UFO buff; even though I think it captures, as I've mentioned to Dominick above, a view that is very nearly a prevailing view for many in the UFO community nowadays.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • Adamski's UFO reminds me of a Christmas tree ornament (see loop on top for attachment).

    Was this photo not identified as a lamp with bulbs pertruding from the bottom? I've seen alleged photos of Nazi "flying discs" that appear more credible.

    That people would have taken the photo seriously is disturbing in it's own right.

    I'm reading John Gribbin's bio on Erwin Schrodinger...no photos of the cat as of yet...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • It is quite interesting to note that many people believe that the Adamski saucer was identified as some object: part of a vacuum cleaner, a chicken brooder, a pipe case.

    But I have never seen the actual object that matches.


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • It does look more like an Xmas tree ornament, as Tim notes, than a vacuum cleaner or (never shown) chicken brooder.

    But it still doesn't have the patina of a alien space ship as one might imagine one to be, as in The Day the Earth Stood Still, for instance.

    The whole Adamski saga is odd, with intrusions by Karl Pflock, Ruppelt, Scully, and other UFO "notables."

    It's as if we entered a created phantasmagoria for a while.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • Hello Lance and friends.
    But I have never seen the actual object that matches.

    It seems a good candidat have been identified.

    Take a look on Belgium Marc Hallet article (French language) : http://www.marc-hallet.be/trucagephotoadamski.html

    Or Joel Carpenter (English) - but imho Hallet one is "better": http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16400180/1593801113/name/Prelim_Notes_Adamski_Scout_Ship_mini2.pdf

    We have other sources in our French forum thread, but well, again in French.

    You will find in Kentaro Mori site possible explanation for some Adamski footages: ie http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/ufo-photos/ufo-photos-adamski-footage/



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • Thanks Gilles! That is a pretty good match and convincing.


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, September 04, 2013  

  • RRRGroup-

    ...my first thoughts about this are to wonder why Adamski (who, to be clear here, I consider a two-bit hoaxer) ((unlike his Brother-In-Cons, Kaufmann, who certainly created MORE than two-bits of traction with the will-to-believe researchers)), NEVER attempted to incorporate the 1947 Roswell Daily Record report, etc., into his tale of Space Brothers, since the public would have a lingering memory of the newspaper and national (ABC) radio reports...

    ...lucky for me that I don't lean to any conspiratorial theories that Adamski's omission was due to his assignment to make the Roswell event seem ludicrous....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, September 05, 2013  

  • And so, my "dopey" commenters, how about addressing the point of my post?

    Why did Allingham/Moore and Stephen Darbishire use Adamski's "model" as a template for their reconstructed flying saucer, rather than another?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, September 05, 2013  

  • Rich most of us when we look at these pictures see something akin to a rusty tin bucket masquerading as a lamp shade masquerading as a Buddhist stupa masquerading as an early Gerry Anderson puppet show spaceship.

    But if we were to put young Stephen Darbishire or Adamski on a brain scan would the scan reveal they were seeing something quite different?

    Even then we'd assume we were right and they were undergoing some psychotic delusion or Salvador Daliesque artist style intense visual rapture.

    But in an age when our governments're not only seeking to hack into our emails but our heads sooner or later they'll go beyond mere stealth technology like invisibility cloaks etc and develop the means to directly affect our perceptions so we literally see what they want us to see.

    In which case who's to say someone hasn't already beaten 'em to it and it isn't Adamski and Stephen Darbishire misperceiving an inverted rusty bucket reshaped with a baseball bat but the rest of us?

    By Blogger alanborky, at Friday, September 06, 2013  

  • Alan,

    I think you're on to it, pretty much.

    But does the Darbishire/Adamski perception come from within (their minds/brains) or from without: mischief by ????


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, September 06, 2013  

  • Why did Allingham/Moore and Stephen Darbishire use Adamski's "model" as a template for their reconstructed flying saucer, rather than another?


    Because Adamski's book was the most widely circulated ufo/contactee book in the early 1950's (even on a global scale) with multiple print runs and Adamski and his ufo pictures a welknown matter in the global media of the day.

    Adamski's book was at that time the only one featuring a close-up photo of a 'flying saucer' and was easily available.

    Had it been another easily available and welknown book with pictures of a close-up of another type of 'flying saucer' - then the images in that book would have been used as template.



    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Monday, September 09, 2013  

  • Theo:

    I was thinking of the saucer in The Day the Earth Stood Still, which had as much publicity as Adamski's book.

    But even granting that Adamski's photo(s) were ubiquitous, why would the others use them so completely?

    Did they believe them to be real?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 09, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home