WHY I CAN SAY THAT ADAMSKI WAS A LIAR
There are three types of Adamski fans :
the credulous ones who believe all what Adamski said, either in his books
or in his lectures, without ever questioning it
those who are afraid to recognize they could have been duped and who find
it easier to believe than to deny
those who know he was a liar and who say the contrary for various reasons
that I leave to your imagination.
Here are the events as believed by Adamski fans :
On November 20, 1952 he met a Venusian near Desert Center, California
On December 13, 1952 he took unimpeachable pictures of a scout ship from
In the 50s he traveled in space with the space people and was even photographed
inside one of their space ships
He met the Pope John XXIII and received from his hands a pure gold Vatican
medal of great value
He filmed several space ships but "his" best film was in fact
taken by Madeleine Rodeffer.
Adamski claimed many other extraordinary things than even some of his supporters
couldn't swallow : for example, he claimed that he visited the planets Saturn
and Venus (where he met his deceased but reincarnated wife).
I was a young belgian man when I discovered Adamski. After having exchanged letters
with May Morlet-Flitcroft, then a co-worker of George Adamski, I met her and
we became friends. Later, when I delved into her personal files and library,
I found so many apparent proofs that Adamski was not a liar, that I became totally
convinced that he was telling the truth. Since then, some UFO researchers have
openly asked me how was it possible for me to believe the "absurd"
claims of this "ridiculous contactee"? My response is that during
the 1950s there was no historical criticism in the UFO field : cases were judged
only by the standards of simple logic and scientific feasibility. Also, the
stories that Adamski had told were far more believable than those being told
by present day abductees who even claim to have been raped by strange grey monsters
who can pass through solid walls. How could I fail to be impressed by the Vatican
medal, the Rodeffer film, the extraordinary pictures...
In 1976, May Flitcroft asked me to work on a first critical biography of Adamski.
It was the beginning of the end for our friendship because she couldn't accept
what I found...
This article contains a short summary of my findings. Some have already been
published in various books and articles, written only in French. My conclusions
were that Adamski was nothing more than a liar...
AFTER THE FIRST ALLEGED CONTACT
Let's look first at what Adamski said after his first contact claim in Desert
Center. Inside The Space Ships (ITSS) was published for the
first time in 1955. The book, signed Adamski, was in fact ghost written by Charlotte
Blodget on the basis of what she had been told by Adamski. It contained stories
of alien contacts, journeys into space and trip around our Moon inside a gigantic
mother ship and its saucers.
Adamski and his believers have said that the book contained the description
of a phenomenon that only a real space traveler could have known about : the
fireflies which were explained by Adamski as natural little luminous particles
filling space between the planets. According to Adamski American astronauts
and Russian cosmonauts also described these fireflies during their space journeys
years later. This is a clear example of a lie that has been repeated hundreds
of times. In fact, the particles seen by the astronauts and cosmonauts originated
from their own capsules and were never described by them as a natural phenomenon.
According to Adamski himself (see Flying Saucers Farewell in the chapter
Answers for the Skeptics), the space people told him of the Van Allen
radiation belts in 1953 and he wrote about them in ITSS long before
they were discovered by Explorer IV. In fact, if we examine pages 91-92 of ITSS
as Adamski clearly referred to, we see that he spoke about an artificial radiation
zone created by nuclear explosions and not at all the natural Van Allen radiation
belts. In 1963, when he wrote Flying Saucers Farewell, Adamski still
believed that the Van Allen belts were of artificial origin but this claim
has been disproven by many subsequent space probes and experiments from Earth.
It is obvious that these two essential "proofs" which have been used
so many times by Adamski believers, are based only on their very poor scientific
knowledge and their unfamiliarity with the writings of Adamski himself.
In fact, Inside The Space Ships is nothing more than a science fiction
book. The best proof we have of this is that it is a "remake" of a
science-fiction book entitled Pioneers of Space which Adamski wrote in
1949. That book was ghost written by Lucy McGinnis and has now been reedited by Timothy Green Beckley. You can easily
compare its content with Inside The Space Ships.
To your surprise you will discover that these two books give exactly
the same descriptions of space (with the fireflies), the Moon (with snow on
mountains, forests, lakes, artificial hangers and even small running animals),
the scout ship (with the great lens in the middle of the cabin and the graphs
on the walls), the mother ship (with its two "skins"), and even little
details such as the portrait of the Great One in the mother ship, the famous
Saturnian badge with the balance, etc... You will also be pleased also to see
that the Masters' pompous statements are exactly the same, something that demonstrates
that Adamski had a poor imagination and was unable to create new or original
philosophical concepts. His lack of imagination was so great that his book Cosmic
Philosophy published in 1961 was mainly based on texts he had written in
the '30s and that Alice K. Wells was stupid enough to publish again in her Cosmic
Bulletin after Adamski's death. So, thanks to Mrs Wells, it is proved that
Cosmic Philosophy was definitely not inspired by space people !
US UFO researcher Richard W. Heiden discovered another clue that
Inside The Space Ships was a book of pure fiction. He compared what Adamski
had said about the weather that prevailed on the day he described one of his
contacts to the official data registered about meteorological conditions on
the same day. They were completely different. It apparently never crossed Adamski's
mind that this little detail would be checked for accuracy by anyone.
Inside The Space Ships had a postscript in which Adamski
explained he had been photographed inside a mother ship from a nearby scout
ship. Four pictures depicted what seemed to be a dark area flooded with an irregular
beam of light in which five black portholes were visible. Behind two of these
portholes were what seemed to be two white heads : one was supposedly Adamski
himself whilst the other was a space being. Technically, these photographs were
Adamski explained that the mother ships were made of at least
two walls or "skins" with different kinds of "machinery"
between them. Due to that particular structure of the mother ships, Adamski
explained that each porthole was in fact a long tube with a "glass"
at each end. Adamski also said that in the middle of these tubes was a lens
that permitted a person to enlarge what was being looked at outside the ship.
Let us suppose for one moment that Adamski was telling the truth. At the time
the photographs were taken from inside the smaller saucer, the light would have
had to go through at least three "windows" separated from each other by several meters.
Now, remember what is going on when you take a photohraph with a flash in the
front of a window : the things behind the window are completely masked by the
flash gun light that is reflected by the window itself. And that's why the photographs
presented by Adamski in ITSS are, from a strictly technical point of
view, gross impossibilities. In fact, these photographs seem to have been made
just like many were made a long time ago by poor photo-portraitists : two figures
were simply photographed behind a scene-painting in which holes had been cut.
After the first supposed contact in desert, Adamski told marvelous
stories about his new contacts but everything was pure invention. Another proof
of this is that none of his alleged space friends told him that the famous Straith
letter was a joke perpetrated by a well-known UFO researcher. That extraordinary
story has now been published in the United States by Jim Moseley in his book "Shockingly close to the truth" and it is not useful
to elaborate further here about that.
THE VATICAN MEDAL
Of course there are the Vatican Medal and the famous Rodeffer
film that seem to prove that Adamski was in any and every case the ambassador
of the space people on Earth. Let's look at these two seeming pieces of evidence.
According to May Morlet-Flitcroft and Lou Zinsstag's testimony,
it was on May 13th, 1963 that Adamski met Pope John XXIII. On St Peter Place,
Rome, Adamski asked his two friends May Morlet-Flitcroft and Lou Zinsstag to
stay there and wait for him. Then, he crossed through the crowds of tourists
and disappeared behind a distant door.
More or less thirty minutes afterward, he reappeared and told
the two women that he had seen John XXIII who was defenitely ill, for sure,
but had a pink carnation, and not the olive one that cancer sufferers have when
they are dying. He also said that through the windows of the papal room he had
seen the famous Vatican gardens.
Contrary to what Adamski said to his two female friends, Pope
John XXIII was dying. Three days later he was dead. Many testimonies as to the
Pope's long agony were published at the time : it was impossible that Adamski met him then. Also it is well known that the
papal room faces St Peter's Place, just opposite the gardens.
As to the notorious "pure gold Vatican medal", Adamski
believers have only the expertise of Lou Zinsstag who could speak with any authority
because she was the daughter of a jeweler (!). I have checked the authenticity
of the Vatican Medal. Thanks to a Roman expert numismatist, I have discovered
and published as early as in 1983 that the famous object was nothing more than
a "tourist souvenir" made by a commercial company in Milan. This explains
why the medal was in a common plastic box. I am sure that Adamski believers
will be very embarrassed to prove the contrary by a written statement from the
Medagliere della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana !
On that day, Adamski did exactly the same as he had done in the
Desert in 1952 : he asked his friends to stay where they were and wait for him,
went into the distance, disappeared, then came back again later saying that
something very important had taken place. This method is based upon the same
psychological method used by conjurors who give their audience the impression
that something extraordinary is taking place when, in fact, something very ordinary
THE RODEFFER FILM
And now, to the famous Rodeffer film. I recall the time when my
friend May Morlet-Flitcroft told me, with assurance, that a film like that couldn't
be faked. She was so sure that she gave me her personal copy (received directly
from Adamski) and asked for an expert opinion. What an error ! The film was shown
to an expert who directed my attention to some interesting clues that were very
strange, in particular to the movements of the camera.
Some days later (in 1976), I put the film under a professional
Olympus microscope in order to examine some very important shots. In a very
short sequence, the Venusian scout ship seemed to move into in the distance
and pass behind the branch of a tree. I focused on that branch and discovered
that the density of the emulsion's particles was higher, exactly at the intersection
point between the scout ship and the branch. In other words, the two objects
were superimposed and, to tell it crudely, it was the unquestionable proof that
the film was a trick produced by a double exposure. I have published the microphotograph
for the first time in my book George Adamski published in France in 1983
(Michel Moutet Publisher) and I did it again in January 2000 in a monograph
entitled Biographie d'un escroc (Biography of a Swindler) which was privately
publisher for French UFO groups. It was also (badly) reproduced in my latest book entitled "Le cas Adamski" published in 2010. That picture is reproduced here in a black
and white negative form with three arrows pointing to the denser area where
the "saucer" and the branch are superimposed. I defy Adamski believers
to find an alternative explanation than that of a double exposure.
Of course some of the Adamski believers will say immediately that
the scout ship is changing shape constantly, something which is impossible to
do with a little model. They have sung that song for many years. None of them
seems aware that something can easily seem to change shape when its image is
filmed in a distorting mirror or with a distorting lens. And no one seems to
know that a little model can change shape if it is made of several free parts
held on an axis. If you have a video copy of the famous Rodeffer film, look
at it and you will see that the vertical axis of the scout ship always remains
When you fake a film by means of a double exposure with non-professional
materials, some bad sequences are generated with poor contrast and light quality
which will have to be eliminated. In 1978, Madeleine Rodeffer explained to UFOlogist
Timothy Good how she had been disappointed when she saw the film for the first
time, the film that Adamski had taken, and that she had agreed to endorse as if it had been taken by her (in order to be more credible). Madeleine told
Good that the film looked so strange and
so obviously faked that it was found impossible to show it in that state. Adamski
himself seemed disappointed with the film. He explained to Madeleine Rodeffer
that maybe he had filmed the shadow of the scout ship rather than the craft
itself. Of course, this sounds completely foolish as if a shadow could be mistaken
for the real thing. The film probably looked unconvincing because of the double
exposure. Madeleine, who knew nothing about photography and the camera, believed
Adamski who finally suggested that government agents in the developing laboratory
had made a copy of his original and inserted fraudulent images in it to discredit
him. What an extraordinary explanation !
So, with Fred Steckling's help, Adamski eliminated the so-called
"inserted images" and produced what is now called "the Rodeffer
film". I take these testimonies from George Adamski The Untold Story
by Lou Zinsstag and Timothy Good, chapter 16, but of course I have explained
them in a very different and more plausible way from the way they were explained in the book.
And now, we can go back to 1952...
THE PHOTOS OF THE VENUSIAN SCOUT SHIP
According to his own testimony, Adamski took his best telescopic
saucer pictures on December 13th, 1952. For Adamski believers, things are very
clear because the photographic expert Pev Marley has said that these photographs
couldn't be faked. In fact, the problem is more complicated than what Pev Marley is supposed
to have said...
First of all, Pev Marley, who was a Hollywood cameraman, was not
at all an expert on telescopic photography. Moreover Adamski had used unusual
photographic "films". Pev Marlet's testimony can be found in an appendix
of Flying Saucers Have Landed where he is quoted as having said that
the shadows of the saucer and the shadow on the ground perfectly corresponded.
Alas ! The ground is never visible on the Adamski telescopic pictures. Pev Marley
was apparently (hum!) misquoted. When speaking about the shadow on the ground
he was surely not speaking about the Adamski pictures. Should he have done it,
he would have made a fool of himself.
My friend Michel Monnerie, who is a French skeptic in ufology and
a skilled amateur astronomer, has studied the problem of these particular photographs
in great details. This is a summary of his unpublished study.
First, it is important to understand that the telescope and camera
used by Adamski were not designed to take good telescopic photographs. Let me
now explain how Adamski was obliged to operate with his camera in order to take telescopic images
of an object much closer than celestial bodies...
First, he had to find the object with the little telescopic viewfinder
and after that he had to obtain a sharp image of it in the middle of the eyepiece.
With an object that is close to the lens it was not easy. After that, because
he used an old type of camera, he had to do many separate manipulations to take
each photograph. The sequence for each photograph was as follows:
Obtain a sharp image on the depolished glass at the back of the camera
Take out the depolished glass
Insert the glass photographic plate with its protective cover
Take out the protective cover
Open the shutter
Shut the shutter
Replace the protective cover on the photographic plate
Take out the photographic plate with its protective cover from the camera
Replace the depolished glass
Each one of these manipulations could generate vibrations that would not only
destroy the sharpness of the picture but also affect the framing of each photograph.
So, after taking each photograph, Adamski needed to check to make sure the object
was always in his eyepiece and correctly centered, something that required new
gestures. I have counted more or less 35 different precise manipulations required
to take four photographs. And all these manipulations would have been done in
a very limited time during the short stay of the Venusian scout ship's short
visit to the valley. Well, for sure, old Adamski was more rapid than young Lee
Harvey Oswald when the latter shot President Kennedy (official version) !
Now, let's look at Adamski testimony. In Flying Saucers Have Landed
he said he quickly took two photographs and then, realizing that the
spaceship was too large to fit entirely in the picture, turned the camera on
the eyepiece and took another shot while the scout ship was still hovering. He
then took a fourth shot when the spaceship began to move again. At first, only three pictures were published. The fourth one, unknown for many years, is reproduced below. Now, look at
the four photographs taken by Adamski. Only one shows the truncated profile
of the spaceship and three show the whole Venusian craft. Compare all four
photographs and the testimony : it is clear that what Adamski said does not
match what his photographs show.
My friend Michel Monnerie told me another very interesting thing:
at the time Adamski took his telescopic photographs, photographic plates did
not exceed a rating of 200 ASA. A higher rating would have been required to
take "instantaneous" telescopic photographs as Adamski claimed to
have done. Again, the testimony does not match the technical data and facts.
In Flying Saucers Have Landed Adamski published another
photograph which he claimed had been taken by Sgt. Jerrold E. Baker. This photograph
seemed to prove that on that famous December 13th Adamski was not alone in seeing
the Venusian scout ship pass over his home. Alas for Adamski, in January 1955,
Baker retracted his claim in the UFO magazine Nexus. In fact, he had
played the same role as Madeleine Rodeffer played in 1963 : he had endorsed
a photograph that Adamski had made himself. Baker also said that Adamski had
made other photographs which he asked Lucy McGinnis to destroy. And Baker concluded
by saying he had never seen anything like the alleged Venusian scout ship except
on one day when he and Karl Hunrath (who lived on Alice Wells property) saw
a strange artifact behind the quarters occupied by Adamski, an artifact that Adamski
explained as an antenna prototype for television !
Adamski believers will say that English engineer Cramp has demonstrated
the pictures depicted exactly the same spaceship as the one photographed by
the young Stephen Darbishire. This is untrue. The same result has been obtained
with another picture that has been shown to be a forgery. This is because Cramp's
method of orthographic projections is not a reliable way of making a proper
comparison between Adamski's photographs and Darbirshire's photographs. Also,
Stephen Darbirshire who is now a renowned painter has admitted some years ago that his pictures were a hoax.
IN THE DESERT
I could stop here with my exposé of George Adamski allegations
because the facts are overwhelmingly negative. However I don't want to leave
the smallest chance for the George Adamski Foundation to try to re-establish
So I must further explain the alleged "writing from another
planet" and the shoe prints left by the alleged Venusian.
Many years ago, Adamski believers learned that an archeologist
had found strange signs in Bolivia that were completely identical to those of
the mysterious "writing from another planet" supposedly received by
Adamski from his Venusian friend. Suffice to say that in my book George Adamski
I gave the unquestionable proof that the testimony of the archeologist couldn't
be accepted as true. First of all, contrary to what he had seemed to tell at
the beginning, he had read Flying Saucers Have Landed before publishing
his own book. And it was totally incredible that he brought together, in a sole
drawing similar to those published by Adamski, various signs he stated he had
found in several different places. The evidence is that the archeologist tried
to attract attention to his book by a "mystery" he created himself.
In the '70s, a Belgian UFO researcher tried to prove that the
shoes of the Venusian were extraordinary clues of a technology unknown on Earth.
That poor enthusiast made a fool of himself and convinced only the most naïve.
He had forgotten one thing : the sand prints could have easily been created
by Adamski himself using a pair of sand-shoes that he could have hidden inside
his jacket. In 1963 Jerrold E. Baker explained also that just before the famous
November 20th, 1952 event he had been ordered by Adamski to buy plaster of Paris
for making casts of impressions if such a thing should become necessary in the
Adamski believers will say that there are independent written
testimonies by those who were with Adamski in the Desert Center. Yes, there
are. But read them ! They say that the story told by Adamski is true. Nothing
more. And for them, at the time they signed these statements, it was the truth,
just as for May Morlet-Flitcroft it was true that Adamski entered
the Vatican to see Pope John XXIII.... In fact, apart from Alice Wells, none
of the "witnesses" actually saw the Venusian in the Desert. While
Adamski didn't write that, the "witnesses" themselves told that later.
In the bulletin of the Cosmic Brotherhood Association, George Hunt Williamson
added that none of the witnesses saw the scout ship and that the mother ship
they thought they had seen before the alleged contact, was probably only a target
for anti-missile manoeuvres. Ray Stanford wrote me also that Williamson had told him that the drawing of the Venusian, supposedly made in the desert by Alice Wells, had not been made there but another day by Adamski himself who was a good amateur painter.
I would like to conclude with this amusing tale. In September
1940, Science Fiction Stories published a story signed Oscar J. Friend,
entitled Kid from Mars. There, the author described a beautiful blond
spaceman. His clothes were close fitting at the neck, at the wrists and at the
ankles. At his waist was a large belt... Does this sound familiar to you ?
Marc HALLET / Liège, July 2002 / Revised July 2014
(thank you very much to those who have checked the english version of this
text and specially to Paul Fuller and Carol Honey)
Some of my publications about George Adamski :
George Adamski, Michel Moutet Editeur, Regusse, France, 1983
Choc en retour, Privately published, Liège, Belgium, 1984
Les sectaires d'Adamski, Privately published, Liège, Belgium,
1984 and again in 1988
George Adamski - Dernière synthèse, Privately published,
Liège, Belgium, 1994
Biographie d'un escroc, Privately published, Liège, Belgium,
Le cas Adamski, Oeil du Sphinx, Paris, France, 2010
Adamski and his believers in UFO 1947-1997 edited by Hilary
Evans and Dennis Stacy, J. Brown Publ., London, 1997
On nous écrit in Inforespace, SOBEPS, Bruxelles, n°
60, Juin 1982, p. 22-24
A propos d'Adamski in OVNI Présence, Aix, n° 18
Sept. 1981, p. 9-12
This text is a short précis
of my last self-published book about George Adamski
"Biographie d'un escroc"
I would like to publish
this book in the USA (or U.K.) but have no contacts there.
Any advice would be gladly