Thursday, June 23, 2016

George Adamski's Saucers are Still Flying High!

George Adamski's saucers are still flying high - for some people, at least.

Glenn Steckling

Glenn Steckling is the head of the Adamski Foundation, dedicated to promoting the teachings of the most famous of the "classic" UFO Contactees of the 1950s. After Adamski died in 1965, Glenn's late father Fred Steckling took over the Adamski Foundation from Adamski's longtime disciple Alice K. Wells, and continued the work of spreading the gospel of the Space Brothers. The Keys to that Kingdom have now passed into the capable hands of his son, currently "the only authorized & original source for George Adamski information."

Steckling obviously can't afford a proofreader for his "Extrodinary" book. (Or even use SpellCheck).
Twice in the past six months. Steckling has spoken to the San Diego chapter of MUFON. Unlike some UFO groups, this one can't afford to pay speakers, and so they never get 'big name' UFOlogists, who invariably request an honorarium of something like $500 or more. So obviously Steckling isn't speaking for the money, but for the "exposure." (In fact, at his earlier talk to San Diego MUFON, Steckling complained that he was no longer getting invitations to speak at the International UFO Congress, or Contact in the Desert. Perhaps it is because he has nothing new to say?)

This most recent time, Steckling was passing out copies of his newest book to attendees. He said something to the effect that he had made up a lot of these books for the recent Contact in the Desert UFO conference, where he assisted in giving tours of nearby Giant Rock, and contactee George Van Tassel's Integratron, as well as selling Adamski stuff. Apparently the books didn't sell very well, leaving him with quite an inventory.

In brief, Steckling's speil is:
  • Everything Adamski said is true. All his photos are authentic. "Bioluminosity" on the photos (whatever that is) proves that they are authentic.
  • The Space Brothers are human beings physically identical to us. However, they are in a more Enlightened state of development, having overcome war, greed, exploitation, etc.
  • Venus isn't nearly as hot as NASA tells us it is.
  • NASA and the government know all about the Space Brothers, but keep covering up saucer information.
  • There are approximately 200,000 aliens living on earth. He has met some of them.
Steckling is nothing if not diligent. His list of things that Adamski's photos supposedly are not, chicken brooders and such, includes the most recent explanation, Joel Carpenter's argument that it is the top of a Coleman lantern. (I agree with Steckling that the resemblance of Adamski's "Scout Ship"  photo to a "chicken brooder" is purely superficial).

I placed Carpenter's explanation on the internet. I had been discussing various UFO cases with Joel Carpenter for several years, mostly the Trent/McMinnville photos. Unexpectedly, he sent me a copy of his paper "Preliminary Notes on the Adamski Scout Ship Photos," dated April 2, 2012, asking for my comments. I told him I thought it was probably correct, and didn't hear any more about it. Two years later, I learned that Carpenter had died, with his paper on Adamski unpublished. I began to reassemble the fragments of Carpenter's long-unavailable (and invaluable) website on the Trent photos, and placed all of it on the Internet Archive, in its original format. I also included Carpenter's "preliminary" paper on Adamski's Scout Ship photo, since there would be no later version.
Carpenter's partial reproduction of Adamski's famous Scout Ship photo, using the top of a Coleman lantern.
Today, does anybody besides Steckling still take Adamski seriously? Apparently, yes. Something like half of the people at the MUFON meeting seemed inclined to take at least some of Steckling's claims seriously. (The other half were rolling their eyes, along with me.) And among "serious UFOlogists," those taking at least some of Adamski's claims seriously include Timothy Good, James McCampbell, and Michael Salla.

If you want a second opinion on the Adamski question, I strongly recommend the book A Critical Appraisal of George Adamski, by the Belgian UFO investigator Marc Hallet, assisted by the American researcher Richard W. Heiden (published 2015, revised July 2016).  It is a free download on the Internet Archive (reviewed here by the Pelicanist, John Rimmer). Hallet was a former member of the Adamski cult, who while researching Adamski's life discovered a number of his lies and impostures. He presents a lengthy and detailed account of Adamski's life and lies, from an insider's perspective (which he summarizes here in a 2005 article, "Why I can say that Adamski was a Liar").
In fact, [Adamski's]  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 is now very rare. You can order a microfilm copy from the US Library of Congress and easily compare its content with Inside The Space Ships
Hallet was also in correspondence with Joel Carpenter, and includes Carpenter's "Coleman lantern" analysis. In the book, Hallet goes into Adamski's early days peddling dubious "mysteries"of the Royal Order of Tibet, many years before he met the Space Brothers. Today we would say that Adamski already had a long career peddling New Age rubbish when he discovered Flying Saucers.


  1. So the aliens look exactly like us except they are also small greys and large reptilians? And how is it that no one else has ever seen the same type of 'spacecraft' that Adamski photographed?

    Damn, I got into ufos back in the mid-'60's and outgrew them in less than a decade after seeing all the crap that was passed around as evidence.

  2. I'd wondered for years what Adamski used for his "authentic" flying saucer. I once found an online photo of a chicken brooder lamp (as you mention) that was supposed to be what Adamski used. It did look identical to the lantern cover, but, when I checked, the company listed as manufacturing the lamp didn't seem to exist and I lost the photo in a computer crash. A couple of weeks ago I tried to find the photo again and instead found a page on ATS that mentions Carpenter and the lantern. There's an old lantern ad there that sure looks like the saucer and since I didn't see it on your blog, I wasn't sure if you'd seen it. Enjoy the blog BTW. Here's a link;

  3. And once again, Bad UFOs are demolished by Bad Skepticism! Robert, in case you haven't noticed, you're going out of your way to build up a pitiful sub-D-list UFO non-celebrity into a semi-credible opponent so that you can have a go at a ludicrous photo taken in 1952 by somebody who died in 1965 and must have been soundly discredited over a thousand times in the intervening six-plus decades.

    I notice that not even the bitter, unhappy Iron Skeptic can raise the enthusiasm to agree with you in his ongoing struggle to be recognized as your heir apparent because he attacks the exact same battered old targets as you do with a far worse prose style but added venom, or at least get his website on your rather short list of "interesting" UFO-related sites (which could be shorter still without being significantly less interesting).

    Not even the handful of obsessives who always comment, not necessarily relevantly, on every post on every UFO website anyone's ever heard of, including this one, can be bothered to add anything to your revelation that, more than 60 years on, George Adamski is still wrong about Venus, Mars, the far side of the Moon, and the non-existent surface of Saturn being inhabited by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants with Buddhist tendencies, and yet, like everybody who was ever famous, he still has a tiny number of followers.

    Robert, if the best evidence you can give for Glenn Steckling (if you're going to criticize his spelling, you should at least get his name right) still exerting any influence whatsoever in ufology is that, when he addressed a meeting of a small regional branch of MUFON who couldn't afford anyone more interesting, only half the extremely pro-flying saucer audience visibly expressed disdain while he was speaking, maybe you need to ask yourself an important question.

    Which is this: how different are you really from Glenn Steckling? You're both ritually trotting out the same ancient, threadbare factoids over and over again for the delectation of a dwindling clique who long ago made up their minds what they believe. It's true that you're on opposite sides of the fence, but as a witch in a very silly film about Vikings once said, love and hate are both horns on the same goat. Whatever that means.

    Nobody who still somehow believes that a massive international conspiracy exists to make that great man George Adamski look like a liar is going to be swayed by a photo of a lampshade, and you know it. You also know that nobody who doesn't think Venus is Aryan Heaven but all the governments in the world are colluding to hide this fact for no discernible reason needs to have it proven to them yet again that George Adamski wasn't entirely truthful.

    So why bother? This is feeble, lazy skepticism that preaches to the choir (if any of them are still awake), and after all these years you should be capable of better. Ah well, at least it's not as insanely long and boring as that last post by Rain Man's less fascinating brother explaining in excruciating detail why a man who in 1952 was found guilty in a court of law of perpetrating an elaborate scam revolving around his ability to find oil by very unusual means might at other times have told other less dramatic lies about his skill at finding oil.

    1. My goodness, Count, aren't we feeling grouchy today! You should drink a few ounces of prune juice, I'm sure you'll feel better.

      Hey Zoam, are you going to let him get away with this?

      First, a "where are they now" piece is always relevant in journalism, so long as it's been a while since the question was last examined. You state that everyone knows Adamski was a liar. As I wrote in the posting, "And among "serious UFOlogists," those taking at least some of Adamski's claims seriously include Timothy Good, James McCampbell, and Michael Salla." To which I now understand we can add Grant Cameron. Granted, not the biggest of big names in UFOOlogy, but not exactly "nobodies," either.

      Also, I think that my mini-review of the very worthwhile e-book "A Critical Appraisal of George Adamski," by Marc Hallet and Richard W. Heiden, helps get the word out on some significant news. But of this book, you will undoubtedly have the same critique.

      You say that nobody cares to read about Adamski, but that Adamski posting is currently getting more page loads than any other posting on this domain (and the most recent posting does not necessarily outrank other long-term "favorites," like the one on Valentich, or Ingo Swann).

      As for the piece on Silas Newton, you claim that this is also a huge waste of time and energy. However, I am sure that you know that Newton and the Aztec crash are being very strongly defended today not only by Scott and Susanne Ramsay, and also by Stanton Friedman. In a rational world, this case whould have died long ago, but this is UFOology, and the case is still very much alive. So it is necessary to have facts on file to show that the Ramsays' account is not correct.

    2. Who is "Count Otto" anyway?

      If I knew he was one of those witty librarians I admire, then I might interpret his posts as satire since they are both informed and not without reason but are hyperbolic, abusive and untrue.

      Just exactly when have I exhibited bitterness, unhappiness or venom. I think the Count is simply expressing his unhappiness with the sad stagnant state--if not death--of the sport of ufoolery.

      Otto, ufoolery has been brain-dead and on life support for decades. So what's your complaint, the exhaustion you project onto me? Stay focused on the subject of the myth and not personalities and their ways. For decades, whenever there's a lull in online discussions, the irritable actors start chewing up the scenery, attack the venue, the host, other players, the dismal state of the subject itself.

      And a review of my posts here will show that I'm not shy about offering my own Bad Skeptic's null and psychosocial opinions and determinations on individual cases and the entire history of the delusion. But whatever differences I have with my acknowledged mentors on both sides of the pond (Arnold was a hoax; there is no "UFO" phenomenon; ufoolery is history; and death to the silly new-age and science-fiction delusion), these differences in large amount to no more than "semantics."

      The Null hypothesis--the fact that there are no real "UFOs" of any kind--requires a Psychosocial hypothesis; if there were real "UFOs" of any kind, a PSH of reports would not be necessary.

      So, no surprise, I'm with Robert! Skeptimus Maximus can debunk Aztec and Adamski, Trent's phony photos, the Hill's flying-saucer fairy tale or Vallee's pseudoscientific ancient astronauts ad infinitum because some new-ager is always going to insist it's all true or, as the the science-fictioners fallaciously insist to maintain their delusion, it's all at least "plausible" because it's barely possible.

      I doubt it!

    3. Wow, speaking of boring...

      Why does Robert do it? To change everyone's minds- to make the world safe for skeptics- to build a bad UFO empire?
      Nah, for fun. That's all. A little bit of fun, some interesting facts, a little bit of history. We enjoy it.
      Who cares how many people read an article or comment on it? Robert likes doing it and we like reading it. Once in a while, some passionate believer comes in for a cup of coffee and the enjoyment doubles. We can't all be the same, there would be nothing new in the world.

  4. I liked the post, Robert.

    All the best,

  5. Lest it be forgotten, Adamski's first book was published in the UK slightly BEFORE it was in the USA. This occurred because his co-author, Desmond Leslie, was British (Irish) and Adamski's manuscript, and photographs, were sent to Leslie by Adamski himself prior to publication. Leslie had already written his portion when this 'appendix' by Adamski suddenly landed on his doorstep. I know that the two did not in fact meet each other until a few months after the book came out, and by then Adamski had already set his follow-up book in motion.

    Leslie, I should add, was a great chum of Sir Patrick Moore, and appeared with him in several radio & TV debates in the 50s (on opposing sides of course). Leslie was not to know that Moore had cleverly done a spoof UFO book himself, under the pseudonym 'Cedric Allingham', of a meeting with a 'Martian' on the Scottish coast. Moore had been inspired by Adamski's tale and wanted to go a step further by including a photo of the said 'Martian'. Adamski never quite managed a photo of his 'Venusian'. Poor fellow, he obviously didn't try hard enough, and spent too much time photographing the Venusian spacecraft and not the Venusian himself.

    Alas it is all history now.

  6. I have long held a soft spot for the Space People - Adamski, Allingham, Menger, Buck Nelson, and the unrequited love between Aura Rhanes and Truman Betherum. I wish I could find an affordable copy of My Saturnian Lover or Those Sexy Saucer People. After all, life was simpler when all the Space People wanted was world peace and Adamski was looked upon with suspicion because his message seemed like communism. Then the grays moved into the neighborhood and started abducting people - not to mention all that stuff that happened to cows.

    We know Buck actually visited Venus because he drew pictures of Venusian architecture. And Adamski knew that a Venusian by name. So I would rather listen to Steckling than most of the current draws - Adamski's tale is just as credible as that purveyed by David Jacobs and probably much more fun. It seems rather tame compared some of the things that the local MUFON chapter presents.

  7. I might add that I was tempted to order Behind the Flying Saucer Mystery II, but the book's cover on the Adamski Foundation's site has the correct spelling of "Extraordinary." I would only want the version with the typo.

  8. In July, 2016 Marc Hallet revised his Adamski book. The above text has been revised to reflect that. The link to the revised book is:

  9. Our guest for The Paracast for April 2, Ray Stanford, knew Adamski in the old days and knows where the bodies were buried, as it were.

    He offered lots of insights of photo fakery from Adamski and other contactees of the period. In fact, he says Adamski actually demonstrated to him how he made those infamous pictures.

    Here's the link:


  10. You may be interested to know that recent computer enhancement of the photos taken by Adamski at the 1952 encounter with Orthon has revealed the clear image of:

    • The large cigar-shaped mothership seen by the group overhead,

    • The smaller saucer-shaped craft that descended in full view of the witnesses,

    • Orthon himself is clearly visible from the waist up, walking towards Adamski, in one image. His face, hair and clothing are visible.

    These historic photos and analysis of them have now been published by two authors:

    Michel Zirger, (the French author of the George Hunt Williamson biography) in his “ ‘We Are Here!’- Visitors Without a Passport,” and also in his “Authenticating the George Adamski Case – The Desert Center Investigation,”

    and by Rene Erik Olsen, the Danish photographer who did the enhancements of the images in his “The George Adamski Story - Historical Events of Gigantic Implications.”

    Those three books are readily available via Amazon.

  11. As my research shows, Marc Hallet's work deserves a critical appraisal itself:


Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.