Talk:George Adamski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

"His work is now generally considered to be a load of old cobblers."

- Does this really belong in an encyclopedia article? Even if it's a simple statement of fact about how his work is viewed, shouldn't it be a bit more dispassionate - "Relatively few people view his work as credible" or somesuch?

• I would say - "like all who have claimed contact with those from other planets, Adamski has had to suffer much criticism from those who have not had the same experiences"

- Agreed. That person clearly has a biased slant and a negative intent towards the person. Adamski is famous in his own field and there is in fact, almost 40 years after his death, a great deal of active disinformation and counterintelligence concerning nearly every aspect of his life. I will leave it up to the reader to figure out why this would be so. Suffice to say the only true, factual information comes from original paper books on the topic, not countless copy/pastes from dubious websites. The George Adamski Foundation is the best place to field any questions and provide factual information.

The George Adamski Foundation is ONE place to find information. But so are others. Incidentally, it would help if you signed your comments. Moriori 10:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. The only legitimate, accurate source of Information about Adamski is the George Adamski Foundation. Again, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of active disinformation and counterintelligence about Adamski. Sorry I don't know about Signatures but that does not negate the logic and truth of what I have to say. Read any of Adamski's books then compare it with the disinformation websites you see online..it becomes totally clear that some people are paid to spread disinformation about him. Remember..money and power are the most addictive things on this planet and those that wield them will behave as any addict would..do whatever it takes..to keep their 'drug' and get more. Period.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda outlet for any organisation of any description. There is no such thing as a single, exclusive "legitimate, accurate source of information" about George Adamski, or any other person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia strives to present information about thousands of various subjects, fairly and with balance, and it collates information from many sources. It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially when conspiracy theory is offered by supporters of a controversial person, like your extraordinary statement above that "it becomes totally clear that some people are paid to spread disinformation about him". Incidentally, you sign contributions by typing in four tildes. Cheers Moriori 22:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that wikipedia is interested in truth, not clearly biased slander. What is under the listing of George Adamski, at this time..is clearly biased slander of a high order with somebody who has a clearly negative intent. That you would allow that page to stand, and not allow for accurate corrections or even a page that simply describes Adamski in a neutral way...is somewhat puzzling. Be that as it may, the only source for accurate information about Adamski is The George Adamski Foundation and his own original, paper books on the topic. For those not familiar with the field of ET life, the idea of 'active disinformation' may seem odd and improbable. However it is, in fact..fact. I suppose that since the page can no longer be edited there is little point in belaboring the point further. It is just a shame that the last entry is one of clearly biased intent and disinformation. The "Water Cooler" event alone is proof of that, since the claims have long since been retracted and apologies made to Adamski. If the person who wrote that clearly biased page actually knew what he was talking about, he would not have mentioned it. Clearly that individual is not qualified to provide an entry into the wikipedia on the topic and I ask that I be allowed to present an honest, neutral article that then is placed under 'no edit' status. Best Wishes. Good luck with your ET Research.

Thanks, and all the best of luck too you as well. --R.Koot 15:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

- I've made some additional comments to the Adamski article on Wikipedia since I believe it wasn't written in a neutral style. Positive elements of the case were not addressed such as the eyewitness testimony. Instead emphasis was laid on many negative aspects and suspicions such as the "water cooler" episode. I'll continue to make more neutral comments and for any suggestions you can contact me at terrarubicon@yahoo.co.uk

Water cooler episode? Good heavens, that report is totally accurate, the photo looks like the coolers he sold. I have deleted your addition, namely "Many claims have been made that some kind of model was used for the photographs and cover a wide range of utensils; lampshade, operating theatre lamp, saucepan lid with ping-pong balls, tobacco humidor, chicken feeder, the top of a 1937 canister-type vacuum cleaner, and a bottle cooler made in Wigan, Lancashire. The problem is that no one has yet produced examples of any of the above items which resemble proportionately the pictured craft. Adamski, incidentally, offered $2000 to anyone who could prove his photos were fakes.There were no takers." Independant sources are obviously required for those claims. Sorry, but Adamski sites are not really independant. Moriori

- Ah, so you are the expert here. Show me the report or mail it to me. Or did you mean this one? Totally accurate huh? http://www.gafintl-adamski.com/html/issues.htm "However, on the September 20th broadcast of the BBC Radio News Magazine, a Mr. Frank Nicholson, a refrigerator engineer, came forward proving that he was the actual designer of the bottle cooler in question. Having designed it in 1959, at least six years after the first publication of the Adamski photographs, Nicholson contended that he actually used the Adamski photos as the inspiration for his invention and definitely not the other way around, as so erroneously and irresponsibly implied." - And you edited a bit more, didn't you? Question, are you R.Koot or Moriori?

Apologies, I forgot to sign but have rectified that now. I have amended the paragraph which you made an addition to. I think it is now less POV either way. Cheers. Moriori 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straith letter

- I find it incredible that the Straith Letter is listed in this article while the story relies solely on the word of James Mosely. Apparently the writer of this article is skeptically inclined? The words of a self-confessed prankster (fraud) seems to weigh more heavily then that of supporting witnesses (upstanding citizens) of the Adamski case. Mosely came out with his story decades after it allegedly transpired. His co-conspirator passed away by then and had destroyed the typewriter where the letter was typed on. Solid evidence my ***.

I gave a complete reference, and a copy of tthe acual letter is reproduced on page 332 of that book. I found a few mentions of it on the internet, and I'll provide a second reference. And, according to the first reference, the copy of the letter is in the Gray Barker Collection at the Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library in Clarksburg, WV. You can check there. Bubba73 (talk), 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

- And what does the Straith Letter exactly proof? That Mosely (who's integrity isn't questioned) was able to pull a prank? What's the relevance here beside making Adamski look bad? And does Mosely still have a copy of the letter on the original stationary, or was that destroyed along with the typewriter? Seems like the drivingforce here is skepticism and not objectivity.

It is just a relevant fact. Adamski used it as proof of his claims, and it proved to be false. The reproduction of the letter in Moseley's book does show it to be on the letterhead. According to the book, it is in the library I mentioned. You can check it out for yourself. Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

- I think what's most relevant here is to put emphasis on the (possible) mistakes Adamski made. That's ammunition for the skeptics and as we both know 'contactees' can't afford a single error. Presidents can invade another country under false pretence and get re-elected. 'Contactees' have one strike and they're out. It's remarkable that the Mosely story doesn't receive skepticism, afteral the person who provided the stationary and maybe had some relative working there, wasn't named nor does the person provide testimony. Mosely's co-conspirator Gray Barker supposedly insisted on secrecy and destroyed the typewriter where the letter was written on, since Barker passed away no testimony there either. In 1985, decades after the event took place the story comes out and despite its gaping holes it's embraced by the more skeptically inclined who insist on flawless solid evidence in the first place. How ironic. Well, if you regard the Straith letter as solid evidence then you wouldn't mind if I add some information of the same caliber to this article in the near future, allbeit of a more positive nature.

At present, the Straith letter is the only referenced thing in the whole article. It even has two references - a primary reference and a secondary reference. A couple things to see are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

- Just because you reference it it's sound? Ok.

[edit] Cookbook

I have heard that George Adamski's wife wrote a cookbook of interplanetary recipes--including things like "Venusian Salad," which is heavy on the iceberg lettuce. Does anyone know the title of this book or other info to help me track it down? --Thanks!

The Venusian food just isn't very good, in my opinion. The Neptunian is much better. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How will I ever know that for sure if I can't find the recipes?

I seem to remember that she did a cookbook. However, I did a brief search, and I couldn't even find her first name, much less the name of the book. Bubba73 (talk), 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bubba. I've been looking for this book sporadically for years, having read about it maybe fifteen years ago. I stumbled on this forum today (I'm rather inexperienced in wikipedia) and just thought I'd ask. I was led to believe that the recipes were laugh-out-loud funny--high-fifties-U.S.-cuisine-meets-Sputnik-type stuff.