Economic Hitmen

In his 1935 book, War Is a Racket, Butler presented an exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. Journalist John T. Flynn and Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler wrote:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Zeitgeist - RFID Chip

See what the likes of Rockefeller have in store for us.

Zeitgeist 2

Oh, you thought you were free? Watch this documentary and see who's in control and how.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

- Johan Wolfgang von Goethe -
1749 - 1832

Fractal IV

Bill Hamilton & The Early Contactees

Here's a website that displays chapter 1 from Bill Hamilton's book Alien Magic. (Have the book myself.) Like other people at the time Bill Hamilton did a lot of research on the early contactees. Sometimes fascinating, often bizarre, Bill tells all. Here's an excerpt;

During the summer of 1959, the twins Ray and Rex Stanford paid a visit to Giant Rock. Ray and Rex claimed mental contact with the "Brothers." Ray was instructed to bring a movie camera with him as the Brothers were going to make a showing over the desert in one of their Master Craft (crescent-shaped). Ray did succeed in capturing something unusual on film. A brightly-glowing object descended from the sky that afternoon and was promptly followed by a jet interceptor. In the film, you can see the object "jump," leaving the jet crawling behind it.

Later, I drove Ray and Rex from Giant Rock to Mount Palomar to visit the famous George Adamski. Ray and Adamski argued about the function of the Master Craft. Adamski had taken us back to a small workshop where he was doing some experiments with magnets. Although Ray claims that Adamski virtually admitted that he had no need of contacts to describe what he had written in his books, I received no such impression from the man. Later, I interviewed witnesses to Adamski's contacts who described details of incidents without hesitation. Many others had described seeing the scout ships at close range. In 1957, I had seen an orange-glowing craft one night that had the same bell-shaped configuration as the one Adamski photographed. If Adamski had been constructing small models of this craft, then the large-sized original was making its appearance known in various parts of the world. After their visit with Adamski, Ray and Rex seemed to become disillusioned with contactees and even downplayed their own reported experiences.

;-D

Frank Halstead Sighting

1955: Huge Cigar-Shaped UFO Seen Over Death Valley
On November 1, 1955, astronomer Frank Halstead, the director of Darling Observatory in Duluth, Minnesota, and his wife, Ann, were traveling to California aboard the Challenger, an express train of the Union Pacific Railroad. As the train sped across Death Valley in eastern California, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) west of Las Vegas, Nevada, the couple spied a UFO. Here's the story in Frank Halstead's own words:
"My wife Ann was sitting next to the window and she called my attention to an object which she saw -- something moving just above the (Panamint) mountain range. Our train was running parallel to this range of mountains, and this thing was moving in the same direction as the train, just above the mountains."
"At first I thought the thing was a blimp -- you know, one of those cigar-shaped dirigibles... But as I watched it, I realized that it could not be a blimp -- they are only about two hundred feet long -- and this thing was gigantic. It was about eight hundred feet long. I could estimate that because it was so close to the mountain range, where trees and clumps of trees were visible for comparison."
"While Ann and I were watching this cigar-shaped thing -- for four or five minutes as it paced the train -- we noticed that another object had joined it. This second object appeared very suddenly in back of the first one -- behind it, that is.""It was a disc-shaped thing. In fact, both objects were very shiny, we noticed. But this second one was definitely disc-shaped. If my estimate on the size of the first object was approximately correct, then this disc would have been one hundred feet in diameter -- flat on the bottom with a low dome on the top side.""My wife and I watched the pair of them for approximately two -- maybe three -- minutes. They were moving at about the speed of the train and they seemed very close to the top of the ridge -- not more than five hundred feet above it, I should say. Then they began to rise, slowly at first, and a few seconds later, much faster. In a matter of seconds, fifteen or twenty, they had risen so high that we could no longer see them from our train window."
(See Flying Saucers: Serious Business by Frank Edwards, Bantam Books, New York, NY 1966, pages 20 and 21)

Check out this website of sightings by astronomers.

Richard Jeni

(Warning: video contains strong language!)
Last night I watched this brilliant performance by the late Richard Jeni on Comedy Central. Above is one of the best sketches I've ever seen and between 6:00 - 6:42 Richard states some remarkable truthful insights. Really sad that such a brilliant performer didn't make it.

Stanford & Adamski II

Ray Stanford was kind enough to respond in the comment section of my previous post. I also made the mistake assuming 'they' were all having drinks and I want to apologise for that to Ray. Being European and not fully knowledgable about American slang I also assumed 'eggnog' was some strong alcoholic concoction but despite that Ray clearly points out he had no intake of that whatsoever. I'll continue my comments after Ray's post.

I should correct "Ed V"'s statement that my twin brother and I were drinking with Adamski the morning he exposed his lies about physical contact with human-like aliens and photographing their craft during contacts.

Rex and I were not consuming ALCOHOL in any form. We were in our late teens extreme 'heath-food fanatics'' and we would not have taken any alcohol whatsoever. Although Ed V doesn't say so, it was eggnog Adamski was drinking. Rex and I drank water while Adamski drank several cups of eggnog. Yeah, yeah, we were DRINKING TOGETHER! :o)

As to Ed V's seeming wish that my account to Greg Bishop might be flawed by old and thus distorted memory, that isincorrect. I began right away, in my teens, exposing what Adamski had told and shown us (such as how he faked the mothership photos), so that in the late '50s, I became the hated enemy of contactee supporters.

My files of copies of letters I wrote soon afterward and have written from time to time since then, contain proof that time has not distorted my memory. The premier UFO historian, Jerry Clark, can confirm that I told him about Adamski's confessions decades ago.

It was Adamski's kind-hearted confession to us (I think he didn't want to see us teenagers waste our potentially productive lives wrapped up in his hoaxes.) that made me, afterward, even more determined to record UFOs and their propulsion physics with high-resolution cameras, recording magnetometer, recording gravimeter, spectrum camera, high-resolution audio recording, etc. My project and I have succeed in using all such equipment.

And, by the way, that part of Adamski's confession (that he never had any physical contacts) was made to Rex and me that morning BEFORE Alice had even finished making Adamski's very first cup of eggnog. It was after we came back from looking at Adamski's earliest book, Pioneers of Space, that Adamski drank several eggnogs and told us about, and took us into, his "lab". He wasn't visibly intoxicated at any time, but could have been a bit loosened up from the alcohol.

Finally, keep in mind that when someone has believed things like Adamski's Polish lampshade (aka, "scout ship") photos, and happens to see a domed disc in the sky, there is the perceptual tendency to perceive things in familiar or desired terms. It is unsurprising that while Adamski's photos were being frequently seen in the media, some were misinterpreting the domed disc they saw as closely resembling like the clearer photo images Adamski had provided. To not consider that scientifically demonstrated fact about perception is to display ignorance of human nature. As to persons faking photos deliberately to resemble Adamski's lamp shade (with ping pong balls glued on), as I said on Greg's Radio Mysterioso, Howard Menger crudely painted his 'scout ship' and did obvious 'table-top' photography for his 'on the moon' photos. I notice you didn't mention the Stephen Darbishire 'scout photos' so touted by Leonard Cramp. :) They were a better painted fake than Menger could ever have produced, and Stephen Darbishire's subsequent statements have made the hoax clear to anyone but fools. By the way, Stephen Darbyshire has grown up to be a professional ARTIST. See: http://www.stephen-darbishire.com/

Because of my working at least twelve hours per day toward my project's scientifically diagnostic UFO hard evidence presentation, and preparing materials for the display of my new taxon (genus and species) of dinosaur (a hatchling nodosaur) at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., later this year, I cannot take time to write out all I'd like to tell you, about the Adamski matter, Ed V. Yard".

Ray Stanford

The essence of my previous blogpost on Ray Stanford was (and is) - 'aren't matters taken out of context'. That's it. Let me make myself clear on a number of issues. I'm not claiming your memory is impaired after so many years (and besides, you reported the incident right away at the time). I believe people always capture 'the moment'. If 10 people witness a car accident, you might get differences in detail but all 10 people report the accident and not a pink elefant crashing (that is if they are not on powerful halluciogenics). Memory doesn't have to be impaired and my remark to it in my previous post was more a swipe against mindless debunking then claiming your testimony is unvalid because of the time that has passed. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that one.

I also want to clarify my position on Adamski a bit more. Do I believe everything in the Adamski case is true? No. Did Adamski exaggerate? Yes. Is everything false in the case? No. At the heart of the matter something genuine was going on, that's my take on it. There are a number positive testimonies and unusual incidents which point to that, and which I feel is blatantly ignored by many people. I'll get back to that later.
What I find so strange Ray is that you had experiences of your own yet often you reach a negative conclusion about another person. You spoke on Greg Bishop's show that you conducted a telepathic experiment on the beach and saw a UFO appear. I have no problem with that. In fact, and here comes another kicker, a number of people tried that and had surprising results. Some people even made telepathic requests wanting to see the 'ufonauts' and had strange experiences. Here's one from a fellow named David Hughes Narborough. This is one of ufology's open secrets. If you go out and make requests, you can get exactly what you ask for. . .

I realise that if you want to portray yourself as a bonafide researcher you have to display a degree of skepticism in your work. There is such a thing as peer review in ufology and naturally the emphasis should be on evidence. However eyewitness testimony shouldn't be discarded as irrelevant. If 10 people report a strange occurrence in similar detail, it becomes increasingly likely that the event actually transpired and that's also a point I want to make here. Aside from damaging testimonies regarding George Adamski (such as the one you make), there are a number of supporting testimonies. Lucy McGinnis had this to say during an interview in 1979;

"Here came this great big ship that looked like a dirigible. And George said, quick, get me up there. I want to go
and set up the telescope. So I drove him and Al Bailey up to where he said we should go. I kept looking out of the car and that
ship turned and just followed us. And he said, here stop! So I stopped, and he got out, and that dirigible stopped - quite a ways away. I couldn't very well judge how far away it was. And he set up the telescope. And after he got everything set up, he said, Now you go back."
"My attention was attracted by a flash in the sky and almost instantly a beautifull small craft appeared to be drifting through a
saddle between two of the mountain peaks and settling silently into one of the coves about half a mile from me. It did not lower itself entirely below the crest, while the upper, or dome section, remained above the crest and in full sight of the rest of my party who were back there watching. Yet it was in such a position that I could see the entire ship"
"You couldn't see very much detail that far away, they were far away enough to look like fenceposts. But they stood talking to each other, and we saw them turn and go back to the ship. Now I didn't see (Orthon) get into the ship. And when it left, it was just like a bubble or kind of like bright light that lifted up. Then George went out on the highway and he motioned for us to come out. He told us that he got too close and his arm had caught in the radiation from the craft. And he suffered from that quite for a while. . . You could see where the two of them had walked on the ground. There's no question about that at all."

Here's a comment from Bill Hamilton regarding Alice K. Wells;

I met Adamski and stayed the weekend at Palomar Gardens in 1969. Years later I interviewed Alice Wells for about 4 hours. She was very sincere and vouched for all that was written in that first book and described the mother ship to me in some detail. She told me about an orange oval symbol on the side of the mother ship and how jets came in and it moved on. She declared that she could see "Orthon" clearly through the binoculars. She also recited the story of another visitor that appeared in the little restaurant at Palomar Gardens one day and answered all the questions about what it was like to travel in space.

These 2 comments, made years after the event, are still supportive of the original claim. No kind off retraction like in the case of George H. Williamson. But lets expand beyond the confines of Adamski's inner circle. A mister Alan Tollman, a retired aerospace engineer, claims to have witnessed events on the Palomar Gardens property. Here's his affidavit in his own words;

" In 1956, I was visiting George Adamski. One night, he let me use his telescope and while looking through the scope, I saw a bluish streak that filled the field of view. I quickly looked up but saw nothing. Suddenly, I saw a blue white glow, elliptical in shape just beyond the grove of trees. George was talking to friends in his house. I walked toward the craft and as I got closer, could hear the soft, pleasing "humming" sound. At about 100 yards from the craft, I heard people from the restaurant down hill from George's house yelling loudly, " there is a UFO on the ground." From the restaurant, the people had an unobstructed view of the craft. Suddenly, a man from the restaurant almost knocked me down, saying " there is a UFO out there" and then disappeared. The craft increased in brightness, going from blue white to intense white that seemed to shimmer. The hum sound increased in frequency, until I could not hear it anymore. The craft shot straight up making no noise, into the stars, until it looked just like a star. It then shot off horizontally to the horizon. I went in to George's house and told him what had happened. He said he heard all the ruckus outside, and then just look at me and smiled."

Laura Mundo, a hired promoter for Adamski, had this to say;

Despite that I went on to promote his out-of-town lectures for several years and in time I had my own proof beyond my intuition, of his authenticity. The same type of bell-like saucer he had photographed over his home in California came over my home in Dearborn, Michigan, later in 1954.

Madeline Rodeffer, who became friends with Adamski much later on in time, had this to remark about the footage taken in Silver Spring, 1965;


Lets hop around the world shall we;

'I never thought I would see a flying saucer, much less photograph one,' said Lima architect Hugo Luyo Vega, following the sighting of an unknown flying machine, identical to George Adamski's 'scoutcraft', which Vega photographed on 19 October 1973. On the day in question, Vega had taken a client into the Lima countryside in search of a home site. They had driven about 54 miles inland along the Rimac River when they took a break near a valley surrounded by tall hills. Suddenly, Vega told reporters, 'my client, obviously exicted, told me he saw a shining object in the bottom of the valley that was advancing towards us extremely slowly.'

"The car was not far away. I ran back for my camera, because in that fraction of a second I thought I, too, had seen something interesting. When I pointed my [Polaroid] camera and took the picture, the object was less than 50 yards away from us and about 20 yards off the ground. Suddenly, the object changed direction, headed toward the east and increased its speed. It rose off the ground as if trying to avoid some high-tension wires that came down from the top of one of the hills and crossed the valley, and disappeared from view. It was of the colour of burnished silver [and] shaped like an overturned soup plate with a cupola on top. At the very top of the cupola, there was a round object giving off a fixed, sky-blue light. Lower on the cupola, we could see a row of small windows like port-holes in a ship."

On the bottom of the craft was what appeared to be 'the propulsive force of the object. . . a dark red throbbing light that was aimed toward the ground from a sort of turbine in the middle of the upside-down plate. Near the turbine-like part, we could see protuberances like half-eggs.' The architect said that only about 30 seconds from the time they spotted the object until it disappeared. 'For a moment I didn't actually think the picture would come out all right, for I don't consider myself all that good a photographer, and I was greatly surprised when I saw that it had come out,' Vega continued. 'All the photo showed was the thing's shape, but at any rate this little piece of evidence is enough to prove that it was a real "UFO" and not an invention of the mind.' It took the witnesses some 20 minutes to recover from their astonishment. Vega was reluctant to disclose the identity of his client. 'He is a wealthy man who prefers no publicity,' he explained.

Off to 'John Bull' country;

On a January night in 1978 Sergeant Tony Dodd and Police Constable Alan Dale were driving in the vicinity of Cononley, near Skipton, Yorkshire, in their official line of duty, when a strange aerial machine came into view. 'We were going down a country lane,' Sergeant Dodd explained, 'and you know what it's like up there - it was dark - and the only light you've got is your headlights. Suddenly the road in front of us lit up. Of course, the immediate reaction is, where's the light coming from? But it was coming from above. We stopped the car, looked up, and there was this thing coming from our right to our left.' The object was about 100 feet away, moving at less than 40 mph.' It was glowing; like a bright white incandescent glow, and it came right over our heads,' the police sergeant recalled.' The whole unit was glowing. It was as if the metal of what this thing was made of was white hot. And there were these three great spheres underneath, like huge ball-bearings - three of them equally placed around it. There was a hollow area underneath and like a skirting around the bottom, but these things protruded below that.' It was absolutely awe-inspiring to see it. I don't know how to explain it to you - it was such a beautiful-looking thing. It seemed to have portholes round the dome - an elongated domed area. And what stood out more than anything else was the coloured lights dancing round on the outside of the skirt at the bottom. . . which gave the visual impression that it was rotating. Now whether the thing was going round, or whether it was just the lights that were going round and give that impression, I don't know.I would say it was the lights that were going round because, when you were looking at the portholes, they didn't seem to be going round in a circle as you would have expected.' The object was completely soundless. 'When the thing had passed over our heads it sort of went into the distance then suddenly appeared to come down: there's a big wood to our left, right on a distant hillside, and it appeared to go down in that wood,' said Sergeant
Dodd, who added that a third police officer had seen the object. 'We carried on along this road and as we got towards the village we could see these lights coming towards us from the other direction - it was another police car. We stopped, and he said, "I've just been watching this damn great UFO, and it seems to have come right down somewhere over here!

And Down Under;

My first sighting took place in Stawell, Victoria Australia, in about 1958. (Boy, how does anyone remember back that far.) I was around eleven years of age and it was probably spring or summer of that year as it was a fine cloudless day. Not usual at all, in the other months of the year. I remember the occurrence vividly. It was 11:30 AM and I was about to leave the house by the front door. This door faces due west and if not for the house across the street it would have been possible to see the Grampians Mountains around 20 Km away. As I left the house, I noticed a gleaming silver object the size of a dot at an elevation of 15 to 20 degrees dead ahead of me. It was later estimated by all witnesses to be around 10 Km distant which would mean its height would have been around 1,500 to 2,000 feet. It was giving off a series of repeated bright lights from underneath, Blue, Red, Green, White, in that order. I couldn't see what the “dot” was, but it was hovering in the one spot without moving. I watched it for a few minutes and then called my parents who came and saw the same thing as I did. After a while we called the neighbors from across the street, who brought over their tripod mounted telescope. It was only a 4 inch 'scope but it brought the object into clear and undisputed view. It was a classic early 1950s flying saucer.
A flat bottomed disc with a turret type dome on top with windows and the old 3 ball type undercarriage protrusions beneath it. The flashing lights were coming from a point directly under the middle of the disc. I had seen pictures of the original flying saucers, which by that time, had been resoundingly debunked by officialdom and ridiculed by the press so I was not a stranger to what it was. Nor were my parents and my neighbors. There was one difference I noted from the pictures though. Where the old pictures showed round porthole type windows, this craft had vertically elongated rectangular windows with rounded tops. Just like the narrow church windows you sometimes see. All of us watched that disc hovering there without movement or change until after 1 PM, almost 2 hours. Having other things to do, we gradually broke up and went away and the next time I looked for it, it was gone. With multiple witnesses watching this UFO in daylight for such a long period through a telescope, I conclude that there is no doubt it was an alien constructed flying machine. What its reasons for being there and all the other question as to where it came from, etc., remain unknown, but one thing is for sure…. It shaped my belief in the phenomenon for the rest of my life. Brad Mildern January 5, 2004

Hugo Vega, 1973

Here's my problem Ray. I have your testimony where Adamski spills his guts out and confesses the whole thing is a hoax, and I have many people (independently) claiming the exact opposite. Those few anecdotes I listed above are just the tip of the iceberg. There are more on file (and on the internet) and there's no telling how many testimonies got 'lost' over time or where people never made their story public. If 10 people report a car accident and 1 person claims nothing happend, who am I to believe? If this was a court case, and 10 people point to one perp, and one person says that perp didn't do it (because the perp said so!), how would the jury react?
I also have problems with your statement that "there is the perceptual tendency to perceive things in familiar or desired terms". Adamski's "scoutcraft" is so distinct that it is hard to imagine that people would mistake its form. There are eyewitness accounts where people clearly notice distinct features such as the 3 ball underside, just look at the qoutes above. Then there are also people who didn't report seeing the 'scoutcraft' but some strange light or other anomaly while their observations are associated with the case. It's more complicated, not to mention simplistic to label such observations as "perceptual tendencies".

You assert that "Howard Menger crudely painted his 'scout ship' and did obvious 'table-top' photography for his 'on the moon' photos". Really Ray! If I didn't know any better I would say such words came straight out of the mouth of a debunker and not an objective researcher who saw UFOs himself.

Howard Menger himself stated that the 'moon shots' are not conclusive evidence and that the pictures came out blurred. Not all of them, the one on the left is somewhat reasonable. Like in the Adamski case, Howard Menger had many eyewitnesses. There are many similarities. Howard's wife Conny, ex-wife(!) Rose claimed that they witnessed some of the strange events. Howard's father went on the Long John Nebel show, going on record. What does such testimony say to you? Personally I find it highly improbable that all the people involved are frauds or mistaken.


Howard Menger film, notice the lights. . .

A couple of days before I listened to Greg Bishop's interview with you I came across Ed Komarek's blog-piece on you, that was actually the point of origin. Lots of interesting information. You claim to have close up photos of occupants in crafts. That's somewhat reminiscent of contactee material wouldn't you say? You also seem to have a gift for being in the right place and the right time for confessions by other parties. Perhaps you can see why that would arouse suspicions on my part and how some of my remarks originated, but I want to stop right here.
I'm not interested in a cyberfight and I think we can respectfully agree to disagree. I still have my doubts if matters weren't taken out of context but I'm going to give that a rest. I have plenty of material to defend my theory that some of the early contactee accounts are in fact genuine. Your testimony, although damaging to Adamski, doesn't diminish that. It's also my theory that the early contactees weren't about disclosure but rather about gradual awareness. Take that into the equation and other intelligences might even find discrediting information desireable. In that context it might be even possible that Adamski told you exactly what you needed to hear. I hope you forgive me when I take some pleasure from that notion.

Stanford & Adamski

Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Ray Stanford, a researcher who met a lot of the 'early contactees', on Greg Bishop's show Radio Misterioso. In the interview Stanford mentions he visited Adamski in the mid-1950s and that the latter confessed the whole thing was a hoax. Ray was there with his twin brother Rex one morning and the two were having drinks with Adamski, and after a couple of those beverages Adamski remarked that 'if it wasn't for that Roosevelt, I wouldn't have gone into this saucer crap.'
This incident was known to me and it certainly looks like something a person would say after being a little intoxicated. Adamski also remarked that he was 'the biggest bootlegger in Southern California'. The Stanford brothers took this as a admission of guilt and this part I've come across in books from other authors. Sofar no biggie.

What was new to me is that Ray Stanford claimed Adamski took him and his brother into his workshop where he showed how he faked photographs using models, black cloths and radium! Of course this is shocking testimony and damaging to Adamski's reputation. I'm sure this anecdote would be the final nail in the coffin for most skeptics. I still have my doubts however.
I could take the 'Korffian skeptical approach' and claim Stanfords memories are impaired after 50 years orso just like with the Roswell witnesses. Or I could claim the testimony is not valid because all persons were drunk. It is remarkably easy to be a skeptic. However, I'm going to do something else. I'll try to be objective.

Ray Stanford was (and is) a UFO researcher, but he was also an "experiencer". In the interview with Greg Bishop, Ray tells about telepathic experiments where he and other people summoned UFOs over the Gulf. Ray also spoke about his 'psychic abilities' and that he made accurate readings and even exposed persons committing foul acts. I guess this shows there are 2 aspects of Ray Stanford, the skeptical scientificly based researcher but also the believer who had his own experiences. Safe to say Ray Stanford is both a skeptic and a believer.
What I find remarkable is that Stanford did a lot of research on the early contactees but quite often reaches a negative conclusion on them despite the fact that Ray saw UFOs himself and knows the phenomenon is real. This morning I saw a remark on a forum where Ray had commented on Howard Menger saying 'that he hoaxed everything but in essence was a good guy', or something of that nature. I wasn't surprised one bit. There's also the episode with Dan Fry where again there are a lot of anecdotes pointing to fraud by the 'contactee'. When a person reaches so many negative conclusions about others in the UFO field but maintains there own experiences are genuine, I have to wonder if that person isn't suffering from 'Billy Meier syndrome.' (Billy Meier consistently labels other people as liars, cheaters and frauds.)

Ray Stanford does hold one anecdote in high esteem. In the Truman Betherum case there's a story where a gold smith receives a work order from a person similar in appearance to what Betherum reported in his contactee accounts. The gold figure, a hand, turns out to be a gift for Betherum and Stanford is stunned by this 'coincedence' and therefore gives Bethrum some credit.
Here comes the kicker. Strange stories such as the one above can be abundantly found in the cases of George Adamski and Howard Menger. Even researcher colleagues of Ray such as C.A. Honey, Bill Hamilton and Timothy Good reported highly unusual experiences while investigating Adamski. Then there are the other dozens of witnesses who claimed to have seen the same crafts Adamski photographed or who experienced strange matters in the presence of Adamski. Madeline Rodeffer claims till this day that the footage Adamski took in 1965 of a 'scoutcraft' is genuine and that she witnessed the whole event. Other credible witnesses such as Major Hans C. Petersen, Basil van den Berg, Fred Steckling, Glenn Steckling, Laura Mundo, Tony Belmonte and many more, claimed to have seen the exact same craft or had similar experiences. If Adamski was such a fraud, as Ray Stanford claims, then why did so many people make supporting testimonies?

Ray Stanford, as a researcher, seems to have missed a lot of supporting anecdotes. In the 'desert encounter' where 6 people signed an affadavit claiming to have witnessed/seeing a large cigar shaped craft, a smaller craft exiting and landing, and Adamski talking to the ufonaut in the distance, Stanford (again) takes a negative approach. He focuses on George Hunt Williamson's retraction (of sorts), but also happens to mention that G.H.W. got in his bed one night! Williamson signed the affadavit but later on in time remarked that maybe they saw a dirigible and toned down the story, this was after he and Adamski had a falling out. However other witnesses such as Lucy McGinnis made no such retraction and stood by the original story decades after the alleged encounter.
I think that at this point I can safely assume that Ray Stanford, by ignoring the positive testimony, has a preference for a negative outcome regarding 'contactees'.

What really happend when Ray and his brother Rex visited Adamski that morning? I don't doubt they visited Adamski. Two teenage boys, just out of high school, having a drink with Adamski. Tongues getting loose, judgement perhaps a bit impaired. I can't say for sure what really happend or what words were really spoken. But I have to wonder if Ray didn't take matters way out of proportion. 'Blaming Roosevelt for getting into that saucer crap' is something a person could say after a few drinks. It's not an admission of guilt, it can also be just talk while under the influence. I also wonder what really was said and shown in that workshop and if similar antics are in play here. I'm leaning towards the opinion that Ray Stanford could have taken things way out of context. To my knowledge there also aren't other similar stories to that of the Stanford brothers where Adamski exposes himself so bluntly.
I do want to make myself clear on this matter. I'm not claiming everything is true in the Adamski case but there are factors which possibly point to something genuine going on there. Dozens of positive eyewitness testimony shouldn't be ignored because there's one negative.

Walters Connection?

When I was watching the video in my previous post I noticed another (short) clip on YouTube. It's made off three seperate movie clips bundled together. What caught my attention is the footage taken in Mexico, january 2008, at night. It's shows two unknowns but the shape reminds me of something Ed Walters captured on polaroid during the Gulf Breeze sightings..

I admit that it's not easily recognisable, but if you pay close attention there is some resemblance to it. Walters was often branded a fraud and there are a number of claims out there directed to that cause. If my memory serves me right there was an alleged accomplice who came clean, a model found in Walters house after he moved and it was shown that polaroid cameras can easily produce double exposures. There was a lot of effort put in debunking Walters and maybe some of that was just, but it's not that simple to dismiss the entire case or the Gulf Breeze sightings.

'Although Ed Walters was the hub of the Gulf Breeze sightings, he was not alone by any means. It is estimated that over 200 other citizens came forward with sightings and / or photographs during a three year period.' I took that quote from 'ufocasebook.com'. Safe to say Walters wasn't the only one reporting strange lights in the sky and the link above shows pictures by other people. I also remember seeing impressive video footage taken by Ed Walters on a beach where a UFO just darts away.

And it seems like Walters wasn't the only one who took a photograph of that type of craft. I've even seen better (coloured) photographs of the same craft Walters captured on polaroid, but as of yet I've been unable to locate them on the internet.

UFO Releases Spheres

Amazing footage from Mexico.

Reggatta de Blanc

Yesterday I was shopping and bought a double cd of The Police. This song brought back memories for me, at the age of 12 listening to Regatta de Blanc in my room.

John Keel Passes

Author, journalist and investigator John Keel passed away on July 3. Keel published a number of books on the paranormal and is probably remembered the most for his 'Mothman' investigation. The movie The Mothman Prophecies (2002) was based on John Keel's research.
I have that movie and on that dvd is a documentary where people are interviewed who witnessed strange events at the time. One word: bizarre. John Keel certainly was one of the first minds to come across the high strangeness of the paranormal, and bravely pointed that out in his books.

Debunking Korff

Couple of days ago I watched this vid again where Kal Korff claims he's not a debunker or a skeptic, instead he claims to be a researcher. I beg to differ. Simply stating something doesn't make it so. In Korff's case it's not unusual to come to the conclusion that he is in fact a debunker. Why? You simply look at the results of his actions. Korff claims to be a researcher but to my knowledge every conclusion he makes, given a UFO case, is one of denial and that makes him a debunker, and not an objective researcher.
For the life of me I can't recall Kal Korff speaking in a positive manner about a UFO case. I might be mistaken but I simply haven't seen a positive remark or conclusion, period. According to Korff, Kenneth Arnold saw meteorites. The Phoenix lights were flares deployed by the Air Force. Nothing going on at Area 51. Nothing going on with Roswell. In other paranormal areas such as Bigfoot and conspiracy theories such as the assassination of JFK, Korff also claims nothing out of the ordinary transpired. Those kind of conclusions and the way he approaches these subjects put him in the category of a debunker, in my opinion

Korff is quite fond off using the dictionary when it comes to being called a debunker. Strangely enough he doesn't like to be called one and uses the dictionary in his defense. I find it strange that Korff doesn't come out of the closet on this, anyway, here's the definition of a debunker straight out of the dictionary;
de⋅bunk
–verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

While debunking means you take the bunk out of a claim, it doesn't automatically imply the person doing the debunking is right. And this is where Korff beats around the bush. A person can also debunk out of his or her convictions. That's where the ufological interpretation of a debunker stems from, a person who debunks UFOs no matter what information is layed in front of them. Looking at Korff's actions and conclusions he seems to fit right in the ufological interpretation.
Setting the standard where it suits you also exposes a debunker, or in other words a biased 'researcher'. Korff has done this many times. In the Phoenix Lights he ignored many testimonies where people claimed they saw a huge craft. Roswell testimonies are denied as impaired memories yet in the Bigfoot case eyewitness testimonies of people who claimed to have worn a gorilla-suit some 30 - 40 years ago (with no physical evidence) are endorsed.
A debunker uses that which helps their point, and disregards elements that doesn't support his or her preconcieved notions. You only have to look at the methodology, and in my opinion that clearly points to Kal Korff being a debunker.

MJ-09

Thought a while about making a post on Michael Jackson. Let me first say I'm more one of those types that 'don't speak bad about the dead'. Still, I must admit that considering Jacksons life that's a hard thing to do. His music was an inspiritation to many people including myself, although I've never thought of myself as a fan of his entire work. His troubled personal life often made me wonder if the guy should have gotten a good shrink and some close good friends who told him like it was.
All the surgery convinced me that the name Wacko Jacko was right on the mark, and I find it inconceivable that he managed to be in tremendous debt at the moment of his passing. Still, the guy had more musical talent in his fingertip than most of us have in our entire body. That makes him 'Bad', just like in the song.

Vapor Cone

F-22 goes supersonic and leaves something called a vapor cone, shock collar or shock egg. Does make a pretty picture.