Talk:George Adamski/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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)
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)

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

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? "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)

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.


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.