Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> May -> Here

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 08:47:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Are contactees ever lied to?

> From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 18:16:50 cst
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kal Korff Admits He's NOT A Spy! [Jeroen
> ....
> You seem to be ignoring the possibility that these guys, Adamski
> and Meier, deliberately made this stuff up (lied). Naturally,
> neither was in possession of information concerning the weather
> on Venus -- which, if you accept their stories at face value,
> they should have known before Carl Sagan.
>
> Either they made these stories up or the Cosmic Space Brothers
> lied to them. Which do you think is more likely?

Now that ufologists can accept that abductees are genuine (since about
1985), one can first ask a question like that about them.  Haven't we read
of a lot of abductees being told and shown things that either didn't turn
out to be true, or that conflicted with or contradicted each other?  We
have come to realize that most abductees' stories of having been abducted
are true; but does that require us to believe that everything they are
told or shown is also true?  Obviously not!  So I see no reason why
contactees need have been treated more honestly by their contactors,
especially those whose experiences are supported overwhelmingly through
witnesses' reports as well as UFO photos/movies.  Such a contactee would
need to be fed disinformation that would lead ufologists, scientists and
the news media into thinking they are fakes, would they not, in order that
the aliens not blow their own coverup and violate their "Prime Directive?"

I don't know enough about Adamski's case to try to defend him; obviously
IF he met aliens who told him they were from Venus (or rather the surface
of Venus), we suspect he was fed a lot of bull.  Meier was told by
Semjase that Adamski was a fake; was that mostly bull?

In the case of Meier, he didn't meet "Venusians" and didn't see any signs
of life on Venus on his five-day space trip to various spots.  He didn't
see the surface of Venus at all until they emerged below cloud base, when
he was told they were down to 40 km above the surface.  He describes it
(this was following his 15 July, 1975, contact) as wild looking and
covered with craters, with some not-too-high mountains on one side.

He was told he could not photograph through the viewing screens as he had
done when they were much higher up above the clouds, because their view
screens that permitted photography had to be closed down when they got
lower, due to Venus's high temperatures nearer the surface; yet he could
see through this other view screen lower down.  This doesn't sound
very plausible to me.  Though Meier would of course accept what he was
told at face value, why should we?  He could have been shown anything
through those view screens, for example, including the apparent cloud
formations he did photograph from pretty far out, and we might not
be able to tell if it was deception or not.

> Adamski & Meier's Venusean/Plieadian Space Brothers have been
> heavy on the platitudes, but light on hard data. If they wanted
> to be taken seriously, don't you think they might have passed
> along some useful tidbit such as verifiable, but previously
> unknown, scientific or historical data that would unquestionably
> establish their emissaries' bonafides?

How about the 40 km figure for Venus cloud-base height?  That's not too
far off from the 45-47km figure I find from browsing various articles in
_Science_.  Though this cloud-base height was known within the planetary
science community by 1975, it seems improbable it was known then by a man
who did not get past elementary school in his formal education.

But a key question is: would the aliens want their contactee to be taken
seriously by ufologists first, then by scientists, then by the news media
and the general public, after having gone to such pains over 50 years not
to let the coverup come unraveled prematurely with respect to UFO
sightings in general or abductions either?

  Jim Deardorff