Adamski and Villa: Contactees with a keen eye for photography
In the 1950s and 1960s, many people claimed to be in contact with aliens from another world. Two of the most prominent were George Adamski and Paul Villa. Both provided photographic evidence of their encounters and almost all UFOlogists have since rejected their images. We find the following concerning Adamski's photographs in NICAP's, The UFO evidence:
Because of Mr. George Adamski's background as a self-styled "professor" of oriental mystical philosophy (later espoused by his "spacemen") and at least one claim of his which was conclusively proved false by NICAP investigators, his photographs are considered dubious. NICAP Board Member, Frank Edward, (an experienced photographer) considers the Adamski pictures hoaxes. Mr. Adamski refuses to submit his negatives for analysis. (Hall 89)
Interesting to note that in the same compilation, NICAP presents a sketch of flight characteristics for satellite objects that looks remarkably like Adamski's photograph of a mothership and satellite UFOs. It makes one wonder about how NICAP truly felt about Adamski's images.
Paul Villa took his pictures from New Mexico between April-June 1963 and claimed to have met aliens from the constellation of Coma Bernices. Analysis by Project Blue Book clearly identified these as hoaxes and in later years, Ground Saucer Watch performed computer analysis of the images. Their evaluations indicated that the images were faked using small models. Even though major UFO groups have rejected these images, one can still find books and websites presenting the same images as authentic. Are these UFOlogists simply ignorant of the image's histories or are they just way too credulous?
The Condon Study gets a picture
During the Condon Study, several photographs were submitted that supposedly showed actual UFOs. They were evaluated for authenticity and many of them got the "FBI treatment" as Hynek would describe it. One of these seemed to be of an authentic UFO and was quite impressive when first examined. The person (called major Y) submitting the photograph stated he had taken them while flying as a pilot shortly before he retired from the USAF. Further investigation by the team revealed inconsistencies that exposed the hoax. Dr. Roy Craig wrote the following concerning the investigation:
The pictures were beautiful. And the man who took them was apparently of the highest reliability. There were, however, disturbing weaknesses in the story. One was his failure to report his sighting, as required by Air Force regulations... Adding to the difficulties, the numbers stamped on the slide mountings were not consecutive. In addition to the processing date of December 1966, the mounting of the blurred slide carried the number 14 and the second slide number 11. Had the pictures actually been taken in reverse order, and two additional pictures taken between the two we had?.... Mrs. Y seemed offended that the authenticity of the photos would be questioned... Major Y swore that his photos were of a real flying saucer seen under the conditions he described... Mrs Y appeared with ten additional slides. She said these were from the same roll, but she could not find the others... Slides which numbered 1 through 8 showed scenes of the post retirement drive across the mountains. Numbers 9 and 10 were of the October snowstorm... we removed Major Y's twelve slides from their mountings to examine the frame numbering on the film itself...Alas, these numbers showed the same sequence as indicated in the mountings. The mountain trip and snowstorm pictures were taken in the order that the Y's said they were taken. However, the UFO pictures had been taken after the snowstorm, which was several months after the major's retirement. They were not taken by him from a C-47 while he was in the Air Force - nor was the one slide taken immediately after the other. Any hopes that these pictures could be used to support a contention that flying saucers inhabit Earth's skies had been quenched even before the photos themselves had been analyzed...Major Y had appeared to be the most reliable of witnesses...His present and past associates considered him honest, reliable, and credible. He remains among the set of anonymous people who have not photographed a real flying saucer. (Craig 86-93)
Despite having the most impressive credentials, it did not prevent this individual from conducting a hoax. There was also no apparent reason for him to do so, yet he did. What does this say for all the "reliability" remarks that UFOlogists often make about photographers of UFOs?
Heflin and the "Top-hat" UFO
In 1965, a man named Rex Heflin took a series of photographs showing a UFO taking off and flying away near Santa Ana, California. The sequence of four images showed a "top-hat" type UFO that seemed to have just lifted off and began to fly away. Did Heflin photograph an extraordinary craft?
Unfortunately, Heflin's original photographs were "lost" resulting in copies being the only source for analysis. He seems to have had his images taken from him but those that took them managed to allow him to make copies first. Shortly after the event, the local Marine base sent out investigators who took three of the originals for analysis. A few weeks later they were returned but, shortly thereafter, two mysterious men from NORAD came and took three of the photographs. The fourth photograph was given to NICAP, which also seems to have "lost" the image. With such an interesting history, it is no wonder these images have been subjected to much analysis over the years.
Analysis by the USAF indicating the images were hoaxes to which NICAP (almost always taking the opposite stance) promptly disagreed. Meanwhile, Heflin continues to claim to have been visited by several military personnel including another officer from NORAD, whom he named. This name did not check out but this did not stop Heflin from making more claims about his phone being tapped and military men visiting his home when he was away. There seemed to be a grand conspiracy to hide the truth that Heflin was revealing with these photographs. When Heflin's other claims did not check out, it began to look like his photographs were the product of a hoax.
This all added up to one big mess when Dr. William Hartmann, from the Condon study, analyzed the pictures. His analysis focused on the weather for the day and revealed discrepancies that indicated the photographs were not taken at the time the witness indicated. Additionally, Hartmann writes,
In the course of my study I was able to simulate effectively the first three photographs by suspending a model by a thread attached to a rod resting on the roof of a truck and photographing it (Plate 47). Without assuming the truth or untruth of the witness's story this has led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value...The evidence for the reality of the UFO is not sufficiently strong to have probative value in establishing the existence of extraordinary flying objects. The strongest arguments against the case are the clouds in photo four and the inconsistent early records regarding the "NORAD" visitors. The photos themselves contain no geometric or physical data that permit a determination of distance or size independent of the testimony. Thus the witness's claims are the essential ingredients in the case. The case must remain inconclusive. (Condon 454)
Hartmann felt there were so many problems with the case that it was useless as evidence for UFOs being physical craft.
The Heflin case has had many supporters and detractors over the years. Kevin Randle reports in his book, Scientific UFOlogy that the originals were eventually returned to Heflin (although he does not go into any details). According to some accounts, he was told to search a mailbox and found his photographs there. This brings into question the story about the strange NORAD men, who supposedly took them. Why send them back if you are trying to cover-up the existence of UFOs? GSW conducted further analysis using copies of the originals in the 1970s and concluded they were fakes based on an apparent thread holding up the UFO. However, others have since pointed out the analysis showed an artifact that had been introduced by using second generation copies. Again, the analyses of these images were inconclusive. The controversy can never be resolved to either conclusion. When one examines the cumulative effect of all the inconsistencies and apparent "tall tales", the probability of this case being a hoax is high.
Warminster: An experiment on gullibility in evaluating UFO photographs
In March of 1970, the group, The Society for the Investigation of Unidentified Object Phenomena (SIUFOP) decided to create a UFO hoax in order to evaluate how good UFOlogists were in examining the evidence for the phenomena. The stage was set by a series of UFO reports and apparent "trace evidence" being reported by UFOlogists in the vicinity of Warminster, England. As a result, observers began to keep an eye out for unusual phenomena in the area. On one evening a "sighting" was staged by using a purple light on a distant hill. Amidst the group of UFO watchers was a member of the team, apparently taking pictures of the phenomena. The film had already been exposed but the team member acted like he was taking pictures of the UFO. He also had a "UFO detector" in use to detect magnetic fields whenever a UFO might appear. He activated the alarm when the light showed up to add to the "strangeness" of the UFO. Once the event was over, he mentioned to those around that he had obtained the photographs and wondered where he might have them developed. A local UFOlogist gladly accepted the film to see it developed and evaluated under "controlled" conditions. These photographs quickly gained international attention as images of UFOs.
In order to make it easy for the UFOlogists to discover the hoax, the following items were purposefully introduced into the images:
In the first frame the UFO was montaged above the (invisible) horizon and approximately 22 degrees south of the position of the purple light. The second frame showed the UFO still further south by about 8 degrees, below the horizon, fainter and blurred. Neither frame included the location of the purple light. The UFO image was made cigar-sectioned, horizontal and with a circular blob above and below centre. This design was created on an oscilloscope using Lissajous figures.
Headlamps of cars (about three miles away) driving westbound along the main road into Warminster are momentarily visible to the right of Battlesbury Hill when viewed at night from Cradle Hill. Therefore time-exposure photographs taken in this direction often show a white line traced by the movement of cars during the exposure. It was ensured that the background scene used in each montage showed different lengths of line consistent with time-exposure photographsof a few seconds.
Shortly after the purple light had been finally extinguished and the UFO detector had been switched off, Mr Foxwell took two genuine pictures that included, as comparison photographs, part of the aforementioned street-lamp scene. This was to provide future photographic investigators with the following significant clues that the UFO photographs were at least of a dubious nature. Firstly, the images on the prepared negatives were magnified over 10 per cent more than the genuine ones - individual street lamps were easily identifiable and measurement of the distances between them highlights this inconsistency. Secondly, the background scenes used were photographed many months before March 1970 and showed gaps in the street-lamp pattern where two lamps were not working. When the genuine pictures were taken (minutes after the purple light incident) these street lamps had been mended. These inconsistencies had been deliberately used to see if ufologists would critically examine the photographic evidence. (Simpson Experimental)
With such obvious clues, it was hoped the investigators would proclaim the images as hoaxes shortly after closely examining them.
For two years the UFOlogists examined the images looking for specific details. However, instead of finding the clues, they proclaimed them authentic. Only a few months after the incident, a photograph consultant to The Flying Saucer Review, wrote, "Let me say at the outset that there is nothing about these photographs which suggests to me that they have been faked in any way " (Simpson Controlled 36). Within six months, Dr. Pierre Guerin, Director of Research at the Astrophysical Institute of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, had analyzed the images and made some very interesting observations and conclusions. In the November-December 1970 issue of The Flying Saucer Review, he wrote:
In my opinion there is no question of the object photographed being in any possible way the result of faking. The question that arises is why the appearance of this object on the photographs is so different from its appearance to the eye according to the descriptions of the witnesses...Consequently the interpretation of this divergence between what the witness 'saw' could be quite simple: namely, that the object photographed was emitting ultra-violet light, which the eye does not see. Around the object however, a ruby-red halo, probably of a monochromatic colour and doubtless due to some phenomenon of air ionisation, was visible only to the eye and in actual fact has made no impression on the film. (Simpson Controlled 36)
This scientifically trained individual was now making excuses for why the images did not match what the witnesses reported. Instead of questioning what happened and what was recorded, he managed to convince himself there was a more complicated reason for problems with the photograph. With so many warning flags available, it is amazing that a scientist of such stature could have been taken in by a simple hoax.
The story did not end at this point and each follow-up article in the magazine drew more and more exotic conclusions. Simpson writes how another photographic expert wrote "a three-page article discussing erroneously the effects of ultraviolet radiation on photographic emulsions" (Simpson Controlled 37). This had the signs of being a UFO classic case and if it were not for the hard fact that this was setup in advance, one might still be reading about the case today as a good example of an unsolvable case.
Dr. Guerin's desire to believe that the images were authentic interfered with his critical skills as a scientist. John Shaw, a photographic expert for BUFORA, noted this problem, "Sadly, many people interested in the subject will accept evidence on face value if it supports their case" (Spencer and Evans 215). David Simpson noted, "...the enthusiasm and credulity of many commentators hinders the scientific appraisal of UFO phenomena" (Simpson Experimental) and, "Regrettably, my experiences in the UFO field have shown that the investigator incompetence demonstrated by this particular experiment, far from being exceptional, is typical" (Simpson Controlled 37). Even scientific training can not shield somebody from wanting to believe so much that they dismiss information indicating their beliefs are unfounded.
Simpson's revelation that science took a backseat to a desire to believe in this case demonstrates the problems with UFO photographic analysis by UFO "experts". He expounded:
Scientific evaluation requires that inconclusive, suspicious, or self-contradictory evidence be classified as such and subsequently shelved. Unless this is done we are left with either a hypothesis made weak and unconvincing by disreputable evidence, or a hypothesis based on myths which add nothing useful to the understanding of our environment. The Warminster Photographs provided a group of ufologists with the opportunity to use such a classification. The inbuilt flaws were easily detectable had the negatives been subjected to a critical analysis. The vast amount of literature published leads one to the conclusion that the pictures were considered very significant by UFO researchers, yet despite this and their impressive list of consultants, the investigators concerned did not analyse the evidence critically. Not once did they interview Mr Foxwell, yet without his photographs the sighting would have been insignificant. Their statements and actions were often not those of people trying to understand a strange event, but those of people prepared to ignore relevant criticisms in order to support a cause. In the eyes of many a UFO case takes on an aura of credibility when endorsed by someone of high professional standing like Dr Pierre Guerin. It is therefore disappointing that Dr Guerin should apparently be unaware of the ease with which perfect fake photographs can be manufactured. It should be stated that FSR was not singled out for this experiment: its involvement was pure chance... It is therefore unfortunate that when presented with a UFO case of such potential importance, so little was achieved. The sighting took place in England, the photographer lived near London, and his negatives yielded what many considered to be the most convincing pictures of an unidentified flying object ever taken. Knowing this, investigators failed to learn the geographical layout of the sighting area, they failed to interview the photographer and they failed to discover the substantial inconsistencies introduced into the negatives. The other UFO cases published in FSR often originate in distant parts of the world and are rarely corroborated with scientific data. Is it likely that they have been reported or investigated more competently than the Warminster Photographs? I doubt it. (Simpson Experimental)
The experiment clearly demonstrated that these UFOlogists were not skeptical enough to find clues of a hoax. How many UFO photographs are often accepted as genuine that contain clues to a hoax, which are dismissed?
Billy Meier: Fakery in Switzerland
Beginning in the 1970's, a one-armed swiss contactee began to taken dozens of photographs of UFOs from the open cluster of the Pleiades. Billy Meier was the subject of a book called, UFO...Contact from the Pleiades Volume I. Of course, his photographs were the highlight of this journal, which was produced by Genesis III productions. Genesis III involved the UFOlogists Wendele Stevens, Brit and Lee Elders, and Thomas Welch. For over a decade Billy entertained everyone by recounting his contacts with the aliens, spaceship rides, movies and photographs. Meier made numerous claims that seemed extraordinary but were readily accepted by many! According to Kal Korff, Billy claimed over seven hundred contacts and had over one thousand photographs. Did these stories check out?
Kal Korff wrote one of the definitive books on the matter called, The Billy Meier Story: Spaceships of the Pleiades. To do so, he had to go "undercover" and make an attempt at finding the truth about Billy Meier. He demonstrated that there are suspect strings in many of his photographs and claims to have successfully duplicated other images/movies that were supposedly not reproducible. Korff also exposed Jim Dilettoso (the photo analyst for Genesis III) as a fake. Billy Meier took in credulous UFO investigators despite the numerous warning flags that should have indicated to them that the stories were not truthful. As Kal Korff stated, "UFOlogy is overloaded with people willing to take advantage of the gullibility of others" (Korff 413). Billy was the source but it was the con-man nature of Elders, Stevens, and Dilettoso that presented these obviously hoaxed pictures in a way to indicate that Meier was actually in contact with aliens from the Pleiades.
No comments:
Post a Comment