George Adamski - Contactee Comparison - Research Comparison

From Curvity
Jump to: navigation, search

UFOS and the Complete Evidence From Space

"UFOs  and the Complete Evidence from Space", Daniel Ross, 1987, Pintado  Publishing
Even if Adamski fabricated his story, this hasn't stopped a few people from looking for evidence to support it and in this section I review a book called "UFOs and the Complete Evidence From Space" written by Daniel Ross and published in 1987 by Pintado Publishing.

It is pertinent to start with a quote from the last pages of Ross's book:

"[George] Adamski's relationship to the UFO field is known to be authentic, and his space information regarding our solar system is known to be solid information" (page 223)

Ross never says who considers Adamski's story to be "authentic" or "solid" but from there, Ross has to weave an incredible tale to support that claim and this review documents the unfortunately pointless journey. First, a conspiracy is necessary to cast doubt over the last 50 years worth of data on planetary findings which show Adamski to be wrong:

"It was the censoring of true planetary findings by the government agencies during the 1960's and 1970's that deepened the mystery behind the space visitations." (page 39)

And apparently that censorship was done by what Ross calls the:

"Silence Group, working for those in entrenched worldly positions, infiltrated secret departments and intelligence agencies to insure that confirmation would never come from official sources or government. .... That Venus and Mars have not been shown as having earthlike environments, is not due to a lack of technology in our space probe exploration, but due to secretive censoring by intelligence agencies directing operations from behind the scenes." (page 59)

And that:

"The space agency [NASA] had practically no choice but to follow the dictates of the powerful economic interests that control governments and their subordinate agencies. It is these international cartels that have been behind all censorship regarding planetary space." (page 77)

And the reason Ross suggests the Silence Group exists is because:

"The spacecraft utilize the natural electromagnetic energy that exists in space and in the atmosphere around a planet. By using this free energy, any community could supply all the heat, electricity and transportation needs of its population, without the services of the fuel and electric companies. This is why the truth about UFOs and the Moon have been suppressed." (page 170)

Free Energy Sham

We are now well off the topic of Adamski, however, Ross's discussion of "Free Energy" as the basis of a conspiracy is instructive in learning about his methods. "Free energy" is a complete sham propagated by shallow thinking. It's a sham because, all energy, even if it comes from oil or the sun is "free" and what we pay for is getting that energy to us in a usable form. Let us take the case of oil. If you went back ten thousand years, you could dig the stuff up for free in copious quantities, but it would be useless without all the people who have figured out how to turn it into a gas, build the engine and the car it will power and then transport the stuff to you. That we don't have personal oil wells in our back yards is because those large companies can do it much cheaper, faster and safer. Even the free energy that the sun pours onto the planet in the form of light, still requires that we pay for a mechanism like solar cells to convert it into a useful form.

Anecdotal Refutation

With "Free Energy" as the shaky foundation for the conspiracy, it is little wonder Ross's understanding is any deeper on other topics, for example:

"Although Mariner 9 had reached Mars in November 1971, the probe reportedly wasn't able to start photographing until early in 1972 because of an alleged planetary-wide dust storm on arrival, along with winds of 200mph on the Martian surface. ... NASA claims that there is an extremely rarified atmosphere of about 7mb pressure at the surface, compared to 1000mb on Earth. Wind is a movement of air. If there is virtually no air, what is whipping around at 200mph? And if there is only a negligible atmosphere, what is supporting tons of dust particles?"
"There could be 200mph winds on Mars, but they are not near the surface any more than then are on Earth. I was flying into California a few years back, and the pilot made a routine announcement over the intercom that we were flying at 37,000 feet and the wind was from some direction at a speed of 170mph. And the jet streams we hear about reach speeds of up to 300mph. So I do not accept that the reported 200mph wind on Mars was a surface wind." (page 78)

I pulled out this example because it clearly shows that Ross uses personal anecdotal evidence to refute data from NASA. Such methods are not surprising when Ross makes other such frivolous claims as:

"We know that the sun's energy is not transmitted in the form of heat and light, but as an invisible spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The sun's electromagnetic energy does not manifest itself as heat and light until it penetrates a planetary atmosphere. And since this radiation from the sun is not appreciably reduced in its travel through outer space, the four inner planets receive similar amounts of energy in their respective orbits." (page 58)

For such a short paragraph, it contains an amazing number of misleading statements - First, it assumes the conclusion is widely accepted, as in "We know" - we do? And who is "we"? Secondly, the sun's energy is transmitted to the earth in many forms, some of which is heat at infrared wavelengths and light at visible wavelengths. If the sun's light was an "invisible" spectrum of EM energy, then how can astronauts see the space station which doesn't have an atmosphere around it?? And when an astronaut looks at the sun from inside a spacesuit, doesn't she see it?? The third problem is that the energy of light from the Sun falls off with the square of the distance, because the energy radiates in an expanding sphere and if the sphere is twice the size, the same energy has to cover four times the area.

Garbage in, Garbage Out

Ross never bothers to explain why "radiation from the sun is not appreciably reduced in its travel through outer space", but continuing in blind support of Adamski, Ross's choice of experts is certainly questionable and here is an example:

"It is William Brian's contention in Moongate, that stars would not be visible from the Moon, unless there is an atmosphere to spread out the starlight. This is precisely the case on Earth. Except for a very few bright stars, most would be too faint and distant to be seen by an unaided eye, without out an atmosphere acting like a giant lens and making the stars twinkle." (page 142)

The exact opposite is true. The atmosphere absorbs light and causes less stars to be seen because as light from a star passes through the atmosphere some of it is absorbed or scattered by the air, which is consistent with our experience. For example, the next time you are in a swimming pool, look at the far side under water and then above water. The far side is less clear underwater then it is above water, because water is considerably more dense then air and absorbs or scatters light. In a similar manner, air is considerably more dense then a vacuum.

But Ross takes the falsehood that the atmosphere makes stars more visible and substantiates it with yet another error:

"If, according to NASA, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, then the stars should not be visible to a lunar astronaut. However, this was not the case. I attended a lecture given by Apollo 15 astronaut James Irwin, in Walnut Creek, California, on May 6, 1984. While narrating a short film of his Moon trip, Irwin stated that he "could see the stars so clearly, while standing on the surface of the Moon." (page 143)

James Irwin's comment makes sense because, without an atmosphere, the stars would not twinkle and hence be clearer. That Ross interprets Irwin's comment as evidence of an atmosphere on the Moon only shows how much Ross does not understands how light really works.

Of course, it never occurs to Ross to check if the concepts Adamski writes about have any validity, for example:

"He [Adamski] states that in order for any planetary form to retain its shape, the inside and outside pressures must be equal. Atmosphere surrounding a body in space furnishes that pressure necessary to keep that form from exploding or disintegrating. Enormous pressures are built up within all planets, yet the atmosphere surrounding them offsets this by exerting a perfect balance of pressure without. If the Moon did not have an atmosphere, it would have broken up and disintegrated into space long ago." (page 161)

To suggest that earth's eighty kilometer thick layer of air holds over twelve thousands kilometers of rock, the diameter of earth, in place is simply absurd. The only reason earth's atmosphere has weight at all is because thousands of kilometers of rock is holding it in place by gravity. Of course, if Ross didn't believe in the "Silence Group" conspiracy, it would be obvious from planetary data that there are many moons without atmospheres that haven't disintegrated, for example, most of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. But then "absurd" is an Adamski trademark given he also wrote that static electricity overcomes centrifugal force to hold things to the surface of earth.


To conclude, if I was going to write a similar book, then here are the three things I would do:

  1. Assume a massive conspiracy - a conspiracy makes a theory untestable because, if there is evidence that the theory is wrong, assume the conspiracy is to blame. "Why haven't we seen trees or animals on Mars or the Moon?" The "Silence Group" is covering it up. "Why does the evidence point to no habitable atmosphere on the Moon even though Adamski said it was there?" It is not that Adamski could have been wrong, but that the "Silence Group" is covering that up too. "Why haven't millions bought my book? " More secret oppression.
  2. Draw conclusions from as few data points as possible - Ross says NASA is wrong about the speed of surface winds on Mars because he heard a pilot in a commercial airliner say the jet stream was going as fast at 37,000 feet. Ross says William Brian is right about the atmosphere making stars visible because he over hears an Apollo astronaut say he saw stars from the Moon. The evidence of canals on Mars, inferred by an astronomer in the late 1800s, must be more correct then what NASA publishes today. (oh, right, see the first point above about the conspiracy)
  3. Never check assumptions - Yup, the atmosphere is necessary to see dim stars. Yup, Adamski was telling the truth.

In the end, what do we expect from someone who admits that his research on the moon was done in "four months" (page 171). I can't wait until the day we can go up to the moon, and see if Daniel Ross will step out of the airlock. I did this review because I wanted to know what others had found in support of other contactees but I have no doubt this review will not change the minds of any believer in Adamski's story, especially Daniel Ross.

Back to Comparison to Other Contactees