From: Sheryl Gottschall <gottscha.nul>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:04:07 +1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:11:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Contactee Taboo - Sheryl


>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:00:41 +0000
>Subject: Re: Contactee Taboo

>>From: Sheryl Gottschall <gottscha.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:30:16 +1000
>>Subject: Re: Contactee Taboo


>>This was a general statement about the treatment of the evidence
>>Adamski had for his contacts. It wasn't referring to your
>>comments. He had a lot of evidence and I would recommend anyone
>>read Tim Good and Lou Zinsstags book, Adamski The Untold Story.
>>The second half of the book by Tim Good is entitled The
>>Investigation - An Examination of the Evidence. I found it most
>>fascinating and useful.
>
>Sheryl,
>
>A lot of evidence, eh? None of it withstood investigation. How
>do I know? Because in my years at NICAP I conducted quite a few
>investigations of his claims all over the country. We caught him
>in lie after lie. He was a mystical nobody who had written a
>science fiction story about life on other planets (copy in the
>Library of Congress, which I personally examined).
>
>Then when he began to realize just how gullible people could be,
>he converted this booklet, Pioneers Of Space, into alleged fact
>and ran with it. Exact same themes and ideas, but now based on
>his alleged personal contacts with aliens rather than his
>imagination.

>Also, I challenge anybody to read his three main books and
>analyze all the contradictions between books. From totally mute
>aliens who tried to communicate via symbols on the soles of
>their shoes to extremely garrulous beings who spun endless yarns
>as they sojourned through space and saw things that we now know
>with 100% certitude do not exist.

>Adamski: Liar, fraud, con-man.


Hi Dick,

Thanks for your insights. I'm sure what you say is accurate but
Tim Good's investigation into Adamski finds there is something
of value in his case, so even more confusion reigns I guess.
Anyway, there's always more than one perspective to everything
so we should check them all out.

Good and Zinsstag's book may not be easy to get these days so I
thought I'd reproduce some of what he said in another email. I
think he remained fairly objective in his investigation so he's
probably a good source to read.

One thing that Good does say in his introduction is "that the
difficulty with accepting Adamski's claim was the proliferation
and diversity of UFO occupants, some who look like nothing on
Earth, reported since the time of Adamski".

I have to agree this is a good objection to his case, at least
at first. However, the approach follows a certain scientific
thinking, especially of that era, that all organisms evolve as a
direct result of their environment so anything ET should be very
different from an Earth human.

I can see how this would stick like fly-paper, especially back
then since UFO researchers wanted so badly that the subject be
taken seriously by scientists. Just this one point alone would
have been enough to shut the door to Adamski whose story
appeared to be in opposition to this goal. There seemed little
room for alternative answers as to why very human looking ETs
might exist.

-----

A thought about the 50s and 60s

I was only a kid then but I can imagine myself in that time and
place.

To be a UFO researcher who had toiled and sweated under the
false notion that if only science would give the subject a fair
hearing it would then be taken seriously and then something at
last might change. All the frustration and effort of people not
listening, the ridicule by family and friends for spending so
much time studying ET fairy tales, the ever-growing gap between
integration and acceptance of the UFO subject and the promise of
it's impact on society, compared to what the fringe dwellers
with crazy stories of space brothers would do to that
acceptance. After all that was absurd and in contradiction to
scientific models. Oh yes, one would be very tempted to slam the
door shut on those stories.

I came across the same attitude in 1988 when I attended my first
UFO meeting but this time it was projected towards abduction
reports. UFO researchers were having the same hard time getting
their heads around them, not knowing what to do with them
really.

Then I discovered this attitude was world wide.

I still find abduction reports challenging but I've come to
appreciate the short comings of my own mind and it's protective
mechanisms.

I think we may have seen the complete rejection of abduction
reports too if they involved human looking ETs.

I wonder what would have been left of the subject then?


Sheryl