Leslee/Scott/Dean/Einstein/Centrifugal force/Gravity

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
, ,
41

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Newton

To: Peter Harding,

From: Dean

I have understood your point when you say " Constant speed, but constantly
changing velocity."

However, I wish to call your attention to a continuing theme on this list
( Are you new? ), that gravity effects are due to an electromagnetic
radiation and only seem to correspond to the density of matter, they
generally seem to. Hence, it would not actually be mass which resists
acceleration but to the frequency and charge. In this way, there exists mass
which exhibits very little resistence to acceleration, very little weight,
such as theEarth's matter in the deep depths below the penetration of the
gravity charge, and even mass which exhibits repulsion in relation to
gravity- clouds.

Here are some comments by Pari Spolter, which I passed around about a week
ago, in which she discounts the association between gravitational force and
mass:

On page 12 of Gravitational Force of the Sun,
Dr. Pari Spolter quotes Sir Issac Newton in this regard:

" Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our
sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of
this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that
penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without
suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not
according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which
it acts ( as mechanical causes used to do ), but according to the
quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its
virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the
inverse square of the distance ...."

She also disagrees with Newton on page 18 where she states " Newton
did not need, nor did he estimate the masses of the Earth and the
moon to deduce the reciprocal square of the distance from the center
of attraction- and therefore- there is no basis for inclusion of the
term ' product of the two masses,' or for that matter, for the
inclusion of any term for mass in the equation of the gravitational
force."

42

--------------------------

Dean... Good God, am I soon going to be sent to a corner with a conical cap?

Above you wrote "gravity exhibits an almost magnetic attraction."
You added "almost." Sounds more obtuse than descriptive phrases I have written!

Dean, doesn't "GRAVITATE" describe something moving CLOSER to something else?
When something is ATTRACTED or DRAWN TO an "ATTRACTING" source, isn't that the action of "GRAVITATING?"

Isn't the ATTRACTING action a "magnetic" action in effect? Therefore isn't the ATTRACTING source acting as a "MAGNET" in effect?
A "MAGNETIC" effect being produced?

Honestly, I think it is Frode and you who have somehow dismissed the common meaning of "Gravity" expressed by many past and present orthodox scientists. Most think Earth's SOURCE of Gravity is Earth's body, its mass. Most think Earth's "force of gravity" comes from Earth's body. And unless I've lost both halves of my memory, I think I've frequently read Scientists write and state: "Earth is a MAGNET."
...Not just Earth is almost a magnet, or Earth seems kind of like a magnet, or Earth exhibits magnetic qualities, etc., etc., etc. (which may probably also have been said at times.)
Earth's GRAVITY (in some kind of "magnetic" action) is produced by Earth's MAGNET, seems to be what I have understood them to believe.

You guys give me the impression you have so narrowed down the word "MAGNET" to only represent a hunk of "magnetized" metal that draws other hunks of metal to it!
Frode seems to believe NON-metallic elements cannot be DRAWN TO a "magnet." No, that kind of attraction must be left to the word "GRAVITY," an undefinable word because terms like "magnetic" and "magnet" are not permitted to be used by Dick to describe WHAT HAPPENS in the real world with Gravity!

I too am getting weary defending my use of the word "magnetic" associated with Gravity. You two guys seem to me to be the most prodigious "hair-splitters" on this list! - Dick

43

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:54:43 +0100 Peter Harding

It is not a logical possibility for an object to both be moving at a
constant velocity and yet simultaneously be undergoing an acceleration.

Not true. Planetary bodies follow an acceleration curve that which
follows the form of an elliptical orbit. Kepler's 2nd law of planetary
motion states that planets scribe out equal areas of arc in equal periods
of time. For half the period (year for Earth) of their orbit around the
Sun, they are in a state of a very slight acceleration and this velocity
is
not a constant. For the opposite part of the orbit they are slowing down

in a reciprocal or mirror like fashion. This is the magic of orbiting
bodies.
It is a "partial" truth that planets are constantly falling toward their
primaries,
the very excess acceleration they acquire when they slightly spiral into
the
Sun (closer) gives them excess momentum to slightly crawl farther away
from the Sun for half the orbit. It is like having an escape velocity
which
is insufficient to cause the planet to leave its Solar orbit. As the
planet
moves farther and farther from the Sun on its outward half of the orbit,
the momentum of it's peak velocity when at perihelion (closest approach
to the Sun) is ample enough to arc farther away from the Sun but not
enough to alter its orbital path. The Sun acts gravitationally on the
Earth
pulling it towards itself and like tossing a ball into the air, the
kinetic energy
of the ball is consumed moving away from the Earth and soon it stops and
reverses itself. The change in velocity is very slight near the peak of
the balls
toss and according to the law of falling bodies begins to accelerate
toward
the Earth at the scalar (distance over time) of 980.665 cm per second
squared. The eccentricity of a planet along with its mean orbital
distance
determines the characteristics of that planets acceleration curve.

No. Each body falls toward the Sun from the point of
aphelion until the perihelion is achieved If the above
sentence were correct, and for all intents and purposes
it is except when dealing with a few peculiar substances
which violate this rule by very slight degrees, then a sledge
hammer and a feather would not fall toward the ground
in a perfect vacuum with perfect simultaneity.
It has been my belief that the mass product of two
bodies different in mass and falling from the same height
only has the appearance that the mass doesn't matter.
With the mass product concept, the greater mass of the
sledge hammer is required to do extra effort to accelerate
it equally with the feather. It appears to be a contradiction
of terms but it really isn't.
When considering the mass of a hammer, the math
of the mass product shows how one set of matter (hammer)
is much greater than that of the feather's mass product
even though the result of the motion indicates that mass
doesn't matter. The secret is in knowing that the
gravitationally conductive subatomic particles of the heavier
object out number the lighter one, so more gravitational work
must be performed in the hammer to cause the same acceleration
downward as the feather.
It can be expressed slightly differently by suggesting that
all objects are made out of the same subatomic particles which
are conductive of the gravitational force. So then all bodies are
just aggregates or sets of the same exact particle, each equal to
a symbolic value of 1. The math appears to not make sense in
the Newtons force formula when the math indicates two different
values of force would fall with an identical acceleration. It is
nothing more complicated than knowing a heavier object takes
more calculated force to pick up off the ground than a light object.
There is an accepted difference in inertia and it is this same
inertia against falling that requires the math to reflect a larger mass
product for the larger falling body.

Right.

Pushing a hand cart uphill will take less force than it does to do a
heavier one, or, if you only have one force to exert on the cart, your
acceleration will be slower with the loaded cart. I explained above
how gravity works differently.

Scott

To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and
e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your
acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!

  1. Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished
    work in progress, AND
  2. To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the
    program.
44

Original subject: Constant speed, but constantly changing velocity

Dean,
Just something to consider. How much, if any, do you think Cater might be
influenced in his calculations by HET works such as Etidohpa? For instance,
Cater's calculations of the thickness of the Earth's crust don't seem to be
based on any scientific or mathematical calculations, yet they seem to
coincide with the guestimates referred to in The Smokey God and in Etidorhpa
for the sake of consistency more than scientific accuracy. Like the crust
being some 800 miles in thickness, when the seismographic readings indicate
an 1800 mile thickness of the outer mantle. Is the seismographic readings
that far off, or are Cater's estimates a give or take a thousand miles type
reference? Is he suggesting that the 800 mile figure is accurate according
to calculations on his part, or is he going by the suggestion in Etidorhpa,
and ignoring what scientific evidence which we do have at our disposal? I
think we would be better served if we tried to extrapolate conditions which
fit all the puzzle pieces, rather than to ignore the ones that don't seem to
support pet theories. That makes one no better than those scientists which
we condemn for the same tunnel vision. Which is it? Is Etidorhpa the bible
of HE Theorists, or only part of the solution? You know how I deem
Etidorhpa, but I do think there are things within it which may not prove
correct or true as well. Likewise with Cater. Many of his "theories" are
fascinating, but some of his claims appear to be rather bizarre, especially
some of the more recent letters which have been attributed to him. Where
does the 50 Mile gravity figure come from? Why 50 miles and not 100 Miles?
What is the figure based upon? Calculations or compatabilities? I think
these are the kind of concerns Scott and others are expressing. Personally,
I really don't care about the semantics of electrostatic attraction or
magnetic attraction, those are questions of definition. But when
information, or theories don't seem to be supported by physical evidence, or
by logical proofs, or by scientific calculation or observation, then all we
have is an interesting idea, and not a revolutionary new science. The main
reason there is so much consternation over Cater's theories is not because we
on the list are such slow learners, it's because we have not heard solid
difinitive answers to the many questions raised. We often get theory-babble
as these questions are skirted with well-intended, but not always clear
explanations. Even you and Frode get into it on occasion with the confusion
surrounding the lack of clarity on this subject. If we keep cutting up the
puzzle pieces to fit our own comfort zones of interpretation, then we might
never reach a concensus of truth. Some of these mindsets can get so
entrenched that we discard the truth for the sake of maintaining the current
popular theory. There are many things I would like to share with the List
which I have come across or discovered in my many years of researching the
topic of a Hollow Earth Theory, but I'm reluctant to see them trodden upon.
Question. If mass has nothing to do with gravity, and only the 50 mile depth
of an orb determines its influence on other objects, then it would appear
that a natural factor of surface area, and the volume of its 50 mile depth
would cause a varience in the effect different sized orbs have on one another
. . . which means, mass does matter . . . at least to a 50 Mile depth anyway.
Why then is it so important that mass be so completely eliminated from the
considerations of gravity?
My point is . . . maybe the answers aren't all black and white. Maybe all
these aspects should be factored in? Mass having something to do with
gravity doesn't necessarily contradict Cater's soft particle concepts. Who
knows, combinations of these factors might even better explain the enigma. I
haven't seen a single theory yet that covers all the bases.
Well, enough rambling. Just something to think about.
Norlan

45

Norlan... Your questions and suggestions below were well worth reading! Thanks. - Dick
------------------

46

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Constant speed, but constantly changing velocity

Dean,
Just something to consider. How much, if any, do you think Cater might be
influenced in his calculations by HET works such as Etidohpa? For instance,
Cater's calculations of the thickness of the Earth's crust don't seem to be
based on any scientific or mathematical calculations, yet they seem to
coincide with the guestimates referred to in The Smokey God and in Etidorhpa
for the sake of consistency more than scientific accuracy. Like the crust
being some 800 miles in thickness,

  • Norlan,

  • Cater was/has been much influenced by Etidorhpa, he comes right out and says so.That is no run-of-the-mill HE book. He says that the concepts in the book corresponded with some ideas that he had already, for example, about diminishing gravity.

when the seismographic readings indicate
an 1800 mile thickness of the outer mantle. Is the seismographic readings
that far off, or are Cater's estimates a give or take a thousand miles type
reference? Is he suggesting that the 800 mile figure is accurate according
to calculations on his part, or is he going by the suggestion in Etidorhpa,
and ignoring what scientific evidence which we do have at our disposal?

  • He has some logic and calculations that he presents with reference to the thickness.

  • Seismographs are subject to interpretations. As far as mainstream interpretations go, the parameters regarding gravity which is completely penetrating will give a mistaken impression about depth right off the bat. We have to be careful about accepting mainstrem science as we investigate the HET.

I think we would be better served if we tried to extrapolate conditions which
fit all the puzzle pieces, rather than to ignore the ones that don't seem to
support pet theories.

  • This is not the case, as I have explained. the pet theories and sacred cows belong to mainstream science.

    That makes one no better than those scientists which
    we condemn for the same tunnel vision. Which is it? Is Etidorhpa the bible
    of HE Theorists, or only part of the solution?

  • I take the book rather seriously, even the descriptions of the cavern worlds and his experiences down there. Free from certain polarities of gravity, the brain seems to be much more liberated and able to project and perceive, close to or practically on the astral plane. Danile Ross, in UFOs and the Complete Evidence from Space, relates about telepathic experiences of the astronauts. Different parameters, different worlds.

    You know how I deem
    Etidorhpa, but I do think there are things within it which may not prove
    correct or true as well. Likewise with Cater. Many of his "theories" are
    fascinating, but some of his claims appear to be rather bizarre, especially
    some of the more recent letters which have been attributed to him.

  • I didn't see any bizarre comments inhis first book, but the re-writing hasd a few. Nor does he exactly carry a straight, normal conversation on the phone. He has grown old, you know. I'll stand by the vintage Cater.

Snip

Even you and Frode get into it on occasion with the confusion
surrounding the lack of clarity on this subject. If we keep cutting up the
puzzle pieces to fit our own comfort zones of interpretation, then we might
never reach a concensus of truth.

  • Listen, if there is one quality to the presentation and mutually supportive nature of Etidorhpa and Cater, it is consistency. There are no contradictions, no loose ends. These two books are just not consistent with orthodox baggage which you bring with you.

Some of these mindsets can get so
entrenched that we discard the truth for the sake of maintaining the current
popular theory. There are many things I would like to share with the List
which I have come across or discovered in my many years of researching the
topic of a Hollow Earth Theory, but I'm reluctant to see them trodden upon.
Question. If mass has nothing to do with gravity, and only the 50 mile depth
of an orb determines its influence on other objects, then it would appear
that a natural factor of surface area, and the volume of its 50 mile depth
would cause a varience in the effect different sized orbs have on one another
. . . which means, mass does matter . . . at least to a 50 Mile depth anyway.

  • Yes, and I just stated that " mass matters " to Scott a day or two ago. I stated that total gravity increases because of a greater exposure of, the increase of, surface area. But the gravity is not generated by the simple matter, Cater comes right out and say this in his book, that:

" At this stage it may be advantageous to show how the gravity effects around a body changes with the size and mass starting with a small body of laboratory dimensions. ... Within certain limits the gravity effects will be directly proportional to the mass as the size and mass increases with only very slight deviations. As the mass and size continues to increase, the outer gravity effects will for a certain increase, become less per unit mass than that of a smaller mass because the screening effect of the outer layers will more than compensate ...."

Norlan-

Do you see? As I have said so many times, the proportion goes on between size and gravity until a certain size is reached, let's say, 150 miles of diameter. From that point onwards, you have all kinds of interior mass which exhibits less and less weight. The intensity doesn't change. A square meter of gravity on Mars or the Earth simply has 50 miles ( let's say ) of the gravity-inducing " charge " below it. The larger that diameter, the exposed surface area, however, will produce more gravity because the object is larger.

The point is that, as you penetrate the planet, there is diminished gravity and mass without weight, without inertia. And the concept of the gravity beingcaused, in the ultimate issue, by the charge on the particles and frequency of radiation also accomodates the repulsion/antigravity/floating which clouds exhibit.

I think that the above answers your immediate comments below.

Give me some feedback,

Dean

Why then is it so important that mass be so completely eliminated from the
considerations of gravity?
My point is . . . maybe the answers aren't all black and white. Maybe all
these aspects should be factored in? Mass having something to do with
gravity doesn't necessarily contradict Cater's soft particle concepts. Who
knows, combinations of these factors might even better explain the enigma. I
haven't seen a single theory yet that covers all the bases.
Well, enough rambling. Just something to think about.
Norlan

47

Norlan,

Adamski reported that everything was nicey-nicey in the cylindrical craft which he visited, and reported no " creatures " along with the beautiful humans which he encountered.

Travis Walton was brought into a similar craft, and encountered humanoid creatures and was tormented, he experienced great pain. Right there I begin to wonder about the nature of Adamski's presentation.

Dean

48

The 1542 manuscript, Cabeza de Vaca's "Adventures in the Unknown
Interior of America," contains an account which may sound more than a
little familiar to the modern fortean or ufo researcher.

In the 1530s and 40s, the Spaniard Cabeza de Vaca and his
conquistadores, following the Mississippi River as they explored the
North American interior, came into contact with many Native American
tribes of varying dispositions, ranging from hostile to friendly.
Upon meeting and befriending the Avavares, possibly in the vicinity
of the Ozarks or further westward, the Spaniards were told a most
unusual tale by their hosts.

According to the Indians, approximately sixteen years earlier the
region had been visited by another "bearded" character of unusual
aspect. This fellow was called by the Indians "Badthing,"
or "Malacosa," an accurate appellation given his proclivities. Even
though bearded, his facial features were "never seen clearly" or
where otherwise indistinct or else clouded and concealed from
perception or memory; "he" invaded Indian homes by night, accompanied
by a "bright light," and the hair of the inhabitants would "stand on
end." Apparently paralyzed against resisting, the poor tribes-people
would stand helpless, as, armed with a "blazing brand" or wand of
some sort, the creature would rush inside and perform intrusive
surgeries upon its victims. This ranged from abdominal intrusions and
taking of intestinal samples, to incisions or perhaps partial
amputations of arms and legs, which would then been surgically
stitched or otherwise repaired. Apparently, as is the case with
modern UFO abductions and medical procedures, anesthetic was not a
part of the program. The androgynous ambiguity of this creature was
not lost on the Indians, for they said that during this season of
visitation, "Mr. Badthing" would appear in the midst of their feasts
and celebrations, dressed alternately as an Indian man or woman,
which raises the question of a possible quest for genetic material
based on seduction. The Indians offered "him" food, but he never ate;
they inquired as to his place of origin, and "Badthing" pointed to a
nearby crevice in the ground and told them that his home was there,
in the regions below.

The Spaniards laughed at the account of the barbarian bogey-man,
until the Indians brought forward numerous people who still bore the
visible scars of the intrusive or amputation and reattachment
surgeries.

Shocked, de Vaca and his men informed the Native Americans that the
creature, whom the Indians still greatly feared, was diabolical in
nature, but as long as the Christian Spaniards were their
guests, "it" would not return, nor be able to inflict injuries as it
had done previously. The Indians were greatly overjoyed at this news,
and the Spaniards then instructed them in the rudiments of Christian
theology before departing.

By Wm. Michael Mott

http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol24/articles/mott24.html

49

Original subject: Adamski

* * *

dean:

why ???

john mc

:slight_smile:

50

dean :slight_smile:

also, can you please give me the title of the book in which adamski describes his encounter with these beautiful humans aboard a ufo?

thanks!

john mc

:slight_smile:

51

Beady Eyes, I mean, Dear John,

( I hope that your girlfriend doesn't say that to you, " Dear John " )

The name of the book is Inside the Spaceships, andthe url of the
whole book is at: http://www.universe-people.com/

It is number 8 on the left-hand column.

Dharma/Dean

52

* * *
dean:
why ???
john mc
:slight_smile:

John,

Well, it is nice what Adamski presented, but maybe too nice. It certainly
doesn't explain what Travis experienced. If the ones Travis met were also
Venusians, look at the company that they keep!

I mean, I arrive at no absolute conclusions. It could be that well-meaning
Venusians accompany the monstruous ones, the greys and such, to tone them
down. Maybe the Venusians secured some concessions, some agreements on
behalf of the abductees. After all, Travis was let go, right?

I don't know, but differences and incongruencies always make me wonder, it's
natural, I guess.

Dharma/Dean

53

Original subject: Gravity

Dean,
Thanks for the review. I'm sure you're getting tired of repeating yourself
all the time.
As far as scientific baggage, I think I carry with me considerably less than
most people. It's my natural resistance to the dogma of scientific academia
that led me to the realm of the Hollow Earth Theory to begin with.
However, I do believe that we need to glean whatever truth we can obtain from
whatever sources. If we can separate the true discoveries of science from
the misinterpretations of its proprietors, then I think we can benefit from
their efforts as well. Some scientists are actually sincerely trying to
discover truth as well.
When I question the theories of Cater, I'm not necessarily disputing them.
I'm trying to refine them in the same process by which I refine all
information.
If a seismographic reading indicates that the earth's outer mantle is 1800
miles thick, then that is physical evidence. That same reading indicates an
inner layer and a central core as well. These three layers are consistant
with the HET as well. There are no agendas to be served in the determination
of the thickness of these layers, so can't we assume that these readings, and
the intellects who have the expertise to read them, might be approximately
accurate. It's when the scientists other than the seismographers try and
"interpret" these layers as being moltent lead and titanium that I think they
are obssessed by the theory.
I think Cater's theory requires gravity to be a much greater force than most
are willing to ascribe to it. If 50 miles of gravitational influence causes
this force, rather than the 8000 miles of the Earths diameter, then the force
of gravity is approximately 160 times more powerful than science credits it.
Are we, as part of the mass on the surface of the Earth, partly affected by
this soft-particle saturation which causes gravity. If so, it's no wonder we
tend to cling to each other. : )
Just a thought.
Norlan

54

Dean,
I'm sure there are differences between crews of crafts, kinda like flying
with Southwest compared to Delta. But, yes, there were many inconsistencies
with Adamski's "reports," to the point where he was challenged on them. It
was through this series of challenges that he started to falter, and then
finally recanted on the non-fiction claim of his works.
So the story goes.
Norlan

55

John mc,
George Adamski actually wrote at least three books on the Flying Saucer
topic. "Inside The Spaceships" was his first, and most impressive book. This
book gained him a great deal of noteriety, for a season, and then it started
to fade. He then wrote a second book, and then a third book. "Flying
Sauders Farewell" was the name of one of the other two, and I believe it was
the name of his third book . . . It's been a long time since I read all three
of his works. I think the second book was something like, "Return of the
Space Ships" or something like that.
Anyway, it was the second and third books which eventually were the cause of
his demise. He wasn't as cautious in the follow-up works, and he made some
fairly far-fetched claims in the sequals, which exposed him. If he had stuck
to the first book, he might have pulled it off. The Press and everyone got
all caught up in the fascinating story, and they were very embarrassed when
the truth came out. I feel it is the George Adamski experience which has
given the abduction stories their skeptical reception by the press today.
Norlan

56

John McAlpin,

I don't want to reject Adamski's claims, I just wanted to say that there were some parts that I wondered about. Taht's all that I wanted to say.

What was you impression of the book Inside the Spaceships? Did you get to it on the web? It'sfantastic that they put the whole book up there, isn't it.

Dean

57

If we can separate the true discoveries of science from

the misinterpretations of its proprietors, then I think we can
benefit from
their efforts as well. Some scientists are actually sincerely
trying to
discover truth as well.

Norlan,

We are all in this boat. It is a matter of where you draw the line,
where you " know " to draw the line. We all have to interpret
satellite photos, for example.

I see on all of the alternative science lists a tendency to dispute
something, such as an artificial artifact on the surface on the Moon
or Mars, or the existence or thickness of cloud cover, but to stay
within the parameters of generally accepted physics and gravity. It
is very difficult, at best, to explain " alternative " observations
while staying within the parameters that mainstrem science and
physics give, and without taking into consideration conspiracy.

With friends like you, who needs enemies. You are almost as bad as
Scott!

# : ^ )

If a seismographic reading indicates that the earth's outer mantle
is 1800
miles thick, then that is physical evidence.

Do youu see what I mean? You got sucked into it. Seismographs have to
be interpreted according to already-established assumptions about the
thickness and mass of the Earth, according to unproven theory.

You could stand to read Jan Lamprecht´s book because he debunks very
well. He doesn´t at all set up a model like Cater, he stays much more
within accepted parameters. But he debunks the generally accepted
model, especially in relation to geology.

That same reading indicates an

All of them interpret in terms of depth and thickness based on
unproven theory, for example, a linear application of the Cavendish
experiment results, results in which heating interfered with the
results, for one thing.

On the contrary, by ascribing gravity to mass based on Cavendish, it
is the mainstrem scientists who have to invents ever-increasing
thickness and exotic elements in the Earth´s interior to account for
the same. It is much easier to account for the gravitational force in
terms of the charge on matter rather than to practically engage in
intellectual gymnastics to fit insane amounts of mass into the volume
of space occupied by the Earth.

Are we, as part of the mass on the surface of the Earth, partly
affected by
this soft-particle saturation which causes gravity. If so, it's no
wonder we
tend to cling to each other. : )

Yes, there are zonal forces and sticking on the particle level, too.

Just a thought.

And just more thoughts.

Dean

Norlan

58
59

Norlan,

I´d be interested in familiarizing myself with the doubts in relation
to Adamski. Any online sources? I don´t want to accept anything
without some analysis. I guess that I can´t really arrive at any
conclusions in relation to his book.

But there are things in his book, in spite of my doubts, which
suggest truthfulness. For example, how did he know back in the early
50s about the existence of motherships? I mean, nowadays, people have
had abduction experiences in them, such as Travis Walton, so we have
received information about them. And we´ve actually seen pictures
of " suncruisers." But back in Adamski´s time, how could he have
invented this? What a coincidence that would have to be.

Dharma/Dean

60

Dean,
The term or concept of Motherships wasn't new with Adamski. This was a
concept that was quite accepted and promoted in many discussions and
fictional accounts that the 50's generated. Adamski's version simply
personalized the idea. Jules Vern genre was prolific even before flying
sauces were dubbed as such. Immediately following the first sightings,
magazines and books were everywhere theorizing on the possibilities.
Mothereships were only a small part of the myriad concepts.
Adamski had a very perceptive mind. I think many of the things he expressed
are even possible, and I was caught up in the reading and pondering along
with many of his more ardent followers. I was extremely disappointed when I
read the account of his recantation. He did paint some fascinating pictures.
Norlan