UFO Casebook
The Best UFO Photographs Ever Taken >> The Best UFO Photographs and Videos >> Paul Villa's photos genuine
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=video&action=display&num=1164053621

Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Nov 20th, 2006, 2:13pm

I was recently looking through the library of UFO photos on the casebook when I came across this photo taken by Paul Villa in 1963.
User Image

It is referred to in the casebook photo library as being probably a hoax. I guess this is because of two reasons. Firstly, there appears to be lines coming down to the top of the craft on the photograph, and some have postulated that these might be wires holding up a small model.
Secondly,as the photo was taken by Paul Villa and his later full colour broad daylight photos of extra terrestrial craft were ridiculed on the grounds that they were just too good, this 1963 photo was tarred with the same brush. However, as some Casebook members may know, I have long been an admirer of Paul Villa and have not the slightest doubt that he was honest in what he showed us.
I was delighted therefore to find this photograph in the Casebook library which was taken in California in the 1970's.
User Image
The photographer is not identified but I feel fairly confident that it was not taken by Paul Villa. Careful examination of the two photos convinces me that they are of an identical type of craft and as no one seems to think that the Californian UFO is a fake, I guess that means that neither is the one in Paul Villa's photograph.!
This leads me back to the famous photos which Paul took in 1963 when he was telepathically contacted and told to go to a desert location with his camera for the purpose of photographing UFOs. I'm sure that every member of the Casebook has seen those photos and here is a close up of the craft in one of them.
User Image
In the abductions section of the Casebook under the heading, Life as an abductee, I recount how I stood less than 200 feet beneath an identical craft in 1980, and so I know from personal experience that Paul Villa's craft is the genuine article. Imagine my delight when I came across what I believe to be a photo in the Casebook library of the same craft taken by an unknown photographer in Michegan in 1966 during a ufo flap in that area. Here is that Michigan UFO.
User Image
Can anyone seriously doubt that it shows an identical design of craft to the one photographed by Paul Villa.?
I am certain that Paul was a man of high integrity and it is about time that his contribution was properly recognised.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Nov 20th, 2006, 2:27pm

Although I have no doubts about the case for the first photos shown above, I must say that I doubt the Michegan photo. I promise that I have taken it from the Casebook photo library as the Michegan ufo, but on close examination the background of the photo looks identical to that in the Paul Villa photo. What is going on here?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:02am

I also notice similarities with the first two ufo photos at the beginning of this thread. The background in the right side of the two pictures looks identical. Were they both taken at the same location or is there another explanation.?
Would one or more of the technical wizards on this site please cast their expert eyes over this and offer suggestions.
In either event something very strange is going on here.
Many thanks,
Rob (HUBCAP9) wink
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by diamond on Nov 22nd, 2006, 11:06am

hi hubcap 9 i'm no photo expert but to me the first two are identical situations as are the second two. the chances of photographing the same object at the same place years apart must be astronomical . one photo of each is genuine , which one? this is weird and for that reason i smell a rat.even the trees look the same. anyone else? maybe lawwalk or johnyanon.can spread some light for us.
like you i have always thought the villa photo's to be genuine. why would anyone copy them and claim them for themselves?

diamond cool
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Lateral on Jan 3rd, 2007, 9:22pm

Those photos do look very similar not only in craft appearance but also background appearance.

I am sure I had a toy as a child that resembled the first 2 UFO pictures did anyone else have this? or maybe it was something else all together.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by backlit on Jan 4th, 2007, 12:49am

Lateral, I do remember a plastic model of the flying saucer from the TV show "The Invaders". It had a similar shape to the object in the photos but it is not the same.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Johnbro on Apr 4th, 2007, 08:49am

That is the same object as in the Adamski photos.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Apr 4th, 2007, 1:27pm

If you compare the backgrounds of the 1963 Paul Villa photo with the 1970's Neil Slade photo, the hill to the right of each craft (as we look at it) is identical,with the same notches on the horizon.If we look at the horizon to the left of the craft,again we see a similarity though the angle of the slope of the hill is steeper in the Neil Slade photo.
This suggests to me that the location is the same in both photos though in the second photo,ie. Neil Slade, the position of the photographer is slightly different.
Does anyone have any more thoughts on this interesting puzzle?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Merlin on Apr 7th, 2007, 1:56pm

I would say that the first two pics are in the same place but are different pictures, weird.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Johnbro on May 24th, 2007, 06:51am

Take an even closer look at those two pics. They are over a nearly identicle gulley.... AND... there is what looks like a single out-standing tree... just below the object.... and slightly to the right.
Obviously, not the same pic, though.

Also... in the '70's' pic... notice the little balls of white light that are in the vicinity. As if orbs accompany them.

As I have seen an actual saucer... with my own eyes... and know that they do exist. But I also wonder if they have USAF emblems on them. wink

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by jugement on May 24th, 2007, 5:06pm

I agree with you all about this photo is real I am no expert on photos some times you just know ..back when I saw 5 ufos in the 70s Ihad no picturs and I asked myself who would believe that I saw 5 ufos on a busy street by a housepital .
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Imshadi on Oct 31st, 2007, 04:13am

I have what seems to be an image of the same photo taken at a later date (it has some damage not present in yours).

User Image

If you look carefully, you will notice that the UFO is out of focus when compared to the background, and this can only happen if the object is small and close to the camera.

My opinion here, unfortunately, is that this photo is a hoax.

There is also some confusion as to the story, as I have this image classified as from 1964, but I am not sure which date is more accurate.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by aleksman71 on Nov 3rd, 2007, 5:37pm

It is fake.Look similarity.This shows two images on top of each other.One in set a little higher.

User Image
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Imshadi on Nov 5th, 2007, 12:19am

Excuse me. I do not want to go around randomly calling any image a hoax. I am a visual effects supervisor at an FX company, and I hope I can bring my expertise to the search for true UFO photographs.

Whatever you did to process your image does not show what you think it does (though I give you some credit and think you are just trying to be sarcastic). It is not a superposition of images. The object, I believe, was actually photographed in the same place and at the same time as the background.

To create realistic CG images, one has to study photography, and there you learn about optics and the workings of light, eyes and cameras.

In the case of this image, there is actually more depth of field (DOF) blur on the object, and that is indeed a sign of it being relatively close to the camera and smaller than one expects. But this is actually enough to know that the image is not that of a true UFO.

I ask anyone who's interested to check my work, so that you may have some idea what credibility to give me.

Regards,
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by bonehead on Nov 5th, 2007, 02:07am

Imshadi,

I agree with you about the photos seeming to be authentic "in camera" photos (rather than composites). However, I am not so sure about the photos being a hoax. I am not saying they aren't either.

If you look at your photo and the other two variations here, the "Villa" and the "Slade" photos, it seems pretty clear to me that these were all taken at the same time at the same place. They are probably different shots taken from the same roll of film. The only difference between them is the position of the UFO and the general orientation of the background.

The differing positions of the UFO in respect to the background suggest that the object has moved between the photos. So, couldn't the noticeable blur (you suggest indicates a hoax) equally as well be caused by movement of the object as the photos were being snapped?

I have many years of experience at photography myself, so I am familiar with the depth of field issues you mention. But let's face it, if these pics are hoaxed, they are pretty good!

Other issues also are of interest: why is the supposed "earliest" example of these photos also the worst reproduction? It is a terribly degraded example compared to yours and the Slade prints, which appear to be genuine color prints of '60s or '70s vintage.

Even more intriguing is the object's resemblance to the Adamski "bell shaped" craft. This craft has appeared in many photos from different places and years. They have supposedly been photographed in the States by Howard Menger and in England by a young boy. However, those pics are terrible when compared to these.

And, as Backlit points out, this same type of craft was actually made into a Model kit by Aurora. The TV Series came out in 1967 and the model kit was released as a tie-in for the TV series. The model was clearly modeled after the Adamski photos from the '50s. If the Villa photo is correctly dated to '63, then his photos predated the model kit and TV series.

User Image

Here is one of Adamski's photos. I am aware of some issues here as well. But I find the comparison interesting at any rate.

So, do you think the blur could be movement as opposed to depth of field? The scenery in these photos is not that clear either. This suggests poor focusing, a cheap camera or both.



Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Nov 5th, 2007, 12:50pm

I'm delighted that this thread has produced such interesting comments from members who have far more knowledge of photography than I.
Am I correct in thinking that the jury is still out on the Slade photograph?
I would like to reiterate my conviction that Paul Villa was a man of high integrity,who in my opinion would never have created a fake photo of a UFO.I would also make this point,that given that his full colour broad daylight photos are genuine,those people whose job it was to keep the lid on the UFO subject,would have indulged in every dirty trick in the book to lessen the impact of his incredible photographs.
The same can be said of the Maslin Beach UFO photos taken by Eric Thomasson.I will soon add a little more information on that thread where I congratulate Imshadi on his excellent work for which I'm sure many members are grateful.We are fortunate that a person of Imshadi's expertise has taken an interest in this subject.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by bonehead on Nov 6th, 2007, 12:19pm

Hubcap,

I would like to reiterate that I am not saying that any of these photos are genuine!!!!

I would have to say that the most questionable photos here are the Villa ones.

The Slade photo looks like a genuine '60s or '70s vintage color print. The same can be said for the pic posted here by Imshadi. My gut feeling is that these are pictures of a genuine UFO. Imshadi's argument against them did not convince me. I await his reply to see if he can offer a better explanation.

But the Villa photos are questionable due to their extremely poor and degraded quality. They are, at best, copies of copies. And, not very good ones at that. Again, this does not mean anything except that they are bad copies.

But, if he is the "originator" of these photos, why are they so bad? Shouldn't he be in posession of the originals? Why do Slade and Imshadi have apparent first generation prints when Villa doesn't?

To my eye, the Slade print and Imshadi's print seem to be authentic photos of a strange flying object. Villa's photo, at least the first one, appears to come from the same original source. But, why is it such a horrifically bad copy?

The other "Villa" photo and the one from Michigan, again appear to stem from the same original source but, again, we have two people claiming it. Why? These are interesting photos which have been around for years and published many times. But I am far less convinced by them as the presence of the trees in close proximity to the saucer, make it much easier for them to have been faked.

I like the others much better. But that is just my opinion. And, a tentative one at that.

Bonehead




Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by bonehead on Nov 11th, 2007, 1:46pm

on Nov 6th, 2007, 12:23pm, Johhn wrote:
can you post those pictures here Bonehead?


Johhn,

They are on page one of this thread. Juts click on the link to page 1 at the bottom of this page.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Imshadi on Dec 6th, 2007, 1:28pm

Look at the edges as opposed to the tip, they have different levels of focusing, this can only mean that the object is very small (a scale model), and really close to the camera. This is not at all similar to motion blur, which looks like long straight lines.

Adamski's pic is definitely fake to me.

Regards,
Oliver.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 15th, 2008, 7:26pm

Greetings everyone,

I just found this forum, so this is my first posting for which you have obviously touched upon a topic area for which I have in the past, done extensive private research and investigation into.

OK Now to begin..

The photo or sets of photos, some of which you have posted here, allegedly claimed to be from Paul Valli, Neil Slade, etc, are actually taken from a series of photos originating, from a home movie clip taken near Merlin Oregon by Tahahlita B. Wiese Fry, A former wife of UFO contactee Daniel Fry.

Tahahlita B. Weise who's real name is also Bertha Mantzurani, while she was gathering home movie footage to sell her property near Merlin Oregon, took film footage of this suddenly appearing UFO (1964) which was later stolen by her real estate agent, Fritz Van Nest, who later made several attempts himself to profit from the photos.

Fritz Van Nest relocated himself to Kanab Utah 4 years later and claimed to have taken the photo himself by a lake near that location while on a camping trip. In the process, several cropped up photos of this type have been printed in different formates, sold, circulated and yet reclaimed by many individuals adding in their own copyrights to the photos, all within the past 40 years. About 4 or so years ago, I was able to find many of the different copyright holders and bring them all to each others attention, but as one of then would say to me, "Talk about a tempest in a teapot"! On one occasion the photo was even made into an X-files poster.

For those interested, I do have further poof of this story, because I have a portion of the original film clip, reversed mirror imaged, along with a collection of these same photos.

Others who have made claims to the photos since Fritz Van Nest, include...

-Bill McDonald who received the photo submitted to him by a Bruce Smith on 08/09/2003.
-Bruce Smith who took it from Gerry also in 2003.
-Dr Oren Swearingen who received the photo or photos from Bob and Yolanda Curtis.
-Neil Slade who received the photo from Henry Rowland, who then claims was from the brother of a client.

Note: Paul Valli had no association with the photo.

Peace in knowing,

James Truthseeker
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by creolelady on Mar 16th, 2008, 5:34pm

Good grief! What a tangled web that has been woven over the last forty years.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 17th, 2008, 04:43am

Welcome JTruthseeker.What a fantastic post for your first one.Thankyou indeed for all the research effort you have shared with us.I am so pleased that you have confirmed my suspicion that this first photo on the thread has absolutely nothing to do with Paul Villa.I always suspected that this was the case.The main reason I began this thread was to hopefully clear confusion about the original Paul Villa photos taken near Albuquerque which I know for certain are genuine,having seen the identical craft from a distance of less than 300 feet on the evening of 28th of December 1980.
It makes more sense of the lines in the photo that it is a single frame taken from a filmed event.How fitting that it was the former wife of Daniel Fry who took the movie.Like so many of the early contactees,Daniel Fry has been ridiculed by those who are either working to keep this whole subject under wraps,or are simply too stupid to recognise the truth.I strongly recommend Casebook members and guests to take a look at the Ralph Ring interview on the Project Camelot website.A more decent man than Ralph Ring would be hard to find and his connections with Daniel Fry,Otis Carr and others are so imformative about what some people really new and most importantly,when,that this interview is a must watch.I cannot praise the Project Camelot website too highly,and if you have not allready visited it,you are missing a treat.


Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 17th, 2008, 10:24pm

Greetings and thanks,

I'm curious then why the one photo was attributed to Paul Valli in the first place and who was responsible?, even if it's just a simple error, because I've seen the photo up there for some time now.

Apparently as you may be aware, there is also some video film from Paul Valli, which I knew about, but had never seen until about late 2006 when I found it one day on Youtube, however, the person who posted the film clip at the time seemed unaware as to the film's origins and viewers regarded it as a fake. Unfortunately I can't find it again because YouTube appears to have a limit of only 1000 segments when doing a search.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 18th, 2008, 03:42am

I've no idea who was responsible for attributing the photo to Paul Villa, but perhaps Casebook staff ought to consider changing it in view of your information.I certainly think so.
I was not aware that Paul had taken any movie footage.Timothy Good does not mention any footage in his book even though he interviewed Paul.I am surprised Tim did not mention it, if it did indeed exist.On the other hand,I would be delighted to see it ,if it could be shown to originate with Paul.
I notice from your posts that you spell Paul's surname incorrectly.His name is Villa and not Valli.Perhaps this could be interfering with your search.
I firmly believe that the genuine Paul Villa photographs are some of the most compelling evidence for extra terrestrial visitation which we have.A fact that was not lost on the powers that be who have done all they could to ridicule him.
I hope that one day Paul will be rightfully acclaimed as one of the pioneers of this subject, and let us not forget that it was the extra terrestrials who sought him out,not the other way around.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 18th, 2008, 12:03pm

Greetings, yes you are right, Villa is his correct last name and not Valli.

Unfortunately I've still had no success at finding the movie clip on Youtube and have been searching it out for about 3 days now. The clip may have been deleted by now, but if Youtube could at least allow searches to go by vid clips that were posted per year, then I know I would eventually find it if it's still up there. Other then that a person could be searching it out for months and never find it. Unfortunately I've not had any reply from YouTube staff in assisting me with the situation.

What I saw in that particular film clip was a UFO moving behind the back end of a truck as it moved onto it's side. I've also heard that there is yet another clip from Villa showing the much larger UFO like as seen in the ones in the pictures which you posted here at the beginning in this thread. I've never seen that clip, however was told that it was likely fake because you can see the UFO wobble as it spins. However I believe it to be real because the same UFO was filmed in Mexico back in 1997 which had the same spin and wobble effect which was described to me earlier.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 18th, 2008, 12:53pm

Good luck with your search.It would be very interesting to take a look at such a film.
I would not say that just because a slowly spinning ufo wobbles,it must be a fake.I would suggest that the opposite would be the case.We certainly know that ufos have been seen coming towards the ground with a falling leaf motion and I too have seen other film where the craft wobbled as it spun round.
As I said before,I was not aware that Paul Villa had ever shot a movie film of ufos,so while I hope you are right,I would urge a little caution.The reason I say this is because the powers that be would have been so disturbed by his photos,which they would certainly know were genuine,that they would try any trick going to discredit him.
All the best,
Rob
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Belizeman on Mar 18th, 2008, 1:28pm

In high school I raised fowl for the French Quarter.
That object looks very much like a chick brooder lamp assembly, right down to the exact placement of the bulbs!
If any of you have raised chickens, you know what I am talking about! wink wink
Though I had mine in the early sixty's; I saw photos in Sears Catalogs dating to the end of WW2!
I have also seen similar photos when taken with a simple Brownie camera of that era when taken up close!

I decided to Google chicken brooders. Guess what popped up?
Numerous hits linking back to Adamski's "Chicken Brooder UFO"! grin grin
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 18th, 2008, 2:28pm

Anyone not up to speed on the Paul Villa story might care to look at this page
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case985.htm
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 18th, 2008, 2:58pm

Hi Rob, you could be right, but also if anyone would know about Paul Villa having movie film, it would be Wendelle Stevens, but it may take a week or too before I can get in contact with him again. I'll let you know if I find anything.

To Belizeman, you are actually not that far off when you mention the chicken brooder thing, however this would not apply to Paul Villas photos, but rather I assume to the Adamski photo that someone posted here earlier. But not only is there a resemblance to chicken brooders, but also to a bottle cooler top from England and an apparent lamp shade. That's 3 objects that I know of that look strikingly similar to an Adamski saucer, but the original story is even stranger then that.

Apparently George Adamski was not the real contactee of these UFOs and his photos were constructed and faked by him. Now I say not the real contactee, because he apparently addopted his UFO story from a woman who apparently did have contact with such UFOs, but did not want to be known about it for quite some time, however it was not until before his death that we finally hear of her and even then she continued to associate her UFOs with Adamski. Her name being that of Madeleine Rodeffer. But what's even more interesting is that it turns out the people she came in contact with who were flying them UFOs were not from Venus as was the popular belief during the 1950s, but rather from Earth who used the term Venusians as their cover story to their real agenda. Another story though if you're interested.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Belizeman on Mar 18th, 2008, 3:03pm

Adamski's photo was the one I was referring to.
Thanks for the heads up to the "rest of the story"!

cool cool
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 18th, 2008, 3:17pm

You could well be right about Wendelle.I spoke to him at a conference in Leeds several years ago.He told me that he knew Paul Villa well and he assured me that his photos were genuine.
I'm sorry I can't agree with you about George Adamski.I am certain that he was indeed the contactee.I have one of his books and have seen much first hand testimony from reliable witnesses who confirm George's contacts.
With regard to the shape of some of the craft looking like conventional objects,I agree that they do.However, if you do a great deal of research as I have done, you will find that photos taken in different parts of the world show very similar craft which, whether we like it or not, means that this is their shape,or perhaps it might be more correct to say that this was their shape,for as we have seen,throughout history they have changed their shape to match contemporary objects.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 18th, 2008, 3:59pm

Actually I have a rather very large extensive collection of photos relating to UFOs which look very much like the Adamski saucer taken and seen from all over the world, so I'm not saying that it doesn't exit and I'm well aware of the Admaski witnesses, but, even if Adamski and his witnesses actually have observed phenomenon, which by the way I agree they did during one particular point, it has still come to my attention that he apparently still faked many of his first original photos, but not by using any of the 3 objects which I described earlier, but apparently done a different way. Unfortunately it was quite some time too before I discovered how he did it, and that's when I became convinced that he created faked photos. Apparently some of the objects where created that way not because of Adamski's popularity, but because someone knew something else which they didn't want the public to know.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 19th, 2008, 03:03am

I know that it has been said that George Adamski faked some of his photos and that he lost his grip on reality later on in his life. I firmly believe that neither of these assertions are true.
If you take a look at the Fastwalkers video you will find testimony by Alan Tolman who spent time at Mount Palomar with George Adamski along with other government officials and scientists.Alan Tolman describes seeing a scout craft type ufo appearing a couple of hundred yards from where he was standing.It does not make sense to me that George would fake photographs when he obviously had more than enough opportunity to photograph the real thing.
I believe the truth is that the secret government which controls the finances of this world became worried that George was saying too much,and therefore a carefully orchestrated campaign to destroy his credibility was launched.
There is nothing new about this technique. Anyone who provides evidence which is too good for the authorities to stomach will be a target for a campaign of ridicule or even worse.We don't have to look far to find examples.
It's all about the carefully controlled release of information at a pace which does not endanger financial institutions or the world economy at large.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by bonehead on Mar 19th, 2008, 11:38am

Jtruthseeker, Hubcap and all,

J, this is a very interesting assertion that you make. That the above posted "Villa", "Slade" and Imshadi photos owe their origins to a film originated by Fry's former wife puts a whole new spin on things. Since you claim to have samples from the Weise film, would it be possible for you to post some of them here?

For one thing, why was Villa trying to pass off these particular photos as his own? Clearly the Villa copies are pretty bad and much worse than the Slade and Imshadi copies posted here - neither of which are "original", if the film story is true. What did Villa have to gain from this blatant subtrefuge? If true, it certainly puts his other claims into question.

As regards Adamski and the "chicken brooder" - I am well aware of the asserted problems with Adamski's photos. I have three of Adamski's books and I have always found his photos to be mostly laughably absurd. The very best of his photos is the one I posted earlier and repeat here:

User Image

If you will notice the three bright highlights on the "landing gear sphere" (light bulb?) to the left, these highlights are not compatible with a large object photographed from a distance. For such a highlight to appear, there would have to be three very large and intense lights or reflective surfaces below the object being photographed. However, with a smaller object, such as a chicken brooder, the scale becomes much more convincing. The intensity of this reflection makes more sense at a smaller scale. For these reasons, along with its asserted resemblance to a chicken brooder, I feel the Adamski photo is most likely a fake.

But this still leaves the above posted photos which perhaps should be attributed to Fry's former wife. Imshadi's explanation still does not convince me. Sorry I.S. If these pics are, in fact, stills from a film, the kind of fakery Imshadi describes becomes much more difficult by a huge factor. If theses pics really are still prints taken from a film, then I am even more inclined to think that they may be valid photos. I would really love to see this film!

Then, of course, there are the numerous other photos of this style of saucer, from many other sources, that perhaps found their prototype with Adamski's "chicken brooder"!? shocked huh Wha...?

JTruthseeker, you have posted some very provocative info here. Please post some samples of your pics here, if possible. If not, then could we have more details of how you came by this story of the film?

Cheers!!

Bonehead
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 19th, 2008, 12:24pm

For one thing, why was Villa trying to pass off these particular photos as his own? Clearly the Villa copies are pretty bad and much worse than the Slade and Imshadi copies posted here - neither of which are "original", if the film story is true. What did Villa have to gain from this blatant subtrefuge? If true, it certainly puts his other claims into question.

How do you know that he claimed the photo?
Who knows for sure,but in my opinion,I feel it very unlikely that Paul Villa ever claimed the above mentioned photo.Either it is a simple mistake by Casebook or the person who supplied the photo,or a deliberate attempt to cause confusion and thereby blacken Paul Villa's name.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by bonehead on Mar 19th, 2008, 1:58pm

on Mar 19th, 2008, 12:24pm, HUBCAP9 wrote:
How do you know that he claimed the photo?


Because you posted it that way and attributed it to him?

I am only going by what has been posted on this thread here.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 19th, 2008, 4:47pm

OK about posting pics, I'm not sure how to do this here yet, etc. Perhaps someone can give suggestions.

Now about the vid-clip, right now I have this with me as a vob file and I'm hoping to post it up on YouTube for everyone to see, but I think you need a certain file format to post things up on YouTube, which I've also got to figure out.

Now about the Adamski witnesses at Mt Palomar, as I mentioned before, sure there were witnesses, however I'm not fully convinced yet that what they saw was the same object as what Adamski took photos of, because I seem to recall Adamski did not take photos of the UFOs on the day when the witnesses were present.

-James Truthseeker
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Mar 20th, 2008, 03:36am

on Mar 19th, 2008, 1:58pm, bonehead wrote:
Because you posted it that way and attributed it to him?

I am only going by what has been posted on this thread here.


My apologies Bonehead, so I did.Must be more careful how I word things in the future. wink
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by africa on Mar 20th, 2008, 1:17pm

Those photos remained me of nazi ufo Haunebu II

[imUser Imageg]TEXT[/img]

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Mar 20th, 2008, 10:32pm

You're not very far off. From what I've been able to make out so far is; A secret group of Germans during and after World war 2 known as the Thule society where the ones actually responsible. Had not the allies invaded Germany when they did, the Nazi's probably would have succeeded in their plans for world domination, instead about a thousand of them had escaped to a hidden place in Brazil, supposedly to an ancient ruin site called Akakor near the Peruvian boarder where they formed an alliance with a group of natives there called the Ugha Mongulala, if I recall correctly. But they were not alone, they had assistance from a rather secret Earth bound group of former ETs called the Baffath, located in the underground of the Gizeh in Egypt. About 2 years after the war, a second group of escaped Nazi's were said to have escaped to an area of the south pole called Neuschwabenland where a fleet of allied ships under the command of Admiral Byrd were sent to seek them out and destroy in what became known as Operation High-jump, but in time Admiral Byrd fail under their influence of the Baffath while on a plane scouting out the area. Byrd and his flight crew had actually believed that they had come into contact with people living from in the inner Earth, the very same group of Aryans which Hitler himself at one point had sought to find. Meanwhile the Germans were able to successfully fight off the allied ships until about 10 years later when the USA supposedly decided to nuke them with one or two nukes. In 1952, both the Baffath and X-Germans from Brazil had decided to initiate open contact with a veriety of individuals across the USA and Great Briton under the guise of calling themselves Venusians. Meanwhile the Baffath which had now apparently spit into two separate factions, both prepared a campaign of their own to initiate religious apparitions to appear over the heads of thousands of religious believers while the Germans worked at drawing together large crowds of people with their selected chosen, most of whom became will known icons of the UFO seen during the 1950s, to around the mid 1960s and even later. That should cover most of the basics anyway, although I'm always finding more.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by africa on Mar 21st, 2008, 4:43pm

Some of this what you brought up are very new things to me and some facts are different of well known.
However some connection should be between Nazi UFOs and those photos and even later UFOs with Haunebu III and IV.


[iUser Imagemg]TEXT[/img]
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by pianoman2054 on Aug 24th, 2008, 09:22am

I am "a Bruce Smith" referred to in James Truthseekers' message about the photo, submitted by Imshadi on 10/31/07, with the damage on it. Here is what was said by James Truthseeker: -Bill McDonald who received the photo submitted to him by a Bruce Smith on 08/09/2003.
-Bruce Smith who took it from Gerry also in 2003.
If Mr. Truthseeker was just that he would know that I did NOT "TAKE" this photo from anyone other than the person that I got the actual photo from. When I submitted it to Bill McDonald I explained to him that this photo was found in an old Bible, by my sister, belonging to her husband. He was not sure where it came from but the Bible came from his father. Since his father had passed he is unable to get any info on it. Since then many people have laid claim to it on Mr. McDonald's site. I do not care! What I do care about is that Mr. Truthseeker is saying that I "took" it from someone. This is ludicrous! Mr. Truthseeker should live up to his name!!!
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Aug 24th, 2008, 4:17pm

No I am not lying, I seem to remember hearing that myself from a Gerry that he is the person you got it from since the photo was originally posted at "UFO database.com" and just to prove my case, how else would have Jerry pulled the photo off of Bill McDonald's site when Bill in fact had at the time disabled the download feature of photos from his site along with stamping on the the photo the words "alienUFOart.com" as can also still be seen here with another photo he posted from Paul Villa, but without the ©.
http://www.alienufoart.com/NewUFO.htm
I see Bill has now either removed the photo or hid it somewhere else on his site. In any case Bruce Smith, even though UFO database is no longer existing now, here is still a link to it that which can be found to the original site through internet archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040803184753/http://www.ufodatabase.com/photos/unknown.asp
Let's face it Bruce Smith, you are caught with your pants down! But don't feel bad, because according to some it's further possible that you or Gerry got the photo from Neil Slade. http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/BrozUFO.html

James Truthseeker
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Sep 24th, 2008, 9:01pm

Hi James,

Did you ever figure out how to convert VOB files into something you can upload to YouTube ? Another possibility is simply to upload the VOB file as is onto "Rapidshare" or "4shared"

If you still don't know how to do that, maybe I can help.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Sep 25th, 2008, 05:06am

Greetings ufoscan,

I did in fact find away to get this put into a WMV and then into an MPG file to bring it down into smaller size. Perhaps I can send it to the moderator here of this group to post here for everyone to view. I'm a little hesitant though in trying to post it up on Youtube if there is anyone else out there who has any copyright claims to it. Unfortunately I can only send the smaller one in size which unfortunately is going to be a little less clear then an already unclear piece of film footage. Keep in mind it already is in reverse mirror image to the still frames taken from it. Interestingly enough I more recently saw a clip of it aired on a recent Canadian UFO TV documentary from which I could see someone had tried to digitally go over and fix up the segment, so I'm obviously not the only person who has this.

-James Truthseeker
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Sep 25th, 2008, 11:29pm

Hi James,

Very interesting that you should mention a Canadian UFO documentary because I happen to be Canadian and I do recall seeing a documentary in the early nineties that had a very short film sequence that reminded me very strongly of the Tahalita Fry pictures. But the film I saw was b&w and showed TWO objects in the same sequence, one of which looked like the Adamski-type craft and the other was reminiscent of the Dan Fry disc. I was very surprised by that. Unfortunately, I do not recall the documentary's title. I think it was actually a special on UFOs on a Canadian network and also had some segments on the AVRO saucer. Does that ring a bell or is your footage different ?

I don't know the original size of the VOB file you have but, if it's only a few seconds long, it could be uploaded to Rapidshare. The advantage of Rapidshare is you can upload files up to 100 Mb and you can also make them password-protected if you wish. Therefore you could for example put a password on it and put the password in this thread so only the discussion group here could access it. That said, the only person that holds copyright is the original owner and, by now, it is probably in the public domain. But by using Rapidshare, you are at least not displaying it publicly because that is a download site only. In other words, it does not display its video content like YouTube does. It is mainly for sharing between friends who can only access the files via a link you provide. If the VOB file is really too large, you can upload the WMV file on that same site - or you can upload both versions. Needless to say, I would be curious to see it in the best definition possible.

By the way, do you remember the title of the Canadian UFO documentary where the footage appeared ? Maybe I could tell from the title if it's the same one I saw.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 19th, 2012, 12:37am

on Nov 5th, 2007, 02:07am, bonehead wrote:
Imshadi,

I agree with you about the photos seeming to be authentic "in camera" photos (rather than composites). However, I am not so sure about the photos being a hoax. I am not saying they aren't either.

If you look at your photo and the other two variations here, the "Villa" and the "Slade" photos, it seems pretty clear to me that these were all taken at the same time at the same place. They are probably different shots taken from the same roll of film. The only difference between them is the position of the UFO and the general orientation of the background.

The differing positions of the UFO in respect to the background suggest that the object has moved between the photos. So, couldn't the noticeable blur (you suggest indicates a hoax) equally as well be caused by movement of the object as the photos were being snapped?

I have many years of experience at photography myself, so I am familiar with the depth of field issues you mention. But let's face it, if these pics are hoaxed, they are pretty good!

Other issues also are of interest: why is the supposed "earliest" example of these photos also the worst reproduction? It is a terribly degraded example compared to yours and the Slade prints, which appear to be genuine color prints of '60s or '70s vintage.

Even more intriguing is the object's resemblance to the Adamski "bell shaped" craft. This craft has appeared in many photos from different places and years. They have supposedly been photographed in the States by Howard Menger and in England by a young boy. However, those pics are terrible when compared to these.

And, as Backlit points out, this same type of craft was actually made into a Model kit by Aurora. The TV Series came out in 1967 and the model kit was released as a tie-in for the TV series. The model was clearly modeled after the Adamski photos from the '50s. If the Villa photo is correctly dated to '63, then his photos predated the model kit and TV series.

User Image

Here is one of Adamski's photos. I am aware of some issues here as well. But I find the comparison interesting at any rate.

So, do you think the blur could be movement as opposed to depth of field? The scenery in these photos is not that clear either. This suggests poor focusing, a cheap camera or both.




Wow! That's the clearest photo of that Adamski shot that I've seen. Is that yours?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by PowerKnight on Dec 19th, 2012, 05:36am

The second set of photographs just the one but enhanced is actually in a very similar vein to the one I witnessed all those years ago, hence the change of my avatar!
However the main difference being I couldn`t identify any markings or a seperation a middle etc, but it appeared to look just like that in shape and similar dimensions, it always reminds me of the classic flying saucer type craft.
The Adamski affair is a complete hoax end of, not too sure on the other scan? PowerKnight wink
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 20th, 2012, 1:26pm

on Mar 15th, 2008, 7:26pm, JTruthseeker wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I just found this forum, so this is my first posting for which you have obviously touched upon a topic area for which I have in the past, done extensive private research and investigation into.

OK Now to begin..

The photo or sets of photos, some of which you have posted here, allegedly claimed to be from Paul Valli, Neil Slade, etc, are actually taken from a series of photos originating, from a home movie clip taken near Merlin Oregon by Tahahlita B. Wiese Fry, A former wife of UFO contactee Daniel Fry.

Tahahlita B. Weise who's real name is also Bertha Mantzurani, while she was gathering home movie footage to sell her property near Merlin Oregon, took film footage of this suddenly appearing UFO (1964) which was later stolen by her real estate agent, Fritz Van Nest, who later made several attempts himself to profit from the photos.

Fritz Van Nest relocated himself to Kanab Utah 4 years later and claimed to have taken the photo himself by a lake near that location while on a camping trip. In the process, several cropped up photos of this type have been printed in different formates, sold, circulated and yet reclaimed by many individuals adding in their own copyrights to the photos, all within the past 40 years. About 4 or so years ago, I was able to find many of the different copyright holders and bring them all to each others attention, but as one of then would say to me, "Talk about a tempest in a teapot"! On one occasion the photo was even made into an X-files poster.

For those interested, I do have further poof of this story, because I have a portion of the original film clip, reversed mirror imaged, along with a collection of these same photos.

Others who have made claims to the photos since Fritz Van Nest, include...

-Bill McDonald who received the photo submitted to him by a Bruce Smith on 08/09/2003.
-Bruce Smith who took it from Gerry also in 2003.
-Dr Oren Swearingen who received the photo or photos from Bob and Yolanda Curtis.
-Neil Slade who received the photo from Henry Rowland, who then claims was from the brother of a client.

Note: Paul Valli had no association with the photo.

Peace in knowing,

James Truthseeker


How do I get the best quality copies of the Adamski, Villa, Fry, photos etc. I got interested in UFO's from seeing these in UFO books in the 60's.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 20th, 2012, 2:29pm

on Dec 20th, 2012, 1:26pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
How do I get the best quality copies of the Adamski, Villa, Fry, photos etc. I got interested in UFO's from seeing these in UFO books in the 60's.


I too got interested in UFOs in the early sixties and took an interest in many of the pictures made by the so-called contactees. In 1967, I met a man that had been in touch with many of them and had an album of original prints he got from Adamski as well as prints of pictures by Cedric Allingham and Paul Villa. He also knew Menger, but I don't recall him showing any pictures from him. On my part, I got prints direct from frames of the Fry movies (Fry never took pictures - only 16mm footage). In 1968, I met Madeleine Rodeffer, saw the Adamski film footage taken in her backyard and she gave me prints made from frames of the original footage. I also researched most of the well-known pictures of Adamski-type photographs.

Today, I still have the prints made from the Fry frames and also acquired sets of the Villa pictures that were sold by Gabriel Green at the time (AFSCA) from a friend who has since passed away. I also maintained contact with Madeleine Rodeffer over the years (she passed away not long ago) and acquired many more prints from her film sequence back in 1988.

The Fry film footage can be seen on YouTube. There was also some footage made by Fry's then wife some years later, but the still pictures discussed were actual stills made along with the film footage, not prints from frames.

By the way, it is my interest in UFO pictures when I was young which drove me to become a professional photographer !
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Dec 21st, 2012, 03:46am

on Dec 20th, 2012, 2:29pm, ufoscan wrote:
I too got interested in UFOs in the early sixties and took an interest in many of the pictures made by the so-called contactees. In 1967, I met a man that had been in touch with many of them and had an album of original prints he got from Adamski as well as prints of pictures by Cedric Allingham and Paul Villa. He also knew Menger, but I don't recall him showing any pictures from him. On my part, I got prints direct from frames of the Fry movies (Fry never took pictures - only 16mm footage). In 1968, I met Madeleine Rodeffer, saw the Adamski film footage taken in her backyard and she gave me prints made from frames of the original footage. I also researched most of the well-known pictures of Adamski-type photographs.

Today, I still have the prints made from the Fry frames and also acquired sets of the Villa pictures that were sold by Gabriel Green at the time (AFSCA) from a friend who has since passed away. I also maintained contact with Madeleine Rodeffer over the years (she passed away not long ago) and acquired many more prints from her film sequence back in 1988.

The Fry film footage can be seen on YouTube. There was also some footage made by Fry's then wife some years later, but the still pictures discussed were actual stills made along with the film footage, not prints from frames.

By the way, it is my interest in UFO pictures when I was young which drove me to become a professional photographer !


So when you say they were "actual stills made along with the film footage, not prints from frames". Do you mean they were snap shots taken from the Movie footage when it was being shown on a screen? Also thanks for you input. Also when did, or how long ago was it when Madeleine Rodeffer past away?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 21st, 2012, 04:31am

on Dec 21st, 2012, 03:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
So when you say they were "actual stills made along with the film footage, not prints from frames". Do you mean they were snap shots taken from the Movie footage when it was being shown on a screen? Also thanks for you input. Also when did, or how long ago was it when Madeleine Rodeffer past away?


No. I mean that she (Tahalita) shot some film footage as well as stills of the objects.

Here is my story on how I first saw those pictures and how I met Madeleine Rodeffer:

Back in the late sixties, I belonged to a local group called the Montreal UFO Study Group. This group was very active and they sometimes held conferences with internationally known guests. Madeleine Rodeffer had been invited by the group to give a lecture in Montreal in May 1968. As an active member very interested in contactee claims, I was invited to meet her at the apartment where she stayed the day before the conference. I spent several hours talking with her and a few other guests. (We were only five including Madeleine.)

She was invited again in 1970 and I had supper with her and a few other friends. We kept in touch by phone over the years and in 1988 I organised another conference in Montreal. She came and stayed for a whole week and met with many people here. After that our contacts were sporadic. A couple of years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine who also knew her and we decided to try and get back in touch with her. He called and got her answering machine and left a message. About a month later, he got a phone call from a man who was a close friend of hers and he announced that she had passed away two weeks before my friend's phone call. I believe this was about two years ago. But I'd have to check my files to find the exact date. There was a memorial service in her honour but I could not attend.

As to the Tahalita Fry pictures... In 1970 the MUFOSG organized another conference with Marianne Francis (a channel) and Daniel Fry. After the conference, Marianne showed me a set of pictures she said were made by Fry's wife. There were five or six square prints - quite clear images showing the Adamski-type object in various positions over a railway. Those were original prints that belonged to Daniel Fry who was standing a few feet away from us at the time. All the prints were mounted in sequence on a long piece of thick cardboard.

The prints were too sharp to be derived from tiny 16mm film frames and besides, the prints show images which do not match any of the sequences I have seen of the Tahalita Fry footage. Another important point is that all the footage I have seen of this scene shows two objects in the frame: an Adamski-type one and another one that looks more like the classic Fry saucer in Daniel Fry's original film. But the stills only show the Adamski-type object.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 21st, 2012, 04:47am

Any chance you could figure out who has that Adamski type photo sequence now?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 21st, 2012, 12:51pm

on Dec 21st, 2012, 04:47am, thepixelpusher wrote:
Any chance you could figure out who has that Adamski type photo sequence now?


I lost touch with the man who had these prints many years ago. However, the last time I talked to him he had given away his entire UFO books and documents collection to his nephew. I met his nephew once about twenty years ago and have no contact information for him.

Anyhow, the Adamski prints were nothing special - essentially the same pictures that you see in the first book.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:30am

Hello UFOSCAN,

I was very interested to read your posts. It is good to have people here who have taken a serious interest in this whole subject over a long period. It must have been extremely interesting for you to hear Madeleine Rodeffer's accounts first hand.
I am of the opinion that George Adamski was a very special person who gave us as much genuine information as he was able, allowing for the fact that he quite rightly would not give details which might endanger his contacts.
We live in a world where trust is in very short supply, but what people forget is that George was born in a different era, and anyone who diligently studies his life can easily see that he was a man of great integrity. It saddens me to hear people call him a hoaxer.
Modern ufologists are always looking for new cases, new photographs or film. What many people fail to understand is that we have already been given many of the answers we seek by people such as George Adamski, Howard Menger, Daniel Fry and others.

Best Wishes,

Rob Hulse
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Equalizer on Dec 22nd, 2012, 1:15pm

Very interesting..I can see how these matters hoax or not can become labours of love, and even collected like baseball cards.. smiley
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 22nd, 2012, 7:29pm

on Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:30am, HUBCAP9 wrote:
Hello UFOSCAN,

I was very interested to read your posts. It is good to have people here who have taken a serious interest in this whole subject over a long period. It must have been extremely interesting for you to hear Madeleine Rodeffer's accounts first hand.
I am of the opinion that George Adamski was a very special person who gave us as much genuine information as he was able, allowing for the fact that he quite rightly would not give details which might endanger his contacts.
We live in a world where trust is in very short supply, but what people forget is that George was born in a different era, and anyone who diligently studies his life can easily see that he was a man of great integrity. It saddens me to hear people call him a hoaxer.
Modern ufologists are always looking for new cases, new photographs or film. What many people fail to understand is that we have already been given many of the answers we seek by people such as George Adamski, Howard Menger, Daniel Fry and others.

Best Wishes,

Rob Hulse


Thanks for your comments, Rob. Unfortunately things are not as black & white as one would like...

As an example, when I first met Madeleine Rodeffer in May 1968, I was very interested in the Menger case. I had read Menger's book back in October 1967 and was very taken by it. But when I mentioned him to Madeleine, she said that "George said he is a fraud". She proceeded to tell me that George had told her that before Menger made claims of being a contactee, he had visited Adamski and spent a week with him and asked many details about his story. Then Menger went public with his own UFO account and pictures of "craft" that looked like the ones Adamski had photographed.

Menger, on his part, recanted his own account in the early sixties but then in the nineties, he came back with a new version of it with several alterations and new twists. I corresponded with Menger at that point and just didn't know what to make of it... That's when he self-published "The High Bridge Incident".

Also, back in 1968, Madeleine told me that she was the one that had taken the movie footage in front of her house in February 1965. But some years later, she admitted it was Adamski that took it. She explained that it was Adamski that asked her to say she did. But even stranger, she also revealed that Adamski had asked her to say that he was not even there at the time the film was made !

Back in 1988, when I invited Madeleine to come and spend a week in Montreal with our group (this was a group of friends with a common interest in UFOs - three of us knew Madeleine since 1968), I told Madeleine we wanted to examine her film footage carefully. Two of us were professional photographers and we wanted to evaluate it from a technical standpoint. At that time, I had not seen the footage in 20 years. I also asked that she bring copies of all the frame grabs that Bill Sherwood had made from the original footage.

To this she answered "for all I know that film could be fake. Government agents may have switched it !" She then said that it was "Mr. Adamski's message of the space brothers" that was important, not the photographs...

But she did bring the film and all the prints I had asked and we got to take a good look at it all. We videotaped the footage and she gave me the prints. We also interviewed her at length. She also gave some of us a little pin depicting the "scout ship".

As for Fry, I first obtained print enlargements from some 16mm film frames back in August 1967 directly from Gabriel Green. I only saw the actual footage in 1969 on the old Art Linkletter show. Frank E. Stranges was a guest and he showed some of it. Art didn't buy it at all as it looked to him like a model suspended on a string. I first saw the colour version on a large screen in 1970, when Daniel Fry gave his conference in Montreal. Frankly, I wasn't impressed by his footage. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but to me it looked pretty much as Art described - just a model suspended on a string.

The Villa case I also discovered in 1967 through Gabriel Green. I loved those pictures. They made my spirit soar... But there was a nasty skeptic in our UFO group that pointed out that, on one of Villa's pictures that showed a saucer next to a tree, one could see a branch extending behind - not in front of - the UFO. That really spoiled it for me, but I still love those pictures as they look very realistic and very similar to a UFO I saw around that time.

Timothy Good met Villa and chatted with him quite a bit, but he told me that Villa made some very ambiguous claims. For example, Villa claimed that the "space brothers" had taught him how to make his own remote controlled UFO model and there is a picture sequence that Villa made that are clearly of the same object in the same scene, yet where Villa insisted that one picture showed the alien saucer, while the other showed Villa's own reproduction of it !

So the problem with all these people is - whether you wish to believe them or not - some of the claims they make are hard to come to terms with...


Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:31pm

on Dec 22nd, 2012, 1:15pm, Equalizer wrote:
Very interesting..I can see how these matters hoax or not can become labours of love, and even collected like baseball cards.. smiley


I wonder if someone had a set of UFO Collector's Cards, would you guys buy them?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:13pm

on Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:31pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I wonder if someone had a set of UFO Collector's Cards, would you guys buy them?


I suspect that Equalizer was kidding around...

But to answer your question: Definitely not. I am not a collector but a researcher. I am interested in seeing as close to original images -which means they should be prints made from original negatives or - nowadays - original image files that still have their meta data.

The pictures I mentioned fit that description. They interest me for evaluation purposes - not as "collector" images.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:26pm

I understand the pure research aspect. That said, I would buy UFO Collector Cards. I like having things peak my imagination. Imagination and enthusiasm aide research in developing ideas of analysis for the incidents and evidence. I can easily separate the collectibles from the evidence, while still enjoying both. Helps keep the world an interesting place.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 23rd, 2012, 12:10am

on Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:26pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I understand the pure research aspect. That said, I would buy UFO Collector Cards. I like having things peak my imagination. Imagination and enthusiasm aide research in developing ideas of analysis for the incidents and evidence. I can easily separate the collectibles from the evidence, while still enjoying both. Helps keep the world an interesting place.


In my view, the concept of "collector cards" is more suited to works of fiction. In the UFO field, there are so many hoaxed pictures that if the object is mainly to have "nice pictures" even though they are most likely hoaxes, one might as well just create great CGI images.

Back in 1980, large limited edition high definition photo books were made of the Meier pictures. Those are probably as close as you will get to a "collector set" of pictures. If you believe in the authenticity of this case, then that might be something precious. If you don't but just like the "artistry" of the images, it remains an interesting item from a collector's standpoint.

I understand your point about wanting to have some inspirational material. I always found the Villa pictures very inspiring even though I doubt their authenticity. I am glad to have original prints of them (which don't compare to any of the low res scans I have seen on the net) for that very reason. Some of the Villa images are truly mystifying ! However, nowadays, I don't think collector cards of these would be satisfactory. They would be way too small. I think a much simpler approach would be high resolution scans - short of a large format book !

By the way, Wendelle Stevens had told me shortly after he produced those large Meier photo books that he wanted to do something similar with the Villa pictures, but he never got the financing to do it. Many years later, he did produce a book on Villa with several of his pictures - but in small format.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:12am

Would you share thumbnails of your photos so we can see what pictures Villa took? I'm not familiar with the photos.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:12am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:12am, thepixelpusher wrote:
Would you share thumbnails of your photos so we can see what pictures Villa took? I'm not familiar with the photos.


I haven't scanned any of those prints. It is one of those many things I will do "one of those days" ! wink

However, here are some links that show some of his pictures.

His first series shows what is suppose to be a large craft with a very large hump in the center:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/VillaPhoto1.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoII.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7771/19630716villa2.jpg

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa10.jpg

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

His third set is a series of pictures he claims are of a two-foot wide observation disc with spheres orbiting the disc:

http://www.ufofacts.org/technology/imgs/ScannerPaulVilla.jpg

Note how a tripod appears when it comes in for a landing:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa4.jpg

A lot of people looking at the pictures in this set wrongly assumed that Villa had claimed these were of a large craft and argued that it must be faked since one can see the shadow of the small object on the ground in some pictures. But Villa always specified that this series is of a small remote-controlled disc. Some of the pictures show the object landed with the tripod structure:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoIV.jpg

It looks pretty much the size he claims it to be. What I find interesting about this sequence is that even close-up, the finish of the object looks flawless. Also, when the object is near the ground there is no tripod and no signs of fastenings for the feet that later appear just as the disc comes in for a landing. Of couse the other strange detail are those spheres "orbiting" the disc. They are in every picture and some of the pictures show the spheres without the disc. If these are hoaxes, they are the most clever I have ever seen.




Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:12am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:12am, ufoscan wrote:
I haven't scanned any of those prints. It is one of those many things I will do "one of those days" ! wink

However, here are some links that show some of his pictures.

His first series shows what is suppose to be a large craft with a very large hump in the center:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/VillaPhoto1.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoII.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7771/19630716villa2.jpg

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa10.jpg

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

His third set is a series of pictures he claims are of a two-foot wide observation disc with spheres orbiting the disc:

http://www.ufofacts.org/technology/imgs/ScannerPaulVilla.jpg

Note how a tripod appears when it comes in for a landing:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa4.jpg

A lot of people looking at the pictures in this set wrongly assumed that Villa had claimed these were of a large craft and argued that it must be faked since one can see the shadow of the small object on the ground in some pictures. But Villa always specified that this series is of a small remote-controlled disc. Some of the pictures show the object landed with the tripod structure:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoIV.jpg

It looks pretty much the size he claims it to be. What I find interesting about this sequence is that even close-up, the finish of the object looks flawless. Also, when the object is near the ground there is no tripod and no signs of fastenings for the feet that later appear just as the disc comes in for a landing. Of couse the other strange detail are those spheres "orbiting" the disc. They are in every picture and some of the pictures show the spheres without the disc. If these are hoaxes, they are the most clever I have ever seen.



Hey by any chance have you seen the Paul Villas film segments? I've seen one of these some time ago and now it's like no one has these anymore.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 23rd, 2012, 09:55am

on Dec 22nd, 2012, 7:29pm, ufoscan wrote:
....
So the problem with all these people is - whether you wish to believe them or not - some of the claims they make are hard to come to terms with...



Indeed.....there are many problems with all of these contact cases, especially the ones involving Nordic looking aliens, that make it very difficult to get at the truth.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 23rd, 2012, 09:57am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:12am, JTruthseeker wrote:
Hey by any chance have you seen the Paul Villas film segments? I've seen one of these some time ago and now it's like no one has these anymore.


I have never heard of Paul Villa ever having made film footage. I discussed Villa with both Wendelle Stevens and Timothy Good and neither of them had heard of film footage either.

Is it possible that what you saw was wrongly attributed to Villa ?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:12am, ufoscan wrote:
I haven't scanned any of those prints. It is one of those many things I will do "one of those days" ! wink

However, here are some links that show some of his pictures.

His first series shows what is suppose to be a large craft with a very large hump in the center:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/VillaPhoto1.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoII.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7771/19630716villa2.jpg

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa10.jpg

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

His third set is a series of pictures he claims are of a two-foot wide observation disc with spheres orbiting the disc:

http://www.ufofacts.org/technology/imgs/ScannerPaulVilla.jpg

Note how a tripod appears when it comes in for a landing:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Villa4.jpg

A lot of people looking at the pictures in this set wrongly assumed that Villa had claimed these were of a large craft and argued that it must be faked since one can see the shadow of the small object on the ground in some pictures. But Villa always specified that this series is of a small remote-controlled disc. Some of the pictures show the object landed with the tripod structure:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dexxxaa/_uimages/PaulVillasPhotoIV.jpg

It looks pretty much the size he claims it to be. What I find interesting about this sequence is that even close-up, the finish of the object looks flawless. Also, when the object is near the ground there is no tripod and no signs of fastenings for the feet that later appear just as the disc comes in for a landing. Of couse the other strange detail are those spheres "orbiting" the disc. They are in every picture and some of the pictures show the spheres without the disc. If these are hoaxes, they are the most clever I have ever seen.



It's interesting that the larger ufos are always very near or betweeen trees. And the smaller tripod one really looks..well, cheesy to me. Why would it need such long tripods..?
Also did Villa ever claim personal contact with the 'aliens' and if so what transpired?
It has always bothered me that these people like Adamski, Villa, Menger etc just happen to be at the right place to take pics. Are the 'aliens' putting on a private show for these 'contactees'? And then they leave...what's the point of this agenda?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:40am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am, drwu23 wrote:
It's interesting that the larger ufos are always very near or between trees.

The pictures do look like they were carefully composed as one would do using a scale model. However , Villa claims that he was telelepatically told in advance they would show up and essentially, the craft "posed" for the pictures.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am, drwu23 wrote:
And the smaller tripod one really looks..well, cheesy to me. Why would it need such long tripods..?

The tripod legs are actually quite short. They only look long in proportion to the object. But given their purpose in keeping the object some distance away from the ground, the size seems adequate.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am, drwu23 wrote:
Also did Villa ever claim personal contact with the 'aliens' and if so what transpired?

Yes, he claimed that he met the beings inside the object in the first series and that they said they came from Coma Berenices. In fact, he claims to have had previous meetings with aliens and that the picture sessions were planned events.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am, drwu23 wrote:
It has always bothered me that these people like Adamski, Villa, Menger etc just happen to be at the right place to take pics. Are the 'aliens' putting on a private show for these 'contactees'?

Since they all claim regular contact with the occupants, most of them say that the photo opportunities are planned.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:03am, drwu23 wrote:
And then they leave...what's the point of this agenda?

Essentially, just trying to draw attention to the fact that there is other life in the universe and that some of it is visiting Earth.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:40am, ufoscan wrote:
The pictures do look like they were carefully composed as one would do using a scale model. However , Villa claims that he was telelepatically told in advance they would show up and essentially, the craft "posed" for the pictures.


The tripod legs are actually quite short. They only look long in proportion to the object. But given their purpose in keeping the object some distance away from the ground, the size seems adequate.


Yes, he claimed that he met the beings inside the object in the first series and that they said they came from Coma Berenices. In fact, he claims to have had previous meetings with aliens and that the picture sessions were planned events.


Since they all claim regular contact with the occupants, most of them say that the photo opportunities are planned.


Essentially, just trying to draw attention to the fact that there is other life in the universe and that some of it is visiting Earth.


Thanks for the clarifications.....these cases always bother me. I simply don't see any logical reason why advanced space aliens would contact these marginal people just to let us know they are here.There are far far better ways to 'introduce' themselves to earth if they are so inclined. It feels ...wrong. It seems more like they are just playing with our heads.
Surely advanced beings would have scouted us out for a while before making contact. They must have surmised that this would only create confusion and most likely disbelief. So why bother to do this? It simply doesn't add up for me. Other than those who follow the ufo enigma, a relatively small group compared to the world population, no one even knows about this 'contact'. IMHo the 'aliens' are wasting their time and ours unless there is another agenda here.

btw...have you read any of Dr Vallee's books, especially Messengers Of Deception..?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:29am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications.....these cases always bother me. I simply don't see any logical reason why advanced space aliens would contact these marginal people just to let us know they are here.

Probably because people that are "higher up" on the social ladder would never risk going public with such seemingly outlandish stories. Few people are willing to put their reputation in peril when they are in good standing with society.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
There are far far better ways to 'introduce' themselves to earth if they are so inclined.

It may seem so. But the truth is that a more open contact would result in worldwide panic. I suspect they are aware of that. Another reason is they may be aware that if they openly manifested to humans, many would expect them to solve all of the world's problems while others would want their technology to create more efficient weapons.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
It feels ...wrong. It seems more like they are just playing with our heads.

I think one must put things in perspective. The people that we are discussing have made claims of contact. There is no proof that they have made such contacts. Also, they are mostly known because of the pictures they took - pictures which are far from convincing in that none of them ever show the objects in situations that would be impossible to fake.

So the first thing one should do is distinguish between contactee claims and the general phenomenon of UFOs being sighted all over the world. The contactee claims may or may not be true, but clearly the UFO phenomenon is.

However, if aliens do make contact with humans, it seems to me that doing so quietly may be the best course of action although most people contacted would probably not dare reveal such stories publicly for fear that it would ruin their personal lives.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
Surely advanced beings would have scouted us out for a while before making contact. They must have surmised that this would only create confusion and most likely disbelief. So why bother to do this?

Just to give us enough to ponder upon and wonder about.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
It simply doesn't add up for me. Other than those who follow the ufo enigma, a relatively small group compared to the world population, no one even knows about this 'contact'.

The UFO phenomenon as a whole is well-known throughout the world. The problem is not whether people know about it but whether people care about it.

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59am, drwu23 wrote:
btw...have you read any of Dr Vallee's books, especially Messengers Of Deception..?

I am well acquainted with Vallée's work and know about "Messengers of Deception". I think his angle is based on an assumption which is one of many. As I said, one must distinguish between the claims of individuals and the phenomenon as a whole.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Sam on Dec 23rd, 2012, 1:46pm

Quote:
I simply don't see any logical reason why advanced space aliens would contact these marginal people just to let us know they are here.There are far far better ways to 'introduce' themselves to earth if they are so inclined.


If you think we contactees and encounter are marginal people then why do you always ask me for free evidence and mention our claim. Sounds like you want to decide how the aliens should contact our earth. this is why they come to see us not you. Simple as that.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by jm57 on Dec 23rd, 2012, 6:46pm

IMHO,everyone on Earth is"marginal",after all,we all live on a planet constantly at battle with each other,all nations included.
Sam,the post you replied on ,don't believe he was referring to Contactees and Encounterers per say,as marginal.
You also mention in your reply "free".
Why?Do you sell your information?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Sam on Dec 23rd, 2012, 7:27pm

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 6:46pm, journryman57 wrote:
IMHO,everyone on Earth is"marginal",after all,we all live on a planet constantly at battle with each other,all nations included.
Sam,the post you replied on ,don't believe he was referring to Contactees and Encounterers per say,as marginal.
You also mention in your reply "free".
Why?Do you sell your information?


Hi, journryman57
here is my real alien visiting story; http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1216422870

here is about my alien's evindence: http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&num=1216422870&action=display&start=135
If you would like to see my alien photos and study what is in the UFO( subjects might be related to astrobiology), you may come to my place ( new Zealand), but you¡¯ve got to pay a fee ( because it costs me a lot to get them ). I will not post my alien photo here, if you suspect it is the truth, you can call CNN, Discovery TV, NASA¡­¡­ come to witness & exam( no charge for them).

this article posted here: http://ufo-spacelife.blogspot.com/2011/09/to-see-my-alien-photos.html
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 23rd, 2012, 7:57pm

Maybe someone can post all of Villa's photos for us to discuss and get away from the off topic disagreements. I haven't seen many of Villa's images.

User Image

Here's one that I think the first Men In Black movie were influenced by with their little rocket with long legs in the beginning of the movie.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 12:15am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 7:57pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Maybe someone can post all of Villa's photos for us to discuss and get away from the off topic disagreements. I haven't seen many of Villa's images.

Doing an image search will bring up a number of Villa's pictures from the first, second, third and fourth series. Unfortunately, they are all relatively small size scans.

I am not sure if there is really much to discuss about them. Even though they are picturesque, there is nothing in them that proves their authenticity. On the other hand, the picture with the branch going behind the object suggests that it may not be as large as it appears in other pictures...

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Dec 24th, 2012, 07:02am

Hello Ufoscan,

Thanks for the earlier information re Adamski, Fry and Menger. I'm very impressed with the thinking behind your recent answers, much along the same line of thinking as my own. I appreciate that it is not proof but I will say that I have seen a Paul Villa type craft at close range, say less than 200 feet distance from me and my family. I read in Tim Good's book that the rectangular shapes towards the bottom edge of the large craft are not windows. However, the craft which I saw had these individual rectangles illuminated with a soft yellowish white light, as if they were in fact windows. As the craft flew slowly away from us, I made a strong effort to get as much detail as I could, knowing full well that people would ridicule my story. The windows were the most obvious feature and so I took the trouble to count them three times. Each count gave a side on view total of eleven and a half windows. If you look very carefully at Paul's photo, you will I think be able to count eleven and a half. My sighting took place around 9pm on the 28th of December 1980 on a country road in Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. It was at least a couple of years later that I discovered that it was the same night as the famous Rendlesham Forest incident. I also later discovered that other witnesses in a nearby town to me also saw brilliantly illuminated craft that same weekend, and also that the road on which I saw the craft has had numerous low level, including landed UFO sightings throughout the last 35 years or so.

All the best,
Rob Hulse
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:00am

I would like to recommend members take a look at this website

http://danielfry.com/index.php?id=1120

On the first page of contents is "Alan's Message"

The whole Daniel Fry story is very interesting and I believe very important. However, I would strongly urge members or visitors to read "Alan's Message" very carefully and thoroughly.
Personally, I am convinced that Daniel Fry's story is an accurate and truthful account of his encounters with our space brothers. I would particularly draw your notice to "Alan's" reasons for not landing on The White House Lawn. Although this was written many years ago, the reasons are just as valid today as they were back then. I would also like to draw your attention to this quote from the message ----- " If any great and lasting good is to come of our efforts, the actual leaders must be your own people, or at least men who are indistinguishable from them."

I believe this hints strongly that there are people alive on the Earth today who come from this more advanced branch of the Human family. They have incarnated here specifically to help create the circumstances for the transition to a more spiritual way of living which "Alan" exhorts us to achieve.

People are always asking "What is all this ET - UFO stuff all about? I believe we need look no further. The answer is right there in "Alan's Message".
Even if you think that Daniel Fry was a complete liar, can any one of us doubt the wisdom of "Alan's Message"

Merry Christmas

Rob Hulse
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:23am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 09:57am, ufoscan wrote:
I have never heard of Paul Villa ever having made film footage. I discussed Villa with both Wendelle Stevens and Timothy Good and neither of them had heard of film footage either.

Is it possible that what you saw was wrongly attributed to Villa ?


Yeah I'm pretty sure. Back in the mid 1990s I first heard about it from the Director of MUFON Canada that such film clips existed and that he had seen one of these and then I think it was about 6 or more years ago I saw one of these videos posted on Youtube and the poster did not no where the film clip was from or who the owner was. After so many people's related negative comments concerning it, the film clip disappeared altogether from youtube.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by JTruthseeker on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am

Now just to comment on something more here in relation to the topic of contactees. After looking into the subject of UFO photos and film for the past 20 years in relation to contactee claims, I can best conclude that the only real proof out there is to experience it for ones self first hand, should the opportunity arise, and don't worry about ever proving it because, people will only believe what they want to believe and that means that even if you were to obtain the most exclusive photos and footage that you can possibly imagine, then absolutely none of it can ever be proven, because of all the now advance CGI, etc, that people can also use to fake these things and claims. There will always be people out there who will make it their life's work to make sure that any and all possible proof will always be explained away as hoaxes now that it's possible to use what ever means there is to duplicate anything, and unfortunately it also takes so many more of the dishonest people to fake related claims to the real events, that in most people's minds, it makes everything therefore a hoax.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:06am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:29am, ufoscan wrote:
Probably because people that are "higher up" on the social ladder would never risk going public with such seemingly outlandish stories. Few people are willing to put their reputation in peril when they are in good standing with society.


It may seem so. But the truth is that a more open contact would result in worldwide panic. I suspect they are aware of that. Another reason is they may be aware that if they openly manifested to humans, many would expect them to solve all of the world's problems while others would want their technology to create more efficient weapons.


I think one must put things in perspective. The people that we are discussing have made claims of contact. There is no proof that they have made such contacts. Also, they are mostly known because of the pictures they took - pictures which are far from convincing in that none of them ever show the objects in situations that would be impossible to fake.

So the first thing one should do is distinguish between contactee claims and the general phenomenon of UFOs being sighted all over the world. The contactee claims may or may not be true, but clearly the UFO phenomenon is.

However, if aliens do make contact with humans, it seems to me that doing so quietly may be the best course of action although most people contacted would probably not dare reveal such stories publicly for fear that it would ruin their personal lives.


Just to give us enough to ponder upon and wonder about.


The UFO phenomenon as a whole is well-known throughout the world. The problem is not whether people know about it but whether people care about it.


I am well acquainted with Vallée's work and know about "Messengers of Deception". I think his angle is based on an assumption which is one of many. As I said, one must distinguish between the claims of individuals and the phenomenon as a whole.


Yes..I have heard all of those answers before from those who are mostly hard core ETH fans........they simply don't work for me. IMO the ufo enigma in many cases is not what it seems. People are wasting their time in many of these cases when they try and' kick the tires' of the space craft.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:08am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 1:46pm, Sam wrote:
If you think we contactees and encounter are marginal people then why do you always ask me for free evidence and mention our claim. Sounds like you want to decide how the aliens should contact our earth. this is why they come to see us not you. Simple as that.


Well..there are some simple things about it but we might not agree on who or what is simple.

wink
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:10am

on Dec 23rd, 2012, 6:46pm, journryman57 wrote:
IMHO,everyone on Earth is"marginal",after all,we all live on a planet constantly at battle with each other,all nations included.
Sam,the post you replied on ,don't believe he was referring to Contactees and Encounterers per say,as marginal.
You also mention in your reply "free".
Why?Do you sell your information?


Marginal as in outsiders, oddball characters, out of the mainstream , etc.....this is usually the case in almost all of the celebrated contactee cases. Do the reading and see...then tell me that's not the case.

This is pointed out in an excellent manner in The Trickster by George Hansen; a must read for anyone who wants to look deeper into this aspect about contactees, marginality, and the paranormal.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:20am

on Dec 24th, 2012, 07:02am, HUBCAP9 wrote:
Hello Ufoscan,
Thanks for the earlier information re Adamski, Fry and Menger. I'm very impressed with the thinking behind your recent answers, much along the same line of thinking as my own. I appreciate that it is not proof but I will say that I have seen a Paul Villa type craft at close range, say less than 200 feet distance from me and my family.


I too have seen a UFO similar to the object in Paul Villa's photographs, but that does not make them real. It only shows that the shape and design of the object in his pictures matches a familiar design that had been reported for years prior to Villa's pictures.

The problem with the way people look at UFO photographs is that they want to see in them what supports their belief rather than look at them objectiveley - whether they believe in UFOs or not.

Whether a picture of a UFO is real or not does not change anything to the reality of UFOs.


Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:30am

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:00am, HUBCAP9 wrote:
I would like to recommend members take a look at this website

http://danielfry.com/index.php?id=1120

On the first page of contents is "Alan's Message"

The whole Daniel Fry story is very interesting and I believe very important. However, I would strongly urge members or visitors to read "Alan's Message" very carefully and thoroughly.
Personally, I am convinced that Daniel Fry's story is an accurate and truthful account of his encounters with our space brothers. I would particularly draw your notice to "Alan's" reasons for not landing on The White House Lawn. Although this was written many years ago, the reasons are just as valid today as they were back then. I would also like to draw your attention to this quote from the message ----- " If any great and lasting good is to come of our efforts, the actual leaders must be your own people, or at least men who are indistinguishable from them."

I believe this hints strongly that there are people alive on the Earth today who come from this more advanced branch of the Human family. They have incarnated here specifically to help create the circumstances for the transition to a more spiritual way of living which "Alan" exhorts us to achieve.

People are always asking "What is all this ET - UFO stuff all about? I believe we need look no further. The answer is right there in "Alan's Message".
Even if you think that Daniel Fry was a complete liar, can any one of us doubt the wisdom of "Alan's Message"

It's hard to say quite what is going on here, but there is no doubt in my mind that most of the pictures and film footage offered by contactees is faked - and I have been looking at UFO pictures for fifty years ! Whether these people have at some point had real experiences in spite of this is always a possibility, but one cannot use the "proof" offered by them to support their claims.

I wish that Daniel Fry's claims were true and the messages that contactees attribute to "space brothers" certainly give us food for thought - no matter what the origin, but I cannot believe in the honesty of a man whose claim to fame are film sequences that show what look very much like models suspended on strings.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:35am

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:23am, JTruthseeker wrote:
Yeah I'm pretty sure. Back in the mid 1990s I first heard about it from the Director of MUFON Canada that such film clips existed and that he had seen one of these and then I think it was about 6 or more years ago I saw one of these videos posted on Youtube and the poster did not no where the film clip was from or who the owner was. After so many people's related negative comments concerning it, the film clip disappeared altogether from youtube.

What we have then is hearsay combined with a claim of an attribution that is unsubstantiated. Nobody so far has demonstrated nor verified the actual origin. As I said, neither Timothy Good nor Wendellle Stevens - who both knew Villa personally - ever heard of him having shot film sequences. Did you ask the Director of MUFON Canada where he got this information ?
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 12:27pm

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
Now just to comment on something more here in relation to the topic of contactees. After looking into the subject of UFO photos and film for the past 20 years in relation to contactee claims, I can best conclude that the only real proof out there is to experience it for ones self first hand

It would seem that several of us who have been interested in UFOs have also experienced it firsthand. However, my point is that this should not make us loose track of our objectivity when looking into other people's claims.

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
...and don't worry about ever proving it because, people will only believe what they want to believe

The problem here is that this works both ways. People will believe even when an objective evaluation shows the contrary. One of the best examples of this is the infamous WC UFO photographed by Meier. It has been demonstrated that the lower portion of the object in those pictures is made from a container lid. We even know which model it is. Yet many people who ardently want to believe the Meier claims persist in denying this obvious fact in spite of the evidence.

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
and that means that even if you were to obtain the most exclusive photos and footage that you can possibly imagine, then absolutely none of it can ever be proven, because of all the now advance CGI, etc

There is a general misconception that nowadays it is very easy to fake UFO photographs due to the easy availability of photo manipulation tools. But the truth is that the most convincing hoaxes are those that are made with models that are placed in the actual scene at the time the photograph is taken. That is because the light hits the object exactly in the same way as it does the rest of the scene. This method has been available ever since the advent of photography back in 1838. So the means to fake UFO photographs efficiently has been available since the dawn of photography.

Most modern hoaxes done with CGI must try to recreate the lighting effect and object texture artificially and that is very hard to do. That is why the overwhelming majority of CGI-produced hoaxes do look unreal. Add to this that most modern hoaxes are those found on the internet, which are mostly from anonymous sources where the original files are never offered. So there is no possibility of efficient analysis.

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
There will always be people out there who will make it their life's work to make sure that any and all possible proof will always be explained away as hoaxes

It's an interesting way of putting it. But what is the objective here ? To believe the claims of an individual at all costs even when the pictures he offers are questionable or to look at things objectively and try and find out what is really going on ?

I became interested in UFOs at age 6, got my first UFO book when I was 8. In it there were many fascinating pictures, but some of them looked ambiguous to me. I wasn't quite sure whether they were real or not. Oh, I very much was convinced that UFOs must be real, but I wasn't sure those pictures were legit. Eventually, I learned that the questionable pictures were photo-montages. So I very early on learned to distinguish between claims of UFO sightings and UFO pictures.

By age 13, I took a serious interest in photography and I tried to find out if I could hoax a UFO picture. I took pictures of a model I made that was suspended on a thin string. I was surprised how easy it was to make a convincing fake. This doubled my resolve to be as objective as I could when looking at UFO photographs.

Later that year, I saw my first UFO. There were six other witnesses with me but no photographs. But I pursued my interest in photography and continued to look at UFO pictures objectively even when it went against what I wished to believe.

As I described earlier, I was fascinated by contactee claims. I met Madeleine Rodeffer, Daniel Fry and corresponded with Menger. But when I looked at their "evidence", I still had to remain objective. Hardest for me was Madeleine Rodeffer, because I got to know her as a friend. We would call each other up just to chat. She always sounded quite honest and she never charged for anything. I wanted very much that film footage to be real...

I believed in the authenticity of her footage most of my life and argued as others did (namely, Timothy Good, Bill Sherwood and Bob Oeschler) that this footage showed the effects of actual magnetic field distortion caused by the "craft". I argued that point with "disbelievers" for many years. Besides, I knew Madeleine personally and I knew she couldn't possibly have lied about having seen that craft !

But just a few years ago, somebody showed me I had been wrong all along and I had to accept that, in spite of all I thought was irrefutable evidence, I had been fooled. The film was a fake.

on Dec 24th, 2012, 08:46am, JTruthseeker wrote:
...and unfortunately it also takes so many more of the dishonest people to fake related claims to the real events, that in most people's minds, it makes everything therefore a hoax.

You are quite right that, nowadays, UFO hoaxing has become a favourite passtime of a great number of people. YouTube is a major cause of this - especially now that ads on clips pay the authors of those clips. Several completely fake channels have arisen that are entirely dedicated to UFO hoaxing.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 24th, 2012, 12:31pm

on Dec 24th, 2012, 11:06am, drwu23 wrote:
Yes..I have heard all of those answers before from those who are mostly hard core ETH fans........they simply don't work for me. IMO the ufo enigma in many cases is not what it seems. People are wasting their time in many of these cases when they try and' kick the tires' of the space craft.

I am not championing the ETH cause but simply pointing out that humanity's attitude when faced with the unknown is pretty much where the problem lies.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by drwu23 on Dec 24th, 2012, 2:16pm

on Dec 24th, 2012, 12:31pm, ufoscan wrote:
I am not championing the ETH cause but simply pointing out that humanity's attitude when faced with the unknown is pretty much where the problem lies.


And I can agree with that....that's the point of the comments about the paranormal being marginalized by society at large.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Dec 31st, 2012, 07:12am

In reply 62 UFOSCAN made this post;

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

Perhaps it is the poor quality of the photograph, but I am unable to see where this branch reappears on the other side of the craft. If it does not, then how could anyone claim that the branch goes behind the craft. Is it not just as reasonable to assume that the branch just happens to end at the point where it touches the craft on the photograph?
Rob Hulse
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by MysterEd on Dec 31st, 2012, 08:24am

on Dec 31st, 2012, 07:12am, HUBCAP9 wrote:
In reply 62 UFOSCAN made this post;

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

Perhaps it is the poor quality of the photograph, but I am unable to see where this branch reappears on the other side of the craft. If it does not, then how could anyone claim that the branch goes behind the craft. Is it not just as reasonable to assume that the branch just happens to end at the point where it touches the craft on the photograph?
Rob Hulse


Agreed, you can't determine the branch position from that linked photo. It could stop right at the edge or go behind. I've got to think that a better quality image was used if the branch is claimed to be seen on the other side.

It's interesting how some images of crafts show them so close to objects that tease you as to the correct relative positions. undecided
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 31st, 2012, 12:34pm

on Dec 31st, 2012, 07:12am, HUBCAP9 wrote:
In reply 62 UFOSCAN made this post;

And this is the pesky photo that shows a branch going right behind the "UFO"... Make of it what you will.

http://www.ufohypotheses.com/PaulVilla1-93.jpg

Perhaps it is the poor quality of the photograph, but I am unable to see where this branch reappears on the other side of the craft. If it does not, then how could anyone claim that the branch goes behind the craft. Is it not just as reasonable to assume that the branch just happens to end at the point where it touches the craft on the photograph?
Rob Hulse


Unfortunately, none of the copies of the Paul Villa photographs are sharp - even including the original copies sold by AFSCA back in 1966 (sets of which I have) and this picture is even less sharp than the others - making it hard to come to any definite conclusion.

In the original, one sees what looks like two extensions of the branch seemingly reach the edge of the object. Of course one could assume that the branch ends precisely (and conveniently) there. But one would have rather hoped that the branch clearly went over the object, which would have proven beyond a doubt that the "craft" was behind it.

The problem with such pictures is that - as real as they may look - there never is one that shows the object partly obscured by something whose distance can be positively determined or one that shows the craft landed ! After all, Villa did claim the object had landed and that he met its occupants...
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by HUBCAP9 on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:19pm

I am not surprised that there are no better copies of these photos available as I've been researching this stuff for over 30 years and never come across one.
It may be frustrating that Paul Villa didn't take a photo of a craft with an intervening branch but I contend that this is not unreasonable. I'm not a great photographer but I'm certain that if I had been in Paul's position, I would have tried to get as clear a shot, without obstructions, of the craft as possible. I'm sure Paul wasn't thinking; "oh I'd better get a branch in front of this craft so that people in the future can tell that the craft is in the background and not a model hanging from a tree. I know that Paul had contacts with ETs from much earlier in his life, but even so, this event must have been extremely exciting for him. I think that he would have had enough on his mind as it was without worrying about tree branches.

Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:42pm

on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:19pm, HUBCAP9 wrote:
I am not surprised that there are no better copies of these photos available as I've been researching this stuff for over 30 years and never come across one.

I am not so sure. I suspect that Gabriel Green (of AFSCA) wasn't an expert in photo reproduction or that he dealt with a lab that wasn't too good at it. The reason I say this is that I have seen copies of some of those images on the net that are sharper and more colourful than the original set I got from Gabriel Green. Unfortunately I doubt we could ever find the original images.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:19pm, HUBCAP9 wrote:
It may be frustrating that Paul Villa didn't take a photo of a craft with an intervening branch but I contend that this is not unreasonable. I'm not a great photographer but I'm certain that if I had been in Paul's position, I would have tried to get as clear a shot, without obstructions, of the craft as possible.

It all depends what one's objective is. Photographs of UFOs made by contactees are made to offer proof of their experiences. So if such pictures look no different than ones that can easily be faked, the goal is not reached.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:19pm, HUBCAP9 wrote:
I'm sure Paul wasn't thinking; "oh I'd better get a branch in front of this craft so that people in the future can tell that the craft is in the background and not a model hanging from a tree.

That's not quite my point. My point is that where there is a branch in the picture, it appears to go behind the object - not in front of it. In other words, where the branch should help authenticate the picture it instead draws suspicion.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 1:19pm, HUBCAP9 wrote:
I know that Paul had contacts with ETs from much earlier in his life, but even so, this event must have been extremely exciting for him. I think that he would have had enough on his mind as it was without worrying about tree branches.

I think if he really had these contacts, he would have tried to photograph the craft as close as possible and showed it firmly resting on the ground...
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm

Sorry to go slightly OT, but I just got some Adamski photos that are 1st generation images from the negatives. The Villa "I Want To Believe" shots look like the Adamski's.

The Adamski images I have are ultra rare with his notes on the back and some other tells to it's authenticity. Images clearer than the halftone images in the books. Still not sure what I think about Adamski, but these 2 saucer shots captured my imagination since my early years.

I'm debating putting them up for auction to pay some bills. I've never seen first generation images off the negatives for the Adamski shots before, so I think these may fetch a nice price. I paid a pretty hefty price to get them, but they are amazing and worth every penny I paid!
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Dec 31st, 2012, 7:50pm

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Sorry to go slightly OT, but I just got some Adamski photos that are 1st generation images from the negatives.

Nice collectible !

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
The Villa "I Want To Believe" shots look like the Adamski's.

No they are not. After Adamski's shots, there were many copycat pictures. The earliest ones were those of Menger and in the mid-sixties there were two film clips of similar objects that are known as a) the "Lost Creek Saucer" and b) the "Benedum airport UFO"

Lost Creek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00XZ4EvvkXE

Benedum Airport
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzTGBrqMHNk

These two clips use to be sold by Gray Barker. He claimed they were given to him by the witnesses, but the model used to make these hoaxes was found in his house after he passed away...

There was also the Adamski footage shot at Madeleine Rodeffer's house and then in 1968 the Tahalita Fry footage and stills. The picture used for the "I want to believe" poster is a copy of one of the Tahalita Fry stills.

By the way, here is a page that tells of someone who corresponded with Tahalita Fry at the time. It finally puts a date on when these stills were taken (November 1968). Interestingly, no mention of the film footage is made:
http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ca/2012/02/tahalita-frys-ufofoton.html

I was first shown five or six of these prints by a friend of Daniel Fry (as I told in an earlier post) in 1970.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
The Adamski images I have are ultra rare with his notes on the back and some other tells to it's authenticity.

I see them show up now and then on eBay. Keep in mind that Adamski made a business of selling original prints by mail. The person I met in september 1967 had a whole album of original prints from Adamski, Menger, Villa and even Allingham. He also had personal letters from Adamski.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Images clearer than the halftone images in the books.

Of course, original prints made from the original negatives are always best.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Still not sure what I think about Adamski, but these 2 saucer shots captured my imagination since my early years.

Funny thing is that, for me, it was the other way around. I first heard of Adamski and contactees in 1966 and was fascinated by all this. But when I saw Adamski's actual images, they looked like models to me. From that point on, I kept hearing arguments for and against Adamski and didn't quite know what to make of it. But I still wanted to believe there might be something to it. It really was Menger's book (that I read in October 1967) that got me believing all this. Then I met Madeleine Rodeffer in 1968 and saw the last Adamski footage, which again left me feeling puzzled. I wanted very much to believe here and she souded quite sincere and was very friendly, but the filmm footage didn't look anything like I expected...

on Dec 31st, 2012, 5:36pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I'm debating putting them up for auction to pay some bills. I've never seen first generation images off the negatives for the Adamski shots before, so I think these may fetch a nice price. I paid a pretty hefty price to get them, but they are amazing and worth every penny I paid!

Funny that you went through much effort to get them only to want to sell them again !
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm

on Dec 31st, 2012, 7:50pm, ufoscan wrote:
I see them show up now and then on eBay. Keep in mind that Adamski made a business of selling original prints by mail. The person I met in september 1967 had a whole album of original prints from Adamski, Menger, Villa and even Allingham. He also had personal letters from Adamski.


I've been watching eBay for years and it was rare to have Adamski photos turn up with his personal sighting notes on them. 1st generation Adamski photos themselves are rare, but the ones I picked up are almost unheard of because of the notes. If you still have the name of that Sept. 1967 contact, please PM about it. I know a researcher that is coming out with a new Retro UFO book that would love access to that material.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 7:50pm, ufoscan wrote:
Funny that you went through much effort to get them only to want to sell them again!


Not funny at all. I've been downsized 2 times for a total of 3 years of out of the last 4 years. Being over 50 doesn't help. I've decided to start my own business and need the money. I knew the value when I bought the photos, and knew I could flip them for more than I paid. The question is do I want to sell them. No. I'm going to try to keep them if I can keep the bills paid.

No matter what you think about Adamski, he penetrated the world's psyche with the idea of life elsewhere. Like it or not, it's a watermark in the history of UFO's.

There are some researchers that think the alien phenomenon is manipulating people with stories that are acceptable to the time in history of their contact. Hence the Adamski experience mentions close planets, while later stories mention nearby galaxies as we progressed in our knowledge of the universe. All this is being done to raise the awareness of other lifeforms that has been happening throughout the ages. One of the researchers I'm talking to now is coming out with some unpublished Adamski images and information that may open up some more very interesting questions.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Jan 1st, 2013, 12:24pm

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I've been watching eBay for years and it was rare to have Adamski photos turn up with his personal sighting notes on them. 1st generation Adamski photos themselves are rare, but the ones I picked up are almost unheard of because of the notes.
.

A few months ago there was an autographed copy of "Flying Saucers Have Landed" on eBay along with a set of original pictures from Adamski. Adamski did write down info on the back of the pictures he sold to identify them. He also used a stamp at one point, where he sometimes added writing. Keep in mind this is back when there was little automation. If you had prints, the simplest way to put info on them was to write it. If you look at the link for the Tahalita Fry pictures, she too wrote down info on the back of her prints.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
If you still have the name of that Sept. 1967 contact, please PM about it. I know a researcher that is coming out with a new Retro UFO book that would love access to that material.

As I told in a previous post, about twenty years ago he got rid of all his collection. That was as a result of his wife leaving him because she had enough of his UFO and then, Urantia obsession !

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
No matter what you think about Adamski, he penetrated the world's psyche with the idea of life elsewhere. Like it or not, it's a watermark in the history of UFO's.

As I said, I was heavily into this for many years and knew his "representative" (after he had passed away) Madeleine Rodeffer most of my life. She even gave me her autographed copy of Timothy Good's book on Adamski and gave me copies pf the prints made by Bill Sherwood from the original film footage (By the way, several of these have her handwriting on the back...). So yes, Adamski had quite an impact on me when I got interested in UFOs in terms of implanting the notion of contact with aliens. But he was a controversial figure from the start.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
There are some researchers that think the alien phenomenon is manipulating people with stories that are acceptable to the time in history of their contact.

Possibly, but that manipulation may actually be entirely through telepathic inspiration. In other words, certain people may be moved to tell stories of alien contact as if they were "real events" while they are in actual fact inspired fiction. The purpose of this would be to help open people's mind to such possibilities.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Hence the Adamski experience mentions close planets, while later stories mention nearby galaxies as we progressed in our knowledge of the universe.

Well, if you single out Adamski, maybe so. But if you look at claims made by other contactees, some did claim back then that the aliens came from planets outside our solar system. Villa said his aliens came from Coma Berenices. As to our knowledge of the universe, we knew quite well back in the fifties (much before that, in fact) all about galaxies and constellations !

If anything, I think that claims of contact with beings of other galaxies assures the contactee that we won't ever be able to verify his claims. Unfortunately for Adamski we found out pretty soon that our neighbouring planets were devoid of human-type life.

on Dec 31st, 2012, 9:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
One of the researchers I'm talking to now is coming out with some unpublished Adamski images and information that may open up some more very interesting questions.

Well, whatever unpublished images one may come up with does not change the fact that what was for many years considered the most convincing argument in support of the Adamski case - the 1965 footage - has been effectively demonstrated to be a hoax. Also, one must be reminded that Adamski published a fictional account of alien contacts back in 1947 and that Timothy Good has demonstrated that much of his fictional account was retold as fact in Adamski's book "Inside the Space Ships". So trying to believe in Adamski's claims is very hard nowadays !

http://www.lulu.com/ca/en/shop/george-adamski/pioneers-of-space/paperback/product-13580953.html
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm

on Jan 1st, 2013, 12:24pm, ufoscan wrote:
A few months ago there was an autographed copy of "Flying Saucers Have Landed" on eBay along with a set of original pictures from Adamski. Adamski did write down info on the back of the pictures he sold to identify them. He also used a stamp at one point, where he sometimes added writing. Keep in mind this is back when there was little automation. If you had prints, the simplest way to put info on them was to write it. If you look at the link for the Tahalita Fry pictures, she too wrote down info on the back of her prints.


Yes, I know about those since those are mine. I've not seen anything like that being sold for years. If you know of anymore collections like this please PM.

I'm not suggesting Adamski's experiences were real. I don't know. I only mentioned there are some researchers that think the UFO/Alien Phenomenon is actively being suggested to people either through alien intervention or by covert terrestrial means. The reason is still unclear. Awareness of the universe may or may not be the reason.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 12:24pm, ufoscan wrote:
Well, if you single out Adamski, maybe so. But if you look at claims made by other contactees, some did claim back then that the aliens came from planets outside our solar system. Villa said his aliens came from Coma Berenices. As to our knowledge of the universe, we knew quite well back in the fifties (much before that, in fact) all about galaxies and constellations !


My point is hat the alien story/involvement in our culture is evolving over time to match our general awareness and education of the universe around us. That it may not be due to cultural means but by other influences.

New Adamski images would sure be something new to talk about. I think Timothy Goode is a great researcher, but he didn't have access to all of Adamski's imagery and the evidence that some researchers have uncovered about unseen influences on Adamski and others.

I'm very interested in the Villa and the other photos of this period so let's discuss more of that.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:20pm

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Yes, I know about those since those are mine. I've not seen anything like that being sold for years. If you know of anymore collections like this please PM.

The person I mentioned got rid of his collection over twenty years ago when he fell into a deep depression brought about by his wife leaving him. She was fed up with his obsession with UFOs !

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I'm not suggesting Adamski's experiences were real. I don't know.

Well... his photos were definitely not real. And it gets very hard to believe that someone would have real contacts and then fake photos to support his claims.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I only mentioned there are some researchers that think the UFO/Alien Phenomenon is actively being suggested to people either through alien intervention or by covert terrestrial means.

I think we have to make a clear distinction between actual UFO manifestation happening all over Earth and the claims of alien contact that contactees made mostly in the fifties and sixties.

I have entertained the notion that contactees may have been inspired by alien intelligences to tell stories of alien contact so as to sensitize humanity to such a possibility.

Keep in mind that most people if faced with real alien contact would not be ready to jeopardize their reputation - both on a social and professional level - by revealing their experience publicly. Contactees on the other hand were people who quite enjoyed the attention their stories got them. They wrote books, gave interviews and gave lectures and enjoyed it all.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
My point is that the alien story/involvement in our culture is evolving over time to match our general awareness and education of the universe around us. That it may not be due to cultural means but by other influences.

I am not quite sure I agree here because most of the tales that are being told by people who claim alien contact are far from convincing and may very well originate with the people who tell them.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
New Adamski images would sure be something new to talk about.

I wonder what else can be said since Adamski's photographs have effectively been proven to be hoaxes. So one more or one less won't change that. I do know of an obscure Adamski picture that reveals a bump on the border of the model he used.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I think Timothy Good is a great researcher, but he didn't have access to all of Adamski's imagery and the evidence that some researchers have uncovered about unseen influences on Adamski and others.

Before evoking mysterious "unseen influences", one should take a very hard objective look at Adamski's history of falsification. Adamski did write and publish "Pioneers of Space" in 1949 and Timothy Good has demonstrated that Adamski's book "Cosmic Philosophy" is essentially a reprinting of an earlier Adamski book "Wisdom of the Masters of the Far East" where he replaces instances of the word "masters" with "space brothers". So with fake books and fake pictures, the only way "unseen influences" may have been at work would be for them to influence Adamski to fabricate such stories. That is of course nothing but speculation.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 1:02pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
I'm very interested in the Villa and the other photos of this period so let's discuss more of that.

Sure !
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:39pm

on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:20pm, ufoscan wrote:
Well... his photos were definitely not real. And it gets very hard to believe that someone would have real contacts and then fake photos to support his claims.


No, I'm not saying the photos are genuine UFO's, but that some researchers are looking at influences toward the contactees to do this fakery. There was more ridicule than fame for these people. This is not me saying this but other researchers who are looking at supposed surveillance records of them.


on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:20pm, ufoscan wrote:
I am not quite sure I agree here because most of the tales that are being told by people who claim alien contact are far from convincing and may very well originate with the people who tell them.


Nothing to agree about. I'm only quoting what some other researchers are looking at.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:20pm, ufoscan wrote:
I wonder what else can be said since Adamski's photographs have effectively been proven to be hoaxes. So one more or one less won't change that. I do know of an obscure Adamski picture that reveals a bump on the border of the model he used.


The photos are not the question, but if there were influences on him and others to do this beyond their own interests.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:20pm, ufoscan wrote:
Before evoking mysterious "unseen influences", one should take a very hard objective look at Adamski's history of falsification. Adamski did write and publish "Pioneers of Space" in 1949 and Timothy Good has demonstrated that Adamski's book "Cosmic Philosophy" is essentially a reprinting of an earlier Adamski book "Wisdom of the Masters of the Far East"...


Again, I'm only quoting what others are looking at. They are looking at Adamski's contact with terrestrial influences that date back to his early writings, suggesting he might have been prepared in some way. Could be prepared to share disinfo or whatever. Again, it's not my opinion. I merely am mentioning it here, because this is being looked at.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Jan 2nd, 2013, 01:27am

on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
No, I'm not saying the photos are genuine UFO's, but that some researchers are looking at influences toward the contactees to do this fakery.

I can only speak from my own personal experiences and my own lifelong research both looking into this and being part of it. There could be hours of discussion in regards what I, friends and acquaintances experienced with UFOs and it is all a very complex puzzle - as if fact and fiction are interweaved.

I and others did have experiences that mirror what Adamski and Menger described - and that itself is puzzling. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if both Adamski and Menger did at some point encounter real alien manifestation. There is indication that Madeleine Rodeffer probably did - since a friend of mine was with her when an incident did occur.

Even though I try to be as objective as possible in regards the contactee stories, many people I have met have had experiences that very much mirror their claims.

As an example - as outrageous as it might seem - the wife of a good friend of mine claimed that in the sixties, she had regular contacts with a Martian family. This woman was quite well off and owned land and there was a clearing on her land where she claimed the Martian craft would land. She never told that account to anybody else but her husband and me.


on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
There was more ridicule than fame for these people.

I have heard that argument many times. But in truth, all of them had a solid fan base so they really did not care much what the outside world thought of them. It's the same as with Meier nowadays. He has a solid group of fans around him that supports him totally. So the rest of the world's opinion matters little to him at this point since his fanbase will believe anything he says without question and will support him financially.

It was quite a different story for Madeleine Rodeffer. Madeleine was unique in that she was herself totally overtaken by her belief in Adamski's claims of contact with friendly space brothers and felt it was her mission to spread the good news to the world.

Consequently, she rarely asked for money in return for her lectures and she gave out prints of the "craft" - only sometimes asking payment just for the processing. Her main concern was to spread the message of peace from the "space brothers". And I know that for having known Madeleine for many years. She suffered as a result and, yes, she was ridiculed. Also, her husband left her because she put all of her time into that "mission" and neglected their marriage.

But unfortunately, Madeleine did "fib" about one thing: She never saw the craft she claimed she had seen. All of that was masterminded by Adamski. Madeleine revealed in an interview with Timothy Good that Adamski had asked her to claim that she had taken the film footage herself and that he wasn't present. He wanted Madeleine's film to corroborate his story. But Madeleine refused. She only agreed to say that she made the film but that Adamski was standing next to her. That's what she told me when I first met her in 1968. But some years later, she revised her story and admitted that it was Adamski that made the footage...

However, she was still "fibbing" ( a cuter word than "lying"). She never did see the saucer because Adamski made that footage while she was resting and then told her she had just missed the UFO.

In other words, Madeleine was fooled by Adamski into thinking there really was a Venusian scout ship in front of her home and that the footage proved it. Madeleine believed Adamski's account and thought the footage was genuine, so she accepted to claim that she too had seen it even though she had not.

I have to admit Madeleine had me fooled for all those years because she sounded so much like she really saw that craft that it was her words to me that kept me believing for years that there was something to Adamski's claims. Even though I had a hard time with all of Adamski's photographic "evidence", Madeleine's words made the difference.

on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
The photos are not the question, but if there were influences on him and others to do this beyond their own interests...

I think there's a lot of conjecture. Keep in mind that there are many fiction writers that feel motivated to write their stories as if they were real events. We seldom question their veracity when they are about things we consider quite plausible. However, in recent years, a lot of hoax stories have been uncovered by journalists who decided to dig deeper into all sorts of claims that have been made in books wihich have turned out to be total fabrications... yet those stories had nothing to do with UFOs or aliens.

So before looking into extraordinary explanations, we should first consider the fact that humans have a propencity to tell stories where fact and fiction intermix. That has been so since the dawn of man and it is what mythology is made of.


on Jan 1st, 2013, 11:39pm, thepixelpusher wrote:
Again, I'm only quoting what others are looking at. They are looking at Adamski's contact with terrestrial influences that date back to his early writings, suggesting he might have been prepared in some way. Could be prepared to share disinfo or whatever..

Frankly, I think this has more to do with people trying to create mystery out of things that can be explained quite rationally. Yes, there may be the possibility of alien influence. And the only reason why I think this is that it is after all hearing about Adamski and Menger's claims of direct alien contact that opened my mind to this possibility and prepared me to have my own experiences. But I don't see how this can be equated with "disinformation". In fact, I think that the word "disinformation" is very much like the word "debunker": convenient words when we cannot come up with reasoned arguments.

And speaking of mythology, just look at what a well organized bunch of hoaxers have extrapolated from the Adamski "Venusian Scout Craft" and turned it into the Haunebu myth !
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Dex on Feb 27th, 2013, 11:00am

Villa's photo's are genuine.

How do I know?

I was taken for an examination by this medical group from Coma Berenices whom was, apparently, aware of a Vietnam injury that was causing a lot of pain. I was aboard one of the large craft at the same time being allowed to witness another one appear inside a huge cavern returning from Mexico, so I was told. A very tall red hair gentleman with eyes like a red tail hawk, wearing a white tech coat, walked over to me and asked what I knew about a green sun? There's more to the story, the fact remains, the craft and the people Villa described are real adult scientist. Thought I'd share this with you.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by thepixelpusher on Feb 27th, 2013, 11:11am

Welcome Dex. Please do share more of your experiences. It might be more interesting than the conjecture and tired second-hand information from some members here about the craft shown in the pictures.
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by ufoscan on Feb 27th, 2013, 11:46am

on Feb 27th, 2013, 11:00am, Dex wrote:
Villa's photo's are genuine.

How do I know?

I was taken for an examination by this medical group from Coma Berenices whom was, apparently, aware of a Vietnam injury that was causing a lot of pain. I was aboard one of the large craft at the same time being allowed to witness another one appear inside a huge cavern returning from Mexico, so I was told. A very tall red hair gentleman with eyes like a red tail hawk, wearing a white tech coat, walked over to me and asked what I knew about a green sun? There's more to the story, the fact remains, the craft and the people Villa described are real adult scientist. Thought I'd share this with you.


Red hair gentleman ? Green Sun ?

How does that match up with anything Villa claimed ?

Notheless it's interesting that the scientists from Coma Berenices also wear white tech coats just like on Earth.

I hope you will also share your pictures of the craft so we can match it up with those appearing in Villa's "genuine" pictures...
Re: Paul Villa's photos genuine
Post by Deanokos on Oct 10th, 2014, 5:30pm

on Nov 5th, 2007, 12:19am, Imshadi wrote:
Excuse me. I do not want to go around randomly calling any image a hoax. I am a visual effects supervisor at an FX company, and I hope I can bring my expertise to the search for true UFO photographs.

Whatever you did to process your image does not show what you think it does (though I give you some credit and think you are just trying to be sarcastic). It is not a superposition of images. The object, I believe, was actually photographed in the same place and at the same time as the background.

To create realistic CG images, one has to study photography, and there you learn about optics and the workings of light, eyes and cameras.

In the case of this image, there is actually more depth of field (DOF) blur on the object, and that is indeed a sign of it being relatively close to the camera and smaller than one expects. But this is actually enough to know that the image is not that of a true UFO.

I ask anyone who's interested to check my work, so that you may have some idea what credibility to give me.

Regards,



This ^^^^