Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

UFO photos: Adamski footage

Location: Silver Springs, Maryland, USA
Date: February 26, 1965

Rodeffer, Adamski footage

George Adamski was a guest of Madeleine Rodeffer and her husband. On a Friday evening, they were taking a walk when Madeleine saw something behind the trees. A car sped up and three men said: “Take your cameras — they are here!”, and was soon gone. Adamski got Rodeffer’s 8mm camera and made a color movie of a scout ship. The ship’s image gets distorted in the footage, due to the effects of its eletromagnetic propulsion.

Comment: The movie is often attributed to Madeleine Rodeffer, but even sources related to Adamski admit that the well known contactee is the culprit. Mrs Rodeffer herself admitted that. This detail is important because, as we can see, the footage shows the classic scout ship photographed (and drawn) over ten years before. That’s not a surprise since the cameraman was the same.

But the ship is slightly different, and watching the movie, we can realize that its shape does indeed change, contrary to the first impression that it may have been just a flat paper cut-out hanging in front of the camera. So, how did Adamski create this footage?

Adamski footage comparison

Japanese researcher Junichi Takanashi successfully reproduced the Adamski-Rodeffer footage. At left, frames from the original movie, and at right, the images produced by Takanashi.

The model used by Adamski was three-dimencional, and didn’t hang like something suspended by a wire. And even though his scout ship had three outer spheres around a central one, in his footage we can only see two outer spheres around the central one.

All can be explained if we assume Adamski used half of a three-dimensional model glued to a sheet of glass. That explains the curious movements of the object as well as the “distortion” in its shape.

It was “half of a flying saucer”. In a way, and ingenious idea.


George Adamski passed away shortly after this last feat. His legacy was continued by the George Adamski Foundation (GAF).

See: Intiki UFO Shyashin (Japanese)

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Popularity: 3% [?]

Posted in UFO photos | 14 comments

14 Comments so far

  1. lele jackson February 18th, 2008 7:23 pm

    if he was a hoax whats ur proof the ufos are completely different today from the ones from the “hoax” goerge adamski and if he lied where did he get his stories from all stories are some how based by some kind of a truth.

  2. Mike Peters March 2nd, 2008 6:48 pm

    If something can be faked or not is beside the point. The only thing that matters is the original case. Everything else is just a pathetic waste of time.

  3. George Adamski - CoseNascoste Forum June 7th, 2008 12:39 pm
  4. John Sawyer August 9th, 2008 7:10 pm

    Yes, there are unexplained UFOs, but a couple commenters here need some help:

    lele jackson says:

    “if he was a hoax whats ur proof”

    No, if what he claimed was real, where’s HIS proof? Better proof? What he produced over the years is easily explained as models, etc.

    “the ufos are completely different today from the ones from the “hoax” goerge adamski”

    What does that have to do with anything? Apparently you think that because later sightings, by different people, were of different UFOs, this must mean Adamski was being honest. There’s no logic here.

    “and if he lied where did he get his stories from all stories are some how based by some kind of a truth.”

    Where do you think stories come from? Inside a person’s head. Do you think it’s impossible for a person to tell a story without its being real? You are naive. There’s a big pink invisible elephant sitting next to you right now. You can’t see it because it’s invisible. There’s a story, so it must be real.

    Mike Peters says:

    “If something can be faked or not is beside the point. The only thing that matters is the original case. Everything else is just a pathetic waste of time.”

    No, whether something can be faked or not is NOT beside the point. If it’s fake, it’s fake. Who says the original case wasn’t faked?

  5. William Asnare January 5th, 2009 1:11 pm

    ok. I agree.

  6. Braggadocio Bordello May 11th, 2009 2:49 pm

    It’s very sad to see people, in 2008!!!, still believe in Adamski crappy hoaxes. Very sad!!!

  7. Jim December 29th, 2009 3:18 am

    I read his books when I was a kid and, although I enjoyed the narrative, I was always put off by his lofty speech patterns and his bad habit of jumping to conclusions. He wasn’t objective about anything and spoke as if he alone were privy to the motives and agenda of the ‘Space Brothers’.
    He was able to glean a cosmic philosophy through hand gestures and ‘telepathic’ communication in one hour from an aline lifeform, but due to a 4th grade education was unable to spell simple English words? The best part of ‘Flying Saucers Have Landed’ is Desmond Leslie’s fascinating dissection of the folklore of India. I might have been young when I read it, but the idea of life on Venus and unicorns running on the plains of the moon seemed a bit of a stretch for somebody (Adamski) looking for credibility.

  8. […] di Adamski: http://www.marc-hallet.be/Adamski.htm Sbufalamento del filmato Rodeffer: forgetomori UFO photos: Adamski footage Sbufalamento dei ricognitori venusiani di Adamski: forgetomori UFO photos: Adamski scout ships […]

  9. Socrates February 23rd, 2011 3:35 am

    What hoaxer would say there is life on all planets even in the 50’s and 60’s? Surely there was some knowledge then planets had no air, no surface (Saturn).

    The creepy coincidence is Share International’s Benjamin Creme says ALL planets in our system are inhabited. But on a higher, or etheric, level.


  10. A. Barber August 18th, 2011 10:34 am

    Adamski’s footage has been proved to be authentic, time and time again. Plus you have to research the whole phenomenon ie. the whole Adamski story with witnesses etc etc., and there are many. It’s easy from such a distance (our time) to look back and cynically sneer: it’s the predilection of this modern era of ours and it’s lack of imagination and moral fortitude to deride and ridicule anything that requires brave thinking or an original viewpoint.

    Of course Adamski met the “Venusian”, and Desmond Leslie saw several remote controlled vehicles, and Madeleine Rodeffer saw the same ‘ship’ that Adamski filmed outside of her house….and there are many other eye witness accounts. No one has the right to simply deny all these people their valid words without specific proof of their unworthiness. So you don’t believe in UFOs and what is ‘behind’ them – so what. as the T-Shirt said– “Rest assured: no one gives a **** what you think.”

  11. Joe July 26th, 2012 12:58 pm

    I find it hard to believe that an advance race of beings aren’t capable of making a flying ship with symmetrical dimensions. Look at that photograph. That ship is way off in its dimensions. The left light hangs lower that the right light, and the right side of the ship is flatter than the left side. I don’t see how anyone could have possibly believed that photo was legit.

  12. Socrates August 1st, 2012 3:21 am

    Seems half-cocked to build half a model, when you’d know it would not look right!
    And wouldn’t it be easier to do a symmetrical whole one?
    So that does not explain the wonkiness logically at all.

    What DOES is the eletromagnetic propulsion, as written, or gravity drive wave, if it’s that, distorting the vision.
    Which also contains how they do away with inertia.

    What’s really sad or illogical is thinking nothing is beyond our scope, when we used to think appearances were reality, like the earth was flat and centre of the universe.

Leave a reply

Live Comment Preview