Alien Base: The Evidence for Extraterrestrial Colonization of Earth – The Space People: THE RETURN VISIT
Because of Orthon’s promise to return the photographic plate, Adamski kept himself in a state of constant alertness. With the plate camera attached, he set up his telescope at a spot on the Palomar Gardens property giving an unobstructed view of the far distance, including a long expanse of the Pacific Ocean shoreline.
On the morning of 13 December 1952 he was alerted by the roar of jets overhead. In the distance he saw a flash, and remarked to others with him at that time that it might be the spacecraft. Then, at 09.00, he saw another flash in the sky, and tried to aim his telescope at it. ‘Sure enough,’ he reported, ‘I was able to observe it gliding noiselessly in my direction — an iridescent glass-like craft flashing its brilliant colours in the morning sun . . .’
As it came over the nearby valley, it seemed to stop and hover motionlessly.
With utmost will power I restrained my excitement in an effort to get a really good picture this time. Quickly I took two shots. Then realizing that the ship being that near was too large to get the whole thing in the picture with the camera in that position, I turned the camera on the eyepiece and took another shot while it was still hovering. I shot the fourth picture just as the ship was beginning to move again . . . the first three of these pictures proved to show good detail, while the fourth — taken in motion — turned out fuzzy, but is still good.
While changing the position of the camera on the eyepiece, Adamski made some quick calculations of the craft’s dimensions, comparing it with known distances. Instead of being 20 feet in diameter, as he had guessed three weeks earlier, he estimated that it was probably about 35 to 36 feet in diameter and 15 to 20 feet in height.
As it approached probably within 100 feet of me, and to one side, one of the portholes was opened slightly, a hand was extended and the selfsame holder which my spaceman friend had carried away with him on November 20 was dropped to the ground. As the holder was released, the hand appeared to wave slightly just before the craft passed beyond me. I watched the holder drop and strike a rock as it hit the ground.
Adamski picked up the holder, dented from its impact with the rock, and wrapped it in his handkerchief so as not to damage any potentially important evidence, such as fingerprints. Meanwhile, the craft crossed a small ravine on the. Palomar Gardens property as it moved towards the base of the mountains to the north. Then dropping below the level of the treetops, it flew close to a cabin where it was allegedly seen by some other witnesses and photographed by one.
The photograph, supposedly taken with a Brownie box-camera by Jerrold Baker, who had been staying on the property since the end of October, was (along with Adamski’s photos) the subject of much controversy. The saucer certainly looks blurred (see plates), but given the slow shutter speed of the Brownie, even slight movement of the craft would have led to this result. Baker signed a statement testifying to the event, which, in part, states: Suddenly in the corner of my eyes, I saw a circular object skim over the treetops from the general area where the Professor was located . . . I waited momentarily, mostly because of shock I guess, as it continued coming closer. It then hung in the air not over 12 feet high at the most, and about 25 feet from where I was standing. It seemed as if it did this knowing I was there waiting to photograph it. I quickly snapped a picture and as I did it tilted slightly and zoomed upwards over the tree faster than anyone can almost imagine .
These things I know for certain:
- The saucer made no sound.
- It was guided by a superior intelligence.
- There was a slight odor present as the saucer sped upwards. 4. It had portholes and three huge ball-bearings, presumably landing gears.
According to a later affidavit, Baker denied having taken the picture. ‘I did not take the alleged photograph accredited to me,’ he wrote. ‘The alleged photograph was taken with the Brownie camera along with three or four similar photos by Mr George Adamski on the morning of Dec. 12th 1952, and not on Dec. 13th, 1952.’
And in a letter to investigator James Moseley, Baker elaborated: It was my suggestion that [Adamski] be located at one spot with his telescope and camera while I or any other individual be located at another spot on the property with a different type of camera . . . Much to my amazement, within a week after this suggestion, George Adamski early one morning disclosed the fact that he had taken pictures with the Brownie camera, adjacent to his cabin.
Baker went on to give the names of two other people who he claimed could verify these matters.
While it is known that Baker later turned against Adamski, due in part to the latter’s displeasure at Baker’s behaviour while staying at Palomar Gardens (including plans for operating a gadget to ‘draw down flying saucers and airplanes’, which matter was reported to the FBI), it is possible that Adamski may have twisted the evidence. Perhaps he took the Brownie photo and then asked Baker to take the credit for it, to bolster the evidence. However, Lucy McGinnis, who was there at the time, disagreed vehemently. ‘That whole thing was Baker’s doing,’ she told me. He was raring to do anything to prove the point. He didn’t deny it before me, that I remember.’
On the same day the photographs were taken, Adamski took the photographic plates, with the exception of the one returned by Orthon, for developing and printing by a Mr D.J. Detwiler in Carlsbad, 40 miles away. All of the pictures turned out perfectly. Uncertain for a while as to who should develop the plate returned by Orthon, Adamski finally decided to take it to his local photographer. ‘When the finishing was done, and with witnesses present, and a print was made,’ wrote Adamski, ‘there were indications of the original photo — which I had taken before the space visitor took the holder — being washed off; and this was replaced by a strange photograph and a symbolic message, which to this day has not been fully deciphered. Several scientists are working on it [and are] still working on deciphering the markings of the footprints.’ He decided against having any fingerprints taken.
At Adamski’s request, representatives of two government agencies (the FBI and the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, OSI) came to visit him at Palomar Gardens. ‘These men listened intently to my detailed description of all that had taken place,’ he reported, ‘but they registered no surprise. Nor did they express any doubt regarding the truthfulness of my statements. They did not even question me . . . They did take a couple of my photographs of the craft, as well as a print from the dropped negative, which I gave to them.”
The FBI memorandum pertaining to this meeting, sent to the Director, J. Edgar Hoover, confirms that Adamski did indeed give the investigators a detailed description of the Desert Center encounter (and much else as well).
Some extracts follow:
Adamski stated that he took a picture of the space ship and the space man, but the space man could evidently read his thoughts inasmuch as he motioned to him not to take the picture and when the space man left he took the ‘plate’ with the negative on it with him . . . This differs from Adamski’s probably more accurate version of events, as published in Flying Saucers Have Landed, wherein he stated that he did not actually take a photo of Orthon.
The FBI memorandum continues: Adamski advised that on December 13, 1952, the space ship returned to the Palomar Gardens and came low enough to drop the plate which the space man had taken from him . . . and had then gone over the hill . . . Adamski stated that as the space ship was leaving, [Jerrold Baker] also took a picture of the ship . . . Adamski furnished the writer with copies of the space writing and photographs of the space ship.
As to Adamski’s assertion that the agents expressed no doubts concerning the truthfulness of his statements, there is no such confirmation by either the FBI or the OSI. On the contrary. ‘No further investigation is being conducted,’ concludes the memo. ‘This case is being [sic] considered closed.’
Another FBI memo states that: ‘OSI of the Air Force has done considerable investigation . . . and lends no credence to the truthfulness of Adamski’s statements.