UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Aug > Aug 1

David Adair & Credibility

From: Moderator, UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sat, Aug 1 1998 10:48:42 - 0500 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:48:28 -0400
Subject: David Adair & Credibility

A message (the last one, below) from Bill Colburn <rrgp@pnet.net>
triggered recall of a couple of threads from last year that need
to be revisited.

I've strung a series of messages together below to jog memories
and introduce newcomers to some bytes past:

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:24:15 -0700
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com>
Subject: David Adair (CSETI witness)

I stumbled across an interview with David Adair in the current
"Whole Life Times" (May '97, available at my local grocery
store.) While details on the CSETI briefing in April have been
in short supply to date, Adair appears to be a primary witness
who has gone public. I've recounted the key parts of his story
below. At the moment, I'm unable to independently verify Adair's
background, and didn't find existing references to him on the
net (aside from this context). Is Adair a known character? It
would be nice to have some more information on this fellow.

According to his bio, David Adair built his first rocket when he
was 11, and at 17 won an award for "The Most Outstanding in the
Field of Engineering Sciences" from the U.S. Air Force for his
construction of a 10-foot tall, half-ton missile that set the
fastest speed record of any missile flown at the time. (This was
built with the help of his father who was a mechanic for Nascar
and had access to a huge, state-of-the-art machine shop and
technicians. He ran into troubles with the math early on, and
allegedly his work was sent on to none other than Stephen
Hawking for assistance.)

Adair's endeavors attracted the attention of the military. At
this point I'll let Adair speak for himself, as we proceed
directly to DreamLand:

"When my rocket landed, they gave pre-set coordinates and it
came down in the desert about 120 miles north of Las Vegas. I
thought it would be lost but there's a giant 30-40,000-acre Air
Force Base that's not on the map, called Area 51. They took me
to one of the hangars, floor dropped out from under us, and a
huge elevator took us down into a cavern facility underground to
see this engine.

"The vision was remarkable in its design and construction. It
looked nothing like what we have even today. The alloys were
really strange, almost transparent -- so strong I could stand on
it and it would not give. When I touched it, it felt like a
woman's skin, so incredibly soft, smooth and extremely hard.
Very unusual alloy casting, it wasn't even like titanium or
other hard metals..... It was covered with heiroglyphics which I
memorized. The entire engine was damaged all the way around and
the center was incinerated..... With this kind of engine you use
plasma physics and your running temperature is at 100 million
degrees C, hotter than the sun. They wanted to know how to get
the power flows and conversion things working. ...

"Then it dawned on me. They said that this was their engine and
I thought, "Why am I having to explain how your engine works to
you?" ... That's when they got upset and jerked me out of that
room. They kept me in this room for 10 hours with no windows or
doors. Finally, (Gen.) Curtis Lemay came in and took me home."

Speaking about the CSETI briefings: "The other witnesses they
have were all former Air Force people. They saw pictures or they
saw radar blips. No one ever saw real hardware pulled into a
secret military base like I did. So, obviously they wanted to
hear what I had to say. There were about 12 of us invited to
testify, all ex-military except for one woman who was ex-NASA."

Another witness was an attorney out of Nashville named Steve
Lovkin, who while in the army reportedly worked in the Pentagon
in inscriptions and secret coding, and elsewhere is described as
a military aide who regularly briefed President Eisenhower on
UFO evidence and developments. Recounting his meeting of Lovkin
at the CSETI briefings, Adair states, "They brought these pieces
of metal in [to Lovkin at the Pentagon] and said the pieces were
from a crashed UFO. They couldn't decipher the emblems on them.
While Steve was talking I was sitting next to him, and I'd never
met the man in my life and I sat there and sketched out the
emblems that I'd seen. I said, 'Steve, did they look like this?'
and the man almost fainted at the microphone. I got 12 out of
12. I said, 'I think what you saw at the Pentagon came off the
engine that I saw.'

"So that got the senators and congressman fired up. How could I
possibly hit so many correct? That was a high point because it
threw credibility back into my corner."

I would be remiss if I failed to pass on other remarkable
comments from Adair. With regards to his ideas for 'rocket
science' as a child, these "started coming through dreams early
on, at age seven..... At first they were just random, then a
little more frequent. Then the dreams started following a
sequential order -- I would dream about something I was working
on and I'd get to a point where I really couldn't figure out
what to do and then I'd get a dream and the next day I would
know how to do it." When Hawking looked at his equations and
asked him where he got his information, "I told him from dreams,
and he said if I had answered any other way I would have lost
all credibility."

Adair also argues, similar (apparently) to Col. Philip Corso in
his new UFO conspiracy blockbuster "The Day After Roswell", that
some or much of the modern technological boom has been spurred
by the captured ET artefacts. He talks about sweeping cover-ups
in NASA. He seems to be making himself available on the lecture
circuit. The only contact information provided is a phone number
for his "Need to Know" conference bookers at 310-669-4806.

Any more info on this one out there?

Geoff Price


From: Bill Hamilton <bhamilto@pcshs.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 97 08:39:43 -0700
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: CSETI 'Witness' - David Adair
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

To Robert and all,

Last Saturday and Sunday I was in San Diego and met Dave Adair
at the Whole Life Expo. I stayed and listed to his 2-hour talk.
Very interesting.

He says he still has experiments going up in shuttles and
contracts with the European Space Agency. These are points from
which to start a background check as he emphatically said he
does not and has not worked for NASA.

During his talk, I had trouble with the following claims:

1) He put pressure on a senator or congressman (I forget who this was) to
obtain a 1.1 million dollar grant to build his rocket.

2) He actually obtained the money and built a "fusion
containment" engine in 1971 at the age of 17!(Born in 1954 and
is now 43) That he did work out equations on a board that were
similar to those of Steven Hawking and met with Steven who told
him that some of this math came to him (SH) in dreams as well.

3) That, at the age of 17, he was allowed to ignite and fly this
fusion rocket from White Sands Missile Range in NM aimed at Area
51 in Nevada. That it worked the first time without prior
testing. That a famous rocket scientist (...Rudolph) attended
this momentous rocket test. That 9 Men-In-Black disembarked from
a Black Airplane and flew him to Area 51 and that, once there,
he entered the secure underground facility through a hangar
where they took him to a special room to see an advanced Ferrari
model of his fusion engine evidently manufactured by an alien

David is an intelligent, entertaining speaker, but these, like
other claims that have come before, are extraordinary claims and
either David's credibility needs immediate support or we have
just another anecdotal story.

Bill Hamilton
Executive Director
Home e-mail: billh46088@aol.com, starmanbh@aol.com
Work e-mail: bhamilto@pcshs.com
SKYWATCH website: http://www.wic.net/colonel/ufopage.htm
ALIEN MAGIC website: http://members.aol.com/billh46088/newhome.htm

"It is easier to ridicule than investigate,
but not as profitable" - Alan


To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: CSETI 'Witness' - David Adair
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 11:19:36 -0700

>From: Bill Hamilton <bhamilto@pcshs.com>
>Date: Thu, 05 Jun 97 08:39:43 -0700
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: CSETI 'Witness' - David Adair
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>2) He actually obtained the money and built a "fusion
>containment" engine in 1971 at the age of 17!(Born in 1954 and
>is now 43) That he did work out equations on a board that were
>similar to those of Steven Hawking and met with Steven who
>told him that some of this math came to him (SH) in dreams as

There are no fusion engines now, and there were none in 1971. So
far, fusion reactions on the order of seconds get scientists
excited, and there's a lot more engineering than "math"
involved. Multi-million dollar projects are the norm in that
field, so it seems pretty improbable that a 17 year old would
obtain such money as a grant.

At what university does he claim this device was built? Who
worked on it as project engineer? What firm did the

What journal published his research paper on this? Whose prior
work was the basis for this "engine"?

What work has he done since and where was it published?

>3) That, at the age of 17, he was allowed to ignite and fly
>this fusion rocket from White Sands Missile Range in NM aimed
>at Area 51 in Nevada. That it >worked the first time without
>prior testing.

See above. There are no fusion engines, therefore there are no
fusion rockets. Fusion reactions even of the order currently
generated require enormous machines with enormous electrical
energy to generate the containment, and massive particle
accelerators or laser systems to cause the fusion reaction to

Such systems are far to heavy to fly.

One should smell a rat with the "it worked the first time
without prior testing".

That's highly unlikely with a piece of software, and even more
unlikely with a piece of emergent engineering.

>That a famous rocket scientist (...Rudolph) attended this
>momentous rocket test. That 9 Men-In-Black disembarked from a
>Black Airplane and flew him to Area 51 and that, once there, he
>entered the secure underground facility through a hangar where
>they took him to a special room to see an advanced Ferrari model
>of his fusion engine evidently manufactured by an alien culture!

How can one determine that an artifact is created by an alien
culture? First it would need to use principles incomprehensible
to us, not be "an advanced Ferrari model of his fusion engine",
and it would need to be made of unknown materials or materials
with an unusual isotopic balance (which would require something
like mass spectroscopy to determine - it doesn't sound like he
used any methods to determine "alien" origin).

>David is an intelligent, entertaining speaker, but these, like
>other claims that have come before, are extraordinary claims
>and either David's credibility needs immediate support or we
>have just another anecdotal story.

His story doesn't sound very credible. Unfortunately, it sounds
about as credible as the material at the CSETI website, and puts
another nail in the coffin ofgetting Congress interested in
UFOlogy as a serious discipline.

In fact, the story sounds like the usual crank material:

The "witness" claims to have invented a revolutionary machine
using math from a dream. He met and spoke intimately with famous
people who agreed that what he had done was revolutionary. His
work was so important that it came to the attention of high
government officials, who needed his help to figure out an alien
power plant based on (surprise) the same revolutionary
principles that came to him in his dream.

But, somehow, no one else (except Stephen Greer) ever heard of
him. His machine has vanished from the face of the earth in the
intervening 26 years. I suspect it will be found he has done no
work in the field leading up to 1971 and none since.

Mark Cashman, creator of the Temporal Doorway at
Original digital art, writing and UFO research


To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Rebecca Rants
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:06:47 -0700

>From: Rebecca Keith <XianneKei@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Rebecca Rants

>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>From: Don Allen <dona@totcon.com>
>>From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
>>Subject: Re: Rebecca Rants

>I know there are definitely some who I consider to be outright
>charlatans and mystics and I don't like being associated with
>them. Have you noticed the way UFO "buffs" are portrayed in the
>movies? Have you seen "Contact," "Independence Day," or "Strange
>Days?" I don't like being identified with a group of people like
>those portrayed there. I'm certainly no scholar, but I'm not
>stupid either -- and I don't like being thought of as someone
>who wears a propellor beanie or builds landing pads. I don't
>like associating with people who claim to read Vegan. Or those
>who ...

You don't have to be a scholar to be validly interested in UFOs.
After all even non-scientists are interested in computers and
astronomy and biology. But to feel that even reading about the
stuff puts you in the class you mention is certainly pervasive.
I am sure that it at least partly puts off interested
scientists, who might otherwise read the literature.

Can you imagine a professor of physics walking into his local
Borders or Barnes and Noble, and scanning the UFO section (right
next to the astrology and magic section)? All he needs is for
his department head to walk in and see him reading that stuff
Though it's probably more of a visceral fearof association that
keeps him away rather than any concrete concern.

>How does the field correct this? How do serious researchers (or
>those even seriously interested in learning about UFOs) extract
>themselves from the people in this field who make wild,
>unsubstantiated claims?

I wish I knew. I suppose carefully reasoned letters to the
editor, press releases about serious investigative and
analytical efforts, and real press conferences of substance, and
some peer review for the regular conferences to keep the
Pleiadians out...

>Mark, you also make excellent points about evidence. Apparently
>there is a lot of evidence to suggest something unusual is going
>on. I think somewhere you mentioned about Ted Phillips'
>thousands of physical trace cases and I know you are aware of
>the EM effects evidece, and John Schuessler has a pretty good
>collection of medical evidence; however, much of it seems to be
>undocumented -- though, I know there is some good evidence to
>suggest medical evidence.

Yes, the medical evidence is pretty interesting - I've been
doing some studies along those lines. The most difficult part
there is getting medical records, which witnesses rightly feel
should be kept confidential.

And yes, there are lots of credible trace and effect cases in
every category.

What I'd like to see for headlines are things like - "X-ray
experiments on plants confirm Trans-en-Provence UFO emitted
X-rays" or "6 UFO landing cases found with weights in the tens
of tons".

But the only way that's going to happen is when credible
researchers announce credible results which will withstand
skeptical scrutiny. We don't have to have all of these results
published in mainstream scientific journals, but results like
these in the MUFON journal, with a press release and an AP
story, pre-peer reviewed within the UFO community by QUALIFIED
scientists... this would certainly help to offset the negative
press we seem to get and perhaps deserve.

>Maybe we are to blame for not making people more aware of this
>evidence. We seem to get bogged down in the flashy claims -- the
>implant removals, the alien artifacts, the crash retrievals. But
>it appears that it's these flashy claims that people want to
>know and hear about. It's big news when a mile long ET vehicle
>is stranded over Phoenix and thousands of people see it. It's
>big news when an anonymous man gives a rock he claims came from
>the Roswell crash to the Alien Hunter [TM]. It's big news when
>an anonymous cameraman films an alien autopsy and sells said
>film to a man looking for Elvis footage. Or what about this
>alien interview footage -- everyone seems curious about that.
>Or.... well, you get the picture. The general public obviously
>doesn't care for evidence, they want to hear Robet Dean tell
>about a book that he allegedly saw. Or David Adair talk about
>his dealings with NASA when he was 17 years old. Or....

Yes, but these people are also relentless publicists. We need to
have our journal editors be equally relentless publicists for
the positive view of UFOs by calling the attention of the press
community to positive articles in their journals, by refusing
the less-than-credible classifieds, etc.

>It's all very discouraging to me. However, I was somewhat
>encouraged by everyone's response to my question until I read:

>From: Ted Viens <drtedv@smart1.net>


>Either Ted was being really sarcastic or anyone who questions
>is a naysayer, not just any naysayer either -- an arrogant

If you walk the objective middle line, the believers will revile
you for not accepting incredible unsubstantiated claims, and the
debunkers will revile you for even paying attention to the
subject. But the other people, who are what I call "friendly
skeptics" - people who look at new claims with a skeptical but
friendly eye, willing to accept positive proof, and even seeking
it, while being prepared to discount what can't be substantiated
- those people will admire you.

Mark Cashman, creator of the Temporal Doorway at
Original digital art, writing and UFO research


Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:30:27 -0700
From: Bill Colburn <rrgp@pnet.net>
To: updates@globalserve.net
Subject: David Adair

Just surfing around and found this site which contains many
references to this huxter.

I am a propulsion engineer and I can tell you with great
certainty that David is NOT a propulsion specialist or "rocket
scientist" as he is so often labeled. He knows virtually
_nothing_ about propulsion systems save a few buzz words that he
consistantly uses incorrectly.

He in fact makes exactly the same mistakes as made on "Extreme
Machines" and the Discovery"s excellent series on Rockets! He
couldn't be doing last minute cramming now could he? Mistakes
and all?

I know this is old hat information now, but this guy is so far
out in misrepresenting himself that it deserves to be brought to
light once again.

Bill Colburn


Errol Bruce-Knapp
Moderator UFO UpDates - Toronto

Search for other documents from or mentioning: starmanbh

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com