Sunday, July 22, 2018

Interview With Rene Erik Olsen

Recently a deeply fascinating and challenging UFO book was published by the Danish painter, photographer and researcher Rene Erik Olsen – The George Adamski Story – Historical Events Of Gigantic Implications. By doing digital enhancements from copies of the original negatives taken by George Adamski, Rene Erik Olsen has succeeded in presenting unique and unknown details in the photos and films. Details which give a whole new dimension to the controversial George Adamski case.

Rene Erik Olsen was born in 1956, educated in the military and spent 30 years in the financial world. Painting has been his interest for many years and he is now working as a professional photographer doing lots of photoshoots. Special interests are research into UFOs and their technology. Visit his beautiful and inspiring website here.

Håkan: What started your UFO interest?
Rene: An observation 1966, together with my family, when I was 10 years old. A disc, around 8-10 meters, moving close to our house – maneuvering in an erratic way, standing still, moving again and disappearing extremely fast upwards.

Håkan:  Are you a member of any UFO group?
Rene: No.

Håkan: Most mainstream UFO researchers are very skeptical of George Adamski. How come you decided to study his experiences, photos and films?
Rene: I know that many people are skeptical of the Adamski case. I am not a ”believer” of everything about this case (at least not at face-value) but the photographs has always looked real to me. That is why I thought it worth while to study some of the images closer. Those first photos of the mothership and the objects around it (taken in 1951) looked hard to fake to me (double exposures could be one way to fake such photos, but it takes a really good knowledge of how to do double exposures and I understand that Adamski did not have such specific photographic knowledge)) – but they look real. Also the images in Flying Saucers Have Landed – are particularly good. I do consider these real as well. As it happened I was sent these four Brownie photos by Glenn Steckling in 2001 for another project (animation of the desert landing). I then had them on a hard disk for 16 years – until I considered them worthy of a good look. Had always thought that two of them looked like something could be enhanced and details brought forward.

Rene Erik Olsen

Håkan: When did you begin to consider Adamski´s case as genuine?
Rene: Well, as stated previously, I am not a fan of everything Adamski – or for that matter other contactee-cases, as a clear pattern in contact-cases is that the contactee often times embellish in – shall we say – less than truthful ”stories” to keep the ”fans” interested. A reason for this could be that they no longer are in contact with the ”aliens” and therefore ”make up” their own stories to keep people interested in the case. It is often seen – unfortunately (The Meier case for instance). But the Adamski photos and films – these can be forensically researched – without being influenced by the case as such. Everyone can do it. Nobody should be scared to do so. Unfortunately most researchers are scared of everything that has the name ”Adamski” on it – including the photos and films.

Håkan: What, in your view, is the strongest evidence in favor of Adamski?
Rene: The photos and films (those of them which I have been enhancing) and the witnesses to the first contact on 20th November 1952. Those things will always – to me – be the strongest evidence.

Håkan: Has anyone duplicated your efforts in enhancements of Adamski´s photos and films, to check your results?
Rene: I have no idea. Nobody has contacted me in this regard – even though it would be easy to check the results (you need a good knowledge of how to use Photoshop). It could be that nobody really has the inclination – since ”the Adamski case has already been proven a fake” by all the big players in Ufology. Or maybe there is nobody who is sincere enough, who wants to put their name to anything ”Adamski”.

Photo by George Adamski, December 13, 1952

Håkan: Today it is very easy to fake UFO photos and films. What would be your answer if accused of faking the enhancements?
Rene: I will agree that anything is possible with all the software available today, but the original films – your eyes (especially when you see the films) cannot ”fake” what you see in front of you. Especially the Mexico film and the Silver Spring film – they are just so ”bizarre” that your eyes and brain just need time to understand what is going on in front of you – and no ”software” can ”undo” what is really there in front of you. The photos which I have researched are from 1952 – they are NOT double exposures or anything of the sort. Anybody can investigate the same films and photos and get the same results – that is my answer.

In support of my findings it was actually Michel Zirger who discovered some of the things in Brownie frame 1 (the one with the mothership in the upper left corner and the three crafts) and not me. I just enhanced what we both agreed we saw in the frame. The enhancement process anybody - with a good knowledge of photoshop – can do. Enhancements do not bring out what is not there from the start.  I am actually surprised that at least the skeptics of the Adamski case has not come forward to dismiss the enhancements, but nothing of the sort has happened. Maybe because the enhancements are showing the real thing.

Håkan: What has been the response to your book The George Adamski Story?
Rene: Very positive. A few people have told me that had been waiting a long time for a closer look at the Adamski material. No skeptics have contacted me at all. 

Håkan: Are there any photos or films by Adamski that you regard as dubious or not genuine?
Rene: I cannot claim to have seen all of the Adamski material – I wish I had that opportunity.  I have only been asked to enhance a few things for Glenn Steckling of the Adamski Foundation. And that does not include the Brownie photos – they were done of my own interest. What I have enhanced I can clearly say – the raw material (film and photos) is real. I cannot remember having seen anything which would make me say that ”they were of dubious nature” – but again, I have not seen all of the Adamski photo and film evidence.

Rene Erik Olsen

Håkan: Will you continue researching the Adamski case?
Reen: Oh yes, there are so much material that another book is in the works. I only hope that Glenn Steckling will keep sending me material to be enhanced. In so many ways the Adamski case  and the material is very unique.

Håkan: What do you hope to achieve with your research?
Rene: I hope to inform other researchers and people in general about the extraordinary evidence for another form of intelligence outside of the Earth, who actively are visiting the Earth – both in the past and now and that George Adamski produced some evidence for this ”extraordinary technology” both in photos and films.

Håkan: Do you favor any specific UFO theory?
Rene: No. Certain is it though that ”the visitors” need some form of transportation surrounded by shields to move around in the Earth atmosphere. This is what is being photographed and filmed and also observed.

Rene Erik Olsen photographing a "Venusian beauty"

Håkan: Have you had any other personal UFO or paranormal experiences?
Rene: Two other sightings. One with multible objects, more than ten, moving high in the sky at sunset. Another sighting, daytime, with a single object moving erratically

Håkan: What is your general worldview?
Rene: I think we are here on Earth to do the best we can, in any given situation with the aid of our knowledge of what is good or bad, right or wrong. Pure and simple. I assume we have one chance in life. So do your best in all situations. That is my life philosophy.

Håkan: Are you a member of any spiritual group or church?
Rene: No.

Håkan: What advice would you give to new UFO researchers?
Rene: Look at every aspect of this field with an open mind (just like life itself). Never judge anything because it is ”beyond-your-understanding” – It could be you just need to ”adjust” your frame of mind.