Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Pascagoula case


  • Please log in to reply
312 replies to this topic

#61    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Morning Quillius

Another perfect day, but that is what they say about Queensland, Beautiful One day, perfect the next!

I saw it! Cannot wait until you do now so we can discuss it.

Morning Psyche,

Was it good? I will find it and then we can discuss.... J

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

But we do not know if they were untruths. I know what you mean, anyone can walk in during a spring clean and make the most meticulous person look like a slob. I do not believe that is the case here because I find the facts to be behind Joe. Cantrell had just lost the bread winner, she had funeral costs to cover, all of the sudden she finds herself the provider of the family and she had just been through an intense period of grief. All that makes it highly likely that houselhold chores took the back burner and created a situation that Joe took advantage of, and again, not on his own, but he is the only one mentioned in most articles. What Mrs Cantrell had in her favour is that she was not present and Joe spoke to minors, apart from that I do not see the big conspiracy.

I still see this as just bashing Joe, the claims he made that were untruthful were considered untruthful according to Mrs Cantrell, and what else would she say? She was annoyed, embarrassed and about to make a squillion from the inconvenience. What would you do? The living conditions of a grieving widow were exaggerated, that is the extent of his alleged lying.


We do know that they were lies! the extent of the lying was not restricted to the poverty/conditions depicted as you alluded to. The comments about the widows blank expression, the fact she had the same expression at the funeral etc etc are nothing to do with the depiction of poverty but plain outright lies. Have you see the part about his favourite song he used to sing etc...part of Joes fantasy world that seemed to work well in Hollywood.

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

From Wikipedia:

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False Light is being covered in a story without your permission and being portrayed in an unsavoury light pretty much from what I read here, and that was certainly the case with Cantrell.


I have not seen the freelance worker, the only description that I can find that conflicts with senior editor is "Political Journalist" and he wrote the award wining Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse in 1974, indicating tenure.



I have been unable to find staff lists for The Rolling Stone, but either way, both sources he was at the Rolling Stone in 1971, enough time to establish his position and in no conceivable desperate need of a breaking story. Of course Wikipedia is the previous link quoted which claims he was senior editor. A great many sites on the net simply regurgitate Wikipedia but we know he was employed from 1971 at Rolling Stone and both work descriptions are of respectable positions.


He went on to become senior editor at the Rolling stone but was first contacted to do a freelance piece on Narcotics 1971 (maybe due to his own addiction to drink and drugs)




View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

How so when the shipyards have been rebuilt time and again? We do not even know if such record exists. What you have is a claim that you find suspect, so you need to prove these cameras were not considerable. Being a military spec shipyard, there would be plenty good quality cameras on hand.

Well sort of, basically the yard changed hands in 1968 when Litton bought it, at this point the Ingalls yard was on the East bank and they moved to the West bank and built the new development which took 4 years. The actual shipyard that the two men were at was actually to the North of the current Ingalls yard, called Shaupeter Shipping yard, this was abandoned at the time...strange why Ingalls would have security covering another yard don’t you think. Oh and interesting that a high etc military establishment would allow some two- bit reporter access to footage

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

I think it is an unchallenged investigation because others were worried about their own angles, if anything, this shows a rare instance of sloppy investigation work by Hynek. Many types of cameras were in use at the time, it would be impossible for your or I to guess what was in place at Ingall's that night. I imagine they would be extremely high quality considering that nature of what is produced at Ingalls Shipyards. All aspects of military have to be closely monitored. How would Ingall explain it if someone made of with an atomic weapon because the cameras were not working that night, or not covering enough area?

There were no atomic weapons at the time from what I have seen, the first nuclear sub was in 1974, again though this does beg the question why would they let Joe see this footage with such high security and monitoring?
It was unchallenged because it was a flippant comment about a make-believe investigation in a comic book style magazine...hardly needed any ones attention did it? And if he really did have the smoking gun that could prove it a hoax/fake/lie etc then surely biggest scoop of the year seeing as it was a global reported event.


View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Yet Joe's investigation followed in the media only months after the incident. Nobody saw this as a point of contention?
Phil was known for making his own mind up. He felt he had already shown enough dishonesty to say the case was a setup. Phil is generally independent in his investigations.
I think that Hynek and Klass knew that Ingall was the primary military ship builder at the time and realised that the compound would by default have high security which by all counts was never breached.


Why would Joe even mention the Toll Booths when he had such a smoking gun piece of evidence to prove it a lie?
As for high security never breached...why let Joe have access? Why have cameras pointing to another yard?
As I mentioned once before he could be telling the truth, i.e. they had cameras in ‘range’..not pointing at location or even recording, he doesn’t actually say this anywhere...the usual clever wording as seen previously when used to portray imaginary conversations/meetings with Mrs Cantrell.

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

There is a claim which has not been proven to be incorrect. If we were to accept that as proof that Joe is lying, would a single UFO claim stand to scrutiny? Would all the men themselves not be instantly dismissed as  liars with a Catfish as proof of their tale? And agin the military aspect of the shipyards indicate that surveillance equipment would have been mandatory so the claim has basis I feel.


I don’t think its case of accepting him as a liar or proving so, at the moment we have some obscure wording about an ‘investigation’. Let me put it another way, if the claim was that the video had captured the event would we ask for evidence or would we accept a third hand account that it exists? You would have a field day without breaking a sweat.

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

What do you honestly think about Hynek's involvement here? I have to say personally I am disappointed. It is claimed that he and Harder were involved in intensive investigations, yet they can only conclude "something fantastic happened here" I mean that is it? What the heck?

He concludes that he believes the men had an experience! What more can he say? He has no evidence to claim ET but has enough to confirm they had an experience with a UFO. Imagine if he concluded a ‘real abduction’....skeptics and field day once again spring to mind J

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

The fictional aspect you and the many are playing upon though is the living conditions of a newfound widow. And I would challenge anyone to prove that this is at all connected to the abduction claim. Personally, I see good reason to think Joe was railroaded in that particular case. Kids are one hell of a bargaining chip where Jurors are concerned and the events surrounding the interview indicate a reason why such conditions, even if temporary, might have been seen by Joe and his companion

No Kids are not pawns, the case went to supreme court where a Judge ruled based on facts, no jurors involved here J and no the fictional element is his wording as to how Mrs Cantrell looked and acted (even though she wasn’t there)

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

And I do not think he put the other two to shame, I think they contributed in their own way and had their own investigations. I completely believe that Klass himself has shown reasonable suspicion and good reason to doubt the integrity of the entire scenario. Hynek's small contribution was entirely positive from all angles, yet unsavoury elements such as the strong smell of whiskey did not seem to factor with him. I have to wonder if he really had a go, or if he was stil hurting from his swamp gas statement.

Neither do I as he had a little snippet in a comic style magazine without any substance just a wild claim he had seen evidence proving it a lie...yes of course you did Joe (good weed or good beer?) I think Klass confirmed Hicksons evaluation of the Lawyers intentions and as such fired him ....this is greatly in Hicksons favour.

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Joe was not fired due to the outcome of the case. The Plain Dealer fired him over political motivations.
Apologies, you are correct, not only that the case took place in 1974 long after his departure.


View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

LINK

I think you are placing much emphasis on false light cases and making them out to be more serious than they are. Other notable example include a 96 year old woman who was quoted as being pregnant in an article (she received 1.5 million in damages!!!!) and another case against Playgirl magazine was about the placement of headlines. False light is in general used for the lesser claims as far as I can tell. The cases were not only against Joe either, he is the more notable party involved here. What is the second case against Joe? I read the Wiki entry, I cannot make out what it is saying here:

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing (1974)[6] is one of only two false light cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and involved Eszterhas.

Well the publishing firm was in the limelight because they ran with the article although not directly responsible for the lies put forward. Also the photographer, he had done nothing wrong just took pictures....I am sure he never put pen to paper or photographed an invisible space and claimed it to be Mrs Cantrell J

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

And the people who claimed to see something could not have seen what the men saw because they all reported a different shaped craft. I have not seen one report of a cigar shaped craft, all reports are of a saucer shaped craft. The unnamed reports have less validity than Joe, because no aspect of their tale can be checked or verified, it could be the mens family or the men themselves for all we know.

I don’t agree we have the two men who gave names Larry and Raymond who from the highway witnessed a blue light. We then have Mike Cataldo, who with two other Naval guys (he gave the names) reported a blue light. Ok granted the three calls received by the officer were anonymous and therefore I won’t count them, or don’t need them, the other accounts suffice to corroborate the UFO.


There were no cameras at the toll booths. And at the time the yard wasn’t a military spec builder, Ingalls that is.....actually they were not even at Ingalls!!!!
Well yes it has been proven in a court of LAW that he lied, he describes Cantrells facial expressions at both home and at the funeral plus other plain downright lies...hence supreme court verdict.

Joe’s comments in the comic are a waste of time. He hasn’t even actually stated that the cameras were pointing to spot or that they were recording.

Come on Joe where is tis smoking gun?
‘Subsequent investigation by Quillius found footage from local shipyard showing the incident.....’ sound familiar?

Edited by quillius, 22 May 2012 - 01:36 PM.


#62    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2012 - 09:49 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 May 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

I found the MothMan Prophecies with Richard Geere a bit slow. Anyone else seen it?
The book is much scarier. The movie didn't capture much of the Fortean nature of the book. The book is a collection of most of the strangest events I've ever heard of. You really felt like Keel was in some location where unexplainable things happened every day.


#63    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 May 2012 - 03:17 AM

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Morning Psyche,

Was it good? I will find it and then we can discuss.... J

Good Morning Mate!

In the interests of not spoiling it for you, all I will say is that I was presently surprised and yes, I rather enjoyed it! I was shocked to see a couple of well known actors in there. In fact, it was rather insightful to get a better understanding of the local culture I believe. I can see why the term "old Timers" was not challenged with regards to Edgar Mitchell.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

We do know that they were lies! the extent of the lying was not restricted to the poverty/conditions depicted as you alluded to. The comments about the widows blank expression, the fact she had the same expression at the funeral etc etc are nothing to do with the depiction of poverty but plain outright lies. Have you see the part about his favourite song he used to sing etc...part of Joes fantasy world that seemed to work well in Hollywood.

The saviour for Joe I feel is that the story was backed with photos. Why Forrest City was actually sued is the key here, they are responsible for Joe. That is why this case made such headlines, it was an example to make sure that publications could not hide behind the word "freelance" but it was not altogether successful, as far as I am aware, False Light is not recognised in all US states? I could be wrong, but I read it that way. If we break down the "lies" that really Forrest City is responsible for, they consist of:

Joe said Margret's Husband died at the bottom of the river, he did not, his car was crushed on a river bank

He made an assumption which his editor should have picked up on.

Joe said that Margret wore the same blank expression that she did at her funeral

That seems a perfectly reasonable statement to be honest, I imagine a widow would be blank in the months after her spouses death and he did not have to speak to her to find that out

Joe said Mel's wife remembered him singing a song

Made up to make the story sound better, I admit this is a direct embellishment as we cannot ascertain if Joe had heard this from anyone else. It is emphasis though, who does this hurt?

Joe said the stove was devoid of coal
Joe said the couch had springs sticking through it
Joe said pillows on the couch were missing

The pictures would confirm this

Joe said Margret's children did the talking for her

They did, he just did not mention that Margaret was not there, a lie by way of omission

Joe said townspeople offered to help the family with money and they refused to take it

Which seems reasonable enough?

Joe (and this is what did him in IMHO) described the family as "hill folk with little to live for"

Which also to be perfectly honest sounds reasonable considering what the family had just been through.

The case was actually lost to begin with in 1972, but was appealed and won in 1974. And Joe was not the one in question when the case was finally won, The Plain Dealer was, and because they had not fulfilled editing responsibilities, as such this was a landmark important case as it drew the line between free speech and the rights of the individual. Joe's embellishments were endorsed and published by Forrest City, which legally places the blame on them.

I find the charges against Joe benign and I do not find it marrs his character, he did what reporters do, he took a story and made it sound good, I think we forget that reporters have to put food on the table and therefore have to make each headline count. Joe focused on the families poverty as it would be a human interest story that would capture attention, and by George he was certainly right. Joe personally was not charged because he is not responsible, The Plain Dealer was. They are supposed to check Joe's facts.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

He went on to become senior editor at the Rolling stone but was first contacted to do a freelance piece on Narcotics 1971 (maybe due to his own addiction to drink and drugs)

This incident was years later, so again, Joe had no need to impress anyone. Perhaps his addiction was an insight? It might have helped him go to the top where others floundered? Right man for the right job?

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Well sort of, basically the yard changed hands in 1968 when Litton bought it, at this point the Ingalls yard was on the East bank and they moved to the West bank and built the new development which took 4 years. The actual shipyard that the two men were at was actually to the North of the current Ingalls yard, called Shaupeter Shipping yard, this was abandoned at the time...strange why Ingalls would have security covering another yard don’t you think. Oh and interesting that a high etc military establishment would allow some two- bit reporter access to footage

Wiki lists the Shipyard history as being a bit different?



In 1938, Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation was founded by Robert Ingalls of Birmingham, AL, on the East Bank of the Pascagoula River in Mississippi.[1] Ingalls was located where the Pascagoula River runs into the Gulf of Mexico. It started out building commercial ships including one of the first [[L African Planet on Liberty Fleet Day 27 September 1941. In the 1950s Ingalls started bidding on Navy work, winning a contract in 1957 to build 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines.
Litton Industries acquired Ingalls in 1961, and in 1968 expanded its facilities to the other side of the river. Ingalls reached a high point of employment in 1977, with 25,000 workers. In April 2001, Litton was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation.[2]
On 29 August 2005, Ingalls facilities were damaged by Hurricane Katrina; most of the ships in dock and construction escaped serious harm. While shipbuilding was halted for a while due to the destruction of many buildings, most vehicles and the large overhead cranes, the facility continues to run today.
On March 31, 2011, Northrop Grumman spun off its shipbuilding sector (including Ingalls Shipbuilding) into a new corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries.


This is the pier, is that not the shipyard in the background?

Posted Image

Why would military restrict access to the footage? It was not a military installation, it was a military spec contractor. If the cameras divulged no sensitive information, would not freedom of the press come into play there?

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

There were no atomic weapons at the time from what I have seen, the first nuclear sub was in 1974, again though this does beg the question why would they let Joe see this footage with such high security and monitoring?
It was unchallenged because it was a flippant comment about a make-believe investigation in a comic book style magazine...hardly needed any ones attention did it? And if he really did have the smoking gun that could prove it a hoax/fake/lie etc then surely biggest scoop of the year seeing as it was a global reported event.

There was atomic powered submarines though, 12 were contracted to be built in '57, the weapon was merely an analogy, I expect many types of highly sensitive equipment would be found there. The last one of these went into service in '74, the same year.

LINK - Google Books

I would not say it was the biggest scoop of the year, I think that would go to the Silver Bridge collapse.

I would not call it a flippant comment either, it is severely damaging to the mens case. I find it stranger that not one investigator had the courage to challenge Joe's information. We can see the glee taken in bringing down Phil Klass at any opportunity, skeptics are a target, yet this skeptical investigation was never challenged, as far as I know, you have made the largest protest to date.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Why would Joe even mention the Toll Booths when he had such a smoking gun piece of evidence to prove it a lie?
As for high security never breached...why let Joe have access? Why have cameras pointing to another yard?
As I mentioned once before he could be telling the truth, i.e. they had cameras in ‘range’..not pointing at location or even recording, he doesn’t actually say this anywhere...the usual clever wording as seen previously when used to portray imaginary conversations/meetings with Mrs Cantrell.

Why mention the toll booths? Supporting evidence? It is another compelling claim that nobody had the courage to challenge.

Again, in range could still show a dot zipping past, a blue hue or flash, like the Nellis footage, something does not have to be in focus to be considered captured.

I did not find his wording in the Cantrell article all that cleaver to be honest, it landed himself and his bosses in court. If you get caught out, that is not very clever in my book.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I don’t think its case of accepting him as a liar or proving so, at the moment we have some obscure wording about an ‘investigation’. Let me put it another way, if the claim was that the video had captured the event would we ask for evidence or would we accept a third hand account that it exists? You would have a field day without breaking a sweat.

But that is exactly what it is refuting, the men involved have a catfish as evidence of their abduction. A third hand account has been accepted as true until proven otherwise, and there are a few factors that definitely point otherwise. Like the return trip where the aliens informed Parker that the Bible is factual. The abduction claim is being investigated, that means it was given credibility, which is what I have given Joe the benefit of. His claim is easier to refute then that of the men, yet the best investigators in the field did not touch his claim. I find if I have nothing to add to a very good post, I just read it.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

He concludes that he believes the men had an experience! What more can he say? He has no evidence to claim ET but has enough to confirm they had an experience with a UFO. Imagine if he concluded a ‘real abduction’....skeptics and field day once again spring to mind J

Heaps! Look at any other investigation he did! Did Hynek even visit the site? No references to marks being visible or not, no investigation of the supporting statements,  nothing! Hynek would gather all this information to place a sighting on his scale, but this one seems to have no such thing? Did his USAF contacts tell him what the blue light really was? Could that be why the men were examined at a military base with great haste for radiation fears? Speculation yes, but the military as we know have done experiments that have hurt others. There are precedents for this conjecture.
I just expected more from Hynek here other than "the Men Definitely had an experience"
The Wikipedia article states:

Within days, Pascagoula was the center of an international news story, with reporters swarming the town. Professor James A. Harder (a U.C. Berkeley engineering professor and APRO member) and Dr. J. Allen Hynek (an astronomer formerly with Project Blue Book) both arrived and interviewed Parker and Hickson. Harder tried to hypnotize the men, but they were too anxious and distracted for the procedure to work—Parker especially so. Hynek withheld ultimate judgment on the case, but did announce that, in his judgment, Hickson and Parker were honest men who seemed genuinely distressed about what had occurred.


View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

No Kids are not pawns, the case went to supreme court where a Judge ruled based on facts, no jurors involved here J and no the fictional element is his wording as to how Mrs Cantrell looked and acted (even though she wasn’t there)

The appeal only went to the supreme court didn't it? How could this happen with no Jury?

"I have never," Cantrell told the jury, "talked to anyone from the Cleveland PlainDealer about anything like that."

And as far as not playing on the plight of the kids goes:

"It was all untruths," Cantrell told a jury three decades ago. "There had been neighbors and friends that had read it, and the children come home from school, come home crying because they had been making fun of them in school because of the article."

LINK

Heck, I would vote against Joe if I thought for a second kids suffered as a direct result from him. Not hard to paint Joe in a very bad light on this case. The kids did not seem all too distressed during his visit though.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Neither do I as he had a little snippet in a comic style magazine without any substance just a wild claim he had seen evidence proving it a lie...yes of course you did Joe (good weed or good beer?) I think Klass confirmed Hicksons evaluation of the Lawyers intentions and as such fired him ....this is greatly in Hicksons favour.

But thats not what you just said! LOL, you said he put them to shame with no effort! I have to say the great Allan Hynek seems to be the only one guilty of no effort in this instance.

I really do not feel it goes in Hickson's favour at all. He still never took Phil Klass up on his free offer. I more get the impression that he was caught out and had to cut the lawyer loose. If he had taken the free polygraphs that Phil Klass had offered, I would agree, but to this day, many people still think both men took a polygraph, and that is listed on many websites, but it is a lie. The polygraph sham is nicely buried by the unscrupulous UFO sites.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Well the publishing firm was in the limelight because they ran with the article although not directly responsible for the lies put forward. Also the photographer, he had done nothing wrong just took pictures....I am sure he never put pen to paper or photographed an invisible space and claimed it to be Mrs Cantrell J

Well, being the management of the magazine, they were in fact completely responsible, that is why Forrest City was sued, and Joe did not even show at the appeal. This is why this case was so important, it was a landmark case, It defined the boundaries between invasion of privacy and free speech. The Photographers photos could verify much of what Joe described with regards to the stove, the couch, the general disarray. The management claim they assumed Joe was accurate, well we know that assumption can lead to some mighty stuff ups. That assumption made the paper responsible. Conway was the freelance photographer, in court his stament was "I photographed what I saw"

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I don’t agree we have the two men who gave names Larry and Raymond who from the highway witnessed a blue light. We then have Mike Cataldo, who with two other Naval guys (he gave the names) reported a blue light. Ok granted the three calls received by the officer were anonymous and therefore I won’t count them, or don’t need them, the other accounts suffice to corroborate the UFO.

We have two men that made a report around the same time. I cannot seem to find much more than that, can you? Is that corroboration? I cannot tell with what I can find on these claimants. What was the location time, heading, and shape fo the craft called in? These are basic questions that a police officer should ask. It should be in a police report of the reports were received and handled under standard procedures.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

There were no cameras at the toll booths. And at the time the yard wasn’t a military spec builder, Ingalls that is.....actually they were not even at Ingalls!!!!
Well yes it has been proven in a court of LAW that he lied, he describes Cantrells facial expressions at both home and at the funeral plus other plain downright lies...hence supreme court verdict.

Litton Industries acquired Ingall's but it continued to operate under the same name, it still does today as far as I know. And they have been military spec since the 50's:


In the 1950s Ingalls started bidding on Navy work, winning a contract in 1957 to build 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines.
Litton Industries acquired Ingalls in 1961, and in 1968 expanded its facilities to the other side of the river. Ingalls reached a high point of employment in 1977, with 25,000 workers. In April 2001, Litton was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation.[2]
On 29 August 2005, Ingalls facilities were damaged by Hurricane Katrina; most of the ships in dock and construction escaped serious harm.
LINK

It was proven in a court of law that Cantrell did not authorise a word Joe wrote, but with regards to her expression, that could be carried on from the first time he saw her, at the funeral. He alludes to him seeing this at her house, but I cannot find where he directly states such.




Eszterhas put a spotlight on the Cantrell's hardscrabble house, describing how "the pillows of the couch are missing. You sit on springs." A useless old furnace dominated the living room, lacking coal. Margaret Cantrell, Eszterhas reported, "will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing." Instead, her two oldest children "do the talking" while Margaret "wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. ... She says that after it happened, the people in town offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it."


The story was quite something, and readers certainly pitied the forlorn hillbilly family. Unfortunately, their pity sprang at least partly from false impressions. Melvin Cantrell was never shoved into the bottom of the Ohio River. When the bridge collapsed, his car fell on dry land. He did not sing along with Flatt and Scruggs or anyone else for that matter. As Margaret testified, "I never heard him sing in my life." There was no furnace in the middle of the room; it was a heating stove. The family was fully stocked with coal.


Honestly, that is pretty much up to the reader. He embellished a picture of poor living conditions, no doubt to make his tale more heartfelt, but he could have passed Margret in the street and made the same comment and it would be accurate. You do not have to talk to someone to see a blank expression.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Joe’s comments in the comic are a waste of time. He hasn’t even actually stated that the cameras were pointing to spot or that they were recording.

I cannot confirm nor deny that, as I have had no luck in sourcing the original article, only snippets of it. If you have a link to the article, I would greatly appreciate it.

View Postquillius, on 22 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Come on Joe where is tis smoking gun?
‘Subsequent investigation by Quillius found footage from local shipyard showing the incident.....’ sound familiar?

If you were there at the time, and doing an investigation, sure, your evidence would have to be considered as well. If someone had made such a claim, then Joe's angle would have been investigated deeper, but nobody seemed to find that angle worthwhile and the only reason I can put that down to is that others saw no angle to challenge.

Yet Parker has admitted to lying about fainting. We know Parker lied for at least one small part directly relating to the incident itself - confessed.

What about the 20 year later return visit where Parker willingly went into the craft that previously terrified him, and took samples at a point of rape, and then proceeds to tell us that God is for real and the Bible is true. You and I know it is not, what the go there? Is that not something of a giant red flag?

Edited by psyche101, 23 May 2012 - 03:21 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#64    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 May 2012 - 03:24 AM

View Postscowl, on 22 May 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The book is much scarier. The movie didn't capture much of the Fortean nature of the book. The book is a collection of most of the strangest events I've ever heard of. You really felt like Keel was in some location where unexplainable things happened every day.

Thanks Scowl, I figured I must be missing something if it managed to get so popular to begin with. I will hunt the E Book down and have a second crack at it. Thanks kindly mate.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#65    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 25 May 2012 - 10:41 AM

Hey Psyche,

will address each point later on. I will try and find the article on Pascagoula written by Joe, also the article he wrote about the Cantrells and more importantly the 18 page (I think) debunk by Klass. One other helpful document would be the 18 page report by the base that will have more deatil on both Larrys and Raymonds descriptions etc.


I must say I remain convinced there was a UFO. I am also convinced that no footage ever existed from cameras to prove otherwise.
I am also convinced the men had an 'experienced' as Mr Hynek would put it.

At this point the only one thing pointing towards no 'UFO' is the commonly quoted sentence ' subsequent investigation by.......' with no source for this.

And no its not third hand accounts, we hear and see the transcript of the 'first hand' accounts by the witnesses.

As for the fish, confirms the level of intelligence and desperation of the men involved. I think this also firmly says they are not lying and at a loss about what they saw/experienced.

I really need to get you to accept there was  a UFO there and to date the evidence says yes.

I cannot find one thing to suggest let alone prove they are lying.

speak soon


#66    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 29 May 2012 - 05:52 AM

View Postquillius, on 25 May 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Hey Psyche,

will address each point later on. I will try and find the article on Pascagoula written by Joe, also the article he wrote about the Cantrells and more importantly the 18 page (I think) debunk by Klass. One other helpful document would be the 18 page report by the base that will have more deatil on both Larrys and Raymonds descriptions etc.


I must say I remain convinced there was a UFO. I am also convinced that no footage ever existed from cameras to prove otherwise.
I am also convinced the men had an 'experienced' as Mr Hynek would put it.

At this point the only one thing pointing towards no 'UFO' is the commonly quoted sentence ' subsequent investigation by.......' with no source for this.

And no its not third hand accounts, we hear and see the transcript of the 'first hand' accounts by the witnesses.

As for the fish, confirms the level of intelligence and desperation of the men involved. I think this also firmly says they are not lying and at a loss about what they saw/experienced.

I really need to get you to accept there was  a UFO there and to date the evidence says yes.

I cannot find one thing to suggest let alone prove they are lying.

speak soon

Gidday Mate

Please post the links when you get a chance, it sounds like an interesting aspect that I would very much like to read. I still would like to see proof that the camera claims can be dismissed, they tell the story the way I see it because cameras cannot lie. If Joe is lying about the cameras, Ingalls should have been able to confirm that at the time.

The reason I find the corroboration not corroboration is mainly that nobody reported the same shaped craft as the men, whilst some descriptions claim blue lights, shapes described are definitely saucers. They are not the same thing.

As I have said previous to this, I agree the men had an experience, but I think it was more sinister than a UFO. This is where I do not agree with you on the fish. It seems an act of desperation I agree, but it strikes me that the emotional breakdown the men suffered was not inflicted by the aftermath as it is in so many other cases, notably Portage County. It was immediate, which strikes me as shame and or regret. Having the fish prepared so to speak strikes me that the men needed a story.

With the men and their honesty, how do you feel about the 20 year later return trip? There is some religious nonsense spouted there that screams hoax quite loudly, not to mention it being very strange that anyone in their right mind would willingly get on board with something that apparently terrified him previously. I think this aspect is pretty damning of the tale.

See ya when you get more time :D

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 29 May 2012 - 05:53 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#67    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:08 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 29 May 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

Please post the links when you get a chance, it sounds like an interesting aspect that I would very much like to read. I still would like to see proof that the camera claims can be dismissed, they tell the story the way I see it because cameras cannot lie. If Joe is lying about the cameras, Ingalls should have been able to confirm that at the time.

The reason I find the corroboration not corroboration is mainly that nobody reported the same shaped craft as the men, whilst some descriptions claim blue lights, shapes described are definitely saucers. They are not the same thing.

As I have said previous to this, I agree the men had an experience, but I think it was more sinister than a UFO. This is where I do not agree with you on the fish. It seems an act of desperation I agree, but it strikes me that the emotional breakdown the men suffered was not inflicted by the aftermath as it is in so many other cases, notably Portage County. It was immediate, which strikes me as shame and or regret. Having the fish prepared so to speak strikes me that the men needed a story.

With the men and their honesty, how do you feel about the 20 year later return trip? There is some religious nonsense spouted there that screams hoax quite loudly, not to mention it being very strange that anyone in their right mind would willingly get on board with something that apparently terrified him previously. I think this aspect is pretty damning of the tale.

See ya when you get more time :D

Cheers.

Morning Psyche,

the links are proving tricky to find. I have spent hours upon hours searching but to no avail. I will keep going and will post any findings.

The descriptions do match as the two guys Larry and Raymond, along with Mike Cataldo all describe the blue light, all the other witnesses with 'wilder' descriptions are mainly from the days before, I only have spoken about the three witnesses I mentioned, with the first two being interviewed by USAF as shown in the document.

I really need to find this document as it will hold more info.

I dont buy into the other possibility you describe, can you run through what you think actually happened then? (without the graphic detail lol)


#68    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 May 2012 - 05:10 AM

View Postquillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Morning Psyche,

the links are proving tricky to find. I have spent hours upon hours searching but to no avail. I will keep going and will post any findings.

Gidday Mate

I can wait, your posts are worth the wait :D You are one poster that I know comes up with the goods.

View Postquillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

The descriptions do match as the two guys Larry and Raymond, along with Mike Cataldo all describe the blue light, all the other witnesses with 'wilder' descriptions are mainly from the days before, I only have spoken about the three witnesses I mentioned, with the first two being interviewed by USAF as shown in the document.

I really need to find this document as it will hold more info.

I am not so sure they match, mate for someone picking on Joe's investigation, you are giving these guys quite some leeway ;) Aircraft have blue lights,and those that do not have white lights which are covered with hard blue plastic. I do not doubt that someone saw a blue light, but nobody has said they saw a cigar shaped object with a blue light on it. We have half a description which matches half our airborne vehicles. May I ask what exactly are the times these reports were submitted? Do they co-incide with the tale, or are they "within the vicinity"?

View Postquillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

I dont buy into the other possibility you describe, can you run through what you think actually happened then? (without the graphic detail lol)

I think this is as benign as I can make it - first paragraph of the plot - LINK :unsure2:
You may need a little poetic license to see where I am coming from, but this should explain it.

Cheers

Edited by psyche101, 30 May 2012 - 05:12 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#69    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,063 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:43 AM

LoL @ psyche101 ! Hit the Head right on the Nail !

This is a Work in Progress!

#70    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 31 May 2012 - 01:43 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 30 May 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

I can wait, your posts are worth the wait :D You are one poster that I know comes up with the goods.



I am not so sure they match, mate for someone picking on Joe's investigation, you are giving these guys quite some leeway ;) Aircraft have blue lights,and those that do not have white lights which are covered with hard blue plastic. I do not doubt that someone saw a blue light, but nobody has said they saw a cigar shaped object with a blue light on it. We have half a description which matches half our airborne vehicles. May I ask what exactly are the times these reports were submitted? Do they co-incide with the tale, or are they "within the vicinity"?



I think this is as benign as I can make it - first paragraph of the plot - LINK :unsure2:
You may need a little poetic license to see where I am coming from, but this should explain it.

Cheers

hello matey,

just a quick note to point out that they both lived at the same address, so still not sure what the series of events are regarding why at fishing? and why the report after?

this one doesnt add up at all for me im afraid.

As for giving these 'witnesses' some leeway...lol well yes its your job to attack them :)
seriously though, the mere fact they were interogated by the AF makes them more credible in my opinion.....at least more than 'drunk, pot smoking , proven liar Joe.... who claims to have seen the smoking gun that blows the whole case'  (apply a tongue in cheek tone when reading this) :whistle: :alien:


#71    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:11 PM

http://www.theblackv...y_June_1984.pdf


from bottom of page 9, some interesting discussions on some of the witnesses including Raymond and Larry.

I think it is clear they fall into the right time frame and describe blue lights etc....but there is some very wishy washy discussion briefly that isnt too clear IMO.


#72    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:00 AM

View Postquillius, on 31 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

hello matey,

Gidday Mate!

View Postquillius, on 31 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

just a quick note to point out that they both lived at the same address, so still not sure what the series of events are regarding why at fishing? and why the report after?

this one doesnt add up at all for me im afraid.

Not quite following you, do you mean why would something 'untoward" happen whilst fishing when they lived together? If I have that right, then my answer would be alcohol and privacy, again much like the spa incident :lol: But from the link, the point I was trying to impress was the afterward shame the men felt, I know it is a cartoon but ever woken up, looked across and gone, ahhh jeez, I wish I hadn't done that!
These men are more of an afterthought and playing with the idea, I do feel many abductions are definitely not alien but creepy uncle types. When I saw that the men has strange issues, and that they seemed genuinely distressed, it strikes me that this is a possibility that I figure has not been investigated. Probably because the thought is rather off putting?


View Postquillius, on 31 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

As for giving these 'witnesses' some leeway...lol well yes its your job to attack them :)

I did well yes! :D

Nah, seriously though, I am sure you will find any witness stament that does describe a shape does not describe the shape of the craft the men saw, and because of the descriptions, if the men are telling the truth, they had the best view of the craft, so they would have to be correct. That means the witnesses saw something else.

View Postquillius, on 31 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

seriously though, the mere fact they were interogated by the AF makes them more credible in my opinion.....at least more than 'drunk, pot smoking , proven liar Joe.... who claims to have seen the smoking gun that blows the whole case' (apply a tongue in cheek tone when reading this) :whistle: :alien:



Man that made my day!!! :D :D :D I just lost it with a hearty chuckle! And in a real good way!


I do not think they were interrogated by military though, they volunteered for medical examination, and the base officer asked them some questions with many personel watching, it seems a bit more like an example or demonstation? Dealing with nutters 101 or something? If there was something more to it, they would have also had (my mate) Joe in there to ask him about his investigation I would think?

:rofl:

You just get better with every post mate. I am loving your work! I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for your persistance, mate I think you are the new heavyweight on that side of the fence. I respect you immensely! I think we work very well together, we could have one heck of a radio show or the like I reckon!

Edited by psyche101, 01 June 2012 - 07:23 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#73    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,063 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 01 June 2012 - 11:00 AM

The "quillius& psyche Show" FM 101 on the Am dial , just ry to recieve it on Alpha Centuria ! Well keep tuned in UFO fans the news is up next !
Wow Im quite amazed at the content you two !

This is a Work in Progress!

#74    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Gidday Mate


Well, we both know you are 100% wrong there, it does exist and has been published time and again, and anyone can do a quick Google to verify that. Because you find the statements unconvincing does not eradicate them, you seem to be trying to circumvent proof in this instance to show the cameras were inadequate for the claims. They no longer exist, and have not done so for some time due to shipyard rebuilds, and they were featured extensively in historical record associated with the case, if you want to dismiss them, you need to do more than pretend they do not exist. The claim has been made, and it has not been torn down in 50 years. Therefore, it must be adressed. Aliens at Roswell are the biggest nonsense story I have ever heard, but the claim still needs to be adressed. And that is done in a critical manner.
And in fact I can help you, in my line of work, I design many CCTV installations. A few parameters and I could tell you what is possible and what is not. All I want from you is some specs and we can have a look at your personal discrepancies with the claim.

hey Psyche, maybe a misunderstanding. What I mean by it doesnt exist is that all we know is that Joe wrote an article and in that article made some claims, and we know how he likes to word things (as do the courts). Granted that cctv may well have been operational at the time but I have seen nothing that suggests:

1- they were pointing towards the location
2- that they were in range (apart from Joes claim)
3- that they were recording
4- that Joe was allowed access to view them
5- that even if they were pointing that way and had a range of one mile, that they had no cranes and such blocking the view.

So I am unsure what it is I am meant to attack here...??? just some wishy washy claim by a proven liar who wrote an article? A guy who had a smoking gun in a case making national news yet Joe's 'investigation' uncovered the truth and failed to maximise? I dont think so, it was left a low key artcile simply because they didnt want to get Sued again for lying. So I ask apart from a claim made by Joe, is there anything suggesting that the incident could have been recorded by Ingalls cameras?

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



They were fixed cameras, and I doubt they were the only two. Ingalls had military contracts, security is a pre-requisite for the contract. If the cameras did not exist, they shipyard would not have had the contracts it did. Cameras would be required to be covering the perimeter.

ok agreed.....but would they be covering an old abandoned pier some one mile away? Also the military contracts started a little later I believe, although I may be wrong .

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



The Toll Booth operators are simply further confirmation, in that anyone who should have seen something did not.

We know the night, the time, the place, the operators. Which Toll Booth operator has refuted the claims?

why should they? did they even see this article? who says they were looking towards an old pier 150 yards away from the highway whilst they were supposedly doing their job? its a logical fallacy to say they should have seen something, an even bigger one to rest on they 'never reported' anything.....not reporting something is not the same as not seeing something.. good old Joe.

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



As for Vodka, I am sure Joe might have been able to abscond a tipple from Charlie ;)

excellent


View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


What we do know is he lied, and why did he lie? To look better, by his own admission.

How is that for a reference? Motive? Ego. WHy would someone hide something they were ashamed of? Ego.

The Bible element is not something gray, it's black and white. It has nothing to do with misinterpretation, the Aliens said we share the same God and the Bible is factual. The Bible is not factual. Snake Oil Salesmen aliens?

wheres the lie? Charlie said Calvin fainted.....

also the rest is immaterial to me as he lost his mind over time...he was hospitalised soon after for mental trauma....also if we are to take the word of someone twenty years later then we should bring Mike cataldo into the mix :)


View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



The ones that made it to Joe's report, which you have protested, but not falsified.
All sources that I have seen say


- LINK


Who checked it? Not up to me, I have the record that the action happened, I do not care who did it as the outcome remains the same.

nope, show me the source and the exact words used by Joe and I will falsify it :)

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



No, no Klass tactics here, just basics. I was not trying to look at this character, just bewildered that someone who was frightened greatly would go back into the same situation voluntarily. I most certainly would not.

Why fear it further? He had a needle shoved into his John Thomas!!! Crikey mate! No more need be said!!
He only feared when spoken to telepathically, however remained unharmed......

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



There was harm done???? that big needle!!!! and they are bloddy Bible Bashers! We even shut the door in the faces of earth men who Bible bash!
big needle doesnt have to equal pain...just the perception of....


View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


Nah, I would not be going on board when last time I was there someone stabbed me in the crown jewels.

You definitely are more "experimental" than I.
  maybe in my younger days...


View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


They started to appear to talk to themselves, even though both men were in the same room after a short while. Like they were coming to terms with what had happened individually. If this was an abduction, I would expect the opposite. Such traumatic condition would make bedfellows (excuse the pun) out of most acquaintances. Not in this case though. These men seemed to deal with a common experience differently.
no they didnt talk to themselves, if you read the transcript again they clearly talk to each other as well as making general comments

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



I have no confidence in Hypnosis full stop. You would have to convince me that regressive Hypno-Therapy is not a complete sham to start with. Not just the individual, but the entire contingent of Hypno-therapists associated with regressive memory recovery. I think they let the entire field associated with the practise down.

fair enough mate, lets drop the hypnotic part...just look into my eyes.......

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


It was the next morning, and the Police were not at all happy about the press. Only the men and the Police knew of the incident the very next morning, and both men seemed agitated by description that morning as well.

Nobody else knew Q, it could only have been these two promoting their own story. There is nobody else.

ahh but there were quite a few others, will make a list for you shortly

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



If it was traumatic I might take a day off, but I may not be able to depending on circumstances, work does not wait for me. I must work even when sick, deadlines do not accept excuses. I was lucky to get time of for my Fathers funeral. But I would have quit before I missed that. The stress would have been too much at the time.
Yes, I always act normal under any circumstances, a 30 million dollar design does not wait for the flu, death in the family, or personal matters, and the people spending the money do not give a hoot about what problems one might be facing. Big business is very impersonal. I had enough trouble getting time of for my Fathers Funeral. And that was cut short.

I know the feeling of work not waiting

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


What was the location of their sighting claims?

If they did not see the craft land, and carrot appendaged robots trundling out of it, how is that corroborating? What I can show is that more than those two reports came in, as people started to talk, the hype factor obviously went up. We have even seen this as far back as the Orson Wells debacle. I think you need some poetic license to call that corroboration.

old schapeter yard pier. 150 yards south of the highway, one mile north of ingalls and 100 yearsd across the river to pascagoula.

View Postpsyche101, on 10 September 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:



Yes, you are right, sorry, I was just finishing a post of about Allagash and still had that one on the brain. But point remains, Phil only looked at his part of the investigation, and was happy with that. And he makes a good point, why were more experienced operators passed over for someone who had not even completed training?
Perhaps Phil figured if they cannot get that straight, it does not even warrant further investigation? It does look very suspicious on the surface, and I canot think why such a decision would be made.

nah Phil would be all over cctv like a rash.....he didnt have too much to attack here bar one lie detector operator


#75    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:40 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 01 June 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:


I do not think they were interrogated by military though, they volunteered for medical examination, and the base officer asked them some questions with many personel watching, it seems a bit more like an example or demonstation? Dealing with nutters 101 or something? If there was something more to it, they would have also had (my mate) Joe in there to ask him about his investigation I would think?

:rofl:

not sure if you were just messing around here with regards to the military.....just in case you were being serious, they were indeed interogated by the military:

These are those who were present at the airforce base:

The following is a transcription of a

report made this date by the following

individuals:

Mr. Charles Hickson, 2722, Apt.

1, College Villa Apts., Pascagoula, MS.

Mr. Calvin Parker, Jr., Same

address.

The report was made to the

following personnel:

Lt. Colonel Derrington,

Security Police.

Colonel Amdall, Chairman,

Department of Medicine.

Colonel Rudolph, Hospital

Service.

Colonel Hanson, Veterinary

Services

Lt. Colonel Gibson, Associate

Administrator.

Major Winans, Health Physicist.

Captain Hoban, Security Police.

MSgt. Russell, Security Police.

T.E. Huntley, Detective, Jackson

County Sheriff's Office, Pascagoula,

MS Phone: 782-4333.

Joe Colingo, A t t o r n e y ,

Pascagoula, MS Phone: 782-8021.

Mr. Hickson and Mr. Parker both

stated they were employed in

Pascagoula by F.B. Walker & Sons,

Phone: 782-3931.

Two persons who reported

sighting an object at approximately the

same time were:

Raymond Broadus, Probation

and Parole Officer, Pascagoula.

Larry, Larry's Standard Station,

Market & Hickway 90, Pascagoula.

Lt. Colonel Derrington:







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users