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

#226    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,743 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:40 PM

i seem to have posted this

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 05 April 2013 - 01:47 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#227    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,743 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:40 PM

more times than is strictly necessary.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 05 April 2013 - 01:48 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#228    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,743 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:47 PM

:blush:

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 05 April 2013 - 01:47 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#229    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 8,994 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:48 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 05 April 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

:blush:

attention seeker... :innocent:

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#230    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 05 April 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

:blush:

it was the ghost in the machine, time to call the cookie monster me guess


#231    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:02 AM

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ank...wrong answer. If you listen to the actual witness interviews the craft was much larger.

LOL, yes you do have the wrong answer.

Have you read the thread? There is a direct transcript witnessed by several people whereby it is claimed the craft is 8 foot x 8 foot. What you are cherry picking is an interview well after the fact that you think saves the case. The transcript take place the day after the event, the Video tape at the UFO show is decades later. Typical FTB tactic. Get them to change their story and use that instead. Even if you could prove that this was not embellished at a later date, 30 foot is still too small for Interstellar travel. Invoking magical space powers just does not cut the mustard after the 80's.

All you have shown is that Parker and Hickson disagree on the size. A flaw in the testimony. If you take note of the progression of this tale, you will see that was orginally HIcksons estimate of distance, he changed that in later years to become diamter.

The unusual craft was hovering just a few feet above the ground, and about 30 feet from the shore of the river.


View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Posted Image

Anad again, the day after the even, Hickson said:


Derrington: How large was the item hovering?

Hickson: It wasn't round. It seemed oval shaped and it was approximately 8 ft. wide, it was a little longer than that, and it had to be over 8 ft. high. When they approached us — one on each side of my arms — but I didn't feel any sensation at all when it touched me. And amazingly I was just lifted right off the ground.


View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Notice the wrinkled skin AND "long arms". Long arms have been described by many other witnesses. I could start a separate thread about that.

:sleepy:

You already have

LINK

Why not, you other "profile" cases have offered quite a few laughs to date. The tellitubies was probably the funniest to far. Go on give us a chuckle.

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Also if I recall and it's in the audio interview the witnesses could not determine if the craft was a disc or elliptical shape due to it's angle.

Even though it landed right in front of them? That would be another discrepancy wouldn't it?


They were shocked to see an egg-shaped object with bluish front lighting.

LINK

They heard a whirring/whizzing sound, saw two flashing blue lights, and reported that an oval shaped "craft",

LINK

They heard a whirring/whizzing sound, saw two flashing blue lights, and reported that a domed, cigar-shaped aircraft,

LINK


The craft was described as blue-gray in color, saucer-shaped, and had two portholes.

LINK

Take your pick, it has been described as most types of elliptical, only square shapes seem to be missing. I guess Borg cubes had not hit the telly yet, so little wonder there. This is one that has been embellished along the way, no doubt about it.

Call it what you like, my term for it is "fantasy".


Here you go, Hickson holding up his personal interpretation, argue this description with the man himself if you like.

Posted Image


Does not look very big to me. Looks silly small.

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Also it's very stupid to take every little detail so literal in hopes of debunking something. Common sense dictates every detail isn't going to be 100% accurate. It's called guesstimating or making a close approximation. People are not robots smarty pants. Stop with the spin drivel.

The most accurate documents are going to tbe the ones from the time frame, not a comment from a UFO gathering of the faithful decades after the event, but I can see why the faithful cling to the ancient description. You think it make the description workable, it does not. Like Bee trying to liken the Lunar Module to an Interstellar craft. All this has illustrated is a lack of understanding of the Apollo missions, and having had MID here for so long explaining every aspect of these missions, and now gone, that is unforgivable. Not to mention no grasp on space whatsoever, but a firm grip on Sci Fi.

It is really stupid to make the claim that a case has been made, when dismissing relavent material from the time frame of the event for some UFO meeting decades after the event. You could not look less credible with that blatant attempt to validate nonsense if you tried with all your might. It is obvious cherry picking. One thing for sure, you are a handbrake on Quillius' line of investigation. You should take a page or two from his book.

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

You mean YOU need to learn more about UFOs.

Like what? How to be more credulous? How to invoke magical answers when conundrums arise? Your in depth experience dod not seem to cover looking through the thread to see is a clip has already been posted, like the one you posted that was discussed yet again only a page or so before you regurgitated it? And that was MacGuffins post regurgitated by Bee! MacGuffin is another your should study, he too is much, much better at this than you are.

By by gum I miss Lost Shaman the most myself.

We have 3 craft description sizes, none of which are workable for interstellar travel, and both men speak of continued contact and Parker a return trip. This trip was able to confirm that the Bible is an accurate document. You need to learn what a tall tale is. The BIble is chockers with such. You know, the accurate document the Aliens advised Parker of?

Explain the Bible being an accurate document Ohh sage of the nutters, you could use some modernising up Disco Stu. Check out the way Q questions people. Right from the get go he has the situation in hand, not trying his best to validate it, but trying to see if it holds water. That is the big difference here. Blind belief, and structured belief.

Edited by psyche101, 08 April 2013 - 01:03 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.


#232    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:34 AM

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

One big problem I see with these types of forums that are a bit silly to begin with is the people debunking things (trying to appear above alien belief) don't know much about actual cases. Playing spin doctor, the discrediting game is not a good way to objectivly look at the subject matter.

LOL, you are indeed amusing, above alien belief? LOL, yes I am indeed above this sort of Alien belief LOL. Do you think that is some sort of crown to wear or something? The Stanton Friedman honorary award or something LOL.


View Posttopsecretresearch, on 05 April 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I may have to stop coming to forums like UM or ATS for that reason. I'm naturally curious about the phenomenon but other people, you know, have problems with ETs or what other people believe in.

Believe what you want, just don't say it is fact, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, nobody is entitled to their own facts. If you make a claim, expect to be asked to prove it, it is that simple, and I am uncertain why you think this principal does not apply to UFOlogy.
Dont let the door hit you on the behind on your way out, but know that I will consider it a white flag with regards to your argument.

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.


#233    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,982 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 08 April 2013 - 12:05 PM

Morning Psyche,

If I may start with some of the descriptions of the craft you have posted. A majority of these are not from the horses mouth so to speak but the interpretations by those writing the articles.

I think its a good idea to move onto the descriptions of the craft given by the witnesses in their own words, as this follows on nicley from the size aspect.

To summarise the size aspect

11th:

we have the original interview with Hickson on the evening of the 11th. We have the audio for this to confirm the transcript.

He describes the object as just over 8ft high, with no mention of length or width.

we also have the two diagrams from the men from the same evening showing a craft with a shape that cannot be of equal measurement i.e. 8ftx8ft. We must also bear in mind the description of Hickson of the angles he had and this is confirmed by the drawing. The shape could be 8ft high x 8ft wide by 30ft long. This works with the shapes drawn by both men. the description of 8ft wide could be misleading depending on angle and this could be changed to 30ft wide 8ft long and still mean the same thing.

anyhow so far we have 8ft high.

12th:

the next day after the event, we have the interogation at the base, for which we have no audion just the transcript.

In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer. (so without trying to ascertain or put a figure to the wording 'little longer') all we can conclude is that length and width can bve interhcnageable dependant on viewing angle.

Either way its also possible the measurement was taken down incorrectly.

So from the horses mouth (100%) we still only have 8ft high.

13th:

Harder and Hynek interview, for which we once again have the audio therefore we are 100% certain this is what he said.

8ft x just over 8ft x 30ft

with a detailed description of the viewing angles confirming what I said above.

We also have the picture posted by topresearch (I think) showing the 30ft x over 8ft etc. This was drawn on the 13th for Hynek and Harder. I must stress that the thirty foot was mentioend with 24hours of the event as a minimum and not 20 years on as I feel is whats was suggested.

So from the horses mouth we have a solid description of 8x8x30ft with no change.

With regards to the motherships and whether or not such a size works as far as interstellar travel apperently permits etc etc, I dont think we need to figure this out. As Einstein says , man should look for what is- not what he thinks should be.

If we for example have a spaceship land (size 8ft x 8ft) and a being pops out , 1000s see him and we have all the footage in HD we need, the craft then takes off through our atmoshere at an impossible speed, do we say that cant have been as its not possible? no! we confirm that what we have seen is indeed what we have seen and worry about working out the 'how' after.

I guess I view the 'problem of size' as the 'cart before the horse'.


#234    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,982 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 08 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

View PostDBunker, on 05 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

What the hell are we talking about here!!!! This has to be the silliest among stupid stories I have ever heard. :clap:


apologies to all for directing my last post to Psyche, the reason is that a majority of my points were in relation/response to some of his earlier posts.

Although I guess I dont extend that apology as far as DBunker, simply due to the the fact I know the points raised are not going to be read let alone understood and he will continue to post nonsense whilst cowering.....

stop sticking the boot in DB and discuss the case, as I said before I know you have it in you :no:


#235    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,982 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 08 April 2013 - 12:25 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 04 April 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:



and the fact that the men are religious strikes me as motive for an indecent act they would want to cover up.

Hey Psyche, I dont wnat to get into this bit now in the hope we can try and work on the craft and descriptions etc before moving on to the beings etc

however, I really dont get this angle as to why or how in the hell can making up a story like that and sending it public be any sort of cover up? surely that is bringing attention to yourselves when you least want it?

damnation? well if they believe they were damned by the act how does making up a cover story fool God? He is the one you would have to fool right or damnation is still there even if you get the world to believe otherwise.

So on this simple fact alone it doesnt work, IMO

View Postpsyche101, on 04 April 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:



My their is the men got a few too many under their belt, and endeed up doing the horizontal mambo. I think their religious nature got the better of them, and they experineced trauma with regards to eternal damnation. As they story got popular, I think the pressure became too much for Parker, and he had a breakdown over it.
I feel subtle indicators support this conclusion.

The immediate and sizeable reaction from the press is also suspicious in my opinion.

Again from Wikipedia:

Hickson and Parker returned to work the day after the encounter (Friday, October 12). They did not initially discuss their purported UFO encounter, but coworkers noted that Parker seemed very anxious and preoccupied. Within hours, Sheriff Diamond telephoned the men at work, stating that news reporters were swarming in his office, seeking more information about the UFO story. An angry Hickson accused Diamond of breaking his confidentiality pledge, but Diamond insisted he had not done so, and that the case was too sensational to keep quiet.


Their time cannot be totally accounted for. I suspect this press release was to help their story along, based on the claim of a UFO being seen at Gautier, home town to these men. I have a feeling they may well have had to worry about repercussions as well as eternal damnation.

I dont know I think their time can. Assuming you are refering to how quickly the reporters turned up right? Isnt it said that the tape was shown to others on the night the men left the station?

anyhow again the press part we can maybe cover after craft description.


#236    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Morning Psyche,

If I may start with some of the descriptions of the craft you have posted. A majority of these are not from the horses mouth so to speak but the interpretations by those writing the articles.

Gidday Mate

Thank you, my point was indeed exactly this. The story is changed with the publication. We should try to stick with as much information as we can that is close to the time frame. Not UFO symposiums decades after the event, as portrayed with the Youtube efforts.

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I think its a good idea to move onto the descriptions of the craft given by the witnesses in their own words, as this follows on nicley from the size aspect.

To summarise the size aspect

11th:

we have the original interview with Hickson on the evening of the 11th. We have the audio for this to confirm the transcript.

He describes the object as just over 8ft high, with no mention of length or width.

we also have the two diagrams from the men from the same evening showing a craft with a shape that cannot be of equal measurement i.e. 8ftx8ft. We must also bear in mind the description of Hickson of the angles he had and this is confirmed by the drawing. The shape could be 8ft high x 8ft wide by 30ft long. This works with the shapes drawn by both men. the description of 8ft wide could be misleading depending on angle and this could be changed to 30ft wide 8ft long and still mean the same thing.

anyhow so far we have 8ft high.

12th:

the next day after the event, we have the interogation at the base, for which we have no audion just the transcript.

In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer. (so without trying to ascertain or put a figure to the wording 'little longer') all we can conclude is that length and width can bve interhcnageable dependant on viewing angle.

Either way its also possible the measurement was taken down incorrectly.

So from the horses mouth (100%) we still only have 8ft high.

13th:

Harder and Hynek interview, for which we once again have the audio therefore we are 100% certain this is what he said.

8ft x just over 8ft x 30ft

with a detailed description of the viewing angles confirming what I said above.

We also have the picture posted by topresearch (I think) showing the 30ft x over 8ft etc. This was drawn on the 13th for Hynek and Harder. I must stress that the thirty foot was mentioend with 24hours of the event as a minimum and not 20 years on as I feel is whats was suggested.

So from the horses mouth we have a solid description of 8x8x30ft with no change.

With regards to the motherships and whether or not such a size works as far as interstellar travel apperently permits etc etc, I dont think we need to figure this out. As Einstein says , man should look for what is- not what he thinks should be.

If we for example have a spaceship land (size 8ft x 8ft) and a being pops out , 1000s see him and we have all the footage in HD we need, the craft then takes off through our atmoshere at an impossible speed, do we say that cant have been as its not possible? no! we confirm that what we have seen is indeed what we have seen and worry about working out the 'how' after.

I guess I view the 'problem of size' as the 'cart before the horse'.


I cannot see it as the cart before the horse, because it seems rather fluid to me, indicating no craft actually existed. Looking at the timeline you have posted, on the 11th, as you say, we have nothing, but on the 12th, that is not the case. I fear you hastily brushed over the given description there:

In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer.


I agree. But bolded it reads


In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer.

A little longer than what? The only measurements he has given are 8 foot. Until the next day. Then we finally get 30 foot. Kudos. Nice to see the evidence as opposed to whining. So why do I have to take the 13th as opposed to the 11th? Because a firm dimension was given on the 13th, and an inferred dimension was given on the 12th. However, Hickson has a habit of embellishing his tale when obvious discrepancies are pointed out, so to be fair, I'd like to see both men call it 30 foot long before I concede the size of the craft to 30 foot long. It strikes me as too much of a co-incidence that in the initial claim the craft was 30 foot away. Then that became the length dimension over time.

Hickson claimed on a television show a month later that the interior lights of the UFO had been so intense as to cause eye injury lasting for three days, although an extensive hospital examination the day after the incident had shown no such eye damage (Thanks Uncle Phil)
and Kevin Randle agrees

“These changes seemed to be in response to criticisms and appeared to be an attempt to smooth out rough spots in the story.”

Which is in line with my proposal.

Quite frankly, I cannot even see a 30 foot by 8 foot craft possibly travelling Interstellar space.

Edited by psyche101, 09 April 2013 - 07:41 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.


#237    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:42 AM

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

apologies to all for directing my last post to Psyche, the reason is that a majority of my points were in relation/response to some of his earlier posts.

Although I guess I dont extend that apology as far as DBunker, simply due to the the fact I know the points raised are not going to be read let alone understood and he will continue to post nonsense whilst cowering.....

stop sticking the boot in DB and discuss the case, as I said before I know you have it in you :no:

Do not apologise, thank the Lord you showed up. This was going backwards.

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.


#238    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:01 AM

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Hey Psyche, I dont wnat to get into this bit now in the hope we can try and work on the craft and descriptions etc before moving on to the beings etc

No worries mate, I am happy to stick to or discussion the people new to the conversation seem to be covering some old ground is all.

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

however, I really dont get this angle as to why or how in the hell can making up a story like that and sending it public be any sort of cover up? surely that is bringing attention to yourselves when you least want it?

damnation? well if they believe they were damned by the act how does making up a cover story fool God? He is the one you would have to fool right or damnation is still there even if you get the world to believe otherwise.

So on this simple fact alone it doesnt work, IMO

I do not think they intended for this to get as out of hand as it did, and I think that is why Hickson had words with Diamond. Once it was out, they had no choice but to come clean or come out, which leads to the part about dammnation, they know they have no cover story for God, hence Parkers breakdown, and continual problems since the ordeal began, and the religion involved with the 20 years story. If they are Catholic I think a bug in the confessional would be rather telling.


View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

I dont know I think their time can. Assuming you are refering to how quickly the reporters turned up right? Isnt it said that the tape was shown to others on the night the men left the station?

anyhow again the press part we can maybe cover after craft description.


Yes, but why was it shown to "others"? That seems a strange thing to do late at night to me.

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.


#239    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,982 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 09 April 2013 - 08:05 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

Thank you, my point was indeed exactly this. The story is changed with the publication. We should try to stick with as much information as we can that is close to the time frame. Not UFO symposiums decades after the event, as portrayed with the Youtube efforts.

Gidday, yes indeed it has and is exactly why we shold ignore interpretations. I think this was highlighted in a big way with 'subsequent investigation by Joe.......'  repeated Ad nauseum by web site after web site and article after article. So I am glad you agree that we should stick with info of the time and more importantly those that are from the horses mouth.

View Postpsyche101, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:


I cannot see it as the cart before the horse, because it seems rather fluid to me, indicating no craft actually existed. Looking at the timeline you have posted, on the 11th, as you say, we have nothing, but on the 12th, that is not the case. I fear you hastily brushed over the given description there:

In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer.


I agree. But bolded it reads


In here we see Charlie (supposedly) says 8ft wide and mentions 8ft high, and he says it is a little longer.

A little longer than what? The only measurements he has given are 8 foot. Until the next day. Then we finally get 30 foot. Kudos. Nice to see the evidence as opposed to whining. So why do I have to take the 13th as opposed to the 11th? Because a firm dimension was given on the 13th, and an inferred dimension was given on the 12th.

well 'a little longer' is in the same sentence he (apparently) says 8ft wide and 8ft high, so the 'little longer' follows nicely.

Why take the 13th as opposed to the 11th? well the 11th you only have 8ft high. However you have pictures showing a non circular shaped craft (drawn by both men) suggesting that the width and/or length cannot be 8ft.

Basically we must take the 13th as this is the first time he mentions length as opposed to height or width and also the fact that this is heard on audio so 100% as opposed to transcript (which may or may not be a contradiction let alone accurate)

View Postpsyche101, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:


However, Hickson has a habit of embellishing his tale when obvious discrepancies are pointed out, so to be fair, I'd like to see both men call it 30 foot long before I concede the size of the craft to 30 foot long. It strikes me as too much of a co-incidence that in the initial claim the craft was 30 foot away. Then that became the length dimension over time.
ok can you show me anywhere where Hickson story changes.....from his own words please. In addition the word 'habit' denotes at least 2 instances, but suggests its common place, yet I have struggled to find some.

View Postpsyche101, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:


Hickson claimed on a television show a month later that the interior lights of the UFO had been so intense as to cause eye injury lasting for three days, although an extensive hospital examination the day after the incident had shown no such eye damage (Thanks Uncle Phil)
and Kevin Randle agrees

“These changes seemed to be in response to criticisms and appeared to be an attempt to smooth out rough spots in the story.”

Which is in line with my proposal.

ok as before lets see the examination that show the eyes were indeed tested. Plus are we to listen to the show 'one month later'? I have read the articles from which you pulled the wording from Randle. I thought it was full of holes and inaccuracies, but maybe thats one for another time.


View Postpsyche101, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:


Quite frankly, I cannot even see a 30 foot by 8 foot craft possibly travelling Interstellar space.

let alone floating aliens 5ft tall.....but as mentioned before lets look at what is and what what we think should be........

hence my reluctance to be concerned about the size of craft as this limits us with regrads to looking at the facts IMO


#240    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:08 AM

View Postquillius, on 08 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

If I may start with some of the descriptions of the craft you have posted.

hiya q.. how has the alleged object been ascertained to have been a craft? :P





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users