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

#46    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 14 May 2012 - 03:27 AM

View Postquillius, on 11 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

In response to the following from Psyche on another thread....
(going back over the thread it makes me miss McG)

Yeah, I had a soft spot for McG.

View Postquillius, on 11 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

There is no proof that a camera existed, let alone was operational or recording at the time, and most importantly that it was checked after the event.

I find a few sources state that a Rolling Stone journalist uncovered the discrepancies, not only the cams, but 2 x 24 hour toll booths nearby. He did the checking according to several websites.



Subsequent investigation by Joe Esterhas of Rolling Stone uncovered some additional information. The UFO landing site was in full view of two twenty-four hour toll booths, and neither operator saw anything. Also, the site was in range of security cameras from nearby Ingalls Shipyard, and the cameras showed nothing that night.

LINK

2 sources that saw nothing that should have.

View Postquillius, on 11 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

I dont remember him refusing a polygraph? where did you see this mate?

Where else :D Good old Uncle Phil!


Aviation journalist and UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass argued that there was reason to question the reliability of Hickson's lie detector exam, writing, The polygraph test was given to Hickson by a young operator, just out of school, who had not completed his formal training, who had not been certified by his own school and who had not taken a state licensing examination. Furthermore, that the lawyer for Hickson and Parker - who also was acting as their "booking agent" - had turned down the chance to have his clients tested WITHOUT CHARGE by the very experienced Capt. Charles Wimberly, chief polygraph operator from the nearby Mobile Police Dept. Also, that the lawyer did not contact other experienced polygraph operators close to Pascagoula. Instead, the lawyer had imported from New Orleans - more than 100 miles away - the young, inexperienced, uncertified, unlicensed operator who, by a curious coincidence, worked for a friend of the lawyer!


OK you got me it was his lawyer that made the announcement on his behalf. Which I see as the same thing though.

View Postquillius, on 11 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

and what part did Parker fabricate????

The cctv I had heard of when we discussed previously but the polygraph and fabrication are news to me.

going back over the thread...I really do find this case very compelling indeed. I also find the depiction of the being quite unique and fascinating when viewed in context of some of our previous conversations

edit to add: just remembered the 'fabrication' part you refer to is when he said he didnt really feint, yes?

:tu:


In a later interview over 20 years after the initial incident, Parker's story became much more elaborate. Here Parker confessed to lying about fainting in sight of the creatures. He claimed that he was in fact conscious when the creatures took him on board the craft and led him into a room at the other end of a hallway to the left of the craft's entrance. He claims he was laid down on a sloped table and examined by a 'petite,' evidently female, being. Though he was paralyzed, he was able to observe the being inject a needle into the base of the underside of his penis. The being later communicated with him telepathically, suggesting that he had been taken for a reason

LINK

Which I have to say is starting to sounds more like a "wet dream" Abductee. I think that the abductee phenomena has more to do with sexual deviance than aliens.

The aliens seem rather strange to me, such a physiology would not be very stable under normal conditions, they seem top heavy, but if you can levitate people around the shop I guess that is probably not a real problem.

Edited by psyche101, 14 May 2012 - 03:29 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.


#47    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 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 14 May 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:


I find a few sources state that a Rolling Stone journalist uncovered the discrepancies, not only the cams, but 2 x 24 hour toll booths nearby. He did the checking according to several websites.


Subsequent investigation by Joe Esterhas of Rolling Stone uncovered some additional information. The UFO landing site was in full view of two twenty-four hour toll booths, and neither operator saw anything. Also, the site was in range of security cameras from nearby Ingalls Shipyard, and the cameras showed nothing that night.

LINK

2 sources that saw nothing that should have.

Gidday Psyche,
I have seen this in many places. I have not however seen this confirmed by Joe himself. We do not know when and if he even spoke to the booths operators, maybe he is basing it on the fact they never reported anything? If not where and when did he speak to them, did he confirm they were facing the right direction at the time (or were they possibly dealing with 'customers'???)..?

Also three seperate UFO reports came in from vehicles on that toll booth road...

The camera, when did he check it?> it also states within range....this doesnt mean it was pointing in that direction, or that it was recording at all or more importantly that he even checked it.

And all this befiore we even discuss Joe's future jobs and overall charachter and biases.

View Postpsyche101, on 14 May 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:



Where else :D Good old Uncle Phil!


Aviation journalist and UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass argued that there was reason to question the reliability of Hickson's lie detector exam, writing, The polygraph test was given to Hickson by a young operator, just out of school, who had not completed his formal training, who had not been certified by his own school and who had not taken a state licensing examination. Furthermore, that the lawyer for Hickson and Parker - who also was acting as their "booking agent" - had turned down the chance to have his clients tested WITHOUT CHARGE by the very experienced Capt. Charles Wimberly, chief polygraph operator from the nearby Mobile Police Dept. Also, that the lawyer did not contact other experienced polygraph operators close to Pascagoula. Instead, the lawyer had imported from New Orleans - more than 100 miles away - the young, inexperienced, uncertified, unlicensed operator who, by a curious coincidence, worked for a friend of the lawyer!


OK you got me it was his lawyer that made the announcement on his behalf. Which I see as the same thing though.



not only was it the lawyer, but it was the same Lawyer who was more interested in the money than the truth and was swiftly fired by the men, (note both the men asked for polygraphs soon after the event.)  As for the experience of the 'young operator' this is irrelevant, I say this because polygraphs are always deemed as non-evidence so whether they pass or fail it doesnt give us much. It ceratinly doesnt work against the men, it only dismisses the results as a form of corroborating evidence...which would be shot down in minutes anyway.

View Postpsyche101, on 14 May 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:


In a later interview over 20 years after the initial incident, Parker's story became much more elaborate. Here Parker confessed to lying about fainting in sight of the creatures. He claimed that he was in fact conscious when the creatures took him on board the craft and led him into a room at the other end of a hallway to the left of the craft's entrance. He claims he was laid down on a sloped table and examined by a 'petite,' evidently female, being. Though he was paralyzed, he was able to observe the being inject a needle into the base of the underside of his penis. The being later communicated with him telepathically, suggesting that he had been taken for a reason

LINK

I think this one element of the story changing is easily accounted for when ego is brought into the equation, and whilst all other parts remain consistent it has no bearing IMO.

View Postpsyche101, on 14 May 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:


Which I have to say is starting to sounds more like a "wet dream" Abductee. I think that the abductee phenomena has more to do with sexual deviance than aliens.

The aliens seem rather strange to me, such a physiology would not be very stable under normal conditions, they seem top heavy, but if you can levitate people around the shop I guess that is probably not a real problem.

no comment :whistle:  :tu:


#48    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Gidday Psyche,
I have seen this in many places. I have not however seen this confirmed by Joe himself. We do not know when and if he even spoke to the booths operators, maybe he is basing it on the fact they never reported anything? If not where and when did he speak to them, did he confirm they were facing the right direction at the time (or were they possibly dealing with 'customers'???)..?


Gidday Mate

I do not believe he is just saying "I heard nothing so nothing must have happened" He specifically states two sites, and the cameras hours of operation and how many were employed. That indicates investigation did happen. With toll booths, I do not see how a customer would make two people unable to observe an object, in fact the driver should also notice the object, how long does one stop at a toll booth? 5 seconds? 10? and it was at night, I do not know the area, but hard to imagine two toll booths very busy at night, and if they had people stopped, the cars also noticed nothing.
Honestly, I see it as a massive hole, two cameras and two people, nobody recorded a thing. That is 4 sources that come up empty that should not. If the cameras were not operational or not pointing in the right direction, this would have come up earlier when the Rolling Stone article was readily available. I find it impossible to believe that nobody would have thought of such until just now. Cameras are for security and run 24/7 if there was a problem with them, it would have been recorded, and because we have two toll booth operators that doubles the chances that the light would be seen.


View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Also three seperate UFO reports came in from vehicles on that toll booth road...

One of those is from 28 years later isn't it? And in that one, the craft description is different. And out of the fifteen witnesses, does a one of them mention a blue light? And did't they all report a saucer or dome shape when the men reported a cigar or fish shape? The craft could not be misidentified by the man because the corroborating witnesses all say dome or oval, and them men had a close up view and claimed it a cigar. If anyone had misidentified it it should be the witnesses who saw the object for moments and at distance as opposed to the men who were on the craft, as such, I find the recollections do not match up.

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

The camera, when did he check it?> it also states within range....this doesnt mean it was pointing in that direction, or that it was recording at all or more importantly that he even checked it.

If he was able to state:

"On the night of the abduction" he had to have viewed captured footage pertaining to the time frame. I do not know of any claims of missing footage or of distortions.

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

And all this befiore we even discuss Joe's future jobs and overall charachter and biases.

I find it to be a mixed story. Many people indicate him as having been in the film industry, but he was a screen writer, and in addition, he was a successful non-fiction novelist. To be perfectly honest, I do not really understand the sweatshirt thing at all, and I have wondered why it is brought up. He grossed about a billion dollars from his role in about 16 films, so he was hardly a struggling reporter in need of a fancy headline.  

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

not only was it the lawyer, but it was the same Lawyer who was more interested in the money than the truth and was swiftly fired by the men, (note both the men asked for polygraphs soon after the event.)  As for the experience of the 'young operator' this is irrelevant, I say this because polygraphs are always deemed as non-evidence so whether they pass or fail it doesnt give us much. It ceratinly doesnt work against the men, it only dismisses the results as a form of corroborating evidence...which would be shot down in minutes anyway.

But that does not explain why only one man initially took the polygraph, and why they never took Klass up on his offer. Nor does it explain why they used someone who was not qualified for the test. Polygraphs have only in the last ten years or so been deemed unreliable, at the time when it was new technology, many feared the lie detector. I feel it does work against the men as they never did rectify the situation, but promoted that it happened, - a deliberate half truth. If it had been re-run by Klass recommended operator, and remember there was no bill involved, then I think it would have been very hard to shoot down if the outcomes corroborated.

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I think this one element of the story changing is easily accounted for when ego is brought into the equation, and whilst all other parts remain consistent it has no bearing IMO.

I find it proves he fabricated part of the story, which he did not like, and re-wrote later. If the men were scared as is portrayed, then one wonders what promoted him to lie at the time, his ego had already been shattered by a supposed higher intelligence. Also by admission, Hickson was drunk. Hickson was also in financial trouble, co-workers who had lent Hickson money and received a promotion as repayment can attest to this, and the place was swarming with reporters the next day, so what motivation would a scared man have for calling all this attention to himself if not money?

View Postquillius, on 14 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

no comment :whistle:  :tu:

I think this case is a possible. An old man and a young man, old man gets drunk, perhaps spikes the young mans drink. Men are embarrassed, strange behaviour ensues. One man has a breakdown.  I firmly believe that a decent percentage of abduction tales are centered around creepy uncles and unfulfilled people who have vivid dreams. It certainly would be one way of dealing with the violation of rape.

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.


#49    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 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

I do not believe he is just saying "I heard nothing so nothing must have happened" He specifically states two sites, and the cameras hours of operation and how many were employed. That indicates investigation did happen. With toll booths, I do not see how a customer would make two people unable to observe an object, in fact the driver should also notice the object, how long does one stop at a toll booth? 5 seconds? 10? and it was at night, I do not know the area, but hard to imagine two toll booths very busy at night, and if they had people stopped, the cars also noticed nothing.
Honestly, I see it as a massive hole, two cameras and two people, nobody recorded a thing. That is 4 sources that come up empty that should not. If the cameras were not operational or not pointing in the right direction, this would have come up earlier when the Rolling Stone article was readily available. I find it impossible to believe that nobody would have thought of such until just now. Cameras are for security and run 24/7 if there was a problem with them, it would have been recorded, and because we have two toll booth operators that doubles the chances that the light would be seen.

Morning buddy,


Ok firstly the toll booths, he states that neither operator ‘reported’ anything not that they stated ‘they saw nothing’. We have nothing showing the line of site and whether any trees or other obstructions where there. We would have to draw the lines form the booths to exact spot of landing to confirm that the exact spot was actually clearly visible. If we do this we then have the problem of the operators may have their backs to the landing site making a visual very unlikely unless something made them look that way...and seeing as it was a silent hum I am not sure why they would have turned around to be able to see object...that is of course assuming they didn’t see anything.

As for the cameras, again there is nothing to indicate if they were pointing in that direction or if they were on and recording. Also how long are the recordings held for? When did Joe investigate? Did they allow him access to view the tapes? Would Klass really have missed this prime ‘debunk’ opportunity? Doubtful, Klass seemed far better than that IMO.

One thing to note I have seen time lines which indicate that Joes investigation happened long after the event itself (possibly a couple of years) but I will need to confirm this.

All I have seen is the same paragraph regarding ‘Joes subsequent investigation’ (also note the word ‘subsequent’)  they are all from one source as the wording is always the same....I would like proof of how and when he carried out this investigation...otherwise it is a worthless attempt at a fancy headline (more about this in a while)


View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

One of those is from 28 years later isn't it? And in that one, the craft description is different. And out of the fifteen witnesses, does a one of them mention a blue light? And did't they all report a saucer or dome shape when the men reported a cigar or fish shape? The craft could not be misidentified by the man because the corroborating witnesses all say dome or oval, and them men had a close up view and claimed it a cigar. If anyone had misidentified it it should be the witnesses who saw the object for moments and at distance as opposed to the men who were on the craft, as such, I find the recollections do not match up.

it isn’t 15 witnesses, the 15 number is derived form previous days sightings and not on the actual day. And yes as per the below text a ‘blue’ light was spoken about by witnesses.

Also note the few hundred yards from the interstate comment, how far were the toll booths?

Quote

As the men were still in the Sheriff's office, a former pilot called and stated he saw a UFO at about 08:00pm near the Pascagoula River. A city former city counsellor and several other people also reported later to report their sighting.
Three different people have phoned the Sheriff's office to report their observation of a strange blue light in the area where the two men were abducted. These people remained anonymous, they were driving on the Interstate 90 a few hundred yards from the abduction's location that night.
28 years later a witness comes forward, according to the newspaper "Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal" of October 21, 2001. It even seems reasonable to think that this witness is one of the three people in the car on Route 90 as mentioned above, this time the witness gave his name.



View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

If he was able to state:

"On the night of the abduction" he had to have viewed captured footage pertaining to the time frame. I do not know of any claims of missing footage or of distortions.



I find it to be a mixed story. Many people indicate him as having been in the film industry, but he was a screen writer, and in addition, he was a successful non-fiction novelist. To be perfectly honest, I do not really understand the sweatshirt thing at all, and I have wondered why it is brought up. He grossed about a billion dollars from his role in about 16 films, so he was hardly a struggling reporter in need of a fancy headline.  

He was struggling at the time. He was fired in 1971 by his previous journalistic employment because of an article written and then went to work for rolling stone magazine...obviously over eager to impress with a big headline, the Pascagoula case became big news soon after the event...a perfect candidate for a big scoop. Also note he was quite upfront about his disbelief in UFO’s and the ridicule he would approach the subject with...any bias present?


View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

But that does not explain why only one man initially took the polygraph, and why they never took Klass up on his offer. Nor does it explain why they used someone who was not qualified for the test. Polygraphs have only in the last ten years or so been deemed unreliable, at the time when it was new technology, many feared the lie detector. I feel it does work against the men as they never did rectify the situation, but promoted that it happened, - a deliberate half truth. If it had been re-run by Klass recommended operator, and remember there was no bill involved, then I think it would have been very hard to shoot down if the outcomes corroborated.

Again the Lawyer was the driving force behind the test and the circus act that followed. The pair turned down lucrative offers and promptly fired the Lawyer. They avoided fame and any debt that Hickson had could not be motive as no money was made until over 10 years later when writing his book. I have seen nowhere that proves tests were ever refused by the individuals, all I have seen is a willingness to have the tests so they could prove they were telling the truth


View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

I find it proves he fabricated part of the story, which he did not like, and re-wrote later. If the men were scared as is portrayed, then one wonders what promoted him to lie at the time, his ego had already been shattered by a supposed higher intelligence. Also by admission, Hickson was drunk. Hickson was also in financial trouble, co-workers who had lent Hickson money and received a promotion as repayment can attest to this, and the place was swarming with reporters the next day, so what motivation would a scared man have for calling all this attention to himself if not money?
Many sites fail to mention Hicksons 20 months of hand to hand combat in Korea, so ego definitely played a part IMO. What other discrepencies have been found in the story? None that I am aware of, and this one little snippet is accounted for and has no major impact on the other more significant parts that have remained consistent. The part about motive and money was covered above


View Postpsyche101, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

I think this case is a possible. An old man and a young man, old man gets drunk, perhaps spikes the young mans drink. Men are embarrassed, strange behaviour ensues. One man has a breakdown.  I firmly believe that a decent percentage of abduction tales are centered around creepy uncles and unfulfilled people who have vivid dreams. It certainly would be one way of dealing with the violation of rape.

I don’t think this is the case myself as too many pointers say otherwise.
My personal opinion or should I say the one possible that doesn’t involve ET would be that there was a UFO (plasma) the EMF enduced hallucinations occurred. The time in-between reporting it meant that false memories could be created and the stories ended up similar hence the same ‘beings’ reported.


#50    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 15 May 2012 - 10:18 AM

Hickson's foreman overheard the Hickson's side of the conversation, and asked what had occurred. Hickson related his story to the foreman and to shipyard owner Johnny Walker. After hearing the tale, Walker suggested that Hickson and Parker contact Joe Colingo, a locally prominent attorney (who was Walker's brother-in-law and also represented the shipyard).

Posted ImageColingo met the men, and, during their conversation, Hickson expressed fears about having been exposed to radiation. Colingo and detective Tom Huntley then took Parker and Hickson to a local hospital, which lacked the facilities for a radiation test. (Clark's book does not make clear if Huntley is a police detective or a private detective.) From the hospital, the men went to Keesler Air Force Base, where they were examined extensively by several doctors. Afterward, reported Huntley, Parker and Hickson were interviewed by the military intelligence chief of the base, with the "whole base command" observing the proceedings. (Clark, 448)

Colingo drew up a contract to represent Hickson and Parker. However, nothing came of this, and Hickson would later have nothing to do with Colingo, charging the lawyer with base financial motivations: Colingo, said Hickson, "just wanted to make a buck." (Clark, 449)
this is also quite interesting:




So Calingo was the brother inlaw of the shipyards owner. If Joe had investigated soon after and it really did become apparent that the cameras were pointing towards the site (not just within range) then why would the owner suggest his brother inlaw represent them? If he knew it was a lie why not conceal the evidence that proves they were lying? instead he shows it to Joe? unlikely....what is likely though is once they fired Colingo the shipyard owner had a bone to pick with them and could easily have said to Joe when he sniffed around that the videos showed nothing so the men were lying.

highly possible, yes?


#51    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:04 AM

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Morning buddy,

Ok firstly the toll booths, he states that neither operator ‘reported’ anything not that they stated ‘they saw nothing’. We have nothing showing the line of site and whether any trees or other obstructions where there. We would have to draw the lines form the booths to exact spot of landing to confirm that the exact spot was actually clearly visible. If we do this we then have the problem of the operators may have their backs to the landing site making a visual very unlikely unless something made them look that way...and seeing as it was a silent hum I am not sure why they would have turned around to be able to see object...that is of course assuming they didn’t see anything.

As for the cameras, again there is nothing to indicate if they were pointing in that direction or if they were on and recording. Also how long are the recordings held for? When did Joe investigate? Did they allow him access to view the tapes? Would Klass really have missed this prime ‘debunk’ opportunity? Doubtful, Klass seemed far better than that IMO.

One thing to note I have seen time lines which indicate that Joes investigation happened long after the event itself (possibly a couple of years) but I will need to confirm this.

All I have seen is the same paragraph regarding ‘Joes subsequent investigation’ (also note the word ‘subsequent’)  they are all from one source as the wording is always the same....I would like proof of how and when he carried out this investigation...otherwise it is a worthless attempt at a fancy headline (more about this in a while)




it isn’t 15 witnesses, the 15 number is derived form previous days sightings and not on the actual day. And yes as per the below text a ‘blue’ light was spoken about by witnesses.

Also note the few hundred yards from the interstate comment, how far were the toll booths?

Gidday Mate

One thing I have to agree with is the same information is regurgitated on almost every site. I have just spent way too much time trying to track down the original article, but went through hundreds of pages repeating the above line. I assume you believe  the investigation was at a later stage because it seems the information comes from a 1974 article called "Clawmen From Outer Space". I feel that is no indicator of any investigation though. And the time frame is still not massive, months, which could conceivably be governed by the perceived entertainment value of the article.

I feel the wording indicates the cameras had to have been checked within a reasonable time frame or the terms "Within range" "on that night" and "in full view" could not and would not be used. As such, I think the burden of proof is upon you to prove that these phrases were used incorrectly? I see no reason to consider the investigation fraudulent or biased. I will also continue to try and find the original article. I think it might help.

The fifteen witnesses, well I do stand corrected, I had not seen a blue light described, but again with the other point, was that blue light on a dome or saucer shaped object? I mentioned found the shape to be the biggest discrepancy because a saucer can be confused with a cigar at distance, bat a cigar cannot be considered an oval at a distance. And interestingly, I might be wrong, you seem to have better witness statements than I do, but do not all description claim the "sighting" was heading east? And do you consider the description of anonymous witnesses more valid that Joe's investigation? As with the questions with Joe's investigation. How do you know these fifteen people were not all the same person, and how do you know that it was not one person who was a close friend of the men? Why would their(?) information be more valid than Joe's?

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

He was struggling at the time. He was fired in 1971 by his previous journalistic employment because of an article written and then went to work for rolling stone magazine...obviously over eager to impress with a big headline, the Pascagoula case became big news soon after the event...a perfect candidate for a big scoop. Also note he was quite upfront about his disbelief in UFO’s and the ridicule he would approach the subject with...any bias present?

I do not believe that is what I have read. He was fired after the sweatshirt stunt that I mentioned


Quote

At the end of Eszterhas' career at The Plain Dealer, a fellow editor singlehandedly sailed a small sail boat from the United States to England and The Plain Dealer did not sponsor the editor's trip. However, as the gentleman neared the culmination of his trip, the Plain Dealer chartered an airplane to fly low and drop "Cleveland Plain Dealer" sweat shirts to the editor. According to the account Eszterhas wrote, the editor retrieved the sweat shirts and when he saw what they were, tossed them overboard. Eszterhas was subsequently relieved of his duties at the newspaper.

After which he became the senior editor for Rolling Stone Magazine in 1971.


Quote

Eszterhas was a senior editor from 1971 to 1975 for Rolling Stone. He became a National Book Award nominee for his nonfiction work Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse in 1974


LINK - http://en.wikipedia....rhas#Journalist

I would not call senior editor "struggling" Nor would he have to impress anyone after holding the senior position for 2 years before the incident happened.

I do not believe there is bias, Joe is also famous for his dealings with Mel Gibson, in that instance he called it like he saw it, and backed his position when questioned with irrefutable evidence. This instance shows a level of integrity and ethics.

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Again the Lawyer was the driving force behind the test and the circus act that followed. The pair turned down lucrative offers and promptly fired the Lawyer. They avoided fame and any debt that Hickson had could not be motive as no money was made until over 10 years later when writing his book. I have seen nowhere that proves tests were ever refused by the individuals, all I have seen is a willingness to have the tests so they could prove they were telling the truth


Quote

As noted above, both Parker and Hickson volunteered to take polygraph exams to prove their stories. In the end, only Hickson did so, and the examiner determined that Hickson believed the story about the UFO abduction.


LINK - http://en.wikipedia....ction#Polygraph

Why would they contact all the reporters when apparently nobody would believe them? They created a circus act themselves. And why did they not take up Phil Klass on his offer when they fired the lawyer? Everyone is blaming the lawyer, but where does a lawyer receive instruction from? His client.

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Many sites fail to mention Hicksons 20 months of hand to hand combat in Korea, so ego definitely played a part IMO. What other discrepencies have been found in the story? None that I am aware of, and this one little snippet is accounted for and has no major impact on the other more significant parts that have remained consistent. The part about motive and money was covered above

I have read his Korean experience on near every site I have visited. It is used to explain why the men had different reactions.

I find the following rather puzzling.

Parker said he was examined by a female alien. How did he know it was female?
Hickson claimed the when the beings placed their claws under his arms, he was paralysed. Considering the descriptions and the apparent fear, how and why did this creature manage to get close enough to Hickson to paralyse him?
Parker met with the alien again 20 years after the event. Why did he willingly go on board with someone who terrified him before, and went so far as to parlyse hims and stick a needle in his penis. Talk about a dud date.
The aliens told Parker that the Bible is accurate. You and I know that it is not.


View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

I don’t think this is the case myself as too many pointers say otherwise.

I feel that depends on perspective, I feel there is enough information to consider such might be possible.

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

My personal opinion or should I say the one possible that doesn’t involve ET would be that there was a UFO (plasma) the EMF enduced hallucinations occurred. The time in-between reporting it meant that false memories could be created and the stories ended up similar hence the same ‘beings’ reported.

But does not the 20 year return visit count that out?

Cheers.


Posted Image

Edited by psyche101, 16 May 2012 - 04:19 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.


#52    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:17 AM

View Postquillius, on 15 May 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Hickson's foreman overheard the Hickson's side of the conversation, and asked what had occurred. Hickson related his story to the foreman and to shipyard owner Johnny Walker. After hearing the tale, Walker suggested that Hickson and Parker contact Joe Colingo, a locally prominent attorney (who was Walker's brother-in-law and also represented the shipyard).

Posted ImageColingo met the men, and, during their conversation, Hickson expressed fears about having been exposed to radiation. Colingo and detective Tom Huntley then took Parker and Hickson to a local hospital, which lacked the facilities for a radiation test. (Clark's book does not make clear if Huntley is a police detective or a private detective.) From the hospital, the men went to Keesler Air Force Base, where they were examined extensively by several doctors. Afterward, reported Huntley, Parker and Hickson were interviewed by the military intelligence chief of the base, with the "whole base command" observing the proceedings. (Clark, 448)

Colingo drew up a contract to represent Hickson and Parker. However, nothing came of this, and Hickson would later have nothing to do with Colingo, charging the lawyer with base financial motivations: Colingo, said Hickson, "just wanted to make a buck." (Clark, 449)
this is also quite interesting:




So Calingo was the brother inlaw of the shipyards owner. If Joe had investigated soon after and it really did become apparent that the cameras were pointing towards the site (not just within range) then why would the owner suggest his brother inlaw represent them? If he knew it was a lie why not conceal the evidence that proves they were lying? instead he shows it to Joe? unlikely....what is likely though is once they fired Colingo the shipyard owner had a bone to pick with them and could easily have said to Joe when he sniffed around that the videos showed nothing so the men were lying.

highly possible, yes?

Perhaps he felt a chance to cash in on what he knew was a fake. But when his brother in-law was fired, his loyalty faded and he let Joe in on the fact that there was a way to see if anything actually happened that night.

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.


#53    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 16 May 2012 - 03:00 PM

Hey Psyche, will be brief due to time but will come back on any points not addressed soon.

Joe is very suspect im afraid....I also couldnt find the source either after quite a lengthy search.....If its proven he did make this claim there would still be serious doubt to his claim:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3235360769901328913
key bits from link above show his honesty when writing:
  • inaccuracies and misstatements contained in the text of the article written by Eszterhas
  • It is conceded that the story contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements. Most conspicuously, although Mrs. Cantrell was not present at any time during the reporter's visit to her home, Eszterhas wrote, "Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that after it happened, the people in town offered
  • Other significant misrepresentations were contained in details of Eszterhas' descriptions of
and in addition to the above google maps shows quite an interesting perspective of Ingalls yard  v abduction spot v toll booth......
What about the two witneses (not sure why you mention 15?!??)
on the day it was just two possibly a third (I say possibly as the thrid came about many years later) the two are recorded by the sheriffs department and one of the men is actually a state penetentiary officer I believe...can give you link to doc when I have time, its already in the thread a couple of times somewhere, just dont have time to find right now mate.

At the moment I still cannot find anything to raise any doubt on the sighting of a UFO.  I think it importnat we establish this point first before the what was it etc (not that we will ever know mind you)


#54    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:58 AM

View Postquillius, on 16 May 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Hey Psyche, will be brief due to time but will come back on any points not addressed soon.

Joe is very suspect im afraid....I also couldnt find the source either after quite a lengthy search.....If its proven he did make this claim there would still be serious doubt to his claim:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3235360769901328913
key bits from link above show his honesty when writing:
  • inaccuracies and misstatements contained in the text of the article written by Eszterhas
  • It is conceded that the story contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements. Most conspicuously, although Mrs. Cantrell was not present at any time during the reporter's visit to her home, Eszterhas wrote, "Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that after it happened, the people in town offered
  • Other significant misrepresentations were contained in details of Eszterhas' descriptions of
and in addition to the above google maps shows quite an interesting perspective of Ingalls yard  v abduction spot v toll booth......
What about the two witneses (not sure why you mention 15?!??)
on the day it was just two possibly a third (I say possibly as the thrid came about many years later) the two are recorded by the sheriffs department and one of the men is actually a state penetentiary officer I believe...can give you link to doc when I have time, its already in the thread a couple of times somewhere, just dont have time to find right now mate.


Gidday Mate

I have read about the Cantrell case, and I do not agree that it paints Joe in bad light. From what I understand, Joe had been sent to get a story on the family of one man who was killed in the Great Silver Bridge collapse. He went there a couple of months after the incident and interviewed children and took pictures. Margret Cantrell was not there when he did this, and this is what the case is about. I feel it is likely that Margaret Cantrell was a grub (or had let things go due to perhaps deep depression from recently losing her husband) and the article, of which Joe was one of two men reporting on, exposed the families conditions and she was severely embarrassed. Becase Margret was not there at the time and did not give her permission, she claimed Joe was making things up. Maybe he did, maybe he did not, all we do know is that there was a conflict of interest, and Joe's team acted outside of privacy laws. As far as I know, no untruths were reported, but unsavoury items were played upon to illustrate the point the article was trying to make. Margret Cantrell claimed that the claims made in the article were exaggerated and embarrassed her, but what about the pictures? They were not faked.

From your link, section three:

At the close of the petitioners' case-in-chief, the District Judge struck the demand for punitive damages. He found that Mrs. Cantrell had failed to present any evidence to support the charges that the invasion of privacy "was done maliciously within the legal definition of that term." The Court of Appeals interpreted this finding to be a determination by the District Judge that there was no evidence of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth introduced at the trial. Having made such a determination, the Court of Appeals held that the District Judge should have granted the motion for a directed verdict for respondents as to all the Cantrells' claims. 484 F. 2d, at 155.



And from this source:



In this diversity case a jury awarded damages to two private citizens in their action for invasion of privacy against the publisher of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a reporter and a photographer. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, in response to a motion for a directed verdict on behalf of all the defendants, the District Court found "that there has been no evidence to support the charges that the invasion of privacy, if in fact an invasion of privacy occurred was done maliciously within the legal definition of that term." The Court then ordered stricken all allegations relating to punitive damages, and dismissed as to several infant plaintiffs, but denied the motion for a directed verdict as to the two plaintiffs who are appellees. The issue is whether, having ruled that there was no evidence that the defendants had acted maliciously "within the legal definition of that term," the District Court should have granted a directed verdict. The defendants renewed their motion at the conclusion of all the evidence and made a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. All these motions were likewise denied. We reverse.
2
On December 15, 1967 a bridge across the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia collapsed. Among the fortyfour persons who lost their lives in this tragic accident was Melvin Aaron Cantrell, the 40-year old father of seven children. The "Silver Bridge disaster," as it was labeled by the press, was page one news throughout the country. The Cleveland Plain Dealer sent the defendant Joseph Eszterhas, a feature writer, to the scene and one of his dispatches which was published a few days later described the funeral of Melvin Cantrell. This story was written in the style of a news feature rather than a purely factual account. It dwelt upon the tragic consequences, rather than the details of the accident itself. The article focused on the condition of the Cantrell family as illustrating these consequences.

3
In early May 1968 Eszterhas and a Plain Dealer photographer, the defendant Richard T. Conway, returned to the Point Pleasant area to do a follow-up feature. Both newspapermen were off duty and operating free-lance. However, before they left Cleveland one of the editors of the Plain Dealer told them that if they came up with a good story the paper would buy it. After stopping for directions, Eszterhas and Conway went to the home owned by Margaret Cantrell, widow of Melvin, and occupied by her and six children ranging in age from 1 to 16 years. Mrs. Cantrell was not at home and a daughter, Dora, was the oldest child there. During a stay of one to one and one-half hours Conway took 50 pictures and Eszterhas talked with the children. There was little evidence as to whether the reporter and photographer were invited into the house. Dora did not testify, but William David Cantrell who was 13 at the time of the event and 17 at trial time, testified that he saw the men coming across the field and that the door to the house was open. He said no one asked them in and no one asked them to get out. He also said the door was open because the men were coming. William said he assumed the men were from a newspaper, but didn't ask which one. Neither he nor the other children made any objection to being photographed.

4
The Sunday Magazine of The Cleveland Plain Dealer for August 4, 1968 carried as its lead feature a story entitled, "Legacy of the Silver Bridge." The story by Eszterhas contained a number of inaccuracies and implied that Mrs. Cantrell was present in her home when he returned to Point Pleasant in May. Five of Conway's pictures were printed with the story. In these pictures the Cantrell home appeared to be dirty and run down and the children were poorly clothed and untidy. The hopeless poverty of the family was emphasized in the feature. The reporter again used the condition of the Cantrell family to illustrate the consequences of the bridge disaster. In the more dramatic language of the article, "His death is a microcosm of the scar which will remain permanent and stark upon the spirit of the people here."

5
The assistant Sunday editor and assistant managing editor of the Plain Dealer testified that Eszterhas had a good reputation for accuracy of reporting at the time the 1968 article was published. In fact, he won three press awards for his coverage of the Silver Bridge collapse. Conway testified that the photographs fairly depicted the persons and scenes as he found them at the Cantrell residence. He did not suggest that the children make themselves or the home more tidy before the pictures were taken. Joseph Eszterhas did not testify. There was no evidence that Forest City Publishing Company had knowledge of any of the inaccuracies contained in the article.

6
The complaint alleged that the privacy of the plaintiffs had been violated by the intrusion of the newsman and photographer, for unreasonable publicity about their private lives and for falsely presenting their condition and making them objects of pity and ridicule. Mrs. Cantrell brought suit for herself and all of her children, but all plaintiffs except Mrs. Cantrell and one son, William David Cantrell, were dismissed by the Court. The complaint also charged the defendants with "malicious and defamatory libel." As developed by the evidence the intrusion complained of consisted of publication of an article which placed the Cantrell family in a bad light because of its inaccuracies and untruths. This is the way the matter was presented to the jury and there is no complaint on appeal concerning the jury charge. On appeal the appellees attempt to treat the entry of the two defendants into their home without an invitation when only children were present as the intrusion for which damages were justified. However, this was not the theory on which the case was tried in the District Court


View Postquillius, on 16 May 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

At the moment I still cannot find anything to raise any doubt on the sighting of a UFO.  I think it importnat we establish this point first before the what was it etc (not that we will ever know mind you)


I still believe the burden is upon your good self to prove Joe's investigation was not on the level. His reputation does not indicate a habitual liar.

With the toll booths and cameras, have you taken into account that the site has been rebuilt? McGuffin posted a posture that showed how the yards looked at the time of the incident and how they look today. (Posts 34 & 35)

Here is a freaky co-incidence for you. Ever heard of the Mothman?

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 17 May 2012 - 04:00 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.


#55    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 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

I have read about the Cantrell case, and I do not agree that it paints Joe in bad light. From what I understand, Joe had been sent to get a story on the family of one man who was killed in the Great Silver Bridge collapse. He went there a couple of months after the incident and interviewed children and took pictures. Margret Cantrell was not there when he did this, and this is what the case is about. I feel it is likely that Margaret Cantrell was a grub (or had let things go due to perhaps deep depression from recently losing her husband) and the article, of which Joe was one of two men reporting on, exposed the families conditions and she was severely embarrassed. Becase Margret was not there at the time and did not give her permission, she claimed Joe was making things up. Maybe he did, maybe he did not, all we do know is that there was a conflict of interest, and Joe's team acted outside of privacy laws. As far as I know, no untruths were reported, but unsavoury items were played upon to illustrate the point the article was trying to make. Margret Cantrell claimed that the claims made in the article were exaggerated and embarrassed her, but what about the pictures? They were not faked.

From your link, section three:



At the close of the petitioners' case-in-chief, the District Judge struck the demand for punitive damages. He found that Mrs. Cantrell had failed to present any evidence to support the charges that the invasion of privacy "was done maliciously within the legal definition of that term." The Court of Appeals interpreted this finding to be a determination by the District Judge that there was no evidence of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth introduced at the trial. Having made such a determination, the Court of Appeals held that the District Judge should have granted the motion for a directed verdict for respondents as to all the Cantrells' claims. 484 F. 2d, at 155.



And from this source:


Gidday, yes basically the trial was on 'invasion of privacy' not the purposeful misrepresentation claim. The District judge found no evidence for the 'invasion of privacy' however paid damages on the untruthful representation. They appealed on the grounds that a directed verdict should have been given due to the non-proof of invasion of privacy but the appeal failed, as it was deemed factual that Joe had pruposefully used wording to mislead the public:
There is a good laymans explanation of this case somewhere I once read that makes it far easier to understand...hence why I got there in the end.

Here is an example of this misleading article:

It is conceded that the story contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements. Most conspicuously, although Mrs. Cantrell was not present at any time during the reporter's visit to her home, Eszterhas wrote, "Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that after it happened, the people in town offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it."[1] Other significant misrepresentations were contained in details of Eszterhas' descriptions of the poverty in which the Cantrells were living and the dirty and dilapidated conditions of the Cantrell home

as you can see he is alluding to her being there using his poetic license that was never granted. Its not down to how we interpret Joes part the facts are he mislead in the article and damages were awarded (for this part)....

whilst on his use of words lets remember his wording 'cameras in range' ....nice try Joe...not in sight but in range...major difference. They recorded nothing....ummm ofcourse not as they are in range rather than in sight, he wouldnt have even needed to check cameras for his wording to remain truthful to an extent.

Having said all that lets look at the key elements that take anything (possibly) said by Joe as false.

- two other witnesses at the same time officially reported.
- no proof cameras were checked
- no proof cameras were recording
-no proof they even existed
-no proof toll booths had clear line of sight
-no proof operators were facing direction of landing spot at correct time
- no proof they saw nothing (only proof that they reported nothing)

also isnt it strange that people from Hynek to Klass and hundreds of reporters within the scene on this world scoop within days...all these people and yet it was Joe (who may have even been a heavy drinker at the time) who comes along and spots the obvious 'a camera' oh not only that, but  also spots a toll booth...are all the others blind or stupid (remember Klass is part of the others here :alien: )



View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

I still believe the burden is upon your good self to prove Joe's investigation was not on the level. His reputation does not indicate a habitual liar.

With the toll booths and cameras, have you taken into account that the site has been rebuilt? McGuffin posted a posture that showed how the yards looked at the time of the incident and how they look today. (Posts 34 & 35)

Here is a freaky co-incidence for you. Ever heard of the Mothman?

Cheers.

yes I had taken into account the various changes of the site the improvements when they sold out and the new location on the west bank...again have links somewhere on all this mate as and when needed I can try and find.

In a nutshell I think the guys certainly had an experience and that there was an object...was it ET? dont know, did they get abducted? dont know, was there a UFO..yes fairly certain, did they experience a 'UFO' ..yes very certain they did.

I think time to move on from Joe he is a red herring.

As for mothman, yes indeed...I assume you are going to talk to me about a bridge now :yes: :w00t: :tu:



edit for this link:   http://www.casebrief...ublishing-co/2/

Edited by quillius, 17 May 2012 - 02:44 PM.


#56    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM

View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Gidday, yes basically the trial was on 'invasion of privacy' not the purposeful misrepresentation claim. The District judge found no evidence for the 'invasion of privacy' however paid damages on the untruthful representation. They appealed on the grounds that a directed verdict should have been given due to the non-proof of invasion of privacy but the appeal failed, as it was deemed factual that Joe had pruposefully used wording to mislead the public:
There is a good laymans explanation of this case somewhere I once read that makes it far easier to understand...hence why I got there in the end.

Here is an example of this misleading article:

It is conceded that the story contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements. Most conspicuously, although Mrs. Cantrell was not present at any time during the reporter's visit to her home, Eszterhas wrote, "Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that after it happened, the people in town offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it."[1] Other significant misrepresentations were contained in details of Eszterhas' descriptions of the poverty in which the Cantrells were living and the dirty and dilapidated conditions of the Cantrell home

as you can see he is alluding to her being there using his poetic license that was never granted. Its not down to how we interpret Joes part the facts are he mislead in the article and damages were awarded (for this part)....

whilst on his use of words lets remember his wording 'cameras in range' ....nice try Joe...not in sight but in range...major difference. They recorded nothing....ummm ofcourse not as they are in range rather than in sight, he wouldnt have even needed to check cameras for his wording to remain truthful to an extent.

Gidday Quillius

The sun is shining, and it is Friday, it does not get much better than this. I plan to watch the Roswell movie tonight.

This is pretty much what I have been saying, the entire charge is that his article could be read that he specifically interviewed Mrs Cantrell when he did not. Personally, I find the wording ambiguous enough to be considered either way. I feel the court felt pity for the newfound widow, and that had quite a bit with winning her case.
His descriptions of poverty were accompanied by photographs of living conditions. He embarrassed the bejeebers out of her. As far as I can tell, Mrs Cantrell "got him back" But as far as dishonesty goes, I would more call his article "poetic license". As far as I know he did not make things up, he exaggerated what he saw. And even that s a perhaps. A newfound widow just hit up with funeral costs and the sudden need to become a provider is logically going to have some problems making ends meet. I think because Joe spoke to minors, that things also went harder on him. That would be why the case was false light, and not slander I assume.
And he stood up and took his medicine. Regardless of if I think the wording is ambiguous, he accepted the decision. I think that shows ethics?

View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Having said all that lets look at the key elements that take anything (possibly) said by Joe as false.

- two other witnesses at the same time officially reported.
- no proof cameras were checked
- no proof cameras were recording
-no proof they even existed
-no proof toll booths had clear line of sight
-no proof operators were facing direction of landing spot at correct time
- no proof they saw nothing (only proof that they reported nothing)


Indeed, possibly said by Joe as false, but we need pictures from the time frame proving that nothing could see that area in question. We cannot assume Joe made the investigation up and dismiss him on that basis. The Nellis footage shows at best a blurry blob and was seen at distance. If the cameras were a wide angle, "within range" could be quite a massive area and even a flicker would have to qualify as "something" caught within the time frame. Yet not even that exists according to current information.


View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

also isnt it strange that people from Hynek to Klass and hundreds of reporters within the scene on this world scoop within days...all these people and yet it was Joe (who may have even been a heavy drinker at the time) who comes along and spots the obvious 'a camera' oh not only that, but  also spots a toll booth...are all the others blind or stupid (remember Klass is part of the others here :alien: )

Klass was focused on the lie detector, He seems to have made his mind up that the entre incident was fabricated based on the dodgy lie detector tests touted around at the time. Some people still think both men took the polygraph. But Hynek we can agree was a world class investigator. If there was a discrepancy with the toll booth operators or the cameras, I would be rather shocked to see Hynek missed that in his own and somewhat positively orientated investigation. I am sure we would agree that in this field Hynek would surpass Joe with regards to investigation abilities based on experience alone, and if Hynek did not challenge Joe, I do not think you and I are going to find any holes in Joe's findings.
It warms my heart to see you deploying Phils methods on Joe! :D

View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

yes I had taken into account the various changes of the site the improvements when they sold out and the new location on the west bank...again have links somewhere on all this mate as and when needed I can try and find.

:tu: Best of luck with that search mate. You have quite impressed me with some of the obscure snippets you have dug up in the past.

View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

In a nutshell I think the guys certainly had an experience and that there was an object...was it ET? dont know, did they get abducted? dont know, was there a UFO..yes fairly certain, did they experience a 'UFO' ..yes very certain they did.

I agree there was an experience, but until Joe can be proven incorrect, I cannot accept that a UFO was seen by the men on the night.

View Postquillius, on 17 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I think time to move on from Joe he is a red herring.

As for mothman, yes indeed...I assume you are going to talk to me about a bridge now :yes: :w00t: :tu:



edit for this link:   http://www.casebrief...ublishing-co/2/

I honestly feel Joe has the smoking gun. Cameras do not lie. Until Joe's investigation can be proven to be haphazard at least, those cameras tell the tale IMHO. All you have to date is suspicions based on a false light case.

Yes, Mothman, he was allegedly at the Great Silver Bridge collapse that Cantrell's husband died in. Mothman was supposedly telepathic like these aliens, and nobody saw his face, only two glowing spots. Did he even have eyes or carrot like sensors? :D :devil:


UFOs, Mothman, and Me by John Keel



I found Point Pleasant was a quiet little town of 6,300 people, dozens of churches and no public bars. The Mothman sightings had taken place in a desolate World War II ammunition dump on the edge of town. More intriguing, there had been countless UFO sightings up and down the Ohio River all year. Eerie diamond-brilliant lights passed over Point Pleasant every night at 8:30 on a regular schedule. I decided to do something that the Air Force and the loud-mouthed UFO buffs had never thought of doing. I decided to investigate the situation instead of just holding conversations with the witnesses.
Within a few days a much bigger picture began to evolve. The region was not only haunted by strange aerial lights, the homes of the witnesses were plagued with poltergeists and other supernatural phenomena. Television sets were burning out at an alarming rate. Telephones were going crazy, ringing at all hours of the day and night with no one on the other end. Some people were getting calls from mysterious strangers speaking a cryptic language. Black Cadillacs bearing Oriental-looking gentlemen were cruising the black hills of West Virginia.

The time frame I find more than interesting, although I do not go for the alien solution, if I did, I would think this instance is too close with more witnesses to ignore. Was Mothman a flying Pascagoula alien? It makes for a good camp fire story in any case!

Edited by psyche101, 17 May 2012 - 11:46 PM.

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.


#57    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 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Gidday Quillius

The sun is shining, and it is Friday, it does not get much better than this. I plan to watch the Roswell movie tonight.

Gidday mate,

Sounds great......I am sure I saw one small ray of sunshine this morning......and there was me thinking ‘it doesn’t get much better than this’  context is critical I guess. Please do let me know what it’s like as I do plan to watch it.


View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

This is pretty much what I have been saying, the entire charge is that his article could be read that he specifically interviewed Mrs Cantrell when he did not. Personally, I find the wording ambiguous enough to be considered either way. I feel the court felt pity for the newfound widow, and that had quite a bit with winning her case.
His descriptions of poverty were accompanied by photographs of living conditions. He embarrassed the bejeebers out of her. As far as I can tell, Mrs Cantrell "got him back" But as far as dishonesty goes, I would more call his article "poetic license". As far as I know he did not make things up, he exaggerated what he saw. And even that s a perhaps. A newfound widow just hit up with funeral costs and the sudden need to become a provider is logically going to have some problems making ends meet. I think because Joe spoke to minors, that things also went harder on him. That would be why the case was false light, and not slander I assume.
And he stood up and took his medicine. Regardless of if I think the wording is ambiguous, he accepted the decision. I think that shows ethics?

I don’t agree here, its not about interpretation. The few comments I posted are not the only bits of untruth written by Joe, they were just picked as examples, anyhow the plain and simple of fact is the Supreme court found him guilty...sympathy plays no part just plain facts and evidence lead the way here J As for living conditions, firstly many months later is when he went back so maybe the family were now feeling it more than ever...possibly. However if  a photographer walked into my house uninvited by me, at a random time especially if kids left alone, he could take certain shots to make my house look similar to theirs and I assure you that is not/would not be a true reflection....

As for slander versus the false light, I believe slander can still be truthful but false light is strictly false...by the way this was the second case for Joe involving false light trial.

He was then fired and went to work on a specific article for the rolling stones magazine on narcotics as a freelance worker.....so not quite the senior editor spouted about.

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Indeed, possibly said by Joe as false, but we need pictures from the time frame proving that nothing could see that area in question. We cannot assume Joe made the investigation up and dismiss him on that basis. The Nellis footage shows at best a blurry blob and was seen at distance. If the cameras were a wide angle, "within range" could be quite a massive area and even a flicker would have to qualify as "something" caught within the time frame. Yet not even that exists according to current information.

Yes but the only way to provide proof with a picture from the time frame showing the cameras could see nothing would be to know where the cameras were to start with!

I have read quite a bit on cameras from that time, and the rotating black and white images was the norm with guards (sleeping) watching these screens...they did not record.
If they did record then there would be proof that the event never happened, we wouldn’t be having this discussion....we are because all we have is ...’subsequent investigation by Joe..’ sound familiar?



View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Klass was focused on the lie detector, He seems to have made his mind up that the entre incident was fabricated based on the dodgy lie detector tests touted around at the time. Some people still think both men took the polygraph. But Hynek we can agree was a world class investigator. If there was a discrepancy with the toll booth operators or the cameras, I would be rather shocked to see Hynek missed that in his own and somewhat positively orientated investigation. I am sure we would agree that in this field Hynek would surpass Joe with regards to investigation abilities based on experience alone, and if Hynek did not challenge Joe, I do not think you and I are going to find any holes in Joe's findings.

Actually the time frame is important here, Hynek first on scene and compiles investigation...doesn’t see any cameras nor the 24 tolls (poor for world class investigator), he doesn’t know about Joes article and claim as it has not been written yet. As for Phil I am not sure if he was before or after Joe. If before then why did Phil miss this opportunity to prove it once and for all...ie. footage (its because it didn’t exist), if however it was after Joes investigation then why did he not follow that same line of investigation which would prove a lie? Instead he opts to focus on an element that just puts doubt onto one corroborating part of the claim...nothing more.

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

It warms my heart to see you deploying Phils methods on Joe! file:///C:\Users\EFSTAT~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif

Lol, thought you would enjoy it in a sadistic kind of way (almost subconsciously cheering me on to successfully expose and destroy Joe and his claims)
Phil would have had him wrapped up by now...I am too nice and avoid the jugular.


View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

file:///C:\Users\EFSTAT~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gifBest of luck with that search mate. You have quite impressed me with some of the obscure snippets you have dug up in the past.

Thanks, I already have the links its just amongst many more and not organised...

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I agree there was an experience, but until Joe can be proven incorrect, I cannot accept that a UFO was seen by the men on the night.

Ahh Joe..proven incorrect?  All I have is many sites quoting ‘subsequent invest...blah blah’ there is nothing to prove incorrect.


View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I honestly feel Joe has the smoking gun. Cameras do not lie. Until Joe's investigation can be proven to be haphazard at least, those cameras tell the tale IMHO. All you have to date is suspicions based on a false light case.
He definitely doesn’t have a smoking gun, he has a small fictional article on claw men based on a fictional investigator who was able to put the likes of Klass and Hynek to shame without breaking a sweat J

No I don’t simply have suspicions based on false light...I have facts (im not suspicious of him but certain based on the below) based on :

Being found guilty as charged, by supreme court

2 such cases involving Joe for which he was eventually fired

Misdirection saying ‘no other witnesses’ Official Keesler report states reports filed by both Raymond Broader (probation officer) and Larry from Larrys station on highway 90, both witness to two blue lights at said time. We also have a third witness in Mike Cataldo who came about many years later...Mike is a retired Navy Chief (excuse the appeal to authority).

We also have three unnamed reports into the station as reported by the sheriff whilst the men were in the interrogation room.

Oh no! Joe may not be as skilful as first thought (or just highly selective in his fictional work)

View Postpsyche101, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Yes, Mothman, he was allegedly at the Great Silver Bridge collapse that Cantrell's husband died in. Mothman was supposedly telepathic like these aliens, and nobody saw his face, only two glowing spots. Did he even have eyes or carrot like sensors? file:///C:\Users\EFSTAT~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.giffile:///C:\Users\EFSTAT~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.gif

The time frame I find more than interesting, although I do not go for the alien solution, if I did, I would think this instance is too close with more witnesses to ignore. Was Mothman a flying Pascagoula alien? It makes for a good camp fire story in any case!

I didn’t think my brain could handle another ‘paranormal angle to all this so left it alone for the sake of sanity. Although it has always been a hotspot for activity in that area apparently

Few key points to summarise:
2 witnesses to blue UFO officially recorded by Keesler base
3 unnamed witness calls reported to Sheriff’s office to Ryder.
Transcript and audio of men left alone in the room ..keeping to initial story
Klass’ best shot was merely a ‘suspicious’ polygraph
No money was made for ten years
One of the men seriously suffered psychologically afterwards
Both men showed terror under hypnotic regression


#58    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 May 2012 - 02:15 AM

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Gidday mate,

Sounds great......I am sure I saw one small ray of sunshine this morning......and there was me thinking ‘it doesn’t get much better than this’  context is critical I guess. Please do let me know what it’s like as I do plan to watch it.

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I don’t agree here, its not about interpretation. The few comments I posted are not the only bits of untruth written by Joe, they were just picked as examples, anyhow the plain and simple of fact is the Supreme court found him guilty...sympathy plays no part just plain facts and evidence lead the way here J As for living conditions, firstly many months later is when he went back so maybe the family were now feeling it more than ever...possibly. However if  a photographer walked into my house uninvited by me, at a random time especially if kids left alone, he could take certain shots to make my house look similar to theirs and I assure you that is not/would not be a true reflection....

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

As for slander versus the false light, I believe slander can still be truthful but false light is strictly false...by the way this was the second case for Joe involving false light trial.

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

He was then fired and went to work on a specific article for the rolling stones magazine on narcotics as a freelance worker.....so not quite the senior editor spouted about.

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.


Link #1

He received another Associated Press award for his exposure of photographs of the My Lai massacre, but fired in 1971 after publishing a story in another publication critical of The Plain Dealer management. Moving to San Francisco, he becomes a political writer for Rolling Stone magazine, where he works for 5 years. His first novel, Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse (1974), was nominated for a National Book Award.

Link #2


After attending Ohio State University, where he edited the school newspaper, Eszterhas found work as a reporter at The Plain Dealer and courted early controversy when he found himself at the forefront of breaking one of the biggest stories to come out of the Vietnam War - the My Lai Massacre. Eszterhas was contacted by photographer Ronald Haeberle, who approached the young reporter at his hometown newspaper. Eszterhas battled with his superiors over publishing the story, which he wrote to accompany the grueling pictures of murdered civilians, namely women and children. Eventually, Eszterhas and Haeberle sold the photos to Lifemagazine and split $20,000.
Eszterhas soon fell out of favor with the higher-ups and was let go from The Plain Dealer. From 1971-75, he worked as a political correspondent for Rolling Stone magazine when he first caught the eye of the entertainment industry with a 1974 National Book Award-nominated novel entitled Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse.

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Yes but the only way to provide proof with a picture from the time frame showing the cameras could see nothing would be to know where the cameras were to start with!

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I have read quite a bit on cameras from that time, and the rotating black and white images was the norm with guards (sleeping) watching these screens...they did not record.
If they did record then there would be proof that the event never happened, we wouldn’t be having this discussion....we are because all we have is ...’subsequent investigation by Joe..’ sound familiar?

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?

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Actually the time frame is important here, Hynek first on scene and compiles investigation...doesn’t see any cameras nor the 24 tolls (poor for world class investigator), he doesn’t know about Joes article and claim as it has not been written yet. As for Phil I am not sure if he was before or after Joe. If before then why did Phil miss this opportunity to prove it once and for all...ie. footage (its because it didn’t exist), if however it was after Joes investigation then why did he not follow that same line of investigation which would prove a lie? Instead he opts to focus on an element that just puts doubt onto one corroborating part of the claim...nothing more.

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Ahh Joe..proven incorrect?  All I have is many sites quoting ‘subsequent invest...blah blah’ there is nothing to prove incorrect.

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 a 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.

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?

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

He definitely doesn’t have a smoking gun, he has a small fictional article on claw men based on a fictional investigator who was able to put the likes of Klass and Hynek to shame without breaking a sweat J

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

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

No I don’t simply have suspicions based on false light...I have facts (im not suspicious of him but certain based on the below) based on :

Being found guilty as charged, by supreme court

2 such cases involving Joe for which he was eventually fired

Misdirection saying ‘no other witnesses’ Official Keesler report states reports filed by both Raymond Broader (probation officer) and Larry from Larrys station on highway 90, both witness to two blue lights at said time. We also have a third witness in Mike Cataldo who came about many years later...Mike is a retired Navy Chief (excuse the appeal to authority).

We also have three unnamed reports into the station as reported by the sheriff whilst the men were in the interrogation room.

Oh no! Joe may not be as skilful as first thought (or just highly selective in his fictional work)

Joe was not fired due to the outcome of the case. The Plain Dealer fired him over political motivations.

Eszterhas also began his first job that year as a reporter for the Dayton Journal Herald, then was hired by Cleveland's The Plain Dealer in 1967. His career there was tumultuous. He won an Associated Press award in 1967 for his coverage of a disaster in West Virginia, and then was successfully sued in 1968 by a woman whose husband died in the accident. He received another Associated Press award for his exposure of photographs of the My Lai massacre, but fired in 1971 after publishing a story in another publication critical of The Plain Dealer management

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.

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.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I didn’t think my brain could handle another ‘paranormal angle to all this so left it alone for the sake of sanity. Although it has always been a hotspot for activity in that area apparently

Rather than the paranormal aspect, what we do have here is another investigation from the time frame and in the area ;)

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Few key points to summarise:
2 witnesses to blue UFO officially recorded by Keesler base
3 unnamed witness calls reported to Sheriff’s office to Ryder.

What shape did these witnesses report?
I do not find the anonymous claims valid. Could be anyone.

View Postquillius, on 18 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Transcript and audio of men left alone in the room ..keeping to initial story

Or confirmation that they had their stories straight.

Quillius Said:
Klass’ best shot was merely a ‘suspicious’ polygraph



I think it was a good shot, a man who was not qualified, set up by a lawyer the men would later fire for being unscrupulous but they never "righted his wrongs" and only one man ever sat the test when it is widely publicised that both did. And the test was never re-sat despite Phil Klass' generous offer. The men had much opportunity to call Phil and "set things right" but never took that free opportunity. That strongly indicates collusion and perhaps that the men intended this course of action. Knowing what we do of Phil Klass, that would be enough for him to sit on his laurels. Character was always Phil strongest pursuit.

Quillius Said:
No money was made for ten years



None? No articles paid anything for the publications at the time? That seems either very strange, or very bad management of behalf of the men. I feel that the fact that the Sheriffs office was inundated with press the day after the incident indicates that the men always intended to get their tale "out there".

Quillius said:
One of the men seriously suffered psychologically afterwards
Both men showed terror under hypnotic regression



I think that there are many causes for this when an older man and a younger man are alone in the dark with a bottle of whiskey. I think the sensitive nature of abuse is all that keeps people from approaching this angle.

At the end of the day in summary I feel that Joe went to a place, perhaps exaggerated the living conditions, and was crucified for that. I do not feel this has any bearing on the fact that he reported cameras from a military spec builder and nearby toll booths, which not a soul including locals has objected to. It has not been proven that he lied about anything concerning Cantrell, it is proven that his descriptions were incorrect according to Mrs Cantrell. It is a court case of he said she said, which I find is not enough to sway judgement of his claims. Joe's only real mistake in my book was not waiting for Mrs Cantrell to return. Had he done that and managed a signature, Mrs Cantrell would not have had a leg to stand on.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 21 May 2012 - 02:18 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.


#59    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,193 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 21 May 2012 - 02:42 AM

THe best statement was "It makes for a Good Campfire  Story" Seems most UFO tales are best put to this frame of mind !
Good quote psyche101

This is a Work in Progress!

#60    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,855 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:04 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 21 May 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

THe best statement was "It makes for a Good Campfire  Story" Seems most UFO tales are best put to this frame of mind !
Good quote psyche101

:D Ha, cheers Big D!

When we get Mothman and UFO's all in one hit, it's time for the spooky flashlight!


Posted Image


I found the MothMan Prophecies with Richard Geere a bit slow. Anyone else seen it?

Edited by psyche101, 21 May 2012 - 06:05 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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users