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

#76    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:56 PM

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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

The link we both have to the litton shipyard ships they built have the delivery date listed.  If you look for when the keel was laid (start of construction) it is much earlier.  For example the USS Spruance DD-963 was delivered in 1975 but the keel was laid in 1972.

I'm curious about one thing.  Having been to the litton yards in 1975 I know they had round the clock shifts going and I was wondering if anyone talked to the shipyard people who would have been working that night to find out if they had seen anything.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#77    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 11 September 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

The link we both have to the litton shipyard ships they built have the delivery date listed.  If you look for when the keel was laid (start of construction) it is much earlier.  For example the USS Spruance DD-963 was delivered in 1975 but the keel was laid in 1972.

I'm curious about one thing.  Having been to the litton yards in 1975 I know they had round the clock shifts going and I was wondering if anyone talked to the shipyard people who would have been working that night to find out if they had seen anything.

apologies yes military jobs were much earlier, its the nuclear subs that started later.

not sure on shift workers, although one would think that the west bank facility was a huge place and the old schapeter pier was one mile away and it may not have had a clear line of sight


#78    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 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 05 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

I have been thinking about this case once again and think I may have found something that blows the 'UAP enduced hallucination answer' out of the water, but at the same time doing the same to the official account.

'out of the water' was indeed a pun.....let me explain.

The two men were fishing in the river when the craft hovered on the bank and the creatures floated out to the men and took them to the craft then left them outside the craft before the aliens left....

If this was a hallucinated event how did the men get from the boat to the land? They would have had to be paddling the boat to shore whilst experiencing the hallucination??!?! doesnt add up.

However, the men took two catfish with them to try and prove their story....problem here is that if the events happened as they said, how did they get the catfish out of the boat when the boat should still be in the river?

?????


edit to add: Psyche, Charlie Hickson later says how the initial floating 'things' were being controlled by human looking beings....coupled with the blue light.....Father Gill cant help but sring to mind :).

Edited by quillius, 05 March 2013 - 01:44 PM.


#79    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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

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

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



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

Why would cameras not be covering abandoned parts, as long as they are within the perimeter of the compound? Military spec would not allow those 5 conditions to exist to begin with, so it is hard to see the 5 points above being a factor?

Is there any good reason to think this part of the shipyard would not be under camera surveillance, or that obstructions would obscure any views?

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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

Again, with this getting quite some coverage, it begs the question as to why nobody would come forward at the time and say, no, that cannot be right. With the toll booth operators facing the required direction, it seems they would have to have their backs to the road and their eyes closed to miss the craft? And it seems there would not be much confusion, the operators would know they were the ones being spoken about. Again, is there any reason to think these reports are untrue? If all parties are taken at what information exists, there seems to be no reason to doubt this without any toll booth operator saying this would not be the case or any shipyard manager saying that area would not be covered by cameras.

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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

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

Calvin Parker admitted to lying about fainting, proving he can and will lie when he is an embarrassing situation, which is my suspicion.

And depression and reclusion would also be symptoms of the trauma I suspect particularly so considering the religious disposition of both men.

I dunno mate, the 20 years return visit seals the deal that this is a fake call to me. That religious disposition is prevalent during both alleged encounters.

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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

Unfortunately the only words we have to work with are:

The supposed UFO landing and abduction site was in full view of two twenty-four hour toll booths, and neither operator saw anything that night. Also, the site was in range of security cameras from nearby Ingalls Shipyard, and the cameras additionally showed nothing that night.

However again, without leaning toward the mens claim and showing bias towards their conclusion, how can that be falsified? Only personal preference can place this in doubt with the information we have?

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

He only feared when spoken to telepathically, however remained unharmed......

big needle doesnt have to equal pain...just the perception of....


  maybe in my younger days...


All we need now is for Slave 2 Fate's wife to walk on on him again while he reads this thread.

Ohh I still say you are a much more game man than I, I can comfortably live with speculating that a big needle in your privates = pain.

Parker also said he felt imminent harm.

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

no they didnt talk to themselves, if you read the transcript again they clearly talk to each other as well as making general comments

I think that is more what I was referring to. The general comments.

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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



View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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


*Taps foot impatiently........


View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

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


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

Considering Phil's disposition to thoroughly check personal character traits I am a little surprised that he did not come the the conclusion I have. Even Hynek was pretty lacklustre on this one, it does not seem to have received the attention many others did, maybe because the police suspected a hoax?

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.


#80    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:16 AM

View Postquillius, on 11 September 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

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

These are those who were present at the airforce base:

The following is a transcription of a
report made this date by the following
individuals:
Mr. Charles Hickson, 2722, Apt.
1, College Villa Apts., Pascagoula, MS.
Mr. Calvin Parker, Jr., Same
address.
The report was made to the
following personnel:
Lt. Colonel Derrington,
Security Police.
Colonel Amdall, Chairman,
Department of Medicine.
Colonel Rudolph, Hospital
Service.
Colonel Hanson, Veterinary
Services
Lt. Colonel Gibson, Associate
Administrator.
Major Winans, Health Physicist.
Captain Hoban, Security Police.
MSgt. Russell, Security Police.
T.E. Huntley, Detective, Jackson
County Sheriff's Office, Pascagoula,
MS Phone: 782-4333.
Joe Colingo, A t t o r n e y ,
Pascagoula, MS Phone: 782-8021.
Mr. Hickson and Mr. Parker both
stated they were employed in
Pascagoula by F.B. Walker & Sons,
Phone: 782-3931.
Two persons who reported
sighting an object at approximately the
same time were:
Raymond Broadus, Probation
and Parole Officer, Pascagoula.
Larry, Larry's Standard Station,
Market & Hickway 90, Pascagoula.
Lt. Colonel Derrington:


Not nitpicking mate, but these are health professionals - even a vet? Not sure which one he was for! Admittedly some police, but I think that is quite standard on any base where unannounced civillians are concerned.
I have to say it still sounds like the volunteer examination, not military interrogation.

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.


#81    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:19 AM

View Postquillius, on 05 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I have been thinking about this case once again and think I may have found something that blows the 'UAP enduced hallucination answer' out of the water, but at the same time doing the same to the official account.

'out of the water' was indeed a pun.....let me explain.

The two men were fishing in the river when the craft hovered on the bank and the creatures floated out to the men and took them to the craft then left them outside the craft before the aliens left....

If this was a hallucinated event how did the men get from the boat to the land? They would have had to be paddling the boat to shore whilst experiencing the hallucination??!?! doesnt add up.

However, the men took two catfish with them to try and prove their story....problem here is that if the events happened as they said, how did they get the catfish out of the boat when the boat should still be in the river?

?????

Why not? Like sleepwalking?

If aliens, how did the boat get to shore by itself?

View Postquillius, on 05 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

edit to add: Psyche, Charlie Hickson later says how the initial floating 'things' were being controlled by human looking beings....coupled with the blue light.....Father Gill cant help but sring to mind :).

I see some pretty major deviations:


The creatures were described as being humanoid, five feet tall with grey wrinkled skin and no discernible eyes, ears or mouth, instead carrot-like appendages lobster like claws and a single fused-like leg.

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.


#82    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 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 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


Why would cameras not be covering abandoned parts, as long as they are within the perimeter of the compound? Military spec would not allow those 5 conditions to exist to begin with, so it is hard to see the 5 points above being a factor?

Is there any good reason to think this part of the shipyard would not be under camera surveillance, or that obstructions would obscure any views?

So the landing spot by the old abondoned yard was in the perimeter of the compound?

Anyhow more importantly I have only ever seen a third hand (at best) reference about a (possible) claim in an article a few months after the event, written by a proven liar (proven via the courts).......This national news bonanza of the two men investigate by the likes of Klass and Hynek is blown to smitherines by Joe a few months later....So a chance to demolish many competitors in the news world this quiet honest fellow Joe, finds out the truth by gaining access to a secure compound and having access to footage from previous months.....oh and then he strolls out without any evidence and makes a claim that nothing happened....

I dont believe Joe for one minute Psyche, thats assuming he made the claim that we have seen glimpses of third hand accounts about.,

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


Again, with this getting quite some coverage, it begs the question as to why nobody would come forward at the time and say, no, that cannot be right. With the toll booth operators facing the required direction, it seems they would have to have their backs to the road and their eyes closed to miss the craft? And it seems there would not be much confusion, the operators would know they were the ones being spoken about. Again, is there any reason to think these reports are untrue? If all parties are taken at what information exists, there seems to be no reason to doubt this without any toll booth operator saying this would not be the case or any shipyard manager saying that area would not be covered by cameras.

isnt it a big logical fallacy to assume that this small time article written in this comic would be read (a few months after event) by either toll booth operators or those in the know about security cameras at Ingalls? and another fallacy would follow, that being that they would after reading it do anything....come forward? come forward to who where????


View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


Calvin Parker admitted to lying about fainting, proving he can and will lie when he is an embarrassing situation, which is my suspicion.

And depression and reclusion would also be symptoms of the trauma I suspect particularly so considering the religious disposition of both men.

I dunno mate, the 20 years return visit seals the deal that this is a fake call to me. That religious disposition is prevalent during both alleged encounters.


I thought it was charlie that had said Calvin fainted? I still think he did.

However if we accept this was a lie to save face this hardly is on the same level as Joe 'proven guilty in court' Ezterhas, yet we choose to believe something Joe (may) have said in an atricle....

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


Unfortunately the only words we have to work with are:

The supposed UFO landing and abduction site was in full view of two twenty-four hour toll booths, and neither operator saw anything that night. Also, the site was in range of security cameras from nearby Ingalls Shipyard, and the cameras additionally showed nothing that night.

However again, without leaning toward the mens claim and showing bias towards their conclusion, how can that be falsified? Only personal preference can place this in doubt with the information we have?

personal preference doesnt come into play IMO, on one hand we have some third hand words that were possibly printed a few months after event by Joe'the provee liar' Ezterhas without a shred of evidence or support of such a claim....whilst on the other hand we have the two abductees (with first hand transcripts of interviews and alone time), we have three calls made to the station whilts the men were under questioning, and we have 2 other independent witnesses as per the military interviews at Keeslar base....

The only one of the two opposing sides that could provide absolute proof would be Joe (assuming he really made the claim)..by way of providing the footage he was allowed (hic..I smell booze) access to



View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


All we need now is for Slave 2 Fate's wife to walk on on him again while he reads this thread.

Ohh I still say you are a much more game man than I, I can comfortably live with speculating that a big needle in your privates = pain.

Parker also said he felt imminent harm.

hmm I dont recall seeing anywhere that pain was felt?

Charlie said he felt scared when the telepathy took place......dont remember when Parker said he felt imminent harm?
anyhow we can all experience 'perceived harm' however if anything we experience for the first time doesnt hurt even thouugh we were scared then surely this fear is removed down the line if experience is to be repeated.

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


*Taps foot impatiently........

will post this after responses.

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


Considering Phil's disposition to thoroughly check personal character traits I am a little surprised that he did not come the the conclusion I have. Even Hynek was pretty lacklustre on this one, it does not seem to have received the attention many others did, maybe because the police suspected a hoax?

I think they only seem lucklustre if we are to believe Joe said we he is supposed to have said AND that we then believe what he said to be true...not only a big leap of faith but more like a triple jump.


#83    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 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 06 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Not nitpicking mate, but these are health professionals - even a vet? Not sure which one he was for! Admittedly some police, but I think that is quite standard on any base where unannounced civillians are concerned.
I have to say it still sounds like the volunteer examination, not military interrogation.

'health professionals??????

hmmm, at least three lieutenants, two majors, security police, sheriffs etc etc....this was military alright...no doubt about that


#84    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 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 06 March 2013 - 01:25 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Why not? Like sleepwalking?

If aliens, how did the boat get to shore by itself?

hallucinating isnt like sleepwalking I think, I just dont see how this happened, although there is a great part in the third interogation that Charlie mentions going towards the bank.

as for Aliens...this was my point, if the aliens put them into craft and left them on the ground after....then how did Charlie get the catfish out of the boat?

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:


I see some pretty major deviations:


The creatures were described as being humanoid, five feet tall with grey wrinkled skin and no discernible eyes, ears or mouth, instead carrot-like appendages lobster like claws and a single fused-like leg.

This describes the creatures that escorted them to the craft (robots has been banded about but without any real solid source) they then said that there were human type beings on board that controlled the 'mummylike' creatures/robots.


#85    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 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 06 March 2013 - 03:08 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:


*Taps foot impatiently........


ok, lets start with the sergeant at the base who took initial call and informed the men that the base did not handle UFO cases.
The 'deputies' that the Sheriff mentioned.
Any other admin, law enforcement officers that may have been at the station.
The 'operator' who dealt with the calls to Airbase, Sheriff or those of later that evening, when the other reports came in.
When the other reports came into the station did they have anything confirmed to them by the deputies (or whoever took calls at the station)? i.e. did they say thanks for letting us know, we have two guys here know claiming thye were abducted by the flying thing....and on it goes....leaks a plenty IMO...


#86    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

So the landing spot by the old abondoned yard was in the perimeter of the compound?

It does not have to be, it only has to be within camera range. But as all perimeter needs to be covered for military spec, it seems highly likely.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Anyhow more importantly I have only ever seen a third hand (at best) reference about a (possible) claim in an article a few months after the event, written by a proven liar (proven via the courts).......This national news bonanza of the two men investigate by the likes of Klass and Hynek is blown to smitherines by Joe a few months later....So a chance to demolish many competitors in the news world this quiet honest fellow Joe, finds out the truth by gaining access to a secure compound and having access to footage from previous months.....oh and then he strolls out without any evidence and makes a claim that nothing happened....

Didn't Cantrell actually win the case on the charge of invasion if privacy, not slander? And not against Joe, but Forrest City publishing? And was it not lies, but exaggerations of living conditions that really upset everyone? Cantrell said her kids were made fun of because Joe wrote things like: "hill folk with little to live for" in his article. That was what won the sympathy vote and had the hearing overturned was it not? Because Cantrell lost the case originally, and won it on appeal. But again, only with invasion of privacy as far as I know, because she was not there when he interviewed the kids.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I dont believe Joe for one minute Psyche, thats assuming he made the claim that we have seen glimpses of third hand accounts about.,

I think with the available literature concerning the subject publicly available that we can safely assume he did write the article and it does exist.

I get a feeling of personal bias against joe? I understand that he is not salt of the earth, but then again a great many of the people we discuss would not hold up to that standard either. Is it completely the Cantrell case?

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

isnt it a big logical fallacy to assume that this small time article written in this comic would be read (a few months after event) by either toll booth operators or those in the know about security cameras at Ingalls? and another fallacy would follow, that being that they would after reading it do anything....come forward? come forward to who where????

To the papers, forums, any place the case is discussed. MUFON. The claim did get quite some coverage, both due to the men alerting media, Hynek and Klass' presence as well as Joe and the controversy with the Cantrell case. Many were interviewed, I know of nobody who felt the cameras and toll booth operators were not a plausible option, rather the opposite considering how often this detail is touted. It strikes me as too high profile to be not noticed. Many people did not like Joe because of the comments in the Cantrell article, so it seems to me that if someone could have made him look bad, they would have.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I thought it was charlie that had said Calvin fainted? I still think he did.

Parker claimed that he had fainted due to fright.
LINK

" "Two of the beings grabbed Hickson, while the third grabbed Parker. The 19-year-old immediately fainted with fright. Hickson, who remained conscious, claimed that the creatures floated them into a brightly lit room aboard the UFO.

LINK


Parker claimed that he had fainted due to fright. They described the creatures as being roughly humanoid in shape, and standing about five feet tall.


LINK

But to be frank, I am not too bothered, either way it does not affect my personal hypothesis.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

However if we accept this was a lie to save face this hardly is on the same level as Joe 'proven guilty in court' Ezterhas, yet we choose to believe something Joe (may) have said in an atricle....

Agreed, even from my standpoint, entirely different motive, entirely different circumstances, entirely different objectives, and entirely different audiences. If Joe lied, it was to debunk a case, if Parker, or Hicksons for that case lied, it would be out of personal shame and a fear of God.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

personal preference doesnt come into play IMO, on one hand we have some third hand words that were possibly printed a few months after event by Joe'the provee liar' Ezterhas without a shred of evidence or support of such a claim....whilst on the other hand we have the two abductees (with first hand transcripts of interviews and alone time), we have three calls made to the station whilts the men were under questioning, and we have 2 other independent witnesses as per the military interviews at Keeslar base....

The only one of the two opposing sides that could provide absolute proof would be Joe (assuming he really made the claim)..by way of providing the footage he was allowed (hic..I smell booze) access to

Antonymous calls are worth less than Joe's article. they are anonymous. Not even a starting pont. All of the anonymous calls could well be set ups, or it could be local media trying to pump the case up for a decent news week. Without confirmation we have nothing.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

hmm I dont recall seeing anywhere that pain was felt?

Charlie said he felt scared when the telepathy took place......dont remember when Parker said he felt imminent harm?
anyhow we can all experience 'perceived harm' however if anything we experience for the first time doesnt hurt even thouugh we were scared then surely this fear is removed down the line if experience is to be repeated.

I did say I am happy to be considered speculating where the big needle to the base of the penis is concerned. Just the thought is painful. Aesthetic  Maybe, still it should hurt afterwards, the medical examination afterwards for radiation should have recoded and made note of this, which would corroborate the story further, but that big needle does not seem to have left a mark in any medical report, and as per your list of military, many medical people were present for the examination.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

will post this after responses.

I think they only seem lucklustre if we are to believe Joe said we he is supposed to have said AND that we then believe what he said to be true...not only a big leap of faith but more like a triple jump.

Hynek withheld ultimate judgment on the case, but did announce that, in his judgment, Hickson and Parker were honest men who seemed genuinely distressed about what had occurred. I agree with that assessment. I think Joe is right, but more by third party means. I do feel this pints at the men having an unplanned, and very regrettable sexual experience, and due to their religious nature were bothered deeply about committing this act against Gods law, and the very fact they would now burn in hell. What I would not give for a confessional transcript.

Edited by psyche101, 08 March 2013 - 06:17 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.


#87    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:22 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

'health professionals??????

hmmm, at least three lieutenants, two majors, security police, sheriffs etc etc....this was military alright...no doubt about that

Here is your list mate


Health related people:
Colonel Amdall,
Colonel Rudolph
Colonel Hanson
Major Winans

Security Police:
Lt. Colonel Derrington,
Captain Hoban,
MSgt. Russell,

Admin people:
Lt. Colonel Gibson


Nobody there from CIA FBI Blue Book Intel Ops, nothing. A few base police 2 doctors for each man, and admin. Gota have admin.

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.


#88    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:33 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

hallucinating isnt like sleepwalking I think, I just dont see how this happened, although there is a great part in the third interogation that Charlie mentions going towards the bank.

But you still do things you are not aware of - like sleepwalking yes?

Hickson described the UFO as “a blue light,” adding: “It circled a bit.” He emphasized it was blue, saying, “And you think you dreamin’ about something like that, you know”

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

as for Aliens...this was my point, if the aliens put them into craft and left them on the ground after....then how did Charlie get the catfish out of the boat?

Is this not a hole in the abduction claim?

I agree with Kevin Randle who in­sists Hickson’s alterations went beyond embellishment. Specifically, he says, “These changes seemed to be in response to criticisms and appeared to be an attempt to smooth out rough spots in the story.”
Also consistent with my hypothesis.

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

This describes the creatures that escorted them to the craft (robots has been banded about but without any real solid source) they then said that there were human type beings on board that controlled the 'mummylike' creatures/robots.

That was an added detail too wasn't it? Didn't the original story only speak of a big eye like thing following them?

View Postquillius, on 06 March 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

ok, lets start with the sergeant at the base who took initial call and informed the men that the base did not handle UFO cases.
The 'deputies' that the Sheriff mentioned.
Any other admin, law enforcement officers that may have been at the station.
The 'operator' who dealt with the calls to Airbase, Sheriff or those of later that evening, when the other reports came in.
When the other reports came into the station did they have anything confirmed to them by the deputies (or whoever took calls at the station)? i.e. did they say thanks for letting us know, we have two guys here know claiming thye were abducted by the flying thing....and on it goes....leaks a plenty IMO...


Not one actual name?

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.


#89    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:47 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Here is your list mate


Health related people:
Colonel Amdall,
Colonel Rudolph
Colonel Hanson
Major Winans

Security Police:
Lt. Colonel Derrington,
Captain Hoban,
MSgt. Russell,

Admin people:
Lt. Colonel Gibson


Nobody there from CIA FBI Blue Book Intel Ops, nothing. A few base police 2 doctors for each man, and admin. Gota have admin.

come on Psyche this is a definite losing battle mate even with a man of your 'spinning' skill.....

So unless someone from the CIA FBI or bluebook intel is there then cannot be classed as military?!?!!??!

My response was to your question:

Quote

Not nitpicking mate, but these are health professionals - even a vet? Not sure which one he was for! Admittedly some police, but I think that is quite standard on any base where unannounced civillians are concerned.
I have to say it still sounds like the volunteer examination, not military interrogation.

I thought the military used Majors, lieutenants etc....

and I thought the medical profession used DR.....

so are you saying those listed are doctors and NOT in the military?

edit to add: thats not forgetting it was conducted at the Keeslar base......and on headed paper in what was classed/labelled as 'Keeslar Official......

Edited by quillius, 08 March 2013 - 02:49 PM.


#90    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,962 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:19 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

It does not have to be, it only has to be within camera range. But as all perimeter needs to be covered for military spec, it seems highly likely.


The spot this happened has Ingalls Shipyard at 1 mile south, and has the highway 90 about 150 yards to the North. So an isolated abondoned area, one mile away is classed as a perimeter and would be under video surveilance.....recording 24-7 with the tapes held for ages until Joe could come in and view to his hearts content.......Oh Joe......I have heard of poetic license but come on..... :innocent:

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Didn't Cantrell actually win the case on the charge of invasion if privacy, not slander? And not against Joe, but Forrest City publishing? And was it not lies, but exaggerations of living conditions that really upset everyone? Cantrell said her kids were made fun of because Joe wrote things like: "hill folk with little to live for" in his article. That was what won the sympathy vote and had the hearing overturned was it not? Because Cantrell lost the case originally, and won it on appeal. But again, only with invasion of privacy as far as I know, because she was not there when he interviewed the kids.

Yes invasion of privacy under false light:


''unreasonably placed their family in a false light before the public through its many inaccuracies and untruths''

such as ''
Margaret Cantrell will neither talk about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral…. She says that after it happened, the people in the town offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it''

nice work Joe...she wasnt even there  (I wonder if Mrs Cantrell is the equivalent of toll booth operators or maybe even cameras??)

Plus becuase the paper signed it off the paper was liable rather than Joe personally.

And no on the overturn and appeal:

First case was won by Cantrell, then overturned but finally back to the favour of the Cantrells:

The jury’s original verdict to award compensatory damages to the Cantrell’s was upheld on December 18th, 1974.
16


View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

I think with the available literature concerning the subject publicly available that we can safely assume he did write the article and it does exist.


hmm I have seen many rehashed interpretations of what Joe may have said, without knowing his exact words then we cannot use it for or against....what were his actual words? we see often (even in this case) how confused the writers are and how they all interpret things differently....in time the story changes....so what did Joe actually say? did he talk to toll booth operators or just assume that they would have come forward? did he check cameras or just guess they were a- in range and b- filming and c- caught nothing because no one came forward...too many holes and assumptions...

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

I get a feeling of personal bias against joe? I understand that he is not salt of the earth, but then again a great many of the people we discuss would not hold up to that standard either. Is it completely the Cantrell case?

I love Joe, especially know he has not been caught lying about things for a few years...maybe thats to do with him stopping his drug/drink fuelled binges that he only managed to overcome a few years back :)


View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

To the papers, forums, any place the case is discussed. MUFON. The claim did get quite some coverage, both due to the men alerting media, Hynek and Klass' presence as well as Joe and the controversy with the Cantrell case. Many were interviewed, I know of nobody who felt the cameras and toll booth operators were not a plausible option, rather the opposite considering how often this detail is touted. It strikes me as too high profile to be not noticed. Many people did not like Joe because of the comments in the Cantrell article, so it seems to me that if someone could have made him look bad, they would have.
many months after in a small comic book....hardly front page news for people to have read...


View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Parker claimed that he had fainted due to fright.
LINK

" "Two of the beings grabbed Hickson, while the third grabbed Parker. The 19-year-old immediately fainted with fright. Hickson, who remained conscious, claimed that the creatures floated them into a brightly lit room aboard the UFO.

LINK


Parker claimed that he had fainted due to fright. They described the creatures as being roughly humanoid in shape, and standing about five feet tall.


LINK

But to be frank, I am not too bothered, either way it does not affect my personal hypothesis.
I am glad as all those show is second hand translations of what Calvin said....actual transcripts dont agree do they?

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Agreed, even from my standpoint, entirely different motive, entirely different circumstances, entirely different objectives, and entirely different audiences. If Joe lied, it was to debunk a case, if Parker, or Hicksons for that case lied, it would be out of personal shame and a fear of God.
they could have lied for many other reasons.....maybe they had read one of Joes previosu articles and looked up to the guy :whistle:

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Antonymous calls are worth less than Joe's article. they are anonymous. Not even a starting pont. All of the anonymous calls could well be set ups, or it could be local media trying to pump the case up for a decent news week. Without confirmation we have nothing.
the calls came while they were there...how could the press be doing it before the story even broke?

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

I did say I am happy to be considered speculating where the big needle to the base of the penis is concerned. Just the thought is painful. Aesthetic  Maybe, still it should hurt afterwards, the medical examination afterwards for radiation should have recoded and made note of this, which would corroborate the story further, but that big needle does not seem to have left a mark in any medical report, and as per your list of military, many medical people were present for the examination.

his recollection of this happened later

View Postpsyche101, on 08 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Hynek withheld ultimate judgment on the case, but did announce that, in his judgment, Hickson and Parker were honest men who seemed genuinely distressed about what had occurred. I agree with that assessment. I think Joe is right, but more by third party means. I do feel this pints at the men having an unplanned, and very regrettable sexual experience, and due to their religious nature were bothered deeply about committing this act against Gods law, and the very fact they would now burn in hell. What I would not give for a confessional transcript.
maybe Joes has a copy of a confessional...the prison officer and Larry who saw the light? did they just see sparks of passion?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users