Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
quillius

Pascagoula case

313 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

710d120ac165.jpg

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

lens2206170_1229463839Charles-Hickson-and-Calvin-Parker-TV-1973.jpgColingo 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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: )

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.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/privacy/cantrell-v-forest-city-publishing-co/2/

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

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.

It warms my heart to see you deploying Phils methods on Joe!

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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!

1095440510_fa2c145e67.jpeg

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Morning Quillius

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

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

Morning Psyche,

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

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

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

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

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were no atomic weapons at the time from what I have seen, the first nuclear sub was in 1974, again though this does beg the question why would they let Joe see this footage with such high security and monitoring?

It was unchallenged because it was a flippant comment about a make-believe investigation in a comic book style magazine...hardly needed any ones attention did it? And if he really did have the smoking gun that could prove it a hoax/fake/lie etc then surely biggest scoop of the year seeing as it was a global reported event.

Yet Joe's investigation followed in the media only months after the incident. Nobody saw this as a point of contention?

Phil was known for making his own mind up. He felt he had already shown enough dishonesty to say the case was a setup. Phil is generally independent in his investigations.

I think that Hynek and Klass knew that Ingall was the primary military ship builder at the time and realised that the compound would by default have high security which by all counts was never breached.

Why would Joe even mention the Toll Booths when he had such a smoking gun piece of evidence to prove it a lie?

As for high security never breached...why let Joe have access? Why have cameras pointing to another yard?

As I mentioned once before he could be telling the truth, i.e. they had cameras in ‘range’..not pointing at location or even recording, he doesn’t actually say this anywhere...the usual clever wording as seen previously when used to portray imaginary conversations/meetings with Mrs Cantrell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies, you are correct, not only that the case took place in 1974 long after his departure.

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

There were no cameras at the toll booths. And at the time the yard wasn’t a military spec builder, Ingalls that is.....actually they were not even at Ingalls!!!!

Well yes it has been proven in a court of LAW that he lied, he describes Cantrells facial expressions at both home and at the funeral plus other plain downright lies...hence supreme court verdict.

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

Come on Joe where is tis smoking gun?

‘Subsequent investigation by Quillius found footage from local shipyard showing the incident.....’ sound familiar?

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Morning Psyche,

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

Good Morning Mate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe said Mel's wife remembered him singing a song

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

Joe said the stove was devoid of coal

Joe said the couch had springs sticking through it

Joe said pillows on the couch were missing

The pictures would confirm this

Joe said Margret's children did the talking for her

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

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

Which seems reasonable enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki lists the Shipyard history as being a bit different?

In 1938, Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation was founded by Robert Ingalls of Birmingham, AL, on the East Bank of the Pascagoula River in Mississippi.[1] Ingalls was located where the Pascagoula River runs into the Gulf of Mexico. It started out building commercial ships including one of the first [[L African Planet on Liberty Fleet Day 27 September 1941. In the 1950s Ingalls started bidding on Navy work, winning a contract in 1957 to build 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Litton Industries acquired Ingalls in 1961, and in 1968 expanded its facilities to the other side of the river. Ingalls reached a high point of employment in 1977, with 25,000 workers. In April 2001, Litton was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation.[2]

On 29 August 2005, Ingalls facilities were damaged by Hurricane Katrina; most of the ships in dock and construction escaped serious harm. While shipbuilding was halted for a while due to the destruction of many buildings, most vehicles and the large overhead cranes, the facility continues to run today.

On March 31, 2011, Northrop Grumman spun off its shipbuilding sector (including Ingalls Shipbuilding) into a new corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries.

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

pascagoula_pier.jpg

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

There were no atomic weapons at the time from what I have seen, the first nuclear sub was in 1974, again though this does beg the question why would they let Joe see this footage with such high security and monitoring?

It was unchallenged because it was a flippant comment about a make-believe investigation in a comic book style magazine...hardly needed any ones attention did it? And if he really did have the smoking gun that could prove it a hoax/fake/lie etc then surely biggest scoop of the year seeing as it was a global reported event.

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

LINK - Google Books

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

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

Why would Joe even mention the Toll Booths when he had such a smoking gun piece of evidence to prove it a lie?

As for high security never breached...why let Joe have access? Why have cameras pointing to another yard?

As I mentioned once before he could be telling the truth, i.e. they had cameras in ‘range’..not pointing at location or even recording, he doesn’t actually say this anywhere...the usual clever wording as seen previously when used to portray imaginary conversations/meetings with Mrs Cantrell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just expected more from Hynek here other than "the Men Definitely had an experience"

The Wikipedia article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were no cameras at the toll booths. And at the time the yard wasn’t a military spec builder, Ingalls that is.....actually they were not even at Ingalls!!!!

Well yes it has been proven in a court of LAW that he lied, he describes Cantrells facial expressions at both home and at the funeral plus other plain downright lies...hence supreme court verdict.

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

In the 1950s Ingalls started bidding on Navy work, winning a contract in 1957 to build 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Litton Industries acquired Ingalls in 1961, and in 1968 expanded its facilities to the other side of the river. Ingalls reached a high point of employment in 1977, with 25,000 workers. In April 2001, Litton was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation.[2]

On 29 August 2005, Ingalls facilities were damaged by Hurricane Katrina; most of the ships in dock and construction escaped serious harm.

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come on Joe where is tis smoking gun?

‘Subsequent investigation by Quillius found footage from local shipyard showing the incident.....’ sound familiar?

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

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

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Psyche,

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

I must say I remain convinced there was a UFO. I am also convinced that no footage ever existed from cameras to prove otherwise.

I am also convinced the men had an 'experienced' as Mr Hynek would put it.

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

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

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

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

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

speak soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey Psyche,

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

I must say I remain convinced there was a UFO. I am also convinced that no footage ever existed from cameras to prove otherwise.

I am also convinced the men had an 'experienced' as Mr Hynek would put it.

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

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

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

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

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

speak soon

Gidday Mate

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

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

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

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

See ya when you get more time :D

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

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

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

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

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

See ya when you get more time :D

Cheers.

Morning Psyche,

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Morning Psyche,

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

Gidday Mate

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is as benign as I can make it - first paragraph of the plot - LINK :unsure2:

You may need a little poetic license to see where I am coming from, but this should explain it.

Cheers

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

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

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

I think this is as benign as I can make it - first paragraph of the plot - LINK :unsure2:

You may need a little poetic license to see where I am coming from, but this should explain it.

Cheers

hello matey,

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/1984/May_June_1984.pdf

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

hello matey,

Gidday Mate!

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

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

Not quite following you, do you mean why would something 'untoward" happen whilst fishing when they lived together? If I have that right, then my answer would be alcohol and privacy, again much like the spa incident :lol: But from the link, the point I was trying to impress was the afterward shame the men felt, I know it is a cartoon but ever woken up, looked across and gone, ahhh jeez, I wish I hadn't done that!

These men are more of an afterthought and playing with the idea, I do feel many abductions are definitely not alien but creepy uncle types. When I saw that the men has strange issues, and that they seemed genuinely distressed, it strikes me that this is a possibility that I figure has not been investigated. Probably because the thought is rather off putting?

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

I did well yes! :D

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

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

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

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

:rofl:

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "quillius& psyche Show" FM 101 on the Am dial , just ry to recieve it on Alpha Centuria ! Well keep tuned in UFO fans the news is up next !

Wow Im quite amazed at the content you two !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

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

And in fact I can help you, in my line of work, I design many CCTV installations. A few parameters and I could tell you what is possible and what is not. All I want from you is some specs and we can have a look at your personal discrepancies with the claim.

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

1- they were pointing towards the location

2- that they were in range (apart from Joes claim)

3- that they were recording

4- that Joe was allowed access to view them

5- that even if they were pointing that way and had a range of one mile, that they had no cranes and such blocking the view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

excellent

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

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

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

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

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

The ones that made it to Joe's report, which you have protested, but not falsified.

All sources that I have seen say

- LINK

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

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

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

Why fear it further? He had a needle shoved into his John Thomas!!! Crikey mate! No more need be said!!

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

There was harm done???? that big needle!!!! and they are bloddy Bible Bashers! We even shut the door in the faces of earth men who Bible bash!

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

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

You definitely are more "experimental" than I.

maybe in my younger days...

They started to appear to talk to themselves, even though both men were in the same room after a short while. Like they were coming to terms with what had happened individually. If this was an abduction, I would expect the opposite. Such traumatic condition would make bedfellows (excuse the pun) out of most acquaintances. Not in this case though. These men seemed to deal with a common experience differently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it was traumatic I might take a day off, but I may not be able to depending on circumstances, work does not wait for me. I must work even when sick, deadlines do not accept excuses. I was lucky to get time of for my Fathers funeral. But I would have quit before I missed that. The stress would have been too much at the time.

Yes, I always act normal under any circumstances, a 30 million dollar design does not wait for the flu, death in the family, or personal matters, and the people spending the money do not give a hoot about what problems one might be facing. Big business is very impersonal. I had enough trouble getting time of for my Fathers Funeral. And that was cut short.

I know the feeling of work not waiting

What was the location of their sighting claims?

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

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

Yes, you are right, sorry, I was just finishing a post of about Allagash and still had that one on the brain. But point remains, Phil only looked at his part of the investigation, and was happy with that. And he makes a good point, why were more experienced operators passed over for someone who had not even completed training?

Perhaps Phil figured if they cannot get that straight, it does not even warrant further investigation? It does look very suspicious on the surface, and I canot think why such a decision would be made.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:rofl:

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

These are those who were present at the airforce base:

The following is a transcription of a

report made this date by the following

individuals:

Mr. Charles Hickson, 2722, Apt.

1, College Villa Apts., Pascagoula, MS.

Mr. Calvin Parker, Jr., Same

address.

The report was made to the

following personnel:

Lt. Colonel Derrington,

Security Police.

Colonel Amdall, Chairman,

Department of Medicine.

Colonel Rudolph, Hospital

Service.

Colonel Hanson, Veterinary

Services

Lt. Colonel Gibson, Associate

Administrator.

Major Winans, Health Physicist.

Captain Hoban, Security Police.

MSgt. Russell, Security Police.

T.E. Huntley, Detective, Jackson

County Sheriff's Office, Pascagoula,

MS Phone: 782-4333.

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

Pascagoula, MS Phone: 782-8021.

Mr. Hickson and Mr. Parker both

stated they were employed in

Pascagoula by F.B. Walker & Sons,

Phone: 782-3931.

Two persons who reported

sighting an object at approximately the

same time were:

Raymond Broadus, Probation

and Parole Officer, Pascagoula.

Larry, Larry's Standard Station,

Market & Hickway 90, Pascagoula.

Lt. Colonel Derrington:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.