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

Colingo: Did Broadus come and report this sighting and then these men?

Huntley: 1 don't remember now. I would have to check with the chief on that. But I do know that they heard the tape that we took last night — or they took last night.

Rudolph: This was after they had been in to tell their story?

Huntley: Right. Then that is when they said, "Well, you know that is funny because we saw the same thing. We saw a blue light." In fact Mr. Broadus is a Christian man and he said he'd been over to Gautier somewhere to church.

Colingo: If Mr. Broadus says he saw it — he saw it. I mean, he is that type of fellow. Now this other fellow — I don't know who you are talking about...

??? this was the part I mentioned you should read page 9/10. This doesnt say he saw another UFO at another time??? He is talking about the blue UFO that Charlie and Calvin claim to have seen. The reason I was asking you to read this part revolves around the timing.

You see both the officers on duty and the 'army' discussed the sighting with both Larry and Broadus, or at least knew about it and mentioned it in report on front page

My problem is this, Calvin and Charlie spent at least 1 hour discussing who to tell prior to getting to the station. This coupled with the first interview lasting over an hour, we are now approaching midnight.....so when did Broadus and Larry report it? I also thought they phoned it in but the dialogue suggests otherwise. more questions if they saw it at the same time as C and C then why wait so long prior to reporting it?

Also Huntley says he doesnt know if they came in before or after, yet a few seconds later he is asked:

Rudolph: This was after they had been in to tell their story?

Huntley: Right. Then that is when they said,

so suddenly he can remember????

Their statements or at least further clarity here would be helpful me thinks.

Edited by quillius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon? I suggest you check it again.

I did check it again and it was edited within a hour of you making your post.

Bit of a co-incidence that, eh?

Not.

This is the link you gave... http://en.wikipedia....e_UFO_Encounter

When you click on 'view history' at the top you get this

http://en.wikipedia....&action=history

And there's the edit at 4:12..28th March (2013)

http://en.wikipedia....&undo=547382757

yesterday when I quoted it it said...

On the evening of October 11, 1973, 42-year-old Charles Hickson and 19-year-old Calvin Parker — co-workers at a [[shipyard]] — were [[fishing]] off a pier on the west bank of the [[Pascagoula River]] in [[Mississippi]]. They heard a whirring/whizzing sound, saw two flashing blue lights, and reported that a domed, cigar-shaped aircraft, some 30 to 40 feet across and 8 to 10 feet high, suddenly appeared near them. The ship seemed to [[levitation (paranormal)|levitate]] about 2 feet above the ground.

but now it says....

On the evening of October 11, 1973, 42-year-old Charles Hickson and 19-year-old Calvin Parker — co-workers at a [[shipyard]] — were [[fishing]] off a pier on the west bank of the [[Pascagoula River]] in [[Mississippi]]. They heard a whirring/whizzing sound, saw two flashing blue lights, and reported that an oval shaped "craft", some 8 feet across and 8 or more feet high, suddenly appeared near them. <ref>http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/1984/May_June_1984.pdf</ref> The ship seemed to [[levitation (paranormal)|levitate]] about 2 feet above the ground.

you can see where the edit came from by clicking on (talk)...on the View History link on the 28th March edit...

Is that you psyche or did you get someone else to do it?

You don't like being proved wrong do you...but I didn't think you would go to these lengths. Although I do now..

:huh:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, i haven't been following this thread, so it may be perfectly clear if only I'd been paying attention, but what does this mean exactly?

For me I agree with point one, but after that I still find the size of the craft not workable, the 20 years return trip indicates a fabricated story to begin with and the fact that the men are religious strikes me as motive for an indecent act they would want to cover up. The immediate and sizeable reaction from the press is also suspicious in my opinion.

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hickson was interviewed by Dr. James Harder about the incident, and Harder also tried to hypnotize him, but Hickson became too upset to continue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw5MaulX3Qo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmLJS2pBcE&feature=related

but thanks to the videos that McGuff posted we have the actual words of Hickson

and he says...in the second part...at 2:45...

That he estimates the craft was... 30 - 40 foot long and 8 - 10 foot high...

Obviously the size of the craft is important to the debunking of this case...and it is a key point for debunkers to uphold.

These shenanagans about the size says to me that this case is probably the real thing...

Or at the very least something happened that has to be kept secret.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is amazing, last night I flicked on late night telly, and season 7 starts Sunday. What a co-incidence!

co-incidence.....LOL...

just like the timely edit on you wiki link

:rolleyes:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did check it again and it was edited within a hour of you making your post.

Bit of a co-incidence that, eh?

Not.

This is the link you gave... http://en.wikipedia....e_UFO_Encounter

When you click on 'view history' at the top you get this

http://en.wikipedia....&action=history

And there's the edit at 4:12..28th March (2013)

http://en.wikipedia....&undo=547382757

yesterday when I quoted it it said...

but now it says....

you can see where the edit came from by clicking on (talk)...on the View History link on the 28th March edit...

Is that you psyche or did you get someone else to do it?

You don't like being proved wrong do you...but I didn't think you would go to these lengths. Although I do now..

:huh:

.

gee whiz, I've no idea what all that techno-talk means, but you're suggesting that Psyche might have deliberately altered something on Wiki the Pedia in order to have his argument proved correct on an Internet discussion forum?

Edited by Lord Vetinari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gee whiz, I've no idea what all that techno-talk means, but you're suggesting that Psyche might have deliberately altered something on Wiki the Pedia in order to have his argument proved correct on an Internet discussion forum?

Kinda reminds me of this...

aa1213b7d57844c2521c5ae2fd25a955.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gee whiz, I've no idea what all that techno-talk means, but you're suggesting that Psyche might have deliberately altered something on Wiki the Pedia in order to have his argument proved correct on an Internet discussion forum?

the wiki edit came from Australia, Queensland, Brisbane

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but thanks to the videos that McGuff posted we have the actual words of Hickson

and he says...in the second part...at 2:45...

That he estimates the craft was... 30 - 40 foot long and 8 - 10 foot high...

Obviously the size of the craft is important to the debunking of this case...and it is a key point for debunkers to uphold.

These shenanagans about the size says to me that this case is probably the real thing...

Or at the very least something happened that has to be kept secret.

.

Au contraire, it points to made up story, when details are on the constantly changing course... :whistle:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the edit is referenced... [1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first interview (by Ryder and Diamond) with the two men doesnt actually cover size, only size. During this interview Charlie says that it is approximately 8ft HIGH. thats it. The transcript reflects this also.

They are also interviewed at the Keeslar base, during this interview Charlie is quoted as saying 8ft wide and also over 8ft high. However we only have the typed transcript rather than the audio to confirm this is actually what he said. This leaves the door open to the transcript containing an error and they typed 8ft for both wide and high.

We then have the interview with Harder (which Bee is refering to) in which he says 8ft high but wide around 30-40ft, with more detail in regards to angles etc. This is correct in both the audio and the transcript.

So as far as actually listening to his words first hand (via recording rather than transcript) we have this consistancy:

8ft high 30-40ft wide.

hmmm

I dont agree with Bee that the size matters and it cannot be used to debunk the case. However I guess as a guy I would always say size doesnt matter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Au contraire, it points to made up story, when details are on the constantly changing course... :whistle:

Hello BMK, sorry to interupt the whistle but whats changed exactly? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the edit is referenced... [1]

indeed, I think the question is why information from a transcript took priority to that of his actual words that we can all hear? Surely the 30-40 ft should be placed there until its proved otherwise. I guess if we could listen to the bases interogation and this matched with the typed notes in that Charlie says 8ft wide, then this may take priority due to timeline, i.e this description came first. I would hasten to add the clarity and detail on angle he describes in the harder interview when he refers to the size as 30-40 ft is quite compelling for me. Even if the bases interogation was exact and matched the words of Charlie I would throw a pinch of salt over it due to the intense questioning, the rawness of the event/trauma....one could easily say wide instead of high etc etc. His anxiety seems to be apparent during thsi interview whereas the Harder one he is quite composed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gee whiz, I've no idea what all that techno-talk means, but you're suggesting that Psyche might have deliberately altered something on Wiki the Pedia in order to have his argument proved correct on an Internet discussion forum?

I have no idea if that is the case or not,... but Im sure there are other sources than wiki if one wanted to double check something. Unless, of course, psyche is one of those omnipotent web masters that can change everything on the internet to fit his clams here at UM?

:unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello BMK, sorry to interupt the whistle but whats changed exactly? :whistle:

Taking turn 8x8 ft -> 30x8 ft (if we assume transcript in Mufon Journal is correct).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking turn 8x8 ft -> 30x8 ft (if we assume transcript in Mufon Journal is correct).

ahh ok.......so I guess you agree its best not to assume anything as far as ET is concerned, so until we can hear Charlie say 8ftx8ft all we have is him sayimg 8ftx30ft :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they could have both experienced the presence of other beings, in any case, both were interviewed at the same time & they seem to have discussed about their experience prior to all this... it's difficult to know which experiences are genuine and which ones have been filled in by each other in the gaps, what i mean by that is the specific descriptions, because it seemed that it wasn't clear cut & they always fell back on the frightened aspect to justify their inability to describe things clearly... is it expected? i guess we will have to dig through persinger's work and see to what extent the memories serve well to describe the 'observed' in a clear cut manner... hickson uses a lot 'we' but was only individually there... also about the claws which you mention, i don't see both of them describing the same thing.... was it really an observation or a mental manifestation? as you have mentioned parker at no time describes his 'abduction' as hickson describes... he fainted and basically when he came around he was outside, nothing indicates that he was either taken on board or had been brought outside... the most important factor for me in such a case where two folks have been abducted at the same time is the ability of each abductee to have witnessed what had happened to the other chap... unfortunately we cannot see any of that in this case, parker never saw the other guy being physically lifted off and taken into that opening, which apparently wasn't a 'door' if i recall correctly... i'm not sure about some of the corroborating features which you have mentioned above, maybe i missed them in the article.. but i didn't see anything about both of them confirming the number of entities, etc... there was some talk about whether they had a nose or not... all very dreamy and nothing concrete... hickson on the other hand, who explains being taken on board doesn't describe any physical sensations and isn't too sure about being conscious or not, that sounds a lot mental to me... there are other issues as well but i'll leave it at that... cheers

Hello Mcrom, Sorry forgot to address some of this post and just reading back spotted it again.

I think the men went into seperate rooms for the initial interrogation. We can hear the audio of only Hickson speaking and I have yet to hear the Parker interview.

Calvin speaks at the army base interrogation. It is from here that I know he describes the hands as 'crab/crawfish like', Hickson originally says they are 'lobster pinchers'.

They also both describe an opening adn that three 'beings' come out. Parker faints when they grab Charlie and then only recalls a light from inside prior to being placed back outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh ok.......so I guess you agree its best not to assume anything as far as ET is concerned, so until we can hear Charlie say 8ftx8ft all we have is him sayimg 8ftx30ft :yes:

Ok, fair enough. But you have to keep in mind, that 30ft could have been evolved later, after the thought "Jeez, 8ft sounds, um, dubious. Maybe it was 30ft, more or less. I'll stick with 30ft (+/-) from now on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough. But you have to keep in mind, that 30ft could have been evolved later, after the thought "Jeez, 8ft sounds, um, dubious. Maybe it was 30ft, more or less. I'll stick with 30ft (+/-) from now on".

Yes I agree and appreciate that this works against Charlie should he have changed from 8ft to 30ft.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if the ship looked a certain size from the outside yet when you entered it the dimensions all change so that its actually bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough. But you have to keep in mind, that 30ft could have been evolved later, after the thought "Jeez, 8ft sounds, um, dubious. Maybe it was 30ft, more or less. I'll stick with 30ft (+/-) from now on".

maybe someone was talking about metres and someone else was talking about feet; 8m +/- 26 ft, after all ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if the ship looked a certain size from the outside yet when you entered it the dimensions all change so that its actually bigger?

tard_zps4c5f6c98.jpg

?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

??? this was the part I mentioned you should read page 9/10. This doesnt say he saw another UFO at another time??? He is talking about the blue UFO that Charlie and Calvin claim to have seen. The reason I was asking you to read this part revolves around the timing.

You see both the officers on duty and the 'army' discussed the sighting with both Larry and Broadus, or at least knew about it and mentioned it in report on front page

My problem is this, Calvin and Charlie spent at least 1 hour discussing who to tell prior to getting to the station. This coupled with the first interview lasting over an hour, we are now approaching midnight.....so when did Broadus and Larry report it? I also thought they phoned it in but the dialogue suggests otherwise. more questions if they saw it at the same time as C and C then why wait so long prior to reporting it?

Also Huntley says he doesnt know if they came in before or after, yet a few seconds later he is asked:

Rudolph: This was after they had been in to tell their story?

Huntley: Right. Then that is when they said,

so suddenly he can remember????

Their statements or at least further clarity here would be helpful me thinks.

HI Mate

I am snowed at the moment as you can tell from my absence of late, I will return in force when time permits and answer in full, even Bee and her hissy fit over Wiki (Bee, you will find Paxus in Brisbane, I am on the Gold Coast, and you will find Chrilz about halfway between us, but as far as I know, I am the only omnipotent one out of the three of us - is the supplied reference noted by mcrom incorrect??) but I do not believe they all saw the same thing, as for being sure that they did, if Hickson is not sure of the color, it hardly seems a watertight investigation. Then we have the Gaultier UFO being described as a streak of light, it seems to me there is some heavy usage of poetic license here.

Huntley: And their description and everything. They even described the blue lights and everything.

Hanson: Was it a dark blue light or a light blue light?

Hickson: Hickson: It was just a glowing...! don't know.

A major for me remins the size of the craft, even at 30 foot it is still a major the way I see it, however, as we are discussing the transcript at the moment, it seems a good idea to work with that? I do not Youtube if possible so I have not seen McGuff's clip, and do not wish to if I can, I would rather words where possible and that interview seems to be recording the exact words of the men, and it is stated there as being 8 x 8 foot.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, fair enough. But you have to keep in mind, that 30ft could have been evolved later, after the thought "Jeez, 8ft sounds, um, dubious. Maybe it was 30ft, more or less. I'll stick with 30ft (+/-) from now on".

Gidday bmk

the transcript form the timeframe is supposed to be recording the exact words of the men, and it states:

Derrington: How large was the item hovering?

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

the ground.

LINK

I personally feel ti was a cover up story to hide a mistaken action that these men felt dammed them to hell, and being good religious folk, I feel it would have been very traumatic for them both. In fact Parker, (not the guy above stating 8ft x 8ft) claims the aliens came back 20 years later, gave the same spiel about us being too warrlike, and said they worshiped the same God and the Bible was all accurate.

I honestly do not think this was ET, but human conscience and regret.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did check it again and it was edited within a hour of you making your post.

Bit of a co-incidence that, eh?

Not.

This is the link you gave... http://en.wikipedia....e_UFO_Encounter

When you click on 'view history' at the top you get this

http://en.wikipedia....&action=history

And there's the edit at 4:12..28th March (2013)

http://en.wikipedia....&undo=547382757

yesterday when I quoted it it said...

but now it says....

you can see where the edit came from by clicking on (talk)...on the View History link on the 28th March edit...

Is that you psyche or did you get someone else to do it?

You don't like being proved wrong do you...but I didn't think you would go to these lengths. Although I do now..

:huh:

.

What does the reference say?

Gosh you are funny to watch.

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.