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

Exactly, whos to say they obey the same laws as us. Just saying

Way ahead of you mate, I already went down this path back here - LINK

For the meantime, Q has asked we consider the craft as physical as per the original description.

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".

Mate, that is small potatoes, check out what this source has to say:

The ship half approximately three to four feet wide, three feet high and ten feet long.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[/i]

You were the only one arguing the point at that time....and the IP address edit goes to the Gold Coast, south of Brisbane.

(anyone can look it up)

Surfers Paradise to be exact. But the IP search isn't THAT accurate...for example my IP address on the search I used

puts me 15 miles away from where I am. But in terms of the general area and more importantly the TIMING of when the

edit was made....puts you right in the frame..... :yes:

Ummmmm Hickson is speaking 'words' on the YT clip.....that you are refusing to listen to even though you have the exact time to go to.

Anyway I have seen you post YT clips when it suits you...

I have not been to Surfers for years, in any case, I would like to adress Quillius concerning this post.

Mate, I am really snowed and am struggling to find time to post of late, not too impressed with this nonsense, I am here to discuss the Pascagoula abduction. If Bee wishes to continue to derail this thread, I am out of it mate. We need a leash or the conversation is over I am afraid.

Catch you all later.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Discussing the size is derailing the thread ?....... :no:

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.

From the actual words of Hickson we know that the 'little longer than that' is approximately 30 - 40 foot....

So the volume / space within ......is.... (using the lower estimate of 30 foot) 1920 cubic feet

That seems like a fairly decent size...

Bearing in mind that the volume of the Lunar Module cockpit was a mere 235 cubic feet in comparison.

Presuming the figures on this wiki page are correct.... :)

http://en.wikipedia....lo_Lunar_Module

and here are some pics of the lunar module cockpit

http://www.bing.com/...ckpit&FORM=IGRE

So the estimated size of the Pascagoula craft is over 8 times the size of the Lunar Module cockpit

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way ahead of you mate, I already went down this path back here - LINK

For the meantime, Q has asked we consider the craft as physical as per the original description.

ah okay :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Doubt it. Try to ask average "foot" Joe how many fts are per metre/meter (and the same with metre/meter folks), you'll get an answer "Huh?"

[...]

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.

[...]

I'd go with that (more or less) as well.

Mate, that is small potatoes, check out what this source has to say:

LINK

Heh... That is the problem/disease infested UFOlogy: eyewitnesses changing their "facts" plus re-tellings by others.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

From the actual words of Hickson we know that the 'little longer than that' is approximately 30 - 40 foot....

[...]

Little longer than 8 ft? Is 2 promiles little bit drunker than 0.4? I always wonder how some can drive with "blood not found in alcohol" condition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Discussing the size is derailing the thread ?....... :no:

From the actual words of Hickson we know that the 'little longer than that' is approximately 30 - 40 foot....

So the volume / space within ......is.... (using the lower estimate of 30 foot) 1920 cubic feet

That seems like a fairly decent size...

Bearing in mind that the volume of the Lunar Module cockpit was a mere 235 cubic feet in comparison.

Presuming the figures on this wiki page are correct.... :)

http://en.wikipedia....lo_Lunar_Module

and here are some pics of the lunar module cockpit

http://www.bing.com/...ckpit&FORM=IGRE

So the estimated size of the Pascagoula craft is over 8 times the size of the Lunar Module cockpit

.

How do you think the Lunar Module would go beyond the moon?

Q and I have agreed not to invoke mythical motherships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think the Lunar Module would go beyond the moon?

Q and I have agreed not to invoke mythical motherships.

So you've agreed to discount reasonable ideas, because they don't make it so easy to mock the whole notion? It does sound rather as if, since you've decided that a small craft would obviously be ridiculous for crossing the Vast Distances of Space , you've decided to discount any ideas in which small craft would not have to cross the Vast Distances of Space, simply because you want to stick to the idea of the ridiculousness of such a small craft? That doesn't sound a very scientific way of approaching the question, I'm afraid, if anyone was to ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not, it's a sensible suggestion based on what we do ourselves. People just try to dismiss it as Sci Fi Fantasy or use long and posh sounding words because they want to stick to their fixed opinion that the whole notion is absurd, and they don't want to consider any ideas as to how it might not be so ridiculous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pascagoula case is legit IMO. The long arms and wrinkled skin match other reports. Also the disc or elliptical shape.

An actual interview here:

Ignore all the 15 pages of spin doctoring by the usual I have a problem with aliens twisted people. Google debunking is their friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've agreed to discount reasonable ideas, because they don't make it so easy to mock the whole notion? It does sound rather as if, since you've decided that a small craft would obviously be ridiculous for crossing the Vast Distances of Space ™, you've decided to discount any ideas in which small craft would not have to cross the Vast Distances of Space, simply because you want to stick to the idea of the ridiculousness of such a small craft? That doesn't sound a very scientific way of approaching the question, I'm afraid, if anyone was to ask me.

Are youhave=ing a conversation all by yourself are you? You do not seem to be part of this one? Back on the 27th of March Quillius and I discussed mythical motherships and I thought agreed to focus on the information we have, which is when we decided to leave dimenionsal ideas out of it as well, and focus on the ecidence that can be verified.

In the same way I cannot invoke motherships to answer the question, I cannot allow the question to stand as my answer will be restricted due to the reluctance to speculate.

We have a gentlemans agreement. Do you insist that conversation that we are having now include that which we agreed not to include? If you want to make some stuff up, knock yourself out.

What you seem to be missing is that if this is not an alien, as I suspect, what is the point of the mythical mothership? What can such a notion possibly accomplish other than offering bias to an alien conclusion? How is that a fair discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not, it's a sensible suggestion based on what we do ourselves. People just try to dismiss it as Sci Fi Fantasy or use long and posh sounding words because they want to stick to their fixed opinion that the whole notion is absurd, and they don't want to consider any ideas as to how it might not be so ridiculous.

Absolute codswallop, it is not at all a sensible suggestion, it is making up paramaters to arrive at an alien conclusion, nothing more. If you feel your mythical mothership is so sensible I dare you to attempt to validate it without the use of speculation. If you cannot, mcroms link stands as a well rounded rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a gentlemans agreement. Do you insist that conversation that we are having now include that which we agreed not to include? If you want to make some stuff up, knock yourself out.

What you seem to be missing is that if this is not an alien, as I suspect, what is the point of the mythical mothership? What can such a notion possibly accomplish other than offering bias to an alien conclusion? How is that a fair discussion?

because it's a reasonable solution to the objection you keep insisting on as proving that this, like so many other UFO incidents, could not possibly be extraterrestrial in origin. That, i susepct, is probably why you're so keen to rule it out straight away, so you can keep insisting on yoyur "how could anything that size possibly traverse the immeasurable distances of Space?" objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute codswallop,

No, it's not, you're just being stubborn and clinging to your objection as if you've hit on the final conclusive point that disproves the entire ET hypothesis. I'm afraid you really are being very stubborn, and refusing point blank to even consider any solutions to your objection. That really is very very stubborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pascagoula case is legit IMO. The long arms and wrinkled skin match other reports. Also the disc or elliptical shape.

the 8 foot disc, yeah right, it would not have the capabilities to exit the atmosphere! What a load of junk!

Wrinkled skin os now proof of ET is it? Great Scott. What will you come up with next?

An actual interview here:

Late to the party, been done by McGuff, who is rather good at this as a matter of fact, and already regurgitated by Bee. Bit slow there pal.

Ignore all the 15 pages of spin doctoring by the usual I have a problem with aliens twisted people. Google debunking is their friend.

I suggest you ask Quillius, who is much, much better at this than you are. You need to get out of the 70's mate. But I kinda hope you do not, you provide quite a chuckle from time to time "Disco Stu". I think more information about this case has surfaced in the last 15 pages, than all of your contributions tied together and folded over. What have you contributed to this thread? Off yeah, rhetoric and a clip that someone else already gave us. Glad you happened along. :tu:

Google. LOL, just learned about that did you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because it's a reasonable solution to the objection you keep insisting on as proving that this, like so many other UFO incidents, could not possibly be extraterrestrial in origin. That, i susepct, is probably why you're so keen to rule it out straight away, so you can keep insisting on yoyur "how could anything that size possibly traverse the immeasurable distances of Space™?" objection.

Because not one has even been seen, you are worse by making up not only motherships, but cloaked motherships! Your "theory" and I am being kind here, just expands until you can say well now it's ET!. That's a joke.

You just do not wish to accept the very fact that the reports are not workable, and wish to add as many extensions as it takes to make it an alien story. If you stick to the facts, these motherships simply do not exist outside of imagination. It's why you are so insistant on invoking the mythical, because lets face it, without these mythical components, the ET idea just does not work. IN fact, I feel it is somewhat hypocritical to say the Motherships exist, but deny that very fact that we have the sky well covered.

Give me a reason to accept the mothership theory that does not sound made up, and is at least somewhat supported by more than speculation please. If you cannot do that, how are you not just making it up as you go along? Come one Colonel money where you mouth is, why should I believe these nonsense stories are scout-ships that fly up to an invisible mothership in orbit? You ideas of Jupiter and the Kuipier belt do not work, because the "scout ship" would again still be travelling for months to get to the mothership, which again, the are too small for. You have never provided any proof, no sightings, nothing more than your personal speculation. Why would that be convincing? Because you are find of the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, it's not, you're just being stubborn and clinging to your objection as if you've hit on the final conclusive point that disproves the entire ET hypothesis. I'm afraid you really are being very stubborn, and refusing point blank to even consider any solutions to your objection. That really is very very stubborn.

I would say not as stubborn as you insisting I just believe when you have nothing more than an idea to run with. Take me up on my offer, show me some sort of proof for these motherships, instead if just making stuff up on the spot to make any story an alien one. My hypothesis is sound, the men, the beings, and the carrot heads would not even fit into an 8x8 craft let alone instruments, engines, fuels, lab equipment, you know, all the stuff they had to study Parker and Hickson with?

Go ahead, I double dog dare to you to validate this claim. Why should I believe in these mythical motherships? Because you say so?

It's just an excuse to make any story an alien one.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 8 foot disc, yeah right, it would not have the capabilities to exit the atmosphere! What a load of junk!

Wrinkled skin os now proof of ET is it? Great Scott. What will you come up with next?

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

miss2.jpg

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

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

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

Late to the party, been done by McGuff, who is rather good at this as a matter of fact, and already regurgitated by Bee. Bit slow there pal.

I suggest you ask Quillius, who is much, much better at this than you are. You need to get out of the 70's mate. But I kinda hope you do not, you provide quite a chuckle from time to time "Disco Stu". I think more information about this case has surfaced in the last 15 pages, than all of your contributions tied together and folded over. What have you contributed to this thread? Off yeah, rhetoric and a clip that someone else already gave us. Glad you happened along. :tu:

Google. LOL, just learned about that did you?

You mean YOU need to learn more about UFOs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, i hate the phrase "Google is your friend". Google is not actually my friend, it's a gigantic American owned mega-corporation that crushes competition through its sheer size, and has appallingly poor customer service to users of, for example, its Youtube subsidiary. I'll try to ask again, but I don't suppose I'll be likely to get any sensible answer: how do these ISP locator things work, please?

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

If there wasn't debunkers about, all the silly stories and gobbledygook would be simply believed wouldn't it? There is so much crap in the field of ET/UFO, and its only increased with the internet, photo-shop, cgi and similar. Debunkers, or skeptics may be the better word, look at the angles believers don't. I became a skeptic thru my ignorant acceptance of ET visitations, abductions and the many UFO tales and sightings. etc. Because I wanted to know the FACTS about ET for myself, I trudged thru 12 years now of information, going from an avid, but ill-informed believer, to arriving at a skeptic view point. Id love there to be aliens, but there just isnt ANY evidence.

There are some intriguing stories for sure, some old crackers that dont go away, but we need as always, evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I have to say, the artists' impressions that were helpfully provided to boost the case don't really help the case, do they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I have to say, the artists' impressions that were helpfully provided to boost the case don't really help the case, do they.

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.