It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
As it stands, I'll use those magic three words: I Don't Know.


I've often thought that the motto of this site should be some combination of "deny ignorance" with "embrace ignorance," particularly when it comes to fringe areas, because it really helps keep one from jumping to unfounded conclusions. Did these guys really get abducted by strange creatures? Are any of the suggested alternate explanations any more plausible? I don't know.

I think it would be sad but perfectly understandable if I had such an incredible experience but it was so overwhelming and terrifying that I couldn't bear to look at it.


Good points!

I think "Deny Ignorance" is a good motto. There's a lot of pseudoskepticism on this board that's just filled with ignorance when you're talking about things like Ufology, the Paranormal and more.

It's because you're dealing with belief and belief requires some ignorance. This is fine with Religion because with Religion they admit it requires Faith in order to accept what they don't or can't know.

With pseudoskeptics, they actually think they're being intellectual, but the obvious ignorance is overwhelming in many cases.

Take this case.

You have heard pseudoskeptics try to blame Lawyers, say they were seeking publicity and now try to paint Parker as a liar who would have to be more cunning than your best Spy in order to fool Doctors, Psychiatrist, Skeptical Investigators, the Sheriff's Department and more.

This is an important point.

The pseudoskeptic has to do these things because they can't explain logically what the men experienced. So if it's a hoax and the men were just seeking publicity, then you don't have to explain what they experienced.

Again, this is ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Based on the fact pattern of the case, there's no other conclusion outside of Parker and Hickson experienced what they said they experienced.

The next question is, what could explain what they experienced?

This is also where belief comes in. The way I look at things is outside of the box. I think this is the more logical position.

I don't start off with the priori that extraterrestrial visitation is illogical. If you start this way, then it's easy to conclude that these men had an abduction experience.

If you start with the priori that extraterrestrial visitation is illogical and can't happen. you're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Before you even start exploring the situation, you have concluded what can't be the answer. This is just illogical to me.

How can you examine the evidence in this case logically when you start with the position that X can't be an explanation?

You have many people who now say they believe extraterrestrials exist but they don't believe they have visited us. This is an illogical position also.

If you're going to say you believe extraterrestrials exist, how can you limit their understanding of science and technology based on our understanding?

We couldn't visit planets outside of our solar system. We haven't explored so many places in our solar system because we lack the science and technology to do so.

This doesn't mean if there's other civilizations, they're limited by our understanding of science and technology. So how can you logically say, you believe extraterrestrials exist "BUT THEY CAN"T".......

How can you say what they can't do when they could be 50,000 or 100,000 years ahead of us in understanding science and technology?

So I conclude that Parker and Hickson were abducted by extraterrestrials. This is based on 1 thing.

If you accept that there's a high probability that extraterrestrials exist, you can't limit what they can or can't do based on our understanding of science and technology which is primitive when it comes to space exploration. We have some target rich environments right in our backyard. The last time we visited the Moon was in 1972. This is why when people try to say U.F.O.'s are secret Government projects, I don't buy it. Governments can have all the money in the world but when it comes to technology, they're limited by Moore's law. So unless they have technology given to them by an advanced civilization, the Governments of the world are limited when it comes to technological advancements. Like I said, we haven't even been to the Moon since 1972 and we have Titan, Europa, Mars and Enceladus that need to be explored.




posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What Nickell said is meaningless. He's a pseudoskeptic that makes good money being overly skeptical about everything. Like I said, I'm a true skeptic. I look at cases and examine them and I think the Walton part of the case is filled with problems so I'm skeptical.

The problem with pseudoskeptics like Nickell and the ones on this board, is every case is false and they accept any nonsensical theory because it feeds their belief.

They can't say that's compelling or I don't know or that person is very credible.

Every Police Officer, Military Personnel or Pilot is an idiot with faulty memory if they say anything about U.F.O.'s. This is just intellectual dishonesty and it all boils down to belief.

There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more. You will find the same pseudoskeptics on threads involving each of these topics and they make the same dishonest argument. Everybody is an idiot but them and there's not any case that they find credible or compelling where they say I don't know what happened. See, when you say the evidence is compelling and the eyewitness are credible, you then have to logically conclude that they experienced what they say they experienced then you have to try and explain it.

In many cases, Pseudoskeptics can't explain it logically so they try to attack the eyewitness and make them out to be publicity seeking idiots.

Of course Nickell wants to come up with this silly theory about Parker because Parker has always been the strongest part of the case.

How can they say he was seeking publicity, when he stayed out of the spotlight for 45 years and didn't make big money like pseudoskeptics Klass, Nickell and Shermer?

How can we say he's lying when he passed a polygraph test and when everyone who talks about this case from the time it occurred talks about Parker convinced them?


We’ve heard Hickson’s story. He would tell it at church gatherings. But Parker is the young man who walked away from the notoriety and went home to work the oil fields with his new wife in tow. He said every now and then someone would recognize him and he’d leave a job.

He wanted to earn a good living and live a normal life. He said he had money in his pocket when he came to the Coast to work and did well after. Though Hickson tried for years to make a living off the incident, Parker, now 64, says there were times when he paid Hickson’s electric bill to help him make ends meet toward the end of his life.

Parker is the one who looked so sullen and withdrawn in the well-known photo that shows them soon after the incident. He’s a dramatic contrast to Hickson.

He was the one the sheriff’s deputies said was “climbing the walls” when left alone in an interrogation room to talk with Hickson.

It was Parker’s reaction that convinced law officers that something bad had happened. In the background, deputies could hear Parker begging Hickson, “Don’t talk to them Charlie, those people will come back and get us. They don’t want us to talk.”


www.sunherald.com...

Here's the pic:



So, when Parker says he lied about some things at the time, it follows a fact pattern. He wanted no part of this and was scared to death. He had an emotional breakdown and tried to stay out of the public eye for nearly 45 years.

So it rings true when he says he wanted the focus to be on Hickson because he didn't want any publicity.

If this story is just Hickson, it loses 90% of it's credibility. Parker's actions with Hickson makes this a solid abduction case.

So there's every reason to believe Parker over anything pseudoskeptic Nickell says.

Parker could have milked this story for big money. He could have collected thousands in speaking fees, wrote 4 or 5 book and sold a film rights to Hollywood by now. He could have gotten paid like Professional pseudoskeptics by now.

Like I said, pseudoskepticism is a case of intillectually dishonesty. In many of these cases they attack the eyewitnesses as idiots with faulty memories and no case is compelling and credible. This is how you separate a true skeptic from a pseudoskeptic. A true skeptic examines the evidence and recognizes that some cases are compelling with credible witnesses so they say they don't know instead of trying to turn all eyewitnesses into idiots who aren't credible. So they become publicity seekers when one died broke and the other one tried to stay out of the public eye for 45 years. At some point, you have to say where's the honest assessment.


Please try to stay logical. By your comments ("Like I said, I'm a true skeptic.") I see you as a pseudo-skeptic. Don't say you're a skeptic and then make yourself questionable by uttering:


There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more.


No self-respecting skeptic would ever say any alleged psychic and psi are credible. Supposed parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena are questionable without any evidence to overturn doubt. Your opinions on the case in question are constructed from the public record, pro and con. You don't have any inside information so the best course is to stay neutral.

Disabuse yourself from continuing to try to convince us that polygraph tests are 100% reliable, they are not. It's amazing how a person such as yourself have assigned yourself a spokesperson for this case.

And you (and others) seem to enjoy criticizing Phil Klass but thanks to him we know that the Majestic 12 fiasco was a hoax as well as labeling Travis Walton also a hoaxer.



posted on Sep, 9 2019 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What Nickell said is meaningless. He's a pseudoskeptic that makes good money being overly skeptical about everything. Like I said, I'm a true skeptic. I look at cases and examine them and I think the Walton part of the case is filled with problems so I'm skeptical.

The problem with pseudoskeptics like Nickell and the ones on this board, is every case is false and they accept any nonsensical theory because it feeds their belief.

They can't say that's compelling or I don't know or that person is very credible.

Every Police Officer, Military Personnel or Pilot is an idiot with faulty memory if they say anything about U.F.O.'s. This is just intellectual dishonesty and it all boils down to belief.

There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more. You will find the same pseudoskeptics on threads involving each of these topics and they make the same dishonest argument. Everybody is an idiot but them and there's not any case that they find credible or compelling where they say I don't know what happened. See, when you say the evidence is compelling and the eyewitness are credible, you then have to logically conclude that they experienced what they say they experienced then you have to try and explain it.

In many cases, Pseudoskeptics can't explain it logically so they try to attack the eyewitness and make them out to be publicity seeking idiots.

Of course Nickell wants to come up with this silly theory about Parker because Parker has always been the strongest part of the case.

How can they say he was seeking publicity, when he stayed out of the spotlight for 45 years and didn't make big money like pseudoskeptics Klass, Nickell and Shermer?

How can we say he's lying when he passed a polygraph test and when everyone who talks about this case from the time it occurred talks about Parker convinced them?


We’ve heard Hickson’s story. He would tell it at church gatherings. But Parker is the young man who walked away from the notoriety and went home to work the oil fields with his new wife in tow. He said every now and then someone would recognize him and he’d leave a job.

He wanted to earn a good living and live a normal life. He said he had money in his pocket when he came to the Coast to work and did well after. Though Hickson tried for years to make a living off the incident, Parker, now 64, says there were times when he paid Hickson’s electric bill to help him make ends meet toward the end of his life.

Parker is the one who looked so sullen and withdrawn in the well-known photo that shows them soon after the incident. He’s a dramatic contrast to Hickson.

He was the one the sheriff’s deputies said was “climbing the walls” when left alone in an interrogation room to talk with Hickson.

It was Parker’s reaction that convinced law officers that something bad had happened. In the background, deputies could hear Parker begging Hickson, “Don’t talk to them Charlie, those people will come back and get us. They don’t want us to talk.”


www.sunherald.com...

Here's the pic:



So, when Parker says he lied about some things at the time, it follows a fact pattern. He wanted no part of this and was scared to death. He had an emotional breakdown and tried to stay out of the public eye for nearly 45 years.

So it rings true when he says he wanted the focus to be on Hickson because he didn't want any publicity.

If this story is just Hickson, it loses 90% of it's credibility. Parker's actions with Hickson makes this a solid abduction case.

So there's every reason to believe Parker over anything pseudoskeptic Nickell says.

Parker could have milked this story for big money. He could have collected thousands in speaking fees, wrote 4 or 5 book and sold a film rights to Hollywood by now. He could have gotten paid like Professional pseudoskeptics by now.

Like I said, pseudoskepticism is a case of intillectually dishonesty. In many of these cases they attack the eyewitnesses as idiots with faulty memories and no case is compelling and credible. This is how you separate a true skeptic from a pseudoskeptic. A true skeptic examines the evidence and recognizes that some cases are compelling with credible witnesses so they say they don't know instead of trying to turn all eyewitnesses into idiots who aren't credible. So they become publicity seekers when one died broke and the other one tried to stay out of the public eye for 45 years. At some point, you have to say where's the honest assessment.


Please try to stay logical. By your comments ("Like I said, I'm a true skeptic.") I see you as a pseudo-skeptic. Don't say you're a skeptic and then make yourself questionable by uttering:


There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more.


No self-respecting skeptic would ever say any alleged psychic and psi are credible. Supposed parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena are questionable without any evidence to overturn doubt. Your opinions on the case in question are constructed from the public record, pro and con. You don't have any inside information so the best course is to stay neutral.

Disabuse yourself from continuing to try to convince us that polygraph tests are 100% reliable, they are not. It's amazing how a person such as yourself have assigned yourself a spokesperson for this case.

And you (and others) seem to enjoy criticizing Phil Klass but thanks to him we know that the Majestic 12 fiasco was a hoax as well as labeling Travis Walton also a hoaxer.



What the,...?

You said:

No self-respecting skeptic would ever say any alleged psychic and psi are credible. Supposed parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena are questionable without any evidence to overturn doubt. Your opinions on the case in question are constructed from the public record, pro and con. You don't have any inside information so the best course is to stay neutral.

This post just proves my point. You don't see how ignorant this sounds?

A true skeptic weighs the evidence, a pseudoskeptic draws a conclusion before they look at any evidence.

You said there's not ANY alleged psychic or psi that's credible. This is just a lie and how will you find any credible cases when you have already reached the conclusion that there aren't ANY credible cases? You're not open minded, you have made up your mind that none of these cases will be credible. That's pseudoskepticism which is being skeptical because you've turned skepticism into a belief.

Here's a question that the last pseudoskeptic couldn't answer which proves my point.

Name me a U.F.O. case that's unexplained and that you find compelling with credible witnesses. A true skeptic can answer this question even though they don't think the explanation is an extraterrestrial one.

A pseudoskeptic can't answer the question because they're believers. So all eyewitnesses have to be idiots with faulty memories and nobody is credible.


edit on 9-9-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What Nickell said is meaningless. He's a pseudoskeptic that makes good money being overly skeptical about everything. Like I said, I'm a true skeptic. I look at cases and examine them and I think the Walton part of the case is filled with problems so I'm skeptical.

The problem with pseudoskeptics like Nickell and the ones on this board, is every case is false and they accept any nonsensical theory because it feeds their belief.

They can't say that's compelling or I don't know or that person is very credible.

Every Police Officer, Military Personnel or Pilot is an idiot with faulty memory if they say anything about U.F.O.'s. This is just intellectual dishonesty and it all boils down to belief.

There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more. You will find the same pseudoskeptics on threads involving each of these topics and they make the same dishonest argument. Everybody is an idiot but them and there's not any case that they find credible or compelling where they say I don't know what happened. See, when you say the evidence is compelling and the eyewitness are credible, you then have to logically conclude that they experienced what they say they experienced then you have to try and explain it.

In many cases, Pseudoskeptics can't explain it logically so they try to attack the eyewitness and make them out to be publicity seeking idiots.

Of course Nickell wants to come up with this silly theory about Parker because Parker has always been the strongest part of the case.

How can they say he was seeking publicity, when he stayed out of the spotlight for 45 years and didn't make big money like pseudoskeptics Klass, Nickell and Shermer?

How can we say he's lying when he passed a polygraph test and when everyone who talks about this case from the time it occurred talks about Parker convinced them?


We’ve heard Hickson’s story. He would tell it at church gatherings. But Parker is the young man who walked away from the notoriety and went home to work the oil fields with his new wife in tow. He said every now and then someone would recognize him and he’d leave a job.

He wanted to earn a good living and live a normal life. He said he had money in his pocket when he came to the Coast to work and did well after. Though Hickson tried for years to make a living off the incident, Parker, now 64, says there were times when he paid Hickson’s electric bill to help him make ends meet toward the end of his life.

Parker is the one who looked so sullen and withdrawn in the well-known photo that shows them soon after the incident. He’s a dramatic contrast to Hickson.

He was the one the sheriff’s deputies said was “climbing the walls” when left alone in an interrogation room to talk with Hickson.

It was Parker’s reaction that convinced law officers that something bad had happened. In the background, deputies could hear Parker begging Hickson, “Don’t talk to them Charlie, those people will come back and get us. They don’t want us to talk.”


www.sunherald.com...

Here's the pic:



So, when Parker says he lied about some things at the time, it follows a fact pattern. He wanted no part of this and was scared to death. He had an emotional breakdown and tried to stay out of the public eye for nearly 45 years.

So it rings true when he says he wanted the focus to be on Hickson because he didn't want any publicity.

If this story is just Hickson, it loses 90% of it's credibility. Parker's actions with Hickson makes this a solid abduction case.

So there's every reason to believe Parker over anything pseudoskeptic Nickell says.

Parker could have milked this story for big money. He could have collected thousands in speaking fees, wrote 4 or 5 book and sold a film rights to Hollywood by now. He could have gotten paid like Professional pseudoskeptics by now.

Like I said, pseudoskepticism is a case of intillectually dishonesty. In many of these cases they attack the eyewitnesses as idiots with faulty memories and no case is compelling and credible. This is how you separate a true skeptic from a pseudoskeptic. A true skeptic examines the evidence and recognizes that some cases are compelling with credible witnesses so they say they don't know instead of trying to turn all eyewitnesses into idiots who aren't credible. So they become publicity seekers when one died broke and the other one tried to stay out of the public eye for 45 years. At some point, you have to say where's the honest assessment.


Please try to stay logical. By your comments ("Like I said, I'm a true skeptic.") I see you as a pseudo-skeptic. Don't say you're a skeptic and then make yourself questionable by uttering:


There's very credible and compelling cases in areas of Ufology, Psychics, areas of Psi and more.


No self-respecting skeptic would ever say any alleged psychic and psi are credible. Supposed parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena are questionable without any evidence to overturn doubt. Your opinions on the case in question are constructed from the public record, pro and con. You don't have any inside information so the best course is to stay neutral.

Disabuse yourself from continuing to try to convince us that polygraph tests are 100% reliable, they are not. It's amazing how a person such as yourself have assigned yourself a spokesperson for this case.

And you (and others) seem to enjoy criticizing Phil Klass but thanks to him we know that the Majestic 12 fiasco was a hoax as well as labeling Travis Walton also a hoaxer.



What the,...?

You said:

No self-respecting skeptic would ever say any alleged psychic and psi are credible. Supposed parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena are questionable without any evidence to overturn doubt. Your opinions on the case in question are constructed from the public record, pro and con. You don't have any inside information so the best course is to stay neutral.

This post just proves my point. You don't see how ignorant this sounds?

A true skeptic weighs the evidence, a pseudoskeptic draws a conclusion before they look at any evidence.

You said there's not ANY alleged psychic or psi that's credible. This is just a lie and how will you find any credible cases when you have already reached the conclusion that there aren't ANY credible cases? You're not open minded, you have made up your mind that none of these cases will be credible. That's pseudoskepticism which is being skeptical because you've turned skepticism into a belief.

Here's a question that the last pseudoskeptic couldn't answer which proves my point.

Name me a U.F.O. case that's unexplained and that you find compelling with credible witnesses. A true skeptic can answer this question even though they don't think the explanation is an extraterrestrial one.

A pseudoskeptic can't answer the question because they're believers. So all eyewitnesses have to be idiots with faulty memories and nobody is credible.



One word that answers all of your silly questions: evidence. Without evidence all that you're left with is fantasy.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Tales of giant squid have been told by mariners for centuries. Sailors would bring home stories of giant limbed creatures with saucer sized eyes that lived in the oceans of the world. Those tales only became fact once pieces of a large squid washed ashore in Newfoundland in the late 1800s. Scientists then could study and confirm it's existence. No longer did they have to rely on stories and a belief that they were real.

In the 1980s, expeditions were launched in the Republic of Congo looking for a dinosaur-like creature that had been claimed to live in the Congo river. Witnesses in the area described a huge creature with a long neck and tail, brownish green color, size of an elephant, a single long tooth, and large whip-like tail. No evidence was ever found of this animal, therefore it remains a story and a belief and not fact. Similar to tales told of bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, yeti, chupacabra, etc. that are claimed physical beings, but all fall into the same category as visiting aliens -- Many stories, no evidence.

Point being, we question the validity of stories with our own creatures on Earth. We require evidence and have a process. It is not accepted as fact until that evidence is provided that can be scientifically scrutunized and studied. The process to that involves the use of real evidence and testing by those with authority in their respective scientific field. Discovering a species visiting us from another world has to be held at least to these same level of standards.

All the Pascagoula incident has ever been and has given us is a story. If actual evidence was provided, there would be no need for the ridiculous arguments in this thread.

You seem blinded by your unwarranted self-aggrandizing attitude on this subject. As I've said twice, and as mentioned above, give us the evidence that this was an actual physical event, not just a tale. Because you've clearly failed in doing that so far.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Wow, you pseudoskeptics keep proving my point. This is because you have a huge, illogical blind spot and you just can't bring yourselves to use basic common sense.

The reason you can't do this is obvious. It's blind belief.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're in this forum if you have concluded that there's no evidence and all of these things are just tales. You said:

All the Pascagoula incident has ever been and has given us is a story. If actual evidence was provided, there would be no need for the ridiculous arguments in this thread.

You seem blinded by your unwarranted self-aggrandizing attitude on this subject. As I've said twice, and as mentioned above, give us the evidence that this was an actual physical event, not just a tale. Because you've clearly failed in doing that so far.


You guys are making me look like Nostradamus.

I keep saying, the reason you guys have to start with the priori that everything is just a tale, is so you don't have to logically think about what was experienced. I keep saying this and you pseudoskeptics keep proving my point with each post.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that these men experienced what they experienced. There's people sitting in jail now based on circumstantial evidence. This is because we can use reason and logic.

When just about everyone who interviewed the men at the time say they believe them and you have multiple sightings of a similar sighting, then reason and logic says this is evidence that supports they experienced what they said they experienced.



“Dr. J. Allen Hynek, director of Northwestern University's Dearborn Observatory and former long-time chief UFO scientific consultant for the AF, and Dr. James Harder, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, rushed to the scene and Harder submitted the men to hypnosis. Harder said it was obvious the witnesses, while under hypnosis, were revealing a "traumatic" experience. "Their emotions and very strong feelings of terror are impossible to fake under hypnosis," he stated. Hynek was also convinced. “There is no question in my mind that these men have had a very terrifying experience," he remarked. "Under no circumstances should they be ridiculed. Let's protect these men." Then the prominent astronomer said flatly he thought the UFO was from some ET source. "Where they are coming from and why they are here is a matter of conjecture," he remarked. "But the fact that they were here on this planet is beyond a reasonable ' doubt." Hickson and Parker were taken to Keesler AF Base and checked for radioactivity, with negative results. Charles McQuiston, a Biloxi, Miss., psychologist, examined the tape recordings of the hypnotic session with the men and said Hickson and Parker were totally convinced their experience was real. On October 30, Hickson took -- and passed -- a polygraph test.” ~ UFO RESEARCH NEWSLETTER, Vo l .III, No. 7 / Nov-Dec 1973



Here's a video of people who were there saying the same thing that I said. These guys had to be better Actors than most of the Actors in Hollywood.

They fooled Doctors, Psychiatrist, skeptical investigators, people at the Sheriff's Department and more. So why should I believe pseudoskeptics who admit that they don't even look at evidence over people who were there at the time?

Where are all the people who interviewed these two that say they were lying or they're known to make up stories?

If you have an open mind and you're looking at these things logically, you have to conclude they experienced what they said they experienced. This doesn't mean they were abducted by extraterrestrials, it just means based on the evidence that everyone at the time who interviewed these men believed them.

If this was just a tale as you say, why did Parker:

Have an emotional breakdown
Pass a Polygraph
Leave jobs when recognized
Not make big money off of speaking fees like pseudoskeptics do
Convince skeptics like Hynek and people at the Sheriff's Department who tried to catch them in a lie

Again, the reason that you can't use basic logic and reason is because if you say they're credible and you believe they experienced what they said they experienced, the next step is trying to logically explain what they experienced.

So to avoid even trying to explain what they experienced, you blindly scream it's a tale.

So this way everybody that has an experience is either an idiot that's mistaken or they're lying. So every Police Officer, Person in the Military or Pilot that has an experience has a faulty memory or is just telling a tale.

This is just an Asinine position.

Here's a guy from the Military who explains his sighting at a base where U.F.O.'s caused Nuclear weapons to disarm.



On March 24, 1967, men see an unidentified object hovering over Montana’s Malmstrom Air Force Base, home to nuclear weapons, which are all disabled simultaneously.



Here's a video of a UFO and Nukes press conference with Military Personnel saying what they experienced.

Should we just stick are head in the sand like pseudoskeptics and reach a conclusion before even weighing the evidence or should we use common sense, logic and reason when looking over the evidence?

Like I said, your position is just illogical but of course you can't see it because pseudoskeptics have a huge blind spot in order to protect their belief.




posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: neoholographic
All the Pascagoula incident has ever been and has given us is a story. If actual evidence was provided, there would be no need for the ridiculous arguments in this thread.
If you can't even distinguish evidence from proof, then it seems to me Neoholographic has a point. You'd be practicing pseudo-skepticism. You instead could have said the evidence was somewhat lacking preventing a definite conclusion as to their experience, which I would have agreed on, but you didn't. The "self-aggrandizing attitude" is all yours.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Despite all their tech, all they can do is suggest not to be scared while actually scaring the crap out of you. I don't know...meh. Just seems like they could abduct someone and actually not scare them if they really wanted to do so.
Am I wrong for thinking this?


Good point, never really thought about that.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 a reply to: neoholographic

And this is why posting in this thread is a waste of time. You've added nothing new to the incident to look over. Just the same drivel you've posted over and over. It still stands as a story with zero evidence it was a real event.

Remember, it's always up to the claimant to provide evidence of the claim. From day one they've only had a story while people like yourself try every which way to turn that story into a fact, but cannot.
edit on 11-9-2019 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Remember, it's always up to the claimant to provide evidence of the claim. From day one they've only had a story while people like yourself try every which way to turn that story into a fact, but cannot.

That's essentially true. Without hard evidence everyone has to judge the case according to their own beliefs. It's a compelling story, and the guys seem honest enough, but without objectively verifiable evidence it can never be anything more than a story.

So remember the next time you're abducted by a UFO to ask them for some small object or piece of something that can prove it all happened. Unfortunately, the way abductee narratives usually play out, they'll give it to you (sometimes a book), but then take it back when it's time for you to leave. Because they are what used to be called "Indian givers."



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You said it's just a story. No it's not, it's a story that was investigated. You act like humans never use common sense, reason and logic to investigate a claim and weigh the credibility of the witnesses.

This is done all of the time and people are in jail today based on circumstantial evidence and the reason of 12 Jurors.

So there's plenty of evidence in this case.

Again, you everyone at the time who interviewed saying they believe them. Doctors, people at the Sheriff's Department, Psychiatrist, skeptical investigators and more.

They both passed Polygraph test

There were multiple sightings of something similar around the time.

Their actions, especially Parker followed the fact pattern of the case.

A pseudoskeptic is truly blinded by belief.

We use common sense, logic and reason to weigh things like this all of the time. But because we're dealing with U.F.O.'s, you're blinded by belief. You start off with this can't happen, it has to be a tale and therefore you just throw common sense out of the window.

We can conclude, based on the evidence, that Parker and Hickson experienced what they said they experienced. Everyone who interviewed them at the time believed them even people that were very skeptical.

Why should I listen to a johnny come lately pseudoskeptic who had nothing to do with the investigation over people who did?

The next step is asking what did they experience. Of course, this is the whole point of pseudoskepticism. You can't logically explain what happen so to avoid asking the question you just say everyone is lying or they're idiots with faulty memory so you don't have to try and logically explain what happened.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
You can't logically explain what happen so to avoid asking the question you just say everyone is lying or they're idiots with faulty memory so you don't have to try and logically explain what happened.

Nobody has been able to explain what actually happened. Not even Hickson and Parker. Was it "aliens?" *shrug*



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

What?? You said:

That's essentially true. Without hard evidence everyone has to judge the case according to their own beliefs.

That's just nonsense.

Why do I have to judge the case according to my beliefs? I don't know Hickson, I don't know Parker. This has nothing to do with belief. I weigh the evidence based on what the people said that investigated the case at the time.

If Hickson and Parker would have failed the Polygraph, I would reach a different conclusion.

If Hyneck said, the two men's story didn't add up and I doubt it happened, I would reach a different conclusion.

If people at the Sheriff's Department, who were skeptical remained skeptical because the story didn't add up, I would reach a different conclusion.

If Parker would have quit his job and went on a speaking tour and wrote tons of books like pseudoskeptics, I might reach a different conclusion.

If they didn't have multiple eyewitnesses that saw something similar around the same time, I might have come to a different conclusion.

The problem here is, when it comes to things like Ufology or the Psi, we're supposed to throw reason, logic and basic common sense to the side when evaluating the evidence.

To act like it's just a story is just asinine. It's not, it's a story with evidence.

You can use the available evidence to reach the conclusion that the men experienced what they said they experienced.

The next step is trying to logically explain what they experienced.

To me, the only way you can't reach a conclusion that this wasn't an extraterrestrial visitation is if you start with the priori that extraterrestrial visitations can't occur. This is just blind belief.

If you say, there's a high probability that extraterrestrials exist but they can't visit us, again, this is illogical.

How can you limit what an extraterrestrial civilization can or can't do based on our understanding of Science and Technology?

See, I weigh the evidence. I can look at the Walton case and have my doubts based on the evidence. This is in contrast to the Pascagoula case that has stronger evidence.

A pseudoskeptic can't use basic logic and common sense to weigh the evidence. They start with a conclusion that all of these cases are fake and people are either lying or they're idiots with bad memories. How is this logical in any way?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You have to remember also that the claim of abductions has been going for decades with some abductees claiming thousands of times. If it was only a handful, I can see the requirement of evidence being unreasonable. But thousands of times? I don't think so.

Also, the ones claiming they've been abducted multiple times and put nothing in place to capture it, such as a simple $100 CCTV system, is suspicious. Of course they'll excuse this with electrical interference or something else.

 

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

This is done all of the time and people are in jail today based on circumstantial evidence and the reason of 12 Jurors.

Courtroom analogies don't apply with this subject. I've gone over this in other threads and I'm not wasting energy on it here.

 

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
You can't logically explain what happen so to avoid asking the question you just say everyone is lying or they're idiots with faulty memory so you don't have to try and logically explain what happened.


You can't logically explain it, so you take a huge leap of faith and believe the abductees without a shred of physical evidence. That's what you're doing. Making alien visitation commonplace and nothing which is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ConfusedBrit





In this case, there is no doubt that virtually every detail of their account can be compared to cultural moments in sci-fi film, TV and literature. I initially laughed my socks off at those surface details and how crass they sounded, but that is not what makes the case so fascinating.


This tale in some regards isn’t too typical at all, though it may resemble some 50’s b movies, but
the description of these creatures is very different than the usual bugged eyed, scrawny, big-headed 4-foot grey. And I can’t think of many tales with a female alien putting her fingers down a man’s throat.




The degree of sheer absurdity in their account is interesting in itself. Perhaps Jacques Vallee would have a few theories about that aspect. As it is, this is a BIZARRE and rather unique case in many respects.


Your right, Vallee does say these events always have a degree of absurdity to them. This one certainly does.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You said:

You can't logically explain it, so you take a huge leap of faith and believe the abductees without a shred of physical evidence. That's what you're doing. Making alien visitation commonplace and nothing which is ridiculous.

No, I believe the abductees because:

EVERYONE THAT INVESTIGATED THE CASE AT THE TIME BELIEVED THEM. THIS INCLUDED DOCTORS, SKEPTICAL INVESTIGATORS, PEOPLE AT THE SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT, PSYCHIATRIST AND MORE!

I put this in all caps because I have said this over and over again but it's like you're devoid of any common sense, reason or logic so you can't read it.

I don't need to take a leap of faith to believe them. I have evidence.

“Dr. J. Allen Hynek, director of Northwestern University's Dearborn Observatory and former long-time chief UFO scientific consultant for the AF, and Dr. James Harder, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, rushed to the scene and Harder submitted the men to hypnosis. Harder said it was obvious the witnesses, while under hypnosis, were revealing a "traumatic" experience. "Their emotions and very strong feelings of terror are impossible to fake under hypnosis," he stated. Hynek was also convinced. “There is no question in my mind that these men have had a very terrifying experience," he remarked. "Under no circumstances should they be ridiculed. Let's protect these men." Then the prominent astronomer said flatly he thought the UFO was from some ET source. "Where they are coming from and why they are here is a matter of conjecture," he remarked. "But the fact that they were here on this planet is beyond a reasonable ' doubt." Hickson and Parker were taken to Keesler AF Base and checked for radioactivity, with negative results. Charles McQuiston, a Biloxi, Miss., psychologist, examined the tape recordings of the hypnotic session with the men and said Hickson and Parker were totally convinced their experience was real. On October 30, Hickson took -- and passed -- a polygraph test.” ~ UFO RESEARCH NEWSLETTER, Vo l .III, No. 7 / Nov-Dec 1973



Dr. James Harder



Then he and Diamond plotted to find out the truth. "We kept a tape recorder in the top drawer of the desk," Ryder says. "It was a small office, so it would pick up everything said in there. We let them go to the bathroom and decided to turn the recorder on, then leave them alone for a while.

"We did that, and when we listened to the tape later, we expected to hear them saying, 'Boy, we sure fooled them' or something like that."

But they didn't. Here is the transcript from the hidden recorder.

Parker: "I got to get home and get to bed or get some nerve pills or see the doctor or something. I can't stand it. I'm about to go half crazy."

Hickson: "I tell you, when we're through, I'll get you something to settle you down so you can get some damn sleep."

Parker: "I can't sleep yet like it is. I'm just damn near crazy."

Hickson: "Calvin, when they brought you out - when they brought me out of that thing - (expletive) I like to never in hell got you straightened out."

Parker: "My damn arms, my arms. I remember they just froze up and I couldn't move. Just like I stepped on a damn rattlesnake."

Hickson: "They didn't do me that way."

Parker: "I passed out. I expect I never passed out in my whole life."

Hickson: "I've never seen nothing like that before in my life. You can't make people believe ..."

Parker: "I don't want to keep sitting here. I want to see a doctor."

Hickson: "They better wake up and start believing."

Parker: "You see how that damn door come right up?"

Hickson: "I don't know how it opened, son. I don't know."

Parker: "I just laid up, and just like that, those (expletive) come out."

Hickson: "I know. You can't believe it. You can't make people believe it."

Parker: "I paralyzed right then. I couldn't move."

Hickson: "They won't believe it. They gonna believe it one of these days. Might be too late. I knew all along they was people from other worlds up there. I knew all along. I never thought it would happen to me."

Parker: "You know yourself I don't drink."

Hickson: "I know that, son. When I get to the house, I'm gonna get me another drink, make me sleep. Look, what we sitting around for? I got to go tell Blanche ... what we waiting for?"

Parker: "I gotta go to the house. I'm getting sick. I gotta get out of here."

Hickson leaves the room, and Parker is left alone.

Parker: "It's hard to believe ... Oh, God, it's awful. I know there's a God up there."


www.clarionledger.com...

Here's video of people who were there at the time talking about it.



I repeat:

EVERYONE THAT INVESTIGATED THE CASE AT THE TIME BELIEVED THEM. THIS INCLUDED DOCTORS, SKEPTICAL INVESTIGATORS, PEOPLE AT THE SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT, PSYCHIATRIST AND MORE!

There's no need for a leap of faith. I don't need to make any leap to come to the conclusion that the men experienced what they said they experienced.

Why should I believe an illogical pseudoskeptic over the investigators that looked into this case?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
No, I believe the abductees because:

EVERYONE THAT INVESTIGATED THE CASE AT THE TIME BELIEVED THEM. THIS INCLUDED DOCTORS, SKEPTICAL INVESTIGATORS, PEOPLE AT THE SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT, PSYCHIATRIST AND MORE!

Parker: "I passed out. I expect I never passed out in my whole life."
Parker later admitted he lied about that.

Pascagoula Mississippi Case - 1973

In a later interview over 20 years after the initial incident, Parker's story became much more elaborate. Here Parker confessed to lying about fainting in sight of the creatures.


By the way you keep overstating the case like you did on page 1 when you said misleading things about Hynek. When I quoted what Hynek really said, he was more skeptical than you're willing to admit.

originally posted by: neoholographic


Here's a video of Hynek talking about the case and an interview with Hickson from a Reporter.


Hynek says something very important. He says in order to get answers you have to gauge the credibility of the witnesses.
Yes, but Hynek also says this starting at about half a minute in:

"I was never able to substantiate (the story) in any manner I would call a scientific manner...
I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence."


Why should I believe an illogical pseudoskeptic over the investigators that looked into this case?
Did the investigators look into Parker's credibility before or after he admitted to lying about passing out, on the secret police tape?

You shouldn't believe any pseudoskeptic but you should have some skepticism yourself if you want to know the truth. In the video you posted, Hynek said "I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence", yet you seem to want to ignore that? That's just skepticism, not pseudoskepticism. He's not saying he didn't happen, he is saying there's no firm evidence, what Ectoplasm has been trying to tell you. So it seems to me you're a little confused about Hynek's position when you don't accept that he too was concerned about the lack of firm evidence. The secret police tape seems to be suggestive of some credibility but Parker admitted his claim of passing out was a lie when his story got a whole lot more elaborate.

By the way when stories get more elaborate, that's human nature and I think we should always be skeptical of that, even if it's not a UFO case. It's like my grandfather re-telling the story of the big fish he caught and it seemed to me like that fish doubled in size over the 10 years I heard him tell that story. So this is one reason why I tend to consider witness statements closest in time to the incident to have less exaggeration or confabulation.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Here's more lies from pseudoskeptics that don't do their research. Hynek never doubted the men. You said:

"I was never able to substantiate (the story) in any manner I would call a scientific manner... I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence."

You even put the last part in caps. OOPS!

If you read the description of the video it says this:

Audio of the famous UFO incident in Pascagoula, Mississippi that J. Allen Hynek investigated and found two early abduction victims totally credible. The beginning of the audio has Dr. Hynek talking about an unrelated incident at Wright-Patterson AFB. Then the interview switches to the Pascagoula case, in which two fishing buddies claimed to have been abducted by strange-looking aliens.

LOL, you don't even bother to read what you're posting. Typical pseudoskeptic dishonesty! When Hynek said this:

"I was never able to substantiate (the story) in any manner I would call a scientific manner... I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence."

He was talking about an unrelated case at Wtight Patterson before he switched to Pascagoula. When he talked about Pascagoula he talked about how BELIEVABLE the men were.

PSEUDOSKEPTICS SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS!

Read the description again then watch the video. You pseudoskeptics are so desperate to get everyone else to throw logic and basic common sense out of the window!


edit on 11-9-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Sorry. The totality of the evidence does not indicate that aliens abducted anybody. It possibly indicates that something may have happened. But exactly what, who knows? Certainly not Hickson or Parker, because as much as they may believe something happened to them, human perception and memory is faulty at best. As for the people who interviewed them and gave them tests, the only thing they can honestly say is that Hickson and Parker apparently believe they experienced what they described.

If you want believe they were abducted by aliens, that's fine. As I've indicated, I think it's one of the most compelling cases out there, even without the hard evidence. But for me to accept it as fact and not just belief, you gotta show me how you get from Point A to Point B when you don't actually have a Point B.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You said:

Sorry. The totality of the evidence does not indicate that aliens abducted anybody. It possibly indicates that something may have happened. But exactly what, who knows? Certainly not Hickson or Parker, because as much as they may believe something happened to them, human perception and memory is faulty at best.

Sure it does.

It doesn't possibly indicate something may have happened. It only indicates that they experienced what they said they experienced.

You said, who knows. They do as well as the investigators looking into the case and multiple people that saw something similar around the same time.

Was this a case of faulty memory for the multiple eyewitnesses who saw something similar?

You have to see how illogical and asinine this sounds.

Every case in Ufology is either faulty memories or a hoax if you listen to illogical pseudoskeptics.

I choose to think for my self and weigh the evidence something pseudoskeptics seem to be incapable of doing!



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join