A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction

a reply to: neoholographic
That goes for any case, needing to have firm evidence, and there isn't any in the Pascagoula case either.

Keep listening, he says he was unable to confirm their story, and then compares it to a dream. He says "suppose you told me you dreamed of purple peach trees last night. What can I do about it?" He can't prove that you did or didn't have that dream, that's his analogy for the Pascagoula case, he can't prove that they were actually abducted, because there's no firm evidence of that.

So again he's saying there's no evidence to confirm it any more than if you told him you dreamed of purple peach trees, he couldn't confirm your dream either. Dream-like states are the most commonly offered explanation for why people think they have abduction experiences, and it's common for people to think their experiences are real. So all Hynek confirms is he thinks they had an experience. He can't say if it really happened or not, only that he thinks they really believe their story, which even Joe Nickell is willing to concede, that Hickson believes his story and that Parker told the truth on the secret police tape when he said he passed out.

Believing their own abduction story does not equal actually being abducted as you seem to think, which goes for this case and thousands of other abductee stories.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ConfusedBrit
I can’t think of many tales with a female alien putting her fingers down a man’s throat.

Ironically, that procedure would lead to pretty much how I felt after watching the video of Parker's account of multiple visitations after the event, including 'save the planet from pollution' alien messages, and claims of potential free energy being denied the world. I was unaware of this when I wrote the earlier post you replied to.

The video (which I linked to in my last post a while ago) blasted two barrels into the entire case for me, which itself had always relied on testimony alone. I knew Parker became a liability years later, but I'd held out hope for Hickson.

Hickson didn't just jump the shark, he performed a Triple Salchow over it for good measure.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit


CB, human beings aren’t trained to be honest and avoid vanity and self-centered actions, sort of like grown children wanting to embellish things.

Many of these events will be exaggerated and juiced up or just lied about, as we know from other supposed UFO events that people basically start lying about it.

Of course, some won't but many will

Human bad nature

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The fact is, you got caught in a lie. This is because you blindly posted a video without looking at it or reading the description. You said Hynek said this about Pascagoula:

"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 didn't.

I will explain this again. Sadly you will not grasp it because when it comes to these areas, pseudoskeptics throw logic and reason out of the window.

Throughout this thread, I've been saying there's enough evidence to conclude these men experienced what they said they experienced and they weren't making it up.

Let me repeat this because you will not grasp it. Logic escapes you.

Throughout this thread, I've been saying there's enough evidence to conclude these men experienced what they said they experienced and they weren't making it up.

Once you reach this conclusion, then you have to try and explain what they experienced. Here's what Hynek said in your video that you didn't watch.

"I went down to Pascagoula completely negative."

Where else did we see this? Oh yeah, the Sheriff's Department.

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... › counties › jackson-county › article219679955

Hynek goes onto say:

"All of those things convinced me that he wasn't making it up, they have had an experience."

Again, why should I believe illogical pseudoskeptics vs the men that investigated the case. Even the ones that started out skeptical believed Parker and Hickson.

I have no reason to accept anything you say about the case or pseudoskeptic Nickell who makes money for being skeptical about everything.

Everybody at the time, even those that started out skeptical, believed these men.

SHOW ME ONE PERSON THAT INTERVIEWED HICKSON AND PARKER AT THE TIME WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM.

Of course Hynek couldn't prove these things because he didn't have the data to do so. I do. He didn't know about these things:

Exoplanets being found like the recent one.

Water found in habitable super-Earth's atmosphere for first time

astronomy.com...

Extremophiles and the search for extraterrestrial life.

Extremophiles thrive in ice, boiling water, acid, the water core of nuclear reactors, salt crystals, and toxic waste and in a range of other extreme habitats that were previously thought to be inhospitable for life. Extremophiles include representatives of all three domains (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya); however, the majority are microorganisms, and a high proportion of these are Archaea. Knowledge of extremophile habitats is expanding the number and types of extraterrestrial locations that may be targeted for exploration. In addition, contemporary biological studies are being fueled by the increasing availability of genome sequences and associated functional studies of extremophiles. This is leading to the identification of new biomarkers, an accurate assessment of cellular evolution, insight into the ability of microorganisms to survive in meteorites and during periods of global extinction, and knowledge of how to process and examine environmental samples to detect viable life forms. This paper evaluates extremophiles and extreme environments in the context of astrobiology and the search for extraterrestrial life.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Scientists say alien life may exist in our Solar System – on one of Saturn’s moons
The moon Enceladus may hold microbes that produce the methane found in its atmosphere, scientists said

www.scmp.com...

INTELLIGENT ALIEN LIFE ALMOST CERTAINLY EXISTED SOMEWHERE ELSE, STUDY SAYS

www.newsweek.com...

Stephen Hawking, Kaku and others talking about Alien Life

Stephen Hawking: alien life is out there, scientist warns

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Life on Jupiter's moon Europa? Discovery of table salt on the surface boosts hopes

phys.org...

Building Blocks of Life Found in Comet's Atmosphere

www.space.com...

I can fill up a million pages of data points that weren't available to Hynek. So of course he's not going to reach the same conclusion.

The important point, as I have been saying over and over again is:

There's evidence to conclude that Parker and Hickson experienced what they said they experienced.

SHOW ME ONE PERSON THAT INTERVIEWED HICKSON AND PARKER AT THE TIME WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM.

Show me one person that said they were making it up who interviewed them at the time this occurred.

So once you accepted that there's a high probability that extraterrestrials exist, you have to accept Alien abductions and eyewitness accounts that have been investigated and the investigators have deemed the witnesses credible.

You can't limit what Aliens can or can't do based on our understanding of Science and Technology.

Again, you will not grasp the basic logic behind what I'm saying because you're a pseudoskeptic. This is just basic reason, logic and frankly common sense. When you start out with the belief that these things can't be true without even examining the evidence, that's just ignorant.

a reply to: neoholographic

Pseudo skeptics also seem to maintain a huge ego that they believe science grants to them and they nurture it heavily and even begin making their own rules. They go through a solid case just like this case and then deny any evidence exists.

They never concede when proven that their conclusions have no foundation with the facts of the case, so they make their own facts by misstating the actual facts, which is just another denial.

The famous celebrity pseudo skeptics are even more brazen with ego, it is nauseating to watch them lie to themselves and their interviewers exposing just how naive they can be believing no one will notice, because to their thinking, there's nothing to notice. They then go home smiling in anticipation of that next big pay check already in the mail.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is what bothers me the most about UFOlogy and believers. You said:

So once you accepted that there's a high probability that extraterrestrials exist, you have to accept Alien abductions and eyewitness accounts that have been investigated and the investigators have deemed the witnesses credible.

You can't limit what Aliens can or can't do based on our understanding of Science and Technology.

Where do you (all) get this extraterrestrial bit? What evidence are you privy to? Your beliefs are not borne of evidence, irrefutable proof. Your beliefs are borne of mental conditioning. Nobody knows anything about real extraterrestrials. They may not exist. Okay, you reply with "Who do you think is piloting those UFOs?" I don't know, you don't know, no one knows, especially governments. It's a total, unsolved mystery. You may also ask "Then who is doing the abductions?" I don't know, you don't know and I don't speculate without any evidence. We don't know, period.

I view a lot of videos on YouTube and the ones that befuddle me are the various videos shot all over the world via security cameras and the ones pointed at highways, road, thruways, streets. They show vehicles running into invisible barriers that destroy the front of the vehicles. What are they crashing into? If the barriers are invisible, they must exist in an unknown dimension(s). Perhaps alleged ETs are not ETs but multidimensional. I don't know but it's simpler to accept one seemingly outrageous with evidence than a fantastic one without evidence. Whadda ya think?

Here's a quote from Hynek in an interview in 1977 about Pascagoula:

YouTube

There's no question in my mind that they think this happened. That is, to them it was a very real experience. Whether it was real in our sense of real, I honestly don't know.

Questioning about the case begins at 30:50

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Glad you’re here to remind us of the ice skating figure machinations that pair so well with the illogical, fanciful deeds of Mississippi half-wits — only a confused Spaniard claiming British ancestry could dither so pitifully.

Man up, and do your usual and alert the hall monitors — you won’t be shamed for having a mod remove the truth in this post.

You’re not clever, or one step ahead of ‘the game’; you’ve revealed nor uncovered any truth, but you sure as hell fish like a native on the hook for brim in an attempt to be showcased as a purveyor of truth in the face of character misgivings ...and the illuminating light of well-researched truth (ya, know, these videos you keep bleating on about in an attempt to showcase your impartiality and drive for the truth — you’re as transparent and duplicitous as they come).

Please, ATS, have the intellectual integrity to give this comment the right to stand — dually giving CB an attempt to prove their post history isn’t fraught with duplicity and low-hanging fruit. PLEASE!


Cause homie doesn’t want any of this smoke — I come hard and stand tall. Sword has been laid down, you can piss yourself or you can answer the call.

You won’t be confused anymore...remember dat.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Here's a quote from Hynek in an interview in 1977 about Pascagoula:

YouTube

There's no question in my mind that they think this happened. That is, to them it was a very real experience. Whether it was real in our sense of real, I honestly don't know.

Questioning about the case begins at 30:50

Of course he doesn't know, why would he know?

What have I been saying throughout the thread. Everyone who interviewed them at the time believed them.

Hynek didn't have the data to reach a conclusion in 1973. Did you read my last post?

Of course you didn't and if you did, any logic or common sense just passed you by.

I have been saying over and over again that there's evidence to conclude that the men experienced what they said they experienced. It's like talking to a brick wall though because pseudoskeptics are blinded by belief. Basic common sense doesn't compute.

Of course Hynek couldn't reach a conclusion because of lack of data. You will not grasp something so simple and that's just basic common sense.

Hynek believed the men and said they had a very real experience.In fact, everyone who interviewed the men at the time believed they had a real experience even those that started off skeptical.

Show me one person that interviewed the men at the time who didn't believe them or who said they were lying.

originally posted by: Cravens
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I find your post almost completely impenetrable. Something about me contacting mods to remove your post? I've never contacted a mod about someone else's post in my life (you have my permission to ask them), so it's nevertheless a fascinating assertion and a reason why your post should indeed be preserved.

This is not a Proposition from Wittgenstein. It's a personal opinion about an outwardly rather silly yet initially compelling 1973 case that I once supported, but now withdraw from due to Hickson's character in subsequent claims that I think undermine his initial story. It falls by the wayside in my book, but there are plenty more compelling cases to ruminate over.

You say I'm "not clever" - well, all power to you for your own personal opinion about me, even if a bit too personal, but I can jazz with that. You're obviously disappointed in my fresh viewpoint about Pascagoula - no idea why - so I suppose I should be flattered to some extent that you care AT ALL what I think. It's actually quite sweet in a surreal way.

Peace.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: neoholographic

Pseudo skeptics also seem to maintain a huge ego that they believe science grants to them and they nurture it heavily and even begin making their own rules. They go through a solid case just like this case and then deny any evidence exists.

They never concede when proven that their conclusions have no foundation with the facts of the case, so they make their own facts by misstating the actual facts, which is just another denial.

The famous celebrity pseudo skeptics are even more brazen with ego, it is nauseating to watch them lie to themselves and their interviewers exposing just how naive they can be believing no one will notice, because to their thinking, there's nothing to notice. They then go home smiling in anticipation of that next big pay check already in the mail.

Exactly!

It's like facts mean nothing.

The same pseudoskeptics make the same illogical arguments in this forum or anything about Psi or the Paranormal. They basically say everything is a hoax or idiots with faulty memory. So there's no need to use logic and reason when you've reach a conclusion before examining the evidence.

You know something about pro-alien or anti-alien or pro 911 truth or anti 911 truther pisses people off on this forum.

Folks get angry and argue about it intensely as if they have something personal to do with it.

There have been warnings in the 911 and UFO threads because of this strange propensity to this visceral attitude regarding these subjects.

Just an observation

a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry if this has already been brought up, I haven't had time to read through this thread, but one thing which stands out to me about this case is the description of the large humanoid creatures which took them to the ship. The depiction in the video shows them having what looks like very wrinkly skin, and I recall a case where the aliens were described as having wrinkly skin like that of an elephant. I cannot remember what case it was but I don't think it was this one, if anyone knows what I'm referring to please help refresh my memory. He doesn't seem to say they have elephant-type skin in the video, but they show pictures which look very much like the pictures from this other case. Could it be that they're just using images taken from another case in this video to show what the beings look like? Also, it's good to see people extending on the future human idea, haha.

originally posted by: Willtell

Folks get angry and argue about it intensely as if they have something personal to do with it.

There have been warnings in the 911 and UFO threads because of this strange propensity to this visceral attitude regarding these subjects.

The visceral anger from some quarters is indeed alarming - as if someone had just run over their beloved pet. And for what? An opinion on a subject that has been actively elusive for over 70 years?

I'm completely open-minded about the existence of a Phenomenon, but over time I've found that many of the Big Cases that form the foundations of ufology are probably less reliable than 'smaller' personal experiences recounted on this very website - some of which still leave me pondering long after studying them. I've certainly felt frustration when cases I have put a lot of faith in have collapsed over time - Roswell is a classic example, Lazar another, and I think Rendlesham is ready to topple, too. And those are arguably the three main pillars of ufology. But so what? Far more interesting material resides outside those pillars IMO.

I loved the Pascagoula case, too, but I have to follow my own instincts, and I regret its passing as far as my own interest is concerned. But good luck to Neo, Cravens and others who continue to hold a torch for it.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Throughout this thread, I've been saying there's enough evidence to conclude these men experienced what they said they experienced and they weren't making it up.

I disagree, there really isn't any evidence besides their testimony. However when you combine that with the testimony of hundreds of other people who have been abducted and report similar beings, you start to get something a bit more solid, but it's still not something I would call absolutely conclusive. This is one of the main issues I've always had with your arguing style, you're never willing to accept other points of view and leave no room for error in your position. You make a very good point in the opening post by saying we should look for the more believable witnesses instead of assuming all testimony is equally invalid, because certain cases are more robust and more believable than other cases, and you can get some very interesting insights by looking at the correlations between the most believable cases. I find it very hard to believe all of these different abductees would be lying in such a consistent fashion, but I'm still not willing to support that position with full confidence, there is always a chance my gut feelings could be wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong at all, I'm just saying you shouldn't get set in one frame of mind and dismiss everything else, always be willing to accept the possibility you are wrong.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

I disagree, there really isn't any evidence besides their testimony.

That's just ridiculous.

Again, there's overwhelming evidence that the men experienced what they said they experienced. I have listed it over and over again in this thread and I'm not going to do it again. If you want to know what it is, read the thread.

I have said over and over again in this thread that there's evidence to conclude the men experienced what they said they experienced. Everyone who interviewed the men at the time believed them even skeptical investigators. They passed polygraph tests. Multiple sightings occurred of something similar by other people. I can go on and on but like I said, read the thread. It's 6 pages long so I'm not going to repost everything for you.

I have said, once you conclude that the men experienced what they said they experienced, you then have to explain what they experienced. Pseudoskeptics can't explain it and they don't even want to try and explain it because they've already concluded that extraterrestrial visitation can't occur. It's hard to be open minded when you start with a conclusion. You said:

This is one of the main issues I've always had with your arguing style, you're never willing to accept other points of view and leave no room for error in your position.

Wrong again!

I have said throughout the thread that I have concluded there's a high probability that extraterrestrials exist. A high probability leaves room for error.

I don't have any room for error when it comes to illogical pseudoskepticism masquerading as skepticism. Like I said, I'm a skeptic on the Walton case and others. A pseudoskeptic treats all evidence equally because they conclude before examining the evidence that everyone is lying or they're idiots with faulty memories and credibility of the witness means nothing.

This is illogical

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Throughout this thread, I've been saying there's enough evidence to conclude these men experienced what they said they experienced and they weren't making it up.

I disagree, there really isn't any evidence besides their testimony. However when you combine that with the testimony of hundreds of other people who have been abducted and report similar beings, you start to get something a bit more solid, but it's still not something I would call absolutely conclusive.

You cannot combine testimony due to the lack of evidence. Numbers do not guarantee strength.

(snip)the correlations between the most believable cases. I find it very hard to believe all of these different abductees would be lying in such a consistent fashion, (snip)

You ever heard of books, movies, TVs? What you read/see is what you get. When Whitley Strieber's book "COMMUNION" with the alien's face on the cover, descriptions of similar sightings were reported exponentially none of them supported with an iota of evidence. Who do you believe?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

I disagree, there really isn't any evidence besides their testimony.

That's just ridiculous.

Again, there's overwhelming evidence that the men experienced what they said they experienced. I have listed it over and over again in this thread and I'm not going to do it again.

You just don't get it. There is no overwhelming evidence:

Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something — like the evidence presented in a trial.

You have NOT listed any evidence. What you have listed persistently here is your belief in the pair's testimony. Perhaps it's strong and perhaps it's not. Your belief doesn't swing it either way. But you are definitely a stickler for your belief, natch. Par for the shortcomings of belief.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is also why we have expert witnesses because it can bolster the account of the evidence and the eyewitnesses if there are any. So this is a very strong case and I would say A, they experienced something unique and B, it was extraterrestrial visitation. I'm 100% convinced of A and about 95% convinced of B. There's no other explanation that makes sense outside of post singularity visitation.

Really? No other explanation out there besides that?

You know watching this, since when did mainstream tv start to bother with these stories? I suspect since the digital mediums have started to cut into there ratings, even they had to start improvising, and get with the program to stay afloat and relevant.

I am starting to miss the days were this was explained by a few guys saying one liners over and over, well you know there the town drunks, so don't take it seriously, hoax, yada yada yada.

Anyways, they say that lazyness is the root of all evil, which may not be the case, but lazyness does seem to breed much of it. And any aliens to lazy to wipe out the memories of those they abduct, I really dont know what to say. Maybe they were in a hurry to get to alpha centauri and this detour was just killing progression. I suppose that's forgivable even if it is lazy.

Now what other explanation can there be for this obvious UFO abduction right?