A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction

Pretty awesome tale.

These Police secret recording lends the story some credence....unless we find the copper was their drinking fishing buddy

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good call Zazz, researcher Phil Mantle also makes some interesting comments in this vid citing a document found in the CUFON archives describing the witnesses having 'puncture wounds'.

originally posted by: neoholographic

He then says something came out of the ceiling and examined his head.

Very strange and does sound a bit similar to this freaky case from Scotland.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.

originally posted by: neoholographic

On the other hand, Parker stayed out of the limelight for 45 years and this is his first book about the incident. The young man did see the abduction event. He was the one that was very scared and talked about the event when they went to Police.

Again, Parker has no motive to lie. Hickson passed a polygraph and Parker didn't seek to capitalize on this situation when Professional pseudoskeptic make a lot of money being skeptical about everything. They will probably question there name if they could make money off of it.

There were other eyewitnesses.

Some of their claims:

- 30 foot UFO with a little dome on top and two flashing blue lights.
- A door opens and 3 floating alien beings come out of the craft.
- 4 to 5 foot aliens that had elephant-like wrinkled skin, triangle shaped ears (Hickson says they must have been antennas), seemed mechanical like robots, and had claws instead of hands.
- They were taken aboard the craft and put on a examination table and Charles Hickson said a giant eyeball came out of the wall and examined him, he could see dials and gadgets moving around.
Parker claimed a female-featured alien placed her long fingers down his throat to examine the back.
And many other claims throughout the years.

The entire incident they describe reads more like a collection of bad Sci-Fi movies, UFO lore, and comic books than a real life event that can be taken seriously. What they describe seems to be reflective of the time they grew up and is unoriginal. Can you not see the human influences in their tale?
- A giant football-sized eyeball that moves around and examines Hickson - straight out of War of the Worlds.
- Robotic-like creatures with movements as if the aliens are carrying out orders - The Day the Earth Stood Still.
- Moving dials and gadgets - any sci-fi movie or TV show from the 50s on.
- UFO description - straight out of UFO lore complete with a dome on top (I guess observation domes aren't popular with alien ships these days? )
- Aliens with claws for hands - any UFO comic book of the 50s.
- Nonsensical flashing, attention grabbing, blue lights.
- Abduction and examination - Betty and Barney Hill case.
Yet you're arguing and pointing fingers at the skeptical? You should begin and approach any incident with a grounded and skeptical mind and point of view and work out from there. You don't approach it believing they're being truthful.

There's absolutely no basis to build a believable case on with either man. No proof with them nor within the entire 70+ year history of phenomenon to give an ounce of credibility to their abduction story. Unless you think the story in itself is proof enough, in which I'd like you to point out where and show the evidence. A light in the sky by other witnesses also doesn't make for a stronger case of their physical abduction, without evidence.

The threshold of evidence shouldn't be held to such low standards when tales like this are told. It's this type of nonsense mindset and thinking that give these silly cases any publicity.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

The threshold of evidence shouldn't be held to such low standards when tales like this are told. It's this type of nonsense mindset and thinking that give these silly cases any publicity.

I've sought out and admired your work on ATS, Ectoplasm8 (your classic underrated Roswell thread is an abject lesson in practical scepticism).


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.

Brush aside the pulp sci-fi and we're left with two blokes who genuinely seemed to experience a truly disturbing event. When J. Allen Hynek (still in his sceptical phase), James McDivitt (a sceptic who hasn't participated in the UFOtainment circuit like other astronauts we could mention) and others spoke to them personally, they had no shadow of a doubt that these men believed their own story. That doesn't prove anything of course, but it's food for thought.

I'm usually very cautious about these cases, but I don't sense confabulation at work here, either, so what DID happen to them if it wasn't an anomalous event? Why would those pulpy images be implanted within their memories and minds? And why did they discuss the event as if it were real during the secret police recording?

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.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

When a fantastical claim of alien abduction like this is made, in lieu of actual evidence, you have to be skeptical. Those that support and buy into alien beings on Earth, seem to conveniently leave out parts of stories to make for a better case of aliens. It's done on this forum all of the time. They're less than genuine when telling the tale. Their view is skewed towards believing and this is why researching these cases for yourself is important. To come to your own conclusion, not someone elses. This incident is not without question.

Some questionable points:

Both Hickson and Parker initially went to the local newspaper that night with this story. They were closed and they ended up going to the sheriffs office. This doesn't sound like two men hiding from the limelight, seems like they were looking for publicity.

While both men agreed, only Hickson took the polygraph test. At the time of the polygraph, their lawyer refused testing by local experienced polygraph operators or by a respected tester from Mobile. Instead, he requested a polygraph operator 100+ miles away in New Orleans. This tester happened to work for a friend of the lawyer and had not completed his polygraph training and wasn't certified. You have to question why he was used.

In later interviews, Parker expanded on his story. He also claimed the same craft visited him 19 years later. He goes on to describe walking aboard the craft and coming in contact with the same feminine featured alien he did in 1973. This time the alien spoke to him about religion telling him they share the same god and the Bible is genuine text. She also said her species wanted to live on Earth but couldn't because of our own self-destructive behavior. This speaks to Parkers character.

Two 24-hour toll booths were in view of the abduction. Why didn't either operator report seeing flashing blue lights or a blinding white light as described by Hickson? He claimed the abduction lasted from 20 minutes to an hour, plenty of time to view these lights. Flashing blue lights would be attention grabbing to anyone. There's a reason they're used by police departments.

Piggybacking on the creative minds of others, such as writers, artists, film makers, etc. makes coming up with a visual story easy, in particular for those lacking much originality and imagination. Besides the total lack of evidence, the descriptions seem to me to be too closely influenced by human interpretations of aliens. 

Posts like that are what can cause threads like this to screech to a halt.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
... and this is why researching these cases for yourself is important. To come to your own conclusion, not someone elses. This incident is not without question.

Agreed. Roswell being a prime example, and one of the first monoliths of ufology to tumble as soon as I joined ATS exactly a year ago this week after a 20-year hiatus from reading up on this kooky subject.

I freely admit that I hadn't dug deep into THIS case beyond the most well-known points - eg the police recording being the main headline grabber - which naturally leaves out...

Some questionable points:

And I'm all ears...

Both Hickson and Parker initially went to the local newspaper that night with this story. They were closed and they ended up going to the sheriffs office. This doesn't sound like two men hiding from the limelight, seems like they were looking for publicity.

And there ya go - news to me. That they went to the press the same night rather than initially calling the cops first is like a red flag flapping in a hurricane. I didn't know that. Suddenly even the potential for confabulation gives way to more fundamental suspicions.

(Off-topic, but a current thread I created about the 1952 Stock UFO photos includes mitigating circumstances such as Stock's friend 'betraying' him by selling the pics to the press without his permission, supporting the theory that Stock wasn't a publicity-seeker. But who's to say that this wasn't the grand plan from the start?)

While both men agreed, only Hickson took the polygraph test. At the time of the polygraph, their lawyer refused testing by local experienced polygraph operators or by a respected tester from Mobile. Instead, he requested a polygraph operator 100+ miles away in New Orleans. This tester happened to work for a friend of the lawyer and had not completed his polygraph training and wasn't certified. You have to question why he was used.

That flag's flapping even more violently, my friend. And we've seen that kind of behaviour in other 'classic' cases.

In later interviews, Parker expanded on his story. He also claimed the same craft visited him 19 years later. He goes on to describe walking aboard the craft and coming in contact with the same feminine featured alien he did in 1973. This time the alien spoke to him about religion telling him they share the same god and the Bible is genuine text. She also said her species wanted to live on Earth but couldn't because of our own self-destructive behavior. This speaks to Parkers character.

Oh Jeezus... Parker started suffering from a severe case of Pennistonitus... and a heavy dose of the God Squad.

Add in the 24/7 toll booths and, mannnn, you sure know how to spoil the party, Ecto - but such info is crucial, so I tip my hat to you. Your mighty Roswell thread again springs to mind.


Even if I harbour a slightly lingering sense of...



But that's my fault for being lazy and not researching further.

Are we now considering a couple of men who could pocket Oscars without breaking into a sweat? And does this bring the 'secrecy' of the police recording into a more serious round of questioning?

And if these two fellas were still Brando-ing it to the full even whilst believing they were alone, that sure is dedication to their art - if not also an indication of a few loose marbles into the bargain if this whole case was indeed a hoax from the start.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

All of your points are just silly. Point one:

Both Hickson and Parker initially went to the local newspaper that night with this story. They were closed and they ended up going to the sheriffs office. This doesn't sound like two men hiding from the limelight, seems like they were looking for publicity.

They were looking for publicity? Based on what? This is just an asinine comment. Maybe they knew someone they trusted at the paper. After something like that, how are you suppose to act? If Parker was looking for publicity, why did he want to keep quiet? Why did he stay mostly quiet for 45 years?

You said:

While both men agreed, only Hickson took the polygraph test. At the time of the polygraph, their lawyer refused testing by local experienced polygraph operators or by a respected tester from Mobile. Instead, he requested a polygraph operator 100+ miles away in New Orleans. This tester happened to work for a friend of the lawyer and had not completed his polygraph training and wasn't certified. You have to question why he was used.

Again, who exactly was this person who carried out the Polygraph. What was his name and exactly how do you know his level of training? Also, Parker did pass a Polygraph exam. This all comes from Skeptic Phillip Klass.

In his book “UFOs Explained,” UFO skeptic Philip Klass noted Hickson changed some details of his story and Klass also questioned the competence of a polygraph operator whose test Hickson passed. Parker later passed a lie-detector test himself.

www.apnews.com...

Again, typical pseudoskeptic nonsense. You can't refute the story so all you try to do is cast small doubts that don't mean anything. This is because, the pseudoskeptic knows logically he/she can't refute the story. Why do you believe Klass or anything he says?

You said:

Two 24-hour toll booths were in view of the abduction. Why didn't either operator report seeing flashing blue lights or a blinding white light as described by Hickson? He claimed the abduction lasted from 20 minutes to an hour, plenty of time to view these lights. Flashing blue lights would be attention grabbing to anyone. There's a reason they're used by police departments.

This is meaningless. Who are these toll booth operators? Did they take Polygraphs? How do you know they're not lying? Why do you blindly believe them? Why couldn't both Hickson and Parker be telling the truth and the toll booth operators? It's nonsense. You also have multiple eyewitness who reported seeing something similar around the time of Hickson and Parker.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Maybe they knew someone they trusted at the paper. After something like that, how are you suppose to act? If Parker was looking for publicity, why did he want to keep quiet? Why did he stay mostly quiet for 45 years?

Good points. I was ruminating about how I myself would react (assuming I'm not perpetrating a hoax) and judge as the best people to contact first. The cops? That would depend on their local reputation, plus the consideration that there was nothing the police could intrinsically investigate - after all, the perpetrators would, in theory, be light years away by that stage. I might even get my knuckles cracked for wasting police time. If I did indeed know someone at the local rag, I'd definitely turn to them first as a comfortable 'middle ground', perhaps leading to potential discussions about whether the cops should indeed be involved or not.

Again, who exactly was this person who carried out the Polygraph. What was his name and exactly how do you know his level of training? Also, Parker did pass a Polygraph exam. This all comes from Skeptic Phillip Klass.

Klass could indeed be a somewhat over-zealous, rabid debunker - in the eyes of sceptics and believers alike - without ever the slightest potential of stretching nailed-down scientific horizons. Relying on Klass alone is a foolish venture, but I doubt Ectoplasm8 is likely to ever do that.

The mental state of both men and their sheer conviction during interviews supersedes fluff like lie-detectors in my eyes. However, Ecto is entirely correct that the absurd pulp fiction imagery is a cause for concern (it's straight out of an 'Outer Limits' yarn), but it almost seems TOO pulpy and absurd to invent, unless the two men really were that naive if creating a hoax.

Travis Walton and the influential TV movie based on the Hills' story, 'The UFO Incident', were still two years away and Project Blue Book's success in downplaying public interest had dampened the topic since 1969, despite if not because of the sober Apollo missions that diverted attention away from more fantastical theories by 1973.

It was such a bizarre and thoroughly unlikely story to invent in 1973. But I'm still open-minded about this case. Even Parker's strange, rather laughable elaborations years later do not necessarily detract from his original account, especially considering that if it were indeed real, chances are it was profound enough to skewer his outlook on life permanently in any case. His religious angle may sound like utter BS, and probably is, but my point still stands about a genuine incident's after-affects.

I'm swinging back and forth in this case, unlikely to settle on Truth or Hoax anytime soon. The secret police recording really does need deeper investigation since it infamously forms the crux of the case, despite the apparent truthfulness of both men's state of mind.


Ectoplasm8's observations are just as important as any other, helping contribute to a fascinating overall puzzle where no stone should be left unturned, whether sceptical or not.

...the pseudoskeptic knows logically he/she can't refute the story.

The use of a "pseudo" prefix doesn't help the discussion; you're better than that. Check out Ecto's brilliant previous work on ATS to understand.

Also, if I say I've just seen two blue giraffes walk in front of me as I type, can you refute that it didn't happen? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan actually nicked that line from someone else, by the way) and at present, the police recording remains rather extraordinary for me if these men were not genuine Oscar contenders.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Good points. You said:

Also, if I say I've just seen two blue giraffes walk in front of me as I type, can you refute that it didn't happen? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan actually nicked that line from someone else, by the way) and at present, the police recording remains rather extraordinary for me if these men were not genuine Oscar contenders.

This is faulty logic. Two blue giraffes doesn't compare to the mountains of evidence in Ufology. It's a false equivalency. So if you said you saw two blue giraffes, I have absolutely no reason to believe you. If someone says I saw a U.F.O. or had a close encounter, I have millions of reasons to at least take it seriously because of all of the pieces of evidence that already exists plus I have had 3 U.F.O. sightings of my own.

So, I don't accept the extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence mumbo jumbo. I don't think you can say seeing a U.F.O. or saying Aliens exist is an extraordinary claim. 50-60 years ago it might have been an extraordinary claim but today we know about things like extremophiles surviving in all kinds of conditions and exoplanets. We have Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Edgar Mitchell and others saying they think Aliens exist.

I would say most Scientist believe extraterrestrials exist while not believing in visitation.

So I don't think it's an extraordinary claim because of the mountains of evidence. We have U.F.O. sightings at Military facilities with Nukes and they disable the Nukes.





Like I said, 50-60 years ago, this was an extraordinary claim, today it's not. Also, extraordinary evidence is in the eye of the beholder. So I can present all of the evidence in the world that supports Ufology but it will never be enough because you need something more than evidence that's subjective.

I say the word pseudoskeptic because a pseudoskeptic will try to negate all of the evidence because there might be small discrepancies. That makes no sense. You can have criminals testifying against criminals and there maybe small discrepancies in their story and they have a shady background but it doesn't negate their testimony if it's strong.

Parker and Hickson have a very solid account and there's nothing that negates their story. There's nothing that brings doubt to their story to date.

So you can only conclude something happened to them and they believe it was the experience they described. The next step is to try and explain it.

The pseudoskeptic can't refute their story which shows the strength of their story. So they the toll booth operators but nobody knows who they are. Have they been polygraphed? How do you know they weren't sleep or maybe they were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing and they weren't there. There was also multiple witnesses who saw something similar around the same time.

Now, Travis Walton case has many more problems. I have confidence that the crew had a U.F.O. sighting, I'm not confident in Walton's abduction tale.

You have Walton's family who were into U.F.O.'s

Walton said he didn't eat for 5 days but the lack of ketones in his urine suggest otherwise.

Walton failed the 1st polygraph the National Enquirer and of course you blame the examiner when you don't get the results you want.

These things and more are big problems but Parker and Hickson's experience is much stronger than Walton's. A pseudoskeptic is someone who tries to paint all of these accounts in the same way .

I asked a pseudoskeptic earlier to name one account that was compelling and couldn't be explained. He couldn't do it which is just dishonest. I have debated skeptics who admit that some cases are compelling and they can't explain it but they just think the explanation will not involve extraterrestrials. A psudoskeptic can't look at these things logically so all cases are bad and equally invalid.

First seeking out a newspaper to tell their story is not looking for publicity? This can't be a serious comment. Weak argument.

 

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, who exactly was this person who carried out the Polygraph. What was his name and exactly how do you know his level of training? Also, Parker did pass a Polygraph exam. This all comes from Skeptic Phillip Klass.

Sorry, but that all comes from MUFONS investigation, not Phillip Klass. That reveals to me how little investigation you've done yourself into this incident. If you did, you would have caught on to that. You can't speak with any authority or conviction on this case because you're obviously just parroting what others have sold you and refusing to look at both sides. Do some of your own research if you want to be informed.

What incentive does Hickson and Parker have to lie compared to the two men in the toll booths? Again, seriously? Hickson and Parker are trying to sell the public their story, that's their incentive. Another desperate illogical argument to defend your
belief.
I base my conclusion on the lack of any real evidence. You're basing your conclusion on hopeful belief in their story. We're on two different levels.

Point to the strongest evidence that says, without question, that these men were abducted by 3 floating robotic space aliens with one leg, elephant-like feet, pointed carrot-like noses and ears, wrinkly skin, lobster claw hands holding hypodermic needles. That's what you say you're "95% convinced" of.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Just like I thought. A post that's lacking any substance. If you would have read the MUFON story, you could see they were quoting Klass.

Aviation journalist and UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass argued that there was reason to question the reliability of Hickson's lie detector exam, writing,

The polygraph test was given to Hickson by a young operator, just out of school, who had not completed his formal training, who had not been certified by his own school and who had not taken a state licensing examination. Furthermore, that the lawyer for Hickson and Parker - who also was acting as their "booking agent" - had turned down the chance to have his clients tested WITHOUT CHARGE by the very experienced Capt. Charles Wimberly, chief polygraph operator from the nearby Mobile Police Dept. Also, that the lawyer did not contact other experienced polygraph operators close to Pascagoula. Instead, the lawyer had imported from New Orleans - more than 100 miles away - the young, inexperienced, uncertified, unlicensed operator who, by a curious coincidence, worked for a friend of the lawyer!

They're quoting from Klass.

This is how pseudoskeptics spread things. People, including MUFON, repeat these things without a shred of evidence because Klass, just like Shermer and Nickell's are just quoted skeptics. So, whenever people write about U.F.O.'s they feel they have to appear fair so they quote some skeptic and for a long time it was usually one of the three stooges.

Nobody has verified this information. This all comes from Klass. Here's a test. Find another source outside of Klass that makes these claims. Who was this inexperienced polygraph tester and what exactly was his credentials?

The fact that they thought about going to the Newspaper doesn't mean they were seeking publicity. That's just silly. If they were seeking publicity, why did they go to work the next day and ask the Sheriff to keep quiet?

Hickson and Parker returned to work the day after the encounter (Friday, October 12). They did not initially discuss their purported UFO encounter, but coworkers no ted that Parker seemed very anxious and preoccupied. Within hours, Sheriff Diamond telephoned the men at work, stating that news reporters were swarming in his office, seeking more information about the UFO story. An angry Hickson accused Diamond of breaking his confidentiality pledge, but Diamond insisted he had not done so, and that the case was too sensational to keep quiet.

www.mufon.com...

Why didn't they tell everyone at work and try to tell everyone in town, if all they wanted was publicity? If they were just seeking publicity, why did Parker stay mostly quiet for 45 years and he suffered an emotional breakdown over a fake story?

Tiring of the publicity, Hickson and Parker went to Jones County, Mississippi (about 150 miles north of Pascagoula), where both men hoped to find relief with family members. Parker was eventually hospitalized for what Clark describes as "an emotional breakdown." (Clark, 449)

www.mufon.com...

Again, you don't provide a shred of evidence to support what you're saying. ConfusedBrit said this:

Relying on Klass alone is a foolish venture, but I doubt Ectoplasm8 is likely to ever do that.

LOL, sorry ConfusedBrit, but this is exactly the case. Again, provide evidence outside of Klass that supports his version of the Polygraph story. Answer these questions:

1. Who carried out the Polygraph test?

2. What was his credentials?

3. When did Charles Wimberly offer to do a Polygraph test for free?

These are all claims made by Klass and repeated over and over again without any verification. As ConfusedBrit said:

Relying on Klass alone is a foolish venture, but I doubt Ectoplasm8 is likely to ever do that.

Will you?

a reply to: neoholographic

Have you been able to verify Ecto’s assertion that the pair went to a newspaper before the police? Maybe before calling Kessler AFB?

Ecto couldn’t be bothered to link any ‘research’...I would like to be bothered to research one’s assertions. Thanks in advance 🙏

Cheers.

originally posted by: Cravens

Have you been able to verify Ecto’s assertion that the pair went to a newspaper before the police? Maybe before calling Kessler AFB?

Patrick Gross does give a timeline on this page mate - counterpoints to the hoax theory are also discussed as well as other localised UFO reports from the same time.

As the men were still in the Sheriff's office, a former pilot called and stated he saw a UFO at about 08:00pm near the Pascagoula River. A city former city counsellor and several other people also reported later to report their sighting.

Three different people have phoned the Sheriff's office to report their observation of a strange blue light in the area where the two men were abducted. These people remained anonymous, they were driving on the Interstate 90 a few hundred yards from the abduction's location that night.

28 years later a witness comes forward, according to the newspaper "Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal" of October 21, 2001. It even seems reasonable to think that this witness is one of the three people in the car on Route 90 as mentioned above, this time the witness gave his name.

Two days after the events, a meteorologist of Columbia reported that he had a strange radar echo the same day: He first thought it was a plane, but started to wonder about that when the echo remains stationary and his radar was completely jammed moments later.

There has been another possible independent confirmation: at 9:00pm after watching TV, Larry Booth of Pascagoula got up to check the front door prior to going to bed. He noticed a huge object with red revolving lights hovering 8-10 feet over the street lamp. He thought it was an experimental craft run out of the local military base.

a reply to: karl 12

Thank you kind sir

originally posted by: Cravens
a reply to: neoholographic

Have you been able to verify Ecto’s assertion that the pair went to a newspaper before the police? Maybe before calling Kessler AFB?

Ecto couldn’t be bothered to link any ‘research’...I would like to be bothered to research one’s assertions. Thanks in advance 🙏

Cheers.

Easy enough... An interview with Pascagoula Sheriff Fred Diamond talking about both men going to the newspaper first:

YouTube Interview



...you're welcome

You're right, I misspoke when saying Philip Klass didn't make that claim in the MUFON journal. He left a collection of his research on this case to the American Philosophical Society Library HERE

originally posted by: neoholographic
The fact that they thought about going to the Newspaper doesn't mean they were seeking publicity. That's just silly. If they were seeking publicity, why did they go to work the next day and ask the Sheriff to keep quiet?

If you go to a newspaper to tell a story, it's to get your story out. That's what newspapers do:

newspaper
[nooz-pey-per, nyooz-, noos-, nyoos-]
noun/
a publication issued at regular and usually close intervals, especially daily or weekly, and commonly containing news, comment, features, and advertising.

"publication"?

publication
[pub·​li·​ca·​tion | ˌpə-blə-ˈkā-shən]
noun
A publication is something made to communicate with the public. Publications are usually printed on paper (like magazines and books), but online publications are delivered via the Internet.

As I posted, this is what Sheriff Diamond said was the intention by the men. I can't believe I even need to defend newspapers being a public forum. It's an idiotic argument and waste of time.

According to the MUFON article above, they told both the foreman on their job and the owner of the shipyard, Johnny Walker the next day. If this was an embarrassing story to tell and they didn't want it to be known publically, why go to anyone with it? Why not keep it within their family and friends who may actually keep that secret? Why go to the towns sheriff with the story? Why tell other people outside of their family, which in turn only exponentially grows to other people they also don't know? The idea that they wanted to keep it secret is ridiculous and goes against their own actions. It defies logic.

As far as why Parker wasn't more public with his story, it seems like Hickson was the one intent on getting this story out. He was the talker of this tale. Doing TV interviews, UFO conference talks and so on. He was obviously much more comfortable in the public eye than Parker. Parker did make occasional appearances. According to the MUFON article, he made more elaborate statements and changed parts of his story as time went on. For all we know Hickson got Parker to go along with him on the story. Parker stayed in the background to avoid being grilled on detailed portions because he didn't know how to handle those questions. Just a thought. Who knows. What I do know, that's based in facts as much as an abduction of floating robotic one-legged pointy nose and eared lobster-clawed wrinkly space aliens with elephant-like feet is.

1. Who carried out the Polygraph test?

Again, if you would do research for yourself, you wouldn't have to repeatedly ask for the polygraph operators name. I don't have hours to research this particular case, but doing a bit of research for his name is not that difficult if you know how. It doesn't take a genius.
The mans name is Scott Glasgow and lived in New Orleans, 111 miles away. He was chosen to give the test under the approval of their lawyer and both Hickson and Parker. Here is a newspaper clipping from the time, those points highlighted in yellow, in case you think I pull facts out of thin air:



Unless you believe the reporter for the article was working in cahoots with Philip Klass in a "pseudoskeptic" conspiracy, it helps substantiate Klass' claim. It provides a few interesting logical questions to be asked. Why would a polygraph tester need to be called in from 111 miles away in New Orleans Louisiana when there was a professional tester 40 miles away in Mobile? Why would Hickson and Parker want to hire a lawyer? This is an outside source that supports Klass' claims by way of mentioning the illogical distance for a lie detector tester and then only allowing it under the advice of a lawyer.

You never answered my question:
Point to the strongest evidence that says, without question, that these men were abducted by 3 floating robotic space aliens with one leg, elephant-like feet, pointed carrot-like noses and ears, wrinkly skin, lobster claw hands holding hypodermic needles. That's what you say you're "95% convinced" of.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

LOL, exactly what I thought you would post and it's just more obfuscation. None of it supports Klass or answers any of my questions.

Where's the evidence that he was some inexperienced Polygraph tester?

Of course a Lawyer is going to work with people he/she knows. There's no evidence that he was offered a free test by Charles Wimberly and again, why would a Lawyer send his client to a Polygraph tester he doesn't know when Hickson and Parker already don't trust the Police Department because they think they leaked the story.

Your Post refutes Klass, it says HICKSON IN COOPERATION WITH DIAMOND. The Police Department Sheriff Diamond worked with Hickson to administer the lie detector test. Here's what Klass said:

The polygraph test was given to Hickson by a young operator, just out of school, who had not completed his formal training, who had not been certified by his own school and who had not taken a state licensing examination. Furthermore, that the lawyer for Hickson and Parker - who also was acting as their "booking agent" - had turned down the chance to have his clients tested WITHOUT CHARGE by the very experienced Capt. Charles Wimberly, chief polygraph operator from the nearby Mobile Police Dept.

Klass said that the Lawyer was acting as his booking agent, which is the way most Lawyers act for their Clients, but your post refutes Klass.

It says Hickson worked in Cooperation with Sheriff Diamond and Parker later took a Polygraph test and passed.

This is typical pseudoskeptic nonsense. You make it seem like a Lawyer protecting their client is something new and out of the ordinary. Every Lawyer I have dealt with would be overly cautious and do things to protect the client first and I mostly deal with Real Estate Attorney's. Klass also said this:

Also, that the lawyer did not contact other experienced polygraph operators close to Pascagoula. Instead, the lawyer had imported from New Orleans - more than 100 miles away - the young, inexperienced, uncertified, unlicensed operator who, by a curious coincidence, worked for a friend of the lawyer!

www.mufon.com...

Where's the evidence the Lawyer didn't contact anyone closer that he may know?

Klass called him young, inexperienced, uncertified, unlicensed operator where's the evidence?

CURIOUS COINCIDENCE?

Why is it a curious coincidence that a Lawyer is going to protect his client and call someone that worked for a friend? If every Lawyer was disbarred who worked with friends or people that worked with friends, then there would be no Lawyers.

The pseudoskeptic turns a well known and obvious case of a Lawyer protecting his client into a CURIOUS COINCIDENCE!

Hickson and Parker passed lie detector tests and were believed by most people at the time this occurred including skeptics like Hynek.

Pseudoskeptics like Klass made all of these claims without backing them up. The fact that he turns a Lawyer protecting his client into a curious coincidence shows how pseudoskeptics try to magnify the mundane into a federal offense.

The pseudoskeptic tries to make it seem like going to a local newspaper after this is looking for publicity when they went to work the next day and told the Sheriff's Department not to say anything. If they were looking for publicity why didn't they call the newspaper the next morning and hold a press conference? Why go to work at all?

Here's Hickson talking about this:

As they drove away in Parker's Plymouth, Hickson and Parker agreed not to tell anyone about the incident.

"I knew people would call us crazy and everything else," Hickson says. "But I thought about it some more and said, 'What if it's a threat to our country?' That's when I decided to call Keesler (Air Force Base in Biloxi)."

The person who answered the phone at Keesler said they didn't investigate UFOs and suggested Hickson call the sheriff's department.

That's when Hickson spoke with Glenn Ryder from a convenience store pay phone.

"He said, 'I want to tell you something, but you've got to promise not to laugh,' " recalls Ryder, now 63 and retired. "I was about to get off work, so it kinda aggravated me. I said, 'If you want to tell me something, then tell me.' He asked me again to promise not to laugh, so I promised.

"He said, 'I just got picked up by a UFO.' And, of course, I busted out laughing. He got real upset, so I apologized and told him to go ahead with his story. I could tell he was serious."

Ryder convinced Hickson and Parker to drive to the sheriff's office. He called Jackson County sheriff Fred Diamond, now deceased, to join him for the questioning.

Ryder remembers: "When they walked in, Charlie said, 'I just want to tell you up front, I've had a drink. I had to do something to try and settle my nerves.'

"The young boy was real fidgety. He was about to crawl the walls."

www.clarionledger.com...

So they were trying to figure out what do do next. They even called Keesler Air Force base.

This is evidence of pseudoskeptic embellishment. You make it seem like they ran straight to a Newspaper looking for publicity when that's just a lie. All of the facts support that they had the experience they described. The only thing you can do after that is try to explain why they had this experience.

The Sheriff believed them, the Skeptic Hynek believed them, they both passed polygraph test, there's multiple eyewitnesses who saw something similar around the same time, Parker had an emotional breakdown, Parker hardly said anything after the incident for 45 years. This is a man seeking publicity?

Here's more:

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."

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Again, everything about the story points to Hickson and Parker had the experience they described. There's not a shred of evidence that points to a hoax or a made up story.

This is why pseudoskeptic Klass has to try and attack the guy who took the polygraph or he has to turn a Lawyer protecting his client into a CURIOUS COINCIDENCE.

He can't refute that the experience happened as it was told.

The only thing you can do then is try to explain what they saw.

Where's the movie deals? Where's the traveling around the world getting rich off of this story? Parker and Hickson could have gotten filthy rich just going to U.F.O. conventions and doing all sorts of deals for money.

So your claim that they wanted publicity is just Asinine. Everything Parker did after the fact was the opposite of wanting publicity.

It's funny, you claim because these men went to a newspaper they were seeking publicity yet one of the men Parker said basically nothing for 45 years and had an emotional breakdown.

Klass on the other hand got rich from being a Professional pseudoskeptic. Here's the books he wrote:

UFOs — Identified, 1968, Random House, ISBN 0-394-45003-5
Secret Sentries in Space, 1971, Random House, ISBN 0-394-46972-0, LCCN 77-143994 (about spy satellites)
UFOs Explained, 1974, Random House, hardback ISBN 0-394-49215-3 Vintage Books paperback, ISBN 0-394-72106-3
UFOs: The Public Deceived, 1983, Prometheus, ISBN 0-87975-322-6
UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game, 1989, Prometheus, ISBN 0-87975-509-1
The Real Roswell Crashed-saucer Coverup, 1997, Prometheus, ISBN 1-57392-164-5
Bringing UFOs Down to Earth, 1997, Prometheus, ISBN 1-57392-148-3 (for ages 9–12)

Here's some of the articles:

"Plasma theory may explain many UFOs". Aviation Week & Space Technology. McGraw Hill. August 22, 1966. ISSN 0005-2175.
"N-Rays and UFOs: Are they related". Skeptical Inquirer. 2 (1): 57–61. 1977. ISSN 0194-6730.
"NASA, the White House, and UFOs". Skeptical Inquirer. 2 (2): 72–81. 1978. Reprinted in Paranormal Borderlands of Science.
"UFOs, the CIA, and the New York Times". Skeptical Inquirer. 4 (3): 2–5. 1980. Reprinted in Paranormal Borderlands of Science.[53]
"UFO federation falls on hard times". Skeptical Inquirer. 9 (4): 314–316. 1985.
"Crash of the crashed saucer claim". Skeptical Inquirer. 10 (3): 234–241. 1986. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion and The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal.
"A Hoax UFO Document". Skeptical Inquirer. 10 (3): 238–239. 1986.
"The Condon UFO study: A trick or a conspiracy". Skeptical Inquirer. 10 (4): 328–341. 1986. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"FAA data sheds new light on JAL pilot's report". Skeptical Inquirer. 11 (4): 322–326. 1987. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"The MJ-12 Crashed Saucer Documents". Skeptical Inquirer. 12 (2): 137–146. 1987–1988. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion and The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal.
"The MJ-12 papers "Authenticated"?". Skeptical Inquirer. 13 (3): 305–309. 1989. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"The "Top-Secret UFO papers" NSA won't release". Skeptical Inquirer. 14 (1): 65–68. 1989. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax". Skeptical Inquirer. 14 (2): 135–140. 1990. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion and The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal.[54]
"Additional comments about the "Unusual Personal Experiences Survey"". Skeptical Inquirer. 17 (2): 145–146. 1993. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"Time challenges John Mack's UFO abduction efforts". Skeptical Inquirer. 12. 1994. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"The GAO Roswell report and Congressman Schiff". Skeptical Inquirer. 18. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.
"That's entertainment! TV's UFO coverup". Skeptical Inquirer. 20 (6). 1996. Reprinted in The UFO Invasion.[55]
"A field guide to UFOs". Astronomy. Kalmbach Publishing. 25 (9): 30–35. September 1997. ISSN 0091-6358.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you notice, there's a lot of them from the Skeptical Inquirer. We also saw this with Nickell's and Shermer. This doesn't include all of the speaking fees he gets for talking to groups of pseudoskeptics.

My point is, you claim that these guys were seeking publicity when Hickson died broke.

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.

www.sunherald.com...

All Hickson had to do was convince Parker to seek publicity and they could make big money like pseudoskeptics Shermer, Klass and Nickell's.

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?

For sure, because, as a child, when I first realized they communicated telepathically and their lips did not move, I was extremely frightened at this reality. The two grays looked surprised at my reaction, which brings up the questions, why would they be surprised at a lower life form being frightened of their advanced tech or different biology if they were us from the future? Perhaps they underestimated my intelligence at noticing these differences or planned to wipe my memory clean anyway.

As for the abductee seeming to recognize the female alien, I too seemed to recognize the taller male Gray who was doing all the interacting with me during my abduction, so perhaps the gathering specific genetic DNA from ancestors theory jives with my experience, who knows?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Cravens
a reply to: neoholographic

Have you been able to verify Ecto’s assertion that the pair went to a newspaper before the police? Maybe before calling Kessler AFB?

Ecto couldn’t be bothered to link any ‘research’...I would like to be bothered to research one’s assertions. Thanks in advance 🙏

Cheers.

Easy enough... An interview with Pascagoula Sheriff Fred Diamond talking about both men going to the newspaper first:

YouTube Interview



...you're welcome

I had a nice thank you and reply drafted but ATS mobile has it out for me.

Thanks for even queuing up the exact exchange in phone interview

I’m not sure what happened to the pair. I’m not putting much stock into toll booth operators in not seeing and/or reporting lights. I can’t believe they had security cameras in 1973... put little stock into a shipyard security camera ‘missing’/not capturing whatever happened.

Another thing I appreciate you linking the interview for is the sheriff stating unequivocally — the phone interviewer asked because had a different timeline — it was closer to shortly after 9 (event took place around 8PM) that the pair came in and spoke to authorities. Without that I would’ve still been under the impression it was more like 10-10:30PM...

I’m pissed my earlier reply was nixed but I gotta run and hope to recapture my thoughts later and reply.

Cheers