A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction

a reply to: neoholographic

I agree. There’s not a lot outside of the low-hanging fruit of seeking publicity w.r.t. skeptics’ claims. Moreover — not that it’s required but sure would put a nail in their (Hickinson [no pun intended] and Parker) coffin — I have yet to see a logical counterfactual. Maybe Hickinson and Parker aren’t half-wits, but no one has mistaken them for Decartes or Tesla, and surely a wry old skeptic could concoct one...maybe even a silly little experiment. Case closed, if so. I’ll what for Ecto, maybe he can provide one — he came big with that YT interview.

Nice rundown on the easy money Klass pocketed over a lifetime, would never want the same maxim applied to skeptics as alleged hoaxers, huh? Tsk-tsk.

originally posted by: Cravens
Nice rundown on the easy money Klass pocketed over a lifetime, would never want the same maxim applied to skeptics as alleged hoaxers, huh? Tsk-tsk.

I once thought that I would be a good professional skeptic and go on TV and declare it all to be hogwash. It's so easy. I wouldn't even have to break a sweat. Just dismiss the account as fictional. Question the motives of the participants. Point at the no hard evidence. Grab my check and head for the bank.

But in addition to it being no fun, it does nothing to move forward the inquiry. It just stops it, like it had no real potential value. That would be a shame.

a reply to: Cravens

Exactly!

The You Tube video is meaningless. In the first article I quoted it says they went to the Newspaper. So what, there's no evidence that they were seeking publicity, they were just looking for people to tell after they contemplated not telling anyone.

They called Keesler Air Force Base, the Sheriff's office and went to the Newspaper.Why even go to the Sheriff's office? Why not wait until early the next morning and go back to the Newspaper?

Why did they ask the Sheriff not to say anything if they were seeking publicity?

Why did they go to work the next day instead of calling reporters?

Why did Parker go into hiding and leave jobs if anyone recognized him?

Parker could have joined forces with Hickson and they could have made a ton of money in speaking fees over the years like Professional Skeptics do.

It's funny how they attach all kinds of motives to everyone around Ufology but the Professional Skeptics they listen to make a ton of money for being skeptical about everything but they have no motive??? They have a huge incentive to be skeptical about everything. Here's Shermer's booking fees.

MICHAEL SHERMER
Founding Publisher of Skeptic Magazine, Bestselling Author & Presidential Fellow at Chapman Unviersity
Travels From:
Please Contact
Speaking Fee:
$10,000 - $20,000
Categories:
Entertainment, University Speakers

www.allamericanspeakers.com...

He has 10 to 20,000 reasons to be skeptical about everything. This isn't including books and money from selling magazines to pseudoskeptics.

But Parker and Hickson were seeking publicity when Hickson died broke and Parker stayed out of the public eye for 45 years?

originally posted by: neoholographic

It's funny how they attach all kinds of motives to everyone around Ufology but the Professional Skeptics they listen to make a ton of money for being skeptical about everything but they have no motive??? They have a huge incentive to be skeptical about everything.

There are indeed all kinds of potential motives attached to everyone in Ufology, from Believers to Sceptics. If somebody like Philip J Klass came across a case that fundamentally baffled him from all angles, I'm sure he'd have packed his pompous trumpet away rather than present such inconclusive findings publicly... And if somebody like Dr Steven Greer told me the time of day, I'd have to look at my watch twice before believing him.

But in between those extremes lies a lot of information from both sides that we can cherry-pick, take fully on board or ignore whilst fully realising that motives lurk everywhere. We simply work our way towards our own conclusions with the help of BOTH sides. Or at least I do. Usually anyway.

Pascagoula remains a fascinating case that I cannot come to any firm conclusions about, aside from something genuinely disturbing occurring to these men. Yet it's not the details of the incident that intrigue, rather the nature of their reaction afterwards. If we assume they are not lying, what could possibly explain the aforementioned pulp sci-fi imagery? Unconsciously self-imposed screen memories from pop culture to interpret something far too extreme and complex to comprehend at the time? It is a popular notion.

But Parker and Hickson were seeking publicity when Hickson died broke and Parker stayed out of the public eye for 45 years?

Parker, despite his peculiar personal beliefs expressed more recently, did indeed shun publicity. As for money-making, I've never understood why that is regarded as a greater (or lesser) motive than Fame and Notoriety. And yet Hickson doesn't strike me as the type who would chase either.

Off topic, but what are your feelings towards the Travis Walton case two years later? Do you think he may have been influenced by Pascagoula (as well as the 1975 transmission of the Hills movie 'The UFO Incident')? I made a recent thread about Walton and it's another case that defies conclusions either way, precisely because of witnesses' reactions.

a reply to: neoholographic

$10K - $20K, huh? Well, there’s knowing your value and then there’s artificially inflating it.

He was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast a couple years back with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson. He started out strong but unfortunately for him Joe actually put some time in and Jaime was quick on the draw with slides and citations. Joe finally got Schermer to publicly recant his published critique. It was pretty easy pickings given that Schermer relied on ONE other scientist expertise — in no uncertain terms cherrypicked his data. It was fun to watch and as I said Joe actually spent some time researching it and Hancock is nothing if not a true raconteur.

To anyone out there who wants to see what $10k - $20k gets you just google Schermer and Rogan — watch a professional skeptic publicly recant his slanderous ways after being caught red-handed doing the very thing he accuses other of. Truly good stuff.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Cravens
Nice rundown on the easy money Klass pocketed over a lifetime, would never want the same maxim applied to skeptics as alleged hoaxers, huh? Tsk-tsk.

I once thought that I would be a good professional skeptic and go on TV and declare it all to be hogwash. It's so easy. I wouldn't even have to break a sweat. Just dismiss the account as fictional. Question the motives of the participants. Point at the no hard evidence. Grab my check and head for the bank.

But in addition to it being no fun, it does nothing to move forward the inquiry. It just stops it, like it had no real potential value. That would be a shame.

Glad you saved yourself from such a terribly, unfun vocational choice — it would have been a shame. But apparently it pays. Good.

I find it hard to believe that flesh and blood ETs are picking up people, floating them through walls just to get DNA. Or for any reason. So someone being skeptical of such an account is fine by me. I’m skeptical. Skepticism is needed. Any intellectually honest person would have to accept that. That’s not my rub.

I won’t even get in to it all because that’s a solid thread/discussion in of itself. The short of it: these two live(d) in infamy (Mr. Hickson seems like one those guys who can’t eat a tuna fish sandwich without telling how it tastes — his story was recounted countless times if the internet is to be believed...) and out-of-the-spotlight with no indication either ever profited. It’s even ironic, if Klass actually made money attempting to debunk it — it’s far from debunked particularly, Klass’s assertions.

What I feel strongly about is this wasn’t a premeditated money-grab, co-opted by some slick delta attorney under auspices of potential reward money backed by the full faith and expertise of a two-bit, wet-behind-the-ears polygrapher from big-city New Orleans. That’s the Klass and Ecto argument without the nauseating self-aggrandizing, word salad of “your appeal to authority...blah,blah,blah” skeptic trope. For once they could be bothered to think outside of the box — alas, the debunking monies come in no matter the substance — amirite?

a reply to: neoholographic

What a waste of my time and energy. You asked several times for the name of the mysterious polygraph operator mentioned by Klass. As if you had a "gotcha" moment of Klass lying or making this up. I find his name, Scott Glasgow, through some research and you just ignore it. While his name isn't readily available, it is online for everyone to see if you look. Researching his history is probably somewhere if you know how to look for it. The only "gotcha" moment is proving, as I already said, that you obviously do limited research and can't speak personally with any authority or conviction when it comes to this case. You're too lazy to even do a search for his name yourself before asking questions. Congratulations on proving my point.

The newspaper clipping also mentions the examiner coming from New Orleans, which is another fact pointed out by Klass. This is coming from an outside source unrelated to Klass, that supports him. Now that I found his name and that same article mentions New Orleans, you can't deny that fact. So now you've moved on to even more of your own ridiculous imaginary reasons his lawyer may have chosen someone from 100+ miles away, but zero proof of why. There's a consistent path to follow with Klass, while yours reads like a meandering rambling mess of guesses of this and that backed up by nothing.

It's become pretty entertaining to watch you try so hard and fumble around to dismiss Hickson and Parker's actions of choosing to call the Air Force, going to a newspaper, or talking to the towns sheriff as not wanting their story to be public. If that's not good enough evidence to show they didn't want to keep this quiet, the next day they tell their story to the foreman and owner of the shipyard at work. Nothing secret in that.

So the history of skeptics writing books and making speeches says something about their overall character. But Parker coming out years later with a new story that he was visited by the same space aliens again with a religious message this time that told him the bible is true, they share the same god, and they wanted to live on Earth but we are too self-destructive, doesn't speak to Parker's character? I guess you just take this story too as a "95%" fact because he said so? Apparently in your world, all he needs evidence of is a story that confirms your own pre-existing belief that you'll emotionally attach yourself to.

Why am I even arguing and wasting energy on this... pointless

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
But Parker coming out years later with a new story that he was visited by the same space aliens again with a religious message this time that told him the bible is true, they share the same god, and they wanted to live on Earth but we are too self-destructive, doesn't speak to Parker's character? I guess you just take this story too as a "95%" fact because he said so? Apparently in your world, all he needs evidence of is a story that confirms your own pre-existing belief that you'll emotionally attach yourself to.

It arguably only speaks to Parker's character TODAY. It remains arguable that the 'incident' itself led to his more eccentric beliefs some forty years later if he is trying to rationalise it in an unhealthy way, including a great deal of confabulation today. As ever, going back to the original accounts and events is always the best route to answers, irrespective of wild Woo added into the mix decades later.

Rendlesham Forest is another perfect example, Roswell perhaps the epitome of such an approach.

Why am I even arguing and wasting energy on this... pointless

I assure you that you're not wasting time and energy at all since you and Neo are not arguing within an exclusive bubble. We are ALL absorbing the points raised by both sides, some ATSers more than others - especially those like me sitting on that wobbly fence.

originally posted by: Cravens
a reply to: neoholographic

$10K - $20K, huh? Well, there’s knowing your value and then there’s artificially inflating it.

He was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast a couple years back with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson. He started out strong but unfortunately for him Joe actually put some time in and Jaime was quick on the draw with slides and citations. Joe finally got Schermer to publicly recant his published critique. It was pretty easy pickings given that Schermer relied on ONE other scientist expertise — in no uncertain terms cherrypicked his data. It was fun to watch and as I said Joe actually spent some time researching it and Hancock is nothing if not a true raconteur.

To anyone out there who wants to see what $10k - $20k gets you just google Schermer and Rogan — watch a professional skeptic publicly recant his slanderous ways after being caught red-handed doing the very thing he accuses other of. Truly good stuff.

Yep, here's Shermer getting paid for a TV Pilot and he stumped by the Vedix Astrolger. Needless to say, this Pilot didn't become a TV series.



The sad thing is, Parker and Hickson are accused of seeking publicity when Hickson died broke and Parker ran away from publicity but pseudoskeptics write books, are on every TV program they can get on, collect thousands in speaking fees, publish skeptic magazines and more but it's Hickson and Parker seeking publicity?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You said:

Off topic, but what are your feelings towards the Travis Walton case two years later? Do you think he may have been influenced by Pascagoula (as well as the 1975 transmission of the Hills movie 'The UFO Incident')? I made a recent thread about Walton and it's another case that defies conclusions either way, precisely because of witnesses' reactions.

Yes, Walton unlike Pascagoula, has some problems with his story.

I can say the men thought they saw a U.F.O. I can't say Walton was abducted by Aliens.

Walton's family was into U.F.O.'s and Walton with the help of family members could have faked a U.F.O. sighting. Why did he almost immediately run towards the U.F.O.?

I can't rule out that Walton with the help of family members somehow created the sighting or the sighting actually happened and Walton said I'm going to milk this and disappeared for a few days and claimed an abduction.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

A bunch of nonsense yet again. You said:

The newspaper clipping also mentions the examiner coming from New Orleans, which is another fact pointed out by Klass. This is coming from an outside source unrelated to Klass, that supports him. Now that I found his name and that same article mentions New Orleans, you can't deny that fact. So now you've moved on to even more of your own ridiculous imaginary reasons his lawyer may have chosen someone from 100+ miles away, but zero proof of why. There's a consistent path to follow with Klass, while yours reads like a meandering rambling mess of guesses of this and that backed up by nothing.

It's become pretty entertaining to watch you try so hard and fumble around to dismiss Hickson and Parker's actions of choosing to call the Air Force, going to a newspaper, or talking to the towns sheriff as not wanting their story to be public. If that's not good enough evidence to show they didn't want to keep this quiet, the next day they tell their story to the foreman and owner of the shipyard at work. Nothing secret in that.

First off, Hickson and Parker did want to keep quiet. This is why they went to work the next day. They only told their Foreman when they found out the story had leaked. The Foreman overheard them talking to the Sheriff.

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 noted 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.

Hickson's foreman overheard Hickson's side of the conversation, and asked what had occurred. Hickson related his story to the foreman and to shipyard owner Johnny Walker. After hearing the tale, Walker suggested that Hickson and Parker contact Joe Colingo, a locally prominent attorney (who was Walker's brother-in-law and also represented the shipyard).

www.mufon.com...

This was 1973 before the age of cell phones. There was probably one or two phone lines in the shipyard and Hickson had to talk to the Sheriff in the Foreman's office.

You have this idiotic point of view that they were seeking publicity when mostly everything they did is opposite from pseudoskeptic publicity speakers who make millions writing books and charging speaking fees.

You sound ridiculous. A man who stayed out of the public eye for nearly 45 years is seeking publicity? There's nobody who was there at the time who says they were lying or they made up the story. Even skeptics like Hynek said he believes the men had an experience.

You only get johnny come lately pseudoskeptics that make these silly accusations. You backed up nothing from Klass. The fact the Polygraph tester was from New Orleans and a friend of his Lawyer is meaningless.

Klass said he was inexperienced, without a license, the Lawyer didn't try anyone locally and that Charles Wimberly offered a free test.

The fact that a Lawyer is doing everything to protect his/her client and is working with people they know is meaningless.

Pseudoskeptics try to magnify the most mundane thing.

NEWSFLASH!!

LAWYERS DO EVERYTHING TO PROTECT THEIR CLIENTS!

You can't be serious. Lawyers are always working with people they know or people they were referred to by people they know.

So pseudoskeptic Klass calls this a CURIOUS COINCIDENCE! LOL!!

What's curious about a Lawyer protecting their client? What's curious about a Lawyer working with people he/she knows?

When I read that from Klass, it was just dumb.

Suprise, A Lawyer rather work with someone he knows. Let's call President Trump so he can give a speech in the Oval Office and tell the world that Lawyers protect their clients and Lawyers like to work with people they know or people that were recommended by people they know.

You have nothing

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why did he almost immediately run towards the U.F.O.?

That does seem kind of odd, but until we're put in that position, we'll probably never know. I think I would be frozen in place in stunned amazement. Never get a photo. It wouldn't occur to me to run toward it to get a better look or to interact with it to hitch a ride, although there are some exophiles in this forum who probably would relish the opportunity to do exactly that. For an instant, though, it might be tempting.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why did he almost immediately run towards the U.F.O.?

That does seem kind of odd, but until we're put in that position, we'll probably never know. I think I would be frozen in place in stunned amazement. Never get a photo. It wouldn't occur to me to run toward it to get a better look or to interact with it to hitch a ride, although there are some exophiles in this forum who probably would relish the opportunity to do exactly that. For an instant, though, it might be tempting.

Good points and that's why I said either it happened and Walton milked it or he had family help carry out the hoax.

It's curious that he ran towards the U.F.O. almost immediately. On the flip side you can say he ran towards the U.F.O. because him and his family were U.F.O. enthusiast and maybe he did get abducted.

All I'm saying it's hard to rule out other possibilities outside of abduction with him failing the first polygraph and the lack of ketones in his urine.

The Pascagoula case doesn't have these problems.

The only conclusion that can be reached is Parker and Hickson had the experience they described. There's nothing to suggest they were lying or making it up.

Now you have to try and explain what occurred.

I say they were abducted by an advanced civilization who will look at us as potential research subjects just like we look at animals.

If you look over these experiences, it seems you have several different civilizations and some could care less if a human is scared to death and maybe some even die and go missing. While there's others who want to make sure humans are calm and not scared.

It's just like us. We have people that want research done humanely and others that are inhumane.

Earth is a treasure trove for advanced species. They can carry out all sorts of experiments. Who knows, if you believe Ancient Alien theories, we're the result of genetic engineering by an advanced civilization.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The only conclusion that can be reached is Parker and Hickson had the experience they described. There's nothing to suggest they were lying or making it up. Now you have to try and explain what occurred.

I agree that it's one of the most interesting UFO cases ever that rests pretty much entirely on the testimony of the witnesses. It makes it simultaneously hard to explain, but also hard to dismiss. The lobster people apparently got what they were looking for, though, since there have been no other reports of them since.

Earth is a treasure trove for advanced species. They can carry out all sorts of experiments. Who knows, if you believe Ancient Alien theories, we're the result of genetic engineering by an advanced civilization.

There is a lot of good commentary here.

Let's go back to 1930 or 1910, when the first 'media' (beyond books and stories) was published. It might have been the mid-1800s.

At any rate this theme is compelling, exciting. It's both frightening and wonderful.

What other 'concept ' is as captivating? There really is none. Even the expectation of meeting a Supreme Being is not as good, because the SB might not be relatable as an 'unknown'.

If you found a very intelligent person who knew all of the 'science ' we know, but had never been exposed to any fictional writing, movies, radio, with this topic and he had a 'high strangeness ' event, would they suddenly say, out of the blue

IT HAD TO BE EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS!

There's your clue.

It's a gradual path, now overwhelming in current culture.

There was 'high strangeness' in the past and the indigenous people came up with soothing ideas. Ancestors, ghosts, fairies, spirits, mainly because there seemed to be events without accompanying sensory data.

A noise without an actor. A fleeting visual trace.

IF and WHEN there are 'sentient, space-faring creatures, who find us (or stumble upon us, travel here and land', we will know about it. There will be no hiding it. The 'creatures' if they can be seen will not hide.

This act of 'hiding' the 'shy phenomenon that Jacques Vallee dubbed it is what allows all of this 'sincere ' but wrongly attributed speculation to have a life of its own - beyond the media.

If there was no concept of 'hiding' there'd be no concept of something other than fellow humans (or animals) or a natural phenomenon.

So all of those who feel it is likely or even certain, how about a challenge?

Make a list. Pretend, if you will, that there is nothing outside of natural pheonomenon, of why it CAN NOT be.

IOW, to be a fair witness (1$ to Robert Heinlein), you should be able to see both sides.

FWIW.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

I agree that it's one of the most interesting UFO cases ever that rests pretty much entirely on the testimony of the witnesses.

For what it's worth, as well as the main witnesses, there's quite a few interesting interviews with various people involved with the case in these three vids.


youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...


Cheers.

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Blue Shift

I agree that it's one of the most interesting UFO cases ever that rests pretty much entirely on the testimony of the witnesses.

For what it's worth, as well as the main witnesses, there's quite a few interesting interviews with various people involved with the case in these three vids.


youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...


Cheers.

Thanks for the info. I saw one of those but not the other two.

originally posted by: neoholographic

The Pascagoula case doesn't have these problems.

The only conclusion that can be reached is Parker and Hickson had the experience they described. There's nothing to suggest they were lying or making it up.

It's interesting that Walton's story combines 1950s-style contactee beings (nordic blonds) with the incoming 'Greys' (accounts of whom began manifesting in the late-60s), whereas Pascagoula, to its credit, seems to completely spit in the eye of convention.

Regarding the previous argument about who the men should have contacted (or not contacted) directly after the incident, Hickson's explanation in the police interview still sounds palpably honest due to its raw simplicity and forthrightness:

When I got out of there, I knowed nobody wouldn't believe me. I went by the Mississippi Press, beat on the door. This colored guy was sittin' at the desk. I said I wanted to see a reporter. He said there won't be no reporter till morning. I thought about it again. If I call the sheriff's department they won't believe me. If I call the police department they won't believe me.

I'm as perplexed as Hynek was. As Blue Shift said, this case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the witnesses, but helped immeasurably by the disbelieving police who secretly taped them - which ironically only served to expand the mystery even further.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: neoholographic

The Pascagoula case doesn't have these problems.

The only conclusion that can be reached is Parker and Hickson had the experience they described. There's nothing to suggest they were lying or making it up.

It's interesting that Walton's story combines 1950s-style contactee beings (nordic blonds) with the incoming 'Greys' (accounts of whom began manifesting in the late-60s), whereas Pascagoula, to its credit, seems to completely spit in the eye of convention.

Regarding the previous argument about who the men should have contacted (or not contacted) directly after the incident, Hickson's explanation in the police interview still sounds palpably honest due to its raw simplicity and forthrightness:

When I got out of there, I knowed nobody wouldn't believe me. I went by the Mississippi Press, beat on the door. This colored guy was sittin' at the desk. I said I wanted to see a reporter. He said there won't be no reporter till morning. I thought about it again. If I call the sheriff's department they won't believe me. If I call the police department they won't believe me.

I'm as perplexed as Hynek was. As Blue Shift said, this case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the witnesses, but helped immeasurably by the disbelieving police who secretly taped them - which ironically only served to expand the mystery even further.

Good points.

The Pascagoula case is a rock solid case. It's one of the best U.F.O. abductions cases. There's isn't anything that refutes the fact that they experienced what they aid they experienced. You can say that you can't explain what happened but you don't think it's extraterrestrial. That's a true skeptics position.

When I say pseudoskeptic, I'm talking about those who can't say I don't know. I'm a skeptic. I'm very skeptical of the Travis Walton case. When it comes to Pascagoula, it's an air tight case. Here's the 3 major objections that pseudoskeptics turn into a federal offense.

1. The toll booth operators.

2. The lawyer got a polygraph tester 100 miles away in New Orleans that he knew that was a nitwit.

3. This is actually a new one. It says Parker and Hickson were seeking publicity even though Hickson died broke and Parker said basically nothing for 45 years.

Again, this shows how strong Pascagoula is. Pseudoskeptics have to turn things that are insignificant into a five alarm fire.

1. The toll booth operators mean nothing. I don't even know who they are. Have they been polygraphed, did Esterhaus lie or pay them off? I say this because Esterhas has a credibility problem because of his bias back then.

In the Rolling Stone depiction of the events, everyone in Pascagoula spoke with a comically exaggerated, Skoal-muffled southern drawl, and all the key players—Hickson, Parker and Colingo among them—were either dumb hicks or scheming gold-diggers, or both.

Here’s a typical passage by Eszterhas, quoting Charlie Hickson’s account of what he saw on the pier: “I heard this buzzin like air gittin let outa a pressuh hose. We stood there watchin it, not movin we was so skeered.”

Eszterhas was equally brutal in his description of Hynek, presenting him as “goateed and stubbly,” and putting quotation marks around the title of “Professor,” insinuating that Hynek was some sort of academic fraud. “Dr. Hynek was the former head of the Air Force’s UFO probe, Project Blue Book,” Eszterhas went on, erroneously. “He lost his job in 1969, when the Air Force discontinued Blue Book and said there were no living/homing/zzzzing/beeping (sic) Claw Men up there.”

www.highstrangenessufo.com...

Back then, he went down there with an extreme bias. He even went after Hynek because Hynek said he belied Hickson and Parker. Hynek was asked about this:

“VALLEE: What do you think about the Rolling Stone article about Pascagoula?

“HYNEK: First of all, those men didn’t talk that way. Hickson doesn’t have that exaggerated drawl, that extreme Southern accent. I can’t even imitate it.

“HASTINGS: Where did the Rolling Stone get that idea? Obviously they wanted to take a Southern town apart.

“HYNEK: Yes, they sure as hell wanted to take it apart."

www.highstrangenessufo.com...

So I have way more questions about Esterhas than I have about Hickson and Parker.

Klass then says it was a CURIOUS COINCIDENCE that a Lawyer protected his client. Both Hickson and Parker passed polygraphs but you can't dismiss all of the evidence that supports them like other witnesses seeing similar things around the same time, because a Lawyer protected their client. It makes no sense.

Lastly, the new thing is they were looking for publicity but went to work the next day, Hickson died broke and Parker was in hiding for 45 years. Again, it strains credulity.

This is a very strong case for extraterrestrial visitation.

Another case that's interesting is the close encounter of 62 kids in Zimbabwe.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's the 3 major objections that pseudoskeptics turn into a federal offense.

1. The toll booth operators.

The toll booth operators does seem like an issue, but why do you suggest the possibility that they are lying, when 20 years later, Parker admitted he was lying? I would tend to think the man who admitted he was lying was the liar, though I'm not sure what he says is truthful and what he says is a lie. So was he telling the truth at first and then lying 20 years later when he said his initial story was a lie? Or was he really lying at first, which is especially a problem because Hickson also said that Parker was unconscious, supporting Parker's claim that he had fainted?

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.

And in the secret police tape, he also said the same thing, was that a lie in the secret police tape?

CALVIN: I passed out. I expect I never passed out in my whole life.

Of course when stories become "much more elaborate" over time, they also become less credible, since the most accurate reporting of an event normally will occur as soon as possible after the event when memories haven't had a chance to be influenced by other factors.

So apparently your confidence in the case is based on the testimony of two witnesses who both said Parker passed out, and then 20 years later Parker "admitted" that was a lie. Or was he telling the truth about passing out and 20 years later when he said it was a lie is when he was really lying? That's not exactly a rock solid case when the witness contradicts their own story and says he lied, which also infers Hickson lied when he said Parker passed out or fainted or was unconscious, however you want to express it.