A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction

originally posted by: neoholographic

This is a very strong case for extraterrestrial visitation.

You have covered and mitigated the three major objections very well. From only having a surface knowledge of this case when I entered the thread (and a position of believing it's the most convincing abduction story on record), and studying it more deeply whilst considering the points made by both sides, I do agree that these two men went through a very traumatic, disturbing experience.

Is it a strong case for ET visitation? Well, despite the complete lack of physical evidence, it's certainly one of the best, based on testimony alone. Could this also be a case of the men's minds unconsciously creating 'screen memories' that, in theory, converted literally unimaginable imagery they witnessed into something more recognisable and 'manageable' (eg, the pulp Sci-Fi tropes mentioned by Ectoplasm8)? Possibly. What's intriguing is that both Hickson and Parker shared the exact same memories - so were these images instilled in them by a third party?

Were they the guinea pigs of a military op that implanted these images? Actually, that's one theory put forward to explain Walton's abduction due to military helicopter ops in the area during that period of 1975. However, to effectively kidnap someone for so many days in Walton's case seems a stretch, but it could apply more easily to Pascagoula. In theory.

Is this a strong case for a Vallee-style Inter-dimensional event rather than ET? Who can say? By that hypothesis' very nature, it's difficult to prove, but provides food for thought.

Alternatively, the men experienced EXACTLY what they claimed. Which is highly disturbing.

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

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

No argument there. Alongside the 1966 Westall case in Australia, they form two fascinating school sightings that still mystify to this day.

Arbitrageur is another formidable mind on ATS who always causes me to look up when he enters a thread...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

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.

Ain't THAT the truth. However, I'd say this case isn't in the same league as other problematic elaborations such as Jesse Marcel's or Jim Penniston's.

Parker IS a problem, but certainly not enough to trash the case. His current rather eccentric beliefs about his experience (and alleged further experiences) over 45 years later make his admissions to lying about passing out seem like small fry. 20 years after the event, was he possibly 'ashamed' to admit he'd passed out?

Was he childishly jealous of Hickson's conscious experience?

Or, possibly more likely, was his wilder belief system already forming by then, and did he convince himself that he remained awake during the 1973 incident to qualify as a conscious experiencer? In other words, was he lying 20 years later to reinforce and protect his new religious-flavoured beliefs that he did not make public for another 20 years?

Even if Parker is deemed an unreliable witness due to that one 'passing out' element, do we even NEED the bulk of his original teenage testimony when we had the far older and more mature Hickson, who seemed imminently more reliable anyway?


Go on - shoot me down gently, Arby.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit
I would never ask anybody to believe something because Klass said it or because Nickell said it, since I don't believe some of what they say myself. But even a broken watch is right twice a day, so I was a little disappointed that nobody in this thread even seemed to consider what Nickell proposed. If Parker really did pass out/faint/become unconscious, as he said in the secret police recordings which is what is supposed to give this case credibility, then that leaves us with primarily Hickson as the witness, and once you're down to one primary witness, it doesn't seem so outrageous to me to propose the same explanation (or very similar) as has been proposed for many abduction cases, in fact the sleep-paralysis explanation is what I think most science-minded skeptics lean toward for explaining most abduction cases (Not the Walton case which was probably some kind of hoax).

It would explain a lot of things, like why Hickson sincerely believed the story he was telling, like most abductees seem to believe their experiences, and thus could pass any lie detector test, the apparent sincerity in the secret police recordings, and it would also explain why neither of the bridge toll booth operators saw anything. Is it the correct explanation? I certainly don't know, but it would seem to fit many of the facts of the case and I don't think people should be so quick to dismiss the idea just because Nickell said it. Now if someone wants to attack the idea rather than the person, then I'm listening, but so far all I've read in this thread are attacks on Nickell, and not his actual idea of what might have actually happened.

In the context of Nickell's hypothesis, which version of Parker's story was the lie becomes rather crucial. To consider Nickell's hypothesis, you'd have to believe that Parker was truthful in the secret police recordings, and that 20 years later when he said he lied 20 years earlier, that the real lie was told 20 years later when he said he was lying before.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.sunherald.com...

Here's the pic:



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

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

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

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

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

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

a reply to: neoholographic

I wish I could give you a million stars for that post.

That is a masterful destruction of what pseudo skeptics attempt.

pseudo skeptics are by their very constant intent, dishonest to themselves and to others to keep their personal fears at bay, but these faults of dishonesty in themselves are VERY easy to see for some, and exposes their intent. It's too bad it seems to require a gift to see it. Perhaps it only requires a desire for the cold truth which is too scary for most folks.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: neoholographic

I wish I could give you a million stars for that post.

That is a masterful destruction of what pseudo skeptics attempt.

pseudo skeptics are by their very constant intent, dishonest to themselves and to others to keep their personal fears at bay, but these faults of dishonesty in themselves are VERY easy to see for some, and exposes their intent. It's too bad it seems to require a gift to see it. Perhaps it only requires a desire for the cold truth which is too scary for most folks.

Thanks and logic and just basic common sense seems to be lacking in this area. There's no way every account from Military Personnel, Police Officers, Pilots and more can be due to idiots with faulty memories. This is just done so you can have a blanket denial and therefore nobody can have any credibility. So if there's no credible witnesses, then they don't have to look at or explain what the person experienced. It just shuts off any rational thinking.

It's the same with this case. It's a very strong abduction case but the pseudoskeptics don't want to deal with what the men experienced because they can't explain it. So instead, most of the focus is attacking the men and trying to lump their case in with other weaker cases.

This is just pure intellectual dishonesty. So it's easy to spot a pseudoskeptic. Simply ask a skeptic you're debating to name any cases they can't explain or that have credible witnesses, a skeptic will respond with examples but says he/she thinks there's an explanation outside of extraterrestrials. The pseudoskeptic can't answer. They're blind believers and therefore there can't be any credible witnesses or unexplained cases. Once you say there's credible witnesses or compelling unexplained cases, you then have to try and explain what the person experienced.

a reply to: neoholographic

You state:

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.

My aim is not to start a flame war because of my opinion. First: You have no (nor can you provide any) evidence for extraterrestrials - as in from another planet without considering alternative categories such as the much discussed inter- or intra-dimensional. Second: you are convinced 95% of extraterrestrial visitation. What convinced you? If you are convinced 95%, you are insecure about your feelings. It's either 100% or it could have another answer. There's no other explanation? Of course there is but chances are more in favor of what we know than what we fantasize about.

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

Because Parker admitted he was lying and told a different story 20 years later, different from what was recorded in the secret police recordings. So I don't need to accuse Parker of lying, he said he was lying himself and told two different versions of his story which contradict each other.

Both can't be true. I can guess which one is the lie, but when dealing with a self-confessed liar there's no way to be sure which version is the lie. Admitting to being a liar doesn't help his credibility but apparently you still believe everything he says, even his contradicting stories? Which one is true? Neither of us know.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: neoholographic

I wish I could give you a million stars for that post.

That is a masterful destruction of what pseudo skeptics attempt.

pseudo skeptics are by their very constant intent, dishonest to themselves and to others to keep their personal fears at bay, but these faults of dishonesty in themselves are VERY easy to see for some, and exposes their intent. It's too bad it seems to require a gift to see it. Perhaps it only requires a desire for the cold truth which is too scary for most folks.

Thanks and logic and just basic common sense seems to be lacking in this area. There's no way every account from Military Personnel, Police Officers, Pilots and more can be due to idiots with faulty memories. This is just done so you can have a blanket denial and therefore nobody can have any credibility. So if there's no credible witnesses, then they don't have to look at or explain what the person experienced. It just shuts off any rational thinking.

It's the same with this case. It's a very strong abduction case but the pseudoskeptics don't want to deal with what the men experienced because they can't explain it. So instead, most of the focus is attacking the men and trying to lump their case in with other weaker cases.

This is just pure intellectual dishonesty. So it's easy to spot a pseudoskeptic. Simply ask a skeptic you're debating to name any cases they can't explain or that have credible witnesses, a skeptic will respond with examples but says he/she thinks there's an explanation outside of extraterrestrials. The pseudoskeptic can't answer. They're blind believers and therefore there can't be any credible witnesses or unexplained cases. Once you say there's credible witnesses or compelling unexplained cases, you then have to try and explain what the person experienced.

Total b.s. There's no such thing as a pseudoskeptic. You are either a full-blown, 100% skeptic or you are not. I am a full-blown, 100% skeptic because I demand irrefutable evidence not hearsay. A believer cannot understand the mind of a skeptic but a skeptic understands how a believer's mind works. A believer's mind is the result of mind conditioning. A claim is either true because the evidence supports the facts and when the claim is not supported by facts it becomes questionable. Alien abductions are not supported by evidence, it is always just a tale. UFOs on the other hand are real because the evidence is overwhelming especially because I've had unquestionable sightings with one resulting in a video.

So, a person that says they're a skeptic has to prove it with an intelligent argument. Unexplained cases just don't have enough evidence to make them explained. But one should not jump the gun and assign such cases more than they're worth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Man, you're really grasping at straws but like I said you have to. Pseudoskeptics can never admit people like Parker are credible. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy. I just said:

Like I said, pseudoskepticism is a case of intillectually dishonesty. In many of these cases they attack the eyewitnesses as idiots with faulty memories and no case is compelling and credible.

Parker is the one that convinced most people at the time.

Parker didn't want any publicity while Hickson did.

Parker passed a polygraph test. Again:

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

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

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

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

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

www.sunherald.com...

He's the one that was "climbing the walls."

He's the one that tried to stay out of the spotlight for 45 years.

He's the one that had an emotional breakdown.

Yeah, it sounds like he passed out.

The story follows a rock solid fact pattern. Parker didn't want publicity and he didn't even want to tell anyone, so it's stands to reason he would lie so that all of the focus would fall on Hickson as Hickson wanted.

Here's more:



There were more eyewitnesses who saw something similar around the same time.

The truth is, you would be better off admitting this is a solid case but you don't know what happened instead dancing the pseudoskeptic waltz. You just look silly trying to go after Parker when everyone from the time of the event points to him and his behavior after it occurred to be convincing and genuine.

I mean, you can remain in Plato's Cave as many pseudoskeptics do if it makes you feel comfortable but it just looks kind of silly.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Man, you're really grasping at straws but like I said you have to. Pseudoskeptics can never admit people like Parker are credible. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Your whole post goes on about how credible Parker is, and never do you acknowledge that Parker admitted to lying. It seems like you're in denial and refuse to admit Parker admitted he lied, even on the secret police tape that everyone thinks is so credible, where he said he passed out or fainted. He later said that was a lie and his story got a lot more elaborate.

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.

So did he faint or didn't he? Calvin said he did, Parker said he did, and then Parker said he lied and he didn't. It's important because it affects whether you have one witness or two to anything that happened after he fainted. It's also important because if he lied on the secret police tape as he later says he did, that doesn't help the credibility of the secret police tape.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sadly, the problem with what you're saying is devoid of any common sense.

This is what pseudoskeptics do. They look at things in isolation and then try to magnify it. First with ecto and his they're seeking publicity argument which fell apart and now you.

It's call looking at the fact pattern of this case. When Parker says he lied because he didn't want publicity, does this ring true?

He didn't want to report it.

He had an emotional breakdown.

He was "climbing the walls" and was most convincing

He left jobs when people recognized him

He stayed out of the public's eye for 45 years

Yes, this sounds like a man who would lie about some things in order to stay out of the media's focus. Like he said, he didn't want to be known as the guy who was taken on a spaceship. He just wanted to get married and stay out of sight.

Again, pseudoskeptics don't use common sense. They don't look at the entire story.

First, Klass said it's a CURIOUS COINCIDENCE for a Lawyer to protect his client. Next Ecto said they were seeking publicity when Hickson died broke and Parker shied away from the public for 45 years. Now you trying to say Parker lied without any examination or any use of common sense based on his explanation as to why he lied.

I was recently watching a true crime story and when the Police asked a women why did she lie about her Husbands alibi, she said because she was scared of him.

The Police believed her and do you know why? BECAUSE OF THE FACT PATTERN of the case.

She had called 9-11 a couple of times because of abuse. Family and friends around them said she seemed scared of him.

Parker never wanted to report the incident. Parker acted like a man who didn't want anything to do with this story. This is the fact pattern.

I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about but when pseudoskeptics talk about things in these areas, they throw common sense out of the window.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

(snip)
Parker passed a polygraph test. Again:

There is nothing more truthful than beating a polygraph test. Movies are full of it, TV programs revel in it.

www.apa.org...
American Psychological Association

The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
Findings
Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions.

originally posted by: neoholographic
He didn't want to report it.

He had an emotional breakdown.

He was "climbing the walls" and was most convincing

He left jobs when people recognized him

He stayed out of the public's eye for 45 years

Yes, this sounds like a man who would lie about some things in order to stay out of the media's focus.

I think you're the one who is not putting it in perspective. He said in the secret police recording that he passed out, and that secret police recording was made right away. So everything you mention after that secret police recording would not have an effect on the secret police recording, such as leaving jobs when people recognized him, etc.

If he was credible and he didn't want to report it, then the thing for a credible person to do is not report it, there was no requirement for him to lie. But he didn't go that route according to him, he chose to report it and lie about what really happened and 20 years later he admitted he lied, though after his admission I'm still not sure which version of his story is true and neither are you unless you believe a confessed liar.

Maybe the woman who lied about her husband had a reason to lie, but Parker didn't really have a reason to lie, all he had to do if he didn't want to report it was not report it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Here's more:

Parker didn't want to tell anyone but Hickson wanted to report it.

Parker and Hickson were friends and Parker lived with Hickson.

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)."

www.clarionledger.com...

Again, the fact pattern.

Parker didn't want to tell anyone but Hickson did. Here's more:

Beverly Parker, Calvin's stepmother who lives with his father in Kiln, says they haven't heard from him "in a couple of months." Last she knew, Calvin was working construction in North Carolina and "doing pretty good."

The UFO incident is "something he won't talk about anymore," she says.

www.clarionledger.com...

It just gets worse for you.

There's nobody that says, that Parker is a liar. That Parker is known to make stuff up. All of them say the same thing about Parker being believable.

(Hickson participated in a movie, talk shows and lectures and died in 2011. Parker dropped out of the UFO scene as quickly as he could and returned to Jones County. He pops up only a few times in connection with UFOs. A decade ago, he moved back to the Coast and published his account this year.)

www.sunherald.com...

The fact pattern supports Parker 100%.

Parker didn't want to tell anyone, Hickson did. Parker lived with Hickson and they were friends. Parker said he passed out while the beings were taking him into the ship yet he was standing up watching the ship fly away while Hickson was on the ground.

They were returned to the river bank. Hickson was on the ground and conscious. Parker was standing and unable to put his arms down.

www.sunherald.com...

It's obvious Hickson wanted to take advantage of the situation, and there's nothing wrong with that. Parker said he didn't want to be known as the man who was taken on a spaceship and everything Parker did after the incident supports this.

Again, each post I keep laying out the fact pattern and you keep sticking your head in the sand. You said:

Maybe the woman who lied about her husband had a reason to lie, but Parker didn't really have a reason to lie, all he had to do if he didn't want to report it was not report it.

Sure he had a reason to. He didn't want to be the focus of the story and his friend Hickson wanted the publicity. He didn't report it, Hickson did. Here's what Hickson said:

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)."

LOL, you're really making me look like a Psychic when I say that pseudoskeptics throw common sense out of the window.

Here's Hickson telling you it was him that rationalized the need to tell people so he called Keesler.

This fits the fact pattern. Based on what has been said and what happened afterwards, you would expect Hickson to want to tell people because he went on Dick Cavett and other shows, wrote a book and did every interview while Parker all but vanished for 45 years.

I'm afraid that digging further into Hickson's story has catapulted me back into Ecto and Arby's court again and the potential Hoax Bin... Let me explain...

originally posted by: neoholographic


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)."

As a point of interest, does Biloxi AFB keep records of such calls? According to this 2006 account, Hickson's first decision was to call the base from a pay-phone...

I was telling what happened, and they stopped me and told me they didn't handle those things and we'd have to go through the Sheriff's department. Well, we talked about that and certainly didn't want to go to the Sheriff's department; we didn't wanna be called crazy or nuts in the neighbourhood there. But again, we talked about it and I just didn't think I could keep it to myself - it was so... something happened. So we called the Sheriff's department, and I talked to the Sheriff Fred Diamond

Two deputies arrived after a few minutes to meet the men...

I think they at first thought we were nuts but after they begun to realise that something had happened to us, they asked us would we follow them to the Sheriff's department to discuss it.

Some more points and questions about this 2006 account...

In this version, why did Hickson omit to say that their first decision was to physically go to the local newspaper office (which was allegedly closed for business)? Did he forget? Or would it have seemed too awkward to admit? Or does he vary his account depending on the audience? Just wondering. But it gets worse...

After they were both separately interviewed (and the secret recording convinced the Sheriff that something had happened), Hickson told the Sheriff he wanted no publicity, but the next morning the press were all over it.

Who called the press?

That day, they were tested for radiation at Keesler AFB - with negative results aside from a small amount detected on Parker.

Once the story was a worldwide sensation, Parker suffered the first of many nervous breakdowns, never recovering from the incident.

Hickson then describes a second encounter with the same UFO whilst out hunting squirrels. A voice in his head told him to not be afraid because 'they' didn't mean any harm. He hoped to meet them again...

... And he did, on Mother's Day, when the same UFO approached his car, alarming his wife and kid. It moved into a field and lit up the entire area. A voice told him they would meet at a later time...

... And even more encounters occurred... but he regards them as personal encounters that he's reluctant to talk about in detail, but they were mainly about saving our world from pollution.

Christ, this painful, but I shall continue...

Hickson's conclusion in 2006:

There's an energy out there that we haven't discovered yet... For instance, the movement of our planets in the universe, in our solar system, there's an energy that MOVES these planets. I think 'they' have learned to tap this energy; it's something that's there - it's FREE.

Anyone smell the stench of Dr Greer here? I had to stop there and hang my head in disappointment.

And it was all going so well, Charlie... Why did you kill the story...? You coulda bin somebody, Charlie... you coulda bin a contender...

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

What??

Nothing in your post has anything to do with the facts of the case. You said:

In this version, why did Hickson omit to say that their first decision was to physically go to the local newspaper office (which was allegedly closed for business)? Did he forget? Or would it have seemed too awkward to admit? Or does he vary his account depending on the audience? Just wondering. But it gets worse...

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China as my Father used to say?

So what?? Maybe they didn't go to the Newspaper, maybe they did. What does this have to do with any of this:

Both men passing a Polygraph test.

The Sheriff's office, Hynek and others believing them at the time of the event.

Multiple sightings of something similar around the time of the event.

Parker having emotional breakdowns, leaving jobs when recognized, climbing the walls and convincing others and staying in the shadows for 45 years when he could have made a lot of money of the "hoax."

Here's an examination report done by Dr. James Harder



Some other witnesses at the time who saw something similar.



More notes:

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

They fooled everyone with this "hoax" where Hickson died broke and Parker stayed in the shadow for 45 years.

Why put on a hoax and you don't make any money from it for 45 years? Why go through emotional breakdowns over a hoax? Why quit jobs when people recognize you over a hoax?

These men had to be better Actors than Denzel Washington or Russell Crowe LOL!

They fooled everybody. Doctors, Psychiatrists, Polygraph testers, Sheriff Departments, skeptical investigators and more.

Pseudoskeptics say the darnedest things. That needs to be a new TV show

a reply to: neoholographic

Don’t sweat it, bro. He/she is no shrieking violet — their takes/opinions are not fact-centric, or even-handed, they’re flavor of the month takes spewing the proverbial ‘I knew that was the case...but had to play devil’s advocate; acquiescing to an inability to have a spine is my forte’.


As I said to you before, beaming up Mississippi half-wits onto a mothership to do whatever, is easily the least likely of truths told that night, but this BS about rational theory debunkery of a money-making hoax falls on itself face when recognizing economics (the first to posit it), sociology, and most importantly, neuroscience have all accepted prospect theory and many others in explaining human behavior.

You won’t hear that from any of the professional skeptics you’ve identified, and damn sure won’t hear anything remotely intelligent concerning such from the likes of CB or the others looking to pin it down to half-wits lying to make a buck they never made.


No, dude, these men were not zapped up into a UFO to have their johnsons milked, or DNA taken. But they sure as hell had an experience that fully encapsulated high-strangeness.

**And for you CB: I was in a car wreck with my grandfather in 1986 that left my 4-year old arm broken...my grandfather is completely lucid and swore he didn’t remember it was a limb that fell on a’72 Corolla causing the wreck and it was news to him that the scar I showed him was from my broken arm. He remembers the wreck, the car, but had no clue it was a limb that fell on the hood and that I ended up with a broken arm. Point being: people forget #, traumatic # that really happened. Maybe like Hickson, but then again, maybe my grandfather just lied.**

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's nobody that says, that Parker is a liar. That Parker is known to make stuff up. All of them say the same thing about Parker being believable.

Right, and by the way the police tape was made in secret, so he wouldn't have even known he needed to lie on that, he didn't think anybody would hear it, so I don't think he did lie on the secret police tape, when he said he passed out.

But apparently you believe his story when he called himself a liar and "admitted" he lied about passing out. Why would you think he lied on the secret police tape? The police believed they didn't know they were being recorded.

I believe what he says on the secret police tape when he said he passed out, and I think when he called himself a liar and later claimed he didn't pass out, that was the lie, when he made his story more elaborate, which he couldn't do if he was telling the truth on the secret police tape when he said he passed out. When he admits to lying himself, all the testimony from other people saying he wouldn't lie is trumped by his own admission.

Whichever version he told was the truth, the two versions contradict each other and can't both be true, so one of his stories had to be a lie. I think he probably told the truth on the secret police tape when he said he passed out, and when he later said that was a lie, I don't believe him, why would he lie on the secret police tape? Explain that! Do you think the secret police tape recording wasn't really secret and he knew he was being recorded?

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

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

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