The 1973 Pascagoula Abduction Case.

Quite fascinating UFO abduction case with possibly one of the most bizarre aliens ever described.

THE HICKSON/PARKER CONTACT CASE, 11 October 1973, Pascagoula, Mississippi

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/393c0b548a8a.jpg[/atsimg]

"I can tell you here and now,and God is my witness and I beleive in God,that when I die I'll tell everybody what I saw .And it'll be the same story"

Charlie Hickson.

"The Pascagoula Incident involved two men, nineteen-year-old Calvin Parker and forty-two-year old Charles Hickson, both of Gautier, Mississippi, who were fishing in the Pascagoula River when they heard a buzzing noise behind them.
Both turned and were terrified to see a ten-foot-wide, eight-foot-high, glowing egg-shaped object with blue lights at its front hovering just above the ground about forty feet from the river bank.
As the men, frozen with fright, watched, a door appeared in the object, and three strange Beings floated just above the river towards them.

The Beings had legs but did not use them. They were about five feet tall, had bullet-shaped heads without necks, slits for mouths, and where their noses or ears would be, they had thin, conical objects sticking out, like carrots from a snowman's head. They had no eyes, grey, wrinkled skin, round feet, and clawlike hands.

Artist impression:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9cbc7f6b93e6.gif[/atsimg]

Two of the beings seized Hickson; when the third grabbed Parker, the teenager fainted with fright.
Hickson claimed that when the Beings placed their hands under his arms, his body became numb, and that then they floated him into a brightly lit room in the UFO's interior, where he was subjected to a medical examination with an eyelike device which, like Hickson himself, was floating in mid-air.

At the end of the examination, the Beings simply left Hickson floating, paralysed but for his eyes, and went to examine Parker, who, Hickson believed was in another room.
Twenty minutes after Hickson had first observed the UFO, he was floated back outside and released. He found Parker weeping and praying on the ground near him. Moments later, the object rose straight up and shot out of site.

Expecting only ridicule if they were to tell anyone what had happened, Hickson and Parker initially decided to keep quiet; but then, because the government might want, or ought, to know about it, they telephoned Kessler Air Force Base in Biloxi.
A sergeant there told them to contact the sheriff. But uncertain about the reception their bizarre story might get from the local law, they drove to the local newspaper office to speak to a reporter. When they found the office closed, Hickson and Parker felt they had no alternative but to talk to the sheriff.

The sheriff, after listening to their story, put Hickson and Parker in a room wired for sound in the belief that if the two men were left alone they would reveal their hoax; of course they did not.
The local press reported their tale; the wire services picked it up; and within several days the Pascagoula Encounter was major news all over the country.
The Aerial Phenomena Research Organisation (APRO), founded in 1952, sent University of California engineering professor James Harder to Mississippi to investigate; J. Allen Hynek, representing the Air Force, also arrived. Together they interviews the witnesses. Harder hypnotised Hickson but had to terminate the session when Hickson became too frightened to continue.

Hickson and Parker both subsequently passed lie detector tests. Hynek and Harder believed the two men's story. And Hynek was later quoted as saying "There was definitely something here that was not terrestrial".

Link

Interview transcript:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Other witnesses:
www.ufocasebook.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Thats an interesting story!!! I've never heard of them being described in that way, the sketch is strange, why would they look like that...I wonder!?!?!

What a strange description...

Cool post!

Every story has two sides: the truth and untruth. The truth, only Hickson and Parker know. The untruth unravels after the events are put through the investigative process. The Wikipedia account includes the following:

en.wikipedia.org...
Polygraph
As noted above, both Parker and Hickson volunteered to take polygraph exams to prove their stories. In the end, only Hickson did so, and the examiner determined that Hickson believed the story about the UFO abduction.

Aviation journalist and UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass argued that there was reason to question the reliability of Hicksons'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! [[1]; emphasis in original)

Subsequent investigation by Joe Esterhas of Rolling Stone uncovered some additional information, leading to much skepticism about the abduction claim. The supposed UFO landing and abduction site was in full view of two twenty-four hour toll booths, and neither operator saw anything that night. Also, the site was in range of security cameras from nearby Ingalls Shipyard, and the cameras additionally showed nothing that night.

WOW very interesting , kind of changes your perspective of what we commonly known as alien beings.

reply to post by Learhoag


Learhoag, thanks for the reply -I'm all for true open minded skepticism but I wouldn't rely on Klass for any kind of objective investigation. His method usually entailed starting out with a premeditated explanation and then willfully ignoring all contradictory evidence (and witness testimony) until he had managed to shoehorn it in.

Dr Hynek representing the USAF seemed convinced that the two men were genuinely frightened, even when they did not know their voices were being recorded by the sheriff - there's also the independent witness testimony (found here ) which appears to corroborate the men's story.

As you say, only Hickson and Parker will truly know what really happened that evening but it's probably best to rely on impartial analysis rather than the agenda based preconceptions of pseudoskeptics or true believers.

reply to post by karl 12


One of the more interesting aspects of the case is what the gentlemen said when they were secretly taped. The go on to talk about the strange event that took place when they were alone. While that does not prove what they reported happened, if they were lying they would of started laughing and joking when the police officers left the room.

Of note, Calvin Parker suffered a nervous breakdown because of the event and refused to give interviews. He was incredibly shaken up by what happened, and did not make any money or try to get publicity. That alone should have some bearing on the case.

Nice work. Interesting post. I've read all the links and read a little more on other sites. There's an extensive transcript here that seems plausible. Looking into any background, there seems little to debunk their account.

Learhoag mentions a Klass challenge to the polygraph. Klass was a destroyer of hoaxes and underminer of other incidents. If all he could imply was a 'wet behind the ears' polygraph operator, it doesn't undermine their account too much. If the conflicting evidence was there, he would have used it. Klass was as dogmatic as any 'believer.'

The Rolling Stones writer, Esterhas, offers interesting evidence that any blue light would have been seen by the Toll Booth operators and seen by the Shipyard cameras. I can't find a date of his investigation. Was it immediately following the incident or much later?

The cameras would have been reliant on the guard/s paying attention to the TV screen. In my experience, guards don't devote their undivided attention to the screens, it's a mind-numbing task. It's a rotating series of images on a monitor. An occasional glance between listening to radio/watching TV, reading etc. It's possible that nobody was watching at all. I'm speculating about that, but a fact is that the cameras weren't recording. If they were this wouldn't be posted. The video (at the time) would confirm or deny if it existed.

Only Parker and Hickson can know what they thought happened. I'm inclined to believe that they weren't hoaxing or lying. They believed that something had happened to them. There's no onus of proof on anybody. The account is fascinating in it's extraordinary details. Who knows what happened?

Originally posted by karl 12
I'm all for true open minded scepticism but I wouldn't rely on Klass for any kind of objective investigation.

You said a lot about Klass' personality, and ignore the points he brought up

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If all he could imply was a 'wet behind the ears' polygraph operator, it doesn't undermine their account too much...

That is not all Klass brought up. The circumstances of the polygraph reader's hiring is very interesting and enough to cast some doubt on at least some peoples' motivation in the cas.e

Originally posted by Learhoag
Every story has two sides: the truth and untruth. The truth, only Hickson and Parker know. The untruth unravels after the events are put through the investigative process.

Learhoag, I've read several of your posts in recent threads. I've also read some responses to them You've raised some good points...but...ease off on the hostility. The points you raise can be buried beneath the tone you use. Gunboat diplomacy always loses against plain diplomacy. This isn't an attack on you, it's constructive criticism. I'm on the skeptic side of the spectrum and open-minded. Conflicting opinions don't equal stupidity or ignorance and some members are in their mid-teens and exploring new ideas. You can make a point without shouting at them

reply to post by SaviorComplex
Agreed, it does cast a shadow of doubt. Polygraphs aren't conclusive, that Klass focused on that aspect implies that he was unable to find anything more substantial. I find this incident interesting and the tran. background encourage speculation. It isn't *proof* or anything near. I read the links, checked the information and remain open minded. I'm dog tired but happy to read more about conflicting motivations or vested interests if you can link me up?

if this guy says that he will tell the same story on his death bed. then i guess i believe what he believes to be true.

Originally posted by Kandinsky Agreed, it does cast a shadow of doubt. Polygraphs aren't conclusive, that Klass focused on that aspect implies that he was unable to find anything more substantial.

That is not a failing of Klass but rather the nature of the case. There is nothing substantial about it. All you have is the story the men told and their polygraph. Unless you were a witness, or the story has some internal consistency or changes on a later telling, you cannot debate the story. The only thing that can be focused on and debated is the polygraph. Klass is right to focus on it.

I found this little bit, apparently we aren't the only ones to ascribe ulterior motives to the lawyer. According to Jerome Clark:

Hickson would later have nothing to do with Colingo, charging the lawyer with base financial motivations: Colingo, said Hickson, "just wanted to make a buck.

SOURCE

Also found this, apparently someone came forward 28 years later to say they had a sighting in the same area that same night...

Now after 28 years, it appears they weren't alone in their experience on that Oct. 11 night.

A retired Navy chief petty officer recently contacted The Mississippi Press about the sighting that he can't forget.

Mike Cataldo of Rotonda West, Fla., said he was on the pre-commissioning crew of the USS Tunney under construction at Ingalls Shipyard. Dusk was setting in as he and crew mates Ted Peralta and Mack Hanna were on U.S. 90 heading to Ocean Springs. Peralta was driving, Hanna was in the front passenger seat and Cataldo was in the back seat.

"We saw a very strange object in the horizon going from northwest across Highway 90. It was going pretty fast. It went down into a wood area and into the marsh. It hovered over the tree line, I guess, maybe a minute. We actually pulled off the road and watched it. We said, 'My God, what is that."' Cataldo said.

SOURCE

Two-part AUDIO interview of Charlie Hickson with details I didn't find anywhere else.

The first minute or so Dr. Hynek is talking about an unrelated case but keep listening, this interview is very fascinating and seemingly quite genuine.

Part 1:
www.youtube.com...

Part 2:
www.youtube.com...





[edit on 12-2-2009 by Bombeni]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
That is not a failing of Klass but rather the nature of the case. There is nothing substantial about it. All you have is the story the men told and their polygraph. Unless you were a witness, or the story has some internal consistency or changes on a later telling, you cannot debate the story. The only thing that can be focused on and debated is the polygraph. Klass is right to focus on it.

I think we're on the same page here SC. I'm under no assumption that they were abducted or that the incident happened at all. There is only hearsay. From reading their transcripts I'm inclined to believe that 'they' believed something happened. Anything more is speculation. I haven't offered any debate, just thoughts. That Klass could only focus on the ethics of the choice of polygraph operator is not a criticism of him. I was raising the point to highlight the lack of evidence for the case. Any questions regarding Klass are for a different thread altogether.

My first post concluded thus...

Only Parker and Hickson can know what they thought happened. I'm inclined to believe that they weren't hoaxing or lying. They believed that something had happened to them. There's no onus of proof on anybody. The account is fascinating in it's extraordinary details. Who knows what happened?

It's quite apparent that there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything other than it's an interesting story. Your mention of Cataldo's account of a UFO sighting adds interest, but again it's just circumstantial.

reply to post by Bombeni
Just listened to both the links you posted. Still a very interesting story. Hynek's inclined to believe that the men were telling the truth that 'something' happened.

Listening to Hickson, he sounds very coherent in his account. No extraneous details are added. He doesn't stray from an objective retelling or fall into the witness testimony trap of adding details based on what 'should' have happened. He sounds like a rational man trying to explain and make sense of something extraordinary.

reply to post by Kandinsky



I am convinced they were being genuine about what happened to them especially after listening to the audio. There are some mighty strange things out there.

My mom her twin sister and bro-in-law were followed in their car actually taunted by a ufo, for 3-4 hours late one night in 1958. When you hear 3 adults in your family discuss this your whole life, you know it is for real. They are 77 years old now, and can still relate this entire story as if it happened last night.

reply to post by Kandinsky



Did you notice when Hickson said "a watch won't keep time on me"?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I had heard about another witness stepping forward with a sighting. Thank you for finding that.

Two more things do stick out in this case:

1. The description of aliens is different, and not the cookie cutter (pop culture) variety that are always reported nowadays.

2. They remembered the abduction without hypnotic regression.