Aliens exist: Here is the proof

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Are you really still trying to push that hill off as a flying saucer? Really? It doesn't get anymore conclusively debunked than that.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

It's the most reasonable conclusion considering all the facts

Based on the facts I have seen, there is probably more than enough documented psychological phenomena to account for this story.

Explain your point. Remember, two witnesses.

Was one passed out?

Parker also saw the beings and the craft.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: JackHill

But the sheriff was somehow smarter, so he brings the two men together into a wired room and waited for the inevitable: they'll expose themselves as hoaxers after speaking with each other. Easy indeed! Oh... wait.

Have you even listened to the actual 30:38 taped interview with Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker? After reading your responses, it seems maybe you haven't. They were not brought into a wired room with hidden microphones and left alone to see if they were lying. The sheriff recorded the interview of both men which lasted 26:08. Towards the end of the interview, he asks if either men want coffee and gets up and walks out of the room with the recorder still on. For 4:30, Parker and Hickson just sit there and talk back and forth with each other about this incident, then decide to get up and leave. You can hear the exact same office background noise as when they are being interviewed, so they're in the same spot and haven't been led into another room with a secret microphone.

I don't know if anyone can remember tape recorder technology in the early 70's, but it's hardly a small unnoticeable device. Their voices are clearly heard, so the mic couldn't be far away. Having been interviewed for almost 30 minutes, it's reasonable to consider that either one, or both men, could have noticed that they were being recorded. Which would logically explain why they sat there another 4:30 alone, talking back and forth with each other after the interview, for no reason. One of the last things that Hickson said was- "What are we waitin' on, I gotta go tell Blanche..." So apparently they we free to leave, but decided to sit there and talk.

Being part of the entire interview, this "secret" 4:30 recording you keep bringing up, might not have been so secret after all.

So your explanation is that they noticed they're taped, so they continue LYING to the police, because well, why...? Because it's fun? BTW, they're great actors!

Oh, and Hickson mantained his story for 40 years until he died. If it was some sort of elaborated prank, why to keep it until the last days?

It's 'secret' because the most reasonable explanation is that they DIDN'T know the damn thing was recording. And of course, you don't post a important detail, Charles Hickson actually said: "What are we waitin' on, I gotta go tell Blanche..." and later "Why did they say we have to wait..." so yeah, how convenient you ignored that.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

It's the most reasonable conclusion considering all the facts

Based on the facts I have seen, there is probably more than enough documented psychological phenomena to account for this story.

Explain your point. Remember, two witnesses.

Was one passed out?

Parker also saw the beings and the craft.

You were talking about the facts of the case and you keep bringing up this tape. He says on the tape that he passed out and he latter says that he didn't. You seem to want me to "explain" how these two people could have the same story based on "the facts".

If he passed out like he said he did on the tape then obviously that's an important fact. If he didn't pass out and was "going along" with the story like he said in the latter interview, that's something else. So I really don't know what the basic facts are to offer an "explanation".

Its easier to dismiss his latter retellings and "remembering" the farther away you get from the actual event. Even so I already said there is really no way to tell what actually happened to them but if you take your "facts" to any psych department, I am sure they will dismiss it quite easily.

a reply to: JackHill

My point is that you keep telling this story wrong. They were not led into a room with wireless mics to find out if they were telling the truth. The tape was actually at the end of a 26 minute long interview where the officer left the room with the recorder on. They absolutely could have seen this recorder at some point during their interview.

Your inaccurate portion of the story leads me to believe you're either embellishing it to help support your own belief, or you're basing your "facts" of the case, not on your own investigation, but on what you've been told is true. You're following the lead of others- That's what I really believe is happening. What ends up happening is that you spread this false information online to others who want to believe, who also don't bother to research anything. So then it snowballs into years of misinformation. Some of the websites I've seen with the transcripts completely leave out the police interview portion. They skip right to this "conversation" between the two men. Even then, they don't even get the conversation down verbatim.

I suggest you research and investigate these cases for yourself before you continue to make claims about these incidents and stand so convicted in their truth.

So your explanation is that they noticed they're taped, so they continue LYING to the police, because well, why...? Because it's fun? BTW, they're great actors!

Oh, and Hickson mantained his story for 40 years until he died. If it was some sort of elaborated prank, why to keep it until the last days?

Yes, they could have been lying. This is something difficult to prove/disprove because it relies 100% on a story. As I stated above, they could have known they were being recorded, so basing it on this "secret conversation" is not 100% reliable. There's no evidence of anything, you don't personally know these people and what their motivation might have been. They made money off of this story through books, magazines, TV, lectures, etc. Calvin Parker started a company that produced television shows about UFO encounters. It could have been motivated by $$. I'm sure they made more money telling this story than they did working at the shipyard.

One thing is a fact, people lie. Unless you were there with them, you have no more idea if they were telling the truth than I do, that's another fact. If there's money to be made, I'm sure the after-effects of "ridicule" (which I'm sure you'll use as a defense) is something they'll live through. So much so in fact, that instead of avoiding the story, they continue to tell the story up until Hickson death, and Parker to this day.
$$$ the big motivator.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: JackHill

My point is that you keep telling this story wrong. They were not led into a room with wireless mics to find out if they were telling the truth. The tape was actually at the end of a 26 minute long interview where the officer left the room with the recorder on. They absolutely could have seen this recorder at some point during their interview.

Your inaccurate portion of the story leads me to believe you're either embellishing it to help support your own belief, or you're basing your "facts" of the case, not on your own investigation, but on what you've been told is true. You're following the lead of others- That's what I really believe is happening. What ends up happening is that you spread this false information online to others who want to believe, who also don't bother to research anything. So then it snowballs into years of misinformation. Some of the websites I've seen with the transcripts completely leave out the police interview portion. They skip right to this "conversation" between the two men. Even then, they don't even get the conversation down verbatim.

I suggest you research and investigate these cases for yourself before you continue to make claims about these incidents and stand so convicted in their truth.

So your explanation is that they noticed they're taped, so they continue LYING to the police, because well, why...? Because it's fun? BTW, they're great actors!

Oh, and Hickson mantained his story for 40 years until he died. If it was some sort of elaborated prank, why to keep it until the last days?

Yes, they could have been lying. This is something difficult to prove/disprove because it relies 100% on a story. As I stated above, they could have known they were being recorded, so basing it on this "secret conversation" is not 100% reliable. There's no evidence of anything, you don't personally know these people and what their motivation might have been. They made money off of this story through books, magazines, TV, lectures, etc. Calvin Parker started a company that produced television shows about UFO encounters. It could have been motivated by $$. I'm sure they made more money telling this story than they did working at the shipyard.

One thing is a fact, people lie. Unless you were there with them, you have no more idea if they were telling the truth than I do, that's another fact. If there's money to be made, I'm sure the after-effects of "ridicule" (which I'm sure you'll use as a defense) is something they'll live through. So much so in fact, that instead of avoiding the story, they continue to tell the story up until Hickson death, and Parker to this day.
$$$ the big motivator.

The policemen deliberately left the device recording to catch them in a lie, they actually claimed that. Your position is 'they knew they're being recorded, so they lied' (and let me tell you, damn they're good!). I think you're completely wrong on that. They knew jack # about being recorded. Sigh, not even the infamous CSICOP claims that!

Interestingly, when the two men were left alone in a room at the sheriff’s office, where they were secretly tape recorded (Clark 1998, 716), they did not make incriminating statements as they might have if perpetrating a hoax but acted more like people comparing notes to see if they were in agreement with each other.

'Secretly tape recorded'. Enough said.

Why would they lie if nobody was there to hear them?

a reply to: JackHill

Why would they lie if nobody was there to hear them?

But you think they did lie about Parker passing out. Dont you? Which is my question. Why would Parker say that he passed out when he thought nobody was around to hear him? The facts of this case are not that clear I'm afraid.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

Why would they lie if nobody was there to hear them?

But you think they did lie about Parker passing out. Dont you? Which is my question. Why would Parker say that he passed out when he thought nobody was around to hear him? The facts of this case are not that clear I'm afraid.

Because he was talking with Hickson? He wasn't talking to himself, right? In any case, he lied to Hickson about passing out. Maybe he felt guilty in not being able to help? Who knows. I already told my thoughts on the other thread. Dude was concerned about the whole thing, fearful, stressed, and evidently, just wanted to get the hell out of there and leave all behind. Denying the obvious state of mind of both guys when we hear them talking to each other, trying to make sense of the experience, is just plain bad. Damn, every person who approached them hours after the event said the same thing, they're stressed, fearful, in shock, etc. BOTH of them. Parker had to be hospitalized after a mental breakdown for God's sake. Now it turns they're better than professional actors? Please guys... common sense.

a reply to: JackHill

Because he was talking with Hickson? He wasn't talking to himself, right? In any case, he lied to Hickson about passing out.

According to parker in this interview with him, he says that Hickson told him to say he passed out and he went along with it. Where are you getting that he lied to Hickson about passing out? They were in cahoots according to parker.

pascagoulainterview.html

@around 2:40 Parker talks about how they made up the part of passing out.

If you notice, just trying to establish the basic facts of the case is impossible. We don't know if he passed out or not now do we?

All I am looking for is some empirical evidence. Is that too much to ask for?





Respectfully,
EOS

a reply to: Emerys

Mack Retraces 12 Years of Research for T.E. Lawrence Biography, Lawrence of Arabia that is and that is what he got his Pulitzer Prize for back in 1977.

" John E. Mack, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard Medical School professor whose research on purported extraterrestrial abductions generated widespread publicity and controversy, died Monday 2004 in an automobile accident in London. He was 74" R.I.P

"According to Nick Craddock, professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University, also writing for New Scientist, psychiatry is still waiting for its "Higgs boson moment," when some prediction-come-true from biological theory will actually confirm its legitimacy. He says, "Not since Freud's pseudoscientific theories early last century has psychiatry claimed any broad theoretical basis for making sense of our normal and abnormal feelings, thinking and social behaviours -- the complexities at the heart of being human." In other words, psychiatry never made it to scientific status in the first place. Its claims remain "atheoretical," he believes, even though he is optimistic its day will come."

www.evolutionnews.org...

The question is:
"Should Neurologists Manage Psychiatric Symptoms?" since the neurologist's task is to identify pathologic abnormalities of the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system and recommend a course of treatment. Psychiatrists tend to restrict their practice to disorders of the brain and, more specifically, the mind."

To date, Psychiatrist diagnose without empirical evidence unlike a Medical Doctor who performs certain Blood work ups and tests to diagnose a patient. Rather then go on about this it would be prudent if you researched the matter yourself.

I do not say yes or no to the abductees only that it offers no real empirical evidence and that is all I will say about the matter.

Respectfully,
EOS

a reply to: JackHill

Other than the faith you place in these two anonymous men, the strongest part of the case for you is this "secret recording." Not a secret recording made in one of their homes completely free and clear of this incident. But a recording made in a police station where both men had purposely gone to give an account of this alien abduction story. Where they had been sitting for almost 30 minutes being interviewed by the sheriff when he gets up and walks away leaving the recorder on and captures Hickson and Parker continuing to talk. You believe there's no possible way they could had seen the tape recorder or microphone, or had gone into the police station knowing that what they were saying may be recorded or listened to? I find that ridiculous and naively based again on trust of two men that you know nothing about.

Sigh, not even the infamous CSICOP claims that!

The CSICOP author was trying to come up with some type of rational explanation for the story, going on the believers argument that they were being honest. The outcome is still the same though, it didn't physically happen. I'm not quite as easy on the story as they were, or some members of this board. I don't think it was a dream state, psychological issues, or anything that complicated. I think they were lying about their abduction with the intent to cash in on it. And they did cash in.

Charles Hickson claimed in UFO lectures he gave, that 4 months later he was walking in the middle of a 750 acre tree farm one night and the same spacecraft that abducted him earlier, landed in an open area and he received a message that they didn't mean us any harm, and that they would stay in contact with him. Three months after that, he claimed late one night the spacecraft followed his car with his family inside and tried to get them to stop. He said the spacecraft hovered in a field and he could see windows wrapped around it with silhouettes of beings inside. His wife wouldn't let him out of the car to meet the beings and they left.

He went on in these lectures with these "alien messages" to say we would have alien contact in 1992 and that after, there would be physical evidence that would show without a doubt that these alien beings exist. He would go on about nuclear war, free energy that moves the planets, and on and on.

It seems that once the story gets out and they find they have this gullible crowd of believers, they can't help but run with other outrageous claims. The exact same thing happened with Betty Hill. She said she had seen thousands of UFOs after initial abduction story, among many other wild claims.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I don't think it was a dream state, psychological issues, or anything that complicated. I think they were lying about their abduction with the intent to cash in on it. And they did cash in.

I think its possible that Hickson had sleep paralysis while Parker was passed out which would mean they were both asleep. Those episodes can be rather frightening if you don't know what it is. I admit that line of thinking gets convoluted when you look at their behavior afterwards. I think I read that Parker was hooked up with Budd Hopkins for a while and underwent hypnosis. So whatever additions to the story he "remembered" are undoubtedly due to false memory. While Hickson seems to have gone the way of trying to become a "contactee". Perhaps Hickson hoaxed it and scared the hell out of the 19 year old Parker who was passed out.

I can probably come up with a dozen scenarios...Just curious, have you ever experienced sleep paralysis?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

Because he was talking with Hickson? He wasn't talking to himself, right? In any case, he lied to Hickson about passing out.

According to parker in this interview with him, he says that Hickson told him to say he passed out and he went along with it. Where are you getting that he lied to Hickson about passing out? They were in cahoots according to parker.

pascagoulainterview.html

@around 2:40 Parker talks about how they made up the part of passing out.

If you notice, just trying to establish the basic facts of the case is impossible. We don't know if he passed out or not now do we?

Yes, you're correct. He actually said that. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Still, it doesn't seem they made up the 'event'. He still claims, 40 years later, the abduction. According to people who talked to them they were visibly shocked and, as it was pointed out earlier, Parker suffered a breakdown and had to be briefly hospitalized.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: JackHill

Other than the faith you place in these two anonymous men, the strongest part of the case for you is this "secret recording." Not a secret recording made in one of their homes completely free and clear of this incident. But a recording made in a police station where both men had purposely gone to give an account of this alien abduction story. Where they had been sitting for almost 30 minutes being interviewed by the sheriff when he gets up and walks away leaving the recorder on and captures Hickson and Parker continuing to talk. You believe there's no possible way they could had seen the tape recorder or microphone, or had gone into the police station knowing that what they were saying may be recorded or listened to? I find that ridiculous and naively based again on trust of two men that you know nothing about.

Sigh, not even the infamous CSICOP claims that!

The CSICOP author was trying to come up with some type of rational explanation for the story, going on the believers argument that they were being honest. The outcome is still the same though, it didn't physically happen. I'm not quite as easy on the story as they were, or some members of this board. I don't think it was a dream state, psychological issues, or anything that complicated. I think they were lying about their abduction with the intent to cash in on it. And they did cash in.

Charles Hickson claimed in UFO lectures he gave, that 4 months later he was walking in the middle of a 750 acre tree farm one night and the same spacecraft that abducted him earlier, landed in an open area and he received a message that they didn't mean us any harm, and that they would stay in contact with him. Three months after that, he claimed late one night the spacecraft followed his car with his family inside and tried to get them to stop. He said the spacecraft hovered in a field and he could see windows wrapped around it with silhouettes of beings inside. His wife wouldn't let him out of the car to meet the beings and they left.

He went on in these lectures with these "alien messages" to say we would have alien contact in 1992 and that after, there would be physical evidence that would show without a doubt that these alien beings exist. He would go on about nuclear war, free energy that moves the planets, and on and on.

It seems that once the story gets out and they find they have this gullible crowd of believers, they can't help but run with other outrageous claims. The exact same thing happened with Betty Hill. She said she had seen thousands of UFOs after initial abduction story, among many other wild claims.

Well, you could contemplate the possibility that the 'aliens' just messed with his head. It won't be the first time. Or that he just 'embellished' to make some $$$ years after. I won't be surprised either. As far I'm aware, 'random' people is just picked, why would we asume they will represent the pinacle of our civilization and would always be morally correct? It means little regarding the particular event. What CSICOP says makes no sense whatsoever, these 'theories' are even more improbable that the 'alien contact' itself. Seriously. I would give them more credit if they could bring strong arguments regarding the hoax theory.

Considering the events that transpired immediatly after the 'abduction, it seems these men really went trough a traumatic experience.

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.

...

Hynek withheld ultimate judgment on the case, but did announce that, in his judgment, Hickson and Parker were honest men who seemed genuinely distressed about what had occurred.

...

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)

...

On September 9, 2011, Charles Hickson died at age 80, but never backed off the alien abduction story despite ridicule.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yeah, I have an older post on the forum where I described my episode of sleep paralysis. With so many abductions occurring when people are in bed asleep, I can understand, to a point, where someone can awaken feeling paralyzed with that possibly carrying into, or from, a nightmare of "beings." I don't think that was the situation with this incident though. You have two people claiming the same thing.

One of the problems with abductions is the level of acceptable evidence is set so low, that taking a story at face value is all that's needed. Anyone can create any story involving an abduction and believers will fight tooth and nail that it's a fact. Their personal belief in other abductions, becomes evidence in itself for every other abduction. You don't even need any evidence, just a story.

I don't think the Pascagoula case has complicated reasoning behind it at all. I think it's a simple one, both men lied. When you look at Hicksons actions and comments after the original incident, how can any rational thinking person not question his sincerity? This wasn't someone that hid from the spotlight. He was opportunistic, he did interviews, wrote books, went on the UFO lecture circuit for years, adding more stories on top of the original. Like he was the appointed abduction guru with messages from the aliens to give to the world. I think his actions afterwards reveal what this was really about.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yeah, I have an older post on the forum where I described my episode of sleep paralysis. With so many abductions occurring when people are in bed asleep, I can understand, to a point, where someone can awaken feeling paralyzed with that possibly carrying into, or from, a nightmare of "beings." I don't think that was the situation with this incident though. You have two people claiming the same thing.

This is really my first look at the details of this case. It is two people claiming the same thing...sort of. Seems like Hickson is driving the story for the most part while Parker just kind of agrees. That whole dynamic of a 40 something year old man with the 19 year old kid is odd to me but fits like it was set up, "just play like you passed out and I will do all the talking".


My real point is that people can and do get frightened for no reason and can come to believe something. I just don't get the whole "it was a traumatic experience". I have had numerous sleep paralysis episodes and some of those were traumatic too. Does that make them real? (Obviously Im not directing that at you.) But It really is impossible to work in the "psychology" of the event and particularly if you cant establish the basic facts like if Parker passed out or not.

I don't think the Pascagoula case has complicated reasoning behind it at all. I think it's a simple one, both men lied. When you look at Hicksons actions and comments after the original incident, how can any rational thinking person not question his sincerity? This wasn't someone that hid from the spotlight. He was opportunistic, he did interviews, wrote books, went on the UFO lecture circuit for years, adding more stories on top of the original. Like he was the appointed abduction guru with messages from the aliens to give to the world. I think his actions afterwards reveal what this was really about.

Yeah, that does point towards hoax...