• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Pascagoula (Mississippi) Abduction (Hickson & Parker; 1973)

In the mean time, the Mississippi Press Register ran an article on 18 October. The content includes statements by Hickson, but it's unclear whether these statements were obtained in the newspaper's interview on the 18th or culled from the Sheriff's Office based on the information they'd gathered the night of the incident.

MissPressReg-731018.jpg
 
I think we need to look towards a possible military solution for this.
Been there, done that. :)

First problem which arises, is that there is no evidence and it's arguably an even nore convoluted scenario.

Second, is that it makes no sense. What exactly were they being examined for, in such a James Bond like dcript.

Third is a practical issue. Hickson mentions it took some 15 minutes to walk from the car, through some marsh/water, littered with debris.

They could not drive any closer.

How then would a vehicle have been able to reach them and laterr return, especially without them clearly noticing both it's arrival and departure.

What 1973 drug had the capability of leaving you with a conscious memory, yet turned that into a recollection of alien entities and being inside a spaceship.

And perfectly so.... without any flaws.

There is a really helpful description of the actual location, as viewed firsthand shortly afterwards.

It's from the aforementioned book, 'Beyond Earth' and shall duly go find.

A helicopter... ?

Would need to have accommodated our 5 participants, plus the pilot who kept it hovering.

Also equipped with some medical facilities?

Or were they taken elsewhere and brought back again?

I have tried to make a case for this and let's have another look....

There were a few possibly supportive clues.
 
It so happens that earlier today, I was looking for a definitive quote regarding the entire issue and from a qualified source. This seems to be the situation:

Hypnosis and memory retrieval

Using hypnosis to extract hidden or vague memories may not be reliable. Although there is a widespread belief that hypnosis produces accurate memories, researchers found that hypnosis does not work well as a memory-recovery method. In addition, people who have been hypnotized tend to feel confident that their memories are accurate, contributing to the persistence of false memories.

Source: John Hopkins Medical, John Hopkins University.

In essence, evidence without the use of hypnosis, does not involve this inherent doubt

We could perhaps refer to it from now on as simply evidence BH (before hypnosis) and evidence IH (involving hypnosis). :)

Would save myself some writing, because it keeps coming up, as it is now a mainstay of ufology.

The significance of this case are our extremely rare, if not almost unique, witness accounts, albeit primarily Hickson's, which were thankfully documented at the time.

In addition to the Sheriff department audio, these Keesler AFB statements are equally invaluable, especially as Parker provides some additional evidence.

Whilst not perfect and naturally leaves us with many unresolved questions, at least we gain a clearer perspective.

Contemplating more about the point as to where we might be otherwise, then, as suggested, we could have two people who remember seeing sn intensely bright light suddenly appear and next thing they remember, is being in a dishevelled state, with no obvious explanation.

Subsequently discovering it's much later than thought, they realise an hour, maybe two, can not be accounted for.

Would swear I've heard about something like this before...
But as it happens, what other method is available to retrieve memories from the subconscious?
Young children who witness traumatic events will never remember them consciously, because the subconscious 'protects' us from anything perceived to be harmful.
Yet, those memories will come forward if the conscious mind is 'pushed aside', or put to sleep.
I saw a therapist for some time who claimed hypnotism was a valuable tool that she used with difficult patients, and she had much success with that. She described it as 'opening a curtain and allowing the subconscious to speak'. She never tried it on me.
I have a very troubling memory from when I was just a tot, I don't know exactly what happened, but I suspect, and it is frightening. When I went to a professional hypnotist, she tried and could not get me to go under, she told me not to pursue it, because there was something evidently that my subconscious did not want to be known. And she said that perhaps it would not be a happy experience for me, and I was better off not knowing. And I think she was right.
She also said that most people can be hypnotized quite easily and quickly, some more than others, some people are very suggestive. Strong-willed people may never go under.
Even scientists are not sure how many levels are in the mind, it is really very much an unknown area.
Therapists use hypnotism on people who have 'multiple personalities' to bring them out, and treat them.
 
Charles Hickson, speaking about his terrifying experience, which never left him (from 2011, following his death):

Remembering Charlie Hickson, a rare Pascagoula UFO abduction transcript​


View attachment 57209
Charles E. Hickson, Sr., better known as Charlie Hickson, passed away in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, last Friday September 9 at the age of 80. A foreman at the now closed Walker Shipyard in Pascagoula, which built U.S. Navy ships, Hickson is best remembered as the key protagonist of a famous UFO abduction incident in Pascagoula on the early night of October 11, 1973. He was then 42 years old and on that fateful night was fishing on the Pascagoula River with his buddy Calvin Parker, a 19-year old welder at the yard. Little they knew that what they were about to experience would make them world famous.

The Pascagoula case quickly became one of the three classic alien abductions (together the Betty and Barney Hill case of 1961 and the Travis Walton case of 1975) in the era before this subject gained a wider public exposure thanks to the works of Budd Hopkins, Whitley Strieber, David Jacobs, Dr. John Mack and others. Included below is a rare transcript from a lecture given by Charlie in Mississippi in 1991.

View attachment 57210

https://www.openminds.tv/rare-charlie-hickson-transcript-786/12108#:~:text=They were about 5-feet-tall, had bullet-shaped heads without,paralyzed in fear and Parker just passed out.

Hickson seems extremely sincere and earnest, and his message of reducing global spending on weapons and increasing it on aid is one we can all get behind.

Unfortunately he seems to have been another of the contactees misled by his abductors - in the early 80s he was predicting imminent cataclysm, and that he was one of 12 people globally to be chosen by the aliens for contact; then he was suggesting 1992 would be the year of contact. I don't envy anyone who believes they have received such messages as they generally turn out to be misleading; why would the abductors do this to people? It's a question that Hickson no doubt asked himself too. It seems he at least reconciled himself to his experience by seeing the end of the Cold War as a fulfilment of what he was told.

Perhaps the 'messages' were suggested by hypnosis, or perhaps they were ultimately a story he told to make something terrifying, confusing and inexplicable easier to live with - maybe it's a bit of both. As I've said, I don't envy people put in this position.

Which of course, makes it even worse if his experiences were even more closely connected to the Cold War than he thought.
 
Been there, done that. :)

First problem which arises, is that there is no evidence and it's arguably an even nore convoluted scenario.

In what way is it more convoluted than crab-clawed spacemen who, presented with the sight of a military base and shipyard full of Earth's most interesting technology, choose to hover over the rubbish tip next door and molest two unimportant fishermen, leaving them puzzled and traumatised?

Second, is that it makes no sense. What exactly were they being examined for, in such a James Bond like dcript.

They don't need to be examined for anything. Let's say they ended up in the middle of an 'operation'. They only needed to be knocked out and 'examined' - more, I suspect, in the sense of searching for ID, hidden cameras, radios etc - enough to establish they were really just fishermen and not someone working for the 'other side', whoever that was. As they were civilians they were presumably then just left to sleep it off.

Third is a practical issue. Hickson mentions it took some 15 minutes to walk from the car, through some marsh/water, littered with debris.

They could not drive any closer.

How then would a vehicle have been able to reach them and laterr return, especially without them clearly noticing both it's arrival and departure.

As the rubbish dump supposedly contained 'wrecked autos' I am sceptical about whether there really wasn't vehicle access, but why does there have to be a vehicle? Perhaps the abductors were already onsite and hidden? Or for that matter they could have arrived by water.

What 1973 drug had the capability of leaving you with a conscious memory, yet turned that into a recollection of alien entities and being inside a spaceship.

And perfectly so.... without any flaws.

What Hickson in essence remembered was seeing a light, a possible 'doorway' opening, some figures grabbing him, and then an experience not dissimilar to sleep paralysis, perhaps a side effect of heavy but imperfect sedation. Parker remembered almost nothing.

There is a really helpful description of the actual location, as viewed firsthand shortly afterwards.

It's from the aforementioned book, 'Beyond Earth' and shall duly go find.

A helicopter... ?

Would need to have accommodated our 5 participants, plus the pilot who kept it hovering.

Also equipped with some medical facilities?

Or were they taken elsewhere and brought back again?

I have tried to make a case for this and let's have another look....

There were a few possibly supportive clues.

They could have been taken to a nearby vehicle or to an area set up in one of the old buildings onsite?
 
There is a really helpful description of the actual location, as viewed firsthand shortly afterwards.
If it might help, quoting from the 1974 book publication, 'Beyond Earth', by Ralph and Judy Blum.

Ralph Blum, who had accompanied Hyneck to Pascagoula writes:

"About fifty yards beyond the bridge, we turned off to the left onto a rutted dirt road and followed it back toward the river. The old Shaupeter Shipyard is abandoned now. To the west stands a big grain elevator. The place has become a dump for the wrecks of old automobiles. There must be twenty or more lying about. Bryant nodded at the carcass of a green Oldsmobile. "That one's new since yesterday."

We parked, shut off the headlights, and cut the motor. It was dark by then. The ground was flat, covered with crushed oyster shells. Two decayed piers stuck out into the river and a solitary fisherman stood silhouetted against the lights from the opposite bank. Across the river, north of the bridge, a newly painted shrimp boat lay anchored at the Walker docks, ready for sea. Oyster shells crunched beneath our feet, and you could hear the roll of traffic along Highway 90. Otherwise the place was still.

Bryant stopped.

"Where that fella's fishing, that's about where Charlie and Calvin must have been," he said. Then he pointed around us in a circle. "And here, here's where the craft must've come down."

An airplane was coming in from the south, heading toward Mobile, and I could see its red and green winking lights. In the western sky, Venus was bright. There was Jupiter, much higher, and in the east, glowing reddish and large, was Mars. I glanced at my watch. It was just about the time. I tried to imagine the moment: Charlie turning to get new bait, the blue light descendng to hover above the oyster flat, the door opening, the creatures emerging, floating toward the two men... "I sure wish they'd come back." said Bryant".
(End)
 
So - the writer of the article basically states that after the initial brief interview with Hickson and Parker, before the group adjourned, theyTh gave "a brief resume of earlier cases" like the Hills, telling the witnesses they are among a very small group of people to have had this experience.

This is a concern as they are already encouraging the witnesses to fix what is presumably a distressing, garbled memory in a very specific context.
There still seems to be some confusion regarding this.

The statements given on the evening of Thursday 11 October, only some 3 hours afterwards at the Sheriff's department and recorded on tape, are the crucial evidence.

Next day, additional statements were obtained st Keesler AFB, providing evidence not included in the previous evening's witness testimonials.

In unison, this documented evidence provides an account which is prior to the involvement of Hyek and others.

It is the only evidence being referenced.

Whatever discussions wee subsequently held with Hyneck and his colleagues, are a separate matter snd obviously have no impact on the pristine evidence already on files.

This equally applies to any press interviews, or statements made after hypnosis became involved.

The original story had been secured.

The use of hypnosis seems to have been irrelevant anyway.

The original accounts do not seem to have been affected by Hyneck's apparent conviction that hypnosis was some form of truth serum.
 
... The use of hypnosis seems to have been irrelevant anyway.
The original accounts do not seem to have been affected by Hyneck's apparent conviction that hypnosis was some form of truth serum.

Agreed ...

There's nothing in Harder's CUFOS report (based in part on the hypnosis sessions) that adds any details to the comments (we've seen) from the sheriff's interview and Keesler interview documentation.

The only variations evident in Harder's report arising from the hypnosis sessions were estimates of the object's size and its distance from the witnesses when they first encountered it.

Parker gave a specific description of the object's departure ("zzzzp" sound; simply disappeared), whereas Harder simply reported neither man saw the object leave.

Hickson told the cops he and Parker had seen a blue light in the sky prior to seeing the blue-ish object down at ground level. He didn't mention this to the USAF interviewers, and Harder doesn't mention their seeing the object aloft.

Harder's account mentions nothing about the men going to the newspaper office nor their calling Keesler AFB following the incident.

In fact, Harder's report (as documented in the APRO article) has fewer details than the reports from the two prior interviews. So much for the value of hypnosis ...

Still, to be fair ... I'd love to know whether Harder and Hynek made notes documenting more than what was cited in the APRO article, and I'd really love to see any such additional documentation they generated in the interview / hypnosis sessions.
 
In the UFO's Over Mississippi booklet published and marketed by the local newspaper there's a drawing of the object. The published drawing was done by a Mississippi Press Register artist based on a drawing attributed to Calvin Parker. The appearance in the booklet dates the drawing (and Parker's original) to no later than late 1973 or very early 1974. I've been unable to locate any mention of Parker drawing a sketch of the object or any clues as to when his sketch may have been done.

Here's the drawing as it appears in the booklet, along with its caption attributing it to an earlier drawing by Parker.

MP-Render-CP-Obj-Drawing-P7.jpg

Here's another copy of the drawing I located at a UFO site, included to illustrate how it looks without being skewed during extraction from a photo of the booklet's page 7.

MP-Render-CP-Obj-Sketch-B.jpg

The existence of a Parker sketch of the object - especially from that early timeframe - surprised me.

Does anyone know when / where this sketch was created and / or published? Does anyone have a copy of Parker's original drawing?

The flat-bottomed and domed shape doesn't match Hickson's consistent allusions to the object being egg-shaped.

There's also the issue of what the two circular features at the left end are supposed to represent. Hickson specifically denied the object exhibited any windows. The mysterious ambiguous / amorphous "door" from which the 3 figures emerged was always described as a single thing.
 
There's also the issue of what the two circular features at the left end are supposed to represent. Hickson specifically denied the object exhibited any windows. The mysterious ambiguous / amorphous "door" from which the 3 figures emerged was always described as a single thing.
Those round shapes might not be a part of the UFO as much as being a stylised way of drawing a 'shine' on the surface. Reflections, etc.
 
This is correct, and here's a contemporary image to prove it ...

The local newspaper (Mississippi Press Register) assembled clippings, images, and comments relating to the incident and the following week's events into a booklet entitled UFO's Over Mississippi: A 7-Day Space Odyssey, which they then marketed by mail order. This booklet seems to have been published in late 1973 or very early 1974.

I've located a few photos of the booklet from an online sales offering.

On page 3 of the booklet is a full-page photograph of the scene where the incident occurred. Here's the photo caption (from page 2):


Here's an annotated version of the photo image:


There are multiple old piers / docks visible in the photo. It appears to me there's more than one of them that might match other (closer) photos of the place where Hickson and Parker were fishing at the time of the encounter.

The western shore has been considerably modified since 1973. With respect to the maps / photos Max posted this past March, this vintage photo corresponds to this area (the same as finally nominated by MO):


Outstanding! My eye was immediately drawn to that - water tower? - at lower right in the aerial photo. lt being difficult to judge distance/scale at night, l wonder if some combination of the tower, the setting Venus, and - perhaps - lights from passing cars could turn that elevated structure behind the observers into a UFO.

maximus otter
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
In the UFO's Over Mississippi booklet published and marketed by the local newspaper there's a drawing of the object. The published drawing was done by a Mississippi Press Register artist based on a drawing attributed to Calvin Parker. The appearance in the booklet dates the drawing (and Parker's original) to no later than late 1973 or very early 1974. I've been unable to locate any mention of Parker drawing a sketch of the object or any clues as to when his sketch may have been done.

Here's the drawing as it appears in the booklet, along with its caption attributing it to an earlier drawing by Parker.


Here's another copy of the drawing I located at a UFO site, included to illustrate how it looks without being skewed during extraction from a photo of the booklet's page 7.


The existence of a Parker sketch of the object - especially from that early timeframe - surprised me.

Does anyone know when / where this sketch was created and / or published? Does anyone have a copy of Parker's original drawing?

The flat-bottomed and domed shape doesn't match Hickson's consistent allusions to the object being egg-shaped.

There's also the issue of what the two circular features at the left end are supposed to represent. Hickson specifically denied the object exhibited any windows. The mysterious ambiguous / amorphous "door" from which the 3 figures emerged was always described as a single thing.

I always thought the round shapes might be supposed to represent the lights, which I've seen described as being at one end of the object.

There's two things that spring to mind looking at this:

1. A misperceived car

2. Searching to see if anyone else had looked at the 'espionage' angle (I know Nick Redfern has suggested it might have been a US test of the incapacitating agent BZ) I did find one blogger who had proposed that there could have been Soviet involvement. They also mention submariners' drysuits as giving the effect of the 'creatures', but add that the vehicle itself seems reminiscent of a Soviet Triton 'swimmer delivery vehicle'..

EZ7PaGMWkAIKd_Z.jpg
 
If my insistence on a military or espionage angle seems a bit ridiculous, then consider that Pascagoula was not only a major naval base, it was where the vast majority of US nuclear subs were built in the period. The American cloak and dagger stuff over Project Azorian and the purpose of the recovery ship shows that they knew their shipyards were probably under observation.

I can already hear the ghost of Donald Keyhoe responding that UFOs are often seen over military bases, so the location just strengthens the case that the Pascagoula object was a spacecraft. Well, maybe - but if they're interested in military installations, then they're apparently also interested in empty farmland, remote spinneys, suburbs, etc etc. And if the Pascagoula entities chose Pascagoula because it was such a significant naval site, why did they go to a closed shipyard and abduct two ordinary fishermen? As with most things about the phenomenon, there's no logic to it.

However, there's one thing you'd certainly get around significant military sites - military people and activities. I think this is where the question of 'why Pascagoula, particularly' becomes important. And something odd was going on, shown by the Navy's own confirmation of the underwater object seen by the Coast Guard just a week or so later. And it feels like Hickson and Parker were in the way of someone that night - playing the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern role in someone else's plot.
 
Last edited:
If my insistence on a military or espionage angle seems a bit ridiculous, then consider that Pascagoula was not only a major naval base, it was where the vast majority of US nuclear subs were built in the period. The American cloak and dagger stuff over Project Azorian and the purpose of the recovery ship shows that they knew their shipyards were probably under observation.

Let's not forget the case of Lionel "Buster" Crabb, who died in Portsmouth Dockyard in 1956 while conducting a clandestine underwater inspection of the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze.

maximus otter
 
If my insistence on a military or espionage angle seems a bit ridiculous, then consider that Pascagoula was not only a major naval base, it was where the vast majority of US nuclear subs were built in the period. The American cloak and dagger stuff over Project Azorian and the purpose of the recovery ship shows that they knew their shipyards were probably under observation.

Five minutes' Googling reveals that a new type of US Navy destroyer, the USS Spruance (DD-963), was virtually complete and close to its launch date at Litton Industries, Pascagoula (10th November 1973) at the time of the incident.

From the above Wikipedia link:

"Spruance was the first of a highly-successful class of anti-submarine warfare and anti-ship destroyers, and was the first destroyer powered by gas turbines in the U.S. Navy. At first she was armed with two 5-inch naval guns, an ASROC missile launcher, and an eight-cell NATO Sea Sparrow missile launcher."

List of ship launches in 1973, three of them (including the Spruance) at Pascagoula.

maximus otter

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Five minutes' Googling reveals that a new type of US Navy destroyer, the USS Spruance (DD-963) was virtually complete and close to its launch date at Litton Industries, Pascagoula (10th November 1973) at the time of the incident.

From the above Wikipedia link:

"Spruance was the first of a highly-successful class of anti-submarine warfare and anti-ship destroyers, and was the first destroyer powered by gas turbines in the U.S. Navy. At first she was armed with two 5-inch naval guns, an ASROC missile launcher, and an eight-cell NATO Sea Sparrow missile launcher."

List of ship launches in 1973, three of them (including the Spruance) at Pascagoula.

maximus otter


This is right, the person who wrote up the account of the later USO case (Leonard Stringfield? Can't recall off the top of my head, it was mentioned a few pages back) seemed to think that the Spruance launch might have explained ET interest in the area. Of course, foreign governments might have had even more interest!
 
t way is it more convoluted than crab-clawed spacemen who, presented with the sight of a military base and shipyard full of Earth's most interesting technology,
It's a scenario which is convoluted by default.

Perhaps might not be moreso than the existing claims (I did say 'arguably', not 'definitely'!), however, it assuredly qualifies as outlandish.

Firstly have to drug both men by injection - that's one of the aspects which could equate.

Next, carry them on board the helicopter, which must be large enough to transport both men, plus the three who kidnapped them, plus the pilot.

Fly them to the intended destination, then transfer to a medical facility and the time to reach whatever room has been prepared - might not be on the ground floor.

We then have to allow a period for whatever procedures have been deemed so essential.

Subsequently, take them back to the helicopter, make the return flight and carry them back to the pier.

Duration in total?


When both men recover, there's a problem.

One of the witnesses has a reasonably detailed recollection and the other remembers how events began

They both recall the noise of the helicopter arriving and watching it descend.and both remember the three personnel who came to grab them.

Furthermore, one person does actually have a descriptive recall of the personell on board, being taken from the helicopter to a medical facility and being examined by some kind of scanner.

Except that, thankfully, both think the helicopter suddenly appeared behind them with a brief 'zipping' sound and the three personnel were aliens.

Memory man, beliieves he was floated on and off an alien spaceship, was immediately taken to a medical facility inside, where he attempted to converse with the aliens, was suspended in mid-air whilst being examined by what seemed to resemble an eye, which could have been floating, before finding himself back on the pier, as he observed the spacecraft vanish in an instant.

A further bonus, is that both flights of the large, noisy helicopter, were apparently never noticed by anyone else.

Even better though, is that the clandestine mission results in both targets being so traumatised, other people actually believe them!

As highlighted, I am not at all comfortable with the UFO/abduction, as such.

That is irrelevant.

This is surely not a conceivabe solution, never mind the fact there would have to be an extraordinarily alert status reason for it, in the first place.

If you wanted both men to be medically examined, why not simply send security personnel to pick them up by car, reassure them it was just a safety check as they might have strayed into an area where had been chemically contaminated and swear them to a vow of secrecy on the grounds of national security.

No need for a special ops team being deployed by helicopter?

When we need to, as we must, consider such extremes, it does emphasise the confounding nature of this utterly bizarre case.

Back to that proverbial drawing board, for myself and there is still relatively unknown material out there, which might provide a telling clue

That the only thing I am sure about.

One question, is that Hickson, admittedly estimating, places the object as being between 25 -40 yards behind them and maybe further.

That absolutely must be close to the road, where their car was parked.

Parker says that at first, he though the flashing blue lights were from a police car and they were in trouble for fishing in an out-of-bounds area.

I would really like to clarify this above all else.

Just that 'something in the back of my mind'... this could hold the key.

Might be my initial thought on realising the proximity....

'Wow... that's way too close for comfort'....
 
I would really like to clarify this above all else.

Just that 'something in the back of my mind'... this could hold the key.

Might be my initial thought on realising the proximity....

'Wow... that's way too close for comfort'....
Well then...

A somewhat Fortean moment on the Forteana forums.

Five minutes ago, started watching a short, local TV feature about the case, I had only just come across a link to on Facebook:

At 3:00 into this video, Calvin Parker takes us to his recollection of the approximate area, where the object was first observed to be situated behind them.

I am unaware of this ever being highlighted previously and it most certainly requires a time-out, from myself, at this point.

Thoughts most welcome on the potential repercussions here.

I have no intention of posting this anywhere else, at present.

https://fb.watch/elsou9gPJl/
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
If my insistence on a military or espionage angle seems a bit ridiculous, then consider that Pascagoula was not only a major naval base, it was where the vast majority of US nuclear subs were built in the period. The American cloak and dagger stuff over Project Azorian and the purpose of the recovery ship shows that they knew their shipyards were probably under observation. ...

However, there's one thing you'd certainly get around significant military sites - military people and activities. I think this is where the question of 'why Pascagoula, particularly' becomes important. And something odd was going on, shown by the Navy's own confirmation of the underwater object seen by the Coast Guard just a week or so later. And it feels like Hickson and Parker were in the way of someone that night - playing the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern role in someone else's plot.

The Ingalls shipyard complex is almost a mile downstream (downriver) from the incident site. The actual Navy facility is even farther south.

The abandoned shipyard site would be a good place to furtively enter the river, but it's hard to claim any spy-divers had to enter the river from that far away. There are other sites closer to the Ingalls and Navy facilities where one could slip into the river at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Harder's report states that Hickson and Parker "were taken" to Keesler AFB and checked for "radiation." While they were at the base they were interviewed about the incident. There's a gap in the logic of the storyline for which I've never seen any explanation:

(1) What motivated someone to have the pair "taken" to Keesler AFB on the day following the incident? Hickson's phone call to Keesler the night before resulted in his being told the USAF wasn't taking UFO reports any more, and he was referred to local law enforcement. Why would Keesler summon them? Did someone else cause this visit to the airbase? Nobody from the sheriff's office mentioned any hint or possibility of radiation exposure during the incident, and there's no mention of law enforcement contacting Keesler about the incident.

(2) Was the checking for "radiation" just a cover for getting the pair out to the AFB for the interview? If so - why did the USAF take such an interest in Hickson's random nighttime report after blowing off his inquiry? If not ...

(3) Why would anyone have suspected any "radiation" involvement in the first place? None of the documented interviews mention any symptoms or effects suggestive of radiation exposure, and there's nothing in the tons of subsequent documentation to suggest such a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
It's a scenario which is convoluted by default.

Perhaps might not be moreso than the existing claims (I did say 'arguably', not 'definitely'!), however, it assuredly qualifies as outlandish.

Firstly have to drug both men by injection - that's one of the aspects which could equate.

Next, carry them on board the helicopter, which must be large enough to transport both men, plus the three who kidnapped them, plus the pilot.

Fly them to the intended destination, then transfer to a medical facility and the time to reach whatever room has been prepared - might not be on the ground floor.

We then have to allow a period for whatever procedures have been deemed so essential.

Subsequently, take them back to the helicopter, make the return flight and carry them back to the pier.

Duration in total?


When both men recover, there's a problem.

One of the witnesses has a reasonably detailed recollection and the other remembers how events began

They both recall the noise of the helicopter arriving and watching it descend.and both remember the three personnel who came to grab them.

Furthermore, one person does actually have a descriptive recall of the personell on board, being taken from the helicopter to a medical facility and being examined by some kind of scanner.

Except that, thankfully, both think the helicopter suddenly appeared behind them with a brief 'zipping' sound and the three personnel were aliens.

Memory man, beliieves he was floated on and off an alien spaceship, was immediately taken to a medical facility inside, where he attempted to converse with the aliens, was suspended in mid-air whilst being examined by what seemed to resemble an eye, which could have been floating, before finding himself back on the pier, as he observed the spacecraft vanish in an instant.

A further bonus, is that both flights of the large, noisy helicopter, were apparently never noticed by anyone else.

Even better though, is that the clandestine mission results in both targets being so traumatised, other people actually believe them!

As highlighted, I am not at all comfortable with the UFO/abduction, as such.

That is irrelevant.

This is surely not a conceivabe solution, never mind the fact there would have to be an extraordinarily alert status reason for it, in the first place.

If you wanted both men to be medically examined, why not simply send security personnel to pick them up by car, reassure them it was just a safety check as they might have strayed into an area where had been chemically contaminated and swear them to a vow of secrecy on the grounds of national security.

No need for a special ops team being deployed by helicopter?

When we need to, as we must, consider such extremes, it does emphasise the confounding nature of this utterly bizarre case.

Back to that proverbial drawing board, for myself and there is still relatively unknown material out there, which might provide a telling clue

That the only thing I am sure about.

One question, is that Hickson, admittedly estimating, places the object as being between 25 -40 yards behind them and maybe further.

That absolutely must be close to the road, where their car was parked.

Parker says that at first, he though the flashing blue lights were from a police car and they were in trouble for fishing in an out-of-bounds area.

I would really like to clarify this above all else.

Just that 'something in the back of my mind'... this could hold the key.

Might be my initial thought on realising the proximity....

'Wow... that's way too close for comfort'....

I wasn't really envisaging a helicopter or anything else airborne. They saw a light possibly descend and then a door unexpectedly opened up; it is the later event they focus on in their initial recording.

As for the 'examination' I doubt there was any medical examination that took place. In my suggested scenario, the men are simply incapacitated and their ID checked along with whether they were carrying any radios, cameras, anything like that. They are then returned. Although Redfern's 'BZ' theory argues it, I think no one is trying to 'fake' an alien abduction, either as a plausible cover or as an exercise in it's own right. The men are simply neutralised and put out of the way. The 'aliens' are down to the way Hickson, in his fear, interpreted what he saw - a cultural lens I suppose.

Hickson while supposedly conscious stated he 'couldn't move'. That suggests heavy sedation, which means that anything he 'saw' while paralysed could easily have been affected by that, so I'm not sure about what he reported on the 'craft'.

All just a theory to play with of course.
 
Last edited:
Can do much better than that:.
This is the 'Sun Hetald' Facebook video first highlighted, without Facebook access problems.

The second video is more expansive and informative.

Bottom line is that Indeed, our UFO, was seemingly located close to the car, almost 'parked' beside it, in fact.

As noted, from a clearer understanding of only Hickson's statements and before seeing this, I thought that had to be the case.

 
Harder's report states that Hickson and Parker "were taken" to Keesler AFB and checked for "radiation." While they were at the base they were interviewed about the incident. There's a gap in the logic of the storyline for which I've never seen any explanation:

(1) What motivated someone to have the pair "taken" to Keesler AFB on the day following the incident? Hickson's phone call to Keesler the night before resulted in his being told the USAF wasn't taking UFO reports any more, and he was referred to local law enforcement. Why would Keesler summon them? Did someone else cause this visit to the airbase? Nobody from the sheriff's office mentioned any hint or possibility of radiation exposure during the incident, and there's no mention of law enforcement contacting Keesler about the incident.

(2) Was the checking for "radiation" just a cover for getting the pair out to the AFB for the interview? If so - why did the USAF take such an interest in Hickson's random nighttime report after blowing off his inquiry? If not ...

(3) Why would anyone have suspected any "radiation" involvement in the first place? None of the documented interviews mention any symptoms or effects suggestive of radiation exposure, and there's nothing in the tons of subsequent documentation to suggest such a thing.

I've seen it stated (can't remember where, sorry) that Hickson decided to ask about radioactivity as he had heard that UFOs were radioactive and was worried he'd been contaminated! However, I agree that the interest shown by the personnel at Keesler is significant in view of what I think might have been going on.
 
The Ingalls shipyard complex is almost a mile downstream (downriver) from the incident site. The actual Navy facility is even farther south.

The abandoned shipyard site would be a good place to furtively enter the river, but it's hard to claim any spy-divers had to enter the river from that far away. There are other sites closer to the Ingalls and Navy facilities where one could slip into the river at night.

Maybe, but it might have been a good place to land personnel and meet up with a shore based operative. That's the sort of scenario that came to mind here.

Again, for context, here are the 'USO' reports that emerged a short while later. The Navy seems to have taken an active interest in these, which is unusual.

http://www.nicap.org/reports/731106pascagoula_report.htm
 
Last edited:
Can do much better than that: :) ...
This is the 'Sun Hetald' Facebook video first highlighted, without Facebook access problems.

Thanks for finding and posting the freely accessible versions. :twothumbs:

You (CN) wrote that the interesting bit concerned Calvin's specification of the locations for the incident (where he and Hickson parked; where the object hovered; and where the pier they'd used was).

The part that struck me was the fact Calvin either misstated the actuality of the locations he pointed out or completely misidentified the site where the incident happened. Did you notice that?
 
rt that struck me was the fact Calvin either misstated the actuality of the locations he pointed out or completely misidentified the site where the incident happened. Did you notice that
Although I haven't had time to take it all in yet, I doubt this is something I would have realised.

It's continually a learning experience with this case and keep coming across evidence which has sat there for years, which is new to myself.

What an astute observation and duly noted. Difficulty is, of course, this footage is from so many years later and it's trying to see the context back in October, 1973.

On which, attached is a photograph I have come across, taken by the 'Mississippi Press', shortly afterwards. As it's known they visited the site next day, it might date from then. I am attempting to clarify same.

Also duly attached is a second photograph, published by the 'Daily Herald' on 21 December, 1977 and depicts Charles Hickson at the site.

The panoramic background is particularly helpful, in appreciating the overall perspective.
.
Screenshot_20220717-234834~3.jpg


IMG_20220715_103321.jpg
 
What a complex case!

Considering the sorts of shenanigans that US security agencies indulged in with MKULTRA and its successors, I would not be surprised if these men ended up being involuntary "test subjects." Heck, security agencies from hostile governments could have been involved, instead of, or in addition to, US agencies.

Considering the litany of security coverups of toxic dumping near military facilities, the men could have stumbled onto a nasty substance purely by accident.

And who knows? Maybe unearthly entities really were involved.
 
Although I haven't had time to take it all in yet, I doubt this is something I would have realised. ...
What an astute observation and duly noted. Difficulty is, of course, this footage is from so many years later and it's trying to see the context back in October, 1973. ...

Let me lay out the reasons I claim Calvin either misstated or completely misidentified the scene of the incident in the video.

First ... Look at the relative size and apparent distance of the highway bridge upstream from the alleged pier site, as illustrated in your photos. The bridge is some distance in the background, and you can see the tree line peeking upward behind it.

Now look at the video, in which the same bridge looms over Calvin as he's talking to the reporter. There's no question he's much closer to the roadway / bridge than was the case in any early photo of the alleged incident scene.

Here's a pair of photos (one copied from MO's posting this past March) to illustrate the difference.

CP-Vid-BridgeIllo-A.jpg

Pier-1973-Foto-CountryRoads.jpg
 
Back
Top