Sunday, April 19, 2009

Above Bluebook Conclusion Cips

"I kissed goodbye the howling beast on the borderline which separated you from me":Dylan

Let no one ever say to you again… “there was no government conspiracy on UFOs ”… for not only do we have the recovered police files… but the ghosts of the wronged police officers who shout in defiance… there was.


There are real people behind these UFOs report… good people who have lives… wives… children. It is always sad, for me, when UFO witnesses are brought under ridicule and permanently smeared. But to have police officers’ careers destroyed for fulfilling their duties… because they reported a UFO Craft… and to have that done by our government… it kind of makes me feel ill and angry inside. When you look historically at how our government orchestrated the charge of ridicule worldwide against anyone who cried UFO cover-up the damage done to the UFO witness community seem even more despicable.

I wonder if those in our government employ who were responsible for wrecking the careers and lives of these Sheriffs, can say it was worth it…I hope they can sleep well.

Dedicated To Deputies Dale Spaur and William Neff
Michel Nelson Conclusion Clips Six and Seven:






Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

23 comments:

  1. What of that logo? Anyone comment, at the time, about the cube on its corner?

    Again, important because of the way in which the witnesses were treated. What on Earth could they be hiding?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is interesting:

    444-7 NINE and CUBE

    http://books.google.com/books?id=uCuzNM93NMwC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=symbols+cube+on+its+corner&source=bl&ots=9WxKT1M4XF&sig=Fun0hp7zCR62Im364qdFRkCAnyY&hl=en&ei=PqLsSauxDKWitgP7uZnyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA169,M1

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Bob,
    I think what the Government is hiding is their lack of knowledge of intent of these intelligences. 47% of our country was willing to vote again for the Bush agenda this last period, this shows me that many in America will throw the constitution out the window in a minute to feel safe. The government wouldn't even have to dehuminse ETs to make them out to be the bad guy. The government would have done that already only one thing stops them;ET technology potential. You a don't want people killing and hating some thing that could destroy the nation. They also don't want 100 million scared gun totten louse canons on your hands shoting at them..I don't believe we have their best stuff at all. But I think we have some of what crashed and we have been busy trying to become top dog. Ets don't seem to be that much worried about it unless they have taken steps already...I wonder what they are doing with our cattle. That's how I would go by the way if I was them.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob I tried to search that but I received no return.

    Joe
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe-

    It should take you right to it if you click-and-drag from the "http...,M1", copy, then paste it in your browser, and hit ENTER
    -Bob

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe--
    The Portage County UFO chase is a great case--one of the best in ufology, in my opinion. Unfortunately, beware of this man Nelson; he does the case a grave injustice. Not only is his supposed "new" information on the case suspect, but his own credentials are as well. An extensive background investigation of him revealed many disquieting details. But--damn it!--the specifics are not mine to release so we'll have to wait until the principal (a friend of mine whom I trust completely) chooses to do so. Bottom line: I personally don't accept any of the new information Nelson is ballyhooing.

    Moreover, many of the facts of the Portage County case as Nelson relates them don't square with the crackerjack account of the case written at the time by William Weitzel, chief NICAP investigator of the incident (see, for example, Dell's FLYING SAUCERS, UFO REPORTS, October 1967, for Weitzel's report). And Nelson never even interviewed Weitzel or Richard Hall, former NICAP deputy director, both of whom live in the Washington, D.C., area! Needless to say, Nelson must be called out on all this.--Rob Swiatek

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Bob, I have to say I think it is a disgrace that your friend would allow this to go on for two years. This case was included as a recent article in the MUFON journal. Are you telling us here he faked the documents and he never worked as a deputy.
    Or as a skeptic he didn't want to interview UFO investigators. Because one is completely different than the other. Nelson said he is not a UFO investigator and had very little prior knowledge.
    Bottom line your friend has got to put up the real deal here. Two deputies were smeared and if your friend has a conscious maybe he should think of them. If some guy is out there lying about what really happened than how's that honoring their memory.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rob:

    I agree with Joe. I don't know about this guy any more than I do my mailman, but if you are going to talk him down, you better have something real, and concrete to offer. If he is some kind of phony, trying to play some kind of game with everyone, then tell it like it is, because otherwise, you give the appearance of being the game player yourself.

    If you don't really have anything on him, then what are you bringing it up for?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe--I'm extremely frustrated that the information on Nelson isn't being released. Some of it is personal and has no direct bearing on Nelson's activities re. the Portage County case except to illuminate his character; some of it is directly relevant. All of it was obtained, as I understand, from online, open sources and interviews with individuals connected with employers and educational institutions Nelson has listed in his biographical statements. Anyone can repeat this research, and I urge any interested parties to do so to replicate--or refute--my friend's data.

    But sticking to the case itself, two points. First: Nelson takes some pains to describe the automobile Spaur and Neff encountered just before the UFO appeared ("The car had several antennae on it, and what looked like radio gear inside." Later, the same car apparently turns up outside a diner while the sighting is still underway. [Nelson, 2007 MUFON Symposium Proceedings, pp. 40-42]). In Weitzel's account (written in 1967), the derelict car is described as a white 1959 Ford; no antennae or symbol is noted. In fact, when Weitzel accompanied Spaur to the site some hours later, the car was still there--abandoned by its driver because of a thrown rod. The owner was subsequently identified and it wasn't, needless to say, the USAF.

    Second: Nelson has the UFO rising above trees a short distance from the deputies. It apparently had landed there, and Nelson later retrieves suspicious coal and brick samples from the landing site. In actuality, the UFO was small when Spaur first saw it--"no bigger than a pinhead at arm's length would have appeared" (Weitzel's phraseology). No landing was ever described by the deputies or NICAP personnel during their contemporary investigation.

    Finally, two researcher friends of mine who visited the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum in search of the "literally boxes of files on this case" (Nelson's words) found only the handful of known Ford letters on the 1966 Michigan sightings--none concerned Portage County.

    Nelson has a ton of explaining to do.--Rob Swiatek

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Bob K,

    There is more on this case read on:
    Joe
    ufomm

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Rob,
    At this point I need to have Mike respond. So I have sent a letter to the MUFON journal to see if Mike will respond. I think you have made some valid points. But we need Mr. Nelson to answer these questions. Interviewers on both sides get it wrong sometimes. So I will be wait for a answer from MUFON and post what ever I get. I still think people need to stop covering their own butts and tell the truth.
    Thanks Rob
    Joe Capp
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If that thing landed in my back yard, I wouldn't tell a soul".-Wilbur Neff

    The treatment of witnesses is one of the reasons I am so interested in this subject. Anyone who would purposely muddy the already murky waters regarding their treatment is nothing short of an agent.

    I will be very interested to find what you hear from MUFON and hopefully from Mike himself.

    Thanks again Joe, for bringing this issue out in the open by posting your article.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Bob,
    I don't know what the end of this will be I just hope the witnesses don't get screwed again.
    JC
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Where is this book? I have done a search for it and have not found a single hit, except for the ones relating directly to this site or others with the same exact information.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree where is the book?. I've heard a rumor that there was some problem with the publisher. I have written to the MUFON Journal regarding comments here at ufomm about these two pieces...and possible discrepancies.. Mike Nelson wrote a piece for the MUFON Journal so they must have his email. I will give them a chance to respond and then I will submit another question about the book.
    Thanks for reminding me.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joe and Bob K.--

    Not only do the poor witnesses get screwed when cases are misrepresented, but the truth gets skewered as well, and this is worse. The scientist in me just wants the facts--good and/or bad--about a given UFO event, and after 40 years I've had it up to here [indicates level above eyes] with debunkers bending or ignoring facts so everything is explainable, and true believers enhancing cases to support their own illusions. Meanwhile, mainstream science ignores the subject because we can't get our own house in order. Mad? You bet I'm mad!

    If person presents a radical revision of a famous case--Portage County, say, or Delphos--it's incumbent upon that person to explain where everyone else went wrong, what they missed, and how any incongruities are now resolved. Simply bypassing these steps and ignoring previous work results in a disaster--for the presenter as well as those who buy into the new scenario.--Rob Swiatek

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Rob,
    I am going to keep pestering the MUFON Journal on this one. So far no answer. But if and when they do I will put it up. Till then, as in so many UFO cases we have more questions than answers.
    Joe
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rob:

    Thank-You for continuing to update us with your thoughts regarding this.

    If what you have been saying is accurate, to your best knowledge, then it must be played up, for everyone to scrutinize.

    When "nice guys" get up there, and seemingly add new information that is really dis-information, and the controlling body responsible for their being there gives off the appearance of not being concerned, is in of itself a major concern!

    For my part, one of the reasons I spent time looking into portions of the Majestic documents was because it was obvious that there was some type of secret body in control, Air Force, NSA, or otherwise.

    So to have someone relate new information which seemed to add fuel to this is crucial to get behind...motive-wise.

    I'm not as gullible as I am open-minded, because I am sick-and-tired -as well--of seeing and hearing about witnesses being smeared!

    This is why whistle-blower type information should always be suspect. This is also why, if what you are saying is true, I am mad at the groups that allow for this type of testimony without any real proof of its validity...before-hand.

    Just because you have pictures of some metal, or of an analysis of brick doesn't fit the bill.

    Did anyone else see the case files he spoke of, or is it just something along the lines of: "trust me, I've got them"?

    Was his information vetted before-hand? If not...why not?

    If I said I wanted to speak at a convention, you can be assured I would be scrutinized...or should be scrutinized, to make certain that I am not spreading dis-information.

    Again, I eagerly await some updated news on this controversy, and continue to be confused that this happened in 2007, and it's only now? becoming an issue? If it is an issue that was already dealt with, then where's the info on that?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe and Bob K.--

    The background information about Mike Nelson has been known since 2007, but has not been disseminated. I believe the reason this is becoming an issue only now, frankly, is because of the comments I posted on this blog. Certainly anyone knowledgeable about the facts of the Portage County sighting could have challenged Nelson at any time, of course, and maybe some have (although I'm not aware of any public refutation). The failure to do so might be a reluctance on the part of many serious researchers to engage in more controversy when there is so much else to do in both life and ufology.

    By the way, Nelson approached the Center for UFO Studies with his information in 2007 and they saw right through him, refused to have anything to do with him, in fact. He was shown the door.--Rob Swiatek

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Joseph,

    regarding the portage county case, do you know if Michael Nelson still intends to publish his book?

    The information he has is important, and certainly should be shared with the UFO community at large.

    I did contact Nelson by e-mail, however i have received no response(he did reply once- promising to send some information, however i never received anything).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Speaking on the behalf of Mr Swiatek's comments. There are numerous things that Mr. Nelson has lied about. Lets put it this way from the information I know he definitely never worked for Portage County EMA and definitely knows the internal works of the Portage County corrections. (if you get the jest). Do some research you to can find out about old Michael. It really isn't difficult to do the research.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you have evidence of this present it? That is all I ask.

    Joe
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  23. This variant does not approach me. Perhaps there are still variants?

    ReplyDelete