interview with Kevin Smith, I’m happy to go over some of the most
pertinent points as they relate to the ongoing investigation. We spoke
at length at length about Source A the original source for the UN UFO
story (Feb 13), and also Gilles Lorant whose testimony was made public
on Feb 25. There was some discussion over the significance of the
claimed meetings not appearing on the UN docket for the dates in
question. Kevin has had some of his own experiences with the UN and
understands quite well how meetings can be conducted on or off the
official record. So the absence of the meetings on the docket did not
rule out that the meetings could have occurred.
We
spent a little time discussing Gilles Lorant and the controversy over
his credentials. It’s still not clear if the controversy arose over
misrepresentations he had made, or misrepresentations by others that he
didn’t correct. Nevertheless, legal threats were directed against him
which led to him retracting all public association with the French
organization in question, the IHEDN. This led to his resignation from
the F.E.A. and its President, Michel Ribardiere, stating that Lorant’s
version of events might be a fiction. Unfortunately, Lorant has not
gone ahead with a radio interview so we have yet to hear his
perspective on the controversy, and what it means for his testimony.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Lorant has not retracted
his testimony of what happened at meetings he claimed to have attended
on Feb 13 and 14, so his testimony cannot be dismissed despite the
credentials controversy. Kevin Smith agreed that controversy over one’s
professional qualifications does not disqualify the validity over one’s
testimony since misrepresentations can easily arise when third parties
are involved.
I wish to point out that I have another source
within the French Ministry of Defense (Source B in my Feb 20 article),
who has confirmed seeing Lorant at high level military meetings.
However, he claims that Lorant’s credentials are a mystery. That helps
clarify that while there is some controversy over Lorant’s credentials,
that he does have the kind of background that makes it possible for him
to have attended the UN meetings in some capacity. I am working with
another researcher to get more information about Source B and what he
is willing to confirm in an interview.
I also want to comment
on the response received from the PA (personal assistant) of Sir John
Sawers that stated unequivocally that he did not attend any UFO
meeting. It was never claimed by Lorant that these were UFO meetings.
These were meetings that discussed UFO’s in addition to a number of
other topics. So Sawers could quite accurately refute having attended
any UFO meeting. So while the PA’s response appears to be in conflict
with Lorant’s testimony, it’s important to keep in mind that she is
dismissing a UFO meeting, not necessarily a meeting that discussed
UFOs.
As for Source A, I discussed with Kevin Smith how Source
A is a serving member of the U.S. military who was authorized to leak
sensitive information concerning his current posting and duties. We
discussed how disclosure of his identity would predictably lead to his
dismissal hence the need to maintain confidentiality. Nevertheless,
Source A is still willing to show his bona fides to researchers as he
has done so far with the Pickerings and Robert Morningstar. Focusing on
his credibility as a reliable source of information will be important
and there are developments in this area to do this.
Importantly,
Source A is still releasing information and helping clarify what has
been released so far. While he hasn’t given more specific information
about the meetings themselves that is confirmable, he has divulged more
background information. I do wish to point out that Source A has
clarified that he is associated with an interagency Working Group that
comprises senior Navy officials. However, it is not a Navy Working
Group nor is it correct that Admiral Fallon is associated with it in
any way, nor that several Navy admirals are serving on it. Those were
mistaken inferences from the material that has been released so far.
In
the interview, I mentioned a phone conversation I had with Dick
Crisswell where we spoke about another independent source, a retired
Navy Commander, who had his own confirmation that the UN meeting
occurred. In our earlier phone conversation, Dick mentioned that he had
known the Commander since 1991/92 and he has always proven to be
reliable and therefore has very high confidence in his confirmation. I
have asked Dick Criswell to connect me with his Commander so I can get
more details about how he got the information himself, allegedly from a
serving member of the U.S. military. Confidentiality has been requested
but I’m interested in determining who the Navy Commander’s source is
and any possible relationship with Source A.
As to where this
UN UFO meeting stands at the moment, there are a few promising leads,
helping determine the credibility of Source A through more interviews
with independent researchers; Lorant may emerge to clarify his
background and respond to criticisms; Source B may be able to give an
interview where he elaborates on witnessing Lorant at high level
military meetings; and the possibility that Dick Criswell’s sources may
provide either documents or more details about the UN meetings.
I
suspect that these leaks (Source A and Lorant) were authorized by an
interagency working group in the US, and the French Ministry of Defense
to start a process whereby public reaction would be gauged. My view is
that there will be more forthcoming disclosures and partial
confirmation of the meetings which I believe did go ahead though the
content is not clear. I appreciate the efforts of those on the Open
Minds Forum who continue to investigate this issue, and hope to share
more information as it becomes available to me.
Aloha, Michael Salla
