Clarifications
on Sources Revealing UN Secret Meetings on UFO’s & Extraterrestrial
Life
I received a further communication from Clay and Shawn Pickering (reproduced
below) regarding their effort to clarify what has transpired so far
concerning the secret meetings held from February 12-14, 2008 at the
United Nations New York headquarters. Their clarification emerged from
more recent discussions with their source, currently a member of the
diplomatic corps with a background in the US military (Source A) who
initially disclosed the secret meeting(s). Their comments offer a useful
summary of what Source A has revealed so far, and the importance of
his testimony. Given that a second source, Gilles Lorant, has publicly
emerged with testimony of what happened at the UN UFO meetings, there
is now a way to compare the two testimonies. We can now identify similarities
and inconsistencies between the two testimonies to determine the credibility
of the sources, and what actually occurred at the meetings.
To begin, it’s important to note that while Source A has revealed his
professional credentials to Clay
and Shawn Pickering, and to Robert Morningstar, (see ) Source A
has chosen to remain anonymous. This makes it difficult for public verification
of his background and reliability. In contrast, Gilles Lorant, after
initially releasing information anonymously, came forward to publicly
reveal himself. Lorant’s public emergence made it easier to confirm
his credibility as a primary witness to the UN meeting. His professional
background as an auditor associated with the Federation European AIRPLANE
(FEA) supported the reliability of his testimony. A number of prominent
French researchers also came forward to support Lorant’s credibility
and/or professional background. These included Michel
Ribardiere, President of the FEA, and Gildas Bourdais who is a highly
regarded French UFO researcher. Both Ribardiere and Bourdais regarded
Lorant as a credible witness.
After intense scrutiny in France over Lorant’s credentials, controversy
erupted over his claimed professional association with a prestigious
French scientific organization, the Institute of National Higher Defense
Studies (IHEDN). This led to the FEA requesting his resignation which
Lorant
submitted on March 6. The subsequent controversy over him inaccurately
reporting his association with IHEDN, does raise a question mark over
the reliability of his testimony. It may simply be Lorant overstated
his professional association with IHEDN and that this does not unduly
impact on what he claims to have experienced at the UN on February 13
and 14. Lorant’s public emergence and previous endorsements by independent
experts gives some confidence in his reliability as a witness. Controversy
over the precise nature of his professional associations, however, makes
is unclear whether his testimony can be concluded to be any more reliable
than Source A who remains anonymous.
It is important to note that Source A claims to only have attended
a meeting on February 12, and did not refer to or claim to have attended
any follow up meetings. In contrast, Gilles Lorant claims to have attended
follow up meetings on February 13 and 14, but not that on February 12.
So there may be some genuine differences between what these two sources
encountered at the successive meetings in terms of confidentiality,
security and attendees. It is appropriate to first discuss the commonalities
between the two sources which will help confirm what transpired, and
the significance of the information released.
Both sources refer to a secret UN meeting that occurred on the morning
of February 12. They also refer to the increase in UFO sightings as
an important issue discussed at the meetings as well as the disruptive
potential of sightings for national economies and liberal democratic
systems. Also both sources referred to many issues being discussed in
addition to UFO’s. Lorant’s testimony confirms some of the central claims
initially made by Source A that were communicated to this author concerning
a secret UN meeting that would discuss UFOs on February 12 and first
released in an article
on February 13. That is one of the points that is emphasized in
the clarification below by Clay and Shawn Pickering which shows the
initial timeline of what and when they were given information about
the UN meeting, and what they relayed to me and a few other researchers.
A helpful timeline
of events and testimonies concerning the UN meetings is now available.
Given that I had met and been advised by Clay and Shawn on extraterrestrial
related issues over a five year period starting in 2003, and had been
informed of Source A’s military background and official work on the
UFO issue almost two years ago, I felt that their disclosure was both
reliable and very important.
Lorant’s testimony confirmed the reliability of following pieces of
information disclosed by Source A. First, that at a secret meeting discussing
UFO’s took place on February 12 at UN headquarters. Second, that the
current wave of UFO sightings were a major topic of discussion at the
meetings. Third, that the stability of democratic nations as a consequence
of increased UFO sightings was discussed. Finally, that a range of issues
were discussed in addition to the UFO issue. Overall, Lorant’s independent
testimony supports my initial assessment over the importance of the
Pickering brother’s Source A who initially disclosed the meeting had
taken place and that there was a need to inform the public of what transpired.
For first disclosing to the general public the existence of the UN meeting,
the Pickering brothers and Source A deserve public acknowledgement.
This takes me now to differences in the testimonies between the two
sources. Some suggest that different sets of meetings occurred whose
security classification, content and personnel contrasted significantly.
Other differences point to some serious limitations in the reliability
of Source A. These limitations point to a possible agenda to first advise
the public about the meetings themselves, but to then obfuscate issues.
One clear difference is the nature of the security at the respective
meetings. With regard to the February 12 meeting, Source A claimed that
"security around
the meeting was intense", while Lorant described the security
at the February 13 and 14 meetings as less
than what is experienced at airports. While neither of the two sources
claim to have attended the same meetings, it is possible for such a
security difference to occur. It may be that the first meeting, for
example, involved more senior UN officials being given a higher security
level briefing. This could have been relayed to the meetings on February
13 and 14 in a diluted form during the one and half hour period described
by Lorant. This latter scenario is supported by the
most recent public statement by Lorant that other meetings were
occurring behind chained doors and guards.
Another difference is that Gilles Lorant’s information basically refers
to UFO sightings, and obliquely refers to extraterrestrial life as a
reality implicitly understood by attendees. The only date he gives is
2009 as the year when an official policy of "openness" may
begin providing two conditions are met: political/financial stability
and UFO sightings continue. In contrast, Source A refers to extraterrestrial
life as a central feature of the discussion on February 12, and that
a timetable exists for extraterrestrials "unambiguously" showing
themselves (2013/2017). It is possible that the February 12 discussed
issues concerning official disclosure of extraterrestrial life as stated
by Source A, while the February 13 and 14 meetings discussed UFO’s as
a phenomenon that would be taken more seriously by national governments.
If so, this may help explain the major difference in how Source A and
Lorant described security at the meetings they attended.
A more significant difference is the specific goal of the two sets
of meetings. According to the clarification relayed by the Pickering
brothers, Source A refers to:
… a logistical "window of opportunity" to end over
60 years of denial during this "lame duck" period (of the
Bush Administration) and before the next administration takes office;
this helps to facilitate disclosure at this time in order to put overt
contact at the forefront of future plans.
This is inconsistent with Lorant’s testimony where he describes a governmental
policy of "openness" that will occur in 2009. This new policy
would take place after the Presidential election, thereby making the
so called lame duck period moot. Furthermore, the new "openness"
policy signals an abandonment of the 50 year old official debunking
policy existing since the 1953 Robertson Panel, and signals an official
approach to the UFO issue that more seriously considers the available
data. This contrasts with "disclosure" which suggests release
of classified information dealing with the reality of extraterrestrial
life or technology. In essence, Lorant describes a meeting where agreement
was reached whereby a policy of openness would begin in 2009. This would
initiate a process that facilitates disclosure at a later date. Source
A suggests that disclosure could occur in this "window of opportunity"
during the waning months of the Bush administration.
If two sets of meetings were held, it is unlikely that they would differ
so markedly on such fundamental issues concerning the goals of ‘openness’
and ‘disclosure’ regarding UFOs/extraterrestrial life. Based on Lorant’s
greater reliability as a witness, his version of events appear more
credible than source A. This raises concern over the extent to which
Source A is spinning information in a way that obfuscates core issues.
The most significant difference that points to a credibility gap between
the two sources is the nature of the information concerning what was
discussed at the meetings. Lorant mentions specific information that
can be confirmed. For example he discusses a Report prepared by the
U.S. Air Force and a branch of the National Guard, and a role played
by three U.S. Senators at the meeting. He also publicly identified that
the meetings he attended, were chaired by Srgjan Kerim, the President
of the UN General Assembly. Lorant also identified the Vatican’s Apostolic
Nuncio and Permanent Observer to the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore;
and Sir John Sawers, Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United
Nations. Lorant’s information therefore appears verifiable which, when
confirmed, will add greater credibility to his overall testimony.
In contrast Source A’s information, appears in many places to be unverifiable
and indeed purposely contentious. It is almost as though Source A wants
to direct attention to unverifiable claims that generate heated debate,
rather than accurate descriptions of what transpired at the meetings.
For example, in an
earlier article I referred to significant problems with the descriptive
term used by Source A for extraterrestrials who allegedly would unambiguously
show themselves some time in the future (2017). Source A used the term
"The Controllers". In the clarification below, Source A claims:
"This was just a name, which has since been changed to "Conformers."
It is just another name that our source grabbed out of the ether to
describe an ET group." I find this statement to be highly unsatisfactory.
Any classified study concerning extraterrestrial life would have precise
descriptive terms for such entities, even if their appearance and behavior
was not fully known. Choosing a descriptive term such as "Conformers"
that is "grabbed out of the ether" appears to be very disingenuous.
I stand by my earlier view that descriptive term used for extraterrestrials
by Source A had loaded psychological content. This exists no less for
term "the Conformers," than it did for the earlier term "The
Controllers". The use of such loaded psychological language arouses
suspicion that Source A is choosing descriptive terms for their psychological
conditioning value.
By relaying information that is unverifiable and contentious, and uses
loaded psychological terminology, the obvious conclusion is that Source
A’s information is attempting to obfuscate issues that were actually
discussed at the meetings. Given that Source A originally claimed that
he was given authorization to disclose information concerning the February
12 meeting by an Admiral, the conclusion to be drawn is that the information
relayed by Source A may be an officially authorized effort to obfuscate
genuine information that is simultaneously leaked to the public. Alternatively,
the obfuscation may be a protective mechanism used by Source A who may
have legitimate concerns over his physical safety in participating in
these authorized leaks.
In conclusion, it is important to again acknowledge that Source A initially
disclosed the UN secret UFO meeting on February 12, and a number of
aspects of what was discussed at the meetings have been corroborated
by Lorant, who participated in follow meetings on February 13 and 14.
However, the contentiousness and unverifiability of significant elements
of Source A’s testimony, and his use of psychologically loaded language,
leads to justifiable suspicion over his reliability and motivation.
It appears that Source A has released some genuine information about
the UN meeting and issues discussed on February 12, but is purposely
layering this with obfuscations that have psychological conditioning
purposes. In contrast, Lorant’s testimony appears to be a plausible
summation of what he witnessed at the follow up meetings on February
13 and 14. Given Lorant’s public emergence and disclosure of specific
information that can be confirmed, his testimony would appear more reliable
than Source A. However, controversy over his precise professional association
with the IHEDN that led to his resignation from FEA on March 6 does
create some uncertainty over his credibility. The controversy may have
little impact on the accuracy of his testimony concerning the UN meeting,
but will discredit him among the mainstream media. Researchers desiring
to investigate the UN meetings and uncover what was discussed are therefore
recommended to verify the specific claims made by Gilles Lorant while
being mindful over controversy concerning his credentials, and also
treading carefully with information supplied by Source A who remains
anonymous.
Michael
E. Salla, Ph.D
Kona, Hawaii
03/07/08
www.Exopolitics.Org
***
For Clarification:
A Statement On The UN UFO Meeting of February 12th, 2008
By Clay and Shawn Pickering
For clarity’s sake concerning our source’s revelation
surrounding the recent secret United Nation’s UFO meeting, we want to
reiterate that our source met with us on Monday evening at 8:00PM on
February 11th, 2008.
This was the night before the Tuesday morning meeting, which
took place at the UN on February 12 th, 2008. My brother and I were
informed by our source that the UN meeting was to take place at 8:00AM
on February 12 th.
Our source stated that the UFO issue would be addressed at this forthcoming
meeting. We were told not to release this information until after the
February 12 meeting had taken place. We were the only source to release
information about the February 12 meeting, on the very day of the meeting.
This is the closest thing to "real time" as one can get.
We released the information of the UN meeting on February 12th to three
sources: Bob Morningstar, Editor of UFO Digest, Dr. Michael Salla, director
of Exopolitics.Com and well-known writer, Jim Marrs.
Bob Morningstar met with our source briefly on Monday, February 17 th,
2008.
Since Bob lives in the New York City area, it was very convenient for
all parties involved to meet. Bob met with our source again on February
25 th, 2008. Shawn and I set up this meeting and also attended it. This
was a 5-hour long meeting where our source showed Bob his credentials.
Various topics were discussed among us. Our source had read some of
Bob’s Internet writings and showed a keen interest in meeting him. Our
source continues to go through both Shawn and me first, regarding any
new material. This is what our source wants, based on our past relationship
and the trust created.
As for objections to the use of the word "Controllers," our
source simply used this term to describe a certain group of extraterrestrials
that appear to hold sway over other extraterrestrial groups.
As I’m sure you’re well aware, this name has a lot of baggage regarding
psychological warfare implications. This was just a name, which has
since been changed to "Conformers." It is just another name
that our source grabbed out of the ether to describe an ET group.
Frankly, our source and those associated with him, have no name to describe
them. Again, this was just a name given to these extraterrestrials so
that we could at least determine some sort of hierarchy related to this
group and other ET’s, for example, "Greys" and "Tall
Whites."
Indeed! There is definitely a movement afoot to bring the public "up
to speed" consciously, regarding "unambiguous" contact
between the world’s populace and extraterrestrials. The point most people
are missing is that a meeting at the UN had occurred regarding the recent
UFO flap worldwide.
My source and his team state that the objectives of the meeting were
two-fold:
1) These sightings were world wide and not restricted to any particular
nation-state. Moreover, the crafts’ technology did not belong to any
terrestrial source. This was to allay any fears (especially, Russia’s)
that any secret US aircraft was flying over any other nation-state’s
airspace.
2) That our source’s team was to broach the issue that contact would
be forthcoming in the year 2017! And it was noted that things would
be heating up significantly by 2013.
Also, for the sake of clarity: our source did not "Chair"
the meeting. Yes, our source did participate and offer an opinion as
did the others who attended.
There is an old maxim that says:
"Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics."
The important thing to remember, according to our source, is that there
is a logistical "window of opportunity" to end over 60 years
of denial during this "lame duck" period (of the Bush Administration)
and before the next administration takes office; this helps to facilitate
disclosure at this time in order to put overt contact at the forefront
of future plans.
We as a people on this planet are at a historic logistical juncture
regarding this phenomenon. The UFO research community and our source’s
people are doing, and must do, everything possible without compromising
National Security to help bring this about.
I could go on with much more information. However, my brother and I
think it best to let Bob Morningstar and Dr. Michael Salla continue
reporting our source’s information.
Clay & Shawn Pickering
New York City
March 6th, 2008
***
Forward
as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals
and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit
publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.
