<\/p>\n
We
\nspent a little time discussing Gilles Lorant and the controversy over
\nhis credentials. It’s still not clear if the controversy arose over
\nmisrepresentations he had made, or misrepresentations by others that he
\ndidn’t correct. Nevertheless, legal threats were directed against him
\nwhich led to him retracting all public association with the French
\norganization in question, the IHEDN. This led to his resignation from
\nthe F.E.A. and its President, Michel Ribardiere, stating that Lorant\u2019s
\nversion of events might be a fiction. Unfortunately, Lorant has not
\ngone ahead with a radio interview so we have yet to hear his
\nperspective on the controversy, and what it means for his testimony.
\nThe important thing to keep in mind is that Lorant has not retracted
\nhis testimony of what happened at meetings he claimed to have attended
\non Feb 13 and 14, so his testimony cannot be dismissed despite the
\ncredentials controversy. Kevin Smith agreed that controversy over one\u2019s
\nprofessional qualifications does not disqualify the validity over one\u2019s
\ntestimony since misrepresentations can easily arise when third parties
\nare involved. <\/p>\n
I wish to point out that I have another source
\nwithin the French Ministry of Defense (Source B in my Feb 20 article),
\nwho has confirmed seeing Lorant at high level military meetings.
\nHowever, he claims that Lorant\u2019s credentials are a mystery. That helps
\nclarify that while there is some controversy over Lorant\u2019s credentials,
\nthat he does have the kind of background that makes it possible for him
\nto have attended the UN meetings in some capacity. I am working with
\nanother researcher to get more information about Source B and what he
\nis willing to confirm in an interview. <\/p>\n
I also want to comment
\non the response received from the PA (personal assistant) of Sir John
\nSawers that stated unequivocally that he did not attend any UFO
\nmeeting. It was never claimed by Lorant that these were UFO meetings.
\nThese were meetings that discussed UFO\u2019s in addition to a number of
\nother topics. So Sawers could quite accurately refute having attended
\nany UFO meeting. So while the PA\u2019s response appears to be in conflict
\nwith Lorant\u2019s testimony, it\u2019s important to keep in mind that she is
\ndismissing a UFO meeting, not necessarily a meeting that discussed
\nUFOs. <\/p>\n
As for Source A, I discussed with Kevin Smith how Source
\nA is a serving member of the U.S. military who was authorized to leak
\nsensitive information concerning his current posting and duties. We
\ndiscussed how disclosure of his identity would predictably lead to his
\ndismissal hence the need to maintain confidentiality. Nevertheless,
\nSource A is still willing to show his bona fides to researchers as he
\nhas done so far with the Pickerings and Robert Morningstar. Focusing on
\nhis credibility as a reliable source of information will be important
\nand there are developments in this area to do this. <\/p>\n
Importantly,
\nSource A is still releasing information and helping clarify what has
\nbeen released so far. While he hasn\u2019t given more specific information
\nabout the meetings themselves that is confirmable, he has divulged more
\nbackground information. I do wish to point out that Source A has
\nclarified that he is associated with an interagency Working Group that
\ncomprises senior Navy officials. However, it is not a Navy Working
\nGroup nor is it correct that Admiral Fallon is associated with it in
\nany way, nor that several Navy admirals are serving on it. Those were
\nmistaken inferences from the material that has been released so far. <\/p>\n
In
\nthe interview, I mentioned a phone conversation I had with Dick
\nCrisswell where we spoke about another independent source, a retired
\nNavy Commander, who had his own confirmation that the UN meeting
\noccurred. In our earlier phone conversation, Dick mentioned that he had
\nknown the Commander since 1991\/92 and he has always proven to be
\nreliable and therefore has very high confidence in his confirmation. I
\nhave asked Dick Criswell to connect me with his Commander so I can get
\nmore details about how he got the information himself, allegedly from a
\nserving member of the U.S. military. Confidentiality has been requested
\nbut I\u2019m interested in determining who the Navy Commander\u2019s source is
\nand any possible relationship with Source A. <\/p>\n
As to where this
\nUN UFO meeting stands at the moment, there are a few promising leads,
\nhelping determine the credibility of Source A through more interviews
\nwith independent researchers; Lorant may emerge to clarify his
\nbackground and respond to criticisms; Source B may be able to give an
\ninterview where he elaborates on witnessing Lorant at high level
\nmilitary meetings; and the possibility that Dick Criswell\u2019s sources may
\nprovide either documents or more details about the UN meetings. <\/p>\n
I
\nsuspect that these leaks (Source A and Lorant) were authorized by an
\ninteragency working group in the US, and the French Ministry of Defense
\nto start a process whereby public reaction would be gauged. My view is
\nthat there will be more forthcoming disclosures and partial
\nconfirmation of the meetings which I believe did go ahead though the
\ncontent is not clear. I appreciate the efforts of those on the Open
\nMinds Forum who continue to investigate this issue, and hope to share
\nmore information as it becomes available to me.<\/p>\n