<\/p>\n
\nDr MICHAEL SALLA \u2013 THE HOME OF EXOPOLITICS:<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.exopolitics.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.exopoliticsjournal http:\/\/www.earthtransformation http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com http:\/\/groups.yahoo.com\/group ———- Forwarded message ———- First, my February 13 articleannouncing the UN UFO meeting was based When they told me about their meeting with their military source This particular piece of background information helps show that Source There is more pertinent information about Source A’s authority to Later, another anonymous source appeared in France who The controversy over Lorant’s testimony, however, does not in any way That takes me to a number of misrepresentations in Ted Roe’s statement First Roe states,<\/p>\n I have no problem with my stated opinion regarding the way The fact is that the original Source A was indeed verified by two Next Roe states:<\/p>\n I do think that Mr. Salla’s behavior with respect to forcing Roe again misrepresents what happened in the so called private Roe also says: Roe is mixing my reporting role and Source A’s testimony. Source A Furthermore, Roe claims that my story is changing. That is stretching Ted Roe and others are entitled to their opinions on the UN UFO story Misrepresenting facts and sources only obfuscate the core issues that Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can Margaret Mead<\/p>\n —– Original Message —- NATIONAL AVIATION REPORTING CENTER ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA [NARCAP], TED http:\/\/www.narcap.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.narcap.org\/newspage —–Inline Message Follows—–<\/p>\n Hi Victor,<\/p>\n Feel free to share this…<\/p>\n I have no problem with my stated opinion regarding the way this hearsay story As I am not the least bit concerned with the NARCAP executive body. Mr. Salla shouldn’t I do think that Mr. Salla’s behavior with respect to forcing himself into a private The matter of resolving this story after the fact does nothing for Mr. Salla’s credibility. The UN denies that the meetings took place. Gilles Lorant has a serious credibility issue Mr. I would like to think that Mr. Salla will be correct in all of his claims regarding the Mr. Salla is making the claims, and its his credibility in question rather than mine.<\/p>\n Ted Roe<\/p>\n Dr MICHAEL SALLA responds to the detractors of the UN-UFO Non Meeting!<\/p>\n \nFrom Victor Martinez<\/p>\n Dr MICHAEL SALLA \u2013 THE HOME OF EXOPOLITICS:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.exopolitics.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.exopoliticsjournal http:\/\/www.earthtransformation http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com http:\/\/groups.yahoo.com\/group JOIN THE ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE UN-UFO MEETING AT "The Open Minds ———- Forwarded message ———- Mahalo, Michael Salla <\/p>\n "Never Ted Roe <\/p>\n Roe’s statement that the story has morphed from Second, it is clear from my initial and subsequent Finally, if Roe aspires to write using accepted scholarly Given that verifiable professional qualifications are With regard to Jacques Vallee, I do As for On Also, I do While some may be tempted to In conclusion, leads are still Aloha<\/p>\n Michael Salla, Ph.D. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens
From: Exopolitics <exopolitics@yahoo.com>
To: Victor Martinez <VictorGM@webtv.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Clearing Misperceptions about the UN UFO Meeting
Hello
\nVictor, there’s a few general points I’d like to make about thesources
\nfor the UN UFO meeting before responding to some of thespecific claims
\nmade by Ted Roe over my coverage of this issue in his rebuttal sent to
\nyour list.<\/p>\n
\nentirely on the statement of ananonymous source in the diplomatic
\ncommunity who has been known to me for approximately 18 months,and who
\nhas met with two colleagues who I have known approximately fiveyears.
\nSean and Clay Pickering in the five years I have known themhave always
\ndirected accurate information on UFO\/ET issues to me, andhave acted in
\na way that suggests to me that they are reliable investigators whose
\ninformation can be trusted.<\/p>\n
\nabout18 months ago, they described his access to classified UFO
\ninformationand his work in that area. In particular, they mentioned a
\n1982 versionof the Special Operations Manual (SOM1-01) that he gave
\nthem and which they provided to Dr Robert Woodsfor analysis. A
\npreliminary investigation by Dr Woods found that it wasan original
\ntyped copy of the same document that had publicly emerged in 1994,
\ntogether with an affidavitthat it was sighted in 1982. So the SOM1-01
\npossessed by Source A and passed on to the Pickerings and Dr Woods for
\nanalysis, predates the 35 mm film version reproduced on the Majestic
\nDocuments website by over a decade.<\/p>\n
\nA has had access to documents dealing with UFO\/extraterrestrial issues.
\nThis helps corroborate that Source A is whohe claims to be which is
\nsomeone on active military service who wasauthorized to leak
\ninformation concerning a secret meeting on Feb 12 atthe UN which
\ndiscussed UFO’s and extraterrestrial life. Another UFOresearcher,
\nRobert Morningstar has since met with and has been able toverify Source
\nA’s identity, and also released more information aboutSource A’s
\npresent assignment as a military liaison to the State Department.<\/p>\n
\nrelease information to the public. In the Feb 13 document, reference
\nwas made to an admiral who is Source A’s superior who authorized the
\nleak. Source A claims that the admiral is associated with a
\nconfidential UFO Working Group that has decided to begin leaking
\ninformation to the UFO community. The UFO Working Group appears to be
\nsimilar to that described by Howard Blum in Out There with the
\nexception that senior U.S. Navy personnel are present. While
\nconfirmation of all this is desirable, that poses significant
\nchallenges given issues of confidentiality. Nevertheless the public
\nemergence of Source A is a very promising development and should not be
\nsimply dismissed as hearsay since we have a serving military officer
\nwho has agreed to meet with researchers to show his bona fides, and is
\nacting under orders to release information. This gives more background
\nabout Source A, his reliability
\nas a witness, and the authority under which he is operating.<\/p>\n
\neventuallyrevealed himself to be Gilles Lorant, whose credibility was
\nsupported by anumber of prominent French researchers, including Michel
\nRibardiere, President of FEA. andGildas Bourdais. In addition, a
\nprominent French radio Journalist, Didier de Plaige was the first to
\nrelease information concerning Lorant on his blogsite, and sent me
\ndetails of Lorant’s background which was supported by others familiar
\nwith Lorant. Lorant revealed more specific information includingthe
\nnames of some public officials attending the meetings. The subsequent
\nfuror over hisprofessional background has brought into question the
\naccuracy of his information, and those who previously supported his
\ncredibility have now withdrawn their support.<\/p>\n
\nimpact on the original Source A whosecredentials have been witnessed by
\nthree individuals who have publiclyvouched for his credibility as a
\nserving member of the US militarycurrently assigned to the State
\nDepartment. That on its own is significant news and was the focus of my
\ninitial reports on the Feb 12 UN UFO meeting.<\/p>\n
\nbelow which distract readers from the significance of the information
\nthat has been released so far.<\/p>\n
\nthis hearsay story is playing out in the public domain and the failure
\nof Salla to verify his sources before publishing it. I am certain that
\nI am not the only one who has a less than supportive opinion of Mr.
\nSalla’s behavior and judgement in this matter.<\/p>\n
\ncolleagues, Clay and Shawn Pickering over a two year period. They have
\nnever known Source A to state inaccuracies before and had full
\nconfidence in what he revealed to them. I in turn have confidence in
\nthe Pickering brothers who had indeed verified Source A, and told me
\nabout him over an 18 month period. So Roe’s statement with regard to
\nverification of my primary source for the Feb 12 meeting, Source A, is
\nfactually incorrect. Roe has made a statement this is very misleading
\nand underestimates the extent to which Source A had been previously
\nvetted.<\/p>\n
\nhimself into a private conversation to accuse me of "character
\nassassination" was inappropriate and hardly demonstrates his conflict
\nresolution skills.<\/p>\n
\nconversation. I was forwarded an email where Roe was making gratuitious
\npersonal statements against me and my wife’s activities based on my Feb
\n13 article where I had announced Source A’s claims regarding the Feb 12
\nmeeting. I found Roe’s comments offensive and grossly misrepresenting
\nmy activities so I responded to recipients of his comments. I did not
\nforce my way into a confidential discussion, I merely replied to an
\nemail I had been forwarded concerning personal comments directed
\nagainst me to all that received his comments. I find it very odd that
\nRoe is more concerned about the assumed confidentiality of his
\ncommunications, than in correcting any misrepresentations on his part.
\nThis is a personal character flaw he has shown no desire to correct, as
\nevidenced by him conspicuously using incorrect titles when that has
\nbeen pointed out to him. I have posted a copy of Roe’s comments and my
\nresponse on the Open Minds Forum for the reader to judge for
\nhim\/herself the appropriateness of my response and Roe’s comments. The
\ncopy is available here:
\nhttp:\/\/lucianarchy.proboards21
\n"Mr. Salla made claims regarding the meeting and its various topics in
\nhis first missive on the topic and now the story changes to something
\ndifferent. I didn’t write the article claiming that there would be an
\novert alien presence. He did."<\/p>\n
\nclaimed there would be an unambiguous showing of extraterrestrials by
\n2017, that was not my claim, but his. Surely, it’s not too hard to
\nunderstand that Source A’s claims are the focus of my articles on the
\nUN UFO meeting, not what I have to say since I was not there.<\/p>\n
\nwhat has in fact occurred. I originally reported on claims that a
\nmeeting had occurred on Feb 12 that discussed extraterrestrial life and
\ndisclosure according to Source A. Subsequent articles were based on
\nLorant’s emergence and his information about meetings he claimed
\noccurred on Feb 13 and 14. He described the content of the meetings as
\ndiffering substantially from Source A which I pointed out. Details
\nconcerning the contents of the Feb 13 and 14 meetings have subsequently
\nbeen cast into doubt over Lorant’s credentials controversy. However,
\nwhat has not changed is that one or more meetings occurred on Feb 12,
\nthough the contents of what was discussed is still to be confirmed.
\nAdding the dates of Feb 13 and 14, to the original Feb 12 date hardly
\nconstitutes changing my story to something different. The story has
\nevolved with more information, from Lorant, that now has to be
\nreconsidered.<\/p>\n
\nand to dismiss it as hearsay if they wish. However, there is no
\njustification to misrepresent what has been said, trying to insert me
\ninto the picture as though these are my claims as opposed to me
\nattempting to faithfully report on what Source A or Lorant have said,
\nor in failing to correct misrepresentations after these have been
\nidentified.<\/p>\n
\nhave emerged over the UN UFO meetings issue. While there is much
\ncontroversy over Lorant’s testimony, and verifying Source A’s claims
\nremains a challenge, I am confident that further investigations will
\nhelp substantiate some or all of what has been claimed so far.
\nNevertheless, the UN UFO story is not solely based on the public
\ntestimony of Lorant whose corroborating testimony to what Source A had
\nrevealed was initially welcomed by me and others, but has now proved to
\nmuddy the waters for reasons that are still not clear. I welcome
\nsubstantive criticism but will point out any misrepresentations by
\nthose whose desire to dismiss the UN UFO meetings on the basis of what
\nthey consider insufficient or hearsay evidence is premature based on
\nindependent verification of one primary source to the meetings.<\/p>\n
\nwww.exopolitics.org<\/a><\/p>\n
\nchange the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has!"<\/p>\n
\nFrom: Victor Martinez <VictorGM@webtv.net<\/a>>
\nSent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:57:29 PM
\nSubject: TED ROE’s rubuttal to Dr MICHAEL SALLA on the UN-UFO Non Meeting!<\/p>\n
\nROE’s<\/p>\n
\n is playing out in the public domain and the failure of Salla to verify his sources
\n before publishing it. I am certain that I am not the only one who has a less than
\n supportive opinion of Mr. Salla’s behavior and judgement in this matter.<\/p>\n
\nfor NARCAP, as I said before, we have no opinion regarding aliens,
\nspace ships, secret UN meetings, etc. The only concerns we have involve
\nthe effects that making
\n unfounded claims can have on the rest of those who work diligently to bring credibility
\n to the study. The negative effects that this sort of thing has on the credibility of us who are
\n diligently working to devolop foundational evidence is precisely the reason that NARCAP has
\ngenerally avoided associating with all but the most focused and conservative programs.<\/p>\n
\n concern
\nhimself, either. Dr. Haines and I founded this organization and have
\nset very high standards. We have documents published on US Gov websites
\nand have participated in US Gov activities related to our work. We have
\nenjoyed those successes because we take our credibility seriously.<\/p>\n
\n conversation to accuse me of "character assassination" was inappropriate and
\n hardly demonstrates his conflict resolution skills. I can state my opinion in any
\n forum I choose and if it is in a private forum then my opinion is none of Mr. Salla’s
\n business. Perhaps if Mr. Salla had chosen to mind his own
\nbusiness I may not have bothered to forward any information regarding the meeting that I learned
\n to this list.<\/p>\n
\n I do not know if the event occured which is precisely the problem posed by
\n Mr. Salla. He has publicly anounced that this meeting occured and then has gone
\n about trying to verify it. Meanwhile the message that it actually did occur continues
\n regardless of the truth of it. Does anybody here remember SERPO? That story had a
\n similar pattern.<\/p>\n
\n after falsely claiming to be a member of IHEDN and being forced to resign from FEA. The
\n rest of Mr. Salla’s witnesses are "secret".<\/p>\n
\nSalla made claims regarding the meeting and its various topics in his first missive on the
\n topic and now the story changes to something different. I didn’t write the article claiming that
\n there would be an overt alien presence. He did.<\/p>\n
\n UN matter and I hope that he is vindicated. He seems to be more than certain that
\n there are aliens and that they are visiting Earth and while he offers no proof that is
\n actually occuring, he feels satisfied to offer $2600 Exopolotics Diplomas, $875 Galactic
\n Diplomacy Certificates, etc. He is also comfortable in claiming that swimming with dolphins
\n is indispensible to learning to communicate with "Star Beings"….
\n http:\/\/www.exopoliticsinstitut
\net al. about the heated controversy swirling around the alleged UN-UFO
\nmeeting … did it or did it not really occur? Dr SALLA weighs in and
\nanswers those critics! \u2013<\/p>\n
\n——————————
\nhttp:\/\/lucianarchy.proboards21
\nForum" and weigh in with YOUR opinion!<\/p>\n
From: Exopolitics <exopolitics@yahoo.com>
To: Victor Martinez <victorgm@webtv.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: OPEN Letter to the UFO Community on the Alleged UFO-UN NON "Meeting!"<\/p>\n
\nVictor, I sent you the message below yesterday after unsuccessfully
\ntrying to post it to your list. Please let me know if you plan to post
\nmy response to the letters by Ted Roe and Jacque Vallee.<\/p>\n
\ndoubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
\nthe world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has!" <\/p>\n
From: Exopolitics <exopolitics@yahoo.com<\/a>>
To: Victor Martinez <VictorGM@webtv.net<\/a>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:41:18 AM
Subject: Re: OPEN Letter to the UFO Community on the Alleged UFO-UN
\nNON "Meeting!"<\/p>\n
\nVictor, I have read the letters from Ted Roe and Dr Jacques Vallee
\nconcerning the information I have disseminated concerning a series of
\nsecret meetings that occurred at the UN that discussed
\nUFO\/extraterrestrial issues. I will respond to the claims in their
\nrespective letters in the order to which I have received them. Could
\nyou please forward my replies to the same list where the two letters
\nwere sent. <\/p>\n
\nhas in the past grossly misrepresented what I have said, and what follows is no
\nexception of his sloppiness when it comes to critiquing the work of others.
\nFirstly he claims:<\/p>\n
\nSalla’s original claim that a disclosure is imminent and an overt alien presence
\nis anticipated in 2013 or 2017 to a claim by Msr Gilles Lorant whose claims are
\neerily reminiscent of Dr. Vallee’s presentation to the UN in 1978 – a public
\npresentation….<\/div>\n
\nmy "original claim that a disclosure is imminent" is incorrect on two counts.
\nFirst, my original February 13 article never referred to UFO\/extraterrestrial
\ndisclosure as imminent in any way. The reader may confirm that here: http:\/\/www.ufodigest.com\/news
\nyear 2013 was mentioned and was in the next article updated to 2017. I would
\ndisagree that the dates 2013\/2017 in any way equate to imminent disclosure and
\nshows how sloppy Roe is when it comes to accurately describing what I have
\nsaid. <\/p>\n
\ncommunications on the secret UN UFO meetings that these are not my claims.
\nInstead, I began by relaying information from an anonymous ‘Source A’ who is
\ncurrently working at the State Department and claims to have attended a Feb 12
\nmeeting concerning UFOs\/extraterrestrial life. The individual is currently
\nassigned to the State Department as a military liaison, and his military
\ncredentials have been independently verified by Robert Morningstar. That means
\nthree individuals, Clay and Shawn Pickering and Robert Morningstar can vouch for
\nSource A’s credentials whom they have personally met, and whose credentials they
\npersonally checked. So we have a military liaison currently assigned to the
\nState Department disclosing sensitive information about a Feb 12 UN meeting that
\nhe attended. That is significant news, especially since a second source in the
\nform of Gilles Lorant has also come forward to confirm that such meetings took
\nplace, and attended some of them on Feb 13 and 14. Roe’s effort to depict this
\nunfolding UN UFO story as emanating from my "original claims" is factually
\nincorrect. <\/p>\n
\nstandards, then the convention is that if one uses titles in an article, then be
\nconsistent, don’t refer to Dr Vallee, Msr Gilles Lorant and Salla in the same
\nsentence. I have a Ph.D. in government which you and others can confirm here
\n(http:\/\/exopolitics.org\/Salla
\nentitles me to having the title ‘Dr’ included when titles are used for others in
\npublic letters and articles. So I recommend to Roe that if he uses titles
\nin communications where he signs off as Executive Director of an organization,
\nNARCAP, then don’t use titles selectively on the basis of personal
\nlikes\/dislikes. <\/p>\n
\ndiscussed at length in regard to the sources, Roe’s exclusion of titles
\nillustrating professional qualifications when it suits his argument is
\ndisengenous and unprofessional. It’s very bad form for an executive officer of
\nan organization, NARCAP, that purports to provide objective information on the
\nUFO issue, to be signing off on an Open Letter that convey his personal
\nopinions, and not clearly indicating that these are his opinions only, and not
\nthat of the organization he represents. Has the President of NARCAP and its
\nBoard of Directors been made aware that its executive officer is grossly
\nmispresenting my own research on the UN UFO issue, and attaching the status of
\ntheir organization to such misrepresentations which have nothing to do with
\nNARCAP’s primary mission?<\/p>\n
\nappreciate his reference to a possible ‘meme war’. As a social scientist, I am
\nopen to exploring all possible explanations to the information that has been
\nreleased. However, I would not be presumptive enough at this stage to conclude
\nthat a ‘meme war’ exists. I am certainly wary of Source A’s tendency to make
\nunverifiable contentious statements together with what appears to be genuine
\ninformation, i.e., high level meetings at the UN on UFO’s. I have referred to
\nthis in my second article on these issues: http:\/\/www.ufodigest.com\/news
\ndo not at all discount the meme war Vallee mentions. <\/p>\n
\nLorant’s credentials, these have been closely scrutinized after he made claims
\nabout professional associations that did not check out. Given that a number of
\nrespectable French researchers such as Michel Ribardiere and Gildas Bourdais
\ninitially vouched for Lorant’s credibility, then had to retract their support
\nafter misrepresentations were identified, this casts a cloud over Lorant’s
\ncredibility. However, Lorant stands by his initial claims of the UN UFO meetings
\nhaving occurred and that he attended in a professional capacity. <\/p>\n
\nMarch 10, I received confirmation from a third source inside France’s Ministry
\nof Defense (relayed to me by a respected UFO\/exopolitics researcher) that Lorant
\nis well known as an individual who is present at high level military meetings.
\nThis source, a Colonel, states that he has seen Lorant on several occasions at
\nsuch meetings while confirming that Lorant’s professional credentials are murky.
\nSo while Lorant’s precise professional credentials remain in a cloud, there is
\nnevertheless further confirmation that he is an individual who does attend high
\nlevel military meetings in France, and has some official status in the covert
\nworld dealing with UFO\/ET issues. So this helps support his initial claims that
\nhe attended the UN meetings on UFOs in a professional capacity as an observer.
\nLorant was scheduled to give a radio interview to prominent French journalist
\nDidier de Plaige where he will have the opportunity to set the record straight
\nabout the controversy over his credentials and the UN meeting.<\/p>\n
\ndisagree with Dr Vallee over his reference to names released for the purpose of
\npromoting a meme war. The naming of the the Papal Nuncio, UK Permanent
\nRepresentative and UN General Assembly President as individuals who attended
\nsome or all sessions of the meetings provides an opportunity for investigators
\nto directly ask these individuals for confirmation or denial of their
\nattendance. So far, no public statements have emerged from these individuals so
\nfurther investigations and confirmation is needed to confirm or refute the
\nclaims made by Source A and Gilles Lorant. <\/p>\n
\njump to the conclusion reached by Dr Vallee that the UN UFO meeting is part of a
\n‘meme war’ against the UFO research community, I consider it very premature to
\nconclude this. Another viewpoint is that Source A and Lorant have been
\ngiven authority to leak genuine information but there are certain constraints
\nunder which they have to operate which enable the creation of plausible
\ndeniability over their claims. <\/p>\n
\nbeing investigated, primary sources are still explaining events and backgrounds,
\nand further independent sources are coming forward to confirm aspects of what
\nhas been revealed so far. So the issue of UFO meetings taking place at the UN
\nover February 12-14 is by no means resolved and further investigations are
\nrequired. <\/p>\n
www.exopolitics.org<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n
\ncan change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has!" <\/p>\n
\nted roe<\/a> <\/div>\n