<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n in the
\nlight,<\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n
Richard
\nBoylan, Ph.D.<\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
=====<\/p>\n
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: ted roe <lungfish001@yahoo.com>
To: Victor Martinez <VictorGM@webtv.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: UFO Community: UN Denies meetings took place…have we been suckered?!<\/p>\n
Victor,<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
I do not have the ability to reply to everyone on this list but<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
you may forward this if it is helpful. <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
I became involved with this discussion on a private list and <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
when I replied to a question regarding my opinion about <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Michael Salla’s crediblity, that response<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
was unscrupulously forwarded to Mr. Salla. Even though it <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
was a private conversation Mr. Salla forced his way into the <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
conversation and accused me of character assassination, <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
sloppy research, etc… I warned him that spreading hearsay<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
first without doing research to verify his claims was not the<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
way to build credibility and his response fell far short of his<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
claims of being an expert at conflict resolution. <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Neither myself nor NARCAP have any opinion about aliens<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
or
\ndisclosures or UN meetings regarding UFOs though we <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
do have some opinions about making unfounded commentary<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
and the effects of wild claims on the credibility of those who <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
are diligently engaged in careful research.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
It is interesting how the story has morphed from Salla’s original<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
claim that a disclosure is imminent and an overt alien presence<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
is anticipated in 2013 or 2017 to a claim by Msr Gilles Lorant<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
whose claims are eerily reminiscent of Dr. Vallee’s presentation<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
to the UN in 1978 – a public presentation….<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
It is in the interest of reminding everyone how important it is<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
to keep beliefs in check and follow the rules that are understood<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
by science and journalists when it comes to making claims<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
that I am participating in this discussion at all.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
I
\ncontacted Dr. Vallee regarding this UN meeting and Msr<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Gilles Lorant’s claims and have provided an introduction and<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
his responses below.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
While I will engage responses to this list, I am not able to <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
reply to the list in its entirety as Yahoo does not have a <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
"reply all" capability and I use this email for work that does<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
not involve NARCAP.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Ted Roe<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Executive Director<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
NARCAP<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Hello,<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
NARCAP EAC member Dr. Jacques Vallee<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
has extensive experience with the UFO matter<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
both inside and outside of government including<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
the United Nations. So I contacted him regarding<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Michael Salla’s claim of a "Secret UN meeting"<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
regarding UFOS that allegedly took place in February<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
of 2008. I asked Dr.
\nVallee specifically if he knew<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
anything about Gilles Lorant and if he could shed<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
any light on this story.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
His comments are below.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
To put it simply, Msr. Gilles Lorant is not what <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Michael Salla claims that he is. <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
So now we are left with determining the true <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
roots of this story. Michael Salla claims that it arose from the <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Pickering brothers so the question arises regarding<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
where they acquired it and the veracity of their <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
source. <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
I contend, and I am sure that many experienced<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
researchers will agree, that such materials need <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
to be thoroughly verified before they are placed<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
in the public domain.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
We have watched this story shift from claims of <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
impending "disclosure" and an
\novert alien presence<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
in 2013 or 2017 to a description that seemed <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
eerily reminicent of Dr. Vallee’s own presentation<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
to the United Nations in 1978. While the story <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
has
shifted<\/span> several times, Michael Salla has <\/div>\n <\/p>\n
yet to retract his various claims.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Hopefully the information below will enlighten<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Michael Salla and others who may be taking this story to<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
heart and he will make a public retraction of<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
this story, cite the fraudulent claims of Gilles Lorant<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
and take steps to protect his credibility.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
This type of situation is unfortunate and underscores<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
the need for caution and for verification of information<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
before publishing it. Credibility is everything in this<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
field and it is very, very easy to damage one’s own<\/div>\n
credibility beyond repair.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Ted Roe<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
From NARCAP EAC member Dr. Jacques Vallee:<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Dear Ted:<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
My friends in France can find no trace of Lorant at CNRS. He<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
now claims he was an "auditor" at IHEDN but is now beyond<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
the age limit. <\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
You’ll notice that the story speaks of "the Secret UN Meeting"<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
even though it appears to have been a routine mid-level<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
gathering (non-secret) to prepare an administrative conference.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
The manipulation is becoming obvious. My advice is
\nto stay<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
away from it.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
It seems to me this story is falling apart but the structure is<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
very interesting — along the lines of a psywar rumor process<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
or what is known around the Internet as a "meme war":<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
1. You make up a really intriguing story that seems very<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
legitimate by including respected names: UN, French<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Ambassador, DSK etc. and precise dates.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
2. You leave it full of holes so that people will come up with<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
questions, thus revealing who is interested and why.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
3. You imply great secrecy, thus dangling new bits of<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
mystery.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
4. You slowly retract the story (since a lot of it was made up<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
in the first place out of pure imagination) but
\nyou point to<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
a legitimate-looking person (Lorant) who was there.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
5. The legitimate-looking person (whose credentials don’t<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
check out) "reveals" more details but does not confirm<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
the earlier story, thus gaining additional credibility and<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
"dangling" new information.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
6. Legitimate journalists reinforce the apparent story by<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
trying to follow this new trail.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
7. You throw in new intriguing names like Ted Kennedy and<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
John McCain through new anonymous sources "who could be<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
in danger if they revealed their names…" thus seducing<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
more recognizable researchers into revealing their interest…<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
8. You use the
\nInternet to circulate the whole mess to an<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
increasing circle of people, hoping to create a mass effect.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
9. At that point, any official denial of the story (or part of it)<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
sounds like a cover-up or skeptical reaction, enabling you to<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
claim that you are the victim of disinformation, etc. etc.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
All very clever.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Feel free to circulate my analysis. I’d like to know<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
what other people think of this.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Jacques Vallee<\/span><\/div>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Ted:<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Oddly enough, some of the arguments of the alleged UN report<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
are similar (although exaggerated) to the testimony I presented<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
quite officially before the political committee of the UN in 1978,<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
along with Dr. Hynek, Claude Poher, Gordon Cooper, Stanton<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n