<\/p>\n
Clarifications <\/p>\n I received a further communication from Clay and Shawn Pickering (reproduced <\/p>\n To begin, it’s important to note that while Source A has revealed his <\/p>\n After intense scrutiny in France over Lorant’s credentials, controversy <\/p>\n It is important to note that Source A claims to only have attended <\/p>\n Both sources refer to a secret UN meeting that occurred on the morning <\/p>\n Lorant’s testimony confirmed the reliability of following pieces of <\/p>\n This takes me now to differences in the testimonies between the two <\/p>\n One clear difference is the nature of the security at the respective <\/p>\n Another difference is that Gilles Lorant’s information basically refers <\/p>\n A more significant difference is the specific goal of the two sets <\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n \u2026 a logistical "window of opportunity" to end over <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n This is inconsistent with Lorant’s testimony where he describes a governmental <\/p>\n If two sets of meetings were held, it is unlikely that they would differ <\/p>\n The most significant difference that points to a credibility gap between <\/p>\n In contrast Source A’s information, appears in many places to be unverifiable <\/p>\n By relaying information that is unverifiable and contentious, and uses <\/p>\n In conclusion, it is important to again acknowledge that Source A initially
\n on Sources Revealing UN Secret Meetings on UFO\u2019s & Extraterrestrial
\n Life<\/span><\/p>\n
\n below) regarding their effort to clarify what has transpired so far
\n concerning the secret meetings held from February 12-14, 2008 at the
\n United Nations New York headquarters. Their clarification emerged from
\n more recent discussions with their source, currently a member of the
\n diplomatic corps with a background in the US military (Source A) who
\n initially disclosed the secret meeting(s). Their comments offer a useful
\n summary of what Source A has revealed so far, and the importance of
\n his testimony. Given that a second source, Gilles Lorant, has publicly
\n emerged with testimony of what happened at the UN UFO meetings, there
\n is now a way to compare the two testimonies. We can now identify similarities
\n and inconsistencies between the two testimonies to determine the credibility
\n of the sources, and what actually occurred at the meetings. <\/p>\n
\n professional credentials to Clay
\n and Shawn Pickering, and to Robert Morningstar<\/a>, (see ) Source A
\n has chosen to remain anonymous. This makes it difficult for public verification
\n of his background and reliability. In contrast, Gilles Lorant, after
\n initially releasing information anonymously, came forward to publicly
\n reveal himself. Lorant’s public emergence made it easier to confirm
\n his credibility as a primary witness to the UN meeting. His professional
\n background as an auditor associated with the Federation European AIRPLANE
\n (FEA) supported the reliability of his testimony. A number of prominent
\n French researchers also came forward to support Lorant’s credibility
\n and\/or professional background. These included Michel
\n Ribardiere,<\/a> President of the FEA, and Gildas Bourdais who is a highly
\n regarded French UFO researcher. Both Ribardiere and Bourdais regarded
\n Lorant as a credible witness. <\/p>\n
\n erupted over his claimed professional association with a prestigious
\n French scientific organization, the Institute of National Higher Defense
\n Studies (IHEDN). This led to the FEA requesting his resignation which
\n Lorant
\n submitted on March 6<\/a>. The subsequent controversy over him inaccurately
\n reporting his association with IHEDN, does raise a question mark over
\n the reliability of his testimony. It may simply be Lorant overstated
\n his professional association with IHEDN and that this does not unduly
\n impact on what he claims to have experienced at the UN on February 13
\n and 14. Lorant’s public emergence and previous endorsements by independent
\n experts gives some confidence in his reliability as a witness. Controversy
\n over the precise nature of his professional associations, however, makes
\n is unclear whether his testimony can be concluded to be any more reliable
\n than Source A who remains anonymous. <\/p>\n
\n a meeting on February 12, and did not refer to or claim to have attended
\n any follow up meetings. In contrast, Gilles Lorant claims to have attended
\n follow up meetings on February 13 and 14, but not that on February 12.
\n So there may be some genuine differences between what these two sources
\n encountered at the successive meetings in terms of confidentiality,
\n security and attendees. It is appropriate to first discuss the commonalities
\n between the two sources which will help confirm what transpired, and
\n the significance of the information released. <\/p>\n
\n of February 12. They also refer to the increase in UFO sightings as
\n an important issue discussed at the meetings as well as the disruptive
\n potential of sightings for national economies and liberal democratic
\n systems. Also both sources referred to many issues being discussed in
\n addition to UFO’s. Lorant’s testimony confirms some of the central claims
\n initially made by Source A that were communicated to this author concerning
\n a secret UN meeting that would discuss UFOs on February 12 and first
\n released in an article
\n on February 13<\/a>. That is one of the points that is emphasized in
\n the clarification below by Clay and Shawn Pickering which shows the
\n initial timeline of what and when they were given information about
\n the UN meeting, and what they relayed to me and a few other researchers.
\n A helpful timeline
\n of events and testimonies <\/a>concerning the UN meetings is now available.
\n Given that I had met and been advised by Clay and Shawn on extraterrestrial
\n related issues over a five year period starting in 2003, and had been
\n informed of Source A’s military background and official work on the
\n UFO issue almost two years ago, I felt that their disclosure was both
\n reliable and very important. <\/p>\n
\n information disclosed by Source A. First, that at a secret meeting discussing
\n UFO’s took place on February 12 at UN headquarters. Second, that the
\n current wave of UFO sightings were a major topic of discussion at the
\n meetings. Third, that the stability of democratic nations as a consequence
\n of increased UFO sightings was discussed. Finally, that a range of issues
\n were discussed in addition to the UFO issue. Overall, Lorant’s independent
\n testimony supports my initial assessment over the importance of the
\n Pickering brother’s Source A who initially disclosed the meeting had
\n taken place and that there was a need to inform the public of what transpired.
\n For first disclosing to the general public the existence of the UN meeting,
\n the Pickering brothers and Source A deserve public acknowledgement.
\n <\/p>\n
\n sources. Some suggest that different sets of meetings occurred whose
\n security classification, content and personnel contrasted significantly.
\n Other differences point to some serious limitations in the reliability
\n of Source A. These limitations point to a possible agenda to first advise
\n the public about the meetings themselves, but to then obfuscate issues.<\/p>\n
\n meetings. With regard to the February 12 meeting, Source A claimed that
\n "security around
\n the meeting was intense"<\/a>, while Lorant described the security
\n at the February 13 and 14 meetings as less
\n than what is experienced at airports<\/a>. While neither of the two sources
\n claim to have attended the same meetings, it is possible for such a
\n security difference to occur. It may be that the first meeting, for
\n example, involved more senior UN officials being given a higher security
\n level briefing. This could have been relayed to the meetings on February
\n 13 and 14 in a diluted form during the one and half hour period described
\n by Lorant. This latter scenario is supported by the
\n most recent public statement <\/a>by Lorant that other meetings were
\n occurring behind chained doors and guards. <\/p>\n
\n to UFO sightings, and obliquely refers to extraterrestrial life as a
\n reality implicitly understood by attendees. The only date he gives is
\n 2009 as the year when an official policy of "openness" may
\n begin providing two conditions are met: political\/financial stability
\n and UFO sightings continue. In contrast, Source A refers to extraterrestrial
\n life as a central feature of the discussion on February 12, and that
\n a timetable exists for extraterrestrials "unambiguously" showing
\n themselves (2013\/2017). It is possible that the February 12 discussed
\n issues concerning official disclosure of extraterrestrial life as stated
\n by Source A, while the February 13 and 14 meetings discussed UFO’s as
\n a phenomenon that would be taken more seriously by national governments.
\n If so, this may help explain the major difference in how Source A and
\n Lorant described security at the meetings they attended. <\/p>\n
\n of meetings. According to the clarification relayed by the Pickering
\n brothers, Source A refers to: <\/p>\n
\n 60 years of denial during this "lame duck" period (of the
\n Bush Administration) and before the next administration takes office;
\n this helps to facilitate disclosure at this time in order to put overt
\n contact at the forefront of future plans. <\/p>\n
\n policy of "openness" that will occur in 2009. This new policy
\n would take place after the Presidential election, thereby making the
\n so called lame duck period moot. Furthermore, the new "openness"
\n policy signals an abandonment of the 50 year old official debunking
\n policy existing since the 1953 Robertson Panel, and signals an official
\n approach to the UFO issue that more seriously considers the available
\n data. This contrasts with "disclosure" which suggests release
\n of classified information dealing with the reality of extraterrestrial
\n life or technology. In essence, Lorant describes a meeting where agreement
\n was reached whereby a policy of openness would begin in 2009. This would
\n initiate a process that facilitates disclosure at a later date. Source
\n A suggests that disclosure could occur in this "window of opportunity"
\n during the waning months of the Bush administration. <\/p>\n
\n so markedly on such fundamental issues concerning the goals of ‘openness’
\n and ‘disclosure’ regarding UFOs\/extraterrestrial life. Based on Lorant’s
\n greater reliability as a witness, his version of events appear more
\n credible than source A. This raises concern over the extent to which
\n Source A is spinning information in a way that obfuscates core issues.<\/p>\n
\n the two sources is the nature of the information concerning what was
\n discussed at the meetings. Lorant mentions specific information that
\n can be confirmed. For example he discusses a Report prepared by the
\n U.S. Air Force and a branch of the National Guard, and a role played
\n by three U.S. Senators at the meeting. He also publicly identified that
\n the meetings he attended, were chaired by Srgjan Kerim, the President
\n of the UN General Assembly. Lorant also identified the Vatican’s Apostolic
\n Nuncio and Permanent Observer to the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore;
\n and Sir John Sawers, Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United
\n Nations. Lorant’s information therefore appears verifiable which, when
\n confirmed, will add greater credibility to his overall testimony. <\/p>\n
\n and indeed purposely contentious. It is almost as though Source A wants
\n to direct attention to unverifiable claims that generate heated debate,
\n rather than accurate descriptions of what transpired at the meetings.
\n For example, in an
\n earlier article<\/a> I referred to significant problems with the descriptive
\n term used by Source A for extraterrestrials who allegedly would unambiguously
\n show themselves some time in the future (2017). Source A used the term
\n "The Controllers". In the clarification below, Source A claims:
\n "This was just a name, which has since been changed to "Conformers."
\n It is just another name that our source grabbed out of the ether to
\n describe an ET group." I find this statement to be highly unsatisfactory.
\n Any classified study concerning extraterrestrial life would have precise
\n descriptive terms for such entities, even if their appearance and behavior
\n was not fully known. Choosing a descriptive term such as "Conformers"
\n that is "grabbed out of the ether" appears to be very disingenuous.
\n I stand by my earlier view that descriptive term used for extraterrestrials
\n by Source A had loaded psychological content. This exists no less for
\n term "the Conformers," than it did for the earlier term "The
\n Controllers". The use of such loaded psychological language arouses
\n suspicion that Source A is choosing descriptive terms for their psychological
\n conditioning value. <\/p>\n
\n loaded psychological terminology, the obvious conclusion is that Source
\n A’s information is attempting to obfuscate issues that were actually
\n discussed at the meetings. Given that Source A originally claimed that
\n he was given authorization to disclose information concerning the February
\n 12 meeting by an Admiral, the conclusion to be drawn is that the information
\n relayed by Source A may be an officially authorized effort to obfuscate
\n genuine information that is simultaneously leaked to the public. Alternatively,
\n the obfuscation may be a protective mechanism used by Source A who may
\n have legitimate concerns over his physical safety in participating in
\n these authorized leaks. <\/p>\n
\n disclosed the UN secret UFO meeting on February 12, and a number of
\n aspects of what was discussed at the meetings have been corroborated
\n by Lorant, who participated in follow meetings on February 13 and 14.
\n However, the contentiousness and unverifiability of significant elements
\n of Source A’s testimony, and his use of psychologically loaded language,
\n leads to justifiable suspicion over his reliability and motivation.
\n It appears that Source A has released some genuine information about
\n the UN meeting and issues discussed on February 12, but is purposely
\n layering this with obfuscations that have psychological conditioning
\n purposes. In contrast, Lorant’s testimony appears to be a plausible
\n summation of what he witnessed at the follow up meetings on February
\n 13 and 14. Given Lorant’s public emergence and disclosure of specific
\n information that can be confirmed, his testimony would appear more reliable
\n than Source A. However, controversy over his precise professional association
\n with the IHEDN that led to his resignation from FEA on March 6 does
\n create some uncertainty over his credibility. The controversy may have
\n little impact on the accuracy of his testimony concerning the UN meeting,
\n but will discredit him among the mainstream media. Researchers desiring
\n to investigate the UN meetings and uncover what was discussed are therefore
\n recommended to verify the specific claims made by Gilles Lorant while
\n being mindful over controversy concerning his credentials, and also
\n treading carefully with information supplied by Source A who remains
\n anonymous. <\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n