This article was part of an Exopolitics UK Newsletter
October 2008.
!-Comments on UN Meeting Update-!
It's
interesting that the familiar patterns have accompanied the leaked, yet
detailed, information from several groups within the UFO/exopolitics
research community. We see this form of cynical playing down of such
research from within the established field itself - just as we did when the testimonies of say Bob Lazar and Col. Philip Corso
came to light in previous years. In the case of Lazar and Corso many refused to acknowledge the possibility of any truth in their accounts, yet as sufficient time has passed, they are now universally accepted as having
made significant contributions to exopolitical research. The former
nay-sayers however rarely come forward to admit their misjudgements and encourage more constructive approaches.
Whilst we should embrace sound fact-checking [as far as this is
feasible in this rumour-fuelled and black-project foggy area] and
open-minded scepticism it seems to me that outside of those who have
deeper reasons for debunking and minimising new information leads -
some researchers suffer from what we'll call 'caution sickness'.
Note:: Check the video interview on this topic here
This
affliction results in both new and experienced researchers permenently
playing it safe by hedging their comments towards the over-rational
reality or outcome - their logic being that it is better to ultimately
fade into the background when a risky case ultimately receives a
positive consensus than suffer the 'humiliation' of having staked their
reputation and suffered a perceived 'loss'.
Some have consistantly and correctly made the case that this is the one
field where we need people who are prepared to take a leap of faith for
two main reasons. Firstly the high weirdness of the core issues at hand
demand a different lens or framework through which we map our findings
and fluid conclusions. Secondly, time and time again we've seen how the
60 plus years of confusion and disinformation seeded by various
dominating agencies [and to some extent perhaps by extra-terrestrial
intelligences themselves?!] have resulted in what at first seems to be
a minor node of interest growing into something far more significant
on
a political, cultural and scientific level.
Besides these factors, if a fleet of
UFOs was witnessed over Washington DC in the 1950s - it's about time we
heard the United Nations were discussing issues of extra-terrestrial
intelligences!
This 'event minimisation' was seen once more when the first reports of secret United Nations meetings was discussed on net forums and analysed by Dr M Salla of the Exopolitics Institute.
Comments ranged from it being pure fiction to UFO heavyweights such as
Jacques Valle suggesting it was little more than a manufactured memetic construct.
After months of investigation, as much investigation as can be done
with alledged meetings involving the military and UN on the most
controlled issue facing humanity, it does now appear that the core of
the claims are true. Not only did meetings take place, they evolved to
discuss issues of ET disclosure with many UN affiliated nations and
bridged all political/ambassadorial ranks as well as featuring element
of the army, navy, air force and so on.
One of the key goals of the exopolitics field is to make those with
perhaps only a limited interest in the UFO/ET issue begin to see that
far from this area being a cultural joke or purely terrestrial [ie:
black world military] phenomenon - it is in fact a vast paradigm in
its own right and one that lies at the very heart of modern geopolitics, impacting profoundly on our species evolutionary path. Those that go
out of their way to minimise, distort or debunk when significant
research intially rears its head are doing as much damage to the
development of this field as the mainstream media does when they bring
out the 'little green men' cliches. Some will suggest that this cautious approach is needed to maintain and/or repair the image of research on the UFO/disclosure front due to previous associations with 'kookiness' and hyping of events which then amount to little. Instead I'd suggest that we collectively develop a greater immunity to appearing foolish - or plain wrong - because time is something we're short on when it comes to opening up these areas to a wider world. It's also quite likely that some sort of feedback loop exists where as this field further infiltrates mainstream consensus and attracts multidisciplinary input, so the signal-to-noise ratio levels out.
Instead of demanding the proverbial
'latrine from the saucer' [a phrase I borrow from Stephen Bassett
as it sums up this attitude perfectly] knowing of course that just as
classical physics fails to account for 99% of UFO 'science' -
researchers should shift expectations onto a more holistic level - one
that aims to build a mosaic of data-points
rather than instantly attain
rational answers. In the early days of the UN Meeting articles - people
were for example asking for 'official UN schedules' showing the meeting
times and memberships - an obviously redundant point of enquiry given
the nature of the UFOlogical beast we're dealing with. This approach is
just one of the many dubious and transparent systems of steering people
away from novel data. In this case the sceptic poses a singular,
trivial question and then uses the fact it cannot immediately be answered in Aristotelian fashion as a mechanism for refuting thewhole issue at hand. Watch out for this one - it's used an awful lot in this area!
Exo Data Points: Manifesting a Mosiac
To gain a better understanding of investigating this and similar issues, I'd advise anyone interested to take a look through UFODigest's article written by "Source A", Clay and Shawn Pickering and Robert Morningstar called How cover works.
In the mean time it appears that as many have been suggesting for
years, not only is there a process of public acclimation going on, but
in addition a far more tangiable process of global disclosure is being
discussed at every level. This move is the result of many forces - including those that elude the military industrial complex. For a good background on the UN meetings and disclosure issues generally, listen to the audio streamed below from the Kevin Smith Show featuring Clay and Shawn Pickering. The interview contains significant detail and background into the case.
In a follow-up to this editorial on UN Global Disclosure, we'll examine why we need to urgently expand the discussion of this area into more formal cultural structures and systems.
Kevin Smith Radio Show - Clay and Shawn Pickering on UN Meetings and General Disclosure
Approx 2 hrs - Skip the interim music if not to taste!
The SOM Army manual on UFO and EBE recovery referred to in the podcast can be downloaded in our document archive.
Secret United Nations Meetings on Extraterrestrial Life Continue:
Threats Used to Prevent Diplomatic Leaks
On October 8, 2008, I met with
the original source that disclosed that a secret meeting had been held at the
United Nations headquarters in New York City on February 12 to discus UFOs and
extraterrestrial life. The original source, Source A, discussed the most recent
developments concerning secret meetings conducted under UN auspices to discuss
UFOs and extraterrestrial life. The October 8 meeting was attended by Source A,
Clay and Shawn Pickering (who kindly set up the meeting) and Bob Vanderclock.
I spent a total of 4.5 hours discussing the UN meetings and related issues with
Source A, and others present. Source A was dressed in full US Navy uniform with
identifying insignia including name and rank. He showed me his military I.D. which
confirmed his name, rank and pay scale. His I.D. card was valid for a three year
period and had a vertical barcode on the left hand side next to his photo.
He
subsequently showed me an album filled with photos, military patches and cards
that represented his various assignments and awards since first joining the US
Navy in the 1960s. He explained each of the pages inside of his album to all present.
The material he showed conclusively proved that he was an electronics warfare
specialist with the US Navy. With all the documentation presented and his full
dress Navy uniform, it was clear that he is a serving US Navy officer willing
to discuss sensitive information concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial life. From
his careful and precise choice of language, clarity of expression, demeanor, eye-contact
and other non-verbal cues, Source A appeared very personable and sincere in the
information he was disclosing.
Source A said that as far as his military
superiors in the normal chain of command are concerned, they are aware of his
role in leaking sensitive information. They have a tacit policy of not wanting
to know what he is doing, and are not taking action to prevent him disclosing
the sensitive information. It was understood that getting national media exposure
would force the Navy to take disciplinary action. That is one of the main reasons
why the identity of Source A has not been publicly released. He has however agreed
to be physically interviewed and shown his credentials to the following researchers:
Clay and Shawn Pickering, Bob Vanderclock, Robert Morningstar, Dr Bruce Maccabee,
two other unnamed researchers, and most recently myself on October 8.
During
the meeting, Source A disclosed that he continues to work under the direction
of a US Navy admiral who is in command of the controlled leak of the meetings
occurring under UN auspices. This admiral was unnamed and is not part of the official
chain of military command for Source A, but is his superior in covert operations
that have need-to-know security status. Thus it's important to emphasize that
Source A's disclosures are not part of official US Navy policy, but is orchestrated
by a covert operations group comprising senior Navy officials (admirals) and others.
In this article, I will discuss three aspects of what Source A revealed
concerning the UN meetings at our October 8 meeting: continued meetings under
UN auspices; physical threats to prevent diplomatic disclosure of the UN meetings;
and role of international corporations.
Further UN Meetings
After
the initial meeting on February 12, 2008, disclosed by Source A (not including
the February 13-14 meeting disclosed by Gilles Lorant) there have been an additional
three meetings attended by Source A. Another two meetings were held without Source
A after he had been reassigned. Source A was replaced by another military officer
who he has yet to meet. The same US Navy admiral remained in control of the US
delegation even though he didn't attend the additional meetings. All five additional
meetings involved military representatives from member UN nations that attended
the February 12 meeting with important additions and changes in personnel in attendance.
All but the first were held outside of the UN headquarters and involved military
officials. The composition, origin and diplomatic briefing responsibility of those
attending the meetings does invite referring to them as a series of 'UN inspired
meetings concerning extraterrestrial life'.
Four additional meetings were
held in Upstate New York. Upstate NY was chosen in order to have a more secure
environment to that available at the UN due to the sensitive nature of the material
discussed. Upstate NY also provided a more conducive environment for reaching
consensus on issues that proved to be contentious at the original February 12
meeting.
According to Source A, the February 12 meeting was a diplomatic
fiasco. There were too many senior diplomatic officials involved and discussions
quickly became politicized. The US Navy admiral in charge of Source A's controlled
leak of information on the UN meetings, along with other senior diplomatic officials
at the ambassadorial rank and senior military officials attended the February
12 meeting. The admiral continues to be in charge of the US delegation to all
subsequent meetings emerging from the first UN meeting.
Source A says he
travelled to Europe after the February 12 meeting to find the right military people
for the forthcoming meetings to be held at Upstate NY. He went to every country
in Europe in order to find out who was hostile and who was ambivalent concerning
disclosure of extraterrestrial life.
It was decided that no further meetings
were required at the UN since key players were known, and they could be invited
to Upstate NY for additional meetings. All invited to the Upstate NY meetings
were military liaisons of UN member states. These involved middle ranking officers
since consensus was more likely to occur without senior diplomats who had the
tendency to politicize discussions. It was decided that having middle ranking
military liaisons would help keep a low profile on the difficult negotiations
required for a coordinated international response to extraterrestrial life. All
military liaison personnel at the Upstate NY meetings would brief senior officials
in their respective diplomatic corps at the UN.
Source A said that that
various nations were either in favor or opposed to a coordinated international
disclosure effort. Source A emphasized that the US Navy has always been pro-disclosure
and due to its leading role in policy issues concerning extraterrestrial life
and the UN meetings, made the US pro-disclosure. The French along with Britain
was also in favor of disclosure. Britain, however, asked that the US should lead
the effort. Germany, Saudi Arabia and Islamic countries more generally were hostile
to disclosure. Source A said India was "impossible to deal with". Military
liaison(s) from China attended all the Upstate NY meetings (though not the original
February 12 meeting) and said that the US should "pay for disclosure".
According to Source A this was a considerable point of contention.
The subsequent
meetings at Upstate NY were chaired by different countries. Source A was the highest
ranking US officer at the first three post-February 12 meetings held at Upstate
NY until he was replaced for the last two which were held respectively in Upstate
NY and an undisclosed location in Europe.
The second UN UFO/ET meeting (the
first held at Upstate NY) was held from March 24-26 and was chaired by the military
liaison from Britain. Source A revealed that this was very productive in terms
of consensus, goals and vision. A table of contents concerning key issues to be
discussed was produced which presumably would help guide future discussions. This
meeting lasted the full three days that were scheduled. China was present at the
2nd and subsequent meetings at Upstate NY and Europe.
The third UN UFO/ET
meeting (second at Upstate NY) was chaired by the senior military liaison from
France. According to Source A, this meeting was a disaster. This meeting ran from
May 19-21 and focused on economic issues that was revealed in an
earlier communication released by Clay and Sean Pickering. This meeting lasted
three days.
The fourth UN UFO/ET meeting was chaired by the senior US military
liaison which was Source A. An attempt was made to find neutral territory, but
was unsuccessful. This meeting again, according to Source A, was a disaster. It
lasted only one day from the three scheduled. The meeting occurred just prior
to Source A leaving for another covert assignment at the end of May 2008.
Source
A emphasized that the US Navy (and Marines) has always been focused on overall
policy issues concerning extraterrestrials, while the USAF handled contact with
extraterrestrial life. The US Army, Department of Energy and Department of Homeland
Security have been responsible for security and bases. This is corroborated by
reports that extraterrestrials had in the past showed
up USAF bases to deal with representatives of the Eisenhower administration.
Also, whistleblower reports confirm that Army forces have been involved with enforcing
security at bases involving extraterrestrial related projects.
Source
A said that USAF has handed off to the US Navy responsibility for a specific contact
project involving the extraterrestrials
discussed in the February 12 meeting. That means that US Navy has begun to
play a role in both setting policy and contact with at least one form of extraterrestrial
life.
The fifth UN UFO/ET meeting was attended by the replacement of Source
A whose identity has not been revealed. This meeting was again held in Upstate
NY. According to the US Navy admiral in overall charge of the US delegation (led
by Source A's replacement) the meeting was cordial.
The sixth meeting was
held outside of the US (in Europe) for security reasons. According to the admiral,
those involved in the European meeting were "doing good work"
Source
A emphasized that the military liaisons at this series of UN inspired meetings
were trying to get agreement on how to nations ought to respond to the prospect
of extraterrestrial vehicles appearing over countries. It's worth pointing out
that this is the same scenario that was debated in the Japanese parliament in
December 2007. It led to the Japanese Minister of Defense making
a statement concerning how the Japanese self defense force might respond to
such a scenario.
Source A said further that the admiral in charge of the
covert disclosure process revealed the talking points for the last two meetings
held without Source A's attendance. These included the following:
1.
"What if [extraterrestrial] spacecraft start making demands?"
2.
"If they [extraterrestrials] do make demands, what should be our responses
as a collective people?"
3. If the craft appear without any hostile intent,
there should be agreement that no hostile action is taken by any nation.
4.
That NATO should take whatever measures necessary to ensure no hostile response
is taken in response to the appearance of any ETV occurs.
5. International
Banking systems should keep operating with minimal disruption to economic systems.
6.
How to ensure the global distribution of extraterrestrial knowledge and technology.
According to Source A, point six was the most difficult issue
in the discussions.
Threats to UN Diplomatic Community
I raised
the issue of two independent reports that diplomats had been physically threatened
to remain silent about UN discussions on UFOs and extraterrestrial life. I emphasized
that one of the sources involved a senior European diplomat that had relayed that
the physical threats were genuine and diplomats were being silenced.
Source
A mentioned that one of the reasons that the UN had been chosen was that the diplomatic
community is very good at leaking information. This was an important consideration
in the controlled leakage initiated by the admiral and other senior Navy officials
"to gauge the responses." In particular, they wanted to see the public
response to the UN disclosures, and also the media response. The choice of UN
ambassadors to receive the information was a strategic choice to help move forward
the disclosure process. All ambassadors were fully briefed by their military liaisons
on what transpired at the Upstate NY and European meetings. The Ambassadors were
therefore an important part of the controlled leak and the covert Navy group is
very interested in any threats made against them that impacts on the disclosure
process.
Source A said that the world is hostile to extraterrestrial disclosure,
that's what the US Navy's covert group is finding out. They are trying to find
out where the hostility is coming from and whether it can be neutralized and reduced.
Source
A confirmed the independent reports that UN diplomats were being threatened not
to reveal to the public anything about the secret UN meetings discussing extraterrestrial
life. Source A got his confirmation from unauthorized sources that he pointed
out were more accurate than authorized sources. Unauthorized sources involved
covert intelligence operations, and that Source A's counterparts from the British
M.O.D. were involved.
The covert Navy group behind the UN disclosures is
trying to track down the source of the threats to the UN diplomats. So far these
have been traced to international corporations.
The Role of International
Corporations
I asked Source A if he was familiar with the Admiral
Wilson incident where in 1997 in a meeting with Dr Stephen Greer and Dr Edgar
Mitchell, Wilson was given codes to classified extraterrestrial related projects
. Dr Mitchell recently commented
in an interview about the incident substantially confirming what Greer had
earlier disclosed.
I pointed out that Admiral Wilson was apparently denied
access by the attorneys of a corporation. Source A said that many defense
projects are subcontracted out to corporations. While DARPA may have started as
the lead agency, they then subcontracted out to US and international contractors,
e.g., SAIC, Lockheed, BAE, Airbus, EADS, etc. He pointed out that Corporations
are much better at keeping secrets than the military. Small companies often chosen
to do black projects, e.g., 300 employees. They can more easily enforce discipline
to keep the projects secret. The US Defense Industry is filled with projects given
to corporations. From our discussion, it was clear that there was much concern
over the prominent role played by corporations in controlling information and
access to extraterrestrial related projects.
Conclusion
There
has been partial confirmation for the original meeting on February 12 from a number
of independent sources. Due to the anonymous nature of these independent sources,
there still has not been any significant media interest in the meetings conducted
at the UN on February 12. Only the UFO/exopolitics community has shown any sustained
interest in Source A's disclosures and have attempted to verify these. Most of
these efforts have occurred in association with members of the Open
Minds Forum that has devoted considerable time and energy in investigating
various aspects of Source A's disclosures. The continued meetings in Upstate NY
and Europe revealed by Source A require independent confirmation. Further investigation
is required to confirm the meetings themselves, as well as their content and nations
involved.
My impression of Source A is that he is sincere in his disclosures
and genuinely involved in an effort by a covert group comprising senior US Navy
officers to disclose information concerning extraterrestrial life. His willingness
to have independent confirmation of his credentials and to be interviewed by different
researchers does give confidence in his disclosures. While this is no guarantee
that his disclosures are accurate, it does help inspire confidence that he is
part of overall disclosure process sanctioned by senior Navy officials involved
in covert operations.
There appears to be genuine concern over the way in
which covert projects involving extraterrestrial related information is being
run and the role played by corporations in controlling this. The extent to which
the US Navy and other military forces have been sidelined in the internationalization
and corporatization of extraterrestrial related projects is a major cause for
concern. This is especially important insofar as threats to the diplomatic community
to remain silent about the UN UFO/ET meetings have been traced to corporations.
It does appear that an important convergence of interests has led to senior
US Navy officials in covert operations embarking on a controlled leak of information
to the UFO/exopolitics community. This is a promising development given the nature
of the privatized control system that has emerged to manage extraterrestrial related
information. The lack of oversight and transparency of such a control system is
not only a major cause of concern for the general public, but also for senior
military officials who take seriously their oath to uphold and protect the US
Constitution.
[Note: I wish to thank Clay and Shawn Pickering and Source
A for their help in clarifying issues raised in this paper. For those wishing
to ask questions or discuss the above issues, please visit the Open Mind Forum,
click
here]
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.
» 8 Comments
8"UN" at Sunday, 08 March 2009 22:25by Jessica England
So do we know who was meant to be representing the UK at these meetings? Were there any lists of those present released?
7"Current Timeline #2" at Tuesday, 17 February 2009 21:56by davID
25/02/2008 ROBERT MORNINGSTAR and VINCE WHITE publish a response to criticisms of the case and other details concerning the 18/02/2008 meeting with SOURCE A. In it he states that SOURCE A chaired the meeting.
25/02/2008 JEAN-JACQUES YVARS publishes an account of the meeting from GILLES LORANT
02/03/2008 MICHEL RIBARDIERE replies to an email from GIULIANO MARINKOVIC in which he states that GILLES LORANT informed him that DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KHAN was represented at the meeting, and that the follow-on meetings were prompted by the request of THREE UNKNOWN US SENATORS.
04/03/2008 “NEMO492” conducts an interview with GILLES LORANT, where he identifies JOHN SAWERS, CELESTINO MIGLIORE, SRGJAM KERIM as being present at the meeting. LORANT identifies KERIM as the meeting chair.
05/03/2008 ROBERT MORNINGSTAR replies to an email from ED KOMAREK, and asserts that the meeting 12/02/2008 was chaired by the UNITED STATES -
6"Current Timeline #1" at Tuesday, 17 February 2009 21:55by davID
START:
11/02/2008 SHAWN PICKERING, CLAY PICKERING meet with SOURCE A. SOURCE A discloses the forthcoming meeting of 12/02/2008 at the UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK
12/02/2008 SHAWN PICKERING, CLAY PICKERING send a message to MICHAEL SALLA concerning the meeting with SOURCE A.
13/02/2008 MICHAEL SALLA publishes an account of the meeting on 12/02/2008 based on the message received 12/02/2008
13/02/2008 GILLES LORANT is invited to attend as a listener to a follow-on meeting at the UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK
14/02/2008 GILLES LORANT attends a subsequent day at the follow-on meeting.
14/02/2008 DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KHAN is photographed in Beijing China, by China Daily, on an IMF visit
18/02/2008 SHAWN PICKERING, CLAY PICKERING, and ROBERT MORNINGSTAR meet with SOURCE A. SOURCE A discloses the outcomes of the meeting of 12/02/2008.
20/02/2008 SHAWN PICKERING, CLAY PICKERING send a message to MICHAEL SALLA concerning the results of the 18/02/2008 meeting with SOURCE A.
5"enjoyed this" at Monday, 01 December 2008 17:52by Janet from London
Really good article if indeed this is true.... ?? It would not surprise me if this sort of thing is high on government agendas world wide.
I'm going to listen to the audio this evening. Will post any comments i have.
Thanks for a great and informative website in the days when the internet is a glorified shopping mall.
Janet, London [Finsbury Pk]
4Comment at Friday, 24 October 2008 12:31by davID
George
You need to split anything longer than 800 words [which is less then you have there i think] into another form. If you have a letter for Michael Salla - email it me and I will forward it. Or you can email him yourself. This is not his site - he is behind Exopolitics.org
cheers, davID, UK
3"UN meetings" at Thursday, 23 October 2008 00:20by George LoBuono
Open letter to Michael Salla re latest on UN meetings:
Dear Michael,
Like you I find the UN meeting reports and Source A's account interesting. Although you find that the reports still need independent confirmation, if we look at the reports from an If-then perspective we see some patterns consistent with earlier, unrelated reports.
For example, the Navy's leading role in sorting out information for the public is something we've seen previously. I wonder whether a distinction is made within the Navy between Navy intel and the higher admiralty. The use of middle-rank officers is a good way to pose a measure of deniability.
The hostility of Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic countries to disclosure would be expected. Disclosure would remove a layer of elite management of religious phenomena that puts off public perception of Saud family fraud. In some other Islamic nations, disclosure would stimulate independent critical thinking, on the one hand, while also posing the
2"Jessica England" at Friday, 20 February 2009 03:21by Jessica England
Really interesting given that I missed this first time around.
I need to do a bit of bacground research as I've found some of this hard to keep up with but either way I am looking forward to any further comments on this important issue.
1"Misc" at Wednesday, 15 October 2008 21:16by Mark@Nexus
I'd be interested to know just which countries got the invite to this meeting. For instance India is a nuclear power - I don't know if it is also a G8 member but were all UN represented nations there ?? If so it would be huge - otherwise they may have just had the usual, dominant players.
Anyone know pls post a list.
Cheers, Mark
» Post Comment Exopolitics UK site guests need to enter the anti-spam code.