Dr MICHAEL SALLA – THE HOME OF EXOPOLITICS:
http://www.exopolitics.org/
http://www.exopoliticsjournal
http://www.earthtransformation
http://exopolitics.blogs.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Exopolitics <[email protected]>
To: Victor Martinez <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Clearing Misperceptions about the UN UFO Meeting
Hello
Victor, there's a few general points I'd like to make about thesources
for the UN UFO meeting before responding to some of thespecific claims
made by Ted Roe over my coverage of this issue in his rebuttal sent to
your list.
First, my February 13 articleannouncing the UN UFO meeting was based
entirely on the statement of ananonymous source in the diplomatic
community who has been known to me for approximately 18 months,and who
has met with two colleagues who I have known approximately fiveyears.
Sean and Clay Pickering in the five years I have known themhave always
directed accurate information on UFO/ET issues to me, andhave acted in
a way that suggests to me that they are reliable investigators whose
information can be trusted.
When they told me about their meeting with their military source
about18 months ago, they described his access to classified UFO
informationand his work in that area. In particular, they mentioned a
1982 versionof the Special Operations Manual (SOM1-01) that he gave
them and which they provided to Dr Robert Woodsfor analysis. A
preliminary investigation by Dr Woods found that it wasan original
typed copy of the same document that had publicly emerged in 1994,
together with an affidavitthat it was sighted in 1982. So the SOM1-01
possessed by Source A and passed on to the Pickerings and Dr Woods for
analysis, predates the 35 mm film version reproduced on the Majestic
Documents website by over a decade.
This particular piece of background information helps show that Source
A has had access to documents dealing with UFO/extraterrestrial issues.
This helps corroborate that Source A is whohe claims to be which is
someone on active military service who wasauthorized to leak
information concerning a secret meeting on Feb 12 atthe UN which
discussed UFO's and extraterrestrial life. Another UFOresearcher,
Robert Morningstar has since met with and has been able toverify Source
A's identity, and also released more information aboutSource A's
present assignment as a military liaison to the State Department.
There is more pertinent information about Source A's authority to
release information to the public. In the Feb 13 document, reference
was made to an admiral who is Source A's superior who authorized the
leak. Source A claims that the admiral is associated with a
confidential UFO Working Group that has decided to begin leaking
information to the UFO community. The UFO Working Group appears to be
similar to that described by Howard Blum in Out There with the
exception that senior U.S. Navy personnel are present. While
confirmation of all this is desirable, that poses significant
challenges given issues of confidentiality. Nevertheless the public
emergence of Source A is a very promising development and should not be
simply dismissed as hearsay since we have a serving military officer
who has agreed to meet with researchers to show his bona fides, and is
acting under orders to release information. This gives more background
about Source A, his reliability
as a witness, and the authority under which he is operating.
Later, another anonymous source appeared in France who
eventuallyrevealed himself to be Gilles Lorant, whose credibility was
supported by anumber of prominent French researchers, including Michel
Ribardiere, President of FEA. andGildas Bourdais. In addition, a
prominent French radio Journalist, Didier de Plaige was the first to
release information concerning Lorant on his blogsite, and sent me
details of Lorant's background which was supported by others familiar
with Lorant. Lorant revealed more specific information includingthe
names of some public officials attending the meetings. The subsequent
furor over hisprofessional background has brought into question the
accuracy of his information, and those who previously supported his
credibility have now withdrawn their support.
The controversy over Lorant's testimony, however, does not in any way
impact on the original Source A whosecredentials have been witnessed by
three individuals who have publiclyvouched for his credibility as a
serving member of the US militarycurrently assigned to the State
Department. That on its own is significant news and was the focus of my
initial reports on the Feb 12 UN UFO meeting.
That takes me to a number of misrepresentations in Ted Roe's statement
below which distract readers from the significance of the information
that has been released so far.
First Roe states,
I have no problem with my stated opinion regarding the way
this hearsay story is playing out in the public domain and the failure
of Salla to verify his sources before publishing it. I am certain that
I am not the only one who has a less than supportive opinion of Mr.
Salla's behavior and judgement in this matter.
The fact is that the original Source A was indeed verified by two
colleagues, Clay and Shawn Pickering over a two year period. They have
never known Source A to state inaccuracies before and had full
confidence in what he revealed to them. I in turn have confidence in
the Pickering brothers who had indeed verified Source A, and told me
about him over an 18 month period. So Roe's statement with regard to
verification of my primary source for the Feb 12 meeting, Source A, is
factually incorrect. Roe has made a statement this is very misleading
and underestimates the extent to which Source A had been previously
vetted.
Next Roe states:
I do think that Mr. Salla's behavior with respect to forcing
himself into a private conversation to accuse me of "character
assassination" was inappropriate and hardly demonstrates his conflict
resolution skills.
Roe again misrepresents what happened in the so called private
conversation. I was forwarded an email where Roe was making gratuitious
personal statements against me and my wife's activities based on my Feb
13 article where I had announced Source A's claims regarding the Feb 12
meeting. I found Roe's comments offensive and grossly misrepresenting
my activities so I responded to recipients of his comments. I did not
force my way into a confidential discussion, I merely replied to an
email I had been forwarded concerning personal comments directed
against me to all that received his comments. I find it very odd that
Roe is more concerned about the assumed confidentiality of his
communications, than in correcting any misrepresentations on his part.
This is a personal character flaw he has shown no desire to correct, as
evidenced by him conspicuously using incorrect titles when that has
been pointed out to him. I have posted a copy of Roe's comments and my
response on the Open Minds Forum for the reader to judge for
him/herself the appropriateness of my response and Roe's comments. The
copy is available here:
http://lucianarchy.proboards21
Roe also says:
"Mr. Salla made claims regarding the meeting and its various topics in
his first missive on the topic and now the story changes to something
different. I didn't write the article claiming that there would be an
overt alien presence. He did."
Roe is mixing my reporting role and Source A's testimony. Source A
claimed there would be an unambiguous showing of extraterrestrials by
2017, that was not my claim, but his. Surely, it's not too hard to
understand that Source A's claims are the focus of my articles on the
UN UFO meeting, not what I have to say since I was not there.
Furthermore, Roe claims that my story is changing. That is stretching
what has in fact occurred. I originally reported on claims that a
meeting had occurred on Feb 12 that discussed extraterrestrial life and
disclosure according to Source A. Subsequent articles were based on
Lorant's emergence and his information about meetings he claimed
occurred on Feb 13 and 14. He described the content of the meetings as
differing substantially from Source A which I pointed out. Details
concerning the contents of the Feb 13 and 14 meetings have subsequently
been cast into doubt over Lorant's credentials controversy. However,
what has not changed is that one or more meetings occurred on Feb 12,
though the contents of what was discussed is still to be confirmed.
Adding the dates of Feb 13 and 14, to the original Feb 12 date hardly
constitutes changing my story to something different. The story has
evolved with more information, from Lorant, that now has to be
reconsidered.
Ted Roe and others are entitled to their opinions on the UN UFO story
and to dismiss it as hearsay if they wish. However, there is no
justification to misrepresent what has been said, trying to insert me
into the picture as though these are my claims as opposed to me
attempting to faithfully report on what Source A or Lorant have said,
or in failing to correct misrepresentations after these have been
identified.
Misrepresenting facts and sources only obfuscate the core issues that
have emerged over the UN UFO meetings issue. While there is much
controversy over Lorant's testimony, and verifying Source A's claims
remains a challenge, I am confident that further investigations will
help substantiate some or all of what has been claimed so far.
Nevertheless, the UN UFO story is not solely based on the public
testimony of Lorant whose corroborating testimony to what Source A had
revealed was initially welcomed by me and others, but has now proved to
muddy the waters for reasons that are still not clear. I welcome
substantive criticism but will point out any misrepresentations by
those whose desire to dismiss the UN UFO meetings on the basis of what
they consider insufficient or hearsay evidence is premature based on
independent verification of one primary source to the meetings.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D.
www.exopolitics.org
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!"
Margaret Mead
----- Original Message ----
From: Victor Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:57:29 PM
Subject: TED ROE's rubuttal to Dr MICHAEL SALLA on the UN-UFO Non Meeting!
NATIONAL AVIATION REPORTING CENTER ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA [NARCAP], TED
ROE's
http://www.narcap.org/
http://www.narcap.org/newspage
-----Inline Message Follows-----
Hi Victor,
Feel free to share this...
I have no problem with my stated opinion regarding the way this hearsay story
is playing out in the public domain and the failure of Salla to verify his sources
before publishing it. I am certain that I am not the only one who has a less than
supportive opinion of Mr. Salla's behavior and judgement in this matter.
As
for NARCAP, as I said before, we have no opinion regarding aliens,
space ships, secret UN meetings, etc. The only concerns we have involve
the effects that making
unfounded claims can have on the rest of those who work diligently to bring credibility
to the study. The negative effects that this sort of thing has on the credibility of us who are
diligently working to devolop foundational evidence is precisely the reason that NARCAP has
generally avoided associating with all but the most focused and conservative programs.
I am not the least bit concerned with the NARCAP executive body. Mr. Salla shouldn't
concern
himself, either. Dr. Haines and I founded this organization and have
set very high standards. We have documents published on US Gov websites
and have participated in US Gov activities related to our work. We have
enjoyed those successes because we take our credibility seriously.
I do think that Mr. Salla's behavior with respect to forcing himself into a private
conversation to accuse me of "character assassination" was inappropriate and
hardly demonstrates his conflict resolution skills. I can state my opinion in any
forum I choose and if it is in a private forum then my opinion is none of Mr. Salla's
business. Perhaps if Mr. Salla had chosen to mind his own
business I may not have bothered to forward any information regarding the meeting that I learned
to this list.
The matter of resolving this story after the fact does nothing for Mr. Salla's credibility.
I do not know if the event occured which is precisely the problem posed by
Mr. Salla. He has publicly anounced that this meeting occured and then has gone
about trying to verify it. Meanwhile the message that it actually did occur continues
regardless of the truth of it. Does anybody here remember SERPO? That story had a
similar pattern.
The UN denies that the meetings took place. Gilles Lorant has a serious credibility issue
after falsely claiming to be a member of IHEDN and being forced to resign from FEA. The
rest of Mr. Salla's witnesses are "secret".
Mr.
Salla made claims regarding the meeting and its various topics in his first missive on the
topic and now the story changes to something different. I didn't write the article claiming that
there would be an overt alien presence. He did.
I would like to think that Mr. Salla will be correct in all of his claims regarding the
UN matter and I hope that he is vindicated. He seems to be more than certain that
there are aliens and that they are visiting Earth and while he offers no proof that is
actually occuring, he feels satisfied to offer $2600 Exopolotics Diplomas, $875 Galactic
Diplomacy Certificates, etc. He is also comfortable in claiming that swimming with dolphins
is indispensible to learning to communicate with "Star Beings"....
http://www.exopoliticsinstitut
Mr. Salla is making the claims, and its his credibility in question rather than mine.
Ted Roe
Dr MICHAEL SALLA responds to the detractors of the UN-UFO Non Meeting!
From Victor Martinez
et al. about the heated controversy swirling around the alleged UN-UFO
meeting ... did it or did it not really occur? Dr SALLA weighs in and
answers those critics! –
Dr MICHAEL SALLA – THE HOME OF EXOPOLITICS:
http://www.exopolitics.org/
http://www.exopoliticsjournal
http://www.earthtransformation
http://exopolitics.blogs.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group
------------------------------
http://lucianarchy.proboards21
JOIN THE ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE UN-UFO MEETING AT "The Open Minds
Forum" and weigh in with YOUR opinion!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Exopolitics <[email protected]>
To: Victor Martinez <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: OPEN Letter to the UFO Community on the Alleged UFO-UN NON "Meeting!"
Mahalo, Michael Salla
From: Exopolitics <[email protected]>
To: Victor Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:41:18 AM
Subject: Re: OPEN Letter to the UFO Community on the Alleged UFO-UN NON "Meeting!"
Ted Roe has in the past grossly misrepresented what I have said, and what follows is no exception of his sloppiness when it comes to critiquing the work of others. Firstly he claims:
Roe's statement that the story has morphed from my "original claim that a disclosure is imminent" is incorrect on two counts. First, my original February 13 article never referred to UFO/extraterrestrial disclosure as imminent in any way. The reader may confirm that here: http://www.ufodigest.com/news
Second, it is clear from my initial and subsequent communications on the secret UN UFO meetings that these are not my claims. Instead, I began by relaying information from an anonymous 'Source A' who is currently working at the State Department and claims to have attended a Feb 12 meeting concerning UFOs/extraterrestrial life. The individual is currently assigned to the State Department as a military liaison, and his military credentials have been independently verified by Robert Morningstar. That means three individuals, Clay and Shawn Pickering and Robert Morningstar can vouch for Source A's credentials whom they have personally met, and whose credentials they personally checked. So we have a military liaison currently assigned to the State Department disclosing sensitive information about a Feb 12 UN meeting that he attended. That is significant news, especially since a second source in the form of Gilles Lorant has also come forward to confirm that such meetings took place, and attended some of them on Feb 13 and 14. Roe's effort to depict this unfolding UN UFO story as emanating from my "original claims" is factually incorrect.
Finally, if Roe aspires to write using accepted scholarly standards, then the convention is that if one uses titles in an article, then be consistent, don't refer to Dr Vallee, Msr Gilles Lorant and Salla in the same sentence. I have a Ph.D. in government which you and others can confirm here (http://exopolitics.org/Salla
Given that verifiable professional qualifications are discussed at length in regard to the sources, Roe's exclusion of titles illustrating professional qualifications when it suits his argument is disengenous and unprofessional. It's very bad form for an executive officer of an organization, NARCAP, that purports to provide objective information on the UFO issue, to be signing off on an Open Letter that convey his personal opinions, and not clearly indicating that these are his opinions only, and not that of the organization he represents. Has the President of NARCAP and its Board of Directors been made aware that its executive officer is grossly mispresenting my own research on the UN UFO issue, and attaching the status of their organization to such misrepresentations which have nothing to do with NARCAP's primary mission?
With regard to Jacques Vallee, I do appreciate his reference to a possible 'meme war'. As a social scientist, I am open to exploring all possible explanations to the information that has been released. However, I would not be presumptive enough at this stage to conclude that a 'meme war' exists. I am certainly wary of Source A's tendency to make unverifiable contentious statements together with what appears to be genuine information, i.e., high level meetings at the UN on UFO's. I have referred to this in my second article on these issues: http://www.ufodigest.com/news
As for Lorant's credentials, these have been closely scrutinized after he made claims about professional associations that did not check out. Given that a number of respectable French researchers such as Michel Ribardiere and Gildas Bourdais initially vouched for Lorant's credibility, then had to retract their support after misrepresentations were identified, this casts a cloud over Lorant's credibility. However, Lorant stands by his initial claims of the UN UFO meetings having occurred and that he attended in a professional capacity.
On March 10, I received confirmation from a third source inside France's Ministry of Defense (relayed to me by a respected UFO/exopolitics researcher) that Lorant is well known as an individual who is present at high level military meetings. This source, a Colonel, states that he has seen Lorant on several occasions at such meetings while confirming that Lorant's professional credentials are murky. So while Lorant's precise professional credentials remain in a cloud, there is nevertheless further confirmation that he is an individual who does attend high level military meetings in France, and has some official status in the covert world dealing with UFO/ET issues. So this helps support his initial claims that he attended the UN meetings on UFOs in a professional capacity as an observer. Lorant was scheduled to give a radio interview to prominent French journalist Didier de Plaige where he will have the opportunity to set the record straight about the controversy over his credentials and the UN meeting.
Also, I do disagree with Dr Vallee over his reference to names released for the purpose of promoting a meme war. The naming of the the Papal Nuncio, UK Permanent Representative and UN General Assembly President as individuals who attended some or all sessions of the meetings provides an opportunity for investigators to directly ask these individuals for confirmation or denial of their attendance. So far, no public statements have emerged from these individuals so further investigations and confirmation is needed to confirm or refute the claims made by Source A and Gilles Lorant.
While some may be tempted to jump to the conclusion reached by Dr Vallee that the UN UFO meeting is part of a 'meme war' against the UFO research community, I consider it very premature to conclude this. Another viewpoint is that Source A and Lorant have been given authority to leak genuine information but there are certain constraints under which they have to operate which enable the creation of plausible deniability over their claims.
In conclusion, leads are still being investigated, primary sources are still explaining events and backgrounds, and further independent sources are coming forward to confirm aspects of what has been revealed so far. So the issue of UFO meetings taking place at the UN over February 12-14 is by no means resolved and further investigations are required.
Aloha
Michael Salla, Ph.D.
www.exopolitics.org
Dear Ted:My friends in France can find no trace of Lorant at CNRS. Henow claims he was an "auditor" at IHEDN but is now beyondthe age limit.You'll notice that the story speaks of "the Secret UN Meeting"even though it appears to have been a routine mid-levelgathering (non-secret) to prepare an administrative conference.The manipulation is becoming obvious. My advice is to stayaway from it.It seems to me this story is falling apart but the structure isvery interesting -- along the lines of a psywar rumor processor what is known around the Internet as a "meme war":1. You make up a really intriguing story that seems verylegitimate by including respected names: UN, FrenchAmbassador, DSK etc. and precise dates.2. You leave it full of holes so that people will come up withquestions, thus revealing who is interested and why.3. You imply great secrecy, thus dangling new bits ofmystery.4. You slowly retract the story (since a lot of it was made upin the first place out of pure imagination) but you point toa legitimate-looking person (Lorant) who was there.5. The legitimate-looking person (whose credentials don'tcheck out) "reveals" more details but does not confirmthe earlier story, thus gaining additional credibility and"dangling" new information.6. Legitimate journalists reinforce the apparent story bytrying to follow this new trail.7. You throw in new intriguing names like Ted Kennedy andJohn McCain through new anonymous sources "who could bein danger if they revealed their names..." thus seducingmore recognizable researchers into revealing their interest...8. You use the Internet to circulate the whole mess to anincreasing circle of people, hoping to create a mass effect.9. At that point, any official denial of the story (or part of it)sounds like a cover-up or skeptical reaction, enabling you toclaim that you are the victim of disinformation, etc. etc.All very clever.Feel free to circulate my analysis. I'd like to knowwhat other people think of this.Jacques Vallee
Ted:Oddly enough, some of the arguments of the alleged UN reportare similar (although exaggerated) to the testimony I presentedquite officially before the political committee of the UN in 1978,along with Dr. Hynek, Claude Poher, Gordon Cooper, StantonFriedman and a few others in attendance. The meeting was non-secret(it was in fact open to the public and press) and widely reprinted.Therefore I don't even grasp what Messrs. Salla, Lorant etc. areclaiming in terms of new information, or why there would be sucha pretense of great urgency and secrecy.Last minute information: Gilles Lorant has been forced to resignfrom the FEA in France and has confessed that he was not and had neverbeen associated with the IHEDN, which told him in no uncertain termshe would be brought into Court (such false claims and misrepresentationexpose you to 100,000 euro fines, plus time in jail in France) unlesshe made it clear he had no such status.So the whole thing has collapsed.Jacques ValleeVictor Martinez <[email protected]> wrote:
http://lucianarchy.proboards21
.com/index.cgi?board=futuretalk &action=display&thread=12030119 53 ET Disclosure 2008: UN-UFO Secret Meetings ... Has the UFO community
been sucker punched on this one?! JOIN THE HEATED, LIVELY, ONGOING
DISCUSSION AT "The Open Minds Forum" and weigh in with YOUR opinion!Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: ted roe <[email protected]>
Subject: UN Denies meetings took place
To: [email protected]Victor,I recieved this email this Am and it is clear that the UNdoes not acknowledge that this meeting took place.Ted RoeFrom: inquiries2 <[email protected]>Date: Mon 10 Mar 2008 17:11:57 GMT+01:00<font style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size-adjust: no
Comments