I received a further communication from Clay and Shawn Pickering (reproduced far below) regarding their effort to clarify what has transpired so far concerning the secret meetings held from February 12-14, 2008 at the United Nations New York headquarters. Their clarification emerged from more recent discussions with their source, currently a member of the diplomatic corps with a background in the US military (Source A) who initially disclosed the secret meeting(s).
Their comments offer a useful summary of what Source A has revealed so far, and the importance of his testimony. Given that a second source, Gilles Lorant, has publicly emerged with testimony of what happened at the UN UFO meetings, there is now a way to compare the two testimonies.
We can now identify similarities and inconsistencies between the two testimonies to determine the credibility of the sources, and what actually occurred at the meetings.
To begin, it’s important to note that while Source A has revealed his professional credentials to Clay and Shawn Pickering, and to Robert Morningstar, Source A has chosen to remain anonymous. This makes it difficult for public verification of his background and reliability. In contrast, Gilles Lorant, after initially releasing information anonymously, came forward to publicly reveal himself.
Lorant’s public emergence made it easier to confirm his credibility as a primary witness to the UN meeting. His professional background as an auditor associated with the Federation European AIRPLANE (FEA) supported the reliability of his testimony. A number of prominent French researchers also came forward to support Lorant’s credibility and/or professional background.
These included Michel Ribardiere (read below insert), President of the FEA, and Gildas Bourdais who is a highly regarded French UFO researcher.
Both Ribardiere and Bourdais regarded Lorant as a credible witness.
After intense scrutiny in France over Lorant’s credentials, controversy erupted over his claimed professional association with a prestigious French scientific organization, the Institute of National Higher Defense Studies(IHEDN).
This led to the FEA requesting his resignation which Lorant submitted on March 6 (read below insert).
The subsequent controversy over him inaccurately reporting his association with IHEDN, does raise a question mark over the reliability of his testimony. It may simply be Lorant overstated his professional association with IHEDN and that this does not unduly impact on what he claims to have experienced at the UN on February 13 and 14.
The F.E.A asks for M. GILLES LORANT’s resignation
In consideration of the external pressures made on M. Gilles Lorant, he gave us a denial concerning his participation to the IHEDN as an auditor. Remind that this information had pushed the F.E.A to introduce M. Gilles Lorant as an auditor of the IHEDN in a public statement.
Considering the embarrassing position that this denial imposes to the F.E.A, its board of directors has decided to request his immediate resignation to M. Gilles Lorant. M. Gilles Lorant complied yesterday March 6th, 2008, before the board directors and is no longer a member of the F.E.A.
Concerning the very sensible informations about his travel at the U.N in February 2008, which were released by M. Gilles Lorant, the F.E.A no longer can supports nor confirms M. Gilles Lorant’s allegations.
However, the article will remain online as documentary and must now be considered, as an element of a fiction scenario in which U.N. took into consideration the official release disclosed to the public at large on the subject of UFOs.
Considering the maneuvers which are at the start of the infiltration of many foreign ufological research associations, by unscrupulous individuals, having sometimes worked for sabotage operations, the F.E.A reserves the possibility to bring this whole affair before the justice.
Source : F.E.A (Service communication)
Lorant’s public emergence and previous endorsements by independent experts gives some confidence in his reliability as a witness. Controversy over the precise nature of his professional associations, however, makes is unclear whether his testimony can be concluded to be any more reliable than Source A who remains anonymous.
It is important to note that Source A claims to only have attended a meeting on February 12, and did not refer to or claim to have attended any follow up meetings. In contrast, Gilles Lorant claims to have attended follow up meetings on February 13 and 14, but not that on February 12. So there may be some genuine differences between what these two sources encountered at the successive meetings in terms of confidentiality, security and attendees.
It is appropriate to first discuss the commonalities between the two sources which will help confirm what transpired, and the significance of the information released.
Both sources refer to a secret UN meeting that occurred on the morning of February 12. They also refer to the increase in UFO sightings as an important issue discussed at the meetings as well as the disruptive potential of sightings for national economies and liberal democratic systems. Also both sources referred to many issues being discussed in addition to UFO’s.
Lorant’s testimony confirms some of the central claims initially made by Source A that were communicated to this author concerning a secret UN meeting that would discuss UFOs on February 12 and first released inan article on February 13. That is one of the points that is emphasized in the clarification below by Clay and Shawn Pickering which shows the initial timeline of what and when they were given information about the UN meeting, and what they relayed to me and a few other researchers.
A helpful timeline of events and testimonies concerning the UN meetings is now available. Given that I had met and been advised by Clay and Shawn on extraterrestrial related issues over a five year period starting in 2003, and had been informed of Source A’s military background and official work on the UFO issue almost two years ago, I felt that their disclosure was both reliable and very important.
Lorant’s testimony confirmed the reliability of following pieces of information disclosed by Source A.
- First, that at a secret meeting discussing UFO’s took place on February 12 at UN headquarters.
- Second, that the current wave of UFO sightings were a major topic of discussion at the meetings.
- Third, that the stability of democratic nations as a consequence of increased UFO sightings was discussed.
- Finally, that a range of issues were discussed in addition to the UFO issue.
Overall, Lorant’s independent testimony supports my initial assessment over the importance of the Pickering brother’s Source A who initially disclosed the meeting had taken place and that there was a need to inform the public of what transpired. For first disclosing to the general public the existence of the UN meeting, the Pickering brothers and Source A deserve public acknowledgement.
This takes me now to differences in the testimonies between the two sources.
Some suggest that different sets of meetings occurred whose security classification, content and personnel contrasted significantly. Other differences point to some serious limitations in the reliability of Source A. These limitations point to a possible agenda to first advise the public about the meetings themselves, but to then obfuscate issues.
One clear difference is the nature of the security at the respective meetings. With regard to the February 12 meeting, Source A claimed that “security around the meeting was intense“, while Lorant described the security at the February 13 and 14 meetings as less than what is experienced at airports.
While neither of the two sources claim to have attended the same meetings, it is possible for such a security difference to occur. It may be that the first meeting, for example, involved more senior UN officials being given a higher security level briefing. This could have been relayed to the meetings on February 13 and 14 in a diluted form during the one and half hour period described by Lorant.
This latter scenario is supported by the most recent public statement by Lorant that other meetings were occurring behind chained doors and guards.
Another difference is that Gilles Lorant’s information basically refers to UFO sightings, and obliquely refers to extraterrestrial life as a reality implicitly understood by attendees. The only date he gives is 2009 as the year when an official policy of “openness” may begin providing two conditions are met: political/financial stability and UFO sightings continue.
In contrast, Source A refers to extraterrestrial life as a central feature of the discussion on February 12, and that a timetable exists for extraterrestrials “unambiguously” showing themselves (2013/2017). It is possible that the February 12 discussed issues concerning official disclosure of extraterrestrial life as stated by Source A, while the February 13 and 14 meetings discussed UFO’s as a phenomenon that would be taken more seriously by national governments. If so, this may help explain the major difference in how Source A and Lorant described security at the meetings they attended.
A more significant difference is the specific goal of the two sets of meetings.
According to the clarification relayed by the Pickering brothers, Source A refers to:
… a logistical “window of opportunity” to end over 60 years of denial during this “lame duck” period (of the Bush Administration) and before the next administration takes office; this helps to facilitate disclosure at this time in order to put overt contact at the forefront of future plans.
This is inconsistent with Lorant’s testimony where he describes a governmental policy of “openness” that will occur in 2009.
This new policy would take place after the Presidential election, thereby making the so called lame duck period moot. Furthermore, the new “openness” policy signals an abandonment of the 50 year old official debunking policy existing since the 1953 Robertson Panel, and signals an official approach to the UFO issue that more seriously considers the available data. This contrasts with “disclosure” which suggests release of classified information dealing with the reality of extraterrestrial life or technology.
In essence, Lorant describes a meeting where agreement was reached whereby a policy of openness would begin in 2009. This would initiate a process that facilitates disclosure at a later date. Source A suggests that disclosure could occur in this “window of opportunity” during the waning months of the Bush administration.
If two sets of meetings were held, it is unlikely that they would differ so markedly on such fundamental issues concerning the goals of ‘openness’ and ‘disclosure’ regarding UFOs/extraterrestrial life. Based on Lorant’s greater reliability as a witness, his version of events appear more credible than Source A. This raises concern over the extent to which Source A is spinning information in a way that obfuscates core issues.
The most significant difference that points to a credibility gap between the two sources is the nature of the information concerning what was discussed at the meetings. Lorant mentions specific information that can be confirmed. For example he discusses a Report prepared by the U.S. Air Force and a branch of the National Guard, and a role played by three U.S. Senators at the meeting.
He also publicly identified that the meetings he attended, were chaired by Srgjan Kerim, the President of the UN General Assembly. Lorant also identified the Vatican’s Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer to the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore; and Sir John Sawers, Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
Lorant’s information therefore appears verifiable which, when confirmed, will add greater credibility to his overall testimony.
In contrast Source A’s information, appears in many places to be unverifiable and indeed purposely contentious. It is almost as though Source A wants to direct attention to unverifiable claims that generate heated debate, rather than accurate descriptions of what transpired at the meetings.
For example, in an earlier article I referred to significant problems with the descriptive term used by Source A for extraterrestrials who allegedly would unambiguously show themselves some time in the future (2017). Source A used the term “The Controllers”. In the clarification below, Source A claims:
“This was just a name, which has since been changed to “Conformers.” It is just another name that our source grabbed out of the ether to describe an ET group.”
I find this statement to be highly unsatisfactory. Any classified study concerning extraterrestrial life would have precise descriptive terms for such entities, even if their appearance and behavior was not fully known. Choosing a descriptive term such as “Conformers” that is “grabbed out of the ether” appears to be very disingenuous.
I stand by my earlier view that descriptive term used for extraterrestrials by Source A had loaded psychological content. This exists no less for term “the Conformers,” than it did for the earlier term “The Controllers”. The use of such loaded psychological language arouses suspicion that Source A is choosing descriptive terms for their psychological conditioning value.
By relaying information that is unverifiable and contentious, and uses loaded psychological terminology, the obvious conclusion is that Source A’s information is attempting to obfuscate issues that were actually discussed at the meetings. Given that Source A originally claimed that he was given authorization to disclose information concerning the February 12 meeting by an Admiral, the conclusion to be drawn is that the information relayed by Source A may be an officially authorized effort to obfuscate genuine information that is simultaneously leaked to the public.
Alternatively, the obfuscation may be a protective mechanism used by Source A who may have legitimate concerns over his physical safety in participating in these authorized leaks.
In conclusion, it is important to again acknowledge that Source A initially disclosed the UN secret UFO meeting on February 12, and a number of aspects of what was discussed at the meetings have been corroborated by Lorant, who participated in follow meetings on February 13 and 14. However, the contentiousness and unverifiability of significant elements of Source A’s testimony, and his use of psychologically loaded language, leads to justifiable suspicion over his reliability and motivation.
It appears that Source A has released some genuine information about the UN meeting and issues discussed on February 12, but is purposely layering this with obfuscations that have psychological conditioning purposes. In contrast, Lorant’s testimony appears to be a plausible summation of what he witnessed at the follow up meetings on February 13 and 14.
Given Lorant’s public emergence and disclosure of specific information that can be confirmed, his testimony would appear more reliable than Source A. However, controversy over his precise professional association with the IHEDN that led to his resignation from FEA on March 6 does create some uncertainty over his credibility. The controversy may have little impact on the accuracy of his testimony concerning the UN meeting, but will discredit him among the mainstream media.
Researchers desiring to investigate the UN meetings and uncover what was discussed are therefore recommended to verify the specific claims made by Gilles Lorant while being mindful over controversy concerning his credentials, and also treading carefully with information supplied by Source A who remains anonymous.
A Statement On The U.N. UFO Meeting of February 12th, 2008
By Clay and Shawn Pickering
For clarity’s sake concerning our source’s revelation surrounding the recent secret United Nation’s UFO meeting, we want to reiterate that our source met with us on Monday evening at 8:00PM on February 11th, 2008.
This was the night before the Tuesday morning meeting, which took place at the UN on February 12th, 2008. My brother and I were informed by our source that the UN meeting was to take place at 8:00AM on February 12th.
Our source stated that the UFO issue would be addressed at this forthcoming meeting. We were told not to release this information until after the February 12 meeting had taken place. We were the only source to release information about the February 12 meeting, on the very day of the meeting. This is the closest thing to “real time” as one can get.
We released the information of the UN meeting on February 12th to three sources:
- Bob Morningstar, Editor of UFO Digest
- Dr. Michael Salla, director of Exopolitics.Com
- well-known writer, Jim Marrs
Bob Morningstar met with our source briefly on Monday, February 17th, 2008.
Since Bob lives in the New York City area, it was very convenient for all parties involved to meet. Bob met with our source again on February 25th, 2008. Shawn and I set up this meeting and also attended it. This was a 5-hour long meeting where our source showed Bob his credentials. Various topics were discussed among us. Our source had read some of Bob’s Internet writings and showed a keen interest in meeting him. Our source continues to go through both Shawn and me first, regarding any new material. This is what our source wants, based on our past relationship and the trust created.
As for objections to the use of the word “Controllers,” our source simply used this term to describe a certain group of extraterrestrials that appear to hold sway over other extraterrestrial groups.
As I’m sure you’re well aware, this name has a lot of baggage regarding psychological warfare implications. This was just a name, which has since been changed to “Conformers.” It is just another name that our source grabbed out of the ether to describe an ET group.
Frankly, our source and those associated with him, have no name to describe them. Again, this was just a name given to these extraterrestrials so that we could at least determine some sort of hierarchy related to this group and other ET’s, for example, “Greys” and “Tall Whites.”
There is definitely a movement afoot to bring the public “up to speed” consciously, regarding “unambiguous” contact between the world’s populace and extraterrestrials. The point most people are missing is that a meeting at the UN had occurred regarding the recent UFO flap worldwide.
My source and his team state that the objectives of the meeting were two-fold:
- These sightings were world wide and not restricted to any particular nation-state. Moreover, the crafts’ technology did not belong to any terrestrial source. This was to allay any fears (especially, Russia’s) that any secret US aircraft was flying over any other nation-state’s airspace.
- That our source’s team was to broach the issue that contact would be forthcoming in the year 2017! And it was noted that things would be heating up significantly by 2013.
Also, for the sake of clarity: our source did not “Chair” the meeting. Yes, our source did participate and offer an opinion as did the others who attended.
There is an old maxim that says:
“Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.”
The important thing to remember, according to our source, is that there is a logistical “window of opportunity” to end over 60 years of denial during this “lame duck” period (of the Bush Administration) and before the next administration takes office; this helps to facilitate disclosure at this time in order to put overt contact at the forefront of future plans.
We as a people on this planet are at a historic logistical juncture regarding this phenomenon. The UFO research community and our source’s people are doing, and must do, everything possible without compromising National Security to help bring this about.
I could go on with much more information. However, my brother and I think it best to let Bob Morningstar and Dr. Michael Salla continue reporting our source’s information.
Clay & Shawn Pickering
New York City
March 6th, 2008