For the benefit of those that couldn’t tune in to Friday night’s interview with Kevin Smith, I’m happy to go over some of the most pertinent points as they relate to the ongoing investigation.
We spoke at length at length about Source A the original source for the UN UFO story (February 13), and also Gilles Lorant whose testimony was made public on Feb 25.
There was some discussion over the significance of the claimed meetings not appearing on the UN docket for the dates in question. Kevin has had some of his own experiences with the UN and understands quite well how meetings can be conducted on or off the official record. So the absence of the meetings on the docket did not rule out that the meetings could have occurred.
We spent a little time discussing Gilles Lorant and the controversy over his credentials. It’s still not clear if the controversy arose over misrepresentations he had made, or misrepresentations by others that he didn’t correct. Nevertheless, legal threats were directed against him which led to him retracting all public association with the French organization in question, the IHEDN.
This led to his resignation from the F.E.A. and its President, Michel Ribardiere, stating that Lorant’s version of events might be a fiction. Unfortunately, Lorant has not gone ahead with a radio interview so we have yet to hear his perspective on the controversy, and what it means for his testimony.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Lorant has not retracted his testimony of what happened at meetings he claimed to have attended on Feb 13 and 14, so his testimony cannot be dismissed despite the credentials controversy. Kevin Smith agreed that controversy over one’s professional qualifications does not disqualify the validity over one’s testimony since misrepresentations can easily arise when third parties are involved.
I wish to point out that I have another source within the French Ministry of Defense (Source B in my Feb 20 article), who has confirmed seeing Lorant at high level military meetings. However, he claims that Lorant’s credentials are a mystery. That helps clarify that while there is some controversy over Lorant’s credentials, that he does have the kind of background that makes it possible for him to have attended the UN meetings in some capacity. I am working with another researcher to get more information about Source B and what he is willing to confirm in an interview.
I also want to comment on the response received from the PA (personal assistant) of Sir John Sawers that stated unequivocally that he did not attend any UFO meeting. It was never claimed by Lorant that these were UFO meetings. These were meetings that discussed UFO’s in addition to a number of other topics. So Sawers could quite accurately refute having attended any UFO meeting. So while the PA’s response appears to be in conflict with Lorant’s testimony, it’s important to keep in mind that she is dismissing a UFO meeting, not necessarily a meeting that discussed UFOs.
As for Source A, I discussed with Kevin Smith how Source A is a serving member of the U.S. military who was authorized to leak sensitive information concerning his current posting and duties.
We discussed how disclosure of his identity would predictably lead to his dismissal hence the need to maintain confidentiality. Nevertheless, Source A is still willing to show his bona fides to researchers as he has done so far with the Pickerings and Robert Morningstar. Focusing on his credibility as a reliable source of information will be important and there are developments in this area to do this.
Importantly, Source A is still releasing information and helping clarify what has been released so far. While he hasn’t given more specific information about the meetings themselves that is confirmable, he has divulged more background information. I do wish to point out that Source A has clarified that he is associated with an interagency Working Group that comprises senior Navy officials. However, it is not a Navy Working Groupnor is it correct that Admiral Fallon is associated with it in any way, nor that several Navy admirals are serving on it. Those were mistaken inferences from the material that has been released so far.
In the interview, I mentioned a phone conversation I had with Dick Crisswell where we spoke about another independent source, a retired Navy Commander, who had his own confirmation that the UN meeting occurred. In our earlier phone conversation, Dick mentioned that he had known the Commander since 1991/92 and he has always proven to be reliable and therefore has very high confidence in his confirmation.
I have asked Dick Criswell to connect me with his Commander so I can get more details about how he got the information himself, allegedly from a serving member of the U.S. military. Confidentiality has been requested but I’m interested in determining who the Navy Commander’s source is and any possible relationship with Source A.
As to where this UN UFO meeting stands at the moment, there are a few promising leads, helping determine the credibility of Source A through more interviews with independent researchers; Lorant may emerge to clarify his background and respond to criticisms; Source B may be able to give an interview where he elaborates on witnessing Lorant at high level military meetings; and the possibility that Dick Criswell’s sources may provide either documents or more details about the UN meetings.
I suspect that these leaks (Source A and Lorant) were authorized by an interagency working group in the US, and the French Ministry of Defense to start a process whereby public reaction would be gauged. My view is that there will be more forthcoming disclosures and partial confirmation of the meetings which I believe did go ahead though the content is not clear.
I appreciate the efforts of those on the Open Minds Forum who continue to investigate this issue, and hope to share more information as it becomes available to me.