On Monday, May 19th, 2008, Clay & Shawn Pickering of the New York City Disclosure Project and Robert D. Morningstar, Editor of UFO Digest, met for dinner with «Source A,» the Department of Defense military diplomatic liaison officer who originally leaked the story of the UN UFO Disclosure Meeting that occurred on February 12th, 2008.
This dinner meeting provided a brief opportunity to ask some questions regarding the status of the UN UFO Disclosure initiative and to bring us up to date on current events and activities being conducted and developed with this goal in mind by the United Nations working group.
According to our source (referred to as «Source A» or «(S)» below), there have been several meetings recently at the United Nations surrounding the UFO/ET contact/disclosure issue besides the February 12, 2008 meeting. Our source informed us of this fact over dinner on the same day on which the most recent meeting had occurred.
Source A informed us that he has participated in subsequent UN UFO Disclosure planning sessions on four more occasions. We were informed that one of the longest of these meetings took place on Monday, May 19, 2008 from 7:00AM to 5:00PM.
This theme of this particular meeting was centered on the media’s ridiculing of the UFO/ET phenomenon and the impediment that this presents as an obstacle to moving disclosure forward.
Our source gave us some of the details surrounding these meetings and answered some of our questions. Here are some of them. The answers come directly from Source A, referred to in text below as «(S)»:
-What was the security like for these meetings?
(S) Response: Standard closed door Level One security.
-Was the agenda to broach Contact/Disclosure again?
(S) Response: Yes.
-How many people attended the meeting[s]?
(M* note: The previous number in attendance was reported to be approximately 30)
(S) Response: same group as before.
-Was any information passed on the meetings?
(S) Response: info to be taken up the diplomatic chain of command.
-Was everyone in civilian dress?
(S) Response: this time, YES.
-Were the diplomats all military or were they all civilian?
(S) Response: all military.
-Was the clergy present?
(S) Response: no.
-How long did the meeting[s] last?
(S) Response: TOO LONG!
-Were there sticking points with the issue[s]?
(S) Response: as always.
-Time of meetings?
(S) Response: Today — 7am until 5pm. (This was the May 19th media meeting).
-What nation-states were there?
(S) Response: all the usual suspects.
-Was China there?
(S) Response: yes.
-Were the Russians there?
(S) Response: yes.
In speaking with our source, I asked him to clarify his title and those of other foreign diplomats in respect to what we know as «working groups.» Our source stated his group and the groups of people abroad share a similar function in that they are not diplomats per se as we understand it.
(S) stated that he and the other foreign diplomats are «military diplomatic liaison officers assigned to the Diplomatic Corps» who are tasked under the auspices of such entities, which are analogous to what we know as the State Department.
These men and women are not ambassadors nor are they permanently assigned to titled diplomats such as Bolton, Brenner or Albright. Indeed, these officers are all military officers and are not staffers to the civilian diplomatic corps.
It is important to note with regard to our source that his people liaise between the Pentagon (DOD) and the United Nations by way of the State Department. No one from the military can be received at the United Nations without State Department approval.
The United Nations, to be understood, represents a neutral ground for like minds to talk without being noticed by the press. In turn, foreign liaison officers follow the same diplomatic protocols in order to gain entry into the UN. These meetings are not what most people think as General Assembly or Security Council forums.
How do these liaison officers decide to meet? By way of back-channeling.
Source A explained that what most people don’t understand is that phone calls are made to their respective counter-parts on a need for a meeting. This meeting would be conveyed as «informal items of interest.» This communication would be passed on to other counter-parts and this is how the ball starts rolling. A good example of this is Robert Kennedy’s informal back-channeling to a friend of the Soviet Ambassador for a meeting concerning the Cuban Missile Crises. I believe RFK met his «liaison» in a bar?
Keep in mind though that everything has to have a «Budget Line Item.» Nothing gets done without people getting paid to be where they want to be (UN) unless there is an explanation and a reason why.
To the point:
(S): «Even people in the ‘Black World’ have to get paid.»
Being paid to be somewhere has the benefit of legitimacy and also offers plausible disclaim if leaks occur. Source A mentions this over and over again, this variable about being paid. What he is saying is to «follow the money» if you want your «PROOF» of the UN UFO meetings.
Now, once the officer has a budget line item to be at the UN and to liaise with other foreign counter-parts for a specific meeting, this is where the back-channeling comes to the forefront; and, no one in the UN is the wiser. Once that door is closed then anything and everything can be talked about. With our source it has been five meetings on the UFO/ET topic.
What is the objective?
These military liaisons under diplomatic cover enable an intervention in policy ideas and decisions. This form of communication, if sensitive, allows the State Department Corps to put out feelers on volatile subjects and plausibly deny if it becomes public. This also facilitates for all parties concerned a way to begin a foundation for future policies and a working model for that time when the discourse finally becomes public.
That model is the UFO/ET paradigm.