As our reader know, on February 13, 2008, UFO Digest published an article by Dr. Michael Salla, Phd. revealing a secret UN UFO meeting that had purportedly taken place on Monday, February 11.
Notice of the UN UFO Meeting and background information was given to us by Shawn and Clay Pickering, members of the NYC Disclosure Project.
Information regarding the UN UFO meeting was «leaked» prior to the UN session to the Pickering Brothers by a diplomat who attended (and chaired) the meeting in order to gauge public reaction and to determine whether or not the world public is ready for «Disclosure,» even partial disclosure. Since that time, Dr. Michael Salla reports confirmation from a second source who was present at the meeting.
General Public reaction was varied and principally marked by curiosity. Ironically, the most vociferous and vitriolic reactions came from UFO experts, researchers and investigators in who demonstrated the deepest skepticism, while employing the same tactics of ridicule, sarcasm and personal attacks most often employed by «skepti-bunkers» and directed at the sources of the information (Dr. Salla and the Pickering Brothers).
One of the few «level-headed» reactions came from Vince White (a UFO Digest contributor) who replied to the skeptics eloquently and directly addressing points of contention..
On the night of Monday, February 18th, 2008, I was invited by Shawn and Clay Pickering to meet with them and their contact. At that meeting, I was personally introduced to their source, the diplomat who had chaired the meeting at the UN one week before.
Below, I present Vince White’s reply to the critics who excoriated the announcement on UFO Updates and followed by my reply to Mr. White in support of Shawn, Clay and their source, who for obvious reason must remain anonymous.
Editor, UFO Digest
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM,
This note is not directed to any single individual who commented concerning possible UN meetings on disclosures. It is the overall response pattern that dismays and concerns. It does not reflect well on the flexibility and adaptive quality of our research community. I do not know the sources and circumstances well enough to either accept or reject the particular accounts.
It does, however, merit serious discussion. Moreover the reports of extreme contentious squabbling, short-sighted self interest, religious dogmatic disputations, the refusal to think in other than the most immediate national provincialism, has a strong ring of truth. It reminds one of some UFO conferences.
The comments in this venue, so far, seem embarrassing in their simplistic, reactionary, rigid categorical thinking, binary logic, and lack of imagination as to the possible stellar neighborhood complexities. It doesn’t seem that most think outside of the most elementary labels and reflexive thinking.
There is a non-adult, simplistic thought pattern being applied. The statement that visitors are concerned with human freedom and free will choice is greeted with what amount to hoots of ridicule. This is taken as a lazy excuse to deal as mindlessly as mainstream media deals with UFOs in general.
That there may be off world divisions, jurisdictional conflicts, alliances, varied goals and policies , that may be in play seems to be beyond the spectrum of thinking possible. Some factions , may very well have a keen sense of freedom and free will — the traffic here has for the
most part avoided population centers in broad daylight, they haven’t overtly invaded, we are not treated as north American Indians were treated, with colonization and conquering.
Instead of a serious analysis of possible ET diplomatic moves and other indications, such as watching activity trend lines that point towards a daylight appearance over populated areas, we have the superficial logic that this would lead to planetary panic.
Yes, many would be upset and others greatly excited. The major talking-heads, network anchors , government officials, would all be on the hot seat. but even if a Phoenix (3-13-97) type event took place, at high noon, we’d manage, we will manage. The skeptics would hide out, churches would be packed as much as bars, and there would be a mass sell off on Wall St and elsewhere.
We did not go from covered wagons, sailing ships and feudalism, and mass illiteracy without having the planetary potential that attracts the visitor traffic from stars likely many parsecs distant.
Ape-men do not build fusion weapons and electrogravity drives.
(Go look into what is going on at the Warton Special projects Site in UK or flying out of N. Edwards. Skeptics, go take a look before outright dismissal. Lockheed Martin and BAE are up to something big, they’ve spent billions doing so. )
This ET shock and awe show represents (to this observer) the catalyst that will be like a planetary «espresso caffeine jolt,» one that will finally begin a global discussion on our pig-headed plunge into ecological disasters, carrying capacities and finally prod leaders and legislatures to thinking about more than the next election.
Forums such as Davos will transition from polite speeches, to intellectual full scale brawling hammer and tong, dialogue, and the real options on the table.
What is continuing to happen in Texas skies, and elsewhere is a giant clock ticking down to an «in your face» daylight event, one that is simply the natural incremental direction things are going. One of the Phoenix or recent Texas leviathans will be hanging over Manhattan long before 2017, or 2012 based on trend lines.
The Noonday sun shining on a 1,000 ft long cylinder or chevron hanging over lower Manhattan will cast a mocking shadow on the refusal on many forums to see this step. For note , the UFO waves of the 40’s and 50’s came as a surprise, so too , will be the next step.
Non-interference policy? That is a bad joke, ever since the 40’s and 50’s crash retrievals, our governing circles have been fundamentally directed and interfered with. ‘A shock and awe step is simply the next logical step.
Snooze on, those who think the status quo of ambiguity will go on forever. You’ll awake to seeing news staff literally running in the news centers, and five hundred or a thousand ships hanging over every major city on the planet…Soon…Tomorrow. or a year, or two, or three, at the most of tomorrows.
For the record, no equivocation , this is our future. For it is this observer’s judgment , that our destiny is not for our planet to stumble and bumble without outside major effect in perpetuity.
Perhaps even some gray skinned analyst, is muttering, telepathically, «Damn it, some human is going to spoil this yet — it’s supposed to be a surprise, for a maximum growth maturity result «.
February 23rd, 2008
M* reply to Vince White, Updates and Comments:
Thank you for your email.
It was badly needed to balance the negativism of the majority of comments of «know-it-all» and «I-don’t-believe-if-I didn’t-find-it» UFO experts who have posted their comments on UFO Updates and other sites.
I can tell you now that I have been privy to these developments for many months now, having met Shawn and Clay Pickering in NYC on June 24th, 2007, the 60th Anniversary of Ken Arnold’s sighting.
Since that time, I have had the privilege of addressing their NYC Disclosure Group twice and have come to know these two gentlemen very well as friends and confidants. They are honest, intelligent and sincere UFO investigators and have shared much important information with me.
The skepticism and, in some cases, the rancor with which their information has been received is typical of debunkers and the wariness of many UFO researchers who have been burned by hoaxes in the past. There have been many caustic comments (none of substance) from certain UFOlogists who jealousy guard their niches, purviews and «spheres of influence» in UFOlogy. Their reactions, in many cases, have been identical to the mass media’s typical reflex arcs for the past 6 decades, which include condemnation, sarcasm, derision and ridicule.
Many critics have objected to Clay and Shawn’s «non-disclosure» of the identity of their source, which is the same criticism that was leveled many years ago at Leonard Stringfield. Yet, as the decades have passed, many of Mr. Stringfield’s revelations have been shown to be correct and the reliability of his «unnamed sources» has been validated. Mr. Stringfield’s need to protect his sources has also been acknowledged.
It is obvious (but, perhaps, this requires a restatement) that once a researcher betrays the identity of a source (when anonymity has been requested), he will not be trusted again, the information flow is stopped, «dries up,» especially if the source is compromised, in some cases, with dire consequences, such as prosecution for betraying secrets or, if not charged, the source may loose his/her position of access to the information).
I am writing to let you all know that I, along with Dr. Michael Salla, received the same information about the UN UFO Meeting and I have been kept abreast of developments in this disclosure process for many months now. I have met and conversed by phone/email many times with Shawn and Clay Pickering and, although we don’t agree 100% on UFO Disclosure theory, we do hold many similar views in UFOlogy, one of which is in regard to its effects on mass psychology, which is the basis of the «non-disclosure» policy of the United States and most governments, in general, Belgium, Mexico and Brazil being the exceptions.
This is something we all know (or should know) since the revelations of The Robertson Panel in the early 1950s and The Brookings Institution white paper determinations, written for NASA in the 1960s («On the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space«).
I received word of the prospective UN UFO meeting a couple of days before the event and I too was surprised but I should not have been considering the magnitude of events that have transpired in UFOlogy since the National Press Club UFO Conference (sponsored by James Fox and Leslie Kean) in Washington, DC on November 12th, 2008 and the recent Stephensville UFO flap (which continues even now).
Clay and Shawn first informed me of their contact’s existence and their «source’s» background on June 24th at the UFO Culture of Contact Symposium here in NYC. At that time, they presented a second copy of the famous SOM1-01 (purportedly an official government UFO Crash Retrieval Manual), which they allowed me to inspect and which I recognized instantly to be a nearly perfect Xerox copy of an original source document (with perfectly aligned margins, no bent or folded pages, no fuzzy type as in the photographed copy which appeared about 10 years ago, when I first read it).
This copy appeared to be more detailed in some ways than the version that has been circulating during intervening years.
It was the Pickering’s copy of this document, SOM1-01, and the coherent story that they told of how it was acquired by their source that drew me to follow the lead. As stated above, we have had many meetings and exchanges of information (what I like to call «cross-pollination of information») during the past 8 months, which have given me confidence in the source and the document they presented at the NYC Culture of Contact UFO Conference symposium (organized by Jeremy Vaeni and Alan Steinfeld).
On the night of the UN UFO meeting reported Dr. Salla, I received a working copy of their SOM1-01 (that is distinctly different from the original, which was reproduced from photographs) and I was briefed on the UN meeting, given the same information that was revealed by Dr. Salla.
Since Dr. Salla had done such an outstanding job in presenting a synopsis of the event, I did not write a report on it. Instead, Dirk Vander Ploeg, the publisher of UFO Digest and I chose instead to have Dr. Salla’s article republished on the UFO Digest website.
The reactions of the UFO community came in «hot and heavy,» with many ranting «Rumpelstiltskin-types,» jumping up and down into a hole in the ground (figuratively speaking). Some of their comments excoriated Shawn and Clay for not revealing the identity of their source.
I am writing to tell you all that I have great confidence and trust in Shawn and Clay Pickering, in their honesty, the high quality of their information and the reliability of their source.
One week after the purported UN UFO meeting, I was introduced to and met their «source» in New York City. We spent nearly 2 hours together over drinks and I was able to converse with him at length on his background and previous career as a high-ranking officer in one of the US armed forces before assuming his current position as a diplomat. His background story and his character (as «an officer and a gentleman») check out in my book.
The basic premise and the purpose behind this «secret» UN UFO meeting was a «testing of the waters» in order to prepare for worldwide UFO disclosure through the United Nations. The story was intentionally leaked through the Pickering Brothers in order to evaluate the reaction of the public and the UFO community.
Basically, the US government wants to study the reaction of the public at large and UFOlogists, in particular, to the prospect of full UFO disclosure sometime within the next 8-9 years.
I must say that the reaction of the general public has been promising but that of most UFOlogists (commenting in UFO Updates) has been somewhat disappointing, most of them devoid of curiosity or open-mindedness although the comments of others, older and more experienced — having known or lived through the Leonard Stringfield era — have weighed in with open minds and more intelligent, less emotional comments.
The UFO Disclosure operation is a very delicate matter, which will take quite a bit of time to achieve while exercising great caution on the part of governments all along the way. The indoctrinated, misinformed or disinformed human mind (such as those of religious fanatics) is a very fragile entity and a very dangerous one when rattled. The public mind must be protected while the work of untangling the lies and cover stories of 60 years is being done. It is very much a «psychosurgical procedure,» excising the lies that have been implanted in the public mind to be replaced by facts as they really are.
During this delicate period, both the public mind and the identity of the source(s) must be protected so that the work of Disclosure can be completed without peril to either the subject or the source(s).
In the meantime, «I watch the skies.»