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.
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 Group nor 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.
