The journal below was written when I still believed Michael
Salla and Gilles Lorant. Lorant had claimed that he was a
member of the prestigious French Institute of Higher Defense
Studies, and had attended the meeting in that capacity.
Salla's elaborate story had been spun out of his claims.
However, Lorant has now admitted to the French UFO research
organization that he was never a member of the institute,
and the president of the French UFO organization is saying
that the meeting was a fiction. To see the
Unknowncountry.com story,
click here.
Nevertheless, I am leaving the journal up, because it can
stand as a warning, if disclosure ever does proceed, of the
danger of leaving the people in the front lines, the close
encounter witnesses and abductees, out of the picture.
The amount of UFO activity in the world now is
unprecedented, and so are the number of calls for disclosure
from professionals in the media and politics. Dr. Michael
Salla has recently been claiming that there was a secret
meeting at the United Nations between February 12 and 14 to
discuss a change from the present general governmental
policy of denial to one of more open study of UFOs.
He also claims that a French aviation expert called Gilles
Lorant has confirmed that these meetings took place.
You can read his article about this
here.
I have heard nothing from anybody else about these meetings,
but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen. On the
contrary, now is certainly a time when such meetings may
have taken place, and there is one statement in Michael
Salla's article about them that suggests to me that there
might be some truth here. It is that "those claiming to have
first hand experience of extraterrestrial life would be
targeted as charlatans."
For a long time, I have thought that this would be an
inevitable outcome of any move by the world's existing power
structure to change the official approach to the UFO phenomena.
Of course, it will be a lie. But government, in our era,
gains so much of its power from secrecy and the lies that
must of necessity accompany it, that this shouldn't be too
surprising.
I wouldn't be surprised to see studies that were focused
entirely on the aerial phenomena and not at all on the human
factor, because the moment you admit the fact that the
visitors have penetrated right into our bedrooms and our
bodies, and deposited hardware there, you are admitting that
government is helpless to control the situation, and that it
cannot impose itself between the individual and the
visitors. Which, indeed, it cannot.
The problem they now have is that UFO sightings are so
extensive that they cannot be denied, and, in some cases,
governments are getting worried that the populace is no
longer willing to accept denial as an answer. Even the
general media is beginning to openly doubt official claims.
So the backup position would be to enlist the scientific
community in a "study" of the phenomena that would divert
attention from the only thing that really matters: what it
means to us. And that can only be determined by admitting
that close encounter is the central reality of the phenomenon.
If people like me are dismissed as charlatans, it will be a
great waste. But sixty years of denial have also been a
great waste, so I suppose it's to be expected.
What I think will actually happen if there is any level of
disclosure at all is that the millions of people who have
had close encounters will demand a better answer than that
they are all charlatans. In fact, I demand a better answer now.
I have an implant in my left ear that remains the strangest
thing that Dr. John Lerma, who attempted to remove it, has
ever seen. It could not be removed because it was
self-mobile and moved, before his eyes, to another part of
my ear when he touched it with a scalpel. Not only that, the
biologist who examined the fragment of it he did collect
said that it had cilia on it, that would explain its ability
to move.
There is nothing like that in nature and nothing like it in
the human body. Period. But it is there, the doctor has
testified many times, and the removal attempt is on
videotape on this website.
Not only that, it was placed in my body by two people, whom
I saw come into the room. They were associated with a huge
light that shone down from above when they left the house. I
saw and heard all of this. They immobilized me by unknown
means when they put the thing in my ear. The next morning,
while the ear was sore and red, there was no sign of a
surgical scar. Were these people working for some official
body? Were they working with aliens? Who were they? I want
to know and I demand to know.
And why is it
that Dr. Roger Leir and his surgical team have removed
implants from others, that could not have come into their
bodies by accident, and were maintained in situ through the
use of an unknown technology that encapsulates them in the
skin of the host so that they will not be rejected as
foreign matter?
I
demand that the close encounter witnesses receive respectful
treatment, that their situation be acknowledged honestly,
and that careful, properly constituted study of them as a
social group, and as individuals, be commenced, with the
objective of coming to the best understanding we are able to
manage of what has been done to them, and why.
Any study that stops short of this or, more appallingly,
dismisses us as charlatans, is not going to be tolerated,
not by us and not by the general public. What matters in
this affair is what it means to humanity and the human
future, and the answer to that question starts with an
understanding of the close encounter phenomenon.
I will not accept being called a charlatan. Not a bit of it.
I will be heard, and I will be loud. So I have a suggestion
for the people who met at the UN, if, indeed, the meeting
happened: if you are going to deny us and call us
charlatans, you are going to have some trouble with us,
because we are not going to take it and we are not going to
shut up. We have excellent physical proof, and many
multiple-witness encounters that prove that we are, indeed,
telling the truth about what happened to us.
Personally, I have been the butt of one too many jokes and
dismissed and lied about one too many times to stand for
being dismissed as a liar when the UFO phenomenon itself is
being acknowledged as real.
There is only one way you are not going to get a
fight from us: Honest acknowledgment and proper study. If
you want us out of the picture instead, you are going to
have to silence an awful lot of people. Otherwise, you can
expect to have the truth chasing after you, no matter how
skillful your lies, or how convincing your appeal to
scientific authority.
If you acknowledge the existence of UFOs as an unknown
phenomenon, the reality of the close encounter experience is
going to very shortly become impossible for you to deny.
Otherwise, this latest attempt to attach some credibility to
your claims will also fail, and you will have gained, in the
end, nothing except an increase in fear and confusion, as
the public realizes that you are trying to cover up the
reality of the abductions, thus making them seem even more
frightening than they already are.
It doesn't need to be this way. Studies of the close
encounter witnesses could be carried out in a calm and
objective manner on many different levels. There could be
anthropological studies of their accounts, social studies of
their groupings, medical studies of their bodies.
If this was done correctly and objectively, something quite
extraordinary would emerge: a reflection of the visitors'
own policy toward us. It would, in effect, be the first
communication from another world.
I will not stand for
being called a charlatan when I have striven so hard over
these long, hard years to tell the truth no matter what. And
I don't think a single other witness will sit still, either.
We are small and powerless compared to a secret group of
fancy panjandrums and professional liars meeting at the
United Nations. But I warn you, Goliath, there is a lot of
wisdom in an old book you're much too proud to acknowledge.
Try 1 Samuel 17.
High horses are dangerous places to sit, precisely because
of the altitude.
