Whitley's Journal

A New Surprise in the UFO Funhouse

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.

NOTE: This Journal entry, previously published on our old site, will have any links removed.


Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now