Aloha, what follows is an email
exchange concerning reactions to the UN UFO meetings material.
Further information is relayed about the original source for
Clay and Shawn Pickering’s material by Robert Morningstar, an
editor of UFO Digest.
Michael Salla, Ph.D.
“Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful, committed citizens
can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only
thing that ever has!”
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Robert Morningstar <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 12:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: Attitudes and Reactions to possible UN UFO meetings
Thank you for your post.
It was badly needed to balance the negativism of most of the
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
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 the wariness of many
UFO researchers. 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, the source is compromised, in some
cases, with dire consequences, and source will 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 and 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
theory, we do hold many similar views in UFOlogy, one of which
is in the field of mass psychology, which is the basis of the
“non-disclosure” policy of most governments.
This is something we all know since the revelations of
Robertson Panel and
The Brookings Institution white paper
written for NASA in the 1960s (On the Peaceful Uses of Outer
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 since the NPC UFO Conference in Washington, DC on
November 12th and the Stephensville UFO flap (which continues
Clay and Shawn first informed me of their contact’s identity and
source’s background on June 24th at the UFO Culture of Contact
Symposium here in NYC at which time they presented a second copy
of the famous
SOM-101 (UFO Crash Retrieval Manual), which they
allowed me to inspect and which I recognized 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 than the
bare bones version that has been circulating during intervening
It was their copy of this document, SOM-101, 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 symposium.
On the night of the reported UN UFO meeting, I received a
working copy of their SOM-101 (which is distinctly different
from the original copied from photographs) and I was briefed on
the UN meeting, given the same information that was revealed by
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 U.D., and I chose instead to
Dr. Salla’s article republished on UFO Digest.Com.
The reactions of the UFO community came in “hot and heavy,” with
many ranting “Rumplestiltskin-types,” jumping up and down into a
hole in the ground (figuratively speaking). Some of their
comments excoriated Shawn and Clay and their “unnamed source.”
I am writing to tell you all that I have great confidence 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 and 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 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 (responding in UFO
Updates) has been somewhat disappointing although the comments
of others, older - more experienced - and 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).
Best regards to all,
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 need serious discussion however.
However 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 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
Instead of a serious analysis of possible ET diplomatic and
indications 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.
Nonsense Yes, many would be upset and 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
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 look
before dismissal. Lockheed Martin and BAE are up to something
big, they’ve spent billions doing so. )
This ET shock and awe show is, to this observer the catalyst
that will be like a planetary espresso caffeine jolt, 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
The Noon day 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 observers judgment, that our destiny is not for our planet
to stumble and bumble without outside major effect in
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 maximum growth
maturity result “.
FEB 23 2008