@ Bren, It's been almost 3 years since that note came in, and it's proving to be true.
We live in exciting times.
Dan Smith, who has been in the game for decades, has said that the surfacing of Source A is one of the most important events in Ufology to date.
I tend to agree.
In the words of Greatwaller . . . the <Source A Story> as we know it isn't over until it is finally over - one way or another.
Hey OMF,
Indeed Jake. I respect Dan in that he backed up some with our source. Thank you, Dan. There has never been an active whistle-blower such as our source in the history of ufology. Everything that has been posted by us was up front and truthful. There has been no embellishments, lying, disinformation, misinformation or misdirection contrary to what Michael Salla may think. Even Michael doesn't have the total picture with regards to our source. It is completely unfair to label a man with the UN material against some of the fantastic information surrounding the TDY. We do not have the luxury as researchers to pick and choose what we believe about this phenomena. Just because some elements of our source's story are unprecedented and does not fit in with the historical aspects of ET life in the cosmos and on this planet, we should not discount it. We should keep an open mind and weigh the totality of the information. I ask that you do this in the spirit of truth and respect for this research.
Nightshady, you mention gitmo with respect to our source........
Fore, we are not running from anything. Right now we feel it is best to lay low. Why?
Many things have happened recently. When you folks understand that their are tiers with this information then you'll realize where we are coming from. We don't like it anymore than the next guy. However, safety is paramount with our source. I'm quite sure that most on this forum would do exactly what my brother and I have done. That is protect your source at all costs.
Shawn and I are going to take a break from the thread awhile. We feel this necessary. We will post our article on technology versus population as promised to administration team. Please understand that there are circumstances beyond our control. If something comes up that can be posted, we will post. However, much of what we know will never be posted. It will only cause problems with our source and others. I'm sure you will understand.
Also, I just want to be clear that we appreciate all the participants who have taken the time to post. We respect this very much. In closing guys. I want to make clear about several things concerning our source: He partook in the UN meetings. He spent time abroad speaking to NATO countries concerning disclosure. And more importantly, our source has liaised with at least three extraterrestrial species. My brother and I have no doubts on this.
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1863 on Jun 12, 2009, 7:45pm »
One of my working assumptions has been that Temp/A appreciated the benefit of OMF providing them a venue for 'hiding in plain sight.' Here is a wish for your mutual well-being as you move forward back in the proverbial shadows for a while. Hoping recent events have given you cause for optimism.
However, from the perspective of hiding the truth in place sight, secret UFO meetings at the UN, both Source A and Lorant did what they were supposed to do.
Which was what in your opinion?
Target the ufo community only?
And keep it confine there in?
The UFO community was the target since there were those who would give the information a fair hearing despite problems with verifying the material. The mainstream media has never come close to the UN UFO information for obvious reasons. Source A/Gilles Lorant have both played a part in hiding the truth in plain sight so those ready for it can process it, and those not ready can dismiss it as unsubstantiated rumor. From the perspective of the US Navy working group that authorized Source A, this process would serve their interests.
« Last Edit: Jun 12, 2009, 8:30pm by exopolitics »
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 3,093 Karma: 169
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1866 on Jun 12, 2009, 9:12pm »
“that which is utopian is not that which is unattainable; it is not idealism; it is a dialectic process of denouncing and announcing; denouncing the dehumanizing structure, and announcing the humanizing structure.” ~ Paulo Freire
A question to seriously consider is the 'humanizing structure' which the public is expected to partake in building, is it complete? Is it ready for the full presentation? I would suggest that there is real and serious work yet to be completed. We fall into the assumption that it is too big and complex of a problem to tackle or that it is the responsibility solely of the governement....but since when has the government or any other body soundly completed which was not initiated and lead by enterprising, resourceful, and persistent individuals?
Fore, we are not running from anything. Right now we feel it is best to lay low. Why?
Many things have happened recently. When you folks understand that their are tiers with this information then you'll realize where we are coming from. We don't like it anymore than the next guy. However, safety is paramount with our source. I'm quite sure that most on this forum would do exactly what my brother and I have done. That is protect your source at all costs.
Thank you for for your response.
I still have to disagree with you on the idea that you can protect your source in the way your envisioning it.
If it's his identity, it's easy for interested parties in government and military to figure out whom you are speaking with. If it is his working group, then it is also easy to find out whom it is, or they are.
I think you seriously underestimate the tools available to collect information about any given source. I therefore have to ask, what is being truly protected?
<shrug>
I dunno where you get that perception of protecting your source from. But it seems to be rather unrealistic.
===============================================
Consider this, you have told people enough about specific fingerprints of activity that only Source "A" has engaged in. Each time he claims to have done something in a specific time frame, it narrows down the search further.
Anyone with access to government or military records could figure out whom he is, even without going to to the intelligence community.
Lets say for example, that you have shared his identity with Salla, Salla would only need to mention the mans name once for it to be known through passive surveillance. Be it a phone, his internet search queries, his travel records, his emails, etc.
If you move into active surveillance by the IC (intelligent Community) then it would be near impossible to hide anyones identity. By merely associating with anyone the IC (foreign or domestic) would know who was involved.
-------------------------------
So I have to go on the record to say, I just don't see what is truly being protected.
The reasons don't jive with actual reality. I dunno who has been giving you this idea that you are "protecting" your source and in what capacity exactly?
It really makes no sense.
Everytime you add something specific about him, it identifies him even further.
I just think you should realize that. I am not attacking you though. I am just bringing these obvious kinds of things to your attention as I do not understand why you are being "misled" under a false pretense. (this is what I feel)
--------------------------------
There are probably international terrorist who are far more obscure than Source "A" and his group and they still get identified fairly quickly.
Having face to face meetings only exasperates the problems of keeping any form of obscurity.
Shawn and I are going to take a break from the thread awhile. We feel this necessary. We will post our article on technology versus population as promised to administration team. Please understand that there are circumstances beyond our control. If something comes up that can be posted, we will post. However, much of what we know will never be posted. It will only cause problems with our source and others. I'm sure you will understand.
Since you are taking a break, I thought you should know that I feel that coming half way out of the closet was a big mistake for Source "A".
I understand his primary concern was the alleged UN meetings. But he really should have released the full package. His full incredible story on the face of it would not have been believed by everyone.
But he would have "broken even", compared to, where he is right now. Only there would have been far less questions and many more answers. Whether anyone would believe it or not is largely irrelevant.
That full story, even if not believed in it's entirety by the unsual majority of it. Would have been it's own kind of mini-disclosure.
Small elements of the story would have been found elsewhere if true. That would have added to the stories authenticity in it's own way. (again, if true)
That he put his foot in the door but refused to open it the whole way, just led to the formal rejection and running assumptions about the rest of the story.
----------------
It would have been better to have a story no one would believe with full details, than an incomplete story with an air of mystery concerning it's legitimacy.
Again, protecting his work for the alleged Inter-Service group is impossible if he is trying to shield its existence from the other IC's. Once he stepped out into the limelight, it was over and done with.
At least with the full story, there could have been some cross checking on other known phenomenas present in ufology. People could have gleaned several running themes of mentality expressed by various members of the Inter-service group and given some insight into the mentality of the power structure.
Going half way (while seemingly sensible) was the worst decision he could have made. No one in the public would likely have had the resources to access the projects details nor know anything about it's existence.
Those in the IC (foreign or domestic) have all the avenues available to them to get the information they need to get a good enough idea of everyone who might have been involved.
That is inevitable (IMO).
His unnecessary occlusion only led to the story falling through the cracks.
It could have been much more, but his irrational (IMHO) phobias are misplaced.
Also, I just want to be clear that we appreciate all the participants who have taken the time to post. We respect this very much. In closing guys. I want to make clear about several things concerning our source: He partook in the UN meetings. He spent time abroad speaking to NATO countries concerning disclosure. And more importantly, our source has liaised with at least three extraterrestrial species. My brother and I have no doubts on this.
But you have the benefit of the full story. It's unfortunate, that the whole thing will not be fully understood anytime soon (if ever?).
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
Fore, we are not running from anything. Right now we feel it is best to lay low. Why?
Many things have happened recently. When you folks understand that their are tiers with this information then you'll realize where we are coming from. We don't like it anymore than the next guy. However, safety is paramount with our source. I'm quite sure that most on this forum would do exactly what my brother and I have done. That is protect your source at all costs.
Thank you for for your response.
I still have to disagree with you on the idea that you can protect your source in the way your envisioning it.
If it's his identity, it's easy for interested parties in government and military to figure out whom you are speaking with. If it is his working group, then it is also easy to find out whom it is, or they are.
I think you seriously underestimate the tools available to collect information about any given source. I therefore have to ask, what is being truly protected?
<shrug>
I dunno where you get that perception of protecting your source from. But it seems to be rather unrealistic.
What might help to understand here the problem is that even though enough information has been shared for those "in the loop" (black world insiders) to identify source A, not enough has been shared for those in the white world of normal Navy operations to pay any attention to what's been disclosed so far and identify source A. Why would they? Officially, UFOs are not real or part of normal U.S. Navy business so rumors of an officer anonymously disclosing information about UFOs would not get much attention. If the officer were to be publicly identified, that would be a different situation.
That's an important distinction since Source A's white world employers/senior officers would by law have to penalize Source A if it came to their attention that he was involved in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. That's because even though he was authorized by the black world UFO Navy working group to do so, that doesn't translate into white world or official Department of Navy approval. There would be no official record that he was given approval so he would have to be disciplined if his name became public. Well, that's my take on the situation.
Joined: Feb 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 106 Location: Indianapolis, IN USA Karma: 12
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1871 on Jun 13, 2009, 5:45pm »
It's time for C&S to put their own pressure on Source A to clarify some key elements and spill the beans sort of speak, After all Source A sought them out to speak, well its time to speak instead of cloak and dagger egingmas. and cryptic responses.
He's been engaging C&S for what nearly two years. An after two years of this there are more questions then their are answers.
If indeed Source A was in danger coming forward as he has to, well civilians. He wouldn't have done so. And as Fore points out if Source A is who he claims then he surely as well knew that the moment he talked to C&A he would come on the radar screens of Military Intelligence and they would triangulate upon him.
Source A apparent had no fear of that, thus this indicates he has the backing up of his bosses. If that is case it gives C&S even more justification to turn up the heat sort of speak on Source A instead of coddling him.
Dialouge has been openned, the flow of information is running un abstructed.. its time for faucet to be turn up instead of playing this drip ... drip.. drip game.
What might help to understand here the problem is that even though enough information has been shared for those "in the loop" (black world insiders) to identify source A, not enough has been shared for those in the white world of normal Navy operations to pay any attention to what's been disclosed so far and identify source A. Why would they? Officially, UFOs are not real or part of normal U.S. Navy business so rumors of an officer anonymously disclosing information about UFOs would not get much attention. If the officer were to be publicly identified, that would be a different situation.
Um, how many former and active personnel across all branches of government and military have come forward with their own ET experience?
The man is hardly unique in his case. (Bob Dean anyone?)
The white world would hardly acknowledge that some of it's personnel are talking about real black projects. The opposite is likely to happen, they would deny rumors and reprimand him under a false guise of spreading potentially false information.
It's unlikely they would lock him up without a really obvious reason. His seniors would also probably pull strings at the top to make it seem like a slap in the hand, rather than something severe.
That's an important distinction since Source A's white world employers/senior officers would by law have to penalize Source A if it came to their attention that he was involved in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. That's because even though he was authorized by the black world UFO Navy working group to do so, that doesn't translate into white world or official Department of Navy approval. There would be no official record that he was given approval so he would have to be disciplined if his name became public. Well, that's my take on the situation.
Another point of interest. His name is unimportant.
Unless he was targeting the national or international press. It would be rather useless to know his name as it adds nothing of any significant value.
His story (if true) would give us a deeper insight into the working groups agenda and their viewpoints as they are being developed in the current present day atmosphere.
That alone would give us alot more insight into the Navy UFO-related programs than any single fact. (again, if true)
There are gems to be polished and exposed if his story is true.
His name is useless to just about anyone who isn't going to run a formal story on the guy.
He can keep his identity, I personally don't need it. It has little value to someone like me. What has value (for me) is what is going on in the minds of the [alleged] UFO working group, it's program managers agenda (bosses), the politics to date with relation to ET, the insight of their current mentality in dealing with the issue. ETc.
This would have made the story far more important than probably SERPO (again, if true).
Modern day views of the phenomena seen from the insiders or "Navy UFO working groups" perspective is gonna get you farther than any misc facts that can or cannot be proven.
So far we got a pretty small...nay too small...peak into the issues surrounding the [alleged] "insiders".
Not enough to figure out what they are up to, nor what they are thinking.
----------------------------------------
In comparison, Source "A"'s identity is relatively unimportant.
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
Jake Reason Member of Distinction Member of Valued Recognition. Award for exceptional contribution. - Admin Emeritus member is online
You must dive in to see it all
Joined: Feb 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 10,503 Location: Canada Karma: 148
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1873 on Jun 14, 2009, 12:02am »
Shawn and I are going to take a break from the thread awhile. We feel this necessary. We will post our article on technology versus population as promised to administration team. Please understand that there are circumstances beyond our control.
Thank you Clay & Shawn. Your fortitude, candor and understanding has been exemplary. If any others are ever in your situation, they would be wise to take notes of how you have handled yourselves and the material on an internet forum.
It has no doubt been a taxing experience for you. And I appreciate all you have been doing here.
It was a good thing you came here to OM, all the other internet forums would have eatin you up and spit you out by now. Just ask Bill Ryan or John Lear It has been a trial for the staff here as well to help balance the discussion. We may not have always done the right thing at the right time, but do know we have been working our best to facilitate your time as best we can.
As you know, I understand intimately the peculiar circumstances you two are under. And fully aware of the constraints, protocols and relations you have to navigate through. It's a tough position to be in.
I wish you two well, as you take a breather and smell the roses. Hope you guys have a great summer and look forward to seeing you back again soon.
Cheers!
« Last Edit: Jun 14, 2009, 12:03am by Jake Reason »
Shawn and I are going to take a break from the thread awhile. We feel this necessary. We will post our article on technology versus population as promised to administration team. Please understand that there are circumstances beyond our control.
Thank you Clay & Shawn. Your fortitude, candor and understanding has been exemplary. If any others are ever in your situation, they would be wise to take notes of how you have handled yourselves and the material on an internet forum.
It has no doubt been a taxing experience for you. And I appreciate all you have been doing here.
It was a good thing you came here to OM, all the other internet forums would have eatin you up and spit you out by now. Just ask Bill Ryan or John Lear It has been a trial for the staff here as well to help balance the discussion. We may not have always done the right thing at the right time, but do know we have been working our best to facilitate your time as best we can.
As you know, I understand intimately the peculiar circumstances you two are under. And fully aware of the constraints, protocols and relations you have to navigate through. It's a tough position to be in.
I wish you two well, as you take a breather and smell the roses. Hope you guys have a great summer and look forward to seeing you back again soon.
Cheers!
I have to agree, I may not agree with the way it took form, but Clay and Shawn....you did one heck of a job.
No hard feelings I hope. Rest up, there are rough waters ahead in the days to come. (For sure)
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
OMF Books and DVD's - CLICK HERE
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://i24.tinypic.com/qn1i5j.jpg)
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii218/murnut/surfround.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_4162.gif){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/Cyrellys/Artistic-Other-25061.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i40.tinypic.com/107qvkn.gif)
![[avatar]](http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3663/avatar11592ee.gif){kind=avatar}
It has been a trial for the staff here as well to help balance the discussion. We may not have always done the right thing at the right time, but do know we have been working our best to facilitate your time as best we can.