The Pickering’s Story: Why it is important and evidence some of it may be false.
By Kevin W. Smith©2010 by Kevin W. Smith
PHOENIX, AZ (USA) In 2008, Clay and Shawn Pickering burst into fame amongst UFO enthusiasts due to their release of a most amazing story. The story was that they were informed by a person they called “Source A” that there was a briefing held at the U.N. building in New York wherein a U.S. Navy officer briefed people from some 30 countries regarding extraterrestrial reality. It was said that these folks were told that if disclosure did not happen soon, the ETs would simply appear in 2017 in an unambiguous manner—in large ships parked over major cities of Earth. It was concluded that a program of acclimating the world to ET reality should be undertaken by governments of the world.
Indeed, there are follow-on events that seem to corroborate somewhat that some elements of the basic story about the meeting may be true. Among those events are the release of British UFO files, disclosure of UFO files from Norway and Denmark, statements about extraterrestrials by the Vatican, and a conference sponsored by the Vatican for the purpose of discussing with major scientists the reality of ETs, and Dr. Hawking’s recent statements about extraterrestrials. On the other hand, there were elements of the story that always seemed a bit troubling.
“Source A” seemed always a bit too cloak and dagger. But then again, he was said to be a Navy officer who had to keep his identity secret in order to protect himself and others. The thing that did not wash in this aspect of the story was that he had been authorized to leak the information about the meeting to Clay and Shawn Pickering. Having been authorized to leak the information, why was his identity an issue? Whatever he was doing was authorized. Right?
I have had Clay and Shawn as guests on the show two times. The first time was right after the story broke in 2008. The second was when the second story was about to break in 2010.
The second story is the story of a group of individuals who, for reasons of their own, were motivated to investigate the Pickerings’ story. They thought it had holes in it, and they set about to verify either the story was true, or that it was false. From a former professional investigator’s point of view, I saw in their investigation report both sparkles of promise as well as points I thought were completely off track. In any investigation, it is possible for information to surface that is interesting to the investigator, but not germane to the investigation. One of the most crucial tasks of an investigation is to keep your eye on the ball—so to speak. And I pointed this out to two of the investigators who appeared separately on my show. There were two irrelevant issues (from my point of view) that they were allowing to sidetrack them in their search for the truth. With each of the two investigative team members who appeared on the show, I pointed out one of these points and explained why I thought they were irrelevant to the investigation.
They had accurately identified the name of the Pickerings’ “Source A”. His name is Richard Theilmann. They found his name on lists that listed him as LCDR (Lieutenant Commander) Richard Theilmann. After they published this, I confirmed that this was accurate by talking with someone who had previously stated he knew “Source A”. That bit of investigative work was sparkling.
The first of the investigative team to appear on the show was Bryce Weiner. The second was Andrew Murray. I am certain neither of them liked hearing what I had to say about the irrelevancy of the two issues I pointed out. I am certain they felt a bit defensive about them, and some of their comments indicated that. Be that as it may, it is my job as a host to press for the facts, and to be up front when I hear something that I think is not a fact. In these two points, I did not think it factual that they were relevant to the case. As such, I thought they would serve only to cause the investigative team to take their eyes off the ball.
Andrew Murray corresponded with me a couple of times via e-mail after he had appeared on the show. These were very brief e-mails, and very cordial. I told him again that his group had not yet come up with anything that rose to the level of evidence. I said that I thought they were on the right track, but that they did not yet have evidence that the Pickerings’ story was false. To his credit, he said that he understood.
The investigative team continued their probe into this story, and after a few more weeks, they came up with something that does rise to the level of evidence. What they came up with is a letter from the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records) that stated there was no record of a Richard Theilmann having ever served in any branch of the military of the U.S.A. You may read their report and see a photo of the letter at this web page. More sparkles of brilliance in their quest for the truth.
This letter, an official document of the U.S. government, does rise to the level of evidence. No question about it.
There is always a possibility that there may be some reason why the military has no record of a person’s service when they did, in fact, serve. Anything is possible. But the ball is now in Richard Theilmann’s court. If he is genuinely what he has claimed to be, he must now step to the plate and hit a homerun. Since he claimed to have been authorized to leak the information to the world through the Pickering brothers, there should be no trepidation about providing his bona fides as a U.S. Navy officer.
It works out this way. If he is not actually a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy, he faces serious criminal charges for impersonating an officer. On the other hand, if he is (or was) a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy, and made unauthorized leaks of information, he is still in serious trouble. If he is actually a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy, and was actually authorized to leak that information, he faces no criminal charges, and can only better his standing (even with the military) by providing his bona fides.
But wouldn’t the Navy still want to distance itself from him even if he is genuinely a Lieutenant Commander? Why would they?
If Richard Theilmann is truly a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy, and if he made an unauthorized leak of information about UFOs and ETs, any disciplinary action taken by the Navy would only serve to confirm that the leaked information was accurate. If the leak was authorized, they have no grounds to discipline him. The only way the Navy could possibly justify discipline would be a criminal prosecution in the event that Theilmann was impersonating an officer.
As I said, the ball is now in Theilmann’s court. If there is a rational and legitimate explanation for why the National Personnel Records Center has no record of his service, it is up to Theilmann to supply that data. As stated, if he is legitimately a Navy officer, and if he was making authorized leaks of information, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Now, why is the Pickerings’ story important?
If it is a true story, it is important because it gives details of the beginnings of official disclosure about UFOs and ETs.
If it is untrue, it is important because it serves to show us how easily we can be taken in when we want to “believe” rather than to think.
As good a job as has been done by this investigative team of Andrew Murray, Ryan Dube, Steven Broadbent, and John Hicks, there is yet another step that has to be taken. They have produced something that rises to the level of evidence—but evidence of what?
It is evidence that casts serious doubt upon the veracity of Richard Theilmann’s claims to be a U.S. Navy officer. Legally, that is not proof. It is evidence. Only when that evidence is tried in court and adjudged to be substantiated can it be said to be proof. In the U.S.A., a defendant is presumed to innocent until “proven to be guilty”. That means that if there is a trial, Richard Theilmann is NOT on trial. What will be on trial are the evidence and the accuser(s). It is always possible that contrary evidence can be introduced that nullifies the evidence of the prosecution. So, what is on trial is the prosecutor, the prosecution witnesses, and the prosecution’s evidence. If such a trial does happen, and should the judgment be in favor of the prosecution’s case, then we can say this evidence is proof.
But proof of what? In this case, it would be proof that Richard Theilmann was never in the military. It would not prove that the meeting at the U.N. did not happen.
I am neither a believer, nor disbeliever, in the meeting at the U.N. building. I do not make a practice of believing or disbelieving anything at all. I make it a practice to hear evidence from all sides, think about it, and know that time will tell us the truth. I find no fear in saying “I don’t know. It needs more investigation.”
It is possible—a slim possibility, I agree—that the meeting did happen as reported. It is possible that, if Richard Theilmann has fraudulently claimed to be a Navy officer, he overheard the info about the meeting, and passed it on to the Pickerings. In this case, it is possible the Pickerings would not have known that Theilmann was making false claims about being a Navy officer.
Yes, it is a slim possibility, but it is a possibility. The reason I wonder about whether the story of the meeting may be true is the string of events that have followed that date that seem to corroborate that the meeting happened. It is true that just because these events followed the date of the alleged meeting does not mean they flowed from the meeting. Indeed, they could not flow from the meeting if it never happened. Yet, they do cause pause for consideration.
This story is only beginning to unfold. Generally, once a story breaks, it continues to travel in the direction in which it breaks. There are sometimes surprise developments that cause the story to change course, but those are the exception rather than the rule. If this story continues to develop in the direction it was traveling as it came out of the chute, there will be some very embarrassed individuals in the UFO community, individuals who have attached themselves to the story and used their credibility to back the story. If there is anything history should teach us here it is that the best thing to do is to acknowledge mistakes and move on. No one is perfect, and anyone can be deceived. So, if the Pickerings’ story turns out to be false, we would do best to admit it, and move on.
So, let’s see where this goes. The investigative team is to be congratulated for having come up with something more than rumor and assumptions. They came up with evidence. That is a real plus in the world of UFOs where belief, assumption, and passions are too often substituted for evidence and thinking.