April 16, 2024 • 19 mins
George Noory and author Andy Thomas explore his research into the paranormal and conspiracy theories, whether conspiracy theories have become more accepted than in the past, and if world governments are covering up the truth about crop circles and UFOs.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast am on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
And welcome back to Coast to Coast George Norrie back.
Andy Thomas with us. One of the United Kingdom's leading
researchers into the unexplained mysteries and conspiracy theories. As many
works and books include the acclaimed The Truth Agenda, which
explores paranormal phenomena, global cover ups and prophecies and Vital Signs,
widely described as the definitive guide to the controversial crop
(00:28):
circle phenomenon and nominated for a Kindred Spirit Magazine's Best
Book Award. Andy lectures regularly around the world, makes many
regular appearances on radio and television, and here he is
back on Coast to Coast. Hello, Andy, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
It's good to be back. Thank you, George.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Our things out there in the United Kingdom.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well a bit topsy turvy. I think, like everywhere, like you,
We've got big elections coming up this year, but nobody
is really quite sure which way to go. And you know,
I think we're living in times now where nothing will
be the same anymore, and everybody feels it in their bones,
but we're all trying to pretend that everything's going to
carry on as it was, and I don't think it will.
(01:14):
I think we're very much in a new era of
huge change. And you know, I think that's what you know,
people like yourselves, and you know, the work we're doing
over here, we're trying to tap into really give a
new perspective, stand back from it all and look at
maybe the bigger things that are going on.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, it seems like the world has just slipped upside down,
doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Yes, it has. But I guess that's not entirely a
bad thing as long as we respond in a positive
way to that. But I think hanging on with our fingernails,
you know, pretending that all the old things that used
to work are going to carry on working, I don't
think that that's the solution anymore. So we've got to
accept that, you know, with the advent of AI and
(01:57):
all of this that's coming up very quickly, some computing,
it is going to be different. So we need to
try to kind of cut the way through that that
where we get the best out of it and we
survive as human beings. And you know, we don't find
ourselves in a world that is no longrained at us.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
You've got a new book coming out next year. We'll
talk about that a little bit later on and definitely
get you back on Andy when that book comes out.
But the book you wrote several years ago, the new
heretics tell us about that title.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So the new heretics, So yeah, I mean that's really
my current book came out a couple of years ago,
but it's turned out to be very relevant. So a heretic,
of course, is somebody that is deemed to be no
longer speaking the orthodoxy. And you know, throughout history we've
had heretics who've been condemned for speaking out on things
that they felt were important. And the new heretics, well
(02:52):
that's people like yourself, people like me, people like anybody
out there that is trying to study things that are
branded alternative this or in a branded conspiracy. And of course,
rather cleverly, what's happened over the years, is there anybody
that talks about that is now the portrayed as the
enemy because they are disrupting, you know, all the kind
(03:14):
of the normal things of life. Well that's how it's
put across. Whereas, of course those of us who believe
we need to talk about these areas we're saying, well, no,
it's not like that. We're not here to disrupt with
a deliberate intent for harm, which is the way that
it's put across in the media. We're trying to get
conversations going that actually, you know, reveal a layer of
(03:37):
reality that just needs to be looked at. So the
book is about, you know, how do we become heretics,
How can we get a world where we can actually
talk about this without polarization. And you know, we all
know polarization is one of the big topics of the time,
and we've now got everybody on one side or the
(03:58):
other or on any sub jet shouting at each other
across the divide, and the book The New Heretics, is
a way to try to sort of see how we
can do it differently, you know, speak our truth, get
it out there without winding up in a conflict situation.
And it's certainly you know, I'm pleased to say I've
had a lot of very positive reaction to it. It
(04:20):
has brought some people to looking at the other side
and considering that okay, it's all right to have a
different view, and it has stood up for people like
ourselves and got word out there that, look, we actually
have a right to exist, to question the orthodoxes that
are all around us, and you know, hopefully it will
keep doing that because we need to. We need to
(04:41):
keep the word out there that there are things going
on in the world that are not reflected in the mainstream.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
And the mystery seem to be more acceptable today than
they were ten twenty years ago, don't they.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, it's interesting, I would say that is probably true
where you are. I think that's true over here. I mean,
I think because you've had in America. Of course, you've
had the US Congressional hearings right on UAPs and UFOs,
and you know that got a lot of coverage. It's funny,
our media are much more cynical over here. And although
(05:17):
there's been a bit of coverage of that and the
issues that's raised, there's still a sneering quality here. There's
still a feeling that you know, this is minor stuff.
It will all blow over. You know that we don't
need to take it very seriously. But that's the impression
that we get from the media. So although when you
talk to people and I give an awful lot of
(05:39):
lectures over here and in other countries, including your own,
you realize that actually there are people that are very
open to the paranormal, to looking at things in a
way that might be branded conspiracy and all of that,
but they're afraid to speak out. And the reason they're
afraid is that they feel they will be ridiculed or
(06:01):
condemned if they do. So that's the thing, especially here.
The impression given by the media is that nobody believes
in these things, and if you do, you're a terrible person.
But actually, when you talk to people one to one,
that's not how it is. A lot of them are
far more open than you would think. And I'm really
hoping that there will be some more level of well,
(06:24):
let's call it disclosure, whatever that turns out to be,
where the media here especially are going to have to
eat a few words and actually come back to the
table and reconsider their position. That would be very nice
if they did.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Was the British media always skeptical?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I don't think always. I think there was a time,
certainly back in the nineteen seventies, in the nineteen eighties,
you have people like Uri Gallery and all that talking
openly about psychic phenomena, and you know, there were people
Eric von Danakin and UFOs and I think there was
a time when there was a kind of a feeling, well,
this could be something, but that all changed, that all
(07:05):
got turned around, and then the debunking came in, and
that was similar with crop circles, which is, you know,
an area that I have long been very involved with
over the years. Most people here think the whole thing's joke,
that it all ended twenty years ago, that you know,
every single crop circle ever was all made by people,
(07:26):
because that's what was put out there in the mainstream
in the nineteen nineties. And although actually that position was
never proved and some of the alleged people who've made
the crop circles were really not very good at actually
making them. Nonetheless, it's stuck in the public's mind. And
you know, for the newspapers, especially here, which are famously
(07:49):
voracious in their attitude, you know, they just don't want
to hear anything other than what they've already stated. They
don't want to be shown to be wrong. And that's
why we've got a problem with the whole UFO UOP thing.
They've been so cynical about it for so many decades
now they don't want to turn that around. They don't
want to have to admit that perhaps they were wrong
(08:11):
all along, and I think that's one of the key problems.
And of course that just adds to the polarization.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Our Defense Department, Andy has an organization called the All
Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which came out a few months
ago with a report that basically says no evidence whatsoever
of ET involvement and reverse engineering, none of this. I mean,
they almost like destroyed the whole concept. What do you
(08:40):
think's going on there?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, so this is I think we pronounced the arrow
as a here, but yeah, absolutely so. This is where
an opportunity was missed. So we had the congressional hearings,
We had a couple of well known pilots, and of
course David Grush, the intelligence officer, saying, look, there is
a phenomenon here. We need to look at this. Now.
(09:04):
Not everybody is comfortable with what was said, but a
lot of people feel that this was certainly a subject
that should have been discussed. And so there was a
moment there where there was an opportunity for, you know,
the authorities to at the very least say you, all right,
look there is something here. We're not quite sure what's
going on, but we're going to let you know a
(09:26):
little bit more. And that was the hope, and it
looked for a brief time like that's where it was going.
But as you say, suddenly this new report comes out
at a very old world. It's absolutely like going back
to nothing here to see it's all a big joke.
I mean, the original kind of director of Arrow, who
(09:46):
was Sean Kirkpatrick, he resigned and he basically said, this
whole kind of thing's been hijacked by conspiracy theorists. You know,
you don't want to listen to them. I've seen no
evidence of alien intell agent blah blah blah. And the
problem with that is that there is actually an awful
lot of evidence that at the very least, even though
(10:09):
it might not be absolute proof, that a lot of
people in high places have revealed details which need to
be looked at, there is a phenomenon and we do
have it is said, you know, whistleblower is queuing up
to be heard. But of course now by this new
report basically trying to take us back thirty years, they're
(10:31):
now wondering, well, maybe this isn't the time we thought
this was the time to come forward. Maybe it isn't.
So we're at this really interesting moment where there's a
hell of a lot of interest bubbling up and endless
podcasts and researchers saying this is obviously real, we need
to know more. And then you've got the authorities saying no,
(10:51):
it's nothing to see here. So it's disappointing, But I
don't think it's going to end here. I think, without
any question, this is going to go somewhere. But as
the number of people are pointed out, there's a choice here.
There could have been some level of official disclosure, however mild,
or you get what's called catastrophic disclosure, where actually it
(11:13):
all comes out in the wrong way unexpectedly and there
might be revelations that could upset things in a way
that's actually very sort of unsilted, which is presumably not
what the authorities want. So yeah, we're at a very
very interesting time here where it goes in the next
year or so, it's going to be very interesting to see.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
You had an incredible UFO case years ago in the
United Kingdom called rendelshamp Forest. Does that come up much anymore?
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Yeah? So, I mean that's kind of like our version
of Roswell really, which by the way, I visited just
about three weeks ago. I've never actually physically been there before,
so I was fascinating to see the landscape round there,
visit the museum and so on. But over here we
have randals from forest. So it's where in the late
seventies and the early eighties there there was a couple
(12:06):
of years but there were a series of USO sightings
around the US military base there, and we've got so
much testimony that something really did occur that there really
is no question. But that in itself is another sort
of ridiculous situation where despite all the people that testified
(12:28):
to seeing this craft coming down, and indeed other craft
and lights that are simply inexplicable, the world was told no,
all they saw was a lighthouse which stood a few
miles away. Now, the lighthouse was there every single day,
you know what, they think the soldiers wouldn't have noticed it,
and then one night they thought a lighthouse was a UFO.
(12:49):
These are the kinds of ridiculous things that get put
out there in the media because if you don't know
the evidence, if you don't think about it, it sounds
credible enough to put the average. First off, anybody that
knows what actually was seen at Randullsham Forest will know
that that simply makes no sense. And Colonel Holt, who
was one of the kind of keyperson the time, you know,
(13:12):
he himself has said something did happen. Now, there's been
arguments about that, stories have got changed over the years,
but nonetheless it's absolutely clear that there was something there
that was covered up for a long while, but in
the end they couldn't hold it down. And that's just
one of many similar side things experiences around the world.
(13:34):
And this seems to be going on actually somewhere all
the time. And I think that's the thing. It's not
now just a few isolated cases. There's so many whistleblowers
coming forward who are very credible saying that there is
a near constant interaction with this craft. Let's called them
that for the sake of an argument, and you know,
authorities and they're holding it down. But how long can
(13:58):
you hold that down for before something has to give?
So there was an opportunity in the last year to
try to shift the conversation. It's just a bit disappointing
at the moment. They're trying to pull it back, and
I know there's a lot of forces within kind of
like the industrial military complex and governments that don't want
(14:18):
this to come out because of course, this kind of technology,
wherever it comes from, it's something they want to keep
for themselves and get the upper hand on the world
stage with. But I'm just not sure in the end
that that's going to keep working.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Andy. Our friend Nick Polpe used to work for the
British Ministry of Defense, a great ufologist. Does his name
come up much in the United Kingdom anymore?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah? I mean so Nick is kind of the go
to guy for the papers because you know, when next
story came out about the work he had done for
the Ministry of Defense over USOS, of course, you know
that was quite an interesting person to have there. There
are some people that feel, you know, there are others
that perhaps have got more to say, but you can't
deny Nick's done a good job in getting this stuff
(15:05):
out there, and I mean he's just one of many
people that are now trying to kind of put this stuff.
We've got great organizations like the Soul Foundation, you know,
led by people like Gary Nolan. I mean that they
are making huge advances in holding events, trying to get
speakers who are very high level to actually talk about
(15:26):
the whole UAP situation. And then there's some amazing podcasters
now that are putting out really excellent work. And you've
got people like Daniel Sheehan who's trying to kind of
from a legal point of view, get, if not disclosure,
at least you know, a more open conversation about all
of this. So you know, you've got so many people
(15:49):
now out there who were constantly talking about this, and
every day they're covering new footage of UFOs and new events,
and yet you've got this complete silence from the media
and the authorities as if this isn't actually happening. And
I think that is in the end a kind of
a dangerous situation because it's got to go somewhere. And
(16:12):
I know there've been big USO flats before, but I
do feel this time is different. And because so many
other things in the world do you seem to be
turning upside down, and I mentioned AI and that is,
you know, an area that I think is going to
change many many things. There are, of course, some people
that believe that the ets that people meet the graves
(16:34):
and all of that are in themselves the kind of
biological AI. So it's bringing a number of objects together.
And some think the fact that this is coming to
a head now is actually not coincidental.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Do you think there are people within government ours and
yours that are resistant to disclosure? Is there a faction
there that's fighting this.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Yes, it we definitely seem so, and certainly in the
US because like after the congressional hearings, you know, and
obviously there were very good people there that were open
to this, you know, people like Tim Burcher has done
amazing work in trying to just get a conversation going
about it. But equally, yeah, they have the opposition. There
(17:21):
are people in very high places that you know, on
the surface they will say that we don't want to
talk about it because it's obviously or false, there's nothing
worth talking about. But of course a lot of people
see that as just to cover for the fact that
actually there very much is something worth talking about. But
you've got an issue, I suppose, because ayes, they probably
(17:43):
want this kind of technology kept under wraps because they
want it for themselves. They want to get the upper hand.
But there's the other argument, and kind of Davy Grush
sort of hinted at this in the congressional hearings, which
is that, of course there might be things that might
well disturb the public if you announce that ets are here.
(18:05):
That is a big thing. And although perhaps you and
I and many people listening today wouldn't be so worried
about that because we're used to that idea, unfortunately, I
think a lot of the world would react, probably quite
so that they're in a very shocked way to that.
And then you've got to deal with the fallout from that.
And then you are basically saying, well, actually the authorities
(18:27):
cannot control their own airspace. That doesn't look terribly good.
People won't feel so secure. And then the day you
announce that the etes are here and we've got some
of their technology, you suddenly realize that authority is stepped
up to another level, that actually our authority is our
governments may not be the bottom line, because if their
(18:48):
power is higher than men and more powerful than them,
then what you know, who's controlling the show. So it
does raise I think many serious issues, and I do
feel that that is one of the reasons why there
is I think a conflict going on within governments and
you know, probably beyond to right down to the black
(19:09):
ops levels where yeah, this is it is a serious debay.
So it's not straightforward. I know that, you know, we
all want some level of disclosure, but of course even
if some extra level did come, now there's always going
to be people feeling, well, they're not telling us the
whole truth, and are they giving us any truth? Is
this in itself another distraction? So you know, we've all
(19:32):
got into the situation where nobody's going to be quite
sure what to believe anymore, and that in itself, of
course presents a lot of difficulties.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast am on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
And welcome back to Coast to Coast George Norrie back.
Andy Thomas with us. One of the United Kingdom's leading
researchers into the unexplained mysteries and conspiracy theories. As many
works and books include the acclaimed The Truth Agenda, which
explores paranormal phenomena, global cover ups and prophecies and Vital Signs,
widely described as the definitive guide to the controversial crop
(00:28):
circle phenomenon and nominated for a Kindred Spirit Magazine's Best
Book Award. Andy lectures regularly around the world, makes many
regular appearances on radio and television, and here he is
back on Coast to Coast. Hello, Andy, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
It's good to be back. Thank you, George.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Our things out there in the United Kingdom.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well a bit topsy turvy. I think, like everywhere, like you,
We've got big elections coming up this year, but nobody
is really quite sure which way to go. And you know,
I think we're living in times now where nothing will
be the same anymore, and everybody feels it in their bones,
but we're all trying to pretend that everything's going to
carry on as it was, and I don't think it will.
(01:14):
I think we're very much in a new era of
huge change. And you know, I think that's what you know,
people like yourselves, and you know, the work we're doing
over here, we're trying to tap into really give a
new perspective, stand back from it all and look at
maybe the bigger things that are going on.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, it seems like the world has just slipped upside down,
doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Yes, it has. But I guess that's not entirely a
bad thing as long as we respond in a positive
way to that. But I think hanging on with our fingernails,
you know, pretending that all the old things that used
to work are going to carry on working, I don't
think that that's the solution anymore. So we've got to
accept that, you know, with the advent of AI and
(01:57):
all of this that's coming up very quickly, some computing,
it is going to be different. So we need to
try to kind of cut the way through that that
where we get the best out of it and we
survive as human beings. And you know, we don't find
ourselves in a world that is no longrained at us.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
You've got a new book coming out next year. We'll
talk about that a little bit later on and definitely
get you back on Andy when that book comes out.
But the book you wrote several years ago, the new
heretics tell us about that title.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So the new heretics, So yeah, I mean that's really
my current book came out a couple of years ago,
but it's turned out to be very relevant. So a heretic,
of course, is somebody that is deemed to be no
longer speaking the orthodoxy. And you know, throughout history we've
had heretics who've been condemned for speaking out on things
that they felt were important. And the new heretics, well
(02:52):
that's people like yourself, people like me, people like anybody
out there that is trying to study things that are
branded alternative this or in a branded conspiracy. And of course,
rather cleverly, what's happened over the years, is there anybody
that talks about that is now the portrayed as the
enemy because they are disrupting, you know, all the kind
(03:14):
of the normal things of life. Well that's how it's
put across. Whereas, of course those of us who believe
we need to talk about these areas we're saying, well, no,
it's not like that. We're not here to disrupt with
a deliberate intent for harm, which is the way that
it's put across in the media. We're trying to get
conversations going that actually, you know, reveal a layer of
(03:37):
reality that just needs to be looked at. So the
book is about, you know, how do we become heretics,
How can we get a world where we can actually
talk about this without polarization. And you know, we all
know polarization is one of the big topics of the time,
and we've now got everybody on one side or the
(03:58):
other or on any sub jet shouting at each other
across the divide, and the book The New Heretics, is
a way to try to sort of see how we
can do it differently, you know, speak our truth, get
it out there without winding up in a conflict situation.
And it's certainly you know, I'm pleased to say I've
had a lot of very positive reaction to it. It
(04:20):
has brought some people to looking at the other side
and considering that okay, it's all right to have a
different view, and it has stood up for people like
ourselves and got word out there that, look, we actually
have a right to exist, to question the orthodoxes that
are all around us, and you know, hopefully it will
keep doing that because we need to. We need to
(04:41):
keep the word out there that there are things going
on in the world that are not reflected in the mainstream.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
And the mystery seem to be more acceptable today than
they were ten twenty years ago, don't they.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, it's interesting, I would say that is probably true
where you are. I think that's true over here. I mean,
I think because you've had in America. Of course, you've
had the US Congressional hearings right on UAPs and UFOs,
and you know that got a lot of coverage. It's funny,
our media are much more cynical over here. And although
(05:17):
there's been a bit of coverage of that and the
issues that's raised, there's still a sneering quality here. There's
still a feeling that you know, this is minor stuff.
It will all blow over. You know that we don't
need to take it very seriously. But that's the impression
that we get from the media. So although when you
talk to people and I give an awful lot of
(05:39):
lectures over here and in other countries, including your own,
you realize that actually there are people that are very
open to the paranormal, to looking at things in a
way that might be branded conspiracy and all of that,
but they're afraid to speak out. And the reason they're
afraid is that they feel they will be ridiculed or
(06:01):
condemned if they do. So that's the thing, especially here.
The impression given by the media is that nobody believes
in these things, and if you do, you're a terrible person.
But actually, when you talk to people one to one,
that's not how it is. A lot of them are
far more open than you would think. And I'm really
hoping that there will be some more level of well,
(06:24):
let's call it disclosure, whatever that turns out to be,
where the media here especially are going to have to
eat a few words and actually come back to the
table and reconsider their position. That would be very nice
if they did.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Was the British media always skeptical?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I don't think always. I think there was a time,
certainly back in the nineteen seventies, in the nineteen eighties,
you have people like Uri Gallery and all that talking
openly about psychic phenomena, and you know, there were people
Eric von Danakin and UFOs and I think there was
a time when there was a kind of a feeling, well,
this could be something, but that all changed, that all
(07:05):
got turned around, and then the debunking came in, and
that was similar with crop circles, which is, you know,
an area that I have long been very involved with
over the years. Most people here think the whole thing's joke,
that it all ended twenty years ago, that you know,
every single crop circle ever was all made by people,
(07:26):
because that's what was put out there in the mainstream
in the nineteen nineties. And although actually that position was
never proved and some of the alleged people who've made
the crop circles were really not very good at actually
making them. Nonetheless, it's stuck in the public's mind. And
you know, for the newspapers, especially here, which are famously
(07:49):
voracious in their attitude, you know, they just don't want
to hear anything other than what they've already stated. They
don't want to be shown to be wrong. And that's
why we've got a problem with the whole UFO UOP thing.
They've been so cynical about it for so many decades
now they don't want to turn that around. They don't
want to have to admit that perhaps they were wrong
(08:11):
all along, and I think that's one of the key problems.
And of course that just adds to the polarization.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Our Defense Department, Andy has an organization called the All
Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which came out a few months
ago with a report that basically says no evidence whatsoever
of ET involvement and reverse engineering, none of this. I mean,
they almost like destroyed the whole concept. What do you
(08:40):
think's going on there?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, so this is I think we pronounced the arrow
as a here, but yeah, absolutely so. This is where
an opportunity was missed. So we had the congressional hearings,
We had a couple of well known pilots, and of
course David Grush, the intelligence officer, saying, look, there is
a phenomenon here. We need to look at this. Now.
(09:04):
Not everybody is comfortable with what was said, but a
lot of people feel that this was certainly a subject
that should have been discussed. And so there was a
moment there where there was an opportunity for, you know,
the authorities to at the very least say you, all right,
look there is something here. We're not quite sure what's
going on, but we're going to let you know a
(09:26):
little bit more. And that was the hope, and it
looked for a brief time like that's where it was going.
But as you say, suddenly this new report comes out
at a very old world. It's absolutely like going back
to nothing here to see it's all a big joke.
I mean, the original kind of director of Arrow, who
(09:46):
was Sean Kirkpatrick, he resigned and he basically said, this
whole kind of thing's been hijacked by conspiracy theorists. You know,
you don't want to listen to them. I've seen no
evidence of alien intell agent blah blah blah. And the
problem with that is that there is actually an awful
lot of evidence that at the very least, even though
(10:09):
it might not be absolute proof, that a lot of
people in high places have revealed details which need to
be looked at, there is a phenomenon and we do
have it is said, you know, whistleblower is queuing up
to be heard. But of course now by this new
report basically trying to take us back thirty years, they're
(10:31):
now wondering, well, maybe this isn't the time we thought
this was the time to come forward. Maybe it isn't.
So we're at this really interesting moment where there's a
hell of a lot of interest bubbling up and endless
podcasts and researchers saying this is obviously real, we need
to know more. And then you've got the authorities saying no,
(10:51):
it's nothing to see here. So it's disappointing, But I
don't think it's going to end here. I think, without
any question, this is going to go somewhere. But as
the number of people are pointed out, there's a choice here.
There could have been some level of official disclosure, however mild,
or you get what's called catastrophic disclosure, where actually it
(11:13):
all comes out in the wrong way unexpectedly and there
might be revelations that could upset things in a way
that's actually very sort of unsilted, which is presumably not
what the authorities want. So yeah, we're at a very
very interesting time here where it goes in the next
year or so, it's going to be very interesting to see.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
You had an incredible UFO case years ago in the
United Kingdom called rendelshamp Forest. Does that come up much anymore?
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Yeah? So, I mean that's kind of like our version
of Roswell really, which by the way, I visited just
about three weeks ago. I've never actually physically been there before,
so I was fascinating to see the landscape round there,
visit the museum and so on. But over here we
have randals from forest. So it's where in the late
seventies and the early eighties there there was a couple
(12:06):
of years but there were a series of USO sightings
around the US military base there, and we've got so
much testimony that something really did occur that there really
is no question. But that in itself is another sort
of ridiculous situation where despite all the people that testified
(12:28):
to seeing this craft coming down, and indeed other craft
and lights that are simply inexplicable, the world was told no,
all they saw was a lighthouse which stood a few
miles away. Now, the lighthouse was there every single day,
you know what, they think the soldiers wouldn't have noticed it,
and then one night they thought a lighthouse was a UFO.
(12:49):
These are the kinds of ridiculous things that get put
out there in the media because if you don't know
the evidence, if you don't think about it, it sounds
credible enough to put the average. First off, anybody that
knows what actually was seen at Randullsham Forest will know
that that simply makes no sense. And Colonel Holt, who
was one of the kind of keyperson the time, you know,
(13:12):
he himself has said something did happen. Now, there's been
arguments about that, stories have got changed over the years,
but nonetheless it's absolutely clear that there was something there
that was covered up for a long while, but in
the end they couldn't hold it down. And that's just
one of many similar side things experiences around the world.
(13:34):
And this seems to be going on actually somewhere all
the time. And I think that's the thing. It's not
now just a few isolated cases. There's so many whistleblowers
coming forward who are very credible saying that there is
a near constant interaction with this craft. Let's called them
that for the sake of an argument, and you know,
authorities and they're holding it down. But how long can
(13:58):
you hold that down for before something has to give?
So there was an opportunity in the last year to
try to shift the conversation. It's just a bit disappointing
at the moment. They're trying to pull it back, and
I know there's a lot of forces within kind of
like the industrial military complex and governments that don't want
(14:18):
this to come out because of course, this kind of technology,
wherever it comes from, it's something they want to keep
for themselves and get the upper hand on the world
stage with. But I'm just not sure in the end
that that's going to keep working.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Andy. Our friend Nick Polpe used to work for the
British Ministry of Defense, a great ufologist. Does his name
come up much in the United Kingdom anymore?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah? I mean so Nick is kind of the go
to guy for the papers because you know, when next
story came out about the work he had done for
the Ministry of Defense over USOS, of course, you know
that was quite an interesting person to have there. There
are some people that feel, you know, there are others
that perhaps have got more to say, but you can't
deny Nick's done a good job in getting this stuff
(15:05):
out there, and I mean he's just one of many
people that are now trying to kind of put this stuff.
We've got great organizations like the Soul Foundation, you know,
led by people like Gary Nolan. I mean that they
are making huge advances in holding events, trying to get
speakers who are very high level to actually talk about
(15:26):
the whole UAP situation. And then there's some amazing podcasters
now that are putting out really excellent work. And you've
got people like Daniel Sheehan who's trying to kind of
from a legal point of view, get, if not disclosure,
at least you know, a more open conversation about all
of this. So you know, you've got so many people
(15:49):
now out there who were constantly talking about this, and
every day they're covering new footage of UFOs and new events,
and yet you've got this complete silence from the media
and the authorities as if this isn't actually happening. And
I think that is in the end a kind of
a dangerous situation because it's got to go somewhere. And
(16:12):
I know there've been big USO flats before, but I
do feel this time is different. And because so many
other things in the world do you seem to be
turning upside down, and I mentioned AI and that is,
you know, an area that I think is going to
change many many things. There are, of course, some people
that believe that the ets that people meet the graves
(16:34):
and all of that are in themselves the kind of
biological AI. So it's bringing a number of objects together.
And some think the fact that this is coming to
a head now is actually not coincidental.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Do you think there are people within government ours and
yours that are resistant to disclosure? Is there a faction
there that's fighting this.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Yes, it we definitely seem so, and certainly in the
US because like after the congressional hearings, you know, and
obviously there were very good people there that were open
to this, you know, people like Tim Burcher has done
amazing work in trying to just get a conversation going
about it. But equally, yeah, they have the opposition. There
(17:21):
are people in very high places that you know, on
the surface they will say that we don't want to
talk about it because it's obviously or false, there's nothing
worth talking about. But of course a lot of people
see that as just to cover for the fact that
actually there very much is something worth talking about. But
you've got an issue, I suppose, because ayes, they probably
(17:43):
want this kind of technology kept under wraps because they
want it for themselves. They want to get the upper hand.
But there's the other argument, and kind of Davy Grush
sort of hinted at this in the congressional hearings, which
is that, of course there might be things that might
well disturb the public if you announce that ets are here.
(18:05):
That is a big thing. And although perhaps you and
I and many people listening today wouldn't be so worried
about that because we're used to that idea, unfortunately, I
think a lot of the world would react, probably quite
so that they're in a very shocked way to that.
And then you've got to deal with the fallout from that.
And then you are basically saying, well, actually the authorities
(18:27):
cannot control their own airspace. That doesn't look terribly good.
People won't feel so secure. And then the day you
announce that the etes are here and we've got some
of their technology, you suddenly realize that authority is stepped
up to another level, that actually our authority is our
governments may not be the bottom line, because if their
(18:48):
power is higher than men and more powerful than them,
then what you know, who's controlling the show. So it
does raise I think many serious issues, and I do
feel that that is one of the reasons why there
is I think a conflict going on within governments and
you know, probably beyond to right down to the black
(19:09):
ops levels where yeah, this is it is a serious debay.
So it's not straightforward. I know that, you know, we
all want some level of disclosure, but of course even
if some extra level did come, now there's always going
to be people feeling, well, they're not telling us the
whole truth, and are they giving us any truth? Is
this in itself another distraction? So you know, we've all
(19:32):
got into the situation where nobody's going to be quite
sure what to believe anymore, and that in itself, of
course presents a lot of difficulties.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.