August 15, 2025 • 53 mins
New look at the Roswell UFO crash from a VERY unique perspective. Joining me is attorney and author, Chris Johnston to discuss how a novel look at the 1947 Roswell incident makes the case for an off-world craft crashing in New Mexico! I also ask Chris about legal proceedings against the US government for keeping knowledge of extraterrestrial materials secret from the public, and how litigating may be most effective.
☕️Please help the YouTube channel grow. SUBSCRIBE, like, comment, and click the Notification Bell so you don’t miss a show. Thank you! https://www.youtube.com/mysticlounge
JOHNSTON is a recognized trial attorney and Certified Civil Trial Specialist, with over two decades of litigation experience. Chris has successfully argued cases before the Iowa Supreme Court and has built a reputation as a fierce advocate and legal thinker. He is a contributing member of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) and has authored multiple articles for the MUFON Journal Chris’ debut book, Roswell: The Truth on Trial, reimagines the legendary 1947 UFO crash as a jury trial, complete with opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments—placing the reader in the role of juror. For more please see: https://lawgroupofiowa.com/attorneys/christopher-johnston/
https://www.hollywooddisclosurealliance.org
HALF LIGHT documentary: https://tubitv.com/movies/678744/half-light
#uap #ufo #roswell
☕️Please help the YouTube channel grow. SUBSCRIBE, like, comment, and click the Notification Bell so you don’t miss a show. Thank you! https://www.youtube.com/mysticlounge
JOHNSTON is a recognized trial attorney and Certified Civil Trial Specialist, with over two decades of litigation experience. Chris has successfully argued cases before the Iowa Supreme Court and has built a reputation as a fierce advocate and legal thinker. He is a contributing member of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) and has authored multiple articles for the MUFON Journal Chris’ debut book, Roswell: The Truth on Trial, reimagines the legendary 1947 UFO crash as a jury trial, complete with opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments—placing the reader in the role of juror. For more please see: https://lawgroupofiowa.com/attorneys/christopher-johnston/
https://www.hollywooddisclosurealliance.org
HALF LIGHT documentary: https://tubitv.com/movies/678744/half-light
#uap #ufo #roswell
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
However you are and whenever you are, Welcome back everyone
to coffee in UFOs. After a little bit of a hiatus,
we are back with a great guest, Christopher Johnston, and
we're going to be talking about the Roswell incident nineteen
forty seven, but from a different angle and from the
perspective of an attorney who wrote a fictional novel to
(00:32):
explore that space. So really fascinating for me, totally novel
approach to the Roswell case. So I'm excited to share
that with you. Jump in the comment section and share
your questions and I'm sure you'll have plenty for Christopher tonight.
As a friendly reminder, this podcast is rebroadcast on the
ONEX Network eleven pm Eastern Time and two am Pacific
(00:56):
time every Thursday night and Friday morning, and then this
this podcast will be posted on iTunes or any other
platform you listen to your podcast on Tomorrow morning Friday mornings.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Let's see, so we have a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
In the world of news, and I think I'm going
to focus on that more next week because I really
want to get as much time out of Christopher as
we can tonight. So let me just jump into it
and bring Chris on now. Chris, welcome, How are.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
You hey, Alan, Thanks Gram, I'm great.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
That's awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
So you wrote a book called Roswell, The Truth on Trial, right,
and in your words, it reimagines the legendary nineteen forty
seven UFO crash. Before we dig in deep on that,
can you give us a little bit of a primer
how you came to study this and write about it.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sure, and if you don't mind a kind of a
long primer, you'll find a talk a lot like a
lot of as lawyers do. So and I always preface
this because I think you know right now you say
roswell and large, huge swaths of are popular. Oh yeah,
of course roswell right right. But although the events happened
(02:13):
in nineteen forty seven, it wasn't really until the nineteen
seventies and Stanton Friedman got his hands into Roswell and
really started digging in that Roswell kind of became you
know what it is now and you know we all
know about it. So the reason I bring that up
so I'm fifty five. I was born in sixty nine,
so I was a kid right in the heart of
(02:34):
the you know, the real beginning of the social touchstone
of UFOs and my dad was, you know, some some
dads fish and some play baseball. Though my dad talked
about UFOs, watched anything, and at the time there was
you know, much less but read anything he could get
his hands on. And that was so the UFO topic,
believe it or not. So I bonded with my dad
(02:56):
of all the kind of usual like.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
My mom and I used to watch it X files together.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Perfect yeah. And you know, so then then life happens,
and I developed kind of my own subsets of interest,
you know, within the within the category. And I now,
as you mentioned, so I'm now in my twenty fifth
year of being a trial lawyer. So you know, life happens,
and you know, then kids and family and all this,
(03:21):
and then so I maintained the interest and I get
a lot of additional court anyway through that you know,
period of having kids and being busy as all, you know,
go and get out, I continued. I did coursework in
space law, I did some coursework in astrobiology, and then
one day the kids were gone and I had all
this free time, it seemed, but so I finally had
(03:44):
reset point in life. Where I could really get into
my own hobbies, you know, not necessarily hobbies that are
just your kids, and so Roswell, you know, because of that,
that touchdown was the first thing I had heard about it.
It had always been with me, and I think it's fascinating,
and I wanted to write a book. And you know, I,
especially for an attorney, I am not dry. I'm very creative.
(04:06):
I go about, you know, things in a creative manner.
And I wanted to write a book, and I wanted
it to be a trial primer, but I also wanted
an interesting subject matter. And so you know, it took
but just the concept took months of that sort of
you know, what can I do? I do? And then
I realized, you know, one of the things that I
(04:26):
like about trial work is what a great way to
you know, to get evidence and to answer questions? Right
you have a direct exam and a cross exam boom
right there. And I thought, well, what a great way
to present Roswell or any of these old you know,
any old mystery. I don't take a position in the book.
You know, it's it's just like a jury. The judge
(04:48):
in a trial. The judge he takes a position. It
just simply here's the evidence and you decide. So when
I hit upon it, I was like, oh geez, I
could you know I could do Roswell, you know as
a trial island and see what I uncover. So that
that was the genesis of you know, why Roswell and
why the book?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And when you were writing the book, did you come
across any thoughts that you just hit you that hadn't
occurred to you before regarding the ros elevant.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, very late in the day. You know, I didn't,
and I didn't anticipate that I would. But you know
I didn't unearth anything, you know, any great you know,
or shattering information.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
You didn't find the craft.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
I did not. But on that point of the craft,
you know, taking everything at face value, so you know,
you might have got to this question later. I personally
my position. I believe the evidence is there to support
an extraterrustrial craft crashed. I do not believe that the
evidence supports extraterustrial bodies. That's just my opinion on it. So,
(05:57):
but if we were to take what we've been told
along the years, everything from New Mexico was bottled up
and it was shipped down to Fort Worth, and from
Fort Worth it went to Right pat Is what you know,
that's a fairly widely accepted theory of what went on here. Sure, well,
I started thinking about it. I was like, well, you
know Right Patterson Airfield, and at time it was two
(06:19):
separate ones, but you know, that's what they were about,
was sort of aircraft, you know, development, study, research, that
sort of thing. So that makes a lot of sense. However,
there was not a hospital at Right pat let alone
a morgue or a pathology clinic or anything else until
nineteen fifty two, so I just find that interesting that
(06:40):
And I hadn't heard you know, I'm not saying this
is Chris's own unique. I've never come across that thought.
I've never heard it put out there. But I knew
somebody that worked at the hospital at Right pat and
I mentioned to him and he's like, didn't exist. I did.
It wasn't even much of a deep dive, but it was.
It was accurate. So there was no hospital. So that
(07:01):
is a little blip that I kind of think if
there were bodies, you know, you wouldn't have sent them
to this hangar eighteen. You wouldn't have sad m the right, pat,
you would have sent him to, you know, Walter Reed
in d C. Or the presidio out in San Francisco,
something along those lines. So that's the nugget that I
think is pretty neat that I came across.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yet, But didn't they have a like a biological department
for for studying biologics of some sort?
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Not not at right, pat, not not not a well
developed you know, as far as their biologic study, because
there's their stated interest. So again we have to take
things at face value. And the government said there's stated interest.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And it's only just just after the Manhattan Project era.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
So yeah, yeah, you know, so so that's what they say.
But I I just have a you know, say, you
and I, we're the government, we have a couple of
these bodies. Are we just going to quickly well, hey,
let's send the crowd, just send it all there. No,
I just don't think we'd go that way.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Then what way do you think we would go?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, as I said, I think if there were extraterrestrials,
I think they would have been set elsewhere. You know,
probably Walter.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Reed is probably probably Walter.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Walter Reed Hospital, right, And you know, neither here nor
there necessarily, it just begs the question of yet another
little wrinkle, if you.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Will understood, right, and I think that that there is
a wrinkle with the body's scenario.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
You know.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Even Kevin Randall, you know, had kind of turned his
opinion on that, I don't know about like ten years
ago or so, towards the fact that maybe there isn't
enough evidence. You have a lot of anecdotal but they're
like secondhand anecdotal.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Right right right in one of the big ones, you know,
when it comes to the bodies people, you know, and
this is nobody doing anything bad or nefarious. It's just
simply how information gets transmitted and changed and added too.
Because when it comes to the bodies, people like most
people like to point at Glen Dennis, who was the
local mortician, and they say, well, Glen Dennis got this
(09:14):
call and asked if he had you know, four child
size for medically sealable coffins, and that he had him
and he took him to the base. Well that got
added somewhere because Glenn Dennis himself in an interview said
that he didn't have the coffins right, so he said,
I could get the coffins but I don't have them.
(09:36):
Then when another rink I find interesting for reasons unknown,
even though he didn't have the coffins, he went to
the crash site.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You know why it's good to have a lawyer, because
you pay attention to the words.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Right, yeah, much much of my wife's chagrin. Right, that's
you know, and words are words are important and and
they mean something. So so Glenn Dennis, you know, begs
the question. Okay, you don't have what they asked, but
you decide to go there anyway. You know. That's that's
a little unusual. And then Walter Hout, who was the
(10:09):
public information officer. So Walter, how this I find him
interesting in the realm of the bodies as well. So
Walter Hout was involved in the drafting of the original
press release that a disc was found, and he was
involved in the retraction. So we know this happens in
nineteen forty seven, So in nineteen ninety three, so we're talking,
you know, coming up on fifty years after the event.
(10:31):
Mister Hout executed an affidavit about the Roswell incident nine
years after that, so now we're in two thousand and two.
I think it is he executes a second affidavit. Well,
wouldn't you know it the first one? There is no
reference to bodies in that first affidavit, and then it
pops up in the second affidavit. And you know, the
(10:52):
way we go about this and even the way I
set it up in my book, you know, on cross
exam for example, Well, mister Smith, would you agree with me,
memories don't get better overtime, do they? You know? And
you kind of get them hung up on that. So
my point is, how you're telling me you do an
affidavit and then you add bodies to it nine years
later kind of is bearing the lead in my estimation.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Yes, but okay, so then what would be the explanation there?
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Well, his explanation was the first affiday, but he wasn't
asked about the extraterrestrial, about the bodies. He was just
asked about what happened, and so it was a more
generalized affidavit.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
So he felt maybe perhaps like he was not betraying
his oh so much.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, and not his words, but that
that's probably a pretty good analysis. You know, Hey, I
can say the sun came up. I don't have to
say what time.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Necessarily because then the other question you have to ask
is why why would you say it the second time?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Why would you include it the second time?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah, well again his comment was the first time he
wasn't asked about it. And then a lot of these
you know, these later in life testimonies, you know that
come up. It's usually a variation of the theme of well,
at this point in life, you know, or I need
to do what's right is things are winding down and
you know, okay, maybe maybe maybe not. I'll say this.
(12:18):
You know, as I mentioned, my book is a real
trial primer. Some of you are to read it that way,
and you know, there's when you go to court, you
can't just do whatever. There's rules, and there's rules of evidence,
and so like a big one for example, most people
have heard hears say like you can't. I couldn't go
to court and say, hey, Alan, tell them what Mike
(12:39):
told you. You know that that would be hearsay right
there exactly. So you know that talk about a challenge
with the book too, with everyone being dead and no
physical evidence. You know, I had to I had to
make a little fudging with the hearsay rules. But as
we were discussing one of the exceptions to hearsay, there's
there's seven of them. But two of the exceptions that
(13:02):
would kind of apply here are what are called excited utterances.
So that's an exception to hear say, hey, Alan, tell
them what Mike told you. Well, first I would have
to lay foundation, Alan, tell tell the jury what Mike
was behaving like, Oh, he was all fired up in
this and that and that, okay, and then what and
then he said okay, So that's an excited utterance exception,
(13:25):
so to the hearsay rule. So I kind of look
at it and go, okay, Well, if the courts were
smart enough to consider sometimes people say things differently in
different circumstances, then I should probably give them the same
benefit of the doubt. You know. There's also an exception,
which is called a dying declaration, so the same thing.
(13:45):
It has to be the person really has to believe
that they are actually dying. So it might not work.
But to my point, the courts have determined over the
years certain evidence should be treated certain ways in those
late in life testimonies. They not necessarily green, but they're acceptable.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
But acceptable, And and yes, it's true that the memory
can be distorted it can fade over time, and you
can actually confuse memory. You can actually absorb another someone
else's memory or experience that they've shared with you, and
you incorporate it and you believe it's part of your memory.
(14:22):
Especially in the alien of debduction cases, that that's a
that's a very sticky situation and when you're dealing with
you know, recall versus under hypnosis and then over time.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
I mean, if you talk to Bennie and Barney Hill,
like the way they phrase things or said said things
about certain things were a little bit different over the years.
But that's but that's perfectly natural.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
It doesn't mean they're being.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Deceptive absolutely, you know, And you know I use that
a lot. Hey, I'm not saying anyone's malingering. I'm not
saying anyone is, you know. Or the flip of that
is I believe you believe I'm not. You know, I'm
not saying that.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
So, uh, let's ask you then, do you really believe
that an extraterrestrial craft literally crashed in New Mexico.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Based on the evidence with the evidentiary standards that I applied, Yes,
I do.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Okay, what is the most important element that you can
pull from everything that you've researched that you think stands
above the rest as being as close to as empirical
of an evidence you know, to present as a lawyer,
(15:42):
you know what, would you sit there and go here,
look at this?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Sure if the so I set up my book so
in a civil trial you have the plaintiff in the defendants. Okay,
uh so I'm in my real job, I'm a plaintiff attorney.
For the purposes of the book, I structured it as
believers and skeptics. So that's the way I went with it,
(16:08):
and I found it in this you know you'd asked.
I was kind of surprised by this throughout the entire book.
I I never kind of thought this guy would really
make my radar. But I believe the best witness for
the for the believers, the guy would be absolutely rock
solid mac brasel himself, who is the ranch hand that
(16:31):
first found the debris. You know, in my book, I
have a whole section on weighing evidence, and I talk
about the rules and kind of things that you look
at macbrasl He had no he had no bias, He
had no motive, either at the time or later in life.
He didn't make money off the deal. He didn't change
his story, and in fact, I would paint him as
(16:54):
the most honest man you ever wanted. He found the
materials and he put it in his truck and he
drove out with fitness truck for a couple of days.
You know, he wasn't out to make a name. He
wasn't out to do He was simply doing his thing.
And people like that, that's who resonates with the jurors,
because that's who jurors are. They're just they're your neighbor.
They're the normal guy or gal just living down the street.
(17:17):
Everybody else, all the cast of characters. Yeah, maybe maybe
they're really young and so they're not that good. Or
maybe it's Philip Klass who's a known skeptic all the time.
You know, there's always somebody. But Mac Brazl rock solid,
kind of beginning to end, and he touched the materials.
You know, he held the materials so across the board.
(17:37):
He's my favorite witness.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
You pull him as as a witness, do you think
that someone like him would hold up under the scrutiny
and pressure, because in real life it appears that the
army had intimidated mac Into into silence.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Yeah, you know, objections, speculation, I will say. I'll say
this so I practice. So I have an office in Minneapolis,
Minnesota and Des Moines, Iowa. And I'm sitting here in
Des Moines, Iowa right now, and I have I have
tried to plenty of cases and I'll tell you, uh,
my farmer witnesses or the farmer clients, and there's a
(18:21):
lot of them here. Iolad They're unflappable. And that see,
that's kind of how I imagine mister mister Brassel, because
the farmers, you know here in Iowa, all they want
to do is do their thing and get out of here.
And they don't I don't want to hear some some
big story. And when they they testify, they don't care
if you believe them or not. They're just telling you
(18:41):
what happened. So I think, you know, having actually seen
those types of folks, or at least how I imagine mister Brassele,
I imagine he would he would have done great?
Speaker 2 (18:53):
What about Roger Raimi?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Wouldn't don't you think Raimi would would would eventually with
a good lawyer grilling him, would he be honest and
tell the truth because he posed, you know, with the
fake material.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Right. Yeah, And I have some some real world opinions
about guys like Ramie. So for the skeptics, although mac
Brows I think is best witness all they are on.
When asked about the skeptics, I usually go with General
Ramie and the reason he is It's just like I
have tried civil rights cases, you know, police brutality types
(19:31):
of cases, things like that, And when I first started
working on this and seeing the pictures of Rami or
reminded me of one of those trials. Because let's say
you're the offending officer. You might be off work today,
it doesn't matter. You show up at court in your
class a fanciest uniform, every pin you can possibly have,
and I get it, you know, I don't like it,
(19:53):
but it's all I always one of the first questions
I'd ask is, go, are you a working today officer?
WHOA No. I was just trying to undercut that. But
you take a guy like Rainy, that's clever. You take
a guy like Ramy again, he was no slouch. He
ran you know, when the Army Air Force went to split,
(20:13):
he went to lead the entire air force. I mean,
this guy full uniform, you know, I don't know how
many star in general. And he was smart about it.
You know, he essentially conceded, we made a mistake, right.
It was about really all they could do, you know, yep,
I issue the retraction. It was kind of they made
(20:33):
a mistake, you know. So I don't think Ramy, you know,
guys like him, I've dealt with guys like him on
the stand. I think he would have his story, he
would stick to it, and I don't I don't think
he'd mind. You know, the best you'd have on Ramie
is he would own up that, yes, it was a mistake.
Then you'd have to be all over him. Okay, do
(20:54):
you really expect these jurors to believe that a guy
like you at a nuclear base like this would make
that kind of mistake, You know, that's kind of the
doubt in there. But yeah, I think Ramy would probably
stick stick to whatever the story was, right, And.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I think there's an interesting thing there.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
So indeed, if they were making a terrible, terrible mistake
like that in the real world, there would be some
you know, reprimanding reassignment because that, especially after World War two.
You know, it's kind of like after nine eleven, there's
like a height of national security awareness, and so for
(21:35):
him to be so to make such a silly mistake
seems just you know, very odd.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Right, right. And you know, if I had really written
this book the way a real Roswell trial would have gone,
it would have been about one hundred I'd still be
working on it right to hundreds of thousands of pages.
You know, but for that exact line of questioning, knowing
that that's where it would go, you'd start out laying
the foundation about how the you know, how is it
(22:04):
you decide to issue press releases, what information is considered,
and you'd get you'd lay out every step of that procedure.
Then you turn around and start going, oh okay, in
showing how where the failings were on the Roswell press release.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Well, Jesse Marcel, he was the security officer for the base,
and I mean that again, to make such a terrible mistake,
miscalculation to assume that something's an alien craft from another planet.
And yet he kept his position there and he served honorably,
so behind the scenes, he wasn't getting.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
There were no repercussions for for making a.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Quote unquote mistake, right, and that that is also interesting.
And you know, I like Jesse Marcel also as a
witness for the believers. But he's he's got one big
area that I go after him in the book is
what I would do in real life. I got him
going down this path of he follows orders because you
(23:05):
know later in life he came out and he said,
you know this because of following orders. So I lay
the trap. Follow orders? Why do you follow orders? Oh?
They're so important, they're so important. Okay, so tell me
about the order that said you should take some of
this material to your house. Right, it doesn't exist. It's
it's kind of it's a little bit of a mic
drop moment because you know, he picked up materials and
(23:26):
he showed it to his kids. So I would have
a little bit of an angle of attack. But he
something interesting happened by what he did. He gave me
an area, you know, if this is a chess game
to kind of go after a little bit. However, he
created more witnesses to the material that he ended up
that he ended up taking home, right, right, you know
(23:47):
what I mean?
Speaker 1 (23:48):
So that that's an interesting But if if I were
trying to make the case for Roswell and putting him
on the stand as a witness. That would actually be
to my benefit because the only reason he wouldn't follow
protocol and bring the materials directly back to base and
actually show them to his family is because they he
(24:09):
would have assumed that it's outside the purview of their
national security regulations and laws and you know, protocols, right,
because if it's something from off world, there's nothing that
he ever trained for that said, this is what you
do when you find an alien craft. Right, So he's
not breaking any laws, he's not breaking any oaths or
(24:31):
disobeying any commands.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
It would seem to me, yeah, and you know, I.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Not knowing what to their actual you know, procedures are,
but that could be you know, a very good you
know argument by the defense. And just so like all
your listeners know, and we all all trialers do it
to varying degrees. But say for example, that I am
calling Jesse Marcel as the plaintiffer is the believer attorney.
(24:58):
You know, you lay your found and the who are
you and what I and all that kind of stuff,
and then you almost immediately so even though I'm calling
them was my witness, I would immediately go into the
Now you ended up taking some of this home, right,
you have to address the client because I will spin
it this one and you took some home, and now
(25:19):
you get it. Well, yeah, but it wasn't really clear
what was going on. And then I can say fair
enough and we move on. But you can imagine if
the defense calls you right and adjusting ourselves the witness,
then it's the end of the world. And so you
always get out in front of your own problem so
that you can spin them your way.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Right, I can understand that.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
So that that's an interesting thing about approaching this like
like a case, because you have to look at it
from all those different angles. I really appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Do you do you think that.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
That the the skeptics that are out there, not not
the debunkers, like just like the legit they believe themselves
to be, you know, just skeptical and don't.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Believe in the roswotu F case. Do you think that
they're convincible? I do.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
I think with the right evidence, virtually anybody is convincible.
Right now, that way, the ance is more of a
kind of a generic question what what and everybody is
going to have their own the sliding scale of what's
acceptable evidence, you know, and say, you know, but and
(26:34):
then I hate to have the obvious answer of well, yeah,
if UFO can land right now in your back and
everybody saw it right, that they're going to be convincible,
but I would you know, there probably isn't great. There
are probably people that that's what it's going to take,
right would be the UFO and Allen's backyard, you know,
but most people, you know, I have tried enough cases
(26:55):
and during the jury selection process you can tell the
folks that they don't want to be there, and they
know the law and this and that and that. You
can tell kind of by the way they're answering your questions.
They're sort of like, oh, this is gonna be a
tough juror. Case is done. You get to do. It's
called pull the jury. You can ask them questions and stuff.
The number of times that those jurors became like the
(27:17):
jury for person. So they're they're convincable, but they just
have a high standard, right and they don't think you're
gonna they don't think you're gonna get there. And I've
lost plenty of trials, you know, and I've won plenty
of trials, and that always seems to be the case.
It's those people that are the toughest become the four
person and really hold everyone's feet on the evidence and
(27:37):
what they're supposed to be doing.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Yeah, if if you're.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
If you're looking at it from a materials perspective, well,
what evidence trail do you follow to find out where
the UFOs went or where the material went?
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Well, that's just it unless there's something. I'm sure there's
lots of things that I don't know other people know,
but you know, how do you track it? What we
what the you know, Joe public that Allen and Chris
is of the world the version that we're packaged up
with as the materials were sent to write pat and
then in nineteen ninety three, the next thing we're told
(28:17):
is it's all been lost and gone and destroyed. You know.
That was in that Roswell case closed report that the
government issued. So and I wish I had an answer
for you, but your guess is as good as mine
on how to. I don't know any of it. It's
above my pay grade, but.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It seems to me if we're in a court case
because the Air Force and the Navy and have changed
their tune about what happened and the explanation for it.
Would that would that be an advantage to you as
as a prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Yes, anytime, anytime stories change, it's a benefit to one
side or the other. Right, And you can say, for example, okay,
first you said it was this, then it was Project Mogul,
then there were no bodies, and then they were crash
test dummies. You know, I kind of all along way.
Oh yeah, So absolutely, that's you'd go through step by step,
(29:15):
just like I was mentioning with mister Howard. Right, but
you didn't have it here, and you didn't have it here,
and now it starts, you know, popping up.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
And even if we, as the lawyers, so say you're
on the stand and I can't get you to admit
what we think we're doing, it's still evidence. And the
jury is now they'll give it the weight they think
that it's worth. So some of the witnesses will think
they're cute and not telling me the answer. Well, they're
looking ten times worse to the jury than they would
have if they had just answered the question true.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Right, if if indeed we reverse engineered these craft.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
You can you go back to those original witnesses and
find out if that was true or not, because you know,
you had, you know, Philip Corno, Philip Russo uh of Courso,
you know, write his book about like disseminating pieces of
technology to back engineer this alien technology. Is when you
(30:15):
were researching, was there anything back then the witnesses, the
records that led you to believe that any of that
is that is true?
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Nothing that I came across in you know, preparation and
research for this book that said, admittedly, it wasn't really
an area that I was you know, after you know,
and I should point out I intentionally the evidence that
I chose to include tended to be your more mainstream
lots of folks have heard about it, uh, you know,
(30:45):
the foil and the you know, the memory metal and
the so what in that kind of the the same
thing with my witnesses. I didn't want the guy, the
cocka doodle guy who's so far one way or so
far the other, because at the same time, you know,
trying to tell a story, you know, just the story
of as well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
You know, is this are you warming us up?
Speaker 1 (31:07):
Do you are you planning on bringing a case against
this government of the United States of America because I
could see you, I could see that happening.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Well, i'll tell you what that question comes up a lot.
I would love to, I would be happy to, but procedurally,
I don't know. I don't know how, because here's what
you're going to run into. First, when when when you
have a case. First of all, there has to be
somebody or some party that has it's called standing, which
(31:40):
means they have the right to bring the case, and
so that individual suffered some sort of damages. So first
we'd have to find somebody that has actual standing. Right,
then we would have to find the proper agencies and
let's say, just miracle we found them all. Well, pretty
hot button topic. I'm sure lot of your listeners have
(32:01):
or at least somewhat from the concept of immunity and
how immunity works when you're dealing with the government. So town, city, township,
fire department, anything like that, by jurisdiction, and they're most
the same. So I should point out your jurisdiction might
be different. But typically there's two kinds of immunities. There's
statutory immunity where the law itself says, hey, if they
(32:23):
do this is no big deal. And the other one
is a discretionary immunity. And that's the big immunity that
everything gets scooped into. Because let's say that the FBI
has a policy that says it uses words like can
or might or may you know that the sort of
(32:44):
language like that. Sure, they never have to show you anything,
and they didn't do anything wrong because they have discretionary
immunity on what it is they're doing. So that, I
think is the loop you're going to keep we keep
getting thrown back into. Is everybody's going to one it'll
be so hard to find somebody is standing, and then
two who you're going to get right that that's not immune?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Can you can you draw parallel between that and like
Elaine gizz Gilainne, Oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Epstein's yeah, confidant, So draw a parallel between those.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Elaine Maxwell, Yeah, talk about her getting immunity, right.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, Well that that's that's it would be a different
I mean immunity and it's whore is always the same,
but right, so immunity for her. Yeah, Okay, here here's
the parallel. Hey, come talk to us in Congress, you
can tell us anything you want. In anything that you say,
you're immune from prosecution. Okay, so virtually the same thing. Hey, FBI,
(33:48):
you can do anything you want under your own discretion
if there's discretionary immunity, and you are immune from the
civil case that Chris wants to bring against you. Right. So,
so I think that the better approach would be a
criminal case. I think you'd get further down the road
on a criminal case in the best kind of corollary.
(34:11):
And know it's sort of a dry reference, but like
Oliver North in ouran contract, when all that went down
in the eighties, we actually had criminal proceedings against governmental officials.
And again there's always a lot of immunities wrapped into
those and what would you charge them with and what
you know, in a criminal case, the government, the state, city,
(34:35):
you know, federal, somebody's got to bring the charges. So
you'd have to find somebody to bring the charge and
get you know, that the correct person. And again there
has to be some damages out there, you know, and
damages Sometimes people say to me, well, what about somebody
that gets subducted and if they had known, you know,
if the government had told them maybe they would. You know,
(34:57):
it's just too tenuous. So someday something will happen and
I kick it around a lot, and I haven't hit
upon your answer yet.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Could could you bring a class action lawsuit?
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Because there are plenty of military witnesses that do feel
they've been traumatized to some degree because of their exposure
and or the fact that they had to keep something
secret that.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
They Again, it would class actions. I've done quite a
few of those. Issue with it when you have a
class action. So in a case like this, let's say
you're my co counsel and we managed to get this
thing far enough down the road on this class action, Well,
the first thing the court say you have to what
(35:43):
you have to do is you have to certify. You
have to certify a class. So you and I is
a good plane to lawyers. We would be saying, the
class is everyone in the US government, you know from
this time to this time that may have heard the
word UFO, Right, that's our class. Well, the government's going
to be over there going. No, your class is the
one guy that got PTSD and actually went to the
(36:05):
doctor for it and has some damages. You know what,
And you start refining from there because the one side
wants a big class.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
It's almost like a negotiation.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
It can be, and sometimes you know it'll end up
with you know, we'll get it down to everything but
too and then you got to go in front of
the judge and go we you got to decide because
we can't agree, could you? So again in that issue
of damages, it's okay, well the government has information they're
not telling us. Well, first they're going to be immune
on that into you don't really have any damages, you know,
(36:39):
And I get what you're saying. There's just it would
be the right case, maybe a better way to put
it this way, The right case will eventually come along
and all of us smart lawyers that are plugged into
this topic are going to know it. But thus far
it hasn't happened.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
So the whistle protection below whistle Blower Protection an act, Yes,
if it were to be passed with inclusion to protect whistleblowers.
Can can they then testify openly without without consequence?
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I would say, A good lawyer answer probably, And I
know you're probably referring to Danny Sheehan and the Paradigm Institute.
He's he's the lawyer really leading the charge on the
disclosure issues, and he's got lobbyists on the payroll of
the whole bit. I would imagine that's what the language is,
(37:37):
but I haven't seen the proposed bill. I haven't read
the language, so so I can't say. But typically that
would be the deal. And you talk about compromising, you know, heck,
even if we could get even if it was only
to the skiffs, you know, even maybe not consumable for
you and me yet, but let's get something going here.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Yeah, in your book, is there a like a protagonist,
an antihero, like what drives who's driving this story?
Speaker 3 (38:06):
The mystery? Mystery drives this story?
Speaker 2 (38:09):
I like that.
Speaker 3 (38:10):
Okay, there's no I made that up. There's no there's
no protagonists. There's no antagonists unless I suppose you're died
in the world believer, You're died the little skeptic, right,
because you are immediately gonna go I know about this
mac Braiser guy and he this or she that. So
but no, it's simply a fact based narrative retelling via
(38:33):
cross their director across exam of the Roswell Insidum.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Okay, have you seen a UFO.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
I haven't seen one, but I have an interesting story.
I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
I'd love to hear it.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Yeah, okay, So this this is my experience. This was
nineteen ninety one and I was twenty two years old
at the time, and I was single, and I was
living in roommates, you know that just that time of life, right,
And at the time, this is way before I ever
went to law school. And I was working as a
manager at this hotel and we had this Christmas party
(39:11):
on the very just outside there's a nice bar in
the backside of the hotel. And like I said, I
was really young, and so I just read this book
on how to be a good manager. They talked about
for Christmas parties, and this is important. They said, for
Christmas parties, you should go so your employees see you,
maybe have one drink. Then you get out of there
so you've made your appearance and they can still have fun.
(39:32):
So that is exactly what I did. And I had
one beer from a pitcher. So some of my employees
are sharing a picture. I had one beer out of
that picture and I left. The next morning, I got up,
I remembered leaving the bar and that was it. I
went upstairs and one of my roommates starts in, what
did you do last night? I'm like, what do you know?
(39:55):
He said that I got home at four o'clock in
the morning. I go to work. I talked to those employees.
They said I left the bar at nine o'clock at night. Right,
So I have this missing time and the only memories
I had flashes of memories of being out in a field.
That was it. And when I went when I went
(40:15):
out to the driveway, up under my fenders and up
in the wheel wells, just weeds and tall grasses and
all kinds of stuff. So that's a fact. The memory
is a fact. What happened to my car is a fact,
and that I left at nine and came home at
four of those are facts. What happened in between, I
don't know, but that is that is bizarre. Yeah, really weird.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
Have you ever tried hypnosis?
Speaker 3 (40:38):
I would love to. I alutely the regressive hypnosis. I
did do hypnosis quit smoking twenty five years.
Speaker 2 (40:44):
It worked.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, I had to do it. I
tried to well, I don't off a few times. I
finally did a cold turkey ooh, good for you. So
but I tried the patch patch didn't work.
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Yeah, truth be told, I kind of was still and
I'm into the vellows you know, the videos zens every
now and then, but still better than cigarettes. So but no,
I would love to do some of that regressive hypnosis
and just see what's there because I've been living at
that mystery. Maybe the mystery is more fun, I don't know,
but that was my experience.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
I think I think it's it's best because that I
always sign off with, you know, living the mystery, because
I I think there's something quintessentially human about having an
element of mystery about the nature of reality.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
For me, right, I really really enjoy living in that space.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
It's though like the campfire stories, right, there's just something
having those mythologies. So I think that, yeah, that that
absolutely makes sense. But but we are creatures that create
and build and make and develop, and so we do
need some satisfaction. But do you need some resolution on
certain certain things?
Speaker 2 (41:53):
So I would like to get more of that, you know.
Speaker 1 (41:55):
I don't think we're gonna get all the big questions
answered in the next fifty hundred years, right, but I
think that we need to know what is visiting us, is,
what is coming here, what's happening.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
Well, my opinion on the Ultimate disclosure, I think, for
whatever that's worth, I think it is going to happen.
I think it's going to happen in my lifetime. And
like I said, I'm fifty five, but I don't I
think it's going to be because of something the extraterrestrials
do and nothing that the government. There's certainly nothing in
(42:28):
the US government does. Now give me Chile, Peru, France
and of these more progressive countries on the on the
UAP topic, maybe there, but I believe it's going to
be something that it cannot be ignored or denied, and
the government will play no role in it except maybe
trying to spin it after the fact.
Speaker 2 (42:49):
How how did you close the case or do you
not want to give that away in your book.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
I closed the case as one closes trials, which is
closing arguments.
Speaker 2 (43:01):
And what's your what's your closing argument?
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Well, I I could read for you, but I presented
generally generally generally, Okay, that's that's a big ass. So
first I got to get my procedure straight first and last.
So the skeptics would close first, okay, and then the
believers close okay.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
So everybody and everybody in chat you're the jury.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Okay, okay, so the skeptics, ladies and gentlemen of the
jury council. Uh, your honor, I'd like to take I'd
like to thank you for the time that we've spent
here over the last X amount of time hearing this
this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. As I
just said, we heard this case. And what did we hear.
We heard a crazy story that somebody, you know, an
(43:46):
uneducated ranch hand thought was part of a UFO. We
had a public information officer ridiculously caught up in the
hype that it was a UFO. Fortuitously, we have who
General Raymie over here in the full uniform. Unfortunately, General
Ramie was able to set the stage for us and
(44:08):
told us unfortunately, the government made a mistake on this one.
And what do we know? That's true? People make mistakes,
ladies and gentlemen. This is not an extraterrestrial craft. It
was simply a case of mistake in identity, and I
would ask you to find accordingly. Thank you, all right,
he sits down now. We got the plaintiff for the
(44:28):
believer's attorney. Ladies, and gentlemen of the jury counsel and
your honor. As my colleague said, I do thank you
for your service here over the last few days. Trial
jury duty isn't always fun, but it is our civic duty,
so we appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you
to pay attention to some of the words that Council
(44:50):
used in his closing argument. Ridiculous, silly, Well we don't
we and you we know this isn't ridiculous, and this
isn't s otherwise we wouldn't be here. We and then
I differentiate us from them. We take this topic seriously.
We are here to ask the hard questions, and we
provided the answers to those hard questions. What did we provide, Well,
(45:14):
you remember Mac Brasel, the simple ranch hand who first
found the materials. You remember his neighbor Loretta Proctor. See,
now we're talking about like your basic people. You remember
Jesse Marcel and the two different photographs, right and present,
the photographs you know, and and now they want you
to believe that General Raimi, and this is how I
(45:36):
would turn this back. Even with all those medals and
all that experience, he just made a mistake. Nothing to
see here, folks. But let's let's move on. Well, what
do we know about that? We know that's a bunch
of hogwash. Why because we've been told by witness so
doubt right down the list, and they were all consistent
and what they told us. Imagine you have ladies and gentlemen,
(46:01):
and you're putting a peppercorn on either side of the scale,
one side for the believers and one for the skeptics.
If one side tips even a peppercorn more one way
than the other, in this civil case, you must find
for that party. And I would tell you, in this case,
the scale for the believers isn't a peppercorn greater, it's
an entire pepper grader. This was an extraterrestrial craft. We
(46:22):
would ask you to find accordingly. Thank you, So something
roughly like that off the.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
C That's awesome. I love it. Thank you for doing that, Chris.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Yeah. You have you ever spoken to any conferences or
the like?
Speaker 3 (46:37):
I haven't, and I have I tried. I'm a member
of mouf On. I wanted to do their conventions just
here in July, but I was kind of late to
the table. So I am making this shameless plug. I'm
always happy, and I'm always looking and I will speak
pretty much anywhere anytime.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
That's awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (46:55):
I'm in move On as well as investigator and recently
a part of the experience resources team. And I have
been really wanting to go to a move On conference,
but it's in Ohio, and you know, we're on the
East coast.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
We just you know, I can't get out there. It's
just not convenient, not doable.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
I'm just dying for, you know, one to come back
out here to the northeast at some point, or at
least northeast dish.
Speaker 3 (47:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
So if you could leave us with one, you know, one.
Speaker 1 (47:27):
Thought like something about this that you really feel it
needs to be highlighted or discussed, what would it be?
Speaker 3 (47:35):
Yes, thank you for asking that question. I just want
to take a note advent if from this book, if
one person in the world reads beyond a headline, whereas
otherwise they might have just read the headline and moved on,
(47:55):
if one person exhibits critical thinking that they otherwise might
not have because of my book, mission accomplished. As we said,
alan words are important. Look at the words. I can
tie it into the congressional hearings and everyone is jumping
up and down about David Garush. You know what I heard.
I heard forty two examples of hearsay. Right, Yes, you
(48:18):
know there's things I can tell you in the skiff.
But just to my point, be a careful consumer of information.
You know, look at what is being said, you know,
check your own sources. Don't just be a drive by media,
you know. And I think if we all are better
educated and we all do that and can hold people's
feet to the fire a little bit better because I
think we think we're getting information you did, but it's
(48:40):
not or it's worthless, So be a little more critical.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Yes, I'd be more scrutinous with what you you consume.
I agree with that one hundred percent. I mean, part
of my not spending so much time on social media
anymore is one like I just think I feel like
I can focus a little bit better.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Yeah, my brain feels a little bit more clear. But
also it is frustrating.
Speaker 1 (49:05):
You come across the post or people tag you on things,
and then I have to take the time to go
and like fact check it, you know, and so many
times it's like, oh my gosh, you know, spent all
this time and it's just it's not real.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
It's you know, I got worked up emotionally, you know,
whatever it is. So I'd spend very little time lately
on social media. How do you feel about social media
and its role in UFOs and UAP.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
I think, like anything on the Internet, it's ability to
transmit information fantastic. However, the information that gets transmitted, as
you just said, you know, it alluded to my estimation
ninety nine point nine percent of its absolute garbage. But
I think the good thing is of that ninety nine
point nine about ninety nine point nine it's so obvious
(49:52):
from the headline that it's garbage. You know, you got
a misspelling or some incorrect grammar in your headline. I'm
pretty much guessing the rest of this story is not
gonna be a whole lot better. So, yeah, good and bad, right,
because you get the information out, But and then it
does if you're conscientious like you are, like I am. Yeah,
then you're fact checking and you know, and then everybody's
(50:13):
got different opinions. So it's tough, but it's not going anywhere.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
All right.
Speaker 1 (50:20):
And the last question of the night, if they if
extra threshals landed and sent a delegation down, and you
know they have their legal representatives, and the US sends
you as as they're one of their legal representatives. How
how do you initiate conversation.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
With this other species from another planet? Thinking like a lawyer,
like you need to be safe about how I'm saying
things being diplomatic.
Speaker 3 (50:50):
Yeah, you know, I think whether I was approaching it
as an attorney or not, you know, I'm of that
mindset again, not that this is original. If extraterrestrials wished
us any harm, it'd have been done. And there's zer
row that we can do about it, right, because they
have the ability to come here, we don't have the
ability to go there. So you know, they got they
(51:12):
got a big leg up on us. I look at it.
If I was tasked with that, I think that I
would go in, I would study with body language experts,
and I would go in as the most submissive man
you have ever probably met in your life, and I
would let them drive the conversation because really, okay, you know, first,
(51:36):
I don't think me Chris Johnston, certainly, but I don't
think any man or woman you're earthling, should be so
bold as to ah, these guys were equals we're peers,
not if they got the technology you do what they're doing.
We are not equals and peers, and I don't want
them upset in any way.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
And there's also the fact of what you don't know.
Speaker 3 (51:56):
Yeah, that too, Yes, very submissive, that's all I would.
Speaker 2 (52:01):
Do it, all right, that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
So I put the link in the chat for your
book of Roswell Truth on Trial And where else can
they find your.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
Work or thanks for asking? So yeah, put the books
available on Amazon and it's also available. It's my shameless plug.
If you were to go to my law firm website,
This one for where I Am is a lag group
of Iowa dot com. About halfway down on the homepage
picture of the book, big red button by Chris's book,
(52:30):
but a nice thing. On the website. There's also my
professional bio and people can see that I actually do
a real lawyer work and some of what I'm into and.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
Supreme Court cases to it.
Speaker 3 (52:43):
Yep, that is correct, So.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
Awesome. Thanks Chris. I really appreciate you being on This
is fantastic. Yeah, I appreciate you absolutely so hopefully we'll
bump into other again.
Speaker 1 (52:56):
In the meantime, everyone please check out Chris's work, and
I want to thank thank the UNEXU Network, Race Hobbs
and Margi k for rebroadcasting this on their network every week.
And a special thank you to Dan Harrari at the
Hollywood Disclosure Alliance of which Chris and I are both members.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
Go and check that out.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
He's got a great newsletter for all UAP related news
and a number of other events that he is putting together.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
All Right, peace and love everyone. That's it. Thank you
everyone in chat. It's great to see you guys. Until
next time, we live in the Mystery
However you are and whenever you are, Welcome back everyone
to coffee in UFOs. After a little bit of a hiatus,
we are back with a great guest, Christopher Johnston, and
we're going to be talking about the Roswell incident nineteen
forty seven, but from a different angle and from the
perspective of an attorney who wrote a fictional novel to
(00:32):
explore that space. So really fascinating for me, totally novel
approach to the Roswell case. So I'm excited to share
that with you. Jump in the comment section and share
your questions and I'm sure you'll have plenty for Christopher tonight.
As a friendly reminder, this podcast is rebroadcast on the
ONEX Network eleven pm Eastern Time and two am Pacific
(00:56):
time every Thursday night and Friday morning, and then this
this podcast will be posted on iTunes or any other
platform you listen to your podcast on Tomorrow morning Friday mornings.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Let's see, so we have a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
In the world of news, and I think I'm going
to focus on that more next week because I really
want to get as much time out of Christopher as
we can tonight. So let me just jump into it
and bring Chris on now. Chris, welcome, How are.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
You hey, Alan, Thanks Gram, I'm great.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
That's awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
So you wrote a book called Roswell, The Truth on Trial, right,
and in your words, it reimagines the legendary nineteen forty
seven UFO crash. Before we dig in deep on that,
can you give us a little bit of a primer
how you came to study this and write about it.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sure, and if you don't mind a kind of a
long primer, you'll find a talk a lot like a
lot of as lawyers do. So and I always preface
this because I think you know right now you say
roswell and large, huge swaths of are popular. Oh yeah,
of course roswell right right. But although the events happened
(02:13):
in nineteen forty seven, it wasn't really until the nineteen
seventies and Stanton Friedman got his hands into Roswell and
really started digging in that Roswell kind of became you
know what it is now and you know we all
know about it. So the reason I bring that up
so I'm fifty five. I was born in sixty nine,
so I was a kid right in the heart of
(02:34):
the you know, the real beginning of the social touchstone
of UFOs and my dad was, you know, some some
dads fish and some play baseball. Though my dad talked
about UFOs, watched anything, and at the time there was
you know, much less but read anything he could get
his hands on. And that was so the UFO topic,
believe it or not. So I bonded with my dad
(02:56):
of all the kind of usual like.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
My mom and I used to watch it X files together.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Perfect yeah. And you know, so then then life happens,
and I developed kind of my own subsets of interest,
you know, within the within the category. And I now,
as you mentioned, so I'm now in my twenty fifth
year of being a trial lawyer. So you know, life happens,
and you know, then kids and family and all this,
(03:21):
and then so I maintained the interest and I get
a lot of additional court anyway through that you know,
period of having kids and being busy as all, you know,
go and get out, I continued. I did coursework in
space law, I did some coursework in astrobiology, and then
one day the kids were gone and I had all
this free time, it seemed, but so I finally had
(03:44):
reset point in life. Where I could really get into
my own hobbies, you know, not necessarily hobbies that are
just your kids, and so Roswell, you know, because of that,
that touchdown was the first thing I had heard about it.
It had always been with me, and I think it's fascinating,
and I wanted to write a book. And you know, I,
especially for an attorney, I am not dry. I'm very creative.
(04:06):
I go about, you know, things in a creative manner.
And I wanted to write a book, and I wanted
it to be a trial primer, but I also wanted
an interesting subject matter. And so you know, it took
but just the concept took months of that sort of
you know, what can I do? I do? And then
I realized, you know, one of the things that I
(04:26):
like about trial work is what a great way to
you know, to get evidence and to answer questions? Right
you have a direct exam and a cross exam boom
right there. And I thought, well, what a great way
to present Roswell or any of these old you know,
any old mystery. I don't take a position in the book.
You know, it's it's just like a jury. The judge
(04:48):
in a trial. The judge he takes a position. It
just simply here's the evidence and you decide. So when
I hit upon it, I was like, oh geez, I
could you know I could do Roswell, you know as
a trial island and see what I uncover. So that
that was the genesis of you know, why Roswell and
why the book?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And when you were writing the book, did you come
across any thoughts that you just hit you that hadn't
occurred to you before regarding the ros elevant.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, very late in the day. You know, I didn't,
and I didn't anticipate that I would. But you know
I didn't unearth anything, you know, any great you know,
or shattering information.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
You didn't find the craft.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
I did not. But on that point of the craft,
you know, taking everything at face value, so you know,
you might have got to this question later. I personally
my position. I believe the evidence is there to support
an extraterrustrial craft crashed. I do not believe that the
evidence supports extraterustrial bodies. That's just my opinion on it. So,
(05:57):
but if we were to take what we've been told
along the years, everything from New Mexico was bottled up
and it was shipped down to Fort Worth, and from
Fort Worth it went to Right pat Is what you know,
that's a fairly widely accepted theory of what went on here. Sure, well,
I started thinking about it. I was like, well, you
know Right Patterson Airfield, and at time it was two
(06:19):
separate ones, but you know, that's what they were about,
was sort of aircraft, you know, development, study, research, that
sort of thing. So that makes a lot of sense. However,
there was not a hospital at Right pat let alone
a morgue or a pathology clinic or anything else until
nineteen fifty two, so I just find that interesting that
(06:40):
And I hadn't heard you know, I'm not saying this
is Chris's own unique. I've never come across that thought.
I've never heard it put out there. But I knew
somebody that worked at the hospital at Right pat and
I mentioned to him and he's like, didn't exist. I did.
It wasn't even much of a deep dive, but it was.
It was accurate. So there was no hospital. So that
(07:01):
is a little blip that I kind of think if
there were bodies, you know, you wouldn't have sent them
to this hangar eighteen. You wouldn't have sad m the right, pat,
you would have sent him to, you know, Walter Reed
in d C. Or the presidio out in San Francisco,
something along those lines. So that's the nugget that I
think is pretty neat that I came across.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yet, But didn't they have a like a biological department
for for studying biologics of some sort?
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Not not at right, pat, not not not a well
developed you know, as far as their biologic study, because
there's their stated interest. So again we have to take
things at face value. And the government said there's stated interest.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And it's only just just after the Manhattan Project era.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
So yeah, yeah, you know, so so that's what they say.
But I I just have a you know, say, you
and I, we're the government, we have a couple of
these bodies. Are we just going to quickly well, hey,
let's send the crowd, just send it all there. No,
I just don't think we'd go that way.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Then what way do you think we would go?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, as I said, I think if there were extraterrestrials,
I think they would have been set elsewhere. You know,
probably Walter.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Reed is probably probably Walter.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Walter Reed Hospital, right, And you know, neither here nor
there necessarily, it just begs the question of yet another
little wrinkle, if you.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Will understood, right, and I think that that there is
a wrinkle with the body's scenario.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
You know.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Even Kevin Randall, you know, had kind of turned his
opinion on that, I don't know about like ten years
ago or so, towards the fact that maybe there isn't
enough evidence. You have a lot of anecdotal but they're
like secondhand anecdotal.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Right right right in one of the big ones, you know,
when it comes to the bodies people, you know, and
this is nobody doing anything bad or nefarious. It's just
simply how information gets transmitted and changed and added too.
Because when it comes to the bodies, people like most
people like to point at Glen Dennis, who was the
local mortician, and they say, well, Glen Dennis got this
(09:14):
call and asked if he had you know, four child
size for medically sealable coffins, and that he had him
and he took him to the base. Well that got
added somewhere because Glenn Dennis himself in an interview said
that he didn't have the coffins right, so he said,
I could get the coffins but I don't have them.
(09:36):
Then when another rink I find interesting for reasons unknown,
even though he didn't have the coffins, he went to
the crash site.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You know why it's good to have a lawyer, because
you pay attention to the words.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Right, yeah, much much of my wife's chagrin. Right, that's
you know, and words are words are important and and
they mean something. So so Glenn Dennis, you know, begs
the question. Okay, you don't have what they asked, but
you decide to go there anyway. You know. That's that's
a little unusual. And then Walter Hout, who was the
(10:09):
public information officer. So Walter, how this I find him
interesting in the realm of the bodies as well. So
Walter Hout was involved in the drafting of the original
press release that a disc was found, and he was
involved in the retraction. So we know this happens in
nineteen forty seven, So in nineteen ninety three, so we're talking,
you know, coming up on fifty years after the event.
(10:31):
Mister Hout executed an affidavit about the Roswell incident nine
years after that, so now we're in two thousand and two.
I think it is he executes a second affidavit. Well,
wouldn't you know it the first one? There is no
reference to bodies in that first affidavit, and then it
pops up in the second affidavit. And you know, the
(10:52):
way we go about this and even the way I
set it up in my book, you know, on cross
exam for example, Well, mister Smith, would you agree with me,
memories don't get better overtime, do they? You know? And
you kind of get them hung up on that. So
my point is, how you're telling me you do an
affidavit and then you add bodies to it nine years
later kind of is bearing the lead in my estimation.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Yes, but okay, so then what would be the explanation there?
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Well, his explanation was the first affiday, but he wasn't
asked about the extraterrestrial, about the bodies. He was just
asked about what happened, and so it was a more
generalized affidavit.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
So he felt maybe perhaps like he was not betraying
his oh so much.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, and not his words, but that
that's probably a pretty good analysis. You know, Hey, I
can say the sun came up. I don't have to
say what time.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Necessarily because then the other question you have to ask
is why why would you say it the second time?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Why would you include it the second time?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah, well again his comment was the first time he
wasn't asked about it. And then a lot of these
you know, these later in life testimonies, you know that
come up. It's usually a variation of the theme of well,
at this point in life, you know, or I need
to do what's right is things are winding down and
you know, okay, maybe maybe maybe not. I'll say this.
(12:18):
You know, as I mentioned, my book is a real
trial primer. Some of you are to read it that way,
and you know, there's when you go to court, you
can't just do whatever. There's rules, and there's rules of evidence,
and so like a big one for example, most people
have heard hears say like you can't. I couldn't go
to court and say, hey, Alan, tell them what Mike
(12:39):
told you. You know that that would be hearsay right
there exactly. So you know that talk about a challenge
with the book too, with everyone being dead and no
physical evidence. You know, I had to I had to
make a little fudging with the hearsay rules. But as
we were discussing one of the exceptions to hearsay, there's
there's seven of them. But two of the exceptions that
(13:02):
would kind of apply here are what are called excited utterances.
So that's an exception to hear say, hey, Alan, tell
them what Mike told you. Well, first I would have
to lay foundation, Alan, tell tell the jury what Mike
was behaving like, Oh, he was all fired up in
this and that and that, okay, and then what and
then he said okay, So that's an excited utterance exception,
(13:25):
so to the hearsay rule. So I kind of look
at it and go, okay, Well, if the courts were
smart enough to consider sometimes people say things differently in
different circumstances, then I should probably give them the same
benefit of the doubt. You know. There's also an exception,
which is called a dying declaration, so the same thing.
(13:45):
It has to be the person really has to believe
that they are actually dying. So it might not work.
But to my point, the courts have determined over the
years certain evidence should be treated certain ways in those
late in life testimonies. They not necessarily green, but they're acceptable.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
But acceptable, And and yes, it's true that the memory
can be distorted it can fade over time, and you
can actually confuse memory. You can actually absorb another someone
else's memory or experience that they've shared with you, and
you incorporate it and you believe it's part of your memory.
(14:22):
Especially in the alien of debduction cases, that that's a
that's a very sticky situation and when you're dealing with
you know, recall versus under hypnosis and then over time.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
I mean, if you talk to Bennie and Barney Hill,
like the way they phrase things or said said things
about certain things were a little bit different over the years.
But that's but that's perfectly natural.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
It doesn't mean they're being.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Deceptive absolutely, you know, And you know I use that
a lot. Hey, I'm not saying anyone's malingering. I'm not
saying anyone is, you know. Or the flip of that
is I believe you believe I'm not. You know, I'm
not saying that.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
So, uh, let's ask you then, do you really believe
that an extraterrestrial craft literally crashed in New Mexico.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Based on the evidence with the evidentiary standards that I applied, Yes,
I do.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Okay, what is the most important element that you can
pull from everything that you've researched that you think stands
above the rest as being as close to as empirical
of an evidence you know, to present as a lawyer,
(15:42):
you know what, would you sit there and go here,
look at this?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Sure if the so I set up my book so
in a civil trial you have the plaintiff in the defendants. Okay,
uh so I'm in my real job, I'm a plaintiff attorney.
For the purposes of the book, I structured it as
believers and skeptics. So that's the way I went with it,
(16:08):
and I found it in this you know you'd asked.
I was kind of surprised by this throughout the entire book.
I I never kind of thought this guy would really
make my radar. But I believe the best witness for
the for the believers, the guy would be absolutely rock
solid mac brasel himself, who is the ranch hand that
(16:31):
first found the debris. You know, in my book, I
have a whole section on weighing evidence, and I talk
about the rules and kind of things that you look
at macbrasl He had no he had no bias, He
had no motive, either at the time or later in life.
He didn't make money off the deal. He didn't change
his story, and in fact, I would paint him as
(16:54):
the most honest man you ever wanted. He found the
materials and he put it in his truck and he
drove out with fitness truck for a couple of days.
You know, he wasn't out to make a name. He
wasn't out to do He was simply doing his thing.
And people like that, that's who resonates with the jurors,
because that's who jurors are. They're just they're your neighbor.
They're the normal guy or gal just living down the street.
(17:17):
Everybody else, all the cast of characters. Yeah, maybe maybe
they're really young and so they're not that good. Or
maybe it's Philip Klass who's a known skeptic all the time.
You know, there's always somebody. But Mac Brazl rock solid,
kind of beginning to end, and he touched the materials.
You know, he held the materials so across the board.
(17:37):
He's my favorite witness.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
You pull him as as a witness, do you think
that someone like him would hold up under the scrutiny
and pressure, because in real life it appears that the
army had intimidated mac Into into silence.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Yeah, you know, objections, speculation, I will say. I'll say
this so I practice. So I have an office in Minneapolis,
Minnesota and Des Moines, Iowa. And I'm sitting here in
Des Moines, Iowa right now, and I have I have
tried to plenty of cases and I'll tell you, uh,
my farmer witnesses or the farmer clients, and there's a
(18:21):
lot of them here. Iolad They're unflappable. And that see,
that's kind of how I imagine mister mister Brassel, because
the farmers, you know here in Iowa, all they want
to do is do their thing and get out of here.
And they don't I don't want to hear some some
big story. And when they they testify, they don't care
if you believe them or not. They're just telling you
(18:41):
what happened. So I think, you know, having actually seen
those types of folks, or at least how I imagine mister Brassele,
I imagine he would he would have done great?
Speaker 2 (18:53):
What about Roger Raimi?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Wouldn't don't you think Raimi would would would eventually with
a good lawyer grilling him, would he be honest and
tell the truth because he posed, you know, with the
fake material.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Right. Yeah, And I have some some real world opinions
about guys like Ramie. So for the skeptics, although mac
Brows I think is best witness all they are on.
When asked about the skeptics, I usually go with General
Ramie and the reason he is It's just like I
have tried civil rights cases, you know, police brutality types
(19:31):
of cases, things like that, And when I first started
working on this and seeing the pictures of Rami or
reminded me of one of those trials. Because let's say
you're the offending officer. You might be off work today,
it doesn't matter. You show up at court in your
class a fanciest uniform, every pin you can possibly have,
and I get it, you know, I don't like it,
(19:53):
but it's all I always one of the first questions
I'd ask is, go, are you a working today officer?
WHOA No. I was just trying to undercut that. But
you take a guy like Rainy, that's clever. You take
a guy like Ramy again, he was no slouch. He
ran you know, when the Army Air Force went to split,
(20:13):
he went to lead the entire air force. I mean,
this guy full uniform, you know, I don't know how
many star in general. And he was smart about it.
You know, he essentially conceded, we made a mistake, right.
It was about really all they could do, you know, yep,
I issue the retraction. It was kind of they made
(20:33):
a mistake, you know. So I don't think Ramy, you know,
guys like him, I've dealt with guys like him on
the stand. I think he would have his story, he
would stick to it, and I don't I don't think
he'd mind. You know, the best you'd have on Ramie
is he would own up that, yes, it was a mistake.
Then you'd have to be all over him. Okay, do
(20:54):
you really expect these jurors to believe that a guy
like you at a nuclear base like this would make
that kind of mistake, You know, that's kind of the
doubt in there. But yeah, I think Ramy would probably
stick stick to whatever the story was, right, And.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I think there's an interesting thing there.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
So indeed, if they were making a terrible, terrible mistake
like that in the real world, there would be some
you know, reprimanding reassignment because that, especially after World War two.
You know, it's kind of like after nine eleven, there's
like a height of national security awareness, and so for
(21:35):
him to be so to make such a silly mistake
seems just you know, very odd.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Right, right. And you know, if I had really written
this book the way a real Roswell trial would have gone,
it would have been about one hundred I'd still be
working on it right to hundreds of thousands of pages.
You know, but for that exact line of questioning, knowing
that that's where it would go, you'd start out laying
the foundation about how the you know, how is it
(22:04):
you decide to issue press releases, what information is considered,
and you'd get you'd lay out every step of that procedure.
Then you turn around and start going, oh okay, in
showing how where the failings were on the Roswell press release.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Well, Jesse Marcel, he was the security officer for the base,
and I mean that again, to make such a terrible mistake,
miscalculation to assume that something's an alien craft from another planet.
And yet he kept his position there and he served honorably,
so behind the scenes, he wasn't getting.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
There were no repercussions for for making a.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Quote unquote mistake, right, and that that is also interesting.
And you know, I like Jesse Marcel also as a
witness for the believers. But he's he's got one big
area that I go after him in the book is
what I would do in real life. I got him
going down this path of he follows orders because you
(23:05):
know later in life he came out and he said,
you know this because of following orders. So I lay
the trap. Follow orders? Why do you follow orders? Oh?
They're so important, they're so important. Okay, so tell me
about the order that said you should take some of
this material to your house. Right, it doesn't exist. It's
it's kind of it's a little bit of a mic
drop moment because you know, he picked up materials and
(23:26):
he showed it to his kids. So I would have
a little bit of an angle of attack. But he
something interesting happened by what he did. He gave me
an area, you know, if this is a chess game
to kind of go after a little bit. However, he
created more witnesses to the material that he ended up
that he ended up taking home, right, right, you know
(23:47):
what I mean?
Speaker 1 (23:48):
So that that's an interesting But if if I were
trying to make the case for Roswell and putting him
on the stand as a witness. That would actually be
to my benefit because the only reason he wouldn't follow
protocol and bring the materials directly back to base and
actually show them to his family is because they he
(24:09):
would have assumed that it's outside the purview of their
national security regulations and laws and you know, protocols, right,
because if it's something from off world, there's nothing that
he ever trained for that said, this is what you
do when you find an alien craft. Right, So he's
not breaking any laws, he's not breaking any oaths or
(24:31):
disobeying any commands.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
It would seem to me, yeah, and you know, I.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Not knowing what to their actual you know, procedures are,
but that could be you know, a very good you
know argument by the defense. And just so like all
your listeners know, and we all all trialers do it
to varying degrees. But say for example, that I am
calling Jesse Marcel as the plaintiffer is the believer attorney.
(24:58):
You know, you lay your found and the who are
you and what I and all that kind of stuff,
and then you almost immediately so even though I'm calling
them was my witness, I would immediately go into the
Now you ended up taking some of this home, right,
you have to address the client because I will spin
it this one and you took some home, and now
(25:19):
you get it. Well, yeah, but it wasn't really clear
what was going on. And then I can say fair
enough and we move on. But you can imagine if
the defense calls you right and adjusting ourselves the witness,
then it's the end of the world. And so you
always get out in front of your own problem so
that you can spin them your way.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Right, I can understand that.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
So that that's an interesting thing about approaching this like
like a case, because you have to look at it
from all those different angles. I really appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Do you do you think that.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
That the the skeptics that are out there, not not
the debunkers, like just like the legit they believe themselves
to be, you know, just skeptical and don't.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Believe in the roswotu F case. Do you think that
they're convincible? I do.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
I think with the right evidence, virtually anybody is convincible.
Right now, that way, the ance is more of a
kind of a generic question what what and everybody is
going to have their own the sliding scale of what's
acceptable evidence, you know, and say, you know, but and
(26:34):
then I hate to have the obvious answer of well, yeah,
if UFO can land right now in your back and
everybody saw it right, that they're going to be convincible,
but I would you know, there probably isn't great. There
are probably people that that's what it's going to take,
right would be the UFO and Allen's backyard, you know,
but most people, you know, I have tried enough cases
(26:55):
and during the jury selection process you can tell the
folks that they don't want to be there, and they
know the law and this and that and that. You
can tell kind of by the way they're answering your questions.
They're sort of like, oh, this is gonna be a
tough juror. Case is done. You get to do. It's
called pull the jury. You can ask them questions and stuff.
The number of times that those jurors became like the
(27:17):
jury for person. So they're they're convincable, but they just
have a high standard, right and they don't think you're
gonna they don't think you're gonna get there. And I've
lost plenty of trials, you know, and I've won plenty
of trials, and that always seems to be the case.
It's those people that are the toughest become the four
person and really hold everyone's feet on the evidence and
(27:37):
what they're supposed to be doing.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Yeah, if if you're.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
If you're looking at it from a materials perspective, well,
what evidence trail do you follow to find out where
the UFOs went or where the material went?
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Well, that's just it unless there's something. I'm sure there's
lots of things that I don't know other people know,
but you know, how do you track it? What we
what the you know, Joe public that Allen and Chris
is of the world the version that we're packaged up
with as the materials were sent to write pat and
then in nineteen ninety three, the next thing we're told
(28:17):
is it's all been lost and gone and destroyed. You know.
That was in that Roswell case closed report that the
government issued. So and I wish I had an answer
for you, but your guess is as good as mine
on how to. I don't know any of it. It's
above my pay grade, but.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It seems to me if we're in a court case
because the Air Force and the Navy and have changed
their tune about what happened and the explanation for it.
Would that would that be an advantage to you as
as a prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Yes, anytime, anytime stories change, it's a benefit to one
side or the other. Right, And you can say, for example, okay,
first you said it was this, then it was Project Mogul,
then there were no bodies, and then they were crash
test dummies. You know, I kind of all along way.
Oh yeah, So absolutely, that's you'd go through step by step,
(29:15):
just like I was mentioning with mister Howard. Right, but
you didn't have it here, and you didn't have it here,
and now it starts, you know, popping up.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
And even if we, as the lawyers, so say you're
on the stand and I can't get you to admit
what we think we're doing, it's still evidence. And the
jury is now they'll give it the weight they think
that it's worth. So some of the witnesses will think
they're cute and not telling me the answer. Well, they're
looking ten times worse to the jury than they would
have if they had just answered the question true.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Right, if if indeed we reverse engineered these craft.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
You can you go back to those original witnesses and
find out if that was true or not, because you know,
you had, you know, Philip Corno, Philip Russo uh of Courso,
you know, write his book about like disseminating pieces of
technology to back engineer this alien technology. Is when you
(30:15):
were researching, was there anything back then the witnesses, the
records that led you to believe that any of that
is that is true?
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Nothing that I came across in you know, preparation and
research for this book that said, admittedly, it wasn't really
an area that I was you know, after you know,
and I should point out I intentionally the evidence that
I chose to include tended to be your more mainstream
lots of folks have heard about it, uh, you know,
(30:45):
the foil and the you know, the memory metal and
the so what in that kind of the the same
thing with my witnesses. I didn't want the guy, the
cocka doodle guy who's so far one way or so
far the other, because at the same time, you know,
trying to tell a story, you know, just the story
of as well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
You know, is this are you warming us up?
Speaker 1 (31:07):
Do you are you planning on bringing a case against
this government of the United States of America because I
could see you, I could see that happening.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Well, i'll tell you what that question comes up a lot.
I would love to, I would be happy to, but procedurally,
I don't know. I don't know how, because here's what
you're going to run into. First, when when when you
have a case. First of all, there has to be
somebody or some party that has it's called standing, which
(31:40):
means they have the right to bring the case, and
so that individual suffered some sort of damages. So first
we'd have to find somebody that has actual standing. Right,
then we would have to find the proper agencies and
let's say, just miracle we found them all. Well, pretty
hot button topic. I'm sure lot of your listeners have
(32:01):
or at least somewhat from the concept of immunity and
how immunity works when you're dealing with the government. So town, city, township,
fire department, anything like that, by jurisdiction, and they're most
the same. So I should point out your jurisdiction might
be different. But typically there's two kinds of immunities. There's
statutory immunity where the law itself says, hey, if they
(32:23):
do this is no big deal. And the other one
is a discretionary immunity. And that's the big immunity that
everything gets scooped into. Because let's say that the FBI
has a policy that says it uses words like can
or might or may you know that the sort of
(32:44):
language like that. Sure, they never have to show you anything,
and they didn't do anything wrong because they have discretionary
immunity on what it is they're doing. So that, I
think is the loop you're going to keep we keep
getting thrown back into. Is everybody's going to one it'll
be so hard to find somebody is standing, and then
two who you're going to get right that that's not immune?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Can you can you draw parallel between that and like
Elaine gizz Gilainne, Oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Epstein's yeah, confidant, So draw a parallel between those.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Elaine Maxwell, Yeah, talk about her getting immunity, right.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, Well that that's that's it would be a different
I mean immunity and it's whore is always the same,
but right, so immunity for her. Yeah, Okay, here here's
the parallel. Hey, come talk to us in Congress, you
can tell us anything you want. In anything that you say,
you're immune from prosecution. Okay, so virtually the same thing. Hey, FBI,
(33:48):
you can do anything you want under your own discretion
if there's discretionary immunity, and you are immune from the
civil case that Chris wants to bring against you. Right. So,
so I think that the better approach would be a
criminal case. I think you'd get further down the road
on a criminal case in the best kind of corollary.
(34:11):
And know it's sort of a dry reference, but like
Oliver North in ouran contract, when all that went down
in the eighties, we actually had criminal proceedings against governmental officials.
And again there's always a lot of immunities wrapped into
those and what would you charge them with and what
you know, in a criminal case, the government, the state, city,
(34:35):
you know, federal, somebody's got to bring the charges. So
you'd have to find somebody to bring the charge and
get you know, that the correct person. And again there
has to be some damages out there, you know, and
damages Sometimes people say to me, well, what about somebody
that gets subducted and if they had known, you know,
if the government had told them maybe they would. You know,
(34:57):
it's just too tenuous. So someday something will happen and
I kick it around a lot, and I haven't hit
upon your answer yet.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Could could you bring a class action lawsuit?
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Because there are plenty of military witnesses that do feel
they've been traumatized to some degree because of their exposure
and or the fact that they had to keep something
secret that.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
They Again, it would class actions. I've done quite a
few of those. Issue with it when you have a
class action. So in a case like this, let's say
you're my co counsel and we managed to get this
thing far enough down the road on this class action, Well,
the first thing the court say you have to what
(35:43):
you have to do is you have to certify. You
have to certify a class. So you and I is
a good plane to lawyers. We would be saying, the
class is everyone in the US government, you know from
this time to this time that may have heard the
word UFO, Right, that's our class. Well, the government's going
to be over there going. No, your class is the
one guy that got PTSD and actually went to the
(36:05):
doctor for it and has some damages. You know what,
And you start refining from there because the one side
wants a big class.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
It's almost like a negotiation.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
It can be, and sometimes you know it'll end up
with you know, we'll get it down to everything but
too and then you got to go in front of
the judge and go we you got to decide because
we can't agree, could you? So again in that issue
of damages, it's okay, well the government has information they're
not telling us. Well, first they're going to be immune
on that into you don't really have any damages, you know,
(36:39):
And I get what you're saying. There's just it would
be the right case, maybe a better way to put
it this way, The right case will eventually come along
and all of us smart lawyers that are plugged into
this topic are going to know it. But thus far
it hasn't happened.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
So the whistle protection below whistle Blower Protection an act, Yes,
if it were to be passed with inclusion to protect whistleblowers.
Can can they then testify openly without without consequence?
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I would say, A good lawyer answer probably, And I
know you're probably referring to Danny Sheehan and the Paradigm Institute.
He's he's the lawyer really leading the charge on the
disclosure issues, and he's got lobbyists on the payroll of
the whole bit. I would imagine that's what the language is,
(37:37):
but I haven't seen the proposed bill. I haven't read
the language, so so I can't say. But typically that
would be the deal. And you talk about compromising, you know, heck,
even if we could get even if it was only
to the skiffs, you know, even maybe not consumable for
you and me yet, but let's get something going here.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Yeah, in your book, is there a like a protagonist,
an antihero, like what drives who's driving this story?
Speaker 3 (38:06):
The mystery? Mystery drives this story?
Speaker 2 (38:09):
I like that.
Speaker 3 (38:10):
Okay, there's no I made that up. There's no there's
no protagonists. There's no antagonists unless I suppose you're died
in the world believer, You're died the little skeptic, right,
because you are immediately gonna go I know about this
mac Braiser guy and he this or she that. So
but no, it's simply a fact based narrative retelling via
(38:33):
cross their director across exam of the Roswell Insidum.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Okay, have you seen a UFO.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
I haven't seen one, but I have an interesting story.
I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
I'd love to hear it.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Yeah, okay, So this this is my experience. This was
nineteen ninety one and I was twenty two years old
at the time, and I was single, and I was
living in roommates, you know that just that time of life, right,
And at the time, this is way before I ever
went to law school. And I was working as a
manager at this hotel and we had this Christmas party
(39:11):
on the very just outside there's a nice bar in
the backside of the hotel. And like I said, I
was really young, and so I just read this book
on how to be a good manager. They talked about
for Christmas parties, and this is important. They said, for
Christmas parties, you should go so your employees see you,
maybe have one drink. Then you get out of there
so you've made your appearance and they can still have fun.
(39:32):
So that is exactly what I did. And I had
one beer from a pitcher. So some of my employees
are sharing a picture. I had one beer out of
that picture and I left. The next morning, I got up,
I remembered leaving the bar and that was it. I
went upstairs and one of my roommates starts in, what
did you do last night? I'm like, what do you know?
(39:55):
He said that I got home at four o'clock in
the morning. I go to work. I talked to those employees.
They said I left the bar at nine o'clock at night. Right,
So I have this missing time and the only memories
I had flashes of memories of being out in a field.
That was it. And when I went when I went
(40:15):
out to the driveway, up under my fenders and up
in the wheel wells, just weeds and tall grasses and
all kinds of stuff. So that's a fact. The memory
is a fact. What happened to my car is a fact,
and that I left at nine and came home at
four of those are facts. What happened in between, I
don't know, but that is that is bizarre. Yeah, really weird.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
Have you ever tried hypnosis?
Speaker 3 (40:38):
I would love to. I alutely the regressive hypnosis. I
did do hypnosis quit smoking twenty five years.
Speaker 2 (40:44):
It worked.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, I had to do it. I
tried to well, I don't off a few times. I
finally did a cold turkey ooh, good for you. So
but I tried the patch patch didn't work.
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Yeah, truth be told, I kind of was still and
I'm into the vellows you know, the videos zens every
now and then, but still better than cigarettes. So but no,
I would love to do some of that regressive hypnosis
and just see what's there because I've been living at
that mystery. Maybe the mystery is more fun, I don't know,
but that was my experience.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
I think I think it's it's best because that I
always sign off with, you know, living the mystery, because
I I think there's something quintessentially human about having an
element of mystery about the nature of reality.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
For me, right, I really really enjoy living in that space.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
It's though like the campfire stories, right, there's just something
having those mythologies. So I think that, yeah, that that
absolutely makes sense. But but we are creatures that create
and build and make and develop, and so we do
need some satisfaction. But do you need some resolution on
certain certain things?
Speaker 2 (41:53):
So I would like to get more of that, you know.
Speaker 1 (41:55):
I don't think we're gonna get all the big questions
answered in the next fifty hundred years, right, but I
think that we need to know what is visiting us, is,
what is coming here, what's happening.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
Well, my opinion on the Ultimate disclosure, I think, for
whatever that's worth, I think it is going to happen.
I think it's going to happen in my lifetime. And
like I said, I'm fifty five, but I don't I
think it's going to be because of something the extraterrestrials
do and nothing that the government. There's certainly nothing in
(42:28):
the US government does. Now give me Chile, Peru, France
and of these more progressive countries on the on the
UAP topic, maybe there, but I believe it's going to
be something that it cannot be ignored or denied, and
the government will play no role in it except maybe
trying to spin it after the fact.
Speaker 2 (42:49):
How how did you close the case or do you
not want to give that away in your book.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
I closed the case as one closes trials, which is
closing arguments.
Speaker 2 (43:01):
And what's your what's your closing argument?
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Well, I I could read for you, but I presented
generally generally generally, Okay, that's that's a big ass. So
first I got to get my procedure straight first and last.
So the skeptics would close first, okay, and then the
believers close okay.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
So everybody and everybody in chat you're the jury.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Okay, okay, so the skeptics, ladies and gentlemen of the
jury council. Uh, your honor, I'd like to take I'd
like to thank you for the time that we've spent
here over the last X amount of time hearing this
this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. As I
just said, we heard this case. And what did we hear.
We heard a crazy story that somebody, you know, an
(43:46):
uneducated ranch hand thought was part of a UFO. We
had a public information officer ridiculously caught up in the
hype that it was a UFO. Fortuitously, we have who
General Raymie over here in the full uniform. Unfortunately, General
Ramie was able to set the stage for us and
(44:08):
told us unfortunately, the government made a mistake on this one.
And what do we know? That's true? People make mistakes,
ladies and gentlemen. This is not an extraterrestrial craft. It
was simply a case of mistake in identity, and I
would ask you to find accordingly. Thank you, all right,
he sits down now. We got the plaintiff for the
(44:28):
believer's attorney. Ladies, and gentlemen of the jury counsel and
your honor. As my colleague said, I do thank you
for your service here over the last few days. Trial
jury duty isn't always fun, but it is our civic duty,
so we appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you
to pay attention to some of the words that Council
(44:50):
used in his closing argument. Ridiculous, silly, Well we don't
we and you we know this isn't ridiculous, and this
isn't s otherwise we wouldn't be here. We and then
I differentiate us from them. We take this topic seriously.
We are here to ask the hard questions, and we
provided the answers to those hard questions. What did we provide, Well,
(45:14):
you remember Mac Brasel, the simple ranch hand who first
found the materials. You remember his neighbor Loretta Proctor. See,
now we're talking about like your basic people. You remember
Jesse Marcel and the two different photographs, right and present,
the photographs you know, and and now they want you
to believe that General Raimi, and this is how I
(45:36):
would turn this back. Even with all those medals and
all that experience, he just made a mistake. Nothing to
see here, folks. But let's let's move on. Well, what
do we know about that? We know that's a bunch
of hogwash. Why because we've been told by witness so
doubt right down the list, and they were all consistent
and what they told us. Imagine you have ladies and gentlemen,
(46:01):
and you're putting a peppercorn on either side of the scale,
one side for the believers and one for the skeptics.
If one side tips even a peppercorn more one way
than the other, in this civil case, you must find
for that party. And I would tell you, in this case,
the scale for the believers isn't a peppercorn greater, it's
an entire pepper grader. This was an extraterrestrial craft. We
(46:22):
would ask you to find accordingly. Thank you, So something
roughly like that off the.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
C That's awesome. I love it. Thank you for doing that, Chris.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Yeah. You have you ever spoken to any conferences or
the like?
Speaker 3 (46:37):
I haven't, and I have I tried. I'm a member
of mouf On. I wanted to do their conventions just
here in July, but I was kind of late to
the table. So I am making this shameless plug. I'm
always happy, and I'm always looking and I will speak
pretty much anywhere anytime.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
That's awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (46:55):
I'm in move On as well as investigator and recently
a part of the experience resources team. And I have
been really wanting to go to a move On conference,
but it's in Ohio, and you know, we're on the
East coast.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
We just you know, I can't get out there. It's
just not convenient, not doable.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
I'm just dying for, you know, one to come back
out here to the northeast at some point, or at
least northeast dish.
Speaker 3 (47:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
So if you could leave us with one, you know, one.
Speaker 1 (47:27):
Thought like something about this that you really feel it
needs to be highlighted or discussed, what would it be?
Speaker 3 (47:35):
Yes, thank you for asking that question. I just want
to take a note advent if from this book, if
one person in the world reads beyond a headline, whereas
otherwise they might have just read the headline and moved on,
(47:55):
if one person exhibits critical thinking that they otherwise might
not have because of my book, mission accomplished. As we said,
alan words are important. Look at the words. I can
tie it into the congressional hearings and everyone is jumping
up and down about David Garush. You know what I heard.
I heard forty two examples of hearsay. Right, Yes, you
(48:18):
know there's things I can tell you in the skiff.
But just to my point, be a careful consumer of information.
You know, look at what is being said, you know,
check your own sources. Don't just be a drive by media,
you know. And I think if we all are better
educated and we all do that and can hold people's
feet to the fire a little bit better because I
think we think we're getting information you did, but it's
(48:40):
not or it's worthless, So be a little more critical.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Yes, I'd be more scrutinous with what you you consume.
I agree with that one hundred percent. I mean, part
of my not spending so much time on social media
anymore is one like I just think I feel like
I can focus a little bit better.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Yeah, my brain feels a little bit more clear. But
also it is frustrating.
Speaker 1 (49:05):
You come across the post or people tag you on things,
and then I have to take the time to go
and like fact check it, you know, and so many
times it's like, oh my gosh, you know, spent all
this time and it's just it's not real.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
It's you know, I got worked up emotionally, you know,
whatever it is. So I'd spend very little time lately
on social media. How do you feel about social media
and its role in UFOs and UAP.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
I think, like anything on the Internet, it's ability to
transmit information fantastic. However, the information that gets transmitted, as
you just said, you know, it alluded to my estimation
ninety nine point nine percent of its absolute garbage. But
I think the good thing is of that ninety nine
point nine about ninety nine point nine it's so obvious
(49:52):
from the headline that it's garbage. You know, you got
a misspelling or some incorrect grammar in your headline. I'm
pretty much guessing the rest of this story is not
gonna be a whole lot better. So, yeah, good and bad, right,
because you get the information out, But and then it
does if you're conscientious like you are, like I am. Yeah,
then you're fact checking and you know, and then everybody's
(50:13):
got different opinions. So it's tough, but it's not going anywhere.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
All right.
Speaker 1 (50:20):
And the last question of the night, if they if
extra threshals landed and sent a delegation down, and you
know they have their legal representatives, and the US sends
you as as they're one of their legal representatives. How
how do you initiate conversation.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
With this other species from another planet? Thinking like a lawyer,
like you need to be safe about how I'm saying
things being diplomatic.
Speaker 3 (50:50):
Yeah, you know, I think whether I was approaching it
as an attorney or not, you know, I'm of that
mindset again, not that this is original. If extraterrestrials wished
us any harm, it'd have been done. And there's zer
row that we can do about it, right, because they
have the ability to come here, we don't have the
ability to go there. So you know, they got they
(51:12):
got a big leg up on us. I look at it.
If I was tasked with that, I think that I
would go in, I would study with body language experts,
and I would go in as the most submissive man
you have ever probably met in your life, and I
would let them drive the conversation because really, okay, you know, first,
(51:36):
I don't think me Chris Johnston, certainly, but I don't
think any man or woman you're earthling, should be so
bold as to ah, these guys were equals we're peers,
not if they got the technology you do what they're doing.
We are not equals and peers, and I don't want
them upset in any way.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
And there's also the fact of what you don't know.
Speaker 3 (51:56):
Yeah, that too, Yes, very submissive, that's all I would.
Speaker 2 (52:01):
Do it, all right, that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
So I put the link in the chat for your
book of Roswell Truth on Trial And where else can
they find your.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
Work or thanks for asking? So yeah, put the books
available on Amazon and it's also available. It's my shameless plug.
If you were to go to my law firm website,
This one for where I Am is a lag group
of Iowa dot com. About halfway down on the homepage
picture of the book, big red button by Chris's book,
(52:30):
but a nice thing. On the website. There's also my
professional bio and people can see that I actually do
a real lawyer work and some of what I'm into and.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
Supreme Court cases to it.
Speaker 3 (52:43):
Yep, that is correct, So.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
Awesome. Thanks Chris. I really appreciate you being on This
is fantastic. Yeah, I appreciate you absolutely so hopefully we'll
bump into other again.
Speaker 1 (52:56):
In the meantime, everyone please check out Chris's work, and
I want to thank thank the UNEXU Network, Race Hobbs
and Margi k for rebroadcasting this on their network every week.
And a special thank you to Dan Harrari at the
Hollywood Disclosure Alliance of which Chris and I are both members.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
Go and check that out.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
He's got a great newsletter for all UAP related news
and a number of other events that he is putting together.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
All Right, peace and love everyone. That's it. Thank you
everyone in chat. It's great to see you guys. Until
next time, we live in the Mystery
Popular Podcasts
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.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com