FADE to BLACK host: Jimmy Church guest: Chris Johnston, J.D.

Tonight, trial attorney Chris Johnston joins us for Roswell: The Truth on Trial!!! Yes, we take it to court!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, this Hope Radio for the Nazis headline of this

(00:36):
July eighth, nineteen forty seven, the Yadi Airports Is has
announced that applying the hat been found and there's now
in the possession of the ADA.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
The game is really changed.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
The game Gage.

Speaker 4 (00:49):
I occasionally think how quickly our difference is worldwide would
vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
This is Day to Black. It's your host, Jimmy Church
on the Game Changer Radio Network.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
All right, good evening, how you doing? How you doing?
Fade to Black? Today is Monday, May twenty six, twenty
twenty five. I'm your Hostummy Church. Let's do this man. Yeah,
kicking off another week here on Fade to Black. This
week's a short week. I'll explain everything in a second. Tonight,

(01:36):
Christopher A. Johnston is with us JD. He is an attorney.
Tonight's show Roswell the Truth on Trial. That's right, We've
got a courtroom set up tonight. Get ready for that kids.
Tomorrow night, Doctor Mark Carlato is with us. We're gonna
be talking about his book and Inconvenient Theory. And then

(01:56):
Wednesday night our once a month, Ama Aja, where you
get to ask me anything. That's right, am. Once a
month we do this. It's going down on Wednesday night.
Thursday night, we're off air. That's right, because we're going
to be at Contact in the Desert. Now. I do
have three three major events coming up, actually have five,

(02:17):
but three for now coming up this week Contacting the Desert.
That's May twenty ninth through June second, right here in
Palm Springs, California. After that, I go south. Everything going
down in June, it seems like, heads south to Peru
for the INCA Celebration of the Sun with Brian Forrester.
This tour sold out, but we do have a second

(02:38):
tour coming up in November. The links for that are below.
I come back from that for the sy Games and
that is August first through the third, twenty twenty five
in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Psychic Olympics. In between all of that,
I've got to film my TV show, so that's going
down and a couple of other things. June is a

(03:01):
jammed up month, and so is August. But you know what,
it's the life I chose, and that's how it's going down.
It's just the way it is. I love it. I
love it. Tonight we're going to have we're going to
hold court right here on Fade to Black. Christopher A.

(03:21):
Johnston is our guest tonight. He is a lawyer, and
tonight we're going to do Roswell the Truth on trial.
He is a trial attorney. We were just talking about
that right before the show, and tonight we're going to
put Roswell on the stand and we're going to look
into all of this and you are going to be

(03:42):
the jury all right now. He's a veteran trial attorney,
certified civil trial specialist with over twenty years of experience,
an eight times Super Lawyer and Move On contributor. He
also holds certifications in astrobiology and space law, and is
a found member of the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance. We'll be

(04:03):
talking about all of that and more tonight, and I
would like to welcome for the first time to Fade
to Black, Christopher Johnston. And now shall it be Christopher
or Chris? Chris is just fine. Chris is just fine. Okay,
So let's start there. Chris. Before we get started, you

(04:23):
get the first time guest disclaimer. So yeah, and you're
a trial attorney, so you know what's going on here.
The disclaimer is such, and then you have to accept
for us to move forward, and if you want, you
can have your attorney review it and then you can
do that. But it is this, Christopher's just you and

(04:44):
I sitting on my couch having a conversation as friends.
And where the conversation starts, it starts, where it ends,
it ends. But we're going to end as friends. There
you go. You have to accept so we can move forward.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
I accept.

Speaker 3 (04:56):
Sounds perfect now excellent, Thank you for that. So for everybody,
just just I'm going to do this. Just once, move
your head slightly, keep going. Look at this. We are
in court. Yeah, yeah, this is great. And the subject

(05:19):
for tonight. Oh, I do want to let everybody know. Oh,
there goes. As you can see, I have the I
have the Peanuts theme as my ringer. Everybody just heard that. Yeah,
that's my private life being exposed to everyone. Yes, I
have the Peanuts theme as my ringer, which has just
been silenced. I talk about this a lot, and if

(05:46):
if I have a guest that's got a lot of
evidence and done a lot of research, it doesn't matter
if it's Egypt or life after death or the subject
of UFOs. I often ask them if you were, if
you were in court, what would be the best piece
of evidence that you would push, you know, into the
center of the table. I think that it is a

(06:08):
legitimate question that I think that we have some very
strong cases here that would actually hold up in court.
And now we're going to do that tonight. So I'm
going to ask you you're you're a trial attorney, You're
an attorney, you run with that, you hold a bar card, right,
Why this subject is? Is it that powerful for you?

(06:31):
Would you take this to court?

Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well? Sure I would take this to court, you know,
depending on what side of it. But it's kind of
a twofold question, Jimmy, you know, so why Roswell? I
think it's what I heard first. For me, I'm a
lifelong euifologist, you know, it's always been a passion of mine.
But you know that doesn't necessarily pay the bills. So

(06:56):
in my real job, I'm an attorney. So over the years,
you know, a lot of what I work on is
very very complex talking, you know, complex litigation, you know,
insurance disputes, things like that. That really helped me sharp
and a real analytical look at evidence and how how
we can deconstruct different issues. So after, as you said,

(07:17):
I'm coming up on twenty five years here, I finally,
you know, kids are out of the house and things
like that. I was able to blend my two passions,
you know, kind of the paranormal the unknown with the
rigors of a trial, which can be applied to anything.
So I thought, well, dog God, that it's a great
idea and a great way for me to blend my interests.

(07:39):
You know, it's a lot of times when I do
these interviews, people say, well, what do you what do
you hope folks get out of that? Well, especially in
this day and age, where well, if it's on the internet,
it must be real, right, So my hope is to
plot to help people develop or even just take that
step back and take a rigorous look at what they're
being told. You hear about the drive by media, that

(08:02):
kind of thing, you know, headlines here, headline there, take
a stop, you know, and look at what's going on,
and look at what's being said, and is my dear
sweet mom always said consider the source. So that's the
real goal of this book, you know. And I used,
you know, very intentionally this kind of UFO setting because
it's a passion to get people, hopefully a little bit

(08:26):
more critical thought into not just UFOs, but into everything.

Speaker 3 (08:31):
Now here is the elephant in the room.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Have you have you had your own experience? Have you
had your own sighting?

Speaker 2 (08:41):
I have had my own experience and didn't expect to
talk about it, but I'll share it. It's interesting. It
goes back to nineteen ninety so I was I'm fifty
five now, so I happen to be twenty one years old.
I went out for an even night with a friend
of mine, actually one of my roommates, and it was

(09:02):
this work deal, and you know, we're twenty one and
trying to be kind of growing up and mature about it.
So we went and he and I each had one beer,
which you know, back when I was twenty one and
for me that was unheard of. But we each had
one beer and we left. The next morning, one of
our roommates came in and was like, what in the
heck were you guys doing. We got home at four

(09:24):
o'clock in the morning. We have our roommate to witness it.
We had employees at the function who saw us leave
at nine o'clock in the evening, and neither of us
any recall of that missing time, little shots of memories
of being in a field. This gets real weird. And
I was telling him, I'm like, by have this vision

(09:47):
of being in a field, and he's like, yeah, I
kind of do too. We went outside and there was
his car and up under the bumpers and the wheels,
it was all full but grass up and under there.
So we certainly had some experience and missing time of
you know, seven hours.

Speaker 3 (10:04):
And okay, now that's it. Now let's flip this around. Sure,
you're in the witness box. Okay, all right, you're up there,
and I'm I'm I don't know my prosecutor. Am I
the defense attorney here?

Speaker 2 (10:21):
Well? This is this would probably be a civil case.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
So in the civil case you have the plaintiff and
the defendants.

Speaker 3 (10:29):
Okay, So if okay, if you are the plant, well
it's it's the approach to the question where you're trying
to discredit, right, who is in the witness box?

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Okay, then you would probably be a defense attorney in
that scenario, and I'd be the plaintiff saying, hey, this
is what happened to me, and you're trying to disprove me.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
I'm going to be I'm going to be the dick
defens Okay, right, right, okay, somebody's yeah, somebody's got to
do it. And so with something like this coming from
somebody in the witness box, it seems like that would
be a pretty easy target, right to go at somebody.

(11:13):
And so my next question would be, do you think
you were abducted? Why? By something not of this earth?
What makes you take that leap that this is something extraterrestrial.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
I'm not taking that leap now. Back twenty one year
old Chris might have taken that leap, but now older
and wiser. It's similar to Roswell. It's a fact that
my roommate and I were seeing leaving a bar at
nine o'clock. It is a fact that we were seeing
coming home at four o'clock. And it is a fact
that neither of us remember. Now beyond that, there is

(11:50):
no evidence there. You know, I can lay in bed
or sit around the fire like anybody else, and you know,
shoot some theories. But to put forth a theory on
what happened to me, I don't know. Other than the
facts that I just gave you.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
We all did that when we were twenty one. I
did that so many times I don't even know if
I could count them.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
Right. Well, okay, so let me play it this way,
and now I'm going to be the plaintiff attorney, so
I'm the guy supporting me, right right, right, So, mister Johnston,
when this happened to you're twenty one years old? Is
that correct? Yep, that's correct. Had you ever had any
alcohol to drink before that night? Oh yeah? Did you
like to go out and party? Oh yeah? And I

(12:31):
would set up how much experience this young man has
partying in boozeing, and then I would get to that
they had one drink, and then I would call in
corroperating witnesses. Now they couldn't attest to the time, but
they could say, yeah, I saw him at the bar
and he had one beer. So that's how you would
work on you undercutting where you wanted. You know, you
were going with it.

Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah, you're right about that. Now with with Roswell, which
is so unique in that I don't think anything is
been researched as much as the Roswell case has a
lot of cases, I've had a lot of research put
into it. But especially early on in the nineties, I
read every book on Roswell. I read so many books

(13:16):
on Roswell that I thought that I had read them
twice only because the information started to repeat. You know,
I mean, I've read it all, just like you have.
And the amount of evidence and witnesses that is there
for the Roswell incident, that's a big pile of stuff.

(13:38):
Now would you call it direct evidence? Would you call
it something else? And there's three parts of this and
not everybody could have been drinking all night long.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
Right right, So would you say there's a lot of evidence?
You know, I get people coming in my door all
the time, all counselor, I got this case, and I
got all this evidence. Okay, well show me right. That's
one of the problems with Roswell one, given the government
involvement into the decades and decades since it's happened, I'm

(14:13):
not aware of any actual physical evidence. Right, everything is
here saying that was one of the challenges with the book.
I I it is very accurate trial procedure. However, there
are instances where the attorneys in the book get away
with here say you know that the otherwise wouldn't because
I'm trying to, you know, tell a narrative at the

(14:35):
same time. But as far as evidence goes, and so
let's just pretend that everybody was still alive, right, all
the players. You're Mac Brezel's and then you're Jesse Marcel's.
So even at that, yeah, you'd have a much better case.
But we're still lacking any physical evidence. There's a lot
of descriptions from both sides. Oh yeah, it was covered
with you know, the hieroglyphs or then general amy. No,

(14:57):
it wasn't right, but actual evidence to be admitted into
evidence that is really lacking.

Speaker 3 (15:05):
Okay, now it sounds like you're going to be the
defense attorney tonight because I'm going to be the plane
of my first piece of evidence, and I've got a lot,
but the first piece of evidence that I bring forth,
and people's exhibit number one, right, it would be the

(15:27):
press release from HOW. I think the press release from
HOW would have to have and I would say this
to the court right now, this press release was written,
rewritten and approved at the highest levels of Roswell Army

(15:48):
Airfield for release, and it is accurate and precise, and
so that would be my first piece of evidence. I
would like to admit into court.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Okay, And that was you mentioned that was written by Hout, correct,
Charles Hought, yes, right, And Charles Hought is the same
gentleman that executed an affidavit in nineteen ninety three. So,
and Jamie, I'm really getting on the lawyer high horse. Heres.

Speaker 3 (16:15):
I've thought it's your job.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
So, mister Hought, he executed an affidavit in nineteen ninety
three regarding the Oswell incident. Okay, and then we get
the Affidavid admitted. Walter Hout then executed another Affidavid in
two thousand and two. Okay. So we're nine years later,
and we all know memories don't get better, right, they

(16:37):
get weaker. Yet suddenly in two thousand and two, Hout's
making noise about bodies. So, if I'm coming at this
from the defense perspective, his credibility just I would hang
him up on those two affidavits. How can you be trusted,
you know, way back over here, right when we have
evidence of your your changing affidavits. Okay, So that that

(16:58):
would be approach number one, approach number two you got
and there's some of this in the book. I would
play up his rank a little bit. Okay, Well, we
got General Ramie, right, and he's a general and we
all kind of know how the hierarchy of the military,
and Ramie says and Raymie was smart about it. Jimmy,
he he just owned it. He said, yep, that is

(17:18):
what the press release said, and it was a mistake,
you know. So he did a good job of trying
to put that to bed. So I'd play Ramie against
an excited hout and a bunch of excited guys not
knowing what they're talking about, and then even go to
show some fallibility or issues with his memory or his
reasons for the story as it is. But so I

(17:40):
would somewhat deflect away from Okay, well, let's go back
to forty seven when the press release was done.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yeah, that's the accurate, that's that's that's when all the
memories were solid. But the approvals and the rewrites going
into that press release from the most secure, secret intelligent
information installation on planet Earth at that time was Roswell
Army Airfield and the only nuclear bomb wing that we

(18:10):
had the world's best kept secrets were all right there,
and their intelligence network and how they dealt with stuff
was handled by the best of the best of the
best that we had in the military and the world
of science at that time, So the writing of that
memo would have to have been accurate. They wouldn't have

(18:32):
released it unless it was. But the next part with
that extending off of the memo at that time was
General Raimi taking photographs in Dallas of the debris. Forensic
analysis of the photographs that were taken of him at
that time, he's holding a memo in his hand, and

(18:53):
that CSI investigation revealed that it was indeed a saucer
and craft and that's what was retrieved, and he was
holding the memo in his hand. So I would like
to also bring into evidence people's case and people's evidence
Number two is the raymy memo that he held in front

(19:16):
of the press in Dallas, Texas.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
So it's my understanding, mister Church, that that was actually
an FBI telex. Am I correct on that or am
I wrong?

Speaker 3 (19:29):
That heart has never been officially released by either the
FBI or the Department of Defense. We just know that
the memo is in his hand and has since been analyzed.
And thank goodness that we had Hi reds film negatives
that were taking that clearly show what was typed on

(19:52):
that memo, right.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
And this is where I'd get it why people get
frustrated about lawyers in the corpor process. The reason I'm
going to drill down on is that tell It's and
FBI issues. So I addressed this in the book, and
I kind of set up some issues with objections against
sort of an educational bent on it. Because General Rami,

(20:15):
he couldn't testify to that memo. He could testify if
he well, if he wanted to, but it would be
very easy for General Amy to say, I don't know
what it said. So then he doesn't have foundation to
even talk any further about it if it was generated
by the FBI. So because he doesn't have the foundation

(20:36):
to say who made it, who wrote it, who gave
it to whom? You know the chain of customers.

Speaker 3 (20:39):
Well, if Remy was in the witness box, I would
merely say it would be obvious. Man, I sound like
an attorney. I play one on TV. I don't mess
around with this stuff. I would literally go straight at Ramy,
what you don't read the memos that are sent to you,
Then you're holding it in your hand and you didn't
read it.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Mister Church, I'm a general in the army. I get
thousands of memos a day. I'm sorry I can't answer
your question, but I specifically can't speak to that one.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
Who gave you this memo? And why are you holding
it in your hand?

Speaker 2 (21:13):
And like I said, I'm giving memos documents all day,
every day in my job, So I couldn't even tell you, honestly,
mister Church, who gave me that telex or what it says.

Speaker 3 (21:23):
But it was important enough for you to be holding
it in front of the press.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
Oh, I can see how it looked like that. But
I hold on to things, you know. I'm handed something
of a pictures taken. It doesn't mean it was important
to me. It just means a picture is taken when
I had it in my hands.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
So anybody can just hand you anything.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Well within reason, if it's a harmless piece of paper.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
Sure, I arrest my case. I'm done with this witness.
See That's what I'm saying about this case. There's so
much there. There's so much there, Okay, So General Raymie, yes, sir,
you should know the difference between a weather balloon and

(22:07):
an a Boeing super Fortress bomber don't you I do
you do? Why would you fly my lar foiled weather
balloon material to write Patterson for analysis when you already
know it's a weather balloon.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
Your honor? Can we take a break? You know, that's
that's a great question, Jimmy, it absolutely is. And I
haven't researched that angle nor prepared my mock trial on
that angle. But that's a good that's a good point,
you know, And again that gets into the level of
research that could be done. I came to the realization

(22:49):
the longest case I've ever tried is about three weeks.
This case. If Roswell really was going to trial, this
would be one of those four or five six month
you know, in the news every day with the rosweatt bates,
because as we've established, as you know, there's so much there,
you know, and for purposes of the book, you know,
the certain things that I did leave out, and that

(23:11):
that was one and that's an excellent question.

Speaker 3 (23:13):
Well, there's and it's staying on this kind of zone
if we will, when we take an honest look at
what Roswell Army Airfield represented at that time. To even
be a personnel or service member on that base, you

(23:35):
are right, and you have a security at every level.
So when you look at somebody like Jesse Marcel, who
is one of the intelligence officers of the base, who
and any eight year old boy in the United States
at that time knew all of his airplanes, knew all

(23:56):
the German airplanes, knew all the British airplanes, knew all
the we we know what is going on missiles and things,
you know, and technology, and coming off of World War Two,
this is just two years after that where secrecy is
still paramount and and all of that right, loose lips,

(24:18):
sink chips, and all of those things. So you would
have to take for granted that Jesse Marcel knew what
he was looking at if it was a weather balloon
or if it was anything terrestrial or whatever. And he's
walking through that debris field and he didn't see a
weather balloon, did he?

Speaker 2 (24:39):
No, No, he did not, and nobody did. And nobody
saw a weather balloon. And tell what was it about
two days later? Then that's suddenly when it is you know,
Project Mogul or what have you. But yeah, you know,
and that is in my book how actually how I addressed,
you know, kind of closing up up. The cross exam

(25:02):
of General Ramie is simply, as I said, he did
all really all he could do is by owning it. Right,
But then you are also asking us to believe that
that mistake can be made at that military base.

Speaker 3 (25:17):
It's it seems impossible. I mean, anything is possible. Yeah,
anything is possible. I understand that part. But that seems impossible.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Oh well, we need to put together this trial, get
some jurys.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Yeah. Well, uh we've got the chat room tonight. That
is that is our our jury. And uh so if
I was going to pull the jury right now, okay,
so let's let's pull a How do you guys think
the trial is going so far? Did you ever see

(25:57):
I know you have my cousin Vinny. Oh yeah, best
is that you have a few good men, right, You've
got all kinds of great trial, you know, dramas that event.
But is my cousin Vinnie the best courtroom film ever made?

Speaker 2 (26:14):
It is? And many of us would say that, and
I had to. I watched that movie in law school
in my evidence class, and Chief Justice two Sons, who
is the Chief Justice the Minnesota Court of Appeals was
the instructor. And we didn't watch the whole movie. But
what we watched was Joe Peshi laying foundation expert foundation

(26:35):
from Marisa Tomei. You know that, and how many cans
are you fixed? And now you know that whole bit.
The actual laying the foundation was perfect and it's in
I do it all the time now, that laying that
expert foundation or crossing expert foundation, same thing. But yeah,
my cousin Vinnie, they did an outstanding job.

Speaker 3 (26:55):
I got to say, you know, Fred, when he leaves
in and he goes, did you sayes best? I mean, okay, anyway,
let's not go sideways there. I could I have I
have a couple of friends and one specifically it comes
to mind he's no longer with us. But literally could

(27:17):
quote the script, I mean word forward from beginning to end,
and I thought I had it down right. No, he
and people just love that. It's just a perfect movie.
It's a perfect movie.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
That's really good.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
Yeah, it's so good, so strong. Okay, so back to
this the uh, how many how many soldiers does it take?
You're in the witness box, you're let's let's let's make
you raymi Okay, how many how many airmen and security people?

(27:55):
Does it take to collect the debris of a weather balloon.
It seems that they must crash all the time and
are never recovered. Why would you need to do it
in this case?

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Well, we recover them when we can recover them, and
this one is certainly recoverable, So that's why we chose
to get it. It was very close, as you know, geographically
to the base, So why wouldn't we go out recover
our materials?

Speaker 3 (28:24):
Why would you change your story? Which story is true?
We have four different versions presented from the Department of Defense,
and we have the original Walter Hout press release. We
have the general rainy turnaround two days later of weather balloon.
Then we have a Project Mogul and sensitive Soviet listening devices,

(28:51):
and then we have crash test dummies that were being
thrown out of airplanes. Four different versions have been presented,
and we would have to ask the obvious question, is
the Department of Defense ever telling the truth?

Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, mister Church, I certainly can't speak for the entire
Department of Defense. I can tell you that I'm telling
the truth, and I'm the one that's here to testify.

Speaker 3 (29:18):
So which version is the truth?

Speaker 2 (29:21):
As I've stated it was a weather balloon.

Speaker 3 (29:24):
Right, And I only laugh because you can't expect the
American public to believe such a story. Is there a
question their counselor no, there is. Can you expect the

(29:45):
entirety of the United States to believe that?

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Well, that's not really my job, counselor My job is
simply a general in the army and do the best
I can and tell the truth.

Speaker 3 (29:57):
Were you?

Speaker 2 (29:57):
If people choose to believe that or not believe it,
there's nothing I can do about that.

Speaker 3 (30:02):
Were you? Were you at the debris field?

Speaker 2 (30:06):
No, I personally was not at the debris field.

Speaker 3 (30:09):
How do you know that what you are presenting to
the press is what came from the debris field if
you were not there.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
Well, we do have standard operating procedures in the military,
and we do track all of the flights. So if
I'm told the materials being put on flight ABC one, two,
three and landing and four at Worth at eleven twenty two,
we can track it the entire way. The flip to
your question is, then you would be implying that the
rest of my troops are doing things and sending materials

(30:39):
elsewhere without my knowledge, And that's not the case.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
Well, they wrote a press release that was inaccurate, so
somebody wasn't telling the truth there, so anything could happen
in the chain of command.

Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well, as you said, they wrote a press release that
wasn't accurate, and fortuitously I was able to correct that.

Speaker 3 (30:56):
Who do you trust as to give you accurate information?
In this case? We are talking about extraterrestrials here, and
how do you know that you are the last stop
on this and that there isn't somebody else that is
handling this situation.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Well, first, I hate to correct you, but I'm not
talking about extraterrestrials. You're talking about extraterrestrials.

Speaker 3 (31:20):
You did the press release that said flying saucer.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
But I did not say extraterrestrials.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
Are you suggesting that, if it was a flying saucer,
it came of this earth, from Russia, from the ZI Germans.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
No, No, I'm mister Church. I'm not suggesting any of that.
I'm just suggesting that it was simply a weather balloon.

Speaker 3 (31:45):
Is the Department of Defense building flying saucers?

Speaker 2 (31:52):
Not to my knowledge?

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Is it possible that they could be building them and
testing them without your knowledge?

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Anything's possible.

Speaker 3 (32:02):
I should get a bar card.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
Huh, you should.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
I should get a bar card. I could probably pass.
I could probably without even going to law school. Is
it hard? Is that test hard? Or is it logic?
Is it? Can you pass it without having brains? But
being very logical?

Speaker 2 (32:21):
I don't. I don't think so. Yeah, there's too much.
So it's two day tests. There's the essay portion and
the multi state and there's a bunch of stuff going on.
I mean, and I in no disrespect if I gave
you a packet of information and said, okay, Jimmy in
there are three different legal issues that you have to
write about, you know, ad nauseum, right, okay, unless right,

(32:43):
because you're not going to be looking for they don't
have standing to do this. Or there's collateral estoppel. And
here there's so much minutia. So that's where you'd struggle.
But you know the two hundred question, the multi choice,
well maybe you know, even for us, I'll tell you
I studied harder for the bar than anything I've done

(33:05):
in my life. And even those guys like me have
studying eight, ten, twelve hours a day for that last month.
The multiple choice questions, it's one of those deals where
you'd get it down to two in a split second,
and then I either way, you know, very laboring thought
processes on you know, is it a orb? Is it airb?
But but I think somebody with a good amount of

(33:25):
logic and you know, fair amount of smarts could could
do okay on the bar. Sure.

Speaker 3 (33:32):
Back to the trial, Okay, back to the trial. After
the initial press release, General Raymie, before you issued an
alternative view to the press, the entirety of media and

(33:52):
newspaper reporting and journalists was covering this story immediately because
of the worldwide interest in the story. Every newspaper in
the United States had journalists on their way to Roswell.
But then you issued another statement to suggest that this

(34:14):
was a weather balloon, and all of those journalists stopped
their travel and went back home because it was now over.
Was that a deliberate cover up on your part?

Speaker 2 (34:28):
Not at all, And I do need to correct one
of your word choice. I didn't suggest it was a
weather balloon. I said it was a weather balloon. So
to that end, since it was a weather balloon, I
had no need to try to deter people from coming
out to Rosa or anything else. Again, people are going
to do what they're going to do well.

Speaker 3 (34:48):
And you did well, and you did what you had
to do too in switching the debris at the last moment.
And when Jesse Marcel came into your own office, he
was not looking at the debris that he had collected,
and he was instructed by you to pose with this

(35:08):
weather balloon when he knew that was in the debris
that he collected. Is that just another case of you
doing what you had to do for the cover up?

Speaker 2 (35:19):
Now, And I am aware of Jesse Marcel's testimony and
what he said over the years, and it's simply not
the way that I remember at mister Church.

Speaker 3 (35:28):
He was at the debris field and he was also
with you in the office, so he saw different debris
than what he collected at the airfield. So he was
the one that was at both places and not you.
So isn't it Jesse Marcel whose credibility is on solid ground?

Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, I'm not questioning you, know, mister Marcel and his credibility.
Mister Church. I am again testifying as General Raim, and
I can only testify to what I know and what
I know the facts to be. So, if you want
to deal with major Marcel and see what we think
about his credibility. That that's up to you, but it's
inappropriate to do it through me.

Speaker 3 (36:13):
Uh No, Actually, you're the one that was making the
decisions on this, so I'm going to keep the questioning
going right here. When the Air Force then changed its
story again for the fourth time and suggested crash test dummies,
that program didn't start until three years after the Roswell event.

(36:36):
If you are going to manufacture a story, shouldn't you
get your dates correct? And why make such a such
a mistake that was so easily caught.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
Would certainly think so. And let's go back to you
and me for a minute, Jimmie, because I I do
have a question about that. Do you know the first
year that the crash test dummy story was floated? No, puned,
I don't so, I'm actually honestly as.

Speaker 3 (37:02):
Okay, it surfaced officially surfaced in the Air Force's investigation
and release of their report in nineteen ninety six. It
was called Roswell Case Closed. And now there were two
reports that were done around that same time. The General

(37:24):
Accounting Office the GAO also released their report which was
also very extensive, and that was in nineteen ninety seven.
And so when we will back up, the Senator from
New Mexico at that time asked for the Air Force
to look into this, okay, and the Air Force did,

(37:45):
and they came out with case clothes. Their determination in
their official report that was submitted in Capitol Hill stated
that everybody was wrong, that it was actually crashed dummies
that were thrown out of airplanes that people thought were
alien bodies. Well, that was the Air Force official report.

(38:08):
And then as it turns out, that specific program didn't
start until nineteen fifty three. Okay.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
So I certainly heard the story, and I knew that
the program post dated at Roswell, but I didn't know
when that first popped up. And this isn't me trying
to be cute, but I'm running into such new evidence
relative to you know, the book. You know that I
didn't get, you know, certain factoids like that in there. Well.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
But so back to my point, this is, there is
so much there I have. I've spent decades looking into
the Roswell story, and so have many others. I'm certainly
not the last word on this case. But the more
that you know, and you know, somebody like Don Schmidt

(39:02):
is you know, really uh into into every aspect of this.
But when you when you acquire a bunch of knowledge
and then you hear something that doesn't quite fit, you're
able to just go, well, wait a minute here. It's
not like uh, you know, so you have the dates

(39:25):
right July second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth,
right that one week period. A lot of things happened
during uh right at before after and during that period
you had Kenneth Arnold with his sighting up in Washington,
which coined the term flying saucers. Of course, you had
the roads photographs that were taken in Phoenix right before Roswell.

(39:48):
Those photographs are some of the best UFO photographs ever
taken period amazing. And then Roswell happened, and so we're
all fixated on those dates uh N Team forty seven.
But it's not the same thing with the Air Force.
So if they're going to go and compile, they are
not ufologists, right, They don't have these dates fixated in

(40:13):
their heads like we do. And so when you go
and you make a claim like that, obviously they didn't
go and check those dates, or it wouldn't have been
in that report. There's no way you could say case
close that the dates aren't right. They thought it would be.
It's just gonna go and and that's it. It's over.

(40:36):
Actually they made it. They made it worse for me.
It's like, here's another lie.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
All right. What do they say when you're in a hole,
stop digging? Right?

Speaker 3 (40:45):
Yeah? Oh, one hundred percent, one hundred percent, quit while
you're ahead, right yeah, yeah, Now, okay, so let's let's
go back. What about uh the claim? So's you're still
General Ramie. And I think Raimi should be on the stand,

(41:05):
probably more than anybody else, because the buckstops there, right.
He put himself in that position. He went on right
to run everything for the Air Force at the Pentagon,
and so he was already on a trajectory during all
of this, right, and he was a pretty the things

(41:30):
that he did. For the way that the Department of
Defense was overall shaped over the next twenty years, that
was all on Ramy's shoulders. He was a tough guy man,
for sure. But going back to Roswell, many witnesses have

(41:52):
stated that they were involved and saw autopsies at the
Roswell Army Hospital and that small caskets sealed caskets were
ordered to transport these bodies out. Again, reportedly to Wright Patterson,

(42:18):
were there alien bodies inside of that weather balloon when
it crashed?

Speaker 2 (42:25):
Oh and Jimmy, I was so I got so intrigued
back on a different witness. I'm I'm General Raimie right. Yes, boy,
I totally forgot that. I was getting all excited about
a different angle.

Speaker 3 (42:36):
Okay, who do you want to be?

Speaker 2 (42:38):
Well, I was, are you familiar?

Speaker 3 (42:40):
Do you want to be Glenn Dennis?

Speaker 2 (42:42):
Well, yeah, you started talking about bodies and caskets. That's
where I thought you were going to go, was with
Glenn Dennis. And he's another one we talked about, you know,
the air Force kind of making things worse. He's another
one where his reference to sure he said he got
the call that got the caskets ordered, right, It wasn't
until significantly later. Oh yeah, I saw the bodies, right.

(43:04):
And so it's that So why do folks do that?

Speaker 3 (43:08):
You know?

Speaker 2 (43:08):
The hyperbole? You know? And and in my book there's
an instance that in the very back, I have kind
of a jury deliberation guide. Everybody's witnessed. All the witnesses
are listed alphabetically and kind of the pros and the
cons on him, and I like Glenn Dennis for the
for the believers, but gone his story changes and now
includes having seen you know, the bodies, and then we

(43:30):
hear about the nurse that he talked to, but of
course nobody, nobody knew the nurse's name, and she was
there for a day and split back to Minnesota or
you know, something like that.

Speaker 3 (43:38):
I think she was. I think she was moved to
Europe and stationed in Europe or something like that, London
and was never heard from again.

Speaker 2 (43:47):
Right, right, So you know, he's another extremely in the
witnesses that really made the cut for my book are
the ones that really really could go either way. Right,
I didn't. I did that my you know, as far
as you know, I wanted the witnesses that could kind
of go either way to help it again with the
thought process here. But yeah, Glenn Dennis one of my favorites.

(44:11):
But why why the change? Right?

Speaker 3 (44:14):
How did he change?

Speaker 2 (44:17):
Well, when he first talked about having caskets being ordered,
he never said he saw a body. He said he
took the caskets out there and kind of that was that.
Then when he retold the story, Oh yeah, I saw
some bodies, and he got pushed on it, kind of
like Melvin Brown, the military policeman, kind of that same
thing when pushed on it. Well, it was more I

(44:37):
kind of saw this tent over there, and in the
tent saw what looked like could have been bodies. And
so that's where Glenn Dennis went with it. It would have
been much stronger testimony had you know that never happened,
had it just been simply, yeah, I got this call
for these tiny little caskets which had never happened before.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
Do you think that happens over time? Originally, Glenn Den said,
now this is how the story has changed. Okay, but
so I'll give the last version of it. But originally,
when you look at the original books that were written
in the original interviews with Glenn right around nineteen ninety

(45:18):
that in that period ninety ninety one, ninety two, ninety three,
a bunch of books are written. And he had stated
that the airbase calls him up. Somebody from the air
base orders a bunch of child sized caskets, which he
didn't have in stock at the time, and they wanted

(45:38):
something that was sealable, right, but he could get them
in a couple of days, and they said, okay, so
he orders them they come in. He goes out to
the base and he gets in, but he said it
was heavy security around the hospital. But that's where he
met the nurse, and so he talked to her inside

(45:59):
of the hospital. And then he had said at that time,
again I'm paraphrasing here, but he saw what looked to
him to be an autopsy or something going on through
the glass in this room. And the nurse said, you're
not supposed to be here. You cannot see what's going
on right now. She started to tell him some other things,

(46:20):
and that's when the red headed officer comes up right,
the famous red headed guy, and separates the two of
them and sends him on his way. He never saw
her again. Now, the other part of the story is
that the updated version is he never delivered the caskets.

(46:45):
He never did. He ordered them, could not get that
they ordered them, He could not get them. But he
did go out to the base. So it's kind of weird.
Did did that happen or not. The other part of
the second part of the story is, originally he said
he saw something going on inside of the hospital. Later
on he said it was outside of the hospital. So

(47:06):
which which way? Where do we go with this?

Speaker 2 (47:10):
Right? And it's very difficult to believe right that something
put it this way if I saw alien bodies. I'm
leading with that right and every conversation I have, and
I'm gonna remember exactly where I was and exactly who
was there, because I couldn't imagine anything much more impactful

(47:32):
than that. Says a changing testimony when something is so
significant is a big red flag to me.

Speaker 3 (47:39):
Now, okay, so now I'm gonna flip you back to
your your Raymie, Okay, as how many crash sites were there?

Speaker 2 (47:48):
General Raimie, Well, mister Church, I think we're here dealing
with the crash at the Brassle property, is that correct? Well,
not the Brazl but the ranch that mister Brazl was
the caretaker for.

Speaker 3 (48:07):
We are talking about that. But the question is how
many crash sites were there?

Speaker 2 (48:15):
Can you be more specific?

Speaker 3 (48:18):
Yeah? That would be is there more than one.

Speaker 2 (48:22):
More than one crash site? Where? And not trying to
be cute, Jimmy, it's serious. I'm trying to drill down
the question because we'd have problems with this more than
one crash site? But well, it's or Chaves County or
you know. So I'm trying to help you out, but

(48:44):
I need a little more specificity.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
It's an easy question to answer, General Raimie. Was there
one crash site, two or ten?

Speaker 2 (48:54):
Well, we are here for Roswell, the truth on trial
dealing with the crash that was discovered by mister Brazzle.
So with that understanding, there was.

Speaker 3 (49:04):
One Okay, what about reports that that was not the
crash site, that was an impact site and then the
craft itself was recovered thirty miles away in the in
the town of Corona.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Well, I'm not aware of that. I'm aware of the
one crash site.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
Then how can we trust your testimony, General Reimi if
you're not completely familiar with the entire cover up, which
would suggest the cover up is above you. Is this
cover up that started in Roswell? Is this the method
of operation for everything now that the Air Force needs
to cover up when it comes to the subject of UFOs.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
Well, first object to the form of the question with
the use.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
You would object cover up? Yeah, it's the most important
ass of this case. Though. Was it your blueprint as
head of the Air Force, the future Air Force? Was
it your blueprint for all future cover ups.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Not at all. I don't deal in cover ups, mister Church.
This is a simply isolated incident of a weather balloon crashing,
and we handled it with standard operating procedure once the
initial excitement wore off from some of the lower troops.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
Why well, then, if it's not a cover up, why
would you transport a weather balloon to write Patterson Air
Force Base, the Foreign Technology Center?

Speaker 2 (50:40):
Where would you have me transfer it? I'm not going
to keep putting them in my office and Fort Worth you.

Speaker 3 (50:46):
Would transport it to a garbage bin, I would think, Well,
a lot.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
Of those materials are recyclable and whatnot can be used
in other projects. So if we have recovered materials, we
have to send it to some centralized repository, and right,
that seems as good as the next.

Speaker 3 (51:02):
Well, you stated that it was balsa wood and foil.
What is so important about balsa wood and foil, sir?

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Well, again, nothing necessarily inherent important about those items. But
as part of the US project, we have the materials.
We sent them off to do what they do with
them once they get them on their own.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
One of the bodies was reportedly still alive two had
been recovered deceased. Where did you take the living body?
And did anybody interrogate the living the living pilot?

Speaker 2 (51:42):
Oh, mister Church, I wish that there had been bodies,
in particular if one of them was living, but that
didn't exist, so there was nothing to take anywhere in
that day.

Speaker 3 (51:52):
Does the Air Force, as a department of defense, then
the Army Air Force, do they have procedures in place
where to take bodies that have been recovered from crashes?

Speaker 2 (52:04):
That may exist? But since well in particular too, it
sounds like you're talking about extraterrestrial bodies given that, since
it's never happened, I don't know, and I've never asked.

Speaker 3 (52:15):
What would you do if it was a human pilot?
What would you do with that body?

Speaker 2 (52:22):
Well, objection hypothetical. But let's say that there were a
human body who was deceased. Will that person be sent
to I'm not sure where New Mexico hospitals? And know
we'd send them to the Presidio in San Francisco, or
we always send you know, deceased aviators or you know whatever, Jimmy,
they would normally do.

Speaker 3 (52:41):
I don't know, is that where you sent these deceased aviators.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
Again, as I said, I'm not aware of any aviators,
the deceased or otherwise. I didn't send anybody anywhere.

Speaker 3 (52:56):
What information did you guys get from community dicating with
this alien? Did you guys make any deals?

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Again? I wish something like that could have happened there
There were no aliens, mister Church.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
After nineteen forty seven, it seems that technology in the
United States took huge leaps forward. Certainly central in that
were printed circuit boards and the invention of the transistor.
All after July of nineteen forty seven. Were these technologies
from the crashed craft in Roswell.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
No, not at all. It was just coincidental in that regard.
But you'll recall we're on the heels of World War
two and the amount of technological advances that we were
able to make both an industrial and technology during the war,
and because of the war, had us already positioned to
be able to release products like you're referencing, and it

(53:53):
just so happened to coincide with this Roswell that you're
talking about.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
Well, this crash craft, not of this Earth, was very
significant in human history and a lot of turning points
happened at that time, not only with how the Department
of Defense was structured, the creation of the Air Force
now as a new branch of the military. Also the
creation of the Central Intelligence Agency in the CIA after

(54:21):
theas all of this, in addition to the technology, was
all just a coincidence.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
Yes, And again you're talking about restructuring of the military. Again,
we had just completed the Second World War, so the
time was ripe to be able to look at, you know,
the good, the bad, the ugly, what we were doing
as far as a military and make changes accordingly. So again,
all those things did happen at Roswell, But my kids

(54:52):
were born after Roswell, and I'm pretty sure they didn't
have anything to do with.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
That now, but they weren't born in July of ninenineteen
forty seven, like the transistor and the creation of the
Central Intelligence Agency, these are very significant changes in our country,
all timed around the crash of a flying saucer outside

(55:16):
of the city of Roswell in New Mexico. And I
would suggest that it is beyond coincidence, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
Well that argument can you can certainly make that argument,
mister Church and the jurors will We'll do what jurors
do with it.

Speaker 3 (55:32):
Why cover up something that is nature, This is just
the universe and it's just life out there. Why keep
this from the public and why continue to lie about it?

Speaker 2 (55:48):
Well again, and maybe we can get a standing objection
anytime reference to aliens. I have never said that there
are aliens.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
There sustained, sustained, thank.

Speaker 2 (55:58):
You, thank you. So there is there is nothing for
me to be lying about. It just simply didn't exist,
mister Church.

Speaker 3 (56:09):
But you just stated I can go back and read
from the court reporter. You just stated that you have
lied about this repeatedly, and it was just what you
had to do.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
No a nice attempt at you know, taking two different
subtexts together. I did what I had to do, which
was correct the record and indicate what this actually was,
which was a weather plint. That is what I had
to do. I needed the record to be correct, so
I corrected it.

Speaker 3 (56:41):
But the Air Force has done this repeatedly over the years,
including its official Project Blue Book, which were taking the
facts of different sightings and reports and twisting them for
the public. Uh. And we don't know the reasons why,

(57:03):
Like the creation of swamp gas when swamp gas had
nothing to do with those sightings, but that was the
Air Force. Again, I would use the word lie and
making up facts and presenting those to the public. Well,
I mean, why why keep the truth from the public
in this with uh with alien contact?

Speaker 2 (57:26):
Well, mister Church again, I'm only testifying as myself, General Raimie.
I have not kept anything from the public. I have
said it's a weather balloon. I've said it's a weather
balloon since day one. So I think you might have
the wrong guy in the stand if that's the arguments
that you want to make.

Speaker 3 (57:43):
Yeah, So that's that's a really good point that the
public when it comes to weather balloons, now now that
is comedy. That is now humor. Right now, I'm talking
to Chris Johnson attorney. Okay, okay, that you know what

(58:05):
I mean Now, it's it's it has taken on its
own pop culture term and definition.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
Yeah, for sure, you know, and you know this whole
exercise in writing my book, I mean, let you know,
at my core, I am a believer and I'm also
I want to believe. You know. However, trying to capture
true courtroom procedure and drama leaves so much, you know

(58:34):
out Yeah, as you and I were talking about. So
it's frustrating from my stand.

Speaker 3 (58:39):
Yeah, And when we come back after the break, I'm
going to turn the tables. I want to be in
the witness box and I want you to put on
your JD hat and come at me. This is a
lot of fun. And here's here's the situation, you know,
and yeah, I'm coming at you hard. But the reason
for that is very simil The Air Force has always

(59:02):
been in a very uncomfortable position with this and they've
never been able to with I mean satisfaction, present the
reasons why for any of this for so many years?
And is it because and then we'll take our break.

(59:24):
Do you think that the Air Force not the Department
of Defense, because we've got different branches in the military
that have all handled the UFO question a little bit differently.
But the Air Force, not only because of a Project
Blue Book, but the Air Force has always had a
very cocky, self assured stance on this because they've never

(59:46):
had to tell the truth, So why should they start
telling the truth now? They've always been able to hold
all of the cards. Is that a position that you
would expect to change in the future, or is the
Air Force always going to have this position, which is,
we don't care what the questions are.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
So it sounds like kind of on point for disclosure, right,
is essentially what that question was about. I believe disclosure
is not going to come from the government. Something is
going to happen extra trustrial wise on earth that cannot
be denied, cannot be lied about, no obsercation. Right, It's

(01:00:26):
simply hey, Jimmy Church, Sat, Chris Johnson, Sally Jones, And
at that point, we don't need the government to even
confirm our beliefs or whatever. That's how I think disclosure
is actually going to occur. Now, obviously I have no evidence,
but I think the extra trustrials seem to move faster
than the US government.

Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
It's so yeah, And that's that's a really bizarre position,
not your position, not your statement, but that I believe
that that is the way the Air Force kind of
looks at this and how so many of us that
have seen something will have that position because I kind

(01:01:07):
of had that position for a number of years. I
don't need disclosure from the government. But I'll just say this,
I'm gonna use a bad word. That's a bullshit position.
And let me tell you why so many out there
witnesses of people that have had their experiences husbands and

(01:01:28):
wives and sons and daughters and everything where they have
been teased and ridiculed and called names, and to the
point where they don't want to tinfoil hats and they
don't want to even talk about the subject. The only thing,
the only thing that will allow them to hold their

(01:01:50):
head high, is the frigging Oval Office to go live
on TV. And that's the only thing that's the only
thing that's good enough for them. I get that. I
totally understand that now, where I didn't understand that in
the past. Anything else is just to hearsay that you're
talking about. It's just more Lewis Elizondo blah blah blah

(01:02:11):
blah blah coming out that you're in a circle argument
that goes nowhere. You need to have the last word,
you do. You've got to have it. Okay, So today
I'm here to announce that we are not alone in
the universe. Right, that that's that's what they need, you know,
so they can turn around, slap their husband upside the head,

(01:02:34):
right and go see you know.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
That I and I agree with you one, but I honestly,
I honestly think it is more likely that there is
going to be something that can't be denied before a
government comes out.

Speaker 3 (01:02:48):
Oh, they're praying for that. They're praying for that, Chris.
They they want that. So yes, yes, yes, yes, oh Man,
you know, uh, you know, James Webb, they you know,
they want independence day over Los Angeles. You know, because
you're right, Yeah, we're off the hook. I like that,

(01:03:11):
you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. All right, let's take
a break. When we come back, I'm gonna get grilled
on the witness stand. I am your host, Jimmy Church.
This is Fade to Black. Our guest tonight, Chris Johnson JD. Tonight,
it's Roswell the Truth on trial. We'll be right back
after this shortbreak. Stay with us. Subscribe to our YouTube channel,

(01:03:56):
get your alerts and access to over to one thousand videos.
Click that subscribe button right now. Go to Jimmy Church
Radio dot com and get the Fade to Black Official
Podcast two thousand episodes, all of them commercial free for
just two dollars a month. Watch Into the Vortex on

(01:04:36):
guy A TV. It's Fade to Black for the screen.
Simple to do. Go to Guya dot com search Jimmy
Church or click on the link below. Follow Fade to
Black on Twitter at Jay Church Radio. Get all of
the show updates every single day. It's now called ex

(01:04:58):
but who cares. How you doing? Jimmy Church here special announcement.
Get your fade the black T shirts.

Speaker 2 (01:05:07):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (01:05:08):
Help support the show, help support everything that we do
over here. We've got two T shirts. We've got two
ways to get them. Get your Fade the black T
shirt today, Go Beckley Teppe. Go to Jimmy Churchradio dot
com and become a fade or not. Get a membership.
That's right. Everything is commercial free. You have access to downloads,

(01:05:32):
and you get to call yourself a fade or not.
Today we're headed to Bolivia, to Yawinaku Peru and of
course Bombo Punkoo Ryan exciting.

Speaker 5 (01:05:54):
Thank you so much for everything. My friend always an
honor right behind us. He is the sacred of the
incait that goes past once you peak you. So we're
going to be driving up to its source at fifteen
thousand feet above sea level and then down to Lake Tvcca.

Speaker 3 (01:06:09):
So today we hit fifteen thousand feet. Yes, crazy, and
you can do it with us. All you have to
do is go to Hidden incatours dot com. Simple. We've
got two tours coming up next year, one in June
for the summer solstice, right and then another one right
here in November.

Speaker 5 (01:06:27):
So Hidney Cooturs dot com. Come and hang out with
Brian and I and his amazing team.

Speaker 3 (01:06:32):
Not on Rivermoon Coffee, makers of the Fade to Black Blend,
truly the best coffee on planet Earth. Just visit Rivermoon

(01:06:54):
Wellness dot com or their Amazon story. It's all simple
to do. You can check out the Fade to Black Blend,
the Game Change or Blenn or any of their Black
Moon Wellness products. It's the only coffee I drink. It
is the best, and it's doc again Rivermoonwellness dot com.

(01:07:35):
All right, welcome back Fade to Black. I am your host,
Jimmy Church Tonight Roswell the Truth on Trial. That's right,
that's the new book. And our guest tonight is Christopher
Johnston JD. He is a trial attorney, and we are
in court. As you can see, we're in court and

(01:07:57):
let's continue with the trial. I will be I'm not
shall I be. I'm just going to say it a
hostile witness. Oh, I'm going to be very hostile, your honor.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Tell you what, how about you be Jesse Marcel? Okay,
all right, and I'm going to I'm going to be
the skeptics attorney and I'm going to cross you.

Speaker 3 (01:08:20):
Okay, let's go.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
And so just a tiny bit of so I'm gonna
look old here or loyally, I'm not sure, but.

Speaker 3 (01:08:28):
Lawyerly, my cousin Vinny, we're going to just do that
whole night, right, lawyers, that's.

Speaker 2 (01:08:34):
Right, very loyally of me. So anyway, for your listeners,
when you call your own witness, then you ask questions
you can you can't ask leading questions of your own witnesses.
But I'm cross which what we're about to do with
you Because I you were called initially as a believer's witness.

(01:08:56):
I am the skeptic attorney. So I'm going to cross
examine you so I can kind of almost do whatever
I want.

Speaker 3 (01:09:01):
To, Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
And I also, since I did all the hard work
of Jesse Marcel's testimony already being in my book, I'm
going to cross you in part mainly with questions from
the book.

Speaker 3 (01:09:12):
Okay, let's go.

Speaker 2 (01:09:14):
Is that all right? Okay, okay, Good morning mister Marcel.

Speaker 3 (01:09:18):
Good morning, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
Say, as you know, you just testified, you know, for
the other attorney, and I was very impressed you were
able to listen to all the questions and you answered
all of them. You did a great job, I did,
and I would ask for the same respect when I
ask you questions, to wait until I'm done asking, and
to answer them the very best of your ability that
you can fair.

Speaker 3 (01:09:40):
Fair okay, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
Now you mentioned earlier that you served as the intelligence
officer at Roswell Airfield in nineteen forty seven. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:09:55):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:09:56):
Okay? And part of your duties involved analyzing and identifying
foreign or domestic military technologies. Correct, yes, And at that
time you certainly you were familiar with common materials used
in military operations. True, yes, And you were also aware
of what aluminum, foil, rubber, and balsa wood was. You

(01:10:19):
know what those things are? True?

Speaker 3 (01:10:21):
Anyone should?

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Did you?

Speaker 3 (01:10:25):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:10:26):
Thank you? Now you testified earlier that the debris that
you found included some lightweight foil and beams. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Yeah, And some of these materials, you said, repliable and
could return to their original shape. And were unusually durable. True. Yes,
And mister Marcel, isn't it true that materials like aluminum foil,
rubberized cloth, and balsa wood exhibit some of the properties
that you just described. Yes, So, as an intelligence officer,

(01:11:03):
you were expected to recognize all sorts of things, including
weather balloons.

Speaker 3 (01:11:07):
True.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Yes, And you'd seen weather balloons prior.

Speaker 3 (01:11:11):
To this night, true many times.

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
Yeah, and despite your experience, you initially reported that the
debris might have come from a flying disc or some
other identified craft. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:11:24):
It didn't come from a weather balloon.

Speaker 2 (01:11:28):
But again, you said that it may have come from
a flying disc or some other identified craft. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
As my job as an intelligence officer, I'm collecting information
in debris and we'll analyze it later. But it did
not come from a weather balloon.

Speaker 2 (01:11:44):
Okay. And that's all very interesting, But she still didn't
answer my question. Did you say the debris might have
come from a flying disc or some other identified craft? Yes?
Or no?

Speaker 3 (01:11:55):
I may have said that, yes, thank.

Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
You, okay, But then, just you know, shortly after this
press release came out, your superiors publicly stated that the
debris from was a weather balloon. Correct.

Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
They changed their story, yes.

Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
And said it was a weather balloon.

Speaker 3 (01:12:13):
True, they changed their story that those weren't my words.

Speaker 2 (01:12:18):
Were you involved in drafting the revised explanation?

Speaker 3 (01:12:22):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:12:24):
Why were you excluded from that?

Speaker 3 (01:12:27):
I was surprised by everything when I showed up in Dallas.

Speaker 2 (01:12:32):
Okay, So do you know why you were excluded from
drafting the second release that said it was a weather balloon?

Speaker 3 (01:12:37):
I would assume because I was the initial witness and
I knew the truth.

Speaker 2 (01:12:42):
Okay, did anyone ever tell you that?

Speaker 3 (01:12:45):
No? I was. I was completely blindsided in Dallas, and
you can see it in my face and the photographs
that were taken.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
Okay, Well, we'll get to that. Could it be that
you weren't involved in the drafting of the press release
because you're superior didn't trust you?

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
Well, my original statements about it possibly being a flying
saucer or of something not of this earth was because
I knew that everything that I was looking at wasn't
anything that I was familiar with already being a career
officer in the Air Force. It didn't make any sense,

(01:13:23):
So I assumed that it came from somewhere else. It
certainly wasn't a manufacturer of anything that the Air Force
was using at the time.

Speaker 2 (01:13:32):
Sure, and you keep going back to that, mister Marcel,
but that actually wasn't the question on the table in
front of you. Since you were never given a reason
as to why you were excluded from drafting the revised
press release, then the reason could be anything. True.

Speaker 3 (01:13:50):
No, I will answer your question again. They knew that
I would not support their version of the story.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
Let me try this, mister Marcel. Were you ever told
this is a yes or no question. Were you ever
told why you were excluded from drafting the revised press release?

Speaker 3 (01:14:12):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
Okay, So since you weren't told, you were only left
to assume as to why you were excluded from that true.

Speaker 3 (01:14:23):
Ask the question another way.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
Sure, since no one ever told you why you were
excluded from helping with the revised statement, that means since
that means you don't know why you were excluded, you're
only assuming why you were excluded.

Speaker 3 (01:14:42):
True, the question is hypothetical.

Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
No, it's not a hypothetical.

Speaker 3 (01:14:49):
If I don't know the reason, then it's a hypothetical answer.

Speaker 2 (01:14:54):
No. If you don't know the reason, then it becomes
true that anything could be the reason. You simply don't know,
you don't if someone were to say AB or C,
since you were never told, you couldn't say that that
person was any more right or wrong than you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:09):
Correct anything as possible.

Speaker 2 (01:15:12):
Thank you. You said that some of the material that
you found included some strange symbols resembling hieroglyphics. Is that right?

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
And you testified that these symbols didn't match any language
or markings that you had seen before. Is that true?

Speaker 3 (01:15:36):
Anything that I was taught in school reading and writing
didn't match anything that I was taught. I can read
and write, and I could not read those symbols.

Speaker 2 (01:15:46):
Isn't it true that some children's toys in the forties
even now for that matter, included symbols or decorations that
could be mistaken for hieroglyphs.

Speaker 3 (01:15:54):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Okay, Let me ask you this. Did you take any
photographs of the debris at the crash site before you
removed it?

Speaker 3 (01:16:04):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
And where are those photographs now? Mister Marcel?

Speaker 3 (01:16:09):
I turned those in to Roswell Army Airfield along with
everything that we collected.

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
And after you gathered the debris, you transported it to
initially to the Roswell Army airfield. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:16:25):
On multiple flatbed trucks, pick up trucks, and we had
two to four hundred service personnel collecting that debris.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
Well, that's great, but that wasn't my question. When you
first collected it from the craft from the debris field,
did you take it to the Roswell Army Airfield? That's
that where it initially went.

Speaker 3 (01:16:47):
I am saying that I didn't personally collect all of
the debris. We had two to four hundred personnel that
were collecting it on multiple trucks and pickup trucks. It
was a multiple day collect actually that was twenty four
hours a day, so I wasn't the only one collecting
the debris.

Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
Did you take any debris that you collected to the
Rosal Army Airfield?

Speaker 3 (01:17:09):
I did, thank you, mister Marcel.

Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
Were there specific protocols in place for handling potentially sensitive
or classified materials?

Speaker 3 (01:17:20):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
And are those is that protocol? Is it an order?
How do how do those work?

Speaker 3 (01:17:31):
It? It depends on the situation. If it is a
crashed craft from the from the military, we handle it
a certain way. If it is a crash craft that
is from an adversary, that is certainly handled another way
and transported to other locations around the United States and analyzed.

(01:17:52):
If it is a civilian aircraft, then that is collected
a different way and different agencies are involved, just like
this case with the Department of Defense.

Speaker 2 (01:18:04):
Okay, And so let's say, can we agree that it
would be a protocol on how to handle any of
these And it's really just semantics, mister Marcel, what a
protocol on how to handle a body be the appropriate
word to you?

Speaker 3 (01:18:17):
So?

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
Or it would it be an order you're ordered how to.

Speaker 3 (01:18:19):
Deal with We are talking about an area of high
sensitivity and classification, and I can't comment publicly on that.

Speaker 2 (01:18:28):
Okay, So whether it's a procedure, a protocol and order
when there is instruction on how to deal with anything
in the military, but let's use a crashed craft here,
is it important to follow those protocols? Orders? Again, whatever
it is we're going to call them, is it important.

Speaker 3 (01:18:50):
In the military. We have not only classifications, but we
have rank. And I am just somebody that is taking
orders and I don't question those orders. So when we
are dealing with something of such a highly sensitive nature,
which in this case is possibly something that may be extraterrestrial.

(01:19:15):
I am here to just take orders and not question why.

Speaker 2 (01:19:20):
Okay. So there was indeed then a protocol in place
for whatever it was that crashed and Roswell.

Speaker 3 (01:19:30):
I can I can't comment on that, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
And you just testified that it's you were a guy
that just followed orders and did it with your tool. True. Yes,
did any of the protocols or orders dealing with the
Roswell crash? Say hey, by the way, Major Marcel, you
should take some of those materials to your house and
show them to your family. Say that in there anywhere?

Speaker 3 (01:19:57):
No, it did not.

Speaker 2 (01:19:58):
Okay, So then you you don't always follow orders? True?

Speaker 3 (01:20:04):
I always follow orders. That night, in the excitement of
the moment, I stepped outside what should have been a
normal method of operation.

Speaker 2 (01:20:15):
So you say, the excitement of the moment sounds like
the excitement of the moment clouded your judgment and you
took the materials home. Would that be a true statement?

Speaker 3 (01:20:23):
I knew that this was quite possibly the biggest event
in human history. Yes. I did get a little excited.

Speaker 2 (01:20:31):
Okay, so excited enough that you disregard orders? What withdraw
on your honor objection? Okay? All right, let's discuss the

(01:20:51):
materials that you were shown that you're shown with during
the Fort Worth press conference. Do you recall that I do,
and you testified that those materials were different than what
you found at the ranch? Is it correct?

Speaker 3 (01:21:08):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:21:12):
Do you other than these photographs that you took and
you gave to somebody else, do you personally have any
physical evidence to support your claim that the materials were switched?

Speaker 3 (01:21:21):
I cannot answer that question.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
So you might have physical evidence.

Speaker 3 (01:21:26):
I plead the fifth Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:21:30):
So, which technically kind of a side note. That's a
criminal standard and we're in a civil trial. But I'm
gonna let it go. I'm gonna let it go on, mister.

Speaker 3 (01:21:39):
And if I have broken protocol and could possibly be
court martialed, that would be criminal. And anything that I
stay right now could be used in such a procedure
if it would happen in the future.

Speaker 2 (01:21:52):
True, But you just told us about a minute and
a half ago that you don't always follow orders in procedures.
So I'll come today, I'll come here in this court
room with this good judge here. You're going to follow
the procedure. But the night of the crash, you chose
not to your honor.

Speaker 3 (01:22:04):
Can I answer that question fully? Thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:22:08):
Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
I have always followed orders. My statement was that I
didn't that one time.

Speaker 2 (01:22:16):
Okay, so well, one time in your career. I just
want to make sure that you're on the same page.
That's correct, that's okay, one time now, mister Marcel, you've
spoken publicly about Roswell incident on several occasions over the years,
haven't you.

Speaker 3 (01:22:34):
We need to go back and finish the question that
you asked. If that's okay about the debris being different
when I entered the office.

Speaker 2 (01:22:42):
Oh, certainly, that's right. So you testified that what you
saw in Fort Worth was different than what you initially
saw in the debris field. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:22:53):
I knew that when I entered the office and saw
the debris that was in the office was not what
I collected at the debris site.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
Okay. And then you took a picture with the debris
there and Fort Worth?

Speaker 3 (01:23:11):
True, I did.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
And you weren't there alone. Presumably there were press folks there,
is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:23:20):
That is correct?

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
And some other military folks. In General Ramie, he was there.

Speaker 3 (01:23:24):
He was there with his office staff.

Speaker 2 (01:23:26):
Yes, okay. So when you did all that you posted
the pictures. You never told anybody in that room. Hey,
by the way, this is different stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:23:37):
I didn't. I didn't, and may I expand? Sure, I
follow orders. I was asked to go in and take
pictures and pose with the debris that had been switched.
I did what I was asked to do.

Speaker 2 (01:23:57):
Okay, So you did what you were asked to do,
aside from that one night where we have some so
much excitement that your judgment was clouded and chose to
take these materials home. But every other time you followed
all the orders. Correct, that is correct, Okay, nothing furlier
on it. So, and that's how we'd sum it up.

(01:24:18):
I skipped a couple little, you know, parts, but so
and one thing that I it's I wouldn't call it
a slick lawyer move, and it sort of isn't a
vacuum only reading the cross on it. But what I
did there, it was very intentional. The mister Marcel is
supposed to Major Marcel. And if you go through the
testimony with the believers attorney, it's all very you know,

(01:24:41):
oh yes, manja you know, And as soon as the
defense gets there, it's boom, mister, and you start, you know,
kind of working them down that way.

Speaker 3 (01:24:48):
Yeah, and like I said earlier, but I find it's
it's you know, going back to my cousin Vinny, the
Defense's case doesn't hold water, right, and in the case
of Roswell, that's that it doesn't hold water. You are
able to pick anything apart. And I think it would

(01:25:10):
be difficult, both on direct and on Cross to turn
the story around into a weather balloon project Mogul crash
test dummy scenario when it is the Department of the
Defense that has changed their story, the witnesses and everything else,

(01:25:32):
going back to the Walter House memo moving forward has
been very very very consistent.

Speaker 2 (01:25:41):
Yeah, yeah, well except between is the ninety three and
oh two anfon Davids.

Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
You know that's what Well, that that's that's true. Like
I said, that's the with with Roswell and Christopher. I'm
so convinced of this that all we have to do
here is look at the Department of Defence's position. We
don't have to look at the witnesses position. We don't

(01:26:08):
have to bring any of that to the table. You know,
what we do, what we do have is just the
Department of Defense's actions, statements, movements of debris and everything,
and the memos and everything else that was tied to it.
That's the strength of the case.

Speaker 2 (01:26:27):
Right, well, it is a big strength of the case.
But were we in a real courtroom, there's this pesky
burden of proof, right, and any intellectually honest defense lawyer,
so again, I'm a plaintiff lawyer. Any defense lawyer will
tell you their job is so much easier than the

(01:26:49):
plaintiffs because we have the burden proof. We actually have
to prove something. The defense poke a hole here and
oh yeah, Marcel, you're mister rule follower, but you.

Speaker 3 (01:26:59):
Took this stuff right, totally totally, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
So so from that regard, you know, that's the look at.

Speaker 3 (01:27:06):
The well, okay, so let's go. That is such a
and you're right, a good attorney is going to absolutely
point that one thing out. And once you discredit a witness,
you know what else can you believe from him? Right totally?
But now so that my attorney, my attorney, now I

(01:27:27):
get crossed right after you sit down, right, okay, and
he'll come up and say, yes, okay, you did break
protocol that one time, but you also created witnesses. You
showed your family this debris, didn't you? I did? And
then you flip that back around and now you can
bring up the kids, you can bring in the wife.
Did you guys see this debris and and and turn

(01:27:51):
it around once again? Right? It wouldn't that be another
another tack of the boat.

Speaker 2 (01:27:56):
And it would in super splitting hairs here. But your
your attorney would have called you first. And since I
wrote the book, your attorney is a real good attorney.
And what you do on the planeiff side, I'm bringing
up about you know question number three that you took
this thing home, because I'll tell you, as a plane

(01:28:16):
if you're gonna every case has bad facts, right, And
as the planeff attorney, if you don't get in front
of those bad, bad facts, it couched them the way
you wanted them couched, the defense will kill you because
now it looks like you're trying to cover something up
and you're trying to be seen. So it's one of
my first after the niceties of name, rank and serial number,

(01:28:37):
I'm right into priors and and things that I know
are going to be an issue so that we can
explain them away. But yes, and you're right, and that
is and that's in the book too, Marcel, So you
got a weigh it as the attorney. Okay, well suck
that he didn't follow the orders, but he created these witnesses,

(01:28:57):
you know. And then another another thing we really lack
in any kind of trial book, Grisham or anybody else,
is you don't know how the testimony is going to
come in, right, you can have if somehow you had
the same client with the same injuries and the same everything.
I would be looking at client a going I can't

(01:29:19):
put you on the stand. I just I can't. Jerry
would hate you, right, And then the other the guy
gal on the other side, you know, Oh, Jerry's gonna
love this person. So that that credibility and the likability
of witnesses just can't come through, you know, But I
could if I wrote a five thousand page book. But

(01:29:40):
you know, as far as because that, you know, the credibility,
the in person stuff carries so much weight with the
jurors and how they put their testimony in. And unfortunately
that's one thing we'll never know.

Speaker 3 (01:29:53):
Well, the General Accounting Office, Uh, that's a great point,
the General Accounting Office, and which the GAO, by the way,
scares the crap out of anybody. Okay, they don't play.
They don't play. They don't play. And so if they're
going to do an audit and they're gonna, they've got
they've got a juice card. Right. So when they jumped

(01:30:14):
into the Roswell case, one of the interesting aspects of
this is that they said, this is the GAO. Okay,
this isn't move on, this isn't this isn't even Congress, right,
it's the GAO.

Speaker 2 (01:30:31):
Man.

Speaker 3 (01:30:32):
The GAO said, all record. They went through all of
the branches of the military, all of the accounting, everything,
the logistics wise, all the way back to nineteen forty seven,
any records tied to Roswell, phone, billing, receipts, transports, information, personnel,

(01:30:59):
all of it was destroyed, all of it, all of
it all for them.

Speaker 2 (01:31:07):
Doesn't seem possible.

Speaker 3 (01:31:09):
Right, right, right, right? And the general accounting off is
actually I'm gonna paraphrase, but they said something like that,
never before has every piece of of anything tied to
something been lost or destroyed. Right. But in the case
of Roswell, we found nothing and that that I mean

(01:31:32):
nothing phone records talx is right, and anything, any correspondence,
any cables, any instructions, any memos, any flight records, any
of the any personnel, any nothing. Now what does that
tell you is that is that possible at all? No,
that's impossible unless right, it's exactly what we think it is.

Speaker 2 (01:31:56):
Right, right, And that's one of the challenges again. We
can all think something, can we prove it, you know,
to to a legal standard? You know, that's you know,
you see it online all the all the time, little
video I'm gonna sue this guy, and I'm looking going,
good luck. You know, nothing's gonna nothing's gonna come with that,
you know. And interestingly it kind of hearkening back, you know,

(01:32:19):
when one of us was on the stand. I don't
know who it was, but you were talking about the
advances in technology right after Oswell, I know someone I'm
very close to who ran the procurement project for the
Stealth project. And that person is now retired, but retired
career military, and that person told me that there are

(01:32:43):
components in the Stealth that that person believes came from
an extrastrial source.

Speaker 3 (01:32:50):
I could, yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't discount any of that.
I say it almost every night on the show, but
it goes without saying I live next door to skunk Works.
It's right here. It's one mile, one mile, and I
drive past it a couple of times, So it's one mile. Okay,
if I'm heading in that right, I'm gonna drive past it.

(01:33:13):
But Edwards is right up the street about five or
seven miles that way. So right here we have NASA,
we have Air Force Plan forty two, we have Northrop Grumman,
we have skunk Works, all on one ginormous secure compound
right up the street. Now, the most advanced aerospace testing

(01:33:34):
and design in the world goes on right there. That's it.
That's it there that that's it. It's right up the street.
So is there crazy stuff in the skies? Yes? Do
I talk about it? Not really, it's uncool. Right, Plus
I live here, I don't don't. I don't need to

(01:33:54):
get in any trouble. But this stuff goes on. And
when you hear things like ben Rich, you know, and
stuff making their comments about we have the technology to
take et home. Ben Rich being the former head of
skunk Works, right and his book skunk Works a great
book to say these things that you know, what they're

(01:34:15):
working on down the street is fifty years ahead of
what we see. I would say that that in a
general sense is to be true. You only have to
and I'm seeing this in a very generalized form, you
only have to give a good engineer or a good

(01:34:36):
engineering team an idea. You don't have to give them
proof of concept. You only have to give them the
idea and let them run with it. So with a
craft or something like that, you don't have to know
how it operates. You only need the idea, right, that's all,

(01:34:57):
and then go and develop it yourself, whether it is
you know, Star Trek and warp drives or Dick Tracy
TV watches or you know communication devices on Star Trek. Right,
just the idea. You only have to have the idea
any gravity, you know, you only have to have the
idea and let these guys go and run with it.

(01:35:18):
So you don't necessarily have to know how it operates.
You just have to see it and have an idea
and then go in and build our own. And we
have very brilliant people in this country, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:35:30):
Yeah, I was going to say, thank Heavens for men
and women like those engineers out there. I'm a real
good idea guy, you know, Boy, I can cook up
all kinds of stuff. My ability ends at this side
of the technology, you know. So I just admire the
heck out of those engineers, whether it's from scratch or

(01:35:50):
re engineering or whatever the heck they do, because the
world needs them. I couldn't do it.

Speaker 3 (01:35:54):
Well, you know, you look at somebody like Steve Jobs.
Did Steve Jobs design the iPhone? No? No he didn't,
but he had, you know, just throw an idea out
there and you got a brilliant team and the next
thing you know, you've got MP three players and iPhones
and touchscreens and iPads and and look at the original Mac.

(01:36:17):
These are just idea at the mouse right to point
and click on, you know, into and graphic design. These
are just ideas. But then you just turn around and
turn it into something else. And that goes seriously into
the aerospace industry. And and where we are today, we
are at the cusp of some very brilliant things. Did

(01:36:40):
it come from crash retrievals? Man? That is such an
easy fix for all of these technical leaps, I mean,
it really is. It answers a lot of questions, it
does it truly? It's Okham's razor, you know, And I
I hate to go there so easily, but that's what

(01:37:04):
Occham's razor is there for. You know, let's just get
to the easiest version of this printed circuit boards optical,
you know, optical. Think about that when when we and
the transistor. Now I've read and watched in all the
documentaries and all the books on the development of all

(01:37:26):
of this stuff and how electricity was done man, the
Aniac and the UNIVAC and computers and tubes and going
from tubes to transistors, I've done. I worked for Bell Labs.
I worked for Bell Labs for three years. I did.
I was right there, man, the spear tip of technology.
I worked at Bell Labs, Man, and I saw some

(01:37:47):
very I wasn't some brilliant guy. I was just an
artist in the art department in ED and D. But
I was around some very brilliant engineers that I still
talk to to this day and we're friends. I'm not
saying that that doesn't go down. But when you go
back historically speaking, and you look at where we were
in nineteen hundred and where we were in nineteen forty seven,

(01:38:11):
the leaps, oh man, I mean, it's just absolutely insane
what we went through. How do we get. I don't know,
but it just seems like von Braun's boss. I'll think
of his name here in a second, the other Nazi scientist,
his boss said that it all came from there. We

(01:38:34):
had help, That's what he said. He pointed that we
had help.

Speaker 2 (01:38:40):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:38:41):
I just yeah, I don't discount that. Do you? With
all of the evidence and certainly the position that you're
in now, do you believe that the United States is
in possession of crash through retrievals?

Speaker 2 (01:38:56):
I do. Again, as he been saying, I don't see
how we're not. You know, so I'm a believer. But again,
is my evidence any better than anybody else? No, I
know what we're told and kind of what we're allowed
to see, and then we can jar our own conclusions.
So again, might lose in court, but yeah, I believe.

Speaker 3 (01:39:15):
The US does well. You're also used to unraveling evidence,
and when you're on one side of the fence in court,
you're battling with another side that is trying to cover
up the stuff and they don't want you to find out.
Is so with that kind of experience, is it possible

(01:39:37):
for we could say government? But then you have the
career individuals that are there that aren't necessarily elected, you know,
through transitional administrations. Is it possible to keep something like
this covered up from elected officials and the actual govern

(01:40:00):
that is running things?

Speaker 2 (01:40:02):
You know, anecdotally, it certainly seems to be, you know,
the case and I don't have any you know, hard
and fast. Hey, this happened, that happened, But it certainly
seems to me as a fifty five year old man
lived in the United States my entire life, and I'm
kind of plugged into the news and what's happening, it
certainly seems to me that it would be possible. And probably,

(01:40:25):
you know, Jimmy, you know, let's use you and me.
There's a fighting chance, and we're in the d D together,
there's a fighting chance. Out of my rules, I don't
want to know, don't don't even tell me anything, you know,
and then let's kind of kick it back into a courtroom,
because there is nothing worse than trying a case where

(01:40:47):
the defendant he's wrong, he or she is wrong, but
they believe what they're saying.

Speaker 3 (01:40:54):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:40:54):
The easy intersection, he said, she said, green light kind
of deal. I would love it. Jimmy Church, you're the defendant,
and if you're lying to me about the color of
your light, I'm gonna catch you ninety nine out of
one hundred times. And not that I'm smarter than you,
but that's what I do. Now, if you say you're
still wrong, but you believe that you had a green light, oh,

(01:41:18):
those cases are next to impossible because you are as
credible as my witnesses. You both are sincere in your beliefs. Right,
So it's really hard. I'd way rather have a defendant
that's lying to me right. So, depending on this pool
of witnesses that you put together, I could also imagine, yeah,
there's a handful of people somewhere that knows something, but

(01:41:40):
get your hands on those specific people, right, would be
I would have to imagine virtually impossible, and everyone else
would probably fall in that camp of genuinely honestly going no. Right,
And now you're forced to make that decision between two
people who are seemingly telling the truth, it's just wrinkle.

Speaker 3 (01:42:00):
Well, yeah, and as a trial attorney, you must uh
uh sit back when you hear somebody ask questions, uh
and cross and do whatever where you sit back and
go they did it wrong, damn it. I would have asked,
you know, attorneys are cocky, okay, and you have to be.

(01:42:23):
You have to be. You have to have a doctor's
or the same way. I need an attorney that is
totally self centered and full of themselves. I need a
doctor that thinks that way too as well. I don't
want to have somebody questioning their own abilities. And I
don't want to. You know, if you don't want to
hear that in surgery, you know you don't want to

(01:42:45):
have your doctor go, well should I? What do you mean?
You know you don't want that? But with the with
the recent UAP hearings. As an attorney, what did you
think about the questioning of uh, Well, let's focus on
David Grush, who raised his right hand and swore in

(01:43:05):
right that his testimony was going to be true. What
do you think about the questions that were asked?

Speaker 2 (01:43:11):
I thought, generally speaking, and let me just back up,
I think for the most part, congressional hearings generally speaking,
are poorly run. The questions are poor, the order is poor.
It strikes me. And I was watching one of the
senator here just the other day who will remain nameless,

(01:43:31):
And I'm not As we've already established. You don't have
to be a lawyer right to do what I do
necessarily for you'd be good at it. But you get
these congressional reps, senators and house folks that, again, as
my mom would say, seem to just want to hear
their heads rattle, and they ask poor questions, and they'll
get kind of up to the edge of anything good

(01:43:54):
and not have follow up questions crafted or even as
you and I did to each other, you know, you
gotta pin these guys, pin them and pin them, and
pinm and pin them until you get your answer. So
they could all use a course in effective litigation. So
I mean, and that's just my take on the procedure
of the whole thing.

Speaker 3 (01:44:14):
How far is I've made a lot of this. I
have certainly stood behind this. How much is behind raising
your right hand? How much does that matter.

Speaker 2 (01:44:28):
Well to me or to society?

Speaker 3 (01:44:31):
Well, well, I want your what it means to you.
But then we do have the society version of this
about ethics, im morality and what comes into play here,
and that's a character thing. But for you, how important
is it?

Speaker 2 (01:44:47):
It's extremely important? You know we have you know, I
don't want to go down the road. But you got
the three branches of government, this group. You're all barking
about this group, and I know these are court orders
I'm talking about, but it goes back. We have to
have some semblance of order in our society. It just
has to exist or it'll be the end of us.

(01:45:10):
And one of the it might seem small to some people,
but raising your right hand and swearing to tell the truth,
we as people, we have to have something that we understand,
something that brings some gravity to the situation. So to me,
it's incredibly important. And again, if you want to raise
your right hand, I'm getting and you're lying to me

(01:45:32):
ninety nine times out one hundred, I'm going to catch you.
And not only am I going to call you out
for being a liar that I'm gonna call out the
fact that you raised right hand. It' swhear to tell
the truth, you know. So I think it's it's a
small gesture and it's incredibly important.

Speaker 3 (01:45:46):
Now back to your point about what somebody believes to
be true. Right, Okay, So with Grush, we had a
dose of that, didn't we.

Speaker 2 (01:46:00):
We did, we did, and and again I didn't follow
his word for word, testimony, but I believe the summary
that came out. Yeah, a lot of good information, but
the vast majority, at least what we heard. I do
know he said there were some things that he couldn't answer,
but again it was a lot of hearsay. You know, Well,
I've talked to forty seven people that work in the

(01:46:22):
business and they all come on, man, you know, so again,
it gets it gets us fired up, it gets us excited,
it gets us interested. But what's really there?

Speaker 3 (01:46:33):
Well, okay, so, like I said, there was a lot
of that there, But then there was the factual part
of this where and I've always said this, I'm not
I'm not an attorney, but I do play one on TV.
I'm pretty damn good at it.

Speaker 2 (01:46:51):
Very good.

Speaker 3 (01:46:52):
Which is that? Thank you? Which is this? We have
the facts, and then we have the truth behind the facts. Right,
So the facts Roswell newspaper article July sixth, right, nineteen
forty that's a fact fact, right, Okay, what's the truth
behind that? That's a whole other situation. And so with Grush,

(01:47:19):
we have the facts of him stating he was told so,
and so the facts of the case are his CV
and his record, right, I mean, it doesn't get any
that dude is very accomplished, and that says an awful lot.
So the facts are, he should know how to ask

(01:47:43):
a question and read through the bullshit. That's his job.
That's his job, right. So if he's going to turn
around and turn that into a statement under testimony, then
that holds a certain amount of weight. Okay, all right,
So but let's put that aside. The other facts that

(01:48:04):
he presented, which were direct and not hearsay, is he
had the locations and the names, okay, and that he
had turned those over to the IG and he was
willing to give those two the members of Congress and
a skiff. That's where we are breaking new ground, aren't we.

(01:48:29):
It's never been like that before.

Speaker 2 (01:48:32):
Yes, absolutely, And you know that going back to Gresh
and his CV, right, you're exactly right. And that's one
of the things you know, is it Commander Fraver with
his same thing. So that's one area that's really really

(01:48:53):
been improving, is the quality of the witnesses.

Speaker 3 (01:48:57):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:57):
So you can still have questions, but I'm sure must
be ready, are you know, questioning an F sixteen pilot
than you know, Billy on the corner who saw something
up in the sky. Sure, right, both from their observation
ability and again the credibility. I'm a big believer. You
take these lifetime career guys, right, why are they going
to jeopardize that? But and I know where you're going

(01:49:19):
to go with this. I was going to throw a
bone to General Ramy same thing. Why is good old
General Ramy going to jeopardize you know, his his career?
So you know, you kind of if we're going to
be consistent and go, oh look at look at these credentials.
Ramie was no slouch himself, and he said this.

Speaker 3 (01:49:37):
Well, and so what does the public do with this?
Do you feel the tide is turning? Obviously it's an
easier subject to talk about, more so than any other
time in history. We've got that going for us. But
how is the public starting to proceed this where it
is now a Capitol Hill situation and hearings and we've

(01:50:00):
got different senators and representatives looking into this going on
the record. Is this because the atmosphere has changed, or
that elected officials are pissed off because it's something that's
not in their control and they're being blindsided about this?

Speaker 2 (01:50:19):
Yes, yeah, yeah, right, I mean, I'm sure it's all
of the above, you know, society just you know, for whatever,
I'm not going to have the exact number, but you
see the polls about the number of people that believe
that there's some sort of exterrestrial life, right, that number
is now in the majority. And it almost feels like

(01:50:40):
a lot of this pushback because what are the theories
that we've heard over the years, Why they can't be disclosure? Oh,
it'll upend world religions, It'll up end you know, all
the militaries, this, that and the other thing. It's almost
to the point now, at least what I see anecdotally,
people don't even care. They're like, yeah, it's real, and
so what, let's go on out with our lives now.

(01:51:01):
It doesn't do anything for the folks that you mentioned,
you know, previously abductees and whatnot. Their experiences. However, you know,
you're more involved in this world than I am. But
I've talked to lots of UFO people and non you
even the non UFO people that I've given you know,
my book to. You know, the male man comes into
the law office without fail, every one of them. Oh

(01:51:24):
if they don't know about it, their reaction has been oh,
UFOs yeah, cool, Yeah, I like you, you know, and all
I have conversations and I have yet to talk to
anyone that is like straight up no, no, they're they're
not really, I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:51:36):
Believe who do you think?

Speaker 2 (01:51:37):
Everybody?

Speaker 3 (01:51:38):
I love that, But who do you think is largely
responsible for that change in the public tone? Is it?
Is it the government? Is it? The media? Is it?
Is it Hollywood? Is it the entertainment industry? Is it
Marvel in the Marvel universe? Who's what's most responsible for
this change in the public's attitude when it comes to UFO,

(01:52:01):
You know, Jimmy, I don't know if this is the
answer or not.

Speaker 2 (01:52:04):
However, look at all the things that were not acceptable
in the seventies, right, and now here we are in
twenty five and whatever? Right? Is it just part and
parcel of our society? Maybe? And I'm no sociologist, but
are people anymore just so self focused that whatever's going

(01:52:25):
on on here? If I don't know, we don't, we
don't care so much. And again, that'd be some big
sociological study that I didn't do. And so I don't
know why. You know, I'm sure part of that that
feeds it is the Internet and the constant need for
twenty four to seven content and stories, can you know,
spread you know that kind of thing. I would imagine
the Internet probably played a role in that in people's

(01:52:47):
desired you know, everybody wants information now and it's always there.
Whatever you want to know, right you can find out
right now. So maybe that's been kind of feeding it
a long festering Oh you can't know anything about it,
you know, And now people are pissed because we can
find out pretty much, you know, percent of the other
stuff we want to find out. But I don't know
if that's the reason, but it might be part of it.

Speaker 3 (01:53:10):
I asked this question with just about every guest. It
doesn't matter what the background is, but because we're all
fundamentally the same, and that is is Hollywood doing the
best job that they can with this subject. We all

(01:53:33):
watch the movies. One of the you want something green lit?
I live in Hollywood, right, So do you want something
green lit? Man? Alien Invasion movie and humans win by
shooting arrows? Right? Okay, all right, all right? Green lit that?
And how many of those movies have we seen?

Speaker 2 (01:53:52):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:53:53):
And then there's a lot of other and I'm I'm
talking about you know, drama, science fiction, not documentary, and
which that's a whole nother proliferation of of of media
that has hit us. But when it comes to science
fiction and the way aliens are perceived under the public,

(01:54:15):
is Hollywood doing a good enough job? Should they do
something differently with that? Or is it okay?

Speaker 2 (01:54:23):
They can do better and they are working to do better.
I'm sure it read my bio. I'm sure you're familiar
with the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance. I am, And what that is,
you know, for your listeners, is really blending of scientists
and researchers and folks to a very low extent like
me doing the research and this kind of work, blending

(01:54:46):
it with the talent, if you will, that the creatives
in Hollywood to try to create more a story with
more continuity, you know, so that we're putting together a
more accurate, more re realistic, you know, from what we
know sort of presentation on aliens and extraterrestrials. So one,

(01:55:07):
you know that is already currently going on, and I
think it's good. You know, A similar but I haven't
thought about this topic for several years, but a similar
yet unrelated topic to that is, are you familiar with
the festooning that NASA does on the various rovers that
go up on the Moon. I am so that festooning

(01:55:29):
when I first was reading about this, I don't know,
fifteen years ago or so, my opinion there are and
I forget the manufacture now, but I know on one
of the one of the tires on one of the
rovers essentially said whatever the company was, fade to black right,
And so when the tires had rotated on the Moon's surface,
well there's fade to black stone, which would be cool.

(01:55:50):
Don't get me wrong. But my take on that is
every opportunity that we have, it shouldn't be commercialized. It
shouldn't be pushing the you know, everything should be with
the thought of if we encounter an extraterrestrial what's the friendliest, kindest,
most welcoming, wonderful thing we can do. And I'm sure
to tell you putting you know, firestone on your tire

(01:56:13):
track because you're festooning your devices, it just feels inappropriate
to me, you know it. Really we need to go
back to the Golden plates and the DNA and and
you know, some of that is included on these on
the rovers as well. But again, you want to run
into an extraterrestrial and be promoting your tires or do
you want to be promoting peace?

Speaker 3 (01:56:32):
Well, I thought about that one of the things that
we've Okay, so check this out before we run out
of time. I want to get this thought out. We
always and this includes myself personally, but these clean uniforms
that ET has right, very rarely do we hear of

(01:56:56):
a symbol or something on it? Right? What if ETS
steps off on camera white house lawn, right with a
frigging Formula one driver's suit, you know what I mean
with all of yeah, with all of the all the
branding on it, yeah, all the branding on it, you know,

(01:57:20):
and and uh, because our our space suits are approaching that,
you know, look at the SpaceX space I mean it's
you know, you know what I mean that Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:57:37):
Yeah, you know, if that were the case, I can
guarantee you what my first question would be, what are
your rates?

Speaker 3 (01:57:45):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:57:46):
I would want to have by yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:57:48):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to I want to get
fade to black? How much for a fade to black
sticker on your craft? Right on the front of it? Yeah?
On the front on the front. Uh because and here
if if ET, And this is why I think this
is I have a twisted mind. But ET has been

(01:58:11):
observing us for a very long time. They know what
we would expect, right and and and what would not
freak us out. So why not have that commercialization right
where they approach? And they've got a frigging Walmart logo
on the side of their craft? What's wrong with that?

Speaker 2 (01:58:34):
That sounds silly, But think how I'll tell you I'd
be way less scared right on the UFO this says Walmart.
I'm what the maybe I might.

Speaker 3 (01:58:46):
Even why why why wouldn't ET step off the craft
right seriously, step off the craft and start live streaming. Okay,
we're here on Earth. Check this out. Look look at
your yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah. With that would immediately
put us in our comfort zone.

Speaker 2 (01:59:05):
Yeah, for sure, that would be fun. That's how I'm
gonna choose to imagine it from now on too. With
the Walmart.

Speaker 3 (01:59:11):
It'll be Elvis, Walmart and live streaming, and we would
we would be no Kardashians, Walmart and live streaming, and
we would be totally comfortable with it.

Speaker 2 (01:59:22):
You know, it's our Buddies the Aliens.

Speaker 3 (01:59:25):
Chris, what a great show tonight, Ma Man, what else
are you working on?

Speaker 2 (01:59:29):
I am working out. I've got an article coming out
in next month's move On Journal regarding disinformation agents, and
I've recapped some popular cases over the years of disinformation
and then kind of what what they you know, because
that's another one of those terms, a disinformation agent. Well,
people don't really know exactly what it means. So it's
some insight into that in a couple of interesting cases historically,

(01:59:53):
you know, one in particular the United States, you know,
use disinformation campaigns and kind of how it came to light.
So that's what I'm writing on right now.

Speaker 3 (02:00:01):
And who is lex.

Speaker 2 (02:00:05):
Lex Astrom?

Speaker 3 (02:00:06):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:00:07):
Yeah, by giving you, I'm.

Speaker 3 (02:00:08):
Giving you an opportunity to explain yourself.

Speaker 2 (02:00:12):
Thank you. I appreciate that maritime law is essentially codified.
Maritime law is so old, it's build up on customs
starting over in Egypt, and it's all sort of catalog
and what they call lex maritima, you know, maritime law.
So with my space law stuff, I took the name
the U. R. L. Lex Astrom Law of the Stars

(02:00:34):
quite a few years ago, and I have face Lex
astrom Facebook page anyway. So the judge in my book
is the honorable Lex Astrom. So he's the law of
the stars.

Speaker 3 (02:00:46):
I love it. I love it. And yeah, Lex's website
is below everybody, and we've got it over on our
website and throughout social media. Chris, thank you so much.
And I look forward to Jimmy, I look forward to
our next trial. Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (02:01:00):
I appreciate it. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (02:01:01):
Perfect night in the show man, keep doing what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (02:01:04):
Thank you well there, Thanks Jimmy.

Speaker 3 (02:01:06):
Thank you so much. Chris Johnston j D. That was
a fun night on the show, wasn't it. That was
a perfect night on the show. Had a lot of fun.
And what am I doing tomorrow night? Man, I'm gonna
have to look this up Tomorrow night. Oh, doctor Mark
Carletto Carlato is with us. Tomorrow night. We're talking about
his book, An Inconvenient Theory. That is tomorrow night. Wednesday

(02:01:30):
night is our once a month ama a ja where
you get to ask me anything. Then of course Thursday
night we are taking the night off. I will be
out of contact in the desert along with a bunch
of you. So for now, all I've got is Go Backley,
Tappy Bedea. Black is produce Fie Hilton, j Palm, Renee

(02:01:53):
Newman and Michelle Free. Special thanks to Bill John Dex,
Jessica and Kevin Webmaster is Drew the Geek. Music by
Doug Albridge intro Spaceboy. Aide to Black is produced by
kJ c R for the Game Changer Network. This broadcast

(02:02:15):
is owned and copyrighted twenty twenty four by Fade to
Black and the Game Changer Network, Inc. It cannot be rebroadcast, downloaded, copied,
or used anywhere in the known universe without written permission
from Fade to Black or the Game Changer Network. I'm
your Host, Jimmy Church, Go Beckley, Teppy