メインコンテンツまでスキップ

Christopher A. Johnston : Roswell 事件を裁判形式で真偽を検討すると…

· 約144分

前置き

法律家の目から Roswell 事件を眺めるとどうなるか…これを Christopher A. Johnston(弁護士)が語っている。

法律家としては、

  • 会計検査院(GAO)の調査では、ロズウェルに関連する1947年以降の全ての記録(電話、請求書、領収書、輸送記録、人事情報など)が破壊されていたことが判明しました。GAOは、これまでこれほど完全に記録が失われた例はないと述べています。これは、事実の隠蔽を強く示唆する決定的な要素とされています。

も重要らしい。

情報源 : 動画(2:02:59)

Ep. 2163 Christopher A. Johnston: Roswell: The Truth on Trial

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_yrc_4v3RY

AI

ロズウェル事件:真実の裁判

この対談は、司会者のジミー・チャーチとゲストのクリストファー・A・ジョンストン弁護士が、ロズウェル事件を法廷で検証するという架空の設定で行われています。

ジョンストン氏は、弁護士としての分析的な視点から、事件の証拠や証人の信憑性を厳しく評価し、特に物理的証拠の欠如を指摘します。チャーチ氏はロズウェル陸軍航空基地からのプレスリリースや、レイミー将軍が手にしたメモの写真といった、事件を裏付ける証拠を提示し、政府の説明の矛盾を追求します。会話は、事件の複数の異なる説明や、証言の信頼性に焦点を当て、最終的には「真実は何か」という問いを聴衆に投げかけるものとなっています。

AI

ロズウェル事件の審理:主要テーマと重要事項に関する詳細ブリーフィング

このブリーフィングドキュメントは、提供された3つのソース「ロズウェル事件の審理: パート3」、「ロズウェル事件:真実の裁判」、および「ロズウェル:法廷での真実」を基に、ロズウェル事件に関する主要なテーマ、重要なアイデア、事実を詳細にレビューします。特に、法廷での証言と証拠の扱い、軍の対応、情報隠蔽の可能性、そしてUFO現象に対する社会の認識の変化に焦点を当てます。

  1. ロズウェル事件の法廷での審理と証言の信頼性

提供された資料は、ロズウェル事件がもし法廷で裁かれた場合のシナリオを中心に展開されており、証言の信頼性、証拠の提示、そして弁護側の戦略が詳細に議論されています。

1.1. ジェシー・マーセルの証言と矛盾

ジェシー・マーセル少佐は、ロズウェル事件の主要な証人の一人として、その証言が繰り返し検証されています。彼は当初、回収された物質が「フライングディスクまたは他の識別された航空機」からのものである可能性があると報告し、それが気球ではないと主張しました。「それは気球から来たものではない。」(1:11:26)

しかし、後のフォートワースでの写真撮影では、彼が回収したとされる実際の残骸ではなく、切り替えられた破片と一緒にポーズを取るよう指示されたと証言しています。「私は指示に従った。私は中に入って写真を撮り、交換された破片と一緒にポーズを取るように求められた。私は言われた通りにした。」(1:23:42)

弁護側は、マーセルの証言における矛盾や、彼が命令に従わなかったとされる唯一の機会、すなわち「材料を自宅に持ち帰り、家族に見せた」こと(1:24:14, 1:19:41)を指摘し、彼の信頼性を揺るがそうと試みています。

しかし、反対尋問では、マーセルがその夜の出来事を家族に見せたことで「証人を作成した」と反論される可能性も指摘されています。「あなたは家族にこの残骸を見せた、違いますか?はい、見せました。」(1:27:22)これにより、マーセルの証言は複雑な様相を呈しています。

1.2. レイミー将軍の役割と軍の公式見解

ロジャー・レイミー将軍は、事件直後に気球の残骸であると発表した人物であり、彼の証言も厳しく追及されています。彼の公式見解は「気球」であり、「私はそれを気球だと言った。最初の日から気球だと言っている。」(0:57:10)と主張しています。

しかし、その後の国防総省からの複数の異なる説明(プロジェクト・モーグル、衝突実験用ダミーなど)は、軍の説明全体の信頼性を損なっています。「国防総省から4つの異なるバージョンが提示されている。」(0:28:40)

レイミーは、マルセルが回収した残骸と、フォートワースで彼が写真に写っていた残骸が異なることについて問われると、「それは私が覚えている方法ではない。」(0:35:20)と答えています。

また、気球をライト・パターソン空軍基地まで運んで分析する必要があった理由については、直接的な回答を避け、標準的な手順に従っただけだと主張しています。「標準的な運用手順があり、すべての飛行を追跡している。」(0:30:16)

弁護側は、レイミーが気球とボーイング・スーパーフォートレス爆撃機の区別がつくはずであることや、なぜ気球の残骸をわざわざライト・パターソンまで運ぶ必要があったのかという疑問を突きつけています。「気球の残骸とボーイング・スーパーフォートレス爆撃機の違いが分かるはずだ。」(0:22:16)

1.3. 証言の信頼性と法廷での戦略

法廷での審理の鍵は、証人の信頼性と説得力にあります。弁護士は、「一度証人の信用を失わせれば、彼から他に何を信じられるだろうか?」(1:27:22)と述べており、ウォルター・ハウトの2つの異なる宣誓供述書やグレン・デニスの証言の変遷(0:42:55, 0:44:09)を例に挙げ、時間の経過とともに記憶が薄れる、あるいは誇張される可能性を指摘しています。

弁護士は、「裁判の書物やグリシャムなどでは本当に不足しているのが、証言がどのように入ってくるか分からないということだ。」(1:28:46)と述べ、証人の個性や陪審員に対する好感度が、証言の受け止められ方に大きく影響することを強調しています。「証人の信頼性と好感度は、ただ伝わってくることはない。」(1:29:25)

  1. 軍の情報隠蔽とUFO現象

ロズウェル事件は、軍がUFO現象に関する情報を隠蔽してきたという疑惑の中心にあります。

2.1. 複数の説明と「意図的な隠蔽」

国防総省は、ロズウェル事件に関して複数の異なる説明を提示しており、これは情報隠蔽の証拠として批判されています。当初の「空飛ぶ円盤」報道から、「気球」、「プロジェクト・モーグル」、「墜落テスト用ダミー」へと説明が変遷していったことは、「意図的な隠蔽」の疑念を強めています。「これは意図的な隠蔽でしたか?」「まったく違う。」(0:34:25)

特に、墜落テスト用ダミーのプログラムがロズウェル事件の3年後に開始されたにもかかわらず、その説明が後になって提示されたことは、国防総省が「作り話」を捏造しているという強い根拠となっています。「物語を捏造するなら、日付は正しくすべきではないか?」(0:36:21)

2.2. 技術的進歩と地球外起源の可能性

ロズウェル事件直後にアメリカで目覚ましい技術的進歩が見られたことが指摘されており、これらが地球外の技術に由来する可能性が示唆されています。「ロズウェル事件の直後の技術の進歩」(1:32:11)。

ステルス技術の調達プロジェクトを指揮した人物が、「ステルス機の一部の部品は地球外のソースから来たものだと信じている」と語ったことが紹介されています(1:32:51)。また、スカンクワークスの元責任者であるベン・リッチが、「ETを家に連れて帰る技術を持っている」と発言したことも引用されており、これは軍が高度なUFO技術を保有している可能性を示唆しています(1:33:44)。

講演者は、スカンクワークスやNASA、ノースロップ・グラマンなどの主要な航空宇宙施設が集中する地域に住んでいることに言及し、「空にクレイジーなものがあるのか?はい。話すのか?あまり話さない。それはクールじゃない。それに私はここに住んでいる。トラブルに巻き込まれたくない。」(1:33:44)と述べており、内部情報へのアクセスとそれに関する口止めを示唆しています。

歴史的な技術の飛躍、特に1900年から1947年までの間の進歩の速さも議論されており、あるドイツの科学者が「助けがあった」と述べたという逸話が語られています(1:38:44)。これにより、米国が回収したUFOの残骸を保有している可能性が問われています。「米国が墜落した回収品を所有していると信じているか?」(1:39:18)

2.3. 政府による情報公開(ディスクロージャー)の展望

政府によるUFO情報の「ディスクロージャー」の可能性についても議論されています。一部の意見は、政府からの開示は期待できないとし、「ディスクロージャーは政府からは来ないだろう。」(1:00:18)と述べています。その代わりに、「地球上で否定できない、嘘をつけない、ごまかせない地球外の何かが起こるだろう。」(1:00:18)という見方が示されています。

しかし、この「ディスクロージャーは必要ない」という立場は、「でたらめな立場」と批判されています。その理由は、長年にわたりUFOの目撃者や経験者が世間から「いじめられ、嘲笑されてきた」ため、「彼らは(政府による)ディスクロージャーを必要としているのだ。」(1:01:18)と述べられています。つまり、政府による公式な発表は、長年の苦しみを終わらせ、彼らの経験を正当化するために必要であると主張されています。

  1. 社会とメディアのUFO現象への認識変化

UFO現象に対する社会の認識が変化していることも重要なテーマです。

3.1. 一般市民のUFOに対する認識の変化

かつてはタブー視されていたUFOの話題が、現在ではより広く受け入れられるようになっていることが指摘されています。「私はUFOの人々と、UFOではない人々とたくさん話す。私の本をあげたUFOではない人々でさえ、例外なく、『ああ、UFO?うん、クールだね、うん、好きだよ。』という反応だった。」(1:51:22)

この認識の変化の責任は、政府、メディア、ハリウッド、エンターテイメント業界など、様々な要因が考えられています。特に、マーベル・ユニバースのようなエンターテイメントが大きな影響を与えている可能性が議論されています(1:51:46)。

3.2. ハリウッドとUFOの描写

ハリウッドがUFOをどのように描いているかについても批判的な視点が提示されています。多くの「エイリアン侵略映画」は、人類が弓矢でエイリアンに勝つというような非現実的な筋書きであり、「ハリウッドは最善を尽くしているか?」という疑問が投げかけられています(1:53:40)。講演者は、ハリウッドは「もっとうまくできるし、うまくやろうとしている」と述べています(1:54:09)。

3.3. 宇宙におけるコミュニケーションと倫理

将来的な地球外生命体との遭遇に備え、我々がどのようにメッセージを送るべきかという倫理的な問いも投げかけられています。NASAのローバーに商業的なロゴを入れる「フェスツーニング」を例にとり、「地球外生命体と遭遇したとき、最も友好的で、親切で、歓迎的で、素晴らしいことができることは何か」という視点から、商業主義を避けるべきだと主張しています。

「もし地球外生命体と遭遇するなら、タイヤの宣伝をしたいのか、それとも平和を宣伝したいのか?」(1:56:20)

さらに、もし地球外生命体がブランドロゴだらけのF1ドライバーのようなスーツを着て現れたらどうなるかという想像もされています。「ETがカメラの前で、ホワイトハウスの芝生に、くそったれなF1ドライバーのスーツを着て降りてきたらどうなるだろう?」(1:57:15)これは、我々が地球外生命体に何を期待し、彼らが我々に何を期待しているかを逆説的に問いかけるものです。

  1. 法律と倫理の重要性

法廷の文脈で、宣誓して証言することの重要性が強調されています。弁護士は、「右手を挙げて宣誓することにどれほどの意味があるのか?」(1:44:12)と問いかけ、宣誓の持つ「重力」と「信憑性」の重要性を説いています。「私たち人間として、理解できる何か、状況に重みを与える何かが必要だ。だから私にとっては信じられないほど重要だ。」(1:45:36)

真実と事実の違いも指摘されています。ロズウェル事件に関する「事実」は存在するが、「その背後にある真実」はまた別の問題であると述べています。 「1946年。それは事実だ。その背後にある真実とは?それは全く別の状況だ。」(1:47:32)この区別は、デヴィッド・グラシュのような情報源の信頼性を評価する上で重要であり、彼の「経歴と記録」(1:47:32)、「場所と名前」(1:48:03)、「IGと議会への提供の意思」といった直接的な証拠が「画期的な進展」(1:48:34)として評価されています。

結論

提供されたソースは、ロズウェル事件が単なるUFOの目撃談に留まらず、証言の信頼性、政府の情報隠蔽、技術的進歩の起源、そして社会とメディアが未知の現象にどのように向き合うかという、より深い問題を提起していることを示しています。

もしこの事件が法廷で裁かれれば、証言の矛盾、軍の公式見解の変遷、そして隠蔽の動機が主要な争点となるでしょう。同時に、UFO現象に対する社会の認識は大きく変化しており、将来の政府によるディスクロージャーの形や、地球外生命体との接触における倫理的な考慮が、今後の議論の中心となることが示唆されています。

AI

タイムライン

1900年-1947年: この期間に技術が飛躍的に進歩したことが指摘される。特に1947年のロズウェル事件の時期と重なる技術的進歩(トランジスタの発明、CIAの設立など)は、単なる偶然ではない可能性が示唆される。

1946年: (時期は不明) ある出来事の事実が確認されるが、その真実については議論の余地がある。

1947年7月2日-8日: ロズウェル事件が発生。

  • 日付不明 (ロズウェル事件発生前): フェニックスでローズ写真が撮影される(最高のUFO写真の一つとされる)。
  • 日付不明 (ロズウェル事件発生前): ワシントン州でケネス・アーノルドが物体を目撃し、「空飛ぶ円盤」という用語が生まれる。
  • 7月2日頃: ニューメキシコ州ロズウェル近郊の牧場に未確認の破片が墜落。ジェシー・マーセル少佐が破片を回収する。彼はそれが天候観測気球ではないと認識する。
  • 7月8日: ロズウェル陸軍航空基地の広報担当官ウォルター・ハウトが、基地が「空飛ぶ円盤」を回収したとするプレスリリースを発表する。
  • 7月10日 (約2日後): 将軍レイミーが報道陣に対し、回収された物体は単なる天候観測気球であったと発表し、回収された破片を切り替える。この際、ジェシー・マーセル少佐は切り替えられた破片と一緒にポーズを取るよう指示される。彼はこの命令に従うが、個人的にはそれが牧場で回収したものではないと認識している。
  • 事件直後: 米国での技術進歩が急速に進む(ステルス技術の調達プロジェクトの担当者が、その構成要素が地球外起源であると信じていると述べる)。
  • 事件直後: 子供サイズの棺桶の注文があったとグレン・デニスが証言する。当初は死体を見たとは言わなかったが、後に証言が変化し、死体を見たとも主張するようになる。
  • 事件後数年: 国防総省からロズウェル事件に関して複数の異なる説明が提示される(天候観測気球、プロジェクト・モゴール、ソビエトの秘密聴取装置、墜落試験用ダミー)。

1990年: クリストファー・A・ジョンストンが21歳の時に未確認飛行物体に遭遇し、7時間のタイムロスを経験する。

1990年代初頭 (1990年-1993年頃): ロズウェルに関する多数の書籍が出版され、事件の調査が加速する。

1993年: ウォルター・ハウトがロズウェル事件に関する宣誓供述書を提出する。

1996年: 米空軍が「ロズウェル事件:解決済み」と題する報告書を公式に発表し、墜落した物体は墜落試験用ダミーであると説明する(このプログラムはロズウェル事件の3年後に開始されたため、日付の誤りが指摘される)。

2002年: ウォルター・ハウトが新たな宣誓供述書を提出し、以前は言及しなかった「死体」について言及する。これにより、彼の証言の信頼性が問題視される。

日付不明 (現代): ジェームズ・ウェッブ宇宙望遠鏡の進歩が言及される。

現在: 一般会計検査院 (GAO) がロズウェル事件に介入し、その報告書は「MUFONや議会でさえなく、GAOの調査である」と強調される。

現在: 著者が「Lex Astrum」(星の法)という名前で執筆活動をしており、現在「ディスインフォメーション」に関する本を執筆中であることが語られる。

AI

登場人物

クリストファー・A・ジョンストン (Christopher A. Johnston): 著名なトライアル弁護士であり、ロズウェル事件を法廷で審理する可能性について語る。彼自身も1990年に未確認飛行物体に遭遇し、タイムロスを経験している。彼の著書はロズウェル事件を法廷の視点から描いており、証言の信憑性や法的手続きに焦点を当てている。彼の著作に登場する裁判官は「名誉あるレックス・アストラム (Honorable Lex Astrum)」という名前。

ジミー・チャーチ (Jimmy Church): 番組の司会者。ロズウェル事件やUFO現象について幅広い知識を持ち、ゲストと対話を通じて事件の様々な側面を探る。証人尋問の役割を演じ、将軍レイミーやジェシー・マーセル少佐の矛盾点を指摘しようと試みる。

ジェシー・マーセル少佐 (Major Jesse Marcel): ロズウェル事件における主要な目撃者の一人であり、ロズウェル陸軍航空基地の諜報士官。牧場から未確認の破片を回収し、それが地球外のものであると信じていた。後に、切り替えられた破片と共にポーズを取るよう指示されたことを証言する。証言の信憑性が度々問われるが、彼自身は自分が命令に従っただけだと主張する。

将軍レイミー (General Ramey): ロズウェル事件発生時の第8空軍司令官。当初の「空飛ぶ円盤」回収のプレスリリースを撤回し、それが天候観測気球であったと発表した人物。証言のセッションでは、国防総省が発表した異なる説明の矛盾点や、彼自身の行動の理由について弁護側の質問に答える役割を演じる。

ウォルター・ハウト (Walter Haut): ロズウェル陸軍航空基地の広報担当官。1947年7月8日に「空飛ぶ円盤」回収のプレスリリースを発表した人物。後に1993年と2002年に宣誓供述書を提出するが、2002年の宣誓供述書で「死体」について言及したことで、証言の信頼性に疑問が呈される。

グレン・デニス (Glenn Dennis): ロズウェル事件の目撃者の一人。ロズウェル陸軍病院から子供サイズの棺桶の注文があったと証言。当初は死体を見たとは言わなかったが、後にその証言を変化させ、死体を見たとも主張するようになる。

ベン・リッチ (Ben Rich): スカンクワークス(ロッキード・マーティン社の先進開発計画部門)の元責任者。彼が「地球外生命体を故郷に連れて帰る技術を持っている」と発言したことが引用される。

スティーブ・ジョブズ (Steve Jobs): iPhoneなど革新的な製品のアイデアを生み出し、優秀なチームと共に実現した人物として、アイデアの重要性の例として挙げられる。

フォン・ブラウンのボス (von Braun's boss): 名前の言及はないが、ナチスの科学者であり、米国の技術的飛躍について「助けがあった」と語った人物とされる。

コマンダー・フレイバー (Commander Fravor): チックタックUFO事件の目撃者。彼の証言は、UFO事件における証言の質の向上を示す例として挙げられる。

ドン・シュミット (Don Schmidt): ロズウェル事件の専門家であり、事件に関する広範な知識を持つ人物として言及される。

メルビン・ブラウン (Melvin Brown): 軍警察官。グレン・デニスと同様に、当初の証言が後に変化したと指摘される。

名誉あるレックス・アストラム (Honorable Lex Astrum): クリストファー・A・ジョンストンの著書に登場する裁判官の名前。ジョンストンが「Lex Astrum」(星の法)というウェブサイトを運営していることに由来する。

チーフ・ジャスティス・トゥーサン (Chief Justice Toussaint): ミネソタ州控訴裁判所の首席裁判官。クリストファー・A・ジョンストンが法科大学院で証拠法を学んだ際の指導教官であり、「いとこのビニー」の映画の一場面を教材として使用した。

AI

ロズウェル事件のより大きな文脈において、情報源は政府機関の対応について、一貫性のない説明、証拠の不足、そして情報の隠蔽の可能性を示唆しています。

以下に、情報源が政府機関の対応について何を述べているかをまとめます。

  • 初期の発表とその変更点:

    • 当初、ロズウェル陸軍航空基地は、ウォルター・ハウト氏が作成したプレスリリースで「空飛ぶ円盤」の回収を公式に発表しました。このプレスリリースは、基地の最高レベルで作成・承認されたものであり、正確であると主張されています。
    • しかし、そのわずか2日後には、ジェネラル・レイミー氏が「天候観測気球」であったと修正発表し、この報道は瞬く間に広がり、ジャーナリストたちはロズウェルへの渡航を中止しました。
    • その後、国防総省(DoD)は物語をさらに変更し、「プロジェクト・モーグル」(ソ連の機密聴取装置)や、ロズウェル事件の3年後に始まったプログラムであるにもかかわらず、「クラッシュテストダミー」であったと発表しています。
    • これらの異なる4つの説明(空飛ぶ円盤、天候観測気球、プロジェクト・モーグル、クラッシュテストダミー)は、国防総省が真実を語っているのかという疑問を投げかけています。
  • ジェシー・マーセル少佐の証言との食い違い:

    • ジェシー・マーセル少佐は、ロズウェル陸軍航空基地の情報将校であり、軍事作戦で使われる一般的な素材(アルミニウム、ホイル、ゴム、バルサ材など)を熟知していました。
    • 彼は、墜落現場で回収した破片は、天候観測気球のものではなく、異常に耐久性があり、元の形に戻る柔軟な素材であったと証言しています。
    • マーセル少佐は、フォートワースの記者会見で見せられた素材が、自身が現場で収集したものとは異なっていたことを認識していました。彼は、命じられた通りに、入れ替えられた破片と一緒に写真を撮り、誰にもその違いを伝えませんでした。
    • マーセル少佐は、興奮のあまり材料を自宅に持ち帰ったという「唯一の命令不服従」があったと述べていますが、それ以外の全ての命令には従ったと主張しています。彼の自宅での行動が、後の裁判において弁護側から彼の信頼性を揺るがす点として指摘されています。
  • 物理的証拠の欠如と記録の破壊:

    • クリストファー・ジョンストン氏によると、ロズウェル事件に関する物理的な証拠は一切ないとのことです。証言は多いものの、物的証拠が不足していることが事件の立証を困難にしています。
    • 会計検査院(GAO)の調査では、ロズウェルに関連する1947年以降の全ての記録(電話、請求書、領収書、輸送記録、人事情報など)が破壊されていたことが判明しました。GAOは、これまでこれほど完全に記録が失われた例はないと述べています。これは、事実の隠蔽を強く示唆する決定的な要素とされています。
  • 技術的進歩との関連:

    • 1947年7月以降、プリント基板やトランジスタの発明、空軍の独立、CIAの創設など、米国で技術と組織構造において飛躍的な進歩が見られました。
    • 情報源では、これらの技術的進歩が、ロズウェルで回収された「墜落した異星の物体」からもたらされた可能性が「技術的な飛躍にとって非常に簡単な解決策(easy fix)」であると指摘されています。これは、多くの疑問に答え、オッカムの剃刀の原則(最も単純な説明が最善である)にも合致すると考えられています。
  • 情報の隠蔽と政府の姿勢:

    • 複数の情報源で、政府、特に空軍が意図的に情報を隠蔽してきた可能性が示唆されています。
    • 空軍は、プロジェクト・ブルーブックなどを通じて、目撃情報を「湿地ガス」などの説明で歪曲してきたと批判されています。
    • クリストファー・ジョンストン氏は、政府が選出された役人からすら情報を隠蔽することが可能であると示唆しています。
    • また、空軍は長年にわたり、「傲慢で自信に満ちた」態度でUFO問題に対応し、常に「全てのカードを握っている」かのように振る舞ってきたと述べられています。
    • ジミー・チャーチ氏は、政府による公式なディスクロージャー(情報開示)が、長年嘲笑されてきた目撃者や経験者たちにとって、ようやく堂々と真実を語る機会を与えると主張しています。

要するに、情報源は、ロズウェル事件における政府機関の対応を、矛盾した説明、証拠の組織的な破壊、そしてその後の技術的進歩との奇妙な符合という形で描いており、これは真実を隠蔽しようとする意図的な努力であった可能性を強く示唆しています。

AI

クリストファー・ジョンストンの体験: 1990年の行方不明時間、フィールドでの記憶 について


ロズウェル事件のより大きな文脈において、情報源はクリストファー・ジョンストン氏の1990年の個人的な体験(行方不明の時間とフィールドでの記憶)について、彼の弁護士としての視点と、証拠に対する厳密な分析の重要性を示すものとして論じています。

ジョンストン氏は、ジミー・チャーチ氏が彼の著書やロズウェル事件に対するアプローチの目的について尋ねた際に、自身の個人的な体験を共有しました。彼の体験の詳細は以下の通りです。

  • 1990年の出来事の概要:

    • 当時21歳だったジョンストン氏は、ルームメイトの一人と友人と共に夜外出しました。
    • それぞれビールを1杯だけ飲んだにもかかわらず、翌朝午前4時に帰宅したものの、2人ともその間の時間が全く記憶にありませんでした(約7時間の行方不明時間)。
    • ルームメイトが午前4時に彼らの帰宅を目撃し、またイベントの従業員が彼らが午後9時に出発したのを目撃していました。
    • ジョンストン氏とルームメイトは、フィールドにいたという断片的な記憶を持っており、彼らの車の下には草が詰まっていました。
  • 「事実」と「飛躍」:

    • ジョンストン氏は、この体験から宇宙人による誘拐という「飛躍」をするつもりはないと明言しています。
    • 彼は、21歳のクリスならそう考えていたかもしれないが、今では「年を取り、賢くなった」と述べています。
    • 彼が強調するのは、彼とルームメイトが午後9時にバーを出て、午前4時に帰宅したという**「事実」、そしてその間の記憶がないという「事実」**です。
    • これら「事実」を超えて何が起こったかについては、証拠がないため「分からない」と述べています。彼は、ベッドに横たわって「いくつかの理論を立てる」ことはできるが、それは仮説に過ぎないと説明しています。
  • 弁護士としての視点と証拠の重要性:

    • この個人的な話は、彼が弁護士として証拠を厳密に分析することの重要性を強調する文脈で提示されました。
    • ジミー・チャーチ氏が、この体験が法廷で「標的になりやすい」と指摘した際、ジョンストン氏は、証拠に基づいて反論する具体的な方法(協力者の証言を呼ぶなど)を説明しています。
    • 彼の著書の目標は、人々がインターネット上の情報などに対して、より批判的な思考と厳密な視点を持つ手助けをすることであり、彼の個人的な体験は、客観的な事実と個人の解釈を区別する良い例として機能しています。
    • 彼は、感情や興奮が判断を曇らせる可能性があることを認めていますが(例:マーセル少佐が破片を持ち帰ったこと)、彼自身は証拠に基づいた推論を重視しています。
    • ロズウェル事件の証拠が「伝聞」(hearsay)に過ぎず、物理的な証拠が皆無であるという彼の主張 は、自身の体験を語る上での厳密な姿勢と一貫しています。彼は、どれほど多くの証言や調査があっても、物的証拠がなければ法廷で立証することは非常に困難であると考えています。

つまり、クリストファー・ジョンストン氏の1990年の個人的な体験は、単なる未確認現象の目撃談としてではなく、彼が弁護士としての専門知識を活かして、ロズウェル事件のような複雑な事柄の「事実」をどのように分析し、証拠の限界を認識すべきかという彼の哲学を具体的に示すものとして提示されています。

AI

ジェシー・マルセル少佐のより大きな文脈において、情報源は、ロズウェル事件における彼の最初の証言と、フォートワースでの記者会見で提示されたデブリとの矛盾について、彼の軍事的な専門知識、証言の一貫性、そしてその信憑性への法的視点からの疑問という点で詳細に論じています。

具体的には、以下の点が挙げられています。

  • マルセル少佐の専門知識と当初の認識:

    • ジェシー・マルセル少佐は1947年にロズウェル陸軍航空基地の情報将校を務めていました。
    • 彼の職務には、外国または国内の軍事技術の分析と識別が含まれており、軍事作戦で一般的に使用される材料(アルミニウム、ホイル、ゴム、バルサ材など)にも精通していました。
    • 彼は、墜落現場で回収したデブリについて、「軽量のホイルや梁を含み、柔軟性があり、元の形に戻ることができ、異常に耐久性があった」と証言しています。また、これらのデブリには「象形文字に似た奇妙な記号」が含まれており、彼が知っているどの言語や表記とも異なっていたと述べています。
    • 彼は、自身が現場で見たものは**「気球から来たものではない」**と断言し、気球を「何度も見ていた」にもかかわらず、それが気球であるとは認識していませんでした。
    • 彼は、自身のキャリアオフィサーとしての経験から、「見ていたものはどれも自分が慣れ親しんだものではなかった。意味をなさなかった」ため、デブリが「どこか別の場所から来たものだと推測した」と述べています。
  • フォートワースでのデブリの差し替え:

    • マルセル少佐は、フォートワースでの記者会見で見せられたデブリが、自身が牧場で回収したものとは**「異なっていた」**と明確に証言しています。
    • 彼は、事務所に入ってデブリを見たときに、それが自分が現場で収集したものではないことを「知っていた」と述べています。
    • しかし、彼は命令に従い、その入れ替えられたデブリと一緒に写真を撮り、その場にいた誰にもデブリが異なるとは伝えなかったと述べています。彼は「私は命令に従った。私は中に入って写真を撮り、入れ替えられたデブリと一緒にポーズをとるように求められた。私は求められたことをした」と強調しています。
  • 「たった一度の命令違反」と信頼性への影響:

    • マルセル少佐は、キャリアの中で「常に命令に従ってきた」と主張していますが、唯一の例外は、「興奮のあまり」デブリの一部を自宅に持ち帰ったことだと認めています。彼は、その行為が「通常の操作方法から外れた」ものだったと述べています。
    • 弁護士であるクリストファー・ジョンストン氏の視点では、この「たった一度の命令違反」は、法廷での証言において証人の信頼性を攻撃する重要なポイントとなります。ジョンストン氏は、もしマルセル少佐が証言台に立っていたら、弁護側は「あなたは規則に従う人なのに、なぜあの時だけは物を家に持ち帰ったのか」と追及し、それによって証人の信用性を失墜させる可能性があると説明しています。一度証人の信用性が損なわれると、「彼から他に何を信じることができるのか」という疑問が生じると指摘されています。
    • ただし、ジョンストン氏は、マルセル少佐がデブリを家族に見せたことで、後に協力証人(家族)を生み出す可能性があったとも指摘しています。これは、法廷での防御側の戦略として利用され得る点です。
  • 政府の物語の変更との関連:

    • マルセル少佐の証言は、ロズウェル事件における政府の発表が一貫性を欠いていたことを示す重要な要素です。当初の「空飛ぶ円盤」回収の発表から、わずか2日後にゼネラル・レイミーが「気象観測気球」であったと修正し、その後さらに「プロジェクト・モーグル」や「クラッシュテストダミー」といった説明が提示されました。
    • マルセル少佐が「真実を知っていた」ため、**「改訂された説明の作成から除外された」**と推測していることは、政府が意図的に情報を操作し、目撃者を排除しようとした可能性を強く示唆しています。

このように、情報源は、ジェシー・マルセル少佐の証言が、彼自身の専門性と個人的な行動、そして政府によるデブリの差し替えという事実を通じて、ロズウェル事件における政府の不透明な対応と情報隠蔽の可能性を浮き彫りにしていることを示しています。

AI

証言の矛盾と信頼性というより大きな文脈において、情報源はグレン・デニス氏の証言が、その変化によっていかに信頼性を損なうかについて詳細に議論しています。クリストファー・ジョンストン氏(弁護士)は、法廷での証言という観点から、その影響を強調しています。

グレン・デニス氏は、ロズウェル事件において、エイリアンの遺体と関連する活動についての重要な目撃者として知られています。彼の証言の核心は、小児サイズの棺桶が注文されたというものでした。

しかし、情報源は彼の証言における以下の矛盾と変化を指摘しています。

  • 棺桶と遺体に関する証言の変化

    • デニス氏は当初、空軍基地から子供用の棺桶を注文するよう依頼されたと述べていました。これは彼が当時在庫になかった、密封可能な棺桶でした。彼はそれらを注文し、後に基地に届けに行ったとしました。
    • しかし、**「顕著に後になってから、『ああ、遺体を見たんだ』と述べた」**と指摘されています。ジョンストン氏は、この「誇張」を「ハイパーボレ」と表現しています。
    • さらに後のバージョンでは、彼は棺桶を**「配達しなかった」**とし、注文はしたが手に入れることができなかったと述べています。
  • 遺体を見た場所に関する変化

    • 当初、彼は病院内でガラス越しに解剖らしきものを見ていたと証言していました。
    • しかし、後の証言では、遺体を見た場所が**「病院の外だった」**と変わっています。
  • 証言の信頼性への影響(弁護士の視点)

    • クリストファー・ジョンストン氏は、これらの証言の変化を**「大きな赤信号(big red flag)」**と見なしています。彼は、もし自分がエイリアンの遺体を目撃したなら、その経験は人生で最も衝撃的な出来事であり、その詳細(いつ、どこで、誰と)を正確に記憶しているはずだと主張します。
    • ジョンストン氏は、証言がこのように変わることは、法廷で証人の信頼性を攻撃する上で非常に重要な点であると説明しています。彼の著書「Roswell: The Truth on Trial」の陪審員審議ガイドには、デニス氏を「信奉者にとって好意的」としながらも、**「物語が変わっている」**点が欠点として挙げられています。
    • ジョンストン氏は、「もしそれが単純に、ええ、このような小さな棺桶の依頼を受けました、これは以前にはなかったことだ、と述べていれば、はるかに強力な証言になっていたでしょう」と述べており、証言の一貫性の重要性を強調しています。
  • 関連する要素

    • デニス氏は、病院で「看護師」と話したと主張していますが、その看護師の名前は誰にも知られず、その後姿を消したとされています(ミネソタに戻った、あるいはヨーロッパに移動したなど)。デニス氏が看護師に情報を与えられ、赤毛の士官に止められたという話も証言に含まれています。

要するに、情報源はグレン・デニス氏の証言について、彼がロズウェル事件の重要な側面(棺桶の注文と遺体の目撃)を主張したこと自体は認めつつも、その証言の細部が時間とともに変化したことが、弁護士の視点から見て、彼の信頼性を著しく損なう要因であると強調しています。

展開

(transcript 1of3)

(以下は文字起こしです。長いので 3分割し、これはその part1 部分です。内容は番組司会者の Jimmy Church が、 Christopher A. Johnston をゲストに迎えてインタビューしたものです。 )

Tonight, we're going to hold court right here on Fade to Black. Christopher A. 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. (0:03:40)

And we're going to look into all of this. And you are going to be the jury. All right? Now, he's a veteran trial attorney. Certified civil trial specialist with over 20 years of experience. An eight-time Super Lawyer and MUFON contributor. He also holds certifications in astrobiology and space law. (0:04:00)


And is a founding member of the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance. We'll be 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. Yeah. Okay. So, let's start there, Chris. Before we get started, you get the first-time guest disclaimer. (0:04:28)

Okay. 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, it's just you and I sitting on my couch having a conversation as friends. (0:04:50)

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. I accept. Sounds perfect. Now, excellent. Thank you for that, Your Honor. So, for everybody, just... I'm going to do this just once. Move your head slightly. Keep going. Look at this. We are in court. (0:05:14)

Yeah, yeah. This is great. And the subject 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. (0:05:45)

And if I have a guest that's got a lot of evidence and has 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 in court, what would be the best piece of evidence that you would push into the center of the table? I think that it is a legitimate question. (0:06:12)

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 a trial attorney. You're an attorney. You run with that Ola Bar card, right? Why this subject? Is it that powerful for you? Would you take this to court? Well, sure. I would take this to court, depending on what side of it. (0:06:41)

But it's kind of a two-fold question, Jimmy. So, why Roswell? I think it's what I heard first. For me, I'm a lifelong ufologist. It's always been a passion of mine. But that doesn't necessarily pay the bills. So, in my real job, I'm an attorney. So, over the years, a lot of what I work on is very complex. We're talking complex litigation, insurance disputes, things like that. (0:07:09)

That really helped me sharpen a real analytical look at evidence and how we can deconstruct different issues. (0:07:17)


So, after, as you said, I'm coming up on 25 years here. Finally, kids are out of the house and things like that. I was able to blend my two passions. Kind of the paranormal, the unknown with the rigors of a trial, which can be applied to anything. So, I thought, well, doggone it. It's a great idea and a great way for me to blend my interests. (0:07:40)

A lot of times when I do these interviews, people say, well, 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. So, my hope is to help people develop or even just take that step back and take a rigorous look at what they're being told. We hear about the drive-by media, that kind of thing. (0:08:04)

Headlines here, headline there. Take a stop and look at what's going on and look at what's being said. And as my dear sweet mom always said, consider the source. So, that's the real goal of this book. And I used very intentionally this kind of UFO setting, because it's a passion, to get people hopefully a little bit more critical thought into not just UFOs, but into everything. (0:08:32)

Now, here is the elephant in the room. Yep. Have you had your own experience? Have you had your own sighting? 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 1990. So, I was... I'm 55 now. So, I happen to be 21 years old. I went out for a night with a friend of mine, actually one of my roommates. (0:09:03)

And it was this work deal and, you know, we're 21 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 21, 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? (0:09:24)

We got home at four 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, boy, I have this vision of being in a field. (0:09:50)

And he's like, yeah, I kind of do too. We went outside and there was this car and up under the bumpers and the wheel was, it was all full of grass up and under there. So we certainly had some experience and missing time of, you know, seven hours. And... Okay. That's it. Now let's flip this around. Sure. You're in the witness box. (0:10:15)


Okay. Okay. All right. You're up there and I'm, I don't know, am I prosecutor or am I the defense attorney here? Well, this would probably be a civil case. So in the civil case, you have the plaintiff and the defendant. Okay. So if, okay, if you are the plaintiff, well, it's, it's the approach to the question where you're trying to discredit, right? Who is in the witness box. (0:10:45)

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. So you'd be a defense lawyer probably. I'm going to be, I'm going to be the dick defense attorney. All right. Right. Okay. Somebody's got to do it. 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? (0:11:12)

To, to go at somebody. And so my next question would be, do you think you were abducted? Why, by something not of this earth? What, what makes you take that leap that this is something extraterrestrial? I, I'm not taking that leap. Now back 21 year old Chris might've taken that leap, but now older and wiser. Oh, it's similar to Roswell. It's a fact that my roommate and I were seen leaving a bar at nine o'clock. It is a fact that we were seen coming home at four o'clock and it is a fact that neither of us remember. (0:11:50)

Now, beyond that, there, there is no evidence there. You know, oh, 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. We all did that when we were 21. I did that so many times. (0:12:11)

I don't even know if I can count them. Right. Well, okay. So, so let me play it this way. And now I'm going to be the plaintiff attorney. So I'm, I'm the guy supporting me, right? Right. So Mr. Johnston, when this happened to you, you were 21 years old. Is that correct? Yep. That's correct. Had you ever had any alcohol to drink before that night? (0:12:30)

Oh yeah. Did you like to go out and party? Oh yeah. And I would set up how much experience this young man has partying and boozing. And then I would get to that they had one drink and then I would call in cooperating 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. (0:12:47)

So that's how you would work on, you know, undercutting where you want to, you know, you were going with it. Yeah, you're right about that. Now with Roswell, which is so unique in that I don't think anything has been researched as much as the Roswell case has. (0:13:05)


A lot of cases have had a lot of research put into it. But especially early on in the 90s, I read every book on Roswell. I read so many books on Roswell that I thought that I had read them twice, only because the information started to repeat. You know, I mean, I read it all just like you have. And the amount of evidence and witnesses that is there for the Roswell incident. (0:13:36)

That's a big pile of stuff. Now, would you call it direct evidence? Would you call it something else? And there's three parts to this. And not everybody could have been drinking all night long. Right, right. So when you say there's a lot of evidence, you know, it's I get people coming to my door all the time. Oh, counselor, I got this case and I got all this evidence. (0:14:04)

Okay, well, show me. Right. That's one of the problems with Roswell. One, given the government involvement and two, the decades and decades since it's happened. I'm not aware of any actual physical evidence. Right. Everything is hearsay. And that was one of the challenges with the book. It is very accurate trial procedure. However, there are instances where the attorneys in the book get away with hearsay, you know, that you otherwise wouldn't because I'm trying to tell a narrative at the same time. (0:14:37)

But as far as evidence goes. So let's just pretend that everybody was still alive. Right. All the players. Your Mac Bressels and your Jesse Marcells. 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 Ramey. No, it wasn't. Right. But actual evidence to be admitted into evidence that is really lacking. (0:15:06)

Okay. Now, it sounds like you're going to be the defense attorney tonight because I'm going to be the plaintiff. My first piece of evidence, and I've got a lot. Okay. But the first piece of evidence that I bring forth in People's Exhibit No. 1, right, it would be the press release from HOUT. I think the press release from HOUT 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 Airfield for release. (0:15:52)

And it is accurate and precise. And so that would be my first piece of evidence I would like to admit into court. Okay. And that was, you mentioned that was written by HOUT, correct? Charles HOUT. Yes, right. And Charles HOUT is the same gentleman that executed an affidavit in 1993. So, and Jimmy, I'm really getting on the lawyer high horse here, so I apologize. (0:16:17)

It's your job. So, Mr. HOUT, he executed an affidavit in 1993 regarding the Roswell incident. Okay. And then we get the affidavit admitted. Walter HOUT then executed another affidavit in 2002. Okay. So, we're nine years later and we all know memories don't get better, right? (0:16:39)


They get weaker. Yet, suddenly in 2002, 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 changing affidavits? Okay. So, that 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. (0:17:08)

Okay. Well, we got General Ramey, right? And he's a general and we all kind of know the hierarchy of the military. And Ramey says, and Ramey was smart about it, Jimmy. He just owned it. He said, yep, that is 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. (0:17:26)

So, I'd play Ramey 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 would somewhat deflect away from, okay, well, let's go back to 47 when the press release was done. Yeah, that's the accurate, that's when all the memories were solid. (0:17:52)

But the approvals and the rewrites going into that press release from the most secure, secret, intelligent installation on planet Earth at that time was Roswell Army Airfield. And the only nuclear bomb wing that we 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. (0:18:28)

So, the writing of that memo would have to have been accurate. They wouldn't have released it unless it was. But the next part with that extending off of the memo at that time was General Rainey 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 that CSI investigation revealed that it was indeed a saucer and a craft. (0:19:02)

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, people's evidence number two, is the Rainey memo that he held in front of the press in Dallas, Texas. So, it's my understanding, Mr. Church, that that was actually an FBI telex. Am I correct on that or am I wrong on that? (0:19:29)

That part 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. Sure. And thank goodness that we had high-res film negatives that were taken that clearly show what was typed on that memo. (0:19:55)


Right. And this is where I get why people get frustrated about lawyers in the court process. The reason I'm going to drill down on is that telex and FBI issues. I address this in the book and I kind of set up some issues with objections, again, sort of an educational bent on it, because General Rainey, 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 Rainey to say, I don't know what it said. (0:20:27)

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 to say who made it, who wrote it, who gave it to whom, you know, the chain of custody. Well, if Rainey was in the witness box, I would merely say, it would be obvious, man, I sound like an attorney. (0:20:48)

I play one on TV. I don't mess around with this stuff. I would literally go straight at Rainey. 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? Mr. 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. (0:21:09)

Well, who gave you this memo? And why are you holding it in your hand? Like I said, I'm given memos, documents all day, every day in my job. So, I couldn't even tell you honestly, Mr. Church, who gave me that telex or what it says. But it was important enough for you to be holding it in front of the press. Oh, I can see how it looked like that, but I hold on to things, you know, I'm handed something, a picture is taken. (0:21:35)

It doesn't mean it was important to me. It just means a picture was taken when I had it in my hand. So, anybody can just hand you anything? Well, within reason, if it's a harmless piece of paper, 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. Oh, yeah. There's so much there. (0:21:59)

Okay. So, General Ramey. Yes, sir. You should know the difference between a weather balloon and a Boeing Superfortress bomber, don't you? I do. You do. Why would you fly Mylar-foiled weather balloon material to Wright-Patterson for analysis when you already know it's a weather balloon? Your Honor, could we take a break? That's a great question, Jimmy. It absolutely is. And I haven't researched that angle nor prepared my mock trial on that angle. (0:22:42)

But that's a good point. And again, that gets into the level of research that could be done. I came to the realization, the longest case I've ever tried was about three weeks. This case, if Roswell really was going to trial, this would be one of those four, five, six months in the news every day with the Roswell updates. (0:23:05)


Because as we've established, as you know, there's so much there. And for purposes of the book, there's certain things that I did leave out. And that was one. And that's an excellent question. Well, 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 personnel or service member on that base, you are, right? (0:23:39)

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 the German airplanes, knew all the British airplanes, knew all that. We know what is going on, missiles and things, you know, and technology. (0:24:07)

And coming off of World War II, this is just two years after that, where secrecy is still paramount and all of that, right? Loose lips sink ships 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? (0:24:41)

No, no, he did not. And nobody did and nobody saw a weather balloon until, 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, actually how I addressed, you know, kind of closing up the cross-exam of General Ramey is simply, as I said, he did all, really all he could do is by owning it, right? (0:25:10)

But then you are also asking us to believe that that mistake can be made at that military base. It seems impossible. I mean, anything is possible. Yeah, anything is possible. I understand that part. But that seems impossible. Well, we need to put together this trial and get some jurors. Oh, yeah. Well, we've got the chat room tonight. That is our jury. And so, if I was going to poll the jury right now... Yeah. Okay. So, let's poll. (0:25:52)

How do you guys think the trial is going so far? Did you ever see, I know you have, My Cousin Vinny? Oh, yeah. Is that... you have a few good men, right? You've got all kinds of great trial, you know, dramas. But is My Cousin Vinny the best courtroom film ever made? It is. And many of us would say that. And I had to... I watched that movie in law school in my evidence class. (0:26:24)

And Chief Justice Toussaint, who is the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, was the instructor. And we didn't watch the whole movie. But what we watched was Joe Pesci laying expert foundation for Marissa Tomei. You know, the... And how many cars are you fixed? (0:26:40)


You know, that whole bit. The actual laying the foundation was perfect. And it's... I do it all the time now. That laying that expert foundation or crossing expert foundation, same thing. But yeah, My Cousin Vinny, they did an outstanding job. I got to say, you know, Fred, when he leans in and he goes, Did you say yutes? Best... I mean, okay. Anyway, let's not go sideways there. (0:27:08)

I could... I have... I have a couple of friends. And one specifically comes to mind. He's no longer with us. But literally could quote the script. Wow. 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. Yeah, it's really good. Yeah, so good, so strong. (0:27:35)

Okay, so back to this. The... How many... How many soldiers does it take? You're in the witness box. Let's make you Ramey. Okay, I'm Ramey again. How many airmen and security people 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? (0:28:11)

Well, we recover them when we can recover them. And this one was 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 and recover our materials? 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 Haut press release. (0:28:40)

We have the General Ramey turnaround two days later of weather balloon. Then we have Project Mogul and sensitive Soviet listening devices. 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? Well, Mr. 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. (0:29:19)

So which version is the truth? As I've stated, it was a weather balloon. Right. And I only laugh because you can't expect the American public to believe such a story. Is there a question there, Counselor? No, there is. Can you expect the entirety of the United States to believe that? Well, that's not really my job, Counselor. My job is simply to be a general in the Army and do the best I can and tell the truth. (0:29:58)

Now, if people choose to believe that or not believe it, there's nothing I can do about that. Were you at the debris field? No, I personally was not at the debris field. How do you know that what you are presenting to the press is what came from the debris field if you were not there? (0:30:16)


Well, we do have standard operating procedures in the military and we do track all of the flights. So, if I'm told the material is being put on flight ABC-123 and landing in Fort Worth at 1122, 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 elsewhere without my knowledge, and that's not the case. (0:30:43)

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. Well, as you said, they wrote a press release that wasn't accurate and fortuitously, I was able to correct that. Who do you trust 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? (0:31:14)

Well, first, I hate to correct you, but I'm not talking about extraterrestrials. You're talking about extraterrestrials. You did the press release that said flying saucer. But I did not say extraterrestrials. Are you suggesting that if it was a flying saucer, it came of this earth? From Russia? From the Germans? No, Mr. Church, I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm just suggesting that it was simply a weather balloon. (0:31:46)

Is the Department of Defense building flying saucers? Not to my knowledge. Is it possible that they could be building them and testing them without your knowledge? Anything's possible. I should get a bar card, huh? You should. I should get a bar card. I could probably pack it without even going to law school. Is it hard? Is that test hard? Or is it logic? Can you pass it without having brains but being very logical? (0:32:22)

I don't think so. There's too much. So it's a two-day test. There's the essay portion, the multi-state, and there's a bunch of stuff going on. And 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 ad nauseum. Because you're not going to be looking for, oh, they don't have standing to do this. Or there's collateral estoppel. There's so much minutia, so that's where you'd struggle. (0:32:56)

But the 200 question, the multi-choice, maybe. Even for us, I'll tell you, I studied harder for the bar than anything I've done in my life. And even those guys like me who study in 8, 10, 12 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 either very laboring thought processes on, is it A or B, is it A or B? But I think somebody with a good amount of logic and a fair amount of smarts could do okay on the bar, sure. (0:33:32)

Back to the trial. (0:33:35)


Okay. Back to the trial. After the initial press release, General Ramey, before you issued an alternative view to the press, the entirety of media and 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 was a weather balloon and all of those journalists stopped their travel and went back home because it was now over. (0:34:25)

Was that a deliberate cover-up on your part? 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 Roswell or anything else. Again, people are going to do what they're going to do. (0:34:49)

And you did what you had to do, too, in switching the debris at the last moment. And when Jesse Marcel came into your office, he was not looking at the debris that he had collected. And he was instructed by you to pose with this weather balloon when he knew that wasn't the debris that he collected. Is that just another case of you doing what you had to do for the cover-up? (0:35:20)

No. And I am aware of Jesse Marcel's testimony, what he said over the years. And it's simply not the way that I remember it, Mr. Church. 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? (0:35:52)

Well, I'm not questioning Mr. Marcel and his credibility, Mr. Church. I am, again, testifying as General Ramey. 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's up to you. But it's inappropriate to do it through me. No, actually, you're the one that was making the decisions on this. So I'm going to keep the questioning going right here. (0:36:21)

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. If you are going to manufacture a story, shouldn't you get your dates correct? And why make such a mistake that was so easily caught? You'd certainly think so. And let's go back to you and me for a minute, Jimmy, because I do have a question about that. Do you know the first year that the crash test dummy story was floated, no pun intended? I don't, so I'm actually honestly asking you. (0:37:05)

Okay, it surfaced, officially surfaced in the Air Force's investigation and release of their report in 1996. It was called Roswell Case Closed. And now there were two reports that were done around that same time. The General Accounting Office, the GAO, also released their report, which was also very extensive. (0:37:34)


And so, when we, when you 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, and they came out with Case Closed. Their determination in their official report that was submitted in Capitol Hill stated that everybody was wrong, that it was actually crash test dummies that were thrown out of airplanes that people thought were alien bodies. (0:38:16)

Well, that was the Air Force official report. And then, as it turns out, that specific program didn't start until 1953. Okay, so I certainly heard the story and I knew that it, the program post dated Roswell, but I didn't know when that first popped up. (0:38:41)

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 and I kind of... Well, 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 is, you know, really into every aspect of this. (0:39:10)

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, you know, so you have the dates, right? July 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, right? That one week period. A lot of things happened during, right at before, after, and during that period. (0:40:02)

(transcript 2of3)

(以下は文字起こしです。長いので 3分割し、これはその part2 部分です。内容は番組司会者の Jimmy Church が、 Christopher A. Johnston をゲストに迎えてインタビューしたものです。 )

You had Kenneth Arnold with his sighting up in Washington, which coined the term Flying Saucers, of course. You had the Rhodes photographs that were taken in Phoenix right before Roswell. 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, 1947. But it's not the same thing with the Air Force. So if they're going to go and compile, they are not ufologists. They don't have these dates fixated in 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 closed if the dates aren't right. (0:40:31)

They thought it would be, eh, it's just going to go. And that's it. It's over. Actually, they made it worse for me. It's like, here's another lie. Right. What do they say when you're in a hole, stop digging? Right? Yeah. Oh, 100%. 100%. Quit while you're ahead. Yeah, that too. Yeah. Yeah. Now, okay. (0:41:04)

So let's, let's go back. What about the claims? You're still General Ramey. Okay. And, and I think Ramey should be on the stand probably more than anybody else because the buck stops 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. (0:41:27)

Right. Sure. And he, he was a pretty, the things that he did for the way that the Department of Defense was overall shaped and over the next 20 years, that was all on Ramey's shoulders. (0:41:43)


He was a, he was a tough guy, man, for sure. But going back to Roswell, many witnesses have 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. Were there alien bodies inside of that weather balloon when it crashed? Oh, and Jimmy, I was so, I got so intrigued back on a different witness. I'm, I'm General Ramey, right? (0:42:33)

Yes. Boy, I totally forgot that. I was getting all excited about a different angle. Oh, okay. Who do you want to be? Well, I was, are you familiar with... You want to be Glenn Dennis? Well, yeah, when 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 talk about, you know, the Air Force kind of making things worse. (0:42:55)

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? And so it's that, so why do folks do that? You know, the hyperbole, you know? And in my book, there's an instance that in the very back, I have kind of a juror deliberation guide. (0:43:16)

Everybody's witness, all the witnesses are listed alphabetically and kind of the pros and the cons on him. And I like Glenn Dennis for the believers, but dog gone, his story changes and now includes having seen, you know, the bodies. And then we hear about the nurse that he talked to, but of course, nobody knew the nurse's name. And she was there for a day and split back to Minnesota or, you know, something like that. (0:43:40)

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. Right, right. So, you know, he's another extremely... and 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 by design, you know, as far as, you know, I wanted the witnesses that could kind of go either way to help with, again, with the thought process here. (0:44:09)

But yeah, Glenn Dennis, one of my favorites, but why the change, right? How did he change? 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. (0:44:38)

Well, it was more, I 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. (0:44:51)


Had it just been simply, yeah, I got this call for these tiny little baskets, which had never happened before. Do you think that happens over time? Originally, Glenn Dennis said, now this is how the story has changed. Okay. 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 1990, in that period, 90, 91, 92, 93, a bunch of books were written. (0:45:25)

And he had stated that the airbase calls him up, somebody from the airbase orders a bunch of child-sized caskets, which he didn't have in stock at the time. And they wanted 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. (0:45:52)

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 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. (0:46:19)

She started to tell him some other things. And that's when the redheaded officer comes up. Right. The famous redheaded 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. He never did. He ordered them, could not get that. They ordered them. (0:46:52)

He could not get them, but he did go out to the base. So it's kind of weird. 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 which way, where do we go with this? 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. (0:47:24)

Right. And every conversation I have, and I'm going to remember exactly where I was and exactly who was there because I couldn't imagine anything much more impactful than that. So changing testimony when something is so significant is a big red flag to me. Now, okay, so now I'm going to flip you back to your Ramey. All right. How many crash sites were there, General Ramey? (0:47:51)

Well, Mr. Church, I think we're here dealing with the crash at the Brazel property. Is that correct? Well, not the Brazel, but the ranch that Mr. Brazel was the caretaker for. We are talking about that, but the question is, how many crash sites were there? Can you be more specific? (0:48:19)


Yeah, that would be, is there more than one? More than one crash site, but where? And I'm not trying to be cute, Jimmy. Seriously, I'm trying to drill down the question because we'd have problems with this. More than one crash site, but in New Mexico or Chavez County or, you know, so I'm trying to help you out, but I need a little more specificity. (0:48:48)

It's an easy question to answer, General Ramey. Was there one crash site, two or ten? Well, we are here for Roswell, the truth on trial, dealing with the crash that was discovered by Mr. Brazel. So with that understanding, there was one. Okay. What about reports that that was not the crash site, that was an impact site, and then the craft itself was recovered 30 miles away in the town of Corona? (0:49:25)

Well, I'm not aware of that. I'm aware of the one crash site. Then how can we trust your testimony, General Ramey, 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? (0:49:52)

Well, first I object to the form of the question with the use of the term cover-up. Of course you would object. It's the most important aspect of this case. Was it your blueprint as head of the Air Force, the future Air Force, was it your blueprint for all future cover-ups? Not at all. I don't deal in cover-ups, Mr. Church. This was 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. (0:50:28)

Why, well then, if it's not a cover-up, why would you transport a weather balloon to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the Foreign Technology Center? Where would you have me transfer it? I'm not going to keep it in my office in Fort Worth. You would transport it to a garbage bin, I would think. Well, a lot 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 Wright-Pat seems as good as the next. (0:51:03)

Well, you stated that it was balsa wood and foil. Correct. What's so important about balsa wood and foil, sir? Well, again, nothing necessarily inherent, important about those items, but as part of a U.S. project, we have the materials. We sent them off to do what they do with them once they get them on their own. 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 pilot? (0:51:42)

Oh, Mr. 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 vein. (0:51:52)


Does the Air Force, Department of Defense, then the Army Air Force, do they have procedures in place where to take bodies that have been recovered from crashes? That may exist, but since... well, in particular, 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. What would you do if it was a human pilot? What would you do with that body? (0:52:23)

Well, objection hypothetical, but let's say that there were a human body who was deceased. Well, that person would be sent to, I'm not sure where, the New Mexico hospital. You 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. I don't know. Is that where you sent these deceased aviators? (0:52:47)

Again, as I said, I'm not aware of any aviators deceased or otherwise. I didn't send any body anywhere. What information did you guys get from communicating with this alien? Did you guys make any deals? Hmm. Again, I wish something like that could have happened. There were no aliens, Mr. Church. After 1947, it seems that technology in the United States took huge leaps forward. (0:53:20)

Certainly central in that were printed circuit boards and the invention of the transistor all after July of 1947. Were these technologies from the crashed craft in Roswell? No, not at all. It was just coincidental in that regard. But you'll recall, we're on the heels of World War II. And the amount of technological advances that we were able to make both in 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. (0:53:55)

And it just so happened to coincide with this Roswell that you're talking about. Well, this crashed 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 and the CIA after the OAS. All of this, in addition to the technology, was all just a coincidence? (0:54:31)

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 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 were born after Roswell, and I'm pretty sure that didn't have anything to do with that. (0:54:58)

No, but they weren't born in July of 1947, 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 of the city of Roswell in New Mexico. And I would suggest that it is beyond coincidence, isn't it? (0:55:24)


Well, you can certainly make that argument, Mr. Church, and the jurors will do what jurors do with it. 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? Well, again, and maybe we can get a standing objection. Anytime reference to aliens, I have never said that there were aliens there. (0:55:57)

Sustained. Thank you. Thank you. So there is nothing for me to be lying about. It just simply didn't exist, Mr. Church. But you just stated, I can go back and read from the court report. You just stated that you have lied about this repeatedly and it was just what you had to do. No, and nice attempt at 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 blimp. (0:56:37)

That is what I had to do. I needed the record to be correct, so I corrected it. 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. And we don't know the reasons why, like the creation of swamp gas, when swamp gas had nothing to do with those sightings. (0:57:10)

But that was the Air Force, again, I would use the word lie, and making up facts and presenting those to the public. Why keep the truth from the public with alien contact? Well, Mr. Church, again, I'm only testifying as myself, General Ramey, 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. (0:57:40)

So I think you might have the wrong guy on the stand if that's the arguments that you want to make. So 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. You know what I mean? Now it has taken on its own pop culture term and definition. (0:58:12)

Yeah, for sure. And this whole exercise in writing my book. At my core, I am a believer and I want to believe. However, trying to capture true courtroom procedure and drama leaves so much out, as you and I were talking about. So it's frustrating from my standpoint. Yeah, and when we come back after the break, I want to turn the tables. I want to be in the witness box. (0:58:46)

And I want you to put on your JD hat and come at me. Okay. This is a lot of fun. And here's the situation. Yeah, I'm coming at you hard. But the reason for that is very simple. The Air Force has always 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. (0:59:20)

And do you... is it because... and then we'll take our break. (0:59:25)


Sure. Do you think that the Air Force, not the Department of Defense, because we've got different branches of the military that have all handled the UFO question a little bit differently. But the Air Force, not only because of Project Blue Book, but the Air Force has always had a very cocky, self-assured stance on this. Because they've never had to tell the truth. So why should they start telling the truth now? (0:59:51)

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. 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. (1:00:18)

Something is going to happen extraterrestrial-wise on Earth that cannot be denied, cannot be lied about, no obfuscation, right? It's simply a Jimmy Church thought, Chris Johnson thought, 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 extraterrestrials seem to move faster than the U.S. government. (1:00:46)

Yeah, and that's a really bizarre... not your position, not your statement. But 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 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 going to use a bad word. (1:01:18)

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 wives and sons and daughters and everything, where they have been teased and ridiculed and called names 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 head high is the frigging Oval Office to go live on TV. And that's the only thing that's good enough for them. (1:02:01)

And I get that. I totally understand that now, where I didn't understand that in the past. Anything else is just a hearsay that you're talking about. It's just more Luis Elizondo, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, coming out. 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. (1:02:28)

That's what they need. So they can turn around, slap their husband upside the head and go, see? And I agree with you a hundred percent. But I honestly think it is more likely that there is going to be something that can't be denied before a government comes out. (1:02:50)


Oh, they're praying for that. They're praying for that, Chris. We're off the hook! Yes, yes, yes. Oh man. You know, James Webb, they want Independence Day over Los Angeles. You know, because you're right. Yeah, we're off the hook. I like that. True! Yeah, exactly. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, I'm going to get grilled on the witness stand. I am your host, Jimmy Church. This is Fade to Black. Our guest tonight, Chris Johnson, J.D. Tonight, it's Roswell, the truth on trial. (1:03:31)

(advertisement skipped)

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, J.D. He is a trial attorney. And we are in court, as you can see. (1:07:56)


We're in court. And 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. Tell you what. How about you be Jesse Marcel? Okay. All right. And I'm going to be the skeptic's attorney, and I'm going to cross you. Okay. Let's go. And so, just a tiny bit of... So I'm going to look old here, or lawyerly. I'm not sure. (1:08:29)

Lawyerly. My cousin Vinny, we're going to just do that all night, right? That's right. Very lawyerly of me. So anyway, for your listeners, when you call your own witness, then you ask questions... Pardon me. You can't ask leading questions of your own witnesses. But on cross, which is what we're about to do with you, because you were called initially as a believer's witness. (1:08:58)

I am the skeptic attorney, so I'm going to cross-examine you so I can kind of almost do whatever I want to. Okay. 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, okay? Let's go. Is that all right? Okay. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Marcel. Good morning. (1:09:21)

Okay. Say, as you know, you just testified for the other attorney, and I was very impressed. You were able to... You listened 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 in the very best of your ability that you can. Fair? (1:09:42)

Fair. Okay. Okay. Now, you mentioned earlier that you served as the intelligence officer at Roswell Airfield in 1947. Is that correct? Yes. 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 know what those things are, true? (1:10:22)

Anyone should. Did you? Yes. Thank you. Now, you testified earlier that the debris that you found included some lightweight foil and beams. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And some of these materials you said were pliable and could return to their original shape and were unusually durable. True? Yes. And Mr. Marcel, isn't it true that materials like aluminum foil, rubberized cloth, and balsa wood exhibit some of the properties that you just described? (1:10:58)

Yes. So, as an intelligence officer, you were expected to recognize all sorts of things, including weather balloons, true? Yes. And you'd seen weather balloons prior to this night, true? Many times. 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? (1:11:26)


It didn't come from a weather balloon. But again, you said that it may have come from a flying disc or some other identified craft. Is that correct? As my job as an intelligence officer, I'm collecting information in debris and will analyze it later. But it did not come from a weather balloon. Okay. And that's all very interesting, but you 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? (1:11:56)

I may have said that, yes. Okay. But then just shortly after this press release came out, your superiors publicly stated that the debris from was a weather balloon, correct? They changed their story, yes. And said it was a weather balloon, true? They changed their story. Those weren't my words. Were you involved in drafting the revised explanation? No. Why were you excluded from that? (1:12:28)

I was surprised by everything when I showed up in Dallas. Okay. So do you know why you were excluded from drafting the second release that said it was a weather balloon? I would assume because I was the initial witness and I knew the truth. Okay. Did anyone ever tell you that? No. I was completely blindsided in Dallas and you can see it in my face in the photographs that were taken. (1:12:54)

Okay. Well, we'll get to that. Could it be that you weren't involved in the drafting of the press release because your superiors didn't trust you? Well, my original statements about it possibly being a flying saucer or 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. (1:13:25)

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. Sure. And you keep going back to that, Mr. 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? (1:13:52)

No. I will answer your question again. They knew that I would not support their version of the story. Let me try this. Mr. 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? No. Okay. So since you weren't told, you were only left to assume as to why you were excluded from that. True? (1:14:21)

Ask the question another way. Sure. Since no one ever told you why you were excluded from helping with the revised statement, that means you don't know why you were excluded. You're only assuming why you were excluded. True? The question is hypothetical. No, it's not a hypothetical. If I don't know the reason, then it's a hypothetical answer. (1:14:55)


No. If you don't know the reason, then it becomes true that anything could be the reason. You simply don't know. If someone were to say A, B, or C, since you were never told, you couldn't say that that person was any more right or wrong than you. Correct? Anything is possible. Thank you. You said that some of the material that you found included some strange symbols resembling hieroglyphics. Is that right? (1:15:26)

Yes. And you testified that these symbols didn't match any language or markings that you had seen before. Is that true? 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. Isn't it true that some children's toys in the 40s, even now for that matter, included symbols or decorations that could be mistaken for hieroglyphs? (1:15:55)

I don't know. Okay. Let me ask you this. Did you take any photographs of the debris at the crash site before you removed it? Yes. Where are those photographs now, Mr. Marcel? I turned those in to Roswell Army Airfield along with everything that we collected. Okay. And after you gathered the debris, you transported it initially to the Roswell Army Airfield. Is that correct? (1:16:27)

On multiple flatbed trucks, pickup trucks, and we had 200 to 400 service personnel collecting that debris. Well, that's great, but that wasn't my question. When you first collected it from the debris field, did you take it to the Roswell Army Airfield? That's where it initially went. I am saying that I didn't personally collect all of the debris. We had 200 to 400 personnel that were collecting it on multiple trucks and pickup trucks. (1:16:59)

It was a multiple day collection that was 24 hours a day. So, I wasn't the only one collecting the debris. Did you take any debris that you collected to the Roswell Army Airfield? I did. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Marcel, were there specific protocols in place for handling potentially sensitive or classified materials? Yes. And are those... is that protocol? Is it an order? How do those work? (1:17:31)

It depends on the situation. If it is a crashed craft from the military, we handle it a certain way. If it is a crashed craft that is from an adversary, that is certainly handled another way and transported to other locations around the United States and analyzed. 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. Okay. And so, let us say, can we agree that it would be a protocol on how to handle any of these? And it is really just semantics, Mr. Marcel. Would a protocol on how to handle a body be the appropriate word to use? Or would it be an order? You are ordered how to deal with it. (1:18:21)

We are talking about an area of high sensitivity and classification, and I cannot comment publicly on that. (1:18:29)


Okay. So, whether it is a procedure, a protocol, an order, when there is instruction on how to deal with anything in the military, but let us use a crashed craft here, is it important to follow those protocols, orders, again, whatever it is we are going to call them? Is it important? In the military, we have not only classifications, but we have rank. And I am just somebody that is taking orders, and I do not question those orders. (1:19:07)

So, when we are dealing with something of such a highly sensitive nature, which in this case is possibly something that may be extraterrestrial, I am here to just take orders and not question why. Okay. So, there was indeed then a protocol in place for whatever it was that crashed in Roswell. Is that true? I cannot comment on that. Okay. And you just testified that you were a guy that just followed orders and did what you are told. True? (1:19:41)

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? Did it say that in there anywhere? No, it did not. Okay. So, then you do not always follow orders. True? I always follow orders. That night, in the excitement of the moment, I stepped outside what should have been a normal method of operation. (1:20:16)

(transcript 3of3)

(以下は文字起こしです。長いので 3分割し、これはその part3 部分です。内容は番組司会者の Jimmy Church が、 Christopher A. Johnston をゲストに迎えてインタビューしたものです。 )

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? I knew that this was quite possibly the biggest event in human history. Yes, I did get a little excited. Okay. So, excited enough that you disregard orders. Withdrawing, Your Honor. Objection. Okay. All right. Let's discuss the materials that you were shown, that you're shown with during the Fort Worth press conference. Do you recall that? (1:21:00)

I do. Okay. And you testified that those materials were different than what you found at the ranch. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. 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? I cannot answer that question. Okay. So, you might have physical evidence. I plead the fifth. (1:21:30)

Okay. Which, technically, kind of a side note, that's a criminal standard and we're in a civil trial, but I'm going to let it go, Mr. Marcell. But if I have broken protocol and could possibly be court-martialed, that would be criminal and anything that I say right now could be used in such a procedure if it would happen in the future. Sure. But you just told us about a minute and a half ago that you don't always follow orders and procedures. So, how come today? How come here in this courtroom with this good judge here, you're going to follow the procedure, but the night of the crash, you chose not to? (1:22:06)

Your Honor, can I answer that question fully? Thank you. (1:22:09)


Go ahead. I have always followed orders. My statement was that I didn't that one time. Okay. So, one time in your career. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. That's correct. Okay, one time. Now, Mr. Marcell, you've spoken publicly about the Roswell incident on several occasions over the years, haven't you? 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. (1:22:44)

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? 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. Okay. And then you took a picture with the debris there in Fort Worth, true? (1:23:14)

I did. And you weren't there alone. Presumably there were press folks there. Is that correct? That is correct. And some other military folks, General Ramey, he was there? He was there with his office staff, yes. Okay. So, when you did all that and you posted the pictures, you never told anybody in that room, hey, by the way, this is different stuff. Correct? I didn't. I didn't. And may I expand? (1:23:42)

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. Okay. So, you did what you were asked to do, aside from that one night where we have 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? (1:24:14)

That is correct. Okay. Nothing further, Your Honor. So, and that's how we'd sum it up. I skipped a couple little parts. So, and one thing that I wouldn't call it a slick lawyer move, and it sort of is in a vacuum, only reading the cross on it. But what I did there, it was very intentional. (1:24:39)

The Mr. Marcel as opposed to Major Marcel. And if you go through the testimony with the believer's attorney, it's all very, you know, oh, yes, Major, you know, and as soon as the defense gets there, it's boom, Mr. And you start, you know, kind of working them down that way. And like I said earlier, what I find, it's, you know, going back to my cousin, Vinny, the defense's case doesn't hold water. Right? (1:25:02)

Right. In the case of Roswell, it doesn't hold water. You are able to pick anything apart. And I think it would 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, going back to the Walter Howe memo, moving forward, has been very, very, very consistent. (1:25:41)

Yeah, but except between his, the 93 and 02 affidavits, you know, that's when he added... Yeah, that's true. Like I said, with Roswell and Christopher, I'm so convinced of this, that all we have to do here is look at the Department of Defense's position. (1:26:08)


We don't have to look at the witnesses' position. We don't have to bring any of that to the table. You know, 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. 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 plaintiff's because we have the burden of proof. (1:26:53)

We actually have to prove something. The defense, poke a hole here and, oh yeah, Marcel, you're Mr. Rule follower, but boom, you took the stuff home. Hey, boom. So from that regard, you know, let's see, look at the defense guys. 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? (1:27:22)

But now, so my attorney, now I 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. (1:27:49)

Did you guys see this debris? And turn it around once again, right? Wouldn't that be another attack of the boat? And it would. And super splitting hairs here, but 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 plaintiff side, I'm bringing up about question number three, that you took this thing home. Because I'll tell you, as a plaintiff, every case has bad facts, right? (1:28:22)

And as the plaintiff attorney, if you don't get in front of those bad facts and couch 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, I'm right into priors and things that I know are going to be an issue so that we can explain them away. (1:28:46)

But yes, and you're right. And that's in the book too, Marcel. So you got to weigh it as the attorney. Okay, well, suck that he didn't follow the orders, but he created these witnesses. And then 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 put you on the stand. I just, I can't. Jury would hate you, right? (1:29:25)

And then the other, the guy, gal on the other side, you know, oh, jury's going to love this person. So that credibility and likability of witnesses just can't come through. (1:29:38)


You know, I could, if I wrote a 5,000 page book, but 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. Well, the General Accounting Office, that's a great point. The General Accounting Office, which the GAO, by the way, scares the crap out of anybody. (1:30:06)

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 going to, they've got, they've got a juice cart, right? So when they jumped into the Roswell case, one of the interesting aspects of this is that they said, this is the GAO. Okay. This isn't MUFON. This isn't even Congress, right? It's the GAO, man. (1:30:33)

The GAO said all record, they went through all of the branches of the military, all of the accounting, everything logistics wise, all the way back to 1947. Any records tied to Roswell, phone, billing, receipts, transports, information, personnel, all of it was destroyed. All of it. All of it. Doesn't seem possible, does it? Right. Right. Right. Right. And the General Accounting Office, actually, I'm going to paraphrase, but they said something like that. Never before has every piece of anything tied to something been lost or destroyed. (1:31:26)

Right. But in the case of Roswell, we found nothing. And that, that, I mean, nothing, phone records, telexes, 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. 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 time, little video. (1:32:11)

So I'm going to sue this guy and I'm looking at him going, good luck. You know, nothing's going to, nothing's going to come of that. You know, and interestingly, kind of hearkening back, you know, 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 Roswell. 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 components in the stealth that that person believes came from an extraterrestrial source. (1:32:51)

I can. 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 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 direction, I'm going to drive past it. (1:33:15)


But Edwards is right up the street, about five or seven miles that way. So right here we have NASA. We have Air Force Plant 42. We have Northrop Grumman. We have skunk works all on one ginormous secure compound right up the street. Now the most advanced aerospace testing and design in the world goes on right there. That's it. That's it. There is that. That's it. It's right up the street. (1:33:44)

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, I don't, I don't need to get in any trouble, but this stuff goes on. And when you hear things like Ben Rich, you know, and, 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 working on down the street is 50 years ahead of what we see. (1:34:22)

I would say that that in a general sense is to be true. You only have to, and I'm saying this in a very generalized form, you only have to give a good engineer or a good 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, or something like that, you don't have to know how it operates. You only need the idea. That's all. And then go and develop it yourself. Whether it is, you know, Star Trek and, 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. (1:35:15)

You know, you only have to have the idea and let these guys go and run with it. 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. 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, 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 re-engineering or whatever the heck they do, because the world needs them. I couldn't do it. (1:35:56)

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 he got a brilliant team. And the next thing, you know, you've got MP3 players and, and iPhones and touchscreens and iPads. And, and look at the original Mac. These are just idea, the mouse, right, to point and click on, you know, and graphic design. These were just ideas, but then you just turn around and, and turn it into something else. And that goes seriously into the aerospace industry and, and where we are today. (1:36:36)

We are at the cusp of some very brilliant things. Did it come from crash retrievals? Man, that is such an easy fix for all of these technical leaps. I mean, it really is. (1:36:55)


It answers a lot of questions. It does. It truly, it's, it's Occam's razor, you know, and I, I hate to go there so easily, but that's what Occam'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, um, and the transistor. Now I've read and watched in all the documentaries and all the books, uh, on, on the development of all of this stuff and how electricity was done. I've, man, the ENIAC and the UNIVAC and computers and tubes and going from tubes to transistor. I've, I've, I've done, I worked for Bell labs. I worked for Bell labs for three years. I did. I was right there, man. The, the spear tip of technology. I worked at Bell labs, man. (1:37:48)

And I saw some very, I wasn't some brilliant guy. I was just an artist in the art department in ED&D, but I was around some very brilliant engineers that I still talk to, to this day. And, 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 1900 and where we were in 1947, the leaps. (1:38:15)

Oh man. (1:38:44)

I mean, it's just absolutely insane. Uh, what we went through, how did we get, I, I don't know, but it just seems like, um, von Braun's boss, I'll think of his name here in a second. The other Nazi scientists, his boss said that it all came from there. He had help. That's what he said. He pointed, yeah, that's, we had help, you know, and just, yeah, I, I don't discount that. Do you, with all of the evidence and certainly the position that, uh, you're in now, um, do you believe that the United States is in possession of, uh, crashed retrievals? (1:38:57)

I do. Hey, as you've been saying, I don't see how we're not, you know? And so I, I'm a believer, but again, is my evidence any better than anybody else? Nope. I know, I know what we're told and kind of what we're allowed to see. And then we can draw our own conclusions. So again, might lose in court, but yeah, I believe the U S does. (1:39:18)

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. Right. Is, is, so with that kind of experience, is it possible for, um, we could say government, but then you have, uh, the career individuals that are there that aren't necessarily elected, um, you know, through transitional administrations. (1:39:53)

Um, is it possible to keep something like this covered up from elected officials and, and the, the actual government that is running things? You know, anecdotally, it certainly seems to be, you know, the case and, uh, I don't have any, you know, hard and fast, Hey, this happened, that happened, but it certainly seems to me as a 55 year old man lived in the United States my entire life. (1:40:20)

And I'm kind of plugged into the news and what's happening. (1:40:23)


It certainly seems to me that it would be possible. And, and probably, you know, Jimmy, you know, let's use you and me, there's a fighting chance. And we're in the DOD 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 the defendant he's wrong. (1:40:52)

He or she is wrong, but they believe what they're saying, right? To 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 going to catch you 99 out of a hundred times. And not that I'm smarter than you, but that's what I do. (1:41:12)

Now, if you say you're still wrong, but you believe that you had a green light. Oh, 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 a 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 getting your hands on those specific people, right? (1:41:45)

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. So it's just, it's the wrinkle. Well, yeah. And as a trial attorney, you must sit back when you hear somebody ask questions and cross and do whatever, where you sit back and go, ah, they did it wrong. (1:42:17)

Damn it. I would have asked, you know, attorneys are cocky. Okay. And you have to be, you have to be, you have to have a, doctors are 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, you don't want to hear that in surgery. (1:42:46)

You know, you don't want to 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, well, let's focus on David Grush, who raised his right hand and, and swore in, right. That his testimony was going to be true. (1:43:10)

What'd you think about the questions that were asked? 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. (1:43:26)


It strikes me. And I was watching one of the, Senator here just the other day who will remain nameless. 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. (1:43:50)

And they ask poor questions and they'll get kind of up to the edge of anything good 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 pin them and pin them until you get your answer. So they could all use a course in effective litigation. (1:44:12)

So, I mean, and that's just my take on the procedure of the whole thing. 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? Well, to me or to society? Well, I want your, what it means to you, but then we do have the society version of this about ethics and morality and what comes into play here. (1:44:44)

And that's a character thing, but for you, how important is it? It's extremely important. You know, we have, you know, don't want to go down the road, but you got the three branches of government, this group, you know, 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. (1:45:08)

It just has to exist or it'll be the end of us. And one of the, it might seem small to some people, but the 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 and you're lying to me 99 times out of a hundred, I'm going to catch you. (1:45:36)

And not only am I going to call you out for being a liar, then I'm going to call out the fact that you raised your right hand and swear to tell the truth. You know, so I think it's, it's a small gesture and it's incredibly important. Now, back to your point about what somebody believes to be true. Yeah. Right. Okay. So with Grush, we had a dose of that, didn't we? (1:46:01)

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 you said there were some things that he couldn't answer, but again, it was a lot of hearsay. (1:46:21)


You know, well, I've talked to 47 people that work in the business and they all said, 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? 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. (1:46:53)

Very good. Which is, 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 6th, right? 1946. That's a fact, right? Okay. What's the truth behind that? That's a whole nother situation. And so with, with Grush, 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? (1:47:32)

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 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. (1:48:03)

So, but let's put that aside. The other facts that he presented, which were direct and not hearsay, is he had the locations and the names. Okay. That he had turned those over to the IG and he was willing to give those to the members of Congress in a skiff. Now that's where we are breaking new ground, aren't we? It's never been like that before. (1:48:34)

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, I was at Commander Fravor, you know, with his tic-tac, same thing. So that's one area that's really, really been improving is the quality of the witnesses, right? So you can still have questions, but I'd sure much be rather, you know, questioning an F-16 pilot than, you know, Billy on the corner who saw something up in the sky, right? (1:49:08)

Sure. Well, both from their observation ability and again, the credibility, right? Yeah. 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 to go with this. I was going to throw a bone to General Ramey. Same thing. Why is good old General Ramey going to jeopardize, you know, his career? (1:49:28)

So, you know, you kind of, if we're going to be consistent and go, well, look at, look at these credentials, Ramey was no slouch himself. And he said this. 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. (1:49:53)


We've got that going for us. But how was the public starting to perceive this? Where it is now a Capitol Hill situation and in hearings, and we've 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? (1:50:21)

Yes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. I'm sure it's all of the above. Society just, you know, for whatever, and 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 extraterrestrial life, right? That number is now in the majority. And it almost feels like a lot of this pushback, because what are the theories that we've heard over the years, why there can't be disclosure? (1:50:47)

Oh, it'll upend world religions, it'll upend 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 with our lives. Now, 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 talked to lots of UFO people and non-UFO, even the non-UFO people that I've given, you know, my book to, you know, the mailman comes into the law office. (1:51:22)

Without fail, every one of them, oh, if they don't know about it, their reaction has been, oh, UFOs, yeah, cool, yeah, I like, you know, and I'll have conversations and I have yet to talk to anyone that is like, straight up, no, no, they're, they're not real. I don't believe them. Everybody has to know. I love that. But who do you think is largely responsible for that change in the public tone? (1:51:46)

Is it, is it the government? Is it the media? Is it, is it Hollywood? Is it the entertainment industry? Is it Marvel and the Marvel universe? Who's, what's most responsible for this change in, in the public's attitude when it comes to UFOs? You know, Jimmy, I don't know if this is the answer or not. However, look at all the things that were not acceptable in the seventies, right? (1:52:13)

And now here we are in 25 and whatever, right? Is it just part and parcel of our society? Maybe, and I'm not, I'm no sociologist, but are people anymore just so self-focused that whatever's going on out here, 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, I don't know why, you know, and I'm sure part of that feeds it is the internet and the constant need for 24 seven content and stories can spread, you know, that kind of thing. (1:52:45)

I would imagine the internet probably played a role in that in people's desire. (1:52:50)


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, 95% of the other stuff we want to find out. (1:53:08)

But I don't know if that's the reason, but might be part of it. I asked this question, uh, with just about every guest, it doesn't matter what the background is, but, uh, because we're all fundamentally the same. And that is, um, is Hollywood doing the best job that they can with this subject? We all watch the movies. One of the, you want something green lit? (1:53:40)

I live in Hollywood, right? So you want something green lit man, alien invasion movie and, and humans win by shooting arrows, right? Okay. All right. All right. Green lit that. And how many of those movies have we seen? Well, and then there's a lot of other, and I'm not, I'm, I'm talking about, you know, drama, science fiction, not documentaries. And, uh, uh, which that's a whole nother proliferation of, of, of, of media that has hit us. (1:54:09)

But, um, when it comes to science fiction and the way aliens are perceived under the public, is Hollywood doing a good enough job? Should they do something differently with that? Or is it, is it okay? Uh, they can do better and they are working to do better. Um, I'm sure it read my bio. I'm sure you're familiar with the Hollywood disclosure Alliance. And what that is, you know, for your listeners is really blending of, um, scientists and researchers and, and folks to a very low extent, like me doing, doing the research and this kind of work, blending it with the talent, if you will, that the creatives in Hollywood to try to create a more, a story with more continuity, you know, so that we're putting together a more accurate, more realistic. (1:55:02)

You know, from what we know, sort of presentation on, on aliens and extraterrestrials. So one, you know, that is, um, already currently going on and, and I think it's good, you know, a similar, and 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? (1:55:28)

I am. So that festooning, when I first was reading about this, I don't know, 15 years ago or so, my opinion, there are, and I forget the manufacturer now, but I know on one of the, one of the tires on one of the rovers, uh, essentially said, whatever the company was, fade to black, right? And so when the tires would rotate on the moon surface, well, there's fade to black stuff, which would be cool. (1:55:52)

Don't get me wrong. (1:55:53)


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 just here to tell you, putting, you know, Firestone on your tire track, cause you're festooning your devices. It just feels inappropriate to me. (1:56:20)

You know, it, 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, but again, you want to run into an extraterrestrial and be promoting your tires or do you want to be promoting peace? Well, I've thought about that. One of the things that we I've, okay. (1:56:41)

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 a symbol or something on it, right? What if ET steps off on camera, White House lawn, right. With a frigging Formula One driver's suit. You know what I mean? (1:57:15)

Yeah. All of, yeah. With all of the, all the branding on it, all the branding on it, you know, and, and, uh, 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? Yeah. Yeah. You know, if, if that were the case, I can guarantee you what my first question would be. (1:57:45)

What are your rates? Right. I would want to have my law firm name slapped, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I want to, I'm going to get fade to black. How much for a fade to black sticker on your craft? Right. Exactly. On the front of it. Yeah. On the front. On the front. Um, because, and, and here, if, if ET, and this is why I think this is, I have a twisted mind, but ET has been observing us for a very long time. (1:58:15)

They know what we would expect, right? Sure. 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. That sounds silly, but think how, I'll tell you, I'd be way less scared of a UFO that says Walmart. I mean, I'm like, what the hell? (1:58:48)

Maybe I might even approach it. Why wouldn't ET step off the craft? Right. Seriously. Step off the craft and start live streaming. Okay. We're here on earth. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Why? That would immediately put us in our comfort zone. Yeah, for sure. That would be fun. That that's how I'm going to choose to imagine it from now on too, at the Walmart. It'll be Elvis, Walmart, and live streaming. (1:59:17)

And we would be, no, Kardashians, Walmart, and live streaming. (1:59:22)


And we will be totally comfortable. That's our buddies, the aliens. Chris, what a great show tonight, my man. What else are you working on? I am working on, I've got an article coming out in next month's MUFON 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, cause that's another one of those terms. (1:59:47)

Oh, disinformation agent. Well, people don't really know exactly what it means. So it's some insight into that and a couple of interesting cases historically, you know, one in particular, the United States, you know, used disinformation campaigns and kind of how it came to light. So that's what I'm writing on right now. And who was Lex? Oh, Lex Astrum? Yeah. Yeah. I'm giving you an opportunity to explain yourself. (2:00:13)

Thank you. I appreciate that. Maritime law is essentially codified. Maritime law is so old. It sort of built up on customs starting over in Egypt and it's all sort of cataloged and what they call Lex Maritima, you know, maritime law. So with my space law stuff, I took the name, the URL Lex Astrum, law of the stars, quite a few years ago. And I have Lex Astrum Facebook page. (2:00:40)

Anyway, so the judge in my book is the Honorable Lex Astrum. So he's the law of the stars. I love it. I love it. 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 our next trial. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Perfect night on the show, man. (2:01:05)

Keep doing what you're doing. Will do. Thanks, Jimmy. Thank you so much. Chris Johnston, JD. That was a fun night on the show, wasn't it? That was a perfect night on the show. I had a lot of fun.

(2025-07-06)