Captain Ron is joined by Researcher Chrissy Newton to discuss what it takes to identify authentic UFO encounters, and to examine the human psychology that drives our UFO beliefs.
Episode Transcript
Captain Ron (00:57):
Hey everyone, it’s Captain Ron and each week on Beyond Contact,
we’ll explore the latest news in ufology, discuss some of
the classic cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talked with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I’m Captain Ron, and today we’re
going to be speaking with Christy Newton. Chrissy is the
partner podcaster and director of Media at The Debrief, as
well as the co host of the Discovery Channel TV
show Alien Encounters Factor Fiction. She’s also the owner of
an award winning pr firm called Vocab Communications. She’s a
Canadian and she has appeared at Contact in the Desert
(01:37):
as a speaker. Hey, Chrissy, how you doing. How’s the
Great White North today?
Speaker 5 (01:41):
It’s good? How are you Ron?
Speaker 4 (01:43):
I’m good. Luckily I got out of Cleveland and just
came back from the holiday to get back to LA
where it’s nice and warm. But my mom in Cleveland
is getting a bunch of snow today. They got that
big storm rolling through.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
Yeah, we’ve had snow out here, but in Toronto it’s
pretty light, so we’re lucky for that. We were chatting
before this saying that because of the lake effect and
the pollution in Chrono, there’s not as much. But I’m jealous.
You’re in LA. You’re in like the sun, nice.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
And warm right now. You have been really dry here.
It’s been really nice. So you’re hosting this co hosting
this new show with Mitch Horowitz on the Discovery Channel
called Alien Encounters Factor Fiction. Can you tell us how
that works? Because it’s kind of a different kind of
a show where where you guys hear a first person
account from an experiencer and then you weigh that testimony
along with some scientific data and you try to uncover
(02:31):
you know, how strong a particular case may or may
not be. Tell us how that that kind of works.
Speaker 5 (02:36):
Yeah, for sure, it’s got that Eighties Murphy Polvich was
his name the the eighties, like talk show host. It’s
got a little bit, Yeah, Marek Plovich, I know that.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
It’s sure.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
It’s an underlying feeling of, you know, who’s the dad
to it?
Speaker 4 (02:51):
The dad?
Speaker 5 (02:52):
Who’s the dad is showing the DNA test and the results.
But in all seriousness, myself and Mitch Horowitz, I look
at it from more of a data perspective. Mitch looks
at from more of an esoteric perspective. And so what
we do is we talk to somebody who’s had a
UFO experience or any type of experience. It could be Bigfoot,
or it could be an alleged abduction, and we talk
to them. They do bring in some type of evidence
(03:14):
that they feel as evidence. It could be from something
that they feel as an alien implant, all the way
down to a photo or a video, and then we
look at it. And then I have a group of
experts that I work with, and we then look at
all the data points. And then I also listen to
their testimony and then we come to some type of
verdict if we feel that if the account was a
UFO or not, or if it was you know, we
(03:36):
can’t say if an abduction, for say, but if it
really was a UFO or not. And so sometimes depending
on the testimony and depending on the evidence and depending
on the data, you know, opinions can be changed. And
again like these are all opinions, you know, I do
look at the data. We have our wonderful data points,
and the people that we’re working with are unbelievable and
(03:57):
they you know, from Ben Ansen all the way down
to people that are doing that worked an a tip
like you name it. We’ve got on this team. So
when we’re looking at those types of data points, for me,
you know, data speaks volumes. But again, testimony can really
change people’s opinions, and testimony is a data point and
so it can change a verdict as well. And it’s
a fun show. Some people might say it’s controversial in
(04:20):
its own way, but it’s a first season and if
we do a second season, you know, hopefully it just
gets better from there.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
You know, it’s great that you’re able to dig and
do much deeper research than a normal witness would be
able to have. Like if you’re just somebody that lives
in Chicago, when you see a UFO, maybe even you
take a picture or a video or one of the
things that you mentioned. You know, you’re not going to
do much with that. You’re not going to have access
or you mentioned an implant, You’re not going to take
the time, money, or nowhere to go. How great to
(04:48):
have discovery channel behind you that could fund testing an implant,
or testing a piece of metal, or having a lab
take a look at photographs. Right, you have that at
your disposal. Must be really fun for you.
Speaker 5 (05:00):
Yeah, it is fun for sure, having a budget, a
production budget where you get to spend on scientific research
one hundred percent. You know, I don’t get to spend
that money myself. The producers do, of course.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
You sort of.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
You know.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
It’s like shopping. I used to be a personal assistant.
It was fun going out and buying super high ticket
items with someone else’s money, you know, Oh, yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
For sure, and then also answering questions that we all
want to know. You know, if I was holding that
alleged it’s in the first episode, holding an alleged piece
a crash material from Roswell in New Mexico. I went
out later on myself to their alleged Roswel crash site
or debris site, but that wasn’t when we ended up
getting that piece of metal. And so a geologist comes
(05:43):
in and he gives us that piece and he’s a
local Roswell geologist and he’s a teacher as well, and
we really just it is Frank Kimbleerr.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Yeah, I know, Frank. That’s great.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
He’s such a lovely soul, he really is. He is.
And so Frank, the one thing that we did is
we ended up getting to test that piece the metal.
So we do find out that it’s pure aluminum. And so,
as we know, pure aluminum is not widely accessible, right,
is an element that we just don’t have here unless
sometimes it’s in aerospace technology, but it’s not that accessible.
(06:15):
In finding it, you know, out of the alleged Roswral
crash site’s pretty exciting because we know that majority of
UFO alleged crash sites there’s always pure aluminum that’s found,
and so you know, it kind of goes hand in hand,
but it doesn’t one hundred percent say, oh my gosh,
this is what it is. We do have to do
one last test and we have to see if it’s
off planet, and I believe when we do that test
(06:36):
it destroys the whole object too. So all right, that’s
the kind of that’s the kicker.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Wow, great, you know that out. I was forced to
do that, where maybe Frank doesn’t you know, or is
it willing to you know what I mean, it’s really nice.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
Yeah, I don’t know if he would be or not.
We haven’t gone that far yet with him on that discussion.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
You know, I think that aluminum is like the third
most prevalent element we have. It’s just it’s usually like
an alloy. They say, you’re saying it’s pure aluminum. That’s
the rare thing. And we’ve heard this, as you know,
from from various cases this comes up. They do find
that to be the case on various crash retrievals.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
Yeah. Yeah, it’s one of the most abundant in the
universe as an element. I believe it’s the fifth, but it.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Could be on Earth, isn’t a third or something?
Speaker 5 (07:20):
It might be theod on? Yeah, and for I think
in the universe it’s it’s obviously there’s more.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
That I didn’t know in the universe. That’s incredible. That’s
I didn’t know. That’s interesting.
Speaker 5 (07:28):
I believe it is, correct me if I’m wrong, but
it is one of the most abundant, and so yeah,
it’s wild to even beholding it, touching it, you know,
if that’s what it is like, you know, you’re myself
image and a few of us are one of the
only hundreds of people that it maybe have touched this thing.
I’m saying hundreds. It could be less than that. It
could be under fifty, right or under ten. But it’s
pretty wild, you know. And there are there’s so many
(07:51):
different connections to pure aluminum and not illuminum alloyd. You know,
we mix different types of aluminums to make a stronger aluminum.
And so when when you find something that’s pure aluminum
that isn’t readily abundant, then you’re like, Okay, what’s going
on here? So there might be other reasons why, and
who knows. But it was under the ground and he
(08:12):
found it in an ant hill, so it was buried
down and it was kind of like I believe, lifted
up over time too. So a lot of questions to that,
and you know, maybe the reason why it’s been very
deep and then answer obviously bringing it up to the
surface over the years, but pretty exciting. And when I
ended up going to the Roswell crash site after filming,
Paul is one of the Roswell tour guides out there,
(08:34):
does an amazing job taking people out to the Roswell
crash site and showing them all of Roswell’s UFO history,
And he took me out there along with Toby who
is part of the Roswell record and so we ended
up just having a blast and just you know, it
was really wonderful. I was like, if this is the site,
how wonderful is this? And just to hang out with
people and talk about these things and be there and
(08:54):
just enjoy life is really what that was.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Yeah, that’s very cool and it’s also great. You also
check like starlink data, you check where’s the iss, where’s
the planets, You check all these different data points to
kind of try to hone in on these different facts
of each case.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
Right, Yes, I do. Yeah, we use every technology that
we possibly can get our hands on too, that’s within
the budget. But we do look at data light, We
look at different UFO databases as well. We talk to
all different types of experts. So yeah, we we have
a lot of data. The hardest part in this show
is not so much always proving things are you AP
(09:34):
or not, because to be honest, I feel that a
lot of things can be proven right, it’s just that
one percent where we’re like boggling our minds, going what
is that? And that’s why it makes it so intriguing too.
And the better part of the show is that I
think people forget you know, we want to prove if
it’s a UFO or not a UFO, right. We want
to do that because it helps us point to what
isn’t And so a lot of people would say, oh, Chrissy,
(09:56):
are you being a debunker someone that’s like just trying
to spoof it? And I said, no, no, no, no,
I said, I’ve loved UFO since I was a little girl.
It has nothing to do with that. I want to
be on the side of science, and I want to
be on the side that’s like helping to prove the
things so that are not UAP and then us getting
to look at the things that are. Because I hope
when I’m older, I get the chance to really look
(10:16):
at that one percent even closer, because how exciting is
that going to be? And if we’re doing more shows
like this and more information comes out like this, then
that’s what we’ll be doing, right and that’s the science
community is doing. So I’m just happy that Discovery took
a chance to do something like this. It’s it’s out
of the box. It’s very different from what they usually do,
but it’s a step forward. And I think we’re in
(10:37):
the right way of trying to look at UFO experiences
and the UFO sightings and trying to prove them and
then also putting really great data in saying, hey, we’ve
got technology to do it, and now if we can’t
figure it out, then you know, let’s ask more questions.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Absolutely, and it’s a great clever idea because you have
you and Mitch each coming at it from a different point.
We’re going to take a break there, Chrissy. When we
come back, we’re going to talk to you more about
how you’re the heavy on this show, which is hilarious.
You’re listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast
to Coast am Paranormal podcast network. We are back on
(11:28):
Beyond Contact. I’m Captain Ron. We’re talking to Chrissy Newton
about her Discovery Channel show and Chrissy on this show.
It’s so funny to me how you’re sort of the
heavy like Mitchell talked to the witness and be like,
oh yeah, that sounds great, Yeah you probably saw one,
and then they cut to you and it’s like, sometimes
you seem to be sort of possibly the bearer of
(11:48):
bad news depending on how that person perceived their experience
and you have to hit them with the hard data.
How does that typically go down?
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Oh gosh, I am the bearer of bad news on
the show, which is not like me is in my
real life, Like I’m not like I’m for sure like
a tough cookie. Don’t get me wrong. You know, a
female that has worked in pr and journalism, you have
to be tough. But I am a softie and I
don’t like breaking bad news to people. I don’t think
anybody does, or any type of news to someone where
you feel it’s going to like shake their core. So
(12:19):
that was hard for me. It was really really hard
for me. There is a little bit of good cop,
Bad Cop that goes into this, and again it is TV.
They don’t sew a lot of my other more kind
of funny sides or other sides of me that are
that are there that who of who I am. But
this show is really just kind of like scientific data.
And then Mitch places it’s very trope in its own way,
(12:40):
so I have to go with that, and that’s editing too.
But if people watch my show and everything else, just know,
and most of my friends are just they laughed because
they’re like, you’re so clinical, and they’re like, you’re just, oh, yeah,
you’re I.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Mean, that’s when they cut to you. It’s like here
it comes. Yeah, it’s hilarious, and you.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
Know, banger Chrissy. It’s like, oh god, are.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
People typically looking for that? Like see to me. If
I was on that show and you said, hey, we
looked into the data and it turns out that this
is a light from a train and it’s just being
reflected on the glass, I would be like, oh, that’s great.
At least now I know what it is. I didn’t know.
You know, it might be a little embarrassing that I
thought it might be a craft but it turned out
to be this. But I think some people may feel differently,
(13:20):
like they’re hell meant that this is a UFO And
I had an experience, and I had a sighting and
then you’ve got to drop the hammer and go, well,
here’s what the evidence is showing. How do they react
to that?
Speaker 5 (13:31):
Oh man, when you go into a show like this
and you sit down with every person that is there
to tell their story, you have no idea how they’re
going to react, right like you can unless you know
them previously or have had some type of relationship with them,
maybe digitally or just in real life, then you’ll know.
But really, you know, I knew people, and I knew
(13:52):
them hey like set High on X or something, a
couple of them that have come in, but I’ve never
had any real life conversations with them before the show.
So you did, really And so there was a lot
of handholding at times too that I tried to do
that wasn’t in the show. When you’re talking to people
before it, they just cut the pieces that.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
They well, that doesn’t make good TV.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
Well exactly so, but you don’t know. And that was
some people, even as much as I try to hold
their hand, they would still be like, no, I don’t
want to believe it. And so I think this show
really does outside of speaks to data, speaks to what
people believe what they don’t want to believe, and what
they do want to believe, and why their convictions are
so important to them, especially in this topic. You know,
(14:32):
when somebody has an experience and it’s related to a
family member that has passed or anything like that, you’re
really bringing up trauma. And that was something that I
was trying to hold space for people at times, just
off camera and talking to them after and saying, hey,
you know, like this doesn’t take away from that experience.
If you feel that’s what this is. I’m just you know,
(14:52):
I have this is what I have to do. But
watching people relive some form of trauma or experience or grief,
that was really hard for me. Watching people not being
able to process their grief before coming on the show,
or they feel that they might have and then you’re
kind of reliving it or bringing it back up. It
is hard, you know, it’s really really hard, And I
(15:14):
felt bad for a lot of those people because you know,
you don’t want to hurt them, but at the same time,
I don’t want to contribute to lying to them or
giving them false hope, because I just don’t think that
that is going to help them in their life. I’d
rather tell them nothing or tell them what I know
is the truth, because I would hope that would move
them to the next step of resolving that grief.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Don’t most people want to know the truth or they
like no, they I.
Speaker 5 (15:39):
Don’t think so. I don’t think they do.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
Really, they think they have an experience and they want
it to be an experience as.
Speaker 5 (15:45):
Bias and confirmation bias is a real thing. You know,
you say to them, Yep, it was uphone, They’re going,
I knew it exactly, that’s what it is. And then
if you tell them that it wasn’t what they thought
it was yor like, I’m not going to believe it,
and because they want that confirmation, then they know. And
there’s also security that comes to that. So we had
to really dissect the show. That part about the human
(16:06):
psyche is very very interesting, but you have to do
it lightly, you know, I don’t want to be the
Simon Cowell of UFOs.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Right right right. That’s a difficult spot that they’ve put
you in because you know, all you’re doing is reporting
the scientific data and that’s all you can do, and
it doesn’t necessarily one thousand percent mean that’s it in
all cases but it could be right, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (16:26):
It could be Yeah, for sure. I think that a
lot of the sightings we had were generally not UAP,
but then there were a few for sure, like I
would say that trans medium. If anybody watched the show,
there was an alleged trans medium UAP, and we had
data when it came to video evidence, so technically photo
then too because we can do freeze frames. And then
(16:49):
we also had correlations when it came to the coastguards
saying that there was triangulation. It was the guy on
the boat, his partner that was on land seeing it
over top of him, and the coastguard as well. Then
we also did research in the back end to find
out if there was any type of explosions that were
going on for military activity, and I should say this
was off the coast of Catalina Island in California, and
(17:10):
there was none. There was just low barge explosions. So
there was so much that we could go, Okay, wasn’t this,
wasn’t this, wasn’t this. We just kept narrowing it down
and then it came to well, it had to have
been trans medium and it was unbelievable. And I said
to him after the show, I really truly think you
saw a trans medium UFO, and I am just in
(17:31):
awe and I wish Discovery put more of a light
on that episode because it was so fantastical and I
literally the whole time, I think my mouth was on
the floor talking to him and his partner because they
were such credible witnesses. They knew so much about the
land and sea and especially the air because they’re always
on the water. They live on the water, that’s what
(17:52):
they do, and so it was just it was really unbelievable.
And also to be off the coast of Catalina Island,
which is so historically known for UAP just.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Say, there’s all these famous ufoka even the tiktak videos
right off Catalina.
Speaker 5 (18:04):
Yeah, exactly. It was really great, and I now you know,
I have a I can have a contact with them,
I can chat with them. I’ve been meaning to do
a larger article on history too, because I think it’s
so great.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Yeah, there you go. You could probably follow up on
that one. That would be good. Anytime you get one
of those, you could do that. See if you feel
the same like to me, I’ve only been doing this
kind of stuff for ten years or so, and I
feel personally like I’ve noticed a trend lately when I
you know, people show me videos all the time. They’re
always you see these videos come through. I’m amazed how
often I hear on the video of the person doing it,
(18:35):
they immediately jump to hey, look a UFO. Like they
don’t say, hey, what is that or what could that be?
It jumps right to look, I’ve got a UFO on
my camera. Every chance I get, I say, can we
start with all the other possible things that could be first?
And then as we eliminate all of those get down
to the possibility that this is an anomalous object. But
(18:57):
let’s not start there.
Speaker 6 (18:58):
What do you think, Yeah, that’s what we do in medicine, right,
I’m not a doctor, but I know when we’re dying,
when people are being diagnosed, they have all these list
of ailments, and then what you do is go, Okay,
well it’s not this, it’s not this, it’s not this,
and then you take away those elements and then it
narrows it down to what that diagnosis could potentially be.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
It’s the exact same thing, right, It’s process of elimination.
So I think people want to say, oh my god,
it’s a UFO because they want that experience. They probably
do believe in something bigger than themselves potentially. This is
also a major pop culture trend that’s been going on
since the fifties, and there’s been a huge resurgence to it.
Media plays into it. People want to feel like they’re
(19:35):
attached to something, or they’re part of the UFO community,
or they just want something fantastical to happen to them,
or they do see something and they just don’t know.
And I think there’s a lot of this too. You
just don’t know how to understand how to analyze something.
And let’s be honest. When I got into the UFO
space when I was a little girl, and I’ve been,
you know, loving this topic, but I’m always learning. It
(19:58):
took time for me to ask people an expert to
understand how to identify things and how to do process elimination.
And I’m also in this space writing about it, talking
about it, doing shows about it, and it’s also challenging
for me at times. So I can I totally understand
why Debbie down the Street probably thinks it’s AUOFO because
she’s never been taught how to understand how to identify things. Gosh,
(20:19):
pilots can’t even do it that well at times, right,
because technology is advancing so fast. Right, they confuse starlink occasionally, Right,
A lot of commercial airline pilots did, because who was
telling them how to identify it? The FAA wasn’t, Starlink wasn’t,
the government wasn’t, so nobody was, so they were on
their own. So that’s kind of where we’re left. But
the question is is if you don’t want to believe
(20:40):
the facts, then why do you want to believe so
badly about something that we can prove.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
I’d like to have this Debbie on the show I do.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
I always use de Wie down the Street, down the street,
and I like it Debbie down the Street, Yeah, because
I always worry sometimes about Debbie down the Street when
I talk about or re report things at the debreath
who want to tell the correct stories and want to
have proper journalism, you do care how the story’s told
and the facts, making sure that they’re totally concrete so
that you have major proof to back it, so you
don’t leave somebody making them believe something that might not
(21:09):
be true. If you’ve screwed up or done an accident.
So that’s why journalism is so important, because it can
change how people view themselves and the world around.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
Them, no doubt about it. When we come back, we’re
going to talk to Christy Moore. You’re listening to Beyond
Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal
podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact. I’m Captain
(21:42):
Ron and I’m talking with Christy Newton. Christy, there’s been
a lot happening in Congress lately. You know, we’ve had
these hearings. We just had some recent hearings in November
here in the States, and I understand they’re already talking
about having more. All of this is great.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Right I think so. Yeah, I think it’s good in
many reasons. It’s way waking up the government to saying, hey,
you know, we look again at the drone flap that
was going on at the end of last year and saying, hey,
if foreign advisary the government really doesn’t know what’s going on,
and let’s be honest, they do know. It’d be shocked
to see if Intel didn’t know. So I don’t think
that’s the case, So I would say then, yeah, it’s
(22:16):
waking up government. And the reason why I’m saying that
is most of the time when government might be lacking
in many different ways. And so there’s this conversation of
we need to advance science and technology, we need to
push it forward, and government is lagging right now. Or
we’re seeing that within the RAND reports that are going
(22:36):
on that China has a supremacy on quantum computing, which
is like petrifying, right, and then they have the drone
supremacy as well. So there’s so much that foreign adversaries
have advantages on when it comes to technological development and
scientific development, and so it’s waking up the government and
Congress is waking up as well because we’re saying, hey,
this could be foreign adversary which is so important for
(22:58):
national security, and we need to wake up because our
science needs to pick up, and we also need to
be aware that this is happening in our own airspaces.
And then we’ve got this other side where we’re going, well,
if it isn’t any of that, then we need to
start asking some really deeper questions about why we’re here
and what is going on and what does this mean?
Because that one percent is still there and it’s not
going away, and there’s people that have been affected, and
(23:20):
people are apparently dying if you believe in David what
David Grush is saying, and louel Is isondo. So there’s
some other serious outcomes, But again they’re coming together in Congress.
These hearings wake up the government and they wake up
the public because people take it more seriously, and people
that are more likely not to maybe follow it because
they feel that if they work in finance or whatever,
(23:40):
it’s just not in their scope, they’re starting to come
in because major outlets are talking about it, because politics
is talking about it, and that’s really exciting.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
What do you think is next in the US. Do
you think that we’re going to get new legislation, maybe
a stronger version of the UAPC from twenty twenty three
that puts back in all the strength of that bill,
or maybe even a whistleblower protection Do you see that
coming either of those?
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Yeah, we have like whistle blower protection now, But I
think it’s the Democrats and the Republicans have to get
their act together and agree on things. That’s where we’re
at right now, I believe, And something tell me if
I’m wrong but they need to start agreeing and stop
making it the political. And I know everyone’s like, this
is bipartisan, and I understand that, but it is getting
political when you see that. You know that last hearing
(24:24):
it was all Republicans. There’s no Democrats showing up at
the table.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Everything is political now, and I just can’t even stand.
Speaker 5 (24:29):
It, right. And that’s the point where it’s like, Okay,
people are not saying, they’re like, oh, it’s not political.
I’m like, well, yeah it is. Also, there was an
election going on, so let’s be honest.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
And I’m gone, as political now.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
Well everything is political and so UFOs. Yeah, it’s it’s
underlying political right now, because you’re looking at this the legislation.
If they’re not agreeing, first of all, people aren’t showing
up in Congress for these debates. They’re thinking it’s a
Republican thing, it’s not a democratic thing. They’re now moving
on to the next topic and they don’t care that’s political.
If they’re not agreeing on past bills and people are
(25:01):
fighting it, it’s become political. So it will always be
political to some degree. But I think if you want
things to change in legislation, for sure, whistleblowers and people
that are working in former government and Pentagon, or people
that have had experiences that have a major, a really
great soniority can come forward. At some point it will change.
It takes civilians and people to do that. So we
(25:22):
keep doing that, and there are Americans for Safe Aerospace
like Ryan Graves is not for profit. Those types of
committees and people are start pushing the kneel forward, then
it’s never going to go away and it’ll stop making
it political.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
To me, it’s almost like if it has to be political,
then you think that they would each be fighting to
get to the bottom of this. You would want to
be the party that discloses or that broke this free
and was transparent with the American people. You know, you’d
win votes for the next twenty years. You would think
they’d be fighting for that. It’s just so weird stupid.
Speaker 5 (25:53):
If one party does something, then the other party has
to do exactly the direct opposite, which makes no sense.
It’s like sometimes middle theory is a thing middle, you know,
having an agreeance on one thing makes moves and changes
people’s lives and changes political out comes in countries. We
have to stop being like, well, if they do this,
then I’m going to go do the exact opposite thing.
It’s just so child I can’t throw.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
At it and not even stand it. So if we
got strong legislation, let’s say that the original UAP Act
gets back in place in America, and or additional security
clearance protection for whistleblowers who have still said they can’t
really come out because of their NDAs and whatnot. I
feel like they’re just going to find another way to
(26:36):
bury it. They’re going to hide it somewhere else. They’re
going to put it behind some other wall, and we’re
not going to get to it anyway. That’s my opinion.
Speaker 5 (26:44):
What do you think, Well, I think you’re right. I
think we’ve seen that traditionally for over seventy five years
or one hundred years. We’ve seen it consistently, So I
think that, yes, there is that small group of people.
And we’ve heard that from everyone that’s pretty much worked
in counterintelligence or the UAP ask Force or a tip
have all said that there’s a small group within government
that are looking to cover this and bury it. And
(27:07):
I think there’s always going to be that, right, Let’s
just hope that group gets smaller and smaller and smaller
as time goes by, and again, this phenomenon will always
show itself in different ways. We’ve seen it evolve gosh,
since Roswell, since the early forties and fifties, we’ve seen
it move and evolve all the way down from like
nineteen forty seven and upwards. So I think the same
(27:27):
thing’s going to happen. I don’t know if or where
we’re going to come to an agreements, but there might
be something that of a disclosure in it. If we’re
not living through disclosure now, and I do think we are,
that some form of moment or event might happen, right,
because that’s the only other outcome that could possibly be.
Because I think government will always do what it’s doing
and put it through biocracy no matter what. But I’m
just hoping that group does get smaller over the years.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
I believe that it’s so much more complex than people
realize too. It’s not like as easy as well here
it is, we got the bodies and you can’t just
do that. It’s much more complex than everybody needs to
settle down. Like people just think that’s that easy. It’s
it’s not. Can I ask you about how’s Canada’s government
different attitude wise than the US with regard to UAP.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
For sure, we are so quiet over here. We’re always
like that, you know. As much as I love being
a Canadian. And we’re all North Americans, right, that’s what
we are. We’re all the same continent. So we’re all
very similar with just subtle differences. I would just say
that Canadians are very quiet, and we’re always like that.
We’re very conservative. And I don’t mean that in a
political way. I mean in just our lifestyle. We’re very
(28:32):
conservative with our.
Speaker 4 (28:32):
You know you are you’re nice. Canadians are nice sometimes.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
Okay, So here’s the reel thing about Canadians. We’re just
passive aggressive.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
You haven’t the years.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
That’s what it is. Canadians are just passive aggressive. And
I say that as a Canadian. You know, we most Canadians,
and that’s what we joke about in our own culture,
is that, for sure, Canadians are not nice. We’re just yeah,
we just won’t say it right, And unfortunately, I think
there’s a lot of cultures that are like that. They’ll
say behind your back, not to your face. And that’s
why I love Americans because at least I know with
(29:06):
most Americans and where I am that if I say
something to them, they’re probably pretty much going to tell
me to my face so that I can make my
decision if I like them or not, or if I
want to be around them or not instantly. Canadians are
a little bit different that way. But again I will
say that we’re not nice. We are very kind people, though,
and I will say Canadians are very kind, and there
is such a big difference between being nicer kind and
(29:28):
I think Americans are very kind as well. But I
do feel that Canadians are kind and I and that’s
the one thing I do love about us. I just
don’t think we’re actually that nice.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
Does the Canadian government seem to have a different take
on UAPs?
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Well, I don’t think they even really have the take.
We have sky Project Canada or skin a Sky Canada project.
I’m always doing the dyslexic thing there.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
Well, I mean, we think of Paul Hellier down here,
that you know, was from Canada and that was such
a great thing.
Speaker 5 (29:55):
Well, we have Larry Maguire here, you know, I frequently
talked to Larry, and I think I’m out of most
reporters or anybody that’s doing journalism right now. I think
I have the most content about UAPs with Larry and
discussions when it comes to just Q and A’s with
him online at the debrief. So people are interested, they
can go there and bread them. But yeah, he is
part of the Conservative Party, he is a member of parliament,
(30:17):
and he has been the most recent vocal voice within
Canada saying that we need to look at this from
a national security perspective and we need to start having
bigger conversations about it. What are they and what does
this mean to Canadians as well? So it’s there, you know,
Skyproject Canada is coming out with a report. I believe
it should be out. I was told by end of
(30:38):
the month or February from like kind of like the Americans.
American reports as well that have been coming out from
the government in errow. But the same idea too. We’ll
have ours, but we’re really focusing on the science behind it.
They don’t want to talk about anything UFO or anything
alien related or whatnot. It’s all the science step too far.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
I got youah, take another break here, Chrissy. When we
come we’re going to talk to Chrissy about the recent
rash of drone sightings all across the United States. You’re
listening to Beyond Contact right here on the iHeartRadio and
Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back
(31:29):
on Beyond Contact and I’m chatting with Christy Newton, So Chrissy.
This hot topic right now that I see everywhere, of course,
is the drones that people are seeing all over the place.
It started around I believe, November eighteenth, and it’s sort
of grown from there. I thought this was going to
go away, and it just doesn’t seem to. It seems
like it started in New Jersey and then it’s expanded,
(31:51):
and now of course people are looking everywhere, and we’re
getting tons of video. You know, a lot of this
is great. I think people look up and people open
to the possibility of UFOs being present is fantastic. I
just don’t think that this drone thing is necessarily that,
although there’s a lot of other issues that might be
(32:12):
involved here. I think sightings in general, it’s far more
uncommon than believers want it to be. And yet for
the hard skeptics to think none of them are UFOs,
I think it’s more common than they think. You know,
where do you sit on this whole thing?
Speaker 5 (32:26):
Yeah, I think that’s a great way of looking at it.
I do believe that it’s either ours or it’s a
foreign adversary. And let’s be honest here, there’s been hundreds
of thousands maybe now or at least thousands of UFO
or drone sightings, So we look at one thing. They
have called them drones, so technically they are identifiable, right,
But now the question is is that these drones that
(32:48):
they’re saying or drones are doing the most amazing things
that we have not seen that literally sit within the
five observables. So we’re like, okay, so you’re telling me
America or China you don’t advanced technology. You’ve been telling
us that that’s not the case. So now we need
to start asking questions to the American government along with
foreign adversary and saying, well, what kind of advanced tech
(33:08):
do you have if that’s the case, and we know
that they’re drones, and it’s going, okay, well, we need
to start having some different conversations. Now what is Darpe doing? Right?
What are you guys doing over there? And these things
are on this The technology you have is unbelievable that
we thought that we did not have access to in
our own within our own inventory. Now the other question
is that if they are UFOs and they are doing that,
(33:30):
then now we’re having a bigger question. We’re seeing them everywhere,
and then why are they here and what are they
looking for?
Speaker 4 (33:35):
Why do they have a red light and a green
light just like our FAA requires, like our drones require.
I mean, that would be very weird. And it’s like
when people say, oh, but it’s doing these amazing things. Yes,
of course, because you know what, technology gets better every year,
so of course the drones. We’ve never seen drones do this. Well, yes,
but they’re getting better. And of course the military and
secret projects are going to have it at first, and then
(33:57):
it’ll trickle down to us, right.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
Yeah, exact like, I think that’s what we’re seeing right now.
I think the question is is what are they looking
for and what are they observing? Because they’re they’re literally
doing surveillance. We’re watching them do it in Grits, right,
That is surveillance, you know, And let’s be honest, they’re
probably commercial drones and people you know, making jokes, you know,
and sending their own personal drones up just to you know,
(34:20):
confuse things and they’re doing it for their own promotions
or who knows. But the ones that are just like
really fantastical, the question is, Okay, is it our? If
it’s ours or it’s theirs as a foreign adversary, what
are they looking for? What is it? Why are they
doing surveillance? And what is going on? And what the
heck is going to happen in twenty twenty five?
Speaker 4 (34:38):
I would add, if it’s a foreign adversary, chrissy, why
have we not taken it down? Well?
Speaker 5 (34:43):
And here’s the other thing, because I believe that well,
I think there’s one reason line of thinking. I believe
I don’t know if this is true or not, that
at some point in time they would have shot it right,
and they would have shot it down by now. But
I think the other reason is you don’t know what’s
in it, right, You don’t know if somebody has something
in it, You no idea if it’s that’s.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
A good point too, sure, what if it’s a nuclear device, yeah.
Speaker 5 (35:04):
You know, or anything in it? Right? Biologo who knows? Right?
And then also just be really weird weary to shoot
anything down. So Tim McMillan said this to all of
us at the debri if we were having a conversation
one morning, and you know his background, you know, working
in defense and also as a defense writer. He made
a really good point. And we forget sometimes that counterintelligence
(35:26):
have really great strategies and tactics, and so one of
them is that your foreign adversary and we have done this,
I believe in the past two wars, or at least
one of them. A foreign adversary will come in and
flying impunity in our area. They’ll be looking at something,
observing it. We let them observe it because as much
as information they’re getting from looking at something, we’re getting
it from them of what they’re observing, right, So it’s
(35:48):
kind of like the opposite tactic. So that also might
be the case too, that they’re actually looking at and
observing something, right, and we’re trying to figure out.
Speaker 4 (35:58):
And then there was this talk at one point that
there was like a nuclear thing missing somewhere and that
we were looking for it, you know, but.
Speaker 5 (36:05):
There is there is a I forget what the group
is called. There is a force like a nuclear group
that if something does happen, they get called out. It’s
like a task force, right, they go out and we’ll
dissemble and they deal with nuclear bombs or whatever it
could be. And so that group was has not been
called out. So that’s what tells us that it’s probably
not nuclear, because they would have already been out there
(36:28):
looking and talking and trying to figure things out. I
think that there’s just always going to be speculation of
what something is. I think they’re observing and gaining intel.
And it’s happening all over the world too. It’s not
just happening right, it’s happening in the US.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
It expanded. It was like just Jersey, then it was California,
then it’s San Diego. And yes, I think I have
heard reports Brazil has been having this lately. Well it’s incredible.
So there’s something interesting here. I just don’t know what
it is, and I don’t think any of these are
extraterrestrial driven UFOs at this point. What evidence do we
have that that’s what’s happening. I don’t see any right now,
(37:06):
do you No?
Speaker 5 (37:07):
I don’t know, you know. I’m like, we’ll see what happens.
I know that there’s been a lot of conversation that
something big is going to come out this year, but
we do this all the time.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
Twenty twenty five, twenty twenty seven, twenty thirty, I hear
all these things.
Speaker 5 (37:21):
Yeah, well, here’s the thing. In twenty I know this
from Intel that I’ve spoken to people that work in
the Air Force that I have some relationships with, and
they have told me, and one specifically has told me
that in twenty twenty seven they are wearing patches. You
know that, and it deals with China because they think
that that’s when they’re supposed to be this year. Actually
that we’d be going to war or not us, but
(37:41):
China would invade Taiwan. That can lead to Americans and
Canadians going to war and saying with the Australians, but
that they’re saying it’s been pushed off to twenty twenty seven,
and that’s why the Air Force wears those patches. And
now we’re also hearing from Intel that they’re probably going
to push it. They want to push it to twenty thirty.
That’s the hopes. But let’s be honest, China has said
they’re invading Taiwan. You know. The question is is if
(38:04):
you know Australia said it’s already going to get involved,
and that means that does the rest of us, the
Five Eyes and everybody else, Why in NATO do we
all get involved? And now with intel, from what I’ve
been told for my contact is that they just say, well,
American people probably don’t want it, and so Americans at
this point might not get involved if that ends up happening.
But the sad thing is if that does, then it
(38:25):
really does signal to dictators around the world that you
can do whatever you want. And that’s scary.
Speaker 4 (38:31):
And that’s why huge can of worms.
Speaker 5 (38:33):
Yeah, and that’s why keep saying to people, if you
like UFOs, get invested into national security and start understanding it,
because it’s so fascinating, you know, and something is going on,
you know. And I think that that’s why we’re hearing
that twenty twenty seven. We’re hearing it everywhere. The science communities, gosh,
the astrology communities are even saying twenty twenty seven. The
(38:55):
UFO communities that we’re hearing like defense, Like that number
keeps coming up everywhere. I was literally ron driving down
the street on the highway on the gardener and somebody
I’d go figure, puts out like rolls out, you know,
like a sign, and it said three more years and
this is last year, and I was like, are you
joking me? Wow? And I think they me in the
(39:17):
development of the gardener because it’s like construction.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
But I was like, oh, okay, I.
Speaker 5 (39:21):
Know I but I started laughing is I was like,
I can’t get away from this number. I just think
that if twenty twenty seven happened, something big in the
world is going to go on. And I don’t think
it’s going to be massive disclosure. I don’t think we’re
going to have arm again. It I don’t think it’s that.
I think it’s going to be a big shift. We’re
going to have maybe a big culture shift because we
might go to war. There might be something that does
happen that changes everybody in the entire world. For example, COVID.
(39:46):
COVID was the one thing that changes all And the
only thing close enough to COVID that could change the
world again is war. Right those are They were so
linked together, COVID and war that it affects everybody everywhere
around the world.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
Realization of an alien presence would also do the same.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
One hundred percent. Yeah, those three COVID epidemics, war and Yeah,
and knowing that we’re not alone one hundred percent. Or
here’s the other thing. I believe it’s UCLA or it’s
one of the other universities sent and an’t know if
it’s Pioneer. I to double check and look at this,
but I know that they were setting up one of
the other crafts and they were sending it into the
(40:24):
deep cosmos, and one of the signals that would come
back had been from an alien civilization and their prediction
of when that would come back would have been twenty
twenty seven. That I love so hard. I was like,
are you joking? So that might be something that might
be like, hey, we’re not alone, but god, they’re really
(40:44):
far away, so that’s very possible too.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
We shall see. Thanks Chrissy, I really appreciate you coming on.
