FULL INTERVIEW: Richard on F2B w Jimmy Church

By | April 28, 2021

Hi Everyone,

[Updated from my original post]

I did an appearance with Jimmy Church on F2B on April 28, 2021 and have the entire segment in which I appear (editing out the first 30 minutes before I come on). 

This was a good conversation, as they tend to be with Jimmy. I hope you enjoy! We got into some Wilson Davis conversation, by the way. 

 

Richard 

9 thoughts on “FULL INTERVIEW: Richard on F2B w Jimmy Church

  1. Nitefall

    Thank you Prof. Yah…. you guys are a blast. Always love your interactions! What the hell you going to be listening to before you talk to him? Blow his mind…listen to Frank! After all he grew up not to far from you Prof!

  2. PressToDigitate

    To this day, where is any authoritative evidence that the “Alien Autopsy” film is Fake?
    The fact that Santilli subsequently repudiated it is not evidence that it was faked. He was ‘leaned on’ and paid off to do so.
    The fact that *multiple* pretenders independently claim to have been the one to have faked it is not evidence that it was faked. They are a laughable bunch with no credibility. “I built the Brooklyn Bridge”; Would you like to buy it?
    No one has challenged the findings of the Kodak Chemist who examined the film stock, and pronounced it genuine – as having been *not only manufactured at the time purported, but also having been EXPOSED at the time purported*.
    No one has challenged the findings of the Kodak Historian, who corroborated the authenticity of the film batch used.
    No one has challenged the testimony of the Signal Corpsman who corroborated the photographic procedures used by classified military documentarians of the time.
    No one has challenged the assessment of Stan Winston and his team, or explained why none of the hoax “claimants” ever took him up on his offers of *immediate fame & fortune* to anyone with the talents to have orchestrated the hoax through physical special effects.
    What do you think the Intelligence Community does when something *REAL* accidentally “gets loose”? They create fake noise to discredit it as a “hoax”, hoping the Smoke & Mirrors will distract most people from taking it seriously. Its cheap, it works, and they’re masters at it. You’ve recorded several examples of this tactic in your books. The CIA did the same thing over the MJ-12 documents and the Alien Autopsy film; its a “double fake” – the ‘hoax’ claim is the real hoax. Its the only security measure they can orchestrate *after the fact*, when primary and secondary security measures, to keep the secrets in the first place, have FAILED. Why do we keep falling for this chicanery?

    4
  3. Ron Holmes UK

    Richard, you sounded “extra-feisty” in this interview, and I loved it. I respect and admire you and JC, but we always get the absolute best out of both of you when you butt heads a little bit. My continual thanks for all that you, and he, do for this community. We need you both. You’re our Yin and Yang. Although LMH remains my “spirit beast” of choice! (How can you not love that spiritual, delicate, intelligent, absolutely fierce fireball of a Woman?)

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Linda remains a lion, and always will be. Spirit beast is a great term for her! Thank you for your kind words about my interview with Jimmy. There is something about him that brings out a little extra in me, at least quite often. I enjoy it.

      1
  4. Rob Jeffs

    In regard to the ‘green pyramid’ video, it is possible that individuals taking pictures or video during that time frame, could have imaged mundane objects. (I think Mick West highlighted a civilian air route in the area.)
    Each piece of evidence has to be analysed in context with all of the other pieces – which is part of the problem here because ‘raw’ material is being leaked, without any real context or a time line. An individual may think they have relevant evidence because everyone was on alert in the area, but they might not have been in the right place e.g. on the wrong side of the ship, or just facing in a direction away from the UAP(s).

    It’s frustrating, but the reality is that someone could film a moving light in the sky thinking it’s a satellite, but in actual fact its alien tech (how would they know)?
    The opposite it also possible, in that someone may think they have valid evidence because they were in the general vicinity of an encounter, but it turns out they don’t.

    Hynek and McDonald, like other data gathers, collected evidence and analysed it to determine its value as a whole.

    Another way of looking at it is analogous to radar systems: no single radar return is evidence of anything, because there’s the possibility that any return could be ‘false’ (not a solid, airborne object); however the value of radar is in the collection of multiple returns from which an image can be formed over time.

    I guess I’m saying that Jimmy Church had the more valid point in this instance – I think.

Leave a Reply