Are we any closer to UFO disclosure in 2024? What in the world is Kona Blue? We talk to Chrissy Newton from TheDebrief.org
Chrissy is also the host of the Rebelliously Curious podcast which you can find on your favorite podcast apps or on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/@TheDebriefMedia
Thanks Chrissy!
PRE-ORDER JIM’S NEW CAMPFIRE BOOK HERE: https://books2read.com/campfire6
Note: Pre-orders are for eBook only. Print book will be released on May 7, 2024
TRANSCRIPT
Jim Harold (00:00):
Where are we at with UFOs in 2024? What in the world is Kona Blue? We talk about this and more with Chrissy Newton on this edition of the Paranormal Podcast.
Announcer (00:26):
This is the Paranormal Podcast with Jim Harold.
Jim Harold (00:30):
Welcome to the Paranormal Podcast. I am Jim Harold, and we are joined, as you can see on the screen if you’re watching the video with Chrissy Newton. And she is a writer. She’s a PR professional with her own company, a partner at thedebrief.org, and also the host of Rebelliously Curious with Chrissy Newton, which is an official podcast of The Debrief. And my goodness, it’s very hard to keep up with the UFO/UAP news out there. It seems like there’s always something breaking. Chrissy today is no exception, but so glad to have you on the show again.
Chrissy Newton (01:09):
Good to see you too, Jim. Always a pleasure to be here.
Jim Harold (01:11):
Well, when we first talked about this, I thought it’d be good to get a catch up with you in terms of where you are. I would be interested in your feeling middle of last year when we saw the Congressional Committee and we sawGrusch testify and things really seemed to be moving. It’s like somebody got a colossal can of WD 40 and got things moving on the UFO subject. But then I felt like the non-disclosure forces may have stepped in and said, whoa, it’s a little too much. We need to slow things down. And we have a lot of naysaying. We had some more rekookification efforts. It seems like more jokes were being made about the alien subject. Then the AARO report comes up, nothing to see here, basically. And I found myself as very dispirited and very discouraged, kind of like, are we ever going to get to the end of this?
(02:07):
Is it just a replay? Are we just basically replaying every 60 years? It seems like there’s a flap or something happens, people get excited. It looks like something’s going to come out and the government steps in, or aspects of the government step in and say, ah, nothing to see here. The media falls right in line and we just start the process over again. I felt like we were back in that loop after being really optimistic about a year ago. But I’d be curious about what did you think about what’s transpired over the last year or so?
Chrissy Newton (02:40):
So much I think has over the past year, I think we’re in a lull right now, which is not a bad thing. I would say that we’re always going to have ebbs and flows no matter what. But I had a conversation once with David Marler on a podcast about his history repeating itself. He said, I know it looks like it might be, but we are moving forward, right? We are advancing. I do agree with that, but I also feel that there’s a lot of things that are repeating itself. We’re seeing different systems or different, not programs, but different organizations coming together to analyze this phenomenon through the government. So we look at NASA, for example, doing its scientific report. Well, we’ve done that before with the Condon committee, right? We’ve done that in multiple, although there was different, we’re not giving something to do a disinformation campaign.
(03:35):
NASA’s not doing that, and I don’t think they will. But we’re seeing, I think, very similar mechanisms, is what I’m saying. I that we’re seeing a lot of echoes of, well, we need to start again from the beginning and look at this phenomenon from the beginning. It’s like, well, we done that already in the fifties and the sixties. We already have documentation of that. We already have reports and we have programs that did that. Why aren’t we referencing that more? And so why aren’t we up to date on that? So I feel that there’s a lot of, well, let’s go back and start again. I feel there’s tons of that, and I wish there, I wish we could look, have a more comprehensive report. The past error report that just came out was laughable. Let’s be honest. They had dates wrong. They had historical dates wrong.
(04:19):
They had historical times wrong. It was a mess. I think it really was a mess. And I asked the question then to the government, if you can’t even get documented history that civilians even know, and you can’t even get it right in a government report, how can we hope that you’ll even do justice on this topic? So I think there’s been a lot of mistakes that have been made. I think there’s been a lot of information that hasn’t been properly reissued again through, for example, the report. I think there’s tons of that. So right now, maybe we’re going through a lull because we’re realizing the mistakes that the government’s made, and we’re also waiting for people to come forward. We’ve had lots of people say that there’s tons of whistleblowers. That hasn’t happened. So lots of promises have been made, but not a lot of them have been kept, I feel. And so you’re seeing this, people stepping back from the subject, and I think people being concerned that they might be being lied to, and I don’t blame them. So there’s a lot that’s going on right now, and I think the lull is probably needed because we need to look back and reanalyze what’s happening
Jim Harold (05:24):
Now. When you talk about the government and different entities acting as though, Hey, we’re starting from square one. There hasn’t been the last almost 70 years of activity, none of that existed. We just found out about this with the Nimitz and the Tic-tac video and all of that. It’s a whole new thing. Do you think that’s genuinely people thinking that? Or do you think that it’s a further piece of obfuscation? Let’s pretend that the previous 60 years didn’t happen. Let’s pretend that Roswell didn’t happen, or Kecksburg or Rendlesham Forest or whatever it might be that none of this stuff happened. The Phoenix Lights, let’s pretend none of those exist. And then it just started. And again, I mean, I don’t know. Have you ever been at a store and you’ve got the cashier who is very energetic about the job and they’re putting the stuff in the bag and they’re like, hi, how you doing? Have a nice day. And then you’ve got the person who will take the thing and they’re as slow as they can. And I think that, I don’t think the government is a monolith. I think that like any other large organization, there are different factions, but there’s a faction that wants to slow play this and wants to make it like it’s a new thing. Do you agree with that assessment that maybe this idea that we’re just starting on this subject is just another offer, another attempt to obfuscate the truth?
Chrissy Newton (06:56):
Yeah, I think so. I would say that’s pretty accurate. I also do and would recognize that there are people within the government that have no idea about this topic. We see people every day reading a paper or doing any type of research coming across the stumbling into this topic and going, Hey, there’s more from the New York Times original 2017 piece all the way down to David Grusch’s pieces now that was released with The Debrief and News Nation. That’s how we’re getting new people coming in and for sure, government employees and people working in the Pentagon and in defense will be some of those people. It would be ignorant to think that they wouldn’t be. But I do feel that if you are tasked to research this topic, and we’ve seen multiple programs, we have the information, we have documentation, we’ve had programs for the longest time. So it’s starting again and doing another historical analysis to me seems like a waste of time or stalling in some form. I know that you have to do an historical analysis, and I think it’s smart that they do. But the problem with this historical analysis is that it wasn’t accurate. And that’s the problem. You took all of this time and spent all of this money and you couldn’t even get dates and times correct? Come on.
Jim Harold (08:16):
(overlapping speech) And when I saw, go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Chrissy Newton (08:18):
No, no. That’s the part that’s really frustrating, and I think that, I don’t know if that’s intentional, but it’s sloppy work. It’s really, really sloppy work. So that makes me think it’s intentional when it’s that sloppy. Come on, you’re telling me they can’t fact check dates and times correctly?
Jim Harold (08:39):
Yeah, true. Just now when it comes to the AARO report, my first thought is like, oh, here we go again. This is Project Blue Book 2.0, Project Whitewash, basically. I mean, I don’t know. It seems so dismissive for something that even I think a reasonable skeptic would say that the jury is still out. But I think that it was, it’s just like another thing thrown up there, in my opinion, to just appease people like me. And I’m guessing like you, I don’t want to speak for you, but people who have a real interest in this, they just want us to go away, is kind of my read of it now.
(09:28):
New news, Kona Blue. Now, we talked about a little bit before the show, and I just became aware of this in the last day or so, this amazing information released that basically shows that the government sections of the government had proposed a plan to reverse engineer recovered UAPs or UFOs. But I guess the idea being proposed by AARO, and again, I’m a little shaky on the details, so if I misspeak folks, I apologize, just learned about this, but proposed by AARO ,denied by Department of Defense, I think ,because there was, and the DHS Department of Homeland Security was involved as well, proposing that to do this study. And then the study, the effort was never approved because he said, we don’t have any UFOs or UAPs to study. There’s nothing to study. So why would we do a research project like this? My question as I stated to you before we started was why even consider it if you don’t think there’s really something to this? And we can get into a little more some of the specific things I talked about, but I know I’m kind of catching you off guard here, but your initial read of this Kona Blue situation?
Chrissy Newton (10:50):
Yeah, I agree with you on that. This is totally new to me too, in the past, literally just little bit. So I agree. If you think why look into something if you don’t have a hunch. The government wouldn’t spend, well, they could, but more than likely you don’t spend all of that money potentially to even propose this type of project if you feel that there’s no validity there. So where the validity is and where it came from, I don’t know enough of yet. I haven’t read all of it, to know why they felt to create something like that. I believe it was an addition and additional two, or it’d be the next program after AATIP and AAWSAP would be Kona Blue, but it wasn’t approved. So AARO released this, I think, from what you and I discussed. I believe it wasn’t through a FOIA request.
(11:37):
So my thoughts is that they say AARO said that they released it when they found this out through the historical analysis. I believe that wasn’t in the report though. From what I know. I think this was something that was additionally released. So maybe they were trying to get ahead that they would release this because people were getting wind of what Kona Blue would be so that it could be FOIA’d potentially. That might have some ignorance there around that. But I feel that that’s probably what that is of why they released it, because someone like John Greenewald or somebody else would FOIA and get that information and then feel like they were hiding this as a project. And also we look at legislation, it’s okay for them, I would say for the government to have a program like this, because it’s already been noted in the legislation that you can, if there’s any form of technology, reverse engineering of technology or thoughts or opinions, let’s remember, that can be reverse engineered as well.
(12:32):
Strategy can be, too. It’s not just technology that whistleblowers can come forward and speak to that. So it’s in the legislation now and it’s welcome to talk about that. So I don’t think the Pentagon would have to hide anything like that because they’re asking people to come forward and speak of it if they know of any information. So yeah, I’m not surprised. We look at, for example, I was saying this earlier to you remote viewing the CIA did multiple programs in remote viewing. If they didn’t have a hunch that there was something going on, why did they do years of research in the program? And I feel that there’s a connection to that idea of maybe not talking about a program, but you know that there’s some validity to it.
Jim Harold (13:20):
And apparently some of the things that they talked about here, and I was taking some notes earlier, we’re talking about looking at geographic locations of anomalous activity, control of technology, and these are paraphrased, they’re not direct quotes, but control of technology via consciousness and studying the dimensional space time barrier does seem like they’re awfully specific things.
Chrissy Newton (13:46):
Just a few things.
Jim Harold (13:47):
Yeah. So I mean, the thing is is that unless you had a good hunch, and probably more than a hunch, you’ve made the point to me, usually government studies aren’t over hunches. Pretty good idea that some of these things exist and they were even going to look into remote viewing further as I understand it. So it seems like an awful lot of specifics just for like, oh, well, let’s see. That’s like, I don’t know, finding an abandoned car in front of my house and saying, we should really study if this belongs to an underworld gangster. Well, I mean, why would you think it would be an underworld gangster unless you had some reason to believe that that car was left in front of my house by a gangster? I mean, it just seems like what’s the predicate? What’s the predicate to this? And I don’t know enough about it. Maybe it makes more sense, but to me, the predicate is, we kind of think these things exist. We might even know they exist. So let’s do an official study on it. At least that seems to me to be the assumed predicate of it.
Chrissy Newton (14:54):
And I think it does say in one of the documents I’ve read here that the program was denied. It was proposed. It was proposed, but it was denied. So that’s interesting. I wonder now if that program is still happening in a different name. I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s been compartmentalized into different programs, but as of now, from what I’m reading, and again, I might be wrong, new that they’re saying that this was only proposed, but it has not happened.
Jim Harold (15:25):
And I’ll put a big disclaimer on everything we say, because both of us have just delved into this now, basically. So forgive us if we get anything wrong.
Chrissy Newton (15:34):
Or let me know. I love that.
Jim Harold (15:37):
Absolutely. But what I’ll say is you talked about other names, and I was reading a tweet by John Greenewald earlier who was talking about, he was talking about, I don’t know if I can find it now, but he was basically saying that it’s funny that the government has so many different names for programs that even maybe I don’t want to mischaracterize it. I’ll get the exact tweet here. And basically the idea is that there’s so many names for these different programs that even I know it’s in here somewhere. Hold on one second. Here it is. This is from two days ago. I mean, you got to admit it. It is pretty funny that the Kona Blue documents produced yet another variation of what AATIP name was, is kind of like the people that worked on the project couldn’t even keep basic facts straight to your point, even at the top secret level, which it was top secret.
(16:34):
Now it’s been declassified. But I guess the point being that I would say that you and people like Micah Hanks and Richard Dolan, you guys are the kind of people who live and breathe this all the time. I’m very interested, but I don’t scour the internet every day to see what the latest and the greatest in the UAP subject is. I keep more up to date than most people do because we do a lot of subjects that drive everything goes Bigfoot, the whole thing. So evenI, I can’t keep up with the names AATIP, AARO, AAWSAP. I mean, there’s so many different names. And at some point you got to think, again, part of the reason, and I know that’s the nature of government too, there’s a name for everything. There’s acronym for everything. But sometimes it’s like, is that part of the game? You just make it so confusing to people. They’re just like, ah, I don’t want to hear this. It’s just too much.
Chrissy Newton (17:30):
A hundred percent, I think so. So I think they like to play with us or they like to do that. We see that that’s been done in multiple different parts of government. So I would say there’s a couple thoughts that come from this. We’ve seen that AATIP to AAWSAP where the money was going. Was it going to AATIP, was it going to AAWSAP? That being misunderstood. If AATIP wasn’t actually an official program name, it was a nickname. So it wasn’t the actual name. And so when Susan Gough was asked for information about AATIP that she wouldn’t, I believe that’s correct, is when she asked information about AATIP, she would refer to another program because it wasn’t an official name, it was just a nickname. So we see stuff like that. We also see it, I believe, in between AAWSAP, AATIP and AARO, there was another insane long acronym that they gave up. So we’re seeing that consistently happens. That must be a mechanism of government, of why they do that, and then deciding on what department has it, what the department name is. Is it hard to remember for sure, that comes out of it. I’ll let you’re going to say what you say. I can tell you have a thought.
Jim Harold (18:41):
It’s also a great way, it’s a great way of doing the old. That means what the meaning of the word is, is. In other words, if you are in a particular department, let’s say X, Y, Z, I’m in department X, Y, Z, and I fully know individually that in department A, B, C, they have proof of UFOs, but I’m an X, Y, Z, and I’m in front of a congressional committee. I can say, I can tell you without reservation, our official study of department X, Y, Z has found no information whatsoever about the existence of extraterrestrials telling the absolute truth. It’s being truthful, but not particularly helpful in the words of our former president. So I guess what I’m saying is a part of that game is plausible deniability. It’s sheltering truth in certain silos. So you can say absolutely truthfully, that department X, Y, Z has no knowledge, didn’t say anything about department A, B, C.
Chrissy Newton (19:46):
Exactly, a hundred percent. And also I want to go back to John Greenwald is about capability, right? It was the capability of, again, here’s another program that they wouldn’t tell us or the capability of it. I wonder if not showing that you’re not capable of doing proper reports or analysis or research shows that the government is human. I wonder because to me more about than this Kona Blue thing, I talked to Micah Hanks about this on the phone too, and I was like, I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why they would even let that go out the door when it was so inaccurate. It wasn’t like one or two mistakes. It was so many of them. So it shows me that the government is not capable of doing research, but I don’t want to believe that because so many things that the government does that’s so correct and so accurate. Do you just don’t care? Is that what you’re saying to it? Is that what you’re showing us? You don’t give a —, excuse the language. This isn’t important enough to you, so we’re just going to throw out crap, but it also makes them look incapable. So what does that mean? You’re not capable. Are you doing that for a reason?
(21:12):
In my mind, I just can’t think why the government would put out something so sloppy.
Jim Harold (21:18):
Yeah, excellent point.
Chrissy Newton (21:20):
Yeah, that’s what mind boggles me the most. And I don’t think Sean Kirkpatrick is this scientist that is just like, oh, woe is me. I’m stuck in a mechanism. He knew what he was getting involved in, and his name is attached to that paper. So all of those inaccuracies and everything else leads to him. He is that person that released this. This is his work. You’re not capable in my mind. Then to be able to run this department when you give us a release or give us a paper that is filled with inaccuracies where the average person, you could probably just Google online and correct the date. I believe they even have the date of Roswell was wrong. I think there was multiple dates in that that were wrong. I think they put a year before, it’s just, and I might be wrong with that too, but I believe that there was multiple things that were referenced that were just wrong. And to me that says, you’re not capable of doing the job. You shouldn’t have released the paper. You should known better that if a scientist even do that. And also this is a slap in the face.
Jim Harold (22:32):
It is it indeed. We’ll be right back with our interview with Chrissy Newton. But first I wanted to tell you that True Ghost Stories: Jim Harold’s Campfire Six is now available for pre-order at Amazon and Barnes and Noble and probably a lot of other places. We’re working hard to go wide on this release. That is my compilation of 65 of some of our best Campfire stories we’ve done. This will be the sixth of the books. We’re very excited about it and hope you’ll check it out. Now, this is the ebook that is currently available for pre-order print will be coming, but just the way the publishing works, they can get the ebook out for pre-order. So check it out at Amazon and Barnes and Noble, and we’ll have links and everything set up eventually. But just wanted to give you a heads up. The official release date is May 7th, and I’m really excited.
(23:30):
I think it’s the best Campfire book we’ve done yet. And the nice thing is you can read them in absolutely any order. So you could start with this one and work your way backwards through the catalog. And now back to our interview with Chrissy Newton.
Now, let me ask you this. Are there any stories that you’ve encountered in the last several months? Whereas, I mean people like me have been, woe is me. We’re never going to get to the truth. There’s no good news or there’s no nothing interesting going on. Is there maybe a story related to the UFO/UAP topic over the last several months last year that has maybe not gotten enough attention in your opinion and is a positive step? Is there anything that you can think of in your work with the debrief and so forth that kind of fits that criteria of being something to maybe not celebrate but say, Hey, this is something we should be paying more attention to?
Chrissy Newton (24:27):
I think it’s more civilian research, I would say is that is doing the best work right now. I would say the stuff with NASA and them looking into this and being part of that in the past couple months, I believe in talking about this and releasing their own information, I think that’s positive. Even for them as an organization, this is part of their mandate. So I’m excited to see that. But from the government’s perspective, no, I don’t think there’s anything that’s been amazing. If anything has just been so much drama rather than, and even coming from the whistleblower side, it’s been very quiet and much more, I would say there’s so much drama in that. But I feel that the civilians who are doing work in research are still the best at this right now that we’re seeing and that information that’s coming out and people telling their stories, I think that’s probably what we should be looking at now and people doing shows and podcasts and all these different things. I think that that is the most important work right now. Not saying that science and technology of the stuff that they’re doing behind the scenes, that’s always important, but there hasn’t been anything I would say immensely positive from my perspective that I’ve seen yet outside of the civilians that are working on this and trying to shed light on and doing their own research and civilian scientists, I refer to that as well. So what do you think, curiosity?
Jim Harold (25:46):
Well, I think that the difference, when I talked about history repeating itself, I think that I do believe that to an extent. I think that basically this stuff pops up every 10, 15, 20 years and the government goes, let’s just knock this down. But I think there’s a difference now, and this right here is the difference is that there’s, till they shut it down, and I don’t want to be conspiratorial, but at least there’s an outlet. Now, truthfully, that means that there’s a lot of people who put crap out on the internet. That’s no good, right? And I mean, even us, I mean, was a communication major and had journalism classes. I don’t consider myself a journalist by any means. You certainly have a great PR background. So you noticed that we both were very careful to caveat all this stuff because we’re just learning about this Kona Blue.
(26:45):
Unfortunately, there’s people that don’t take that care and they just say, oh, well, this is the way. So that’s the bad side. But the good side is that there’s plenty of people who are serious about this, doing the best they can, trying to bring discussions about this thought processes, surfacing stories. I think about, we talked about Micah earlier, his project to intake from UFO experiencers. So I think that that is something that makes it a little tougher for those who want to push us back down into a hole. Whereas 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, it was much easier to do that. I think now it’s like, God, it is kind of like Scooby-Doo, right? Those meddling kids we’re on the internet, those meddling content creators and not, again, not saying that we’re all perfect, not saying that we don’t make mistakes, not saying that some people don’t put things forward as fact. They shouldn’t necessarily. But I do think that the voices that come up are very valuable and they’re bringing through a lot of thought provoking information and keeping the subject alive and refusing to say, okay, we’ll just go away. I think that’s really a thing to be very optimistic about.
Chrissy Newton (28:07):
Yeah, I will pivot to that too. And say anthropology, you’re looking at it from a cultural perspective, there’s tons of anthropologists that are in this topic more than I’ve ever seen, and this is a human topic. I know people, as much as I love the data and I think everyone else does, I think the data is extremely important. This is a human topic. So anthropologists need to come in and look at this and have a better understanding of it, how it affects us, what does that mean to us? What does it mean to science and having conversations about policy science and anthropology together, and the Sol Foundation is doing that. As much as people might want to comment about who’s invited or who’s not, that’s semantics in my mind. But in general, they’re doing really good work because those intersections are really important and we need to have more academics having these conversations at those intersections.
(29:00):
So I think Garry Nolan and Peter Skafish are onto something. When it comes to that Micah’s database that he’s collecting right now of all different UFO experiences. I know how much Micah Hank’s loves data. So as someone who works with Micah and somebody who knows him very well, I have a lot of respect for him for doing that because he’s just doing it because he cares. That’s the honest truth. He’s interested in the data, he extremely wants to know what’s going on, and that is his forte. Being able to collect that data and have other people analyze it along with himself. He can find correlations that’s meaningful to him, and it is meaningful work I trust with that information. Some other databases I don’t trust with information. I know Micah and I know him personally. So yes, I can say that to someone. But anybody that’s using a database, Micah’s database or anyone else’s, they need to look into it when they’re submitting their information and where that’s going to go.
(29:59):
And what does that mean? Because it’s important data. They might just think, oh, it’s just a UFO hit and whatever. It’s like, no, it means many things. It could be identifiable, unidentifiable. It’s all data points, and every single one of them is important. So I think yes, civilians are doing great work, and I do agree with you, Jim, that there’s tons of people that are just creating crap in the space just because they want clicks and they – thinking it’s meaningful, but it’s causing more misinformation. That’s a real challenge. But we’re going to see that more and more and more in all parts of media and social media. So it’s just the beginning of it. It’s probably going to get worse, unfortunately. I think the best thing we can do with each other is teach the younger generations, along with even our own generations, how to critically think through that and understand what is misinformation, what is disinformation, and how to go about finding the truth.
Jim Harold (30:52):
And I think obviously with AI coming on board and becoming every day, it seems like there’s a new innovation that that’s going to be more and more important to try to have people who stick to the old ways and so forth. So I think that’s a good thing. One last thing before we let you go. I know you’re up against a hard stop here, and this seems unrelated, but I think it is related. I’m here in Ohio, and luckily from my yard, I got a beautiful vantage point at the total eclipse of the sun. And when that happened, I was one of those people, surprisingly, I’m so head down working on this stuff. I was kind of like, eh, it’s the sun. It’s no big deal. And I saw it and I’m like, boy was I wrong. And the thing that happened at the moment of totality, we had about three minutes and 45 seconds of totality, which was amazing.
(31:50):
Everybody let out a cheer. You could hear through the whole neighborhood, a collective cheer. And it was kind of like an epiphany to me. And we say this, but you don’t really think about, we’re all so small and this subject. Some people say, why are you worried about UFOs? Why are you worried about aliens? Or whatever it might be. This subject is so universal and so important to all of mankind that it really kind of put it even more so into focus for me and kind of gave me even a greater appreciation of the subject. I mean, what are your thoughts about in closing the universality of this subject and the importance of it?
Chrissy Newton (32:34):
Well, I agree with you that the total eclipse was unbelievable. It really was. I was actually covering it for the debrief because I just find it amazing. And it is profound, right? It makes you understand that you’re alive and how quick you could not be alive too, right? There’s so much that goes into that eclipse. But I was in the line of totality too. I went, actually, I was in Toronto, but to have a couple more minutes or seconds, I went to St. Catherine’s, which is about an hour and a half, two hours away from Toronto, and took a Go Train there with a friend and the same thing. It was just unbelievable. She actually cried during it. And I laughed that if anybody knows the totally, and if anyone knows the double rainbow joke, it’s a really old social media joke. What does this mean?
(33:24):
Yeah, the double rainbow. So I made a joke where I was like, Jess had a double rainbow moment where she was just crying and she was videotaping it, and I shared it, and just her overwhelming emotional response to something so beautiful and so amazing, and me listening to her and then visualizing, I’m like, in my video, I think I’m like, this is just unbelievable. I just want to document the time and be in this and be so present. There’s so many people around the world in that moment that were present, I think is so important. And to feel it and experience because we don’t, a lot of people live in the past and they live and try to get caught in their future thoughts. The solar eclipse gave us a time where we had to be present for those four minutes or longer and experience and an experience, what it is to be human and how quick this could all end too, and how important that sun and everything else is to us to being human and to being alive. So it’s pretty unbelievable. But in context to this, (overlapping speech) sorry. Sorry, go on. Go on.
Jim Harold (34:31):
No, no, no, no, no. I mean, I think that it is just such a great moment and again, how small we are Well, I want to give you a chance to tell people where they can find everything you do, including the show Rebelliously Curious and everything you do with The Debrief and anything else you’d like to share.
Chrissy Newton (34:52):
Thanks, Jim. So everybody can go to my work or Micah Hanks or Tim McMillan or MJ Banias or Christopher Plain. You can read all of us at thedebrief.org. You can listen to my podcast, it’s called Rebelliously Curious with Chrissy Newton, and it’s on all podcasting platforms. Or you can go to The Debrief and see it on our podcast tab, and they can check me out on social media. Instagram is BeingChrissyNewton, and then Twitter is ChrissyNewton. So all the different platforms, tweet me. I always say hi. I’m very chatty with people on social media, because it is something I do enjoy. So yeah, if you’re curious and one has questions, I am too. So I’m there for an open discussion.
Jim Harold (35:31):
Well, it’s been great to speak with you today. Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it. I hope we can do this again.
Chrissy Newton (35:37):
You too, Jim. It was good to see you. It’s always good to be here.
Jim Harold (35:41):
And thank you for tuning in. I appreciate it. And if you enjoyed this show, make sure that you follow. If you’re on video, hit that follow button and the notification, all a bell and all that stuf the YouTubers say, and please do tell your friends, and we’ll talk to you next time and keep exploring those mysteries. Bye-Bye everybody.
—
For more information on our podcast data policy CLICK HERE