All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2013 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:07:05
Edition 110 - Marcus Allen

Marcus Allen from the British edition of Nexus Magazine talk about the Bermuda Triangle toUFOs to unconventional ways to power the planet.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you for coming back to my little show.
Thank you for all of your emails that I'm working through at the moment.
If you've made a guest suggestion, I'm getting on to it.
And if you've made any specific comments about the show, of course, I always see them, take note of them and build them in.
So please, if you'd like to email the show, I'm always very, very grateful and happy to get your emails.
Go to the website www.theunexplained.tv, w dot theunexplained.tv, the website designed by Adam at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
And there you can send me an email, or you can make a donation to the show if you'd like to.
And if you have sent a donation to the show, the money gratefully received in these hard times helps the show keep going, and you can do that at the website as well, www.theunexplained.tv.
I'll tell you something, as I record these words now, it's very nearly Easter, and you may be hearing this show across Easter.
And we're just at the back end, I believe it's the back end, I hope it is, of a cold spell here in the UK.
Some parts of the UK have had three meters, what's that, nine, ten feet of snow?
Here in London, we've had snow that hasn't stuck, but it's been below zero for many days.
And this time last year, if I tell you, it was 25 degrees Celsius here, 75 Fahrenheit.
And if I look out of the window today, it's morning time in London, and there are people who are wrapped up like they're heading out onto the streets of New York on a day in January.
It's that cold.
And they say, I heard on the radio this morning anyway, that it's something to do with the jet stream.
That's that warm current of air that brings us warmer weather in these latitudes than perhaps we should have.
It's further south at the moment than it should be.
Well, I hope it hurries up and comes back very soon, because I don't do cold, as you know.
I'm going to get into some of your emails before the guest this time.
The guest is Marcus Allen, old friend of the show from Nexus magazine.
He's one of the driving forces behind that magazine.
And if you haven't ever seen a copy of that, I'm not in the business of advertising.
But I really am a big fan of this magazine.
It deals with all the stuff we talk about here and a great deal more.
So Marcus Allen coming soon.
But let's get to some of your emails.
I'm going to do as many as I can.
Jody Borden, suggesting Dr. Stephen Greer.
Jody, thank you for that.
I've tried to get him on a few times and he hasn't been keen.
But if you would like to get in touch with him and tell him this show would be good to come on, that would be fabulous.
Gavin Brown, thank you for your email.
Tracy in Cobble Hill, B.C., British Columbia, Canada.
Like Dr. Jim Stein, thank you for your email.
Jeremy Katz on Long Island, thank you for getting in touch.
Rash Powell, suggesting George Cavasilis and Tony Topping, thank you.
Michael Farrenbourne in Dayton, Ohio, thank you for getting in touch.
Scott Helms in Greensboro, North Carolina, thank you for your email.
Rob Foster in South Africa, thank you.
Dave Dilbert suggesting Gordon Duff and Phil Francis suggesting the Kesh Foundation.
Well, I'm working on this.
I've been in touch with them.
They deal with free energy and all that kind of stuff, don't they?
I think Marcus Allen, the guest on the show this time, might know something about them.
I'll certainly try that name on him and see if he knows anything.
Just to tell you that David Icke will be on this show in around about a month.
It's always a little bit flexible with David, but hoping to get him on soon.
He's a very busy man at the moment writing a new book.
All right, let's get to the guest this time, and that is Marcus Allen from Nexus Magazine.
And Marcus is based in Sussex, in the UK, a little south of me.
Marcus, good to talk to you again.
Thank you very much, Howard.
It's very nice to be here.
Well, it's been a while, Marcus.
I think the last time you were on here was about six years ago when this show was a radio show.
And you used to do me the great favor of traveling up from Sussex and appearing in the darkness in a radio studio not very far from the London Eye, remember?
That's right.
I did that several times.
That was very good.
Well, you know what I liked about you?
You were always able to talk off the cuff about any subject I threw at you because usually you knew about them all.
And somebody like that is a gift to anybody who does broadcasting.
Well, if you've had a lifetime of study of these things, which I think I could probably claim to say is correct, it's nice to be able to use that information in a productive way.
All right.
Tell me the story then of the lifetime of study.
How did you get interested in?
We all have different circuitous routes, don't we, to getting interested in these things.
But how did you, Marcus Allen, get interested?
It goes back to the mid-1960s in London.
And I was told by a friend, he was actually an Australian friend, I was told by a friend, look, there's a book you need to buy, but you can't go into any regular bookshop and get it.
What you need to do is to go to this address, knock on the door and say, I sent you.
Oh, dear.
Okay.
So I did.
And it was a basement address in Westminster, quite near the House of Commons.
And I knocked on the door and said, I was sent.
And they said, right, what do you want?
And I said, I'm told that there's a book you sell.
It's called The New Unhappy Lords.
And I want to read it.
So I paid the money and I still have that book nearly 50 years later.
And it was my introduction to the fact that not everything that we are told is happening is necessarily the full story.
Well, that has to be the truth.
And what we've got to say about London back then, from what I understand about it and from what we all know, really, even when I was at school in the 70s and even in the 80s, I can remember mentioning my interest in these things to people and they would look askance at you.
In the UK, certainly, people were not very open-minded about anything alternative.
That's quite right.
They weren't.
In fact, then that was followed up fairly closely by probably one of the classic books that many people will claim as an introduction to these subjects, Chariots of the Gods by Eric von Danigan.
Ah, lot of people will know about Chariots of the Gods, but the first book you mention, I've never heard of.
What was that about?
It was written by A.K. Chesterton, who was G.K. Chesterton's son.
And it was basically saying that the political system is not what you think it is.
The political system is there to control and manipulate on behalf of other people, hence the new unhappy lords.
An elite, in other words, an Illuminati, a group of people, a government behind the government.
Look at how many people are peddling that now.
Believe that.
And I have to say, the more I look at things that happen in this world, and the most recent thing being the situation with Cyprus and how that happened and its terrible financial crisis and the political decisions made around that, the more I'm starting to believe this stuff.
I really am.
Well, you see it so many times around you.
As you say, what's happened in Cyprus, that's not democracy, which is what we're told we live under.
That is dictatorship, where a large number of people can be told, this is what is going to happen to your hard-earned money.
And we have to say, you're talking to us from your office at Nexus Magazine in East Grinstead, and it being a busy office, lots of people calling, there will be phone calls and a little bit of hubbub in the background, but I think it adds to the atmosphere.
But getting back to what you've just said, if you'd said that to people in the Mrs. Thatcher era, say, in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president in the United States, you would probably, apart from one or two people like David Icke, who was beginning to be around then, you would have been laughed out of court.
If you say that now, and if you say that sometimes politicians do not tell us the truth or they don't know the truth, chances are that you'll get a hearing.
It has to be a real hard heart to dismiss this now.
Exactly.
And what has changed, what has changed very dramatically over the last, it's probably the last five to eight years, is the rise of the internet, the blogging, the websites, the fact that people can basically post virtually anything.
Now, that makes it a bit of a jungle, and it's very hard to find your way through a jungle that have no signposts.
And the internet really doesn't have signposts.
You need to be able to get into it and find out for yourself.
You're going to come up some very weird places.
You're going to come up against some dead ends.
You're going to come up against some manipulation, some disinformation, misinformation.
You're going to come up against people who are not exactly what they seem to be.
But what you have to do is to be able to evaluate it for yourself.
You have to come from a very stable position yourself, evaluate what you're reading, evaluate what you're seeing, and say, how does this correspond?
How does this confirm other things that I've read?
And this is good if you have the grounding and if you have, to an extent, the education.
I'm not talking about certificates and qualifications.
I mean the background in these things.
If you've done your research, if you've done your reading and if you are coming at it from a stable position, then you can use the internet as a tool.
What I've worried about in this last year or so is the fact that there are a lot of people using the internet to aggrandize themselves.
And they're preying, some of them, on vulnerable people.
So anybody can sell any kind of theory now.
You don't have to be an academic.
You don't have to have access to publishing.
You can just stick it on the internet.
It's really easy.
Exactly.
And that's the advantage, but that's also the danger.
The advantage is that the information is there.
And as you said, if you have the educational background to be able to evaluate it, not to be affected by it immediately, just say, okay, that's new information.
I'm not aware of that.
Let's see how it pans out.
Let's see if it's confirmed or denied in other areas.
That's the hard part.
But that's actually the journey.
That's what's so fascinating about the whole thing, that you can then set about finding out things.
And there are many other areas.
You can spend a whole day just tracking down one particular subject, which means you don't get a chance to do anything else, but it's fascinating doing it.
One thing I think we can agree on is that in this era that we're living in now, a lot of things you would have said won't happen seem to have happened.
The financial crises, multiple crises that are being faced by the world, and I believe that we have not seen the worst of them yet.
There could be more to come, certainly from what I'm reading and hearing.
And that's a balanced view, having taken into account what a lot of people are saying.
But things like the Pope stepping down, the changes in our weather at the moment as we speak, we've got a really deep freeze here in the UK, where this time last year we had 25 degrees Celsius, 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
So many things that you would have said, no, I don't think that's going to happen.
Suddenly, these things do happen.
The world is becoming a place of surprises.
Exactly.
But there are surprises in the things, two areas, things that are happening that we're not expecting and things that are happening that we were told were going to happen and we didn't believe it.
Can you think of an example?
The idea that the banks would collapse, virtually collapse, and had to get bailed out by the taxpayer in America, in Britain, in Europe.
The idea of that happening.
I remember years ago when I was working in a very large company over here in the UK, Toyota GB, the importers of Japanese cars, very good company because they had very good products.
And they were introducing at the time personal pensions for various people working within the company, which was quite a new idea back in the early 1980s.
And they said, right, what you've got to do is to put your money, we'll put it on deposit with this bank.
And it happened to be called the Woolwich Building Society.
Ah, yes.
Woolwich Building Society.
It was very stable.
Building societies, for anybody not familiar with them, they are people who take deposits in and then lend the money out to people who want to buy their houses.
Well, they were started, the idea was, and some of them still are.
They were mutual societies where, as you rightly said, they were there to loan people enough money to be able to get on the housing ladder, which is a laudable aim.
Unfortunately, in the modern era, a lot of organizations like the Woolwich Building Society end up getting taken over.
I think Woolwich was taken over by Barclays Bank, wasn't it?
That's right, it was.
And what happened during the interview I had with the guy who was trying to sell me the idea, or sell a lot of people the idea of saving money, which is a good thing in principle.
And I happened to say to him, because I was familiar with the idea that banks can collapse, hence the term bankruptcy, which refers to banks.
I said, well, supposing the bank goes bust, what happens to my money then?
He fell about laughing.
He said, that will never happen.
It couldn't happen.
Banks are so stable.
This is why we advise you to put your money in the bank.
And I thought, well, he must know what he's talking about, but I don't actually believe him.
Now, ironically, I did go ahead with a particular pension thing.
And I was very amused to see that Woolwich had to get taken over by Barclays, which is one of the largest banking organizations in the world.
It has links with so many other multinational companies and shareholdings within it.
But without getting into the detail there, the idea that banks could collapse, go bankrupt, go bust, which is what we've seen in America in quite dramatic fashion.
We've seen it in Britain in very dramatic fashion.
The idea back then, 20, 30 years ago, was just laughable, which is why he laughed at me.
But now, of course, a lot of these things have come to pass.
And, you know, we're not talking off-subject here because Nexus Magazine probes things like this.
In the current issue, for example, the April, May 2013 one, you talk about cancer treatments and strategies.
I read that article last night.
So this sort of thing is very much within the ballpark of Nexus Magazine.
Do you believe that the world is heading for some kind of financial collapse?
I've got people emailing me predicting that the dollar will go under.
The dollar will collapse in the middle of this year.
Well, it's possible that the dollar may collapse because it's also interesting that there is another currency in the background ready to take its place.
It's called the Amaro.
Check it out on Google.
You'll see there are pictures of it and there are coins already being ready.
I've heard, now, hold on, I've heard about the AMARO.
Wasn't that somebody's idea of a pan-American North and South currency?
That's right.
Yeah.
Well, it was basically set up for Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
That was what it was going to cover initially.
It may well then be including South America and many countries in South and Central America.
But that currency exists.
Whether it is to replace the dollar, it would be a very interesting experience to go through the political ramifications of cancelling the dollar and introducing another currency.
But we've seen it with the Euro, a successful currency, the Deutschmark, was basically sidelined and a new one introduced, the Euro, which of course is backed by Germany, because Germany is a very successful country.
But there's one point about money, which I think many people are aware of, but they can't quite get their heads around the fact that this is what is causing the problem.
It's called interest rates.
Now, if you go back, there's a...
All right, to explain to our North American listeners, the Channel Islands, if you don't know this stuff, are tiny little islands and they're off France.
But by history, it just so happens that the UK controls those islands.
They have quite a French influence, but they're British.
And in the war, they were occupied by the Germans.
You may not know this, but they were the only part of the United Kingdom that were occupied by the Germans.
And one of the biggest industry, in fact, the biggest industry in the Channel Islands is finance, isn't it?
Investments, banking.
It is.
They are very, very wealthy places.
They're only a few miles long each.
Jersey is the biggest one.
Guernsey is slightly smaller.
There are three other minor islands, Sark, Alderney.
Now, if you go back to the time of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, that's Emperor Napoleon, who was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, if you go back to that period of time and go to the Channel Islands, they had one major industry.
They're quite small places, the Channel Islands.
Their major industry was fishing.
But after the Napoleonic Wars, which had cost a lot of money, they were broke.
They had no income.
Fishing was just about possible.
But there was no harbour in Guernsey.
And there was certainly no market from which the fish could be sold.
So it was basically a hand-to-mouth existence.
People were starving.
People were really not making much progress.
And then they thought, okay, what we need to do is build a harbour.
We've got the material on the island.
We've got the labor force to do it, but we haven't got the money to pay people to do this.
What they did, and this is now in, is quite a well-known experiment, it's called the Guernsey Experiment.
The money was basically created on the island by the states of Guernsey, which is the local authority.
They created the money and issued it so that people could be paid to work.
The money was then circulate.
Obviously, people would buy food, pay the rent, pay all the things that people have to pay with money.
And the money would circulate within the island, quite a small area.
What happened was that the harbour got built, the fish market got built, the infrastructure on the island, the roads were built, so that the island became prosperous.
Because once you have a harbour, you can then fish in virtually all weathers.
Once you have a market, you can then market your produce, you can sell it, you can do things, you can then circulate money.
The key to this was that there was no interest charged on the money.
Now, in order to prevent inflation, which is what happens if too much money is in circulation trying to chase too few goods, was that the states of Guernsey would withdraw money at various intervals to ensure that not too much was in circulation.
This was an extremely successful operation, which accounts for the fact that now Guernsey and Jersey and another island between Ireland and England called the Isle of Man Are the richest areas of the UK based on money, based on the fact that they could handle money?
Now, what happened with the Guernsey experiment?
Just Google the term Guernsey experiment, you'll find all about it.
It was repeated, it was tried to be replicated in various other areas.
One was Glasgow, and it was taken up in Austria as well.
It's the issuing of money with no interest charged on the issuing of money.
And this was the origin of the Greenback.
It was issued in America, and it had no interest rate on it.
So it didn't have to be repaid with interest.
And it's the interest payments that cause the problem in banking.
Because where is that money coming from?
You say, well, if you borrow money, you go out and you create more produce and you can pay for it.
But the money still has to come from somewhere.
And at the end of the day, if there isn't enough money to pay the interest, things collapse, which is what we've seen.
But if you had a system without interest, and I've explored and been very interested in the Islamic bank that we have here in the UK, because they don't deal in interest, I don't think, for their clients.
It's not something that they do.
And at times I've looked into this and thought, I wonder if I should transfer the small amount that I have into this bank.
Because as you say, interest is what makes the economy crank round, but it can also lead us into enormous problems.
And you only have to look around you now to see that.
Exactly.
Exactly.
It's interesting that Islamic banks have set up quite successfully in the UK, but they do charge, in effect, the same rate of interest as you would be charged if you were going to a normal bank.
It's just not called interest.
It's called arrangement fees and it's called, it has various names which allow it to produce an income from the loaning of money.
I just think this is interesting.
And I know it's not UFOs and aliens and all the other stuff that we've talked about in the past, Marcus, but I think it's interesting to talk about because it is so very core to everybody's lives now.
I heard a feature on radio the other day about a bank in the north of England that is gaining ground.
It's a Scandinavian bank.
I'm not sure whether it's Danish or Swedish, this bank.
But they have a completely different view of how banking should be done.
And the manager of the bank goes to the top of a church spire locally and looks around in this particular town that was part of the feature and says, I will lend money to businesses within this area that I can see.
So we go back to the principle of a local bank that is, okay, affiliated to something much bigger, but a bank dealing on a personal level with individual people.
And if I tell you that I've had a certain amount of difficulty with my bank over this last week or so, they actually did something.
I mean, I won't go into it, but they did something that I didn't authorize them to do.
And I was less than pleased with this.
And you get treated like a number.
When you call them, you go to a call center.
You have to extract the number of your local branch by any means you can from the call center.
And they don't want to give it to you.
And in the end, you have to absolutely insist.
A lot of these things, I think, and one of my emailers recently said to me, Howard, you tend not to express opinions on the show.
So here comes one.
This is part of the problem that we're facing.
I mean, I could spend half an hour here giving you my opinions, but the show is not about me.
It's about you, Marcus.
But this is one of the difficulties that we've got.
We've allowed things to grow to the point where they've become so impersonal that they are out of control.
If I say that's deliberate, it may sound a little over the top.
But you're right about the banks.
I think they're Danish banks because Denmark and Iceland are quite well connected.
In Iceland, where I may remember a few years ago, basically Iceland went bankrupt because they had banks which started to loan out money indiscriminately almost.
And anyway, the banks went bankrupt.
And a lot of people here were investing in Iceland because it was seen as a good bet.
Then they had this problem.
And I think somebody tried to impose a solution.
It might have been the IMF tried to impose a solution, the International Monetary Fund, on the Icelanders, and they effectively rebelled, didn't they, if I remember this right?
Yeah, they did, yeah.
Because quite a lot of the local authority, that's the sort of small council operations in the UK, had money on deposit in the Iceland banks because they were paying good rates of interest.
Interest rates, again.
They were paying good rates of interest, so they put the money on deposit there.
And when the banks went bankrupt, they couldn't get their money, and so they couldn't pay their staff.
So the British government then stepped in to guarantee the money.
And it was several billion pounds that had to be guaranteed, which of course was one of the reasons why the banking industry is held in such low esteem at the moment, because they just haven't done it right.
But then you come back to what I said earlier.
Is this deliberate?
If you go into your local bank now, you basically will see some very nice people, very friendly, very, very helpful, who have absolutely no authority to do anything other than pay in your checks or give you a little bit of cash over the counter if that's what you want.
If you want a decent loan, 30, 40 years ago, you'd go into your bank, you talk to your bank manager who knew you, knew the area you were working in because he was local as well, and he would make a decision based on his personal knowledge of you as an individual and the local area in which he operated.
Nowadays, that decision is taken by a computer.
You have to tick off a certain amount of boxes that you meet certain criteria, but there is no human involvement in it.
And if you wonder, if you ever have wondered, how did we get ourselves screwed down by the subprime loans crisis that triggered off the recession that we're all in now?
This is exactly why.
Because people were not doing due diligence.
Yeah, exactly.
And In fact, on the subprime mortgage problem, which is what basically triggered the whole meltdown, people say, well, money isn't rocket science.
The amusing part about that was that the subprime loans and the CDO's credit default options were set up, were originated by rocket scientists who were employed by the banking industry when NASA started to lay off a lot of their scientists.
So it was rocket science.
Do you know something?
That's amazing, isn't it?
So you can never say to anybody, well, it's not rocket science anymore, because sometimes it is.
Sometimes it is rocket science.
Because they were the only people who actually understood what on earth they were talking about.
And everybody said, oh, it must be good.
They're rocket scientists.
It was complete nonsense.
It's the same.
I mean, talking about ridiculous situations, part of the space shuttle launch system, the solid rocket boosters, the two of them attached to the side of the space shuttle.
That were implicated in the Challenger disaster.
Well, we can come to that.
I was just going to say that the rocket fuel boosters, they are of the size that they were.
They're quite long and thin.
Their size was determined by the distance between two horses' backsides.
Really?
It goes back a long way.
But if you look at your railway system, why is it four foot eight and a quarter inches?
That's the distance between the rails.
Why is it that distance?
Why isn't it five foot or four foot?
Why is it four foot eight and a quarter inches between the rails on any railway system in America or Britain or Europe?
Because those railway systems were set up following the carts that used to carry goods around a country, and those carts had axles of a certain width.
So why did those carts have axles of that width?
Because they had to fit in with the original roads, which were created in Britain and Europe by the Romans, who drove chariots with two horses pulling them.
And two horses are a certain width apart.
Therefore, the axles will be a certain distance apart.
Therefore, the tracks that were made were followed by the people who made carts later.
And so the railways had to fit in with those as well.
So the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle were created as a result of the distance, because they were carried from Ohio, where they were made by Theokol, down to Florida, where they were launched on the space shuttle, by train, and the train had to go through a tunnel.
And the tunnel had to be a certain diameter to carry trains through, which was determined by the width of two horses' backsides.
So sometimes we have to do things because that's the way they've always been done.
And if we did them in a different way, they wouldn't work.
That's right, because if we made the cart axles a bit wider, they would get wrecked by the cart's tracks that were already there.
So we made things the way they were.
Now, look, Marcus, we have to dive into the good stuff now.
And I want to cherry-pick some subjects here.
One thing I've talked to you when we were emailing each other about, a few of my listeners have asked me about the Kesh, I think it's Kesh or Kesh Foundation, K-E-S-H-E.
Yes.
An organization that seems slightly mysterious to me.
I've been trying to contact them to get an interview with the gentleman behind this, and I can't seem to do that.
They don't seem to reply.
They don't have phone numbers on their website or anything like that.
But the person behind the Kesh Foundation gave some kind of talk about free energy and various other things at Imperial College London about a month or so ago.
Were you aware of all of this?
Only after it happened.
I'd like to have heard that, because I'm near enough to London to be able to have gone up to here.
Imperial College London is one of the top universities in Britain.
It is.
I mean, it is a great focus of science.
Fascinating to see that they did that.
And I know that you featured them to an extent in the magazine.
What are they about?
I think, as you say, they are a very mysterious organisation insofar as they don't seem to be able to...
And all I can see is that the guy running it, he has developed a system of energy production, but he's being attacked for it by, as he refers to them, as cyber stalkers, people who are trying to do him down.
So he's a little reticent about communicating too broadly.
And there is evidence of that on the internet.
You can see where people have indeed tried to do this person down.
But I'm a great believer, but I would be as a journalist, in clarity.
I think if I was this person and I claim to have invented a free energy system, of course, there are great risks in that.
It's claimed that there are many people over the years who've invented the car that runs on water and free energy and various other things and all of those ideas.
And sometimes the people themselves have been buried.
But if I was this guy, I would revel in publicity.
I would go mainstream.
So if they're listening at the Cash Foundation or if you know anybody at the Cash Foundation, I would be very, very keen to talk with them.
Yep, exactly.
I would back that completely that the best protection you can have is to be as high profile as possible.
And the number of people I've talked to who've dealt with things in the UFO world have often said to me that their best protection and other areas of the unexplained, their best protection is being out there.
The more out there you are, the less it is possible that anybody in a black suit and black dark glasses can come and abduct you or make you a disappeared person.
All right, that's the Cash Foundation.
You yourself, though, have done a certain amount of work for the magazine on the Apollo moon landings.
Now, I have spoken to Edgar Mitchell, who, of course, was one of the latter Apollo astronauts.
He tells some wonderful stories about the wow moment when he stepped out onto the lunar surface, puts a very compelling case.
But you don't think these moon landings happened?
Not that they didn't happen.
It's just that if you say, well, where is the independent evidence for them happening?
Now, if you go back very slightly, you could say, okay, well, the moon landings, well, we all watched them on television.
We all heard about it.
We've seen the interviews with the astronauts.
We've read the books, watched the films.
you can't go around saying it didn't happen because there is just so much overwhelming evidence that it did.
Let's step back a bit.
This evidence that we're talking about-the astronauts, the films, the photographs, the books-all the record of Apollo is produced by one organization.
It's called NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
From the moment that that Saturn V rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, Cape Kennedy, as it became known, it went up in the air, and after about two minutes, when it was the best part of 30 miles up, 30, 40 miles up, and it disappeared from sight.
From that moment on, we rely on NASA to tell us what's happening to the moment that eight days later, in the case of Apollo 11, 12 days later, in the case of Apollo 17, when the capsule containing the astronauts reappears on the end of its parachutes.
From that, between those two events, takeoff to splashdown, we rely on NASA to tell us what's happening.
But let's face it, they were working at the cutting edge of technology.
Who else would know what was happening?
Who else would be able to explain?
If they didn't, you have to give them a certain amount of trust, don't you?
There isn't anybody else qualified.
I'm sure the Russians were monitoring what was going on up there.
They'd have blown the whistle on them if it hadn't been happening, wouldn't they?
They would if they had had access to the correct information.
It's quite true to say that the Russians didn't blow the whistle insofar as they didn't come up and say, oh, look, America say they've been to the moon, but we know they haven't.
Okay, I think we have to be very, very clear.
Blow the whistle on what, do you think?
On the fact that what NASA were projecting as their landing of six landers on the lunar surface was not as portrayed in the media.
Now, whether they put the landers on the lunar surface, and nowadays people will immediately turn around and say, well, look at the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the unmanned satellite that is currently orbiting the lunar surface, photographing it yet again.
You think they'd have photographed it enough times by now, but no, they've done it again.
And they've shown what they tell us, because we can't see enough detail, what they tell us, what NASA tell us are the lunar landers from the Apollo program, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and they put big arrows saying Apollo 17, as if we were not able to work it out for ourselves because we can't, because the detail isn't sufficient.
Now, that in itself is a very strange result, because we're talking about the 21st century here.
The Apollo missions took place in the 1960s, early 1970s, when technology was certainly nowhere near as advanced as it is today.
But the photographs taken by this lunar reconnaissance orbiter, purporting to show the Apollo landers, are of such poor quality and so indistinct that without the large arrows and all the paraphernalia of identifying them, we would be none the wiser as to what we were looking at.
So are you saying this is a case, as has been claimed before in many other instances, of NASA doctoring the evidence, of dumbing down the resolution of the pictures, perhaps?
There is no doubt that NASA doctors evidence.
There are many reports going back.
I was reading one just a few days ago about a visit made by some reputable scientists to the Houston Photographic Library, where they were permitted to see the original photographs taken,
some of them by the Lunar Orbiter, which is probably the most technologically advanced satellite, unmanned satellite that orbited the moon looking for landing sites, we were told, back in 1966, 1967.
They were allowed to look at these original photographs.
They were big photographs, and they contained enormous detail of structures and of evidence of intelligent activity on the lunar surface before humans allegedly got there.
But there was a big proviso that these scientists were not allowed to take any recording equipment, photograph, no cameras, no printers, nothing in there.
They couldn't even make notes.
So if that's the case, how do you know this happened?
The scientists have written up a fairly detailed account of what actually happened when they went to this place.
They had to make a Freedom of Information Act request to be able to see the images.
But if NASA are so open, honest, and upfront with the information they're doing because they are, as they say on the Apollo 11, we come in peace for all mankind, why on earth are they hiding things?
What is it they're frightened of?
Have they been ordered to hide things?
Okay, so we have two separate things going on here, don't we?
And we mustn't lose sight of them.
Number one, we're saying that perhaps the lunar landings didn't happen in the way that we were told.
We need to explore that first.
And number two, the fact that NASA has and is custodian of information about what was there before we got there.
That only these scientists were allowed to see.
Two pretty big things.
Let's start with the fact that you think there is evidence that suggests that the lunar landings didn't happen in the way that we were told.
So are we saying that they were staged and faked?
Are you saying that somebody else put the craft there and then we were later given doctored pictures of people walking around on a movie set somewhere in the Mojave Desert?
What do you think was going on?
Okay, I think we should immediately dismiss the idea of any secret movie set in the Mojave Desert, the Nevada Desert, Area 51, or any of the other exciting places that people tend to come up with as the location of where the lunar landings were fabricated.
They weren't.
What happened was that when Kennedy made his famous speech in 1961 saying, we'll land a man on the moon before the decade is out and return him Safely to the earth, nobody had been into, no American had been into space.
That was a political statement made in response to Yuri Gagarin's flight six weeks earlier in April 1961.
The fact that Yuri Gagarin didn't actually do what everybody assumes he has done, and the fact that he was certainly not the first Russian or Soviet at the time, he was certainly not the first in space.
He wasn't even the second or third, he was actually the 10th.
Several others had died in the attempt, but none of that came out until many, many years later, when the restrictions on reporting following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the destruction of the Soviet Union in 1991 happened, and people could look at the evidence with a fresh eye, which is what they did.
So the Russians were as much in the business of confusing people as NASA were.
NASA stands, of course, as we know, for never a straight answer.
If you ask them something, they're not necessarily going to tell you what the correct answer is.
You have to make sure you ask the right question.
Now, having said that, the launch that we saw of the Apollo rocket certainly happened.
The splashdown certainly happened, but what happened in the middle?
Did they actually get to the moon?
Now, you say that if they hadn't got there, the Russians would have blown the whistle.
The Russians have blown the whistle, but only recently.
They didn't blow it at the time.
They didn't say, oh, this is all wrong.
Only since Russian physicists, Russian scientists have been able to examine the raw Apollo data, the photographs, the mission statements, the actual technical analysis of the rockets, only after they've been able to examine that and examine it from the viewpoint of somebody who understands rocketry, have they been able to say now that the Saturn V rocket was not powerful enough to do what we were told it did?
I've always wondered about that.
I wondered, it's a hell of a lot.
If you stand and look at it in the night sky here from the UK, the moon is a hell of a long way away.
You need a pretty big vehicle to get there.
Yeah, and it's got to take, it's supposed to have launched 50 tons into lunar orbit.
All right.
Okay.
Lunar orbit is a lot.
It takes a lot of rocket to get it there.
All right.
So where is the evidence, though?
There will be people screaming at their mobile listening devices, whatever they're hearing this show on.
Where is the evidence to even suggest any of this?
When you get people like Edgar Mitchell telling me, in all sincerity, I really went there.
And he doesn't exactly have scorn for people who say it didn't really happen like that, but he's quite dismissive of them for obvious reasons.
Where is the evidence to suggest that we were all led up the garden path?
The evidence is in many different places.
There's one website I can recommend.
It's called Our List, A-U-L-I-S dot com, which has, that website is run by the authors of the book Dark Moon, which brings a lot of this information together.
The book Dark Moon was first published in the UK in 1999.
There's a DVD called What Happened on the Moon, which puts it into visual form.
It shows a lot of detailed analysis of the photographs and the films.
It also goes into some of the aspects of the Soviet side of the space program, the people behind it.
But of course, they were all Germans.
The people behind the space program in America, Werner von Braun, was brought over under Operation Paperclip along with 120 other scientists.
So there was a certain connection between the American space program and the Russian space program, or the Soviet space program as it was then.
Now, whether if you go onto that website, there is a detailed analysis of the Saturn V rocket and its speed of ascent and the amount of payload it can carry.
The conclusion is it could carry about half the payload we're told it did.
Now, one other clue to that is the Saturn V rocket was certainly a big, powerful piece of kit.
And it had what we were told was the thrust of 7.5 million pounds to launch the things it did.
I've got no means of knowing if that is correct or not, but there is another test.
When the space shuttle was introduced, in order to launch it, the obvious thing would be to stick it on top of an adapted Saturn V rocket, and then you don't have to go through all the rigmarole of designing a new rocket to launch the space shuttle.
Because between the final Apollo mission in 1972, Apollo 17, and the launch of the Space Shuttle in 1981 is nine years.
There were already several Saturn V rockets sat around looking for somewhere to go because President Nixon had cancelled Apollo 18, 19, and 20.
But wasn't the whole idea of this, the eventual design of the shuttle and what powered it up there, large parts of all of this were meant to be reusable and the Saturn V was not reusable.
It was incredibly wasteful.
Yeah, it's a good story, that one, isn't it?
Because it allows one to believe it.
Yes, the Saturn V rocket was not reusable.
Well, ironically, the Saturn V rocket could have been reused if it was required to be doing.
The first stage of the Saturn V rocket contained most of the fuel because it had to launch itself and everything else up.
And the first stage of the Saturn V rocket, the big stage, only went about 40 miles up and then fell back into the Atlantic.
All right, so there is evidence to suggest that we didn't have the power to get to the moon.
We didn't have the power to get as far in this craft.
It just simply wasn't designed for it.
Couldn't do it.
In that case, since there are craft on the moon, lunar landers, how did they get there?
Who put them there?
Certainly the Russians put them there.
The Russians launched a lunar cod.
There were two of them with mirrors, which we're told is one of the pieces of evidence to demonstrate that somebody got to the moon.
But the Russians were not manned craft that put them there.
They were unmanned craft.
Now, let's assume for the moment that everything that we're told about the lunar missions is correct.
They launched off and they got to the moon, they landed safely, they got out, they wandered about, take photographs, talk to the president, pick up rocks, come back to Earth.
That's basically the story that we're told.
They take the photographs, which is the main evidence that NASA will invariably point to to say, well, we got to the moon, look, there are the photographs.
How do we know they were taken on the moon?
Could they have been taken during this training and simulation exercises, which were held quite openly in about five different locations around America, from Washington State, where the lunar rover was developed by Boeing, down to Texas, to Houston, to Arizona, where they built a full-scale mock-up of the Sea of Tranquility.
You can go and see it today.
And I think there is a story, I think it was William Shatner during the making of Star Trek, was taken to see one of these training areas.
So, yes, they were publicly known about.
But there are an awful lot of stories about man on the moon and an awful lot of people who say, well, it didn't happen.
And, you know, here's a reason the flag didn't, the flag appears to be fluttering in a breeze.
Where's the breeze?
And if you look up at the photographs into the sky, you can't see stars there.
And all of those things have been explained, haven't they, over the years?
People have said you can't see stars because it's just like standing in a lighted room and looking out into space.
You can't see the stars because of the different aspect between where you are and where that is.
Yeah, and also the inability of the photographic film that was used.
It was Kodak ectochrome transparency material.
So it wouldn't have resolved them.
It wouldn't have recorded quite faint starlight as opposed to the directly illuminated surface of the moon because the camera, which is the key to this whole mystery, the camera itself, the camera didn't have the ability to record starlight.
Now, the camera, as I mentioned, was a Hasselblad.
Very, very good camera then and now.
Originally designed in Sweden for aerial photography, it was never designed to be carried around.
It was always designed to be mounted either in an aircraft for aerial photography or on a tripod for studio photography.
But it had excellent lenses made by Zeiss in Germany, ironically, and it could take brilliant photographs.
So it was mounted on the astronauts' chests.
Now, I said the original story, they got out, they take the photographs, they come back to Earth.
Out in space, it's not exactly the same as here on Earth.
Out in space, you've got something called radiation, which is extremely dangerous to humans, to unprotected humans, and it also seriously affects photographic film, which is why all photographic film, for those of us who remember buying photographic film, it always had an expiry date on it, usually several years into the future.
And you always thought, well, why?
It's not going to rot.
It's not going to, you know, it's not like a piece of cheese going to walk out of the fridge if it gets too old, because you always kept photographic film in the fridge, in a refrigerator.
Why does it have an expiry date?
And the answer to that is quite straightforward, that Kodak, who made it, or Ilford in the UK, Fuji in Japan, they all put an expiry date on because if it sat around for too long, it would absorb sufficient background radiation, even on the Earth's surface, to fog the film.
Fogging of film makes it look as if it's got, you're taking the photograph in a fog.
It's sort of misty.
I didn't know that.
I always used to think that film went off in the days when we used Kodak film or Ilford film.
It went off because the chemicals just simply went past their sell-by date.
No, it was to do with the radiation.
It was to do with the background radiation, which is why when you bought a roll of film, it was usually wrapped in silver foil.
But maybe their technology, and this is the explanation I've heard on countless documentaries, overcame that.
Maybe they overcame that by shielding the film very carefully.
And just like if you, in the days when people used to take film through airports, you had to take it in an aluminium container to make sure that it wasn't fogged by the X-rays.
Maybe they had a way of making that so.
Yeah, yet another good story and yet another piece of misdirection.
Yes, you'd think they would have.
I mean, that's a logical way to think, isn't it?
That, well, we're going up into space.
We've got to go through these radiation belts, the Van Allen belt.
Van Allen belts, yeah.
Which it's going to take us about an hour and a half to get through them, even at the speed the rocket's supposed to be going at.
And then we get out into deep space where there is radiation from the sun.
All radiation comes from the sun.
Gamma rays, X-rays, all the sort of things which are going to cause unpleasantnesses if you're not protected from it.
And it's going to fog photographic film.
Now, maybe they did actually get out there, do the photographs, come back and they develop the film.
Oh, look, oh, goodness, they're all fogged.
Oh, we forgot the radiation.
What are we going to do now?
And somebody might have then said, well, hey, what about those pictures we took on the simulation and training exercises?
We could use those.
Nobody else will know the difference.
Nobody else has been to the moon.
Now, if that had happened, I have absolutely no problem with that as an explanation.
But the explanation we're offered by NASA, the National Academy of Space Actors, the explanation is that these photographs were taken on the lunar surface.
And I contend that for various reasons, not least of which the operation of the camera itself, it could not have happened in the way that NASA claimed.
The camera had no viewfinder because normally you'd look through the top of a Hasselblad camera and a mirror, it's a single-lens reflex camera.
The mirror was removed because you couldn't use the viewfinder if you're wearing a spacesuit.
You also had to set the aperture, the f-stop number, the shutter speed, 125th, 250th, and the focus by hand.
There was no manual operation on this camera with the exception of the rewinding of the film.
So when you're taking a photograph in very, very bright light, Which is what you get on the moon, and you're photographing into the shadow area of the lunar lander, which happened on Apollo 11, and you then switch to photographing the directly illuminated surface of the moon.
You have some very bad photographs.
You've either bad photographs, or you have to adjust the aperture to make sure you get the correct setting.
Now, anybody can check this out.
On the Apollo 11 photographs, the one to look for is called magazine 40.
That contains 121 images, and they are the only record of the Apollo 11 surface activity.
And they show various things.
One of the things they show is Aldrin, who comes down the ladder of the Eagle, the lunar lander, photographed by Neil Armstrong, who was already on the lunar surface, who had already taken his one small step for man, one giant leap, etc.
He'd already done that.
He had the camera, only one camera.
He had the camera, and he photographed Buzz Aldrin coming down the ladder.
There are eight photographs in the sequence.
You can go onto any NASA site, Lunar and Planetary Institute site.
You can look at these photographs yourself.
They're all there.
So this is something that anybody can do.
You look at the photographs of Aldrin coming down the ladder, and you see eight in the sequence.
He starts at the top, and he finishes up on the foot of the lander.
And there are two photographs in that sequence of eight taken during the time that Neil Armstrong is watching him come down.
And it's in a period of three minutes.
The Lunar Surface Journal records every photograph when it was taken and also the timeline of the mission.
It's three minutes to take eight photographs.
Not a problem.
Anybody can take eight photographs in three minutes.
But you then have to look at the two that are taken looking at the underside of the lander and one of the legs of the lander, where the aperture has to be adjusted, the focus has to be adjusted, the shutter speed may well stay the same, but you have to adjust things.
And they are not out of focus.
They're beautifully exposed.
They're correctly composed.
And all this is achieved without a viewfinder.
Okay, so what we're saying to cut to the chase here is that we did go to the moon, but we had to make some of it up afterwards.
Yes.
Now, as I've said before, I have no problem with that as an explanation.
If the photographs were wrecked because they hadn't taken into account the full extent of the radiation and they did not protect the cameras from radiation, because I've actually used one of the lunar cameras, a replica of one of the lunar cameras, there is no protection on it.
It's a bit of paint on it, a bit of aluminium paint, which is supposed to protect against the heat.
Because don't forget, you've got extremes of heat and cold as well.
In the sunlight on the moon, it's plus 150 degrees centigrade.
In the shadow, it's minus 150 degrees centigrade, i.e.
colder than any temperature here on Earth and hotter than any temperature here on Earth.
And these cameras operated with no problem at all.
They had little batteries inside them to advance the film.
These didn't malfunction in the 32,000 photographs taken on the Apollo missions.
You can go and see every one online now.
All right.
So again, cutting to the chase, we're talking about a small, well, I say small, it's not small, but we're talking about a degree of fakery.
But at least the missions happened.
They did happen.
Or did they happen because you were saying before that the craft didn't really have the power to take the payload up there?
And there are all sorts of things that smell a bit fishy.
Exactly.
Now, they may well have got there, but where's the evidence?
And this is the problem I come up against all the time.
If the evidence itself, i.e.
the photographs and the film and the video and all the rest are in this, I haven't even started on the video yet.
There's a whole lot of unanswered questions.
Now, because people want the Apollo missions to have happened the way we were told, it was a great achievement.
Some of those Apollo photographs are considered to be the iconic photographs of the 20th century.
People want it to be true.
But we've been told so many things by so many people that this will, you know, banks will never collapse.
We will not go to war.
We've been told so many things which are proven to be completely wrong.
Let's not even start on 9-11.
So many things are proven to be wrong ultimately.
If you go back in history, you can see a lot of it happening.
That how can we be certain?
How can we be absolutely certain?
And you say, you've spoken to Ed Mitchell.
I don't doubt Ed Mitchell is an honest man.
All astronauts are honest men of great integrity.
But, and there is a but here, they are all military under the command of their commander-in-chief, the president.
Okay, well, again, cutting to the chase, the key point about that is that a lot of time has elapsed.
Some people have died in the interim.
Some people are now getting up in years and have very little to lose.
Why has nobody broken ranks and said actually there were multiple deceptions around the moon missions?
And we think you need to know.
They have.
A lot of people have done it.
A lot of people are coming forward to do it.
I mentioned the Russians who have started to examine the raw data of the Apollo missions.
And they are saying, look, you know, it just doesn't add up.
These things are not as we were told they were.
So the Russians have blown the whistle.
You just have to know where to look to find the evidence.
And Marcus, what do you believe is going on on Mars?
Because we have these wonderful images from the Curiosity mission, and we're being prepared, perhaps, for the existence of some kind of life, but not as we know it, as they say, on the surface of Mars.
But then the rover had a bit of a shutdown, didn't it?
Because they said they had to close it down for a while.
Even though it had worked perfectly up to that point, they had to close it down for a while.
What do you think about the veracity of what we're being told coming from Mars?
I think basically it's true.
Well, either you say that the Mars missions are not happening.
It's all happening in a studio here on Earth, which I have heard.
I don't believe that because there is too much evidence to indicate that what they have achieved on Mars is quite a remarkable piece of technological advancement over what originally happened.
But we seem to be being edged.
And yes, it might just be happenstance.
It might just be random that these things are being discovered and everybody is whoopee.
It looks like we're getting closer to life being discovered, some kind of previous life.
We're being edged towards that.
I fully expect there to be some kind of announcement in the next month or so that might tell us even more.
It's possible that, I mean, there seems to be a consensus that there was at one time flowing water on the Martian surface.
That may well be the case.
But what I find really quite extraordinary is that they put so much effort and intelligence and technology into Mars, which is fine, you know, that's not a problem.
And yet, they're not looking at the moon.
I've looked at recently some of the Russian photographs taken on the lunar surface by the Zond craft.
The Zond were unmanned satellites that did land on the lunar surface back in the late 1960s, around the time of Apollo.
And there is a photograph there showing what, by any stretch of the imagination, would appear to be a satellite dish on the lunar surface on the far side.
By the way, it's always called the far side of the moon, the bit we can't see.
It's never called the dark side.
That was the record by Pink Floyd.
The far side of the moon, the bit we can't see, but has been photographed by not only the Russians, but the Americans.
The Russians have no problem in putting out the unedited version.
And by all accounts, it looks exactly like a big satellite receiving dish.
I don't know if it is or not.
The detail isn't sufficient to be able to confirm it.
So who would have put that there?
Well, the guys who lived there.
Because if we're going to get into the realms of a little bit of speculation here, the moon shouldn't be where it is.
It shouldn't be the size it is.
If it is a natural satellite, it's far too big and it's far too close.
Answer the question then.
If you took the moon away, what would happen?
Well, we'd get no tides for a start, would be one answer.
But is the presence of the moon what precipitated life as we know it here on Earth?
Did that stabilize the Earth itself to the point where not only do we get seasons, we get tides, we get many things as a result of the presence of the moon?
Supposing, and I only say supposing, the moon is artificial, placed deliberately where it is in order to create the conditions that life can move forward here on Earth.
Because it does seem to be a weird object.
Now, it faces towards us.
One face of the moon is towards us at all times.
That is a very, very strange orbital activity.
And it's explained by tidal drag and all the rest of it.
But the moon is quite a big object.
It's over 2,000 miles in diameter.
We've only ever seen, we only ever see one side at any one time.
Supposing, and just supposing the moon is artificial, and just because we can't build something 2,000 miles in diameter doesn't mean to say it can't be done.
And inside the moon is where ET lives, or one version of ET.
And if we see what we call flying saucers rushing about on Earth, looking for somewhere to land, could they come from the moon?
Because if they came in and out of the back of the far side of the moon.
We wouldn't know.
We wouldn't know.
You're right.
And the perfect cover for that is to have the moon geostationary.
Not exactly geostationary, but not spinning as you would expect it to spin or orbiting in the way that you would expect it to orbit.
Marcus, there's an awful lot more to talk about.
We always used to have this problem on radio, I remember now, where I always felt that I wanted to get you back for another three hours and we never had the time.
I just wanted very, very quickly, and I mean in a couple of minutes, just to delve into one thing that fascinated me last night.
It was something I couldn't put down.
It was the piece in the current edition of Nexus magazine about close encounters in the Bermuda Triangle and an amazing story.
And I'll try and summarize it very, very quickly because we just don't have the time.
However, it's the story of a light aircraft flight around the Bermuda Triangle area and they go through some kind of weird cloud that changes in dimension and shape seemingly all the time.
It's incredibly strange inside.
And to cut a long story short, their flight from one of the Caribbean islands to Miami is about one-third, less than a half the time that it should have been.
And this plane only had the capacity to do it in 47 minutes or whatever it was, and it did it in 23 minutes, something like that.
Is that a true story, as far as you know?
As far as I know, because Nexus Magazine is created, put together, and edited by Duncan Rhodes in Australia.
He doesn't have a track record of putting fiction in the magazine.
He doesn't do that.
This would appear to be a very, very well-researched, accurately written about story.
It's actually written by Trish and Rob McGregor, who are Hollywood scriptwriters, which may tell you a little bit about their ability to put a story together.
I have to say, it's beautifully written.
It is absolutely impeccably written.
And that was why I had to ask you, as far as you know, is this a true story?
Because it was so good that it could have been a finely crafted work of fiction.
It was that good.
Well, you know what they say, the difference between fact and fiction.
Fiction has to make sense to believe it.
Facts are not necessarily believable.
And what is alleged in this piece doesn't add up, doesn't make any sense.
Not by the science that we understand, the physics that we have.
It just doesn't compute.
Yeah, it's the sort of thing people will do.
Oh, yeah, it's a Bermuda triangle.
Well, we know all about that.
It's been solved.
It was just compasses going a bit astray.
And this happened allegedly, I think, in 19...
Around that time, yeah.
It's something which needs one of those things.
I mentioned right at the beginning, we look at information, we take it in, we don't necessarily believe it until we get something else confirming it.
Now, anybody who has studied the Bermuda Triangle will know that there are a lot of unexplained activities going on.
There may well be a logical scientific explanation, but yet, so far, nobody has actually come up with it.
And there is also a research base, a US base, on a tiny, tiny Caribbean island that I'd never heard of near Bermuda, isn't it?
That's right.
Yeah.
The island is...
Andros.
Andros, thank you.
Andros.
Off, hence Bermuda Triangle.
It's near to Bermuda.
Yes, there is a US naval base there, which the people there are not too keen on you sort of landing and saying, can have a look around, please.
No, you can't do that.
So what on earth is it that they've got?
They may well have a permanently legitimate reason to be there.
So once again, Marcus Allen, we leave it.
It's been six years or so since we last spoke.
We leave more questions than answers.
And that's what I like about you.
So as I always used to say, you've got to come on again.
Marcus, a delight to talk with you.
Thank you very much for making time for me.
Thank you.
Very, very pleased to be here, Howard.
And thank you for your delightful interview technique.
It's always good to hear from Marcus Allen from Nexus Magazine.
I'll put a link to the magazine on my website, www.theunexplained.tv, so you can find out more about it and about him.
And I promise a return visit from Marcus sooner than about six or seven years.
Thank you very much for everything that you've said about this show.
Please keep your emails coming.
www.theunexplained.tv is the place to go.
That's my website.
You can send me email from there or make a donation to the show, which would be gratefully received.
Adam Cornwell is my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
He devised the website and gets the show out to you.
Martin, of course, made the theme tune.
Thank you very much for your continuing support.
Please give me your feedback.
Thank you for the nice things you've been saying wherever in the world you are.
And if you're celebrating Easter, happy Easter.
My name is Howard Hughes.
This has been The Unexplained, and I will be back soon.
▲
Export Selection