All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:08:14
Edition 226 - Conspiracy Theories

This time Researcher James K Lambert on how he thinks "conspiracy theories" just don't stackup...

| 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.
Well, we're definitely careering at the end of October towards winter time here.
The sky as I record this now is grey and the forecast for tomorrow is grey and the temperature's going down.
It's about, what is it, 12 degrees today?
And it's all too depressing for words.
And all we can do is hope that the winter is kind to us.
But if you believe the tabloid newspapers, I've got a stack of them here, they're telling us that we're going to have a very cold winter in the UK and in Europe.
Let's hope, once again, they are completely wrong about that.
But we'll see.
Now, important Graham Hancock news.
Regular followers of this show will know that I've been trying to get Graham Hancock on here for about four or five years.
Looks like he's going to do it in the next week or so.
So if you're very quick, you can get a question into Graham Hancock if you've ever wanted to ask him anything, then just go to the website, theunexplained.tv, www.theunexplained.tv, and just send me a message in the usual way, but put in the subject of your email, question for Graham Hancock, and then I'll see it.
And if I can, if I get it in time, I'll put it to him.
So questions for Graham Hancock, first time we've done this, let's see if we can make it happen.
And hopefully Graham will be coming on the show.
Sometimes he has last-minute commitments, and let's hope that this time it happens.
Thank you very much for all of your emails.
I'm going to do a mountain of shout-outs before we get to the guest on this edition.
So I'm going to start them right now, because I think that's the only way to do it.
Dive in.
First of all, Anna Boo.
She's known as that.
That's her nickname.
Anna, nice to hear from you.
She's from the United Kingdom, but is now living in Australia.
Thank you very much for telling me your story, Anna.
And all I can say to you is please take care and please do stay in touch, Anna.
And nice to hear from you.
And you are in my thoughts.
Kat says, hi, Howard.
Wants to say thank you.
Your podcasts have kept me inspired while I'm constructing my honours project for my textile design degree.
Wow, I could never do that.
I'm useless with anything like that.
I'm so full of admiration.
I'm knitting a jacket and knitted collection inspired by interstellar communication.
Thank you, Kat.
Let me know how it goes.
Joe Marino, not to be confused with the football manager in the UK, Jose Mourinho.
Joe, thanks for your email.
Louis Nosworthy, thank you for the donation.
Jose Fernandez, nice to hear from you.
Joshua says, keep up the good work.
And please give a shout out to Utah if you can.
What a beautiful place this is, says Joshua.
So big shout-out for Utah.
One of these days, I'd love to be able to come and see for myself.
Keith in High Wickham, take care.
Thank you for your email.
Robert van der Beld.
Van den Beld, I think is probably the right way to say that.
I probably mispronounced it anyway, but we'll see.
Says, I've been listening to all of your podcast editions in the last six months, largely from a beautiful monastery called Scheyen, 50 kilometers north of Munich in an area called Hallatau.
And I've been listening while I've been driving, walking the dog, or just in the living room, downloading one show after another.
You're my kind of listener, Robert.
Thank you very much.
Robert Vandenbelt.
Shout out from Lagos, Nigeria.
Michael Bankoli says, I've not heard any mention of us, so I've decided to let you know that you have at least one listener in Nigeria.
I bet there are many other listeners throughout Africa.
I know I've got some in South Africa and right up at the top, but if you're listening anywhere in Central Africa, East or West Africa, South Africa, whichever part of that great continent you're on, like Michael Bancole in Lagos, please let me know because I'd love to hear from you.
Sue in York, regular listener.
Thank you for your email.
All points taken.
Colin McRoberts, kind comments.
Thank you.
Paul G says you make my commute bearable.
Thank you, Paul.
That's nice.
Some nice comments, too, from Findlay in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Findlay, you get around, don't you?
Sandra in Tampa, Florida.
I believe the topic of CERN would make for a thought-provoking program.
A few people have emailed me recently about CERN.
I need to investigate this.
Thank you, Sandra.
Jim in Austin, Texas.
Love the show with Fevzi Turkalp, the gadget detective, about future technology.
Fevzi has already agreed to come back on.
Charles, who may at this moment be on the Ludlow bus in Shropshire right now.
Charles, you lucky man, lovely area.
You know that I lived in Worcester for a while.
In fact, in Malvern for a couple of years, and know that area that you're in very well.
TK in Yorkville, Manhattan, some nice words.
Luke Beshard, who is in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Quebec, Canada.
Luke, nice to hear from you.
James Cheadle, James, can you tell me more about that video that you sent me?
I need to know more.
Fellow podcaster Lobo in Connecticut, nice to hear from you.
Paul in Newcastle, Australia, says, hi, Howard.
It's been said there's an increase in UFO activity in war zones.
Has it been reported, what, with all the fighting and hatred going on around the world?
I don't know, but I would be interested to find out.
Thanks, Paul.
Daniel, listening in the Tanos Mountains of Germany.
Thank you for your email.
Nathan in Minneapolis.
Thanks for the photos of Venice Beach, by the way.
Some happy memories of years ago when I visited that wonderful place in California.
Nathan, that was thoughtful of you.
Thank you.
Frank D'Angelo wants to hear financial forecaster Martin Armstrong on here.
Frank, he's one of a number of people who I've sent an email to asking him to come on the show.
No reply so far.
If you hear him, then he replied.
And if you don't, you know what happened.
And some people just don't reply.
It's a little dispiriting, but it happens.
Adam Young in Houston, Texas.
Thanks, Adam.
Ian in Run Corn, Cheshire.
Nice to hear from you.
Message here.
Hello.
Love the show.
I work alone.
I'm a gardener working in the grounds of a big manor house in North Oxfordshire and listening during the day.
Keep on keeping on, says Daniel.
Thank you, Daniel.
David, who's a barrister in Brisbane, Australia, liked the interview with Charles R. Mallet about crop circles, right from Crop Circle Central in Wiltshire.
David, thank you for that.
Bea, who's a firefighter in the Appalachians in the US, wants to hear Richard Dolan.
Richard Dolan has been on this show before, but we'd like to get him back.
Carla, from what she calls a small town in Oklahoma.
Thank you, Carla, and thank you for the paranormal photographs as well.
Barry in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Nice to hear from you again, Barry.
Joey in Rendlesham, UK would like a forum on the website.
Joey, it's another one of those costing problems.
Unfortunately, at the moment, we don't have the money for that.
If we expand the show, hopefully, there will be the funds to do all of that cool stuff that I'm just itching to do.
You know, it frustrates me enormously that there are so many things I can't do and would like to.
But, you know, we'll get to it.
I promise.
You know, I promised you news about this show and you will be getting it.
Kevin Hamby, nice to hear from you.
He says, great interview as always on the crop circles.
It says you have the best voice on air.
Kevin, I don't know about that.
But thank you very much.
Says I'd like to hear a show about the evidence of an ancient race of giants in the future.
And that is something I've got to do.
Finally, for this time round from Suchant in California, or Sushant, thank you very much indeed for your email.
Says, first and foremost, I must thank you for hosting the most intriguing podcast with a keen journalistic aptitude and direction.
Well, we do our best, Sushant.
Live, I do, in San Francisco, and I listen to the podcast on my way into the office.
You know that I love to hear from you when you tell me where you are and how you use and listen to this show.
So if you'd like to get in touch, go to the website, theunexplained.tv, and you can send me a message.
And if you can, while you're there, please leave a donation for the show.
It's rocket fuel for what we do and for future expansion.
Thank you very much to Adam Cornwell, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, for his continued hard work on all of this, getting the show out to you and developing our content offering to you.
Right, let's get to the guest this time who I haven't mentioned up to now.
Taking a bit of a walk on the wild side, I got an email from somebody saying I should be on your show.
Now, I do get quite a few of those, but I did check him out, and I thought he was worth giving a shot on this show.
His name is James Lambert.
He's in the US, and I guess you could describe him as the antithesis of all of those conspiracy theorists that we hear.
Now, look, let me nail my colours right to the mast before we start.
I believe that we are quite considerably lied to in this world.
I think that politicians often don't tell us the truth and the murky facts of what some of them get up to, and others in the military and other organizations that we rely upon.
When those murky facts come out, they will shock people.
But I'm not sure that I believe every conspiracy theory that there's ever been.
Well, James Lambert, who's about to come on the unexplained, will have a different take on all of that.
So we haven't really been in this territory before.
I want to get your thoughts about him when he's been on.
So let's get to the United States now.
He's in the Central Time Zone, which I think is about six hours difference, maybe seven from here.
I think it's six.
So James Lambert, thank you very much for coming on The Unexplained.
Thank you for having me, Howard.
Now, James, you are an intriguing person, and I have to say that I do get some emails from people saying, I ought to be on your show.
And sometimes they turn out to be not the kind of people I want to have on the show, and sometimes you kind of hit pay dirt, you know.
So my expectations are high, James.
No pressure.
Okay.
You're in Minneapolis, yeah?
Yes, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Okay, now the only thing I know about Minneapolis is that it's a twin city, isn't it, with St. Paul?
Isn't that right?
Correct.
Right.
And the other thing.
St. Paul's the capital.
Right.
Okay.
You see, I've just learned something there.
I didn't know that.
And the other thing I know about Minneapolis is it's where Mary Tyler Moore lived.
Yes, that is true.
See, I remember these things with Lou Grant, the news editor, back in the day.
And that's all I know.
Okay, now you've got one of the reasons you're on here is you sent me that email and I went to your website and did a little bit of checking on the website.
And the website speaks to me of somebody who thinks very clearly.
It's a very clean website and it's, if I may say so, it's very well put together.
Why did you put it out there?
You know, a number of things in my life got me interested in history.
And at some point, I got sidetracked into a lot of conspiracy stuff.
And I came to believe that conspiracy ideas are potentially very dangerous.
I know a lot of people see them as entertainment, but I see them as dangerous to kind of the social cohesion of society, that they create paranoia and they make people less interested in participating in civil society.
And so I just thought I should do something to push back against that.
But isn't it hard in civil society, both sides of the Atlantic, to know when politicians and people in positions of power are misleading you?
I mean, the kind of society where we don't ask questions and we don't construct theories that have these people sometimes being the black hats in the story, that kind of society is one where people just are very compliant.
You wouldn't want that, would you?
No, it's not at all that that I'm advocating.
What I'm saying is that people tend to go to this far extreme.
They believe in, you know, as I would define conspiracy theories, some kind of super powerful puppet masters that run the world, some kind of sinister cabal of people who has enormous power and enormous kind of unanimity of purpose.
And no such group exists.
There are all kinds of bad people doing bad things, be it in government or in business or in labor unions or in religion or wherever.
But they are individual actors who have competing interests.
The conspiracy idea, the conspiracy theorists, is that somehow there's just one master group that's running everything.
And that makes people feel hopeless, makes them feel that they can't get anywhere with anything.
And yet if you listen to people like Alex Jones, and I had him on the radio version of this show some years ago, and all he did was shout at me for an hour.
But if you listen to people like Alex Jones, which I do, he puts together what sounds like a very cogent case for there being a globalist elite of united people who are out there to do us down, take away our liberties, deny us free speech, and all the rest of it.
And things that happen in the news, he weaves all of those in there.
And if you listen to it, you come out of it Not, I think he would want you coming out of it feeling empowered.
And you're saying that the reverse is true.
You are actually disempowered.
Yeah, I mean, you might feel empowered to listen to more Alex Jones or buy his merchandise or, you know, go out to his rallies, but you won't be empowered to go to your local city council and try to get something changed in your community because you think it's all rigged against you.
But can we be sure, with our hand on our hearts and looking to the skies, that there are not groups in this world who are out to do us down?
You know, I really cannot have your, just as I cannot have Alex Jones' complete faith there's a globalist conspiracy, I'm not sure that I have your entire faith that everything is happenstance and there are not cabals and cartels of people working against our interest.
Well, like I said, there's always going to be actors acting badly and sometimes they're going to get together and do things.
I mean, we know of conspiracies in history.
There was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln.
There was a conspiracy in Watergate.
There are always things that happen, but they are not vast multi-generational plans with a single solitary purpose that stays consistent and consistently hidden over multiple generations.
Now, there is a trend though.
It becomes absurd.
And I completely understand where you're coming from on that.
It is possible, though, isn't it, to look at what appears to be a denial of liberty, and I'm talking about your country and mine, laws which are brought in that curb our freedom, the growing trend towards being spied upon, ordinary citizens.
You know, what I'm saying now is probably being heard by somebody.
You know, I have very strong reason to believe that may well be true.
You know, we have to build that into our model, don't we?
That this is becoming a centralized world.
And there are those who may just take one step further and say, okay, centralized it is, but it's also a globalist conspiracy.
That is what you call, that's the definition of a globalist conspiracy.
You know, we are not completely free to say what we want to.
And when we do say what we want to, somebody's listening somewhere.
Our freedoms are perhaps not quite what they used to be.
All of that adds up to, you know, if it looks like a, you know, looks like a dog and barks like a dog, then a dog it is.
I think we tend to romanticize the past a little bit too much as to how much freedom we feel people had.
And in some ways, our freedoms have gotten more curtailed.
In some ways, they've gotten bigger.
You know, people used to think, I know in this country, when we first got driver's licenses that had people's photographs on them, they thought that was just the end of society.
You know, now how dare we have this identifying mark of who we are and that we have to have, you know, our papers on us like it's Nazi Germany.
You have ID cards, though, don't you?
Well, we have driver's license that if you don't drive, then you can get an ID card to do other things to verify who you are.
Right, so you can go and buy alcohol and that kind of stuff with your ID card.
In this country, there's a huge debate about ID cards.
We don't have them, but then there are people saying that there are a million other ways that we're being tagged anyway in this country, that we're getting ID cards by the back door.
Right, but you have to get like a passport to get on an airplane, right?
Well, yeah, yeah, you do.
Last time I checked.
Yeah.
So, I mean, at some point, there becomes a certain practical necessity to identify who's getting on airplanes.
Now, could that power be abused?
Of course it could.
But the mere fact that we have ID cards doesn't mean that we've lost our liberty.
You know, the mere fact that cops in some cities have to carry guns and in other cities, they're more casual doesn't mean that the casual cities are less free.
They're just different circumstances.
And so I think that people tend to point to things and say, well, this is changing, so therefore it's a loss of liberty.
And that isn't necessarily so.
And the more we participate in society, the more we can ensure that it doesn't end up being a loss of liberty.
Okay.
So no globalist conspiracy, but we have to nevertheless, you're not saying that we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing.
You're saying that we need to be watchful, mindful of our freedoms.
We have to guard them just as jealously as we would were we believers in the global elite.
Yeah, here's just an example that popped in my head.
I've heard about oil companies that will want to drill someplace and they don't want somebody else to drill there.
So they'll back environmentalist groups to do studies about how bad it is for somebody to drill there and shut down the little guy driller.
And then they'll come in and end up drilling there anyways.
Now, it seems like all oil companies are this sinister cabal of oil companies who are totally on the opposite side of the equation from environmentalists.
But in reality, it's much more complicated than that.
And you'll find these institutions trying to use one another to advance their own ends.
And that's why this kind of global system of running everything, it just doesn't work because people always have different interests and they're always trying to play different groups against one another.
Well, that's another way of putting the same thing, though, isn't it, of putting the same situation scenario.
If you think about the oil companies, a lot of the people who are the senior executives, they're bright guys and women in those positions.
You know, they are bright people.
They probably socialized in the same circles.
They probably went to the same kind of universities.
They probably know each other.
And if they're internationally connected, then that gives a global dimension to the whole thing.
That is, again, another name for the same thing, isn't it?
That's a bunch of organizations acting in collaboration against the public interest.
Well, they're acting in their interest, and there are alternative groups acting in their interest.
And these may or may not be good for the general public, and they may or may not coincide with one another.
But what you don't find is that there is some single solitary purpose and some single solitary masters continuing on the way somebody like Alex Jones would have you believe.
And if you look, you know, I know that Alex Jones is very Compelling to some people.
But if you look at, he's a big fan of the John Birch Society.
Are you familiar with them?
No, tell me.
So the John Birch Society was founded in the 1950s by a guy who was in the candy business, and he sold out his shares of the candy business, and he decided to become kind of a full-time activist for saving America.
And he named this society the John Birch Society after an officer who was serving in China during World War II.
And as soon as the war ended and suddenly, you know, the Chinese were no longer facing the Japanese threat, then the Chinese communists started to take over the country and they killed John Birch.
It's a little unclear why they killed him.
Some people say because he was spreading Christianity.
Other people say that he just did something to piss somebody off, but he got killed by the Chinese.
And so he was seen in America as kind of this first victim of communism in this new era, in this post-World War II era.
And so the John Birch Society was sounding the alarm that the communists were taking over and we had to stop them.
And they were convinced the guy who founded this, Robert Welch, he wrote a book called The Politician about Dwight Eisenhower, in which he argued that Eisenhower was really a communist agent.
You know, I mean, this is the supreme Allied commander in World War II was really a Soviet agent.
Well, you know, a lot of things I will believe.
I think that's, I'm actually recording this not very far from where Eisenhower had his wartime base in London.
And there's a lot of stuff written and monuments and that sort of thing.
I find that a little hard to, that stretches credulity.
Let's put it that way, James.
Right.
And then, of course, after that, then they totally believed that John Kennedy was an agent of the Soviets.
And they believed that Kennedy had been killed because he wasn't effective enough in turning America towards communism, that he hadn't done enough for the communists.
And so they thought it would be easier to just kill him off and then use his death as a means of trying to take over the country.
And they believed that, you know, that the communists had failed in their plan, but that was their ultimate plan.
All right.
Well, I'm glad you talked about Kennedy because I know you've had a lot to say about Kennedy.
The Kennedy case is going to be talked about for as long as there are going to be people on this planet, I suspect, and probably without any firm conclusion.
No matter what reports appear, no matter how many magic bullets, and I know that phrase is important to you, no matter how many magic bullets there are that appear to arc back in the air and go back and hit somebody again, there will never be complete satisfaction on this point.
And doesn't it strike you at least that the fact that so many people have so many different takes on why JFK was gunned down in the way that he was suggests that there's something a little fishy about it?
Absolutely not.
As people have said to me often, they said, well, where there's smoke, there's fire.
And I say, well, no, sometimes there's just a man with the smoke machine.
And so bringing it back to the John Birch Society and Alex Jones, if you look at where they began with this threat of communism, well, once the Soviet Union fell apart, they lost that.
And so now they've moved on to things like the Illuminati and this bigger conspiracy behind the communists.
So in other words, they had to get a little more sophisticated in their thinking, and they couldn't just blame the Pinkos and the commies.
They had to find somebody else.
Right.
And it's really what it demonstrates is a mindset in a lot of people to believe this kind of stuff.
And it doesn't matter what the evidence is, because when their evidence falls apart, they'll just find a new thing.
It's like a cult when they say that the world's going to end tomorrow and it doesn't end.
And they say, well, we just got the date wrong, but the world's going to end next year on the same date.
And they just keep revising their cult all the time.
Do you honestly believe, though, that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone from the fifth floor, whichever floor it was of the Texas Book Depository, was the sole and only gunman involved in the death of JFK?
Absolutely.
And it was the sixth floor.
Okay, thank you.
Sixth floor.
It was the fifth or sixth.
Thank you for correcting me on that.
It's been a long, tiring day.
But sixth floor.
Okay, so you honestly think, and you believe all that stuff, those photographs that look a little doctored with him, you know, happily holding a rifle there, the fact that he was, you know, if you ever want a smoking gun, somebody who hands out communist or cast procastro leaflets, didn't he, on the streets of Dallas.
If anybody was a prime target to be what he said, a Patsy, to be set up, surely there was one.
You know, surely there was more to that than meets the eye.
Oh, there's a lot there to kind of deconstruct.
It was actually the streets of New Orleans that he was handing out those procastro leaflets.
He kind of went back and forth between New Orleans and Dallas, trying to find a home for himself.
And that Patsy quote is something that I often hear.
You know, people say, well, why would he use that word?
Years ago, I ran into Jesse Ventura.
Are you familiar with Jesse Ventura?
I met him on the show twice, yeah.
Yes.
I ran into him in Dealey Plaza at the 40th anniversary years ago.
And he was yelling to people about why would he use that word?
Why would he say Patsy?
Well, what I think is interesting is why do people always take that word out of context?
Why don't they give the entire quote?
Because what actually happened was Oswald was paraded in front of the media because the Dallas police were pretty inept and didn't realize that that wasn't the way to handle the situation.
And the media started yelling questions at him and they said, you know, did you do it?
Did you shoot the president?
And he said, I didn't shoot the president.
He said, they've just arrested me because I lived in the Soviet Union.
I'm just a patsy.
So he was very directly saying, and I think he was lying, but he was very directly saying, I'm not the guilty party, but these cops are making me a Patsy because they don't like my communist beliefs.
All right.
Well, if you read it that way, that's fine.
But if he wasn't the guilty party, in His words, who would have been the guilty party then?
There is nobody else that there is any evidence for.
And what about all of this triangulation theory that we've seen, the fact that it can be construed and portrayed that there had to be a second gunman standing on the grassy knoll?
That's often repeated, but the forensics evidence doesn't hold up.
Not only the Warren Commission looked at that evidence, but the House Select Committee looked at that evidence more than a decade later.
And numerous other groups within the government have looked at this and outside the government.
Every time you send like a forensics expert to actually go look at the bloody clothes that are still kept in the National Archives and the X-rays that were taken and everything, there is simply no hard evidence that there was a shooter in any other location or that anybody else was involved.
And one bullet that appears to behave spectacularly.
What bullet can behave like that?
What bullet can double back on itself?
What bullet can hit two people?
But, well, two people is not too hard if they're in a straight line.
The Nazis used to line people up and bet how many people the bullet would go through, how many people would kill before the bullet would be stopped.
And what about Oswald?
He had been in the military, so he knew how to use a weapon, but him loosing off shots like that in such a, quotes, professional way, a lot of people have cast doubt on that.
How could he, you know, in one random pressurized situation on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, you know, could somebody who really wasn't a trained sharpshooter actually manage that?
Well, it's not really that far of a shot.
I mean, I had a little bit of military training.
I went into the Army out of high school, and it's not that far of a shot.
I don't believe that it's anywhere near the difficulty that it's made out to be.
But this is also a man who practiced with that rifle repeatedly.
This is a man who took a shot at General Walker, a right-wing member of the John Birch Society, who was shot at at his home one night.
And there's clear evidence that Oswald is the one who did that.
He admitted it to his wife that he had taken a shot at General Walker.
So this wasn't the first time he had actually shot at somebody.
And he only hit two out of three shots, and he only had one fatal shot out of those three.
So it's not like he was a dead-on marksman who shot three fatal rounds.
Oswald starts mouthing off to the media, but doesn't get much of a chance to do that because he himself is killed by a man about whom many questions have been cast over the years.
A man of not the greatest intellect from what we understand.
A man with police connections, which is how he was able to get himself into the position where he was and was able to take that fatal shot.
A man who may have had security service connections, didn't he?
What about Jack Ruby?
Oh, Jack Ruby, you know, people like to point to these alleged powerful connections that he had, but he was a guy who owned a couple of strip clubs.
And yeah, a lot of the cops came down to his strip clubs and he'd give them free drinks and stuff.
And so, yeah, they liked him.
And sometimes he'd stop by at the station house and give them some food from, you know, that he had left over.
And he'd do all kinds of nice things for them.
So yeah, he was buddies with them.
But he walked in and out of that station all the time with a gun on him because it was pretty commonplace in those days.
And he was a man who traveled a lot of cash.
And so nobody thought to check him.
But it doesn't mean that there was some kind of sinister thing going on.
Security was simply very lax, and you certainly didn't check people who you knew.
And the fact that Jack Ruby happened to show up at the right time that day, if you look at what he actually did that morning, he got a phone call from one of his strippers in Fort Worth who said, I need some money.
Will you please wire me some money?
And so he had to go downtown to the Western Union office and wire her money.
He had to stand in line and wait.
He just happened to walk out of Western Union and walk over to the police station where the crowd was.
And Oswald happened to be moved a couple hours later than they were planning on moving him.
And when Jack Ruby walked in, he saw his opportunity to shoot Oswald and he was mad at him for what he had done to the president, and he did it.
Now, Jack Ruby, unlike the caricature of some kind of cold-blooded mob hitman, was really a pretty unstable figure.
The kind of people who do these shootings, people like Oswald and Ruby are unstable figures.
Jack Ruby used to carry around a picture of President Kennedy in his pocket, and he would kiss it like a baby.
He would throw people out of his club who would insult the president, which was very common in Dallas in those days for people to insult the president.
And he was kind of out of step with the Dallas community in many ways, but he was also just bizarre behavior.
He brought his dog down to Dallas with him that day and left his dog in the car.
I don't know a lot of people who are, you know, professional hitmen who bring their dog along, let alone leave their dog in the car.
Well, they're surely going to get arrested.
You know, it wasn't some kind of well-thought-out thing that he did.
But we said that he wasn't a man, from what I've read and heard, of the greatest intellect.
So it might have been something that he would do, even if he was inspired to do this by somebody else.
You know, that was a very lucky shot, wasn't it?
That he got himself into exactly the right place, was able to fire at him, and was able to kill him, not just seriously wound him.
Yeah, it was a very bad shot.
It went right in his gut and it bounced around inside of Oswald, hitting several major organs.
But if you look at just how inept things were at that time, I've watched a lot of this footage of the live coverage, and you can see like they had an armored car where they were going to move Oswald.
And then all of a sudden when Oswald got shot, they had to bring in an Ambulance, but nobody thought to move the armored car.
And then the armored car was in the way of the ambulance.
And you can see all this disorganized, like, you know, people yelling at people, go move that.
And nobody knowing what's going on.
It was not some kind of careful security or the things that we imagine from a Hollywood movie or the things that we've seen, you know, from the Secret Service.
So you're saying it was the chaos theory of history.
In that moment, that was very chaotic.
What about, James?
What about all of these photographs?
To move on to something else, all of these photographs that people have talked about, and, you know, all right, they make great documentaries on the Discovery Channel, don't they?
Of black and white pictures of known people who are known now or were known as Secret Service agents being seen in among the people around that area where the president was killed.
People later identified as being Secret Service and dressed not as you would expect such people to be.
What do you make of that?
Well, all kinds of people have been allegedly identified.
G. Gordon Liddy, who was involved in Watergate, was allegedly there.
Howard Hunt, who was involved in Watergate, was allegedly there.
And didn't George E. Howard Huntington Bush was allegedly there?
Sorry to interrupt.
Didn't Howard Hunt make some kind of claimed deathbed statement?
That's claimed by conspiracy theorists again.
Once again, it's not what the facts show.
It's what has been repeated.
But if you look at the number of people who were allegedly in Dealey Plaza that day, it's just unreal.
William F. Buckley, the conservative commentator, was allegedly there.
You know, all these people.
And you'll also hear a rumor about how George H.W. Bush, who was running for Congress at the time in Texas and far away from Dallas, he has very clearly stated, you know, this is the city I was in.
I had a campaign stop that day.
This is what I was doing.
And yet you will find, if you search it on the internet, people over and over again say that George W. Bush claims he doesn't know where he was when President Kennedy was shot.
Obviously, he has a guilty conscience.
Now, there's nothing obvious about that.
You've just lied about what he said so that you can pretend he has a guilty conscience.
So this is almost...
I just don't want to lose this point because it's such an interesting thing, isn't it?
And everybody gets fired up over this one.
So what you're saying is that these little beacons of factoids poke up above the morass and the conspiracy theorists stitch them all together.
Whereas, and then they ignore all the other stuff that is beneath the factoids, if you see what I'm saying.
Very badly put.
But you know what I mean.
Yeah, I once wrote a blog column where I said that they can't see the case through the evidence.
You know, they're so concentrated on this or that piece of evidence that they can't see the overall case.
And so much of the time, this or that piece of evidence is a phony piece of evidence.
To bring it back to the magic bullet, which was not magical at all, if you actually look at the alignment of that car, of where Kennedy was seated and where Connolly was seated, the fact that Connolly was in a seat that was lower in the car than Kennedy, and the fact that the car was going downhill and curving away from the building, what you end up with is a perfect straight line that goes through both men and right back to the sixth floor.
So you're saying that it's down to the relative positions of the men and not the gymnastics of the bullet.
Right.
The bullet didn't have to zig or zag or change directions in any way.
It just had to travel in a straight line through two people, which is perfectly possible.
Now, that's exactly what the Warren Commission said happened.
Now, people came along later and they made these diagrams showing the bullet going zigging, zagging, and they oftentimes even label those diagrams as coming from the Warren Commission report.
One of the first books to do this is a book by Robert Grodin called High Treason, in which he labels it as the Warren Commission's magic bullet.
And so you think that this is a diagram that comes right out of the Warren Commission, but it's not.
It's not at all what the Warren Commission said.
And so only by making up this lie against the Warren Commission are they able to pretend to argue against the Warren Commission.
And what about the idea that an attempt was planned to take JFK out before that, at a previous event, and that backfired, didn't happen, couldn't happen.
So Dallas was decided to be the place.
You don't buy that either.
I don't buy that either.
I do buy that the president had threats against his life all the time, and that, in fact, there are a lot more attempted assassinations than most people are familiar with.
You know, a lot of people have been shot at or almost shot at.
President Ford is one that, you know, a woman who was one of Charlie Manson's people tried to shoot President Ford, and most people forget about that.
And of course, somebody took a shot at Ronald Reagan.
Yes.
And I've had conspiracy theorists tell me how that wasn't really the guy who shot Reagan, that there was a guy up on our roof who was actually firing a rifle.
Okay.
Well, you know, if you've seen the TV pictures, I'm not sure about that.
But there are still questions, aren't there?
I've never been very comfortable with the great haste in which the body of John F. Kennedy was got out of Dallas and away from local jurisdictions and the local coroner and surgeons there.
And was, you know, very quickly, the autopsy was done, wasn't it?
It was done very hastily.
It was done under the scrutiny of the Secret Service.
They were there and controlling that, which, again, sounds a bit iffy to our eyes over here.
And then his body was got out to a plane.
LBJ was sworn in on that flight back to Washington where things can be nicely controlled away from a place where they couldn't.
Some of that does smell a little odd, doesn't it?
If you frame it in that way, it smells a little bit odd.
But I think you, once again, you have to look at the context of what actually happened.
You had the president and the first lady, you know, arrive at the hospital.
The first lady is full of blood.
The president is barely alive.
He has a few vital signs, but it's obviously this man, he's lost half of his head.
He is not going to live.
And the people in that emergency room were under such great pressure to try and do something to save the president, but they also knew that it just wasn't going to happen.
It's an incredibly stressful and difficult situation for all these people.
And now, once the president dies, they're like, well, now what do we do?
And everybody almost universally wanted to let the first lady, you know, take her husband home, get out of there.
There was only one guy, the coroner, who insisted that, oh, no, Texas law says we have to do an autopsy here.
The Secret Service was not the ones who were managing this.
It was actually, what is his name in the, God, it was one of Kennedy's staff, and his name is escaping me at the moment.
Well, that's fine.
But it was, you see, I've obviously read too many conspiracy theories because I believe that the Secret Service took extensive charge of this.
And that coroner was told, you know, it was almost like a godfather situation.
You know, you sign off on this or you'll pay the price.
Yeah, not at all.
And if you listen to the, I know I've listened to the Sixth Floor Museum, does a lot of oral histories with a lot of these people who are involved.
And one of the people that I've listened to was the Dallas DA at the time.
And that Dallas DA got a call from the coroner.
And the coroner was all mad.
You know, this is my jurisdiction and I should do the autopsy.
And the DA is like, just give it a break.
You know, just it's it's the grieving widow of the president.
Just let her take the body home.
And the coroner wouldn't budge.
And the DA is like, well, I'm not going to do anything about it.
I'm not going to back you up.
And as I was saying, the president's friend, who was a good friend of his and of Bobby's and of the first lady, he is the one who insisted that you're going to let us take the president.
And he finally, after arguing for hours with the coroner about the fact that it might be Texas law, but it is absurd to think that the head of the federal government is going to have his autopsy done by some local coroner.
And it is absurd to think that you're going to hold the first lady here.
And finally, he just said, in very unpleasant words, to get out of my way, I'm taking the body.
It was his orders that changed the situation and got them out of there.
And what about the one that has emerged more recently?
Well, certainly as far as I'm aware over here, people are saying, oh, one person had more than anyone else to gain from this, and that person was Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Yeah, if you look at how things ended up for Lyndon Johnson, it certainly didn't benefit him much.
Yeah, he got re-elected in 64, but in 68, he refused to even run again.
If he was such a power-mad, power-hungry person, it's pretty difficult to imagine that he would just give up this office that he had killed to get.
But even beyond that, the people who actually knew him, even people who didn't like him, like Bobby Kennedy, never once suspected that he would be capable of such a thing.
And if you look at the behavior of Bobby Kennedy that day, people say how distraught he was, but he had the presence of mind to call over to the White House and tell the Secret Service, you will pack up all of my brother's papers and you will bring them over to my office.
You know, Johnson is not going to get his hands on my brother's papers.
So yeah, he didn't like Johnson and he didn't want Johnson messing around with his brother's stuff.
And he even ordered the Secret Service to do something, which he had no authority to do as Attorney General.
But he had no suspicion of Johnson.
And if he had a suspicion of Johnson, you know, it would have ended up the way things ended up in ancient Rome when somebody got killed.
You know, you'd have a lot more killings going on.
You'd have a civil war.
But to believe that somehow there was this, you know, mafia-like hit in the government and everybody in the government, from the president's own brother to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, all just went along with it, it's absurd.
And what about this, you said the word mafia.
What about the supposed involvement somewhere down the track of the mob in all of this, which has been widely retailed over the years?
Yeah, it's widely reported, but it's one thing is they wouldn't be able to cover it up.
They wouldn't have been able to get the Warren Commission to cover it up.
So if they had done it, it would have been obvious that it was a mob hit.
The other thing is that it's highly unlikely that the mob would take such an action.
The mob doesn't even hit local cops.
They try to avoid any kind of law enforcement because they know that's going to only make things worse for them.
So to think that they suddenly go to the highest office in the land and make that hit, it's not in character with what they do.
And it certainly didn't change things for the mob.
It didn't stop the Attorney General's office from going after them, something that had already started in the previous Eisenhower administration.
But of course, we know what happened to that Attorney General.
Yeah, but Bobby left the Attorney General's office and ran for Senate, and the Attorney General's office continued to go after the mob.
Things didn't get any better for them.
And yes, Bobby did get shot.
He got shot by a Palestinian who was mad about the Kennedys' support for Israel.
And Bobby had been a supporter of Israel ever since he traveled there in the late 1940s, just a few months before Israel became a state.
And he was always a strong supporter.
He spoke about it all the time.
So it's too easy for people over here and people around the world who cobble together conspiracy theories to say, well, Bobby Kennedy was no fan of the mob, was determined to make sure that they were brought to heel and was going to deal with them come hell or high water.
And he paid the ultimate price for that.
You're saying absolutely not so.
Absolutely not so.
you cannot hold such a vast conspiracy together, and you're not going to have the kind of unanimity of purpose that conspiracy theorists imagine.
And of course, at this kind of depth of time, the decades having passed, it stretches credulity, doesn't it, James, that nobody would have said very much about this.
Nobody would have put themselves on the front cover of a magazine with the benefit of time.
Nobody would have gone public on RT television in Moscow.
We would have had perhaps somebody involved in a huge grand conspiracy.
I'm talking about actually both JFK and Bobby.
If these things were grand conspiracies, then somebody would have spilled the beans because that kind of thing is in human nature, isn't it?
People go to their deathbed.
They want to get the truth out there.
People with the passage of time are involved in something that troubles their conscience.
They want to talk.
Yes, absolutely.
Even in 1977, when Earl Warren wrote his memoirs right before his death, he said that not only that there's no evidence that any conspiracy killed the president, but if you believe that a conspiracy killed the president, then there were so many people who touched this case and were involved with this case that you would have to believe that everybody in the entire federal government, from the highest to the lowest ranking person, was in on the conspiracy.
It's just, it would be impossible to hide and impossible to believe that nobody would want to step forward and be the big hero who cracked the case.
I mean, that would have made somebody's political career.
They could have, you know, they'd be on the fast track to becoming president themselves.
So JFK and to a lesser extent, Bobby, the conspiracy theories have wrung down the generations.
We've had a couple of generations since both.
Why do you think then, if we follow your line of thinking, that the conspiracy theory voices have been consistently louder than the people who are saying the things that you're saying?
I mean, I've heard things from you today that I wasn't aware of particularly.
And, you know, I've listened to and watched and read a certain amount about this over the years.
So some of the stuff you've said has quite surprised me one way and another.
So why do you think the so-called conspiracy theorist voices consistently have been louder?
Unfortunately, sometimes the worst voices are the most passionate voices.
You look at the history of something like racism, you know, the majority of any population in any country where you have some kind of racial animosity is most people are not really interested in it.
It is, but a society seems very racist because you have a minority that are constantly fueling that flame of racism.
And I think the same is true for any number of things.
The loudest voices are not always the most reasonable voices.
Okay, I want to talk now about something that was very much part of my life, 9-11.
I covered two anniversaries of it, stayed at the Marriott Financial looking down on that terrible scene of ground zero.
There are many questions about what happened on that terrible, fateful day when so many people died, aren't there?
I mean, there's a woman called Dr. Judy Wood, who I've had on this show, who's a materials specialist and has basically given up her career to propound in a very extensively researched book that on that day, for example, things burned in ways that things can't burn.
They burn from the inside out, and there were a million things that don't add up, that there wasn't the kind of seismic shock that there should have been after the collapse of these things.
If they'd come down as bits of concrete rather than powder, they'd have made a big seismic shock, and apparently they didn't.
Lots and lots of questions about 9-11, aren't there?
There are lots of questions about it, like there are lots of questions about any topic.
But I don't give any more credibility to this than I give to Holocaust deniers.
There was a study allegedly done in the 1980s, I believe it was, where this guy went to Auschwitz and he scraped off the walls in the gas chambers.
And then he analyzed the debris from the walls, and he said he couldn't find any traces of the gas.
And if that much gas had been used on that many people, then there would have been trace evidence.
Therefore, he concluded that there was no gas chamber.
And this got very popularly circulated in a lot of right-wing, Jew-hating kind of communities.
And it's come up in court cases and a number of things.
But it's amazing that anybody would give that any kind of credence, isn't it?
But that's the thing is we understand that, most of us, when it comes to the Holocaust.
But then these same people will think that in the case of 9-11, that you could murder thousands of people and have the manpower to cover that up and have the kind of unanimity of purpose that all these people would go along with it.
One of the big things that I think gets missed is if you look at the kind of people who do really mad things in history, the Adolf Hitlers, the Joseph Stalins, the Mao Zutongs, they're pretty consistent about what they say.
In the case of Stalin and Mao, they wanted to establish a communist dictatorship, and that's it.
Nothing else mattered.
In the case of Hitler, he wanted to get rid of the Jews so he could have a better world, and that was the way he saw it, and nothing else mattered.
And they're pretty upfront about what they believe, and that's what they end up doing.
Now, you have to believe in the case of like 9-11, say you think that George Bush was behind it.
Well, that means that George Bush spent his entire life talking about how much he loves this country and loves the people in it and getting people to follow him on that basis.
And then one day he goes to somebody and says, you know what?
I want to kill a few thousand Americans.
And that person who is following him because they believe he loves this country is suddenly just going to say, okay, I'll do that for you.
No, you just, that's not how things work.
You know, you can only have loyal followers who will do crazy things for you If you have some level of honesty about what it is you want them to do.
But what about bits of evidence, for example, that seemed very strange?
I always thought it was weird, even when I saw it reported not long after the events of that terrible day, that a passport, of all things, from one of the hijackers was found in the wreckage, in the rubble.
Now, I saw what that rubble looked like a year later.
That whole area was still covered in that terrible, sad grey dust.
There were buildings frozen in time, and yet a passport was found, pretty much intact.
And there it was, was it Muhammad Atta's passport?
How could that be?
Have you ever read Slaughterhouse 5?
No.
It's a book by Kurt Vonnegut, who writes a number of kind of quasi-science fiction, bizarre novels.
And he was a prisoner of war during the Second World War.
He was in the American Army.
He was captured by the Germans, and he was being held in a slaughterhouse outside of Dresden, Germany.
And, you know, we, that is the UK and the U.S., just firebombed Dresden, Germany one night.
Just, you know, laid waste to the place to the point where there was a huge tornado of fire in the center of the city that was sucking in cars from the oxygen being sucked in.
It was just massive devastation.
You know, more devastation with conventional weapons than you got off of the devastation of a single atomic bomb.
And yet, the next day or the next couple of days when Vonnegut and the other prisoners were forced to go down there and start digging through the rubble to help the Germans, they found this Dresden was known for its nice little ceramic figures.
They found this perfect little ceramis figure that was just untouched in the rubble.
No damage whatsoever.
And they just marveled at it.
And one of his friends picked it up and wanted to take it home to give to his wife.
And he was shot by one of the Germans for stealing German property.
It was a very horrific story, but it's the kind of thing that you wouldn't believe unless somebody actually witnessed it.
So you believe that what we've been told, all of it, is absolutely true.
It was a plot by a bunch of people, well financed, and it was designed to bring America to its knees for a period, and it achieved its objective for a very short time.
And then America bounced back and is now resurgent.
But the point was made by whoever wanted to make that point.
Well, Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
You think that's it?
End of story.
Point end.
I think that this was done by extremists within the Muslim community.
And I think that most of them have paid a heavy price for that.
But there are now new Muslim extremists and new dangers out there.
And who knows what they'll be capable of doing?
I do know that it's much easier to destroy things than to create things.
And that it really doesn't take a lot of heavy financing to fly a stolen plane into a building, just like it doesn't take a lot of heavy financing to shoot somebody with a gun.
It's very, sadly, very easy to do great devastation.
And what about the...
We've all heard the tapes, haven't we, the air traffic control tapes.
People were rushing all over the place, and they were trying to scramble jets and do all sorts of stuff.
Some of that seems a little odd, doesn't it?
And weren't military jets on exercise then?
Weren't the people who should have been watching America's back then?
They were distracted on that day.
Conveniently, some say.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's very convenient.
I think that we have gotten, you know, we had gotten rather lazy once the Soviet threat disappeared, and we just didn't think that anybody would be attacking us.
You know, we thought, who do we have to fear?
The Canadians, the Mexicans?
Well, you know, I completely, completely understand that because I remember, I will never forget, and I'm sure perhaps it impacted you in the same way.
The impact of that on that day was just so hard to take in.
And it was much easier to believe that somebody crashed a light plane into the building and it was an accident than to believe that this was something coordinated and two towers were taken down in a coordinated fashion in that way.
You know, for most people, very, very hard to compute.
It took some time for that to filter in.
Yeah, I mean, I vividly remember I was awoken by a clock radio that morning telling me that a second plane just hit the second tower.
And I'm like, the second tower of what?
And I got up and turned on the TV and just watched for the rest of the day.
And I was watching as the first tower fell.
And I understood that I was watching a building tumble.
But at the same time, I could not make sense out of what I was seeing.
I was like, this isn't, this is live.
This is on the news.
This is, you know, it didn't, it didn't make sense to me.
And I just couldn't wrap my head around it when I first saw it.
And I think that that kind of level of confusion and that kind of level of fear, especially for the people who are there and living it, I know somebody who was on the ground watching people jump out of the buildings, you know, and just to see that and to be, you know, I understand why people, you know, look for some other answers and why people, you know, might not be the most rational in their judgment.
I mean, a lot of people, you know, now argue that America overreacted to 9-11, you know, by going into Iraq and other things.
And we can debate all that.
But the fact is that people had enormous reactions to this event, and they still are.
You know, every year we have a memorial at 9-11 where we read off all the names.
And for tens of thousands of people at least, this is An everyday event, part of their life.
I was there for the first one, and I was looking down on it from a balcony at the Marriott Financial and listening to the reading of the names.
It was the most moving and almost incomprehensible thing you think, and as I thought, and I was having to broadcast live, that with every name goes a story and a family and connections, and all of that has been wiped out.
Something of that enormity, you know, we all pray, I guess, never happens again.
But there will always be conspiracy theorists who put their points.
And Judy Wood, for example, the materials specialist, she goes crazy if you call her a conspiracy theorist.
She says, here is the evidence that things cannot burn in this way, that that building was turned into dust and nothing can do that, that some kind of directed energy weapon appears to have been used.
You clearly don't think there's any credence in any of that.
No, because there's too many scientists and people who have no axe to grind.
There was a, I think it was a Discovery magazine did a famous kind of expose looking at this so-called evidence.
And there's just too many people who have looked at it who they don't have any reason to lie.
They're not going to put their careers on the line to perpetuate a lie for somebody else.
And it's just not...
It's not something that actually happens in the real world.
You can't get that many people to lie that consistently.
And what about those who say that Islamic State, ISIS, whatever they're calling themselves today, is not entirely what it appears to be?
And that is a very popular view on American Talk Radio that there is more to ISIS than meets the eye.
And actually, they're not just what they've claimed to be and what we understand them to be.
Actually, there are people behind ISIS.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, you know, that isolated groups in the world, I can't speak with any real knowledge about what's happening inside of ISIS any more than I can speak about what's happening in North Korea.
You know, an isolated group like that, it's really hard to get good information about what's really going on, who's really in charge in there.
So I don't doubt that there's more to the story than we know, but there certainly isn't some global conspiracy who decided, let's create ISIS to cause chaos.
No.
And those who say, we created al-Qaeda and now we've created ISIS and they are fictions.
They certainly aren't fictions.
But there are certainly connections between us and some radical Islamists.
And that goes back at least to the days when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and we backed the Mujahideen, the holy warriors against the communists because we would rather see the Soviets defeated.
And that worked to our advantage at the moment.
And as the Brits and the Americans have discovered so many times, James, politicking in that way internationally is a dirty business.
Absolutely.
And it's especially a dirty business if you simply help people fight a war and then you abandon them, which is what I feel that we pretty much did to Afghanistan.
And, you know, that led to the rise of the Taliban and the oppression of women and all kinds of things that weren't the case before in Afghanistan.
And it led to a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
It led to all kinds of bad consequences for us.
Why?
Because there isn't some super force ruling the world.
There's competing groups and there are ups and downs of when those competing groups have power and when they lose power.
I don't doubt in the future there will be other so-called conspiracy theories or alternative views of things that happen.
What is the template, the test that you should apply, we should apply, to those theories when they pop up?
The test that will show them to be, as you will say, incorrect, misguided, wrong, whatever?
What template should we apply to them?
What test should we give to them?
Well, I wish that there was some just easy litmus test that I could say just, you know, this is exactly it, and it's really easy to determine.
But I do think the biggest thing is if you really look at history, and I don't mean just the wild rumors you see on the internet, but if you really look at history and then you can understand what happened in real conspiracies, what happened in Watergate, what happened in the assassination of President Lincoln, you know, what happened in known real conspiracies, and then judge things based on that.
You know, when you get into cases where it takes hundreds or thousands of people, where it takes multiple generations to continue on the conspiracy, you know that you've gone into the territory of fantasy.
So it's the practicability test then.
I'm sorry, I've gone and interrupted you again.
Please forgive me for that.
It's just my enthusiasm and I think a little bit of digital delay.
So the ACID test is practicability.
How practical would that be?
Yes.
And based on known things that have happened in history, you know, there are some things we will never know because there's such a small-scale, limited basis.
An example I give on my website is the death of Napoleon.
Some people are convinced that Napoleon was poisoned in his food when he was exiled on the island, you know, with only a handful of people around him.
Now, that is perfectly plausible that a handful of people could have poisoned him or that just one of them could have poisoned him and he could have been ruled a heart attack or whatever they wanted to rule it.
That's a perfectly plausible theory of history.
It is not some grand conspiracy theory that takes hundreds of people acting over generations.
And it's not something that we can definitively prove or disprove.
And so there's always going to be those kind of little stories in the middle.
But the big stories of history, we know that the Holocaust happened.
We know that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president.
We know that jihadis committed 9-11.
These big questions of history are not, they're not that complicated and they're not, you cannot hide them.
So the watchword is stop looking for patterns in things that are certainly or almost certainly not there.
That when a thing appears to be so, then maybe it is so.
Especially when you get such unanimity among scientists and investigators and even competing politicians who would have everything to gain by exposing a conspiracy when they're all on the same page and say no it's not.
Well, there may be those who would say that perhaps they haven't.
They want to maintain above all else the status quo.
But then you have to believe that there's this status quo that rules the world and that has agents kind of everywhere to make sure that these historians go along, these journalists go along, these politicians go along.
I mean, you get into such a vast apparatus to implement this that the logistics just don't work.
As a sage once said, a tangle web we weave when first we set out to deceive.
Listen, we have to wrap it up there.
I could talk with you for another hour.
Sadly, we don't have that available.
I'm very keen to know what people think of you.
So if you would like me to pass on any of the response to this, but I've greatly enjoyed this, and you were quite right to send me that email saying I should be on your show.
You should have been and you have been.
Thank you very much, James K. Lambert.
Thank you for having me on.
And just one very quick thing.
If people want to see your work and that very clean, very good website of yours, how do they do that?
So I have a couple of websites.
JamesK.
Lambert.com is my main one for me.
And then I have no magicbullets.org, where I'm selling my film, Conspiracy Theorists Lie.
James, thank you very much indeed.
We must talk again.
Thank you.
Well, I told you this man is different.
James Lambert is his name, and I'll put a link to his work on my website, theunexplained.tv.
Tell me what you think about him.
Please get in touch.
Send me an email.
Tell me where you are, who you are, and how you're using this show.
I would love to hear your stories of the real-life ways that The Unexplained is being used in your life.
And thank you very much indeed.
If you want to put a question to Graham Hancock, you've got a few days to do that.
I'm recording with him probably in the next week or so.
So if you get this in as soon as you hear this show go out, just send me an email and at the top put in the subject line, question for Graham Hancock.
Put the question in about a line or two and I'll try and put it to him if I get it before we actually do the recording with Graham Hancock, which I'm hoping.
You can't see me, but my fingers are crossed here, that it actually goes ahead this time.
Thank you very much for all of your support, for all the kind comments.
Please stay in touch.
Thank you to Adam, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, for his hard work on this show.
And until next, we meet here at The Unexplained.
My name is Howard Hughes.
It has been The Unexplained.
And please stay safe, stay calm, and above all, stay in touch.
Thank you.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection