All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:01:45
Edition 228 - David Rohl

British Egyptologist David Rohl and a unique take on the Old Testament and ancienthistory...

| 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 all the emails.
They are still coming in about James K. Lambert, even though he wasn't even the last show.
He was the show before that.
And also very good response to Graham Hancock.
I will go into a lot of your emails probably in the next edition of this show, unless something happens that means that I can't do that.
But that's the plan at the moment.
We'll go into your emails and also do some shout-outs as well in the next edition of The Unexplained.
But I've never known a guest, you know, in all of the years of doing this show, and that's quite a few now, who split the audience as much as James K. Lambert, the man who talked about conspiracy theories, who said that most conspiracy theories are not that at all, and sometimes there are very straightforward explanations for things that happen and you don't have to go to conspiracy theories for them.
A lot of you disagreed with him quite vehemently.
And some of you said, breath of fresh air, kind of man you should be having on your show.
So we'll talk about that in the next edition of The Unexplained.
But thank you for all of the response.
Keep it coming.
Graham Hancock, very good response to him still coming in.
Took a few years to get Graham on here.
We will have him on again, but I found him fascinating and I was glad that I'd spoken to him.
And I discovered his work through this show.
So The Unexplained has done me a service by introducing me to him and the things that he writes.
That also goes for the guest on this edition of the show, a man called David Roll.
Now, I thought I'd had a bit of a very life one way or another and had done a few things, but David Roll can top me every time for that.
You know, this man could have been a big name, in fact, arguably is a big name in the music industry.
He's been connected with so many top musicians.
I mean, people like Mark Bolin.
He's known the Moody Blues and various others.
He was a musician himself, still is, and also an engineer, but also a photographer.
And what we're going to talk to him today about, he is a man who has a different take on history, in particular Egyptology, and the way that ancient history, Egyptology, and Old Testament times tie together, which according to the way that we look at these things, historians look at these things now, they don't tie together.
There are too many grey areas and those grey areas cause a lot of people to dismiss the Old Testament as perhaps a work of fiction.
Now, that might be wrong because of the chronology and the dates being out of sync.
That's one of David Rolle's ideas.
We'll be talking with him in just a moment.
Thank you very much for all of your contacts.
If you want to get in touch with me about anything, you can go to the website theunexplained.tv, triple w dot theunexplained.tv, the website designed, created and owned by Adam Cornwell from Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
You can make contact with me there by just dropping me an email, by following the link.
And if you'd like to send me a donation, if you have, by the way, thank you very much for that.
But if you'd like to send me a donation to help this work to continue, you can do that as well on the website theunexplained.tv.
We do have plans for 2016.
And I know I always say that.
And somebody else has emailed recently to say, okay, you say you've got plans for 2016 now.
And what might they be?
All will be revealed, I promise.
All right, let's get to Spain now.
And a man who gets around, he's often traveling, spends a lot of his time in the UK and in the United States, and is based mainly in Spain.
And we're going to catch up with him there now.
David Rowe, Egyptologist, historian, and very interesting character, I think you're going to find.
David, thank you very much for coming on the Unexplain.
It's my pleasure.
And David, look, we're talking between ourselves.
You're in Spain, and I know that you're on a wireless connection out in the wilds up a hill.
And I'm here in London.
So, you know, the vagaries of digital connections.
We're going to see how this goes.
But look, the first thing I wanted to say to you was that you seem, and I shared this thought with my listener just a moment ago, to have had about three or four lives in one.
There are so many directions that you could have gone in, from the music industry to photography to Egyptology.
You've done it all.
I have, really, I suppose, but life gets boring if you stay in the same rut all the time.
So I actually went from being fascinated by ancient Egypt as a child to music industry.
I joined a band and we went through the normal process of playing gigs and stuff.
I ended up as a sound engineer and then a record producer.
And before that, I was doing photography, photographing the Moody Blue.
So yes, all that went along until when I was about 35, I went back to university and studied ancient Egypt and Egyptology and the ancient world.
And that was where my career changed again.
And that's why I ended up being a writer and a TV presenter.
We could spend a lot of time talking about the people in rock and pop music that you knew.
I mean, you knew people like Mark Bolan, whose birthday anniversary was, I think, about a month or two ago.
And I think he'd have been something like 67 or something.
I just can't imagine Mark Bolan at that kind of age.
Can you?
Well, not really, no, except I'm nearly that age myself now.
Yeah, I mean, I was actually working with him.
I think it was only a few days before he had that terrible car crash that I worked with him last.
And so, yeah, he was a very lovely fella, actually.
When you get to know some of these musicians, they can be absolutely fantastic people.
You don't actually see it when they're on stage, but when you actually get to know them and work with them in the studio, they are really nice people.
And that's true.
The ones who are really into their music, they're not carried away with ego and stuff.
I mean, I've interviewed a lot of music people over the years, but I particularly remember interviewing Midge Ewer of Ultravox fame and various other things.
And Midge is just massively into the studio work.
He's very into the technology and totally into the music, even though he's a megastar, just so into the music.
Yeah, you're dead right.
And in fact, he was around when I was around at Chrysalis because I signed for Chrysalis too.
So we were on the same label.
And I didn't actually meet him, but I know from other people who've talked to me about the type of bands that were working in that time in those record companies like Chrysalis Records, that they were dedicated musicians.
They were really all about the music they created in the studio and live.
Not so much today, of course.
Today, the pop world is very different to what it was, let's say, in the 1970s and 80s.
Oh, too right.
Like I say, we could do a whole show about that.
And people that we've, I mean, you probably know people that I've interviewed like Paul Carrick and all sorts of other people.
And I find that musicians are some of the most grounded people.
And it doesn't surprise me a bit that you've gone into Egyptology from there because it seems to me that an awful lot of these people, the music is an outlet for them, but they search for something else.
I don't want to drop names here all afternoon, but I interviewed Mike Love from The Beach Boys last year, and he's into transcendental meditation.
It is the bedrock of his life.
It is the fact that he is still performing at 70 plus.
And it does seem to me that a lot of people in that industry and around that industry, they have one creative outlet, but they also are questing for answers.
And that seems to be partly your story, too.
It's true, actually.
And one of my major influences when I was a teenager were the Moody Blues.
And they were always questioning, you know, what we were doing on this planet and in this universe.
Their music is all about that.
So yes, I mean, I was raised with musicians who thought that way.
And the music was just the way that they expressed themselves, I mean, the way they actually thought about life.
And so, yes, you're right.
And I'm not sure if that really is the case these days, though.
Do you really think that the modern pop industry is like that?
I think maybe some of them think that way, David, but I don't think they would be allowed by the publicity machine.
And that's the whole thing.
The media, the radio stations, the television, the lot.
They just wouldn't be allowed to go there.
Nobody's interested.
Got it.
Absolutely true.
I think that's what it is.
It's all about the control factor, isn't it?
Yeah, and it's all plastic and one-dimensional.
And I think we've seen the best days of it all, to tell you the truth.
Okay, your interest in Egyptology and all things ancient, according to a couple of biographies of you that I've read, goes back, and I know you know what I'm going to say, to a journey you made up the Nile at the age of 10.
Talk to me about that.
Well, that was extraordinary, actually.
I started, according to my family, I started writing in ancient hieroglyphs when I was about seven years old.
I was writing the names of all the kings of Egypt in a list from the first dynasty to the 30th dynasty when I was seven.
I hadn't even learned how to join up at that time in the English script.
But I asked my mum to take me to Egypt at the age of, it's actually nine, I worked out, not so much ten.
And we went to Egypt just after the Suez Crisis.
So there weren't that many tourists in Egypt at the time, to be honest.
And King Farouk had just been kicked out of Egypt with the revolution there.
And there was this fantastic paddle steamer sitting on the Nile in Cairo, which actually belonged to him.
And so we sort of commandeered it and sailed all the way from Cairo, right the way up the river to Abu Simbel.
And we stuck about 12 days.
And this boat was just amazing.
It was like made of mahogany and brass.
And all the people on board were dressed in these fantastic blue galabares with gold bands around their waists and golden turbans.
It was just an extraordinary experience.
And I actually slept in King Farouk's bed.
So that's a strange experience, to say the least.
And the opulence of that experience, I guess, harks back and speaks to the opulence of ancient Egypt.
It does, but it also speaks back to the golden days of Egypt exploration when in the 1800s, people were going to Egypt for the very first time and finding these amazing monuments.
All that's been lost now, really, with the tourist industry and all the boats that ply up and down the river.
So it took us back to sort of the Edwardian age almost, and it was an amazing experience to actually see Egypt then.
And then over the years now, over the last sort of like 50 odd years, I've experienced the changes that have taken place in Egypt over that time.
It's obviously become a very, very popular tourist attraction and destination, especially sort of like the beach resorts in Shalmosheik and places like that.
But my interest was always the Nile.
My interest was always the Pharaohs.
And I had this experience of being able to travel on this fantastic boat when there were no boats around, no tourists around.
And I ended up at Abu Simbel just before dawn, and the gangplank was put out onto the beach.
And this little kid at nine years old was given this huge brass key, which is in the shape of the sign of life or the ankh symbol, which opened the big doors to the temple.
And I was sent off on my own.
And as the sun rose across the river, I opened the doors and it lit my way all the way to the Holy of Holies and right inside the temple, which is cut into a mountainside.
That was my experience of Egypt for the first time.
And it's no wonder that I fell in love with it.
You were born to do this by the sounds of it.
Well, I don't know what the motivation was, to be honest.
And you know what it's like?
You remember things from your childhood, but in imagery, you don't actually remember your motivations.
But I did find out fairly recently, actually, that one of my ancestors was an Egyptologist.
He actually discovered Abu Simbel and also, with Belzoni, went and found the tomb of Seti I in the Valley of the Kings.
So I do have some lineage, as it were, pedigree in that direction.
The problem is, isn't it, that when you look back at ancient Egypt and you also consider the events of the Bible, the Old Testament, really, always to me, it's been a turn-off, and all of this has been a turn-off for me because I can't see how those things connect.
And that's a problem that you've been grappling with, especially in the latest book, but through a lot of your work, isn't it?
Yeah, basically, as an Egyptologist, my interest is in finding historical truth.
I don't go at it from the point of view of the Bible first and Egyptology second.
I go at it as a trained Egyptologist who's interested in finding and resolving the problems in ancient history in terms of Egypt.
So my PhD research, my entire research the last 35 years, has been on sorting out the timeline of ancient Egypt and trying to find out when things happened.
And I did, in fact, find issues with a particular dark age period in Egyptian history where I felt that scholars had lengthened the time period by about a couple of centuries too much.
And that's why there was a disconnect between Egyptian history and the biblical story.
Scholars will tell you today that the biblical stories are all myths because they cannot find any evidence in Egypt or elsewhere to confirm those stories in the archaeology.
And so when I took out these 200 years of problematic time period in the Egyptian, what's called the third intermediate period, between the end of the New Kingdom and the late period, when I took those 200 years out, everything seemed to lock into place again.
And suddenly we started to find evidence for the biblical story in the Egyptian record.
When I read about this and I watched a Couple of your videos, I got an image in my mind, and it was an image of a sort of an old mill machine, you know, with great big cogs and things.
And it seemed to me that the cogs of this machine were simply out of sync.
They just needed a good engineer to put them into sync.
And that's probably a rubbish analogy.
But you know what I'm saying?
That it's a very simple thing that you've done, but it's incredibly profound.
Well, that's it, isn't it?
It is a simple idea.
Okay, Egyptian history may be too long by a couple of hundred years.
Scholars have reconstructed it incorrectly.
That's a simple idea.
But the complexity of trying to rework out this two and a half thousand years of history, trying to slot it all together in the way that fits like a glove, is very difficult and very complex.
And there are many different issues involved.
But the end result is fantastically dramatic for the Bible because we suddenly find evidence for the biblical stories of Joseph in Egypt, of the sojourn of the Israelites, the slavery of Moses and the Exodus, of Saul, David, and Solomon.
All those things start to fit into the revised dating line once you take out those 200 and 250 years.
And one quote from your website, what you come up with is a new timeline quotes for both Egyptian and biblical history, which is a remarkable thing to have done.
Now, have you come across that?
Have you found that because you've been looking for it or because it's there?
You know, some scientists, some people who do research, they start out with a theory, with a preconception, and they go and find things that prove it.
So could you be accused of that, do you think?
I don't think I can because I don't start from a religious background.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm an agnostic.
I'm not a true believer.
So my premise isn't that the Bible is true from start to finish.
My premise is that I'm trying to find out a way of sorting out Egyptian history.
And I'm using the Egyptian internal evidence and the archaeology to do that.
If then I look outside the borders of Egypt towards Egypt's neighbors, then the first neighbor we come to is Israel.
And of course, in ancient times, that was the Israelites and the kingdom of Solomon and David and those people.
And in Egyptian terms, the time of Moses when he was in Egypt as a slave and how he took the slaves out of Egypt and conquered the promised land.
So all those things you look at when you've revised the dating system, you look to see what happens in the rest of the ancient world around Egypt to see what the changes are.
And what we found was that things started to match together.
Your analogy of the grinding wheel is very interesting.
My analogy is you cut the key the right way and the door suddenly opens.
And so suddenly everything is changed there.
You start to see a completely new historical landscape.
And part of it is to do with who was in charge in Egypt at the time, the fact that we just simply have that wrong.
We have our time scales, our dates wrong.
It starts with a premise, and it's an ironic premise, really, that we use the Bible to date Egyptian history, and then we use Egyptian history to tell everybody that the Bible's a myth.
So it's a completely circular argument.
We use the statement in the Bible that says that the Israelite slaves built a city called Ramesses, and we equate that Ramesses with the famous Ramesses II, Ramesses the Great, and we therefore say that Moses and Ramesses the Great must have been contemporaries.
And that's what you see in the Cecil B. DeMille movies, where you see Charlton Hestrom playing Moses, and you have Jill Brunner playing Ramesses.
And that is what you get in the history books, and that's what everybody accepts.
You've been saying that we've got the wrong Ramesses.
I've been saying basically that that's what we call an anachronism.
Basically, the story is that the later scribes in Judea were writing the name of the city in their time, when they were alive, for their own audience was saying, this is the place where the slaves were.
This is the place where the Israelites were in Egypt.
It's called Ramesses today, but it had a much older name.
So let me give you an example of that.
Let's take the example of, say, York.
The 8th Legion came to York and they built a garrison there.
And that's what you'll read in all the encyclopedias.
The simple fact is, though, that the 8th Legion actually built a garrison at Abarakum.
That was the name of the place in the time of the Romans there.
And it's only later it became York when the Vikings came along and called it Jorvik.
So that's a typical example of where you find a name change to a later name, and it hides the original name of the place.
Now, Ramesses had a much older city built underneath it, and it was called Avaris.
And that city was built in the Middle Bronze Age, not in the time of Ramesses II, but hundreds of years earlier.
That's the one that was full of Israelites.
That's the one where we have 30,000 Semitic peoples living there.
That's the place where there was a terrible plague.
That's the place where they all picked up their bags and left.
So you're having exact match with the story of the Exodus there, but not in the time of Ramesses, but much, much earlier.
And nobody has asked these questions before.
They just continued to look in the wrong place.
It's so easy because that's what you're taught at university.
You know, your professor tells you that Ramesses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus.
You then go on to teach your students the same thing.
And so nobody ever questions what's been established on a basis of a very suspect synchronism between a pharaoh called Ramesses and Moses.
And the only link between the two is the fact that they named this place Ramesses, the city, which we think is anachronistic.
We think it's a later reference to an earlier city that's built underneath Ramesses.
When I think of an Egyptologist, I think of a man or a woman in khakis, covered in dust and digging for evidence.
What evidence did you find?
Well, it wasn't so much just what I found, it's what Egyptologists over the last 40 or 50 years have been finding.
And what they did basically was they went and started to excavate in the northeast delta of Egypt, which is where the Bible says the Israelites were, in the land of Goshen, the Bible calls it.
And an Austrian excavation team have been working in that area since the 1960s.
And although they don't realize it, they've been actually excavating up the Israelites in Egypt.
The reason why they don't realize it is because it's three or four hundred years earlier than they're expecting to find the Israelites.
So they call them Semitic peoples, shepherds, pastoralists.
They don't label them as Israelites.
But they must have come across anomalies in the artifacts and in the appearance of any remains that they might have found.
How did they explain those away?
Well, they clearly see a Semitic Canaanite culture in the Eastern Delta in the Middle Bronze Age.
But their brains won't tell them that this is the Israelites because it's two or three hundred years too early.
So they just simply label them as another group of Israelites, sorry, as Semitic peoples, a long, long time before the Israelites ever came to Egypt.
So their problem is a matter of not understanding that the real story of the Bible takes place two or three centuries earlier than where they're looking.
They're looking in all the right places for the evidence, but they're looking in entirely the wrong time.
Now as a schoolboy, we all go through the same, well, in our era, we all went through the same sort of education system where the tales of the Old Testament are told to you by your primary school teacher as if they were fables.
And I think most people of my generation sort of look on them that way, you know, for good or ill.
That's how it is.
But you're saying that actually there is evidence there, but it just is not in the places where we expected to find it.
But if you look for that evidence now in the right places, you will see correlations that tie up pretty clearly.
Yes.
I mean, an archaeologist's job is not to produce evidence for miracles or anything spiritual, but if you see what we call a Western Asiatic or Semitic population in the eastern delta of Egypt, there's an absolutely enormous population of 30,000 people living in one city, and their culture is what you would call pastoralist culture.
They're shepherds.
They look typically like you would expect an Israelite to be.
Then I would identify that as a possible time when the Israelites were in Egypt, especially when we find then that these people left the country.
They departed suddenly out of nowhere.
And then about 40 or 50 years later, the city of Jericho is completely destroyed, exactly in the story as Joshua destroyed the city of Jericho.
So this historical picture we have from the archaeology matches the biblical story pretty precisely.
However, if you then go further on in time to the time of Ramesses II, you have no Jericho at that time.
Jericho is a ruin for 600 years.
There isn't a Jericho for Joshua to destroy.
There are no Semitic people living in the Eastern Delta, in the city of Ramesses.
That's been proved by archaeology.
So what we've got is the time when everybody's looking for the Israelites in Egypt, there are none.
And the conquest, the same, there's no conquest at that time.
But if you go back three or four hundred years, you do find these Israelites, these Semites, living in Egypt, in the Eastern Delta.
They leave.
And a few decades later, we find Jericho destroyed and all the other cities of the conquest destroyed.
So that matches the story.
But you can't get your academics to accept the fact there's a timeline shift here.
So they're looking, as I say, in the right places geographically.
They're looking at the right Jericho.
They're looking at the right Goshen.
But they're looking in completely the wrong time for them.
It must be a bit of a battle for you to get this accepted when this has been the preferred wisdom for decades.
Decades and even centuries, I would say, these days.
And the idea that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus has been going around for 200 years.
So yes, I've got a lot of work to do to persuade the academics to change their view on this.
But as Max Planck, Professor Max Planck once said, the famous physicist, he said, you have to wait for a new generation to come along before a new idea is accepted.
You can't really expect the older generation to accept something as revolutionary as this.
There are some videos of you on YouTube talking with audiences of people listening to you with rapt attention.
Seems that there is a ready audience for what you're saying.
Of course, there is.
There's two audiences, in fact.
There's what I would call the Christian and Jewish audience, the people who want to find some foundation for their faith.
I mean, people argue, of course, you don't need to prove the biblical stories to be true to have faith.
I would argue that somebody, a faith, a believer, must also be a thinker, somebody who actually looks for the archaeological evidence to prove the stories.
So I'm providing that foundation for them, and I'm very happy with that.
I've not got a problem with that.
And many of my people I talk to in America are people of faith, Christian believers and Jewish believers.
So that's one audience.
The other audience is the people who are fascinated by ancient mysteries and problem solving and things like that.
And there are many genres of that type of thing in the ancient world, as you know.
I mean, there's, you know, who built the pyramids argument and is there any ancient aliens, all those sort of things incorporate into this genre of trying to answer and resolve problems from the ancient world.
I'm not into all that myself.
I'm much more interested in resolving the historical puzzles in ancient Egypt, the archaeological puzzles.
But there are people around who are fascinated by the simple thing about how to sort out the timeframe, how to sort out the chronology of the ancient world.
Which was the big turnoff for me when I was a kid because none of it seemed to match up.
So I just kind of read it as if it was a story in a comic and then forgot all about it.
That's very interesting, isn't it?
I wonder how many people actually went through school doing exactly that.
I mean, I was quite different in that respect because I was raised a Catholic when I was a boy, and I went to what we would call today a state school, sort of a master grammar school, actually.
And in that process, when I went there, at that time in the 1960s, they wouldn't allow Jewish boys and Catholic boys to attend assembly or attend the classes on the Bible, the religious classes.
Why was that?
Well, because we were different in those days.
Don't you remember in the 60s, everybody was segregated.
You weren't allowed to go to assembly.
You weren't allowed to sing the hymns, the Protestant hymns, if you were a Catholic.
Well, I went to a comprehensive school in Liverpool.
I think a lot of it was starting to fall apart by then.
So I think you had more grounding of that sort than I had, I think.
Oh, I must have been privileged in that case then.
But the irony of it all was, though, that I was raised without actually being taught those stories that you were taught because I wasn't allowed to attend those classes.
So having been deprived of them, it was then very interesting then that I got fascinated by the biblical stories simply because I hadn't been told them at school.
Now, you say that some of the academics who are people of faith themselves are very interested in your work and supportive.
I wonder, does that go for the people who are actually part of the religions that we're talking about here?
Well, there is an interesting irony there as well, I suppose.
The most resistance I'm getting is actually not so much from the secular world, not from the secular academic world, but actually from the religious academic world, which you'd think would be the complete opposite.
So what we're ending up with is people in what I would call Bible college in the States, for instance, who are totally against this idea.
And I'm trying to work out why it is, because I'm offering them a Bible that can be based on real history, and they're rejecting it out of hand.
Now, why?
Well, we've said that you find it hard to speculate on why that might be.
What sorts of things do they say to you?
Well, they say that it can't be right.
They say it's not.
Well, one of the expressions that they come up with is it's too good to be true.
Now, that I find quite extraordinary.
If you find a history which actually matches the archaeology, then it's bound to be too good to be true, isn't it?
How can it be otherwise?
So I find these sort of statements rather strange.
But they're basically saying that as far as they're concerned, they want to accept the biblical link between Ramesses, the Pharaoh Ramesses, and Moses.
And if you do that, you can't accept anything that happened earlier as being the time of Moses and the time of the Exodus.
So they're not prepared to change what they've been preaching for the last 200 years, their apologetics, trying to explain away the fact there is no archaeological evidence.
Suddenly, some bright spark comes along then and tells them, well, actually, there is.
You just have to look earlier.
And they just can't get their heads around that.
The Exodus, a mass movement, a mass migration of people.
And we've seen some pretty big migrations of people in our time, India, Pakistan, what we're seeing in the Middle East now.
But this was a huge, huge thing.
Presumably, there were signposts for that and of that you have found and come across and your colleagues have come across all the way along the route.
That has become another one of those great mysteries of the Exodus.
How can you take what amounts to between two and three million people into the desert and survive for 40 years and come out the other end of it, okay?
And so this has been one of the great mysteries of the text.
Nobody actually believes that's possible to do that.
The actual population of Egypt at the time was no more than 3 million.
So how would you expect there to be 3 million slaves?
That just doesn't make any sense.
So we have to understand a little bit more about ancient Hebrew there, because where we get these numbers from is in the book of Numbers, where they actually number the number of fighting men in each of the tribes, the 12 tribes of Israel, who left Egypt at the Exodus.
And one of the problems we've always had with that is the word for thousand in Hebrew is Aleph.
And that word also happens to mean something entirely different.
It also means captain of troops or clan leader.
So instead of interpreting this word Aleph as thousand, so for instance, you might get one tribe with 50 Aleph, in other words, 50,000 plus 500 men.
So they have 50,500 men.
Or you can have 50 Aleph, meaning clan leaders or commanders and 500 men.
Then you've only got 550 men in that tribe.
If you do it that way and you add up the numbers that way, instead of having thousand, having troop captains plus men, then you end up with a figure of around 35,000 people leaving Egypt altogether.
And that's much more handleable.
That's the size of a football crowd in the second division.
So you're looking at a much, much more controllable number that you could probably sustain within the wilderness of 40 years.
Trying to do 3 million is totally impossible.
And if you think about it, in our lifetimes, I think it's now becoming standardized, but certainly as I was growing up, there was a difference between an American billion and a British billion.
They were different things.
So, you know, even within the short space of our lifetimes, there was a divergence of understanding about one simple word that most of us think everybody knows what that is, but actually, no, they didn't.
So if you put that over tens of hundreds of years going back and back and back, then those sorts of anomalies get all the bigger.
It's interesting because we tend to sort of rely on the King James Version of the Bible or modern translations, and we really have to understand the ancient Hebrew to understand the words.
So it's not a case of questioning the biblical text and saying that the English translation has got it wrong.
We're actually saying you have to look at the original Hebrew and understand the context and the words that are concerned here.
So if you have a simple word like Aleph, it has many different meanings, a thousand troop captain, you go to Israel today and you speak to the Israeli army, an Aleph is actually the captain of the troops.
If you go to Egypt, the same position, the captain, is called an alpha.
And we've heard of the alpha male.
It means the person who's the leader, the clan leader.
So it's just a matter of interpretation that we're dealing with here.
It's not denying the biblical story.
It's saying we need to go back to the roots, the roots of the story and the roots of the language to understand and interpret it.
Where it starts to get really interesting in my small brain, and you tell me if I'm right, is that all of this is knocking on the door, isn't it, of the emergence of Jesus Christ?
Well, Jesus Christ is a person who references Moses constantly in the New Testament.
So as far as he's concerned, he believed in the story of Exodus, the story of the sojourn, the story of Passover.
And all Jews today celebrate Passover.
Even if they're secular Jews, they still celebrate it.
So there is a foundation that goes through from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
And Jesus' teachings is based on the Old Testament.
So of course that man, whether you believe him to be the Son of God and the Savior is another matter.
But that man was imbued with the history of ancient Israel.
And so if the Bible itself, the Old Testament, the Torah of the Jewish faith, if that is not true, if that is Harry Potter, no better than Harry Potter, total fiction, then Jesus was actually preaching a lie.
So it has major implications for Christianity and Judaism.
And fundamentally, unless I'm wrong, if he was referencing back to something that he believed was solid and real, and now you're finding that that may well be the case, then doesn't that reflect back to him that he indeed was real?
And whether he was the Son of God, whatever he was, he was a real person who did real and great things.
I don't know whether you can make a connection between the fact that he preached stories related to the Old Testament narratives that proves that he existed.
But we do have historians mentioning Jesus Christ.
Tacitus, for instance, mentions him.
Josephus mentions him.
So there are people that reference Jesus Christ at the time.
They don't call him a Messiah, although they say that he claimed to be a Messiah.
So we have clear evidence.
And the major thing I would say is that why would people go to their deaths as Christians, believing totally, if this man never existed.
And I'm talking about people who actually either knew him or were the generation after him.
So he has to be a real character.
There's no doubt about that.
So, in our researches, I say our researches, in humanity's researches into all of this, where does it all leave us?
It takes me to the fact that we never know everything.
I mean, we're always learning.
One of the things I always think about when I do research is that I can only deal with what the evidence is today that we have today.
I can't deal with what might happen in the future.
The fact is we've only actually excavated about 10% of the total ancient world.
There's still 90% more to excavate, to find out.
And so more and more facts are going to be coming forward to us over the years.
Long after I'm dead, people will be finding new information.
So I can only deal with the information that I have today, which is a lot more than people had 100 years ago, for instance.
So I'm looking at it from a point of view of what does the evidence in the ground tell me today, and how does that affect the way that we run our world today?
What lessons can we learn from history?
What lessons can we learn from archaeology?
And those are the things that I think that are important for the modern world.
What we're seeing in the Middle East today is almost a repetition of what happened all those years ago, 3,000 years ago.
It's quite remarkable.
We're having this massive movement of people out of one country where they're being enslaved and persecuted by a small group of people, and they're trying to find refuge elsewhere in the world.
And this has happened time and time again in history.
And in terms of the ancient Egyptians, you're an Egyptologist, fascinated by it all your life.
More and more is being said about the capabilities and the proclivities of the Egyptians.
I know it's a very broad covering term, and the fact that perhaps they could move rocks using amazing technology that we can't even begin to hint at.
What does what you've been working on say to that?
How does that connect?
It must, but how?
Well, that's what I was saying earlier about the idea that within this field of ancient studies, there are many new ideas, I might call them new wave ideas, of how things happened in the ancient world.
Some people think that you can push history back 10,000 years and that there were civilizations on this planet way, way before the Stone Age almost.
And then you have other people thinking about the technologies that were used in the ancient world.
How the heck did they build these pyramids out of these massive stones?
So you've got lots of people with lots of different ideas.
I would say that this.
I would say that the way we work today, we have so many advantages in our lives today.
We have technologies that couldn't even be thought of centuries ago, never mind 3,000 years ago.
In the ancient world, they didn't have those technologies.
So they refined and made expertise simple ways of doing things, like moving stone around, like moving dirt around, like building in mud brick, like looking at the stars and working out the astronomy.
Those were things that were readily available to them, and they were experts at it.
So we can't build a pyramid today out of those big blocks, but they could because they didn't have all the other garbage to deal with.
They were experts in doing very few things very well.
So I would say that some of the ideas you get about technologies aren't necessary when you see the expertise that was involved in moving stone around, in grinding stone, in cutting holes, in sawing stone.
All those things were available to them.
They were not advanced technologists.
They simply did them very well.
So if you have a simpler society and there haven't been quite so many upheavals in it, and you have people of learning and erudition who want to pass on knowledge from previous generations, what you're saying is if you work at a thing for long enough, you're going to get very good at it, hence the pyramids.
Exactly correct.
And as you're right, the philosophical world that they dealt with was much simpler than our world, but they evolved religion in a particular way.
They evolved society and civilization in a particular way.
Their form of kingship, of rule over the population, was very different to a modern kingship that you would have, like a monarchy we would have today.
So their world was entirely different to our own, and it was a much simpler world, but it was a much deeper world.
They were much more connected to nature than we are today.
Their abilities to be able to do things were quite extraordinary, things that we've lost our functions, our abilities to do.
Don't forget, they invented things like writing, an amazing idea, that somebody should come up with the idea of writing something, to record something, and to turn that into history.
Because without writing, we don't have history.
History is about writing down what happened.
If you don't have writing, you don't have history.
And what do you make of modern-day researchers who go out to ancient Egypt and they look at things in and around the pyramids and they say, look, there are hieroglyphs there that represent spacecraft.
And they're seen over and over again in these things.
Is that all nonsense?
It is nonsense, I'm afraid, yes.
The specific one you're talking about is an inscription of hieroglyphs that's found in the Temple of Abydos in Middle Egypt, the Temple of Seti I. And what it is is naivety.
People look at these things and they see these objects, as you say, like spaceships, helicopters, whatever they are in the hieroglyphs.
But what they're looking at is actually one inscription carved on top of the other.
So that you have one king who carves an inscription hieroglyphs, another king comes along afterwards and carves a second one on top and plasters, fills in the parts of the inscription you don't want anybody to see.
Over the centuries, those bits fall out, and then you end up with these strange shapes, which look like helicopters, which look like tanks, which look like flying saucers.
But they're actually, when you separate the two sets of hieroglyphs out, you can see they're completely normal hieroglyphs.
It's only the fact that somebody's overcarved them, you get these strange shapes.
But of course, people jump on this and say, oh, look, there were aliens, there were space aliens in Egypt in the time of Seti I. It's all nonsense.
You just have to have the knowledge to understand how to see these things and how to react to them.
And what of the unusually tall individuals and the individuals who look like what we would call spacemen today?
Does that go into the same box?
We don't find them in Egypt.
You do find things like that in other places like South America and Mesoamerica, where you do have inscriptions that appear to look like aliens in spaceships, of course.
But again, it's all a matter of interpreting the culture.
I don't think we've got any direct evidence whatsoever of an alien group of any sort ever coming to this planet at this stage until we actually have any concrete evidence for that.
Something material that actually says this is evidence, clear evidence of some alien intervention in our society and our civilization.
I'm going to stick with what we do know, which is what the archaeology tells us, which these civilizations, these Bronze Age civilizations, were brilliant civilizations with brilliant people that were able to do fantastic things with their limited resources.
And they weren't distracted by our modern resources that we have today.
So, you know, we don't know how to build a pyramid like that.
We couldn't afford to build a pyramid like the Great Pyramid at Giza.
But those people knew how to do it.
They could spend 40 years doing it.
They did it bit by bit, slowly but surely, until they achieved what they achieved because they had all the time in the world.
We never have enough time in the world these days.
That's going to be a revelation to a lot.
I mean, I agree with that fact, but that's going to be a revelation to a lot of people that they just simply had time to apply themselves.
And if you apply yourself, I know we've said this before, but it's a great point and we have to make it again very clearly.
If you apply yourself to a thing for enough time and with enough dedication, then you're going to reach amazing levels with it.
I mean, look, another trite example, but you look at athletes and their performance.
You know, you can hone yourself to be a fantastic athlete and people would say, I didn't know that was possible.
But you can achieve it by applying yourself.
So using the same theory with athletes and applying it back to your work, then, yeah, that's quite likely.
You're absolutely right.
And why do we only concentrate on Egypt?
I mean, what about the Roman Empire and the fantastic buildings they made?
We don't dispute that.
We don't say that ancient aliens built Roman Empire, do we?
And so, I mean, it all depends on what you're looking at.
Why should we single out the Egyptian Empire as something special that was somehow interfered with by ancient aliens when we look at these fantastic things like Gothic cathedrals that we have all over Europe built in the Middle Ages by masons with chisels sitting there just chiseling away and making these fantastic monuments?
They weren't made by aliens.
So if you can build a fantastic Gothic cathedral, why can't you a thousand years earlier build a pyramid?
Here's another crass question then.
That prompts the question, if we were able to do those things so long ago, what was the process of forgetting it all?
How did that happen?
Because civilization became more and more complex as you look through time.
We begin with the Neolithic period where people are just shipping away and doing hunter-gathering and stuff like that and domesticating animals for the first time to a society like the old kingdom in Egypt where they're building these huge pyramids where they've got corvée systems of workmen coming in shifts to work in their hundreds of thousands to build these fantastic monuments, basically out of religious fervor, because they're building these monuments for their king, who's a God.
And as the world goes on and develops, we develop into the Hellenistic age, things get more complex, we get democracy through the Greeks, we go on to the Roman Republic and into the Roman Empire period, where it's all about military conquest and fantastic buildings being erected, the invention of concrete, all these things happen.
And we're developing and adding more and more to our knowledge and our understanding.
And then we get into a dark age period, which we call the fall of the Roman Empire.
For hundreds of years, we have the Dark Age period.
And then gradually we get out of that with the Renaissance and we build towards some of the modern times.
And since the Renaissance, we've been going helter-skelter with our technology.
We've been going faster and faster and faster.
Now, if you think about it, when I was born, there was no such thing as computers.
There were no such thing as mobile phones.
Just think how we've advanced in the last 50 years.
It's been quite astonishing.
We've gone to the moon, for goodness sakes.
But I think what you were kind of implying is that not always better.
Sometimes there are things that we can do in the past that were better back then than they are now.
If you think about some electronic equipment, you know, like I have been over the years, a bit of a hi-fi buff.
A lot of people say the old stuff is better and we've forgotten how to build that.
Well, that's a simple and trite example of something that if you apply that back through history, then you can credit people way, way back with more savvy and more intelligence and more ability than perhaps we have.
I think you're right.
I think the way that we connect with our world is different now.
They connected in a different way.
They connected perhaps in a more spiritual way even.
And they had a connection with nature that we don't have today.
They didn't have light pollution.
They could go onto a temple roof and look up at the stars and see billions of stars up there.
We can hardly do that today in our modern cities because of light pollution.
We are disconnected from Mother Nature.
We are disconnected from our environment.
Some people try to get back to it, and that's a great thing.
But somehow or other, you've got that battle between technology and advancement versus how we live in our world, how we exist in our world.
And I think people are beginning to realize that technology is not the be and end all of everything.
That we somehow have to reconnect with the animal species on this planet and the way that nature works.
When I was a little kid, my dad used to take me to the Odeon in Bootle, where he was able to, he was a policeman, he was able to get, he knew the manager there who got us complimentary tickets.
So we used to go and see all the films when I was a little kid.
And I have this, wasn't there a movie called The Ten Commandments?
And James Mason or somebody like that might have been in it.
So that's my schooling in all of this.
But you did some work on the Ten Commandments, didn't you?
Because I've seen it in some of the things that have been written about you.
What do we know about the Ten Commandments?
We know how it was written.
That's what we know.
We discovered through this revised chronology, this redating, that the alphabet that we use today, our modern alphabet, was invented by one clever Semitic person living in Egypt in around the 12th dynasty, which was about, I would say, about 1600, 700 BC.
So three and a half, 4,000 years ago.
This guy took Egyptian hieroglyphs, which he was obviously able to read, and decided to turn them into an alphabet, a Semitic alphabet.
So you end up with a whole series of Egyptian hieroglyphs, which are converted into about 26 signs, which become our ABCDEFG that we have in our modern alphabet today.
And you can actually see in the shapes of our modern alphabet those ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
So whoever that guy was, whether he was Joseph the vizier in Egypt, who was the great, the Second only to Pharaoh in the time of the great famine in Egypt when the Israelites were there, or whether it was Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt, who was a prince of Egypt and therefore could read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and was trained to read them.
Whichever of those two characters it was, or some other Semitic person, he gave us our modern alphabet, and that would have been the alphabet, the earliest form of alphabet, would have been used to write those Ten Commandments, what we call those Ten Words on those tablets.
So the entire law of Moses would have been written and recorded in this proto-Sinaitic script that we call it.
And is there evidence that those were handed down in the way that we've been told they were handed down as a moral code?
They are almost certainly two things.
They are a moral code, but there are also a mechanism with how you control a population.
So when you've got this guy Moses with all these people out in the desert, it's not just about the Ten Commandments, it's also about all the other laws he wrote and sat down and wrote down, which form the basis of the other books of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses.
So he's not just writing those Ten Commandments, he's writing other things like an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which is a very famous expression.
But he took that, he borrowed that and many of these laws from the Hammurabi law code, from Babylon.
The king of Babylon, the great king Hammurabi of Babylon 1, wrote a law code down, which is currently standing on a pillar in the Louvre Museum in Paris.
But we see parallels between what Moses wrote for his laws and what is in the Hammurabi law code.
So it's all about Moses, this prince of Egypt, reading and knowing about other civilizations and other laws in other countries and applying them to his own people to give them not only nationhood, but a set of laws to which they rule by.
And if you're a bunch of people trying to survive and make your way, then you shouldn't covet your neighbor's ox is common sense more than anything else.
Absolutely, because you're going to have total chaos.
You have chaos.
If you don't have law, you have chaos.
And that's one of the great things about the ancient philosophy is that there was a concept between what we call ma'at, which is the sort of supernatural truth of the world, divine truth, and order.
And on the other side, chaos, which is Isfet, it's called in ancient Egyptian.
So you have this balance between Isfet and Ma'at, the chaos and the order.
And it's the job of the king or the leader, like Moses, to make sure that order is always supreme over chaos.
Because once chaos takes over, comes destruction.
And that's the way the ancient world always thought of this balance between chaos and order was really the primeval root of civilization.
Chaos was nature, and civilization was order.
And order always had to dominate over chaos.
Otherwise, we go back to the beginning.
That makes a lot of sense because even now, we're still struggling in our supposedly very sophisticated, very modernized world.
We're still trying to superimpose order over chaos.
We are, and we're quite often losing this battle.
This battle continues, as we know today in the modern world.
We've got this Islamic State problem that we have in the Middle East, which is now encroaching upon Europe with all the immigration that we're getting there.
You have chaos.
It's knocking at the door on all our civilizations around the world and has done throughout history.
That's why we have dark ages.
That's why we have periods of collapse.
That's why the Roman Empire collapsed.
So chaos is always there, ready to pounce.
And isn't it interesting?
One of the videos, I think it was, of yours that I saw on YouTube talked about the remnants of a previous civilization and efforts being made to erase those.
And if you look at Islamic State, the group calling itself that now, whatever it's calling itself now, one of the things they are doing is trying to erase historic sites.
They are.
I mean, it's very, very sad to see as well.
I mean, I've been to many of the sites that they've destroyed.
And their philosophy is almost like Paul Potts, that, you know, you start with a year zero, which was when Muhammad first preached.
And we have Islam being born.
That is the beginning of time for them.
Anything before that is pagan.
And so with extreme Islam, you do have this situation where they want to destroy our heritage, our past.
And it's their heritage too, ironically.
I mean, you know, Islam didn't come out of nowhere.
It's not an alien invasion.
It came out of the Middle East where these civilizations were, existed prior to Islam.
So have you seen reflections, pale reflections of what is happening today and the destruction of some artifacts and that sort of thing in past civilizations?
It's always happened.
You get civilizations who are predominant militarily, who are not necessarily sophisticated.
So for instance, in the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire was extremely sophisticated, but it plateaued out.
It became static almost because it didn't have anything fresh to do with its civilization.
It was sort of as moribund.
And then you have the people from the East, the Visigoths, coming in, who are basically barbarians, but technically speaking, they're brilliant warriors.
And they come in and they literally erase the Roman Empire.
They destroy it.
They take it over.
So what happens is you get this energy from barbarianism of people who are not so sophisticated coming in, destroying a civilization.
And very rapidly then, with this new energy, a new civilization is born.
And it's a cyclical thing.
So you get the beginning, you get a civilization growing very rapidly, plateauing out, collapsing, and a new civilization starting very rapidly and then plateauing out.
That's the process, the cycle that human beings have gone through for the last 4,000 years.
And we think that we're very clever looking in the rearview mirror back at history and saying this is how things have been up to now.
But actually, the truth that may not dawn upon us, which didn't presumably dawn on the Romans either, is that, you know, ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
In other words, we could be erasing ourselves in this way as well.
We are almost certainly on one of those thresholds right now.
We've plateaued out.
Western civilization has plateaued out.
It's become static almost.
It's not got any energy left.
And so you then have the potentials of new civilizations evolving, new dominant groups on our planet.
For instance, the Chinese may be a possibility.
So you have situations where empires collapse, and we are at the end, possibly, of the great American Empire, the Great Western Empire, and a new one from the Orient might be coming along to take its place.
And it's all part of history.
Where do you go then with your research now?
What are you going to do next?
Well, I'm busy promoting the new book right now, which is Exodus Myth or History, which you can get from the internet, from Amazon or from my own website.
But once I've done that, and I'm lecturing over in the States quite a lot these days, my next project will be another documentary movie.
We've just released a documentary movie in the USA called Patterns of Evidence, The Exodus, which actually deals with this whole argument of the shift in time and looking for the Exodus in an earlier period.
That's been hugely popular in America.
It's been seen by millions of people there, and it'll be coming over to Europe probably next year.
So we're into doing the second movie in that series now, which will be about the monarchy period of the Israelite history.
That's the time of Saul, David, and Solomon.
So we're moving on with this project of actually letting people know about all this.
And I've got to an age now where my archaeological career is finished.
I'm not going to be going out and doing any more work in the Middle East, I doubt very much.
But what I can do is with the research I've got under my belt, I can start getting the message out there to people so that they can take an interest and actually understand what the real story is behind the biblical text.
That's where I see myself going, let's say, in the next decade.
Is anybody else working on the things that you're working on?
In other words, are there any right, you say that you can't go out and do much of the primary work now, but is there anybody doing that now?
It's happening all the time.
And with archaeology, you never know what's going to happen tomorrow.
I mean, there are excavations going on in the Holy Land at the moment, in Megiddo and Hatsur and places like that, that might well next year turn up an archive of tablets, which answers all these questions.
We just never know what's around the corner.
So if the Middle East doesn't go up in flames in the next five or six years, we may actually get some material evidence out of one of these major archaeological digs, which either proves I'm right or proves I'm wrong.
There are clips, some of which I've seen on YouTube, of your documentary work.
And I have to say, because I've worked in the media all of my life, some of these things can descend into a sort of Gee Wiz Showbiz presentation.
And your presentations have great, they use all the new technology and it looks great, but there's credibility there.
And that's a very hard thing to do when you must have executives and people who run channels and stuff like that, you know, who want it all to be Zappy Pappy and Showbiz.
That's very, very true.
And you know all about that.
I mean, I could tell you a few stories off-air about the situations I've been in with certain producers and directors.
But yes, I mean, the biggest problem is there's always this lowest common denominator TV issue, isn't there?
Especially if it's a co-production with the Americans where you'll have an English producer or an English channel commissioning editor saying we have to dump down for the Americans.
I don't actually believe that's true.
I think human beings can take some difficult material if it's presented in the right way.
And the most important thing to do is produce the evidence for people to see.
Don't just tell them about the evidence.
Don't just tell them the facts.
Show them the facts and let them see for themselves.
And that's what I try to do in my books as well.
I illustrate very heavily all the archaeological evidence so people can see the evidence for themselves.
I'm not the sort of person who can just stand in front of a camera and expect people to believe what I tell them without seeing the evidence.
And we're certainly not here criticizing America or the Americans.
What we're saying is this is a fact of commercial media life.
And commercial media life is pretty cutthroat and pretty pacey here in the UK, but you amplify that even more in the US where you've got to deliver and you've got to deliver results.
You have to do it quick.
Yeah, I mean the way that TV works in America is if you don't get them in the first five minutes, forget it.
And your programs are full of advertising all the way through the hour that you're on the screen or whatever.
But I just think it's a nonsense that people somehow or other in the UK, directors and commissioning editors, have to dumb down to the American audience.
I think the Americans can take it.
The Americans are very bright people and they're no different to us.
We just have to serve it the right way to them.
We have to present it in a way that they can see the visual evidence for themselves.
Okay, you have to do it in a more impacting way than you might be able to do on a BBC programme, for instance.
But the Americans love the BBC programmes.
They love all our documentaries.
I just think sometimes we're a little bit scared of taking it to the empire, as it were.
I talked about the empire earlier.
It's almost like being in one of the apostles and actually going to Rome and going to the empire.
That's what we have to do as Brits when we have to go to America.
We're scared stiff of going to the empire because that's where you have to be.
That's where the market is.
That's where the huge population is.
And so if you're going to actually win over your argument, you have to go to Rome, as it were.
And that means New York and Washington.
And people in America, let me tell you, because the biggest audience for my show is in the United States and in Canada and right across the UK.
That's how it goes.
US and Canada and UK are the biggest audiences for my show, The Unexplained.
The fact of the matter is that there are millions, and I mean millions of people on the North American continent who are questing, who want to know answers to things.
And, you know, a lot of their media, you know, I love American media.
You know, when I was brought up in Liverpool, I used to stay up into the middle of the night trying to listen to American radio on a.m. across the Atlantic because, you know, West Coast, UK, you just about hear the East Coast at 3 o'clock in the morning.
So I love all of that.
But if you can apply some of that pizzazz, but have a solid base of fact there, then I think you've got yourself a good show.
And that seems to me to be what you're doing.
I'm trying my best.
And I'm spending a lot of time in the States these days.
I'm back over there in a few weeks.
But I would say this about America and Americans is that they are very different types of people to the old world of Europe.
In the old world of Europe, if you're successful or you come up with a good idea, you get frowned upon, you get looked down at by most people.
In America, they pat you on the back and say, well done for doing that.
Well done for making money.
Well done for running this business.
Well done for coming up with this new idea.
They are open-minded and they are not in some way or other just looking down at you sort of almost like jealous or whatever it might be that you find in the old world these days.
America is full of life and energy whereas our European world tends to be rather tired these days, especially in academia.
So when I go to America I find a much more open-minded spirit that I can talk to and I find that very stimulating.
I mean people will accuse us of indulging the broad generalization here but that's been my experience in the media.
In the media here, if you do well, then there are a lot of people who will say, well done you, and a lot of people who will just say, oh, who does he think he is?
And they'll want to kick you down, even if you're doing something different.
And it seems to me that that doesn't exist to the same degree in the U.S., where, you know, if you're doing well, that's great.
The people who might criticize you here over there, they will say, okay, well, how's he doing what he's doing?
I want to do that and do it better.
That's healthier, I think.
But that's a whole other issue.
A whole other debate.
But very material to the work that you're doing.
Very material to the work that you're doing.
Very true.
Very true.
Well, we've really covered an awful lot of ground, David.
I'm glad I discovered your work.
I'm glad I discovered you.
And I'm glad that your internet connection held up on the top of your mountaintop in Valencia.
That was brilliant, wasn't it?
Excellent.
Amazing that it held up.
And I hope you enjoyed this.
It's been great fun.
Thank you very much.
And thank you very much.
If people want to know more about you, is there a one-stop shop website, whatever, where they can go?
Yes, well, I mean, if you want to get the new book, which is the really important thing to do right now, it's www.exodus-myth-or-history.com.
That's where you will be able to get the book in the UK, in the States.
Of course, you can get it from amazon.com and also in the UK, amazon.co.uk.
How's the weather where you are today?
It's glorious today.
The sun is about to set fairly soon.
We're looking at blue skies.
I'm looking across from my mountain towards the Mediterranean Sea.
So I do feel sorry for you over there back in London, I must say.
Although it's not terribly cold today, you know the colour they paint battleships.
Yeah, grey.
If I look up at the sky where I am here, I can see a few trees with browning leaves, and the sky is the colour of a battleship.
You know how depressing that is?
Yeah, well, yes, I lived with that for many, many years before I moved out to Spain.
Yes, I think I'm going to have to find the sun one of these days.
David, we've got to talk again.
Thank you very much.
My pleasure.
Take care.
Remarkable man.
Remarkable life story.
Remarkable work.
David Rohm, thought you might like him.
Let me know what you thought about him or any guest that we've had on here.
And if you want to send me a message of any kind or tell me where you are, who you are, and how you're using this show, I love to hear from you.
You can do all of that by going to the website, theunexplained.tv and sending me a message by following the link.
You can also leave me a donation for the show if you'd like to do that.
Very, very important that you do that if you possibly can to help me develop and continue this show.
Thank you to Adam, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for his hard work curating the website and making sure you get the shows, getting them out to you.
Thanks very much indeed, Adam, for that.
Please stay in touch.
And until next we meet here on the unexplained, please stay safe, please stay calm, and like I say, above all else, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection