The Unexplained - Howard Hughes - Edition 286 - Steve Bassett

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 8, 2017 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes

01:04:56

Edition 286 - Steve Bassett

An update on "Disclosure" from Steve Bassett, CEO of PRG...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

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 Return of the Unexplained.
	Thank you very much for keeping faith with the show and for all of your nice communications.
	I'm going to be doing some shout-outs on this edition.
	Welcome to February, and as I record these words, the sun is pouring through my window.
	Could that be a hint of spring?
	I am not going to speak too soon, as anybody in this country would understand.
	Thank you very much to Adam at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for keeping the website and the show turning over at theunexplained.tv.
	Thanks, Adam, for all of your hard work.
	And if you want to get in touch with me or make a donation to the show, then you can go to the website theunexplained.tv and follow the link either for a PayPal donation or to send me a communication about the show.
	Let's do some shout-outs before the guest on this edition.
	Very special guest, the return of Steve Bassett from the Paradigm Research Group.
	We're going to be talking in 2017 about, among other things, the ongoing battle for disclosure.
	And if you're listening to this show, you're going to be into that, I'm sure.
	I get a lot of email every time Steve Bassett is on here, so looking forward to it.
	Your emails and communications, I'm going to get to as many as I possibly can.
	Amanda in Ontario, Canada.
	Thank you for your communication.
	It says really great to see these fringe topics discussed with healthy scepticism and journalistic integrity.
	One small suggestion.
	I'm very open-minded to the kind of phenomenon that you talk about, as I assume a lot of your listeners are, says Amanda, quite right.
	But I wish you would spend more time highlighting interesting stories from the guests rather than spending most of the time seeking evidence for why their story is true.
	I see the benefit of asking a few questions to clear up scepticism.
	But, okay, Amanda, I understand it's a very hard line that I walk.
	Because if I don't ask those questions, then I get emails from other people saying, why didn't you push them a bit harder?
	But, you know, I'm always trying to walk the line.
	And thank you for this communication.
	Dot from Ladner, BC, Canada, thank you for the suggestion from British Columbia.
	Collie in Northern Ireland says, Howard, I just want to send you a quick message to thank you for a great podcast and the radio show.
	On Sunday nights, I work the night shift in Tesco's, and it helps me through the night.
	Love David Paul Idis.
	Thank you, Collie.
	Johnny Mallard, thank you for your recent email, and I'm working my way through the points that you make.
	Hi, Howard.
	Great show.
	Keep it up.
	I live in Loveland, Colorado.
	Is there a place called Loveland?
	Is it Loveland?
	I think it's Loveland, isn't it, really?
	Not Loveland.
	It's a bit of Barry White there.
	And listen to the podcast on the night shift.
	I traveled to London in 2011.
	Did you saw Stonehenge?
	Oh, that is an unforgettable experience.
	And I want to come back.
	Well, I hope that you do.
	And thank you very much for your email from Loveland, Colorado.
	Les in West Malvern, Worcestershire.
	Thank you for what you shared.
	My sister used to live a few houses away from your house.
	I lived on the Fruitlands estate on the other side of the hill.
	You asked me to say hello on this edition of the show to Lorna Joy Davis.
	Lorna Joy Davis, I understand you're a fan of the show, as is Les.
	Thank you very much.
	Keep listening and tell your friends.
	Paul in Slough, Berkshire.
	All of the points noted, you can hear the shows that you asked about again on the website.
	Just search it, and I promise you they are there.
	Mark at Leon-Solent, a favourite place for me with a view of the Isle of Wight across the Solent.
	And sometimes a bit of mist, and sometimes completely bright and clear.
	Very interesting thoughts, Mark, about the Mandela effect.
	Thank you for those.
	Glynn Hardwick, thank you for your email.
	Jill in California says, I liked Elizabeth Greenwood.
	Her discussion reminded me that good writers are not judgy.
	That's a fact, isn't it?
	And Elizabeth Greenwood was the person who talked about faking your own death, which some people have done, but very few people have got away with.
	Craig got in touch.
	He says, I think you could press the guests a little more on what they think is the explanation.
	Now, there's the point you see, that Amanda said, I'm pressing some of the people a little too much, and Craig doesn't think I'm pressing them enough.
	Robert Lee in the northeast of England, all of your comments, Robert, noted.
	Thank you for the emails and your suggestion.
	Finally, on this edition, shout outs.
	Zev in Israel.
	Thank you very much for your comments.
	Great show this week with Liz Greenwood and the Russian commentator Alexander Nekrasov.
	I'd love to hear a future show, says Zev, with Alexander elaborating his Watergate theory.
	Okay.
	He believes that we were not entirely told the truth about the events that brought down President Nixon and his team all of those years ago.
	What is it?
	44 years ago, is it this year?
	Maybe 43, I don't know.
	You can tell me, but long time ago anyway, when I was very, very small, but I can still remember seeing Nixon go on television and say, there will be no whitewash at the White House.
	Yes, part of our lives, I guess.
	All right, let's get to our guest and a welcome return for Steve Bassett from the Paradigm Research Group.
	Steve, thanks very much for coming back on the Unexplained.
	My pleasure, Howard.
	Always great to be with you.
	Now, it is not quite a year, I think.
	I haven't looked back through the archive, but I think it's about that duration of time since last we spoke.
	So I think we need to bring ourselves, first of all, up to date with what is going on with you.
	Goodness.
	Really, you want to ask the entire country that question.
	Hello, United States.
	How are you this morning?
	What's going on with you these days?
	Well, we're going through a vast transition, somewhat unprecedented in our history, at least our modern history, of political chaos, intrigue, upheaval, and uncertainty.
	Well, that's a hell of a smorgasbord.
	How come?
	We had an election, and the candidate who won is rather unusual.
	Well, there were those who were saying that, both sides of the Atlantic, yeah.
	Yes.
	And it's really thrown all the cards up in the air.
	And as a result, a whole lot of people are affected.
	Certainly, just about every advocacy movement in the country was affected by this political upheaval.
	And the disclosure advocacy movement is no exception.
	Okay, because look, I've heard various ways of looking at this propounded by various people in your sort of field since Trump was on the way to being elected and got elected.
	One view is this man is not going to be interested in any of this stuff because it's just not what he does.
	He wants to build a wall.
	He's got other priorities.
	The other thought is that this man wants to make his mark and wants to make an indelible mark on the popular consciousness and on history forever.
	So one way to do that might be to open the vaults and tell the truth as you would see it.
	Which way do you see this?
	Both are correct.
	And that's part of the reason the thing's quite complicated.
	The other matter in terms of me and Paradigm Research Group is that we came very close to disclosure.
	Few people really know how close we came.
	Those who are following PRG's work closely by being on the updates list, which you can go to paradigmresearchgroup.org, and there's a place on the left corner, there, lower left corner, you can subscribe to the updates where I was giving reports on the progress.
	But outside of that, people wouldn't know.
	And essentially what happened was this, we had the window of opportunity to get this done, and it was based on the presidential candidacy of Secretary Clinton, who, because she's connected to the issue all the way back to her husband's administration, 1993 to 1996, the Rockefeller Initiative, which was an effort by Lawrence Rockefeller to get the files out and end the truth embargo shortly after the Cold War ended, which failed.
	And then they just never talked about it again because they didn't think it would be helpful to their political ambitions.
	Because of that connection, because she ran a second time, this time PRG was able to drive the issue into the media.
	And for the first time ever, and that occurred in, I think, February of 2015, the Rockefeller Initiative was mentioned in print.
	And I think it was by Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times.
	And from November of 2014 through the election, PRG was able to generate something in the range of about 500 articles in mainstream papers connecting Clinton, her husband, John Podesta, to the issue, the E.T. issue, with articles in the net on web and print articles.
	And the web articles, of course, included links to documents and interviews and so forth.
	Huge amount of material.
	Okay, now in November on your update, Steve, which I always read them as soon as they come in, and I've kept them all.
	In November, you say that Clintons now have a choice to make of historic proportions.
	This is immediately before the election.
	Should they immediately take interviews with top journalists and discuss in greater detail what they know about the ET issue and what transpired during the Rockefeller initiative?
	The resulting media storm will force the Pentagon and the White House to reach the necessary understandings, allowing Barack Obama to be the disclosure president, or should they remain silent?
	That's just a brief extract from your November update.
	What was all that?
	Well, that was the whole point of the three-year effort, which goes all the way back to the citizen hearing on disclosure, citizenhearing.org.
	It was held in Washington, D.C. PRG produced it and then delivered the testimony of that mock congressional hearing to the entire House and Senate, which included three hours of testimony about the Rockefeller Initiative.
	That was in November 2014.
	And so what happened is that when we finally got the issue in play, and it was starting to be written up all over the world, including in New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Times of London, I could go on and on and on, that it was totally outed.
	There it was.
	What was happening is that as planned, the Clinton team, which included her and her campaign chairman, as well as her husband, started, we're getting queries from reporters as early as January of 2015.
	And they wanted to know what's going on with this.
	What's this Rockefeller initiative?
	And they didn't want to talk about it.
	Not to reporters, not under, they weren't under control conditions.
	And so they stonewalled everyone.
	All these reporters were getting no response at all.
	And when I say no response, I mean the New York Times did not get their calls returned when they wrote an extensive article about it.
	In other words, their plan was, you know, we have to control this.
	We can't engage it properly because then it might hurt our campaign.
	So we're going to try to finesse this, like in bridge.
	So what they did was they, rather than answer any questions, they did start to speak about it because they knew that if they didn't say anything, the pressure was going to get even greater.
	And so over that period, two years, as she's running for office, the Clintons or their surrogates spoke to the issue 12 times.
	Jimmy Kimmel's show, Ellen Dingenaris' show.
	Obama went on.
	Obama is part of the Clinton team, by the way.
	He spoke.
	Podesta on several occasions gave interviews, and then she gave a very significant interview to Conway Daily Sun.
	And so the result was this.
	PRG was able to generate more political coverage of the ET issue in that two-year period than in the previous 68 years combined.
	Unprecedented political coverage.
	And she, as a presidential candidate, spoke to this issue beyond anything that had ever happened before.
	The issue was in play.
	And I knew that if she were to actually speak fully to it and start answering questions in depth about what had happened and why they had been discussing it prior, it would generate a media storm so intense that the White House and the Pentagon would do what we've been waiting for them to do for a long time, and that is to cut a deal.
	Right.
	Something then apparently went wrong.
	Was there something that went wrong, the realization among the Clinton campaign team that perhaps they were not going to win, which, of course, ultimately they did not win.
	The principal thing that prevented this story from blowing open and probably giving us disclosure under Obama was the television news.
	Television news operations are a mess, and they are commanding a great deal of attention in America still.
	You've got three networks, regular networks that are under FCC aegis, and then you've got three cable networks.
	This is the news, right?
	And in our country, we had these debates, and there were more debates this time than in any previous election.
	It's only like 33 debates in town forums for 23 or 24 total, eventually, initially 24 Republican candidates and three Democratic candidates.
	And in spite of all these hundreds of stories being written up in major print media about the Clinton E.T. connection, not a single one of the television news host moderators of the debates.
	In other words, in our country, the debates are moderated by a television host, a news host, and they have control of the questions.
	They claim that they virtually have total control.
	They're not influenced by anyone.
	And so these multi-millionaire, they all make a million, two, five, $10, $15 million a year, quote, journalists are actually controlling the debates.
	And they did not ask a single question of Clinton or anybody else in the campaign, nor, in spite of over 130 articles written about PRG and myself and my engagement with this issue in the media, ever even called me up and said, come on down, let's talk about this.
	And so she got a pass there.
	It's extraordinary.
	Well, I watched all of the debates, and the problem seemed to me to be that as the debates went on, more and more it was focusing on two things.
	Hillary's email and the idea that Trump had that she should be behind bars.
	What's happened to that now?
	Well, we don't know.
	And the other side being, of course, the various claimed misdemeanours of Mr. Trump, which Hillary had to press home.
	And it seems that your issue got lost in between those two issues.
	Do you concur?
	What do you think?
	Well, yeah, the ET issue was not the only one lost.
	There were a very long list of issues that were not engaged.
	There's television media that does not properly engage the issues.
	It doesn't engage the candidates, thus increasing the likelihood that we're going to get candidates that are not probably what we want to be leading the country.
	Look, more questions are asked in a single parliamentary question session of your prime minister than in all the debates held in one of our, quote, four-year elections.
	And so she got a pass.
	And as a result of that, they made the decision that they were probably going to be able to get through to the White House without having to truly speak to the issue.
	And so as of June the 2nd of 2016, they didn't say anything more.
	And now, and here's where it gets to be painful.
	Fine.
	She thought, I'm going to make it to the White House.
	I'm not going to have to talk to the New York Times about this.
	I'm not going to have to give a major interview.
	Then I can do it, right?
	Because then I'll be the president and then I can be the disclosure president.
	I can be the one that the president that finally announces to the world, the ET presidence is real and go down in history.
	All very good, except she didn't win.
	And when she did win, the media, which was ready to pounce, I mean, they were ready to jump on her the moment she won that election.
	I know this because for the last year and a half, I've been working with journalists directly as a source.
	And by the election, I was working directly with 37 journalists, including two Pulitzer Prize winners, who have, you know, on a direct blind copy list with me, getting information on a real-time basis.
	And they'd all written pretty much dozens and dozens of stories in print media, and they were ready to jump.
	But when she loses the election, there's nowhere to jump.
	So it's part of the problem, Steve, and I don't know whether it is, so forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, that you and so many other people assumed that Hillary was virtually a shoe and she was going to win easily.
	And you only approached the Clinton side.
	You were only looking at it from that side.
	So you didn't actually bargain for the fact that Trump might win.
	And then what would happen for you?
	Not the case.
	Information about the connection between Hillary Clinton was sent to all of the candidates.
	All of the candidates, including Trump.
	Plus, understand these articles are being written all over New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times.
	The campaign teams for these candidates, including Trump's campaign team, were aware of it.
	They couldn't miss it.
	All right.
	Now we've talked around it.
	What is this connection?
	What is the connection that we're referring to here?
	The connection is the Rockefeller Initiative, which you can go to, you go to, let's see, I guess a little harder.
	If you do a Google search on quotes, in quotes, Rockefeller Initiative, the PRG's page on that will come up.
	You see the documents.
	You can see the whole history of it.
	But it's one of the most important events in the 20th century that the media never mentioned until almost 22 years after it happened.
	And that is that when the Cold War ended, a lot of people, including Lawrence Rockefeller, one of the billionaire sons of John Dee, an environmentalist, an entrepreneur, I mean, an out-of-the-box guy who had funded a lot of interesting research, including John Mack and others, he knew that the window for finally ending the truth embargo on the ETA presence was open.
	That now that the, quote, Soviet Union was now just Russia and we're all capitalists now and everybody's happy, the possibility to now get this out, to end this embargo, which is now an abomination, was there.
	And so it was time to do something.
	And so he approached the new president on March 29th of 1993, just about a year and a half after the Cold War is basically over.
	And the intention was to Persuade the president to release all of the files regarding UFOs, ETs, what have you, in the government's possession to the public and grant amnesty to witnesses who would come forward to talk about it.
	This would have resulted in ending the truth embargo.
	And this is called now the Rockefeller Initiative.
	It went on for about three years.
	A lot of people were involved in it.
	A lot of people in the Clinton administration were involved in it and aware of it.
	But it failed almost certainly because there was nothing that Clinton could get.
	The issue is no longer brief to the President of the United States or the Congress.
	It's been pulled out from under for some time.
	It's called a USAP.
	It's part of the black world in America, unacknowledged special access programs.
	You're the president.
	You're political elected.
	You're temporary.
	It is just too risky.
	And so that constitutional breach has been in place in an increasing degree since 1961.
	It's a major problem, huge, huge political issue.
	And so he couldn't get anything.
	And so it ended in 96.
	Clinton was under a lot of pressure.
	There was a new election coming up.
	And so they just decided, we'll just never speak of this.
	And so everybody involved just never spoke about it.
	And the press didn't cover it.
	The press knew something was going on, but they didn't pursue it.
	And there was only one brief article in the New York Daily News.
	That was it.
	And so they then proceeded on with their lives.
	And all these people went on to run for president.
	We're talking about Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and Bill Richardson and their chief of staff, Panetta, and their chief of staff, McClarty, and George Stephanott.
	These people knew about the Rockefeller Initiative and never spoke a word about it.
	That is the connection.
	And so it might have ended there.
	Well, one of the reasons it didn't fully end there is because the Clintons basically figured out or tipped off during that period, 93 to 96, the E.T. thing was real.
	Unless they figured it out on their own.
	I mean, the books and the documentaries are out there.
	You don't have to be a CI agent and go see them.
	They're in public domain.
	Well, listen, Steve, I've got a long memory, okay?
	And I've been doing news out of London for many, many years, most of my professional career.
	And I do remember the Clinton era very, very well.
	And everybody said when Clinton was elected, he would be the disclosure president.
	They said, here's the guy who knows he's going to be given the keys to it all, and he's going to show the world because that's the kind of guy he is.
	And of course, ultimately, he got embroiled in the Monaco Lewinsky affair, and people's attention went elsewhere.
	Well, Howard, I know that you've followed things closely.
	I'm sure you did.
	I was in Washington, D.C. I followed things even more closely.
	And I can tell you without any doubt in my mind that the idea of Clinton being a disclosure president was never brought up at that time.
	It was not a factor.
	It was a non-issue.
	In fact, when he was elected in 92, the entire era of exopolitics hadn't even begun yet.
	And it was not in play.
	Jimmy Carter was the first president to even speak to the UFO issue during a campaign.
	And it was a very, very small thing.
	He brought it up.
	He mentioned he had a sighting.
	Got a lot of people excited.
	He got a lot of letters to the White House, 4,000 or 5,000.
	But again, it was not a significant engagement during the campaign.
	Once he got all these letters, he tried to launch a study.
	In fact, he did launch a study early in his administration, which was very quickly blocked, shut down.
	Basically, Carter was told, you don't have any need to know.
	Don't just go away.
	Leave us alone, literally.
	And that study was eventually sort of shut down with a certain amount of deference.
	In other words, they ran it out a little bit, then they closed it down.
	A second study was also begun in 1977 from the Stanford Research Institute.
	That got shut down immediately by the Pentagon.
	And it all just went away very quickly.
	That's it.
	And so it just simply was not an issue.
	And it wasn't covered, and it was not known.
	Now, the private principals, of which 16 are still alive, that were involved in the Rockefeller Initiative, they did talk about it a little bit.
	It sort of got out on the net as you get into the mid-90s and so forth, but never in the mainstream news.
	And what changed all this, two things happened, which changed all this dramatically.
	And that is one when in 2000, after Clinton had left office, Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, presidentialufo.com,
	who was following this himself extensively, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the Clinton administration and got back 1,000 pages of documents.
	Somebody made a mistake.
	They screwed up.
	And they sent him 1,000 pages of documents, which confirmed the whole damn thing.
	And he then sent those to me, and I presented them to the Washington Post and USA newspaper, and they did nothing.
	I mean, they just didn't even touch them.
	Then we put them up on the internet and started trying to get attention to them.
	Then this was in 2001.
	And again, it took, again, even though for the next 14 years, the media was being informed, and I was talking about on scores of interviews.
	I've given over 1,200 interviews, the Rockefeller Initiative.
	There was no coverage, nothing.
	They stayed away from it until 2015 during that campaign.
	But something else happened.
	In 2002, out of the blue, John Podesta comes to the press club, National Press Club, and at a press conference for a new organization being funded and set up by the sci-fi channel called the Coalition for Freedom of Information, which was to be a, quote, Washington mainstream organization addressing the, quote, UFO phenomena, very unusual thing.
	And that's when he made the announcement at that press conference I attended that we need to release all the UFO files, exactly what Rockefeller was seeking from his former boss, President Clinton.
	That was in 2002.
	He did it again in 2003.
	And so, and there's a long, long history here.
	It's on the internet.
	It's on my website.
	It's also on Grant Cameron's website.
	And so that meant that something was going on in the background.
	And what I finally figured out it was, was the Clintons knew the ET presence was real.
	They couldn't get any information while he was president.
	He was denied that opportunity to maybe make history.
	So they were going to do it.
	She was going to be the president.
	She would be the disclosure president.
	Though obviously it was going to be tricky, and she wasn't going to be able to run for a while.
	And so there's this history that slowly unfolds from 2002 forward.
	And we could not force the issue out.
	In other words, the game was being played pretty much on their terms, and they controlled the parameters until she ran the second time.
	And then I was able to force the issue into the news.
	And we were on the verge of this thing exploding, literally exploding during the Obama administration, during that campaign.
	And were you getting feedback directly from her or from the people around you?
	Oh, no, no, they have never returned any correspondence to me.
	They absolutely will not correspond with me at all.
	But they were getting my stuff.
	I knew they were getting my stuff.
	And I had contacted Podesta a number of times.
	He knew exactly what I was trying to do.
	But they had a bigger game.
	Their game was to get to the White House.
	And then she was going to be the first woman president, the first disclosure president.
	But she lost.
	And in fact, in August, which I'm going to publish this, put this interview up shortly.
	But in an interview that I gave on camera in August of 2014, I said I didn't think she would win.
	She was not going to win unless she engaged the extraterrestrial issue.
	And I gave the reasons, and that's exactly what happened.
	She did not fully engage the ET issue.
	She tried to finesse it, dodge it, skirt it, like the Clintons always do, and she lost.
	And at that point is when I then put out roughly the archive, the update that you put out, which I now refer to as Clinton's choice.
	And it's an extraordinary choice, without question.
	Here you have a couple, one of the best known, most powerful political couples in American history.
	One was the president for two terms and left and ended his political career, basically in disgrace.
	Oh, he was popular, but he had been impeached.
	There was scandal.
	And, you know, one of the worst, certainly political scandals in American history was awful.
	I mean, the Ken Starr report, you know, if you read it, I mean, literally, you got to take a shower.
	It was terrible.
	So he leaves a disgrace.
	And then she launches her, quote, political career and she has her ups and her downs, but then she ends up embroiled in numerous scandals and then loses to Donald Trump.
	So her career ends in disgrace.
	So are you saying here, I think it's important that we just insert this, that you think that if Hillary had engaged the issue in the way that you hoped and prayed she would, she might have won.
	She would have won.
	I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind.
	And yet maybe the thought process of the people around her was that, and I don't know what they were thinking at all, I think they had other issues to deal with, that if she did engage that issue, people might write her off as being crazy or going off on a tangent.
	Well, they were completely wrong, which advisors usually are.
	And here is one of the most significant aspects of all this, which I think my British friends may appreciate.
	Referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the Oliver Wendell Holmes stories that involved the famous dog that didn't bark.
	He solved the case because the dog didn't bark.
	Here is the example.
	The ET issue was fully out there in the news during that entire presidential campaign.
	And it had been out in the news since the E.T. connection to Clinton since 2001.
	And from 2001 on, politics in the United States become as vicious, as partisan, and as we've ever seen.
	In the modern era.
	I know it got pretty ugly back in the early 1800s and so forth, and maybe after the Civil War.
	I get it.
	But in the modern era, nothing like it.
	Anything, every aspect, anything that you could be attacked on, you were attacked on.
	If they could attack your dog, they'd attack your dog.
	Your wife's, your kids, your mothers, anything.
	They'd make stuff up.
	All right.
	In spite of that, in spite of all the comments from her, her husband, from John Podesta, in that entire period from 2001 on, through the campaign, right up until the election itself, the Republican establishment, all of the Republican candidates and their surrogates, never once attacked the Clintons on the ET issue or the UFO issue or tried to make fun of them or tried to embarrass them or tinfoil at them or anything else.
	The dog didn't bark.
	Now, that should have raised a lot of flags to any journalists worth their salt.
	What the hell is going on here?
	Why aren't they being attacked for these statements?
	And the reason is simple.
	The Republican establishment, meaning the leaders, the intelligentsia, not the frontline politicians, are fully aware there's an extraterrestrial presence.
	They have connections.
	They have probably better connections to the Pentagon than the Democrats do.
	Now, it doesn't mean they're given tours of Area 51 or Wright-Patterson or underground facilities or whatever the hell or given briefings on this.
	They just know.
	They've been tipped.
	Yeah, it's an ET, there's ETs here.
	Don't worry about it.
	We've got it.
	Control.
	Do your business.
	They're going out.
	Fine, fine, fine.
	National security, whatever.
	They know.
	And so they know if they attack the Clintons on the ET connections and made fun of them and Tinpol had them.
	And then the issue suddenly comes out.
	Well, they'd look like the biggest jackasses on the planet.
	And so they never said a word.
	The dog that didn't bark.
	All right.
	So knowing that, had she engaged the issue, had she been the one to bring this out, everything else in the campaign that was troubling her would have been blown away.
	And it would have all been about that.
	And she would have been center stage.
	She would have wanted it going down.
	And I will say that to her face or Podesta's face.
	And one day maybe I'll get a chance.
	But that brings us back to Clinton's choice.
	And that's this.
	Their careers are over.
	Their foundation, which created huge problems for them, is slowly being shut down in a way.
	It's being shrunk.
	People are being let go.
	They ended the global initiative, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	And it could just fade away into the mists of history.
	But the fact is, is that they could give an interview anytime they want.
	They could call up Marine Down and say, come on down, interview us.
	Ask us anything you want about the Rockefeller Initiative.
	We'll tell you what happened.
	We'll tell you what was going on.
	We'll tell you what happened with the Pentagon.
	We'll tell you why we've been speaking out to it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	And literally, this story would explode worldwide.
	Do you think they're going to do that at any stage?
	Well, that's the choice they have to make.
	I don't know.
	I know they're still in shock and mourning, whatever.
	They're walking the woods of New York, wandering through the woods of New York, giving selfies with locals there.
	I don't know what they're going to do.
	But the point is, is if they did that, it would be their final legacy.
	They would essentially have been the trigger that brought the truth finally to the world's people in formal fashion, in full government imprimatur, that they're not alone in the universe.
	This is the biggest, most profound event in human history.
	The downside to that strategy is Donald Trump will be the disclosure president, not her.
	And so.
	Hang on, though.
	Do you think that's going to happen?
	Do you think he is going to do it?
	I don't know what Donald Trump is going to do.
	Nobody knows what Donald Trump is going to do.
	But I know what the choice that the Clintons have, and I've been talking about this publicly.
	You'll see it in some articles.
	You'll probably see some more of this as time goes forward.
	They still can still can, and they still can give the interview that could change the world.
	Will they do it?
	I don't know.
	Steve, as they fade away, well, they're not fading away.
	They never will fade away.
	But as they step backwards somewhat from the political arena and as their career goes into a bit of a twilight, that makes them more approachable.
	And that gives you the opportunity, doesn't it, to approach them and put it firmly to them that this is what they ought to do.
	Will you be doing that?
	I can't approach them.
	There's no way I could get to them.
	I mean, I get to them by speaking to people like yourself, by giving interviews.
	They hear me that way, but they won't approach me.
	However, again, as I said, I'm working with 37 journalists.
	They all know everything I just told you, they know.
	And so any one of them could approach the Clintons and say, look, well, there's some, particularly a lot of these journalists, some of these journalists are UK journalists, but there are some pretty big ones in America.
	They could approach the Clintons and say, look, you want to talk about this?
	But if they want to, they don't need to be approached.
	They know exactly the choice that they have.
	So whether they'll do it, I don't know.
	You sound very, very, you sound a little deflated, Steve.
	We've spoken many times, and you sound a little disappointed in the process and in them.
	Oh, God, of course I am.
	Three years of enormous effort went into this.
	We were practically at the finish line and it was snapped away in one moment.
	I guess it was around Pacific time.
	It was around 7.30, 7.45, 8 o'clock Pacific time when the election was pretty much decided for Donald Trump.
	And all that work basically at that moment just went up and missed.
	And what was your first, you know, you don't have to tell me word for word what it was, but what was your first thought at that point?
	What did you think, as you got that news, what did you think you were going to do at that point?
	Well, I knew it was the biggest setback for the disclosure advocacy movement and ending the truth embargo since the 9-11 event shut down or, you know, suspended profoundly, you know, set back the disclosure project effort that we're ongoing in 2001.
	I have a lot of listeners.
	In fact, the bulk of my listening is in North America and then the UK and other countries behind.
	Now, the people in those countries that are not in North America will be saying, well, okay, you're centering everything on the United States.
	I know we're going to be talking shortly about your focus on Europe this year because that's important.
	But, you know, geez, surely this knowledge, if the Clintons had it and others had it, then it will be in other countries.
	Why is this stuff not coming out in the UK?
	I mean, we're very good at keeping secrets here, as you know.
	Russia, for one, will know things.
	What about the Chinese?
	The extraterrestrial phenomena is being covered worldwide.
	Chinese press, Russian press, Soviet press.
	It's always been covered.
	And the UK, oh, the UK is drenched in stories about ETs and UTOs, UFO stories and what have you.
	Daily Mirror, Daily Star, The Sun, The Guardian, The Telegraph.
	Daily Express, definitely Daily Express.
	It just pours out.
	So the UK people are completely marinated and they know about that.
	But the UK government is on board with the U.S. It's a very complicated history, but the gist is this.
	The U.S. was the leader of the free world at the end of World War II and the principal defender of the West against the Soviet nuclear threat.
	What we said went.
	And our allies basically, if we said jump, they said how high.
	And the position of the U.S. was the ET issue would remain embargoed.
	It was national security, top clearance.
	And all of our allies went along with that, said, fine, whatever you want, sir.
	Thank you, sir.
	Yes, ma'am.
	The Qi Homest China and the Soviet Union had no interest to inform their people of the ET presence because they're in ideological control states.
	And that was the last thing that an ideological control state was going to do.
	But in modern Russia, there is tremendous interest in all of these things.
	Now, I was lucky enough three weeks ago to interview on live radio a man called Alexander Nekrasov, who was a former Kremlin advisor, former Kremlin insider who now lives in London.
	Very interesting man.
	And I had to ask him, apart from all of the politics, I had to ask him about this issue.
	And I said, you know, does Putin know all about this?
	And his view was that Putin probably didn't know anything or very much about all of this because the people who were charged with advising him simply won't have told him.
	That's ridiculous.
	That person is...
	I'll be kind.
	All right.
	So you think that Putin does know all about this?
	You think Putin knows all about this?
	So if he does, if you believe that Putin Knows all about this.
	Couldn't this come out from him and from that side?
	Of course it could.
	I've been saying that for the last 10 years.
	That's one of the most powerful messages that I put out, knowing that the White House is going to hear it.
	And that is that other nations could disclose at any time.
	Even one of our allies, the U.K. could do it.
	Canada could do it.
	But the two that would be the major problem for the U.S. would be China or Russia.
	And I can think of a whole bunch of reasons that the U.S., if another nation like Russia or any other nation disclosed this material, the U.S. would not come out of it looking very good.
	Oh, God, it would be a geopolitical disaster for the U.S. And which raises the question, why in the hell hasn't Xi Jinping or Putin done this?
	And it's, I don't know.
	I mean, I have, I mean, look, the fact is, is that Xi Jinping, it turns out, was much more of an authoritarian than we expected.
	And while China has made substantial financial and economic concessions and reforms, they're still an authoritarian state.
	And they still, you know, they got a billion and a half people, and their inclination is we don't want to rock the boat.
	We got a big ship for trying to sail here.
	And of course, Putin, his former KGB, he's basically an authoritarian.
	The U.S. has exacerbated the situation there, probably beyond what it should be the case now.
	But he's, you know, I guess in his mind, I could announce the ET presence, and I'd be the first disclosure head of state.
	It would be one of the greatest political legacies of all time.
	But the U.S. has still been the center of this issue primarily for this last 70 years.
	The U.S. may have more what we'll call re-engineered or ET technology from vehicles.
	We may be way ahead in the research and re-engineering of these technologies, garnished from these vehicles.
	And so the U.S. is going to take center stage pretty quickly, and he may not want that.
	I don't know.
	But I know one thing.
	While our Pentagon here is, or the military intelligence complex, deep complex, has pulled the issue out from underneath the White House and the Congress, I am quite assured there is no general anywhere in the Russian military or any officer in the FSB that would even think about telling Vladimir Putin,
	you know, this ET thing, you don't have a need to know Vladimir.
	I don't think so.
	And so same thing as you.
	He can ask any question he wants and they will give him the answer or they will be finished.
	And so the idea that Putin doesn't know there's an ET presence and doesn't have access to what is in the files of his government is ludicrous.
	And so let's be clear about that.
	And so I want the White House to always be aware that at any moment, another nation could preempt us and end this embargo, the embargo that we started and maintain the most for now 70 years, and it'll be a geopolitical disaster.
	Now, there are so many disasters that the U.S. is facing right now that it may be hard to push that disaster onto the table, but it still looms there ready to go.
	And so this is the complicated situation that we have now.
	And then when you factor in this very bizarre situation regarding the new president in Russia and the things that went on during the campaign that seemed to have a Russian connection and all this other stuff, this has really gotten tangled up.
	I mean, it is an absolute mess.
	You've got our media repeatedly calling Putin a thug and a killer and a murderer daily, which is remarkable.
	I mean, by God, I don't remember language that harsh during the Cold War.
	You want to see some of the things that are being said about President Trump in media this side of the Atlantic?
	I want to ask you a left-field question, and it's okay if we don't go very far down this road because I've got other things I'd like to speak with you about.
	Sure.
	We are heading into very, very turbulent times.
	In my lifetime, I have never known a time like this.
	In some ways, it's exciting, but in many ways, it's very scary.
	We don't know what Pyongyang's going to do.
	We don't know what the Iranians are going to do now that Putin has gone a little cold on, that Trump rather has gone a little cold on them.
	Lots of dimensions of instability are there, and there is great potential for something terrible to happen.
	Do you think in your gut, and that's all I'm asking, in your gut, do you think that if something appalling happened within the next few years, that ET, if ET has been watching and following us, would intervene?
	I have no idea, and I wouldn't bet on it, and I wouldn't be talking the few years, talk about months.
	The nuclear threat, the threat of mutual assured destruction, MAD, the most appropriate acronym ever conceived, in a way from late 1940s all the way through to 1991, was the glue that kind of held the world together.
	It was the issue Uberall.
	And anything that needed to be done to avoid a nuclear war was going to be done.
	It justified proxy wars.
	It justified, it justified that.
	And pretty much everybody knew where they were.
	You know, you can't do this.
	If you do that, we're going to have to have a nuclear war.
	Okay.
	And everybody knew that.
	And the other countries had to defer to the great Soviet Union, the United States, because at any moment they could get upset and blow the hell out of the world.
	When the Cold War ends, that glue starts to just dry up and blow away.
	And what has happened is that absent a significant effort at worldwide reforms to take advantage of that extraordinary gift that was given to the human race, meaning it's 1991, actually 92, and we didn't have a nuclear war, And people are standing down, the walls are coming down, missiles are being detargeted and so forth.
	The Russians are going, you know, capitalists, here's a chance to reform, reduce military budgets, and what have you.
	And the human race wasn't ready for that.
	Essentially, what it said is, oh, goody, now we can do even more stuff.
	Now we can misbehave even more.
	It was like the monitors had left the lunchroom, and now you could have an absolute food fight between every one of the clicks in the lunchroom, and you've got food flying in every direction.
	You know, trays are being flung in the air.
	And so from 1992 on, the last 25 years, quarter century, you have seen essentially the bolts coming out of the infrastructure of world geopolitical policy.
	And we are on the edge of absolute chaos.
	And do you believe that the issues that you've been propounding and espousing over these years, do you think that because of that instability and because of that food fight, the issues that you're talking about and are so sincere about are going to get lost?
	I mean, there's two things to say to that.
	One, I believe that ending the truth embargo on the extraterrestrial presence, meaning the world learning finally and being confirmed that they're not alone in the universe and that there's an engagement going on, there's agenda there.
	There's a huge amount to learn about that and an interesting potential future ahead of us, is the one thing that's capable of staunching this process and taking us in another direction.
	And without disclosure, we're headed right over the cliff.
	And so disclosure is virtually essential to the well-being of the planet and it can't happen too soon.
	And then secondly, yeah, that's the downside.
	You know, the very chaos that demands a dramatic event like this also helps to prevent it from happening in a way, but in a way not.
	Look, when things get this chaotic, it does create, it makes it more difficult for structured policies to be contained and people to be contained.
	A perfect example, and this would have been unlikely during the Cold War.
	You got a guy in Hawaii that decides, hey, I'm going to release millions of documents to a journalist, Laura Poitras, and go to Hong Kong and does.
	And then ends up in Russia.
	And these things are put out by Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning and on and on.
	These are examples of chaos and dysfunction creating opportunities to crack open the citadels of secrecy and power.
	And so it cuts both ways.
	We are in very dangerous times.
	The European Union is on the verge of collapsing under a massive immigration process, which is almost unprecedented in the modern era.
	And that immigration dyspora is being driven primarily by the conflagration in the Middle East, which was essentially started by the United States.
	In other words, the United States is principally responsible for what will soon be the end of the EU.
	And ain't going to be any apologies coming from us, I can assure you.
	Well, I think a lot of people are of the view.
	And, you know, I try not to talk much politics on this show, but a lot of people are certainly of the view that Hillary Clinton and others really screwed up in the Middle East.
	And that's why we're in the terrible state that we're in.
	Well, yeah, she screwed up, but the original disaster was launched by George Bush, period.
	He basically threw a million gallon can of gasoline into the Middle East and then lit it in order to impress his father and because he didn't know better.
	And then everybody that came after that did not have the ability, the connections, the philosophy, the vision, the courage to rectify this in time, if it could have been rectified.
	Because I think by the time that Obama came in, I think essentially the fire was so far along that it was going to burn the whole house down.
	Okay, now I mentioned Clinton.
	You mentioned Bush.
	You know, I have to say that you're right.
	It's a plague on all your houses, really.
	It's been an effort on the sides of both parties that's made this mess.
	Yes, but the one that starts the fire, I think, should get most of the blame.
	The others that maybe couldn't put it out and didn't try hard enough or whatever, yeah, they get blamed too.
	But the person that starts it, I think that person should get most of the blame.
	And it's not the way here.
	Nobody goes to jail here at the high end.
	Well, I mean, some politicians have been going to jail, but really the highest end know.
	Certainly in our financial world, my God, you can still steal $100 billion.
	Well, let me tell you, Steve, and I'm sure you know, and I know you're coming to Europe for a good portion of 2017, that rule applies here in the United Kingdom where people can get away with the most egregious failings and shady behavior, and they don't go to, because they've got a lot of money, a lot of power behind them, they don't go to jail.
	But that's a whole other issue.
	There is a man here in the Ecuadorian embassy called Julian Assange.
	When you're in London, are you going to try and speak with him?
	Would it be of use to you to speak with him?
	Well, it's interesting that you asked that, Howard.
	I'm going to be arriving in London on April the 4th.
	The first stint will be about 35 days.
	I'll be there from April the 4th to May the 10th.
	Now, ahead of my arrival, I'm going to be contacting my journalist contacts in the UK.
	And I'm going to be letting them know that I hope to be able to interview with them.
	I love doing live interviews with reporters, particularly at their offices.
	And I will make the same request to them that I made the last time I was there, which is, look, I'm more than happy to speak with any of the editors on a purely off-the-record basis to give them directly the status here of this issue.
	Because the ultimate coverage, In-depth coverage of this issue.
	The coverage that we absolutely have to have, which we haven't gotten, though we've gotten some great stuff of late, is an editorial decision.
	It's not a repertorial decision.
	And so the editors have got to get this, right?
	So I'm going to do that.
	But also, I'm going to make a direct request that, look, the United States has had 70 years to end this truth embargo.
	I understand why it didn't happen prior to the Cold War ending.
	Since then, it's been 25 years since the Cold War ended.
	They still haven't done it.
	And so we're not the only nation in the world.
	We represent 5% of the world's people.
	Any number of other nations could disclose.
	So with that in mind, if you know anyone within the UK government in an appropriate position that would be willing to grant me a meeting off the record, again, because nobody wants to know they've met with a disclosure advocate like myself.
	But my word is good.
	I've been at this for 20 years.
	I keep my word.
	Off the record, and I will be happy to brief them.
	And then I will also mention that if there's anybody there in your paper that thinks they can get a meeting with Julian Assa set up, please do so.
	You see, he's appearing, it seems to me, more in the media.
	I'm sure I saw an interview just weeks ago with him actually speaking from the place where he has been residing for these last years.
	Several.
	Yeah.
	So I think that if you just got in touch with that embassy, I have a feeling that your communication to him would certainly be seen.
	It's worth a go.
	It's worth a go, but again, my best chance is an intermediary.
	You know, you need somebody inside the UK that's got contact with him.
	And obviously, there are journalists in the UK that have interacted with him.
	So I'm going to be making that effort without question.
	And I may not, we'll see what happens on my first trip, but then I'll be back later in the year.
	WikiLeaks could be a factor in this.
	Assange has been asked about this.
	He has been asked, have you gotten anything about the UFO stuff that you would release?
	And he has answered that and said that the stuff that he's getting is not the kind of things that they're looking for.
	In other words, what Assange is saying is people are sending him a book or something that's in the public domain to educate him.
	Let's do something about the ET stuff, Julian.
	But that's not what they do.
	What they're looking for would be classified documents, or certainly previously not seen documents that are being withheld by government that they would then publish.
	That he's not getting.
	And the reason he's not getting that is that the ET issue and the files are the most classified thing in the American government, period.
	And it's probably the case in most other governments.
	And those who would want to tamper with that, would want to play that game and try to get those to WikiLeaks, would be playing a deadly game.
	And so he's not getting those kinds of files.
	That doesn't mean he may not in the future.
	But, you know, Assange is in an interesting situation, very interesting situation.
	He's on the verge of being marginalized.
	On the other hand, he's also on the verge of going down as a truly historical figure.
	WikiLeaks is a very ambiguous event and development in modern times, but it's still extraordinary.
	I do not know to what extent Mr. Assange has an understanding about the ET issue and the truth embargo, but I know this, if WikiLeaks played a part in ending this embargo, it could ultimately determine its fate and his fate.
	Because this issue, the presence of extraterrestrials transcends everything.
	It transcends politics.
	It transcends nationalism.
	It transcends religion.
	It transcends all partisanship.
	It is beyond all of those things.
	Indeed, which we have discussed before.
	I just have this feeling that he's got an awful lot of time on his hands where he is.
	And I have this feeling in my gut that he will know about you.
	But what do I know?
	It'd be interesting to, if you do get a meeting with him, let me know.
	Well, Howard, you've been a journalist for quite a long time.
	I think you're in London, if I'm not.
	You're based in London, are you not?
	I'm definitely based in London.
	Well, you must have a few contacts here and there.
	So feel free to make a query.
	I'm going to be having a think about this and I'll be in touch.
	And also, I've got a live show now.
	I've got a live UK-wide show now.
	So it would be great if when you're in London, maybe you could come on my show.
	It's late on Sunday nights and it's coast to coast here.
	So in studio?
	Yeah, in studio.
	Fine.
	Yeah, I'd be happy to.
	Great.
	I'll be there.
	Let me know.
	Okay, well, we'll put that together.
	Last question in our remaining few minutes is about your GoFundMe drive.
	What's that all about?
	Essentially, the election of Trump threw everything up in the air, and I'm having to readjust strategies.
	I created a new DBA called PRG International, so it's Paradigm Research Group and PRG International.
	Going to be trying to make some lectures in Europe and travel and whatever.
	And also, it turns out that my publicist, who has been on, I had on contract in the past, but she's a 35-year professional DC operative, and she's not a volunteer in the disclosure movement.
	She only works if she's under contract, and I have been able to pay her for some time, almost 18 months.
	It turns out she has more connections in the new administration than she did in the Obama administration.
	A lot of good connections.
	And it's possible that if I can bring her back on contract, that she might be able to open some doors.
	I mentioned this while I was doing Coast to Coast Dan with George Norrie on the 31st, just a few days ago.
	And which I did.
	I've done almost 50, 50, 60 of those shows since 1997.
	The show has always been supportive of the work.
	George has been a little bit bebevilent about disclosure, but he shocked me.
	He just came right out and said, well, let you set up a GoFundMe campaign to try to get this money together so you can pursue some of these strategies and I'll help promote it.
	And I just, my job practically fell to the floor.
	And I said, I'll have it up in 24 hours, which I did.
	And so the GoFundMe campaign is up.
	You go to gofundme.com and just do a search on truth embargo.
	It comes right up.
	And it's a campaign to try to raise $50,000 so that we could pursue these strategies, including possibly getting the publicist on board, maybe get some contacts directly to the Trump administration, and so forth.
	So it's gofundme.com and search on truth embargo.
	And that's what that's about.
	Again, one of the problems I faced immediately is that when Clinton lost, the three-year effort by PRG to bring this all together and create the circumstances for disclosure just went up in smoke and contributions essentially dried up.
	I mean, I understand that completely.
	People are just like, oh my God, it's pretty much over.
	And they'd been supportive and done what they could and just dried up.
	Well, that's a shame.
	So the whole thing needs some top spin now.
	Oh, yeah, I'm making some contacts.
	I'm talking to people.
	I'll find the money.
	One way or another, I find the funding.
	I'll be looking for funding in the UK.
	There's one very important meeting I hope to have there.
	Look, this is a global issue.
	The lack of disclosure on ET presence is holding back the entire global civilization.
	It's allowing us to continue to sink into the swamp that the human race has sort of created for itself over the last 10,000 years, a swamp where a good deal of people are either drowning or dying of disease.
	And the only thing that really happens of any note is war about every couple of years.
	And it's getting worse and worse.
	And so everybody has got a stake in this.
	And so I'm going to see if I can't get some more support from outside the U.S. from countries and from people that realize that if we don't have a dramatic change of direction, something profound that can cost every human being and every state to rethink where they want to go and what they're doing, then I think the outcome here is pretty predictable.
	We're just one nuclear terrorist attack away from complete chaos and possibly a full-out nuclear war.
	And that nuclear terrorist attack is almost inevitable, frankly, even with disclosure, it may happen, but disclosure may modify the outcome.
	If anybody goes to my web, go to my website, paradigmreseearchgroup.org, and I've got a graphic there.
	And there's three links attached to that graphic going from left to right.
	Anybody that goes and checks those links out, reads the book that's mentioned there, watches the two documentaries, will get the point.
	It's not enough time for to get the point across right now.
	But I'm not a chicken little.
	I'm not a sky's falling guy.
	I'm not a fearmonger.
	I'm an activist and I try to deal in truth.
	And the truth is, is that we are on the edge of catastrophe.
	And those that don't want to believe that are welcome to believe what they wish.
	But those that care, those that have children and grandchildren, or even expectations of that, had better figure this out pretty quickly.
	You either get disclosure or you get disaster.
	It's one or the other.
	I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, Steve.
	One idea, just very finally for one meeting that you might have, I've always been told, and I've always had a little feeling in my heart, that the Duke of Edinburgh here, you know, Prince Philip, is very interested in all of these issues and has been for many years.
	Now, I don't know that for sure, but I've read it in many places and I've heard it from some people in the know who've kind of hinted at that.
	It would be great if you could get a private meeting off the record with him because he's always, even though he's getting up in years now, he likes to keep his finger on the pulse.
	So it would be interesting if maybe you could see him and he could see you.
	Who knows?
	The Duke's interest in this phenomenon is documented and it is real.
	There's no question about it.
	Now, obviously, as he's gotten much older, he's obviously a little less able to engage issues of this controversy.
	But of course, it would be an absolute honor to meet with him and discuss this.
	The UK, you know, the UK is one of the few countries, I think, in the world that if they disclosed, it would bring enormous prestige to the UK, to the government, to the Queen, to the Prime Minister, and to the UK people.
	But the impact, the negative impact in the U.S. would be far, far less.
	And I think the overall outcome in terms of managing the post-disclosure world would still be, I think, relatively optimal.
	It will be less optimal if Putin or Xi Jinping discloses first.
	And so the UK has a choice as well here.
	You know, at some point you have to...
	I understand alliances and all of that.
	And I understand that the U.S. and the U.K. are close allies.
	But the fact is, is the U.S. is trapped right now in a knot of its own making.
	It can't break free.
	The U.K. is well aware of this issue.
	The people are extremely aware of this issue.
	The U.K. could be the one to end this embargo on behalf of the world.
	It would be a very wise decision.
	And believe me, I am prepared to meet with anybody in the UK to discuss this.
	Well, let's hope somebody discloses in my lifetime.
	That'd be nice, Steve.
	Let's stay in touch and let's try to meet like we met all those years ago in Liverpool.
	Let's try and have a face-to-face when you're in London town, Steve.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Look forward to it, Howard.
	All right.
	You please take care and thanks very much for the update.
	Cheers.
	Well, always one of my most thought-provoking guests, Steve Bassett from the Paradigm Research Group.
	I'll put a link to his work on my website, theunexplained.tv.
	If you've got any thoughts about him or any of the guests or anything to do with the show or guest suggestions, anything really, just go to the website theunexplained.tv, designed and maintained by Adam at Creative Hotspot.
	And there you can send me a message by following the link.
	And if you'd like to make a donation to the show, there's a link for that too, a PayPal link.
	Thank you very much.
	I can't do any of this without your input.
	More great guests on the horizon here at The Unexplained.
	So as I always say, at the back end of these shows, my name is Howard Hughes.
	I am in London.
	And please, stay safe, stay calm, and above all, stay in touch.
	Thank you very much.
	Take care.

▲