All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2018 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:02:33
Edition 327 - Bruce Fenton

This time ancient civilizations researcher Bruce Fenton in Sydney...

| 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 return in 2018 of The Unexplained.
And a very happy new year to you, wherever in the world you are from London Town.
It's cold and it's grey and it's dank here in London at the moment.
But I know it's been colder and danker and grayer in parts of North America.
I hope that that is all coming right now.
I've been reading the reports of how cold it's been in some places.
Spoke to a guy in Boston just a day or two ago who was telling me how bad it was there.
And I know that wasn't the worst affected of all the cities of the U.S. What a year this is already turning out to be when it comes to the weather, but I'll stop talking about the weather because I know some of you don't like that.
We're going to be doing some shout-outs on this edition of the show.
A lot of them I'll be catching up.
If you want to get in touch with me, send me an email.
Go to my website, theunexplained.tv and follow the link and send me an email from there with a guest suggestion or thoughts on the show.
Thank you to Adam, my webmaster, for his ongoing hard work getting the show out to you.
Okay, the guest on this edition of the show, a man that you've suggested, Bruce Fenton, who's done a lot of research on how we got to be who we are.
In other words, the ancient civilizations who preceded us.
And the conventional wisdom being that we came somehow out of Africa.
That is being questioned now by people like Bruce Fenton who say actually we're way older than that.
And the story is a lot more complex than we've ever been told.
Very keen to know what you think of Bruce Fenton, and I know that he's keen to get your feedback too.
So I'll give you a way of contacting him as well at the back end of this conversation.
Bruce Fenton is a Brit living in Sydney, Australia.
So the time zones are completely different.
It's morning time here, and it's deep into the night in Sydney, Australia, where the weather is better than it is here.
But there I go again, mentioning the weather.
All right, let's get to the shout-outs.
Craig Bryant, fascinated by the Alan Godfrey and Jenny Randall shows recently.
Thank you.
Gavin, teaching English in China and listening.
Gavin, good to hear from you.
Mark, suggesting Michael Schratt as a guest, who apparently talks about the UFOs that we made.
Okay, that sounds good.
Jay, and others have been in touch to ask me to mention the death of astronaut John Young recently.
Man who had the right stuff in vast measure.
Yet another one of the Apollo pioneers leaves us and leaves us with a lot to remember.
Rest in peace, John Young.
Thank you for reminding me to mention that on this show.
Jason Doncaster, thank you for the points that you made.
Alex, thank you for your email about some National Archives UFO files released very recently here in the UK.
I spoke about these with Nick Pope on my radio show, and I might carry some of that conversation in the next edition of this podcast.
So watch this space, or rather listen to this space.
Herb in Alaska makes a suggestion about the technical aspects of this show.
He thinks that I should cut the sampling rate of the show and use less bandwidth.
I think it's a good idea, Herb.
The only thing is I wanted to do the same sample rate and the same sound quality as the big broadcasters, just to show that, you know, the little guys can do what they do and sometimes better.
But it's an idea that I might try and, you know, I'll see what my listeners think.
Do you think that I should cut the sample rate of the podcast from the current one to eight?
If you get what these things are, you know, just, you know, as long as it sounds right to you, it's the main thing.
One emailer who wants to stay anonymous.
Now, I would prefer it if you'd give me a name when you email, but he says about Thomas Anglero, the man from IBM, talking about artificial intelligence.
He says, I definitely disagree with his one mind-sided, bright dream of a better world.
I think technology is like religion.
It's not bad per se, but the people who make use of it turn it into a nightmare at times.
I wish there will be a way to make this not turn into a real-time 1984.
But again, another emailer, Michael, is much more optimistic about AI.
He says, we have to embrace the future, essentially, and roll with it.
I think that's where you're coming from, Michael.
Thank you.
Russ wonders if we're using the term AI correctly.
And I think that what Russ is saying is that it's unnecessarily scaring people about the future.
Adam in Missouri thought that Thomas Anglero was too optimistic.
I have to say that although I'm interested by the optimistic view of it, you know, I think we need to get politicians to consider this issue properly.
What is going to happen to the displaced jobs?
Because if you read the latest predictions, an awful lot of jobs, including the stuff that I do in mainstream radio, are going to go straight out the window.
How are people going to make a living?
What is this world going to look like unless politicians start to confront the issue?
Gabrielle, Gabrielle, Gabrielle Londstrom says, I'm writing from Sweden.
I listen to your podcast at work.
I've got my own business where I distribute coffee.
Big fan of coffee, Gabrielle.
Great business to be in.
I love your show.
Have you ever thought about having Stephen Greer from Disclosure on?
Or Kerry Cassidy from Project Camelot?
Stephen's been on the show a lot.
Check the back editions, Gabrielle.
As for Kerry, good idea.
Thank you very much, indeed.
And Stephen Greer will be back on the show soon.
Richard Points, thank you for the kind words you said.
Ditto to Andrew, Mike, and Oscar.
Thank you for your email.
Michael in the Channel Islands, thank you very much.
I love Jersey and Guernsey.
My favourite places.
Charles, two of my favourite places anyway.
Charles in Shropshire, thank you for your email.
Chris in Wakefield liked the show about AI and also the Christmas special with Leslie Kane.
George Papaduckis, thank you for the good wishes and happy 2018 to you too, George.
Sheila in Iowa, thanks for getting in touch.
Another anonymous emailer didn't like me using the phrase happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
Quote, if you object to Christmas, you're a hypocrite for taking advantage of the holiday and being offensive to the majority who do acknowledge this time of year is Christmas.
Well, I was brought up to say happy Christmas, and I'm really sorry if I offended you.
I just thought that what people said in North America was happy holidays.
And, you know, maybe they don't.
Maybe they all say Merry Christmas.
But, you know, thanks for putting me straight on that if that's the case.
Jeff Zabo, thank you for your email.
Derek in Hackney London, good to hear from you.
Barry in Preston, thank you.
Sandy Rogers, good to hear from you.
James in Warrington, thank you.
Cody, thank you for your emails recently, and I wish you strength and every happiness, Cody, in 2018.
Gil Anderson on the Scottish Borders, all points noted, Gil, thank you.
Whelan in South Wales says, I'd like to thank you for the podcasts and the wonderful guests.
I live in the Kevin Forest in South Wales.
And says the penultimate show with Thomas Anglero was fascinating.
Thomas Anglero seemed to divide opinion.
Some people loved him and some people didn't, but that's the way things are.
David Smith described that particular show, here's a case in point, as a pile of dung.
Actually, that wasn't the word that he used, but that was what he thought about that.
Okay.
Jeff liked the Alan Godfrey show, but isn't a big fan of Larry Warren.
Okay.
Rob says, very interesting interview with Leslie Kane recently.
Can't wait to see how much information Leslie and the New York Times can get next.
Me too.
Robin also liked that show.
Thanks, Robin.
Tony says, Mr. Hughes, writing to you from Avon, Indiana, Avon, maybe west side of Indianapolis.
I listen to the show via podcast as I go about my work as a boiler inspector.
I enjoy listening, and I'll make a donation.
Thank you, Tony Valdez.
And finally, my name is Pyatt Callahan.
I'm from Indiana.
I love the show, and I love hearing about your weather and about yourself.
I listen to the show at nighttime before going to bed.
I think you are the art bell of this era.
Well, I think there'll be a lot of people who disagree with that, including probably Art himself.
But I'm making a donation, says Pyatt.
I very much appreciate the work you do.
Keep it up.
Thank you very much indeed.
And thank you if you've been in touch recently.
If you want to get in touch with me, go to the website, theunexplained.tv and follow the link from there.
Right, let's get to Sydney, Australia.
A Brit living there.
The guest on this edition, Bruce Fenton.
Bruce, thank you very much for coming on the show and for staying up too.
Oh, thank you very much, Howard.
It's much appreciated.
Now, listen, I can tell from those just few seconds of your accent that you are a Brit.
So I know you've lived around the world and you've researched around the world in recent years, but what takes you to Sydney, Australia?
My wife's actually Australian.
She's from Sydney, but we met overseas.
So I've come over here with her to live near her family for a while.
We may return to England, though.
So, you know, we'll see what happens.
Well, look, if you know what's good for you, don't come back at the moment because it's cold and it's grey and it's nothing like Sydney at the moment.
Yeah, that's true.
It's the wrong time of year for England.
It's just a bit of a steer.
Okay, now it's morning time here in the UK as we talk.
It's night time where you are at the moment in Sydney, Australia.
Let's ask you first to talk a little bit about yourself because, you know, you've had endorsements online from people like Graham Hancock, who is enormously respected around the world.
But you're not a scientist, are you?
No, I'm not.
And I mean, for years and years, I was interested in ancient mysteries and also sort of, I guess, psychism and, you know, consciousness, all of those.
I guess anything that was a little bit off kilter, you know, the mysteries of the, you know, the planet and of the species.
My actual university qualification is in IT and information systems.
So I'm not technically qualified to be doing the research that I usually am doing.
It's more that I've just spent so many years in those arenas that I probably have a comparable level of understanding to a scientist, at least in some of the areas that I study.
But what is going to be of use, I would imagine, that particular training that you've got in the field that you're in at the moment is that you are tracing and tracking back our own biological ancestry.
And these days, that involves a lot of crunching of data.
Yes, that's right.
I mean, let's be honest, I think there's an awful lot of scientists now who would be doing most of their work at a computer rather than in a lab or out in the field digging.
And certainly archaeology and paleoanthropology and stuff has changed a lot in the last, I guess, I suppose in the last decade or so.
But yeah, that obviously you have some scientists who are fairly dedicated to being in offices looking at the data and going through the papers rather than being, you know, that they're all out digging for bones.
So in that way, I'm probably doing some similar work to a good many of the academics, but just I wouldn't have their experience with publishing papers.
And obviously there's differences where I can say, you know, I'm not experienced in those areas.
So I write, you know, I write pop science books rather than, you know, trying to put together a paper for nature or something.
So, you know, those are probably the main differences.
All right.
But what you're doing, it seems to me, is both intriguing and controversial.
Mainstream science probably is not going to like it.
However, it is, like I say, intriguing.
Talk to me about what it is exactly that you're doing.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, what happened was whilst I was in Ecuador, I was involved in sort of researching and exploring a site in the jungle there.
A bit peculiar, there's sort of a megalithic wall in the jungle.
And what happens is I found out that in a cave nearby, there were skulls which are considered to be of the Lagoa Santa type.
And the Lagoa Santa type basically are Australoid.
So they're part of this evidence that a group of Australasians arrived in the Americas potentially up to about 40 or 50,000 years ago down in Brazil.
And this is, again, a controversial area, obviously, of science that, you know, as you know, there's a big hoo-ha at the moment over, you know, the whole collapse of the Clovis model in which, you know, people arrived in the Americas 12,000 years ago.
And now that's being pushed back to 15,000, 20,000.
But there's for a long time there's been evidence that these australoids arrived potentially, you know, much earlier than that.
And so when I sort of stumbled upon the fact that these same people seem to have been related to this site in the Amazon jungle that I was exploring, you know, I got pulled into that rabbit hole of this debate, really, of how did these early migrations really, you know, work, you know, and did it add up in terms of the consensus model that we all grew up with with this out of Africa, recent out of Africa model?
Because I couldn't see, you know, to make it sort of fit in.
So the bullet point to get from this, the news headline to derive from what you've just said, is that we are, as many people are suggesting in different ways, But nevertheless, they're all suggesting the same thing: that we are far older than we've been told that we are.
And not only that, we were far more capable in the past than has been assumed.
Yeah, absolutely.
Because, I mean, to get to the Americas, like, you know, even 30,000 years ago or whatever else, you know, these people were clearly sailing, you know, because they've arrived down in Brazil seemingly much earlier than they've arrived in Canada and Alaska.
So these aren't people that have walked over a bridge.
You know, these people have sailed into the Americas tens of thousands of years ago.
So yeah, that whole paradigm of that we couldn't really cross water in those days is going out the window for a start.
And also that we just, that we moved around a lot more than was kind of recognized and a lot earlier.
So yeah, there's like multiple paradigms that are collapsing really and these limiting ideas about humans that it took till 12,000 years ago to get to the Americas, which just is not true.
And, you know, we're finding that there's DNA data, actually.
They found that in some of the Brazilian tribes, the isolated tribes, that they, in their genome, they have genes that come from these original australoids that arrived there tens of thousands of years ago.
So we definitely know that they got there and that, you know, that the incoming Asians or Clovers people met them and interbred on some level.
So all of this paradigm there is kind of is collapsing as well.
And over and above their DNA footprint, Bruce, over and above their DNA footprint that you found, do we know anything more about them or are they a mystery?
Well, we do know some bits about them.
Yes.
I mean, obviously that's kind of drew me into this whole analysis of, you know, how did that make sense in the context of Out of Africa?
So I've had to, you know, spend a lot of time looking into both these people and remodeling, you know, when they left Australia, what were their sort of capabilities.
So we certainly seem there's a suggestion there that they probably were the people that gave us the first language, because something that's not very well known is that, I mean, you may be familiar with the Khoisan, who are these sub-Saharan Africans, they're considered to be the oldest people in the world.
They also associated with this clique language, which is now believed to be the oldest form of language, which is like cliques, whistles, hand gestures.
What's less well known is actually that Aboriginal groups in Australia also had this language.
So again, there's a suggestion that this ancient language came out of Australia with these groups and was passed on to the Africans.
So that, again, I think that these capabilities of complex language probably go back much further than people realized as well.
Isn't that interesting?
Because if you look at some of the peoples of Africa, I know that down in southern Africa, the Khosa, and I can never pronounce that because it's a kind of clicking noise that we have to make.
And I can't do it.
They do it beautifully, but they have that clicking sound within their language.
Absolutely.
And they also, I read from some notes from, I think that she's from the travels on the Beagle with Charles Darwin, that they actually, they went down to an area, I think it's Tierra del Fuego, you know, the island off the coast of Argentina.
The land of fire, yes.
Yeah, and while they were there, I mean, there's some interesting things in his notes, which I found that there's a bit there where he says, and these people, they hardly had a language.
They made these guttural noises and these strange sounds and waved their hands.
And it's like, I don't know, this again is that same, the click language, the whistling.
So I think that without realizing it, you know, that they had encountered again this same language system.
And the interesting is the people of Tierra de Fuego have also been linked to this possible early migration from Australasia.
So it looks like they arrived in the Americas again with this language system.
And the Brazilian tribe I mentioned earlier, the name's gone from my head, but one of the tribes has this mythology that when they look up at the stars and they look up at the Milky Way, they see this, I think it's called a guinea, which is this very large bird basically that looks like an emu.
And they see it spread along the dark rift in the Milky Way.
But I mean, if you go to Australia and you ask the Aboriginal, most of the tribes there will tell you, when they look up into the Milky Way, in the dark rift, they see an emu spread along it.
So they obviously, at this point, they also had elements of this culture going back tens of thousands of years ago, enough that they took it to the Americas and it survived till today.
So again, this is evidence that these weren't just people, you know, with a language and with boats, but a people with a complex culture with astronomy and astrology and mythology already in place, you know, maybe 20 or 30,000 years ago, and which has incredibly actually survived both in the Americas and in Australia all the way up until today, which again, that's pretty incredible to think that, you know, that kind of story, if you like, can stay constant for tens of thousands of years in these two different continents.
So we are finding all these kind of remarkable things about those first australoid, sort of proto-australoids.
So yeah, it's a remarkable story.
I mean, obviously my work, I've gone into, you know, a whole overview.
I'm probably a bit of, I suppose, OCD, you know, rather than just simply going into this and saying, well, let's look into the proto-australoids and let's look at, you know, how the Americas were populated.
I went all the way back.
You know, I looked at hominids from 7 million years ago and the papers on that, all the way up until about 20,000 years ago.
And I sort of went through the literature over a couple of years working on my book, really kind of looking to see, you know, how the whole story flowed rather than focusing on just the area that related to what I was looking at.
And it is the story.
It's the entire narrative that is so fascinating.
I mean, one of the things that just occurred to me as you were talking, Bruce, is just this whole thought of what would make those ancient people want to explore.
I mean, we credit ourselves in the last, what, five, six, seven hundred, eight hundred years, whatever, as learning to make boats and learning how the winds and currents proceeded and being able to map the stars and, you know, position ourselves via use of the stars.
But it's a big shock, isn't it, to discover that somebody else was maybe doing that kind of thing way before us.
Absolutely.
You know, going back, yeah, so tens of thousands of years.
And they found that, you know, in the Mediterranean as well, there's evidence there that people were sailing between the islands going back, I think it was going back about 100 and something thousand years ago that someone had been island hopping.
because they found, you know, a large number of stone tools on one of the Mediterranean islands.
And they said basically that, you know, you had to make about three journeys to get there.
And the amount of tools there showed that it wasn't, you know, somebody washed up on a log.
It had to have been like, you know, at least a small community.
And, you know, so you can imagine people literally sailing around over 100,000 years ago, which, you know, until not many years ago would have been, you know, people would have just thought, you know, you're talking absolute nonsense.
The idea that these, you know, early humans could build a boat and choose to sail off into the sea to an island, you know.
So, yeah, it really is a rethink of how the human mind was even functioning back then.
That, you know, there was an idea, wasn't there, that really these were like almost ape-like beings, you know, that although they looked like us, that they didn't have any higher thinking or conceptual thinking.
But to get in a boat and sail out to sea, you've got to be able to conceptualize that you're going to get somewhere, haven't you?
And that, you know, that you can survive it.
That's the fascinating thing about it, Bruce, isn't it?
That they must have had the thought that there might be something or someone out there.
Now, if they are ancient peoples, that kind of suggests to us that perhaps they knew far, far more than you might assume.
That they might have had a system of learning, a more advanced system of language, a system of charting the stars.
Many, many things that we just would not up to now have assumed possible.
Absolutely.
And I think that's part of this, you know, this story that's coming out of this research, not just from myself, but obviously, and I take my, you know, my material from academics.
So, obviously, this is bubbling up in the academic community, but they're just not necessarily putting it all together.
But there's certainly this, you know, a revolution underway in the way that we understand ancient people.
I mean, just yesterday, I think there was a news story came out from Harats that shows that there was sort of a community of people living about 400,000 to 500,000 years ago in the Levant and what is today Israel.
And that they were basically teaching each other, you know, how to make the stone tools.
And so they found what they call like a school of rock.
And then they also, they found nearby another site where there's, again, more evidence of this, but like thousands of stone tools.
So you've got something like a social collective who are also, you know, taking on novices and teaching them how to make these stone tools.
Which shows, you know, again, that shows a very modern human kind of thinking, isn't it?
That, you know, I don't just care about how I'm doing, but, you know, I want the younger generation to understand how to make these tools and to pass on what I've learned.
And, you know, so it starts to sound much more like, you know, people like us, doesn't it?
And, like, you know, that's half a million years ago.
And so until recently, again, we would have thought that there's no way that they would have done that.
They would have just been like a wandering ape man who banged a few stones together and made himself a knife.
And, you know, and that was about as complex as he got, not that he'd be setting up like an academic institution of stone blade manufacturing and taking on apprentices.
And, you know, so I think we're really going to have to rethink this view of, you know, what we call, like, primitive or stone age man.
I think that, yeah, maybe, yeah, he was stone age.
That's what his tools were.
But the thinking wasn't so far away from the way you and I would think and that we would care about our community.
Bruce, does this fit in with the thinking of people like, I mean, I know that, you know, Graham.
But how does this fit in with the thinking of people like Graham Hancock who say, and this is boiling it right down to be far more basic than it is, that there was some civilization way, way before we thought there was one.
Then there was a great cataclysm, but some elements of that civilization survived.
Yeah, I mean, I think that when you start to deal with time spans like this, I mean, if we can say that people half a million years ago were forming social collectives and teaching each other, and obviously in that way were highly, you know, progressive and adaptive, that there's no particular reason why, you know, in that half a million years, that we wouldn't have had time for multiple civilizations to form.
And they might be different to ours, but they might be more akin to something like, you know, ancient Egypt or Rome or something like that.
That, you know, there were complex higher cultures that got to that level where we probably would say, yeah, like civilized and that they've risen and fallen many times.
And I think now that we're taking off these limits of saying that, oh, people couldn't talk until recently and they couldn't use fire and they couldn't make boats.
Once you start to say, well, actually, no, they could.
They could sail 100,000 or 200,000 years ago and that they were having, you know, making schools 500,000 years ago.
It does seem to take away that limiting thinking that was put on early humans.
And I can't really see why anyone at this point would say that's impossible.
They might say that they haven't found the satisfactory levels of evidence to say it's certain.
But I really don't see that we can put any limits on these early people now to say that they couldn't have formed a civilization over that period.
Because clearly they are using conceptual thinking, higher thinking, you know, working together.
They understand the benefits of social collectives and, you know, formulating a way to work with other people and passing on knowledge and stuff.
So, I mean, those are the elements you expect at the beginning of, like, a high culture that could inevitably, you know, offer the world a civilization of some sort.
And it might not be like ours, but, I mean, it could certainly be complex.
So, I think that really, yeah, that kind of idea of lost civilizations is becoming certainly much more viable and also is better supported by the science.
You know, that it'd be harder to turn around now and say, but humans then just couldn't think like that.
It's like, well, you know, they clearly could.
I mean, they were doing art.
There's art found in India in a cave that's about 300,000 to 500,000 years old.
And they found another art piece in Indonesia, a shell with engraved, you know, carvings on it, 500,000 years old.
So, again, those are supposed to be the signatures of higher thinking.
And until recently, you know, it was the idea that 70,000 years ago, the first evidence of higher thinking appears in Blombus Caves in Africa in these engraved ochre blocks.
But the same pattern is on these shells, 550,000.
000 years ago in indonesia so so again you know you're extending massively this period in which we had higher thinking and you know basically with that goes all the abilities to yeah to do engineering you know astronomy um language so i mean once you have higher thinking you know you're opened up to all of those things that come with it and the potential there Is then that you can sit down and talk to people and say, Well, why don't we form, you know, something more advanced here, work together?
You know, you do this, I do that, and we can build, you know, a village.
I don't see that we have any limits now that for these early people.
And with some of the destructive events that have happened, it is reasonable to imagine that some kind of civilizations existed and were destroyed in some of these events because there's been some real cataclysms.
And I do focus on at least one of them in the book, which is the Lake Toba super volcano, which I mean, I have suspicions that that may well have brought about the end of something like an early civilization or a complex culture that existed down in Indonesia and across that region.
What about all this stuff that we are beginning to see online?
And some of it I sense may be disinformation or misinformation or whatever, but some of it may have a germ of truth in it.
Only last night I was reading a piece online that appeared on social media about some kind of electronic device, some kind of coil device, some kind of capacitance device or whatever that had been found within rock that had been dated as being thousands upon thousands of years old, way before we had that kind of knowledge about electricity and electronics.
Yeah, I mean, I think I've read about some of the, you know, these are what they call uparts, and they're, you know, out-of-place artifacts.
And yeah, there's some of them, they certainly, you know, I keep an open mind to them.
You know, the problem that I find usually is that because the academics won't really look at these things, you know, that then we don't get the detailed analysis of the artifacts that we'd want.
Because obviously their natural inclination, isn't it, is to turn and say, well, it can't be there.
So it's made up.
And so we won't look at it.
You know, so we have this kind of problem.
So what we'd really need with some of these is to have, you know, I guess like a geologist and, you know, a chemist and people to come in and look and say, look, let's have an open-minded look at these and then, you know, say, are they real or not?
Because the problem we always get left with with these kind of controversial artifacts is that nobody in the academic community will touch them with a barge pole.
And so what you end up with then is either, I guess, alternative researchers, as it gets called, or maybe creationist scientists and people who then latch onto them.
And then we get their account, which is then dismissed by the academics.
So then it gets looked silly.
So it's one of those problems where I think that there could well be things like that.
But I've never seen one where the academics have come in and just looked at it, you know, like with an open-minded, good, rational, scientific approach.
So that's a shame.
It'd be nice to see that happen because perhaps they could prove that at least one of these artifacts was genuine.
And then that would make, you know, the paradigm obviously would shift almost overnight, you know.
All right, let's get to the core of the stuff that we're going to talk about here.
The into Africa and out of Africa theories of how we came about.
Now, there is a place about 50 miles south of Johannesburg, you may have been there, called Marapeng.
Marapeng is claimed to be the cradle of civilization.
It is sold very much as a tourist attraction.
When you go there, and I've been there twice, they tell you, you know, this is where we came from.
Look at the caves down there.
Look at the artifacts we find.
And then you go to the multimedia presentation and that tells you, you know, here we are today.
Look at how advanced we are.
And then builds back, back, back, back to the people who arose from Africa and eventually came here to Europe.
And the rest, as they say, is literally just history.
You are saying not so.
No.
I think that what's happened is about 40 years ago, you know, there was a bit of a paradigm displacement.
You know, there was for a long time there was a theory that humanity came out of Asia.
And then about 40 years ago, this paradigm was fully replaced.
And that was because they found, you know, obviously evidence that apart from the huge fossil record in Africa, which obviously puts the early hominins there, but then there was some DNA testing done.
It was really, I guess, the early days of mtDNA testing and whatnot, that they came about, you know, this idea that there was this ancestral Eve who was likely to be from Africa, right?
Because they tested, obviously, modern Africans' DNA.
And what they found was in this modern Africans DNA, I'll be quite clear here because I often see a misunderstanding in the public, which is that, you know, DNA has proven that humans came out of Africa.
And I should be quite clear that the oldest DNA we have from an African fossil is about 8,000 to 10,000 years old.
But in fact, what the model is based on is modern DNA anyway.
So it's not even as old as that.
This is the last hundred years.
And so they found that in the genome of these Africans, that there was a signature for two new chromosomes.
Basically, there was, let me think, so you've got the, sorry, two new haplogroups, haplogroup L3, which is a mt DNA haplogroup, and another one, which is haplogroup CT, which is on the Y chromosomes.
You've got these male and female lineages.
And they appear in the African genome around 70,000 years ago.
And we also know that the Eurasians can be traced back to very closely related haplogroups called M and N on the mtDNA.
So basically what they said, they said, well, look, you know, these Africans have got this L3.
It seems to be probably the precursor to the M and N, which we know are in all Eurasians.
So probably these Africans were in Africa 70,000 years ago, and then some of them came out, likely through the Levant or across what we call the Bab el-Mendab, you know, and entered into maybe the Middle East.
But they brought these, you know, these lines with them, and then they mutated and gave rise to MNN, which is then formative for all Eurasians.
So that was the model, but that was entirely based on modern DNA.
So again, you're starting with the assumption that the ancestors of those Africans with L3 were living in Africa 70,000 years ago, right?
So that is not certain at all, is it?
Because you're just assuming that they were, because they're African now, but doesn't mean that they were standing in Africa 70,000 years ago.
These are immense time scales.
People move around.
We know that we're a very mobile species.
I mean, look, in the last 10,000 years, look how far groups have migrated and how populations have changed and exchanged.
So even at that point, it was quite a weak assumption.
But the problem was that nowhere else in the world was there fossil evidence as old as in Africa.
So they were saying, well, look, we've got ancient Homo sapiens and early sort of modern human fossils in Africa.
And we've got this indication in the modern African genome of these, you know, these two haplogroups.
So probably that's where it started and that we've come out of there.
And it was reasonable enough to think that that was probable.
But what's really changed now is that we have modern human fossils in East Asia that go back, some of them are between 80,000 to 120,000.
And then there's another lot which are an older type of, what I think is perhaps early Homo sapiens there, up to 260,000 years old.
So we're not in the same situation as we were in 40 years ago, you know, when they were having to make this kind of logical deduction and say, well, there's nowhere else.
And, you know, we've got these kind of indications that it's Africa.
So, you know, that's probably it.
And then everyone's just rolled from there.
And it's become so normal to say, we came out of Africa 70,000 years ago, that if you look at any news story or paper in this subject area, it will always start off by saying, well, you know, after humans came out of Africa 70,000 years ago.
And then they may question all sorts of other things after that.
But that bit is always given to us as solid.
And actually, it's very weak, extremely weak.
So where did those elements come from then?
You're saying that those elements may have arisen from Eurasia, Australasia?
Where?
Yeah.
At that point in time, I would say that they're in Eurasia because what happens at this, this is a really crucial event that's happening at this time, right?
73,000 years ago, there is a sudden climate shift underway across the northern hemisphere, right?
The temperature is dropping rapidly.
And then on top of that, this huge volcano down in Indonesia on Java goes off, this Lake Toba, which was the most powerful super volcanic eruption of the last two million years.
I mean, this was incredibly world-changing.
It threw up immense clouds of dust and gas into the atmosphere.
So are you saying that those people then had an incentive to get away from where they were and find somewhere else?
The Eurasians were being devastated at this point.
So you can imagine suddenly the temperature across Eurasia has dropped.
These people are really in trouble.
And so the only places you can go to be safe are south of the, you've got to go into the southern hemisphere.
So you've got to get below the equator.
Now, if you're in Eurasia, there's only two places you can really go to escape.
One's South Africa and one's Australasia.
So I'm saying that at 73,000 years ago, most of the people die in Eurasia.
But those right at the ends in the east and the west, they have survival opportunities.
They can enter into Africa and Australasia.
And that's exactly what they did.
How would they have known that they had survival opportunities?
Because the creeping temperature drops, you know, would continue on over time, and they would start having things like acid rain, the death of the local plants.
So you'd be pushed.
It wouldn't necessarily know.
But if you know that basically there's, you know, you could Bab al-Manda, for example, put it this way, is quite a narrow channel.
So they would see the land on the other side, right?
So it's not just that they would go into a boat and hope for the best.
And the assumption would be, even though we don't know what we're going to find, anything has to be better than suffering.
And also if you went to, say, if you were in the Middle East and you tried to go east, you would hit worse conditions, you know, so you're being pushed west by the conditions.
So week by week almost, you know, you would find that it would be getting worse where you are.
And if you tried to go east, it would be even worse.
So the logic would be that, you know, turn back, it was better there.
And you would start to find it's better to the west.
So you would gradually be migrating away from the problem until you hit the sea.
And at that point, your only option is to cross the sea.
And you can see land on the other side, you know, Dus Africa, just across the Baalba Mendam.
And that's precisely where L3 appears in Africa.
This is the key understanding as well.
You know, that when where they trace this back to, they said that, you know, there's an expansion of the L3 haplogroup into Africa, heads west.
Actually, funnily enough, you know, even in the conventional models, this new haplogroup appears in Africa near to the Baumandab and then expands westward and southward.
Again, following that trend that they're heading towards the equator and away from Eurasia.
So you have that on the one side and at the other end, right down, obviously down into Southeast Asia, they have the potential to move, well, the people down in basically in Indonesia, they can cross down into Australasia.
Obviously, people in the west of Indonesia are right in the kill zone.
So, I mean, those people essentially are dead.
I mean, if you're right next to the volcano, but there are people spread along, obviously, the other Indonesian islands and potentially some of the people in Southeast Asia, anyone in that region, if they've got boats, you know, and if they know about Australia already, which I'm going to assume that they would have probably been in trade networks, because these were people that had boats.
We know that this area, the only way to go into Australia or out of Australia, you need boats.
So clearly those people, we know that people have been in Australia for at least at this point, 65 to 80,000 years is the current, I suppose, the minimums that are being given by the academic community.
And to get there, you need boats.
So, okay, so we know people in that region were sailing that far back.
And as I said earlier, there's evidence for sailing that goes back before that, even in the Mediterranean.
So we've got to allow for the fact that these people do know about boat technology.
So they have an opportunity as well.
They're also being pushed by the environment.
So a few people that are in the right places are able to escape.
A lot of people are going to be trapped in Eurasia and they are going to have to weather the storm.
And what we find is that modern humans don't weather that storm very well.
They pretty much went extinct across Eurasia.
What we find is Neanderthals managed to kind of survive in a few pockets.
I mean, they do become, you know, an endangered species and about 20,000 years later.
So actually what we're saying here is that what we regard and what I was taught in school and probably you were taught in school about being our precursors, they weren't.
They were the survivors of our precursors.
Well, Neanderthals were a close relative, but they weren't really our precursors, but obviously they've handed out, we have got some genes from them, but they were, you know, another subspecies living alongside something.
They were the ones, I put that badly, they were the ones who survived, but the real smart people were the ones who got away and spread themselves around in other places.
Yeah, I mean, to get away, because instead of just, you know, grimly hanging on somewhere like in northern Europe, like the Neanderthals did, you know, basically weathering this horrific, you know, ice age type, you know, environment, you know, if you could have moved into the just below the equator, the weather system was completely different because this dust cloud had swirled around the northern hemisphere.
So the south of the planet wasn't really suffering in the same way at all.
So as soon as you cross that line, you know, you're going into safety.
So they're having to just focus on bare grim survival.
Whereas if you get down into, you know, south of the equator, it's pretty normal for you.
You know, you can carry on with a decent level of living and think about things like art or, you know, creativity, which you can't really do.
And if you're just barely scraping by, finding cave bears and stuff, you know, this is, it's a very different situation for the Neanderthals.
So they cling on, but they're certainly impacted.
And we find that they survive in some in the Middle East and some up in Northern Europe.
But again, most of the teeth have disappeared across central Eurasia because we know that at one point Neanderthals were all the way across to almost to China.
Their populations, although in small groups, were spread across most of Eurasia.
So this idea, again, of them being a European human has also gone out the window recently because they found that the evidence suggests that they were actually more diverse in Asia and in Central Asia, which means that their population center was most likely in Asia and in Central Asia, not in Europe.
So I think what's happened is actually they were also a much larger and more widespread population, as were these early modern humans, but they've all suffered this catastrophe.
You know, and the Denisovans as well seem to have, you know, have suffered this.
And I think some of the Denisovans, from the way I model it and the way that, you know, I talk about in the book, I believe some of the Denisovans survive also by having entered into Australasia, because we find evidence of interbreeding between the ancestors of today's Aboriginal people and Denisovans.
And this occurs at 44,000 years ago.
And this is very important because the Aboriginals are supposed to be completely isolated by this point, right?
The official line is that once they entered into Australia somewhere around, it used to be 50,000 years ago.
Now, obviously, I say it's gone back to 65 to 80,000.
But basically, there was no more, you know, there was no more entrances into the country and that there was therefore no other populations to mix with, right?
So there's this funny, they find that they've interbred with this other subspecies, the Denisovans, at 44,000 years ago.
So, I mean, as far as I know, the only way you can interbreed with someone is that they're pretty close by.
So they have to be there on the continent with them.
And look, you're in Australia.
That's where you're residing at the moment with your good lady.
Now, have you put this to the...
Have you run any of this past them?
I have provided, yeah, I do sort of try and engage a bit, you know, especially on Facebook groups and stuff with some of the, I guess, Aboriginal groups that have been set up down there to communicate with.
And I have had, you know, support from, you know, quite a lot of Aboriginal people and some quite high-profile people that I've been talking to that are interested in supporting what I do.
And I've also provided my book to a couple of, you know, Australian scientists and stuff.
So I'm waiting to see if any of them will want to, you know, publicly get on board.
But certainly behind the scenes, yeah, I've had some support there.
I've got to send out a couple of copies actually this week to another couple of quite well-known Australian scientists.
But so yeah, Aboriginal community and some of the scientists here, yeah, there is some support.
I mean, in terms of the myth, like the cultural mythologies of the stories, you know, some of the Aboriginal, they themselves say, look, we've always been here and that the first people came from here and went into the world.
So, you know, this fits very much with the stories their elders have passed down for hundreds of generations.
So you can imagine that from their point of view, it's almost like, well, you know, you're just catching up with what we were told already and what we've known, you know, all the time.
Obviously, there are other Aboriginal people who have accepted the story from school that, you know, they came from Africa.
You know, so it's again, like in any community, there's a polarizing.
There's people who say, well, no, we know now that we came from Africa.
And then there's other people who say, no, I still accept what I was told by my elders that, you know, that we've always been here.
And those people obviously look to my work and say, well, you know, this guy's actually finding the sort of the white man science, if you like, that supports this story.
So they're quite, you know, they're quite sort of pleased to see that coming out.
So where is the focus of research now then?
Is the focus of research with the areas where those people who had to flee and had an influence on other areas, where they came from and how they arose?
Or is the focus of research on the areas they went to?
Well, a bit of a mix.
I mean, one thing I am getting a bit drawn into is that in my understanding, you know, we have these people, obviously they're right in the Americas, carrying this culture with them, as I sort of touched on earlier.
So not only do we have these migrations going out from Australasia, and again, and my argument is that 60,000 years ago, you know, these people come up into Eurasia.
And I should just quickly clarify this.
So I'm saying people have gone down into Australia after Toba.
So this is about 73,000 years ago.
And that then later on, they're coming back up 60,000 years ago.
And that's the period accepted by the academic community for the populating of Eurasia.
And the expansion is understood to have moved from Asia westwards into Europe by 45,000 years ago.
So this is all in the conventional models.
But I'm saying that they also took this culture with them.
So what we see across Eurasia is really is a kind of an Aboriginal culture that's growing.
And I've started to find that even at sites as recent as 12,000 years ago and a bit less, even up to 5,000 years ago, some of megalithic sites across Asia and Europe, they've got hallmarks of Aboriginal wisdom encoded into them and a lot of similarity across sites, even from Kebekli Tepe to say some of the megalithic sites in the UK.
I mean, I've seen some engravings and patterns on sites that are quite probably quite familiar to us, even I'm thinking of Newgrange and also up in the Hebrides and stuff.
Some of these sites have got like patterns and markings which match Kebekli Tepe.
And then some of the things at Cobekli Tepe I've matched to northern Australia and particularly to Arnhem Land because they've got some of the oldest and best preserved rock art right in the planet in Arnhem Land.
And I'm finding that the same imagery and the patterns and the mythology seems to be replicated.
So I am of the opinion that this lost high culture or civilization was based on Aboriginal wisdom and that what we're seeing at these sites is the remnants of this wisdom that went out with these people.
And that after the migrations happened, they kept in contact to some degree and this wisdom remained in place.
And it's only at 12,000 years ago when we have this destruction event, which obviously has been written about by a lot of, you know, alternate researchers, you know, obviously particularly, you know, as you're aware, Graham Hancock's covered it a lot.
But of course, you know, quite a few people have, Robert Schock and, you know, and others have written on this, the catastrophe at the younger dryass.
And I think that this point is when that is severed, this knowledge is severed.
And then we start to have separate cultures arising who, to different degrees, have either remembered or forgotten this earlier wisdom.
And we can see just traces of it in some areas.
Or, you know, in some places, we don't see any of it.
You know, new cultures entirely appear because they've been leveled to the ground and they don't remember anything.
Whereas elsewhere we find stone structures start going up, which record the same patterns and the same understandings again as that we see like Kebekli Tepe on that cusp of the disaster.
So it's quite fascinating.
I do think that my work will probably start to focus more towards that, but I also have to still write up on the Americas and the site that I was involved with there.
So it will be the more recent times.
You know, I've covered the backstory of these migrations, but I am yet to then move into that side of it where I say, well, now also let's look at the culture that flowed out with them and the astrology, the myths and all these things that are part of that story, which are a bit more recent.
I had to kind of cover the backstory first because otherwise people would say, well, there were no Aboriginals in America or Aboriginals weren't in Eurasia back then.
So I was forced to start with this very complex study of the human origins and human migrations because to start talking about that more recent and controversial lost civilization stuff, I needed that foundation, which couldn't really be assailed easily, that they can't turn it.
But all the academics say something different.
Well, anyway, I did the study.
I provided you my, you know, a scientific argument, which, you know, goes against those academics.
And so, you know, I have that basis now where I can then build upon it.
And if anyone says, well, what about Africa?
I can say, well, I can sit here and I can tell you why Half-Africa is wrong.
And then we can move on to how these different cultures can be linked.
I am fascinated.
And as I say, and keep saying that I'm no scientist, but I'm just fascinated by the idea of a lost higher civilization.
What did they know?
Where did they arise from?
Who helped, if anybody did, help to teach them what they knew?
Was there a civilization preceding them?
And because things wear away and because it's hard to track back the past, things decay, is it going to be very difficult, I presume it is, to trace their antecedents?
Yes and no.
I mean, one of the things is that, I think, once you understand the importance of the Australasian region in this story, it becomes far more simple.
Because one of the things that I think that's been a problem for, particularly for alternative researchers, because usually it's alternative researchers who are looking at this subject, you know, the scientists aren't usually looking at it, as you know, they're quite dismissive on the whole, you know, for the majority.
But because we've tended to think of Australia as having nothing there, right?
So I'm guilty, I was guilty of this, you know, that everyone's looking at what was going on in America or where is Atlantis?
Was it in the Caribbean?
Was it in the Mediterranean?
And what was happening at Stonehenge or what was happening in Egypt?
Nobody really looked at Australia.
And that's because we all grew up with this kind of story that the Aboriginals, A, that they probably didn't get here until, you know, within 40,000 years ago or something, that they didn't really do anything, that they had no particularly high culture, they had no science, they hadn't done anything, they didn't build any megaliths.
So they were basically written off.
And this giant continent was ignored by, you know, not the academics, but by all of us in the sort of, I guess, the alternative research community as well.
And that left this puzzle because it was also like, well, how are these, you know, who was, who linked all these places?
Where was this lost civilization?
Why do we see the same pattern on this rock in the Andes that we see engraved on a megalith in the UK?
And what is that symbol?
But once I actually became involved with looking at Australia and like opened my eyes to that, I started to find that the proto-patterns were here.
The oldest variants of some of these symbols and images are there up in Arnhem Land and stuff, recorded.
And that you see them replicated at Gabegli Tepe and in Stonehenge and places.
And then the lights come on and you realize you found the proto-culture.
And then once you find the proto-culture, it's like the Rosetta Stone of the situation.
You think, hang on a minute, I can see a pattern up here in Turkey and here it is on a cave wall up in Arnhemand.
I can see a pattern over in the UK.
And here it is.
It's on this wall in Arnhem Land.
So you realize, and especially when you sort of get how ancient this culture is, accepted to be the oldest culture on the planet, going back possibly some of the stories, maybe going back 20, 30, 40, 50,000 years, like unthinkable in terms of any other cultures we know of anywhere, that we have this trove of knowledge recorded within the cultures here.
And we can also see now that a lot of the symbols and stuff and the understandings Have flowed out of here into the world, so it makes my job now relatively easy because I can look at now at sites when they come out and I can say, Oh, there's those symbols, they're from northern Australia, you know, there's that megalith that's from their buildings.
You know, so I'm probably in a fairly unique position in that because I see other people and they're looking trying to work backwards, you know, through time.
But I started seven million years ago and worked forwards and looked at a continent that nobody else was looking at.
And with those factors, it's given me a very unique view.
And what about those signs and symbols in various places that some say indicate some kind of extraterrestrial, as we would call it today, influence?
What do you make of that?
Well, I mean, my personal view is that, you know, okay, we don't have conclusive evidence, but yeah, I am of a personal conviction, you know, from my own subjective experiences, if you like, that yes, that we do have visitations and that we have had influences.
I mean, you know, there's I'm willing to accept, you know, the thousands and thousands of accounts from reasonable people that they've had experiences, you know, with entities and with aliens or UFOs.
And that I'm not willing to just say that, you know, hundreds of thousands of people over thousands of years were all bonkers, you know.
So once you sort of accept that, you know, that reasonable people are telling you these experiences and that we find also in legends and stories, you know, particularly across the Americas, you know, there's all these stories that, you know, the people were in contact with other beings and that these beings, you know, are saying that they're ancestral in some way or have helped start humanity in some way, that that is a line of research that has to be taken seriously for me.
I mean, I appreciate an academic probably wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, but I'm not an academic, so I'm not in the situation where I lose my job for looking at that.
And I do find, you know, I have found evidence that there's an involvement from, you know, a very long time ago, that there's been direct involvement, you know, in the genetics of humans.
I am of that opinion.
And then in later times, more recently, I think that there's certainly been monitoring and, you know, interactions with humans and some kind of ongoing interest in us, you know, a program of some sort.
So yeah, I am of that opinion.
For DNA traces that we can measure and see, we can't actually see any evidence of anything like that, can we?
There's nothing that is anomalous in that way yet.
Well, there is some stuff, but I want to say what I would really like to say, and this is because I can pretty much, I can tell you, I have a very fairly precise dating for when I believe that this interaction happened and when the DNA was modified.
But I'm going to say it was roughly around 800,000 years ago.
So if you then can find a human, you know, a frozen human of any sort, you know, it doesn't need to be a modern human, any kind of hominin frozen in the ice, right?
That's older than 800,000 years.
And if you sample its genome and provide that, if I can have that provided, you know, if that is provided to me by an academic at some point in my life, I will be able to contrast those results against the human genome later.
And I believe we're going to find that there's significant differences in the genome from after that period 800,000 years ago.
And 800,000 years ago is really an important time because we suddenly see explosive growth in the brain size.
We see sudden, massive changes in the form of the human and we see multiple lineages splitting off.
Instead of just a Homo erectus gradually becoming something else, we see these new lineages found which will become Neanderthals, Denisovans, Sapiens, you know, Red Deer Cave.
And they all seem to be tracing back.
And that data is now being confirmed that that happens around about 750,000 years ago.
The brain size increased as well, around 800,000 years ago.
All of these telltale signs of something very important and very anomalous happen around that time.
So we need, ideally, a genome that is a little bit older than that because it's no good.
We won't find it in anything else because, you know, if you put in alien, let's say you've got alien genes added into a human, they're indistinguishable from any other human because that's what is a human is that, you know, so you won't be able to look in and say, well, that gene's alien because you've got nothing to contrast it with.
You know, that's the problem that we could have, you know, 50% of the genome could be from off-world.
But until you get that older genome to contrast it with, we can't say that.
And that's the problem.
So instead, you have to look for other evidence in there, which looks like something anomalous is happening.
And I've given you some of it there, but there's also important changes in genes that accelerate brain growth and that give us certain abilities and benefits that also seem to time to around that period.
So look, I'm only asking you for an opinion on this, but do you think that we may get some of the answers to these things in our ongoing explorations of places like Mars?
I suspect that, yes, there's a good chance that there would be some kind of signatures of them having been to other, you know, other worlds in this solar system.
It would seem reasonable to think that if beings are coming to Earth, that they're also visiting other planets in our solar system.
And obviously, there's been evidence that perhaps there's things on the moon, perhaps there's things on Mars, and that, you know, if we can start to have, say, some of these commercial companies that are looking to go and say, mine the moon or whatever, that they may well start to stumble on things that are.
And the people who are saying this is all garbage, this is all rubbish, and this is just so beyond the pale, maybe they need to think that, or certainly stop and think, that if ancient civilizations had abilities that we didn't realize they had to travel and know about each other and discover places and sail and build boats and navigate the stars and all the rest of it,
then, you know, who are we to say that they didn't have the ability to go off this world at some point, as crazy and wacky and wacko and weird as that may sound?
Yeah, again, I mean, I keep my mind open about that because it is possible.
And, you know, or it may be that there was something like a human that lived on this planet, you know, a millions of years ago and there's vanished, but, you know, may not have been Homo sapiens, but may have been a very human-like creature that got to that level.
You know, we don't know.
We've got billions of years of time to play with there.
You know, so who knows if like, you know, 10 million years ago, 100 million years ago, there wasn't a human-like creature on this planet that did achieve those things and went off-world.
And that is just so long ago that we can't expect to find their, you know, their ships or their, or their, you know, buildings, you know, because it's just such a massive amount of time has passed.
You know, we might say, okay, well, if it was 12,000 years ago, yeah, you should find Atlantis or something.
But if you're talking about, you know, 100 million years ago, then like, no, we wouldn't necessarily expect to find very much.
So we have to keep an open mind about this.
So in these investigations, what we're saying is we've only just begun.
Are you working on another book?
What are you doing at the moment?
I'll be working on two books.
One of them is about into America, because obviously the book I've provided only covers this migration out of Australasia into Eurasia and into Africa.
And there was separately modern humans in Africa as well.
So it covers, explains that there's people in Africa, but there's also a migration out of Australasia which reaches Africa.
So I've sort of covered all that, but I didn't cover America in the book.
So I still have to do one on that.
And then I have another book planned, which actually tackles the ET subject, which is, as I say, I can use some of it there.
But I have basically what I consider to be a very solid scientific case for this intervention.
Not something where I expect people just to take a leap of faith or any channeling.
It will be me detailing physical evidence and genetic evidence, which highly suggests that this was a real event.
You're going back around 800,000 years ago.
So at the moment, I'd say to people, just totally disbelieve me on it, because wait until that comes out and everything in there will be based on scientific papers and on real-world evidence, not disclosure from general in, you know, in some black ops project.
But, you know, here's evidence.
You can go away and see if Bruce is just making this up or if this is valid.
And I think people are going to find that it's extremely convincing.
But I've looked at it and it's very convincing.
So Bruce, there's an awful lot of work to do.
And it seems that you and I are probably going to need to have another conversation or maybe two by the sounds of it.
My work's pretty extensive.
Yeah, I'd say that it's if I live long enough, you know, there'll be several books that basically rewrite the entire story of humanity with the genetics, the evidence, you know, the culture, the archaeology and the ET intervention.
It's a lot of work.
It's a lot of work.
So it's not a single subject.
There's multiple subjects.
Well, I look forward to talking with you again.
If people want to communicate with you, if they want to send you an email about what they've heard here, they want to check out your books, check you out, where do they go?
The best place probably is brucefenton.info.
That's one of my sort of main blogs.
They can also go onto ancientnews.net, which I also run.
And of course, I'm on Facebook and Twitter and probably under either Ancient News or Bruce Fenton, they'll find me on Twitter.
And of course, yeah, on Facebook.
So, you know, I can be reached from any of those, you know, those sort of places.
Also, if they have information want to get directed to me, they can email me, bruce at brucefenton.info.
So I'm quite available.
And my book's on Amazon.
And it's also, you know, you can order it in bookshops, as I understand it, through, you know, an Ingram account that I have.
So I believe you can kind of get hold of it, you know, through your local bookstore.
If you went in and asked, you know, it won't be on the shelves because I'm not famous enough.
Well, this is all good.
And I wish you well with your work, Bruce.
And let's talk again when the book about possible ET involvement comes out.
Thank you very much.
I think many people are waiting for, I think.
Well, I'm one of them.
Thank you, Bruce, very much.
Thanks a lot.
Appreciate it.
Thanks very much.
Take care.
Bruce Fenton, and he gave you an email address for himself.
Or if you want to contact me about this show, happy to hear from you too.
More great guests in the pipeline as we go through 2018 here on The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for being part of it.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London.
This has been The Unexplained.
And please, till next we meet here, please stay safe.
Please stay calm.
And above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection