All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2020 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:03:50
Edition 476 - Michael Cremo

Researcher Michael Cremo in Los Angeles has given a large part of his life to putting out evidence that our history goes back much further than scientists thought...

| 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 definitely Howard Hughes, and this is definitely The Unexplained.
Well, welcome back to the long, hot summer of 2020, this crazy, crazy year that seems to have sort of disappeared in a haze of coronavirus and weird weather, don't you think?
At the moment, I am recording this in a temperature of, at the moment, what is it, 37 degrees where I'm speaking at the moment.
Absolutely airless, absolutely boiling.
I have never had to broadcast or record, even when I did a remote outside broadcast from places around the world years ago.
I've never had to work somewhere quite so hot.
In fact, I can tell you at the moment, and this is not going to make any sense if you're going to hear this after the fact when the weather's cooled down, but at the moment, it is definitely so hot that my spectacles are steaming up.
And I've never had that before.
But the unexplained continues.
Thank you very much for all of your support and all of your nice emails and your tales from the different parts of the world that you're from.
Gratefully received.
Thank you for them.
No shout-outs particularly this time.
Apart from a hello to Brad and Simone in Portugal, nice to know that you're there.
Dan in Brighton, thank you very much for your email, Dan, and Roger Wilkins and all of the other people who've emailed.
And if you've made a donation to the unexplained recently, maybe you've just started doing that.
I am so grateful to you.
Thank you very much for supporting me.
And thank you for your moral support through all of this time.
It's been one crazy year.
I don't know how you're getting through it.
I'm just about feeling my way still.
But I'm hoping that by the time we get to the back end of this year, there may be some better news.
And I've said this on my radio program and in other places too.
I believe in the power of human ingenuity.
So I think that we are within months of maybe finding some kind of solution and way out of this.
I just have a feeling in my gut.
I have no scientific evidence.
I've just got a feeling.
Let's see and hope that I'm right.
Like I say, thank you for your emails.
If you want to contact me about anything, go to the website theunexplained.tv.
That's the place where my podcasts reside.
You can follow the link and send me an email from there.
If you're going to tell me a story, by the way, can you mark it listener story or just story so that I know that your email has a story in it, maybe for a future podcast or radio edition of listener's stories on the unexplained.
It's just more useful to me to be able to see that.
Sometimes you'll email me, I'll start reading the email, and then I'll realize, oh, this is a listener story.
I've got to file this where I file the listener's stories.
Thank you very much for all of the response.
Thank you to Adam, my webmaster, for his hard work on the show.
And thank you to Haley for booking the guests.
Guest on this edition is a man who was on the show just before lockdown, I think in the week or so before lockdown bit.
And because that night we were under time pressure on the radio show, and I don't think we got as much of him as we needed to, I think the news segment of the show overran.
Something happened, and I said that I would get him back and have a longer conversation on the podcast.
His name is Michael Cremo.
He is a researcher in human origins, something that completely fascinates and tantalizes me.
I don't know about you.
The thought that our accepted history may not be anything like that at all, and we may go back in some form far further than all of the talking heads and experts suggest.
Michael Cremo is a man who stands up, has put his head above the parapet, speaks in many places, writes a lot, and says the history is not what you've been told.
So Michael Cremo, coming right up.
Don't forget the website, theunexplained.tv and my Facebook page, the official Facebook page of The Unexplained.
I know a lot of you are communicating with me that way by leaving comments there, and that's great.
Please keep supporting the show however you can.
All right, let's get to the U.S. now.
In this sweltering heat here, I'm not even going to look at the temperature gauge because it is just ridiculous right now.
Let's get on.
Michael Cremo.
Michael, thank you for returning to the show.
Happy to be with you and all your listeners.
Michael, we last spoke, and I know you're in Los Angeles, we last connected with Los Angeles.
I think it was in the week or so before lockdown hit the UK.
And it was a crazy few days, I remember.
And I remember the show that we did being under a lot of time pressure.
So we didn't quite get to do as much material as I hoped we might.
So I'm happy to redress the balance now by doing a podcast here where we don't have commercial breaks, we don't have news, we have no interruptions, we just have you and me.
How about that?
That sounds wonderful.
Okay, first off then, how would you describe yourself?
Because you're not a man who's easy to pigeonhole.
No, I'm not.
I would describe myself as a very individualist type of person.
I describe myself really as a kind of a trans-cultural person.
You know, my father was an officer, an intelligence officer in the United States Air Force.
So when I was growing up, I got exposed to a lot of different cultures because being in a military family, we moved around a lot in the United States and abroad.
When I was high school age, in my teens, I was in Germany and I visited England and Sweden and a lot of different places.
And I could just see there's more than one way to look at things.
The American way is one way, but there's so many other ways of looking at the world and everything in it.
And eventually I became attracted to the spiritual culture of India.
I became a disciple of a guru from India.
And as part of that, I began looking into the Puranas, which are the historical Writings of ancient India.
And I saw they had accounts in them of human populations existing millions and millions of years ago.
So I thought, well, that's interesting, but is there any factual evidence to support it?
Sure.
And of course, it doesn't accord with what we've been taught, have we?
Because if you believe what we were taught at school, then our history back to its most primitive roots is, what, a couple of hundred thousand years, if that.
Yeah, absolutely.
So you're right.
It was something quite different than anything I'd heard from my teachers in school or university.
But I guess I also understood from my upbringing, because I grew up among people in the intelligence services and things like that.
So I understood there is such a thing as hidden knowledge, things that are true that most people are simply not aware of because they don't have access to the factual information.
So that's what led me to suspect, well, maybe in archaeology there's something similar going on.
And that's what got me looking into the whole history of archaeology.
And when I did that, I found there were many archaeologists and geologists and other scientists digging into the ground who were finding human bones, human artifacts, human footprints, millions of years old, some of them.
When you talk about hidden archaeology, that's one thing.
When you talk about forbidden archaeology, that's a different thing, it seems to me, because if something is forbidden and it's also hidden, then that suggests that somebody is suppressing it.
Yes, it's I think there can be an element of that.
But in one sense, it's something that historians of science and philosophers of science have understood for a long time, namely that theoretical preconceptions can influence how scientists look at different categories of evidence that come to their attention.
So, I mean, and the scientists who are doing this knowledge filtering, they're not necessarily thinking, well, here's some true evidence, which, if known, would cause people to disbelieve in my theory.
So therefore, I'm not going to talk about it.
That kind of thing may happen.
It does happen.
But in many cases, the scientists involved don't recognize at all what they're doing.
A perfect case would be some discoveries that were made three or four years ago in England.
Footprints that were found at a place called Happysburg.
I don't know if I'm pronouncing that exactly correctly.
My listener, you know, I have listeners all over the world, but, you know, base in the UK, I have a feeling, I'm going to check this as we talk.
I think they might call it something like Haysburg or something like that.
Haysburg.
I think it's something like that, but I could be wrong because I'm not from that part.
Yes, I know what you mean.
T-P-I-S-B-U-R-G-H.
So it's probably, as you say, Haysburg.
Well, you keep talking.
I'll search.
So what was the story from there?
Well, the archaeologists found footprints on some sediments near the shoreline there.
And during low tide, these rocky layers were exposed and they could see footprints on them.
And they determined the formation that had the footprints was about 700,000 years old.
And then they very carefully photographed and recorded the footprints.
They carefully measured them.
And they compared the measurements to the footprints of living populations of modern humans.
And they found they were within the modern human range in terms of their shape and size.
They were almost exactly like living populations, the foot structure of living populations of Native American Indians, Eskimos.
They were exactly like modern human footprints.
But they were looking at them and they decided that they couldn't even imagine they'd been made by humans like us.
So they just proposed, well, humans like us, Homo sapiens, we didn't exist 700,000 years ago in the UK.
And there must have been some kind of ape man, some kind of hominin that existed at that time.
But when you say that time, I mean, that time is half a million years prior to when we thought something like that would be around.
So that should have been, and the pronunciation I've just checked it is Haysborough.
That should have been in Haysborough, something that made international news, shouldn't it?
It did make international news, but because, you know, they said, okay, these footprints are there.
They're like anatomically modern human footprints.
But to me, they should have said, well, that raises the possibility that humans like us have been around for a lot longer than we thought.
You know, that possibility should have been considered, but it wasn't.
That question then, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I didn't mean to jump in.
Go ahead.
That then poses the question: if that's the case, what do we do about this?
And from what you're leading up to, I think, nobody asked that question.
Yeah, nobody asked that question.
Nobody considered that possibility.
Another very recent example of that, in 2016, there were some archaeologists doing excavations at Ulduvai Gorge in Tanzania in East Africa.
It's a very famous place.
Many discoveries, important discoveries have been made there.
And these archaeologists, they found a fingerbone in layers of rock 1,800,000 years old.
And they very carefully measured this fingerbone.
They compared it to the finger bones, the same fingerbone of different species of apes, gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, et cetera, all the different species of apes and monkeys.
They compared it to the different fossil hominin finger bones, the same fingerbone in Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus.
And they also compared it to anatomically modern human finger bones.
And they said it falls squarely in the modern Homo sapiens group.
But they said in their published report, it was published in Nature Communications, which is a very respected scientific journal.
They said, essentially, this is like a modern Homo sapiens fingerbone, but we can't call it Homo sapiens because of the age of the formation in which it was found.
So that's astonishing, Michael.
You mean, in other words, we're going to deny this because it goes against our paradigm.
Yeah, so they don't think they're suppressing anything.
They're saying, okay, we found this fingerbone.
It's like that of an anatomically modern human like Homo sapiens.
But of course, we can't call it that because everyone knows Homo sapiens didn't exist almost 2 million years ago.
But I say, well, why not?
But that's a little bit like finding a shopping cart on Mars, taking a picture of it, and then everybody's saying, no, there are no shopping carts on Mars.
They can't be there.
So let's just ignore that.
Yeah.
You know, there was a very interesting psychological experiment that was done.
It's been cited in the work of modern historians of science.
But in the psychological experiment, the experimenters took a deck of cards and they changed some of the cards in the deck.
For example, like they took a six of hearts, which would normally be red, and they made it black.
And, you know, so they changed a few cards like that.
And then they would show the cards to the subject of the experiment, one after another, from the deck of cards.
And they would ask people to identify what the card is.
And, you know, people, you know, they would show them some of the normal cards.
And then, you know, like then that black six of hearts would be shown to a person.
And they call it six of spades.
In other words, they're looking right at it, but they're not seeing what's in front of them.
You know, they're just refusing to recognize that they see what they're accustomed to see.
So I think the same kind of thing goes on in the world of science.
Sometimes an anomaly, a fact that doesn't fit the paradigm, will be staring scientists right in the face, and they just simply cannot recognize it for what it is.
Possible evidence, in this case that we're speaking about, of extreme human antiquity, the idea that humans like us must have existed a long, long time ago.
So that's a huge, that's a mountain.
That's a massive hurdle to climb.
You said at the beginning of a talk that I watched you give, I watched the video of it today.
There are people in the scientific world who are interested in what I have to say, implying that there are a lot who are not, but there are some who are starting to latch on to the things that you said.
Yes, absolutely.
You know, it's kind of interesting that in recent years, science has actually been taking tiny steps in the direction that I've been going.
I think they've got a lot further to go.
For example, when my book, Forbidden Archaeology, was published in 1993, they had the idea that humans like us were no older than about 100,000 years.
By the early 2000s, they had extended it back to 200,000 years.
Now, on the basis of some discoveries of some human-like skulls that were found in Morocco, they're willing to put it back to maybe 300,000 years.
So I think they're taking tiny steps in the right direction.
But to make this extreme leap back to millions and millions of years ago, you know, there are even some, there are a few scientists today who are willing to contemplate these things.
There was this astrophysicist named Gavin Schmidt and another scientist, another astronomer, Dr. Frank.
And they put forward something called the Silurian hypothesis.
So the Silurian is a geological period that goes back about 400 million years.
And they got this idea that, well, maybe, you know, maybe there was some human civilization that existed millions and millions of years ago.
You know, they had been watching an episode from an old British science fiction series called Doctor.
Doctor Who?
Right.
Okay, so Silurian.
I remember at school doing geology, the Silurian period, I thought it was, we understood that it was mostly fish and sea and oceanic creatures.
Amphibian.
There were some amphibians, some simple amphibians living at the time also.
But there was an episode of that series where there were some scientists that were working at a nuclear reactor and there was some kind of earthquake or something.
So they were kind of digging below the reactor and they found in some cavern some reptilians who had been hiding, reptilian people, intelligent reptilian sort of people that had been hiding for hundreds of millions of years and they had an advanced technology.
So these scientists today who were wondering, you know, because of basically global warming and things like that, they were kind of interested in, well, maybe in some other planet in the solar system, you know, we can detect signs of gases, greenhouse gases in the atmospheres of these planets.
And then they thought, well, maybe we don't have to look at other planets.
Maybe we can look at our own planet.
And maybe there was a civilization hundreds of millions of years ago.
And if there was, what signs of it would there be left today?
So I think it's kind of interesting that even some modern scientists are considering this idea of extreme human antiquity, you know, for whatever reason.
I think that's fascinating.
So they would think that the missing link was something that connected us with creatures of the sea, with amphibians.
Yeah.
Now, personally, I don't have any problem with humans like us existing from the very beginnings of the history of life in the universe.
But yeah, that is probably what they were thinking.
They were thinking, yeah, there could have been some earlier evolution of some type of creature, not necessarily Homo sapiens of our type, but that had the intelligence to make some kind of civilization, some kind of industrial technological civilization.
So, yeah.
But if that was so, Michael, there would be more signs of that, wouldn't they?
Well, that isn't what they concluded.
They concluded, and this is kind of important, that over vast periods of time, we're talking about tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years, the remnants of such a civilization would not survive very easily because metals will oxidize,
other types of things will decay.
They said that whether we're talking about bones or artifacts, they would be very, very few would survive.
And probably they thought the best way to detect the remains of any such civilization would be to look for chemical traces of compounds that don't naturally occur in nature,
but that involve some kind of high technology to make, or signs of radioactive elements that persist for a long time.
In other words, maybe there was some nuclear war in many, many millions and millions of years ago, and it would possibly leave some traces.
So they were thinking more in terms of micro evidence rather than fossil evidence of the kind we're talking about.
Right.
And from what you're saying, then, do I infer that you think they're completely wrong?
No.
I think they're willing to consider the possibility of intelligent life with human-like intelligence existing hundreds of millions of years ago on this planet and in other places in the universe.
I thought it was pretty interesting, the Silurian hypothesis, as they called it.
That doesn't fit Haysborough, though, does it?
No, it doesn't.
And getting back to your question about archaeologists, basically I find there are two types of archaeologists.
One I call the archaeology group and the other the archaeologies group.
The archaeology group believed that there's one science of archaeology.
It's objective.
It's fact-based.
We've got it all figured out.
Maybe we have to clean up a few problems here, but basically we know the whole history of the human race and that's it.
Then there's this other group, the archaeology's plural group, where they understand, well, we're all human, even scientists, and our ideas, our biases, our prejudices, different social factors influence our theories.
They influence the kinds of evidence that we're willing to consider and things like that.
So they think, okay, this Western scientific archaeology is one thing, but there may be other archaeologies based on other understandings, an Australian Aboriginal archaeology, a Native American Indian archaeology.
You know, they talk about indigenous archaeologies, or there may be a feminist archaeology, or different kinds of archaeologies.
And actually, this movement, to a large extent, began in the UK in the 1980s.
And during, I think it was 1986, around that time, the World Archaeological Congress was formed in Southampton, England.
And it was made up of archaeologists, many from England, but from other parts of the world also, who kind of accepted this idea that there's more than one archaeology.
So it's scientists, archaeologists, and that group who have accepted my proposals to present papers about my work at meetings of the World Archaeological Congress, the European Association of Archaeologists, and others.
And some years ago, I was invited to speak about forbidden archaeology at the Royal Institution in London.
That was trying to think what year that was, 2001.
I think it was around that time.
So there's been kind of some pushback against these people who have this kind of mentality, but they're still there.
Okay.
So attitudes may be changing slowly, but the emerging data, the emerging information, is moving things on at a pace faster than they're moving, it seems to me.
For example, it's only fairly recently that people have started saying, well, you know, the ancient Egyptians were amazing, weren't they?
Which of course they were.
And the Mayans were advanced, which they were.
But it seems that, for example, with the ancient Egyptians, we now understand that there were civilizations we don't know a lot about that predated them, perhaps quite significantly.
So we are moving forward, aren't we?
And with discoveries like Gobekri Tepe and what's being unearthed there by various people, things are starting to change.
Absolutely.
And not just in archaeology, but I think in the world of science generally, I see so many accounts now that are taking consciousness into account in quantum physics and cosmology and astrophysics.
That is a fantastic new development as far as I'm concerned.
So there are a lot of different areas in which there appear to be some fundamental paradigm shifts going on.
But the big gap in all of this is, of course, the notion of, for example, in Haysborough, but also that other discovery that was much older than Haysborough that you mentioned.
That was the fingerbone, wasn't it?
It doesn't tell us what sort of people they were.
It doesn't tell us how they fed themselves, what technology they used, and where they might have emerged from, does it?
There are lots of questions that are thrown up by all of this.
Well, and I think that's great because that's what science is.
It's a process of discovery, one thing leading to another, inspiring people to dig a little bit further into it and try to recover that kind of information.
So, yeah, I think that's quite a healthy thing.
You do get some signs in some of the archaeological discoveries that have been made of artistic ability or some sign of what things were being used.
You know, you can analyze stone tools and things like that for the remnants of plant or animal material that may be on the edges of the stone tools.
So you can tell what they were being used for, what kind of plants or animals were being processed.
And from that kind of information, you can get some idea of the diet of people, the level of skill that they had, and so on and so forth.
So you actually can recover some of the kinds of information that you're talking about, knowledge about what the people were actually doing that can be recovered from this kind of evidence.
And what about the notion that things are turning up in strata of rock where they shouldn't be?
In other words, further down than they should be?
Well, that's basically what I'm dealing with in forbidden archaeology, things where they shouldn't be.
Interesting case from England in the 19th century.
There was a geologist named Henry Stopes.
And at a meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he presented a report about a carved shell, like a shell, a fossil shell a couple of million years old that had a simple but recognizable human face carved on the front of the shell,
kind of like an ancient version of the smiley face, you know, that people put in their emails sometimes.
Yes, they do.
Yeah.
And, you know, it was found in East Anglia at a place called Walton on the Nays.
Yes.
Walton on the Nays and the red crag formation there, which, according to modern geologists, is from the Pliocene period.
In other words, it goes from about 2 million years to 5 million years ago.
And according to Stopes, it was found firmly embedded in that formation.
It's a type of shell that dates back to the Pliocene.
And it's really just a fascinating case from England giving evidence for a human presence going back a couple of million years.
But of course, the shell might have been that old.
How can we know that it was actually worked that long ago?
It may have been worked a lot later.
Well, that is a very good question.
It's a question that came up at the time.
So Henry Stopes reported this in the 19th century.
So in the early 20th century, these exact same questions were being raised by scientists and archaeologists and others.
So Mary Stopes, who was daughter of Henry, she herself was also a geologist.
She had the specimen and she was invited to bring it to a commission of scientists, of geologists and other scientists who were going to really look at this question, specifically this question of whether the carving on it had been done after, you know, in recent times.
In other words, you take a genuine Pliocene shell from the Red Crag Formation at Walton on Denise, and then maybe 100 years ago, somebody carves a little face on it, puts it back for Stopes or Henry Stopes or somebody else to find.
All right.
So they considered that very carefully.
They looked at the staining of the shell.
They looked at the hardness of the shell, that if somebody had tried to carve something into it, it would have shattered that shell.
So the commission of professional scientists, archaeologists, and geologists who considered that question decided no, the carving is from the time that the shell was deposited in the formation.
Of course, I lay all this out in my book, Forbidden Archaeology, and I kind of leave it up to the reader to make up his or her mind.
I'm not going to, if somebody considers this case and they decide, well, Interesting, but I'm not persuaded.
That's their right.
I respect the right of every single person to look at this evidence and come to their own conclusion.
Well, it's fascinating, Michael, but just to jump in here, I suppose if we were to be swayed by this, then we'd have to see a lot more examples, I think.
We would see these things turning up everywhere.
And are we?
I think we do.
My book, Forbidden Archaeology, is about 900 pages long.
In other words, we're not talking about one or two cases.
We're talking about hundreds of cases like this.
You could go and look at the discoveries of J. Reed Moore, who was a researcher operating in East Anglia in the early 20th century.
He found stone tools and weapons in the Red Crag Formation at different places along the coast of East Anglia.
Also at a place called Foxhall, he found in an excavation 16 feet deep in the Red Crag Formation many stone tools and weapons.
In the 19th century at Foxhall, a human jaw, it's called the Fox Hall jaw, was recovered from the Red Crag Formation there.
So it's not that you just have an isolated discovery of one carved shell.
There's a whole set of discoveries if you look at them.
And as I tried to indicate, it's something that's still going on today, even though the scientists who are making the discoveries may not appreciate them for what they are.
But Michael, what's happening in your own country?
Your country has deserts.
Your country has mountains.
Your country has cold places, hot places.
Your country has a vast expanse of territory.
Are these sorts of things being found now in your country, in the U.S.?
Absolutely, yes.
There was an interesting case from San Diego.
And in recent years, now, this is a very interesting fact, that in recent years in the United States and in Europe and in the UK, most archaeology that's being done is not being done through the universities.
There's something called contract archaeology, which, you know, this kind of started 20 or 30 years ago where archaeologists convinced governments to,
if a road was being built or construction, houses were being constructed by government regulation, the people who were building the road or developing the housing development,
they would have to bring in archaeologists to do an inspection and make sure that nothing archaeological was being disturbed or anything.
So it became a whole industry and most archaeologists, probably about 90% of them today, are kind of working in that.
And what they find really isn't getting reported.
It just goes to some government file somewhere.
So there were some archaeologists that were doing such work and paleontologists at a highway that was being made in Southern California.
And they noticed there were these mammoth bones, bones of these extinct elephants, mastodons, mammoths, that had human cut marks on them, like the animals had been butchered.
And they determined initially that the bones with these human butchering marks on them were about 300,000 years old.
But the report just got buried because, first of all, nobody knew about it.
It's not being reported at a scientific conference.
It's just some contract archaeological work that was being done to satisfy government regulations.
So the report was filed away in the Transport Ministry of the California government, the highway department.
But somehow somebody sent it to me.
You know, they, you know, you get, what do you call these people?
Whistleblower.
Whistleblower.
I was about to use that word.
Yeah.
So somebody got it, sent it to an archaeologist that I know who is open to these kind of things.
And she sent it to me.
Well, San Diego is, what, 120 miles down the coast from you?
You could go there, couldn't you?
Yeah, I've been there.
I actually talked once with some of the scientists who were involved in these discoveries.
So, you know, and then what happened is that many years later, the scientists got together and they redated it to about 100,000 years, which fits within the worldwide evidence for anatomically modern humans,
but it's still anomalous in terms of the presence of humans in North America, because the standard idea is humans like us first entered North America maybe about 25,000
years ago, coming either by boat from Europe or the more common idea is overland from Siberia down through Canada, down to the United States, down into Mexico, and then into South America, all within the past 25,000 years.
So to have this evidence for the scientists reporting 100,000 years is anomalous for North America, not in terms of a human presence worldwide, but still a pretty bold thing to do for North American archaeology.
Understood then.
So why haven't archaeologists or people interested in all of this descended on San Diego and started digging the place up to find more?
Surely that's the scientific method, isn't it?
If you find one thing, then you've got to start looking for evidence of other things.
Well, there were, I mean, scientists were doing things like that.
For example, there's the Calico site.
It's between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
Lewis Leakey, who was one of Britain's prominent archaeologists, his whole family, Lewis Leakey, his wife Mary Leakey, their son, Robert Leakey, the whole big, famous family of archaeologists.
He was the patriarch, Lewis Leakey.
He came to the Calico site in Southern California where some American archaeologists had uncovered stone tools and weapons.
And he said, yeah, this place is about 300,000 years old and it's really fantastic.
But his colleagues in the scientific world just thought, okay, Leakey's getting older now.
He's 60 or 70 years old.
He's lost his mind, gone crazy.
Yeah, people were going.
A lot of work had been done in Southern California.
And what to speak of the California gold mine discoveries that were made in the 19th century, where you had miners finding human bones and human artifacts and layers of rock 50 million years old.
And this kind of takes us into Silurian hypothesis territory.
Not 100,000 years or 200,000 or 1,000,000, but 50 million year old layers of rock.
And these discoveries were reported to the scientific world by the chief government geologist of California, Dr. Whitney.
But you don't hear anything about them today.
So I just think if people are interested in a certain subject, they should be aware of all the discoveries that relate to that field of human inquiry.
And then they can make up their mind about how to categorize all that evidence.
But at least they should be aware of it.
Because something that doesn't fit at the present moment may become meaningful in the light of future discoveries, but only if you know it's there, if you just completely cast it into oblivion because it doesn't fit.
Then, all right, yeah, then you're going to miss something.
You're going to miss something.
Do you think, and this is a bit left field, but there's a lot of attention on Mars at the moment, and there are a lot of people who suggest that maybe we came from Mars and there's certain claimed evidence for the fact like our natural cycles match those of Mars and all of that sort of stuff.
There are three missions to Mars at the moment, America's Perseverance perhaps being the most sophisticated, complicated one of all, but they're going to bring back material from there.
Do you think that there might be any connection with that kind of research and the sort of thing that you're doing?
I think there is, but here's something to understand.
The missions to Mars that have been launched by NASA, the American Space Agency, they are actually looking for signs of life on Mars.
But they are restricted by NASA regulations from looking for anything other than the most primitive forms of life.
In other Words, microbes, bacteria, and things like that.
So I think that's kind of interesting.
Yeah, I mean, I can understand that there might be a progression.
Maybe they have to start with the microbes and stuff like that.
I simply don't know.
It just fascinates me that you think there may be a connection.
I would say if we're talking about life, human life, intelligent life, I think that's part of life.
But they're kind of at the present moment.
They're restricted.
Okay.
Now, if I understand where you, I just wanted to take you here for a second.
there were forms of us around a long, long, long time ago.
How come we didn't progress more quickly?
You know, how come we didn't...
But they had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years, you think, and they didn't appear to develop very much.
Why didn't they develop a sophisticated civilization?
Well, I'm not so sure that they didn't.
Yeah, there are different kinds of evidence about what happened in the past.
One is what we can find remaining in the record of the rocks, you might say, what's written into the record of the rocks in terms of fossils and whatever.
Then there's the records that are left in the accounts of ancient civilizations.
And if we look at those, we may get a different picture of things.
There are descriptions in the Puranas of civilizations that existed hundreds of millions of years ago, not only on this planet, but on other planets, that had spacecraft.
They were called vibanas in Sanskrit.
There are elaborate descriptions of these craft and descriptions of cities, very well laid out cities, very big cities, very complex social organization,
very good understanding of the relationships of human beings and their environment, things of that sort.
So I'm not entirely convinced that our present technological civilization is the only such civilization that has ever existed.
And I would point out, again, the scientists who are working on this Silurian hypothesis, they think we should actually be looking for such evidence.
And as they pointed out, it may not be so easy to recognize.
And we may have to look for other kinds of evidence than we're now searching for.
So it's now I know that the kinds of things we're speaking about are not the current mainstream ideas.
But, you know, sometimes, I mean, it would be nice to be living at a time when one's personal convictions are widely shared among the elite groups of the society which one lives.
But history hasn't been that way, has it?
You know, people who've been mavericks have sometimes been the ones who've made the achievements, but they've had to pay a personal price for it.
And it may be fun as well.
I guess so, being outside the time.
So look, who is doing, in your view, the most exciting, potentially revelatory work in this field at the moment?
Bearing in mind, the world is hamstrung by coronavirus right now.
So everything's semi-on-hold at the moment until all of that subsides, which it inevitably at some point will.
But, you know, who's doing the exciting work?
Where are you looking for developments?
Do you mean aside from myself?
I was going to say apart from yourself, but I thought you'd think that was a silly thing for me to say.
But apart from you, who's doing the real groundbreaking work?
I've had the work of people like Graham Hancock, I think has done some really interesting things.
Robert Baval from France and also England.
People who are exploring different aspects of what I would call alternative history.
I like the work of Robert Schock.
I mean, you mentioned Gobecki, Teple, and places like that.
So he's kind of looked into those things.
He works very hard at all of this.
I've spoken to him many times.
Yeah, Robert Schock.
I have a lot of respect for his work.
So there are people.
But you know, when I put Robert Schock on my show, I get a lot of people who say, way to go, Robert Schock, we think you're doing some really valuable work.
And I get people emailing me, absolutely rubbishing him.
So this is always going to be a controversial field, isn't it?
Sure.
Yeah.
If you can't stand the heat, then don't go in the kitchen.
I guess so.
So obviously that sort of element is there.
So and then there are people within the scientific community because I think the kinds of people I've just named, well, Robert Schock is a little bit different.
He's say than myself or Graham Hancock or Robert Forrester and working in South America and others.
So but there are like one person I really respected was Virginia Steen McIntyre, who was an American geologist.
And she had gone down to date an archaeological site in Mexico at a place called Huayatlaco.
And she and her colleagues used four different methods to date the site.
They got an age of about 300,000 years.
But the archaeologists refused to publish that data.
They said that can't possibly be true.
Humans capable of making the artifacts we found here didn't exist 300,000 years ago.
So she stuck to her guns, you know, and like you said, suffered for it, you know, professionally.
So I kind of respect people like that.
Well, sometimes you've got to go out on a limb.
I know that myself in very trivial ways in my own life.
Now, Michael, at the end of this then, what is it, as we speak in August 2020 on this sweltering day here in the United Kingdom and your day in Los Angeles, what is it at the moment that excites you most?
What's, you know, as we say over here, what's floating your boat right now?
Well, what I'm working on now are a few things.
I'm working on a book.
My working title for it is Extreme Human Antiquity, where I'm putting together all the cases that have come to my attention since my classic work, Forbidden Archaeology, was published.
So I'm taking advantage of the downtime, because if things had gone according to my plan of last year, I would have been going to Prague this summer for a meeting of the World Archaeological Congress.
I would have been going in September to a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Budapest.
I'd be presenting papers there.
And you kind of get caught up in the travel and all that.
And maybe because of doing things like that, I kind of get distracted from writing projects I should have been working on.
So with kind of my enforced solitude and having to remain in one place, it's kind of put me in a position where I can really finish off some things that I perhaps should have finished a while ago.
Well, I look forward to that coming up, Michael, without a doubt.
You know, there are so many questions to be answered.
I mean, things like, you know, how would they, if we want to lump them together, which we can't, because it seems that there are, we're talking about many different, you know, peoples.
But, you know, how did they communicate and did they record anything of their lives?
You know, all of these things have yet to be answered.
So it's a very exciting field, but it's a field that's going to outlive both of us, isn't it?
I mean, you're not going to get the answers that you're looking for in your lifetime or mine, it seems.
Yeah, sometimes I imagine being an archaeologist and digging up my own bones from a previous life.
That's quite.
And what would you do?
I would say carrying on.
It probably isn't going to be something that can be finished in one lifetime.
You'll have to wait till the next one or maybe the one after that, Michael.
Pleasure to speak with you in Los Angeles.
Michael, please take care.
Good luck with the new book.
And I'm glad that we were able to finish the unfinished business that we had on the radio back in March.
Thank you very much, Howard Hughes.
Thank you, Michael.
Take care.
Bye.
Really fascinating stuff from Michael Cremo.
What did you think?
You can drop me an email through my website, theunexplained.tv, and let me know.
That's it for this one.
More great guests in the pipeline here at the sweltering home of the unexplained on this August day.
Until next we meet, please stay safe.
Please stay calm.
Please stay cool.
And above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection