All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 24, 2022 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:08:43
Edition 689 - Last Show Of 2022
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Well, I hope everything is good with you here in London.
Of course, we had a deep, deep freeze for, what was it, more than a week.
I had ice on the insides of my windows here in my flat, and there was condensation running like Niagara Falls, and it really was grim and pretty awful for all of that period.
And then it cleared.
In the space of about six hours, it suddenly became springtime temperatures.
So I left the TV station last Sunday night, as I record these words, and it had suddenly become 11 degrees, and it was like half past midnight.
I couldn't believe it.
There was such a transition.
All the snow and ice had gone.
And I've never seen a change like that in my life.
Not in this country, not in the United Kingdom.
So it was pretty weird, but I'm really pleased that as I record these words now, it is, it's almost like spring.
You know, I'm sitting here in a t-shirt.
And when I think that a week ago, I was sitting here wrapped in a jacket, a t-shirt, a scarf, and trying to keep warm.
It just does your head in when you think about it, really.
Hope everything is okay with you.
Thank you very much for all of your emails.
Please keep those coming.
And, you know, I hope that everything is okay with you one way or another.
Thank you to Adam for all of his work during this year on the show.
Now, this was going to be the penultimate edition of The Unexplained for 2022, and I had a final one planned, but I tried to record that and it didn't quite work out the way that I wanted it to.
So rather than put that out for you and it not be what you want, and me then later hear about that, I've decided to sit on that for now, and I'll make a decision about that in a little way down the track.
And in any case, I've, like a lot of people, maybe you've had this too, maybe you've got it now.
I'm still in the grip of this bug that is making me wheeze like an old cat.
I'm suppressing a cough that I've had for nearly a week now, and I feel awful.
You know, you should never talk about how you feel.
But pardon me, you may well have been through it anyway.
There is something going round.
There are some bugs going round, and whatever it is, even though I was very good at not picking them up, I've managed to get one.
So I've decided for all of these various reasons that this will be the last edition of The Unexplained for 2022, and we'll be right back at it, right from the beginning of 2023.
And the TV show, of course, is not on air on the 25th of December and the 1st of January.
Those two holiday dates, they have other programming planned.
Now, ordinarily, of course, on the TV, I would do best ofs for Christmas Day, Christmas night, and I would do a special show for any New Year holiday.
And that's the way that I've done it when we did it on radio.
But I haven't been allowed to do that this year because it's all got to be live and everything's got to be pictures, so we can't do the unexplained across the holiday.
So it'll be fine.
We'll bounce right back in the new year.
But that's the reason why we're not doing the usual stuff over the Christmas holidays.
And to tell you the truth, it's been a pretty full-on year, and I could do with just hitting the stop button for now.
So I hope you understand that.
And I will be back, and I am planning all sorts of new things and changes to the show in 2023.
Thank you for being with me through all of it.
I couldn't do any of it without you.
Right.
The guests on this edition, then, are people who are on the TV show that I think are worth preserving here for posterity.
Richard Godfrey and Blaine Gibson made international news in many, many newspapers and news portals over this last week over what they say are developments in the case of MH370, the Malaysian Airlines plane, of course, that vanished more than eight years ago and is a continuing mystery and heartbreak for so many people.
So we'll be hearing that as the first item.
Then Tony Fish, investor, author, Maverick, and futurist, will be talking about the nuclear fusion breakthrough that did make mainstream news for once in this last 10 days or so, that may one day provide us with limitless power using the power source that energizes the sun.
So Tony Fish, guess two, guess three, Mark Shaw, the man behind an awful lot of research about JFK, Dorothy Kilgan and Marilyn Monroe, and how all of those people may be connected.
Another anniversary, of course, in 2023, 1963 to 2023 it will be then.
We're going to talk about the release by Joe Biden of thousands of JFK documents, but still, a lot of documents remain redacted and secret and hidden from view.
Why would that be?
We'll talk with Mark Shaw about that.
Christopher Plain, excellent contributor, head writer for the debrief, will be here about their story to do with research about detecting possible alien craft heading this way, not by actual pictures of them, but by their footprint in gravitational waves.
Really interesting stuff.
So he's here.
And then the last thing is something a little different.
And I dithered about whether to put this on, but I think I should.
Because the book that this man has written and put together is so excellent.
I say written, it is a whole bunch of images that have been restored in a way that hasn't been done before and upgraded from all of the Apollo missions.
They took 35,000 photographs, old-fashioned film photographs on the missions.
And Andy Saunders has revisited those pictures and has improved them and enhanced them in astonishing ways.
Now, although it's a conversation from a TV show and we do refer to the pictures, I think the descriptions are clear enough for it to make sense here on a sound medium, the podcast.
And I wanted to keep this here for posterity.
I think Andy Saunders has done a really great piece of work and I'm not getting a commission on his book or anything.
I just think it's a great piece of work.
So Andy Saunders will be here to talk about his book, Apollo Remastered.
Those are the items that we'll be hearing on this edition of The Unexplained.
I wish you and yours all the very best across this holiday season.
I hope it's good to you and I hope that you can join me, as they say, again when I return with The Unexplained at the beginning of 2023.
And hopefully we'll have shaken this bug that has been hanging on me like an old coat for, well, the thick end of the last two weeks, certainly 10 Days and I know that I'm not alone in this because I keep hearing from people who say that they've been mown down by other things, but I've managed to keep going with the work and things.
So, this is going to be the final show of the year.
My very best to you and yours.
I wish you love and warmth and light through this period.
All right, first guest, then, as foreshadowed moments ago, Richard Godfrey, MH370 investigator, British aerospace engineer, and Blaine Jackson, the Seattle lawyer who's been looking for pieces of MH370 and made that a bit of a task for himself.
Here's that conversation to start.
Dramatic developments this week.
Yahoo News put the story this way.
It's about flight MH370.
It was in a lot of the media, but I like the way that Yahoo News summed it up.
Dramatic developments, a pilot on board ill-flated flight MH370 lowered the plane's landing gear in the final seconds before it crashed, according to a new report, suggesting the possibility of criminal intent, which, you know, has been hinted at, along with a lot of other things, for a very long time about this disaster.
A damaged landing gear door has been discovered in Madagascar, making it among the first physical evidence suggesting one of the pilots deliberately acted to sink the jet in the Indian Ocean with 239 people on board.
The landing gear is the main support of the airplane when it's parked, taking off or landing.
The washed-up landing gear door has most likely been penetrated from the inside by the 777's engines, disintegrating on impact.
Now, the main point that I think you need to know about this, and I've got a lot of notes about it that I don't need to trouble you with, is that if a pilot intends to land on water, as far as I understand it, they do not lower the landing gear.
So this would indicate, and it's the first concrete new evidence I think we've had about MH370, that on that fateful night, something else was maybe going on.
Two people quoted in this story, Richard Godfrey, British aerospace engineer who's a leading investigator of the flight MH370 case, and also Blaine Gibson, a lawyer who's been on the trail of wreckage from the downed plane for a good long period and is behind the finding of this particular piece of wreckage.
They both should be with us now live on The Unexplained Tonight.
Thank you both very much, Richard.
We've talked before many times.
And also, Blaine, nice to have you on too.
Richard, can I start with you?
When we last talked several months ago, we were talking about the possible location of the wreckage.
And you said that you'd found a place where you believed the wreckage might actually reside and you were trying to get the wherewithal together, the backing together, and the interest together to go and explore that place.
Tonight we have something new.
Where are we at with the search for the wreckage in general?
Yeah, good evening, Howard.
Thank you for having us on your show.
We are at the point where Ocean Infinity, who have searched before, have committed to going back and searching again.
They are building new ships.
The first two have been launched.
And they are getting ready to kit those ships out with the latest technology that's moved on in great strides in the last few years.
So we're very hopeful they will go back out next year, end of next year, and we're very hopeful that MH370 will be found.
And Blaine, thank you for doing this.
Can you talk to me, because I know that you've worked with Richard on this story, this new information that all the newspapers seem to have picked up on this week.
Can you talk to me about your quest to find pieces of the wreckage, what you've been doing?
Good evening, Howard.
And yes, I am happy to talk about that.
I learned early on that there was no official organized search or notice to be looking for debris on beaches and shorelines in the southwest Indian Ocean.
So I just started to do it myself.
That's something I can do.
And I met Professor Cherry Pattiarachi from University of Western Australia, asked him where I should go, and he said go to Mozambique in Madagascar about two years after the crash, and that would be the place to look for debris.
So I just talked to local fishermen and asked where do things wash ashore.
And they told me certain areas, beaches exposed to the open ocean, and that's where to look.
And I've found about now 21 pieces of the plane.
Why hadn't anybody else done this?
Because there have been more organized searches and not searches pursued by an individual like yourself.
How come this hasn't been tried before?
Because I've heard those names.
I've heard Madagascar mentioned before as a possible location for things being found.
You seem to have done what a lot of the professional searchers haven't been able to.
It should have been done.
Notices should have been given to Madagascar, South Africa, Mozambique to be on the lookout for debris, La Réunion, Mauritius, but they were not given.
And I think one reason is that we're used to a plane crashing and knowing where it crashed and just going there to that spot and looking.
Well, this was one where at first we had absolutely no idea where it crashed, didn't even know which ocean or which hemisphere.
So it took a while to get started.
And what I always thought was that the first piece of this plane is going to be found by someone just walking on the beach, not by the official underwater search.
And that's what happened.
Johnny Begg, a beach cleaner in Le Réunion, found the flaperon.
That was the first piece.
And I found no step in Mozambique.
That was the first pace reported.
And this particular piece of...
Yes, I found the second piece reported.
Then someone recognized me and the debris on the television, a guy named Liam Lauder in South Africa.
And he said, hey, I found something Like that back in December in Mozambique, and it turned out to be part of the plane.
Okay.
And this finding of the item connected with the landing gear, talk to me about how you came upon that, because that's what's made the newspapers.
And I think we've got a photograph of you with that item.
There you are.
That's it.
I came upon that by coming to Madagascar this year, 2022, for the first time in three years.
And my thought was, well, over the last three years, maybe some new debris washed ashore.
But more likely, someone has had some debris for a while and simply used it as a part of a fence or a roof.
People use things that wash ashore from the sea.
Right.
And they might have done that quite innocently, not knowing what it is.
Of course not.
Totally innocently.
And when I went to this on Syrika Beach, which was predicted as a landfall for debris by the UWA drift analysis, where I and local people had found four pieces of 370 debris earlier, when I went there, I met this fisherman who had a sort of a yard full of junk that washes ashore from the sea.
And among all those different things from boats and buoys and nets, there was a piece that we recognized as being part of the plane.
Right.
And how did you know, or did you know at that time?
Did you have to consult Richard before you knew that?
How did you know that this was a significant piece?
I didn't know it was a significant piece until I consulted Richard.
I knew it was from the plane because I recognized the off-white color, the brown honeycomb inside, the carbon fiber polymer outside.
I knew that some of it had been stripped off and it had been shattered.
And I learned from the fishermen that it washed ashore back in March of 2017, which is when debris was coming ashore from 370.
But I didn't realize how significant it was until I sent measurements and photos to Richard and he analyzed it.
Richard, let's turn it over to you in Frankfurt.
Reading about this in the newspapers, I mean, you can't see it from the photograph how significant this is, but I guess as soon as you knew what this was and as soon as you got the description of it, you understood the possible significance.
Talk to me about the process of identifying this and then coming up with an idea of how it might have been discovered in the condition that it's in.
Yeah.
We've meanwhile got 37 pieces, a total of 162 kilos of items.
And the first thing that struck me is this piece is different to every other piece in certain ways.
It's the same in the fact that it is completely fractured, torn apart, damaged on every side.
But it is different because it has got damage to it, which is like a knife slicing right through.
And it's one inch thick and very strong material.
And there are four slices right through the item, and they are in parallel lines along the item.
So it's not a random piece of damage from four separate sources.
It seems to be one and the same because of the parallel nature.
And it really struck me that this is different.
So I then started the process.
There are, from the 37 items, there are parts from all over the aircraft, from inside, outside, from the wings, the tail, the nose, the engines.
And so where on the aircraft could this be?
It was certainly similar to other wing elements.
Now, was it on the upper side of the wing or the lower side of the wing?
And I started looking at as many Boeing 777 aircraft photographs up close as I could and started the process of elimination.
There is some very interesting facts about this particular piece.
There are six pointers to where it might have come from.
First of all, there's an indent on the back side of the piece, which is normal in aircraft that when you have a movable piece, it has a drive rod, and the base plate of that drive rod is a very similar size to this indent we found.
And there are latches and hinge traces in the remnants.
It seems to have been apart near the engines because of this slicing damage.
And my theory is that the engine disintegrated on impact, and the slicing damage was caused by compressor blades.
They're very sharp and they're like knives with huge force.
And the whole piece is not a...
But when you look at the structure, it's more trapezoid.
And that's unusual too, because most pieces of debris are, when they come from a wing, they are pretty rectangular.
And what is it about that trapezoidal piece of wreckage that tells you it is part of the landing gear door or inland gear door?
Because the smaller landing gear door is trapezoidal in shape and structure.
And there are not many items on the aircraft that have that shape.
And so we were able to narrow it down.
And the big thing about the damage is that it goes from the inside to the outside.
Now, most damage on a plane is from the outside in when it impacts the surface of an ocean.
But this went the other way around.
And that led us to the thought that the undercarriage was extended, the landing gear was lowered, this door was open.
And that is only possible if you have an active pilot.
So it's a chain of logic that we went through.
Okay, so this is telling us that the landing gear was down at the point of impact.
Is that so?
Yeah, yeah.
And the protocol, if you're doing an emergency landing, if you don't intend to land but you find yourself in an emergency situation, is that you have the landing gear up.
So for example, when Sully landed on the Hudson, famous, they made a movie out of it, Tom Hanks, that plane's landing gear was up because that gives you a smoother landing and a possibility of skimming the water.
If you're doing something else, you're going to have the landing gear down.
So what is the something else that you believe, either of you really Blaine or Richard, that you believe was in the process of happening here?
Let me just add one other point.
When you're doing the procedure for an emergency ditching on water is also to partially extend the flaps.
Right.
And the report from the Australian authorities, ATSB, shows the flaps were not extended.
So in other words, the pilot was not trying to slow the plane down.
We got a double here.
There was no attempt to slow the plane down.
It was a very high-speed impact designed to smash the plane into as many pieces as possible.
And the landing gear lowered is designed to make sure the plane, if it remains intact in any part, sinks immediately.
It is effectively hiding the evidence.
Is this the smoking gun?
I think it is definitely a smoking gun.
But maybe Blaine would like to come in on his view on this.
Blaine, your thoughts.
It's a smoking gun that points to it not being a ghost flight.
It points to someone being in control.
But the very last sentence of our conclusion has been overlooked by a lot of the media.
And that says the debris tells us how the plane crashed.
The drift analysis and oceanography tells us about where.
However, neither of them can tell us who was flying or why.
So we don't know who was flying.
It appears that someone was flying the plane.
We don't know that it was the captain or the co-pilot or a hijacker or anyone.
This debris cannot tell us that.
Right.
And some of the media has automatically assumed this points to the pilot.
And you're saying that that's not necessarily the case.
We don't know who was at those controls, but this indicates, Richard, that somebody was.
Yeah, that somebody was definitely an active pilot right to the end.
And we don't know the identity of the active pilot.
We need to find the plane.
We need to recover the data recorder, the voice recorder in the cockpit.
Maybe we'll get further clues.
I've only got seconds.
They're counting me down.
Just to ask you this, Richard, the investigation, the trip to the location that you believe it all is, or the bulk of the wreckage is, when is that happening, as far as you know?
As far as I know, it's going to be the end of next year.
It's going to take them that long to prepare.
Richard, thank you.
And Blaine, just very quickly, a couple of words would suffice here.
Are you going back to Madagascar?
I will.
If I hear of any reports of debris, I'll go back and see it.
Local people there are wonderful.
They know to be on the lookout.
It turns out this fisherman did not.
However, others do.
And if any pieces come up, I'll be going back there.
Thank you so much to both of you.
Now it's Blaine Gibson, a lawyer who's been looking for the wreckage.
Richard Godfrey, who's been trying to get us to listen up about an alternative explanation for what happened and how that might be the right explanation.
And we need to get to the location to check it out some more.
You heard Richard Godfrey and Blaine Gibson talking about what they believe are new developments in the ongoing mystery of flight MH370.
Let's see what happens in the new year.
And yes, I do appreciate that there are alternative views of what exactly happened to the plane and what exactly happened to the wreckage and what pieces of found wreckage actually are.
And thank you for those alternative views as well.
Next up, Tony Fish, investor, author, Maverick and futurist on the nuclear fusion power breakthrough that made the news recently.
The New York Times put it this way.
Scientists studying fusion energy at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California announced Tuesday last that they'd crossed a long-awaited milestone in reproducing the power of the sun in the laboratory.
That sparked public excitement as scientists have for decades talked about how fusion, the nuclear reaction that makes the stars and the sun shine, could provide a future source of limitless energy.
What does this discovery mean?
How did it happen?
And where do we go from here?
Tony Fish, investor, author, Maverick, Futurist is online to us, old friend of the show.
Tony, thank you for doing this.
How are you?
Oh, Howard, I'm very, very well.
How is yourself?
I'm fab.
I was like a dog with two tails when I heard this news the other day because I thought, look, all of us individually here in the United Kingdom have the problem of heating our homes right now.
We are just coming out of a week where we've all frozen ourselves to death.
You know, I've had in my little flat, there's been Niagara Falls running down the windows in condensation.
It has been freezing and my heating hasn't seemed to touch it.
Plus, the bills are ridiculous.
God knows how any of us are going to pay them in the new year.
So when we read that there Is a possibility that we're on the track to possible bountiful limitless energy.
I think a lot of us are going to be saying, Whoopee?
One simple question: what's this all about?
Yeah, and I think you're dead right.
Is it the biggest story, or is it going to be Argentina winning the World Cup?
Or we can't play the bills?
There is a lot of close stories on this one.
Yeah, you're spot on that it is fascinatingly interesting that finally, finally, finally, finally, and it goes back 80 odd years.
So 80 odd years ago, there was a piece which started off, which allowed us to start nuclear chain reactions.
Fantastic.
And 20 years after that, we managed to get to actually creating nuclear energy in the dome shapes that we came to understand and love.
At that point, best part of 80 years ago, we understood there was two types of nuclear reaction.
The first one, which is you pull nucleus or you pull atoms apart, or you smash them together.
And pulling them apart is the way that we did it because it was a lot easier.
We always believe because the way the sun works and stars work is that if you slam things together, you would actually create energy as well.
So we had this idea of fusing, which is fusion, putting things together, happy days, or fission, which is like imagine something fizzing off, so separating.
One worked, one didn't.
We finally managed to get this equation which says we can get more energy out than we put in.
And that's the piece that this story is all about.
We get more energy out than we've put in.
But we're not going to be doing this next Tuesday week, are we?
The actual process of harnessing this in a way that we can use in our homes is a long way off.
Yeah, and now we do a long way.
From the first time we did a nuclear reaction to actually creating the first nuclear energy plant, which actually generated electricity onto a grid, took 20 years.
And if you go back and say, look, you know, the moonshots were 10 years.
So, you know, we could be somewhere between, you know, 10 and 20 years before all of this stuff comes along and works.
You're absolutely right.
This isn't next Tuesday.
Right.
Now, the one thing, you know, we all want answers right now, but if there is something that's going to help us in the future, that's great news.
But I presume the cost of this is going to be, if we are able to deploy it in the way that will help us, is going to be monumental.
So is it something that potentially just ballpark question for ordinary people like me suffering with energy bills that one day might be able to get those energy bills down?
If the power is limitless and free, then all you're paying for is the technology that makes it.
Yes.
And right now, you know, just in terms of scale, where we're up to, they put in a load of energy and it was, you know, if you go and look it up, they say it's two megajoules.
And out of it, we got three megajoules.
And the reality is if you convert megajoules to something that's actually on your utility bill, which is a kilowatt hour, you end up with the difference of that million megajoules coming to actually about 0.87 of a kilowatt hour.
So that's like running a microwave for an hour.
So we put in a huge amount and got some out, but we only got enough out to run a microwave for an hour.
Now that's one microwave in one home for one person.
That's not like absolutely everything.
So there's a scale problem as well.
And you're right, the scale issue is where all the costs will come.
And, you know, the belief is when you do scale up, you will generate significant, you know, sufficient energy that will produce it less than the other ways that we can produce energy, i.e.
solar, wave, and wind, which probably will carry on going anyway.
But yes, we've got to balance both.
So we need to keep working on everything else, including hydrogen.
I've got friends who are working on that, because this isn't going to come all that soon.
Absolutely.
But finally, there's the breakthrough, which is it's possible.
And that's the thing that we've not had up until this point.
It's always been a hope, but now it's become possible.
Right.
And you just heard Tony Fish, futurist, investor, author, and many other things, about something that many of us are looking forward to, I think, these days.
Limitless, reasonably cheap, endless power from fusion.
It's a fascinating prospect.
It is a long way off, but let's watch out what happens to that in 2023.
Coming next, here on the unexplained, something that we periodically return to, of course, the case of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Next year, another anniversary will head our way.
It'll be 2023 when the crime itself happened in 1963 and people are still asking questions.
In the last week or so, President Joe Biden came good on a pledge to release thousands of documents on the JFK case, but a lot of documents still remain unreleased.
The man that I spoke to about this one was Mark Shaw, prolific author and researcher on the whole JFK thing, also Dorothy Kilgallen, Marilyn Monroe.
And if you listen to these shows, you know how those things may well be connected.
So I spoke with Mark Shaw about the document release and what it might mean.
NBC News in America reported this this week and many other portals of news, but NBC did a good job.
President Joe Biden's administration released more than 13,000 records of President John F. Kennedy's assassination last Thursday, but it fell short of fully complying with the spirit of a 30-year-old law demanding transparency by now.
About 98% of all documents related to the 1963 killing have now been released.
Only 3% of the records remain redacted in whole or in part.
It just so happens that they may be the ones that hold literally the smoking gun.
Who knows?
Mark Shaw, Mike, best-selling author, investigative reporter, JFK assassination expert.
He's got a whole new book about this and the quest for the truth.
Mark has spoken with us before about Marilyn Monroe, JFK, and many other questions here.
Mark, thank you for doing this.
How are you?
Thank you, thank you.
UFO situation is interesting too, if you don't mind me mentioning it, because remember Dorothy Kilgallen, the famous journalist who's the guiding light for all of my research and everything, In a CIA document that we have in Fighting for Justice, it shows that Marilyn Monroe, JFK, and Dorothy Kilgallen were all obsessed with UFOs.
I've got a photograph of Dorothy in New Mexico trying to see if she could see an alien and all of that.
So that kind of figures into some of this, but I'll tell you what, none of that is in these JFK documents for sure.
Right.
And do you think that the UFO angle, I didn't think we were going to be talking about this, Mark, but let's do it while we're here.
Do you think that the UFO angle is one that needs to be pursued some more?
Or is that just going to be what we call here a cul-de-sac that we might go down?
No, absolutely not.
You know, just quickly, when I was with Good Morning America, there was the report out of Arizona that this young man was abducted by UFOs.
He was gone for five days, and finally he showed up, and the people he worked with found him and all of that other kind of thing.
And so, but we were interested in that.
I flew to Arizona.
I met him.
I talked to him, and I was as sure as could be that his story was true.
So for sure, why in the world don't we look into that and get the truth for people and see exactly what the government's hiding for us about all that?
Thousands of documents released on Thursday.
Joe Biden did it.
There have been calls for it for a very long time.
It has happened.
98% of all documents are out there, but there's a percentage of documents that remain hidden or redacted.
Do you think that at this stage, that is where the truth, if we're ever to get to it, may reside?
Well, I'm not so sure, Howard.
What I'm more concerned about, oh, that's a good photograph there.
And that's very interesting.
We want to talk about one of the men in that photograph who covered up, in my opinion, everything about the CIA when the Warren Commission was convened and all the corruption that I've exposed in the new book, Fighting for Justice.
But, you know, in those 13,000 documents that they gave us, most of it is rubbish.
It's all about Oswald.
95% of the material in there is about Oswald.
And Oswald traveled here and there and everything.
But didn't he phone?
I'm sorry to jump in.
It wasn't one of the main news points that Oswald made a phone call to a Russian embassy.
Well, there's all those reports.
They've been there for years.
But you know, Dorothy Kilgallen didn't go down that rabbit hole with Oswald because you can't prove all of those kinds of things.
What she could prove was what Carlos Marcelo, the New Orleans Don, orchestrated JFK's death to make Bobby Kennedy powerless, and that's exactly what happened.
But in the Warren Commission, well, no, talk about the documents.
There's almost 4,000 that we still haven't gotten.
It sounds good when you say 98%, but there's nothing in there about Ruby.
There's nothing in there about the Warren Commission and what I've exposed through the account by an actual Warren Commission member, John Sherman Cooper, the senator from Kentucky, talking about they know about Jack Ruby's connection to organized crime.
They don't want to touch it.
The president wants to cover up everything.
Just to remind my viewer who might have forgotten this.
The law alone is a good forgotten country.
It doesn't make any sense.
That's not in those documents and it should be, and we know they're out there.
Okay, you're giving me a lot of names here.
They're all familiar to me, and I'm sure most of the people watching this, but just maybe for some younger viewers who maybe haven't followed this as intently as you and I have, Jack Ruby is the guy who shot dead Lee Harvey Oswald as he was being transported by police.
That famous footage is all over the internet.
Everybody, I think, in this world has probably seen it at least once by now.
But Jack Ruby is the guy who had connections with the cops in Dallas.
And he was, I get the impression that he was a bit of a Walter Mitty character, but he had connections with a lot of people, club owner.
And he shot Lee Harvey Oswald before Lee Harvey Oswald was able to say any more about his claim that he was just a Patsy.
So we need to know more, don't we, about Jack Ruby?
Well, we do.
And I'm going to show the book, not to brag about the book, but the nice cover and everything.
But right here's the Warren Commission.
That's where the truth is.
And that's what I was able to expose in this book, that there was corruption at the Warren Commission.
J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, and Earl Warren stacked the deck with only those who would vote for Oswald alone.
And one of the reasons they did is because of this man right here.
That's Alan Dulles, who was the former CIA director, who had been fired by JFK not too many months before.
And what they put Dulles on there for was to cover up anything about the CIA.
There's nothing in the Warren Commission about the CIA being involved in the JFK assassination.
No connections to Ruby, no connections to Oswald, none of that.
This was done because they wanted to protect themselves, especially Hoover, that it's Oswald alone.
It's nothing else and all of that.
And it's, I think, the most alarming governmental corruption in U.S. history in many ways.
They just slapped all that in there in the Warren Commission report, and people believed it and all of that.
And now that connects to these documents because, in effect, those 13,000 documents don't talk about any of that.
Perhaps it's in the other 4,000, but those were not released, Howard.
I think there's what are they hiding?
It's 60 years later.
What are they hiding?
Okay.
Is there anything?
I know you had them before we did.
You have sunshine laws, freedom of information laws in the United States.
They have their limits.
There's not everything that you can get.
That's why these documents remain hidden behind closed doors like they are.
Is there any prospect that pressure from you, people like John Greenwald at the Black Vault, all those people who are pushing for release of information, is there any thought that perhaps in this coming new year, we might be able to put some more leverage on Joe Biden and get those documents, or a majority of them, to see the light of day?
Or is that not going to happen?
Well, in my opinion, the best way to do that is prosecute Joe Biden for violating that 1992 law.
Get it into the courts.
Well, that's not going to happen, is it?
Is that going to happen?
It could.
And you can get it into the courts then.
And you can have a judge give us some rulings about what these 4,000 documents, what's in there, why they should be hidden, and all of that.
Some way or another, you're going to try to get, and I think there are organizations here that I'm involved with that we are looking to try to get the new Congress to enforce that 1992 law, get Biden into court and the National Archives into court and make them answer the questions because so many people around the world, no wonder they don't trust the government.
We'll give you 13,000 documents, but we're going to keep 14 back, four back.
And let me tell you what they said about those.
They're under court seal or grand jury secrecy and they can't be released.
What can be in there after 60 years?
What can be in there?
That is the moot point of the conversation that we're having, isn't it, Mark?
What do you say to people just finally?
And you must hear from these people.
I get emails from them whenever I talk about this topic now.
There aren't very many of them, but I do get the emails.
And they say, it's 1963 now, but this happened.
It's 2022.
It's about to be 2023.
Enough.
We've heard enough about this.
We're never going to get the answer completely.
The world has a zillion other problems.
Time to stop talking about this.
Just in a few seconds, and I know you've told me this explanation before, but let's have it again.
Why is it important that we pursue this still?
Because back in the 1960s, with Marilyn's death, Dorothy's death, the JFK, nobody asked questions.
They took the Warren Commission at face value.
It's relevant because they did it back then, and that's what people are doing today.
And you can't do that.
You can't believe anybody that's a journalist.
You can't believe anybody that's a politician in our country.
Don't take what they say for surface value.
Go in there and do your own research.
My books are stop and think books.
Read Fighting for Justice, and you'll see that there's a lot of questions in there.
I don't want you to accept what I have in there.
I want you to ask your own questions.
Mark Shaw on another one of life's ongoing mysteries, the case of JFK, and whether these new documents actually will shed any light on the events of November 1963.
I'm sure we'll be hearing more of that in 2023 as another anniversary comes up.
Christopher Plain, a great guy, head writer for The Debrief.
Debrief carried a story, I think they broke the story, about detecting possible extraterrestrial craft heading this way by the use of gravitational waves, which of course were only really discovered comparatively recently.
Fascinating conversation.
This is Christopher Plain from The Debrief.
At thedebrief.org, an international team of scientists has written a paper outlining how humanity could detect extraterrestrial spacecraft using gravitational waves.
We've only just discovered them recently.
Led by the privately funded Scientific Think Tank Applied Physics, which includes more than 30 member scientists from all over the globe, and a pair of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, including the Moore Award winner, Physics Professor and Associate Dean, Manfred Paulini, the new method involves using existing telescopes designed to measure gravitational waves.
Now, this is almost, almost, but not quite, above my pay grade when it comes to knowing stuff.
But as usual here on The Unexplained, I know a man who can decode all of this.
Head writer for the debrief, Christopher Plain, has been kind enough to give up yet more of his Sunday to me.
Christopher, thank you for doing this.
How are you?
Thanks for having me on, Howard.
This sounds exciting.
I mean, look, we only discovered or proved the existence of gravitational waves recently.
Talk to me about what they are and how we might use them in detecting whether there are aliens out there.
Sure.
If you think back 1916, Albert Einstein theorized gravitational waves.
But as you noted, they weren't really proven until 2015 when scientists from Caltech and MIT used an instrument known as the LIGO.
It's basically a pair of lasers, one in Washington state, one in Louisiana, and they shot them at a couple of black holes that were merging together.
So a place where you would expect a ton of gravity to be happening.
And sure enough, they detected these gravitational waves.
So they're basically ripples in space-time is the easiest way to think of it.
So think of the surface of a lake.
If a boat goes across the lake, it leaves these ripples behind it in the wake.
That's exactly the same theory here.
Understood.
Yes.
So as I've discovered from my many conversations with Seth Szostak from SETI, a man I know that you know well, and I do too from my years of doing these shows, sometimes a way to detect things in space is not by actually observing them themselves, but by observing the impact they have on other things.
And that's the principle here, surely.
Yeah.
So if you think about SETI, they're looking for EM emissions.
They're looking for radio waves and electromagnetic waves that will indicate the presence of technology.
This is a very similar prospect, but a lot simpler in a lot of ways, too, because gravitational waves are just that effect on space-time.
So if you have a massive ship traveling through space, or if you have a ship using a warp drive, which is what led to this current project, it would affect, create gravitational waves in space-time, and you'd be able to pick it up and say, hey, this looks like a spaceship traveling through space.
Right.
So just as in the opening titles, I think it was Star Trek, not the next generation, it was the one after with Kate Janeway.
When the craft engages warp drive, it leaves behind ripples in space.
You see them on the opening titles.
That's what we're talking about, in crude terms.
Exactly.
And when I spoke to the researcher who co-authored this paper, Johnny Martire from Applied Physics, the way he explained it to me was the example I used with the surface of the lake.
So he said, imagine on a lake you have a jet ski, you have a sailing boat, you have a swimmer, and maybe you have a much larger motorcraft.
And they all go across, and you don't see the ship or the jet ski or the swimmer.
All you see is their wake.
If you have enough knowledge and enough information, you can look at those wake patterns and say, that's the jet ski, that's the motorboat, and so forth.
Right.
So that could give us.
The idea is?
So the idea is using the LIGO and data they've already collected, and that's the key here.
They don't have to task that LIGO telescope, the LIGO observatory, to look for new information.
That stuff is already recorded.
They have years of information recorded.
Go dig into that database, use machine learning software to sort out things we already know, comets and planets and other things, and say, what is this thing moving along that's leaving a wake?
And a warp ship in particular would leave a massive wake because it's warping space-time around it to travel through space.
So, Chris, let's make a quick yes or no.
And I'm sorry that they're counting me down again here.
So, you know, minutes are, you know what it's like when you're on the, as we call it here in the UK, the telly.
Just give me a yes or no to this one.
It appears that we can do this.
Do you think we will?
So that's what there's a follow-up paper to this one that they will be putting out in the spring.
As you mentioned, the authors, the associate dean from Carnegie Mellon, and the gentleman I mentioned.
And they have a paper coming out in spring of next year.
They've given me a sneak peek, and I can't give any of the details.
But there might be some big announcements coming next year towards this research.
That's coming out of this research.
If you're writing about that, don't forget your friends here.
Let me know.
Christopher, listen.
Happy holidays, as you say in the States.
Thank you.
Take care.
Thanks, Howard.
My thanks to Christopher Plain, Chris Plain from the Debrief.
I'm sure we'll be talking to him and the other people, like Chrissy from the Debrief, during this new year.
And finally, this is a conversation that was based around pictures, but I still think listening to it is interesting.
A wonderful new book that I wasn't expecting a lot of.
I thought, oh, a bunch of old photographs.
I was massively wrong about it.
These are reconstituted, digitally enhanced, brought up-to-date images from the Apollo missions.
There were 35,000 pictures taken by the Apollos, and Andy Saunders has put out a captivating book, an amazing book, called Apollo Remastered.
And it turned out to be a fully, totally engrossing conversation, as you will hear.
So this is Andy Saunders, and the book which I do recommend, and I have no financial interest in it, is called Apollo Remastered.
We're going to be going back to the moon.
We talked about that on this show last week.
We talk about it many weeks here on the show.
It could be as soon as two years from now.
And we're going to put people up there again.
And contracts are out for the building of roads and buildings, infrastructure on the moon that will allow us to use it as a springboard to other places.
Even in 1969, when Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong uttered his famous words, I think the plan was kind of that we would put more people there and make more use of the moon.
But somehow that aim got delayed by 50 years or so.
But now we're back on track.
Those Apollo missions, though, were famous for a whole bunch of reasons.
The fact that we technically achieved that, the biggest.
Another one being that we were able to record it in ways that had never been done before.
We were able to send back, first of all, black and white, but then color, live pictures from the surface of the moon.
By the time the Apollo program ceased in 1972, was that Apollo 16 or 17?
I stand to be corrected on that.
The pictures were in colour, and they were better than ever.
They're primitive by today's standards, but they were pretty good.
But the real record of what we did was in the photographs.
Hundreds and hundreds of hundreds of them, some of which were taken actually on the moon's surface with a Hassel-Blad camera and special film, and other photographs that were taken.
Now, like a lot of things today, those photographs can be revisited.
They can be checked again.
They can be upscaled.
If you've got a television set, I've got a cheap TV in my bedroom that I've had for years.
But one thing that it does really well, even after having owned it for a decade, is it upscales the picture.
It basically adds what should be there and isn't.
So it makes non-HD TV look like HD.
Hence the idea, kind of, behind Apollo Remastered, the idea of getting the very most from these iconic images just as we are about to return to the moon once again.
What a cool idea is this.
Now, the book, a copy of it is being sent to me through the post because we've had royal mail deliveries problems this week.
So of course it hasn't arrived.
So literally, the images that you will be seeing tonight from this book, Apollo Remastered, it's going to be the first time that I've seen them too.
Andy Saunders is the man behind this great book, and he's online to us now.
Andy, thank you so much for coming on.
Well, thanks very much for having me on.
It was Apollo 17, by the way, if you don't know what to do.
Don't get worse on your ear once the last mission.
50 years ago, right now, in fact.
I should know.
Yes, at this moment, it was a Christmas thing, wasn't it?
It splashed down 50 years ago tomorrow, actually.
Right.
So it would have been on its way home right now, yeah.
And can you remember what we, with the shuttle program, one of the reasons a lot of people didn't see the Challenger disaster was the fact that people had begun to get bored with the launches.
I think the same had happened with Apollo by the time we got to 17, hadn't it?
That interest had waned.
I mean, even from 11, you know, Armstrong and Alden walking on the moon to 13, it's not very far, is it?
But at 13, you know, people were switching off the TVs until the explosion.
Anyone that's seen the movie Apollo 13, Tom Hanks film, will know all about that.
And that people realised, wow, this is still, you know, we really are pushing the boundaries.
This really is hard, what we're doing going to the moon.
And that kind of got a bit of interest again.
And then it waned again, yeah, by so by 17, yeah, the interest started, you know, people are pretty fickle.
They get used to going to the moon quite easily, incredibly, even though it's taken 50 years, of course, to go back.
I don't expect you, Andy, to know this figure, but I have a feeling that you probably do.
In total, across the Apollo missions, how many actual photographs, a ballpark figure, were taken?
35,000.
Holy moly.
Yeah.
So on the last mission on Apollo 17, even handheld on the lunar surface, they took around 2,500.
Now, to compare that to Apollo 11, Apollo 11 had one magazine, one camera, and one magazine to record some of the most important moments in history.
So they took less than 200.
But yeah, by the latter missions, they were taking multiple cameras, multiple magazines.
They had cameras in the SimBay in the service module that was kind of on a timer taking huge panoramic shots.
So most of those 35,000 weren't, you know, handheld, but many, many thousands were.
So yeah, 35,000 altogether.
That is an astonishing number of photographs.
What is it that motivated, you know, I was going to ask you this one.
What is it that motivated you to want to go back to 35,000 images, to want to look at them again?
You know, a lot of us have seen as many pictures as we might think we want to see of this.
We want to see the new pictures from the new missions now.
Why have you gone back?
Two key reasons.
One was I wanted to see Neil Armstrong on the moon.
You know, he's the first.
He's this absolutely monumental moment in human history.
I wanted to see him on the moon.
And since being obsessed with the Apollo missions since childhood, never been able to.
Which is just, like say they took one camera.
He held the camera for most of the mission and therefore most of the photographs are actually of Buzz Aldrin, which many people may not realise.
So there's no photograph of Neil Armstrong on the moon.
Well, there is.
There's like one of the back of his ankle and the top of his backpack and, you know, that kind of thing, but no decent shot.
And I just thought that's crazy.
I want to see him on the moon.
So that's when I had this idea of applying quite an unusual stacking technique to the other source of film that they had on the mission, which was a 16mm movie camera.
So a bit like an old-style cine film camera that was shooting the EVA out of the window of the lunar module.
And I went back to that film and applied this technique where we separate it out into separate frames, stack them on top of each other, consolidate them, and you can pull out an incredible amount of detail.
So I did that and produced this, you know, this image that I always felt was missing from the history book.
So I'd built up these skills and this interesting doing it.
You know, here's suddenly we've got an image of a historic image really of Armstrong finally on the moon.
That's really addictive.
You know, when I was processing that image and I was pulling out, you know, I could see his eyelid.
I could see this detail we've never seen before 50 years later.
So I thought, well, I want to go and I want to keep doing this.
I want to look for.
You want to look for?
For more.
I want to do this.
I want to go through the whole back catalogue of 35,000 of the still photographs as well.
And now the key to that is I'd always been frustrated with the quality of what we see.
And it didn't make any sense to use the best cameras, the best film, the best lenses.
But the reason is everything we've seen has actually been based on duplicate film.
So the original film went into this frozen vault in Houston, where it's remained for almost untouched for 50 years.
Right.
So that film was processed on Returning to Earth.
And they took copies and they said, okay, first generation we're going to put away for posterity for whatever reason.
And what we've seen for all these years, those that we have seen, have been second generation.
Probably a lot, probably fourth or fifth by the time anybody saw them, certainly in an analog world.
So yeah, the original film was developed by Kodak.
It was very, extremely thin, very delicate.
It was thin so you could fit more on a roll.
So you don't want to be handling that incredibly important, valuable film more than once.
And so they didn't.
When it got back to the moon, they made, I say, a master duplicate set.
And the originals went into this frozen vault where it's frozen and the humidity is controlled to try and, you know, the chemicals will eat away at that film eventually.
So yeah, duplicate copies and then they'll make a copy of the duplicates.
They'll make an internegative of that to make a still print.
It goes on and on.
And so yes, multiple generations from the original is how we tend to have seen these images.
So what I've learned with working in audio for all of my life, and I'm not a visual dude, TV is a new thing to me, but I've worked in sound for my entire professional life.
What we know even in the digital domain is if you keep copying stuff, you begin to lose detail.
I used to record on mini-disc.
It's a format I still love.
I think it was quite innovative, but it did data compress a great deal.
If you start copying mini-discs, by the time you get to generation three, you can hear what you're missing.
Similarly, if these vital images to our history have been copied, copied, copied, I presume the premise that you've gone into this with is that there must be stuff missing.
Yes, yes.
Let's go back to that original film.
And actually, that process has got worse.
We mentioned the analog world of copies of copies and internegatives.
In the digital world, people will make a JPEG and crop it and brighten it, put it on social media.
Some will copy it.
And it's even worse digitally, generation to generation.
And so it hit me that the most important, to me, the most important photographs that have ever been taken are getting progressively worse and are being seen by a progressively bigger audience.
And that concept drove me nuts.
You know, things should get better, not worse.
But thankfully, that original film that's been locked away in this frozen vault made it out of that frozen vault and has been scanned to an incredibly high resolution.
Applying digital processing to that means we can see them as never before.
But are you also, are you adding artifacts that may not have been there at all?
No.
I mean, obviously it's very historic, important footage.
So it's very important to work on this for it to be accurate, to do it sympathetically.
So, no, I don't use any AI.
You know, I don't want a piece of software inventing pixels and inserting into historic footage.
So it's purely, I want to know what was there at the start and what's there at the end.
So absolutely nothing's added.
So it's almost like when in sound they restored the Beatles albums, you know, for digital, they went back to the master tapes only recently to do it again.
And they found a whole new level of detail by using new methods of audio processing.
So same kind of thing with this.
One quick question before we start seeing some of these images, Andy.
You know that there are many people, and I do have respect for them.
They are entitled to their view.
You know, you may have a view.
If you want to tell me, that's fine.
But there are people who don't believe that we ever went to the moon, and they say that one of the reasons, one of the proofs of that is that when photographs were taken on the surface of the moon, you can't see the stars in the sky.
Has your process restored detail like that that might answer conspiracy theorists?
Or have you found things that might aid their cause, maybe?
I certainly haven't found anything untoward.
I mean, the one with the stars is just a very, very basic principle of photography in that you set your exposure to whatever you're photographing in the moon is Unbelievably bright.
I mean, it's like there's astronauts likened it to a snowfield on a sunny day.
It's incredibly bright.
So when you stop the camera down to be able to take that, there's absolutely no way you could capture stars as well.
No, actually, they captured Venus inadvertently in a couple of shots because that's incredibly bright.
But no, you couldn't capture stars.
So, no, certainly nothing untoward.
You know, to fake 35,000 pieces of film, it would be easy to just go to the moon and take the photographs.
Are these films numbered and sequential?
If there were photographs that have not been put into the public domain, would you know about it?
They are numbered.
Yeah, they are numbered to some extent.
In fact, that was some of the difficulty in getting the chronology right in the book, because they took multiple magazines.
We know the order on each magazine, but they may have taken some shots with that one, and then someone else may have taken them with another magazine.
So actually getting the chronology right in the book has been a very difficult thing to do.
I mean, you know what I'm saying?
That there are people who might say that the missing pictures, if there are any missing pictures, are the ones that have the alien craft and the buildings that, you know, we've been told might exist and told by more people don't exist.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah, there were some images that I think in the past have been brought back out of the freezer and re-scanned because of this kind of thing.
I remember on Gemini, there was something spotted by the astronauts out of the window in orbit, and they knew, well, there can't be anything else.
This is the very early kind of days of the space race.
It turned out to be a Russian satellite.
So these things have happened on and off.
And sometimes you have to go back to the source to verify them.
I think we've been careful.
I mean, I've got a comment here from one of our regular viewers, Mark.
Nice to hear from you, Mark, who says, Andy Saunders is brilliant.
I'm definitely going to be buying the books.
So you're going to sell one from tonight at the very, very least, Andy.
Let's first of all see a landscape shot.
If we can just get that on the screen now, there you go.
Maybe.
Yeah, a panoramic shot, yeah.
Now, that is incredible.
I think one of the things that would strike me initially is that that photograph looks black and white.
But it isn't, is it?
That's the colour of the moon.
Yeah, there are actually about nine photographs there.
So what I've tried to do is where they took these panoramic sequences, they take a photograph, turn 20 degrees, take a photograph, turn 20 degrees.
Of course, nowadays we'll just swipe our smartphone.
It wasn't like that in the analog days in the 60s.
But I've stitched these together.
So there's about nine separate photographs here.
This is on Apollo 17.
Yeah, I mean, there is color in this.
In the high-res image, we can see the oranges, some kind of almost dark blues.
It looks predominantly grey, but this is when they actually found bright orange soil, in fact, on Apollo 17.
So the moon does actually have some colour.
Okay, well that looks...
And that is the kind of thing that we associate today with our Mars probes that are there using modern technology.
So fair play to you.
To people who are space scientists now, who are planning our return to the moon, are these images that you've produced, are they likely to be useful to them?
I'm not sure.
I mean, of course, it's going to be very different when we go back with Artemis.
It'll all be digital.
It'll be 360-degree field of view, VR-enabled, live-streamed.
You know, what I quite like about the Apollo missions is that romance of waiting until they got back from the moon to process the film.
You know, I think an Artemis, we're going to be bombarded, absolutely bombarded.
It'd be incredible.
It would be amazing imagery.
But digital can also look kind of a little bit clinical.
And I love the warmth of old film.
This is Apollo 17.
So this is one of the last shots taken from the lunar module out of the window.
There's a spent backpack.
And some tire tracks, some module, some rover tracks.
The tracks from the rovers, yeah.
Yeah, so this is how it would look if we went back today.
And that is so, what I'm seeing here, Andy, is so evocative.
Boot prints in the lunar dust.
And you can see, I mean, you get a real impression of the three-dimensionality of this.
And you can see how deep into the lunar dust that grey surface scattered, how deep the boot prints go.
I mean, I would say, well, I've got an idea of scale, I think, a couple of centimetres by the look of it per boot.
Yeah, some conspiracy theorists would say, oh, there'd need to be moisture to make this kind of boot prints, which, of course, isn't true.
And the reason is because there's no erosion on the moon, because there's no atmosphere.
The particles are very irregular, so they lock together really well, one-sixth gravity, so they don't slump.
So they made those perfect boot prints.
This is Jack Schmidt.
This is also Apollo 17.
This is made from the 16mm film.
So this is where I take the movie film, separate it into separate frames, stack them on top of each other, and then we have almost like photographic quality from what is inherently noisy, lower quality 16mm film.
Is he in the lunar module?
He is.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And what about this one here?
This is the last man on the moon, Gene Cernan, after the last EVA.
So it's 50 years ago, several days ago.
That is a photograph.
Astonishing picture.
That gives you an impression.
I've never seen anything like that.
That gives you an idea.
And I've often wondered, what was it like to be inside?
You know what you're doing.
You know you've got to go back.
What was it like?
And here it is.
Yeah, sitting on the moon.
There's all this, you know, the suits and the helmets stacked up there on the ascent engine cover.
You can see the hatch that when they docked the command module, when they went up into orbit, that's where they went through back into the command module.
And he looks exhausted, but satisfied, you know.
I mean, he looks absolutely knackered, as we say here.
Yeah.
Like he's been down the pits.
Yeah.
Filthy.
Yes, no, I was going to say that.
You know, he looks exact.
I mean, is the lunar dust causing that coal miner effect?
It is.
Yeah, it's literally the lunar dust.
Yeah, yeah.
That's a two-shot panorama kind of stitched together.
And I love it because actually it's quite imperfect, the shot of him.
There's a bit of camera shake.
And I love those images because it's more documentary.
It's more, you know, you can tell it's a bit of human error.
You can tell a human took this photograph of another human in that tin can sitting on the moon.
You know, you think about where they are and what they were doing.
Yeah, I absolutely love that one.
I think that was a brilliant choice to restore.
And I guess the whole book is a narrative like that.
You could almost put that together.
I wonder if you've had the idea.
You could almost sequence that with music.
If you could find someone to do appropriate music, you could do that.
It would look, yeah, pretty splendid, I think, yeah, on a 4K TV.
Wow.
One final shot.
Let's take a look.
And that, of course, is the great blue ball upon which we reside, seen from the moon and so many descriptions by the astronauts of what it's like to stand on the moon, look into the inky blackness of space and then see this blue ball and realize that's home.
Yeah, it's the blue marble that photograph's known as.
So it's the most viewed reproduced photograph ever taken.
In fact, almost every photograph of the whole Earth we've ever seen is derived from that one photograph.
So we see it everywhere.
But what I want to try and do in the book is put them in context.
You know, we may see that image and think, wow, that's a nice photograph.
There's the whole Earth and get on with our day.
But in the book, you know, what photographs were taken before it?
What were taken after it?
What were the astronauts saying when they had this incredible view?
And you think about the fact there were three men in a tiny capsule speeding away from their home planet at 20,000 miles an hour on a voyage to the moon.
And one of them picked up his camera to the window and took a shot of the whole illuminated earth amongst the blackness of space.
But that's when these images really hit home.
Absolutely makes it.
And just to say all of these images, we must credit NASA for them because they are the people who own those things.
I mean, just very quickly in a couple of seconds, how did you get permission to do this from NASA?
Well, the great thing about NASA is it's open source, so it's public domain.
Andy Saunders, Apollo Remastered is the book.
It is, as they say, available now.
And I would say, having looked at those images, totally recommended.
I'm sorry that you weren't able to see the images on the podcast, but I think our descriptions of them were fine for a sound medium like the one we're working in.
Sorry if I've sounded a little bit hoarse on this edition of The Unexplained.
I've been battling for 10 days now or so with a bug that has made me cough, cough, cough.
You probably will relate to this because an awful lot of people have had this.
It has left me going hot and cold all the time and just feeling depleted.
But that's one of those things.
The people that you heard on this edition of The Unexplained, of course, starting Richard Godfrey, Blaine Gibson, MH370.
Tony Fish, futurist, talking about nuclear fusion.
Mark Shaw, JFK writer, researcher on the new documents released by Joe Biden.
Christopher Plain from the debrief about gravitational waves and possible craft from somewhere else.
And finally, Andy Saunders talking about his book Apollo Remastered.
That's an awful lot of stuff to put into the archive to make sure that it remains for good.
Now, anything could happen in 2023.
I'm doing the TV show.
There's never a guarantee that any of those things will continue.
But one thing that I can guarantee is that I will continue for as long as I am able.
And as long as I can just about support myself, I'll continue to do this work that I've been doing for 17 years in 2023.
So thank you so much for your support in so many ways.
If you've donated to the podcast over the many years that we've been doing it, thank you so much.
And I wish you all the very best.
And of course, the show resumes from the very beginning of January.
So to you and yours, I wish you all the very best.
Please stay safe.
Please stay calm.
And above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection