So what I find is that people all across the intellectual spectrum are able to look at these facts, and I think they all have to agree on one thing, that however you want to interpret it, these facts do contradict standard theory of human origins and antiquity that we've got today, and it kind of indicates that we need a new explanation. We do need a new explanation of where we came from and how long we've been on this planet, but aside from providing that information, and the books that I've published so far, I don't put my own interpretation on them because I want people to be free to look at that evidence and draw their own conclusions. Now, I'm pretty well convinced that if anybody does look at that evidence with an open mind, they're going to draw the conclusion that whatever the real story may be, the story we've been told... It's not it. ...is wrong. Yeah. Now, I'm going to write another book where I put my interpretation on the evidence that I've uncovered, and I'll offer my own alternative explanation. But I do want others to be free, feel free, to look at that evidence. Well, you've certainly enabled us to do that. One of the reasons you're on this broadcast is because of your propensity to accurately document and source your facts. And that gives you tremendous credibility. Also, I remember when... I've got to do this. Hold on just a second. You're listening to WBCQ, Monticello, Maine, USA. I can remember when Dr. Leakey found the Lucy... Yeah, that would be Dr. Johansson. Yeah, he would be the one that had found the Lucy skeleton, an ape-woman skeleton in Ethiopia in the 1970s. Well, that's absolutely incredible because Leakey certainly took credit for it. I mean, when I saw the special on TV, it was Leakey holding the bones, and it was Leakey talking about the Lucy skeleton and Nash or G... He may have talked about... Because he's one of the great architects of the current theory of human evolution, and he's one of the primary spokespersons for that particular idea. So I wouldn't be surprised... Although he wasn't the original discoverer, I'm sure. If it's evidence for his theories, I'm sure he presented on a television program. I'm sure, yeah. Well, you see, everybody thinks that it was Leakey who found it, because he certainly gives that impression. But when I saw this, and when I saw the actual bones that they found, that they said belonged to Lucy and that this was the missing link, they claimed it was the missing link that tied the ape man to modern man, and I looked at those bones there, and I'm not an archaeologist, but I'm not stupid either. And what I saw was they had taken a handful of bones that you couldn't even really tell really what they came from, unless, of course, you had studied bones all your life, I guess. And they were forcing us to believe that that's the link between the ape and the modern human being, and I didn't buy it from the word go, because I didn't see that there. Right, you know, and even within the community of scientists, there are physical anthropologists who have investigated Lucy, and I talk about this in my book. Not only is there evidence showing that human beings like ourselves go back millions and millions of years and completely blow out this whole theory of evolution, the smithing links in any case, but even if you look at the evidence that they bring out, like Lucy, if you look at it really closely, you'll find that there are scientists who have looked very closely at the Lucy skeleton, and they say, well, what's really happened there is they've put together bones from three different kinds of animals. Really, they don't belong together at all. And another thing that many of these professional scientists, physical anthropologists have pointed out, is that this Lucy isn't a missing link at all. It's actually very egg-like. You know, the finger bones are very curved. The toe bones are very curved. The shoulder joint points up, you know, indicating that this creature's spent a lot of time swinging from branches of trees. The toes are curved like monkey toes. In other words, they want to present, the human evolution advocates want to present the idea that this Lucy was some kind of proto-human being that walked around on two legs like us. But really, those who have really looked into the matter say, she spent a lot of time swinging from branches like a chimpanzee. And that makes it really hard to see this creature as some kind of human ancestor. It probably was just another kind of apropos. You know, at one point, Michael, I did an awful lot of research trying to find out if my religious beliefs were correct. And I really gave Darwinism, the theory of evolution, not only a chance, but a good run for its money. And I looked everywhere. I even tried to find absolute proof that evolution was true. Because then I wouldn't be confined in this moral cage that I have since discovered is exactly where I should be. But this was in my younger years. And try as I might, and talk to professors, as many as I did, and read books and search through museums, I have never in my entire life found one shred of proof that evolution has any scientific validity whatsoever. Oh, yes, I think you're entirely right. It's a bluff. You know, in one sense, you know, I've gone to universities. Last year I did a tour of some of the major universities in Europe and countries like Belgium and Hungary. And I was speaking at the departments of archaeology to the students and professors there. And one thing I would tell them was this. You know, I would say, I actually do have some little bit of respect for the original Darwinist, you know, Charles Darwin and his first followers, because they did have some courage to kind of stand up and speak for their idea at a time when nobody else supported it. You know, so you have to give them some credit there. Well, they had an idea, and they thought they had some evidence for it, and they had the courage to stand up for it when nobody else was really accepting it. And, of course, somehow or other it did become a very popular idea, but after 150 years they really haven't come up with the good. They really haven't come up with the proof. And so much evidence has come up, as I've shown, that completely contradicts their idea. I think we do need another idea, but, you know, at least we can give them a little bit of credit for having had the courage to actually stand up and say what they believed in and try to prove it. But after 150 years, I don't think they've succeeded. And I think 150 years is a good amount of time, you know, to give people a chance. And I think we really have to look for another idea. And I think some of the ideas that, well, have always been with us in these different wisdom traditions, whether we're talking about the Bible or the Koran or the other sacred books, we may have to give another look at them and say that, well, maybe they had it right, that we didn't evolve by chance by some purely material process of random genetic evolution. But there's some intelligent design and control involved in the whole thing. And that's the ultimate message, I think, of the evidence that I've uncovered. Because the evidence for a human presence just goes so far back in time that we really can't explain it by some material process of evolution. You know, there's evidence of the metal base from 600 million years ago. And the gold chain from 300 million years ago. You know, there was a very famous anthropologist, evolutionary anthropologist, Dr. William W. Howells, who was from Harvard University. And he read my book. He's one of the main architects of this dominant mainstream theory of human evolution. He's one of the contemporary advocates of this. And he said, well, after reading my book, he said, well, if what you say is true, and I'm not admitting that it is, but if it is true, then it calls into question not just even the story of human evolution, but the whole history of life on Earth, the whole, no, he said there's no way that the evidence that you've reported can be accommodated with any conceivable evolutionary process. So I agree with him on that. If you take this evidence for extreme human antiquity seriously, and I think we do have to do that, what it means is we can explain our presence here on this planet by Darwinian evolution. We have to look towards some other explanation. And I think the very first place to look is the place where we started out from, you know, that there has to be some kind of God behind it all, some kind of creation, some kind of intelligent design and control. Well, I think you're absolutely correct. Yeah, I was, Michael, I was wondering, I may have missed it earlier, when you first began looking at this, you said you're around 25, 27? Yeah. What was your formal educational training? I was curious, I may have missed it. I grew up in a military family. My father was an Air Force intelligence officer. So when I went to school, I had lived all over the world. I had always been around military folks and other kinds of intelligence people. So I was headed in that same direction. I went to George Washington University in Washington, D.C., to the School of International Affairs. And I was studying international politics and Russian language and German language. And I was headed in that same direction. Now, during the time I was in school, I became more interested in, I had always been interested in philosophy and things like that. So I became very interested in philosophical and spiritual subjects. And that led me on to a different path. So I'm not a trained archaeologist. That's not my background. I approach this question from an entirely different perspective. I have, however, through the research that I've done, learned how to communicate with these people very effectively. So much so that even though I don't have a Ph.D. in archaeology, I get invitations to speak to archaeology classes at universities around the world. And I've been invited to give a talk at the World Archaeological Congress, which is being held this coming January in Cape Town, South Africa. It's one of the main organizations of archaeologists around the world. And I'm going to be going there and I'm going to be talking to them. And I've talked at other scientific conferences as well. So I don't have a degree in archaeology. I'll mention that Richard Leakey doesn't either. That's one reason I like him. I disagree with him. He was kind of a maverick himself, a maverick researcher. He didn't go through the university system, but he made a lot of discoveries that got him a reputation. So I end up with myself in that same category. I'm an independent researcher, and I do feel that it's important to be able to speak and communicate with other scientific audiences, and I have learned how to do that. But I'm not one of them. I think from time to time it really helps to have an outside person come in and look at something, just like in the federal government. They have this, whatever you think of the concept, they do have this idea that sometimes you need an independent counsel, I guess what they call them, independent prosecutor. Sometimes you can't trust the people in a particular department, the government to investigate themselves. So I think... Really? Yeah. In the same way, I don't think we can trust these scientists to always investigate themselves. They like to say, well, we're different. You know, we can handle everything ourselves. We've got a self-correcting process here, and we don't need anybody to come in and look and tell us what we're doing. But, you know, I think we've... You know, it's just the nature of the modern world. We've learned to become skeptical. I mean, we don't trust everything that the press secretary of a politician, whether it's the president of the United States or a senator or a governor... We don't accept, you know, everything that the press secretary says. We don't accept what the publicity handouts are. You know, we want to ask our own questions. We want to dig a little deeper. We've got this healthy skepticism. It applies to, well, people in corporate world, too. We don't accept every statement that the public relations department of the corporation puts out. You know, we want to ask them questions. We want to keep an open mind. Even religion hasn't escaped this year. Michael, what planet do you live on? You and I might not, but the vast herds of what I call sheeple out there believe anything that they hear. We're talking about, you know, people like us. But I think even people like us, somehow or other, you know, we've kind of exempted the spokespersons from the scientific community from this. Somehow or other, they've managed to escape a little bit. So I think... In some areas, you're absolutely correct. Yeah, we've got to start asking questions. And why can't an outside person... Sometimes people get intimidated. Well, I'm not a scientist. How can I ask these questions? But, you know, we have a jury system in this country. But whoever would have dreamed that a guy that goes out and digs up old bones would be lying to us? And whoever dreamed that he would have any interest in doing such a thing? When you think about it and you understand the tremendous stakes involved, then you can understand how if powerful socialists became to be totally in charge of the educational system and the process whereby people become funded, because if you're not funded by somebody, you can't exist as a scientist. Oh, that's right. And, boy, we could get into some cases, some specific cases of what happens to scientists who somehow become involved themselves in some of these discoveries. Why don't we do that? Oh, well, one case that I just have found very fascinating is the case of Dr. Virginia Steen McIntyre, who's a geologist, and she was involved in some discoveries that were made in Mexico back in the 1970s. What you had there, some archaeologists were making some excavations at a place called Hueblaco, which is near the town of Puebla in central Mexico. And these archaeologists, they were digging their trenches. In the bottoms of their trenches, they were finding some very exquisite spearheads, nicely carved spearheads and arrowheads and other kinds of stone tools and implements. So, of course, they wanted to know how old they were. So what they do in a case like that is the archaeologists call in the geologists, because the geologists are the experts in earth science. They can tell you how old the layers of sediment in which the objects are found really are. So one of the geologists they called in was Dr. Virginia Steen McIntyre. And she was a young scientist at the time. She had just become established in her profession. And she had invented a new method of dating, so she achieved a little bit of an international reputation, even though she was just starting out in her field. And she was very optimistic and very enthusiastic. And she went down there, and she used four different methods. She and her colleagues used four different methods, including the new method that she herself had invented to date this particular site. And they found that each of the four methods that they used independently gave them an age of about 250,000 years for this particular site. So they went to the head archaeologist, and they told him, you know, Virginia Steen McIntyre told him, well, not him, it was her. It was actually a woman who was also in charge of the site. It said, well, you know, your site is 250,000 years old. So the head archaeologist said, well, I can't accept that. You know, that's impossible, because human beings didn't exist at that time. And I can't report dates like this. It would ruin my career, because, you know, according to the standard ideas, you know, human beings didn't exist until about 100,000 years ago, even in Africa. And so let's speak of North America, you know, in 250,000 years. The standard idea is that no human beings entered North America any earlier than about 25,000 years ago. That's when they say the ancestors of the Native Americans, the American Indians came over from Siberia over the Bering Straits. So 250,000 years, impossible. So what happened to Virginia Steen McIntyre? Number one, she found, of course, she couldn't get that report published. Number two, she found that in her profession, she started to get a very bad reputation, because her colleagues were whispering in the hallways of the scientific conferences, well, she's a troublemaker, she's a maverick, she's a publicity seeker. She found she lost the teaching position that she held at the university in the state of Colorado. And she also found that all her opportunities for advancement, the United States Geological Survey, where she was employed, was suddenly blocked off. She hit the glass ceiling with a vengeance. Finally, she just got so frustrated. You know, she tried to make her case known to her scientific colleagues, but she got completely shut down. And finally, she just got so frustrated with the treatment that she was receiving that she just left her profession. She and her husband moved off to a little town in the mountains of Colorado, you know, outside Denver. And she was just quiet for about ten years until I found out about her case. And I wrote about it in my book, Forbidden Archaeology, and it got her a little bit of publicity. And that sort of got her going again, I'm happy to say. She kind of woke up, and, you know, she's back out there fighting again. But these are the kinds of pressures that can be applied. You know, for every, say, professorship that opens up in an American university, you've got about 400 or 500 applicants, you know, and to get that job, you know, or to get that research money, I mean, you have to toe the line. And if you get involved in some discoveries of some things that shouldn't be found and ages that shouldn't be reported, then you suffer for it professionally. And the case of Virginia Steve McIntyre is a case in point. Wow. And we've known this for many years, that scientists are controlled by the purse strings, and also people who go against what has been dictated, that is the status quo of the science, so to speak, don't get to you. That's right. Yeah, if you have a black mark against you, sure. As a matter of fact, you won't even get your Ph.D. because you have to submit your research to a committee. And if they don't like it, you don't even get your Ph.D. So you learn to play the game right from the very beginning. It's a very effective way of establishing a cadre of well-trained people who accept a certain set of beliefs, and they want to keep things that way. You know, in this broadcast, we teach people to question everything, not to believe anyone or anything that they read, but to question and do research and investigate for themselves to find the truth. And a lot of my audience, thank God, take it seriously, and some of them are young people who are just going into college, and I get phone calls from them. And they tell me that they're in such and such a class, and they have such and such a professor, and he's teaching such and such, which they know to be wrong and can prove it's wrong. And they answered the questions on a test truthfully and failed, even though they could go to the professor and prove to the professor that their answers were the true and correct answers, and the answers he wanted them to give were false. And my advice to them is study and learn the truth, answer the questions the way the professor wants, walk out with your little sheepskin, and then go out and tell the world what the truth is. Yes, I think that's often what you have to do, because as I said, these ideas, It's the only way to get through college. These ideas are enforced by the full power of the state. Yeah. You can't teach anything else. And you have this ideological cadre in there that feels that they have the right to indoctrinate their students with these ideas. Well, that's socialism. Socialism believes that they are to engineer the future using any method that will work, including lies. Karl Marx was clear on that. And if that's... He also said that Darwinian ideas were very popular with Karl Marx and Engels and Stalin and Lenin, and also Hitler liked them very much as well. Yes. Because I think they can see, yes, if you can eliminate religion, which Darwinian evolution does, and it makes, I guess, the whole goal of those different ideologies was just to focus people on producing a heaven on earth without God. You've got it. That's exactly what they want. They want to produce what they call the utopian world. Yes. And I think that's... So there. Now, when I'm lecturing at universities, particularly in Europe, the students are usually quite fascinated by this evidence. I can always tell. You can see the professors. They're getting a little antsy. Because the students are laughing this up. Because they haven't heard about this evidence. They just find it amazing. There's just so much evidence that's not even mentioned in their textbooks, even negatively. You know what I mean. The process of suppression of this evidence has been so complete that it's not even mentioned, even in a negative way. So what I tell these students is, at least you should be aware of all of the facts, the entire data set relevant to your discipline, relevant to your field of study. And whatever you think about the facts, you may think, well, this is good or bad, but at least you should be aware of all the facts. And I'm just confident that when people are aware of all of the facts, that don't make the right decision. Well, let's hope so. It's easy for people to pick and choose between truth and lies if they have access to all the data. It's not easy if they don't. If they're given a set of data and they're told that that's all the data that exists, and they're told that... Then it seems logical. Yes. Then it seems logical to believe that data. Right. And so, so many people are deceived in that manner because it's a lie by omission. That's right. They don't get all the facts. Yes. They just do not receive all the facts. And I think that's why... Well, I think that's one reason why what you're doing is very important because we need different channels to get these facts out to the people because in a lot of cases, you just can't do it through many of the main channels of information that people have. There's too many gatekeepers there who are preventing this information from coming out. You know, it's very hard to get it out through the standard educational system, for example. It's hard to get it out through the mainstream media, particularly from PBS. They're lock, stock, and barrel sold out to the mainstream orthodox scientific community. But fortunately, we do live in a diverse world, and there's diverse means of communication. We have what you're doing, which I think is very important, and there's other sources of communicating... other ways of communicating the evidence of the facts that people need to make informed decisions. So I congratulate you for what you're doing. Well, thank you, Michael. Are there some other pretty important things that... pretty important findings that you've made that you think our listening audience might be interested in? As I say, it's always interesting for me that there's the finds themselves, and then there's what happens to them, which is important. You know, of course, we were talking about Richard Leakey a little bit earlier in the show. You know, his mother actually made some very interesting discoveries. She, in 1979, in the East African country of Tanzania, found some very interesting footprints. She found dozens of footprints, footprints of several different individuals arranged in tracks, you know, dozens of footprints in each set of tracks. The physical anthropologists who look at these footprints tell us that they are anatomically modern. They're indistinguishable from modern human footprints. In other words, they're just like the footprints that you or I or any of your listeners would make if we were walking on a beach. And the unusual thing about them is they're found in solidified volcanic ash that's about... these rock deposits are about 4 million years old, which is really quite extraordinary considering that the standard idea is that human beings, like ourselves, didn't come into existence any earlier than about one or two hundred thousand years ago at most. So, here it is. This evidence is actually staring them right in the face. The footprints are there. Now, how do they explain them? Well, what they say is, well, there must have been in existence in East Africa 4 million years ago some kind of ape man that had feet exactly like ours, and that's how those footprints got made. Now, that's a very interesting proposal, but unfortunately, there's not a shred of physical evidence to back up that idea. They just say it. But if you actually look, you find that they already have the skeletons of the ape man that they say existed at that time. We were talking a little earlier in the show about Lucy, who is the most famous specimen of the ape man that's technically known by the name Australopithecus. Australopithecus is the ape man that they say existed 4 million years ago in Africa. And they have foot bones from those creatures. And their feet are very different from our feet. For one thing, their toes are about one and a half times longer, at least one and a half times longer than the average human toe. The foot structure differs in many other important respects from a modern human foot. So those creatures could not have made the footprints that Mary Leakey found at Leitole because those footprints, all the anthropologists who have studied them, say they're indistinguishable in all their measurements from, they're indistinguishable from our feet. In other words, they're just like anatomically modern human footprints. So the actual fact is that the only creature actually known for science today that has a foot that could make the footprints that were found by Mary Leakey in East Africa and Tanzania is a human being like ourselves. So that's there. And, of course, people will say, well, those are footprints. Are there any human skeletons the same age? Yes, there are. During the 1880s, an Italian geologist named Giuseppe Raccazzani found in northern Italy at a place called Castanadolo skeletons of several individuals, not just one skeleton, but about three skeletons of three or four different individuals that were found in layers of rock, undisturbed layers of rock, about four to five million years ago. He had considered the objection we were talking about earlier, namely intrusive burial, namely the idea that, well, perhaps somebody had only a few thousand years ago buried these skeletons down in these very ancient layers of rock, and that's how they came to be there. But he was a professional geologist, and I studied his original reports, and he was very aware of this possibility, and he looked very carefully as he was taking these skeletons out, and he determined that all the layers of rock above the skeletons were undisturbed. There was no sign of a burial. So, therefore, those skeletons really did block those layers of rock that were at least four million years old, just as old as the footprints that were found by Mary Leakey in 1979 in Tanzania. Now, the actual oldest piece of evidence that I encountered in the eight years of research that I did, was, this was, took the form of metal, well, metallic balls, round balls about one to two inches in diameter that were found by miners in South Africa. They're made of a naturally occurring iron ore called helotite, and what's unusual about them is their round shape and the fact that they have around the center, around the equator, grooves, sometimes one groove, sometimes two grooves, sometimes three parallel grooves, very mysterious objects. The mineral deposits in which the miners found these round metallic objects with the grooves around them, the mineral deposits in which they are found are about two billion years old, at which time, according to the standard accounts, there shouldn't have been any life at all on Earth. Really? Some people say there wouldn't have been an Earth as a matter of that. Yeah, so they're very unusual objects and they're quite extraordinary. Now, pictures of them were shown on this NBC television special and afterwards some geologists on the Internet were saying, well, you can find these objects all over the world, they may occur naturally. So I put up a message, I sent an email out to this discussion group, Internet discussion group, where this particular geologist was making these claims. I said, all right, if you say these objects are so common, then why don't you send me a photograph of one from anywhere else in the basement? And he couldn't do it, so it was all just a bluff. that nobody is, these objects were submitted to some metallurgical analysis before they were shown on the NBC television special and the metallurgists who examined them said they could find, they identified what they were made out of, a hematite, this naturally occurring kind of iron ore, and, but they said they could find no natural explanation for their round shape and especially no natural explanation for the grooves that were carved around the centers of these objects and they weren't carved, that's what they were taken out of the ground. They made that very clear because they were, when these objects were extracted from the rock, you know, we had samples of them still half embedded in the rock in which they occurred and the grooves could plainly be seen are the ones that were solidly embedded in the two billion year old rock in which they were found by these miners. Now, it was very interesting, in my book there's a photograph of one of the best specimens, it's a specimen that has three parallel grooves going around it and this particular specimen had been kept in a museum of natural history, the Museum of Natural History in Clercstorp, South Africa and the photograph that we reproduced in the book was sent to us by the director of that museum, Ralph Rolf Marx. Now, later on, a Dutch television producer saw my book Forbidden Archaeology and he decided he wanted to go down to South Africa to film on that particular object but I gave him the contact information but when he got in contact with the museum director, he learned that that particular object got stolen from the museum and this often happens with this marvelous evidence. Sometimes it's stolen. It gets stolen from the museum. Or at least that's what they say. Do you believe that it was really stolen or that it's This person had previously been very cooperative. This Rolf Marx had been very cooperative and I don't have any reason to disbelieve his story that it had been stolen from the museum. Now, there was another case of a Canadian anthropologist who had discovered a very interesting skull in Brazil and he had taken some photographs of it and had written a scientific report about it in one of the standard anthropology journals but when he went back a couple of years later to the museum where that object had been originally discovered he found it had also been stolen out of the museum. So this is I think sometimes this happens to this anomalous evidence it gets stolen. Or perhaps you're right maybe there is something else going on there that I'm not aware of. That's what I always find so fascinating is not just the object itself but the things that happen to it how this process of knowledge filtration really works. Yes. Michael, I was wondering in doing some research on the subject I noticed something called the Darwin Sunset Tour is that the correct? Well that was my book was published in Hungarian last year and as part of the introduction of that book to Hungary a tour was organized for me to all the major universities in Hungary I appeared on national television there I was also on their national radio and a lot of their magazines and newspapers caused quite a stir in the country and the tour was called by the organizers the Darwin Sunset Tour indicating well the sun of Darwinism is setting in this particular country. We know that. We understood exactly what the meaning of that was. It was very interesting after the tour the tour organizers invited two leading Darwinian scientists in Hungary to have a meeting with me in a restaurant in Budapest so they came and they met with me and one of them was an older gentleman and he was practically in tears he said you know I'm a Darwinian and you're traveling all over the country and you're getting on national television you're going to all the universities and speaking what's going to happen there's not going to be any Darwinians left and I said well don't worry there'll probably be a few left over that was amazing everywhere I went the auditoriums were packed full standing room only sold out because of course that country had been under the communist Marxist domination for so many years they were really quite happy to see someone come up and stand up against this Darwinian idea which had been so much a part of the Marxist domination of their country well sure it was the first strike against God sure absolutely and if it's victorious it means that man then become God which means that man can do no wrong which means that everything instead of being objective and instead of man having to answer to some higher authority then everything that man does is okay and everything becomes subjective which means we go back to the law of the jungle and whoever has the biggest gun and the biggest fist rules right you know something a little more interesting Bill and Doyle is two years ago I went to Moscow I went to Russia and I was very surprised that Pranta ran a half page full half page article about my book Forbidden Archaeology praising it for the sky now when I started writing that book in 1984 which was the height of the Cold War the last thing I could imagine in my mind when I was writing this anti-Darwinian book Forbidden Archaeology is that I would be speaking to scientists in Moscow that Pranta would be writing favorable words about this book and against Darwinism well for once they lived up to their name you know Pranta means truth yeah and they never in their history ever printed any truth so it was fitting that okay you know at least sometime that they do print some truth well I think that shows that well of course I think it's great credit to whatever policies that were followed by the American government some of the other powers to get those changes happening there in Russia but it really was quite amazing I was able to speak at the Russian Academy of Sciences about this information and then even more surprising when I was in Moscow some scientists from one of their secret science cities where they had previously been doing some of their nuclear research about 200 kilometers outside Moscow they learned that I was in town and so they sent a car out for me they took me out to this science city and they had about 200 top Russian scientists I gave a two hour lecture to them and they kept me for about two hours afterwards hearing all this information I've been telling you tonight and they were very happy to hear it that's wonderful so in any case they seem to be a little more open-minded there than they are in this country as far as the professional scientists go have you ever actually met Richard Leakey I haven't met him but I had some correspondence with him he read my book and then he wrote back he said it's pure humbug and nobody should take it seriously but a fool and actually I actually put that quote on the cover of the book and it's actually generated quite a bit of helpful really because he really doesn't want to talk about the facts this is a pretty common reaction among what I call the fundamentalist Darwinist in the scientific community they don't want to discuss the facts they simply want to call you every bad name in the book that's exactly what they do that's what they've always done they will never address the facts they attack the character of the person and I think it reflects pretty poorly on them and I've been able to use that with some pretty good effect in some of my presentations to the scientific audience because it's really pretty obvious what they're doing that they're avoiding the issue and intelligent people even within the scientific world can understand and recognize this and I think they find that kind of behavior abhorrent you know when I was in Hungary getting back to that Darwin sunset tour I was actually at a university debating one of the leading evolutionary archaeologists in Hungary to a totally packed auditorium at a university in Budapest students just sitting in the aisles and packed all the way out the doors into the hallways and this archaeologist was trying to apply those same tactics so one of the Hungarian scientists in the audience actually stood up and said actually frankly I'm embarrassed at you by my Hungarian colleague because this American he's coming in here he's giving facts he's actually presenting evidence and all you're doing is essentially blowing off hot air evidence so I think intelligent people can understand these things they can understand these tactics and appreciate them for what they are well it's amazing that for so many years they haven't been able to understand it because all throughout the history of the scientific push for the theory of evolution people have challenged it based upon facts and have demanded that they prove their theory and they have never done it yet and people have accepted it well I think we have to attribute that to some very effective lobbying on behalf of these people because I think somehow or other they've convinced these Darwinists they've actually done a good job of convincing people who have influence over the governments the courts and the economy that their idea is somehow or other going to be very very beneficial for the interests of all these different groups I don't think they have to do much convincing really I think that over the years they have actually succeeded in infiltrating and occupying so many important positions in our government by Marxists socialists and Leninists that it doesn't take much convincing all it does is take finding their comrades sitting in a powerful seat and I think that's the way it's done I think whatever label they attach to these people I think they are very inclined towards materialistic and atheistic ideas and these people have infiltrated the universities so if you're going to law school if you're going to business school you're getting any kind of training to take any responsible position in the economy or the courts or the government you're exposed to that propaganda and by the way Michael it's their label it's just politically incorrect to acknowledge their label that's right and I'm very politically incorrect that's right I think however I do think things are changing and I think I've had my own personal experience when people are presenting the truth at least some of them they are affected by it and I don't mind that it's a struggle I don't mind that starting from where I am or where we are we're operating against the odds are apparently against us I don't mind the struggle I don't mind coming from behind I find it a challenge me too and I think as I said I'm not alone in this there's a lot of people out there now who are trying to get this message out Michael Behe the author of the book Darwin's Black Box others there are all kinds of people out there doing this I think the media is changing a little bit I think there's a good chance that if we just keep getting the information out there eventually it's going to have its effect I think you're right I think there's a great awakening occurring it started off very very slow too slow for my liking but I feel a momentum building and I know it's going to be significant when I first started I couldn't gather three people in the living room and I would have to travel a thousand miles to talk to them and they wouldn't even chip in for my travel expenses and now I can go to Salt Lake City and fill the salt dome and I find that absolutely incredible and that's just happened since 1988 which is an incredible there is something happening I think we're in the midst of one of these changes these intellectual and social changes fundamental intellectual and social changes that occur only every couple of centuries or so I think we're in the midst of one of these right now I certainly feel it and I hope you're right Michael we've only got about two minutes left can you talk about your books and tell people where they can purchase them well there are three books out there now one of them is called Forbidden Archaeology that's the original unabridged blockbuster that started this whole thing off which I highly recommend there is a shorter version of the book an abridged version called The Hidden History of the Human Race and then just recently out is a book called Forbidden Archaeology's Impact which gets into all these reactions all the things we've been talking about here the NBC television special the attempts to suppress it all that kind of stuff that's in there which I think people will find fascinating if they've read the first book and those books are available at the bookstore chains they're available at the good independent bookstores the internet bookstores like Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble have them I could give readers listeners an 800 number if they want to get it directly from the publisher 1-800 hidden 1 H-I-D-D-E-N with a numeral 1 at the end 1-800 hidden 1 they can also check out my website www mcremo mcremo mcremo mcremo mcremo mcremo dot com the books are available for that as well by the way we visited your website and I've spent quite a bit of time there it's very interesting and I enjoyed it very much I like the tour of the museum we open doors yes that was a lot of fun very educational I might add Michael just quickly have you suffered any repercussions because of this well you know I have not received any death threats if that's what you mean I'm publishing independently so I haven't been able to nobody's been able to put any pressure on me in that way what I do see the main sort of thing that I see going on is in the scientific world is attempts to either ignore my work or simply call it bad names and to people who are in that educational system and under their control and through the media as well attempts to put that politically incorrect label on me and my work well I find it fascinating that backfires on them it really backfires on them it does President Clinton called me the most dangerous radio host in America Rush Limbaugh read the White House memo on the air it was the greatest compliment I've ever received in my life and it almost overnight all the shortwave radios in America disappeared from the shelves because people wanted to hear this dangerous radio host and the only danger that we present is we tell the truth it definitely does well thank you so much Michael for being our guest and I really really enjoyed hearing all of the things that you've been telling us and I hope everybody runs out and gets your book and just dives into it well thank you Bill and Doyle it was really a pleasure being on the air with you well thank you thank you Mike and for all of our loyal listeners around the world good night and God bless each and every single one of you thank you thank you for the time or Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You've been listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. Be sure and tune in again tomorrow night at the same time on WBCQ, The Planet. You're listening to 101.1 FM, Eager. Here we go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.