Piers Morgan Uncensored - Is There Really a Hidden City Beneath The Pyramids of Giza?

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

A team of scientists, well-respected in their fields, have made a mind-boggling claim that many archeologists are struggling to believe. A team led by Corrado Malanga from University of Pisa and Filippo Biondi from the University of Strathclyde claim to have discovered huge structures lying beneath the Pyramids of Giza, based on a new technique that utilises Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). These structures could be 10 times larger than the pyramids themselves, which is why many researchers and Egyptologists are finding it hard to believe... For a deep dive into this fascinating claim, Piers Morgan talks to Jay Anderson from The Project Unity, Jimmy Corsetti from the 'Bright Insight' Podcast, Dan Richards from 'DeDunking the Past', archaeologist and YouTuber Milo Rossi (AKA Miniminuteman) and editor of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer. Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: American Hartford Gold: Protect your wealth with precious metals! Call American Hartford Gold today & get up to $15,000 in free silver on your 1st order! Call 866-692-2474 or Text PIERS to 65532, or Click the link below: https://offers.americanhartfordgold.com/piers-morgan/ Beam: Visit https://ShopBeam.com/PIERS and use code PIERS for up to 40% off Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The team who have been deploying these satellites to scan the geese plateau, they believe they've discovered what appear to be eight massive cylindrical structures, approximately 630 meters beneath the Carver Pyramid, which then connect into two approximately 80 by 80 meter diameter boxes. An incredible thing to claim has caused a massive response from both the alternative research community and the mainstream sectors. I would love this kind of stuff to be true, but it is total bullshit. They're using a method that has never been presented before in depth.

It's never been tested. It follows all the rules of pseudoscience. There is reason to think that maybe these guys have something going on here, but it's being poo-poot out of hand because it's the pyramids and because it's got some goofy alien woo attached to it. If it was up to me, we would drill a hole straight down through the Geese Plateau, stick a camera down there with a light and investigate, and that'd be the quickest way to do it.

Sounds cool, man. The mighty pyramids of Giza are among the most studied monuments in all of archaeology, but more than 4,500 years since their creation. Scholars still debate how they were built, what they were used for, and what further secrets may lie within them. Well, last week, researchers in Italy presented bombshell new findings, which claimed to discover evidence of a vast hidden city beneath one of the pyramids, including 4,000 feet structures built tens of thousands of years, before the first man-made buildings existed.

Clearly, this sparked huge interest among those he theorised about lost ancient civilizations. And amid frenzy coverage in the media, mainstream academics have dismissed it as crazy talk and pseudoscience. The story has reignited a fierce debate between the scientific establishment and the increasingly prominent populist voices

in the science world, those who are probably better known for their appearances on Joe Rogan than anything they published. In a special edition of Unsensit, will bring together both signs of his scientific chasm for a deep dive into one of history's enduring mysteries. First, so, to walk us through exactly what the researchers claim to have found. Jay Anderson is an independent researcher

and host of the popular YouTube channel Project Unity, which explores the frontiers of consciousness, ancient mysteries and unexplained phenomenon. This ticks all of those boxes. So, Jay, welcome to uncensored. So for those who are not pyramid experts, Tell us about these claims and why people are getting so excited by them. Yeah, Pierce, it's a real pleasure to be on the show.

I really appreciate the invite. And definitely want to highlight from the get-go that I'm not directly associated with the team behind the CAFRA project. I'm a researcher who has a particular focus on ancient prehistory and the stone-building cultures of this period. And I caught wind of these claims from the team over in Italy, as you mentioned, quite early on and started. digging into it immediately. Now, there are some fair critiques out there, but there are also, in my opinion, some unfair critiques. And I'd like to address those during this talk, but I also don't profess to be an expert on all of the technicalities involved in this scientific study. But I do believe I've researched this adequately. And I'm concerned that assumptions on the

capabilities of the technology being deployed by the team are actually driving a lot of this mainstream dismissal of the findings before they've even really had a chance to explain themselves to the masses. Right. Okay. So that clears your position up, but what is the story for those who are not really, who just hear a story about the pyramids? Why is it and why is it so potentially so exciting? So what the team are claiming, and the scientists involved in this project, by the way, are Carrado Malanga, who is a former professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pisa, and Professor Felipeo Bionde, who's an engineer and a specialist in something called synthetic aperture radar or SAR, S-A-R, and Doppler technologies, which in simple terms are technologies

that analyze frequencies produced by sound and light. And Felipeo Bionde is also recognized for his geophysical surveys of archaeological sites. Really, he's the head of this project and claims to have developed a technique for using these technologies, the SAR satellite scans and this Doppler integration. And I can explain what that means in more detail in a moment. through these methodologies, the team who have been deploying these satellites to scan the Giza Plateau claim to have discovered massive structures beneath the Carver Pyramid, which is the middle pyramid of the three on the Giza Plateau. And they believe they've discovered what appear to be eight massive cylindrical structures

with these downward spiraling features. And these are essentially structures that extend from the base of the Carver Pyramid, approximately 630 meters under the ground, which then connect into two approximately 80 by 80 meter diameter boxes. And they go on to say that this appears to represent an element of an even larger subterranean infrastructure that connects across the entire Giza complex with structural engineering depths reaching up to two kilometers below the Earth surface. Now, that's obviously an incredible thing to claim, and it's no surprise that such a claim has caused a massive response from both the alternative research community and the

the mainstream sectors, like you said, of academia and archaeology. But it does look like assumptions are being made about how they're making these findings. That's something that we should probably talk about. So I have a very stupid question probably, but a very simple one. Isn't the best way to discover it if this is all true to actually dig down and have a look? Absolutely. And I wish them the very best of luck of getting any sort of digging permissions from the Egyptian government because they are certainly not fans of any sort of mass mass excavation. And that's why non-invasive technologies like this being deployed are kind of the only way in which they're allowed to do these types of experiments because they don't want to

risk massive disruption to very sensitive infrastructure and ancient infrastructure. But these types of scans, if they can be fully empirically evidenced, may bring us closer towards a time where they could be willing to do some digging. And the truly startling part of this, if it turns out that this research is correct, and it's a big if, is that it could establish that there were ancient civilizations way beyond anything that we had previously known in terms of a time scale. Yeah, and that's something that I definitely am prepared to talk to you about today in terms of a wider global pattern of evidence, because this isn't just knowledge within a vacuum restricted only to the Giza Plateau. We are looking at a pretty wide distribution of prehistoric and ancient megalific structures that share commonalities and advancements in engineering that are very contradictory,

especially for the Stone Age or the Neolithic Age, which is something that we can get into. I'm very interested in that. In fact, I recently came back from a trip to Malta, which is an island that has the highest concentration of prehistoric megalific sites in the world. These things, they share commonalities all over the globe. That's what's very interesting,

and that's why the Giza situation shouldn't be just considered alone in a vacuum. There's a mass of evidence, actually. What is the likelihood of this is true? I mean, you know a lot more about this. I do. But given the fevered speculation, given the outrage from a lot of conventional scientists who dismiss it all as total bullshit, what do you feel? What's your gut feeling about this? Well, it connects into a larger, like I said, a larger research effort that I've also been involved in in terms of prehistory. So my gut is that I want to try and trust that these people

truly do believe that they have got conclusive evidence because they're not just, you know, random academics who haven't actually proven their case before. Felipeo Bionde is an accomplished scientist in his field. And it's also important for people to know that a four-hour in-detail presentation has been released on YouTube through the team's social media managers. You can find her YouTube channel by searching Expedition Nicole, and then it's Cicolo or Cicolo, which is C-I-C-O-L-O, Nicole C-Sisolo. Their conference is in their native language of a tactical.

but you can activate subtitles for YouTube, and they're releasing an English dub version very soon, at least that's what they've said. But I would urge people to watch it. And I would also urge people to not be too dissuaded by the overall aesthetic of the platform that's showing the conference or the aesthetic of the conference itself. And there is, in my opinion, an important reason

to not be dismissive simply because, you know, it looks a little bit of a corny conference. And I'm not here to just defend these guys. They need to prove their case. they need to make it absolutely irrefutable before I'm fully satisfied, but I'm not going to dismiss them based on a poorly planned release of the information

or the aesthetics of the venue because these claims, this is what people need to understand, Pierce. They're so incredible that they're immediately relegated to the fringe, immediately. The mainstream outright rejects these ideas. There's no conference in the mainstream academic world that would allow these people to present these findings. And I'm confident that they wouldn't even consider the proposal

because it runs in direct contradiction to establish models, and the status quo in history, which is actually facing an immensely challenging time, regardless of these findings, simply in relation to other regions of the world that contradict the established timelines for how advanced we were in prehistoric past.

Gobeckley-Tepa in Turkey is a prime example, where we truly believe that that region was populated by hunter-gatherers. Lo and behold, this incredibly ancient, megalithic network has been found and is still being excavated today. And so these scientists are being forced into the fringe conference,

in my opinion. They have to operate in this environment. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I would also say that their method of release has been pretty poor. Peers Morgan Unsensored is now proudly independent. If you like the show, we ask for only one thing. Subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Now let's get straight to the point. Support for today's show comes from a business focused on a critical issue. Prosperity. U.S. national debt is at crisis levels. inflation has made life more expensive for everybody and the stock market is precarious. It's enough to make anyone's financial future feel grim. So what is the solution? Well, a simple one is to opt out of the chaos and

invest in something solid and reliable, physical, gold and silver. And there's only one name you need to remember, American Heart for Gold. This company has earned the trust of thousands of customers with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and glowing reviews you can see for yourself. They offer an incredible range of gold and silver bars and coins that can be delivered. directly to your door or they'll help you set them up in a tax advantage gold IRA. First-class customer service makes the whole process simple, secure and straightforward. American Harvard Gold is committed to getting the truth out there and giving you peace of mind in uncertain times. And if that wasn't enough, you've got up to $15,000 worth of free silver

when you make your first purchase and mention my name, Peers. So make the smart move. Call 866-692-2474 or text Peers. That's P. I-E-R-S-2655-3-2. That's 866-692-2474, or text appears to 655-3-2. All the details are in the description. Now on with the show. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of faster. I mean, I think, as a result of the COVID pandemic, for example,

the sort of warfare over information, science and so on, I think there's a much bigger appetite now to challenge orthodoxy. and to challenge science. Now, some of that might be dangerous. Some of it might be healthy. I think there's a kind of healthy balance to be struck. I certainly think discussing these things is completely reasonable.

And you sort of, you know, you damn people with facts if you have them. What's interesting, and maybe we'll wrap with this with you, is why would the Egyptian authorities be so reluctant to let anyone get down there and have a look? Why would it not be in their interests to potentially find evidence of an even more ancient, civilization which could electrify the world and shine a very glorious light on Egypt? Well, honestly, I'm sorry, I actually thought we had an hour straight, you and I,

so I've prepared to really go deep into all of those questions. We do not. Yeah, no, we simply do not have the time to layer in all of the different implications. I've actually got a bunch of scientists following you who are going to debate it. And I'm sure they're very angry with me. But at the same time, I would like to just say that there are, are deeper implications to all of this in terms of the possibility of a pre-catechalismic civilization. When you really start to look at the evidence, and again, I would urge people also to have a look at my own videos on Project Unity where I go into the global pattern, because this isn't just

Egypt. There are evidences all over the globe of highly advanced, megalithic stone builders that were constructing extremely sophisticated, celestually aligned, acoustically engineered. it's profound actually in terms of what we consider the stone age to be and what these structures clearly evidence they actually were. So I think it actually runs in direct contradiction to so much of our historical model, it's going to be very disruptive. If we discover that there was an advanced megalithic stone building culture

that was doing things that actually seemed scientific and technological with natural materials, again, this is something I wanted to get into with you, the idea of using very natural materials on the planet that have energetic components to them. These cultures were doing this. And the one thing I will finish off on, if you'll allow me, because before the experts get on, it's important that we do this. A lot of the critics are saying that this SAR technology,

which uses ground penetrating radar, can't possibly scan two kilometers below the Earth's surface. So how could the team possibly be leveraging SAR technology, this satellite scanning radar technology, to arrive at these findings of deep underground structures. But this is where people are not understanding that Professor Bionde is saying he has a different method that integrates his expertise,

in Doppler technologies. These, again, are technologies that analyze the Doppler effect, which in simple terms is the analysis of frequencies produced by sound and light. Now, I'm not trying to be too complex, but unlike ground penetrating radar, Beyond a SAR technique uses expand microwaves

that barely penetrate the ground. Okay, so it's literally scanning less than 30 centimeters of the ground. But these scans can detect very subtle surface vibrations that are caused by resonating voids and structures underground. So the claim is not that they are firing a sci-fi radar two kilometers into the ground. The claim is they are sweeping the subsurface level, analyzing vibrations and using very complex computational methods

to produce models of what these vibrations are and how they're being caused. That's what's giving them these images. It's not that they're just piercing through the earth because that is not possible. Finally, one word answer. Do you believe it? I really want to believe it based on the evidence around the world, but I'm not willing to just state my claim on it, although I will say this.

Based on the images they've released, it is certainly very provocative evidence that there are massive structures under the ground, whether they are the exact shape and proportion that they're suggesting, the evidence of their data from the collection of these satellites does suggest massive structures underground of some form.

And we need to look at it. We need to look at it and not be too skeptical. Yeah, I don't see why. Why wouldn't we just have a look? Jay Anderson, great to talk to you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. We'll head to debate all this,

a superstar panel of big brains, who it's fair to say, don't exactly enjoy a meeting of minds on his subject or on science in general, firmly in the traditionalist camp of mainstream academia, Milo Rossi, an archaeology educator, environmental scientist and author. He's the brains behind YouTube channel, Mini Minute Man, where he calls out pseudoscience in all his guises, and Dr. Flint Dibble, an archaeologist from the University of Cardiff, and opposing them, alternative scientific theorists and Joe Rogan regulars, a Jimmy Corsetti, from and the Bright Insight podcast, and Dan Richards from Dundking the past. So welcome to all of you. Very excited have got you all together to talk about what is either one of the great discoveries of modern times or a complete load of bullshit.

So let's get to the nitty gritty here. Professor Dibble, what do you think? All right, first of all, thank you for having me. I love sharing archaeology with a wide audience. And look, I'm just going to be frank here. I think that I would love this kind of stuff to be true, but it is total bullshit. It is absolute and utter bullshit for so many different reasons. Number one, they're using a method that has never been presented before in depth.

It's never been tested. Number two, it follows all the rules of pseudoscience where you present things to the public, a public that is not informed on the actual evidence that we have, instead of, and it doesn't address the evidence that we actually have. So it doesn't actually show up all the evidence we have for the bedrock at Giza or for the water table at Giza. There have been ground penetrating radar. There's been muon studies. There's been electroresistivity tomography.

There have been deep soundings, drilling, seismicity studies on the Giza plateau. We actually understand the bedrock and the hydrology there quite well. And in fact, the depth of the water table is dozens of meters. So anything they have found would actually have been completely submerged underwater at any time in the past. And so this is the problem. What they're doing is they're just starting off with grand claims from unproven technology, and they're not addressing how it integrates with all the evidence over 100 years of research on the Giza Plateau itself. And so it's just absolutely hallmarked pseudoscience. And they're already saying we can't publish this stuff in peer review.

journals, but these are scientists with PhDs who have published in peer-reviewed journals. And so they're just claiming to be cancelled without even trying to publish this stuff for an educated audience of professionals that actually knows the evidence. Okay. Well, that's a pretty emphatic response. Jimmy Corselli, your response to that? Well, hello, peers. Thank you for having me on.

I actually agree with Flint on many of these points, which is rather interesting because I'm actually a proponent or believer. that the pyramids of Giza were not actually built for the purpose of being tunes. However, when I've looked into the details of this study, I was happy to hear Flint bring up one of my talking points from a post that went viral yesterday involving the water table under Giza.

And that's something that was not included in this study whatsoever. It actually starts approximately 15 meters or 49 feet down and can extend hundreds of feet below the plateau. So are we really going to pretend that this use of technology would not in any way be influenced by a massive water table below the ground. And I find it particularly odd that that was completely omitted from the study altogether. Again, I'm a very open-minded person.

And I would say if nothing else, this requires further study and exploration. If it was up to me, we would drill a hole straight down through the Giza Plateau, stick a camera down there with a light, and investigate, and that would be the quickest way to do it. It wouldn't cause any damage. This is doable. it's probably not going to happen, but I will say that I have significant doubts about this study and the implications. I think that it has been massively exaggerated, I think that to suggest that these 600 meter-long pillars made up of a spiral staircase is vastly different from the images that they presented. I encourage everybody to look at the data, the raw imaging, if you want to call it raw, and compare it to the AI,

animated photos that they released, and I'm having a hard time making the correlation. So I'm skeptical, but I'm open-minded. I will say we should just further study it in that way. Because all it's going to happen is that we're going to keep going in circles. People will either believe it or not believe it, but the quickest way is to just study it further and find out. So that's where I stand. Facebook and our Sensen is proudly independent.

Our sponsors mean we can bring it to you for free. Support for today's show comes from Bean, who can help you out with an issue of utmost importance. Sleep. Good sleep, as I can confirm, is the foundation of physical and mental health. Our daily performance depends on it. That's why we are delighted to talk about Beams Dream Powder. A science-backed, healthy, hot coke over sleep. It's tested for high-quality efficiency and formulated to ease your body into rest, supporting the four stages of a sleep cycle to help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. Many other sleep-aes calls next day grognus, but Dream contains a powerful, all-natural blend of rachy magnesium, al-thianine, apigenin, and melatonin. It helps you fall asleep,

stay asleep and wake up refreshed. If you like me, you need a good light down after an uncensored debate. You can try Beam's best-selling dream powder with 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash peers and use code peers at checkout. That's shop beam, B-E-A-M-com, slash peers, P-I-E-R-S, and promo code peers at checkout. Now, on with the show. Okay, Milo, over to you. Yeah, absolutely. So I'm always excited when I see archaeology kind of entering a mainstream news

conversation. I'm one of the largest voices in online archaeology education, and so it's always exciting for me to see a topic begin to be picked up by other science communicators and, you know, other news sources and things like that. But what concerns me a little bit about this one is I feel like a lot of people have been playing a game of broken telephone with it. And, you know, I think that you've also picked a very interesting cast of characters to be here today with a very interesting topic because I can't believe I'm saying this. But I fully agree with Jimmy Corsetti.

I think that this is a situation where we are looking at a very noisy scan that has been interpreted in sort of a Rorschark test situation to support something that you can really turn into almost whatever you want. Now, what concerns me the most about this situation is that I've been. and seeing a lot of even more sort of, you know, mainstream academic science accounts picking this up and sort of parroting some of the more fringe claims without actually backing it up in a more concrete way. And this is a little bit alarming to me because I do realize that most of the information that we're getting about this is coming from one, I believe, two press conferences now with very little information. And the thing that I really try and emphasize with all of this is it has not been peer reviewed. And this is why I think I'm going to agree with all

of my colleagues here when I say that this is something that we need to look into further. I think at the very least, this is an excellent opportunity for us to refine this technology to figure out how best to apply it in the future and be able to really use this as a tool to learn more about ancient histories. Can I just ask you, before I move on to Dan, Milo, all of you, okay, I hear all of you, that's fine, but are all of you 100% about this? I mean, how can you be sure, right? It seems to me that all I'm hearing is the technology they've used has never been used the way they're using it.

Okay. Who's to say it's not worked, right? I mean, I kind of agree with Jimmy that the easiest thing is just to barrel down there with a camera. But apparently Egyptian authorities won't allow people to excavate at all around the pyramid. So that may not be an option. My question is simply, you know, you're all speaking with a reasonable degree of certainty or stroke. severe skepticism. And my open mind would simply say, how do you know?

You know, that's a really excellent point there. And I think I'm going to follow you to Flynn. I see you there in a second, but I know you addressed this question to me, so I want to answer it briefly. I think that that's a really good thing to bring up is we simply don't. And that is why I want to encourage that there is more research done into this situation. And on the same side of us not knowing and needing to keep an open mind, it is also worth not immediately drawing the conclusion that this very noise,

sonar image that we got interpreted through AI equals power generation structure. So just like we have to keep an open mind that could be something we haven't discovered, it's also not worth immediately jumping to the most sensational conclusion. Okay, Dan, do you believe it? Well, I don't believe it per se, but I do think it's been sensationalized. It's pretty common when they find a scan, like the underwater pyramids off the Cuba's coast. You look at the scan compared to the image that goes around in pop culture, and it's two completely different things.

but I do think the skepticism might be a little bit heavy, to be honest with you. They do say that they admit that they're using a novel software, it's probably AI, like Milo was saying. So they're looking at this, from what I understand, they're scanning it multiple times, looking at the changes in the scan, and then using that with AI to model what would cause those changes. Now, it sounds a little crazy, and you look at the images,

and you're like, well, maybe, you know, that might, could be this, it could be that. but I have to point out that none of us here know how to really read those images. And, I mean, if I showed up a piece of sheet music on the table right here and said, you know, what is this? If you don't read music, you just see lines and dots. But if you read music, you see Mozart. So I think it might be a little bit over-sceptical to just dismiss this out of hand. I would like to see them peer-review the work.

If they don't peer-review it, that is a little bit of a red flag. But it's very common for people to release their stuff now. They release their pop culture version of it. get some funding and then they pushed the peer review through. I mean, even the Cave of Bones stuff that, the home of the deli stuff was done that way. We got the Netflix special before the peer reviewed papers, if I remember, right? So it isn't like just pseudoscience does this. This is a common thing.

Okay. Professor Finn, I'm going to bring you in, Jimmy. Professor Fitz has been waiting slightly longer than you with a raised hand. So jump in, Professor Flint. I'm used to my students. They've got to raise hands. So, look, the first thing to do is 100% not to just drill into the Giza Plateau. That is, A, the silliest thing in the world. The first thing to do is to demonstrate that this technology works on known subterranean structures. That's really simple to do. Why can't you just drill down?

Isn't that the quickest, the easiest way to establish the truth? Okay, so think about this. Think about this. Already they have drilled into the Giza Plateau on various hydrological studies. They've excavated into the Giza Plateau quite deep underneath the Great Pyramid. They recently found the Osiris shaft. So this is actually happening. currently at Giza, these kinds of investigations. But what we're talking about here is testing two kilometers underground on a sensitive archaeological site

to test a method that can be tested elsewhere. In archaeology, what we do, one of my catchphrases when I go to the public is we always work from the known to the unknown. So if you're going to present a new method, what you can first do is test it on known features. So, for example, at the site of Ostia, the port at Rome,

That has been investigated intensively by Simon Kiay and other scholars, Sarah Parkak. I just interviewed her for my YouTube on this very topic. She's the one who wrote the textbook on remote sensing from satellites in archaeology. So she worked with that team, and she tested doing visual satellite imagery against their magnetometry and GPR, confirming that all three of those different methods saw the same things underground. And then five years later, they actually used a similar technology. they use synthetic aperture radar from satellites, S-A-R, the same thing. And what they did was they tested it again against what we already knew. And it showed that it worked.

Now, they're not using the same kind of deep sounding here. They're just doing stuff from mildly under the surface. But it's very easy with this technology to demonstrate that it works by testing it against known subterranean structures instead of just making claims, oh, with a technology we haven't proven, we've also found the most amazing archaeological discovery in the world. Why would you actually damage an archaeological site? Because any time you excavate,

it's damaging, to test a technology that's unknown when you can do that elsewhere. But what people say, what people will say, Professor Afflead, they'll say, well, of course he'd say this. He's an establishment figure. He doesn't want to have the orthodoxy challenged.

He can't even contemplate the notion of ancient new civilizations that are more ancient than any we knew before. And he's just turning a blind eye to this bomb shell development rather than getting wildly excited and wanting to lead an Elon Musk-style experimentation on the explorer going the different way to Elon's rockets up to space,

this time going down into the bowels of the pyramids to find potentially one of the greatest discoveries of modern times. They think you're a bit of a fuddy-duddy, Professor Flint, who just doesn't want to take the chance. I am a fuddy-duddy without a doubt. I will not deny that in the least, but I can tell you that all of archaeology is about discovering new stuff. That is what I do. Every paper I publish is about new theories and new evidence.

That is what we do. We love new evidence, but what we need to do is demonstrate it clearly. And what they've done is they've started off by saying, hey, you've never heard this, but I'm already being canceled. It's just like pre-cancellation. They're claiming they're being canceled. And then, of course, we say, hey, that's BS because you're just using that rhetoric to get attention, which is all it is.

Okay, or Jimmy, what they're doing is they're doing exactly what Elon Musk has been saying about Mars. They're saying, look, we've got to get up there, and we've got to colonize. It sounds impossible. It sounds incredibly difficult. But we've got to do this for the future of mankind and stuff. And we're going to think big and we're going to get up there

and we're going to colonize it. And you know what? Maybe we will. But he's got a very open mind. about the ability and potential for life on Mars. If we can take that view to getting to a different planet, why would we not at least get excited enough to send an expiration vessel down below the pyramids?

I mean, it sounds like one of those things you could do. I mean, if Netflix did a series on this, it would blow up the internet. We could do this very easily. There's no reason not to drill a hole into the Giza Plateau. We're not talking about doing it straight through the pyramid. There's plenty. The Giza Plateau is quite. quite large.

And how big is it? For those who are not pyramid experts, how big is this area we're talking about? Good question. That is a good question. I've seen it from satellite imagery, and it's very large when you see compared to the surrounding area. I couldn't give you an exact dimension.

But a vast majority of it does not have ancient relics. But I will say this, we could safely drill down and it would be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to find out answers to find out if there is something under the Giza Plateau. But another point that I wanted to make earlier, as far as these scans being, manipulated by AI. I want to point out something that I've yet to see anyone else comment on, which is that we've all seen the images and we're seeing it from the side. You see these large

columns going up and down. Well, these scans are taken from satellites looking downwards, yet we're being presented something as if we're looking at it from the side. Yeah, so how is that possible? It's not. It means that it's been massively manipulated. Okay. Like to an extreme level, probably. Okay. Milo, you're parked, I believe, in the main. mainstream camp, generally, with your thoughts. With your thoughts. But again, the same question to you.

Are you a little bit too stuck in your thought process, that you don't want to contemplate something because it sounds fantastical and maybe flies in the face of everything that you've believed, but isn't the point of being a scientist to think the unthinkable, to dare to dream the undreamable, to go, as I used to say in my favourite TV show, Star Trek, to boldly go where no man has gone before. It seems to me you're being a little bit

on the negative side, you mainstream guys. Yeah, I appreciate that, and that was a very eloquently put, Pierce. You know, that is something that I see commented quite a bit is, you know, oh, you're just part of the mainstream, you're part of, you know, the establishment and things like that. And really, I, it's honestly quite the opposite.

I try and talk a lot about these different, you know, more alternative history, discoveries and topics within that space, because I believe that there is something worth talking about there. Most of what people know me for online is discussing things which, you know, can broadly be classed under pseudo-archiology. But at times, there are things that I come across that I do believe are actually very true and grounded in some sort of reality. So that's the question I've got for you, Milo, which is, you know, you, I think view Dan and Jimmy as pseudo-scientists, right? I would say to that, I'm not a scientist, interviewed lots of science. I interviewed lots of

scientists. But how do you know they're pseudoscientists? I mean, isn't the beauty of science that you're all trying to find new stuff, you're all exploring new ideas, you're all testing existing theories, you're all trying to advance the planet's knowledge of its history and so on. What makes them pseudoscientists and you guys, the good guys? Absolutely. That's a very good question as well. So broadly, kind of the answer that I want to give for that is, um, within kind of the scientific space. It's something that we do want to have a very large interaction with the public. This is something I think is really important. I think we're very want for citizen science in this country, and I think that we really need to try and break down those walls so that

science doesn't feel like something that is, you know, elite and untouchable. At the same time, it's also worth noting that many people who are in the scientific space are people who have dedicated their lives and careers to understanding these topics. And I start to identify pseudoscience when I see people with very little actual experience in the field speaking over those who do have a lot of experience in the field, claiming that their discoveries and what they've put together are something greater than what the scientific kind of consensus has worked towards. The scientific body is not something that is homogenous. It is all over different countries in the world. It's multinational. It's many ages. It's been carried out over hundreds of years. This is something that doesn't have like one

particular, at least in the archaeological field, not one particular agenda to push. And so when I see one person sort of entering the space and saying, well, actually, every single one of them is wrong and they've been lying to you the whole time. That kind of sets off some alarm bells for me. Okay, Dan, what's your response to that? Dan, didn't you hear me? It looks like he froze. Oh, he's frozen.

Dan is frozen, which might be that. Oh, no. Dan, that was almost like a conspiracy moment where you got frozen before he could defend yourself. You know, archaeology shuts down Dan Richards? But Dan, this suggestion, Dan, that you're nothing but a pseudo-scientist, a junk scientist, you know, and you should keep out of their lane

the mainstream guys. Well, let's put it this way. Like Milo just said, we're talking about people with expertise in certain fields. And like Flint has studied seeds. That's his job. Now, by the time I was 25,

I'll go out in the limb, I can say this with confidence. By the time I was 25, I'd studied the pyramids more than both Milo and Flint have at this point in their lives combined. I know a lot about it. Graham Hancock knows a shitload about that stuff.

But they will dog him to the bitter end because he doesn't know as much about stratigraphy. He doesn't know as much about carbon dating, but they're not talking. about this specifically, they're talking about other things. And they mentioned, like, Milo mentioned the amateur, the impassioned amateur. We are the number one market for archaeology. If you write a book about archaeology, guys like me are the ones lined up to buy it.

If it's good, if it's interesting, now if it's just stratigraphy, you're going to have to sell it to students. But if you're actually selling a product that's marketable, I'm at the front of the line. But you guys have alienated me. And if you look at the Society for American Archaeology, at their original bylaws, at their original constitution, they say two things about interested amateurs. One, they want to bring more into their fold. Two, they will only offer them help when asked. But they don't do that with us.

If we say we're interested in something over here, we can expect these guys to come and poo poo all over it. Look at this study right here. Like they're saying, well, we don't know for sure that it works. Okay, we don't know, but we do know that that type of telemetry has only been used for about three feet. or three meters under sand for the most part, but in this, they do have images of the inside of the pyramid. We see the images of like the King's Chamber. So it works through limestone,

it works through a lot further than it has in the past. So there is reason to think that maybe these guys have something going on here, but it's being poo-poot out of hand because it's the pyramids and because it's got some goofy alien woo attached to it. There is definitely a knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of things in the alternate history community,

probably the Baghdad battery being the best example. Ask any archaeologist that digs into it and they will tell you, well, yeah, you could make electricity with those. Look online, you'll find even Milo's got one. There's thousands of guys debunking the things and they were. But that's just part of it. And the important thing to mention there, Dan, is when I made that video talking about the Baghdad battery, I actually was contacted by an archaeologist from the University of Pennsylvania who spoke to me more in depth about it. He is an archaeologist who works at the Royal City of Er.

He's worked in all kinds of these ancient sites. He's very familiar with this discovery. And he actually gave me even more information on it, for which I created a retraction. And I elaborated further. And that's the important thing about science. Can I just raise my own hand here? What is the Baghdad battery?

So the Baghdad battery was a artifact that was discovered, you know, in Baghdad. It was these little ceramic cones that had an asphalt sort of cap on it with two pieces of metal sticking. in and a residue left over from some type of acid. It's been claimed that this, you know, is everything from something used for electroplating, very small electric charge, all the way up to something, evidence that there was ancient power grids. Now, I am obviously firmly believed that this is not evidence of power grids. We need to see a lot more for that. But there actually is some archaeological evidence to suggest that this could have been used for electroplating or a

ceremonial ritual. Perhaps you put a sculpture on top made of metal. You put your hand on it. You get a little jolt. That would be pretty interesting, you know. But a little bit hard to tell because these artifacts have been lost and destroyed during all of the wars in the Middle East. And so it's a little bit challenging to revisit those. But another great example of why it's important for archaeologists and scientists to keep an open mind and why we try to do that with every discovery we come across. Okay. We're going to have a little bit of fun with all of you now.

We're going to have a little quickfire quiz, right? Because as well as the pyramids, there are lots of alternative other scientific theories that have been boosted a lot by the likes of Joe Rogan, who I think is brilliant. But he loves to get the old theories espoused and debating. and gets everyone going. So let's go through these. I'm going to start with you, Professor Finn, move down the panel.

I just want a very quick response to each of these. We've got about six things. And you'll know them all. So I want a very quick response. So the first one is the theory that the Earth is actually flat rather than a globe. Professor Flint.

It is a globe. We can see it from space. We can see the curvature when we're up on a plane. It's fairly clear. can even see it on the horizon from far away. Milo? Yeah, bullshit. And it's one of the ones that I even love because even myself and the people in the alternative

history space can all agree on this one. I think it's complete bullshit. Or we're about to discover if that's true, Jimmy. Yeah, better. Absolutely false. Eratosthenes had proved this 1,500 years ago by measuring shadows at noon from a certain distance apart and prove curvature that way. Before we end this podcast, peers, we have to talk about the hidden chamber inside the

great pyramid that hasn't been excavated. It was discovered over eight years ago now that if there's a single mystery involving the Giza Plateau, it is the confirmed scientific studies that prove through Muon technology that there is a massive hidden chamber somewhere above the so-called Grand Gallery. They discovered it eight years ago, and nobody's gone looking yet. And nobody to that in itself should be a real topic of conversation. Sorry to digress.

No, I agree. Come on your show without mentioning it. Okay, Dan, the earth is flat rather than round. No, I don't think the earth is flat rather than round. I'm sorry, I'd love to give my enemies ammo, but no. You see, you guys don't sound pseudo-atilt to me. You all sound very mainstream. Let's try the next one.

Professor Flynn, life didn't evolve randomly, but rather was designed by greater God, a sort of godlike intelligence. Now, I believe the latter on this, because whenever I ask my logical friends, experts, and they say, oh, you know, it all started with the Big Bang or whatever. And I say, fine, but what was there before nothing? and because they can't answer,

because the human brain cannot comprehend what was there before nothing, de facto, there must be a superior being to a human being that can actually answer that question. Therefore, there must be a godlike higher form of intelligence

because we're not able to even answer that question, unless you're about to tell me what was there before nothing. You asked like four different questions there. One of them had to do it before the Big Bang. one of them had to do about the evolution of life.

Well, you get my point. Not being an astronomer or a physicist, I'm going to stay away from what was before the Big Bang, and you can maintain that kind of belief. But I do want to correct you, evolution is not random. It involves natural selection. And as someone who studies ancient animals, I can actually see selection traits in seeds and animals,

for example, from domestication. We can understand how seeds evolved to fall off plant, We can see the changes, for example, in the skulls. I get that. But sorry to be pedanti, but do you agree with the Big Bang theory then? I think so. I trust my colleagues in other fields. So what was there?

So final question of you, what was there before the Big Bang? That I have no idea. I don't think anybody, any scientists have even talked about it. There you go. It doesn't make me a pseudo-scientist to say, well, there you go. Milo. Yeah, yeah. Well, I am a firm believer in the process of evolution.

I have quite a lot of experience in environmental science. I love natural history. We have very strong chronology to show... So what was there before the Big Bang? I have no idea, and anyone who tells you they do is completely full of shit. Do you accept that because you can't explain what was there before the Big Bang? There must be something more intelligent out there that can. Well, you know, that's a very interesting question, Beers.

I've actually... I've had a few comments before. They always stuck with me of people trying to literally ask me, Milo, can you debunk the existence of God? I'm like, are you kidding me? Absolutely. Like, what kind of question is that? Like, if that was a thing that could be yay or nade, we would have solved that thousands of years ago.

I'm not here to argue about faith or tell you what you should and shouldn't believe. There very well may be something beyond the Big Bang that we can't comprehend. We're little tiny monkey brains wearing clothes. I have no idea. Nothing matters and everything is fake. Jimmy? I'm a believer in intelligent design. I think that evolution only proves that theory in my mind.

I believe that wherever this started is exactly where we were going after we die. I think consciousness lives on. I have seen the signs and miracles in my own life to prove that there is something beyond the veil of the human eyes. I believe that we're spiritual beings and happening a human experience, and this is probably just a massive test. When you die, you probably wake up

and get judged by everyone around you. I don't know. But I think that in my mind, that the mathematics of evolution and science in itself would be from the grand creator of the all. Dan, very quickly, because I want to get through these if we can, so just quickly.

Well, it feels like to me, when you push it, intelligent design as far as evolution goes, I don't believe that, but it could be. I can't really debunk that sort of thing. When it comes to the Big Bang and what came before it, to me, that's kind of, you can always kick the can further. It's like, okay, well, what came before the God that figured out the bit was snuffed before the Big Bang?

Well, that's my point, though. Only a God could explain it. Well, but you're always kicking the can further back. It's like if you say... Well, no, you're not. If you're starting with a... If you believe in God, you believe it has such a superior intelligence to us that we can't explain it.

But God can. To me, that logically falls apart because if my hairy, stinky butt needs a God to create me, then how much more would a perfect, infinite being need a God to create it? That just logically dies. Let's move rapidly through the rest. The CIA, Professor Flint,

found the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia, where it kept under guard by a virgin monk who cannot leave the sacred grounds until his death. Do you believe that? I have no idea. I've never heard that claim in my life. It sounds a little Indian. Jones-esque, which, you know, I love myself

some Indiana Jones. If you can see, I like it. You look a bit like Indiana Jones. I have a lot of fun when I'm in public sort of like this, and so I'm all for a good yarn, but it sounds fictional to me more than non-fiction. Milo, is the Ark of the Covenant real? Sounds cool, man.

No idea. Anyone got any idea, Jimmy, Dan? It's possible that it was real, but if it was in Ethiopia, the United States military industrial complex would have invaded Ethiopia and taken it. Dan Bangkok wrote about this in the sign in the seal in the late 80s. He was the first person that I heard that actually

it was before fingerprints of the gods, before archaeologists didn't like the guy. But his first big pseudo-science book was talking about the Ark of the Covenant being down in Ethiopia. So I don't know for sure if that's true or not, but that's an interesting tidbit. Go by the sign in the seal. You're welcome, Graham. Yeah, fascinating.

Okay, the lost super civilization of Atlantis, exist, Professor Flint. Yes or no? Definitely not. 100% not. The entire dialogues that start with Plato demonstrate and they say explicitly, this is a thought experiment. It's about a war between Atlantis and Athens

and it's designed to test or to demonstrate how the ideal city from the Republic would act in war. And one of the things that we can do is we can ground test this. I was told that I could maybe show a quick image. So let me see what number

It is where it is. No. Give me a second, Jimmy. All right. Pierce, I know you said you were hoping we're going to get through these, but this question is like throwing a grenade into this. Yeah. So we're going to talk right now about Atlantis.

If we could pull up number 15 on my slides. Wow. Is it the reshot structure? No, it's not the reshot structure. We can talk about that, too, Jimmy. We can talk about that. Okay, ground-tracing Plato's, Athens, geography, and archaeology. Okay. So in the Critias and the Tameas, Plato describes this war between Atlantis and Athens

that took place 9,000 years before his time. And there are absolutely a number of serious issues with these claims. One of them is that we can actually work from the known to the unknown and test these texts. So, for example, if we have that image up there and we look at ancient Athens. Plato actually claimed he lived in Athens, he's from Athens, and he got this story from Athenians. He claimed, for example, that this hill over to the left, Le Cavitos, was connected at some point to the Athenian Acropolis, which is in the center, with all those temples. And geologically, we know that's never true. Okay. He also claimed, yeah. I've got to bring that, it was a yes or no question, actually, Professor, but I do appreciate the

extended lecture we got, including slides. Wasn't expected that, very impressive. But to the three, yes or no to this. Does the Lancers exist, Milo? I don't believe it existed in the way that it's sort of been claimed. This was some lost high society, high technology that was submerged underneath the ocean. Probably the most I would err into any credence towards that is a story that has been changed and handed down through time of some village disappearing underneath, you know, whether it was waters rising from the end of the last glacial period or a flood from a river or something like that, but nothing in the scale that I believe it's talked about in the book. Jimmy?

Yes, and is by far at the eye of the Sahara, also known as the Richard Structure, matches more than a dozen similarities with what Plato had described in Los City, Atlantis, and there's scientific evidence to corroborate the tale because it was said to have been perished 11,600 years ago, which is the exact time of the younger driest climate catastrophe. Known scientific data proves that Earth went through tremendous weather changes, it's corresponding evidence, there's something there. I think it existed. Okay. Dan?

I do think that there was a lot of civilization. I don't think it was as technologically advanced as a lot of the other Atlantis guys do, but I do think that there was one that was good at seafaring and good at astronomy. And I would also point out that, yes, it's clear that Plato was using Atlantis as a metaphor, as an allegory in his story. However, that doesn't prove that he didn't believe it existed. As a matter of fact, I would take that the other direction. If I was to draw a metaphor for today and say that the West is falling,

I would use Rome as an example, not Harry Potterland, because I would be trying to convince you with using something that you would believe was real. So to me, the whole fact that he's using as an allegory is actually evidence that he believed and his contemporaries believed that Atlantis was real. Okay, well, since you've all steadfastly ignored my yes or no rule, I'm now implementing it on pain of ending the debate instantly

if you transgress. So I just want literally yes or no to these final two because they are yes or no questions. We don't need supplementary thought processes. So man has never landed on the moon. Yes or no, Professor Flynn? Double negatives. Well, let me ask a simple question.

Did man land on the moon? Yes or no? Yes. Milo? Yes. Jimmy? Yes. Dan?

Yes. You see, you're all mainstream. And secondly, yes or no, UFOs have visited Earth and governments are keeping it secret. Professor Flynn, yes or no? No. Milo? No.

God, even I believe this one. Come on, Jimmy. Probably, but they might not be from Elserra. They may have been here all along. Okay, Dan? I'm on the fence on this one. Wow. I can't believe it.

I would put all the money I have in the world. Of course the UFOs have landed on the planet and the government are keeping a secret somewhere. Of course they are. I can't believe how mainstream you guys are. I feel like I'm the pseudo-scientist. Anyway. I'm the only one with any edge around here.

Guys, a fascinating debate. I'll be really interested to see what happens with the pyramids. It's going to be, look, it's going to be like when Geraldo went into the vault, right, live on TV. It's either going to be full of riches and history and fascinating stuff, or it's going to be a massive turkey. And we may never get to find out, but it's going to be really interesting to see how it develops. If it gets peer-reviewed and turns out to have merit to it, wow, what a moment. If it gets peer-reviewed, and as Professor Fitt began the debate by saying, and his total bullshit, oh dear.

It stinks to high heaven. It's like, ooh. Great to have you all. I never thought I'd spend an hour debating the Egyptian pyramids and whether UFOs have landed on the planet. But I'm glad we did. I found it very interesting. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, you'll be now for a final word on all this pyramid stuff is Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the author of conspiracy, while the rational believe the irrational. Well, great to have you, Michael. So what do you think about this new pyramid's bombshell?

Is it the greatest discovery in modern scientific history, or is it, as one of my earlier panelists announced, a lot of old bullshit? Well, bullshit's a pretty strong word, although it's one of my favorites for a lot of things we study at skeptic. I would say, wait and see, if it turns out to be true, if they actually do an archaeological dig and find these spiral structures and so on.

Okay, let's celebrate a great discovery. But so far what we have, you know, this ground penetrating radar images, reminds me of the UAP videos. They're always grainy and kind of blurry, and you can't quite make out what's going on, and different people think they see different things. That's not a good sign. That allows the human mind to fill in the blank.

So you see all over the Internet, particularly on X, all these artist renditions of what we're looking at. But that isn't at all what we're looking at with these images. So, you know, with any of these kind of alternative archaeological discoveries, let's wait and see, could be. But, you know, one of the things of having an institutional memory of doing Skeptic magazine for 35 years is that I've heard all this before. That is to say, you know, claims about the Great Pyramid Complex go back to the mid-8

1800s. And there's been, you know, just countless books about what it really was. You know, the whole power generating structure for the Great Pyramid. That actually, that was a popular book in 1998. Christopher Dunn was the author of that, that it was a like harmonic resonance structure that communicated with the aliens and I don't know what. And, you know, so these ideas go back a long time. There's something about the pyramids, you know, they, they are magnificent structures that stimulates the human imagination to go beyond

what we know that it's for sure what it's used for, you know, a burial structure and a funereal monument and so on. Could it be something more than that, maybe? But we have to have evidence for it. And I mean, by evidence, I mean a convergence of evidence from multiple

experts, not just one alternative archaeologist who thinks he knows what it is. Like one of my favorite alternative archaeologists, your compatriot there, Graham Hancock, who I like a lot. And one of his frustrations is that Zahi Havas, that had of antiquities in Egypt, doesn't give him as much time as he would like. Now, I guess they'd spend a little more time together. But the problem is, is that people like Zahi Havas, who's in charge of antiquities there,

he's had a hundred people like Graham come to him and say, I think I know what the Great Pyramid was actually used for. It's like, yeah, well, get in. line because there's like a hundred people like that. So which of the alternatives is the right one? And the way it's presented often in popular media like this is like, why are you being so close-minded and dogmatic? You know, there's the mainstream accepted theory and then there's the alternative. Why not give them up both a fair reading? Because there's a hundred of the alternatives and the one mainstream that everybody accepts. It's possible to the mainstream archaeologists are all wrong. That's happened in the history of science. But in order to

to overturn the mainstream theory, you have to have extraordinary evidence. So as you know, Carl Sagan's famous line, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And if all you have is this image, this ground penetrating radar image that's kind of hard to interpret in different scientists, interpreted different ways, well, let's wait and see before we, you know, make some extraordinary claim about the aliens built it or the super advanced Atlanteans built it or it was a power generating source or whatever. You've said, I think, or suggested that the rise of scientific and historical conspiracy theories can be blamed a bit on Donald Trump and obviously social media as well. To which my response would be, okay, but he has been quite transparent, hasn't he, on releasing things like the JFK files and so on?

Isn't that the best way to deal with conspiracy theories to actually be fully transparent about documents which the American public haven't seen? Oh, I'm not critical of Trump at all on that. He's the man who did it, finally. People have been threatening to release the documents. Well, my prediction turned out to be true that it's not that the government was hiding the involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK, but rather, what we've known since the Church Committee meetings hearings in the late 70s, that the CIA was involved in the assassination of foreign leaders, in rigging foreign elections, in favoring and actually giving money to either fascist dictators or non-communist leftists in third world countries where the United States had business interests and the communists might nationalize our companies,

but at least the fascist can be bribed, right? And as you know, there was, you know, many attempts to assassinate Castro. The Bay of Pigs was an actual failed invasion. The Cuban missile crisis happened because of all that. So I was suspected, and from what I've seen of the, I don't know, a couple thousand of the documents I've looked at. It's all involving CIA activities in foreign countries, you know, where our assets are, how much money they need to, you know, sort of bribe or fuel our sources there to tell us more, that kind of stuff. And that would be embarrassing to the State Department if some of these countries are now

our allies. And, you know, it's like when the WikiLeaks thing came out that we were monitoring Angela Merkel's, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel cell phone. And it was like, what? You were doing what? So out of interest, who do you think killed Kennedy? Was it Lee, Harvey Oswald, on his own? Oh, yeah, absolutely 99%.

Oswald acted alone. The only help he had was with his rifle. And so here's my take on that. I mean, there's just mountains of evidence that Oswald did it. There is no mountains of evidence or no convergence of evidence from multiple sources to any other one person. So when people like Oliver Stone say, well, I think the CIA did it.

Well, that's a pretty big target. Who in the CIA? Well, Alan Dulles. You mean Alan Dulles was there? No, no, I don't mean Alan Dull. I mean, he would have hired somebody. Okay, who did he hire? Where's the paper trail?

Where's the money that they paid the assassin to do it? And so on. There's nothing like that and nothing new in the latest tranche of JFK files. Or, for that matter, WikiLeaks. You know, there were hundreds of thousands of leaked documents that were classified, not approved by the government. And there's nothing in there about JFK assassination, much less 9-11 was an inside job or the moon landing was hoaxed or anything like that. Final question, what is the one conspiracy theory that is deemed to be a conspiracy theory that you would quietly most love to see turn out to be true?

Oh, well, I guess maybe the Epstein stuff, you know, because at first I thought maybe he was murdered, but then somebody wrote me from that, he used to work in that prison and said those cameras break down all the times. I don't know, maybe. You know, something like, well, but see, in my book, my thesis is that enough conspiracy theories do turn out to be true. You know, Watergate and Iran, Contra, all the CA stuff I just mentioned. You know, conspiracies do happen. Corporations do them, big powerful government, agencies do them. So that kind of transparency is absolutely vital. Or else we're going to keep believing them because enough of them are true, it pays to believe, just in case.

Manga Sherman, great to talk to you. Thank you very much for coming on. Nice to see you, Pierce. All the best. Pierce Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast.

And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.