John le Bon | The Hoax Hierarchy, The History Conspiracy, & The Wireframe Mesh

Show Notes


Alright Higherside Chatters, when we dig into the details of many subjects that are generally taken for granted, we find a great deal of manipulation, half truths, and faulty premises in which entire fields are sometimes based- and this goes for an increasingly large chunks of history and science: Materialism, Darwinism, The Apollo Moon Missions, Columbus discovering America, Mass shootings, 9/11, the cover up of exotic technology and alternative fuel sources, genuine medicine, historic time lines, and maybe even some major elements of our Earthly system itself….

Everyone draws their lines differently, but these are just some of the examples we’ve examined in the past that actually encompass huge portions of popular worldviews and to see through even just a few of them – leads one to reflect on not only what else we take for granted that might have been concocted by the Capstone Cabal- but just how powerful and all encompassing are the nefarious few? What kind of world am I in? Are we as blissfully ignorant of our true situation as the cattle grazing on the farm?

Well, when the Big Club goes back longer than we can trace our own family lines, and we’re forced to go through the brainwashing education system that has been cooked up by these very same untrustworthy tyrants- good luck getting it all worked out. As the theme song says, we know they’re lying to us, we just don’t know to what degree- well today we’re blowing the barn doors right off and torching every sacred cow left inside. Because today’s guest John Le Bon pushes the needle firmly into the red, as he tackles some of what seem to be the most controversial and tightly held so called “truths. John is a self described “real skeptic” from Australia, just asking questions about what we take for granted. He runs as well as a popular youtube channel- and I think this is going to be a pretty wild ride.

The controversial questioner, ful-spectrum skeptic, and conspiratorial thunder from down under- JLB.

The Library of Alexandria Story Flowchart: 

If interested in reading more about John’s perspective on this saga, the whole article can be read for free on his site, after registration:

PLUS Content

-The importance of getting sunlight and grounding. What does that say about our environment? -Jon’s thoughts on the work of Anatoli Fomenko. -Catastrophism. -Casting doubt on the Library of Alexandria. -Casting doubt on the existence of Nikola Tesla. -L Frank Baum. -Spiritual sources for technology.

108 Responses

    1. I loved the show and especially the tesla stuff but I agree with the majority of this thread that extreme scepticism doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Re tesla: because 95% of everything jlb checks is digital, if they wanted to fabricate a person’s records or erase their records, doing it digitally is an easy way to go about it.
      All that said I’m pretty convinced the ufo story is a fabrication so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that he’s right about tesla. Also very interesting that whitley strieber wrote a brilliant book called “the key”, in which he has an out of this world discussion with “the master of the key”. I do love whitley so just saying.

      1. where do you suppose one finds the alleged physical records? i’ve been personally trying to find out where any physical documents are in Shoreham New York or elsewhere …for a couple of years now.


        the museum project to resurrect Wardenclyffe is also a running joke.

        also curious what you found ‘extreme’ thx

        1. What I mean by extreme is that even when you do track down physical records jlb doubts them. Like the original Oxford scholars that found the tablets on a rubbish dump. Unfortunately I know of a famous English art forger who used to do just that. He would slip extra pages into the archives at the Tate of the paintings he’d just forged…very clever! So I know that sounds a bit contradictory but at some point you’ve got to take a stance and say fuck it is believe in something as a starting point, and have a little faith that not everyone is a trickster. Otherwise you end up in nihilism which does no one any favours.

          1. “What I mean by extreme is that even when you do track down physical records jlb doubts them…Unfortunately I know of a famous English art forger who used to do just that. He would slip extra pages into the archives at the Tate of the paintings he’d just forged…very clever! So I know that sounds a bit contradictory ”

            a bit? so you know a forger who coopts paintings in a prestigious museum in the United Kingdom..and this is your evidence that ‘physical records’ shouldn’t be questioned? oh boy.

            “but at some point you’ve got to take a stance and say fuck it is believe in something as a starting point, and have a little faith that not everyone is a trickster. Otherwise you end up in nihilism which does no one any favours.”

            who is looking for favours? certainly not a genuine truth seeker. but if you want to believe in something…by all means believe in it. just don’t be surprised if your foundation-less fantasies get heavily scrutinized.

          1. in the context of this exchange, im researching ‘researchers’ and people inside this ‘truth’ community. there are so few of ‘us’ i deem it necessary to defrag broken programs of those scant individuals i have important commonalities with. i welcome your response to my rebuttal above.

  1. Absolutely love the longer episodes! Too few podcasts still entertain long format shows. Thank you for going above and beyond average. That’s part of what makes THC stand above the rest, much appreciated!

  2. I don’t know about this one. JLB seemed to say the same thing over and over for 3 hours. “No primary sources for (x)”… his entire argument and belief system seems to revolve around putting faith in a “primary source”. Take any story from yesterday with primary sources and and you’ll get at least 2 if not more opposing accounts of what happened 24 hrs ago.

    I’m earth shape agnostic like you, but his whole skeptic attitude toward every other topic he seems to not apply to the FE debate. Admittedly I haven’t seen any of his stuff but on the show his flight to Australia story seems to be solid proof in his mind as to where his country exists. The flight time multiplied by the airspeed plus the vector is pretty simple math to figure out where you end up. My problem is if JLB believes there are forces and people capable of shrouding history and pulling off real time false flags rituals on a pretty massive scale and keeping majority of the populous hypnotized and blind to reality, then isn’t it possible these same forces have the ability to send a plane in a direction at a speed other than what the little monitor on your inflight screen tells you?

    There are tons of jet fuel and airspeed hoax vids on YT. Of course they could all be BS but, but when you sit in a 747 and fly over the ocean at 40k ft (allegedly), can tell if you are going 550mph or 250mph? Or you were flying in a straight line or vectoring exactly in the direction of the intended destination. Over 10 hours the true destination could be thousands of miles off from what they tell us.

    My point is, he ain’t flying the plane and the airline industry and corporations are complicit in other big lies so isn’t it possible they are part of that one too… just saying. I really don’t know and I tend not to trust anything, even primary sources.

    His take on the Sphinx was pretty laughable. I lean toward thinking there were previous civilizations that were here long long before anybody is telling us. I’ve walked around ruins full of unexplainable rock formations and seemingly ancient dwellings in Crimea that show evidence of massive erosion as well as catastrophic collapse. I’ve seen up close what look like tire or wagon wheel tracks worn over a foot deep into solid rock and other anomalous features. I don’t know how they got there … but I’m open to it all being 3D printed Westworld style or just about anything else except what the experts and academia tell us.

    I did enjoy the questioning technology origins and the Tesla stuff. The grounding and sun exposure ideas are dear to my heart as well. JLB is very well spoken and I believe well intentioned. Early 30s is pretty young so I’ll give him a pass for lending so much credence to written accounts of history just because they appear to be supported by primary sources.

    1. After an hour an a half, I thought the same thing. Lots of I don’t knows amd Greg have you ever seen this movie? or read this book? Basically, he answered a question with a question. This his beliefs and opinions. And mentioning his model of research without ever giving any sources or he had a source here or there and long winded answers. I have 89 minutes left on the episode and I don’t plan on finishing it. I thought ” Wow! 3 hours! Yes!” Halfway through i had to stop and think. Does he know anything and can he prove it?!

      1. My thoughts exactly. Admittedly I listened to the majority of it while I kept busy with work, but ended up falling asleep before the end once I got into bed. If I wasn’t otherwise occupied I would have most likely stopped and binned the file.

      2. To start, ill preface by saying i may be projecting some of myself onto the way i interpreted what all he said, as i began by questioninge everything, to the point i threw out everything i was ever taught or thought i knew and re examined everything, so i see a little of myself in alot of what i heard.
        I feel i may be alone in this, but i felt listening to him that proving anything was never his point, or goal. We never agree completely with any one person, but i thought his questionimg of everything was refreshing, as it seems most ppl are to eager to answer. I appreciate his questioning of everything while coming to no concrete conclusions. He said he was 31 and has been doing this a little while. Thats about the time alot of us in our lives started questioning things. He is still young and in his search, and while searching, he is documenting. I would say years from now you wpuld see a growth of consistant progression with him as he narrows down what it is he believes. Because i didnt pick up on any set of beliefs he has other than question everything. He of course illuded to some conclusions he has come to, yet seemed open to changing them if he felt he found credible (in his eyes) evidence. So conclusion may not be the right word, but more merely what the info he found to go on seems to insinuate in itself, if you exclude common perceptions and things we are told is true.

        A bit of rambling of my own, but i enjoy hearing someone question things intensely. It gives me hope, as too many i see accept everything they are told. I liked it, and will losten a second time after having read these comments to see if i pick up on what everyone else is saying.

    2. I agree, I kept hearing him make excuses for his own lack of education, or how he was tricked by the “man” into firmly believing a given narrative.
      He’s in his first Saturn return – but he’s just sowing more doubt and uncertainty into other people by entertaining ludicrous conjecture like the Sphinx was carved and weathered a couple hundred years ago.
      He could be a insidious useful idiot – that just throws a big turd of confusion at a fan and watch the shit fly.

      He’s barely off the first step of his own self development – stuff we’ve been lead to believe is true is surrounded in lies and deception, (the winners of the war told a bunch of lies to make them look better – wow stop the press that’s mind blowing new info) and got stuck there trying to make him self feel better by just questioning every narrative, a child does that.
      There seems to be little else about him. If he can come up with his own solid conclusions then he will be worth air time.

    1. I do not fully agree with jlb however. Primary sourcing is important and he does rely quite a bit in questionable easily manipulated technologies by the same Few thst allegedly created or channelled these technologies of virtual Magic/science. .experiential 1st hand is a Primary source of perceived “truth”…not merely pdf sourcing etc which of course is essily manipulated. .great points thc chatter!

  3. One of the most stunning life changing Brilliant shows perspectives…you guys have hit it far out of the ball park into ultra hyperspace. .really…i have listened to so many of your shows for years and much research…revising thinking meditations…..Wow…i will promote this truly enlightening…..whew wtf?? You Rock…YO BRO.. Not everyone can handle this. Lots of triggers. Whoa again. LOVE=Infinity. In my opinion lol

  4. Wow what a challenging chat.. seriously I was so up and down throughout that.
    Thinking… Oh boy that’s going to piss people off and then just no friggen way??!!
    Then the next minute I was completely in agreement cause that’s exactly how I feel and no one else gets that.
    That’s what made that such a good show. Nothing like a boundary shattering nudge to remind us that we have indeed ALL been programmed to believe the stories that make up both modern and ancient or perhaps not so ancient history (His-story)
    I just had to check out your website John Le Bon to find out what you found visiting Winton, somewhere I’d defiantly want to check out as a fellow Aussie.

  5. Great work Guys. Great approach to research.

    Flat earf? Not sure he interviewed real experts in seargent , ha

    Watching a rocket hit a firmament , Wernher von bruan, now I’m able to hear anything .. frustrated we have to tip toe around presenting theories. It is the real challenge , sparking mind opening and interest.

    I’ve seen the pole stars explained and it doesn’t seem like that flight proves curve, like a space station moon trasit some how proving orbit?

    Maybe doesn’t fit the model , probably things that make fake planes look impossible . But the disappearing wings etc. prove a model that seems unbelievable.

    I find the same frustration when people don’t know what to say when seeing 100 mile photographs.
    Hit me I had been lying to myself about what I saw living on the coast growing up. Realizing opened my mind, learn about perspective visual and spiritual . Also perspective on realms and levels of frequency .

    Basically the material science hoax.

    Need to be able to reasearch without believing.

    Flat and hollow it seems , but can’t do research cuz Antarctic treaty


  6. I love conspiracy, beacuse even if itnisnfa tually incorrect I still find it an important thought exercise to question things and look for deeper truths that may be hidden. That being said if you over apply this view it’s very dangerous. We can’t monitor and explore space when our best minds are arguing if it’s real. Psyops have us arguing that Australia doesn’t exist?
    The water hoax the globe hoax the sun hoax. Does the guest think anything in history has naturally happeened or is true?

  7. I have seen coins in the British Museum from Rome and Greece even the dies used and cannot understand how the extreme level of detail and quality was reached without the use of magnification and tools. The coins exist but not tools or records of how they were produced. I am not talking about the beat to crap stuff we see in books the coins in the museum are of a quality that you would think they were made yesterday. There are other small detailed objects that seems impossible to be made that long ago. To defend my point the objects are displayed with the use of powerful magnification just to see the details.

  8. The long episodes are wonderful. Always look forward to them. I love seeing a guest like JLB bring the truth to the very word it self; belief! Belief is not really knowing if we are honest with our selfs. JLB has obviously gone inward for real answers hence the conversation about the working in him self with the sun. I wish more would challenge themselves on what they claim to be really knowing about in information like JLB. It would be a much healthier “Conspiracy culture”.

    1. Nice one, ma’am or sir as the case may be! You have hit upon the two main points that i keep coming back to, no matter what I’m researching:

      First: the nature of belief. Is it necessary because concepts require belief in order to exist. Facts don’t require belief in order to exist, but we ignore facts to our potential peril.

      Second: The words over the doorway of the Oracle at Delphi,
      ‘First, know thyself’. It seems as though those words are meant to turn the seeker away from the Oracle to contemplate themselves and the answers that they seek, or that knowing thyself makes many questions and problems disappear.

      A healthier conspiracy culture is a worthy goal. I hope we all get there together. Cheers!

  9. Loved Dark City. Of course this is a different view of the Anatoly Fomenko work, which so makes sense to me. I love the thought of history, but would never bother to learn it, I think because there wasn’t truth behind it compelling me to accept it. So to me, this makes sense on a gut level. I met a Syrian that told me they have history that goes back 10,000 years. This is probably why we want to invade Iraq and Syria, destroy their history. That is what happens with most invasions, destroy the libraries.

  10. While I don’t necessarily disagree with John, I find it difficult to take seriously a guy who chastises the masses for “wasting time clicking on memes” when his website and YouTube channel employ some of the most egregiously spammy and click-bait-y tactics I’ve ever seen in the conspiracy realm. For a guy who preaches objectivity and agnosticism, an awful lot of his videos have the terms “100% TRUE!” or “100% DEBUNKED!” in the title.

  11. Great guest, great show, love the longer interviews, of course I could say that I do not agree 100% with him, but who gives a damn. Very interesting, can’t ask for more.

  12. Over the next few days I plan to return to respond to a few comments here directly, but for now I just wanted to thank Greg for the sensational job he has done with this podcast, and also express my gratitude towards the members of THC who have proven to be more positive and open-minded than I had expected to be the case.

    Even those of you who disagree with a large proportion of what I have to say, it speaks volumes about your mindset that you can still listen to a three-hour call without getting emotionally triggered by what you are hearing. My experiences with the YouTube ‘truth’ crowd over the past few years has been very different. Long story short, I am used to people listening to 5% of what I have to say and then shooting from the hip. For some reason I expected that a lot of Greg’s listeners would be similar. So far, the evidence suggests that I misread Greg’s audience. Sometimes it truly is good to be wrong 🙂

    So once again, even those of you who think I may be wrong about ‘ancient history’, cosmology, Tesla, or anything else, thank you for at least ‘hearing me out’. It means a lot more to me than you might imagine. The skeptical path can be a lonely path, and after all of the work I have put into my research over the past few years, it is cool to simply be able to share what I have discovered, even if relatively few people ultimately agree with my conclusions/interpretations.

    As for the final product, if you have never edited a podcast before, it is perfectly understandable that you might not realise just how much work goes into it. During our call a couple weeks ago, Greg and I had several technical difficulties mid-call. To make matters worse, the house I live in suffers from an inordinate amount of background noise, because I live next to a major road, in an old ‘Queenslander’ house (i.e. thin wooden walls). You wouldn’t know it after listening to the final product. Very well-edited.

    Moreover, Greg’s questions were fair and engaging, he had clearly spent time checking out my material prior to the call, and the discussion flowed smoothly. How many interviewers in this scene actually take the time to check out their guest’s work with as much detail as Greg does? I’m not aware of any (although if you have any suggestions, please let me know, because I’m always looking for new material to listen to).

    Overall I can’t speak highly enough of my first THC interview.

    If you would like me to elaborate on any of what was discussed in the call, I’ll be happy to answer those questions here, or alternatively you can email me at johnlebon123 – at – gmail – dot – com.

    In just 24 hours there have already been about two dozen new Free Member registrations on my site, which suggests to me that a lot of people are interested in learning more about why I describe ‘ancient history’ as a Hoax. Note that I have made several of my History Hoax pieces available to Free Members specifically to accommodate the expected traffic from the call. I have very little doubt that anybody who reads those articles for themselves will see that there is something to this.

    Why not ‘take a trip out to Tucson’ for yourself and see if ‘ancient history’ really is all a sham? What have you got to lose?

    As I said at the top, I’ll return to respond to some of the comments here over the next few days.

    Thanks again to Greg and to all of his listeners who were willing to at least hear me out.

    1. Thanks for coming on the show – I had never heard of you before but I enjoyed the discussion. I definitely came to I think a similar conclusion as you in the last few years, in what can be summed up in the following quote by Robert Anton Wilson “I don’t believe anything, but I have many superstitions” – I cannot really prove anything myself, but I have a set of working ideas which are my best understanding at the moment, but I also know that at any time new information may come forth that could change my understanding. Keep up the good work, hope to hear some more from you.

      1. Thank you very much for the kind words, rakarth.

        It is interesting to me that you should mention Robert Anton Wilson. I only began seriously looking into his material earlier this year. I finished Cosmic Trigger a couple of months ago. Even though I disagree with a lot of RAW’s opinions and beliefs (e.g. futuristic space travel coming soon), I got a lot out of that book. His general disposition alone is worth engaging with. RAW shares a real zest for life, which I am trying to cultivate for myself.

        One of the things in that book which has stayed with me is from the foreword to the reissue by Timothy Leary. He describes RAW as ‘that most recklessly heroic person – a self-employed intellectual’.

        Well what is Greg? What is every other independent content creator in this scene, when trying to craft and generate a living for themselves, outside of the standard 9-5? A self-employed intellectual! We are trying to foster and share an intellectual pursuit, an attempt at improving our own thinking patterns and those of the people who consume the content we are putting out into the world.

        Another thing which stood out to me was how Leary described RAW as an ‘Intelligence Agent’. When I first got into this scene, I was sucked into the general paranoia which many conspiracy people (especially ‘truthers’ on YouTube) tend to display. I don’t want to name names but I’m sure you know there are content creators out there today still propagating the ‘paid shills’ and ‘evil elite out to get us’ memes. When I was in that mindset, I would have taken Leary’s words as evidence that RAW was working for the bad guys!

        Now I see that there is another — and, in my opinion, more sensible — interpretation of Leary’s words. This comment is not the most appropriate place to go into any great detail, but suffice to say that there may indeed be an Intelligence operating under our noses, in plain sight. It may well be that there is, for want of a better term, a ‘force’ at play. And anybody who channels good energy, or good information, is thus acting as an Agent of that Intelligence.

        I go into a little more detail about these ideas in the following YouTube video:

        Anyhow, I like that RAW quote you posted. It is classic RAW, isn’t it?

    2. Appreciate it John that you seem to be commenting here with a much more civil tone than you used to on Reddit. Since that is the case, I thought it would be fair for me to ask you a few questions about your beliefs that you never actually got around to answering me on reddit.

      For one, you flat out stated that Ancient Greece is a hoax. I asked you what first hand, empirical, or any evidence that you might have to back up the claim, and after a few deflecting comments, you simply said Ok, maybe ancient Greece isn’t a hoax, and if I could provide evidence that it isn’t a hoax. Well, that isn’t how logic works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up with what you asked so dearly of others: evidence. So perhaps in this friendly environment you could provide a listener to the higherside chats with an answer to that question?

      I’m also curious, as you have a strong viewpoint on 9/11. Now I certainly don’t believe the official story of what happened during 9/11, but you say with certainty that you do. I’m particularly interested in knowing your claim here:

      “So you believe that thousands of people died that day.
      How many individuals who supposedly died have you seen evidence for?
      I already know the answer, I am trying to help readers think through this one.
      We all believe thousands of people died that day, but none of us have verified even 1% of that number.
      Why is that?”

      I’m fascinated that you would know the answer. So of course I eagerly read along for your follow up. You reply was, again quote, here:

      “White Pill: Nobody died, nobody got hurt.

      Want evidence? Here you go. ” Does your own youtube video pass as the first hand evidence that you call out for? Genuinely curious because you’ve never responded to that question when asked.

      You also claimed the twin towers were mostly empty:

      “do we have proof that the top 1/4 of the building was empty?
      Have you seen this photo before?”

      Again, I’m curious how that photo you linked to suffices as evidence, or perhaps you’re holding on to some ground breaking evidence that you simply care not to share at this point.

      I’ve gone back now and noticed that you’ve not been on reddit for a while now, no doubt because of the decline in the quality of posts on reddit, and not because of the growing number of comments questioning your claims. So since it’s such a coincidence that I see you here as a guest of Greg’s, perhaps you’d be willing to address them now? Thanks!

  13. christonas11:
    Loved Dark City.Of course this is a different view of the Anatoly Fomenko work, which so makes sense to me.I love the thought of history, but would never bother to learn it, I think because there wasn’t truth behind it compelling me to accept it.So to me, this makes sense on a gut level.I met a Syrian that told me they have history that goes back 10,000 years.This is probably why we want to invade Iraq and Syria, destroy their history. That is what happens with most invasions, destroy the libraries.

    Still haven’t finished , when got to the movie stuff. Set me off

    ‘She looks like fun ‘ – Artic monkeys

    Ends with : “rethinking, dark city , new order”..

  14. Though jlb is intelligent, primary source as the only criteria that determines the truth is reductionist. It is certainly possible that there was a vast loss of stored human knowledge which would simulate the source-deadend he describes. Alot of evidence supports cataclysm In addition to circumstances in the mediteranian area at a much later date. Archeological eveidence is primary evidence.

    This guy is seriously supportong a “there is no access to the truth” message. Solipsist.

    Very many things in history are preserved in the archeological record above and below ground. Things are knowable from looking around on the ground. I personally have found stone tools that are thousands of years old. That is primary source. His insistence on primary source in writing is pretty sophomoric. Meteor craters are identifiable, I mean some of his arguments make him sound under-read, ironically.

    1. @greenknight

      “This guy is seriously supportong a “there is no access to the truth” message. Solipsist.”

      May I ask, what does the term ‘solipsism’ mean to you?

      I am certainly not suggesting that you cannot know anything or that there is no truth. Quite the contrary, in fact. There is much to be known, much truth to be accepted about this thing we call ‘existence’, much to be discovered and understood about our reality, if only we take the time to study and learn.

      This will become clear to anybody who reads my piece ‘The Practice of Skepticism’, available to Free members.

  15. Things should be questioned, and history has been manipulated. To what extent, I don’t think anybody can know. Even the people who do the manipulation probably can’t know either. I believe conspiracy happens all the time. To what degree it affects me and you, I can’t say. I accept that is the thrust of the argument being presented.

    To me, it boils down to worldview. I do appreciate that John le Bon seems to recognize it is futile to try and change anyone else’s worldview. Still, it comes down to your worldview. Do you think people are basically good, with a few bad players? Or are people evil, trying to get one up on and fool everyone else (I think this would be a good definition of evil action. And maybe we are being conditioned to believe people are evil more and more, but I don’t think its the truth)? Or maybe, people are generally just ignorant and grasping at straws? Overall, do historians or scientist, or whomever, tend to go into their field with sincere curiosity? Or to fuck everyone over? Do they use the information available at their specific time the best they are able to define and evolve their theories? Ideally… although I know that isn’t what always happens and ideas do get suppressed or outright squashed too often. Again, to what degree, who can say? Not me. And that’s why it’s all so fucked up

    I don’t know this is the case but could referencing and indexing in books only go back a couple of hundred years because it is a fairly new academic practice? Again, I don’t know, but could it also be (to some degree at least) because that’s when the British empire took Europeans all over the rest world, and that is when “history” was “discovered” and translated into English.

    Also, if the only documents being compared are digital through a website, well I’d think that’d make the documents a whole lot easier to manipulate, distribute and misinform. I don’t believe that is being done but it seems like with all this skepticism and distrust, that’d be something I’d consider.

    I kept thinking solipsism too. To me, that is an ugly philosophy, and I prefer to find and look for beauty. Not in a Pollyanna way, but just because beauty exists and people are, for the most part, pretty good and sincere I think. Not everyone, dammit, but overall yeah. I also don’t believe most people go into science or history or whatever to mislead. To be sure, that does happen, but I’d guess if sincere academics (which most are, again, I choose to believe) saw that going on all the time around them every single one of those people with a sincere love for knowledge would speak out.

    Still, this is a generally a conspiracy podcast that I subscribe to and I accept conspiracies happen. I just don’t think this way of thinking sheds any light really, just covers everything in darkness.

    I’ve thought this before but will write it down here, because I thought it again while listening in… that reality is built on some sort of simulation doesn’t seem inconsistent to religion or accepted science. Religion says this… if you believe there is a creator god, its a created reality. To me, even science boils down to this. Particle defines (codes) an element, defines a molecule, defines protein, defines DNA, and on and on. Its all coded. Sure

    This may be common knowledge, but this is also interesting, speaking of Frank Baum: link

  16. I have many many issues with what he’s saying, my biggest is he takes a pdf document as being ‘cannon’, given his whole argument is about manipulation of truth, and lets use the ‘King James’ bible here as an example, its been so totally alterered to suit an adjenda that its no long really a true accurate version of the bible, which was ofc rewritten from the council of Nicea’s catholic interpretation of more ancient texts. I guess my point is ‘Citation’ is a perspective and if you approach everything with sceptical eyes, then there’s no truth in anything, ergo Jon Le Bon’s argument is a moot point.

    1. Regarding the bible, I happen to be of the opinion that the bible is a hoax, and by that I mean, it is a relatively recent fabrication. I’m talking 200 years old, tops.

      The reason I say this is that the thing we know as the ‘bible’ is, according to the official account, based upon a small number of ‘manuscripts’ which supposedly date back hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of years. These manuscripts are themselves meant to be based on the original works (or copies of the originals, or copies of copies of the originals, etc etc).

      When were these key manuscripts discovered? The mid-1800s.

      Remember what I said about the wireframe mesh? All roads lead to Tucson, my friend. Yes, even the ‘bible’. Drive long enough (i.e. trace through the sources for yourself) and eventually you will be all alone, staring at the wireframe mesh. At least you will have the benefit of knowing that another soul out there can empathise with your realisation. When I was first digging into this, I was all alone.

      I do not expect anybody to believe me. All you need to do is google ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’. The official story of the former in particular is amusing: it was ‘rediscovered’ in the 1850s in a monastery in Mt Sinai, and when the ‘discoverer’ entered the monastery where it had been kept for centuries, he found the monks burning it for warmth!

      Lucky he got there just in time, folks!

      Oh, but the bible is thousands of years old, right? It must be! Because everybody knows it is. And everybody can’t be wrong. If everybody were wrong, somebody would have figured it out by now, and told us, right? And we would have been thankful for his revelations, we would have welcomed his discovery with open arms. And since that hasn’t happened, well, then the bible must be thousands of years old. Right?


  17. Great show. First time encountering this guest. Lots of interesting information here. Though I do wish we could have heard more about JLB’s model and the way he sees the world.
    Perhaps because Greg was a little more critical than usual John seemed to spend more time explaining why people might be critical of his work and why people might not understand it, rather than explaining the way he sees it.

    For instance, John says he highly doubts the heliocentric model, yet adamantly declares himself to not be a Flat Earther… what does his model of the Earth look like then?
    He declares history to be a lie and quite possibly created 200-300 years ago (an idea I can definitely entertain) yet he doesn’t give us any indication of what our true history actually is.
    His description of this world and the wire mesh sounded a bit like simulation theory; but without him ever saying so. So that’s just an assumption on my part.
    I get that it’s important to point out where the lies and deception in this world are at, but a little more on what he does actually believe in would have been helpful.

    Having said that; I find his approach really interesting and very much respect his questioning and enquiring mind. Would love to hear him on THC again.

    1. “For instance, John says he highly doubts the heliocentric model, yet adamantly declares himself to not be a Flat Earther… what does his model of the Earth look like then?”

      curious why you feel it needs to be either / or? e.g. spinning sphere versus flat plane? this is a false dichotomy. what if there is no ‘shape’ to the earth (insofar as our generally agreed upon concept of geometry)? this happens to be my current ‘mental map’ because i don’t think we’ll ever know the true ‘shape’ of where we live. it’s obviously not ‘flat’ everywhere despite some anecdotal surveys, and the appearance on the beach or a plane. there’s simply no vantage point where the entire surface can objectively be verified as an identifiable X ?

      like my initial instincts in kindergarten – i’d be very surprised if Antarcticans are ‘upside down’ and vice versa to Greenlanders if viewed from a high enough altitude. but even if that is the case…so what? as frustrating as helioapologists are who just accept whatever they are told about the solar system and space, it frustrates me that flat earth zealots can’t fathom a ‘creation’ that puzzles the mind… when life itself is far more mind boggling!

      *to answer your question, he does have a stationary ball earth model on his website.*

      “He declares history to be a lie and quite possibly created 200-300 years ago (an idea I can definitely entertain) yet he doesn’t give us any indication of what our true history actually is.”

      what if he simply doesn’t know? it seems we need to have an explanation in order to fill the void that inevitably enters the mind as old beliefs are removed. i’ve encountered this with so many people in the past whether arguing against biblical creation or evolution. each of those camps – in my experience – cannot fathom their existential explanations being challenged if not outright ridiculous unless you come swooping in with a superior explanation / model to replace it.

      conjures indiana jones replacing that golden idol head with a bag of sand …before the traps set off.

      why can’t flaws be pointed out … serious flaws … in x,y or z theory / model et al… without having something else to supplant? sure, it might be nice if we had more answers, but why settle for certainly wrong, in lieu of rightly uncertain?

  18. I felt the first hour was weak, and not because of the disagreeing with the discussion, but simply because of the lack of content.. it was mostly him defending himself and sounded very high horse by saying everyone will find exactly what he found.. BUT THEN, full redemption in 2nd and 3rd hour in my opinion.. the content picked up, the conversation was great.. I love this new direction, which started for me with flat earth, that just says Question EVERYTHING!! I disagree with flat earth, and with some of JLB, but going down this road is beneficial for everyone, because either you reinforce your old beliefs with evidence, or, the evidence sets you down a path to question your beliefs, and adopt an evidence based model of our existence, and not a belief based model.. great work as always, and I love that you stay true to giving everyone a voice, I myself find that although my box is bigger than most people’s, it’s still a box.. and we all get comfortable inside of our boxes, but you are the master key to opening up the boxes, stepping out of comfort zone, and pushing the movement farther than it went before.. great content.. happy to be a plus member.. looking forward to September

    1. Yeah man agree with hours. 2 and 3rd really kicked off. Probably the most oppositional I have ever heard Greg be with a guest in that 1st hour. The Tesla being fictional stuff was quite convincing ! But now this fictitious hollwood renditioning of Teslas life on the big screen will just cement his existence in the mind of the masses lol

      1. Hi Reiverbear211 and GuyT228, thank you very much for the kind words about the second half of the call. Your comments inspired me to produce a YouTube video yesterday in which I explained that the second half of the call is, basically, superior to the first half. My intention was to promote the second half of the call so that more people will sign up here and check out the full call, and also to promote my own Tesla page (which is available to the public).

        The video is here:

        Tesla page:

        I quoted your comments but did not cite your usernames, in case you prefer to keep your ‘behind the paywall’ thoughts anonymous. Obviously you are posting behind usernames (so you are anonymous regardless), but for all I know, you use the same usernames elsewhere (i.e. in publicly-accessible forums), so out of respect to you both, I did not cite your usernames. Let me know if you would prefer attribution and I can add an addendum to my video.

        The feedback I have received from my the members of my own site is that they also think the second half of the call is superior to the first half. I agree with you all on this matter. I think I was a little bit too (for want of a better term) ‘defensive’ at the start of the call, because I erroneously believed that the THC audience was similar to the YouTube ‘truth’ audience and the r/conspiracy userbase. I have gotten to used to being attacked for my views (for ‘harming muh truth movements!1!’ or ‘discrediting muh conspiracy theories!!1’) that I began this call a little too over-explanatory and even ‘guarded’.

        Once I found out that Greg was not only open-minded to the Tesla Hoax (for example) but had even taken the time to do his own research/thinking about the dearth of Tesla footage (i.e. noting the The Wizard of Oz was filmed while Tesla was supposedly still alive, so it is not as though filmography hadn’t been invented yet) it was ‘off to the races’, as they say.

        I sorta feel sorry for the people who only listen to the free portion of the call because they really are missing out on the best part. Kind of like people who tune out of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ after the first thirty minutes because it is supposedly ‘too slow’. Now for an embarrassing admission: the first time I watched ‘2001’, I tuned out after the first section, basically because I didn’t get it. In my defense, I was way more of a normie back then. I’ve come a long way since!

    2. Glad to hear that the 2nd and 3rd hours pick up. I’m just past the 1st hour and about to quit due to “lack of substance”. So far, on a personal note regarding history, I can say that during WW1 my Grandfather (born 1903 and died 2005) lost 2 brothers who were English soldiers. We have photos, 2x “death” pennies and personal knowledge of the brothers existence. I’m from an English aristocratic line and have a direct paternal genealogical line (supposedly) documented to the time of the Norman Invasion – 1066. So that is 30 odd generations that I can trace back. One section I do question that seems possibly padded, approximately 10 generations of “James of ..” in a row. Anyway, I will keep listening to this episode after I have a lunch break.

  19. Ugh…this guy was polluting reddit (if polluting reddit is possible) with his blanket bombing of threads with the same type of comments again and again. Rejects almost all evidence that doesn’t support his world view or meet his criteria yet the only evidence he provides to support his views are shitty YouTube videos or linking back to his own website although he does not state it’s his own website. Which is primarily a paid subscription website.

    He was pretty much a pariah and long timers on the conspiracy sub could basically guess what he would say. Got sick of his shit and called him out for his many logical fallacies, poor reasoning and total hypocrisy. His comments are models of deflecting, shifting, and arguing from ignorance. Feel free to check his quality submissions on reddit as Step2TheJep

    1. A lot of my submissions on r/conspiracy were rather popular, including this one about Stephen Hawking:

      With that said, you are 100% correct that a lot of regular r/con users did not like me 🙁

      By the end of my time there, I had even attracted a merry band of haters who would follow me everywhere I went, just to complain about me. They wouldn’t even pretend to care about the posts themselves or the topic(s) at hand. Just personal attacks. Perhaps you were one of them? If so, you got your way in the end. I was banned by the mods, but not for ‘spamming’ or posting links to my own work. No no. The mods fully admitted that they just don’t like my skepticism. I was asking too many questions about sacred cows such as ‘ancient history’. It was not a rules violation but a personal thing. Lol. They love their free speech on r/con, just ask them!

      I understand that some people may dislike the fact that I have member-only content on my site. However, I normally only linked to Free content when posting on r/con. Moreover, I usually posted links to other peoples works, not my own. One of the main things I linked to is Calcified Lies’ ‘Skeleton Key‘ article.

      Funnily enough, CL later accused me of being a ‘paid shill’. Even when you try to promote peoples work, they can still accuse you of trying to harm them. Humans are funny creatures. When they are convinced that baddies are out to get them, they can even see free, glowing endorsements of their material as an attack.

      As something of a sync, my more recent research has been directly related to what CL was talking about in that Skeleton Key piece — some of it discussed by myself and Greg in this call. CL’s revelations had a profound effect on the direction of my research, early in 2017. Nothing has been the same since. It is amusing (and somewhat sobering) to think that a well-meaning person can find good work, try to share it, try to build upon it and take it further, find new evidence which adds weight to the thesis, and yet be labeled nefarious by the the original author of the work.

      Such is modern conspiracy culture, I suppose. There is gold out there, and there is darkness. All about perspectives. Some people have rather negative perspectives. Just the way it is. I try to remain focused on the gold 🙂

      Suppose you did not dislike my posting style on reddit. Suppose that was not an issue, and we could instead focus on other things. Is there anything in particular you take issue with about my work? If I ever failed to answer your questions on reddit in the past, please forgive me for that. I don’t even know who you are, so it was nothing personal. Ask me a question here and I promise to answer it directly, as best as I can.

      1. Thank you for providing your most popular submission. For the sake of fairness, the majority of your submissions had very low scores and included some rather amateurish and mostly anecdotal support for your assertions such as this one:

        and of course this gem:

        I would say any member who spends some time on that forum will draw his / her fair share of detractors. But the reality is you accumulated thousands of comments in one year. I’m not sure what that averaged out to but I would not be surprised if you pumped out 30-40 comments per day on that sub. I would not say others were following you on the sub. It was more of a case of you were always already there. I personally just noticed a user repeating the same comments over and over again and at some point associated it with your username.

        Interesting to know that you ended up being banned. I’d love to know the exact quote of why they banned you to get the other side of the story. I wonder if the fact that you spammed threads asking for evidence, yet almost never provide meaningful evidence of your own contributed to their decision. I also wonder if you dismissing other people’s first hand experience as being lies figured into it. Of course let’s not forget how you enjoy labeling and accusing others.

        I think I need to make what I think is an important point here. I’ve forgotten all about you since I stopped seeing your posts on reddit. However seeing you here, and still making the same assertions (albeit in a well rehearsed way with a different persona), I think it’s absolutely important to bring up my skepticism towards your claims. One of the issues is you always say attack the message and not the messenger. Yet I’ve repeatedly questioned your assertions and logic and yet you do not address them. And let’s be honest, you gave your fair share of name calling.

        So this is my issue with you and your claims. I believe that the most dangerous and destructive type of conspiracy theorist is the one who does not consistently exercise the fundamentals of discourse, logic, and epistemology. I’m completely on board with you that education is largely a failure and waste of time, but you can bet the elites have the highest level of instruction on philosophy and logic. So when a conspiracy theorist mixes viable concepts with questionable logic, it is probably for them a gift from heaven as it obfuscates the truth. Skepticism is fine, but we are skeptics because there is a goal to find the truth. When you are a skeptical of everything, yet using inconsistent logic to support your skepticism, and you deflect and shift by saying you’re not trying to offer alternatives, you are misleading and muddying whether intentional or not.

        Since you now basically say that you are not offering alternatives but simply doubting many historical claims (although calling something a hoax is not doubting, you are saying the entire premise is false, which carries the onus of providing sufficient evidence for the claim), I’m curious as to how you evaluate the crux of most of your statements: evidence. You seem to accept certain types of evidence and base your assumptions on things such as youtube videos, digital documents and picture files, anecdotes, your personal observation, etc. but at the same time discredit others who use the same? Given that so much of your assertions are based upon your strict skepticism on what we deem as primary sources, shouldn’t you apply the same level of scrutiny to your evidence? Isn’t it illogical and wrong to cherry pick and have a double standard?

        If I may I’d also like to address a minor point you made towards the end of the interview. You point out that the idea of catastrophism has only been around for say a hundred or so years ago. And you also claim that before that, there was the theory of uniformitarianism. But the thing is both concepts are relatively new concepts. You characterize it as if uniformitarianism was the prevailing theory for a long time and the catastrophism was something new. That’s not the case. Furthermore, both are simply theories – the belief of catastrophic change on Earth dates well before these specific theories. I mean I don’t even know where to begin in terms of how illogical it is to suggest that the coining of the term/concept of catastrophism is equal to the beginning of when humans held beliefs that major calamities have shaped the earth. Furthermore the date of the inception of a theory holds no merit in whether the theory itself is true. If we use your logic, we can essentially toss out any new theories that might become mainstream. And how is it that you can say with a straight face that one or two hundred years is “not that long ago in the grand scheme of things”?

        I also take issue with the fact that you now constantly change what you previously stated as fact as now beliefs and inferences. You also now claim you don’t provide any alternatives and are simply questioning. This, as we know in discourse, is deflecting and shifting. You cannot make sweeping claims and yet somehow exonerate yourself of having to explain or provide evidence for your extraordinary claims.

        Needless to say many of your claims also fall foul of one of the fan favorite’s: argument from fallacy (the “fallacy fallacy”) and of course argument from ignorance.

        Appreciate you taking the time.


        1. I’d love to know the exact quote of why they banned you to get the other side of the story

          No problems. The following is a verbatim quote from the PM:

          “I think you are here in bad faith, or your natural disposition is such a negative drag on civilized discourse, we have no further need of your presence. Troll, or instigating asshole. Pick one.”

          When ‘I think you are here in bad faith’ is a good enough reason to ban somebody, then there is no need to even have rules in place. The whole thing is a joke. Oh well. I never bothered to make a new account, I used to waste too much time on r/con anyway. A few people have sent me PMs to ask what happened to me, there were a few people there who appreciated my skeptical nature. But the truth is that the r/con sub is not really the ideal place for me anyway. Too many threads about Trump, Putin, ‘imminent emergency’, and other nonsense distractions, not enough threads about serious evidence-based research. Just the way it is. I wish them well, no hard feelings, etc.

          I think it’s absolutely important to bring up my skepticism towards your claims

          Opposition to my claims is not the same thing as skepticism. Have you taken the time to check out the free material on my site, which details the research I have done to support my History Hoax claims?

          If you won’t take the time to at least engage with the underlying research, but will dismiss it out of hand anyhow, then you are not being skeptical, you are just opposing what is being said. Which you have every right to do, if that is your thing. But there is an important distinction here. Opposition /= skepticism.

          I’m curious as to how you evaluate the crux of most of your statements: evidence.

          Excellent. This very question is addressed in detail in the following piece:

          You also now claim you don’t provide any alternatives and are simply questioning.

          That is not my claim at all. If this is how it came across in the interview, then that is regrettable, but my written work reveals the truth of the matter. My opinion on ‘belief’, and the importance of finding good information, etc etc, is detailed in the following piece:

          I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with anything I have to say. What I would love to see from you, or from the other people dismissing my work, is some actual evidence to contradict my claims.

          For example, just show me some primary sources for the characters of ‘ancient history’. That will shut me up VERY quickly! 🙂

          1. And just like clockwork. Same MO. Shifting, deflecting, circular reasoning and not addressing the questions or my points.

            Why such a push in every comment to visit your site? No guest has come close to putting links to his or her site and videos as you have. I’m asking you here. To address the points and not to shift or deflect when you cannot back up your claims or explain your faulty logic. But you have NEVER been able to address the points I’ve made about your logical fallacies and faulty reasoning.

            You again cherry pick from the mod’s reason for banning you. Your comments on that sub are ironically primary sources that support their claim on why you were banned.

            How about addressing the inherently incorrect claims you made about catastophism and uniformitarianism and my other points there?

            Anyway, I guess it’s up to others to be able to see your inability to carry a logical discourse or actually have the integrity to answer the questions posed to you. I’m sure your “banking” on the fact that there will always be a percentage that won’t bother to look into it and fall for your amateur rhetoric. ????

            1. I think it is fair to infer at this point that our interactions on r/con have clouded your opinion of me. And that is okay. I was sometimes a polarizing figure there. Especially when I dared to question the sacred cows of ‘ancient Egypt’, ‘World War II’ (e.g. ‘V2 rockets’), and even planes on 9/11. To this day, most users of r/con still seem oblivious to the fact that the planes we were shown that day were cartoons.

              Regarding your point about uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, I will have to go back and listen to that part of the call. If I gave the impression that the word ‘uniformitarianism’ had been in use for X period of time before the advent of the ‘catastrophism’ theory, then that was not my intention.

              What you seem to be focusing on here are the words rather than the concepts. My basic point was simple: we have been raised to believe that there was some great catastrophe which changed the earth. But this has not always been a common element of the human perspective on who we are and how the world came to be as it is. I’m sure you understood and agree with this point, which leads me to think that you are nitpicking for your own ends. Which is fine, you have every right to do so.

              I’m still hopeful that my detractors will take the time to find the primary sources for the stories and characters of ‘ancient history’. If you really want to embarrass me, that would be the single easiest way to do it. If you want to discredit JLB, just find the primary sources for dudes like Herodotus or things like the ‘Library of Alexandria’. Then you can rub them in my face and make me look stupid.

              The fact that even my detractors have failed to do this speaks volumes 🙂

              I’m onto something BIG here. And I have been blown away by how open-minded the bulk of the THC audience has been to the ideas I am putting forward. Once the Internet Archive was created, it was only a matter of time until somebody came along and traced through the sources of so-called ‘history’ with a skeptical eye. And whoever did that, would of course be criticised by others, for various reasons. But I am in fact not being attacked as much as I had expected. Well, at least not by the THC audience (although the YouTube ‘truth’, and r/con people still have some way to go, but that is another story).

              Things are looking good!

              1. No, it’s not a fair assessment. It’s your evasion of answering any of the actual questions posed to you that has clarified the illogical basis of your claims and has nothing to do with my opinion of you. Attack the message not the messenger, remember?

                Your statements on uniformitarianism vs catastrophism not only pointed out that uniformitarianism was the prevailing theory previously it was also factually inaccurate and misrepresents the theories. The amusing thing is I just randomly tapped forward on the podcast to that part of the conversation and was already greeted with such drivel.

                Quote: “To this day, most users of r/con still seem oblivious to the fact that the planes we were shown that day were cartoons.”

                It’s called hypocrisy when you call other theories hoaxes based on your faulty logic, yet throw out statements like these without the ability to back up your claim whatsoever with primary sources or evidence that meets the criteria you would place on others.

                Quote: “Regarding your point about uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, I will have to go back and listen to that part of the call. If I gave the impression that the word ‘uniformitarianism’ had been in use for X period of time before the advent of the ‘catastrophism’ theory, then that was not my intention.”

                This pretty much in a nutshell is a reflection of discourse with you. Deflect, sidestep, and try to brush off the actual questions posed to you and hope it goes away. As the cliche goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I do not need to address all of your opinions and beliefs because that is what they are at this point – your opinions and beliefs. What I am doing is highlighting your logical fallacies and faulty reasoning because it’s dangerous and a disservice to those who are actually trying to see through the deception and arrive at the truth.

                Quote: “I’m still hopeful that my detractors will take the time to find the primary sources for the stories and characters of ‘ancient history’. If you really want to embarrass me, that would be the single easiest way to do it. If you want to discredit JLB, just find the primary sources for dudes like Herodotus or things like the ‘Library of Alexandria’. Then you can rub them in my face and make me look stupid.”

                I have no interest in embarassing you. Again, I think it’s important to point out serious mistakes in facts and logic. If you can’t be honest and address these points then that speaks more about your intentions than mine.

                1. I think it’s important to point out serious mistakes in facts and logic.

                  You are most welcome to start doing so, either here or in the comments section of my own site.

                  So far, you have provided zero evidence to contradict my assertion that ‘ancient history’ is a sham. Or that Nikola Tesla is a fictional character. Perhaps you actually agree with me on these points.

                  Regarding planes on 9/11, it is a self-evident fact that the planes we were shown on our telescreens were mere cartoons. If you are seriously suggesting otherwise, that is fine, I am more than happy to agree to disagree on this point.


  20. Wow – this interview was such an enjoyable experience. I was reminded of some of the boundary-stretching concepts that Sylvie Ivanova has come up with -she also noticed the missing primary sources.

    The longer format was good – kept me glued to my computer all afternoon. I can’t wait to check out John’s website – THX!

    1. Hi Lilaa, thank you for the kind words about the interview.

      Regarding my website, the best place to start is here:

      There are several different podcasts, articles and videos to choose from.

      As for me, I am going to have to look into Sylvie Ivanova, who I must confess I am not familiar with. If she has done work on the missing primary sources then I look forward to checking it out.

  21. Looking at all the comments JLB certainly was polarizing. Goes to show how diverse the minds are in the subscriber community, and makes for great debate. I stated before what I thought of the show, and many others elaborated more eloquently the inconsistency of JLB’s logic and rhetoric. But the one good thing I got from the marathon ep is the 13th Floor suggestion. Sounds intriguing and it’s on amazon prime.

    1. Indeed polarizing. Reddit’s conspiracy sub is garbage now but the thing about JLB in my opinion is you have to understand his viewpoints in context of his many personal statements that are not based on the stringent empirical first hand evidence he keeps asking for. I used to be more active on that sub before it went to shit, and I would see this guy posting ALL the time. Stating that the twin towers are hollow. Stating that wars have never happened. Stating that ancient Greece is a hoax. But he never provides any empirical evidence of his own to back up his statements. And when asked for any evidence he just deflects, name calls on occasion, and or links back to his own website or some ridiculous youtube video. And I personally have issue with people who view the world in broad categories. He loves him some “normies” and “retards”.

      His MO of being skeptical and questioning things is great. Looking for empirical evidence is great. These are ideals which should be encouraged. But it’s not like it’s an original concept. It’s just once you scratch past that thin veneer there just isn’t much else except some slightly irksome subjective beliefs.

      1. Wireframe mesh sounds apropos.

        I get suspicious of “researchers” that spout off too many theories so matter-of-factly. Reeks of disinfo agents hiding truth between lies.

        Never been on reddit but it sounds like every other platform on the web we are given that starts as a seemingly free and informative place to explore new ideas and truths, only to have it slowly mutated into another arm of the machine with our tacit consent. For now we have member sites like this which still appear to be free speech zones, but there’s really no way to tell. We might be interacting with agents of the system or perhaps AI, and every comment we ever post is most likely going directly into our dossier.

    2. @Itsayswithoutgoing (Cool username, by the way)

      I think anybody who likes The Matrix or Dark City or The Truman Show will enjoy The Thirteenth Floor*. Its production values are not quite up there with its contemporaries, but its underlying themes and conceptual basis is terrific. Even if you still believe in ‘ancient history’, this film will leave you asking yourself questions. As an added bonus, you get to see Vincent D’Onofrio like you’ve never seen him before…

      *Oddly enough, they were all made around the same time, just a couple of years before the thing we call ‘9/11’…

      Also, you mentioned that you found my logic and/or rhetoric to be ‘inconsistent’. If you could elaborate on this, I would truly appreciate it. Constructive criticism is like gold to me. If I am in error, better I found out ASAP rather than continuing in error 🙂

    1. It is splendid to read a comment saying my perspective is ‘refreshing’. So far, the feedback about this call, especially here in the Plus comment section, has been so much more open and pleasant than I had expected.

      I still can’t quite believe nobody has gotten upset about my conclusions regarding what I call the Tesla Hoax. I was sure that this would be challenging for a large portion of the audience. Seems I was wrong.

      Be sure to check out the material available for free:

      In particular, the ‘History of Histories’ article is key. You will see that my claim about ‘ancient history’ being a hoax is supported by ample documentation, which anybody can verify for themselves.

      If the so-called ‘father of history’ is an obviously fictional character, created just a couple hundred years ago (tops), then what does that say about the rest of so-called ‘history’?

      It says to me that if we want to get to the heart of the matter, we need to be ready to let go of some long-held beliefs, if that is where the research leads us…

      We are in uncharted territory, folks!

    1. Funny you should ask this. Are you familiar with the ‘Internet Archive’? I consider it to be an incredible and amazing tool, especially for earnest researchers who are trying to trace the sources for the myriad stories we are told by the authorities.

      If you have ever used the ‘Wayback Machine’ to look up old websites, then you have used the Internet Archive. They are run by the same group. The head of that group is a man named Brewster Kahle.

      Here is the fun part: Brewster Kahle says that he wants to build the modern ‘Library of Alexandria’. It was when I heard him say this (during separate research which was only tangentially related) that I decided to look further into the Library of Alexandria. The flowchart at the top of this page is a visual representation of what I discovered.

      You can see my underlying research into the Library of Alexandria Hoax in the following piece, which I made available to Free Members of my site in order to allow THC members to double-check the seemingly-‘crazy’ claims I am making about the History Hoax:

      tl;dr The Library of Alexandria is a HOAX, which makes Brewster Kahle’s modern-day ‘Library of Alexandria’ all the more fascinating. These guys photocopying every single book they can get their hands on and uploading them to the thing we call the ‘internet’: just WHAT are they really building?

      For bonus lulz (or chills), check our Brewster’s vision:

  22. This was a frustrating episode. I come to THC to hear new ideas and information about topics and to hear guests make a valid point for their case. The vast majority of this episode was just pseudo-philosophical rambling about vague ideas about how people are free to make their own conclusions, with very little discussion of actual IDEAS. I wish the guess actually presented his ideas and evidence on specific topics instead of just his thoughts on how people should be free to draw their own conclusions. That point could have been stated in five seconds and did not need an hour of airtime.

    1. What did you think of the idea that ‘ancient history’ as we know it is an elaborate ruse? That there are no primary sources whatsoever for characters like Herodotus? That the ‘father of history’ is himself a complete fiction?

      I would also like to know what you make of the flowchart embedded at the top of this page, concerning the so-called ‘Library of Alexandria’. Do you think that the possibility that the ‘Library of Alexandria’ is a HOAX is an idea worthy of attention?

      All feedback truly valued and welcome. I have a thick skin 🙂

  23. Just a question regarding the questioning of Tesla’s existence, I don’t think Crowley was brought up but if you’re gonna question whether Tesla was made up, do you question if Crowley was too? From what I can see on your website you don’t doubt that Crowley was a real person yet he lived during the exact same time as Tesla and there is no video footage of him either…. To me it would seem a lot more useful for the PTB to invent Crowley than it would Tesla. The argument that Tesla lived to the 1940’s isn’t a great one to me seeing as Tesla wasn’t at all in the spotlight after the 1910’s and we’re told he died in poverty. I wouldn’t really expect to see video footage from his prominence which was roughly 1880-1910. There isn’t much footage of Edison either who was much, much more prominent than Tesla at the same time, most of the Edison footage is from much later in his life.

    1. Excellent question. My answer is simple: Yes, I am skeptical of the character known as Aleister Crowley. This is despite (or because of?) the fact that I have read several books attributed to Crowley, and even happen to like a lot of what I read in those books. I had been led to believe that Crowley was some kind of ‘evil’ dude, but when I took the time to read the words attributed to him for myself, I was humbled to learn that I had been misled — again!

      Myself and a regular contributor to the weekly Member Skype/Discord Call series on my site, a lovely lady named Mezzie, discussed Crowley and Magick on a call about three months ago. It was during my research in the week leading up to the call that I discovered some amazing (unbelievable?) things about the official Crowley narrative, several of which happen to tie directly into the History Hoax.

      Originally that call, like most Member Skype/Discord Calls, was available only to Full Members of my site. In response to your excellent question here, and as another token of my appreciation for the support I have received from the wider THC audience over the past few days, I have now made that call available to Free Members as well.

      It happens to be one of my favourite MSC’s from the entire series. In it, myself and Mezzie discuss:

      *The evidence for and against the ‘Crowley is evil’ meme
      *The connection between the Crowley narrative and the Ancient Egypt narrative
      *The ‘coincidental’ associations between Thelema and the event we know as ‘9/11’
      *The influence of ‘magick’ and the occult on pop culture (and whether or not this influence is nefarious in intent)

      If you give that episode a listen, you’ll see that I am just as skeptical about Crowley as I am about Tesla. And in both cases, I am not merely saying, ‘oh i dont believe in this guy he is a hoax hur dur’, but I have in fact taken the time to read the works attributed to the characters in question, and also study their backstory.

      As we like to say on my website: ‘What A Time To Be Alive’.

      P.S. @DankMoody: Would you be happy for me to use your comment/question here as the basis for a YouTube video? I can either give you attribution or not, entirely up to you. The intent behind my video would be to promote the Crowley call, and also to demonstrate (once again) that the conversation behind the paywall on THC Plus is superior to the YouTube comment section (and the conspiracy scene in general).


  24. I believe in the idea of question everything. He makes a solid argument and also advises that you don’t take his approach on what he believes or doesn’t believe just because of lack of evidence. You can believe what you want and that is what makes us unique. I can watch a movie or listen to a song and think it’s garbage but someone else can love it. I believe in the bigger picture or greater scheme of things but is what is put in front of us just the surface? Is there more we don’t see lying underneath or behind it? We all seek the truth to our existence but will we ever find it? We also are set on our own paths in the pursuit of happiness but do we ever feel happy? What is happiness and is it short term or long term? These answers are all based upon the individual and what they deem is correct. We all have our own personal opinions on just about everything but can our opinions be pursuaded into someone else’s way of thinking? Of course. That is what reality is based upon. We all believe in something even if that means you believe in nothing and if someone else can influence your beliefs than your opinions become theirs. I feel most of us let this construct/reality determine our path instead of us choosing our own. We fall for media traps, religious beliefs, and let society control us. We should control our reality but we give in to the trappings. We need money to survive and so we work to earn money. Work equals money for your time and effort but does your time and effort equal the amount of money you receive for your labor?
    We give away our time and effort so easily that it has become second nature to us that we cannot possibly think of any other way to survive. That reality was created for us and our personal beliefs have become that of the creator of it. Can we change it? Is it even possible? We should all take the time to reflect on our own personal beliefs and opinions and I wonder are they truly your own?

  25. I’m so glad you’re doing longer sessions now. Between this speaker and the longer format, I signed up at the new $8/mo price because I feel it’s worth it. I said a while ago that I wish the episodes went longer when it was warranted and that I’d pay double for it, so here I am.

    Regarding this speaker, I didn’t like him when I heard him a few years ago. However, his message really resonates with me now. Specifically, the wireframe mesh concept. I’ve experienced this so much in the last couple of years and truly thought I was alone or going crazy. I 100% agree with JLB regarding these trails that lead to nowhere, both historical and present; I’ve witnessed them in my own life and it’s quite world-changing.

    Anyhow, keep up these long eps and you have a customer for life.

    1. This was a lovely comment to read. Thanks, Josh.

      A lot of people have been telling me lately that they originally thought I was either a ‘troll’ or that I had ‘gone too far’, but now they see things differently.

      For some reason, the War Hoax material has been resonating with people in a way which it never did before. Just yesterday, one of the members of my own site left a comment stating that he thought my War Hoax material back in February (of this year) was a ‘joke’, but that he now completely agrees that the ‘war’ we are shown on our telescreens is exactly as Orwell described it: fiction.

      Why do the ‘allies’ one day become bitter ‘enemies’ the next? How can it chop and change like that? Because it is all a show to begin with. No different to a soap opera. The People Who Run The Show are all in on it together, at the top. Why would you need to go to ‘war’ when you already run the whole show? They don’t call it the ‘theatre of war’ for nothing.

      The point being that even some of the members of my own site can find my work difficult to digest at first. And also I can sometimes come across as ‘abrasive’ or ‘arrogant’ which does not help matters (but I am trying to work on that). If somebody dismisses me early then they’ll probably always think I am either a ‘troll’ or have ‘gone too far’.

      But for those who can be patient with the material and give their minds time to truly consider and reflect on what we all think we know about topic X, Y, or Z, it really is only a matter of time until you see the deception for what it is. And anybody who tries to find primary sources for ‘ancient history’ will find the wireframe mesh, as you have apparently discovered for yourself.

      This really is an amazing time to be alive 🙂

  26. Some very curious arguments made by John.

    Although I wholeheartedly agree that following written sources in many cases tends to lead to a cul de sac, often to copies of supposed lost originals, usually from 16th to 19th Century, John seems to entirely ignore all other forms of evidence. A definite chink in the chain of John’s colourful argument. Yes, primary written accounts are important but only as a piece in the overall investigative puzzle. And even them, authentic written sources have been known to cloud judgement and interpretation of various material finds down the line whereby all subsequent conclusions are ignored based on the original bias. Disputing the validity of almost everything because of a trail of some written accounts leading to a single disingenuous source, while ignoring all other available evidence, is quite narrowminded and definitely counterproductive. Even though we’ve been unfortunate enough to have been indoctrinated with prefabricated conclusions which primarily suit political, religious and other agenda, the fact is that to invent prominent historical cultures and individuals wholesale would be extremely complicated. The very material found is a testament to the material existence of x, y and z, especially as it is often found in abundance. We can all agree that an unknown quantity of material finds have been hidden and/or sold off to private collectors, whoever they may be, but there’s still plenty for us ‘useless eaters’ to see and bear witness to. In many cases, the material is contextualised and we should question the validity of its interpretation, but to so blanketly disregard certain historical narratives on the absence of primary written sources appears somewhat nonsensical given that they’re also the most difficult to preserve.

    Much of human history is hidden, obscured and forced but not everything is fabricated, obviously. In short, doubting truisms, especially those which suit the powers that be, is a valid endeavour which I presume all of us support and I congratulate John on his work and clearly gargantuan effort. Nonetheless, ignoring nonwritten evidence is a failure to pursue the truth which requires as many different sources and approaches as possibly available.

    Often if the podcast is challenging and/or difficult to comprehend, I’m more than happy to return for a relisten and then follow up on the guest or the material presented. However, a few out of the last half-dozen podcasts haven’t been up to your usual high standard. John’s lack of effort to substantiate his claims and circular reasoning that we as listeners are to be found lacking would be an example. It seems to me that demanding credulity rather than presenting a coherent argument is not what being a guest on THC is about. I’ve listened to some testing material over the past six months or more since I’ve been a plus member, but if the guest presents a clear picture, no matter how crazy it may sound, they have my complete attention.

    Gregg, you’re an excellent host, and you seem to be constantly improving. These last few podcasts have proven that beyond dispute. You allow your guests plenty of time to present their arguments but also pose informed and challenging questions. Since you’ve had Alex Tsakiris on your show, you’ve definitely become more confrontational but have now superseded his approach because you don’t, like Alex, allow yourself to be sidetracked with too many interruptions hence losing the thread and often digressing to such an extent that the interview sacrifices coherent content.

    Looking forward to listening to the “Joint session”.

  27. Loved the show. The Tesla stuff was fascinating because I have always wondered why there were no recordings of a man who was said really loved to boast about his achievements. Sure there were magazine articles but in a time of radio with his achievement in the technology there was never one radio broadcast. Does seem a little Shakespearean…..

    You may not be able to stop an idea whose time has come, but you can sure has hell patent it, charge for it, kill for it, and do your best to watch for the next great idea and repeat.

    1. Thank you, KoS.

      Before we began recording the call, I had explained to Greg that I was a little concerned that some of my research, such as the Tesla Hoax material, might be aggravating or even upsetting for some of his audience. I truly thought that Tesla was a more revered figure among the broader conspiracy culture than seems to be the case.

      Well, Greg knew his audience WAY better than I did. I don’t think a single person has reacted negatively to the Tesla part of the call. At least not so far as I can tell. This really has improved my opinion of the broader conspiracy culture.

      You should have seen the blowback I received from the YouTube ‘truth’ scene when I first shared my Tesla work (back in 2016). Wow. It was like I had shot Bambi.

      If you want to get an idea of just how triggered the YouTube ‘truth’ scene was by my initial Tesla work, check out the podcast on this page:

      It is available completely free. I go through the comments left on one of my Tesla videos. One after another, people attacking me, and getting defensive, because the myth of their beloved Tesla was being challenged.

      With every passing day I can see that I have allowed my negative experiences with the YouTube ‘truth’ scene, and the conspiracy subreddit, to cloud my opinion of the broader conspiracy culture, including the THC audience.

      And it is so good to see more and more evidence that I was wrong on this one. There are more genuinely open-minded people out there than I had realised. Tesla is not as revered as I had thought. More people, like yourself, have wondered the same things about the Tesla narrative as I have wondered.

      Good times.

  28. For whatever reason, I found myself thinking on this podcast episode today. Even more reasons to be suspicious occurred and bugged me enough to write them down.

    Recently, Audible released some Hermetic audio and I bought it last week. I intended to finish it over the weekend but didn’t get around until I was back at work today. I’d read much of it before, but it had been a while, and it is nice to have the audio. Talk about a dubious history! And yet, that doesn’t diminish the truth that I personally find there. Not to mention the tarot, a system that can only be tracked back for sure a few hundred years before it becomes very obscure, but I still find it beautiful. And the Tao Te Ching.. or the I Ching. Whether or not you buy into their philosophy, there were people alive with those documents for thousands of years and then, it’s so old, it also gets all obscured by time.

    When I was a kid I lived in Asia. Taiwan, specifically. I was a very nerdy kid who lived in the heart of Taipei. Right up the street was a beautiful park and museum that I’d walk up to all the time, to read or roam. That museum, and others on the island, have ancient artifacts and document that I spend a lot of time with over the years, talking with people occasionally about their history. People who seemed to define their lives and ancestry in many ways to those artifacts. And I can see why, given the history. Culturally, their history means so much to the people many still pray to and worship their ancestry, which was evident everywhere.

    I’m still a nerd, and when I travel, the only place I really want to see are the museums. Art, mainly, but those museums usually include artifacts and documents. Yep, I’m an art history nerd for sure. I’ve seen a lot of very old stuff over the years, and believe it, even though I wasn’t there when initially created.

    It surprises me to hear the bible is only a few hundred years old. My family has Christian themed heirlooms that are older than that, and I have no reason to believe that my family and ancestry have been lying about it.

    Not long ago, a couple years maybe, I went to an exhibit that had the Dead Sea Scrolls on display. Maybe some people will laugh and think “scam”, but whatever. These scrolls are so old it seems like they might turn to dust in front of your eyes. That didn’t surprise me though.. what did surprise me was all of the many many (many) ancient Jewish goddess sculptures included in that exhibit. So, my question for history is not entirely about what is being made up, but more about what wisdom is being left out. And with the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls, them being hidden away in a cave to preserve them, makes me wonder even more. How much more stashed history is out there? How many historical documents have turned to dust? Doesn’t suprise me they’re hard to find.

    Not to mention… I’ll bet there are European families who still live in the shadow of a Christian cathedral whose father’s, father’s, father’s, father’s great-great-grandfather helped build it, and they know and can track it. And Jewish families who have artifacts, heirlooms or scripture going back hundreds if not thousands of years, passed down and even trackable through their family line. Anecdotal, I guess, maybe. But again, art history nerd, and I have talked with people who have personal history with objects and documents that they can track. And I’m not quite paranoid enough to think they and everyone they know have been scheeming and scamming the herd. Yeah, most people are pretty decent really.

    I also realize I’ve only ever seen one photo of my legendary grandpa before maybe 1950 or so. He was born in 1919, I believe. Now he was nobody famous for sure, just a Cowboy from Wyoming, still… not a whole lot of Snapchattery going on.

  29. Great Show! This show pumped me up so much that I finally cut the slack and commenting for the first time!
    Thanks Greg and John to exploring alternative view into these already quite controversial topics!

    As an Asian with electrical engineering background, I hope to chip in my three cents.
    I can’t prove that the Chinese texts from many centuries ago are not fabricated within the past 200 years but we do have access to physical copies of these works in libraries worldwide (the Brits took many when they invade China). Ancient Chinese, like the Romans, have detail records of everything from daily life routines, royal records (we have all the birthdays of Kings Queens, even government officials), astronomical events, and esoteric traditions (my key research interest). It is true that every dynasty curated, modified and removed texts over the centuries. However, we do have the original “Imperial Collection of Four” from Qing Dynasty in China, which curated in 1773. In addition to that, libraries in Japan and Korea still have the original versions of much older text that were censored texts from the official collection. When you dig deeper, you can even see the progression of syntax, thoughts and technologies in China over time from one text to the next. I really doubt the Free Masons have the literacy foundation in ancient Chinese to create volumes after volumes of texts…
    I agree that timeline of various events can be changed but creating millions of fake texts and architecture work (which is another point that another expert to explain) is really too unbelievable. Of course, we are all open mind people here and John made some good points in this very special 3hr show but sometimes we have to really look at the evidence right in front of our eyes.

    On Tesla, I don’t think he invented everything alternating current or wireless transmission. He seems to be too hyped up these days. However, it is definitely really strange that there is not a single recording of Tesla but just these few low-res photos floating on the Internet, despite being portrayed as this eccentric, over-the-top inventor of his time.
    Having said that, there are many inventors back then competing among him to reach the commercializing AC generator and also wireless transmission. I recommend reading The Truth About Tesla. It gave some pretty solid cross-reference of the various inventors in the whole electrical age.
    As an evidence, wondering what do you guys think on the plague on the generators in Niagra Fall with Tesla’s patent written on it. Maybe it’s an afterwork, maybe not…
    Note, there are other folks’ patents written on it as well. So there is more than one genius back then. Note 2, Tesla likes to file his patent in a carpet bombing manner and hence the grant dates are all the same.
    Pic is shown in this website


    1. “I agree that timeline of various events can be changed but creating millions of fake texts and architecture work (which is another point that another expert to explain) is really too unbelievable.”

      i had a similar first reaction … look at the copious amounts of works all around in such a short period of time. quite prodigious output in all different languages about so many characters, ages, countries etc..- even if they were all made up.

      because if everything just popped into existence a few hundred years ago, or restarted or whatever else…a tremendous amount of work still has to manifest fairly quickly.

      however, why ‘believe’ something else if there’s no evidence whatsoever for official or most alternative narratives?

      why can’t ‘we’ be more comfortable charging forward without ‘knowing’ nor having a story/model to replace the ones we necessarily have to abandon if we are going to be intellectually hones..and pursue ‘truth’?

  30. I agree with a few comments that mention that JLB seemed to deflect when asked what he thought about specific events. However, the more I listened, the more I considered that he is a lot like the rest of us in this community. We know something isn’t quite right but don’t have the answer for ourselves.
    Instead of being frustrated at not getting an answer, I felt encouraged to question what I’m told – as I have many times on this podcast. I did find his “must have evidence” approach a bit too rigid for my liking. Particularly when considering literary evidence. Logically, a book is not going to withstand the tests of time – that doesn’t mean it was not available at some point. But, that’s okay. I don’t have to agree with the level of skepticism, but I can respect it. Instead, I can agree it seems odd and I can look into things for myself.

    Thanks Greg for yet another thought provoking show!

  31. Ahhh, yes! I have a date tonight with The Higherside Chats Podcast
    It’s bound to be an orgasmic evening! 3 1/2 hours too, can it get any better than this?! Love it, Greg!!

  32. When I saw JLB in the title I was shocked 😀 .. “omg, this guy???!! He`s so f*cking annoying!” oh and “over 3 hours with him?!?” 😀

    I followed JLB since the Ball Earth Sceptics Roundtable. What I saw was that JLB became like this right at the time he got to the point where he understood the Earth could not be a ball and it is most likely flat. So to not become a flat earther (bc flat earthers are so dumb, their brains are so small etc 😀 , oh, and they are a cult 😀 ) for whatever reason he became sceptic towards anything. I listened to a couple of debates between him and flat earthers (like Jeranism, Globebusters etc.) and what I saw and heard whas JLB just would not listen to any arguments and was repeating his sceptic’s mantra one can use against anything. He looked so silly doing that, like a f*cking kid, like talking to a wall..

    I wonder what is his agenda. I don`t like him and I don`t trust him. I don’t like the way he talks by repeating everything 3 times or more like he`s programming you.. I don`t like his voice and tone. I would not be surprised if he`s an agent with a mission. A shill? Whatever..

    THAT SAID I enjoyed this episode. Interesting topics. I wouldn’t be sad if you brought him back for another show.

    (sorry for my english, pretty hard for me to express my thoughts coherently. I`m not angry or mad at JLB, not trying to offend anybody, I`m writing all this peacefully and with a smile 🙂 )

  33. Concerning some history about wars…I knew people who fought in WW II, Korea and Vietnam. I saw their own pictures they themselves took from the war. Heard their gruesome stories. Saw their emotional response as they told them. These three wars were real. I talked to primary sources myself. This might be a good idea for those who require a primary source for everything.

    This concept expands to flat Earthers and everyone else questioning everything too. Get out from behind the computer and step up to the plate. If you think the Earth is flat, buy, borrow or rent a sailboat and navigate a long distance using geometry instead of trigonometry. Sail in straight lines, not an arc of a great circle and see if you arrive at your destination. I am betting heavily (for me) that you will not. I know an old school navigator from the Air Force (primary source). He thinks flat Earthers are like kids in their parents’ basement who need to get outside and figure out a few things in life. Or don’t and keep speculating.

  34. JohnleBon:
    Excellent question. My answer is simple: Yes, I am skeptical of the character known as Aleister Crowley. This is despite (or because of?) the fact that I have read several books attributed to Crowley, and even happen to like a lot of what I read in those books. I had been led to believe that Crowley was some kind of ‘evil’ dude, but when I took the time to read the words attributed to him for myself, I was humbled to learn that I had been misled — again!

    Myself and a regular contributor to the weekly Member Skype/Discord Call series on my site, a lovely lady named Mezzie, discussed Crowley and Magick on a call about three months ago. It was during my research in the week leading up to the call that I discovered some amazing (unbelievable?) things about the official Crowley narrative, several of which happen to tie directly into the History Hoax.

    Originally that call, like most Member Skype/Discord Calls, was available only to Full Members of my site. In response to your excellent question here, and as another token of my appreciation for the support I have received from the wider THC audience over the past few days, I have now made that call available to Free Members as well.

    It happens to be one of my favourite MSC’s from the entire series. In it, myself and Mezzie discuss:

    *The evidence for and against the ‘Crowley is evil’ meme
    *The connection between the Crowley narrative and the Ancient Egypt narrative
    *The ‘coincidental’ associations between Thelema and the event we know as ‘9/11’
    *The influence of ‘magick’ and the occult on pop culture (and whether or not this influence is nefarious in intent)

    If you give that episode a listen, you’ll see that I am just as skeptical about Crowley as I am about Tesla. And in both cases, I am not merely saying, ‘oh i dont believe in this guy he is a hoax hur dur’, but I have in fact taken the time to read the works attributed to the characters in question, and also study their backstory.

    As we like to say on my website: ‘What A Time To Be Alive’.

    P.S. @DankMoody: Would you be happy for me to use your comment/question here as the basis for a YouTube video? I can either give you attribution or not, entirely up to you. The intent behind my video would be to promote the Crowley call, and also to demonstrate (once again) that the conversation behind the paywall on THC Plus is superior to the YouTube comment section (and the conspiracy scene in general).


    Thanks for responding, of course you can use it for a video and you can use my name if you’re gonna attribute it to someone. Good to know you’re questioning Crowley too I’ll be checking out the video you posted for sure, thanks. Sorry if the comment came off confrontational at all, I truly enjoyed your appearance. Cheers.

  35. Fantastic interview! I’ve not heard JLB before, he’s exceptionally well-spoken. I found his site off-putting unfortunately, though his a great marketer, reminded me of a National Enquirer copy. But I do agree with his level of skepticism and will definitely check out more of his work now. And clearly a hard-working individual and very driven, which I totally respect! A couple of assumptions I’d question–is the goal of most folks really happiness, and if so, is that really a ‘good’ thing? He said this several times and by ‘happiness’ I assume he means ‘fulfilled’? Do most folks really strive to be happy? I see that a lot on TV, but not actually in real life. Most folks I see prefer chaos and distraction.
    Also, regarding primary sources–just b/c it’s not on the Great Internet Archive, does that mean it didn’t exist at all? Perhaps Library of Alexandria was a big hoax, got no issues there, but ‘family histories’ even from not great families, and myth as well, were still passed down, and do not have original source material available to us all. If a certain ‘who are we/why are we here’ was answered by some ancient myth, and it’s 100% the truth, how would we ever know this? What makes an acceptable ‘primary source’ exactly? If my great-grandfather insists all his cousins were redheads, but I don’t have documentation of this, yet my grandfather repeated this to me, and me then to my kids, and so on, at what point does a future ancestor say, oh, that’s a hoax, there were no redheads in that family b/c we have no original source documentation of that?

  36. I didn’t enjoy this EP as much as others but it was mostly a matter of history being a forgery and written by the winners is well worn territory for me. I do take issue some people beating up on the guy though. I think any time we are delving into the world of conspiracy there will usually be a lack of anything solid to hang your hat on and love that Greg mostly lets these people keep on trucking with their pov; whatever it may be.

    A lot of criticism being levied is that he is just offering his opinion. I concur; he is, however so is everyone else on THC. We all have our beliefs or the stories that just clicked for us and opened us up to other possibilities. The things that made us believe that in fact there are conspiracies out there. Some people come on here and very concretely state their opinion in the guise of fact. Sometimes I like their viewpoint and sometimes I reject it often biased by my own hunches and beliefs.

    Whether we are talking about 9/11, the cure for cancer, aliens, propaganda, the elite, the flat earth etc. none of us empirically know the truth. That said I don’t think personal attacks on guests nice enough to post in here is warranted and really devalues the entire after show comments. I think its fine to attack the ideas and present your own but please stop with the snark. Its honestly why I don’t comment much anymore. There is actually a difference between debating ideas and arguing with people. A difference that eludes some people on here.

  37. Great show and speaking of synchronicity, The Wizard of Oz and L Frank Baum. Quote “A second-hand coat selected as part of the costume for Professor Marvel in the 1939 film version of The Wizard of Oz was discovered to have been owned by Oz author L. Frank Baum.”

  38. “Hero-Doyt-Us”! Haha.

    About 75% of the first hour was the guest defending himself , “I know this sounds crazy to some people but I’ve done the research, etc”.

    Get to the interesting stuff quicker with more evidence! It’s a conspiracy show, the audience is more than willing to accept weird shit!

    Also, if some one can’t pronounce Herodotus properly, It’s a pretty big concern for their knowledge of ancient history. The flippant disregard for the discipline in a lot of the guest’s comments belies a large lack of knowledge about what is actually entailed in the discussion of history at an academic level.

  39. Greg and Jon — Enjoyed this show — strong work by both of you in presenting important questions (and evidence) for everyone to consider.

    I don’t often jump in on the forums, but wanted to offer a few rebuttals here rather than in my blog, since on my blog I generally focus on presenting the research that I am doing, rather than criticizing the research someone else is doing. Not that I am going to criticize Jon’s research here either (I am all for asking questions, and I encourage everyone to ask questions just as Jon is doing — there are plenty of people out there who will actually call you names for asking questions, and those are the people, and the subjects, to be most suspicious about, in my opinion). But I am going to offer a few rebuttals based on my own experience and research, for the benefit of Plus members — since only Plus members can really hear the entire interview, so this is probably the best forum in which to address the questions and challenges raised in this particular interview.

    First, let me say that I myself have gone on record many times over the past nine years in published materials (including books, videos, and blog posts) saying that the record of ancient history that we are taught in school and which continues to be pushed in academia and on “educational TV” and in the corporate media is obviously gravely flawed (this can be proven with substantial evidence) and in need of radical revision. I believe the weight of the evidence suggests that human civilization is far older than we are told, but I am also open to looking at the evidence for other explanations, including open to the evidence being proposed by some of those who are going more in the direction that Jon is forwarding here (although I disagree completely with Fomenko’s arguments, because I believe I can show that his “astrotheology” analysis of Revelation is completely flawed, and he bases his entire timeline on this flawed analysis of the celestial metaphors in Revelation — Revelation can be shown to be based upon celestial metaphor, as I have discussed in several blog posts and in my book Star Myths of the Bible, but I believe that Fomenko’s interpretations are mistaken, and these mistaken interpretations lead to his dating system, based on when various planets are in various constellations from his mistaken interpretations, and thus I believe that Fomenko’s use of Revelation as a basis for his timeline is a critical flaw in his analysis; however, since Jon also disagrees with Fomenko, we can set that aside for this discussion). There is a blog written by Didier Lacapelle in France which raises some very interesting arguments about chronology, which I believe that Jon, Greg, and anyone who is interested in THC might enjoy reading. The posts are written primarily in French, but with Google Translate you can get a pretty good idea of what is being written in the original, and occasionally a post will be written in English. That blog is located here, and is called Theognosis or Theognose. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions there (Didier does not agree with many of my conclusions either), but I believe this discussion is an important one, and the evidence which Didier presents (especially evidence from France regarding the history of France, where he lives) is extremely worthy of careful examination and consideration to help piece together what might really be going on.

    All that to say that I fully agree that the truth about history is extremely important to our situation today, and that I fully agree that there is clear evidence of history being manipulated in very significant ways — but that at present I believe the vast weight of evidence argues for history which goes back to ancient times, and in fact far beyond that. I have written a book (The Undying Stars) which argues that the ancient wisdom was deliberately suppressed in what would become known as “the west” (which really means cultures conquered by the Roman Empire, and particularly those under the sway of the western Roman Empire after the Empire split into East and West) during the period we call the first four centuries AD (or CE, if you prefer), and I believe that there is a lot of evidence which supports that conclusion (and this thesis would also explain the “loss” or at least suppression of many original texts).

    However, we have plenty of texts which date back much further than a couple hundred years. Greg mentions the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts in his monologue at the end of the interview, which are good examples. The original Pyramid Texts themselves are found inside pyramids belonging to Egyptian kings of the fifth and sixth dynasties, including the pyramid of Unas (who reigned from 2353 BC to 2323 BC). Also, the material that is inscribed in these texts is argued by scholars based on grammatical and linguistic evidence to have been composed long before they were carved into these stones.

    We could also bring up the thousands of clay tablets from Mesopotamia. Due to the durability of the clay upon which they are written, these tablets are the original texts from ancient Sumer and Babylon. Some have been dated to 2600 BC. A great number of them date to the period between 1800 BC and 1700 BC. The Gilgamesh texts exist on tablets which scholars believe to have been written no later than 2000 BC, in some cases. I don’t know if Jon has addressed this area of scholarship in some of his videos, because I only listened to this particular interview, but if he denies the authenticity of these texts (and it IS true that many of these tablets were discovered in the nineteenth century, but they can actually be dated by various methods) then it would be interesting to hear him discuss this with Michael Heiser, who is very familiar with ancient near eastern texts and would know which originals have been known for the longest period of time.

    My own Masters thesis, published in March of 2001, discusses a text which was definitely known well before the 1800s — the Beowulf manuscript. You can read my entire Masters thesis online, if you are interested, here:

    In that thesis, my professors encouraged me to discuss the dating of the Beowulf manuscript. Virtually everyone admits that the manuscript itself was written by hand between the years AD 940 and AD 1040. The date of composition of the text may have been much earlier. Although some scholars argue for a late date of composition of the story itself (some argue that the story was composed as late as AD 1016 or even after that — but still prior to AD 1040), I argue in the thesis linked above that the story itself (the story of Beowulf) was likely composed earlier, probably between AD 800 and AD 925, based on a variety of evidence and analysis. Some scholars even argue that it must have been written prior to AD 725, based upon certain rhymes used and certain vowel pronunciations and the way they changed over time.

    You can still see the Beowulf manuscript in the British Museum. An antiquarian named Laurence Nowell who owned the manuscript inscribed his name in it, dated 1563, on the first page. This, of course, does not mean that the manuscript could not have been written before 1563. In fact, Beowulf is written in Old English which is very different from modern English (including the English spoken in the 1500s). Old English is more similar to Norse and German than to modern English, in many ways, including the fact that it is “inflected” in ways that modern English is not (including noun cases) and if someone were to start speaking Old English, no one who speaks modern English would be able to understand any of it (beyond maybe being able to guess at the meaning of a word or two) unless they studied Old English. It is essentially a foreign language to speakers of modern English — and one that changed plenty during the centuries that it was spoken, as well (there isn’t just one thing called “Old English” actually). Old English stopped being Old English in AD 1066 with the Norman Conquest of England (that’s when it blended with French and turned into Middle English, which is also very difficult to understand unless you study it, basically as a foreign language).

    And there are many other Old English texts that we can study — including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Domesday Book. Some of these texts were written down by scribes in the 1100s (copies of older manuscripts written in the 800s, and some with entries going back to the first century BC). Here is some info on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which includes description of the surviving texts. If you become and Old English scholar, you could go see the originals. They are written in Old English. It is very difficult to argue that someone was going around making up Old English (as a language, in all of its changes and evolutions over the centuries) in the 1800s (and that they also made up Middle English and all of its variations), and that they also made up the Sumerian and Babylonian and Akkadian languages found on the clay tablets of Mesopotamia, etc.

    There are other examples of surviving texts from western Europe (including late Roman Empire) that also refute the arguments offered in the interview. One of my favorite ancient authors is Apuleius. Everyone who has not done so would probably very much enjoy reading the Metamorphoses of Apuleius (who lived from AD 125 to 170, a very important period of time). This work is most commonly known as the Golden Ass, and the best translation is by Jack Lindsay (1960), in my opinion. Do yourself a favor and buy that book (the Lindsay translation is not available online, and the online translations that are available are nowhere near as good) and give it a read. I have written about it on my blog posts many times (blog is searchable so those interested in the celestial metaphors and esoteric messages of the Golden Ass can go check that out if they want). We know that Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) who lived from 1304 – 1374, was a big fan of Apuleius, including of the Golden Ass, and made references to the Golden Ass in some of his own writings and in letters he wrote to others. He also appears to have owned a bunch of Apuleius texts, which obviously could not have been created after the 1300s. Here are a couple references to discussions of Petrarch’s ownership of, and written references to, the works of Apuleius (here and here, for example).

    Another important ancient philosopher, who also appears to have known something about what we know today as “astrotheology,” was a writer named Macrobius. He is thought to have lived from about AD 370 to AD 430 (similar period as Augustine, by the way, whose texts are commented upon by writers in the 600s, and copies of whose texts exist dating at least as far back as the early 1400s, and some probably earlier than that, if you want to go looking further than that, but definitely well before the 1800s). Macrobius texts survived in a lot of manuscripts, some dating back to the ninth century AD (which means the 800s, by the way, since the first century was from the year of 1 through the year of 99, so the century with the 100s was actually the SECOND century, and so on). Here is an online discussion of that fact (including the existence of six texts of Macrobius dating back to the 800s), which includes a link to read some Macrobius online.

    The fact is that these very old manuscripts (such as those from the 800s) are not going to be put on a photographic machine and scanned into the world wide web! But if you want to go through all the hoops, you can probably get access to the reference libraries where they are kept under carefully monitored conditions (right temperature, right humidity, etc). It’s not easy to do, but I myself have written to reference librarians in charge of manuscript collections and requested and been granted permission to visit their collection (in this case, they were not ancient manuscripts, but it shows that you can do it — I do believe that these texts actually exist and that if you are doing research on them, you can request permission to go view them, even though they don’t usually have them on display for the general public). And, as I noted above, the Beowulf manuscript is on display (behind glass, for protection and humidity etc) in the British Museum.

    There are also texts from cultures outside of what we call “the west” (cultures not conquered by the Roman Empire). There are hundreds of ancient Chinese texts. Professor Herbert Mair of University of Pennsylvania has translated the version of the Tao Te Ching that was written on silk texts preserved inside a tomb in China that was sealed in 168 BC (Han period). In that translation (which has a bunch of excellent and very worthwhile appendices at the end) he discusses ancient Chinese inscriptions on archaeological finds which seem to describe exercises related to Yoga or Chi Gung. You might contact him and ask him if he thinks all the ancient Chinese texts he has examined over the years are fakes. He also is interested in the mummies of the Tarim Basin, which are fascinating and date back to 1000 BC (some of them even older, perhaps as old as 1800 BC). You can look up Professor Mair discussing these mummies in lectures, some of which appear on YouTube and contain his own photos and slide presentations etc.

    I myself am not a scholar of ancient Chinese texts, but I believe that literally hundreds of ancient texts (originals!!), some from the Han period and some even earlier, have survived. There is a database of Han texts here:

    In ancient China, sometimes they wrote on things like bamboo (or silk) which have survived even better than paper. There is also the case of the famous “oracle bones” of the ancient Shang period in China, which I have written about here. They are inscribed on animal shoulder blades (scapula) and tortoise shells (plastrons — the lower part of the shell that faces the ground) and thus can be dated. They also use a very archaic form of Chinese characters. They are thought to date back in some cases to 1700 BC. Note that over 150,000 fragments of Shang “oracle bones” have now been discovered. That’s a lot of forgery, if you want to argue that someone has been cranking those out in modern times!

    I believe there is much more evidence that could be offered. This is just what I have come up with since listening to this interview today. I have not even mentioned the ancient myths, all of which can be shown to be based on a common system of celestial metaphor (this is the area which I research and write about the most, and which I have been writing about for nine years now). The fact that this worldwide system of myth exists is evidence that I believe Jon would find to be very interesting. He could use it as an argument that all history is a hoax — but while that is one possible explanation for this evidence from myth, I don’t believe it is the best explanation. The sacred stories of the Indigenous nations of North America, for example, contain evidence that they are also using this worldwide system — and it is very difficult to argue that those sacred stories, which they passed down from generation to generation and treated with the utmost reverence, were “hoaxes” given to them by some conspirators trying to set up this worldwide “fake history” (the same people who supposedly “made up” the myths of ancient Greece, of ancient Egypt, of ancient Mesopotamia, of ancient India, of ancient China and Japan, of the Indigenous people of Australia, etc). That is a pretty difficult hypothesis to argue — especially since it would seem that these same “hoaxers” would then have to also be responsible for building the pyramids, creating all the “fake mummies” found around the world, building Stonehenge and all the other megalithic sites (including those on remote Pacific islands, etc). That does not seem to be the best explanation for the evidence we find. I myself find it much more likely that the evidence of a worldwide myth system probably points to the existence of a now-forgotten predecessor culture, one much more ancient than even ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, ancient India, ancient China, etc.

    Indeed, in this interview Jon and Greg spend a lot of time discussing the arguments and evidence presented by Robert Schoch and the late John Anthony West. Note that if you get a copy of the actual book Serpent in the Sky, by John West (I prefer the 1987 edition), all the arguments about the weathering on the Sphinx are actually a kind of “afterthought,” presented in an Appendix. The main body of the book is about the incredible evidence of very sophisticated spiritual and artistic skill in the surviving texts and artifacts of Egypt. John West’s conclusion is that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of some now-forgotten predecessor culture, from whom ancient Egypt must have inherited some of their achievements, including the system of hieroglyphs, not to mention the stoneworking and stone-moving capabilities.

    The stone moving capabilities evinced by some of these ruins are far beyond anything known in the 1700s or 1800s of the modern era. Some of those stone blocks are so large that we would have trouble figuring out how to move them even today, in 2018. Note that John West (as well as later authors, such as Christopher Dunn) have noted that the statues themselves show some incredible precision and skill. For example, the faces of certain kings are almost identical from one statue to another, even if the statues are made of extremely hard stone, and even if the faces are of very different sizes from one statue to another. How did they make the faces so precisely similar, so many times, over and over? These are technologies that we might be able to duplicate today, but which would have been difficult or impossible to achieve in the 1700s or 1800s (especially without people knowing that you are doing it).

    All in all, I find that there is a lot of evidence to believe that the ancient cultures existed — not just in “the west” but also in India, China, the Americas, Africa, other parts of Asia, and the islands in the Pacific. In fact, I believe there is evidence that an even more ancient culture (or cultures) existed prior to the cultures we know of from conventional history.

    I commend Jon for having a questioning mind, and I commend him for accepting Greg’s invitation to appear on THC. I thought it was a super thought-provoking discussion. Based on my own research, I don’t agree with Jon’s conclusions, and I believe there is overwhelming evidence to disagree with them. But I would never suggest that any question is “off limits” and I think we should all be open to hearing tough questions.

    I also believe that arguing that no one died in the mass murders of September 11 is a pretty outrageous claim to make unless you can back that up with evidence. I do not accept the “official” story of the events of that day, as I have written publicly many times, but to argue that no one died on that day you must give some strong evidence. I know for a fact that people died in the wars that were launched afterwards, because I was in the us army and I have a personal friend who died in the wars that were launched afterwards. I believe that millions of people in dozens of countries (starting with Afghanistan and Iraq and moving on to many other countries) have actually died as a result of the illegal wars that were launched after September 11.

    In conclusion I would say that my own views on what is going on have changed quite a bit during the years that I have been researching these subjects. I agree with the song that says, “There’s something happening here / what it is ain’t exactly clear” — and that figuring out “what’s going down” is not easy at all. I believe it is always good to try to look at the puzzle pieces from all possible different angles. It is a very complex puzzle. It’s going to take people from all different backgrounds and all different personalities and all kinds of different areas of study to figure out, in my opinion. I hope that as Jon keeps researching he will be open to changing his conclusions as he goes along — I know that I have had to be open to doing that, myself, and I still am. I think we should all try to stay willing to change our “hypothesis” as we examine the evidence, just like Sherlock Holmes or the Scooby Doo gang sometimes have to change their initial hypothesis as they research a mystery.

    Cheers and best wishes!

    David Mathisen
    star myth world (dot com)

  40. Interesting and John makes some good points but I think what we have here is a case of a child of the information age. I came of age in the 80’s just as the home computer was being introduced. I can remember how difficult it was to find information back then and how difficult it was to store information back then. The vast vast vast majority of radio and television broadcasts were either never recorded or the recordings were destroyed intentionally when they were only a few years old to make room for more recent records. Back then there was the 7 year rule and not many things made it past that. Also most Hollywood movies have been lost to time. I think the actual number is something north of 90% of all movies ever made have been lost to time since film does not age well.

    Just from a family records standpoint film and developing was expensive. Family pictures were few and far in between and you had to develop the film and keep hard copies of pictures around. Fires, floods and things like tornadoes happen and when they do they can wipe out the entire history of a family.

    For John to say that just because he can’t find more than a few pictures of someone that means the person never existed just shows how ignorant this generation is to the fleeting nature of life. The ability to record anything by touching a screen that you keep in your pocket or the ability to be able to store terabytes of information in your pocket is very very new. When I was a kid trying to store 64 megabytes was a mind blowing accomplishment. Even something like a VHS tape is a fairly new invention and they were huge and degraded both over time and with each use.

    Again, I’ll say John makes some good points and I found the show interesting. But I think he really needs to take a step back and understand how difficult it was to record anything, written or other wise, more than 20 years ago.

  41. I wanted to be excited about this, but it comes off a bit like a calmed down Eddie Bravo.

    JLB, good on you for questioning. I get your dedication to primary source.

    -Listen, bud. You harp on primary source, yet a large body of your work is rooted in internet research. Yea, you may only find a couple of images that you’re looking for on the internet. If i was on a quest like this, I would travel to libraries containing these books/images/sources instead of doing it from the comfort from any cafe/home. Keep in mind, a lot of things have been put on the internet. That doesn’t mean they have been put on there accurately, nor does it mean that is all there is.

    At the end of the day, I don’t like it. You’re 31? Good for you, young man. Give it another 20 years and then come back and tell us what you think.

    -“Conspiratard community” — yea, I guess that’s us…I would be quite interested to find that any of this is true. But, we must also temper our “question everything” attitude. Lest the work that real researchers have done will go by the wayside. Some of the work scientists do is truthful and real.

    Be careful about a guy like this – he admonishes people making inferences, yet that is the basis of much of his claims.

    Not saying it isn’t right to take a look at all this. Just be careful, folks. On all fronts.


  42. JLB correlates to the Time Loop Chronicles of John Panella. We are stuck in a 1,000 year time loop. When someone says we’re living in the Truman Show, we can assume ever more profoundly every day that this “reality” is a film set, a facade. The Sphinx would have to be a prop. A whole backstory has been fabricated for how we go here…anything that is conducive to ensouled humans moving toward the ultimate goal of the Adversary…uploading consciousness/soul into a machine.

    Beside that, given we have lived this same lifetime over and over…it explains pre-cognition but so too, the Controllers know “the future,” since this makes the future really the past. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to perfect their game. I do think that remnants from the last Game bleed through into this iteration of the game. And that America isn’t the New Atlantis per Francis Bacon…it is Atlantis. Just like the New World Order is really The Old World Order.

    This also ties in with NPCs. Only those with souls reincarnate. At the End of the Age, the game resets and ensouled players return to the Middle Ages, seamlessly. (Of course, everything, time, is always happening all at once, but for the sake of argument….) This information from JBL is very reaffirming. Wanting JBL to find evidence that verifies that history does not go back thousands of years is laughable. If there is no “antiquity” period, where exactly is he supposed to find evidence that it didn’t happen? By the way, this is the last go round…the game will not be resetting. It will end in your lifetime.

  43. I think JLB comes off pretty well here. I do find evidence of a gauche hustler at his youtube and web properties, but even if his self-presentation can seem tacky, it’s helping him reach his audience to some extent, in addition to helping him dodge the censors (probably). So, good for him. His extreme confidence, too, seems to be a lightning rod for judgment — he’s got the instincts of a provocateur, for better or worse. But there’s no doubt he is swinging for the fences, and that is a cool way to be. I think it’s great to be reminded that there are no primary sources for a lot of the “world-building” documents of our collective story. Is it all made up? Yeah, maybe. The next question is, what does that mean? Once you drive out to Phoenix and see the wire frame mesh, what do you do then?

Leave a Reply