Bradley Walsh thought he was ‘going to prove the pyramids were built by aliens'
Bradley Walsh says he thought he was 'going to prove' that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens before investigating the conspiracy theory as part of a new show.
The presenter, 64, known for The Chase and Gladiators, has always been interested in the tomb structures at Giza since he was child as his teacher was the great-niece of Howard Carter, who found Tutankhamun's tomb.
As part of the Sky History programme Bradley Walsh: Egypt's Cosmic Code, he travelled to the country after hearing 'this rumour that the pyramids weren't built by Ancient Egyptians at all', and 'they were built by a race that had either died out prior to 4,500 years ago, or they were built by someone or something else'.
Walsh added: 'Prior to arriving in Egypt, I'm thinking: this is going be great, I'm going to prove this is the aliens.
'People say I'm a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. All I did was say: 'It could be this,' and I needed to find out what is the truth.'
Walsh said that, being there, 'you then realise it's very difficult to take on board that anyone else other than 'the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids''.
'The great thing about the Great Pyramid is they started building the pyramids about 150 years prior to that one,' he said.
'My expert guides, Meredith and Arto, showed me where the beginnings of the pyramids were about 150 years prior to the Grand Pyramid.
'If you went there, you see the evolution of the pyramids – one's wonky, one's drooping on one side, it's all trial and error.'
Walsh also appeared to suggest that being inside the Great Pyramid made him stop believing that it could generate electricity.
He said: 'Being so deep inside the pyramid, I was expecting a lot of noise. I've maintained that I think the Great Pyramid is some kind of power plant in its own right.'
Walsh also said that it was 'mind-blowing being there', and finding out that the final ruler of Egypt, Cleopatra VII, lover of Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, died closer to the modern era than the beginning of the Ancient Egypt.
He said: 'You can go online and get a load of speculative information from people that have never even been there, they've got it from a book or somewhere else online, and you know how dangerous the web can be in terms of misinformation.
'Well, if you are interested in the pyramids, hopefully people will watch this and go and see it for themselves. I hope they do because it certainly broadens the mind – it also narrows it, to a certain extent, in that you can see all the real information laid out in front of you.'
The Great Pyramid of Giza was built more than 4,600 years ago to house Khufu, a king from Egypt's 4th dynasty.
The Egyptian Government has previously invited people who do not believe their ancestors built the pyramids to the north-east African country to learn the story of the impressive structures.
In 2020, the then-minister of international co-operation Rania al-Mashat told South African businessman Elon Musk that she is 'waiting for' him to visit the pyramids after he wrote on X: 'Aliens built the pyramids (obviously).'
Ms al-Mashat also said: 'I follow your work with a lot of admiration. I invite you and Space X to explore the writings about how the pyramids were built and also to check out the tombs of the pyramid builders.
'Mr Musk, we are waiting for you.'
Tech billionaire Mr Musk, who bought Twitter/X in 2022, later pointed to a 'sensible summary for how' the structures were built, which explained that archaeological evidence shows that there were villages made to house workers constructing the pyramids, and went into detail about the human evidence.
Bradley Walsh: Egypt's Cosmic Code airs on March 18 at 9pm on Sky History.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: Donald Trump's plan for pirate mining
On April 24, President Trump issued another questionable executive order, this one calling for deep-sea mining in both federal and international waters. The former is within his control; the latter would be a violation of international law. Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — the 1982 treaty ratified by 169 other nations that regulates maritime activities, including deep-sea mining, on and in the high seas — the U.S. has always abided by it. Until now. 'You know we're sometimes an outlier on things like the Law of the Sea treaty,' says Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee. 'And what [Trump's] doing with deep-sea mining is just making us even more of a lone ranger, if not a pariah.' Read more: The Oceans Court ruled that the seas are a hot mess. Why haven't you heard about it? Global mining consortiums have been eyeing mineral-rich nodules on the ocean floor since the 1970s. Sometimes as large as potatoes, the nodules form around a hard nucleus, such as a grain of sand or a shark's tooth, accumulating minerals out of seawater and sediment over millions of years in the deep benthic zone, the least-studied of the ocean's fragile ecosystems. Given the limits of 20th century technology, mining two to three miles below the ocean's surface proved commercially impractical, to the relief of environmentalists and oceanographers. But a bad idea that promises quick returns never gets old. Today, tech-driven mining corporations, such as the Metals Company of Canada, known as TMC, are leading the way back into the deep. The UN's International Seabed Authority, established under the Law of the Sea treaty, has granted TMC and other companies exploratory permits for deep-sea mining. Using massive mother ships, the companies deploy tank-tread "robotic excavators" (essentially, underwater bulldozers) or giant vacuum crawlers connected to pipes, pumps and miles of power cable. The Metals Company alone has recovered 4,500 tons of nodules. Now, TMC and the Trump administration are claiming that a novel interpretation of an obscure American law allows the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to issue commercial mining permits in waters the rest of the world considers outside American jurisdiction. Read more: The most important part of the ocean you've never heard of In 1960, U.S. Navy Capt. Don Walsh was one of the first two humans to reach the deepest part of the ocean — the so-called Challenger Deep — along with Jacques Piccard, who piloted their bathysphere. Two years before Walsh died in 2023, he explained why opening large swaths of international waters to deep-sea mining would be a mistake. 'It's kind of like clear-cutting the forest,' Walsh told me. 'It doesn't differentiate between the ore and the things that live on the seafloor. And these are organisms that take thousands of years to populate an area. So, I can't support awarding mining permissions or licenses to areas that have not been carefully studied.' That's also the assessment of more than 900 marine scientists and policy experts from 70 nations who have signed a statement urging the United Nations to hold off on licensing mining operations 'that could result in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.' Read more: L.A. fires wreaked havoc on the land. Scientists are racing to learn what they've done to the sea What we don't know about the deep ocean is astonishing. Just last year, a paper in the journal Nature showed that the nodule-covered seafloor in a 1.7-million-square-mile area between Hawaii and Mexico — where mining companies are already exploring — was producing 'dark oxygen.' Until that revelation, scientists had considered sunlight, for photosynthesis, essential for ocean oxygen. The 'huge' discovery, as described by the lead researcher, needs more study. Understanding the dark oxygen process could translate into the ability to sustain life on other planets or remake our understanding of how life began on Earth. Mining the seabed raises other concerns besides the need to preserve dark oxygen. The oceans are a carbon sink. If the sediments are constantly stirred up, as they would be in mining, we 'may be reintroducing that carbon back into the water column — and then ultimately back into the atmosphere,' NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad cautioned me back when he ran the agency in 2023. His remarks stand in sharp contrast to the headline on a recent fawning news release from the current NOAA — ''The next gold rush': President Trump unlocks access to critical deep seabed minerals" — and its subhead: "Historic executive order will boost economic growth, support national security.' Read more: How humanity's ear-splitting racket deafens whales and other marine animals The mining companies like to argue that scraping the bottom of the deep ocean is itself a climate solution and can be accomplished with appropriate ecosystem safeguards. The nodules are rich in manganese, copper, nickel and cobalt, key constituents of battery-powered clean energy, such as EVs. 'You've got to have a planetary perspective,' the Metal Company's chief scientist Greg Stone insists, but critics question the environmental vision of the mining industry. Thirty-three nations, including France and New Zealand, have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until the world's largest habitat is better understood. Corporate customers including Google, Samsung, Philips, Volvo and BMW have pledged to keep deep-sea minerals out of their electric cars and other products. The United States during the Biden administration supported a take-it-slow approach. Deep-sea mining 'is not ready for prime time,' Monica Medina, assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, told me two years ago. For the present, Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio is retaining that post but not that policy position. Read more: Great Pacific Garbage Patch could be eliminated in 10 years, cleanup organization says Like Trump's America, China and India have shown keen interest in quickly bringing commercial mining operations to the planet's last physical frontier. The tiny Pacific Island nation of Nauru, which has a contract with the Metals Company, has been pushing the Seabed Authority to finalize its deep-sea regulations and issue commercial permits. Under Trump's executive order, the United States is barreling ahead regardless, circumventing the Law of the Sea and the best advice of scientists who are pleading for a better understanding of what dredging the sea floor could destroy or unleash. On the high seas in the 21st century, the U.S. may prove to be the world's newest pirate threat. David Helvarg is the executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. He co-hosts "Rising Tide: The Ocean Podcast." If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cynthia Erivo and The Vivienne among ‘LGBT+ changemakers' in 2025 Pride List
Wicked actress Cynthia Erivo and drag queen The Vivienne are among the stars who feature on a list 'celebrating the most influential LGBT+ changemakers of the past year'. The Independent's Pride List for 2025 also includes retired Olympic diver Tom Daley, actor Bella Ramsey, artist David Hockney, comedian Joe Lycett and author Juno Dawson. Erivo, 38, who won a Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (Glaad) Award earlier in the year, was placed at number four on the top 10 list while The Vivienne, the drag alter-ego of the late James Lee Williams, is seventh. The Vivienne, who won the first series of RuPaul's Drag Race UK and spoke publicly about prejudices faced by LGBT+ people and by the drag community, died in January at the age of 32 and is a posthumous inclusion on the list. Topping the 2025 Pride List is Victoria McCloud, a lawyer, former judge and transgender woman who announced she would take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman. Dr McCloud said: 'I'm delighted and honoured that The Independent has included me in its Pride List this year. 'In 2025, more than ever before, amidst increasing oppression and segregation at home, with court and state against us, people from the trans community yearn to be bathed in rainbow light. 'These are uniquely dark times but we will challenge those who wish to marginalise us, be they Government or activists with money and the odd mega-yacht to spare. 'We have been here for centuries; we will be here for centuries to come. The quiet majority walk with us.' In April the UK's highest court unanimously ruled that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Chloe Hubbard, UK editor of The Independent, said: 'We are proud to champion our most influential LGBT+ changemakers once again on our annual Pride List in a year where the community has been further marginalised on both sides of the Atlantic. 'Visibility and pride within the queer community feels more vital than ever and we are dedicated to continuing to occupy our unique place in the media on LGBT+ issues.' In 2023, The Independent relaunched its Rainbow List as the Pride List, to recognise 50 extraordinary 'LGBT+ changemakers'. The 2024 list included Doctor Who and Sex Education star Ncuti Gatwa, commentator and former England footballer Alex Scott, Wicked and Bridgerton actor Jonathan Bailey and screenwriter Russell T Davies. To mark the publication of its Pride List, The Independent will host an event at Queer Britain on June 11. This year's top 10: 1. Victoria McCloud, former judge of the King's Bench2. Juno Dawson, author3. Bella Ramsey, actor4. Cynthia Erivo, actor and singer5. Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care6. David Hockney, artist7. The Vivienne, drag artist, singer and television personality8. Joe Lycett, comedian, television presenter and artist9. Tom Daley, Olympic gold medallist and television personality10. Yasmin Benoit, model and activist
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
