Upcoming Interview: Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy by Daniella Fenton and Bruce R. Fenton

Evocative most definitely. ;;/?

As an ignostic atheist, I am averse to introducing God as a solution. Such a concept is pseudo-theory - in that it explains everything, anything and nothing all at the same time. Thereafter, most of the time such a concept then becomes a battering club, by which one person abuses another or seeks for them to do something they want.

However, an ignostic atheist, as distinct from the nihilist Atheist or an agnostic, is free to insert an intelligence layer as the substrate of our reality. This does not mean that one dictates this as 'God' - rather a construct (pre-hypothesis). In this, just like a researcher, the ignostic holds out the possibility that this construct is necessary (under Ockham's Razor), but does not insist that it is a person, nor that it has been proved/disproved.

In the particular instance of the 2nd Letter of the DNA Codon however, this idea does not rely upon such an intelligence substrate. The intelligence which crafted this Codex - is not skilled to the level of God. In fact, it is not principally different than us (on a Zero to God scale).
 
Yes but i don't think that is a common substitution. i might adopt it. Typically an atheist just turns his brain off, as is the case sometimes when one supposes you have enough evidence or one doesn't want opposing evidence for a belief.
 
ow we're getting somewhere :) it's my hunch that we might be making a mistake when we assume that ET is at a drastically advanced spiritual level.

But we can assume laterally developed rather than some sense of vertical linear 'advancement'. We can assume that radically advanced tech arises from a fundamentally different POV about the nature of the material world, and we can assume, ergo, some different level of emotional association with being.

I mean we are not talking the difference between spears and muskets, but drums and iPhones. The necessary existential difference may not equate as an equivalent 'spiritual' difference - if such a distinction actually has any meaning beyond the conceit of the faith that spawned it.

There's some notion in movie making that there are only so many basic stories [7 or something - you can google it] - as if they are linked to some archetype of human consciousness. We have sci fi dramas that are really only costume dramas because the thematic fence prevents the story line from being fundamentally different.

I am nit sure if ET has an equivalent set of archetypes, but if so, they operate on a different plane to ours - rather like White's essences for time, space and motion on our material level being conceptually, and hence existentially, more difficult to deal with.

For example there are repeated reports that ET does not do fear like we do. So what's the next level of radical existential anxiety if you can't warp your head around the fear of an organic being?

ET may simply be radically different, as opposed to advanced. But how the hell would be pick the difference? This is the problem that confronted indigenous people when white fella turned up with way superior tech, but without morality and wisdom to match.

If we apply the 'as above, so below' principle to ET we sure as hell better pray they are may more advanced than we are - because the last thing we want it is arrival of the ET version of the Pilgrim Fathers or the First Fleet.

Let's hope we are not making a mistake and that ET is way more advanced - otherwise we may be in serious bother.
 
As an ignostic atheist, I am averse to introducing God as a solution. Such a concept is pseudo-theory - in that it explains everything, anything and nothing all at the same time. Thereafter, most of the time such a concept then becomes a battering club, by which one person abuses another or seeks for them to do something they want.
ok but isn't this equally problematic. I mean, once we'd set sail from the island of materialism we're at the mercy of the seas. I sometimes poke people with the old "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" question, but can we really sidestep questions about how the spiritual / non-physical realm is interacting with us?
 
ok but isn't this equally problematic. I mean, once we'd set sail from the island of materialism we're at the mercy of the seas. I sometimes poke people with the old "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" question, but can we really sidestep questions about how the spiritual / non-physical realm is interacting with us?
I would suggest that this is exactly the point. The 'high sea' is our duty, regardless of the irony of its fathomlessness.

Both materialist nihilism and existential theism are ways of sidestepping the question. Both are cul-de-sacs of psuedo-theory. Postulating something which explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time.

These two propositions are equal in their ignorance - as they both are founded upon a claim to expertise in God:

1. God poofed the universe into creation. - God is a specific person​
2. The universe poofed itself into existence. - God is an empty set​

Both positions make specific expertise claims as to knowing the definition, mind and practices of God. Empty set is an expert definition of God, just as in the case of theism.

One does not have to accept this false dilemma. I think that is where you are headed with your sentiment. That is to where my comment pertained. :)
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that this is exactly the point. The 'high sea' is our duty, regardless of the irony of its fathomlessness.

Both materialist nihilism and existential theism are ways of sidestepping the question. Both are cul-de-sacs of psuedo-theory. Postulating something which explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time.

These two propositions are equal in their ignorance - as they both are founded upon a claim to expertise in God:

1. God poofed the universe into creation. - God is a specific person​
2. The universe poofed itself into existence. - God is an empty set​

Both positions make specific expertise claims as to knowing the definition, mind and practices of God. Empty set is an expert definition of God, just as in the case of theism.

One does not have to accept this false dilemma. I think that is where you are headed with your sentiment. That is to where my comment pertained. :)
ok, I think this is particularly relevant to bruce's work... and in particular his work with his wife daniella who is a pyschic, medium, time traveler, and contactee (BTW I absolutely love the fact that we've now lost about 99% of the general population and we're just getting started :)) who is receive channeled information. this was bruce's starting point for very science driven re-examination of the origin of our species. I'm nowhere near yr (and David and other forum members) level of expertise when it comes to genetics, but I'm very impressed with what I've read from bruce.

But back to the business at hand :) bruce and daniela are walking in impossible dual path of science and extended consciousness / spirituality. and even though it's impossible it seems to me to be the only way forward because that's where the data is taking us.

in fact, if I were to have any complaint with bruce's work is that he sometimes seems to become so engrossed in the awesome science he's presenting that he forgets the complete absurdity of the time-travel, channeled spirit communication it was his jumping off point.
 
ok, I think this is particularly relevant to bruce's work... and in particular his work with his wife daniella who is a pyschic, medium, time traveler, and contactee (BTW I absolutely love the fact that we've now lost about 99% of the general population and we're just getting started :)) who is receive channeled information. this was bruce's starting point for very science driven re-examination of the origin of our species. I'm nowhere near yr (and David and other forum members) level of expertise when it comes to genetics, but I'm very impressed with what I've read from bruce.

But back to the business at hand :) bruce and daniela are walking in impossible dual path of science and extended consciousness / spirituality. and even though it's impossible it seems to me to be the only way forward because that's where the data is taking us.

in fact, if I were to have any complaint with bruce's work is that he sometimes seems to become so engrossed in the awesome science he's presenting that he forgets the complete absurdity of the time-travel, channeled spirit communication it was his jumping off point.
I would suppose that the critical issue you broach here is the nature of inference, rather than whether or not something is categorized as 'science' by oppression-minded outsiders.

Something is science under two conditions of inference:

1. Its method of incremental inference reduces complicated-ness to a reduced set thereof (less entropy of knowledge), aka DEDUCTION, and​
2. Its method of incremental inference establishes a triangulation of consilience from multiple disciplines, which points in a specific parsimonious direction, aka INDUCTION

I believe this is what Popper missed. A topic itself (nor the subject therein) is never the delineation of whether or not something is 'science/non-science'. Thinking of a topic (such as extended consciousness) as being 'not-science' was a little trick Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer and Steven Novella played on us in the past decades. Most rational people reject this 1972 version of fake skepticism now.

In other words, UFO's is not 'pseudoscience' - conclusion that extended consciousness exists is not 'pseudoscience' - rather, improper scientific method and a pretense of speaking on behalf of scientific consensus (PANDUCTION and ABDUCTION, respectively) - those are what constitute pseudoscience. Most of the time, errant UFO/ghost/consciousness conjecture constitutes merely non-science, and not in reality, pseudoscience. No one therein is pretending to be doing science, nor speaking on its behalf.​
Bruce and Daniella can address extended consciousness, and still be conducting science. They just need to be conscious of their mode and type of inference employed.
induction-abduction-panduction-deduction-lemmings.png
 
Last edited:
MacArthur genius award OK google captain's log a list of all the properties katrina get the list of all the properties do you know
I would suppose that the critical issue you broach here is the nature of inference, rather than whether or not something is categorized as 'science' by oppression-minded outsiders.

Something is science under two conditions of inference:

1. Its method of incremental inference reduces complicated-ness to a reduced set thereof (less entropy of knowledge), aka DEDUCTION, and​
2. Its method of incremental inference establishes a triangulation of consilience from multiple disciplines, which points in a specific parsimonious direction, aka INDUCTION

I believe this is what Popper missed. A topic itself (nor the subject therein) is never the delineation of whether or not something is 'science/non-science'. Thinking of a topic (such as extended consciousness) as being 'not-science' was a little trick Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer and Steven Novella played on us in the past decades. Most rational people reject this 1972 version of fake skepticism now.

In other words, UFO's is not 'pseudoscience' - conclusion that extended consciousness exists is not 'pseudoscience' - rather, improper scientific method and a pretense of speaking on behalf of scientific consensus (PANDUCTION and ABDUCTION, respectively) - those are what constitute pseudoscience. Most of the time, errant UFO/ghost/consciousness conjecture constitutes merely non-science, non pseudoscience. No one therein is pretending to be doing science, nor speaking on its behalf.​
Bruce and Daniella can address extended consciousness, and still be conducting science. They just need to be conscious of their mode and type of inference employed.
induction-abduction-panduction-deduction-lemmings.png
fantastic graphic... I know I asked before but are you ever gonna tell us where you get that artwork.

re the topic at hand, I think we're kinda talking around the issue. allow me to rephrase as an old joke:

===

A man runs to the doctor and says, "Doctor, you've got to help me. My wife thinks she's a chicken!"

The doctor asks, "How long has she had this condition?"

"Two years," says the man.

"Then why did it take you so long to come and see me?" asked the shrink.

The man shrugs his shoulders and replies, "We needed the eggs."

===

it seems to me that where that guy. We're totally engrossed in our science and understandably excited when everything adds up / works out / replicates. and then daniella comes along and says I just time-traveled back to the mayans and they told me how things really work. I mean, we can't pretend to be able to pack that back into our understanding of science.
 
https://www.the-unidentified.net/fingerprints-of-our-ancient-alien-genetic-engineers/
The Chicken and the Chimp
What do chickens and chimpanzees have in common? To look at them, not much. Beyond the superficial form you might be surprised to know that there are regions of DNA code which are
almost identical in the genome of both species. One of these overlapping segments of code is 118 letters long and differs by only two letters between these species which are separated by 300 million years of divergent evolution. Talk about stability. When we come to contrast the same code segment against humans a shock awaits us, despite chimps being our closest living relative and diverged by a mere 6 million years, we find an 18-letter divergence. From what has been unravelled it seems this segment, HAR1, plays a role in the development of the cerebral cortex, both its pattern and layout.

It might be easy for the reader to see all of this and miss the enormity, when we read about discoveries in a scientific field that we don’t well understand, there is sometimes a sense of ‘so
what’. Let’s just keep in mind that until hominins parted ways from the ancestors of chimpanzees the rate of successful mutations was 1 letter per every 150,000,000 years, meaning that in almost all cases where a natural copying error occurred the impact was so severe that the affected offspring either died in utero or was severely handicapped and failed to successfully reproduce. Here we are talking about 18 successful ‘mutations’ in a fraction of that vast timescale.

“The fact that HAR1 was essentially frozen in time through hundreds of millions of years indicates that it does something very important; that it then underwent abrupt revision in humans suggests that this function was significantly modified in our lineage.” – Katherine Pollard, PhD bio-statistician at
the Gladstone Institute What then could possibly bring about 18 successful modifications to such a stable region of code, in
just 6,000,000 years?

For anyone wondering what the academic view is on how known evolutionary mechanisms could bring such a radical change into being let’s refer to the discoverer who I have already quoted above,
Katherine Pollard of the Gladstone Institute.

“Statistically speaking, the probability that a highly conserved DNA sequence will change multiple times over 6 million years of evolution is close to zero…”

Close to zero
There is yet no known evolutionary mechanism or environmental forces that would bring about such changes – as we have discussed the stability of these areas is essential to a healthy organism. Even with this glaring anomaly we might be tempted to put it all down to just a strange freak event, until we learn that there are now several hundred human specific accelerated regions of DNA code identified by scientists. While the vast majority of HARs remain mysterious in function, it is understood that they tend to modify the development of the foetus and that most are not inside genes but rather the switches which control gene expression (modifying the degree of function or turning genes on and off).

The researchers involved in the study of HARs suspect that it is these anomalous variations in highly conserved regions of code which brought about the most profound differences between humans
and their closest primate relatives. Astonishingly, and beyond any reasonable coincidence, more than half of the genes located near HARs are involved in brain development and function. This does not look like a random scattering of sporadic mutations, not at all. We also find evidence in the fossil record marking a sudden acceleration in the human brain size and structure at two specific points, one around 1,800,000 years ago, and a second close to 800,000 years ago.

“The way to evolve a human from a chimp-human ancestor is not to speed the ticking of the molecular clock as a whole. Rather the secret is to have rapid change occur in sites where those changes make an important difference in an organism's functioning.” – Katherine Pollard

Conclusion
The study of HARs is still in its relatively early stages and there will be many more revelations to come, but one thing that seems unlikely to change is the astonishing nature of these alterations and the type of language academics are forced to use in discussing them. As our own science of genetic engineering moves forwards, we are starting to understand that it is not all about hybridization and gene splicing but inevitably about directing the expression of genes. Once we can map out and understand the DNA code which acts as the switches for genetic expression, we will be able to absolutely shape the human organism – though no doubt through inevitable terrible mistakes and horrific failings. There is no single gene for the magnificent thing which is our brain, rather there are many genes with roles to play, and to make a beneficial change of significant magnitude requires tinkering with the degree to which these genes express in our biological make-up.

With the above understanding we can look at the hundreds of anomalous human specific accelerations which occurred after the split from Chimps and recognise the handiwork of master
geneticists, scientists with an understanding that is light years beyond our own (and likely many light years from their home). When all known evolutionary mechanisms are factored in and the numbers are crunched, there is a statistical chance at zero that these HARs would exist. Yet, there they are, fingerprints of the gods, a cosmic message in a biological bottle. While some will say that we can’t prove aliens did this, I would counter that science does not work that way, we should accept the strongest model which best explains the observed evidence. Right now, the only scientific explanation that immediately explains all the HARs (and many other anomalies specific to humans) is the one in which an unnatural event occurred, and something overcame all of the mechanics of evolution which had preserved our essential genomic stability – without killing us. We only know of one such force in the universe, intelligence.
 
fantastic graphic... I know I asked before but are you ever gonna tell us where you get that artwork.

It's a long story. :)

re the topic at hand, I think we're kinda talking around the issue. allow me to rephrase as an old joke:

A man runs to the doctor and says, "Doctor, you've got to help me. My wife thinks she's a chicken!"

The doctor asks, "How long has she had this condition?"

"Two years," says the man.

"Then why did it take you so long to come and see me?" asked the shrink.

The man shrugs his shoulders and replies, "We needed the eggs."

That is friggin' outstanding!! :D

it seems to me that where that guy. We're totally engrossed in our science and understandably excited when everything adds up / works out / replicates. and then daniella comes along and says I just time-traveled back to the mayans and they told me how things really work. I mean, we can't pretend to be able to pack that back into our understanding of science.

In order for Daniella to move from abductive inference, and into induction here (the first form of Popper science), the contentions made would need a 'testing case' - in other words they must predict something they could not possibly have known, nor been reasonably ascertained nor guessed by a 'practitioner in the art'.

This is one of the standards for a patent, for example.
 
https://www.the-unidentified.net/fingerprints-of-our-ancient-alien-genetic-engineers/
The Chicken and the Chimp
What do chickens and chimpanzees have in common? To look at them, not much. Beyond the superficial form you might be surprised to know that there are regions of DNA code which are
almost identical in the genome of both species. One of these overlapping segments of code is 118 letters long and differs by only two letters between these species which are separated by 300 million years of divergent evolution. Talk about stability. When we come to contrast the same code segment against humans a shock awaits us, despite chimps being our closest living relative and diverged by a mere 6 million years, we find an 18-letter divergence. From what has been unravelled it seems this segment, HAR1, plays a role in the development of the cerebral cortex, both its pattern and layout.

It might be easy for the reader to see all of this and miss the enormity, when we read about discoveries in a scientific field that we don’t well understand, there is sometimes a sense of ‘so
what’. Let’s just keep in mind that until hominins parted ways from the ancestors of chimpanzees the rate of successful mutations was 1 letter per every 150,000,000 years, meaning that in almost all cases where a natural copying error occurred the impact was so severe that the affected offspring either died in utero or was severely handicapped and failed to successfully reproduce. Here we are talking about 18 successful ‘mutations’ in a fraction of that vast timescale.

“The fact that HAR1 was essentially frozen in time through hundreds of millions of years indicates that it does something very important; that it then underwent abrupt revision in humans suggests that this function was significantly modified in our lineage.” – Katherine Pollard, PhD bio-statistician at
the Gladstone Institute What then could possibly bring about 18 successful modifications to such a stable region of code, in
just 6,000,000 years?

For anyone wondering what the academic view is on how known evolutionary mechanisms could bring such a radical change into being let’s refer to the discoverer who I have already quoted above,
Katherine Pollard of the Gladstone Institute.

“Statistically speaking, the probability that a highly conserved DNA sequence will change multiple times over 6 million years of evolution is close to zero…”

Close to zero
There is yet no known evolutionary mechanism or environmental forces that would bring about such changes – as we have discussed the stability of these areas is essential to a healthy organism. Even with this glaring anomaly we might be tempted to put it all down to just a strange freak event, until we learn that there are now several hundred human specific accelerated regions of DNA code identified by scientists. While the vast majority of HARs remain mysterious in function, it is understood that they tend to modify the development of the foetus and that most are not inside genes but rather the switches which control gene expression (modifying the degree of function or turning genes on and off).

The researchers involved in the study of HARs suspect that it is these anomalous variations in highly conserved regions of code which brought about the most profound differences between humans
and their closest primate relatives. Astonishingly, and beyond any reasonable coincidence, more than half of the genes located near HARs are involved in brain development and function. This does not look like a random scattering of sporadic mutations, not at all. We also find evidence in the fossil record marking a sudden acceleration in the human brain size and structure at two specific points, one around 1,800,000 years ago, and a second close to 800,000 years ago.

“The way to evolve a human from a chimp-human ancestor is not to speed the ticking of the molecular clock as a whole. Rather the secret is to have rapid change occur in sites where those changes make an important difference in an organism's functioning.” – Katherine Pollard

Conclusion
The study of HARs is still in its relatively early stages and there will be many more revelations to come, but one thing that seems unlikely to change is the astonishing nature of these alterations and the type of language academics are forced to use in discussing them. As our own science of genetic engineering moves forwards, we are starting to understand that it is not all about hybridization and gene splicing but inevitably about directing the expression of genes. Once we can map out and understand the DNA code which acts as the switches for genetic expression, we will be able to absolutely shape the human organism – though no doubt through inevitable terrible mistakes and horrific failings. There is no single gene for the magnificent thing which is our brain, rather there are many genes with roles to play, and to make a beneficial change of significant magnitude requires tinkering with the degree to which these genes express in our biological make-up.

With the above understanding we can look at the hundreds of anomalous human specific accelerations which occurred after the split from Chimps and recognise the handiwork of master
geneticists, scientists with an understanding that is light years beyond our own (and likely many light years from their home). When all known evolutionary mechanisms are factored in and the numbers are crunched, there is a statistical chance at zero that these HARs would exist. Yet, there they are, fingerprints of the gods, a cosmic message in a biological bottle. While some will say that we can’t prove aliens did this, I would counter that science does not work that way, we should accept the strongest model which best explains the observed evidence. Right now, the only scientific explanation that immediately explains all the HARs (and many other anomalies specific to humans) is the one in which an unnatural event occurred, and something overcame all of the mechanics of evolution which had preserved our essential genomic stability – without killing us. We only know of one such force in the universe, intelligence.
Indeed,

There are four key inferential playgrounds, which are the critical path and fatal gap-potential with regard to investigation of evolution. These four serve to introduce Ockham's Razor plurality. They cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone (see The Demarcation of Skepticism):

I. Degeneracy versus molecular complexity/size around the 2nd Letter of the DNA Amino Acid Synthesis Codex XXX​
II. Discretely modeling the computational basis of evolution​
a. ergodicity of DNA morphology - Modeling DNA outcomes and outcome lacks by means of game theory, in order to prove out our assumptions/mechanisms about how evolution comes about.​

b. proteostasis/sympathetic muting - it is one thing to evolve a presence of a function, but another task altogether as to evolution of a mechanism which stops that function, selects for its sympathetic non-existence, or selects to stop evolution from further-then occurring. Evolution occurs through natural selection of positive logical objects (feature-robustness and successenstances). Absences are not positive logical objects, rather only negative rational objects or noise. One cannot have an 'evolution of absences' as there is no such thing, because unlike a positive logical object, an absence cannot be distinguished from background noise. Absences are only deconstructive, unless rational.​
III. Ordination versus speciation (Behe) - it is not 'one thing' now​
IV. Human Accelerated Regions (pervasively successful, no failed trials, contiguous elements, focused, enormously beneficial, and sudden).​
 
Last edited:
In order for Daniella to move from abductive inference, and into induction here (the first form of Popper science), the contentions made would need a 'testing case' - in other words they must predict something they could not possibly have known, nor been reasonably ascertained nor guessed by a 'practitioner in the art'.
this is what Bruce did... i.e. "if she's right then I ought to be able to find this, this and this..." and he did. that's the 780 million year thing.
 
this is what Bruce did... i.e. "if she's right then I ought to be able to find this, this and this..." and he did. that's the 780 million year thing.
Gotcha - this elicits the subtle difference between two tests of induction: 'prediction' versus pseudo-prediction, or 'confirmation'.

Confirmation is the process of finding an outcome which supports one's linear inductive pathway, and then claiming that as a 'prediction'. Not saying that this is what Bruce/Daniella have done here; however, this is a dangerous form of induction from three perspectives:

1. The confirmation-inductive theory never actually places anything at risk. The key element of scientific hypothesis resides in its placing a prediction specifically and ex ante, at risk.​
2. With confirmation-induction one only finds affirmations of its correctness. In this regard as well, the absence of dis-confirming observations is a warning flag.​
3. The process of confirmation-induction is often linear. In other words - the accretion of more observations never serves to alter/modify the original paradigm. This is a virtual impossibility, and is also a warning flag.​
Climate change, despite my being a climate change proponent, suffers from these three forms of pseudo-science in inference for example.
 
Last edited:
But back to the business at hand :) bruce and daniela are walking in impossible dual path of science and extended consciousness / spirituality. and even though it's impossible it seems to me to be the only way forward because that's where the data is taking us.

in fact, if I were to have any complaint with bruce's work is that he sometimes seems to become so engrossed in the awesome science he's presenting that he forgets the complete absurdity of the time-travel, channeled spirit communication it was his jumping off point.

If a man farms unicorns for most of his life, he may forget why people are staring at him whenever he rides one into town. Or as a friend of mine likes to say, what's normal for the spider definitely ain't normal for the fly.

Honestly, I don't know if I should have kept the shamanic time travel experiences in the book (they are in both Hybrid Humans & Exogenesis), because they are very obviously a deal-breaker for most people. However, they are real events, and I don't like to feel I should edit reality too much (I have left out some very weird stuff).

One thing I did do, to help readers, was change a stone receptacle for a spirit being into a Bracewell probe with hard AI. When you think about it, they are the same for all intents and purposes, we are merely viewing the artefact through different cultural lenses. We really don't know which description is correct (if either). For Aboriginals it is a Churinga stone, for many others it would be an intelligent alien probe.
 
In order for Daniella to move from abductive inference, and into induction here (the first form of Popper science), the contentions made would need a 'testing case' - in other words they must predict something they could not possibly have known, nor been reasonably ascertained nor guessed by a 'practitioner in the art'.

This is one of the standards for a patent, for example.

Correct.

This is essentially the premise of the book, that a strange message is received from an artefact and I validate it's impossible data predictions. That message is not provided by anything Daniella did, just to clarify, but came from a set of events in 1993 via Valerie Barrow's book 'Alcheringa: When The First Ancestors Were Created' (2003).

Daniella's stressful journeys have also provided information we could not have known. In 2012 we published our book discussing these events, in it we mentioned an artificial underground tunnel network at Palenque through which Dani explained water was running (she experienced walking around inside these). In July 2016 GPR exploration revealed a network of tunnels fanning out from under the Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque, water was detected moving through these passageways. I have not gone to any great lengths to validate anything that Daniella experienced in her trips to 7th century Palenque, I do have several recordings of her mumbling to me in Mayan while she was unconscious, but they are not something I am keen to share. No, she is not a Mayan speaker!
 
Gotcha - this elicits the subtle difference between two tests of induction: 'prediction' versus pseudo-prediction, or 'confirmation'.

Confirmation is the process of finding an outcome which supports one's linear inductive pathway, and then claiming that as a 'prediction'. Not saying that this is what Bruce/Daniella have done here; however, this is a dangerous form of induction from two perspectives:

1. With confirmation, induction only finds affirmations of its correctness. The inductive theory never actually places anything at risk. As well, the absence of dis-confirming observations is a warning flag.​
2. The process is linear. In other words - the accretion of more observations never serves to alter/modify the original paradigm. This is a virtual impossibility, and is also a warning flag.​
Climate change, despite my being a climate change proponent, suffers from these two forms of pseudo-science in inference for example.

Confirmation bias in the study was definitely an issue I was aware of and I did say to myself that if I could not get at least two of the really major claims to stack up in objective terms, and also with respect to comparative age dating, then there would be no book. I am not a sucker for that kind of punishment, having already suffered through my 'coming out' as a man with alien memories. There is only so much egg-throwing I wish to stand up for before opting for staying in my chair. I do want to clarify that there was no predicting of coming events as is the usual case when information comes through some kind fo psychic means, so I did not have to validate any prophecy, this was simply fact-checking to see if claimed past events had objective validity.

When all three of the major claims checked out with respect to supporting science and a closely shared approximate date (geological dating is rarely absolutely pinpointed) I was astonished. That was enough for me, I will happily take 3 for 3 any day of the week, especially when dealing with events from so long ago.
 
Confirmation bias in the study was definitely an issue I was aware of and I did say to myself that if I could not get at least two of the really major claims to stack up in objective terms, and also with respect to comparative age dating, then there would be no book. I am not a sucker for that kind of punishment, having already suffered through my 'coming out' as a man with alien memories. There is only so much egg-throwing I wish to stand up for before opting for staying in my chair. I do want to clarify that there was no predicting of coming events as is the usual case when information comes through some kind fo psychic means, so I did not have to validate any prophecy, this was simply fact-checking to see if claimed past events had objective validity.

When all three of the major claims checked out with respect to supporting science and a closely shared approximate date (geological dating is rarely absolutely pinpointed) I was astonished. That was enough for me, I will happily take 3 for 3 any day of the week, especially when dealing with events from so long ago.
Excellent, with that distinction between prediction and confirmation in mind, I look forward to reading this (and hearing the show!)
 
I wanted to add that Valerie and I do not fully agree on some points. In the Alcheringa book, the date is suggested to be around 900,000 years ago, I could not associate the described events with that time, they all meshed only with approx 780,000 years ago. I do not know why the 'AI/spirit' would give an erroneous date and I remain open to the possibility it is we humans that have the dates wrong for all three events, or some events have changed the flow of time since 900,000 'years' ago, that they and we measure slightly differently or that this was a purposeful deception to make the validation more difficult (other reasons may exist). Valerie was quite sure that the mothership exploded over the Middle East, somewhere near Jerusalem, and that it crashed down into Moldovia where it became moldavite. I found this untenable, moldavite is waaaaay too old, it is however unique and certainly from space. Could it be from an earlier ET crash? I suspect that may be the case, there are many legends associated with greenstone or green crystal in the context of receptacles of great knowledge. There is only one perfect fit for the actual detailed description of the craft and its destruction, placing it between Antarctica and South Australia and giving rise to Australite tektite.

If I were grimly determined to validate narratives rather than material facts I would have probably failed to get anywhere or would have been forced to jump through mental hoops to make the narrative fit with some scientific evidence, for example by suggesting moldavite is younger than thought because it is alien material, as Valerie claims. The problem with doing that is you then invalidate all age dating ever carried out and make all of your other evidence moot.

I should add that the suggestion that the craft became moldavite come from an opinion offered at the start of Valerie's book, not from the text detailing the transmission, while the suggestion that Jerusalem is ground zero came directly from Valerie in email correspondence with me. I take it to be that these are her personal intuitive interpretations, even if based on whatever transmissions or past life memories she may have had, it says a lot to me that these points were not discussed in the body of the book itself. Valerie has also made no attempt to validate anything herself and offers the book with the endnote suggesting it is up to the reader to see if it resonates with them etc.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to add that Valerie and I do not fully agree on some points. In the Alcheringa book, the date is suggested to be around 900,000 years ago, I could not associate the described events with that time, they all meshed only with approx 780,000 years ago. I do not know why the 'AI/spirit' would give an erroneous date and I remain open to the possibility it is we humans that have the dates wrong for all three events, or some events have changed the flow of time since 900,000 'years' ago, that they and we measure slightly differently or that this was a purposeful deception to make the validation more difficult (other reasons may exist). Valerie was quite sure that the mothership exploded over the Middle East, somewhere near Jerusalem, and that it crashed down into Moldovia where it became moldavite. I found this untenable, moldavite is waaaaay too old, it is however unique and certainly from space. Could it be from an earlier ET crash? I suspect that may be the case, there are many legends associated with greenstone or green crystal in the context of receptacles of great knowledge. There is only one perfect fit for the actual detailed description of the craft and its destruction, placing it between Antarctica and South Australia and giving rise to Australite tektite.

If I were grimly determined to validate narratives rather than material facts I would have probably failed to get anywhere or would have been forced to jump through mental hoops to make the narrative fit with some scientific evidence, for example by suggesting moldavite is younger than thought because it is alien material, as Valerie claims. The problem with doing that is you then invalidate all age dating ever carried out and make all of your other evidence moot.

I should add that the suggestion that the craft became moldavite come from an opinion offered at the start of Valerie's book, not from the text detailing the transmission, while the suggestion that Jerusalem is ground zero came directly from Valerie in email correspondence with me. I take it to be that these are her personal intuitive interpretations, even if based on whatever transmissions or past life memories she may have had, it says a lot to me that these points were not discussed in the body of the book itself. Valerie has also made no attempt to validate anything herself and offers the book with the endnote suggesting it is up to the reader to see if it resonates with them etc.
Yeah, the glass K-Ar isotope decay taper suggests 14.7 million years since this kinetic impact combined the Aluminum Oxide and Sand into moldavite. But we must remember two things:

1. Aluminum which combusts - gassifies first and thereafter creates liquid Aluminum Oxide (RTO-EN-0235 - 1 A Summary of Aluminum Combustion; M.W. BecksteadBrigham Young University; Provo, Utah, Jan 2004, USA)​
2. Moldavite is not SiAl2O5 - rather, it is SiO2(+Al2O3) - which is more akin to an alloy than it is a compound. An alloy can, and most often does, consist of TWO independently aged constituent elements or components.
Thus three things emerge from this critical path.

a. First, a condensing blast of gassified Al2O3 would contain zero potassium 40 to decay from to argon in the first place, as it did not originate in a 'buried in the ground' context. Therefore mass spectometry dating on K40 content could not be applied to the Al2O3 component of the tektite material to begin with.
b. Second, the silicon dioxide component could 'age' through the introduction of thermal neutron emitting radioactive material introduced during the crash nearby it, leaving fissile tracks (inclusions) in its crystalline structure, artificially advancing its age. A ship crashing will emit several orders of magnitude in fission particles above and beyond the U238 natural background radiation rate of inclusion. It will 'age' sand very fast.
The way to distinguish this is to examine the bias inherent in the inclusions themselves. If the majority are all biased along a single vector (pointing in the same direction), then the inclusion dating cannot be relied upon.
c. Finally, aluminum oxide is not a glass compound and cannot be dated by fission track dating. Only the silicon dioxide component of the tektite (alloy) could be dated by these two methods - and this silicon dioxide did not change its isotope ratios simply by becoming an alloy with aluminum oxide.
Therefore - the aluminum oxide itself cannot be dated, and can only be presumed to be the same K40 age as is the sand inside its tektite structure.

This 14.7 million years constitutes therefore, a very mild form of linear induction combined with abduction (a stack of presumptions) - and is not even near tantamount to certainty.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to hear that dating might be significantly incorrect. Valerie and both think Moldavite and Australite are part of the alien story, we just do not find a way to reach agreement on exactly their relationship and whether they can be from the same set of events in the period focussed upon. It would be quite amazing if it could be shown that both dated to the same time (or might possibly do so) as there was a large ship destroyed but also many smaller ones. There is no absolute barrier to there being two locations with associated debris from these crystalline crafts.
 
Back
Top