Bruce Fenton, A Better Human Origin Story |429|

Right, yes I've heard of the procedure, and its efficacy in healing, but not of the psychological effects.
It correlates well with the discovery that heart transplants have shown memory retention and personality changes related to the donor in recipients.
This isn't surprising since 60% of the heart is made up of cells identical to the brain. Also that more information travels to our brain from our heart than the other way around. We behave as if we're very cranium-brain centred, while the gut and heart are also 'brains'.

Dr Michael Moseley a gut dietician, says 'the gut is extremely clever. It contains millions of neurones and is home to microbes and neurotransmitters that communicate with the brain and influence our mood by altering neural signals via the blood and vagus nerve'.
We are mostly unaware of the influence of this, except in phrases like having 'a gut-feeling' or 'an impulse of the heart'
Hi Alice
Yes we are just one big hive of cells, most of which arnt our own,thats just the starting point.
Things start getting wierd from there on.
 
Looking forward to the discussion and tackling questions or criticisms!
Bruce,

Are you aware that there are 90 characteristics of pigs that are also found in humans but are not found in any other primate species?

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

The author of the web page, an expert on interspecies hybridization, believes humans are a hybrid of chimps and pigs and he explains why he thinks such a hybrid could be viable.

Do you have any opinion on the significance of it?


http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html
...
What is this other animal that has all these traits? The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.
...
Human Traits Not Seen In Other Primates
DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In “hairy skin” region:
- Thick epidermis
- Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
- Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes

FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebra
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
- long dorsal spine
- transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
- Condyles equal in size
- Knock-kneed
- Elliptical condyles
- Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
- Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
- Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet

ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerckring
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

OTHER TRAITS
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)
This seems related ...

 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
I agree. I can't conceive of an AI download.

There may be a higher order of AI maybe. They may have a telepathic link to a resonant field or nest of embedded intelligence somehow. It may be artificial in the sense that it was made to crystallize by them.
I tend to agree. It almost seems like an extra layer of complexity. Then again, just based on our current reality it seems that the merger between technology and consciousness is inevitable. So it's hard for me to imagine how these futures will play out
 

Alex

Administrator
Bruce,

Are you aware that there are 90 characteristics of pigs that are also found in humans but are not found in any other primate species?

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

The author of the web page, an expert on interspecies hybridization, believes humans are a hybrid of chimps and pigs and he explains why he thinks such a hybrid could be viable.

Do you have any opinion on the significance of it?


http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html


This seems related ...

Great stuff. Takes things in another direction. Then again, one of the things I like about Bruce's theory is the garden model. That is, let evolution run its course with minor tweaking, gene splicing and other stuff at opportune times... Heck isn't that what we're doing today
 
Great stuff. Takes things in another direction. Then again, one of the things I like about Bruce's theory is the garden model. That is, let evolution run its course with minor tweaking, gene splicing and other stuff at opportune times... Heck isn't that what we're doing today
It seems to me that even if a viable and fertile pig-chimp hybrid could be born naturally, it would still be very unlikely that enough back crosses with chimps would occur to produce humans naturally. I think it is reasonable consider the possibility that these characteristics in humans might be a result of intelligent engineering.

The mainstream naturalistic scientific outlook is so narrow that naturalists will assume the existence of an object is sufficient evidence to believe the most likely natural explanation of its existence is true no matter how unlikely that explanation is. For example naturalists think the mere existence of life is sufficient evidence to believe it arose naturally.

The fact that the author of the chimp-pig hybrid theory advocates a natural explanation does not mean a natural explanation is necessarily the best explanation when you are open to possibilities that go beyond naturalism.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that even if a viable and fertile pig-chimp hybrid could be born naturally, it would still be very unlikely that enough back crosses with chimps would occur to produce humans naturally. I think it is reasonable consider the possibility that these characteristics in humans might be a result of intelligent engineering.
I think this needs amplifying a bit. I don't feel on totally solid ground here technically, but I think the point is that when you first mate two distinct species, you get a new animal - say a mule - that has one chromosome of each pair from each parent, so all the mechanisms are reasonably intact.

However the order of genes on the chromosomes may be vastly different between the two species, so at the next generation, you get crossovers in each of the hybrid parents, and the resultant chromosomes are a scrambled mess.

Of course, if an intelligent designer were to select genes from the two species to assemble a chromosome pair, this problem would not arise.

David
 
Thank you, Alex. It is unfortunate that the book is not available for purchase.
Try here - this is the author's site. https://www.valeriebarrow.com/?p=83

You may order ALCHERINGA – when the first ancestors were created from Valerie Barrow for $20 including p&p.

Send your order and cheque made out to Valerie Barrow at this address:

Valerie Barrow
PO Box 925
Moss Vale 2576
NSW, AUSTRALIA

Books are signed by the author on request.
An E-book version is available on request.
 
I agree. I can't conceive of an AI download.

There may be a higher order of AI maybe. They may have a telepathic link to a resonant field or nest of embedded intelligence somehow. It may be artificial in the sense that it was made to crystallize by them.
I think our current conception of AI is nothing more than huge computing power, and we need to remember that our intelligence is not that at all. if we can escape the materialist notion that intelligence is linked to brain power, we can shake off this BS about AI. Tech has rendered conscious tremendous information processing capacity that is unconscious to us - and I think we are a little struck by that.

Because we possess an intelligence that has no necessary reliance on a physical vehicle I think we need to distinguish between actual intelligence and information processing, which is only an aspect of it. Consequently I think we need to define what we mean by intelligence, before we accept that the term AI is a useful one.

Surely we must ask what is the basis of the reality of that aspect of us we commonly call the soul. If its not material what is it that processes data? The popular current argument is that it is 'consciousness' - which is kind of okay but also meaningless.

If we can assert that consciousness and intelligence do not require a physical medium for existence, it is hard to see how and why we can call a physical device or system intelligent - as opposed to ordered, coherent - without calling most things or systems that are physically manifest also intelligent. As impressive as our computers are, they don't match even slime mould.

We are in awe of not very much just because we are conscious of it and the fact that we made it.
 
Bruce,
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

The author of the web page, an expert on interspecies hybridization, believes humans are a hybrid of chimps and pigs and he explains why he thinks such a hybrid could be viable.
Yes, he is an expert in that field. However you have misrepresented his position. In particular you stated he believes such-and-such. If you check the facts, you will find he never asserts any such belief. He is agnostic on the matter. He has only suggested that the topic is worth further investigation.
 
It’s confusing because in the podacast you were talking about Australia and the article does not mention Australia at all. It’s misleading as the reference to a tsunami appears to be little more than personal speculation by a scientist (that is not the same a scientific argument or position).
With all due respect, nobody else seems confused. The academic community has repeatedly rejected the use of boats or even watercraft one million years ago, and as such, they have repeatedly suggested tsunami events can explain the movement of humans through Island Southeast Asia. If you feel I am inventing this it shows laziness on your part, not deception on mine. Go and ask a paleoanthropologist how they think early humans reached Flores hundreds of thousands of years ago.
 
I think our current conception of AI is nothing more than huge computing power, and we need to remember that our intelligence is not that at all. if we can escape the materialist notion that intelligence is linked to brain power, we can shake off this BS about AI. Tech has rendered conscious tremendous information processing capacity that is unconscious to us - and I think we are a little struck by that.

Because we possess an intelligence that has no necessary reliance on a physical vehicle I think we need to distinguish between actual intelligence and information processing, which is only an aspect of it. Consequently I think we need to define what we mean by intelligence, before we accept that the term AI is a useful one.

Surely we must ask what is the basis of the reality of that aspect of us we commonly call the soul. If its not material what is it that processes data? The popular current argument is that it is 'consciousness' - which is kind of okay but also meaningless.

If we can assert that consciousness and intelligence do not require a physical medium for existence, it is hard to see how and why we can call a physical device or system intelligent - as opposed to ordered, coherent - without calling most things or systems that are physically manifest also intelligent. As impressive as our computers are, they don't match even slime mould.

We are in awe of not very much just because we are conscious of it and the fact that we made it.

Leading thinkers predict that it will likely become possible to either upload our minds or to fully simulate replicas of ourselves inside silica networks. This means we are not talking about just computer software that acts like it is an entity, but actual beings that are non-biological. We can think of voice-to-skull technology downloads or artificial telepathy used by a previously physical being now inhabiting a mainframe. Either scenario works perfectly well and our personal preferences may bias which we select more readily.
 
Hi Bruce. Thanks for a very interesting interview and hypothesis. I had to listen 3 times because (I'm slow) you are proposing a huge turnaround, not just the reversal of human origins, but also requires a completely new concept of proof. Thanks also Alex, you were great too!

These are some reasons why I support the Out of Australia proposition and that the Aboriginals are indeed the first modern humans, based on my own observations whilst living in Australia over 5 years.

The Aboriginal People of Australia, I think rightly called the Originals, look like their land. It takes a long time in a place to physically manifest 'belonging' to and being derived from it, in a way we transient 'bitzer' Europeans can barely imagine, let alone compare with, in our few thousand years. Aboriginals look 'elderly', their limbs are slim and their movements and personality are peaceful and relaxed, as compared to Polynesians who look 'young', like wearing flowers and laugh like children. It is also significant that the generation that holds most influence and esteem indicates the comparable human 'age' of a culture, for e.g. in white western society, it is the 'middle-aged' group who hold sway, they have the most money and golf is rated highly, while the very old are treated with indifference and little respect, so the white culture is middle-aged. By contrast in Aboriginal society the Elders are influential and held in high regard, which says to me that their knowledge is valued, and that they are a very old race. Imaging now putting a 55+ yr old and an 80+ yr old in a room together, they are unlikely to have very much in common; sadly such is the case between the invading white race and the original inhabitants. But I digress..

As the father and son Strong authors say, the verbal handing down of history is far more accurate than a written one, which can be distorted by time, loss of language and opinion, yet still be held up as 'true'. In Aboriginal lore for e.g. there is a conical hill in north Queensland created by a volcanic eruption that happened 10,000 years ago and is described in story form as a local legend as if it happened yesterday. Their concept of time brings the past into the present in this way; I doubt if we could rustle up a story that described an event from so long ago.

Likewise Bruce, we will need to change our perception of how information is exchanged to understand that there are other possible ways of communicating knowledge, such as by 'reading' a stone. The Aboriginals have telepathy, as shown in the story 'follow the Rabbit Proof Fence' about 3 aboriginal girls who made it home across 2,400km/1,500miles of desert (more than once) and their family came to meet them, without the assistance of phones, letter or telegraph. If information can be held in a stone, as modern culture 'holds' information in silicon chips(?) then we have to accept that there are ways of receiving it, unknown and unconventional to us. This way of knowing may once have been inherent in the wisdom of our own decimated pre-christian culture, and opening to accept this is part of the formula.

For me, the Originals of Australia are truly tellurian, and we are not.

One question: Why do you disagree with Sitchin's theory of ET genetic intervention? It sounds similar to yours, but placed at the later date of 400,000 years
Thanks for your comment. Just to clarify, the difference in physical appearance that you are referring to is not really about 'looking like their land' (which I do not understand as a description) but is due to increased neoteny in Eurasians vs conserved robust features in Aboriginals. Today we are starting to understand that lifestyle influences us in a profound way via epigenetics, meaning the more wild outdoor lifestyle the more robust the morphology, the more 'tame' a group is the greater the progression towards neotenous featres. There will be more to it than that but recent studies indicate this as a major factor.

There are several issues with Sitchin's work, but you highlight a very important one right there, his date is wildly wrong.
 
∧ Deductive inconsistency between genetic and archeo-datings for 'Out of Africa' singular migration hypothesis
Into Africa 73 Kya
∧ Eurasia migrations Out of Africa 50-60 Kya


I am gonna attempt this, but must comment that I am not fully versed on this and normally would not make conjecture therein. But will try and summarize what I think Bruce is supporting (???). Brian Sykes outlines in his excellent work, The Seven Daughters of Eve - the 7 mitochondrial (mother's) DNA groupings in which all of Humanity bear membership. All of these seven groups emanate from one individual female (moniker 'Eve') in Africa from 60 K ya.​
This fits nicely with Out of Africa socio-anthropology theory. It however is inductive only as a stand alone observation.​
Once we open up the vastly more complex and risky set of autosomal DNA (the complete makeup of the organism, not simply the mother's mother's DNA), the question of origins become more convoluted - not murky per se, but rather contradictory. Autosomal DNA shows older human autosomal DNA outside of Africa - which is a problem if one is to presume that mankind originated IN Africa.​
So, we face the alternative of assembling conjecture that this older DNA wandered INTO Africa and banged Mitochondrial Eve.. and that progeny then exited Africa at a later time.​
....
Meanwhile in our peer lineages - those sister hominidae species under the same environment and same genetic pressures and bearing the same exact DNA............................... NOTHING mutated. Humans were adapting at an alarming rate, ...................yet our sister species, eating the same things and bearing the same DNA, in the same exact environment, here longer, and under extaordinary genetic and inbreeding pressure themselves

..........did not have one base pair migration, did not undergo a single frameshift and had not altered a thing....
Unfortunately, we did not have time to go into the 'Into Africa' material very deeply. There is enormously compelling evidence that points to the ancestors of all modern Eurasians being Australasian, part of the migration from Northern Sahul to mainland Asia 60,000 years ago. A completely separate event occurred 73,000 years ago, climate cataclysm forces migration from Western Asia into East Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb Straits. Recent out of Africa is a sham and it will collapse. There is one of the falsifiable predictions from my work. Perhaps at another time we can go into my evidence for this in more depth.

The comment on the lack of accelerated evolution in other primates is spot on, it is something people really must keep in mind. What extra factor is at play which accelerates humans but no other primates?
 
Wormwood asked, couldn't downloads be deceptive?

I brought up that possibility of trickster deception in downloads or visions and the like at the outset, but it wasn't picked up on. I know of a case where hundreds in a ufology forum were deceived by counterfeiters for many years. Eventually the latter were outed and the group dispersed, many with PTSD. Note also that many abductees talk of looking into the eyes of their abductors and feeling overwhelming love. Mind control is often at work, and the victims (many of whom can be very bright Ph.D.s) have no clue.
Hi Lonevoice, I have answered that point but will add here that I am very aware of the trickster nature of a great deal of 'contact' experiences, if I had not been able to find solid science to support the core claims then I would never have published a word on this topic. Generally speaking, people do not bother to find any validation, they just believe what they have been told and then shout from the hills about it, until later it is shown to be garbage. In my case I tested to see if it was garbage first.
 
I find this all really interesting but a bit confusing.

Bruce seems to be talking nuts and bolts Alien manipulation on one hand and present day "psychic" manipulation at the same time, one fits a timescale and is accidental (if so who is doing the manipulation of that) the other a sort of psi "watcher" long term thing.

To my short observation there seems to be so many manipulations happening at once some of which we just ignore.

One of the strange manipulators is the whole "crapsicle" debate which seems to be morphing into a branch of science,
where gut bacteria can almost control the emotions of the host and a change in gut bacteria will make the timid brave and the brave timid.
Now if you control diet ( and most religions do) you can sort of control bacteria.
I know this is a small thing but I introduce it to show how complicated this manipulation really is and how we need to
look out to the mundane and see it isnt so mundane after all.
Step in a pile of shit and your whole life could change, never mind aliens landing on your head.
Sorry Bruce, not trying to downplay your study just adding an angle.

I am a great believer in the power of parasites and bacteria to manipulate humans, we tend to think it only happens to other creatures...perhaps that is what they want us to think...
 
Bruce,

Not having read your book yet, I'd just like to clarify the sequence of events. This sequence may need correcting:

1) We begin with a planet containing some pre-human species.
2) A spacecraft lands and the spacefarers proceed to genetically modify the human species - changing the usually highly conserved region of the genome as described in the podcast. In doing this they violate some instructions.
3) The large craft arrives to correct this and is blown up in orbit.
4) The spacefarers are warned to leave Earth, but stay and are bombarded with asteroids (maybe meteorites, wouldn't asteroids be large enough to destroy the Earth?)
5) The spacefarers decide to use the modified hominids as living space-suits vie reincarnation.

After all that, I am not really sure what we are. Are we the descendants of the modified hominids, or are we the owners of the space-suits?

David
Technically we begin with Earth being seeded from space by ETI some 4.5 billion years ago (which is in the source info). This is an important consideration because otherwise, you have glaring questions like how did ET know Earth had life on it, why would they come here, how do they understand DNA code etc.

It is correct that by 780,000 years ago Earth has at least a couple of hominin species (exact number unknown). Hominins have a global distribution, though fossil evidence is thin on the ground in the Americas and Australasia. The latter point I will be clarifying in a separate answer to a question.

The large craft arrives to colonise Earth as part of a negotiated take over from the claimed current occupants, a humanoid reptilian species originating somewhere in the direction of Orion. There is a betrayal and the mothership is blown to bits in orbit with directed energy weapons.

Survivors land in saucer craft, these beings are responsible for the decision to move to a plan B in which hominins are modified. This is not violating any instructions and is a decision they take on their own initiatives - I can't say whether it broke any rules these beings normally operated by.

Five years after these events a fleet of ships arrived from the same Alliance that are responsible for the mothership, a feline humanoid species that acts as 'police'. The Reptillian group are warned to leave the planet of face a bombardment from space. This involves relatively large asteroids (the smallest accepted asteroids are 1 meter across) being dragged into place and launched downwards. It is stated that if they wanted to crack a planet open they can handle objects of sufficient size.

The modified human is intended to be used as a vehicle for the consciousness of both the rapidly dying 'star people' and in the longer term as containers for far more hostile entities that can reincarnate into these bodies and essentially embark upon the path to self-realisation through the uniquely designed bodies that are in some way able to offer experiences (sensations, emotions, energies) that the bodies of the hostile ET can't. This is something I can't validate or even hope to fully appreciate but is basically what is claimed.

What we are exactly remains a very fundamental question, you can infer from this that humans today house souls from a wide range of entities that have had experiences living as other forms of intelligence on other worlds (many of whom would be very much service-to-self and quite malicious in nature).
 
That said, I would love - for the purposes of a clear overview - for Bruce to respond to David's post on page 3 re the proposed sequence of events.

I also think that malf's objection has not been adequately addressed:


A fair question, malf. As I understand it (and this might be way off base), the exchange stands roughly like this:

malf: It doesn't seem to me that there's a problem with the mainstream view that Australia was populated 60-70,0000 years ago by migration from South-East Asia, because the route at that time was mostly by land (due to lower sea levels).

Bruce: But I'm not talking about 60-70,000 years ago, I'm talking about a million years ago.

In which case, isn't Bruce's a non-response? We are talking about the viability of the mainstream view, which is based on a migration several tens of thousands of years ago, so what happened millions of years ago is surely irrelevant?

I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting anybody, and I welcome any corrections/clarifications.

Also, to be clear: I am not endorsing either view, though I am very sympathetic to a view which has indigenous Australians here from the start, as their oral tradition claims (not least because their oral traditions have proven to have been reliable in many other respects).
Hi Laird,

I have now responded to David's post, which did indeed merit clarification and needed some corrections to the understood timeline. I have added details there that were not in the discussion and should be included, they will be emotive for some readers.

Malf is being a bit silly here, if you have to make a dozen journeys at sea and they are at times a hundred miles long, does it matter if the rest of your journey is overland? The point is you have to have a mechanism by which you make those multiple journeys across the strongest ocean currents on Earth. What if I said to you I need you to pop down to the store for me, don't worry it is mostly on road but you will need to cross a 200-metre chasm filled with lava? Would you see that as an unimportant detail, because mostly you will be on nice easy roads?

There has never been a time during the existence of hominins (last five million years) where you could walk from Asia to Australia, the majority of the Southeast Asian islands (Indonesia) are surrounded by very deep oceanic trenches and are always cut off by extensive stretches of ocean. This includes one million years ago and 70,000 years ago.

You are correct that everything I am saying is very closely aligned with Aboriginal dreaming lore, they have said pretty much everything I am claiming but in more esoteric terminology and details change depending on which Aboriginal nation you ask.

Cheers

Bruce
 
In fact, there's no "perhaps" about it, nor any need for him to clarify that quote, because shortly after that which I quoted him saying in the interview in my above post, he said this, according to the interview transcript: "Now, this is going back at least a million years ago, so this is before the rise of homo sapiens".

In other words, it seems to be Bruce's contention, based on the evidence, that the precursor hominids to homo sapiens were present in Australia/Oceania one million years ago, before the proposed alien craft break-up.
I am definitely stating that in my theory we have hominins widespread across Island Southeast Asia and Oceania approx 1 million years ago. I would also add that my position is they used watercraft and were not swept along by tsunami as per the current popular hypothesis in academics - one that I feel is ridiculous. While hominins are already on the islands one million years ago (confirmed by stone tools on Flores) they can reach the North Coast of Australasia any time during the next 200,000 years and be in time for the alien visitation. Considering the short distance involved in moving from Flores to Australia, and that they have already done all the hard work (crossing Wallace's Line), this is a ridiculously generous allowance. It is much more likely that they reached Australia within a few thousand years of inhabiting Flores.
 
As I have stated here before, I gave up on research in the field of ufology after a year or so, because it was clear to me that the field is a labyrinth of disinformation and deception. I looked up Richard Doty just now and learned that it was he who provided much of the disinformation-- stories of UFO crashes and secret UFO management groups, such as the fabled MJ-12--which became the subject of a large amount of books, movies, video games, television shows et alia. In my own research I learned that the tricksters at play can be either humans or interdimensional spirits or the two acting in conjuncntion. Often dark interdimensional entities will pose as ETs--as Star Nations-- here to help humanity. IMO anyone who sets out with the intention to receive downloads needs to rigorously invoke protection and gatekeeping to ensure quality control of what is received. When downloads occur spontaneously--even with a large group--great care must be taken to test their validity. If you interview Valerie, Alex, I ask you to bear all this in mind.
Note here that nobody involved at the start of this 'situation' intended t receive any download. An artefact was brought to the persons home and that artefact began communicating information directly into their head, I have called it a download as it seems a fitting term. I have not myself received this information into my head from this artefact, though I have had many experiences of my own and some are relevant.
 
Top