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

As a start, I will lend subjective support to Bruce here...

One thing which I bring to defense of those non-molecular biologists who speculate on the nature of evolution and DNA is this.

Evolution is not a discipline for molecular biologists​
As outlandish as this may sound, such a distinction holds merit nonetheless. Evolution is both an ergodicity as well as a signal theory discipline. Such is not the domain of the molecular biologist. This is the domain of the information and systems engineering specialist. As an analogue, the sound engineer or expert luthier who built my guitar, are not experts in music. Not a one of them can play my 12 bar blues progression I have in mind. You might say 'but they are experts in the building of a musical instrument! How could they possibly not be experts in music?' The simple fact is that there resides a distinction between medium and intelligence. Woe to those who fail to understand this distinction.

If one contends that there is no intelligence to be had in DNA, only medium - then, the discussion with me will end there. Such a person is not equipped (see the necessary graduate work in the first group below) to understand what I have to say, even if they did possess an open mind.

Evolutionary theory is a theory of computation and constraints, and not simply a discipline of molecular biology nor organic chemistry. To that end evolution in a way, is best understood by information and intelligence specialists, and not biologists.

Becoming a Musician

Probability Statistics & Arrival Distribution Theory​
Information and Set Theory​
Biology and Cladistics​
Hypothesis Testing​
Modeling and Theory of Constraints​
Simulation and Sensitivity Theory​
Philosophy of Organized Behaviour​
Computation​
Data Intelligence and Information Theory​
Systems and Value Chain Theory​
Communications Structure Redundancy and Lossless Protocols​
Communications Security and Cryptography​
Advanced Intelligence Networks/Assimilation/Signal Theory​

and less-so the following

Becoming a Musical Instrument Craftsman

Chemistry & Advanced Chemistry​
Organic Chemistry​
Molecular Biology​
Basic Biogenetics​
Advanced Molecular Biology: Epigenetics and Proteostasis
Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering​
Physiology and Tissue Engineering​
Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering Lab​

If we are to seek answers inside DNA, especially with regard to our ability to answer key questions of deontology - then we need the former skills set and to not be ruled solely by the latter skills set. If I am to engineer an apple to be red for 4 weeks rather than 2 weeks, I need the latter group. But if I am to know how the apple came into being, I need the former skills set more than I need the latter.

Collectively we, as a scientific society have failed to grasp this...

I do not want my studio engineer or guitar luthier telling me how to embellish a minor pentatonic nor interpret the lyrics of a song. That is not his/her expertise.
I like how you frame this.... Building something and knowing how it works are sometimes mutually exclusive.
 
I have read through TES's remarks and they confirm my good sense to not make any serious comments about genetics. I look a the question from a series of completely ignorant perspectives, allied with a deep interest in the spiritual dimension of the proposition:
  • I presume alleged hybridisation has an intent, a plan. What is it?
  • What's in it for ET - service or profit?
  • Is the alleged hydration enhancing or diminishing attributes?
  • The time frames seem inordinately long for a single project - unless it is singularly ambitious. I'd buy a proposition of ongoing tweaking easier than a project based endeavour.
  • I look at the proposition as if a metaphysical ET is tweaking the pre-physical foundation of our physical being - rather than fiddling with physical genetic material. That's like changing the design specs for a BMW rather than modifying an existing car. Evolving design is usually a more sensible way of upgrading models.
  • If this alleged hybridisation is under divine guidance that kind of makes sense. If we start from the proposition that human souls begin to incarnate in early versions of homo whatever, it would make sense that this 'vehicle of manifestation' would be continually refined so as to enable 'higher' attributes to be expressed. So this could have been going on for 2 million years or so as a natural evolutionary impetus on the non-physical level.
  • It is worth noticing that humans have been expected to co-participate, or be co-creators - its all ET tech doing the fiddling on passive recipients. This might alter the discourse, because maybe all this claim means human beings have been evolving - and these guys have glimpsed a small portion of the overall mechanism.
  • We need to be careful of language - something TES alluded to. When a European and an Asian interbreed, is that a kind of hybridisation? It seems apparent that we humans can be seriously mongrel examples of various human types (commonly called races). Do we know that this is just 'random' or accidental? It could be guided by spirit - probably is. So we can talk hybridisation as if all that means is some purposeful tweaking of genetic material - or we can add in breeding freely undertaken, but under guidance - in which case all we are talking is evolution in a deeper sense than the standard materialist model.
  • I would think that a presumption of alleged hybridisation is toward more refined physical bodies that permit the expression of a more refined spiritual character. We are certainly not being bred for muscle, for example. There's a sweet little book called Manthropology, which is stupidly hard to get and insanely expensive for no good reason, that makes it very plain that over the past few thousand years we humans have lost a lot of attributes of our ancestors - strength and stamina come quickly to mind. So what is being favoured in this alleged hybridisation? If its physical it must be the ability to survive and breed in a radiated environment, the ability to eat without becoming morbidly obsess, the ability to retain 'fitness' in consequence of just getting to go to the fridge, and the ability to text whilst walking and not run into things. In fact, and this isn't flippant, can we come up with a list of attributes that future homo techno habilis will need to thrive?
I like how you approach this! As an ex-biotechnologist a few things resonate with me...
Like if you're an alien working on an experiment, you don't just apply the 'treatment' and then bugger off out of the lab and hope the lab animals turn out ok.
I worked with plants and was constantly monitoring for effectiveness of the gene uptake, how were my plants growing in the chamber...did they produce seed pods? Those kinds of things the scientist needs to know about constantly in order to make sure that the hypothesis goes on to proof of concept stage.

If the aliens are actually abducting their experiments on a regular basis to see how things are going then they definitely have an endpoint in mind and if we go by the muscle loss theory you propose then every image we have of every alien ever totally makes sense...!
star trek big head aliens.jpg
 
Correct.

The signal hidden inside a white noise is not best detected by a communications technician, rather by a cryptologist (information theory) - who might not bear the first inkling the difference between a fixed, polarized or variable capacitor that generate such noise and signal.

But the cryptologist does understand the critical delineation between contrivance and happenstance. Between noise and a 'noise shroud'. Between randomness and signal. Between jibberish and language. Between Intent and non-Intent.
Can't the presence of something inherently imply the intent of it's creator, even if we don't understand it...that perhaps we aren't fluent in that 'alien language' yet? What seems like jibberish to us might actually be sound waiting the proper eardrum to hear and the right brain to understand it....?
 
Can't the presence of something inherently imply the intent of it's creator, even if we don't understand it...that perhaps we aren't fluent in that 'alien language' yet? What seems like jibberish to us might actually be sound waiting the proper eardrum to hear and the right brain to understand it....?
Yes, with intelligence, the presence of a signal will most often allow us to infer the presence of intent - but not what that intent is. Correct.

Spotting a signal (both intelligent and non-intelligent) is part of what a cryptologist or task force radio tech might do (or might not ever get to do). The question is, 'What constitutes a signal?'

A signal can be anything, which contrasts with its background or substrate. It can be an absence, a presence or even the lack of both absence and presence, or any kind of discrete form inside a continuous stochastic background patterning, or a continuity inside any form of noise.

It can also be a signal which is 'too stochastic'. White noise encryption can be 'too perfect' - or make the mistake of repeating its randomness, which can be spotted through analytics. All natural noise is dirty and contains outlier data. When there is no outlier data, then that data is often a lie - even if it appears random. Fake science can be caught in this manner. No outliers. Chekov's Gun.

The biggest trick of counter-intelligence deception however is 'These are not the drones you are looking for...' Observing a signal - and having someone in authority tell you 'This is not really a signal, it just happened by chance, ... and further, you must now also BELIEVE that it is organized noise which happened by chance and only chance...'

The difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, is that in the latter, you are required to not only comply (authoritarianism), but also believe (totalitarianism)...' This is why I bristle when, even if I think something is correct, if I am compelled by social manipulations to also BELIEVE it - something is inherently wrong - and I do not trust those who drive such a circumstance. Factually correct, does not also serve to make one therefore, right.

For instance - one person can examine the below graphic showing the recent history of regional temperature anomalies by adjacency, in a radial graphic, and come away with 'Climate Change'. But I don't come away with just that when I watch this patterning...

I come away with signal... a certain type of discrete influence subducted under a pattern of noise... And under our 'must also believe' mandated models, this patterning should not exist.... yet it does... This is no different than sitting the HF circuit flying from Diego Garcia to Riyadh... and hearing signal that something is there...

And the fact that no one has examined this, yet we all claim to know its answer - concerns me...

 
Last edited:
In case it matters...Disney perpetuated the myth that lemmings commit mass suicide by blindly following each other over a cliff. It could be said that the masses believe whatever source they have trust in and believe can do no evil. In the case of the lemmings it was Disneys producers that created this "little known fact"..and the viewing public trusting Disney with the minds and bodies of its children took it as a fact. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
great tid bit... thx. how about this part:
the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff
 
I like how you approach this! As an ex-biotechnologist a few things resonate with me...
Like if you're an alien working on an experiment, you don't just apply the 'treatment' and then bugger off out of the lab and hope the lab animals turn out ok.
I worked with plants and was constantly monitoring for effectiveness of the gene uptake, how were my plants growing in the chamber...did they produce seed pods? Those kinds of things the scientist needs to know about constantly in order to make sure that the hypothesis goes on to proof of concept stage.

If the aliens are actually abducting their experiments on a regular basis to see how things are going then they definitely have an endpoint in mind and if we go by the muscle loss theory you propose then every image we have of every alien ever totally makes sense...!
View attachment 1396
great stuff. Heard a very interesting related discussion here:
https://grimerica.ca/2019/09/12/ep375/

one thing that struck me, beyond the growing and very convincing body of evidence suggesting that the hybridization program has a reality to it, is that were almost certainly making some incorrect assumptions about agendas and stakeholders. i.e. it seems to me we need to start thinking of at least dozens if not hundreds of separate groups ( think super power nation states) each with multiple agendas

would anyone be willing to reach out to Jon Sumple and see if we can get him on skeptiko?
 
Top