Bruce Fenton, 788,000 Year Old Science |562|

Alex

Administrator
Bruce Fenton, 788,000 Year Old Science |562|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jul 26 | Others
Share
Tweet
Bruce Fenton is an author and researcher of our ancient past.
skeptiko-562-Bruce-Fenton-300x300.jpg
 
I hope people will be able to follow what's being talked about in the interview, because it's such a deep, important subject, and the implications so mind-blowing.

Here are some excerpts from the interview that I found especially interesting:
 
On Dean Radin and creating a hive mind through genetic engineering:
Alex says:
'But where does he [Dean Radin] come to at the end? He goes, Hey, uh, I, you know, genetic modification in order to get us towards a hive mind like bees, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Mm-hmm . And I played that and I was like, Dean, Dean, what are you saying? How, you know, but. So the point is whether you agree with Dean or whether you don’t agree with Dean. And I don’t agree with Dean for a lot of other reasons... what, what we’re to make of this from a spiritual level, I think has to come into play.

But the point is: super smart guy, super plugged in guy, he’s gotten millions and probably hundreds of millions of dollars behind him for this latest startup that he’s doing that will actually operationalize genetic engineering through the jab -- through a different jab, but a jab that will make you more psychic that will give you a hive mind.'

Interesting that Plato also came to the same idea that a hive society was the best form of society. It's said explicitly in one of his dialogues, but the internet has become so inefficient for searching these days that I'll just post this from Plato's Republic:
'May we not fairly say to our philosopher,—Friend, we do you no wrong; for in other States philosophy grows wild, and a wild plant owes nothing to the gardener, but you have been trained by us to be the rulers and kings of our hive, and therefore we must insist on your descending into the den. You must, each of you, take your turn, and become able to use your eyes in the dark'...

'Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark.'
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fenton:
'you know, history never repeats, but it certainly rhymes [...] a, kind of a cyclical, temporal flow, but maybe not quite a circle, but a kind of a spiral so that we are seeing a repeating flavor of events.'

Agreed. A spiral of similar events
 
Alex:
'I don’t know that there really is that, that evidence that we’ve been significantly dumbed down, particularly if you look at a longer lens of history, you know, we’re certainly much more advanced than people a hundred years ago, two a hundred years ago.'

I disagree here. What I think is happening is that a tiny minority have the intellect (and even discovering things through psi phenomena), while the rest of the population (the vast majority) is becoming dumber and dumber. That's my experience, and also what old professors said to me in private, that they have to keep lowering the standards, because most in the younger generations aren't reaching the same level as earlier generations.
 
Bruce Fenton:
'Professor Paul Davies, esteemed kind of astrophysicist mathematician has said for years, yes, we could do this. And maybe there’s, you know, I’m paraphrasing, but you know, saying that, yes, this is worthwhile doing and that it’s easy. It’s cheap. It could probably be done by a graduate student in a couple of weeks.'(!)
[...]
'that should make everyone question what the hell is going on in this search trust intelligence, then, you know, if there’s simple projects being ignored.'

Absolutely. Why the absence of this in the public sphere of research at least...
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Bruce Fenton:
'you need to be able to drill down and find, okay, so where is the most solid evidence that supports my convictions or my, you know, my direction of thinking.'

Really impressed by how conscious Fenton is of the process, to get something solid and reliable.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fenton:
'The whole genome has been mapped, for example, in humans.

So, I mean, we’re at a point where the knowledge now is, you know, really vast and really intricate. So they’re able to do these kinds of detailed contrasts between species. And so we, we understand the differences between us in a Chimp and the difference in us and, uh, you know, the aardvark is point where they can you can look for segments of code and contrast them going back to when, when were we last, very alike to that creature.

So we’re able to trace it back and say that obviously this is the only difference: this, this and this between us and, you know, than an aardvark or whatever. So we can do that. So they’re doing this, they use this segment to then contrast and they can find that, okay. Yes. In a chicken and chimpanzee, it’s super stable, two changes, right?

It’s amazing. It must do something very important. Otherwise it’ll be lost. It’ll change more. So clearly small changes in it must have quite drastic outcomes. Like it dies, you know, because why wouldn’t these changes keep happening and persist? Why is there only two successful ones in 300 million years, that code must be doing something quite important.

So. Then, if you look at chimps and humans, you expect it to be identical. That’s because, you know, 300 million years for chicken and chimpanzees, but only about seven or 8 million years difference between us and chimps. That’s conventional understanding as it, as it is. So you would expect it to be none because it’s not the 150 million years required for one letter to change.

So what they found instead though, was that 18 letters had changed.'

MIND BLOWN!!!!!.............
 
Last edited:
This was a compelling interview in so many ways. The engineering of parts of the human genome c. 780,000 years ago has, of course, profound implications, but I want to draw attention to those for evolution by natural selection and how we (i.e. in the western post-modern materialist consensus) like to think of ourselves today.

I recently watched an interview with Donald Hoffman in which he remarked that his own work into the nature of consciousness was beginning to converge on that of certain physicists in postulating, “new mathematical structures beyond spacetime.” I shall just focus on his point about evolution's having given us a survival mode of consciousness that may have very little to do with the nature of reality of itself. What then, if we did not get here - as modern humans - through evolution by natural selection alone? What does that tell us about the relationship between our day-to-day consciousness and this greater reality that is beyond space-time, or even quantum physics? It's all beginning to look distinctly Platonic again; to me at least.
 
An excellent interview.
It is my hope that "Scientist Alex" interviews "Conjecture Alex" someday.
I think should I restart my own podcast on these topics I will use my own version of Alex's "levels" conversations with: "What do you think? What do you know? And what can you prove?"
The best stuff is the evidence we can provide in the form of the tectites and what we consider to be genetic manipulation and changes.
The worst stuff is making conjectures based upon what we THINK the answers are.
I think as a writer I can usually come up with a half dozen possibilities out of the gate and I'm no rocket scientist. I'm sure people could come up with more.
For example, the "alien ship" we can ponder:
- could be alien from another world
- could be alien form another dimension
- could be time travellers from our future or past
- could be some exotic material of an alien origin but not piloted just drifting in space
We can discuss as to which is most likely, and I'm less inclined for the last one because I think when you compound rare things- aliens with drifting ancient alien hardware accidentally hitting the Earth, it feels a whole lore more improbable or impossible.

Regardless, shoe-horning in things like "the jab" and "the Great Reset" feel artificial, because there's zero evidence for those as well.
They are ideological conjectures not at all based on the available science.

There is a world of difference between- we have absolute evidence of the government doing bad things to their populace with...
Every time the government does things it is to manipulate and harm the populace.

That's like saying, "Last week the bank was robbed by the manager. We need to arrest all managers of all banks because they steal from the bank."
It's poor logical reasoning. We need concrete evidence, not our own assumptions of people's inner thinkings.

But, that tends to be my biggest complaint only that it taints amazing and powerful interviews as was made here with Bruce. I agree with Alex's assessment. It certainly seems like Bruce is doing great work in the area of alien involvement with the planet and the species!
J
 
The engineering of parts of the human genome c. 780,000 years ago has, of course, profound implications, but I want to draw attention to those for evolution by natural selection and how we (i.e. in the western post-modern materialist consensus) like to think of ourselves today.
Excellent. thanks for drawing attention to this.

this is an example of how far-reaching bruce's work is. according to the biostatistician that bruce references ( sorry I don't have the link but if anyone gets it please post it here) the probability of these changes occurring by natural selection is statistically zero.


I recently watched an interview with Donald Hoffman in which he remarked that his own work into the nature of consciousness was beginning to converge on that of certain physicists in postulating, “new mathematical structures beyond spacetime.” I shall just focus on his point about evolution's having given us a survival mode of consciousness that may have very little to do with the nature of reality of itself.

I really respect and appreciate Donald's hoffman and I think he brings a lot to the table... but again, bruce is bringing some very strong scientifically-based evidence that doesn't conform to hoffman's theory... or at least we can say doesn't conform to his interpretation of the implications of his theory.

Let's continue this dialogue. this is super interesting.
 
Alex,

I think you mentioned the Human Genome Project as if it really had achieved more than it seems to have done. Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out that if you look at the offspring of (say) tall parents, the children are usually fairly tall, however people have searched the genome to find genes that correspond to adult height (or a range of other traits) and the genes in total only account for about 5% of the process of inheritance. This seems to imply that there is another store of information somewhere (in the morphogenetic field perhaps) that accounts for the rest.

I think RS would say that knowing the full human genome hasn't given us as much as it was meant to do. So maybe this moment in time is not similar to whatever happened 780000 years ago!

David
 
Alex,

I think you mentioned the Human Genome Project as if it really had achieved more than it seems to have done. Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out that if you look at the offspring of (say) tall parents, the children are usually fairly tall, however people have searched the genome to find genes that correspond to adult height (or a range of other traits) and the genes in total only account for about 5% of the process of inheritance. This seems to imply that there is another store of information somewhere (in the morphogenetic field perhaps) that accounts for the rest.

I think RS would say that knowing the full human genome hasn't given us as much as it was meant to do. So maybe this moment in time is not similar to whatever happened 780000 years ago!

David

This isn't something I know a lot about. But I did a paper on genetics at university for a semester. I didn't think the experiments they were doing on animals and other lifeforms were moral, so I discontinued. Actually it wasn't always necessarily the experiments themselves, but the vibe was so arrogant and callous towards other life

Nevertheless, one of the big takeaways I had from the paper was how statistical the study of genetics is. Far more than I'd expected.

Subsequently I heard physical anthropologists say the same thing. For example, if they saw the skeletons of some ancient peoples, they'd believe rather what they saw of the visible remains than what geneticists say about it, because the statistics can so easily be manipulated

Add to that much of the genetics topic is extremely politicised, cutting deeply into the politically correct doctrine that the environment is the decisive factor in everything (not genetics and certainly not the extended consciousness realm)

So maybe the human genome scientists are lying about the results, in order to keep their positions
 
Last edited:
This isn't something I know a lot about. But I did a paper on genetics at university for a semester. I didn't think the experiments they were doing on animals and other lifeforms were moral, so I discontinued. Actually it wasn't always necessarily the experiments themselves, but the vibe was so arrogant and callous towards other life

Nevertheless, one of the big takeaways I had from the paper was how statistical the study of genetics is. Far more than I'd expected.

Subsequently I heard physical anthropologists say the same thing. For example, if they saw the skeletons of some ancient peoples, they'd believe rather what they saw of the visible remains than what geneticists say about it, because the statistics can so easily be manipulated

Add to that much of the genetics topic is extremely politicised, cutting deeply into the politically correct doctrine that the environment is the decisive factor in everything (not genetics and certainly not the extended consciousness realm)

So maybe the human genome scientists are lying about the results, in order to keep their positions
Here is a discussion between Rupert Sheldrake and John Horgan. All of it looks interesting, but in particular it does touch on the missing hereditability problem.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...phic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

I wouldn't say that most scientists lie - although certainly a few do. But they kind of stray from the truth. I mean sure the genes are important as a store of blueprints for making protein molecules (and some regulatory functions). However, how many people realise that the genes only explain a small fraction of the similarities that you see in families? I doubt whether most people know that this problem exists. It is rather like the 'Climate Change' lunacy - it is built on the fairly shakey measurement of 1.2 C temperature rise since 1880. You never see a banner saying "Danger! The earth has warmed up 1.2 C in the last 140 years!"

It is interesting that you mention the morality of experimenting on animals. Rupert Sheldrake had the same reaction - it seems to have been part of his disillusionment with conventional science. I had a course called "Biology of Cells" as an undergraduate. Fortunately we didn't mess with any creature larger than a fruit fly, and most of what we did involved bacteria or plants.

David
 
Last edited:
Alex,

I think you mentioned the Human Genome Project as if it really had achieved more than it seems to have done. Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out that if you look at the offspring of (say) tall parents, the children are usually fairly tall, however people have searched the genome to find genes that correspond to adult height (or a range of other traits) and the genes in total only account for about 5% of the process of inheritance. This seems to imply that there is another store of information somewhere (in the morphogenetic field perhaps) that accounts for the rest.

I think RS would say that knowing the full human genome hasn't given us as much as it was meant to do. So maybe this moment in time is not similar to whatever happened 780000 years ago!

David

I remember in my undergrad days back at U of G- it was- as it is now- spoken of derisively as "Moo U" since so much of it's research was involved in agriculture and animals. At one point they were making four-legged chickens with the idea that this might double the meat possibilities for industry, until someone there said, "Um, isn't think a little unethical?" and it was quietly dropped.

Strange, what forces were engaged. For example, my ex-wife's father was an environmental chemist at the school, and in the late seventies he had come up with a process that would take away the need for oil. He created a grain-based fuel system that the Swedes were already to purchase and use to get off of gas. The FBI (who really have no jurisdiction in Canada) showed up at his door, and told his department head that it was "national security" issues and the idea of getting off of oil back then was quickly shelved.
I forgot about that until just this moment. I guess that's another example of the ruling three-letter elites making sure they were doing the corporate masters bidding even back then.
J
 
Back
Top