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

Colavito is good at what he does. He takes people disliked by materialists and then uses his wordsmithing to paint them in ugly caricatures, his followers absolutely love this practice. Is that me he is describing? Sure. A cartoonish accentuated version of me, but I am in there somewhere among the exaggeration and fanciful descriptions. I have never understood why he is not satisfied with the very strange things that I have actually said, what need is there to try and warp them and create a pantomime version?

It is not just me he does that with, it's a business model.
OMG... gotta get Jason on Skeptiko! What fun it would be! I have invited.
 
The only change that I can think of is that I moved the tektite date from 780,000 to 788,000 when a more accurate dating study was published, beyond that sometimes I refer to ~800,000 because geological dating for some of the evidence I discuss is not entirely precise.
I'm constantly surprised when folks refuse to follow basic scientific arguments/ logic re Bruces's theory. For example, this whole thing about cherry picking science in order to fit his 788,000 years ago hypothesis just goofy. It's the opposite of what these nitwits are saying. Locking in a date and place at the beginning of yr research makes it a lot harder to hit the mark... A lot easier to falsify.
 
I'm constantly surprised when folks refuse to follow basic scientific arguments/ logic re Bruces's theory. For example, this whole thing about cherry picking science in order to fit his 788,000 years ago hypothesis just goofy. It's the opposite of what these nitwits are saying. Locking in a date and place at the beginning of yr research makes it a lot harder to hit the mark... A lot easier to falsify.

Right, if suddenly the best studies change multiple dates of evidence I am utilizing and suggest the tektite, asteroid bombardment and divergence of early humans, are in fact separated by hundreds of thousands of years, my theory would be in flames. It would definitely be to my advantage not to fixate on these dates as I have, were I worried about being proven wrong.
 
Right, if suddenly the best studies change multiple dates of evidence I am utilizing and suggest the tektite, asteroid bombardment and divergence of early humans, are in fact separated by hundreds of thousands of years, my theory would be in flames. It would definitely be to my advantage not to fixate on these dates as I have, were I worried about being proven wrong.
The other thing I've heard is that Bruce is relying on channeled information. I guess I understand the need knee-jerk reaction to "channeled information" but I don't think it's warranted. Especially since history has revealed
7 Great Examples of Scientific Discoveries Made in Dreams
(there are plenty of examples of " channeling" as well)

But the main thing, and again this seems kind of obvious but I guess it's not to haters, it doesn't matter how you come up with a theory like this, it only matters how you go about Gathering evidence to back it up.
 
The other thing I've heard is that Bruce is relying on channeled information. I guess I understand the need knee-jerk reaction to "channeled information" but I don't think it's warranted. Especially since history has revealed
7 Great Examples of Scientific Discoveries Made in Dreams
(there are plenty of examples of " channeling" as well)

But the main thing, and again this seems kind of obvious but I guess it's not to haters, it doesn't matter how you come up with a theory like this, it only matters how you go about Gathering evidence to back it up.

I would compare it to someone hearing a story about a lost city in the Amazon, a wild anecdotal tale with no evidence and no reason for it to be believed; everything could understandably dismiss it out of hand. However, if someone then follows the instructions and finds that lost city, what then? Would we suggest the city is not real, because the way it was found began without strong evidence? Surely finding the city validates the tale?

At no point do I ask anyone to 'believe this psychic claim' or in any way offer a theory that relies on simply accepting such initial clues as facts in and of themselves. That is an important point to note.
 
The other thing I've heard is that Bruce is relying on channeled information. I guess I understand the need knee-jerk reaction to "channeled information" but I don't think it's warranted. Especially since history has revealed
7 Great Examples of Scientific Discoveries Made in Dreams
(there are plenty of examples of " channeling" as well)

But the main thing, and again this seems kind of obvious but I guess it's not to haters, it doesn't matter how you come up with a theory like this, it only matters how you go about Gathering evidence to back it up.

Excellent point!

As you saw, Alex, it was SnakeBro Russ who said that he's sceptical of Bruce's research because it's based on channeled information. I didn't want to make myself even more unpopular at the BOTS discord by saying that it's only partially based on channeled info and then there are subsequent sources corroborating it.

I realise now, that since asking for specific evidence from people who were attacking Bruce as an individual and his work, and the vehement responses I received in return, telling me to stop pushing back etc., that I started to hold back my own comments in order to not offend people...

So self-censorship......
 
Just as some background: I had been very active on the BOTS discord over some months last year. I'm still one of the highest rated commenters there. Skeptiko and BOTS discord are the only forums I've contributed to, so I respected BOTS a lot (and re some topics, such as Marty's ufo series, I still do).

But since visiting again a couple of months ago, I was stunned at how thin-skinned and closed-minded many people there had become. Weird.

I used to have epic debates there, which people sometimes felt uncomfortable with, but they'd say afterwards they were amazed at the high level of debate - the breadth and depth of knowledge.

But in the last year and a half things have changed. I don't know why. But maybe it's a reflection of the wider malaise in Western societies of less and less openness for heated debates about important topics

I'm not on social media much at all, so I can't tell except from face to face interactions with Westerners and hearing anecdotes from others. Seems to me the Overton Window of saying anything controversial is getting smaller, even in alternative circles.

Seems many of them have in effect curated for themselves echo chambers...
 
A case in point: the presentation above by a superb researcher, Matt Sibson, from the Ancient Architects channel, on the Egyptian pyramids. Like Bruce and Alex, Matt had been on the BOTS podcast. To me, Matt is such an excellent researcher, because he is knowledgeable on many topics (including a speciality in geology), and he's fair-minded with brilliant analytical skills.

But Marty said of him a couple of weeks ago that he'd quote: 'lost all respect for him', because of the tone of his videos... Really?
Such an extreme, thin-skinned reaction about a knowledgeable, fair-minded researcher.

And just to show how far the intellectual atmosphere has been corrupted:
Marty revealed he knows little about ancient architecture. He said the ancients wouldn't have built something more than what's 'required'. Such utter nonsense. It's actually the exact opposite! Monument-building was typically about displays of going above what's 'required', of massive power and abundance. That's true around the world, whether it's the Parthenon in Athens or Angkor Wat in Cambodia.
 
And I say these things as someone who wants to know the truth about things, in the ancient past and in our present world. Plus I have a specialty in ancient art and architecture, so I can easily tell when people are ignorant or knowledgeable on the subject.

In fact, I'm in Cambodia at the moment, at the site of Angkor Wat and the vast surrounding complex of temples etc., doing a systematic study of the civilisation.

I pay attention to what both mainstream academia and alternative researchers say.

Brothers of the Serpent, on the other hand, essentially strawman mainstream academia. So BOTS don't just have massive blindspots, they are in general woefully ignorant of previous civilisations.
 
Thank you for highlighting that interview, I also just did another one for Calling All Beings DDD #71 Bruce Fenton by Calling ALL Beings (soundcloud.com)
My Pleasure! I'm halfway through listening already. Great dynamic between you and Lindsay. I hope everyone checks it out.
I'll queue up the Call All Beings show as well. (Found the episode on Apple Podcasts as well. queued up!)

Regarding the discussed topics. One of the reasons I appreciate the dynamic is that I know Lindsay (Like myself) has a loose stance on the nature of our existence (i.e Spontaneous Big Bang Origin -or- Simulation -or- Speak-into-existence-Creation-of-sorts), and you both seem to steer the conversation to common ground. For over a year or so I've been advocating online wherever I can for an kind of ideal of 'cooperation across conceptions-of-reality'. I think the nature of global tyranny is to use any un-common grounds to divide the masses wherever possible. And I personally think there's no reason we can't all get along, whether we believe man walked on the moon, or believe the moon is a hologram.

Back to enjoy the rest of the episode. Cheers!
 
Back
Top