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

Yada, yada yada... there's little point trying to have a conversation with you. You seem to be here to stir the pot for the heck of it, and will say anything to maintain your sense of superiority, even when you contradict yourself.

He does make some interesting points, but the methods are so different, and he himself acknowledged our tracks are different

I'm going to continue looking at the data as the primary focus, delving further into that... if Randall's up for discussion on the data then I'm up for that. Otherwise it does seem like a waste of time
 
You're one who simply can never be wrong.
Yeah. One of the least frequent of his phrases is "IMHO". It isn't opinion, you see, it's a fact, but we dolts are too thick to grasp it...
Agreed. The haughty, closed mindset of stacking assumptions and using logic on it was a main reason why incorrect opinions were maintained for centuries through antiquity and the middle ages... Rather than suspending disbelief and simply observing the world as the primary focus

Like I've said before, a good day for me is when someone can prove me wrong, because then I've learned something new. So instead of focusing on what you guys assume to be elements of my personality, how about focusing on valid counterpoint? I do my best to explain my reasoning with the best short examples I can come-up with for the discussion at hand. Attacking my character does nothing to address my posts, or the rationale behind them.

If you want to dismiss critical thinking and the logic employed in my process, because "IYHOs" it's insufficient to draw conclusions from, what better process do you recommend — blind faith in word salad that resonates on some intuitive level that you cannot explain? All I'm trying to do is raise the bar here, not engage in an battle of egos.

Listen — I get that the subject is hard to deal with. The best minds in the world haven't been able to crack it. So if proving me wrong is hard to do, it doesn't make anyone a "dolt", and it doesn't make my process "haughty" or "closed minded". Perhaps what you don't sufficiently appreciate is that I know I certainly don't have all the answers, and I try to prove myself wrong all the time.

Try thinking of it this way — What I'm calling impossibilities are like walls I've run into on the journey to find real answers. Suspension of disbelief does nothing to help get over them. Suspension of disbelief is for when you want to enjoy the far-fetched fictional aspects of a movie. Is that what we're supposed to be doing here?

I'm not trying to disrespect anyone. If anything, I'm asking for your help in either getting over ( or around ) these walls, and my posts are just describing the challenges. So when I say something is impossible, it's because I've explored that route and found it to be a dead-end, and I'm just trying to save us all some time.

But I do appreciate that some people still need to go check that out for themselves, so maybe the best thing for me to do right now is just leave you all to do that while I take a break — and "extend" my consciousness all the way off this discussion board ( lol ).
 
Last edited:
Like I've said before, a good day for me is when someone can prove me wrong, because then I've learned something new. So instead of focusing on what you guys assume to be elements of my personality, how about focusing on valid counterpoint? I do my best to explain my reasoning with the best short examples I can come-up with for the discussion at hand. Attacking my character does nothing to address my posts, or the rationale behind them.

If you want to dismiss critical thinking and the logic employed in my process, because "IYHOs" it's insufficient to draw conclusions from, what better process do you recommend — blind faith in word salad that resonates on some intuitive level that you cannot explain? All I'm trying to do is raise the bar here, not engage in an battle of egos.

Listen — I get that the subject is hard to deal with. The best minds in the world haven't been able to crack it. So if proving me wrong is hard to do, it doesn't make anyone a "dolt", and it doesn't make my process "haughty" or "closed minded". Perhaps what you don't sufficiently appreciate is that I know I certainly don't have all the answers, and I try to prove myself wrong all the time.

Try thinking of it this way — What I'm calling impossibilities are like walls I've run into on the journey to find real answers. Suspension of disbelief does nothing to help get over them. Suspension of disbelief is for when you want to enjoy the far-fetched fictional aspects of a movie. Is that what we're supposed to be doing here?

I'm not trying to disrespect anyone. If anything, I'm asking for your help in either getting over ( or around ) these walls, and my posts are just describing the challenges. So when I say something is impossible, it's because I've explored that route and found it to be a dead-end, and I'm just trying to save us all some time.

But I do appreciate that some people still need to go check that out for themselves, so maybe the best thing for me to do right now is just leave you all to do that while I take a break — and "extend" my consciousness all the way off this discussion board ( lol ).

The challenges of this material can be frustrating. Just to be clear, even though it might have appeared it, I wasn't criticising you so much as your mindset was coming off as haughty and closed on certain topics, by saying that you aren't wrong and that certain things regarding the material are 'impossible'.

Suspending disbelief is necessary I think. The phenomena we're talking about, re extending / expanding of consciousness is reported so often from NDEers etc. I take that as a possibility. In my opinion, the shared death experiences suggest that NDEs are probably not just one person getting some information transmitted to them that they then remember.

I'd be very glad to talk about such data. But otherwise if we're talking about logic and what's impossible I don't have any patience for that at this stage anyway. Maybe in a few weeks time we can reboot that particular line of inquiry ;)
 
Last edited:
PS: Randall, just to add, I for one appreciate you :)

And maybe I was being too harsh on you, because I was getting frustrated with the debates that seem to be going around in circles on this topic.
Maybe with the data we currently have available we can figure out what's going on. But I suspect we might just need more data, or some new technology that might help us make sense of it, or even someone getting a download / revelation on what's going on from some higher source.
 
I could say the same thing about Extended Consciousness Theory ( ECT ). Or I could cite a variety of "useful discussion" topics related to either of them. So maybe we should look at this problem that way. Yes — ECT has issues, but that doesn't mean nothing useful can come from exploring it. When I do that, the first thing I do is try to make some sense of it, which has led me to my past comments.
My understanding is that EC is a useful expression to describe anything that relates to consciousness operating outside the laws of physical science. There is not specific theory, but check with Alex if you want to be sure - it is his expression.

David
 
Try thinking of it this way — What I'm calling impossibilities are like walls I've run into on the journey to find real answers. Suspension of disbelief does nothing to help get over them. Suspension of disbelief is for when you want to enjoy the far-fetched fictional aspects of a movie. Is that what we're supposed to be doing here?
The trouble is, almost everything we discuss here would be deemed impossible by most standard scientists!

David
 
PS: Randall, just to add, I for one appreciate you :)

And maybe I was being too harsh on you, because I was getting frustrated with the debates that seem to be going around in circles on this topic.
Maybe with the data we currently have available we can figure out what's going on. But I suspect we might just need more data, or some new technology that might help us make sense of it, or even someone getting a download / revelation on what's going on from some higher source.
Thanks — I appreciate that in return. Contentious issues often involve communication problems — and I'm quite confident that that is all it is. If you gave it a chance, I'm confident that you too would find the sort of logic I'm talking about useful. What have you got to lose by trying it out instead of fighting it? After all — it's not a case of me telling you what to believe. It's a case of me providing a way to see the same thing for yourself.

Then if you think I've missed or erred in some way on a variable, we can have a meaningful discussion about that, and in the process evolve the discussion. To me, that's how progress is made. Maybe this can be a new start.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that EC is a useful expression to describe anything that relates to consciousness operating outside the laws of physical science. There is not specific theory, but check with Alex if you want to be sure - it is his expression.
Perhaps outside the known laws of physical science, but not necessarily outside the workings of the physical universe.
The trouble is, almost everything we discuss here would be deemed impossible by most standard scientists!
I don't know about that. I haven't taken a poll. I'm pretty sure that at least some scientists would be open to the reality of the phenomena, recognize that some interpretations are possible while others aren't, and advocate for exploring the possible ones.

Maybe that's why I don't see all the objections. One would think that having someone on the team who can distinguish between what is and isn't possible would be an advantage. I fully admit that there may be times where I've made some sort of error, and I'm fine discussing that error if someone can identify it and explain to me why it's in error rather than making it into a personality issue.
 
Last edited:
The article is so smarmy. What's your opinion

I think that Bruce is an easy target because he has involved himself in some bizarre projects and lacks academic credentials
But even if his theories are only partially correct, they are, as you say mind blowing.
If the science stacks up then messenger's CV doesn't bother me.
There are plenty of renegade but authoritative researchers and academics out there - many have been on Skeptiko, I will interested to see what support Bruce can gather for his views.
 
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 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.
I think so too, but I shall continue the dialogue in my remarks about your interview with Anthony. Though seemingly about a different subject, they are related, because I think there's a close connection between consciousness and geometry. .
 
I think so too, but I shall continue the dialogue in my remarks about your interview with Anthony. Though seemingly about a different subject, they are related, because I think there's a close connection between consciousness and geometry. .
You may be right. If the Mother Sea theory of consciousness is the case, then consciousness is an omnipresent variable that fills the space created by the geometric variables of length, breadth, and height. We as persons then access that variable using specific types of materials organized in specific ways.
 
"A Scientific History of Extraterrestrial Genetic Manipulation"

Ironically, it is at odds with other thinkers critical of the mainstream science, those critical of genetics :

https://archive.is/Kla3E

https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com...y-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
I'm not sure I understand your post... how does it relate to this:
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 that 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 that 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

https://www.patreon.com/posts/fingerprints-of-60189452
 
I'm not sure I understand your post... how does it relate to this:
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 that 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 that 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

https://www.patreon.com/posts/fingerprints-of-60189452

Like I said on the BOTS discord, it's a shame there wasn't the anticipated follow-up discussion with you, Bruce, Russ and Kyle... It's such an important topic
 
Alex, actually we're having a discussion about Fenton's work now on the ufo thread of the BOTS discord. Can you please post the links Bruce sent you in the email please?
- re all the new studies that confirm his work
 
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
I’m seeing something like that in some forms of mystical astrology. If you look at the precession of the equinoxes, phases of the moon, motion of the planets, rotation of the ‘fixed stars‘ of the zodiac, and the turning of the great wheel of the ages, when you come around the dial to the “12”, it’s not the same “12” as on the previous trip. Like a spiral, you’ve arrived at a totally new point. And, there might be an inward-turning spiral, leading inside . . .
 
I’m seeing something like that in some forms of mystical astrology. If you look at the precession of the equinoxes, phases of the moon, motion of the planets, rotation of the ‘fixed stars‘ of the zodiac, and the turning of the great wheel of the ages, when you come around the dial to the “12”, it’s not the same “12” as on the previous trip. Like a spiral, you’ve arrived at a totally new point. And, there might be an inward-turning spiral, leading inside . . .

Yes, well said!
Interestingly, there's also evidence for our solar system spiraling in a double helix through the galaxy with the star Sirius on the other helix
 
Likewise DNA of course, a double helix... and maybe somehow time too, in a spiral?
As above, so below
Just throwing that idea out there to ponder
 
Likewise DNA of course, a double helix... and maybe somehow time too, in a spiral?
As above, so below
Just throwing that idea out there to ponder
Back in my teens I hung-out with an older hippie dude who told me about a peyote trip he had where he found himself floating in space with a giant double helix, made up of images of his life. He described it as being like a film strip. His past extended downward and his future extended upward, and he said he saw his own death some number of years in the future. He wasn't able to be specific, but the cause wasn't old age. Some years later he died in a hang gliding accident, and it made me wonder if that film strip unfurled again for him in his final moments.
 
Some years later he died in a hang gliding accident, and it made me wonder if that film strip unfurled again for him in his final moments.

I tend to believe that we do survive death, and that it probably will involve something like the experience in this video. I wonder also if those that die in circumstances where there is time to recognise the fact, that they will meet their death in the next few minutes, are somehow relieved of that trauma and effectively ‘aren’t there’ when the impact actually occurs?

 
Back
Top