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

I don't think that's really true. I've engaged with these holohoaxers here on the forum multiple times.

like here:
https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jimmy-falun-gong-hitler’s-mind-control-history-540.4808/page-4#post-163460

many other posts too. the holohoaxers actually caused me to do a little bit more research... not that anymore was required especially since the nazis admitted to killing 6 million jews at nuremberg... their number not mine... but I did find some new and interesting stuff which I posted... like the 1.5 million killed in the death camps in 100 days info.
I didn’t mean it’s off-limits. I agree 100% open forum to discuss and dispute the evidence. By “distinct ballgame” I meant the subject typically lands on demands for serious in-depth respectful review of certain evidence starting points. Meaning you’re(Alex) probably not gonna jump down each individual rabbit hole while the 1.5-mil/100days datapoint hasn’t even been contested/addressed. To which an honest skeptic (or even holohoaxer) should respond “I haven’t looked into it remotely well enough, I’ll have to get back to you.”
For instance an argument like “Death camps wouldn’t have maternity wards.” might be completely valid point for argument, but it’s just a rabbit hole until someone either bring actual research(as opposed to simple talking points) to the table for discussion, or addresses the pieces that are already on the table.

In other words it’s an issue of where/how/how-high the bar is set for discourse on the subject.

Nobody really takes offense when they hear someone disagree on Bigfoot reporting. So conversely / obviously, social connotation will always be a huge limiter or guide for a topic like recent historic human genocides. In my opinion.
 
Yes, I would say there is possible evidence of that happening
Okay, so before we introduce anything else into this analysis, let's determine what constitutes personhood, because unless we begin from a sound premise, the conclusions that follow are most likely to be false. My position on this is that personhood is dependent on a number of factors so intimately tied to the brain-body system, that it's not possible for any continuity of personhood to take place upon the death of the brain-body system, other than as some sort of copy.

To dispute that position you need to provide convincing evidence that aspects of personhood, including our personality, memories, and body do not constitute significant aspects of ourselves as persons. The body is usually offhandedly dismissed during this analysis — but that's far too convenient. Virtually all that defines us as individuals is related in some way to our brain-body system.
Its funny. You seem quite certain when discussing such matters ...
Yes — that's because when the issue is framed the way that I'm talking about, it works out that regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, certain outcomes are impossible.

However, that shouldn't be conflated with me knowing what the actual situation is ( I don't know for sure ). I just figure that if we can apply the process of elimination, that in theory we ca get one step closer to the truth ( whatever that is ).
I am far less certain and it appears more open to the possibilities.
It's fine to be open to the possibilities — but it's a waste of energy and time to pursue the impossibilities.
How do you define Objective evidence & Objective reality?

I tend to use the traffic light analogy. Suppose you're a traffic court judge, and the accused before you is charged with running a red light. The accused claims that the light looked green. The accused may not be lying. Their personal subjective experience may have been that they actually "saw" ( in their mind ) a green light. But does that subjective experience match that of the real ( objective ) world ?

That's when the prosecutor introduces the clip from the red light camera. Up on the screen it clearly shows the accused driving through a red light. So we now have the accused's subjective experience pitted against independent evidence that is completely free of bias ( objective evidence ).

How do you rule? Assuming the traffic camera was working properly and the pictures are actually of the accused at the specified intersection at the time indicated on the ticket, did the accused run a red light or not?
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

Thanks for continuing the conversation despite my long absence, Alex mentioned posting about my new Substack, and it prompted me to take a look in here. I will take a look at recent posts and see if there are any questions but feel free to ask anything relevant.

Thanks
 
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.

History is full of researchers that identified worthwhile information but also had interests or views considered eccentric (or absurd) in their day or years later. Certainly, some things I have associated with will fit that description. I would also say there are things that I have believed which later I rejected, but today everything is recorded and available to revisit, as though the person said it today etc.
 
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

Was there any specific study link required? What was the discussion focussed on?
 
Um — Is this the same Bruce Fenton?

Science Channel Giant "Expert" Bruce Fenton Claims Psychic Time Travel Powers, Grey Alien in His House

Apart from the above, I think it's possible ( if not likely ) that aliens have played a hand in human evolution — maybe more than just human evolution. For all we know, the entire universe is just one big alien experiment.

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.
 
Hi all,

Thanks for continuing the conversation despite my long absence, Alex mentioned posting about my new Substack, and it prompted me to take a look in here. I will take a look at recent posts and see if there are any questions but feel free to ask anything relevant.

Thanks
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for doing this interview. I thoroughly enjoyed it a day or two after it was released during a drive through Las Vegas to Southern CA. Awesome material to absorb while driving though vast deserts and hills.
Cutting to the chase on a question I was hoping to ask you. Excuse the straightforwardness.
What's your take on Jason Breshears and his Archaix research/platform?
 
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for doing this interview. I thoroughly enjoyed it a day or two after it was released during a drive through Las Vegas to Southern CA. Awesome material to absorb while driving though vast deserts and hills.
Cutting to the chase on a question I was hoping to ask you. Excuse the straightforwardness.
What's your take on Jason Breshears and his Archaix research/platform?

Really appreciate hearing the positive feedback on the interview. Unfortunately, I have not encountered Jason or his platform, sorry.
 
Was there any specific study link required? What was the discussion focussed on?

It was about this quote here:
“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.”
“Statistically speaking, the probability that a highly conserved DNA sequence will change multiple times over 6 million years of evolution is close to zero…”
Katherine Pollard, PhD bio-statistician, Gladstone Institute
 
There were a couple of commenters on the Brothers of the Serpent discord saying you aren't a geneticist; therefore what you say on the subject isn't to be taken seriously.
I told them that you are quoting a world-class geneticist. And that quote above is what she wrote, which is very clear as far as I can tell.

There was one guy saying that viruses could have been responsible for the changes, that it's not necessarily a sign of genetic engineering
 
It was about this quote here:
“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.”
“Statistically speaking, the probability that a highly conserved DNA sequence will change multiple times over 6 million years of evolution is close to zero…”
Katherine Pollard, PhD bio-statistician, Gladstone Institute

It is a quote from this article Decoding Human Accelerated Regions | The Scientist Magazine® (the-scientist.com)

Further discussion here What Makes Us Different? - Scientific American & here What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us | UC San Francisco (ucsf.edu)
 
There were a couple of commenters on the Brothers of the Serpent discord saying you aren't a geneticist; therefore what you say on the subject isn't to be taken seriously.
I told them that you are quoting a world-class geneticist. And that quote above is what she wrote, which is very clear as far as I can tell.

There was one guy saying that viruses could have been responsible for the changes, that it's not necessarily a sign of genetic engineering
What can anyone say to people invoking the appeal to authority fallacy? Correct I am not a geneticist and any time I say something that is not based on expert study people should consider it entirely speculative. If they don't like me talking on published studies then they need to take it up with the scientists doing the work.

As for the changes being possibly caused by a virus, it is up to them to explain how that could happen, not for me to debate made-up garbage hot takes that can't be backed up. No geneticists are discussing that as a viable possibility and as these people are assumedly not geneticists either, why should we listen to them, right? Isn't that how they say it should work?

Maybe congratulate them for solving a mystery that no geneticist on Earth can currently solve and invite them to write up their theory.
 
Last edited:
Another was saying that you're too confrontational on twitter. I don't use twitter, but so many people have become absurdly thin-skinned. They can't handle a heated debate on important topics. Instead they'd rather stay in their safe echo chambers
 
Another was saying that you're too confrontational on twitter. I don't use twitter, but so many people have become absurdly thin-skinned. They can't handle a heated debate on important topics. Instead they'd rather stay in their safe echo chambers

I am confrontational at times, but almost exclusively on my feed. I don't go looking for disagreements with people, but if they come along and invite it then probably all too often I will give them what they wanted. Probably it would serve me better not to use social media at all! lol
 
The third critic was saying that you retroactively adjusted your results to fit the circa 800k BP dating.

I repeatedly challenged him to provide evidence, but like a coward he refused to provide any specific evidence.
 
The third critic was saying that you retroactively adjusted your results to fit the circa 800k BP dating.

I repeatedly challenged him to provide evidence, but like a coward he refused to provide any specific evidence.

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.
 
Back
Top