Bruce Fenton on UFO/ET Contact 780,000 Years Ago |458|

#61
Thanks for the video. Interesting idea. Perhaps recurrent solar novae add significant mass in addition to normal meteoritic impacts and accumulation of dust and solar wind. I don't know whether that would be enough or not. Doing quick rough calculations it seems the earth would have to grow by 8 Mount Everests per year or .0024% of current mass every 12,000 years for Earth to double its mass in the last 250 million years and that rate of expansion seems high. Is that doable without completely destroying the ecosystem? I don't know.

The rest of the stuff about moon and sun and sleepy water... not sure how to respond to that.
Maybe that is doable... only .04 grams per square foot per day at earth’s current size. (If I did my iPhone/google math right)
 
#63
It's all beyond my understanding but it feels right.
James Maxlow seems to be at the forefront of the theory
he gives a mechanism here https://www.expansiontectonics.com/page5.html

& has some youtube interviews


recent one few days ago on dissident scientist:

:)
James Maxlow website:
https://www.expansiontectonics.com/index1.html

Wow... seems patently obvious now that I look at the globe and the ages of crust. I had always wondered how the continental shelves and ocean basins came to have such a separation in elevation... now it makes sense. The Continents are the "primordial" crust which fissured due to expansion and the ocean basins are the infill of lava. The deep canyons coming down the continental shelf which can't be adequately explained by ocean currents make much more sense if the seas were once much lower as the original continental fissures were getting filled in.

If the primary mechanism of mass addition is protons (Hydrogen) and electrons landing in the Mantle, then the theories of deep abiotic hydrocarbon generation make more sense.

So the sun is constantly sending fresh elements to the earth and the ingredients for water and oil.

Mainstream science recognizes the solar wind is currently adding up to 300 metric tons per day to the earth's mass, but that isn't enough. What if we combine the expanding earth with the recurrent solar nova hypothesis? Every 12,000 years the sun burps out a lot of material. Much of it is dust, but there's also impactors. For the next 12,000 years the amount of dust and impactors swirling around the solar system exponentially declines to where it is now. But during the solar nova and for the next 1000 years after a solar nova there's probably a lot of material being added to Earth.
 
#64
We'll see what I can contribute without getting thrown in the "woo" bin. Which seems silly anyway, because where can you draw the line? If it was actual experience, I'm sure lots of us wouldn't be able to hold a conversation at all, because so many of us live through books and stories...
That being said, I get as much or more out of so-called "fiction" as I do from whatever the other thing is called. Have gleaned a lot from Peter Moon and Sky Books. Pursuing the "myths" of Atlantis and King Arthur... ETCETERA.
Now, finding Forum Borealis and then Skeptiko, I'm excited back into the edge of fringe and speculation with others. Things left unfulfilled by Stolen History websites.
So, we have two halves to our brains, four quarters, eight... Good to not dominate the popularly used one mostly supported by the current dominant paradigm.
One thing that's excited me through FB and Al's guests is expanding earth "theory" and trying to figure out why we have old buildings all over the planet (my words) that resemble what one would associate with Europe a few hundred years ago. Especially Americas and Australia, but really all over.
The other thing to get over, is the lie of "human progress" and the insidious underlying scheme of eugenics present throughout major power players. Many have stated and shown how civilizations started out at a higher degree of functioning and knowledge and then degenerated and fell apart.

Also, I would draw attention to epochs of civilizations on earth as Rudolf Steiner laid them out, but it might get into "woo woo" land.
As well as various channeled information regarding the 12 or 24 different influences for seeding civilizations. Woo. Woo.
Imagination and creativity plays a large part in our experience.
Excited to have other viewpoints to explore, but no way I can read all those books. It's all I can do to catch up on all the podcasts and interviews!!!
Anyway, to relate back to this topic and not totally derail, it was somebody Al had on FB that talked about Nommo(?) dude hijacking gigantic spacecraft to try and escape, then f'ing it up and crashing it. Liquid copper drive exploded, creating major desert areas all across the planet. Possibly ties into tektite thing with this interview.
Moldavite is one of those. Got a couple pieces from area of Czech Republic...
To connect to SB and PM, it was actually the later books of Radu Cinamar about inner earth civilizations and ancient technology discovered under Romania and elsewhere. Complete with systems for creating cataclysms. And an older book by Alexandra Bruce (Philadelphia Experiment Murder) talking about interstellar wars in interview with Glenn Pruitt in the 17th chapter entitled "Atlantis". Goes on to presume it's not "ET" technology at all that's being fought over and pursued, but Atlantean. Also brings up like 7 different parallel realities, which Preston Nichols also spoke of, but I never heard many details from him (RIP).
02.jpg
Here's one of the paintings of Dovilio Brero for Damanhur...
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#65
Also, I would draw attention to epochs of civilizations on earth as Rudolf Steiner laid them out, but it might get into "woo woo" land.
As well as various channeled information regarding the 12 or 24 different influences for seeding civilizations. Woo. Woo.
Imagination and creativity plays a large part in our experience.
Excited to have other viewpoints to explore, but no way I can read all those books. It's all I can do to catch up on all the podcasts and interviews!!!
thx... I'm not very familiar with steiner's conceptualization of seeding. can you give me the cliff notes :) or point me to a link
 
#66
thx... I'm not very familiar with steiner's conceptualization of seeding. can you give me the cliff notes :) or point me to a link
His are more enlightening in trying to posit timelines. He's hard to read or listen to sometimes. Definitely verbose and dated. Luckily, this website does a good job of interpretation.
Epochs of Evolution
https://southerncrossreview.org/59/...iner describes five main,-Atlantean (our own).
Seeding info I got from Law of One, Crystal Skull readings, Where Were You Before the Tree of Life (nutty, friend sent me all nine volumes cause he knew the guy), other channelers like Barbara Marciniak, Hand Clow, Edgar Cayce... And Preston Nichols and Peter Moon as well as other authors through Sky Books.
Woo, woo! All aboard!
 

Alex

Administrator
#68
His are more enlightening in trying to posit timelines. He's hard to read or listen to sometimes. Definitely verbose and dated. Luckily, this website does a good job of interpretation.
Epochs of Evolution
https://southerncrossreview.org/59/davy1.htm#:~:text=Rudolf Steiner describes five main,-Atlantean (our own).
Seeding info I got from Law of One, Crystal Skull readings, Where Were You Before the Tree of Life (nutty, friend sent me all nine volumes cause he knew the guy), other channelers like Barbara Marciniak, Hand Clow, Edgar Cayce... And Preston Nichols and Peter Moon as well as other authors through Sky Books.
Woo, woo! All aboard!
thx. I lean more towards something like bruce fenton's 780,000.

Regarding edgar cayce... boy, it sure looks like the spirits were f****** with him. his racist channeling is not just offensive, but looks completely ridiculous in light of modern genetics. I always thought the stories of him losing amount of money on spirit driven gambling predictions was interesting :) it certainly seems that the spirits do like to f*** with people.
 
#69
thx. I lean more towards something like bruce fenton's 780,000.

Regarding edgar cayce... boy, it sure looks like the spirits were f****** with him. his racist channeling is not just offensive, but looks completely ridiculous in light of modern genetics. I always thought the stories of him losing amount of money on spirit driven gambling predictions was interesting :) it certainly seems that the spirits do like to f*** with people.
Yeah, the spiritism and such crazes of back then were the beginning of new agers.
Seances, floating tables, mysteries from the east...
Some, like HPB, had a fair amount of truth mixed in with their hocus pocus.
 
#70
Alex, I really enjoy your interviews, but your championing of people like Fenton is deeply problematic. He’s a crank, like everyone associated with von Däniken. He overlooks, or ignores, or is ignorant, of research that contradicts his claims, and misrepresents information that he does use.

In the video you made about his 780kya theory & posted earlier in this thread, he cites two recent academic papers as evidence that the Out of Africa theory will be replaced by diffusionist theories. His claim is very strange as both papers use their new data in arguments to strengthen the OOA theory. Did he read the articles & intentionally misrepresent their conclusions? Did he not understand their conclusions? Did he only see a headline from a summary of the articles in the popular press & not bother to actually read the articles? Did he assume that anyone interested in his ideas was never going to actually read the articles so he could say whatever he wanted about them? Why doesn’t really matter as much as the basic fact that he feels 100% comfortable using sources to make an argument when those sources actually refute his argument - his “theories” cannot be taken seriously.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/867317v1.full.pdf

”How then can the present-day Y-chromosomal phylogeography be reconciled with an out-of- Africa expansion? The simplest explanation is that initial western Y chromosomes have been entirely replaced by lineages from further east (Figure 3), perhaps on more than one occasion. This is supported by the more likely origin of GHIJK in the east (Figure 1). Alternative explanations, where the initial divergences within the Y-chromosomal phylogeny did indeed occur in the west, would require either that C, D and F lineages all migrated east, together with some GHIJK lineages, leaving only GHIJK lineages in the west, or that C, D and F were lost by genetic drift in the west, but not in the east. The first alternative would in turn imply unprecedented levels of male-structured migration, and would be difficult to reconcile with subsequent divergences within GHIJK during the next few thousand years, whereby some of the descendent lineages such as G1, H1 and H3 would also need to have migrated east in a male-structured way. The second alternative seems unlikely because genetic effective population sizes have been lower in East Asia than in Europe29,30, so less genetic drift is expected in the west. With the ancient DNA and present-day Y-chromosomal data currently available, replacement from the east is therefore the more plausible explanation.”

https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4

Conclusions
These results are congruent with a model proposing an out-of-Africa migration into Asia, following a northern route, of early anatomically modern humans carrying pre-L3 mtDNA lineages around 125 kya, subsequent diversification of pre-L3 into the basal lineages of L3, a return to Africa of Eurasian fully modern humans around 70 kya carrying the basal L3 lineages and the subsequent diversification of Eurasian-remaining L3 lineages into the M and N lineages in the outside-of-Africa context, and a second Eurasian global expansion by 60 kya, most probably, out of southeast Asia. Climatic conditions and the presence of Neanderthals and other hominins might have played significant roles in these human movements. Moreover, recent studies based on ancient DNA and whole-genome sequencing are also compatible with this hypothesis.”


I don’t have any interest in taking apart his arguments point by point because there is no reason to take anything he says seriously, but here are two little things that demonstrate his sloppiness & disregard for honest intellectual inquiry. In the video, Fenton uses Crater Lake in Oregon and Meteor Crater in Arizona as examples of impacts created by the alien war he believes happened 780kya. However, Crater Lake isn’t an impact crater - it was created only 7,700 years ago by the collapse of a volcano. While Meteor Crater was formed as the result of a meteor impact, that impact was around 50,000 years ago, not 780,000 years ago.

https://www.usgs.gov/science-support/osqi/yes/national-parks/geology-crater-lake-national-park
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kr...enviropages/Barringer/barringerstartpage.html

Fenton has what amounts to a vocational degree in Business & Information Systems with no evidence of training related to any of the areas he talks about. He makes up stories that some people like to hear & believe.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#71
I don’t have any interest in taking apart his arguments point by point because there is no reason to take anything he says seriously, but here are two little things that demonstrate his sloppiness & disregard for honest intellectual inquiry. In the video, Fenton uses Crater Lake in Oregon and Meteor Crater in Arizona as examples of impacts created by the alien war he believes happened 780kya. However, Crater Lake isn’t an impact crater - it was created only 7,700 years ago by the collapse of a volcano. While Meteor Crater was formed as the result of a meteor impact, that impact was around 50,000 years ago, not 780,000 years ago.

https://www.usgs.gov/science-support/osqi/yes/national-parks/geology-crater-lake-national-park
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kr...enviropages/Barringer/barringerstartpage.html

Fenton has what amounts to a vocational degree in Business & Information Systems with no evidence of training related to any of the areas he talks about. He makes up stories that some people like to hear & believe.
thx. sorry for the slow reply. I didn't see your post.

So you've given some very specific counter-arguments. I appreciate that... it's the only way to move the dialogue forward. I'm happy to talk about out of africa... But for starters, I wanted to focus on the crater lake thing and the Meteor Crater in Arizona:
"as examples of impacts created by the alien war he believes happened 780kya"

at no point have I heard mention these locations is being debris sites. his research suggests that the largest pieces of Australasian tektites landed in Laos.
 
#72
thx. I lean more towards something like bruce fenton's 780,000.

Regarding edgar cayce... boy, it sure looks like the spirits were f****** with him. his racist channeling is not just offensive, but looks completely ridiculous in light of modern genetics. I always thought the stories of him losing amount of money on spirit driven gambling predictions was interesting :) it certainly seems that the spirits do like to f*** with people.
Everyone is so sensitive these days. IMO, Cayce's comments on race seem pretty accurate to me. Genetics has nothing to do with it. It was all about souls, soul groups, reincarnation, karma and what attracts certain types of souls. One can merely look at Asia, versus Europe versus a shithole like Africa to grasp a sense of what Cayce was saying. The difference in intelligence and type of intelligence generally transcend geography of origin. The traits tend to continue after immigration. You can say "well it's just cultural", but I'd respond, "Ok. What is culture? Where do you think it comes from? What perpetuates it even in modern times?". I thought everything is consciousness, but when it comes to woke topics suddenly we're back to meat robots (i.e. genetics)?

I'm unaware that Cayce gambled, let alone on advice of spirits. Maybe he did. Will look for cites.

Finally, Cayce never really claimed to be in communication with spirits. He mostly said he was tapping into Akashic records; just archives written in the fabric of the universe.
 
#73
thx. sorry for the slow reply. I didn't see your post.

So you've given some very specific counter-arguments. I appreciate that... it's the only way to move the dialogue forward. I'm happy to talk about out of africa... But for starters, I wanted to focus on the crater lake thing and the Meteor Crater in Arizona:
"as examples of impacts created by the alien war he believes happened 780kya"

at no point have I heard mention these locations is being debris sites. his research suggests that the largest pieces of Australasian tektites landed in Laos.
Hi Alex, it’s in the video you made & posted at about the 34:10 mark

 

Alex

Administrator
#74
Hi Alex, it’s in the video you made & posted at about the 34:10 mark

perhaps the graphics are partly to blame.

Bruce is just saying that a lot of stuff has fallen from the sky over the years... and he's trying to give us some perspective as to how big of an event the Australasian tektite impact was. I think he's very clear about this at other points in the film... like here (29:20):

 
#75
perhaps the graphics are partly to blame.

Bruce is just saying that a lot of stuff has fallen from the sky over the years... and he's trying to give us some perspective as to how big of an event the Australasian tektite impact was. I think he's very clear about this at other points in the film... like here (29:20):

That's what jumped out at me - he is talking about the Australasian tektites c. 780kya but also says at 34:18 "impacts across America" as an image of Crater Lake is on the screen. Just a few seconds later he brings a crater in Antarcica that's 780kya and says, starting at 34:50, we have major impacts that have left scaring across these continents precisely as described in his downloaded info while an image of Meteor Crater in AZ is on the screen.

Are you saying that Bruce didn't suggest those images? Even if he didn't suggest them, he approved them, right? Has he ever said "Alex, love the documentary but take out those two images because they shouldn't be there"? It seems unbelievable that he could watch the piece & not ask that those images get switched out. If he didn't say anything, that suggests to me that he either didn't know they contradicted what he was saying or is sloppy and doesn't care.

When I clicked on the video you had start at 29:20, I accidentally made it start about a few minutes earlier. In just those two extra minutes, I caught another set of glaringly dishonest claims by Bruce.

Here’s the BS claim

At 28:17, Bruce states that NASA investigated the origin of tektites and say they can only have been formed by an event in outer space. As he says this, images from a NASA paper (Technical Note D-1556, link below) appear with one section highlighted that says just what Bruce said on camera.

The problem is that (1) He uses the NASA paper to claim “we know tektites could only have formed in outer space” when that paper explicitly rejects the hypothesis, and (2) earlier in the video he cites a different paper which explicitly states the consensus opinion is that tektites were formed by a crater strike. The issue is not disagreeing with a consensus opinion, but saying the consensus opinion is X when the paper you cite for that opinion says X is false, and then citing another paper which explains that the consensus opinion is Y but pretending you didn't read that.

Problem #1 That NASA paper explicitly states that the origin theory for tektites that Bruce cites at 28:17 is WRONG, and does so in the same paragraph as the part he repeated. It’s on pgs 29-30 of the report & I’m attaching a screenshot of it. The red lines show the part Bruce repeated & the blue lines show where the author explains why it’s contradicted by evidence. It is very difficult to think of any other explanation for this other than blatant dishonesty, though it’s possible he read someone else cite this part of the paper & is just parroting what they said and never actually read it himself, which is also completely dishonest

Problem #2 Earlier in this video, Bruce cites a different, more recent, paper that clearly states “tektite glass is widely accepted to represent impact melt that was ejected during crater formation.” At 27:50, not even 30 seconds before he mentions the NASA paper, Bruce discusses discovering that there has been a 100+ year mystery over the origin of tektites while two different images from a 2018 article appear on the screen (The Enduring Mystery of Australasian Tektites By Aaron J. Cavosie, link below). The statement that tekties are widely accepted to have been created by a meteor impact is the first line of the second paragraph.

Bruce is dishonest. Like von Däniken and Graham Hancock, Bruce is not taken seriously by scholars because he is not scholarly. He intentionally twists the intent of the sources he cites and makes claims he cannot support. It's not the ideas, it's that they are not honest.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630003053/downloads/19630003053.pdf

http://elementsmagazine.org/2018/06/01/enduring-mystery-australasian-tektites/
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#76
Are you saying that Bruce didn't suggest those images?
he did not
Even if he didn't suggest them, he approved them, right?
no, that's would be inaccurate. I did an interview with bruce and hired a guy to help me put together the documentary. the process was a lot longer and more expensive than I would have imagined.





At 28:17, Bruce states that NASA investigated the origin of tektites and say they can only have been formed by an event in outer space.
yeah this is basically true... bruce is correct.

As he says this, images from a NASA paper (Technical Note D-1556, link below) appear with one section highlighted that says just what Bruce said on camera.

“tektite glass is widely accepted to represent impact melt that was ejected during crater formation.”
again, bruce is correct... there's a huge mystery surrounding this material... bruce's theory although remarkable fits the data.

the other stuff he about Australasian Tektites checks out.

Bruce is dishonest. Like von Däniken and Graham Hancock


ok I know I have a better understanding of where you're coming from :)
 
Last edited:
#77
Hi Alex, while I believe that since Bruce is promoting the video (it's his pinned tweet), he is approving of everything in the video unless he states otherwise, his misuse of the three sources I highlighted earlier are most straightforward & egregious instances of his dishonesty. Here I am talking about his use of those three sources where he completely misrepresents the authors actual claims. These aren't differences in judgement or interpretation. Bruce uses these sources as evidence for a position when the authors explicitly argue against that position.

The most egregious one is the NASA paper. Bruce states that NASA investigated & proved that tektites could only have been created in outer space, quoting from a section of that paper - but it states the exact opposite. Bruce quotes a few sentences from the NASA paper, but it's from a paragraph where the author first outlines the "tektites were formed in outer space" hypothesis in order to explain why it does not fit the evidence. The attached screenshot is from the NASA report - the red lines show the part Bruce quotes & the blue lines show where the author explains why it’s contradicted by evidence.

I haven't read your book yet but I imagine you outline the materialist theory that consciousness is produced by the brain in order to later demonstrate why that theory is wrong. If not, pretend that you did. If someone later said "Alex Tsakiris studied consciousness and in his 2014 book he argues that it is produced by the brain" and then quoted your outline of the materialist theory, ignoring that your book specifically argued against that theory, that person would asking a dishonest statement, right? That person is either intentionally lying about what your book said or they read/heard someone else make the same claim and are just parroting it, which is also completely dishonest.

Bruce does similar things in his use of the two papers he claims as evidence against the Out of Africa Theory. He cherry picks part of those papers and ignores that the authors claim their new data strengthens the OOA theory.

Someone who cares about the truth doesn't intentionally, and completely, change the meaning of the sources they cite to support their argument.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top