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

#81
IDK Bruce is pretty tight re these kind of technical details. tell me if you find anything.
I am certain that such tektites as are presently known can not be created by solar outbursts under any circumstances. If anyone explains how they could be, I will happily provide a counter argument.
 
#82
Alex,

That is a really good film, perhaps leaving aside the music :) What does being an executive producer actually do? How long did it take?

It clarified the subject a lot, and of course, those Human Accelerated Regions were something T.E.S was talking about.

So we had the entities in blue suits arriving at the planet, getting into orbit, and their craft being destroyed (or could it have been an accident of some sort). However, I am not quite sure whether it was the original group that changed our genome, or the group that came in and blasted the first lot - that is still obscure to me.

I wasn't aware that a chromosome fusion had taken place in our near past.

I wonder if Bruce is in touch with anyone in the DI.

David

Details such as those you highlight here can't be defended with supporting evidence, they are simply the way things were described by the modern parties involved, Valerie, Jerry, the various experiences involved etc. In the transmitted information, it is the survivors of mission 1 that perform the engineering, not those in mission 2. It is entirely plausible that mission 2 added some support to this endeavour.

Is the DI Defence Intelligence? If so, no.
 
#83
It's a small issue in the scheme of things presented by Bruce, but there is alternative theory that would support what Bruce has to say about the 'bombardment' of Earth by the aliens at war.

He suggests that asteroids coming from different directions was used by the aliens, but electromagnetic scarring could be a better explanation.

For circular craters to form, asteroid impact would have to be perfectly perpendicular. The craters formed by electric scarring are always circular, and shallow.

If aliens can somehow throw lightening bolts at a planet, and there is plenty of evidence that Earth has been scarred electrically, like the whole Grand Canyon, then that might be related to the magnetic pole shifts as well. Magnetic fields are affected by electric currents.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/120707electriccraters.htm

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060131crater.htm

Sorry, I do not understand this point. My argument does not mention the shapes of craters or put any importance on such. The transmission stated aliens launched asteroids at Earth and today we have evidence multiple asteroids hit Earth from different sides in the period of focus here.
 
#84
Alternative explanations for the tektites: every ~12,000 the sun passes through the galactic current sheet which results in a solar micro-nova which causes the cataclysms recorded around the world. Some of the ejected solar material globs together as these glass beads which eventually fall to earth.
See about 31:00 during this video where he talks about the tektites:

For a quality explanation of the micro-nova and CIA’s redirection of the physical sciences away from catastrophism, see this from Ben Davidson at Suspicious0bservers:
There are various problems with this hypothesis (which has been put to me before) with an obvious one being that a large diffuse cloud of tektites would be produced and they would rain down across either the entire face of the planet or more likely the entire Earth. The five known tektite strewn fields do not mesh with such an event at all. There are more complex rebuttals about the necessary formation processes and chemical composition of tektites, but I feel they are unnecessary to explain if people can't explain the distribution using such a model. If someone explains distribution I will tackle the other problems.
 
#85
I have read a much simpler explanation (Occam) along the same lines. When the sun passes through the galactic plain it encounters much more debris, and collisions with earth are more likely.

David
Keep in mind that saying something like 'maybe solar outburst made tektites' is a long way from detailing a compelling hypothesis of how that would occur or how it would explain the composition, formation and distribution. Everyone should consider this is a very well studied problem, 160 years of scientific writings, with multiple hypotheses having been considered and rejected. The reason solar outburst is not a contender today is that it falls down on multiple points.
 
#86
I'm not sure we would expect to find "tektites" riding along on the galactic current sheet... mostly dust, but then again I don't know what is in interstellar space. Davidson believes the "Dark Matter" is really a result of the underestimation of interstellar dust. If stars are shooting off micro-nova a lot more often than scientists once thought, maybe there could be larger particles than mere dust surfing the galactic current sheet. But the dust rides the current sheet because it can get charged up and is drawn along by the electric/magnetic fields. Larger rockier bodies should be more influenced by gravitation than charge... although if there are some glass beads out there maybe they can get charged up too and surf along with the dust? I don't know.

The theory on the videos I've linked is that tektites are formed when the sun launches a large CME or micro-nova. Some of the heavier molten material ejected from the sun globs together (that's my technical term) and cools in spherules and then partially re-melts on atmospheric entry forming the tektites.
Imagine how diffuse such a cloud of tektites would become as it travelled outwards from the sun. To explain the concentration of tektites arriving on earth (whether moldavites, australites, Ivory Coast Tektites etc) would require something more like a dense beam of glass firing towards our planet, that does not at all mesh well with what is being suggested here.
 
#87
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...

For whatever it is worth, I suspect that all tektites are from events involving ET intelligence, including moldavite.
 
#88
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.
This seems to be a big problem with channelled information, whatever is sending the message provides some sensible stuff mixed with craziness, making it really hard to assign value.
 
#89
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.
When a paper is referred to as a source, this does not infer the entire paper must be in agreement with the hypothesis/theory of the person quoting from it, in fact, the respective conclusions may be wildly different. The Y chromosomal data supports ancestry in the East, not Africa, hence referencing this paper. The paper desperately attempts to fit this finding into the Out of Africa model, which is the paradigm in place, so no surprise there, but the evidence itself simply shows that modern human ancestors in Eurasia were from the East, not Africa. Unlike those researchers, I do not have an agenda to remain within that crumbling OOA paradigm so don't desperately try to 'reconcile with an out-of-Africa expansion. L3 is not an African haplogroup (as the paper indeed supports), as I detail in my Forgotten Exodus book, it arrived during the post-Toba climate migration into East Africa approx 72,000 years ago, the precursor lineage was also non-African.
 
#90
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/
It never occurred to me that people would care which crater pictures were used by the producer, you are the only person ever to find an issue with that, maybe it would have been better to use pictures from a crater dated to the correct period but this seems trivial to me.

Problem 1: The NASA paper discounts a hypothesis that I have never suggested, being that the tektites formed as droplets from an ablating object passing through the upper atmosphere.

Problem 2: This is not a problem. Everyone is clear on the current popular consensus hypothesis being the impact ejecta model, yet it is also universally recognised that numerous anomalies persist, many of which do not align with such an impact hypothesis.
 
#91
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.

Yes, I am 'cherry-picking' from papers where relevant information is used in my hypothesis, but I do not agree with the interpretations and conclusions of the papers. I categorically dispute the recent out of Africa hypothesis and the Australite impact hypothesis. My reasons are given at length in my books.
 
#92
Humans of some other sort may have existed some other time and some other place, I am wary


There are many. many papers associated with the tektite subject, not all highlight the anomalies that make it a mystery. The Enduring Mystery of Australasian Tektites | Elements | GeoScienceWorld
Bruce, good to see you here. Can you explain why, beginning at 28:20 in the video, you directly quote a sentence from a NASA paper (Technical Note D-1556, link below) and claim that NASA investigated the origin of tektites and concluded they can only have been formed by an event in outer space? I ask because that rest of the paragraph where you got that sentence explicitly argues against an outer space origin for tektites. It appears that you presented the sentence completely out of context in order to make it seem like the paper supports your argument when it explicitly does not.

The pic below is a screenshot of the paragraph where you found the sentence you quote (pg 29-30). The red bars show the sentence you quote, while the blue bars show the author explaining why the outer space origin theory doesn't fit available evidence. The author only brings up the outer space origin theory so he can show why it's wrong.


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

Attachments

#93
There are various problems with this hypothesis (which has been put to me before) with an obvious one being that a large diffuse cloud of tektites would be produced and they would rain down across either the entire face of the planet or more likely the entire Earth. The five known tektite strewn fields do not mesh with such an event at all. There are more complex rebuttals about the necessary formation processes and chemical composition of tektites, but I feel they are unnecessary to explain if people can't explain the distribution using such a model. If someone explains distribution I will tackle the other problems.
There might be an initial diffuse blast of tektites during the first wave from the solar outburst (which might actually get focused into varying density streams as we see with plasma filaments) followed by a few centuries of logarithmically tapering off of meteoric activity as debris is vacuumed up by the planets during which time there could be gravitational grouping of debris.

There might also be geologic processes that wipe away the evidence of tektites in some areas rather than others making a diffuse blast appear to be more concentrated.

I don't yet see a solid reason to dismiss the thesis of solar outburst yielding tektites.

I also like the expanding earth hypothesis which says that about 350-500 mya the earth started expanding and the continents are the primordial crust which broke apart. Now where did all the material come from to increase the size of the earth? Perhaps regular solar outbursts add material to all the planets.
 
#94
My question would be, how do you reconcile these distribution fields with tektites created from dust clouds around the sun, we should expect a fairly orderly cloud of material moving towards Earth and becoming more diffuse as it travels. Some of this material would hit the moon and probably other bodies. Instead these are very tight fields. Do clouds of appropriate source material even exist around the sun? What would hold the tektite swarm in a tight cluster for millions of miles?
 

Attachments

#95
My question would be, how do you reconcile these distribution fields with tektites created from dust clouds around the sun, we should expect a fairly orderly cloud of material moving towards Earth and becoming more diffuse as it travels. Some of this material would hit the moon and probably other bodies. Instead these are very tight fields. Do clouds of appropriate source material even exist around the sun? What would hold the tektite swarm in a tight cluster for millions of miles?
I guess "tight cluster" is relative... when I look at the fields you attached they seem pretty broad, especially the austraulasian. Certainly more broad than the debris field of any spacecraft we have observed thus far.

When CME's are ejected from the sun they are not uniform and often self organize into filaments... here's one from two days ago:
CME 11.1.21.JPG

As the CME reaches earth, Birkeland currents focus the stream of particles and glass beads into more concentrated tubes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Another criticism if I may... I don't buy the idea that we can extrapolate the current trend in technology which uses silicon chips to arrive at the notion that a super advanced alien super-computer would simply have a lot more silicon.
 
#96
I guess "tight cluster" is relative... when I look at the fields you attached they seem pretty broad, especially the austraulasian. Certainly more broad than the debris field of any spacecraft we have observed thus far.

When CME's are ejected from the sun they are not uniform and often self organize into filaments... here's one from two days ago:
View attachment 2216

As the CME reaches earth, Birkeland currents focus the stream of particles and glass beads into more concentrated tubes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Another criticism if I may... I don't buy the idea that we can extrapolate the current trend in technology which uses silicon chips to arrive at the notion that a super advanced alien super-computer would simply have a lot more silicon.
A tight cluster is appropriate when we look at the size of these strewn fields after travelling 92 million miles, a debris field from a spacecraft in orbit travels just a short distance so the pieces will separate only a little vs after the long journey from the sun. When a lunar origin was considered one of the issues was ho such a swarm could stay compact enough to leave such limited strewn fields, they deduced that the swarm must be incredibly dense, but this would leave tektites a metre or so deep. The swarm will always disperse while travelling through space, the further it travels the more disparate and destabilised it will be. This hypothesis does not seem to acknowledge this problem, 92 million miles is a long journey for these glass spheres, buffeted by solar radiation en route.

One potential signature of alien technology is a large silica network, which does not mean other different signatures can't exist, or all Et would use silica. A large silica glass object is implicitly strange as we do not see them in nature.
 
#97
That image is not ideal, because it while does highlight NASA research about the origin in space it is tackling the hypothesis of an object passing through the edge of the atmosphere, ablating as it does so and creating the tektites. This was an image selected by the producer, from a list of article I suggested to highlight space origins. I can see that it would have been better to use a different one. The paragraphs highlighted don't dispute an origin in space but they do refute the hypothesis of an object ablating to produce tektites as it passed through our atmosphere - which is not a hypothesis I would support either. The NASA researchers agreed with space origin but they considered various formation models, some were rejected.
 
#98
When a paper is referred to as a source, this does not infer the entire paper must be in agreement with the hypothesis/theory of the person quoting from it, in fact, the respective conclusions may be wildly different. The Y chromosomal data supports ancestry in the East, not Africa, hence referencing this paper. The paper desperately attempts to fit this finding into the Out of Africa model, which is the paradigm in place, so no surprise there, but the evidence itself simply shows that modern human ancestors in Eurasia were from the East, not Africa. Unlike those researchers, I do not have an agenda to remain within that crumbling OOA paradigm so don't desperately try to 'reconcile with an out-of-Africa expansion. L3 is not an African haplogroup (as the paper indeed supports), as I detail in my Forgotten Exodus book, it arrived during the post-Toba climate migration into East Africa approx 72,000 years ago, the precursor lineage was also non-African.
Of course you don't have to accept a source's conclusions to use it as a source, but if you cite data from a paper while rejecting that paper's conclusions about that data, you need to at least acknowledge you're doing so and should provide a minimal explanation why, even in a video like this. Not doing so misleads viewers by through decontextualizing the data & the source you're citing.
 
#99
It never occurred to me that people would care which crater pictures were used by the producer, you are the only person ever to find an issue with that, maybe it would have been better to use pictures from a crater dated to the correct period but this seems trivial to me.

Problem 1: The NASA paper discounts a hypothesis that I have never suggested, being that the tektites formed as droplets from an ablating object passing through the upper atmosphere.

Problem 2: This is not a problem. Everyone is clear on the current popular consensus hypothesis being the impact ejecta model, yet it is also universally recognised that numerous anomalies persist, many of which do not align with such an impact hypothesis.
That you knew the
That image is not ideal, because it while does highlight NASA research about the origin in space it is tackling the hypothesis of an object passing through the edge of the atmosphere, ablating as it does so and creating the tektites. This was an image selected by the producer, from a list of article I suggested to highlight space origins. I can see that it would have been better to use a different one. The paragraphs highlighted don't dispute an origin in space but they do refute the hypothesis of an object ablating to produce tektites as it passed through our atmosphere - which is not a hypothesis I would support either. The NASA researchers agreed with space origin but they considered various formation models, some were rejected.
The problem isn't that the wrong image was used. The problem is that you directly quote a sentence from the paper in order to claim the paper supports an interpretation it explicitly rejects.

You directly quote a sentence from that NASA paper and say look, NASA studied this and here's evidence that they agree with me. But the author of the paper, the one you claim supports your arguement, very explicitly rejects the claim in the sentence you quote in the same paragraph.

Your use of the NASA paper is completely misleading. Do you have an explanation for how and why this happenned?
 
Of course you don't have to accept a source's conclusions to use it as a source, but if you cite data from a paper while rejecting that paper's conclusions about that data, you need to at least acknowledge you're doing so and should provide a minimal explanation why, even in a video like this. Not doing so misleads viewers by through decontextualizing the data & the source you're citing.
I can see how that might be an issue, compacting down a lot of material to 45 minutes is behind some of the issues, there is only so much explaining that can be fitted in.
 
Top