On this episode of Skeptico, a show about what's going on in space, now? It's what we call a global killer. Nothing would survive, not even bacteria. And as seen straight out of the movie Armageddon, real-life NASA scientists are going to ram a spacecraft into one massive astral. And 788,000 years ago. Again, for this very reason, they understood this appeared to be already glass and to have come from space. So a lot of the NASA guys were arguing this had to be lunar material. That theory collapsed when we retrieved lunar materials and realized it did not mesh. But their argument was very sound. One of the guys actually sort of said, well, look, what about if it came from interplanetary space or somewhere further out? They said, well, that's a problem. No one can tell that seriously, because what's the chances that it ends up in a geocentric orbit? That first clip was from the Today Show. And the second one was from today's guest, Bruce Fenton, who you've heard on this show before. And I can pretty much guarantee you, you will hear from him again. He's doing, I think, just about the most important scientific research into ETUFO, the phenomenon, if you will. Then, well, really just about anyone else I can think of. And I think the reason for that comes through in this interview. Stick around. It's a good one. Welcome to Skeptico, where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. Today, we welcome back Bruce Fenton to Skeptico. Bruce is the author of several books. I pulled up one of them you can find on Amazon, Exogenesis, Hybrid Humans, A Scientific History of Extraterrestular. What's the rest of that? Genetic manipulation. There's a couple other books you're going to want to check out. I won't bother reading all of those into the show, but into Africa, Hybrid Humans. And then Bruce and I a couple years ago, because I met Bruce through Skeptico, and I was so blown away at the quality and importance of this work that I took it upon myself to do a little movie we did and here it is on Prime Video. You can watch it. 780,000 years. Our Alien Origin Story. So go check that out if you want. Bruce gets a couple little pennies if you do. But his work, I just have to give this little bit of introduction, Bruce. And if you've been on the show a couple of times, people can find you a lot of different places. But like where I want to go with this is really help people understand why I think you're one of the top UFO researchers in the world and why I think that is like, makes you one of the top scientists in the world. And I think that's really hard for people to swallow. It sounds like hype. It sounds like, gosh, I've never heard of this guy or this guy's just, you know, he's so minor. You know, how can you say that? Well, let me explain my logic because I think it will play into the show in a couple of important ways. So let's say you're going to take a big picture view of the UFO issue. Biggest possible picture you could take. You'd say, okay, do UFOs exist? Where do they come from? What do they want? Right? So these three would probably be the biggest, biggest questions you could ask. And I would suggest that unless you're willing to really take a stab at answering those questions in a scientific way, then you can't answer all the other questions that seem to dominate this discussion. Disclosure, Lou Elizondo, ATIF, abductions, good ET, bad ET, graze versus lizards, all that stuff, you can't answer unless you answer those big picture questions. Now what I'm leading up to is Bruce, more than anyone I've come in contact with, has directly tried to apply science to those big picture questions. And he does it just brilliantly in this book, but he also does it in his other presentations that he's given and all his papers and stuff like that. So that's what makes this so important is that here's a guy who's scientifically taken a stab at research that directly gets at, even if it doesn't answer all those questions completely, it moves us towards an answer to those questions that can then let us answer those other questions. So what do you think of that, Bruce? I know that's kind of hard to ask you to comment on that, but I think that is in your core when I hear you talk, is that you really are searching for scientific evidence that drills into these big picture questions that we so often just gloss over and assume that we either know them or they're impossible to answer or any of the rest of that. Do you have any comment on that? Yeah, sure.  So it gives me some pause to think to how I would look at it. I see myself certainly as trying to apply the scientific method to extraordinary and anomalous areas of thought, you know, and those little mysteries on the edges of, you know, consensus, understanding of science and consensus culture, if you like, and the anomalies, you know, what appealed to me, you know, those scientific anomalies. So I would say I've been on a journey from probably being quite credulous, like, you know, going to those kind of areas, you know, accepting a lot of conjecture and a lot of strange hypotheses that didn't have much substance to a point where I realized that to really make an impact, you have to be able to explain all of the evidence, you know, all of the different constituent parts of a topic. You have to be able to understand them in a framework broader into where topics link with each other. You have to understand this vast web behind something like, say, human origins or lost parts of history, that you can't just say, look at the pyramid on its own and say, you know, wow, look at that mystery. You have to understand, say, prehistoric cultures, the rise of culture as a civilization, how people could have flowed out of the, you know, original areas where modern humans arose, you know, you start out in this vast matrix, a context for all of these kind of mysteries, and that's where I've been taking to understanding all of these data points and bringing together. And of course, that really is part of the scientific process is to take all of the evidence and find the hypothesis that fits with all of it and explains the outstanding anomalies, right? And that's where I'm at. So I would say, yes, I'm applying science, although I'm not a credentialed scientist. You know, I have an IT diploma. I don't have, you know, a PhD in any of the hard sciences. I'm applying that scientific method now to areas that traditionally have been left as areas of pure speculation, mostly, or have been the focus of, what I'd say, fairly lackluster debunking by scientists who haven't taken the time to really explore all of the evidence, but focus more on the problematic speculative theories that are not there, which are often are quite easily dismissed, quite honestly. So I think I have stood into a kind of a strange niche there where there's very few people that are actually applying the scientific method to seeing whether the strange hypotheses on offer actually make sense rather than just dismissing them or ignoring these topics in entirety. So in the field of anomalous science, yes, I probably am one of the main or top people in that because to be fair, there's not many of us. Bruce, let me interject because here's what I see on your path that I find interesting and I think anyone who appreciates the application of the scientific method by people like yourself is that I see you looking at all these anomalies like you're talking about with these previous books and in your journey with your wife, Danny, who is co-author of these books and is brilliant in her own right and we spoke to Danny when we did the film. But here's what I really like, I get excited about. In this book, Exogenesis Hybrid Humans, you found a case and then you sunk your teeth into it because you found it as a vehicle for tying all these things together. So it's not like you went looking, but I think so few people understand this. I was just listening to an interview you gave and the guy who is this pretty prominent in the UFO community, he just couldn't wrap his head around it because he was so skeptical, not skeptical, but just like, no, that doesn't add up, that doesn't prove it this way. And instead, what I saw is like, no, what Bruce has done is exactly what somebody needs to do. Kind of go through all these little pieces on the ground until you find one piece that really unlocks it and then dig into that piece and keep digging into it and then look at the tectites that flow and look at the silicon and look at how they fall and then trace that back to the time period. So let me see if that resonates with you in terms of this case that really becomes the focus of so much of your work and how important do you think that case is? How different is it? And then, of course, we have to give people a thumbnail sketch and go back and tell them what that case is and how you went about proving it in a scientific way. And I know that's a four-hour thing, but we'll just try and... We'll try and close it down as quick as you can so we can then talk about the new developments that you're bringing us just lately. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's... For me, there is no doubt that the... the case dealt with in exogenesis hybrid humans, you know, this event of 788,000 years ago, approximately, that these events are, without parallel, the most important sets of events that I've personally looked into, you know. So if you're going to go to Beckley-Tepi and Pyramids and, you know, the movements of early humans, they dealt with in my, obviously, previous book, which I think is really important, rewriting Restate of Africa. And people would say, well, that's massive. You know, if you've really done that, that's huge. And I'd say, well, yeah, that's quite important, but it's nothing on this. So that gives perhaps some kind of scale as to how big I think it is. And people in, certainly the sciences would say, well, rewriting Restate of Africa, you know, that's paradigm changing, that's massive. I now realise that compared to what I'm doing at the moment, that's inconsequential. You know, yes, it's interesting, but it doesn't really change who we are as a species or really where we've come from. You know, it's an interesting change to the story. But I think what I'm dealing with now is something that, you know, changed the way we view ourselves and changed the way we view the entire arc of human history from the very beginning of, you know, the species that gave rise to homo sapiens onwards. I can't really think of a human-centric story that would be bigger than that.  But if you look at human beings, then this story for me is the biggest one imaginable. It's the entire arc of what made us us, what was the environment like for us, what was happening at the beginning of our story that makes all of this begin, you know, and of course that has ripple effects all the way down to now. It's actually related to a lot of the extraordinary phenomena, such as earthquakes, UFOs, aliens, experiences, people are claiming they're having with alien-type intelligence. All of that stuff links back into this story. The other thing I would interject because it even goes further than that if we could even say that or that does something. But it also kind of sets the clock a little bit, both in terms of, which is super important to say, okay, now the scale, we have to start looking at things 788,000 years ago. Boom! So it's a different perspective on, you know, what we're worried about today and disclosure and this, you're like, wait a minute, we have to look at a completely different time scale. But the other thing that resetting the clock does in a very kind of amazing way, but also kind of a scary way, is it resets where we are in that timeline. So we are at the verge of really using silicone to develop not only computers, but maybe a craft. You know, we're on the edge of that. We're on the edge of genetic transhumanism, you know, this and that. So even if we look at our history that we've recorded, you know, 1,000 years, 2,000 years, 5,000 years, whatever you think we have recorded in history, now your work puts that into a frame of reference that is exciting and also uncomfortable because it says you are at the cusp of something that... Do you get what I'm saying? What do you think about that? Yeah. I think the phrase that comes to mind is, you know, history never repeats, but it certainly rhymes because I think that we are in 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 flavour of events. So we're not necessarily going right back to the beginning of a human story, but we're seeing things that were recurring at the beginning of the story, occurring now as we reach a kind of a transition point for humans again. So we're dealing with a very ancient human transition point, and now we can see elements of it are mirrored today as we enter another kind of transition point for human beings. And, you know, as you say, the indications of the same kind of technologies that I'm looking at in my work, we're seeing now coming into view again from human hands, you know, again, because obviously I deal with your silica-based technologies, your AI, modifying beings using technologies, all of these things that, you know, I tackle there, we can see these are becoming really pointy and central issues today. You know, of course, we've got warnings that AI probably represents the biggest existential threat to humans per start, which, you know, can feel like Elon Musk, who, you know, is involved in that. So, you know, we've almost missed the boat on trying to deal with that, because it's got to a point where the Pandora's box is open, nearly all of the greatest minds that are coming out of university today are going into these fields, into AI and into the technology fields, right? So, there's an exponential increase in how fast that topic is going to, you know, move forward now, because it's no longer the case of it's something people saw as a background field. Now it's really the front of technology and a front of, is this idea of, you know, AI doing everything right? The exact same thing is true when you get into genetics and even when you, particularly when you look at, hey, take genetics, take globalism, one world government, really? So, on a political level, you know, if you start thinking along the thinking that exogenesis brings us, then you start asking questions like, well, how much sense does it make to have 146 governments on a planet versus one group? So, that's it.  So, we take, like, it's not just about, you know, the genetic modification and cloning and stuff like that. It's about this whole burst of technological innovation surrounding genetics. And again, I'm not putting any value judgment on that for purposes of this conversation. What I'm doing is really taking your work and saying, how does your work give us a different perspective? Demand. How does it demand that we take a different perspective on all of that? Well, there's a couple of ways. But one thing I'd highlight there is, you know, if we look at the way that technologies are mixing with each other, they're flowing to each other and depend on each other. I mean, we can see now that the military machine, you know, is very caught up with the AI developments as well. There's always been talk for years now of AI generals. I mean, people don't understand what's happening here. But we're moving towards AI that will be in control of drone weapons, hypersonic crafts. And at the same time, who do people think that it's going to be running the genetic engineering? Do they really think that's humans? No. So, we're going to have AI doctors, AI scientists, AI genetic engineering, right? So, AI that's in charge of re-engineering humans, controlling our warfare, right? And essentially running all of our resources under this one-world government. So, you're almost kind of engineering this God-like AI, right? So, there's this spiritual dimension to it that it's, you know, we are the juicest machine idea, you know, that it's God from the machine, right? And it's going to be doing all of this stuff. And as you arc back to 788,000 years ago and obviously the work I've been doing, we have this kind of story of what seems to be, you know, an AI that is connected to the beginnings of humans, the engineering, genetic engineering of humans is linked into a story of that and warfare. You know, so we have that kind of repeating theme. So, though it's not saying, is that consuming happening? Because we're dealing with what seems to be an external AI rather than a human engineered AI. But again, it's this, there's a resonance here, this idea of super intelligences that are able to come in and, you know, calculate what they think is best for humans, modify us, change the planet, control resources here and, you know, conduct warfare potentially. And so I think we are seeing an interlinking between the beginning and what could be the end, at least an end of this chapter of humanity involving these super intelligences and the interlinking between technologies, between these AIs, genetic engineering, planetary control, warfare. So that's where I see it being very important. So we get this warning from the past and an understanding that just the direction that this is going in, I think it can make us maybe, maybe rethink and take a moment of pause before we, you know, steam ahead. Well, we'll see about that because there's a couple of different ways to interpret the story. But I guess in typical skeptical fashion, we've jumped right to the inside baseball stuff, which is great, love it, wouldn't do it any other way. But maybe a better pullback and give people the five minute thumbnail sketch of what happened, how this research came to be.  So the first part of this is, you know, I stumbled on a set of claims. So if people aren't familiar with this, you know, there was a set of claims made back in the early 1990s of an interaction between an Aboriginal elder with Jerry Bostock and an English origin lady in Australia called Valerie Barrow, who had an interaction with what's considered to be a sacred Aboriginal artifact called a charinga.  Most people would discount immediately, so which I'll understand, but we'll come to why they shouldn't. And this artifact seemingly was able to transfer information, a kind of a history of humanity. And these would be traditionally, these are an artifact they're kept. There's a holy of holies, a sacred of sacred, you know, away from the regular people in the indigenous tribes that have law around charingas. And there's a few dotted around Uluru area. There's several different, you know, nations that have a history relating to these things. And they say that they were left here in the beginning time in what we'd think of as the dream time, or they call it the charinga time, or the our charinga time, sorry. And so these charingas linked to this al-charinga time and al-charinga beings who were involved in the creation of animals, humans, parts of the landscape. So a kind of, you know, terraformers, genetic engineers that are non-human intelligence that were here long ago and left these artifacts. Now they say that these artifacts are in some way alive, that they are actually these al-charinga beings transformed into these permanent bodies. So small, portable kind of silica artifacts. Before you go there, because it's great, to just kind of set this up, because you said this before, but the story is so dense and so important. You were predisposed to become super interested in this and then predisposed to unpeel the onion in the layers that you did, because you had this incredible background where you had been exploring these anomalies all over the world, and you had other kind of non-ordinary experiences that kind of pushed you along that, and we don't have time to go into all those, but just briefly, you know, you are predisposed to when you hear this, and this is also published in a book later on to pursue it. So just cover that real briefly, because it's important. Yeah, no, that's right, because I mean, a lot of people would simply disregard that immediately, right? So unless you have some reason to think that such a series of events could be possible, you probably would go no further than that, right? It'd just be this strange story that you heard and maybe poo poo it, but because I've had, yeah, years and years of, first of all, an interest in ancient mysteries, the anomalies of science, so supernormal experiences, you know, the whole gamut of strange phenomena. You know, first of all, I'm very interested in any account that has elements like that, but secondly, I've had a lot of my own very strange experiences, including, you know, psychic phenomena and anomalous kinds of events that makes me predisposed to listen to people. And I don't necessarily believe word for word, everything someone tells me, you know, if they tell me a strange experience, but I look at it as I believe that they believe something extraordinary has happened to them. You know, if they have a compelling way of delivering it, you know, and the story sounds like it could be real, I give people the benefit of the doubt. But of course, to actually take it on very seriously, I want some evidence, right? So, you know, then to move from, I believe you believe, and that's your interpretation of the event, to actually, I think this is quite accurate. You know, there's another transition that's to occur, but certainly for me to even take it seriously, you know, I think it's been important to have gone through that journey.  She worked as a professional psychic, you know, on the phone, so people say, you know, cold reading, you can't cold read people on phones, and you know, for emails, stuff with accurate, you know, information. And also, she's done that for me. So, and I have my own experiences with mediumship. I trained for a short period as a spiritual medium and have had some sort of psychical experiences. So, what sounds like kind of telepathic type experience in this, you know, a transfer of information from some kind of intelligence to the mind of this individual, for me, is believable because I've had experiences where there's been a transfer of information to my mind from either other people or from other intelligences. So, I can understand these things happen, you know, no matter how strange they sound. Awesome. So, now I want to pick back up on the story because, again, Bruce, this is an awesome conversation. I love these kind of conversations. I don't know if people can follow it. I just have to do it the way that seems to organically spring to mind. There's such an interesting crossover point here because you're talking about, one, you're talking about shamanic experiences that the Aboriginal Native people in Australia are having. And then, but you're also then, and you're talking about your own experiences of communication in this extended consciousness realm that doesn't involve technology, but then what you're introducing us to as well is the possibility that in this case, this communication, this non-ordinary communication, we have to be open to the possibility that it is technology-driven. So, there's a real interesting crossover point, but jump over to that other side and tell us why you are willing to speculate that this particular Charinga communication had a technology basis to it. Sure, the thing that he stood out to me is that there is in the field of sort of space sciences, there's been a lot of speculative thinking on what would we look for from an alien intelligence? What might they be doing that we could kind of find some compelling evidence of them? And one of the suggestions is that, out there, intelligence is maybe exploring the cosmos using their technologies. The same way that we are just beginning to, we want to send out solar sails and we're sending out micro probes the size of mobile phones is a new plan to explore planets and oceans. So, we can imagine that there's probably civilizations out there that have done similar things and if they've had enough time that they could send quite advanced robots and AI probes and all the rest out into space running their own kind of search for extraterrestrial intelligence, utilizing these autonomous robots, autonomous AI. Now this is, of course, speculative but it makes a lot of sense. So, we have a class of objects they call sort of Bracewell probes for the scientist. Bracewell, I think it's Ronald Bracewell. There's also the von Neumann probes which can be from any von Neumann. A lot of people say von Neumann was linked into the UFO program and into very deep black projects as well connected to the idea of there being some kind of intelligence interacting with us which is quite compelling, interesting in itself. But these two guys both theorize that there may be these kind of autonomous AI probes that could go out, explore the universe would be essentially immortal, maybe even have this what we call self-repair, a von Neumann self-repair so they can fix themselves if they're damaged, mine, planet services, build more copies of themselves. All sorts of ideas around this kind of Bracewell probes idea. Now, there's also a particular class of Bracewell probe that's called a sentinel probe and so these would be sent out to sit either on a surface of a planet or perhaps in orbit and could record any information, record anything that's happening in the biosphere. So if we detect an interesting planet with a biosphere say, let's say for example like Earth, Earth has had a visible, detectable oxygen signature for two billion years. So if anyone's out there is looking for biospheres that oxygen signature would be really interesting. So we can imagine many civilizations sending probes towards Earth over two billion years. That's plenty of time. So for any of the skeptics say, oh, it's a long way. Two billion years is a long time. So there's been plenty of time for these probes to arrive here. A Bracewell sentinel probe then could just sit and wait and if a civilization, if life evolves and a civilization forms that these could be, in theory, instructed to eventually make contact with a civilization and act as the mystery of the original alien civilization. That sounds kind of sci-fi, but it's also a lot, you know, logic to a sense and we can kind of see ourselves humans heading in the direction of doing these kinds of projects ourselves, right? When we're not far off doing this. So when you then hear about an artifact, sort of silica, small artifact, I mean, it's linked to the idea at the beginning of times, very ancient. You're sitting there, you know, somewhere in Australia and it activates and makes contact with people and starts telling them, in fact, one of the theories is that these things might have a whole history of humanity and that when they make contact, share this with us. And so when you hear a story where that's exactly what happens, that's kind of like the alarm bells should start ringing. Also, let me go back and make sure we... And we add to the fact of the mythology. Air quotes on that one. Surrounded with this object, it is sacred of sacred. The other thing you said, super interesting that I think relates to this story, maybe in a way that we'll get to, is that don't tell everybody about this because they won't get it. Is that, again, when you said rhyme, does that rhyme with our current age when we have people who think the world is flat? We have people that drive around in their car by themselves with a mask on. People, there's a gulf that's getting wider and wider between people who are able to kind of process this kind of advanced knowledge and sort it out and those who just can't. And so I'd wonder from... One from a... You could kind of take the whole thing as mythology, but also from a practical standpoint, wouldn't that be the way that you would handle advanced information? You'd say, look, you know, kind of be careful who you share this with kind of thing and that's the story that comes along with this object. Yeah, yeah. I mean, and we live in a time where Carl Sagan kind of warned of with a population that has been essentially dumbed down and is no longer everyone, but the direction of travel is the dumbing down of the population and so they have scientific illiteracy and so that they no longer stand the technologies that are being brought out and that that suits the political elite, that suits the governing elite because that allows for anyone who does understand these things to come along and take control and to manipulate and take advantage. So we're in a situation where a very small number of people would really understand what the capabilities of our technologies are and this direction of travel and how this sort of scenario would make sense. So a lot of people just say, oh, you know, absolutely bonkers, but there would be people sitting in, you know, black projects and in top universities who absolutely are looking for these things, you know, thinking that's what we should be seeing. Let me just interject one more point because I think this is also where this important research that you're doing takes us because if we are going to use this as a way to step back and reexamine everything, I think I immediately go to the evil black budget government kind of thing and I say, okay, but really isn't that a natural consequence of what you would have to do, right? You have this gulf, like you're saying the dumbing down. Forget about dumbing down. I don't know that there really is that evidence that we've been significantly dumbed down, particularly if you look at a longer lens of history. You know, we're certainly much more advanced than people 100 years ago, 200 years ago. Maybe this is, again, the timeline thing, maybe this is the natural progression and maybe the natural progression is that gap just gets larger and larger and in order to effectively protect civilization, you naturally go to black budget secret projects and hit and, you know, forget democracy just kind of ruled by the elites kind of thing. I'm not saying I want that. I'm not saying I vote in favor of that. I'm saying, doesn't this research cause us to maybe say, wow, how did they do it? How would we do it differently kind of thing? Do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, it's just the angular, how could we have a bare model and, you know, is that the best model for humanity? Because, you know, I do recognize, and again, from researching widely, you know, in a multi-disciplinary kind of fashion that not all human brains are the same. Now, there's no, you can't say there's any racial group or something of this different, but we know now that across the board you have neurodiversity, right? You know, I'm a person with dyslexia and asperger traits, so I'm not the same as someone who doesn't have dyslexia. There are differences, you know, intellectual differences, because of structures in the brain. There are people who are more capable of big picture thinking and of understanding the interlinking of subject. Now, if some of those people decided that perhaps they felt they knew best and maybe in some ways they did know better than a lot of people, you could imagine how they might work together to try and run the world in a certain way where they genuinely feel that they were uniquely qualified and capable to do it because they can see there are people who are incapable of that level of big picture thinking. Now, it doesn't mean they've got it right, but the underlying idea is actually kind of logical and makes sense. I can definitely see how it happens. I can understand how networks of people form, you know, and we have this kind of secret societies where they carry information that they feel most people won't make use of and won't even understand, but there at some point will be invaluable to their networks, and so it's transitioned through to now and as things change in our society, they can refer to that and say, well, that's useful now. We have the technology to make use of that and that could help form the world in a certain way that we think is for the best for the species, right? Now, the best for the species doesn't mean very nice things for all the individuals and that's the problem. You end up in a situation where, you know, it's a bit like a spot when you say, you know, for the greater good, you know, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, right? And that's really problematic. Morally, that's really problematic, because what about the few? Aren't they equally important as the many? And so, you know, you end up with this thing of it.  And I think that's the situation we're in. It is complex. I don't like to think about that, that these people may generally think they're doing the best and because they feel they're uniquely qualified. I just, and that that's also true from a scientific perspective and a lot of people I think who are uber-logical, rational and super smart can get to the same place. Just interviewed Dr. Dean Raiden. Love Dr. Dean Raiden. So respect his work. He's been on this show for 15 years and he comes on and he gives the transhumanism speech. He's the guy who more than anyone else has kind of exposed the consciousnesses and allusion, conspiracy, materialist science. You know, he, his experiments, six Sigma results replicated around the world completely dispel that, but where does he come to at the end?  Maybe that's not such a bad thing. And I played that and I was like, Dean, Dean, what are you saying? How, you know, but so the point is whether you agree with Dean or whether you don't agree with Dean and I don't agree with Dean for a lot of other reasons that what were to make of this from a spiritual level I think has to come into play. But the point is super smart guy, super plugged in guy has gotten millions and probably hundreds of millions of dollars behind him for this latest startup that he's doing that will actually operationalize genetic engineering through the jab, through a different jab, but a jab that will make you more psychic that will give you a hive mind. This is not, this is not sci-fi folks. Go listen to the interview and go look at the fact that the guy is it and move from Northern California to Boise, to Boise, Idaho to join forces with another guy who's been doing this research and they have a biogenetic startup. I mean, this is what we're talking about here, Bruce, how this stuff intersects. So with that, let's leap back into the story.  How do you go about switching hats, putting on your science hat and say, wait a minute, here's something I can sink my teeth into as a scientist.  Now, that's personally compelling, but if you're going to go out and then say to people, this extraordinary thing really happened. I mean, that takes a whole different level of supporting evidence and knowledge of a topic area because of course you're going to at some point have to stand and defend your claims against someone who is an expert in some of the topics that you're dealing with, you know, in a level where, you know, they've maybe spent 20 years looking at, say, whether it's genetics, whether it's tech types, somebody who's spent their career on that. Now, at some point they're going to say, hang on a minute, what's on earth is he saying? So unless you have a very, very deep knowledge, you realize that you're only going to kind of bring on board the most open-minded people who really already kind of thought the same thing as you, right? They were already convinced, like, yeah, but we totally agree. I always knew it was that. Well, haven't you really convinced someone then if they always knew it was that, or they just think he's come on board with me now. So I really had to realize that that's not good enough to have those people come on board because they don't need any evidence from you really. So to get to those other people who would benefit from that understanding and who you feel it would be important to have them look at it, you need to be able to drill down and find, okay, so where is the most solid evidence that supports my convictions or my direction of thinking? And that took really deep dive going into dozens and dozens of scientific studies on these topics, ranging from particularly on the tech topic, but yes, in genetic engineering, the genetics of human beings, you know, paleogenomics, then of course into, you know, look reading papers on AI, you know, the theories of these bracelet probes. Keep pulling you in these other directions and don't give you a chance to kind of give this thumbnail sketch that I know people, hey, if you're not familiar with this work, sorry, you got to go read the book, which you got to do, and then you got to go watch the video that we did and then this is like the next level kind of stuff and I'm not going to apologize for that, but thumbnail sketch remind people the three things you decided to focus on, because again, as a scientist, even knowing what questions to ask is so important, so difficult to do. So you said, okay, here are three things that I might, should be able to find if they're real, if I'm going to test my own theory in a way that you just said I could really convince people, what are the three? Give us at the highlight before we go into them, dive into them. Sure, absolutely. So amongst the claims from this account were this idea that they're first of all, they'd been an enormous craft, a silica AI craft, a conscious craft that had arrived here hundreds of thousands of years ago and that had been destroyed in orbit, showering down molten silica material across the planet. So that stood out as like, that's big, that's a big event. There could be some traces of that. So that was like number one. The second one was there was an account of there being an engineered multi-directional asteroid bombardment. So kind of almost like a planetary, re-engineering the system of planets on that scale. It's multiple objects hitting the planet's surface. But while that surely also was going to leave some traces that we can find in geological records. And lastly, this idea that human beings had an ancestor that had been genetically re-engineered again in the same period. So all of these things also happening tightly in time, not just in space on this planet. Important point to interject here. These three points and a bunch of other stuff is time stamped from the Charinga into a book that is published that people can go back and look at the original publication data. I think it's 2003, explain that because I kind of skipped you pulled you off of that story. But we have a time stamp of saying, okay, this is the information that came through from the Bracewell probe through the head of Valerie Burrow, right? 2003, right? And it lays it all out. Exactly. So people can go and they can read it. El Charinga, when the first ancestors were created and say, yes, it's been out there since 2003. So it's not just something that's been verbally shared and that would be hard to confirm that this was actually said long ago. So it's out there. And that's important too. Because of course, people can say, well, you know, could be just fitting this story to recent discoveries, right? And that somebody just, oh, come on, I can make a story about that and do some conferences also. Which absolutely, I would understand those kinds of accusations. But because we have it already out there, you know, published, we're able to say, well, this account is describing things that a person, well, if they're real, the person couldn't know by conventional means. Say that, because for example, this multi-directional asteroid bombardment, yes, there is an event like that, but it wasn't known until 2016. So that straight away is problematic for people that say, oh, they're just basing a story around known events. Well, that wasn't a known event. We also have, well, one of the interesting things is that in the book, there's no mention of, you know, ostrich-like textiles that I focus on. So again, it's not fitting to somebody's narrative. There's a description of a craft, there's material. And what I found, which isn't mentioned, you know, is that the guess, there is this debris that fits the description. So again, it's not someone else has made a story saying these textiles were from across, you know, I found that they mesh with the description. And the timing. And then of course this genetic engineering part, which in some ways is the most difficult to confirm because, you know, we are at a point where genetics and evolution are not fully understood. So someone could say, well, maybe there's just some process we don't understand, okay, which I accept. But there are anomalies, which are indicative of engineering in the past at around that same time, because that's when the ancestors of Neanderthals, denizens and us have significant changes going on in the genome that change the brain, massively change our brain structure. Right. So that's having the same time. So we have these three things all having the same time that are indicated in this account. Okay. And here's where it gets even more super interesting because there's some new science.  You're constantly reading papers. You're constantly taking in new information. You're testing it against the theory. And one of the things you alerted me to is that, hey, Alex, I have looked into the tech type thing and boom, there's some new information that I want to share and it's more up to date. Similarly, we're going to talk in a minute about the human acceleration regions and the genetics associated with that. Again, new information has come forward that has changed that timeline in the way that we understand it. It happens to totally fit in your theory. So we're going to talk about both of those, the basics of it and then the new science of it. Let's start with the tech types. Yeah, absolutely. So we have been working on a paper about the tech types for quite a while now. What I realized is that to make an argument that something really extraordinary has happened. First of all, what is the strongest area of evidence that we have out of these different topic areas? My realization was it was in this tech type machine. I feel that I'm familiar with tech types. Tech types are a kind of melt glass. Now, there's a few kinds of melt glass. You have, of course, you have impact glasses, which you find around asteroid craters, which I may be familiar with. We have, of course, volcanic glasses, and then you have human-made glasses. I mean, this is kind of like lightning glasses, like Fulgurites, but they're quite different. Tech types are a particularly strange type of glass because although they are generally held to be a type of asteroid impact glass, they are far more alike to volcanic glasses and artificial glasses. And there's a number of reasons. I'll give a very quick overview of why. And this is why this tech type topic remains a mystery and controversial with ongoing discussion around how tech types formed. And that's 200 years this has been going on. Just to be clear, 200 years the tech type subject has been debated with different points of view on the story of how they formed and how they are distributed. Now, the distribution is interesting because they are found in strewn fields. Enormous fields of debris stretching for hundreds or thousands of kilometers. In the case of the Australasian strewn field, we are talking about a debris field that is around 12,000 kilometers long, going from China to Antarctica. And out of the edges to Madagascar and out into the ocean beyond Papua, about another 10,000 kilometers across or something. So it's about 20% of the Earth's surface is covered in these Australasian tech types. First of all, it's enormous. So we're talking about an event that is just massive in scale. And these tech types have two really important considerations. The first thing is that they are very homogenous. The chemicals in them are very well mixed throughout the entire body of the material across all of that distance. The second thing is they're very well-fined. And people that are familiar with glass making the process of glass is so removing the bubbles and removing the chemicals you don't want in there. So you heat it to a certain temperature over a certain period of time, certain chemicals. So you mix it, you allow the bubbling, and you end up with these high-quality glasses. A similar process happens with volcanic glass because it's heated in a caldera over a period of time. So again, homogenous material. How does that differ from what we'd find from an asteroid? Sure. Asteroid glasses are typically very foamy.  And the reason why is because when an asteroid impacts, you'll find the same nuclear blast sites. If anyone's familiar with nuclear blast glasses, they're very similar to asteroid impact glasses for the same reason. Very quick events. High energy, high pressure events, but short lived. So you get a lot of material melted. But around the edges, first of all, you get a lot of bubbles in it because it heats very quick, then it cools very fast. So the bubbles are trapped, right? And so if anyone wants to look up images, they'll find images that are very bubbly. The other thing is they contain part melt. So pieces of partially melted stone, right? Makes sense. At the edge of the blast zone, you get part melt. You have inclusions of unmelted stone or sand. You also get inclusions of organic material, i.e. soils, right? So that's a kind of a typical. Also, the glass is almost identical chemically to the crater rock because it's just the crater melt. So it's almost instinctive. And you will find that blast around the crater and usually to a maximum of 400 kilometers from the crater. Right? And that's because when anything explodes, no matter how fast that material leaves, it's about hypervelocity debris. We call distal ejector, right? So when this material is thrown out of the crater, no matter how fast it's going, it falls by around 400 kilometers. The reason for that is because the air ahead of it is being compressed. So it's dealing with friction, gravity, and obviously the air that's compressing ahead of it.  This is a similar kind of scenario. No matter how fast it's going, it's meeting that opposition and it will be slowed and it will drop to not much further than 400 kilometers. Some scientists estimate maybe a thousand. So compared to a huge giant small moon-sized spaceship that is orbiting the Earth and is hit by some kind of high-energy weapon that we can't begin to understand, how does what you find fit that completely ridiculous to a lot of people but potential scenario? How does it fit? Well, there's two things. Two things I have to say. You can look at this. The most conservative conclusion of my work, I would suggest, is that you're dealing with an interstellar object, an unknown type of interstellar object. Okay? So some people may be only willing to go as far as that. But the indications are that this has to be a glassy object, right? A highly silica glassy object. In other words, it appears it was already made of glass. Find homogenous glass before it exploded. Because as you just described, if it's made of a bunch of other stuff, then we're going to find all that other stuff in the tectites, right? Also, yeah. And if the tectites are homogenous and well-fined and they didn't have time for that to occur, because they're not in a cold era. They're not in an industrial plant being heated for hours. So this infers that there was not time for the body to be melted into a fine, homogenous glass. So we should be seeing frothy, foamy, poorly mixed materials, but we're not. So the inference is that the parent body, whatever it was, was already made of glass, like homogenous, fine glass.  There's no comets or asteroids or anything like that. No, in our solar system. You have to go to either an exotic interstellar object that's natural. But again, you have to explain how that's formed, right? Or the more compelling argument is somebody has made this. This is find homogenous materials. Somebody has find it. Somebody has mixed it. Somebody has made it. And the problem is with the interstellar object hypothesis. Again, this is a couple of guys back in the days at NASA who kind of asked the question, could this parent body be at least an interplanetary object? At the time, the two positions where it was lunar, like lunar volcanic glass, they've been blown off of the moon. Again, for this very reason that they understood this appeared to be already glass and to have come from space. So a lot of the NASA guys were arguing this had to be lunar material. That theory collapsed when we retrieved lunar materials and realized it did not mesh with lunar rock, right? But their argument was very sound. One of the guys actually sort of said, well, look, what about if it came from interplanetary space or somewhere further out? They said, well, that's a problem. No one can tell that seriously because what's the chances, and first of all, there's an object like that, but also that it ends up in a geocentric orbit. So then you start getting to this really strange, what's the chances that we're going to capture? There's a anomalous object and it's going to come in at just the right speed and angle to be caught in a geocentric orbit. How do you know it was orbiting? So two questions, Ron. How do you know it was orbiting? More science there that you know. But the other thing that you alluded to, I want to make sure we highlight it. You say these NASA guys were debating it. Again, this speaks to what you were saying before. 200-year-old mystery. You tie reference NASA papers where these scientists are speculating about the very thing that you're studying. So this is like that part of it is mainstream. The mystery is mainstream. The data that you're using is mainstream, verifiable. So then I just want people to understand that. Orbit. How do we know it's orbiting, Bruce? Right. We know it's orbiting because, and there's a couple of reasons. If you imagine a comet, something comes in from space. Let's say we thought that this was some sort of glassy comet that came in from space. Now, if it comes directly in and breaks up in our atmosphere, you end up with a very small strewn field underneath. Because it will just break up. It will just rain down directly beneath where it's coming in. Or an impact. As we touched on, there's a problem with the impact theory. But if we say that it broke up coming into the atmosphere, you would end up with, I think they estimate, it's something like that 10-kilometre-wide field, or something like that. Very small. But what we've got is a 10,000-kilometre-wide field. So the only way that this works out is if we have a body that has been captured and is in orbit, and then it breaks apart, fragments, and at a high temperature. Because it has to basically sort of blown up, it's melted to liquid. We know it was melted to liquid, because the tech tights begin before they enter atmosphere. These tech tights, the separate pieces, are spherical and have frozen very quickly. So fast that there's no crystallization has occurred. That would occur if there was an extended cooling. So we know the only place where that's really going to happen is in a vacuum. So if you get this material is melted to, superheated to glass at 2,700 Kelvin, roughly. And then it becomes glass droplets. They form spheres because they're in space. So that's when the NASA guys are looking at the same route. That has to be that. They can see that the tech tight buttons, which are a particular type of these tech tights, then show secondary melting with aerodynamic shaping. So it's another. These have skipped along the edge of the atmosphere, angles almost horizontal to the plane of the planet. So very, very gentle angles, skipping along and then slowly entering, which allows time for heating of the front of the sphere. There's a lot of the sphere evaporates, but the front edge begins to run backwards and you get these aerodynamic shapes. They look like front of bullets almost, because you get aerodynamic shapes, right? So they could understand that these had to, to be on these gentle angles. The only way that you'd end up with that is if the parent body is in orbit. And what you have really is a debris field that is continuing on in the orbital parts of the parent body, but they're now entering decaying orbital parts because it's fragmented, it's blown apart, and some of them are now gently skipping along the edge of the atmosphere and entering. If you come in at any other angles, for example, if you think of a normal meteorite, when it comes in, coming super fast from space, first of all, and what you get is absolutely extreme heating of the outer surface, it evaporates. And that's what you get these, and they just come down almost the same shapes they were. There's chunks, you know, misshapen chunks. There's no aerodynamic shaping on meteorites. They come in so fast that all that happens is the outer layer evaporates. And that's why these button tech types are unique. You don't find them anywhere else. And that's an important point. In the 4.6 billion years of history, these are the only known examples, right? So if these were just from any old meteorites, you would see these all over the planet, right? At various sites. You don't, you find them once. And so the NASA guys ran their experiments at the NASA Ames Research Lab. They did wind tunnel research using artificial glass spheres to see how you could shape these. And they found that they had to come in around about about 10 to 14 kilometers per second and at angles, also at 90 degree angles, roughly, and that you would end up with this kind of shaping. So all that research was done by the NASA guys, right? They worked out this had to be coming in from something in orbit when it broke up. None of the other maths works, you know? I don't have to do the maths, thankfully. They've done all that. And they found that that is the only scenario where you end up with these tech type buttons. What do we know? And do we know anything new about the timing? And again, this is like, you've already mentioned this point. It's very basic. But when I heard this interview you did where the guy was totally hung up on this, you're looking to falsify the narrative. That's what you're really doing. And people mistakenly look that you're looking to a cherry pick and retrofit into it. And you're doing the opposite.  And then what comes out in terms of the date of the tech types and what's come out more recently? Yeah, I mean, this first says, well, in the original account, you know, Valerie Barrow, actually, she suggested she feels that the debris from this craft is moldivite tech types. So it's still tech types. But if I was going to be cherry picking and just trying to establish this narrative, I would be trying to argue that moldivites fit the story, right? And they're trying to make the science fit that somehow these are the right age and the right characteristic. But I didn't find that. And it did not fit because the dating on them is millions of years old. But with the Australasian tech types, the most recent dating is done by the Argon dating method. So geological dating methods, they've come to what is considered now the most accurate dating of 788,000 years ago that this glass formed. You know, this melt occurred to this glass. So don't tell you how the parent object is, but it tells you when that melting occurred, the form these individual tech types. So that's as it stands is the most accurate dating. Again, not done by me. This is obviously done by people with labs that can do Argon dating. So as ever, I rely on that. So that's where we have the dating. So that's quite solid. Unless they somehow are contested. But even if you look at the older datings, they're all somewhere in that range. Certainly in the last few years, the datings have been done around 780,000 years. Of course, when we were talking before, I was saying 780,000, but the most accurate dating now is 788,000. Excellent. So anything else on the tech types before we move to the genetic stuff, which is super fascinating. Yeah. I mean, the first one says that, you know, in many ways the tech type area of this can be quite easily just disconnected from the whole story for people that don't like, you know, stories of people's anecdotal accounts of having told something had happened. You know, I for the tech type part is a standalone topic. Because at this point, I don't really care as such whether or not people believe in whether or not an elder, you know, and a lady had an encounter with an object. They can sign themselves. But what I can say to them is tech types are an existing scientific mystery that has survived. That's a mystery for 200 odd years with the greatest minds thrown at it. Masses, facilities are used to explore them. It's a genuine persisting mystery. And the evidence points to this being from an anomalous type of object exploding in orbit. Now, I don't really care whether people want to believe in talking probes or, you know, elders having past, you know, if that is a problem for someone, I would say, well, just look at this tech type partner on its own and go from there. Because I'm so confident in the kind of the level of evidence to at least, and again, most conservative conclusion, at least support the argument that it is an interstellar object with an anomalous composition breaking up in orbit. That, you know, I'm quite happy for somebody, if they stop there and just say, well, that in itself is massive. Even if they go no further than that, because that's an entire new class of objects. And the earliest known example of an interstellar, you know, object arriving here, and it's doing strange things. So that's why I'd suggest to anyone who doesn't want to go there with any of the other elements, just ponder that for a moment. And by all means, check, check everything I'm saying. Look at the papers. You know, if you have a question, ask me. How about that? You know, some of the most important research we could possibly do. And you can ask them a question. That's just fantastic. Let's talk about human accelerated regions. Sure. So I mean, I personally think that, you know, the genomic seti aspect in the story is absolutely fascinating and amazing. Something we should definitely be going into. And a few years ago, and just before I preface it a little bit, a few years ago, I'm not sure exactly when, I managed to get a question put to Seth Shostak. I think most people, if you're into these topics, have probably heard of Seth Shostak. You know, he's seti, he's seti foundation's most senior astronomer. And so, you know, he's often the voice of seti, you know. So I managed to get a question put to him by Mick West, the famous kind of UFO debunker on his radio show. And I thought that was kind of amazing. He's been part of my story at all. So Mick asked him, what he thought are basically genomic seti, which is investigating genomics to see if there is any evidence of genetic manipulation and any organism on this planet. And he kind of just confirms what I already knew. He says, yes, you know, Professor Paul Davies, an esteemed kind of astrophysicist, mathematician has said for years, yes, we could do this. And maybe there's, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but you know, saying that, yes, this is worthwhile doing and that it's easy, it's cheap. It could probably be done by a graduate student in a couple of weeks. And then the bit that everyone should be thinking, well, why haven't you done it? I mean, these people have had millions of dollars, right? Spent on radio astronomy and they've got nowhere with it. Nothing has come out of that in terms of finding evidence of aliens. And he's sitting there and he has the full face to say they could have got some grad student to do this project over a couple of weeks. Let's be honest, no costs. Because how many people, how many grads, Alex, if you think of esteemed voices like Paul Davies and Seth Shostak reached out to the community of scientists and said, we just need a couple of grad students to go over the literature and see if there's any anomalies in genetics that might indicate possible tampering in the past. They would have had thousands of people offering to do that. This relates back to the point we were talking about earlier and it probably seemed incredibly tangential to people, but you've just made it relevant, which is that once you probe deeper like you have, then everything looks different. And in particular, what all that looks like is as a social engineering, mind control, misinformation, disinformation, distraction campaign. It's not real for all the reasons that you just said. It's because it's very doable science. It could be done so the fact that it isn't done can only mean one thing, that there's a purpose behind it not being done. Right? It makes you look that way at it because it's so, to anyone listening to that, it's so glaring for someone like that to say that and then it took not being done. Saying, yeah, it's reasonable. Yes, we've talked about it, but nobody's done it. I mean, that should make everyone question what the hell is going on in this search for extraterrestrial intelligence then. If there's simple projects being ignored. Let me make sure we frame this up correctly. We're talking about kind of this third element, this third leg of evidence that could support the Charinga kind of thing. So one of the things is that there's this big bombardment. We really didn't talk about number two. You mentioned it in passing that you couldn't have known about the bombardment of the asteroids in the war, which we'll talk about maybe last because I think that's super important too in terms of culture, in terms of good ET, bad ET, save the planet. And now what does this story tell us? No, that quickly goes away when we have petty differences between thiefdoms, which doesn't that again resonate with, talk about rhyming with history. How many times have we seen that?   I want him out of there. I want me to dominate, right? And now that's ringing true 780,000 years ago. So I'm going to put that aside for a minute because we opened up the genetics thing. What is the information from the Charinga that were the basic story, the narrative that we're going to try and find if there's any basis for? In this very narrow time window now, because we're at 780,000 years, it has to be in 780,000 years. What is the it that has to be in 780,000 years? So what they describe is that there are some crew on this AI craft. That's what they're saying. Now I can't stop you because you won't find that. I don't think we're going to find bones or some astronauts out there. It's too long ago. But there is the claim that there are some survivors that they come down in smaller craft and that although they cannot live here long term because they, again, something that makes a lot of sense to me is that they clarify that they use genetic engineering technologies on themselves so that they can inhabit other worlds. Now again, NASA is actually exploring this today. So I took about the things looping around this side. We may need to modify astronauts to send them to live on Mars and stuff because we're not suited to other planets, right? For a lot of reasons. So they're saying they do this. They use these advanced genetic technologies on themselves so that they can live on worlds where the atmosphere and the gravity and stuff are different. Now they haven't had time to do this before their ship is basically destroyed, as we'll come to. So they are partially changed, but not enough to live here. So they tried their dying from things like bacteria in the water, the levels of solar radiation, really like conventional problems that we would have going to an alien world. So again, there's logic to this. Not only is it where the aliens land and they can all breathe and they can all eat the food, which again, there's, you know, people should question those kinds of situations. Why would that be the case? But then they have a problem. And so they come to this conclusion is that what they can do is with the remnants of their technology is that they can modify an existing hominin to make it more like them, upgrade it, change it and set it on a path to become like them. And they feel that that is a, you know, a worthy plan B to their kind of colonizing this planet, if you like. So this is the, you know, it's not the plan, it's the plan B. And so they described taking some early, what we'll think of now as, you know, archaic hominins or super archaic hominins and taking them and in a lab, taking emeralds, modifying and putting these fetuses back into be born. So modifying fetuses and implanting and creating a new kind of human and describe that some of these, some of these experiments don't go well. They say a lot of their technology has been lost in this loss of the main ship. So they are working with what they have. So some of these initial experiments go wrong. Again, they're not perfect. They're not gods who can just do whatever that they have the same problems we might have with technologies, you know, that doesn't always work out. So again, I found that quite consistent and logical. A lot of that is quite logical and consistent with reality. Well, I knew that you'd have to look in a certain area of the genome in particular. And that's in what's called highly conserved non-coding DNA regions. And the reason for that is that if you look at genes, those change due to normal kind of selective pressures, right? So over time, genes change. Anything obvious from engineering would almost certainly be like lost. So you have to look for areas where the information stays very stable. You're building on existing science and existing scientific questions and challenges that the quote-unquote mainstream is trying to solve.  I mean, scientists have done it for a reason, for their own reason, right? Yeah, I mean, most of these sort of stumbled on this. So I don't think it was setting out, unless you do that. They stumbled on these regions where they realized that in comparative studies that some of these segments of highly conserved code differ massively to expectations. So when you contrast, and it's my favorite example, it's always this one with the HR1, which is the first human accelerated region to be discovered, where they had cross-referenced chickens, chimpanzees, and humans. And what they found was that basically in the chicken and the chimpanzee, this short segment, I think it's 118 DNA letters long, which is very short, especially in terms of between genes, that would be very short. So in these two species, there were two letters that were different. Now the chicken and the chimpanzee have been evolving separately for at least 300 million years. So that's one successful stable change, one letter changing for every 150 million years. So the reason this pops up is they go, wow, this is interesting. Here's kind of an anomaly. This sequence here, it doesn't change at all. I mean, it changes two times in 300 million years. That's curious. What can we do with it? Absolutely, yeah. I mean, we've now got, you know, where the whole genome has been mapped, for example, in humans. I mean, we're at a point where the knowledge now is really vast and really intricate. So they're able to do these kinds of, you know, detailed contrast between species. And so we understand, you know, the differences between us and a chimp and the difference in us and, you know, the God's point where they can, you know, you can look for segments of code and contrast them going back to when, when were we last very alike to that creature? So, you know, able to trace it back and say that, you know, see this is the only difference is, is this isn't this between us and, you know, than an arduous or whatever. So we can do that. So they're doing this. They use this segment to then contrast, and they can find that, okay, yes, you know, in a chicken and chimpanzee, super stable, two changes. That's amazing. It must do something very important. Otherwise, it'll be lost to change more. So clearly small changes in it must have quite drastic outcomes, like it dies, you know, because why wouldn't these changes keep happening and persist? Why is there only two successful ones in 300 million years? That code must be doing something quite important. So then if you look at chimps and humans, you expect it to be identical. That's because, you know, 300 million years for chicken and chim, but only about seven or eight million years, difference between us and chimps. That's conventional understanding as it is. So you would expect it to be none, because it's not the 150 million years required for one letter to change. So what they found instead, though, was that 18 letters had changed. So that was just wildly outside the ballpark of what should have been observed. You're talking about statistics. And you can put that in the hand of some statistician and they can say, boom. And then they can compare that with seven, eight million years, 18 changes. They can crank that out in their Excel spreadsheet. Not an Excel spreadsheet, but you get the point. And it comes out with a statistic that everyone would point to and say, yeah, that's the math. That's what it is. And the number is astronomically high that that would be by chance, right? Is that oversimplifying it? No, absolutely. And in fact, the discoverer of Human Accelerated Region 1, the name's wrong on my mind for a minute, but she is herself, I think it's Professor Pollard, but I might be wrong, but she is herself a biostatistician who helps design the programs that work out these kind of chances. So she does not, you know, she worked on programs to help understand the likelihood of that happening. And so, and that came out as essentially zero. That's what, you know, she already seen now, I think it's seen an American scientist on New Science 20s magazines where she's saying, basically it comes out as essentially zero. So by any understood means of evolution, that should not be the case. So they're saying something we don't understand is acting upon these segments, right? So that's where they were at when they discovered it. And obviously there's been a series of papers now on human accelerated regions. They found many more of them. There are at least several hundred. Now, some of them are understood a bit. Some of them have no understanding, just know that they're there. So in other words, what they have found is that most of the ones where they have some understanding of what they do are tied up with brain changes during fetal development. And I think that's massive. Okay. Is there any way to tie any of this? And I know there is, because I've read and listened to your stuff, to some of the dates we're talking about. Yeah. Because we've got none of these changes. There's some other interesting genes that occur. You know, there's one that's actually described brain gene that's occurred as appearing fully formed from non-coding DNA, which I think gives it the near cortex. And then there's another one. There's a segment of a gene. What is HRs? There are genes and segments of genes and also the fusion of chromosome two. All of these things are really important to, if you look into it, these are the things that are considered to make humans what they are, big brains, are political firms, you know, all this stuff that makes us different to all the other primates. But so what we understand, because dating some of these changes is difficult at the genetic level to be precise. But what we do know is that from the fossil record, it was already understood that around about 800,000 years ago, there is an inexplicable sudden change in the cranial capacity of humans. And so for many years before the field of genetics, there was big questions over what was happening then. So in other words, we now know, of course, that those changes are expressions of genetic change. So we can see the physical shift underway that has to be tied to these genetic changes. So although you can't pinpoint data, you know, again, some of them are data, somewhere towards a million years or somewhere in the age of, you know, it's difficult to be that precise. But when you can see the physical changes, we can date those in the fossil record. So we know that this radical change in the human brain goes underway around about 800,000 years ago. Now, whilst we know is, of course, is that now we understand that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the direct ancestors of modern humans, the divergence, like the formation of these different groups and the divergence from the archaic ancestors, that is happening roughly 700 to 800,000 years ago, depending on who you look at as paper. And what did we think that date was 20 years ago or when you started this research? Because the dates shifted, right? Yes, it did a lot. About 400,000 or so years ago. So this is totally different.  No, because Neanderthals on Earth, we don't really separate until 400,000 years ago. The beginnings of our species are probably 500,000 years ago. So this has shifted back just in the last few years. So we now understand, actually, no, there's evidence from proteins, from genes, and from the fossil record, from teeth as well. They've now got enough evidence to say, well, based on everything that we now have, we can see that this split from these archaics towards these large-brained humans, so includes obviously Neanderthals, denosovans and us, that that is occurring roughly 7,000 to 800,000 years ago. And the dating on the chromosome 2 fusion, which is another key change, that has been dated by at least one British biologist as being around about 750,000 years ago, because you can see it happens at the beginning of this split between Neanderthals and denosovans. They all have it as well. But that is happening at the beginning of that split. So we know that there's these things are occurring and we can see the changes happening physically here. So that's the interesting addition, that rather than just saying, it's someone like a million years, according to genetics, we can say, well, let's look at the skulls. Let's see what's going on. We can see this radical shift. The cranial capacity just accelerates massively beyond body size changes. Where in the past, you could sort of track body size increase, with skull capacity increase. So if you look around at your files on the chart, and there are charts, people can look at this, there's a sudden acceleration in this cranial capacity. So again, you can mesh physical with genetics, which is really, I think, crucial. Okay, so I hope we've kind of made the case that you've approached this from a scientific perspective. And while, as you said at the beginning, you can't go toe-to-toe with someone who has multiple PhDs and fellowships on each one of these topics, but as anyone who's listening this can tell, you can go toe-to-toe with them up to a point.  And as a matter of fact, your ideas are building upon the very best science we have of the time. So if we accept that as kind of the theory that we have to go to, what are some of the most striking implications for you, big picture-wise? Who are we? Why are we here? What are UFOs? What do they want? How long have they been here? What are they doing? What's good ET versus bad ET? Now we can ask those questions at a different level. What do you think?  If we can just say that some intelligence was here with a technology 788,000 years ago, and that may well be intertwined with our evolution, either directly or just by the facts, it's going to have some relevance to our evolution. I can't say whether it came, I can't be certain on whether it came from outer space, from Alpha Centauri or the Pleiades, which I suggest, but I can't confirm that.  But what we can say is that some other intelligence, alien to us, was present. So then where are they now? So it was that big question. Are they still lurking? And if so, what are they doing? Why aren't they making contact? What's their agenda? Or have they gone? In which case? Will they come back? What would they do if they did come back? Or have they gone extinct? If so, why? Is that our destiny? I think it opens those questions. People have to start thinking, well, if they were there then, where are they now? What are they doing? What's coming for us? And those are definitely massive questions that instantly happen. And then of course, if we've been modified, you have to then start saying, well, why? What is this longer term agenda? Have we been further modified? Will we be again modified? Right? So these are massive, massive burning questions around this. Once you establish this, some reality to this. I'm with you on all that. I take somewhat of a different take in terms of the burden-approved thing, because I think you've established UFO reality, spaceship, you know. So again, burden-approved for someone to say, that silica object that's orbiting is not a spaceship. To me, again, it's a spaceship. And by extension, if there's spaceships, 780,000 years ago, with advanced technology, then all bets are off. And when people want to start telling me about, you know, Roswell and all the rest, I'm like, great, but we have to fit it now into this larger time frame. And we can talk about all the other stuff, but we can't talk about it's just advanced technology. It's like, really? It's just Earth-based advanced technology? Again, the burden-approved would be on you, but in doing that, you would have to incorporate in Bruce's object from 780,000 years ago. The aliens are good and they're environmentalists and they're trying to protect the planet.  That doesn't sound like everyone in the Galactic Federation is on the same page in terms of how we deal with conflict. So, do you get what I'm saying? What do you think about that? Yeah, absolutely this, you know, he should make us rethink the whole, you know, UFO alien contact topic entirely. I mean, it usually makes me think of, for example, you know, Jack Ballet, but his idea that what we're seeing in the UFO phenomena and the interrelated aspects to connect to it. So everything from alien abductions to strange encounters and, you know, seemingly mystical experiences. What he has referred to as kind of an evolutionary control grid. Now, if there is an intelligence interested in our evolution and then you take the famous obviously Clark quote of, you know, because obviously Clark said, you know, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. A lot of these things happening to people are magical seeming, right? Because there's a lot of cases where you can say they definitely were not taken anywhere physically because people were there and stuff, right? But they've had experiences as though they want alien ships having, you know, eggs taken and things, but don't seem to be happening in consensus reality in physical terms, but are happening for them and they've got PTSD and everything. These things are happening to them in some way. Magical things. Now, if we think of a technology or a race that is so incomprehensible to us that what it does is magical, then you have to re-evaluate the whole thing and say, yeah, is this an evolution control grid which involves not only physical technologies, maybe probes that watch and interact, but magical stuff where, you know, things we can't comprehend that deal with interdimensional knowledge, you know, maybe some of it's technological, maybe some of it's their consciousness is able to hack into us in telepathic ways and project experiences into our brains. I mean, you have to start opening a door into a kind of crazy sci-fi, but any species that nearly a million years ago could fly around in giant silica crust, what is it doing now? Exactly. And there's a completely different way to take that as well. And that's the importance of, like we said, with the Turinga technology associated with it. And you always come back to that. I think the technology angle on this is super interesting. I think the silica ship, AI intelligence ship is interesting. I think genetic engineering and the failed genetic engineering is interesting because it suggests, as does the silica ship, that maybe the technology gap isn't what we might imagine. Maybe it starts sounding a lot closer to the kind of stuff we're familiar with. Oh yeah, we made the program, but the AI screwed up because it is just a program and we unplugged it and it didn't do what it was supposed to do. Genetically. Exactly. Oh, we genetically modified these fetuses, but we didn't really know how to do it because we didn't have the right equipment. That's, again, sounding very human. And this is now on the table because the other thing you said was Jacques Vallet. Love Jacques Vallet. Awesome. Huge contributor to this understanding of the phenomenon in general. But a lot of people take that and go the uber-consciousness thing. So it's all consciousness. There's none of this. Well, this flies in the face of that. The tectite that you hold in your hand is in this here now consensus reality. It is materialistic science that we've used to analyze that, to date that, to tell us what the elements are and how they're formed. That's very third dimension materialistic science, too. Again, that's why I think this work is so important because it drives the stake in the ground. It says, hey, don't go too far with that. You want to go ferries and Bigfoot? Right. But it does kind of come back to spaceships and lasers from space, too. What do you think about that? Yeah, absolutely. I tend to think of, to my knowledge, having looked at a lot of strange stuff for a very long time, that this is the only line of research where we can really stick that thing around and say, well, this is a physical event involving alien intelligence, certainly alien to us, and where it came from, alien to humans that could do amazing technological things. Now, with the modern phenomena and the contact ease you represent, it's really fuzzy which parts of that are psychical, consciousness, visionary, or are physical. It's really hazy, really hard to see that. I tend to take a step back and say, I really don't know which parts of that are definitely physical. So, where we had an argument a lot about nuts and bolts versus woo-woo consciousness, nobody really knows where that line is in that modern phenomena, but I can say, well, okay, let's at least establish that some of this is physical and that's what this does. There is some physicality definitely to this and that would infer probably some physicality that continues somewhere amongst that strangeness that we can't tie down the John Keel kind of conclusions that it's all just the para-physical that stuff that comes into reality seems physical and nailed away. That seems to be going on too, but we can infer that if they are physical enough to leave real debris that you can pick up that there is a physical element to at least some of these non-human intelligences that seem to be interacting with us. Maybe there's others that are just pure energy and you go into all that, but we can't establish that yet. So let's start with what we can establish. Yeah, and that, of course, that brings up the really level three kind of discussion about consciousness, extended consciousness, good and evil in the extended consciousness, whether there is a moral imperative and we could even talk about good and evil. The question I always boil it down to is what does E.T.'s N.D.E. look like? Right? There's a near-death experience, there's a reality to that. Consciousness from a physical standpoint should have stopped, your brain has stopped, your heart has stopped and yet we know that consciousness is continuing. Where is that consciousness going? And then there seems to be this other dimension that it's going into what's happening for E.T. And, you know, this is a further inference than I think you would probably go or that a lot of people would go with your research, but what I would think would be one of the ways I would read it is that E.T.'s N.D.E. isn't maybe that much different from our N.D.E. Because it starts looking like a lot of the same stuff and particularly the, you know, we didn't even talk about the bombardment thing, but particularly that, damn it, I don't care, blast them out of the sky. Hey, they blasted us out of the sky, let's come back and attack them.  That doesn't sound like transcendent consciousness to me. That doesn't sound like God to me. That sounds like, you know, God, I'm putting just in terms of how we would understand that unity consciousness that we're all somehow connected kind of thing. Yeah, I think it's certainly a person. No matter whether there may be intelligences that are pure, you know, love and light, there are also others out there that are more akin to us than I expect.  You know, all of that can also be true, but they are, you know, maybe surprisingly to us that there are other beings that are recognizable to us in terms of we can imagine they probably went through a similar evolutionary path to us because some of their behaviors and their choices are recognizable to us. And I think that, again, gives us a sense of perhaps a better sense of not being alone than if we did find beings that were so radically different and like, well, what do we even make of them? Whereas we can say, well, at least some of them, there's some hope we might have a connection where we could understand each other because they seem to do things a bit like us and they're not perfect. They're not infallible gods who, you know, never make a mistake or, you know, can never have a technology of wrong that they recognize being that way too. And I think, yeah, that's really important because it probably are beings that we just, we wouldn't know where to start with their consciousness, you know, and their thinking and would be like talking to a brick, you know, in terms of our chances of ever connecting with them, right? Because it's so different. The consciousness types are so different that we would have no real hope. We could only recognize maybe that there's other life but the other life is shut off from us because it's so strange. So I think this gives us a hopeful feeling as well that maybe we can really connect with other because there's a little bit of us bearing them as well as well as a bit of them in us with the genetics. Bruce, finally, what do you think about the current state of this conversation? It's at a totally different point than we've ever seen in our lifetime. It's, you know, what do you think about Lou Elizondo? You know, disclosure comes through an intelligence officer from the Pentagon. Ah, what a surprise. Anyone who buys that story, what do you think about disclosure? We do seem to be going through it no matter what you think about it. We're certainly going through, yes, some kind of narrative shift. Now, is it something disclosed or is it a story being woven for us? In which case it wouldn't really be a disclosure because, again, disclosure infers that this is that we're being shown factual hidden things, right? Now, I think it's going to be very difficult for us to ever confirm that we are being shown factual hidden things versus being given a story that is preferred by certain people. Now, whether that's individuals or the intelligence community or the government, you know, how do we really know? Now, the only thing we can really establish that is if someone was to really say, you know, wheel out a craft and aliens, we could at least get to point out, well, there's definitely a hidden, you know, there's an alien craft, they had one, that's a disclosure. But if what we get is just information, I think that's really problematic because we have no way to independently validate that this isn't just a story being woven for us. And there's a really interesting article by a guy called Alexander Wendt, and I don't know if you know him, but he writes about how really the control system can never reveal aliens to us because it's a direct threat to them because you're now putting a higher order above the top of the pyramid, you know, because people looking to the apex as the political elite, everyone's going to ask, but what do the level of civilization with type 3 type beings think, who really are in control of our solar system? Who cares what the President of America says? He's irrelevant now, right? That's going to be a big problem for a system that is built on that control system, you know this. Yeah, Dr. Alexander Wendt has been on the show at least once, but the counter to that is what we've lived through with recent elections and with the great reset is that I think all that stuff is kind of irrelevant or being managed on a whole different level that we don't totally appreciate. And I also think the disclosure and particularly the New York Times disclosure, and again I interviewed both Leslie Cain and Ralph Blumenthal from the New York Times who have the byline on that story. Number one, it seemed like to anyone who's paying attention a political sigh up from the beginning again this Lou Elizondo character you know why is an intelligence officer the one leaking that would be the first question. But number two, it didn't do what it was supposed to do. So they're constantly shaping the social narrative and the mind control experiment but that doesn't mean that they're in control of it. My best read of it is they didn't know that it would go the way that it has in their attempt to disclose so they're constantly tweaking it. And isn't that our history of what we've seen in terms of propaganda misinformation. I mean it's always a moving target, it's an evolving well let's see what that does and then it's a chess game it's like okay well from that position they did this so now I'll do that. Yeah I mean I think you know say Stephen Greenstreet and the New York Post who sounds some really good investigative research into this showing that yeah a lot of the stuff that's been said has changed it's an evolving narrative. When you're being told an absolute revelation of truth expands it doesn't change right and what we're seeing is changing shifting sounds in the narrative so that is trippy a red flag to people and of course I'd say the majority of old hands in ufology have tended towards skepticism of this that they see a problem because they still remember the days where this is a lot of disinfo and a lot of military control going into the UFO world whereas many of the people who've come in in 2017 onwards who've become die-hard UFO activists who are activists for disclosure and it's all about the government and the military and we need to let these people who know all the stuff and what they're doing take over the narrative you know really just so green so green it's unfortunate they seem to have got the big traction on this and the other people who do know better we've spent decades in this are being sidelined because of course the media and intelligence are loving these people loving them because they're also enabling this idea that the government is giving the people what they want so first you need some people to say we want this so you engineer a group of people who then call on the government to do it and it looks like you're responding to the people instead of just bringing out the story you're going to bring out the first place that nobody would have believed without a call for it from ground level so it's amazing to sort of see it working so you know exactly how you'd expect them to want it to work and that's what's happening so that should again be another big red flag and then suddenly what a few hundred or a few thousand activists calling on senators makes changes how many people ask not to have jabs or not to have digital passports and we're totally railroaded millions of people but we're supposed to believe a few thousand UFO activists have managed to get congress to do all this stuff I'm sorry I'm not buying it Richard Doty strawberry ice cream I said I'd tell anyone to just Google Richard Doty strawberry ice cream go from there Bruce it's been just fantastic then I loved it I love talking about this stuff with you you are the best the best of the best this latest book exogenesis hybrid humans a scientific history of extraterrestrial genetic manipulation with your wife Danny the incomparable Danny there's also the forgotten exodus the into Africa theory of human evolution hybrid humans scientific evidence of our 800,000 year old alien legacy we can go watch 700,000 our alien origin story what's next what are you working on what should we expect to see from you yeah I mean I should within the next touch word within the next few days get the final edit done on the tech type paper and obviously arguing that this is an interstellar object but also that it's most likely a techno signature we should make it the first ever alien I'm going to get that on to pre print servers so they'll be accessible to everybody you know to the public to any scientists or journalists that might be interested most likely to be alternative media I imagine probably not mainstream media but anyone that is interested in that it'll be available and I think it's important those people can check and see that I'm providing all the sources for this and as I say it's all from academics and NASA and all these people who have a more trusted authority in these areas you know for most people and so that would be up I hope you know very imminently so I hope you'll watch that space and with a bit of luck at least the alternative or if you know independent media may get excited about that let's hope so and we won't expect Fox and CNN props to jump right on to it but you know if some of these bigger you know independent platforms cover it that'd be great I'd be quite very very happy with that and if some scientists engage with it and start responding and saying what's wrong with it if you don't agree explain it also explain why is tech 200 years to resolve this tech type topic unless you've got something radically wrong that's a long time they've had the ball for 200 years before anyone's mentioned aliens great well Bruce as always fantastic stuff thanks so much for doing this take care no worries pleasure thanks thanks so much thanks again to Bruce Fett and for joining me today on skeptical the one question I'd have to tee up from this interview is do you think Bruce has tightened up his game that of course presupposes you knew his game before which you should if you listen to this show but do you think he's moved us closer to really nailing down some of these theories he has let me know your thoughts love to hear from you as always we are whether we'd like it or not in this together so let's talk much more to come until next time take care and bye for now