John Greenewald: Science is advancing. New discoveries are
pushing the boundaries of what we know and even what we
believe. In recent years, the discovery of interstellar
objects like a moolah, moolah, traveling in our galactic
neighborhood have paved the way for a whole new way of thinking.
How long have these once undiscovered objects been flying
around the cosmos? And have they even crashed on Earth, offering
humans a glimpse at an alien intelligence? My guest today is
Bruce Fenton. And he believes that is very much a possibility.
Bruce Fenton: It picks up those waves, it activates the
programming and it just rendezvoused you know, opens
communications, you know, welcome to the galactic center,
we're gonna say, you know, because you've reached a
detectable level of civilization.
John Greenewald: Through years of research and sifting through
scientific findings. He believes he can propose a theory that not
only have interstellar objects crashed on the surface of Earth,
but they may be remnants of an alien technology that impacted
Earth more than 788,000 years ago. He's about to step into the
vault to let us know what he's found. Stay tuned, you're about
to journey inside the black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of
choice. I'm your host, John Greenwald, Jr. and I am looking
forward to the show because it is a topic that I'll admit I'm
kind of brand new on and it is something that I started to dig
in with all the talk about interstellar objects. And Dr.
Avi Loeb, who has been on this program before and his work.
It's started being bantered about a little bit, so I fired
off some FOIA requests. But my guest today, Bruce Fenton, let
me bring Bruce on. Bruce, you're going to be talking a lot about
that. First off, thank you so much for taking the time to join
me today on the show.
Bruce Fenton: Thank you for inviting me, it's definitely a
topic I'm very interested in.
John Greenewald: Absolutely. And I obviously caught that on
social media, I caught some of the things you were posting. And
that is really what piqued my interest. I always, as I just
mentioned, love these types of shows, because I don't have a
lot of background in it. So I'm going to learn right along with
the audience. As we go through this and talk about your work.
Many will probably recognize you from doing various television
programs. I know Ancient Aliens, unexplained files, I believe,
was one of the other ones. So it's it's great to have you
here. Before we dive into that, though, I always like to get a
little bit of background. Tell everybody who isn't aware, what
is your background? And what is your main research focus?
Bruce Fenton: Sure. I mean, in terms of conventional education,
and I have an IT degree from University in the UK, I've
worked in IT finance, real estate, a few in places that but
my passion for many years has been ancient mysteries,
anomalous science, you know, anything that's on the edges of
the understood circles includes things we might call paranormal,
as well as the mysteries of space, you know, and the
possibility of life out there. So I guess it's a fairly, it's a
fairly wide gamut. But anything that's just on the fringes of
the known has attracted me so probably had about 30 years of
delving into various facets of the mysterious, best known as
you say, perhaps with appearances on the unexplained
files where that was an expedition out into the Georgian
caucuses, to look for the bones of giants. There's a whole
backstory to why that was, you know, some discoveries that were
made there of possibly anomalous bones. We've also you know, I've
had guest several times on history channels, ancient aliens
as a where the talking heads that gives you a couple of
opinions here and there. And also, I think some people may
remember that I was involved in an expedition in the Ecuadorian
Amazon to a site which got so nicknamed the sort of velocity
of giants but that was covered by US and the UK press. And I
think you know, a lot of YouTube channels run stories on that
what seemed to be a strange megalithic wall out in the
Yangon artists so those are probably where people will, if
they do recognize me will recognize me from and then
others that are more on the topics that we look at, you
know, they're mysterious. The Fringe will have heard me
perhaps on radio shows or you know, see me be on YouTube. Yes.
So yeah, a bit of a mix of media platform background.
John Greenewald: And also, I know you've written a couple
books with some focal points, can you can you kind of quickly
go over what what exactly you've written? And what were they
about?
Bruce Fenton: Yeah, I've got a book was published in 2017,
which is the inter Africa theory of human evolution. So that's an
argument that I make that we have a lot of the story of early
origins wrong, that the backstory of the Neanderthal
Denisovan and modern human shared narrative has large
inconsistencies in it, which the evidence now accruing from the
cutting edge, points to that we don't have that story, right,
and that we are having to rethink. And again, this is not
particularly controversial, because as you lock this in the
book is now accepted, for example, that Dennis opens,
probably lived down in Australia, and in that region,
that there was all kinds of other hominids, little people in
Indonesia. And so that whole shift is well underway. And that
was published in 2017, with a foreword from Graham Hancock,
which I was really stoked to get, because, of course, I think
most people will know him as perhaps the best known thinker
in the fringe. You know, I don't think that anyone else that we
would say, has become better known for his, you know,
unconventional thinking. And then I have exogenesis hybrid
humans that was published in 2020. That's on a mixture of
UFOs theories on Aliens, some discussions of anomalous
phenomena. And that also has a foreword from Erich Von Daniken.
So, you know, really stoked with that. And of course, in that
field, again, there's I don't think in terms of ancient aliens
and aliens UFOs there's many people more more famous than
everyone down at chemicals, though, you know, he was
probably perhaps best known to the older generation, perhaps.
But I think, you know, most people in these topiaries will
still at least have seen some of his work, you know, at some
stage. So, really pleased to both the books got those
forwards. They don't very well, I mean, in terms of in our kind
of domain, I mean, certainly they're, they're not selling
like Harry Potter or anything like that. But I'm quite pleased
with the reviews I've had that way. So I'm quite happy with
those. So yeah, good.
John Greenewald: Always interesting topics. Sometimes
I'm always a tough sell on some angles. Other angles are kind of
interesting. And I always love diving into that. So maybe, if,
if you if you enjoy the next hour or so maybe we'll bring you
back and talk a little bit more about those topics. But today,
what we were going to dive into was when we were speaking on
social media, what caught my eye was you were talking about some
essentially some some scientific evidence that you didn't say it
in these words, but I kind of felt that you felt there wasn't
a lot of attention to it. And I love stories like that. Because
if there's science and work and evidence and test results or
something that doesn't get a lot of of Spotlight. I'm always I'm
all over it. I want to see it you know, because I obviously
haven't seen it myself. So that caught my eye. Obviously we're
talking about interstellar objects which a moolah. moolah
has been one of the bigger, more more widely known talked about
interstellar object as of late. Obviously, Dr. Avi Loeb has
talked about that a lot. But you were mentioning something
different. So let me pass it to you. What has your focal point
been on that arena?
Bruce Fenton: Yeah, absolutely. So from 2017, we had the first
identification of an insert object into Murmu, which, by now
I imagine, almost everyone listening has heard of who may
or may not be quite surprised if they hadn't. So since then,
we've had two other confirmations of interstellar
objects. And that's a comet Borisov, which I think was 2018
It was quite soon after. And then just recently, we've had
confirmation that a small bow like that exploded over Papua
New Guinea in 2014 was in fact, some kind of interstellar
object, you know, quite a small one by comparison to either the
others, but was no less was interesting would come from
somewhere outside our solar system. So we now have three of
these confirmed in quite a short period of time. So you think
from 2017 to now before that they were unknown, theoretical
objects that many scientists would have discounted just felt
that they didn't exist. You know, that's a familiar story
throughout the history of science that you know, phenomena
that has been discounted has turned out to be not only real,
but possibly quite common. And can I interject real quick and
have you explain why there was a resistance to this until they
were discovered what makes them so unique or different? Sure.
One of the one of the conundrums was that when you look at just
the the distance between stars and you look at the amount of
empty space there is out there was furious that there would be
some of these interstellar objects probably, but they would
almost never interact with you know the stars. They
We'll just be flying through those vast gaps between the
stars. And there will be a small number of these objects thrown
out of alien solar systems. Right? So the occasional
comment, but nobody expected there to be enough of them, that
we would encounter one, you know, in our solar system sort
of visible to us. So it was kind of surprising when they first
detected who murmur. And that's, I think, because then opened the
door to looking for more of these and the fact that we've
now got two others, I think that shows us that this was one of
those kinds of situations where if you're not looking for
something, and you don't believe in it, you're really unlikely to
notice it. Because nobody is actually putting in the effort,
you know, they're not checking for these. So also, there's
technological limitations. Of course, our technologies have
been improving. So astronomers have, you know, a lot more
access to satellite technologies, you know, we've
seen We've got ever improving telescopes. So I think there's a
mixture there of the technology reaching a level where we will
detect these or easily, but also, there was a bit of luck
within Uber, and it's, it's open the mental floodgates as much as
physical floodgates for scientists to then say, well,
there must be more of these, they start looking but that is
the way the skepticism was that I think is that the idea that
you need quite a lot of these, in fact, you need a vast number,
theoretically, to allow for that kind of flow of them coming
through our solar system. So now there's a big question around
this. Are there an unbelievable number of these, you know,
billions or trillions of these things flying around? Or are
some of them directed, in which case that cuts down the number
needed, but of course, makes them more interesting. And Avi
Loeb has kind of already, he's gone to the side of that maybe
some of these are directed. And he suspects that both oumuamua
and the object from Papua New Guinea 2014, that these might
both be some kind of alien technologies, even defunct, or
probes. And I think that's one of the major interesting angles
to this, that we now have, you know, kind of a top astronomer
Harvard astronomer saying that, you know, it makes more sense in
a way if some of these are directed
John Greenewald: in your mind, and in your view, with what
we've seen now and discovered, with the moolah, moolah, and and
beyond it now, what now is, is telling you that, that there's
possibly some kind of alien technology here, or background
to it, versus it just being a celestial object that broke away
from the gravitational pull of wherever it was. and away it
goes through the universe and Cosmos, and it just by chance
ended up here, what sticks out that there's something more to
it?
Bruce Fenton: Well, it was a couple of things, I mean, would
firstly say that I'd recommend people to, of course, to check
out our globes book, which is extraterrestrial, because he
goes into some depth as to why he suspects for example, these,
the first object in the mirror with alien was you had all kinds
of peculiar aspects, including an unusually high level
reflectivity. So suggesting at a very reflective surface, there
was data indicating it was essentially like a pancake, a
bit like a kind of saucer shaped but pancake quite thin. And as
well as that the tip was traveling in an angle that takes
it through the plane of our solar system between the Earth
and Mars, which is kind of interesting, that would happen
to cross the plane. And between if you think about two of the
only two habitable planets where we've Mars, we believe was
habitable. So if it was a directed probe, that's an
interesting angle of entry into our solar system. So when you
mesh that with other aspects, you have the rotation of the
object. And then finally, it was an anomalous boost as it left
the solar system that it pulled away from the sun and
accelerated in an unexpected way. So there was no sign of
outgassing, which would be expected if it was a comment. So
they couldn't really detect any source for there. So that's why
oumuamua became kind of a suspicious object. The second
one that's been suggested as, possibly extraterrestrial, this
object in Papua New Guinea, as that came in, it seemed to
survive far longer than we'd expect, suggesting that the
material composition is harder and more, you know, more sturdy
than iron in iron meteorites. Right? So it came quite low, you
know, low into the atmosphere before exploding. So, again,
there's some theorizing that maybe its composition is
anomalous, and they could be because it's artificial, some
kind of material, they're protected it right. So there's
some reasoning there. With the work I'm doing. It's, you know,
go into some depth, of course into this, but the object that
I'm looking at, it appeared was glaring aspects is there's
evidence suggesting that an interstellar object ended up in
orbit around our planet, before fragmenting and raining down as
debris. Now If something is quite large, so if something
fairly large ends up captured by our planet that in itself is
fairly anomalous, because what we know of so far are quite
small objects like bus size and smaller, that have become sort
of temporary moons of the earth. And that these are then these
are destabilized by the sun's gravity and they they move away,
but we do occasionally that happens, I think, couple years
back, there was one of these strange, you know, temporary
satellites. But we're talking about something quite large, the
clock at least a kilometer or multiple kilometers across to do
the debris size that we have. That's come in, and if it's
coming in from interstellar space, it'd be expected to be
traveling faster than normal comets and asteroids, you know,
these things are not limited by the same speeds that we see for
internal objects in the solar system, right, because they,
they are all limited by the sun's gravitational pull. Right?
So interstellar objects are typically recognized by having a
greater speed as they come in. So now we have a large object
that's coming in from interstellar space. And then
it's traveling faster than normal. And is somehow ends up
in the orbit of the Earth, even approaching the earth, you know,
he's quite lucky. But the fact that somehow ends up captured
and in orbit, that's very suspicious. So this is one of
the major reasons why I'm very intrigued by the object that I'm
dealing with. Now, it's just debris. That would be the
biggest probably red flag for why it would be interesting, as
an of itself before going into the slightly more complex sort
of chemical argument argument about the debris itself. But
hopefully, I guess you have some idea to think about that. Why
would you know, a large, extraordinarily fast object
ended up as a temporary moon of the if.
John Greenewald: So let me back you up, just to make sure that
I, that I'm following you correctly, so what your research
and our physical object or objects from a debris field and
Papa New Guinea.
Bruce Fenton: So the first one, the object republic of Guinea
has debris which hasn't been recovered yet. Okay, that's when
the heavy load is actually attempting to recover.
John Greenewald: I gotcha. Okay. That's the one that's underwater
that he wants to go grab. That's okay. Yeah, now. Gotcha. So then
the debris that you're talking about was from.
Bruce Fenton: So this is good Australasian Tektite. And so
it's a glassy material that's found spread right across from
southern China, down to Northern Antarctica, stretches about
12,000 kilometers. And it's about a 10,000 kilometers wide
debris field going from Madagascar out beyond sort of
Papua VAs to about 20% of the Earth's surface has some amount
of Australasian tectonic last on it. Now, this has been kind of a
mysterious phenomena for well, in terms of serious scientific
investigation for at least about 160 years. And there's been all
kinds of theories as to how we've ended up with, you know,
this unbelievably vast debris field, because, of course, you
know, even with impact stuff, you don't normally see anything
on that scale. Right. So it was interesting from the beginning,
the first post to actually write on this in terms of, you know, a
fairly serious scientific hypothesis was actually Charles
Darwin, which is kind of funny, because, you know, it's a very
notable figure in history. And he was given a piece of this
Tektite when he was visiting Australia, and he theorized that
it was from a volcanic event that because it's very similar
to obsidian in a number of ways, for example, it's still pretty
faces love it, because in terms of glasses, there are
essentially you know, there's only obviously a few number
types, we have volcanic glass obsidians, we have artificial
glasses that we manufacture. We have impact melt glasses. So
when a meet you or hits the ground and melts, the rock,
converts that into glass. And we have nuclear blast glasses,
which some people were familiar with nuclear test sites. And
then of course, we have these tektites and tektites are
compositionally very similar to both artificial glass and two
obsidians. And the reason why that is, is because when you
manufacture glass, you do it in the crucible, you know, you heat
it, you put the chemicals you want in there, that's heated,
that's mixed, and that's for a period of time, and that removes
volatile chemicals you don't want in them, and you allow the
bubbles to be removed. That's called the fining process.
Mixing the chemicals in you know, thoroughly throughout the
mix makes a homogenous mix of modularity is essentially the
equal distribution of the chemical components throughout
the mix. And so you end up with a homogenous find glass.
volcanic glass is also a homogenous find glass. And the
reason for that, of course, is because it's formed in the cold
era of a volcano, where it's mixing and heating for an
extended period of time. So you end up with very similar glass
products in a way with very few bubbles, quite well mixed. And
with some overlaps in terms of the ice topics and the chemical
volatiles, because there's a lot of similarity there. And then
when you look at impact glasses, and nuclear blast glasses, those
are quite different. And that's because when you get a short
lived high energy event, right, you'll get a lot of melting of
sound and rock. And because it's happening fast, you'll get very
frothy, foamy material where the water and volatiles start to out
gas. But then there's very rapid cooling, because of course, the
blast has finished, it's quick, there's an explosion, it stops.
So that glass begins to cool rapidly. Bubbles are frozen
inside, you also have a lot of partly melted material from the
edges of the blast. And so those are included, bullet use get
tend to get organics like you know, soil included, and pieces
of unmelted material. So you'll see that both in terms of
asteroid impact crater sites, and in these nuclear blast
sites. So those are essentially two different kinds of glasses.
tektites, which are theorized normally to be from asteroid
impact. They are, unlike impact glasses, and much more like the
volcanic glass and the manmade glass. And this is where we
start. There's a big mystery around this. So
John Greenewald: there's an I don't mean to jump in over you
there. But so there are indicators here that it's
manufactured. But apart from
Bruce Fenton: that there's been a process in the background that
we don't fully understand it's very similar to manufacturing,
or is manufacturing, right? Because you somehow have to
explain this period of mixing, and you know, finding, which
again, we only know from extended heating, an extended
time for the glass to mix. So this is why there's a sort of a
mystery that has persisted around the topic. Give you a
little bit back, because there was there was for a long time,
there were two competing hypotheses, right. As you go to
the beginning, there was a lot of different hypotheses. And I
think people are familiar with how science works usually start
off with there's an anomaly or a mystery, a lot of different
theorists emerge, they will all come out with their own
hypothesis. And that will be each one will be tested in of
course, and the one that is, you know, best fit for all of the
observed data will usually end up becoming the consensus
theory, right? It doesn't necessarily explain everything.
And it's not necessarily correct, but it will become the
convinced consensus until something better comes along,
right. And so initially, there were all kinds of hypotheses
like super volcanoes throwing material for miles. It was some
kind of form of an antimatter event. Others that said molten
glass block that there's there's also even a loss technology and
Aboriginal technology from civilization. So you can imagine
there was this whole list of various one by one, they were
kind of knocked out. And what we ended up with was two competing
hypotheses. One was a champion, mostly by NASA engineers and
rocket scientists. So this was the idea that the material was a
volcanic glass that had been impacted by an asteroid on the
moon, and that this glass had been displaced. And it'll either
come across to earth as a, you know, as a cluster or as a block
for some kind of debris cloud. And then weighing down across
the earth, it ended up in orbit, and it rained down across
Australasia, right. So that hypotheses, a lot of supporters,
again, a lot of very, you know, credentialed people over at NASA
that were doing all kinds of experiments to see the how these
glasses would have formed, you know, what speeds they've come
in at this, sort of around the time when, really, we were just
getting into the whole field of, you know, rockets, missiles to
people to the moon. So these guys, you know, there was a kind
of whole new field that opened up and they recognize that some
of these Tektite had aerodynamic shaping, suggesting that they
had come in from outside the atmosphere. Right, not all of
it, but some of them do. And then conversely, on the other
side of the debate, were the others who believed that this
was some kind of terrestrial impact event where material had
been displaced and had been either thrown through the air or
had somehow left the atmosphere and had come back in. And that
raged as a debate for many, many years, until really until the
return and analysis of Luna materials, which led to an
understanding that there just wasn't the kind of chemical mix
that you required for this glass. And that Volker the ruled
out the moon, they ruled out volcanic activity on the moon as
well as to ancient so with the dating Artemis material, it's
788,000 years that's just too recent in terms of lunar
volcanic activity.
John Greenewald: So you said 780,000 years 788,000 years old
Bruce Fenton: is the data on it. So that's really Well after we
believe the moon's volcanic activity and ceased, so you had
a few different factors that came together. And very good add
on, there's a Nobel winning tennis called Yuri, who had also
highlighted that, even if a cloud of this debris had come
from the moon, the sun's pool would disperse this cloud, and
it would end up falling all around the planet. Or
conversely, if it was a tight cluster, it would only rain down
around 10 Kilometer kind of string field, it'd be really
small by time it broke up in our atmosphere here. It would be a
small 10 kilometer long string fields. He said, neither of
those models, could he see how you'd end up with, you know,
Australasia being covered in this material, it even be the
whole world, or a much smaller area, right. So there were
several lines that led to the kind of the collapse of the
lunar origin theory. Now, as these people left the
battlefield, you could say they said, Well, look, you know, you
guys, you still have to explain all the anomalies, you have to
be able to explain why some of this material has the
indications of having been in orbit from an object that was in
orbit. And that is broken up, and has come in at angles that
suggested decaying orbital path, and have been reshaped secondary
mountings. In other words, they were already cold glass spheres
that came in at angles that were shallow enough to allow them to
have secondary melting rather than burning up and to land
across Australasia. So they could see that there was, there
was an issue there, because they could not see how an impact
would lead to not only material leaving the atmosphere, but
coming in at these gentle angles as though they were from a
breaking up object in orbit. So this is where it kind of, they
kind of hide away. And then since then, really the
mainstream view has been that this is simply a some kind of
anomalous melt glass that just needs a few more explanations to
tidy up the story and move on. But it's he's never quite got to
that there remains ongoing debates as to how that actually
can be explained.
John Greenewald: So is there talk then that this is a
interstellar object that that, and, again, making sure I'm not
skipping anything here, but versus the theories that before
they discovered the interstellar object? It sounds like they
never really entertained that type of explanation. But now
fast forward to today, where we're discovering these objects
is the is that conversation turning to that?
Bruce Fenton: Well, I haven't seen in who's definitely has
suggested, but one thing that's interesting is there's a paper
that came out just a couple of weeks back in which they are
going to look for creators from interstellar objects, you know,
mostly is going to be on the surfaces of other, you know,
other planets and other moons. And so you're looking at our
moon and looking at, I imagine other planets, they haven't
really said too much about Earth, I think the idea is that
they're hoping to somewhere be well preserved. And obviously,
the moon is considered a kind of almost like a repository of
everything that's ever happened, because there's got very little
geological activity. So you've probably heard scientists are
saying, you know, we're gonna look for alien artifacts, we can
look on the moon, because it's pretty unchanging. So a lot of
focus is gonna be there. But one of the one of the things that
they are expecting is interstellar objects, that
impact will be going at unusually high rates of speed,
and therefore will also create more melt glass in their
creators than in normal impact events. That's kind of
interesting, because in the four or five, Tech Tech student
fields, all of those are produced vast amounts of glass.
So I would think that somebody somewhere is probably starting
to wonder, you know, is, is this to do with what we're seeing in
this mysterious kind of tech type research field,
particularly when you start putting in this link of it
producing more glass than other impacts. And the string fields
are very large. I mean, just to very quickly say there's,
although the Australasian tech to string field is the biggest,
and it's totally enormous, you can look and see there's four
other there's a streaming field in the US, we've got the Georgia
sites and be the sites, there's a string field in the Ivory
Coast in Africa, there's an own mobile device, check to stream
for motivates the best known, I imagine a lot of the orders were
no motivates, because a very distinctive green gem looking
material that's used in jewelry. And so and you also have
recently the discovery of what seems to be this very small tech
texturing field in Central America. So all of them are
considered somewhat anomalous, because again, if you think
about this, we've had an astonishing number of impacts on
this planet, most of them are not recorded, we found a couple
of 100 or so, well studied craters, you know, and in those,
the melt glass is unlike tektites right. So then you have
just these four or five examples of a phenomena and yet you have
many more craters with glass. So we know something different
happening, right. So you need from a very conservative
conventional kind of scientific view, you would look at it and
say A, why don't we usually see this Tektite glass with these
quite extensive strewn fields for all of these impacts? Why is
it only in these few? And in each of the other four cases,
have the Australasian, this, there has been at least
tentative links to a crater. Now, I don't think in any of
these cases, it's 100% certain that they've identified the
crater because the glass isn't in the crater, no tektites are
found in craters. Right? They are, they are found, in some
cases, several 100 or even longer distances from the
suspected impact craters. So that's a problem because of
course, if you
John Greenewald: don't find several 100, I'm sorry, you said
several 100 But several 100 Watt, miles
Bruce Fenton: 600 kilometers away safe. Oh, gotcha. Okay, one
example. So if you have that kind of distance, of course, you
don't get the hand in glove fit that you would normally for an
impact event where, you know, you and I went out to a crater
and we find glass in that crater, we were going to be
pretty sure that that's from that impact, right. But when you
start having to look for the impact event that you think has
created some glass, and you have to travel hundreds of kilometers
to find a crater, straightaway, that link is becoming more
tentative, right. So now you're trying to get a very close
chemical match between the crater rock and this glass. So
even in the cases where there's, I think fairly good arguments
for them being impacts. We know something extraordinary has
happened to propel this debris so far. And for none of it to be
in the crater. And for it to be melted in this way that makes it
resemble artificial glass or volcanic glass, knowing that it
isn't what supposedly not artificial, and is definitely
not volcanic. So then we have the problem to say, well, what
is going on here? Now one explanation, it might be that
these are interstellar objects, that they are coming in far
faster than normal impacts. And that that's why we're seeing
something else happening. Because this is a class of
objects that were unknown. And nobody to my knowledge, apart
from seeing myself talking about it has actually kind of said I
hadn't seen any, you know, even spective articles or papers
suggesting that, but it's kind of funny. So I would think that
now that we know, since 2017, we know that these are legitimate
objects. We've got, you know, Avi Loeb going as far as saying
maybe they're, you know, alien probes into cases, and that
perhaps there's material on Earth that we can recover. So
even though all of that's happening, I'm kind of
surprised, we haven't seen people saying, well, let's look
at the known or theoretically known impacts. Are any of these
unusual? And do any of them seem to produce more glass? So that
to me that it seems like a no brainer that you would at least
be looking at these rare types of glass associated with strange
events. So that's even before you get to where I'm suggesting,
and maybe I'll be low that some of these interstellar objects
are alien, I just think that we should be now revisiting known
geological events, right? And saying, Okay, we've got a new
class of objects. Do we have anything strange in the
geological record, that might suggest that we have some of
these impacting in the past, or arriving here, at least, I think
that these are obvious candidates personally,
especially when we deal with this idea that they produce more
glass, because in all these cases, there's an extraordinary,
extraordinary amount of this melt glass that's been found. So
and on top of this, another paper that came out about just a
couple months ago, was asking the question, how often would
interstellar objects pass through the solar system?
Because it's really a big question. So based on a few
known factors, and of course, we've got three of these now
known so they can start to make some kind of calculations, we've
already had calculation of the number that must exist for them
to if they are natural for how many that they seem to come
here, as we discussed earlier. So they've started to do with
crunch the numbers on this. And the paper that I saw suggested
that around seven interstellar objects a year should pass
through the inner solar system. So not just with the entire
solar system, but the inner solar system where the earth is,
you know, somewhat close enough to be seen, or maybe have a
probe sent to. Now that's kind of interesting few take that
back to the beginning of Earth's history. Well, that seems to be
like over 30 billion of these objects that have passed through
this way. Right. So it doesn't take any big leaps to think that
some of those have impacted with the earth. So you think 30
billion objects, we're going to have had some of these, let's
say, a few 100, even right, that have come close enough to either
break up in the atmosphere or have impacted directly and have
got debris somewhere on the planet. So we would expect to
see signs of that in the geological record. Now if
everyone starts to sweep through saying, Okay, well we know 70
are coming through. We know a certain percentage of those must
hit. Is there anything in locating strange impacts or
objects are broken up in orbit, anything like that, that seems
anomalous, I would say tektites five in the whole history of
five dreamfields in the whole history of the planet that we
know of that would stand out straightaway as as odd. So I
hope that gives you some context to why the whole field really
is, I think crying out for a rethink, even though I'm focused
on Australasian tektites for a couple of reasons, I don't like
a split, I don't I can go online. If you want me to stop
them from another, I can explain why I feel that they're more
interesting.
John Greenewald: Well, yes. And that actually kind of leads into
the question I've been wanting to ask is that you went over the
different fields on the planet? And I know you touched on
briefly, but is the one the field that you're talking about
and more focused on? Is it set so far apart from the others
that you feel that that leans towards a possibility of an
interstellar object? And the others do not? Or are you
proposing that all of them that you went through all of the I
think five, you said there was five or so that every event of
that coincides with these fields may represent an interstellar
object? And it sounds like maybe you can answer that was kind of
differentiating why you're so focused on this one?
Bruce Fenton: Absolutely. Yeah. So my, my strong suspicion is
that all five are associated with insert objects. I have my
paper focuses only on the Australasian, because that's how
he's kind of got into the topic was in that area, but there's a
lot of reasons to suspect they all are interstellar objects.
Part of that is because all of them involve part of the
composition is a kind of a rare of chemicals that you wouldn't
expect to turn up in five rare impact events, right? So it's
like me saying, okay, that there's, if you imagine there's
half a dozen places on Earth, where you have metal x now, and
you find that there's these five or six impacts and some strange
objects, and all of them have metal x. Right, you're gonna be
scratching your head thinking, what's the chances that five
Unusual Incidents all happen on sites on the earth that have
that metal x? So is it more likely that that happened, or
that the object contained metal x? Right? Because then you're
thinking all of these strange objects involve a compound, you
wouldn't expect to be there in most impact events, because it's
rare on the Earth's surface, to find it in all of them, again,
indicates to me that that's part of the content of the object is
not material from the Earth's surface. And, again, this isn't
my thinking this is you know, I've read that in other studies
where there's been highlighted that, that seems extraordinarily
unlikely. So in other words, this must be part of the
impactor. And so if they're all containing this rare material we
don't normally see in asteroids, comets, and he's only rarely
found on your surface. That's another indicator that we're
dealing with something that doesn't have the typical
composition of known asteroids and comets. We expect
interstellar comets and asteroids to have a different
composition because they formed in an alien solar systems,
right? So again, these are the kinds of clues that we're
dealing with something else. Now Australasian Tektite is
particularly interesting, because apart from being the
largest strewn field, by far, you know, stretching 12,000
kilometers, which just immense, involving possibly, I think
there's one one in one calculator, so it's maybe up to
like 10 trillion tons of debris. I mean, that's just wild. Yeah,
absolutely massive debris field, that there's something different
has happened here. And this is partly because we have no,
there's no creator associated with it. So that's been a
mystery for a long time, because
depending on your account, whose estimates this should involve a
creator of somewhere between 10 and 100 kilometers across, and
it should be fairly young. So this is even to give some
plausibility to it, we've been impacts material, that would
have been quite a large crater, you'd have to have sufficient
force to break a hole in the atmosphere to essentially punch
through the atmosphere, have a vacuum kind of filled holes and
fill in kind of vacuum filled, but they're essentially this
hole we punched through material that escapes through the vacuum,
right or travels through vacuum, and can move either further,
further horizontally, or can move all the way up into the
atmosphere. Now, it's important that you have vacuum because
when you have an impact the material no matter how fast,
it's going against, you got hypervelocity impact, as to say
rock is thrown out of that impact of these unbelievable
speeds. So it could be eight kilometers a second or so. And
that these will these will travel pushing up against air,
right and the lower the angle that they are traveling at the
denser the atmosphere of the Earth. So you know a very acute
angle, the density of the air is slowing down the ejector faster.
Right and if you go to them obtuse angles, of course, they
have to go up further to travel the same distance, they are
traveling much further, right? Because you're going in this
huge arc upwards and back down. So in both in both ways, we're
looking at a problem. So the calculation of the alt, the
optimum angle for maximum spread is about 45 degrees, but
firstly, 30 to 45 degrees for maximum displacement to a
further distance, right. But even then, it's considered that
to be almost impossible, or super extreme difficulties for
any this material to travel further than 600 kilometers. So
you rarely find any melt or ejector that is further than 600
kilometers from its source crater. So straightaway, you
have a limitation there. Right. So they know that this cannot be
material that has simply been thrown through the air and has
traveled 10,000 kilometers, that's totally impossible. And
that's accepted. Okay. So there has to be an exotic solution.
And one of these Arctic solutions is this whole say that
somehow this materialism plasma storm or this vacuum area, has
traveled either conventionally horizontal, and that's a problem
is that if it's traveling, say at 30 degrees through the air,
and you've got an area of vacuum, it will continue
traveling at these colossal speeds. But when it impacts, it
will essentially be impacting like a small amount of like
meteorite, so just go straight to the ground, you're mixing the
material, you'll melt the rock, you have a small crater, you
wouldn't find little pieces of glass, you wouldn't find these
conveniently shaped, pure pieces of glass, they would just impact
and melt and, you know, cause small holes and stuff. So they
know it can't be that. So all you're left with then is the
material has left the atmosphere and has ended up going up in a
kind of an arc and has come back down. And as rain down. That's
the only this kind of exotic solution. And there's there's a
whole series of problems with achieving that, even for smaller
debris, let alone what maybe trillions of tons. And in some
cases, these pieces are like 20 kilos, there's some chunks of
like 20 kilo work on Milan, Nong Tektite, right associated debris
field. Other pieces, some of the rounded pieces are up to about,
like 10 kilos, but this doesn't quite large tektites. So again,
we're not talking just about, you know, tiny droplets, these
are quite significant pieces as well, for something like that to
successfully travel all the way up to space, is that's quite
extraordinary. And then for quite a you know, this amount of
debris to do that is, again, is problematic. So that's why
there's been this raging debate for years and years as to how
that's achieved. And then on top of that has to come at these
gentle angles, right, so it's not just coming up and then
coming back down at the same angle it went up, it somehow
ended up in an orbital path. And coming in angles that are almost
horizontal to the plane of the planet, it very much like
satellites that are coming down, you know, slowly losing height,
there's been quite a number of sort of mathematicians or
physicists that just doesn't seem to add up, they can't see
how that would result in that kind of violent event.
John Greenewald: And that's, that's there's going kind of
mainstream scientific theory that there, this stuff went up
from the earth came back down that go kind of betraying what
we know about science and math and angles and so on is not
necessarily possible. So, right, making sure that I'm on the same
page. That's the going theory, but there's so many issues with
it, it's more plausible that something came from way out
there, at a bigger speed of immense size, came here and
essentially crashed or impacted.
Bruce Fenton: Well, I mean, it's basically it's more parsimonious
with the data is that something was in orbit. Now, where that
something came from and how it ended up there is the question,
but it the more parsimonious solution is you have a large
something that is glassy, already glassy, and the then
breaks up in orbit for some unknown reason. And that that
debris continues traveling in that same orbital path. But
coming down gently so you can imagine so if we had like, say
the ISS, blew up in orbit, that pieces of debris will carry on
traveling, you know, some of them will be sent upwards, so
maybe downwards, obviously, in an explosive event, but some
parts of that will continue round in a decaying orbit.
Right? And eventually those is going to come down. Okay? So
it's more parsimonious that we have some kind of object up that
that is broken up. And what we are seeing is its debris field
as it travels between like Indochina and Antarctica,
traveling that kind of tracks you've got the debris field as
raining down. So an initial explosive event over Indochina
where we have a clustering of the Tech Tech debris, which is
around Philippines, Thailand, that area. There's another
clustering of debris in southern Australie seven Australia, but
you've got More the particularly the button tektites, which are
these aerodynamically shaped tech types that definitely came
in from space. And then you have some more micro tech types and
on top to get the micro tech types traveled further, just so
we know, that's the end of the debris field, basically these
miniscule tech types that are found in the ice and Antarctica.
So it looks more like an object that's breaking up as it moves
between into China and Australia. And if we infer that
this, there is no known mechanism for creating this kind
of glass, right, there's a couple of, again, exotic
hypotheses out there from scientists. Right, but they are
definitely exotic. They're not accepted. You know, there are
just hypotheses as to how somehow you might achieve this
mount without an extended period in something like a caldera or
in a, you know, artificial process. So of course, there's
going to be offering these, but the most parsimonious is this
really late, it's already glassy. And there's none of the
NASA guys kind of put this out there. Even back in the 60s,
they're like, Well, you know, it seems to be that we already had
a glassy object. And that's why they get this is looking back,
this is why they thought there was volcanic glass from the
moon, because they were trying to understand how you'd have pre
existing glassy material coming in cold, you know, entering the
atmosphere, and then going through secondary melting. So
they know it's already been melted. It's already hard, it's
already find homogenous glass. And now it's melting again, in
the upper atmosphere and raining down. So their hypothesis was,
it was mostly volcanic blast from the moon, because that was
about as wild as their thinking was gonna go. Now, I've only
ever seen one, one paper where someone said, Well, you know,
could it have been something from further out? And it somehow
came in and ended up in orbits and all sorts of problems that
night? How did it get stuck in orbit? Why would that something
then explode in orbit? And so they almost as a passing fought,
they just, you know, put that out there and discount it? And
again, I think that was because at the time, nobody really
believed in these interstellar objects. You know, I mean, so
what object would that be, you know, nothing like that. So I
think that the idea of an alien glassy body was so far out that
it was much easier to hypothesize lunar material. And
the other problem as well is that when you look at the the
evidence of cosmic ray bombardment, which like any
object is happening, solar system, right, is bombarded with
cosmic rays. But we can, we can measure that we can see that
it's been up there for like millions of years, or billions
of years, right. Nearly all the objects up there have been up
there for vast periods flying round and round, right. So when
they measured it in these glasses, we found it was it was
very low, suggesting that it hadn't been in space for very
long, certainly not long enough to indicate that it was an
asteroid or comment, they've been spinning around for
millions of years, that maybe only a few failed Max, a few
1000 years. So there's nothing like again, there's no object
like that. They're all really old. So if it will, it has to
have formed in the earth Moon system, or nearby to this glass
has to form somewhere that so again, that limited it. So it
had to be either the moon or the earth, right. So what could the
third option be well, that the object has formed, it blown up
melted somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, but it
hasn't formed on the moon, it cannot come in. As it was from
space, retaining its levels of cosmic ray data, it's been it we
set. Now that would happen of course, in it heating event, or
if the object shell had been penetrated by cosmic rays, but
then it melted, that's all gonna be mixed in and you won't go to
detect the true age of the object anymore. So again, these
these will point to it being not from the moon, but glassy, and
having been melted in space. And then in orbit, crumbling apart
pieces coming down. Now. So that leaves this idea that well, what
kind of object can that be? Because we don't know of
anything like that. There's no, there's no comets or asteroids
that are made of glass. I mean, that's the bottom line. We, if
this was a glassy body, it's either a natural object that we
don't know of, you know, that's come in from interstellar space.
There's nothing like that known in the solar system. Like, it's
got about 75% silica, the highest silica content of an
asteroid is around 60%. That's unknown to have higher silica
content. So again, that's strange. And then if it is glas,
T, well, there's no objects that are just glass flying around out
there. So if this has come from somewhere else, then either
there's a category of objects in interstellar space that are
natural and glassy and have formed in some way we don't
understand. Right? Which is possible. Or,
John Greenewald: and we rarely see them as I would. Is that
where you're going with that that? If it is natural, then it
is incredibly rare,
Bruce Fenton: incredibly and incredibly strange, because then
we go well, process would lead to a basically a glass asteroid,
you know, like a glass, a big chunk of glass flying around
space. I mean, it's just a really implicitly weird object.
So if it is natural, that's amazing. Don't get me wrong, I
think that'd be amazing to find out there was a whole class of
objects that were like big chunks of glass flying around
interstellar space, right? I mean, I'm interested in cool
natural discoveries, like, I'm sure you are a lot of other
people. But of course, the other possibility there is it's not
natural. And if it's not natural, if it's something
that's been find and made homogenous in an artificial
process, and we didn't do it, then we're talking about
something really amazing, because then we're talking about
probably some kind of artificial, intelligent probe,
because my thinking here is that if you look at the kind of
cutting edge thinkers in the field, in terms of Seti and
whatnot, they think that most alien civilizations will be post
biological. That is that they will have transitioned to become
cybernetic or silica or artificial life forms. And if
not, that, that they may have gone extinct left their
technologies behind. And almost certainly that first contact
with any alien intelligence will be with its technologies. And
again, this one, of course, Abby lobes thinking that we are most
likely to find aliens by their debris or their probes, right?
So if we're going to look for something like that, what might
we look for? Well, an alien Bracewell probe, or which is
essentially an artificial intelligence that is autonomous,
sent out to explore, we would expect that to be highly silica,
basically, like a roving silica network, right? So if those are
out there, they can also be of almost unlimited size, there's
no particular reason why we they should be timed, they might be
tiny, like micro probes that we're looking at doing, we're
sending out, you know, the little box probes to explore the
solar system. But they could also be enormous silica brains,
right? They're just flying around exploring, they're quasi
immortal. And you know, surveying the soul that you're
surveying the Galaxy on behalf of their biological creators, or
their silica creators who knows. And that these things would be
high in silica content, they would imagine behave in strange
ways like parking around interesting planets, planets
with biospheres like Earth, right? Because you think of all
the planets that we know of Earth is the only one so far
that we have confirmed a biosphere on it. Right? So I
hear a lot of scientists and skeptics saying, Oh, what's
interesting about Earth? Why would anybody come here? And you
know, I'm sure you've seen these kinds of dismissive arguments.
And I was, and that's really strange, because, you know, when
we look out into the cosmos, we find no, so far, no planets with
identify or biospheres. So wouldn't that be interesting?
You know, if you're an alien scientist, and you notice Earth,
and you notice that it's got an oxygen signature, right, the
oxygen signature of Earth has been visible remotely for 2
billion years, right. So there's plenty of time for someone out
there to notice that there's probably life here, then you can
send one of your artificial probes, you know, there needs to
be different civilizations sending them here in that time,
that's a lot of time don't need faster light speeds or any of
that. Right. So all those items go out the window that you need
to have these superfast, you don't just send a probe. So
let's say half Lightspeed from wherever you are in the galaxy,
right? So that's going to have plenty of time to get here. And
these things then could be autonomous, that's who they can
monitor on their own, you know, they can think on their own
monitor, do whatever it is they've been programmed to do.
And in one scenario that I've seen, proposed, I don't know if
it goes by race for himself, but there's certainly a hypothesis
that they might even be programmed to make contact. And
that you know, a certain level of a civilization development.
One of these things could just, you know, fire up, let's say
that we send out radio signals into the cosmos. And that one of
these is sitting in the asteroid belt. It picks up those waves,
it activates the programming and it just rendezvoused with Earth,
you know, opens communications, you know, welcome to the
Galactic Civil, you know,
because you've reached a detectable level of civilization
that it's been instructed to look for. And it's just hovering
around the only planets with biospheres. Now, I guess that
goes back to sci fi. But if you think about it, it's not really
that strange is exactly the kind of thing we would do. Right as
intelligent beings, searching the cosmos, sending our probes,
you know, these are things that we are aiming to do. So this has
the kind of the, what I would say is the hallmarks of
something like that, an object that is seemingly have a
strange, strange composition of glassy silica composition, as
well as various metals, but you know, 75%, silica attempt and
aluminium, a number of the metals that have lower levels,
but this thing it seems to have parked itself in orbit. If we go
on the NASA data again, you know, I didn't come up with
nothing I'm saying I've come up with other than the
interpretation. So it seems to apply itself in orbit broke and
for some reason broke apart. We don't know how long it would
have been in orbit. So you could be dealing with something that
was there for millions of years, had a catastrophic failure. idea
or you know, was impacted by something? Who knows, right? Or
maybe it was programmed to self destruct. At some point, you can
go into those hypotheticals why that would happen. Because if
it's artificial, then that gives you more room for thinking than
if it was just a big comet, or something that was caught
somehow. Because why would that explode? I don't know, I can't
think of any reason why a natural object would be orbiting
and then suddenly melt. Right, because that'd be super weird.
So we have this object that then breaks up, the debris rains down
across this vast field, because it's in orbit, you don't need
this exotic solution of something impacting and sending
a trillion tons of debris into space. And somehow coming in at
these angles. It's much more parsimonious to say it's in
space, it's already glassy, it's broken up, the debris gets
secondary melting from, you know, this impact, but the
initial event, the explosion, has melted it to glass, to this
mixed glass. And then the secondary melting is as the
debris comes in. It's just it matches what we see, even if it
is not, let's say it's not right, because, you know,
science rarely reaches a point where you can say is something's
proven. That's like, a higher standard than I think almost any
scientist aims for, you know, because it's rare that you can
actually get the point you say, there's no possibility you're
wrong. Right? So you could say, Well, I'm sure there's going to
be something else, Bruce. Well, yes. I mean, maybe there are, as
we said earlier, maybe there are natural objects like that. Or
maybe there is something about an impact that was so strange,
that we just haven't understood the physics of it yet. Right? So
you have to be open to those possibilities. But if we don't
look at these anomalies, how will we ever find these kinds of
things wrong? That's the big question. If we always go for
the oh, well, you know, it was probably natural probably is
something that impacts we don't understand. Or in 50 years or
100 years, somebody will clear this up. It's definitely not
aliens move on. And I think that would be a tragedy if we do that
every time.
John Greenewald: The thing that sticks out to me and like I
said, in the in the beginning of the show, I'm very new to this,
but always fascinated, you know, to learn other people's research
and the science behind it as much as I can understand. But
the thing that sticks out to me is that kind of evidence of the
to burn where you have signs of a manufactured type glass object
that is just kind of defying what we know about the universe
and our solar system, then you have that secondary burn. I'm
not saying that that's indicative of alien just on
that, but But my question to you based on that, is why isn't
there more entertainment, to these types of ideas, because
when you were going over those, what you were calling, you know,
exotic explanations of, you know, just just so many
different variables that have to go into play to make the size of
the debris field and the angles that they have to go into and,
and so many other factors that just didn't seem plausible. You
want to talk about outcomes razor as silly as it as some
people may think that it sounds a manufactured extraterrestrial
object may actually be the more simpler answer. So with that
said, Why isn't there more entertainment to that idea? And
and correct me if I'm wrong, but it just seems like there's
pushback on that, that they want to find a earth based, exotic
explanation, rather than now broadening the theory base,
based on the new information we have about interstellar objects,
and kind of this unchartered territory, that sciences is
really just kind of getting into.
Bruce Fenton: Yeah, I think it's because that last few that I
think it's because science is just getting into this, that we
may well see some scientists start to pivot and question
this. I mean, to be honest, I, until about five years ago, I
I'd never heard of tektites. To be honest, I don't know if you'd
heard of Tektite I thought that I was fairly well versed in
mysterious phenomena and ancient mysteries. As I say, that's been
a passion for me for like 30 years, I was really sort of
surprised to learn about an entire new mystery when I first
encountered them. So I think one thing is that I don't know how
well known they are in the fields in the various fields
that interact with them. Maybe it's not a popular field,
although there to be honest, there's been hundreds of papers
written on topics, so there's definitely some people involved.
But I suppose it hasn't had the level of awareness that you
should have for mystery of that size. Definitely. Because, like,
why are we not seeing a National Geographic special on this
stuff, you know, like an event of that scale, debris raining
down across 12,000 kilometers. It just to me, it strikes me as
amazing that I had to find out through some a side angle,
obscure research I was doing of something else, that I ended up
stumbling on this thing about tektites and then are about
these postulates that I'm amazed that this isn't a bigger story.
So I think perhaps isn't enough people on the problem for start,
so not enough independent fingers, not enough new blood go
into that mystery, I think that's an issue. Because if you
have people who have spent, say, 20 years believing a certain
narrative, those aren't the best people to come up with a new
idea when the science changes, because you have a couple of
things human interest, you know, like invested in your
credentials, your name, what you've achieved. For some people
that can be a fret, you know, I'm not, I don't say that all.
Some scientists love change, they love you know, things
update, some people, you know, they see that they've invested a
lot in a term story. You also have, I think you have some of
the phenomena that is similar to what happened with meteorites,
that if you go back a couple 100 years, you know, meteorites only
became accepted, because there was a shower that would involve
so many witnesses and so many stones coming down, that they
accepted that meteorites were real. That was, you know, before
couple 100 years ago, meteorites was seen as a woowoo. Fantasy,
you know, of course, rocks aren't falling from the sky, you
know, you're stupid in the seals. So you got to think about
that. And then, of course, that didn't mean there was no
meteorites before, 200 years ago. Right. So we had asteroids,
comets, everything going past, and the astronomers and
scientists of the day had just dismissed it. Right. So if that
was seen as too wild to go there, I mean, this is really
quite wild, when we start dealing with aliens, there's a
lot of scientists who are going to be stuck in that paradigm,
which is, I'm sure you've seen the phrase, it's never aliens,
right? And there's lots scientists in it, you know, in
their bio, it's never aliens. So if you have that mindset, and
that's the paradigm that you've done most of your work in your
career in. I don't think that Stein has good position for
flexibility to change. So we're going to have a very small
number of initial thinkers, people like Abby Lowe, for
example. Others I was just like Paul Davies, who's a
waiter over mathematician, physicist, and it's, he thinks a
lot on this kind of question, what would what could be looked
for in terms of aliens? There's a couple of others that you
know, I think are quite forward thinking, but not many, you
know, if you if you look, you oughta find the same, the same
names again, and again, on articles that are forward
thinking on kind of techno signatures and the search for
aliens, maybe a dozen scientists, you know, the, in
those fields, who are putting out ideas about you know, how we
can find them and expecting that we should find their
technologies. So I don't think a lot of people so again, so once
you restrict down and and people that are open to something, and
the number of people that know about that phenomena, so now
we're thinking how many of those people even know about the
Tektite issue, right, so we started get to a very small
number of fingers. And then plus the paradigm issue that we're
only just now entering a time when we're accepting
interstellar objects exist, also accepting that probably aliens
will send probes that we should look for kind of signatures of
technology or techno signatures, signatures of alien technology,
rather than expecting, you know, I don't an alien, coming up to
the White House, you know, introducing themselves. That's,
that's super unlikely that we're much more lighter text and like
a mega structure, you know, which would be you know, could
be an energy harvesting machines rounding sun, or something like
stroke earlier, like, sphere, floating mega brain, or one of
these things, these are much more likely to be detected than
to have an alien just turn up here and say, welcome to the
Galactic Federation, I think that's really almost no chance
that that's just my take. I think that, you know, again, the
other things, we're looking at course, radio signals. And as
Paul Davies, again, you know, he's suggested, we might be
looking at looking genetics that we might want to look for a
signature of modification of DNA in prehistory, which is he says
one of his favorites, and that's definitely my favorite, but
there's only a few people that are going to go there. So I
think we've got a combination of being right on the cusp of a
paradigm change, combined with not enough fingers in that
field. And that I think that's going to slowly that those are
going to combine as we have more and more scientists at NASA
saying, let's look for these techno signatures, you know,
we're getting funding now. They're going back into SETI,
they've been out of it for a long time, right. So we're going
to get some of the best minds start looking again, through the
data and seeing what is there. And I suspect, some of them are
going to look and see in their own papers, from the 60s that
there was no great thinkers of that time saying this stuff
seems to come from an object breaking up in space that's made
of weird glass. You know, we don't know, we know what this
is. And I would hope that that would get some of these
scientists rethinking the limited hypotheses that were put
forward, that I think were just centered on that time when
nobody believed that these kinds of audits are out there, and
nobody would want mega structures in the 60s, as far as
I know, you know, this is fairly recent stuff, the idea that
there's Dyson spheres and, you know, so floating alien brains,
I mean, most of this stuff is really kind of cutting edge. So
I think it's a combination of factors. But don't be surprised
if you know within a few years, you're seeing, you know,
hypotheses like this being offered by Conventional voices
and myself, you know, people with the PhDs and stuff.
John Greenewald: I did a show for History Channel A few years
back. And we talked about alien mega structures. And in CGI, I
got to create a Dyson Sphere harnessing the power of the sun
and stuff like that. And it's, it's, it's just a fascinating
angle. I mean, you and I could probably do a whole show just on
the hypothetical part, you know, merging with the machines and AI
and, and thinking extraterrestrial intelligence,
one of my favorite, favorite aspects of this whole
conversation that, you know, is just fun to think about. But
that said, with your way of thinking, because I know you
were talking about thinkers, and when you get into this level,
you're talking about a very small number that would, that
would entertain these types of possibilities. But the way that
Bruce Fenton thinks right now and the years of research that
you've done into this, and the debris field that you've
analyzed, and the the piece that you're looking at, and all the
science and calculations and everything. Are you convinced
that this is connected to alien intelligence or alien
technology? Or do you feel that you've just seen enough to say
that's a possibility?
Bruce Fenton: On a personal level, I would say first, I'm
99% Convinced that we're dealing with an interstellar object, and
that I'm probably 90% convinced it's an alien technology. So I
mean, I got that little niggling doubt. And I think that part of
that is because it's just so extraordinary and precious and
profound, that if it's true, that the impact of that there's
a bit of me that thinks, you know, can that really be true?
You know, am I crazy to even think that can be true? So it's
not necessarily that the I don't think that the evidence is that
problematic? I just think it's such a wild thing to go from the
theoretical, you know, that probably aliens are out there.
Maybe aliens are doing this, maybe. And it's doing that to
Oh, actually, perhaps we've got debris from an alien mega
structure, and I've got pieces of it in my bedroom. Right? It
just feels so extraordinary that I think that the doubt level
goes up, that you know, there must be something I'm not seeing
there. That makes it just a normal, you know, a natural
interstellar object. I am yeah, as I say, I am 99% convinced
this is an interstellar object, though. And that in itself would
change the paradigm because, you know, currently, is not accepted
that any material from an interstellar object exists on
earth. So if we confirm that that's what this is, then it
makes it first of all, it makes it the first known incident of
an interstellar object accepted if it's accepted. So 780,000
years, obviously, is a lot earlier than 2014. And then
secondly, it'll be the first where we have the debris in our
hands. And so we can actually go back and then revisit that
material and say, Well, what's interesting about it, other than
just being an anomalous, is there anything in here that
points to the kind of solar system it may have come from, if
this is directly material, from an object from another solar
system, not melt glass, it's the little pieces of it. Now we
revisit that and say, well, these isotropic anomalies, so
these are not created by isotropic, fractionalization,
during an impact, that these are the genuine differences between
Earth makeup, and some of the solar system, those would be
really interesting things to look at. So don't get me wrong.
I think that's gonna be amazing for the science and cosmology
and astronomy. But yeah, I just that 90% I mean, nice. They
still high, let's be honest. I mean, that's for it being an
alien mega structure. Yeah, I'm mostly there. I have those
moments, every now and then I think about is there something I
missed is, you know, am I wrong somewhere. But, you know,
without, without the feedback, critical feedback of a wider
community of experts, it's really hard to, to get to more
certainty or more doubt, I've had a couple of different sizes,
you know, a geologist, and, you know, a former planetary
geologist, who have both kind of looked at my paper, and they,
they find it compelling and convincing. They give me some
feedback on where, you know, things where I've put arguments
poorly, or whatever, you know, it's my first ever scientific
paper. So, you know, of course, there's gonna be areas in
construction, not necessarily in thinking but certainly in
construction. But they've been so that's been really heartening
that, you know, people that are familiar writing papers, and on
these kind of topics, have said that, well, yeah, it does
support what you're saying the paper you've produced, support
what you're saying. Now, I just add here, I wrote the paper
because, you know, people would say to me on social media, so
Well, you know, if you're so sure of yourself, you think it's
real, why haven't you got a paper, you know, you've probably
seen fuel savings in arguments, you know, that is already kind
of real if you've got a peer reviewed paper, and otherwise,
you know, you're full of it. So it wasn't, so I really wanted to
do something, I fell in the end. It was not important if it was
real, that I had to support it in a way that scientists could
pick up that ball and carry it forward. Because there's only a
limit to what I can do. With zero funding, no lab, no team,
you know, no great media platform, you know, if it's
real, all I can do is raise the ball high enough that someone
else sees it and picks it up. Right? He's got so is that?
John Greenewald: Is that paper available to the public?
Bruce Fenton: It is. Yeah, that's on ResearchGate. And on
academia.com, you know, networks for scientists, you can upload
your pages. And
John Greenewald: so you're welcoming feedback from whomever
is watching you right now you want them to look at that,
elevate it to the next level. And one of my last questions to
you is, and by the way, anybody who's listening or watching, I
will link all of this in the show notes. That way you can see
Bruce's paper. And if you either are a, someone who can peer
review it or know somebody who can or get it the right hands,
by all means take a look at it. So I'll make sure that that link
is there. But we've mentioned Avi Loeb, Dr. Avi Loeb, Harvard,
part of the founder of the Galileo Project. And he's going
out and getting that object in the Papua New New Guinea field
underwater. And I've heard a little bit about that very
brief. But we touched on that before. Is he either looking at
the same debris field looked at your paper? Is there any kind of
connection there? I mean, the sounds like this is what he's
doing in just a different field, meaning debris field, is this
something that he can look at, or has looked at,
Bruce Fenton: it shut me off would very much like him to look
at, I did shoot a couple of emails to the gallery approach.
And I used their, their box on their website, I think two or
three times, I've never had a reply. And that's just an
initial, you know, want to communicate about some work that
I'm doing. So I've been disappointed, because you would
think that that'd be a quite well monitored entry point to
the Galileo Project. So I didn't hear anything from that. And I
didn't hear anything from a direct email to to have either.
Again, I understand this, they're busy people. So I sort
of wrote it off as that. But I mean, I have sent it to other
people that know him. So and, in fact, people on the team, and
I've not heard anything back. So I don't know what to make of
that in a way. Because I think that they would even if it was
just to say, we don't buy it. You know, I'd be quite happy
with just that kind of response. If someone just came back and
said, you know, what, Bruce? I think this part of it just
doesn't make sense. Or, you know, good luck with it. That
kind of thing. So I don't really understand I don't know, if he's
that nobody's read those emails, or those contacts? Or what
that's about because like, if he's not, the strange thing is
that there's not many people doing this kind of stuff. Yeah,
right. So it's not like there's floods of people are gonna say,
you know, I've got a paper on techno signatures or
interstellar objects. There's a few, but there's not loads,
because again, these are fairly new topics. So I'm not quite
sure I would have thought that you'd know something. What I do
understand, though, is that in an interview that is out
tomorrow, someone has asked him about the paper. But I don't
know, of course, I don't know yet what his response was,
whether it was he'd never heard of it, or whether, you know,
he's looking at it. So that's gonna be really interesting to
be honest, on as to, you know, what actually is said in that
because at the very least from tomorrow, he assumed now he is
aware of it. So that interview has happened. So whether he was
aware before or not, he now is so I think, what do you think
not unreasonable to expect him to comment somewhere about isn't
it? I think,
John Greenewald: yeah, and that's a little disappointing to
hear, just simply because it sounds like he's traversing into
the same vein of work that you've done for quite some time.
So even if he did feel you were wrong. And I'm not saying you
are, but he, you know, if you felt like you were misguided or
wrong about a scientific whatever, that he that he would
respond. So that's a little disappointing to hear. But who
knows what will happen with that interview, please, you know,
definitely keep me updated. And if that drops, by the time this
airs on my channel, I'll make sure that that's in the show
notes as well. Bruce, I can't thank you enough for all of the
time that you've given me. Here. In closing, if the audience
wants to reach out to you, how can they do that? How can they
get in contact with you?
Bruce Fenton: Sure. I mean, if anyone's got sort of, you know,
pertinent information, contacts, or, you know, questions, and
they certainly can reach me by email. So, Bruce, at Bruce
Fenton dot info, you know, open to things on there. So, you
know, why can't probably help with is, you know, all kinds of
stuff, theories about aliens and stuff on that, you know,
because, obviously, if there's anything to do with this topic,
I'd be quite happy to hear from anyone on that, or if they feel
that they know anyone that could, as you say, you know,
look at this and give opinions, you know, I'd appreciate that. I
do have, you know, a presence on Twitter, so some can get me on
social media. They can pm me on there as well. So that's
geological setting is my handle on there. I'm open to DM on
these topics as well. I think that's probably the best twice
to get a hold of me, I'd say the perfect papers on ResearchGate
that has a messaging system on there. So someone reads it and
wants to just instantly ask me something. And I do check on
that Research Gate page, so they can contact me through there.
John Greenewald: Awesome. And I'll make sure that the email
the website, Bruce Fenton dot info is all in the show notes.
And links also to the two books that you mentioned. I'll get
that Amazon Author Page link over there for anybody
interested in your other books. But honestly, Bruce, thank you
so much for your time. And I'm looking forward to seeing what
happens with it. I'll, I'll definitely be watching. And if
there's any developments, please feel free to give me a call and
drop me a line. I'd love to have you back.
Bruce Fenton: Appreciate it. That'd be that'd be awesome. And
you know, the one thing I really hoped for John, to be honest,
apart from what were they trying to recapture? Really, I would
love to see that NatGeo special where they show something
blowing debris flying for hunting, it just seems a missed
opportunity. You know, there's absolute amazing event, and most
people don't know about it. So they're at least I hope I'm
raising attention to extraordinary period in history.
So thanks very much for having me on. I really appreciate it.
John Greenewald: Absolutely. And if I can throw out what's what's
very cool about this conversation is even though you
know you, you were talking about the alien, potential connection
there, even if it was natural, how big of a discovery that
would be and that that's why I love that story in this
conversation is that even if it turns out to not be alien, the
natural explanation is pretty fascinating in and of itself. So
very, very cool. I really appreciate the conversation.
Bruce, thank you again. And thank you all for listening and
watching. It's always a big help. If you're watching on
YouTube, click the Thumbs Up button, make sure you're
subscribed to this channel. I have a lot of fun making these
interviews, especially with people like Bruce where I get to
explore topics I know nothing about. So I'm learning right
along with you. But that's what this channel is. You get to peek
into my journey of trying to find the truth behind all of
these mysteries and, and obviously take that journey with
me and make up your own mind. So thank you for doing that. Again,
make sure you hit the thumbs up, subscribe to the channel. If
you're listening on the podcast version. Please do the same. I
aim for five stars with these shows. If you don't know that
these interviews dropped to audio form. It's listed under
the black vault radio on any podcast aggregator that you
watch. With that said, this is John Greenewald Jr signing off,
and we'll see you next time.