I'd consider the nostradamus, quote as pseudoscience, good point Thomas R Morrison,Really? So you've never told a lie, or done something shady in your entire life?
It's very easy to look at someone's worst mistake in life, and quickly dismiss them as a bad person. I prefer to look at the whole of their life, and try to understand them in that context. And having done that, it appears to me quite possible that Daniel Fry was telling the truth about his experience at White Sands, and later faked a ufo clip to try to bolster his story because he was getting taken to the woodshed by rabid anti-ufo people like Phillip Klass. In fact I've heard the interview with Daniel Fry on Philip Klass' radio program, and it was a total hit job - if that's indicative of the kind of attacks that he was being subjected to, then I can understand (though not forgive) his desperate attempt to bolster his story. Because frankly, that fake ufo clip pales in significance compared to the subsequently verified scientific predictions in his books, and unlike the Billy Meier case, that film clip had little if anything to do with the popularity of his story, which I still find fascinating to hear him tell in the few surviving audio interviews and talks that he gave - he was a fascinating and highly intelligent man.
Oh dear - now you're not even being rational. I had thought that you might be a dispassionate and objective person, but clearly you came into this discussion with your own beliefs, which you're now defending at the expense of logic and reason. This is why I say that the "ufo disbelievers" are as misled as the "ufo believers" - both extremes are so biased by their agendas that reason flies right out the window.
Nostadamus didn't actually make any predictions whatsoever - he simply wrote a bunch of totally unintelligible verses that can readily be twisted into whatever meaning people can find in them after-the-fact. It's a parlor trick.
Einstein made a large number of falsifiable scientific predictions; time dilation, the gravitational redshift, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, frame dragging, gravitational waves, etc. These successful scientific predictions are the entire reason why we revere his theories: falsifiable scientific predictions which are then subsequently confirmed as fact, are the entire basis of scientific progress.
Daniel Fry also made several falsifiable scientific predictions based on a theory that he called "the nonlinearity of physical law." Years later, and in some cases decades later, those predictions have been scientifically verified. That demands a rational explanation. You asserted in your last post that somebody else had predicted the gravitational repulsion that has now been observed acting between the galaxy clusters, implying that he simply stole that idea. And yet you haven't backed that assertion up with a citation, as I had requested, so apparently you don't have one. That's disappointing, because I've been looking for a rational explanation for these predictions for decades.
Well it's unfortunate that you didn't come here prepared to debate this intriguing subject calmly and logically, as I'm sure we had all hoped. Apparently you've chosen to be a "debunker," instead of simply debating these issues calmly and skeptically. Good luck with your work - I'm sure you'll find plenty of people eager to agree with you along the way. I suggest that you have a look over at Metabunk.org - they do a lot of good debunking over there, but they also prefer to favor any argument that might potentially debunk any given case, rather than to weigh the preponderance of evidence fairly and impartially, which is the essence of true skepticism.
Sent from my SM-J327T1 using Tapatalk