• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Daniel Fry - Contactee?

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
How do I know? Easy. Because this is a direct transcript from my extensive interviews with Ray Stanford who spent a considerable amount of time w/ most of the top contacts from the 1950s (and some of the minor ones as well.) Ray is not a liar. He was there and is not reciting stories that he heard. He has almost perfect recall and wrote everything down in his journals. I don't care at all of you don't believe him. Go ahead and believe in your fantasies about whatever, just don't question Ray's or my honesty, thanks, dude...
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
How do I know? Easy. Because this is a direct transcript from my extensive interviews with Ray Stanford who spent a considerable amount of time w/ most of the top contacts from the 1950s (and some of the minor ones as well.) Ray is not a liar. He was there and is not reciting stories that he heard. He has almost perfect recall and wrote everything down in his journals. I don't care at all of you don't believe him. Go ahead and believe in your fantasies about whatever, just don't question Ray's or my honesty, thanks, dude...
I find it amusing that the dude is choosing to believe a dude's word only as long as it supports his specific narrative.

I mean, at the end of the day, it comes down to what Fry said. He never gave any evidence for anything. Why you'd turn around and say Ray is lying but Fry isn't... only betrays the bias that you want Fry's narrative (and Halls, etc) because it supports your pet theory.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Ray is one of the straightest shooters I've ever met. If not the most. He's definitely the most impressive. Not only does he have almost photographic recall, he has mountains of documentation to back everything up. He's the real deal and I don't care what you say negatively about him, it doesn't phase me in the least. In fact, he'll be featured in November's National Geographic Magazine. That should tell you something about the man!
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Ray is one of the straightest shooters I've ever met. If not the most. He's definitely the most impressive. Not only does he have almost photographic recall, he has mountains of documentation to back everything up. He's the real deal and I don't care what you say negatively about him, it doesn't phase me in the least. In fact, he'll be featured in November's National Geographic Magazine. That should tell you something about the man!
Sorry I misstated what I was saying if you thought I was saying Ray was lying.

What I was meaning to say was that to believe Fry’s story - which itself is hard to believe - over Stanford’s which is far more believable - betrays a bias the drobnjak has. He wants to prove his theory true, and doesn’t mind using questionable sources to do it.

I wasn’t poking at you or Stanford.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
No, I am not choosing my narrative. I don't know if that story is true or false.

I am just trying to illustrate that that story can be invented at zero cost. Just because somebody likes or dislikes Ray Stanford, doesn't mean a thing to ad to veracity of the story. ".... Ray Stanford is straight shooter ... " is just an opinion, not even a legal proof. Its like saying "all my friends are great guys". OK, I am sure they are.

I have all the respect for Ray Stanford and his great work and I quite him a lot, but he is very jealous of other UFO researchers and according to him they are all his enemies. His interviews mostly consist of him throwing mud at other people. He tends to surround himself with people who are inferior to himself, so he can dominate them with his knowledge and standing, so he can be a "leader". Nobody's perfect.

Although I believe Ray when he talks about Adamsky, I would not go along with him about Fry. Just my pick.

As I said before. Daniel Fry made a correct scientific prediction, which came true with 30-40 years delay. That's enormous. That's approximately 1,000,000:1 against any superficial here-say. Scientific predictions can't be done by chance.
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
No, I am not choosing my narrative. I don't know if that story is true or false.

I am just trying to illustrate that that story can be invented at zero cost. Just because somebody likes or dislikes Ray Stanford, doesn't mean a thing to ad to veracity of the story. ".... Ray Stanford is straight shooter ... " is just an opinion, not even a legal proof. Its like saying "all my friends are great guys". OK, I am sure they are.

I have all the respect for Ray Stanford, but he is very jealous of other UFO researchers and according to him they are all his enimies.
You’re choosing to believe something that would require an extraordinary amount of evidence with none provided over something that sounds exactly like human nature?

Ockham wouldn’t like your thinking very much.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
You’re choosing to believe something that would require an extraordinary amount of evidence with none provided over something that sounds exactly like human nature?

Ockham wouldn’t like your thinking very much.
Yeah, sure. In 100,000 years that humans exist, there was 300 years of rational enlightenment. And during that 0.00001% of time we sussed out all the knowledge that there is and we can sit back and marvel at our great egos. Impressive.

Ockham razor can't tell you if something is right or wrong. Just if something is elegant or clumsy.
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Yeah, sure. In 100,000 years that humans exist, there was 300 years of rational enlightenment. And during that 0.00001% of time we sussed out all the knowledge that there is and we can sit back and marvel at our great egos. Impressive.

Ockham razor can't tell you if something is right or wrong. Just if something is elegant or clumsy.
Fry’s story is elegant now?
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
Fry made a successful scientific prediction.

Touche ;-(

You are essentially picking and choosing what you want to hear ;-)
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Fry made a successful scientific prediction.

Touche ;-(

You are essentially picking and choosing what you want to hear ;-)
Bwahahahaha!

Man, I gotta tell you, this thread is my favorite thing in a long time.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
We put up the screen and set up the projector and we ran the film. I have in my files one frame from the film. What he had filmed was a model that he made with a round metal hood from a lamp—a lampshade or something. He had made a conical thing out of tissue paper. Black and white tissue paper. When we slowed this thing down you could see the tissue paper vibrating from the wind. You could actually see it vibrating. He had bobbled this thing in front of the camera and all of a sudden---it was on a thin wire or nylon fishing leader—it slips. The thing slipped down--out of his hand and he grabbed it. You can see (for several frames) the entire line clearly where it’s going up past the top of the model, and up to his hand (which you can’t see because it’s out of the picture). If you ran it at 54 frames per second (or whatever its fastest speed was) [instead of the normal 24 frames per second] you wouldn’t see it.
Thanks Chris – I have no doubt that Daniel Fry faked the ufo footage; like I said in my opening post:

I already know about the fake ufo footage. I assume that Daniel Fry created it, and that's pretty damning stuff. On the other hand, it's possible that he faked that footage because he was taking such a beating for not having any evidence to offer to support his story. As a scientific thinker and a professional technician in the rocket industry, he would've understood that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - which he didn't have. And that may have driven him to a tragic lapse of judgment.
Sean Donovan wrote a very well-researched biography of Daniel Fry that I edited and contributed two chapters to, called Contactee: Was Daniel Fry Telling the Truth? He offers additional convincing evidence that the films were faked on his Daniel Fry website. It turns out that Timothy Good commented on this issue in his 1998 book Alien Base – here’s what he had to say about it:

I have always been dubious about the authenticity of Fry’s 16mm films of UFOs (copies of which are in my possession), particularly an object he said he saw in Oregon in May 1964, which to me looks like a couple of lampshades or similarly shaped devices fixed together and suspended with fine twine. He went into some detail as to the circumstances of the filming, and claimed that some frames show the limb of a cloud coming in front of the saucer. I remain unconvinced; the movement of the craft gives every indication of being a suspended fake. Perhaps I am wrong. But does this prove that Fry was lying about all his previous experiences? I think not. Most probably, he thought that a few fabricated movie films of ‘saucers’ would bolster his unprovable claims.

Sean’s analysis and the faked ufo footage can be found here: Fake UFO films? | Daniel Fry Dot Com

So it’s tempting to dismiss Daniel Fry’s entire account, because we know he faked that footage. But on the other hand, many key scientific claims in his books have been vindicated in the intervening six decades.

Fry made a successful scientific prediction.
Yes he did. This is the prediction of the dark energy effect, which he published 42 years before astronomers discovered that the galaxy clusters are accelerating away from each other:

"We can explain the observed actions of the present universe by postulating that an attraction exists between the individual bodies within a galaxy, because their total mass and distance is such that they are within the positive portion of the gravitation curve with respect to each other. In the vast spaces between the galaxies however, the curve dips below the zero line, with the result that a repulsion exists between the galaxies themselves. This also explains why matter, although rather evenly distributed throughout the known universe, is not distributed uniformly, but is found in quite similar concentrations at comparatively regular distances." [emphasis mine]
Steps to the Stars, Daniel Fry, 1956

That’s an unambiguous and bonafide scientific prediction right there. I can’t explain it. This was not a phenomenon anticipated by the astronomy community. And it’s worth noting that although the effect is ascribed to an undefined factor termed “dark energy,” according to astrophysicists the action of this energy is gravitational in nature: it’s a gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic distances, which is perfectly consistent with the general theory of relativity (the term in Einstein’s gravitational field equation is known as the cosmological constant, but we'll have to see the results of the Dark Energy Survey to see if it's actually constant, or phenomenological in nature).

But Fry also clearly described the unique performance characteristics of a gravitational field propulsion system (arbitrarily faster-than-light speeds, motion along a “free fall” geodesic, instantaneous/hairpin accelerations) nearly forty years before Miguel Alcubierre’s landmark 1994 paper about gravitational field propulsion called “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity” described those same characteristics formally and explicitly.

And that’s not all. He also described electromagnetically induced transparency in solid materials (Electromagnetically induced transparency - Wikipedia) decades before the phenomenon was discovered by research physicists.

I haven’t been able to arrive at a satisfying explanation of these striking scientific features of Daniel Fry’s books.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
Thanks for the excellent summary on Daniel Fry's positive contributions.

Can we please continue our constructive exchange of knowledge. I wrote this new thread: Daniel Fry - Contactee? yesterday, to ad more information in a response to your suggestions, before I got into attrition war with these two brilliant gentlemen.

I am going to watch videos and read papers you suggested over the weekend.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
All he did was restate Einstein, which anybody could do.
No, you completely missed the point.

Einstein devised the cosmological constant term in 1917 because he thought the cosmos was static on the large scale – we didn’t know about the Big Bang yet. Without the Big Bang, the universe we saw in 1917 would’ve been collapsing under its own gravity. He didn’t like that, so he inserted the ad hoc cosmological constant term to prop the universe up against gravity. It’s not a fundamental or structural feature of the theory; it was entirely a fudge factor. And its arbitrary value was determined such that the universe would neither collapse nor expand.

But when George Lemaître showed in 1927 that the universe could be traced back to a single point using Einstein's general theory of relativity, and then Edwin Hubble published his observational analysis of galactic recession in 1929, Big Bang theory was born. It completely obviated the need for the cosmological constant, and Einstein dropped it from his field equation. In 1932 he wrote to Willem de Sitter:

"Historically the term containing the 'cosmological constant' ƛ was introduced into the field equations in order to enable us to account theoretically for the existence of a finite mean density in a static universe. It now appears that in the dynamical case this end can be reached without the introduction of ƛ."

They released a joint statement in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences expounding on this statement shortly thereafter:
http://www.pnas.org/content/18/3/213

That’s why the astronomical community was stunned to learn about intergalactic acceleration in 1998. The astronomers working on those projects to measure the recessionary velocities of the distant galaxies thought they were measuring the rate of deceleration of the cosmos, until the analysis of their data was done. Nobody expected to find a cosmological acceleration.

But Daniel Fry did, and he published that prediction in 1956, 42 years before modern astronomy discovered it observationally.

There’s no easy way to discount that fact. I’ve been looking for a prosaic explanation of it for nearly 20 years, and there’s just no getting around it: Daniel Fry explicitly described a gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic scales four decades before astronomers discovered it.

And when you read his two brief books about physics and cosmology, Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding and Steps to the Stars, you see that this prediction is a feature of a larger and frankly fascinating theory that encompasses physics from thermodynamics to relativity, and explicitly predicts a gravitational field propulsion principle that will facilitate manned interstellar spaceflight. It’s not a red herring, some off-the-cuff statement: his prediction of the dark energy effect is cited as evidence that this kind of propulsion is physically possible. And he’s right about that, theoretically – if we could understand and replicate the dark energy effect in the lab, then we’d be able to build a spacecraft propelled by gravitational fields, which could accelerate to velocities arbitrarily faster than the speed of light.

But that shouldn’t be too surprising for people interested in ufology, because it appears that this same gravitational field propulsion principle is at the heart of most ufo sightings; the performance characteristics match exactly.

Thanks for the excellent summary on Daniel Fry's positive contributions.
Can we please continue our constructive exchange of knowledge.
Yes we will DROBNJAK; I just wanted to address the objections raised here about Daniel Fry first. I'll respond to your previous post when I have a couple of hours to discuss the variety of points you've raised - hopefully in the next couple of days. I'm also trying to catch up with The Paracast - I've fallen behind a few weeks with the show, and I'm especially eager to hear what Jacques Vallée had to say.
 
Last edited:

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
New I was always wandering how did they eliminate Van der Waals force in that Kzimir force experiment.

And he’s right about that, theoretically – if we could understand and replicate the dark energy effect in the lab, then we’d be able to build a spacecraft propelled by gravitational fields, which could accelerate to velocities arbitrarily faster than the speed of light.
What would be energy requirement for a 20ton spacecraft, if this dark energy experiment was successful? Is it something that would need Saturn size lump of uranium, or something more real?
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
No, you completely missed the point.

Einstein devised the cosmological constant term in 1917 because he thought the cosmos was static on the large scale – we didn’t know about the Big Bang yet. Without the Big Bang, the universe we saw in 1917 would’ve been collapsing under its own gravity. He didn’t like that, so he inserted the ad hoc cosmological constant term to prop the universe up against gravity. It’s not a fundamental or structural feature of the theory; it was entirely a fudge factor. And its arbitrary value was determined such that the universe would neither collapse nor expand.

But when George Lemaître showed in 1927 that the universe could be traced back to a single point using Einstein's general theory of relativity, and then Edwin Hubble published his observational analysis of galactic recession in 1929, Big Bang theory was born. It completely obviated the need for the cosmological constant, and Einstein dropped it from his field equation. In 1932 he wrote to Willem de Sitter:

"Historically the term containing the 'cosmological constant' ƛ was introduced into the field equations in order to enable us to account theoretically for the existence of a finite mean density in a static universe. It now appears that in the dynamical case this end can be reached without the introduction of ƛ."

They released a joint statement in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences expounding on this statement shortly thereafter:
http://www.pnas.org/content/18/3/213

That’s why the astronomical community was stunned to learn about intergalactic acceleration in 1998. The astronomers working on those projects to measure the recessionary velocities of the distant galaxies thought they were measuring the rate of deceleration of the cosmos, until the analysis of their data was done. Nobody expected to find a cosmological acceleration.

But Daniel Fry did, and he published that prediction in 1956, 42 years before modern astronomy discovered it observationally.

There’s no easy way to discount that fact. I’ve been looking for a prosaic explanation of it for nearly 20 years, and there’s just no getting around it: Daniel Fry explicitly described a gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic scales four decades before astronomers discovered it.

And when you read his two brief books about physics and cosmology, Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding and Steps to the Stars, you see that this prediction is a feature of a larger and frankly fascinating theory that encompasses physics from thermodynamics to relativity, and explicitly predicts a gravitational field propulsion principle that will facilitate manned interstellar spaceflight. It’s not a red herring, some off-the-cuff statement: his prediction of the dark energy effect is cited as evidence that this kind of propulsion is physically possible. And he’s right about that, theoretically – if we could understand and replicate the dark energy effect in the lab, then we’d be able to build a spacecraft propelled by gravitational fields, which could accelerate to velocities arbitrarily faster than the speed of light.

But that shouldn’t be too surprising for people interested in ufology, because it appears that this same gravitational field propulsion principle is at the heart of most ufo sightings; the performance characteristics match exactly.


Yes we will DROBNJAK; I just wanted to address the objections raised here about Daniel Fry first. I'll respond to your previous post when I have a couple of hours to discuss the variety of points you've raised - hopefully in the next couple of days. I'm also trying to catch up with The Paracast - I've fallen behind a few weeks with the show, and I'm especially eager to hear what Jacques Vallée had to say.
Not quite.

All he did was to say that empty space had a repulsive force. That's exactly what the cosmological constant is. He just ramped it up.

That's not very hard to do. I think you're vastly overstating what he claimed, and how accurate it really was. And very much how easy it is to make random claims, some of which will happen to be true.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
That's not very hard to do.
OK, marduk, you jumped into your own mouth, so to say. Only few people in each century make correct predictions on that magnitude. Most of them are Nobel prize winners.

Daniel Fry made 3 or 4.

Why don't you have a go? Make a scientific prediction. You said it's not vary hard.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
What would be energy requirement for a 20ton spacecraft, if this dark energy experiment was successful? Is it something that would need Saturn size lump of uranium, or something more real?
We can’t reasonably estimate the energy requirements at this point – we still don’t even have an inkling of a method to technologically emulate the dark energy effect, or even a sensible description of its physical nature. All we really know is an approximation of the acceleration across vast cosmic distances, which isn’t every helpful, frankly.*

The first idea that cosmologists had, was that the vacuum fluctuations implied by quantum field theory provided this apparently universal and homogeneous energy field that could drive the intergalactic gravitational repulsion effect. But the predicted energy density from QED is around 120 orders of magnitude off – a rather irksome disparity sometimes called the “vacuum catastrophe.” Most theorists still cling to this idea because it’s pretty much the only idea out there. They’re hoping that the vacuum fluctuations in free space are physical and not strictly computational, and that somebody will figure out an explanation and a mechanism for that energy to almost, but not exactly, cancel. That must be extremely difficult or impossible though, because after nearly 20 years nobody’s figured out a suitable equation that makes any sense.

Another idea is that our universe has an intrinsic negative curvature. But really that’s just saying the same thing that the vacuum fluctuation idea says, but in general relativity terms rather than quantum theory terms – there’s no explanation for why the intrinsic curve is there. And in fact, various types of observations all point to a flat universe. Which suggests that the cosmos may actually be infinite.

But get this – Daniel Fry’s books describe the basic contours of another kind of explanation altogether. In this model, the laws of nature are all intimately interrelated by a function that defines a sine wave: factors like time and gravitation and energy can all take on positive or negative values between two points of interest, depending on the relationships of all the other fundamental physical factors to one another, and between the chosen points.

This is a highly appealing notion that implies a grand unified field theory. And thanks to Einstein, we’re already aware of some vital examples of this interdependence. We now know that the rate of time is dependent on relative velocity aka kinetic energy. We know that inertial mass is also a variable that’s proportional to kinetic energy, defined by the Lorentz transform (which is just the equation of a circle, and a circle in motion defines a sine wave). And we also know that the relationship between time and space changes in the presence of mass, according to Einstein’s gravitational field equation. And we now know that gravitoelectric induction can produce both a positive and a negative gravitational pole using ordinary matter accelerated along a toroidal coil – which is yet another successful scientific prediction found within Daniel Fry’s books (Fry predicted this effect in his 1960 book Atoms Galaxies, and Understanding, but this effect wasn’t described in the scientific literature until Robert Forward published a paper about it in 1962 while he was working at Hughes Research Laboratories, a top military research company).

* It’s worth noting that Dr. Harold White at NASA’s Eagleworks advanced propulsion research group has optimized the shape of the Alcubierre warp field, such that the negative energy requirement is now down to the mass of a VW bug automobile – which is still a huge magnitude of energy (and of a negative type that’s only theoretically available at all). But that’s down from the Jupiter-scale mass equivalent that many authors had calculated previously, and future theoretical work may find even more plausible energy requirements.

Not quite.

All he did was to say that empty space had a repulsive force.
No that’s not what he said. He said that a gravitational repulsion existed at intergalactic scales; he didn’t explain it as empty space having a repulsive force. The description in his books states that gravity possesses two poles, a positive and a negative, and that factors like energy and distance determine whether the interaction is positive or negative. In Fry’s model, the gravitational interaction is positive in the short range, and negative at cosmological scales. Phenomenologically, that’s much more interesting and intuitive because the source of the effect is the matter itself, not empty space.

The conventional interpretation of dark energy, on the other hand, would have us believe that some undetected form of energy pervading all of space uniformly, endows it with an antigravitational quality – that’s a radical, unprecedented, and frankly unconvincing concept.

But unfortunately, the observational data is insufficiently precise to determine whether this long-range gravitational repulsion is a truly isotropic property of space, or if it varies to some extent (which would favor the kind of mechanism that Daniel Fry described). The Dark Energy Survey is looking for anisotropies in the dark energy effect right now.

That's exactly what the cosmological constant is. He just ramped it up.
Even if your interpretation were correct, and I’ve just explained why it isn’t, “just ramping it up” would still constitute a valid and unique scientific prediction. For example, QED predicts a stronger magnetization of the electron – which you could also describe as “just ramping it up,” if you were seeking the most trivializing manner of expression imaginable. And since it’s been observationally confirmed, that’s considered a valid prediction of QED – direct evidence that QED is the right physical model. If the magnetization of the electron hadn’t proven to possess a slightly stronger magnetization, then QED would have been disproven. That’s why predictions matter.

That's not very hard to do. I think you're vastly overstating what he claimed, and how accurate it really was. And very much how easy it is to make random claims, some of which will happen to be true.
This is why it’s pointless to debate with you marduk: even when you’re given unassailable facts that prove an interesting point, you either can’t understand their significance, or you simply choose not to, and tediously cling to the same tiresome and baseless conclusion that you started with. There’s no point in debating with someone who’s apparently incapable of changing their mind in light of a solid logical argument supported by real and unambiguous sourced data.

I do you the courtesy of avoiding these pointless exercises in futility by abstaining from your threads. I wish you’d extend me the same courtesy.

OK, marduk, you jumped into your own mouth, so to say. Only few people in each century make correct predictions on that magnitude. Most of them are Nobel prize winners.

Daniel Fry made 3 or 4.

Why don't you have a go? Make a scientific prediction. You said it's not vary hard.
Yep. Unlike every other contactee, Daniel Fry’s scientific claims have grown >more< mainstream as time has passed. In addition to the prediction of intergalactic acceleration, he also described specific features of gravitational propulsion that weren’t elucidated in the physics literature until Alcubierre first formally described the characteristics of gravitational field propulsion nearly forty years later. And he also described electromagnetically induced transparency decades before it was discovered.

And these features of his writings are not an anomalous subset among a multitude of other predictions that were subsequently shown to be false. He accurately described many known physical principles, and made only perhaps 3-5 statements that qualify as predictions. As time has passed, those predictions that can be validated, have been.

It would be foolish and unscientific to dismiss that fact simply because the context of his story seems so incredible, because those are two different subjects. Have Daniel Fry’s scientific predictions been uncannily prescient and accurate? Yes they have. Did Daniel Fry acquire those predictions from an alien intelligence? We have no idea – there’s insufficient evidence in either direction to arrive at a defensible conclusion. Perhaps Fry was privy to scientific advancements made within top secret military research projects and his story is a smokescreen that he devised to release the information he had learned. But it’s very hard to imagine that the military knew about the dark energy effect in the early 1950s, and I’ve never even heard of a secret military astronomy program.

Like I said, this is a highly anomalous case, by virtue of its correct scientific predictions. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of it.
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Guys, the cosmological constant describes the pressure exerted by empty space. Einstein pegged it to be static in 1917. Hubble determined galaxies were moving apart in 1929, which naturally means the cosmological constant was larger.

On the flip side, you're positing Fry's story, which most find laughable, is true because of some predictions that turned out to be true? What about the ones that didn't?

There's no evidence an atomic war was fought 30,000 years ago. What about the Lumerian folks that started a new colony on Mars? Where is that?

How about this: go and build his antigravity drive, and prove that he was telling the truth? Let us know when that works out for you.

Here's my prediction: it won't work.
 
Last edited:


Top