1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

Daniel Fry - Contactee?

Discussion in 'UFO Contactees' started by Thomas R Morrison, Dec 12, 2015.



  1. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    274
    I’ve already explained this explicitly, but you still haven’t gotten it straight. The Big Bang theory eliminated the need for a cosmological constant. That’s why Einstein dropped it from his field equation in 1929. If the universe essentially exploded from a point, as the Big Bang theory describes and Hubble’s galactic recession observations confirmed, then a cosmological constant isn’t required to explain why the universe hadn’t collapsed under its own gravity.

    The cosmological constant was resurrected in the 1990s when we found that the cosmos was accelerating apart. During Daniel Fry’s time, it had been abandoned. That’s why this prediction is so significant – it flew in the face of the conventional wisdom of the time, and yet 40 years later he was proven to be right.

    Nope. As I've already very clearly explained, I see the scientific content and the narrative as two separate topics. I think that the accuracy of the scientific predictions is a fascinating issue in and of itself, and may have no bearing on the narrative, which may be entirely fictional.

    None of the other scientific predictions in his books have turned out to be demonstrably false.

    In 1958 Daniel Fry wrote the following statement in a letter to N.I.C.A.P., which he also published in his Understanding newsletter:

    “In composing my report of the incident at White Sands, I took great care to present it in such a manner that it would immediately be dismissed as nonsense by the `military’ type of mind, and yet would present all the vital information in such a. manner that its value could readily be understood by the type of mind capable of making use of it.”
    NICAP Policy on Contactees | Daniel Fry Dot Com

    I suspect that the features of his story that you’re objecting to were inserted into his book so that “it would immediately be dismissed as nonsense by the `military’ type of mind.” But in any case, those elements of his book The White Sands Incident are certainly false.

    That’s your position on gravitational field propulsion in general, which you’ve stated and restated ad nauseum all over these forums.

    And that’s fine with me. So let’s stop debating it. I’d rather engage in conversations with open minds anyway: that's why I'm here.
     
  2. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    274
    While digging up a citation for the last post, I stumbled across these pages on Sean Donovan’s website about Daniel Fry – it turns out that he somehow recently found our discussion here, and posted excerpts on his website (I’m glad you found our discussion to be interesting Sean!)

    Great Forum Post Worth Reading | Daniel Fry Dot Com

    More Posts of Randy Morrison from the Paracast Forums | Daniel Fry Dot Com

    And apparently Sean has cleaned up the 1956 audio interview with Daniel Fry on the Long John Nebel show (a fascinating interview that conveys Dan’s clear scientific prowess across a wide range of subjects during nearly two-and-a-half hours of live broadcasting), which Sean has kindly provided on his website for free:
    Added another Long John Nebel taping | Daniel Fry Dot Com
     
  3. mike

    mike Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    5,882
    Ive had a brief look at this case.

    Again Ive just skimmed the surface but within a few minutes Ive had some reservations.

    For example Fry himself states

    But that's not the definition of "claim"

    verb
    1.state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

    This in and of itself is a red flag to me.

    So i looked at Fry itself

    White Sands incident
    From the White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico where he worked, Fry had planned to join the July 4, 1949 evening festivities in nearby Las Cruces but missed the last bus. Finding the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ) where he stayed too hot, he decided to explore a path in the desert he had never been down. There, Fry claimed a 30-foot (10 m) diameter, 16 foot (5 m) high "oblate spheroid" landed in front of him, and he talked remotely with the pilot who operated the craft from a "mother ship" 900 miles (1400 km) above Earth. Fry claimed he was invited aboard and flown over New York City and back in 30 minutes.[1] During the flight and subsequent meetings, Fry asserted that he talked with the pilot named Alan, (pronounced "a-lawn"[2]) who gave Fry information on physics, the prehistory of Earth including Atlantis and Lemuria and the foundations of civilization.

    Truth or fiction
    Shortly after Fry went public with his story in 1954, he failed a dubious[3] lie detector examination about his claims.[4][5] Fry also took photos and 16 mm film of supposed UFOs, but subsequent analysis[6] of the original footage has provided evidence the UFOs were fake.

    Later, Fry received a doctorate, however the "degree" was from a mail-order outfit in London, England called Saint Andrew College and was a "Doctorate of Cosmism".[7]

    Many years later, Fry also changed the date the event took place from July 4, 1950 to July 4, 1949


    So without knowing any thing else about this case, i find his claim he makes no claim a tad dishonest, and indeed his definition of the word claim is at odds with the reality.

    I havent looked hard enough at this one to say "Fraud", but if we are looking for evidence of the reality of UFO's. Personally i think we could do better than this one.
     
    marduk likes this.
  4. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    274
    Honestly I can see your point but it seems very nit-picky to me. He said that the word “claim” implied something, not that the word was defined that way. And in practice, he’s right: generally when somebody “makes a claim” they intend to defend the assertion in question, either to convince others of its truth, and/or to make money from sales/interviews/etc. I’ve heard a number of his talks and interviews, and he frequently stated that he wasn’t out to convince anybody of his account; he simply wanted to tell people about it, and they could take it or leave it. He also said that granting interviews and giving talks to various groups about his account, incurred a net loss to him financially that he had to cover with his professional earnings, and that seems likely, given what we know about the scant profitability of ufology.

    And the excerpt from The White Sands Incident sounds like it was written by his publisher, and he said in his interviews that he had no control over the publisher’s promotional material.

    He wrote about that lie detector experience actually, and it does sound like they were out to screw him over by using a highly biased operator – here’s his account of it:
    Polygraph Test? | Daniel Fry Dot Com

    As I said in the beginning, the ufo footage was faked, no doubt about it. But if you look back a little bit in this thread, you’ll see Timothy Good’s take on it, which seems plausible: as a professional scientist, Fry knew that people had every reason to dismiss his story without a whiff of evidence. So he may have faked the ufo footage to quell the more aggressive skeptics he often faced. Phillip Klass was especially brutal to him on a live interview, and they even modulated the sound of his voice to make him sound weird, which was a rotten thing to do by any standard.

    The doctorate was given to him unbidden, so it’s hard to hold that against him. And honestly in his many interviews and talks he sounds as qualified as any of my physics PhD friends, but he never had a formal education, so I think he craved (and probably deserved) the kind of respect afforded a successful doctorate candidate. But that’s just my feeling about it of course, after studying his books and talks and interviews for years.

    He said that he changed the date of his desert incident to provide cover for his contact, who he said was preparing to come down to Earth personally, for unspecified reasons (according to Fry, these aliens could pass for human, but it took a few years to acclimate to the gravity and our biosphere). I don’t know what to make of this, frankly – Fry had no reason to correct the date ten years after the first publication of his account, and doing so only added to people’s suspicions. He gained nothing from it. In a weird way that almost lends as much credence as suspicion to his story.

    But really in my mind, the veracity of his account is sort of a moot point: I want to understand the fascinating physical theory that he qualitatively described in his science books, and I want to understand how he predicted advancements in physics and astronomy that were, in some cases, decades away. That’s just freaky and unprecedented. I’ve read a lot of science history, and read a lot of weird stuff in my lifetime, and I’ve never encountered anything like this before. Even Jules Verne and H. G. Wells can’t boast the highly specific and unanticipated developments ahead, like I see in Fry’s books. And in fact it was my follow-up theoretical work on his physics theory that led me to realize that the Lorentz transform employed in special relativity is just the equation of a circle, which conforms to Fry's theoretical description - I was surprised that nobody had pointed that out in school: it's very elegant and intuitive to model it that way.

    The best explanations of all this that I’ve been able to come up with are either A.) his account is true, and he threw in some BS about Atlantis to throw off the military security people (as he had claimed), or B.) he became privy to some radical advancements in military research science during his time at White Sands, and he concocted this contact story to work around his nondisclosure agreements so he could get the gist of it out to the public. But both of those explanations are fraught with pitfalls.

    So I’ve pretty much given up on trying to figure out the narrative aspect, and instead I focus on unraveling the clues he gave us about the structure of the grand unified field theory that he described in his books. Because his scientific predictions have been correct, and if his physics model is correct, then it’ll fling open the door to a method of gravitational field propulsion which would absolutely change the world and the future of mankind, more or less overnight. And I can’t walk away from that prospect, because human civilization deeply and desperately needs to undergo a radical/fundamental/structural transformation, and flinging open the door to manned interstellar spaceflight would totally kick ass.
     
    mike and DROBNJAK like this.
  5. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    Only thing that matters in UFOs is physics behind them. There is so much solid engineering data about UFOs that a group of open-minded people can extract benefit for all the mankind. Once we understood physics behind them, literally we have the whole universe under our feet.

    My knowledge of science is superficial, beside all my efforts to advance it and I am aware of that. That is why I carefully listen when somebody more knowledgeable talks to me, regardless of the age, gender, social status etc.

    Personal details about witnesses are irrelevant from scientific point of view, so there is no reason to bring them into this discussion. Even if Einstein was a pimp or drug dealer, still his theories were based on sound mathematics and confirmed by experiments. That's all that matters.

    As a matter of the fact, some astute moralizer can rise the issue about Einstein's character, because he cheated on his first wife and coldly sacrificed his two children with serious medical problems to his carrier. Should we dump SR and GR because Einsteins frivolous human side?

    Problem here are nitpicking "teenagers" who just want to have a last word, instead of seeking a deeper understanding and benefit of the possible high payoff of the insights into this phenomena.

    Exactly!

    @Thomas R Morrison

    In ideal world, what we need to do, is some large scale process of elimination. We need to sit down, filter out the most credible cases and strip down all the emotional narrative. That way we'll be left with only engineering data. Quite bit fuzzy data at that, but nevertheless offering us a good base to apply known physics to it.

    And we just stick with pre-Photoshop cases ;-)
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  6. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    On this, I wholeheartedly agree.

    Where to start?
     
    DROBNJAK likes this.
  7. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    Large Number of UFO cases:

    url.UFO Çizimleri - Cases #1
    url.UFO Çizimleri - Cases #2
    url.UFO Çizimleri - UFO Gallery

    Here you'll find several repeating observation groups. Two I can immediately point to are 1) colored lights, usually red, green and blue + 2) rotating craft, sometimes two part hulls with a static and rotating hulls.

    If you want, pick one and try to extract all the cases. Note down references, like URLs, names, places and dates, so that if anybody asks you can tell him where you got it.

    As well, this site is just a tip of iceberg, there is a MUFON's database and few others. If you notice anywhere else reference to this same effect, than join it to together with the list.
     
  8. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I'm not familiar enough with those cases, although one references Kecksburg which I think was a Kosmos re-entry.

    What about newer ones, like O'Hare? One should be able to get some physical analysis based on the hole it left in the clouds, for example.
     
  9. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    The first thing is repetition. More cases have the same observation, more important the observation becomes.

    Second important thing is plausibility. Closer to real physics, the better. Like "cloud melting" is great, "traveling back in time" should be maybe left for later.

    O'Hare hole is quite unique. Although saying that, there is this one similar case:



    I think I read somewhere, somebody trying to calculate energy required to melt away all those little water particles in the cloud. It would be worth finding that article. Since there are other ways to estimate UFO's energy, it would be very interesting to draw comparisons with other approaches.

    If you want, try to dig up as many cases of "melting clouds" UFO cases as you can. Become an expert on that angle ...

    Have Fun ;-) ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  10. mike

    mike Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    5,882
    I too have enjoyed an Eidetic memory for as long as i can remember. :D

    Joke aside i recall freaking my parents out by being able to describe places we lived in when i was barely two years old.
    They used to call me encyclopedia mike in school, teachers would preface questions with "can anyone but Michael tell me....." (insert questions here)
    Usually there were crickets, and everyone would look at me. Eventually the teacher would ask me to give the answer.
    It was a vicious spiral since in order to avoid an arse kicking at recess, i would hide out in the library and soak up more knowledge.
    It was this ability to memorize with perfect recall mainframe commands and syntax that saw me the youngest Hewlett Packard mainframe computer operator at 16 years of age.

    So.....

    Two things about perfect recall aka photographic/eidetic memory that Ive experienced. It doesn't make you more honest, in fact it makes you a better liar if that's what you want to do.
    You don't forget what you've said, so never contradict yourself, never trip over your own claims.
    And it does lose some of its potency with age.

    Now im not making a comment on Ray, just that perfect recall doesnt make you any more honest or infallible in my experience.
     
  11. mike

    mike Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    5,882
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    DROBNJAK likes this.
  12. mike

    mike Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    5,882
    I guess its a matter of perspective.
    Fry says
    And yet the Wiki article says

    I'm not sure his assertion hes made no claims passes the logic test.
     
    marduk likes this.
  13. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    @Thomas R Morrison

    Sorry to bother you, we got mega sidetracked into other conversations. Can you please have a look into this thread here, I pulled lots of data and observations there. There might be something interesting for you. Regards.

    Can you please elaborate more on thin layers of plasma around object's surface, because both UFO spacecrafts and space-suits are enveloped into plasma when AG is present. Particularly important is question, why are there no sparks to the ground?

    Is there any other field but electrical that can produce plasma without sparks? What about vector potential A? Or scalar Electro Motive Force field (I know its far fetched ;-)?

    Here, it must be said, that it is very typical in witness testimonies that UFOs descend to about 21ft (7m) and stop there, then they change something, and land. Sometimes sound coming out of them changes, like turbine sound revs up or down, or plasma haze disappears etc. Same, in a reverse typically happens when the ascend. They get up to about 20ft, stop, wait for few seconds and than they bolt into a blue sky with great speed. As if they have two modes of operation, near and far from the ground.

    What voltage can be sustained without sparks to ground from distance of 21ft?
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  14. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    274
    Chris O’Brien was right to point out here that we’ve strayed far from the subject of Daniel Fry in this thread. I recall that you have a thread about UFO propulsion – why don’t you re-post your comments there, so I can reply to them there.

    Because I’m working on an analysis of the gravitational field propulsion system that Daniel Fry described and illustrated in his books, which I think some of the technically inclined members here might enjoy, and I don’t want to get that mixed up with the larger topic of general speculative ufo propulsion analysis.

    Before I do though, I’d like to point out a consideration that I find interesting about the gravitational propulsion physics described in Fry’s books: in his subsequent interviews, such as the Long John Nebel interview (which is available on YouTube, and a cleaned-up version is freely available on Sean’s website www.danielfry.com), he admitted that he didn’t fully understand it. So if we give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he was given this information by a third party, this would explain why Fry never created a proof-of-principle experiment demonstrating the method of gravitational field propulsion.

    And here’s something that I find fascinating: as I discussed in the "Gravitational Field Propulsion" chapter that I donated to Sean’s biography and analysis of the Daniel Fry case (which I attached to a previous post in this thread), the “force rings” that Fry described in the 1973 edition of The White Sands Incident match the description of the experimental warp field device currently being tested by NASA’s Eagleworks advanced propulsion research group. And there’s a key feature of NASA’s toroidal warp field generator that Daniel Fry could not have simply guessed – namely that this ring-shaped device produces a spherical warp field that would encompass an entire craft. There's no way to anticipate that feature without a mathematical analysis of the theoretical physics behind the device. NASA's warp field coil also doesn’t require any negative energy to operate, according to Dr. White’s theory which the device is based on.

    So that raises an interesting question: what are the chances that the gravitational field propulsion mechanism described in Daniel Fry’s 1973 book would just happen to be a ring-shaped device featuring electrical and magnetic field components oriented at 90-degree angles to each other and to the direction of induced motion, which theoretically generates a spherical warp field that would propel an entire craft uniformly within an artificial gravitational field, precisely like the device that NASA designed and built nearly forty years later? Granted – this would be a far more compelling correlation if NASA reported positive results with their modest experimental ring (which looks to be about 3-4 inches in diameter), but even so, I find these correlations to be very difficult to dismiss as random chance. Compare this striking correlation with the many other untenable and ludicrous descriptions of alien propulsion systems described in countless other cases (such as mechanical “wheels within wheels” gears and even spinning feathers) and you might begin to see why I find this case to be so endlessly fascinating.
     
  15. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    So basically NASA's idea is something along these lines, but without resistance wire shown here:

    [​IMG]

    Poynting vector being produced by massive toroid with super strong EM fields. Very strong E-field is certainly observed around the UFO craft.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  16. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    274
    DROBNJAK likes this.
  17. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    London, UK
    I am ashamed of myself, I confused yellow arrow and Poynting vector.

    Yeah, all the parts for that NASA's Warp drive are available on eBay, 100% for less that $50 per ring. I don't know if interferometer can be made on cheap. I bet if one sticks 10-20 of these 'donuts' on the same axis, even a very crude interferometer would show some light fringing.

    I found this picture on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that Pointing field is a dipole field. This field perfectly matches in its form to a phenomenological field that was described in Carl W. Feindt's "UFOs and Water". Practically there is a Poynting's type of 'attraction' on the top of the UFO and 'repulsion' on the bottom of UFO:
    [​IMG]
    When UFOs exit from a body of a water, first a dome or a bulge or a bump appears. Now since natural water, both fresh and sea water, is conductive, maybe this water bulge above UFO is formed by Pointing field?

    Without Poynting's field water would just slip away from the hull. But with 'attractive' Pointing field on the top side of UFO, say conductive sea water, would be attracted and prevented from slipping to the sides, as on the drawing bellow, Stage #1.

    [​IMG]
    This is Carl Feindt phenomenological description of what happens when UFO's exit water. Bulge is shown in the Stage #1. Although I don't see how the column of water, in the Stage #4, would form, because Poynting's field would repel water and there would be an inundation, not a column? Saying that, there is a possibility that, when UFO reaches about 21ft (7m) it flips the Poynting field because it maybe propulsion works different in air, which is mostly an insulator, as opposed to sea water which is mostly conductor.

    If it is indeed Poynting dipole vector field, than that would explain why there are never any relativistic effects, like bending of light, color shifts or time dilation, in a proximity of the spacecraft or spacesuits. At one point, I had few clues about bending of light around UFO but it turned out these cases were fraudulent and there was only one another case.

    On another hand, since earth's surface is conductive (it is used as Ground in wall outlet), can it possibly be true that as UFO descends and typically stops at about 21ft (7m) that it is bouncing off the repulsion against the eddie currents created on the earth's surface immediately bellow the craft?

    In case anybody wants heads up on this approach to UFO propulsion here is a nice paper called "Pulsed EM Propulsion of Unconventional Flying Objects" by Dr. A.Meessen, who was a physics professor at Institute of Physics Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve in Belgium. Dr. Meessen was expert on superconductivity.

    Its interesting to note that MHD drives had been successfully used to drive boat, in Japan and elsewhere, just because sea water's conductivity. Although that was done with Hall's effect.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2017
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page