Alien contacts / critical point of view

[Ron Away]

OK millions disagree.

Forgive me if you've posted this already but what do you think is going on?

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

Sure fine, but that doesn't explain why this link in your signature:

http: //tinyurl.com/ydhrjwlm

redirects to "The Walter Bosley thread" over at Project Avalon:

http: //projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101536-The-Walter-Bosley-thread

What's up with that? I've read both pages of that thread and I can see no reason whatsoever to link to it in your signature. Are you Walter Bosley, incognito-like? And if not, why did you post that link? And beyond that - why would you mask the destination URL with a tinyurl relay link??

What the heck is going on here? Who are you, man?

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

Forgive me if you've posted this already but what do you think is going on?

Think? As an experiencer, as one who has actually reviewed the FREE data surveys, as one who has intimate contact with hundreds of other experiencers, as one who understands the deep emotional and spiritual makeovers many experiencers are subjected, as one who fully appreciates the mental processing and phasing of the ET contact-experience. I know the reality of the ET contact-experience.

And it has little to nothing to do with being mentally deficient, quite the opposite, as anyone with a reasonable approach to the subject and only a bit of my information could also comprehend.

 

[Ron Away]

Think? As an experiencer, as one who has actually reviewed the FREE data surveys, as one who has intimate contact with hundreds of other experiencers, as one who understands the deep emotional and spiritual makeovers many experiencers are subjected, as one who fully appreciates the mental processing and phasing of the ET contact-experience. I know the reality of the ET contact-experience.

And it has little to nothing to do with being mentally deficient, quite the opposite, as anyone with a reasonable approach to the subject and only a bit of my information could also comprehend.

So you "know" what's going on but don't want to share?

 

[The Starman]

As a rule, I tend to agree with your perspective on this - most of the people who claim some kind of direct communication with alien beings have either turned out to be hoaxers or nutters.

But there a few exceptions that genuinely haunt me. It's not that I'm convinced that these rare exceptions actually involve direct alien communication - it's just that I can't rule it out in these cases, and as a dogged rationalist, that troubles me deeply. It should be easy to reject these kinds of claims. But it's not. Let me show you what I mean:

And I've encountered other stories that give me pause as well - told by very rational-seeming, sober-minded people. Our friend and former moderator at The Paracast forums, mike, recently told us about his chilling encounter with a tall grey alien, when he was a child. And it sure sounded true to me.

I can't say that any one of these stories constitutes proof of alien contact with human beings, but I can't disprove them either, and man...that really twists my melon.

Let's start from here, i will explain what is the argument error, in this case called "absence of evidence".

When someone makes a statement, he must provide evidence to confirm that statement. However, in the absence of evidence, the applicant often makes the following false argument: "Then prove that this is not true!" In this way he tries to transfer his difficulties to the opponent.

I dont' say that you are doing this , but if man can't deny something, that doesn't mean "it" exist. It works with everything: god, mermaids, aliens the list goes on.

I know several stories there people claimed about things, but later they were published. For example, Bob Lazar and element 115. Even more i know abductee in my country who claims, he writed about AIDS in 1975, when no one knew about it. In Daniel Fry case it's written, he failed two lie detector's tests. And another thing he had fake UFO photos.

Truman Bethurum is just numbnut, which wanted to start his own UFO religion with a crazy alien story and seems it worked for him.

About Dan Sherman, not much to say, lack of info.

That being said, it's just my opinion. Thanks for info.
On UFO i do not intend to draw conclusions from the presumptions based on believe system. It does'not make any sense to me.

Hahaha – so, this is pretty hilarious: I wrote to Brett Tingley and he was kind enough to confirm that this member “Irreligious Survivalist” did in fact steal his facebook profile photo for use here at The Paracast forums.

And “Irreligious Survivalist” is almost certainly none other than Walter Bosley.

Because not only does the tinyurl link in his signature line redirect to an exceptionally deferential thread over at the Project Avalon forums dedicated to Walter Bosley, called “The Walter Bosley thread” (and why on Earth would anyone use a tinyurl redirect link to mask the title of that thread in his signature line, if this isn't in fact Walter Bosley trying to go incognito...while indulging in a little shameless self-promotion in the process?), but check out this timeline:

So he’s thoroughly enjoying this little rouse of identity deception, which you’d expect of a former AFOSI operative with an affinity for covert ops and counterintelligence.

Fess up, Walter: you’re busted. You can still walk away from this with your dignity intact if you come clean now and drop the silly little sock puppet charade.

And thanks for the intrigue – things have been a bit dreary around here ever since mike either vacated, or you had him banned, or whatever. But this little diversion brightened up my day =)

I thought he was trolling, cause if you check his posting history... you will find nothing but nonsense https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/irreligious-survivalist.9275/

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Let's start from here, i will explain what is the argument error, in this case called "absence of evidence".

When someone makes a statement, he must provide evidence to confirm that statement. However, in the absence of evidence, the applicant often makes the following false argument: "Then prove that this is not true!" In this way he tries to transfer his difficulties to the opponent.

I dont' say that you are doing this , but if man can't deny something, that doesn't mean "it" exist. It works with everything: god, mermaids, aliens the list goes on.

I know several stories there people claimed about things, but later they were published. For example, Bob Lazar and element 115. Even more i know abductee in my country who claims, he writed about AIDS in 1975, when no one knew about it. In Daniel Fry case it's written, he failed two lie detector's tests. And another thing he had fake UFO photos.

Truman Bethurum is just numbnut, which wanted to start his own UFO religion with a crazy alien story and seems it worked for him.

About Dan Sherman, not much to say, lack of info.

That being said, it's just my opinion. Thanks for info.

On UFO i do not intend to draw conclusions from the presumptions based on believe system. It does'not make any sense to me.

Well this is encouraging – you’re familiar with a number of key concepts in analytical reasoning and logical fallacies, so we can engage in a meaningful debate. That’s surprisingly rare, both online and in the world at large.

I understand that the burden of proof rests with the claimant, but what I was pointing out in the cases I mentioned is that all of the other very public contactee cases have ultimately self-immolated. For example, Billy Meier’s photographs of “Pleiadian aliens” and “beam ships” turned out to be an image off of a television program and scavenged parts from around the house, which was confirmed by his ex-wife. I can easily point to that evidence and disprove his claims, and the passage of time has been similarly obliging in many other cases. It’s not that the burden of proof is ever on the adversarial position to disprove a person’s claim, but the disproving evidence has come to light nevertheless, making such cases easy to dismiss.

But Daniel Fry’s case, when you look at it very closely as I have, presents tangible evidence that is very compelling. Here’s what I mean:

Yes he definitely created a fake video, and I think some faked photos as well, during a dark period spanning a few months of his life. That’s pretty damning stuff. But did he fake those images because his entire story is fraudulent, or did the fact that he had no evidence to support his story, provoke an awful lapse of judgment to manufacture evidence to support his story? As a highly rational thinker, Daniel Fry knew that it was perfectly reasonable to disbelieve his account without any objective evidence to support it. So it’s possible that the brief period of image fakery that he engaged in, was a ruefully misguided attempt to provide that evidence – and clearly he was under intense personal and professional attack by people like Phillip Klass at the time, with nothing tangible in his possession to defend himself. Timothy Good reached that conclusion, in his 1998 book Alien Base, and I find his argument to be quite plausible.

The whole polygraph fiasco strikes me as a very clear hit job. A biased polygraph operator can reach any conclusion that they want to, and reading Daniel Fry’s account of this incident, I find his read of the situation to be highly credible.

But here’s the real point: even if Daniel Fry’s entire story was fabricated (not just the photographic evidence that he faked), that still doesn’t explain the very real and successful scientific predictions published in his books, which I briefly outlined before. So you’ve posed a false dilemma logical fallacy – his photos and even his entire story could be false, and yet that still doesn’t explain the question I raised: how did he know about dark energy nearly 40 years before it was discovered by astronomers? And how did he know about the gravitoelectric dipole generator years before Robert Forward first published that idea in the academic literature?

These (and others) are legitimate scientific questions which remain unanswered. And I can only see two clear possible explanations; either Daniel Fry possessed an uncanny genius with regard to advanced theoretical physics and astrophysics, decades ahead of his time, or, he was given that information by someone who had it. I can’t think of a third option - but if you can, then I’d like to hear it.

Your argument about Truman Bethurum is also a false dilemma fallacy. Yes, he was a silly and simple man. But was he driven to create his own ufo cult and therefore made up his story about Aura Rhanes, or did he become obsessed with ufos and aliens because he actually met Aura Rhanes?

He didn’t make up that story about the jeweler – Ray Stanford met that man and got independent confirmation from him personally. So even if Truman Bethurum’s story is a complete fraud, that doesn’t explain Ray’s account.

Now, it’s easy to dig back into Ray Stanford’s distant past and have a hearty chuckle at his early work in this field. But Ray is one of those rare people within this field who has grown substantially throughout his lifetime. He’s made a long and inspiring transition from a credulous author of ufo books and soforth, to become a respected contributor to paleontology being written up in National Geographic, and now he’s actually one of the most vocal opponents of the early contactee stories. But as you can hear in that Paracast interview, he has the intellectual integrity to retell his account of the jeweler and Aura Rhanes despite his personal adversarial position with regard to the alleged contactees. In my mind, that lends significant gravity to his personal anecdote about this. Hopefully we can get the name of that jeweler from him, so we can ask him, or perhaps hear from that man's surviving family members, about this story.

And I hope that you get to hear Dan Sherman’s interview on the Art Bell show, and compare that with the 2013 Edward Snowden leak that I linked to previously. Because again, that’s independent confirmation. It’s not direct independent confirmation of his entire story, but damn if it isn’t compelling nevertheless.

I thought he was trolling, cause if you check his posting history... you will find nothing but nonsense https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/irreligious-survivalist.9275/

That’s very perceptive of you – yes that is a subtle form of trolling, and it resonates perfectly with Walter Bosley’s preferred mode of “drive-by trolling,” which has been nicknamed “microflaming” here at the Paracast forums for the uniquely terse and passive-aggressive quality of so many of his posts. It seems that a tiger can’t change his stripes, but he can don a pretty good disguise ;

 

[The Starman]

Well this is encouraging – you’re familiar with a number of key concepts in analytical reasoning and logical fallacies, so we can engage in a meaningful debate. That’s surprisingly rare, both online and in the world at large.

I understand that the burden of proof rests with the claimant, but what I was pointing out in the cases I mentioned is that all of the other very public contactee cases have ultimately self-immolated. For example, Billy Meier’s photographs of “Pleiadian aliens” and “beam ships” turned out to be an image off of a television program and scavenged parts from around the house, which was confirmed by his ex-wife. I can easily point to that evidence and disprove his claims, and the passage of time has been similarly obliging in many other cases. It’s not that the burden of proof is ever on the adversarial position to disprove a person’s claim, but the disproving evidence has come to light nevertheless, making such cases easy to dismiss.

But Daniel Fry’s case, when you look at it very closely as I have, presents tangible evidence that is very compelling. Here’s what I mean:

Yes he definitely created a fake video, and I think some faked photos as well, during a dark period spanning a few months of his life. That’s pretty damning stuff. But did he fake those images because his entire story is fraudulent, or did the fact that he had no evidence to support his story, provoke an awful lapse of judgment to manufacture evidence to support his story? As a highly rational thinker, Daniel Fry knew that it was perfectly reasonable to disbelieve his account without any objective evidence to support it. So it’s possible that the brief period of image fakery that he engaged in, was a ruefully misguided attempt to provide that evidence – and clearly he was under intense personal and professional attack by people like Phillip Klass at the time, with nothing tangible in his possession to defend himself. Timothy Good reached that conclusion, in his 1998 book Alien Base, and I find his argument to be quite plausible.

The whole polygraph fiasco strikes me as a very clear hit job. A biased polygraph operator can reach any conclusion that they want to, and reading Daniel Fry’s account of this incident, I find his read of the situation to be highly credible.

But here’s the real point: even if Daniel Fry’s entire story was fabricated (not just the photographic evidence that he faked), that still doesn’t explain the very real and successful scientific predictions published in his books, which I briefly outlined before. So you’ve posed a false dilemma logical fallacy – his photos and even his entire story could be false, and yet that still doesn’t explain the question I raised: how did he know about dark energy nearly 40 years before it was discovered by astronomers? And how did he know about the gravitoelectric dipole generator years before Robert Forward first published that idea in the academic literature?

These (and others) are legitimate scientific questions which remain unanswered. And I can only see two clear possible explanations; either Daniel Fry possessed an uncanny genius with regard to advanced theoretical physics and astrophysics, decades ahead of his time, or, he was given that information by someone who had it. I can’t think of a third option - but if you can, then I’d like to hear it.

Your argument about Truman Bethurum is also a false dilemma fallacy. Yes, he was a silly and simple man. But was he driven to create his own ufo cult and therefore made up his story about Aura Rhanes, or did he become obsessed with ufos and aliens because he actually met Aura Rhanes?

He didn’t make up that story about the jeweler – Ray Stanford met that man and got independent confirmation from him personally. So even if Truman Bethurum’s story is a complete fraud, that doesn’t explain Ray’s account.

Now, it’s easy to dig back into Ray Stanford’s distant past and have a hearty chuckle at his early work in this field. But Ray is one of those rare people within this field who has grown substantially throughout his lifetime. He’s made a long and inspiring transition from a credulous author of ufo books and soforth, to become a respected contributor to paleontology being written up in National Geographic, and now he’s actually one of the most vocal opponents of the early contactee stories. But as you can hear in that Paracast interview, he has the intellectual integrity to retell his account of the jeweler and Aura Rhanes despite his personal adversarial position with regard to the alleged contactees. In my mind, that lends significant gravity to his personal anecdote about this. Hopefully we can get the name of that jeweler from him, so we can ask him, or perhaps hear from that man's surviving family members, about this story.

And I hope that you get to hear Dan Sherman’s interview on the Art Bell show, and compare that with the 2013 Edward Snowden leak that I linked to previously. Because again, that’s independent confirmation. It’s not direct independent confirmation of his entire story, but damn if it isn’t compelling nevertheless.


That’s very perceptive of you – yes that is a subtle form of trolling, and it resonates perfectly with Walter Bosley’s preferred mode of “drive-by trolling,” which has been nicknamed “microflaming” here at the Paracast forums for the uniquely terse and passive-aggressive quality of so many of his posts. It seems that a tiger can’t change his stripes, but he can don a pretty good disguise ;

A UFO hoaxer for me is always a hoaxer. I dont debate what could have happend years ago or why it did , i debate arguments/facts not someone's presumptions. I don't see any point spending more time and looking more into it, already explained in my previous message what do i think about that. Maybe some day on another topic, about another story we can clash opinions. But on this...i'm certainly out.
That being said, i'm going back to writing.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

A UFO hoaxer for me is always a hoaxer. I dont debate what could have happend years ago or why it did , i debate arguments/facts not someone's presumptions. I don't see any point spending more time and looking more into it, already explained in my previous message what do i think about that. Maybe some day on another topic, about another story we can clash opinions. But on this...i'm certainly out.
That being said, i'm going back to writing.

You're certainly entitled to your perspective. But it is illogical to dismiss two+ subsequently verified scientific predictions - something which has never happened before in the entire field of ufology, because the guy faked a ufo clip. You can't "fake" a valid scientific prediction - simply saying "he was a liar" doesn't explain it away. If that could explain it, then I wouldn't still be haunted by it.

Here's an analogy to clarify my point: let's say that I publish a book in 1874 about an experience with a ghost, and in that book I report that this ghost told me that a ship called the Titanic was going to hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Everyone laughs about it because we all know that there's no such thing as ghosts, and there's no ship called the Titanic anyway. Then in 1878 I show people a fake photo of a ghost, and people figure out that it's just a double exposure of my room plus an old photo of my grandmother. Then in 1912 a new luxury ocean liner called the Titanic sets sail and soon after hits an iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. The fact that I faked the ghost photo doesn't explain how I knew about the Titanic and that it would sink - the faked photo and the prediction are two completely different things.

But I can understand why the purely emotional reaction to faked footage turns most people away from the case. I just don't enjoy that luxury, because the fraud explanation doesn't explain how a self-proclaimed alien contactee clearly predicted dark energy back in 1960, 38 years before the technological precision of the science of astronomy reached the point where it could be detected.

This probably won't interest you because your mind is already made up, but it may interest other readers of this thread. Here's the passage where Daniel Fry not only describes the intergalactic gravitational repulsion that we attribute to dark energy, but where he also describes it not as a property of empty space itself which is uniformly saturated with an otherwise as-yet undetected scalar energy field (which is the conventional explanation), but instead he attributes it to the distant galaxies themselves. And it's interesting to consider that if his explanation is correct, then there may not be any dark matter: rather, we may be observing the effect of an intergalactic gravitational repulsion forcing the stars of each galaxy inward toward their galactic centers, and thereby magnifying their apparent energy density via the associated gravitational lensing effect. It'll be interesting to see if the Dark Energy Survey that's currently underway finds any anisotropies in the dark energy effect (which could confirm Daniel Fry's explanatory model), or if it is indeed purely isotropic (as the current cosmological constant explanation asserts, and which would disprove his physical theory):

In the vicinity of existing galaxies, the gravitational fields created by the innumerable stars within those galaxies, tend to draw in the random particles, many of which eventually fall into one or another of the stars, and thereby assist somewhat in replenishing the mass which each star is constantly converting into energy.

We must, therefore, seek a spot which is remote from any of the existing galaxies, and approximately equidistant from the nearer ones. Even in this remote area of space we will find countless numbers of particles of matter, and units of charge; electrons, protons or simple atoms, which have achieved escape velocity from some star, or which have been formed in space by random approach and capture. In short, we have all of the building blocks of nature, present in an exceedingly tenuous and diffuse state.

Since each of the particles of matter has mass, each has a force of attraction existing between it and ever other particle of matter in the area.

If we accept the concept of the non linearity of natural law as previously outlined in this text, we find that each of these particles is also being repelled slightly by the surrounding galaxies or galactic clusters.

These forces are almost inconceivably small, yet the net result of their action is to create a tendency upon the part of each randomly moving particle to move ever closer to the center of the area of attraction, which is also approximately but not exactly the center or 'null balance' point of the repulsion of the surrounding galaxies.

We will assume that we have now reached the point from which we will observe the birth of our new galaxy.

This point is at the center of a sphere of space, perhaps thirty thousand light years in diameter, within which the final concentration of matter will take place.

We must be prepared to exercise a great deal of patience, because the forces involved, and the resulting accelerations are so minute that many millions of years will probably elapse before we can detect any significant increase in the number of particles per unit of volume. Nevertheless, all of the particles within several hundreds of thousands of light years are slowly but surely acquiring a velocity in our direction.

As the concentration of matter at the center of our system increases, the intensity of its field will also increase and will add, not only to the velocity, but also to the acceleration of the inward moving particles. We are observing the condensation of a tremendously large volume of exceedingly ratified gas into a relatively small volume.

Let us assume that one hundred million years have passed since we first occupied our point of observation at the center of the newly forming galaxy. All of the particles within some thousands of light years have now acquired a very respectable velocity in our direction, and the density of the gas surrounding us is increasing with comparative rapidity. We observe however, that the particles are not falling directly toward the central point of the condensation.

We can understand this if we realize that the center or null point of the force of repulsion is determined only by the distribution and the distance of the surrounding galaxies, while the center of the force of attraction is determined by the distribution of matter within the area of condensation. Since the center of 'push' is not at the same point as the center of 'pull', there is a tendency toward the creation of an angular velocity. That is: the particles, instead of falling directly toward the center, will tend to spiral inward. Eventually this rotational motion will become general throughout the mass.
Atom, Galaxies and Understanding | Daniel Fry Dot Com
​

 

[The Starman]

You're certainly entitled to your perspective. But it is illogical to dismiss two+ subsequently verified scientific predictions - something which has never happened before in the entire field of ufology, because the guy faked a ufo clip. You can't "fake" a valid scientific prediction - simply saying "he was a liar" doesn't explain it away. If that could explain it, then I wouldn't still be haunted by it.

Here's an analogy to clarify my point: let's say that I publish a book in 1874 about an experience with a ghost, and in that book I report that this ghost told me that a ship called the Titanic was going to hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Everyone laughs about it because we all know that there's no such thing as ghosts, and there's no ship called the Titanic anyway. Then in 1878 I show people a fake photo of a ghost, and people figure out that it's just a double exposure of my room plus an old photo of my grandmother. Then in 1912 a new luxury ocean liner called the Titanic sets sail and soon after hits an iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. The fact that I faked the ghost photo doesn't explain how I knew about the Titanic and that it would sink - the faked photo and the prediction are two completely different things.

But I can understand why the purely emotional reaction to faked footage turns most people away from the case. I just don't enjoy that luxury, because the fraud explanation doesn't explain how a self-proclaimed alien contactee clearly predicted dark energy back in 1960, 38 years before the technological precision of the science of astronomy reached the point where it could be detected.

This probably won't interest you because your mind is already made up, but it may interest other readers of this thread. Here's the passage where Daniel Fry not only describes the intergalactic gravitational repulsion that we attribute to dark energy, but where he also describes it not as a property of empty space itself which is uniformly saturated with an otherwise as-yet undetected scalar energy field (which is the conventional explanation), but instead he attributes it to the distant galaxies themselves. And it's interesting to consider that if his explanation is correct, then there may not be any dark matter: rather, we may be observing the effect of an intergalactic gravitational repulsion forcing the stars of each galaxy inward toward their galactic centers, and thereby magnifying their apparent energy density via the associated gravitational lensing effect. It'll be interesting to see if the Dark Energy Survey that's currently underway finds any anisotropies in the dark energy effect (which could confirm Daniel Fry's explanatory model), or if it is indeed purely isotropic (as the current cosmological constant explanation asserts, and which would disprove his physical theory):

In the vicinity of existing galaxies, the gravitational fields created by the innumerable stars within those galaxies, tend to draw in the random particles, many of which eventually fall into one or another of the stars, and thereby assist somewhat in replenishing the mass which each star is constantly converting into energy.

We must, therefore, seek a spot which is remote from any of the existing galaxies, and approximately equidistant from the nearer ones. Even in this remote area of space we will find countless numbers of particles of matter, and units of charge; electrons, protons or simple atoms, which have achieved escape velocity from some star, or which have been formed in space by random approach and capture. In short, we have all of the building blocks of nature, present in an exceedingly tenuous and diffuse state.

Since each of the particles of matter has mass, each has a force of attraction existing between it and ever other particle of matter in the area.

If we accept the concept of the non linearity of natural law as previously outlined in this text, we find that each of these particles is also being repelled slightly by the surrounding galaxies or galactic clusters.

These forces are almost inconceivably small, yet the net result of their action is to create a tendency upon the part of each randomly moving particle to move ever closer to the center of the area of attraction, which is also approximately but not exactly the center or 'null balance' point of the repulsion of the surrounding galaxies.

We will assume that we have now reached the point from which we will observe the birth of our new galaxy.

This point is at the center of a sphere of space, perhaps thirty thousand light years in diameter, within which the final concentration of matter will take place.

We must be prepared to exercise a great deal of patience, because the forces involved, and the resulting accelerations are so minute that many millions of years will probably elapse before we can detect any significant increase in the number of particles per unit of volume. Nevertheless, all of the particles within several hundreds of thousands of light years are slowly but surely acquiring a velocity in our direction.

As the concentration of matter at the center of our system increases, the intensity of its field will also increase and will add, not only to the velocity, but also to the acceleration of the inward moving particles. We are observing the condensation of a tremendously large volume of exceedingly ratified gas into a relatively small volume.

Let us assume that one hundred million years have passed since we first occupied our point of observation at the center of the newly forming galaxy. All of the particles within some thousands of light years have now acquired a very respectable velocity in our direction, and the density of the gas surrounding us is increasing with comparative rapidity. We observe however, that the particles are not falling directly toward the central point of the condensation.

We can understand this if we realize that the center or null point of the force of repulsion is determined only by the distribution and the distance of the surrounding galaxies, while the center of the force of attraction is determined by the distribution of matter within the area of condensation. Since the center of 'push' is not at the same point as the center of 'pull', there is a tendency toward the creation of an angular velocity. That is: the particles, instead of falling directly toward the center, will tend to spiral inward. Eventually this rotational motion will become general throughout the mass.
Atom, Galaxies and Understanding | Daniel Fry Dot Com
​

I don't see any info if he was a liar, but a hoaxer, no doubt about that.

I would say unusual would be if he was the first explaining the whole theory, bot not making hypothesis which in fact as history says was not the first at all. Why you don't include these facts? Almostt forgot....i can't find "intergalactic gravitational repulsion" is this already known for rocket science ? I think it's just a hypothesis.

Just wikipedia---> Dark matter - Wikipedia
The hypothesis of dark matter has an elaborate history. In a talk given in 1884, Lord Kelvin estimated the number of dark bodies in the Milky Way from the observed velocity dispersion of the stars orbiting around the center of the galaxy. By using these measurements, he estimated the mass of the galaxy, which he determined to be different from the mass of visible stars. Lord Kelvin thus concluded that “many of our stars, perhaps a great majority of them, may be dark bodies.”

Have you ever heard about Nostradamus or Leonardo da Vinci and their "scientific predictions" ? ( BTW, these guys are known in science not like Daniel Fry, how did that happen ?

Why do you call him an alien contactee ?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I don't see any info if he was a liar, but a hoaxer, no doubt about that.

Well – a hoax is a kind of lie, so let’s not split hairs. But it is interesting to note that in every other respect, Daniel Fry was regarded as a very honest and responsible man by both his friends and his colleagues, so the fake ufo footage is clearly an anomaly in his life.

I would say unusual would be if he was the first explaining the whole theory, bot not making hypothesis which in fact as history says was not the first at all. Why you don't include these facts?

Are you saying that somebody else predicted the dark energy effect even before Daniel Fry? Because I’ve never seen such a thing, and I’d like to read about it. To the best of my knowledge, Daniel Fry was the first to predict the dark energy effect. If you know differently, please cite sources, thanks.

Almostt forgot....i can't find "intergalactic gravitational repulsion" is this already known for rocket science ? I think it's just a hypothesis.

You mean “astronomy” not “rocket science,” I presume. But yes, it’s widely understood that the "dark energy" effect is a gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic distances. However the cause of it remains unknown – “dark energy” is currently the leading hypothesis (a scalar energy field pervading space uniformly) but there are also other hypotheses involving modifications to general relativity as well. But in every case the result is a repulsive gravitational field acting at intergalactic distances, just as Daniel Fry had described.

Just wikipedia---> Dark matter - Wikipedia

The hypothesis of dark matter has an elaborate history. In a talk given in 1884, Lord Kelvin estimated the number of dark bodies in the Milky Way from the observed velocity dispersion of the stars orbiting around the center of the galaxy. By using these measurements, he estimated the mass of the galaxy, which he determined to be different from the mass of visible stars. Lord Kelvin thus concluded that “many of our stars, perhaps a great majority of them, may be dark bodies.”

Careful not to get “dark energy” mixed up with “dark matter.” Fry never talked about dark matter, but it’s not difficult to see that the mechanism of intergalactic gravitational repulsion that he described in that passage above, also entails an additional gravitational field pushing matter toward the center of galaxies and galaxy clusters, which would observationally mimic a dark matter effect. Lord Kelvin’s idea about dark stars is still around, but astronomers don’t believe that a sufficient number of them could exist to explain the dark matter observations.

Have you ever heard about Nostradamus or Leonardo da Vinci and their "scientific predictions" ? ( BTW, these guys are known in science not like Daniel Fry, how did that happen ?

The “Nostradamus predictions” are so vague that they’re like a cognitive Rorschach test – you can see whatever you want to see in those things, totally unlike Daniel Fry’s very clear astronomical descriptions of gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic distances.

And I don’t know what Da Vinci predictions you’re talking about, but he did understand aerodynamics quite well after writing his Codex on the Flight of Birds, and his ideas about flying machines were vindicated 400 years later when the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk.

Why do you call him an alien contactee ?

I don’t. I call him “a self-proclaimed alien contactee,” which is 100% accurate: Daniel Fry spent the last 40 years of his life talking to people about his alleged contact experience at White Sands Missile Range.

But since I haven’t found any satisfactory explanations for how he knew about the dark energy effect 38 years before it was discovered, or how he knew about the viability and the performance characteristics of gravitational field propulsion roughly 40 years before it first appeared in the academic literature, or how he knew about the theoretical viability of a gravitoelectric dipole generator three years before Robert L. Forward first published about it, I still consider the alien contact explanation to be one of two unsatisfactory explanations for these and other subsequently verified scientific predictions that appeared in his books.

The three alleged contactee cases that I mentioned are simply in my “grey basket.” All of the other publicly popular contactee stories that I’m aware of, on the other hand, are in my “trash basket.”

 

[The Starman]

Well – a hoax is a kind of lie, so let’s not split hairs. But it is interesting to note that in every other respect, Daniel Fry was regarded as a very honest and responsible man by both his friends and his colleagues, so the fake ufo footage is clearly an anomaly in his life.


Are you saying that somebody else predicted the dark energy effect even before Daniel Fry? Because I’ve never seen such a thing, and I’d like to read about it. To the best of my knowledge, Daniel Fry was the first to predict the dark energy effect. If you know differently, please cite sources, thanks.


You mean “astronomy” not “rocket science,” I presume. But yes, it’s widely understood that the "dark energy" effect is a gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic distances. However the cause of it remains unknown – “dark energy” is currently the leading hypothesis (a scalar energy field pervading space uniformly) but there are also other hypotheses involving modifications to general relativity as well. But in every case the result is a repulsive gravitational field acting at intergalactic distances, just as Daniel Fry had described.


Careful not to get “dark energy” mixed up with “dark matter.” Fry never talked about dark matter, but it’s not difficult to see that the mechanism of intergalactic gravitational repulsion that he described in that passage above, also entails an additional gravitational field pushing matter toward the center of galaxies and galaxy clusters, which would observationally mimic a dark matter effect. Lord Kelvin’s idea about dark stars is still around, but astronomers don’t believe that a sufficient number of them could exist to explain the dark matter observations.


The “Nostradamus predictions” are so vague that they’re like a cognitive Rorschach test – you can see whatever you want to see in those things, totally unlike Daniel Fry’s very clear astronomical descriptions of gravitational repulsion acting at intergalactic distances.

And I don’t know what Da Vinci predictions you’re talking about, but he did understand aerodynamics quite well after writing his Codex on the Flight of Birds, and his ideas about flying machines were vindicated 400 years later when the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk.


I don’t. I call him “a self-proclaimed alien contactee,” which is 100% accurate: Daniel Fry spent the last 40 years of his life talking to people about his alleged contact experience at White Sands Missile Range.

But since I haven’t found any satisfactory explanations for how he knew about the dark energy effect 38 years before it was discovered, or how he knew about the viability and the performance characteristics of gravitational field propulsion roughly 40 years before it first appeared in the academic literature, or how he knew about the theoretical viability of a gravitoelectric dipole generator three years before Robert L. Forward first published about it, I still consider the alien contact explanation to be one of two unsatisfactory explanations for these and other subsequently verified scientific predictions that appeared in his books.

The three alleged contactee cases that I mentioned are simply in my “grey basket.” All of the other publicly popular contactee stories that I’m aware of, on the other hand, are in my “trash basket.”

Hoaxer - A person who tricks or deceives someone by means of a hoax.
He was a good person BUT faked ufo footage and it is clearly an anomaly in his life...really?
If such standards would be always applied, to characterize hoaxers, i think most of them would get away. How could people even imply on this one...that just blows my mind.

He did not know, it was his prediction, do you understand that? Nostradamus also predicted so do Einstein.
"Hypothesis" or predictions are not clear in science...theories in other hand - are.

We are totally in different ballparks on this one.... I made a mistake even answering about this story. Since you making my context interpretations i don't see there it goes. And i really honestly think, this topic is a waste of time. But i wish you luck, to get all the "anwers", you are looking for.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Hoaxer - A person who tricks or deceives someone by means of a hoax.
He was a good person BUT faked ufo footage and it is clearly an anomaly in his life...really?
If such standards would be always applied, to characterize hoaxers, i think most of them would get away. How could people even imply on this one...that just blows my mind.

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.

He did not know, it was his prediction, do you understand that? Nostradamus also predicted so do Einstein.
"Hypothesis" or predictions are not clear in science...theories in other hand - are.

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.

We are totally in different ballparks on this one.... I made a mistake even answering about this story. Since you making my context interpretations i don't see there it goes. And i really honestly think, this topic is a waste of time. But i wish you luck, to get all the "anwers", you are looking for.

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.

 

[The Starman]

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.

Im already there.

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

Irreligious Survivalist said: ↑
Think? As an experiencer, as one who has actually reviewed the FREE data surveys, as one who has intimate contact with hundreds of other experiencers, as one who understands the deep emotional and spiritual makeovers many experiencers are subjected, as one who fully appreciates the mental processing and phasing of the ET contact-experience. I know the reality of the ET contact-experience.

And it has little to nothing to do with being mentally deficient, quite the opposite, as anyone with a reasonable approach to the subject and only a bit of my information could also comprehend.

So you "know" what's going on but don't want to share?

Did I just not?

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

As a rule, I tend to agree with your perspective on this - most of the people who claim some kind of direct communication with alien beings have either turned out to be hoaxers or nutters.

But there a few exceptions that genuinely haunt me. It's not that I'm convinced that these rare exceptions actually involve direct alien communication - it's just that I can't rule it out in these cases, and as a dogged rationalist, that troubles me deeply. It should be easy to reject these kinds of claims. But it's not. Let me show you what I mean:

The Case of Daniel Fry

A professional rocket technician working in the early aerospace industry back in the late 1940's, Daniel Fry claimed that he encountered an alien craft in the desert while working at White Sands Missile Proving Ground in New Mexico, and that he communicated with the operator of that craft through some kind of technologically induced audio communication presumably related to the direct stimulation of the auditory nerve by electronic transmission (it may be possible to induce audio sounds in the human head with microwaves, but there may be other methods as well, remaining to be discovered), and that he was given a 30-minute flight aboard the fairly small ufo "cargo ship" that he encountered, traveling to New York City and back to where the encounter began. Crazy, right?

Here's where it gets interesting. Fry wrote an account of his experience called The White Sands Incident, and two other books about physics which make no mention of his encounter; Steps to the Stars and Atoms, Galaxies, and Understanding. These two deceptively simple physics books (published in 1956 and 1960, respectively) suggest that mankind will soon learn how to produce a gravitational field propulsion technology which will take us to other stars at superluminal speeds. This possibility of superluminal "warp field propulsion" didn't appear in the academic literature until 1994, when Miguel Alcubierre published his seminal paper on the subject, and has been hotly debated ever since. Maybe Daniel Fry just got lucky with that one, okay. But in his book Atoms, Galaxies, and Understanding, in the final chapter describing galaxy formation, Daniel Fry explicitly describes an antigravitational force acting between the galaxy clusters. This is a bona fide scientific prediction, and the astronomy community of his time scoffed at it. But then in 1998 this precise effect was discovered, and dubbed "dark energy." Dark energy is universally understood as a gravitational repulsion (aka antigravity) acting at intergalactic distances. So how did he know? And that's not all. In a seemingly innocuous passage about the possibility of creating a repulsive gravitational field in a manner analogous to electromagnetic induction, Fry not only captured the essence of gravitoelectromagnetism (a concept that's now widely understood and accepted as a key feature of general relativity), but his example anticipates that exact finding in the academic literature, by Robert L. Forward, in his 1963 paper "Guidelines to Antigravity," wherein Dr. Forward first presented the notion of a gravitoelectric dipole generator to the physics community. And this concept is accepted as a perfectly valid one, although still beyond our human technological capabilities. So we're left with essentially two clear options: either a self-proclaimed alien contactee just happened to be a seemingly prescient genius on the subject of repulsive gravitation and cosmology - decades ahead of his time, or, these insights (and others) were communicated to him, as he continued to claim throughout the remainder of his life.

We've enjoyed a lively discussion of this case over here in this thread.

The Case of Dan Sherman

Dan Sherman was employed by the US military and he claimed to have been recruited into a highly classified "black project" at the NSA called "Project Preserve Destiny," where he says that he was trained to receive telepathic information from unseen entities of alien origin. His detailed account of this training is fascinating in and of itself, and his testimony has the striking ring of truthfulness about it - I heard him interviewed on the Art Bell show - an audio file of this interview can still be found in The Ultimate Art Bell Collection, which is a torrent file. But that's not why his story haunts me, at least not entirely. The most striking feature of Dan Sherman's story is the subsequent confirmation of his precise description of the US military classification apparatus known as "the onion effect" which only surfaced in the public record when Edward Snowden leaked reams of classified intelligence documents to the public 15 years after Dan Sherman went public with his story. Precisely as Mr. Sherman had described, we now know that increasingly classified programs are nested within less classified programs in exactly the manner that he described - like the layers of an onion. How could he possibly have known this, if he hadn't actually been briefed into a highly classified black program? And since it's evident that he was, it seems likely that he was telling the truth about the nature of that program as well. And his retelling of the communication that he had with his unseen alien contacts is absolutely riveting to hear.

The Case of Aura Rhanes

Back in the 1950's a simple guy named Truman Bethurum claimed that he met a gorgeous female captain of an alien spacecraft named Aura Rhanes, and he fell madly in love with her. As I've heard it, he even wrote her a book of poems, and his fixation apparently contributed to his 1955 divorce from his second wife. But the most compelling anecdote about this story didn't come from Truman Bethurum. As we got to hear from Ray Stanford in his most recent interview on The Paracast (April 22, 2017), Ray told us a personal anecdote (at the 101-minute mark of the commercial-free Paracast+ audio file) about a jeweler in Truman Bethurum's area who was completely unaware of the Truman Bethurum story, and had been personally commissioned by Aura Rhanes to make the gold pendant that she gave to Truman Bethurum. And through sheer chance (he didn't believe in aliens or ufo's at all) this jeweler met Mr. Bethurum years later, and saw the pendant that he was wearing which Aura had given to him, and it was the same one that she'd commissioned from him many years earlier.

And I've encountered other stories that give me pause as well - told by very rational-seeming, sober-minded people. Our friend and former moderator at The Paracast forums, mike, recently told us about his chilling encounter with a tall grey alien, when he was a child. And it sure sounded true to me.

I can't say that any one of these stories constitutes proof of alien contact with human beings, but I can't disprove them either, and man...that really twists my melon.

TL;DR

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

I don't mean to be rude, but buddy

I most assuredly am not your "buddy" and most assuredly you wished to be exactly that...rude. Be genuine.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I most assuredly am not your "buddy" and most assuredly you wished to be exactly that...rude.

I was being facetious:

fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs
adjective
1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
synonyms:
flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic,

Be genuine.

...says the decades-long paranormal forum troll who's been banned from everywhere he's ever gone because he uses dozens of sock puppet accounts and impersonates real people all of the time, all over the internet : hilarious =D

Who is Waller Joel?

Why did you interview Waller Joel?

Talk:MU (internet troll) - RationalWiki

Physical medium Waller Joel

Scott Milligan!? - Page 5

Who Doesn't Like Aliens?

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

I was being facetious:

Use a blue font.

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

...says the (former?) AFOSI operative posting under a fake profile with Brett Tngley's pilfered facebook profile photo: hilarious =D

AFOSI operative? Former? Are you certain, Tommy? Are you? Have you jumped to several conclusions based upon nothing but bridging from this bit of misinformation to the next? This could be very embarrassing for you, be sure, man, be sure!

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.

You 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.

Time will tell...assuming time exists which it does not.

 

[Randall]

... as one who has intimate contact with hundreds of other experiencers ...

Oh my, intimate contact, and with no less than hundreds. Was this sort of a Vulcan mind meld thing, or more like a hand laying ceremony with you as the head guru?