How relevant is Fry's truthfulness anyway? I don't buy his narrative about the encounter with the automated ship, but it's beside the point when you get to his books, with the scientific predictions that Thomas has done such a masterful job of breaking down for the rest of us. They sit there, simply existing when they shouldn't, mocking all who try to ignore them on whatever basis they can dream up. There is no question that such impossible things were published under Fry's name. If they had been published under any name, they would still be a mystery.
Hi DNS, As to the truthfulness of Fry's UFO sighting, 30 minute jaunt to NY and back, his photographs[+ his wife's] his 'pathetic attempt at a UFO/film' and overall limpness to the whole claim of being in contact with an extraterrestrial named 'Alan' [with a 1950's hollywood-style of 'exotic-pronunciation ] , the whole, "it took the aliens two years to learn how to speak English... [note. *
telepathically *]
"I wouldn't touch that, the hull will still be hot 'buddy'"
and his very weak and frankly unbelievable changing of the year explanation when he realised that a test of validity would find out that he wasn't even at White Sands on the date that he'd previously attested to. [but of course just like Corso's mistakes,.. "it was the publisher's fault"!] … well, to say the least, Daniel W Fry does not get anywhere near passing my own personal validity discernment test [nor I believe it should pass anyone's] .. and in conclusion, I believe that it's alright to label this man a UFO hoaxer/liar.
But that's not really the point of the puzzling part of Daniel Fry's history on this thread is it,... no, as pointed out by our good friend [and scientific guru] Thomas, the real conundrum about this guy is that he 'apparently' came up with a few scientific predictions, which as far as a novice like me can tell are exciting someone as scientifically-savvy as Thomas because though not empirically proven...they may well have been [according to ongoing modern scientific investigation] positively sound propositions!
This I agree is a fascinating anomaly in the body of work of a most probable hoaxer/liar. I have no clue whatsoever whether or not, the subjects in question will indeed finally pass scientifically proven muster, or ultimately will fall at the final hurdle after looking so promising? … But I do understand that the basic premise of Fry's scientific writings seem very much out of place for a UFO Hoaxer/liar, and that for Thomas, so much out of kilter in fact with the rest of Fry's character, and that he as not yet found an alternative source of Fry's advanced thinking [ie. hasn't found anyone else from that period that he could have been cribbing from]... that he is actually telling the truth?... or not?...or he is? ..
.. I would love to be able to help him decide, but unfortunately i'm certainly in no position to help him to find out where Fry's ideas came from. But no matter whether his 'foresight' turns out to be pukka or not, I can't ever see myself believing that he was a genuine contactee. Troubled chimeric genius maybe. But not an alien contactee. … which I posit does definitely "matter" on a UFO/ETH forum thread.
As far as mediums go in general
@1963 , I have observed, researched, and experienced first hand the works of many channelers around the country of the US in my past travels, most I observed were frauds, some totally sincere in their hoaxes, fully believing they were channeling 'something' but there was couple of people who seemed to be channeling something, not necessarily what they think they are channeling either...There was one older woman I met in South Carolina who claimed to channel a higher being from the fifth dimension or the sixth, allegedly...Well, I can say that this individual was indeed channeling something, a presence that I felt in her group channeling sessions, of which I took part of and observed for many months in the early 2000s...This entity or consciousness stayed well hidden, speaking through her when addressing the group and this channeled being always seemed to drain her physically as well, making her weak and sometimes exhausted, which I heard years later was taking a toll on her health...I cannot say what this thing was she channeled, or if it was being honest and truthful of itself and where it came from, but there was definitely something that spoke through her, there was a definite presence during the channeling groups she entertained...
...
Hi Nivek, Of course I do not doubt your integrity in the slightest old friend, … however, I feel obliged to say that whilst I like to keep an open mind and not write anything off as being totally out of the question, I have not found through my reading and documentary watching any truly convincing examples of true mediumship. I remember reading plenty of literature on the subject [because Arthur Conan Doyle believed] ... the likes of Cayce, Stokes, Dixon etc and my favourites were Daniel Dunglas Home and Helen Duncan and although Helen was actually imprisoned for being caught faking... I still enjoyed the stories around them. But unlike yourself I never attended even a single live-event. And if i had taken a different path then perhaps that might well have enabled me to declare that I think that there might be more to it then I am willing to presently admit. … For me my friend, it is just an old Vaudeville act that has refused to die! [forgive the pun] … unless you can show me different.
Cheers Buddy.