Imagine an NDE case an a person finally woke up and said 'yes, here's what the numbers and symbols are on that piece of cardboard taped on top of that cabinet over there - you know, the one only an entity floating near the ceiling could see, the ones that were left there deliberately for this purpose.' Well then, there's veridical information assuming the person who saw them had absolutely no way to know in advance.
Is that what Fry produced? Something that could only have come through an external source? Or is it just surprising and highly unlikely?
To carry the analogy through, did he wake up and read off a phone number written where nobody could see it that he had no way to know about, or did he wake up and provide highly detailed and accurate descriptions of his surroundings, the people that were there, the equipment and maybe what was said ?
These are exactly the correct types of questions to ask, imo. And this is how I'll approach my analysis of the Emanuel Swedenborg case when my workload abates in two weeks.
At first I wrestled with the viability of the scenario that Fry described, and asked myself if an alien being would bother to communicate in English, and I tried to parse out the logic of the conversation, and the purpose of the encounter, and the story about entering the craft and Fry's descriptions of the flight and all that stuff. But there's nothing illogical prima facie to any of that stuff - sure, it's a weird story unlike any other I've heard, but there's nothing about it that falls apart on the basis of evidence (there's no dispositive evidence) and there's nothing outright irrational about it. Such a thing
could happen. So that line of questioning is a dead-end, imo.
So I've spent decades analyzing the scientific content of the other two books - the ones about physics and cosmology, to see if they contained anything that Daniel Fry
could not have known at the time those books were published. Because if I could determine that any such data existed within his books, then an explanation of that anomaly would indeed require an extraordinary explanation.
And yes I did find that type of data - as I've pointed out, Daniel Fry's book explicitly describes an antigravitational field acting between the galaxy clusters, and that knowledge did not exist in the human lexicon of science until 1998 [actually that's a little bit inaccurate - Einstein had added the "cosmological constant" to his gravitational field equation in order to produce the result of a steady-state universe that he wanted...but he quickly removed it and called it his "greatest blunder" once Hubble and Lemaître discovered Big Bang cosmology]. And furthermore, it appears that nothing less than a global effort employing the best modern telescopes and analytical techniques was capable of determining the existence of the dark energy effect before the late 1990s. So what we have here, all other considerations aside, is a bona fide scientific prediction - a genuine scientific anomaly that demands an explanation.
[Note to 1963 - earlier you got the "dark energy" effect mixed up with the "dark matter" effect - both effects are facts because they're observationally proven...but you're right that we don't yet have
a conclusive explanation for either one...it may be that dark energy and/or dark matter are indications of a new theory of gravitation, rather than mysterious "energy" or mysterious "matter" of some kind].
But that's not all.
Daniel Fry also had no way of knowing - as far as I can determine - about the results of Robert L. Forward's theoretical analysis of second-order general relativistic effects published three years after Daniel Fry's book, and the concept of technologically
polarizing a gravitational field. I can find no mention of this concept anywhere prior to Fry's 1960 book
Steps to the Stars. So that appears to be a second major scientific prediction that was subsequently confirmed by academic science.
And the list continues.
Daniel Fry also accurately described the key performance characteristics of gravitational field propulsion - correctly, nearly four decades before those key performance characteristics were described in the academic physics literature by Miguel Alcubierre in his 1994 paper "The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity."
And not only that - Fry described a feature of gravitational field propulsion which I still have not seen published anywhere in the academic literature, but which must be true due to the nature of gravitational field interactions. I've actually been waiting for some brilliant theoretical physicist to publish that detail, but to date nobody has figured it out - it hasn't been mentioned in any academic physics paper. But eventually it will be, because it's correct.
I should probably mention that these remarkable predictions haven't been cherry-picked from some crazy slew of wild predictions in Fry's physics books - in fact he made very few novel predictions in his books; most of the text simply explains well-known phenomena in deceptively simple and sensible terms.
However it gets even stranger. Fry describes nuclear physics in a totally alien way - it makes a lot of sense, but his descriptions are totally foreign to the way that our physics model nuclear phenomena. I've spent years trying to reduce his heuristic nuclear physics models to a mathematical formula, and to date I've failed to do so. But here's the crazy thing - Fry provided diagrams of nuclear structure for the first four isotopes of the periodic table, and he illustrated the deuterium nucleus as a dumbbell shape with protons on the outside and an electron in the center (which is nothing like the modern description we expected to see using quantum chromodynamics) - and over 30 years after his book was published this structure was experimentally confirmed; there is actually a low-density region, or "hole," in the center of the dumbbell-shaped deuterium nucleus exactly as Fry had illustrated in his book. To the best of my knowledge no facility in the 1950s had the capability to resolve that detail about the structure of the deuterium nucleus.
There's more, but we'll have to get into that at another time.