Randy Morrison, a fellow Fry researcher I have known for over a decade and who has contributed valuable chapters to “Contactee” started a forum thread on the Paracast Forum [Link] and it is worth repeating some of what he says here (bold mine):
I’m looking for evidence against the claims of Daniel Fry, the 50s-era contactee(?). Specifically I’m hoping that some of the members here can cite sources that provide a factual basis to refute Fry’s contact story.
Because I’ve been studying this case for nearly 20 years – the physics described in his books has been the focus of my interest, and in many key aspects Daniel Fry’s story and scientific writings stand alone among the contactee stories. In fact, in sharp contrast to the other contactee reports, an alarming number of specific claims have withstood the test of time. Not only withstood it, but in fact many modern theoretical and technological advances appear to be converging on specific items within his published works. And that sets me back on my heels, because it’s exactly opposite to the divergences we find in the other contactee reports.
So I seem to be forced to arrive at one of two conclusions: either Daniel Fry was telling the truth about his contact experience at White Sands, or perhaps the contact report was a cover story to leak some major advancements in deep black military research programs.
For example, in two of Daniel Fry’s books first published in the 50s, he clearly describes dark energy, which he attributes to an extremely long-range repulsive gravitational force acting at intergalactic scales. Our best model of dark energy is described as a repulsive gravitational effect, consistent with the theory of general relativity, attributed to some massless and all-pervasive vacuum energy field that appears as the cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equation. As most of us know, academic astronomy didn’t detect dark energy until 1998 – more than forty years after Fry published his books.
There are other fascinating examples, like electromagnetically induced transparency of metals, which is another recent advancement anticipated by Fry’s writings.
And unlike all of the other contactee explanations of the field propulsion system employed by ufos, Fry attributes the action of this field to an as-yet undiscovered general relativistic effect. The effect he describes in some detail perfectly coincides with the field propulsion mechanism that first appeared forty years later in the academic theoretical physics community, in 1994, when Miguel Alcubierre first published his paper on warp field propulsion – which remains to this day the only mathematically consistent model of a faster-than-light propulsion mechanism in the mainstream literature. And it doesn’t end there; I volunteered a chapter to Daniel Fry’s biography on the subject which goes into more detail.
I want to restate something that’s frequently overlooked. All of the other 1950s contactee stories read/sound like dime-store pulp fiction novels, and while they do have a certain naive charm in some cases, I’ve never found anything even remotely credible about them. Especially with respect to physics and astronomy. Scientifically, they’re laughable. Except for Daniel Fry’s story and his books – the stark contrast is genuinely alarming. Even after 50-60 years, instead of seeming increasingly naive with the passage of time, his work seems eerily prescient and increasingly contemporary. His description of dark energy is only one example. He also conveyed a range of subjects from nuclear binding energy to stellar nucleosynthesis and the principles of relativity with graceful clarity and simplicity, and described key features of gravitational field propulsion that were only elucidated in the academic literature in 1994 when Miguel Alcubierre published his landmark paper about warp field propulsion. Daniel Fry also described phenomena that are only now becoming a technological reality, like the electromagnetically induced transparency of metals. Our scientific and technological progress appears to be converging on the elements of his story and his writings. That’s a very hard thing for me to dismiss, because I’ve read a lot of science dating back many decades and I’ve never found anything that so clearly and consistently anticipates real scientific breakthroughs, either in scientific writings or in works of fiction.
It’s shame that his books and interviews have been lumped together with the ignominious class of “the 1950’s-era contactees,” because there’s simply no comparison between the likes of Billy Meier and Truman Bethurum, and the enormously sophisticated scientific and technical material offer in Daniel Fry’s body of work. Perhaps some of that distinction is attributable to his professional career as a scientist working in the early rocket industry, but even that doesn’t seem to account for the uniquely prescient descriptions of our contemporary theoretical physics and experimental technological advancements. Which is why I find it so haunting, I suppose.
could possibly accept that Daniel Fry possessed the uncanny scientific acuity to discern the performance characteristics of a gravitational field propulsion system over 40 years before those concepts were elucidated in the academic literature (although it is quite a stretch). But I balk at his published prediction of the dark energy effect 42 years before astronomers stumbled upon it: that’s not something that someone could just “guess,” because there were no indications of it until 1998. He had to have gotten that knowledge from a source. I suppose it’s possible that somehow this knowledge existed within some classified military science research project of his era, and someone leaked that information to him – but that seems very unlikely given the state of technology back then, and the difficulty in determining the subtle recessionary accelerations of distant galaxies (and I’ve never heard of a top secret military astronomy project). So I have great difficulty taking the extraterrestrial explanation off the table. Especially after scrutinizing his account and seeing other key scientific features of his writings become hot areas of theoretical and experimental research in recent times.
When you hear him speak, it’s easy to understand the tone of his account – he’s just that kind of guy: a pretty stiff, scientific thinker, who probably would’ve been a pretty boring technical sort of guy, if he hadn’t either A.) actually had a truly remarkable experience that evening at White Sands or B.) for some reason written a fictional account of that encounter. In fact, hearing him speak only makes it harder to understand why a guy like this would make up this kind of story – he strikes me as a pragmatist, not a dreamer.
It is a shame that he made it so easy to dismiss his story by faking some photos and films. But that doesn’t address the issue of the scientific predictions, and honestly although I respect his scientific acumen, I just don’t think he was brilliant enough to arrive at those weirdly prescient descriptions of the dark energy effect and gravitational field propulsion on his own. He got it from somewhere. And as strange as it is to say this, the simplest explanation seems to be that he was telling the truth about his contact experience at White Sands. Because if we assume that the top secret world of advanced military science is 50 years ahead of the public sector, and that his story is a smokescreen for a leak of classified research science, then we would’ve seen gravitational propulsion devices in the commercial market by now, and we haven’t.