Comparison to Other Contactees

From Curvity
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Daniel was one of about twenty well known contactees from the 1950's and it is important to view Daniel's story in the context of his contemporaries. Unlike most fringe researchers, the intent is not to draw correlations between contactee stories because it is unclear which are true and which are not. If correlations are drawn between contactee stories and any one of them is false, then the end result is useless. The best method of testing a contactee story for truth is to see if it is supported by the last fifty years of data produced by science. By comparing how other contactee stories with similar attributes to Daniel's story hold up to the past 50 years of scientific data, we can test how unique Daniel's story is. If other contactee stories are fiction and Daniel's story clearly stands apart, then it is more likely his story has some basis of truth behind it. Out of the many contactee stories available, three were chosen based on the following criteria:

  1. Contemporary - The point was to avoid having Daniel's story used as a template for other stories. However, because of a lack of candidates resulting from applying the last two criteria, this was relaxed in regards to Albert Coe's story published in 1969.
  2. Testable & Useful - Many contactee stories have little or no data from the alien(s) that could be tested or would be useful if the data was true. For example, Truman Bethurum story contained few testable statements and, even if Bethurum's story was true, it wasn't very useful.
  3. Plausible - Most stories were outright implausible and discarded, for example, Buck Nelson's or Dino Kraspedon's story

In the search for suitable candidates for the "early contactee comparison study", I went through the stories of a lot of early contactees, for example

What was consistent across all of them is the incredible amount of bunk! The 1952 story written by Dino Kraspedon, also known as Aladino Felix, is a good example. At first his story looked promising because it had physical contact and contained lots of details that could be checked against modern evidence. However, when the story was examined closely, the results were appalling, take for example, the statements below from his book "My Contact with UFOs" which have no connection with reality and he says he got from an alien:

"On Saturn, for example, owing to the absence of atmosphere, gravity is considered zero." - Saturn has an atmosphere and her moons orbit for a reason.
"Earth is simultaneously attracted by the magnetic centre of the system and repelled by the light of the Sun" - Gravity?
"The entry of a new Sun into our system would throw the Earth out into an orbit between Mars and Jupiter now occupied by the planetoids. ... It will be very soon, towards the end of this century." - Never happened.
"In an absolute vacuum there is no propagation of light." - Blatantly false.

During the research into the contactee stories, I ignored things like Adamski's footprint castes or UFO films because films, pictures and footprint castes can be easily faked and difficult to prove otherwise. If a real contact occurred, then it is what the contactee learned from the alien that would be the most useful and if the story false, the most easily detected as such. At worst, the perpetrator of a false story will include the historical context of the times in their story, which in this case, are ideas and technology prevalent from the 1940s and 1950s. Now that fifty years has elapsed since the stories were written, we can much more clearly see the historical context of a story, for example, we have a lot more data on all the planets. Our technology has also changed enough that things which would seem "normal" in the 1950s, such as push-button controls and analog dials, have been replaced with computers, large LCDs, touch screens and unheralded miniaturization. When a contactee says an alien told them about conditions on other planetary bodies or how the universe works, then conclusions can be drawn and checked against what is known.

Contactee Comparisons

Conclusion

At the start of the comparison study, I had expected to find other early contactee stories that stood up to a bit of investigation as Daniel Fry's story has, but was surprised that most of the stories were badly written fantasy dressed up as truth. It is little wonder that early contactees were not taken seriously if the field was dominated by mediocre hucksters. In contrast to Daniel's story, the last 50 years of scientific data have shown even more clearly that the other similar contactee stories are fabrications. Daniel's story may not be true, but it differs significantly from the stories of his contemporaries. Many of the contactee stories are not internally consistent, and when attempts are made to find modern evidence to support them, it is necessary to assume a conspiracy to avoid confronting the truth.