Sean Donovan Responds
In response to my post explaining the situation, from my point of view, regarding the removal of the forum from his Daniel Fry website, Sean Donovan has sent an e-mail, in which he has kindly provided the text from most of my posts on the forum. See below:
Date:
Jun 07 2013, 08:48 PM
Subject:
Deletion of the Forum on Daniel Fry Dot Com
Hi Daniel,
As I do every once in a while, I search for Daniel Fry related topics on Google to see what people are writing about him. I stumbled across your blog entry "Sean Donovan of DanielFry.com Nullifies My Existance"
As you took personal offense at my suggestion that "no one ever used it anyway", I have changed the wording [link].
Below are the content of the posts you wrote on the forum if you with to republish them:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:44 pm
Post subject: Daniel Fry and The Hills : A Link Established
For more than 40 years, the impression has been given in literature and other media concerning Extraterrestrial encounters, that the case of Betty and Barney Hill was - in ways that are rarely, if ever, specified - somehow radically different to earlier accounts of E.T. encounters by the people known as contactees. Anyone who takes the time to actually compare these alleged encounters (The Hills and the contactees), as I have quite recently done, will find that this long-running idea, is no more or less than a huge myth.
So-called UFOlogy - including me - has allowed itself to be misled on this matter for decades. Prominent individuals like Professor David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins have believed in and spread the Big Myth around to a wide audience, most of whom probably never bothered to read the contactee accounts to find out whether or not their favoured abduction-promoting "gurus" were being truthful.
Here is just one example of a feature of the Betty & Barney Hill abduction having been pre-dated by the same sort of feature in a contactee account - specifically the account of Daniel Fry....
CRAFT CLOSING IN - BLOCKS OUT STARS
Daniel Fry
‘..I had gone about half a mile past the rifle range on this road when I first saw it. The sun had been down for some time, and there was practically no daylight left, but the sky was bright with stars, and the moon, though not yet above the horizon, was producing considerable diffused light in the sky. As I looked up at a group of especially bright stars hanging just over the peaks of the mountains, one of the stars suddenly went out. This, of course, immediately riveted my attention on that spot, for stars just don’t go out (not in a cloudless sky anyway)…
…Then another star just to the right went out, and a few seconds later two more just below. By this time a strong prickling sensation was travelling up my spine. Whatever it was that was cutting off the light of the stars, was increasing rapidly in apparent size, and since the bearing remained constant, it could only mean that it was coming directly toward me.
Then finally I saw it and at the same time realized why I had not been able to see it sooner. It’s color appeared to be so nearly that of the night sky that even when it was quite close it was difficult to see anything but the outline…’
Daniel Fry The White Sands Incident (1954)
Betty Hill
Doctor Simon: When I talked to you last time.. and you said something like, “I looked at it, and I kept thinking I didn’t see it, because I was expecting to see the lights. And I didn’t see the lights”. You went on to say that you saw the bottom of it, right over the car. And you couldn’t see the bright lights or the stars. That you know this big, dark mass was moving right over the top of the car.
Betty Hill: Yes. That’s right.
John G. Fuller The Interrupted Journey (1966)
‘..I put down my car windows and looked out. I could not see the craft. Then I put my head out the window and realized I could not see the sky, nor the stars. Nothing but a large, black “something” above us…’
Betty Hill A Common Sense Approach To UFOs (1995)
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:18 pm.
The comparative survey that I compiled on this subject is now posted on my FLYING SAUCERS forum. Hopefully, no one, after reading through the information at the link below, will be able to retain as a belief the 'Barney and Betty Hill case bore no resemblance to contactee stories' myth in their mind.
Light That Cast No Shadow : Contactees & The Hills - A Basic Comparative Survey
http://www.network54.com/Forum/737874/thread/1352057391/last-1352064465/LIGHT+THAT+CAST+NO+SHADOW+-+Contactees+%26amp%3B+The+Hills+-+A+Basic+Comparative+Survey
and
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:40 am
Post subject: Intriguing Comment By UFO Historian, Jerome Clark
In an August 13th post on the UFO UpDates mailing list, Jerome Clark stated, in part:
'..I would add that the failure of any substantive evidence to
emerge for a hoaxed Socorro event after all these decades makes
its likelihood seem vanishingly small, though of course never
quite nonexistent, at least in principle if nowhere else...'
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2012/aug/m13-017.shtml
If no substantive evidence for a 'UFO event' being hoaxed has turned up after about 50 years, or more, then are we to think that there is 'vanishingly small' likelihood of the event actually having been generated by a hoax? This seems to be what Mr.Clark is implying...
How does Jerome Clark's concept apply to events reported by contactees during the 1950s and early 1960s, for which positive evidence has existed since that time, without 'substantive evidence' ever having emerged to consider the supportive evidence part of a hoax?
--
Cheers,
Sean.
Daniel Fry Dot Com
In response to my post explaining the situation, from my point of view, regarding the removal of the forum from his Daniel Fry website, Sean Donovan has sent an e-mail, in which he has kindly provided the text from most of my posts on the forum. See below:
Date:
Jun 07 2013, 08:48 PM
Subject:
Deletion of the Forum on Daniel Fry Dot Com
Hi Daniel,
As I do every once in a while, I search for Daniel Fry related topics on Google to see what people are writing about him. I stumbled across your blog entry "Sean Donovan of DanielFry.com Nullifies My Existance"
As you took personal offense at my suggestion that "no one ever used it anyway", I have changed the wording [link].
Below are the content of the posts you wrote on the forum if you with to republish them:
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:44 pm
Post subject: Daniel Fry and The Hills : A Link Established
For more than 40 years, the impression has been given in literature and other media concerning Extraterrestrial encounters, that the case of Betty and Barney Hill was - in ways that are rarely, if ever, specified - somehow radically different to earlier accounts of E.T. encounters by the people known as contactees. Anyone who takes the time to actually compare these alleged encounters (The Hills and the contactees), as I have quite recently done, will find that this long-running idea, is no more or less than a huge myth.
So-called UFOlogy - including me - has allowed itself to be misled on this matter for decades. Prominent individuals like Professor David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins have believed in and spread the Big Myth around to a wide audience, most of whom probably never bothered to read the contactee accounts to find out whether or not their favoured abduction-promoting "gurus" were being truthful.
Here is just one example of a feature of the Betty & Barney Hill abduction having been pre-dated by the same sort of feature in a contactee account - specifically the account of Daniel Fry....
CRAFT CLOSING IN - BLOCKS OUT STARS
Daniel Fry
‘..I had gone about half a mile past the rifle range on this road when I first saw it. The sun had been down for some time, and there was practically no daylight left, but the sky was bright with stars, and the moon, though not yet above the horizon, was producing considerable diffused light in the sky. As I looked up at a group of especially bright stars hanging just over the peaks of the mountains, one of the stars suddenly went out. This, of course, immediately riveted my attention on that spot, for stars just don’t go out (not in a cloudless sky anyway)…
…Then another star just to the right went out, and a few seconds later two more just below. By this time a strong prickling sensation was travelling up my spine. Whatever it was that was cutting off the light of the stars, was increasing rapidly in apparent size, and since the bearing remained constant, it could only mean that it was coming directly toward me.
Then finally I saw it and at the same time realized why I had not been able to see it sooner. It’s color appeared to be so nearly that of the night sky that even when it was quite close it was difficult to see anything but the outline…’
Daniel Fry The White Sands Incident (1954)
Betty Hill
Doctor Simon: When I talked to you last time.. and you said something like, “I looked at it, and I kept thinking I didn’t see it, because I was expecting to see the lights. And I didn’t see the lights”. You went on to say that you saw the bottom of it, right over the car. And you couldn’t see the bright lights or the stars. That you know this big, dark mass was moving right over the top of the car.
Betty Hill: Yes. That’s right.
John G. Fuller The Interrupted Journey (1966)
‘..I put down my car windows and looked out. I could not see the craft. Then I put my head out the window and realized I could not see the sky, nor the stars. Nothing but a large, black “something” above us…’
Betty Hill A Common Sense Approach To UFOs (1995)
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:18 pm.
The comparative survey that I compiled on this subject is now posted on my FLYING SAUCERS forum. Hopefully, no one, after reading through the information at the link below, will be able to retain as a belief the 'Barney and Betty Hill case bore no resemblance to contactee stories' myth in their mind.
Light That Cast No Shadow : Contactees & The Hills - A Basic Comparative Survey
http://www.network54.com/Forum/737874/thread/1352057391/last-1352064465/LIGHT+THAT+CAST+NO+SHADOW+-+Contactees+%26amp%3B+The+Hills+-+A+Basic+Comparative+Survey
and
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:40 am
Post subject: Intriguing Comment By UFO Historian, Jerome Clark
In an August 13th post on the UFO UpDates mailing list, Jerome Clark stated, in part:
'..I would add that the failure of any substantive evidence to
emerge for a hoaxed Socorro event after all these decades makes
its likelihood seem vanishingly small, though of course never
quite nonexistent, at least in principle if nowhere else...'
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2012/aug/m13-017.shtml
If no substantive evidence for a 'UFO event' being hoaxed has turned up after about 50 years, or more, then are we to think that there is 'vanishingly small' likelihood of the event actually having been generated by a hoax? This seems to be what Mr.Clark is implying...
How does Jerome Clark's concept apply to events reported by contactees during the 1950s and early 1960s, for which positive evidence has existed since that time, without 'substantive evidence' ever having emerged to consider the supportive evidence part of a hoax?
--
Cheers,
Sean.
Daniel Fry Dot Com
posted by Daniel Transit at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home