Transcript

← Back to 1958

Daniel Fry Three Kinds Science

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Opening remarks and introduction

My talk tonight will be rather short in order to leave more time for a discussion period.

I think this is always the best part of one of these meetings anyway. Most of the real data, the real information comes out during a discussion period. I've taken as a topic tonight the subject three kinds of science. This is a subject which has been very important to me for a long time.

Most of you have heard me speak on this subject before. I'm using the subject tonight because it is becoming particularly important. Another critical peak in our thinking, in our development. As most of you know, the United States of America, officially the United States of America, is the first country in the world to have a nuclear power plant. We joined the Soviet Union in space last night at 10.48 p.m.

After a couple of efforts that didn't work out so well, we put the Explorer 1 into space very nicely.

Launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, of course. It is a 30.8-pound cylinder containing about 10 pounds of compact instruments.

Launched from a Jupiter-C missile, which is the Redstone's missile,

which the North American group known as Rocketdyne worked over and hopped up.

And the three booster stages, or the three secondary stages, were made at the Jet Propulsion Lab and California Institute of Technology, as was also the actual satellite itself. For those of you who may not have the data on it, although it has been printed in a number of papers, its maximum orbital elevation is about 2,000 miles. It reaches a distance from the Earth, maximum distance from the Earth, of about 2,000 miles. Its orbit hasn't been pinned down precisely enough so that we can give you exact figures, but that's the approximate figure. It is at an orbit angle, 35 degrees to the equatorial, which simply means that, it will not be seen from a considerable portion of the Earth. It goes approximately around the equator, which means that the Earth does not turn under it as it did under Sputnik 1. So it will be visible only from a comparatively small belt of the Earth. It was launched, of course, toward the eastward.

Its orbital time is approximately 113 minutes, something that has been making headlines, of course,

and has been making headlines for many years. In every newspaper in the country, on every radio, every television station. It is the culmination of a tremendous amount of effort in this country and a very successful culmination of this particular effort.

One danger inherent in it.

[04:00] Daniel Fry introduces the three kinds of science

This danger existed before we successfully put this satellite into space.

The last few months since Sputnik 1, such a... It has suddenly blossomed in space. This country has been under a pressure which has been almost hysterical.

Stimulate to speed up scientific progress.

This is something in itself that is very desirable. But the way in which it was approached is very dangerous. If you read the articles that have been appearing in newspapers for the last two months,

point out the necessity, the almost desperate necessity, for the United States to speed up its scientific development, you will find that more than 90% of these articles envisioned as an ultimate result of this speed-up

the production of more and better means of destruction. This was the ultimate goal that they foresaw. The thing that we should strain every effort, every nerve to achieve. Faster and better means of destruction. This was what they foresaw. This is what all of this speed-up in science was supposed to be headed for. Well, as I said, a development in science is good.

Science should be pursued, the material science. It should be pursued with the utmost vigor, but for its own sake, and for the things that it can do for humanity.

But we have been advocating of late the pursuing of science,

in the hope that we can thereby frighten our potential enemies into becoming our friends.

This cannot be done. Every philosopher, every student of history in the world knows it. No potential enemy has ever successfully been frightened into becoming a friend. We have seen article after article saying that perhaps the Soviet Union has a bigger bomb

or a better means of delivery than we. Therefore, we must strain every effort. We must abandon all other considerations. We must apply all of our energy toward making a still bigger bomb and a still better means of delivery as the answer. This is the only answer that has been conceived, and it is not an answer at all. It has never been an answer. The attempt to frighten potential enemies into becoming friends has been going on for thousands of years, and it has never yet succeeded. And yet we are in danger today of pinning our entire hope

of the survival of civilization upon this concept which has been failing regularly for thousands of years. This is the hazard that we come under when we stress over strongly

the development of the material science should be developed, but not for this purpose. We are not thereby answering any questions. We have demonstrated, we demonstrated last night that we too had an intercontinental ballistic missile. We have heard a great deal in newspapers in the last couple of months bemoaning the fact that Russia has demonstrated the fact that they have an intercontinental ballistic missile which can drop hydrogen warheads on any part of the United States. And we have not demonstrated that we have an equal ability. And it was felt that for that reason we were under a terrible danger. This is absolutely not true. We were under no more danger then than we were before. Last night we demonstrated that we too had an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of dropping a hydrogen warhead on any part of Russia. And still we are not one bit closer to the answer to our sociological problems than we were before.

We have only succeeded in increasing the pressure that exists between us. A continuation of the present approach is easy to visualize. That is the ultimate end of this present approach. It can be visualized by anyone who will do a little thinking about it. The tension constantly increases. We constantly approach a point where the only possible survivor is the one who strikes first. How long can a civilization stand a strain like that?

Knowing that a war comes, their only possible hope of survival is to strike first with everything that they have. This is the direction that we are heading in. But no one makes any mistake about it. It's very plain, very obvious. Let us also not make the mistake of thinking that we can survive even by striking first. If one fact were realized completely throughout the world,

almost all danger of nuclear war was in Los Angeles,

which was devoted to the destruction of our efforts in rocketry, and almost devoted to pointing out

the need for greater development here, for more destructive capacity, as a protection. And yet, more than a year ago, there was a great meeting of scientists, the first scientists of this country and of the Soviet Union. You all remember it. It was in all the newspapers. And at that meeting, it was candidly admitted by the scientists of both sides, openly and candidly admitted that it was well known in each of the countries that the other country already possessed ample nuclear weapons and ample means of delivery to bring complete destruction to the other side. It was more than a year ago. More than a year ago, each side already possessed ample weapons and ample means of delivery to bring complete destruction to the other side. What are we gaining by concentrating on this rat race of increasing armaments? Some time ago, I wrote an understanding in which I pointed out this fact. We are in a position of two men, each one of which has a loaded pistol

pointed directly at the other's heart. And yet, we are in a mad race, a mad scramble to trade that pistol for a cannon. Just how much difference will it make, whether it's a pistol or a cannon? The final effect will be exactly the same. So we aren't solving any of our sociological problems because of the fact that these problems relate to the social science. They have nothing to do with the material science whatever. And we cannot cover up our failings and our lack of effort in the social science by any recourse to the material science. I have said that we should pursue the material science

with all possible energy and vigor for its own sake. At the same time, we should be devoting at least five times as much effort as we are now devoting to the development of the social science. And, at least an equivalent amount to the development of the spiritual science. These are the three. As I've said many times, the social science and the spiritual science provide the foundation upon which the material science rests. It cannot develop, it cannot grow, unless it has a foundation upon which to stand. This one fact is a fact today that should be stressed above all others. We don't need to give up the material science foundation, the foundation capable of supporting it.

We should be having the study,

the development of the social science at least equal to those which are today being made for the development of the material science. Since we are so very far behind in the development of the social science, actually we should have much larger grants. This is the field in which today we should be devoting the utmost energy. Because it is the only field that will allow our civilization to continue. Bigger bombs and more and better means of delivery and it won't solve a single one of our problems. It will only make the

ultimate holocaust more terrible.

In the past, we had directed one half as much effort of the social science as we have applied to the development of the material science. These sociological problems would not exist at all today. We would have found the answers a long time ago. When we found ourselves at war, we said we need a new weapon, a weapon greater than anything that's ever been produced. And we proceeded to gather together all of the greatest brains in the world that were available in nuclear physics and all branches of science. We gathered them together by the hundreds and by the thousands. We put them in one place. We said here is unlimited money. Here is every material requirement that you can ask for. Build us nuclear weapons. That was something at that time that was hardly possible even to conceive, much less to build. Build us nuclear weapons. Build us a weapon that's a million times more powerful than any weapon that's ever been made before.

And do it quick. Build us in one place. There are one billion, two billion, three billion dollars, however many billions you need. Build us nuclear weapons. And in two years it was done. And if we were to devote the same concentrated amount of effort, the same determination, and the same amount of wealth to the social science, we would long ago have solved all of these problems which today threaten civilization. We could have solved all of these problems. There is no problem of which man can conceive that would not be solved by the degree of effort that was applied to the development of nuclear weapons. We can't say that we have insoluble problems. There are no such things. We can only admit that we haven't been willing to apply the necessary effort to solve them. We have sought an escape. We've gone off on a tangent. And we're getting along with us. Thinking of the leaders

of the Soviet Union is diametrically opposed to practically every principle that we hold in this country. And yet we can never change a single one of those principles

by building a bigger bomb. We are in a mad race to develop a much larger structure

on a foundation that is already tottering. Civilization today and the problem on which we continue the existence is whether or not we can begin to apply effort, a little more determination

to the solution of problems which are social and spiritual in nature. I think that's all that I'm going to say in a direct talk on the subject. I've gone over and over as it is. It may have sounded very repetitious. It has to be. There's one simple little fact that would solve the world's problems. Everyone would accept it. And everyone thinking it over knows that this would solve the world's problems. We know what's wrong. We know what the answer is. I'm often reminded of the dowager, the social lion who goes about constantly complaining about her overweight and how it inhibits her, how it keeps her from doing this and that, and how difficult it is to go on this way. And then she goes out and has five very large cakes, she dotes on chocolate cakes, on and so forth. There's no question what the problem is there. She knows what the problem is and she knows what the answer is. But she just never quite gets around to putting it into effect.

She knows the problem, she knows the remedy. But when will she begin to put the remedy to use? In this country we're in exactly the same position. It isn't difficult to define the problem. It isn't difficult to understand the remedy. The only difficulty is when are we going to put the remedy to use. And then I'm going to

the discussion. I imagine there are a lot of questions, a lot of things that will be brought up for discussion. And this is really the most desirable part of these group meetings. A chance for everyone to get into the discussion. And if he has an opinion, he wants to express, he should be given a chance to express it. Do you have something else?

One, it says, what do you know about the five persons who intend to go into the bomb area at sea? And what good could this service do? I don't know as much as I would like to know about these five persons. I did see one of them interviewed on television a few nights ago. And far as the good it can do, I think that most of it is being done before they go. One who was being interviewed on television made some very good points. He made them in a very simple and understandable way. The

[25:00] Development of the three kinds of science

main difficulty is in bringing public attention at all and focusing public attention on these problems. If you could set up a broadcast to discuss some of these simple, basic problems that we have in the world so that everyone in the world could hear them at once, you would have gone a long ways toward achieving a solution. The United Nations was organized mainly for this purpose. The United Nations is a forum. Basically, that's about all it is yet. The good that it has accomplished has been accomplished simply because it furnishes a place where all of the leading statesmen can get together and blow off steam and call each other names if they like and bring up these issues face to face, which can't be brought up through diplomatic channels without creating a crisis. And it has enabled the different nations to work off a lot of steam that might otherwise have reached explosive pressures. An individual's face is much less sensitive than a nation's face.

An individual can back up or change his mind or say, well, looks like I was mistaken without fatally losing face. But under the present setup, the nation cannot. The United Nations is a place where all of the people can be leading statesmen and get together, discuss things and point out how wrong the other person is and how right they are and so on and so forth at almost any length without creating any national crises. In that respect, it has done a very good job. It has helped a lot. These five persons who intend to go into the area will pose a serious problem to people who are controlling those tests because they will do everything reasonably possible to avoid bringing any great public notice to this act. They cannot simply go ahead and fire the bombs even though the people are there because then these five people would be killed and they would become martyrs to a cause. And they would admit that they were the ones who did it.

They cannot immediately focus worldwide attention upon this question. Also, they cannot easily be arrested and put in prison for the same reason. I don't know exactly what's going to come of it, but I'm going to watch it with a great deal of interest. I think that one way or another they're going to be able to attract a lot of attention to the question. But it will attract worldwide attention to the problem itself. And we'll get a lot of people talking about it just as we are tonight. Now the question is brought up tonight.

And these five persons can perhaps focus more attention on that problem than they could in any other way in their lifetime. Can't the government be

made to understand the ultimate downfall of the nations in this drive for power? If this drive for power is not put aside and a more spiritual outlook on life taken? I think that any one member of the government, or almost any one member of the government, could be readily made to understand this. And I think the great proportion of them do. As individuals. As individuals, they all realize that this is not an answer to the problem. Thomas MacArthur gave a speech

in Los Angeles two years ago in which he outlined this very clearly. Reporters who wrote up that speech in the paper the next morning said this is undoubtedly the greatest speech that has been delivered in this century. How many remember it? He pointed out these facts very simply, very completely. He is fully aware of them. I think every other individual in the government is aware of them as an individual. But there is a pattern set up which has a tremendous amount of inertia. That same pattern exists in the Soviet Union. And I've mentioned this again in talks. I don't believe that one percent of the people of the Soviet Union are in favor of the acts in general, or the general policies of the government of the Soviet Union. I don't believe that one percent are in favor of it. We are too accustomed to thinking of the Soviet Union as being all the same. As all representing the policies of a half a dozen people who perhaps are

somewhat power-mad, or who perhaps are just completely mistaken from our standpoint in their estimate of how the world can be improved.

I pointed out in a talk here about a year ago that there is a possibility it's a small one, but there is a possibility that no one in the Soviet Union approves of the acts of the Soviet government.

It's something to think about. There is a possibility, a very small one, true. But a possibility that no one in the Soviet Union approves of the acts of the Soviet government, including the members of that government themselves. And yet a policy has been established, a pattern has been established, which no one individual dares to violate. Because he feels that if he did, he would immediately be liquidated by the remainder, and he probably would be. Not because any one of them approved, but because each one of them felt the same way. Well, if we don't liquidate this one, whether we're liquidating it or not, the rest of the people will liquidate us. We can have great inertia build up in the policy, the dogma, the way of proceeding, but we'll carry on by its inertia, we'll carry on even after no one is in favor of it. And we have developed policies

in this country, backed by a few people. Almost every one of these policies is backed only by people in the operation. And yet these policies, even though the people who profit from the operation are in the great minority, these policies build up steam, inertia, and they keep on going. I don't know whether the government as a government can be convinced in the near future of the futility of the course that we are following. I think it's only a stopgap. I don't think that anyone in the government thinks that developing larger and more powerful weapons is the answer. I don't believe there's any one of our people who are in government who are that stupid who really think that that is the answer. But they think that they can gain a little bit of time. They are afraid that if we appear to slip behind a little bit, the Soviet Union, the government of the Soviet Union will become emboldened and will demand a little more and a little more and a little more

and finally may carry this game of blood to a point where someone makes a mistake. There is not the slightest there is not the slightest probability that any government or any individual in government in the world today is planning a nuclear war. There is the slightest possibility that any government envisions the possibility of a nuclear war as a desirable thing. Because I don't believe that there is any government on earth that is so stupid that they do not realize that such a war will bring complete destruction to both sides. There is no possibility of winning. There is almost no possibility even of surviving for either side. Or if it comes about, it will come about by accident. It will come about because of this constantly increasing tension. We are so constantly ready to retaliate. The other side is so constantly ready to retaliate. The hair trigger gets finer and finer and finer. It will take less and less and less

to set it off. I think that there are a number of organizations today that are attempting to bring this fact home to our statesmen and government. As I say, I think that most of them realize it as individuals. The problem is with them the same as us. How can they implement this? How can they get all of these statesmen, all of the politicians to adopt a single solution or a single approach at once? In short, how can we get? I stated some time ago that we should have appropriations for the development of the social science at least as large as those that have been made for the material science. The problem remains, how can we get them? How can we sell the fact to our statesmen and our politicians that we want this thing? That is our problem. If we can sell them the fact that we want it, they will make the appropriations. After all, we are the ones that are putting up the money. If we can convince them that we want to spend our money for social

development as well as for the development of weapons, they will appropriate them. They are mostly interested in staying in office as well as the will of the people. If we make it clear that is the will of the people, then they, in making the appropriations, will be achieving both ends. They will be guaranteeing their retention of office and they will also be following the will of the people. So it is our problem how to let them know that we realize that this is necessary as well as they do. A lot of the statesmen in government realize this fact that the only solution is to apply a great concentration of effort to the development of the social science. But very few of them realize that the public would stand for it. They say, well, this requires more appropriations. The public won't stand for it. We've got to let them know that the public not only will stand for it but demands it. Will you elucidate a little more about the remedy

and how can we get it over to a nation like the Soviet Union? This illustrates one of our principal failings. We're always going to start to cure the other man first. We've got to convince the Soviet Union that they're wrong in their attitude before we can do anything about ourselves. You know, this comes up from time to time throughout history. It came up during the Bible times. People told about it.

He always wanted to pluck the mote from his brother's eye. The answer was

cast forth first the beam which is in thine own eye then shalt thou see clearly. They cast out the mote which is in their brother's eye. I think that the average citizen of the Soviet Union is just as aware of the problems of the world and of the need for concentration on the social science than the average person in this country is. When we consider the Soviet Union we have to remember to divide carefully or separate carefully the Soviet Union as a government and as a population. If you consider the population, you'll find that they are very much the same as we. And every traveler who has ever gone over there has agreed to this. They have the same hopes, the same fears, the same desires, the same needs as we. The average citizen of the Soviet Union has not the slightest desire to conquer any nation or to impose his will upon any other nation. He only hopes to live in peace as we do. There are a few leaders, perhaps a dozen,

in the Soviet Union who think the way to bring about the greatest good for the Soviet Union is to make it dominant over the rest of the world. And there are a couple of them that aren't too particular about the methods that they would employ. But these are not the people. These are a couple of individuals. Individuals spring up in every nation. If we were to have spent a quarter of the effort on the social science that we have on material science, we would have found a way to impress this fact upon either the citizens or the leaders of the Soviet Union. I don't have

the complete remedy. I can't say, well, we should do this, we should do so. This is a way to get along with the Soviet Union. This is a way in which we can get along in peace without giving up our own way of life. Because unfortunately, I have not had any more opportunity than the average person to pursue the social science. It's a science in which we are all painfully far behind. But if we pursue it, we will find the answer, just as we found the answer to nuclear weapons. It's only a question of putting out the proper, necessary amount of effort. Instead, we don't know the answers because we haven't sought them with sufficient vigor. This is the only point that I'm making. We should begin to seek them, rather than completely ignore them and try to cover up this ignorance by pressing the development of the material science, because it just doesn't work. Perhaps it

would clarify things if you specified some of the pertinent social and spiritual problems we all have. Well, a particular problem that I pointed out that the problem that is the most threatening today is the problem that I've been pointing out all during the evening, the fact that we seem to have the idea that we can solve our sociological problems by force. We still seem to have this idea, in fact, in spite of the fact that history has proven over and over and over and over again that we can't. We never have. The problem of, as I say, of getting along for the time being with a nation whose official ideology is at variance with ours in almost every one of its basic tenets. Its stress is basically the superiority of the group, the state, over the individual. In the Soviet Union, the individual has no significance as opposed to the state. In this country, we consider the state as a collection of individuals, and any one of those

individuals is as important as the state. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way in this country. This is what our philosophy says. Unfortunately, it's comparatively seldom that we actually do it. But their philosophy openly says that the individual has no significance as compared to the state. This makes the state some sort of an entity of itself. And yet the state is only a group of individuals. This is the thing that is forgotten. Social

spiritual problems that we face can be met on every hand. We have only to open any daily newspaper and we'll find them in every column. The questions we have with us always the answers we have not yet begun to see really. Mainly because we tend to find a scapegoat. This is again something that I have pointed out many times. I think it should be stressed again. Whenever we find an evil existing in the world, we always want to find someone to blame it on. Some individual. We can't admit that perhaps it might be partly our fault. It's got to be somebody else's fault. A lot of these problems aren't anybody's fault. As individuals, they are perfectly natural problems. But we never solve them because we blame them on individuals and we say, oh, down with that individual. If we only get rid of him, the problem would be solved. During the First World War, Kaiser Bill was it. I remember when I was about so high during the First World War

and even as kids we had this hate the Kaiser feeling that was broadcast so widely at that time and we used to discuss the terrible things we would do to Kaiser Bill if they only had him in our power. He was the evil genius that had brought about the First World War. Everything was his fault. All the atrocities that were committed during the war were his fault. Looking back at it now, I'm quite certain that if Wilhelm Hohenzollern had never been born that war would have come about right on schedule just the same. I don't think he really had anything to do with it. He was there. He became the scapegoat. But he had nothing to do with the creation of the factors that brought that war about. In fact, they began to come about before he was there. He was never born. And in the Second World War, of course, it was Adolf Hitler, the hangar, an entity that was thrust into the limelight by circumstances. He developed a tremendously

inflated ego, as would almost anyone else under similar circumstances. He began to think perhaps he really was God. It would have come about whether Adolf Schickl Gruber had ever been born or not. So we keep fighting people. We keep fighting individuals we keep fighting philosophies we keep fighting individual ideologies instead of looking for the real cause. When we begin to look for the real cause of our problems, we find the answer. Scientists collaborated on our material problems. Let's look at it this way. How did we know who to collect to build nuclear weapons? We didn't. We collected everyone who was a known authority on any aspect of nuclear physics. If we'd known exactly who to pick, we might have been able to pick 15 or 20 men and have them make the bomb. We didn't. We gathered together thousands. We had to let them thrash out their own differences. We had to let them arrive at a common denominator. We had to let them perform some

experiments which tested whether or not their theories were workable. That's why it cost us a couple of billion dollars to produce the bomb. Because we had to separate the wheat from the chaff, we couldn't do it. We had to let the people who had any groundwork in the subject do it for themselves. That's the reason it would cost probably several billions of dollars to get a real approach to the sociological problems of today. We would have to take in a tremendous number of people. We would have to put down consider among themselves each of their possible answers, each of their possible solutions. We would have to allow a certain test to be made, a social test to be made to determine the accuracy of some of the concepts. It's something that's never even been considered before. We have always had the idea of getting our spiritual leadership or our social leadership from anyone that we chose to follow. We've never really had any

organization, any concentrated effort to arrive at specific conclusions. We have had cases where each person gives his idea to whoever he can persuade to listen. But we seldom even have a case where social leaders debate a thing from a platform or even two of them debate a given concept from a platform. Of course, this happens in politics all the time when someone's running for office. But even then, nine times out of ten, the real issues are dodged. Collateral issues are brought up and a great to-do is made and whoever happens to be the best orator wins. It would cost

[52:00] Implications, examples, and broader interpretation

quite a lot of money from a money standpoint to have a real organization for the testing, the discussion, the development and testing of social principles. And it's something we've never attempted before. We've come to do it. We've come to realize that this is the way to get answers to the material science because only they succeed. Any time we're willing to spend enough money, buy enough effort, get enough people who know something about the subject together and get them all working together toward a common end, we always get the answer. Just as we put the satellite into space last night. With the amount of effort that went into even that little satellite, we could have answered some of our sociological problems. If it laid down its arms, the space

brothers would not allow the other side to take advantage of it. And if this is so, perhaps the brothers could act as mediators in our effort at better understanding. While this may be true, I don't really believe it is necessary. I think that if either side, either the Soviet Union or the United States and its allies were to completely lay down their arms, destroy every possibility of resistance, I don't think anything would happen. I don't believe it for one minute. If it were known, there are, as I say, perhaps a half a dozen leaders in the Soviet Union who might think this is a wonderful chance to take over the world. I don't think for one minute they'd ever make it. There is simply no way in which they could whip up enough propaganda to overcome the fact that we had disarmed unilaterally. There isn't any propaganda in the world that they could whip up that would bring their people up to a fighting pitch, or would

even allow them to justify themselves in invading or attempting politically to take over a country that was unarmed. We had an occasion of this. And again, this is something that I discussed at the time. We had an illustration of this. We had an illustration of a case where the Soviet Union was already forced out of a country by world opinion. Not by force of arms, by world opinion. When the Soviet Union first moved its troops out of Hungary and allowed a man to be set up as the ruler of that country who was an anti-communist, it was not done because their soldiers had been beaten in battle. It was done because the pressure of world opinion was building up so rapidly that those half a dozen leaders in the Soviet Union knew that they could not continue to exist unless they did. It was the most startling example of the pressure of world opinion, the force of world opinion that has ever been given. It failed. only for one reason. It was just

about the time they got their troops out of the land of the troops in Egypt and gave them the excuse for which they were searching. I've gone over this. I don't know how many of you have heard it. But this whole affair with the Suez Canal in Egypt was set up, was encouraged by the Soviet Union. Egypt was encouraged to take this step. Nasser was told that if he would seize this canal, he could derive all the revenue from it, which he has been doing very successfully. And that they would support the country of Egypt, that the Soviet Union would support Egypt to any extent short of actual warfare. The reason that they did this is that they felt that the instant that Nasser seized it, that Great Britain and France would use force as a matter of course. And it is the most natural thing in the world. Britain and France put up most of the money and most of the engineers to build that canal. They had a hard and fast agreement that it would be controlled by an

international board for a certain length of time. Nasser violated this agreement only because he wanted to get the income from that canal to build a dam. The Aswan Dam. And he admitted as much in public. That's the only reason he was seizing it. All through history, in a case like this, for a small third-rate nation, seized something that a first great power believed belonged to it, force was used immediately and automatically. And the Soviet Union was quite sure that Britain and France would use force. And they wanted this to happen because they realized that this Hungarian fire up was coming. They knew the Hungarian revolution was coming. They knew it could not very much longer be put off. And they knew that when it came, Russian soldiers were going to have to shoot down Hungarian citizens in their own cities. And they knew that there wasn't a single excuse under the sun that they could give for it. Because they had said time and time

again that those Russian troops were in Hungary only for one purpose. For the purpose of protecting Hungarian nationals against outside aggression. They had said that over and over again. Now they knew that they were going to be forced into a position where Russian troops were going to have to shoot Hungarian citizens. And they knew that when they did it, unless they had the scapegoat, unless they had someone else to point to and say, look, the other side's doing the same thing, they knew that they were going to be condemned by the world. They knew that world opinion was going to become so strong that these half a dozen leaders in the Kremlin could no longer survive. They couldn't survive their own people's reaction. And so they hoped that Britain and France would use force. And for this very reason, we did our best to prevent them from using force. Not because we didn't perhaps feel that they had as good an excuse as any country ever has had to use force.

But simply because they knew that this was what the Soviet Union hoped and hoped desperately that they would do. Well, we managed to hold off long enough so that the Hungarian fire up did come. The revolution did come. Russian soldiers did shoot down Hungarian citizens in their own cities. And they were roundly condemned by the world. Even India began to slip away. Even India was condemning Russia, a country that has always gone along, more or less, with Russian ideology. And the pressure became so great that the leaders in the Kremlin knew that they were going to have to pull out. They did. They rode off Hungary as lost. They started to pull their troops out. And they allowed a man who was an anti-communist to be put up as the leader of that country. They got their troops almost out. And then Britain and France landed troops in Egypt. And those of you who followed the papers know that in the very hour, the very hour that was announced,

those Russian troops turned on their heels and marched back into Hungary. They hadn't been beaten. True, the Hungarian patriots had fought like demons, but they didn't have anything to fight with. They couldn't put that army in there with tanks. The Russian army had moved out, not because they were beaten, but because they had been ordered to by the few leaders who knew that they could not survive the pressure of world opinion that was coming up. And if we should disarm or any other major nation should completely disarm, and the Soviet Union or any part of it should move into that country and attempt to take it over, while it was completely disarmed, the pressure of world opinion would become so great that half a dozen people, if the leaders of the Soviet Union could not survive it. And their own people would tear them limb from limb. I don't think, if either side disarmed, I don't think anything would happen to that side. But,

that's one opinion. There are a lot of opinions in the country that are contrary to that. But we did demonstrate at that time that it is possible to stop a major nation, to bring them to a sudden halt in the midst of armed aggression that had already initiated to bring them to a halt and cause them to pull out. Not by any armed force, but merely by world opinion. It can be done. We came very close to proving it at that time. Maybe next time we'll... When will your television program be launched? As far as I know, I have not been in Space People for some time. I have not sought such a contact for some time, because I have not yet accomplished about a quarter of the things that were requested of me during the contacts that I did have. Whenever a person is granted a privilege, whether he knows it or not, a responsibility goes along with it. This is another one of these universal laws that have no exception. When you're granted

an unusual privilege, an unusual opportunity, a responsibility, a duty, always accompanies that. And as a result of the privilege that was granted to me, a number of things were requested of me. A few of them I have accomplished. Some of them I have not. And even if it were possible tonight to establish such a contact, I would hesitate to go back and say, well, I didn't do anything that you asked me to before. What do you want me to do now? I would rather wait until I have something to report. When will your television program be launched? The answer to that, I think, it will be launched just as soon as I can get the time to write the format for the first three or four programs. Sounds easy. I still have a

couple thousand unanswered letters, some of which are very important. I still have a group in Germany that are waiting eagerly for some material, some pictures, some equipment, and a lot of them are waiting just plain for letters. I've received some very wonderful letters from Germany, from Switzerland, in the areas in which the two books have been distributed. They have been printed, as I guess most of you know, the White Sands Incident has been printed now in six languages. I received a request from a publishing company called the Parthenon in Sweden to publish it in Swedish. In fact, immediately he said, fine, go ahead. So, within a reasonable time, it will also appear in Swedish. But there are quite a number of men in Germany who are exceedingly interested in understanding and what it represents. I've got to get some material to them. I would like very much to fly over there. I don't think that I'm going to have the time in the

immediate future. I do have to get a few letters out. I have a book called The Curve of Development, which I promised Ed Harmon, service manager from McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, last June that I would get out as soon as we

get a certain degree of compatibility between the sponsor and the program. For example, if the Antisaloon League would decide to put on a television program, they would hardly see the brewing company as a sponsor. It just wouldn't be compatible. Another possibility is simply to purchase the time put on the program on a donation basis. This is usually done on religious programs and sometimes works out very nicely. This advantage in that you are just buying the time you are not responsible to any sponsor for what you put on you still have to make the script up in advance and have it approved any script put on television has to be approved in advance there's practically no such thing as ad-libbing on a television program as was demonstrated very clearly the other night when kehoe said two or

three words that were not approved by the censor and he was immediately cut off the air this was highlighted even more when a few seconds later the representative of the air force get up

got up and says believe me folks believe me there is no censorship in this business they had just displayed one of the most flagrant cases of censorship that has ever been displayed on television and he still had the gall to get up and says believe me there is no censorship in this business censorship we have heard time and again that the large advertisers have stated that the

mental age of the average tv listener is between 9 and 12 years i think in this case the air force was trying to make four-year-olds out of us because i don't think any 9 or 12 year old person would have been fooled by the spectacle that was put on that night i seem to have covered the questions we have here do we have any more

yes i haven't found out as yet i'm going to write rose hackett and ask her or write him and ask him if

he will give resume and i'll have it in understanding the next issue of understanding it because yes he said he said that there was a congressional committee that was investigating

spacecraft beautiful and that if there

deliberations were made public if that hearing was made public it would be proved that's all you can follow it's too bad that we didn't have a lip reader among the group that

was watching the television there probably were a number of them throughout the country but the the interesting thing was that the papers the newspapers all the newspapers in the country admitted the next day that he had been cut off and they said he'd been cut off only because the statement deviated from the the accepted script but you know it's a very peculiar thing still none of the papers would say what it was that he had said you can find a single mention you would think that it was cut off only as a routine matter because they didn't know what he was going to say and because the deviating script it was just a routine thing why all the papers would have printed this matter vendors would have printed what he did say it wasn't in a single paper wasn't a single reference to what he did say and then they say there's no such thing as censorship i think however that we

will hear more about the the results of this senate investigations committee on spacecraft because when a senate investigation committee comes to a conclusion they usually manage to find some way to make it public pretty hard to muzzle a senate investigations committee a lot of people have tried it so far as i know i haven't had a chance to speak to general since he got back

we have uh we could get a report here from ms parker would you like to come up and give a little report i have heard some of the details but i'm sure she knows a lot more about it tonight since i haven't had a chance to speak to him since and she had i have talked to gerald holish considerably and i

know that he made the trip back to washington dc and he appeared before the ways and means committee

mr mills the chairman of it and uh when he got there he was a lot of 15 minutes but after he talked

to them and stood on his constitutional rights why they told him if he would come back at three in the afternoon they'd give him all the time he needed. So he had a little over an hour to talk and on some of the issues that he brought out they tried to stop him but he firmly stood on his constitutional rights of free speech and spoke and they couldn't stop him because he was in full uniform of the general and he was exercising his rights and he proved to them and so he did put it over and he even served citations on some of them for breaking our constitutional laws and so now he is back here, he came back and while he was back there he did appear on the radio several times in several places and he sure said some very, very strong things as only I think he can do. But now he's back here and preparing things to go back because he must follow it up and he's making a series of lectures from here to Seattle and also all the way back to

Washington and he expects to go back to Washington about the 9th of March and when he gets back there he's going to follow up everything that he started and it is a big measure I cannot begin to give it to you but he put out his news notes and if any of you are interested in getting those news notes if you leave your name at the door I'll send you one, a copy of it and it's quite descriptive and he is really following up and I think every red-blooded American should be back at him. Yes, well the station itself would

be the logical starting point. This would be the way that I was approached I think. You have to get in a wedge somewhere to bring out if you wanted to bring out what actually was taking place, bring out the fact that there is censorship. You could write a letter back to the station itself protesting this very strongly. You would probably receive a letter in return saying well this is a routine principle that's followed, that this is always done, that any time a deviation from the prepared script comes out that they have to do something. Then the thing to do would be to write back and well of course you could sidetrack this because this statement has already been made. They have already admitted that they cut him off and they've admitted they cut him off because he deviated from the script. The thing to do would be to write back and say who is it that sets up these rules about cutting off a speaker if he deviates from the script? Just where does

this censorship start and who is it exactly that has to approve these scripts before they can be put on? Then you would have, you would begin this process of dodging. It's a long process. You can pin it down to where it belongs in time if you keep at it just as the story in the Pasadena paper about these red lights being some balloons that a couple of college students put up. You made, you made, you went over that pretty well. You called, it was said first as I got it, first the Pasadena paper says that there was at the San Dimas Sheriff's Station picked up a couple of boys who were sending up, yeah, who were sending up balloons with wires attached to them. I understand you called the San Dimas Sheriff's Station. They said they knew nothing whatever about it. They had no such thing in their reports. Then you called back all the paper back and I said well after all it wasn't the San Dimas Sheriff's Department. It was

some other, the next town there. I was in San Dimas. Laverne. Oh it was Laverne, yeah. So she called Laverne and Laverne says well sorry we don't know anything about it either. So it finally turned out to be only an anonymous tip of someone that called in and said well maybe this is the way it might have been done. Actually the people who saw these knew that this would leave just as many questions unanswered as were unanswered before because the lights didn't stay together. They drifted from pretty close together. They drifted sometimes apart, sometimes together. They couldn't possibly have been following the wind. They were obviously under control because they weren't going the same way. If they had been drifting with the wind they would have kept the same pattern. There were some other things that didn't jibe with flares but here is a case where something was written in a paper as a positive answer. It was written as a positive statement.

A positive statement of something had happened. The San Dimas Sheriff's Department had picked up some boys. Well they couldn't hold to it because the next night the lights appeared again and the night after that. The boys were sure active for having been picked up. But it took a lot of work to pin it down but they finally had to admit that they didn't know anything about it. It was just somebody's wild idea of what might have happened that had been published as a fact. So we have a lot of these. If we were to actually go into these explanations. We have the statement by the Air Force that 93% of these things have been explained. We have the statement that 93% of these things have been explained. We have the statement by the Air Force that 93% of these things have been explained. And this fools even a lot of dedicated sauce advance. They then simply pin their hope on the other 7%. They say well the other 7% or the other 2.5% or the other 1.9% is still a large number.

They're so hypnotized by the fact that an official statement has been made that they never stop to question it. Just what does this mean? They have been explained. 26% of them have been explained as balloons. This statement does not mean that they have recovered one single balloon of any one of those thousands that have been explained as balloon. This statement does not mean that they have recovered one single balloon of any one of those thousands that have been explained as balloons. If the Air Force was asked to prove that any one of those 26% were actually balloons, they wouldn't, they couldn't do it. They have no proof in the world that would stand up in court that any one of those objects was a balloon. The way they do it is this, say when an object is sighted they immediately inquire around to see if a weather balloon has been released anywhere within 50 miles of the area and anywhere within 8 hours of the time.

If it has, the object is a weather balloon automatically. They have no evidence, no proof that it was a weather balloon. It just becomes that.

I don't know of any normal flares. There are half-hour highway flares, yes. They're quite long. We have some down at the shop. They don't look anything like the lights that we saw there. But there are some half-hour flares. However, they're pretty heavy. They would require, well, they would fall after they burned to the point at which they were suspended.

They would fall, yes. They might fall before that. They'd be traveled up. But the point is, they would require a very large balloon, comparatively very large balloon, to support them. These lights appeared in every case within three minutes of the time Rick stopped speaking. And he stopped speaking at different times every night. The person who set those up, if they were balloons, they would have to begin. They would have to begin about 20 or 30 minutes before, because it would take a long time to inflate balloons. The smallest balloon that will carry a half-hour fusee is about six and a half feet in diameter. And that would just barely do it. To rise, to really rise, it'd have to have about 10-foot balloons. And if you're going to inflate two 10-foot balloons in the middle of a city street, attach flares to them and light them without anyone seeing you, you're going to have to be invisible. And so are the balloons.

The practical problems. I mean, I saw these objects myself. I tried to consider all of the possibilities concerned with them. I tried to explain to myself how they could be this, that, and the other. But there are always things that come up that don't agree with the observed data. I can't envision any persons inflating six, eight, or 10-foot balloons, two of them, in the middle of a city street, and knowing, within three minutes, exactly what they are. I can't imagine what time a man was going to stop speaking somewhere a half mile or a mile away, when he didn't know himself probably yet. And also how they could do it in the first place without being seen. It would undoubtedly be seen in every one of the cases. It just couldn't have been done. It is something that, when you actually examine the mechanics of it, you can't explain how it could have been done. Yes? Do we have an opinion? Do we have a verification of that?

Circle, theater? It always does good to write something. It always does good to write something. If you write your congressman, if enough people write him, as I say, one of their major purposes in life is staying in office. And their only two purposes in being there are to stay in office and to do the will of the public. If enough people write them if they want a certain thing, they realize that in doing that thing, they're accomplishing both of those ends. They're making it easier to stay in office, and they're accomplishing the purpose for

[01:21:00] Audience questions and discussion

which they're holding the office. It's just a question of how many people write. I think any person writing would do some good. You never can tell how small an effect is, how small a cause is required to produce a given effect. I'd like you to go on that subject, too. So I won't go on it again tonight.

I think they've already intervened on many, many occasions. I think if they had not intervened, we would have been involved in atomic war a long time ago. So does every member of the Atomic Energy Commission. According to their estimates, our time ran out a year ago.

We should have ceased to exist a year ago, according to the best estimate of the consensus of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1949. Do you have any subject you want to discuss, any question you want to ask, anything you

want to say? This is a public forum. Pardon? Oh, has there been any advancement in anti-gravitational power or magnetic power? I don't think there has been any advancement in anti-gravitational power or magnetic power.

I don't think there has been any advancement in anti-gravitational power or magnetic power. Well, there has been advance in anti-gravitational power, yes. The rocket is an anti-gravitational unit. We just launched a satellite last night which made use of an anti-gravitational mechanism.

This attitude, though, is the thing that has been keeping us back from using gravitation for space travel for decades. We always have to fight it. We always think of anti. You don't have to produce an anti-gravitational device. See? When it was built, spacecraft, when it was built, does not attack gravity, it just makes use of it. We are so accustomed to thinking of anti's that's why we wind up with a rocket. The rocket is an anti-gravitational force. It applies a force in opposition to the force of gravity which overcomes it. That's why it's such a wasteful concept. You have two natural laws. You're pitting one against another. You're overcoming one by applying a superior method. You're applying a superior amount of the other. When the true spacecraft is built, it will fall away from the earth just as naturally, just as easily as a stone dropped from a tower falls toward the earth. It's an anti. It doesn't do, it won't do a single thing to the gravitational field of the earth except

produce a field about it which is in opposition to that field, and so it will fall away from it. Yes, we, there have been some advances. There are three of the largest. The largest aircraft companies in the country that have well-defined, vigorous gravitics

programs going today. I can't say exactly how much advance they have achieved for two reasons, firstly because

I don't know entirely, and secondly because I couldn't say anyway if I wanted to continue addressing the public. This obviously, when it is achieved. And secondly, because it is being worked on by agencies of the federal government,

any progress that is made in it will quite obviously be the greatest military secret that this country has ever had, and it will be protected much more jealously than any other secret we've ever had, including atomic weapons. I don't think that we have any hardware today that will produce a field in opposition to

the gravitational field and will take off from the earth thereby. I don't think that we have any hardware today that will produce a field in opposition to the gravitational field and will take off from the earth thereby. I don't think that we have any hardware today that will produce a field in opposition to the gravitational field and will take off from the earth thereby. We do have a number of physical concepts which are taking shape, which are supported by a certain amount of experiment, and which I think within the next couple of years will bear fruit in form of hardware. But until you actually see that hardware in the sky, I don't think you're going to hear very much about it, unless the work is done by a private agency. The private agency takes up this job and achieves certain degrees of success. They may or may not be successful. I don't think so. They may or may not make it public. I'm sure that even in that case, there will be a concerted effort by governmental agencies

to keep this information from being released to whoever gets it. And I'm not sure whether this is wise or not. It goes back to the old argument of the true scientist that no scientific knowledge should be kept a secret under any circumstance, no matter what it is. There should be no such thing as military secrecy or any other kind of secrecy as far as scientific developments are concerned. I don't think that we have any hardware today that will produce a field in opposition to it. The average scientist says this, and really believes it, will give out information, scientific information, to his colleagues, whoever they are, and whatever nation they are, upon every possible chance and excuse. We had one of our foremost nuclear scientists declared a security risk, as you all know, some time back, because it was felt that he was too generous in confiding the knowledge

that he had to other people. And perhaps they might be the wrong people. So this person was cut off from access to nuclear secrets. It was a case of killing the goose to prevent any of the golden eggs from being stolen. That individual was placed in the position where he could no longer produce any golden eggs. Maybe he couldn't give any away, but most of these secrets that we had, or a very large number of the secrets that we had that we were trying to keep, were secrets that this individual had developed himself, things that he had produced. And you will find in science in general that practically every so-called military secret is given away in books on science, if you're intelligent enough to recognize the fact when

you see it in the books. I read the book not too long ago on atomic energy, and in that book there were five different

places. The author of that book said, this particular data is secret, we cannot give it out. And then within the next three paragraphs, he had given it out. One of the cases, a statement was made that they could not, one of the piles in the East,

early fission piles in the East, was described to a certain extent, was referred to at least, and a statement was made that we cannot say how much plutonium this pile produced.

This is a military secret, we cannot state how much plutonium this pile produced. But we can say that it produced, it was a small pile, and it produced about a thousand

kilowatt hours per gram of plutonium produced. And two paragraphs beyond that, it says, this pile operated for a year and a half during this two specific periods, it operated at an average level of 10,000 kilowatts.

... Anyone who had reached that 10,000 kilowatt fifth grade in school could have told you how much plutonium that file produced. And yet they'd specifically stated, two paragraphs before, that they could not give out this information, that this was a military secret, and two paragraphs later they did give it out. Yet that book passed all the censors. It's in common circulation today. I don't know whether the censors are less intelligent than the average 10-year-old child, or whether they didn't really look at it carefully, or whether they were hypnotized by the fact that the author says this is security information, I can't give it out. Just a nice fact, they didn't realize that two paragraphs later he did give it out. And so we find that in book after book on science, we find that these so-called secrets are given out. The statement frequently is made, well, we can't give this out, and then they contrive very shortly thereafter to do it. This isn't because any of

these scientists are traitors to this country. It isn't because they want this. It isn't because they want to do it. It isn't because they want to do it. a potential enemy to have information it's just that they feel that no science is the property of the state or the property of any individual anytime any new scientific discovery is made it automatically becomes the property of the world actually if this attitude were held by everyone we wouldn't have a lot of the problems yes wilbur b smith i've corresponded with him for some time

he sent me a very nice tape in which he described some of the contacts which he himself has made

some of the specific information which he has received and i know that he has

i've got a number of contacts he has received specific information which he has used i haven't met him he wrote some time ago saying he hoped to get down this part of the country and i have been hoping to get a chance to get up and see him we haven't actually met you although we've corresponded considerably yes i don't have a tape on him i think we're going to

get one i think we're going to get the tape of uh his account his account of this one has been

made i know i think the tape service has it maybe uh someone i think said a few days ago they have one here do you have anything at all oh well good well then whenever we can get a copy here we'll

arrange to uh we'll arrange to play it i haven't been able to get his address oh yeah

well maybe somebody goes along with him

yes i am that was a personal tune some of the uh ones of the group

that uh you know i think that's a good idea i think that's a good idea i think that's a good idea i think that's a good idea i think that's a good idea éta

i have one more here it isn't really a question your message impresses and inspires one deeply i suggest we put this message out to the people how about groups doing this in every way possible try the press this is sam richie in case any of you know him very good playing but uh i might say we're are making a tape recording of it this a copy of this recording will go through all of the groups of understanding will be available to anyone who wants it as far as trying the press yes we can we can try the press sometimes you have a little luck more often you don't i think particularly of the case when my good friend ed herman who is service manager for mcgraw hill publishing company one of the largest if not the largest publishing company in the world took it upon himself to make a copy of various significant portions of to men of earth he wrote me first and asked me if he might

do so and send it to the new york times under the letterhead of mcgraw hill publishing company with

a request that they publish it in the sunday edition of the new york times he wrote me first asking if he might do this and i said yes by all means he was asking in effect to plagiarize the material because he was going to sign his own name to it he felt that this would certainly give it enough prestige and enough pressure so that they would print it and i said well i don't care whose name is on it isn't mine anyhow it's just something that was given to me to give to the world you're welcome to put it out any way you want and he went to the effort of typing out a quite a large portion of the book portion that he considered the most significant and actually there was the most significant and he said it under the mcgraw hill letterhead to the new york times with a quest urgent request that they publish it in the new york times and he said yes and then he did but he and i went to the new york times to

see if he was interested and he was saying no he was saying it was in the new york times but he said no and he was saying it was in the new york times and it's a little bit different well we can't say it's not in the new york times but it's in the new york times so it's about two and a half years ago and he's still waiting i sometimes become a little amused when i think of the head of one of the largest publishing houses in the world sweating out the publication of that all the churches and organizations like this, why they couldn't get men who wanted to be leaders in this thing, to get something all cooked up and break it loose to the people of the United States. We the people, just what you said about it, but we've got to work on it ourselves. Work on we the people of the United States with a program like this. Anybody with any intelligence at all, a nine-year-old boy, can visualize that you say this is so beautiful and true.

I would like to see this tried, and I would like to play as big a part in this as I might, to break loose a program of this kind, encompassing all churches who would want to cooperate, all organizations, whether they be paternal, saucer groups, or who they might be, to stress the urgency of it. This is the time. It looks as though to me that we are in a place on the threshold of what we are. This should be very easy for many people who are interested in their own evolution. The sad part about it is that many, many churches don't believe in evolution, which is so real. Some even believe in reincarnation. This one trip is all that's always good. I believe this group knows that's wrong. But I would like to see that tried, if you would like to work along with it.

Well, I'm certainly willing to do anything and everything that I possibly can to bring this one simple fact to attention of people, that we aren't solving our sociological problems by stress on material science. I'm just trying to make a suggestion, Mr. Fry, that you hire a public stenographer for several days at the expense of understanding, so that you can get caught up on all of these things that are holding you back for doing some of the very important things. Just the little trivial things sometimes are the things that hold you back from doing the big things. Well, even a stenographer wouldn't solve all of the problems because I would still have to dictate what was written. What I need is some good letter writers to write the letters for me. As a matter of fact, I have answered several thousand letters, and I find that almost all of them fall into four or five classes. I have five letters. They aren't form letters

because they're typed out each time to the individual, and there are specific answers to the individual. But there are five letters that will answer about 90% of all of the letters that I get in. There are two or three others that will answer all of the rest. But five different types of letters will answer about 90% of all the letters that I get in. Once in a while, there's a little information request that is some of the things that I get in. It has to be put in. It's just a question of sorting the letters out into their categories, getting the answers out, and when a person has received a personal letter this way, then he is much more interested than if he just receives a printed form or something from an organization. That's the reason that I have tried to get out as many letters of my own that I actually wrote or dictated as possible. I've hesitated to put out a printed form. A lot of people have said, well, why don't you print out,

just print a form letter and send it to everyone. This isn't really a personal contact. It does acknowledge the letter. It has that value. Unfortunately, I haven't even succeeded in doing this in a number of cases. We put out about 500 Christmas cards this year, a lot of which were put out just as acknowledgments of the fact that we had received a letter from the individual. We didn't have a chance or time to write anything back, so we just sent them the Christmas card. At least this lets them know that we did get their letter. But this is one of the biggest problems that I have right now. This group, we could have, a very large group in Germany formed. We were offered a half a million dollar property, free, in Germany as a center of understanding. We haven't had a chance to do anything about that yet without getting that thing started. There's a man there who had read the two books. He looked into it a little bit.

He wrote me, and I wrote him back, and he says, here's a property that I had fixed up for Randall as a resort. It sleeps 50 people. It's an estate. It's an old castle. It's been built up and modernized. All the plumbing has been put in new. There's a large area, a large estate in connection with it. It takes in the whole top of the hill. He sent us a picture of it. It's near the Remagen Bridge along the Rhine. It's one of the most beautiful spots, his idea, on earth, and it's close enough to the border there so it could be an international center, and he offered it to us free. We could get a group big enough to take it over, take charge of it, and do something with it. We haven't done it yet. I keep getting letters from Germany every day from different people. The book, as they say, has been printed in Germany, and there are a lot of people there who realize the importance and want to do something about it. Have you had a group there way back

and played something like this to them? Have you gotten them ready to take this down and start again and then type out the papers on it? I think it was a very good message, and it's a message that should be spread. Well, it's a message that's particularly important today because we're right now, and we're right now, and we're right now, and we're right now, and we're right now, and we're right in the throes. We're in this hysteria of material development, and we're celebrating our successes, and we're worrying so much and sweating so much about our failures in the material science that we're in danger of completely losing sight of the fact that there is anything else. And when we have a success like we did last night, which is a very wonderful success in putting a satellite into an orbit, it's wonderful as far as material science is concerned, but it doesn't solve a single one of our really serious problems. What do you think

if our government actually broke?

[01:43:00] Closing questions and final remarks

The government can't go broke until the people go broke. We're more in debt than the value of all the real estate in this country. Well, this is true. This is an economic problem, and a whole lecture can be built about it. We've got to look at the situation from both sides. The obvious answer to that is who are we in debt to? The first answer that someone will give, well, we're just in debt to ourselves because this money is all money that we have loaned to the government, and the government owes it to us. Actually, and unfortunately, this is far from being literally true, the largest part of the debt is bonded in debtness to organizations, to banks and to groups and so forth. But we still don't owe anything to any other country. Almost all countries owe us something as far as just money is concerned. And what this actually represents, what all this money and this indebtedness actually represents is only production, and it represents basically,

if you carry it to its fullest extent, it represents only natural resources. We have mortgaged a certain amount of our natural resources. When we loan a company, or some other country, I mean, we loan a country a hundred million dollars as part of our foreign aid. We don't actually ship any money to them. We don't ship a dime to them. We simply ship them a paper that says you have a hundred million dollars worth of credit from us. You send them to us in order of what you want. And they do, and we ship them the goods. Well, we've given our labor to produce those goods, and we've given our natural resources to produce those goods, so we've given up some. We would be in a tough position for a while if we had a collapse, if, as you say, we went broke. Going broke doesn't involve losing a single thing that we've got. Every single piece of consumer goods that's in this country would still be in this country if we went broke tomorrow. Every bit of food that's here

would still be here. Every bit of machinery that's here would still be here. Every natural resource in this country that's here would still be here if we all, if we went broke tomorrow. That is, if the economic system collapsed. Now, the collapse of the economic system would bring with it a very great danger for a lot of people. I've pointed this out before, that perhaps a million people might starve to death before order could be restored. Not because we didn't have the food here. We would have all the food we had before, but we would have halted the means of distribution, or we would have followed up the means of distribution so badly that it would take quite some time to straighten it out. That's all that money means, or an economy means. It's a means of distribution, of distributing the things that we produce so that they can be consumed. If we destroyed all of the money in the country tonight, we wouldn't, as today, we wouldn't lose a single thing

we have. Every can of beans that's on the store shelves would still be there. Well, this is the problem. The distribution, the system of distribution, would suffer a very severe blow, and it might take a long time to straighten it out, and people would suffer in the meantime. But if we have a nuclear war, we're going to have even tougher problems. I don't think that we have to settle for either one of them. I think that if we indicated, as a people, that we were going to concentrate more on the social science, which would indicate that we could, in a very short time, begin to cut down on our construction for destruction, we're spending over 50 percent of our total man-hours of effort in this country preparing to destroy each other. Building a means of destruction. They don't accomplish a single thing. They don't bring up a single thing. If we were to convert a little of that expenditure to the cure, rather than trying to cover up

some of the symptoms, we wouldn't be able to do that. We wouldn't have to spend near as much for the symptoms if we spent a little more for the cure. We wouldn't have to go broke. We would entail such a surge of confidence. Right now, if we shut down on armament production, we might have a terrific depression. It's almost certain that we would. We couldn't just stop building weapons without doing something to take its place. We would have to throw open a new frontier, such as a development in the social science, to take up the slack, to direct men's attention, men's efforts, men's ambitions, in this new direction. If we did, we wouldn't have any depression. We would have one of the greatest errors of prosperity that this country has ever seen. We wouldn't have to spend near as much for development in the social science as we have for development in the material science to get the same results. Isn't it?

In various ways, we could have the same result as we do now. If you are interested in our research and research at the New York Times, you can even go for a search on the British

Jets. It's very interesting to know that in Vancouver, there is a tremendous amount of interest. There have been quite a few sightings up there at very close range. I know, the first time I went up, I've never been so surprised in my life at anything, I don't think. I've said often that I haven't been surprised up there that was headed by Herb Clark, I believe. And they had two or three members that were interested in spacecraft. And when they found I was coming up as far as Seattle, they wired me and asked if I would come up to Vancouver. They didn't know what they could do, but they tried to get up a meeting. And I said, all right, it's only 150 miles from Seattle up there, 300 miles round trip. Maybe you can get a few people together and I'll come up. And they wrote and said they had two possibilities of a room. They were both in the auditorium there, but one had 100 seats and the other had 150 seats. And they didn't know which one to rent because the one that had 150 seats

cost a little more than the one that had 100 seats. And they didn't think they could get 100. They didn't know where they could get 50. They didn't even know where they could get 10 people that were interested. Just before I got up there, I went out and I said, we've decided to be perfectly safe and we've rented the hall that has 150 seats. So we're going to be perfect. We're going to be perfectly safe, even if it does cost a little more. I get up there only a few hours before the talk. I had time for a radio interview, which was played afterwards. It didn't have anything to do with getting people to that talk. I believe one of the commentators there had mentioned that there was going to be a talk the day before. But this is about all the publicity that was on it. And I thought, well, gee, I don't know. Is there going to be anyone there or not? And when we finally drove up to the place, we drove up about a half an hour early for the talk.

And the place was crowded with cars. The parking lot there was full. And I said, well, there must be something very important going on there. And when we attempted to go down, the hall was on the lower floor from the street floor. And there was the stairs, oh, about 12 feet wide, leading down into the... The lower floor. The stairs were jammed solidly with people all the way to the bottom. There were a group of perhaps 50 people at the top trying to get onto the stairs. And I wondered where they were going. And I tried to get down, squeezed by, and said, I've got to get into the room here. I've got to give a talk. And I finally got down. It took about 20 minutes to get down to the room. In this room that held 150, there were already 150 people seated and 100 people standing. And there were at least 150 more in the halls and 50 more at the top of the stairs. And there was a constant stream of people coming to the head of this line,

finding out that there was no possibility of getting in and turning around and going back. We have no way of knowing how many people were there that night. We can't even begin to estimate it. We did get the other room that had 100 seats. And we said, if anyone wants to come in and sit down, why come in and take a seat? And then within five minutes, there were 100 people seated and 150 people standing in that room. The two rooms were both the same size, but one had 100 chairs, and the other had 150 chairs. So in the two rooms, we had 500 people between the two rooms. Or, I don't mean 500, 300. We had 300 people in the two rooms, of which, no, it was 500. It was 500, yes. I remember the paper said it was 500, of which only half were seated. And we couldn't find any way in which we could connect the two rooms with a speaker. I had to give two separate talks. And Ben Metcalfe. who is a reporter up there, who was interested in saucers,

went into the other room to see what the reaction, what the attitude of these people was as they sat there for however long they would sit with no one there at all. There was no one in that room addressing him. There was no one there at all. And 150 of them were standing. Every inch of space was full in that room. And the people in the first room were so interested that it was two hours and a quarter before I could get away. Ben Metcalfe talked to me afterwards. He says, you know, Mr. Pryor, I still can't believe it. He says, I was there all the time. He says, there was not a person left that room. It was two hours and a half, actually, before I got over and started speaking to them. He says, they stood there. 150 people stood in that room for two hours and a half without a thing going on. He says, there isn't another subject on this earth that would get people to stand that long, that crowded, in a room with no one there.

There just isn't another subject in the world. So I don't know how many we turned away. I don't know how many turned away. I know that we got 500 in. And that half of those were in this room for two hours and a half with no one there at all and no one left. So there's interest there, a great deal of it.

I spoke to the second group for a little over three hours. I felt that as long as they had been that patient, been there that long, I'd stay just as long as anyone wanted. Of course, I'd been standing up all the five hours, too. And I had just spent a couple of, about ten very rough hours driving up there. But this was beside the point. I was so touched, so impressed by the fact that they would, that I would have stayed there as much longer. We got out, actually, I guess about 1.30 or 2 in the morning. And I would stay just as long as anyone wanted. And we didn't lose any customers during that time I was speaking, either. It's changing now. Rick is going to speak. On his trip. He's going to make a call up there. I don't know where is Rick right at the moment, you know, tonight? He's in Seattle. He'll speak in Seattle tonight. Any more questions? Where is Rick? Oh, he's going to speak in Los Angeles. We don't have the location yet.

He'll call us up in a day or two. He'll speak on the 12th. But if you call our number a day or two, we'll have the location. Is that going to be a new talk other than the one he gave here? I think so. I'm not sure. Do you know anything about it? No, I don't know. Well, Plumkin has more information on that. Well, we'll get it anyhow in a few days. Yes? We're going to have Calvin Rowe here. The man that spoke at the moment. Calvin Rowe? Yeah. Yes, I think we can. I think we can. He's in a few weeks. His hours and days are being changed. He works for the Forest Service. He never could get away on the weekend. But now this new job that he's getting from Finksey, he's going to have Saturdays. He's going to have Saturdays. He's going to have Saturdays. He's going to have Saturdays. Well, we had the question about giving wider publicity to this fact about the necessity

of a little more stress in the social science. If anyone has any ideas on methods of reaching any part of the public with this, we'll be

glad to cooperate with them. I wonder if there's anybody that could take a sit down and share a hand, and it could be tight, and it would be... I would love to. Some of the different congressmen, senators, and so forth to hear. Well, I'm perfectly willing to agree. If anyone could take a sit down and share a hand, it would be the same thing. And then I'll integrate. It perhaps should be edited a little bit. Public talk never looks quite the same on paper. There are always redundancies that lessen the effect of it a little bit that can be edited out when it's written in. But I'll be happy to go over it if someone will type it out. I'll be happy to go over it. And I don't...

I don't think it matters too much who does it or whose the words are, as long as the idea, the concept is put forth, as long as people are reminded that we aren't solving our real basic problems, that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be hypnotized by our advances in the material science. I don't mean to detract from the value of the material or physical science at all. We should prosecute this with great vigor. But we shouldn't allow ourselves to be hypnotized. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be hypnotized by our advances in the material science. We should be blinded into thinking that this is going to solve our real problems.