← Back to 1968

1968 March 9th Inglewood Unit Of 15 Of Understanding Stan Friedman Worked At Aerojet Background Voices Audible

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

• [00:00] Opening remarks and introduction
• [22:05] Main address
• [01:07:29] Development of the main themes
• [01:40:37] Questions and closing discussion

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Opening remarks and introduction

Mr. Stanton Friedman. If you aren't so sure, I've also worked for General Electric, for Aerojet General. A few points I'm about to present, the General Motors or Aerojet is working on flying saucers. We can change that. Flying saucers. Pretty much had the field to themselves for most of the last 20 years. It's that UFOs are worth the attention of other kinds of scientists and engineers

and the public in general. Now, if anybody came to hear me recite long lists of individual sighting experiences, they're going to be disappointed. That's not my purpose. My purpose is to try to clear up some of the widespread ignorance on this subject, to educate, to stimulate, not to sensationalize, not to take the usual scientist's approach of sitting on the fence, not committing oneself. I've studied on the subject, and many of you have spent a lot of time,

some of you longer than I have, concerned with flying saucers. But I still hope to present some new information. Some things that some of you may not be aware of. And particularly to bring into the field of view for you cool things that have been going on for a number of years that, in my mind, are related to flying saucers. Incidentally, if you can't hear me in the back, at least say something. Don't go to sleep.

Wave your arm. Stamp your feet. Do something to call my attention to it. I'll try to raise the level. These microphones are... A scientist has to start with definition. We're talking tonight about sighting reports. This is a...

I have not arranged it so that a little green friend steps out at an appropriate time. So what we're talking about is, or are, sighting reports, incidentally. UFO, UFO, flying saucer. So I don't mean anything different, really, when I mention any one of these three. What kind of sighting report? It's a report from people who have seen something, investigator, with enough time and effort, flying saucer reports. These are reports of identified flying objects reported,

which can be... Identified. Study of kind of report, which people see, which they cannot identify, sufficient time, money, and effort. Nothing in the second category, and I said we weren't interested in the ones in the first category. That's not the case.

Put myself right on the line, and tell you what I've concluded right at the beginning, so you won't be wondering, what does he really think about these things? The title of my talk is, Flying Saucers Are Real, That the Earth is Being Visited by Intelligently Controlled Vehicles, whose origin is,

Extraterrestrial. This does not mean that I know, why they're here, what they want, where they come from, how they operate, what they want from us. I'd like answers to all of these questions,

until we have direct confrontation with the inhabitants of the saucers. There's a great deal of misinformation, generally available about flying saucers. Almost everybody has an opinion about them. Almost nobody seems to be, truly well-informed. Misconceptions. I'd like to straighten out at least a few of these,

before I dig into some of my particular interests with regard to UFOs. And to do this, to sort of clear the air, I'm going to quote a man who is well-qualified to be quoted on this subject, a man who's well-known in Michigan, Dr. J. Allen Hynek. You know, Mr. Swamp Gas. He's got a goateed beard.

He made a rather loud appearance in Michigan, not too long ago. Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Hynek does not believe that you can sweep UFOs under the cloud of swamp gas that some people think occurred here. After 18 years as a consultant to the Air Force, and he's been in the business longer than anybody else that I know of,

he's only had courage enough to send a letter to Science, a very respectable professional publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In this letter, he tried to make a case for UFOs being worth studying. He sent the letter to Science, and they turned it down, because obviously flying saucers are not worth the attention of scientists, that Science wouldn't publish it. The editors very graciously changed their mind.

Misconceptions. That's the only part of my talk that's going to be read. His list of misconceptions, first a misconception, and then his comment about that particular misconception, many people that I've talked to carefully enough to determine whether, perhaps you too have been laboring under some false notions. Misconception is that only UFO buffs report the exact opposite,

is much nearer the truth. The truly puzzling reports come from people who have not given much or any thought to UFOs. Misconception number two, UFOs are reported by unreliable, unstable, and uneducated people. This is of course, UFOs are reported in even greater numbers.

Most articulate reports come from obviously intelligent observers. Misconception number three, UFOs are never reported by scientifically trained people. This is unequivocally false. Some of the very best, most coherent reports, have come from people, from scientifically trained people.

Number four, UFOs are never seen at close range, and are always reported vaguely. His comment, when we speak of the body of puzzling reports, we exclude all those which fit the above description. 100 reports which are fine brain teasers. This has no evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial,

or represent advanced technology, of any kind. His comment, as long as they are unidentified, the question must obviously remain open. If we knew what they were, they would no longer be UFOs. No truly scientific investigation of the UFO phenomena,

has ever been undertaken. Let me interrupt Dr. Hynek for just a moment, to say that that is not a true statement. And I'll tell you why I think that in just a few minutes. Misconception number six, UFO reports are generated by publicity. His comment, one cannot deny that there is a positive feedback,

a stimulated emission of reports, when sightings are widely publicized. But it is unwarranted to assert, that this is the sole cause of high incidence of UFO reports. And finally number seven, UFOs have never been sighted on radar, or photographed by meteor or satellite tracking cameras. His comment,

this statement is not equivalent to saying, that radar, meteor cameras and satellite tracking stations, have not picked up oddities on their scopes or films, that have remained unidentified. It has been lightly assumed, that although unidentified, the oddities were not unidentifiable, as conventional objects.

So much for Dr. Hynek. Let me add two more misconceptions to his list, based on my own experience of the past year or so. One is that UFOs are a recent, meaning about the last 20 years, phenomenon. As it happens, sightings of unidentified flying objects, have been reported for thousands of years.

And even the recent sightings, started occurring well before we took space travel seriously. And finally, many people seem to think, that UFOs are observed only in the United States. As it happens, they've been observed and reported, in essentially every country, certainly from every continent,

including Antarctica, which is inhabited solely by scientists. Penguins don't count for these purposes. As I mentioned, Hynek doesn't give any solid information. He's recently published articles in Playboy magazine. He had an article in the Saturday Evening Post. He has been saying they're worth studying. He doesn't give out any real factual information. And you remember that he made that one statement,

that there's never been a detailed scientific investigation. And I said it wasn't true. Now's the time to tell you why I think so. I've searched both the classified and unclassified literature. I have found that there is one, and so far as I can tell, only one, detailed, careful, official, scientific investigation of UFOs. The results have been reported in a document.

This title is Project Blue Book Special Report Number 14. Now, I think you're all aware of the fact that the official Air Force investigating group is called Project Blue Book. They're at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and now part of the Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force. I don't know what happened to Reports Number 1 through 13. Number 14,

has over 300 pages, and was never made public. In this study, which was done by a group of civilian scientists under Air Force contract, people, incidentally, they considered all the sightings in the Air Force files from the period 1947 through 1952, and they concluded their study in 1955.

A total of 2,199 sighting reports. They evaluated every sighting, in terms of quality, the pilot who was trained, did it last for a long period of time, what were the conditions of the sighting, and then they categorized all of these sightings as one of several things,

aircraft, balloon, astronomical, etc. Now, as I said, the document was never made public. It is true that now, because of the recent secrecy in government law that has been passed by Congress, that if you wish a copy of this report, you can get one by having every page of it duplicated

at a cost of 20 cents a page, so for about $70, you can get a copy. That's hardly wide distribution. I'll wave at you for a minute and show you a slide in just a few minutes. In a document like this, there is a privately published photocopy

that has all the text and most of the tables from the original. It's available from the UFO Research Institute, put together by a man who did manage to gain access to the document to photograph it. Government reports aren't copyright. Those of you who've got bibliographies are placed to send an order a copy. Now, before showing you the data from the report,

I should mention, incidentally, that typically you wouldn't expect the scientist to refer to work that's as old as 1955. The reason I do is that there simply hasn't been anything since then that's really worth referring to. It's the only scientific investigation that's been done. Now, before quoting data,

I have to quote something else, a press release. Again, it may seem odd to have a scientist quote a press release. I'm quoting this one because I believe it set the tone for the official viewpoint about flying saucers and is pretty much responsible

for the way many people who are generally ignorant of flying saucers think. For the way many people think. I shall come up in a few seconds. I'll show you a copy of the cover. The second one will go into the comments by the Secretary of the Air Force.

I should add that we are going to have a manually operated slide projector because of technical difficulties which arose at the last minute. My slides are too big. They won't fit in the standard cartridge. First slide, and then the lights just a bit, I think.

I can't tell how well you can see this. This is just a reproduced Special Report Number 14. Now, please don't confuse this with the annual press releases that are put out by Project Blue Book. They do have blue covers. They are press releases.

They are not this document. So the key thing is Special Report Number 14. This is merely a picture of the Avro car, an attempt at building a pseudo-flying saucer. It never really got off the ground. Incidentally, it's $4. Anyway, there's the cover. Let's look at the next slide,

which will show the Secretary of the Air Force at the time of the release of this document. Here's the seal of the Secretary of the Air Force of the Department of Defense, October 25, 1955, 13 years ago. The key paragraph is this bottom one, and I'll read it because I'm sure that those of you in the back cannot read it.

On this report, Secretary of the Air Force, Donald A. Quarles, who, incidentally, has since died, of this study described as flying saucers. 3%. He makes two attempts at factual information. Even these could have been explained as conventional phenomena.

It's interesting, this comment was made almost 13 years ago. The present Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Harold Brown, in testimony before Congress in 1966, said almost identically the same thing. Even the unknown 3% could have been identified as a conventional phenomenon

if more data had been available. Let's look at the next slide. It looks in the document. The document is chock full of tables, graphs, because we can read this, what reporters did at least at that time. I'm sure that our present feelings about flying saucers would be quite different.

Now, this is a breakdown, a distribution of object sightings on excellent, 35% good, 36% doubtful, 19.8% poor. This is the quality of the sightings. It shows the overall breakdown of the sightings, not by quality, by what were they. These are the ones we're interested in.

7% of the sightings were labeled, the Secretary of the Air Force said, 3% insufficient information. It is made very clear in the unknown and the insufficient information categories. If there was not enough data available about a sighting, it was not labeled unknown. It was labeled, appropriately enough,

insufficient information. You remember that the Secretary of the Air Force said even the unknowns could have been identified if more data had been available. He apparently didn't read this report. There have been other press releases which aren't quite a poor category. The next slide of the excellent 13 excellence

showed that the insufficient information category

[22:05] Main address

only has 4%, as you'd expect. In one sighting, there was enough data. 5% were undecreased, the unknowns decreased. As the quality of the sighting decreased, the number of insufficient information reports increased. Exactly what you'd expect if we were dealing with a real phenomena, different people who did this study,

stringent rules. They also set up a rule that if a sighting was to be labeled excellent, there had to be agreement on the part of all three. They said, just like the knowns, except we somehow didn't quite get the data. We're going to do a statistical analysis

comparing the unknowns on the one hand and the unknowns on the other hand. I think we can shut off this slide. On the basis of about six different characteristics. The apparent speed, those of you who are statisticians, the data's in the document. Their conclusions are what is interesting.

They found that the probability was that the unknown from the same population, the same grouping of sighting reports as the known. It's highly unlikely that the unknowns are really misidentified astronomical balloon, et cetera, sightings. Now, there's a great deal more data in this document. Maps of the United States

with one degree latitude and longitude boxes showing how many sightings all over the country. The sightings do not correlate with population density. They don't correlate with the area of the country. For example, there were far more sightings in the southwestern United States than one would expect. The document also contains specific definite mention of radar. Some of you may have heard a CBS TV special about two years ago

where a North American Air Defense Command spokesman stood up and said, we've never seen one on radar. It was wrong. This document specifically refers not just to reports made with radar, but to reports finally labeled as unknowns that were observed on radar. Along these same lines, one of the men who headed this project, Edward Ruppelt, who was also dead,

mentioned in his book a simultaneous radar and visual sighting. As I said, it has lots of other data. Maps from 1955, the space age. Perhaps the number of unknowns was 19%. He said, we've learned a lot since that time. I read last year's progress report. I read the year before his progress report, the year before that.

And they all talk about two or three percent unknowns. Don't you think that the investigative techniques have improved, our knowledge has improved? It's only a few percent. The officially listed percentages for the last several years are indeed low. Two, three, one percent. It is not true that it's because the number of unknowns is one, two, or three percent. Now, the official regulations dealing with UFOs used to be AFR 200-2.

Now it's 80-17. These specifically state that the duty of the Air Force is to reduce the number of unknowns to a minimum. The Air Force has been eminently successful at doing so. Not because of the number of unknowns. There has been one order to keep the percentage. Now, please don't misunderstand me. The Air Force is not my private whipping boy. I have worked on Air Force countries.

I have a great deal of respect for many Air Force people. It just so happens that they're the government outfit stuck with UFOs. A fledgling organization. The Air Force was organized in 1947. UFOs got to be important in 1947. I'm sure many people in the Air Force wish that they'd never had the job. They said there was deception. I think the first example is to say three percent unknowns,

when there were really 20 percent, because there wasn't enough data when that wasn't the case. The justification for this change is to like to repeat investigations, repeat experiments. A single observation hasn't proved much. This neglects, of course, the fact that man's history is loaded with singular events. From Christ, for those who are interested in that sort of thing, to Krakatoa, you know, the volcano that sort of took off.

It's not legitimate, in other words, to label a sighting as insufficient information on the basis of only one observer. Every sighting report is an independent event. We all saw something when we left tonight, and I can't think of a better way. We have to examine each of the reports we each made and evaluate it on its own merits. It's like flipping a coin.

If I flip five heads in a row, it does not change the probability of flipping and the coin isn't loaded, with regard to UFOs. The second thing, releases, usually contain a little table, breaking down the sighting reports, much as this table I showed you. I typically add reentry objects, satellites, and what have you.

And that table is always less than the total number of sightings reported for the year. Because there are a substantial number still under investigation, it's very unlikely that one is going to get more information about sightings by waiting a long time. You can certainly find out where the stars were, where airplanes were, when balloons were released, this kind of thing. As quickly as one takes the time, waiting a year

isn't going to improve the amount of information about sightings that fall into the still under investigation category. It's about 15%, and it's about the same for the single observer sighting. A substantial number of the still under investigation sightings are really unknown. We keep the number down by not including them. Now, these are what some people might label nitpicks, sort of bookkeeping techniques, when dealing with the government.

Credibility gap always. There are two kinds of deception, however, which are not acceptable, and which we are not accustomed to. The National Investigations Committee and other organizations each publish bi-monthly publications, frequently give details about sightings which have been mislabeled by the Air Force. The distribution of these lights by the Air Force

was specific to stars. Some astronomers checked. Visibly visible from the other side of which the sightings were revealed are the details of the initial sighting. The kind of deception that bothers me the most, however, has taken what I would call the Democratic approach to flying saucers. I should be against Democrats, but consider the Air Force approach to be.

In a great deal of time, we have managed to identify the great majority of things that people have reported as relatively conventional phenomena seen under unconventional circumstances. This is a very strange attitude to have toward any phenomenon. The job of the scientist, after all,

is to separate the weak from the chaff and to concentrate his attention on the weak. The fact that there is a great deal of chaff is besides the point. It makes things more difficult. But it doesn't tell us anything about the weak. Let me give you some examples of what I mean here. Thomas Edison had a poor life

when he was a young man. He had a poor life. He had a poor life. He had a poor life. He had a poor life. But he could not Let's try several more and there are more today, fortunately. She could not help saying that hiswi

The point being that much fewer than 1% of those things he tried worked. daggers Let me give you some more examples. I'm a nuclear physicist. It would be a true statement if I said that more than 99% of the naturally occurring isotopes have been shown to be incapable of chain reaction.

Cyan an addition. That's true. I'd be thought even more unusual than perhaps some of my colleagues already think me if I stood in front of the American Nuclear Society and said, therefore, I have proved that fission is impossible. Turns out there's only one naturally occurring isotope, which by itself, if you get enough of it together, will go bang. Will sustain a nuclear chain reaction.

The fact that the rest won't, don't tell us that there isn't one that does. But drug companies look at something like 100,000 chemicals to come up with about 25 that are useful in the treatment of any disease. Certainly nobody would maintain it because 99.44% of the drugs look... An example from baseball. Babe Ruth, for a long time, held the record for having struck out more than any other baseball player. Everybody knows that striking out is bad. Therefore, Babe Ruth was the worst baseball player.

He didn't get paid what he got paid because he struck out. It's to focus on that which is relevant. If you want to study flying saucers, unidentified flying objects, let's concentrate our attention on that which is related to unidentified flying objects. A group of scientists at the University of California were searching for a strange little particle called an omega meson. I won't try to explain what it is, partly because I'm not sure I understand myself. Anyway,

the theoretical physicist had said, if you do the right things, you ought to find it. And it will show that some of our notions of how things work are right. So the experimentalist took a beam of particles from the big accelerator out there, ran it through a thing called a bubble chamber, which I also won't try to explain, and took 30,000 pictures of it. Kept their graduate students busy for a long time looking at the picture.

In 29,910 pictures, there was no evidence, found for the existence of the omega meson. Did they run right out and say, hey, you theoretical people, you don't know what you're doing? No. They published an article in a very reputable journal saying they had discovered the omega meson, based on the evidence in 90 pictures out of 30,000,

far fewer than 1%. I think you could all play a little parlor game, all the true statements and false conclusions one could come to if one didn't focus on what was relevant. This has never been done, with regard to UFOs. There's never been a study done where somebody said, give me all the data on the unknowns, let's sort it out,

let's not contaminate the system with the data about the knowns. This is what should be done, it's what has not been done. Now, I think it is worthwhile to, a little bit later in my talk, I guess, talk about the arguments against flying saucers.

Perhaps this is a good point to present some of the evidence. If you've listened carefully, you will recognize that I have not really information about UFOs, information that I hope many of you have never seen before. I've tried to change, perhaps, your approach to how to think about UFOs, but I haven't produced any evidence. And yet I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that flying saucers are real. What do I mean?

Why do I conclude this? Well, I use the term evidence. In many states, the testimony of two witnesses is enough to convict a man of murder and send them to death with death. Now, I hope, when you noted the excellent sightings, that you recognize that that must have been testimony by competent witnesses. Now, here's where the rub comes in with regard to UFOs. The testimony, the evidence, is hard to come by.

Newspapers, although I guess in this town you don't find anything in the Daily News, you find it in the popular magazines, except every once in a while, and then you can't really be sure that what you're seeing isn't a fake as opposed to real data. The evidence is scattered. Now, it has been put together in some convenient references, which unfortunately have not had the right kind of distribution. Let me wave several of these at you,

show you them on slides so you'll know them, so that you can read them at least. One of the best compilations of data is this document. Let's turn the next slide on. Meanwhile, this is the UFO evidence. It's put out by the National Investigations Committee on aerial phenomena.

It was published in 1964. That's Major Kehoe's group, incidentally. He did not write this document. This is the title page. A slide of it. It's not blue. Don't worry about the blue color. May 1964. This document contains over 700 unknowns.

Not sighting reports. 700 unknowns. MICAP, incidentally, tends to get more reports than the Air Force does. And, according to some people, they do a far better job of investigating the sightings than the Air Force does, too. Anyway, this was privately published. It not only gives sightings. And they get rather dull. You know, after you've read the first 300 or so,

you've had enough. But it asks the sensible question. Questions like, uh, is there any evidence for intelligent control? Have there been any reports from Air Force observers? Have Army, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots seen anything? Have scientists ever reported UFOs? Have astronomers ever seen UFOs?

After each of these, there's about 10 pages of sightings by scientists, by pilots, by Air Force personnel. Is there any special evidence, like electromagnetic effects, radar cases, photographic evidence? Many more pages. There's even a breakdown of the kind of sightings or shapes that are reported. Very interesting reading. If it had been put out in book form and really pushed from a sales promotion point of view, many more people than I would be educated about UFOs. It's not the only document, however.

It also gives chronologies and patterns and a lot of other things. The next slide will show you another cover of a document. This was... a reference for outstanding UFO sighting reports. This document is printed by a computer, published by the UFO Information Retrieval Center, and was put together by a man, of course, who happens to be a nuclear engineer with the Martin Company in Baltimore.

Contains 160 unknowns, culled from all possible sources, that is, from foreign books, from American books, from the American official files, from NICAP, from APRO, from what have you. It gives an unbiased presentation of 160 reports in considerable detail. It's got a computerized chronology, geographical distribution, and what have you. Again, after the first 50 or so reports, it's rather convincing. The next slide shows another useful document. It's called... I'll hold one up...

Unidentified Flying Objects, Greatest Scientific Problem of Our... James E. MacDonald, who, for the past two years, has spent full time investigating UFOs. He's a physicist at the University of Arizona. His specialty is upper atmosphere physics. He started out as a skeptic. He visited NICAP. He visited the Air Force. He has interviewed hundreds of witnesses to UFO sightings in both the United States and Australia. His conclusions are rather carefully worded.

He has concluded that the study, as it exists, so far is a farce, it's not a scientific study, that the Air Force has really botched the job, that there are many good sighting reports, and NICAP has done a fine job of investigating them. His conclusion about what are they is that the least unsatisfactory explanation... Note that careful scientific wording.

The least unsatisfactory explanation is that flying saucers are extraterrestrial in origin. He hasn't stuck his neck out as far as I have. That's partly because he's in the academic community. And it would be practically treason to say what I say about UFOs. Fortunately, I'm not in the academic community. Now, this is available incidentally. I better put the plug in here, mainly because it isn't enough to tell you that it exists.

If I don't tell you where to get it. This was compiled and published as three talks that he's given. It was published last October. 25,000 words, incidentally. Published by what was then the Pittsburgh Subcommittee of NICAP, which is now the UFO Research Institute. Our address is on the bibliography that some of you got. And if I remember at the end of my talk, or if I don't remember, somebody remind me,

and I'll give you the address for those who didn't get the bibliography. It costs a dollar. It's the best scientific evaluation in... And there aren't many scientists, incidentally, who can claim to have spent full time for two years on UFOs. Most can't claim to have spent full time for two hours. McDonald is an exception. He, incidentally, was quoted in a recent Time Magazine article on UFOs.

Now, these are about the best sources available for those who want to plunge in. I don't believe that most of you, that any of you have seen all of these, plus one more that I'll tell you about later and won't bring up now, for a very special reason. Now, I make it sound, I think, a little bit too easy. Let's turn this light off, turn the lights back on again. I've made it sound as if any rational person, all he has to do is read this stuff, and he's going to be convinced.

Certainly, it's true that most people haven't read this world. But it really isn't as simple as I've made it. But the arguments made about how people feel about UFOs, can't be anything other than false. I think he's just a perfect physicist, now retired, he was head of the Smithsonian Observatory at Harvard, and he can't hardly get any more respectable than that. He's written two books, he's a smart guy, he's never seen anything.

He couldn't identify or identify. So really, there's nothing to it. Wherever he listens, now, he claims to have accounted for all the... He further claims that he has had full cooperation from the Air Force and full access to the Air Force records. blue book special report number the 430 turned up for his second book incidentally you see what this is fairly typical of the educated non-believer he focuses on that which is irrelevant doesn't deal with the evidence at hand and therefore makes the facts fit his hypothesis that the earth is not

being visited because 25 words are left now which came as quite a shock to me incidentally i read his book his first one hoping to find out something so i was greatly disappointed besides his kind of hand-waving argument well something like this what people claim to have observed is impossible therefore they couldn't have observed what they claim to have seen things can't go that fast in the atmosphere they burn up there's no life out there now there were people who proved perhaps i should you know what i mean and i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i a i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I the nage of that error does have a part of that so it sounds like something that is not really or the US government

Prove that you could not go 10,000 miles an hour in the atmosphere without burning up faster Of course is that we don't do it in the way that the people who proved that it couldn't be done That is people say things are impossible particularly respected experts When what they should say is We don't know how this is pretty good. There's a problem for people to say. We don't know how it's much easier to say It's impossible You know airplanes were proven to be impossible to about 70 years ago

Simon Newcomb a very respected scientist proved that flight was impossible anything other than a lighter than The first world war somebody wrote a whole book proving the airplane couldn't go faster than 200 miles an hour Second world war every flight for an airplane was the speed of sound Turns out that that is no longer the speed of sound in propeller driven aircraft The key here is Of course the progress comes from doing things differently but the people who say things aren't there might be a different 10,000 miles an hour You couldn't that's still being made. You can't get here in the Conceited today, although it wasn't 15 years ago

There is life throughout the universe. There are even some civilizations more advanced than we And that they're out incidentally that there was no life on any other planet in our solar system galaxies beyond ours There's life every 300 light years years would take you a hundred and seventy thousand years Obviously the trip is impossible the Arithmetic is right The reasoning is wrong It is true that astronauts go 17,500 miles an hour. They didn't they wouldn't see

It is not true that any rational person talking about a trip to the stars would post there at orbital velocity Yes, roughly the equivalent of going to Los Angeles from Detroit At the same speed at which you post out of your garage. They should never make $3, but I didn't shake the cam is interstellar travel travel feasible? The answer is yes. Now, the problem has been attacked by people who know something about space hardware. It's been attacked several years ago, actually. The astronomers, incidentally, contrary to what many people think, they're not really rocket

experts. The laboratory of the California Institute of Technology. JPL, incidentally, is the place that's responsible for the Ranger program, the Surveyor program. These are people who are practical and who are wise. You can say you published it. It was published in 1963. The study was completed in 1962. We can conceive of trips to near, a total time for such trips would be shorter than a man's lifetime. White trips take less time. What kind of assumptions do they have to make? They did not invoke anti-gravity, fourth-dimensional warping, that these trips were feasible. One was that they would use a multi, all our space shots are accomplished with many-stage

vehicles. You know, a big one down the bottom, a smaller one, a smaller one. Finally, incidentally, that it was impossible to put a satellite in orbit. He assumed a single-stage vehicle. You could use either fission or fusion to snow you and convince you that some mysterious forces are fission. That's what goes on in nuclear reactors. In A-bombs, in nuclear submarines, in nuclear power plants, you've got a fewer wrapping house, so it's not working. Be sure if you don't buy a wrapping house. They're a lot of fun, but they're not good for space systems. Well, it turns out, they get their energy from fusion, but how about for propulsion? As it happens, for something

like seven years, there has been an ongoing, active, real development program concerned with producing fusion propulsion systems for what tested real hardware businesses have done. Given 20 years, and enough money, they too expect to be successful. Now, I mention these in this JPL study, not because I believe necessarily that UFOs work by either fission or fusion. It turns out there are a lot of people who won't believe that something is possible until you can tell them how it might be done. They require a mechanism. This is rather strange, as you all know, bumblebees close. Early people didn't know why or how.

They don't really need a mechanism for either fusion or fission. It's very simple. See, it's tempting to assume that there are people out there who are only a little bit more advanced than we are. Let's recognize, however, our intelligence. First of all, I think we are all aware that man as we know him, could have matured, etc. In just a hundred years, we would expect that we've reached the limit of getting steeper. The rate of increase of maximum velocity is greater now than it was. Fifty years ago, a hundred years ago.

The kicker here is simply that the people visiting us, I use the term people perhaps a little bit whiny. People visiting us could have started on a technological kick before we did. Could have started a hundred years before we did. They could have started a thousand years before we did. For all we know, they might have started a million years before we did. I had an air... Is there anybody here who could presume to know what we will know in a hundred years, no less what somebody else might know in a million?

I don't think so. I think we have to acknowledge that the propulsion mechanism, the feasibility, might very well involve things about which years ago wouldn't have thought of nuclear rockets, nuclear bombs for that matter, or lasers, or a whole long list of other things. Radio, tape recorders, you name it. He had him in hand. I think we need to put in perhaps a bit more humility as typically thrown into this subject. I should mention along with this, the discovery that makes fusion propulsion systems possible

was really made about sixty years ago, and then extended seven years ago. The thing called superconducting magnetism. Superconducting doesn't mean somebody who works on the super chief and doesn't find junk. They were not wrong. They were from Mars. Superconductors are very technical. Superconductors are a very technical term, meaning a material which, when a current is put through an electrical current,

has no resistance to the flow of the current. It only occurs so far at temperatures very close to absolute zero, extremely cold. None of us in our normal working days get that cold, even in Detroit. The discovery was made sixty years ago, approximately, through an electrical conductor. There's a magnetic field associated with it. People who invented superconductors found that, in fact, that this would be a great way to make magnetic field.

It turns out that the superconductors they knew anything about weren't very useful for this, because as soon as you got a reasonable magnetic field, no more superconductors. It was a last curiosity for almost sixty years. Seven years ago, the breakthrough came. Things called hard superconductors, and don't ask why they're hard, were discovered by Bell Telephone Laboratory scientists, and I'll add,

that would remain, superconducting in this peculiar state, even when exposed to a very high magnetic field. This has made it possible to build lightweight, low power consumption, low cooling requirement magnets, such as could be put into a spaceship. This is what makes fusion possible. And yet many people said ten and fifteen years ago

that it was impossible to make such magnets. They also said it was impossible to do anything useful with them, which is also not true. Turns out there are a lot of useful things to be done with magnets inside. So useful that I got asked to write an article for a professional journal this past month going into this in some detail. We're doing a lot of work on magnets in space systems. A bibliography from NASA I got two weeks ago listed 3,155 references

on the subject of magneto-aerodynamics, which is a twenty dollar word, magnetic fields and aerodynamics. Here, there is a great deal of work going on. All of which people fifteen years ago would have said was impossible. They should have said, we don't know how. Now, I mentioned that an inherent assumption in a Time magazine article and a lot of other discussions about UFOs is that there's a solar system. Besides on our planet.

I'm not necessarily convinced there's intelligent life on this planet either. But... In this discussion, a lot of people assume that it's been demonstrated or proven that life as we know it cannot exist any place else in the solar system besides our planet. You'll find this in the old astronomy text and even in the new one. Something that says essentially life as we know it cannot exist elsewhere in the solar system. Many people think that the pictures taken of Mars, Mariner 4, prove that there was no life on Mars.

That's not the case. As it happens, those pictures were not intended to show one way or another whether there was life on Mars. They didn't prove that there was life. They didn't prove that there wasn't life. But certainly none of the pictures showed anybody waving. None showed any building. None showed any signs that says, by Buick. Let's face the fact of the matter. Those pictures were taken with relatively poor resolution cameras.

It took 22 hours to send the pictures back, which didn't help any either. Scientists have studied 10,000 pictures taken of the Earth with cameras of slightly better quality. Better resolution meaning you can pick out smaller details. 10,000 pictures of the Earth seeking signs of intelligence or life on this planet. In one picture out of 10,000, they found a very short straight line, which could be interpreted as evidence of some kind of life here. One picture out of 10,000. As I mentioned before, some people would argue with the conclusion that there wasn't intelligent life here anyway.

So, those pictures cannot be expected to resolve the problem. There have been a number of biologists who have studied the Martian atmosphere in some detail. Pictures of Mars for years. Spent a lot of time putting plant seeds in a simulated Martian environment. Some of these people, notably Dr. Frank Salisbury, an expert in this sort of thing, have concluded that one could make a good case for there being an intelligent civilization on Mars.

Not just like, you know, Mars, this kind of thing. But an advanced civilization. Part of the reasoning is that the satellites of Mars are very peculiar. People, nine years ago, some people thought that they were artificial. Some people still think so. The other part related to the fact that some of the organisms that you put in Martian atmospheres turn out to thrive

so well that when you put them back into our kind of atmosphere, they die. Life seems to be terribly adaptable in other words. Let's get out this statement, this silly statement, that life as we know it cannot exist anyplace else but here. I say silly because let's notice something. We have put man into space,

nothing more inhospitable than out there. We intend to put man on the moon. We intend eventually to put man on Mars. That brings us up to Saucers in Hawaii. Does it make sense to say that man cannot exist on these places? No. The keynote of intelligent life is flexibility, adaptability. The ability to provide a useful, livable environment wherever it goes.

As we do in space. There's no air, no water, no protection against this or that up there. And yet our astronauts survive. So again, if we get rid of the notion that we're it when it comes to advanced technology, there's no reason to say that life couldn't survive elsewhere. We're in another ice age now, for example. Most of us would survive.

Many of us anyway. We live at the bottom of the ocean, or not the bottom, but at least we go down an awful long way. Also in a place that obviously man cannot exist. He does. So, I think it's important to get these things into the proper perspective. Now, there's one area that I haven't touched on really so far. A lot of people will go along with me about this farm,

and then we'll stop. There have been speakers in this town that have said flying saucers are real, that have said we are being visited, but who will draw a line and say, no little green men. How about little green men? Do the nuclear physicists really believe

that there are little green men? The answer is, quite frankly, that I believe that there's plenty of evidence that people have observed creatures associated with UFOs.

[01:07:29] Development of the main themes

I'd like to run through the next couple of slides. Don't get your hopes up. I didn't mean to present it in quite that way. This is... This study about interstellar travel. This is a modified view from the report, just to show you that it was reasonable. We will get to creatures.

The title of the journal is Astronautica Acta. The man who was editor at that time was Theodor von Karman, one of the world's foremost aerodynamicists. Here's the title of the study. It was submitted in August of 1962. Let's go on to the next slide. This is just to show you that it's reasonable. Acta Astronautica is the name of the journal.

First issue of 1962. First issue of 1963. Here's my substitute for a little green man. It's a little green report. If you'll pardon this sort of terrible pun. I hope some of you have seen this before. I also hope that most of you have not. The special issue of the Flying Saucer Review entitled The Humanoid.

A survey of worldwide reports of landings of unconventional aerial objects and their alleged occupants. Over November 1966. Everybody's got an opinion about humanoids. Almost all of these are uninformed opinions. I think anybody who has an opinion on the subject ought to read this document first. As this sort of thing goes, it's not a sensational document.

You can say that anything written about extraterrestrials is not sensational. One of the best articles in this, is by Jacques Vallée. I seem to have lost my life. Anyway. By this guy. Who's written two other, two excellent books, which I highly recommend.

He just got his Ph.D. from Northwestern. He's back in France. He's got an article in this document entitled The Pattern of Landings. He relates short descriptions of 200 landings that occurred in 1954 alone. Let's put the lights back on.

There it is, the humanoids. UFO Research Institute has copies of this document. Incidentally, $2. Imported humanoids are cheap these days. Jacques Vallée's article covered 200 landings in 1954 alone. 156 of these were in France. He happened to be in France. He could check on the witnesses.

He not only documents these landings, but he asks the sensible question. What did the people see? Did their descriptions agree? Where did the landings occur? What time of day did they occur? Who saw them? Were these people hysterical?

This kind of question. His conclusions, very briefly, were that the descriptions did agree, that there were the right number of reports by men, women, and children, that the number of reports was inversely proportional to population density, which is a long-winded way of saying

that they were seen out in the boondocks and not near the city, that the people who saw these were normally going about their normal affairs, perhaps going to and from work, that they were responsible people who had jobs, who had families, who were looked up to in the communities

in which they were, that the consensus of the observers was that the vehicles that were landed were symmetrical and saucer-shaped and about five meters in diameter, about 17 feet for this particular variety, and descriptions of the creatures agreed, too. Generally, very small,

three and a half foot tall, humanoid. Incidentally, I use this word to mean creatures more or less human in form, creatures on the face. Sort of readily identifiable is not like your next door neighbor, but not horribly different either. No bug-eyed monster.

Well, these reports only covered pretty much France and a few from other places in only this one year. Now, I should note that the people who did Project Blue Book Special Report number 14 threw out all reports that referred to creatures. Now, if you're a kook to see a flying saucer,

you're an even kookier kook to claim to see creatures. As a matter of fact, some people say, how come they're only seen by kooks, or only, creatures are only seen by kooks? Then you ask them what a kook is, and that's somebody who claims to have seen creatures.

There's a certain amount of bias, in other words, that goes into discussions of humanoids. Now, it's been my experience and the experience of other people who've gone out to investigate UFO sightings, not only that they're common, but that the better the witness, the better the sighting,

the less likely the person is to come forth with the information about what he is seeing. This is particularly true of landings, I think for fairly obvious reasons. And ridicule has been found to be an extremely potent means of suppressing information.

Let me give you an example of that. A Gallup poll of two years ago showed that five million adult Americans, five million adult Americans, claimed to have seen what they would call an unidentified flying object. The official Air Force records show that the official Air Force records contain 11,000 reports.

Some place between five million and 11,000, there's been an enormous filter, which I will call critical. It's been my experience when I go out, when I speak, almost invariably somebody comes forth, sometimes several somebodies, to tell me about their sightings.

And if they haven't told anybody else, I'm safe. I say they're real, I can't lie. We have a 24-hour answering service in Pittsburgh for the UFO research. And according to the operators, the most common question they get is, do you think I'm a kook?

This is a great worry to many people. Now, there have been landings in the United States. There have been landings at our UFO research institute, which only covers a small part of the country, has investigated. This is not to say that one should believe all reports of landings or creatures. Quite a different notion.

Only that again, one has to sort the wheat from the chaff. Or come to conclusions on the basis of the wheat, not the chaff. Now, I've got some pictures to show you of flying saucers. I think you'll see why I haven't spent too much time regaling you with interesting sighting reports. You can read them in the books, a number of good books,

some lousy books too. That's the way life is, I guess. There are a number of medical quacks, and there are some good doctors too. I think we still believe in doctors. Some people do anyway. I think that perhaps I'd better get on to the pictures. Oh, do let me give you,

I will give you the address of the UFO research institute. I'll also mention again that there is the Detroit UFO Information and Research Center. I'll give the phone number now and I'll give it later. WA21163. WA21163 is the Detroit UFO Information and Research Center.

Whether you get the name all right is really beside the point. The number is much more important. And I'll mention it again. The UFO Research Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The address, let me do it when the lights are on. Let me go through the pictures and then I'll give you the address.

Somebody will ask me the first question. Let me run through the pictures very quickly. Let's see if I can get this done. This is a well-known sighting. You'll recognize some of these pictures I'm resuming now anyway. In McMinnville, Oregon, the Trent sighting. This is one of the negatives being investigated carefully by the University of Colorado study.

They got $300,000. They got another $180,000 to study UFOs. The report will be done, hopefully the beginning of 1969. The extension carried them past election time, which may be of some interest to some people. The flying saucer supposedly has been demonstrated that this is not a garbage can lid

or the equivalent. Let's go on to the next picture. I can't even remember what the next picture is. Oh, yes. This is the Heflin sighting in California by Rex Heflin who worked for the Highway Patrol there. This is one of several pictures taken through the window. This is the windshield of his car

and some of the other ones you can actually see the rearview mirror. Again, the print has been examined carefully by people who have concluded that it is not close to the camera. It is indeed some distance away and of some size. There's a disturbance on the ground beneath it. There's a general area that seems to be related to the UFO. It took off very rapidly after it was photographed. You will note that unfortunately there is nothing on that thing up there

that says made in Mars. That's the way the ball bounces, I'm afraid. Let's go on to the next picture. This is the photograph taken in Beaver, Pennsylvania. Our group investigated this sighting. That round object on the left of the picture is not surprisingly the moon. This peculiar object up here is a flying saucer, if you will. The boys were taking pictures outside,

in the backyard of their home. The original of this has the skyline in the background. A UFO came into view. They had sense enough to snap the shutter. There's been a lot of detailed evaluation of this picture, too. Of the negatives. It turns out that this region under here was not observed by the boys. It's what I would call a plasma, perhaps,

which is related to the magnetism bit, which I won't go into anymore. But people have tried to fake this picture, including the boy's father, who is a professional photographer. He was very worried about his reputation. Maybe the kids had pulled a fast one. Tried pie plates with lights in them held up by a hand. That's what they looked like,

hands holding up pie plates with lights in them. Was not able to duplicate this picture. Let's go on to the next one. This is on the frontispiece, incidentally, of John Fuller's excellent book, Incident at Exeter. This is one from Australia. You'll note the top of a chimney, I guess it is,

or a steeple down below. It's a colored slide, which is rather unusual, but which does rule out darkroom finagling. It was taken by an engineer who had the sense not to let his name be used. Obtained in this country through APRO, the Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization.

Many measurements have been made to show that, again, this was not close to the camera. It's a bell-shaped UFO. Again, without maker's identification marks on it. Let's go on to the next one. None of these are really new, incidentally. If you bought the Look magazine special, you saw most of them.

This is the first of the Trinidadi sightings. Trinidad with an E on the end, an island off the coast of Brazil. Taken in 1958 by an official Brazilian Navy photographer and other people as part of the International Geophysical Year. To me, it appeared to be a big joke. A pattern-shaped UFO.

Now, we'll run through these quickly. The red marks, incidentally, are because these were made from blow-ups of the pictures that were used in a book by Carl Lorentzen, head of APRO. The object came by the island, then went back. Everybody was watching and said,

there goes a UFO. A flying saucer, they said. In Portuguese, of course. The guy snapped the pictures. There it is again above the hills. You'll notice the detail of the island. Very hard to fake these pictures. Let's try the next one.

These pictures were actually finally released to the press by the President of Brazil. Who did not say there's a Martian vehicle, but only that they were taken by an official photographer and the President of the Witnesses. There it is again. Let's go on to the next one.

One picture is easy to fake, four is very much more difficult. Part of the ship, the UFO is up here, just above the water. It really took off shortly thereafter. A very high rate of speed. The next picture is a blow-up of, I guess it's number three.

All right. I've seen better copies of this. I don't have a slide of a better copy, unfortunately. We can blow it up until all you see is green. And there's something there. Now, it appears to have behaved in a rational fashion, indicating intelligence of some kind. That is, it went back and forth,

not the way natural objects usually go. It went at a high rate of speed. Nobody on this planet knows how to make things that can do this. Therefore, one concludes that this is an intelligently controlled, man-made vehicle whose origin is extraterrestrial. It doesn't tell you where it came from, or how, or why, or anything else.

Let's go on to the next one. I think most of you have seen this, probably in a better version than this. It was a picture taken by the barber in Zanesville, Ohio. Again, our group investigated this. This photograph. Looks like a hat-shaped UFO up there, doesn't it? Turns out it's not.

We went to the extent of having aerial photographs taken of this house and of the lot, the bushes, what have you, the right time of day, so the shadows were in the right place. And we have concluded that this picture is a fake, a hoax, I'd say. That's a more polite term.

For three reasons. And I'll mention these when I show this picture, because all of us have to be skeptical. A serious UFO investigator gets more trouble from the guy who believes everything, and from the guy who believes nothing. Now, I say it's a fake, a hoax, for three reasons. First of all, the man took two pictures

and claimed that they were taken in a certain sequence. Turns out these were taken with a Polaroid camera. They have numbers on the back of them. The numbers don't match the sequence. They're in the reverse order. Memo to those who are going to fake pictures with Polaroid cameras. Get the numbers in the right order. Second thing,

the man said that the pictures were taken within a relatively short time of each other, several minutes. By studying the shadows in the pictures, the actual pictures are bigger than this, and more bushes and what have you in pictures, we could prove that the time interval was greater than an hour, perhaps a few minutes in the frame. Third, we had a man who's an expert at photo analysis

study this picture in great detail, and he concluded that the object is only a few feet from the camera. Which you can do by knowing a lot about the camera and knowing something about the distances to the other objects in the picture. He said he'd stand up in court and say that that was A. Objects close to the camera fall

higher than above the house of art. So, we don't think it's real. Now, that's the end of the slides. Let's turn on the lights. Maybe. Let's briefly review that A, there is a lot of evidence. B, most people are unaware of it.

And C, the technology of the world as it exists does not rule out UFOs. The technology of the world as it will exist certainly doesn't rule out UFOs. There are some halfway decent pictures, and it's a very fascinating subject. No question about that.

Let me stop right there. Let me give you an address. If any of you have pencils, you might want to take this down. I'll really give you two addresses. One of them is the UFO Research Institute in Pittsburgh. Not because we want to investigate sightings in Detroit. Kind of far to go.

But because from us, you can get this issue of the humanoids. A copy, that's $2. McDonald's talk is $1. Blue Book Special Report 14 is $4. And the reference guide is, I think, $5.95. Our group is selling these only because you just can't buy them in the store.

If you've got the bibliography, those blue sheets of paper, the addresses on there, don't worry about it. It's UFO Research Institute, Suite 311, 508 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, 15232.

Let me repeat the Detroit UFO Information and Research Center so that you can get on their mailing list if you wish. The number is 482-1163. The address, it's just as simple as sending a postcard saying, please put me on your mailing list.

6721 Miller Avenue, Detroit, 482-11. Let me say thank you for listening. I have a question and answer period now, but I know that you've been sitting for quite some time. If you'd like to sort of stay in your place and stand up and stretch,

if you haven't done it, stretch and it would help you a little bit. For about one minute, then we'll go to our questions and answers. Those who want to leave, now's the time to do it. You mean, what does Dr. Hynek think about flying saucers? He does not believe that all things that people have seen

are swamp gas. Professor at a university, he's a consultant to the Air Force, sort of basically contradictory situations. He has done his to the need for He has done this with section of the community magazine,

published an article on how to get a good picture of a UFO, which has some rather interesting data in it, talked to Russian, set up a UFO investigative group. So he's really been leading the way when you consider the other, the Menzelian philosophy that so many people in the academic community hold.

It's not restricted to the academic community, but it lies anywhere. So Hynek does not believe that flying saucers can all be explained to swamp gas. He doesn't believe that everything seen in Michigan can be explained to swamp gas. He will, I'm sure, for several years,

still never say publicly, and probably rarely, private or estriol. He's an extremely cautious man. He is determined to find a way to get agreements with other countries

to get it done. He does not believe that the human race can be created by human race. And this is just one of the most umpteen examples

of how we can learn from the human race and the human people. So the question is, how do we solve this problem?

Let me just pause here and talk through this and then discuss some of the other

facts that the human are usually to the detriment of the not-so-advanced ones. Those who are visiting us might be millions of years more advanced than we are. The military mission for our country at the time is the military. It's been used for peaceful purposes. Less than 10% of the amount declared to an outsider.

The planet itself is an interesting place for those who are interested in such things. Hypnosis are exceedingly small. The number of psychiatrists is small, the number of... So I think one has to temper all the... ...might be and how we would want the cancer and alone anybody from outside who told us how to do anything, except we wouldn't tell anybody. It's duplicated. These things seem to have... Our society as a whole is certainly not a...

As you in Detroit certainly well know from what happened a few weeks ago, they're not reproduced copies out. A true mister at the address I gave before, 6721 appreciated with would have done at least 10 times the effort for a tenth of the funding that proposal demonstrated. That is, they didn't... They didn't put much in it, they didn't say much, they didn't commit themselves to much of anything.

They still got the contract because the Air Force wanted to be sure that they got the contract. Well, you do need to have somebody running any kind of investigation

[01:40:37] Questions and closing discussion

who nobody will say can be easily shut up. Condon was a good choice. Condon knows nothing about them to begin with. He's got a whimsical sense of humor. He's an old man, sick. He's spent very little time studying flying saucers, but done very little in the way of people who know nothing about flying saucers. This was to give an opportunity...

I'm going to go to... Because there are similarities between a Loch Ness situation and UFOs. While indeed there may be some few similarities that might be worthy of a study on the part of perhaps a psychologist, certainly this should not be the approach to this particular problem. Because as I've said a couple of times tonight, you have to focus on what is directly relevant from the question of UFOs.

People of the world involved in the two has been a lot of people associated with high-speed flight by looking for information from systems that have solved it. I think one could get data with the techniques we have today. We've got the capability of getting hard data about flying saucers, including electromagnetic spectra and a lot of other things. You have to recognize there's a problem, however, before you use the instrumentation and knowledge we have.

That's where the road starts. Where in one was your most recent saucer observation? Have you made any change in your diet since becoming so involved with our brothers? I did. One time I became a vegetarian. Oh, yes. The question is, is it possible,

since the vehicles seem to be somewhat different, or the things I showed in pictures seem to be somewhat different one from the other. Certainly you don't expect to see only cattle. The vehicles on the highways are many different things in the sky, from helicopters to Piper Cubs to DC-8s to blimps. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were being visited by people from a number of different places. Instead of combining a Pygmy and a Watusi and a Toblon,

we were being visited by more than one, more than one type of vehicle, more than one civilization. If there are many advance efforts to sort of pair up, our vehicles don't look at this point. Things just have occurred. I wish I had definitive proof that it had occurred myself. I don't.

In the back. Yeah. Have this, uh... Have this control... In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. We have a subcommittee in Harrisburg that's managed to get the focal point, get the focal operation of the Civil Air Patrol, incidentally.

They've actually exchanged equipment. Civil Air Patrol helps them in searching for things. There were 2,000 sightings, at least, in Harrisburg last summer. This is not as uncommon as it might sound. These are 2,000 sightings that we know about. That's the difference. There are sightings occurring everywhere, all the time. That's why our UFO Research Institute exists.

We're convinced that there are enough sightings within a radius of Pittsburgh that we can... such as these measurements of radioactivity in Harrisburg. I have read the articles. I have talked to Mr. Cook, who's head of the ICAF subcommittee there. The Colorado people were indeed impressed with the amount of activity in Harrisburg.

I don't think it's a unique situation. The people have taken us for publicity instead of Cook-type publicity. And because, after all, you... The people have gotten over the ridicule preference. They've got a good answering service, a ready group of people ready to go out and observe, so that they're aware

of the number of sightings occurring in that area. Let's divide 2% of the country's population, say 4 million people. 2% of 200... I won't give you a rough time. 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... Over 30 people. And I guess there were about...

There's fewer than 300 here now, so that's better than 1 in 10. Do you see what I mean when I say that flying saucers are not uncommon? I don't know how many people didn't raise their hand because they were a little bit afraid to. And admittedly, we have a select audience. If you're interested in flying saucers, you wouldn't be here.

Same experience, people. ...as bad as some people think. I don't think there would be panic in the streets the way the people from New Jersey panicked when Orson Welles had his little game with War of the Worlds back in the late 30s. I'm from New Jersey. I can make comments about New Jersey.

I will tell you something I learned last week, though, on speech and this kind of thing, though. I think there would be panic if we had publicity given to saucers, and that they have found that admissions to insane asylums increase, church attendance increases, that there is a measurable influence of this publicity on the populace. Now, some people might think that neither one of those is bad, incidentally,

but what I'm saying is there does appear to be official concern the effect of flying saucers on the general public. LBJ this year, at least, and the Russians will know, too, this kind of thing. There's a third view, I guess, from either of the others. Our military system, it's imagination. I say that having worked for, I've not been in the service, but projects anyway,

but the Germans sure used them more effectively. The exception to all of this, and there are many more, the jet engine, for example, I have to tell you this story, I guess, since I mentioned Theodor von Kramer. All the gas turbine experts in the country were called together in about 1940. What's the future of the gas turbine in aviation? Under von Kramer, he's the guy who called it together.

The conclusion of this august body of experts was that it had no future in aviation, that it was simply too heavy. The Germans didn't go to the meeting, they built jet engines, and used them long before we did. The one exception to all of this is the nuclear suffering. The Russians, incidentally, are building them at a faster rate than we are today. And Rick Gover got saved by the skin of his teeth at least five times by commons.

...admission by the airports of individuals, going if people have seen saucers or taken pictures about their sightings. The Air Force has said publicly that they have heard such reports. ...ask for the pieces, and make a passing remark that he's got a lovely young wife, but he would sure like her to stay healthy. This actually happened. Now, where these guys came from, how they got the information,

I don't know. Whether this is an indication that we are in a society that's described by David Vincent and the Invaders, it is something to be concerned with. ...the study that was reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14. This was a study financed by the Air Force, and it cost over half a million dollars back 13 years ago, performed by civilian scientists.

How do you square it with your statement that McDonald said the Air Force lost the job? The Air Force has never talked about this study. McDonald hadn't looked at this study in any detail. You won't find...Einick knows about this study. Well, was this done by the Air Force? No, it was done by civilian scientists, under contract, but not by Air Force scientists. It was done by people at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio.

...publicly about it, because they do contract work for everybody. GE, Westinghouse, the Air Force, the Navy, and they don't tell anybody about what they do for anybody else. That's how you stay in that business. Keep your mouth shut. So they don't publicize this. I have two more questions. Have you ever seen a UFO?

Have I ever seen a UFO? I would have bet better than even money that I was going to get asked that question. I'll give the same answer, if you don't mind, whenever I get asked this question. No, I have never seen anything that I would call a flying saucer. On the other hand, I've been working with neutrons for 12 years. I've never seen one of them either. ...about Dr. Heinick talking to the United Nations.

...straight. I've heard of Dr. McDonald talking to the United Nations. I haven't heard of Dr. Heinick talking to the United Nations. Dr. McDonald has, for outer space affairs, communication to the United Nations. For the Israeli, I think it's a dangerous thing to say in our world today. ...support and study of UFOs. He has said this to me, that he'd like to get together a group of,

as he put it, card-carrying scientific cards, either for those who interpret things that way, to have an international conference on the subject. And he has had contact with Soviet scientists in particular, as well as others. ...this would be under the United Nations auspices, whether it would in fact, in reality, be is another question entirely. The United Nations doesn't have much money. ...Heinick is seeking international support,

that McDonald has talked to the UN, that some people around the world, read Soviet Life this month, ...about flying saucers, giving sightings by astronomers and other people, incidentally. So it is an international problem. Those of us who are concerned, are interested in doing something about it on an international level.

Thank you for listening.