← Back to 1971

1971 October 9th Inglewood Unit 15 Of Understanding Daniel Fry Mutual Agreement Part Two Includes His Sweden Talks About Resonating Fields Talks About Alan

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

• [00:00] Opening remarks and introduction
• [17:42] Main address
• [54:07] Development of the main themes
• [01:20:41] Questions and closing discussion

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Opening remarks and introduction

How long will it take? I may not live long enough to ever see anything really come of it. But I know that people of very high capability buy this thing 100%. And the more intelligent they are, the more learned they are, the more enthusiastic they are. I had opportunity while there because I was invited by the Keeler family, who is very high in social life, they don't do too much in politics, but in Sweden. I stayed in the home that was King Gustav's summer home when he was king, and his family owns it and has. And they were able to get me interviews with some of the top people and some of the most intelligent and educated people in the country

because I wanted to try this on top minds. I thought if they will accept it, then it's basically right. If there's flaws in it, they're the ones who will be the first to detect and he's the first to accept it. If there's any flaws. The first interview I got was with Tore Fragner here at home, who is the top nuclear physicist in Sweden. He teaches in the University of Stockholm.

And he said, well, we'll talk a little bit. And I came in and we talked for something over an hour. He rushed out and got a copy of his new book, which he had just had published and endorsed it to me and autographed it to me and so forth. I have it in my library. And as I was leaving, he said, Dr. Frye, we have talked together for more than one hour. And he says, I have agreed with every single thing you have said. And he said, I've never said that to a living human being before.

And I don't think he has because in reading his book, he has very definite opinions upon things. And I can see where he could easily disagree with people. But he, being in the scientific field, knew better perhaps than others the necessity of applying. He has tested and proven principle to other areas where it can work just as well. I had an interview with the gentleman who heads the largest corporation in Holland. I had a short interview with Queen Juliana, too.

I was there, but this wasn't publicized too much. She had just been really criticized by giving an audience to another very unpopular gentleman from the East. And was a little sensitive about the publicity at the time. But this man who heads the largest corporation in Holland, one of the largest in the world, is known as Phillips Corporation. You may have heard of it. You go by Phillips gas stations every once in a while,

and you don't know who owns them. But anyway, I was at his home for the afternoon. He said, oh, gee, can't you stay over for a few days? We should talk a little more. And again, I was on my way home by that time. But I said, I'm going to read this to you. I said, you are. And he was a very highly educated man in many fields.

He was a student of metaphysics. He had studied in India. He had studied in most of the countries in the world and visited all of them. He said, I'm going to read this. You certainly should be able to criticize this. When I finished reading it, I said, tell me what I should change, what I should leave out, or if I should throw the whole thing in the waste bag. So I read it to him.

He said, I'm going to read this to you. I read it to him slowly and carefully. And when I got through, I said, well, what do you say? He said, Dr. Frye, the only thing I can say is I wouldn't change a word. He said, it's just the way I wish to hell I had written it myself. So it was encouraging because people of knowledge, people of experience, people of wisdom bought it. If it hadn't been for that, I would have discarded it long ago because it's a task that isn't too thankful. I mean, I have never taken in a nickel from it.

We print the little papers. And if you care to have this lecture in print, you'll find one there on the thing. We've printed them by the thousands. I update it a little bit each time, improve it, smooth it out a little bit. But I have never gotten a nickel back for myself from the money I spent. A few other people put in a little in the pot once in a while to print these things. But I've never taken anything out of myself, and I never will. In fact, I've never taken anything from any of my books.

I've never taken anything from any of my activities and understandings when I give a lecture, as I am tonight, and the fee is given to me. I say, sure, I'll put it in the gas tank because I have 800 miles to drive when I go home. And when I stop at the gas station, they have a habit of wanting some of that coding stuff. I can't say, oh, I'm on public service. I'm serving the people. I think you ought to give me free gas. Well, they typically give them view of it. But as far as my personal expenses, in all years and understanding, I've never used one penny of any of the income from understanding.

For any of my own personal use, I never will. I make my living on the site. So I'm going to break here for just a minute. We'll discuss this proposal. If any of you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. I've given you most of the data that I have now. If you have any questions on any other subject, and I was incautious about saying that last night over at Anderson Research Foundation, and we talked on UFOs until 1.30 in the morning. But it was his own building.

I'm sure we'd be thrown out of here before that. If you have any questions on any subject, and I have any knowledge on the subject, I'll be glad to get it through. If you ask a question, and it's something on which I have no knowledge but do have an opinion, I'll be glad to give you the opinion with a strict understanding that it is only an opinion and probably no better than anyone else's. And if, in a third case, it happens to be a question on which I have neither knowledge nor opinion, I'll be honest enough to tell you. Thank you. I'll tell you that, too. So let's take a few minutes break. Thank you.

Announcement and... Oh, it doesn't matter. It didn't take... We sometimes have the questions written out, but we'll work a little differently this evening, and just raise your hand like we're in school. And we'll have Dan answer them or try to as he suggested previously. Okay, Dan. Thank you. I know that you have a lot of questions on some of their minds.

They're very interesting. It occurs to me that maybe one of the most important areas of useful agreement might be on the ecology of the world. Well, yes, the area... This could simply refer to what things were thought to be best or basic to ecology. Again, I say... I have to repeat that. That these questions would be simply for... To determine how people think, not to determine what people should think or what people should do.

That would have nothing to do with this first... I guess maybe I was thinking of it coming together more... Yes. Unlike some of the... Well, certainly many questions in ecology would come up at such a Congress. Could I ask if... Have you presented this formally to the State Department or to the President? Well, I don't know how you present it formally to the State Department.

You have to present it to some individual in the State Department. I have... We have sent copies to a number of people in the State Department. I haven't sent Nixon his copy yet, in spite of the fact that he wrote me a very interesting letter, which most of you may have seen. But... Doctor, could you tell us about the letter and the name of it? Oh, there isn't anything remarkable about it. It was one of the Nixon letters that was written right after he was elected and before he was sworn in,

which suggested that I send him, or whoever received the letter, send him names of people who they thought should be in his administration. They would be checked and hopefully employed in his cabinet or in his administration. They were sent to other people. I wasn't the only recipient. I was a little surprised to get one, though, because there weren't that many people. I got them.

And there were perhaps one out of a million people, or the less I got them, in the United States. So it simply indicated that he didn't think I was insane. I use it. I have a little book here. In my folder here, I have a little file, a little loose-leaf folder, which I call the answer book. In the early days, when I used to go out and lecture on unidentified flying objects... Of course, this was such a ridiculous... ...subject that everyone had to point out how ridiculous it was.

But in order to announce to people, in order to let people know you were going to lecture, you had to do a lot of radio and television appearances. I passed my 1,000th radio and television appearance more than three years ago. I quit counting. I logged them up to 1,000, and I quit. I've done at least 500 or 600 since then. But while you were eagerly accepted for appearance on a radio station in those days, Mm-hmm.

when you appeared, the sponsor would then sort of exhibit you the way a sideshow owner exhibits his freaks. Here is a nut who really thinks his planet might be visited from other places. And obviously, he must be insane and so forth. Well, you had to put up with this. In order to get that little 30-second commercial that they were always honest enough to give you, Dr. Pye will be lecturing at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time. Of course, the people who were interested in hearing the lecture... couldn't care less what the announcer said.

All they were waiting for was that place and time. But I found early in the game that it was easier to answer a sarcastic question with a document than with an argument. So I began to save the documents and put them in the proper order. The book there contains that it's very seldom necessary to use it anymore, because that's gone out of style. I mean, that type of TV appearance has gone out of style. I still appear on radio and television, but it's... seldom that anyone starts out by attacking my sanity, my morals, my honesty, and so forth.

And they used to do it almost automatically. It was the style to do it then, and it isn't the style anymore. But occasionally, someone will still ask on a TV program if anyone thinks I'm sane. And so I open the book to the first page, and I say, Well, here's one man that apparently thinks I'm sane. His name is Richard Nixon, and he wants me to submit names to be included in his cabinet. So he wouldn't run me over. He'd write it to me if he really thought I was insane.

That's the only point I make on that, is that it was received by other people. Then, sometimes the announcer will say, Oh, well, that was just political patronage. You worked for his election, and so he rewarded you that way. And, of course, the answer to that one is I didn't even vote for Nixon. I voted for Humphrey. It was an underdog vote at the time. When I finally came to voting, everybody knew who was going to be the next president.

In fact, most people knew it long before. Way back before any, before either of the national nominating conventions had been held for that election, I was in Denver on a lecture, and I was appearing on the TV there. And they asked you all kinds of questions that had nothing to do with the subject of your election, of course, just to see, get some idea of your background or something. And the commentator there asked me, he said, That's right. He said, Who do you think is going to be the next president?

Well, the nominating conventions hadn't even been held. Well, theoretically, nobody even knew who was going to be nominated, much less who was going to be elected. So I said, Well, I don't claim to be a prophet. I said, No, I'm not. I'm not a prophet. But I can illustrate my feelings in this matter by a short story. And it was repeated all over the country afterwards. But this was several weeks before the first nominating convention was held.

I said, It seems that there were two men walking down the street here in Denver, and a poll taker rushed up to them. I said, The two men with this little chart out taking a poll of who was for who. And he said to one of the men, Are you going to vote for Humphrey or Nixon in the next election? And without answering anything, the man to whom he addressed just hauled off and knocked the poll taker down. And his friend turned to him and he said, Look, Joe, what do you want to get so mad about? He said, He didn't insult you. He didn't say a thing to you except, Are you going to vote for Nixon or Humphrey?

He said, You know you're going to vote for one of those two. And the other said, Yeah, darn it. He said, I know it. He said, But I sure hate to be reminded of it. So that was my attitude. Actually, my wife and I, and the only political exercise we ever got into, because we felt that everyone should try everything at least once. We never had anything to do with politics.

And we set up a little office in Grants Pass. And we plugged for... a gentleman named Ronald Reagan for president. He denied he was a candidate. He wouldn't visit the state. I've got a beautiful letter from him in that little folder, too. He said he couldn't really... He thought that this was a job that must seek the man.

And they had to come looking for him. He wasn't going to be a candidate. So he didn't come and talk. We pulled over 33% of the entire vote of Josephine County for president for a man who denied he was a candidate, and never even visited the state. If he'd come up and given one lecture, we'd have got 70% of the votes. And he wrote us a real nice letter about that, too.

It came to his attention. So this is all just proof that it really wasn't political patronage. It didn't have anything to do with us voting for Nixon or even being in favor. It happens that I did meet Ronnie Reagan once long before he got into politics. In fact, before he was in the movies, when he was in sports, after he got out of the armed services, our paths crossed. My path also crossed that of Miss Ronnie,

a little squirt named Nixon when he lived in Whittier. And I lived in the outskirts of Whittier. For some reason or other, fate seemed to cross my path with quite a number of people who later made it big. I never minded anything myself, but a lot of the people that I had contact with made it big afterwards. And I don't know whether any of them remembered or not. Certainly, I don't attempt to stay in communication

or make any connection with these people. But I do have this little folder. It contains letters from, I think, 15 colleges and universities. People say you're supposed to be in the scientific field. No scientist could be that nutty. Is there any true scientist that ever accepted any of your work? And I have a letter there that's an apology from a professor in MIT. Because he apparently copied some of my work.

He didn't really. He started from a different point. But he was saying that he apologized for not having known that I was five years ahead of him in reaching this conclusion. So these letters are all just... The only purpose they are is to indicate that I'm not really that insane, that there are people who think I'm halfway normal. And I don't know how we got into this discussion.

But someone asked me, but someone asked about the President's letter. It's in the loose-leaf folder in that thing. If you want to look at it afterwards, you're welcome to. What was the concerning reason for you to steal these... The Area of Mutual Agreement? I worked for 20 years in the scientific field. I designed primarily guidance instruments for jet aircraft and guided missiles.

Did some work in the nuclear physics field. Through my scientific knowledge, I know what nuclear weapons can do. And I know that if they're ever used on any scale at all, this civilization is done. And I have children. And I'd like to see them live to enjoy this planet. That's why I do the work I do. What can we as individuals do to further this?

Everyone can do something if only talking to his neighbor. If everyone... If everyone discussed the subject with his neighbor tomorrow, and the neighbors that it was discussed with discussed it with their neighbors the day after, you would have a mathematical progression of two. I mean, each day you would increase by one power or two. And in about 30 days, everybody on Earth would have heard about it. I don't say that this is going to happen.

It never has before. But when people say, what can I do? I usually point out that they are going to do it.

[17:42] Main address

They don't need advice if they realize there's something they can do, or that something that should be done. People all for years have been coming to me saying, what can I do? And I say, if you know that something needs to be done, and you feel like you should do it, you're going to do it. You can help yourself. You don't need any advice. I do it.

I tell it in the way of a little story about the lady who was on her first transatlantic crossing on a steamship. She was three days out from shore. And she went to the captain and said, oh, captain, I'm terribly worried. And he said, well, madam, I'll advise you if I can. And she said, well, I'm afraid I might become seasick. The ocean is a little bit rough. And I've never been seasick before. But I hear that people do get seasick.

And if I got seasick, since I've never been seasick before, I wouldn't know what to do. The captain says, madam, he said, don't worry. He said, if you become seasick, you will do it. So if people realize that there is a need for something to be done, they're well on their way to doing it. And they won't be able to help themselves. Yes? I have a question.

It's twofold. I enjoyed your lecture very much on the agreement. In the teaching of Christ, where he says to love your neighbor as yourself, which he says is spelled out out everywhere, and whatever you would that others should do it to you, the person who does it, that is not spelled out in detail, which your program does. But isn't the teachings of the Christian Church, or for that matter, many different groups, don't they further the idea that you have?

Yes. Let's go into that specifically, because it's a part of another lecture that ties in very well with this. This actually is the borderline between the social and the spiritual science. There is no direct line, no dividing line. You can't say that physical science ends here, the social science starts here, the spiritual science starts here. They all overlap, and the laws that control all of them are identical. But that's another lecture I can prove that to.

But let's get to this greatest commandment of all in the Bible. And I learned to read from the Bible at the age of four. It was the first book that was handy in the house. I didn't get to start school until I was seven, but I had the need to start learning, and the book that was handy was the Bible, and I learned to read from the Bible at the age of four. So I have read it a little bit often. It's been around ever since, so I'm reasonably familiar with the content.

But we find there what every spiritual leader has taught us since the beginning of time, or at least since history has been recorded, that the answer to social problems is that everyone must love his fellow man. Everyone must love God and his fellow man. And the Bible said, The greatest commandment of all is this, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

And the second is, Like unto it namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There's just one little problem. None of these spiritual leaders have ever told us how to go about doing that. And it is a simple fact that love is an emotion which is not subject to the will. No one can love his neighbor or anyone else simply because he is advised or even commanded to do so.

Something else is required first. Imagine, imagine all of you that tomorrow a very wealthy man would come to you and say, Look, I'll give you a million dollars if you can love Joe Jones, your next-door neighbor. Entranced by the thought of the million dollars, you'd probably say, Oh, boy, I sure will.

I sure will. Why, for a million dollars, I'll love that miserable, no-good, stupid so-and-so if it kills me. And you might put on a very good pretense complete with all of the outward sentence. But in your heart there wouldn't be any change. You'd be thinking how wonderful it would be to have the million dollars, but that isn't going to make you love your neighbor. In your heart there wouldn't be any change. In fact, in the long run you would eventually come to despise that man even more

because he is now the living symbol of your own hypocrisy. You have to have something else before you can have love. And that's something that's understandable. If you go to any psychologist, go to any psychologist tomorrow, if you doubt my words, and ask him how do you go about loving? What is it that is necessary between two people before there can be love between those two people? He'll always have the same answer.

He'll say there have to be things between each one must look to the other for some part of his needs, for some part of his security, his comfort, his pleasure, his well-being. Each one needs to look to the other for some part of their necessity. And the more of those necessities they look to each other for, the greater the love can be. Each one is a bond between the two. Without those bonds there can't be any even adequate pretence of love. But the more of those bonds there are, the more love there can be. And it will come about automatically.

Let us now look at what this really means. You look in the Bible and find these texts in the Bible. And you look into the Greek from which it was translated, in several, in most cases, the language from which it was translated into the Greek to begin with. I knew Dr. Laker of Warren during the last years of his life very closely. I spent many hours over in his home. He was the greatest authority on ancient languages that lived at the time and probably the only good one that was left.

And he pointed out the meanings that in the Greek and in other early languages they were poor in adjectives and adverbs, that each word had two or three meanings that were applied, one or the other meaning from the same word. And in the translation of the Bible, these things were picked sometimes more or less at random, the word that should be used for the Greek word.

And if you look at the word that is translated, in the earlier editions of the Bible it was translated, charity, and in the later editions of the Bible it was translated, love. And it has three meanings, love, charity, and understanding. And there are several places in the Bible where a sequence of statements is repeated three times in which it was originally intended that one of these should be used in each of the sequences. And in the translation the same word was used in all three,

thereby losing most of the meaning. You will see in the Bible the statement that though I give all my goods to the poor, though I give my body to be burned, in the older editions it says, have not charity, and this was the correct statement there. Now the Bible says love, I believe that. It availeth me nothing.

And it should have been charity because it doesn't avail you anything to give away your goods to someone else if you're only doing it to make a show, if you're only doing it to show what a good guy you are and aren't basically concerned with that person's welfare, it isn't going to do you any good to give away your goods. Then it says, though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not, and it's translated love,

and it should be understanding, that's where it should be understanding, though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not understanding, I am become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. You've all heard lecturers who had a wonderful vocabulary, a wonderful command of the language, and they'd be out there orating,

and you'd sit back and transmite what a wonderful speaker, what a wonderful vocabulary, how well he puts words together. And then suddenly he was through, and he thought, but what do I know now that I didn't know before? And the answer is nothing. It was entertaining.

It was amusing. It didn't trance me. It made me feel good. But he couldn't transmit any understanding to me because he didn't have any to begin with. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not understanding, I am become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

So there are many places in the Bible where one of these three is misput, where the thing would be much more understandable and understandable. In the greatest commandment of all is this, Thou shalt strive to understand the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul,

with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And the second is like unto it, namely this, Thou shalt strive to understand thy neighbor as thyself. There is no need to command man to love God. If man understands God, love follows automatically.

He couldn't help himself. If man does not understand God, all the commandments in the world won't do any good. That translation should read, Thou shalt strive to understand. There is no need to command man to love God. Well, it is possible to understand him well enough

so that love follows automatically. You'll find many people that have gone that far. But I didn't say the commandment is, Thou shalt understand God. I was very careful. I said, Thou shalt strive to understand. Thou shalt go as far as you can in the path of understanding.

You couldn't love something. There are many. I could do two-hour lectures on this one subject alone, and I tend to get, I tend to get, we'll have to go along pretty well. But there are in our writings today, in our literature,

there are many old things that are written. There are fables that are repeated year after year. There are fairy stories that are written. And I've heard people complain about this. Why do we waste ink and paper printing these same old things that have no meaning, that have been printed for hundreds of years?

If you examine those carefully, every one of those has a very profound, a very precise meaning and interpretation. And we sense that it does. We often don't know quite what it is. But the realization that it does keeps us printing them, keeps us perpetuating those.

There is the story of Beauty and the Beast. I'm sure all of you have heard of it and most of you read it in your childhood about the young lady who goes out in the woods and gets by accident into the preserves or into the garden of a person who appears to be a horrible beast.

And first she fears for her life and then little by little she finds that this beast apparently is very kindly at heart and very concerned for her welfare. But each evening the beast asks if she will marry him and finally permits her to go home and visit her family on the agreement she will come back in a certain length of time.

And she doesn't come back at that length of time. Then she comes back some time later and finds that the beast is dying because of her neglect. But she didn't come back when she said. So she said, Oh beast, yes, yes, I will marry you. And instantly he is converted into

the handsome prince. There is a deep sense in that that it is understanding that made the difference. It took that long before she began actually to understand that this beast wasn't really a beast at all. That it was the lack of understanding that made this person a beast.

I mean, all of these things have precise meanings. The one about Jason and the dragon's teeth is one of the most profound lectures that you could give. It isn't understood. It's just a short tale out of how well you find it in a number of places in mythology where the task

that was one of the tasks of Hercules and it's repeated in mythology in various places. The task where a person had to sew a certain number of these dragon's teeth and as soon as they were covered up, they sprang up into armed men who immediately attacked the person who planted them. And it was the job of this person

to destroy all of those armed men. And there was one little problem in the way that no matter how good a swordsman you were, if you slew one and he fell to the ground, two more sprang up in his place. So it made it very difficult to get rid of all these men. There is a very profound lesson in that

and if that were a lesson that was studied by every would-be dictator in the world, we wouldn't have any wars. You cannot kill your enemies. You cannot kill your enemies. Because there is no man who is so hated, so despised by his fellow man

that he doesn't have at least one or two friends. And any time you kill that man, you make enemies of all of his friends. So every time one of these men falls, two more, three more, four more spring up in his place. It's a thing that every would-be dictator, every would-be world conqueror,

has found to his sorrow. It's the reason that nobody's ever succeeded in conquering the world. And a lot of people, it looked like they were going to make it at first. No one has ever succeeded in conquering the world because you can't start this process without making enemies faster

than you can get rid of them. And eventually everyone is your enemy and when that time comes, you can't do anything. You're helpless. It's a very simple lesson. I got sidetracked into giving it, but it's something to remember.

These little, little fables and so forth have profound meanings. And if that one could be understood, really understood by the people, it would save a lot of trouble. A lot of dictators would learn from history or would learn from facts

instead of having to learn by experience. Since you cannot kill your enemies. The way that Hercules solved the problem, he gathered them all in his arms and embraced them until they passed out of existence. I mean, the only way you can kill an enemy is to make him a friend.

There have been some stories in mythology about that too. Saying that the only way you can ever destroy an enemy is to make him a friend. And you've destroyed the enemy without having any more springing up in space.

Yes? You can't go around trying to create a vacuum. If you take something away, you have to put something back in its place. Well, what are we taking away? Well, if you try to take anything away, If you take hate away,

I mean, love will come in its place automatically and we don't have to worry about that. There's got to be something better to take the place of that. Well, I'll tell you, if you take hate away, love will fill the vacuum by itself. There was an old saying,

the nature abhors the vacuum, which simply means that we have air pressure around and when you lower the pressure, air tends to flow into it. But, you get a little ways away from this earth and all this vacuum and all this space,

it's all opportunity in which to put something. And if you take something out, all you're creating is an opportunity to put something back in. But in the pursuit of the area of mutual agreements, you aren't taking anything out of anywhere. You're just finding out

what's there for the first time. I was going to suggest that one way to help disseminate this information, we as individuals may not be the leader of a group, but we go around to a lot of groups Yes. and you can see that each one of those groups

has copies here and there. What? That would be fine. I mean, at least everyone would have been exposed to it once then, or even the person who gets the copies is exposed to it once. And I do have,

in case we run out here, I do have a few more copies in the car, which you're welcome to have without any charge. Because you do want groups to send representations to... Yes. Well, in the end,

there would have to be, in the end, there would have to be a representation of each typical kind of group, or preferably each type of group that you're talking about.

Yes. And I think that's a good way to put it. Each type of group, I said, that have thought patterns that are common to the group.

This means that all the flying saucer enthusiasts in the world would probably send at least one representative together to the organization. Yes.

Dr. Fry, I'd like to make, give a certain amount of information that I gained today. Some of these people I know would be interested. I attended

the International Yoga Foundation for Peach Farms today, long time ago. Yes. And I think that's a good way to put it. Yes.

And the entire morning was given over to, well, there were some 15 different organizations represented there,

delegates to the conference. And the entire morning was spent in expressing in everyone's part the

highest ideals of what we can do about peach. Yes. And I think that's a good way to put it.

Yes. And I think that's a good way to put it. Yes. Yes. And bringing peace to the world.

And it was most informative and very wonderful. And the afternoon session was spent entirely on a

complete expose of the prison problem. And it was truly tremendous. By this

announcement I just want to say that there is so much going on. Small groups,

not very well known organizations yet, but there's a tremendous movement going on.

Well, it's becoming more and more realized by thinkers all over the world and by even those who don't

do so much thinking that we can no longer afford to let the situation go. I mean, searches for

area of mutual agreement or searches for ways to get along with each other used to be an academic

thing to be in fact every single individual whose survival is at stake. It's no longer an academic thing at all.

It's a vital interest of each individual person because it determines whether or not they are going to survive. When I gave

this lecture on area of mutual agreement in Washington, D.C. to the International Platform

Association, I started in a little different way. Most of those who are interested in this

subject in a convention like that. And so I began it. I said, I am here under the

misrepresentation. I am not here to amuse you gentlemen or to entertain you. I am here to sell a

product. My eyes went up. I said, that product is your survival. That's why

I'm here to sell a product. Do you think it's a different government that everybody, I keep hearing

that our government really knows about UFOs and all, but knows they won't tell anyone. If this were

a known fact, wouldn't that sort of make the peoples of the world get together and say, well,

look, we're not the only people on this universe? Well, we're getting up here.

I don't know. Whenever they turn out the lights and kick us out again. My time is yours up until

whatever time they throw us out. But this question is repeated everywhere about the government.

What does the government think about UFOs? If our president knows they're real, why doesn't

he tell the people? And three presidents have, the chief of the presidency

was asked by some newsmen on one occasion, and his answer was published

in every major newspaper in the country. What do you think about UFOs?

And he said, I have no doubt whatever that some of them are material

objects. They're real. So, what do you think about the government?

And the president had to say, and Larry Goldwater had to

say, but he was a real UFO fan. Eisenhower was. Presidents

one after another have said this. And we say, what do you think

about the government? We're speaking of tens of thousands of individuals, all of whom

have their own ideas, their own beliefs, just as we do. There is no government

consensus of opinion on UFOs, and I know enough people in government to know.

I've talked to them in Washington, D.C., and they have said that

there have been many statements that sound like it when you read them

carelessly, but try to find one. I have lectured on four different

Air Force bases at the request of those bases on UFOs, and I've

never I just had a comment. Do you really want an announcement from Nixon like you got from the economic plan? You know, a very big nationwide announcement. The flying saucers are here, you know. Let's do something about it. Well, we have to look to see what this would do. And I can give you half an hour lecture on this, too, because the question has come up.

What would happen if some president did force that knowledge upon hundreds of millions of people who are totally unprepared to accept it? We're totally unprepared to assume a secondary position in the universe. Almost all of us have been born and raised in the secure and rather smug belief that Earth man is the supreme product of the universe. Most of us subscribe to the great central power, wisdom, and intelligence that we call God. We like to think that man comes next. He's next after God.

We've been taught so since birth. Now, while we have to admit that if man comes next after God, he runs a very poor second. Nevertheless, it is very difficult. Whether we realize it or not, whether we admit it or not, it's very difficult to make room in our consciousness for other races of beings which may have achieved to some one higher degree of development than us. It puts us one step down the ladder of evolution. And it's a step to which too many people would be impossible to take.

Their ego would never permit their reason to take that step, no matter how impelling the evidence was, whether they realize it or not. And so, when this evidence comes up, we seek escape mechanisms. I'm not talking about the people here. I'm talking about the race on Earth, the Earth race as a whole. We seek escape mechanisms. We employ sophistry. We employ ridicule.

We employ earthly explanations. Usually, they're not very good explanations because they never quite explain the observed data. You have to chop off a little bit here and say, well, the guy didn't really observe that. He just had that. And this was a little different from what he said. It was a little different. And then you compound the whole thing into some earthly format.

And this is things that everyone from the Condom Committee back to the Air Force have been doing for years. It still doesn't fit very well, but millions of people will rise to accept that twisted, misshapen, hammered-down explanation. Not because it's logical. Not because it's reasonable. Not because there's any fact in it. But simply because it enables them to escape from the one simple conclusion

which does explain. All of the observed data with perfect logic. And that would have to escape at any cost. There's a book on the concept of buying sophistry that says that the particular craft that they installed had been claimed that it operated on the ionization of a vacuum chamber in the geyser tube. You're an engineer. Do you know whether there's been any industrial first use made of a vacuum chamber in the geyser tube here?

Well, there have been minor uses made of it. Maybe I can devote five minutes to going into the basic propulsion system of spacecraft as opposed to craft that use the air. See, in space you wouldn't get any ionization because there isn't any air to ionize. It works fine in atmospheres and sampling devices that work in the atmosphere use it. But in space you have to have one simple principle.

There's only one principle that can conceivably answer all of the observations made of... UFOs, that is, of their maneuverability, their right angle turns, their sudden starts and stops. These things have been observed by people, including scientists, for many years. And several top scientists have said

if these things really maneuver at the speed they've been seen to maneuver, then there could be no possible form of life aboard those things because no form of life could endure that degree of acceleration. I made the same objection when I first talked to a lot of people. And he said, yes, we know that that is one of the problems among your people and that fact is one of our greatest disappointments in our evaluation of the level of intelligence of the people of Earth. Because it seemed to us that even the average layman of your race,

with the knowledge that the average layman has, he should be able to refute that statement at once. The reason you have problems with acceleration is you produce that acceleration by applying a thrust to one part of your race. You have an engine and wheels or you have a propeller blade or a jet stream.

This applies thrust to the vehicle and accelerates the vehicle. But does not accelerate the pilot. The pilot is accelerated only by thrust against those parts of his body that are in contact with the seat. In other words, the vehicle moves forward and pushes against the individual

and accelerates him, but his body has inertia and tends to remain where it is. If you want to get in your car tonight and race the motor in low gear and suddenly let out the engine, you will feel the seat come up and slap against your back. I don't advise you to do it.

You may get a whiplash, but you will feel what acceleration is. The car is starting, but you aren't. The car has to start you by shoving against you. Your body has inertia, so your body is crushed between the thrust of the seat and its own inertia. In the spacecraft,

they are accelerated by a field which is identical with a gravitational field and exactly the same amount of force is applied to every individual. Every individual atom of the pilot's body is applied to every individual atom of the craft. In a gravitational acceleration, there is no strain.

Let's take a quick example. Take a pilot and put him in a space capsule. Take him up 100 miles or any other distance and just without putting him in orbit, just turn the thing loose. He will immediately begin to fall back to Earth at an acceleration of 1 g, 1 gravity, or 32 feet per second per second.

Now, it's accelerating. Is the pilot crushed against the side of the craft by the acceleration? No, he's floating in free fall. That's why they call it free fall. He's floating in the midst of the craft because every atom of his body is accelerating at 1 g, too.

Exactly as every atom of the craft is. Now, you take this same capsule and you take it over a body with the mass of the sun. We'll make it a cool one so it doesn't evaporate so we can observe the result. But under those circumstances, it will accelerate at about 10 g or 320 feet per second per second.

Is the pilot now crushed by the acceleration? No, he's still floating in free fall. He couldn't even distinguish between the 1 g and the 10 g inside the craft. There's no way he could distinguish. You now take that same assembly over a dwarf star, such as astronomers have found recently, in which the mass is so dense

that a cubic inch of it brought to Earth would weigh 15 tons. You drop this thing over such a star it would accelerate at about 100 g or 3,200 feet per second per second or about the acceleration. That's the acceleration rate of a low-speed rifle bullet. Is the pilot now crushed against the craft by the acceleration?

He's still floating in free fall. There's no way he could distinguish between the 100 g's and the 1 g because exactly the same force is being applied to every atom of mass, regardless of the nature. And when you accelerate a craft like that by the g force, it doesn't matter

how fast the turns are. The only limit of acceleration is the limit of available force. The person inside isn't going to feel a thing no matter what it does. You could set up a billiard table and you could play billiards on that table while that craft was accelerating

at 10 g's on any axis. You wouldn't disturb a ball. It's a simple fact and it's known to every scientist. Once you explain it to him, why didn't I think of that before? And even a child should be able to understand. So you have to assume that these,

the space ones, the ones that travel in space, are accelerated by a g field which they produce themselves. Now you take the second step, fine. How do we go about producing a g field? Let's build it. Supposing I wanted to build a spacecraft,

how would I go about producing a, I shouldn't say, I can't say an artificial g field because all g fields are natural. They may be synthetically created or created by art. Well, we have to make a quick study. Yes?

Did you see the, whatever it was in the air, 39 and England? Yeah, I saw the, well, I was in England and England was, of course, it's seen all over the base

and then it was supposed to be a re-entry vehicle and it requires an awful lot of explanation because I never saw a re-entry vehicle perform the corkscrew convolutions that that thing did. A re-entry vehicle coming in at five or six miles per second

flies pretty straight. It should have been just a straight glowing trail and this thing was, and they said it was 300,000 feet up. It was so far above the atmosphere. There wasn't any atmosphere to distort. Whatever glow was put out,

it would have remained right there until it ceased to exist. If it were 300,000 feet, that's far above the atmosphere and there's no, there wouldn't be any motion of the stratosphere up there that it was going through.

So it couldn't possibly perform these convolutions yet. This is about the third or fourth one I have seen out here and they, before, I didn't know if they said that about this one,

but before they said it's when they had won? Yeah. I think there was a newspaper. Yeah, well, the newspaper said it was a re-entry and I didn't believe it.

But, but, how did they always say they were asking for? What may I ask is the earliest recorded date of a view of a UFO in history?

Well, it goes back farther than recorded history goes. It goes back into the legends of precede all written history on this planet. There are 18 specific eyewitness references

in the Bible to UFOs. We'll get to one of them in a minute. We're, we're working right now and I'm going to go as quickly as possible

because it would be boring to those of you maybe who aren't in the scientific field but it's exceedingly important to those who are because once you have assumed this propulsion system,

it predicts scientifically practically every phenomenon that's ever been seen associated with the craft. And you can predict if you study the propulsion mechanism, you can predict

that they will have this characteristic, this characteristic, this characteristic. You can predict it confidently even if you've never seen one or never heard of one.

And yet, when we've made these predictions and we look at what people do see in here, we find that it's exactly the same.

We are going to produce a G field and we say, well, we know of two fields, the electrical field and the magnetic field. And one always operates

perpendicularly to the other. An electrical field, if it changes, produces a magnetic field and a magnetic field, if it changes, produces an electrical field.

It's the means we use to explain the propagation of radio waves, light, and every form of electromagnetic phenomena. But this is,

we're only on a plane. We're only in two dimensions now. We have two lines, each of which are perpendicular to the other. But we live in a three-dimensional continuum.

There should be another field which is perpendicular to each of the other two. We say, I wonder what it could be. Well, we do have another field. It's called a G field.

And it's produced in every atom by the resonance of the electrical and magnetic fields in the atom. And when you do this artificially,

it's never been done except I did it experimentally about 10 years ago. Just to demonstrate to myself the validity of the principle.

I don't know whether anyone else has done it or not. Anyone could do it at any time. The book in which I, the whole chapter

is devoted to explaining the best part of the chapter is devoted to explaining it has been out for about four years now. But if you do something we've never done,

we have all kinds, make all kinds of uses of this exchange between electrical and magnetic fields. We have induction coils. We have,

we have transformers in which you put low voltage electricity and you take out high voltage electricity at the other end or you put in high voltage and take out low voltage.

It's always a system where you put the energy in at one point and you take it out somewhere else. The whole system is used just for converting the energy

from one form to another. So far as I know, nobody has ever built a system in which you put energy into both halves simultaneously for this system.

In other words, you produce a device which will create a magnetic field here. You produce a device which will create an electrical field here

perpendicular at the same point where this device already produces the electrical field. This will produce a magnetic field at this area

where this already produces a magnetic field. In other words, they both, they both amplify each other. If you bring these two into resonance

so that they resonate together, you can produce field intensities far beyond human imagination today. We think that

15, 20, 25,000 Gauss is about the maximum of a magnetic field. Most iron saturates at that point and you can't get a higher field.

Some special alloys may go up to 30,000 or 35,000 Gauss. We think we've reached the limit. With a resonating field pair of fields of this sort,

you can produce field intensities of millions of Gauss without any particular additional amount of energy because you're using the resonance principle

which is well known in electronics. But when you do, then this third field becomes very obvious. It is the G field. If you put this system that you're doing this with

on the scales, you will see that its weight will increase very substantially or decrease very substantially depending on the

orientation of the system. All right, so much for that. Now we've got a system that produces a G field. We, in studying this, we can predict easily that it will do

certain things. That such a field, if operated in an atmosphere, will produce very intense ionization of the air. In any air

in which it is operated, it will knock off the electrons. It will produce very intense ionization. All right, we say, what does ionization do?

How will it manifest itself so we know? In the first place, ionized air causes almost immediate condensation of any

[54:07] Development of the main themes

saturated moisture that's in the air. That's the principle we used on the Wilson Cloud Chamber to begin with to make little cloud tracks of high energy particles,

nuclear particles that were coming through the chamber and ionizing the air. We can say that it will produce that if anything

using this device, this propulsion system, were moving slowly through air that was saturated with moisture or near saturation, that there would be

condensation around it. There would be cloud filaments or elements around the object. We know also that this ionization is a high enough level

that some of these atoms will radiate in the visible range. In other words, it would give off light at night. It would glow at night. It would give off

light so that you could see it. All right, we've given two principles. It should cause condensation around it. It should be surrounded by cloud if it's moving

slowly in a saturated area. It should give off light at night when you look at it. All right, we're going to go back as far as we can to see where

and when this thing was first recorded as being seen. If you look back into the story of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage,

you'll find that they were at all times preceded in the air in their height to freedom by an object in the air,

a UFO, if you please, a solid material object which proceeded at the same speed they walked, stayed constantly before them

day and night. And how did they describe it? A cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Just as precise a description

as you could possibly give. But the thing that is predicted by a study of the propulsion system, you say, well, what other things

would it do? Ionized air is a very good conductor of electricity. You can predict easily that if this thing sweeps over

or any of the smallest happening devices sweeps over or near a high-tension power line, the ionized air flowing around that power line

will cause a tremendous short from the high-tension line to the ground line. Almost the same as throwing a big, huge solid copper bar

across. There won't be any sparks or burning of the bar because it's ionized air that's conducting the electricity. But you're going

to throw a load on those lines that's greater than any general or any series of generators can replace.

And you're going to start a blackout. You're going to overload the system and the generators are going to start kicking out. It happened

in the vicinity of New York first. And at the moment or just moments before the blackout became general and afterwards, there were five

separate eyewitness reports of a UFO over the lines in the vicinity where the first blackout started. They brought up a theory,

oh, the dirty things are stealing our electricity. They're hooking onto our power lines. They aren't interested in the little amount

of electric energy they get. It isn't the swiping of the power. It's simply the proximity of that and the ionized air

that surrounds it but produces a short circuit in the electrical line. You can also predict that if one is in close proximity to any sort

of motor vehicle that uses an ignition system that that motor vehicle is going to quit simply because, again, ionized air

is a very good conductor of electricity and when that ionized air sweeps around, it's much easier for the spark

to jump from the top of the spark plug to the block or from the coil itself from where it comes out of the coil to the ground or from any part

of the wiring to the ground. It's much easier for it to flow to the ground than to jump across the gap in the spark plug

where the highly compressed gas is which hasn't been ionized because it's compressed and so forth and hasn't yet been ionized.

So you get a shorting, you get a short out to a system of any high-tension electricity. It's predictable. I mean, the Condon report,

by the way, very carefully walked around all of these physical principles. They very carefully ignored the crux and chose something

which they could disprove instead. The Condon report says, well, there have been many reports of motor vehicles

being stalled by the passage of a UFO. Therefore, that can only mean, this could only be true if that thing were producing

a magnetic field so strong that it saturated the core of the spark coil and thereby kept the spark coil from producing sparks.

So they said, we will test to see how strong a magnetic field is necessary to saturate the core of an ignition coil

to the point where it won't produce sparks anymore. They didn't do it themselves. They were too cheap to do it themselves. They had the

simply Chevrolet company persuade them or one of the general companies to do it for them. And they found that it could be done. You could saturate

that, that core magnetically. But the level of flux was so high, they said, well,

it would take thousands of horsepower to produce that high of magnetic flux even a few hundred feet away. So,

obviously, we can safely dismiss the possibility that passing of a UFO have anything to do with stopping a motor vehicle.

And if they progressed on the ionization principle, I would assume that if they had really gone into this in any scientific manner,

whatever, they would have achieved tremendous advanced scientific knowledge. Instead, they say in the book, we have reached

the conclusion that no advanced scientific knowledge can be gained by studying UFOs. And they said it after very carefully

ignoring every lead that did go into advanced science. They were very carefully walking around it. And if you read the book itself,

the text itself, you'll find that there are four specific reports by competent, credible witnesses of the passage of a UFO,

which were discarded and ignored simply because they did seem to imply advanced scientific knowledge. Because they seemed

to imply advanced scientific knowledge, it couldn't be considered at all when they threw them out. And then said,

you can't get any scientific knowledge by studying UFO. Well, you can if you really want to get any scientific

knowledge. There is only one thing I have against the Condon Report. It came out in the beginning. I talked to

Jesse Condon for two and a half hours in his office at Colorado Springs about three months before the report came out,

and I offered to write it for him for a quarter of what he was going to pay. I said, it'll have exactly the

same things in it. Most of that junk you're going to put in has been moldering in my own files for the last

eight to ten years. He said, I can write a report and have everything in it that you're going to have in yours.

I didn't really expect he would do it, but I had to make it up for him. But when the report actually

came out and I looked at it, it was not the conclusions that were reached that annoyed me because they were an inherent part

of the study program themselves. The conclusions were written first before the study ever began as a means of outlining the

parameters in which the study should be conducted. And that's very obvious, and the obvious thing is the fact that they have the conclusions

in the front of the book. It's the first chapter. It's quite correct. I mean, they should be put there in the first

chapter because they were written before the study ever began. But these conclusions themselves, some of them are paradoxical.

In fact, there isn't a statement in any part of that book that isn't denied in some other part of the book. Every bet is

copper. For example, there's a statement we cannot expect to be visited by beings from outer space for at least the next

50,000 years, if even then. Two paragraphs later it says, but remember that all of these conclusions are reached as

a result of present data and do not constitute a prediction of the future. Now, if you can coordinate those

two statements, I don't know how he's going to do it. If the flat statement that we aren't going to be visited by

spacecraft any time in the next 50,000 years isn't a prediction for the future, I don't know what you'd call it.

But they had to call for the bet. What that means, if you reduce that to, what that means is we would

like you to believe that you will never be visited by a spacecraft in the next 50,000 years, but if such a

spacecraft lands on the White House lawn at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, all bets are off. That's exactly

what it meant. And I think for the half a million bucks that the public shelled out for that report, they were entitled

to something a little more profound than that. And yet, that's what's in the book. And the whole

book is exactly that way. There are a few great intelligence people who came from

there and they made actual evidence of the natural human knowledge to be like a planet.

Well, we have to ask the question first, do they really care whether we accept that they

exist or not? I know one who didn't. I know one who had very

precise and definite plans for the salvation of society on this planet that was dependent very

definitely on nobody ever suspecting that he was an extraterrestrial. Because if anybody had suspected,

they never could possibly have done what he had to do. His whole program had to be based

on assuming such an ordinary figure, such an ordinary person, so exactly like

everyone else here, that no one would ever for a moment suspect that he was

extraterrestrial. That's the only way in the world that he can do what he's doing.

So to him, it would be fatal to convince people that he was an extraterrestrial.

It would destroy all the work he's done, all the preparation he's made. We, in

our ego, assume that because they might come here from some distance that naturally they would

like us to know and accept their existence. But their purpose oftentimes has nothing to do with our

acceptance of their existence. We don't care particularly. We have goldfish in the goldfish

bowl, and we don't care particularly whether they accept our existence or not. We like to

look at them. They're their pets, and I suppose if we thought about it at all, we might think it would

be nice if they accepted that we existed, but it didn't really make any difference. We still

put food in the goldfish bowl whether they accept our existence or not. But there are many

cases in which this could be profoundly dangerous. It's a separate line.

What would happen if suddenly everybody in this country were forced to the realization that we

are under fairly frequent observation by intelligent beings not to this earth? Supposing that tomorrow

morning Nixon in his news conference had casually announced to the people that he was well aware, and many

people are well aware now of the fact that we are, as a race on this planet, we are, and

have for centuries been under fairly frequent observation by races of beings which are so far progressed beyond

our technological state that they could easily take over this entire planet any morning between breakfast and lunch.

What effect do you think that would have on people? If he were sane, he would not

have that last part about them being able to take over this planet any morning between breakfast

and lunch. But the fact remains that that fact is implicit in any admission that they exist.

If they exist, of course their technology is far. If they can come from remote

planets when we haven't even put man on anything except the moon, of course their technology

is gone. Of course they can take us over. That fact is implicit in any

admission that they exist, and that's why we have to be careful in forcing people

to the realization that they exist because they're going to realize then that they are

subjects, they would be subjects to take over. Obviously they have no intention

of doing so. There would be no advantage to them. Well, the question I

might ask is, there's going to be a certain percentage of people that long as this world

stands that don't understand this and won't accept it. So where does that leave the

other people? There are still a few people on Earth who won't accept the fact that the

Earth is spherical. It doesn't make any difference in the shape of the Earth. There are

some people who won't accept it, but it doesn't make any difference in the shape of

the Earth. Up until a couple of years ago, there was a society in England called

the Flat Earth Society who maintained very stoutly that the Earth was not spherical at all.

It was indeed flat, and they had very remarkable sounding explanations for every evidence that it was

spherical. They finally gave up officially after the return of the astronauts from the moon

because they figured they had a pretty good look at the Earth from a distance and might know

what shape it actually was. Well, I don't really think. These were all highly

educated men. They were college students and so forth. It wasn't that these men actually believed that

the Earth was spherical. It's just it was an exercised intelligent argument by which you

can find ways of getting around any proof. And they finally, when the astronauts

returned, they finally had some proof that they figured they couldn't get around, so they

gave up. But up until a couple of years ago, there was a society that existed

solely for the purpose of denying that the Earth was spherical. And, of course,

way back in the early days, practically everybody thought it was flat. And that

didn't change the shape of it any. We began to learn a little more.

It's true that maybe some people who will never learn that we are under observation

by suppressed beings, and that may be unfortunate, but there isn't

anything we can help. But people, more and more people are learning it every

day. I don't know whether you know it or not, but in the very

college where Condon conducted his studies, about six years

ago, they passed around a little questionnaire to all the college students to

determine what college students thought were on extraterrestrial life and intelligence. And one

of the questions was, do you believe that there are intelligent beings on planets and

the Earth? And, of course, most of them answered yes. Every scientist, every astronomer

answers yes to that question today. I don't know the single one that doesn't. But then

the next question, do you believe that some of these intelligences may or

have visited this planet? And six years ago, only two percent answered yes. They repeated

that about two years ago, and 62 percent answered yes. That's how much change there's been

in that many years. And that's at the college level, I didn't these aren't ignorant people

answering that. This gentleman has one, I'll give that to him. Yes? Last year, you got a

new movie, the UFO, this isn't really a new movie of UFO, it incorporates some motion

pictures that were taken of UFOs at various times and places. There's quite a lot of

pictures that have been taken that have never really been shown before the public. My book

here has, it could cover the jacket on the book, the picture on the jacket was

taken from one frame of about 10 feet of color motion picture film that I took up

just outside of Merlin Oregon some years back. There's a letter in there from

Northwestern University, the Observatory of Northwestern University, in fact there's several letters about it

pointing out that this was by far the best photograph of UFO that they'd ever seen and

they've studied every one they could get their hands on from the beginning. And they

asked very urgently would I immediately send them the entire negative before any

copies were made. And they admitted in the same letter, and you can see it

in there if you want to read the whole through the letter, but they

also admitted that they couldn't guarantee I'd ever get it back.

So I didn't bother to send it. I had already studied as well as it could

be if my friends had studied to get what information we could. But they

did admit that this was a very good photo. I didn't get the last one.

You've been traveling around the universe, what's your experience with UFOs? Well,

I am not one of the fortunate individuals who has experience with UFO every change

of the moon. I mean, I have seen a few things in the sky which

were difficult to explain in ordinary terms. I have only conversed with one individual who

even claimed to have been born anywhere except this earth. I know that individual fairly well

and because I know that he exists, I assume that probably many others do.

But I haven't personally met any of them or conversed with any of them.

I know only of one and I can speculate along with anybody else about these things. I can give

you perhaps in a few minutes, I'm trying to hit the most important issue. areas here

in the UFO subject. Those that are most important to understanding and those that explain

away the objections of scientists because this is one of my greatest delights and I've done this

in half a dozen colleges throughout the country. One, the astronomer says, well,

we can't be visited by extraterrestrials because, and I destroy the because. There is no

because in the form too, they have to admit it. Doesn't mean that

they necessarily accept we have been visited, but they can't think of any more reasons

why we shouldn't be. But usually the astronomer or the scientist's objections are

based upon entirely upon space and time. They say, we don't think our own planetary

system has planets that are very good for life such as we know. The environment

would be pretty rugged while there might be some forms of life there. There would

be forms of life that we don't know anything about. We don't think that any humanoids

dwell on these planets because the temperature and so forth would be pretty rugged. And while

there is no doubt whatever, and every scientist will say this today, while there is no

doubt whatever that there are any number of planets in this galaxy that do have life

and intelligent life upon them, of course they're almost too far away for commuting purposes. They're so

many light years away and you can't travel faster than light so it takes so many years

from Alpha Centauri, the closest one that's thought to have planets that might be suitable

for life. It's about eight light years away and even at the velocity of light,

which they say is the highest velocity, it would take eight years to get here. And certainly

no astronaut is going to huddle in a small spacecraft for eight years just to get here and visit the

Earth. When you hear that, remind that astronomer that we're all living on a spaceship.

We're all spaceship travelers. Every one of us is traveling on a spaceship. It's quite

a large one. It's large enough so the gravitational field keeps the air, the food,

and the water on the outside instead of having to confine it on the inside.

And the same type of ecological cycle takes place on this planet that takes place in

the spaceships, in the big ones. They are not vehicles, they are homes of

the people who dwell therein and they have been for generations. And we will have

them ourselves in the next 20 years. They're already on drawing boards at NASA

and as soon as they're funded we will have them. We will be building spaceships

here that will contain upward of 100 passengers of both sexes which when they leave this

planet will never have to return to this planet or will they ever have to touch

any other planet if they don't choose to do so. They will be self-contained, self-controlled

systems with the same built-in cycle of ecology that we have on this planet. The elements

of life are not used up in the life processes. They simply cycle from the simple

form to a complex form and the complex form back to the simple form.

We breathe in air and we breathe out carbon dioxide. Now air isn't very good to breathe

again and if this were the only kind of life there were in this planet all life would have ceased here about

50 million years ago because all the oxygen would have been used up. But we

in nature also furnish the thing called the plant and the plant takes in carbon dioxide

and gives off oxygen and completes the cycle. And the plant in doing so grows and

develops and eventually becomes food for the animal. So the cycle of life is complete. And these

same cycles have been developed. They're designed for installation into spacecraft. The cycle does require

one thing, a constant supply of energy and this planet has always got that energy from

the sun. And so will the spaceship as long as it's close to any star

system, our own sun or any other. In travel between star systems it will have to

store some form of energy. Well now you're talking about new plants playing a part.

What about the big cities that use up all the plants and have no room for

plants to grow? Is that the effect on great much problems?

Well it's well known that the oxygen supply in cities is considerably less than it is in

forests for example. In forests there's considerably more oxygen per unit than there

is in cities. And it makes the cities a rather unhealthy place to live.

However in the spaceship we can maintain the oxygen cycle at any level you want.

But I'm getting at an overall picture of this that we are on a spaceship we're traveling

through space at quite a respectable rate. This whole galaxy is rotating on its center.

We're located in the inner side of one of the spiral wings thrown outward from the galaxy

and we're going around to the galaxy. And the speed that we're traveling is 137

miles per second. It's been measured fairly accurately. We're going around the galaxy at

a speed of 137 miles per second. That's about 180 times as fast as our astronauts travel on

the way to the moon. So we have a very respectable velocity. We're space travelers.

We're on a spaceship. We're going places pretty fast. And in about 125 million years

we're going to be halfway around the galaxy. Remember that when some astronomer says nobody

would spend eight years on a spaceship to visit the earth. We're on a spaceship

that's on a 125 million year journey just to go around and see the other side of the

galaxy. But the strange thing is I've never heard anyone complain. I've never

heard anyone say stop the galaxy I want to get off. I can't bear to think of

spending the next 125 million years just going around to see what the other side of

the galaxy is like. That's what the astronomer says no astronaut would spend eight years

on a space capsule coming to visit the earth. We're spending 125 million years

to go around and see the other side of the galaxy. But we don't think too much

about it. We tell them stop to think where we're going or how long it's going

to take to get there because we have found so many ways to amuse ourselves

en route. We've found all kinds of things to do, all kinds of ways to

keep busy and so do they on the spaceships. We're not particularly concerned

whether it's going to take eight years or ten years or ten generations to come

from Alpha Centauri to here. It's just an event that occurs sooner or later.

The spaceship that comes through this solar system and any spaceship coming through any part

of this solar system would instantly become aware of the fact that the third planet

outwards from the star was inhabited. We pour out electromagnetic radiation of

tens of thousands of varieties. We have tens of thousands of transmitting stations which

pour out electromagnetic radiation, any one of which could be received at the limits

of our solar system by a reasonably sensitive receiver. We sent a traveling

device up to Mars and when it was in the vicinity of Mars, Mars was on the

opposite side of the sun from us, a little over two hundred million miles

away and we pressed a button and an electromagnetic signal went out to that craft

and it began taking pictures of Mars. When it went around behind the planet and

came out from the other side, we pressed another button and began sending the pictures back.

Perfect communication. With a few watts that we were using, we could reach that

spaceship and cause it to respond mechanically to commands at two hundred million miles

away. And that was with our primitive systems who were just beginning to learn how

to operate. With the receivers that they have in the spaceship, they could be two or three solar

system diameters away and still pick up our electromagnetic radiation, still know that we

were here. When that knowledge became general, certainly that fact would arouse some interest in

whatever generation was aboard that ship at the time. They'd say, let's pull in a little closer

to that planet, let's see what the life is like. It obviously is technological because it puts out

modulated electromagnetic signals. Let's see how they're getting along, let's see if they're getting ready to

come out into space with us. And so they might pull in close to the Earth within maybe a

thousand miles of the main ship. The main ship would never come into the atmosphere

because the ionization would disrupt everything within hundreds of miles if it did. But they

would hang out a thousand miles away, maybe in the shadow of the planet so they wouldn't be seen and

disrupt the lives of the beings they were observing. They would send down maybe a dozen,

maybe a hundred sampling devices to take pictures, to take sound, to find out what the languages were

like, take pictures and sound at the same time so they could translate the language, they could learn

what the language and the speech were saying. They would take samples of air, they would take

samples of water, they would take samples of earth. We took samples of rock the

first minute we got on the moon. First thing we did was take samples of rock. So they

would take samples and they'd call their sampling devices back and they were curiosity

satisfied. They'd probably go on their way. Now this is the first.

There are three types. I'm going briefly into another lecture and I touched on about five tonight.

There are about three types that we might assume of space, casual space visitors that

came by and became aware of the fact that we were here. But we have to remember to

begin with that the visitation of this planet was not the purpose for which that ship was

built. It's not the purpose for which it was fueled or manned or launched. The arrival

in the vicinity of this planet is one more or less interesting event in

the life of whatever generation happens to be aboard. It's a tremendous

[01:20:41] Questions and closing discussion

blow to our ego and I'm sure it would be to the scientists who said

they can't exist because they wouldn't do it. But becoming aware of the fact we're here, they

would pull in and they might fall into one of three categories. First we call just the tourist

group. They're interested, they're like the tourist ship that pulls close to the

tropical island. To watch the natives dancing on the beach and through their telescopes

and learn a little about them and go on their way with their curiosity satisfied. There might

be another group which we can call the academic group whose principal purpose is to chart the various

types of life, the various types of languages throughout the galaxy. They might pull in and

send down hundreds of sampling devices to take all kinds of measures, all kinds of tests.

They might hang around for a year or more, until they got all the data they figured they

could, even absorbing much of our history, our attitudes and so forth. We would be like goldfish,

we'd be saying there's nothing out there, we don't believe us, they can't see us, they

aren't really seeing us at all. They might even amuse themselves, I'm sure the academic group

would, they might even amuse themselves by allowing some of their sampling devices to be seen by us.

And then listening to the tremendous and ridiculous excuses that we try to make to persuade

ourselves that they aren't there. I'm sure it would be amazing, very amusing to such a

race. But eventually, having satisfied their curiosity, they too would go on their way, without feeling that

there could be any point in actual contact or close association with a race which was so

arrogant, so conceited, and so warlike. Then there might be another thing come along, and we call

this the missionary group, looking in on us. They might become aware of the fact that we were

about to wipe ourselves out, that this whole civilization might go down the drain at

any minute. And they might feel that they ought to become involved, at least to the point of

offering a few explanations for our problems here, which we could accept or not, as we please.

They would be the first group, the only group that thought perhaps they should become involved, rather

than just observation. And they might even become involved. I know one that did become involved.

We like to call those the missionary groups, because we do have people on this planet who become

in the same frame of mind, and they go out into central Brazil and so forth. The sole

purpose of offering to those people those parts of our culture which they feel might be

advantageous to them and which they might accept. So we probably have some missionary

groups, but I know of one. But all three of these times could, and they, we

have been visited from time to time, by all three of these groups. I mean,

the records in history prove it, but I don't have any question at all. All three

of these types of groups have been to there some time. One question before we

close. Where did your friend reside? Does he hang out in the outer fringes and

come back? No. No. My friend has, for the past three years plus,

resided in the vicinity of Cairo, Egypt. He travels between there and Israel from time

to time. He is there because that is the hottest spot on earth at the moment.

That is the spot where World War III is more likely to erupt than any other place on earth

because of the fact that both the United States and the Soviet Union have some

tremendous commitments there that they could not back off from an open confrontation.

That's where the big explosion is more likely to take place than any other place.

He is actually, now he has been for quite some years a fairly respectable

member of this society. He carries an American birth certificate and an American

passport. This is really all that I could do for him. This is the principal

reason I was contacted. Somebody had to make the connection. You can't drop out

of space and go to the nearest county recorder and say, look Joe, I'm from space,

I'm here on a mission to help you people and I think you ought to give

me a birth certificate so I can get a passport. It would be very

unlikely that this would work. You have to have an intermediary and I was that

intermediary and I arranged to get him the birth certificate. I arranged to teach

him or assist him in learning to drive a motor vehicle and this is his toughest

lesson here. He had no difficulty grasping the principles, the mechanical principles, but he

couldn't get used to a vehicle that could only move in two dimensions. We would come barreling

up to an intersection. Instead of stepping on the brake, he'd start reaching frantically for the lever

that lifted the thing over the intersection. He couldn't get used to the people so

stupid that they'd build a vehicle that only moved on a plain surface with all that beautiful sky

ahead of them. Why is he here? He's an export buyer. He does import-export

buying and I helped him a little there too. I got him in touch with a couple

of companies that could use his service. He does this for two reasons. One, he can

earn a living at it. Second, it gives him free access to any country he wants to

visit. Every country, whether friendly or not, has something they want to buy or sell.

You go into Israel today and say, I can get you some Phantom warships and Phantom

airplanes and boy, you're going to be the most popular person in the country. But anyone

who can arrange purchases or sales is welcome in any country, whether it's a friendly

country or not. So he does it. What was his language? His language? When you

met him. He speaks most of them now. Well, he spoke English to me. It was a

rather peculiar form of English because it contained words that went back as far as medieval

England. And they were sort of scrambled together. In other words, they were compiled from various

observations of this planet that had been made over periods of hundreds of years. And they

had been worked into a language. But our language changes quite rapidly. And this is one of the

things he had to do right away is modernize because if he'd come down then, he'd have talked just

like a Quaker, and I'm sure he would have attracted attention, even worse

than a Quaker. He might start reciting Joffrey Chaucer. I only

learned the first five pages of it. I can't say all of Joffrey Chaucer's

works. Anyhow. But he had to modernize everything because a great deal

is known about this planet by these crafts. But it is acquired from one craft or

another. It comes by and looks in for a little while and takes a little data and

then later transmits that data to other crafts when they happen to be passing

close enough to them for communication. Just as we do here on this planet.

I mean, a missionary goes out into the jungle and they usually wind up in the stew

pot before he comes back. But if he doesn't, he'll come back and write a

book or appear on radio and television. Everyone who's interested knows exactly what he found out

about the natives. So the knowledge of this planet is quite widespread throughout the

galaxy, through spaceships, but it is taken from random from various periods of

time and so forth, and so the language was rather peculiar. And this is something he had to brush

up on. He had to speak present English or rather present American rather than medieval English.

Quite frequently when someone channels the message into the internet, they have to use

a different language. They are very staunch speakers. They will

not speak in modern tongue. That may be the reason.

It was learned at that time. So he is there. He has one purpose only.

There's only one thing he can do. The purpose is to stave off as long

as possible the beginning of World War III in the hopes that we can, in the

meantime, solve our own problems. He cannot solve our problems for us, nor can anyone else. Many people have asked me, why don't they just come down, take over everything, run everything, and straighten out this mess? If they do, they'd have the job for all eternity. We wouldn't have learned a thing by it. When people ask me that question, I say, do you have children? Usually they do. And I say, has your child ever asked you to do his homework? Mine used to. My son used to come up and say, Dad, how about doing my homework tonight? And I'd say, well, if there's anything you don't understand, I'll be glad to help you try to understand it. He says, I don't want to understand it. I want you to do it. I want

to go to the ballgame. And I would have to explain to him that I went to school some years ago, and for better or worse, I went through these courses, that he is going through it to learn these things, and he isn't going to learn them if I do his homework. He's got to do his homework himself, but I can help him to try to understand how to do it. He has to do it himself. And we have to do our own homework down here. If they were to come down, take over this plant, straighten everything out, make everything lovely, and go away for 10 years and then come back, we'd be just as bad as we were before. We wouldn't have learned a thing.

We've got to learn it. All he's trying to do is give us his by time enough for us so we don't wipe ourselves out so we'll have a little time to figure out how to get along with each other. He uses only one system. He monitors, and it used to be Nassar was his primary concern in Egypt. Nassar is a highly intelligent man. A nice sample, when I was in Egypt myself, when my wife and I were in Egypt, I talked to many people in Egypt about Nassar. He usually looked around pretty carefully before they replied. But their consensus opinion was that he was a highly intelligent man. He was honest in his desire to assist his country. There

was nothing communist about him. But he was also very abrupt. He was also quite impatient. And he was a dictator and was always a dictator. He was a dictator. He was a dictator. He was a problem in that. And a dictator is always liable to push the big red button without quite meaning to. And so he had to be monitored. And when he was on the point of doing something, and this was equally true of the Israeli officials, when he was upon a point of doing something which would be almost certain to bring about an open confrontation or a nuclear war, he could create in that man's mind a very clear and precise picture of exactly what would happen as a result of that action.

And so far it's been enough to stop the action. He can't say, you can't do that. We are entitled in this planet to self-will and self-determination. If he had put that picture in Nassar's mind and Nassar said, to heck with it, I'm going to push the button anyhow and blow up the world, he could have done it. There isn't anything Elon could have done except to call back his spaceship and get off the planet in time. But so far it has been successful. So far, this picture, this precise picture of exactly what is going to happen as a result of that act has been enough to keep it from happening. And I am sure that if someone could have done this for Adolf Hitler at the beginning of his career, history would have been very

different today. I'm sure that if anyone could have created in Adolf Hitler's mind the exact picture of what is going to be the results of his plans and his actions, it would never have been undertaken. History would have been very different. So, so far it's been successful. It's a very simple task. It's a very confining one and it keeps him busy most of the time. He does have to get back and forth. He could do it from a greater distance. He doesn't have to confront these people and say, look, I have some space, you'd better listen to me. Such a process wouldn't work at all. He'd either wind up before a firing squad or in a lunatic asylum one or

the other. But he doesn't need to, fortunately. He doesn't need to confront the people. It can be done from some distance. But it's much more reliable, much more dependable if it's close by, as close by as possible. And that's why he's there. And we'll be there either until we have learned how to solve our problems or until he has reached the conclusion that we never will. One or the other, it will happen. The problem with Warren Luther taking to destroy the whole world, though, is that if he knew that Putin was a thing like Hitler and he didn't care, he probably hadn't pushed the batting button anyway because he had done something to change that.

Yeah, well, there is... I should mention that there is a lot of work to be done. I think that's why I'm telling you that we should do it. I think that's why we should do it. I think that's why we should know what Putin did, but we didn't do it. There is some left in the Constitution, because we need to change the culture and they fall in modesty, so . I should refine this a little bit. There is a identifying that this was actually made the state policy in our time for the use of nuclear ing and occupied humanities. I think maybe not. I think that should be replaced with vocal

religious Lewis. I can go down in history and I think that this the Shulman advice. I don't know whether you know that or not. However, when a person is on the point of performing an act which may wipe out all of civilization here, a nuclear war would, then a certain amount of open intervention is justified, because the act then affects a very large number of people who had no part in making the decision for free. That's probably bigger in Estonia today than in gave them a automation campaign and me a decision every person has the right to make his own decisions as far as his

own life and his own acts but there is a limit to the right that a person has to inflict his decisions and his acts on other people so in extreme cases yes there would be there would be justification for open intervention there has been and I'm not going to go into them now because each one of them is about a 20 minute discussion and it's getting a little bit late why imagine that he can making oneself invisible simply consists of creating a field around the body that causes light to bend enough going back to Einstein for a minute one of his principles was that gravitate a light is bent and going

through a gravitational field or any other kind of field wasn't accepted at all when his mathematics indicated this but was proven to be true afterwards that light in passing through a field mechanism is bent by passing through the field this is one of the reasons that spaceships are so hard to see so hard to photograph and sometimes become totally invisible they haven't been materialized they don't need to be materialized it's just that the the field about them the G field about them has been increased to an intensity for a light being bent by that field flows

completely around them just as a river flows around the stone closing in behind it the craft does not the craft does not emit any light it doesn't absorb any light there's no black spot because it's absorbing life the light is flowing around it's not visible at all but that doesn't mean it's dematerialized if you try to fly an airplane through the space occupied by that craft you aren't going to see it but you're going to find out to your sorrow that it's still very real and very material it's happened on at

least three occasions United States there at least three planes that have flown into these while they had the field making because they were being pursued I mean they just raised the field to a level and unfortunately when they do that they can't see out either no one can see in but since they have blocked all entrance of electromagnetic waves they can't see what's coming either and so it isn't done too often isn't done except sometimes in close pursuits when they don't want the thing pursuing them to injure itself sometimes it will turn up the field and make an angle turn so

that the pursuer just goes on wondering what happened to the thing because it disappeared but if the two trajectories happened across if you fly through the area occupied by one of those things when the field is turned on full you won't see it but you will if you will suffer the same collision as if you could see it so I don't doubt that he can produce the same field by himself if it became necessary I don't know that he ever had certainly he wouldn't do it when anyone was looking because this would give away immediately the fact that he possessed powers and nobody here is supposed to happen and that's what he

has to do avoid avoiding you know well we have human bodies I could go back to the Bible again and then quote from the Bible it says the light shineth and darkness and the darkness comprehended that not but the light was made flesh and dwelt among us and we all perceive the glory if he worked without a body no one would accept anything that is the net we since we are embodied since we are in the body we can understand my better if it's a body that's performing before I don't know I don't say that he is that far ahead that he could get along without a body he certainly is not

omnipotent he's not omniscient a that race is advanced considerably beyond our point but they aren't God's yet while he could probably make himself invisible he couldn't be materialized his body would still be there he would simply be setting up a field that caused the light to flow around him he would still be just as material and he would still be there and he would still be there and he probably needs a I know that he eats I know that he nourishes his body and we all have the spirit inside of the body and so does he but if he's not a minister to us he can do it a lot more efficiently and in a body than he can

and it's a disembodied spirit that's why Jesus of Nazareth came here in a body instead of a disembodied spirit himself