← Back to Understanding Audio

1971 October 9th Inglewood Unit 15 Of Understanding Daniel Fry Area Of Mutual Agreement

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

• [00:00] Opening remarks and introduction
• [25:16] Main address
• [01:17:12] Development of the main themes
• [01:55:06] Questions and closing discussion

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Opening remarks and introduction

following is a speech by Dr. Daniel W. Fry at the International Unit of Understanding in Englewood, California, on Saturday, October 9th, 1971. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't get down as often as I'd like to. We have some 80 units now, and if I get to one every week, it'd still be a year before I forget them. I'm going to use some notes on this talk tonight. I don't usually do that. People have said, oh, Dr. Fry, you can get up in the lecture for a couple of hours any time without using notes. Well, I'm not going to lecture for a couple of hours tonight, so relax. However, this does take about 35 or 40 minutes. It is probably not the most interesting

lecture that I have ever given. I feel that it is by far the most important, and it is one that has been given in rather important places. I was asked this spring to, or this summer, to come back to Washington, D.C. and give this lecture for the International Platform Association, which is an association of some of the top speakers in the country, from Vice President Agnew on down. That also has some members who are not so hot speakers, because I've been a member of it for some five years myself. I've never really done anything with a membership, but much to my surprise, this year they asked if I would come back and address their convention.

Well, they picked their speakers from over 2,000 speakers, so this is considered to be quite an honor among the speakers, and they felt that the honor was sufficient that they shouldn't have to pay anything. I couldn't afford to go back to Washington, D.C. and give a speech just for status, so I got on the phone and I called ten groups along the way, about 300 miles apart, and said, if any of you are interested, I'll be coming to your town on a certain day. Well, the result was I got ten lectures forthwith, so I delivered ten on the way and three on the way home.

So I justified this way the trip. But the interesting thing... The interesting thing was that when I got to this convention, of course, it's a speaker's organization, and it was a five-day convention, and all during the five days they were having workshops, and almost all these workshops were concerned with two things. One, how do you persuade people to let you speak for them? And two, having spoken for them once, how do you persuade them to let you come back again? Well, I sat listening to these workshops, and I thought,

these are... These are really not problems that I have particularly. My problem has always been how to avoid speaking too often. But I do as much as I can, wherever anyone asks me to. And the subject of the talk there was the area of mutual agreement, which I'm going to talk to you about tonight. I spent almost three months in Europe last fall lecturing on this one subject in six countries.

And it was amazing. It was amazing how well the subject was received there. A great deal more enthusiasm, usually, than it is here, because these people in those countries are very close and have been very close to war. There's hardly anyone over there who hasn't seen his home destroyed, his home burned, his loved one shot before his eyes, and so forth. And so they know the problems. We've always managed, at least in the last few generations, to have our wars somewhere

else. And it's still a pity that we haven't. But we're not so acutely conscious of the results of warfare, because it doesn't happen here. It happens somewhere else. Over there, it happens right there where they are, and they're very familiar with what the results are. And so they are vitally interested in any proposal which might possibly enable us to

stop doing these things. I lectured in West Berlin for a large group of college students, and it turned out that the majority of those present were exchange students from the Soviet Union. And I was surprised to find out that they bought the concept even more enthusiastically. And I received three very urgent requests to come in to the Soviet Union and give this lecture. I couldn't do it. My return trip ticket had already been purchased and validated.

My schedule was to be sent to the Soviet Union. My schedule was on a minute-by-minute basis, but three of them had recorded the lecture. And I said, you've got my words on tape three times. Make as many copies as you want, and play them as widely as you please. So I don't know how widely it was done in the Soviet Union, but there was an interesting thing that occurred a couple of months after I got back. During this lecture, I had stressed, and as you will see when I try and give you the material, I had stressed one thing.

And that was that I tried to get through the Soviet Union. Let's begin with a gap in the Soviet Union. Now, the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union were an extremely important part of my life. I started my studies in Berlin, primarily in West Berlin, because it's particularly important there. And especially when I found out that I was talking to mostly Soviet citizens, young citizens. I don't say communists, because one thing that we forget over here too often is that

only about 5% of all the Russian citizens are communists, and even less than 5% of the other countries that have been taken over are communists. In fact, two of these students got together and presented me with some of the examples that have helped me in my study, and in fact, I've found that the Soviet Union was more distracted than any other state more than any other country. and presented me with a little medal of honor that they give out on special occasions they don't wear them on the front of their lapel they wear them on backside of their lapel I don't have the funds and I had to be like to bring them up because it is a resistance group it's a communist

resistance group and so they wear their honors on underside of the bell when they're in the Soviet Union but I were mine that when I think to bring it I wear it on the outside but I had stressed in that lecture the necessity of beginning all international negotiations by determining and by determining and documenting those points on which both sides already agree before there is any talk about settling disagreements that a foundation of agreement should be reached that is they should determine those things however many or few there are connected to the subject on which they already agree and each time they find one that will be one bond between them it will be one break in a foundation on which they

can work afterwards in negotiating without going farther apart as the negotiations proceed so I said what this needed is to first to find and to document those points on which the two sides already agree a couple of months after I got home I was sitting before television screen you may have been doing the same thing it was a national news broadcast and the broadcaster announced that the gentleman gentleman named Bryce Nevin the Soviet Union was going to be king in China he was going to visit speaking I think that's where Nixon got the idea because of course everything that Soviet Union does we have to do promptly also but Brezhnev was going to be king in the announcer was interviewing him and asked him in the course of

the interview if he Brezhnev really thought that by visiting Mao Zedong and the other Chinese leaders that they could settle the problems that existed between the Soviet Union and red China and Brezhnev says no of course not he said the differences between us are far too deep and too long-standing to be settled in any one meeting or any in a small series of meetings. When I go to China, when I go to Peking, I will go for one purpose only, to determine and to document the area of mutual agreement

which already exists between us, as a foundation upon which we can then begin other negotiations. An entire sentence was a verbatim sentence, word for word, from that lecture which I gave in West Berlin. Now, maybe it was a coincidence, I don't know. If it was, it was a remarkable one. But coincidence or not, it was very encouraging to hear my own words coming back word for word

from a gentleman like Brezhnev. So, I'm going to use the notes. I could do it without notes and have many times, except that quite a bit of work has been done on this and it has been brought down this way to the briefest presentation. It is only necessary, to read the front page of any metropolitan daily newspaper today, to realize that our society is in serious trouble.

Social concepts and postulates, which for centuries have been considered indisputable, are now being questioned, ignored, or openly defied. Respect for all types of authority is rapidly disappearing. Many philosophers and statesmen are beginning to fear that the whole fabric of society may break down, plunging the world into unimaginable chaos and possible nuclear extermination.

Thousands of men in positions of leadership are working, sometimes almost desperately, to stem the tide and to bolster, in one way or another, the sagging social structure. Unfortunately, most of these men are specialists in relatively narrow fields, and their efforts are devoted primarily to coping with the symptoms of the pandemic.

They are not the only ones. They are the ones who are the most important. They are the ones who are the most important. They are the ones who are the most important. They are the ones who are the most important. They are the ones who are the most important. Rather than determining the nature of the illness. For example, Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns

has recently admitted in print, and his words were widely copied in Time magazine and other such magazines, has recently admitted that, quote, the rules of economics are not working quite the way they used to. The fact is that few, if any, of the rules of society are likely ever again to work exactly as they used to. And the danger is that,

unless the reasons become better understood, the rules may never work at all. It is not only desirable, therefore, but it is imperative to consider first the one great basic deficiency of society from which most of its problems arise. The social science has been defined as the study of the relationship of man to his fellow man

and of the means by which that relationship may be established. The study of the relationship may be made more successful, more productive, and more enduring. Colleges and universities list courses in the social science, and governments spend billions of dollars and hours of effort upon it. The fact remains, however,

that no genuine scientific foundation has ever been established for this study. It has developed only as an art, rather than the science which it is called and which it must become if it is to furnish practices and practical solutions to the present and future problems of mankind.

Most leaders and many would-be leaders of men formulate their own doctrines concerning the proper attitude and actions of man toward his fellow man. Each of these doctrines, if published, will usually attract followers. In some cases, the followers may be few. In other cases, entire nations or races

may become eager and devout. Yet, those who follow each leader do so primarily because of the aesthetic or the emotional appeal of the doctrine rather than because of any tested and proven merit. Thus, a continuing series of more or less random social experiments have been conducted throughout the ages

by those whose public position has enabled them to influence the thoughts and actions of their neighbors. Some of these experiments have been partly or wholly successful. Others have been total failures. And some of them have brought terrible tragedy and destruction to whole races of people.

We only have to consider Nazism, for example, as one of these. This was a doctrine created essentially by one man who became a leader in a position of leadership among the people and sold a certain idea, a certain concept of how to do things. Man should react to his fellow man.

And it brought terrible tragedy and destruction to a whole nation, in fact, to many nations of people. Yet, none of these experiments, be they successful or otherwise, could contribute significantly to the science of human relationship because none of them were designed from, built upon, or even had reference

to any foundation of universally accepted fact or even belief. If we consider the branch of knowledge and inquiry usually known as the physical science, we find it to be a true science in that the area of mutual agreement has long since been determined and documented. The process through which the documentation was achieved

was not a natural or an automatic one. It required planning and dedication on the part of those who carried it out. The beliefs of each leader in the field were compared to the beliefs of the leader. They were compared with the beliefs of others. And where differences existed, specific tests were devised

based upon the areas of which they did agree to determine the relative merits of the differing theories. Since the postulates upon which the tests were based had been accepted in advance by all concerned, all were equally bound by the results of the tests and would accept those tests at least until some still better theory

or better tests were formulated. Consequently, there has never been a war or even a major feud resulting from any difference of opinion in the physical science. It stands upon a foundation of mutual agreement and has a built-in method of settling disputes and resolving differences.

In the social science, on the other hand, the area of mutual agreement, while it is certainly large and general, has never been specifically defined or documented. Therefore, the social science is a method of mutual agreement. Therefore, there is no foundation from which mutually acceptable tests or means of determination can be formulated.

When large numbers of people and sometimes whole nations or races are led to adopt basic suppositions and beliefs that differ substantially from the suppositions and beliefs of others, a constantly increasing friction is likely to develop between the two groups. Since there are no adequate or acceptable tests

or accepted means of testing the merits of the opposing concepts, the heat of emotion generated by the continuing friction may and frequently does lead to open warfare. Now, the tragedy and the futility of warfare lies in the fact that it cannot determine the relative merits of the conflicting ideologies. It can only demonstrate

the relative fighting abilities of the participants. No matter how violent or how prolonged the war, and no matter who may be the victor, there will still have been no approach to a solution to the problems or the differences that brought about the fighting. In a few months or a few years, when the contenders have recovered somewhat from their wounds,

they will be ready to fight again. Now, these words, this particular quotation, was written first in 1966, and as I put it on the screen, the paper first in 1966, quite some time before the last Arab-Israeli conflict, and yet never in history were these words more precisely illustrated

than in that case. Here are a group of nations holding opposing concepts who have fought three times and are getting ready to fight the fourth time without ever having solved thereby a single one of the differences of opinion that brought about the conflict.

So, this is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point. This is a very important point.

In a few months or a few years, when the contenders have recovered somewhat from their wounds, they will be ready to fight again. The winner usually learns nothing from such an encounter. And if the loser learns anything, it will be only how to avoid

the worst of his military errors. So long as a civilization possesses only simple weapons of limited destructive power, it can tolerate, and it can fight. may survive these periodic acts of tragic nonsense millions of innocent persons may meet violent and untimely death and hundreds of years of patient

human effort may be wiped out at the passing whim of one leader instill a race and at least some part of its culture will survive to begin again the seemingly endless struggle toward peace and security when weapons of total destruction come into being however the situation changes for no civilization and no race and survive the Holocaust of the weapons now being created and the have reason to write this because for the past 25 years I have been employed in one capacity or another which resulted in creation of that world.

that could be used in such weapons I'm very familiar with the capacity of the weapons presently being created it is clear that the only choice now left to mankind is Hamlet's choice to be or not to be every reasoning individual every parent and every leader of men must now ask himself this question will I leave to my children and to the children of those who look to me for guidance a world filled with beauty and opportunity as is their rightful heritage or will their charred and broken bodies be strewn about a burned-out planet orbiting the Sun as a perpetual memorial to the ultimate failure of logic and

reason let no man make the tragic mistake of thinking that the problems of mankind may somehow solve themselves in only we can manage to ignore them long enough or that we can safely delegate to others the responsibility of their solution and this is where we have gone astray so much in the present time we we're all somewhat aware of the problems of mankind but we've got some organization we've got some organizations that are set up to maintain peace and so forth and we say that let Joe do it let them do it there's

set up for that they know what they're doing we hope why doesn't the United Nations solve the problems of countries and in examining the work of the United Nations so forth you find again one one basic flaw one thing that prevents them from being as effective as successful as they should be this came up in the lecture a couple of months ago Ashland Oregon it was a large rotary group and there were about 150 of the top businessmen of the area present and the question United Nations came up why wasn't it more effective or more efficient and I said well I know one reason I said how many of you men here

present they know the name of your representative of the United Nations and then to represent you and out of the 150 not a single hand went up after a few moments of embarrassment silence I have to admit that I didn't know either nobody knows because we have no representative in the United Nations as individuals we have representatives as a government United Nations was set up by governments to represent governments and perhaps in that sense it's doing a reasonably good job I have no complaints about the United Nations I do have some knowledge of the reasons it doesn't work

better than it does because the general public doesn't even know what it's doing in any one case we see something on television that some member the United Nations is going somewhere to talk with someone we never hear what they talk about we never hear what conclusions are reached the only role of the public in such a thing is as always to pay the bill and to take the rap for whatever decisions may be reached even though they have no idea those decisions have been reached or what they were

doing so there isn't the public backing for a group like the United Nations it should be and would be otherwise if they were more truly representative of peoples of nations instead of government it's a it's a problem that occurs in all sorts of public representation of the individual for untold centuries man has cried peace peace and there has been no peace thousands of intelligent and learned men have devoted their lives to the search for peace and tens of millions have fought to the death for it sounds a little odd millions have been fighting to the death for peace and yet it's true if you look

through history the first war that was fought specifically to end all wars courage I recall about 500 years before the birth of Christ it's in history you can find it during the other nations were fighting and each side was saying well this war is going to end all wars and we have since that time had five other wars that were fought specifically to end all wars we haven't quite done it as yet anyone knows who reads newspaper it is time we face the fact that peace can never be reached through any direct approach it is not as gold which can be obtained by sufficient dating nor is it as a treasure which can be had at once

only one knows where to look peace is simply the automatically resulting byproducts of complete understanding between man and map between state and state and between all men and God when such understanding exists there's no need to search or to work for peace it exists automatically but until understanding has been achieved no amount of effort for peace can ever be successful we have been making efforts for peace without achieving understanding for thousands of years we're no closer to it now than they were before without understanding

no amount of effort for peace can ever be successful let us therefore direct our thoughts and our efforts toward the goal of complete understanding it is the

[25:16] Main address

one great catalyst that can make all problems soluble as a first step in the achievement of world understanding we must begin for the first time in the history of this planet to create the only foundation upon which a true social science or any true science can be built there are no obstacles except the magnitude of the test and it's great success in the physical science to demonstrate to all of us that peace is the only source of life for all of us everyone how well it works let us consider therefore the following proposal and this is the proposal which has resulted from some eight years of

concentrated study of this subject it's very simple there's nothing in the world an obstacle in the world except the massive nature of the test some presently existing international organizations should be enlisted or a new one created if necessary for the purpose of sponsoring a worldwide Congress composed of representatives of every major and in so far as may be possible every minor nation race ideology and thoughts in the ideal case there should be a representation of every group of people whose members have any thought patterns that are common to the group now this is

the ideal I said in the ideal case because obviously this would involve not thousands of representatives, but hundreds of thousands of representatives. So at some point, the ideal case must compromise with something that is practical. In the ideal case, there should be representation of every group of people whose members have any thought pattern which are common to the group. The delegates from each nation, race, or ethnic group shall be chosen only by that group which they are to represent. And this is one thing we never really do in politics or in much of anything else.

Our representatives are authorities in some field, and the authority in the field seldom actually represents the nature of thinking of the individual in the field. They shall be persons who are fully aware of the basic thinking of their groups. The Congress shall have one purpose only, to determine through mutual discussion and to document to the minutes of the meeting all of those principles, postulates, and rules or methods of procedure

which are found by all of the delegates to be generally accepted as valid principles of the social relationship of mankind. No attempt shall be made by any individual or group to influence the thinking or to mold the opinion of any other individual or group, since the purpose of the Congress is not to determine what the people of the world should think, but only to discover what they do think.

Any suggestion or postulate which, after brief discussion, is found to be unacceptable by any delegate shall immediately be dropped from consideration and the next suggestion shall be taken up. If, however, the majority of the delegates find the item to be accepted as valid, and it is rejected by a minority, a note will be made describing the discarded principle,

the delegate or group who found it to be unacceptable, and the reasons given, if any, although none need be given. These notes may prove helpful to any subsequent Congress which may be held for the purpose of enlarging, updating, or amending the original document. Now, I put this in only because this is the way the foundation area of the physical science was created.

The physical science that has put men on the moon when the social science hasn't even decided whether men should have enough food or should starve to death. In any event, these notes should certainly aid in the understanding of the thought patterns of the various groups. A number of sample postulates should be prepared in advance of the first formal meeting, but after these have been considered,

each delegate, in turn, shall have the right and the duty to propose additional items for consideration by the Assembly. Each suggestion shall have a direct bearing upon the relationship of man to his fellow man and or upon the means by which that relationship may be made more successful, more productive, or more enduring.

They shall be stated in the simplest possible terms so that they may be readily understood by all. Each suggestion shall be individually considered and accepted or rejected by a vote of the devil. Those postulates which are accepted shall be recorded and documented as recognized and accepted factors in the social science. For convenience and order in making the suggestions,

they should be grouped into specific areas of human needs, human desires, human relationship, ecological requirements, and so forth. They should begin in each of the fields with the simplest proposals or postulates that can be conceived and expressed, since a foundation must be built upon the ground and not at some distance above it.

And this is our problem with the so-called social science. It is a high-rise building, a towering multi-story structure which has never had a first floor or even a foundation. It stands tottering upon pillars of postulate which have been accepted for centuries without ever having been tested. We have the same problem in the physical science. I keep referring back to physical science

because I've been in the field for many years. I know how conclusions are reached. We don't have to kill each other because we have a difference of opinion. We have ways in which we can decide whose idea is the best, and we use the best idea no matter whose it was. But in the beginning, when the physical science first began to be documented,

we had many ideas that had been taught for centuries that were totally false. For example, the idea that a large body of matter would fall faster than a small body of the same kind of matter, that is, a large cannonball, would fall faster than a small cannonball. That had been taught and accepted in such science as it was for 2,000 years.

When Galileo questioned it, he said, I wonder if that's really true or not. Nobody ever tried it in all these thousands of years. So he took a large cannonball and a small cannonball and he took them up on the leaning tower of Pisa and he got them off at the same time. And everybody was amazed to discover

that they both hit the ground at the same time. But while the large cannonball had more weight, it had more downward force, and this is what appealed to reason. People took a stance to reason the heavy one will fall faster than the lighter one because it has more downward force so it will accelerate more rapidly.

And what nobody realized was that bodies of matter also have inertia. That is, they resist acceleration and the large body resists acceleration more than the small one does. So they both accelerate at the same speed. But a thing as simple as that was taught incorrectly for thousands of years

simply because nobody thought of testing. It sounded logical and so nobody tested it. Well, we've done the same thing in the social science for just as many thousands of years. We've accepted postulates that have never been tested and our whole social science is built upon these tottering postulates which have never been tested. In the area of human needs, for example,

the following postulate might be offered. that it is better that all persons should have available to them a sufficient amount of nourishing food than that most of them should suffer constantly from hunger and malnutrition. Note that this is purely an academic question. Its acceptance would not bind the delegates

or their groups to any course of action whatever, but would only establish the validity of the principle. Now, when I first read this for our own home group of understanding in Merlin, one of the ladies who was a tireless worker for understanding indefatigable workers said, gosh, I don't know whether I would dare to vote for that or not.

Because if I voted for that, then someone might expect me to share some of my food with someone who didn't have enough. Well, you see, this is an extrapolation. This is the difficulty of accepting any starkly simple principle. People just can't do it. They have to add something to it.

They have to extrapolate. And then they judge it on the basis of what they have extrapolated, of what they have added to it. This doesn't say a thing, that you would be bound by accepting the principle that it would be better if everyone had sufficient food than not.

It wouldn't bind anyone to do anything about it. But it does illustrate something that would happen. I mean, really, it was her conscience getting to work. And she said, if I dared to accept it, it would be better if people had food, then maybe I ought to do something about it. And this is the thing that gets to work when you establish simple principles.

There's nothing binding about the simple principles itself. But once they have been universally accepted, then there's a universal need or universal action on the conscience to begin at least to try to do something about it. You would only establish the validity of the principle. At first, such a proposal might seem to be so obvious

as to be ridiculous. Yet the fact remains that its universal acceptance has never been tested or documented. We just assume that such a thing might be considered correct. If the postulate were accepted, and it probably would be if the proposal were made at a time when the assembly had been without food for some hours,

it would then become a recognized and documented principle, and the way would be open for other simple and basic suggestions as to means for implementation of the first. And I put this in in this way because this illustrates one of the ways in which all people on earth are identical. Everyone gets hungry about every so often. And if you do as we have done

in headquarters and understanding, and you get a ream or two of paper, and on one side of this paper you begin listing the ways in which all people are the same, and on the other side you begin listing the ways in which they are different. The ways in which all people are the same outstripped the ways in which they are different

three or four to one. For every way you think that they're different, you see two ways that they are the same. I gave this lecture for Cyanetics Foundation a few minutes ago, and one of them said, he took exception, he said, I think people are different in a lot more ways than they're the same.

I said, oh, how so? And he said, well, I'm a doctor. He said, I retired from doctoring because I couldn't accept some of the practices. But he said, I had to open hundreds of cadavers, of bodies, and I found that some people had, the tubes coming out of the heart came out in one way and some came out in the other way.

The hearts were all a little bit different in the tubes coming out, so this made everybody different. I said, did you ever open a body and find that it had no heart? Well, suddenly it started to think there might be minor deviations, but the main fact was the same for everybody.

Everybody had one. And he began talking, he said, well, some people have fallen arches and other people don't have fallen arches. Did you ever see someone who had no arches, fallen or otherwise? So for every difference between people, you find you're automatically creating another way

or several other ways in which they are all the same. And this primary postulate was put in in this way because this is one of the ways in which all people are the same. They all require food about every so often. It should always be remembered, however, that the purpose of the Congress is not to solve the problems of society,

but only to create a tool with which those problems might successfully be approached. At first, progress is not always easy. Progress would be slow, as the delegates struggled with the unfamiliar task of breaking down their ideas and beliefs into the simplest possible expressions.

But it would soon be discovered that the more simply the concept was expressed, the more probable its acceptance by the assembly, a fact which, unfortunately, has long been forgotten by our politicians, our diplomats, and even most of our statesmen. It is quite popular today in politics to speak in what has been referred to as gobbledygook,

that is, to make long and profound statements, statements that appear to be profound, and use precise terms, and yet cannot be interpreted in any precise way. It's handy because if no one quite understands what you mean, no one can completely disagree with you. That's a principle on which most politics operates today. The public can't quite understand it,

the public can't quite understand what I'm saying, and they'll never really be able to disagree with me. But, of course, they can never really agree either. And the speaking, all the speaking that the politician does, doesn't give his listeners much of an idea of what the situation is or what he proposes to do about it. As the number of building blocks in the foundation grew one by one,

and as the delegates began to realize, most of them, for the first time, the remarkable similarity in each other's thinking, when reduced to fundamentals, the enthusiasm and the rate of progress would steadily increase. In the area of human relationship, the beginning postulate might be resolved that it is better that man should live in peace

and cooperation with his neighbor than that his works and his goods should be destroyed and he should be maimed or killed in battle with his fellow man. Such a postulate might or might not be accepted. But if it were, then other simple concepts leading to implementation might be considered. Such an approach to the social science may seem to be childishly oversimplified,

and indeed it is. But if we are ever to succeed in building a true social science, we must begin at the beginning, and we have never yet done so. A similar process was employed in the development of the physical science, and its success speaks for itself. When the Congress has completed its deliberations,

when all principles, rules, and methods of procedure that can be conceived by the delegates have been considered and voted upon, the resulting document shall be translated into all the principal languages of the earth and made available to all people as the foundation document and the primary reference work of the social science.

The preliminary study which has led to this proposal has indicated that the minimum number of delegates required for an acceptable Congress will be of the order of one thousand. A much better number would be three or four or five thousand, but at some point, depending on who sponsored it, what was done at some point,

the ideal situation would have to compromise with practicability, but the larger the number, obviously, the more valid the resulting work would be. The minimum number for an acceptable Congress would be of the order of one thousand, and the time required for the completion of the primary document would be about one year.

The overall cost to the Congress would be of the order of twenty millions of dollars, a sum which to the individual may seem to be very large, but which, if distributed among the population of even a single country such as the United States, would amount to less than ten cents per person. Not a very large investment when one considers that the welfare of everyone on earth

and the continued existence of civilization almost certainly depends upon our ability to develop some form of social format capable of easing tensions and lessening frictions between nations and between various ethnic groups. The organization was sponsored by the United States government and is the only one

in the United States to have a role in the development of the nation's response to the state's current interest and does not speak of the state's role even in other countries. It does not speak of the state of the United States in particular, but is rather the only state

that has put together a comprehensive and comprehensive team of officers to represent the state and its officials. of one large modern bombing plane. It's the cost of less than two days of the Vietnam War. In fact, at its peak, it was less than the cost of one day in the Vietnam War. It might just be the best investment that humanity has ever made. With a model that was sponsored by a country such as the United States, it would cost about 10 cents per person.

The study should also include the most desirable location for the convention, the logistics of travel and maintenance of the delegates, the linguistic problems, and so forth. Now, here the United Nations could come in very handy. In fact, if they should choose to sponsor such a thing, they would have a head start on any other organization that did, because they already have coped with the problems of the linguistic problems, the logistics of travel, the maintenance of the delegates, and so forth on quite a large scale. At least we could learn from them. That would be something that they could contribute. I mean, it's a great thing.

There's a tremendous amount of information in this respect. Before any final action is taken to implement the proposal, the plan should be publicized throughout the world to the medium of newspapers, radio, television, and so forth. It should be discussed in the United Nations Assembly and in other international forums. Such wide publicity would be neither difficult nor costly to obtain if the proper approach were made. There are many people in key positions in the communication system. There are many people who are well aware of the critical position of this civilization and who are willing to do whatever may be done to ease the tensions or find solutions

to the problem. About four years ago, when I first wrote out the first rough draft of these things, I went to Washington, D.C. I gave a number of lectures there. I appeared on four or five radio and television stations there. And somewhere along the line, the people who head up the... the Voice of America program became aware of me and what I was speaking on. And someone called me up at my hotel and said, how about coming down to the Library of Congress? They have some little audience rooms there, and we can set up a little tape recorder and tape about ten minutes of whatever it is you're sponsoring, whatever it is you're suggesting.

And maybe we can play it on one or even maybe one or two of the stations on which the Voice of America program is. So I said, fine. And I went down, and a young man appeared, a very nonchalant young man with a small portable tape recorder, and he set it up, and he looked at his watch, and he said, well, I've only got ten minutes because I've got an important appointment in a few minutes. But we'll see what we can put on in ten minutes. And I began to talk on the... our mutual agreement. The ten minutes became twenty minutes, the twenty minutes became thirty minutes. About this time, he looked at his watch and said, oh, my gosh, I missed you. There's a lot of people out there. And I said, well, I've got to go.

And he said, I've got a very important appointment. Well, it wasn't important anyhow. I said, this is bigger than I thought. And he said, how much time do you have? I looked at my watch and said, well, I've got something over two hours before I have to appear with the radio station. And he said, well, let me make a phone call. We'd better get a better recorder than this. He dashed off to a phone. In about ten minutes, two more men appeared. One of the gentlemen was named Drew Pearson. Now, maybe some of you have heard the name before. And they had a very professional... MR. ... copying, or something.

MR. And they had a very professional-looking tape recorder. And they set it up, and we talked for two hours on tape. And when I finally had to break it up and go, Mr. Pearson said, you might be interested to know that we have decided that everything you have put on these tapes will be translated into every language in which the Voice of America is broadcast, which at this time is twenty-six languages. And will be broadcast on every station on which the Voice of America broadcasts. And know approximately how many people listen you know how many people in the Soviet Union listen we know how many people in Red China and how many people

in India how many people in Pakistan how many people in North and South America listen he says what you have just put on tape will be heard by 250 million people do what do you think of that he was bragging that's it because he had a big audience it's good I said that's wonderful I have to agree that that's a good like your audience 250 million there's more people and I've ever talked to at one time before but I said it's less than one-tenth of the world population and if this proposal is going to go over somewhere along the line we have to reach all of them how do I go about reaching the other nine-tenths

let's get him back a little bit because suddenly he realizes tremendous population was less than one-tenth and he smiled and said well we can get you two hundred and fifty million I'm afraid you'll have to figure out yourself how you're going to reach the rest so I've been reaching the rest never since I did that said that about three months later in Europe and six countries last fall in every country that I lectured this lecture was translated into the language of the country was printed in that language and is being distributed in that country all six of the countries I like to do

anything was translated into their language so it is getting around I don't know how long it'll take I may not live long enough to ever see anything really come of it but I know that people are very high capability by 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 Keillor family it was very high in in social life I don't do too much in politics but it was very high in social life I don't do too much in politics but it was very high in social life I don't do too much in politics but it

in Sweden I stayed in the home that was single aggressive summer home when he was king and family owns it in the house and they were able to get me interviews with some of the top people and some most intelligent and educated people in the country because I wanted to try this on top minds I thought they would accept it then it's basically right if there's flaws in apparentOSEHRWADDDT the first interview I got was with Torres Ragnarok here home who is the top nuclear physicist in Sweden he teaches in the University of Stockholm and I got a 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 that's how we're leaving he said dr. price and we have talked together for more than one hour 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 I don't think he has because in reading his book he has very definite opinions one thing and I can see where he could easily disagree with people but he being in the scientific

field knew better perhaps than and others the necessity of applying this testimony and proven principle to other areas where it can work just as well I had an interview with the gentleman who heads corporation in Holland interview with Queen Juliana to was there but this wasn't publicized too much she had distance really criticized by giving an audience to another very unpopular gentleman from the east and was little sensitive about the publicity at the time

but this and who heads larger corporation Holland won the largest in the world's known as Phillips Corporation you may have heard of you guy buy Phillips gas stations every once in a while you don't know who owns them but anyway I was at his home for the afternoon he said oh he can't stay over for a few days we should talk a little more and again my I was on my home by that time but I said I'm going to read this to US if you already was a very highly educated men 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 wastebasket. So I read it to him slowly and carefully, and when I got to him, I said, well, what do you say? He said, Dr. Fry, 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, like your imprint, you'll find one there, and 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've spent a few other people putting 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 activities and understanding. When I give lectures, I am denied, and if he 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 didn't do it. But as far as my personal expenses, in all the 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 side. 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 give it to you.

If you ask me 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 that, too.

So let's take a few minutes break. Thank you. Thank you. To determine how people think, not to determine what people should think or what people should do. It would have nothing to do with this person. I guess maybe I was thinking, are they coming together more? Yes.

Well, certainly many questions in ecology would come up at such a conference. Could I ask, have you presented this formally, like in the State Department? 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 sent, 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... No, could I, could you tell us about that letter? I didn't know that. Oh, there isn't anything remarkable about it. It was one of the Nixon letters that was written, when, 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 got them. And there were perhaps, perhaps one, out of a million people who got them in the United States. So it simply indicated that he didn't think I was insane.

I used it. I have a little book here. I have, 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, 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. Fry will be lecturing in 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. Now, the book there contains it. It's very seldom necessary to use it anymore because that has gone out of style. I mean, that type of TV appearance has gone out of style.

I still appear on radio and television. It's seldom that anyone starts out by attacking my sanity, my morals, my honesty, and so forth, as they used to do. 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 write it to me if he really thought I was insane. That's the only point I make. And the letter 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. Neither of the national nominating conventions had been held for that election. I was in Denver on a lecture, and I was appearing on 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.

The commentator there asked me, he said, Dr. Price, who do you think is going to be the next president? Well, the nominating conventions hadn't even been held 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, 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 the two men with his little chart out, taking a poll of, but 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 just, the man to whom he addressed, just held off and knocked the poll taker down. And his friend turned to him and he said, look, Joe, he said, what do you want to get so mad about? I said, he didn't, 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 guys. And I said, yeah, and he said, I know it. He says, 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, 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, never even visited the state. If he'd come up and given one lecture, we'd have got said,

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. I got out of a scrawny little squirt named Nixon when he lived in Whittier, when 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 people 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... True. True. I do have this little folder that 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 vote for me. 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. I don't know how we got into this discussion, 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 can go up and look at it. What's the... 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. To my scientific knowledge, I know what nuclear weapons can do.

And I know that if they're ever used on any scale at all, the civilization is done. And I have children. I'd like to see them live. I'd like to see them live. I'd like to see them live to enjoy this planet. That's why I do the work I do. What can lived individuals do to further this? Everyone can do something if only talking to his neighbor.

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 of two. In about 30 days, everybody on Earth would have heard about it. I mean, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't say that this is going to happen. It never has been before.

But when people say, what can I do? I usually point out that they are going to do it. They don't need advice. If they realize there's something they can do, or that something that should be done. People all over 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 gonna do it. You can help yourself.

you don't need anybody 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 said oh captain I'm terribly worried and so 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 get seasick since I've never been seasick before I wouldn't know what to do he said don't worry if you become seasick you will do it

if people realize that there is a need for something to be done there they're well on their way to doing it yeah let's go into that specifically because the part of another lecture that ties in very well with it oh this actually is in the if this is the borderline between the social and spiritual science there is no direct line no direct line between the social and spiritual science there is no direct line dividing line you can't say that physical science ends here the social science starts here spiritual science starts here they all overlap and the

laws that control all of them are identical but that's another lecture I proved that too 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 in the book that was handiest was the Bible in that room to read from the Bible at the age of four so I have read it a little bit often I'm never sent 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 decent histories been recorded that the answer to social problems is that everyone must love his fellow man everyone was love God in his fellow men in the Bible said the greatest commandment of all is this I 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. But something else is required first. 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 that kills me. And you might put on a very good... pretense, complete with all of the outward symptoms. But in your heart, there wouldn't be any change. You'd be thinking, How wonderful it would be to have a 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 how it works. And you look into the Greek... It was translated in several, in most cases, the language from which it was translated into the Greek to begin with. I knew Dr. Lathrop 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 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, and the old edition says have not charity,

and this was the correct statement. Now the Bible says love, I believe there. 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 lectures who had a wonderful vocabulary, a wonderful command of the language, and they'd be out there orating, and you'd sit back and trance, my, what a wonderful speaker, what a wonderful vocabulary,

how well he puts words together. And then suddenly he was through, and you 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 tranced 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. 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 understand thy neighbor as thyself. 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. There are many. I could do to our lecture on this one subject alone, and I tend to get, I tend to get,

we'll have to go along fairly 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 a 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 man. A horrible beast.

And at 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.

Then she comes back some time later, 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 a pensive 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. 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 whether you find it in a number of places in mythology where the task, it was one of the tasks of Hercules, and it's repeated in mythology in various places, a 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.

[01:17:12] Development of the main themes

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 has ever succeeded in conquering the world. And a lot of people it looked like they were going to make it at first.

Nobody 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 fables and so forth have profound meanings. And if that one could be understood, really understood by the people of Earth 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 that 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 its place. Yes? To put something back in its place. But 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 you don't have to worry about that.

There's got to be something better to take the place of that. I say if you take hate away love will fill the vacuum by itself. There was an old saying in nature, of course the vacuum would simply mean that we have air pressure around us. And when you lower the pressure

air tends to go into it. But you get many ways away from this earth and all this vacuum and all this space it does 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 agreement

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 and we could see that each one of those groups

has copies of your nature. Well that would be fine. I mean at least everyone would have been exposed to it once then or each person who gets a copy 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 are welcome to have without any charge. Because you do want groups to send representations to each other. Yeah, well in the end there would have to be a representation of each typical kind of group or preferably 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. Dr. Fry, I'd like to 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 a peace forum today, all day at the Los Angeles Convention Center. 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, and everyone took part, the highest ideals

of what we can do about peace 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,

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 pondered only by experts. Now it is a vital thing that affects 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 people at the International Platform Association, I started in a little different way. Most of those who come in and speak

do so to entertain a little bit, and I knew that this was not going to be a too popular subject in a convention like that. And so I began it. I said, I am here under a misrepresentation. I am not here to amuse you gentlemen

or to entertain you. I am here to sell a product. And I just went up. I said, I said, that product is your survival. That's why I am here to sell your survival. And that's exactly what it is.

Do you think if the different governments that everybody, I keep hearing that our government really knows about UFOs and all, but know 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 are not the only people in this universe. Well, we are getting into an interesting field here. And it's a field again that unfortunately

to really elucidate it. I did last night. I mean, that's why I was at 1.30. The same questions are asked everywhere. Well, now we have to close 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 are real, why doesn't he tell the people? And three presidents have and we haven't paid any attention to them. Our present president, Richard Nixon, when he was,

before he achieved 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 are controlled by intelligent beings that were developed on this earth. And he said, you can quote me. Most of my political friends feel the same way, but they say,

don't quote me. He said, I feel that way and you can quote me. And they did at great length. I don't know how many of you heard what Barry Goldwater had to say,

but he was a real UFO fan. Eisenhower was. Presidents one after another have said this. And we say, why doesn't the president tell us? And they do and we don't pay any attention to it.

What do we mean when we say government? We think of an old man with a long white beard and a red, white, black hat who was thinking of Uncle Sam,

a person who said they have infinite knowledge and therefore should be able to advise all people. When we talk about the government, we're speaking of tens of thousands of individuals, all of whom have their own ideas

and 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.

I've talked to them everywhere else. The majority of them believe that the things exist. The same thing is true in the Air Force. They say, why does the Air Force

say there is no such thing? I defy anyone to show me any statement signed by any Air Force official that has ever said any such thing. 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. I've never sought a lecture for an Air Force base.

And there you'll find a couple of letters about the Air Force base. I've never sought a lecture for an Air Force base. But I have a question from a friend of mine who is a professor

at the University of California, named Jack Cody, who is Director of Aerospace Education for the whole Western Division of the Air Force. And he comes to our conventions up there

and lectures on saucers. We had a question. I just had a comment. You really want an announcement from Nixon like you got from the economic plan

or a great big nationwide announcement. Science 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

a question. It has come up. What would happen if some president did force that knowledge upon hundreds of millions of people who were totally unprepared

to accept it, were totally unprepared to assume a secondary position in the universe? Almost all of us have been born and raised in a 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 work. 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 a somewhat 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.

And so, we have to admit that man is the 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 what's going on in the world. And so, we employ sophistry. We employ

ridicule. We 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 and this was a little different. And then,

you compound the whole thing into some earthly format. And this is things that the everyone from the Condom Committee back through the Air Force

have been doing for years. It still doesn't fit very well, but millions of people will rush to accept it 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 we have to escape at any cost. 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 it in space. You wouldn't get any ionization because there isn't any near 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 UFO, 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 Alon

and he said, yes, we know that that is one of the problems among your people because it seems 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 vehicle. You have an engine and wheels or you have a propeller blade or a jet stream.

This applies thrust to 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, it 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 your butt you will feel the seat come up and slap against your back. 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 atom of the pilot's body that is applied

to every individual atom of the craft. In a gravitational acceleration there is no gain. Let's take a quick example.

Take a pilot and put him in a space capsule take him up a hundred 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 one g or one gravity

or 32 feet per second per second. Now what's accelerating? Is the pilot crushed against the side of the craft by the acceleration?

No. He is floating in free fall. He is floating at one 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 of the craft? No. He is still

floating in the sky over the 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 3200 feet per second per second or about the acceleration rate

of a low speed rifle bullet. Is the pilot now crushed against the craft and he is still floating in free fall? There is 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. Now 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 by accelerating the 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 huh how do we go about producing a g field let's build it

how do we 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 by art. Well we have to make a quick study and I yes yeah I saw

well I was in Englewood of course it's seen all over 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 it's 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 whatever blow was put out

would remain right there until it ceased to exist if it were 300,000 feet that's far above far above the atmosphere and there's no

there wouldn't be any motion of the stratosphere up there in these convolutions yet yeah 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 that was the newspaper yeah well the newspaper said it was a re-entry and I didn't believe it that

they always say Vandenberg asking for it's always the exact same thing what may I ask is the earliest

recorded date of the view 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 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 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 it

it's exactly the same we are going to produce a magnetic field that 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 a 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 magnetic field and the other two which I wonder what it could be but 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 ten years ago just to demonstrate to myself the validity

of the principle I don't know whether anyone else has done it and how anyone could do it at any time but I'm devoted

to explaining and the best part of the chapter is devoted to explaining and it's been out for about four years now but if you do something

we've never done we have all kinds made all kinds of uses of this exchange between electrical and magnetic fields we have induction

coils 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 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 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 or 35,000 Gauss we think we've reached a limit whether we're enough or not 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 and trying 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 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 out 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 saturated moisture that's in the air it'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 any of these anything using this device this propulsion system we're moving slowly through air that was saturated with moisture or near saturation that there would be condensation around it there would be a 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 give off light so that you can see it all right we've said to be given two principles it should cause condensation around it to be surrounded by products moving slowly in the saturated area it should give off light at night when you look at what we're going to go back as far as we can to see where and when this thing was first recorded is being seen if you back into the story of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian and embodied you'll find that they were at all times preceded in the air in their height to freedom by an object in the air UFO if you please it the solid material object

which was seated at the same speed they walk they constantly before the All Day and Night 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 of 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 smaller sampling 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 generator or any series of generators can replace. You're going to start a blackout. You're going to start, you're going to overload the system when the generator is 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 line. 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. So that and the ionized air that's around it produces a short circuit in the air. 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 the spark to jump from the top of the spark plug 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-off 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. So they said, 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 sparks. So they said, we will test to see how strong a magnetic field is necessary to saturate the core of an ignition coil. So they said, we will test to see how strong a magnetic field is necessary to saturate the core of an ignition coil. So they said, 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 sparks. So they said, we will test to see how strong a magnetic field is necessary to saturate the core of an ignition coil. So they said, 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 sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that can only be true if that thing were producing sparks. So they said, well, that c in my own files for the last eight to ten years. He said, like, 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 you up for anything. 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 visible, 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 you're 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 copper the bet. What that means, if you reduce that, 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. Do you think that the Reds will be a part of the free intelligence people and be the tangible evidence for them to be ready?

To my knowledge, to be the way they're told to be. 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 expert.

Because if anybody had suspected, he never could possibly have done what he had to do. His whole program had to be based on assuming such an ordinary figure, being 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 may 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 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 doesn't really make any difference. We still put food in, and 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. And it's a second, it's a separate lecture.

I've done this an hour or two. What would happen if, we went in this before, 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? Suppose that we are. I'm supposing that tomorrow morning Nixon

in his news conference should casually announce to the people that he was well aware, and that 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 the 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 has been. Of course they could take us over. That fact is implicit in any admission that they exist. And that's why we can't, we have to be careful in forcing people to the realization that they exist because they're going to realize then that they are subject, they would be subject to taking over. Obviously they have no intention of doing so.

There would be no advantage to them. 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 gave up after the, they finally gave up officially after the return of the astronauts from the moon

because they figured they'd 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 exercise in 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 there may be some people

who will never learn that we are under observation by extraterrestrial beings. That's maybe 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,

about six years ago, they passed around a little questionnaire to all the college students to determine what college students' thoughts were on extraterrestrial life and intelligence. And one of the questions was, do you believe that there are intelligent beings

[01:55:06] Questions and closing discussion

on other planets on the Earth? And, of course, most of them answered yes. Every scientist, every astronomer answers yes to that question today. I don't know of a single one that didn'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 2% answered yes. They repeated that about two years ago, and 62% answered yes. That's how much change there's been in that many years. And that's at the college level. These aren't ignorant people, aren't you? This gentleman has one. I'll give that to him.

Yes. Last year... Well, this isn't really a new movie of UFO. It incorporates some motion pictures that we're talking about. We're taking a few 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. This, my book here, has the 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 at 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 studied every one they could get their hands on from the beginning of the seventh. 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

all through the letter, that they also admit that they couldn't guarantee I'd ever get it back. So I didn't bother to send it. I had already studied it as well as it could be, and we could. But they did admit that... I didn't...

I didn't get the letter. Well, I'm not one of these fortunate individuals who changes 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 going 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. ...of one, and I can speculate along with anybody. ...of one, and I can speculate along with anybody. ...of one, and I can speculate along with anybody.

I can give you, perhaps, in a few minutes, I'm trying to hit the most important areas here of 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 it in half a dozen colleges throughout the country,

when the astronomer says, well, we can't be visited by extraterrestrials because... and I destroy the because. There is no because. There is no before and to, they have to admit it. 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 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 all much 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 life, 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 there, and they have been for generations. And we will have them ourselves in the next 20 years. They're already on drawing boards. They're on boards of NASA,

and as soon as they are funded, we will have them. We will be building spaceships here that will contain upwards of 100 passengers of both sexes, which, when they leave this planet, will never have to return to this planet. Nor 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. And that air isn't very good to breathe again.

And if this were the only kind of life there were on this planet, all life would have ceased here about 50 million years ago, because all the oxygen would have been used up. But we, nature, also furnished a thing called the plant. And the plant takes in carbon dioxide and gets 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 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 some plants playing a part. What about the big cities that use up all the plants and have no room for plants to grow? Does that have any effect on great mental 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 is considerably more oxygen per unit than there is in the city. And it makes the cities a rather unhealthy place to live. However, in the spaceship, I mean, the cycle, you can maintain the oxygen cycle at any level you want. But I'm getting at an overall picture of this,

so that we are on a spaceship. We're traveling through space at quite a respectable rate. This whole galaxy is rotating on the center. We're located in the inner side of one of the spiral wings thrown outward from the galaxy, and we're going around with 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 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 seldom 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 and rock. 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 outward 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 sampling 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 200 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 it 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 200 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 they wouldn't know what 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 of the thing. 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 their 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've 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 blow to our ego and I'm sure it would be to the scientist who says 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 this the tourist group. They're interested. They're like this. 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 it. 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 rate. 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 and the only group that thought perhaps they should become involved

other 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, Central Africa and so forth

with 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 that say, I know of one. But all three of these kinds could. And 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 visited us from time to time. A question before you close. Where does 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 has a tremendous commitment there that they could not back off

from an open confrontation. That 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,

an American passport. This was 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 managed to arrange to get him the birth certificate. I arranged to teach him or assist him

in learning to drive a motor vehicle and this was his toughest, 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 conceive of 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 sit here and inhale a smog

from all these vehicles waiting for a few cars to go by in front of you when you could just as well go over the top? And this was difficult for him to get used to this. But he eventually mastered it. He had to have a driver's certificate. He had to have many things

because if you're going to be an ordinary citizen of this planet, you have to conform. There are many things you have to have or you will be noticed. He had to have some bank account. He operates as an import-export buyer. He does the 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. It gives him access, free access to any countries he wants to visit because every country, whether they are friendly or not has something they want to buy or they want to sell.

You go into Israel today and say I can get you some Phantom warships, some 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? 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 everything. 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 Geoffrey Chaucer

when out of pearl with a short suit they'd adopt a march of chrysops of the root then bothered every vein sweetly core of which word too engendered is the floor. And so forth. 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 that 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 pass them close enough to them for communication. Just as we do here on this planet. A missionary goes out into the jungle and he usually winds up in a stew pot before he comes back. He'll come back and write a book or appear on radio and television

and everyone who's interested knows exactly what he found out about the native. 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 when he had to speak present English or rather present American rather than medieval English.

And quite frequently when someone channels a being it'll come out in Biblical almost in Biblical language and you wonder why. Why wouldn't advanced beings speak in Biblical language when they could just as well

speak in modern tongue? Well that may be the reason that actually it was learned at that time. There's only one thing you can do. Well 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. 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 try to understand it. He'd say I don't want to understand it I want you to do it. I want to go to the ball game.

And I would have to explain to him that I went to school some years ago 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 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 planet straighten everything out make everything lovely and go away for ten years and then come back with you just as bad as we were before

we wouldn't have learned a thing. He's got to get along with each other. He uses only one system he monitors and it used to be Nasser was his primary concern because Nasser is a highly intelligent man and I sampled when I was in Egypt myself

when I was in Egypt I talked to many people in Egypt about Nasser 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 this country

but he was also very abrupt he was also quite impatient and he was a dictator and there's always 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 the point of doing something which would be almost certain 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 Nasser's mind and Nasser said I'm going to push the button anyhow 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 or 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 far it's been successful it's a very simple task a very confining one as he keeps them 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 better listen to me that process wouldn't work at all he'd either wind up before a firing squad 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 done from close by as close by as possible and that's why he's there and will be there either until we have learned how to solve our problems or until he has reached the conclusion