← Back to Undated – Part Three – Various

Undated Stanton Friedman Followed By Unknown Speaker

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

• [00:00] Opening remarks and introduction
• [27:32] First major segment
• [01:08:50] Second major segment
• [01:42:38] Questions and closing discussion

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Opening remarks and introduction

There is no section on unknowns, strangely enough. There is no reference in this document to Project Blue Book Special Report 14. Menzel didn't mention it in his book either, incidentally, even though he claimed to have full access to all the Air Force files, not even mentioned. He didn't have to deal with those 434 unknowns that way. Now Condon doesn't mention it either, although in Condon's case I know that he was informed about Blue Book Special Report 14 because I informed him and have an acknowledgment in writing from him. Why he doesn't mention it, I don't know. It's rather peculiar, though. In science you usually talk about past work, and it was certainly the largest, most expensive, most extensive study done. It still is, for that matter. So another reason for not believing in UFOs is, of course, that you're not referred to the right data. Anyway. Valuable. Big. Heavy. Let's look at the next one. Here's a minority report.

UFOs? Yes. Where the Condon Committee went wrong. David Saunders is a psychologist who was chief co-investigator, was fired by Dr. Condon because Saunders didn't agree with the way things were going and was willing to speak up about them. There's an article in Look Magazine that went into this in some detail. You should read both of these, neither one by itself, but both together make an interesting picture.

Let's look at the next slide, too, but we can turn up the lights while we're at it. There's a few more references on UFOs. There's a heck of a lot of stuff been written. Okay, let's turn off the projector, turn up the lights. I have to ask a question. How many people here have read all six of those documents, or seven? Paul has. He's done his homework. Good. How many have read three? A dozen people. Very good. When I check with my scientific audiences, I practically never find anybody who's read all, and rarely find more than, say, six people who've read at least two. The obvious reason that scientists don't believe in UFOs, they don't know anything about them. They haven't done their homework. Let's look at the arguments that are made by the scientific community, though. Maybe I'm not being fair. We are going to talk about specific sightings. You will see pictures of real, genuine, honest-to-goodness UFOs.

But let's look a little bit deeper at the arguments made, made against UFOs by the educated non-believers. Fifteen or twenty years ago, the main argument was, the things that people claim to have observed are impossible, therefore they couldn't have observed them. Things can't go that fast in the atmosphere, they burn up. This is reports, supposedly, of UFOs going 10,000 miles an hour as observed on radar. And one scientist proved that things can't go 10,000 miles an hour in the atmosphere without burning up. Now, that particular argument isn't made anymore. Because I think you're all aware that our entire space and defense program both are based on the notion that you can go much faster than 10,000 miles an hour in the atmosphere without burning up. We don't expect our astronauts to come back toasted. We don't expect our ICBMs to be burned up before they get where they're going. Interesting thing, though.

We don't solve the problem, the way the guy who proved it couldn't be done solved it. What he should have said was, not that it's impossible, but, we don't know how. Which is a very, very different notion. Now, we don't hear that argument anymore, but we do hear another, it's impossible, kind of argument. Time Magazine, three and a half years ago or so, had a serious essay on UFOs. Time Magazine, three and a half years ago or so, had a serious essay on UFOs. Time Magazine, three and a half years ago or so, had a serious essay on UFOs. Time Magazine, three and a half years ago or so, had a serious essay on UFOs. Serious for Time, anyway. They gave the pro and con arguments. And included among the anti-UFO arguments was one that went something like this. They say look, we acknowledge that there's probably life throughout the universe, that some of this life is probably more advanced than we are. We even have concluded that on the average

advanced civilizations are about 300 light years apart. Interesting conclusion, incidentally. We have data on one maybe advanced civilization, our own. We have data on one maybe advanced civilization, our own. Well, no idea. and somehow we can tell the average distance between advanced civilizations. But anyway, advanced civilizations are 300 light years apart. At current astronaut velocities, orbital velocities of 17,500 miles an hour, it would take 170,000 years to go 300 light years. Obviously, the trip is impossible. That's what they say. You can't get here from there. Now, this is progress, because not too many years ago, they would have said there isn't life anyplace else besides the Earth. So we're making a little progress. Now, what did Dr. Condon say about the question of travel to the stars? Let me quote you what he said. Travel of men over interstellar distances in the foreseeable future seems now to be quite out of the question.

Foreseeable? Foreseeable future. Next page. It is safe to assume that no intelligent life outside our solar system has any possibility of visiting Earth in the next 10,000 years. That's what he said. The basis for this? There's really no basis whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there's a very good basis for saying that what he said was nonsense. Well, okay. How about... The question of travel to the stars, interstellar travel. There have been several studies which show that it's feasible. The most interesting to me was one published by several JPL scientists whose job, incidentally, is concerned with space hardware. I don't know why astronomers and people like Dr. Condon sound off about the feasibility of interstellar travel when they're not the guys who got us out there. We don't have space travel because of the astronomers, because of hard-working engineers and scientists who... are involved with hardware. Okay, this one study at JPL

was published in 1963 in an obscure but very good journal, Acta Astronautica. You know, that's the way to do this sort of thing. It's a good journal, you've published it, but nobody knows about it, so there's no fuss made. The title of the study was The Feasibility of Interstellar Travel. Let me ask this question. Is it feasible with what we know today, to consider trips to nearby stars and have the trip take a shorter time than a man's lifetime and not violate the laws of physics? Now, why they threw that in, I don't know, since all new discoveries seem to violate the old laws, but they did throw that in as a condition. Their conclusions are quite intriguing. It is indeed feasible, with what we know today, to consider trips to nearby stars and the round-trip time would be shorter than a man's lifetime, and we would not have to violate the laws of physics. Now, a point about the nearby stars, we're talking 10 or 12 light years away.

The same guys who tell us that the average distance between advanced civilization is 300 light years also say that there are several candidates for life within, say, 12 light years, and if you give them enough money, they'll study them with radio telescopes. So let's look 10 light years away. What assumptions did these guys make? Perfectly legitimate question. Two major assumptions. The first is that we would use staged vehicles. You know, a big one, a small one, a small one, and finally a tiny thing up at the top. That's the way we make all our space shots. Somebody proved 20 years ago, though, to put a satellite in orbit. He assumed a single-stage vehicle. We don't do it that way. So the first assumption is quite rational, although surprisingly enough, many of the early studies of the feasibility of interstellar travel assumed single-stage vehicles. The second assumption was that we use fission or fusion, A-bombs or H-bombs, that sounds like,

which is a heck of a way to take a trip. There are lots of ways of taking trips, I don't need to tell you, but, okay. What do they mean, fission or fusion? Well, fission, that's what goes on in nuclear submarines, it's what goes on in power reactors that occasionally get built, when there aren't too many people protesting to keep them from getting built. And you say, look, you can't go to a star in a submarine. That's true. But for more than ten years, there's been an active, ongoing program for the development of fission rocket reactors for space vehicle propulsion. I spent more than two years on the North, on the NERVA program. In December of 1968, Westinghouse Astronuclear Lab tested the NRX-A6 reactor, 1967 that was, come to think of it, power level of 1100 megawatts, more than half the power of Grand Coulee Dam, and something that would fit on a piano, and I could put my arms around. Tested it for an hour, which is plenty long for journeys around the solar system.

In June of 1968, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory tested the Phoebus 2B reactor, names don't really mean anything, but power level 4400 megawatts, twice the power of Grand Coulee Dam. And something that again, you know, several feet in diameter. That's the most powerful nuclear reactor ever tested in the free world. A nuclear rocket reactor propulsion system, given a few hundred million dollars in about seven years, that will have a man-rated, flight-ready nuclear rocket reactor system. Fusion, not so far along. There was an ongoing program at Aerojet General Nucleonics. I worked a year on that program. They did not successfully test hardware. It was modest in funding. Given 20 years and 20 billion, and they too would be testing hardware. Now why do I mention fission and fusion? That's the fusion propulsion program, the one at Aerojet General Nucleonics. Fusion has also been suggested in another way, the Orion program.

You throw an H-bomb out the back end of a spaceship, explode it, it gives a little push to the vehicle and you do it again and pretty soon you're going pretty fast. It's a classified, was a classified program. It apparently would work. Now I mentioned fission and fusion, not because I believe UFOs work by either one, but because some people say, if you can't tell me how it works, I won't believe that it can be done. Which is nonsense. Scientific progress, after all, comes from doing things differently in a way in which the initial people trying to do something couldn't imagine. See, I've left something out of this discussion. Talk about fission and fusion, because that's something we know a little bit about. But let's notice something. I've left out time. Time in the sense that man's history as a civilized being

is, you know, maybe a hundred years, maybe a thousand, ten thousand, go back a million. The age of the Earth is about five billion years. So our history as technological creatures is certainly a drop in the bucket. But let's notice our Sun is a middle-aged star. There are stars older, there are stars younger. There's no reason to assume that another star or another advancing technology, technological civilization, couldn't have gotten started a little bit before we did. Well, in the past hundred years, we've learned to go a thousand times faster than we could just a hundred years ago. And the rate of increase is greater today than ever before in our history. So if another civilization got started on its technological kick a hundred years before we did, you might expect it could go a thousand years faster than we. A thousand times faster than we. But let's face it. It could have gotten started a thousand years before we did.

If we're honest, we say it could have been ten thousand years. If we're humble, we say it could have been a million years. Who in his right mind can tell us what the technology will be even a thousand years, no less a million years from now? Because as I mentioned, real progress comes from doing things differently in an unpredictable way. Lasers are not just better light bulbs. Altogether different physics. Solid-state microcircuits that'll fit on the head of the pin may perform the same function as vacuum tubes, but entirely different physics. Nuclear reactors are used as if they were furnaces, perhaps. But to make them work involves entirely different technology and science. You'd think we would have learned this lesson a long time ago, but we still have eminent scientists in every generation telling us all the things that are impossible when the next generation goes out and does them routinely. Because they don't recognize that there will be new knowledge.

That the laws of physics will be extended and expanded, not contracted. There was a noted astronomer in 1903 who said that flight will never be possible except in something like a balloon, a lighter-than-air vehicle. And when he heard that the Wright brothers had flown a plane, he said, well, maybe a pilot, but they'll certainly never carry any passengers. He didn't know anything about lift, incidentally. There was a guy who wrote a book in 1918 who proved that you couldn't fly faster than 200 miles an hour. And it was generally accepted during the Second World War that the maximum speed for airplanes is the speed of sound. And maybe it is for propeller-driven planes, but we don't go faster than sound in propeller-driven planes. We use jets or rockets. So I think we need a lot more humility when we try to evaluate what the world of the future will be. And you can pretty much disbelieve any eminent scientist

when he tells you that something is impossible, at least based on past history. Okay. Let's go over some of the trickier questions. We can indeed go to the stars. Condon, incidentally, despite these two sentences, was aware of the published studies that show that it's feasible. Why he chose to ignore them, I don't know. Let's look at the next slide. I'll turn the house lights down a little bit. We'll talk about a slightly different question. Isn't this really the question? You know, never mind the sausage. You see the guys who are driving. Now, I'm sure some of you must be thinking, hey, I don't believe that a nuclear physicist believes in little green men. Well, again, if we look at the data, we find that the evidence for the existence of creatures on the surface of this planet who come from someplace else is pretty strong. Let's look at the next slide. Don't expect a picture of a little green man. If I had one of those, I wouldn't be here.

This is one of the best collections of information. Flying saucer occupants, Coral and Jim Lorenzen are the heads of APRO, the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization. If you're going to have an opinion about UFOnauts or humanoids, you ought to learn something about what people have observed. And remember that the laughter curtain is much worse with regard to landings and creatures than it is with just things in the sky. Let's look at the next one. No little green men. We've got a little green report instead. The humanoids. A survey of worldwide reports of landings of unconventional aerial objects and their alleged occupants. It's a special issue of the Flying Saucer Review, published in England October 66. This is a long-winded way of saying saucers on the ground and the guys who are riding in them. This is the best collection of data on landings until a very new book comes out. So new, I just got it over the weekend,

and we'll talk about that in a minute. Anyway, what's in this document up here? It's not very sensational, if you can say that anything about extraterrestrial creatures isn't sensational. Reports from all over the world of landed crafts, vehicles. What else can you call something that comes down from the sky, sits on the ground, little guys get out, get back in and take off? If that isn't a vehicle, what is it? Anyway, lots of stories of this sort of thing. The best article in it is by Dr. Jacques Vallée, PhD from Northwestern, incidentally, mathematics. The pattern of UFO landings. He gives a little detail about 200 landings that occurred in 1954 alone. 156 of them in France, which is where he was. So he could check them out. And then I asked questions. Where were these things seen? Did the observations agree? What kind of people saw them? What time of day were they seen? Answers are interesting. The number of sightings was inversely proportional to population density,

which is a long-winded way of saying out in the boondocks is where the landings occurred. Almost all the landings occurred after, say, 8 p.m. and before 8 a.m. Men, women, and children saw these things, described them in the same way. There were many multiple witness landings, several multiple witness, multiple independent witness landings, people seeing the same thing, not knowing somebody else was observing it. The descriptions of the creatures and the vehicles agreed. The vehicles were 5 meters in diameter, saucer-shaped. Now, let's face it. Something on the ground is very, very different from something in the air. In the air, you can't tell how far away, how fast, how big. Only relative. On the ground, when you recover your wits, you can make some measurements. Because we have a frame of reference. They're seen in front of a building, in front of a road, in front of a hillside. You'd think that the focus of UFO researchers would be on the landings.

It isn't. Blue Book, Special Report 14, as I mentioned, they threw out the landings with creatures. Dr. Condon makes jokes about landings and, with Frank Edwards, laughs at George Adamski. And that's it. He doesn't discuss Vallee's work with landings. Even though, again, he was informed of it. That's the easy way out. I believe that the case can be made that people have observed extraterrestrial creatures on the surface of this earth.

The UFO Research Institute has investigated some cases in which that was the only conclusion we could come. We could either call the people that we were, who had reported to us, liars. Flat out. Or we had to accept their testimony as indicating extraterrestrial visits. And frankly, we just don't believe that most people are liars. Our entire judicial system accepts the notion that most people are pretty decent witnesses. We can go into some specific questions about witnesses later. Anyway, it seems to me pretty darn important that we face up to the data. It's easy to laugh about, you know, take me to your leader. You know what's the funniest thing about those jokes? There's no leader to be taken to. There isn't anybody who speaks for this planet. Okay. On with the slides. Talking about little green men, we have here extraterrestrial life, a bibliography. By NASA. For a thousand references to the search for extraterrestrial life.

You know something? There is no mention of UFOs at all. You'd think there would be. We are not alone. An excellent book by Walter Sullivan of the New York Times. Science editor of the New York Times. Talks about the search for extraterrestrial life. Mentions UFOs once. The book by Sagan and Shklovsky. Intelligent life in the universe. There's a funny story about UFOs, but that's it. What all this reminds me of is really the kind of sick story of the Robin who won the nest building contest.

And the judge of the contest comes over and says, You know, Mrs. Robin, you've built a beautiful nest. But there's one thing I don't understand. How come the hole in the bottom of the nest? I love laying eggs and I hate raising children. That's what she said. And a lot of the scientists who claim to be interested in the search for extraterrestrial life, are pretty much the same way. We want to look out there and not down here. You see, what we're really dealing with here is a philosophical question. An extension of the Copernican discoveries. Strange to say, a lot of people think that intelligent people thought the Earth was flat at the time of Columbus. Which really isn't so, incidentally. A lot of people forget. That for a good deal of time after Columbus, all educated people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That the sun and the moon and the stars and the other planets revolved about the Earth.

And that the Earth was in the middle. And who ruled the Earth? Man. And Copernicus said, no, the sun's in the middle. And somebody else got burned at the stake for espousing those viewpoints. Copernicus didn't publish them until the year in which he died, incidentally. Until 1927 or so, it was believed that the sun was the center of the universe. And again, that man was on top of the heap. Then we found we weren't even in the middle of the galaxy. And let's hope that man isn't at the top of the heap. But the point here is this. Copernicus took the Earth out of the center of the universe. But he left man at the top of the heap. What UFOs do is finish the job. They take man out of the center of things. And for many eminent scientists who are very impressed with what they know and not enough impressed with what they don't know, it is too difficult to adjust their thinking that we're not at the top of the heap.

That's the real problem with UFOs. It interferes with our picture of ourselves. So it's easier to laugh than it is to think about this problem. Let's look at the next slide. Now, I hope most of you picked up an opinion survey. This is a summary of an identical survey that was run in very much shortened form. What do people really think about UFOs? You see, because of the laughter curtain, people are very unwilling to express their feelings unless they think it's safe. That they won't be quoted publicly, for example. So the survey was done by a market research class at Point Park College, not by a UFO group. Do UFOs exist? Yes, 66% of the people. No, 17%. Four to one, believers over non-believers. The more education, the higher the percentage of people who believe that UFOs exist. The older the person, the less likely to believe in UFOs. Now, a study done for Dr. Condon showed the same thing. The older an individual, the less likely he was to believe that UFOs are real,

to believe that there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and to believe that the government isn't telling us all it knows. As I mentioned before, Dr. Condon was 66 when he took on this study. Has the government been honest? Has it told us all it knows about UFOs? No, 78%. Yes, 8%. Ten to one credibility gap. Where are UFOs from? Now, this is asked only of the 66%. High numbers set outer space, and the high percentage, 30% undecided. Can't read the numbers from here. Have you seen a UFO? Yes. 11%. Now, that's an enormous number of people. The Gallup poll, incidentally, four years ago, said that five million adult Americans claim to have seen a UFO. Five million adult Americans. The official files contain only 13,000 reports. That's what I mean when I say laughter curtain, which is an enormous filter between the people who have seen it and those who are willing to report it. And finally, do you know anybody who's seen a UFO?

Yes, 32% of the people. I hope you will fill out your questionnaires and leave them. Tack whatever information you want on down the bottom. We've phrased the questions exactly the way they did

[27:32] First major segment

so that we can add our data to theirs. If we'd made changes, we wouldn't be able to do that. I'd like to make some changes myself. If there's a sociologist in the audience, we've got a project. Okay, let's go on to the next slide. Now we're going to get into some pictures of UFOs. Can we adjust the focus on that a little bit? There we go. This is one sighted from a plane flying between Barcelona and Mequitia in Venezuela. Intriguing thing here is that we have the shadow of both the airplane and the UFO. The people who have studied these pictures say that they're genuine, doesn't really tell us much about the UFO. But it's not a fake, is the point. Let's look at the next one. We'll go into more detail on some of these. This isn't a picture of a UFO. It's a map of one of the cases that we in the UFO Research Institute investigated quite thoroughly. It was a chase by two deputy sheriffs from Ohio over to near Pittsburgh.

It lasted 74 miles. It speeds up to 103 miles an hour. Two guys saw this thing. It was at night. They said it was as big as a house. Most of them, their sergeant told them to chase it. They did. They were sorry later on, incidentally. They were talking about it over the radio. Other people, policemen, observed it, including one who was coming toward them and saw it between them. The chase went on, as I said, for over an hour. The official Air Force explanation for this sighting, initially, was that it was Venus. Even though it was seen on both sides of the highway, seen by guys coming toward them as being between them, and even though the witnesses claimed that they saw Venus in the sky. We have a tape of the official Air Force investigator trying to tell these guys that it was Venus. It's a strange tape. It's a strange tape. Also, when asked how big it was, you know, how large an angle did it subtend, what would you have to cover it with held at arm's length?

Incidentally, the sun can be covered with a pencil eraser if you hold it at arm's length, the sun and the moon both. They're really very small. These guys said when it was in front of us, we could see part of it on one side of the rearview mirror and part on the other side. The mirror was not big enough to cover it. Now, anybody who can say that something that couldn't be covered by a rearview mirror is Venus just isn't paying attention to the data. Our file on this case is about 200 pages long, incidentally. The Air Force changed the story. At first it was Venus, and then it was the echo satellite that they saw, which is equally ridiculous. Neither one of these guys is a deputy sheriff anymore. One guy wound up being divorced, losing his job, and everything went really kapooey for him. There's more on that story, too, I guess. Anyway, it's a well-documented case. Let's go on to the next one. Now, this is an early type of disk-shaped UFO,

and very similar to the McMinniville object, it says here. Now, this was taken by a French military pilot, and the significance of this photo is really that it's so much like the next photo. So look at this one. This is a very big blow-up, obviously, taken by a French military pilot. Let's look at the next one now. This one was taken in McMinniville, Oregon, in the presence of several witnesses. And actually, this is a very big blow-up, because the original picture shows a house and a barn, and the ground, and just a little UFO in the distance. The comment committee investigated this picture and concluded that all the data were consistent, with this being a round, metallic object, tens of meters in diameter, flying in the presence of witnesses and under intelligent control. That's what the guy who did the photographic investigation concluded. You'd never know that from Condon's summary, though. Now, we can say things aren't worth studying,

but frankly, if you tell me that you've got a round, metallic object, tens of meters in diameter, that you can fly off the ground, I would certainly be interested. And I think everybody else would be, too. It apparently didn't intrigue Dr. Condon. Remember, this is McMinniville, Oregon. The previous photograph was in France, four years apart in time. Essentially identical objects. Let's look at the next one. This was taken near Pittsburgh, actually near Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. This round object on the left, is not a UFO at all. It's the moon. The two boys, the Lucci brothers, were out taking pictures at night. They saw this bright object on the right come into view. They had sense enough to snap two pictures, actually. This is the better of the two, and actually isn't nearly as good as the original. They didn't see this bright region down here, or this streak over here. The boy across the street saw this UFO take off.

It did take off at a very high rate of speed. after they'd taken its picture. I'm not saying because they took its picture, but it did take off. The picture was developed for a local newspaper. The conclusion was that there was no fakery involved, no hoax involved. Densitometry readings on the negatives show that object is a very bright object. I should say, incidentally, nothing to do with the lecture, but smoking is prohibited in the building, and I did see a cigarette just lighted, and I'll get shot if I don't tell you that it's prohibited. Okay, this picture, I like to think that the region below the UFO is a plasma, which is a whole separate lecture on how these things might fly. But anyway, the boys didn't see it, that region down there. In the original, you can see the skyline and stars in the background. Let's look at the next one. This is a color picture, taken with a Polaroid camera, incidentally, by an engineer in Australia,

UFO, building. If you ever take a picture of a UFO, please get something in it besides a hunk of sky and the UFO. There's another witness who confirmed this, citing well-respected individual in the community, APRO, has checked into this in sort of gory detail, conclude there's no evidence for fakery. It's hard to fake a color Polaroid picture, incidentally. What is it? It's a symmetric bell-shaped UFO. I don't know what else to call it. Let's look at the next one. I think we need a little focus on that. This was taken here in California. One of a sequence of four pictures taken over at Santa Ana. Notice the disturbance on the ground here. Taken from inside a pickup or panel truck. A man named Rex Heflin, works for the State Highway Department, carries a Polaroid camera on the seat of his car. Driving along, saw this object, took four fast pictures. This is one of them. Let's look at the next one. This is out the side window, obviously.

Let's look at the next one. There we go again. And finally, the last one's rather peculiar. This is a cloud that was left behind. That's a telephone wire, except it doesn't look like it from here. It looks kind of curved. Now, the important thing about this sequence is that people have checked. He passed muster. He could take that many pictures in that period of time with that camera. The man has a very good reputation. When you blow up these pictures to a tremendous amount, you find that apparently it is not a small object close to the vehicle. The Common Committee checked on these. They weren't able to make a picture similar to one of these by holding a Leica lens cap up outside the car. It was the right size. It didn't look like the UFO, but it was the right size. And they found that Mr. Heflin had changed his story slightly about having given up the original pictures. A story he had told at least 500 times by this time.

His changing the story slightly doesn't bother me. I've talked to lawyers who tell me that if the story stands pat for people, you've got to worry that it was concocted. But things don't ever 100% check out. So I am still convinced that these pictures are genuine. Especially so, and I had hoped to have some here for you today. There are some pictures published in the latest issue of the Flying Saucer Review. Sequence of three. Taken in Cluj, Romania. The second largest city of Romania. That look identical to this. Plenty of scenery. Plenty of investigation to check on the quality of the photographs. Fakery, etc. Hat-shaped UFOs. Taken at least, what, 7,000 miles away. Let's look at the next one. Now this is a map of a sequence of what I consider to be the best UFO pictures. Or the best total story, so to speak. This ship down here was out off the island of Trinidadi. Off the coast of Brazil. Trinidad with an E on the end.

It was there as part of the International Geophysical Year in 1958. About 50 people on the deck of the ship. Including a photographer. And they all shouted, there goes a UFO, take a picture. In Portuguese, of course. The UFO came this way. And then took off at a very high rate of speed that way. Went around behind one of the peaks on the island and then took off. The pictures were actually released to the public by the President of Brazil. Not saying that this is Martian vehicle number 637. But only that official photographer taken in the presence of witnesses, etc. They have been published in the United States several years after they were originally published in Brazil. Let's look at the sequence. Let's look at the first one. It's a Saturn shaped object. Don't mind the red print over here. It's because this was made from a large picture used in a book by the Lorenzans. Here's the island in the background.

Here's the UFO. You'll see a blow up of it before we get finished. Let's look at the next one. Saturn shaped object. Same shape as the first one. Lots of detail on the island. Let's look at the next one. This is a copy of a copy of a copy. Which is probably not the best way to do this. But I don't have the originals. This is a scratch, not part of the original incidentally. Let's look at the next one. That's the last one. Here's part of the ship, the water. And finally, all the pictures are consistent. We have a round definite shaped object. Smooth. Apparently manufactured. That is, it certainly doesn't look like a bird or a meteor. I have no doubt that anyone of 50 companies within 50 miles of here could very quickly build something that looks like that. People do it for television all the time. I have a great deal of doubt that anybody within 50 or 500 or 5000 miles of here can build something that looks like that and have it duplicate the maneuvers of that object.

That is, the change of speed, the sharp turn, the high rate of speed as it went out. And something round. And apparently manufactured. Well, if somebody made it, and there ain't nobody here who can do it, then somebody from somewhere else did. That doesn't tell us why, how, where. It does tell us that we ought to be doing something more than we have done to find out about things like that. Let's turn the lights on, the projector off. Thank you very much for listening. We do have time for a number of questions. I hope that you will see fit to ask them, but I have to ask you one first. Before you leave, how many people here think that they have seen what they would consider to be a UFO? Find it the way I described it at the beginning. Who can count? Or who can see, I guess? I can up there. I don't think there are any members of the CIA or the FBI here, so, you know, don't worry about raising your hand. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. How many of those people reported what they saw to the Air Force?

Anybody else?

Were you happy with the response to the Air Force incident? The answer was no. Okay. Now you see what I mean when I say, lots of people have seen them, not much is being done. How many people here have had polio? 1, 2, no, just 4.

Seven times as many people have seen UFOs as have had polio. And you say, why do you ask that stupid question? Well, we have a whole month devoted to fighting polio. Every state has laws that you can't go to school unless, for small children, unless you've been vaccinated and so forth against polio. It's a major problem. Far more people here seem to have encountered UFOs in one way or another than have encountered polio. And yet we are doing essentially nothing about UFOs. Don't you think it's time we started? Thank you for listening. Now let me listen to you a bit. How about some questions? Yes.

The question was about the Lucci Brothers photograph with what I said was probably a plasma beneath it. Do I know what the film base was? I don't have the record with me. It was a European film. It was not an American film. Made in France, as I recall it. I can find out for you if you want to know. Yes. I mentioned something about anti-gravity studies

by North American or someone. A lot of people talk about gravity. Some few even talk about anti-gravity. I can't really say anything very useful, except I've been intrigued by, especially by work at U.S., by a man who has some notions about collecting a lot of cold neutrons together. And a neutron has a heck of a lot of mass, and a bucket full of just neutrons would change the gravitational field in the vicinity substantially. It's kind of a neat trick to get a bucket full of cold neutrons. But gravity in general, we don't know nearly enough about. Hopefully the recent studies by Dr. Weber have stimulated a lot of interest in trying to find out some more about gravity. But I know of nobody who's built yet a gravity-propelled device except a rock that falls down. We've got lots of those. But I don't know of anybody who's left the Earth under gravitational power as opposed to anything else. Why bother?

What do you mean by negligible?

We don't have any good hard data.

Why haven't they contacted us? You're saying that their behavior doesn't seem to be very meaningful to us. Why haven't they contacted us? Well, first, there are a lot of ways to answer that question. I could be frivolous and say, you know, how many scuba divers talk to the fish? Not very many. Are we worth talking to? How do we know we haven't been contacted? After all, there are many people who claim to have been contacted. Our government certainly hasn't given us any indication that they have been contacted. But, you know, first of all, I don't claim to be an expert on extraterrestrial motivation. That Time Magazine article I mentioned before, incidentally, the other argument made by the astronomers, they don't act the way we think they would act. As if astronomers know anything about how to expect people to act. We don't understand each other on this planet. We don't understand the motivation of the guy across the street

or the guy across the ocean. Who in the world can claim that he knows something about how extraterrestrials will act? I think the thing we get back to, though, to be a little bit more serious, is why in the world should they contact us? In other words, what would anybody on this planet do if he had the secret of the saucers? He'd try to rule the planet. I don't give my five-year-old daughter guns to play with. She's not responsible. Not for guns, anyway. Why in the world would an advanced civilization studying us for any period of time at all give us anything in the way of technology? I'm serious. If you were circling around... You know, if you were a Martian, and I'm not, incidentally. My finger works properly, you know. If you were a Martian looking down at this planet from some height and had computers and spies and what have you and knew a lot about us, how would you evaluate this planet? You'd say it was an awfully primitive place.

They obviously haven't learned how to use their technology. They spend 80 billion on arms and 20 billion on... and 20 million on disarmament. They pay people to not raise food while other people are starving. This is a sick planet. We certainly, if I were up there, don't want to give them any more technological power than they already have. Because how would they use it? What have we got to teach anybody? How to make a mess out of the place? Maybe that they don't need to know. So what I'm suggesting is that probably throughout the galaxy, there's certain rules about getting involved in primitive societies, about not interfering, maybe. Why would they come here? That's a different question, you see. Why would they come here, the man asks. Well, let's hypothesize a few things. Maybe they planted a colony here 10,000 years ago. They want to know how it's making out. Maybe they planted a crop here. They want to know how it's making out.

Maybe they're looking for the coaling station equivalent for the future. We happen to be in a good spot to provide fusion propulsion system material. We got lots of deuterium around, incidentally. Maybe they're graduate students doing their thesis work. Maybe it's punishment. If you don't do the right things, you spend two weeks near Earth. I would punish anybody. Maybe they know something that we don't know about what's going to happen in the future. You know, they could be time travelers, after all, who are coming back here to find out, you know, how come what happened in 1980 happened? Lord knows. Certainly, you raise a question that by itself justifies further study of UFOs. Why would anybody come here? I don't know, but let's find out. And the only way you can find out is ask them. You can find out something about their propulsion characteristics without talking to them. Maybe by making measurements with instruments,

which is what I think we ought to be doing. Why is it relevant to me?

I don't think it would be better to jump on one, is the question. I think we ought to report sightings so we can find out more about them. I think we ought to report sightings so the other people who see them will have somebody to share their experience with. I think we ought to report sightings so that maybe in the long run the people on this planet will learn how to behave differently. And that in itself makes it relevant for anybody. Yes. The question, is it tachyon or tachyon?

Well, anyway, of the, let's call it tachyon for a minute, concept in physics, which gets back to relativity. This is the notion that there are particles that slow down to the speed of light. Crazy as that might sound. But it is respectable to think and talk and publish about them. There are experimental physicists looking for tachyon. These peculiar particles. Interesting thought, incidentally. The guys who are looking for them have to reprogram all the computer programs that were used to check pictures in big spark chambers and bubble chambers. Because the way the programs were set up, we don't use graduate students so much anymore. The way the programs were set up, they would automatically reject any particle that had the characteristics of tachyons. You don't look, in other words, for things that you know don't exist. So now that we think maybe they exist, we've got to go back and look at them. There are a lot of oddball notions in physics today.

Oddball only in the sense that they're new and different. Which is the history of physics. New discoveries, different discoveries. Other questions? Yes. It's the new one that belongs to me. Okay, you're right. This is a different book on UFOs. And it's not on the list, incidentally, because I just got it. Passport to Magonia. From Folklore to Flying Saucers by Jacques Vallée, again. A valuable discussion of man's past history and the recurrence of reports of things that we would call humanoids and saucers, including something like a 969-citing appendix. You have to remember, UFO reports from 1868 to 1968. A very valuable reference work. There are going to be a lot of people who don't like Vallée for writing this book, I think, because he brings in folklore and myths and what have you. I think it's time we faced up to the fact when we dig under a myth, we usually find a fact. So I do recommend the book, and I'm sorry,

I should have gone on to mention it before. Yes. Passport to Magonia. M-A-G-O-N-I-A. The author is Jacques Vallée. The publisher is Regnery at Chicago. 695. Not out in paperback yet. Maybe, I don't know. I mean, it may be coming out, but it isn't yet. Other questions? Yes, in the back there. Wait a minute, I hear three people at once. I've got troubles enough with one. The Girl in the Gray. Who's to say that they're so far ahead of us?

You see, it depends upon what you mean by so far ahead of us. We don't know how far ahead of us they are. And maybe they are just hot shot inventors, but it is perfectly clear that they can do things that we can't. There wouldn't be a problem in the aerospace industry in Southern California if we could produce hundreds or thousands of round craft that take up not much more space than their payload. That can take off vertically, land vertically, make no noise and no pollution. And can hover and can move at, you know, 10 or 15,000 miles an hour. That's far enough ahead of us to be interesting, believe me. So, I'm not saying they're a million years ahead of us. I'm saying there's no reason to say that they couldn't be a million years ahead of us. And that the farther they're ahead of us, the less likely we would understand why they do what they do or how they do what they do. So, even if they're ahead of us, they're going to be a million years ahead of us.

So, even give them only 50 years. Think back 50 years. And those of you who are in science and engineering know that 50 years has meant one heck of a difference in what goes on in the world. From computers to nuclear reactors to microcircuits to lasers to superconductors to lots of other things. Yes. Yeah.

Edward said don't touch one if you see one. Brad Steiger wrote a book on flying saucers are hostile. The question was, you know, is it dangerous to go near them or isn't it dangerous to go near them? You have to... Some people say flying saucers are hostile. Other people say they're very friendly. I got a letter from Japan and on the outside it said flying saucers are friendly. I guess they were optimistic. Well, we have the same problem I was just talking about. If we don't know their motivation, it's very hard to judge what happens. There are a number of reports of people who apparently were injured in connection with a UFO sighting. We cannot say that the pilots are hostile. If you stood behind a jet-engined aircraft when it took off, you'd be injured. But I don't know that you'd be correct in saying that the pilot wanted to hurt you. If you stuck your hand in the wrong place in a lot of other pieces of equipment, you'd be injured.

So discretion is the better part of valor. If you see a strange manufactured object, you don't play games with it. But I don't think we have enough data to say that they're hostile or not hostile. And the fact that they haven't apparently tried to obliterate us in the last 20 years certainly doesn't tell us anything about the future. Dr. Hynek used to tell the story of the turkeys, who in the middle of November were talking to each other, telling each other how nice, how beneficent, their masters were. Plenty of food, water, and warmth. That's the middle of November. I think they changed their tune at the end of November. So before we evaluate hostility or not, we need to know more. Yes? What's the nearest point these guys could be coming from?

A planet or a star? Well, let's first look at our own solar system. People think we've ruled out life in the solar system. And every astronomy book, just about, that goes into this question, says, quote, life as we know it could not exist on the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc.

The astronomers know evidence for life in the solar system. Life as we know it cannot exist here. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Life as we know it was walking around the Moon not very long ago, and will walk on the Moon next month. That's life as we know it. I think those guys are, anyway. What we should recognize, of course, is that an advanced civilization is perfectly capable of creating conditions suitable for life pretty much anywhere. The surface of the Moon, no air, no moisture, no protection against ultraviolet and meteorites and all the other things. We had guys walking around up there. Behaving pretty foolishly, incidentally, if you were a Moon man and looked at how they behaved. That's a separate question. Okay. How about Mars? And some people will say, look, we proved with Mariner 6 and 7, no life on Mars. Nonsense again. We don't know. Similar resolution photographs of the Earth also show no sign of life on this planet.

Now, there are those who would dispute, anyway, whether there's intelligent life on this planet, but that's a separate question. So, they could be coming from a base on Mars. They could be coming from one of Jupiter's moons. They could be coming from our own solar system. Eliminating that for a moment, these studies on interstellar travel certainly show that even with our limited, meager knowledge of advanced technology, that they could be coming from, say, 5 to 10 light years away. There are at least a dozen stars within 20 light years that are potential homes or stars for solar systems more or less like ours. There's a scientist at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh where they've been making photographs of the skies for 60, no, 70 years now, who's been checking the paths of the stars across the sky. And from this data, you can determine whether or not there is a small body, along with the planet. Small meaning, say, smaller than Jupiter.

The paths wiggle because the center of mass of a solar system is not in the center of the star, but is a little outside the star, as it is in our solar system. And when he's checked a whole bunch of stars within, say, 20, 25 light years, and he restricts his attention to stars that have other characteristics, which I won't go into, he finds that just about every star he's checked apparently has at least one small companion. And you can tell from the wiggles how many, and there are some which have four or five. What I'm suggesting is that the great majority of stars probably have planets. And there's certainly no reason to rule out places a mere five to ten light years away. I say mere. If you go at relativistic velocities, the whole galaxy is within reach within a man's lifetime. That is, within the pilot's lifetime. He'd come back to a different world, but that's a separate question, too. So, where do they come from?

Could be anywhere. I don't believe they come from the center of the Earth. There's a popular notion about the hollow Earth. I think we have too much data to have an advanced civilization hidden here someplace. Another question. Yes. An incident in Puget Sound. I've read about it in several books. I don't know whether it's legitimate or not. This is where a craft supposedly exploded and sprayed metal parts all over a couple of people. When some of these parts were being carried by airplane to another site for testing, the airplane crashed and the people got killed. It's one of those many mysterious incidents that seem to have happened for which there really isn't a good story, one way or another, I don't think.

No. As far as I know, no. They did not discover what the metal was. Incidentally, there's a new book that isn't, well, the publisher hasn't accepted it yet, but put together by the scientific consultants to APRO, including a new chapter on the metal specimens from the UFO that apparently blew up over Brazil, the magnesium, and giving new analyses that seem to confirm the earliest analyses done several years ago in Brazil that this was higher purity magnesium than could be made on the surface of the Earth at the time that thing was found. So I hope that'll come out for metallurgical confirmation. The group in Pittsburgh, the UFO Research Institute, has, incidentally, run analyses on several specimens of material purported to be extraterrestrial. In no instance have we been able to confirm that this was indeed extraterrestrial. That doesn't prove it wasn't, but we weren't able to say that it was. Yeah. One sec.

Not that I know of.

That's one where there's, where the information is filtered into places that you can't get it out of. There's a lot like that.

Yeah. All right. Why did the UFO Research Institute stop being a subcommittee of NICAP? We wanted to expand our efforts. Major Kehoe didn't want us to charge dues. It takes money to investigate sightings, let's face it. We wanted to set up a 24-hour answering service, which we did. We wanted to have a clipping service to find out sightings in small towns that never made it into the big city papers. We wanted to buy some good instrumentation and after Kehoe said we couldn't do that, not that he didn't trust us, but he didn't trust scientists in general and almost all of our people were scientists, and some of the other subcommittees might want to do that too, so he said no, so we set up and incorporated in Pennsylvania as a nonprofit organization to give us more freedom of motion, so to speak, and so that we wouldn't restrict our activities to strictly NICAP sightings. We'll play with anybody if they've got information for us.

And also because we want to do some of our own public research, we want to do some of our own public relations. NICAP has pretty much a rule that they announce anything, their conclusions. The information tends to be sort of one way. And so we wanted to change that. I am still a member of NICAP. Almost all our members are members of NICAP. But we felt that the way to do the UFO investigative business is to set up a local organization where you publicize a 24-hour answering service, where you have competent people ready to go out to the scene of a sighting with instruments, ready to get hard data during a sighting, and that in any large city in the country you could set up such an organization, the chances are fairly decent if you publicize your existence and if you act in a responsible way that you might catch a sighting live, so to speak. We've come within five minutes. A comment was that he'd heard on the radio

some representative of APRO saying there was a trip scheduled to Brazil to check on a factory manufacturing spaceships. Well, I've spent some time with Coral and Jim Lorenzen, who were the founders of APRO and the general director and the secretary. And they did take a trip to South America back a couple of years ago, which they reported in the APRO bulletin. I would find it very difficult to believe that they or anybody very close to them said they were going down there to check on a factory. It is certainly true that there had been many sightings in South America. They had good representatives in South America. And that there's some indication that maybe there's a base down there. But I wouldn't at all believe that either one of them or the people close to them would have said they were going down there to check on a factory as if they were sure one existed. A UFO factory?

Words suggesting that maybe they have planets around them and that what we're seeing is the planet going by. This sudden speed up or slow down. Pulsars are an enigma in a lot of ways because they put out far more energy than they ought to. They got magnetic fields or supposedly have magnetic fields like 10 to the 12th gauss. The surface of the Earth in magnetic fields is about half a gauss. A very healthy magnet is 150,000 gauss. And here we're talking about a million gauss. And we don't know anything about what happens under those conditions if they exist at all. So we've got a real oddball phenomena. And there are a lot of theories flying thick and fast but people have suggested that pulsars might be beacons put together by advanced civilizations. And that thought is still in the background of a lot of people. Mainly incidentally because the frequency is so regular. The signal that they put out is the kind of signal

you'd expect to be manufactured rather than natural. They can be used as secondary clocks if they're so accurate. But now they've found some of these sudden changes. So we don't know what pulsars are. We won't for a long time. Maybe we ought to ask our guys who are coming here for a better answer than we presently have. The kind of astronomy that's involved is fairly new. And they keep discovering new pulsars and new peculiar things about them. But we don't know what they are. Yeah. What sort of instrumentation do we currently have ready to fly to an area where a lot of sightings are taking place? Well the institute in general doesn't have, isn't ready to fly much of anywhere. In Pittsburgh it's restricted to say 100 miles around. We've got some instrumentation of our own and we depend more than anything else on access to instrumentation that belongs to companies for which the people work.

[01:08:50] Second major segment

Which companies shall be nameless at this point in time. You do need instruments for measuring magnetic fields. You need specimen bottles. You need cameras. You need telephoto lens. You need movie cameras. You need infrared devices. You need a grading to put in front of a camera to get a spectra. You need a Geiger counter. You need other means for checking on radioactivity. You need the whole spectrum of devices for measuring electromagnetic and other phenomena. A lot of this you can get surplus. A couple more questions and then we'll have to call it quits because we've got to get out of here. Yes. I just want to bet. I was asked the question have you personally seen a UFO? I have a little bet with myself that I'll always get asked that question. Have I seen a UFO? No. I have never seen anything that I would call a UFO. But I have to add I've been working with neutrons for 13 years. Never seen one of them either and I still think they're real too.

Yeah. Measured or looked for the absence

of radioactivity as opposed to the presence of radioactivity in connection with the landing. I guess I'd have to say no. As a matter of fact, I'm not at all happy with many of the reports of radioactivity because people get excited by the dial moving, the needle moving across the dial and usually without giving any kind of data which would allow any competent nuclear physicist to evaluate what they're doing. So I don't know of any really good data on either end of the spectrum. Either that the background went down to ridiculously low values or that the radioactivity was sufficiently high to become excited about. We have a couple of specimens that we checked on that were slightly radioactive but not enough to be interesting. So no, the answer is no and it might be an interesting thing to do if they know how to get rid of radioactivity. We need them. Yes. Oh boy.

If a saucer landed and I was limited to one question, I guess I'd ask, what do you want? Instead of what the hell are you doing here? Up the journey.

That's by John Fuller, the story of Betty and Barney Hill. Long story short, I spent three hours with Betty and Barney. Barney is dead, incidentally. Barney Hill. I personally, personally accept that story. This is a story that was written up in Look Magazine. They'd taken on board a saucer, physically examined, put back down, no trip. Told they wouldn't remember what happened, didn't remember what happened until they were each independently hypnotized, regressed in time by a competent psychiatrist who's been using regressive hypnosis for 20-some years and each tell the same story, three years later this is, of what happened. In a night in which it was clear that they were missing two hours somehow. It was very carefully done. Fuller is a quite competent writer. Also makes documentary movies for the United Nations among other things. He used the tapes that the psychiatrist made of his sessions with these two people. I was very impressed

by the people. I was impressed with Fuller. I've done some studying of hypnosis and it rings true with that. NBC News, and besides they described things, creatures if you will, in the vehicle in the same terms in which other people independently had also described them. So I accept that story. Now a lot of people's viewpoint has been colored by the fact that Barney was a negro and Betty was white so obviously these people are out of their minds and you can't believe anything they say and other nonsense like this. I spent over three hours with them. I was very impressed. So I recommend that book The Interrupted Journey. It is on the list. I strongly recommend that if somebody wants an intriguing story that raises a lot of questions they ought to look at that book. One more. I haven't ever seen any of the pilots. Yeah, there are reports from all over the world of creatures associated with UFOs. What do they look like? The little guys.

They're all humanoid incidentally. For practical purposes they're all humanoid. That is more or less like us. A head, two arms, two legs, a body. You know. Okay. Little guys. Three feet or so tall. Four and a half feet tall. Facial features are a little different than us. Some people who look like us they're the ones to worry about. And the real big guys who seem to be robot-like. Big pumpkin heads and move in a sort of strange way. Look at the humanoids and you'll get a description of them. A motley crew really if you were to throw them all together. But we here on this planet could put together a motley crew too. You know. Take a pygmy and a tall Watusi and a short fat Chinaman and a tall blonde Norwegian and you got a motley crew. All right. No bug-eyed monsters. That's a key point. No bug-eyed monsters. You know. When the science fiction writers cross between a giraffe and a tiger. None of that. One more and that's it. Yes. Controversy

do I run into with religious groups? I'm not really a representative of a NICAP.

But, you know, I'm not really a representative but I have frankly run into no controversy with religious groups. I have spoken in synagogues. I have spoken in churches. I have not had a problem with religious groups. Now I don't know whether this is they don't want to bother with saying anything to me. I don't know what it is. But I don't see that I raise any religious problems in the small sense. In the larger sense the question of who are we and where do we fit in the universe is certainly a religious problem. I don't have any I haven't run into any religious problems. If you want to raise some I guess I'd be happy but I'm curious why I ask the question. Would you expect that I would have religious problems? I should point out

that ever since Sputnik went up almost all religions have come out with some kind of notion that says in effect that our word is the word out there too. I'm serious. Admittedly it's a new notion but all the religions have said you know our word extends out there. We'll be happy to consider them. It does raise some obvious religious questions but everybody has suddenly expanded his region of operation. You know from Madeline Murray on to the other extreme. Thank you very much for coming. Please leave your surveys out front.

The question is what are the values of the religious religion that the religious religion has been established by the religious religion and by the religion and by the religion and by the religion and by the area to the right is warm sympathetic they still are concerned with the logic

still concerned with reasoning but it is tempered with warmth and sympathy for others the individual who writes over in this direction farther down is the individual who is extremely responsive under pressure they can break down and become hysterical and the virtual well whoever who writes down in this area as

the individual who if I struck a match and hollered fire they'd be out the door before anybody could stop them they don't stop and think they are highly charged very emotional very extended responsive I should say not emotional responses they do not use their head in in relationship to the stimulus that is impinged upon them now when you start looking at slants you're going to have to remember that we are figuratively speaking stopping the camera everything depends on something else for example the next characteristic the next trait that we are concerned with is your emotions how deeply and how long will you feel your emotion and this is determined by the depth and heaviness of your writing some people will write so

heavy that all I have to do if I were to close my eyes and go through these papers these signatures that I had here I could pick out the ones who will never forget Sarah Herson's pleasures and let's exaggerate here the lighter the writing the less the

individual will be affected by his emotional response the heavier it is that the longer and deeper he will feel his emotional experiences the man who has rights this way the individual who writes this way will never forget his hurts and pleasures remember I said that the man who writes straight up and down does not show his emotions doesn't mean that he

doesn't have it doesn't mean that he doesn't feel it if he wrote straight up and down and then wrote very heavy like this the man would be in conflict with

himself because he would feel his emotional experiences very deeply and I deeply, not be able to show them, and something has to happen, explosiveness, even to going

as far as becoming psychotic, okay, because he is not able to show his emotional experiences. If you have hurts, pleasures, or whatever, what we classify as emotional traumas, they

have to come out one way or another. Your problems that you hang on to have to come out. They will come out in neurotic behavior, temper, all the way through the gamut to psychosis,

or physical reactions, prowess, blindness, deafness, heart attacks, high blood pressure,

and whatever. Now, the individual who writes... Way down here, like so, we said that he responds without thinking.

If going to the other extreme, he was very... He wrote very lightly, you could step on this guy's toes, and he might clobber you when

you did it, but if you left him alone in five minutes, because he would have forgotten that hurt, he would be... He could very well be your friend, you see? You have to evaluate all that you... All of the characteristics to come up with a valid analysis of an individual's character.

The third area of importance is our thinking. How do we think? Just think. There are three basic types of thinkers. The keen, comprehensive individual, that is, the individual who understands very easily without any trouble, the analytical, exploratory type of thinker, and the cumulative, or creative

type of thinker. The first, the analytical type of thinker, the man who understands very quickly, will

write his ends. He can write letters that are written in N and N. The thinking is found in the letters M and N. We have a needle-like point, which they look like U's and W's, and I'm sure that you've seen many writings like this and said, My God, I can't understand this guy's writing. They look like all U's and W's. Well, this man, or woman, has a mind who grasps things very readily, very easily.

the analytical exploratory type of thinker on the other hand will write and i'm going to exaggerate here for like so the inverted v the point is the exploratory penetrating

pushing into the v between the two pumps is the analytical portion of the thinking

okay exploratory analytical the third type of thinker is the cumulative creative type of

thinker this individual now you have children and they appear to be somewhat slow in

learning look at their ends and ends if they are rounded like so then it means that they are not stupid they're not dumb it just means that they need more information

before they are ready to make decisions to validate the creativity in this type of thinker

you look into the small r's and you will find like so the flat top this means that the individual has

creativity with the hands manual dexterity and gives validation to the creativity found in these type of ends now i said that these are your types of thinkers this does not mean that you utilize

that because there are i have seen many people who have come into my office who have come in and

they said dr keaton i haven't done anything creative i haven't made anything of my life

no talent no capabilities whatever and i see the various types of thinking capabilities

but because of all of the problems that they allow themselves to accumulate

they aren't taking advantage of the god-given ability to use a far as thinking is concerned and so no wonder they haven't been created no wonder they haven't accomplished anything now notice we also have a V in

this so that we say that the individual is an accumulator and has analytical ability the deeper this is the deeper that analytical ability is okay along

with this although not a thinking process as such we include concentration

the ability to concentration along with this and we find that in say like the

word act here if you can say it if you don't think that takes concentration if you're if you're writing this large say like this try it and see the individual who writes very small like this has the ability to concentrate for long periods of time on any given task that they undertake and in addition that this intensifies all of

the other traits if they are sensitive to criticism for example that sensitivity is increased by

this ability to concentrate they're going to spend more time going over the alleged criticism that you directed to them if they had an active imagination like solved and it shows up in this in this writing here then that imagination

is going to be again expanded because they will spend more time thinking about

it okay one of the most important letters in the alphabet as far as

graphical analysis is concerned is the letter T because it has so many more traits that are indicated than any other letter in the alphabet Oh

incidentally don't try I know some of you are going to say well I'm they're going to try to analyze my handwriting up here forget it I'm writing in an unnatural manner and I'm changing it anyway okay where are your goals as far

as you are concerned you as an individual and in what value do you place on yourself so many people have a low opinion of

themselves because they try to place that to evaluate themselves in accordance with someone else and I've got news for you just can't do it or you shouldn't be doing this look you were all born you're all existing to

whatever degree you exist at this point in time and you are all going to die and being human beings as such you all have the same value as human beings there is

no one in the world that has any greater value or any less value than you have as a human being the only place that you can compare yourself with another

individual is in a given profession or a vocation and then if one man here is an engineer he

cannot compare himself to a physicist or to a medical doctor he must compare

himself with another engineer and then he may be better than the other engineer if he has had first of all the actual experience of being an engineer and then he may be better than the other engineer if he has had first of all the actual incident that you took place you have just said of error required academic preparation and more of it and he has had he has any identities or policies or Meredith information at that he has been able to utilize that academic background to a greater degree than the other individual but it just doesn't make them as human beings on the other superior to the up to another if there is such a thing as superiority it is only in the fact that each one of us has something that is unique unto themselves no one else in this whole wide world will ever has had ever will have past present or future that one unique

thing about yourself whatever it may be and if there is such a thing as superiority it is that okay now we find this low opinion of ourselves no matter

how much you may extol your virtues your capabilities and so forth on a conscious level to me if I see this I know unconsciously that you have a low

opinion of your ability to achieve long-range goals and you have a low opinion of yourself as a human being a person who writes their key bars up here is a practical person they are

concerned with their everyday goals the farther up the further in the distance becomes the goal to the point where when you get up here and you are just touching you then more you are in the realm of being a daydreamer now remember I said this baseline constitutes reality for our purposes it is still in contact with

reality and therefore there still is an opportunity all other things being equal of this individual achieving whatever long-range goals they may have a person who up here however is the fantasizers the out-and-out daydreamer and if his

team bar was short like that there would be very little chance of his achieving his goals remember I said evaluation then I how about the person who writes a t-bar like so death which is strength remember the length of it is duration

which indicates enthusiasm tremendous amount of enthusiasm tremendous amount of strength with it in addition to it there because it's slant upward there is optimism they are controlling themselves it's different it's different bow in the t-bar up here indicates a soft an attempt at self-control which means they are evidently trying to control with this they are trying to control this tendency to fantasize and besides that they are looking for something big in their life if we say we're looking for a

boat this individual is not looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little canoe he's looking for a little there oh the

I'm going through this fast because time is limited and I will read these and I want to throw the floor open to questions so that you may Ask me questions on things I may not cover in this, okay? Now, we talked about sensitivity to criticism a little bit ago, didn't we? And we can go back to the letter T and the letter D.

The loop in the letter T and D stem indicates sensitivity to criticism. The greater that loop, the greater the sensitivity to criticism, all right?

Now, it also has, these two stems also have two other characteristics about them,

dignity and pride. An individual who writes a T and D stem where it is retraced without loops

is, telling you that they have a great deal of dignity in what they do and how they conduct themselves. The height of the T and D stem indicates pride. Now, if it were way up here, or, let's say it's three times, but greater than three times the height of your small letter, you're getting into vanity. Vanity is never a positive trait because vain people, no matter how much they have been given as far as gifts to achieve, they will never really fulfill their capabilities. They will never come up to the quality that they have to offer. Because they have a tendency to say, well, I'm darn good in what I've done, and since I'm good and I know it, I don't have to exert any more effort. I had a teenager brought to me by her mother, and she was a C student. I looked at the writing and she should have, and in talking to her, uh, she should have been an A student. All the qualities, all the capabilities. And in talking to her,

there wasn't anything about her that was real, what you would call being stupid, except this. Or this and the fact that she had a low opinion of herself. Here she was extolling her ability, low opinion and very vain. She wasn't trying. Uh, we talked about it, and within a half a semester, the girl was up to a B plus student. By now, I hope she's A. Now, a person who writes the D stem short,

like so, is an independent thinker. It can be a negative or a positive characteristic, depending on how you utilize it. Uh, a person who is an independent thinker will, invariably, go their own way. They will make their own laws and social more depending on how they feel about it.

If a law or whatever, uh, is constraining to them, and they feel it has no value to them, they will change it to suit themselves. They will dress, rest the way they see fit and whatever, okay? Independent thinking. We talked about that

imagination there a while ago, and there are two areas of imagination. There is the mundane

and spiritual area, the mundane and earthly area, which is found in the Y, the G, the

small z, and the, okay, below the baseline. Now, the greater the loop here, the greater

the imagination. If, for example, you see that, then you know the individual has an exaggerated imagination. They will blow things way out of proportion. You may even think sometimes a child will come to you and say, and tell you things, and you'll say, well, the youngster is lying. Well, look at his loops, and if they are big like this, it isn't that they're lying. It's that they take these little things, and adults do it too. They take these little things, they dwell on them, and they create mental pictures in their mind about it, and the first thing you know, you get what sounds like a deliberate lie. The small h relate to the imagination in the abstract areas, the philosophical and spiritual

areas. The same thing applies here. The greater the loop, the greater the imagination. If you have, and also includes the top loop of the letter, capital letter J, okay? Now, if

these two loops are, if these two loops are equal in length, not width, but length, so the letter F in here, if they are equal in length, you have good organizational ability. If the loops in these two letters are equal here, in other words, this is equal to this, then you have a balance, a well-balanced individual, so far as the imagination between the two letters is equal.

[01:42:38] Questions and closing discussion

the abstract and mundane areas are concerned. Now these lower case letters, the Y, the G, the Z, and the, all have another meaning to it, not the abstract, but these three letters have another meaning to them. Determination. And that is the down-strum. The further down-strum in the

it goes the greater the determination and with that the heavier it is the

greater the strength that determination has many people will have very long determination lines but they are very weak and so they so that though

they will carry for a long period of time there may not be enough strength in it to overcome other negative traits in their writing okay if there is no loop

in it the individual is looking for variety and change but they are not

looking for variety and change for variety and changes sake they are not really interested in going and seeing new places nor are they really interested in doing new things what they think that they are not interested in doing new things but that they are not are doing is trying to get away from other people they are non-people oriented they are afraid of

being hurt by others or whatever they are afraid of people and so this need for change and variety

is a really a defensive mechanism to run away if the person right brings their loop back up

they have the ability back up past the reality line they have the ability to bring their ideas

into fruitation they are up in other words they can make them active and productive

if on the other hand they bring it down below the baseline then the individual is not able to take advantage of his ability to create ideas mental pictures in his mind if he does not close the loop

at all he has an undeveloped imagination if he brings the loop straight back to the right life

so forth so he is a clannish person he has a tremendous need for a family type of relationship

even though he may have been away from his parents or family for a long period of time and they may have been estranged because of differences whatever they may have been he still has that family need and he will cling to

whatever relationships that he has with other people now remember i said that many people will hang on to

their emotional experiences they suppress or repress they these problems that they have uh if

they suppress them they are doing it consciously if they repress them they have become an unconscious

habit okay and we've determined that by the closeness the squeezing together of words like salt

there is no generosity is shown by the

good spacing between the individual letters of a word itself incidentally where they letters the strokes are books the letters that might be written when he has some conflict he can't just leave the letters out because of the people and emotion if he can't get past them and put stuff he's not bad because if he does lots of things in that way because he is just not the typical äl difficulties well and obviously you should throw him out at some level and vice versa you shall we agree the everyday is part of that feeling and we know that we can't make some sense out of it but it does little come down straight down to the baseline you see people writing with and they look as though they had put a straight and under their writing it indicates a good sense of rhythm they break between the letters here is an intuitiveness it

is a god-given characteristic it's a gift and you if it is indicated in your

writing you should develop it because it will help you in many of your life problems and in overcoming or preventing a head-on collision with

problems okay now a flare like this on the N's and W's the capitals is a sense

of means a sense of humor if a person would start the loop like so then straight across like so they are

jealous and this jealousy is generally an unconscious thing and it relates back into the past generally somebody some member in the family a sister or brother has been held up as an example or a cousin or whatever why can't you be like so and so why can't you be like so and so be like father why can't you be like the next door neighbor and so the youngster or why can't you be pretty like sister or whatever they develop that jealousy and unless they overcome it some way it's still there for the rest of their life and will show up like so if a person has a desire for a sense of responsibility it will show up in a loop such as this a b or a capital letter r

for example this initial loop indicates a desire for responsibility

if a person writes their g's like a s that indicates uh literary ability also

d like so like the greek letter delta shows literary ability cap a greek letter e

between as a small e in place of indicates a desire for culture okay

now can anybody tell me where the source of all deceit

is where is the source or where does all deceit start from does anyone know

pardon in your circle that's it's in your circle letters but where does it

all deceit originate with itself all intentional line all deceit of any kind in

an individual always starts with yourself you have to be able to deceive yourself to deceive someone else okay now a person who writes their circle letters like so the o's the

small a's the g's and the d these are all circle letters relates to a reticent person this is how you

verbalize or don't verbalize if it is closed the person is lost and must sweating deep and feasting all in order to convince person as the type of individual if I were going to interview them for whatever purpose I would have to literally drag the information the personal information out of because they are not going to get it very readily very reticent people if these letters are open on the other hand and again to the degree that they are open they are talkative okay talkative people now if

their letters their circle letters and including the e small letter e is broad like so they're talkative and they are very frank people if they tell you they don't like you they will be if they don't like you they will be very frank about it and tell you so South Sea there it is a loop on the left side of the circled letter loop on

the right side is secretiveness if the loop is open if the letter is open the

circle is open it is attempt at secrecy they haven't quite learned to be secret

to hold secret secret okay yeah well I'm going to get that okay hold the question I know

there's a lot of questions hold the questions and so afterwards okay here is intentional deceit the intentional liar now before you when you say that in

anybody's writing don't go off happy talk and say haha he's an intentional liar and therefore he will cheat you because it is closed right he is intentionally lying to himself it is not

directed to other people if it is open now he is going to deliberately lie to

you if there are combinations of other people this is a secret and your that is a secret your intention is not to lie to anybody so that has been stolen because you are not allowing yourrell if youșr too I think the these were names a few weeks ago I think that you should have chosen these two words in there and I'm going to use this dynamos what's going on you know seven days back do you want to believe me nothing I'm told that everybody I've been through during all of our family relationships script and accounts I do not want to refreshed before today and I do not want to because he has to because he has not learned to keep secrets he has to weave

stories as it were he doesn't want to talk then he talks and when he talks he tells secrets okay unreliability I'm going to

my glasses I'm going to go through a couple of these to give proof to the pudding of course it's always in the eating right now I'm going to read a few of these and then I'm going to throw the floor open for questions and if I haven't covered anything that you want to know about I will try to tell you this is 99% actions good you can't lie about you can use gratitude analysis and the down way to help you change any negative traits that you may have by consciously making an alteration in the right for example bringing your teeth stems up higher but along with it knowing what you're doing and facing the

fact that you have a law opinion of your ability own ability and of yourself and you're not able to change any of the negative traits that you may have by making your own alterations in the writing for example bringing your teeth bringing it up and recognizing that you have you are the same as every other human being as such

okay and that is your uniqueness your individual uniqueness whatever it may be even if it's

your uniqueness to endure suffering it's if you have that it is just as much of value to you as

uniqueness of having some characteristic that makes you outstanding as a scientist saying

having a combination of uh the keen comprehension analytical exploratory and the uh critical creativity incidentally before i got this it was something else remember i showed the and i'm

and i said i was exaggerating the analytical exploratory well this upstroke here which is unbroken indicates to me and to the grapple analyst that the individual resents impositions

they do not want to be imposed upon if it comes starts way down here then it also means that it has that it's something way back in the past and the person has

problems again on the slant if a person plants in one say one word several different plants

then there is instability here and the individual you have to watch them very carefully because they The individual will not respond to life situations at the same time, each and every time, even though the circumstances may appear to be the same. They generally need help. Betty, go back, go back, go back. Betty is warm, sympathetic. She's an individual. She is moderate in the depth of her feelings. You will retain your hurts and pleasures for a reasonably long period of time, but they will fade out, and they are not too much of a problem to you. You have a great deal of pride in what you do. You're sensitive to criticism. You have a desire for responsibility, a sense of humor. You have tremendous, you have an active imagination, a healthy imagination, a great deal of determination. You haven't quite learned to bring your ideas to reality. You're not always able to take advantage of these ideas that you have.

Also, your writing indicates that you've got a lot of things, many interests going for you, and so some things just don't get done. We call that a conflict of interest. think that okay you are a persevering young lady you have initiative uh you are broad-minded for

the most part there's some areas of your thinking where you have formed opinions and you are not

going to let anybody change it and you will go your own way when it suits your purpose

a little bit defined once in a while okay generous person uh you can be very decisive

um and break positive in your thinking and making decisions although in some areas you'll have a little bit of trouble deciding which way to go okay uh you do like to talk and you can be quite a frank individual when it suits your purpose you have an active imagination in your mind when it suits your purpose when it suits your purpose you have an active imagination in the uh abstract areas and you are generally well balanced between the two okay general person is steady who is lee yates okay

an extremely responsive person and you feel your emotional experiences very deeply

i would not want to do you a hurt because you would never forgive me in a million years okay uh you have a great deal of dignity and pride in what you do you are a stubborn man too

when you set your heels in you make up your mind bang nobody's going you have perseverance your goals are high uh great deal of enthusiasm along with it okay you generally broad minded you

the details loyal to what you believe which indicates the possibility of a good memory let me show you that okay and a small J and the I a person who

writes out let me excite right here a little bit for her like so the round

dot indicates loyalty to what you believe the fact that it is close to the J and I indicates in attention to details I said possibility of a good memory if you're like the cup that runneth over no matter how much you pay attention to details your memory can suffer from it and when I say your cup runneth over I mean that you know it's like a if you have a cup of water and you fill it here you still have room to put something in it right however if you fill it up to here and you keep adding to it the only result that you're going to get from it is that an overflow in other words you're not going to retain the things that you may have paid attention to or thought you did because all of the problems that you allegedly have and all your fears and

your defenses for those fears are going to you present you from retaining the information that you are trying to inject you have extremely active imagination you have the ability to understand very quickly you are you have tenacity you will hang on great deal

determination the strength to go with it you start to have a good humor you're not quite sure you want this part good I wasn't happy today but who wants better food but you should learn bad En lavon you have the ability trough estamos aqui you start to have a good humor technology you have to let people know that you want to learn doctorate human word much better but if you're not going to be allowed to learn, then no date is required to tell the information that you want to study, because without that, if you, your academics, will tell you what drugs do the text, but in the end there is a good humunic you stop cholera you will find the answers that will get away quick, but youá you're not quite sure you want to have that good humor or not okay uh you are by nature a person who keeps things to themselves i just said a reticent person although sometimes you like to talk a little bit okay there is a you are you like good music good colors good food you appreciate

good music and you are intuitively a great deal so and you should cultivate it okay good sense of

rhythm so do you play musical instruments no you should you have the a good line value you could do well in uh in the architectural work spontaneous and these things you also have to use the good

sense of rhythm is indicates you know it's as far as music is concerned is the technical aspect of it the intuitiveness of an individual and if they have this musical ability to perform they have the ability