 It's time for the Lorne Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Lorne Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lorne Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lorne Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lorne Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Henry Haslett, contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Dr. Willie Lay, renowned scientist and author of Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Dr. Lay, we're very happy to have you at the Chronoscope this evening, and we're hoping you can help us throw some light on this great mystery of the so-called flying saucers. That's so many people claim to be seeing. Now, first, do you really believe there are such things as flying saucers, and what are they? Well, I believe that people are seeing something. Just what it is is a different question. I have been following the reports on flying saucers quite carefully ever since they first came out about five years ago. And my personal breakdown, which may differ from those of other people, is that about 85% of all the reports are simple mistakes of things which would be known to experts if they happen to see them. You mean mistaken interpretations? Mistaken interpretations. And that only about 15% are, well, let's say, mysterious. Well, it's that 15%, of course, that we are terrifically interested in. That is the 15% we have to worry about, yes. Now, that's the 15% that... Do you have an explanation for that 15%? Unfortunately, not only one. People have advanced four different explanations for this 15%. The other 85% are mistaken sightings of meteorological balloons, skyhook balloons, et cetera, et cetera. The four explanations advanced were number one, which was the most pleasing to believe, that they were secret experiments of our armed forces. This explanation has to be considered obsolete because the armed forces, A, have repeatedly declared that they are not of their making, the flying saucers. And B, it would be highly unlikely that one branch of the government spends money, time, effort and machinery on investigating something done by another branch of the government. The second explanation advanced by some were that they were secret experiments of the Russians. This is unlikely. I can't tell you without looking it up how many square miles there are in the United States. But I do know that the Russians have three times as many square miles in which to make secret experiments. You mean they would have their own flying saucers all over the world? They would have them over their own territory. Well, how about there being equipped with photographic instruments or something of that sort? Well, most reports insist that the flying saucers are quite high. And what you could see from the attitudes at which they are supposed to fly isn't worth reporting. Well, you eliminate two things. Number one, you are convinced that they are not caused by something our own government is doing. Number one, you are convinced that they are not Russian. Right. Now, number three, what do they mean? Number three is a widely publicized belief that they are of interplanetary origin. Well, I notice a good many or several rather reputable people think that they may be of interplanetary origin. What do you think of that, sir? Well, I am not principally opposed to an alien spaceship landing tomorrow and teaching us a lot of things which we can't do ourselves yet, but I don't think the flying saucers are it. And by this remark, I mean I do not rule out that there are alien spaceships flying around somewhere, but I don't think they have visited us yet. Now, what's your thinking along that line? Why do you think that they cannot be interplanetary spaceships? For, in the first place, the fact which is often stressed that they are completely noiseless, no matter how advanced somebody else's engineering might be, it is impossible to shove a massive structure at high speeds through the atmosphere without making some noise. A very simple example, the well-known noise of artillery projectiles when they move. They have no motor in them that makes noise. It's their movement through the air that does. So this noiselessness is one that rules out. Nor a fast travel through the air that's noiseless is scientifically impossible. Something which I can't see, that's right. Secondly, most of the estimates of the flying saucers, the size estimates, run to about 100 feet in diameter. This is far too small for anything to make such a long trip as the distance between planets. At this moment, Mars is still in the sky invisible and is 80 million miles away. And for anything that has to make a trip of 80 million miles, I wouldn't be satisfied with the diameter of 100 feet. Well, then you think these are natural phenomena? That is the fourth explanation which is left out of a natural phenomenon. Now I like to stress one point here. Flying saucers are not new. If you have the necessary time and patience to reach through all old files of magazines, especially meteorological magazines, you will find reports in them which by now would be labeled flying saucers. They weren't labeled flying saucers. Flying saucers is just a new name for something that's been seen for a long time. Which has on and off at long intervals been seen for a long time. So this ties in with the idea that it might be a natural phenomenon which either escaped attention in the past because fewer people looked into the sky or it's which actually was rare. For example, a hurricane is a natural phenomenon well known to everybody, but you don't have a certain set number of hurricanes per year. It differs. Briefly, what are the other explainable errors, the misinterpretations you say that accounts for about 85% of the mentioned meteorites? Misinterpretations. The main culprit in that respect are of course the so-called skyhook balloons, large plastic balloons about 100 feet tall would carry instrumentation, 70 pounds of it. As a matter of fact, the people who operate the skyhook balloons in several cases have been able to trace lost balloons by searching the newspapers for flying saucer reports. Now these skyhook balloons are operated by our own government. By the Navy. By the Navy. And they are sent up to what altitude? Generally to about 100,000 feet. Sometimes they go a little bit higher. Around 100,000 feet. Occasionally one of them gets loose. Very often it gets loose on purpose. The instruments are connected with a parachute to the balloon. And this connection then is broken so that the instruments drift to the ground by parachute and the empty balloon is permitted to drift off because it couldn't be reused anyway. Well now as our own government, our own defense department taking the balloon reports, I mean the flying saucer reports seriously. They have to. After all, the Air Force, which is the one which is investigating is charged with the defense of our skies. So if there's anything in the skies which they don't know and cannot account for it makes them understandably uneasy. What percentage of these reports do they think are hoaxes or the reports of people who just want publicity or something of that sort? The feeling seems to be that this isn't this worst the case several years ago but not anymore. Because right now if you report having seen a flying saucer you open yourself up to ridicule too. Which is something which is deplored by the Air Force because they want as many reports as possible in order to draw a conclusion. In other words, members of our audience who might for one reason or another see a flying saucer can make the reports to the Air Force and be rendering a service now and not invite ridicules. They certainly would. As a matter of fact, now this is not... I am not absolutely sure about that but I think their names are kept secret if requested. What about the chances of building our own flying saucers, building our own spaceships? Yes, but they wouldn't be flying saucers. They would have the well-known rocket shape which is known to everybody in the audience from countless newsreels showing we two take-offs and similar things. The problem of space travel to take the whole complex has progressed by now to a point where there is only one large problem left and that is financing. When you say space travel is solved, what extent is it solved? What has been solved? Well, we know how... Let's start at the tail end of the spaceship which is the rocket motor. We now know how to build a well-functioning rocket motor of almost any size that should be needed. We have well-functioning methods for steering a rocket when it is in flight. We know what fuels are best suited for specific uses. And now moving farther up, we know what the cabin of a spaceship should look like and what the medical problems involved are. And we have for unmanned rockets all the instrumentation which will be required. Well, now you say that only money is required, doctor. In your lifetime, do you expect to see some space travel? Yes, I hope so. As a matter of fact, I am practically certain. And you think that as a citizen and a scientist, do you think that there should be some organized effort in our own country to promote this type of study and this type of scientific investigation? Yes, I do so. It would be very useful, not only from a cultural point of view for scientific reasons, but it also has military value. The military value is what gives it urgency. So you think that it might be well if we had a national academy or something of that sort that was actually studying this place? The best would be to set up a special agency similar to the Atomic Energy Commission to do the actual work. Well, doctor, I'm sure that our audience has very much appreciated your views tonight. Thank you for being with us. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was Dr. Willie Lay, renowned scientist and author of Rockets, Missiles and Space Travel. A resistently superior manufacturer alone has made Long Jean the world's most honored watch. Never in 86 years of business has Long Jean deviated from its avowed policy of making the finest watch possible by precision production methods. Thus, at world's fairs and international expositions, in competition with the products of the world's finest watchmakers, Long Jean watches have consistently won highest honors, including 10 world's fair grand prizes and 28 gold medal awards. And in the competitive accuracy trials at the great government observatories, Long Jean watches have won innumerable prizes, bulletins, and awards of merit. In view of the demonstrated superiority of Long Jean watches, it is remarkable that Long Jean watches can be produced for as little as $71.50, less in fact than the price of many watches of little distinction. So when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, remember, when you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Long Jean. Why not insist on getting a Long Jean? The world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Long Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Long Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Long Jean. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Long Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Long Jean Wittner Watches.