Found 707 results
2m16s
Mr. Borden, during your investigation into Dr. Oppenheimer, did you reach certain conclusions? - I did. - And did there come a time when you expressed those conclusions in a letter to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? - BORDEN: That is correct. - Prior to the writing of the letter, did you discuss the writing of the letter with anybody attached to the Atomic Energy Commission? I did not. ROBB: Thanks, and do you have a copy of the letter? BORDEN: I have one in front of me. Would you please be so kind as to read it, sir? BORDEN: "Dear Mr. Hoover, the purpose of this letter is to state..." GARRISON: Uh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, if I could have a... What is the purpose of the delay? He's simply gonna read the letter. (scoffs) Mr. Chairman, this is the first I've seen of this letter, and I see statements here, uh, at least one, of a kind that I don't think anyone would like to see go into the record. These are accusations that have not previously been made. That are not part of the indictment from Nichols. Accusations of a kind that I don't think belong here. The witness wrote this letter on his own initiative, laying out evidence that has already been before the board. His conclusions are valid testimony, just like the... the positive conclusions of friends of Dr. Oppenheimer. It cuts both ways. How long has Counsel been in possession of this letter? I don't think I should be subject to cross-examination by you, Mr. Garrison. GRAY: Mr. Garrison, given that we on the board have all read the letter, wouldn't it be better to have it in the record? Let's proceed. (tense music playing) BORDEN: "Dear Mr. Hoover, "the purpose of this letter is to state my opinion "based upon years of study "of the available classified evidence, "that more probably than not, "J. Robert Oppenheimer is an agent of the Soviet Union. "The following conclusions are justified. "One, between 1929 and 1942, more probably than not, "J. Robert Oppenheimer "was a sufficiently hardened Communist, "that he volunteered information to the Soviets. "Two, more probably than not, "he has since been functioning as an espionage agent. "Three, more probably than not, "he has since acted under a Soviet directive in influencing United States military policy..." I'm sorry, Robert. BORDEN: "atomic energy, intelligence - and diplomatic policy." - Is anyone ever going to tell the truth about what's happening here? CHAIRMAN MAGNUSON: We will now hear from Dr. David Hill. (soft suspenseful music plays)
Oppenheimer
1m17s
ROBB: After the Russian A-bomb test, did Dr. Lawrence come to see you about the hydrogen bomb? You'd be better off asking him. Well, I fully intend to. Would you say that Dr. Oppenheimer was unalterably opposed to the H-bomb? No, he-he thought that a fusion program would come at the expense of our awfully good fission program. But that proved not to be the case. In the event both could be done. Suppose that this board did not feel satisfied that in his testimony here, Dr. Oppenheimer had been wholly truthful. What would you say whether or not he should be cleared? Why go through all this against a man who has accomplished what Dr. Oppenheimer has? Look at his record. We have an A-bomb and a whole series of it. We have a whole series of Super bombs. What more do you want? Mermaids? TELLER: But I've known Secretary Strauss for many years, and I feel it a necessity to express the warm support for science and scientists Lewis has shown. We'll break now, unless there's any immediate business. STRAUSS: Senator, I'd like to once again request that we're furnished with a list of witnesses. And I will remind the nominee that we don't always have that information in advance. We do know that Dr. Hill will be here after lunch. Mr. Chairman, our next scheduled witness, Dr. Lawrence, has apparently come down with colitis.
Oppenheimer
50.8s
Uh, there aren't any big enough. Perhaps a vital war plant with workers housed nearby. And we could issue a warning to reduce civilian casualties. They'd send everything they have up against us, and I'd be up in that plane. But if we announce it and it fails to go off, we'd scupper any chance of a Japanese surrender. Is there no way to demonstrate a bomb to Japan to provoke surrender? We intend to demonstrate it in the most unambiguous terms. Twice. Once to show the weapon's power and a second to show that we can keep doing this until they surrender. We have a list of 12 cities to choose from... Sorry, 11. I've taken Kyoto off the list due to its cultural significance to the Japanese people. Also, my wife and I honeymooned there. It's a magnificent city.
Oppenheimer
43.1s
FRANK: Ground zero observation posts at 10,000 yards north, south and west. - Where do we trigger from? - Uh, south 10,000. And base camp is ten miles south, here. And there's a further observation post on-on that hill 20 miles away. What's that, Frank? Trigger lines already went in. The Air Force requested a line of lights for their B-29. What B-29? Our bomb's on the tower. FRANK: They want to use the test to confirm a safe operating distance. That's risky. Not as risky as dropping one over Japan and hoping that we were right about the blast radius. Don't let them slow us down, we're firing on the 15th. - The 15th? That's not... - GROVES: The 15th. The 15th.
Oppenheimer