The 25th anniversary of the Lazar saga...

The Lazar story captivated me some time ago and I poured through everything I could find. Lots has been mentioned here but this is my take of it all.

1. Knapp is beyond question truthful, reliable and experienced questioning stories and ripping apart BS. It is actually unheard of to have such a credible investigator involved in a UFO story so early like Knapp is in this one. I can't dismiss Lazar without convincing myself Knapp is stupid which I simply can't find any evidence for.

2. Friedman is a very credible researcher and documented his investigations into Lazar's background very carefully (thank God for scientific training!). You can't argue that 'they' wiped his records because Friedman even tracked down a prof that was at a college and not Caltech as Lazar stated. I believe that Lazar 'pumped up' his resume to everyone he ever talked to...including Teller, Knapp and Friendman. It fits with the 'backyard' physicist type who puts a jet pack in his car. Bob is clearly intelligent.

3. I even find the early John Lear stories credible. He is another guy with an impeccable history and not someone that would have BS get past him. I don't find Mr. Lear a good 'investigator' at all, especially his later work. However with the Lazar story his eyewitness accounts can't be disputed in my eyes. He isn't the type of guy to lie for fame.

SO WHAT HAPPENED???

4. I believe Lazar got a job for a sub contractor (as Friendman found in the phone records). They probably didn't check his background too much as he didn't have big responsibilities anyway. I believe he impressed enough to be asked what would you like to do for work (where can we fit you in here) and said he wanted to talk to Teller about Area 51. He got his interview, BS'd enough and came with a credible reference at a time a deep, dark Area 51 desperately needed help with the 'hands on' physics that is reverse engineering (very different than straight theoretical stuff). Lazar had built his own Jet car and was riding the wave of that glory.

5. Lazar, no experience with an Oath of Secrecy, immediately started to talk after seeing some incredible things with his good buddy Lear. They stupidly ran around the desert until they got ID'd and Lazar's name triggered a massive security operation. Some materiel was removed from Area 51 and later recovered by security agents. Knapp was brought in as 'protection' in a false believe 'going public' could save Lazar.

6. Lazar was given some very stark options for his future. Since he wouldn't shut up a few red lines were drawn for him, one being the actual material that drove the method of propulsion...along with that method of propulsion. Lazar has never detailed it very fully for a scientist that was examining it carefully. The seeing UFO's could be covered up and discredited.

7. As time wore on Lazar was convinced the story wasn't getting him anywhere and his fake background would never hold much credibility. He made a deal to shut up and go away.


That's my take. Now of course there are a ton of details that can be argued true/false. However the overall 'story' seems credible to me. In fact, it seems LIKELY that a leak of this magnitude would involve a guy like Lazar. You don't get leaks from people experienced in secret work because over time they are indoctrinated leaking is very bad/unhealthy.

What I love most about Lazar is how he has said that 1 of the main reasons he has stayed away from the topic of UFOs & prefers people DON'T believe his experiences is because there are way too many debunkers that claim to know more about his life & qualifications, than him. And what do you see in this very thread? Strangers that are claiming to know more about his life & qualifications than him. Go figure.

HE was the first one that revealed the disrepancies about his schooling & previous employment. It wasn't discovered after the fact, like most people claim. It was one of the main reasons for him coming out in the first place, because he thought "the next thing that will disappear might be me."

He has also stated that he hasn't revealed EVERYTHING, he's only talked about 95% of his experience. The remaining 5%, he keeps to himself, because if he is ever confronted by an individual(s) that claims to have worked at S4 at some point, there are certain things that ONLY those people will know, so when questioned by him, he will immediately know if they are telling the truth.


Dude is the real deal.

originally posted by: Crisis
What I love most about Lazar is how he has said that 1 of the main reasons he has stayed away from the topic of UFOs & prefers people DON'T believe his experiences is because there are way too many debunkers that claim to know more about his life & qualifications, than him. And what do you see in this very thread? Strangers that are claiming to know more about his life & qualifications than him. Go figure.

HE was the first one that revealed the disrepancies about his schooling & previous employment. It wasn't discovered after the fact, like most people claim. It was one of the main reasons for him coming out in the first place, because he thought "the next thing that will disappear might be me."

He has also stated that he hasn't revealed EVERYTHING, he's only talked about 95% of his experience. The remaining 5%, he keeps to himself, because if he is ever confronted by an individual(s) that claims to have worked at S4 at some point, there are certain things that ONLY those people will know, so when questioned by him, he will immediately know if they are telling the truth.


Dude is the real deal.

And yet he continues to show up out of the woodwork, usually when he needs to plug United Nuclear.

Now somebody is doing a NEW Lazar/S4 documentary. Rehash of the same old crap. Don't ask for more info, I refuse to promote it.

Here's the REAL S4, located east of the TTR (Tonopah Test Range)
www.topsecretbases.com...

Rather it be a rehash of the "same old crap" than it to be promoted as "all new previously unrevealed testimony."

Lazar has been consistent, the same story he told 25 years ago is the same story he's stuck to till this day. He's never claimed or vouched for anything else. He actually said he prefers people don't believe it because then he'll get hassled less about it; it's hard for anybody to take him seriously in the scientific world when he's more commonly known as "the UFO guy."

He once said [in an Art Bell interview he did years ago, youtube it] that if the tables were turned & someone came to him with his same exact story, he wouldn't believe it, either.

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp


Knapp is first rate as a reporter and is by far the best C2C host since Art Bell. This matter with Lazar is absolutely fascinating. It's impossible to dismiss it out of hand, because, as Knapp has illustrated, Lazar was not exactly an eager witness. He waited 8 months to give Knapp permission to release certain aspects of this story if I am following Knapp correctly. No glory hound would be so patient. And then there is the absolutely consistency in Lazar's story, not to mention the fact that he could obviously careless if you believe him or not. Taking all that into account with the facts that Knapp turned up regarding Los Alamos and the witetapping and its difficult to dismiss this matter, which is why it persists.

I'd like to know if Knapp ever had a chance to question Lazar in detail about the particulars of what Lazar did on the job site, day in, day out. If Lazar was being deposed, one would likely ask him to describe not only the general installation of S4, but also the laboratory or work station he was assigned and what it looked like and how big it was and how many people were present and what tools or equipment was used and what steps were they taking-day by day-to complete their assignment? If I were questioning Lazar, I'd want to know all of these particulars and more. Surely there were meetings and surely someone was assigning tasks and surely reports were being issued and directives given. Scientist report their findings, so how did Lazar interact with his superiors and how did he report and how did he test the particulars of the craft? And, what exactly was the methodology being used? The tests that were run?

It seems to me like there must be more to tell. And those details, while inconsequential to some, are exactly the sort of particulars that lend credibility to a case. I would not be surprised to learn that a huge part of what Lazar has claimed is possible, but I would love to here more from Knapp on all this.

Mr. Knapp, are there additional details you can provide?

Please visit this page for an analysis of Lazar's "physics". Thanks to Jeremy Rys, who posted this link in the comment section of one of my video's. I am undecided as to whether it supports or helps debunk Lazar's "physics".
alienscientist.com...

this is all i need to suspend disbelief in Lazar Physics:

www.preposterousuniverse.com...

Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. [bold]Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other.[/bold]

you see that right there. that is the statement of a Sakurai prize winning physicist; part of a team of them in fact; saying gravity and the strong force are closely related. just like Lazar; only Lazar had no way of legitimately knowing that all those years ago. the feynman analysis for gluons did not exist. the cosmological models did not exist. there was no one who would even think such a thing let alone any publish work suggesting it.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So, if Lazar was making all this up, how can this be reconciled?

originally posted by: wjgesq
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So, if Lazar was making all this up, how can this be reconciled?

this cannot be reconciled with the view he is a hoaxer. it is too huge a thing for it to be coincidence. this trumps anything he said about element 115 because anyone with any scientific knowledge should be familiar with the idea of islands of stability. but no one back then had any clue that this was even possible. no one. yet he stated matter of factly that the strong force and gravity are essentially the same thing.

nothing else about his story needs be true. not the area 51 stuff. his credentials. his employment. that's all unnecessary details. if his contention about gravity is not true all of that other stuff has to be false. but his primary contention looks like it might be true after all.

double post.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

this cannot be reconciled with the view he is a hoaxer. it is too huge a thing for it to be coincidence. this trumps anything he said about element 115 because anyone with any scientific knowledge should be familiar with the idea of islands of stability. but no one back then had any clue that this was even possible. no one. yet he stated matter of factly that the strong force and gravity are essentially the same thing.

when bob made the claims, the most exciting developments in physics concerned string theory, and its potential to unify the four forces

The first superstring revolution is a period of important discoveries roughly between 1984 and 1986. It was realised that string theory was capable of describing all elementary particles as well as the interactions between them. Hundreds of physicists started to work on string theory as the most promising idea to unify physical theories. The revolution was started by a discovery of anomaly cancellation in type I string theory via the Green-Schwarz mechanism in 1984. Several other ground-breaking discoveries, such as the heterotic string, were made in 1985. It was also realised in 1985 that to obtain N=1 supersymmetry, the six small extra dimensions need to be compactified on a Calabi–Yau manifold.

Discover magazine in the November 1986 issue (vol 7, #11) featured a cover story written by Gary Taubes "Everything's Now Tied to Strings" which explained string theory for a popular audience.

link

it's incorrect to say that no one back then had any clue that this was possible - it was in fact the current trend

and the strong force and gravity have not yet been shown to be 'essentially the same thing' imo

string and unified field theories are not what is at play here. its' one thing to believe that at fantastically high temperature and pressure the forces unify above the symmetry breaking thermal limit. it's quite another to say that the strong force is in fact a form of gravity or visa versa. no one did that. The tools to do that did not exist then in practical reality. in theory you could run through every possible feynman diagram but there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of them and each must be verified with pages and pages of extremely complicated equations. and string theory did not provide a schematic of how it could be mechanically. in fact string theory isn't to date good for much of anything. none of the super symetrical particles it predicts has ever been found in all the collider experiments conducted to date.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

it's quite another to say that the strong force is in fact a form of gravity or visa versa. no one did that.

the article you linked to is not saying it either - it's talking about calculation methods

for me the key line in your quote from the article is '..remove the color factors..'

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: stormbringer1701

it's quite another to say that the strong force is in fact a form of gravity or visa versa. no one did that.

the article you linked to is not saying it either - it's talking about calculation methods

for me the key line in your quote from the article is '..remove the color factors..'

they say that a graviton by thier calculation method selects a feynman diagram that is similar enough to that of doubled gluon to merit the comparison. Lazar said over two decades ago that the strong force and gravity were two manifestations of the same thing. that is uncanny. those diagrams are not just amusing squiggles. they represent real world transactions.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

they say that a graviton by thier calculation method selects a feynman diagram that is similar enough to that of doubled gluon to merit the comparison.

yes but they are talking about the calculations being similar - the inverse square law is applicable to a number of physical phenomena - it doesn't mean that all these phenomena are 'manifestations of the same thing'

Lazar said over two decades ago that the strong force and gravity were two manifestations of the same thing. that is uncanny.

i would think the statement is so general as to be virtually meaningless from a scientific point of view

those diagrams are not just amusing squiggles. they represent real world transactions.

can you give me some real world evidence that gravitons exist?

and how do you explain that gluons have colour charge and gravitons don't if there is such a connection?

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: stormbringer1701

they say that a graviton by thier calculation method selects a feynman diagram that is similar enough to that of doubled gluon to merit the comparison.

yes but they are talking about the calculations being similar - the inverse square law is applicable to a number of physical phenomena - it doesn't mean that all these phenomena are 'manifestations of the same thing'

Lazar said over two decades ago that the strong force and gravity were two manifestations of the same thing. that is uncanny.

i would think the statement is so general as to be virtually meaningless from a scientific point of view

those diagrams are not just amusing squiggles. they represent real world transactions.

can you give me some real world evidence that gravitons exist?

and how do you explain that gluons have colour charge and gravitons don't if there is such a connection?

QM says that they do. it's GR that say they don't. QM says that to detect a graviton you would need a detector about the size of the planet jupiter. so there will not be much evidence until someone comes up with a more clever way to detect them.

I as a layman cannot say how a colored particle could lose color to become a graviton. perhaps the color charge cancels out. it could be that one gluon goes through an inversion while the other does not and then they combine to cancel out. Such an inversion theoretically occurs in the mirror sector particle translation and could happen if one particle of a gluon pair went through a wormhole; since I have read that the flux tube for a gluon exchange between nucleons is a wormhole that may be how it happens.

recently in condensed matter physics the magnetic and electric charge of a electron were separated into discrete entities. perhaps the same sort of thing happens to gluons which allows the color component to be cancelled.

a reply to: stormbringer1701


that all sounds like fantasy football to me - or is it fantasy glueball?

Fundamental particles with ground states having J=0 or J=2 are easily distinguished from glueballs. The hypothetical graviton, while having a total angular momentum J=2 would be massless and lack color charge, and so would be easily distinguished from glueballs.

sorry, but i don't see any real world physics that supports bob's ideas

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: stormbringer1701


that all sounds like fantasy football to me - or is it fantasy glueball?

Fundamental particles with ground states having J=0 or J=2 are easily distinguished from glueballs. The hypothetical graviton, while having a total angular momentum J=2 would be massless and lack color charge, and so would be easily distinguished from glueballs.

sorry, but i don't see any real world physics that supports bob's ideas

you don't have to. it only takes a few researchers or one to figure it out. and usually the ones that actually do something special aren't those that think it cannot be done.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

if his contention about gravity is not true all of that other stuff has to be false