The 25th anniversary of the Lazar saga...

a reply to: Springer

Wow! Oh I am so glad I saw your post!!! I will be checking in most certainly.

I look forward to hearing from him directly to answer some of the questions in the thread.
(A sort of secret "Ask Me Anything" - nice!)

- AB

a reply to: Springer

Howdy Springer and ATS folks,
If you don't mind, I will wade into the conversation a bit. First, a couple of general points regarding Lazar and this strange saga I have been on for 25 years.

1) This wasn't a lark or spur of the moment decision to try and score some ratings points. My boss and I talked for a long time about whether to pursue this story. For me, at that stage of my career, it was a a pretty big risk to take. I was considered a serious man and credible reporter and was being groomed for big things. If this story blew up in our faces, it would be a major blow to our TV station and probably the end of my career. So we thought long and hard about it before we made this leap. We knew that if we were going to go for it, it had to be All In, not just a nibble. And in the end, we produced an 11 part news series unlike anything ever done by local news anywhere---examining the larger issues around Ufology/government coverup as well as the Area 51-Lazar part of the story.

2) Even now, 25 years later, the story is kind of like an ink blot test. People who simply do not want to believe it, or find it uncomfortable, or who are hostile to UFOs in general, can find more than enough reasons to simply toss it out altogether. I certainly appreciate how hard it is to buy this tale. I doubt there is anyone out there anywhere who has spent more time grappling with it than me. it is a lot harder to pursue the idea that it might be true, or partially true, than it is to dismiss it outright. Dismissing it, making fun of it, is what most of my news colleagues have done, though they haven't done any of the heavy lifting needed to find out if there is anything to it. That is the part that pisses me off. If you don't believe it, fine, but don;t report that it's BS unless you do some actual digging, maybe interview a few folks rather than poke fun at some nutball wearing an ET beanie. (more to come)

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Just a thankyou Mr Knapp. I'm looking forward to reading more. Nothing to add at this juncture apart from I'm curious.

Please continue.

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Coming from you, something to take to the bank.
I have always found this, one of the most fascinating subjects in the UFO lore.
The only question I had early on was, was he afraid that they would try and shut him up?

a reply to: duaneology

I have great respect for Stan Friedman and consider him a friend. We have agreed to disagree about Lazar and we have always kept our disagreement cordial, unlike most battles in the weird world of Ufology.
I give Stan credit for doing his own legwork, for checking up on Bob's claimed credentials. he has written about it, spoken about it, and answered hundreds of emails, all with the same line of reasoning. I understand it, but I disagree.

1) Stan did not discover Lazar's lack of verifiable credentials. It wasn't some big "gotcha" moment or expose'. We reported it in the very first story that aired about Lazar. That piece was posted on this site yesterday so you can see it yourself. A lot of other people in the UFO world and beyond made up their mind about Lazar without ever doing any of their own checking, so I give Stan credit for being thorough. But again, this wasn't a big secret that he suddenly uncovered. It had been reported on television and had gone all over the world by that point.

2) What bothers me most about Stan's approach--and that of some critics here--is the willingness to ignore anything and everything that tends to support Lazar's story. And contrary to what I read here, it is a flat out lie that there isn't "a shred of proof." If there was no shred of proof or supporting material, I would never have written the story, KLAS would have never allowed it to go on the air, and I sure as hell would not still be talking about it 25 years later. I have shared the information that I think supports Bob's tale. People who don't want to believe Lazar--and I put Stan in that category--do not respond, or let it sail over their heads, or they use the kind of nitpicky tricks that debunkers have always used against UFO researchers. If you will allow me, I will cover a few of the points that I consider to be important, and then you can take it from there, believe or don;t believe-0--it is no skin off my nose either way.

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Hiya Mr Knapp

I recall an interview you did when you recalled going to meet Lazar. It was at a house that didn't appear to be lived in. Your impression was it was somewhere temporary. Lazar had a couple of tough-looking guys with earpieces or somesuch.

It's one of the 'grey-basket' aspects that could mean he was scamming with extras. Or it could mean he had some weight with him as part of something more intriguing. Did you ever find out what those guys were there for or who they were?

Thanks for adding your thoughts here. It's a a great surprise and made me smile.

ETA - Dammit. Missed the plane again!

The key for me in the Lazar story was always the question of whether Bob worked at Los Alamos or not. IF he worked there, and IF he worked in some scientific or technical capacity on classified projects, then it was at least conceivable he could be recruited into the kind of program that he says was underway at S-4.
Well, I can tell you, he was there, he did work on classified projects, and the lab lied about it. I can state further that the response form Lazar critics about Los Alamos is purposely deceptive. It is exactly the kind of crap pulled by UFO debunkers---throw out a whole bunch of other explanations--no matter how preposterous or misleading-- and hope one of them sticks.

Yes, Bob was listed in the phone book and in a newspaper article from the time as being a physicist out there. The lab should have been able to find a record that he was there, even if he was hired by Kirk Mayer, but they did not. I have a stack of letters as thick as a Bible, correspondence that passed back and for the between me and the lab and KM. I also made dozens of phone calls, visited the place, interviewed former co workers, took a tour while accompanied by Lazar. this was an important part of the story, and I did my homework, and I can tell you flat out that the lab lied to me, dragged its feet, and ultimately had to admit years later that it finally uncovered an employee ID number for Bob which it strangely could not find until much later, by which time it managed to get its story straight (though still false.)

After the lab denied Lazar had been there, I contacted K/M. The company told me they are a headhunter firm. they hire scientific and technical people and match them with job openings at places like Los alamos. I sent them a letter giving me permission form Lazar to get his file. KM told me by phone it would be no problem. The spokesperson said that yes, they had a file on lazar, and yes, they had placed him in a job at Los Alamos. They told me their file had his background info, educational credentials because that info would have been essential to getting him a position.

Great, I said, can I have a copy of the file? yes, no problem they said. That's when the problems began. Weeks went by--no response. I called again but no one would speak to me. so i started writing letters asking for the file. No response. After almost three years of this back and forth, K/M finally told me they don't have any files on Lazar after all. Now, I know damned well they were lying. Even Stan Friedman acknowledges Bob was hired by K/M , as noted in the lab phone book. If K/M and Los Alamos both agreed to hire Bob in some capacity, I have to think he had some kind of work experience or educational credentials to go along with that. He wasn't hired as a janitor. How do I know? I interviewed four people who worked with him at the lab. they all told me the same story. Plus, when I visited the lab with Bob as my tour guide, he took us in thru the main gate, waved at security, and into the bowels we went.

It was clear he knew his way around, like a rabbit in its own burrow. and Everywhere we went, people would wave or gesture hello, but no one stopped us or even asked for ID. Bob worked at Los Alamos, knew Los alamos, had sufficient credentials to convince Kirk Mayer, which exists solely because it is able to supply qualified job candidates to places like Los alamos, that bob was the right guy to work there. K/M subsequently told me they had hired him, said I could have the file, then changed their minds. You can read into that what you will, as Stan and others have done, but I know what my own take on it is. (more later)

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Well said, George, well said!

That's been my big issue with the whole story. He did work there and they covered it up. Why? How did he get the job there? If they lied and covered up Los Alamos, what else did they cover up? Those questions open up some deep rabbit holes!

After watching the movie 'Interstellar' the theories of warp travel they are talking about are almost exactly the same as Bob described the UFOs traveling that way, and how humans had to master 'gravity'. He was talking about this exactly 30 years ago and it was poo-poo'd. Now its mainstream theory! I had to laugh...

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Well thanks for coming back on ATS George. I guess if you had never broken this story then a lot of us would never have heard of you (or Bob Lazar).

I know you've done a number of your C2C AM shows on this story in the past.

Are you planning to do one for the 25th anniversary?

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: duaneology

It never ceases to amaze me how people will abandon logic and reason to avoid facing inconvenient evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

I don't think there's any need for this kind of comment.

Nobody has posted anything beyond the realm of possibility so far on this thread.

It's quite possible that the Lazar story is true, it's quite possible that it's not.

There's no hardcore "Lazar is the real deal" people here duane, there are people pointing out the fact that this story is not as easily dismissible as you think. We all have our different perspectives on this issue, if you don't "believe" the Lazar story that's fine, personally I think I'll keep an open mind on this particular case.

The inconsistencies about Lazar's past do not mean he is lying about 51 for certain.

When I see people ignoring any facts that don't support the version of events they've chosen to believe then it's a perfectly legitimate time for such a statement.

And when I go back and listen to Mr. Lazar and his pal Gene Huff opening the interview talking about the screenplay they just optioned to Hollywood it makes it pretty obvious that there is monetary motive.

With all do respect to Mr. Knapp he has gained international fame from the part he's played in the Bob Lazar Saga. So much so that 25 years later we're still talking abut him today. I'll just say it would be perfectly understandable to assume there is some confirmation bias at work and leave it at that.

Im not anti UFO or any sort of "debunker" and I would love nothing more than for Bob Lazar's story to be true. Unfortunately the holes in his story such as his convenient "memory problems", his attempts to profit from his story and the faked documents such as his work badge and his W2 form all point to someone who is not telling the truth and has a strong motive to do so. Add to that the complete lack of evidence of his education and the whole thing becomes unbelievable.

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Hello George, and may I say thank you for both your article and this bonus information. I feel honored to catch your visit here on ATS.

I appreciate the extra detail, and you going into more of your research efforts - they are considerable. It adds more layers of reality to the Bob Lazar story, and your part in it. You have filled in some blanks for me already and I can sense your tenacity and grit in going after the story.

I am holding any questions until you've had a chance to add your "more later."

Thank you for being here,

- AB

When I first came to hear the Bob Lazar story I believed it. I rationalized his inconsistent memory, lack of corroborating witnesses to his claims, the lack of documentation. I too figured that if they lied about his being employed at Los Alamos then they must be covering up other things. I had a lot of difficulty excusing away his complete lack of academic records because I knew how impossible that would be, but I wanted to believe so I just chose to ignore it. Over the years as more information came out I just couldn't rationally excuse the inconsistencies anymore.

I'm so grateful that there are journalists like George Knapp who are willing to investigat esuch things and I sincerely thank him for being here. I just don't agree with his findings. I'm not alone in that belief and there are many sources out there who are far more articulate and knowledgeable than I am and have dissected the case piece by piece. I encourage you all to look into what they have to say.

This thread obviously isn't for people like me so I'll bow out and leave it to the believers.

Regarding Lazar's claimed educational credentials----

This seems to be the most prominent sticking point for many people including my friend Stan Friedman, and for some ATS members who have written comments here.

I think it is certainly fair game, and like many of you, it was very troublesome for me and my news director the first time we contacted MIT and Cal Tech and found no records to support Lazar's claims. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he is lying about his college education, that he did NOT, in fact earn advanced degrees. Is that the end of it? Is that by itself enough of a reason to discard everything else? I can see how many would feel this way, but I have seen too much other stuff to so quickly and cavalierly toss the rest of the story into the trash.

The important stuff for me is whether Lazar worked in the Nevada desert and saw the US Navy and its scientists tinkering with aircraft that looked like flying saucers. That's what interests me. It's what presumably should interest you.
Since Day One, I have been open about my own doubts regarding his claims. I have expressed this opinion in every public presentation I have ever made about Lazar. I think it is entirely possibly that he greatly exaggerated his educational credentials. A lot of people have stretched the truth about their college educations. They've lied on their resumes but did so in order to land a job. Would someone lie about their education to land the coolest job of all? I think it is entirely possible. Frankly, I cannot imagine the Bob Lazar I know sitting in a college classroom, studying English Lit or any of the other electives that college students used to have as requirements to earn a bachelors degree. Lazar is a smart guy. Even Stan F. admits that. He is a whiz with anything electronic, knows computers, knows physics and is pretty good with math. But literature or the arts or anything that is not science is a stretch for him. I have invited him--as a friend--to level with me about his education. he has never taken me up on it. I harbor the same doubts that you do. I agree that records can be erased. I have spoken to people who say they knew him when he was at Cal Tech but he can't name any professors. I know (and can prove) that he worked in L.A. at a company called Fairchild, dabbling on something called bubble memory chips. This was in the same time frame when he said he went to Cal Tech. But that doesn't prove he got a masters degree.


In the end, I decided that even if he lied about his degrees in order to land a great job, it is not the end of the story for me. Maybe it is for some of you, but not for me, for the simple reason that there is too much other stuff to support the idea that he worked at 1) Los Alamos, and 2) at S-4. A person has to ignore or discard a lot of other material and evidence and testimony...which is exactly what a lot of folks done because they can't get past the school stuff. I am willing to discuss some of that other stuff but it will have to wait until tomorrow because I am slamming on a story that is airing on the news tonight.

One other quick note. i read on this site yesterday a comment from someone who opined that the book Hunt for the Skinwalker "is not journalism." I would greatly appreciate a quick tutorial on what journalism is, then. Maybe give me a few pointers based on the commentator's own vast journalistic experiences and credentials.
I spent a few years working on the Skinwalker book, made a dozen trips to the ranch, interviewed more than 70 eyewitnesses, including nearly a dozen PhD level scientists who had been on the property and who had seen very strange stuff with their own eyes. I read their original internal reports, talked to neighbors, townspeople, cops, Indians, read about the history of the region, its plant and animal life, its UFO history, oral traditions, reviewed photos, hours of video, drawings, newspaper records. The book is an accurate reflection of all of this work, and while it might be hard to accept given it describes some pretty strange occurrences, the reporting is accurate.
So I ask again, if you have the time, please tell me what journalistic steps were not taken and exactly how a seasoned professional journalist should have handled this material.

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

I've actually been contemplating listening to some of Lazars material but have been on the fence until I read this thread.

After having a pretty close encounter with an orb near shashta I've been quietly interested in this topic.

Thanks.

a reply to: charlyv

Yes, that is the primary reason he talked to me. He was scared to death. The threats made against him were real. It is hard to prove now, but that was such a weird time for all of us. He had break ins at his house where the intruders did nothing but write stuff on his blackboard. They broke into his car one time, left the doors open and the windows down, and left his handgun in the glovebox, with the glovebox door open----just to mess with his head. My phones were tapped.

They followed us around, to barsm, restaurants, wherever. Bob was really scared after a couple of overt acts that were clearly designed to rattle him. The first interview we did was recorded in, I think, June of 89. And i was able to get it primarily because he thought something might happen to him. I had to give him my promise that we would not use that video until he gave the okay. 8 months later, he allowed me to tape a followup interview and that is the one we used in the UFO series.

He was reluctant at every step, and scared at every step. By the way, six different people who talked to me on the phone and offered to give me additional info about saucers out near Groom lake were subsequently visited the very next day by MIB types who threatened them. I didn't make that up, and neither did Bob. The people talked to me on the phone and all six of them were visited and intimidated the very next day. One lady was warned that she and her daughter could be killed. (She worked for the court system here.) All real, not imaginary, not made up. (But of course, it must not have happened because Bob Lazar can't prove he went to MIT.)

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

This testimony of yours is huge to me in understanding the underlying feeling and motivation for "coming out." The other witnesses being messed with, the head games, the threats, the wire tap; all these only add credibility to the story.

I, for one, am very interested in this aspect of your research. Would you say that, in his own mind, it was a clear possibility this was his "death bed confession?" In other words, he was truly afraid for his life, and realized this might be his last chance to tell his story? I know he was scared, as you said, but the intensity of his need to get information out - if it was his life at stake, in his mind, it could go a couple different ways: 1) he could give up the clear truth as he knew it, 2) he could bend to intimidation and say things that "they" wanted to muddy the waters, etc., in order to get them off his back. So a follow up would be, in your opinion, did the intimidation seem to cease at a certain point after he had given his story or seem to affect the story he told in any way? I'm sorry if this is a lame question - you are the expert - I don't know the timeline well enough to know if I'm being ignorant in asking or not...

The education issue is interesting, but I agree that even if he lied about having the actual degree, his real-life skills might have been brilliant enough to land and keep a job.

Thanks again,

AB

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Hello Knapp wow thanks a lot for clearing up some of the things.
Thank you for the testimony.
I have a few short questions

What do you make of now that the American gov has told the general audience that area 51 exists as a base? do you believe the reasoning why they did this is because they could have easily moved there secret project elsewhere?






Also.

I myself also had strange encounters with Orbs and some other weird things which i cant explain. Like that experience in Greece of 2008 a creature was hiding in a bush and as if its eyes were glowing.

Sorry if i am bringing this up but on a personal level it has being making feel weird about Greece when i think of it.

a reply to: GeorgeKnapp

Hi George,

Thanks for taking the time to read through this thread and add some comments.

I have listened to a lot of C2C shows regarding Lazar and 51 over the years, some were hosted by you.

I seem to recall that you mentioned being at Bob's house one time and seeing some Element 115 that he had sneaked out of S4, Bob was doing some demonstration of 115's unusual properties for you?

Have I got this right? If so could you please confirm this, and maybe describe what you witnessed?