Bob Lazar : Area 51 & Flying Saucers... The whole story.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Firstly, if he is a con artist, then he is the worst ever con artist because he has pretty much kept out of the limelight for decades and while he could could made alot of money from this, he did not. This throws your "15 mins of fame" out the window too!

It you do not believe hum, that's fine. Even I am not sure, but do not use the same old b.s. reasons a lot of ufo debunkers give on other ufo cases, because it is obvious that they do not apply to this case.

Lazar aggressively brushes aside concerns about qualifications and contradictions since 1989, encouraging us to focus on his core revelations. A good example of changes to his story is his 1989 declaration of seeing alien cadavers, now dismissed by him as non-alien and just a millisecond glance through a window at base personnel looking down at a small mannequin. In more recent public conversations with Knapp, he stated that he only saw drawings of alien autopsies rather than real-time figures of any kind - mannequins or not. The mind indeed boggles.

Cause for concern? Not for Bob whilst another grouchy Mickey Rourke voice-over informs us of the fallibility of personal memory.

An amusing decision in Corbell's end-credits is his use of "The Cast" to list the people involved, as if we've been watching a list fictional characters. A cheeky personal opinion from Corbell about the film's veracity, or a totally innocent detail?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Thanks for another in-depth and entertaining review, CB. Nice way with nuance too.

Cause for concern? Not for Bob whilst another grouchy Mickey Rourke voice-over informs us of the fallibility of personal memory.

Having known many people like Bob, and having gotten to (I think) a point where I have a good bead on him...the troubling thing about him is that he's prone to hyperbole. Not a great quality to have in your key witness to an event. It's an unfortunate one, because it casts doubt on his claims, but personally, I feel that the other factors outweigh this (even if my logical mind is screaming at me). I've simply known too many guys like Bob in my lifetime, and they all have this quality where they just can't help themselves, but exaggerate things, and then have to back pedal when they realize it. It doesn't make his other claims false, but it doesn't do them any favors either.

originally posted by: pigsy2400

I would show all my new employees mockup craft and all sorts of other wonderful props on their first week, if they blabbed.. I'd fire them and no-one would believe them and those that are left, I would know who to trust and keep on

This is actually prescient considering that is exactly what some departments do. It's only anecdotal, but I've personally encountered situations where 2 separate groups on the same program have had 2 very different intro briefings (meetings to go over program directives, what the program does, agencies/organizations involved, etc). My guess then and now was that it was a way to create a honey-pot and allow information sources to be discovered should details be leaked. In this case, a director could easily say "we had a hit on the following terms, 'S4', 'sports model', '115', 'phase-modulation', 'EG&G' etc" and that would instantly tell him or her which group, and which individuals may have spilled the beans; the beans that they already pre-cooked.

Having worked in the cleared world in a former life I can say that I find a civilian contractor being given the keys to the "big picture" and told the whole story to be rather...questionable. Everything in the black world is compartmentalized beyond belief and that applies to the eggheads just as much as the grunts. If you're "in the know" on a project this classified, you don't just walk away. Could he have actually worked at Groom Lake? Sure. Was he briefed on the finer details of the UFO conundrum? Maybe. Was it the truth? Doubtful.

As for the hand-scanner conundrum: Again only an anecdote but I've never been to a site where hand-scanners are utilized. Plenty of retinal/weight/active-guard measures, but nothing so 80's spy-movie as a hand-scanner, but then there were a lot of sites above my pay grade so who knows.

a reply to: The GUT

Hi GUT, I hope you get to watch this entertaining journey, warts 'n' all.

One last word from me - since I've gabbled enough so far! - is the film's underlying opinion, primarily by Knapp, that Lazar is unlikely to have lied to his own wife, mother and friends about his story.

This inevitably leads us to question his psyche. If one desires to sell a false narrative, forcing oneself to believe it is a common trait; doing the same to family and friends is a small leap by comparison. I'm not saying that's the case, but it should not be dismissed entirely.

As for fame and money, it's arguable that the former is more important than the latter for some fraudsters. Again, this may not apply to Bob, but even Knapp himself says that Lazar is exactly the kind of cheeky scamp who COULD easily run with a fake story if he wanted to. Cuddly Curious George, of course, is still clinging onto a vestige of possibility that Lazar really does have the story of the century.

Plenty of retinal/weight/active-guard measures, but nothing so 80's spy-movie as a hand-scanner, but then there were a lot of sites above my pay grade so who knows.

My father worked on many classified projects as well, and yep, he too mentioned the retinal and weight measures for security. Given the timeframe of Bob's claims though, a hand scanner isn't out of the question. Back in 83/84, I recall my father mentioning a hand scanner at base. (I remember it because he sliced his hand working on my dirt bike, and worried he wouldn't be able to get into his office, lol)... This was overseas though, and at a military contractor's base of operations, NOT the US military, so don't know if that plays into it.

a reply to: Gazrok

Palm scanners, like eye scanners read the blood vessels in your hand, or the ones I've seen do that.

In your father's issue with a cut could render the whole system inert or useless if it was just a surface scan.

I had my finger prints taken a long time ago for a job and over the years and small injuries to one of my fingers they no longer matched when I had to get them redone.

Eyes don't change(if you can still see) and would be very very hard if not impossible to fake

a reply to: Gazrok

I'm not sure exactly what kind of hand scanner is being discussed here, but "Biometric Hand Reader" devices have been used in regular industry since at least the 1990s (and I bet in high-security use even earlier). These are not exactly super-spy-type/James Bond-type high tech things.

I remember first specifying one of these back in the 1990s for a local city's Department of Public Works building we were designing. They used this to verify the city maintenance workers punching in and punching out each day are who they should be, eliminating having their buddy punch the clock for them.

It works by hand/finger shape and configuration, not fingerprints.

Here's a similar device you can buy online:
Biometric Hand Reader

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People


I'm not sure exactly what kind of hand scanner is being discussed here, but "Biometric Hand Reader" devices have been used in regular industry since at least the 1990s (and I bet in high-security use even earlier). These are not exactly super-spy-type/James Bond-type high tech things.

You are correct, and it's definitely not super-spy grade tech (not today anyway, the 80s/90s are a different story). The problem with hand-scanners as a security measure is that they're not very reliable, especially in a field where most of the contractors work with their hands on the reg.

As penroc pointed out, retinal scanners are near impossible to dupe. To be fair, certain medical conditions can screw with a retinal scanner but that's less an issue of counter-measures and more a use-case failure. To wit: a coworker had diabetes and would routinely get trapped in one of the man-trap* entry ways because the retinal scanner couldn't match (something to do with glucose levels affecting the retina?). In such instances the guards would physically intervene and play "escort" (I'm sure they just loved being glorified babysitters).

*man-trap: picture a small room the size of an elevator compartment in which you badge to step in to, the door locks behind you, and then you scan/badge/scream/cry while you wait for the door ahead of you to unlock so you can actually enter a room and do whatever the hell you're there to do. More often than not the weight scale would f___-up and you'd be trapped for an hour while security grabs lunch; hence "man-trap".

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

People often make the mistake that all people are in things for is the money or fame. Purely down to the pedestal that people put money and fame on.

Notoriety is what some people want and other motives may be and are difficult at times to figure out or just not disclosed.

The right amount of charisma is very much a positive thing, too much can make people be hard to trust.

It's not always about the money, sometimes it's saving your own arse and opening other doors or driving around a corvette with MJ12 plates, with an uzi in the glovebox whilst taking a break from building rocket cars!

Is Bob a charismatic interesting guy? Hell yeah, should we believe what he says? Well.. That's the kicker..

Me personally, no.

a reply to: pigsy2400

And as I mentioned before, some people make up stories for reasons that seem inexplicable to the average person, neither for money nor any real fame.

That is to say, just because he may not have made money or gained great fame when he originally told his story is not good evidence that his story is necessarily true.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I wasn't implying that, more of that was the point I was trying to make. Poorly by the looks of it lol

a reply to: pigsy2400

I was simply adding my thoughts to your comment, not necessarily directly responding to what you said.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: pigsy2400

And as I mentioned before, some people make up stories for reasons that seem inexplicable to the average person, neither for money nor any real fame.

No doubt.

Thing is though... everyone loves a good story and sometimes it's the people who are born with the compulsive instinct to BS, who have the most uncanny ability to tell a really intriguing story.

But anyway, I haven't seen the film yet... I'll probably watch it this weekend though.

Not necessarily because I believe Bob Lazar is speaking the truth.... But rather, just because I've always found his story fascinating.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Sounds cheesy? You bet! And then we are suddenly informed that, as a result of this 'secret chat', The Powers That Be, spearheaded by the FBI, raided his laboratory the next day, followed by all manner of other lettered agencies and officials who actually questioned him about his chat with Corbell but ostensibly declaring they were there to investigate allegations of the sale of toxic/dangerous material to an individual.

ROFL. The good old "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

Good enough for your typical UFO believer I guess.

Lazar to me is quite clearly a con. A nobody who wants to be seen as special, have his 15 minutes of fame.

Obviously you know nothing about his story. Firstly, if he is a con artist, then he is the worst ever con artist because he has pretty much kept out of the limelight for decades and while he could could made alot of money from this, he did not. This throws your "15 mins of fame" out the window too!

It you do not believe hum, that's fine. Even I am not sure, but do not use the same old b.s. reasons a lot of ufo debunkers give on other ufo cases, because it is obvious that they do not apply to this case.

LOL. I've never claimed he did it for money.

He got his 15 minutes by appearing at KLAS TV in Las Vegas in 1989 already. The reason that he did not get more famous is that his con was pretty weak from the beginning. Lying about his education did not help either.

Nonetheless he was at a UFO seminar in Nevada 1993. There were rumors of a pending movie of "The Bob Lazar Story".

He attended the International UFO Congress in 2015. And now he has got a "documentation" about him.

Not too bad for such a lazy con.

I have read about all there is when it comes to bob, and listened to every interview on utube, and listened to every show that art bell had with him back in the day. I dont know why but i do believe him. I suppose it has to do with his attitude which seems to be he could care less if anyone believes him, so here are the facts. Stupid thing is with alot of this stuff you either believe it happened or you dont.

This was terrific to watch.

Mickey Rourke getting 4th billing made me chuckle.

I would gladly volunteer to go through and organize the Silver Fox's office, not just to get my hands on decades of research but because the obsessive compulsive clean Virgo in me had a minor meltdown and the sight of his jumbled mess.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

You're a Virgo too?

originally posted by: saltlick
I have read about all there is when it comes to bob, and listened to every interview on utube, and listened to every show that art bell had with him back in the day. I dont know why but i do believe him. I suppose it has to do with his attitude which seems to be he could care less if anyone believes him, so here are the facts. Stupid thing is with alot of this stuff you either believe it happened or you dont.

I think that is called cognitive bias. You want to believe him.

It is something that I've noticed a lot observing UFO believers. The belief in a story is reinforced by seeing the story teller, the witness, in a positive light. The typical witness is an incredibly credible and honest person. Often he is also seen as a keen or trained observer.

I find that somehow fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

a reply to: moebius

The same goes for films, whether you realise it or not, you find yourself getting behind the protagonist (good guy) subconsciously. There are only a few films that very cleverly use this and reveal at the end, that who you thought was the good guy, is actually the antagonist.