Stanton Friedman,"Bob (Lazaar) Lied Deliberately" and Jeremy Corbell Acts Like A "Teenage Girl"

a reply to: zazzafrazz

MM, in the Glenn Campbell article you linked (thanks not read it before) one of the theories is that Bigelow wiped his 275K bankruptcy. Any evidence of that, or did he end up gong through with being bankrupt?

I can't say that Bigelow intervened and wiped his bankruptcy. It was March 19th 1987 when the Bankruptcy final decree was issued showing $270,324 in debts against $173,250 in assets.Long before any of the A51 story became public knowledge.

Bigelow didn't register his company "Zeta Reticuli II" until 24th Jan 1990 according to the documentation I've seen. The talk was that Bob was given a lab, computers and equipment by Bigelow afterwards. However Bigelow's desire to just drop in and control everything Lazar did was countered by Lazar's interest in other pursuits and the company folded after about a month.

There is some more information here : The Robert Lazar Timeline

It shows that Bo-Laz was in some serious financial difficulties for years and just the person that would be considered for, and awarded top secret clearances to work on captured alien technology for a short period of time. If of course there was an ulterior motive to getting that story seeded into popular ufo culture. Maybe there was method in the madness. Who knows?

Bob Staldol, Knapps mentor was investigating Area 51 a full decade before Knapp got involved.

The statements made by Knapp that area 51 was never mentioned and revealed to the world by Bob Lazar are false.

Want proof?
August 19th 1980!!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

professional ufologist



well that proves everything

a reply to: DrumsRfun

This is so petty and sounds exactly like something Corbell would say. Do you criticize politicians? Athletes? Celebrities? What have you done in those areas? What has he done for ufology? Dragged out some old George Knapp stories, repackaged them and sold them as new? What new ground has he broken? Why is it my burden to do anything for ufology?

a reply to: mirageman

That’s not a good record of Lazar. It confirms everything Friedman says and more.

There are things in there I wouldn’t even repeat here.

This is even worse

Looking at the Bob Lazar story from the perspective of 2018

a reply to: shawmanfromny

People were writing books (=making money) about UFOs in the 1950's. So in your opinion "ufology" died about the same time it was born?

a reply to: Willtell

Tom Mahood is awesome, he used to help run the dreamlandresort website many many moons ago.

His explanation for the "Ufos" Bob recorded being a particle beam weapons test, make sense to me.

a reply to: Willtell

It's something people are just not aware of and paints a whole different picture. That trail is well sourced and for those who don't believe a possible motive was cash then why was the "Lazar" movie originally in the pipeline 26 years ago?

June 11, 1993:
Daily Variety, an entertainment industry newspaper reports “New Line Nabs Pic Based on Gov’t UFO Scientist”. Excerpts from the story: “The life story of former U.S. government scientist Bob Lazar that was recently put into turnaround by Gruber-Peters Prods. has been put on an earthly fast track by New Line Cinema...

Link

And that is just one tiny snippet amongst of the plethora of questionable details. You're right not to repeat them!

I guess the entertainment factor is the thing that draws us people into these stories. Because, well, they are great stories. We've been brought up in a world heavily dosed with science fiction for well over 100 years (I am surmising that HG Wells - War of the Worlds first brought the subject of life on other planets to the masses). And surely there's got to be more than just us in a galaxy where there are more stars than people on Earth?

But ufology wastes time on the more 'entertaining cases'. Like I said earlier in the thread I am sure that given enough time and resources the Lazar and Walton cases could have been resolved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet a lot of people wouldn't like those explanations because they are probably not the fantastic stories they've been led to believe in down the years. They want them to be something exciting and out of this world. So the hard, cold facts get passed over and ignored in favour of continually revamping the stories instead.

a reply to: pigsy2400

Actually 1980 is 25 years after Area 51 was made public knowledge. The facility was NEVER a secret.

On May 18th 1955 a press release was sent to newspaper, radio and TV outlets in Nevada and Utah.
Although it never specifically mentions the name "Area 51" it is effectively a public announcement confirming its creation.

a reply to: mirageman


Your link guy says Lazar concocted the UFO scam to avoid jail, that’s funny.

Entertainment is fine but if its based on lies that it's like wrestling. We all want entertainment, a word that is derived from a word that means doing things together. But we also need the truth.

Lazar isn’t even entertaining to me if he’s obviously telling untruths

People who want to believe may watch him, but I won't.

a reply to: pigsy2400

Yeah, the articles are great and should be read by anyone dealing with Lazar.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: mirageman

That’s not a good record of Lazar. It confirms everything Friedman says and more.

There are things in there I wouldn’t even repeat here.

This is even worse

Looking at the Bob Lazar story from the perspective of 2018

This explanation is quite silly, as explained in the other Lazar thread. It simply does not make any sense. Being an ET craft is more logical than this.

a reply to: mirageman

But ufology wastes time on the more 'entertaining cases'. Like I said earlier in the thread I am sure that given enough time and resources the Lazar and Walton cases could have been resolved beyond reasonable doubt. 

And yet you throw false accusations and assumptions on the Travis case regarding the other crew members, completly ignoring my points that do not fit your beliefs. Not good!

a reply to: mirageman

I was merely highlighting the connection that there is with Knapp, his mentor and at one time boss Bob Stoldal is reported in that article I linked from 1980. It's funny, if you read that article it reads like Knapps and Lazars later escapades in the late 80s is alike a re-run of Bob Stoldals from the early 80s. Being chased by government agents and having their phones tapped;

The connection is always Knapp and his padawans....and Knapps Master as well...

Also came across this which is quite interesting;

"In March 1978, DoE Information Officer David F. Miller received an information request from Bob Stoldal, news director for KLAS-TV. Stoldal was seeking information about alleged "serious security leaks" regarding a classified airplane being operated on the Nellis Range. One of these "leaks" was the information that "Area 51 was a secret Air Force installation that has been hiding behind the NTS for years."

Miller told Stoldal that "any information about Area 51 would have to come from the Pentagon." Stoldal proceeded with his "expose" of Area 51, claiming later that "informed sources" told him that a tape of his broadcast was studied by the government and that his phone had been tapped."

Source

a reply to: Jay-morris

I brought up the lie detectors to imply that he's lying.
I don't know for sure tho. But you are right, it was me trying to instill distrust in what they say.
Ignoring Lazar's tests is a great example of my biases.

Do you think it's possible I've done my research and come to a different conclusion?

a reply to: pigsy2400

Ahh I see what you mean. Draw a wide circle around Las Vegas on a map of the US and then see where the majority of the craziest ufology myths seem to surface and who they are perpetuated by. It would be an interesting exercise to undertake.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You're a bit over-excitable when people don't conform to your beliefs. But I don't know what you are going on about now? I didn't throw false accusations at anyone? I made a point related to a phrase that Stanton Friedman (a guy you've admitted you admire in this thread) often uses. That is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which I assume you agree is valid as you admire Friedman? Or maybe you don't? I don't know.

Much of the case is anecdotal. What people think they have seen and what they actually saw could be completely different. What about the lack of ketones in Walton's system when he returned? He said he was given no food or water?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

And yet you throw false accusations and assumptions on the Travis case regarding the other crew members, completly ignoring my points that do not fit your beliefs. Not good!

Actually, I wouldn't mind a thread that concentrates exclusively on Travis's colleagues, ie their personal accounts and reactions at the time and, perhaps more importantly, SINCE.

Take Travis out of the equation entirely and there is still a fascinating multi-witness CLOSE sighting of a craft sending a beam to the ground. The subsequent abduction scenario can take a hike for a while.

Not saying I believe the story, but stronger evidence may emanate from the 'co-stars' rather than the lead himself. I couldn't care less if Walton was abducted or not; a whopping great craft hovering over the trees is far more interesting.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Jay-morris

I brought up the lie detectors to imply that he's lying.
I don't know for sure tho. But you are right, it was me trying to instill distrust in what they say.
Ignoring Lazar's tests is a great example of my biases.

Do you think it's possible I've done my research and come to a different conclusion?

Quite simple whst I am saying, and I said it before in this thread. It was obvious you did not know much about the Travis case, or lazar for that matter. If you want to come to conclusions without really looking into the case, that's up to you.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Jay-morris

You're a bit over-excitable when people don't conform to your beliefs. But I don't know what you are going on about now? I didn't throw false accusations at anyone? I made a point related to a phrase that Stanton Friedman (a guy you've admitted you admire in this thread) often uses. That is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which I assume you agree is valid as you admire Friedman? Or maybe you don't? I don't know.

Much of the case is anecdotal. What people think they have seen and what they actually saw could be completely different. What about the lack of ketones in Walton's system when he returned? He said he was given no food or water?

Knew it would not be long before you turned the belief thing on me, when belief clearly dominates your judgment when it come to ufos.

When did I say I admire Friedman? I said I like him, and he always puts up a good debate when it comes to debunkers, which does not mean I believe what stan means because ufos are ufos until proven otherwise. Stories like lazar and Walton are just interesting cases, but not proof of ET visitation, but that does not mean you should completly dismiss it.

You kept on mentioning about Travis, but kept on making assumptions without proof (Just like believers do) then after a while ignored it completly. Never once said that Travis and the crew ref saw at hovering over that field, but the fact is the other crew members have not made money, not come forward to say it was a hoax, are not close, makes the case interesting for me.

Do I have all the answers no, do you? No!