Live Q and A with Jeremy Corbell and Bob Lazar noon PDT

can't they show some other footage besides that which is OVER a half a century old.....jesus every time those shows come on, you might as well skip the first 15 or 20 minutes because they show nazi drawings, avro car, jet packs, and other obvious human gizmos that had nothing to do with aliens or UFO's

a reply to: zatara

It’s also incredibly odd that throughout Lazar’s expose, and many years after (to present?) Lazar held contracts to service geiger counters to Los Alamos/Sandia Labs. He’s running from bullets and fear of death, but is continuously awarded these govt contracts? So far, the only explanation given is from Corbell, is this is a result of compartmentalization, one hand of the govt not knowing what the other is doing. I’d argue that this is the exact same hand, and it’s sprinkling chaos and laughing at us.

originally posted by: IMSAM
Lazar said this ufo came from an archaelogical dig?If so where and when?As far as i know each archaelogical team has a lot of people working.Something dosent sit right with all this for me.?

He said it was his IMPRESSION that it came from an archaeological dig. That doesn't mean he knew of any of the particulars or who was involved. That's the first time he has said that and, of, course, that has big implications. But what about this doesn't "sit right"? It seems pretty straight forward to me.

DP

a reply to: schuyler

I’m not sure why it’s being publicized as the first time he’s made the archaeological claim. He was saying the same thing in old Art Bell/C2C interviews. Not sure about

originally posted by: InspectaBecky
a reply to: schuyler

I’m not sure why it’s being publicized as the first time he’s made the archaeological claim. He was saying the same thing in old Art Bell/C2C interviews. Not sure about

It's the first time I heard it, and apparently several others as well. That's why I said it that way. We're just discussing it; it's not as if it is getting special publicity. And we may be taking the word "archaeology" out of context. It may not have been dug up out of the dirt, but found inside a building, like finding a 53 Corvette in an old barn.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

And once again. How would you know what is going to unfold
And once again. How would you know what is going to unfold

As I said patience ....just one of the hot news items that will unfold in the next two weeks...

Senators get classified briefing on UFO sightings

SENATORS GET UFO BRIEFING

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: InspectaBecky
a reply to: schuyler

I’m not sure why it’s being publicized as the first time he’s made the archaeological claim. He was saying the same thing in old Art Bell/C2C interviews. Not sure about

It's the first time I heard it, and apparently several others as well. That's why I said it that way. We're just discussing it; it's not as if it is getting special publicity. And we may be taking the word "archaeology" out of context. It may not have been dug up out of the dirt, but found inside a building, like finding a 53 Corvette in an old barn.

Ya I wasn’t referring to you. I would have to look back on twitter, etc but it was specifically advertised as “exclusive! Never been heard before, click to hear Lazar talk about how the ships were found!”. I’m being a smartass, but that was the gist.

ETA: this was about a different video, like a month ago...

a reply to: celltypespecific

I have all the time in the world Celty. 😁

Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it

The only new things I heard were about the archeological dig and how to turn off an anti-matter reactor.

I think Bob said one or more of the craft were ancient, and discovered by archeology. It did remind me of science fiction movies like the 1994 Stargate and the 1967 "Quatermass and the Pit" movies.

It didn't really occur to me that finding ancient crash sites was one way to find UFOs (think Roswell crash buried for hundreds or thousands of years). Boy, would I have liked to be on one of those digs.

How to turn an anti-matter reactor on and off was interesting.

I wonder, if some quantity of stable element 115 suddenly got into the public domain, from somewhere, what happens then? Would the FBI just swoop in and take it?

originally posted by: IMSAM
Lazar said this ufo came from an archaelogical dig?If so where and when?As far as i know each archaelogical team has a lot of people working.Something dosent sit right with all this for me.

Maybe he had just watched the Stargate Movie or Transformers

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Sublant

But I'd really love to see a full accounting of exactly how the full 22 million was spent, and how much was really spent specifically on "UFO research", because I have lots of questions about the claims that it was a "UFO research" program.

If I understood it correctly this investigative reporter Jeremy Corbell said that most of the 22 million dollars if not all were spent on investigating the infamous skinwalker ranch.

originally posted by: InspectaBecky
a reply to: zatara

It’s also incredibly odd that throughout Lazar’s expose, and many years after (to present?) Lazar held contracts to service geiger counters to Los Alamos/Sandia Labs. He’s running from bullets and fear of death, but is continuously awarded these govt contracts? So far, the only explanation given is from Corbell, is this is a result of compartmentalization, one hand of the govt not knowing what the other is doing. I’d argue that this is the exact same hand, and it’s sprinkling chaos and laughing at us.

There is that... And what a perfect disinfo agent can you have if this "agent" is not aware that he is an agent? Lazar has nothing to hide..pass lie detector tests because he is convinced that he has always been telling the truth...and he still is. Maybe I am watching too many spy movies but weren't there scientist, astronauts, politicians killed because they were about to spill the beans about something really secretive and sensitive government information? I do not doubt that Lazar has experienced how it must feel like "they" are watching you and to be murdered at any moment when the lights go out. That scare is confirming he is telling the truth and not been hired as a dis-info agent, The fact that he has been treated well by the government is probably because he earned his money. Everything panned out the way the government had hoped it would be with Lazars help.. and they are laughing how they managed to steer an entire nation in just the right direction with this guy.



PS.. would be nice if Lazar is reading this reply and thinking by himself...Humm..yes, that went too easy and too many coincedences.. Jeeeszzz,...this zatara guy is right, I have been manipulated and used as a dis-info agent from the moment I stepped in Tellers office.

Lazar on the joe rogan show

originally posted by: Springer
For what it's worth...

These guys are genuinely trying to break open the vault of the U.S. Military's data on UFO's.
Bob Lazar has slowly, V E R Y S L O W L Y, proven to be right about more than he's been proven wrong about.

Let that sink in...

He described vehicles that perform JUST LIKE what was captured on the now infamous "Tic Tac" video...
If it turns out the TicTac video was an anomaly of the radar system I will concede that point, but, it will require much technical data to make me a believer in

There is more, much more, but Jeremy covers it well enough in the video Q&A that this old man doesn't need to type it all out (and for that I am grateful).

While I know all these guys and have a deep relationship with George Knapp, and a "getting deep" relationship with Jeremy Corbell, I can tell you with all honesty that to a man, they all want nothing more than the truth to be told.



Mark

I just watched Lazar on Rogans podcast.
The 2 big "predictions" are works. First Joe said Lazar predicted element 115 being stable and Lazar actually said - "well 115 was synthesized and it was not stable…but it's possible that an isotope COULD be stable…"????

So we have also created isotopes that are not stable but regardless do you see how this is crazy confirmation bias?
Lazar actually said he was wrong but "still could be right" and they actually counted that as a hit??? Insane?

His gravity wave thing is even worse. He did not predict gravity waves. He said gravity was "not a particle but a wave".
This was an obvious reference to wave/particle duality and he was saying that gravity was just a wave. Which is also ridiculous but he's talking like we now know gravity is "not a particle" because of the discovery of gravitational waves.

Gravity waves do not tell us what gravity is, they do not tell us anything about the wave/particle (quantum) nature of gravity. They just confirm that gravity is a warp of space-time. All gravity is warping space-time but very intense gravity can be detected as a ripple or wave in space-time. But this has nothing to do with gravity not being a particle or not.
Lazar was very deceptive with this and was clearly taking advantage of the fact that physics is confusing and the term "wave" is being used in 2 different ways here.
Lazar directly claimed on the podcast to be a physicist. He is not a physicist.

He also suspiciously dropped all the technical physics talk he used to give in the 80's interviews about gravity A and gravity B:

"There are 2 main theories, the wave theory that states that gravity is a wave and the currently accepted theory of gravitons which are alleged subatomic particles that perform as gravity, which is total nonsense.
Well gravity is a wave and there are 2 specific types of gravity, gravity A and gravity B.

Gravity A works on a micro scale.

Gravity B is is our familiar gravity.
We are not familiar with gravity A. It is the small gravity wave which is the major contributory force that holds together the mass that makes up all protons and neutrons. Gravity A is currently called the strong nuclear force in mainstream physics.
Gravity A is the wave you need to access and amplify to cause space-time distortion for interstellar travel.

Gravity A works on an atomic scale and gravity B works on a planetary level."

Which is total BS because he is saying that gravity A is really just the strong force, he actually says that in an interview "we know it as the strong force", well the strong force IS A PARTICLE/WAVE called a gluon.
Or is mediated by the gluon. Which is a particle.

His words - "gravity is not a particle, that's silly"…


If someone would just ask him a few technical questions only a physicist would know we could put this whole thing to bed.
Of course he would claim he had a migraine and could not answer. Yes he did do that on the podcast.


Those are the 2 big predictions.
The tic-tac does't track at all either because he drew a picture of the craft in one interview and it looked like a flying saucer-ish ufo.
How and when this got shifted to matching up with a white tic-tac I have no idea. But it doesn't surprise me that that fact got all bent up and reverse engineered into Lazar actually predicted the tic-tac?

He described the ufo many times in the 80's, it was never like that tictac. Never.

originally posted by: joelr
I just watched Lazar on Rogans podcast.
The 2 big "predictions" are works. First Joe said Lazar predicted element 115 being stable and Lazar actually said - "well 115 was synthesized and it was not stable…but it's possible that an isotope COULD be stable…"????

So we have also created isotopes that are not stable but regardless do you see how this is crazy confirmation bias?
Lazar actually said he was wrong but "still could be right" and they actually counted that as a hit??? Insane?

It always kills me when people say element 115 confirms anything Lazar said. Anybody could look at the periodic table over time and see that elements had been added and they would continue to be added. How is that not obvious?

And yes the 115 that was discovered is nothing like the 115 that Lazar described. At one point Lazar said he had a block of element 115, and researchers have made what, a small number of unstable atoms that probably can't even be seen with the naked eye?

His gravity wave thing is even worse. He did not predict gravity waves. He said gravity was "not a particle but a wave".

When he mentioned that, Rogan looked up gravity waves in Wikipedia and started reading, and when he got to the part where it said gravity waves were a prediction of general relativity, you would think it's obvious that they confirm Einstein's predictions from 1915 which predated Lazar, but it didn't seem to click or Rogan just gave Lazar the benefit of the doubt.

Lazar directly claimed on the podcast to be a physicist. He is not a physicist.

He also suspiciously dropped all the technical physics talk he used to give in the 80's interviews about gravity A and gravity B:

Rogan doesn't seem to know enough physics to realize that Bob is not a physicist, and apparently many non-physicists have the same issue. But for a physicist like Stan Friedman it was pretty easy to tell Bob wasn't a physicist.

He's also dropped the claim of seeing an alien, and now downplays it with something like maybe it could have been a doll.

Bob said physicists weren't paid very well. Rogan asked him how long he worked at S-4 and Bob answered about 6 months. Bob's pay was a around $1000, so if that was the going rate for what a physicist was paid back then for 6 months I'd have to agree their pay was even lower than I thought. Like probably lower than the janitor who swept the floors.

How and when this got shifted to matching up with a white tic-tac I have no idea. But it doesn't surprise me that that fact got all bent up and reverse engineered into Lazar actually predicted the tic-tac?

He described the ufo many times in the 80's, it was never like that tictac. Never.

What Bob was apparently saying in the Rogan podcast is he talked with David Fravor who described the jerky motions of the UFO in the Nimitz encounter, and Bob said that flight characteristic of jerky motions was also what Lazar and friends saw when they went out UFO observing. I am not sure about any predictions in that regard, but this is the video of the UFO Lazar and friends saw, but the video doesn't show any such jerky motion that I can see and George Knapp who comments on the video even admits the video doesn't show much of anything, except that somehow it's a piece of the puzzle confirming Bob's story that he knew when they could see a UFO.



So again it's a "non-confirmation confirmation" that like the 115 doesn't really confirm anything because like 115 not having the stable properties Bob describes, the UFO video doesn't show the jerky motions Bob described and George Knapp even says it doesn't show much.

So we have all these claims of jerky UFO motion but Fravor didn't bother to flip the switch on his helmet to record it, and Bob Lazar and friends videoed the UFO but it doesn't show the motions Bob claimed in the Rogan podcast.

Rogan also didn't press on the education issue, where people who tried to follow Lazar's claims found he would have had to commute between taking classes on the west coast and on the east coast at the same time. So trying to avoid spinning such a tangled web would be enough to give anybody a migraine.

Lazar did apparently work at Los Alamos but I don't know why people get excited about that, we don't know what he was doing there and it probably wasn't physics since as you say he doesn't seem to know much physics or worse, the physics he thinks he knows is wrong. Maybe he was calibrating some test equipment or whatever.

Also Corbell still doesn't seem to understand why the "Gimbal" video is called "Gimbal", since the video name suggests the Gimbal is the source of the rotation in the video, and no rotation of the object is required for that optical effect. But somehow he tries to tie that video as some kind of verification to Bob Lazar's claim that the object rotated 90 degrees to move. The point being, even if we assume Lazar's claim of such 90 degree rotation was true, the Gimbal video is not any kind of confirmation of that. Jeremy is trying to connect dots that are not connected.

I posted the Gimbal analysis by GoddardsJournal earlier in this thread showing the Gimbal effect, and here is another one from metabunk.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What I find strange about such ufoos "captured" on film is their strange movements.. Jerky, twisting movements...why? Any flying object in the air has a destiny...is going somewhere. If possible how the crow flies.. unless hovering above something for some reason or an other. If we assume ufoos are using some advanced technology..why is it making these weird movements during their flight? If I was steering an ufo and going somewhere I would consider it wonderful to have the craft stable and going into the right direction. I do not want sudden 90 degree turns or act like a gimbal ...for the observer. An exception would be if I am performing in an airshow...showing the spectators how wonderful my aircraft is....or I want them to believe it is.

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What I find strange about such ufoos "captured" on film is their strange movements.. Jerky, twisting movements...why?

Every video needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

In the case of the FLIR1 video released by TTSA from the Nimitz encounter (which was also leaked a decade earlier than that), the video does show what appear to be jerky motions to a naive observer, and apparently that fools a lot of people.

But a more astute observer will note the commentary on the TTSA version of the video, which points out that the WSO is changing the settings for the display. The change to the new settings is not instantaneous, the electronics take a short time to adjust, and the display can flash and show what appears to be jerky motion of the object, when in fact the object likely had no such jerky motion if it only happens when or soon after the display settings are being changed. It's an artifact of changing the display settings.

So is the apparent "sudden acceleration" at the end which seems to fool so many people. Again this is not a motion of the object but an artifact of the way this system works when you change the settings. Apparently the system works quite well at tracking an object if you leave the display settings alone, but as the FLIR1 video shows, target tracking was lost twice when the settings were changed.

The first time we see some jerky motion as the target tracking is re-acquired, and the second time, target tracking is not re-acquired and the camera stops panning to the left like it was doing before that, giving the illusion that the object suddenly made a jerky motion to the left at the end. It didn't, it only looks that way if you ignore what the rest of the display is telling you that the object had apparent motion to the left prior to that, and the apparent motion to the left continued after tracking was lost and the camera stopped moving to the left. When you graph this accounting for loss of tracking, you see the graph shows a rather smooth motion at the end, and not the jerky acceleration illusion created by loss of tracking combined with another change to the display settings.

The rotating motion on the Gimbal video also has a technical cause that has more to do with the technology being used to create the display image, than it has to do with any "rotation" of the UFO, as seen in two videos I posted in this thread explaining this Gimbal effect in some detail. But again these illusions apparently fool a lot of people into thinking the UFO is rotating...the pilot whose voice can be heard on the Gimbal video seems to think the object is rotating, and apparently doesn't recognize it as an artifact of the Gimbal technology he is using. This video contradicts the common claim that pilots are so well trained they can't misinterpret anything, since they seem to misinterpret what they are seeing.

There may be other causes for jerky motions in other videos which again need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I remember seeing one "UFO" video which showed an unidentified object darting around over a field of blooming flowers, which seemed to be consistent with a bee getting nectar from the flowers but the clarity of the video wasn't good enough to ID the flying object as a bee, so since it couldn't be identified, it was a "UFO". Can we prove it was a bee and not aliens? No, but Occam's Razor can be useful in such cases.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can we prove it was a bee and not aliens?

Could have been an EBEE, thus neatly encompassing both definitions, precluding the need for further analysis.

a reply to: InspectaBecky

He is alive because they want him alive. (Probably a deal was cut.) probably is exceptionally talented. He was quiet for what 20 years.

Talking now because, everyone is now. Greenlighted maybe?