Bob Lazar Colleague Possibly Identified?

a reply to: Case74282

His question about the image analysis and peer review is a sensible and logical one, as are his conclusions regarding whether the images after the enhancements show anything that backs up your claims.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I have not made any claims. I posted facts about security clearances and proved that poster does not know what they are talking about regarding security clearances.

All either of you need to do is to post similar evidence refuting A51's very detailed analysis of the Lazar footage and present an alternative scenario that explains what Lazar filmed. It is that simple. In lieu of continuing to play the lazy card. As per usual with regards to people who claim they are skeptics what we typically find is they are lazy people who take the lazy route with unsubstantiated opinions.

Just present an alternative set of evidence that backs your opinion, otherwise move on as they say.

a reply to: Case74282

Actually i know exactly whats in those photos and no i wont discuss it on the internet or to anybody who doesnt need to know about it. But i am having fun watching you guys shoehorn your personal fantasies of what you want it to be along with your baseless conjecture onto the imagery. Call me lazy or my opinion unsubstantiated all you want. Doesn't change anything.

Anyways i notice nobody's answered hawguys reasonable question about all the peer reviewed acclaim that image analysis has received.

a reply to: Case74282

It's quite alright Case. I am quite used to debating and answering questions about Bob's case.

The questions repeated by BASS are indeed reasonable ones from the skeptic side.

However the answers to those questions will not be forthcoming until Hawk stops playing hit and run debate.

I am quite sure that Sir Isaac will back me up on accepted procedure in public debate.

The way it works is one side presents theories and evidence to support their claim , then the other side either concedes the point or tries to present further evidence to refute it.

If either party ignores the response and races ahead to present a new point, they are considered to have lost the previous point by default.

Personally I give anyone a chance and time to respond, and if they do not do so, I consider them to be a hit and run debater and end my conversation with them.

The 2 main motivations I have seen by such people is either they are scared he is right (as Bob has mentioned why some people obsess about his answers not using the exact same wording every time) or as in Hawks case a huge fear of being shown wrong about ANYTHING at any time, which apparently would be a huge blow to his inflated ego.

Anyway I do not debate to change my opponents mind, which is a fools errand, but instead do so for the benefit of the readers who can easily spot hit and run debaters, which you correctly have.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

That certainly is a hollow boast as you mentioned Bass, and it certainly doesn't matter as you said, considering you never visited Area 51 during the window of opportunity to personally see these craft as I have.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Haha I'm wrong all the time. Don't be mistaken.

And I'm not an expert at much, but I am quite experienced in decoding BS.

Your cloak and dagger act is uncharacteristic of someone with nothing to hide.

Is everyone aware that your analysis of lazar's videos is based on a bootleg recording of the original I-team tv spot? How are you able to verify that the original recordings furnished to Knapp were untampered? Oh right, Bob says what you have is accurate. We can trust him.

Why haven't you submitted your analysis to peer review by other experts in the field. If what you have is correct, it changes the dang world forever. Unequivocal proof that there are antimatter propelled saucers being flown by the government. Why haven't you sold it to TTSA? You should be trying to get your videos on the front page of the news.

But instead it's all about how only you had the cajones to drive into the desert and see what you saw. To me it seems like you are just looking for praise and wanting to be the center of attention.

I can go on a lot longer, but this thread has gone completely off topic. We don't need to make this thread about an individual poster any more than it is. The original thing has been pretty conclusively debunked. Indrid cold is just the final nail in the coffin for me.

I'll be around though.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Case74282

Actually i know exactly whats in those photos

Prove it. Otherwise your talk is very cheap and lazy.

a reply to: Case74282

Figure it out on your own, the info is out there.

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: Case74282

Figure it out on your own, the info is out there.

If Lazar's video is so easily explained then please present me with the evidence proving it is whatever your claim is. It is a very simple question and a very fair question yet you and Bassplyr continue to avoid providing the evidence to support your claims.

Where is the evidence? Stop being lazy.

a reply to: Case74282

Read all of this guy's posts on the subject.

www.otherhand.org...

He explains how everything could've happened without requiring any saucers or technological revolutions. Given the rest we know about how air force OSI enjoys using the UFO subject as a laughter shield (Doty/bennewitz/Moore/etc.) I think Occam's razor applies in this situation

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: Case74282

Read all of this guy's posts on the subject.

www.otherhand.org...

He explains how everything could've happened without requiring any saucers or technological revolutions. Given the rest we know about how air force OSI enjoys using the UFO subject as a laughter shield (Doty/bennewitz/Moore/etc.) I think Occam's razor applies in this situation

I thought you were going to provide evidence to refute A51s analysis and breakdown of the original Lazar footage?

You are just parroting someone else's opinion (Bluefire's) and taking their opinion on face value even though this person has presented no evidence to support their opinion. He claims "….THEY WERE GODDAMNED PARTICLE BEAMS!!!" So where is the evidence what Lazar filmed was a particle beam?

It is so easy for anyone to make a claim. I can make a claim. You can make a claim. Anyone can make a claim. Yet, until we provide a legitimate explanation with supporting evidence to validate that claim then it remains completely meaningless.

I would agree with the other poster BassPlyr that having A51s analysis process be vetted by peers in the same field would be helpful to validating their work but I would also imagine that it may be difficult to get a separate group of equally skilled people in the image analysis field to do the work just on the basis to validate or invalidate it. Once again here is the video breakdown done by A51 and his team. I would challenge anyone to review his analysis process and the surreal amount of technical detail they list in this video is available for anyone and everyone to review and vet on their own: www.youtube.com...

Why don't you find a group of highly skilled image analysis people to review A51s very detailed thread of how they broke the Lazar video down and ask their opinion if what they said they did was viable and repeatable?

After that you also need to present evidence that supports what was filmed was particle beams.

I am 100% open to new and alternative theories as long as they can be backed by some form of evidence. I have done as much research as I know how on the particle beam theory and I cannot find anything either in documentation, pictures, or video that looks similar or behaves similarly to what Lazar filmed during the time frame he filmed the video. All of the information I have read states that was the year of the very early stages of pulsed plasma weapons and they were not very reliable nor did they produce the result of what Lazar filmed.

All I am saying here is while particle beams may be a plausible and alternative explanation to what Lazar filmed there is no evidence to support that theory. If you have some then I am open to reading it.

This document is the most detailed presentation I can find regarding the tech Bluefire is referring to: web.archive.org...:/www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Moore.pdf

And here is an article that gives a good synopsis of the history of plasma weapons Bluefire claims was being developed. It should be noted that Lazar filmed the object in 1989. Yet this article states the first firing of the new particle beam weapon was roughly 1993 and makes no mention of the technology being capable of projecting an image of an actual object in the sky performing high speed maneuvers. Just saying. Let us look at the facts of what is available.

Article: www.popularmechanics.com...

Again, if you have more detailed information and evidence to support Bluefire's claim of a particle beam then I am open to reviewing it. So far I have not found corroborating evidence.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Case74282

Actually i know exactly whats in those photos and no i wont discuss it on the internet or to anybody who doesnt need to know about it.

You need to validate your above statement. You do not have access to information that is privileged that cannot be discussed in an open forum. You are claiming what Lazar filmed was a particle beam right? I posted plenty of information to the other poster above this post with readily available information gleaned from the web.

Claiming you will not discuss it is a lazy man's way of avoiding the task of validating one's claims and being held accountable to be scrutinized. Yet you contradict yourself by claiming A51 and his team's research should be scrutinized and I agree. But I find it highly hypocritical of you to make a claim you "know" yet will not provide any supporting evidence to refute A51's work.

That is being very lazy and very hypocritical.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Case74282

Actually i know exactly whats in those photos and no i wont discuss it on the internet or to anybody who doesnt need to know about it. But i am having fun watching you guys shoehorn your personal fantasies of what you want it to be along with your baseless conjecture onto the imagery. Call me lazy or my opinion unsubstantiated all you want. Doesn't change anything.

Anyways i notice nobody's answered hawguys reasonable question about all the peer reviewed acclaim that image analysis has received.

Wait BASSPLYR, why would you refuse to talk about what you believe to know those images depict? This is supposed to be site for sharing information such as this, enlightening others, "deny ignorance". Why would debunk someone's work, but then not be willing to back up your skepticism with some theory you have?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Why do you think people dont give away details of military systems that aren't currently meant for public consumption on the internet. I mean besides the morals of that.

This is the real world here not ufology.

a reply to: Case74282

I dont need to validate anything.

And yes privileged information is not something you discuss on the internet.

Your problem is assuming way too many things about both whats in that video and about other members here. You're also intellectually dishonest by creating a false dichotomy with your "must be too lazy" catch phrase you keep tossing around. Because someone has morals and wont discuss whats going on in footage of military tests. And you certainly have no business making any demands. Do some actual research. Educate yourself. Stop playing par for the course with "ufology" which is generally an intellectually lazy community to begin with. (No offense to many in the field. There are some sincere and genuinely nice people in ufology, but confirmation bias isnt research) There's a reason ufology never goes anywhere or figures anything out. Don't be part of that reason.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Case74282

There's a reason ufology never goes anywhere or figures anything out. Don't be part of that reason.

You literally just typed out your very own hypocrisy right there.

I will lay it out for you in a very linear fashion.

To reiterate here, I am not making a claim. I have simply pointed out an individual (A51) who has done an exceptional job of further validating Lazar's claim of filming some type of craft as Lazar said he did.

Lazar records a video and claims it is a test of a secretly held UFO. People argue and debate the validity of Lazar's claims. Video was filmed with ancient tech making it nearly impossible to glean anything from the footage. Even I dismissed it for years until I saw the image analysis done by A51. Now I lean towards Lazar being credible with regards to the footage.

Then along comes A51 and his team of (highly skilled) image analysis experts to do what they do best. Clean images and present a clearer picture. Through an exhaustive and very detailed and very documented process he and his team show everyone what appears to be an object identical to the shape of what Lazar describes as the "sport model".

You come along and make an erroneous statement claiming you "know whats in those photos" (without any contravening evidence) and yet expect everyone to simply ignore the work of others who have clearly put a substantial amount of time and expertise into showing a very clear picture and path to determining what is on the video.

Now you make the statement "there's a reason ufology never goes anywhere or figures anything out" proving exactly why this is the case based upon your very own inability to invalidate one claim (Lazar's) ignore the physical evidence to support that claim by skilled technicians in image analysis (A51 and crew) while you do not offer any similar supporting evidence to refute the existing claim other than implying "Because I know things you do not".

In conclusion you are either 1 of the below or perhaps a combination of all three:

1. A liar.
2. An intentional liar.
3. An intentional liar with an agenda.

You hide behind dime store Hollywood statements like the classic"need to know" statement.

Ironic that the same level of scrutiny and evidence you require from those like Lazar and now A51 that you are somehow exempt from this same level of scrutiny and requirement to produce evidence as well.

You clearly have never been privileged to any information and clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

You perform more like an intentional disinformation individual with an agenda.

I even gave you and your other forum friend (the one who does not understand present day security clearance difficulties) a pretty clear assessment of the particle beam theory you keep wanting to support. If there is publicly available information to bolster your particle beam theories then please post them. Otherwise cease with the nonsense that you are "in the know". Because clearly you are not.

Hilarious! We are being trolled by a couple of kids with no game plan.

Unless you consider a bogus story of insider knowledge of a super secret military project that can't be talked about to be a game plan.


I suspect they are friends with the last 2 bluffers who were blown out of the water in my last few Kaikoura threads and hope for some revenge with Ultimate weak sauce.

Fair enough, I get all of that. But then, if you're really privy to sensitive information of national security importance, I'm not sure what you get out of posting here.

Reply to BASSPLYR

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
Fair enough, I get all of that. But then, if you're really privy to sensitive information of national security importance, I'm not sure what you get out of posting here.

Reply to BASSPLYR

Fair statement. What do i get out of posting on ats? Besides the fact its fun to read gonzo stuff and its entertaining to see what folklore people convince themselves of, not much. As an aside, there are some absolutely fantastic people on ats which is why i still visit, keep in touch and stay in the loop.

originally posted by: Case74282

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Case74282

There's a reason ufology never goes anywhere or figures anything out. Don't be part of that reason.

You literally just typed out your very own hypocrisy right there.

Not really, you see im not part of the ufology community. I dont care if you guys ever figure it out or not. Just pointing out the reasons why you guys never actually do.

I can make a statement as an outsider that you guys are wrong and leave it at that. Im not invested in you "getting it" and I don't owe you an explanation. Nor will i just give you the answers because you whinge about it and fail to understand basic morals. So its pointless for me to enter a debate where i hold your hand and walk you through some path of science guiding you to enlightenment. You're a big kid. Do it yourself. I mean if you were sincere in really wanting to understand the riddle of ufology thats confounding you you'd do the research yourself and discover why everything thats been propounded about those "ufo" pictures in this thread are statements of ignorance. You'd be able to debunk them outright on your own and actually know what your looking at...and for a change what youre actually talking about. But to do that would take far more work and effort than simply jumping on the confirmation bias train. And its not my job to do your work for you.