George Knapp Could Prove Lazar's Special Element 115 Exists. But Won't Do It.

originally posted by: mirageman
Why is no one putting pressure on Knapp to "go dig it up" as he claimed he would do at a conference in Denmark?

I'm thinking of maybe making a thread about the island of stability to explain that since I don't think people understand it.

But here's a preview showing why whatever Knapp digs up won't be element 115. The half-life math for superheavy elements is very complicated and a number of assumptions must be made, but Moller published predicted half lives in 1997 using his assumptions. It's in a difficult format to read in the pdf, but for easier viewing I copied and pasted the predictions for every isotope of element 115 showing the longest half-life predicted was 4 days for 115310:

Now that 4 isotopes of element 115 have been synthesized, we can see that Moller's predictions are biased with longer half-lives than have actually been observed for element 115. So if this trend continues as additional isotopes are discovered we might expect the other half-lives also to be shorter than predictions. If we look at a more recent "Island of stability" chart, indeed all the isotopes of element 115 are predicted to have half-lives of less than 1 day, so the 4 days was probably a bit too optimistic even for isotope 115310:

Island of stability

That's a little tricky to read, but here are some things to look for. The two darkest colors are dark blue with half life of less than a year, and black with half-life of more than 1 year. The highest element with either of those is element 114. The white circle goes just above element 114, so the top of the circle is in the row of element 115 isotopes. Following that row of isotopes all the way across, we can see all the colors correspond to half lives of less than 1 day or shorter, and this would be consistent with revising Moller's longest half-life prediction of 4 days downward, since his other predictions have been longer than observed half-lives. So, what this shows is all isotopes of element 115 are predicted to have a half-lives shorter than 1 day, meaning whatever George Knapp digs up would be unlikely to have any element 115 left, if it ever had any, regardless of which isotope of 115 it was.

The island of stability does not predict stable isotopes though one might guess how Lazar might have misunderstood the phrase and thought it might have some stable elements. Lots of other people seem to have that same misunderstanding so perhaps the phrase is a bit misleading. However, even the most optimistic predictions for the island of stability do not predict stable elements, merely unstable elements with half-lives which are not as short as the surrounding elements.

originally posted by: AstroDog
If Occam's razor were applied to all of science aether theory would still reign supreme, yet it does not.

I have no idea what gives you that idea, scientists say that the Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable from relativity theory since they make the same predictions, which both match observations. Applying Occam's razor strongly disfavors aether, contrary to your assertion:

What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether. Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincare recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

However it should be noted that Occam's razor is not a rigorous scientific approach, it's only a rule of thumb which probably usually works but there could be exceptions where nature does make things more complicated than we might presume using Occam's razor. So I'm not really trying to defend Occam's razor or even relativity, but merely trying to point out that your statement seems to be completely the opposite of what scientists actually say about Occam's razor and aether.

originally posted by: AstroDog
If Occam's razor were applied to all of science aether theory would still reign supreme, yet it does not.

I have no idea what gives you that idea, scientists say that the Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable from relativity theory since they make the same predictions, which both match observations. Applying Occam's razor strongly disfavors aether, contrary to your assertion:

What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether. Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincare recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

To hazard getting lost in the weeds here, Occam's razor is reductive logic, it draws conclusions from direct observations first and foremost then forms a theory. This differs from modern quantum physics trends to use mathematics to illuminate what cannot be observed based on ancillary or peripheral conclusions which may or may not be entirely false. It's the difference between saying all the aspects of what something is not to assess what it is, and saying all the aspects of what something is because of "universal" truths. It brings to mind the Holmes quote of "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Though of course this invites fallacy, which was my original point, it illustrates the core notion of Occam's razor as it applies to my take on Lazar and why I don't especially subscribe to it as a bulletproof explanation of something that cannot be proven. Specifically though, not his concerted truthfulness but the truthfulness regarding individual elements of his story. That's why I chose to rebut it as it applies to my take on Lazar's scientific obscurity. I have no reservations about admitting that in my opinion Lazar is rightly dismissed because of a most likely deception, but if I admit that as my opinion which I hold true, if only in an operative sense, the abject fact remains the degree of his deception exists presently unproven all the same. There is evidence of a great deal on both sides of the argument, but irrefutable proof of nothing.

As far as if you don't think LET derived anti-atomistic notions are more simplified than modern GR derived notions then we have to disagree on that point, since this is clearly what I was addressing in an overarching sense when another member said something to the effect of the most likely explanation is usually the most simple one. Though to your point it seems we agree on their mutual utility at least to some degree.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

There are only bad answers to some questions, this thread is mostly rhetorical... If its really important, you go dig it up and prove it. When someone ask you to keep a secret about a crime, what do you do? Police go on the air and asks for tips, I mean, if its imporant... Are Bobs feelings more important than revealing this information?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Even if you don't believe what Brian Dunning speculates about the UFO

Someone could easily do anotherDolan type thread on Dunning. He may have been a fraud, but he knew how to tickle the ears of skeptics.

But the "science master" teacher ignored that warning from the headmaster (he was upset with the headmaster) and he talked about it extensively.

Even if the govt types had no influence on the head masters decision, why show up and confiscate a camera(12:40) for "nothing" case as Dunning puts it.

He also said the UFO was the size of a tire which isn't as big as other stories

Descriptions were pretty consistent with Victors account, after all, it was broad daylight as they chased it around the campus. It wasnt very big at all, drone of some kind, kind of like the Portugal case. Our resident govt insider thinks it was possibly early govt anti-grav if that makes your skepticism feel better.

OMG this is hilarious!!!

"Bob Lazar said he stole 500 lbs of Element 115 from Area 51..."

Make a mental note people, anyone who has repeated this nonsense here on ATS, you should NEVER listen to again!

Anyone ask for a SOURCE on this hallucination?


Apparently no one KNOWS how he got his hands on some?

It would seem so.


Maybe it IS time ATS closed it's doors.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
OMG this is hilarious!!!

"Bob Lazar said he stole 500 lbs of Element 115 from Area 51..."

Make a mental note people, anyone who has repeated this nonsense here on ATS, you should NEVER listen to again!

Anyone ask for a SOURCE on this hallucination?


Apparently no one KNOWS how he got his hands on some?

It would seem so.


Maybe it IS time ATS closed it's doors.

Probably because he never got his hands on anything at all.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
OMG this is hilarious!!!

"Bob Lazar said he stole 500 lbs of Element 115 from Area 51..."

Make a mental note people, anyone who has repeated this nonsense here on ATS, you should NEVER listen to again!

Anyone ask for a SOURCE on this hallucination?

I already admitted I should have said George Knapp said Bob stole SOME OF the 500 pounds Bob mentioned, which portion George saw, and that Bob talked about using what he stole to blow up Las Vegas. If you're chastising me for not stating that correctly at first, point taken, but I did post a correction with the source.

Now if you have a problem with George Knapp's statements (do you think Knapp lied?), please elaborate, but Springer said Knapp is a man of integrity which I presume to mean Springer thinks Knapp wouldn't lie. I'm not so sure about that. Knapp did say " If this stuff was real, as [Bob] described it..." which suggests to me that George is expressing some doubts as to whether what Lazar was claiming was element 115 was really element 115; I don't know how else to interpret that.

That may be a good enough reason to not dig up the 115, if Knapp has doubts about what it is, since digging it up and having it analyzed could prove it's not really 115 as Knapp questions with "If this stuff was real...". Then it might kill Knapp's profitable story he's been milking for decades.

It should be noted as well that Lazar's E115 video, which is said to be mostly taped over with some kind of TV sports program, is not very compelling in any case. It reportedly shows E115 bending light, but what is more likely is the video shows the faraday effect. Without showing the entire system of the experiment it still exists as proof of nothing regarding E115. Furthermore, of all the fantastic properties of this material the bending of light would be comparatively mundane proof of Lazar's claims.

There's also a way to create what are called airy waves by properly pulsing and orienting a series of coherent light beams so they appear as a single curved beam, predicated on their interference patterns and in fact not actually bending the beams. This is more technically involved and difficult, but another conceivable explanation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No.


The story posted in this thread comes from an alternate universe.

Bob never stole any amount.

He acquired it from a 3rd party who got it from his workplace which was not Area 51.

His workplace would receive bricks of it from time to time and they were tasked with cutting it into triangle pieces and were unaware of what these bricks actually were.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No.


The story posted in this thread comes from an alternate universe.

Bob never stole any amount.

He acquired it from a 3rd party who got it from his workplace which was not Area 51.

His workplace would receive bricks of it from time to time and they were tasked with cutting it into triangle pieces and were unaware of what these bricks actually were.

Since you talked about asking for sources, would you please post a source for that?

Bob Lazar said on KLAS-TV this element 115 was so dangerous it should never be allowed to fall into anybody's hands. But they didn't keep the highly dangerous element 115 in the secure groom lake base, they put it in other people's hands without telling them what it was?

KLAS-TV Bob Lazar Interview Transcripts

115 is the fuel for the anti-matter reactors, he says. By bombarding 115 anti-matter is produced. A kilo of anti-matter could produce the energy equivalent of 46 ten-megaton hydrogen bombs, and comparing the energy potential of anti-matter to, say, the Hoover Dam would be like comparing planets to grains of sand. 115 could also make one heck of a bomb.

Lazar: "We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of megatons off a small piece of it. It sounds incredible, but total conversion of matter to energy would release that amount of power. And it isn't that difficult to take....get the energy out of it. So it's not something you'd ever want to fall anyone's hands."

Why do I find it difficult to believe there's no machine shop at area 51 where they would want to machine it on site in order to keep it secure and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, like Bob's, if Knapp is telling the truth about Bob Lazar threatening to blow up Las Vegas? I don't know if your "No" is supposed to mean, no you don't think George Knapp was lying about that, or no you don't believe him and think he was lying.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok I looked at your source you posted, and nowhere in George's remarks in Denmark do I see him say Bob stole any Element 115.

The transcript you provided also does not say that anywhere.

Can we get that cleared up before moving on to other subjects?


WHO said Bob stole E115?

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok I looked at your source you posted, and nowhere in George's remarks in Denmark do I see him say Bob stole any Element 115.
WHO said Bob stole E115?

According to this source, Bob Lazar himself says the government wanted to recover the alien fuel, which if he didn't steal it personally, but received it though some convoluted means as you described, then your account is that he received stolen property, is that what you're saying? But this source actually says he stole it so that's why I'm asking you for a source, trying to get at the bottom of this:

Bob Lazar Says FBI Raided His Office To Seize Alien Fuel He Stole From Area 51 But It Was Actually Tied To A Murder Mystery

The FBI raided Lazar’s business to recover the alien fuel, according to Lazar

In 2016, the FBI raided the office of United Nuclear Scientific Equipment and Supplies. Lazar and the documentary frame the raid as an attempt by the U.S. government to seize alien fuel that Lazar allegedly stole from Area 51.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah ok your source is the brobible site.

THEY inserted the words "Lazar allegedly stole" and in the previous sentence ended it with "according to Lazar".

Very misleading. They of course do not have an interview or transcript to prove that point.


Bob detailed how he got the 3 small pieces of E115 early on in a radio interview only 1 time as far as I know. But since then in subsequent interviews throughout the years has always responded to questions about his possession of E115 with the reply "No comment."

I wondered about this since I had heard the original interview with the details about where and whom he got the stuff from. All I can figure is he was trying to protect his friend who worked there or had decided that admitting he had stolen military property in his possession was not a good idea.

During that early interview he also detailed how he lost possession of 2 of the 3 pieces he had. He said that 2 secret service agents showed up at his door and demanded the pieces of E115 back. He gave them 2 of the 3 pieces and they were satisfied and left.

That early interview was a 'Billy Goodman Happening' or a very early Art Bell show.

Yes I am saying Bob received stolen property.

The facility that cuts and machines these triangles is the same place that interviewed Bob for his Job at S4 so apparently they had the needed clearance and security needed to do the job.


eta: Bob also mentioned what material his remaining piece is encased in, but not the location.

It's not radioactive is it? Because that would definitely cause a lot of problems if he has a big chunk stashed in an old cigar box under a stone fence by a tree somewhere.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah ok your source is the brobible site.

I would say that's just one example, there are other sources saying the same thing. Here's another example:

Why Did the FBI Raid the Home of the Biggest Alien Truther?

The film culminates in the heavily-teased FBI raid. In a spooky clip, Lazar and Corbell go deep into the woods to discuss claims that Lazar made when he first went public: that he had managed to steal a piece of “element 115,”

That site also gives no direct link to where Lazar said he stole the element 115, but you can find other sites saying that. Maybe Bob never openly said he stole it, but when he said he had some 115 which obviously he shouldn't have, people might have assumed he stole it, but even if someone else stole it and gave it to him, that's a minor twist on that fact he had some stolen and according to him, very dangerous element 115, which he shouldn't have (allegedly).

They of course do not have an interview or transcript to prove that point.

Apparently, neither do you. That doesn't mean I think you're lying, but contrary to popular claims, Bob Lazar's story is not that consistent, so it would not shock me at all to learn he told more than one version of events on this too.

Bob detailed how he got the 3 small pieces of E115 early on in a radio interview only 1 time as far as I know.

That may be true, too bad you apparently don't have a link to a transcript of that.

But since then in subsequent interviews throughout the years has always responded to questions about his possession of E115 with the reply "No comment."

Yes I've heard the "no comment" statements.

eta: Bob also mentioned what material his remaining piece is encased in, but not the location.

Lead? That's what George Knapp and John Lear mentioned, but I don't understand why lead containers were needed if the 115 was stable. Stable elements shouldn't need lead containers, should they? I worked with radioactive materials in one of my jobs, and stored them in lead containers, because they were radioactive and the lead made them safe to transport without giving me an overdose of radiation.

John Lear is an enigma. He tends to believe a lot of BS as Lazar's gift to Lear attests, a coffee mug talking about how Lear believes in a lot of nonsense. So I don't consider him a reliable source for much. On the other hand, apparently Gene Huff and John Lear were close friends of Bob Lazar around the time Bob's experience happened, and John continued to promote Bob's story on ATS based on his personal experience even after Bob seemed to fade into the background to work on his business.

So I take what Lear says with a big grain of salt, but he said the 2 pieces were "stolen back", which if Bob handed them over to secret service agents as you say, that would be an odd way to describe that transaction. John also mentions the lead containers, which I don't understand if the 115 was stable as Lazar claimed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: johnlear
Bob obtained 3 "arrowheads" about 2 inches long machined at LANL. Bob, Joe Vanniniti and I did the 'dry ice'/coleman lantern pintle experiment which was videotaped. Bob kept them in round lead containers about one inch thick. 2 were stolen back by the government.

But if anybody took that at face value, "stolen back" certainly seems to imply they were "stolen" in the first place, and since Bob's the one who had the "stolen" pieces, it's not a huge leap to assume he's the one who stole them, if that's how the story started circulating that Bob stole the 115. But as you can see I didn't make up the story about Bob stealing 115, since it's found in multiple places. I can see how that might happen even if someone else stole the 115 and gave it to Bob.

However, whatever those triangle pieces were, I doubt they were element 115 for the reasons I explained here. The latest predictions are for half lives of less than 1 day in the "Island of Stability" source posted, for ALL isotopes of 115.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
It's not radioactive is it? Because that would definitely cause a lot of problems if he has a big chunk stashed in an old cigar box under a stone fence by a tree somewhere.

Bob said it was stable but it was stored in a lead container, but that doesn't make much sense. Why would a stable element be stored in a lead container? I've stored unstable (radioactive) materials in lead containers; they are good for blocking radiation leaving the radioactive source.

What I've been trying to point out here is that Bob's story about element 115 and spaceships is actually irrelevant and cannot be proven. So why bother arguing about it and the minute details?

It's pure bunk to distract everyone. No one will ever prove anything.

So why the stories and publicity? It doesn't matter if they are unbelievable or not. It just matters that people keep looking in the wrong direction.

It's not about spaceships and the aliens involved are not from another planet. Whatever Bob got himself involved with needed a 'story' out there. It then got milked for thirty years on and off because, while few other governments use UFO stories like this, America has a certain cultural gullibility amongst its large population that can be exploited. Exploited via an entertainment industry only too happy promote it and keep the mythology alive.

But whatever Bob was involved with has a much more likely down to Earth explanation.

"The U.S. has interests all over the world, and therefore countries all over the world are interested in us. So even a small embassy will have an intelligence officer there....That includes our allies, by the way. "Friends spy on friends," says Bucci...

Next, tack on what are known as NOCs (for "non-official cover"). These are professional spies posing as businessmen, journalists, students, etc...

web.archive.org...

You can be sure the US has its own operations too..

Now what could Bob and/or his chums have been up to that needed him to go public with such a cockamamie story?

Thirty years, wasted, looking in the wrong direction. People will keep popping-up and try to keep you looking in that direction. But what is the real story?

Stay focused and keep watching the spies.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

when you land at area 51 or any other high security site you have to wear special clothing provided by the facility


there are alot TONS of radioisotope detectors all over the place one for making sure no one is contaminated or stealing and because the leftover fall out from all the nuke testing.


there is ZERO way you could steal any isotopes when leaving

IF there were any amount of stable 115 it would be so locked up and weighed many times a day to fractions of a gram, inside crazy underground safes guarded by guards ordered to shoot anyone that shouldn't be there.

and you can get there are some serious detectors in the door ways of the vault that holds an impossible element.

if anything they let him take irradiated bismuth to help the USAF cover story


i would love to hear ANY theory were he was able to steal it.

even at los alamos witch is not as high security as area 51 or "S-4" and how much has been stolen from there.......oh right zero

Let me throw this on the wall and see if it sticks

To preface: .... my question on another thread was, bottom line, does anyone know if it was ever mentioned by Bob or anybody as to what the color of E115 is?


From MM.....

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Has there ever been mentioned by Bob and those he knew on a personal basis, what the color of stable E115 is?

Would you believe that Jeremy Corbell has claimed it has always matched the same hue as his fantastic Norse beard?

Ok, fine...

Borrowing from these words "sometimes the truth is in plain sight" .... below is Bob in his own words from the infamous Lazar Tape:



The theory, here it comes, What IF, the material he had in his hand while doing his element 115 inserted into the reactor demonstration ...was actually a piece of the stable 115 ?

Below a series of screenshots to make my point:

Note that he said everything was 1/2 scale.... which would include the demonstartion piece of 115 triangle he's or someone is holding.

Here four shots of Bob inserting the piece of 115 .... notice how the piece he is using is slightly off angle and not an equally lengthed sided triangle..... someone mentioned, correct me if wrong.... that the actual piece of 115, if it exists, is evenly sided 2"x2"x2" .125" thick (1/8"). So the piece he is using should be 1/2 scale that is to say 1"x1"x1" the thickness stays .125" (not sure if thickness is right but its irrelevent for the below purposes)



( I should have given designations, hopefully you follow along)

Now using Photoshop, rotate the image from the top left picture of the above collage until the right side edge of the triangle is straight up and down... then mirror that straight up and down image until they are parellel between eachother

Then just put them together and now you have a fairly evenly lengthed sided triangle...




In photoshop, blend out the line of joining both pieces put together.

To me eyeballed it could look to measure 2"x2"x2" using both Bob's index fingers for approximate reference



So where does it leave this?

The color of 115 is not known (at least to my brain)... the color of the piece shown in vid is subjective to color varients of age original taping, then copied to digital, saturation, etc, etc...

Back to his statement from above... He could have been literal and not figurative i.e. "like this"..."This piece"

Parsing this sentence in part....."This piece of element 115 is the source of gravity "A" wave"...

So as to convey to the viewer that the piece was just a mock example... the sentance could have started "The piece of element 115 is the source of"... or start the sentence from "Element 115 is the source of"...

I suspect using the word "This or this" is personalizing it to actually holding a piece of non-radiated and stable 115. OOOOPS!

Whether there were 1, 2, or 3 triangle pieces.... an evenly sided triangle looks to have been cut in half into un-even sided 2 pieces and 1 piece is used for the demonstration of element 115 insertion.

Think of this also... if your making a 1/2 scale mockup of a reactor , why not just cut an evenly length sided material measuring 1"x1"x1" to begin with, seeing you've made , I assume, as an exact reactor representaion as possible (He is an engineer after all).... why go cheap on the 115 piece representation and not make it with better precision for show and tell?

Disclaimer: my grammer blows when a spellchecker or grammer checker is not used, at least I'm not seeing that function on ATS's editing functions.

Well i'm ready for the critique....constructively.. I can only hope...whew!

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

115 will always be radioactive due to the family it belongs to on the periodic table of elements.

and is so very radioactive it would burn up and melt under its own heat, look at what plutonium, it glows red hot due to the decay rate of it. that's why we use it for nuclear RTG's on deep space satellites or rovers


its the half like that is the problem with 115, there might be a meta stable version of it but i doubt it

and why does it have to be 115? there is nothing special about it, what about the higher number elements?

why not just use your 100%(thermodynamic law #1 breaking) efficient reactor and use a much more common element ? no matter where you are in the universe outside a particle accelerator most man made super heave atoms dont last becasue they are so jammed packed with neutrons and what not that the atom wants to under go fission as fast as possable.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Ophiuchus1its the half like that is the problem with 115, there might be a meta stable version of it but i doubt it

Well let’s see...that is true for maybe humans....but if we talk in terms of alien provided tangible 115 fuel. Then it’s alien processed and manufactured by their own means we humans have yet to understand...



By the way...... a "gaseous matter Target"?? (in Bob’s words) ...from the aliens to react with the anti-matter (115--->116) .... what is that suppose to be and named?

Seems to me you can't have just one or the other.... you have to have both the 115 and gaseous matter for their propulsion system work.

Somebody kindly link me, or enlighten me, otherwise why are we discussing 115 without the, so far nameless, aliens own Gaseous Matter (not talkin bodily functions)

I think it should be part of the discussion..... imo