It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by meshuggah1324
The MJ-12 docs haven't been proven real or fake. Many docs have some errors here and there.
Originally posted by Divergence
I have followed the Lazar story and his claims for years and the problem with his claims is that they have way too many holes in them, Lazar claims to be a physicist but always describes what he has purportedly experienced in the simplest of terms, with a lot of bad acting.
Bursich on the other hand is just a lot of bad acting.
Originally posted by meshuggah1324
What's so scary is that anyone who wants to make a dirty radio active bomb could get everything they need from Lazar's United Nuclear web site because they'll ship anything on their web site to any member of the general public within the United States.
Originally posted by Yorga
I do not discount what you are saying but if one wanted to get their message out to as many people as possible, you wouldn't use the same language as a Rocket Scientist, you speak in laymans terms. So even dummies like me understand.
But why would one man that has spent almost his entire life trying to prove Roswell really happen, so feverishly debunk the one man who says that he actually saw and worked on the captured UFO's? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Lazar's current activities are certainly curious, and supports his story. Lazar is probably one of the biggest burrs in UFOlogy...on one hand, if true, then he is THE insider we've been waiting for. On the other, if false, then he's a major discredit to the field. This is probably why Stan is playing it safe.
Personally, my gut tells me that there are some of Lazar's key points that are true, but that Lazar embellished (as such people often do), and now it's biting him in the ass. He seems to fit the profile of an unwitting disinfo agent, but that's often a cop-out used by UFOlogists, and one I usually don't support. The "plausible deniability" method does seem logical though, with this kind of work. Getting new ideas on something you can't figure out for years, etc.