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.

 

Should We Believe Bob Lazar?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I suppose one key difference is that Lazar doesn't make any money from his UFO story, but Friedman does. This is not a trivial point.

I found the following posts from an old Lazar thread:


Originally posted by Thodeph

Originally posted by Gazrok
There are still some MAJOR issues with dismissing his accounts out of hand.

1. He knew details about the base that weren't public prior to his accounts.
2. He knew the security personnel well enough to gain access easily, with witnesses. The W-2 and security badge are certainly at least evidence to ponder....
3. He knew the dates and times of certain test flights that he would not be privy to in any other way, and again, led witnesses on more than one occassion.
4. He currently works on defense-related government contracts.
5. Many of his ideas pertaining to two different types of gravity are being bolstered by recent quantum physics (though admittedly, there are still issues here).
6. He's generally been very truthful on even personal subjects in interviews.
7. Lazar isn't the first reference to the front of EG&G and the ficticious DNI (Department of Naval Intelligence). The real name is ONI Office of Naval Intelligence, but it isn't unheard of for black projects to use realistic sounding agency names for deniability. Similar antics were used for folks on the U-2 and SR71 projects.
8. Regardless of the real education, Lazar is obviously knowledgable enough to know his stuff in the field.
9. There is at least proof of a deliberate attempt to deny Lazar worked at Los Alamos, when there is proof he did, regardless of capacity.
10. Lazar is off on other things, not looking to "cash in" on the UFO stuff, he simply wanted out.


Good job Gazrok.

The man is a nuclear physicist who says he worked for the government on black projects. Period. What happens then is a logical character assassination, which continues to this day, and is performed by big debunkers like S. Friedman down to ordinary forum posters.

I have more trust for Robert Scott Lazar than for people investing time in trying to discredit him.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tryptych
I guess Lazar was proven to be a well known hoaxer several years ago.. have you seen his sketches of the so-called UFOs he helped to develop? Those things could never handle space travel.


So he's probably full of it, as are the most well known people on the field.


He did not help to develop them neither was he involved in the design. He was merely involved in trying to figure out the propulsion system. Back engineering. Also, the space shuttle looks like a brick with wings attached, yet it´s been carrying out space travel missions for years.

Personally i believe Lazar is all that.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Still these 10 things are just a list. I would love to see proof and evidence to each number point, anyone can type something to the contrary but without proof it is just words.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 



Pretty much, all of those points are on tape and shown, where there is physical evidence. Knapp and the crew they went with can testify about the Los Alomos visit. I believe Knapp himself says. "Whatever the truth about Lazar is, he knew his way round those endless corridors , like a rabbit knows its' own warren"

[edit on 13-6-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If it weren't for multiple witnesses he took on his excursions to the outskirts of Area 51 and especially John Lears testimony about having witnessesed the exact time he was able to spot the test flight of the flying saucers and then on top of that the encounter with the police that let them go because of Bob Lazar's clearance at Area 51.

I would write Lazar off as a complete phony. People accuse him of being a fraud because he lied about his credentials.

I thought about this hard why it's so contradictory and my theory is that while he could be telling the truth at the same time it is possible that he could also be deliberately lying about his education in order to discredit himself.

Reasons for discrediting himself I believe could be related to survival. If he knows that enough people don't take him seriously there is less of a reason for the people in charge of the S4 program to kill him.


Then that begs the question why did they hire someone who wasn't as qualified or had reputable credentials at MIT etc...? Even Lazar stated himself that he didn't consider himself as qualified as the next guy.

The Military would actually want someone like that to work on a black project primarily because of their deniability.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by redrezo]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Stanton Friedman has often spoken of hoaxers and fraudsters laying out their tables of books in large halls ready for the queues of eager listeners who would pay for their "research". Ironically Stanton is often one of them but that's not to suggest he is comparable.

Friedman has always argued that these people are motivated by money or fame in the field, trying to make a career out of it all but he himself, despite his obvious dislike of Lazar, has never extended that to Bob. As far as I'm aware of, Robert Lazar hasn't engaged in commercial prospects or authorship of books and such. His story is probably the most spectacular and interesting one born out of the UFO world and yet if he is lying, why is he actually so hesitant to open up about the subject let alone take advantage of this exotic lie he manifested? He doesn't seem to tick much of the boxes you would associate with a conventional fake.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I have posted this a couple times lately but stuff gets lost in the shuffle so easily here I am posting it again.

My dad witnessed a flying saucer in the later 60s. Him and a friend were driving to a bigger town from their small town to get their senior pictures taken. On the way back late at night on a 2 lane highway they saw a stereotypical UFO hovering by the power lines that run along the side of the highway. They sat there looking at it for quite awhile. Then it rose up and shot off at an angle faster than anything he has ever seen. It made no noise and no wind. He has talked about this incident since it happened. He told my mom about it a couple years later when they met. He told me about it 20 years later and sent me a popular mechanics that had a picture of the specific Bob Lazar UFO in the article and said that was the UFO he saw.

So add this to the Lockheed Martin retired engineer who said that Bob Lazar was telling the truth about the UFOs as he knew it as well and for me personally it's a done deal.. Lazar is telling the truth.

But I do believe Lazar is not telling the truth about how he got the information.. this is just my hunch. I think he found out the real story somehow but is not telling how he actually got it. Maybe he got it from someone that really worked there and he is relaying the story? Or maybe he is telling the truth about working there but lying about his educational history for some other reason? I believe he was likely working for the government longer than he lets on.



[edit on 13-6-2010 by 8311-XHT]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I don't know much about Lazar, just throwing something I read somewhere : apparently Lazar has been asked some basics math/physics calculation/questions, and wasn't able to answer those.

True or false ? If true, well, that's a tough argument against the guy.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I think the science test method would be tough to be definitive how do you know if the person analyzing his scientific knowledge is being fair?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
The best liars add an element of truth to their lies!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Should We Believe Bob Lazar?

Nope. Shouldn't he be running for his life? If he is really an asset, wouldn't he have been eliminated long ago? Perhaps, he is not `disclosing` anything of significance and we are not getting the entire truth.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
yes. Don't take anything for 100% truth, but take it all in. I believe he is telling the truth.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
Should We Believe Bob Lazar?

Nope. Shouldn't he be running for his life? If he is really an asset, wouldn't he have been eliminated long ago? Perhaps, he is not `disclosing` anything of significance and we are not getting the entire truth.


Belief is irrelevant, he's not dead because there's absolutely no need to kill him, especially when he is already been discredited.

As far as disclosing anything of significance, if you went back in time and explained how helicopters worked to a medieval peasant. Without the machinery to build the helicopter, without enough knowledge most importantly being the blue prints and technical schematics and the industrial infrastructure and the manpower to build a helicopter.

You will not be able to provide proof to the medieval peasant without a working example of a helicopter.

You know for a fact that Helicopters exist, but general knowledge of it's workings and so no are just simply not enough to convince anybody and there is no way that anybody during that time period would even believe what you had to say even if it were the truth and it was staring them right in the face.

Run that thought experiment through, then you will realize that there is a chance that maybe some of the crazy stuff that people are so skeptical about may actually turn out to be true.

It's true robert lazar could be lying, but if he is telling the truth, you and all the naysayers here have fallen for the biggest joke of the century.


[edit on 14-6-2010 by redrezo]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I have looked into Bob Lazar's claims since it first came out publicly and I have to say that at first I found it hard to believe but came to a conclusion soon after that he was genuine for several reasons.

1. The denial by EG&G that he worked for them which was proven false by George Knapp

2. The tax receipt that had MAJ before his worker id no.

3. The work badge that had MAJ stamped on it.

4. The consistency of his retelling, never embellishing his story

5. The attack by Stanton Friedman who i respect but has a habit of attacking anyone and everyone who either conflicts or even corresponds with his own views. Not sure if out of jealousy because he had the credentials but was never let on the inside or I read somewhere that whilst he truly wants to out the truth is also a paid disinformer when required. Paid can infer cash or more likely information to be used in his books. In contrast, Lazar has NEVER sought to cash in on his claims!

6. The knowledge in interviews of Lazar himself, for example Friedman attacked Lazar's claim of Element 115 saying it did not exist and then was later proven to exist. I coud not build a rocket car and I realise that Lazar must have had some technical education and here comes the rub.....despite his claims, none can be found anywhere, apart from some minor college! Now stop and think people, he must have had some education but nothing is found that corresponds to his obvious genius and understanding. The TPTB can wipe anyones educational background and pay people to say he never attended school here or there, fact! Dr. Michael Wolf Kruvant had his education wiped as well despite his brilliance and verified by Paola Harris who visited his residence and saw his personal verifications of degrees.

7. The fact that Lazar knew when tests were being conducted and took several witnesses to see them and where to see them from.

8. The testimony of the people surrounding Lazar like Gene Huff and John Lear and the fact that before Lazar was introduced to the job he dismissed Lears own testimony on UFO's/Aliens as nonsense until he was exposed to it himself, which really surprised Lear.

9. The design drawings of the sports model produced by Lazar showing the drive having three anti gravity units which are verified by many photographs worldwide that show three drive bubbles under craft photographed.

10. the fact that S4 site has been verified to exist by other witnesses and never seems to be discussed in the MSM who just cite Area 51.

11. The fact that other witnesses have come forward to state that there are several craft kept at S4 in different hangers just as Lazar outlined.

12. The silly 'pandering' charges brought against Lazar by TPTB to discredit him and often sited by MSM when discussing him. Job well done!

I have reserched and read so many books, articles and presentations on the whole subject and to me Robert Scott Lazar has come across as one of the most genuine 'whistleblowers' out there! The amount of effort put in to discredit Lazar convinces me even more that he is telling the truth otherwise if his story is as ridiculous as claimed by some, why even bother???

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Hongkongphooey]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hornum
Interesting. Bob Lazar claims that he uses 3 cylinders to store the Hydrogen and that it is perfectly safe, infact he states that you could shoot at the cylinders etc with no problems. Hers the Vid.
www.youtube.com...


Long ago I remember an uncle of mine had a propane tank sitting up on a hill, which he shot up with a 9mm handgun. Didn't puncture it, (dented it a little bit though). Then he took out his .45 and with one shot blew a hole almost clean through back out the other side! So yes, the container was pretty sturdy and resistent to some small arms fire/damage, but not all.

Imagine if that tank had been filled with gasoline or pressurized propane and a sufficient heat source or spark was next to it. Now imagine it's filled with pressurized hydrogen... The real question is, compare the blast/damage of a container of gasoline or propane with a container of compressed hydrogen. One is more incendiary, the other more explosive. Cost/benefit.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DAMOo
I don't know much about Lazar, just throwing something I read somewhere : apparently Lazar has been asked some basics math/physics calculation/questions, and wasn't able to answer those.

True or false ? If true, well, that's a tough argument against the guy.


Without looking it up and cheating, can you remember and accurately reproduce the quadratic equation for us?

Then after that I'd like for you to recall the 4 basic coordinates of the unit circle.

Asked this on the spot, most people wont remember it even if they had to reproduce those formulas hundreds of times back in grade school and/or high school. It doesn't mean that they never had Algebra 2 or Trig just because they can't immediately recall it off the top of their heads.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


I certainly agree with you there, Stanton is certainly credible but he sways the other way with his way of doing things, i do feel there is some rivalry towards Lazar for reasons you described. To whoever referenced John Lear shame on you! i have no regards for the guy to be honest, most of his later stuff is completely wacko in my opinion

October



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


I'm still yet to see a link to any of these videos and evidence though. I'm not saying I don't believe but I haven't found anything yet.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by October
reply to post by FireMoon
 


I certainly agree with you there, Stanton is certainly credible but he sways the other way with his way of doing things, i do feel there is some rivalry towards Lazar for reasons you described. To whoever referenced John Lear shame on you! i have no regards for the guy to be honest, most of his later stuff is completely wacko in my opinion

October


I am the one who referenced John Lear and you have no right to scold me because of your opinion, which may or may not be correct? I actually agree with you that some of John Lear's later stuff seems quite wacko but neither you nor I know if it is indeed true, not true or true with some misinformation contained, it is just your or my opinion. However, I was referencing John Lear in the period regarding the testimony of Bob Lazar in the late 80's early 90's when John Lear was considered credible.

Shame on you for forcing your opinion and belief on others but i missed the worldwide announcement that made you an authority on all things 'John Lear'?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Hongkongphooey]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tryptych
I guess Lazar was proven to be a well known hoaxer several years ago.. have you seen his sketches of the so-called UFOs he helped to develop? Those things could never handle space travel.


So he's probably full of it, as are the most well known people on the field.




here ya go ! Enjoy look at the PDF!

Space Travel hmm possible Deep Space (from NASA Institute by the way ! )

www.niac.usra.edu...

the NASA Institute !
www.niac.usra.edu...







 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join