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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
If I said to you anti-gravity is possible and the way of producing it is to bombard a unicorns horn with fairy dust you would probably realise your chances of producing this are fairly slim :-)

Well that what element 115 is, you got as much chance of getting your hands on 500g of element 115 as finding a unicorns horn!

We cannot make this stuff, its way beyond our ability. Most we could produce is a few atoms with a lot of effort and money.

What the moral of this story......give up hope!


Luckily however we have known fore some time now that you don't need element 115 and therefore there is much hope!

Maybe the ETs want us to believe we need element 115 for their own reasons......to keep us on this rock!




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Flux8
 


Did you watch the video? Lazar says it's safe. I know BMW have a 7 series with a hydrogen fuel sell and they use buses in Germany. It seems by storing a sliquid and then converting to gas is safe?

www.insideline.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I don't know what the fascination with hydrogen cars is, the concept is ancient news.
Jack Nicholson was driving around in a hydrogen powered car derived from solar power before I was born.
video.google.com...#


Google Video Link




The oil and car company's blocked its progress for obvious reasons, they cant make money out of it.

Its hardly cutting edge technology

[edit on 15-6-2010 by LUXUS]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I for one do not completely trust the Bob, I believe he has lied about his education to make himself appear to be smarter than he was in hopes that he would be taken more seriously when bringing forth his amazing story.

Where I believe that he worked for the place he describes I believe he has lied about his position there. He could have easily been a custodian (a possibility) or a desk jockey in charge of one of the work forces there, he wouldn’t need a MIT degree to do this, as most office managers I know, actually know very little of how to due the job of their underlings. Take the field of IT (Information Technology) where someone works as a DBA (database administrator), very few of the bosses could fix a problem with a database as their workers can, they are merely in charge of them.

I personally work in the IT field and have some education but no degrees, however my direct boss has no idea how to do my job, if I were to fall dead tomorrow and any of my systems I support stopped working for whatever reason, my boss would have to find someone else in the company that knew how to do what I do (I have no backup and vacations are a pain) because they would not be able to even try to comprehend what I do. I am asked for solutions to problems, which before I can even start explaining what I am going to do am told to just do it.

Bob could have had a similar position to my supervisor, where he didn’t know how things worked, he just knew they were they, and maybe had access to some information that he may have committed to memory.

But because of the lies he told in relation to his story, the government believes he discredited himself enough so they leave him alone, it is also possible that documentation he committed to memory was misinformation, which might be another reason for them to leave him alone.

On a side not about Hydrogen Vehicles;

Hydrogen powered vehicles are indeed very safe especially since done properly, you would not be storing the hydrogen, but making it on demand from stored water.

You would simply use an electrical charge to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. The hydrogen would be used to fuel the vehicle and the oxygen would be the waste product.

Replacing the energy to cause the electrical charge is simple enough through generators attached to the wheels so that moving alone recharges the electrical system. There are other ways as well to recharge the electrical system.

Rust or corrosion would be the major consideration however. The engine would need to be powerful enough to move the vehicle but not easily susceptible to rust or corrosion.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If you don't know who George Knapp is, he is the investigative reporter that did so much research into Lazar's background. He managed to prove Lazar's connections with with many institutions that claimed to have no connection with him. Lazar claimed to have worked for the US Navy, which the Navy denied. George Knapp did some investigating and in 1990 found a W-2 tax slip that showed that the Department of Naval Intelligence was issuing Lazar payments. He also claimed to have worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which, yet again, they denied. Lazar's name was later found in the 1982 phone directory, listed as a technician. Also, a photograph of Lazar was found in a newspaper article listing him as a physicist working at Los Alamos.

Obviously, he was telling the truth when he claimed his connections to the Navy and the Los Alamos Lab. When he came forward, they erased all of his records to make it seem like he was lying.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I just want to say I dont believe Bob was a scientist. He was nothing more than a tech. And it is a great story. To bad he did not start off with the truth. Now if his claims are real because he lied there is no way to know what the real truth is or was. Only Bob knows the truth. His lies cover up what real truth there might have been.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Reactor]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hornum
 


What I'm saying is that hydrogen has it's dangers, just like gasoline. It's not a completely fail safe fuel source.

Dangers are listed on pg 2.
auto.howstuffworks.com...

"Topping the list of concerns is hydrogen burns. In the presence of an oxidizer -- oxygen is a good one -- hydrogen can catch fire, sometimes explosively, and it burns more easily than gasoline does. According to the American National Standards Institute, hydrogen requires only one 10th as much energy to ignite as gasoline does. A spark of static electricity from a person's finger is enough to set it off. Ideally, no oxygen should be present in the liquid hydrogen tanks in a fuel cell vehicle, but trace amounts of air may contaminate the hydrogen supply. If the hydrogen should escape, it will immediately come into contact with the oxygen in air."

And I'd dare to say that a good amount of oxygen would be introduced during a horrible car crash, probably far more explosive than a gasoline tank, because it is under a lot of pressure.

www.youtube.com...

Fast forward to around 3:30 and watch. This isn't even under any significant pressure, and it's a controlled explosion. Imagine if it was under the kind of pressure car fuel cells would be. Now imagine that the structural integrity of those fuel cells were compromised, say, because of a horrible collision with lots of sparks flying. Bad news for everyone in the area.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't progress to hydrogen as a fuel source. I am saying that (for Lazar) to suggest hydrogen is a completely safe fuel source is false and misleading. It is safe as long as conditions are controlled, but they generally are not in a car crash. Cost/benefit.

And no offense, but I wouldn't put too much stock into what the designers/manufacturers say regarding the safety of their hydrogen cars. They are trying to promote them. They may report performance problems/hurdles that would require more funding to hammer out (job security), but certainly not possible serious dangers. It's not in their interests.

We do have to move from fossil fuels, though. It's the only logical option.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Flux8]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I heard from some UFO insiders that Bob Lazar made some deal with his employers at Area 51 and the Black Ops government, in order for them to spare his life. The deal was that he would lie about his education at MIT to discredit himself, and in exchange, they'd let him live with his whistleblowing them.

What do you think?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr pant123456
If you don't know who George Knapp is, he is the investigative reporter that did so much research into Lazar's background. He managed to prove Lazar's connections with with many institutions that claimed to have no connection with him. Lazar claimed to have worked for the US Navy, which the Navy denied. George Knapp did some investigating and in 1990 found a W-2 tax slip that showed that the Department of Naval Intelligence was issuing Lazar payments. He also claimed to have worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which, yet again, they denied. Lazar's name was later found in the 1982 phone directory, listed as a technician. Also, a photograph of Lazar was found in a newspaper article listing him as a physicist working at Los Alamos.

Obviously, he was telling the truth when he claimed his connections to the Navy and the Los Alamos Lab. When he came forward, they erased all of his records to make it seem like he was lying.


Possible, But what about the yearbooks at MIT? There is no way they could erase ALL the yearbooks from MIT of his name, since some of them would be in private homes. How come none of them mention his name?

I heard from some UFO insiders that Bob Lazar made some deal with his employers at Area 51 and the Black Ops government, in order for them to spare his life. The deal was that he would lie about his education at MIT to discredit himself, and in exchange, they'd let him live.

After all, why else would he lie about being at MIT and discredit himself? He is smart, not dumb.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I have been completely wishy-washy about Bob Lazaar.

It took reading this www.abovetopsecret.com...

that changed my mind. I am a big fan of George Knapp and I feel he has really stumbled on to something that has changed my mind,

There might be more to the story than I was aware of. Bob just might be the real deal.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


WELL that was a mouthful...i believe bob lazer should fess up to the mess he has created one way or the other. whats wrong with taking a polygraph test?? GO FOR IT BOB!! and make it asap...or you will have the good ole alternative community up in arms. its called karma, bob. prove yourself!! jez, will somebody get a protocal or litnis test before we the public are exposed to lies again and again... dont mess with my non-scientific mind!!



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
A lot of good points have been raised in this thread, both in favor of and in opposition to placing belief in Lazar's claims.

At the end of the day though, I have to fall back on skepticism. And if I look at all of the points raised, all of the evidence (and lack thereof,) and try to view it all with a rigorous eye, the only answer I can honestly give myself is: "No, I should not believe Bob Lazar."

This may, or may not, be because he himself is dishonest. It may, or may not, be because the government has "erased the records" of his education. Maybe he told the truth. Maybe he lied. Maybe he's a patsy. Ultimately, from a skeptical point of view, the cause doesn't change the fact that there is no proof of his educational, or scientific credentials. And if there is no proof, then I cannot hang my faith on his claims.

I can honestly say that I neither believe nor disbelieve his claims (due to lack of conclusive evidence,) but that, too, is irrelevant to the ultimate impact that those claims have on the body of research that is UFOlogy (at least for me.) His claims ultimately cannot contribute to that body of research unless there is proof of those claims. Sadly, there is not. So, for the purposes of skepticism, rigor, and an effort to avoid self-delusion, I cannot consider his claims when looking at UFOlogy as a whole and trying to make any sort of judgment about what may or may not be going on.

This is why - and I feel that this needs to be stressed whenever and wherever possible - it is so critically important for those making such claims and offering such potential evidence to have thorough documentation, and/or corroborating witnesses to support their testimony in the field of UFOlogy. The subject is already so amorphous and lacking in definitive evidence (although there is a growing body of persuasive, documented, corroborated evidence suggestive of something happening,) that new evidence - especially claims with the potential impact of Lazar's claims - must be seen as credible if they are to be truly contributory to our knowledge, in my opinion.

Whether it really happened or not, regardless of whether you know it happened personally, if you cannot provide proof, you are not contributing to our scientifically validated body of knowledge. That doesn't make someone a liar, by any means. I have known people making seemingly wild claims which I felt compelled to believe because I knew them personally and trusted them implicitly. But that doesn't mean I would bring their stories forward as proof of the phenomena we seek to learn about and - someday, hopefully - explain, because there was no proof of their claims. Something you know to be true personally but have no proof of is just that: personal knowledge. And it may contribute to your personal journey toward uncovering the truth, whatever it turns out to be. But it cannot and will not prove anything to others without proof.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by AceWombat04]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is interesting
www.aliensonearth.com...

I think people should concentrate on what he says about the event and not his background.

He does not say silly things and he talks from memory. He's tough not to believe.

Stanton Friedman can indeed have a lot to lose, I can appreciate that.

In the end I don't know. As I get deeper into my studies of relativity, nuclear physics, and quantum field theory (PhD candidate) I'll have Bob's words in the back of my mind.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazabel51
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


WELL that was a mouthful...i believe bob lazer should fess up to the mess he has created one way or the other. whats wrong with taking a polygraph test?? GO FOR IT BOB!! and make it asap...or you will have the good ole alternative community up in arms. its called karma, bob. prove yourself!! jez, will somebody get a protocal or litnis test before we the public are exposed to lies again and again... dont mess with my non-scientific mind!!


He did take a polygraph. Here's a quote from George Knapp, who is the first one to interview Lazar extensively....

"There was no single gut-check moment. There were several. One was when Lazar took and passed a polygraph exam. Nother was when he took us into Los Alamos lab--the place where he supposedly never worked--and obviously knew every building and many of the employees, including the security folks who waved us through without so much as a question."

Maybe now we need Knapp to take a polygraph.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Incase you missed it the first time around...Also, lie detector tests aren't neccesarily court evidence.

Originally posted by Marrr
Everything Lazar centers on one thing, S4. It has never been proven to exist, ever.
"The Bob" stated numerous times they were taken to work at S4 by a greyhound type bus upon arriving at the base.
Have any of you ever seen a road or travelled tracks leading to this supposed S4? There isn't a lack of photos of the base these days, should be easy to spot if such a thing existed. A greyhound bus would make one heavy trail thru the desert.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I would encourage all physicist to examine Bob's comments on the propulsion system and gravity and provide clear evidence as to why what he says is not possible beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The only thing he ever says about gravity that is hightly controversial but not impossible is that he does not believe that a graviton exists but that gravity is caused by a wavelike phenomenon that can be guided. Additionally he posits that gravity is purely a wave (thus no graviton) that travels much faster than the speed of light. Even Kip Thorne's gravity probes have not found a shred of evidence for gravity waves, and it's been a long time. Sure Kip's just now deploying the "really" sensitive probe but you'd think we'd get a hint by now. On the other side, it is well documented that general relativity cannot be reconciled with Quantum Theory still to this day. That means gravitons have not been found.

The thing is for a guy that went only to pierce college and graduated at the bottom of his class, these types of comments, comments that cannot easily be dissmissed for ~25 yrs, are hard to come up with. Specially in 1988.

He's either a sophisticated government operative with disinformation or the real thing but a lone fraud, I just can't see that.

I don't care about his background, even bob does not claim to be qualified to have worked on the "saucer". I can imagine many ways in which that can be faked or contorted. I care about the technical details of what he said. Period

Please somebody show me the smoking gun so I can get his comments off my brain once and for all.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
No he shouldn't be believed. He lied about his educational background and his claims of a facility at Papoose Lake (S4) turned out to be a lie that nobody has ever found evidence of. We now have excellent satellite photographs of the base (www.dreamlandresort.com...) and there is no evidence at all of a secret underground location.

Lazar's story is too fanciful (he worked at the base for one week and makes amazing discoveries? Come on....) and has too many holes in it to be believable. The fact that he also lied about his educational background adds nothing to his credibility.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Lazar was telling the truth he wouldn't be out making Youtube videos, he would be in spending the rest of his life in federal prison in a cell next to Jonathan Pollard.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Turiddu]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Playing Devil's advocate a bit...


Originally posted by Turiddu
We now have excellent satellite photographs of the base and there is no evidence at all of a secret underground location.

Think about that statement for a minute...



Originally posted by Turiddu
Lazar's story is too fanciful (he worked at the base for one week and makes amazing discoveries?)

Someone must work for longer than one week on a project in order to make amazing discoveries? Consider, he would have been working on an already assembled and functioning object/device. I agree that it's a fanciful story, but extraordinary events do happen to people. Is he not 'allowed' to have an extraordinary event?



Originally posted by Turiddu
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Lazar was telling the truth he wouldn't be out making Youtube videos, he would be in spending the rest of his life in federal prison in a cell next to Jonathan Pollard.

I get your general point, but while Jonathan Pollard passed actual classified material/documents to the Israelis, Bob Lazar only talked about his experiences. Given the nature of Bob's info, and it's possible implications for the US Gov't and military, it would be prudent to adhere to a 'discredit and deflect' strategy. In other words, deny that there is even a secret. In Jonathan's case, there was no need to deny that the info actually existed, so a 'prosecute and convict' strategy would be a better option.

Overall, I think AceWombat04 stated it best.
But Lazar did speak out, and it gives us other avenues to look into, even if they are shots in the dark.

Has anyone made one of those projectors yet?? (I keep thinking of Deyo...)

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Flux8]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This will probably get me watched but sod it.

We cannot trust satellite or aerial photography, it can all be manipulated, for example take a look at this flash earth photo of a location in Italy...





Farmland, little of interest (aerial photo)



Zoomed out, same again (aerial photo)



Zoomed out further, that's Aviano air force base in Italy (satellite photo).



FLASH EARTH Type it in & see for yourselves.

SAME VIEW IN GOOGLE MAPS


So just because there doesn't appear to be anything at the so called S4 when viewed through the likes of Google Earth & other satellite images doesn't mean it isn't really there.

If we're not suppossed to see it, we won't.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If S4 is real then where are the roads leading to it? Where the piles of earth that would have been moved if a massive underground project had been dug? Where are the trails of dust from the buses driving to the base?

Building a "secret underground base" is not a thing that can be accomplished in secret in very little time. These things would take huge amounts of resources and effort to build. They would generate massive piles of earth excavated from the tunnels. We have no evidence at all that S4 ever existed. Most likely Lazar invented it from "Site 4", which is a real part of the Tonopah Test Range.

When Lazar was creating the story the public had limited access to high quality satellite images of the base. Today we have high quality images from sources not connected to the US government and we can see that his claims of a secret base at Papoose Lake have no basis in reality.

No S4 + fake background = Lazar hoax




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join