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.

 

Bob Lazar seems to confirm Zecharia Sitchin

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here's an interview with a real PhD physicist on the Lazar material. People who persist in believeing Lazar is "the real deal" may want to read this carefully.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Prove that my statements are "misinformed".



By the way, a magnetic field is too needed for any natural electrical activity


As I mentioned (please do take care to read) this is false.

Another one is your claim that Bob is really manufacturing Li6 in his backyard using a particle accelerator.
You also skip on any explanation why he would need Li6 in the first place, and why he mentioned hydride in the video while the slides show Deuteride.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Here's an interview with a real PhD physicist on the Lazar material. People who persist in believeing Lazar is "the real deal" may want to read this carefully.


It is in fact a good read and the author is laser sharp.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don't feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.


Ah, I see. So, because his scenario violates accepted physical theories and is "careless" and confusing to physicists who don't understand it, he concludes that his "pseudo-scientific ramblings" are not worthy of serious consideration.

Well, aren't scientists supposed to discard theories whenever evidence arises to contradict and disprove them? Aren't they supposed to have open minds instead of latching onto theories that they merely accept? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the ratio of what physicists know compared to what they don't know can be estimated as 1:100. They might only know 1% of all there is to know about physics, but when Lazar's model comes along, they admit it's a possibility, but then they totally dismiss it simply because it contradicts what they "know".





That's what gravity IS - a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity.


General relativity, a theory that does not prove its claims with absolute certainty.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Ah, I see. So, because his scenario violates accepted physical theories and is "careless" and confusing to physicists who don't understand it


If you do read the web page, the author says clearly that Lazar does NOT present any theories at all. Thus, there is nothing to speak about. He says there is gravity A and gravity B. He could say there are gravities from A to Z. That's not more theory than saying there are spaghetti monsters inside planet Earth.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Because lithium can be used to store deuterium, which I'm sure you know is heavy hydrogen.

Go here and read the 'Designs Using Other Fuels' section: www.cartage.org.lb...

The rest of the page is purely nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, fusion, etc. I'm not sure what the relevance of hydride is to his device, but deuteride is relevant (as far as I know).

To answer your first claim, electric currents produce magnetic fields in their vicinity. Electric fields arise from voltage and currents, whereas magnetic fields arise from current flows. However, electricity can be produced with magnetism, causing it to push and pull electrons to create an electric current. They are dependent upon each other and can lead to each other, meaning that electricity can produce magnetism and magnetism can produce electricity.

Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces electromagnetic fields. However, that does not imply that magnetism requires electricity, even though one of the sources of magnetism is electron activity. What is an electron? It's a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. See where I'm going with this?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


If you do read the web page, the author says clearly that Lazar does NOT present any theories at all. Thus, there is nothing to speak about. He says there is gravity A and gravity B. He could say there are gravities from A to Z. That's not more theory than saying there are spaghetti monsters inside planet Earth.
So his model doesn't qualify as a theory? As far as I know, currently accepted models are THEORIES. If you remember some of his statements, he clearly states that he does not claim to know any of the material and that it was hard to believe even when he reviewed it. You're still relying on opinions, not facts.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
How do you know he's a fake? You seem to have a penchant for believing everything someone else says. Your link presentation seems to suggest that you "read it somewhere". What a hypocritical statement.


Huh? It amazes me that after all these years there are still people drinking the Bob Lazar Kool Aid. I don't have to prove anything isn't fake. His educational background has been proven fake. I presented one of many sources, just consolidated. At least I provide some sources. You provide none. You just pontificate. That's not good enough. If you don;t provide sources for your claims, they are dismissable. You remind me of Michael Horn, pugnacious, blustery, and in your face, but without a shred of evidence.

Lazar has been debunked by many, including Stan Friedman. It really is a done deal except, of course, with folks such as yourself. The archives of ATS are filled with this information in much more detail than I have provided here. I don;t even think Lazar believes in Lazar any more.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Because lithium can be used to store deuterium, which I'm sure you know is heavy hydrogen.


a) Lithium 7 which in abundance can be used to store hydrogen. Why Lithium 6?
b) Are you saying Bob's car runs on deuterium?


The rest of the page is purely nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, fusion, etc. I'm not sure what the relevance of hydride is to his device, but deuteride is relevant (as far as I know).


Wait, you are quoting a link with info on fusion, do you seriously think Bob has a thermonuclear device in his car?


To answer your first claim, electric currents produce magnetic fields in their vicinity.


That doesn't mean at all that magnetic field is NECESSARY for electric phenomena to occur.


Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces electromagnetic fields.


A stationary charge does neither.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I don't need to provide sources for rejection. You're claiming he's a fraud and I'm simply rejecting that premise based on the strong possibility that his educational background was sabotaged by the government, yet you continue to ignore that part.


You remind me of Michael Horn, pugnacious, blustery, and in your face, but without a shred of evidence.


You remind me of a typical christian apologist, abhorrent, unjustified, and oblivious of specific details.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wow. Did I ever say he has a thermonuclear device in his car? What the hell have you been smoking?


Are you saying Bob's car runs on deuterium?


Am I? I don't see any such implication in my statement that you quoted. Are you jumping to conclusions for personal reasons?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
You guys might be interested in this thread Nasa's Fermi Catches Thunderstorm Hurling AntiMatter Into Space posted by PatriotsPride

Hopefuly it might stop some bickering. But i doubt it



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Whateva69
 


I doubt it will stop the annoying arguments, but I read that article from another thread and it just goes to show that even "impossible theories" can be proven to be correct, that is if it was even conceived of as a theory in the first place. I never thought that thunderstorms could emit antimatter, particularly positrons. Now I know.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


OHM's LAW; so simple to understand.

Go dude, kick his butt, he still can't simply explain OHM's Law, If he was a scientist he would be able make his own theories provable but resorts to Wikipedia.

"it" has also failed to understand coherent/noncoherent wave form manipulation and standing waves.

If "it" understood OHM's Law @10 years old he would be able to provide some scientific analysis. A scientist will look at the data, extrapolate and provide solutions instead of rhetoric. That's what scientists/engineers do. We research, experiment, learn, extrapolate and solve.

And "it" still has no comeback to OHM's law, Goedel, Faraday, Lord kelvin, Telsa, Maxwell nor the basics of electromagentic fields and waves. Go talk to any radar technician, an automotive ectrician, or even a highschool teacher.

"Pot calls Kettle Black". What's his education? The analogy is he has learned by rote, that is only a technician who follows the written word. A scientist/engineer will take that data, break it down and replicate and provide solutions which "it" has yet failed to do. At best "it" is a lab tech, hell he couldn't even change a spare tyre if it goes flat but call's Road Service for assistance.

I did ask him to research the HADRON/HADES project that use these basic principles.

And if he understood these simple ideas, tell him to come back with the answer to

"C+1g@N"

Just Google, you'll be amazed

Happy Hunting

HADES



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by maxwellsdemon
 


Yeah, I read Ohm's law and it's not difficult at all. I did try googling your equation and couldn't find anything. Which link should I click when I google it?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


I did the Google myself, just need to add a space here or there

"C+1 g @N"

www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/mcamenzi/CObjects_05.pdf

Hope this helps.

And thanks for the backups to; I posted onto your other link so you had more info;

Happy Hunting

HADES



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by maxwellsdemon
 


Woah, this is some very complex stuff. I'll save it and read the rest of it tomorrow when I have more time. Is it the information you dreamed or did you learn it from your studies?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


Howdy,

To answer your question whether I had read this information before, I can plainly state I made the formula by myself and published on ATS 2 days ago. I just use intuitive tri-logic theory. The PTB's have already checked the records to prove I've never read, downloaded nor seen any of this information.

I have never ever read this before I made the formula, I googled about 20 mins ago to back up my theory/facts and hit jackpot. You can backtrack, the PTB's will also bactrack. They are just pictures in my head. But I understand it without complex math, I just go for very simple things I understand & extrapolate then find the facts to prove I am on the "right path" of knowledge to understand and teach.


Happy Hunting

HADES



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by maxwellsdemon
 


Don't worry, I believe you. After all, your name is on the document. I assume you're from Europe because of the "Landessternwarte Konigstuhl Heidelber" part (German?). That would explain the way you use some of your English terms, not that I'm criticizing your grammar in any way. I guess you could call it a "textual accent". I added you as a friend yesterday, just so you know.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's lucky that this bombardment you casually reference (as proof against Lazar's claims re: the element allegedly in his possession) doesn't cause nuclear fission within the atoms of our body cells eh? Did the designers of the atom bomb put some plutonium in a cardboard box and leave it 'at sea level' in the hope it would go boom?

Your post style is rude, patronising and dismissive, yet you haven't fully investigated the hyperdimensional aspects of electromagnetics, anti-gravity and so forth. As evident by your lack of supporting evidence against the technology.

You may be right about Lazar - all I know (having not watched the video) is that any 'information' arising regarding Area 51 is highly at risk of being chock-full of disinfo, deflection, deliberate red herrings and so on.

However, to claim that your knowledge of anti-grav tech is adequate to prove it a load of bunk? Seeing the complexity of the maths involved I'd appreciate some formulas and fully reviewed papers being laid out before accepting your stance.

I believe you may have seen the title of the thread (re: Sitchin) and dropped in to lay some debunking down - is that a fair assumption? With respect to the OP, this thread has nothing to do with Sitchin; the whole concept of 'greys' was alien to his theories. I see it more as a start-point for a discussion of the technologies, secretive activities, and public manipulations served out by Area 51 over the years.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join