AREA 51 - Activity CAUGHT on (Fact or Faked Paranormal Files Show)

reply to post by FosterVS
The scholar is just an ATS label thing to do with the research forum. You aren't allowed to post there without it.

I'm not sharing my personal details like where I work or my name with you though. Sorry. My credibility in real life is more important than on ATS. It's cool if you don't believe me. I only put it there so people can get rough idea where I'm coming form. It's also against the T&Cs to ask for or share those details on ATS so be careful.

Me being an intel wanabee is way off the mark. I have limited knowledge of it because of all the disinfo meant I ended up researching it but I'm not an expert. I also know some people but that's all. I like to know as much as I can. The idea of compartmentalisation and "need to know..." would do my head in. I'm information hungry.

This is a forum don't forget. It's a forum for discussion/debate. Judge me by my contribution to debate. If you knew my credentials would it make any difference to whether I'm right or wrong? To the value of my comments or to how much I learn? Of course not.

reply to post by FosterVS


Maybe he meant scientologist. Scientists are very analytical. They look at the facts logically using their body of knowledge and make a scientific conclusion.

Now it is possible to be a scholar of many things. Comic books for instance.

But the funniest thing of all is the notion of anyone here believing their profile on ATS is of any value at all.

Oh hey, no offense to scientologists. Those guys are lawsuit crazy. Uh, all praise Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

reply to post by gariac


Well you do desrve an insult for the offensive, and again you're an idiot..

How is science made? By starting from what you think and making a theory out of it and testing if it is true, if not, then fine it fails, if yes - it becomes a fact. Your experiments become the proof of how it's made and it becomes science,

At the moment ufology is not a science because it doesn't hold the standards of solid proof. I know perfectly well what science does and requires (even though the critiques arent directed at me as I dont use this thread).

Because unlike you, who is just a wannbe-researcher and some photographer fanboy, I've studied Astronomy and of course, I am aware anything discussed in this board is not accepted BY SCIENCE. However, it's enough someone to have read all documents and things existing about UFOs to rather rethink before saying 'NO' to them/

And also anything different from the Bible was also laughable, I think it's the same here. If you don't try you will neve reach new truths. So is there anything wrong in TRYING theories that show enough logic and possibilities so they have to be tested?

All of you nay sayers are such jerks and therefore I react in the same way to YOU

Originally posted by FosterVS
You got any proof to back it up, or did the UK government wipe yours out as well?
I like to call this the "The Dog Ate My Homework" defense.

I forgot to say. No, I'm not important enough to bother wiping my records. I still have my certificates and can get references at the moment....

If I get hired for special ops I might ask them to zero me just so I can borrow loads of money again. Why did they lend me so bloody much. I significantly contributed to the current economic crisis.

Originally posted by gariac
Now it is possible to be a scholar of many things. Comic books for instance.

It is possible to be a scholar of military intelligence operations too. The only problem is that, annoyingly, a lot of the most important documents are out of reach.

Originally posted by gariac
But the funniest thing of all is the notion of anyone here believing their profile on ATS is of any value at all.

I've made some good contacts but it won't pay the bills.

reply to post by Imtor


I never called you an idiot. I just pointed out the lunacy in your posts. That is quite different.

Oh, and I take great pride when I am personally attacked. That is because I know I have won the argument.

Care to dig that hole you are in any deeper?

reply to post by gariac


I've said many times, I don't believe all Lazar says when there is proof that the things arent exactly as he says. But I do not call everything a lie when there's evidence he knows something, he was either involved in that or was covering up someone who really worked there. The fact that they saw a UFO when Bob told Lear and the others and he knew where it was to be seen means he had some knowledge of the operations in A51 and knew someone.

When talking about Schneider, how much of what he says was true, fact is he was involved as well in order to be murdered, saying that he killed himself to look more legit is bull#.

And it is very wrong to think that just because something is not true from the story, all has to be a lie. This is where you're wrong but it's your prob. Maybe it was wrong about Uut, the lack of record of Lazar is still not enough to say he lied about that as well when other things showed he had some knowledge about it.

So you didn't win anything, you're just convincing yourself that only your beliefs are true. Yours is not less of belief than that of the believers I see around.

Originally posted by Imtor
When talking about Schneider, how much of what he says was true, fact is he was involved as well in order to be murdered, saying that he killed himself to look more legit is bull#.

The trouble is with Schneider, anything significan that was true probably cam from stuff he learnt not how he says. In the final analysis, Schneider has been used as a smokescreen for real activity just like Lazar. In Schneiders case, he was making money and AFOSI used him to supplement the Bennewitz manipulation. There is more interesting stuff on Bennewitz but I don't want to push it too hard.

reply to post by Imtor


Dream on. Lazar saw a Janet land. He probably had some knowledge of the 32 landings. It could be he had a contact with the NTS, which reserves the right to their airspace via Gumby control.

Your really need to learn more about Groom Lake operations.

reply to post by gariac

He doesn't know anything about what was in the sky there in 1989. He wasn't there. Neither did Glenn Campbell.

My idle-handed colleagues and I have been researching Lazar's claims since 1992, but I wasn't there when Lazar first made those claims... www.thewhyfiles.net...

and

I first came to the outskirts of the base in October 1992. I was interested in UFOs at the time, and the "Black Mailbox" was supposed to be a place you could see them on a scheduled basis. I quickly dispelled these stories. glenn-campbell.com...

So if Lazar was and the multiple supporting witnesses saw what they did in 1989, Campbell's data is irrelevant, like Gariac's.

So, what year did you first visit the range/Groome Lake, Mr Gariac. How many years out of date is your UNPROVEN testimony that there are no non-conventional tests. Or are you going to keep that from the members?

reply to post by Pimander


Again you turn the conversation to me, and as usual with insults. Again this proves I have won. And again I look at the source of insults and laugh.

This is not about me, this is about Bob Lazar. On the topic of one Bob Lazar, I have clearly proven him to be a fraud. But not just me. Other educated people have proven Lazar to be a fraud.

Scientists leave trails. Lazar is NOT a scientist. He couldn’t even answer scientific questions put to him.

www.stantonfriedman.com...

Thanks for playing. You really are a glutton for punishment.

thanks for the two clips they seem to show similar events of shooting stars and dramatic music, nothing new i guess although I do miss UFO Hunters especially Pat Uskert who I thought was a no nonsense type of investigator, especially when Bill Byrne started going off on a tangent lol .

anyway, here's a clip taken of Glenn Campbell on Freedom Ridge

great vids the first one i am going to go with it being a new type of aircraft.

Originally posted by gariac
This is not about me, this is about Bob Lazar. On the topic of one Bob Lazar, I have clearly proven him to be a fraud. But not just me. Other educated people have proven Lazar to be a fraud.

It is about you and Lazar as you are both making claims. You made this claim.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by Imtor

 

Dream on. Lazar saw a Janet land.

Your really need to learn more about Groom Lake operations.

But you can't back it up because you don't know.

Here is a question for you to duck. If you aren't trying to deceive members into thinking you know more than you do, answer it. Or are you worried people might think you are a fraud?

So, what year did you first visit the range/Groome Lake, Mr Gariac. How many years out of date is your UNPROVEN testimony that there are no non-conventional tests. Or are you going to keep that from the members?

reply to post by LOK31


That episode gave me the heebie jeebies

Just wanted to note also that I am friends with Austin (one of the hosts of the show)

reply to post by Pimander


It is not about me. I have proven Lazar to be a fraud six ways to Sunday.

Since you have never been to the range, you never saw a Janet land from any direction, let alone from the north.

There are things you can't learn from google earth and youtube. You need to have seen the way the base operates. You are simply not an expert witness.

Most Janet landings are straight in. I have seen this at least a hundred times. If the landing is from the north, the plane has to come in higher than normal. That is so the plane can make a standard approach. A 3% slope requires some room. So the plane flies in high, the person on the ground sees the landing light, the plane turns, the light is gone.

This is science, not some pommy rant. But in any event, why should I believe a word of what Bob Lazar. Fake degrees, fake employment record, bad science.

reply to post by Pimander


To tell you, I believe Schneider more than I do Lazar. At least Schneider's death threats and what eventually happened has clues that point in this direction, while Lazar remains complete dull mystery with not a single thing to be verified.

reply to post by Imtor


There is recent thread on Schneider based on "testimony" from his widow. Lazar sadly makes more sense than Schneider, which speaks volumes.

Lazar knows some science. There are huge gaping holes in his explanation of how the "sport model" works. Clearly it is meant for the general public, not someone who knows even rudimentary physics.

I'm sorry, but this thread has literally gone to hell with the back and forth trolling... Guys, please take your debate to the U2U's, if you want to keep going.. otherwise, it's basically just arguing on the internet.... which is just like the special olympics.. even if you win, you're still retarded

btw, Gariac.. I respect you more. just wanted to make that clear

reply to post by weavty1


I just hate to leave a thread with such bunk at the end, but some people just don't get it.

Kind of ironic how people who have never been to the range but watched a lot of youtube will argue their crack pot theories till the cows come home, never thinking that somebody who has maybe 15 Tikaboos under his belt might know a little bit more as to what goes on there.

Originally posted by gariac
I just hate to leave a thread with such bunk at the end, but some people just don't get it.

Oh but they do "get it". You think Lazar is a fraud. You have ducked the question AGAIN! My crackpot theory is I think you are misleading members about what you know to try to make your case look stronger than it is.

Members will read this and see that you don't have the basic honesty to answer a relevant question. There is no doubt about it, my point has been made and most readers see what it is. You don't know what was happening in the skies near groom Lake back then. FACT!

Admit it and your case looks weak. Ignore the question and it shows members you won't be honest about what you don't know so you are an unreliable witness. Simple really.

I'll remind you what the question is.

Originally posted by Pimander

Here is a question for you to duck. If you aren't trying to deceive members into thinking you know more than you do, answer it. Or are you worried people might think you are a fraud?

So, what year did you first visit the range/Groome Lake, Mr Gariac. How many years out of date is your UNPROVEN testimony that there are no non-conventional tests. Or are you going to keep that from the members?