Originally posted by AthlonSavage
what makes you believe Bob Lazar story is factual. His story is very different from the Hills. Was the star constellation that the Hills described
known by earth astronomers in the 60s?
Yes of course, not only the constellation was, but it was already known that Zeta Reticuli was actually 2 distinct stars. As a matter of fact, in a
sufficiently dark sky, it is visible to the naked eye, except that you must be at a latitude south of the Cancer tropic (approx.) to be able to see
What is actually interesting, although there clearly is no evidential link between those facts:
- the Hill's abduction took place in 1961 according to their claims
- it is in 1966 that Marjorie Fish starts to think about matching the drawing and a model of stellar neighbours of the sun
- with new data from the 1969 Gliese catalog, she can correct the positions of several stars, and she produces up to 23 constructions that could
- it is in 1973, seven years after having started that titan's work, that she concludes on one of her models that it could be a good match
- it is only in 1989, sixteen years later, that George Knapp would interview a guy named Bob Lazar, revealing to the world the existence of the so
called Area 51 (please correct if I'm wrong but I could not find evidence for anyone having ever mentioned S4 or Area 51 prior to May 1989, at which
time Lazar was not yet identified as such anyways)
- in 1996 a giant gas planet was announced around Zeta Reticuli 2, but the discovery was quickly dismissed as being an error in the interpretation of
the star pulsating light.
My comments on this timeline are quite simple.
1. It took someone educated 7 years to produce a plausible match that, by any means, cannot yet be disproven.
2. It is only 16 years after that model story appeared in the public that someone, just out of chance, claims that his secret work involved
extraterrestrial stuff (or possibly beings) in the origin of that precise system.
3. 7 more years later, a planet discovery is confirmed then quickly dismissed around the very same star, in fact even around the most sun-like of the
4. I have yet to find evidence that Zeta 2 Reticuli is a pulsating or unstable star, although that is exactly the excuse used to dismiss the results.
Although Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 are (were at least, didn't check that again recently) prime candidates in the TPF program, so far no other planet has been
found or announced around neither of those stars, while we continue to discover planets around all sorts of stars and even when we would have
considered it highly unlikely...
5. Another 16 years and a bit later, i.e. as of now, still no news of those 2, although one could have suspected that given all the above, those stars
would be prime target for observations...
6. Given my 5, actually there are 2 ways that this could be interpreted. Either someone wants to quickly disprove all claims about what, or who, could
be around those stars, by providing the public with evidence that there is nothing qnd they're not successful at getting that evidence, or someone is
trying to protect the fact that they know that there is something or someone there, from the above research or any other possible means.
I am jumping at no conclusion at this, although I can say in a certain manner, I'd like it if Fish was right, if the Hills said exactly what they had
been experiencing in all actuality, if Lazar really is who he claims he is or was, etc. At this point in time we have no proof that neither of this
all is true or actual. But we also have no proof that it is false or wrong. There is a part missing...