Stanton Friedman Debunks Bob Lazar

reply to post by FosterVS


Honestly I wish the whole bob lazar thing could be put to rest, he's been debunked over and over yet there's a least one person on here a month talking about his Anti Grav or S-4..

I agree with you, I reckon him and Lear just concocted the whole story hoping to get rich.

I know all those logical fallacies. You picked the wrong person to pull that crap on. You are using ad ignorantiam and the argument from authority.

Crap? Oh my...i am not so much appealing to ignorance as i am avoiding the circumstatial and opinion parts of the issue at hand. the things you are focusing on have counter arguments and are not provable in the normal sense.

and citing authorities is not the same as appealing to authority. nearly every argument over a scientific topic involves citing authorities. the issue is a series of scientific propositions. these propositions have been called false. i cite the authorities where relevant to show that the propositions are not false. would you take my word that the scientific claims Lazar made are supported by science?

you know as well that each logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy when the content is topical and true. An argument can have the form of a logical fallacy and not be a logical fallacy under those circumstances. however; attacking a magazine as if doing so undermines the information contained within when it comes from a credible authority that is merely cited is a logical fallacy.

Your arguments are a combination of cuts and paste from articles that might or might not be relevant, but just because person X works at Y, it must be true. [Hint: medical doctors can be total quacks, so authority doesn't mean they are correct.] I don't fall for that crap. The ad ignoratiam argument is to put me into a spot where I have to prove a negative, which can't be done.

dude; that team has at least 4 sakurai prize winning theorists on it. they won the prize for that paper. the paper pretty much say Gluons and QM gravitons are related. it is pretty much iron clad, on topic and verifies one of Lazar's claims. not only that but it is pretty much his most outlandish scientific claim too considering i have never seen any science text article or authority make that claim until now.

Again, we were talking about LAZAR. Where is his photographic evidence? Oh yeah, somebody kicked the tripod before they could take a photograph. How convenient. Where is is physical proof? Did his dog eat his sample of element 115. Where is the base at S-4. Oh, yeah, it can't be seen. That is sure handy.

As i said the non-science stuff is rightly subject to argument. that's why i leave it alone. i not only cannot prove any of what you said on circumstantial stuff wrong; i don't want or need to. If the sciences is wrong. Bob is wrong. if the science is right he is right on the only thing that really matters.

By your logic (or lack thereof), we have to believe in Jrod, Dan Burisch, and all those sick pathetic people that crave attention. Hint: all sorts of people say all sorts of stuff, and believe it not, sometimes what they say isn't true.

None of those things have any testable claims. it's be cool if jrod were true. but there is no way in hell to prove it. and since there is no chance to test anything on it i am content to call it a hoax.

Ad hominem means I attacked you, which is not the case. i just attack your dubious arguments.

i did not say you attacked me. an ad hominem is not just a direct attack on a debate opponent or partner. it is also attacking sources. when you attacked the information i posted from SCIAM even though i also cited the same scientists from different venues and even though they have standing on the science and never considered the content; that is an ad hominem too. you don't have to directly attack me for it to be an ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

cited from the logical fallacy guide: www.csun.edu...

Stealthbomber
reply to post by FosterVS

 

Honestly I wish the whole bob lazar thing could be put to rest, he's been debunked over and over yet there's a least one person on here a month talking about his Anti Grav or S-4..

I agree with you, I reckon him and Lear just concocted the whole story hoping to get rich.

aw now come on! Don't tell me you wouldn't love to have your very own star cruiser, too. I'd sell you to the aliens to get a star cruiser. (Calvin and Hobbes joke)

FosterVS

stormbringer1701
as i said earlier they are not my primary concern. this is because what Lazar said about the science is testable while the credentials can be muck raked. As to credentialed scientists. scientists are famous for their ability to often be wrong. i have already laid out a powerful case for Lazar's science claims. if he was right his credentials do not matter.

if your scientists said there was no element 115 they were wrong. if they said no stable isotope was found they would be leaving out the fact that stable atoms were not looked for in the experiments. If they believe there cannot be a stable isotope of element 115 they may be right but they also may be very wrong because element 115 was more stable the heavier it was. if they said gravity and the strong force are not related they were wrong.

A REAL physicist debunks Lazar:
Link

Or read the whole saga here; not sure where I compiled all this from, Tom Mahood, or the Dreamland Resort website:
www.topsecretbases.com...

Regardless - I have no doubt Lazar is a smart guy, credentials or not. He has however been thoroughly debunked. His whole tale, in my opinion, was concocted in the minds of Lazar, Huff, Lear and others. To fleece the Sheeple with tapes, seminars, appearances, etc. Someone with physics knowledge probably came up with the technical part of the tale, and Lazar memorized it. He has presented it almost as if he was quoting it from memory, but never able to answer any deeper questions into the science of his tale.

edit on 28-1-2014 by FosterVS because: (no reason given)

ah but they couldn't. science did not acknowledge any link between the strong force and gravity. that was not a part of credentialed science until the Zvi Bern dixon paper was published. i don't even remember any fringe science source that made that claim. his claim about heavy nuclei forming in stars contradicted what was then taught from middle school to post doc until about a decade ago. in fact it was the fact that what he claimed then had no scientific backing that some used to debunk him on his science.

granted element 115 was predictable.maybe even the nucleonic shell structure. he went well beyond that.

there is just one science related issue left that needs checking out to prove conclusively he had knowledge he could not have gotten any way other than the way he claims. someone needs to grab a nucleonic gluon field and produce a gravity anomaly. it can be done if it is real without having element 115. there are a few substitutes for element 115 that should have the same properties.

stormbringer1701

I know all those logical fallacies. You picked the wrong person to pull that crap on. You are using ad ignorantiam and the argument from authority.

Crap? Oh my...i am not so much appealing to ignorance as i am avoiding the circumstatial and opinion parts of the issue at hand. the things you are focusing on have counter arguments and are not provable in the normal sense.

and citing authorities is not the same as appealing to authority. nearly every argument over a scientific topic involves citing authorities. the issue is a series of scientific propositions. these propositions have been called false. i cite the authorities where relevant to show that the propositions are not false. would you take my word that the scientific claims Lazar made are supported by science?

you know as well that each logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy when the content is topical and true. An argument can have the form of a logical fallacy and not be a logical fallacy under those circumstances. however; attacking a magazine as if doing so undermines the information contained within when it comes from a credible authority that is merely cited is a logical fallacy.

Your arguments are a combination of cuts and paste from articles that might or might not be relevant, but just because person X works at Y, it must be true. [Hint: medical doctors can be total quacks, so authority doesn't mean they are correct.] I don't fall for that crap. The ad ignoratiam argument is to put me into a spot where I have to prove a negative, which can't be done.

dude; that team has at least 4 sakurai prize winning theorists on it. they won the prize for that paper. the paper pretty much say Gluons and QM gravitons are related. it is pretty much iron clad, on topic and verifies one of Lazar's claims. not only that but it is pretty much his most outlandish scientific claim too considering i have never seen any science text article or authority make that claim until now.

Again, we were talking about LAZAR. Where is his photographic evidence? Oh yeah, somebody kicked the tripod before they could take a photograph. How convenient. Where is is physical proof? Did his dog eat his sample of element 115. Where is the base at S-4. Oh, yeah, it can't be seen. That is sure handy.

As i said the non-science stuff is rightly subject to argument. that's why i leave it alone. i not only cannot prove any of what you said on circumstantial stuff wrong; i don't want or need to. If the sciences is wrong. Bob is wrong. if the science is right he is right on the only thing that really matters.

By your logic (or lack thereof), we have to believe in Jrod, Dan Burisch, and all those sick pathetic people that crave attention. Hint: all sorts of people say all sorts of stuff, and believe it not, sometimes what they say isn't true.

None of those things have any testable claims. it's be cool if jrod were true. but there is no way in hell to prove it. and since there is no chance to test anything on it i am content to call it a hoax.

Ad hominem means I attacked you, which is not the case. i just attack your dubious arguments.

i did not say you attacked me. an ad hominem is not just a direct attack on a debate opponent or partner. it is also attacking sources. when you attacked the information i posted from SCIAM even though i also cited the same scientists from different venues and even though they have standing on the science and never considered the content; that is an ad hominem too. you don't have to directly attack me for it to be an ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

cited from the logical fallacy guide: www.csun.edu...

edit on 28-1-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: misquote fixed

You are supposed to be arguing that there is a base west of Groom Lake inside Papoose Mountain where Bob Lazar worked on alien spacecraft. Nobody cares what you think about antigravity technology.

If your CERN scientists want to join ATS, they are welcome to argue antigravity. I'm just not impressed with you citing bits and pieces of their papers.

Let me tell you a real life story. At the time, I'm working at a Silicon Valley chip company. Doing this for nearly two decades. They hire some snotty PhD from Berkeley who is a relative of a VP. He won't even work in our group, so they have him report to his relative. We go to his design review. He puts some nonsense schematic on the screen. I declare it won't work. He cites the paper is from a well known Berkeley professor. Hey, I know all those logical fallacy arguments, but I keep it simple and say this particular professor isn't in the room, this isn't his projects, this won't work. Needless to say, the circuit doesn't work. So who do you trust? Someone who writes papers, or someone who builds things that work.

I'm simply not pressed by anyone trying to argue by citing research papers. Been there, done that, seen the failure. Even most patents don't work.

Have you heard of Fry's Electronics or Best Buy? They sell keyboards.

gariac

stormbringer1701

I know all those logical fallacies. You picked the wrong person to pull that crap on. You are using ad ignorantiam and the argument from authority.

Crap? Oh my...i am not so much appealing to ignorance as i am avoiding the circumstatial and opinion parts of the issue at hand. the things you are focusing on have counter arguments and are not provable in the normal sense.

and citing authorities is not the same as appealing to authority. nearly every argument over a scientific topic involves citing authorities. the issue is a series of scientific propositions. these propositions have been called false. i cite the authorities where relevant to show that the propositions are not false. would you take my word that the scientific claims Lazar made are supported by science?

you know as well that each logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy when the content is topical and true. An argument can have the form of a logical fallacy and not be a logical fallacy under those circumstances. however; attacking a magazine as if doing so undermines the information contained within when it comes from a credible authority that is merely cited is a logical fallacy.

Your arguments are a combination of cuts and paste from articles that might or might not be relevant, but just because person X works at Y, it must be true. [Hint: medical doctors can be total quacks, so authority doesn't mean they are correct.] I don't fall for that crap. The ad ignoratiam argument is to put me into a spot where I have to prove a negative, which can't be done.

dude; that team has at least 4 sakurai prize winning theorists on it. they won the prize for that paper. the paper pretty much say Gluons and QM gravitons are related. it is pretty much iron clad, on topic and verifies one of Lazar's claims. not only that but it is pretty much his most outlandish scientific claim too considering i have never seen any science text article or authority make that claim until now.

Again, we were talking about LAZAR. Where is his photographic evidence? Oh yeah, somebody kicked the tripod before they could take a photograph. How convenient. Where is is physical proof? Did his dog eat his sample of element 115. Where is the base at S-4. Oh, yeah, it can't be seen. That is sure handy.

As i said the non-science stuff is rightly subject to argument. that's why i leave it alone. i not only cannot prove any of what you said on circumstantial stuff wrong; i don't want or need to. If the sciences is wrong. Bob is wrong. if the science is right he is right on the only thing that really matters.

By your logic (or lack thereof), we have to believe in Jrod, Dan Burisch, and all those sick pathetic people that crave attention. Hint: all sorts of people say all sorts of stuff, and believe it not, sometimes what they say isn't true.

None of those things have any testable claims. it's be cool if jrod were true. but there is no way in hell to prove it. and since there is no chance to test anything on it i am content to call it a hoax.

Ad hominem means I attacked you, which is not the case. i just attack your dubious arguments.

i did not say you attacked me. an ad hominem is not just a direct attack on a debate opponent or partner. it is also attacking sources. when you attacked the information i posted from SCIAM even though i also cited the same scientists from different venues and even though they have standing on the science and never considered the content; that is an ad hominem too. you don't have to directly attack me for it to be an ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

cited from the logical fallacy guide: www.csun.edu...

edit on 28-1-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: misquote fixed

You are supposed to be arguing that there is a base west of Groom Lake inside Papoose Mountain where Bob Lazar worked on alien spacecraft. Nobody cares what you think about antigravity technology.

If your CERN scientists want to join ATS, they are welcome to argue antigravity. I'm just not impressed with you citing bits and pieces of their papers.

Let me tell you a real life story. At the time, I'm working at a Silicon Valley chip company. Doing this for nearly two decades. They hire some snotty PhD from Berkeley who is a relative of a VP. He won't even work in our group, so they have him report to his relative. We go to his design review. He puts some nonsense schematic on the screen. I declare it won't work. He cites the paper is from a well known Berkeley professor. Hey, I know all those logical fallacy arguments, but I keep it simple and say this particular professor isn't in the room, this isn't his projects, this won't work. Needless to say, the circuit doesn't work. So who do you trust? Someone who writes papers, or someone who builds things that work.

I'm simply not pressed by anyone trying to argue by citing research papers. Been there, done that, seen the failure. Even most patents don't work.

Have you heard of Fry's Electronics or Best Buy? They sell keyboards.

i find engineers far more credible than scientists when it comes to building stuff and making practical applications that exploit what the scientists discover. no contest. but it seems to me that this one would be very easy to check out and if it does not work it kills Lazar's story with no hope of reprieve or parole.

it avoids all the murkiness of bob said this or that about facilities, govt activities and so forth. the debunkers debunk him then critics of that debunking come along and debunk the debunkers and so on. in the end it's a miasma that can bog things down get everyone muddy, mad and confused. but the science... well it cannot be spun. it cannot be covered up. it cannot be rebutted.

"ah keyboard...How quaint!"

reply to post by stormbringer1701


"but it seems to me that this one would be very easy to check out and if it does not work it kills Lazar's story with no hope of reprieve or parole."

This one? This one what? You do realize you are writing word salad.

To verify Lazar's story, you need to verify the following:
1) There is a base inside Papoose Mountain
2) Said base has doors on the side
3) Buses were run to the base
4) The base contained alien spacecraft

Again, nobody cares about your antigravity theories. You are just bringing in irrelevant studies to muddy the discussion.

Note that even Bob Lazar doesn't bother trying to prove his story. He made his money. He got his fame if you want to call it that.

stormbringer1701


dude; that team has at least 4 sakurai prize winning theorists on it. they won the prize for that paper. the paper pretty much say Gluons and QM gravitons are related.

It says that the theoretical techniques developed for QCD might turn out to be useful for formulating a theory of quantized gravity. Doesn't mean there is an actual physical relationship---that's an experimental, not theoretical question.

In some limits there are analogues between acoustics and electromagnetic waves (ignoring polarization) so you can use partial differential equation techniques you learn in one in the application in the other. It doesn't mean they are the same physics.

it is pretty much iron clad, on topic and verifies one of Lazar's claims.

Not in the slightest.

The original authors are perfectly capable of understanding and making the extraordinary & radical claim which you think they are making, which is 'Gravitation is a residual of the strong force", asserting a true physical unification. They aren't.

If it were then gravitation as a function of isotopes would look much different and far more complex than it does, which is that it is nearly perfectly parameterized but nothing but mass. Strong force on the other hand has all sorts of complex hair and dependence on quantum numbers.

Bob Lazar Worked On Alien Spaceship Reverse Engineering

Well Lockheed Martin's Senior Scientist seems to credential him.

Unity_99

Bob Lazar Worked On Alien Spaceship Reverse Engineering

Well Lockheed Martin's Senior Scientist seems to credential him.

Total disinformation. I'm mean seriously, the guy said Area 51 was moved to Tooele Utah. Not to mention he didn't even pronounce Tooele correctly.

reply to post by gariac


The guy is who he is and thus.....what he says isn't just goofy talk on stray subjects, he brought up something he can only discuss on a certain level and what he had access to viewing.

So your words are rather silly. That kind of discrediting doesnt work. Credentialed person credentialed Bob Lazar. Fact. Period.

Unity_99
reply to post by gariac

 

The guy is who he is and thus.....what he says isn't just goofy talk on stray subjects, he brought up something he can only discuss on a certain level and what he had access to viewing.

So your words are rather silly. That kind of discrediting doesnt work. Credentialed person credentialed Bob Lazar. Fact. Period.

Pure bunk.

reply to post by Unity_99


See that's weird to me, putting credentialed and bob lazar in the same sentence. Here's an idea though find his degree and then post it. I'll wait

reply to post by Stealthbomber


The man in the video seems confused. Then again, talking about Bob Lazar will do that to you.

BTW, the wiki on Tooele does the pronunciation correctly.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


That is programming talking, just saying!

My stance remains the same. There are too many anomalies in Lazar's circumstances to just say..."he's debunked".

The analogy would be to say that there are some holes and things in the Theory of Evolution therefore evolution is bunk. We know that's not the case, and it's, again, not that simple in Lazar's case either.

Just editing to add that one degree doesn't mean squat in this case. That's like saying, we're missing one fossil so evolution isn't true.

reply to post by Unity_99


Yeah it could be, MK-Ultra still plays havoc with my brain


But yeah find the degree and come back and post it, I'll just wait here for it

amazing
My stance remains the same. There are too many anomalies in Lazar's circumstances to just say..."he's debunked".

The analogy would be to say that there are some holes and things in the Theory of Evolution therefore evolution is bunk. We know that's not the case, and it's, again, not that simple in Lazar's case either.

Just editing to add that one degree doesn't mean squat in this case. That's like saying, we're missing one fossil so evolution isn't true.

edit on 22-2-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)

The theory or evolution is based on evidence. The theory of Bob Lazar is based on Bob Lazar. ;-)

It would help Lazar's story if he could come up with one piece of physical evidence. Remember he showed George Knapp what he claimed to be a piece of element 115.

stormbringer1701

ah but they couldn't. science did not acknowledge any link between the strong force and gravity. that was not a part of credentialed science until the Zvi Bern dixon paper was published.

Zvi/Bern/Dixon don't mean to propose that there is an actual physical link between strong force and gravity, but that the theoretical structure and known techniques used in Standard Model-based QCD mathematics may also be useful for quantizing EInsteinian gravity, without requiring exotic suppositions of string theory or M-theory.

There is, as far as I know, NO proposal that quantum numbers and effects specifically related to strong force (i.e. quarks and gluons and the such) are somehow connected with gravity. That would imply some kind of equiavlence princple violation, one that has been looked for ("fifth-force" experiments) and not found. The relationship between gravitation and nuclear properties would be much more complicated than just 'total mass-energy' which is what Einstein said. No evidence.

there is just one science related issue left that needs checking out to prove conclusively he had knowledge he could not have gotten any way other than the way he claims. someone needs to grab a nucleonic gluon field and produce a gravity anomaly. it can be done if it is real without having element 115. there are a few substitutes for element 115 that should have the same properties.

Yes, there should be experimental consequences which have never been seen. Zvi/Bern/Dixon don't relate to this. In fact, discovering such a phenomenon would really upset their plans because they are trying to quantize Einsteinian GR and fit it in with the rest of Standard Model. If Einsteinian GR is not the right microscopic theory then they are going for the wrong target, and a unified description of physical forces won't be possible until knowing the non-unified version. So far, unfortunately, Einstein has been 100% correct against all challenges.

Stealthbomber
reply to post by Unity_99

 

Yeah it could be, MK-Ultra still plays havoc with my brain

But yeah find the degree and come back and post it, I'll just wait here for it

I don't have to find any degree. That man, he is a big wings credentialed person who is not a imbecile. If someone of his credentials says Bob Lazar is for real, please don't keep on with your program, because between him and you, he won.