You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

References to Ununpentium having genesis in exploding stars lead back to Lazar. I did not see any references to this in peer-reviewed journals of physics. Other references, such as "The Guardian" [UK publication] also point to Lazar as their source.

As elements progress in the periodic table, more neutrons are found in the nuclei of atoms. Only in the first several elements do we find equal numbers of protons and neutrons, discounting of course isotopes of these elements. A casual glance at the periodic table show that when one subtracts the atomic number from the rounded-off atomic weight, will give the number of neutrons [again, check the various isotopes].

Towards the heavier elements, instability begins to occur, presumably because the weak nuclear force loses it's hold on the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. As a result, heavier elements can be temporarily created having very short half-lives, transmuting back down to more stable elements, and releasing nuclear particles and energy.

Google is your friend.

Hope this helps.
guyx

reply to post by gguyx


This guy has burned the midnight oil on Element 115.

He even met with Bob Lazar.

It looks like the - Magic Number - is 184 neutrons .

- Element 115 -

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by Diablos

 

7000 mph? Try mach 10!

www.nasa.gov...

Sorry man, all of this is bull# and it's bad for you.

It's all about appearance and behavior, my friend. If you were aware of what has actually been reported by credible witnesses all over the globe you would realize how inadequate the idea of secret military and/or aerospace technology is to explain what's been going on. Here's a rundown:

Appearance:
- non-aerodynamic shapes, ie. discoid, spherical, conical, ellipsoid
- lack of wings, tail and visible means of propulsion

Behavior:
- silent flight
- hovering
- acceleration and deceleration that is virtually instantaneous - to and from speeds well in excess of any known aeronautical technology
- highly angular changes of direction (90 degrees, 180 degrees) without slowing down


And this stuff was being widely reported at least as early as the late 1940's. You seem to be underinformed.

reply to post by Orkojoker


Yes, those 90 degree turns are very hard to explain away.

The aliens have been flying circles around us for decades.

They have been cheating by flying in nonlinear time.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by gguyx

 

This guy has burned the midnight oil on Element 115.

He even met with Bob Lazar.

It looks like the - Magic Number - is 184 neutrons .

- Element 115 -

Just checked out the link you provided. Very interesting but much of the science is beyond my aging mind.

I was always on the fence about Bob Lazar but the more I read the more convinced I am that he was the real deal. What convinces me most is the huge effort put into dicrediting him.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by gguyx

 

This guy has burned the midnight oil on Element 115.

He even met with Bob Lazar.

It looks like the - Magic Number - is 184 neutrons .

- Element 115 -

Just checked out the link you provided. Very interesting

but much of the science is beyond my aging mind.

I was always on the fence about Bob Lazar but the more I read the more convinced I am that he was the real deal. What convinces me most is the huge effort put into dicrediting him.


[/quote

How did bob lazar know that on a certain time at a certain location
On a road you could see the "triangle T3" aircraft?

That fact alone tells you he really knew about the craft, therefore he most likely is telling the truth about S4
& his employment there.

On the other note: why did he not know his professor(s) names at MIT
Where he claimed to have graduated from? He even didn't know what year he graduated?
That part is sketchy about his story/occupation for it to be 100% true.

"This latest scientific breakthrough, however, provides significant credibility to Bob Lazar’s claims.."

Most of the links on the page refer to other pages on the same gravitywarpdrive site, again, where are these latest scientific breakthroughs?

Links to honest-to-goodness, peer-reviewed journals or even abstracts in physics, astrophysics, nuclear research dealing with this topic would be appreciated. I did a search, as I have previously stated, but could only find non-scientific articles that referred right back to Lazar.

The half-life of 115 would cause it to lose it's potency before you could yell 'ununpentium', and certainly before you could stuff it into the reactor. %^)

Here's a couple examples of the type of resources I have in mind:

Journal of Nuclear Physics
The American Institute of Physics
Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
Journal of High Energy Physics
Science
Scientific American

guyx

reply to post by gguyx


I dont claim to know about the physics, however, I do know your not gonna find what your looking for if its all being kept secret
And these days scientists know they must tow the line or they'll be jobless, or worse..

Originally posted by thepupils
How did bob lazar know that on a certain time at a certain location
On a road you could see the "triangle T3" aircraft?

That fact alone tells you he really knew about the craft, therefore he most likely is telling the truth about S4
& his employment there.

On the other note: why did he not know his professor(s) names at MIT
Where he claimed to have graduated from? He even didn't know what year he graduated?
That part is sketchy about his story/occupation for it to be 100% true.

Well, as you said, he's most likely telling the truth about S4 and his employment. As for not knowing his professors name etc, well, maybe he has reasons for not disclosing that information. It's possible they tried to wipe his mind and thats the only part they managed to wipe.

His name was in the phone book and he did know some secrets, It seems very odd that he doesnt know his own past history.

Guys--a little critical thinking goes a long way, but have it your way:

"Yeh, dat's da ticket, da mofos psychopharmacologically neuralized da bastitch, ya dat's da ticket!"



guyx

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

PATHETIC !

Please never post that word especially in caps? It hurts my eyes. i.ytimg.com...

Originally posted by isitmagic

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by isitmagic

 

We (those who came for the proof) are not asking for MORE people to say so, we came looking for their footage. Something tangible. Please stop trying to fool yourself here. Like I said you are ruining it for us. Trying to pull from straws where there arent any.

And that would satisfy you would it? Irrevocable proof by internet? Of course you don't have any "tangible proof" it didn't happen either do you? But since its your opinion (and not theirs) I guess we'll believe you.

Dont have any proof it didnt happen? Again, people like you are hurting this field. Is there any proof that I wasnt at your house while you were away? No, I cant prove that I was there, but can you prove I wasnt? I guess that means I was, right?
Tangible proof it didnt happen? The lack of proof that it did happen is the key...

Stop kidding yourself.
That is such a nonsensical argument.


Like I said, I actually believe this, but come on, there is no proof. I believe it because I have an open mind to it.

And also, if there were photos, and taken in that time period - they can easily be analysed to confirm validity. PLEASE, this is my plea - use your brain. people.

edit on 10-7-2012 by isitmagic because: (no reason given)

Well actualy there is proof of this event, its in the camera, who ever finds the camera finds the proof.

Look there is a town to the east of Melbourne called Sale in sale is an Airforce base, back in the 50's and 60's the Americans would test alot of lets say "special" equipment there. one of these "special" projects was the U-2.

www.theage.com.au...

Now this little story only tells so much, but what I was told by my family member was that when the U-2 took off for the first time in sale it melted the asphalt and blew it away and they had to resurface it with hardened concrete.
So what does this have to do with westal, well sale is not altogether far from westal and was being used by america for its own testing purposes, Australia also was being used at this time for atomic testing by the USA and the UK. the USA also had test flight facilitys in Western Australia.
So the soldiers that showed up at the school could have been either UK,American or Australian.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by gguyx

 

This guy has burned the midnight oil on Element 115.

He even met with Bob Lazar.

It looks like the - Magic Number - is 184 neutrons .

- Element 115 -

Just checked out the link you provided. Very interesting

but much of the science is beyond my aging mind.

I was always on the fence about Bob Lazar but the more I read the more convinced I am that he was the real deal. What convinces me most is the huge effort put into dicrediting him.

I haven't read through the entire thread, but since there is some Bob Lazar discussion going on, I thought I would add this, although I'm sure many people here are already aware of it. Here's a clip from a 1982 story carried by the Associated Press on Bob Lazar's rocket car:



Here's the whole article, in this case printed in the Santa Fe New Mexican:

reply to post by Orkojoker


In 82 it newspaper states bob was working at Los alamos.
Bob claims he graduated MIT in 81-82, he didn't remember year exactly.
So this was within his 1st year or less of his degree from MIT.

Bob did work there. There has been a huge cover-up. Hmmm wonder why?

The gov. Can't hide/change microfilmed newspapers at the library.
Oops, they forgot about those, Darn.



This cover up needs to be investigated further (I know there's tons of info on ATS already)
But this fact alone validates bobs story even more.

+1 Bob
-1 government

reply to post by Orkojoker


Thanks for that I've definatley fallen of the fence now
I dont doubt Lazar is telling the truth but somebody mentioned that he couldn't say when he graduated or name his professor etc, has there been an explantaion offered as to why?

marking this to read for later

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

Thanks for that

I've definatley fallen of the fence now

I dont doubt Lazar is telling the truth but somebody mentioned that he couldn't say when he graduated or name his professor etc, has there been an explantaion offered as to why?

Not that I'm aware of. I really haven't looked into the whole Bob Lazar thing very much. My understanding of it is that we have his name in a Los Alamos directory, this article in which he is identified as a Los Alamos physicist, at least one pay stub from, I can't remember what, the Office of Naval Intelligence? I've seen people on this thread say that other Los Alamos scientists back up his story (although I've never encountered that info and am not sure of its validity), Also have people saying that Lazar did take them to a location overlooking a test site where they saw some really strange flying doodads at the time he said they would be there.

On a subjective level, Lazar seems genuine (to me).

Congrats to the OP for the excellent summary of this important case.

I actually made an account on ATS just to reply to this, as I wanted to comment on some of the skeptical replies.

I've been studying the UFO phenomenon for years in my spare time, and as an educated individual I can tell you without a doubt that they are real, and furthermore, that they most likely are not "ours".

If this 1966 case doesn't convince you, and you still demand "proof," then I would be very skeptical as to such a person's ability to reason clearly. In particular,

1) I would be skeptical as to their understanding of anecdotal evidence, or

2) I would suspect some deep-seated psychological / emotional / cultural prejudices that bar them from assessing a novel phenomenon from a rational, unbiased viewpoint, or

3) a combination of 1) and 2)

Let me try to explain what I mean by 1). The school students', administrators' and teachers' accounts are all considered anecdotal evidence, yet anecdotal evidence is not weak by any means, especially when taken in large numbers. In fact, a large portion of our realities are deeply rooted in anecdotal evidence. For instance, have you ever seen an great white shark in person and actually experienced it first hand? I'm guessing you haven't. Yet you still, based on purely anecdotal evidence, believe in great white sharks.

In other words: Even if you have absolutely no direct perceptual evidence of something, your anecdotal evidence can still strongly justify a belief.

The strength of anecdotal evidence depends on quantity and quality. To illustrate this, take this simple example. You are situated outside of a barn in the country, and it is your job to take peoples' tickets to walk into the barn and see some exotic car. You've never been inside the barn, and you've never seen the car. After taking peoples' tickets and watching them walk in and back out of the barn, they all tell you of how strange the car looks, that they've never seen anything like it, its details and its color. Now after this happens, say, 100 times, you'd say that you have strong reason to believe that an exotic car actually is in the barn, wouldn't you? Even though you have absolutely no direct perceptual evidence of it, you are still justified in your belief based on the quantity and quality of the reports. Now obviously, if they were all intoxicated, or blind, or only 2 people went in, then your anecdotal evidence would certainly not justify your belief. But what if they were all sober, came from all walks of life and all cultures, included pilots, scientists, professors, government officials, doctors, police officers and high-ranking military officers, would you say that your anecdotal evidence was strong enough to justify your belief that an exotic car really is in the barn?

This all has to do with 1) one's understanding of anecdotal evidence. The other primary reason why it seems as though some people have so much difficulty thinking clearly about the UFO phenomenon is 2) that there is some sort of underlying psychological / emotional state that creates an immediate prejudice against their existence. It is of course natural to want to deny the existence of something that makes one feel uncomfortable, but just because something makes you feel uncomfortable, that doesn't mean that its denial is intellectually justified. In other words, how you feel about something cannot count as proof for something, no matter how deep seated such a feeling is.

In conclusion, if this 1966 case doesn't convince you that UFOs are real, then I would suggest that you stop and reflect very carefully on a) your understanding of anecdotal evidence, and b) whether or not psychological or cultural biases are muddying your ability to think clearly about this phenomenon.

[ As an aside, I mentioned early on that I both believe that UFOs are real, and that I also believe that they most likely are not "ours". I have no doubt that UFOs are real. On the other hand, I am not as certain that they aren't ours. Yet I find it almost impossible to believe that "we" had fully-functional anti-gravity technology in the 1940s and even prior, and furthermore that we'd be flying it out in the open over heavily populated civilian areas. ]

reply to post by Brighter


Outstanding post! Thanks for signing up and bringing us your insight. I wonder if you might consider lending us this post to begin a new thread on the topic of anecdotal evidence?