Stan has talked about how much he was being paid at the times he was working on nuclear powered rockets. It was much much more than the nearly 50 thousand dollars a year that this weekly amount would have indicated. I will need to find the information but my memory says it was 70 or 80k. 20 or 30k more than Lazars supposed salary if you assume this was a weekly check.
I don't know. What Stanton got paid for his very first job as a scientist, second job, and so forth? But we need to establish first, what he got paid for real, as a young scientist and been fresh, out of education before comparing pay. Lazar story his claim was he got a degree from MIT in 1982/ Now for certain we know Lazar was working at Los Alamos Laboratory, and his name was there in their phonebook from 1982. So that means. He finished his education in 1982, and then was employed by a company called "Kirk Meyer" to work at Los Alamos Laboratory. Now MIT have claimed to not know a person, by the name of Robert(Bob) Lazar. Ok that may be the case, but How does a Person, with no education to speak of, get to work at Los Alamos Laboratory, alongside some of the brightest minds on the Planet?
I think you are mistaken. Nevada has no state income tax. Everyone pays the federal level tax known as Social Security tax
I had the belief, the State of Nevada, was also except from having a Social Security Tax. My Fault. I can be forgiven for that stupid mistake, seen I'm not an American citizen at all. Lazar W2-tax slip-Federal income tax withheld, to the the amount of 168.42, but as Nevada has never had a State Income Tax. Well then the likelihood, is the Lazar W2-Tax slip is bogus, and has been counterfeited. It really is incredible, or just plain dumb and stupid. Lazar would not have known, the Tax laws of the state, he was living in and working in. Nobody is evergoing to know what motivated Lazar, to tell the world this story, but I don't think it as cut and dry as some people think, he could be lying, but there things about Lazar background, that have never been addressed.
Second time. How does a man with a lackluster education end up working for a company contracted to work at Los Alamos Laboratory?
Admittedly, this is not my area of expertise. So, I will defer to others with more precise knowledge. That said, I have yet to hear from a single person with a string of accredited letters after their name support the notion that this would be possible. But, I have heard several say that it is not likely. Thus, until presented with more information that is where I stand.
This might interest you, hopefully this will be my last post to this thread:
Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate's Heavy-Elements Research Team
in January 2004 (l-r): Jerry Landrum (retired), Dawn Shaughnessy, Joshua Patin, Philip Wilk,
and Kenton Moody. Not pictured: John Wild, Mark Stoyer, Nancy Stoyer,
Jackie Kenneally, and Ron Lougheed (retired.
Interview with Joshua Patin 2004, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California in 2004.
AND IN THE HYPOTHESIS OF THESE HIGHER ELEMENTS, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT CONCERNING THE PERIODIC TABLE, PHYSICISTS HAVE SPECULATED THERE WOULD BE A POINT SOMEWHERE AROUND ELEMENT 115 OR HIGHER WHERE THERE WOULD BE MORE STABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN A LONGER LIFE?
True. When you are looking at the various isotopes that can be produced of elements 114, 115, 116, even 113, there are some isotopes that have been predicted to have very long half lives. The region where initially it was proposed to have more stability was Element 114 with 114 protons. But we need to put more neutrons in (to balance out the protons) and that's a whole other area in terms of what kind of experiment we want to perform.
With the current level of technology and types of targets like the americium 243 and the beams that we used of the calcium 48, we can't necessarily quite get there, but we can get close. That's why we've done these experiments.
By doing the Element 115 and Element 113 experiment and in the past with the group of Element 116 and 114, we've shown that there is this enhanced area of stability.
OULD THERE BE AN ELEMENT 115 ISOTOPE THAT IS SOLID AND CAN BE HELD IN THE HAND?
Some day down the road, I think so. If it's true that we find something that is long enough lived. To hold something in your hand, you would need a significant quantity of these atoms. We've produced four atoms of Element 115 in a month. It would take * you don't have enough time in the rest of the universe to create enough that you could hold in your hand through these same kinds of production methods (that we are using). That's why I say a future technology might allow us advances in terms of how much can be produced and the target material, maybe a better way of producing * but somewhere down the road, there might be a possibility, sure.
AND SO WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ELEMENT 115 IN ENOUGH QUANTITY THAT IT COULD BE SOME KIND OF SOLID MATTER THAT COULD BE WORKED WITH AND APPLIED IN OTHER WAYS?
Exactly."
IF YOU HAD THE TECHNOLOGY TO ADD NEUTRONS TO WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN ABLE TO SEE IN THE COLLIDER, YOU MIGHT END UP WITH MATTER THAT WE KNOW WOULD BE STABLE ENOUGH TO SIT ON A TABLE?
I think the technology would have to be completely different. I think in our current experiments, even if you added more neutrons, you are still only going to produce a certain number of atoms * 10, 15, 20 or whatever. You need millions and millions and millions of these before you'd have something that * let alone could see or put in your hand to hold. So, I mention this along the lines that what we do, you wouldn't use what we do as a production method. It's purely an observational sense.
Also along those lines * if it is something that lives as long as I guess what you are saying, it's nothing we would see. We see the decay of these elements through their radioactive decay. And we can see them because they have such short life times, such short half lives. So during the course of an experiment, we expect a decay to occur. If they weren't radioactive and were stable, we would never see them. We only see the energy that is given off in their decay.
So, it's along those lines. If the lifetimes increase, it becomes increasingly more difficult to see them. That's something that will be corrected for and there are other ways to do these experiments where you are not relying on their radioactivity to see them, but you can separate them other ways in the chance of seeing them if they have longer half lives. That's when you start producing them in chemical experiments where you can tell by their chemistry if they are Element 115. That's in the future. That's not right now. And you definitely wouldn't use our particular method for doing what we've seen to produce anything like that.
From what you've told me in terms of handling it with your hand, you don't want to handle radioactivity with your hands. So if it's something that is stable where there is no concern about radioactivity * and this is just in general * you are not going to have radioactivity (to test), therefore you are going to have to use chemistry to identify * some chemical method to identify what you have. And that's only with massive quantities * something that is stable like that, that's when chemistry is involved.
