Bob Lazar

[Aaron LeClair]

Yeah. Lear, Lazar, Burisch. You know, I think even Knapp at this point thinks Lazar is full of it.

Entertaining stories, but totally full of shit. Even if there's disinfo in there, the signal to noise ratio is so low, it's just not worth it to try to sort any of it out, or get exposed to the 99% of complete crap (the aliens _really do_ like strawberry ice cream!) to get at the good information.

I'll stick with Richard Hall, Stanton Friedman and of course, the Paracast. I have to say, one of the things I like about the Paracast (and this hasn't always been the case) is that Gene and David spend some time before and after discussing the relevance and credibility of a given guest. I really like that objectivity as a listener. The Paracast is the podcast I listen to more than any other.

It's been so disheartening to me over the years at how gullible LMH is, or has become. I remember when I first started promoting UFO lectures, after I'd sent letters to her asking if she'd come and speak in Lawrence, Kansas (it's about an hour out of Kansas City, where KU is), not only did she never answer, but I had a mutual contact hand her an invitation to come and speak at a conference with all my contact info, and she never replied.

Maybe just as well. Now, she seems willing to hop off at a moment's notice and brand just about anything as "real" or to take it on face value. Her bullshit filter seems to have gotten so clogged that it no longer works, if she ever had one, and I do believe she did.

I have to say, after watching the redux of Out of the Blue, it's almost an entirely different film. It seems longer, better paced, smoother, with better graphics and here, finally, we have the believable, interesting information that, yes, we probably already know, but we have a film we can give to people that tend to respond with the giggle factor and, if they'll watch it, they will come out of the process believers. Or at least, more accepting of what we know as the true history of the phenomenon.

Knapp doesn't think Lazar is completely full of it, unless he just came to this revelation within the past several weeks. Don Ecker's Dark Matters radio show deals a little with it on one of his appearances I think. You can also read details at ATS. I can't recall how old the threads are though.

The ice cream business is Bill Moore right? I was really young then. In 1984 I think it was. I often wonder if it was Moore that hoaxed some of the MJ12 documents.

LMH... I call it the believer bullet. I've seen seemingly good researchers become convinced, then lose their edge and buy into things just due to "sincerity".

 

[boxman]

I think he would be a very interesting guest. There was a television reporter in Las Vegas that got the inside story to Lazar but I have not heard any information about this in a very long time. What about element 115?

 

[Ron Collins]

Bob Lazar was a conman and thus would make a terrible guest. Even interviewing Michael Horn and other conmen/crazies is a waste of time.

See "My Take on Bob Lazar" at www.stantonfriedman.com for a thorough expose on that liar.

I went to Friedman's site. I definitely agree that he makes a very strong case against Lazar. But there is one element of Friedman's claim that I must contest. He says that the government wiping someone's civilian records clean is absurd. I must disagree with this, based upon personal experience.

At my high school reunion, my best friend ran into our class saluditorian, a guy named Jonathan Little. I didn't know him well, but I remember his graduation speech was pretty funny. Anyway, he told my friend that he was now working for our government in some sort of secret capacity, and he was in recruiting my friend because he was a Mormon. Apparently the people involved in these secret government projects frequently employ mormons because their religious principles mesh well with whatever is being done there.

Well Jonathan proceeded to tell my friend that because of his sensitive government activities, the government had wiped every record of his existence from the internet. There was absolutely nothing that you could find about him. I thought that this would be impossible to do... I mean EVERYTHING? Especially since he was the #2 student in our entire class of 750 students.

So to test this out, I went and looked for him on the internet and I was unable to find anything. So either he never had anything on the internet to begin with, or every record of his existence has indeed been erased from the internet. And I would consider internet records to be civilian records, which contradicts Friedman's statement.

Completely separate from my personal anecdote - it should be noted that Friedman simply states that "wiping civilian records clean is absurd", and provides absolutely NO support for this claim. As if it is so obvious that no support is needed. Any time someone pulls one of these tactics I raise an eyebrow.

I'm not presuming that government erasing was done with Lazar, but I thought this point was something worth noting.

I completely agree with Stanton Friedman in this regard. You can’t un-publish papers, yearbooks, news articles, commencement programs (high school or college), student directories, and about a zillion other things that a prominent person accomplishes during their lives before they catch the eye of the “Gub’ment” recruiters.

I own a successful software company and in my industry am regarded as an expert. I just spent 5 minutes searching for references to my name and in 20 pages in Yahoo and Google I didn’t find myself once. Not surprising since I do not market myself. I too looked up my High School valedictorian and couldn’t find the guy anywhere. I happen to know he is an attorney in Oklahoma City but still yielded no results.

Yet, if you dig deep enough you will find references to both of us all over the place. This is true for anyone who has done anything of any note. Stanton did a bunch o0f research on Bob Lazar. He contacted the schools Lazar claimed to have gone to. He checked for peer reviewed publications, student directories, yearbooks, the whole run up. Yet at the end of the day, Lazar couldn’t hold a semi-proficient conversation using the most basic physics related jargon. In short the guy is a fraud. He can’t remember the year he graduated, he cant remember a professors name, he cant remember friends names, etc. Not one person with a verifiable degree has ever come forward saying “Bob was a class mate of mine”. Basically the guy is a tool.

You can’t erase the entire history of an individual. You just can’t. If you’re bright, you leave a trail. End of story.

Ron

 

[BrandonD]

I hope that you guys who are making sweeping claims about Lazar can recognize that even if we discover that Lazar has lied about his entire scholarly history, one cannot actually deduce from this that Lazar has lied about area 51.

The fact that his statements about his educational background cannot be backed up does indeed call his other testimony into question, but to say his area 51 story is full of BS is just making an unsupported claim.

To conclude that he's lied about his experiences in area 51, you must have evidence that *he's lied about his experiences in area 51*. Not that he's lied about his experiences in college.

In normal circumstances, if it appears that a person has lied about one thing, then it's reasonable to assume that he's lied about another thing.

However, I think the situation is slightly different in the ufo field. I say this because there are very strong indications that counter-intelligence and discrediting programs have taken place over the years in order to keep the truth concealed. This involves publicly spreading lies, mixing lies with truth, and devising means to discredit people who happen to be telling the truth. I'm not claiming that Lazar is any of the above, I'm saying that our best weapon against such disinformation programs is precision. We should not simply write people off at the first sign of apparent inconsistency just so that we can add another "debunked" feather to our intellectual caps.

I'm not saying "believe what Lazar is saying", I hope that you guys can make the distinction. I'm just saying precision is what counts when trying to solve a mystery.

Lazar's story is not BS, even if the great Stanton Friedman says so. It is questionable, until proven otherwise.

 

[Gil]

Boyd Bushman, in the context that he spoke to David Sereda, *MR. CALIFORNIA*, didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Claims of the incredible and a back-spinning piece of wood do not a smoking gun create. Don't get me started on "Singularity". What a waste of time. There's four hours of my life that I'll never get back--and I fast-forwarded through most of it! John Hutchison was the best part of that "film" and I've loaded up on him. Interesting, but he's no Tesla, or even Wilhelm Reich, for that matter.

As far as Lazar goes, he claims that he backed off because there were threats on his life, which is also why he claimed he went public (!?)... I think he ran out of story to tell without completely giving away the store. You can only go so far spooling out lies before you hang yourself up in them.

He does have a grasp of higher and elementary physics. But you have to to be a private contractor at Los Alamos.

The more we talk about him, the more he likes it.

NEXT!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I think he would be a very interesting guest. There was a television reporter in Las Vegas that got the inside story to Lazar but I have not heard any information about this in a very long time. What about element 115?

Yeah, that's George Knapp.

Element 115 has been made, and Stanton has a bit of egg on his face, but not that much since it's half-life is too short to be a fuel I hear.

Lazar's story hasn't changed, nor does he have anything knew to share it seems. I'd be bored if he was on the paracast probably.

 

[Gil]

I can't prove Bob Lazar didn't work at a base the government claims never existed. We know it existed because it was the subject of a successful lawsuit when workers there were exposed to poisonous chemical and toxic waste that was being "disposed of" by open trench burning. People died.

I'm only making broad, sweeping generalizations regarding Bob Lazar in accordance with what he's _said_. When you take it on its face, it sounds interesting and believable. Later, when you start to pick around it, you find that it falls apart under its own weight. It's bullshit.

BrandonD, I have to disagree with you about being caught up in lies in Ufolgoy. You don't get to be a credible source of information, then serve the powers that be with disinfo, and then regain our trust. Anyone that goes for that deserves whatever they end up swallowing. If they pass along information that they cannot verify, and they _say so_, that's different.

And, also, I have found that Stanton Friedman, with his many degrees and classified, secret (he had a "Q" clearance) industry background in nuclear propulsion systems for the government, does have credibility and for me, I'm happy to say that it begins and ends with him. I'm not saying he's the Great and Powerful Oz, but he is a very thoughtful, experienced and objective reasoner, a data hound, an incredibly thorough researcher, and there's very little that he's judged in the UFO field that I find objectionable or incorrect.

One of those things is Bob Lazar. What makes you so sure that his story is not BS? Show your work.

For the record, the strawberry ice cream remark was started on "UFO Cover-Up Live!" by The Aviary (admitted disinfo) in 1992 and was recently revisited by somebody defending the remark (it may have been "Dr." Dan Burisch) when he said, "But they really do prefer strawberry ice cream! They found vanilla too plain and chocolate too sweet."

 

[Gil]

To my knowledge, ununpentium has never been stable for longer than 100 milliseconds. Thus, it would have been impossible for Lazar to "take home fifteen pounds" of it. Stanton has egg on his face? Could you please back up this allegation and show your work?

 

[BrandonD]

One of those things is Bob Lazar. What makes you so sure that his story is not BS? Show your work.

I don't think his story is legit. Your response sort of illustrates my point. People are so eager to make a person either BS or credible that they jump to conclusions without adequate information. One should not make a conclusion until one actually has the information to make a conclusion.

Like I said before, his story is questionable. When I'm trying to solve a mystery, I see no reason to assume that anything is true or false until it is proven to be so.

Here's a question for those who've already made conclusions. I'm interested in investigating Lazar's case a little further, and I've heard several sources claim that Lazar has no understanding of physics, and can barely hold a competent conversation on the topic. Yet I've never actually seen transcripts or recordings demonstrating this. In every interview I've seen, he demonstrated an understanding of physics, at least from my (fairly) educated layman's point of view.

Could someone please direct me to an interview or transcript that demonstrates Lazar's poor understanding of physics?

As far as I've been able to discover, the dismissal of Lazar is based entirely upon his background check. If it can be concluded that his understanding of physics is bunk, then I think that's moving closer to his area 51 experiences than his educational background.

 

[Gil]

Well, I for one never said Lazar had a poor understanding of physics. In fact, I think he has to have at least a broad, general knowledge of science to spool out the story he did. Let's not forget the guy made jet cars and had science-related hobbies for fun. He owns a Video Toaster (what he made the "sport model" animation with), and I've had one too; the owners' manual takes a pretty serious mind to wrap around. That doesn't make him a graduate of MIT.

And the dismissal of Lazar is hardly about his background check.

He has made some critical mistakes that are understandable by people that have better understandings of physics. Like gravity wave generators. Like element 115 being stable enough that he could take it home in a bag. Etc., etc., ad nauseam. He tried to speak in vague terms as much as possible, and when he got specific--remember, George Knapp was trying to trip him up--he basically shied away and kept his answers short and unacceptably cryptic.

Lazar has also changed his story. He initially came out anonymously in the dark so his identity would be protected. Then, he came out in the open (can't make any money in the dark) to talk to Knapp a second time. Then, later, he said he was shot at and driven off the road and threatened for his life. Finally, he decided to fade away into the woodwork and we haven't heard from him since, ostensibly, for security reasons. The definition of doubletalk. "I decided to speak out to protect my life, and decided to stop speaking about it to protect my life". It's like "Dr." Burisch calling a press conference to say that he would be involved in secret activities (after being retired from Majestic) and wouldn't be available until December. Why bother?

I'm sure you're willing to admit that when Lazar said he was a scientist at Los Alamos and it turned out that he was only a private contractor doing mid-level functionary work.

If that's the case, perhaps he was hired to work at Area 51, or more specifically, S-4, in a similar situation, and he's lying about his level of participation. It sure sounds fishy to me.

There are Janet airplanes going out there, obviously people work there, people were exposed to hazardous waste and toxic fumes there and died. Bill Clinton acknowledged its existence by signing the document allowing its continued secrecy and disposal of hazardous materials by open trench burning.

Do they have flying saucer technology there? We can't prove that. Did Bob Lazar work there? Well, we can't prove that, either. Has he been caught lying? YES.

End of story.

 

[BrandonD]

I'm sure you're willing to admit that when Lazar said he was a scientist at Los Alamos and it turned out that he was only a private contractor doing mid-level functionary work.

What I read is that the letters "K/M" follow his name on the military directory, implying that he was working for another company and hired by the military on a contract basis. There may be further evidence to prove that he was just doing mid-level functionary work, but I haven't personally seen it.

But regardless of all that, I follow the point you're getting at here. I agree that it all sounds fishy, my motivation to respond was just because I was getting the impression that people were throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I think that from what I've read of the ufo mystery, it's definitely possible that some sort of military reverse-engineering project is going on. But if some guy comes out and says a reverse-engineering project is going on, and then this guy turns out to be deceptive, then many people immediately conclude by association that a reverse-engineering project is NOT going on. Disinfo projects rely on that type of thinking, and I was just responding to what seemed like that kind of thinking. I was probably misreading you on that one.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

An interesting thing of note is Friedman actually uses some ufo footage in one of his videos that Lazar and his friend shot over Area 51. Even has his friend talking about the sighting.

 

[Miah]

An interesting thing of note is Friedman actually uses some ufo footage in one of his videos that Lazar and his friend shot over Area 51. Even has his friend talking about the sighting.

Which begs the question, how did he know it would be there? Like I said before, there is at least something to the guy.

 

[Verum]

BrandonD wrote...

my motivation to respond was just because I was getting the impression that people were throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And that's exactly how it should be, I think. The credibility of the speaker ALWAYS determines the value and credibility of the message. And when the message is, as they say, extraordinary, the credibility of the speaker should likewise be extraordinary. The speaker who places the threshold burden of truth on his listener is not worth hearing. Lazar and everything he says is suspect and it's simply not worth trying to parse everything he spews...what might be true and what might be false. If he's the best "ufology has to offer, or even on the top 100 list, close the doors and shut it down!

 

[BrandonD]

And that's exactly how it should be, I think. The credibility of the speaker ALWAYS determines the value and credibility of the message. And when the message is, as they say, extraordinary, the credibility of the speaker should likewise be extraordinary. The speaker who places the threshold burden of truth on his listener is not worth hearing. Lazar and everything he says is suspect and it's simply not worth trying to parse everything he spews...what might be true and what might be false. If he's the best "ufology has to offer, or even on the top 100 list, close the doors and shut it down!

If Lazar was making a claim that was completely unique to himself, like area 51 is full of talking squirrels, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But that's definitely not the case. Which is reason #1 why one shouldn't follow this "throwing out everything" methodology.

For reason #2, take this scenario: I know a fact that I want to keep the public from taking seriously. How do I successfully do this? One method would be to get a guy to make truthful statements about this fact, and then afterwards completely destroy his credibility.

For those of us who want to solve this mystery, I think it actually IS worthwhile to try and parse the truth from the falsity.

 

[ondafritz]

May I ask that you all consider this when discussing Lazar?

If Greer, and Stevens, and Lear can still make a buck in the UFO phenom then how come Lazar has been almost completely drummed out of it?

 

[Miah]

May I ask that you all consider this when discussing Lazar?

If Greer, and Stevens, and Lear can still make a buck in the UFO phenom then how come Lazar has been almost completely drummed out of it?

I don't think that Lazar was drummed out of it, he left on his own. But what's your point?

 

[Verum]

BrandonD wrote...

If Lazar was making a claim that was completely unique to himself, like area 51 is full of talking squirrels, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But that's definitely not the case.

So we should accept Lazar's claims simply because they parrot what others have claimed? And we should wade through the web of lies to try and find a kernel of truth? For what purpose? Nothing coming from a completely incredible (in the truest sense of that word!) source will ever be acceptable as credible. He adds nothing to the search for truth; in fact he is a distraction from it, a speedbump on the path. I contend he should be completely disregarded because he has forfeited any benefit of a doubt with a lie; and that benefit of a doubt as to a "witness's" character is an absolute necessity in "ufology", a field notorious for scam artists, self-appointed experts, the deluded, cultists and even liars.

 

[BrandonD]

So we should accept Lazar's claims simply because they parrot what others have claimed? And we should wade through the web of lies to try and find a kernel of truth? For what purpose? Nothing coming from a completely incredible (in the truest sense of that word!) source will ever be acceptable as credible. He adds nothing to the search for truth; in fact he is a distraction from it, a speedbump on the path. I contend he should be completely disregarded because he has forfeited any benefit of a doubt with a lie; and that benefit of a doubt as to a "witness's" character is an absolute necessity in "ufology", a field notorious for scam artists, self-appointed experts, the deluded, cultists and even liars.

Ok, I'm going to quote verbatim what I said earlier in this thread:

"I don't think his story is legit. Your response sort of illustrates my point. People are so eager to make a person either BS or credible that they jump to conclusions without adequate information. One should not make a conclusion until one actually has the information to make a conclusion.

Like I said before, his story is questionable. When I'm trying to solve a mystery, I see no reason to assume that anything is true or false until it is proven to be so."

Can you make the distinction? Today I say gravity pulls us toward the earth. Tomorrow I say that I went to school at Princeton. Well, I didn't go to school at Princeton... so perhaps gravity doesn't pull us toward the earth after all.

 

[BrandonD]

May I ask that you all consider this when discussing Lazar?

If Greer, and Stevens, and Lear can still make a buck in the UFO phenom then how come Lazar has been almost completely drummed out of it?

This is actually a significant point in my opinion, and one of the reasons why I still find Lazar's story intriguing. The hosts of the show always talk about taking motivation into account. What are his motivations in this situation? He told his story and then disappeared into obscurity. He hasn't wrote a book, though he could have EASILY done so and made a good buck. And he doesn't give lectures in the ufo "circuit", though he could easily do this as well.

This doesn't make me a "believer", but I recognize his behavior as very atypical, and so his story is still an interesting case.