Bob Lazar

[Verum]

BrandonD wrote...

Can you make the distinction? Today I say gravity pulls us toward the earth. Tomorrow I say that I went to school at Princeton.

Hardly an appropriate analogy. You take one clear truth and one clear lie, and equate that to finding the "truth" in Lazar's story. The problem is, as I've mentioned before, his claims are EXTRAordinary. It is incumbent upon anyone making extraordinary claims to be absolutely pristine and beyond reproach. Quite the contrary in Lazar's case, there is no clear truth anywhere, from his credentials to the substance of what he claims. Trying to pluck a truth from a web of lies only enmeshes the searcher in that web. A person is either a liar or he is not; one has character or he doesn't. Lazar didn't make a mistake or a misstatement. He lied, time after time, with deliberate forethought and malice intent. To look for partial credibility is not only inappropriate it is a waste of time and smacks of a desperation that should never exist in a search for truth. No one who demands honesty as a threshold will ever accept him as a credible speaker. The lessons of Clifford irving and OJ Simpson--both of whom mingled truth and lies--should serve as stark examples. All of what they have said and would ever say thereafter was, and should be, discarded for its source, not the possible substance underlying. And to overcome that they need to be charged with PROVING what they claim, a mountain Lazar and hid extraordinary claims can never climb. We should agree to disagree on this, I suspect.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I think with the Lazar type scenario, there are two reasonable ways of handling it, yet people act as if there is only one.

 

[Gil]

Packrat:

I think we just happen to think Lazar doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That's all. It's an unfortunate aspect of mob rule or democracy that the minority end up being represented less well.

It's still up for discussion, he just didn't pass our bullshit filter. I'm personally still open to hearing about him--if anyone has George Knapp's email (I believe it's on the Coast site), we could invite him to post here so we could know his feelings on Lazar--or Gene and David could invite them both on and let's see what they're up to these days.

Guys? What do you think? Have we had enough of Lazar, or if we could get Knapp and Lazar on the Paracast, would that be something you're interested in?

Keeping in mind it would bump a potentially more credible guest--I find most (*most*) of the guests on the Paracast are interesting, provacative and thoughtful, and Lazar is old news. Plus he's "in retirement". He's said all he has to say.

But, if he's willing, I'll listen.

 

[tommyball]

I'd definitely like to hear Knapp on the show again to specifically discuss Lazar, and maybe even Lazar himself. I don't entirely dismiss him, nor to I entirely believe him.

As far as his credibility goes, what about his ONI W-2? Has that been proven a forgery? People often bring up his absence from yearbooks. My experience with college yearbooks is that one had to be proactive and go to get their picture taken to appear in it. It wasn't like high school where the entire class is filed in for portraits. That's just my two cents.

Has anyone heard of David Adair? That's the first Google hit, I haven't read through it, but I think that's his general story. I've heard him a few times on older C2C shows. I thought I'd mention him since his story mirrors that of Lazar in a few ways.

-todd.

 

[Verum]

Paranormal Packrat wrote...

I think with the Lazar type scenario, there are two reasonable ways of handling it, yet people act as if there is only one.

At the risk of belaboring the point...can I assume those choices you see are (1) believe some of what he says or (2) believe none of what he says. If so, I don't agree both possibilities are reasonable.

It is possible for Lazar to restate the truth provided by a credible person, which would itself be true notwithstanding Lazar's restatement since its veracity is dependent on another, credible person. A "truth" dependent upon Lazar's testimony alone would, however, NEVER be acceptable to an objective person since he lacks the underlying credibility to be believed. Therefore taking anything Lazar says which lacks other reliable evidence is useless, and, so, Lazar's restatement of it is not relevant at all. If we can only rely upon Lazar as a hearsay or second-hand witness, we are always best served only by relying upon the first party/first hand testimony. Lazar offers no hard evidence whatsoever, only his supposed eyewitness testimony. Lazar himself has made his credibility the foundation of what he offers; "Believe what I tell you in the absence of evidence and verification because I am a truthful person". Having failed the test of credibility he fails the threshold for the believability of anything which hinges on his word.

So what does Lazar ever bring to the table? Personally I'd enjoy David and Gene getting their hands around this guy and vigorously shaking the crap tree.

 

[BrandonD]

So what does Lazar ever bring to the table? Personally I'd enjoy David and Gene getting their hands around this guy and vigorously shaking the crap tree.

I think I understand where you're coming from. It seems your position is basically that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I agree with this, I think our difference is that I consider his basic story of a military reverse-engineering project (sans the specific details like antigravity generators, element 115, etc) to have a strong probability of being true.

There is a ton of evidence to support the premise that there's an actual physical reality behind the ufo phenomenon, though it may not be a physicality we are familiar with. If there is indeed a material reality behind the ufo phenomenon, which I think there is, then it's not unreasonable to consider that the "powers that be" have managed to gain access to some of this physical material.

And if they have gained access to some of this material, then I have no doubt in my mind that they would try to reverse-engineer this material to see if they can gain any military advantages from it.

Following this train of thought, there are many implications that arise such as the strong probability of a disinformation program being instituted, which would ensure secrecy by infiltrating those areas of society which might be close to gleaning some truth about the matter.

So the simple premise of a reverse-engineering project is actually not that extraordinary, except for those who are strongly indocrinated into the western world mythology. From my point of view the reverse-engineering program itself has a strong foundation, but I still strongly question all the details regarding exactly what might be taking place within this program.

Since I consider it a strong probability that the reverse-engineering program is taking place, when someone comes out to speak about it, my first reaction is "Let's hear this guy out and think on it".

My gravity/Princeton example was just to illustrate in a caricature how someone might discredit a fact by associating it with a lie.

 

[neuromancer]

Has anyone heard of David Adair? That's the first Google hit, I haven't read through it, but I think that's his general story. I've heard him a few times on older C2C shows. I thought I'd mention him since his story mirrors that of Lazar in a few ways.

-todd.

i don't find Adair credible! afaik there has been no evidence whatsoever to validate his claims! i remember he even claimed to have corrected some mistakes made by Stephen Hawking in multiple lectures when he was just a kid, i will dig thro my paranormal mp3 collection and post the clip as well! though lazar's story has a lot of loopholes, primarily stemming from his education claims, there are some elements of his story that are intriguing to say the least! especially the late Teller's unwillingness to discuss anything related to Lazar! and i do agree, his association with the nut Lear is not helping out his case in any way!

 

[neuromancer]

btw Adair was also featured in that ridiculous junk of a documentary Alien Interview! :redface:

 

[Verum]

BrandonD wrote

I think our difference is that I consider his basic story of a military reverse-engineering project (sans the specific details like antigravity generators, element 115, etc) to have a strong probability of being true.

Agreed. I don't accept the reverse engineering premise as plausible or close-to-proven. Corso's contentions have been pretty soundly repudiated. What troubles me most is the "Why?" (but not with respect to Lazar, who I believe is just a charlatan).

For many reasons, I believe Corso concocted the stories about using Roswell debris as a "boost" to development of lasers, night vision, fiber optics, integrated circuits, etc. (Logically it seems silly to believe that a civilization capable of defeating the space/time continuum, as Corso claims, would have technology as limited as these. Even a cursory read of Kaku's Visions would indicate that most of these technologies will be passe within the next 100 years, let alone being in use for a civilization perhaps 1000 or more years ahead of us in development.) So I keep coming back to the question of "Why?" What motivates someone like Corso to create a story like this? Money can be a powerful driver; maybe that's it. Or it may be a final push for recognition, old men, with fading memories and over-eager imaginations. But most of these people like Corso, Marcel Sr., maybe even Haut are older, have lived decent lives and by most accounts are honorable men. These are not people one expects to lie so boldly, brazenly and publicly.

So my conundrum is this. Logic and common sense tell me their stories are too full of holes and misstatements to be true. Yet their characters would indicate they are honest men. So either they are lying or I have to shelve what logic dictates. The only other possibility--and the one I am inclined to favor--is that this whole UFO business has an answer that is fully compatible with both of these...that their stories are not lies (i.e., they believe them to be true) but they are also not objectively factual (that the substance of what they say about extraterrestrials is false). I think we will ultimately find an answer that will have been one none of us expected, but that explains all the seeming contradictions, apparent myths and logical inconsistencies so embedded in "ufology". Until then, I have grown comfortable with the ambiguities in this and many other aspects of life for which answers are a struggle. I am usually OK resolving unanswered issues with a shrug.

 

[BrandonD]

Until then, I have grown comfortable with the ambiguities in this and many other aspects of life for which answers are a struggle. I am usually OK resolving unanswered issues with a shrug.

We're in agreement on that one. I'm ok with keeping a subject in question until it is ultimately known, we don't have to rush to a conclusion just because we hate the feeling of "not knowing" something.