It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Springer
Here you go, something REAL (as far as the guy whose discussing it anyway) to sink our teeth into for once...
www.desertcompanion.com...
George is a friend and someone I personally know is way beyond B.S.
I can't deal with Lazar logically in my own mind, can anyone?
S...
We arrived at Bob's residence around 11 a.m., or so, to the best of my recollection. They took us to the living room, which at that time did not seem to me to be fully furnished and "lived". They showed us Bob's study room, which also did not seem to me to be fully furnished. Yes, there were a few books on physics on the bookshelf and there were computers on his desk. In any case, the interview was conducted by a writer from a magazine and I was simply there as an interpreter. The interview lasted about two hours.
When we arrived at his house, there were about 5 or 6 men in the house. At first I thought they were simply Bob's friends. But later on I noticed something unusual about some of those men. It seemed that throughout the interview, whether in the living room or in Bob's study room, two men were constantly on each side of Bob. One of them seemed to have a rectangular black communications equipment with him. Perhaps it could have been a cellphone (although this was in 1990).
When we moved to the kitchen area, those two men also moved alongside Bob. When we moved to Bob's study room, those men also moved together with Bob. So we asked Bob, "who are these men?" Bob simply said that, "don't worry, these are just friends".
Bob is a smart guy allright - but he did not study @MIT because he is either lazy, not smart enough or both. He simply plays that part. Has been doing so since being a youngster.
It may surprise you, but none of these agencies really CHECK the statements of their applicants. They simply assume what you tell them is true.
And mostly there is no need for much scrutiny either: most workers in secret facilities don't know any secrets other than the location of the facility. (and can't even keep that a secret). There's compartmentalization, need-to-know, layering of tasks and responsibilities etc. and so you can work on a secret project - but all you do is soldering chips to a board or checking other folks circuitry all day. It's not all rocket science, folks.
We all know - it has been official for a while - that A51 existed in those days. And they hired folks to do work. If there is a lot of work and there aren't many candidates a guy like Lazar may have slipped through. He was not a criminal, he was not registered as an enemy of the state, they needed a guy with hands and half a brain and Bob seemed to have proper credentials.
So, yes, maybe he worked there as an electronics guy. But maybe somebody that really studied at MIT read his CV and started chatting with Bobby - and after a while smelled a rat. Maybe Bob started bragging about it himself, in an attempt to show his importance (he was a very young man in those days). Maybe Bob started to ask the wrong questions or gave the wrong answers. So, somebody decided to recheck his credentials. And he was found out, exposed and kicked out. Probably was debriefed in a not so nice way and sent away.
****SIDE NOTE****
originally posted by: Blue Shift
This is the kind of thing that makes an old UFO fan like myself just tired and disheartened. It's the same old thing happening again. Promises of wonderful, verifiable revelations, followed by a lot of excuses and nonsense and nothing.
originally posted by: Guyfriday
That's the one thing this story is lacking. The "Promise" where was it at the time, and where is it today?
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Now, imagine Bob: just being debriefed and kicked out. The agency he worked for has fired him. Maybe he told others he studie at MIT too, his friends, neighbours, relatives. And now these darned smart asses in Dreamland discovered he was a fraude and kicked him out. What if they tell? Think Bob, think fast!
So, Bob invents this "alien tech" fantasy. It perfectly explains why he had to leave S4 and why nobody can find his educational records - the government stole them, of course .
originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Good speculation, but it's only speculation.
This may surprise you as well, but back in the day it was assumed that you were lying when they did a background check.
Sometimes people slip through, and this is true, but he was hired during the height of the Cold War and governmental contract companies didn't like to take chances that might cause them to lose those contracts.
The people who work on these project often times don't know what they are doing on the small picture scene, but they do know what they are working for on the big picture scene. The people who get hired for these jobs are smart enough to piece together what they are doing. So while their individual tasks are compartmentalized, their minds are not.
Most people weren't fully aware of Area 51 until both the Lazar story and those EPA lawsuits came to light during the late 80's early 90's. As to the other point here of Lazar just being hired because of busy work was needed (paraphrasing of course) You do know that during a security background check (which are preformed on a regular basis) the subject is polygraphed.
WOW! if this assumption was true then how do you explain all of the weirdness that was taking place during this timeframe, and that was directly related to the event of 25 years ago? (Governmental agencies following people around, Mystery Agents being seen following people around, harassing people, massive wire taps that were being done. etc. etc.)
Many of the scientific clues Lazar dropped 25 years ago, have seemed to come to light as being real science. This can be debated back and forth, but the facts are the facts.
So while the whole Lazar Story is an interesting one I have to say; "does it matter?" Personally I'm not sure if I want to believe the story, but there is enough evidence to prove more then half of his story is true.
originally posted by: Guyfriday
As to the other point here of Lazar just being hired because of busy work was needed (paraphrasing of course) You do know that during a security background check (which are preformed on a regular basis) the subject is polygraphed.
originally posted by: nenothtu
originally posted by: Guyfriday
As to the other point here of Lazar just being hired because of busy work was needed (paraphrasing of course) You do know that during a security background check (which are preformed on a regular basis) the subject is polygraphed.
Polygraph exams mean exactly squat. I've been polygraphed twice. the first time, I lied like a trooper and passed with flying colors anyhow. The second time, I told God's Own Truth, and failed. That time required extra grumbling legwork on the part of the investigators to verify that it was me telling the truth and not the machine.
Polygraph machines are just Voodoo generators.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
They still do, rest assured . My point wasn't so much they did not do a check - they do - but the nature of the check. A screening does not involve checking your diplomas etc. Screening is all about your character: can you be manipulated, are you vulnerable to blackmail, are you in debt, do you hang out with extemists, have you been in jail.. stuff like that. Checking your school diploma's is not part of the process, that's HRs responsibility. And they often delegate it to the external agency they work with. Whom don't have a clue on how to check credentials like that so they simply believe it - if you say so...
There has recently been growing demand for a greater insight into the factors considered when screening candidates for so-called positions involving confidentiality. In broad terms, the security services check their honesty, independence, loyalty and integrity. The new guide defines exactly what is meant by these criteria.
In addition, it outlines the indicators used in assessing whether a person is suitable for a position involving confidentiality. These are related to specific risks associated with the task in question. Factors taken into account include alcohol or drug dependency and susceptibility to corruption, although the weight attached to each of these indicators may vary from position to position. Ultimately, every screening procedure is different.
The guide also describes the objections and appeals procedure.