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: peacenotgreed
Greetings fellow seekers,
About 17 years ago, while in middle school, I found and bought this VHS called "How Do UFOs Fly?" done in a "UFO Files" video series. Back then, I watched in amazement as Bob Lazar gives a talk about what technologies Aliens use to make UFOs work. The video has lots of other interviews and narration as well, but the Lazar talk is by far the best, in my opinion.
With new Bob Lazar interviews coming out, I have felt the need to track this video down, upload it to the net, and most importantly of all, share it with the entire ATS community. SO! this is really just for you guys. ENJOY!
Link is here if the embedding doesn't work: How Do UFOs Fly?
originally posted by: Charizard
Thanks for sharing! I'm a little over halfway through it now and I've enjoyed it so far.
Also, you can see a UFO floating by behind Stanton at 26:05
originally posted by: Uggielicious
originally posted by: Charizard
Thanks for sharing! I'm a little over halfway through it now and I've enjoyed it so far.
Also, you can see a UFO floating by behind Stanton at 26:05
Not enough detail to call it a UFO. It's a low resolution video of possibly an 8mm or 16mm film. Since it's a professional perhaps the cameraperson was using 35mm. It's more probably a small plane such as Piper Cub. A good catch anyway.
And at 24:23 you see (if you have "fast vision") a rod cross Stanton's chest (the rod starts at the lower right hand corner). Freezing it doesn't show the detail you might see if the resolution was higher.
originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: peacenotgreed
Can someone with better english than mine write what said the man in 37minute? I can't understand him. I would be greatfull!
The two main speakers were Bob Lazar and Stanton Friedman, the latter being a real physicist and the former being a wannabe physicist.
originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: peacenotgreed
Can someone with better english than mine write what said the man in 37minute? I can't understand him. I would be greatfull!
You could be right.
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Hey I really enjoyed this. Old school.
I laughed very hard Friedman and Lazar appearing in a documentary together. Perhaps this is what started the feud between them, Friedman couldn't believe they gave Lazar equal if not more time to discuss physics
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The two main speakers were Bob Lazar and Stanton Friedman, the latter being a real physicist and the former being a wannabe physicist.
originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: peacenotgreed
Can someone with better english than mine write what said the man in 37minute? I can't understand him. I would be greatfull!
About 95% of what Friedman said is true, that known technologies can lead to space travel, but I docked him 5% for glossing over the engineering issues which cannot be assumed. Just look at all the engineering difficulties with building a nuclear fusion reactor which is economical and commercially viable, so we can't assume that just because the physics is sound, the engineering will follow...maybe it will or maybe it won't.
About 50% of what Bob Lazar said is true. He shows a graphic about how bending space time can close the linear distance between two points, and then says you need a powerful energy source to do that which is more or less true. However then he starts talking about using element 115 as an energy source and says we have to use that because element 116 is very unstable. This is total fiction because in reality all known isotopes of element 115 are also unstable, with the longest lasting known isotope having a half-life less than a quarter of one second. Even if element 115 was stable it couldn't do what Lazar claims. Those are the most important points but you can go through the rest of his claims and find some true and some false.
You could be right.
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Hey I really enjoyed this. Old school.
I laughed very hard Friedman and Lazar appearing in a documentary together. Perhaps this is what started the feud between them, Friedman couldn't believe they gave Lazar equal if not more time to discuss physics
It's really embarrassing for Friedman, a guy who knows what he's talking about, to have his reputation tarnished by appearing alongside a guy like Lazar who obviously is spewing total fiction half the time.
You're not getting the picture. We know about the strong nuclear force. It's not gravity as Lazar claims. They have different properties which are well-documented.
" bobs propulsion system isnt supported by physics as we know them "
As I said about half of what Lazar said makes sense, the other half is nonsense. Most of what Friedman said makes sense.
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
What bob said makes a ton of sense.
Shows how much you and Lazar know, or should I say don't know. Mainstream science only says gravitons is one possibility but they are unconfirmed, so even according to mainstream science they may not exist. This is why Friedman is so convinced Lazar was never a physicist, because in addition to his "missing" diplomas is also the fact that he doesn't know basic things that a physicist would know, like the true theoretical status of gravitons, for example.
And by the way.. he DID say our understanding of gravity and nuclear dynamics was partially incorrect. . He said himself there is no such thing as gravitrons
Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes involving energies close to or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is nonrenormalizable). Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable.
They aren't the leading theory, that's why Lazar is wrong. They have never achieved status as a theory, only a hypothesis.
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Arbitrageur
He said gravitrons are the leading theory.. and that it is incorrect..
Which you are corroborating right now.. which is in agreement with Lazar, so I dont understand your point