Jeremy Corbell : Bob Lazar / Feature documentary coming December 2018

I just want some new information to be brought to the table. Lazar's story has bbeen laid out, debated, confirmed, debunked, etc.

And he's done a bunch of interviews over the years, what is this doc gonna say that isnt already known? Kinda feels like a glossier, better produced version of the same old stuff.

I wonder if JC has seen this; maybe part of his research for the film...


www.youtube.com...

Posting this again as I screwed it up.

The True Story of Area 51 - Grant Cameron

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for posting. I'm excited to be making this film. a reply to: gortex

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Outlier13

Would you mind expanding upon this? I have a similar feeling.

I can't say what it is other than it's a gut feeling , his story appealed to me back in my believer days and the feeling that there is truth to what he claims still persists today , it may just be that it's a very clever (based in science) fabrication but his story has stayed with me while others have fallen by the wayside , perhaps it's just the one nugget that I cling to in the hope it's true or maybe it is true and deep down I know it's true.

As I said earlier I am looking forward to this new documentary and hope that maybe Bob has something to offer that until now he's been to scared to release.

Ditto, Gortex. But I'm not as 'iffy' as you are. I believe him.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Ditto, Gortex. But I'm not as 'iffy' as you are. I believe him.

There's something to be said for a guy who sticks to a story for decades without a lot of added embellishment, and has never really tried to make money or achieve a lot of fame for it. Where is his book?

If it is a hoax, you gotta give him credit for consistency. If it was just a bunch of disinformation agents messing with him, then they did a pretty good job.

What say the "experts" in reading micro-expressions and "tells?"

a reply to: MrRussell

Great video, seems like the most likely explanation, but

Unfortunately we still arent sure if they fed Lazaar bogus info or the real thing. Awfully elaborate if it was all fake though.

Also, what was the reason for leaking the story?

In the recent Richard Dolan thread, Dolan claims several people have come forward to Knapp about Area 51, but they have all back out just before going public. Anyone have more information on these ghost informants have told Knapp?

a reply to: 111DPKING111
He only merits the two.

There are no double "a"s in his name.

I'm interested in seeing this. I don't exactly believe Lazar's story, but the guy has always struck me as someone who does believe that his story is real. Maybe because it is, because he was made to believe it was real or maybe he's just a good liar, I don't know.
And at the end Lazar's case is one of the defining stories of the modern ufology "mythology", so if the documentary adds something new it may be interesting to watch, even as a cultural artifact.

originally posted by: gortex
A few days ago Jeremy Corbell released a teaser trailer for a documentary about UFO legend Bob Lazar to mark 30 years since his story broke , as a one time believer and a now not totally disbeliever in Lazar I look forward to seeing what Corbell can bring to the table with this new exploration , especially given the highlighted section of the blurb.
snip

Since I'm not a Bob Lazar enthusiast this is not something I'll watch because I'm going to hear a lot of fantasy dialogue. BUT I would watch it if Jeremy would quiz Bob about the TESTORS Area S4 UFO model that mentions Bob on the box (see photos). The reason I'm a stickler about this is that as all of you can see is that the image of the UFO TESTORS used in its 1995 kit resembles almost 100% identical to those shown in "Billy" Meier's photos which we all know are hoaxed. Questions need to be asked for the revealing answers. What do you all think?

a reply to: The Shrike

As flying disks were put into public the public's conscience in 1947 I think the design of the craft is limited to the description Arnold gave , although the disk shape that evolved from his sighting was not what he said he saw the press interpreted it as such , two pie plates sat on top of each other , not really much you can change there if you're describing a flying saucer.

Long time no see Shrike.

I'm looking forward to watching the documentary BUT with it being made by Jeremy Corbell I have my reservations about it releasing anything groundbreaking or earth-shattering.

I watched patient seventeen, which has loads of potential but was just left in a cliffhanger and left me wanting. If I were the director, I would have been like a dog with a bone and refused to let go until I got answers. I felt like the director gave up to easy and just dropped it as things started getting interesting.

Also given the directors career and interests I don't think it's going to be totally unbiased and will be slightly swaying towards the 'believers' of Lazar.

Anyway, as for Lazar himself, I find a lot of things interesting.

I'll be honest, I'm inclined to believe him BUT I'm not a believer who digs their heels and doubles down despite overwhelming evidence, if I can be proven wrong with undisputable proof, I'll admit I was wrong.

Right now, it seems like anyone who doesn't believe Lazar provides very little evidence for them not believing his version of events or will call into question is work and education credentials which, lets face it, can all be erased or edited by the government.

The reasons I am inclined to believe him are:

* The element 115 thing, sure it was mentioned on StarTrek and the likes before but if this never came to pass and remained in the realms of science fiction it would have damaged his story beyond repair, now the element has been discovered officially that rather profound, in my eyes anyway but then again I'm not scientific expert.

* Lazar has been rather consistent with his story. Unlike other hoaxers or outright frauds, nobody has been able to provide proof that Lazar has consistently lied or changed his story on the larger details.

* Lazar has not profited from coming forward, this is a BIG one for me. Unlike people like Travis Walton or other people like that who have made a living from Ufology (not to say I don't believe Walton just using him as an example) Lazar has not released any books or movies and as far as I'm aware hasn't cashed in.

In fact, there was a recent interview I watched where he was interviewed by George Knapp and he actually tried pulling out of the interview with Knapp because he was confused as to why people would find an interview with him interesting. It was only due to a legal commitment that he followed through on the interview.

To me liars and fraudsters will milk everything they can out of their story and the number 1 motive is normally always money. To me Lazar doesn't meet this criteria, not to say he might not have received some monetary contribution for the new documentary or past interviews, after all, time is money, but it's clear the guy hasn't made a career out of this, which is my eyes give him some credit.

* Lazar was able to take his friends out to the Nevada desert and film secret test flights on multiple nights, this is one of the biggies for me. It would be VERY difficult for Lezar to just get lucky and know the date and times of test flights, he'd have to have been out in the desert observing for weeks to 'get lucky' on this information, all without being spotted and arrested.

* There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Lezar had an avid interest in Ufology before or after telling his story. Again, people like Walton had an avid interest in the topic before their stories broke, this doesn't mean to say it discredits them entirely but it certainly raises eyebrows.

I also find it interesting how a lot of whistleblowers seem to confirm/verify a lot of the stuff that Lazar has said. So for example, UFO's having the ability to go unseen/invisible, a lot of eyewitnesses to UFO's confirm this, the fact that eyewitnesses also report UFO's seem to fly in a bumpy manner like a pebble skimming water, again, Lazar talked about this extensively and why that was.

I mean, of course, Lazar was one of the earliest whistleblowers and a lot of what we have said could then be the basis future hoaxers or fraudsters but I find it interesting that eyewitnesses to UFOs who have never heard of Lazar, often back up his story.

Don't get me wrong there are a few things that puzzle me about Lazar's story as well.

Like, I don't understand why they'd hire someone like him and not have only the worlds best government scientists working on top-secret classified stuff. I mean Lazar himself will admit he's not one of the best scientists and even says that he was surprised he was chosen to fulfil the role he did given his background.

I also read something once about someone who said they worked at Area 51 and during their first week they were put working on fraudulent projects as a test and then officials would look for leaked info on these projects to weed out any people who can't be trusted.

I don't know but if I had to choose, I'd say I'm more inclined to believing the guy.

originally posted by: The Shrike

originally posted by: gortex
A few days ago Jeremy Corbell released a teaser trailer for a documentary about UFO legend Bob Lazar to mark 30 years since his story broke , as a one time believer and a now not totally disbeliever in Lazar I look forward to seeing what Corbell can bring to the table with this new exploration , especially given the highlighted section of the blurb.
snip

Since I'm not a Bob Lazar enthusiast this is not something I'll watch because I'm going to hear a lot of fantasy dialogue. BUT I would watch it if Jeremy would quiz Bob about the TESTORS Area S4 UFO model that mentions Bob on the box (see photos). The reason I'm a stickler about this is that as all of you can see is that the image of the UFO TESTORS used in its 1995 kit resembles almost 100% identical to those shown in "Billy" Meier's photos which we all know are hoaxed. Questions need to be asked for the revealing answers. What do you all think?

I'm glad you asked this.

I recall a very recent interview with George Knapp and Lazar, which can be found on YouTube and Lazar actually addresses this.

He basically doubles downs and confirms that the UFO he worked on looks identical to that of Billy Meier's UFO. He basically says that he can only be honest about what he witnessed and that, that's what the UFO looked like.

Personally, this makes me believe Lazar all the more because why would you knowingly say that the UFO you worked on looked exactly like one that is of a well-known hoax. It's unlikely Lazar wouldn't have known that Meier is a well-known hoaxer.

He even says it's uncanny and must be a coincidence. Let's be honest though, that UFO type isn't exactly unique and was how they have commonly been perceived since the 40s.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: The Shrike

As flying disks were put into public the public's conscience in 1947 I think the design of the craft is limited to the description Arnold gave , although the disk shape that evolved from his sighting was not what he said he saw the press interpreted it as such , two pie plates sat on top of each other , not really much you can change there if you're describing a flying saucer.

Long time no see Shrike.

I've always had a problem with Arnold's account of his questionable sighting. His vision must have been astronomical to see any detail at the distance he mentions: (Wikipedia: "About 30 seconds after seeing the first flash of light, Arnold saw a series of bright flashes in the distance off to his left, or north of Mt. Rainier, which was then 20 to 25 miles (40 km) away at speeds that Arnold estimated at a minimum of 1,200 miles an hour (1,932 km/hr)."

That's an impossible experience.

"Arnold described them as a series of objects with convex shapes, though he later revealed that one object differed by being crescent-shaped." He wasn't sure of their shapes. Who could be at such a distance?

"Several years later, Arnold would state he likened their movement to saucers skipping on water, without comparing their actual shapes to saucers," I've never heard anyone use that description. What I've heard and practiced myself is skipping rocks on water. You walk along the water's edge looking for the flatest, roundest or oval-shaped rocks as possible and you heave them for distance with less skips.

What Arnold first drew was later changed to a Horten-type design. So he's playing mind games.

Look at these photos and think: could human eyes be able to see something like this at 20-25 miles? Such detail?