A reply from Bob Lazar to our analysis of his video footage taken at Area 51

a reply to: A51Watcher

I'll give it an "A" for effort.

I didn't expect someone to analyze that exact jpeg I posted.

I assumed you, or whoever, would use the VHS recording of the original news broadcast, the same one you've used for your analysis. Didn't you say you had that tape?

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

I'll give it an "A" for effort.

Very magnanimous of you.

I didn't expect someone to analyze that exact jpeg I posted.

I assumed you, or whoever, would use the VHS recording of the original news broadcast, the same one you've used for your analysis. Didn't you say you had that tape?

The tape used for analysis is not the entire broadcast of "UFOs The Best Evidence" so incorrect assumption.

A note for readers - A Forensic Image Analyst is not some kid in their moms basement fooling around with photoshop.

To achieve that title they must attain various certifications attesting to their competency in image analysis.

Their analyses and opinion is given serious weight by the court.

They have to provide a full report on what software was used as well as the settings used in said software so that defense attorneys can challenge said analyses if they so choose.

What software can be used for evidence is regulated by the court.

So an analysts evidence and opinion is rarely if ever overturned in court.


Just an FYI so you understand who we are dealing with here.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Can you provide a link to the source video you use for your analyses?

originally posted by: A51Watcher

A note for readers - A Forensic Image Analyst is not some kid in their moms basement fooling around with photoshop.

To achieve that title they must attain various certifications attesting to their competency in image analysis.

Their analyses and opinion is given serious weight by the court.

They have to provide a full report on what software was used as well as the settings used in said software so that defense attorneys can challenge said analyses if they so choose.

What software can be used for evidence is regulated by the court.

So an analysts evidence and opinion is rarely if ever overturned in court.


Just an FYI so you understand who we are dealing with here.

Thanks for the added insight as it lends greater credibility to the analysis presented. We have a lot of Google PHD experts on ATS who love to espouse their cognitive bias after a 10 second boolean search string.

Why doesn't Lazar comment on the ridiculous lecture he gave in the 80's (it's on youtube) on the physics of he alien craft complete with detailed descriptions of how what we call the strong force is really gravity B and so on. It's been debunked over and over and is complete BS. Nowdays Lazar just says "we don't know how it works" and has completely backtracked.
He had graphs and pictures and graphics and this long lecture about gravity A and B and element 115 and it's all sic-fi baloney. He obviously knows this and no longer speaks of it. Rogan didn't ask him anything about it.
But Rogan did say the element 115 thing was a "hit" because even though the 115 we synthesized so far is very unstable, it's possible we still could make a stable version.
Yes, they actually said that and called it a hit??
Also Lazar was using terms about gravity that a physicist would not say. He is clearly not a physicist and anyone could easily confirm this by talking basic tensor equations with him.
In his lecture he didn't even realize space-time and gravity were the same thing.

Somehow he got Rogan to avoid any questions that would expose him.
The ufo field is interesting but all the hoaxes and frauds drag it down into the wu-wu zone. Why can't Corbell figure this out?

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

I'll give it an "A" for effort.

I didn't expect someone to analyze that exact jpeg I posted.

That is our Modus Operandi when someone asks to have something enhanced, go to work on whatever they provide us.

Unless otherwise stated we assume they are giving us best quality available.

Can you provide a link to the source video you use for your analyses?

Sure. Our team website is currently under renovation for the new year. Once that is complete I will post it for you.

originally posted by: joelr
Why doesn't Lazar comment on the ridiculous lecture he gave in the 80's (it's on youtube) on the physics of he alien craft complete with detailed descriptions of how what we call the strong force is really gravity B and so on. It's been debunked over and over and is complete BS. Nowdays Lazar just says "we don't know how it works" and has completely backtracked.
He had graphs and pictures and graphics and this long lecture about gravity A and B and element 115 and it's all sic-fi baloney. He obviously knows this and no longer speaks of it. Rogan didn't ask him anything about it.
But Rogan did say the element 115 thing was a "hit" because even though the 115 we synthesized so far is very unstable, it's possible we still could make a stable version.
Yes, they actually said that and called it a hit??
Also Lazar was using terms about gravity that a physicist would not say. He is clearly not a physicist and anyone could easily confirm this by talking basic tensor equations with him.
In his lecture he didn't even realize space-time and gravity were the same thing.

Somehow he got Rogan to avoid any questions that would expose him.
The ufo field is interesting but all the hoaxes and frauds drag it down into the wu-wu zone. Why can't Corbell figure this out?

space-time and gravity is the same thing?
gravity can bend space-time for sure but what do you mean?

a reply to: kwakakev
Website UFO for sure

a reply to: tjocksteffe

Time bands but space does not band as time is couple to dark matter it is physical so it can bend but space does not bad it is no substance

a reply to: A51Watcher

Great post and I wish this would stay pinned at the top.

On another note I have a quick question. Is it possible to break down the frequencies of a light source ( via a spectrometer )from a video recording or must you physically be in front of the light source in real time?

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: A51Watcher

Great post and I wish this would stay pinned at the top.

On another note I have a quick question. Is it possible to break down the frequencies of a light source ( via a spectrometer )from a video recording or must you physically be in front of the light source in real time?

You must physically be in front of the light source in real time, otherwise you are just examining the light from your monitor.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Thanks for confirming. I figured that was the case.

In theory if you had a spectrometer set up during a UAP encounter ( i.e. light in the sky ) could you theoretically break down the frequency waves? I've read a bit about how spectrometers work and it seems to me that it would only be possible if the light source were stationary for a long enough period of time in order to analyze is fully.

I ask because of this. Over the years the vast majority of sightings I have read about the eye witness states the light is a glowing orange light or blueish light. It would be interesting to dissect the frequencies to see if there is anything we could glean from that data.

a reply to: 1point92AU

One way to investigate the spectrum of light coming from UFO's is to look at discharge tubes.

A glass tube is filled with the desired gas then voltage is applied to the electrodes on the end of the tube.




Quite often a spectrum image is provided as well.

Here is a discharge tube of water vapor and the accompanying spectrum -








The colors we see coming from UFO's are result of the high voltage on the surface of the craft exciting the noble gases in the atmosphere, much like how a neon sign produces colors.

You can do a google image search for discharge tubes relating to the gas you wish to see illuminated.

Here is a zoomed and enlarged version of Bob Lazar's footage in which you can see various colors displayed in matching various noble gases in the air.




The distorted shapes we see from frame to frame are caused by localized gravity lensing, much like astronomers see every day in pictures from distant stars.

The footage I took at Area 51 displays the same colors and shape distortion.

Here are some frames from the footage I took at Area 51 showing the colors and shape distortion I mentioned -




















And every once in a while we get an image that does not display shape distortion when we are in between facets of the gravity lensing prism -

You can't pull spectrographic data from a regular photographic image.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You can't pull spectrographic data from a regular photographic image.

Correct.

I don't think the University that posted that spectrographic data got the information from a photo, but from the actual discharge tube itself.

We can however compare the colors seen in UFO images to discharge tube colors to determine what gases are being excited in the atmosphere.

a reply to: A51Watcher

A51 I wanted to share something that jumped out at me after watching the new Stephen Greer film "Close Encounters of the Fith Kind". Midway through the film there is footage of a UAP the Costa Rican Air Force caught and it reminded me of your Lazar breakdown video so I thought I would post it here for you to see. The similarities are remarkable.