Bob Lazar Declared a Holy Prophet of UFOs

a reply to: Crisis

What Bob says doesn't pass the sniff test. It doesn't take a ton of science knowledge and critical thinking to determine that if you have two options, and one involves someone lying to cover their ass while the other involves completely rewriting physics as we know it, which is more likely?

a reply to: hawkguy

A lot of what anyone says doesn’t pass the “sniff test,” because everyone’s “sniff test” is different. That’s my entire point. Doesn’t matter what anyone says anymore.

It will take nothing short of a mass-UFO daylight sighting above the streets of Manhattan to maybe convince people here. And even then, it will be debunked as a “false-flag devised by the government to get people under control” or whatever.

J. Allen Hynek himself could resurrect from the dead & announce on live TV that extraterrestrials are real & are monitoring Earth, and some people here will say “why should we trust the words of a dead man” LOL

ANOTHER BREAKING NEWS FROM THE NYT!!!!!!!!!!!!






Rejoice !!! Rejoice!!!

Current officials are now concerned about the potential threat represented by the very real, advanced technological objects: how close they can come to our fighter jets, sometimes causing a near miss, and the risk that our adversaries may acquire the technology demonstrated by the objects before we do.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: celltypespecific

How do we know that slide is real? Has there been any independent confirmation of that slide's provenance? Is Zondo still spoon-feeding them?

Apparently the slide is from 2018 ( Hal Puthoff’s 2018 public conference )

twitter


Here's the video : ( timestamp 09:09 for the slide )

a reply to: Kreeate



Oof. That's.... Bad.

a reply to: Crisis

There's zero amount of evidence that will satisfy the naysayers here. Up to and including a physical sample.

a reply to: NightVision

Oh I'm quite happy to accept evidence. I just haven't seen any.

I want to believe.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
ANOTHER BREAKING NEWS FROM THE NYT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rejoice !!! Rejoice!!!
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Kreeate
Apparently the slide is from 2018 ( Hal Puthoff’s 2018 public conference )

twitter
Here's the video : ( timestamp 09:09 for the slide )

Thanks. Here's the slide from 9:09, someone has been changing slides, Hal Puthoff's slide says "possibly including off-world""

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: NightVision

Oh I'm quite happy to accept evidence. I just haven't seen any.

I want to believe.

Yes, there are skeptics who use critical thinking skills to evaluate evidence to see whether or not it supports claims being made. And then there are those who need no evidence and will believe whatever they are told, as long as it's what they want to believe, fits their bias. We need real evidence, hot hot air coming out of mouths, which can contain lies just as easily as truths.

The intelligence agents get training on how to feed us BS:


Too bad there's no course for us in the pubic to teach us how to tell when we are getting fed "deception" by the intelligence agents. How do we know? When slides change?

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: Crisis

What Bob says doesn't pass the sniff test. It doesn't take a ton of science knowledge and critical thinking to determine that if you have two options, and one involves someone lying to cover their ass while the other involves completely rewriting physics as we know it, which is more likely?

Bob Lazar couldn't even tell the truth about his rocket-powered car. If he had it would still be an impressive accomplishment, but telling the truth doesn't seem to be in Bob's nature. He had to lie about his rocket engine being the most efficient when Tom Mahood explained how bogus that claim was.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Here's the slide from 9:09, someone has been changing slides, Hal Puthoff's slide says "possibly including off-world""

Nice catch. That slight alteration could potentially be significant in its meaning. It could also be indicative of the honesty of the person(s) re-presenting the original.

I'm still not seeing any evidence though.

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: NightVision

Oh I'm quite happy to accept evidence. I just haven't seen any.

I want to believe.

But what kind of evidence? Video recordings which can be easily debunked & faked with CGI, radar analysis, pilot testimony which almost always is called into question (since eyewitness testimony isn’t reliable), ex-military leaking documents, a newspaper article, a “respected scientist” saying he’s witnessed some stuff, etc.?

The only type of evidence/proof that can convince people will have to be a physical sample off a space ship, which is impossible to retrieve. But then how would we know it came from a spaceship, and isn’t just a rare unique type of metal found on a remote place on earth?

A lot of people just want aliens to land on the lawn of the White House. It’s not gonna happen like that guys

originally posted by: Crisis
But what kind of evidence?

Empirical, irrefutable, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LMAO calling it a rocket is a joke. It was basically a pulsejet iirc

a reply to: DrumsRfun
i am as well, Jim Marrs is my favorite author by far. Turned me on to this website too!

There seems to be a failure from believers to recognize the lack of empirical evidence and instead focus on the anecdotal as it MAY support a long held faith of theirs. From the information presented, if we go along with the premise it’s truthful, it’s not stated anywhere something was created by non human intelligence, it’s stated it’s thought material wasn’t made on earth, but not presented as a fact. But true believers feel “disclosure” of their long held beliefs will be done through a series of slow drips and half truths. So really anything stated on the subject weather specific empirical fact or someone expressing a belief is taken as clear proof they are correct we must be in phase ii of disclosure (or whatever phase they believe).

Skeptics are willing to admit they are wrong, they want to follow reality even if it takes them to an unexpected place. Believers refuse anything but their own internal faith.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Crisis
But what kind of evidence?

Empirical, irrefutable, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence.

Okay, such as? Give an example that would convince you

originally posted by: Rob808
There seems to be a failure from believers to recognize the lack of empirical evidence and instead focus on the anecdotal as it MAY support a long held faith of theirs. From the information presented, if we go along with the premise it’s truthful, it’s not stated anywhere something was created by non human intelligence, it’s stated it’s thought material wasn’t made on earth, but not presented as a fact. But true believers feel “disclosure” of their long held beliefs will be done through a series of slow drips and half truths. So really anything stated on the subject weather specific empirical fact or someone expressing a belief is taken as clear proof they are correct we must be in phase ii of disclosure (or whatever phase they believe).

Skeptics are willing to admit they are wrong, they want to follow reality even if it takes them to an unexpected place. Believers refuse anything but their own internal faith.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You have a point, but it also works vice-versa. A lot of skeptics dismiss compelling evidence & want solid proof, and by solid proof they want a flying saucer to land right in front of them, since they have a hard time trusting any other source.

originally posted by: Crisis

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: NightVision

Oh I'm quite happy to accept evidence. I just haven't seen any.

I want to believe.

But what kind of evidence? Video recordings which can be easily debunked & faked with CGI, radar analysis, pilot testimony which almost always is called into question (since eyewitness testimony isn’t reliable), ex-military leaking documents, a newspaper article, a “respected scientist” saying he’s witnessed some stuff, etc.?

The only type of evidence/proof that can convince people will have to be a physical sample off a space ship, which is impossible to retrieve. But then how would we know it came from a spaceship, and isn’t just a rare unique type of metal found on a remote place on earth?

A lot of people just want aliens to land on the lawn of the White House. It’s not gonna happen like that guys

Someone around a year ago who is very well know in a direct message told me "Yes we have the tech"....
I never really understood the significance of his statement until now!

Its time to start pondering how life will be in the Post-Disclosure world...

originally posted by: Crisis
Okay, such as?

Sure, I'll give it a go...

• Evidence of interstellar travel methods that are *partially made known for scrutiny and studied/assessed by mainstream science.

• Biological evidence of complex non terrestrial DNA, peer reviewed, verified, and publicly available.

• Open, global interaction with ET's, including limited public access in order for the public to access "hands-on" contact.

*partially, because this data might be sensitive.

originally posted by: mirageman
Biggesst irony here is how people are using a quote by Eric Davis that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth to vindicate Bob Lazar's lies.

This is the same Eric Davis who told Joe Mugia recently

...
Lazar worked as a radiation health monitor in the unsecured logistics contractor facility outside of Area-51, so he was never inside that site, and he never held security clearances because he didn’t need them to work in an unclassified area. Lazar made up his entire cockamamie story about the UFO that he saw in a building inside Area-51. He was never exposed to any classified information, facilities, or programs in his work area.”

www.ufojoe.net...

This is what these guys do. They seed stories to create circular arguments in the so called UFO community to cover whatever it is they are really up to. Which almost certainly has nothing to do with aliens from outer space.

Almost certainly... strong statement.

So you’re now the arbiter of people’s motives? Are you clairvoyant too?

Weird. Pretty sure you said you need to be able to measure things beyond a doubt.

So please provide me with your mind reading credentials.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Yes, I think a lot of the angst we are seeing here and those that defame Bob are actually quite jealous of him for his accomplishments in PHYSICS

Please point out what in this physicist's critique of Bob makes you think he's jealous? I'm not seeing it.

A Physicist’s Critique of Bob Lazar

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics” of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar’s pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

When physicists make accomplishments, we hope that other physicists will recognize them. What we see here is a physicist saying Bob Lazar doesn't even know physics as we understand it, without any jealousy that I can see.

originally posted by: mirageman
Biggesst irony here is how people are using a quote by Eric Davis that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth to vindicate Bob Lazar's lies.

That really is the ultimate irony, isn't it?

Bob Lazar supporter: Look! The NYT quoted Eric Davis talking about off-world crash retrievals! This confirms Bob Lazar!
Eric Davis: "Lazar made up his entire cockamamie story about the UFO that he saw in a building inside Area-51. He was never exposed to any classified information, facilities, or programs in his work area."

This is the logic of Lazar supporters?
Not that I trust anything Eric Davis says, but you can't have it both ways if you're logical, if you believe what he says about crash retrieval, don't you also have to believe what he says about Bob Lazar making up the UFO story (which he certainly did).

I don't believe half of what Eric Davis says, but that applies to things like when he says "poltergeists are real" and that one followed him home from Skinwalker Ranch. Does he really believe that? Or he he spreading misinformation and doesn't believe it himself? Or was he saying that to con Bigelow out of more funding, which apparently was actually coming from the taxpayers?

But as I said elsewhere, he could be telling the truth about a briefing of crash retrieval of off-world objects if the briefing said: If an ET space ship crashes, here's how we should retrieve it", even firefighters have a plan for what to do if ET ships crash. Or not. He could be telling the truth about Bob working in an unclassified area, we know Bob Lazar had K/M next to his name in a phone directory indicating he worked for the contractor Kirk-Mayer, which also shows Lazar was NOT a direct employee of Los Alamos.

Ahhh yes. “Currently accepted” physical theories... do you see the hedge there?

Let’s say this another way... currently accepted theories have changed a whole bunch over time. And, you’re also making an assumption (false assumption) in my mind. Since apparently everyone who discredits any UFO account or “personality” on the basis of capitalism... let’s roll with the capitalism angle.

If you knew you had tech that, at the Federal level, that would dwarf in terms of effectiveness what the private sector has.. you couldn’t just release it. Why? It would screw up a whole bunch of things economically. Zero point energy or fusion? Bye bye oil industry. How about pharma? Cure cancer and diabetes? There goes billions upon billions in revenue to big pharma and hospitals. Way way too disruptive to the system we have in place - you have to drip the advanced tech out slowly.

So, do I think a lot more is possible today than we’re led to believe? Absolutely.

In fact, there’s little we haven’t figured out how to do once we’ve put our minds to it as a species.

If I’m the Feds, I’ve pumped a lot of black budget money into fusion, hyper advanced weaponry, securing exotic materials, gravity reducing and interim dampening technology, cloaking or visibility reducing materials and a whole lot more.

Why? Because every other government is too - namely China and Russia.

Because if you’re not first, you’re last in this game.