bob lazar a total fraud

Originally posted by vladmir
First off all i DONT think Bob is a fraud,
and anyone who thinks he is, is mistaken, in my opinion.

Now if you dont think there is any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Lazar might just know what he is talking about,then thats your choice,
but please stop trying to convince people otherwise,
you are just wasting time and comming off as very rude.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by vladmir]

IM not trying to be rude, it just seems to me like everyone is taking his word as fact, and not looking into it!! Why hasnt anyone of his former classmates at mit stood up and vouched for him?? not even one teacher or class mate! as far as wasting time, think about how many people (including myself) have spent hours upon hours looking into this claim!!

deny Ignorance right!!!!?? Well Im sorry thats what Im doing here, Sorry I dont believe in fairy tails with not so much as a speck of evidence! oh ya john lear i forgot, even lazar says he embelishes!

sorry im just lookin for the truth, not second hand he told me so and his sister saw that kinda stuff!

Originally posted by Badge01
In addition Edward Teller disclaimed any knowledge of Lazar in a video before Teller died.

I would like you to clarify this point Badge01 as I don't remember Edward Teller ever disclaiming any knowledge of Bob Lazar.

In the interview with Teller in Florida that I saw he is asked, "And if I ask you if you ever met Bob Lazar what would you say?"

And Teller's response is; "I will sit silently."

Now is that the one you are talking about or is there another one. Thanks.

If there's anything I've had a problem with thus far, concerning Lazar, it's that "he just walked in secure installations with people" or something to that extent.. do I have this wrong? And supposing him having the security clearance.

People just aren't let into classified areas if they don't have clearance, that's common knowledge.

Tell me I have this wrong or if there are details I'm missing.

Personally, I wouldn't beleive in Lazar if there hadn't so many REALLY knowledgable people beleive in him.

What are the odds:
A fake guy magically getting UFO test flight times, then taking a few of his friends up without getting court; the first few times.
Then video tapes it and has a few of his really experianced friends back him up.

I think there may be some truth to what he sais.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by Badge01
If you watch the recent history channel UFO and aliens documentaries, Lazar makes a astonishing claim:

He say that 'nothing is wasted. No energy or power is not used by some other process in the ship. It's incredibly efficient, he says. All the systems were connected to each other.' (paraphrasing).

Now this claim is something that he would not have been able to know or see unless the craft was fully powered up, and he was able to do an experiment to show that power was being internally re-used. If no energy is wasted in the system it would be essentially a black box and totally closed to any analysis.

So what, Lazar would be the ONLY person working on the ONLY saucer in entire A51?

I'm sure many hundreds where working on the claimed dozen or so UFOs. What he claims could have been a discussion over coffee with another scientist for all we know.

I disagree with you redseal. Robert Lazar in my opinion's the real deal. Notice the registration number postfix on his fed tax statement and that trying to get info on him from that /89? income statement was classified.

Knapp's tour through Los Alamos with Lazar and taking video while they toured. Lazar's night-time craft video while taking a group of friends to the spot inside A51 at a time & date in the late night hours he knew the craft would be tested. It's quite the video.

Where I'm less sure of Lazar is only his claim of how the powerplant operates. And even there I'm not saying it doesn't operate as an matter/antimatter annihilation reactor, just not sure as there so many theories out there on its propulsion and gravity disruption. The theory of which I don't fully understand.

His being so quiet for so long suggests to me the possibility a deal may have been made with the sec gov AFOSI or some other quasi military sec gov agency such as Naval Intelligence. I really don't think it's his lack of interest perhap's he's been formally warned?

Dallas

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Badge01
In addition Edward Teller disclaimed any knowledge of Lazar in a video before Teller died.

I would like you to clarify this point Badge01 as I don't remember Edward Teller ever disclaiming any knowledge of Bob Lazar.

In the interview with Teller in Florida that I saw he is asked, "And if I ask you if you ever met Bob Lazar what would you say?"

And Teller's response is; "I will sit silently."

Now is that the one you are talking about or is there another one. Thanks.

You are correct, John. There are probably two ways to interpret that. One might be that Teller was so fed up with those allegations and the fringe stories being pushed on him that he didn't want to give Bob any air time.

The other, more conspiratorial, might be that he wasn't going to give away anything on any project in which either of them might have been involved.

Thanks for clarifying that.

However if you look at the whole interview, I believe Teller said that there wasn't any force that needed to be explained, like antigrav due to Bob's 'gravity wave' focuser devices. Later he says there was no credibility to the Unobtanium (115) claims. Again going by a rather fuzzy memory - it's been a couple years since I looked at it.

I don't have a transcript of what Teller was saying, so I'd have to refresh my memory. I do have Bob's DVD; question is (looks at stacks of UFO and Fringe science DVDs) where is it? LOL.

Both Tom Mahood and I talked about the possibility that Bob had some real experiences and some things that were staged for disinfo purposes, thus the reason he comes off as credible.

You, however, knew Lazar personally, so I have to defer to your experience in the majority as to -his- credibility. The credibility of the claims has to remain a somewhat separate issue, since it is possible that there was some staging and some propaganda and maybe even hypnosis or programming. Now I'm not saying there is evidence -Bob- had memory tampering - just that it's not out of the question as a disinfo tactic
===

BTW, while I've got you, what do you think is a realistic assessment of what kind of satellite imaging we can do from space. I've heard talk of 1 foot resolution and 2 foot resolution (30 and 60 cm per pixel) being the limit.

I know of the extraordinary claims, reading the headlines of a newspaper and license plates, but you never get anything to back that up. I've recently hear one talking head on a science show say they can tell what kind of cigarettes you smoke when you get out the packet.

If you look at what the Hubble and the UV wave Explorer sats can do it's possible to speculate if such devices were pointed at Earth instead of out into space. Figured you might have some numbers handy.
heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



(As many know, but to clarify, Google Earth topology is obtained by overflights of mapping aircraft and not by satellite pics entirely. Sure there's some satellite imaging, but the other stuff is from airplanes. So looking at GE imagery isn't a way to prove resolution of space photography.)

Thanks for clarifying that.

Originally posted by Badge01
BTW, while I've got you, what do you think is a realistic assessment of what kind of satellite imaging we can do from space. I've heard talk of 1 foot resolution and 2 foot resolution (30 and 60 cm per pixel) being the limit.

I know of the extraordinary claims, reading the headlines of a newspaper and license plates, but you never get anything to back that up. I've recently hear one talking head on a science show say they can tell what kind of cigarettes you smoke when you get out the packet.

If you look at what the Hubble and the UV wave Explorer sats can do it's possible to speculate if such devices were pointed at Earth instead of out into space. Figured you might have some numbers handy.

I don't have any numbers. I would have to assume they can tell what cigarette you are smoking by the individual fiber pattern of the paper wrapping the cigarette.

Also, there a 2 complete, separate and independant Hubble Space telescopes. One is dedicated to the military, one is primarily for civilian use. When you read about the Hubble being out of service that means that the civilian one is being used by the military, it really isn't out of service.

If ever Hubble is said to be no longer in use, that means that the civilian one has gone over to strictly military use.

And neither one of them takes very many pictures of space thousands of light years away. They are taking pictures of you.

johnlear are you still in touch with bob lazar?

I read up on lazar a little and the key criticisms are not unfounded.

For example, why was Bob Lazar registered as going to LA Piece College at the same time that he claims he was studying in MIT?

Why are there no pics of him from the yearbook? The FBI/CIA could not have gone to everyone who graduated in his year and taken their yearbooks or altered them.

How did he get into MIT if he finished in the bottom third of his class in high school?


If he really did worked there then why does he sell chemicals for a living now? Being an engineer im sure he could remember the things he worked on and apply at least some of it to our technology. Im sure Boeing could use his help...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by surf911]

Originally posted by surf911
johnlear are you still in touch with bob lazar?

He emailed me a few days ago with some information on helium 3 that I had asked him for.

I read up on lazar a little and the key criticisms are not unfounded.
For example, why was Bob Lazar registered as going to LA Piece College at the same time that he claims he was studying in MIT?

Don't know.

Why are there no pics of him from the yearbook? The FBI/CIA could not have gone to everyone who graduated in his year and taken their yearbooks or altered them.

Don't know

How did he get into MIT if he finished in the bottom third of his class in high school?

Don't know.

If he really did worked there then why does he sell chemicals for a living now? Being an engineer im sure he could remember the things he worked on and apply at least some of it to our technology. Im sure Boeing could use his help...

Don't know. I also don't know why CBS used him as an expert on Polonium 210 on CBS Reports when Bob obviously knows nothing about anything. They must have been nuts or something.

Originally posted by groingrinder
I tend to think that the government has gone in and "messed up" Bob's life history to the point that people trying to research his claims would think he was a fraud and a con man. Just to keep all the "ufo nuts" off balance and fighting each other over trivialities.

YUP!
That's how it's done
I'm guessing at this point in time, at least 75% of ATS population has understood that, and are using their judgment when reading through stuff...

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't have any numbers. I would have to assume they can tell what cigarette you are smoking by the individual fiber pattern of the paper wrapping the cigarette.

Also, there a 2 complete, separate and independant Hubble Space telescopes. One is dedicated to the military, one is primarily for civilian use. When you read about the Hubble being out of service that means that the civilian one is being used by the military, it really isn't out of service.

If ever Hubble is said to be no longer in use, that means that the civilian one has gone over to strictly military use.

And neither one of them takes very many pictures of space thousands of light years away. They are taking pictures of you.

Isn't that typical...gotta love that...Now, can you get them to point it to the US flag on the moon, see if it's still there please hheheh

Originally posted by Dallas

Knapp's tour through Los Alamos with Lazar and taking video while they toured.

How does that happen without clearance?

Really.

Originally posted by johnlear
Also, there a 2 complete, separate and independant Hubble Space telescopes. One is dedicated to the military, one is primarily for civilian use. When you read about the Hubble being out of service that means that the civilian one is being used by the military, it really isn't out of service.

If ever Hubble is said to be no longer in use, that means that the civilian one has gone over to strictly military use.

That's interesting. How did the second Hubble telescope get into orbit? Which Shuttle mission brought it up? Which Shuttle missions have serviced this second one? How does it get it's occasional orbital boost? etc...

And neither one of them takes very many pictures of space thousands of light years away. They are taking pictures of you.

Really now, so what about all those thousands ( hundreds of thousands?) of pictures taken by NASA and also other civilian organizations that get time with Hubble? What about the HEIC that has a 15% share in it? I doubt Hubble is ever used to spy on people on Earth or it's supposed counterpart which I don't suppose you have any evidence of? I can't say for sure, but I don't think the Hubble is the right kind of design for imaging stuff on Earth. I've seen it said that current spy satellites have a similar shape as Hubble, but not that they are a Ritchey-Chrietien style of telescope, which the Hubble is.

It makes no sense to me to have the Hubble or a possible twin being used for spying on people when there are already a number of spy satellites out there specifically designed for the job. I really don't think a deep imaging telescope would work well as a spy satellite, nor do I believe that a spy satellite would work well as a deep imaging telescope.

Originally posted by tock

Isn't that typical...gotta love that...Now, can you get them to point it to the US flag on the moon, see if it's still there please

hheheh

There are physical limitations in optics that prevent one from imaging such a small object over a great distance. The Hubble nor any ground based telescopes can make out those kinds of details. You would need a telescope with a mirror that's about 200m in diameter, if not more. The largest is currently 11m. It's better to place something in Lunar orbit if you want to see any details on the Moon, which they will be doing next year.


EDIT: Thought I'd add this link as well. www.satobs.org...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by jra]

Well its certainly true that much of the design for Hubble comes off of the keyhole satellites, but I wouldn't think that they would be actually substitutable.

There are many problems, like the fact that the KH series (HST and bigger pointing down) would have much better encryption and data security, and among obvious things, the HST has a focal plane at infinity, not 200 miles, as well as sensors designed for very low photon flux for astrophyiscal observations as opposed to the enormously higher daylight reflections of a useful spy satellite. Hubble's sensors would probably be burnt out if it looked at a daylight Earth (maybe even moon?).

I think that HST would be profoundly inadequate for intelligence needs anyway and recent down-pointing telescopes are significantly better than Hubble.

Originally posted by johnlear

I don't have any numbers. I would have to assume they can tell what cigarette you are smoking by the individual fiber pattern of the paper wrapping the cigarette.

For optical images, 1 foot is a little coarse but it's close.

A single-aperture imager has a physical limit for its resolution, set by the aperture size. Even totally perfect optics can't get better, Rayleigh's limit sets the best you can do. If you have really high contrast feature edges and good visibility, and you use some really interesting signal processing, you can get up to Sparrow's limit. If it's clear skies and high noon where you're looking, you can use blue light only and get a bit better resolution still.

If you wanted better resolution, you'd need a physically huge aperture. For optical images, that's tough.

Further the affiant says not.

Originally posted by jra

It makes no sense to me to have the Hubble or a possible twin being used for spying on people when there are already a number of spy satellites out there specifically designed for the job. I really don't think a deep imaging telescope would work well as a spy satellite, nor do I believe that a spy satellite would work well as a deep imaging telescope.

To properly address your post jra I would need to know what your opinion is of the mining equipment found in Copernicus and the artifacts found on the far side in AS8-12-2209 and LO1-102 presented on the "John Lear's Moon Photo's" thread. In other words do you see any possilbity that there is a mining operation taking place in Copernicus or are those artifacts just tricks of light and shadow? This will give me an indication of whether or not you are 'stuck' in mainstream thought. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
To properly address your post jra I would need to know what your opinion is of the mining equipment found in Copernicus and the artifacts found on the far side in AS8-12-2209 and LO1-102 presented on the "John Lear's Moon Photo's" thread. In other words do you see any possilbity that there is a mining operation taking place in Copernicus or are those artifacts just tricks of light and shadow? This will give me an indication of whether or not you are 'stuck' in mainstream thought. Thanks.

I do not believe that their is any mining operations taking place on the Moon, so I guess according to you i'm, "stuck in mainstream thought", what ever that means exactly.

I also don't see what supposed images of Lunar mining equipment has to do with Hubble being used as a spy satellite. Besides being similar, unrealistic pieces of fiction that is.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by jra]

Originally posted by johnlear

To properly address your post jra I would need to know what your opinion is of the mining equipment found in Copernicus and the artifacts found on the far side in AS8-12-2209 and LO1-102 presented on the "John Lear's Moon Photo's" thread. In other words do you see any possilbity that there is a mining operation taking place in Copernicus or are those artifacts just tricks of light and shadow? This will give me an indication of whether or not you are 'stuck' in mainstream thought. Thanks.

Those pictures are no-where near conclusive for any type of evidence for there being "mining equipment" or not.

It's really up to imagination. I've seen some people go crazy with the photos from Mars just like the people looking at the moon pictures, picking out "balls" or "letters" or "markings" when it's clearly not, or something not easy to tell.

This particular thread is about Bob Lazar. Please get off the telescope/moon images, etc... (feel free to start a new thread about it by all means! ) issue and back on the topic. I know someone asked about it but we are losing focus here.

Thanks...

Springer...

[edit on 3-17-2007 by Springer]

[edit on 3-17-2007 by Springer]