Bob Lazar seems to confirm Zecharia Sitchin

Check these out, tell me what you think. I think these are brand spanking new!

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Either you're extremely uneducated or you're pulling a prank. I suggest mental evaluation for morons like you.

Thanks, I'm doing just fine. I will remark, however, that I observe a pattern in your posting -- you take the most trivial fact (like hydrogen cars work) and take it as validation of what Lazar is saying in his video (which is nonsense). You are only capable of absorbing most basic facts, seemingly at grade school level, and trying to apply a wild extrapolation to things you have no chance of comprehending unless you complete a proper course of study.

As for Lazar's particle accelerator, I'm sure that piece of equipment is legitimate as well

How can you be sure if you've never been around a piece of high voltage or accelerator equipment? Of course you saw the blinking light and in your world, that's the proof. What I wrote about isotopes of lithium and strange mention of deuterium went straight over your head, because you don't have any knowledge of the subject.

Tell me, how is it that you think producing hydrogen consumes so much electricity when all that is needed is an electrical current?

You completely misunderstood what I wrote in H2 car thread. Yes, you can run a car on H2 and you'll pay for the electricity bill that you run up as you produce the H2, and it would be acceptable if you have the right storage for H2. What you can't do is run on water alone w/o an external energy source.

Condemned0625 I found it highly unnecessary to bash Buddhasystem like that. Hes got his opinion as well, plus it's just a discussion.

i think this guy has a psychological problem leading him to just plainly lie

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nice try. Tritium an isotope of hydrogen is technically not a transmutation since it is the same basic element. Looking forward for your documentation of actual transmutaton observed in nature. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nice try. Tritium an isotope of hydrogen is technically not a transmutation since it is the same basic element. Looking forward for your documentation of actual transmutaton observed in nature. Good luck with that.

Or to be more specific, a documented observation of an increase in number of protons in an element, changing that element to another element, occurring naturally.

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nice try. Tritium an isotope of hydrogen is technically not a transmutation since it is the same basic element. Looking forward for your documentation of actual transmutaton observed in nature. Good luck with that.

As an additional note. You know as well as I that a neutron does not have to overcome the electric repultion that another proton has to overcome in order to blend into an existing nucleus. Which of cause is the challenge in fusion energy systems.

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nice try. Tritium an isotope of hydrogen is technically not a transmutation since it is the same basic element. Looking forward for your documentation of actual transmutaton observed in nature. Good luck with that.

Also,
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.geo.cornell.edu...

In the latter, look at the table of reactions. There is a list of targets and reaction products. E.g. N becomes C.
You said "nice try"? It's slam-dunk.



PS. Tritium decays into helium, hence whatever you call transmutation also takes place.

Originally posted by Clavicula

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Nice try. Tritium an isotope of hydrogen is technically not a transmutation since it is the same basic element. Looking forward for your documentation of actual transmutaton observed in nature. Good luck with that.

As an additional note. You know as well as I that a neutron does not have to overcome the electric repultion that another proton has to overcome in order to blend into an existing nucleus. Which of cause is the challenge in fusion energy systems.

What does it matter? Protons observed in cosmic rays cover ALL of the spectrum of terrestrial sources, and in particular, as you may expect, the soft component is the strongest, and that's exactly what you need to get proton capture as opposed to fragmentation of the nucleus.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Thanks, I'm doing just fine. I will remark, however, that I observe a pattern in your posting -- you take the most trivial fact (like hydrogen cars work) and take it as validation of what Lazar is saying in his video (which is nonsense). You are only capable of absorbing most basic facts, seemingly at grade school level, and trying to apply a wild extrapolation to things you have no chance of comprehending unless you complete a proper course of study.

Really? Can you prove this bald assertion? Seems the other way around. I notice a pattern in the number of people on this thread that disagree with you, including myself.

How can you be sure if you've never been around a piece of high voltage or accelerator equipment? Of course you saw the blinking light and in your world, that's the proof. What I wrote about isotopes of lithium and strange mention of deuterium went straight over your head, because you don't have any knowledge of the subject.

Spoken like a true mystic. Sounds like you know my "world" very well, even though you've never been there.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote in H2 car thread. Yes, you can run a car on H2 and you'll pay for the electricity bill that you run up as you produce the H2, and it would be acceptable if you have the right storage for H2. What you can't do is run on water alone w/o an external energy source.

I guess you skipped the part when Lazar explained that his hydrogen generator was solar powered. Now your argument is getting nowhere.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Sounds like you know my "world" very well, even though you've never been there.

There are moments I feel blessed, and that's one of them. I just don't want to visit that backward, dreadful place. Boy it must suck down there.

I guess you skipped the part when Lazar explained that his hydrogen generator was solar powered. Now your argument is getting nowhere.

... and that's why he didn't feature his (non-existent) solar power plant in that video. It would have been really cool and conducive to green environment, right? Instead, he showed you a blinker on top of a pile of scrap metal and said this is how he gets his supply of Li6 (which you don't know what it is, bruhaha).

Good questions LDragonFire

Question 1 Bob says the aliens left in 1979. What happened in 79 to make them want to leave?

Bob read that in the briefings, and they did not provide an answer. However they did go on to say that they aliens stated that they would return at an unspecific point in the future.

Is he at least hinting that Sitchin could be right on the money? At least about his claim of alien altering our DNA? Or aliens Creating us?

It does not appear so, since Bob's information stated this was done over thousands of years, while Zecheria's information states this was done in a hurry. A request was made to perform an upgrade in order to immediatley utilize the result.

In response to the several tangents this thread has spawned:

"having him contradict himself many times about first not seeing aliens at the base,to yeah he did see an alien,then to well he thought he might have seen an alien,,,if i saw an alien i would remember!!"

That statement comes from the perspective of being able to see all at once what Bob has said throughout the years. Bob never publicly stated he saw any aliens at S4. He did however privately confide to John Lear that on one occasion only, while being escorted down a hallway he glanced through a window (mesh covered as correctly noted by Condemned0625) in a door as they passed by. He was caught off guard because he thought he saw what appeared to be a classic "grey" alien in there amidst all the other clutter and machinery. He was not allowed to go have a second look. To this day he is still not sure if he saw one or mistook something else to be one. Later on John Lear spilled the beans on this private story and so Bob had to clarify himself to the public. Even this video spawned a whole new deluge of questions which Bob then had to clarify.
Condemned0625 is one of the few people posting here that correctly state the facts of the Lazar case, and has obviously been paying close attention. One clarification I would add is - Bob was not verbally told about aliens at S4, but instead read about them in the S4 briefing room.
Assertions by some that he would not have the required -need to know- authorization to view or be told such information is rather short sighted. Firstly it assumes that normal military procedure applies to S4, and secondly does not take into account that the very small band of merry men working to back engineer this thing have made very little headway, and it has been deemed prudent that they be given access to every scrap of alien related information they have, in hopes that even one piece of information might spark an idea. For instance, the alien -claim- that they performed these 65 upgrades not overnight, but instead over a several thousand year period, helps give insight and perspective not only on who and what you are dealing with, but also how long they themselves have had these technologies.
As to Stanton Friedmans' take on Bob Lazar, thats all it is, an opinion. And contrary to popular belief, Stanton does not know everything about every aspect of the UFO field (No one does). His critisisms fall into 2 main categories: It's not possible given the known laws of physics, and that erasing his past records is not possible. Both assertions are sadly shallow and naive, standing in stark contrast to most of Stantons excellent early work.
Also note his published derision of Randle & Schmitt's 2 books on Roswell. Their 500+ witnesses must all be wrong, but of course all his Corona witnesses must all be right. He also continues to defend his MJ-12 documents, (even after some were proven to be a hoax) with the questionable line "Well just because some of them were hoaxed, doesn't mean all of them were." Thats ok, I dont know of ANY infallible researchers anyway. Even Zecheria Sitchin, when asked about the greys and abductions, couldn't resist and just say sorry that is not my field of expertise, instead went on to speculate and theorize about who they are and their purpose here. It sadly demonstrated his lack of familiarization with that subject matter. It is an all too common weakness with most researchers who gain fame.
Also Bob never claimed to have "stolen" any E-115. It was given to him... When this statement came to light, all parties involved were identified, monitored and interviewed by agents. -ALL- missing pieces were eventually recovered/returned. Note that all parties known to the public, now say "no comment" when asked about this matter.
And the great physics "debate" going on here reminds me of when Bob said there are going to be plenty of upset scientists when they discover they chose the wrong side of the 2 main current theories of gravity to study and waste a career on, when the governmanet could have saved them the trouble by sharing what we know so far.

reply to post by A51Watcher


Lazar states that we were altered genetically by these aliens and Sitchin also states we were altered by the Annunaki this is the main points that they seem to agree on.

I agree with you the debate about the science in this thread is amazing.

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Lazar states that we were altered genetically by these aliens and Sitchin also states we were altered by the Annunaki this is the main points that they seem to agree on.

I agree with you the debate about the science in this thread is amazing.

The only way I could imagine to reconciling the two, would be that if during the greys' long gradual program, Sitchins' Nordics arrived and took advantage of the nearly completed simian product.
I am amused by posted terms such as "Obvious Fraud" and "Liar" (oh yeah and "tripe") by armchair quarterbacks who obviously never got off their duffs and went down to Nevada and personally investigated his claims for themselves.

I noticed another video skip in for a second at the 13:40 mark and was able to do a simple print screen at the right time (took a few tries), Anyway if anyone else notice this here is the picture I was able to get, also there might be another frame of this image but it's way to fast to capture.

Wouldn't have minded being open minded about Lazar, but as someone that respects Friedman a lot, and then finding that he has an article on his site about him being a fraud, it's hard to take him seriously.

For anyone that hasn't read it, and this isn't an attempt to bash Lazar, just linking it for reference : www.stantonfriedman.com...

What I want to know from people who are open minded about Lazar is : how do you remain open minded despite what Friedman says in that article?

reply to post by BuBoo

BuBoo, you can write that image off to the fact that "Cosmo" constantly used old "used" videotapes to record new material on to. You are seeing a quick blip from the previously recorded show.