Bob's Home Video

reply to post by gariac

The membership aren't gullible enough to believe a smoke provider like you on this evidence.

You just keep bringing up Dulce, exactly like AFOSI would like you to because it provides a snow-screen for non-conventional craft. You are one of the gullible ones who have fallen for that ruse (like the classic intelligence useful idiot).

You're clearly brain washed into believing you know what was in the skies years before you arrived - unless you are lying about it.

What this thread is about, is the Lazar footage of non-conventional craft that was seen by multiple witnesses and filmed in 1989. Over to Glenn Campbell.

My idle-handed colleagues and I have been researching Lazar's claims since 1992, but I wasn't there when Lazar first made those claims... www.thewhyfiles.net...

and

I first came to the outskirts of the base in October 1992. I was interested in UFOs at the time, and the "Black Mailbox" was supposed to be a place you could see them on a scheduled basis. I quickly dispelled these stories. glenn-campbell.com...

In case any readers do not see the obvious here, as Gariac hopes, I'll point it out again.

Would the SECRET test flights still be taking place three or more years later in 1992? If there were really secret test flights, in 1989, of the aforementioned technology and Lazar broke the story on the news would said tests continue for three years in full view of the public?
NO, OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!

Therefore can any observations made by Campbell, Geriac or any other Johnny-come-lately possibly have any bearing whatsoever on the original footage?
NO, OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!

So all this blathering on about Janet flights and having a 1992/93 baseline of activity at the base are irrelevant. This case is just not that cut and dried. Are you man enough to admit it?

If you admit that you just "think" that there were no non-conventional craft but in fact don't know then I will happily retract my statement that you have lied. Otherwise I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.

reply to post by Pimander


I have proven Bob Lazar to be a fraud. There is no denying this.

His propulsion scheme sounds good (as do many science fiction stories), but makes no real sense especially in view of how difficult it would be to add protons to #115. Gravity wave amplification sounds great but what does it mean?

www.stantonfriedman.com...

Trust me, I am the subject of AFOSI, not on their payroll. I've had more than one "in my face" dealing with security. I do like that blonde on bicycle gal they sent out to talk to me when I was fence watching at Nellis. I wasn't too thrilled with Base Camp security that cut me off at the pass, but stupidly is a truck with civilian plates.

reply to post by Pimander


And where is Bob Lazar's proof his tires (US spelling) were shot out? That would leave physical evidence. Oh yeah, we are dealing with Bob Lazar. He seems to lose his physical evidence, but expects us to believe his fairy tales.

You do realize it would be a crime to shoot at Lazar's car. Not to mention, it isn't exactly easy to shoot out the tires. That is Hollywood nonsense. You shoot for mass. If they wanted to stop Lazar, they would shoot at the front of the car to burst the radiator.

Since you are not familiar with the Nellis range and off-road driving, let me educate you. If you drive enough miles on dirt roads, you will get a flat. It comes with the territory. There is no shortage of shrapnel in the road from parts of vehicles that have fallen off due to the vibration of off-road driving. Then there are rocks. My last flat occurred in the "nice" part of driving on the road from Tikaboo. I changed the flat in 95 degree heat. What fun. It was a small rock that got between the tread. You probably never saw an off-road tire, but they have wide gaps in the tread to get more bite in the loose soil or mud.

Once again, Bob Lazar failed to provide physical evidence of his rambling stories. Once again, I have proven him to be a fraud.

Originally posted by FosterVS
re: Bob's Home Video

This is one item that troubles me about these "saucer tests"/sightings.
Considering Lear indicated in the Meltzer program that they were outside the border, on or near Groom Lake Road, likely at Campfire Hill - I made this diagram to indicate something rising vertically from the runway at Area 51 (blue line) VS the supposed Papoose S-4 site (red line).

Is it reasonable that what they saw was something being tested at Area 51, rather than the supposed S4 site? There would only be few degrees separation in the sky between the two points, and considering this was at night, I doubt they could tell the difference.

My money is on a VTOL UAV, with a bright light attached. Within the realm of possiblity for that timeframe?

NOW we're talkin! A valid question posed in a civil manner. I will be glad to respond. (Star for you! ... oops sorry :lol


I put together this short presentation with a few views from the 'Area' to help answer that question for everyone.


Take a look for yourselves and decide.

Keep in mind that to get a true perspective on the distance between the sites you will need to watch the video on a screen at least as big as your living room wall.

Otherwise I would suggest at least watching it full- screen on whatever display you do happen to have.

reply to post by A51Watcher


Your video would be vastly better if you use a clear font.

The glow from Vegas is constantly present in the night sky looking in from Camp FIre Hill towards Vegas. Anyone who have even been to the range knows this. You cannot determine when the runway lights are on or off when looking in that direction. This is easy to prove scientifically. Just sit out there with a scanner. Assuming you have the Groom frequencies (those that actually visit the base have them), just listen to the tower. They turn the lights on bright when a plane lands They leave them on dim otherwise. [Runway lights have three levels.] So it isn't even a "binary" change in the lighting. You can hear the plane land on the scanner, and there is no perceived difference in light level detected. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional.

To get a rough idea of the glow from Vegas, you can look at the night vision video I shot from Tikaboo. It is unfortunately in real media format since it old.
www.lazygranch.com...
There is a corresponding table of time versus view. Vegas is the initial image. The effect is magnified by night vision, but the general idea is the same.

Another way to show the night glow of Vegas is with these low light images I made with some hardware that is still in the works. The software does real time image stacking so that I can see if anything appears in the moonless sky.

This shot is without any moon.



The Vegas glow is very visible. The time was 7:15PM, as embedded in the name of the file. When the moon was out, this is the result:



The moon was about 40% illumination at 9:49PM. So no moon or some moon, the Vegas glow dominates the sky over the base.

As I mentioned in one of the "where to camp out threads", there are advantages to camping out on the west side of the range. You can avoid that Vegas glow better. Also you can differentiate better between the air traffic immediately in front of you (i.e. over route 95) versus traffic over the range. There is very little civilian air traffic on the east side of the Nellis range.

Amazing how you can analyze such things when you have actually been to the range rather than just
relying on youtube imagery and google earth.

Google Earth is a tool, but if you really want to study the view shed, you need to run analysis using DEMs. If you know any scientists, they can do that for you. If not, I'll crank one out later. I never bothered to study the view from Camp Fire Hill because it is a poor observation location.

This is a view shed analysis from Angel Peak, as an example.
www.lazygranch.com/google_earth/nellis/angel_peak.kmz

For other locations, I have created overlays that take into account the altitude of the target. This is far better than just fiddling with the 3D view of Google Earth. I don't even know what resolution DEMs they use in their database. Mine are 1/3 arcsecond.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by A51Watcher

 

The glow from Vegas is constantly present in the night sky looking in from Camp FIre Hill towards Vegas.

The glow from Vegas is FAR to the left (east) from the other 2 glows (and much larger), and out view in the video, otherwise it would be displayed. That is why the red and blue lines were in constant view, to avoid confusion. (for most people at least! .)

The glow from neither Groom or S-4 stays on all night. The glow from Vegas does. Neither of the glows in the video stays on all night, confirming they cannot be from Vegas, let alone the fact they are in the wrong direction.


"Anyone who had been there would know this."

An aerial view from Google will confirm this for anyone confused. (Sheesh)

reply to post by gariac

Sorry, to be clear, I don't think you are AFOSI really. I just think that often people unwittingly do the dirty work. Nothing in this field is as black and white as it seems. I would run a thread on this now but I'd like to keep some material back for my own projects for before I share here.

Lazar's car wasn't shot near the range at all. Questioning a story or not believing a person is hardly proof they were lying. You can't verify whether it is true. It's OK if you don't believe it but it is stretching it to claim to know. I'll stick to admitting I don't know the parts I can't verify.

I am going to step aside now as A51Watcher is discussing more on topic material than we are. We can always discuss logic and proof elsewhere if you wish.
Nice video by the way.

ETA: You're going to have to provide an aerial view otherwise you know what will happen.

reply to post by gariac

With respect --

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an
inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

It is all good, gariac is just stating an opinion and does the mistake to confuse it with facts. All I will say is the fact that he could show where something was going to be seen that night shows he knew something about the secret operations, whether he worked there or not, he is involved.

reply to post by Pimander


Oh I think when it comes to matter of respect, the record shows it was Pomander that was hurling the insults.

Originally posted by Pimander

You're going to have to provide an aerial view otherwise you know what will happen.

Quite right and well spotted.

Here we go, the view from Campfire Hill-














And so now we can -plainly see- that lights from Las Vegas have nothing to do with the lights seen coming from Groom Lake or S-4.

Originally posted by gariac
Oh I think when it comes to matter of respect, the record shows it was Pomander that was hurling the insults.

At the end of the day I'm no hater. I just like to see members play fair. There is a difference between an opinion and a fact, an assertion and a proof, between being there too late and being somewhere when it happens, between denying or admitting when you are wrong.

Like being wrong about the Vegas lights. You can admit to it if you like. It won't kill you.

Im just jumping in here, and have read every post in this thread. I must say, gariac has shown more emotion in this thread than i used to see back in 08... you guys have really gotten under his skin... Ill respond to the lazar stuff later when i have more time but as for the glow thats more recently ben talked about... I have camped out at campfire hill over 50 times. Been there so much, my firepit hasnt been moved in over 3 years... I see that glow you guys are talking about every single time we go there. Every now and then I see a second glow, I always assumed it was from the base. But I can assure you all, there is a constant glow from the distance coming from the direction of the base/ vegas.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Im just jumping in here, and have read every post in this thread. I must say, gariac has shown more emotion in this thread than i used to see back in 08... you guys have really gotten under his skin... Ill respond to the lazar stuff later when i have more time but as for the glow thats more recently ben talked about... I have camped out at campfire hill over 50 times. Been there so much, my firepit hasnt been moved in over 3 years... I see that glow you guys are talking about every single time we go there. Every now and then I see a second glow, I always assumed it was from the base. But I can assure you all, there is a constant glow from the distance coming from the direction of the base/ vegas.

I suppose it's not inconceivable that the second glow is from Creech/Indian Springs, with their runway lights lit up. Would be nice to have a rough compass bearing of the "glows".

I'll try and get some night footage of the glow(s) when I head back in April.

Amazing. You show someone photographs of the Vegas lights, and you are still considered a liar. Maybe we should chip in to buy Pomander a ticket so he can see the base someday for himself.

The Groom runway lights are blue. It would be hard to see their additive light over any ambient sodium lighting since the sodium lights are near where the eye response peaks. Like I said, just run a scanner and see if the lights change as the plane lands.

If you mean a secondary light source that is always on, they this is true. I don't recall seeing it from the front gate and haven't been on Campfire Hill in a while, but you see the secondary light source from Tikaboo for sure. I believe it is Indian Springs. It shows up well in that night vision video. I will take a vector on it on my next TIkaboo trip.

When the electron multiplier cameras get cheap, Groom is going to have a real problem hiding aircraft. The Vegas glow if off to your left when on TIkaboo, so it actually aids in seeing aircraft. The view from the front gate is probably probably worst case. Well come to think of it, a night shot from White Sides would be looking into the glare of Vegas. That makes me wonder a bit about Chuck Clarke's infamous Aurora shots done at 2AM. While Chuck is orders of magnitude more trustworthy than Lazar, you have to wonder why the video never materialized. Now the telescope wouldn't see the light of Vegas, but it would be more likely that scattering would show up when viewed from that direction.

Now the lighting by the Groom passenger terminal is damn bright. It looks like two sodium sources from Tikaboo. They look like they are taller than the other lights on the base. I wouldn't rule out seeing a detectable change in those lights going out. I will try to have a ground observer next time I do Tikaboo and then radio when the passenger terminal lights go out. The passenger terminal lights stay on constantly until the last Janet has landed and I presume the passengers processed.

Originally posted by bknapple32
I'll try and get some night footage of the glow(s) when I head back in April.

Actually, I am planning a trip in April as well. Probably second week in April. I want to visit and document every border crossing, something I haven't done as yet. On my 4 wheeler/quad for the rougher ones.

I will be visiting old mines, ghost towns, and I also want to check out some of the military air crash sites, so if someone in the know could please PM some coordinates I would appreciate it. I promise not to disclose them further...

Originally posted by gariac
Amazing. You show someone photographs of the Vegas lights, and you are still considered a liar. Maybe we should chip in to buy Pomander a ticket so he can see the base someday for himself.

The Groom runway lights are blue. It would be hard to see their additive light over any ambient sodium lighting since the sodium lights are near where the eye response peaks. Like I said, just run a scanner and see if the lights change as the plane lands.

If you mean a secondary light source that is always on, they this is true. I don't recall seeing it from the front gate and haven't been on Campfire Hill in a while, but you see the secondary light source from Tikaboo for sure. I believe it is Indian Springs. It shows up well in that night vision video. I will take a vector on it on my next TIkaboo trip.

When the electron multiplier cameras get cheap, Groom is going to have a real problem hiding aircraft. The Vegas glow if off to your left when on TIkaboo, so it actually aids in seeing aircraft. The view from the front gate is probably probably worst case. Well come to think of it, a night shot from White Sides would be looking into the glare of Vegas. That makes me wonder a bit about Chuck Clarke's infamous Aurora shots done at 2AM. While Chuck is orders of magnitude more trustworthy than Lazar, you have to wonder why the video never materialized. Now the telescope wouldn't see the light of Vegas, but it would be more likely that scattering would show up when viewed from that direction.

Now the lighting by the Groom passenger terminal is damn bright. It looks like two sodium sources from Tikaboo. They look like they are taller than the other lights on the base. I wouldn't rule out seeing a detectable change in those lights going out. I will try to have a ground observer next time I do Tikaboo and then radio when the passenger terminal lights go out. The passenger terminal lights stay on constantly until the last Janet has landed and I presume the passengers processed.

Thanks gariac for confirming my suspicions, that the lights at Creech/Indian Springs, which is about 50 miles south, could explain that second light source. I think I might spend a night or two at Campfire Hill, see what I see, and will for sure have my sighting compass, and scanners, at the ready. I do believe the Camo Dudes won't be thrilled with my choice of camping spot, if I recall from others. I have camped in the area, but never that close to the border.

reply to post by FosterVS



That's the only place I camp. Other than a few visits from the cammos late at night, no issues. My firepit might even still be there...

reply to post by bknapple32


On the Area 51 special with Bob Grove, he was at the back gate with a "security expert." I guess the security expert didn't know much about the range because where he thought was the border was maybe 200ft from the border.

A group of us decided it would be fun to build a fire circle right by the back gate, kind of in the face of the dudes. It is still there. I don't think the dudes disturb much of anything. They probably have a do and don't list.

I haven't climbed Hawkeye Hill in a long time because I can't get anyone to watch my car. Apparently on the "do" list is mess with the suckers car when he leaves to hike the hill. I don't know what they do to the vehicle other than try the locks.

No fire ring is 100% foolproof in the desert. I watched a dust devil hit my fire ring and send embers up in the air. The good thing is there isn't a lot of fuel in the desert. Tikaboo is another story. I check that fire before leaving for the hike.