Updated WIKI on Bob Lazar today

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, so I missed adding in the word purported when describing the vid, cut me some slack.

I still don't personally know whether it shows anything extraordinary or not and have no idea whether Nodis and Stellar Dust are scientifically qualified to comment.

a reply to: chunder
I can't cut you slack, because in that post you've jumped from the frying pan of ignorance into the fire of ignorance.

The comments explain why the claim is false yet you ignorantly still want to make the claim and add the word "purported". No, it's not even purported to show any light bending, which you still don't seem to get. Nobody is claiming that it shows any light bending except you.

That's why no scientific assessment is needed by anybody, including the youtube commenters.

What Knapp and Corbell claim is that there's a video that does show light bending, which Knapp says he had at one time, but can't find and says he apparently lost it. Corbell says he spent years searching for going through Knapp's videos without any success. They explain all this in the link posted by Ectoplasm8 here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please watch at least 5 minutes of that video at the time indexed to avoid digging a hole any deeper for yourself.

Now if anybody ever finds the video which is PURPORTED to show light bending, then maybe some scientific assessment could be relevant to assess that, but I doubt it, because scientific assessment of the claims Lazar has already made about 115 etcetera find them to be completely bogus claims already, without the video.

Physicist Dr. David L. Morgan critiques Bob Lazar's failure to understand physics

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy. Mr. Lazar doesn’t seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or
how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says “large” he means “massive.” The “largeness” of a star says nothing about its mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of Mars. A star’s size changes drastically during its lifetime. It’s pretty clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn’t exist on the Earth, should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are “cooked” is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

So Lazar's claim that element 115 can be found naturally elsewhere but can't be found naturally on earth shows extreme scientific ignorance, but lots of scientifically ignorant people buy it because, well, they're scientifically ignorant.

I don't know why anybody would think a missing cloud chamber video of 115 is any less bull# than the bull# Lazar has already fed us about 115 as explained by that scientist, unless they are extremely naive and gullible.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Below is how I should have worded my original post, change in italics, I'm not making any claims which is clear from the second sentence on that post yet despite my also admitting to wording it incorrectly you persist.

Sorry I failed your pedantic semantics standards test, I disagree that renders me ignorant, I was merely pointing out the existence of some video.

"Corbell's Lazaar doco shows a short section of video, the missing longer version purportedly showing element 115 in action bending a light in a cloud chamber, taken from a VCR tape from Lazaar's house which had been taped over but still had 1 minute of the original video on it."

Seemingly flat record now further straightened.

a reply to: chunder

Bob lazar was used by the AFOSI to spread misinformation about real human technology. Bob lazar believes everything he was told including that the object called element 115 was really element 115. Bob himself never did any testing on the element to check if indeed it was Moscovium. People need to remember this fact. The object could of been candy for all Bob knew.

a reply to: BornSecret

It was said that Lazar made a video with his buddies showing element 115 bending a beam of light. George Knapps further supports that claim by saying he walked in on the end of them filming the test and saw the light bending himself HERE
So you have both Lazar and Knapp making that claim that it was filmed.

Lazar has an enthusiasts knowledge of physics and unfortunately the average person doesn't. So he can toss in explanations and sciency sounding terms and have people convinced he's being truthful. He also only does softball interviews where his comments aren't questioned by someone with an educated background in physics.

a reply to: chunder
Thanks for your correction, but I disagree about the pedantic claim.

Your previous post about the scientific qualifications of the youtube commenters indicated you thought the video was alleged to possibly have some scientific merit.

"I still don't personally know whether it shows anything extraordinary or not and have no idea whether Nodis and Stellar Dust are scientifically qualified to comment."

Now you apparently acknowledge the video does not allegedly contain any content requiring scientific capabilities, so it's not pedantic at all to point out the complete misrepresentation of the video in regard to the alleged scientific content.

At least I hope my interpretation is correct, and that you're not still claiming some scientific capabilities are needed by the youtube commenters to evaluate the video, which was an absurd thing to say if you understood the claims about the video which are essentially that it shows nothing of scientific interest.