• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Bob Lazar

Here's Gunson's article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020222080142/http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/ai014.htm
Note that he doesn't say that the B2 couldn't lift off, only that it is seriously underpowered. Since the plane is limited to subsonic speeds, and only 20 have been built, I think this plane is largely a white elephant, with stealth its only selling point. As a contrast, 360 Predator and 160 Reaper UAVs have been built. These are the 'planes of the future, unfortunately.
Gunson also says that his speculations are 'farfetched', which is certainly true.
 
INT21 said:
Sorry Carl,

I don't see anything in the way of objective proof there. Just speculation.

The free energy bit in the first link doesn't help their case.
Click to expand...
Obviously the US govt aren't going to come out and admit it openly. But how otherwise can you explain the glaring mismatch between the power of the jet engines and the stated weight of the plane? If it isn't Biefield-Brown, what is it?
 
eburacum said:
Here's Gunson's article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020222080142/http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/ai014.htm
Note that he doesn't say that the B2 couldn't lift off, only that it is seriously underpowered. Since the plane is limited to subsonic speeds, and only 20 have been built, I think this plane is largely a white elephant, with stealth its only selling point. As a contrast, 360 Predator and 160 Reaper UAVs have been built. These are the 'planes of the future, unfortunately.
Gunson also says that his speculations are 'farfetched', which is certainly true.
Click to expand...
Gunston was, as you can see, trying very hard to maintain his role as an impartial observer, and the fact that he discusses not just the B2 but other aircraft reportedly using wings charged to extremely high tension, consistent with Brown's approach, and even employing the flame jet generator that Brown designed for that purpose, makes it clear that electrogravitic concepts are being actively employed.
 
eburacum said:
Here's Gunson's article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020222080142/http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/ai014.htm
Note that he doesn't say that the B2 couldn't lift off, only that it is seriously underpowered. Since the plane is limited to subsonic speeds, and only 20 have been built, I think this plane is largely a white elephant, with stealth its only selling point. As a contrast, 360 Predator and 160 Reaper UAVs have been built. These are the 'planes of the future, unfortunately.
Gunson also says that his speculations are 'farfetched', which is certainly true.
Click to expand...

Gunson's article misses or obscures several points ...

His overarching theme is overall power and speed for combat aircraft in a historical context - a context that isn't the same for all aircraft for all mission types. Relative power and speed are critical characteristics of a close-in fighter or fighter-bomber. They are not critical for stand-off bombers carrying powered munitions such as cruise missiles.

The envisioned role of bombers changed, and adaptations to this new vision occurred, beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s. The earliest example of this evolutionary change was reworking the B-1 from a high / fast supersonic bomber to a low / slow subsonic terrain-hugging motif.

The B-2 is not underpowered for its role. Its intended role and design spec's weren't developed so as to prioritize the power and speed features highlighted in the article. It's limited to subsonic speeds because it was prescribed and designed to be subsonic.

I can personally attest to the fact a B-2 taking off is every bit as loud as any other large-body jet (e.g., a 747), but once aloft and leveled off its active noise cancellation system renders it quite abruptly silent once that system is engaged. The beast transforms from a loud Batman-styled heavy jet to a silent God's-own-Batarang all at once.

The limited production run was an adaptation to the oncoming end of the Cold War and its strategic emphasis on intercontinental nuclear strike capabilities. A secondary factor was the recognition that unmanned aircraft represented the more effective future motif for strike platforms.

Another factor concerns programmatic history. The B-2 was the culmination of the original stealth tech research and demonstration work that started in the 1970s. The Lockheed F-117's faceted form and Northrop's continuous curvature form were two distinct approaches. The faceted version was easier to implement and hence arrived earlier than the continuously curved version (which had already been judged superior by the time the public first learned of the F-117's existence).

Both these proof of concept aircraft were approved for limited production so as to expeditiously benefit from their capabilities, but both were expected to be transitional species subject to further evolution and foreseeable retirement. The Cockroach (F-117) has been retired for over a decade now.
 
Regarding Lazar,,,,this was posted before...but in case it wasn't.
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07

"Incredible claims have been made about Bob Lazar for years. He supposedly is a physicist with an MS in Physics from MIT and an MS in Electronics from the California Institute of Technology. He was a “Scientist” for Los Alamos National Laboratory, and obtained a job back-engineering UFOs at a very secret site S-4 near Area 51 in Nevada through noted Physicist, the late Dr. Edward Teller.

Supposedly he figured out how saucers work using Element 115 — matter/anti-matter, etc. He was able to steal a small quantity of 115 from the 500 pounds available, but this was stolen back. There was indeed an announcement in early 2004 about the production of 4 atoms of element 115 by operating a huge European accelerator for many weeks. It has a very short half life so there is no way to accumulate pounds of it. He supposedly came forward with his story despite death threats because he thought the public has a right to know. Videotapes are available with his claims.
It is all BUNK. "
 
Carl Grove said:
Interesting that there is a comparison with bismuth -- am I alone in seeming to remember evidence of bismuth in an analysis of residue at a landing site somewhere?
Click to expand...

Bismuth has been identified in metallic artifacts / residues from multiple UFO sites. It's often been identified in combination with zinc and / or magnesium.

This isn't a particularly compelling clue to anything, insofar as bismuth in combination with either or both zinc and magnesium are commonly found in natural ores (notably lead ores) and are the most common components of slag / residue from lead smelting, purification, and recycling. Bismuth is increasingly used as a non-toxic substitute for lead in a variety of applications - including low temperature solder of the sort one would prefer to use on magnesium or magnesium alloys.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Bismuth has been identified in metallic artifacts / residues from multiple UFO sites. It's often been identified in combination with zinc and / or magnesium.

This isn't a particularly compelling clue to anything, insofar as bismuth in combination with either or both zinc and magnesium are commonly found in natural ores (notably lead ores) and are the most common components of slag / residue from lead smelting, purification, and recycling. Bismuth is increasingly used as a non-toxic substitute for lead in a variety of applications - including low temperature solder of the sort one would prefer to use on magnesium or magnesium alloys.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the interesting information! Doesn't lead to any conclusions, but worth taking note of.
 
EnolaGaia's post on bismuth could make one think someone other than aliens was placing it at so-called ufo events.
And for that matter , why would aliens have 'slag residue' or natural lead ore after one of their 'ufos' landed in an area..?
What's wrong with this picture?
;)
 
Hmm, so I'm kind of on the fence about Lazar right now...although I freely admit it's a fence I've been repeatedly jumping off and then crawling back up onto over the years.

Tim Good's book on Lazar, 'Alien Liaison', was, way back in my teenage years, my first introduction to wider UFO conspiracy theories and, without the internet back then to fact check things, I'll admit I bought the entire thing, hook, line and sinker!

Over the years I became a lot more skeptical and then kind of forgot all about Bob Lazar completely...until the Corbell documentary came out and took me back to those teenage years in my bedroom pouring over mountains of UFO books from my local library!

So firstly, I will readily admit that a large part of my wanting to believe in Lazar again is pure nostalgia. Secondly, it's a fantastically enjoyable story and concept to ponder and indulge in. I mean, at face value, who wouldn't like to discover that all of Lazar's talk of crashed UFOs and co-operative aliens at S-4 is completely true!

I'll also admit that I find it quite difficult to believe that someone could have stuck to the same story and repeated it, in public, so many times with a straight face, if 100% of it was nothing but pure fiction. Not to mention convince his own mother that it was real (or even worse, rope her willingly into the deception). I dunno, maybe Lazar really is just that good of an actor, or conman. Or maybe over the years he's convinced himself that it really DID happen the way he originally claimed? I guess I'm still incredibly, and willingly, naive about it all.

However, what really has me interested in the whole Lazar thing again right now is that TTSA and Tom DeLonge seem to be vouching for him? Now I'm still in a bit of a spin with TTSA and don't really know what to make of it all (I'm not sure if they've been discussed here much but I'm going to have a trawl through the forums and see...this Lazar topic just caught my eye on the way in!)

BUT...just supposing for a moment that TTSA ARE legit and they really DO have connections on the inside...what do you all make of them partnering with Lazar and releasing his autobiography? Money? Or something more?
 
Starbuck said:
l'll also admit that I find it quite difficult to believe that someone could have stuck to the same story and repeated it, in public, so many times with a straight face, if 100% of it was nothing but pure fiction. Not to mention convince his own mother that it was real (or even worse, rope her willingly into the deception)...
Click to expand...
There are almost infinite examples of same.

A Google search under, 'crocodile tears murderers', exhibits some of the most deplorable.

As previously pointed out, if Lazar's depicted, Area, 51, 'flying saucer' is genuine, then Billy Meier's copious collection of same must be authentic. Lazar's image is nigh identical.

...and all of this has its genesis in that, elemental, misconstrued newspaper reporting of Arnold's account - not one, 'flying saucer' in sight.

Also given ridiculous impracticalities of the entire, 'cover-up' backdrop - just plain ludicrous, might one suggest this can assuredly be filed under... :bs:
 
Comfortably Numb said:
There are almost infinite examples of same.

A Google search under, 'crocodile tears murderers', exhibits some of the most deplorable.
Click to expand...
I've studied famous murder cases almost as much as I've studied UFO's so I do agree with you. I guess it's just my own personal bias and desire for all of this to be true that refused (refuses?) to see the same in Lazar.

Comfortably Numb said:
As previously pointed out, if Lazar's depicted, Area, 51, 'flying saucer' is genuine, then Billy Meier's copious collection of same must be authentic. Lazar's image is nigh identical.
Click to expand...
I can certainly accept that Lazar has embellished his testimony (not to mention his academic history), possibly with some of the more 'popular' UFO information of the time. So yeah, I could see him maybe taking a liking to the Meier model and using it as a basis for his own.

Comfortably Numb said:
Also given ridiculous impracticalities of the entire, 'cover-up' backdrop - just plain ludicrous, might one suggest this can assuredly be filed under... :bs:
Click to expand...
So in regards to my previous question, what do you make of the TTSA connection? Or do you consider them to be nothing more than fantasists/disinformation channels also?
 
Starbuck said:
So in regards to my previous question, what do you make of the TTSA connection? Or do you consider them to be nothing more than fantasists/disinformation channels also?r
Click to expand...
Really interesting, overall, reply. :btime:

Yes, just some believers who wish it to be true... and perhaps, 'one or two' others still comfortable with stringing them along.

Money is often an incentive for...

...you know where this is heading... :cool2:
 
Starbuck said:
Hmm, so I'm kind of on the fence about Lazar right now...although I freely admit it's a fence I've been repeatedly jumping off and then crawling back up onto over the years.

Tim Good's book on Lazar, 'Alien Liaison', was, way back in my teenage years, my first introduction to wider UFO conspiracy theories and, without the internet back then to fact check things, I'll admit I bought the entire thing, hook, line and sinker!

Over the years I became a lot more skeptical and then kind of forgot all about Bob Lazar completely...until the Corbell documentary came out and took me back to those teenage years in my bedroom pouring over mountains of UFO books from my local library!

So firstly, I will readily admit that a large part of my wanting to believe in Lazar again is pure nostalgia. Secondly, it's a fantastically enjoyable story and concept to ponder and indulge in. I mean, at face value, who wouldn't like to discover that all of Lazar's talk of crashed UFOs and co-operative aliens at S-4 is completely true!

I'll also admit that I find it quite difficult to believe that someone could have stuck to the same story and repeated it, in public, so many times with a straight face, if 100% of it was nothing but pure fiction. Not to mention convince his own mother that it was real (or even worse, rope her willingly into the deception). I dunno, maybe Lazar really is just that good of an actor, or conman. Or maybe over the years he's convinced himself that it really DID happen the way he originally claimed? I guess I'm still incredibly, and willingly, naive about it all.

However, what really has me interested in the whole Lazar thing again right now is that TTSA and Tom DeLonge seem to be vouching for him? Now I'm still in a bit of a spin with TTSA and don't really know what to make of it all (I'm not sure if they've been discussed here much but I'm going to have a trawl through the forums and see...this Lazar topic just caught my eye on the way in!)

BUT...just supposing for a moment that TTSA ARE legit and they really DO have connections on the inside...what do you all make of them partnering with Lazar and releasing his autobiography? Money? Or something more?
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with Vallee that Lazar was probably under mind control with the aim of spreading fake stories about back engineering ET craft and covering up the black projects going on there. When witnesses see strange lights and objects around Area 51 and claim they are seeing back engineered UFOs it will put off most ordinary people and attract more fanatical sky watchers. I just don't think that super advanced aerial devices from a civilisation thousands of years ahead of us happen to crash occasionally and (given the amazing anti-physical characteristics shown in many sightings) their operators are unable to prevent them falling into the hands of primitive types like us. Even if some of the ETs are not greatly ahead of us, they would still have been able to have their craft self destruct on crashing precisely to prevent any possibility of us acquiring their technology. As for what is going on now -- there is absolutely no way that gun camera footage of UFOs would be released without the authority of somebody very high up in the Intelligence community, this is without precedent. Is this a controlled disclosure -- or another level of disinformation? We still don't know.
 
Not wishing to be political here, but...

Anyone who has any doubt about the US Government to pull the wooly over peoples eyes only need refer back to last weeks hearings in this affair Ukraine.

The devious mind bending 'for this, against that' etc had to be witnessed to be believed.

And you guys think you are going to get a straight story on ufo reality ?

I can supply red pills at a very attractive price to anyone interested.

Sorry guys, the blue pill are all sold out.

INT21 ;)
 
INT21 said:
Not wishing to be political here, but...

Anyone who has any doubt about the US Government to pull the wooly over peoples eyes
Click to expand...
The question is not IF the government is hiding things, it's WHAT. And the reality of the situation is that if they ARE testing bizarre experimental aircraft, they will NOT tell us, EVER. Not until the final design has been made public, and only if the prototype isn't fundamentally different.
 
marhawkman said:
... And the reality of the situation is that if they ARE testing bizarre experimental aircraft, they will NOT tell us, EVER. Not until the final design has been made public, and only if the prototype isn't fundamentally different.
Click to expand...

True ... This was demonstrated within the last few decades with respect to the F-117 and the B-2.
 
I do recall, many years ago, an interview with an USAF official who said ' no, there is no F -17. never was. So people have not seen one being tested.

And he was correct. It was an F-117.
 
INT21 said:
I do recall, many years ago, an interview with an USAF official who said ' no, there is no F -17. never was. So people have not seen one being tested.

And he was correct. It was an F-117.
Click to expand...
Classic mis-direction. It's technically true. people were guessing at the name and guessed the wrong name, The wrong name was not a name used for anything.
 
What I sound amusing, in another interview, this time out on an airfield.

The new stealth bomber was on display.

For months UFO watchers had been reporting a boomerang shaped object passing overhead.

As it was near noon at the airfield, the Sun was more or less directly overhead..and on the ground beneath the plane was ...

a large boomerang shaped shadow.
 
INT21 said:
I do recall, many years ago, an interview with an USAF official who said ' no, there is no F -17. never was. So people have not seen one being tested.
And he was correct. It was an F-117.
Click to expand...

The USAF F-17 designation was given to the Northrop Grumman prototype developed for an early 1970s acquisition program. Given the prototype designation YF-17, it was the primary competitor for the USAF light fighter role won by the YF-16 (which, of course, became the F-16).

The Navy preferred the YF-17, and it undertook further development of the prototype / design to more specifically meet the Navy's requirements and needs. This evolved into the F-18 Hornet, which is essentially a second-generation version of the YF-17. Because the YF-17 itself did not transition into a production fighter the "17" designation was retired from the fighter designation series.
 
marhawkman said:
Classic mis-direction. It's technically true. people were guessing at the name and guessed the wrong name, The wrong name was not a name used for anything.
Click to expand...

The widely cited speculative designation for what seemed to be a radically new fighter-sized aircraft (i.e., the F-117) was F-19, not F-17. That's the label used on the famous Testors model kit. By the time the F-117 was under development the "17" designation for USAF fighters had already been used for the NG Cobra prototype within the Teen Series for fighter aircraft.

The F-117 is not a fighter - it's a ground attack / strike aircraft. These aircraft (prototypes and production models) are designated within the 3-digit Century Series scheme.
 
And Mr Lazar continues to grin.... all the way to the bank.
;)
 
EnolaGaia said:
The widely cited speculative designation for what seemed to be a radically new fighter-sized aircraft (i.e., the F-117) was F-19, not F-17. That's the label used on the famous Testors model kit. By the time the F-117 was under development the "17" designation for USAF fighters had already been used for the NG Cobra prototype within the Teen Series for fighter aircraft.

The F-117 is not a fighter - it's a ground attack / strike aircraft. These aircraft (prototypes and production models) are designated within the 3-digit Century Series scheme.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Pentagon loves to do very carefully worded press releases. It's the old "lie by telling the truth" thing. IE, while the statements are technically true, the choice of wording is deceptive and meant to mislead the audience.
dr wu said:
And Mr Lazar continues to grin.... all the way to the bank.
;)
Click to expand...
I really wonder if he was a plant. Fake leaks are a great way to muddy the waters and make it so people are less likely to get the real picture.
 
marhawkman said:
Yeah the Pentagon loves to do very carefully worded press releases. It's the old "lie by telling the truth" thing. IE, while the statements are technically true, the choice of wording is deceptive and meant to mislead the audience.
Click to expand...

There's a flip side to this and similar such "spun" accusations ...

Alleging finely-tuned deception is commonly used to obscure, and / or deflect responsibility for, the audience's ignorance of publicly available facts.
 
marhawkman said:
...
I really wonder if he was a plant. Fake leaks are a great way to muddy the waters and make it so people are less likely to get the real picture.
Click to expand...

I thought that was a possibility many years ago when he became well known a few years into his tale....could he have been a disinfo agent meant to muddy the waters. I also though he might have actually worked there in a maintenance position, saw nothing classified, but heard all the rumors like the rest of us and after being fired decided to 'cash in' on it all.
 
dr wu said:
I thought that was a possibility many years ago when he became well known a few years into his tale....could he have been a disinfo agent meant to muddy the waters. I also though he might have actually worked there in a maintenance position, saw nothing classified, but heard all the rumors like the rest of us and after being fired decided to 'cash in' on it all.
Click to expand...

I've also considered Lazar from both these angles. On balance I've come to suspect the latter (cashing in on woo factor) version is the more probable interpretation.
 
I've never had much to do with Bob Lazar. I was aware of his name, and vaguely of his claims, but I think my interest in the topic had dried up by the time I became aware of him. Anyway, YouTube's algorithms dictated I would be interested in his interview with Joe Rogan. This interview, in fact:


I thought his story was interesting, and he was almost convincing. So, about halfway through, I was disappointed when much was made of Bob predicting gravity's propagation by waves. He claims the presiding theory back in the eighties was that gravity moved as graviton particles, but now they know it's waves, just like his alien gravity ship. So, you've heard it here first folks; quantum theory is all wrong!

Alternatively, someone claiming to be a physicist doesn't know stuff even people who are just interested in science know. I wonder what else he might be lying about, something that might sound improbable, no matter how convincingly it's related...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top