Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
TellLieVision

Upcoming Bob Lazar/UFOs/ Area 51 doc

273 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scudbuster
3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

i know nothing of this kinda thing- i'd suggest most people don't- are there any REAL scientists going 'WOW' at Lazar's explanations here?. i know of none, so how do you know his explanation in this vid isn't just BS if it's only him talking about it? you don't, do you! you just believe- oh well, enjoy.. & why not ;)

Hey I'm greatly enjoying it. Around 1990, Lazar was the first person to bring up this element 115 stuff to the general public.

And now, beginning in 2003, it's actually being synthesized: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Hey I'm greatly enjoying it. Around 1990, Lazar was the first person to bring up this element 115 stuff to the general public.

And now, beginning in 2003, it's actually being synthesized: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

oh so Lazar really did help back engineer alien technology then= i stand corrected.. hmm, i can't find an embarrassed smiley 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
21 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Hey I'm greatly enjoying it. Around 1990, Lazar was the first person to bring up this element 115 stuff to the general public.

No he wasn't. Well the fantasy he thought it was, maybe. But the theoretical properties of element 115 (and it's actual existence) was predicted much earlier. 

21 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

 

And now, beginning in 2003, it's actually being synthesized: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

Indeed, and having very different properties than those put forth by Mr. Lazar. So can we please just put that fraud in the book of people that we really should forget?

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
6 minutes ago, badeskov said:

No he wasn't. Well the fantasy he thought it was, maybe. But the theoretical properties of element 115 (and it's actual existence) was predicted much earlier. 

Indeed, and having very different properties than those put forth by Mr. Lazar. So can we please just put that fraud in the book of people that we really should forget?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Who gives a FF? Things change and often improve over time. If they are synthesizing a hopped up 2003 version now vs 1990 - who cares? Some version existed in 1990, other versions exist now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
Just now, Scudbuster said:

Who gives a FF?

well you do, apparently -- you brought it up - didn't ya Sherlock

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

i know nothing of this kinda thing- i'd suggest most people don't- are there any REAL scientists going 'WOW' at Lazar's explanations here?. i know of none, so how do you know his explanation in this vid isn't just BS if it's only him talking about it? you don't, do you! you just believe- oh well, enjoy.. & why not ;)

His explanation is BS.  Lazar gives this stable element 115 properties no other element has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
56 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Hey I'm greatly enjoying it. Around 1990, Lazar was the first person to bring up this element 115 stuff to the general public.

And now, beginning in 2003, it's actually being synthesized: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

"It's amazing how those ignorant of the nuclear shell model believe Lazar predicted an element."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
41 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Who gives a FF?

Physicists and people who actually need to build stuff based on fundamental physical properties do indeed care.

Quote

Things change and often improve over time. If they are synthesizing a hopped up 2003 version now vs 1990 - who cares? Some version existed in 1990, other versions exist now. 

Simply no. Physical properties do not "improve", they just are. And, lo and behold, the physical properties predicted (which was way back) pretty well matched up with what was synthetically produced in 2003. And way off from Lazar's ridiculous story.

Cheers,  
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Still have a damn problem with this interface...pardon my french...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

we can all go on forever with this but in a nutshell:

aliens have never visited this planet & there's no one who can prove otherwise= though many have tried to ;)bless em

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
45 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well you do, apparently -- you brought it up - didn't ya Sherlock

HaHa - such a clever comment- bet you are proud of yourself too!

7 minutes ago, badeskov said:

Physicists and people who actually need to build stuff based on fundamental physical properties do indeed care.

 

Of course they do - but not me.  Whatever the answer is, I'm fine with it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

HaHa - such a clever comment- bet you are proud of yourself too!

more of your own words-- you're doing ok= i'll  award you 2 gold stars out of 10 for effort, .... who's a clever boy then? oow, you are, well done...!;)

now then now then= have you anything interesting to say? come on, impress an old person.. what ya got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
4 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Of course they do - but not me.  Whatever the answer is, I'm fine with it. 

So are they. Well, maybe not happy with the answer, but they will live and work with it as they have to use said answer. But in contrary this nonsense, they need the answer to be as correct as possible and not some fantasy, therein lies the difference. Those who actually rely on physics to design and build the tools you use in your daily life, spanning from your laptop and cell-phone to the bridge you cross need to be confident and know that what they are presented with is solid. I don't really have do say anything about Lazar in this respect, do I?  

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

we can all go on forever with this but in a nutshell:

aliens have never visited this planet & there's no one who can prove otherwise= though many have tried to ;)bless em

And...nobody can prove they havn't, though many have tried to.:Pbless em

Hank

Edited by Hankenhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
26 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

And...nobody can prove they havn't, though many have tried to.:Pbless em

Hank

yeah i agree= so now what?

i'll tell you something:

i can give you a FACT with regards to this subject- which is something you can't.. do you want to know what that fact is?

i assume you do when someone makes a claim like this.. as i do. here it is:

THERE ARE NO FACTS- NOW THAT IS A FACT!!!

let's see if you can do better than that= what ya got? i'm all ears oh clever one;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

Well, it all depends. Are you talking about a fact, or a scientific fact. Because factually, they are both subtlety different. The fact that your facts dont jive with mine is factually true. But the fact is that your facts havn't been presented so far in this  thread. Just the false facts that you've posed as facts. So fact off, factually speaking of course. 

Hank

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
12 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Well, it all depends. Are you talking about a fact, or a scientific fact. Because factually, they are both subtlety different. The fact that your facts dont jive with mine is factually true. But the fact is that your facts havn't been presented so far in this  thread. Just the false facts that you've posed as facts. So fact off, factually speaking of course. 

Hank

 

 

Nonsense. A fact is a fact. There is nothing such as a scientific fact. The word fact has a very specific meaning.

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
21 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Because factually, they are both subtlety different.

i'll assume you're replying to me:

why do so many people in places like this have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word FACT? to me it is truly fascinating. fact is a fact= go look it up in the dictionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
11 minutes ago, badeskov said:

Nonsense. A fact is a fact. There is nothing such as a scientific fact. The word fact has a very specific meaning.

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

yep.. as usual the likes of you & i have to suffer this kinda thing- does it not make you wonder why you bother? i wonder all the time... would you class it as a form of entertainment? like kinda sadistic?

it severely hurts my brain at times but i battle on = sadistic, right?;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i'll assume you're replying to me:

why do so many people in places like this have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word FACT? to me it is truly fascinating. fact is a fact= go look it up in the dictionary

Sorry bud, not going to derail this thread anymore than it is. 

Hank

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
20 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Sorry bud, not going to derail this thread anymore than it is. 

Hank

 

You've used the psychological get out approach to replying by trying to make yourself look good suggesting you'll derail the thread

What I'm going to do is award you 10 out of 10 gold stars for that= well done, brilliant...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Hey I'm greatly enjoying it. Around 1990, Lazar was the first person to bring up this element 115 stuff to the general public.

And now, beginning in 2003, it's actually being synthesized: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

Yes, he stunningly failed to describe the actual properties of element 115. Must be more of that campaign to discredit Bob, changing the laws of physics. Tut tut tut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
27 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

You've used the psychological get out approach to replying by trying to make yourself look good suggesting you'll derail the thread

What I'm going to do is award you 10 out of 10 gold stars for that= well done, brilliant...

Look, the name of this site is Unexplained Mysteries, not Explained Mysteries. It's  a place where people can get together and discuss unknown mysteries. You don't want to discuss, only humiliate, denigrate, and dismiss. Your posting history bears this out. As such, you are banned to my sin bin. Try to play nice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

As such, you are banned to my sin bin.

oh ok then.. cya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

yep.. as usual the likes of you & i have to suffer this kinda thing- does it not make you wonder why you bother? i wonder all the time... would you class it as a form of entertainment? like kinda sadistic?

it severely hurts my brain at times but i battle on = sadistic, right?;)

I did indeed wonder at some point, but as a (former) scholar I guess I was born with that sadistic streak that you refer to....and in the end, if somebody actually listens, I am happy.

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
7 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Look, the name of this site is Unexplained Mysteries, not Explained Mysteries. It's  a place where people can get together and discuss unknown mysteries. You don't want to discuss, only humiliate, denigrate, and dismiss. Your posting history bears this out. As such, you are banned to my sin bin. Try to play nice.

No not 'oh ok then'.... I'll go further:

I've never spoken to you before until now which started with you jumping in & having a go at me.. I'll discuss unknown mysteries with you- but you didn't start off very well, did ya.. Think about.

Now start again as intelligent adults & members of this great forum== are you interested in having an adult conversation with me regarding unknown mysteries? Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.