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

gostar
On 12/27/2018 at 9:59 AM, Trelane said:

You can huff and you can puff all you like. The house made of bricks contains the truth and you won't be able to knock it down. Not even with large quantities of element 115. This has been a closed topic for decades and yet there are believers (like yourself) that insist he's legitimate. I've observed many of your posts here and in other threads. Your baiting for arguments sake is totally unnecessary and calling me "weak" is also unnecessary. I sincerely believe that no matter what links I or any others provide, you will just carry on blathering about the links, their credibility and the curious (not so much though) case of one Robert Lazar. I provided my opinion with no intent of us arguing over opinions. Yes, opinion, that's all and I needed no reason to defend it to a disrespectful instigator. I feel absolutely no inclination to provide that which is easily accessible only to fuel further arguments with you. However, I am a respectful person and will out of respect to the forum rules indulge you.

https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Debunking-UFO-Expert-Bob-Lazar-Part-1-20120825 ; please note at the end of the article where Lazar has shut down his website, pretty curious for a fellow attempting to go on press junkets to promote the "documentary". 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/bob-lazar.htm ; "In 1990 he was arrested for his involvement with the operation of a Nevada brothel" I'm fairly certain it was this nugget of info that shut down his ability to fully cash in at the time.

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07 ; curious that a physicist such as Friedman would take exception with Lazar since they occupy the same 'battle space". However, even he sees through the ridiculousness of the various claims.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-science-within-Bob-Lazars-claims ; again curious that a MUFON contributor would completely rebuke any claims by Lazar as they could only help the pro-alien contact side of the argument. They side with Stanton Friedman's analysis and research into Lazar's background and claims.

https://www.livescience.com/23514-area-51.html ; added as a courtesy.

 

So if I may, what links can you provide that support his claims and the information regarding his background? Mind you, I don't need YouTube videos of Bob making the claims or anything written by him specifically. I need to know what other parties (preferably not George Knapp) can validate any of this fantasy. If you are unable or unwilling that is fine, I don't require an answer otherwise. I simply came on to state my opinions on the matter. Not to engage in a protracted debate about this foolishness. Thank you for your time.

(I should follow in everyone's example and steal from b.lazar too, clearly this has been happening ......... everyone want the north korean war, the flow of truth flows their inclinations, this is, not, a fight or a conflict ............. they have the opportunity to make a bad choice, and they make it)

("Steal from Bob Lazar" - Good One)

XpINXnd.jpg

xFyvN2I.jpg

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon

phys.org/news/2017-06-gravitational-insight-black-holes.html

s4hRGVd.jpg

physics.smu.edu/jcotton/ph1311/ch03a.htm

 

(Perhaps I will even steal Bob Lazar himself now?)

HAqdKBu.jpg

boblazar.comimagesboblazar.com_010.jpg

pinktentacle.com/2008/05/alien-e-mail-reply-to-arrive-in-2015/

(Bob Lazar's announcement, will reveal to us that he is really an alien, and for some reason, he has the ability to prove the moon, is his home base, or birth place...............and by the time he makes this discovery, he will arrive on the planet mars, where the earth will begin to understand the limitation of this evolutionary age, and, perhaps, this involves the jews and certains groups of people, sudden death) (somehow, Bob Lazar, becomes the king, and reveals the little people in society should be stepped on or stomped out, done away with)

(well I believed, and believe that 2019 is the year of trajedy and the year of truth, not just because 2019 A.D.=1290 of Daniel, i'm sure trolls will latch on to that, but because, if we are in the end then everything is progressive)

(we still have no official announcement from the antichrist, many people claim to be, so, its probably Bob Lazar's turn or intent to reveal that he is the antichrist) (his announcement will probably come in 2019 too!)

Edited by gostar
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
2 hours ago, gostar said:

(I should follow in everyone's example and steal from b.lazar too, clearly this has been happening ......... everyone want the north korean war, the flow of truth flows their inclinations, this is, not, a fight or a conflict ............. they have the opportunity to make a bad choice, and they make it)

("Steal from Bob Lazar" - Good One)

XpINXnd.jpg

xFyvN2I.jpg

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon

phys.org/news/2017-06-gravitational-insight-black-holes.html

s4hRGVd.jpg

physics.smu.edu/jcotton/ph1311/ch03a.htm

 

(Perhaps I will even steal Bob Lazar himself now?)

HAqdKBu.jpg

boblazar.comimagesboblazar.com_010.jpg

pinktentacle.com/2008/05/alien-e-mail-reply-to-arrive-in-2015/

(Bob Lazar's announcement, will reveal to us that he is really an alien, and for some reason, he has the ability to prove the moon, is his home base, or birth place...............and by the time he makes this discovery, he will arrive on the planet mars, where the earth will begin to understand the limitation of this evolutionary age, and, perhaps, this involves the jews and certains groups of people, sudden death) (somehow, Bob Lazar, becomes the king, and reveals the little people in society should be stepped on or stomped out, done away with)

(well I believed, and believe that 2019 is the year of trajedy and the year of truth, not just because 2019 A.D.=1290 of Daniel, i'm sure trolls will latch on to that, but because, if we are in the end then everything is progressive)

(we still have no official announcement from the antichrist, many people claim to be, so, its probably Bob Lazar's turn or intent to reveal that he is the antichrist) (his announcement will probably come in 2019 too!)

Please don't involve ne with your lunacy by quoting me and posting more of you're insane nonsense.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Just when you think that Bob Lazar's statements are loony a contest breaks out to be even loonier.

Of course there are even loonier ideas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
9 hours ago, gostar said:

 

(we still have no official announcement from the antichrist, many people claim to be, so, its probably Bob Lazar's turn or intent to reveal that he is the antichrist) (his announcement will probably come in 2019 too!)

Okay, here's the official announcement: Take your meds.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Antichrist

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
On 12/28/2018 at 11:37 PM, stereologist said:

You seem to be easily tricked.

There are plenty of stories of lying in a vacuum, but those appear to be all hoaxes. Brown never demonstrated flight in a vacuum.

The number of people legitimately working on an understanding of a unified theory of physics and the elusive one has been a theory incorporating gravity. Plenty o people have worked on the problem and none have seen anything like Brown's fantasy. Brown's problem is that he imagined he had developed some sort of anti-gravity system using electronic devices and could not fix his misconception. That's not so strange. There are all sorts of people thinking they have come up with unique medical devices, batteries, engines, etc. that i n fact do not work as claimed.

I do see lots of pseudoscience sites making dubious claims. That is what they do. They post and repost all sorts of fake stories. People love to suggest that Berlitz, a well known author who has fictionalized many issues, is a good source of information. He isn't as we all can see with his Bermuda triangle baloney and his Roswell baloney.

 

Oh boy, you're mantra is something on the order of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". 
 
Townsend Brown successfully demonstrated his theories numerous times, most notably in Paris in a vacuum chamber and in Hawaii for many Naval admirals. The Paris demonstration (in a near total vacuum) proved it wasn't ionic wind propulsion, and the Hawaiian demonstrations achieved speeds of 200MPH - the military sat up and took notice on that one. As I have indicated before, these events have been documented and confirmed by physicists Dr Tom Valone,  Dr Paul LaViolette and science and aviation publications at the time. But you make me repeat myself. 
 
Apparently, your stance is to avoid the facts and live in a debunking fantasy world ala Phillip Klass. And who cares about Charles Berlitz and the Bermuda triangle? That's obviously a money making work of fiction for him. 

Now if you prefer to continue to live in Lala Land and not attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, well, I guess that's a self-deluding mentally happy place to be. Fortunately, it's not for all of us.

 In the future, if all you have is "it didn't happen", please don't respond any more to me. 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
On 12/28/2018 at 11:25 PM, Rlyeh said:

Read what I quoted, it's not that hard.

You don't think rockets should still use chemicals but you don't object computers still using electricity.

 That's some pretty apples/oranges type reasoning. Electricity will always be the source of power for most applications, but chemicals, big, bulky, volatile, space and volume fulling chemicals- if you can improve on that energy source - why not? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
On 12/28/2018 at 11:10 PM, Dejarma said:

they're not keeping it under wraps because 'you' know about, apparently- so where's the edge as far as adversaries are concerned?

Why on earth would you want the Russians, Chinese, N Koreans to have this capability ahead of you.......?

Share this post


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

Why on earth would you want the Russians, Chinese, N Koreans to have this capability ahead of you.......?

who said anyone wants to? who's going to give it to them if the authorities really do have it? how would someone give it to them? how can someone else have this capability ahead of you if 'you' have it first? what are you on about?

Edited by Dejarma

Share this post


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

who said anyone wants to? who's going to give it to them if the authorities really do have it? how would someone give it to them? how can someone else have this capability ahead of you if 'you' have it first? what are you on about?

I'd say domination and ownership of the skies and outer space is something of highly strategic value - for any nation.

Years ago, the mere existence and titles of these various programs would have been enough for "others" to take notice. The thinking "if the Americans are doing something in this area, we had better look into it too". Or conversely, that's why the U.S. brought in hundreds of German rocket scientists at the end of WW2- they were way ahead of everybody else in this area.

So, when the true potential of these anti-grav programs was proven back in the 50's, the security lid came down quick and hard after that.

Share this post


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

I'd say domination and ownership of the skies and outer space is something of highly strategic value - for any nation.

Years ago, the mere existence and titles of these various programs would have been enough for "others" to take notice. The thinking "if the Americans are doing something in this area, we had better look into it too". Or conversely, that's why the U.S. brought in hundreds of German rocket scientists at the end of WW2- they were way ahead of everybody else in this area.

So, when the true potential of these anti-grav programs was proven back in the 50's, the security lid came down quick and hard after that.

I take it you're suggesting that the authorities are not releasing details to keep the tech away from others...

I'm suggesting the authorities are not releasing details because it does not exist/ or at least not in a way to be used practically...

If we really had this amazing tech then we would be using it by now= or at least know it exists as fact...

 To say the authorities are keeping this amazing tech from the public (or any other amazing unbelievable situation) in order to stop others getting their grubby hands on it is a ridiculous argument <IN MY OPINION>

it's the same 'ol boring argument regarding all subjects of this nature:

a claim is made/ if it can't be proved false then it must be true/ The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc== ya know, the usual boring approach...

Just saying it as I see it- nothing more, nothing less

Share this post


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

 

42 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

 To say the authorities are keeping this amazing tech from the public (or any other amazing unbelievable situation) in order to stop others getting their grubby hands on it is a ridiculous argument <IN MY OPINION>

No it's not. The implications of having a significant "edge" in terms of military capability is huge. You absolutely do not want your adversaries to be equal - if you can prevent it.

And if they did get it - and refine and improve upon it before you do - the edge now falls to them - not a desirable situation......and it was preventable from the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

 That's some pretty apples/oranges type reasoning.

Are you really that daft? You compared the size of computers then and now, NOT their energy source. Yet you criticize rockets for still using chemicals, their energy source.

Do you even comprehend you're the one making the apples and orange comparison?

 

Quote

Electricity will always be the source of power for most applications, but chemicals, big, bulky, volatile, space and volume fulling chemicals- if you can improve on that energy source - why not? 

So you're saying rocket fuel hasn't improved?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


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

 

No it's not. The implications of having a significant "edge" in terms of military capability is huge. You absolutely do not want your adversaries to be equal - if you can prevent it.

And if they did get it - and refine and improve upon it before you do - the edge now falls to them - not a desirable situation......and it was preventable from the very beginning.

All the above is bleeding obvious... You talk as if this tech is real & being used right now by the authorities...

If they have this tech then YES, OF COURSE, they don't want others to get hold of it (how you think they would you've yet to give an opinion on)

but I'm saying it doesn't exist= if it did they would show it off as a deterrent-- give me one good reason why they wouldn't?= please do me the honour of at least answering this question .. Thanks

if you do not 'show off' an amazing game-winner to a potential enemy then what's the point of having it?! 

Edited by Dejarma

Share this post


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

All the above is bleeding obvious... You talk as if this tech is real & being used right now by the authorities...

If they have this tech then YES, OF COURSE, they don't want others to get hold of it (how you think they would you've yet to give an opinion on)

but I'm saying it doesn't exist= if it did they would show it off as a deterrent-- give me one good reason why they wouldn't?= please do me the honour of at least answering this question .. Thanks

if you do not 'show off' an amazing game-winner to a potential enemy then what's the point of having it?! 

From all indications/witness reports etc it does exist- and has existed for quite some time. 

I suspect they (the U.S. military or the controlling powers) are already aware that various adversaries know something - at some level - of if its existence.

Why not show it to everybody? Because they don't want a barrage of questions as to the entire program and the history of how it came about. It's a helluva lot easier to operate in the shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gostar
4 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Why on earth would you want the Russians, Chinese, N Koreans to have this capability ahead of you.......?

(Russia, China, Korea) (like the idea of stealing from bob lazar better, will come back to that)

(Nibiru = Noah's Rainbow, never exceeded a value of a "9th or 10th Planet", it was the earth's moon, but it would entirely be "mars", or a relationship involving the two bodies)

9th and 10 Imperial Dynasty wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties_in_Chinese_history

Sui dynasty隋SuíDucal title
(随 homophone)(list)Yáng (楊)AD581 AD618 TOTAL 37 years

Tang dynasty唐TángDucal title(list)Lǐ (李)AD618 AD907 TOTAL 289 years

1986 = Halley Comet Closest Approach to Earth

1997 = Hale Bopp Comet Closest Approach to Earth

(Information is relative to the "Solstice December Alignment, Solstice Precessional Alignment, center of galaxy, 1980, 1998, 2012, 2016 ... specifically) (markers)

................

................

1. Anonymous Revival of "Astronaut Moon Walk Controversies"

2. Anonymous Introduction of the "MARS HOAX"

Those were revived or introduced surrounding these periods.

................

................

1. 1952 Mass UFO Sighting, Ended the North Korean War and Closed the German Border ( With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible because it was administered by all four occupying powers wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall)

2. About 10 years later, President JFK is Assassinated attributed to unexplained means, in the equation of assassination (someone got spooked and pulled the trigger::a service man)

................

................

1. First African American President about, 10 Years from 2018 to 2019 (paralleling JFK and WASHINGTON mass ufo=North Korean Conflict)

2. MOON WALK Controversy is Shortly after Death of President JFK (recent death of President George Bush Senior)

 

(this brings us to the present, time, of Bob Lazar's Stolen Works .....)

 

(Bob Lazar, titled these "the JFK in Future Time" users.skynet.be/bob.lazar/www.boblazar.com/closed/sketches.html)

T2cbgZT.jpg

pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(15)30010-9/pdf

(Whatever is prophesied to take place, takes place in a non-visible area of the earth's moon.................all of this must be read as a contribution to the North Korean War, 2019 is the year of trajedy and discovery)

(it is alleged that North Korea has launched a nuclear missile into a high orbit, clearly labeled in Nasa, as space debris, and this is what falls straight down on top of its target, narrowly missing, complete disintegration on re-entry) (this is alleged, to have happened, and the legal evidences, are thoroughly documented in the international community as to the present time of this event, 2019 the year of trajedy and discovery)

Edited by gostar

Share this post


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

Are you really that daft? You compared the size of computers then and now, NOT their energy source. Yet you criticize rockets for still using chemicals, their energy source.

Do you even comprehend you're the one making the apples and orange comparison?

 

So you're saying rocket fuel hasn't improved?

Ah....are you really that dense??  No, you are comparing 2 very diverse sources of energy. 

It was solid rocket fuel then, NASA still has solid rock fuel - probably with some level of efficiency improvements. 

Share this post


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

Why not show it to everybody? Because they don't want a barrage of questions as to the entire program and the history of how it came about.

as in back engineered alien tech, i assume you mean?

isn't it weird how such a big secret exists- something so imported, top secret/ eyes only etc etc & yet you know of it....

don't you find it strange that (something soooo secret)  'anyone' at all knows it exists outside of those involved? does it not make you at least consider the possibility that it could all be BS?

Edited by Dejarma

Share this post


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

 

don't you find it strange that something soooo secret= actually 'anyone' at all knows it exists outside of those involved? does it not make you at least consider the possibility that it could all be BS?

Oh, absolutely, and I reject 90% of all the stuff I have heard over the years. But they are some testimonies that are very, very, strong.

Share this post


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

Oh, absolutely, and I reject 90% of all the stuff I have heard over the years. But they are some testimonies that are very, very, strong.

give me an example of a testimony out of the 90% you've rejected & why? just out of interest

Share this post


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

give me an example of a testimony out of the 90% you've rejected & why? just out of interest

Robert Dean - it seems he did work for NATO in their HQ. During that time, he claimed to had access to a very confidential document put together by NATO concerning UFO's and the situation they presented. This could be true, but some of his testimonies over the years (as I recall off the top of my head) drifted off into time travel, meeting Jesus, and I think he's the person who supposedly helped an ET escape one night. All in all, his recollections just got too ethereal, strange, and odd for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Robert Dean - it seems he did work for NATO in their HQ. During that time, he claimed to had access to a very confidential document put together by NATO concerning UFO's and the situation they presented. This could be true, but some of his testimonies over the years (as I recall off the top of my head) drifted off into time travel, meeting Jesus, and I think he's the person who supposedly helped an ET escape one night. All in all, his recollections just got too ethereal, strange, and odd for me.

2

yeah good example.. thanks for your time ;) fascinating how many people follow the likes of Dean, isn't it:rolleyes:

how many more could you add to the list? 

 

 

Share this post


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

yeah good example.. thanks for your time ;) fascinating how many people follow the likes of Dean, isn't it:rolleyes:

how many more could you add to the list? 

 

 

Oh boy, you really want to test me memory eh?? :D  Gad, off the top of my head, I remember a guy named Anderson (Gerald?) that claimed he was a young boy back in '47 and saw the military etc at the Roswell crash site. All that eventually collapsed under questioning, but he was featured prominently in one of those early books on Roswell IIRC. Another one that irritated me a lot was this guy named Bob Oechsler - I remember he was showcased heavily on many of the early UFO shows, he had this film supposedly shot up in Canada somewhere of a landed UFO - I think he called it the "guardian" or something. Turned out to be garbage. And I remember in a book he claimed he was taken by military personnel to some remote island in the Gulf of Mexico where he was allowed to view a huge projection screen showing all incoming/outgoing craft(s) in the atmosphere. More complete junk. Then of course Ray Santilli and his autopsy hoax videos. A lot of charlatans out there. But occasionally, you get a gem like June Crane, the lady that worked at Wright Patterson from 1942-52 (I believe the years were). 

Edited by Scudbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
12 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Ah....are you really that dense??  No, you are comparing 2 very diverse sources of energy.

No, I'm calling you on the fact you're criticizing two very different things, sunshine.

 

12 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

It was solid rocket fuel then, NASA still has solid rock fuel - probably with some level of efficiency improvements. 

They also have liquid rocket fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
21 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

 That's some pretty apples/oranges type reasoning. Electricity will always be the source of power for most applications, but chemicals, big, bulky, volatile, space and volume fulling chemicals- if you can improve on that energy source - why not? 

There are very real physical reasons why chemical fuels can't be improved much from where we are, they simply have a finite amount of energy in them and we are near that limit. The improvements to conventional rockets today is more in the area of lowering the mass of the structural weight of the rocket, allowing more payload. If you need a large amount of thrust there simply isn't a viable alternative to chemical rockets. The problem with electrical systems aren't that they can't work, it's that you need to carry a power plant with you. A chemical rocket have the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any propulsion method and no electrical system is even near that level. 

In the future technology like orbital rings, space elevators or launch loops may provide a way to get into orbit, but they are all kinda hard to hide aren't they ? Until then it's chemical fuels.

Nuclear rockets can probably achieve thrust-to-weight ratios good enough for getting into orbit, but they present a whole host of political, technical, enviromental and economical issues, so they are not viable options. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
22 hours ago, Scudbuster said:
Oh boy, you're mantra is something on the order of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". 
 
Townsend Brown successfully demonstrated his theories numerous times, most notably in Paris in a vacuum chamber and in Hawaii for many Naval admirals. The Paris demonstration (in a near total vacuum) proved it wasn't ionic wind propulsion, and the Hawaiian demonstrations achieved speeds of 200MPH - the military sat up and took notice on that one. As I have indicated before, these events have been documented and confirmed by physicists Dr Tom Valone,  Dr Paul LaViolette and science and aviation publications at the time. But you make me repeat myself. 
 
Apparently, your stance is to avoid the facts and live in a debunking fantasy world ala Phillip Klass. And who cares about Charles Berlitz and the Bermuda triangle? That's obviously a money making work of fiction for him. 

Now if you prefer to continue to live in Lala Land and not attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, well, I guess that's a self-deluding mentally happy place to be. Fortunately, it's not for all of us.

 In the future, if all you have is "it didn't happen", please don't respond any more to me. 
 
 
 
 

There is no evidence that he demonstrated anything in  a vacuum. That seems to be just a story. Stories are created after the fact by those thinking that a conspiracy exists.

At best you are repeating tales that never happened.

Your stance is to repeat fictional events and pretend they are facts. How quaint.

Your lala land of fictional events does not change the fact that no one has repeated these vacuum experiments and succeeded.

Evidence I gave against this antigravity fiction:

1. The inability of anyone to form a grand unified theory, i.e. incorporating gravity

2. The inability of anyone else to replicate the vacuum claims

3. Brown having the same attitude as you - unable to accept that this was nothing more than ion wind

As it stands all we have is your repetition of  fiction.

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.