If the government is shady enough to have his educational records deleted, as well as put him up on on fake charges, why didn't they just have him die in a car accident, or a drug overdose?
He went public, and very public. There are few things you can do to fight the government, but the best way is to be visible. It also didn't help them that some of the more outrageous claims he made ended up being true. If you want to cast someone a crackpot you have to make sure they don't have important parts of their story be validated. Yeah, they should have just offed him in the 80s when he first hooked up with Knapp. That or whisked him away on security clearance violations and made him disappear in a super max penitentiary. Can't explain why they made the decisions they did. There are times I can't explain why my municipality or State does the things they do.
Ah, but I thought I had found proof of God during some neuropsychology research years ago while working on my PhD. Was working with fMRI scans on brain function and we found that people with a predilection to a specific ideological perspective, and shared a common religious identification, all had a specific location in their brain light up when certain stimulus was provided. They all stated they felt a presence of God. Was consistent as hell so got us excited that would could prove that God existed in our heads. Unfortunately it was not repeatable with another group who had a different political identification, but similar religious identification. Different part of the brain lit up. Consistently, but different part. The God location eluded us, but did give us data to support it being a result of brain chemistry and neurological pathways. The variance was too broad to make a specific conclusion. So science couldn't answer the unanswerable - yet! Belief and faith are hard nuts to crack.
I watched a program on that years ago, you worked on it? I don't recall much about it, but I'm not sure how that would prove the existence of God, just someone's belief in something. With enough experimentation you could probably make regions light up for any number of pathways that have been repeated enough.
Despite the animosity, I've been really enthralled with the discussion between New Era and Fuzz. I probably fall somewhere in the middle after reading a couple of amazing books, but fascinating to hear people go back and forth on this topic from totally different points of view.
I also like the discussion here.
We just don't know what we don't know, will never know or are even capable of understanding.
On the Tic Tac, when one does a deeper dive and listens to the first hand accounts of the multiple experts present using their instruments you get a sense of the lab like environment where this took place. If it were possible to arrange a ufo encounter in a way that you could observe with our best people and equipment, this would be it. In this specific case from 2004 it can be determined that something exists that is not commonly known whose characteristics were thought of as impossible.
History is full of new discovery. History is also full of those wanting to stifle intellectual curiosity, who ridicule claims made by smarter people than themselves. They'll say "oh so now is (insert imaginary thing) real too? I just mentioned imaginary thing in this conversation, therefore they are related so that makes what you are talking about silly!"
I watched a program on that years ago, you worked on it? I don't recall much about it, but I'm not sure how that would prove the existence of God, just someone's belief in something. With enough experimentation you could probably make regions light up for any number of pathways that have been repeated enough.
There were several programs doing independent research and using similar methodologies. We were but one. It was very cool at the time. Still is actually. Our research was focused more on political identification, but we stumbled into this observation almost by accident. The cool thing about this research was finding out how unique our brains are, different from each other in so many ways, but at the same time how dependent we are certain functions for processing certain stimuli. Made me understand that we are very much wired the way we are at birth, but the software is written by our upbringing. The hardware doesn't change that much, but the software certainly can be modified.
Yeah I honestly didn’t find the Lazar interview great…
But this one was fantastic. 20 min mark he starts to walk through the footage his plane took, as he was looking at the thing with his eyes (allegedly of course).
Again, have a look at Fravor's interview by Lex Fridman - higher level than Rogan.
Again, have a look at Fravor's interview by Lex Fridman - higher level than Rogan.
He went into more detail yes, but that was painful as hell. Why did I have to hear the interviewer recount the story he’s only read about for 4.5 minutes… and then question every detail like he’s going to crack the lie? That was painful.
Bob Lazar's knowledge and perfect description of element 115 over a decade before its discovery.
Complete crap, nothing was perfect about his description, he threw an element number out there that didn't exist at the time.
He stated:"element 115 is impossible to synthesize as an element that heavy here on Earth, the substance has to come from a place where super-heavy elements have been to be produced naturally"
He went on to say element 115 element could power alien spacecraft without worrying about gravity.
Facts: the real element 115 was discovered in 2003 as a synthetic radioactive element and added to the periodic table in 2013 as Moscovium, it decays so fast it couldn't power a bathtub toy submarine.
I just read a great article in the New Yorker about how the reporting of UFOs has finally been destigmatised. It's a good read if you've got some free time this weekend.
To stem the flood of reports, the panel recommended that “the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.” It also suggested that civilian U.F.O. groups be infiltrated and monitored, and enlisted the media in the debunking effort. The campaign culminated in a 1966 TV special, “UFO: Friend, Foe or Fantasy?,” in which the CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite patiently consigned U.F.O.s to the oblivion of the third category.
Not all members of the military were content with this stance. Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the C.I.A., told a Times reporter, “Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”
Complete crap, nothing was perfect about his description, he threw an element number out there that didn't exist at the time.
He stated:"element 115 is impossible to synthesize as an element that heavy here on Earth, the substance has to come from a place where super-heavy elements have been to be produced naturally"
He went on to say element 115 element could power alien spacecraft without worrying about gravity.
Facts: the real element 115 was discovered in 2003 as a synthetic radioactive element and added to the periodic table in 2013 as Moscovium, it decays so fast it couldn't power a bathtub toy submarine.
Bob Lazar is full of
From Corbell, the producer/director of the Lazar documentary.
"My understanding of Lazar’s thinking is that with the advances in bombardment techniques new isotopic combinations would be achieved. However — just like how gold has 37 different isotopes and only one isotope is stable — 115 is suspected to have MOSTLY rapid decay isotopes... So hopefully in the future we will land on a version with a longer half-life — even if it just ends up being a few atoms of it. That would be cool — and one day will likely happen," Corbell says.
Bob Lazar went public with his knowledge of the element in 1989, 14 years before its discovery. Everything he said about it was accurate. It could not naturally occur on earth and would have to come from a place where super-heavy elements could have been produced naturally.
After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics” of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.
I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field . . .
It's fun to read these old threads from the wayback machine to discover that yes, what someone said was accurate and that yes, it does make us understand that what we think we know many not be what is reality. It's funny to go back and read someone's certainty, and claims that another's thesis is bull####, then seeing that we discover the Higgs Boson particle after that, and then another yet to be named particle, that turns physics on its head. One things I continue to learn while reading CP is that people have a very closed perspective and are unwilling to acknowledge there are things out there we don't know about; believing we have achieved all knowledge and everything is ridiculous garbage. What I do know, humans don't know #### and their continual belief that they do is comedy gold. Every year we discover something new that not only challenges what we think we know, but alters our understanding of the universe around us. People that challenge this perspectives are heretics, until their theories become irrefutable. The human race is predictable in their acceptance of rigidity to ignorance more so than their openness to enlightenment.
Do you know think it's prudent to also be skeptical of outlandish claims that are presented with no evidence, and go against known facts? Or should we just accept everything everyone says as a new fact?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The thing that makes me skeptical about people like Fravor is that he only ever seems to get interviewed by people who are sympathetic or believers. He accepts soft interviews exclusively where people are relying on him to be the expert, and quite frankly, he seems to love the attention he gets for it. You never see him go up against other experts that can provide down to Earth theories.
I don't think he is a liar and I am sure he is a good pilot, but I don't think he meets the criteria of being an expert. He is just a witness that saw something he personally can't explain.
OT, but a lot of this reminds me of the 1980s when there were UFO sightings being reported by the military and civilians, and the U.S. finally felt compelled to release the B2 stealth technology to the world because of it. They were experimenting with the technology on their military to see how they would react to it not knowing what it was. In order to make the experiment legitimate, they had to keep it a secret from their own pilots. I suspect something similar is happening right now. Either the U.S. doing it, or an adversary.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Do you know think it's prudent to also be skeptical of outlandish claims that are presented with no evidence, and go against known facts? Or should we just accept everything everyone says as a new fact?
We should always be skeptical. But what do you say when the evidence that is presented is not just challenged, but systemically attacked and attempts are made to make those presenting information erased from existence? Seems to support that there is something there to the person’s story. The fact that independent interests have verified many of the details that are part of this story is damning. For how paranoid about the government so many people are, they are taking the word of the very interest who have so much to lose by the release of the information that has surfaced. As a government employee I’ve seen some pretty sketchy #### take place, and people who stood up against the government and told the truth have their lives destroyed. Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Natalie Edwards are examples of people who released very sensitive and privileged information that proved to be not only true, but extremely damaging, and then became targets to have their lives destroyed. Be careful what you dismiss while trying to be a skeptic.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Ok, but most of that stuff has basis in fact. If you are trying to tell me you worked on an alien space craft, the bar moves a lot higher, because you are saying something exists that has never been proven to exist before, and you have no physical evidence. The bit I've read on him sure makes it sound like he doesn't really understand what he purports to be an expert in.
So again, what specific claims did he make about U115? If he just "guessed" basic properties of the element, it's not very convincing because those are predictable. Is there somewhere that has his quotes on this?
From Corbell, the producer/director of the Lazar documentary.
"My understanding of Lazar’s thinking is that with the advances in bombardment techniques new isotopic combinations would be achieved. However — just like how gold has 37 different isotopes and only one isotope is stable — 115 is suspected to have MOSTLY rapid decay isotopes... So hopefully in the future we will land on a version with a longer half-life — even if it just ends up being a few atoms of it. That would be cool — and one day will likely happen," Corbell says.
Bob Lazar went public with his knowledge of the element in 1989, 14 years before its discovery. Everything he said about it was accurate. It could not naturally occur on earth and would have to come from a place where super-heavy elements could have been produced naturally.
Again, all he did was name element 115, nothing about it's signature or makeup. in 1989 there were 109 elements and only 3 new ones named since 1974. so he picked a number thinking it would never get discovered in his lifetime. Maybe he should have picked 185 to be safe.
Yuri Oganessian (who discovered the real 115) was told about the Lazar story, he was asked if it could power spacecrafts and defy gravity? he shook his head and laughed. as is the case with any physicist on the planet worth a damn.
Bob Lazar is a fraud, He and his fellow conspiracy theorist George Knapp made a lot of money off this BS
The thing that makes me skeptical about people like Fravor is that he only ever seems to get interviewed by people who are sympathetic or believers. He accepts soft interviews exclusively where people are relying on him to be the expert, and quite frankly, he seems to love the attention he gets for it. You never see him go up against other experts that can provide down to Earth theories.
I don't think he is a liar and I am sure he is a good pilot, but I don't think he meets the criteria of being an expert. He is just a witness that saw something he personally can't explain.
OT, but a lot of this reminds me of the 1980s when there were UFO sightings being reported by the military and civilians, and the U.S. finally felt compelled to release the B2 stealth technology to the world because of it. They were experimenting with the technology on their military to see how they would react to it not knowing what it was. In order to make the experiment legitimate, they had to keep it a secret from their own pilots. I suspect something similar is happening right now. Either the U.S. doing it, or an adversary.
Fravor does speak to the issues raised by debunkers though so its not like he ignores criticisms and I think he dismisses them quite rationally. If he ever did do a forum with another aerospace or weapons system expert that says he's wrong about what he and others saw and had instruments on I would watch it. And maybe the attention is fun for him, so what? He's an aviation geek that gets to talk about an extraordinary aerospace incident. Is that really so surprising?
He absolutely meets the criteria of an expert at identifying aircraft. That is what the navy invests vast sums of money on training and equipment for people like him and others to do cooperatively. Here's the guy in charge of the carrier groups air defense at the time talking about the incident
He had eyes and radar on one of them. This channel has 6 or 7 other interviews on this specific incident from navy personnel.
On your last point about the B2, I'd like a source on the claim that the military tested it in a similar way to this, like one branch would send a B2 against another branch without the people in the latter knowing they are in a test of some sort. I'm not saying your wrong on that, I have no idea, but I'd like to know how that would work because it seems reckless. I could see an adversary doing a test like this though, like if some other nation or group figured out how to engineer something like the tic tac.
The Following User Says Thank You to karl262 For This Useful Post:
