Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A couple of recent threads have been discussing Bob Lazar and element 115, I happen to have tape of his original interviews and unless you guys are ignoring the really juicy stuff his story seems to have been toned down more than a bit. 

 

Lazar either broke the biggest story in human history, is the grandest part of the supposed disinformation campaign, or has an imagination Heinlein would be proud of. His details leave no doubt about the choices...

Among the claims he made, human were created by the aliens whose space craft he saw, element 115 allowed access to the strong nuclear force which he claimed was just gravity, 115 gave off antimatter as it decayed, the space craft he saw were out of date models given to the US Gov in exchange for allowing them to probe redneck anuses on dark country roads. The list hardly stops there and is or was downright silly even back then...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's why our previous discussion regarding B Lazar ended up in the trash.

I remember seeing him on TV in the 90s, making those outrageous claims.
The only thing I've seen of him more recently is on the Joe Rogan Experience ( podcast ), and, for someone who was hired by the Government to reverse engineer a 'gravity' drive, he did not have a clue as to the workings of gravity or its effects.
I nearly fell out of my chair when he said the 'old' theory of gravity involved propagation by gravitons, but it is actually a wave, evidenced by the 2016 BH merger detected by LIGO.
( gravitons are manifested by a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don't yet have, and he seems confused about gravitational waves )
He also employs certain 'tricks' in his interviews, like having an associate 'surprise' him with some 'evidence', which he claims not to have known about, in an attempt to be more believable.
However, some people, even on this forum, seem to fall for his line ( along with hook and sinker ).

Share this post


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

I guess that's why our previous discussion regarding B Lazar ended up in the trash.

I remember seeing him on TV in the 90s, making those outrageous claims.
The only thing I've seen of him more recently is on the Joe Rogan Experience ( podcast ), and, for someone who was hired by the Government to reverse engineer a 'gravity' drive, he did not have a clue as to the workings of gravity or its effects.
I nearly fell out of my chair when he said the 'old' theory of gravity involved propagation by gravitons, but it is actually a wave, evidenced by the 2016 BH merger detected by LIGO.
( gravitons are manifested by a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don't yet have, and he seems confused about gravitational waves )
He also employs certain 'tricks' in his interviews, like having an associate 'surprise' him with some 'evidence', which he claims not to have known about, in an attempt to be more believable.
However, some people, even on this forum, seem to fall for his line ( along with hook and sinker ).

Even back in the day his claims were outrageous, he claimed to have seen a film or a book with actual pictures of the aliens trying to train neanderthals 50,000 years ago. Crazy stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any claims that are outside the current understanding of science could be considered "outrageous".  

It doesn't mean they're necessarily untrue, just not definitively provable at this time.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and conspiracy theories go the opposite direction, with no evidence.

Share this post


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

Any claims that are outside the current understanding of science could be considered "outrageous".  

It doesn't mean they're necessarily untrue, just not definitively provable at this time.  

Nothing is ever "definitively provable", not in science, but that's not the point. The claim, anyone's claim, has to have something reasonably persuasive about it to start with, and also avoid basic mistakes along the way. A lack of reason coupled with misunderstandings and a lack of supporting evidence means I can safely ignore this, and not have to consider it just because it's not necessarily untrue.

Share this post


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

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and conspiracy theories go the opposite direction, with no evidence.

Why is the notion that extraterrestrial life forms have visited Earth an "extraordinary claim"?  

 

Share this post


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

Why is the notion that extraterrestrial life forms have visited Earth an "extraordinary claim"?  

Because it's never even once before a single time been confirmed to have happened, only speculated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The claim, anyone's claim, has to have something reasonably persuasive about it to start with, and also avoid basic mistakes along the way.

Surely this is subjective?  Personally I find Lazar's account "reasonably persuasive".  Again, I'm not saying that it's 100% true, just that it's firmly in the realm of possibility of being true.  Coupled with recent events such as the Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego, his account is worthy of attention.

I think much of how a person views someone like Lazar will depend on his / her epistemological outlook, i.e. how they view the nature of knowledge.  If a person falls more on the skeptical side of things, then of course, someone like Lazar will be quickly dismissed.  My outlook is that knowledge is always finite, and the unknown is infinite, thus, I choose to keep an open mind regarding people like Lazar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Surely this is subjective?  Personally I find Lazar's account "reasonably persuasive".  Again, I'm not saying that it's 100% true, just that it's firmly in the realm of possibility of being true.  Coupled with recent events such as the Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego, his account is worthy of attention.

Things can be persuasive without containing much in the way of evidence, so this does not address the issue of evidence.

Also, you mention "the Nimitz incident" as if everyone should know what it is. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

18 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think much of how a person views someone like Lazar will depend on his / her epistemological outlook, i.e. how they view the nature of knowledge.  If a person falls more on the skeptical side of things, then of course, someone like Lazar will be quickly dismissed.  My outlook is that knowledge is always finite, and the unknown is infinite, thus, I choose to keep an open mind regarding people like Lazar.  

Science is by its very nature skeptical. Plus the adage about being open-minded but not so far as to let your brains fall out. Claims of visits by aliens fly in the face of established physics, if not other parts of science. Contradicting physics or inventing new physics is, IMO, an extraordinary claim. So it requires extraordinary evidence, and nobody has presented even ordinary evidence. It's all assertion and anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think much of how a person views someone like Lazar will depend on his / her epistemological outlook, i.e. how they view the nature of knowledge.  If a person falls more on the skeptical side of things, then of course, someone like Lazar will be quickly dismissed.  My outlook is that knowledge is always finite, and the unknown is infinite, thus, I choose to keep an open mind regarding people like Lazar.  

I think you misunderstand skepticism. It's not a fence one sits on constantly. It's a brief stopover on the way to deciding how trustworthy a specific bit of information is. I don't approach everything skeptically, but extraordinary claims need to be investigated. That kind of skepticism drives a person to dig as deeply as they need to to satisfy "the nature of knowledge". My outlook is that people like Lazar will NEVER offer meaningful contributions to science by starting with flawed premises, so I'm not rejecting his ideas simply because they involve aliens.

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Things can be persuasive without containing much in the way of evidence, so this does not address the issue of evidence.

Joseph Newman initially persuaded many folks that he'd made a breakthrough in physics by combining a gyroscope with an inductor in a novel way. His claims of overunity through the manipulation of an abnormally large EM field sounded like just the kind of serendipitous accident all inventors dream of, and his carny pitch was perfect until the evidence failed to hold up. Even he couldn't recreate his original design, and he claimed he couldn't let anyone examine it because the USPTO denied his patent. He had an answer for everything except his poor methodology and his basic misunderstandings. He drove a car with his engine in it around stadiums full of people, but in the end none of that amounted to an ounce of real evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Surely this is subjective?  Personally I find Lazar's account "reasonably persuasive".

Only if you just give up trying to make sense...

Share this post


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

Only if you just give up trying to make sense...

I think many people try to stitch together the random pieces they hear from folks like Lazar. And when you try to make sense out of something that way, you fill in the gaps with what you know, so it comes off sounding pretty feasible. You "figure it out" and it seems to make sense, but only to you.

I actually think this is part of why people who should know better justify some of the claims Trump makes. They hear his hopscotch talk, fill in the weird gaps with what they know, and suddenly they think he may know what he's talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

Also, you mention "the Nimitz incident" as if everyone should know what it is. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Nimitz incident or Nimitz encounter refers to a series of UFO sightings that took place off the coast of San Diego, California in 2004 during a US military war games exercise involving Carrier Strike Group 11. 

Thus far six personnel involved in the war game have come forward describing what they saw:

All of these gentlemen describe the same thing:  an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics (and with remarkably similar characteristics as what Lazar described).  There are numerous other articles available online regarding the Nimitz incident, including pieces in the Washington Post and New York Times.  There is also FLIR footage of the aerial vehicle that was witnessed, captured from one of the Super Hornets that were tasked with intercepting it.  (This footage is shown during Fravor's interview on Rogan).

Quote

Science is by its very nature skeptical. Plus the adage about being open-minded but not so far as to let your brains fall out.

Skepticism is part of science, but so is a spirit of free and open inquiry into the unknown. 

Quote

Claims of visits by aliens fly in the face of established physics, if not other parts of science.

The phenomena that Lazar describes fits squarely within general relativity theory.  The technology that he claims to have worked on could supposedly manipulate/generate a gravitational field.  If gravity can in fact be harnessed/manipulated, then time and distance become inconsequential in the context of general relativity.   

 

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The Nimitz incident or Nimitz encounter refers to a series of UFO sightings that took place off the coast of San Diego, California in 2004 during a US military war games exercise involving Carrier Strike Group 11. 

All of these gentlemen describe the same thing:  an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics (and with remarkably similar characteristics as what Lazar described).  There are numerous other articles available online regarding the Nimitz incident, including pieces in the Washington Post and New York Times.  There is also FLIR footage of the aerial vehicle that was witnessed, captured from one of the Super Hornets that were tasked with intercepting it.  (This footage is shown during Fravor's interview on Rogan).

Skepticism is part of science, but so is a spirit of free and open inquiry into the unknown. 

The phenomena that Lazar describes fits squarely within general relativity theory.  The technology that he claims to have worked on could supposedly manipulate/generate a gravitational field.  If gravity can in fact be harnessed/manipulated, then time and distance become inconsequential in the context of general relativity.

Alex, have you seen the web site "boblazar.com"?  I don't know who created it, but what bothers me is you cannot copy and paste his descriptions of 115, "antimatter reactor", "antigravity drive", etc.  Why would the person who created this site make it difficult to copy and paste the info?  There are a few items such as W2 from his job with "U.S. Dept. of Naval Intelligence" and his badge for S4.  But could those be faked?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think many people try to stitch together the random pieces they hear from folks like Lazar. And when you try to make sense out of something that way, you fill in the gaps with what you know, so it comes off sounding pretty feasible. You "figure it out" and it seems to make sense, but only to you.

That is true.  Would an expert on gravity, antimatter, and Element 115, please spend about 10 minutes reading a few paragraphs on boblazar.com and point out the bogus physics?  Then I can say "Aha, that physics sounds bogus!"  I'm not an expert.

The bottom line to me about UFOs and antigravity drive is that this stuff can NEVER be verified with "extraordinary evidence."  And the human race may have about 100 years left because of the number of threats to our existence, according to Stephen Hawking.  Seems reasonable to me.  If there were ETs interested in humans on earth, they may be "concerned" about our precarious position.  Maybe they can't find other intelligence life to observe.   Bob Lazar said, as I paraphrase him:

"Maybe [aliens have] been kept from us for good reason.  Many people have agreed to keep this secret.  Who am I to upset that?  Who am I to think I can out-think these guys?  Maybe they already went over all the scenarios, and they know how messed up everything would be [if alien technology was revealed] .  There is no guarantee this revelation will make [anything] good.  There is just as much chance it could make everything terrible, and I will be to blame for that."

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazar's very premise of element 115's nucleus being so large that it allowed access to the strong nuclear force which he claimed was just a form of gravity he called short range gravity. Should be enough to give him the status of Hawking or shame him to the closet of conspricy (sp?) theorist forever!  

Share this post


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

The phenomena that Lazar describes fits squarely within general relativity theory.  The technology that he claims to have worked on could supposedly manipulate/generate a gravitational field.  If gravity can in fact be harnessed/manipulated, then time and distance become inconsequential in the context of general relativity.   

You are free to defend this in a thread in speculations 

52 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

That is true.  Would an expert on gravity, antimatter, and Element 115, please spend about 10 minutes reading a few paragraphs on boblazar.com and point out the bogus physics?  Then I can say "Aha, that physics sounds bogus!"  I'm not an expert.

You mean like stuff you posted in the other thread? That I debunked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The phenomena that Lazar describes fits squarely within general relativity theory.  The technology that he claims to have worked on could supposedly manipulate/generate a gravitational field.  If gravity can in fact be harnessed/manipulated, then time and distance become inconsequential in the context of general relativity.   

No it doesn't, it's just fanciful speculation (magic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 11:51 AM, swansont said:

...You mean like stuff you posted in the other thread? That I debunked?

I don't believe you have yet debunked the method of propulsion outlined on boblazar.com.  You debunked something else in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

I don't believe you have yet debunked the method of propulsion outlined on boblazar.com. 

Oh, the method is outlined ?
Should be simple enough to build one then, using the method outlined on boblazar.com.
If not, then it doesn't take much 'de-bunking' does it ?

Seems strange that a person who claims to be prosecuted by the government, and alienated by friends and acquaintances  because of his 'disclosure' of Government secrets, would have a web domain for publicizing those 'disclosures'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, the method is outlined ?
Should be simple enough to build one then, using the method outlined on boblazar.com.
If not, then it doesn't take much 'de-bunking' does it ?

Seems strange that a person who claims to be prosecuted by the government, and alienated by friends and acquaintances  because of his 'disclosure' of Government secrets, would have a web domain for publicizing those 'disclosures'.

I think the web domain "boblazar.com" is owned by someone other than Lazar.

My offer still stands for any expert in the subject to read the method of amplifying and directing antigravity, using an antimatter reactor, powered by 115, as described on boblazar.com and, just for fun, tell us why it can't work.  An antimatter reactor powered the Enterprise in Star Trek.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


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

My offer still stands for any expert in the subject to read the method of antigravity, using an antimatter reactor, powered by 115, as described on boblazar.com and, just for fun, tell us why it can't work.

Opinion, based on what I see at the boblazar site: A scientist or expert in physics related to heavy particles and gravity will be qualified to debunk scientific claims. But when someone just produces random claims there is no science the expert can work with. Analogy (Straw-man warning):  It's like asking a physics expert to try to debunk last-Thursday-ism or god-did-it. There is no facts involved that the scientific method is intended to address. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

I think the web domain "boblazar.com" is owned by someone other than Lazar.

My offer still stands for any expert in the subject to read the method of amplifying and directing antigravity, using an antimatter reactor, powered by 115, as described on boblazar.com and, just for fun, tell us why it can't work.  An antimatter reactor powered the Enterprise in Star Trek.

As I'm sure you've read on here many times: "That which has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This is the problem when one holds an arbitrary belief in the existence of something: it causes one to selectively avoid facts in order to support it.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As to the claim that a stable element 115 is needed to produce anti-protons...
There are several known decay modes that produce anti-matter; the best known is, of course, Beta+ decay which produces positrons.
How exactly this would produce gravity 'waves' ( ? ) or anti-gravity ( ?? ) is in the realm of science fiction.
( as are the rest of B Lazar's claims )

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I don't believe you have yet debunked the method of propulsion outlined on boblazar.com.  You debunked something else in my opinion.

Then post the salient details here, per the rules.

13 hours ago, Airbrush said:

An antimatter reactor powered the Enterprise in Star Trek.

You’re asking us to debunk fiction? I think you’re misunderstanding how this works.

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.