Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bob Lazar- conman or convincing?

  1. Sep 9, 2003 #1
    I watched this guy on the Sci-fi channel, not a very reliable source of information, but if you also watched it what did you think?
    After searching a bit on the internet it seems he has no MIT or CIT records of attendence although I haven't checked those places in person, and so if he claims he has these degrees and yet these places in fact have no records then he is lying about this to make money and fame most likely. His web site, if it is in fact owned by him is a pay site also.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This guy is one strange duck. On one hand, he is clearly no Cal Tech Ph.D. On the other hand, he has some intersting and striking facts in his history. My best guess is that he cleaned the toilets at Groom Lake. :wink:
     
  4. Sep 10, 2003 #3
    why does it matter whether or not he has a degree and from where he has a degree? einstein had no Phd yet he revolutionized physics.

    if he is lying about attending a certain school, does that mean he necessarily lies all the time?

    what is his basic premise?

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  5. Sep 10, 2003 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He claims to have helped reverse engineer alien technologies, via flying saucers, at Groom Lake, Nevada. It is also alleged that he [and the US Government] have some alien made, element 115 - this make the anti-gravity drive possible. He is way, way out there in every respect. On the other hand, he has allegedly passed some key tests indicating that he did work at Groom Lake. Still, beyond any doubt he has lied about at least some things. If we can't believe him when he says "I went to school at Cal Tech", how do we believe him when he describes the flying saucer's propulsion system?
     
  6. Sep 10, 2003 #5
    "He claims to have helped reverse engineer alien technologies, via flying saucers, at Groom Lake, Nevada. It is also alleged that he [and the US Government] have some alien made, element 115 - this make the anti-gravity drive possible. He is way, way out there in every respect. On the other hand, he has allegedly passed some key tests indicating that he did work at Groom Lake. Still, beyond any doubt he has lied about at least some things. If we can't believe him when he says "I went to school at Cal Tech", how do we believe him when he describes the flying saucer's propulsion system?"

    simple. build it and find out if it works. if it doesn't work, find out why. of course, this doesn't take into account the potential waste of money and time. can such a risk be justified? i think the possible gains are worth at least 1% of the budget (probably lowballed) the pres. just requested for rebuilding iraq, which would be, what, $87M? but of course in these times when we're supposed to be paranoid of terrorists, science is a low priority, now isn't it?

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  7. Sep 10, 2003 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, conveniently this cannot be done since we can't make sufficient quantities of element 115; and only Bob and the MIB have access to the alien supply. Darn! Darn! Darn the bad luck!
     
  8. Sep 10, 2003 #7
    sounds to me like another individual like john titor in their own self-reinforcing delusional world if not bona fide. what, in your opinion, is their goal in trying to put out their message? do they want to start a cult and gain followers, or is that too shallow? do they just want to make us examine ourselves? if not bona fide, i sense an ulterior motive and i'd like to know what that motive is...

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  9. Sep 10, 2003 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What self-delusion? He's famous and making money off his claims. The rest of us un-self-deluded folks should do as well.
     
  10. Sep 10, 2003 #9
    "What self-delusion?"

    the delusion is this, simply: that he has access to alien technology and alien science. is this something you believe in? call it what if not either true or false? and, my word for false, is delusional.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  11. Sep 11, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Its self-delusion if he believes his own claims. If he's simply a fraud, then he's a gifted con-man.
     
  12. Sep 11, 2003 #11
    Last I heard 115 was still"undisc-
    overed." Whose been fiddling in
    their basement and forgot to
    E-mail me? What are you calling
    it? Ivanium, or Seekingiumium?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2003
  13. Sep 11, 2003 #12
    so, kinda like string theory i'd like to point out, his theory can't be proven to be correct for about 1500 years?? why believe string theory any more than this guy?

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  14. Sep 11, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Zero nanograms is an insufficient quantity.

    I like Ivanium.
     
  15. Sep 11, 2003 #14
    how about calling it element 115? i mean, most likely, aliens discovered it long before we did so the credit shouldn't be to the "first" (human) being discovering it.

    just to be clear, what does the government have to gain or protect us from by covering up the existence of aliens? what would be their motivation to initiate a conspiracy/cover up?

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  16. Sep 11, 2003 #15
    That's all you have left, huh?
    Well, of course that kind of stuff
    really has nothing you could call
    a shelf life, does it?

    Ivanium it is, then.
     
  17. Sep 11, 2003 #16
    how about lazarium?

    ;)
     
  18. Sep 12, 2003 #17

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, theoretically speaking 115 (or 114, or thereabouts) should be stable. I don't know the details behind this very well but around that atomic number there is a theoretical 'island of stability,' I think due to the geometric arrangement of protons and neutrons.
     
  19. Sep 12, 2003 #18
    i have a friend who's postdocing at uc berkeley in chemistry. i'll ask him what element 115 would be like...

    let you know.

    phoenix
     
  20. Sep 12, 2003 #19
    According to my nice, plastic
    coated chart of the elements
    "thereabouts" are both discovered.
    114, called Ununquadium was made
    in Dubna, Russia in 1999, weight
    289. Element 116, called Ununhex-
    ium was made the same year in
    Berkeley, Ca. and has the same
    weight. It doesn't give any hints
    about the "shelf life" on this
    chart but your "island of stabil-
    ity" might be related to this
    weight 289, somehow, since both
    114 and 116 have it. Does that
    make any sence?
     
  21. Sep 12, 2003 #20
    yes that does make some sense. what about 115?

    are these elements radioactive? do they have fusion/fission potential use in energy sources (and weapons)? you said it was unclear what their shelf life is so that makes me think they are radioactive...

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  22. Sep 13, 2003 #21
    I'm getting this info off this
    chart. It doesn't say anything
    more about these new elements
    beyond what I posted.
    The chart was published in 1999
    so it's already 4 years old.
    Someone may have made some 115
    since then, but I don't know.
     
  23. Sep 13, 2003 #22

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here are some good links on the subject.

    General information about atomic stability:
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s161220.htm

    Detailed info about synthesizing heavy elements from the US Department of Energy:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-01/drnl-pat062402.php

    phoenix, they are indeed highly radioactive; this is what causes them to decay, hence they are unstable. They are so unstable that there doesn't appear to be any practical use for them, as far as energy extraction or weapons go. For instance, the US DoE link posted above tells us that synthesized isotopes of 110 have had half-lives ranging from 100 microseconds to 1.1 milliseconds. 114 was synthesized in 1998 as zooby pointed out, and it lasted 30 seconds before it began to decay, so relative to its atomic neighbors, at least, it is very stable.

    I only did a quick google search, but I didn't find any indications that 115 has been synthesized. The fact that 114 only lasted 30 seconds before it started to decay seems to raise questions about how stable 115 could really be, however. It could be that another isotope of 114 would last longer, but probably not all that much longer. So while 115 might be stable relative to 110, I have my doubts that it would be stable enough to serve any long term use. Here's more cause for suspicion, again from the US DoE:

    So if anything, it seems 115 would be less stable than 114 and 116, and wouldn't last long enough to serve any useful purpose.

    For what it's worth, I also hunted up a page that claims to explain the utility of 115 for manipulating gravitational fields, and also lists its supposed chemical properties:

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/element115.html [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  24. Sep 14, 2003 #23

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I like Seekingiumium.
     
  25. Sep 14, 2003 #24
    Lazar actually supposedly worked at S4, just south a few miles from Area 51. They say that you can see these places when taking a flight to/from Phoenix/Seattle if you look out to the east. I've looked and if I saw it I didn't know it, all of Nevada looks the same. As for 115, if our solar system creation theories are correct, I think you'd find it in the center of the Earth and all over the place on Mercury, and maybe on Venus, though it'd do you no good on Venus. And that's if it exists anywhere naturally, let alone this solar system.
    On an almost unrelated side note, Gordon-Michael Scallion (he calls himself a futurist) claims that there are going to be massive changes in the Earth soon and that we'd find new elements. I'm not sure what to think of him, I'm waiting for the BIG changes to come, then I'll know if he's right (his predictions don't always come true, but he seems to be very accurate with earth stuff, what with predicting times, places, and stengths of many earthquakes over the years, month ahead of time.)
     
  26. Sep 14, 2003 #25
    Refutation of Lazar

    Something the skeptics will appreciate. Just an analysis of how Lazar's "theries violate the known laws of physics. And the good doctor is kind enough to point out that Lazar has yet to offer up the new theories to support his ideas. Take this info as you will..

    http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook