Bob Lazar- conman or convincing?

  • Thread starter jammieg
  • Start date

jammieg

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.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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:
 
1,570
1
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
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
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
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?
 
1,570
1
"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
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
[Bsimple. 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.[/B]
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!
 
1,570
1
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
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
What self-delusion? He's famous and making money off his claims. The rest of us un-self-deluded folks should do as well.
 
1,570
1
"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
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What self-delusion? He's famous and making money off his claims. The rest of us un-self-deluded folks should do as well.
Its self-delusion if he believes his own claims. If he's simply a fraud, then he's a gifted con-man.
 
6,171
1,275
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, conveniently this cannot be done since we can't make sufficient quantities of element 115...
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:
1,570
1
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
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
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?
Zero nanograms is an insufficient quantity.

I like Ivanium.
 
1,570
1
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
 
6,171
1,275
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Zero nanograms is an insufficient quantity.
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?

I like Ivanium.
Ivanium it is, then.
 
1,570
1
how about lazarium?

;)
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
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?
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.
 
1,570
1
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
 
6,171
1,275
Originally posted by hypnagogue
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.
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?
 
1,570
1
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
 
6,171
1,275
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.
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
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

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
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
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:

The proton shells of helium, oxygen, calcium, nickel, tin, and lead are completely filled and arranged such that the nucleus has achieved extra stability. The atomic numbers of these elements—2, 8, 20, 28, 50, and 82—are known as "magic numbers." These same numbers plus 126 are magic numbers for neutrons. Notice that the magic numbers are all even. No truly stable element heavier than nitrogen has an odd number of both protons and neutrons. Elements with even numbers of protons and neutrons make up about 90 percent of Earth's crust.
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:

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Zero nanograms is an insufficient quantity.

I like Ivanium.
I like Seekingiumium.
 
354
0
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.)
 
732
2
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
 

Related Threads for: Bob Lazar- conman or convincing?

  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Posted
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
261
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
10K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
254
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top