Show Listener, Joe & I Agree to Disagree about Bob Lazar

The following is a point and counterpoint on the subject of Bob Lazar

POINT
I am an avid UFO U-tube viewer of your show.
I have watched/listen to your program and have found them to be very enlightening, entertaining and thoughtful hence my move over from Fade to Black and related shows.
You have been very verbal about your skepticism about Bob Lazar which I respect. I do question how adamant you and Stanton Friedman are based upon one issue only, and ignore all the other facts/proof provided.
I watched a debate between Stanton Friedman and Jeremy Corbell about BL which was chaired by Alajandro. Jeremy got carried away and as a result he did not present the facts which he does in other interviews which to me are quite significant:
1]. BL had 4 lie detector tests conducted by an experienced person which he passed
2]. Jeremy has a scientist in the movie who states and remembers BL working at the Los Alamo  company and this scientist was apparently being constantly contacted by Stanton talking about the MIT issue only.
3] The Secret Service came to raid BL during the period the movie was being produced….30 years after the incident…

Granted the inability to prove attendance at MIT is significant but what about the other issues such as
1].BL talked about S4 when that was NEVER spoken or known about until recently
2] Element 115 which only recently has been mentioned and confirmed by the scientific community
3] George Knapp’s statements and his open support for the BL story [ you say you believe in George – listen to George Knapps 2019 U-tube show with BL and his analogy about Edward Snowdon and BL]
4] being able to take John Lear and friends out 3 times to watch strange flying objects flying over Area 51
As BL lied about the MIT degree, therefore you cannot believe his account of S4 and Area 51, element 115, despite they have now been confirmed. Why do you believe the US Navy about the Tic Tac video when you have openly stated the US Gov and military has lied about UFOs?…..or are they allowed to lie and others not?
Additionally the 4 lie detector tests BL passed never ever come up in your comments about BL – if they are not reliable or trivial than what about the Trevor Walton issue where they passed 6 lie detector tests?
Your statement on BL is similar to how the debunkers talk about UFOs [ I know you are not a debunker]… you and Stanton select one point, the MIT issue, and base your whole conclusion on that and disregard other solid facts…
Have any of your friends/family ever made a few ‘exaggerated’ statements that could be classified as lies….. does that mean they too should not be believed….ever? Have you ever told a lie?
I would and I am sure your listeners would love to listen to an interview where Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp discuss/debate you and Alejandro about Bob Lazar…..,I am positive it would boost your listener audience
Maybe another program of interest is your opinion or interview of Cory Goode and David Wilcox about visiting Mars or whatever they did as kids [ I do not watch their videos ]… they are more far fetched the Steven Greer but they seem to get a free pass from you [ ..before saying you do not know much about them, watch a few of their videos]
Regards
Joe
FYI – Recent 2019 George Knapp interviewing and on Bob lazar
COUNTERPOINT

Hi Joe,

I understand, I thank you for all of this detail and reaching out as well.

Another thing to think about is, he obviously would have a clearance to do the initial work at Area 51 and if he violated that by whistleblowing, then he would not ever be able to have a clearance again. To sell or to contract with the government the way he has been doing over the last few decades, he would have to have a clearance.
There is a murkiness about the whole thing, I watched the debate with Jeremy and Stanton as well. I feel Jeremy has become Bob Lazar’s protector, similar to Michael Horn protecting Billy Meier. Jeremy is a talented filmmaker, but I felt his film tried to force us to believe in Bob and thought it was a shame that his mother was not asked important questions, about things that she would know about. For instance, how she felt about his education.
With an appraiser’s way of thinking, looking at a lot of forgeries over the years, I have become skeptical about Bob Lazar’s whole story, when only part of it may be true. I am not saying he is a sociopathic liar by any means, but will point out that they are known for passing the best polygraph tests easily.
As far as Element 115, he claimed there was about 500 lbs of it if I remember right. You can look into what that would take to get that much of it and how unstable it is (lasting milliseconds). His claim that element 115 could never be synthesized in a lab and could only be found naturally occurring in star systems is also proven untrue. Element 115 was synthesized in a lab, I am not sure if it is naturally occurring or not. Also the name he gave it, Ununpentium is Latin for 115, the element has been named Moscovium. I realize the name matters little.
Neither one of us is going to convince the other, it just does not pass the smell test to me. So we can agree to disagree.
Thanks again,
Martin
COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

One thought on “Show Listener, Joe & I Agree to Disagree about Bob Lazar

  • June 10, 2019 at 12:08 pm
    Permalink

    You may have other reasons why you favor the side of the discussion that disbelieves Bob Lazar. But I would submit that the often-cited argument you seem to refer to about element 115’s stability is not a valid argument.

    This argument is that the versions of element 115 produced so far have been unstable and do not have the properties Bob described, therefore we now know that no version of element 115 we may yet produce in the future will have the properties Bob describes. The argument ignores the fact that different isotopes of the same element can have very different properties. We have produced three versions or isotopes of Moscovium (element 115). Moscovium 287, 288, and 289. Which one has the properties Bob describes? Moscovium 3xx. No, we haven’t produced it yet. And I’m being facetious to suggest that I already know a Moscovium 3xx will one day appear that will have all the properties Bob describes. I can’t “know” that. But neither can it be “known” that such an isotope will never appear. How long will it take us to produce Moscovium 3xx and validate Bob Lazar? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? How many years ahead of us to we imagine an alien civilization may be that is capable of interstellar flight? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Much, much more? Do we consider it “impossible” for them to have produced 500 pounds of a stable “Moscovium 3xx”?

    What do I mean when I suggest the existence of a “Moscovium 3xx”? I’m suggesting a stable form of Moscovium with more than 300 nucleons (protons + neutrons) in its nucleus. When we say “element 115”, the “115” part refers to the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom of this element. But the nucleus of almost all atoms is made up of protons and neutrons (nucleons). The same element, that is, an atom with a given number of protons, such as 115 protons in the case of Moscovium, can have differing number of neutrons yet still be the same “element”, still be “Moscovium”. The three isotopes already produced, Moscovium 287, 288, and 289 all have 115 protons in the nucleus. But they have differing number of neutrons, namely 172, 173, and 174 neutrons respectively.

    So what? Does the number of neutrons make any significant difference in the properties of an element? Yes, very much so. It can mean the difference between being stable or not. Hydrogen, “element 1” is a perfect example. Hydrogen, or element 1, has one proton in its nucleus. But it has three naturally occurring versions or isotopes, Hydrogen 1, Hydrogen 2 (deuterium), and Hydrogen 3 (tritium). All three are “Hydrogen” or “element 1”. Hydrogen 1 has no neutrons in its nucleus, only a single proton. Hydrogen 2 has one proton and one neutron. Hydrogen 3 has one proton and two neutrons. Hydrogen 1 and 2 are stable. But Hydrogen 3 is not.

    When the nucleus of an atom approaches 300 nucleons, it approaches the theoretical “island of stability”. As pointed out in the article “Element 115 and the Island of Stability” available on the physicscentral.com website here: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/element-115.cfm, the isotopes of Moscovium already produced, 287, 288, and 289, are already “a stone’s throw from the coast of the Island of Stability” and “scientists theorize that some isotopes of this element may exist on the Island of Stability”.

    For someone to argue, “element 115 is too unstable, it could never be used the way Bob Lazar describes” is about as valid an argument as someone arguing “hydrogen is too stable, it could never be used to produce a hydrogen bomb” (actually a hydrogen bomb makes use of uranium, plutonium, deuterium and tritium and involves mainly fusion, though fission is also involved, but hopefully the point is still clear).

Comments are closed.