From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:12:31 -1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:20:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of - Salla


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:28:44 -0300
>Subject: Re: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of

>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:21:53 -1000
>>Subject: Re: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of

>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:49:28 -0300
>>>Subject: Re: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of

>>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:04:25 -1000
>>>>Subject: Re: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of - Salla

>>>>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:22:11 -0400
>>>>>Subject: Bob Lazar Returns - Sort Of

>>>>>I noticed that George Knapp and the I-Team have brought back Bob
>>>>>Lazar - see:

>>>>>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/may/m20-019.shtml

>>>>>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/may/m21-005.shtml

>><snip>

>>>>Aloha Jan,

>>>>I'm really amused at how UFO veteran researchers are so
>>>>concerned about guarding the 'unitiated' from the danger posed
>>>>by the scamster, fraud, charlatan, inveterate liar,
>>>>disinformationist, etc. Basically the UFO world is filled either
>>>>by honest witnesses/government employees who can be trusted; and
>>>>scamsters, etc., wanting to deceive a gullible public. The
>>>>litmus test for deciding which of the categories someone falls
>>>>into lies in providing documentation and hard evidence. If
>>>>there's not sufficient documentation, then the individual is a
>>>>liar. If there' no hard evidence, then its a tall tale, etc.

>>>Michael, you can't seem to understand that the hard evidence
>>>required is about claims by the hoaxter about himself. If he is
>>>lying about himself, why believe what he says about the so
>>>called black projects he supposedly worked on?

>>>If he can't provide evidence of his degrees,thesis, thesis
>>>advisor, military service, employment,etc than why believe him?

>>Aloha Stan,

>>The point I've been consistenly making is that when it comes to
>>whistleblower evidence one can't simply say only hard evidence
>>and documentation will do.

>I haven't said that. I have said that before I believe a
>witness's testimony which would most likely not be hard
>evidence, we need hard evidence that backs up his claim about
>himself. Not his testimony. Is he what he says he is?? In
>Lazar's case, no sale.,

That's your conclusion from you not being satisfied by what your
investigation yielded. Others such as Knapp have reached a very
different conclusion based on their questioning of employees at
Los Alamos and other witnesses where they were able to confirm
Lazar's testimony. The video of the flights from S4 is hard
evidence but you debunk it as with every other piece of hard,
soft evidence I or others cite in support of Lazar. Why do you
take the role of debunker when it comes to whistleblowers like
Lazar when competent investigators such as Knapp believe the
evidence supporting Lazar is compelling. It seems you have
reached an opinion and will not change that no matter what I or
others offer as evidence that there is merit in Lazar's case.

>>If a whistleblower, such as Lazar,
>>claims that hard evidence and documentation was removed then we
>>need to investigate his testimony closely in terms of content,
>>and corroborating witnesses.

>So you believe that the government stold his diplomas, his
>thesis his memory about who his professors were, the identity of
>people at MIT and Cal Tech that he went to class with etc. You
>further believe they took all the year books and cut him out by
>reprinting without his picture, that they changed his high
>school records, that they forced him to give false testimony
>about the one teacher he named who never taught at Cal Tech as
>claimed. They also somehow missed Pierce JC.. a remarkable and
>totally unbelieveable scenario.

Thanks for raising the issue of memory. I think it's worth
pointing out that Lazar did claim that one of the security
procedures in place was that they messed around with his memory
and that was one of the reasons for his desire to go public. I
think that it is entirely plausible that Project Managers for
classified projects dealing with EBEs/ETVs do mess around with
an individual's memory. The technology does exist and was
pioneered back in the 1960s by researchers such as Dr Jose
Delgado who describe this as Electronic Dissolution of Memory
(EDOM). I think at this point members of the forum may protest
at me raising this possibility but I think that if one is to
genuinely look at the security procedures in place to deal with
employees of classified projects dealing with ETVs or EBEs, we
need to explore this. In short, it's entirely possible that
parts of Lazar's memory were wiped clean along with his records
being extracted from the public realm. I think that such
technology is used regularly and the agencies do have the
removal power I've described.

Jim Tagliani claims to have worked with Lazar at Fairchild
Electronics where Lazar was allegedly the youngest electrical
engineer who had ever worked there. This all happened before
Lazar's employment at Los Alamos. That shows that Lazar had
completed some degrees in the physical sciences and was a high
achiever. I don't think someone with that kind of employment
record and building jet cars was the kind of underachiever you
portray. Your claims concerning what you were told by Lazar's
High School are not consistent with the known data on Lazar's
case. You consistently ignore the data that is known about Lazar
to pursue your debunking of Lazar. Tagliani is an independent
witness who worked at the Tonopah facility and had
compartmentalized security clearances. His and others testimony
is routinely ignored by you.

>>I notice that your conclusions are formed by what you couldn't
>>find, rather than the evidence of what others have found.
>
>Wrong _again_. I found that he graduated from high school in
>August meaning he had to make up some missing or failed courses.
>I found that he took only one science course (chemistry), and
>that he finished in the bottom third of his high school class.
>These mean he could not have been admitted to MIT. I found that
>he falsely claimed when asked to name a prof, that William
>Duxler would remember hin from the Physics Dept. at Cal Tech. I
>located Duxler who never taught at Cal Tech but did have Bob in
>a course at Pierce at the very same time he was supposedly at
>MIT... 2500 miles away. I have heard a tape of Bob being asked
>when he got his degree at MIT. "Let me see now, it was probably
>1982". Knowing a number of MIT grads and having been accepted
>there myself, I believe all can immediately tell when they got
>their MIT degrees.

>I discovered in the Los Alamos phone book that it clearly states
>Bob worked for Kirk Meyer, not for Los Alamos.This was
>corroborated by the Personnel Dept. who confirmed that GG an old
>colleague of mine who worked there with a high level security
>clearance, but could not confirm Bob as aa LANL employee.
>
>Yes, certainly there was a complete absence of transcripts,
>diplomas, resume, membership in professional groups, exact
>thesis title, name of thesis advisory, no recognition by
>Registrar, Commencement list holder, theses holders, any
>published reports or papers.

We have already discussed all these issues so there's no point
in me repeating myself. See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/feb/m23-013.shtml

>>For
>>example, video's were taken when Lazar, Lear and Huff went to
>>observe ETVs being tested out of S4 which confirmed Lazar's
>>testimony of working at S4. A background security check was
>>performed on Lazar and confirmed by independent witnesses when
>>he got clearance to work at S4.

>Says who when and where. How does seeing a UFO prove he worked
>at S-4?

>>Lazar's testimony regarding
>>Teller was recently bolstered in a video where Teller was asked
>>about Lazar's claims about being recommended by him. Teller
>>replied: "No Comment".

>How in the world does "No Comment" translate into "Yes, I
>recommended him?" What language is this?.

>>We've already discussed Lazar at length
>>at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/141 . I
>>see no point repeating the same points when we clearly disagree
>>about the available data on Lazar.

>Are you suggesting you have found transcripts, diplomas, thesis,
>and any evidence he was ever qualified to be admitted to MIT ,
>no less attended? What data is there? An almost certainly phony
>W-2 covering a week's pay? A phone book listing that proves he
>didn't work for LANL?

The phone book listing proved he worked at Los Alamos. The post
code of W-2 was traced to a Naval facility in Maryland. A
background check was conducted on Lazar before working at S-4.
You ignore this data.

>>I think it's worthwhile to point out that there is sufficient
>>merit in Lazar's case to consider the exopolitical significance
>>of his claims.

>What merit is there?

You ignore everything I or others say about Lazar. Your mind is
mind up. I don't think you are an objective researcher when it
comes to Lazar.

>>You disagree, that's fine. However, why sabotage
>>the efforts of those wanting to examine the exopolitical
>>implications of Lazar's testimony in this forum? It seems you
>>will just keep repeating your point of no hard evidence, no data
>>and say no analysis is worthwhile. However, others do think it
>>prudent to do such an analysis since one can't dismiss his case
>>due to the extensive data corroborating parts of his testimony.
>>Lazar will not go away simply because you focus on the missing
>>data in his case. It's the corroborating data that persuades
>>people that there's merit in Lazar's testimony.

>>>>If
>>>>the person's testimony conflicts in a some way with available
>>>>documentation, then they are dismissed as a fraud, etc. I think
>>>>this simple bipolar UFO world constructed by UFO veterans is way
>>>>off the mark. It's a children's fable designed to frighten than
>>>>to enlighten. People's motivations, experiences and testimonies
>>>>are far more complex. There's no easy way to deal with people's
>>>>testimony from deep black projects where there's no
>>>>documentation and hard evidence but it can be done if there's a
>>>>desire to do so.

>>>Obviously you have no desire to do so. You wish to believe every
>>>so called whistleblower's testimony. That is your privilege. But
>>>I don't believe in the tooth fairy any more either.

>>You are being entirely unrealistic here. The security procedures
>>set in place to enforce secrecy concerning classified projects
>>dealing with ETVs and EBEs are not tooth fairy stories. This is
>>very real and significant.

>And your expertise on these security procedures comes from what?
>You admitted you haven't had a security clearance in the USA. Is
>this based on testimony from Bob? Having had a clearance for 14
>years I suspect I would be considered far better qualified than
>you about security procedures.

Stan, you forget my PhD is in Government/Political Science. I've
never worked in Congress yet I'm qualified to describe and
evaluate Congressional/Legislative and national security
processes which is the work of political scientists. One doesn't
need to have direct experience of a particular national security
agency, legislative committee, or executive branch of government
in order to provide a competent political analysis of it using
one's political science training. Let me assure you that
political scientists have very intense methodological debates
about how to research political processes such as Congressional
oversight of security procedures in place for classified
programs. While I never spent much time researching security
procedures during my teaching/research career in political
science, it was an area of interest and I was familiar with the
political methodology used by others who did research of
classified military projects and Congressional oversight. My
more recent research interest in exopolitics has forced me to
analyse security processes associated with highly classified
projects and I'm genuinely appalled at the lack of Congressional
oversight exists and how military/national secuirty agencies can
impose draconian security procedures in many projects and get
away with it.

In contrast, you have a Masters in Nuclear Physics where you had
direct experience with security procedures associated with one
of more programs requiring a Q-Clearance during your 14 year
career. That gives you direct experience of the security
procedures in place for the particular compartments of SCI and
SAPs that you worked on, however it doesn't give you direct
experience for the more highly classified projects like
Majestic, Cosmic, etc., that whistleblowers such as Lazar claim
to have worked in. It's in the latter that Project Managers
impose draconian security procedures with no legislative
oversight. In contrast, I will bet that the various projects you
worked in did have legislative oversight where any excesses by
Security Managers could be dealt with through the appropriate
Congressional body where whistleblowers could go and testify
about inequitious practices.

You have no academic training in understanding and evaluating
the oversight procedures of classified programs and how these
may vary according to classification levels. You generalize from
your own limited experiences in programs subject to legislative
oversight and believe you are qualified to opine about projects
with higher classification levels with no legislative oversight.
That's where you stray from your competence in analysing UFO
sightings, to opining about what can and can't be done in
classified projects in terms of Congressional oversight where
you have no specialized training.

>>Your approach is an obstacle to those
>>wanting to unravel what's happening in these projects using the
>>testimony of whistleblowers such as Lazar.

>>>>So far, I've found no real desire by veteran
>>>>UFO researchers to deal with whistleblowers in a serious way.

>>>That is absolute nonsense. You just don't want to listen to the
>>>evidence, about Lazar, Milton William Cooper, Michael Wolf
>>>Kruvant etc.

>>>>It's just lot's of dismissive statements and ridicule. In my
>>>>view, dealing seriously with whistleblowers from classified
>>>>projects is a bit too intimidating for veteran researchers.

>Can you cite any whistleblowers from classified projects? The 4
>above don't qualify

Sure, Phillip Corso, Bill Uhouse, Daniel Salter, Daniel Burisch,
Phil Schneider, Don Phillips, Dan Morris, Clifford Stone,  Steve
Wilson, etc., many of whom are in Steven Greer's Disclosure
book. A very important document with the testimonies of these
and other whistleblowers who claim to have worked on projects
involving EBEs, ETVs or ET technologies.

>>>Try facts rather than dimissive statements and ridicule.Why
>>>would those of us who have worked on classified projects be
>>>intimidated?

>>So based on your personal experiences you believe that there's
>>nothing to fear for those who have worked on classified
>>projects. There are different classification levels and
>>compartmentalized projects that exist, your personal experience
>>of the security procedures in one set of classified projects has
>>no relevance for the security procedures in place for other
>>projects that are more highly classified.

>I should think my employment on classified projects at 6
>different companies, interfacing with a number of other
>facilities, would provide me with far more info than your total
>absence of such experience.

One can spend a lifetime in government/corporate service with
Top Secret clearances and compartmentalized clearances such as
Q-clearance and never have information or experience on highly
classified projects involving ETV's, EBEs. It should be pointed
out that Q-Clearance is a security classification that was
created for the nuclear industry. Many congressional aids and
congressional representative who serve on a number of
committees, e.g., Intelligence, Science, etc., will have Q-
clearance. However, Q-Clearance is a very distinct compartment
to Majestic/Cosmic, etc., that were related for ET related
projects. You have info that is limited to a particular
compartmentalized body of information associated with the
Nuclear industry. On that score, you are correct that your
direct experience is instructive. However, you have no
expereince in the compartmented information in more highly
classified projects that deal with ETVs, EBEs, etc. On that
score, you have no direct experience and no knowledge. You are
at best generalizing from your limited experiences and rendering
opinions that have no basis in fact. You never have had a
Majestic/Cosmic clearance so how can you opine about the
security procedures in place for these?

>>Lazar had no problems
>>when he worked at Los Alamos with his Q-clearance and disclosing
>>this information to others.

>Just how many phone books is he in? How long was he there. The
>Meson Facility where he was a technician doesn't do classified
>work.

We know he was in at least one phone book as an employee under
contract to Kirk-Myer to work at the Meson facility. I'm not
familiar with the classification of the various projects in
place at the Meson facility. Some may have been unclassified for
university researchers from the University of California, while
others classified. Those working in the nuclear industry and
nuclear related technologies such as particle accelerators found
at the Meson facillity require a Q-Clearance as a condition of
employment. Lazar had to have Q-Clearance to have worked at the
Meson facility as a physicist.

>>It's only at S-4 with his Majestic
>>clearance that he experienced problems when breaking secrecy.
>>Your personal experiences are no guide to what whistleblowers
>>such as Lazar have experienced.
>
>Really? You know, and I don't because I am not buying his
>supposed whistleblower testimony?
>
>There was no secrecy to break at the Meson facility and we don't
>have any evidence other than the say so of a liar that he was
>employed at S-4. He did lie about Duxler, MIT, Cal Tech....

What makes you an expert in who does and doesn't lie? You have
no academic training in assessing witness testimonies and rely
on your own field work investigating UFOs, and the
generalizations you draw from what people have to say based on
available documentation. You jump to the conclusion that a
person is a liar if no documentation exists to back up their
claims. That's a flaw in your thinking since there are
alternative explanations such as the security processes in place
for some classified projects eliminate or distort documentation
and evidence. My conclusion is that most of Lazar's education
was scrapped from the records as a consequence of his
whistleblower testimony.

>>>><snip>

>>>>Yes, it's true that in the interview Lazar's failed to remember
>>>>the frequency of the gravity wave amplifier. He only could
>>>>recall it was an odd frequency. He can be accused of having a
>>>>poor memory which is very human. Let's all remember that Lazar
>>>>claimed to work in a classified S4 project, not to possessing
>>>>photographic memory.

>>>He claimed much else like a thesis on magnetoaerodynamics...
>>>none at MIT, like degrees from MIT and Cal Tech. No evidence and
>>>plenty of evidence that he was at neither place. He named
>>>William Duxler as having taught him physics at CCal Tech. Duxler
>>>never taught at Cal Tech, but did have Bob in a class at Pierce
>>>JC while he was supposedly at MIT a continent away

>>We've already discussed these issues before and reach different
>>conclusions:

>>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/feb/m23-013.shtml

>>>>>But now I am going to let you in on something which is more
>>>>>precious and rarer than Element 115. The absolute and total
>>>>>truth.

>>>>Ok, so now we have the ridicule factor about to be used. Why is
>>>>it that veteran UFO researchers can't appreciate the seriousness
>>>>of Lazar's claims and try to depict anyone defending him as
>>>>taken in by a huckster. George Knapp's investigations have
>>>>provided ample evidence to support Lazar's testimony.

>>>Sorry, that is more nonsense. Veteran researchers do appreciate
>>>the seriousness of the claims and that is why we have spent so
>>>much effort to try to verify them. They are not verified. I
>>>happen to like George Knapp. He has provided no evidence of
>>>degrees, a thesis, the existence of large quantities of a
>>>stable element 115. He has not beeen able to show that Bob would
>>>have qualified for MIT given his poor high school background (he
>>>tried) or that he worked for LANL as opposed to Kirk Meyer as
>>>noted in the phone book.

>>You consistently fail to see the point that verification is not
>>always possible when it comes to the specific claims made by
>>whistleblowers.

>So Bob lost his diplomas, somehow metamorphosed from the bottom
>third of his high school class with one science course to being
>in the top 20% and having taken a bunch of science courses

As I said, I don't accept that the High School record you
provided of Lazar is accurate.

>>The security procedures in place for the kinds
>>of projects Lazar claims to have worked at S4 ensure this.

>These security procedures have nothing to do with the questions
>at hand. Who is Bob Lazar besides being a bright imaginative
>writer of science fiction with serious manual skills and a total
>lack of concern with the truth.?

This is nonsense. There is more to Lazar than this. If this is
your conclusion after all the research and investigation that
has been done on Lazar, then I do question your objectivity in
the Lazar case.

>>However, we have testimonies pointing to Lazar having worked at
>>S4. Jim Tagliani who had a security clearance to work at the
>>nearby Tonopah facility claims that he was approached by OSI the
>>day after Lazar went public and told that he "S4 was off Limits"
>>to Tonopah personnel. Why would OSI approach Tagliani if Lazar's
>>story about S4 was contrived?

>We aren't mind readers. The question isn't whether or not there
>is an S-4.The question is where is there any evidence that Bob
>is telling the truth. The answer is no.

Your answer is based on an absence of evidence that satisfy the
criteria you set. I've argued elsewhere that your criteria are
inappropriate when it comes to Majestic/Cosmic compartmentalized
projects and whistleblowers from these.

>>>>For
>>>>example, Lazar's claims regarding element 115 are turning out to
>>>>be very consistent with the latest scientific advances in
>>>>stellar astronomy. The critique of Dr David Morgan that Stan
>>>>distributed to the forum had an important deficiency in it as I
>>>>pointed out in my short article: http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-
>>>>Comment-31.htm . Dr Morgan dismissed the idea that metals
>>>>heavier than iron could be formed in stable stars, yet I was
>>>>able to quickly point out to Stan and others that Dr Morgan is
>>>>wrong.

>>>You are once again mistaken. The Lead stars don't establish any
>>>abundance of elements above Lead (At. No. 82). Certainly Morgan
>>>doesn't say heavy elements above iron aren't in stars.Of course
>>>they are.He is talking of quantities of stable elements above
>>>100

>>You are wrong. This is what Morgan said: "Heavy elements - all
>>elements heavier than iron - are not formed during the normal
>>life cycles of stars."

>Read what he said... "normal life-cycle". That is where nuclear
>transmutation, supernovas etc., come in. As Carl Sagan once said
>"...we are made of star stuff." Please read the rest of his
>critique of the new physics ala Lazar.

You are distorting what 'normal life-cycle' means for stars.
Morgan was clear that metals heavier than iron are only formed
in the super nova process. He is wrong and showed he was not
familiar with the latest thinking about how heavy metals are
formed in the normal cycle before the supernova. I also read the
rest of his critique and think his thinking about the possible
energy produced by an anti-matter reactor is flawed.

>>You ignore this error and now say that
>>nothing higher than lead forms in stars. You are distorting what
>>Morgan said in order to buttress your opinion that Morgan
>>provided a slam dunk critique of Lazar. I pointed out Morgan's
>>error and you continue to ignore that. Morgan's astronomy is
>>wrong when it comes to the formation of heavy metals in massive
>>stars. Why do you fail to acknowledge this error in your
>>continued dissemination of Morgan's critique?

>Stars are the only place elements are formed. Keep looking for
>enough stable element 115 .. lead is element 82 and is stable.

>See you in Hawaii,next week, Michael.

>Stan Friedman

I look forward to catching up in Hawaii.  Perhaps the dolphins
will do some of their magic and help us reach some consensus
here.

Aloha, Michael