Oh boy, where to start?

One could choose to look at his lies about his "masters degrees" (he
can present no documentation in his own possession, nor any
reconstruction of his research results or details about the mechanisms
and processes he studied).

Or his long association with known UFO fanatics like John Lear, who
coached him on the fake Billy Meier saucer (which he copied and
repackaged as the "sport model" that he "worked on" at "S4").

Or that despite being a "physicist" who "exposed Area 51 for the sake
of the scientific community", he has never gone in front of a
scientific or professional committee to discuss his "experiences" and
learned knowledge (such as when he declined the invitation by the head
of the Lockheed Skunk Works to give a talk in front of a gathering of
professional aerospace journalists and engineers), nor does he ever
allow himself to be cross-examined by actual scientists in interviews.

Or that he sells Area 51 related merchandise on his company's website
and has cashed in on his story for decades in other various ways, as
one would expect a charlatan to do (it would be one thing if he cashed
in on it, but also provided scientific evidence of his claims, but he
only does the former but fails to do the latter, is a clear indication
of his dishonesty); or his nonsense about element 115 and his failure
to identify that isotope used by the "engine" of the "flying saucer";
or his nonsense about "9 flying saucers" in the possession of the US
government, as though these things just drop out of the sky. Yet we
find not a shred of evidence they ever did so before the flying saucer
craze of the 20th century.

On 8/7/2022 10:34 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Oh boy, where to start?
>
> One could choose to look at his lies about his "masters degrees" (he
> can present no documentation in his own possession, nor any
> reconstruction of his research results or details about the mechanisms
> and processes he studied).
>
> Or his long association with known UFO fanatics like John Lear, who
> coached him on the fake Billy Meier saucer (which he copied and
> repackaged as the "sport model" that he "worked on" at "S4").
>
> Or that despite being a "physicist" who "exposed Area 51 for the sake
> of the scientific community", he has never gone in front of a
> scientific or professional committee to discuss his "experiences" and
> learned knowledge (such as when he declined the invitation by the head
> of the Lockheed Skunk Works to give a talk in front of a gathering of
> professional aerospace journalists and engineers), nor does he ever
> allow himself to be cross-examined by actual scientists in interviews.
>
> Or that he sells Area 51 related merchandise on his company's website
> and has cashed in on his story for decades in other various ways, as
> one would expect a charlatan to do (it would be one thing if he cashed
> in on it, but also provided scientific evidence of his claims, but he
> only does the former but fails to do the latter, is a clear indication
> of his dishonesty); or his nonsense about element 115 and his failure
> to identify that isotope used by the "engine" of the "flying saucer";
> or his nonsense about "9 flying saucers" in the possession of the US
> government, as though these things just drop out of the sky. Yet we
> find not a shred of evidence they ever did so before the flying saucer
> craze of the 20th century.
>
>

Bob Lazar knew way too many details about Los Alamos not to have been
employed there. There was no way. Yet they deny his existence.

Bob Lazar took many people our to the Groom Lake area on nights when he
knew there would be test flights. And he was right.

How did he know?

No, Bob Lazar never courted fame, notoriety, publicity or profit from
any of this.

George Knapp has to drag him out of seclusion to tell his story.

Too many unanswered questions to make your narrative even barely plausible.