Talk:Robert Lazar

	This Ufology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Area 51 declassification

At the end of this section someone stated "And no government document is known to have ever mentioned anything called "S-4"." That was tagged for citation, but I think the entire line should be removed. For one, it's redundant at this point in the wiki. Those who don't know him and looked this up have already concluded either he, or rational wiki, to be full of it. Secondly, you can't find a definitive source for something top secret not existing, so the citation can't clarify anything. I think it's all apcray myself, but can't see a way to make this statement improve the article. Am I off base here? This being my first time on RW, I would rather reach out than edit a page myself.^{— Unsigned, by: Ironjohn / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of Credentials being Erased.

"A pathalogical liar" apparently allowed to work at national Partical Accelerator:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ33VLkaEeM6nBRGIdazDA2UB1h99yMTHSPjypaNf2h2txrANdA&usqp=CAUhttps://i.imgur.com/Lfe4nV5.jpg

I'm sure when they published that article they never considered contacting the facility to verify his employment, and that those that hired him, never considered checking into his background at the time. And as such hired a random uncredentialed "pathological liar" to work on the premises. I submit this as evidence that his credentials have been systematically erased in an effort to discredit him, to replace the tumbleweed gif of his evidence.

Publication: Los Alamos Monitor, Page A1 and A8

Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982

by Terry England, Monitor Staff Writer

https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/the-bob-lazar-corner/bobs-jetcar-article/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.187.59.73 / talk}

Are you fucking kidding me? Your response to his lack of credentials is to claim he actually was employed but that it was covered up? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?! That's stupid. Request denied. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, they just let any random uncredentialed idiot work at particle accelerators. The other posters were right, this place is no different than Conservapedia. I provided evidence with my claim that he was employed, and you reject it based on nothing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.187.59.73 / talk / contribs}

Your assumption is that he worked on particle accelerators. You're jumping the gun! You haven't proven that he worked at the particle accelerators yet! And then you go "The evidence is being suppressed" instead of providing the supposed evidence! Let me abstract his. Your argument is B, therefor C, therefor D. But you have yet to prove A, and further, have not connected B, C, and D. You haven't proven the basics! You've given me a blurry image and a Conspiracy theorist blog. Why not say, a WikiLeaks leak? I mean, they still haven't gotten their shit together last I heard, but they'd at least be a better source! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• "...when they published that article they never considered contacting the facility to verify his employment". That's probably exactly what happened. It's a "local color" article in a small town newspaper, not the Pentagon Papers. Lazar worked as a subcontractor technician. It's not too hard to imagine he inflated his status, or simply let the reporter think he was a staff physicist. 2601:18F:802:E160:FDAA:5ED1:CDFF:B795 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Some place even higher

♫From within your mind, no one else can find
The life that you inspire
From another place, not from outer space
But from some place even higher
Bob Lazaaaaaar (you are)
Bob Lazaaaaaar (you are)
I can touch, I can feel, I can hear and see
So much more than a fantasy
I can run, I can jump! I can dance and sing
Believe in yourself and do anything (believe in yourself and do anything)♫ Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Begging the Question

"So unless the neuralyzer from Men in Black is a real thing, Lazar is simply a liar, and not a very good one either. Which begs the question: "

There was an actual Begging the Question page on RationalWiki until it was merged with Circular Reasoning. That makes this improper usage particularly embarrassing.

Section about element 115 is unscientific

This article claims that because element 115 was created in a laboratory, that it could not have occurred naturally. This is scientifically inaccurate. I suggest removing this claim. I will do so if no one disagrees in a week. ^{— Unsigned, by: Scottygang / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your replacement was pure pseudoscience apologia. Until there is evidence Moscovium occurs naturally in heavy stars it is not inaccurate to state otherwise. Burden of Proof is on those claiming it does. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to replace anything. As I said above, I am just going to remove a sentence that is clearly scientifically incorrect. Moscovium may or may not exist naturally. We do not yet know. To claim that it cannot exist naturally is wrong. I can change the sentence to be more in line with what you think: That Moscovium has not yet been observed to exist naturally. I think that would be fair. To say it cannot exist naturally is the position that requires proof.^{— Unsigned, by: Scottygang / talk / contribs}