Talk:Robert Lazar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg 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.

United Nuclear and Lazar’s contravention of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act[edit]

The WP section on United Nuclear has some good dirt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar#United_Nuclear Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Element 115[edit]

Bob Lazar's claim of Element 115 wasn't contradicted by the synthesis of Element 115 on Earth. The Element 115 that was artificially created was unstable, having a half-life of much less than 1 second, while the material he worked with was stable. This is a difference in isotopes. Look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability for more information. — Unsigned, by: 107.184.32.17 / talk 07:13, 8 December 2018

I know the claims towards the support of the theory are anecdotal at best but as shown in the 2018 documentary, completely stable 115 is hypothetically possible to create. The science community just doesn't know how, or what it'd do. Should stable 115 be created and its effects studied it will easily make or break his claims. 75.134.45.1 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting there is a "pseudoscience community" that is better equipped to create stable forms of elements 109-118? Snort. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
To answer the OP, his claim that 115 couldn't be synthesized were contradicted by it being synthesized. Its claims that it is stable are contradicted (at least theoretically) by the theories that say it won't have stable isotopes. --Annanoon (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Balance fallacy, appeal to gravity, tone argument, etc below, read at own risk.[edit]

Whoever wrote this clearly has a MASSIVE hate-boner for the guy. Could we rewrite this to be a bit more.. i dunno, rational? Talk more about actual facts about him, don't have an entire section for a joke, and spend less time railing into him and insulting him and more time actually presenting both sides of his claims, for and against. Aside from the tidbits where things he's said have turned out to be true, like the hand scanners, his direct correlation to the fist public agknowledgement of Area 51 and the existence of S4. Opening the article with how he has "fantasies" of working at Area 51 is just childish. There's snark, and then there's trying to be like Uncyclopedia where the article ends up not providing any substantial information. As it is the article is more about hating him than.. well, him. 75.134.45.1 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the above. Who the fuck wrote this? This is supposed to be "rational"? Give me a break. There is much more to this story, and this mockery is pathetic.— Unsigned, by: 2604:2000:1343:4416:21FF:5255:5CD0:34C8 / talk 03:05, 8 July 2019
Fantastically advanced antigravity alien saucer spacecraft being hidden by the government? A world-wide conspiracy to cover up interactions between aliens and humans for 10,000 years? And all the proof that is offered is "tidbits"? Nope, this is National Enquirer level bullshit. His claims are justifiably mock-able. "Presenting both sides of his claims, for and against" is not required. If you have a fractured ankle, a doctor doesn't say "There are two possible treatments. I could take X-Rays, set it, put a cast on it, then send you home with some pain meds. Or, I could cast a spell to drive out the demons". Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"There is much more to this story". You're right, stuff like him lying about his academic and work background, failing to provide what should be trivially easy to produce evidence to prove the background he claims, and his spectacularly poor understanding of physics and chemistry. He also wasn't the first to popularize area 51 alien conspiracy theories or the first to publicly acknowledge it, there's no evidence of an "S-4" section of the base either. The existence of the Groom Lake facility has never been secret and military aerospace enthusiasts knew about it before the UFO crowd had their attention drawn to it. 2600:1700:D090:1820:EDE8:C535:BF4D:1354 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some small vindications Bob Lazar, Element 115, Massive Stars & Heavy Metals[edit]

Plz update the article with information in this article's sources: https://www.exopolitics.org/bob-lazar-element-115-massive-stars-and-heavy-metals-repost/ Do the claims in the article check out well? I'm not an expert at source reliability.— Unsigned, by: 2a02:a03f:5c13:2d00:7dc6:b792:d2b3:d7b8 / talk

No shit. One article from a conspiracy website (seriously, the first ad I see is for "America's secret space program." Uh, huh, sure...) doesn't beat seventeen reputable sources saying he's full of shit. Besides, I (again) should point out that if the U.S. government discovered ETs, they wouldn't be covering it up, they'd be yelling about how evil they are and how we should go to war with them to steal all their stuff "liberate them". Request denied. — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 18:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The claims put forward there don't seem to check out well no. It isn't a 'reliable' source either. — Dysk (contribs) 18:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Area 51 declassification[edit]

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: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)