Talk:Robert Lazar/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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

The WP section on United Nuclear has some good dirt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar#United_Nuclear ^{d hominem} 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Element 115

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.

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)

This shit reads like Conservapedia. If the rest of rational wiki is like this, it will be about as useful. --64.254.187.237 (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WAAAHHH!! YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY IDOL'S DUBIOUS CLAIMS!!! WAH!!!! Ahem, now that I've finished mocking you for failing to think critically concerning a blatant grifter, (his whole sob story is a blatant hook to get people to buy his supplements) do you actually have any evidence for space aliens or did you just come here to bitch like a child? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction, "products" not "supplements", I was thinking of Joe Rogan. My point still stands though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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)