I’ve always enjoyed science fiction, in part because such big things tend to be at stake there. But over the decades as I’ve learned more about the world, the less sense most of it makes. And I enjoy it less. Authors work hard to have their stories make sufficient sense to their median reader or reviewer, but not much beyond that.
Realize this is an old thread but it's a long living subject so I'll give my 2 non-cents ;)
Lazar does seem more believable now but this may indicate that he's more refined in his hoax (assuming it is), or believes it himself. He uses a lot of "I don't care if you believe me" language now, putting the responsibility of "proof" on the public.
He contradicted his prior accounts on the alien bodies, claiming now that he only flashed a glance, yet in 1980-? he claims "alien cadavers" and is much more certain.
And he states "scientists don't even understand gravity, this is an anti-gravity amplifier, etc" yet he claims with confidence that it's powered by an "anti-matter" device (we understand this less than gravity) this is a huge "flag" for me, and I WANT TO BELIEVE :)
"George Knapp is an investigate reporter and supposedly did find people that confirmed that they knew Lazar at MIT or CalTech but that none of them would publicly repeat those claims."
Bull. Cite that. And then tell me how he didn't appear in any printed (or microfiched) student handbooks.
Kenny, I appreciate your answers but they're not responsive to my argument, which is that gov't coverup folks would never even *attempt* to make Lazar's university records go away (certainly not at both universities, as Lazar has claimed), because the risks would vastly outweigh the expected rewards, for the reasons given in my argument. I am interested to see you respond to that argument in its own terms, stating what about it you find plausible and what not, and why.
I thought so too, but after reading Lazar's book, it basically represents the 'official' narrative that Lazar, and others, have described as being the result of attempts to punish and discredit him.
George Knapp is an investigate reporter and supposedly did find people that confirmed that they knew Lazar at MIT or CalTech but that none of them would publicly repeat those claims. He also went with Lazar and a camera-person to Los Alamos and walked around the campus there and spoke to several people.
I find it extremely plausible that Lazar's seemingly absurd claims have dissuaded any other reporters or investigators from also investigating.
What's your explanation for George Knapp's claims and behavior? Do you think he's in on a conspiracy with Lazar to defraud the public?
I think you're drastically underestimating how 'weird' this also seems to outsiders. Lazar's claims are extremely outlandish – absurd even. He claims to have earned degrees at two institutions both of which, supposedly, claim that he never attended any classes there. It's definitely not obvious what's true in all of this.
Kenny,1) My argument doesn't depend on highly-credible counter evidence *ever* surfacing, only on the all-but-undeniable *risk* that this might happen.2) As for your breakin/hacking hypothesis, this *adds* the risk that even the schools' own data will be incompletely expunged, which itself would a) eliminate any incremental benefit of this harebrained scheme, b) create its own highly-credible counter evidence as a side effect.3) Finally, as to your flies-to-honey doubt: Did you get that under the relevant hypothetical, it is *publicly known with high credibility that Lazar's official records have been *wiped clean from Caltech or MIT, despite his having been awarded a degree there*? This is, to put it mildly, extremely unusual. It radically revises the a priori likelihood of something interesting having occurred, AND hands reporters a virtual investigative roadmap: a) further confirm expungement at institution A, b) investigate expungement at institution B, c) on to Lazar's core claims, armed w/ dynamite. If you don't see this as attracting some serious investigative attention (esp. since witnesses are likely still alive - it's only been 30 years), I don't know what to say except lucky for you that you're not an investigative reporter or a gov't coverup architect:-)
You don't have to believe the info I found - you could easily google and find it yourself. Instead, you defensively recoil from anything that disrupts your conspiratorial worldview, it seems.Lazar did indeed claim his school records were erased - which is not possible for the reasons outlined.
"I would probably struggle to remember the exact year when I graduated from college."
The 'in-narrative' explanation would be that there isn't in fact much "highly-credible" counter-evidence. Most sources would be reluctant to make their claims directly in public. And "the Feds" might have erased/expunged Lazar's records themselves, directly, e.g. by breaking-in to destroy physical records or hacking the relevant computer systems.
I'm also skeptical that "This would be flies to honey for serious investigative reporters." – the "batshit crazy" claims Lazar's made are seem sufficiently 'absurd' to dissuade serious reporters from wanting to investigate further.
Agreed – but the 'in-narrative' explanation, based on my understanding of reading the book and watching the Rogan podcast episode, is that doing so puts those people at risk of retaliation, e.g. of having security clearances revoked.
After reading the book, I noted some discrepancies between it and what was mentioned in the Rogan podcast episode. I'm going to try to publish those details somewhere and link to it here.
One thing I'm curious about is whether, assuming that the vehicles do travel via 'gravitational propulsion', it's plausible that they could travel here even from the relatively 'close' distance of several dozen light years. The vehicles are all very small so not likely to be able to store provisions for long periods. Maybe sufficient time dilation implies that the 'local' travel duration for the vehicles and its crew would be much shorter. Or maybe the 'crew' could 'feed' off of the vehicle's reactor's energy directly?
Based only on what I see here I find the notion that the Feds prevailed on MIT and Caltech to expunge Lazar's records totally implausible.
Say you're the Feds. You've erased Lazar from gov't records, and his story's batshit-crazy. So now you're going to try to erase him from Caltech *and* MIT, to somewhat further damage his credibility? You *might* strong-arm both institutions to expunge him from their records, and you *might* with sufficient effort bury most or even (if you're lucky) *all* highly-credible evidence of his enrollment at both institutions. But you've created a huge problem: The *risk that you didn't* - that some highly-credible evidence remains.
Because if *that* comes to light, *now* you've got Lazar's story *plus* highly-credible evidence that Caltech or MIT expunged Lazar's records. This would be flies to honey for serious investigative reporters. Your entire coverup is in deep shit.
And even if this analysis is somehow so wrong that school-expungement becomes a good move, why expunge at *both* institutions, when expunging at only the *easier* one would garner a majority of the benefit w/ a minority of the effort and risks?
I don't know good accounts of hoaxes, but your description of your preferences sounds like you'd enjoy biographies of authoritarian dictators, or histories of major revolutions. These tend to be very thoroughly studied, so there's a broad range of options for most of the obvious subjects.
"other people claiming to have contacted people that knew him" - it would have been far more persuasive to hear directly from those other people on the film.
There are some factual claims in his book like the dates when he supposedly met with Don Juan. They turned to be false as the library records showed that he was in the library in some of that days.
And he was not delusional - he knows exactly what he is doing. One of his main goals was supporting the belief inside inner circle. The belief was so strong that 5 his "wives" committed suicide after his death.
Who are you and why is your claim to remembering "looking into him" 20 something years ago evidence worth considering? (I'm genuinely curious.) Do you have any records of your investigation?
I just watched a video with clips of other people claiming to have contacted people that knew him at both MIT and CalTech.
Are all students at MIT or CalTech around those same times listed in "the paper or microfiched student 'meat books'"? Surely those records could have been altered too, tho I'd guess that would be difficult to do comprehensively. Like a lot of issues involving 'dueling authorities', this seems very difficult to evaluate as an outsider.
I would probably struggle to remember the exact year when I graduated from college. I graduated a semester early too so the year of my final semester might not match the 'official' records exactly. And I believe he claimed to have received graduate degrees from both MIT and CalTech and I'd expect people's memories to be less precise for the years they graduated from similar programs than for the year they graduated with an undergraduate degree, not having subsequently continued on into graduate degree programs.
I've seen several mentions of him being listed in a hard-copy phone book of Los Alamos personnel but also that supposedly reps of Los Alamos denied him ever working there any in capacity before that evidence was discovered. I'm also unsure whether a conversational claim to have worked at an organization like Los Alamos might be made even if someone's formal employer was an outside contractor.
Is your mentioning him claiming to be a film processor when declaring bankruptcy implying that that's strong evidence against him ever (e.g. at other times) doing the kind of work he claims otherwise? The Wikipedia article about also claims he owns or works for some kind of chemical company so it doesn't seem that strange that he also might have processed film, in some capacity, at some earlier point.
His Wikipedia article also mentions that he was convicted of some kind of prostitution crime(s) since he supposedly work with alien technology (or did anything else that's disputed). I'm note sure what to think about that!
I remember looking into him in the early 90s and I remember he claimed to have gone to MIT but no one at school or any labs remembers him. No claims of dean knowing him, thesis advisor, etc remembers him and he's not in the paper or microfiched student 'meat books'. Similarly, no record of his attending CalTech either. He claims his background was "erased" but you cannot erase names in long-ago printed student address books.
When asked when he graduated from MIT he aid "probably 1982" - seriously, does anyone not remember the year they graduated from college?
Lazar claimed he worked for Los Alamos but according to the phone book at the time of his employment he was listed as an outside contractor
When he declared bankruptcy in the 80s he listed his occupation as a film processor.
Realize this is an old thread but it's a long living subject so I'll give my 2 non-cents ;)
Lazar does seem more believable now but this may indicate that he's more refined in his hoax (assuming it is), or believes it himself. He uses a lot of "I don't care if you believe me" language now, putting the responsibility of "proof" on the public.
He contradicted his prior accounts on the alien bodies, claiming now that he only flashed a glance, yet in 1980-? he claims "alien cadavers" and is much more certain.
And he states "scientists don't even understand gravity, this is an anti-gravity amplifier, etc" yet he claims with confidence that it's powered by an "anti-matter" device (we understand this less than gravity) this is a huge "flag" for me, and I WANT TO BELIEVE :)
"George Knapp is an investigate reporter and supposedly did find people that confirmed that they knew Lazar at MIT or CalTech but that none of them would publicly repeat those claims."
Bull. Cite that. And then tell me how he didn't appear in any printed (or microfiched) student handbooks.
Kenny, I appreciate your answers but they're not responsive to my argument, which is that gov't coverup folks would never even *attempt* to make Lazar's university records go away (certainly not at both universities, as Lazar has claimed), because the risks would vastly outweigh the expected rewards, for the reasons given in my argument. I am interested to see you respond to that argument in its own terms, stating what about it you find plausible and what not, and why.
I thought so too, but after reading Lazar's book, it basically represents the 'official' narrative that Lazar, and others, have described as being the result of attempts to punish and discredit him.
George Knapp is an investigate reporter and supposedly did find people that confirmed that they knew Lazar at MIT or CalTech but that none of them would publicly repeat those claims. He also went with Lazar and a camera-person to Los Alamos and walked around the campus there and spoke to several people.
I find it extremely plausible that Lazar's seemingly absurd claims have dissuaded any other reporters or investigators from also investigating.
What's your explanation for George Knapp's claims and behavior? Do you think he's in on a conspiracy with Lazar to defraud the public?
I think you're drastically underestimating how 'weird' this also seems to outsiders. Lazar's claims are extremely outlandish – absurd even. He claims to have earned degrees at two institutions both of which, supposedly, claim that he never attended any classes there. It's definitely not obvious what's true in all of this.
Kenny,1) My argument doesn't depend on highly-credible counter evidence *ever* surfacing, only on the all-but-undeniable *risk* that this might happen.2) As for your breakin/hacking hypothesis, this *adds* the risk that even the schools' own data will be incompletely expunged, which itself would a) eliminate any incremental benefit of this harebrained scheme, b) create its own highly-credible counter evidence as a side effect.3) Finally, as to your flies-to-honey doubt: Did you get that under the relevant hypothetical, it is *publicly known with high credibility that Lazar's official records have been *wiped clean from Caltech or MIT, despite his having been awarded a degree there*? This is, to put it mildly, extremely unusual. It radically revises the a priori likelihood of something interesting having occurred, AND hands reporters a virtual investigative roadmap: a) further confirm expungement at institution A, b) investigate expungement at institution B, c) on to Lazar's core claims, armed w/ dynamite. If you don't see this as attracting some serious investigative attention (esp. since witnesses are likely still alive - it's only been 30 years), I don't know what to say except lucky for you that you're not an investigative reporter or a gov't coverup architect:-)
You don't have to believe the info I found - you could easily google and find it yourself. Instead, you defensively recoil from anything that disrupts your conspiratorial worldview, it seems.Lazar did indeed claim his school records were erased - which is not possible for the reasons outlined.
"I would probably struggle to remember the exact year when I graduated from college."
Dude I am laughing so hard at you right now.
The 'in-narrative' explanation would be that there isn't in fact much "highly-credible" counter-evidence. Most sources would be reluctant to make their claims directly in public. And "the Feds" might have erased/expunged Lazar's records themselves, directly, e.g. by breaking-in to destroy physical records or hacking the relevant computer systems.
I'm also skeptical that "This would be flies to honey for serious investigative reporters." – the "batshit crazy" claims Lazar's made are seem sufficiently 'absurd' to dissuade serious reporters from wanting to investigate further.
Agreed – but the 'in-narrative' explanation, based on my understanding of reading the book and watching the Rogan podcast episode, is that doing so puts those people at risk of retaliation, e.g. of having security clearances revoked.
After reading the book, I noted some discrepancies between it and what was mentioned in the Rogan podcast episode. I'm going to try to publish those details somewhere and link to it here.
One thing I'm curious about is whether, assuming that the vehicles do travel via 'gravitational propulsion', it's plausible that they could travel here even from the relatively 'close' distance of several dozen light years. The vehicles are all very small so not likely to be able to store provisions for long periods. Maybe sufficient time dilation implies that the 'local' travel duration for the vehicles and its crew would be much shorter. Or maybe the 'crew' could 'feed' off of the vehicle's reactor's energy directly?
Lazar's Wikipedia page doesn't make him seem very credible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Based only on what I see here I find the notion that the Feds prevailed on MIT and Caltech to expunge Lazar's records totally implausible.
Say you're the Feds. You've erased Lazar from gov't records, and his story's batshit-crazy. So now you're going to try to erase him from Caltech *and* MIT, to somewhat further damage his credibility? You *might* strong-arm both institutions to expunge him from their records, and you *might* with sufficient effort bury most or even (if you're lucky) *all* highly-credible evidence of his enrollment at both institutions. But you've created a huge problem: The *risk that you didn't* - that some highly-credible evidence remains.
Because if *that* comes to light, *now* you've got Lazar's story *plus* highly-credible evidence that Caltech or MIT expunged Lazar's records. This would be flies to honey for serious investigative reporters. Your entire coverup is in deep shit.
And even if this analysis is somehow so wrong that school-expungement becomes a good move, why expunge at *both* institutions, when expunging at only the *easier* one would garner a majority of the benefit w/ a minority of the effort and risks?
I don't know good accounts of hoaxes, but your description of your preferences sounds like you'd enjoy biographies of authoritarian dictators, or histories of major revolutions. These tend to be very thoroughly studied, so there's a broad range of options for most of the obvious subjects.
"other people claiming to have contacted people that knew him" - it would have been far more persuasive to hear directly from those other people on the film.
There are some factual claims in his book like the dates when he supposedly met with Don Juan. They turned to be false as the library records showed that he was in the library in some of that days.
And he was not delusional - he knows exactly what he is doing. One of his main goals was supporting the belief inside inner circle. The belief was so strong that 5 his "wives" committed suicide after his death.
Who are you and why is your claim to remembering "looking into him" 20 something years ago evidence worth considering? (I'm genuinely curious.) Do you have any records of your investigation?
I just watched a video with clips of other people claiming to have contacted people that knew him at both MIT and CalTech.
Are all students at MIT or CalTech around those same times listed in "the paper or microfiched student 'meat books'"? Surely those records could have been altered too, tho I'd guess that would be difficult to do comprehensively. Like a lot of issues involving 'dueling authorities', this seems very difficult to evaluate as an outsider.
I would probably struggle to remember the exact year when I graduated from college. I graduated a semester early too so the year of my final semester might not match the 'official' records exactly. And I believe he claimed to have received graduate degrees from both MIT and CalTech and I'd expect people's memories to be less precise for the years they graduated from similar programs than for the year they graduated with an undergraduate degree, not having subsequently continued on into graduate degree programs.
I've seen several mentions of him being listed in a hard-copy phone book of Los Alamos personnel but also that supposedly reps of Los Alamos denied him ever working there any in capacity before that evidence was discovered. I'm also unsure whether a conversational claim to have worked at an organization like Los Alamos might be made even if someone's formal employer was an outside contractor.
Is your mentioning him claiming to be a film processor when declaring bankruptcy implying that that's strong evidence against him ever (e.g. at other times) doing the kind of work he claims otherwise? The Wikipedia article about also claims he owns or works for some kind of chemical company so it doesn't seem that strange that he also might have processed film, in some capacity, at some earlier point.
His Wikipedia article also mentions that he was convicted of some kind of prostitution crime(s) since he supposedly work with alien technology (or did anything else that's disputed). I'm note sure what to think about that!
I remember looking into him in the early 90s and I remember he claimed to have gone to MIT but no one at school or any labs remembers him. No claims of dean knowing him, thesis advisor, etc remembers him and he's not in the paper or microfiched student 'meat books'. Similarly, no record of his attending CalTech either. He claims his background was "erased" but you cannot erase names in long-ago printed student address books.
When asked when he graduated from MIT he aid "probably 1982" - seriously, does anyone not remember the year they graduated from college?
Lazar claimed he worked for Los Alamos but according to the phone book at the time of his employment he was listed as an outside contractor
When he declared bankruptcy in the 80s he listed his occupation as a film processor.