Talk:Bob Lazar

• Archive 1 - ended 2006

Media coverage

These are a list of articles that may be of use as future references or just may simply be of interest to those who want some more information on Bob Lazar (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ayscough, Suzan (June 11, 1993). "New Line nabs gov't UFO scientist pic". Variety (magazine). Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Zarlengo, Kristina (September 27, 1998). "Waking Up To Dreamland". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Mateja, Jim (September 11, 2004). "Hydrogen fuel-cell cars face bumps in the road". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Pilkington, Mark (May 12, 2005). "Back to the saucers". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Carroll, Jon (June 2, 2006). "Jon Carroll". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Davidson, Keay (November 28, 2006). "Ex-spy's poison on the Internet". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Kindel, George (December 02, 2006). "'I Bought Nuke Poison, And You Can Too!'". Fox News. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Jahn, George (December 6, 2006). "Spy's Death Spotlights Radiation Risks". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Stringer, David (December 8, 2006). "London Bar Focus of Ex-Spy Death Probe". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Paranormal Researcher

The 'paranormal researcher' tag is an inappropriate classification tag for this subject. Encyclopedic topics remain best as such, without compartmentalizing them. Linking to related topics is fine. I'm for removing the tag. DeltaT 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I replaced the paranormal researcher infobox with a more neutral biography infobox. I used the opporunity to post a better copyrighted picture (tv show still), and colour instead of black&white. DeltaT 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Area 19

Why does Area 19 redirect to here? I can't find any references to "Area 19" in the article. I saw that name somewhere and was trying to find out what it is or isn't claimed to be.

Purely guessing: "Area 19" might be the approximate location of Lazar's "S-4" according to old AEC zoning, the same zoning that produced "Area 51". (Renyseneb 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

How bout Area 52?--71.185.193.98 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Random assertions

I just deleted the line about him pandering for prostitution and going bankrupt as it just seems to be spuriously tagged on the end of the intro, with no references.

It is not hard to find references for both claims. A quick Google search brought up [1] and this page mentions both claims with references to newspaper articles and court documents. Nonetheless, I am not reverting your edit since his pandering charge and bankruptcy are completely out of place in the intro (and perhaps should not be included in the article). Phiwum 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in. They are addressed later and this is an article about Lazar not just his UFO claims. It also shows the past, which indictes fianacial and credibility issues.

I respectfully disagree with your edit and have removed it from the intro again. Maybe the fact that he has run several companies is part of his notability and should be mentioned in the intro, but I'm not so sure. The bankruptcy and pandering charge are certainly not appropriate for the introduction. These are not central enough to fit into a small summary of Lazar, which is the point of the intro. I doubt that visiting prostitutes is relevant in any case. Paying for sex is not an indication of "credibility issues". But if this information should go anywhere in the article, let's choose a more appropriate place than the intro. See also Privacy presumption, although I don't know if Lazar counts as a "public figure". I doubt it. (Also, please sign your comments with four tildes.) Phiwum 15:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if the material does come back into the article body, then cite some sources! Phiwum 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the line. I have therefore reserved the right to omit the following paragraph, because
a) it is of insufficient biographical importance,
b) it is depreciative to the subject of the article:

On June 18, 1990, Lazar was convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada of pandering for an illegal prostitute, a felony. A friend of Lazar's, Gene Huff, explained that this occurred because, in a televised interview with George Knapp, Lazar had admitted developing a computerized system to increase the efficiency of the brothel.

DeltaT 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More neutral & fair approach

I have edited the article with regard to the following:

• Longer intro explaining why Lazar is controversial.
• More balance in text length between claims and criticism, each now presenting six paragraphs.
• Omission of the following part, which I think is of insufficient biographical importance to the article:

  In 1995, Gene Huff, a friend of Lazar's, wrote: "At area 51, Bob had to sign a secrecy agreement and an agreement to waive his constitutional rights." Mr. Huff continued: "The clearance he was now attaining would require perpetual monitoring of his activities and would never simply be attained and forgotten about until the next review date. After some abrupt suggestions that he honor his secrecy agreement and watch his general conduct, he and Mariani boarded a bus with blacked out windows and took a 20 to 30 minute ride down a bumpy dirt/gravel road. They arrived at a base near Papoose dry lake bed known as S4."

• Omission of subjective, ill-referenced or unfounded text fragments such as:

  *"Opinions are divided as to the reliability of Lazar's claims. Some say Lazar's story could be true; they argue that his testimony should be taken seriously and that he is the victim of a cover up by the US government. Critics argue that Lazar has made unsupported statements, has a weak grasp of the scientific principles he espouses, or has produced an elaborate hoax."

  *"These areas, according to Lazar, are inhabited by the adventurous (but to date comparatively reclusive) extraterrestrial visitors who could employ it."

  *"In interviews and public appearances he appears to be well-versed in physics — at least to a non-scientific audience."

  *"(...)but there has yet to be a single alumnus of either MIT or Caltech that has backed Lazar's claims by remembering a class taken with Lazar, or having ever seen him at either campus."

• Reserved the right to omit the following paragraph, because
  a) it is of insufficient biographical importance,
  b) it is depreciative to the subject of the article:

  On June 18, 1990, Lazar was convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada of pandering for an illegal prostitute, a felony. A friend of Lazar's, Gene Huff, explained that this occurred because, in a televised interview with George Knapp, Lazar had admitted developing a computerized system to increase the efficiency of the brothel.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeltaT (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

DeltaT 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As of November 2006, another product available through the United Nuclear website is the radioactive isotope Polonium-210, made famous through the death of Alexander Litvinenko. However, United Nuclear is not suspected of any involvement in the case. Its web site currently has a notice aiming to deflect criticism, noting that "You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount" and that "Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison."

(omitted for insufficient biographical importance) -- DeltaT 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller

Omitted the part

"It should be noted that Dr. Teller was approached on several occasions to confirm this fact before his passing, only to reply by stating that he could not discuss such things, and would neither confirm nor deny this fact."

for non-existent reference. DeltaT 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

I added a whole bunch of articles that talk about him, maybe somebody may want to use those articles as references within this article? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nima, I don't see how articles about Litvinenko's death are of sufficient relevance to Lazar's biography. We can't be adding all possible references on the web about Lazar to a Wikipedia article. Although I applaud your effort to expand this article with a further reading section, I have removed your list for that reason. [[DeltaT 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)]]

• you do not simply remove further reading articles, leave them in because they do talk about lazar and may be of interest, that is why its Further Reading (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked the list Nima added. Even if these articles/pages don't focus on Lazar exclusively, they made for interesting reading and give further insights into the man. I think they should be kept. But if they aren't for whatever reason, they should be worked into the article as references, where applicable. --Careax 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion: The links are all to reliable sources per WP:RS, and provide information that the Wikipedia article could never provide - extensive commentary from different points of view. Listing a multitude makes sure the reader is not led to a conclusion, so the links are not violating NPOV either. I see no reason not to include them per WP:EL. A formatting note, it should be made a subsection of "External links", and could perhaps be renamed to "Media coverage" or something like that. --User:Krator (t c) 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an online news agency. Are we to do the same to other Wiki articles then? Provide information on every name in every Wikipedia article when it pops up in some news article? This is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. The references to this article suffice, imho. Further reading could possibly contain a bibliography with books in which Lazar is mentioned. DeltaT 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• is there a rule against this? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against it, but it may be cumbersome to add news links to Wikipedia articles. After all, such a list couldn't be exhaustive and might therefore be considered an arbitrary selection. It's also contradictory with the timeless nature of an encyclopedia -- after all, the list you propose will be outdated in the future and you can't simply add every single news article in which Lazar's name pops up. DeltaT 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nima, could you provide me with examples of other Wikipedia articles where such 'further reading' is added to the already provided External Links section? Thanks, DeltaT 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have found articles with Further links separated from external links, but not combined probably ask on wikipedia main help page (some people probably know of some over there) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• how about this, i moved the links to the discussion page instead so people can access them here until they decide to use them as references or are just curious to read them (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the end, what you propose is a good solution. DeltaT 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nima, why don't you present it in the same form as with Philip Corso's article? Best in a chronological order. 81.245.211.172 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)DeltaT 08:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• sounds good (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nima, please repost your list in a chronological order. Older news items first. Thanks, DeltaT 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Alien intervention

I have removed the chapter Alien intervention with the human race for 10,000 years. This part of Lazar's story is already summarily mentioned in the Testimony section. It doesn't need a new chapter. Readers can consult more on this topic by following the given reference. DeltaT 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Every other day, somebody repastes this section under the article: Alien intervention with the human race for 10,000 years
(History). This time it was user Zondor. DeltaT 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Naval Intelligence

Hi, all. I'm new to this page. I've done a few edits here and there on Wikipedia, but I've just now started an account. I wanted to get some discussion going about the Department of Naval Intelligence. A few weeks ago, I posted the following in the criticism section:

"Lazar's supposed employer, the United States Department of Naval Intelligence does not and has never existed. The real entity is called the Office of Naval Intelligence. This fact suggests that Lazar's W2 and ID card are forgeries."

At the time, my assertion was challenged, labeled vandalism, and removed. After providing some evidence, it was reposted with an edit that I did not personally agree with but was willing to accept. The edit looked like this:

"Lazar's supposed employer, the United States Department of Naval Intelligence is not listed on the Office of Naval Intelligence website." This throws the point I am trying to make into doubt--it removes the neutrality I intended.

Now, it is missing entirely from the page and the criticism section has been changed into "Arguments Pro and Con." Also, the picture of Lazar's entry badge has disappeared.

I feel that I am being short-changed on a simple and valid point. Simply put, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) does exist and the Department of Naval Intelligence does not exist. The Office of Naval Intelligence, the US Navy's intelligence arm, was established in 1882. During World War II, it was briefly called the Department of Naval Intelligence, but it remained the ONI on all of its official literature. Since the war, it has only been known as the ONI.

Maybe I seem like a skeptic, but I want to make sure that the information provided on this website is accurate and helpful to all who may use it. As I mentioned above, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, but I came across a fact that appears to be wrong. We all have the right to edit and that is the beauty of this medium. I just don't think it's right to stifle legitimate, factual information.

The badge was revoked because its origin is uncertain. The W2-slip mentions the Department of Naval Intelligence as an employer. This could be due to an old-fashioned ONI clerk, eg., as the slip is apparently typed by hand. This is not an argument against Lazar's credibility. The slip has been studied by accredited reporter George Knapp for its validity. Who, by the way, also performed a succesful lie detector test on mr. Lazar and has found multiple witnesses corroborating Lazar worked at Los Alamos. DeltaT 01:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions.. what agency "accredits" reporters?

and, is it possible that the older agency name was used because it accords with the IRS EIN on the form and the IRS

records were never updated, so the old name is used to avoid confusion at the tax office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is suggested that the Department of Naval Intelligence is a front for the Office of Naval Intelligence. In this type of covert government work, it can be expected that this would be the case. Author Bob Oechsler traced the slip through the IRS, and according to Bob Lazar, this lead back to the Navy. See Bob Lazar at "The Ultimate UFO Seminar", Transcript from Conference Held at Little A-Le-Inn, Rachel, Nevada, May 1, 1993. DeltaT 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Crap loads of...

I've removed the line "Crap loads of" from the line "Crap loads of scientific skepticism" as it's either subtle vandalism or just bad WP writing skill. 97.82.247.200 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody seen Mr. Lazar's video of Dreamland? He comes across as smart and credible. I don't know what to think. I find the fact that nobody can verify his degrees as questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.192.184 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a theoretical physicist and have a side interest in debunking, my professional opinion of Lazar is that he is full of shit. Just a few highlights for you:

1) No such things a "two types of gravity wave" it is impossible to convey how wrong this is. Lazar does not make even a passing comment that he is proposing an entirely new model of gravity, if his model is correct he could collect a Nobel prize, by outlining his theory of gravitation.

2) He claims element 115 is used as the fuel, although it has a half life of <1 ms, meaning it would all decay before you could use it.

3) He claims the above argument is not valid as his 115 was made in a far off region of space and given to him by Aliens. Sadly for Lazar the nucleus of an atom does not depend on how it was made, the laws of physics are the same everywhere, if some nucleons can be fused then a nucleus exists and is uniquely defined, there are no extra degree's of freedom (a common analogy is to think about water and bottled water, same molecule) quantum mechanically both have the same properties, e.g. they both boil at the same temperature, they are both stable, incompressible fluids etc. In nuclear physics there are not different types of protons, or different types of the same nucleus, you can make an isotope but you can never make two different types of the same thing it is impossible. Uranium is Uranium, and Helium is Helium. There is no such thing as magic Lazar 115 and normal 115.

4) Lazar states the 115 nucleus (which is positively charged) has a proton injected into it (which is also positively charged). However, this would require a nuclear fusion reactor, far more powerful than anything we can imagine, due to the massive repulsion between the p and the 115 nucleus. Lazar does not seem to realise this and makes no comment on it, but he does find the time to tell us that the 115 is cut into triangles and other such nonsense.

5) He states that the gravity wave is amplified, although he gives no details as to how this is done, he should write up the details and collect a second Nobel prize if he really knew how to do this.

Credentials For and Against

There is currently a section of the article with this very strange title. What the heck is it supposed to mean? What is the point of the section? It appears to present a few arguments supporting Lazar's credibility or claims and a few opposing, so it's more or less a "Criticisms and Rebuttals" section (well, not quite, since some arguments are clearly "pro" rather than mere rebuttals).

In any case, the current title is pretty odd. What meaning of "credential" is used here? Phiwum 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

Could he be Disinformation or Misinformation in some nefarious scheme? --71.185.193.98 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My criticism of Delta T's Reverts

I made a number of changes to this article when I was not signed in and I regret that I did this and also that I did not further explain my changes, nevertheless DT's reverts do not make a lot of sense to me. Basically my changes consisted of putting language in the description of Lazar's claims to make it abundantly clear that his claims were just that, claims, and not proven fact. Also I put in a statement about Lazar's W-2 that indicated that most likely he was not doing scientific work for the Navy due to his low pay. When I have more time, I intend to put these changes back and perhaps DT and I can reach an agreement on what is a more acceptible article, as I do not feel that the article at present is.Chattanoogan (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. I was looking around the internet about area 19/52/51 because I was simply bored and I came to wikipeida (which I have had an account for the past 2 years) and I found this article to be very bias toward Lazar's claims. DT seems to be ensuring that the article favors Lazar's claims. This is not within the guidelines of wikipeida's neutrality standards. I also think its interesting how DT's thesis was in "Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life" which leads me to believe that's the reason he is making this article more bias towards Lazar. Please make this article more neutral. --Tm1000 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting quite fed up with DeltaT's constant editing of this article, if anyone puts anything showing Lazar in a bad light (which frankly is almost anything) then it is removed by DeltaT. I see that DeltaT is the webmaster for such sites as a mirror of Lazar's website, not exactly an unbiased wikipedian! Please stop controlling this page.

As a side point, why do we need to link to a mirror site? It's a prima facie copyright violation unless it's specifally authorized. The main site has a notice: "© Copyright 1992-2008 JFI. www.jfi.net All rights reserved. No art or material can be copied and used without written permission of the publisher, JFI.". I'm gogint to delete that link. If the main site goes down permanently then a case moght be made for linking to a mirror. Otherwise it appears unnecessary. As for the other issue, I encourage all editors to use the talk page to discuss significant changes, epsecially those that remove properly sourced information. Any derogatory or negative inofrmaiton needs to be epsecially well-sourced, since this is a BLP.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed the "Boblazar.com" link, as it a false link and upon clicking on it, Kaspersky detected a trojan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.35.37 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrible article.

Terrible article Lazar has no credibility what so ever not to mention you fail to mention his pandering charges and the fact that when faced with a perjury charge Lazar did not repeat his MIT and Cal-Tech claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have watched Lazar's videos (and I am a physicist). It is evident that he has no grasp of physics. He reinvents and abuses terminology which is commonly excepted, suggests a device which violates conservation of momentum and requires an unstable element to function. He does not appear to know the stability of a nucleus does not depend on how the nucleus was formed, most of what he says is "not even wrong", it's just nonsense. Moreover he has published no papers in either journals or conference preceedings. In short this man is not honest. I believe this article in trying to be fair paints a false picture. Also the article says citation needed to back up the claim that element 115 is unstable here is one

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2004/NR-04-02-01.html

At the risk of offending the people who've put a lot of effort into this article, the sense that I get is that Mr Lazar merits, at most, a footnote in an article (if one is even needed) that addresses claims like the ones that he makes. That is, given the scant evidence that he is who he says he is, given the fairly compelling evidence that he has made any attempt to rebut the charges against him (e.g., just how hard would it be to produce a diploma from MIT?), how is he notable at all? I say this as someone who's open-minded about aliens and the like. But if one steps back from this article, and asks how Lazar differs from those who make other astounding claims of being a god, seeing bigfoot, or having visited Atlantis, the differences don't seem that great. The fact that he was interviewed on a TV show that looked into alien visits surely can't be sufficient for Wiki inclusion, since that show itself is controversial.

Again, if Lazar must be mentioned, why not a citation in an article devoted to such shows? E.g., "A number of people claim to have first-hand knowledge of government projects.... One person claims to have been employed by the .... etc." Would someone who claims to have taken photos of bigfoot, but who cannot prove any related claims, receive a wiki article?

To the extent that Wiki discourages "unverified" or "personal" research, it seems that a person whose claims amount to just that (if they reach that level) shouldn't be given the credibility that a Wiki article denotes. Maybe someone can start a Wiki article about people who allege to have "inside" info re: UFOs. But if one looks into such people, they often provide much more documentation than Lazar does.

Even if Lazar had published in Physics journals, that would change little, unless his publications had to do with the type of claims he makes about UFOs. C d h (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are all valid points you raise. My take on this article is that his BS shines through splendidly; and I'm not a physicist. The overwhelming lack of proof/verifiable evidence puts it all into the category of conjecture and hearsay. His only point of notability is a newspaper published the story; and that his was the first. I think the weakness of his claims is established to a rather sufficient degree. The fact that he's entirely ignored by credible sources speaks volumes, doesn't it?_Disarray^General 06:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazar is not a physicist

I object to Lazar being classed as a physicist. He is at best a delusional technician and at worst a conman. Here is my evidence

1) No university degree, no PhD, no record of attending any physics conferences
2) NO PUBLICATIONS. In any physics journals, or any scientific journals
3) It is clear from his videos to any trained physicist that he would struggle to pass even a high school physics test let alone reverse engineer advanced technology as he claims
4) He is not a member of the National Inst of Physicst, American Institute of Physics or any other professional body.

I think I will stop there but you get the idea. There is no evidence that he has done any physics. If you classify Lazar as a physicist then you could classify anyone as almost anything.

It would be useful (and necessary) to provide references for this "evidence". Without any the changes contributed to the article do not comply with policies like Cite Sources or Verifiability. It unfortunately only amounts to what's known in Wiki as Original Research, and cannot be included without providing third party published sources. Are you aware of any we can cite? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will try 1) I can not prove. 2) I can provide strong evidence. Searchig web of knowledge, http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/ does not show anything for this Lazar (you need an athens account so i have pasted the results below)

Title: Variability in language recovery after first-time stroke Author(s): Lazar, RM; Speizer, AE; Festa, JR, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY Volume: 79 Issue: 5 Pages: 530-534 Published: 2008 Times Cited: 0

Title: Ipsilateral motor dysfunction from unilateral stroke: implications for the functional neuroanatomy of hemiparesis Author(s): Noskin, O; Krakauer, JW; Lazar, RM, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY Volume: 79 Issue: 4 Pages: 401-406 Published: 2008 Times Cited: 0

Title: Nicotinic control of axon excitability regulates thalamocortical transmission Author(s): Kawai, H; Lazar, R; Metherate, R Source: NATURE NEUROSCIENCE Volume: 10 Issue: 9 Pages: 1168-1175 Published: SEP 2007 Times Cited: 1

Title: Computerized retrieval and classification: An application to reasons for late filings with the securities and exchange commission Author(s): Feldman, R; Rosenfeld, B; Lazar, R, et al. Source: INTELLIGENT DATA ANALYSIS Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Pages: 183-195 Published: 2006 Times Cited: 0

Title: Spectral integration in primary auditory cortex: Laminar processing of afferent input, in vivo and in vitro Author(s): Kaur, S; Rose, HJ; Lazar, R, et al. Source: NEUROSCIENCE Volume: 134 Issue: 3 Pages: 1033-1045 Published: 2005 Times Cited: 4

Title: Together better. Putting to work in a sole facility the wind the sun and the wave power Author(s): Lazar, R Conference Information: 23rd IEEE Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Date: SEP 06-07, 2004 Tel Aviv ISRAEL Source: 2004 23RD IEEE CONVENTION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS IN ISRAEL, PROCEEDINGS Pages: 358-359 Published: 2004

Title: Intracortical pathways determine breadth of subthreshold frequency receptive fields in primary auditory cortex Author(s): Kaur, S; Lazar, R; Metherate, R Source: JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY Volume: 91 Issue: 6 Pages: 2551-2567 Published: JUN 2004 Times Cited: 26

Title: Biomonitoring of bioavailable PAH and PCB water concentrations in the Detroit River using the freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata Author(s): Gewurtz, SB; Lazar, R; Haffner, GD Source: JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH Volume: 29 Issue: 2 Pages: 242-255 Published: 2003 Times Cited: 4

Title: Spectral interactions, but no mismatch negativity, in auditory cortex of anesthetized rat Author(s): Lazar, R; Metherate, R Source: HEARING RESEARCH Volume: 181 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 51-56 Published: JUL 2003 Times Cited: 8

Title: Knowing hatred Author(s): Lazar, R Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS Volume: 84 Pages: 405-425 Part: 2 Published: APR 2003 Times Cited: 3

Title: Using the fuel cell technology to produce electricity from hydrogen electrolyzing seawater and as a by-product desalinized water. Author(s): Lazar, R Conference Information: 22nd Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Date: DEC 01, 2002 TEL AVIV ISRAEL Source: 22ND CONVENTION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS IN ISRAEL, PROCEEDINGS Pages: 44-46 Published: 2002

Title: Quantitative biomonitoring of PAHs using the Barnes mussel (Elliptio complanata) Author(s): Gewurtz, SB; Drouillard, KG; Lazar, R, et al. Source: ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Volume: 43 Issue: 4 Pages: 497-504 Published: NOV 2002 Times Cited: 9

Title: First results of the urban climate analysis of Ljubljana Author(s): Lazar, R; Jernej, S Source: METEOROLOGISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT Volume: 10 Issue: 4 Pages: 273-276 Published: 2001 Times Cited: 2

Title: A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke Author(s): Mohr, JP; Thompson, JLP; Lazar, RM, et al. Source: NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Volume: 345 Issue: 20 Pages: 1444-1451 Published: NOV 15 2001 Times Cited: 265

I also searched arxiv, see

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+R+Lazar/0/1/0/all/0/1

This provides a dozen papers, again none appear to be the Lazar dicusssed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.186.212 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also searching the iop and aip websites for Lazar shows nothing. 3) I can not prove Lazar knows nothing without doing "original research". Although i'm sure there are many other physicists who are part of wikipedia perhaps they could be asked? I thought the burden of proof should be on others to provide some evidence that he has done some physics.

All that one needs to provide content is a published source. Since his claims were published in newspapers they can be provided in his bio. The burden of evidence is on the editor contributing the content per WP:BURDEN. The policy even goes so far as to cover "verifiable not necessarily true" _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand. Thank you for your response. Just to claify. I could write out a simple proof showing that the antimatter "propulsion device" he worked on provides no net thrust. Would I be able to add this? Or would I need to publish it first and then cite it? The problem is no physics journal would accept it as it's trivial. No newspaper would publish it as it's too technical/boring. I can't just add it to the article as it's original research. So what can i do?

It could be argued that even without analysing his claims his terminology gives him away. He says things like gravity A and gravity B or weak and strong gravity. There is no such thing, this suggest either he knows about a new theory of gravitation (he could go and collect his Nobel prize if this were true) or he doesn't know what he's talking about. He probably heard the terms strong and weak nuclear forces and tried to use them to sound like a physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.186.212 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are all valid points you raise. My take on this article is that his BS shines through splendidly; and I'm not a physicist. The overwhelming lack of proof/verifiable evidence puts it all into the category of conjecture and hearsay. His only point of notability is a newspaper published the story; and that his was the first. I think the weakness of his claims is established to a rather sufficient degree. The fact that he's entirely ignored by credible sources speaks volumes, doesn't it?

To answer the questions asked, I don't believe just publishing a rebuttal on a web page qualifies as a "published source". We have to rely on what's been published by reliable sources. The one you provided was a great one. We can likely add content and avoid original research issues by providing sources about what's verifiable about things like element 115, etc. Overall I think the silence from credible sources speaks a lot to his claims, and wouldn't worry myself too much about all this. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To claim Lazar is something/anything we, as pointed out above, need WP:RS. Since we have no independent third party sources to demonstrate Lazar has a graduate degree, he should not be called a Physicist, without noting that he is "Self-proclaimed Physicist." If independent sources can prove that he does have physics graduate degree then we wouldn't need to WP:ATT. Until such time, he is the only one claiming to be a physicist. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanton Friedman on Lazar

Something that may be worth working into the article is what Friedman has to say about Lazar, here's just one article from his site;

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sflazar.html

titled, "The Bob Lazar Fraud". I think this is the closest we could get to someone of note commenting on Lazar, Friedman is a well known ufologist, and also has an actual verifiable degree in physics, and worked in this capacity for a number of notable companies before becoming a ufologist. His wiki page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehahoogobob (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

While citing him as a source would be fine, I can't glean anything from his article that doesn't already exist in this bio. What would you propose is included from Friedman's paper? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, it would name a specific critic, which the current article lacks. Secondly it would actually cite some of the criticism. Thirdly, because Friedman is well-known in the field of UFOs and has a PhD he is an expert in this regard and his opinion has value here. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!

GAH i hate this entry... "claims," "alleges"... it's so bend-over-backwards skeptical.

"Robert Scott Lazar (January 26, 1959), or Bob Lazar, claims to be a physicist and owner of a mail-order scientific supply company who claims to have worked from 1988 until 1989 at an area he alleges exists called "S-4" (Sector Four). He claims that S-4 is situated at the edge of the (dry) Papoose Lake bed, near Groom Lake, Nevada, about 15 miles from Area 51. Lazar claims this area was devoted to the study and reverse engineering of extraterrestrial space vehicles. In a series of interviews, he provides supposed details on the origin of the alleged craft and their mode of propulsion."

Retarded! How many times do you have to rub it in that it's just a CLAIM or something he ALLEGES. Stop mutilating the English language, Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You must attribute claims to a single source--one who clearly has no understanding of science (a junior college drop out) and was a former photography processor. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

self-employed photo processor on documents

I added the Los Angeles Times who looked into his background and found that in 1990 Lazar had pled guilty to felony pandering, declared bankruptcy and listed his occupation as self-employed photo processor on documents. This is a much more solid source that the UFO links supplied. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What is pandering???71.123.94.189 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

When reading the article it does make me question if he deserves the physicist tag.

Los Alamos

The article doesn't mention that he claims to have worked at Los Alamos. That claim is somewhat easy to validate, as there is an article in Los Alamos Monitor on him showing him dealing with jet car (according to the video the issue was volume 27, number 127). That was prior to his UFO claim. See this video: about 2:30 minutes into the video --Voidvector (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad grammar

 This article has some bad grammar and the meaning of a sentence is lost.  Someone please fix this.  I am not sure of the original intended meaning.

"Lazar describes how he was given top secret ent by extraterrestrial people with this planet was divulged."

How did this get by the editors? 67.34.133.212 (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been some serious vandalism, but I reverted the problem. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad sources 9-15

Revision of 02:20, 24 May 2009 [2] is in infraction of [[3]]: contentious material about living persons. Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. An encyclopedia article presents clear, concised and well referenced information. It's not relevant whether a person was arrested during his life, or whether another person (i.e. Stanton Friedman) doesn't believe what he has to say. Wikipedia is not a gossip corner. DeltaT (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanton Friedman's website is a reliable source - "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with Hipocrite. Friedman's material is WP:RS as his work is widely cited and his considered an expert on UFO-related claims. More importantly, that specific quote is WP:ATT. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DeltaT's white wash

DeltaT (talk · contribs) wrote "Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" then white washed the whole article.

I'd like to know why DeltaT removed WP:RS about Lazar's past and the legal problems of his business. The sources about calling into question his claims include two articles in the Los Angeles Times, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Newsweek, Albuquerque Tribune, and Wired. DeltaT removed these sources and simply left George Knapp's uncritical reports, which have been widely criticized.

DeltaT if you have a particular claim you think relates to WP:BLP then quote it here and discuss it. Do not whitewash the article just because you think its negative. I also recommend you read WP:NPOV. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If all he did was remove the business info we could have a discussion about that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your revision of 02:20, 24 May 2009 [4] is in infraction of [[5]]: contentious material about living persons. Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In other words, I have a problem with criticism by 'ufologist' Stanton Friedman, and with the info about Lazar's arrest. Compare the article to another article: eg. about Einstein. Does such an article present similar unwarranted biographical information? DeltaT (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provisionally removed the information sourced only to Friedman, as that may be a relevent criticizm. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DeltaT, I suggest you read WP:BLP and quote things IN CONTEXT. BLP reads: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Are you saying two articles in the Los Angeles Times, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Newsweek, Albuquerque Tribune, and Wired are poor sources?

Specifically, I ask again, what issues do you have? Quote what you consider to be "contentious material". BBiiis08 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)