Talk:Bob Lazar

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) [Did you expect him to list his occupation as "Researcher - Extraterrestrial Technology" on his documents? LOL]

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

A panderer is a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute, or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse. -- Singe onion (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't know why Freakyflow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a fact tag to the source. The Times clearly talks about the court records so I've removed the tag. 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also part of that conviction was mandatory mental health sessions! HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Education section needs some work?

Much of the section about Lazar's education or claims of qualifications is actually about his criminal record. Shouldn't the section be split into three:

• Education (could be expanded to mention Lazar's BSc in Physics and Electronic Technology, by correspondence from Pacifica University)
• Criminal record to get a section of its own, and
• Michael Hesemann's evidence (which is about his alleged work but currently appears in the education section)

--Singe onion (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pacifica University" is an infamous unaccredited diploma mill. Their "degrees" would not be recognized by any science or engineering program in academia, private industry or government/military operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.199.155 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob definitely does not have a degree from MIT. I have access to the MIT Alumni Directory and there is no "Robert Scott Lazar" in our records of even registering for a term. Chclee (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Voidvector, do you (or anyone else) happen to have another link for that video? (It's been taken down.) Thanks! -- itistoday (Talk) 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be part of this show, which the YouTube uploader didn't have license to distribute. --Voidvector (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a working YouTube link: Video is titled Bob Lazar Files - Los Alamos 2 Mwikieditor (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The jet car is explained here as is everything else one needs to know about Lazar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.161.64 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article was actually in Alamogordo Daily news. I’m adding the following:

However, some records of Lazar's employment at Los Alamos have surfaced, such as a 1982 article on Alamogordo Daily News about his creation of a jet powered car and describing him as "a physicist at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility". Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is being conducted at the bottom of the page rather than in this older section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2020 (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 [1] is in infraction of [[2]]: 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)

I re-added the Friedman material per WP:Consensus above. DeltaT has been blocked and his appeal denied for his editing problems in a variety of articles, and his misunderstanding of policy was the only objection. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it again; it makes no sense whatsoever. The writing is poor enough to question if the author of competent to make the claims made Granite07 (talk)

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 [3] is in infraction of [[4]]: 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)

Note: DeltaT has been blocked and his appeal denied for his editing problems in a variety of articles. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP has a point: what about the UFOs?

Recently, an anonymous IP added a section asking why there is so little material on UFOs in this article. His addition was properly reverted, since he added it to the article proper, not the discussion page. I have to agree, however, that there's rather little on UFOs in the article. The only mention I see is in the lede itself.

Now, of course, I don't believe that the problem is due to gov't conspiracy (unlike the anonymous editor), but surely the primary reason we have an article about Lazar is because he's famous for his claims that he's worked on UFOs, right? Surely these claims should have more attention than a single mention in the introduction.

What gives? Phiwum (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the missing material was removed by User:Hipocrite in | this edit. He explained the removal by claiming that this material is dubious and unrelated to Bob Lazar! The latter claim is just silly. The material removed is exactly what makes Bob Lazar notable: he has claimed to have worked on UFOs at S-4 and for whatever reason, a relatively large number of folks have discussed these claims. The material is dubious in one sense, of course: Lazar's claims are obviously false — I don't believe for an instant that he has worked on extraterrestrial spacecraft. But that's okay, because the material removed does not claim that Lazar has worked on UFOs. It merely says that Lazar claims so and this is precisely why Lazar is notable.

I have thus undone Hipocrite's edit. Without some discussion of Lazar's claims, I just can't see why this article should exist. Phiwum (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reason Lazar is notable is due to his UFO-related claims. They must remain. "Hard to stop vandalism / poor editing" shouldn't be the reason for an article to becomes pointless. Mwikieditor (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to keep his claims in whilst making it clear that there is no evidence to support them (and that they contradict basic physics). What can happen over time is the important distinction between claims and fact is lost during multiple edits. To avoid this danger the claims were removed completely; some even went so far as to delete the entire article. A brief summary of claims with a strong disclaimer is justified, but so far impossible to maintain.

See WP:Fringe#Coverage in Wikipedia

Notability versus acceptance

Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. The complicated relationship between the level of acceptance of an idea and its notability is explored below.

Cutter (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thodef's removals

I'd like to know why Thodef removed the following sources:

• "...so credible was Lazar's highly detailed story--until Lazar's credibility crumbled. Schools he was supposed to have attended had no record of him, while others in the scientific community had no memory of ever meeting him..." "Tales of Vegas Past: The truth was out there". Las Vegas Mercury. June 12, 2003. Retrieved 2008-12-12.
• In 1993, the Los Angeles Times looked into his background and found there was no evidence to support his claims.Rivenberg, Roy (May 6, 1993). "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to..." Los Angeles Times.
• He worked as a photo processor.Rivenberg, Roy (May 6, 1993). "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to..." Los Angeles Times.
• His educational and professional background cannot be verified.Sands, Shannon (March 20, 1991). "Believers Are Not Alone Outer space: A Nevada military base lures the Faithful". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
• Stanton Friedman was only able to verify that Lazar took electronics courses in the late 1970s at Pierce Junior College. (The Bob Lazar Fraud December 1997 By Stanton Friedman)

These are the few WP:RS that discuss him, and white washing these sources is not acceptable. NovakFan76 (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the Bob Lazar page and noticed a user white washed all the sources. I reverted the changes and went to the talk page to notice that a person blocked made similiar edits on different articles. Compare the edits and interests of DeltaT (talk · contribs) and Thodef (talk · contribs). NovakFan76 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see an IP removed WP:RS without justification. Him69696969696969 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Polonium, the Uranium isotope"

Polonium is a different element, not an isotope of Uranium. Different elements have different number of protons. Different isotopes have different number of neutrons.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium"

I'm making the appropriate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.76.4 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Polonium

The phrase Lazar again gained attention in 2006 from news reports that he sold small amounts of Polonium, the radioactive element, used to fatally poison former Soviet intelligence agent and whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko. can be read as implying that Lazar sold the very polonium used to poison Litvinenko. Given that this breaches WP:BLP, it needs rephrasing.Autarch (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(GHPINK) I agree with this and this is exactly why I was here. It gave me this impression as well for awhile that Lazar sold the actual Polonium that Litvinenko was killed with, until I correctly read it deeper and followed the sources. By linking Polonium in the news at the time (because of Litvinenko) it gives the impression that Lazar sold the material but this sourced article shows that the amount he was selling was not any where close to the amount needed to poison someone and it had to go through a rigorous scientific process even to create the poison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpink (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack page

Wow! This page really is an attack site against this poor guy! The article seems strange - it mentions little about what he is famous for, i.e. his interesting alleged UFO work, and is largely devoted to discrediting him and attacking his character. To the editors of this site the phrase "you doth protest too much" seems to apply. I remember seeing a documentary about his claims and the makers of that documentary provided some evidence to verify his claims of involvement with the military establishment, but yet none of that is in the article. It is known that intelligence services do trawl Wikipedia articles to muddy the waters. You see this particularly with articles involving Israel. This article has echoes of that same type of activity. HansNZL (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This man is extremely credible and there is plenty of evidence out there supporting the fact that he worked on s4, just look at the footage he filmed with different people on 3 consecutive weeks of UFO's. I'm not sure I know where to start as far as rewriting the article goes! Brad from Aus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.147.135 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The English language admins of Wikipedia are on a crusade to sanitize reality into a nice simple picture they can wrap their small minds around. If you want to get real information off of wiki do your searches in Spanish, Russian, Swedish, or any other language except that spoken by the idiots in charge of the United States. Psychicattorney (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am an enwiki administrator. I have no crusade against anything, except poor sourcing, patent nonsense, etc. Anything you add which meets the standards of verifiable, reliable sources which are on topic, I will not only not remove, but will defend them to remain in the article. —EncMstr (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely the very nature of this subject being "Above Top Secret" makes any verification difficult. Do you expect CIA spies to list "Spy" as their occupation on an application for a credit card? I've heard the guy talk and he seems credible to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Most conmen and liars do, indeed, seem "credible" to the credulous. For my part, it sounds like the guy watched Buckaroo Banzai in the 8th Dimension too many times. Ravenswing 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As an anonymous person, I will add some of my thoughts in. When I finished reading the page, I was not that surprised at how garbage it was, because remember, this IS Wikipedia after all. I don't ever trust Wikipedia for any credible information. But still, it cannot be ignored, that this page was just an attack on Lazar's character. Why do you have to bash united nuclear so much? Why do you have to try to tear down what he has tried so hard to build up? United nuclear is a great company, I buy from them all the time! They have some darn good quality things that rival even Flynn scientific... Yet here you are,(whoever wrote this sorry piece), who probably never bought anything from united nuclear, and probably has little to no experience in chemicals, just acting like a brat. "Unverified claim that it has "over 400,000 served"". It's really funny how you just HAVE to say "unverified" in front of everything that he says. You couldn't just say "He claims"? And so what if what he says is not true? why does it even matter? He still runs a good company. The least you could do at this point, is explain and justify your absolutely childish behavior, and your blatent personal attacks on some guy who just wants to make sure that people can buy scientific equipment.

His character is under attack because he has a bad character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.161.64 (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary correction

I mentioned in the edit summary that a graviton exists. I meant to say that it exists in theory. My bad. My edit still stands, though. Lighthead ^þ 07:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My George Knapp edit (putting back old info.)

If anyone changes my edit about George Knapp confirming on his own that Bob Lazar most likely worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, you have to give me a really good reason (absolutely beautiful reason... ). The references are there... George Knapp is an Edward R. Murrow award winner... whoever made the edit a while back was inspired. Lighthead ^þ 08:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to take the time to symbolically strike out the comment I made in the edit summary of said edit about User:BBiii08. It was uncalled for and really stupid for me to say something like that. I'm sorry. Lighthead ^þ 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen car

Saw this video recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag4iy6yg4R4 and then laughed when I realized it was Bob Lazar. The punchline comes at the end, where he claims to have a particle accelerator to make lithium-6 deuteride he uses to store his hydrogen. It smells like prankster material to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.132.35 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Atomic weight/number

The reference to "atomic weight of 115" should rather be to atomic number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:376D:9730:25F7:8E99:F615:D714 (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Element 115, formerly Ununpentium has been isolated and named Moscovium. Its 2 isotopes have half lives of a fraction of a second and no known anomalous gravitational properties. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Schneider

Need to mention Phil Schneider, as a continuation of a story. 176.15.217.221 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Credentials in lede

@ScrapIronIV: I don't think we should mention his educational BS in the lede. It's not why he's notable. "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." (MOS:BLPLEAD). IMO, it also smacks of trying too hard at character assassination, like it was written by a rival UFOlogist or something. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here for discussion. The lede is used to summarize main points made in the body of the article. This is a short article, and a very short lede; however, one of the main topics in the article is the subject's lack of credentials. It is central to understanding who he claims to be, and is covered in multiple sections of the article. As such, the short mention in the lede is appropriate. Scr★pIron^IV 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, that last deletion was entirely appropriate; the article cited made no claims about the subject at all. Scr★pIron^IV 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's one of the main topics. The main topics are all the crazy shit he said. In any case, if you are going to keep it in the lede, you should rewrite it so it's not so jarring, and add a cite (WP:BLP says cite in lede and body for stuff that makes subject look bad). But I think you should just take it out. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring long-standing content; if you wish to have more opinions, feel free to start an RfC. There is not a lot of traffic to this page. The lede needs to be expanded, not trimmed. These claims are mentioned in two sections of the article, are properly sourced, and are prominent enough for inclusion. I would recommend against any name-calling of the subject, as it falls under WP:BLP Scr★pIron^IV 17:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I was going to make a 3O request, but I don't entirely understand all your points, and I don't want to misrepresent you. So: Why is the fact that there isn't a lot of traffic relevant? Why do you say the lede needs to be expanded? Dingsuntil (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The traffic comment simply meant that I didn't expect anyone to just wander by and offer an opinion, which is why I was suggesting an RfC. As for expanding the lede, WP:LEAD states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." As the lede is written now, it falls short of that goal. I welcome a Third Opinion, or RfC. Scr★pIron^IV 18:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Third Opinion Request Greetings, both. One of you posted a third opinion request, which I am responding to. This is a non-binding process, and my opinion carries no special weight. In all honesty, I think the issue here is a little broader than you both are discussing. Per WP:LEDE, the lead should summarize the article, and should therefore mention all significant points in the article. It is certainly not limited to the reason for the subject's notability. This particular lede needs to mention the educational controversy, given the weight it has in the article (although I would prefer to rephrase it a little, to a wordier but more precise and less-like-character-assassination "Lazar claims to hold a degree from XYZ, but XYZ has no record of him.") However, in addition to that particular controversy, the lede should also grant a sentence or two to the other major body paragraphs. Precisely what did he claim to work on? What about the supplies controversy at the bottom? Why did he get media attention? The article deserves a more thorough lede, IMO, and I think that might take care of some of the seeming POV issues that Dingsuntil points out may be perceived in the current version. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Any credibility this person has when making his extraordinary claims is because of an implication based on false credentials. Accordingly, it is necessary to summarize what truly reliable sources say about any claimed or implied credentials. This is a core part of how reliable sources describe this person, which must be presented with due weight in the biography of such a person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this implies that we ought to summarize what they say about his credentials, but it's not clear that this necessarily means in the lede, rather than just in the article. Nonetheless, I accept the consensus. Dingsuntil (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Polonium

I've just had a read of the source used to support: "Small amounts of polonium, a radioactive element which was in the news at the time because of its role in fatally poisoning former Soviet intelligence agent and whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko, had been sold by the company."

The source is good, but the statement is not. Sure, in isolation, the statement is accurate. However it's just not notable. The article, presumably written because Polonium was in the public consciousness at the time, makes clear that there was nothing wrong with his company selling the stuff and that it was in no way a lethal dose/dangerous/etc: "And each dose comes encased in a foil shell that is insoluble and inert in most chemicals. In this sealed form, the polonium will not be absorbed if swallowed, and therefore, “it’s not a health hazard,” says David McIntyre, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). “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,” says a recent statement on United Nuclear’s Web site. All the isotopes the company sells, according to the statement, are so small the NRC permits their sale without a license . . . The NRC has seen United Nuclear’s Web site, says McIntyre, but doesn’t plan on investigating."

I.e. possibly of interest at the time, but not notable in an encyclopaedia.

The other issue with the entry is that it's included in the middle of a real case where the company really did get into trouble. That makes it look like he has been in-and-out of court for numerous issues, whereas it's all actually just one fireworks-related issue.

So looks to me like Ghpink was correct to remove it. Smarting from a recent near edit war when I made a change that seemed obvious, I thought I should check with ScrapIronIV that, in light of this, he's alright with removing this now? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, and concur. I will self-revert Scr★pIron^IV 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

firing for car stuff

Maybe I shouldn't have included it. It's not a terrific source, and it does cast him in a somewhat bad light, but not, in my opinion, terrible. To me, it seems to fit with my existing view of him as a sharp, ornery guy who really liked his jetcars. I wanted to add more info about him at Los Alamos, since previous versions made it sound like he'd made the whole thing up and was never there. It's not a terrible source either. Mark Farmer is an actual journalist, although this isn't his website. Although Mahood is critical of Lazar, he's also fair and measured enough towards him that I feel comfortable assuming he didn't just make up the Farmer interview. Seems BLP enough for government work, but your mileage may vary. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Lazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unitednuclear.com/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Split articles

I propose that S4 the research facility should be moved back were it was. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong source

The L.A. Times article cited in footnote #1 doesn't discuss Lazar's educational credentials as claimed in the Wikipedia entry. Here's a link to the actual article, not the archived fee-access version linked by the footnote: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-06/news/vw-31950_1_ultimate-ufo-seminar/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3301:82F0:403:795B:884C:BCFF (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Background

This source is not usable for WP, but very useful as a background resource, as it contains a detailed timeline by a friend, as well as a number of (presumably) more neutral investigations. Bromley86 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Ditto. Bromley86 (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

I recently rewrote the article to reflect published, reliable sources.[5] Or so I thought. Ghpink clearly disagrees.

I'm a little confused, especially given the edit summaries Ghpink left. The easy one is "Bromely also took out United Nuclear legal issues". I didn't. Well, I removed the sub-heading, but that was a legacy back from when the UN section also held the accusation that they'd sold polonium. "Legal issues" is currently incorrect, as there's only one legal issue mentioned. Likewise the text is out: "has had several legal issues in its history", despite only one being mentioned. Indeed, the only removed element was Lazar's justification, which isn't really necessary in an encyclopaedia.

The other is "User Bromley86 has used sources like George Knapp, also linked to articles that are rewritten and not the actual articles and substantially has rewritten this page. If you want changes Bromley, source credible pages." Hang on, is George Knapp not the ultimate credible source on this affair? And, if not, why did you revert to a version that cites to his work? All of my rewrites were explained, and all of my sources were reliable, and they confirm the points. Whereas the article, as reverted, now has cites that do not confirm the points made.[6] Which pages did you find were not credible? Which edits were not improvements? Bromley86 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Ghpink

There is constant abuse on this page. When I log back in after a few months there are always multiple edits and many people who are changing it and leaving out resources and proper articles. Some are sabotaging the page and putting in conspiracy and innuendo.

YOU SAID "The easy one is "Bromely also took out United Nuclear legal issues". I didn't."

There has been 10 or so rewrites, by you and others on this. It's hard to pick out what's been changed and by who. On top of that, I seen you had made some good edits, but I don't have the time personally to go through all the bad edits that others made and then you make edits on the bad copy. Many things were taken out and I use this article for reference. If you want to rewrite it, do it again, but you need to watch this page and make sure you are not rewriting the mistakes that others have made. I will work with you on this.

The article is fine as it is and if you want to add to it, do it, but I will revert it again if the legal issues are taken out. Could you please mail me again when you have made changes?

Since I have reverted the article there has already been 4 edits on this page.

@Ghpink. Ah, that's fine. You can be reassured that all my edits were good ones, and that I reviewed the entirety of the article, from top to bottom, including the sources used, to ensure that they supported the points made and are RS. If you wish to discuss any particular part of it, I'll happily do that.

Please don't revert just because the sub-heading United Nuclear and legal issues has been removed. It is no longer required in that section now that there are only 2 short paragraphs.

Also, don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes. If it's hard for you to find the character, you can see a 4 tilde button (~~~~) just above the edit summary. Bromley86 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Meyer in infobox

I'm on the fence about including it, with my legs dangling on the side of not. We have a published, reliable book that infers that he worked as a technician for Kirk Meyer because of the "K/M" after his name in the Los Alamos directory.[7] However, the "technician" part is an educated guess, and it has not been confirmed to the author by K/M (or anyone else). So we could only really say "Worked for Kirk Meyer" with any real certainty, and that's not right for the infobox. Happy to be convinced though. Bromley86 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Krangle, physicist at Los Alamos, attended security meetings with Lazar at Los Alamos

Various sources:

• Google Search: Bob Lazar Robert Krangle

• Physicist claims Bob Lazar did work at Los Alamos.

Let the censorship begin! --Timeshifter (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Did he mean aliens from Earth's orbit or from a different planet?

Were they born as humans on Earth? Celiaescalante (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bob’s job title

I changed Bob’s job title from “scientist” to “ufologist” for two reasons. He has no formal educational background in science. I specifically changed it because he is referenced as a ufologist on the Ufology wiki page which uses Bob’s website as a source. I also think it’s an injustice to actual scientists who are currently on the forefront of science and science communication. It could be considered misinformation to label Bob Lazar as a scientist. Zeilert (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He claims to have master degrees from MIT and Caltech. So in your view is "claims to be a scientist" correct? --IHTS (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

His claims have not been verified in any capacity since those claims. Both MIT and Caltech have denied having records of Bob having ever attended. It would be more appropriate to label Bob as a ufologist in the introduction and possibly later state his claims of being a scientist in the “Claims” section. Zeilert (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

ufologist: "A person who studies UFOs." Lazar has stated that he "doesn't follow" UFO news or sightings reports, etc. And there is no assertion in the article that he "studies UFOs". So, I don't see any basis to conclude it is "appropriate to label Bob as a ufologist". That's inserting your own WP:OR into the article. Also, most of the entire article content is about Lazar's claims, so you're saying the claims don't belong in the lead because they "have not been verified", yet you don't object to other of his claims from appearing in the lead. Also, "his claims have not been verified" is redundant (if they were verified they'd no longer be described as "claims"). --IHTS (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So you believe that someone who is not a scientist should be labeled a scientist even though they have no credentials? If you refer to the ufology wiki and scroll to American ufologists you will see Bob Lazar listed. The introduction of an article on wiki should not introduce the entirety of one’s claims. If you find fault with the title of ufologist, even though he claimed to work on and study UFOs, what title do you feel is appropriate? Bob is not a scientist, he is a businessman, conspiracy theorist, actor. The term “scientist” is a job title. Bob is not a scientist, nor has he ever been confirmed as a scientist. Zeilert (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the page I’m referring to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ufologists Zeilert (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, on the page I just referred, Bob is described as a physicist. He has no official credentials to state that he is a physicist. He has taken a few electronics courses in college. In a recent interview with Bob done by Joe Rogan on his podcast, Bob states in the first 10 minutes that “gravity is created when you have large quantities of mass”. I understand that this isn’t an educational setting but that is incorrect and a physicist would know that any amount of mass has gravity. Bob should not be referred in any capacity as a scientist of any kind because he does not possess the credentials. Zeilert (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought this edit (surprisingly by an IP) was a needed improvement. Lazar's status as a physicist/scientist is completely self-proclaimed, he has no verifiable credentials. And although he has recognition and support from the UFOlogy culture, he's not actually a UFOlogist, i.e. he doesn't claim to investigate UFOs in general, he's largely focused on his purported alien technology experience. What's confirmable by reliable sources is that he's a business owner/film processor/pyrotechnician who's best known for his extraordinary claims of working at a secret site on secret extraterrestrial spacecraft. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that’s a fantastic edit. I could not agree more and I see your point about him not really being a UFOlogist. Zeilert (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Never said or implied or hinted or suggested or even thought Bob s/b "labeled a scientist" - that's straw man argument. (Only objected to "ufologist" label.) Also plz note WP:NOTSOURCE. --IHTS (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s correct. You did not provide any insight into what would be an appropriate label. What you did do is attempt to justify Bob’s claims because you think the entire article is about his claims. “Also, most of the entire article content is about Lazar's claims, so you're saying the claims don't belong in the lead because they "have not been verified", yet you don't object to other of his claims from appearing in the lead.” Zeilert (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s getting to a point where we might as well add this controversy to the page. Zeilert (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Article status

In reviewing the body of the article, I see it's kind of a mess, e.g. some things cited to unreliable sources like YouTube videos, UFOlogist Nick Redfern, and lightweight HuffPost stories. For example, it's stated in WP's voice that Lazar (alone) is responsible for bringing Area 51 to public attention. (Unsurprisingly, this is something Lazar himself seeks to promote) Opinions found in the sources such as "Lazar's lies propelled Area 51 into the public's consciousness" can be included with attribution, but should not be stated as an undisputed fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, and done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

CERN

Hi, though there are inconsistencies a lot of what Lazar said can be linked with CERN's antimatter gravity experiments.

The difficulty is that if my calculations are correct antigravity *CANNOT* be used in Earth's atmosphere but only ever really useful for deep space applications.

I did actually work out that a cloud of antihydrogen around a spacecraft would need to be held in place with a very intense (>80T) magnetic field and continously fed to compensate for losses.

This could actually be detected if positron leakage is part of routine operation or sudden changes in direction.

"Claims disproven" statement

The following statement is currently at the end of the article's intro:

His claims were later disproven, including the claim that he had been employed at Nellis Air Force Base.

The cited source merely says that some of Lazar's claims were disproven but doesn't say how. The statement in the article seems too strongly worded in contrast to the weakness of its source:

• The publisher of the cited article isn't particularly notable
• It is a tertiary source that doesn't provide the nature of its own sources
• Thus the reliability of it is uncertain

If Lazar's statements were disproven there should be a more reliable source about it. Until then this statement should be either lightened or removed entirely in my opinion. Cutter (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I have to take exception with the assertion that Benjamin Radford isn’t particularly notable on this subject. RobP (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Radford is an excellent WP:RS for criticism of the pseudoscientific claim of secret alien technology hidden at Nellis, etc. So is Donald Prothero [8] published by a university press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the complaint here, but it's really not our job at Wikipedia to fisk the sources of our reliable sources; either a claim is notable and traceable to a reliable source, or it isn't. In effect, we outsource our fact-checking and whatnot to the reliable sources. For my money, LiveScience is a pretty good reliable source for this area, and this strikes me as worthy of inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if the author is notable, it doesn't mean the source is reliable. It still is only one, uncorroborated tertiary source. Someone writing that something has been disproven isn't enough for us to call it disproven. Cutter (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Now that is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, and if consensus is with you, so be it. But I have to say that I disagree, and so far, I think the "keep it" opinion is more popular. We shall see. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How should we put this to a vote ? I'm not for removing the statement entirely but rephrasing it as "reportedly disproven" or something to that effect. Cutter (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Informally, we can certainly wait a bit and see how discussion here goes. If you'd want something a bit more formal--and seeking wider input--you could make a request for comment. I know we disagree on this, but I appreciate your willingness to go through regular Wikipedia processes here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Prothero discusses Lazar extensively in the book I referenced above, and corroborates Radford. So we have two high quality sources. I don’t see any reason to hedge about the veracity of Lazar’s WP:FRINGE claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

OK with that book as a second source it would seem enough to keep this statement intact; could you add it to the article please ? Interesting read by the way. Cutter (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Can’t do it with an iPhone, will do it tomorrow on the desktop. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

OR what if we say, "According to some sources His claims were later disproven" then put the new source and that would soften the claim by attribution and put the weight on the sources themselves rather than putting it in wikipedia's voice. What do you two think? @LuckyLouie: @Dumuzid:Jack90s15 (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be more cautious that way. Cutter (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Our two sources go into detail regarding the veracity of Lazar's claims. e.g. Lazar claimed USAF is hiding alien spacecraft at Area 51, USAF said no...Lazar claimed he was employed at Nellis....Nellis said no....Lazar claimed a degree from MIT, MIT said no. Etc. Our WP:FRINGE guideline advises us not to give equal validity (WP:GEVAL) to both authoritative independent (WP:FRIND) sources and Lazar's (fringe) claims. It's pretty clear cut. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Technical inaccuracy stinks of bias meant to discredit Mr. Lazar

Under "Claims" in the middle of the third paragraph the article asserts, "He (referring to Bob Lazar) identified the beings as grey aliens from a planet orbiting the twin binary star system Zeta Reticuli".

In the Joe Rogan video, Bob Lazar clearly stresses that any of the information contained in "the briefing" could be intentional misinformation. So, Bob did not in fact make any such identification himself, but rather he only reported the identification which was in fact made by "the briefing", not Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:7FF0:694B:7730:5C24:5D8 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No bias, just poor grammatical construction, and easily fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Whistleblower" ?

Re inclusion of See Also links to Whistleblower. I can't find any WP:RS that refers to Lazar as a whistleblower, and his claims of working for a government-sponsored company are not substantiated. In any case, claims that the government is hiding aliens and alien technology don't fall under the mainstream definition of whistleblower. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those edits go by and was unsure myself. Looking at Google News for "Bob Lazar" "whistleblower" uncovers a bunch of articles, none of which are strongly reliable:

• 6/25/19 article in the Toronto Star - Opinion piece in the entertainment section that uses whistleblower in the title. Because this is an opinion piece, it is probably not WP:RS.
• 11/9/19 article in the The Independent by Jessica Klein - Uses 'whistleblower' in quotes, so I don't see this as a strong endorsement that the subject is a whistleblower.
• 9/19/19 article in Vox (website)- uses 'whistleblower' in quotes. I'm not sure if Vox is WP:RS or not, but I find Vox articles to be reasonably accurate.

I also found this:

• 10/30/19 article in the NY Times also by Jessica Klein. - Uses 'whistle-blower' in quotes. Again, not a strong endorsement.

Looking at page 148 of Bob Lazar's autobiography, he writes that some people called him a whistle-blower and that he blew the whistle as an act of self preservation. I don't think we can call the subject's autobiography a reliable source, but it is worth noting that the subject does state that he blew the whistle. Of all the references I found, this is the strongest for considering him to be a whistleblower, but I don't see it as reliable.

I excluded a bunch of non-WP:RS sources such as Fox or the Daily Express. After looking at the sources, I too did not find a good WP:RS source and I agree that the subject's claims do not fall under the mainstream definition of whistleblower. (LuckyLouie: many thanks for adding this to the talk page as there have been a few reverts.) Cxbrx (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I did notice a number of news stories published in Summer 2019 hyping the release of the Jeremy Corbell documentary about Lazar, heavily promoted with the tag line "He blew the whistle. Then went silent. Until now." It appears most outlets used the term "whistleblower" with scare quotes. Considering Lazar is not included in List of whistleblowers, I don't understand why we need a See Also link to it here. The See Also link to Remote Viewing is equally puzzling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just now I looked for sources concerning the subject and Remote Viewing and I did not find any. I posted to User talk:Funkquake inviting them to participate in the discussion here. I'd like to give them a day or two to reply and then consider removing Remote Viewing from See Also unless we find some reliable sources.Cxbrx (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete Whistleblower and List of whistleblowers from See also until such time that there is significant evidence that what said whistle was being blown on actually existed, unlike all the other mainstream whistleblowers for whom the term is usually applied. Another instance of (perhaps good faith) name dropping in the See alsos with the effect of elevating a subject's credibility by association, in this case associating Lazar with mainstream whistleblowers, in my opinion. By the way, the word "whistleblower" appears 10 times in the article on Edward Snowden and that doesn't inlude the See also and references. Doesn't appear once in Lazar's article. 5Q5|^✉ 12:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no supportable connection between Lazar and Dulce Base. Lazar's story is all about Area 51, not Dulce Base. I suppose Close encounter could stay, in part because Lazar claims he examined a UFO. There could be a long discussion about how well supported Lazar's claim is, but that could be applied to any close encounter. I propose that we remove Dulce Base, Remote Viewing and Whistleblower from the See alsos Let's what a couple of days and see if Funkquake replies before removing these from See also. Cxbrx (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Close Encounter refers to a claim of encountering aliens who have landed on earth or an alien spacecraft in the act of being piloted by aliens, which AFAIK is something Lazar has not claimed. So I think the few See Also links that are actually relevant to this bio might be UFO conspiracy theory (the essence of Lazar's claims are that the government is conspiring to cover up alien technology), Paul Bennewitz (an individual with similar claims), and Area 51 (although it's already linked in the text). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed Dulce Base, Remote viewing, Whistleblower, List of whistleblowers from See also. Upon reflection, I agree that Lazar did not experience a Close encounter. The 1995 NY Times article states that Lazar "'reverse-engineered'" one of nine alien craft". So, we have a WP:RS that reports that the subject saw an alien craft. However, seeing an alien craft without aliens is not listed in any of the criteria for a Close encounter. If anyone wants to make a counter-argument, please cite the specific type of encounter listed on the Close encounter page. Let's wait a day or two before taking action on removing Close encounter from the See Also section. I agree that Area 51 could also be removed. My guess is that it will be added back in if it is removed. Cxbrx (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Term Whistleblower definitely applies. It is common for the subject of a whistleblower's disclosure to be unconfirmed. +1 to adding UFO conspiracy theory to see also. I'll add it.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Supposed whistleblower" made me giggle. Personally I'd also not use the term to describe him, there are better alternatives like conspiracy theorist... —PaleoNeonate – 04:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Los Alamos Monitor/Lazar "Jet Car" article as a source

• Re insertion of claims of Lazar's employment at Los Alamos, cited to an obscure article in a local paper, presented here on a site called otherhand.org, which was apparently copied from a posting on "alt.paranet.ufo". It is unlikely there was a government conspiracy to remove/erase records, as Lazar fans have claimed. It is more likely that the local reporter took Lazar's claims of being a Los Alamos physicist at face value without verifying them. (Which is exactly what otherhand.org concludes [9]).- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Re this edit, "ufoseekers.com" is not a WP:RS for anything. Unfortunately, the jet car story (if properly sourced) could only be useful to show what Lazar told a reporter. It would not be a confirmation of Lazar's employment as a physicist at Los Alamos. Only Los Alamos can confirm such a thing, and they do not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding this note left on my User Talk, WP:FRINGE sites such as "ufoseekers.com" can not be seen as reliable mirrors or trustworthy archives of news reports, since the UFO web pages themselves are of questionable integrity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Found an archive of the newspaper. Instead of just blindly reverting I would suggest searching or asking for an alternative source next time. It was clearly a mirror for the newspaper and easily verifiable Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• "disclose.tv" is not a WP:RS [10]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find another source for this. Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a clip from newspapers.com of the article from the The Santa Fe New Mexican. Maybe this is better than ufoseekers.com. I agree that it could be that Lazar told the reporter that he was "a physicist at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility" and that the reporter and/or editor may or may not have fact checked this. However, The Santa Fe New Mexican is probably considered WP:RS elsewhere, so perhaps it should be used here? Comments anyone? Cxbrx (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see now that the article has a link to the same story in the Alamogordo paper. Cxbrx (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So the story was published on multiple newspapers? We should probably link the main article if possible. In interviews Lazar talks about the article being on the first page and it's on page 8 in the Alamogordo paper. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert Spree

User:Keldoo has already reverted the page 4 times in the last 24 hours on good faith edits. I have written in his talk page to remind him to revert only when necessary WP:ROWN but he has deleted my message without replying and promptly made two additional reverts (me and another user) without providing comments or discussion here. I will restore the page but this is getting ridiculous. Please edit the page constructively instead of reverting constantly. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also please bear in mind that you have violated the 3 revert limit for this page. You might not be aware that reverting is not an appropriate way of handling edits. The essays I have linked can be helpful. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You could say I'm still learning the site. But what's blatantly obvious is that Lazar's claims of MIT and Caltech education, and Nellis and Los Alamos employment, are just that: claims. All of those places have disavowed Lazar, but you seem fairly eager to push the "it might be true" angle. I argue that a respectable encyclopedia should separate established fact (bog standard education and employment) from Lazar's lofty, unverified claims. Sorry if that ruins the fun. Keldoo (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem! I disagree with your assertion that "the case is closed". And so do the sources in the article that should be taken into account. There are contradicting reports on several points of Lazar's story so all POV must be presented neutrally with a reputable source based approach. If you find reputable sources stating the contrary of some point in the article I will be very glad to help you add it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Claims that alien technology is being hidden or that there was a conspiracy to erase records are WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL when it comes to WP:EXTRAORDINARY fringe claims. We are prohibited from presenting fringe and mainstream views equally, per WP:GEVAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think we are moving towards a more understandable page right now. Until yesterday the page defined him as a criminal not mentioning and linking important topics such as UFO conspiracy theory etc. Let's keep it proportionate (we have 6 lines talking about LANL of which only one presents a counter fact which has been central in understanding the controversy. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

UFO conspiracy theories are WP:FRINGE beliefs that do not indicate controversy. They indicate unhinged nonsense. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. Not a repository for crazed conspiracy theories. jps (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is ABOUT a Ufo conspiracy theory. If you don't want to talk about it then you can delete the page. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

jps You have completely reverted the work several people have done in the last few days that has been the object of a lengthy discussion and on which we had reached consensus. I don't want to enter an edit war on this. Why have you destroyed the work of three people without any discussion? User:Keldoo has had to work to reintroduce his edits and we had organised the content in a more understandable way --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed, edited, and restored the reverted edits. I haven't reintroduced a couple of sentences. Please avoid reverting while a discussion is underway. Restoring is a big waste of time and causes frustration unnecessarily. Let's TALK and EDIT what must be edited without starting an edit war. And Revert only when necessary --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree with your changes Gtoffoletto. There is no "controversy" regarding Lazar's claims according to our highest quality WP:FRIND sources. Lazar's claims have been found false, and that's why the article read as it did before you started your editing here. You began by edit warring in material cited to fringe sites like "ufoseekers.com" without using the Talk page to discuss your intentions. Then you started posting in the wrong section of the Talk page. When WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE was explained to you, you say the article should have some "counterfact"s. No, your current work here isn't an improvement, which is why I support rolling the article back to jps version. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly NOT reading my edits and lazily and blindly reverting them. I am NOT arguing that the article should present Lazar's theories as fact. They are NOT and NO REPUTABLE SOURCE EXIST that says they are. So please settle down and try to be objective. I am simply trying to add the few RELIABLE SOURCES that exist (User:Keldoo is doing the same and reverting continuously your and other's blind reverts). Your characterisation of my edits as the addition of the ufoseekers source to the article is intellectually dishonest as the website was a mirror for a reputable news article which I have linked directly after your revert. This is an edit war. I am wasting my time and will not participate in it. I think admin User:Bishonen is following this also. Some help sorting this out and avoiding waste of time would be helpful. p.s. The revert in question is [11] and reverting is NOT the proper way of handling a supposed WP:POVPUSH (please read what you link. Using this term is uncivil and pejorative. Assume good faith in the future please). The revert includes multiple edits to the page (some as innocuous as adding UFO conspiracy theories to the links section. I would like to know what problem you have with the specific edits and we can discuss them. I will NOT revert to the previous version until this discussion is finished and would suggest User:Keldoo to stop reintroducing his legitimate edits because if we revert he will only have lost time doing it manually. Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Predictably other users are reverting the absurd text that has been reintroduced by the indiscriminate revert. Still waiting for clarifications or comments before reverting the rest. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The title for Lazar right now is UFO conspiracy theorist. This seems most reasonable. jps (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is a much needed improvement to the lead, and more appropriate for a WP:BLP. It describes him for what he is best known for according to the bulk of scholarly sources, and puts his criminal convictions in appropriate context, rather than the needlessly provocative and clumsy "(he) is a criminal" language that previously existed. Good work! - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I added "criminal" as a descriptor because there were none, simple as that. I guess we all have our "needlessly provocative and clumsy" moments[12]... Keldoo (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah sorry, it was not intended as a criticism of you, but rather as an observation that such wording needlessly provoked Lazar fanboys to hack up the article, and a better wording would help avoid that. Carry on : ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No need, I didn't handle that in the most mature way. We're both looking to introduce verifiable content, and to gut the fringe stuff, after all. See you around. Keldoo (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New Sources

I would like to add more verifiable sources of Bob Lazar's claims. There have been several interviews and documentaries produced in the last year where an "investigative journalist" has uncovered new "evidence" and detailed the main claims brought forth by Lazar. A couple of examples below. Are those sources considered reputable?

• 2018 feature-length documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1RYU8iKLrA Larry King interview on Ora.tv
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWz4SXfyCQ Joe Rogan Experience Podcast
• etc.

Any second opinions? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that we already have Lazar's story and don't need the minutiae. Lofty education, lofty career as a physicist in which he tried to back-engineer a saucer (inexplicably dropping down to a film processor between his huge jobs), and a period of celebrity in which he blew the secrets of E115 and alien-human interaction wide open. The long-form interviews and documentaries are "out there" for those who wish to indulge Lazar. Maybe you could put one or two in the external links. Keldoo (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, YouTube is not considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube. Use as ELs are decided by editorial consensus. Happy editing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Keldoo, this is an in-universe description, of course. In the real world, those things are not true. Guy (help!) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't get the impression I was being serious about Lazar's towering accomplishments, kids. Keldoo (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Liable and slander

With recent revelations from the new York times and other publications I think calling Bob Lazar a Conspiracy Theorist at this point is at least slander. Case in point

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a33413777/pentagon-ufo-program-materials-vehicles/

Stinks of bias meant to discredit Mr. Lazar

I just finished reading about Bob as a fireworks guy and then ended up down the bunny hole of the internet and found out his UFO story. But as I read this document on Wiki, it seems bias and spends so much energy discrediting him without any references? I find it interesting since most of the articles I write on Wiki are about people. Snowy Badger (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bob has passed 4 lie detector tests. When I listen to him, he doesn't add "goodies" if it wasn't there and he didn't see it or experience it, he doesn't embellish when you watch the original interviews. The only possibilities are that either Bob is the world's best liar, the world's most well adjusted lunatic, or he is telling the truth.

To be a liar he would need to be devoting immense energy, focus and memory recall in order to avoid typical unconscious body language that betrays his words as well as to keep his story 100% consistent over 3 decades. And he would have needed to keep the web of lies going for so long with literally no incentive. he hasn't made money from his story. he has actively avoided the spotlight and attention. Not to mention when he went to court he had the incentive, to tell the truth, to avoid purgery yet still told a lie? No incentive.

If he were crazy enough to fully believe he is telling the truth about things that never happened, then he would have to be completely insane but only about this one event in his life. For someone that detached from reality to be otherwise, we'll adjust, with a successful business and stable personal life would be all but impossible.

That leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that what he is saying is fundamentally true. Which as a skeptic really bothers me and with his recent resurgence and the recent government videos has made me accept the possibility.

Again I don't buy woo. From ghosts to 911 conspiracy to flat earth, this is the only paranormal/conspiracy topic that I've ever entertained as being probable. And it annoys me I have to accept that, at least as more likely than not, extraterrestrial technology or some tech that is beyond the understanding of the general population and our experts as well as beyond the generally understood scientific understanding and/or current capabilities of our species. Snowy Badger (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You think this is more probable than Lonnie Zamora's story? 2601:401:180:E1E0:C5AB:705E:154D:8CBC (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Story is full of massive holes (which should be int he article) each which disprove his claims. He did not invent a water powered engine for a car! He did not attend any university EGT MIT when he was living in California! They do not give security clearance in 1 week to anyone let alone a criminal bankrupt! When asked who at MIT and CalTec could prove he went there (on the spot) he gave his HS teacher name and his college (where he failed out) teachers name! You need an undergrad degree to do a postgrad degree (he has never claimed to have one) no evidence of going to uni, no papers, reports, transcripts, photos, friends etc etc Theres plenty more.HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, why introduce him as a "Conspiracy theorist". Calling Lazar this was is calling Edward Snowden the same. If anything he is a "whistleblower" or physicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.6.233.167 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, calling him a conspiracy theorist is horrendously inaccurate. He did almost no theorizing, he just shared his own actual experience and things he learned from his coworkers and specifies which things he worked with and which ones he just heard about. The only "conspiracy" he talked about was the government withholding information from the public, which, by definition, is not a conspiracy because no laws were broken. Whistleblower seems more accurate, or whistleblower with unconfirmed claims.72.128.68.12 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracies are not by definition illegal, and spreading one conspiracy theory is enough to fit the bill. You people show either no reasoning at all ("I agree" is not reasoning) or really bad reasoning that falls apart as soon as you write it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lie detectors are notoriously unreliable. He can pass as many as he wants, it does not matter one bit. Neither does it matter if you accept what he says, or whether you accept other crap or not. It only matters what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

YouTube video WP:UNDUE weight, WP:OR?

I'm not sure it's appropriate for the article to place so much editorial weight on a YouTube video [13], especially since (a) only the parts of it that one editor finds interesting are highlighted (i.e. WP:OR), and (b) the source is George Knapp, who is an established WP:FRINGE proponent, occasional host of the decidedly kooky Coast to Coast AM, and the producer of the NetFlix documentary promoting Lazar's views. In other words, he's not a WP:FRIND independent source for facts regarding Lazar's fringe claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral sources and content in “Claims” section

There are several statements under the “Claims” section referencing or quoting non-neutral. There are also several areas in the article that lack neutrality in their context. The sources attempt to attack Lazar’s character or the topic at large instead of objectively analyzing or relaying the claims by Lazar. Statements in the article repeatedly go out the way to try to disprove the claims instead of objectively state them.

The statement that Lazar is a conspiracy theorist is inaccurate due to the fact that his claims are made from a first person perspective, with a “more probable explanation” being subjective. The cited sources do not provide any evidence that Lazar supports or believes in any claims outside of the context of this article.

Citation 1, “UFOs, Chemtrails, and Aliens: What Science Says,” is coming from a non-objective viewpoint trying to portray the subject of the article as a “big liar,” as the author states on page 58. Some of the source’s content is ad hominem, outdated, misleading and/or false. The following issues arise from this source: 1. The statement quoted from the source: “He was employed not by the government but rather as a technician working for a private company that contracted work at Los Alamos,” is given without evidence and not supported with any other references. 2. The statement that his employment is “discredited by skeptics, as well as by the United States Air Force” is subjective and misleading. The source’s position is that there is no existing evidence of Lazar’s employment. As the article states, Lazar’s claim is that his records of employment are hidden or destroyed and a lack of evidence is not discrediting proof in opposition to that claim. No further evidence in opposition to his claim is provided. This statement also goes out of its way to provide a viewpoint on a subject not relevant to the article.

Although the following statement is true, it is missing critical information relevant to the context of Lazar’s claim: “No stable isotopes of moscovium have yet been synthesized; all have proven extremely radioactive, decaying in a few hundred milliseconds.” The element moscovium has possible isotopes within an island of stability that have not been synthesized. Lazar’s statements are referencing future possible technology that does not necessarily exist yet. Given that the statement is by itself contradictory to Lazar’s statement, and is given to provide context, the possibility of a stable isotope should be included or the statement should be removed. Kkirchhoff01 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's wrong to primarily describe someone based on other people's opinions

'..is an alleged American conspiracy theorist.' A summary should stick to the facts and be based around the subject. The subject is the man himself not what others say about him. But the very first line is based around others opinions of him - even using the word 'alleged'. Why should I not write of Donald Trump in the very first sentence that he is an alleged urolagnist and 45th president of the United States? It would not be 'factually' wrong to do so - but it would be strange as it would be based around others opinions of him. It's a very strange construction that stinks of typical Wikipedia fudges. Someone wants to say something bad so put the word 'alleged' in front to make it legally safe. The problem remains that you're giving primacy to something that is not the core subject of the article. 79.129.53.49 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we observe the established editorial policies of the encyclopedia. Our articles reflect what reliable sources (WP:RS) say about a subject. In this case, the subject is primarily known for his claims that the US government is part of a conspiracy to cover up knowledge of alien involvement and alien technology. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes what is contained in the article body, and specifically includes a summary of material from high quality sources that are cited in the Bob_Lazar#Claims section establishing him as a conspiracy theorist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree w/ the anon. To label the subject a conspiracy theorist is wholly inappropriate, senseless, incorrect, misleading. There is no evidence or source that reports he has theorized anything regarding motive of others in his story, even that of his purported employer. He has rarely ever speculated, but has consistently & routinely responded that he does not know the whys or motives of others in his story. His story is his report. His report is either true, partially true/partially false, or false, or false and fabricated. What he worked on, what he read, when, how, with whom, and other experieces, some of which are documentable (e.g. FBI raid). Labelling him a possible "whistle-blower" or possible "hoaxer [liar]" or possible "psychotic" would all be more objective, accurate, and fair, even though none of those alternatives are encyclopedic-worthy. But to label him a "conspiracy theorist" has no basis except in, as the anon points out, opinions, and even lacks common sense. (You can find lots of sourced opinions that Trump is an "illegitimate president". Does that warrant labelling him so in the lead of his BLP? You do the math.) --IHTS (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the average reader would certainly not understand the definition of conspiracy theorist to be someone who believes in conspiracy theories as opposed to someone who creates conspiracy theories. See the reply above. Seems much simpler to remove this confusing phraseology therefore.79.129.53.49 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

We are citing reliable, independent sources per WP:RS and WP:FRIND. The sources call him a conspiracy theorist or call his claims conspiracy theories. The citations are contained in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD.

References

I can understand if you wish to have a debate with the authors of the sources, but this isn't the venue to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn’t be providing inaccurate information based on assumptions about what readers may or may not understand. The article is linked for readers to view if they do not know what it means. I’m somewhat confused by your intentions behind this. Why would the label of conspiracy theorist need to be in the article? You can take it out if you feel that it will confuse readers. Kkirchhoff01 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Please remove the assertion that Bob Lazar is a "conspiracy theorist" as his first and primary description. That is not accurate. He is not first and foremost a "conspiracy theorist". If labeling a person a "conspiracy theorist" was a thing, then you would have to label EVERYONE a conspiracy theorist who do not believe everything they are told on the news. Please remove the gratuitous emphasis on Bob Lazar's criminal history. It has absolutely no relevance to why he is a public figure and it is short and uninteresting regardless.Philo Major (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Philo Major (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So you want everything removed that you just don't like. Here in reality, Lazar is a conspiracy theorist and a criminal. The article should stay as is. 82.132.218.8 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

His "crime" was selling some computers to a whore-house (that was the whole "pandering" thing, what WP conveniently fails to elaborate on. I suspect because they just don't like the person and want to smear him). Big whoop. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

bogus history by google fact checked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.100.1 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Body Language Expert Testimony

This guy not only passed lie detector tests but also had a body language expert analyse his interviews. Passed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpN5PjOxHbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

All of which is worth precisely zero as lie detectors are often wrong (read the Wiki article), and testimonials from body language ”experts” are worth zilch. RobP (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Recent removals of "conspiracy theorist" from the article [14] and [15] have been reverted, since high quality academic sources are cited for this — explicitly contextualized as conspiracy theories — noting Lazar's claims that the US is keeping alien technology secret and had his educational and employment records destroyed in order to discredit him. This is clearly not just "reporting what he saw". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

"conspiracy theorist" (derogatory) should be replaced with "physicist" (subject's occupation, as published in the media - e.g., Associated Press coverage as published in The New Mexican, July 30, 1982) 104.205.197.169 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Declined: already answered above, —PaleoNeonate – 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What does he refer to himself as? I think like 99% of people who know who Bob Lazar is aren't going to think "Physicist." They're going to think "That's the conspiracy guy who said the U.S government had Alien Spaceships." He's not like known for being a physicist, ya know? I do think conspiracy theorist is not the right terminology as, he's not really speculating or theorizing on anything, he's just reporting what he claims to have seen. (this may or may not be partly fiction) Overall, I don't think it makes sense to primarily refer to him as something that doesn't have to do with the whole UFO thing because that's what he's known for, but I don't think conspiracy theorist is the right thing to say either. Abider445 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)