Talk:Bob Lazar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


self-employed photo processor on documents[edit]

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.[1] 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??? (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)


Education section needs some work?[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)

Bad grammar[edit]

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? (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[edit]

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)

DeltaT's white wash[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

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.

Thodef's removals[edit]

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

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"[edit]

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

"" ""

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


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 (talkcontribs) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack page[edit]

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 (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 (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.

Edit summary correction[edit]

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.)[edit]

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[edit]

Saw this video recently 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 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Atomic weight/number[edit]

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[edit]

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

Credentials in lede[edit]

@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. ScrpIronIV 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, that last deletion was entirely appropriate; the article cited made no claims about the subject at all. ScrpIronIV 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 ScrpIronIV 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. ScrpIronIV 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)


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 ScrpIronIV 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

firing for car stuff[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Split articles[edit]

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[edit]

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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3301:82F0:403:795B:884C:BCFF (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Various sources:

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?[edit]

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