Talk:Bob Lazar/Archive 2

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



















Paranormal Researcher
The 'paranormal researcher' tag is an inappropriate classification tag for this subject. Encyclopedic topics remain best as such, without compartmentalizing them. Linking to related topics is fine. I'm for removing the tag. DeltaT 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the paranormal researcher infobox with a more neutral biography infobox. I used the opporunity to post a better copyrighted picture (tv show still), and colour instead of black&white. DeltaT 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

I agree with the removal of the line. I have therefore reserved the right to omit the following paragraph, because a) it is of insufficient biographical importance, b) it is depreciative to the subject of the article: On June 18, 1990, Lazar was convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada of pandering for an illegal prostitute, a felony. A friend of Lazar's, Gene Huff, explained that this occurred because, in a televised interview with George Knapp, Lazar had admitted developing a computerized system to increase the efficiency of the brothel. DeltaT 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More neutral & fair approach
I have edited the article with regard to the following:

a) it is of insufficient biographical importance, b) it is depreciative to the subject of the article: On June 18, 1990, Lazar was convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada of pandering for an illegal prostitute, a felony. A friend of Lazar's, Gene Huff, explained that this occurred because, in a televised interview with George Knapp, Lazar had admitted developing a computerized system to increase the efficiency of the brothel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeltaT (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC). DeltaT 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) As of November 2006, another product available through the United Nuclear website is the radioactive isotope Polonium-210, made famous through the death of Alexander Litvinenko. However, United Nuclear is not suspected of any involvement in the case. Its web site currently has a notice aiming to deflect criticism, noting that "You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount" and that "Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison." (omitted for insufficient biographical importance) -- DeltaT 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Longer intro explaining why Lazar is controversial.
 * More balance in text length between claims and criticism, each now presenting six paragraphs.
 * Omission of the following part, which I think is of insufficient biographical importance to the article: In 1995, Gene Huff, a friend of Lazar's, wrote: "At area 51, Bob had to sign a secrecy agreement and an agreement to waive his constitutional rights." Mr. Huff continued: "The clearance he was now attaining would require perpetual monitoring of his activities and would never simply be attained and forgotten about until the next review date. After some abrupt suggestions that he honor his secrecy agreement and watch his general conduct, he and Mariani boarded a bus with blacked out windows and took a 20 to 30 minute ride down a bumpy dirt/gravel road. They arrived at a base near Papoose dry lake bed known as S4."
 * Omission of subjective, ill-referenced or unfounded text fragments such as:"*'Opinions are divided as to the reliability of Lazar's claims. Some say Lazar's story could be true; they argue that his testimony should be taken seriously and that he is the victim of a cover up by the US government. Critics argue that Lazar has made unsupported statements, has a weak grasp of the scientific principles he espouses, or has produced an elaborate hoax.'""*'These areas, according to Lazar, are inhabited by the adventurous (but to date comparatively reclusive) extraterrestrial visitors who could employ it.'""*'In interviews and public appearances he appears to be well-versed in physics — at least to a non-scientific audience.'" *"(...)but there has yet to be a single alumnus of either MIT or Caltech that has backed Lazar's claims by remembering a class taken with Lazar, or having ever seen him at either campus."
 * Reserved the right to omit the following paragraph, because

Edward Teller
Omitted the part "'It should be noted that Dr. Teller was approached on several occasions to confirm this fact before his passing, only to reply by stating that he could not discuss such things, and would neither confirm nor deny this fact.'" for non-existent reference. DeltaT 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Two questions.. what agency "accredits" reporters?
 * and, is it possible that the older agency name was used because it accords with the IRS EIN on the form and the IRS
 * records were never updated, so the old name is used to avoid confusion at the tax office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


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


 * ufomind.com is hardly a WP:RS. The slip, if it cannot be verified by a WP:RS, does not belong. BBiiis08 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

My opinion of Lazar is that he is full of shit. Just a few highlights for you:

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

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

3) He claims the above argument is not valid as his 115 was made in a far off region of space and given to him by Aliens. Sadly for Lazar the nucleus of an atom does not depend on how it was made, the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

My criticism of Delta T's Reverts
I made a number of changes to this article when I was not signed in and I regret that I did this and also that I did not further explain my changes, nevertheless DT's reverts do not make a lot of sense to me. Basically my changes consisted of putting language in the description of Lazar's claims to make it abundantly clear that his claims were just that, claims, and not proven fact. Also I put in a statement about Lazar's W-2 that indicated that most likely he was not doing scientific work for the Navy due to his low pay. When I have more time, I intend to put these changes back and perhaps DT and I can reach an agreement on what is a more acceptible article, as I do not feel that the article at present is.Chattanoogan (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you. I was looking around the internet about area 19/52/51 because I was simply bored and I came to wikipeida (which I have had an account for the past 2 years) and I found this article to be very bias toward Lazar's claims. DT seems to be ensuring that the article favors Lazar's claims. This is not within the guidelines of wikipeida's neutrality standards. I also think its interesting how DT's thesis was in "Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life" which leads me to believe that's the reason he is making this article more bias towards Lazar. Please make this article more neutral. --Tm1000 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * DeltaT has been blocked and his appeal denied for his editing problems in a variety of articles. Had I known DeltaT is the webmaster for such sites as a mirror of Lazar's website I would have contact adminstration about a WP:COI. But since he's banned there's no point. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

^Of course it doesn't make sense to you. If what he claims is true, it's far beyond what physicist are capable of yet. You're trying to apply your knowledge to something far beyond you. He (Lazar) doesn't claim a complete understanding of it; you're speculating without grasping or even having access to the entirety of the knowledge of this craft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.188.38 (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Even if Lazar had published in Physics journals, that would change little, unless his publications had to do with the type of claims he makes about UFOs. C d h (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all valid points you raise. My take on this article is that his BS shines through splendidly; and I'm not a physicist. The overwhelming lack of proof/verifiable evidence puts it all into the category of conjecture and hearsay. His only point of notability is a newspaper published the story; and that his was the first. I think the weakness of his claims is established to a rather sufficient degree. The fact that he's entirely ignored by credible sources speaks volumes, doesn't it? DisarrayGeneral 06:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazar is not a physicist
I object to Lazar being classed as a physicist. He is at best a delusional technician and at worst a conman. Here is my evidence

1) No university degree, no PhD, no record of attending any physics conferences 2) NO PUBLICATIONS. In any physics journals, or any scientific journals 3) It is clear from his videos to any trained physicist that he would struggle to pass even a high school physics test let alone reverse engineer advanced technology as he claims 4) He is not a member of the National Inst of Physicst, American Institute of Physics or any other professional body. I think I will stop there but you get the idea. There is no evidence that he has done any physics. If you classify Lazar as a physicist then you could classify anyone as almost anything.
 * It would be useful (and necessary) to provide references for this "evidence". Without any the changes contributed to the article do not comply with policies like Cite Sources or Verifiability. It unfortunately only amounts to what's known in Wiki as Original Research, and cannot be included without providing third party published sources. Are you aware of any we can cite? Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Together better. Putting to work in a sole facility the wind the sun and the wave power Author(s): Lazar, R Conference Information: 23rd IEEE Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Date: SEP 06-07, 2004 Tel Aviv ISRAEL Source: 2004 23RD IEEE CONVENTION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS IN ISRAEL, PROCEEDINGS  Pages: 358-359   Published: 2004 Title: Intracortical pathways determine breadth of subthreshold frequency receptive fields in primary auditory cortex Author(s): Kaur, S; Lazar, R; Metherate, R Source: JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY  Volume: 91   Issue: 6   Pages: 2551-2567   Published: JUN 2004 Times Cited: 26 Title: Biomonitoring of bioavailable PAH and PCB water concentrations in the Detroit River using the freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata Author(s): Gewurtz, SB; Lazar, R; Haffner, GD Source: JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH  Volume: 29   Issue: 2   Pages: 242-255   Published: 2003 Times Cited: 4 Title: Spectral interactions, but no mismatch negativity, in auditory cortex of anesthetized rat Author(s): Lazar, R; Metherate, R Source: HEARING RESEARCH  Volume: 181   Issue: 1-2   Pages: 51-56   Published: JUL 2003 Times Cited: 8 Title: Knowing hatred Author(s): Lazar, R Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS  Volume: 84   Pages: 405-425   Part: 2   Published: APR 2003 Times Cited: 3

Title: Using the fuel cell technology to produce electricity from hydrogen electrolyzing seawater and as a by-product desalinized water. Author(s): Lazar, R Conference Information: 22nd Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Date: DEC 01, 2002 TEL AVIV ISRAEL Source: 22ND CONVENTION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS IN ISRAEL, PROCEEDINGS  Pages: 44-46   Published: 2002 Title: Quantitative biomonitoring of PAHs using the Barnes mussel (Elliptio complanata) Author(s): Gewurtz, SB; Drouillard, KG; Lazar, R, et al. Source: ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY  Volume: 43   Issue: 4   Pages: 497-504   Published: NOV 2002 Times Cited: 9

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

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

I also searched arxiv, see

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

This provides a dozen papers, again none appear to be the Lazar dicusssed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.186.213 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also searching the iop and aip websites for Lazar shows nothing. 3) I can not prove Lazar knows nothing without doing "original research". Although i'm sure there are many other physicists who are part of wikipedia perhaps they could be asked? I thought the burden of proof should be on others to provide some evidence that he has done some physics.
 * All that one needs to provide content is a published source. Since his claims were published in newspapers they can be provided in his bio. The burden of evidence is on the editor contributing the content per WP:BURDEN. The policy even goes so far as to cover "verifiable not necessarily true" Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It could be argued that even without analysing his claims his terminology gives him away. He says things like gravity A and gravity B or weak and strong gravity. There is no such thing, this suggest either he knows about a new theory of gravitation (he could go and collect his Nobel prize if this were true) or he doesn't know what he's talking about. He probably heard the terms strong and weak nuclear forces and tried to use them to sound like a physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.186.213 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

titled, "The Bob Lazar Fraud". I think this is the closest we could get to someone of note commenting on Lazar, Friedman is a well known ufologist, and also has an actual verifiable degree in physics, and worked in this capacity for a number of notable companies before becoming a ufologist. His wiki page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehahoogobob (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While citing him as a source would be fine, I can't glean anything from his article that doesn't already exist in this bio. What would you propose is included from Friedman's paper? Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  07:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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

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

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..."
 * In 1993, the Los Angeles Times looked into his background and found there was no evidence to support his claims.
 * He worked as a photo processor.
 * His educational and professional background cannot be verified.
 * 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 and . 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)

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)

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
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
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)

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 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 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)

Split articles
I propose that S4 the research facility should be moved back were it was. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; 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)

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)

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. Or so I thought. 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. 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.


 * @. 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. 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)

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

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)

"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)


 * 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 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?  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)

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)

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 ).- 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 . - 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)