Jump to content

Talk:Bob Lazar/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Whistleblower" ?

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

Yeah, I saw those edits go by and was unsure myself. Looking at Google News for "Bob Lazar" "whistleblower" uncovers a bunch of articles, none of which are strongly reliable:
I also found this:
  • 10/30/19 article in the NY Times also by Jessica Klein. - Uses 'whistle-blower' in quotes. Again, not a strong endorsement.
Looking at page 148 of Bob Lazar's autobiography, he writes that some people called him a whistle-blower and that he blew the whistle as an act of self preservation. I don't think we can call the subject's autobiography a reliable source, but it is worth noting that the subject does state that he blew the whistle. Of all the references I found, this is the strongest for considering him to be a whistleblower, but I don't see it as reliable.
I excluded a bunch of non-WP:RS sources such as Fox or the Daily Express. After looking at the sources, I too did not find a good WP:RS source and I agree that the subject's claims do not fall under the mainstream definition of whistleblower. (LuckyLouie: many thanks for adding this to the talk page as there have been a few reverts.) Cxbrx (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I did notice a number of news stories published in Summer 2019 hyping the release of the Jeremy Corbell documentary about Lazar, heavily promoted with the tag line "He blew the whistle. Then went silent. Until now." It appears most outlets used the term "whistleblower" with scare quotes. Considering Lazar is not included in List of whistleblowers, I don't understand why we need a See Also link to it here. The See Also link to Remote Viewing is equally puzzling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Just now I looked for sources concerning the subject and Remote Viewing and I did not find any. I posted to User talk:Funkquake inviting them to participate in the discussion here. I'd like to give them a day or two to reply and then consider removing Remote Viewing from See Also unless we find some reliable sources.Cxbrx (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete Whistleblower and List of whistleblowers from See also until such time that there is significant evidence that what said whistle was being blown on actually existed, unlike all the other mainstream whistleblowers for whom the term is usually applied. Another instance of (perhaps good faith) name dropping in the See alsos with the effect of elevating a subject's credibility by association, in this case associating Lazar with mainstream whistleblowers, in my opinion. By the way, the word "whistleblower" appears 10 times in the article on Edward Snowden and that doesn't inlude the See also and references. Doesn't appear once in Lazar's article. 5Q5|✉ 12:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, there is no supportable connection between Lazar and Dulce Base. Lazar's story is all about Area 51, not Dulce Base. I suppose Close encounter could stay, in part because Lazar claims he examined a UFO. There could be a long discussion about how well supported Lazar's claim is, but that could be applied to any close encounter. I propose that we remove Dulce Base, Remote Viewing and Whistleblower from the See alsos Let's what a couple of days and see if Funkquake replies before removing these from See also. Cxbrx (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Close Encounter refers to a claim of encountering aliens who have landed on earth or an alien spacecraft in the act of being piloted by aliens, which AFAIK is something Lazar has not claimed. So I think the few See Also links that are actually relevant to this bio might be UFO conspiracy theory (the essence of Lazar's claims are that the government is conspiring to cover up alien technology), Paul Bennewitz (an individual with similar claims), and Area 51 (although it's already linked in the text). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed Dulce Base, Remote viewing, Whistleblower, List of whistleblowers from See also. Upon reflection, I agree that Lazar did not experience a Close encounter. The 1995 NY Times article states that Lazar "'reverse-engineered'" one of nine alien craft". So, we have a WP:RS that reports that the subject saw an alien craft. However, seeing an alien craft without aliens is not listed in any of the criteria for a Close encounter. If anyone wants to make a counter-argument, please cite the specific type of encounter listed on the Close encounter page. Let's wait a day or two before taking action on removing Close encounter from the See Also section. I agree that Area 51 could also be removed. My guess is that it will be added back in if it is removed. Cxbrx (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The Term Whistleblower definitely applies. It is common for the subject of a whistleblower's disclosure to be unconfirmed. +1 to adding UFO conspiracy theory to see also. I'll add it.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert Spree

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

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

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

No problem! I disagree with your assertion that "the case is closed". And so do the sources in the article that should be taken into account. There are contradicting reports on several points of Lazar's story so all POV must be presented neutrally with a reputable source based approach. If you find reputable sources stating the contrary of some point in the article I will be very glad to help you add it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Claims that alien technology is being hidden or that there was a conspiracy to erase records are WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL when it comes to WP:EXTRAORDINARY fringe claims. We are prohibited from presenting fringe and mainstream views equally, per WP:GEVAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think we are moving towards a more understandable page right now. Until yesterday the page defined him as a criminal not mentioning and linking important topics such as UFO conspiracy theory etc. Let's keep it proportionate (we have 6 lines talking about LANL of which only one presents a counter fact which has been central in understanding the controversy. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

This article is ABOUT a Ufo conspiracy theory. If you don't want to talk about it then you can delete the page. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
jps You have completely reverted the work several people have done in the last few days that has been the object of a lengthy discussion and on which we had reached consensus. I don't want to enter an edit war on this. Why have you destroyed the work of three people without any discussion? User:Keldoo has had to work to reintroduce his edits and we had organised the content in a more understandable way --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed, edited, and restored the reverted edits. I haven't reintroduced a couple of sentences. Please avoid reverting while a discussion is underway. Restoring is a big waste of time and causes frustration unnecessarily. Let's TALK and EDIT what must be edited without starting an edit war. And Revert only when necessary --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't agree with your changes Gtoffoletto. There is no "controversy" regarding Lazar's claims according to our highest quality WP:FRIND sources. Lazar's claims have been found false, and that's why the article read as it did before you started your editing here. You began by edit warring in material cited to fringe sites like "ufoseekers.com" without using the Talk page to discuss your intentions. Then you started posting in the wrong section of the Talk page. When WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE was explained to you, you say the article should have some "counterfact"s. No, your current work here isn't an improvement, which is why I support rolling the article back to jps version. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You are clearly NOT reading my edits and lazily and blindly reverting them. I am NOT arguing that the article should present Lazar's theories as fact. They are NOT and NO REPUTABLE SOURCE EXIST that says they are. So please settle down and try to be objective. I am simply trying to add the few RELIABLE SOURCES that exist (User:Keldoo is doing the same and reverting continuously your and other's blind reverts). Your characterisation of my edits as the addition of the ufoseekers source to the article is intellectually dishonest as the website was a mirror for a reputable news article which I have linked directly after your revert. This is an edit war. I am wasting my time and will not participate in it. I think admin User:Bishonen is following this also. Some help sorting this out and avoiding waste of time would be helpful. p.s. The revert in question is [1] and reverting is NOT the proper way of handling a supposed WP:POVPUSH (please read what you link. Using this term is uncivil and pejorative. Assume good faith in the future please). The revert includes multiple edits to the page (some as innocuous as adding UFO conspiracy theories to the links section. I would like to know what problem you have with the specific edits and we can discuss them. I will NOT revert to the previous version until this discussion is finished and would suggest User:Keldoo to stop reintroducing his legitimate edits because if we revert he will only have lost time doing it manually. Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I agree, this is a much needed improvement to the lead, and more appropriate for a WP:BLP. It describes him for what he is best known for according to the bulk of scholarly sources, and puts his criminal convictions in appropriate context, rather than the needlessly provocative and clumsy "(he) is a criminal" language that previously existed. Good work! - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I added "criminal" as a descriptor because there were none, simple as that. I guess we all have our "needlessly provocative and clumsy" moments[2]... Keldoo (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry, it was not intended as a criticism of you, but rather as an observation that such wording needlessly provoked Lazar fanboys to hack up the article, and a better wording would help avoid that. Carry on : ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No need, I didn't handle that in the most mature way. We're both looking to introduce verifiable content, and to gut the fringe stuff, after all. See you around. Keldoo (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New Sources

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

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

I'd argue that we already have Lazar's story and don't need the minutiae. Lofty education, lofty career as a physicist in which he tried to back-engineer a saucer (inexplicably dropping down to a film processor between his huge jobs), and a period of celebrity in which he blew the secrets of E115 and alien-human interaction wide open. The long-form interviews and documentaries are "out there" for those who wish to indulge Lazar. Maybe you could put one or two in the external links. Keldoo (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In answer to the original question, YouTube is not considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube. Use as ELs are decided by editorial consensus. Happy editing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Keldoo, this is an in-universe description, of course. In the real world, those things are not true. Guy (help!) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Don't get the impression I was being serious about Lazar's towering accomplishments, kids. Keldoo (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

self-employed photo processor on documents

I added the Los Angeles Times who looked into his background and found that in 1990 Lazar had pled guilty to felony pandering, declared bankruptcy and listed his occupation as self-employed photo processor on documents.[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???71.123.94.189 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A panderer is a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute, or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse. -- Singe onion (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
When reading the article it does make me question if he deserves the physicist tag.
I don't know why Freakyflow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a fact tag to the source. The Times clearly talks about the court records so I've removed the tag. 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

References

  1. ^ "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to..." Los Angeles Times . May 6, 1993.

Non-neutral sources and content in “Claims” section

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

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

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

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

YouTube video WP:UNDUE weight, WP:OR?

I'm not sure it's appropriate for the article to place so much editorial weight on a YouTube video [3], especially since (a) only the parts of it that one editor finds interesting are highlighted (i.e. WP:OR), and (b) the source is George Knapp, who is an established WP:FRINGE proponent, occasional host of the decidedly kooky Coast to Coast AM, and the producer of the NetFlix documentary promoting Lazar's views. In other words, he's not a WP:FRIND independent source for facts regarding Lazar's fringe claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

On Wikipedia, we observe the established editorial policies of the encyclopedia. Our articles reflect what reliable sources (WP:RS) say about a subject. In this case, the subject is primarily known for his claims that the US government is part of a conspiracy to cover up knowledge of alien involvement and alien technology. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes what is contained in the article body, and specifically includes a summary of material from high quality sources that are cited in the Bob_Lazar#Claims section establishing him as a conspiracy theorist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree w/ the anon. To label the subject a conspiracy theorist is wholly inappropriate, senseless, incorrect, misleading. There is no evidence or source that reports he has theorized anything regarding motive of others in his story, even that of his purported employer. He has rarely ever speculated, but has consistently & routinely responded that he does not know the whys or motives of others in his story. His story is his report. His report is either true, partially true/partially false, or false, or false and fabricated. What he worked on, what he read, when, how, with whom, and other experieces, some of which are documentable (e.g. FBI raid). Labelling him a possible "whistle-blower" or possible "hoaxer [liar]" or possible "psychotic" would all be more objective, accurate, and fair, even though none of those alternatives are encyclopedic-worthy. But to label him a "conspiracy theorist" has no basis except in, as the anon points out, opinions, and even lacks common sense. (You can find lots of sourced opinions that Trump is an "illegitimate president". Does that warrant labelling him so in the lead of his BLP? You do the math.) --IHTS (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the average reader would certainly not understand the definition of conspiracy theorist to be someone who believes in conspiracy theories as opposed to someone who creates conspiracy theories. See the reply above. Seems much simpler to remove this confusing phraseology therefore.79.129.53.49 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
We are citing reliable, independent sources per WP:RS and WP:FRIND. The sources call him a conspiracy theorist or call his claims conspiracy theories. The citations are contained in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ James McConnachie; Robin Tudge (1 February 2013). Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, The (3rd). Rough Guides Limited. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-1-4093-2454-6.
  2. ^ Christopher Hodapp; Alice Von Kannon (4 February 2011). Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-1-118-05202-0.
  3. ^ Barna William Donovan (10 January 2014). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland. pp. 150–. ISBN 978-0-7864-8615-1.
I can understand if you wish to have a debate with the authors of the sources, but this isn't the venue to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Body Language Expert Testimony

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

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

So you want everything removed that you just don't like. Here in reality, Lazar is a conspiracy theorist and a criminal. The article should stay as is. 82.132.218.8 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
His "crime" was selling some computers to a whore-house (that was the whole "pandering" thing, what WP conveniently fails to elaborate on. I suspect because they just don't like the person and want to smear him). Big whoop. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Stinks of bias meant to discredit Mr. Lazar

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

Bob has passed 4 lie detector tests. When I listen to him, he doesn't add "goodies" if it wasn't there and he didn't see it or experience it, he doesn't embellish when you watch the original interviews. The only possibilities are that either Bob is the world's best liar, the world's most well adjusted lunatic, or he is telling the truth.
To be a liar he would need to be devoting immense energy, focus and memory recall in order to avoid typical unconscious body language that betrays his words as well as to keep his story 100% consistent over 3 decades. And he would have needed to keep the web of lies going for so long with literally no incentive. he hasn't made money from his story. he has actively avoided the spotlight and attention. Not to mention when he went to court he had the incentive, to tell the truth, to avoid purgery yet still told a lie? No incentive.
If he were crazy enough to fully believe he is telling the truth about things that never happened, then he would have to be completely insane but only about this one event in his life. For someone that detached from reality to be otherwise, we'll adjust, with a successful business and stable personal life would be all but impossible.
That leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that what he is saying is fundamentally true. Which as a skeptic really bothers me and with his recent resurgence and the recent government videos has made me accept the possibility.
Again I don't buy woo. From ghosts to 911 conspiracy to flat earth, this is the only paranormal/conspiracy topic that I've ever entertained as being probable. And it annoys me I have to accept that, at least as more likely than not, extraterrestrial technology or some tech that is beyond the understanding of the general population and our experts as well as beyond the generally understood scientific understanding and/or current capabilities of our species. Snowy Badger (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You think this is more probable than Lonnie Zamora's story? 2601:401:180:E1E0:C5AB:705E:154D:8CBC (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Story is full of massive holes (which should be int he article) each which disprove his claims. He did not invent a water powered engine for a car! He did not attend any university EGT MIT when he was living in California! They do not give security clearance in 1 week to anyone let alone a criminal bankrupt! When asked who at MIT and CalTec could prove he went there (on the spot) he gave his HS teacher name and his college (where he failed out) teachers name! You need an undergrad degree to do a postgrad degree (he has never claimed to have one) no evidence of going to uni, no papers, reports, transcripts, photos, friends etc etc Theres plenty more.HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, why introduce him as a "Conspiracy theorist". Calling Lazar this was is calling Edward Snowden the same. If anything he is a "whistleblower" or physicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.6.233.167 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I also agree, calling him a conspiracy theorist is horrendously inaccurate. He did almost no theorizing, he just shared his own actual experience and things he learned from his coworkers and specifies which things he worked with and which ones he just heard about. The only "conspiracy" he talked about was the government withholding information from the public, which, by definition, is not a conspiracy because no laws were broken. Whistleblower seems more accurate, or whistleblower with unconfirmed claims.72.128.68.12 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracies are not by definition illegal, and spreading one conspiracy theory is enough to fit the bill. You people show either no reasoning at all ("I agree" is not reasoning) or really bad reasoning that falls apart as soon as you write it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Lie detectors are notoriously unreliable. He can pass as many as he wants, it does not matter one bit. Neither does it matter if you accept what he says, or whether you accept other crap or not. It only matters what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Recent removals of "conspiracy theorist" from the article [4] and [5] have been reverted, since high quality academic sources[1][2][3] are cited for this — explicitly contextualized as conspiracy theories — noting Lazar's claims that the US is keeping alien technology secret and had his educational and employment records destroyed in order to discredit him. This is clearly not just "reporting what he saw". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ James McConnachie; Robin Tudge (1 February 2013). Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, The (3rd). Rough Guides Limited. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-1-4093-2454-6.
  2. ^ Christopher Hodapp; Alice Von Kannon (4 February 2011). Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-1-118-05202-0.
  3. ^ Barna William Donovan (10 January 2014). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland. pp. 150–. ISBN 978-0-7864-8615-1.

Attack page

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

Couldn't agree more. This man is extremely credible and there is plenty of evidence out there supporting the fact that he worked on s4, just look at the footage he filmed with different people on 3 consecutive weeks of UFO's. I'm not sure I know where to start as far as rewriting the article goes! Brad from Aus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.147.135 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The English language admins of Wikipedia are on a crusade to sanitize reality into a nice simple picture they can wrap their small minds around. If you want to get real information off of wiki do your searches in Spanish, Russian, Swedish, or any other language except that spoken by the idiots in charge of the United States. Psychicattorney (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am an enwiki administrator. I have no crusade against anything, except poor sourcing, patent nonsense, etc. Anything you add which meets the standards of verifiable, reliable sources which are on topic, I will not only not remove, but will defend them to remain in the article. —EncMstr (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

His character is under attack because he has a bad character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.161.64 (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
So, an anon here quotes another anon off-site, to "prove" that Lazar "has a bad character"?! Thankfully not all of us are so gullible as to swallow that "proof". Bricology (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Schild as a corroborating source

Rudolph Schild participated in an interview in April of 2020 in which he states that he is convinced that Lazar is credible and telling the truth. In fact, Schild goes well beyond that in lending credence to at least some of Lazar's assertions. And who is Rudolph Schild? He is Astronomer-Emeritus at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and a man who has authored, or contributed to, over 150 peer-reviewed publications in the field of astrophysics. Here is the relevant portion of the interview. Here is Dr. Schild's page on Google Scholar Here is a list of Schild's publications. He is also the editor-in-chief / executive editor of the Journal of Cosmology. Bricology (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Schild is nowhere listed at the CfA site as "Astronomer-Emeritus," so that honorific is at best suspect. Additionally, that Schild is editor-in-chief / executive editor of the dubious (to put it kindly) Journal of Cosmology would seem to disqualify him as a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
JoJo Anthrax wrote "Additionally, that Schild is editor-in-chief / executive editor of the dubious (to put it kindly) Journal of Cosmology would seem to disqualify him as a reliable source..." What an utterly asinine claim. Here's how asinine: the most vocal detractor of The Journal of Cosmology appears to be PZ Myers, who wrote "...it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the...website of a small group...obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth." Ah, but not so fast! PZ Myers can't be a reliable source about Rudy Schild, because Atheist Ireland said this of him: that after formerly giving Myers a platform at their events, it was now "...publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the atheist blogger PZ Myers". See how idiotic the circular firing squad is? You claim that Schild isn't a reliable source because of objections from people like Myers, and Myers et al, are in turn declared to not be reliable sources, for some failings of theirs, real or imagined. Does Myers disparaging Hoyle somehow make Hoyle not a reliable source too?! Darwin had some mistaken ideas about genetics, therefore he must not have been a reliable source either, right? Pauling was wrong on the structure of proteins in DNA. Cancelled! Kelvin was wrong about the age of the earth, by a factor of 50. He must not have been right about anything! No, the fact is that scientists can be simultaneously correct and mistaken about things, without it rendering them "not reliable". Schild is listed on the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics website as a Senior Researcher, having worked there for 40 years. The idea of the HSCFA keeping some kind of uneducated crackpot in their employ for 40 years is as ludicrous a claim as can be imagined. I already proved, through Google Scholar, and the Harvard Astrophysics website, that Schild has authored, or contributed to, over 150 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, including dozens published in Astrophysical Journal, Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics and MNRAS-- four of the most highly respected journals in their field. Schild's work has been cited more than 13,000 times. You can play "no true Scotsman" all you want, but it cannot render Schild's professional viewpoint irrelevant. Bricology (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Journal of Cosmology is a pro-pseudoscience, pro-fringe, and likely predatory journal in which pretty much anything can be published, as evidenced (and this is but a small sample) here, here, here, and here, wherein Schild's fringe takes on, for example, "connections" between consciousness and cosmic structures are on full display. But if that small sample is insufficient, this should do the trick: a 2013 volume of Journal of Cosmology edited by "Rudy" Schild in which it is claimed, front and center, that A remarkable series of meteorites in Sri Lanka containing extraterrestrial life exists. I encourage everyone reading this note to review that volume edited by Schild, as its straight-faced promotion of laughably fringe material needs to be seen to be believed. You, Bricology, can promote Schild as a modern Darwin or Hoyle all you wish, but Schild's repeated promotion of fringe woo completely erases any credibility he might have once enjoyed. Lastly, the claim that the CfA keeping a crackpot in their employ for 40 years is as ludicrous a claim as can be imagined suggests, among other possibilities, unfamiliarity with academic/scientific institutes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, the source vehicle itself is WP:SENSATIONAL and not WP:FRIND for this application. George Knapp is the executive producer of commercial films and videos featuring Lazar as their centerpiece. He has been promoting Lazar via KLAS channel 8 for years. Most of his recent "reports" are aimed at leveraging renewed interest in UFOs to boost Lazar's profile. Re the interview, Schild treats claims by Lazar as well as "UFO experiencer" Suzy Hansen credulously (no surprise since Schild is co-author of her UFO-alien-paranormal book). Needless to say, Schild's remarks have not gotten any visibility outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

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

Declined: already answered above, —PaleoNeonate – 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked sock J. M. (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

We go by what sources say, and they say conspiracy theorist. High quality academic sources[1][2][3] are cited for this. Lazar's claims are explicitly contextualized as conspiracy theories — noting Lazar's claims that the US is keeping alien technology secret and had his educational and employment records destroyed in order to discredit him. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ James McConnachie; Robin Tudge (1 February 2013). Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, The (3rd). Rough Guides Limited. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-1-4093-2454-6.
  2. ^ Christopher Hodapp; Alice Von Kannon (4 February 2011). Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-1-118-05202-0.
  3. ^ Barna William Donovan (10 January 2014). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland. pp. 150–. ISBN 978-0-7864-8615-1.

Education section needs some work?

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

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

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


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

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

Chclee -- that is not proof that Lazar didn't attend MIT, nor that he didn't earn a degree from MIT. An alumni directory isn't published while someone is still a student; it is published after (often long after) they graduate, with more names added every year. The definitive test for whether or not he is an alumnus of MIT is if he was listed in school documents while he was a student. If, for example, there is an MIT yearbook from one of the years he was allegedly there, and his name and picture are in it, that would prove that he had attended. But even if he had, it would be easy for the government to force a school (especially one like MIT with such an intimate relationship with government work) to redact things that were published after someone left the school and they ended up becoming problematic for the government. No, that is not the same as proving that Lazar actually did go to MIT (I don't have a dog in that fight), but neither does the absence of his name in subsequent alumni records prove that he didn't. As Martin Rees said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Bricology (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We don't do sourcing by "you can't prove it is false, and I have a loony explanation why there is no evidence it is true", we do it by "reliable sources say it is true". Read WP:SOURCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CERN

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

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

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

This could actually be detected if positron leakage is part of routine operation or sudden changes in direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.53 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Liable and slander

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

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a33413777/pentagon-ufo-program-materials-vehicles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c52:6e00:5e1:484d:45:8403:7e8c (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

citations 19, 20 do not reference cadavers

Citation 19 says "event occurs at 54", is that 54 seconds? The video is not 54 minutes long, and there is no mention of alien cadavers.

Citation 20 also has nothing about him claiming cadavers— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9009:c80:ed8:e150:4270:3395:c20c (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bone scanner as potential evidence needs added?

The knowledge Lazar had of the bone scanner, prior to any public sources mentioning it, could be added as a piece of knowledge seemingly backing his claims up. The same could be said of S-4. 67.6.92.4 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which say it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The hand scanner was featured in Close Encounters of The Third Kind. Of course, Lazar couldn’t possibly have seen that film :) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

In the introduction, please change "kilometres" to "kilometers" because this article's topic is thoroughly American, and thus it should use US spelling. 103.110.142.68 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To say there is no facts to substantiate his claims is entirely false.

For isntance he worked solely on the propulsion of the the Extraterrestrial Craft. He claimed the anti gravity propulsion item ran on a fuel was an item that he named that at the time was not on the periodic table of elements. Since his claim it is now an item on the periodic table of elements. The government has tried to erase him for 30 years and to say there is no evidence is complete fabrication. People have come out saying they worked with him. It is unjust for him for this site to call him a conspiracy theorist. 2601:18C:CA00:A8C0:CDF0:4BDF:428F:8026 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. To call him a conspiracy theorist is unjust for him. 

              -James Sitar

-James Sitar Jim Sitar (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Sitar: you're new, so no problem. But this page is not a place to discuss Bob Lazar, see WP:NOTFORUM. If you have any sources meeting WP:RS to back your claims, great, bring them here. Meanwhile note that anyone can take the next undiscovered number in the periodic table and say it does something, and probably at some point that number will be assigned to a real element. And I could say I worked for him, could you disprove it? I only mention these examples as examples of where we'd need reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan interview

Wiki page is almost slanderous. Words like "alleged" and "claims" mean that the author is pushing their personal views while dismissing that this is a scientist who clearly and verifiably underwent an attempted coverup. Linking his podcast interview with Joe Rogan would at least supply the consumer another point of view. Just by alleging someone is a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean that's true. It's only conspiracy until you conclude it's fact. That's, as I stated in the opening line, is borderline slander. And who are you to determine what's fact from conspiracy? 2601:154:C47F:F04E:AC03:60AF:5090:DDE7 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PAG. In other words, Wikipedia has editorial policies that dictate it can only summarize what a majority of independent reliable sources say about any given subject, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Claims Proven True

In Season 18 Episode 7 of Ancient Aliens near the end of the episode they show that many of Bob Lazar’s detailed claims have proven true. NASA has been back engineering downed alien spacecraft at least since the Roswell incident. There is evidence we are testing, or near testing, Warp Drive type, ships in the next ten years. 2603:7080:8D02:EBCC:353D:CFE2:C81:DACE (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, television shows like "Ancient Aliens" might have been considered reliable sources. But not here, and not now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Repetition of content

The paragraph beginning "Lazar claims to have earned a master's degree..." seems to be a complete rehashing of content from the "Background" section, along with material from the first paragraph of "Claims". Perhaps I'm mistaken, as it is getting late here. Cheers. Robert Bronson1 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The repetition was added here by an editor who may not have noticed the info was contained in the "Claims" section. I would remove it from "Background" and move any usable sources to the existing sentence in the "Claims" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This should be non-biased and for information only

He isn’t a conspiracy theorist. The person who edited it seems biased when it should be non-biased. Just give the information on what he said happened and do more research on Bob Lazar’s story. There’s important information that should be added so people can understand it more and they can be able to make up their own opinions. Add proof of his story and then look for things that may have shown he was wrong. Don’t just write him off. His story is a very important one for people to learn about. Hopefully someone else can edit this correctly. 2603:900A:1508:E195:6533:6EDC:C610:B2BF (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Your opinion about what is true abd about what is important does not matter. What reliable sources say matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The article is misleading in some ways. This should be fact checked, but as long as I know (based on publicly available interviews), he did not claim to have reversed engineered an alien craft, but he claimed to have worked in a secret project trying to reverse engineer an alien craft. Those are different things. He admitted not having a complete idea about how the propulsion system actually worked, even after leaving the project. Finally he said the team was unable to reproduce the system because the technology was too far ahead. Read: he did not reverse engineered anything. He only mentions general components of the system he thought were for specific purposes, but he could not ground it on any known physical laws or theories. 2A02:A03F:E3B2:7700:7629:AFFF:FE1D:2FBB (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
After you do that reading, I recommend that you read references 6, 7, and 8 of the article. I note that single-edit IPs seem the primary source of Talk page sections here. Not that there's anything wrong with that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't necessarily imply his credibiity is flawed, or his character is flawed. Based on the sources, most people would conclude he is a conspiracy theorist. I personally see no particular bias based on the cited sources because Mr. Lazar does in fact claim there is a conspiracy to suppress evidence. As JoJo Anthrax points out, the Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, and reliable sources make it pretty clear he is in fact a "conspiracy theorist". Alanwilliams101 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Career listing

On Bob Lazars page he is listed as a conspiracy theorist and a criminal and these are just innacurate 2601:41:4300:1A40:C157:7130:AF4E:6777 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If you read the entire article you will see that the statements that Lazar is a conspiracy theorist and a criminal are supported by multiple, reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to learn about the type of content that can, and can not, be included in Wikipedia articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Our sources overwhelmingly support the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the lead. "Criminal"...not so much. A while back we had disruption at this article concerning the use of the word in the lead [6]. I advised that, while Lazar was convicted of pandering (a crime), it's not what he's primarily known for, and such detail is better presented in the article body. Additionally, adding it to the first sentence of the lead is like a red flag drawing fanboy IPs to disrupt the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns. I added "criminal" as a) It's sourced, and b) both journalists and Lazar supporters agree that his crimes have affected public perception of him (also sourced). So it seemed like a relevant descriptor. Robert Bronson1 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'd be curious to know what others think. I support the existing text in the 3rd para of the lead regarding his criminal convictions, etc. but think defining him as a criminal in the first sentence is leaning a bit overweight. For example, there are plenty of celebrities who have been convicted of crimes during their careers but their bios don't define them in the first sentence as criminals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect (that never seems to sound sincere, unfortunately), I'm not sure those guys make for an ideal comparison. Off the top of my head, criminal convictions do not alter Mike Tyson's boxing stats or Mark Wahlberg's box office numbers. Lazar, on the other hand, is a guy who became famous for making extraordinary claims, and those very claims have had aspersions cast on them because of his criminal activity. Crime is inextricably meshed into the web of BS that is Bob Lazar. Robert Bronson1 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I keep vacillating on this. Defining the guy as a criminal in the first sentence does seem a bit much, and I can think of more than a few editors who, when they eventually learn of it, would/will react to it quite strongly and negatively. Yet that criminal activity (two different instances, mind) is not only reliably sourced, others have explicitly commented (also reliably sourced) about how it colors his primary basis for notability. Including the criminal activity in the lede is, to me, reasonable. I support removing the word "criminal" from the opening sentence, retaining the criminal history in the lede, and perhaps adding the word "his" here: ("Perceptions of Lazar have also been affected by his criminal activity"). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Still feel there's not a strong enough reason to define him as a criminal in the first sentence, although I strongly support the text later in the lead detailing his criminal conviction. The argument that we must define him as a criminal in the first sentence -- because there are sources that mention in passing that his criminal convictions undermine his credibility -- is unconvincing to me. It would be different if we had multiple RS explicitly defining him as a criminal (e.g. "Bob Lazar, criminal and conspiracy theorist...", "Criminal Bob Lazar...", "Lazar, a criminal..." etc.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm convinced by other users' being unconvinced. I will revert my addition. 👍 Robert Bronson1 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks but this edit summary is a bit strange. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Just viewing things through their eyes for once. Have a nice day. 👽 Robert Bronson1 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What the hell? He’s neither a conspiracy theorist nor a criminal. To me this is real-life proof that the govt is messing with his life story. Sends shudders. 98.228.240.44 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of those descriptors are backed up by multiple references. Robert Bronson1 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I see little evidence of his theorizing anything (he has reported witnessing unexplained technologies, but seems to have resisted theorizing - rather has only reported what he witnessed), though he was charged with crimes in 1990 and 2006. I therefore disagree with the 'conspiracy theorist' label, but the criminal records are well documented. Kdevans (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe the article cites about ten different sources (ymmv) that describe Lazar as a conspiracy theorist. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have heard the "he is not theorizing, only reporting what he has witnessed" argument before. But check out his claims: the government is secretly keeping alien technology (a conspiracy), the government erased his records (a conspiracy), his workplace was raided by the FBI not as a part of a murder investigation but to recover Element 115 (a conspiracy). It goes on and on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. Given these assertions, and claims about alien intervention in human affairs, "conspiracy theorist" is the ideal descriptor (and is robustly sourced). As for "criminal", the fears expressed by multiple editors here about fanboys targeting that designation (WP:JDLI), doesn't seem reason enough not to use it in the opening sentence. I'm not going to be dogged about this and will acquiesce to an emerging consensus in the opposite direction, but I do consider it an appropriate secondary descriptor given that crime has undermined the fundamental UFO claim on which this article is predicated. Robert Bronson1 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Since he seems to have been doing business as 'United Nuclear Scientific Equipment and Supplies' for over 20 years, 'businessman' would also be an accurate leading descriptor.
--
From ICANN:
Name: UNITEDNUCLEAR.COM
Registry Domain ID: 17188564_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Domain Status:
active
Nameservers:
EMILY.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
ETIENNE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Dates
Registry Expiration: 2027-01-11 06:26:36 UTC
Updated: 2021-11-10 01:03:45 UTC
Created: 2000-01-11 06:26:36 UTC
-- Kdevans (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
You have misused the word "conspiracy" three times. A conspiracy is a joint effort to do something unlawful or harmful. None of those things (perhaps with the exception of erasing records), falls under that definition. Nevertheless, slight bias aside, I'm struggling to find a descriptor that comes as close as "conspiracy theorist". 73.90.62.16 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Bob Lazar be described as a criminal? He has criminal convictions but labeling him a criminal is a misleading descriptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:7D50:354B:EEA6:3CD8:8997 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

With regards to labeling Lazar as a criminal, I suggest that you actually read the entirety of the discussion to which you responded. As for characterizing Lazar as a 'businessman', that would be as encyclopedic as characterizing him as a male Homo sapien. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you; I have actually read the entirety of the discussion to which I responded. As for the encyclopedicity of 'businessman' or 'homo sapien,' you seem to be offering a not so useful equivocation. Has he maintained a business for 22+ years or not? If so, is he a 'businessman' or not? Is a two-decade record of running a business an indicator of being a businessperson? Kdevans (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Several false pieces of information and proposed additional information

False Information

>He said that while walking down a hallway at S-4, he briefly glanced through a door window and saw what he interpreted as two men in lab coats facing down and talking to "something small with long arms". Three decades later, he said he did not think he saw an alien, but speculated that he saw a doll used as reference for the size of the alleged aliens, and that a nickname used for them was "the kids".

In this video filmed in 1993 Lazar states at 55:33 that he does not believe the shape he saw was a live alien and, at about 57 minutes, goes so far as to say it could be a dummy. This is only four years after he initially participated in the "Dennis" video.

>In 2017, Lazar's workplace was raided by the FBI and local police which Lazar theorizes was to recover "element 115", a substance he says he took from a government lab. Records obtained through a freedom of information request show the raid was part of a murder investigation to determine whether his company sold thallium to a murder suspect in Michigan. Lazar is not listed as a suspect in the investigation.

The source used here is weak and makes several mistakes, including misspelling Moscovium and claiming (seemingly on the assumption that there is no island of stability for Moscovium, which is far from settled) that it is not the same Element 115 as the one Lazar talks about. The article even misspells Jeremy Corbell's full name. Furthermore, Lazar himself has never claimed that the raid was related to his possession of element 115. Allusions to this have been made, primarily in Jeremy Corbell's "Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers", but Lazar himself has never said this and has specifically said he will not speak on this. Also, for further clarity, I propose editing the statement to say that Lazar claims to have taken Element 115 from Los Alamos Labs, specifically.

Additional Information

I think it would be appropriate in this section to add that...

A) Lazar has claimed multiple times that old colleagues and government officials have called and threatened him, and

B) He claims he was terrified when he began seeing his records erased in real time.


I also think it would be appropriate to add a section of refutations Lazar has made to the criticisms of his story. He has argued against many of the points made on this page and it is unfair not to include his arguments. It is also unfair not to include several pieces of evidence that corroborate his story, including (but perhaps not limited to) the following;

A) The Los Alamos National Laboratory Phone Directory was uncovered by Stanton Friedman (a critic of Lazar) containing Bob Lazar's name. Friedman wrote this off as Lazar was supposedly a contractor working at Los Alamos, but it is unclear if the phone numbers of any other contractors are located in the phone book.

B) A W-2 from Los Alamos paid to Bob Lazar was uncovered during a trial where Bob Lazar's alleged work and education history was called into question. The court had threatened to increase Lazar's punishment because of the apparent attempt to mislead the court, but the discovery of the W-2 halted this. It's especially worth including this fact because it shows that Lazar did not change his story about his past even when dealing with criminal charges, and documents were procured that proved sufficient for the court to believe him.

C) Dr. Robert Krangle, an engineer with a PhD from MIT currently employed at Los Alamos, claims to have worked alongside Bob Lazar in an interview with Jeremy Corbell. He recalls Lazar's role as that of a physicist working on a project tangentially related to what Krangle had worked on at the time. Here's a local newspaper about Krangle corroborating his achievements, education and employment.

D) Lazar built and frequently drove a jet automobile (on this page he is only said to have been "interested" in jet automobiles) and owns a company that fabricates chemicals and materials. The fact that he designed and engineered the automobile and runs United Nuclear should put to rest any debate over his knowledge in physics and chemistry, however his intelligence is seemingly called into question on this page under "Background" by the inclusion of his performance and lack of science class enrollment in high school. The source of this data is a book written by Stanton Friedman where he himself provides no source, but claims he uncovered this information with the help of George Knapp who is a supporter of Lazar. The lack of any definitive source here makes this claim fairly weak, however there are multiple confirmed sources to prove he is knowledgeable in physics and chemistry. I don't suggest that his high school background be removed, merely that the page elaborate more on his knowledge of physics and chemistry, and perhaps include language in the Background section to eliminate the apparent bias. 73.90.62.16 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In regards to your "False Information" section, I would advise be bold, as long as your sources are reliable and back you up, go for it and make the change! Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 21:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

"Self-proclaimed physicist" should be changed to "Reported physicist" to be factually accurate.

In the 1982 news paper article from The New Mexican, Sante Fe, Bob Lazar made headlines featuring in an article titled "'Jet' isn't an idle boast on this car". This article discusses his homemade jet powered Honda. At the very beginning of this newspaper article it is literally stated that "Bob Lazar is a Physicist at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility". The word "self-proclaimed" means that Bob is the only person stating he was a physicist, when in fact this was actually stated by a public news source.

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/image/582393805/?clipping_id=44147720&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjU4MjM5MzgwNSwiaWF0IjoxNjY1NzM3MTYzLCJleHAiOjE2NjU4MjM1NjN9.a1hmLCTiQFQv6883TGUcbIvj3QXRj4N6cmN64e_tZzo 103.8.140.52 (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see first paragraph of the Employment section Cannolis (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't Bob Lazars's claims that he worked on the propulsion systems of U.F.O.S. addressed?

Why aren't Bob Lazars's claims that he worked on the propulsion  systems of U.F.O.S. addressed? 2603:800C:1300:A914:C132:18B2:288D:17DC (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources that support those claims. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bob Lazaar's name used in rock band "Clutch" song titled "Escape from the Prison Planet"

I had just watch Joe Rogan's interview with Bob Lazaar and realized I had heard that name before then a light bulb went off in my head. I remembered one of Clutch's songs from the mid 90's mentioned his name. So I pulled up the lyrics from "Escape from the Prison Planet and sure enough it was in there. It was like and epiphany. Man... I seriously love Clutch!!! 2603:8001:1901:8600:6B23:8F16:C0ED:4688 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

fix spin language

"Self proclaimed" "suppoisdly" on and on, this is not neutral language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.201.50 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEUTRAL - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I was coming here to say the same thing when I came upon your comment. This article sounds like it is written by someone who has an agenda against Bob Lazar. An article like this belongs on Rational Wiki, not here. 2600:1700:5400:99F0:9C09:3F64:D6AB:CA87 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Try reading WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Don't worry, it is a short essay. But if you have any reliably-sourced material to add to this article, or if you believe any of the material therein is not reliably sourced, go right ahead and make a bold edit(s). Oh, you should probably also read WP:RS, WP:FRIND, and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The real concern with the "nuetrality" described is that the article leaves out evidence a majority of research and background of Mr Lazar's life, which can sway the reader into false conclusions. 192.174.126.170 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinionated Claims on Conspiracy

Unless self-proclaimed, one cannot assume someone is a "Conspiracy Theorist". Backing this up with "professional sourcing", still cannot be used as it is a soley opinionated claim, no matter who it comes from if denied or unstated by the individual himself (this would be akin to claiming someone is of a specific belief or idiology without clarification or evidence provided by the individual). 192.174.126.170 (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply reflects the highest quality sources available. If a preponderance of reliable sources identify Lazar as a conspiracy theorist, then the encyclopedia follows suit. It's very common for newcomers to misunderstand WP's editorial policies like WP:RS, WP:FRIND, and others. In this case, a helpful essay to read is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Just because a source makes a claim, no matter how reliable, an opinion is still an opinion. Bob Lazar has never stated or made actions to suggest he is a conspiracy theorist. He has also made numerous statements that suggest he is not a theorist of any kind, and simply had a story to tell, whether true or false is uncertain, however it is rather bold and irrational to pin someone as a conspiracy theorist with no founding 192.174.126.170 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory 192.174.126.170 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
it is rather bold and irrational to pin someone as a conspiracy theorist with no founding. I suggest that you read the secondary, reliable sources used in this article, from which the description of Lazar as a conspiracy theorist is indeed well founded. I further suggest that you follow the advice of LuckyLouie and read WP:RS, in order to better understand what is, and what is not, included in Wikipedia articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I have heard the "he is not theorizing, only reporting what he has witnessed" argument before. But check out his claims: the government is secretly hiding alien technology (a conspiracy), the government covertly erased his records (a conspiracy), his workplace was raided under false pretenses by the FBI to recover Element 115 (a conspiracy). And when multiple reliable sources cite such examples in the context of his role as a conspiracy theorist Wikipedia requires us to merely summarize and relay their conclusions without any silly waffling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Did a middle schooler protect this page

This entry is heavily editorialized YUCK Toddtodddd (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a middle schooler protected this page. Now, do you have any specific item to add to, or delete from, the article? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Middle schoolers are his core fan base, if this eBay auction is any indication. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kids these days. But how best to incorporate this notable, artistic activity into the article? Perhaps 'abstract ufo artist' should be added to his occupation(s)? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good description of Lazar's commercial activity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This makes me wonder: What is the IRS six-digit business code for "UFO bon vivant"? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It is 711510. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Page should probably be protected again

Once again this article is becoming a playground for alien enthusiasts. 81.157.51.184 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It is now semi-protected indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Highly opinionated and far from neutral

It is completely insane the way that this wikipedia entry is written. The notion of him being a conspiracy theorist has even less support than his own claims whether one is a skeptic or not. This article draws significant conclusions about his education and employment history that aren't supported (in an editorialized way). You don't need to give support to his claims or defend them -- but surely this is blatant abuse and misinformation.

The article directly refers to mainstream media as if that classification (also undefined) has any implication on the validity of the claims being made. 69.162.230.203 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t Reddit or the comment section of a Youtube video. It has editorial policies (which you can read about at WP:PAG) that dictate how encyclopedic content is presented. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Pandering charge

What I understand this was, he installed a computer network or computers in a brothel, not that he was involved with prostitution directly. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

that was all a lie the government set that up, if he didn't worked at groom lake in a facility called A-4,how would he had know when they were doing test flight,,pendejo Wolfman8142 (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

More importantly, why is his criminal record in his quick bio (whatever you call that grey box) when he isn't notable for being a criminal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.118.208 (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Lazar/Archive_3&oldid=1170941314"