Bob Lazar: a few questions...
Adam
Hi. First posting, please accept apologies for going over old ground.
I read through the entire group until 3am this morning - fascinating
stuff. I also took a look at a few related Usenet groups who seem to
feel that the story was fabricated to ensure a big movie pay out.
Personally I prefer to take the stance of innocent until proven guilty,
but what is debate without synics?
However my instinct tells me that the pay out scenario is not the case.
If a film/book is only now on the cards after some seven or eight years
Lazar hasnt been exactly rushing to cash in on the initial euphoria! I
mean look at the way Ray Santilli set up numerous TV deals around the
world, videos, books etc. before even allowing a single frame of film to
be broadacast of his so called alien autopsy. Incidently I was at the
World premiere of that film footage in Sheffield, England. My personal
opinion is that it is a fake. However I also feel that is an informed
fake and that it may be part of either a) further misinformation
designed to cloud the issue, or b) the gradual educational process -
although there are elements of the film that break with traditional
UFOlore and therefore would hinder process b. I guess.
As I have said Bob Lazar's story is fascinating to me. I lost interest
in general sighting stories some time ago as these are almost two a
penny and rarely add to the overall picture. What I find most refreshing
about the Lazar angle is that it puts possible answers to many
questions. Even IF Lazar had fabricated the story he has done a bloody
good job of hypothesising propulsion systems etc. For that alone I thank
him.
If I may take up a little more of your time, I have a few questions that
I hope someone may be able to help me with or point me in the right
direction.
Firstly it is apparent that the craft that Lazar allegedly worked on and
the over-proponderance of fuel indicates that these could only have been
'donated' by their fabricators. This being the case my first query is
why donate them to the United States? Don't get me wrong I am not trying
to say that any other country should have been the first point of
contact but you must agree that the US has its fair share of extremists.
I mean you must agree that the US hardly has the most peaceful foreign
policy in history - irrespective of which side of the political fence
you are sitting on. Would the answer lie in the US' technological
advancement or its higher levels of communication/control of the media -
what do you think?
Secondly, and this is maybe more of a rhetorical question, it is
assumed that the Zeta Reticulans are thousands of years in advance of us
technologically. But may I suggest that simply because they have had
access to materials that are not prevelant in our corner of the galaxy
this does not equate to an advancement in general. For example there
world may not have fossil fuel (I dont know, there may not have been the
natural decaying processes that took place here on earth). That being
the case a Zetan may come across a Buick and think that its combustion
engine puts its manufacturers years in advance of them. Do you see my
point? We may be dealing with a species that is inferior to us in many
respects but that just happened across the perfect propulsion system. I
feel that it may be dangerous to simply assume that they are our
superiors - and further more so what if they are?
Thirdly Bob Lazar says that his overriding reason for blowing the
whistle is as a means of self protection from the powers that be (which
adds credence to my first point). What concerns me however is that if 30
odd people that were direct witnesses to the assasination of JFK were
conveniently and mysteriously disposed of to perpetuate the cover up
(as is now the widely accepted view), how does a couple of appearances
on TV protect Bob from what he himself proclaims as the most secret
subject on Earth. If I were an agency that wished to keep this from the
general public I wouldnt risk a second of information slipping out. As
far as I would be concerned an entire town could go down with bubonic
plague so long as that information did not find its way into the public
domain. Surely a defective engine on an internal flight or a fatal slip
from mending a loose shingle on the roof would just be an unhappy
coincidence and forgotten about within weeks?
Another angle that concerns me is the religious one that has been
briefly mentioned by Bob and highlighted in the alleged Majestic 12
documents supplied to President Carter. It is touched upon that Jesus
was a plant to assist in the civilisation of the world by a benevolant
alien race. My concerns here are not due to religious beliefs - I have
none whatsoever, I am a commited non-believer of any religious doctrine.
What worries me is that this seems a further coroboration of western
values. Why not Mohammed, Buddha or Genghis Khan or for that matter all
four? And if they did this the once why not on a continual basis until
the mission was successful? If anything this single act has merely
contributed to the general instability of the world since 2000 years
ago! Surely they wouldnt have just given up after a short and ill fated
attempt? It is the most implausable aspect in my mind of the entire UFO
case lore. I feel that this little footnote has been slipped in as a
sweetener to keep the fundamentalists on side. It worries me greatly and
is an incredibly dangerous road to travel on in my humble opinion.
Lazar has expressed both amazement and frustration that so few personnel
were afforded to work on these craft. May I offer a possible explanation
for this? If these craft were donated/found/extracted from their
originators between the late forties and early sixties it is sensible to
assume that initially large teams worked feavourishly to decipher the
technology. Over the proceeding years, and especially before some of the
now accepted deviations to then accepted laws of physics became
available, these teams would have disbanded, retired or moved on most
probably having gleaned little from their endeavours. However the
agencies would have still wanted to uncover the secrets locked deep
inside S4 and from time to time with new scientific advances and ways of
thinking would have drafted in bright individuals who may add a little
more to previous discoveries. You see it might be that over the entire
period that these craft have been in captivity thousands of men and
millions of man hours may have been devoted to them but nowadays, and
until further advancements are made in the global scientific community
it is shrewder to limit the craft to a minimal exposure of just the
brightest scientists and technicians.
Apologies for the length of this post - they will be shorter in future.
Regards
Adam :)
Dan Hamlett
Adam wrote:
> I read through the entire group until 3am this morning - fascinating
> stuff. I also took a look at a few related Usenet groups who seem to
> feel that the story was fabricated to ensure a big movie pay out.
> Personally I prefer to take the stance of innocent until proven > guilty, but what is debate without synics?
> However my instinct tells me that the pay out scenario is not the case.
A very thoughtful post, thats refreshing. However, I think your putting
the cart WAY before the horse. Lets debate engines , aliens and
origins AFTER we determine that Bob Lazars case is TRUE. I (obviously)
do not believe it to be true in the least. You might have read my
posts to Gene Huff. If you know anything about the case, you know Huff
is the one scrambling for money on this deal. Thats one reason to doubt
the story, just read some of Huff's childish posts, then tell me he's
above a scam like that. But Innocent until proven guilty??? Please!
It's been proven guilty in many intelligent minds for years.
Here is where you need to start:
FACT: Bob Lazar did NOT attend either Caltech OR M.I.T.
CONCLUSION: Bob Lazar is a liar (because as you know he claims degrees
from both although he NEVER stepped foot in either this has been proven
by several researchers)
If thats not enough for you....
FACT: Bob Lazar's marital, financial and credit historys are shady (to
be KIND!)
CONCLUSION: there is no way in HELL he could obtain any clearance that
would allow him access to such high level equipment.
SO...before we start reverse-engineering the craft at S-4 lets look at
where the info comes from. I recomend you read Mr. Mahood's Timeline
on Bob Lazar. It's the only thing I've seen so far that covers the
whole story with hard facts. Something alot of people on this group
shy away from. I wish his tale were true too, and the things he said
probably ARE out there, it just wasn't seen by HIM.
Dean Adams
Adam <wide...@mail.zynet.co.uk> wrote:
>If a film/book is only now on the cards after some seven or eight years
>Lazar hasnt been exactly rushing to cash in on the initial euphoria!
First of all, there has been no "euphoria", and secondly, he has been
cashing in for quite some time. The most prominent example would have
to be the video that has been around for years.
> I mean look at the way Ray Santilli set up numerous TV deals around the
> world, videos, books etc. before even allowing a single frame of film to
> be broadacast of his so called alien autopsy.
That was a TOTALY different scenario. Santilli had his phony "autopsy"
footage to sell. Something substantial and very conducive to video and
TV deals. All Lazar has is himself and his story.
JP
Adam wrote:
>
> What I find most refreshing
> about the Lazar angle is that it puts possible answers to many
> questions. Even IF Lazar had fabricated the story he has done a bloody
> good job of hypothesising propulsion systems etc. For that alone I thank
> him.
>
This is a very interesting comment. Robert Lazar or whoever wrote the
technical material behind all the S-4 Robert Lazar story is obviously
somebody who knows something about physics. If this is pure imagination,
the author deserves an award. However, the design is so beautifully
logical that it has a taste of reality, which deserves to be seriously
explored. A lot depends on the characteristics of element 115, still
unknown as far as official science is concerned. However rapid progress
in this area has been made during the past few years and continues to
be made, in particular by a German team of researchers who have in
early 1996 succeeded in manufacturing a few atoms of element 112. We
may, in a few years, reach a point where a few atoms of element 115 may
be created by official science. Some of the characteristics reported
by Robert Lazar may then be confirmed or not.
Meanwhile, the limited availability of Robert Lazar remains a problem for
those of us who are interested in seriously analyzing all the
aspects of his testimony, notably the technical one.
I agree with Gene Huff that it may be difficult to carry on an intelligent and
objective discussion on this news group. However I remain hopeful that with
his collaboration and that of Mr. Lazar an appropriate forum may be found
in a not too distant future.
> Firstly it is apparent that the craft that Lazar allegedly worked on and
> the over-proponderance of fuel indicates that these could only have been
> 'donated' by their fabricators. This being the case my first query is
> why donate them to the United States?
The USA may not be the only government having related technical data or
material. The USA however has considerable financial and technical
resources.
>
> Secondly, and this is maybe more of a rhetorical question, it is
> assumed that the Zeta Reticulans are thousands of years in advance of us
> technologically. But may I suggest that simply because they have had
> access to materials that are not prevelant in our corner of the galaxy
> this does not equate to an advancement in general.
>
Whoever has the capability to produce the type of craft and propulsion
system described by Robert Lazar posesses superior knowledge to our
official science, not necessarily our less official military "black one",
which is by far less well known. I agree that the capability to operate
the craft is far different from the capability to produce it. One should
however efrain from making value judgments on the degree of "civilization"
of the producers on the basis of what we currently know.
> Thirdly Bob Lazar says that his overriding reason for blowing the
> whistle is as a means of self protection from the powers that be (which
> adds credence to my first point). What concerns me however is that if 30
> odd people that were direct witnesses to the assasination of JFK were
> conveniently and mysteriously disposed of to perpetuate the cover up
> (as is now the widely accepted view), how does a couple of appearances
> on TV protect Bob from what he himself proclaims as the most secret
> subject on Earth.
>
This is a pertinent comment. Robert Lazar's public testimony may however
be incomplete as far as these aspects are concerned. He could for example
have secured a few extra "insurance policies" than the simple public release
to the media of his testimony and I understand that he or Mr. Huff could be
hesitant to discuss this on this newsgroup.
> Another angle that concerns me is the religious one that has been
> briefly mentioned by Bob and highlighted in the alleged Majestic 12
> documents supplied to President Carter. It is touched upon that Jesus
> was a plant to assist in the civilisation of the world by a benevolant
> alien race.
Robert Lazar has always made a clear distinction between the knowledge that
he has gathered from having direct access to technology from the information
which he simply read or was briefed about. This type of information falls in
the second category and should therefore be given a more limited credibility,
as Robert Lazar has said all along.
>
> Lazar has expressed both amazement and frustration that so few personnel
> were afforded to work on these craft. May I offer a possible explanation
> for this?
>
Your explanation is an hypothesis which should be discussed in a global
multidisciplinary analysis of the testimony of Robert Lazar. An appropriate
forum and analytical team should however be gathered and most of all the
main witness should first of all agree to participate.
Sincerely,
J.P.
Maury Markowitz
> > questions. Even IF Lazar had fabricated the story he has done a bloody
> > good job of hypothesising propulsion systems etc. For that alone I thank
> > him.
Anyone could do this, you'll notice the thread earlier about how
sceptics propulse via farts. Spend 1/2 a day on it and you'll come up
with something that sounds just as high tech and is just as meaningless.
> This is a very interesting comment. Robert Lazar or whoever wrote the
> technical material behind all the S-4 Robert Lazar story is obviously
> somebody who knows something about physics.
Balogna, have you read some of is interviews? It's clear that Bob has a
basic understanding at best, one you'd get from a 1st year course and
reading magazines like Discover. It's equally clear he has no
understanding of modern physics, cosmology or even some basic general
relativity (gravity physics).
For example, the system is supposed to work using a special type of
gravity wave. It's odd, but all of this gravity generation can't be seen
in the incredibly accurate detectors located only a few hundred miles away
in California. The this wave is described as being the same thing as the
nuclear strong force, and that's why you don't see if, but why it's not
simply called the nuclear strong force rather than Gravity A (or B,
whatever), and why it operates over ranges that are no longer subatomic is
left unexplained.
This "gravity" is said to be generated by bombarding an element 115,
claimed to be stable, with protons (or is it neutrons... been a while)
which then does amazing things including sending out this wave, and
antimatter which is then utilized to power the ship (electrically). How
this happens even though it violates the conservation of parity is left
unexplained. Element 115 is the super-tchnology of the whole device, and
even though the people that are getting close to making it in Germany note
that it would be "stable" only relative to the other short life elements
(on the order of milliseconds) this version is completely stable and in
one story he even took some home with him. It's particularly funny that
114 is the "stable" element they're trying for, 115 is on the far side of
the plateau (look it up on their web page).
Even if you assume the above it's said that the craft works by pulling
space to you. How original, I saw that on an episode of Space: 1999, and
I'm sure the concept predates that by a long time. It supposedly focuses
three beams of gravity (this "special" gravity) on a point and then pulls
that point to it, allowing travel at superluminal speeds. Hmmm, exactly
why is the gravity moving at superluminal speeds then? I mean even if the
"snap" when you let go is instant, the beams have to travel from the craft
out to this point, and that happens at the speed of light. No advantage
there.
And then you'll see the mistakes he makes in his interviews. One that
generated lots of flamage from Debene was one in which he describes the
Big Bang as an explosion and the universe as having a center from which
this explosion took place. Well that's just plain wrong, but Debene won't
admit this (of course) and returns only flames.
> If this is pure imagination, the author deserves an award.
Why? What is it about this particular just you find so interesting?
> However, the design is so beautifully
> logical that it has a taste of reality
What exactly is so logical about it? Do you have a physics degree?
> explored. A lot depends on the characteristics of element 115, still
> unknown as far as official science is concerned. However rapid progress
> in this area has been made during the past few years and continues to
> be made, in particular by a German team of researchers who have in
> early 1996 succeeded in manufacturing a few atoms of element 112. We
> may, in a few years, reach a point where a few atoms of element 115 may
> be created by official science. Some of the characteristics reported
> by Robert Lazar may then be confirmed or not.
And in all of their tests nothing magical has happened, nor have the
elements differed from what they believed they would be like. So why are
we to assume, as in this letter, that it will?
> Meanwhile, the limited availability of Robert Lazar remains a problem for
> those of us who are interested in seriously analyzing all the
> aspects of his testimony, notably the technical one.
I've even offered to _pay_ for such a chance, a chance to test not the
story, but Lazar's basic science knowledge. No go.
> I agree with Gene Huff that it may be difficult to carry on an intelligent and
> objective discussion on this news group.
Do you see anything unreasonable in my posts above? Ideas that deserve
to be flamed?
Maury
Nick Humphries
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>Adam <wide...@mail.zynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>If a film/book is only now on the cards after some seven or eight years
>>Lazar hasnt been exactly rushing to cash in on the initial euphoria!
>First of all, there has been no "euphoria", and secondly, he has been
>cashing in for quite some time. The most prominent example would have
>to be the video that has been around for years.
Others include his Testors UFO Model and charges he makes for TV and radio
appearances. It all mounts up.
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
edna reis
In article <32212F...@ltec.net>, Dan Hamlett <dh4...@ltec.net> wrote:
>Adam wrote:
>
Mr. Hamlett I am a retired school administrator and I was a teacher for years
before that. My late husband was a colonel in the military and that's the
reason your posts caught my eye as you claim to be ex-military yourself. In my
years as a teacher I saw more instances of young men flaunting testosterone,
much as you and Gene Huff do, than you could ever imagine. I've learned to
ingore all of that and listen to the facts of a story before I render a
decision. I spend a great deal of time browsing the net nowadays and I have
more than just a passing fancy for ufology. With this in mind, please read my
following comments. I'm old and fat so you can call me all of the names you
want and you can threaten me all you want, but I am a Ph.D. and if you can
detach I think you'll agree with much of what I have to say.
>It's been proven guilty in many intelligent minds for years.
Lazar has not been proven guilty in intelligent minds for years. I am an
intelligent mind and I find his story compelling, not air tight, but
compelling. Your assertion is your opinion and for reasons that will become
clear, you do not speak for intelligent minds and neither do I. These are our
opinions, that is all.
>Here is where you need to start:
>FACT: Bob Lazar did NOT attend either Caltech OR M.I.T.
>CONCLUSION: Bob Lazar is a liar (because as you know he claims degrees
>from both although he NEVER stepped foot in either this has been proven
>by several researchers)
That is not where you need to start. It has not been proven by several
researchers that Lazar has never set foot in either of those institutions. It
has been proven that they have no record of him. However, it has been proven
that he worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory and I've only seen it
suggested that someone found out that he took an electronics course at Pierce
Junior college in California. That minimial education would not have gotten
him a job at Los Alamos Laboratory. Apparently there is evidence that he had
previously worked at Fairchild electronics in California and was allegedly the
youngest person to ever work in an electrical engineer's capacity at that
point in time. That, again, would not be possible with one electronics course.
Ultimately, this leaves us at square one as what we need to know is on what
grounds Kirk-Meyer, a subcontractor, hired him to work at Los Alamos.
> If thats not enough for you....
>FACT: Bob Lazar's marital, financial and credit historys are shady (to
>be KIND!)
>CONCLUSION: there is no way in HELL he could obtain any clearance that
>would allow him access to such high level equipment.
My late husband had security clearances during the course of his military
career and although I am no authority, I have some history with this type of
activity. The military and contractors which work for the military are
literally full of people with backruptcy, divorce, deaths of loved ones, and
every type of other problem that confronts many of us during the course of our
lives. Your records of employment and previous security clearances are what
counts. Those who have clearances have the same problems that confront the
rest of us and there is no way to exempt people from that. Even people with
criminal convictions, depending on the offense, worked for my husband. Mr.
Hamlett, I can tell that you are young by your declarations regarding this
subject. Some of those who responded to you demanded that Mr. Lazar provide
paperwork regarding his clearance. You implied that you have been in secure
places during your military career. Where is your piece of paper? I can answer
that. You don't have one. They do not hand out a diploma stating what your
clearance is, why you needed it, and why they awarded it to you. To people
working in these positions, clearance is a necessary evil, not something to
crow about to your friends. In many instances those you associate with also
have clearances and this is not as romantic as it may seem to those who are
not involved. If you have actually been where you've implied you've been, I'm
surprised you wouldn't have brought this up before now.
>
>SO...before we start reverse-engineering the craft at S-4 lets look at
>where the info comes from. I recomend you read Mr. Mahood's Timeline
>on Bob Lazar. It's the only thing I've seen so far that covers the
>whole story with hard facts. Something alot of people on this group
>shy away from. I wish his tale were true too, and the things he said
>probably ARE out there, it just wasn't seen by HIM.
And on what do you base that assertion? Do you know that Mr. Mahood himself
does not have the same opinion of Lazar that you do? Do you know why? The
people who did the legwork in researching Mr. Lazar's educational background
are, as far as I know, Mr. George Knapp, Mr. Stanton Friedman, and Mr. Glenn
Campbell. Friedman questions Lazar's legitimacy, but Mr. Knapp and Mr.
Campbell still believe him. Do you know why? There is more to all of these
stories than you are willing to admit here and I think Mr. Huff's
confrontational attitude with you is the cause of this.
I guess this brings me to the real question I'd like to put to you, Mr.
Hamlett, and here it is. What facts do you bring to this conversation? You
have a right to your opinion, as do I, but now you're responding to questions
regarding Bob Lazar as though you're some sort of an authority. Frankly, I
don't see it. You did not know that the Office of Federal Investigation did
security checks for workers on the Nevada Test Site. You implied that Gene
Huff does not and did not have a business for the past 10 years. You even
impied that Mr. Huff did not write the synopsis on Bob Lazar's story which
bears his name. What proof do you have of that? When I first bought my net
service I didn't know how to use Usenet but I could email and Mr. Huff was
kind enough to email me his synopsis. It is common knowledge that he wrote it
and according to the entire rest of the net, except you, he is a successful
businessman in Las Vegas. Where is your contradictory proof?
I know that you and Gene Huff have personal conflicts, but you're crowing
around here as though you're the rooster who chased Mr. Huff away and now
you're the authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. No matter what
you think of Mr. Huff, he's the best information source we have on Lazar. You
can not replace that with your unsubstantiated claims and, although I
personally feel that it's nothing to be proud of, you are not even a close
second to him in the smart aleck department. In case you haven't noticed, many
of us who lurk are now speaking up so, to quote someone else, Mr. Huff won't
"close the door" due to the unnecessary harrassment from the likes of you, or
Mr. Nick Humphries, or Mr. Mauri Markowicz. What do any of you have to
contribute?
If all any of you know is what is found here on the internet, then the rest of
us have access to the same information and there are many of us who disagree
with your assessment. It is apparent from you assertions that you, Mr.
Hamlett, have not entertained all that is available to you on the internet as
your commentary reflects naivety of answers to questions that are already
available to you. This is a reflection of your opinion and the value others
should place on it, not a valuation of the rest of our collective opinions.
I'm sure that I'll be spoken to like a common criminal after posting this so
I'll reluctantly sink back into obscurity, but not before I leave you with
this. There is a new book out called "The Catchers of Heaven" written by a
gentleman named Dr. Michael Wolf. This man is a retired medical doctor and
intellect who has worked in secret government programs, as well as been a
director and participant at more than one think tank. He says he's been to
area S4 and that Bob Lazar is correct and is telling the truth. Have any of
you ever heard of him? Allegedly his credentials have been verified by MUFON
and he's authentic. I heard Mr. Gene Huff speaking to him on the Chuck Harder,
For The People, Radio show last week. Apparently this is another thing that
Mr. Huff knows that the rest of you don't.
The point of this is not to pick on you Mr. Hamlett, but the fact is that Gene
Huff won your little exchange factually and emotionally and it doesn't appear
that he's terrbly afraid of you physically, either. All of these points would
lead an innocent bystander like me to believe that you've been put up to this
by Mr. Humphries or a collaboration of like people. The point of this is to
show that Mr. Huff's favorite saying, "You should be reading, not writing",
has never been more true than in this instance. I wish I were as young as you
and had the mobility and financial wherewithall as some of the rest of you so
I could actively participate and do some of this leg work myself.
Where did I get most of my information on Mr. Lazar? Why right here on the
internet. You see, I was reading, not writing.
Woodly
In article <4vt3bs$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
msr...@ix.netcom.com (edna reis) wrote:
Edna:
Your correct. Here's my take on the situation:
Gene Huff and Bob Lazar are as different as night and day, but through a
collective experience they have galvanized their relationship. I believe Bob
and Gene did see something very extraodinary on their trips out to the view
points on highway 375.
Bob Lazar's background has little to do with the story itself, but
unfortunately it's all the general public can research. I have many documents
relating to Bob Lazar's past problems and I will cite his pre-sentence report
for the pandering conviction: (Criminal Case No. 94922)
"Significantly, all attempts to verify the defendant's prior reported social
and/or criminal history have been met with an extensive number of roadblocks.
It is the opinion of the defendant that a concentrated effort has been
utilized to eradicate all prior information concerning the defendant's
employment history, educational history and mere existence. Contacts
initiated within Federal Criminal Justice agencies have been met with 'the
information is on a need to know basis and you do not need to know'. Similar
replies were received from contacts within other Federal Government agencies
not specifically related to the criminal justice system".
So, at that time Bob was a somewhat "hot-potato", the Fed's wouldn't come
clean with any information. What do we do with this?
Yes, I do egg Gene on a bit, but it's all for fun. The Lazar story is far from
over, and only Gene and Bob hold the keys. We have no choice but to wait...
Woody--
Dan Hamlett
Woodly wrote:
(Criminal Case No. 94922)
>
> "Significantly, all attempts to verify the defendant's prior reported social
> and/or criminal history have been met with an extensive number of roadblocks.
> It is the opinion of the defendant that a concentrated effort has been
> utilized to eradicate all prior information concerning the defendant's
> employment history, educational history and mere existence. Contacts
> initiated within Federal Criminal Justice agencies have been met with 'the
> information is on a need to know basis and you do not need to know'. Similar
> replies were received from contacts within other Federal Government agencies
> not specifically related to the criminal justice system".
That is NOT the same pre-sentence report that *I* read on Bob Lazar's
pandering charge.
it's nice that you have clouded the facts for the people that have not
had a chance
to research it themselves. Just another example of someone from within
their "camp"
trying to keep the bullshit alive.
Dean Adams
In article <4vsdq7$9...@news.inforamp.net>, JP <j...@oicv.iosco.org> wrote:
>I agree with Gene Huff that it may be difficult to carry on an intelligent and
>objective discussion on this news group.
Well, it certainly is when gene huff is around!
Dean Adams
edna reis <msr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>That is not where you need to start. It has not been proven by several
>researchers that Lazar has never set foot in either of those institutions. It
>has been proven that they have no record of him.
It has been proven beyond any reasonable possibility of doubt
that he never attended either of those institutions.
> However, it has been proven
>that he worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory and I've only seen it
>suggested that someone found out that he took an electronics course at Pierce
>Junior college in California. That minimial education would not have gotten
>him a job at Los Alamos Laboratory.
Wrong. There are any number of support and maintenance positions at
such a facility which require only "minimial education". The fact
remains, if lazar worked at LANL, then it must have been in such a
position.
...
> He says he's been to area S4 and that Bob Lazar is correct
Anyone who has truly been to "S4" will tell you it is nothing
but empty desert.
Maury Markowitz
> want and you can threaten me all you want, but I am a Ph.D.
In what?
> That is not where you need to start. It has not been proven by several
> researchers that Lazar has never set foot in either of those institutions. It
> has been proven that they have no record of him. However, it has been proven
> that he worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory and I've only seen it
> suggested that someone found out that he took an electronics course at Pierce
> Junior college in California. That minimial education would not have gotten
> him a job at Los Alamos Laboratory.
Sure it would, they hire everyone from PhD's to technicians to
secretaries like anyone else. And anyone they hire does need a security
clearance, one considerably tighter than the one you need as a security
guard at a mall for instance.
The fact that he worked at LANL in no way implies that he has anything
more than the education you note, much in the same way you are correct
that CalTech's lack of records of him doesn't mean he doesn't. However
the assumption here is that he does have some degree of higher education,
when in fact there seems to be no evidence of this. Where is the
detachment you speak of?
> Apparently there is evidence that he had
> previously worked at Fairchild electronics in California and was
allegedly the
> youngest person to ever work in an electrical engineer's capacity at that
> point in time. That, again, would not be possible with one electronics course.
Now _this_ is a good point, you can't claim to be an engineer without
actually being one (at least not here, I don't know the Nevada or
Californian law on this issue).
> I know that you and Gene Huff have personal conflicts
Don't you mean Gene Huff and the world?
> second to him in the smart aleck department. In case you haven't
noticed, many
> of us who lurk are now speaking up so, to quote someone else, Mr. Huff won't
> "close the door" due to the unnecessary from the likes of you, or
> Mr. Nick Humphries, or Mr. Mauri Markowicz. What do any of you have to
> contribute?
How am I harrasing you, Huff or anyone else for that matter? You claim
detachment then state my posts are harrassment? And please learn to spell
people's names, it's just another idiocy from Gene but from someone who
claims to be a calm voice in the matter I'd expect better.
Maury
debbie sutton
>That is NOT the same pre-sentence report that *I* read on Bob Lazar's
>pandering charge.
Fine, but it is the REAL one, and it is of public record in the LV county
building. It says right on it, that when contacted, the Feds stated: "info on
Lazar is on a need to know basis only." and no info was given to the court
system (apparently, they didn't need to know).
-The Deb
debbie sutton
In article <4vtjd4$h...@nfs1.pe.net>, now...@nomail.com (Woodly) wrote:
>In article <4vt3bs$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>
>Gene Huff and Bob Lazar are as different as night and day,
>Yes, I do egg Gene on a bit, but it's all for fun. The Lazar story is far
from
>over, and only Gene and Bob hold the keys. We have no choice but to wait...
>
>Woody--
>
debbie sutton
In article <dadamsDw...@netcom.com>,
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>
>Wrong. There are any number of support and maintenance positions at
>such a facility which require only "minimial education". The fact
>remains, if lazar worked at LANL, then it must have been in such a
>position.
>
>....
>
Joe Vaninetti was a tech at Los Alamos when Bob Lazar was his superior in
position and pay. This is on the record and Vaninetti corroborates it.
Therefore Lazar could not have worked in the positions you cite. I noticed
that you didn't comment on Dr. Michael Wolf. Typical male.
debbie sutton
In article <maury-27089...@194.125.100.1>,
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> Sure it would, they hire everyone from PhD's to technicians to
>secretaries like anyone else. And anyone they hire does need a security
>clearance, one considerably tighter than the one you need as a security
>guard at a mall for instance.
Everyone they hire does not need a security clearance. Why are you responding
if you don't know that?
>
> The fact that he worked at LANL in no way implies that he has anything
>more than the education you note,
Yes, it does. A man named Joe Vaninetti worked there as a tech when Lazar did.
This was corroborated for George Knapp years ago. I have met Vaninetti.
Where does your info come from? Lazar did not work in a position that only
required one electronics course. Why are you responding when it's obvious that
you're fishing?
>
> Don't you mean Gene Huff and the world?
No, she means Gene Huff and idiots like you and Hamlett.
debbie sutton
In article <84108874...@the-den.demon.co.uk>,
ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk (Nick Humphries) wrote:
>
>Others include his Testors UFO Model and charges he makes for TV and radio
>appearances. It all mounts up.
>
>
have verified them. Silence.
debbie sutton
In article <322280...@ltec.net>, Dan Hamlett <dh4...@ltec.net> wrote:
>
>That is NOT the same pre-sentence report that *I* read on Bob Lazar's
>pandering charge.
>had a chance
>to research it themselves. Just another example of someone from within
>their "camp"
>trying to keep the bullshit alive.
Poor Hamlett. The points Edna made fit you like a glove and here you are
proving it. By the way, Woody hides from Huff so try and keep up.
debbie sutton
In article <maury-26089...@194.125.100.1>,
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> I've even offered to _pay_ for such a chance, a chance to test not the
>story, but Lazar's basic science knowledge. No go.
So much for those who say Lazar is money driven. Besides, don't continue to
lie. You asked Gene Huff for a price and he didn't give you one. Of course
this happened after he humiliated you by showing that you didn't know what the
heaviest element to date was, nor where the island of stability was. Did you
ever hear of De Ja News? It keeps liars like you in check. By the way, John
Pike is an actual scientist so no one thinks anything of the comments of a
loser like you. If you had what it takes for science you wouldn't have dropped
out and went to computers. Richard Caldwell is also revealing your inadequacy.
>
>> I agree with Gene Huff that it may be difficult to carry on an intelligent
and
>> objective discussion on this news group.
>
> Do you see anything unreasonable in my posts above? Ideas that deserve
>to be flamed?
>
>Maury
Maury, Huff flamed you for good reason and anyone can go back and see that.
Now you're mean to everyone while trying to get even. You call me Debene! You
think Gene Huff needs to post under a false name because of you? No one buys
that. When Huff came back and kicked your butt all you could say was welcome
back and now here you are complaining once he's gone again. Make up your mind.
Men!
Maury Markowitz
In article <4vv50e$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> Everyone they hire does not need a security clearance. Why are you responding
> if you don't know that?
Have you personally worked at LANL? You do at SLAC and that's not even
close to the same sorts of activities.
> Yes, it does. A man named Joe Vaninetti worked there as a tech when
Lazar did.
So what, lots of other people worked there too, and that doesn't imply
that he went to CalTech either. Now if you find someone that went to
CalTech WITH Lazar, then you're onto something.
> This was corroborated for George Knapp years ago. I have met Vaninetti.
Uh huh, and?
> Where does your info come from?
From _your_ post. I was quite clear in my attributions.
> Lazar did not work in a position that only
> required one electronics course.
What position did he work in? Can you provide any proof of that?
> Why are you responding when it's obvious that you're fishing?
I've been quite clear in all of my posts, we want DIRECT evidence that
Bob has the educational credentials that are claimed for him. So far all
we has is that he has something like a technologists course at Pierce. Am
I wrong? Has evidence of his days at CalTech recently surfaced that I am
unaware of?
Exactly what is it you think I'm fishing for? Fishing implies
attempting to get information when the bearer is holding back. I'm asking
for any information from you or Gene and you claim you have nothing to
hide. Fine.
> No, she means Gene Huff and idiots like you and Hamlett.
Now I'm an idiot because I point out that not everyone at LANL is a
PhD. Good debating skills there Deb. Keep up that "defence" of Bob,
you're doing him such a favour.
Maury
JP
Debbie Sutton wrote that she was reviewing the script of the
movie soon to start production on the S-4 Robert Lazar story.
May I inquire if you have completed the lecture of the above
mentioned document. If yes, I would appreciate knowing if the
proposed script corresponds to the history as you know it or
if there are variations built-in for the sake of making it
more commercialy appealing.
Sincerely,
J.P.
Tom Mahood
debbie sutton (dsu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4vtjd4$h...@nfs1.pe.net>, now...@nomail.com (Woodly) wrote:
: >Gene Huff and Bob Lazar are as different as night and day,
: >Yes, I do egg Gene on a bit, but it's all for fun. The Lazar story is far
: from
: >over, and only Gene and Bob hold the keys. We have no choice but to wait...
: >
: >Woody--
: >
: Wouldn't it be more honest to call yourself Tom MaWoody?
Sigh, I guess it's time to surface.....
As much as I find Woody's posts amusing, I 'll point out that it's not me.
Just not my style. Further, a check of the headers will also show that to be
the case. As I told Gene a while back, I don't post anonymously and I don't
play games.
However speaking honesty and such, I was just wondering why, when I do an
internal "vrfy" check (an internal unix program available to shell Netcom
accounts) on dsu...@ix.netcom.com, it returns the name "David M. Sutton"???
I've been a bit curious about that for a while.
Watching the goings on here over the past few months, I am absolutely amazed
at how many people on both sides of the Lazar story get their facts wrong. If
you want to get into a flame war, I would think you would at least want to be
accurate. Gene, despite the intensity of the spin he puts on things, usually
gets the Lazar story elements right. Not necessarily so with others. And to
all you who want to challenge the Lazar story (and by implication, Gene), you
had better get your facts straight, else you come off looking like a fool,
much to Gene's delight.
Since I'm here, I'd like to mention a few other things that have popped up in
this thread.
Lazar would not to have to had a degree to have worked at LANL. There are tons
of folks there who don't. Of course, I tend to believe he was nothing more
than a very good technician. Nothing wrong with being that. An interview
posted on my web site tends to support that.
As for calling himself an electrical engineer, that's a pretty vague thing.
In some states it's illegal without being registered (i.e., pass a test) with
the state. But even in that case work experience can often be substituted for
the degree. I also know of some companies who have internal job
classifications of "engineer", that allow people without degrees to fill it.
Make no mistake about it, Lazar is a bright boy and could likely handle many
electrical engineering positions. But I am convinced he lied about his
Caltech and MIT degrees.
Lastly, I'll pass on a tidbit I got from George Knapp. A few months ago he
spoke at a Q&A session at a Las Vegas MUFON meeting. I eagerly raised my hand
and asked him what progress hade been made tracking down either of Lazar's
degrees from MIT and Caltech. He just shrugged, and said "none."
Well, THAT wasn't exactly the answer I had expected, based upon postings Gene
had made, so before Knapp could get to someone else I raised my hand again an
said, "But Gene Huff, on the internet, has said you were able to track down at
least one of several classmates of Lazar who verified it." Knapp kind of
looked at me funny and said, "Not exactly. At a party I was introduced to
someone who worked with Bob who remembered Bob having to take off early to go
to classes. That was it."
I would consider that a FAR cry from having verifying his attendance at either
institution.
Tom
Maury Markowitz
In article <4vv4kv$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> Joe Vaninetti was a tech
What type of tech?
> at Los Alamos when Bob Lazar was his superior in
> position and pay.
What position?
> This is on the record and Vaninetti corroborates it.
What record?
> Therefore Lazar could not have worked in the positions you cite.
Why? You haven't stated what Joe Vaninetti's position was, he might
have been a mop pusher too.
Maury
debbie sutton
In article <tmahoodD...@netcom.com>,
tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>Gene Huff and Bob Lazar are as different as night and day,
Tom, I know you didn't write the above line and I'm not including this to
pretend you said it as you're so nice and kind I've decided to not call you
MaWoody anymore. Having said that, whoever Woody is, as well as you, does not
know either Huff or Lazar on a personal level and I can't understand why you
pretend to. Neither of them is who you think they are and those of us who do
know them do not agree with those of you who don't. They are as different as
night and day about some things, but on most things both of them are a little
more alike than you can know or would care to admit. Lazar is not as much of a
quiet respectful bookworm as you might think and Huff is not the opposite. If
you know them, it's even more interesting
>: >
>:
> Gene, despite the intensity of the spin he puts on things, usually
>gets the Lazar story elements right.
Truthfully, he's in a better position to judge your contentions about Lazar
than you are his. The only problem I ever have with your posts is that you're
a bit presumptous when it comes to how you view yourself regarding Lazar. The
reason you have value is because you're detached and Huff is Lazar's friend.
However, Huff has never been caught in a lie and anyone who's read your flaws
series can see that Huff is the authority.
>Lastly, I'll pass on a tidbit I got from George Knapp. A few months ago he
>spoke at a Q&A session at a Las Vegas MUFON meeting. I eagerly raised my
hand
>and asked him what progress hade been made tracking down either of Lazar's
>degrees from MIT and Caltech. He just shrugged, and said "none."
>
>Well, THAT wasn't exactly the answer I had expected, based upon postings Gene
>had made, so before Knapp could get to someone else I raised my hand again an
>said, "But Gene Huff, on the internet, has said you were able to track down
>at least one of several classmates of Lazar who verified it." Knapp kind of
>looked at me funny and said, "Not exactly. At a party I was introduced to
>someone who worked with Bob who remembered Bob having to take off early to go
>to classes. That was it."
>
>I would consider that a FAR cry from having verifying his attendance at
either institution.
>
>Tom
Lazar never claimed to have attended either institution full time. Did you ask
Knapp where this happened? If it was in Massachusetts, it would be quite
interesting or did you miss that opportunity for a great follow up question?
I've met Knapp at a few Desert Blasts and I think you should know that he does
not reveal everything he knows at a MUFON meeting. Don't be naive. In fact,
I've only heard bits and pieces, but both Huff and Knapp have recently made
some monumental finds/disclosures regarding Lazar and Knapp's is way more
than newsworthy. You don't know either of these things and as Huff and Lazar
have both told me to not speak for them I can't imply anything here.
I wouldn't judge what they know by what they tell you or how they ambiguously
answer at a public meeting. Huff is assembling information for a book and you
can't believe what this guy knows. I've even heard a rumor of Huff and Knapp
doing a book together. That would be the definitive work on Lazar.
Tom Mahood
debbie sutton (dsu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <tmahoodD...@netcom.com>,
: tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) wrote:
: >Gene Huff and Bob Lazar are as different as night and day,
: Tom, I know you didn't write the above line and I'm not including this to
: pretend you said it as you're so nice and kind I've decided to not call you
: MaWoody anymore.
What is the saying? Say whatever you want about me, but spell my name right?
Anyway, that would be appreciated.
: Having said that, whoever Woody is, as well as you, does not
: know either Huff or Lazar on a personal level and I can't understand why you
: pretend to. Neither of them is who you think they are and those of us who do
: know them do not agree with those of you who don't.
I don't know that I've given the impression that I know either on a personal
level. I have some impressions of Lazar, based only on interviews, and his
general background, but that's it. Actually, you might be surprised that I
think Lazar would be a most entertaining guy to hang with. He likes high-tech
toys and things that go boom. I also think he has a great sense of humor. I
can see how he garners strong support from his friends. An all around fun
guy. Would you agree this is somewhat close to the truth? On the downside, I
suspect he can be a bit scatterbrained and lacks discipline. Too many things
going at once and he lacks staying power for long term projects. I certainly
don't mean this to sound like some sort of psych profile, but I've never
really said what I thought of the guy. The only reason I do so now, is to
counter the idea that I have some sort of emnity toward him.
Similarly to my good bud Gene. Many people I know who have met Gene
personally report him to be quite pleasant in person. This seems quite at
odds with his net persona. He and I have had a lot of exchanges, and I found
him to be mostly reasonable. He took a lot of what I consider unwarranted
swipes at me and do feel a bit burned by him, but considering he dosn't
know much about me or my motives, and I may have come off as just another
attacker to him (although he's never seemed interested in what my actual
goals are). Actually, he and I may be opposites in the respect that I'm
more polite on the net than in person! I also think Gene has a pretty good
sense of humor when he's not flaming. One reporter's opinion anyway.....
: > Gene, despite the intensity of the spin he puts on things, usually
: >gets the Lazar story elements right.
: Truthfully, he's in a better position to judge your contentions about Lazar
: than you are his.
I will grant that is true, but perhaps only to a point. Gene would likely not
poke deep into Lazar's background because he feels he already knows Lazar very
well and has made a final assessment on Lazar's character. It's conceivable I
may have come across some items Gene is not aware of, but I'm sure they
wouldn't change his assessment of Lazar.
: The only problem I ever have with your posts is that you're
: a bit presumptous when it comes to how you view yourself regarding Lazar. The
: reason you have value is because you're detached and Huff is Lazar's friend.
Well, the statement that I have value proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're
not Gene in Net drag!! Seriously, I'd like to know more about why it appears
to you I'm a bit presumptious in my view. Perhaps I am and am not aware of
it, but I am always open for constructive criticism.
: However, Huff has never been caught in a lie and anyone who's read your flaws
: series can see that Huff is the authority.
I used to agree with you about Gene being a straight shooter, but after he
misquoted me a number of times, I backed off a bit on that assessment.
The instance where he said I had suggested Lazar killed Carol pops into mind.
There were others. Gene is certainly much more the authority on Lazar than
I, and I've never seen him trip up in matters regarding the Lazar story, and
he has my respect for that. (I've said enough nice things about Gene...I
starting to twitch!!)
<Stuff about Lazar's non attendance at Caltech and MIT snipped>
: Lazar never claimed to have attended either institution full time. Did you ask
: Knapp where this happened? If it was in Massachusetts, it would be quite
: interesting or did you miss that opportunity for a great follow up question?
I believe Knapp was introduced to someone who worked with Lazar at Fairchild,
so it would have been in regard to the Caltech claim. I had the sense the
"party" Knapp referred to was a Desert Blast, but I can't be sure of that.
While Lazar may never have claimed to have attended either institution full
time, the folks at the Grad office at Caltech told me they don't permit part
time attendance in their graduate programs. I can't speak for part time
policies at MIT.
: I've met Knapp at a few Desert Blasts and I think you should know that he does
: not reveal everything he knows at a MUFON meeting. Don't be naive.
If he knows more about checking Lazar's educational background then what he
told me, then he lied, and I have no respect for that. I asked a very
straightforward question.
: I've only heard bits and pieces, but both Huff and Knapp have recently made
: some monumental finds/disclosures regarding Lazar and Knapp's is way more
: than newsworthy. You don't know either of these things and as Huff and Lazar
: have both told me to not speak for them I can't imply anything here.
This is an area that really bugs me. Gene hints again and again that he knows
SO much more than myself and others, and we would certainly change our tune if
we knew what he knows. Maybe that's so. If it is, and new blockbuster info
comes out, you can bet it will be added to my web site ASAP. But until that
happens, I don't think it's right to get on the skeptics' cases because they
don't have the same info base to work with as Gene. Based upon the info
publicly available to us mere mortals, the idea that Lazar is a liar and
fraud is certainly not an unreasonable one. I take exception to members of
the "Lazar Camp" that ridicule and berate others with contradictory opinions,
opinions formed without the benefit of info the Lazar Camp has purposely
witheld.
I can appreciate witholding info at times. There is stuff I know about (not
necessarily about Lazar) but would rather not publicly talk about because
it might shut down the sources or cause other problems. But I don't throw
out this "If you only knew what I know you wouldn't think that way" stance.
: I wouldn't judge what they know by what they tell you or how they ambiguously
: answer at a public meeting.
If we can't judge their knowledge by what they tell us, then please explain to
me how we ever possibly can? Is a book (where an author has time to think
about things and possibly slant things in support of his storyline) better
than extemporaneous speaking?
If Gene is indeed working on a book, I'll be one of the first to buy a
copy...but then I went to see ID-4....
Tom
Tom
Dean Adams
debbie sutton <dsu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>>Wrong. There are any number of support and maintenance positions at
>>such a facility which require only "minimial education". The fact
>>remains, if lazar worked at LANL, then it must have been in such a
>>position.
>
>Joe Vaninetti was a tech at Los Alamos when Bob Lazar was his superior in
>position and pay. This is on the record and Vaninetti corroborates it.
So if we are to believe this "Joe Vaninetti", lazar could have
been a supervisor or senior electronics technician. Whatever.
>Therefore Lazar could not have worked in the positions you cite.
Eh? You lost it there.
> I noticed that you didn't comment on Dr. Michael Wolf. Typical male.
You mean the guy supposedly telling "me too" wacko stories about S4
flying saucers, seemingly trying to hitch a ride on bob's coattails?
It was hardly worth commenting about.
Maury Markowitz
In article <4vv5ot$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> So much for those who say Lazar is money driven.
Perhaps true, although it was Gene in this case.
> Besides, don't continue to lie. You asked Gene Huff for a price
> and he didn't give you one.
How exactly is that a lie? You logic escapes me. Yes I did ask Gene
for a price, yes, he never gave it to me.
> Of course this happened after he humiliated you by showing
> that you didn't know what the heaviest element to date was
Humiliate? Oh yeah, I was just terrified. I haven't been in school for
about 7 years and they made some discoveries since I left. Colour me
surprised.
> nor where the island of stability was.
Oh but I did revise myself on that, the island of stability was indeed
within the weight area I noted when I first heard about it during a
_conversation_ in the physics staff room. I feel no need to apologize for
faulty memory.
> ever hear of De Ja News? It keeps liars like you in check.
Liar again. Sigh.
> By the way, John Pike is an actual scientist so no one
> thinks anything of the comments of a loser like you.
John Pike and I converse in e-mail. His knowledge of space related
issues is sublime. I have never received mail from him stating that what
I post about is bunk.
> If you had what it takes for science you wouldn't have dropped
> out and went to computers.
I have a joint degree.
> Richard Caldwell is also revealing your inadequacy.
Richard Calwell is revealing his own lack of understanding, not mine.
> Maury, Huff flamed you for good reason and anyone can go back and see that.
Gene flames anyone that doesn't agree with him. He has no good reason
to do this in my case.
> Now you're mean to everyone while trying to get even.
Mean to everyone? Who exactly am I mean to.
> You call me Debene!
Hardly, that's Gene.
> think Gene Huff needs to post under a false name because of you?
Because of me surely not, but why is it you feel the need to create
false posts with other people's names on them?
> No one buys that.
No one bought your false messages either.
> When Huff came back and kicked your butt
Kicked my butt? You mean flamed every post for three days after stating
he'd be here for one?
> all you could say was welcome
> back and now here you are complaining once he's gone again.
Complaining? No, I'm ATTEMPTING to carry on a dialog with you, but you
seem to be just as uninterested in this as Gene.
> Make up your mind.
> Men!
I care not for your personal problems.
Maury
Dave B
debbie sutton wrote:
>
> In article <tmahoodD...@netcom.com>,
> tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>
> > Gene, despite the intensity of the spin he puts on things, usually
> >gets the Lazar story elements right.
>
[snip]
> However, Huff has never been caught in a lie and anyone who's read your flaws
> series can see that Huff is the authority.
>
>
Never caught in a lie??? What about the whole Uhouse phone number posting
debacle??? He even admitted on the net that he lied.
Dave B in Houston
Dan Hamlett
In other words, did Eugene have to add more lies to fill in the holes
that are swallowing up this fiasco or did the producers do that for
him??
Dan Hamlett
debbie sutton wrote:
> Poor Hamlett. The points Edna made fit you like a glove and here you are
> proving it. By the way, Woody hides from Huff so try and keep up.
Everyone was right. You ARE a total retard. =)
Dan Hamlett
debbie sutton wrote:
> Joe Vaninetti was a tech at Los Alamos when Bob Lazar was his superior in
> position and pay. This is on the record and Vaninetti corroborates it.
> Therefore Lazar could not have worked in the positions you cite. I noticed
> that you didn't comment on Dr. Michael Wolf. Typical male.
God, I cannot believe this woman....no wonder Huff wants you to keep
your mouth shut. First of all, I'm not able to get posts from this
"Edna" person so I have no clue what she is saying, however I have yet
to see anyone say lazar did NOT work at LANL. It seems to be a FACT
that he DID. However, he was simply not what he claimed to be. He was
only a technician. The thing I find most amusing though, is that you
bring up the name of Joe Vaninetti. Joe has very little positive to say
about Lazar. That just hurts Huff's case even more. I'm sure he'll be
sending you MORE private e-mail soon telling you to SHUT UP!
Maury Markowitz
In article <501s3j$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> However, Huff has never been caught in a lie and anyone who's read your flaws
> series can see that Huff is the authority.
Hardely! Last week he said he was only back for one day, then posted
for three. Minor perhaps, but dem's da facts.
Maury
debbie sutton
In article <3224ED...@ix.netcom.com>,
Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Never caught in a lie??? What about the whole Uhouse phone number posting
>debacle??? He even admitted on the net that he lied.
>
>Dave B in Houston
Bill Uhouse who Glenn Campbell dubbed as Jarod 2 is attending a public get
together this weekend in Rachel. How do I know that? Because Bill Uhouse has
been a guest in Gene Huff's house since all of that happened. Uhouse is not
anti-Huff but says Campbell is "odd" and was anti-Campbell when he spoke to
Huff. Would you care to post the thread where Huff admitted he lied? I don't
think you can which makes me question your integrity. I know it's a matter of
opinion as to who actually outed Uhouse, but that's not a lie. Huff and Uhouse
say it's Campbell and Campbell says it's Huff. I believe Huff and Uhouse. Huff
didn't post Uhouse's phone number. Let's see your post.
debbie sutton
On the downside, I
>suspect he can be a bit scatterbrained and lacks discipline.
Too many things
>going at once and he lacks staying power for long term projects.
Never, not under any circumstances. As far as I can see he is too disciplined
and accomplishes too much for others to keep up. This is kind of what I mean
when I say that those who don't know him really don't know him.
>I used to agree with you about Gene being a straight shooter, but after he
>misquoted me a number of times, I backed off a bit on that assessment.
There is no question that he is pro-Lazar, but I don't think he misquoted you.
Huff quoted you as saying in private that you thought the disc program was
moved to New Mexico. For that to be true, you had to think that it existed to
begin with and I think you like to remain more neutral than that. After Bob
Lazar set me up with a computer and got me on the internet, I browsed your
info and I got then impression that you were anti-Lazar. Huff showed me a
private email between you and him to prove that you said that. I was
surprised, but then you clarified your opinion saying that you were something
like 17% for the story and 16% against it or something like that. Gene reads
that as you being pro-Lazar and actually that's not a misquote. What did you
expect? That's just one example and I'm sure you've got others. Huff also
showed me examples of you misstating things and later acknowledging that you
did that. My opinion is that neither you or Huff are angels, but neither of
you are liars, either.
>The instance where he said I had suggested Lazar killed Carol pops into mind.
>There were others.
Your commentary in the timeline about the lack of investigation could lead
some to believe that. As the author and not a random reader you might have
trouble seeing that. I don't think Huff minds you as much as those who run
with your information and take it out of context. People who totally
disbelieve Lazar quote you as why. Yet you remain neutral. I think that's
where the rub is.
>If he knows more about checking Lazar's educational background then what he
>told me, then he lied, and I have no respect for that. I asked a very
>straightforward question.
People can give incomplete answers and not be lying. Were you at this meeting
with Glen Campbell by any chance? Knapp is not so candid around other media
people which is what he considers Campbell to be. If he knew something but
hadn't verified it, he wouldn't want you and Campbell putting it all over the
net. I don't even know if we're talking about the same instances so before I
over step my bounds and put words in Huff's or Knapp's mouth I'll refrain from
further comments. If Knapp hadn't confirmed things, he would have been wise
not to speak up.
Gene hints again and again that he knows
>SO much more than myself and others, and we would certainly change our tune
if
>we knew what he knows. Maybe that's so. If it is, and new blockbuster info
>comes out, you can bet it will be added to my web site ASAP.
That's probably why you don't know it.
>
debbie sutton
In article <maury-29089...@194.125.100.1>,
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> Hardely! Last week he said he was only back for one day, then posted
>for three. Minor perhaps, but dem's da facts.
>
>Maury
Actually Maury he was only around for twenty four hours which did include two
days. The only reason he came back was because I called him about Hamlett's
lies. Dem's da actual facts. Speaking of actual lies, are you willing to admit
that you stated that everyone at Los Alamos needed security clearances when
that was not true? Los Alamos will even tell you that over the phone.
On another note, since our last exchange I was informed that SLAC stood for
the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Are you implying you worked there or are you
just familiar with the facility? Do you respect those that do work
there? Either way, you'll find this interesting. In Mike Lindemann's book
called UFOs and the Alien Presence, six viewpoints, there is an interview with
Huff, Lazar, Lindemann, some guy named Ralph Steiner and a physicist with an
undisclosed identity. That physicist actively worked at SLAC at that point in
time. The reason I mention this is because you imply that Lazar wouldn't meet
with you and you think it's because he's afraid or whatever. That should show
you that he did openly meet with educated minds and even allowed it to be on
the record. That physicist did not suspect Lazar's knowledge and he left that
interview pro-Lazar. That was over five years ago and you've simply arrived
late on the scene. So, Maury, how about giving us some positive input? What is
your theory on how aliens could accomplish interstellar travel? Do they fly
fast in a straight line or how do you envision it? Do you think it happens? If
you've been truthful about your background, groups like this need your
positive input moreso than your negative and more importantly they need you to
speak to what you know, not what you don't.
debbie sutton
In article <dadamsDw...@netcom.com>,
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Vaninetti was a tech at Los Alamos when Bob Lazar was his superior in
>>position and pay. This is on the record and Vaninetti corroborates it.
>
>been a supervisor or senior electronics technician. Whatever.
>
>
>
>flying saucers, seemingly trying to hitch a ride on bob's coattails?
>
>It was hardly worth commenting about.
>
you implied. It's so difficult for you to admit you're wrong. If you haven't
read Dr. Wolf's book or checked out his credentials then your opinion is worth
nothing. I've ordered the book, have you?
debbie sutton
Yes he's exposed all of yours and chased you out of here numerous times much
to the delight of everyone.
Dean Adams
debbie sutton <dsu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Huff has never been caught in a lie and anyone who's read your flaws
>series can see that Huff is the authority.
Sorry, Huff is the authority on lies... you would be much
more accurate to say he has never been caught in the truth.
As for his comments on lazar, huff is essentially his paid
spokesperson and attack dog.
> I've even heard a rumor of Huff and Knapp doing a book together.
> That would be the definitive work on Lazar.
I'm sure it would, but it would also still
be primarly a work of fiction.
debbie sutton
In article <3224A0...@ltec.net>, Dan Hamlett <dh4...@ltec.net> wrote:
>debbie sutton wrote:
>
First of all, I'm not able to get posts from this
>"Edna" person so I have no clue what she is saying, however I have yet
>to see anyone say lazar did NOT work at LANL.
So you conveniently can't get the posts from a serious woman who totally shut
you up? If you can find someone who likes you, have someone email it to you. I
am not part of that group.
>The thing I find most amusing though, is that you
>bring up the name of Joe Vaninetti. Joe has very little positive to say
>about Lazar. That just hurts Huff's case even more. I'm sure he'll be
>sending you MORE private e-mail soon telling you to SHUT UP!
You picked a bad time to lie. Joe Vaninetti is coming to Las Vegas very soon
so I'll ask him if he knows you. When did you talk to Joe or what did you read
in which Joe commented on Lazar? They're long time friends and Joe worked with
Lazar at Los Alamos and has never had a negative thing to say about Lazar.
You'd like me to shut up because I'm helping everyone see what a liar you are.
To quote Edna, what do you bring to this discussion? Obviously lies,
unsubstantiated opinions and nothing else.
Tom Mahood
This is such a mature and reasonable conversation for alt.conspiracy.area51!
Way too cool! Anyway, we've hashed out most of what I wanted to say, but
there was one last thing:
debbie sutton (dsu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >The instance where he said I had suggested Lazar killed Carol pops into mind.
: >There were others.
: Your commentary in the timeline about the lack of investigation could lead
: some to believe that. As the author and not a random reader you might have
: trouble seeing that. I don't think Huff minds you as much as those who run
: with your information and take it out of context. People who totally
: disbelieve Lazar quote you as why. Yet you remain neutral. I think that's
: where the rub is.
Point taken. I'd just like to say a thing or two about my being "neutral".
I'm not sure that's an accurate description of my current position. I
think "unable to come to a conclusion" is better, but more wordy. I
really, REALLY want to have a belief in my mind as to whether on not Lazar
was at some place called S-4. But I can't. To my mind, there is just too
much solid evidence both for and against Lazar's story. I find this a most
peculiar state of affairs. The more I've explored the story, the less it
has resolved itself. It pisses me off to no end. I seldom spend much
time exploring the stories further, because to me, it now seems impossible
to prove either way, even with new data. I, for one, sincerely hope Huff
and Knapp are able to pop forth some new revelations, and move this show
off dead center.
I think both the pro-Lazar and anti-Lazar groups have excellent weaponry with
which to beat each other to a pulp. Were I of a more conspiratorial mindset,
I'd suggest that's maybe by design. Fortunately, I'm not. I just want to
know where the aliens are......
Tom
M. F. M.
After reading debbie's little letter I felt it's was good. Now, before
all of you get all pissed off at me I feel I need to take back the fact
that i thought it was good. After reading this thing she wrote a little
more carefully it appears she's a little clouded.
Debbie:
Where and how can you justify that Huff has never been cught in a lie? He
(in my opinion) is the King, the Prince, the Guru of lies. I'm sorry
Debbie but , you stretched this one just a little to far. I think you need
to read back in time a little bit and see his lies. I remember last
winter, or somewhere around that time, where I accually thought he was
lying on purpose because it was so often. I'm sorry Debbie but I disagree
with you.
PLEASE, NO FLAMES ARE INTENDED FROM MY COMMENTS. IT'S SIMPLY MY OPINION.
THANK YOU.
Mike
Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<dadamsDw...@netcom.com>...
Dave B
In <504dg6$k...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> dsu...@ix.netcom.com (debbie
sutton) writes:
>
>In article <3224ED...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Never caught in a lie??? What about the whole Uhouse phone number
posting
>>debacle??? He even admitted on the net that he lied.
>>
>>Dave B in Houston
>
[snip]
>
> Huff didn't post Uhouse's phone number. Let's see your post.
Your right; Huff posted Uhouse's name, which was in the phonebook, and
that he was Jarod2 of the DR newsletter. After that his phone started
'ringing off the hook'. (quoting Huff)
Here are a few posts from that infamous series --
(numerous snips of unrelated material)
---------------------------
{ THE POST }
Subject: Gene Huff corrects Glenn Campbell's misinformation in
DR33 - Part 1
From: gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff)
Date: 1996/03/04
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
JAROD 2
The guy known as Jarod 2 is Bill Uhouse of Las Vegas. I know that
Glenn Campbell keeps that secret out of an alleged respect for Uhouse's
privacy, but I've met Uhouse a couple of times and he acted like that
was more for Glenn's benefit, and consequently the Desert Rat
newsletter's benefit, than it was for him.
---------------------------
{ THE DENIAL }
Subject: Re: Jarod 2 (Bill Uhouse) says Campbell is "an asshole"
From: gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff)
Date: 1996/04/11
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.paranet.ufo
In <316be4ec...@news.concentric.net> wer...@cris.com (Warren
"Llama" Ernst) writes:
>
>Respectful Question #2:
>
>Who was it who actually revealed Uhouse's real name and residence?
-I don't think anyone has revealed his address and Uhouse is the one
who revealed his name. Uhouse has spoken at UFO conventions in Rachel
and Mesquite, Nevada and plans on doing it again later this year.
----------------------
{ THE ADMISSION }
Subject: A final word about Bill Uhouse being Glenn Campbell's Jarod 2
From: gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff)
Date: 1996/04/13
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51
Recently I identified Bill Uhouse of Las Vegas as Jarod 2 of the
Desert Rat Newsletter, and posted that on the net.
--- All posts courtesy of DeJa News ---
(I don't really save this stuff!)
If the second post isn't a lie, then its at best an attempt to weasel out of a
post that was very unpopular.
Dave B in Houston
Maury Markowitz
In article <504e9u$k...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> Thanks for admitting that Lazar could not have been a janitor as that's what
> you implied. It's so difficult for you to admit you're wrong. If you haven't
> read Dr. Wolf's book or checked out his credentials then your opinion is
worth
> nothing. I've ordered the book, have you?
So you haven't read it either?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <504e55$k...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dsu...@ix.netcom.com
(debbie sutton) wrote:
> Actually Maury he was only around for twenty four hours which did include two
> days. The only reason he came back was because I called him about Hamlett's
> lies. Dem's da actual facts.
Then how do you explain the posts on the THIRD day?
> Speaking of actual lies, are you willing to admit that you stated that
> everyone at Los Alamos needed security clearances when that was not
> true?
So wait, you're saying you DON'T need a security clearance to _work_ at
LANL? News to me, but if that's true that give even LESS credence to the
"Bob claims", because that would mean that security clearances and working
there are obviously unrelated. Thanks for the info!
Reagardless there's lies and being wrong. _If_ I'm wrong so be it, but
that's not a lie and calling it such make you look silly. So don't do it,
as you showed later in the post, you don't have to and (perhaps unlike
Gene) CAN carry on a rational conversation if you want to. Want to.
> On another note, since our last exchange I was informed that SLAC stood for
> the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Are you implying you worked there or are you
> just familiar with the facility?
Familiar with. It's one of the "big four" particle accelerators, the
others being CERN, the Tevatron at Fermi and to a lesser extent (these
days) Brookhaven.
More importantly SLAC is basically the proving ground for the
microcomputer, that's where the Homebrew Club met and The Woz did most of
his hacking. The rest, as they say, is history. Considering you never
heard of SLAC before, I would recommend some history books on that machine
you're using in front of you.
> Do you respect those that do work there?
I don't really know anyone that works there these days so I can't say,
but I know of a lot of their former work in the lepton field. I know they
were working on a lepton/anti-lepton collider (ref: Physics 2000) but I'm
not too sure if that ever went though. Cutting big colliders seems to be
the fun job these days, after the Texastron was axed they also nuked
Triumph's KAON Factory, which is funny because they axed the later saying
that the former would make it unnecessary (ah, politics).
> Either way, you'll find this interesting. In Mike Lindemann's book
> called UFOs and the Alien Presence, six viewpoints, there is an
interview with
> Huff, Lazar, Lindemann, some guy named Ralph Steiner and a physicist with an
> undisclosed identity.
I don't find that particularly interesting yet.
> That physicist actively worked at SLAC at that point in time.
At the time of the interview, or at the time in the past being discussed
IN the interview?
> The reason I mention this is because you imply that Lazar wouldn't meet
> with you and you think it's because he's afraid or whatever.
No, I think it's because Gene wants lots of money to set it up. I'm not
rich, far from it, and this is nothing more than a passing interest.
But to be honest I can't say I see the point completely. This guy
interviewed a physicist (who remains unnamed for whatever reason) and at
another time Lazar? Or was it at the same time? It's not clear from the
way you stated it, and the book's title tends to imply the later.
> That should show you that he did openly meet with educated minds
> and even allowed it to be on the record. That physicist did not
> suspect Lazar's knowledge and he left that interview pro-Lazar.
Read this next bit VERY carefully before you flame away: * I HAVE NOT
READ THE BOOK IN QUESTION * Ok? You're not going to call me judgemental
or anti-Bob now? You know, in advance, than I have not read it and am
making an UNINFORMED decision. Ok? Ready?
Lots of people work at SLAC too. I know some of them personally on the
internet. I know one guy that claims to have fixed the computers there
for example. He's not a physicst. So, just because the guy in the book
was *claimed* to have been a physicist doesn't mean he is. Doesn't mean
he isn't, but doesn't mean he is.
This physicist that apparently met with Bob (no, met with Bob,
apparently is a physicist) remains nameless but _claims_ to have worked at
SLAC, this in turn is supposed to make me feel better that Bob isn't
hiding from the physics community. Hmmm, I don't feel very good about
this.
Why would I be so skeptical? Well I have lots of reasons (personal
ones) to believe that Bob is not what he claims to be. Gene's never
claimed to be a physicst but Bob does. Moreover he "sort of" claims to
have post-grad in the field, and more to the point, claims to work in
gravitational physics.
The claims about the post grad work are well known and I won't get into
them, Tom's a better source of this than I.
The problem is that I've read some of Lazar's interviews as posted,
mostly on Tom's page. These interviews contain a number of terribly
inaccurate statements that no one in the field could possibly get wrong,
NOTABLY one in gravitational physics.
That's why I'm sceptical Deb. I, like Tom, have nothing to go on but
what's on the net. And what's on the net are the interviews with mistakes
and Gene's flames. That's it, nothing else. Lots of claims that more
info will be forthcoming, but Domark says the same thing about Confirmed
Kill on the 'net and we're still waiting for that too.
That's why I asked for the interview, to judge for myself. I was (as I
noted) going to apply a simple test of basic physics knowledge, with
questions collected from various high school and university level texts.
It wasn't even going to be a hard one, and I assure you I can write some
toughies because I've been on the receiving end. He didn't even have to
get any of the answers right, I just wanted to see his brain work.
This would have convinced me one way or the other. And I'll say this
now, if I came out of there convinced he DID know his physics, I would be
the FIRST in line to champion it. I think the same would be true for Tom
if anyone could prove that he did go to MIT or CalTech.
Instead Gene flames me, Bob is nowhere to be seen and I'm left with
nothing more than this thread. Your note here is typical of what's going
on, "there's this guy see [no name], he works at SLAC [no way to prove
this] and he's a physicst [no way to prove this] and he say's Bob's legit
[no way to prove this]". That doesn't help. Give me a name, that would.
I'm sceptical for a reason Deb, and flames don't help whatsoever.
> That was over five years ago and you've simply arrived
> late on the scene.
I've never claimed otherwise!
> So, Maury, how about giving us some positive input?
I have none to give at this time. Every attempt to get more information
ends in a non-response or a flame. At least to date.
> What is your theory on how aliens could accomplish interstellar travel?
If you mean "could" as in "if you wanted to do it, how would you?" it's
easy, RAIR and lots of time. BIS has all sorts of articles on this sort
of stuff, and there's even a great civvy level book called "The Starflight
Handbook" that talks about all sorts of ways to do it. All it takes it
time and money.
> If you've been truthful about your background
Seeing as I claim little, why exactly would I not be?
> groups like this need your positive input moreso than
> your negative and more importantly they need you to
> speak to what you know, not what you don't.
What groups like this really need is a better science education, but
that's not something I can fix, write you congresscritter.
Consider the recent thread with Richard, someone who apparently DOES have
a physics education. My God, what's happening to schools in the US these
days? You tried to state that he was "winning" but that was rather unfair
coming from you Deb, do YOU have a physics education? Can you claim to
judge?
If not, go into Deja News, collect the entire thread and take it to a
professor at the closest university. I'd suggest one that specializes in
quantum physics. Ask that person which of us is closer to the truth (I
don't believe in "perfect" truth) and then sit back and ask yourself if
I'm being given a fair shake.
Nice to see an almost flame free message from you Deb. No, that's not
missing a smiley, that a truly honest statement. I carry on the same
types of conversations with Gene, and he simply flames me. If you wish to
explore the reasons for my skepticism in rational manner, I'm all for it.
Maury
Dean Adams
debbie sutton <dsu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Sorry, Huff is the authority on lies...
>>
> Yes he's exposed all of yours and chased you out of here numerous times
Ahh, so you're quoting one of his many childish and delusional lies.
Thanks for helping to prove the point!
Gene Huff
In <01bb649b$c6fb7f60$75a8...@campus.mci.net.campus.mci.net> "M. F.
M." <ta...@sierra.campus.mci.net> writes:
>
>Debbie:
>Where and how can you justify that Huff has never been cught in a lie?
>He (in my opinion) is the King, the Prince, the Guru of lies. I'm
>sorry Debbie but , you stretched this one just a little to far. I
>think you need to read back in time a little bit and see his lies. I
>remember last winter, or somewhere around that time, where I accually
>thought he was lying on purpose because it was so often. I'm sorry
>Debbie but I disagree with you.
>
too much? So here we have someone previously unknown here who
coincidentally is anti-Huff who says I'm the Guru of lies? Oh, that's
right, you vaguely remember me perpetually lying last winter but
conveniently can't cite one lie or even one conversation in which a lie
was contained? The Deb is far more well read than you could ever dream
of being and she knows better.
The bottom line here is that if you think that anyone thinks for one
second that this is a real post and not a friend of a friend trying to
yank my chain, then you must think everyone is as big of an idiot as
you are!:)-
Gene Huff
In <maury-30089...@194.125.100.1> ma...@softarc.com (Maury
Markowitz) writes:
>
> Then how do you explain the posts on the THIRD day?
-She already said that she called me and asked me to address a BS post.
That is true and I did that.-
>
> So wait, you're saying you DON'T need a security clearance to _work_
at LANL?
-Maury, I know you're toying with her because you've got a couple of IQ
points on her, but let's get real. You stated that everyone who worked
at LANL needed clearance and everyone, except you, knew that to be
untrue. That in no way means that no one at LANL needs clearance and,
of course, you know it.-
> Reagardless there's lies and being wrong. _If_ I'm wrong so be it,
>but that's not a lie and calling it such make you look silly. So
>don't do it, as you showed later in the post, you don't have to and
>(perhaps unlike Gene) CAN carry on a rational conversation if you want
>to. Want to.
-Maury, that brings us back to one of her questions which pertained to
why you felt compelled to offer an answer if you didn't know, one way
or the other. I think that is clear to others.-
> I don't find that particularly interesting yet.
-Naturally, it proves you wrong.-
>
>> That physicist actively worked at SLAC at that point in time.
>
> At the time of the interview, or at the time in the past being
discussed IN the interview?
-At the time of the interview.-
>
> No, I think it's because Gene wants lots of money to set it up. I'm
not rich, far from it, and this is nothing more than a passing
interest.
-I want a lot of money to set it up? You asked me to name a price and I
didn't! That's because Lazar can't grant meetings to the hords of
people who solicit him for consultation. It's not a matter of me
wanting money. You took a smart remark I made about people like you
"should have to pay to speak to people like Bob Lazar" and are now
acting like that is available if the price is right. That is an out and
out lie! You can't get that opportunity because you're years too late
and if that wasn't a factor it would be because you have a chip on your
shoulder and can't admit when you're wrong. No wonder you retreated to
the UK, you can't compete here in the U.S. with your lack of knowledge,
courage, and ability to tell the truth.-
>
> But to be honest I can't say I see the point completely. This guy
>interviewed a physicist (who remains unnamed for whatever reason) and
>at another time Lazar? Or was it at the same time? It's not clear
from the way you stated it, and the book's title tends to imply the
later.
-Even you should be able to figure that out. The interview was a group
session with all of us in one room. The one man was a physicist who
worked at SLAC. His father was also a scientist. The point is that
there was a physicist who was actually doing research at SLAC present
and Lazar dodged no one.-
>
I just wanted to see his brain work.
-Get in line. We'd like to see yours work, too. Unfortunately your ego
turns what could be very valuable contribution from you into a joke.-
Sorry Mauron, that was your last chance.
Gene Huff
In <dadamsDw...@netcom.com> dad...@netcom.com (Quean Adams)
writes:
>> Yes he's exposed all of yours and chased you out of here numerous
times
>
>Ahh, so you're quoting one of his many childish and delusional lies.
>
>Thanks for helping to prove the point!
-The only point that's been proven is that you are the most useless,
lying douche bag to ever sell enough child porn to afford a computer.
Sorry Queanie, I couldn't resist, once again, revealing your true
identity. I know you have to get to the school yard so I'll not further
detain you, douche.-
Gene Huff
In <505mt3$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> beth...@ix.netcom.com(Dave
B) writes:
>
>If the second post isn't a lie, then its at best an attempt to weasel
>out of a post that was very unpopular.
>
>Dave B in Houston
>
assertion when called to task. I don't post based on who will think
it's popular. Everyone in Vegas knew who Uhouse was and that he was
Jarod 2. This looked differently to those of you who are out of town
and didn't know how much Campbell was milking it and misleading you in
doing so. We've gone through all of this. Bill Uhouse called me last
night and he doesn't think I lied and neither does anyone else. I know
you were trying hard to cite and example, but you've failed. I have no
reason to lie and you have no reason to call me a liar unless you have
some evidence. I haven't weaseled out of anything and if anything here
comes close to the works of a weasel it's this weak attempt. I don't
recall having any conflicts with you to cause your ego to try and twist
this, but whatever. Uhouse appeared at UFO conventions before Campbell
described him for you under a pseudonym and Uhouse has appeared at UFO
gatherings since then. If you think that you and others couldn't have
figured out that Uhouse wasn't Jarod 2 as opposed to another,
different, separate, retired engineer who also coincidentally worked in
a little niche of fabricating metal for an ET disc flight simulator,
then I guess I overestimated all of you. Uhouse and I are friendly,
he's been to my house since all of that happened and I talked to him on
the phone last night. I'll refrain from now calling you a liar as I
know how it feels to be erroneously identified as such.
Dave B
Gene Huff wrote:
>
> In <505mt3$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> beth...@ix.netcom.com(Dave
> B) writes:
> >
> >If the second post isn't a lie, then its at best an attempt to weasel
> >out of a post that was very unpopular.
> >
> >Dave B in Houston
> >
> Dave, don't be calling me a liar and then backpedal out of your
> assertion when called to task.
[snip]
> I'll refrain from now calling you a liar as I
> know how it feels to be erroneously identified as such.
Fair enough. If you took my last post as calling you I liar, I'll retract it. I do
feel that two of your posts did not agree with each other, but instead of trying to
put labels on anything or anyone, I'll repeat the most pertinent sentences and let
everyone judge for them selves.
Date: 1996/04/11 "Uhouse is the one who revealed his name."
Date: 1996/04/13 "Recently I identified Bill Uhouse of Las Vegas as Jarod 2
of the Desert Rat Newsletter, and posted that on the net.
Dave B in Houston
Dan Hamlett
Gene Huff wrote:
> -The only point that's been proven is that you are the most useless,
> lying douche bag to ever sell enough child porn to afford a computer.
> Sorry Queanie, I couldn't resist, once again, revealing your true
> identity. I know you have to get to the school yard so I'll not further
> detain you, douche.-
That thud you just heard was this conversation finally hitting rock
bottom. How about someone starting a new post?
Dan Hamlett
Maury Markowitz wrote:
He's not a physicst. So, just because the guy in the book
> was *claimed* to have been a physicist doesn't mean he is. Doesn't mean
> he isn't, but doesn't mean he is.
Howard Olson
The whole element 115 story makes no sense to me. At least the
Darmstadt group is getting close so reality may overtake the hoax if
that is what it is. I am trained as a biochemist and it is difficult to
see how element 115 could be anything but metra-stable as you indicate,
plus the fact that there is no basis for relativistic effects in
such an element.
BTW, do you have the website URL you were talking about vis a vis
the heavy elements.
Howard
Dean Adams
Gene Huff <gu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Ahh, so you're quoting one of his many childish and delusional lies.
>>Thanks for helping to prove the point!
>-The only point that's been proven is that you are the most useless,
>lying douche bag to ever sell enough child porn to afford a computer.
In other words, you couldn't restrain your maniacal obsession to
come back here and spew a few more bizarre, childish delusions.
> I know you have to get to the school yard so I'll not further
> detain you, douche.-
FYI kiddo, you're the only one around here who always sounds like
he is AWOL from an elementary school playground. Hurry up and get
back there to your intellectual (and emotional) equals.
Maury Markowitz
In article <8414...@awaiter.com>, howard...@awaiter.com (Howard
Olson) wrote:
>
> The whole element 115 story makes no sense to me. At least the
> Darmstadt group is getting close so reality may overtake the hoax if
> that is what it is. I am trained as a biochemist and it is difficult to
> see how element 115 could be anything but metra-stable as you indicate,
> plus the fact that there is no basis for relativistic effects in
> such an element.
Some pertinent points:
a) 115 should not be meta-stable, 114 should be.
b) meta-stable means stable for longer periods than the elements around
it. Stability in this case is on the order of a few hundred shakes (10^-8
sec) rather than ones or tens of shakes.
c) meta-stability does not lead to the other types of behaviours claimed
of the element. No indication of any of these behaviours exists in the
other super-heavy elements discovered to date.
d) the claimed reaction seems to break conservation of parity, although I
haven't done anything rigorous there.
> BTW, do you have the website URL you were talking about vis a vis
> the heavy elements.
I don't have it handy, but I found it via an InfoSeek search rather easily.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <506tnr$6...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
> -Maury, I know you're toying with her because you've got a couple of IQ
> points on her, but let's get real. You stated that everyone who worked
> at LANL needed clearance and everyone, except you, knew that to be
> untrue. That in no way means that no one at LANL needs clearance and,
> of course, you know it.-
No actually, I didn't. In fact I find it terribly surprising and it
seems to imply just anyone can walk right in. I find this somewhat hard
to believe too, heck, even Apple has ID cards.
Regardless it does sever the link between Bob's apparently security
rating and his work at LANL. Since you don't need clearance to work
there, having such clearance is no indication of anything any more.
> -Maury, that brings us back to one of her questions which pertained to
> why you felt compelled to offer an answer if you didn't know, one way
> or the other. I think that is clear to others.-
What?
> -At the time of the interview.-
Fair enough.
> -I want a lot of money to set it up? You asked me to name a price and I
> didn't! That's because Lazar can't grant meetings to the hords of
> people who solicit him for consultation. It's not a matter of me
> wanting money. You took a smart remark I made about people like you
> "should have to pay to speak to people like Bob Lazar" and are now
> acting like that is available if the price is right.
Well is it? You asked how much money I had, so I assumed this meant
such consultations were available. Had you not wanted him to meet me you
should have simply said that, because I was led to believe that this was
what everyone else claimed, a cash grab.
> That is an out and out lie!
What is? That people can meet with Bob, or not, or that you can if you pay?
> You can't get that opportunity because you're years too late
So if this was years ago and I paid I would get the opportunity? Or
that he'd meet with me period?
> and if that wasn't a factor it would be because you have a chip on your
> shoulder
Hardly! This is a pretty much meaningless affair one way or the other.
The world won't stop turning, my hair won't fall back in and Windows '95
will still be junk. Gene, you seem to think I take this seriously, I
don't.
> and can't admit when you're wrong. No wonder you retreated to
> the UK, you can't compete here in the U.S. with your lack of knowledge,
> courage, and ability to tell the truth.-
I was never in the US Gene.
> -Even you should be able to figure that out. The interview was a group
> session with all of us in one room.
Ok, this was NOT clear from Deb's post.
> The one man was a physicist who worked at SLAC.
No _apparently_ worked at SLAC. Or to be more precise, you _claimed_
worked there. I have nothing to go on but your word and I value that
exactly as much as anyone else's - very little (not a personal slight on
you Gene, unless I talk to the guy PERSONALLY I will remain unconvinced).
> His father was also a scientist.
What kind of scientist? Where did he work? What's their names?
Published any papers recently?
See what I mean? I'm being completely reasonable, you say that someone
who knows physics has met him, but then I don't get a name!
> The point is that
> there was a physicist who was actually doing research at SLAC present
> and Lazar dodged no one.-
No, you _claim_ such. Let me talk to THAT guy and then perhaps THAT
will convince me.
> -Get in line. We'd like to see yours work, too. Unfortunately your ego
> turns what could be very valuable contribution from you into a joke.-
Just couldn't stand not getting in your digs eh?
> Sorry Mauron, that was your last chance.
For what? I don't see that I was offered a chance for anything in the
first place, so whatever.
Maury
Adam
Dan Hamlett <dh4...@ltec.net> wrote:
> That thud you just heard was this conversation finally hitting rock
> bottom. How about someone starting a new post?
How about you guys addressing some of my original points???
Adam :))
--
.....'Hello mum - I'm on Telly!'