LAZAR'S BACK-ENGINEERING - A FALLACY
Adam Whaley
I have always been very uncomfortable with the spurious claims of Bob
Lazar and his reverse-engineered flying saucers during his alleged
stint at Area 51. I would suspect that Mr Lazar is the victim of some
sophisticated and deliberate mind control programming hence his
ability to pass lie detector tests for instance. Many of those who
have met him or heard him speak on the lecture circuit, are impressed
by his apparent sincerity, a marvel in itself and I would contend that
the claims of Mr Lazar (and incidentally, Mr Streiber also - I’m still
working on the whole ‘alien abduction’ fallacy), are another small
piece in the Final Conspiracy jigsaw (repost on request) and I will
attempt to explain why:
As I have previously expressed; we are being fed a lie. A very
sinister and catastrophic lie. Dark forces are afoot to subtlety
convince everybody of a malign alien presence and when the time is
right - BANG. A zap here and a zap there and civilization will crumble
within days. The panic generated will ensure that all support
structures will collapse, notably food and water distribution, power
and communications, and emergency services. At a rough guess, 60-80%
of the Western World will perish within four weeks. Half of the
remainder within three months.
The claims of Mr Lazar as postulated are just tenable enough to
attract attention without having either absolute proof or absolute
disproof. This conundrum is a common factor in many aspects of the UFO
enigma and the frequent attempts of researchers to pursue the illusive
carrot in front of the donkey is no coincidence.
I would contend that Lazar has been expertly programmed by the shadowy
figures behind the scenes with exactly the right mixture of fact and
fiction. His answers roll off the tongue like shit off a shovel. This
is stage hypnotism at its very best. It is telling that he rattles off
numerous explanations without the slightest notion of his own
absurdity not least of all the entire fallacy of ‘back-engineering’.
Obviously some things can be back engineered, it is common practice
with industrial espionage in anything from designer dresses to
captured fighter planes. The important thing to remember is that any
feasible back-engineering must have a technological support structure
without which it would be an impossible exercise.
To make my point easier, imagine if the very best Victorian engineers
were handed a microchip, what could they do with it? Nothing! They
would not have the faintest idea what it was, was it did, where it
came from, what it was made from - zilch!. Even if the best team of
microchip designers were transported back in time along with their
creation, they would not be able to explain or demonstrate it to their
Victorian counterparts. Their explanations would seem like the
ramblings of magicians - Gods even! Without a complete supporting
technology from the same time frame there is absolutely no way that
anybody throughout history could have back-engineered anything from a
future time frame. It is just not possible. As for humans in the
twentieth century back-engineering a flying saucer from god knows
where or when, it would be easier for a monkey to back-engineer a
toaster!
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Sweet dreams,
Adam.
Dave Monroe
Adam Whaley wrote:
>
> I have always been very uncomfortable with the spurious claims of Bob
> Lazar and his reverse-engineered flying saucers during his alleged
Me too.
>
> To make my point easier, imagine if the very best Victorian engineers
> were handed a microchip, what could they do with it? Nothing! They
> would not have the faintest idea what it was, was it did, where it
> came from, what it was made from - zilch!. Even if the best team of
> microchip designers were transported back in time along with their
> creation, they would not be able to explain or demonstrate it to their
> Victorian counterparts. Their explanations would seem like the
> ramblings of magicians - Gods even! Without a complete supporting
> technology from the same time frame there is absolutely no way that
> anybody throughout history could have back-engineered anything from a
> future time frame.
Your microchip scenario is correct but the analogy with Lazar's story
isn't (IMHO). A space ship would be self-contained and all of the
supporting systems would be present (assuming it was operational).
I agree that reverse engineering this would be a daunting task. Our
understanding of several aspects of physics is dubious.
>
> Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Don't worry, I won't.
--
David S. Monroe David....@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385
AKA {The Ghoul}
Adam Whaley wrote:
> Obviously some things can be back engineered, it is common practice
> with industrial espionage in anything from designer dresses to
> captured fighter planes. The important thing to remember is that any
> feasible back-engineering must have a technological support structure
> without which it would be an impossible exercise.
>
> were handed a microchip, what could they do with it? Nothing! They
> would not have the faintest idea what it was, was it did, where it
> came from, what it was made from - zilch!. Even if the best team of
> microchip designers were transported back in time along with their
> creation, they would not be able to explain or demonstrate it to their
> Victorian counterparts. Their explanations would seem like the
> ramblings of magicians - Gods even! Without a complete supporting
> technology from the same time frame there is absolutely no way that
> anybody throughout history could have back-engineered anything from a
> twentieth century back-engineering a flying saucer from god knows
> where or when, it would be easier for a monkey to back-engineer a
> toaster!
I have to disagree with your analogy, if the microchip was inside of
a computer, say a battery powered laptop and they were able to first
observe it in use they may very well have been able to garner some
technological innovations from it. Victorians knew some electrical
engineering, ie.. Faraday, Volta, Curie, Bell. They also had some ideas
of machine logic applications ie.. Babbage, player pianos, cotton loom
intricate clocks. If their best scientists where to disassemble the
lap-top analysing and recording as they did it could be used as a
Rosetta Stone to interpet any new inventions that come along and
point to improvements that could be made.
A spacecraft is it's own supporting technology. Think of a
modern commercial aircraft. It has its flight technology in its design
as in wing shape aerodynamics etc. It has electronics and computers.
It has radios, it has synthetic fabric in its seats, it has chemical
toilets and a galley. It has the luggage its passengers carry. The
simple breakdown of all the technology going into the craft is
practically endless.
For the best example of how much can be learned from what would
seem to be very little I reccomend you spend some time with some
archeologists. What they pull from just simple finds is increadible.
Placing Lazars claims in that light I find most of them quite plausable.
Adam Whaley
AKA {The Ghoul} <d..stanton@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Adam Whaley wrote:
>> Obviously some things can be back engineered, it is common practice
>> with industrial espionage in anything from designer dresses to
>> captured fighter planes. The important thing to remember is that any
>> feasible back-engineering must have a technological support structure
>> without which it would be an impossible exercise.
>>
The Ghoul wrote:
>I have to disagree with your analogy, if the microchip was inside of
>a computer, say a battery powered laptop and they were able to first
>observe it in use they may very well have been able to garner some
>technological innovations from it.
OK, what information would they be able to garner? Let's hear it,
qualify your hypothesis.....
I have tried to imagine what they would be able to find out and I
really can't think of anything other than their total bewilderment.
> Victorians knew some electrical
>engineering, ie.. Faraday, Volta, Curie, Bell. They also had some ideas
>of machine logic applications ie.. Babbage, player pianos, cotton loom
>intricate clocks. If their best scientists where to disassemble the
>lap-top analysing and recording as they did it could be used as a
>Rosetta Stone to interpet any new inventions that come along and
>point to improvements that could be made.
Thank you, you have defeated your own argument! The point I was trying
to make was that the information would only make sense in the relevant
time frame e.g. WHEN any new inventions were made, not before. None of
the information garnered would make the slightest bit of sense before
hand. They could would sift it, file it and talk about it but it would
be meaningless and useless until the time was right.
> A spacecraft is it's own supporting technology. Think of a
> modern commercial aircraft. It has its flight technology in its design
>as in wing shape aerodynamics etc. It has electronics and computers.
>It has radios, it has synthetic fabric in its seats, it has chemical
>toilets and a galley. It has the luggage its passengers carry. The
>simple breakdown of all the technology going into the craft is
> practically endless.
OK, what would the Victorians have made of a jet airliner? Define
"simple breakdown". They certainly wouldn't have known it could fly,
it bears virually no resemblence to early flying machines. (the first
powered flight was made by the Edwardians incidently). It has wheels -
perhaps they thought it was a new-type horseless carriage! Go back a
hundred years and see what they would have made of it then. Alright,
I'll concede the chemical toilet - just. Thomas Crapper (inventor of
the flush toilet) was a Victorian after all!
> For the best example of how much can be learned from what would
> seem to be very little I recommend you spend some time with some
>archeologists. What they pull from just simple finds is increadible.
>Placing Lazars claims in that light I find most of them quite plausable.
The only time I have spent with an archaeologist was spent discussing
even more interesting things than archaeology, (she was very fond of
'Ugandan' discussions as I recall). However, I am quite well versed in
all facets of archaeology and paleo-anthropology thank you! Once
again, you have defeated your own argument. Archaeology is the study
of the past, NOT the future. It is a fairly straightforward process to
piece together the jigsaw from a previous time-frame. It can be viewed
as a past-tense version of forensic science which in case you didn't
know, deals largely with the present!
It is possible to extrapolate and to anticipate future knowledge with
various what/if scenarios. However, as with the serious mistakes made
by Games Theorists at the most dangerous point during the Cold War,
the cumulative errors as now known to Chaos Theorists are only too
prevalent.
thank you.
Karl Kluge
AKA {The Ghoul} <d..stanton@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I have to disagree with your analogy, if the microchip was inside of
> a computer, say a battery powered laptop and they were able to first
> observe it in use they may very well have been able to garner some
> technological innovations from it. Victorians knew some electrical
> engineering, ie.. Faraday, Volta, Curie, Bell. They also had some ideas
> of machine logic applications ie.. Babbage, player pianos, cotton loom
> intricate clocks. If their best scientists where to disassemble the
> lap-top analysing and recording as they did it could be used as a
> Rosetta Stone to interpet any new inventions that come along and
> point to improvements that could be made.
And therein lies the problem -- they would still lack the necessary techniques
and knowledge to do so nondestructively. They don't know which pin is voltage
and which is ground, they don't know the operating range of voltage and
current large enough to drive the circuits but small enough not to fry them,
they don't know trying to pry open the chip will destroy it, or that exposing
it to too large a level of the new-fangled X-rays will scramble the contents
of the memory, or which are the input pins and which the output pins.
And don't forget, before we hand them the laptop we're going to have to drop
it from a 10 story building to simulate a crashed saucer.
Oh, and also don't forget -- some ICs are designed to make them hard to
reverse engineer. They're designed to self-destruct if the attempt is
made. Remember the proposed telephone crypto chip?
I have to agree with the original poster -- the idea that reverse engineering
would be possible regardless of how large the delta between the level of
technology and understanding of physics was between creator and reverse
engineer is implausible. It's cheesy 50's science fiction, like _Earth Vs. the
Flying Saucers_.
On the other hand, knowing something is possible is a marvelous motivator to
consider how exactly one might go about doing it. I don't buy Brian Zeiler's
theory that airspike concepts are the product of reverse engineering saucers,
but I can buy that they may be the product of people sitting around asking
"if I were going to try to build a craft that can do X, how would I go about
doing it?"
Karl
Dave the Diode {1 way}
Karl Kluge wrote:
>
> AKA {The Ghoul} <d..stanton@worldnet.att.net> writes:<SNIPPED>
> And therein lies the problem -- they would still lack the necessary techniques
> and knowledge to do so nondestructively. They don't know which pin is voltage
> and which is ground, they don't know the operating range of voltage and
> current large enough to drive the circuits but small enough not to fry them,
> they don't know trying to pry open the chip will destroy it, or that exposing
> it to too large a level of the new-fangled X-rays will scramble the contents
> of the memory, or which are the input pins and which the output pins.
>
> And don't forget, before we hand them the laptop we're going to have to drop
> it from a 10 story building to simulate a crashed saucer.
>
> Oh, and also don't forget -- some ICs are designed to make them hard to
> reverse engineer. They're designed to self-destruct if the attempt is
> made. Remember the proposed telephone crypto chip?
>
> I have to agree with the original poster -- the idea that reverse engineering
> would be possible regardless of how large the delta between the level of
> technology and understanding of physics was between creator and reverse
> engineer is implausible. It's cheesy 50's science fiction, like _Earth Vs. the
> Flying Saucers_.
>
> On the other hand, knowing something is possible is a marvelous motivator to
> consider how exactly one might go about doing it. I don't buy Brian Zeiler's
> theory that airspike concepts are the product of reverse engineering saucers,
> but I can buy that they may be the product of people sitting around asking
> "if I were going to try to build a craft that can do X, how would I go about
> doing it?"
>
Yes but unlike previous civilizations we have the scientific methodology
to conduct nondestructive tests. Some of the saucers Lazar claims to have analysed
seem to be fully intact, so that answers the question of damage. As for
the Victorians, even they understood when a voltage passes thru a wire
a coil placed around that wire will have an induced voltage on it, so
it is just a matter of stimilus and responce to decode the the input
and output of the IC's. If they had an operational unit to analyze there would be no
question of voltage or current.
What would an advanced civilization with no enemy's
be conscerned with security, maybe their technology is very user friendly.
It is only to cater to man's paranoia that we make secure equiptment, so that analogy
may not be true.
Imagine if the Victorians found the laptop, and it had a cd in it that was
called intro to computers, booted up. Even if it was in Esperanto they would
eventually figure it out. Without actually examining what Lazar saw I cannot discredit
his story.
Jeremy Bee
This is a nice assertion, but on what do you base it? The victorians would be
hankering to crack open the "little black boxes" inside the wonderous device
for obvious reasons.
Also if you were to believe Lazar, a great deal of the saucers' mechanism is
contained within structures that are "built-in" to the ship like the wave
guides and the hull itself. Also the "reactor" in the middle contains a very
few simple parts, hardly likely to reveal much of anything without destructive
testing.
Of course there is the added problem that if we believe in Roswell (which is
the foundation on which the Lazar Myth is built), your typical Flying Saucer
parts are basically indestructable.
>Some of the saucers Lazar claims to have
> analysed
>seem to be fully intact, so that answers the question of damage. As for
>the Victorians, even they understood when a voltage passes thru a wire
>a coil placed around that wire will have an induced voltage on it, so
>it is just a matter of stimilus and responce to decode the the input
>and output of the IC's. If they had an operational unit to analyze there would
> be no
>question of voltage or current.
There is another problem that none of you have thought of being that there
would be no place to plug in a 1997 laptop even in 1947, let alone in
Victorian England. If it did not fail on impact (assuming it crashed) or on
passage through the time tunnel or however else it got there, the battery
would only last a couple of hours. Most likely it would be found by some farm
hand or other common citizen and by the time Conan Doyle got a hold of it, it
would be a dead box with only a *rumour* of "wonderous displays" on the
magical (now blank) screen.
IMO if they were really really smart, they *might* figure out that it was
powered by a battery and also be able to identify which component *was* the
battery. Maybe about 20 years after they found it, they might have a very
early breakthrough in Lithium batteries but that's about it.
On top of everything else, the best guess of the advancement of other
civilisations ranges between a million and a billion years, much further
ahead than we are of the Victorians.
A closer comparison, and one that is used more often, is that of a digital
watch being found by Leonardo during the Rennaissance.
He would not have a clue.
If you believe anything happened at Roswell, (and a lot of people do), the
most likely scenario is that it is still a big secret because they haven't
figured out anything beyond the fact that it was not "one of ours."
Jeremy
Gene Huff
In <92ovi8a...@heron.eecs.umich.edu> Karl Kluge
<kck...@heron.eecs.umich.edu> writes:
>
>And don't forget, before we hand them the laptop we're going to have
>to drop it from a 10 story building to simulate a crashed saucer.
-Someone emailed me and told me this discussion was going on. I don't
really have time to discuss this at length, but I think this will help.
Lazar's story isn't based on back-engineering these discs from square
one. When the hardware was first presented there was a measure of
instruction with them from the ETs. They found those at S4, or wherever
this happened at that point in time, to be insufferable students and
left in a huff and left some of the hardware. This allegedly happened
in the late 70s. You needn't worry about the PC being dropped to
simulate a crashed disc as the Lazar info is not, and has never been,
based on crash retrievals.-
Michael Hofmeister
On 4 Feb 1997 00:55:40 GMT, in <5d61ec$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->In <5d53qg$9...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
->>
->>Also the "reactor" in the middle contains a very
->>few simple parts, hardly likely to reveal much of anything without
->>destructive testing.
->-For the first time ever, Jeremy, you're right. If you knew the Lazar
->story you'd know that he was brought into the program because a couple
->of men were killed after sawing through a reactor with a plasma cutter
->type device.-
They should have used a diamond blade Mikita radial wet saw. That puppy
will cut through just about anything.
->It's interesting that none
->of you are familiar enough with the Lazar story to know that it's not
->based on crash retrievals or back engineering from square one.
Right. Lazar claims the greys tried to give us a Berlitz class in Saucer
Fundamentals 101, but we humans had neglected to take the pre-requisite
hyperdimensional quantum gravity mechanics courses. So we did poorly on
the mid-term and flunked the final. They left before collecting the
self-addressed stamped post card for our grade. When they come back
they'll be pissed.
->If
->intelligent, reasonable people (unlike those usually found here)
Gene - Stop slamming the reality challenged SaucerZealots so hard. They'll
be the first (and maybe only) ones in line for "The Bob Lazar Story - Now
the Truth Can be Told." Soon (maybe real soon) to be on video.
->are
->going to discuss the pros and cons, it might help if you knew the story
->first so you knew what to consider.-
Which version are you parading here now?
The one Tim Good wrote that you/Lazar had to disown?
Or is there another one we can all enjoy in mirth filled fantasy?
--
Michael Hofmeister
Michael Hofmeister
On 4 Feb 1997 00:45:16 GMT, in <5d60qs$f...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->Lazar's story isn't based on back-engineering these discs from square
->one. When the hardware was first presented there was a measure of
->instruction with them from the ETs. They found those at S4, or wherever
->this happened
Yeah, right, "wherever." Cover your butt in case you need to change your
story. Again.
->at that point in time, to be insufferable students and
Uh huh. Those MIT saucer reverse engineers must have been shooting spit
wads through straws at the greys when they turned their backs. And we have
the nerve to call ourselves civilized....
->left in a huff and left some of the hardware.
I guess the Intergalactic Cruiser Mothership garage was full or their
inventory control needs major work or the assets had zero book value or...
->This allegedly happened
->in the late 70s. You needn't worry about the PC being dropped to
->simulate a crashed disc as the Lazar info is not, and has never been,
->based on crash retrievals.-
That wouldn't make sense then, would it? That would be like trying to
drive a '56 Buick that hit a brick wall doing 70,000 mph.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Gene Huff
In <5d53qg$9...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>
>Also the "reactor" in the middle contains a very
-For the first time ever, Jeremy, you're right. If you knew the Lazar
story you'd know that he was brought into the program because a couple
of men were killed after sawing through a reactor with a plasma cutter
type device.-
>
>Of course there is the added problem that if we believe in Roswell
>(which is the foundation on which the Lazar Myth is built), your
>typical Flying Saucer parts are basically indestructable.
-Back to your normal self. Lazar's story has nothing to do with Roswell
as Lazar did not work on crash retrievals. That is the true myth.
>
This is almost a reasonable conversation and I wish I wasn't leaving so
I could pursue it. (I don't have a lap top) It's interesting that none
of you are familiar enough with the Lazar story to know that it's not
based on crash retrievals or back engineering from square one. If
intelligent, reasonable people (unlike those usually found here) are
going to discuss the pros and cons, it might help if you knew the story
Sasha Mikheev
In alt.alien.visitors AKA {The Ghoul} <d..stanton@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: Adam Whaley wrote:
: > Obviously some things can be back engineered, it is common practice
: > with industrial espionage in anything from designer dresses to
: > captured fighter planes. The important thing to remember is that any
: > feasible back-engineering must have a technological support structure
: > without which it would be an impossible exercise.
<munch>
: I have to disagree with your analogy, if the microchip was inside of
: a computer, say a battery powered laptop and they were able to first
: observe it in use they may very well have been able to garner some
: technological innovations from it. Victorians knew some electrical
Well lets assume that they got a hold of my computer and a power source
and figured how to plug it in. Computer boots and they see:
Red Hat Linux release 2.1
Kernel 2.0.23 on a i586
aldan.netvision.net.il login:
Now they try to login and guess what do they get ? ;)
aldan.netvision.net.il login: foobar
Password:
Login incorrect
aldan.netvision.net.il login: letmein
Password:
Login incorrect
aldan.netvision.net.il login: barfoo
Password:
Login incorrect
Yes there is a way around it by making boot floppy and booting
from it. But do you think they can figure it and make it ?
P.S. And if the aforamentioned system arrived in tiny little pieces
they would have no fscking chances of reconsructing it.
--
Sasha Mikheev Linux -- put a penguin in your processor
System Manager at Netvision Israel, Ltd
Tel +972-4-8560600
http://aldan.netvision.net.il/~sasha
Jeremy Bee
In article <5d61ec$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <5d53qg$9...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>>
>>Also the "reactor" in the middle contains a very
>>few simple parts, hardly likely to reveal much of anything without
>>destructive testing.
>
>-For the first time ever, Jeremy, you're right.
Thanks for the backhanded (seemingly) complimentary statement which all those
who know you are aware is merely the setup for the degrading put down later...
>If you knew the Lazar
>story you'd know that he was brought into the program because a couple
>of men were killed after sawing through a reactor with a plasma cutter
>type device.-
Ha-ha. What *exactly* is a "plasma cutter type device"? Is it like a phaser
or more like a enhanced tetrion beam? why didn't they just "scan" it with
their "tricorders"?????
This is exactly the kind of baflle-gab that makes you look so intelligent to
the real world.
>>
>>Of course there is the added problem that if we believe in Roswell
>>(which is the foundation on which the Lazar Myth is built), your
>>typical Flying Saucer parts are basically indestructable.
>
>-Back to your normal self. Lazar's story has nothing to do with Roswell
>as Lazar did not work on crash retrievals. That is the true myth.
It has a lot to do with it regardless of what Lazar actualy says but I don't
expect you to understand that. Even if you can prove that Lazar never
actively associted his story with specific crash retrievals it is certainly an
understandable "mistake" to associate stories of back-engineered saucers at
Area 51 with similar stories of crash retrievals at Area 51.
>
>
>This is almost a reasonable conversation and I wish I wasn't leaving so
>I could pursue it. (I don't have a lap top) It's interesting that none
>of you are familiar enough with the Lazar story to know that it's not
>based on crash retrievals or back engineering from square one. If
>intelligent, reasonable people (unlike those usually found here)
Ah, there it is. The requisite insulting remark...
> are
>going to discuss the pros and cons, it might help if you knew the story
>first so you knew what to consider.-
>
Right. right right...
Back to the same old tactics. You never miss an opportunity to dump all over
anyone who gets any one of your little web of "facts" even slightly wrong do
you? Why so you overreact in this way Gene? Not just to me but to all others
on the same topic.
You go out of your way to point out this (slight) technical error of
associating Lazar with crash retrievals and in such strong language that is
totaly out of proportion with the size of the supposed error. Did it not ever
occur to you that you would get more people to believe your little stories if
you were even marginaly nice about it?
I am glad you are (finaly) going (for the third time that I know about).
Let me know when you come back again so I can keep the count of the times you
have "left" (in a Huff) accurate.
Jeremy
Garry Bryan
Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: In article <5d61ec$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
: >
: >-Back to your normal self. Lazar's story has nothing to do with Roswell
: >as Lazar did not work on crash retrievals. That is the true myth.
: It has a lot to do with it regardless of what Lazar actualy says but I don't
: expect you to understand that. Even if you can prove that Lazar never
: actively associted his story with specific crash retrievals it is certainly an
: understandable "mistake" to associate stories of back-engineered saucers at
: Area 51 with similar stories of crash retrievals at Area 51.
I would beg to differ. Lazar's story invlove intact saucer-like vehicles and
were not associated with crashed or damaged, retrieved parts. I think that
is a clear distinction that Gene is making. . .
Jeremy adds. . .
: Back to the same old tactics. You never miss an opportunity to dump all over
: anyone who gets any one of your little web of "facts" even slightly wrong do
: you? Why so you overreact in this way Gene? Not just to me but to all others
: on the same topic.
I think it is very clear that Gene is just wanting the facts to remain straight
and intact and not let "thread fade" start to create a myth out of what is
alleged to be an intact experiance of Lazar. . .
: You go out of your way to point out this (slight) technical error of
: associating Lazar with crash retrievals and in such strong language that is
: totaly out of proportion with the size of the supposed error. Did it not ever
: occur to you that you would get more people to believe your little stories if
: you were even marginaly nice about it?
So what I am reading here is that you, Jeremy, are saying you made a mistake in
associating Lazar's work on intact saucers with allegations of back engineering
of crash retrievals? Did it not occur to you to apologize for the error and
not make an issue out of someone trying to keep the "facts" straight? It seems
that folks are want to get proof and facts yet when someone trys to keep the
facts straight they are chastised. It appears that Gene is just trying to keep
the story from becoming so out of line with the original as to render all of it
debunkable. . .
Garry (%^{>
Larry Jackman
>
>>If you knew the Lazar
>>story you'd know that he was brought into the program because a couple
>>of men were killed after sawing through a reactor with a plasma cutter
>>type device.-
>
>Ha-ha. What *exactly* is a "plasma cutter type device"? Is it like a phaser
>or more like a enhanced tetrion beam? why didn't they just "scan" it with
>their "tricorders"?????
>
>This is exactly the kind of baflle-gab that makes you look so intelligent to
>the real world.
>
Bee, does Huff pay you to make him look good or are you just that stupid?
Before you comment on baffle-gab and other people's intelligence, you might
want to run down to your local welding store and ask them to show you a plasma
cutter. They've been out for years and they're high power electrical devices
used to cut metal. Out.
Ken Johnson
>Ha-ha. What *exactly* is a "plasma cutter type device"? Is it like a phaser
>or more like a enhanced tetrion beam? why didn't they just "scan" it with
>their "tricorders"?????
>
>This is exactly the kind of baflle-gab that makes you look so intelligent to
>the real world.
>
I guess since I'm the one who asked Gene Huff to join this thread before he
went out of town that I should join in here for a moment. I've been reading
whatever I could about the Lazar story for about the past year. I've spoken at
length with Huff via email and he has given me more reasonable and lengthy
answers than I could get anywhere else. I urged him to share some of that info
with this group so we could all join in and he told me that it wasn't possible
because of the anarchy and psychos on the newsgroups. He told me he'd post
something, which he did, and that I should watch. Now here is a guy implying
that Huff fabricated plasma cutters and likening them to phasers. This is
nothing compared to the incoherent ravings of Michael Hoffmeister whose
blathering I can only attribute to being drunken or high on drugs. Hoffmeister
suggested Huff was rewriting history with the Lazar story. Lazar has never
claimed that he worked on crash retrievals. He has always declared that he did
not know where the discs came from but they were in perfect working order and
the reports he read suggested that they were brought here and landed safely. I
guess Huff can give me a big "I told you so" next time I exchange with him.
He's right about the newsgroups. He's right about the discs not being alleged
to be crash retrievals. He's right about plasma cutters. Mr. Bee, I suggest
you check http://www.hypertherm.com for some info on these plasma cutter
devices so you can apologize. I don't think people like you and Hoffmeister
know how you look to those new to the net. If people like Huff can't be
convinced to contribute information, then usenet serves no purpose for us. You
may not like him or have had conflicts with him in the past, but he's the best
we've got short of Lazar himself. If the general public had the choice between
Huff and the likes of you two, you to would be gone, not Huff. Unfortunately,
we don't have that choice.
Michael Hofmeister
On Wed, 05 Feb 97 18:50:25 GMT, in <5davbh$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
-> I guess since I'm the one who asked Gene Huff to join this thread before he
->went out of town that I should join in here for a moment. I've been reading
->whatever I could about the Lazar story for about the past year.
Be sure NOT to read any of Tim Good's stuff. He has fallen out of favor in
the Lazar/Huff camp. I guess the wacky Lazar story in his books doesn't
match the new and improved Lazar myths designed to cash in on post ID4
mania.
->I've spoken at
->length with Huff via email and he has given me more reasonable and lengthy
->answers than I could get anywhere else. I urged him to share some of that info
->with this group so we could all join in and he told me that it wasn't possible
->because of the anarchy and psychos on the newsgroups.
Heh. That's a funny one. Things seemed to "go normal" around here real
fast after Gene pulled out. Must have been a coincidence.
->He told me he'd post
->something, which he did, and that I should watch. Now here is a guy implying
->that Huff fabricated plasma cutters and likening them to phasers. This is
->nothing compared to the incoherent ravings of Michael Hoffmeister whose
->blathering I can only attribute to being drunken or high on drugs.
Ken - Your attributions are quite consistent of someone who is so far out
on the lunatic fringe that every rational, objective person appears to be
incoherent. I suggest you get yourself into one of those "six-step"
programs as soon as possible.
->Hoffmeister
->suggested Huff was rewriting history with the Lazar story.
Anyone who has watched the Lazar myth form over the years will quickly
conclude that this is true. Here are a few ways to send Gene off on a wild
rant:
1. Mention Tom Mahood
2. Ask about Lazar's education background
3. Ask what degrees Lazar has
Every interview that I have seen or read featuring Lazar always leave me
with the impression that he does not have the technical background to do
what he claims. He has yet to provide any verifiable evidence of his past
or his employment with the government.
->I
->guess Huff can give me a big "I told you so" next time I exchange with him.
->He's right about the newsgroups. He's right about the discs not being alleged
->to be crash retrievals. He's right about plasma cutters.
Phew! This "Gene Huff Worshipper" makes the other "reality challenged"
believers appear almost normal.
Ken - Be sure to use plenty of Chapstik(tm) after you finish kissing Gene's
ass in public.
->Mr. Bee, I suggest
->you check http://www.hypertherm.com for some info on these plasma cutter
->devices
Ken - Thanks for letting us know where Gene gets his wacky ideas.
->I don't think people like you and Hoffmeister
->know how you look to those new to the net.
Ken - And I don't think you know when you're getting your leg pulled. Even
the most die-hard wait-on-a-mountain-for-the-mothership WEGB has abandoned
the Lazar story long ago.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Ken Johnson
In article <5dc6ag$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>Be sure NOT to read any of Tim Good's stuff. He has fallen out of favor in
>the Lazar/Huff camp. I guess the wacky Lazar story in his books doesn't
>match the new and improved Lazar myths designed to cash in on post ID4
>mania.
Wrong. I don't plan to pursue this much further, but since you're slightly
more rational today I'll take a moment with you. I've real ALL of Tim Good's
stuff and Tim relates things to crash retrievals based on things from the late
Len Stringfield, John Lear, and people like that. Last year there was a person
named Nick Humphries who posted here and said Tim Good no longer supported the
Lazar story. At that point in time Gene Huff was contacting Tim Good on
behalf of Jim Marrs, the author of the book Crossfire about the Kennedy
assassination who was then writing a book about ufological related subjects,
and Huff did me the favor of hooking me up with Good via telephone. I spoke to
Tim Good last October and he said that he believes that Lazar believes he's
been where he's said he's been and Good said that he himself believes that
Lazar has been where he said he's been. Good said that Humphries has
taken comments out of context and that Humphries was wrong and Huff was
right. Sorry to ruin your attempt at being clever. As far as cashing in on ID4
goes, I've also personally spoken to Dean Devlin who was the writer and
driving force behind ID4 and he said that the whole ID4 idea evolved from
Lazar. They cashed in on Lazar, not vice versa. I think you may have mistaken
my comment about reading up on the Lazar story for the past year as being my
total research. I've been reading and interviewing people about UFO related
subjects for the past five years. From here on out if you blow smoke, make
sure you know who your target is.
>Anyone who has watched the Lazar myth form over the years will quickly
>conclude that this is true. Here are a few ways to send Gene off on a wild
>rant:
>
>1. Mention Tom Mahood
Sorry to disappoint you again, but I've met Mahood and the whole Rachel rat
pack. I think Mahood is honest and intelligent but he has this Woody Boyd
(Wood Harrelson's role on Cheers) air about him that makes me apprehensive
about his research and especially his conclusions. I like him though. Agent X
is wacky, yet fun to talk to. There is not enough psychiatry in the world to
make Glenn Campbell seem normal. That's my assessment of those people.
>
>2. Ask about Lazar's education background
I did and I was introduced to a man that went to class with Lazar at Cal Tech.
Huff invited me to Desert Blast and that's where I met him. I also met Joe
Vaninetti, a man who worked with Lazar at Los Alamos. This man who went to Cal
Tech had subsequently moved back east and was not in contact with Lazar so he
has no idea what Lazar did after that. However, Lazar was there, at least
temporarily.
>
>3. Ask what degrees Lazar has
I did and I got the standard answer.
>
>Every interview that I have seen or read featuring Lazar always leave me
>with the impression that he does not have the technical background to do
>what he claims.
He really doesn't claim to have done much that required much of anything other
than the ability to get hired into the program. As a side note, and
considering that you didn't know what a plasma cutter was, I don't think many
will deem you to be in a position to judge Lazar.
He has yet to provide any verifiable evidence of his past
>or his employment with the government.
He provided evidence including witnesses that he worked in a program at Los
Alamos that required clearance and he's provided a W-2 from the Navy from when
he worked at S4. OFI security checks at his home, etc. This is old news. Wrong
again.
>
>Phew! This "Gene Huff Worshipper" makes the other "reality challenged"
>believers appear almost normal.
I'm far from a Gene Huff worshipper. I simply think that it would be more
productive if when we discussed the Lazar story we discussed the actual
allegations and not the kind of bunk you're presenting here. You are a
classsic example of ufological arguments being sociological and psychological
moreso than technological. Either you're unable or too lazy to do any research
of your own. You're obviously under the impression that I believe the Lazar
story and I don't, in fact, I'm quite apprehensive. However, when it is
assessed for what it's worth and what it's actually based on, it's much more
reasonable and intriguing than when someone hears the versions from people
like you and others like you.
>Ken - Thanks for letting us know where Gene gets his wacky ideas.
It's truly sad that you think Huff needed to get a "wacky idea" because Lazar
says that the government cut open a reactor and it was probably done with a
remote control plasma cutter type device. Did you think it was a hacksaw?
>Ken - And I don't think you know when you're getting your leg pulled. Even
>the most die-hard wait-on-a-mountain-for-the-mothership WEGB has abandoned
>the Lazar story long ago.
As one who attends MUFON meetings, listens to any UFO radio show I can
receive, and watches every UFO television show I can confidently say that you
are naive if you believe that. Lazar is the most hotly discussed topic, at
least here in the U.S. and in the U.K. and Australia, on any of these media
shows. What people have abandoned is listening to people like you.
This thread started out with people discussing the probability of back
engineering ET craft and was actually interesting until you posted. I have a
question for those original posters who wanted to intelligently discuss the
Lazar story. I was introduced to a friend of Lazar's named James M. Tagliani.
He worked as an electronics technician at Tonopah Test Range in the late 80s.
When Lazar was going to go public with George Knapp, the Air Force Office of
Special Investigation pulled Tagliani out of work and demanded that he help
them find Lazar so they could prevent Lazar from going on television. This
event actually happened as Tagliani is a no nonsense type of guy. Here's my
question. No matter what you beleive about Lazar, whether you think he
fabricated his story, was a subject of mind control, or anything short of
believing that he's telling the truth, what could Lazar possibly have been
involved in that would warrant the AFOSI pulling someone who knew him out of
work to solicit help in finding him? For those of you who don't know, TTR was
where the stealth fighter was based and Tagliani worked there prior to Desert
Storm and prior to the stealth being known to the general public. Anybody?
That's anybody except you Mr. Hoffmeister as you've shown me in great detail
that you don't have anything to offer.
Darron
If you have something for the group fine ,post it. If you have something
for each other, e-mail each other, we're not interest in self or vested
interest, isn't that the thing which keeps the truth (more correctly
facts) from us anyway?
You sound like them, shouldn't you sound like us.
Tom Mahood
On Thu, 06 Feb 97 17:26:21 GMT, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
wrote:
>This thread started out with people discussing the probability of back
>engineering ET craft and was actually interesting until you posted. I have a
>question for those original posters who wanted to intelligently discuss the
>Lazar story. I was introduced to a friend of Lazar's named James M. Tagliani.
>He worked as an electronics technician at Tonopah Test Range in the late 80s.
>When Lazar was going to go public with George Knapp, the Air Force Office of
>Special Investigation pulled Tagliani out of work and demanded that he help
>them find Lazar so they could prevent Lazar from going on television. This
>event actually happened as Tagliani is a no nonsense type of guy. Here's my
>question. No matter what you beleive about Lazar, whether you think he
>fabricated his story, was a subject of mind control, or anything short of
>believing that he's telling the truth, what could Lazar possibly have been
>involved in that would warrant the AFOSI pulling someone who knew him out of
>work to solicit help in finding him? For those of you who don't know, TTR was
>where the stealth fighter was based and Tagliani worked there prior to Desert
>Storm and prior to the stealth being known to the general public. Anybody?
I guess I'll take a crack at this, as it doesn't require any
questionable research, only questionable deduction.
First off, if Lazar was in the program as he claimed, then AFOSI would
certainly know exactly how to get hold of him, particularly if the
surveillance of him was as he claimed. Granted, there is some
ineptness in any governmental organization, but to pass this off to
AFOSI's stupidity strikes me as arrogant. I don't buy it for a
second.
OK, so what happened? Possibility 1, that Lazar made the whole thing
up. Remember that in 1989 Area 51 had a very low profile. Few had
heard of it then. If AFOSI got wind of someone planning to talk about
it, you can bet they would be very interested in having a talk with
that person. A friendly talk, of course, and maybe a little leverage
put upon him. If he made it up, and hadn't been there, they would not
have known for sure just what the deal was with him, and it would be
very important to them to find out. So they pulled Vainetti out of
work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable
action to me.
Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
chat with Vainetti.
Possibilty 3, that Lazar was at Papoose, I am satisfied is no longer
viable possibility.
BTW, I understand Jim Vainetti is a quite decent, and above all,
honest guy. It would have been worth your while to spend a little
time asking him the right questions.
Tom
Jeremy Bee
In article <5dasun$4...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman) wrote:
>In article <5d90dc$o...@tofu.alt.net>, b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) wrote:
>
>>
>>>story you'd know that he was brought into the program because a couple
>>>of men were killed after sawing through a reactor with a plasma cutter
>>>type device.-
>>
>>or more like a enhanced tetrion beam? why didn't they just "scan" it with
>>their "tricorders"?????
>>
>>This is exactly the kind of baflle-gab that makes you look so intelligent to
>>the real world.
>>
>Before you comment on baffle-gab and other people's intelligence, you might
>want to run down to your local welding store and ask them to show you a plasma
>cutter. They've been out for years and they're high power electrical devices
>used to cut metal. Out.
Apologies for the mistake, I guess welders secretly want to pilot starships.
My mistake aside....
Nothing, absolutely *nothing* can make Gene Huff look good. (or sound
intelligent either)
Jeremy
>
>
Jeremy Bee
Why is it that you feel that you should post this stuff 8 times over???
And why the almost unreadable double spaced HTML crap formatting that almost
no-one can read without getting eye strain?
In article <385816985...@arborea.magic.ca>,
"kck...@heron.eecs.umich.edu"@arborea.magic.ca
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?kckluge=40heron.eecs.umich.edu?=) wrote:
><x-fontsize><param>9</param><bold><x-fontname><param>Monaco</param>AKA =7BT=
>he Ghoul=7D <<d..stanton=40worldnet.att.net> writes:</bold>
>
>
><x-quoted>> I have to disagree with your analogy, if the microchip was insi=
>de of</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> a computer, say a battery powered laptop and they were able to =
>first</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> observe it in use they may very well have been able to garner s=
>ome</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> technological innovations from it. Victorians knew some electri=
>cal</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> engineering, ie.. Faraday, Volta, Curie, Bell. They also had so=
>me ideas</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> of machine logic applications ie.. Babbage, player pianos, cott=
>on loom</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> intricate clocks. If their best scientists where to disassemble=
> the</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> lap-top analysing and recording as they did it could be used as=
> a </x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> Rosetta Stone to interpet any new inventions that come along an=
>d</x-quoted>
>
><x-quoted>> point to improvements that could be made.</x-quoted>
>
>
>And therein lies the problem -- they would still lack the necessary techniq=
>ues
>
>and knowledge to do so nondestructively. They don't know which pin is volta=
>ge
>
>and which is ground, they don't know the operating range of voltage and
>
>current large enough to drive the circuits but small enough not to fry them=
>,
>
>they don't know trying to pry open the chip will destroy it, or that exposi=
>ng
>
>it to too large a level of the new-fangled X-rays will scramble the content=
>s
>
>of the memory, or which are the input pins and which the output pins.
>
>
>And don't forget, before we hand them the laptop we're going to have to dro=
>p
>
>it from a 10 story building to simulate a crashed saucer.
>
>
>Oh, and also don't forget -- some ICs are designed to make them hard to
>
>reverse engineer. They're designed to self-destruct if the attempt is=20
>
>made. Remember the proposed telephone crypto chip?
>
>
>I have to agree with the original poster -- the idea that reverse engineeri=
>ng
>
>would be possible regardless of how large the delta between the level of
>
>technology and understanding of physics was between creator and reverse
>
>engineer is implausible. It's cheesy 50's science fiction, like _Earth Vs. =
>the
>
>Flying Saucers_.
>
>
>On the other hand, knowing something is possible is a marvelous motivator t=
>o
>
>consider how exactly one might go about doing it. I don't buy Brian Zeiler'=
>s
>
>theory that airspike concepts are the product of reverse engineering saucer=
>s,
>
>but I can buy that they may be the product of people sitting around asking
>
>=22if I were going to try to build a craft that can do X, how would I go ab=
>out
>
>doing it?=22
>
>
>Karl
>
>
>
>-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D RFC822 Headers Fol=
>low =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
>
>=46rom: Karl Kluge <<kckluge=40heron.eecs.umich.edu>
>
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.consp=
>iracy.area51,alt.mindcontrol
>
>Subject: Re: LAZAR'S BACK-ENGINEERING - A FALLACY
>
>Date: 02 Feb 1997 23:28:36 -0500
>
>Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
>
>Lines: 42
>
>Message-ID: <<92ovi8awm17.fsf=40heron.eecs.umich.edu>
>
>References: <<5ctetj=24107=40news.enterprise.net> <<32F29B6F.7BB7=40worldne=
>t.att.net>
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: heron.eecs.umich.edu
>
>X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
>
>Path: news.total.net=21news.insinc.net=21news.bc.net=21news.maxwell.syr.edu=
>=21worldnet.att.net=21howland.erols.net=21newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu=21news.ee=
>cs.umich.edu=21not-for-mail
>
>Xref: news.total.net alt.alien.research:43254 alt.alien.visitors:181910 alt=
>..paranet.ufo:91915 alt.conspiracy.area51:17736 alt.mindcontrol:15803
>
></x-fontsize><x-fontsize><param>10</param></x-fontname><x-fontname><param>G=
>eneva</param>
>This message sent using the FirstClass SMTP/NNTP Gateway for Mac OS.
>
></x-fontsize></x-fontname>
>
Jeremy Bee
Actually not me, I was defending someone else.
>Did it not occur to you to apologize for the error and
>not make an issue out of someone trying to keep the "facts" straight? It seems
>that folks are want to get proof and facts yet when someone trys to keep the
>facts straight they are chastised. It appears that Gene is just trying to keep
>the story from becoming so out of line with the original as to render all of it
>debunkable. . .
My aplogies to those who don't know Gene and told me that my remarks seemed a
little intemperate.
I am obviously reading a lot into Gene's reply that maybe was not apparent to
others. Try disagreeing with him once in a while and you will suddenly see
what I mean when I refer to him in this way.
The man was practically hounded off of these groups for his childish and
highly aggressive name-calling behaviour. (that's why the comment about his
"leaving" many times before)
I will not comment any more on him, his Lazar myth will eventually fall down
of it's own accord. (but not until he has made a pile of money off of the
merchandise and gathered all the mock esteem he can take.)
For those of us who really believe there is something to Flying Saucers
however, people like Gene and stories like Lazars' are an anathema in that
they make us all look like fools.
How can you get someone to take you seriously in regards UFO's with idiots
like Lazar and Huff taking everyone for a ride?
Jeremy
>
>Garry (%^{>
Jeremy Bee
In article <5davbh$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
>In article <5d90dc$o...@tofu.alt.net>, b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) wrote:
>
>>Ha-ha. What *exactly* is a "plasma cutter type device"? Is it like a phaser
>>or more like a enhanced tetrion beam? why didn't they just "scan" it with
>>their "tricorders"?????
>>
>>This is exactly the kind of baflle-gab that makes you look so intelligent to
>>the real world.
>>
>suggested Huff was rewriting history with the Lazar story. Lazar has never
>claimed that he worked on crash retrievals. He has always declared that he did
>not know where the discs came from but they were in perfect working order and
>the reports he read suggested that they were brought here and landed safely. I
>know how you look to those new to the net. If people like Huff can't be
>convinced to contribute information, then usenet serves no purpose for us. You
>may not like him or have had conflicts with him in the past, but he's the best
>we've got short of Lazar himself. If the general public had the choice between
>Huff and the likes of you two, you to would be gone, not Huff. Unfortunately,
>we don't have that choice.
I already apologised in antoher thread for my ignorance of what a "plasma
cutter" is. You must admit however, it does sound a little trekkie.
Ignorance of a term is my excuse. Gene Huff has no excuse. The Lazar story
has been disproven backwards and forwards, over and over again and on this
group to boot, yet he still continues to spread this story (and sell the
merchandise on his web site).
I also apologised for seeming intemperate to those of you who have not been on
this group long enough to know exactly what Gene is like. He was practically
hounded from this group by most of the regulars for being a hot-headed,
name-calling nast, nasty guy. All the while professing how "low-class" and
mean spirited everyone here was while at the same time dumping all over
everyone.
As someone seriously interested in UFO's I protest people like Huff who spread
lies and confusion and make us all look silly to the general public. I also
protest as a human being that people like Gene Huff exist at all.
Gene only got warn amd fuzzy since he stopped hanging around here and set up
his Website about Lazar that sells merchandise to make money. Interesting no?
Jeremy
Michael Hofmeister
On Thu, 06 Feb 97 17:26:21 GMT, in <5ddeq2$f...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->In article <5dc6ag$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
-> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
->>Be sure NOT to read any of Tim Good's stuff. He has fallen out of favor in
->>the Lazar/Huff camp. I guess the wacky Lazar story in his books doesn't
->>match the new and improved Lazar myths designed to cash in on post ID4
->>mania.
->Wrong. I've rea[d] ALL of Tim Good's
->stuff and Tim relates things to crash retrievals based on things from the late
->Len Stringfield, John Lear, and people like that.
Ken - You forgot to mention the Lazar story in "Alien Contact" (or
something like that). This version of the legend has been rebuked by Huff
for some reason.
->Last year there was a person
->named Nick Humphries who posted here and said Tim Good no longer supported the
-> Lazar story. At that point in time Gene Huff was contacting Tim Good on
->behalf of Jim Marrs, the author of the book Crossfire about the Kennedy
->assassination who was then writing a book about ufological related subjects,
->and Huff did me the favor of hooking me up with Good via telephone. I spoke to
->Tim Good last October and he said that he believes that Lazar believes he's
->been where he's said he's been and Good said that he himself believes that
->Lazar has been where he said he's been. Good said that Humphries has
->taken comments out of context and that Humphries was wrong and Huff was
->right. Sorry to ruin your attempt at being clever.
This has nothing to do with being clever. Huff has stated in these
newsgroups that he did not want the Good version being used and that he and
Good were not speaking. Have things changed? Has the Good version come
into favor again? Who cares?
->As far as cashing in on ID4
->goes, I've also personally spoken to Dean Devlin who was the writer and
->driving force behind ID4 and he said that the whole ID4 idea evolved from
->Lazar. They cashed in on Lazar, not vice versa.
Oh great. A Hollywood science fiction writer who borrows any wacky idea to
make a buck is your guiding lamp in reality.
->I think you may have mistaken
->my comment about reading up on the Lazar story for the past year as being my
->total research. I've been reading and interviewing people about UFO related
->subjects for the past five years. From here on out if you blow smoke, make
->sure you know who your target is.
So, for five years you've been reading comic books and talking to Hollywood
screenwriters. Phew! Your research should crack this subject wide open...
8^).
->>Anyone who has watched the Lazar myth form over the years will quickly
->>conclude that this is true.
Anyone who reaches this conclusion should seek help at the Betty Ford
Clinic as soon as possible.
->Here are a few ways to send Gene off on a wild
->>rant:
->>
->>1. Mention Tom Mahood
->Sorry to disappoint you again, but I've met Mahood and the whole Rachel rat
->pack. I think Mahood is honest and intelligent but he has this Woody Boyd
->(Wood Harrelson's role on Cheers) air about him that makes me apprehensive
->about his research and especially his conclusions. I like him though. Agent X
->is wacky, yet fun to talk to. There is not enough psychiatry in the world to
->make Glenn Campbell seem normal. That's my assessment of those people.
Notice Ken that I did not ask for your opinion about these people. I'm
sure they all seem like nice guys. My comment was that Mahood has
completely destroyed Lazar's specious educational past through careful
research. Almost no one disagrees with that information. That's why
Mahood and Huff are sworn enemies.
->>2. Ask about Lazar's education background
->I did and I was introduced to a man that went to class with Lazar at Cal Tech.
Heh, that's funny. Someone else who claims he went to "night school" at
Cal Tech. Here's a big clue for you Ken: Cal Tech is not like your local
JC. They don't have "night classes" and they never did. I should know.
->Huff invited me to Desert Blast and that's where I met him. I also met Joe
->Vaninetti, a man who worked with Lazar at Los Alamos. This man who went to Cal
->Tech had subsequently moved back east and was not in contact with Lazar so he
->has no idea what Lazar did after that. However, Lazar was there, at least
->temporarily.
->>
->>3. Ask what degrees Lazar has
->I did and I got the standard answer.
Ken - Please tell us what you think the standard answer is. It changes
every time I see it.
->>Every interview that I have seen or read featuring Lazar always leave me
->>with the impression that he does not have the technical background to do
->>what he claims.
->He really doesn't claim to have done much that required much of anything other
->than the ability to get hired into the program.
I guess they aren't too fussy about their janitorial staff.
->As a side note, and
->considering that you didn't know what a plasma cutter was,
Ken - Do you have any idea what a "plasma cutter" is? Why would anyone use
it rather than a conventional blow torch? Or a diamond saw?
I personally think Lazar/Huff needed something that sounded scientific to
buff out their limp story. "Yeah, a 'plasma cutter'. That sounds like
something from Star Wars..."
->I don't think many
->will deem you to be in a position to judge Lazar.
I think anyone with a high school diploma or better is in a perfect postion
to judge Lazar.
-> He has yet to provide any verifiable evidence of his past
->>or his employment with the government.
->He provided evidence including witnesses that he worked in a program at Los
->Alamos that required clearance and he's provided a W-2 from the Navy from when
->he worked at S4. OFI security checks at his home, etc. This is old news. Wrong
->again.
Hmmm...he worked at Los Alamos and had a clearance. That certainly means
he can't pull your leg to make himself rich.
FYI - Lazar only provided a copy of something that looked like a W-2 form
(or was it a check stub?), but it was incomplete and indicated an office of
the Navy that does not exist. Typically, people who work in Black Program
organizations have check stubs that show their employer as "Acme Rocket
Works" or some other such non-existent entity.
->>Phew! This "Gene Huff Worshipper" makes the other "reality challenged"
->>believers appear almost normal.
->I'm far from a Gene Huff worshipper. I simply think that it would be more
->productive if when we discussed the Lazar story we discussed the actual
->allegations and not the kind of bunk you're presenting here.
You are about a year too late, Ken. Most people here are tired of this
obviously concocted myth and want to discuss more interesting topics.
->You are a
->classsic example of ufological arguments being sociological and psychological
->moreso than technological. Either you're unable or too lazy to do any research
->of your own. You're obviously under the impression that I believe the Lazar
->story and I don't, in fact, I'm quite apprehensive.
Oh puh-leez. This is like Catholic Bishops saying they have open minds
about religion. Give me a break.
->However, when it is
->assessed for what it's worth and what it's actually based on, it's much more
->reasonable and intriguing than when someone hears the versions from people
->like you and others like you.
Me and others like me? That's a scary thought. The "Anti-Christ of
UFOology" and his clones...
->>Ken - Thanks for letting us know where Gene gets his wacky ideas.
->It's truly sad that you think Huff needed to get a "wacky idea" because Lazar
->says that the government cut open a reactor and it was probably done with a
->remote control plasma cutter type device. Did you think it was a hacksaw?
Why not use the simplest tool if it works? Ooops, I forgot this is Science
Fiction...
->>Ken - And I don't think you know when you're getting your leg pulled. Even
->>the most die-hard wait-on-a-mountain-for-the-mothership WEGB has abandoned
->>the Lazar story long ago.
->As one who attends MUFON meetings, listens to any UFO radio show I can
->receive, and watches every UFO television show I can confidently say that you
->are naive if you believe that. Lazar is the most hotly discussed topic, at
->least here in the U.S. and in the U.K. and Australia, on any of these media
->shows. What people have abandoned is listening to people like you.
I guess they cup their hands over their eyes and ears and scream "We're not
listening, we're not listening,..." to avoid my contaminating their fragile
minds.
->This thread started out with people discussing the probability of back
->engineering ET craft and was actually interesting until you posted.
Now that's interesting. I come along, interject a little rational thought,
logic, and science, and the whole thread falls apart. Apparently this
topic is so pathetic and weak it could not withstand any scrutiny.
-> I was introduced to a friend of Lazar's named James M. Tagliani.
->He worked as an electronics technician at Tonopah Test Range in the late 80s.
Almost all activity at Tonopah is still highly classified. Most people
won't even admit that they worked there. This already sounds specious.
Ken - Did he provide any proof of this statement?
->When Lazar was going to go public with George Knapp, the Air Force Office of
->Special Investigation pulled Tagliani out of work and demanded that he help
->them find Lazar so they could prevent Lazar from going on television.
I thought Lazar worked for the Navy? Gee, Ken, you've got to stick with
the Lazar/Huff party line, otherwise the whole thing will crumble even
quicker.
->This
->event actually happened as Tagliani is a no nonsense type of guy.
Most con men give that impression: "Golly, officer, he seemed like such a
no nonsense kind of guy." Typical.
->Here's my
->question. No matter what you beleive about Lazar, whether you think he
->fabricated his story, was a subject of mind control, or anything short of
->believing that he's telling the truth, what could Lazar possibly have been
->involved in that would warrant the AFOSI pulling someone who knew him out of
->work to solicit help in finding him? For those of you who don't know, TTR was
->where the stealth fighter was based and Tagliani worked there prior to Desert
->Storm and prior to the stealth being known to the general public. Anybody?
->That's anybody except you Mr. Hoffmeister as you've shown me in great detail
->that you don't have anything to offer.
Thanks for the compliment, Ken. There's nothing that makes my day better
than when some "reality challenged" UFO researcher runs away screaming "I'm
not listening, I'm not listening..."
Thanks for playing, Ken. Pick up your parting gifts at the door.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Nick Humphries
On Thu, 06 Feb 97 17:26:21 GMT, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
wrote:
>In article <5dc6ag$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>
>>Be sure NOT to read any of Tim Good's stuff. He has fallen out of favor in
>>the Lazar/Huff camp. I guess the wacky Lazar story in his books doesn't
>>match the new and improved Lazar myths designed to cash in on post ID4
>>mania.
>
>Wrong. I don't plan to pursue this much further, but since you're slightly
>more rational today I'll take a moment with you. I've real ALL of Tim Good's
>stuff and Tim relates things to crash retrievals based on things from the late
>Len Stringfield, John Lear, and people like that. Last year there was a person
>named Nick Humphries who posted here and said Tim Good no longer supported the
> Lazar story.
Not _quite_ right, but close enough. Good beleives in the whole S4
scenario, but doesn't think Lazar had a part in it.
>At that point in time Gene Huff was contacting Tim Good on
>behalf of Jim Marrs, the author of the book Crossfire about the Kennedy
>assassination who was then writing a book about ufological related subjects,
Well, at the time Huff claimed he hadn't been in contact with Good for
months, so either he lied then or you are mistaken. I seem to remember
he got some pleasure about threatening to phone Good and get a
statement from him, but always putting it off...
>and Huff did me the favor of hooking me up with Good via telephone. I spoke to
>Tim Good last October and he said that he believes that Lazar believes he's
>been where he's said he's been and Good said that he himself believes that
>Lazar has been where he said he's been. Good said that Humphries has
>taken comments out of context and that Humphries was wrong and Huff was
>right.
Taking comments out of context?! How can a transcript of one of the
questions he was asked in a radio interview be taken out of context?!
OK, I don't want to go through this whole debate again - all the
points that were raised can be found at www.dejanews.com. Now, thanks
to the wonders of the internet, you too can listen to that question
which Good was asked. You can find it at
http://www.the-den.demon.co.uk/ufo.htm and it's in the form of a
zipped WAV file, 1 minute long and 470k in size. A RealAudio version
should appear by the end of the weekend.
Important quotes:
1) "he [Lazar] *CLAIMS* [heavy emphasis on that word] to have worked
on the propulsion system of these craft"
2) "The bad news is that it now transpires that Bob Lazar has no
credentials whatsoever [interviewer laughs quite loudly], so he's not
a nuclear physicist as he claims, at least not a qualifed one."
3) "Other people have come forward to confirm that what he's saying is
essentially true"
4) "Either he's been told about it, or the feeling is that maybe he
was actually taken there and shown some of this stuff"
5) "It's quite possible that *SOME* of what he's saying is essentially
true. He's not the only one, the story doesn't just stand on Bob
Lazar."
Notice how Good doesn't eagerly push the theory that Lazar worked at
S4, the last quote also seems to show that Good beleives the other S4
related stories more than he does the Lazar story. Quote 4 also shows
that he doesn't beleive Lazar worked at S4, even pushing the theory
that Lazar was taken around for a tour of the facility!
This was in 1995, I'm not aware of any public comments he's made since
then that supports Lazar. Last year he released Beyond Top Secret and
covers Area 51 in that. You'd think that if he was behind Lazar to the
level that Huff suggests, then he'd present new evidence supporting
him. In fact, he's given only three lines:
"Engineer [note, not nuclear physicist, nor any other more impressive
title] Robert Lazar claims to have been employed at S-4 for a few
months in 1988-9. He insists he saw a total of nine discs, worked on
the propulsion system of one of them, and witnessed a test flight at
close quarters there. Despite Lazar's dubious background and lack of
credentials, there is a considerable body of evidence indicating his
story could be essentially true."
So we have two things here - Lazar, and the S4 story. He has doubts of
the former and beleives in the latter.
Interestingly enough, Good gives plenty of coverage to Glenn Campbell
and his Jarod and Alfred stories. I bet Huff was pissed about that...
Anyway, if you have something new to add to the argument, any
references to _public_ interviews and/or articles by Good released
since 1995 which seem to support Lazar, then I look forward to your
post.
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
Nick Humphries
>->>Ken - And I don't think you know when you're getting your leg pulled. Even
>->>the most die-hard wait-on-a-mountain-for-the-mothership WEGB has abandoned
>->>the Lazar story long ago.
>->As one who attends MUFON meetings, listens to any UFO radio show I can
>->receive, and watches every UFO television show I can confidently say that you
>->are naive if you believe that. Lazar is the most hotly discussed topic, at
>->least here in the U.S. and in the U.K. and Australia, on any of these media
>->shows. What people have abandoned is listening to people like you.
Sorry, but I try to catch any sane UFO program/interview on Radio and
TV here in the UK, and I can assure you that Lazar ISN'T a hotly
discussed topic. Usually it's just one question per interview and the
interviewee is usually very doubtful about the Lazar story, even if
they beleive in the Area 51 scenario.
I bet it was Huff who told you that, and you swallowed it hook, line
and sinker.
Dave B
> >I was introduced to a friend of Lazar's named James M. Tagliani.
> .................................. So they pulled Vainetti out of
> work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable
> action to me.
1. I lost my scorecard. Who are we talking about here??
2. This is an interesting thread, but can't you guys [snip] a bit more?
Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Nick Humphries
The RealAudio file of Tim Good's Lazar question and response is now up
and will be active Sunday morning, maybe earlier, depends how fast
Demon update their homepages.
That URL again : http://www.the-den.demon.co.uk/ufo.htm
Gene Huff
In <32fc1d18...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> tma...@ibm.net (Tom
Mahood) writes:
>
>I guess I'll take a crack at this, as it doesn't require any
>questionable research, only questionable deduction.
-This is perfect. I get back right in time to scroll through these
posts and point out to the readers why they can't trust any of you. Not
for a moment. Tom, you always seem to feel it's incumbent upon you to
straighten out matters. Follow along here and it will be clear to even
you why Ken Johnson thinks you have the problem solving ability of
Woody from Cheers.-
>
>First off, if Lazar was in the program as he claimed, then AFOSI would
>certainly know exactly how to get hold of him, particularly if the
>surveillance of him was as he claimed. Granted, there is some
>ineptness in any governmental organization, but to pass this off to
>AFOSI's stupidity strikes me as arrogant. I don't buy it for a
>second.
-Oooh, the great Woody doesn't buy it for a second! That means so
much!:) The week before Lazar's big exposure with George Knapp, Lazar
dropped out of sight and didn't stay at his own home or use his own
phone. This was by design as he knew the trouble he would be in. It's
not like he stayed in his normal routine and they couldn't find him.
Try and exhibit at least average intelligence. Remember he had already
lost his clearance and was out of the program at this point. The OFI
had stopped dropping by his house, but he was consistantly being
followed. Just who was doing that is unknown. You seem to think it was
the AFOSI, but it's important for the readers to know that you don't
know that and your presumption of that is based on absolutely nothing.
The AFOSI had some leverage over Tagliani as he was trying to get
clearance to work at TTR at the stealth fighter base, but that does not
mean they were necessarily the ones following Lazar.-
>
>OK, so what happened? Possibility 1, that Lazar made the whole thing
>up. Remember that in 1989 Area 51 had a very low profile. Few had
>heard of it then. If AFOSI got wind of someone planning to talk about
>it, you can bet they would be very interested in having a talk with
>that person. A friendly talk, of course, and maybe a little leverage
>put upon him. If he made it up, and hadn't been there, they would not
>have known for sure just what the deal was with him, and it would be
>very important to them to find out. So they pulled Vainetti out of
>work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable
>action to me.
Woody, try and keep up. You, Goober, Farmer and every other little nerd
who's never had an ounce of attention have been running around area51
for years trying to hang on to Bob Lazar's coat tails and they've never
pulled any of your friends(if any of you have any) out of work and
asked them a god damn thing. If Lazar was a civilian who simply made up
this whole thing, exactly how would they "put leverage on him"? Have
they done that to you? Now, they pulled JIM TAGLIANI out of work, not
Joe Vaninetti. In true Woody fashion you've now made a hybrid of those
two men and it confuses things even more than you usually do. How would
they have even known that Tagliani and Lazar were friends or even knew
each other if they didn't have the phone lines tapped or had Lazar
under surveillence? Questionable research? Questionable deduction? How
about ANY research and ANY deduction?-
>
>Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
>pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
>In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
>AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
>chat with Vainetti.
-So you think the AFOSI goes around chasing civilians who make up
stories about area51/S4? They must be quite busy nowadays with the
likes of you out there. Where did you hear that? On the Mystery Train?
They had a chat with Tagliani, not Vaninetti. Your scenarios are
sophomoric and I assure you that no one believes your contentions.
You're writing here like your some sort of authority on the AFOSI and
you know who they are and what their MO is. I think even you can see
that your perception is based on nothing. It's important for people to
know that your a UFO nut who didn't show up for years after the Lazar
story was over. You're acting like an authority here and you have no
idea what you're talking about. I don't mind patronizing you once in a
while, but let's not confuse things too much here.-
>
>Possibilty 3, that Lazar was at Papoose, I am satisfied is no longer
>viable possibility.
>
>BTW, I understand Jim Vainetti is a quite decent, and above all,
>honest guy. It would have been worth your while to spend a little
>time asking him the right questions.
-So the great MaWoody no longer thinks Lazar's story is a possibility?
I'm so tempted to type insane laughter like Quean Adams used to. I hope
everyone can see what a great job you do in analyzing information so
they know how much weight to place on the MaWoody theories! So you
think Jim Vainetti is quite decent and above all honest guy, huh? Even
though he doesn't exist? If you knew anything about Jim Tagliani at
all, you'd know that he wasn't Joe Vaninetti. Please, MaWoody, list all
the sources of people you have access to that have known or talked to
Jim Tagliani OR Joe Vaninetti so much that it satisfies you enough that
you're here passing judgement on their honesty and demeanor. If you had
those sources, would you not at least know either of their names? You
have the god damn intestinal fortitude to suggest to someone else that
THEY would have done better spending a little more time asking the
right questions? Thanks for exhibiting for everyone why they need to
use a little skepticism when they read your blathering.-
>
>Tom
Gene Huff
In <5dh52i$h...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>
>Apologies for the mistake, I guess welders secretly want to pilot
starships.
>
>My mistake aside....
>
>Nothing, absolutely *nothing* can make Gene Huff look good. (or sound
>intelligent either)
>
You scoff at plasma cutters, people show you that you don't even have a
welders knowledge of technology, and you say nothing can make ME sound
intelligent? Sorry sad sack, I guess you have no idea how other people
perceive you.-
Gene Huff
In <5dh5p8$h...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>
>The man was practically hounded off of these groups for his childish
>and highly aggressive name-calling behaviour. (that's why the comment
>about his "leaving" many times before)
-Do Bee, I've never been hounded off of anywhere and I've stuck it out
and battled with idiots like you longer than anyone in the history of
this group. I've left many times before and will leave many times again
but that's because I don't have time to perpetually do this as I have
other interests and commitments. It's important for people to know that
you think you're the world's foremost authority on flying saucers and
you want to publish a book about that. Unfortunately, no one else
agrees with you, especially publishers, and for some reason you take
that frustration out on me. Agreed, I have chased you out of here
numerous times before and you retreated with your tale tucked between
you legs and ran home to your Ph.D. wife so she can help you understand
why everyone thinks you're such a big nothing.-
>
, people like Gene and stories like Lazars' are an anathema in that
>they make us all look like fools.
-No, so far in this session, you and MaWoody have made yourselves look
like fools. No one thinks you need any help from me or the Lazar
story.-
Gene Huff
>I already apologised in antoher thread for my ignorance of what a
>"plasma cutter" is. You must admit however, it does sound a little
>trekkie.
-Do Bee, no one has to apologize for not knowing what a plasma cutter
is as many people may not be familiar with that term. The reason people
are making fun of you is that you implied that I fabricated the term
and used it while describing the Lazar story. You were caught being a
smart ass while pretending to be a know it all wise guy. As you can
see, no one thinks either of those things about you. Now take the
humiliation like a man and stop trying to blame me for it like the
coward/idiot you actually are.-
>
>The Lazar story has been disproven backwards and forwards, over and
>over again and on this group to boot, yet he still continues to spread
>this story (and sell the merchandise on his web site).
-Do you not yet think any readers don't know you're full of shit? The
Lazar story has not been disproven by anyone as it is a true story and
that is not possible. People like MaWoody and Goober have temporarily
obtained a negative attitude because I won't let Goober sell our
merchandise any longer. Their problem is they can't turn on people like
Bill Uhouse, AKA Jarod 2, who say Lazar knows what he's talking about.
They'll be back and if they're good little liars/idiots, I might let
them have some more information.-
>
>I also apologised for seeming intemperate to those of you who have not
>been on this group long enough to know exactly what Gene is like. He
>was practically hounded from this group by most of the regulars for
>being a hot-headed, name-calling nast, nasty guy. All the while
>professing how "low-class" and mean spirited everyone here was while
>at the same time dumping all over everyone.
-Here we go with the hounded off BS again. I'm right here in your face
and even gave you the opportunity to make an ass out of yourself while
I wasn't even in town! How much nicer could I be? You have the audacity
to criticize me, considering your behavior? Please! I've never left
here anyway but victorious and because I was bored with unworthy
adversaries. You're a case in point.-
>
>As someone seriously interested in UFO's I protest people like Huff
>who spread lies and confusion and make us all look silly to the
>general public. I also protest as a human being that people like Gene
>Huff exist at all.
-Oh, sorry Jeremy, sorry that I made up that lie about plasma cutters
existing!:) I think anyone reading these threads can see who does and
who doesn't spread lies and confusion. I don't protest anyone as a
human being, even in your case, as people need servants. I think you
should have someone look at what you're typed here and see if maybe you
don't need a little prozac and maybe a few hundred psychiatric
sessions.-
>
Gene Huff
In <5dhbg6$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael
Hofmeister) writes:
>
>Ken - You forgot to mention the Lazar story in "Alien Contact" (or
>something like that). This version of the legend has been rebuked by
>Huff for some reason.
-Scoffmonster, you keep saying that yet you don't substantiate it.
There were some minor errors in Tim's book, but I don't recall ever
rebuking the general story. Care to remind me exactly where and when I
did that? Or was this just a chance to try and bluff someone when I
wasn't around to clarify matters?-
>
>This has nothing to do with being clever. Huff has stated in these
>newsgroups that he did not want the Good version being used and that
>he and Good were not speaking. Have things changed? Has the Good
>version come into favor again? Who cares?
-That's total BS scoffmonster. Cite it. Last year I said that Tim and I
had not spoken for some time, not that we were not speaking and it was
because I didn't want Tim Good's version "being used". Who would care
what I wanted? You're simply a liar.-
>Oh great. A Hollywood science fiction writer who borrows any wacky
>idea to make a buck is your guiding lamp in reality.
-The point was that an assertion was made that Lazar and I were trying
to cash in on the post ID4 frenzy. The counterpoint was made that it
was vice versa. It was a valid one. Do you understand anything?-
>
>So, for five years you've been reading comic books and talking to
>Hollywood screenwriters. Phew! Your research should crack this
subject wide open...
>8^).
-No the implication was that this person has done a wide range of
research and you've done none. That's the point.-
>I'm sure they all seem like nice guys. My comment was that Mahood has
>completely destroyed Lazar's specious educational past through careful
>research. Almost no one disagrees with that information. That's why
>Mahood and Huff are sworn enemies.
-Mahood and I are not sworn enemies and a lot of people disagree with
MaWoody's assessments. This person's point was that they have met with
Mahood and formed an opinion of him and his work. You have not. Exactly
where did Tommy Boy and I swear to be enemies? I think he's sincere,
just not very bright and not very honest. In private he's said he
believes the Lazar story. He needs to remain neutral to retain his
stardom. Sad, but true.-
>
>
>Heh, that's funny. Someone else who claims he went to "night school"
>at Cal Tech. Here's a big clue for you Ken: Cal Tech is not like your
local JC. They don't have "night classes" and they never did. I
should know.
-Are you insane? You do realize that there is not one mention of night
school anywhere in any of these threads, don't you? Try and at least
maintain a small degree of sanity while typing.-
>
>I guess they aren't too fussy about their janitorial staff.
-Now there's something that you, not Lazar, might know about. Check
that, even that would be way over your head.-
>
>->As a side note, and
>->considering that you didn't know what a plasma cutter was,
>
>Ken - Do you have any idea what a "plasma cutter" is? Why would
anyone use it rather than a conventional blow torch? Or a diamond saw?
-Look it up scoffmonster, you were given the website, then you'll know
the answer which will be the absolute first thing you've ever known.-
>
>-
Sorry Mike, but I just couldn't go on, especially since this post
wasn't really to me. You should really sober up or come down off of
whatever drugs your on. You're totally incoherent, you have no idea
what you're talking about, you think that because Lazar was paid by the
navy that they would be the ones to pull a guy off of an Air Force base
and question him? I know you're trying to act hip, but you're making a
bigger ass of yourself than you ususally do. Get straight, then try
again.-
Gene Huff
In <32fd79c1...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@emailme.at.address.below
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>Sorry, but I try to catch any sane UFO program/interview on Radio and
>TV here in the UK, and I can assure you that Lazar ISN'T a hotly
>discussed topic. Usually it's just one question per interview and the
>interviewee is usually very doubtful about the Lazar story, even if
>they beleive in the Area 51 scenario.
>
>I bet it was Huff who told you that, and you swallowed it hook, line
>and sinker.
-Sorry dickless Nickless, but you can't fool anyone anymore. They
showed the Four Winds productions special here in the U.S. on the
discovery channel and it had previously been shown in the U.K.
Transmedia aired their special a few months ago and it was the biggest
his they'd ever had. It, of course, featured Lazar. The Paul McKenna
show has either aired a piece or will be airing one soon. The BBC is in
touch with me right now asking for interviews because of the success of
these other shows. Fortunately everyone isn't at the mercy of what you
do and don't see on television. These shows use Lazar as the center
piece, not for one question per interview. You're lying as usual.-
Gene Huff
In <32fc833a...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@emailme.at.address.below
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>Notice how Good doesn't eagerly push the theory that Lazar worked at
>S4, the last quote also seems to show that Good beleives the other S4
>related stories more than he does the Lazar story. Quote 4 also shows
>that he doesn't beleive Lazar worked at S4, even pushing the theory
>that Lazar was taken around for a tour of the facility!
-Nicky boy, Tim Good is not implying that Lazar was simply given a
"tour " of the facility when he says he was taken there and shown some
things.-
>
>This was in 1995, I'm not aware of any public comments he's made since
>then that supports Lazar. Last year he released Beyond Top Secret and
>covers Area 51 in that. You'd think that if he was behind Lazar to the
>level that Huff suggests, then he'd present new evidence supporting
>him. In fact, he's given only three lines:
-This person spoke with Good in person and you're giving advice on what
Tim Good beleives. How typical.-
>
>Interestingly enough, Good gives plenty of coverage to Glenn Campbell
>and his Jarod and Alfred stories. I bet Huff was pissed about that...
-Why would I be pissed? Of course you knew that "Alfred" was a
discovery of George Knapp's that Knapp met when doing some work back in
Nashville, Tennessee, didn't you? You realize that Bill Uhouse first
entertained coming forward after meeting ME and talking about Bob
Lazar, don't you? Campbell grabbed onto the stories so he could fake
some stardom for unsuspecting characters like Tim Good. As ususal, the
actual info came from Knapp and supports Lazar's story.-
>
Gene Huff
In <32FCAC...@ix.netcom.com> Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Tom Mahood wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 97 17:26:21 GMT, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken
Johnson)wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> .................................. So they pulled Vainetti out of
>> work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable
>> action to me.
>
>
>2. This is an interesting thread, but can't you guys [snip] a bit
more?
>
Tom Mahood, Mike Hoffmeister, Nick Humphries, Jeremy Bee and others
need to know what they're talking about before they open their mouths.
I see you, too, can now see that if MaWoody knew anything about any of
these people, he would at least know their identities. Before Jeremy
Bee scoffs at a minor point in a story, he should know that plasma
cutters are common knowledge, before Mike Hoffmeister implies that
someone claims to have gone to night school at Cal Tech, someone needs
to have said that to begin with, before Nick Humphries implies that
Lazar is never in the media in the UK, he needs to known that others
have even written about the shows in threads and that we've even got
copies of the shows on video tape. Even the minor amount of fame
attained on the net seems to cause URS, which if you've forgotten, is
UFO Researchers Syndrome. That is, if they run out of things to say or
don't know what they're talking about, they make it up because there's
no one around to correct them. Hence Uselessnet. I'm happy to see that
at least someone other than me was paying attention and I know you're
not a Lazar supporter so there's no slant involved here.-
Nick Humphries
On 8 Feb 1997 18:13:26 GMT, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>before Nick Humphries implies that
>Lazar is never in the media in the UK, he needs to known that others
>have even written about the shows in threads and that we've even got
>copies of the shows on video tape.
I didn't say that Lazar was out of the media, I said that respectable
UFO/paranormal related shows would only cast a glance at Lazar in the
program. Unfortunately there are very few respectable UFO shows on
terrestrial TV, most are Sightings-type which seem to push any story
going, regardless of important things like proof. Certainly no serious
UFO program is centered around Lazar, at least, not in the UK - this
is a case of you exaggerating Lazar's importance, but then that's
nothing new.
Gene Huff
In <32fccdf2...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@emailme.at.address.below
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>I didn't say that Lazar was out of the media, I said that respectable
>UFO/paranormal related shows would only cast a glance at Lazar in the
>program. Unfortunately there are very few respectable UFO shows on
>terrestrial TV, most are Sightings-type which seem to push any story
>going, regardless of important things like proof. Certainly no serious
>UFO program is centered around Lazar, at least, not in the UK
-I even named the production companies. Now before you start expounding
on general media in the U.K., you need to call Four Winds productions,
Transmedia productions, the Paul McKenna Show, etc. and ask them when
and where their shows containing Lazar were broadcast. Transmedias was
their biggest his ever and they're now trying to get it broadcast in
the U.S. These shows were centered around Lazar, they were broadcast in
the U.K. and they were as mainstream as ET related shows can get. They
did far more than cast a glance at Lazar. Others like George Knapp, Tom
Mahood, Glenn Campbell, and others were all on these shows so you're
simply blowing smoke. You're so caught up in trying to prove you're not
wrong, you've lost your grasp on reality. Just because I've repeatedly
refuted your nonsense, exactly like I'm doing right now, and you can't
admit when you're wrong does not mean these broadcasts do not exist.
Lazar isn't erased from these shows because you say he is. You do
understand that, don't you? Anyway, I guess in your world if you didn't
see something, it didn't happen. Do your homework so it's at least an
effort to make it clear what a lying idiot you are.-
Ken Johnson
In article <32fc1d18...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
tma...@ibm.net (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>
First, Tom, when I said you reminded me of Woody Boyd, I meant it as you
having a curious, detached, type innocence and I didn't mean to give Gene Huff
ammunition to label you with a new nickname so I apologize for that.
>
>OK, so what happened? Possibility 1, that Lazar made the whole thing
>up. Remember that in 1989 Area 51 had a very low profile. Few had
>heard of it then. If AFOSI got wind of someone planning to talk about
>it, you can bet they would be very interested in having a talk with
>that person. A friendly talk, of course, and maybe a little leverage
>put upon him. If he made it up, and hadn't been there, they would not
>have known for sure just what the deal was with him, and it would be
>work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable action to
>me.
>
Tom I think you're not thinking clear on this point. You're right, area fifty
one did have a low profile back then, but that does not qualify your point.
Back at that time John Lear and Bill Cooper had both been on television and
radio in Las Vegas making all types of claims about area fifty one and they
did not receive any visits from the AFOSI. The AFOSI has no way to get any
leverage on a private citizen without some assistance and they'd have to
qualify it to get that help. How would the AFOSI know that Lazar would be
doing anything and why would they care at all? How would they know that
Tagliani and Lazar knew each other? You're giving them a lot of credit if
Lazar was not involved at all. I've met people like John Andrews, Jim Goodall,
Ron Regehr, and John Lear who were all out there outside of area fifty one
skywatching or taking pictures or writing articles and none of them were
accosted by the AFOSI, or at least that's what they told me. So there are no
known precedents to justify these possibilities unless you'd care to supply
some. This is in addition to the fact that we're discussing them talking to a
friend of one of the subjects, much less the subject himself. I think if you
re-examine this that none of it will sound like a reasonable action to you.
And remember, you're talking about Jim Tagliani, not Joe Vaninetti.
>Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
>pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
>In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
>AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
>chat with Vainetti.
Lazar's story is, and always has been, far too complex and detailed for that
to be the case. I could buy mind control before I could buy that and I
don't buy mind control, either. Even John Lear says that the amount of
information he had access to pales by comparison to that brought forth by
Lazar. I cannot find one ufological reference to S4 prior to Lazar going
public. Even if you were right, there is no way that this would constitute the
AFOSI pulling a friend of Lazar's out of work at TTR to ask him to help them
find Lazar. Have you and others been approached by the AFOSI during your
endeavors? I know things were different eight years ago and that's part of the
problem here. I can't believe you're saying that you can "bet your ass" that
the AFOSI would do this under these circumstances. You know that's not true
and you've seen no evidence that it's even possible. Please don't let your
ego get involved here. You're some of these people's last hope. If you have
examples, please share them with us.
>Possibilty 3, that Lazar was at Papoose, I am satisfied is no longer
>viable possibility.
>
>BTW, I understand Jim Vainetti is a quite decent, and above all,
>honest guy. It would have been worth your while to spend a little
>time asking him the right questions.
I hope I've shown you that I do ask the right questions and(you're speaking of
Jim Tagliani here) I've asked them to alot of people. The AFOSI would have to
have been more deeply involved than the casual interest you imply. It seems to
me that you now doubt Lazar's story more than ever, but please don't let that
cause you to offer overly simple answers to complex questions. I've got
similar unanswered questions about why the OFI was visiting Lazar's house at
random times. Huff introduced me to one of the women who was there when this
happened and I believe her. Then there's the check and the W-2. I believe Huff
about that because George Knapp corroborated it and it all happened before
people like you and I became involved. Knapp was the one who encouraged Lazar
to contact Naval Intelligence Command about the W-2 and even supplied the
addresses and phone numbers for Lazar to contact. Bob Lazar was involved in
something and he was paid for it and varying members of federal agencies were
involved with Lazar. The AFOSI did not pull Tagliani out of work based on some
hearsay about a complete stranger making claims about area fifty one. Tagliani
does not think that, either, and I spoke with him at length. It seems you've
boxed yourself into a corner by not ever meeting Lazar or Huff and this
prevents you from getting some pretty important answers to some pretty
important questions.
Larry Jackman
>
>My aplogies to those who don't know Gene and told me that my remarks seemed a
>little intemperate.
>
>I am obviously reading a lot into Gene's reply that maybe was not apparent to
>others. Try disagreeing with him once in a while and you will suddenly see
>what I mean when I refer to him in this way.
>
Bee, you are one sorry asshole. We made fun of you because of your attitude,
not because you don't know anything. You, Mahood, Hoffmeister and Humphries
just don't know when to shut up. Huff's an asshole but he's thoroughly kicked
every one of your asses on this thread. Just shut up and he'll go away. I'm
really disappointed in Mahood who I've respected in the past. He's making up
that he knows about Lazar's friends and he didn't even know their names. I'm
generally a lurker and I don't really give a shit one way or the other. I've
never thought Humphries new his ass from a hole in the ground and I don't know
jack about you and Hoffmeister, but when Mahood starts bullshitting us it's
time for everyone here to get another hobby. Just learn when to say when. Out.
Dave B
Gene Huff wrote:
[snip]
> ......................................... I'm happy to see that
> at least someone other than me was paying attention and I know you're
> not a Lazar supporter so there's no slant involved here.-
Your right about my not being a Lazar supporter, but you didn't answer
the question. No mind though, I went to the files and re-read the Lazar
Synopsis. It looks like its Jim Tagliani who was mentioned in Ken
Johnson's post. He is the electronics tech who knew Bob from SoCal and
went to at least one of the Wednesday night forays down Groom Lake road.
Joe Vaninetti knew Bob from LANL and did not work at Tonopah Test Range.
I think my S4 roster is back in shape.
drakon
> >Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
> >pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
> >In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
> >AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
> >chat with Vainetti.
>
> -So you think the AFOSI goes around chasing civilians who make up
> stories about area51/S4? They must be quite busy nowadays with the
> likes of you out there. Where did you hear that? On the Mystery Train?
> They had a chat with Tagliani, not Vaninetti. Your scenarios are
> sophomoric and I assure you that no one believes your contentions.
> You're writing here like your some sort of authority on the AFOSI and
> you know who they are and what their MO is. I think even you can see
> that your perception is based on nothing. It's important for people to
> know that your a UFO nut who didn't show up for years after the Lazar
> story was over. You're acting like an authority here and you have no
> idea what you're talking about. I don't mind patronizing you once in a
> while, but let's not confuse things too much here.-
> >Actually this conclusion makes sense from a different perspective. Put your
self in the shoes of <pick one> foreign military and you want hard
information on what is going on at Groom Lake. Or you just want to shut it
down. Your objective is to hamper the U.S. military aerospace developement
for any numbers of reasons. Economic, military, revenge, whatever. Groom
Lake, thanks to the likes of Bob Lazar, Bob Campbell, et.al. is now the most
famous secret air base in the world. There are many UFO enthusaist camped out
hoping to catch a glimps of Bob's sport model and the other cool toys they
have out there. This is much better than sending your own agents to spy, let
the americans do it for you.
Now you are in charge of security at this place, reguardless of what they
have there, wouldn't you want to talk to a civilian who was talking
publically about it, whether what he was saying was BS or not?
This seems logical. I would like to add that I have no evidense that Mr.
Lazar is doing this at the behest of some other government. I doubt that he
is, and it would be unnecessary for this other government to involve
themselves in any way once the ball was rolling. It would even be dangerous
both to the objective and to the government in question if they did attempt
any kind of contact or payoff.
And Gene, there are many brands of decaffinated coffee that taste just like
the real thing. While I can understand and applaud your defense of a freind
whom is getting in essense called a liar, your defense is counterproductive
if you come across like a rabid nutter. Name calling does not make you look
rational. The vicousness of your attacks draws to question your own
credibility which convinces people that Tom, who is at least attempting to
appear sane and rational, is correct. Your present attack stragety, while
completely understandable, is doing more damage to Mr. Lazar's reputation
than Mr. Mahood's discourses on difficulties with his story.
Besides you are still in possession of the one piece of physical evidense
that will prove the whole (or at least most) of the story right? If people
such as Mr. Mahood fail to buy the story, so what? What damage can he do to
Mr. Lazar? People will buy the story or at least listen to it for a number of
reasons, many of which have nothing to do with their belief in it. Even if it
has no basis in reality, its still a cool story.
Ben Gibson
Tom Mahood
Ken Johnson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <32fc1d18...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
: tma...@ibm.net (Tom Mahood) wrote:
: >
: First, Tom, when I said you reminded me of Woody Boyd, I meant it as you
: having a curious, detached, type innocence and I didn't mean to give Gene Huff
: ammunition to label you with a new nickname so I apologize for that.
No problem with that. Everyone has their own perceptions. The important thing
is that you're willing to talk about the subject without invective. That's
pretty rare around here. BTW, I've been told the comparison is less Woody
and more Cliff.
BTW, I see I keep switching Vainetti and Tagliani. I do know the difference,
and should have said Tagliani throughout. Glad at least you could deal with
it. It's a bonehead mistake I shouldn't have made, a sign that I just don't
care anymore.
(SNIP)
: Tom I think you're not thinking clear on this point. You're right, area fifty
: one did have a low profile back then, but that does not qualify your point.
: Back at that time John Lear and Bill Cooper had both been on television and
: radio in Las Vegas making all types of claims about area fifty one and they
: did not receive any visits from the AFOSI. The AFOSI has no way to get any
: leverage on a private citizen without some assistance and they'd have to
: qualify it to get that help. How would the AFOSI know that Lazar would be
: doing anything and why would they care at all? How would they know that
: Tagliani and Lazar knew each other? You're giving them a lot of credit if
: Lazar was not involved at all. I've met people like John Andrews, Jim Goodall,
: Ron Regehr, and John Lear who were all out there outside of area fifty one
: skywatching or taking pictures or writing articles and none of them were
: accosted by the AFOSI, or at least that's what they told me. So there are no
: known precedents to justify these possibilities unless you'd care to supply
: some. This is in addition to the fact that we're discussing them talking to a
: friend of one of the subjects, much less the subject himself. I think if you
: re-examine this that none of it will sound like a reasonable action to you.
You bring up some valid points, and it could be some variation on it all. A
few years back, there was a memo that circulated, alledgedly from Groom. It
decribed Lazar as a technician who had worked at Groom for a short time. I
haven't seen it in quite a while, but that's a possibility that could get the
AFOSI involved. I have no idea of the validity of the memo.
You mention Goodall, Andrews, Lear, et al. True they were out there, but only
generally after Lazar (Lear was out prior) surfaced and the spotlight shown
on A51. And as far as government interest in them goes, are you aware of the
incident that happened after a little get-together they had? I think it
was at Lear's place (but I'm not certain) and they were discussing certain
"what-if" things they might do regarding Groom (i.e., generally shooting
the shit). Goodall, a few weeks later, had a meeting on some other subject
with an AF type, who out of the blue, told Goodall "Don't even think about
doing (what they had been talking about)"
I think the reason no one who's been out in recent years (at least that I know
of) has been hassled, is that the government now understands that no threat is
really being posed. Also the military harrassment of civilians would be a big
no-no. Perhaps Lazar was a special case.
: >Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
: >pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
: >In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
: >AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
: >chat with Vainetti.
: Lazar's story is, and always has been, far too complex and detailed for that
: to be the case. I could buy mind control before I could buy that and I
: don't buy mind control, either. Even John Lear says that the amount of
: information he had access to pales by comparison to that brought forth by
: Lazar.
I disagree on the complexity aspect. It is a rich story, but no more so than
the entire worlds described by channelers. I'm not trying to equate the two,
only to point out that the complexity of a story is not a sure sign of
validity.
: I cannot find one ufological reference to S4 prior to Lazar going
: public.
Correct. And not too many thereafter...but a few.
: Even if you were right, there is no way that this would constitute the
: AFOSI pulling a friend of Lazar's out of work at TTR to ask him to help them
: find Lazar.
Again, I'll have to disagree. If AFOSI had an inkling that Lazar might be
talking about something classified, it does not seem unreasonable to me.
: Have you and others been approached by the AFOSI during your
: endeavors? I know things were different eight years ago and that's part of the
: problem here. I can't believe you're saying that you can "bet your ass" that
: the AFOSI would do this under these circumstances. You know that's not true
: and you've seen no evidence that it's even possible.
As I said, I know of no one who's been hassled. But things have changed
considerably. Go back six years or so when visitors to the area were
intimidated by the guards and run off public land. That doesn't happen any
more.
: Please don't let your
: ego get involved here. You're some of these people's last hope. If you have
: examples, please share them with us.
Ah, you're just feeding Huff a line here, aren't you??? Thanks....
: >Possibilty 3, that Lazar was at Papoose, I am satisfied is no longer
: >viable possibility.
: >
: >BTW, I understand Jim Vainetti is a quite decent, and above all,
: >honest guy. It would have been worth your while to spend a little
: >time asking him the right questions.
: I hope I've shown you that I do ask the right questions and(you're speaking of
: Jim Tagliani here) I've asked them to alot of people. The AFOSI would have to
: have been more deeply involved than the casual interest you imply. It seems to
: me that you now doubt Lazar's story more than ever, but please don't let that
: cause you to offer overly simple answers to complex questions.
You are a rational guy with well founded positions. I don't necessarily agree
with them, but I understand how you come about them. We all have different
bits of info that we hold. Because of our personal judgements and prejudices,
we don't weight them all the same. I think this is where our differences arise.
:I've got
: similar unanswered questions about why the OFI was visiting Lazar's house at
: random times. Huff introduced me to one of the women who was there when this
: happened and I believe her.
This is a worthwhile oddity. The simpler (and therefore more desireable)
explanation would be some sort of Groom employment. Or something else. It
remains unanswered.
However I don't weight this as highly as, for example, Lazar's continued
lying about his educational background. This is something checkable any
number of ways, none of which do (notwithstanding your discussion with the
individual who claimed to have attended Caltech).
: Then there's the check and the W-2.
The problem with the W-2 is the blank forms are available at most stationery
stores. The check was only seen by Huff, not exactly an impartial observer.
: I believe Huff
: about that because George Knapp corroborated it and it all happened before
: people like you and I became involved. Knapp was the one who encouraged Lazar
: to contact Naval Intelligence Command about the W-2 and even supplied the
: addresses and phone numbers for Lazar to contact. Bob Lazar was involved in
: something and he was paid for it and varying members of federal agencies were
: involved with Lazar.
Perhaps. But again this could have to do with some sort of Groom employment.
: The AFOSI did not pull Tagliani out of work based on some
: hearsay about a complete stranger making claims about area fifty one. Tagliani
: does not think that, either, and I spoke with him at length.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I assume you mean Lazar being a
complete stranger to A51, and not to Tagliani. I won't rule out that Lazar
was NOT a stranger to A51, but not necessarily in the way he claims.
: It seems you've
: boxed yourself into a corner by not ever meeting Lazar or Huff and this
: prevents you from getting some pretty important answers to some pretty
: important questions.
In a sense, I have backed into a corner, after looking over most of the room.
However this corner contains the door, and I'm pretty much out of the room. I
really haven't persued the Lazar story any further, as I think all that can be
done has been. I have seen enough to finally come to conclusions and move on
to other fresher areas. Are people still going to be hanging around this damn
newsgroup 20 years from now, arguing the merits of this case? I'm afraid they
might.
The info on my web site I placed there for the benefit of others interested in
Lazar. I spent a lot of time and effort unearthing it (all the while
wondering why Lazar's chief "investigator" didn't find it), and it was
a public service attempt on my part to make it available to anyone who
wanted it. I did add a few conclusions and observations at the time,
but they were clearly identified as such. I even added opposing positions
because I thought it important for THINKING PEOPLE to see what other
sides there were. Frankly, it now bores me and its future may be limited.
Ken, I hope I run into you out there sometime, although my visits are much
reduced now. Mostly just for the social aspect of seeing old friends. We'll
have to have a quiet chat and see why we believe what we believe....
Tom (Woody, Cliff, whoever)
Gene Huff
In <tmahoodE...@netcom.com> tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood)
writes:
>BTW, I see I keep switching Vainetti and Tagliani. I do know the
>difference, and should have said Tagliani throughout. Glad at least
>you could deal with it. It's a bonehead mistake I shouldn't have made,
>a sign that I just don't care anymore.
-It's not a sign that you don't care anymore, it's a sign that you
never know what you're talking about to begin with. It's refreshing to
see you admit that you're a bonehead though. I see you wormed out of
answering the better questions posed by me.-
>
>You bring up some valid points, and it could be some variation on it
>all. A few years back, there was a memo that circulated, alledgedly
>from Groom. It decribed Lazar as a technician who had worked at Groom
>for a short time. I haven't seen it in quite a while, but that's a
>possibility that could get the AFOSI involved. I have no idea of the
>validity of the memo.
-All things considered, do you think that anyone believes that you had
a memo about Lazar working at a51 and you don't have it and didn't try
to check it's validity? This from the chief file clerk? I think you'd
be a little better off admitting that you're wrong rather than lying to
this extent.-
>
>You mention Goodall, Andrews, Lear, et al. True they were out there,
>but only generally after Lazar (Lear was out prior) surfaced and the
>spotlight shown on A51.
-That's an absolute lie and none of them will back you up on this
allegation. They were all out there prior to Lazar and they even have
pictures of them out there together. Learn to say "I don't know" and "I
was wrong". Add that to your recent bonehead admission and you'll be
well on your way.-
>Goodall, a few weeks later, had a meeting on some other subject
>with an AF type, who out of the blue, told Goodall "Don't even think
>about doing (what they had been talking about)"
-Now an "AF type" is equal to the AFOSI flipping ID at the stealth base
to pull a friend of an unknown(according to you) out of work to
question him? Pretty weak, even by your standards.-
>
Perhaps Lazar was a special case.
-Now perhaps Lazar was a special case. That's a far cry from being an
unknown who pieced together a UFO story. Which is it?-
>
>Again, I'll have to disagree. If AFOSI had an inkling that Lazar
>might be talking about something classified, it does not seem
>unreasonable to me.
-That's the problem. It doesn't seem unreasonable to you, but that's
not exactly the ultimate test now, is it? You have absolutely no basis
to assert that the AFOSI accosts civilians who talk about area51 in any
year.-
>
>This is a worthwhile oddity. The simpler (and therefore more
>desireable) explanation would be some sort of Groom employment. Or
>something else. It remains unanswered.
-The "desireable" answer? Now you're to the point.-
>
>: Then there's the check and the W-2.
>
>The problem with the W-2 is the blank forms are available at most
>stationery stores. The check was only seen by Huff, not exactly an
>impartial observer.
-So you think I was forecasting all of this and making up stories in
1989 so years later I could say it to some complete strangers who I
didn't even know existed at that point in time? I think maybe Stretch
might be a better nickname than Woody.-
>
>In a sense, I have backed into a corner, after looking over most of
>the room. However this corner contains the door, and I'm pretty much
>out of the room.
-What a let down. No honor.-
Nick Humphries
On 8 Feb 1997 21:34:42 GMT, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>Lazar isn't erased from these shows because you say he is. You do
>understand that, don't you?
Yes, but it seems you don't. I never said he was erased. I'm tired of
you and your lying and history invention, so I'll leave you alone in
your fantasy world.
Send my regards to Woodley Street...
Gene Huff
In <32ffc905...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@emailme.at.address.below
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>On 8 Feb 1997 21:34:42 GMT, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>>Lazar isn't erased from these shows because you say he is. You do
>>understand that, don't you?
>
>Yes, but it seems you don't. I never said he was erased. I'm tired of
>you and your lying and history invention, so I'll leave you alone in
>your fantasy world.
-What you're tired of is me proving, again and again, what a liar you
are. You said that Lazar was a minor point on any television specials
in the U.K. I refuted that and even named the shows/productions
companies in which Lazar was a major portion of their programs. For
this not to be true and for you to be right, they would have to have
been erased. So no matter how one phrases it you're wrong, as usual,
and you are lying while pretending to be speaking for the entire U.K.
You're more sorry than usual. BTW, did you notice when you posted one
of my addresses a few months ago that you did not even get one
response? Is that why you were so humiliated that you disappeared? I
bet you were extra happy when you wet your sad lonely little bed that
night. I don't need to rewrite history and the only fantasy here is one
that implies that you're intelligent or know what you're talking about.
Did you call those production companies or are you just going to drop
out rather than admit you're wrong?-
Ken Johnson
In article <tmahoodE...@netcom.com>,
tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>BTW, I see I keep switching Vainetti and Tagliani. I do know the difference,
>and should have said Tagliani throughout. Glad at least you could deal with
>it. It's a bonehead mistake I shouldn't have made, a sign that I just don't
>care anymore.
Your commentary appears to carry a significant amount of weight with some of
the readers of this group. I'm sure it's difficult for some people to believe
that you just don't care anymore when you voluntarily respond to a random news
group question. That implies interest on your part. I think what many fail to
realize is that, as one who has done a measure of research myself, it is very
complex and involved and it's easy to mix things up now and again. Some people
forget that there is literally nothing in this for any of us who make the
effort and maybe they should be a little more forgiving of our
shortcomings and a little more thankful for what they get.
>
>You bring up some valid points, and it could be some variation on it all. A
>few years back, there was a memo that circulated, alledgedly from Groom. It
>decribed Lazar as a technician who had worked at Groom for a short time. I
>haven't seen it in quite a while, but that's a possibility that could get the
>AFOSI involved. I have no idea of the validity of the memo.
I have never heard even a rumor of a memo about any employee at Groom Lake and
I'd love to see one. The odds that there would actually be a memo released on
Lazar, of all people, would seem to me to be quite remote. Have you ever seen
a memo on anyone or anything that is authentically from Groom? There really
is no such entity so the memo would have to be from the military, government,
or a sub-contractor of one sort or another and the text would probably
include who he was and where he was or there'd be no way to tell if it was
from Groom. If it was authentic it would have been a potential source of a lot
of clues. Conversely it's lack of clues would have prevented it from being
authenticated. I'm surprised that you wouldn't have saved that if you ever
actually had your hands on it, even if it was a fake.
>
>:I've got similar unanswered questions about why the OFI was visiting Lazar's
>:house at random times. Huff introduced me to one of the women who was there
>:when this happened and I believe her.
>
>This is a worthwhile oddity. The simpler (and therefore more desireable)
>explanation would be some sort of Groom employment. Or something else. It
>remains unanswered.
On that note, I don't know that some tech employment at Groom could be the
answer. The witness I spoke to said the OFI all but ransacked Lazar's house.
They walked through writing down notes as they looked through drawers and
closets, etc. Truthfully, I've never been able to interview anyone else who
has been visited specifically by the OFI. I have however interviewed numerous
people who were visited by the DoD or their representatives. These types of
checks included questioning and visits to neighbors and relatives houses to
get information, but never the type of unannounced harrassment that Lazar
apparently endured. This seemed to be more involved. Just another curious
thing and difficult to believe it would happen to a random Groom worker.
That's something I'll need to ask Bill Uhouse about the next time I run into
him out there.
>
>However I don't weight this as highly as, for example, Lazar's continued
>lying about his educational background. This is something checkable any
>number of ways, none of which do (notwithstanding your discussion with the
>individual who claimed to have attended Caltech).
That's true but if I understand your current thought it seems that your now
thinking that maybe Lazar worked as a tech at Groom. That means that he would
have worked at LANL and Groom. To do that he would have had to have had some
credentials, at least more than anyone's been able to dig up. One electronics
course would not generally have lead to employment at either of those places,
much less both of them. Even if he's as much of a genius as many seem to
think, it would be tough to get in the door as those employers would have no
way of knowing of his talents. The hiring of a genius with no credentials
would be more probable at a small business who caught a big fish in a small
pond. The Groom and LANL types of programs have prospective employees standing
in line to get their chance as paying research positions are not abundant. At
least according to everyone I've talked to that would have potential to know
what they're talking about.
>
>: Then there's the check and the W-2.
>
>The problem with the W-2 is the blank forms are available at most stationery
>stores. The check was only seen by Huff, not exactly an impartial observer.
Yes, but you've never met him and back then he was an impartial observer. He's
not who you think he is if you judge him from his net persona. He can say the
most offensive and astounding things with a grin and a smile in his voice and
they actually come out funny much moreso than insulting. If you'd have heard
him state his recent questions to you, even calling you MaWoody, rather than
have read the written word you probably would have answered him. He's a
comedian in person. The fact is he called what he remembered to be the amount
of the check for George Knapp before the W-2 was received in the mail. When
the W-2 arrived Huff was within a few bucks. The W-2 was in an envelope from
the government and Huff must have seen the check to know that amount. I know
that many naysayers think that Lazar or Huff and Lazar fabricated a phony pay
stub and/or check but I don't think so. These guys were on the record with
this stuff long before anyone cared whether or not it was true. Then John
Andrews found out that the zip code on the W-2 was used to forward mail to
Naval Intelligenc Command in Maryland when "NIC-01" was on the envelope. I
don't think Huff and Lazar could have guessed that or known that. I could go
on, but this probably isn't of much interest to most. What I'm trying to
impress upon you is that much of this minutia leads me to believe that Bob
Lazar was involved in something out of the ordinary. If it's not what Lazar
says it was, then I'm currently at a loss to offer any logical, probable
alternatives. I think you know exactly where I'm coming from.
Michael Hofmeister
On 8 Feb 1997 17:52:46 GMT, in <5diehe$8...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->In <5dhbg6$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael
->Hofmeister) writes:
->>
->>Ken - You forgot to mention the Lazar story in "Alien Contact" (or
->>something like that). This version of the legend has been rebuked by
->>Huff for some reason.
->Last year I said that Tim and I
->had not spoken for some time, not that we were not speaking and it was
->because I didn't want Tim Good's version "being used". Who would care
->what I wanted? You're simply a liar.-
Let's see. You didn't want Good's story "being used." I got the general
impression that there must have been some errors in it that contradicted
later versions of the legend. Could there be any other reasons?
->>Oh great. A Hollywood science fiction writer who borrows any wacky
->>idea to make a buck is your guiding lamp in reality.
->-The point was that an assertion was made that Lazar and I were trying
->to cash in on the post ID4 frenzy. The counterpoint was made that it
->was vice versa. It was a valid one. Do you understand anything?-
Yeah. You're bitter that you missed the ID4 gravy train. Don't worry.
When "ID4 - Part 2 - They're back and they're pissed" comes out next
summer, you can claim you inspired that too.
->-No the implication was that this person has done a wide range of
->research and you've done none. That's the point.-
Wide range of research? How about reading a book on Physics? That might
be refreshing.
->-Mahood and I are not sworn enemies and a lot of people disagree with
->MaWoody's assessments.
Yeah. And most of them seem "reality challenged"...
->This person's point was that they have met with
->Mahood and formed an opinion of him and his work. You have not. Exactly
->where did Tommy Boy and I swear to be enemies? I think he's sincere,
->just not very bright and not very honest. In private he's said he
->believes the Lazar story. He needs to remain neutral to retain his
->stardom. Sad, but true.-
In one paragraph you've said he is not very bright, not very honest, and
deceitful. Phew! If he's not your enemy now, he should be in the future.
->>Heh, that's funny. Someone else who claims he went to "night school"
->>at Cal Tech. Here's a big clue for you Ken: Cal Tech is not like your
->local JC. They don't have "night classes" and they never did. I
->should know.
->-Are you insane? You do realize that there is not one mention of night
->school anywhere in any of these threads, don't you? Try and at least
->maintain a small degree of sanity while typing.-
Gene - I know you are not a liar, so I went looking through old posts and
found that one of Bob friends hinted that Bob did go to CalTech part-time
(which some people might refer to as "night school"). Remember?
******* QUOTE ON *************
Subject: Re: Bob Lazar: a few questions...
From: dsu...@ix.netcom.com (debbie sutton)
Date: 1996/08/28
Message-Id: <501s3j$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32203B...@mail.zynet.co.uk> <32212F...@ltec.net>
<4vt3bs$m...@dfw-Ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4vtjd4$h...@nfs1.pe.net>
<4vv49g$r...@sjx-Ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <tmahoodD...@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
X-Netcom-Date: Wed Aug 28 11:28:35 AM CDT 1996
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
In article <tmahoodD...@netcom.com>,
tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>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.
******* QUOTE OFF *************
Gene - That was about the time you forced "The Deb" to go offline.
In the "Gene and Bob Smoke and Mirrors Show" (kind of like "Sigfried and
Roy" without the white tigers), it just kind of stuck in my brain that the
Deb was claiming Lazar was claiming he never went to CalTech full-time,
thereby implying part-time status, in an effort to explain his apparent
lack of records. I can see now that this was just another mis-direction in
the show. There is no explanation.
->>I guess they aren't too fussy about their janitorial staff.
->-Now there's something that you, not Lazar, might know about. Check
->that, even that would be way over your head.-
You've really pegged the patented UFO Mirth Meter(tm) now, Gene. Anytime
you want to post even a semi-coherent discussion on the Physics of Flying
Saucers by Lazar, please do so. Everything up to now has been nothing more
than technical mumble-mumble-gravity-wave-mumble junk.
->>Do you have any idea what a "plasma cutter" is? Why would
->anyone use it rather than a conventional blow torch? Or a diamond saw?
->-Look it up scoffmonster, you were given the website, then you'll know
->the answer which will be the absolute first thing you've ever known.-
Gene - Please explain to all of us why you think a "plasma cutter" is
anything more than a fancy blow torch. (It seems neat though...)
->Sorry Mike, but I just couldn't go on, especially since this post
->wasn't really to me. You should really sober up or come down off of
->whatever drugs your on. You're totally incoherent, you have no idea
->what you're talking about,
This is the old Gene. Attack the messenger.
Admit it, Gene. Your worst nightmare is Physicists looking at the
technical mumbo-jumbo of Lazar's story.
->you think that because Lazar was paid by the
->navy that they would be the ones to pull a guy off of an Air Force base
->and question him?
The obvious question is "Why would the Air Force know that Lazar knew
anything?" They would have no reason to worry about him because he worked
for the Navy in your story. Also, a civilian falls under the jurisdiction
of civilian authorities (such as the FBI) unless the civilian is suspected
of committing a crime on a military government reservation.
Better luck next time, Gene.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Jur Snijders
In article <5did37$e...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
In a reply to Jeremee Bee you concluded with:
> humiliation like a man and stop trying to blame me for it like the
> coward/idiot you actually are.-
-Tons of other insulting stuff deleted -
Don't want to interfere with this obviously very civilized thread here,
but I wonder why you are always firing these violent insults at those who
are not really satisfied with Lazar's claims. I've read several comments
you made in this thread (and lots of other comments in the past) and I
can't imagine that your style is doing Lazar and/or his story any good.
With a bit more civilized behaviour you would gain a lot more attention
from those interested in the subject. This also goes for some others
around here, no names mentioned of course 8-)
Hit the brakes Gene.
Cheers
--Jan
--
They have just discovered that research causes cancer in rats...
Jonathan Shell
-> -Oh, sorry Jeremy, sorry that I made up that lie about plasma cutters
-> existing!:) I think anyone reading these threads can see who does and
-> who doesn't spread lies and confusion. I don't protest anyone as a
-> human being, even in your case, as people need servants. I think you
-> should have someone look at what you're typed here and see if maybe
-> you don't need a little prozac and maybe a few hundred psychiatric
-> sessions.-
-> >
Gene, don't let em get to ya, just kick back, read, and get the comedy
value from the worst ones.. If these people had ever stepped out into
the real world, they'd have known what a plasma cutter was. On the other
hand, not too many people who work in industry have time to read this
stuff, and so do not know what a plasma cutter is, or why it's the
preferred device for cutting certain alloys over common acetylene or
diamond saws.
drakon
A-bloody-men!!! I would love to see a civilized debate on the subject as I
feel that is the best tool we have to uncover the truth. Name calling just
doesn't work. It makes the one starting that form of attack look like he is
out of ammo and has no other way of defending his side of the arguement.
Ben Gibson
Paul Stowe
About a year ago I posted an article about the obvious similarities of
the so called sports model and certain known mechanisms such as MHD. I
also challanged Huff/Lazar to provide any solid evidence to the claim
that the so called vehicle operated by gravity waves. There is solid
physics that strongly evidencial that gravitation is simply not a
result of wave phenomena. To bottom line it for you, they simply don't
have the knowledge base on which to discuss the physics behind their
claims.
Paul Stowe
Jeremy Bee
In article <5dic5u$o...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <5dh5p8$h...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>>
>>The man was practically hounded off of these groups for his childish
>>and highly aggressive name-calling behaviour. (that's why the comment
>>about his "leaving" many times before)
>
>-Do Bee, I've never been hounded off of anywhere and I've stuck it out
>and battled with idiots like you longer than anyone in the history of
>this group. I've left many times before and will leave many times again
>but that's because I don't have time to perpetually do this as I have
>other interests and commitments.
Same tired puffery from Mr. Huff... *you* were not hounded into leaving, you
just left because you have so many important other things to do. Yet if I
don't dain to show up for a while, I have "left with my tail between my legs"
I am amazed at your importance.
but I remember your teary farewell speech...
>It's important for people to know that
>you think you're the world's foremost authority on flying saucers and
>you want to publish a book about that.
Typical projection of your own frail need for attention, it is you that seems
to think you know everything there is to know about Flying Saucers. I post
here far less than you and don't have half your attitude or seeming need for
authoritative poses.
>Unfortunately, no one else
>agrees with you, especially publishers, and for some reason you take
>that frustration out on me.
Carefull, you are entering pure fantasy here...
I *did* mention to you once that I am writing a book, but you have no idea
what it's contents are and certainly no idea of how my talks with publishers
are going.
You are just guessing because I would not tell you it's contents last time.
>Agreed, I have chased you out of here
>numerous times before and you retreated with your tale tucked between
>you legs and ran home to your Ph.D. wife so she can help you understand
>why everyone thinks you're such a big nothing.-
Dream world Gene. (and a low shot too but that is to be expected)
>>
>, people like Gene and stories like Lazars' are an anathema in that
>>they make us all look like fools.
>
>-No, so far in this session, you and MaWoody have made yourselves look
>like fools. No one thinks you need any help from me or the Lazar
>story.-
I am getting tired of this, (which is why I come back here less and less)...
Please note however, I am the only one who actually *apologised* for my
horrific error in not knowing what a plasma cutter was (even though I have
done a reasonable amount of welding and cutting and probably even used on
without knowing it's name! ... ironic no?) You on the other hand never
apologise, and have a compulsion to have the last word.
All I have to do is drop in once in a blue moon and clue people in to what a
hate-filled little beast you are and you oblige by following up every single
thread with spit and venom. You seem to have a slightly larger following of
little "believers" to follow up after you as well this time.
I repeat,
There *are* real Flying Saucers and science and logic will one day prove it.
Gullible nasty little folks like yourself just ruin it for anyone trying to
gain some kind of respect or serious consideration in what is already a
difficult field.
At least Dean Adams, (who could be much nastier than either of us) had some
real smarts and a bushel of facts at his fingertips. You are just a bullly.
Never thought I would say it but I miss him. :(
se ya.
Jeremy
PS - apologies again to those who have no idea who Gene Huff is (or was) on
these groups (or me) and don't give a damn, or don't want to listen to these
personal back and forths etc., etc., etc....
Jeremy Bee
In article <5did37$e...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <5dh688$h...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>>
>
>>I already apologised in antoher thread for my ignorance of what a
>>"plasma cutter" is. You must admit however, it does sound a little
>>trekkie.
>
> ... take the humiliation like a man ...coward/idiot.
The gist of Gene's intelligent argument above ...
>
> >The Lazar story has been disproven backwards and forwards, over and
>>over again and on this group to boot, yet he still continues to spread
>>this story (and sell the merchandise on his web site).
>
>...you're full of shit ...(if) they're good little liars/idiots, I might let
>them have some more information.-
The King speaks ...
>>
>>I also apologised for seeming intemperate to those of you who have not
>>been on this group long enough to know exactly what Gene is like. He
>>was practically hounded from this group by most of the regulars for
>>being a hot-headed, name-calling nast, nasty guy. All the while
>>professing how "low-class" and mean spirited everyone here was while
>>at the same time dumping all over everyone.
>
>...I'm right here in your face ...You have the audacity
>to criticize me,... I've never left here anyway but victorious and
>because I was bored with unworthy
>adversaries. You're a case in point.-
sorry King...
>>
>>As someone seriously interested in UFO's I protest people like Huff
>>who spread lies and confusion and make us all look silly to the
>>general public. I also protest as a human being that people like Gene
>>Huff exist at all.
>
>I don't protest anyone as a human being, even in your case, as people need
>servants. I think you ... need a little prozac and maybe a few hundred
>psychiatric sessions.
>
That's all there is. Take out the connecting phrases and you have the
*true* message of Gene Huff, and he is not even getting warmed up yet.
Wait till he starts in on your family or your children ...
Gene, my somewhat more substantive reply to you is on the same thread a little
earlier, and that's all I am saying. It seems things get really trivial and
stupid around here too fast nowadays. The above roasting is meant as humour
in the traditional sense of the word but I don't expect you to "get" that.
bye.
Jeremy
Ken Johnson
>I am getting tired of this, (which is why I come back here less and less)...
>
>Please note however, I am the only one who actually *apologised* for my
>horrific error in not knowing what a plasma cutter was (even though I have
>done a reasonable amount of welding and cutting and probably even used on
>without knowing it's name! ... ironic no?) You on the other hand never
>apologise, and have a compulsion to have the last word.
Mr. Bee, I'd like to remind you that this thread started with Gene Huff
reminding you and some others that the Lazar story was not based on crash
retrievals, which was common knowledge to those that follow the story. I might
add that he did it in a gentle way. You immediately took the offensive and
wrote back with a follow up chastising Huff for mentioning a plasma cutter.
Your response slighted just about anyone who believed that and you likened it
to Huff making up a term as though it was Star Trek. Now you're here disecting
Huff's comments back to you as though you are not at fault. No one rejects you
because you didn't know what a plasma cutter was. It seems that almost
everyone who has responded has rejected you for your attitude. It's obvious
that you and Huff have more history than is apparent to the typical reader,
but if you think anyone other than you is the cause of this, then you're lying
to yourself. You really look bad here. You're trying to enlist a following by
pointing out Huff's style of communicating. Do you know who it would look if
someone took all of your commentary, cut it up, and displayed it? It would
look like Huff was right on the money about you. After all is said and done,
Huff brought more substance to this thread than you have. Michael Hoffmeister
is still arguing as to why they'd use a plasma cutter as opposed to a saw or a
torch. Torches require tanks of gas and saws do not offer the precision
required. If I was cutting an anti-matter reactor open and wanted to damage as
little as possible of the inside of it, and I wanted to limit my power source
to electricity and not add a gas to the mix, I'd choose a plasma cutter. This
is elementary and not worth all of these exchanges. It is obvious that if
there is a hate filled beast around here that it is you and those who take the
time to investigate and know that of which they speak cannot be lumped into
"believers" with you being some sort of judge. If you're trying to gain some
respect, you've failed.
Ken Johnson
In article <5dts8e$o...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
>About a year ago I posted an article about the obvious similarities of
>the so called sports model and certain known mechanisms such as MHD. I
>also challanged Huff/Lazar to provide any solid evidence to the claim
>that the so called vehicle operated by gravity waves. There is solid
>physics that strongly evidencial that gravitation is simply not a
>result of wave phenomena. To bottom line it for you, they simply don't
>have the knowledge base on which to discuss the physics behind their
>claims.
>
>Paul Stowe
>
Paul, I think it's important to point out here that you have never met or
spoken or exchanged email with Bob Lazar and for you to make the claim that
"they" don't have the knowledge base to discuss the physics behind Lazar's
claims is not based on any real knowledge on your part. Huff is not a
scientist nor does he claim to be. I've met with Huff and he showed me stacks
of scientific papers sent to their Tri-Dot productions office. These papers
are offered by engineers and physicists from around the world and some of them
support Lazar's interpretations and some do not. Lazar exchanges with some of
these people as his time permits. Having met Lazar, I assure you that he would
not refrain from discussing MHD, gravity, or anything else with you if you
were with him in person and he saw that you had something relevant to offer.
You can neither contend that the balance of the scientific world agrees with
your contentions. You cannot pretend that someone is not qualified to talk to
you because they don't get involved in the anarchy here on usenet. When I saw
your post, I contacted Huff and asked him about it. He was honest and said he
forwarded your post to Lazar and Lazar put it in with the stack of tens or
hundreds of other claims and theories that he's supposed to consider. You seem
to value a challenge placed on a newsgroup a little more than others. We're
all just one of hundreds or thousands that want to talk more with Bob Lazar.
Sorry to bore you with my commentary, but I didn't want any neutral readers to
be mislead by your comments. Please list your exchanges with Lazar so others
can know what weight to place on your opinion.
Ken Johnson
In article <3300AA...@best.com>, drakon <dra...@best.com> wrote:
>Ken Johnson wrote:
>>
>Okay I am new to this and have to ask. How is it known that the person is
>question ransacked Lazar's house was in the employ of any govt. agency? Or,
>if so employed, that he was doing this under orders from said agency?
The man identified himself as Mike Thigpen of the Office of Federal
Investigation. This is a relatively unknown agence headquartered out of
something called the Offic of Personnel Management in Pennsylvania. They have
a local office in Las Vegas and they do background checks for people obtaining
clearance for employment at facilities in Nevada. He was witnessed doing
random checks at Lazar's house on two different occassions. He left a phone
number with Lazar for Lazar to call if he had any problems of any sort. George
Knapp used that number and checked out the existence of the OFI office, Mike
Thigpen, and Mike Thigpen's boss whose name escapes me at the moment. John
Andrews of Testor corporation verified this very same thing.
>
>This is assuming that Mr. Lazar worked as a sceintist and not at some lesser
>position. There is no evidence, at least that I've seen in this newsgroup,
>that he was a scientist, He could have been anything, even the janitor.
Enter Joe Vaninetti, the gentleman that Tom Mahood confused with Jim Tagliani.
Vaninetti worked under Lazar at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Vaninetti was
a tech back then so Lazar was not a janitor and also Vaninetti's superior.
Vaninetti says Lazar is/was a scientist. Vaninetti also worked out at the
Nevada test site, while still employed by Los Alamos. Vaninetti finished his
Masters degree in soils sciences from the University of Utah and now works up
in the pacific northwest. This is more fun when you have some of the answers,
isn't it? At last, someone gives a damn about something I've dug up!
Larry Jackman
>Gene, my somewhat more substantive reply to you is on the same thread a
little
>earlier, and that's all I am saying. It seems things get really trivial and
>stupid around here too fast nowadays. The above roasting is meant as humour
>in the traditional sense of the word but I don't expect you to "get" that.
>
>bye.
>
>Jeremy
>
Bee you are the sorriest jerk I've ever seen here. Don't think that because
someone thinks you're a jerk that means they are a Huff follower. You came on
here and said:
1. That the Lazar story is based on crash retrievals, which is a lie.
2. That the Lazar story is based on the Roswell crash, which is a lie.
(No, it's not that we don't get it, your association is just wrong)
3. That plasma cutters are some star trek type thing that Huff made up, which
is a lie.
4.That people are busting your nads because you didn't know what a plasma
cutter was, which is a lie.(They're doing it because you're a jerk)
5. That all of this was started by Huff, which is a lie.
6. That anyone who thinks Huff is right must be a "believer" and a Huff
follower, which is a lie.
You bust all of that on us and then leave. Then Huff says you're a liar and a
coward and you think that he's out of line. Exactly how could anyone disagree
with him on this point? Huff hasn't even been here and was invited to join by
this Ken Johnson guy, who I've never seen here before. There aren't two sides
here, one for Jeremy Bee and one for Gene Huff. No one gives a shit what
either one of you has to say unless it further wises us up about the Lazar
story. Huff at least has something to say. What he and Ken Johnson said
certainly shut Mahood up and caused him to disappear after he was caught
making up that story about a Groom Lake bulletin about Lazar. I haven't seen
you say one thing that leads me to believe you have any first hand knowledge
about one damn thing. You're welcome to offer your opinion, but don't act like
a little kid and run away whining when everyone doesn't side with you when
you're acting like a jerk. We're not all wrong because we disagree with you.
And we're not all pro-Huff because we disagree with you, either. Get a life.
Dave B
Jeremy Bee wrote:
>
[snip]
A query on Four 11 search engine shows 4 Ken Johnsons on NetCom --
KENN...@IX.NETCOM.COM
rho...@ix.netcom.com
kljo...@ix.netcom.com
hsu...@ix.netcom.com
-- not a sm...@ix.netcom.com in the bunch. (WhoWhere search only
showed the last two addresses.)
Another query, to DejaNews, lists 10 posts from smack, all to this
collection of newsgroups and all between Feb 5 and Feb 13.
Paul Stowe
In <5dvetl$1...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
writes:
About a year ago I posted an article about the obvious similarities of
the so called sports model and certain known mechanisms such as MHD. I
also challanged Huff/Lazar to provide any solid evidence to the claim
that the so called vehicle operated by gravity waves. There is solid
physics that strongly evidential that gravitation is simply not a result
of wave phenomena. To bottom line it for you, they simply don't have the
knowledge base on which to discuss the physics behind their claims.
Paul, I think it's important to point out here that you have never met or
spoken or exchanged email with Bob Lazar and for you to make the claim that
"they" don't have the knowledge base to discuss the physics behind Lazar's
claims is not based on any real knowledge on your part.
My "opinion" is based on both the public recorded information provided by Lazar,
as well as his claim as to the basic motis operandi of the craft. I have
thoroughly studied the design of this craft and its correlation to field
observations of similar configurations (most notable of which is the Meier
photographs of both ship and a triangular swirl pattern in the grass which
corresponds to the three lower assemblies) over the years. I came to the
conclusion that specific features of both the design and configuration showed a
high correlation to a MHD mechanism. I also saw evidence of GRAD E thrust
components and possible Tampere type thrusters. This would not be surprising in
an advanced integrated design and is within the envelope of known physical
mechanisms.
You are quite correct, Lazar steadfastly refuses/refused to discuss this matter
on a technical level in this forum. To narrow the discussion an to focus in on
the crucial issue of gravitational propulsion I specifically challenged Huff to
have Lazar provide some specifics (in the way of physics) to support him claim.
I said I would do the same in my claim that this mechanism, as described was not
valid, which I did.
Huff is not a scientist nor does he claim to be.
You are absolutely correct about that. I found Mr. Huff 壮 use verbal ranting to
be means of attempting distract from the discussion at hand. I tried reminding
him (on several occasions) that the issue here was not personal and that I simply
would not be baited by such immature behavior.
I've met with Huff and he showed me stacks of scientific papers sent to their
Tri-Dot productions office. These papers are offered by engineers and
physicists from around the world and some of them support Lazar's
interpretations and some do not. Lazar exchanges with some of these people as
his time permits. Having met Lazar, I assure you that he would not refrain
from discussing MHD, gravity, or anything else with you if you were with him
in person and he saw that you had something relevant to offer.
Yes, and if you were to visit my house you would also find an extensive library
of relevant reference material although they are not in the form of letters.
Since I do not live close to Lazar, this forum seemed to be a viable means of
accomplishing such a discussion. I do realize that it does take some effort to
accomplish a discussion on a technical level. You must think, research, and
support your claims since in a public forum anyone can take you to task.
You can neither contend that the balance of the scientific world agrees with
your contentions.
Actually, your wrong there. Although mostly ignored and forgotten, the physical
foundation that I support as the causative agent of gravitation has been known
since Newtonian time. The problem has always been, prove it mathematically, and
overcome the logical objections. Many renowned scientist have considered the
mechanism including Kelvin, Lorentz, and Feynman. The math proof stands or falls
on its own, i.e. it either works and is derived from first principles or it is
invalid. This I have accomplished, and can derive both the Newtonian and GR and
it has stood up to peer review. Given this evidence, and the first principle
model on which it is based, the Gravity A-B concept does not match.
So, I politely asked to be shown evidence of similar caliber to support
this claim.
You cannot pretend that someone is not qualified to talk to you
because they
don't get involved in the anarchy here on usenet. When I saw your
post, I
contacted Huff and asked him about it. He was honest and said he
forwarded
your post to Lazar and Lazar put it in with the stack of tens or
hundreds of
other claims and theories that he's supposed to consider. You seem
to value a
challenge placed on a newsgroup a little more than others. We're
all just one
of hundreds or thousands that want to talk more with Bob Lazar.
Sorry to
bore you with my commentary, but I didn't want any neutral readers
to be
mislead by your comments. Please list your exchanges with Lazar so
others can
know what weight to place on your opinion.
My offer still stands, provide first principle derivations that lead to
the viable wave model for gravity and I will politely, and thoroughly
consider it, and I will, as I have in the past, re-post my derivations
that strongly suggest the opposite. In the meantime, the defacto
evidence to date supports the conclusion as originally stated.
Paul Stowe
Michael Hofmeister
On Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:01:15 GMT, in <5dvdt7$1...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->Michael Hoffmeister
->is still arguing as to why they'd use a plasma cutter as opposed to a saw or a
->torch.
My argument is more like this: No one has presented any technically
rational reason why a "plasma cutter" was used in the story rather than
more mundane tools that seem better adapted to the role of general cutting
instruments.
->Torches require tanks of gas and
Yoo-hoo, Ken! Did you look at the website on plasma cutters?
(www.hypertherm.com) They indicate that either oxygen or nitrogen is used
as the plasma gas. This implies a tank as the source of gas. Also, a
hafnium electrode is consumed.
->saws do not offer the precision
->required.
Ridiculous point. The Air Force has band saws large enough to saw a C-141
in half and do it to withing a few thousandths of an inch.
Since they did not know what was inside, why would they worry about
precision? A hole is a hole. Do the greys give points for neatness?
->If I was cutting an anti-matter reactor open and wanted to damage as
->little as possible of the inside of it,
I'd be a lot more worried about damaging as little as possible on the
outside of the "anti-matter" reactor (i.e. me).
->and I wanted to limit my power source
->to electricity and not add a gas to the mix, I'd choose a plasma cutter.
We're all glad you're nowhere near an "anti-matter" reactor since you can't
even grasp how the plasma cutter works. It does use gas. And other
contaminants.
The whole idea of forcing one's way into an anti-matter reactor reminds me
of the cartoon showing two old women standing in front of a car. The
caption reads: " If we could just figure out how to open the thing, I'm
sure we could fix it." Indeed.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Ken Johnson
In article <5e18u3$l...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:01:15 GMT, in <5dvdt7$1...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
>
>->Michael Hoffmeister
>->is still arguing as to why they'd use a plasma cutter as opposed to a saw
or a
>->torch.
>
>My argument is more like this: No one has presented any technically
>rational reason why a "plasma cutter" was used in the story rather than
>more mundane tools that seem better adapted to the role of general cutting
>instruments.
>
>->Torches require tanks of gas and
>
>Yoo-hoo, Ken! Did you look at the website on plasma cutters?
>(www.hypertherm.com) They indicate that either oxygen or nitrogen is used
>as the plasma gas. This implies a tank as the source of gas. Also, a
>hafnium electrode is consumed.
Mike, on the smaller ones, especially of that vintage, compressed air is used
to evacuate the area once the cut is made. Oxygen and nitrogen are not the
source of the plasma in these types and they will still work without the
compressed air, just not as efficiently. You seem to be blaming me for Lazar
saying that a plasma cutter type device was used. If you remember this started
by Mr. Bee saying that they didn't exist. You apparently weren't familiar with
them either. Now you're arguing over what type may have been used. The fact is
that none of us actually know if this event even took place. Lazar was told
that some men were killed while cutting a reactor open and that's how there
was a vacancy which he was hired to fill. Next you'll be arguing that these
smaller types weren't the type you would have chosed to cut an anti-matter
reactor open. I can't help that. The story states that the men were in a
monitoring chamber and the reactor was in a separate chamber implying that
they probably used robotics and monitors to perform the cutting. Under those
circumstances, a plasma cutter would be a good choice. It may not be the only
choice, but who cares? It's nothing personal.
>
Ken Johnson
In article <3303C5...@ix.netcom.com>,
Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Dave, I'm not sure of the relevance of this but I'll clear this up for you.
I'm a female. While lurking last year there was another woman on here who used
to post from UCLA med school. She ultimately said that people had tracked her
down from the net and someone was stalking her. Gene Huff told me that there
are many psychos here and I should watch out for myself. Ultimately I decided
to use Ken's computer and switch the screen name from his to mine. I now see
that I was wise to do that as I now have people searching for me. You may find
this difficult to understand(presuming you are a male) but people treat the
sexes differently during exchanges. Thus far I've been treated, and insulted,
like a man. That's the way it should be. We'll see if it remains that way.
Ken Johnson
In article <5e0lms$1...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
>My "opinion" is based on both the public recorded information provided by
>Lazar, as well as his claim as to the basic motis operandi of the craft.
Paul, according to Gene Huff, last year he cross posted your assertions to
scientific news groups and asked scientists to reply. In those replies you did
not fare very well. It's obvious that you have a technical background, but
trying to speak over lay people's heads only goes to support the fact that
you're interested in proving that you're right. While trying to speak over
people's heads, didn't you mean modus operandi? It still remains that you're
opinion on Lazar's abilities is not based on any actual exchanges with Lazar.
Others, even others with technical backgrounds, who have met him disagree with
your opinions, much as the scientists from the scientific newsgroups squelched
your theories. You may be right, but people have the right to know that other
scientists don't necessarily agree with you and you're allegations are not
based on any personal knowledge of Lazar. By the way, Lazar has an impressive
technical library, also.
Paul Stowe
In <5e23li$8...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) writes:
>
>In article <5e0lms$1...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
> pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
>
>>Lazar, as well as his claim as to the basic motis operandi of the craft.
>
>scientific news groups and asked scientists to reply. In those replies you did
>not fare very well. It's obvious that you have a technical background, but
>trying to speak over lay people's heads only goes to support the fact that
>you're interested in proving that you're right. While trying to speak over
>people's heads, didn't you mean modus operandi? It still remains that you're
>opinion on Lazar's abilities is not based on any actual exchanges with Lazar.
>Others, even others with technical backgrounds, who have met him disagree with
>your opinions, much as the scientists from the scientific newsgroups squelched
>your theories. You may be right, but people have the right to know that other
>scientists don't necessarily agree with you and you're allegations are not
>based on any personal knowledge of Lazar. By the way, Lazar has an
impressive
>technical library, also.
First, you're right, it should be spelled modus. Second, math is not
arbirary, you either arrive at the right answer or a wrong one. If I
can solve, from first principles the Newtonian gravitational equation
and GR metric, then the premise is AT LEAST a valid approach. So,
Lazar needs to do the same. Show how his premise arrives at the same
point. This would then validate his position by showing that there is
a solid, derivable foundation upon which to work. I would be most
interested in seening this done.
I will be patiently waiting, but not holding my breath...
Paul Stowe
Dr. R. X. Frager
Dear Gene;
When are these newsgroups going to get a credible UFO debunker? (or two?)
I now believe that brand new agents or S.I.T.s (Spooks-in-Training)
get their start on these newsgroups. How else could you
explain their low level of credibility and the God-awful
debunking that takes place.
It is criminal and an outright shame that various intel.
Agencies cannot do a better job in their deceptions.
Can't they take some of that Black Budget money and give
it to some Spook who knows the difference between
swamp gas and radioactive isotopes?
As you indicate, even without Lazar; there are too many other
witnesses involved with Area-51 and retrieved UFO craft to dismiss
those claims.
The full story is just now being told and it is not
a pretty one at all. I do believe in full disclosure; but
the public MUST be made aware the ET's are not Gods and are
fallible, just like humans.
Wherever the future leads the human-race,
the efforts of honest researchers like yourself
have been appreciated by the few of us who really care.
Carry on and keep us posted.
Dr. R. X. Frager
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <5dh688$h...@tofu.alt.net> b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>-Do Bee, no one has to apologize for not knowing what a plasma cutter
>is as many people may not be familiar with that term. The reason people
>are making fun of you is that you implied that I fabricated the term
>and used it while describing the Lazar story. You were caught being a
>smart ass while pretending to be a know it all wise guy. As you can
>see, no one thinks either of those things about you. Now take the
>humiliation like a man and stop trying to blame me for it like the
>coward/idiot you actually are.-
>>
> >The Lazar story has been disproven ite).
>
>-Do you not yet think any readers don't know you're full of shit? The
>Lazar story has not been disproven by anyone as it is a true story and
>that is not possible. People like MaWoody and Goober have temporarily
>obtained a negative attitude because I won't let Goober sell our
>merchandise any longer. Their problem is they can't turn on people like
>Bill Uhouse, AKA Jarod 2, who say Lazar knows what he's talking about.
>They'll be back and if they're good little liars/idiots, I might let
>them have some more information.-
>
>-Here we go with the hounded off BS again. I'm right here in your face
>and even gave you the opportunity to make an ass out of yourself while
>I wasn't even in town! How much nicer could I be? You have the audacity
>to criticize me, considering your behavior? Please! I've never left
>here anyway but victorious and because I was bored with unworthy
>adversaries. You're a case in point.-
>>
>>As someone seriously interested in UFO's I protest people like Huff
>>who spread lies and confusion and make us all look silly to the
>>general public. I also protest as a human being that people like Gene
>>Huff exist at all.
>
>-Oh, sorry Jeremy, sorry that I made up that lie about plasma cutters
>existing!:) I think anyone reading these threads can see who does and
>who doesn't spread lies and confusion. I don't protest anyone as a
>human being, even in your case, as people need servants. I think you
>should have someone look at what you're typed here and see if maybe you
>don't need a little prozac and maybe a few hundred psychiatric
>sessions.-
Joel A. Frahm
>My argument is more like this: No one has presented any technically
>rational reason why a "plasma cutter" was used in the story rather than
>more mundane tools that seem better adapted to the role of general cutting
>instruments.
>
If one expects to weld something back together again at some point, a
plasma cutter is likely the best choice to cut it apart. Saws also
make a mess... leave metal cuttings around, etc. Plasma cutters can
also cut very hard metals, where saws may not be able to bite.
-Joel Frahm
Dave B
Ken Johnson wrote:
> Dave, I'm not sure of the relevance of this but I'll clear this up for you.
> I'm a female. [snip] Ultimately I decided
> to use Ken's computer and switch the screen name from his to mine. I now see
> that I was wise to do that as I now have people searching for me.
I usually run searches like I did on you when I see someone new on the
group and I'm not sure how much I should believe what they say. The
DejaNews search shows what they have posted in the past, not just here
but on all newsgroups, so I can get an idea of where their coming from.
The Four11 search sometimes turns up possible fake ID's.
Please don't take my searching personally. I try to treat everyone the
same, male or female. Sometime last year this (alt.conspiracy.area51)
group had a flurry of posts with fake ID's and posts done in other
persons names. Since then I have become more cautious in accepting
everyone at their word.
Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Gavin Adams
On Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:31:55 GMT, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
wrote:
>Enter Joe Vaninetti, the gentleman that Tom Mahood confused with Jim Tagliani.
>Vaninetti worked under Lazar at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Vaninetti was
>a tech back then so Lazar was not a janitor and also Vaninetti's superior.
>Vaninetti says Lazar is/was a scientist. Vaninetti also worked out at the
>Nevada test site, while still employed by Los Alamos. Vaninetti finished his
>Masters degree in soils sciences from the University of Utah and now works up
>in the pacific northwest. This is more fun when you have some of the answers,
>isn't it? At last, someone gives a damn about something I've dug up!
If Lazar worked for a contractor at LANL, he wasn't anyones supervisor
for lab related projects. Contractors, which is what all relavant
sources points to Lazar's position at the lab, do not have supervisory
authority at the lab over UC employees or other contractors. Just the
way it is.
As for stating Lazar is a scientist, big deal. I worked on lab
projects (in Los Alamos and Nevada) with contractor "scientists". They
were more qualified to sweep floors.
No disrespect meant for anyone, but working at LANL or any other
research lab is no big deal, and shouldn't be used as a point of
technical credibility.
Gavin Adams || Computer Networking Solutions
Senior Network Engineer || P.O. Box 3081
gadams @ ccscns.com || Hamilton, HM NX, Bermuda
+1 441 292 9833
*PLEASE NOTE* The address in the header is a forgery. This is to defeat
the spammers using e-mail addresses in USENET posts for junk mail. The
address in my .sig is valid. My apologies for the incovenience.
Walter O'Reilly
In article <5e017m$t...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman) wrote:
>In article <5due85$a...@tofu.alt.net>, b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) wrote:
>
>>Gene, my somewhat more substantive reply to you is on the same thread a
>little
>>earlier, and that's all I am saying. It seems things get really trivial and
>>stupid around here too fast nowadays. The above roasting is meant as humour
>>in the traditional sense of the word but I don't expect you to "get" that.
>>
>>bye.
>>
>>Jeremy
>>
>Bee you are the sorriest jerk I've ever seen here. Don't think that because
>someone thinks you're a jerk that means they are a Huff follower. You came on
>here and said:
Well here I am breaking my own rule and replying anyway...
>
>1. That the Lazar story is based on crash retrievals, which is a lie.
never said it.
>
>2. That the Lazar story is based on the Roswell crash, which is a lie.
>(No, it's not that we don't get it, your association is just wrong)
never said anything of the kind, (do you read the "from" part at the top of
the message at all?)
>
>3. That plasma cutters are some star trek type thing that Huff made up, which
>is a lie.
it was an implication not a statement, and constituted an error (which I
apologised for) not a lie. (where did you learn english, from TV?)
>
>4.That people are busting your nads because you didn't know what a plasma
>cutter was, which is a lie.(They're doing it because you're a jerk)
your opinion.
>
>5. That all of this was started by Huff, which is a lie.
>
>6. That anyone who thinks Huff is right must be a "believer" and a Huff
>follower, which is a lie.
lie, lie, lie...
try going to a dictionary and looking up the meaning of the word, "lie."
>
>You bust all of that on us and then leave.
came back just for you...
>Then Huff says you're a liar and a
>coward and you think that he's out of line. Exactly how could anyone disagree
>with him on this point? Huff hasn't even been here and was invited to join by
>this Ken Johnson guy, who I've never seen here before. There aren't two sides
>here, one for Jeremy Bee and one for Gene Huff. No one gives a shit what
>either one of you has to say unless it further wises us up about the Lazar
>story. Huff at least has something to say.
and stuff to SELL as well, check out his web site.
>What he and Ken Johnson said
>certainly shut Mahood up and caused him to disappear after he was caught
>making up that story about a Groom Lake bulletin about Lazar. I haven't seen
>you say one thing that leads me to believe you have any first hand knowledge
>about one damn thing. You're welcome to offer your opinion, but don't act like
>a little kid and run away whining when everyone doesn't side with you when
>you're acting like a jerk. We're not all wrong because we disagree with you.
>And we're not all pro-Huff because we disagree with you, either. Get a life.
1) never said anything of the kind, (I think you are attributing all of the
remarks on the thread that were not Huffy's, to me)
2) open your eyes and look around a little. anyone who has been around these
forums for a while is aware of what a load of crap the Lazar story is. a
simple web search or two will get you a number of documents by very serious
intelligent people totaly debunking it. that's all the "wising up" you should
need.
3) Huff can "shut" almost anyone up (I've seen him do it), including me. that
doesn't mean he has any facts or logic on his side. He is a big macho dude
who likes to throw words like "coward" and "wimp" around. people often back
away from him because of this but that doesn't make him a "winner" or even
halfways right.
4) I don't care if you believe in him or not, that is your decision to make.
Jeremy
Nick Humphries
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:49:28 -0600, Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Please don't take my searching personally. I try to treat everyone the
>same, male or female. Sometime last year this (alt.conspiracy.area51)
>group had a flurry of posts with fake ID's and posts done in other
>persons names.
Not "The Deb" was it?
>Since then I have become more cautious in accepting
>everyone at their word.
Which is one of the reasons why I don't accept "Johnson"'s reply. If
Johnson is a ficticious entity belonging to Huff, then I wouldn't
accept a denial from Johnson that he/she is a separate person, if you
see what I mean. ("I'm Spartacus!" "No, I'm Spartacus, and so's my
wife!")
Any answers to the questions I emailed you, "Ken"?
>
>Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
Nick Humphries
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:52:05 -0600, Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Jeremy Bee wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
> A query on Four 11 search engine shows 4 Ken Johnsons on NetCom --
>
> KENN...@IX.NETCOM.COM
> rho...@ix.netcom.com
> kljo...@ix.netcom.com
> hsu...@ix.netcom.com
>
> -- not a sm...@ix.netcom.com in the bunch. (WhoWhere search only
>showed the last two addresses.)
>
> Another query, to DejaNews, lists 10 posts from smack, all to this
>collection of newsgroups and all between Feb 5 and Feb 13.
Check out jac...@ix.netcom.com too - only a handful of postings, all
to this group, and all ridiculing people who disagree with Huff.
Also, check out these headers I pulled from a couple of articles from
"Larry Jackman" and "Ken Johnson" just before I went off with flu.
Notice that the headers are virtually identical, and both using the
Las Vegas Netcom newsserver. Jackman's style is VERY similar to Huff's
- hear someone say something, change it so that they say another.
Johnson's only done this once, probably a slip on Huff or whoever his
accomplice is. One theory (which hasn't enough evidence to back it up,
yet) is that Huff is creating support for himself when he gets in a
corner...
One more thing - if either of those two are reading this - I emailed
them a few questions a week ago and just wondered if they had any
answers.
////////////
========
Path:
news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!arclight.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!lvx-nv16-53
From: sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups:
alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.mindcontrol
Subject: Re: LAZAR'S BACK-ENGINEERING - A FALLACY
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 19:44:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Message-ID: <5divka$n...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <5ctetj$1...@news.enterprise.net>
<32F29B...@worldnet.att.net>
<92ovi8a...@heron.eecs.umich.edu>
<5d3rsb$n...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net> <5d53qg$9...@tofu.alt.net>
<5d61ec$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <5d90dc$o...@tofu.alt.net>
<5davbh$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
<5dc6ag$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
<5ddeq2$f...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
<32fc1d18...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lvx-nv16-53.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Feb 08 4:44:26 PM CST 1997
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Lines: 85
Xref: demon alt.alien.research:50910 alt.alien.visitors:142031
alt.paranet.ufo:84693 alt.conspiracy.area51:20323
alt.mindcontrol:18744
--------
In article <32fc1d18...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
tma...@ibm.net (Tom Mahood) wrote:
>
First, Tom, when I said you reminded me of Woody Boyd, I meant it as
you
having a curious, detached, type innocence and I didn't mean to give
Gene Huff
ammunition to label you with a new nickname so I apologize for that.
>
>OK, so what happened? Possibility 1, that Lazar made the whole thing
>up. Remember that in 1989 Area 51 had a very low profile. Few had
>heard of it then. If AFOSI got wind of someone planning to talk about
>it, you can bet they would be very interested in having a talk with
>that person. A friendly talk, of course, and maybe a little leverage
>put upon him. If he made it up, and hadn't been there, they would not
>have known for sure just what the deal was with him, and it would be
>very important to them to find out. So they pulled Vainetti out of
>work, what's the big deal in that? That sounds like a reasonable action to
>me.
>
Tom I think you're not thinking clear on this point. You're right,
area fifty
one did have a low profile back then, but that does not qualify your
point.
Back at that time John Lear and Bill Cooper had both been on
television and
radio in Las Vegas making all types of claims about area fifty one and
they
did not receive any visits from the AFOSI. The AFOSI has no way to get
any
leverage on a private citizen without some assistance and they'd have
to
qualify it to get that help. How would the AFOSI know that Lazar would
be
doing anything and why would they care at all? How would they know
that
Tagliani and Lazar knew each other? You're giving them a lot of credit
if
Lazar was not involved at all. I've met people like John Andrews, Jim
Goodall,
Ron Regehr, and John Lear who were all out there outside of area fifty
one
skywatching or taking pictures or writing articles and none of them
were
accosted by the AFOSI, or at least that's what they told me. So there
are no
known precedents to justify these possibilities unless you'd care to
supply
some. This is in addition to the fact that we're discussing them
talking to a
friend of one of the subjects, much less the subject himself. I think
if you
re-examine this that none of it will sound like a reasonable action to
you.
And remember, you're talking about Jim Tagliani, not Joe Vaninetti.
>Possibility 2, that Lazar concocted the story based upon bits and
>pieces of what he had heard from others. Maybe parts of it are true.
>In this case, you can bet your ass AFOSI would want to talk to him,
>AND they still might have trouble finding him. Again, they have a
>chat with Vainetti.
Lazar's story is, and always has been, far too complex and detailed
for that
to be the case. I could buy mind control before I could buy that and I
don't buy mind control, either. Even John Lear says that the amount of
information he had access to pales by comparison to that brought forth
by
Lazar. I cannot find one ufological reference to S4 prior to Lazar
going
public. Even if you were right, there is no way that this would
constitute the
AFOSI pulling a friend of Lazar's out of work at TTR to ask him to
help them
find Lazar. Have you and others been approached by the AFOSI during
your
endeavors? I know things were different eight years ago and that's
part of the
problem here. I can't believe you're saying that you can "bet your
ass" that
the AFOSI would do this under these circumstances. You know that's not
true
and you've seen no evidence that it's even possible. Please don't let
your
ego get involved here. You're some of these people's last hope. If you
have
examples, please share them with us.
>Possibilty 3, that Lazar was at Papoose, I am satisfied is no longer
>viable possibility.
>
>BTW, I understand Jim Vainetti is a quite decent, and above all,
>honest guy. It would have been worth your while to spend a little
>time asking him the right questions.
I hope I've shown you that I do ask the right questions and(you're
speaking of
Jim Tagliani here) I've asked them to alot of people. The AFOSI would
have to
have been more deeply involved than the casual interest you imply. It
seems to
me that you now doubt Lazar's story more than ever, but please don't
let that
cause you to offer overly simple answers to complex questions. I've
got
similar unanswered questions about why the OFI was visiting Lazar's
house at
random times. Huff introduced me to one of the women who was there
when this
happened and I believe her. Then there's the check and the W-2. I
believe Huff
about that because George Knapp corroborated it and it all happened
before
people like you and I became involved. Knapp was the one who
encouraged Lazar
to contact Naval Intelligence Command about the W-2 and even supplied
the
addresses and phone numbers for Lazar to contact. Bob Lazar was
involved in
something and he was paid for it and varying members of federal
agencies were
involved with Lazar. The AFOSI did not pull Tagliani out of work based
on some
hearsay about a complete stranger making claims about area fifty one.
Tagliani
does not think that, either, and I spoke with him at length. It seems
you've
boxed yourself into a corner by not ever meeting Lazar or Huff and
this
prevents you from getting some pretty important answers to some pretty
important questions.
========
Path:
news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!lvx-nv16-53
From: jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman)
Newsgroups:
alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.mindcontrol
Subject: Re: LAZAR'S BACK-ENGINEERING - A FALLACY
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 19:55:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Message-ID: <5dj09v$n...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <5ctetj$1...@news.enterprise.net>
<32F29B...@worldnet.att.net>
<92ovi8a...@heron.eecs.umich.edu>
<5d3rsb$n...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net> <5d53qg$9...@tofu.alt.net>
<5d61ec$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <5d90dc$o...@tofu.alt.net>
<5dakk7$f...@canyon.sr.hp.com> <5dh5p8$h...@tofu.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lvx-nv16-53.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Feb 08 4:55:59 PM CST 1997
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Lines: 20
Xref: demon alt.alien.research:50912 alt.alien.visitors:142034
alt.paranet.ufo:84695 alt.conspiracy.area51:20324
alt.mindcontrol:18745
--------
In article <5dh5p8$h...@tofu.alt.net>, b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) wrote:
>
>My aplogies to those who don't know Gene and told me that my remarks seemed a
>little intemperate.
>
>I am obviously reading a lot into Gene's reply that maybe was not apparent to
>others. Try disagreeing with him once in a while and you will suddenly see
>what I mean when I refer to him in this way.
>
Bee, you are one sorry asshole. We made fun of you because of your
attitude,
not because you don't know anything. You, Mahood, Hoffmeister and
Humphries
just don't know when to shut up. Huff's an asshole but he's thoroughly
kicked
every one of your asses on this thread. Just shut up and he'll go
away. I'm
really disappointed in Mahood who I've respected in the past. He's
making up
that he knows about Lazar's friends and he didn't even know their
names. I'm
generally a lurker and I don't really give a shit one way or the
other. I've
never thought Humphries new his ass from a hole in the ground and I
don't know
jack about you and Hoffmeister, but when Mahood starts bullshitting us
it's
time for everyone here to get another hobby. Just learn when to say
when. Out.
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
"Dr. R. X. Frager" <nare...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>Dear Gene;
>
> When are these newsgroups going to get a credible UFO debunker? <snip>
Dear Frager, we find you to be more than sufficent to debunk
UFOs.
You're claim that there were 120 crashes was brilliant and
made UFO believers look like idiots.
Your claim that there were UFOs seen every 15 minutes was
very good.
But, your truly unique contribution came when you claimed
that the US gov't had two documented meetings with ETs while
avoiding giving the documents referenced.
That really made UFO believers look stupid. I think that
MJ-13 should give you a bonus as the best paid debunker on
the ngs!
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
The wicked sometimes rest.
Alexandre Dumas, pere
Dave B
Nick Humphries wrote:
>
> Check out jac...@ix.netcom.com too - only a handful of postings, all
> to this group, and all ridiculing people who disagree with Huff.
>
kc...@ix.netcom.com about Desert Blast, Lazar's fireworks extravaganza.
> Also, check out these headers I pulled from a couple of articles from
> "Larry Jackman" and "Ken Johnson" just before I went off with flu.
When you enter Larry Jackman in the Four11 search engine it returns
jac...@ix.netcom.com. If this were a pseudonym for one of the regulars
here, it would involve spending money for another account with Netcom.
I doubt that the casual Lazar supporter would go that far.
I agree the styles do look like Gene Huff's, but then, if your going
to post flames, it makes sense to emulate the technique of a master. :-)
Dave B
Nick Humphries wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:49:28 -0600, Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> >Sometime last year this (alt.conspiracy.area51) group had a flurry
> >of posts with fake ID's and posts done in other persons names.
>
> Not "The Deb" was it?
"The Deb", among others. "The Deb", dsu...@ix.netcom.com, was not a
valid address, as mail to it would bounce. On the other hand, mail I
sent to sm...@ix.netcom.com yesterday did not bounce, at least up until
now.
Nick Humphries
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:43:49 -0600, Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Nick Humphries wrote:
>>
>> Check out jac...@ix.netcom.com too - only a handful of postings, all
>> to this group, and all ridiculing people who disagree with Huff.
>>
> jac...@ix.netcom.com did post one message to rec.pyrotechnics, asking
>kc...@ix.netcom.com about Desert Blast, Lazar's fireworks extravaganza.
>
>> Also, check out these headers I pulled from a couple of articles from
>> "Larry Jackman" and "Ken Johnson" just before I went off with flu.
>
> When you enter Larry Jackman in the Four11 search engine it returns
>jac...@ix.netcom.com. If this were a pseudonym for one of the regulars
>here, it would involve spending money for another account with Netcom.
>I doubt that the casual Lazar supporter would go that far.
>
> I agree the styles do look like Gene Huff's, but then, if your going
>to post flames, it makes sense to emulate the technique of a master. :-)
>
>Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Yep, it looks like Larry Jackman is just a redneck Huff-follower -
I've seen nothing on Usenet from him that didn't invlove Huff.
Mark and Jana Lincoln
Dr. R. X. Frager <nare...@aracnet.com> wrote in article
<5e2fnk$j...@cobweb.aracnet.com>...
(Gene wrote)>humiliation like a man and stop trying to blame me for it like
the
> >coward/idiot you actually are.-
******************************
This is irritating me. What is all this? I thought it was the skeptics that
were supposed to attack the man and not the subject. This attitude has no
place in serious discussion.
This Jeremy Bee is right, there is a lot of flack flying in UFO research. I
always laugh when I hear stories
about the government conspiring with the aliens or stories about reverse
engineering. These don't
make sense even if one believes in the ETH hypothesis. For the aliens to be
involved with world
governments is like the farmer having relations with the head cow. The
evidence strongly suggests
that the aliens are not interested in our hierarchies or communicating with
us on any kind of social
or political level, nor do they need any help or permission from our
governments. They simply do
whatever they want with impunity. And why would they allow us to obtain any
of their
technology? That would be about as responsible as giving a loaded Uzi to a
four-year old. In
situations where we might obtain an artifact, it will either self destruct,
blowing itself into a
thousand pieces (Roswell) or considerable retrieval efforts will be made
(Bentwaters). Or if an
artifact is obtained, you can be sure that we will not have the
technological infrastructure to make
it work (like giving an unloaded gun to a stone age tribe, what would they
do with it?)
It is one thing to believe in the ETH hypothesis. It's another thing to
believe every claim that is made!
--------H.E.Ensle
Ken Johnson
In article <3305F5...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> to this group, and all ridiculing people who disagree with Huff.
>>
>kc...@ix.netcom.com about Desert Blast, Lazar's fireworks extravaganza.
>
>> "Larry Jackman" and "Ken Johnson" just before I went off with flu.
>
>jac...@ix.netcom.com. If this were a pseudonym for one of the regulars
>here, it would involve spending money for another account with Netcom.
>I doubt that the casual Lazar supporter would go that far.
>
> I agree the styles do look like Gene Huff's, but then, if your going
>to post flames, it makes sense to emulate the technique of a master. :-)
>
>Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Dave, Larry Jackman is also a real person as he calls local radio shows on a
continual basis. Forgive me, but you and Nick seem to be a bit paranoid, don't
you think? I have no reason to exchange email with any of you as anything I
have to say, I can say right here on usenet. If you've emailed this address,
wouldn't the email go to Ken? I think you need to remember that the Las Vegas
now has a population of app. 1.1 million people. I'm sure that netcom has a
large number of subscribers here. My own personal service is AOL.
For someone to examine the Lazar story, they have to do it here. George
Knapp, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, John Lear, Glenn Campbell, Pat and Joe from the
Little Ale Inn, and numerous others are all here in southern Nevada. I have
access to everything you have access to here on the net. If I want to dig
deeper and get answers, I have to associate with Huff as there's no other way
in. Anyone investigating anything has to associate themselves with the
principals of the story. You two seem surprised that someone is on here
digging for and sharing more answers with others. Like it or not, Lazar is a
hot subject, especially here in Las Vegas. I think I've been honest with
everyone here. I lurked during Nick Humphries exchanges with Huff and even all
the way back with Mark Hines. I simply disagree with Nick and don't feel he
has anything to offer me, or this group for that matter. I'm going to address
a statement made by Tom Mahood in the next few days. If you have any questions
regarding this thread and I'm able to offer something, I'll offer it. If
you're trying to find my house, I won't assist you. Look at your recent posts,
both of you, and see if they really fit on this thread. I think you
underestimate both how many people lurk here and how many people still have
questions about Lazar and feel they are unresolved.
Gene Huff
In <5eae6o$p...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken
Johnson) writes:
>
Forgive me, but you and Nick seem to be a bit paranoid, don't
>you think?
-I think I can help explain this for those readers who aren't aware of
all of the old wounds that still haven't healed. Nick Humphries is a
pseudo researcher who lives in the UK. He's on here pretending that
anyone investigating the Lazar story or offering answers that he
doesn't have must be some paid under cover operative working for those
who support the Lazar story. Nothing could be further from the truth
and Nick is confused about the difference between commanding respect
and demanding respect. He demands it, he just doesn't command it for
obvious reasons. I'll give you an example. Nick was on here a week or
two ago stating that the Lazar story is never mentioned to any
appreciable degree on television in the UK. Nick says that even when it
is, it's just in passing with no major attention paid to it. Now Nick
lied about that as he would resort to anything to try and get people to
side with his view on the Lazar story. His view of the Lazar story is
based on the info available to all of you as Nick doesn't live in the
U.S. and has done no personal research at all. Nick can't understand
that many readers simply know more than he does and have a little more
problem solving capability available to them. What Nick didn't know was
that the Transmedia production company had done a UFO special centered
around Lazar and it was broadcast in the UK and it brought the highest
ratings of any special they had ever done. In fact, the ratings were so
spectacular that George Knapp of the CBS affiliate here in Las Vegas
did a piece on the evening news about it. He even had footage of the
director of the piece commenting about their success. Now that Las
Vegas has over a million people in it and since the CBS news is the
highest rated local news here, approximately 100,000 people saw that
piece. Consequently there are 100,000 people here in Las Vegas who know
that piece aired in the UK and there are 100,000 people who know that
Nick Humphries is lying. Common sense would dictate that it's possible
that Nick simply missed that piece when it was broadcast in the UK and
that is certainly an offense that could be forgiven. However, Nick
won't admit that possibility and I even gave him the names of the
production companies so he could see when and where these types of
programs were broadcast. Does Nick check them out? Of course not. He
disappears with an alleged case of the flu and returns accusing anyone
who knows he's wrong of being a plant by someone pushing the Lazar
story. Nick has a history of this type of behavior. Last year he was on
here accusing Lazar of jumping on the "UFO gravy train" by making money
on the lecture circuit. Unfortunately for Nick, I had to break the news
to him that Lazar had never been on the lecture circuit. Nick has been
straightened out by Mark Hines, me, and numerous others so many times
that his hatred of admitting that he's wrong has made him lose his
grasp on reality. He thinks that if anyone disagrees with him, they
must be part of a giant conspiracy.
For those of you who haven't been around here much, Jeremy Bee is the
same type of character and I'm sure that's obvious to you all. Nick
Humphries has now accused Larry Jackman of being a "redneck" because he
finds Jeremy Bee to be a jerk. Has Nick met or exchanged with Larry
Jackman? Of course not. Larry's a redneck because he disagrees with
Nick. If one is a redneck because they think Nick Humphries doesn't
know what he's talking about, ever, and because they think Jeremy Bee
is a jerk who can't worm and lie his way out of the hole he's dug for
himself, then there must be a lot of rednecks around because I see
little support of these two here.
Hey Dave, I saw someone agreeing with something Jeremy Bee said on a
previous post. Did you track them down to see if Bee paid them? BTW,
the "Deb" is a real person and so is the person appearing as Ken
Johnson. I understand your concerns as I've caught false posts
supporting Mahood and Campbell. Many of us here in Vegas use Netcom so
I don't think that's much of a search if that's all it provides. Well
that'll have to be it for now. I've misplaced a paper that was floating
around here a couple of years ago. It listed everyone involved with the
Kennedy assassination, their assignments, pay schedules, etc. I hope I
can find it as I just realized that some people might be interested in
it!(Inside joke).
The bottom line is that as long as people like Bee and Humphries are
around, none of you can enjoy the exchanges on usenet as you naively
thought would be possible when you arrived here. They can lie and post
under false names, argue with themselves and support themselves, and
try every trick in the book to confuse the issue. Why? That's a
question I can't answer and something I'll never understand. Those of
you who've followed this thread from when it started have seen a taste
of true usenet. I appreciate all of the email from all of you and I
understand why you want me to post here, but it's not very productive.
When I have time I'll keep answering all of your questions via email.
The redundancy kills me, but if we can't have sane discussions in
public, with rational, honest people joining in, it will have to remain
private. The Lazar story stands and remains. It happened. The only
things that fade out are the likes of Bee and Humphries.
Michael Deglman
Dave B
Ken Johnson wrote:
>
> Dave, Larry Jackman is also a real person as he calls local radio shows on a
> continual basis.
No doubt; I never said he wasn't. In addition, I tried to show that it
was highly unlikely for someone to spend the money for a second account,
just to post flames on the usenet. (I think Netcom is charging $50 for
setup and then $19.95/month.)
It was your account that I questioned. The Four11 email address
database does not show anyone named Ken Johnson with an address of
sm...@ix.netcom.com. The address, however, is valid as my email server
did not return the mail I sent to that address.
> Forgive me, but you and Nick seem to be a bit paranoid, don't you think?
Paranoid? As in "someone's out to get me"? I don't think so.
Questioning? Always. Sketpical? Most assuredly so. But if I were
paranoid I'd only post to usenet with a false name and address, never
exchange email with anyone (On email I do include my full name), and
certainly wouldn't put up a web page with my name.
> For someone to examine the Lazar story, they have to do it here.
Why? Lazar has lived in Las Vegas less than 12 of his 38 years. Many
of the questions raised about him have to do with times prior to Las
Vegas and even Los Alamos. Focusing only on what he claims to have done
while living in Las Vegas results in a very narrow investigation.
Dave B (trying to broaden my view) on the fringe of Houston
Michael Hofmeister
On Fri, 14 Feb 97 13:15:43 GMT, in <5e2340$8...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->While lurking last year there was another woman on here who used
->to post from UCLA med school. She ultimately said that people had tracked her
->down from the net and someone was stalking her. Gene Huff told me that there
->are many psychos here and I should watch out for myself.
Gene was one of the primary forces in driving her from this newgroup. She
was convinced that the Lazar story was false. Gene hounded her
mercilessly. For good reason. She had him "on the ropes."
A few other people, who had information available to anyone who ever
attended UCLA Medical School, preyed upon her general paranoia to convince
her that she was being watched in her office.
Ultimately, she posted an incoherent rant, blathering about how her office
was just down the hall from "NPI", lashing out wildly at anyone who ever
responded to one of her posts.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Michael Hofmeister
On 14 Feb 1997 22:21:32 GMT, in <5e2ohc$2...@lace.colorado.edu>,
fr...@colorado.edu (Joel A. Frahm) wrote:
->In article <5e18u3$l...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, thx...@ix.netcom.com
->(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
->>My argument is more like this: No one has presented any technically
->>rational reason why a "plasma cutter" was used in the story rather than
->>more mundane tools that seem better adapted to the role of general cutting
->>instruments.
->>
->If one expects to weld something back together again at some point, a
->plasma cutter is likely the best choice to cut it apart.
Joel - Good idea.
BTW - I just received word that it's all put together again and they need
someone to throw the switch. Any volunteers?
--
Michael Hofmeister
Michael Hofmeister
On Fri, 14 Feb 97 13:07:44 GMT, in <5e22l1$8...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->In article <5e18u3$l...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
-> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
->>On Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:01:15 GMT, in <5dvdt7$1...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
->>sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->>
->>->Michael Hoffmeister
->>->is still arguing as to why they'd use a plasma cutter as opposed to a saw
->or a
->>->torch.
->>
->>My argument is more like this: No one has presented any technically
->>rational reason why a "plasma cutter" was used in the story rather than
->>more mundane tools that seem better adapted to the role of general cutting
->>instruments.
->>
->>->Torches require tanks of gas and
->>
->>Yoo-hoo, Ken! Did you look at the website on plasma cutters?
->>(www.hypertherm.com) They indicate that either oxygen or nitrogen is used
->>as the plasma gas. This implies a tank as the source of gas. Also, a
->>hafnium electrode is consumed.
->Mike, on the smaller ones, especially of that vintage, compressed air is used
->to evacuate the area once the cut is made. Oxygen and nitrogen are not the
->source of the plasma in these types and they will still work without the
->compressed air, just not as efficiently. You seem to be blaming me for Lazar
->saying that a plasma cutter type device was used.
Ken (or is it Kendra?) - Actually, I'm blaming you for not thinking
critically. And for being Gene Huff's shill in this matter. You have have
told us what were not the sources for the plasma. What was?
If you look at Lazar's original story in _Alien Contact_ (a source of great
mirth), you will notice that he does not specify what was used to cut the
reactor, but alludes that it was some sort of "chain-saw".
->If you remember this started
->by Mr. Bee saying that they didn't exist.
Bee, Shmee. What does that have to do with anything I've said?
->You apparently weren't familiar with
->them either. Now you're arguing over what type may have been used.
No. Try to follow me here. You said that a "plasma cutter" was used and
presented a web site as evidence. When we pointed out that tanks were
required for any application, you respond with "NOT one of THOSE plasma
cutters. Another kind that doesn't use tanks." and present no additional
information. Bait and switch.
->The fact is
->that none of us actually know if this event even took place. Lazar was told
->that some men were killed while cutting a reactor open and that's how there
->was a vacancy which he was hired to fill.
And of course he took the job because the working conditions and pay were
so good.
Recruiter: "Bob, how'd you like to work on a project that just vaporized
three of the country's best physicists?"
Bob: "Where do I sign?"
and so on.
->Next you'll be arguing that these
->smaller types weren't the type you would have chosed to cut an anti-matter
->reactor open.
I'd prefer a Star Trek Phaser. They're neater.
->I can't help that. The story states that the men were in a
->monitoring chamber and the reactor was in a separate chamber implying that
->they probably used robotics and monitors to perform the cutting.
Since they were using robotics, wouldn't it make sense to monitor the
cutting from a remote location, like another state? Also, since the blast
was quite large (allegedly buckling blast doors that contain nuclear
explosions), wouldn't someone have noticed it with seismic sensors?
->Under those
->circumstances, a plasma cutter would be a good choice. It may not be the only
->choice, but who cares? It's nothing personal.
Whether or not someone would us a plasma cutter to disect an alien
spaceship is a moot point since none exist (at least on Earth).
--
Michael Hofmeister
Ken Johnson
In article <5ebm3j$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>Ken (or is it Kendra?) - Actually, I'm blaming you for not thinking
>critically. And for being Gene Huff's shill in this matter. You have have
>told us what were not the sources for the plasma. What was?
Mike, in the balance of your post you've regained somewhat of an attitude but
I'll answer anyway. By definition an electrical discharge is a plasma in
itself. I'm confused as to why you claim such a technical background when you
seem so stupified by something as simple as this.
>
>If you look at Lazar's original story in _Alien Contact_ (a source of great
>mirth), you will notice that he does not specify what was used to cut the
>reactor, but alludes that it was some sort of "chain-saw".
The chain saw remark was a joke.
>
>No. Try to follow me here. You said that a "plasma cutter" was used and
>presented a web site as evidence.
I did not present a web site as evidence that a plasma cutter was used in
Lazar's story. You are now in the process of causing the type of confusion
that prevails here. I presented a web site as a point of reference for those
of you who didn't know that plasma cutters even existed.
When we pointed out that tanks were
>required for any application, you respond with "NOT one of THOSE plasma
>cutters. Another kind that doesn't use tanks." and present no additional
>information. Bait and switch.
My previous reponses have already answered this as we're not dealing with me
baiting and switching, we're dealing with your reading comprehension and
basic understanding of what I said.
>
>Whether or not someone would us a plasma cutter to disect an alien
>spaceship is a moot point since none exist (at least on Earth).
>
Actually I haven't seen anyone claim that they disected a space ship with one,
just a reactor. As to whether or not they exist, I think they do, but I'm
still digging. You see that's the difference between you and I. I'm making the
effort. If you did you wouldn't need to waste your time making such a poor
effort at being a wise guy and people would listen to what you have to say. I
doubt that anyone loses any sleep over your assertions as they are not backed
up by anything of substance.
Ken Johnson
In article <330923...@ix.netcom.com>,
Dave B <beth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paranoid? As in "someone's out to get me"? I don't think so.
>Questioning? Always. Sketpical? Most assuredly so. But if I were
>paranoid I'd only post to usenet with a false name and address, never
>exchange email with anyone (On email I do include my full name), and
>certainly wouldn't put up a web page with my name.
I'm sensing some testosterone here. I exchange email with many people, just
not strangers who spend their time tracking people down on the net. I
understand and believe your explanation as to why you do it, but don't you
think you're going the extra mile here to make fun of me? You do realize
that everyone is not as nice or sincere as you appear to be, don't you? You
have a web page? Where is it, I'll take a look.
>
>> For someone to examine the Lazar story, they have to do it here.
>
>Why? Lazar has lived in Las Vegas less than 12 of his 38 years. Many
>of the questions raised about him have to do with times prior to Las
>Vegas and even Los Alamos. Focusing only on what he claims to have done
>while living in Las Vegas results in a very narrow investigation.
>
So you say, but I don't agree. Here I've met people who worked with him at Los
Alamos, I've met his mother, I've met those who were around him when he worked
at S4 (at home, not at work). This is where I totally disagree with what Tom
Mahood said. Mahood stated that the complexity of the story says nothing about
it as chanellers and others routinely weave complex webs. Lazar's story
includes many others. Lazar was going to work at night time, receiving random
security checks at his home, and I won't go into it here and now, but the
effort to have perpetrated a fraud of this magnitude and involving this many
people would be unprecedented. He would have to have done this for no reason
or even if you're the ultimate Lazar skeptic he would have to have done it on
the hunch that it would pay off down the road. I think that this is why Tom
Mahood suspects that Lazar must have at least worked at area fifty one as it
would at least help answer some of these peripheral questions. And let me tell
you something else, Gene Huff is now looked on as Lazar's accomplice or dupe
and people must retain a high level of skepticism when Huff makes claims, but
there's something interesting that they don't know. I have to tell you that
Huff is a real pain when it comes to convincing him of something. He doesn't
believe anything I say, ever, or anything anybody else says as that's his
nature. It took more for Lazar to convince him than anyone else and that
resulted in Lazar taking Huff and the others out to watch the alleged disc
test. If Lazar had no knowledge of anything going on out there, don't you
think he was extremely fortunate that a strange object appeared in the sky and
performed for them? You could write it off to naivety of the observers, but
one of those observers was Jim Tagliani who worked at TTR by the stealth
fighters and is a bit of an aviation nut. Lazar would have been crazy to try
and fool Tagliani, and that would have only been possible if something popped
up in the sky to begin with. I'm not naive and I think it's obvious that
Lazar's educational credentials are questionable. It still remains that he's
had a couple of jobs that require some credentials and that's where the real
question is. I've never seen anyone claim that Lazar's employment at S4 was
because of his college diplomas, certainly not Lazar. There could have been
numerous other criteria. I think it's unfortunate that people perceive Tom
Mahood's questions about the validity of Lazar's educational claims to be
the end of the story. Even Mahood doesn't think that. If he's a total fraud,
why doesn't the government have LANL/Kirk-Meyer simply come forward and expose
his credentials, the reason that they hired him, and expose him for what he
is? If he was a tech at area fifty one, why don't they have some others who
worked with him come forward and say so and squelch the whole story? Why
didn't they do that years ago? Why did a number of federal agencies tell the
state of Nevada that information on Lazar was on a need to know basis and that
they didn't need to know? It's things like this that bother me and I assure
you they bother Tom Mahood also. I'm approaching it from the inside and he's
approaching it from the outside and I guess everyone collectively is trying to
close in on the truth. Back to our original point. None of the answers I need
for these types of questions are answered by digging into Lazar pre-Los
Alamos. This is just the tip of the iceberg and even if you still disagree I
hope you understand where I'm coming from. Investigating from Las Vegas cannot
even be loosely misconstrued as a narrow investigation. It's the epicenter.
Larry Jackman
In article <5eamfo$1...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <5eae6o$p...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken
>Johnson) writes:
>>
> Forgive me, but you and Nick seem to be a bit paranoid, don't
>>you think?
>
>
>same type of character and I'm sure that's obvious to you all. Nick
>Humphries has now accused Larry Jackman of being a "redneck" because he
>finds Jeremy Bee to be a jerk. Has Nick met or exchanged with Larry
>Jackman? Of course not. Larry's a redneck because he disagrees with
>Nick. If one is a redneck because they think Nick Humphries doesn't
>know what he's talking about, ever, and because they think Jeremy Bee
>is a jerk who can't worm and lie his way out of the hole he's dug for
>himself, then there must be a lot of rednecks around because I see
>little support of these two here.
>
responded myself. No one who knows me thinks I'm a redneck so I'm not
sensitive to that. It is typical that a know-nothing nerd like Humphries would
try and act hip by calling someone a redneck. Little does he know that here in
the U.S. that phrase has been shortened to "necks" and the red has been
eliminated. He's shown us who the neck is by not knowing how to call someone
that. He probably watches re-runs of the Jeff Foxworthy show to pick up his
cool names. I find it funny that two panty waists like Bee and bedwetter
Humphries are both on here whining at the same time. I don't think it's a
coincidence the Bee from San Fran and Humphries from the UK live in the two
limp wristed hot spots of this entire planet. Let's not glorify them anymore
as we're lost track of a relevant discussion because of that.
Larry Jackman
In article <5ebm3m$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>Gene was one of the primary forces in driving her from this newgroup. She
>was convinced that the Lazar story was false. Gene hounded her
>mercilessly. For good reason. She had him "on the ropes."
>
Actually she had vowed to stalk Huff for the rest of his life and claimed that
he was a government thug hired to protect Lazar. Huff posted her emails to
him for all of us to see. Don't you remember? That may be what you call having
him on the ropes, but I think I'd call it losing her shit.
Gene Huff
In <5ebm3j$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com
(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
>
>Ken (or is it Kendra?) -
-That's a good one scoffmonster. Before I proceed with answering the
rest of these I think it's important for the reader to know that your
nickname is Eeyore because you generally act like a jack ass on usenet.
You're not disappointing anyone during your exchange with Kendra
either. However, I'm sure you know that I prefer scoffmonster. I want
you to know that few things here on the this group have ever been
funnier than Kendra bringing up a plasma cutter and Bee and you not
knowing that they existed!:) I've never seen you work harder to try and
draw some unknowing person that doesn't know that you're stoned, drunk,
and a jack ass into a conversation so you can try and trip them up to
get back to even. I suggest to Kendra that she stops now and just lets
you stew while everyone knows you were eclipsed by a woman, a true
dagger in the heart of a sexist like you! I love it!-
>And of course he took the job because the working conditions and pay
>were so good.
>
>Recruiter: "Bob, how'd you like to work on a project that just
>vaporized three of the country's best physicists?"
>Bob: "Where do I sign?"
>
>and so on.
-Bob did not know that story until after he was in the program so your
whole scenario, much like you, is useless.-
>Since they were using robotics, wouldn't it make sense to monitor the
>cutting from a remote location, like another state? Also, since the
>blast was quite large (allegedly buckling blast doors that contain
>nuclear explosions), wouldn't someone have noticed it with seismic
sensors?
>
-Your questions are good ones but the curious thing is that I know that
you already know the answers to them. They did not anticipate as large
of an explosion as they experienced when it actually happened. As the
story goes they did have a remote monitoring station some distance
away. For whatever reason, a couple of guys had to be in a monitoring
chamber that was segregated from the blast chamber by a blast door. I
don't think Bob ever heard or read anything about the integrity of the
door. No one said that the door contained nuclear explosions. This was
allegedly done in a tunnel cored into the side of a mountain. The blast
chamber was the end of the tunnel and the monitoring chamber was right
next to it. You can't compare that door's integrity to those used at
ground zero during nuke tests. The access to that is always backed up
with tons of lead and the door itself does not confine the blast or if
it does, they don't trust it to. Coincidentally, that was one of Joe
Vaninetti's jobs when he worked at the NTS for LANL during the summer
when he was finishing up his Master's degree in Utah. He was one of the
guys who packed lead around ground zero. He's the guy who worked with
Lazar at LANL in case your too blitzed to follow along. Of course the
seismic activity would have been recorded. They said it was charted as
an unannounced nuke test. So remember, they didn't anticipate that big
of a blast, they thought they were being overly cautious as it was, the
blast was big and blew the blast door into the monitoring chamber and
killed the guys, The additional door from the monitoring chamber to the
tunnel held, and after Lazar was hired, this was what he was told as to
why there were any vacancies. Got it? OK, now proceed to lose it, get
even more incoherent than you've normally been lately, and completely
lose everyone who's trying to follow your nonsense.
Kendra, I suggest you bring this to an end as everything I told you
would happen has now transpired right in front of your eyes. Does the
scoffmonster seem sincere? Does he seem to understand and follow along
pretty well or does he misunderstand and distort everything you say
when he writes back? There is no end to how far these guys will go to
try and get you back for the oneupsmanship you've shown them. They
don't deserve you. I must add though that Dave has been acting
borderline like a human. Wait until everyone sees your response to
Dave. They'll tear it apart for months! Don't give them the
satisfaction and more importantly don't ask me for anymore help if this
is where your answers are going.-
Michael Hofmeister
On Tue, 18 Feb 97 18:29:49 GMT, in <5ed70q$9...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
->In article <5ebm3j$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
-> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
->>Ken (or is it Kendra?) - Actually, I'm blaming you for not thinking
->>critically. And for being Gene Huff's shill in this matter. You have have
->>told us what were not the sources for the plasma. What was?
->Mike, in the balance of your post you've regained somewhat of an attitude but
->I'll answer anyway.
Me? Attitude?
->By definition an electrical discharge is a plasma in
->itself. I'm confused as to why you claim such a technical background when you
->seem so stupified by something as simple as this.
I'm confused why you are ignorant of fundamental Physics and can't even
bother to read the web sites you post as references. Admit it Kendra, you
are clueless as to what a plasma really is and are just putting up an
offense to hide your own true ignorance.
->>No. Try to follow me here. You said that a "plasma cutter" was used and
->>presented a web site as evidence.
->I did not present a web site as evidence that a plasma cutter was used in
->Lazar's story. You are now in the process of causing the type of confusion
->that prevails here. I presented a web site as a point of reference for those
->of you who didn't know that plasma cutters even existed.
That must be why you didn't read the reference information there. All you
care about is that they exist, never mind how they really work.
-> When we pointed out that tanks were
->>required for any application, you respond with "NOT one of THOSE plasma
->>cutters. Another kind that doesn't use tanks." and present no additional
->>information. Bait and switch.
->My previous reponses have already answered this as we're not dealing with me
->baiting and switching, we're dealing with your reading comprehension and
->basic understanding of what I said.
Actually, what we are dealing with here is your failure to answer direct
questions. This type of evasive "I already answered that" blather is a
cornerstone of UFOology.
->>Whether or not someone would us a plasma cutter to disect an alien
->>spaceship is a moot point since none exist (at least on Earth).
->>
->Actually I haven't seen anyone claim that they disected a space ship with one,
->just a reactor.
The reactor was part of the spaceship (allegedly). Try to follow along,
please.
->As to whether or not they exist, I think they do, but I'm
->still digging. You see that's the difference between you and I. I'm making the
->effort. If you did you wouldn't need to waste your time making such a poor
->effort at being a wise guy and people would listen to what you have to say. I
->doubt that anyone loses any sleep over your assertions as they are not backed
->up by anything of substance.
Kendra - Only in your shallow reality is Science "not anything of
substance."
--
Michael Hofmeister
Michael Hofmeister
On Tue, 18 Feb 97 18:04:23 GMT, in <5ed5h5$9...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman) wrote:
->In article <5ebm3m$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
-> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
->>Gene was one of the primary forces in driving her from this newgroup. She
->>was convinced that the Lazar story was false. Gene hounded her
->>mercilessly. For good reason. She had him "on the ropes."
->>
->Actually she had vowed to stalk Huff for the rest of his life and claimed that
->he was a government thug hired to protect Lazar. Huff posted her emails to
->him for all of us to see.
Typical Gene. No Netiquette.
--
Michael Hofmeister
Michael Hofmeister
On 19 Feb 1997 00:58:43 GMT, in <5edj83$c...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->In <5ebm3j$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com
->(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
->>
->>Ken (or is it Kendra?) -
->-That's a good one scoffmonster.
Back already, Gene?
->Before I proceed with answering the
->rest of these I think it's important for the reader to know that your
->nickname is Eeyore because you generally act like a jack ass on usenet.
Gene - That's really humorous. We can all see that your debating tactics
peaked on the elementary school playground. Is there some reason you dwell
on Winnie the Pooh or that just the last book you finished?
->You're not disappointing anyone during your exchange with Kendra
->either. However, I'm sure you know that I prefer scoffmonster. I want
->you to know that few things here on the this group have ever been
->funnier than Kendra bringing up a plasma cutter and Bee and you not
->knowing that they existed!:)
How very interesting, Gene. Are you always this easily amused?
->I've never seen you work harder to try and
->draw some unknowing person that doesn't know that you're stoned, drunk,
->and a jack ass into a conversation so you can try and trip them up to
->get back to even.
Gene - I suggest you argue the evidence in question rather than resorting
to personal attacks as is your style. This seems to be your fallback mode
whenever your meal ticket starts to wobble. Pathetic.
->I suggest to Kendra that she stops now and just lets
->you stew while everyone knows you were eclipsed by a woman, a true
->dagger in the heart of a sexist like you! I love it!-
Gene - Only a sexist like you would think that it matters what gender the
person is I am discussing the issue with. You are the one who dwells on
the issue.
->>And of course he took the job because the working conditions and pay
->>were so good.
->>
->>Recruiter: "Bob, how'd you like to work on a project that just
->>vaporized three of the country's best physicists?"
->>Bob: "Where do I sign?"
->>
->>and so on.
->-Bob did not know that story until after he was in the program so your
->whole scenario, much like you, is useless.-
Gene - So why didn't Bob say "I'm outta here!"?
->>Since they were using robotics, wouldn't it make sense to monitor the
->>cutting from a remote location, like another state? Also, since the
->>blast was quite large (allegedly buckling blast doors that contain
->>nuclear explosions), wouldn't someone have noticed it with seismic
->sensors?
->>
->-Your questions are good ones but the curious thing is that I know that
->you already know the answers to them.
Now Gene's a mind reader.
->They did not anticipate as large
->of an explosion as they experienced when it actually happened.
An obvious statement since it killed them.
->As the
->story goes they did have a remote monitoring station some distance
->away. For whatever reason, a couple of guys had to be in a monitoring
->chamber that was segregated from the blast chamber by a blast door.
Again, that word "whatever" creeps into the story.
->I
->don't think Bob ever heard or read anything about the integrity of the
->door. No one said that the door contained nuclear explosions.
This would be a good assumption since a blast door at a nuclear site can't
be used for a lot of other reasons...
->This was
->allegedly done in a tunnel cored into the side of a mountain.
From _Alien Contact_ by Tim Good:
Lazar: "They brought this [reactor] down to the nuclear test site and did
it in a vertical tunnel, with the blast doors, because they thought there
might be an explosion."
->The blast
->chamber was the end of the tunnel and the monitoring chamber was right
->next to it.
Odd. Gene imples the tunnel is horizontal.
->You can't compare that door's integrity to those used at
->ground zero during nuke tests. The access to that is always backed up
->with tons of lead and the door itself does not confine the blast or if
->it does, they don't trust it to.
BS, Gene. You have no idea what you are talking about. People rely on the
doors.
->Coincidentally, that was one of Joe
->Vaninetti's jobs when he worked at the NTS for LANL during the summer
->when he was finishing up his Master's degree in Utah. He was one of the
->guys who packed lead around ground zero.
Sounds like a real high tech job.
->He's the guy who worked with
->Lazar at LANL in case your too blitzed to follow along. Of course the
->seismic activity would have been recorded. They said it was charted as
->an unannounced nuke test.
That's great, Gene. Finally we are getting to some details that can be
verified. OK. Tell us that exact date of the explosion. This will help
confirm a key element of the Lazar story.
->So remember, they didn't anticipate that big
->of a blast, they thought they were being overly cautious as it was, the
->blast was big and blew the blast door into the monitoring chamber and
->killed the guys,
You can't be too careful with anti-matter. 8^).
--
Michael Hofmeister
jp
Gene Huff wrote:
>
>
> The bottom line is that as long as people like Bee and Humphries are
> around, none of you can enjoy the exchanges on usenet as you naively
> thought would be possible when you arrived here. They can lie and post
> under false names, argue with themselves and support themselves, and
> try every trick in the book to confuse the issue. Why? That's a
> question I can't answer and something I'll never understand. Those of
> you who've followed this thread from when it started have seen a taste
> of true usenet. I appreciate all of the email from all of you and I
> understand why you want me to post here, but it's not very productive.
> When I have time I'll keep answering all of your questions via email.
> The redundancy kills me, but if we can't have sane discussions in
> public, with rational, honest people joining in, it will have to remain
> private. The Lazar story stands and remains. It happened. The only
> things that fade out are the likes of Bee and Humphries.
J.P. replies:
I have suggested a few months ago, when the S-4 Web Site, was opened
that an intelligent discussion forum could be integrated into this
Web Site to enable those seriously interested to discuss the Lazar story
with your input and hopefully his. Various security devices could be
used
along with a number of really enforced disciplinary rules to enable a
civilized and useful discussion to take place.
My suggestion has apparently yet to find a positive echo from the S-4
owners and managers.
Any hope in the short term?
Sincerely,
J.P.
Nick Humphries
On Mon, 17 Feb 97 17:14:00 GMT, sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson)
wrote:
>Forgive me, but you and Nick seem to be a bit paranoid, don't
>you think?
One wonders who's out to get me, and I can't come up with an answer.
Dave seems to have said what I was about to write, so I'll just point
out one thing. No one can get at you sitting behind a computer posting
to Usenet. Perhaps you view curiosity as paranoia, I dunno...
Tricia M
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
>>This is assuming that Mr. Lazar worked as a sceintist and not at some lesser
>>position. There is no evidence, at least that I've seen in this newsgroup,
>>that he was a scientist, He could have been anything, even the janitor.
>Enter Joe Vaninetti, the gentleman that Tom Mahood confused with Jim Tagliani.
>Vaninetti worked under Lazar at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Vaninetti was
>a tech back then so Lazar was not a janitor and also Vaninetti's superior.
>Vaninetti says Lazar is/was a scientist. Vaninetti also worked out at the
>Nevada test site, while still employed by Los Alamos. Vaninetti finished his
>Masters degree in soils sciences from the University of Utah and now works up
>in the pacific northwest. This is more fun when you have some of the answers,
>isn't it? At last, someone gives a damn about something I've dug up!
Here is a letter from UFO researcher Stanton Friedman concerning
Robert Lazar's background:
Re Bob Lazar:
May I repeat, Bob has no degrees from anywhere (Not even
a BS no less a PhD) but did take some classes at Pierce
Jr. College in the San Fernando Valley at the same time
he was supposedly working on his MS in Physics at MIT on
the East Coast. Some commute.
If one can get in to MIT( Bob could not have with his
high school record) one doesn't go to Pierce..MIT and
Cal Tech have never heard of him. He worked for a
subcontractor at Los Alamos NOT FOR THE LAB.
He finished in the bottom third of his high school
class and took only one science class and even graduated
in August and is not in the yearbook.
The professor he named from Cal Tech never taught there..
only at Pierce. He is clearly a liar of the first order
and his supporters sometimes even outdo him. etc ad nauseum
Stan Friedman
Ken Johnson
In article <5eeav3$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>I'm confused why you are ignorant of fundamental Physics and can't even
>bother to read the web sites you post as references. Admit it Kendra, you
>are clueless as to what a plasma really is and are just putting up an
>offense to hide your own true ignorance.
>
>That must be why you didn't read the reference information there. All you
>care about is that they exist, never mind how they really work.
>
Mike, since I'm the one who told you that plasma cutters existed, it's
confusing as to why you now insist that I don't know what I'm talking about. I
think the best way to handle this is I'll give you a plasma cutter model and
number and you can track it down and see if I'm right. This is my total
complaint about any ufological discussions. Those who do not do any research
for whatever reason, must make their judgements based on information gathered
from those who do. You, Mike, as an example will never be able to judge
whether or not ET craft are visiting earth unless someone else does the
legwork and reports it to your satisfaction. The least you could do is show
some common courtesy to those who make the effort. I won't post on this again
so you can say whatever you want. Anyone who's followed this will know that
I've gone the extra mile with you and it will be obvious that what we're
dealing with here is your ego, not my lack of understanding. I suggest you
research the plasma cutter known as the Dynapak 110 by the Thermal Dynamics
company. You'll find that it runs on power and compressed air and does not
require the tanks of nitrogen or oxygen that you insist are necessary. Sorry
that my teaching you something was so unbearable for you. I won't do that to
you again.
Ken Johnson
In article <5er3ns$9...@marlin.ucsf.edu>, mo...@ix.netcom.com (Tricia M) wrote:
>sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
>
>>Enter Joe Vaninetti, the gentleman that Tom Mahood confused with Jim
>>Tagliani. Vaninetti worked under Lazar at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
>>Vaninetti was a tech back then so Lazar was not a janitor and also
>>Vaninetti's superior. Vaninetti says Lazar is/was a scientist. Vaninetti
>>also worked out at the Nevada test site, while still employed by Los Alamos.
>>Vaninetti finished his Masters degree in soils sciences from the University
>>of Utah and now works up in the pacific northwest. This is more fun when you
>>have some of the answers, isn't it? At last, someone gives a damn about
>>something I've dug up!
Here is a letter from UFO researcher Stanton Friedman >>concerning
>Robert Lazar's background:
>
>Re Bob Lazar:
>
>May I repeat, Bob has no degrees from anywhere (Not even
>a BS no less a PhD) but did take some classes at Pierce
>Jr. College in the San Fernando Valley at the same time
>he was supposedly working on his MS in Physics at MIT on
>the East Coast. Some commute.
Everyone here is familiar with Stanton Friedman's opinion of Bob Lazar. What
is in question is Friedman's integrity as a researcher. I like Friedman but he
used to issue a letter stating that Lazar didn't work at Los Alamos. When he
was proven wrong, he changed his story to saying that Bob Lazar didn't work
FOR Los Alamos. George Knapp's investigation preceded Friedman's and he was
the first to state that Lazar's educational claims could not be corroborated.
The fact is that Kirk-Meyer, a sub-contractor that did/does work at LANL and
whoever hired Lazar to work in central Nevada (Lazar says it was the Navy and
has tried to substantiate that) both found Lazar to have enough credentials
for them to hire him. What we're trying to establish is exactly what those
credentials are. Stanton Friedman made a couple of phone calls and that was
the extent of his research. He's in no position to further enlighten anyone
about any facets of the Lazar story.
>
>If one can get in to MIT( Bob could not have with his
>high school record) one doesn't go to Pierce..MIT and
>Cal Tech have never heard of him. He worked for a
>subcontractor at Los Alamos NOT FOR THE LAB.
Yes, and no one ever said that Lazar worked FOR the lab. That is Friedman back
pedaling rather than admitting that he was wrong. This is why I'm suspicious
of all of these men and their egos.
>
>He finished in the bottom third of his high school
>class and took only one science class and even graduated
>in August and is not in the yearbook.
I've personally called Tresper Clark High School in New York and they said
that Stanton Friedman is lying. The claim that they have a policy of not
releasing anyone's position in their graduating class except as to whether or
not the person was number one. I even cited Friedman by name and his claims
regarding Lazar. They said they wouldn't release anything without Lazar's
written permission. I find it difficult to believe that Friedman would lie
about something this insignificant, so maybe he should cite exactly who gave
him that information. It is obvious that if Friedman is telling the truth, he
spoke to a different person than I did.
>
>The professor he named from Cal Tech never taught there..
>only at Pierce. He is clearly a liar of the first order
>and his supporters sometimes even outdo him. etc ad nauseum
I'm not sure exactly what order of liar that Stanton Friedman is, only that he
is one. Gene Huff has shown me the letters sent to him from Friedman, on
Friedman's own letter head, on which Friedman states that Lazar never worked
AT Los Alamos (not for Los Alamos). He also showed me the letter in which
Friedman changed his tune and added the AT/FOR Los Alamos twist. This is not
an arguable point. Friedman was wrong and has tried to lie his way out of it.
Honestly this was the first doubt I ever had about Friedman as he's an
intelligent gentleman who will discuss anything with just about anyone. So
people feel that they have proven that Lazar has lied about his credentials
and I've seen evidence that Friedman has lied about Lazar's credentials also.
This is specifically the problem with ufology and why I've taken it upon
myself to do my own research when I can. No one can trust anyone, not even
someone as renowned as Friedman, and they leave us all at a loss as to what to
believe. It's all about ego and most of it is psychological/sociological
and not technological when it comes to examining ufology. None of Friedman's
alleged research answers any of the real questions remaining about the Lazar
story. Even if Lazar has overstated his credentials, it says nothing about
whether or not Lazar worked at S4. What I think most are after is did Lazar
work on ET craft at S4? and Friedman and many others have nothing to offer to
help any of us to a conclusion on that subject. This is simply the way it is
when people are involved, especially men.
Larry Jackman
In article <5esvoh$n...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
sm...@ix.netcom.com (Ken Johnson) wrote:
>>May I repeat, Bob has no degrees from anywhere (Not even
>>a BS no less a PhD) but did take some classes at Pierce
>>Jr. College in the San Fernando Valley
>I'm not sure exactly what order of liar that Stanton Friedman is, only that
>he is one.
I've never thought of Friedman as a liar either, but even in the lines above
he insinuates that Lazar said he has a PhD. I've been around for a while and
I've never seen Lazar claim that. I think Friedman just tries to be too much
of a know it all. He's a blowhard moreso than a liar. You can tell
that Friedman doesn't know the first thing about the Lazar story by
his commentary. Somebody told me they saw Lazar on the Entertainment Tonight
show on Tuesday. Did anybody see it or know what vintage the tape on Lazar
was? It would be interesting if he's starting to do interviews again. Maybe
this means the movie release is getting closer. You did a great job of chasing
away all of the Lazar naysayers even though I don't think that was your
intent. I'm surprised that Dave B in Houston didn't get back to you as you
posed some great points to him. Huff always flames these guys so you're the
first one to shut them up by posing questions to them that they can't answer.
I thought they'd stick around for the discussion rather than just disappear.
Maybe Mahood is looking for that document from Groom saying Lazar was a tech
there! They are right about some things regarding Lazar's educational
background and you're right about much of the legend surrounding him including
other people and not being explained away by the excuses Mahood offered. I
think Mahood has transitioned into having his own agenda and no longer cares
about the truth. As you've found out with Hoffmeister it eventually becomes
all ego. It happens to the best of them. Not me though, I pledge to continue
to irritate both sides!
Dave B
Larry Jackman wrote:
>
> Somebody told me they saw Lazar on the Entertainment Tonight
> show on Tuesday. Did anybody see it or know what vintage the tape on Lazar
> was? It would be interesting if he's starting to do interviews again.
It was a PR piece for Gillian Andersons series on X-files type stuff to
be run on The Learning Channel starting this Sunday. It had a very good
shot of the big hanger from Tickaboo Peak, interviews with Pat and Joe
Travis, the folks from the Quik Pic, and a few others I didn't
recognize. Might be interesting to watch this Sunday.
> I'm surprised that Dave B in Houston didn't get back to you as you
> posed some great points to him.
I don't remember the points, except he/she did ask what was my web page.
It's http://www.netcom.com/~bethland. Or if you want to 'cut to the
chase', http://pw2.netcom.com/~bethland/tickaboo.html. If 'Ken' really
was a netcom subscriber he'd know that.
> Huff always flames these guys so you're the first one to shut them up by
> posing questions to them that they can't answer.
But Huff does use his real name, and besides, even though we disagree,
he hasn't flamed me lately. I attribute that to respect for his
elders. :-)
You have made me feel guilty though when I sign just my first name and
initial so I'll sign my complete name.
Dave Bethke on the fringe of Houston