William Cooper on Paranormal Borderline
Nick Humphries
MMS5@ wrote:
>Did anyone see it? If so, could you let me know what the programme contained?
>Was it anything meaty and worthwhile, or was it another poor sod trying to sell
>a story for a little bit of pension?
Bill Cooper is the ultimate UFO fraud [1] dating back ten years or so,
back in the days when Paranet was only a mailing list. Interesting to
hear that he's picked up the UFO bug again - a couple of years ago he
denied all knowledge of his UFO claims and jumped onto the militia
bandwagon. I suppose there's less money in that, so he's back on the
more profitable UFO paranoia wagon.
[1] Maybe not - Lazar comes a close second, Lear not far behind...
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
Marilyn Berry
Actually it was former Astronaut Gordon Cooper who appeared on Paranormal
Borderline to discuss his encounters with UFO's. He's had a couple
interesting ones, once as a plane pilot and once when on the moon. Was a
decent interview.
Marilyn Berry
= Explore Your Universe =
Gene Huff
>On Thu, 9 May 1996, Prick Humphries wrote:
>
> Bill Cooper is the ultimate UFO fraud [1] dating back ten years or
>
> If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
-Lear yes, Lazar, no. When Humphries posts is should always be noted
that he has not lifted a finger to do any investigation whatsoever and
all he knows is what he's fabricated or surmised. Generally speaking he
never, ever, knows what he's talking about. The real fraud here, other
than Cooper, is Humphries when he tries to pretend he knows enough to
comment on Lazar at all. A year or so ago Humphries was begging me for
info so he could be a big boy and start his own web page and I told him
to get lost. The sour grapes continue...-
Prop
C'mon, Hular. If Bob isn't a fraud, explain the holes in the story and
the items that don't check out instead of attacking the author of a news
post. A good discussion based on IRREFUTABLE facts has been missing in
this entire story.
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>>On Thu, 9 May 1996, Prick Humphries wrote:
>>
>> Bill Cooper is the ultimate UFO fraud [1] dating back ten years or
>> [1] Maybe not - Lazar comes a close second, Lear not far behind...
>-Lear yes, Lazar, no. When Humphries posts is should always be noted
>that he has not lifted a finger to do any investigation whatsoever
Being in England is a SLIGHT disadvantage... I was merely in email
contact with those doing the investigation whilst they were doing it.
>and
>all he knows is what he's fabricated or surmised.
Well, you'd know all about fabricated knowledge. I accept that Lazar
worked at Groom Lake, nothing more.
>Generally speaking he
>never, ever, knows what he's talking about. The real fraud here, other
>than Cooper, is Humphries when he tries to pretend he knows enough to
>comment on Lazar at all.
I know most of what information is known about Lazar on this side of
the pond that's been made public. Also know a few odds and ends that
weren't. I've taken all evidence and views into account and believe
Lazar worked at Groom Lake, but it's a MASSIVE leap from there to
saying Lazar worked on UFO's, especially as there's no evidence for
that.
> A year or so ago Humphries was begging me for
>info so he could be a big boy and start his own web page and I told him
>to get lost. The sour grapes continue...-
Wrong. I was working on an update for my UFO Guide (shelved due to
work commitments) and wanted your reaction to Tom Mahood et al's
investigation into Lazar's background. You avoided all my direct
questions, flamed all the investigators involved and I gave up on it
since I KNEW you would never give me any answers.
And before you go about saying that the UFO Guide is crap, bear in
mind that YOU contacted ME to compliment me. So if I know nothing, how
come you were impressed with the Guide?
Admittedly the UFO Guide isn't as objective as it should have been - I
was a TEENSY bit too open-minded then. The shelved update now has more
skeptical reviews of the Lazar case as well as a couple of others.
Maybe I'll take a few days off to finish it this year...
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
Gene Huff
In <3194C0...@earthlink.net> Prop <pr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>C'mon, Hular. If Bob isn't a fraud, explain the holes in the story
>and the items that don't check out instead of attacking the author of
a news post. A good discussion based on IRREFUTABLE facts has been
missing in this entire story.
-I have no idea what your knowledge of the actual story is. Many
pretend that the most secret program in the history of our country
allows the participants to leave with irrefutable evidence and that is
quite naive. Many irrefutable facts have been presented. Apparently
they're not to your satisfaction and that's fine. The bottom line of
this post is that Humphries never knows what he's talking about and he
accuses many of much. That is obvioius from his statements, however,
Cooper is a fraud and quite a character to say the least. This isn't a
random attack of someone posting a news post. Humphries is a liar and
an idiot. You may not know that if you've seen little from him. Stay
tuned and judge for yourself.-
Gene Huff
In <83192402...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>Being in England is a SLIGHT disadvantage...
-That location does not force you to speak when you know nothing about
what you're talking. Although...as I reflect back through history,
maybe I'm wrong about that!:)-
>about I was merely in email contact with those doing the investigation
>whilst they were doing it.
-What investigation was that? If you mean Mahood and Campbell, they
disagree with your assessment and they were the ones doing it. What
other investigations are you talking about?-
>
>I accept that Lazar worked at Groom Lake, nothing more.
-Lazar didn't work at Groom Lake and thanks for offering yet another
classic example of your idiocy.-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83192402...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>about I was merely in email contact with those doing the investigation
>>whilst they were doing it.
>-What investigation was that? If you mean Mahood and Campbell, they
>disagree with your assessment and they were the ones doing it. What
>other investigations are you talking about?-
Tom Mahood wasn't the only one investigating the Laar story. I was in
contact with a couple of people involved in Stanton Frreidman's
investigation. The two investigations overlapped quite a bit.
>>I accept that Lazar worked at Groom Lake, nothing more.
>-Lazar didn't work at Groom Lake and thanks for offering yet another
>classic example of your idiocy.-
Groom Lake, S-4, Nellis AFB, Dreamland, it's all in the same vicinity.
Stop nitpicking and get back to my accusations which have mysteriously
been ignored by you.
Gene Huff
In <83201571...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>I was in contact with a couple of people involved in Stanton
-Thanks for proving my point, again. Stanton Friedman did not do an
investigation other than making a phone call to Los Alamos where they
told him Lazar had never worked at that facility. He made that claim
and was publicly proven wrong. Some American Airlines pilot named Eric
Lightsey went to Lazar's high school and they told him to get lost. The
rest of what Friedman knew and knows was laid in his lap by George
Knapp and I. The bottom line is Mahood doesn't agree with your
assessment, according to his latest public releases, and Friedman never
did an investigation at all. Your case is closed. You stated that Lazar
was right behind Cooper as a fraud. That conclusion is not supported by
any sane, intelligent person who has even seen even as little as you've
seen. I think Mark Hines must have abused you worse than I thought as
it appears sour grapes weigh more in your decision than anything else.-
>
>Groom Lake, S-4, Nellis AFB, Dreamland, it's all in the same vicinity.
>Stop nitpicking and get back to my accusations which have mysteriously
>been ignored by you.
-No, lame brain, there's a big difference. I've shown that your
accusations are unfounded and that you don't know what you're talking
about. That's not being ingnored, that's being exposed. Even you should
be able to understand that.-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83201571...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>
>>I was in contact with a couple of people involved in Stanton
>Frreidman'investigation. The two investigations overlapped quite a bit.
>-Thanks for proving my point, again. Stanton Friedman did not do an
>investigation other than making a phone call to Los Alamos where they
<snip>
So the series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI never happened? STF had a
hand in them, along with a few other people, two of whom I was in
contact with during the investigation.
Gene Huff
In <83210413...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>So the series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI never happened? STF had a
>hand in them, along with a few other people, two of whom I was in
>contact with during the investigation.
-The only OMNI article I am aware of could not even be loosely
misconstrued as anti-Lazar. If I remember correctly it was written by
AJS Rayl. Care to cite the ones you refer to or post them? Or have I
caught you again, and as usual, not knowing what you're talking about?-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
Half caught me - I can't give specific issues as I couldn't get OMNI
here in the UK at the time - and back issues where the equivalent of
$8 PLUS shipping. As I remember, these investigations lead to a
series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI in 1994. Whether they all got
published before OMNI went under (I assume, as they have now
disappeared over her after being able to get a few copies last year) I
do not know. The investigation happened though - unless I imagined all
the email conversations I had.
BTW, before I was contacted by one of the investigators, I was a VERY
VERY pro-Lazar person. I spent many a time fighting for him in the
various newsgroups - indeed, my UFO Guide is also very pro-Lazar (and
very out of date it is too). I believed the people who said Lazar had
a water-tight story, nothing has been disproved, background is solid,
etc. In fact it took a while before I was convinced by the people
doing the OMNI investigation. The final straw came when they had
verifiable proof that Lazar LIED - that was the moment when I changed
my mind about Lazar. I'd been burned so I changed my attitude towards
the whole subject of UFOs, bacame a little more skeptical and a closer
eye on all stories that came in. I'm still pro-UFO, but I now look at
both sides of the story with equal weight before forming an opinion.
Doesn't that sound reasonable to everyone?
F. Meduna
Nick Humphries wrote:
>
> . . . As I remember, these investigations lead to a
> series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI in 1994. Whether they all got
> published before OMNI went under (I assume, as they have now
> disappeared over her after being able to get a few copies last year) I
> do not know.
For what it's worth, I just spotted OMNI Magazine online at
URL http://www.omnimag.com/
--
Frank C. Meduna - fme...@visi.com
JP
Nick Humphries wrote:
>
> gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>
> >In <83210413...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
> >(Nick Humphries) writes:
> >>
> >>So the series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI never happened? STF had a
> >>hand in them, along with a few other people, two of whom I was in
> >>contact with during the investigation.
>
> >-The only OMNI article I am aware of could not even be loosely
> >misconstrued as anti-Lazar. If I remember correctly it was written by
> >AJS Rayl. Care to cite the ones you refer to or post them? Or have I
> >caught you again, and as usual, not knowing what you're talking about?-
>
> Half caught me - I can't give specific issues as I couldn't get OMNI
> here in the UK at the time - and back issues where the equivalent of
> series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI in 1994. Whether they all got
> published before OMNI went under (I assume, as they have now
> disappeared over her after being able to get a few copies last year) I
> the email conversations I had.
>
> BTW, before I was contacted by one of the investigators, I was a VERY
> VERY pro-Lazar person. I spent many a time fighting for him in the
> various newsgroups - indeed, my UFO Guide is also very pro-Lazar (and
> very out of date it is too). I believed the people who said Lazar had
> a water-tight story, nothing has been disproved, background is solid,
> etc. In fact it took a while before I was convinced by the people
> doing the OMNI investigation. The final straw came when they had
> verifiable proof that Lazar LIED - that was the moment when I changed
> my mind about Lazar. I'd been burned so I changed my attitude towards
> the whole subject of UFOs, bacame a little more skeptical and a closer
> eye on all stories that came in. I'm still pro-UFO, but I now look at
> both sides of the story with equal weight before forming an opinion.
>
> Doesn't that sound reasonable to everyone?
>
> Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
> If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
J.P. replies:
Exactly what proof did Omni investigators have that Robert Lazar lied?
Sincerely,
J.P.
Gene Huff
In <83227295...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
> As I remember, these investigations lead to a
>series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI in 1994. Whether they all got
>published before OMNI went under (I assume, as they have now
>disappeared over her after being able to get a few copies last year) I
>do not know. The investigation happened though - unless I imagined all
>the email conversations I had.
-I am Lazar's friend and I was also an OMNI subscriber and personally
know some of the contributing journalists. I think I would recall that,
but I could be wrong. However, I think you are wrong but I'm open
minded if you care to direct me to those issues. I don't doubt that you
had email conversations, but the fact that these alleged writers wrote
these alleged articles and they were conveniently never published
should tell you something. It wasn't because of time constraints as
after the Lazar article OMNI proceeded to the point that they scraped
the absolute bottom of the barrel before they went under. That reason
might be convenient, but it's not true.-
>
>I believed the people who said Lazar had a water-tight story, nothing
has been disproved, background is solid,etc.
-I don't know of anyone who has any idea about what they're talking
about ever said that Lazar had a water tight story, especially to an
innocent bystander.-
>In fact it took a while before I was convinced by the people
>doing the OMNI investigation. The final straw came when they had
>verifiable proof that Lazar LIED - that was the moment when I changed
>my mind about Lazar.
-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
>I'm still pro-UFO, but I now look at
>both sides of the story with equal weight before forming an opinion.
-Most intelligent people do that without being prompted.-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83227295...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>
>> As I remember, these investigations lead to a
>>series of anti-Lazar articles in OMNI in 1994. Whether they all got
>>published before OMNI went under (I assume, as they have now
>>disappeared over her after being able to get a few copies last year) I
>>do not know. The investigation happened though - unless I imagined all
>>the email conversations I had.
>-I am Lazar's friend and I was also an OMNI subscriber and personally
>know some of the contributing journalists. I think I would recall that,
>but I could be wrong. However, I think you are wrong but I'm open
>minded if you care to direct me to those issues. I don't doubt that you
>had email conversations, but the fact that these alleged writers wrote
>these alleged articles and they were conveniently never published
>should tell you something. It wasn't because of time constraints as
>after the Lazar article OMNI proceeded to the point that they scraped
>the absolute bottom of the barrel before they went under. That reason
>might be convenient, but it's not true.-
Well, I don't know about that, I can't comment on what happened at
OMNI behind the scenes. FWIW I was also suspicious of the people who
contacted me, but when I got corroboration of their findings from
other people (UNPUBLISHED findings that is) I knew they weren't lying.
>>I believed the people who said Lazar had a water-tight story, nothing
>has been disproved, background is solid,etc.
>-I don't know of anyone who has any idea about what they're talking
>about ever said that Lazar had a water tight story, especially to an
>innocent bystander.-
It was VERY well promoted as truth and they stressed the fact that all
background checks had been done and his records were all missing, etc,
etc. Back in those days I was still very excited about the UFO
phenomenon and also very naive, so I beleived their claims.
>>In fact it took a while before I was convinced by the people
>>doing the OMNI investigation. The final straw came when they had
>>verifiable proof that Lazar LIED - that was the moment when I changed
>>my mind about Lazar.
>-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
His background, amongst other things. Most of the details have been
published and on the web. And we've debated/flamed each other over
those details many a time. You think you won the argument, I think I
won. Not interested in Round 3 until something new surfaces about
Lazar.
Nick Humphries
"F. Meduna" <fme...@visi.com> wrote:
>For what it's worth, I just spotted OMNI Magazine online at
>URL http://www.omnimag.com/
Thanks, I'll take a look.
Gene Huff
In <83250553...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>>-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
>
>His background, amongst other things. Most of the details have been
>published and on the web. And we've debated/flamed each other over
>those details many a time. You think you won the argument, I think I
>won. Not interested in Round 3 until something new surfaces about
>Lazar.
-Or until someone, anyone, thinks that you know what you're talking
about. The reason I, along with most others, think that I won the
argument is because I did and I accomplished that by pointing out that
you don't know what you're talking about. You've proven that with your
OMNI allegations, your UFO gravy train and everything else you
blather.-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83250553...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>
>>>-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
>>
>>His background, amongst other things. Most of the details have been
>>published and on the web. And we've debated/flamed each other over
>>those details many a time. You think you won the argument, I think I
>>won. Not interested in Round 3 until something new surfaces about
>>Lazar.
>-Or until someone, anyone, thinks that you know what you're talking
>about.
I seem to know more about Tim Good than you do, but then you just
invented his support to support your cau$e.
>The reason I, along with most others, think that I won the
>argument is because I did and I accomplished that by pointing out that
>you don't know what you're talking about. You've proven that with your
>OMNI allegations,
Which weren't proven false
> your UFO gravy train
Which I described and you decided to ignore my allegations.
> and everything else you
>blather.-
Like Tim Good not supporting you... Sheesh, you're so full of it
you're overflowing.
Gene Huff
In <83262573...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>>-Or until someone, anyone, thinks that you know what you're talking
>>about.
>
>I seem to know more about Tim Good than you do, but then you just
>invented his support to support your cau$e.
-You heard one Tim Good interview that was broadcast in Britain and
that means little. I'll call him with your exact paraphrase and see if
you've accurately relayed his sentiment. I invented Tim Good's support?
I guess I must have caused everyone to hallucinate when they read his
book with chapters in support of Lazar. Do you actually put on clown
make-up before you act like a clown?-
>
>(OMNI articles)Which weren't proven false
-The articles were never published and you said they were. That's as
false as it can get.-
>
>Which I described and you decided to ignore my allegations.
-You stated Lazar has lectured, and lectured for money at that. He has
never, ever, done that so you simply lied. That's not ignoring you,
that's proving you to be a liar/idiot.-
>
>Like Tim Good not supporting you... Sheesh, you're so full of it
>you're overflowing.
-I didn't say that an idiot and liar like yourself couldn't EVER be
right. If I'm wrong about Tim Good and Tim has shifted his support then
I'll gladly admit that. You act as though he was the only one who
supported Lazar's story and Lazar has support worldwide. However, the
one thing we know is that you said that Tim Good said Lazar was simply
told the story by someone else. Your own posting of his quote showed
that he said Lazar was taken there. You tried to slant things and
proved yourself wrong with your post. You must be on the insane
debating team to be able to come up with the bull you state and then
pat yourself on the back after you prove yourself wrong.-
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83262573...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>
>>>-Or until someone, anyone, thinks that you know what you're talking
>>>about.
>>
>>I seem to know more about Tim Good than you do, but then you just
>>invented his support to support your cau$e.
>-You heard one Tim Good interview that was broadcast in Britain and
>that means little.
So a respected ufologist's view doesn't count all of a sudden?
>I'll call him with your exact paraphrase and see if
>you've accurately relayed his sentiment.
Do that. Recite the quote. Play the tape even. A recorded conversation
accurately transcribed and copies of the original recording being
freely available is irrefutable evidence.
> I invented Tim Good's support?
>I guess I must have caused everyone to hallucinate when they read his
>book with chapters in support of Lazar. Do you actually put on clown
>make-up before you act like a clown?-
I'm talking about the support you claim to have NOW, not in 1991 when
Alien Liaison was first published.
>>(OMNI articles)Which weren't proven false
>-The articles were never published and you said they were. That's as
>false as it can get.-
The investigation still went ahead and corroborated others.
>>Which I described and you decided to ignore my allegations.
>-You stated Lazar has lectured, and lectured for money at that. He has
>never, ever, done that so you simply lied. That's not ignoring you,
>that's proving you to be a liar/idiot.-
Not just lectures, but TV interviews, merchandise (how much do you
charge for the Lazar Tape again? and the posters, the models, etc..)
Over seven years that must amount to a hell of a lot. And then there's
this movie coming out - how much did you sell the rights for?
>>Like Tim Good not supporting you... Sheesh, you're so full of it
>>you're overflowing.
>-I didn't say that an idiot and liar like yourself couldn't EVER be
>right. If I'm wrong about Tim Good and Tim has shifted his support then
>I'll gladly admit that. You act as though he was the only one who
>supported Lazar's story and Lazar has support worldwide.
No, you quoted a list of ufologists you claimed to support you. I
proved that one of them didn't and that casts doubt about your other
claims. You claimed to be in contact with Tim Good, now you've watered
that down to someone on his team. THAT's what I'm getting at.
> However, the
>one thing we know is that you said that Tim Good said Lazar was simply
>told the story by someone else. Your own posting of his quote showed
>that he said Lazar was taken there.
Reread the quote again. Notice the "or" between "he was either told
the story or the feeling is that he was taken there and shown some of
^^ (subtle hint for those suffering from hard of reading)
this stuf"?
> You tried to slant things and
>proved yourself wrong with your post. You must be on the insane
>debating team to be able to come up with the bull you state and then
>pat yourself on the back after you prove yourself wrong.-
Keep clinging to your story, without it you'd just be a bored real
estate agent...
Larry Jackman
In article <83262573...@the-den.demon.co.uk>,
ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk (Nick Humphries) wrote:
>
>I seem to know more about Tim Good than you do, but then you just
>invented his support to support your cau$e.
>OMNI allegations, Which weren't proven false
>
>Which I described and you decided to ignore my allegations.
>
>Like Tim Good not supporting you... Sheesh, you're so full of it
>you're overflowing.
Mr. Humphries,
I will admit that I am generally amused and sometimes astounded by the things
Gene Huff says to people, but I'm afraid he's right about this. Timothy Good
supported Lazar in his book so Gene could not have invented that. It is your
burden to cite the alleged OMNI articles you mentioned. I've checked and I
don't see them. You stated that Bob Lazar had lectured for money yet could not
offer proof and I have never heard of him doing such a thing. Most people
complain that Lazar doesn't lecture and now you're asserting that he does. You
misquoted Timothy Good's alleged commentary on the radio show as he was
stating what other people thought. If you're right, you have not shown it
here.
Jackman
Gene Huff
In <83270513...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>So a respected ufologist's view doesn't count all of a sudden?
-All of a sudden? In Tim Good's case he seems to flip-flop, but no one
said that ufologists views did or didn't count to whatever degree. In
fact, Maureen wrote a nice note to you stating that your "respected
ufologists" didn't carry anymore weight with their opinions than
informed, unknown seekers. (which excludes you by the way). Tim is a
professional musician and writer. Place the weight where you will.-
>
>Do that. Recite the quote. Play the tape even. A recorded conversation
>accurately transcribed and copies of the original recording being
>freely available is irrefutable evidence.
-If you're telling the truth, it's irrefutable evidence of his thoughts
at the time. Others would say that his book in support of Lazar is
irrefutable evidence. That's always a problem when someone flip-flops.
Won't you be the fool if Tim, indeed now supports Lazar? That's my
point. If he does it will not be your disgrace, even though you don't
extend me the same courtesy.-
>
>I'm talking about the support you claim to have NOW, not in 1991 when
>Alien Liaison was first published.
-I was clear that my impression of that came from the people at
Transmedia in London and Tim's book. Those dates bracket the date of
the interview you cite, so I guess we'll have to see.-
>
>The investigation still went ahead and corroborated others.
-So you say, but now you're a liar and not a very bright one at that,
right? There were no OMNI articles and you can cite all of the alleged
investigations you want. OMNI printed no such articles and you said
they did. That was a lie, the first of many.-
>
>Not just lectures, but TV interviews, merchandise (how much do you
>charge for the Lazar Tape again? and the posters, the models, etc..)
>Over seven years that must amount to a hell of a lot. And then there's
>this movie coming out - how much did you sell the rights for?
-What do you mean not just lectures? Lazar has NOT lectured, period,
for money or for free. The Lazar tape is $29.95 plus $3.50 S&H or about
three years salary for you. Have you ever seen me tout in on the net?
Of course not. If you're asking if Lazar has ever received financial
remuneration from any of our efforts, the answer is yes. However, it
amounts to more in your fantasies than in reality. The fact is that
Lazar received no money for years after the fact. His father is
wealthy. Your UFO gravy train has had a head on collision with reality
as it simply doesn't exist. Using your logic, Gandhi lived his life the
way he did because he knew they'd make a movie about him after he died
and the money would benefit his family. You're pitiful. Anything worth
doing is worth doing for money. Every book you ever read or were taught
from was bought and paid for by somebody. Don't knock it as that is
what makes the world turn. Remember that.-
>
>No, you quoted a list of ufologists you claimed to support you. I
>proved that one of them didn't and that casts doubt about your other
>claims.
-In the case of a flip-flop that is not true. Remember, if I call Tim
and he once again supports Lazar, you'll be in the same shoes.-
You claimed to be in contact with Tim Good, now you've watered
>that down to someone on his team. THAT's what I'm getting at.
-Anyone who can read, which apparently excludes you, knows exactly what
I said and you are now lying about it. I'm comfortable with the
readers' interpretation. Obviously, you're not.-
>
>Keep clinging to your story, without it you'd just be a bored real
>estate agent...
-Thanks for that grand finale you fucking idiot. I'm a real estate
appraiser and I estimate the value of real property for some of the
largest lending institutions in the United States. They trust me to
value 30 to 40 millions dollars a year for them, so I guess I must
possess a measure of responsibility. That effort allows pond scum like
yourself, as well as good people, to by homes. That's not a real estate
agent lame brain. Please tell us what relevant positions of
responsibility you hold with your dishonesty, lack of problem solving
capability, and non-existent reading comprehension. I can't wait to
hear this. I've found this to be a problem with others who live where
you do. They say that the shadow of the United States blocks the sun
and somehow affects the brain!:)-
>
Nick Humphries
jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman) wrote:
>Mr. Humphries,
> I will admit that I am generally amused and sometimes astounded by the things
> Gene Huff says to people, but I'm afraid he's right about this. Timothy Good
>supported Lazar in his book so Gene could not have invented that.
I didn't say Tim Good never supported Lazar, EVER, Alien Liaison (1991
book) contains three chapters on the Lazar story. I'm saying Tim Good
doesn't beleive the Lazar story NOW and hasn't since the first half of
1995 AT LEAST.
>It is your
>burden to cite the alleged OMNI articles you mentioned. I've checked and I
>don't see them.
I said I was in contact with a group of investigators working on an a
set of articles for OMNI. I assumed they'd been published by now. I
was wrong, I admit that, but the investigation happened.
>You stated that Bob Lazar had lectured for money yet could not
>offer proof and I have never heard of him doing such a thing. Most people
>complain that Lazar doesn't lecture and now you're asserting that he does.
For the umpteenth time he's done more than lecture - see my other
posts.
>You
>misquoted Timothy Good's alleged commentary on the radio show as he was
>stating what other people thought. If you're right, you have not shown it
>here.
Misquoted? And how would you know that? The tapes haven't been sent
out yet. And Tim Good started out with his own opinion before going on
to say what some other people thought.
If you want a copy of the tape to listen to yourself, then form an
opinion about it, just send me your address. The tape costs nothing,
expenses are all covered by me.
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>In <83270513...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>
>-If you're telling the truth, it's irrefutable evidence of his thoughts
>at the time. Others would say that his book in support of Lazar is
>irrefutable evidence. That's always a problem when someone flip-flops.
>Won't you be the fool if Tim, indeed now supports Lazar? That's my
>point. If he does it will not be your disgrace, even though you don't
>extend me the same courtesy.-
Calling someone a flip-flop implies they change their views many
times. Lets see...
before c1995 Tim thinks the Lazar story is the truth
c1995-onwards Tim thinks Lazar is a fraud
Kindly show me why Tim is a 'flipflop'?
>>
>>I'm talking about the support you claim to have NOW, not in 1991 when
>>Alien Liaison was first published.
>-I was clear that my impression of that came from the people at
>Transmedia in London and Tim's book. Those dates bracket the date of
>the interview you cite, so I guess we'll have to see.-
So call him.
>>Not just lectures, but TV interviews, merchandise (how much do you
>>charge for the Lazar Tape again? and the posters, the models, etc..)
>>Over seven years that must amount to a hell of a lot. And then there's
>>this movie coming out - how much did you sell the rights for?
> Anything worth
>doing is worth doing for money. Every book you ever read or were taught
>from was bought and paid for by somebody. Don't knock it as that is
>what makes the world turn. Remember that.-
So the answer is "yes", Lazar HAS made money and this shows that the
UFO gravy train exists. I'm not against making money, I'm just against
making money dishonestly.
>>
>>No, you quoted a list of ufologists you claimed to support you. I
>>proved that one of them didn't and that casts doubt about your other
>>claims.
>-In the case of a flip-flop that is not true. Remember, if I call Tim
>and he once again supports Lazar, you'll be in the same shoes.-
Call him. Why haven't you called him yet? Trying to figure out how to
use the telephone?
[flames snipped]
I was interested to read you saying that everyone where I live are not
bright at all. All you know about where I live is that I live
somewhere in the UK. Some people could class that allegation as
racism. I'm sure if I called everyone who lived in the US as obese
hick living on welfare I would also be called racist. As I'm an
American citizen, I wouldn't though - I'm actually proud of America
and what it's done for the world and wish Britain could match it
instead of being 20 years behind it.
As for my job, I'm a computer programmer for an online information
company and earning a few thousand pounds more than the average wage
for university graduates. My job prospects are very good so I could be
earning four times my salary by the age of 30.
Of course you won't respect computer programmers now. you'll probably
put them down just because I'm one.
Larry Jackman
In article <83279033...@the-den.demon.co.uk>,
ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk (Nick Humphries) wrote:
>
>I didn't say Tim Good never supported Lazar, EVER, Alien Liaison (1991
>book) contains three chapters on the Lazar story.
Actually, yes, you did. You said that Gene Huff invented it and you provided
no time frames. That's neither here nor there.
>Tim Good doesn't beleive the Lazar story NOW and hasn't since the first half
>of1995 AT LEAST.
Have you seen his most recent book?
>
>I said I was in contact with a group of investigators working on an a
>set of articles for OMNI. I assumed they'd been published by now. I
>was wrong, I admit that, but the investigation happened.
There were no OMNI articles and you have offered no evidence that these
alleged investigators were indeed working for OMNI. You said OMNI had
anti-Lazar articles in it. It did not.
>
>For the umpteenth time he's done more than lecture - see my other
>posts.
Maybe, but he has not lectured which was your contention.
>
Mr. Humphries you have now clarified your position on all of these points and
I appreciate that. However, before the exchange between you and Gene Huff
degenerated to the point it is now at, Gene Huff simply stated that you didn't
know what you were talking about. Apparently he was right.
Gene Huff
In <83279033...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>Calling someone a flip-flop implies they change their views many
>times. Lets see...
>
>before c1995 Tim thinks the Lazar story is the truth
>c1995-onwards Tim thinks Lazar is a fraud
>
>Kindly show me why Tim is a 'flipflop'?
-You say that calling someon a flip-flop implies they change their
views many times. You act as though that's a consensus. Someone who
changed even one view has flip-flopped. Someone who waffles could also
change their mind one time on a number of different views and they
still would have flip-flopped. Your definition makes no sense and
neither do you. You're also over-stating Tim's opinion when you said he
thinks Lazar is a fraud. He did not say that, you did.-
>
>So the answer is "yes", Lazar HAS made money and this shows that the
>UFO gravy train exists.
-You're hilarious!:) Listen, Forrest, the fact that Lazar received
remuneration for his efforts does not mean your hypothetical gravy
train exists, so give it up, no one is buying it. You're acting as
though someone asserted that Lazar had not received any monies and I've
seen no evidence that anyone ever thought that. What is important is
when and how he recieved money, not simply that he did. You're implying
that Lazar is some guy who made up a UFO story on the hunch that he
might get some money someday. And coincidentally this same man has a
rich father, is completely self-sufficient, owned real estate, a jet
car, and tons of electronic equipment suddenly does this for no reason?
Remember, his bankruptcy was already over and he was completely
financially stable by the time this happened. You simply don't know
what you're talking about. What a surprise!:)_
>Call him. Why haven't you called him yet? Trying to figure out how to
>use the telephone?
-Oh please Nicky boy, don't hurt me like that! That telephone remark
just made me fall off my chair laughing. You're so clever. I wish I
could be more like you. I'll try and figure it out and hurry up for
you.-
>
>I was interested to read you saying that everyone where I live are not
>bright at all.
-Would you care to cite the exact verbiage of me saying that? Why not,
could it be because you don't know what you're talking about?
Surprise!:)-
>As for my job, I'm a computer programmer for an online information
>company and earning a few thousand pounds more than the average wage
>for university graduates.
-That must be like a fucking Keystone cops movie having a lame brain
like you around computers!:)-
My job prospects are very good so I could be
>earning four times my salary by the age of 30.
-Now why don't I anticipate that?-
>
>Of course you won't respect computer programmers now. you'll probably
>put them down just because I'm one.
-So you think I'd judge all computer programmers or Brits because you
are coincidentally a liar/idiot? Call paranoid's anonymous, they're
looking for a few good men like you.-
Nick Humphries
jac...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jackman) wrote:
>In article <83279033...@the-den.demon.co.uk>,
> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk (Nick Humphries) wrote:
>>Tim Good doesn't beleive the Lazar story NOW and hasn't since the first half
>>of1995 AT LEAST.
>Have you seen his most recent book?
Recent book being Beyond Top Secret? No I haven't. His previous book,
Alien Update, was published in 1993, before the interview.
SPHINX Technologies
In article <4nnvf1$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Gene Huff <gu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <83250553...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>>-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
>>His background, amongst other things. Most of the details have been
>>published and on the web.
UFO investigator Bob Oechsler told me in a private conversation back in
Nov. 1994 that he had in his collection several videotapes of Lazar on
various television programs, giving several different versions of his
educational background. In one, he had a PhD, but in another, he only
claimed a Master's Degree in physics. I think the names of schools where
he got various degrees also changed.
Oechsler, who appears to be a very careful investigator and to reason
clearly with what he learns, pointed out that (a) this proves that Lazar
on some occasions and about some things, has lied in the past, but (b)
that it does not prove that Lazar lies about all things. Oechsler further
pointed out that his own investigations *DID* verify some other Lazar claims
such as that he was paid, at one point, with checks bearing the name of the
Dept. of the Navy in connection with his Area 51 work. Oechsler said he
was able to track down a record of such a payment.
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA
Gene Huff
In <Ds10M...@world.std.com> sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX
Technologies) writes:
>
>UFO investigator Bob Oechsler told me in a private conversation back
>in Nov. 1994 that he had in his collection several videotapes of Lazar
>on various television programs, giving several different versions of
>his educational background. In one, he had a PhD, but in another, he
>only claimed a Master's Degree in physics. I think the names of
>schools where he got various degrees also changed.
-That's an absolute lie. That story has never changed. Lazar has never
said he has a Ph.D., on camera or anywhere else and I defy you and
Oechsler to produce that video. You can't and neither can the Oechs
man.-
>
>Oechsler, who appears to be a very careful investigator and to reason
>clearly with what he learns,
-You're joking right? Oechsler bought the entire "Guardian" fraud a few
years back and even went on camera supporting it.-
>Oechsler further pointed out that his own investigations *DID* verify
>some other Lazar claims such as that he was paid, at one point, with
>checks bearing the name of the Dept. of the Navy in connection with
>his Area 51 work. Oechsler said he was able to track down a record of
>such a payment.
-And now the rest of the story. Before I knew that Oechsler used some
questionable decision making, I saw to it that Oechsler got a signed,
notarized authorization for Oechsler to check into Bob Lazar's records.
Oechsler had allegedly been in robotics at NASA and, like you, I deemed
him to be a reasonable guy. He said he had a brother in law who was an
administrator of some sort with social security and we thought it would
be nice to verify who deposited FICA funds on Lazar's behalf. Oechsler
said he found that there are, indeed, classified social security and
IRS records. He also said that he found that the E6722MAJ on Lazar's
W-2 stood for Department of Energy, Kirtland Air Force Base, and MAJ
was the point of origination, whatever that means. However, since then
Oechsler has been caught in some questionable decision making and has
dropped out of sight.
The point here is that the investigation you cite was caused by me and
done with Bob Lazar's permission. Lazar has never, ever, stated that he
had a Ph.D. and his educational claims have been consistent. Because of
Oechsler's more recent problems, I don't exactly know what to place on
his claims about his alleged investigation into Lazar's records,
either.-
pho...@sahara.llv.com
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
>In article <4nnvf1$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Gene Huff <gu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <83250553...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
>>(Nick Humphries) writes:
>>>>-The had verifiable proof that Lazar lied about what?-
>>>His background, amongst other things. Most of the details have been
>>>published and on the web.
>UFO investigator Bob Oechsler told me in a private conversation back in
>Nov. 1994 that he had in his collection several videotapes of Lazar on
>various television programs, giving several different versions of his
>educational background. In one, he had a PhD, but in another, he only
>claimed a Master's Degree in physics. I think the names of schools where
>he got various degrees also changed.
>Oechsler, who appears to be a very careful investigator and to reason
>clearly with what he learns, pointed out that (a) this proves that Lazar
>on some occasions and about some things, has lied in the past, but (b)
>that it does not prove that Lazar lies about all things. Oechsler further
>pointed out that his own investigations *DID* verify some other Lazar claims
>such as that he was paid, at one point, with checks bearing the name of the
>Dept. of the Navy in connection with his Area 51 work. Oechsler said he
>was able to track down a record of such a payment.
>-John Sangster
> Wellesley Hills, MA
Well i think that (although i could be wrong)
if someone were to lie about as much as he may have
it would seem odd that he would make succh little mistakes
like that, that seems very unlikey. Mabey your friend just dosnt like
him at all, have you your self seen the tapes?
As for the checks i belive that, i live here in vegas and
one strange this i have herd over the years is the the
dept of the navy is in controll of a-51 even though it is a
air force base. I think it is very likely.
Gene Huff
In <4oh08t$r...@sahara.llv.com> pho...@sahara.llv.com writes:
>
>As for the checks i belive that, i live here in vegas and
>one strange this i have herd over the years is the the
>dept of the navy is in controll of a-51 even though it is a
>air force base. I think it is very likely.
-For the record, Bob Lazar has never said that the Navy was in control
of Area 51. When Lazar worked at S-4 he was paid by the "Department of
the Navy". There has been little written or mentioned of the Department
of the Navy since world war II as nowadays you generally see the ONI,
Office of Naval Intelligence, or the NIC, Naval Intelligence Command on
written documents. Naval Intelligence is deeply into espionage, etc.
and has been for the past 50 years so it is not unreasonable that they
may have input in the ET disc back engineering program.-
Martin Cannon
>
> Oechsler, who appears to be a very careful investigator and to reason
> clearly with what he learns, pointed out that (a) this proves that Lazar
> on some occasions and about some things, has lied in the past, but (b)
> that it does not prove that Lazar lies about all things. Oechsler further
> pointed out that his own investigations *DID* verify some other Lazar claims
> such as that he was paid, at one point, with checks bearing the name of the
> Dept. of the Navy in connection with his Area 51 work. Oechsler said he
> was able to track down a record of such a payment.
>
> -John Sangster
> Wellesley Hills, MA
Anyone who is willing to lie about one matter may well lie about another matter.
One should not feel comfortable basing a difficult-to-accept story on the word of
such an individual.
I know nothing about checks being produced, although perhaps Lazar's defenders can
enlighten me on this point. I do know that Lazar once produced a W2 form allegedly
from "The Department of Naval Intelligence." There IS no Department of Naval
Intelligence. There is an Office of Naval Intelligence which belongs to the
Department of the Navy. Anyone can acquire a W2 form and fill it out however he
pleases.
Gene Huff
In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
writes:
>>I know nothing about checks being produced, although perhaps Lazar's
>defenders can enlighten me on this point.
-One does not have to be a Lazar "defender" to know what they're
talking about before they pass judgement.-
>I do know that Lazar once produced a W2 form allegedly from "The
>Department of Naval Intelligence." There IS no Department of Naval
>Intelligence. There is an Office of Naval Intelligence which belongs
>to the Department of the Navy.
-There was a Department of Naval Intelligence during WWII and it was
the naval version of the OSS. Nowadays the ONI and NIC handle most
things publicly. The thought is that the "department" may be a front
company to misdirect funds.-
>Anyone can acquire a W2 form and fill it out however he
>pleases.
-Maybe, but I was there the day his paycheck arrived from Washington
D.C. and the amount on the check matched the amount on his W-2 which he
received months later, also from Washington D.C. "Anyone" can not do
that.-
Phoebos Krieg
Gene Huff wrote:
>
> In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
> writes:
> >
> >>I know nothing about checks being produced, although perhaps Lazar's
> >defenders can enlighten me on this point.
>
> -One does not have to be a Lazar "defender" to know what they're
> talking about before they pass judgement.-
>
> >I do know that Lazar once produced a W2 form allegedly from "The
> >Department of Naval Intelligence." There IS no Department of Naval
> >Intelligence. There is an Office of Naval Intelligence which belongs
> >to the Department of the Navy.
>
> -There was a Department of Naval Intelligence during WWII and it was
> the naval version of the OSS. Nowadays the ONI and NIC handle most
> things publicly. The thought is that the "department" may be a front
> company to misdirect funds.-
>
> >Anyone can acquire a W2 form and fill it out however he
> >pleases.
>
> -Maybe, but I was there the day his paycheck arrived from Washington
> D.C. and the amount on the check matched the amount on his W-2 which he
> received months later, also from Washington D.C. "Anyone" can not do
> that.-
As was the topic to begin with, 'Anyone' could not do that.
Nick Humphries
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
> If there's one thing
>that makes some from the U.K. tantrum, it's saying that they live in
>the shadow of the U.S.-
If there's one thing that makes Huff throw a tantrum is when proving he's a liar
- latest one being that I said Lazar faked his story JUST for a movie. A quick
search of all my posts on the DejaNews and AltaVista Usenet archives shows this
not to be the point. Funny how the first mention of the possibility of Lazar
lying for a possible movie in the future wasn't by me, but by Huff who said I'd
said it. I never said Lazar lied soley for a movie. Repost the article in which
I'm meant to have said it if you have a problem with that.
Huff lies again...
Ted Viens
GAWHAWWDDD... This particular thread could go on for years. Look,
Nick, it is irrelevant what you, or anyone else for that matter,
believes that what you intended to say is what was really heard by
others. The only thing that really counts is the aggragate restatement
of what others are sure that they heard. Since many here are sure that
you implied that Lazar started his UFO story with the hopes of cashing
in some years in the future, then that is what you really said. Now,
if that isn't what you really meant to say, then you just,
unintentionally, failed miserably to say what you really meant to say.
Come on, that isn't our fault. Just apologize for the miscommunication
and get on with the conversation...
In <83383725...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
--
Bye... Ted..
Deep in the Heart of the Armpits of Houston, Texas...
Gene Huff
In <83383725...@the-den.demon.co.uk> ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk
(Nick Humphries) writes:
>
>If there's one thing that makes Huff throw a tantrum is when proving
he's a liar
-What a strange thing to say, even for the likes of you, considering
the fact that I have not lied, have not been proven a liar, and I'm not
tantruming.-
latest one being that I said Lazar faked his story JUST for a movie.
-You are lying and all the readers know it. Enough said.-
I never said Lazar lied soley for a movie.
-No, you included that in your list of "gravy train" accusations. The
gravy train does not exist, you've made your case and lost it.-
>Huff lies again...
-Sorry Nicky boy, the only way I could have lied would be if I
accidentally implied that you were intelligent or honest.-
Gilgamesh
Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com> wrote:
>> Oechsler, who appears to be a very careful investigator and to reason
>> clearly with what he learns, pointed out that (a) this proves that Lazar
>> on some occasions and about some things, has lied in the past, but (b)
>> that it does not prove that Lazar lies about all things. Oechsler further
>> pointed out that his own investigations *DID* verify some other Lazar claims
>> such as that he was paid, at one point, with checks bearing the name of the
>> Dept. of the Navy in connection with his Area 51 work. Oechsler said he
>> was able to track down a record of such a payment.
Oechsler (ex-lax) is the fool who faked the guardian footage, was
found out by MUFON of Ontario, quit the business for a bit, now is
back in. Guess he couldn't find a job.
--
OVNI CHAPTERHOUSE-Last updated May 25, 1996.
All video, all the time.
http://www.netzone.com/~gilgash/ufoovni.htm
Michael Hofmeister
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
->writes:
> >I do know that Lazar once produced a W2 form allegedly from "The
> >Department of Naval Intelligence." There IS no Department of Naval
> >Intelligence. There is an Office of Naval Intelligence which belongs
> >to the Department of the Navy.
>
> -There was a Department of Naval Intelligence during WWII and it was
> the naval version of the OSS. Nowadays the ONI and NIC handle most
> things publicly. The thought is that the "department" may be a front
> company to misdirect funds.-
Yeah. How clever of them. No one could figure that out. Something
like "Acme Nut and Bolt Works" would be way too obvious as a Navy
subterfuge.
> >Anyone can acquire a W2 form and fill it out however he
> >pleases.
>
> -Maybe, but I was there the day his paycheck arrived from Washington
> D.C. and the amount on the check matched the amount on his W-2 which he
> received months later, also from Washington D.C. "Anyone" can not do
> that.-
Hey that's great, Gene. Now if you'll just go to the bank where Lazar
cashed his check and ask for a photocopy of the check (which all banks
routinely microfilm them) we can clear up the alledged non-existence
of this Department real fast. I suggest that you tell them a man's
reputation is at stake here because the failure to produce the check
might make some (if not all) people question Lazar's truthfulness.
Good luck, Gene.
********************************************************
*************** Michael Hofmeister *****************
********************************************************
***************** GONZO SKEPTIC ********************
********************************************************
Gene Huff
In <4p37as$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com
(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
>
>Hey that's great, Gene. Now if you'll just go to the bank where Lazar
>cashed his check and ask for a photocopy of the check (which all banks
>routinely microfilm them) we can clear up the alledged non-existence
>of this Department real fast. I suggest that you tell them a man's
>reputation is at stake here because the failure to produce the check
>might make some (if not all) people question Lazar's truthfulness.
>
>Good luck, Gene.
>
tried that about 7 years ago. The check was cashed at Valley Bank which
was later bought out by Bank of America. Lazar cashed the check and did
not deposit it into his account. You're right, they do microfilm them,
but they microfilm them in no particular order. These branches, at that
time, processed anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 checks a day. So to look
it up, you have to remember the exact day the check was cashed and then
you can go look through the microfilm shots one at a time until you
find it. When Lazar cashed it, no one thought it would be his last one
and it simply wasn't a big deal. In hindsight, he can only narrow down
when he cashed it to a one month period. Therefore, the bank would have
to be willing and you'd have to have enough man power to look through
multi-thousands of checks per day for 30 + or - days. In actuality, you
can't provide the manpower yourself as that is confidential info and
you have to pay for a bank employee to do it, again if the bank is
willing. Needless to say, that discouraged us and we did not proceed.
However, if you've go the manpower and/or money and the bank is
willing, I can see that you get Lazar's permission to do it. There,
that was a pretty straight answer to an insincere, sarcastic quiestion,
from a jackass like you, don't you think, Eeyore?!:)-
Debbie Sutton
In article <4p37as$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
>
>->In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
>Hey that's great, Gene. Now if you'll just go to the bank where Lazar
>cashed his check and ask for a photocopy of the check (which all banks
>routinely microfilm them) we can clear up the alledged non-existence
>of this Department real fast. I suggest that you tell them a man's
>reputation is at stake here because the failure to produce the check
>might make some (if not all) people question Lazar's truthfulness.
>
George Knapp did that years ago and reported on it. The bank informed him that
they only keep records for 3 years and no longer had a copy. Unfortunately, it
was over 3 years since the check was deposited by the time George decided to
do that.
-The Deb
SPHINX Technologies
In article <31B1EE...@mail.llv.com>,
Phoebos Krieg <pho...@mail.llv.com> wrote:
>Gene Huff wrote:
>> -Maybe, but I was there the day his paycheck arrived from Washington
>> D.C. and the amount on the check matched the amount on his W-2 which he
>> received months later, also from Washington D.C. "Anyone" can not do
>> that.-
Anyone with a laser printer could print fairly convincing-looking W-2 forms.
Add an impact printer and some carbon paper and they could add convincing-
looking data to the form. Same comment for paychecks, although if you want
them to go through the banking system smoothly, there would be some
complications about magnetic ink and such. Postmarks can presumably be
faked too, e.g. with a dot-matrix printer and suitable graphics software.
However, it would all be a lot of trouble, and I personally feel it's more
likely that Lazar did in fact get a paycheck and a W-2 mailed to him in the
usual way. :^)
Michael Hofmeister
dsu...@ix.netcom.com (Debbie Sutton) wrote:
->In article <4p37as$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
-> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
->>gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->>
->>->In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
->>->writes:
->>Hey that's great, Gene. Now if you'll just go to the bank where Lazar
->>cashed his check and ask for a photocopy of the check (which all banks
->>routinely microfilm them) we can clear up the alledged non-existence
->>of this Department real fast. I suggest that you tell them a man's
->>reputation is at stake here because the failure to produce the check
->>might make some (if not all) people question Lazar's truthfulness.
->George Knapp did that years ago and reported on it. The bank informed him that
->they only keep records for 3 years and no longer had a copy. Unfortunately, it
->was over 3 years since the check was deposited by the time George decided to
->do that.
->-The Deb
then gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
->In <4p37as$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com
->(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
->>
->>Hey that's great, Gene. ...
->>
->>Good luck, Gene.
->>
->-I know you're trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to be clever, but we
->tried that about 7 years ago. The check was cashed at Valley Bank which
->was later bought out by Bank of America. Lazar cashed the check and did
->not deposit it into his account. You're right, they do microfilm them,
->but they microfilm them in no particular order. These branches, at that
->time, processed anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 checks a day. So to look
->it up, you have to remember the exact day the check was cashed and then
->you can go look through the microfilm shots one at a time until you
->find it. When Lazar cashed it, no one thought it would be his last one
->and it simply wasn't a big deal.
Gene, according to you, no one thought this would be Lazar's last
paycheck until seven years after he cashed it. Talk about being
asleep at the wheel...
But of course Lazar saved the check stub showing the bank, account
number, amount and so on, for tax purposes, right?
->In hindsight, he can only narrow down
->when he cashed it to a one month period. Therefore, the bank would have
->to be willing and you'd have to have enough man power to look through
->multi-thousands of checks per day for 30 + or - days. In actuality, you
->can't provide the manpower yourself as that is confidential info and
->you have to pay for a bank employee to do it, again if the bank is
->willing. Needless to say, that discouraged us and we did not proceed.
According to Deb, George Knapp says the records did not exist three
years after, yet you imply that your search showed they existed seven
years after the check was cashed and still exist today. Do they or
don't they exist today, Gene? Either Knapp is wrong or you didn't
really look for it four years after Knapp says the records were
destroyed (because you KNEW it wasn't there in the first place or some
other reason). Which is it Gene? Did you embellish this part of the
story just a wee bit? Maybe there is another explanation.
->However, if you've go the manpower and/or money and the bank is
->willing, I can see that you get Lazar's permission to do it. There,
->that was a pretty straight answer to an insincere, sarcastic quiestion,
->from a jackass like you, don't you think, Eeyore?!:)-
Gene - I can tell from your snide, vitriolic finish that it really
touches a raw, festering nerve in your psyche when people challenge
Lazar's unverifiable and contradictory legend. TTFN.
kathy kasten
dsu...@ix.netcom.com (Debbie Sutton) wrote:
>In article <4p37as$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> thx...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Hofmeister) wrote:
>>
>>->In <31ACD3...@instanet.com> Martin Cannon <mca...@instanet.com>
>>Hey that's great, Gene. Now if you'll just go to the bank where Lazar
>>
>
>
>-The Deb
What a minute - is this story still going round?
I saw the infamous Department of Navy W-2 (care of Bill Moore at a UFO
EXPO West conference; on public display) with Bob Lazar as the payee, and
it was obviously bogus (no Federal Identification - especially).
However, it is now claimed, that Lazar was paid monies by a toy/model
(Testor???) manufacturer for his design of the "sport model" from Area
51. All the stories going round, with no proof. Why does anyone care?
Kathy
Gene Huff
In <4p60br$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> thx...@ix.netcom.com
(Michael Hofmeister) writes:
>
>Gene, according to you, no one thought this would be Lazar's last
>paycheck until seven years after he cashed it. Talk about being
>asleep at the wheel...
-No, I did not say that. Care to cite where I said that?-
>
>But of course Lazar saved the check stub showing the bank, account
>number, amount and so on, for tax purposes, right?
-Those type of government checks have a running account on the stub and
each stub has your year to date earnings, withholding, etc. Lazar threw
that stub away long before he was out of the program as he did not
anticipate that would be his only check. When he left the program at
S4, they actually still owed him some money which he never received.-
>
>According to Deb, George Knapp says the records did not exist three
>years after, yet you imply that your search showed they existed seven
>years after the check was cashed and still exist today.
-I did not imply any such thing. I said we thought of doing that seven
years ago and I clearly conveyed that. If George tried again later and
found out they only kept them for three years, then what would that
have to do with anything I said?-
>Do they or don't they exist today, Gene? Either Knapp is wrong or you
>didn't really look for it four years after Knapp says the records were
>destroyed (because you KNEW it wasn't there in the first place or some
>other reason). Which is it Gene? Did you embellish this part of the
>story just a wee bit? Maybe there is another explanation.
-I think even you can see by now that you can't read English. Get a
translator to help you understand and feel free to cite anything I said
about having done the search just recently. If Knapp found out they
only keep the records for 3 years, then so be it. I have not spoken to
him about that. Seven years ago when we thought of doing it they were
there. If they're not there any longer, what would that have to do with
me or anything I've said? Give it up Eeyore, you can't possibly twist
this to your advantage. The curious thing is, why would you want to?
Everything I've said is true, logical, and easily understandable. So
much so that even you should be able to grasp it.-
>Gene - I can tell from your snide, vitriolic finish that it really
>touches a raw, festering nerve in your psyche when people challenge
>Lazar's unverifiable and contradictory legend. TTFN.
-No, you just perpetuate my disappointment in the human race. You
either lie or aren't smart enough to even read what is said, and then
you waste everyone's time making false accusations about something that
was never said to begin with. It gets old.-
Gene Huff
In <4p5ijj$o...@uni.library.ucla.edu> kathy kasten
<kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> writes:
>
>What a minute - is this story still going round?
>I saw the infamous Department of Navy W-2 (care of Bill Moore at a UFO
>EXPO West conference; on public display) with Bob Lazar as the payee,
>and it was obviously bogus (no Federal Identification - especially).
-I've got a copy of that very same W-2 right here in front of me as I
type this, presuming that Moore didn't stoop so low as to bogus one up
for his sideshow, and it clearly has the federal employee
identification number on it. Exactly how have you allegedly ascertained
that it was obviously bogus? The answer is that you haven't and you, as
always, are living in your special Kasten dream world. Moore simply
pointed out that the zip code on Lazar's W-2 wasn't for an actual
destination, but a holding pattern type zip code for a post office in
D.C. However, when John Andrews of Testor corporation communicated with
NIC and ONI, he found that if you use that zip code and write "NIC-01"
on the envelope, that mail is forwarded to Naval Intelligence Command
in Maryland. It's interesting how the story looks when explained by
someone who knows what they're talking about, isn't it?-
>All the stories going round, with no proof. Why does anyone care?
-Did someone force you to post? Obviously you care. Did you ever think
of knowing what you're talking about before you type?-
Debbie Sutton
In article <4p5ijj$o...@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
kathy kasten <kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>What a minute - is this story still going round?
>I saw the infamous Department of Navy W-2 (care of Bill Moore at a UFO
>EXPO West conference; on public display) with Bob Lazar as the payee, and
>it was obviously bogus (no Federal Identification - especially).
>However, it is now claimed, that Lazar was paid monies by a toy/model
>(Testor???) manufacturer for his design of the "sport model" from Area
>51. All the stories going round, with no proof. Why does anyone care?
>
>
>
>Kathy
>
Kathy, you could be the stupidest bitch I've ever seen type. No wonder why
Gene makes fun of you all the time. Lazar's W2 DOES have a Fed ID number
printed right on it and it was traced by John Andrews. Lazar's W2 was also
presented and reviewed in court as authentic. Were you born this stupid, or
did you just drink some of Nick Humphries cum?
-The Deb
kathy kasten
Remember Deb, we are talking about apples and organes here. The supposed
real check from Testor, and the bogus (yes, even Gene admitted there was
no such check) Navy Department check. I have at least 5 investigators on
this side of the story. What have you got?
Kathy
kathy kasten
dsu...@ix.netcom.com (Debbie Sutton) wrote:
>In article <4p5ijj$o...@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
> kathy kasten <kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>>What a minute - is this story still going round?
>>I saw the infamous Department of Navy W-2 (care of Bill Moore at a UFO
>>EXPO West conference; on public display) with Bob Lazar as the payee, and
>>it was obviously bogus (no Federal Identification - especially).
>>However, it is now claimed, that Lazar was paid monies by a toy/model
>>(Testor???) manufacturer for his design of the "sport model" from Area
>>51. All the stories going round, with no proof. Why does anyone care?
>>
>>
>>
>>Kathy
>>
>
>Kathy, you could be the stupidest bitch I've ever seen type. No wonder why
>Gene makes fun of you all the time. Lazar's W2 DOES have a Fed ID number
>printed right on it and it was traced by John Andrews. Lazar's W2 was also
>presented and reviewed in court as authentic. Were you born this stupid, or
>did you just drink some of Nick Humphries cum?
>
>-The Deb
Sorry, sweetheart. You have got the wrong story. I can't imagine who
told you this one. :) One of Uncle Gene's. And, since when did he need
to get someone else to speak for him.
I think you should think through your stance on this one a little more
carefully. Apparently, you are new to this Huff Game, and it is about
to crash down around him.
Kathy
Gene Huff
In <4p7ts6$15...@uni.library.ucla.edu> kathy kasten
<kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> writes:
>Sorry, sweetheart. You have got the wrong story. I can't imagine who
>told you this one. :) One of Uncle Gene's. And, since when did he
>need to get someone else to speak for him. I think you should think
>through your stance on this one a little more carefully. Apparently,
>you are new to this Huff Game, and it is about to crash down around
>him.
>
-For the first time ever, and even thought you're a fraud, shit for
brains, net stalker, paranoid, etc., you are right about something, I
don't need anyone else to speak for me and no one does. "The Deb" just
happens to know more about this than you. What surprise, huh?:) I don't
know what delusional "game" you're talking about or what the hell is
supposed to be crashing down around me, but it's not happening, net
stalker. Anyway, the point here is that you said Lazar's W-2 was
fraudulent and I've presented actual info refuting that. Lazar's W-2
DOES and ALWAYS HAS had an EIN on it and that zip code is used to reach
the NIC in Maryland, or at least it was 5 years ago. Now either present
your uninformed, paranoid, and inaccurate case, as always or STFU.-
Debbie Sutton
In article <4p7ts6$15...@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
kathy kasten <kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Sorry, sweetheart. You have got the wrong story. I can't imagine who
>told you this one. :)
Twat,
No one told me anything, I was THERE when this happened. You see sweetie,
Lazar's girlfriend (Linda) and I have been friends for years. I saw the
ORIGINAL W2 form and the envelope it came in. I've followed this story for a
long time, almost from the day it started. Though I don't see Lazar all the
time like Gene does, I have been fortunate enough to be around when John
Andrews from Testors Corp., Edgar Mitchell the astronaut and some of Lazar's
co-workers from Los Alamos visited him. I spoke with these people face to
face. Now, where did you say YOUR information came from again?
>
>I think you should think through your stance on this one a little more
>carefully.
Really? I think you should take you head out of your ass and re-read the above
paragraph.
>Apparently, you are new to this Huff Game, and it is about to crash down
around him.
Take the crack pipe out of your mouth when you're typing. It makes you write
stupid things.
-The Deb
Gene Huff
In <4p7u6a$15...@uni.library.ucla.edu> kathy kasten
<kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> writes:
>Remember Deb, we are talking about apples and organes here. The
>supposed real check from Testor, and the bogus (yes, even Gene
>admitted there was no such check) Navy Department check. I have at
>least 5 investigators on this side of the story. What have you got?
-How about a triple digit I.Q. and some honesty, maybe? What does the
Testor model have to do with anything? You're saying that I, of all of
the fucking people in the world, said that Bob Lazar's paycheck from
the DNI was bogus? If you're not the silliest geek in the world, I
don't know who is. Stick to net stalking as your bluffs and
misinformation are laughable. The check is real, I was there when it
arrived in the mail, and the amount on it matched the amount on his W-2
which was received much later. The W-2 was, indeed, accepted in court
as evidence of employment. Let's hear exactly what your side of the
story is, who your investigators are, and let's go for it! You don't
have the brains or the courage. I remain.-
Debbie Sutton
In article <4p7u6a$15...@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
kathy kasten <kka...@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>Remember Deb, we are talking about apples and organes here.
What the fuck are organes anyway?
>The supposed real check from Testor, and the bogus (yes, even Gene admitted
there was no such check) Navy Department check.
Sorry dear, you're just flopping around in your own bullshit. Gene never said
the Navy check or the W2 was bogus, we all know it was authentic. It's on
Lazar's IRS forms and was also presented in Lazar's court case as evidence.
>I have at least 5 ivestigators on this side of the story.
5 investigators? Right. If they're as smart as you are, we're all in for some
good entertainment.
>What have you got?
I was there sweetie, saw things first hand and met the people involved. Read
my other post.
-The Deb
James Easton
Michael Hofmeister wrote:
> Talk about being asleep at the wheel...
Michael,
Any idea why the super-secret "Department of Naval Intelligence", masters of covert
operations, clandestine appropriators of "black project" funds, America's finest,
couldn't...err...cover up their own payroll run? ;)
Maybe there's a collectors market here. I'm sure those old DNI, MJ-12 and U.N.C.L.E
payslips would be a sound investment!
Now where did I put those blank forms...
James.
Internet; 10062...@compuserve.com
WWW; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/