UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 28

The Lies Of Bob Lazar [was: Forged Documents]

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:50:57 -0300
Archived: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:29:14 -0400
Subject: The Lies Of Bob Lazar [was: Forged Documents]


>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Forged Documents

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:47:43 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Forged Documents

>>>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Subject: Forged Documents [was: 'American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru'?]

><snip>

>>>And you're going to tell me a publishing house has no stake in the
>>>veracity of what they publish?

>>>Yes, a little more discernment, please.

>>It always astonishes me when facts are simply ignored because they
>>don't fit into the belief structures of those proposing counter
>>arguments. I was saying nothing about Lazar's creation of a document,
>>the veracity of his claims, or why he hasn't been prosecuted for that.

><snip>

>Mr. Randle, I carefully read the rest of your long post with
>interest to its content and regard for the effort you spent and
>the details you included. It was well worth the time and your
>information is invaluable. I didn't include it here merely for
>the sake of brevity and conservation of space.

>It wasn't necessary to include in my reply for, you see, there
>is one stark difference between all of your examples and that
>Bob Lazar poses in his published claims. That difference is to
>be discerned, as I said before.

>Witness veracity or recall cannot be determined with respect to
>criminal intent. However, forging a document ipso facto
>attributed to one's self and publishing it as authentic when it
>infringes upon matters that can be construed as pertaining to
>matters of national security, especially to an area as senstive
>to such interests.... and in direct violation of federal law.

>That's a little different than how one recalls a past event.
>Wouldn't you agree?


Please read my short factual piece about the lies of Bob Lazar
on my website at:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com

I checked with 5 different offices at MIT including that of the
legal counsel. He didn't go there. No way to hide it if he had.

His high school indicated he was in the bottom third of his
class and had only one science course. He showed up in no MIT
yearbooks. He couldn't even have been admitted to MIT.

Cal Tech never heard of him.

He didn't work for Los Alamos, but for a sub-contractor.

It took a month of operation of a huge accelerator to produce a
few atoms of element 115 that had been suggested to exist back
in 1969. Half-life is less than a second. No way Los Alamos
could have had 500 pounds.

A guy Lazar claimed would recall him from Cal Tech physics never
taught there, but had Bob in a course at Pierce JC near LA at
the very time he was supposedly at MIT... Long commute.

Bob has provided no diplomas, no alumni listing, no resume, no
membership in Professional Societies.

What don't you understand?

Generally speaking lying isn't against the law. If you have any
evidence to back up his claims, please provide.

Kevin has published more than 80 books. I believe he knows a
great deal about publishers as does Jerome Clark. And your
qualifications to make judgements? Perhaps some examples of
suits because of lies, not libels.) in books or on videos?.


Stan Friedman



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com