Dr. Rudolf Schild (astrophysicist) is impressed with Bob Lazar's science on the reactionless drive

Many believe Bob Lazar is a con man and any comment about him belongs in the CT forum.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But, I believe Schild's comment about Lazar allows me to post here.


https://pweb.cfa.harvard.edu/people/rudolph-schild

Schild is an astrophysicist seems to be intrigued with Bob's description of the alleged 'alien space craft's propulsion system' Lazar claimed to have worked on at S4 ( south of Area 51), so I thought perhaps some of you might be open minded enough to listen to what he has to say about Bob Lazar's "science" (not saying it is, just saying) on the issue of advanced nonlinear reactionless drives (my words, not his).



Comments?

 

Someone elsewhere said Bob copied the 'Demon Core' story, and that data is what impressed Schild, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

 

This does indeed not belong in the "science" thread, unless it is to show people what to look for in those to not take seriously.

Bob Lazar claims to have worked in Area 51. And seen many amazing things. An element that came from aliens that can power an anti-gravity spaceship. He has seen aliens. He invented a car that runs on water. Also that the government was keeping things like antigravity and his water car secret for their own reasons.

Meanwhile, he ran a company that sold questionable items for "scientific research", as well as his own writings on such things. Oh, and his arrests for running an illegal brothel, distribution of illegal chemicals through the mail, and other claims that are just insane. Like that the FBI raided him, because they wanted to get their hands on "Area 51 secret" he kept. Wait, what?

THis is not science, it is a joke.

 

A former spook poster told me not to look into Bob Lazar's stuff. And that the real Bob Lazar is dead, the current Bob Lazar is a replacement. And that I should do myself a huge favor and not search the internet for Lazar stuff, and only follow the links that he posted.

 

Your propensity to stoop low is interesting, given that the former President Of The United States has indulged in activities that would make Lazar look like a choir boy.

I suggest sticking only to science, and exclude character assassination from your argument.

You also stated:

"he has seen aliens".

This is a false statement, so why are you making it, if you claim to be a person of science?

You also make misleading statements.

"he invented a car that runs on water"

In his YouTube video, he explains that the car runs on hydrogen, and he explains how he extracts hydrogen from water in his home.

Brothels are legal in parts of Nevada, but even in the parts that they are illegal, there is little stigma in Nevada regarding brothels.

As for 'illegal chemicals'. He sold material to make fireworks. Okay, fine, paid a small fine. I guess that makes him a world class criminal. In his plea agreement, he was given probation with the promise to stop selling such chemicals.

As for selling "questionable products for scientific research", Below is a ledger of purchase orders, and item 5048 proves that Lazar's firm sold radioisotope to the research University of Texas, a public institution,

Everything Lazar sells is primarily for science hobbyists.

https://www.uta.edu/business-affairs/procurement/files/po_months/May2016.html

0000005048 5/2/16 United Nuclear Scientific Supplies,LLC $190.95 Radioisotope ...

Moreover, if you claim to be a person of science, why does your comments reek of self-righteous indignation, and thus the caliber of your writing is substandard?

 

Lazar is a fraud.

 

To begin with, no talk of reverse-engineering alien technology is "scientific". And that is what he has based his "career" on.

That is not science, that is barely pseudo-science. Do not confuse the two. Genetics is science, phrenology is pseudo-science.

And technically, he has claimed he has not seen aliens. But he has seen recreation mannequins of them wearing clothing and equipment that had been recovered with their space ships. Which he also says exist and he was tasked with backward-engineering their technology.

Now please tell me how there is any real difference between what I said and what he has said.

Yes, I am. And as such reject any pseudo-science or religious types that try to inject their fantasies into an area of the forum that is supposed to be about science. If you want to talk about aliens and UFOs and cover-ups, there is a section for that. But this is not it. By the same token if you want to talk about creationism and things like that, there is an area for that as well. This is not it.

The "Caliber of my writing is substandard"? Why, because I refuse to believe in junk science, conspiracy theories, or a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible? Funny, but I only seem to hear such things from those who buy into such nonsense, because I refuse to believe them and call them out every chance I get.

This is pseudo-science, and belongs elsewhere, not in the Science thread.

Yes, you-tube videos also show how the Earth is really flat, how water is a deadly poison, and that humans were transplanted to Earth 75 million years ago on DC-8 spacecraft, piled around volcanos, then the volcanos were all blown up with hydrogen bombs.

Sorry, but I will say this honestly. It takes a special kind of moron to think that just because they see something on a YT video it must be true.

 

nothing in the video on the reactionless drive... but regarding the 'instantaneous transmission of information'- we know that can be achieved by quantum entanglement.

 

If there is evidence, it it science. Maybe he's got it wrong, but it's still the pursuit of science. If there isn't evidence, it's neither, it's just something claimed which is unsupported.

It's only pseudo science if you have evidence of a hoax. So, you might be right on that point in this case, but not on the generalized point. I said you 'might' be right, I'm not totally convinced it's hoax, yet, though I'm leaning in that direction.

I don't recall Bob saying that.

I don't recall Bob saying that and I've listen to him a lot. Please Provide the link. But, even if he did, you claimed he saw aliens when he didn't. You did that to disparage him. See, what is not science is character assassination, and that is the point.

In the realm of science, data and facts are all that matters. Right?

I reject attitudes which do not belong in the realm of science, attitudes such as self-righteous indignation. See, what is not science is character assassination, that is subjective emotion. I should think that that kind of talk doesn't belong on this forum.

I only bring matters of science, to this forum (though I may have strayed from that principle in the past. Of late, that's my principle to which I strive). If 'alien technology' is considered by military/science folks as one of the possibilities, I will include it because they said it, not me.

See, 'alien technology' IS science IF it is real. What you are saying speaks to conjecture, and conjecture about aliens, etc., yes, THAT belongs on another forum. However, if I bring up events, data, and facts, which are unexplainable, and some military and/or technology folks assert that 'other worldly tech' is a possibility, then I will mention it. But I will not claim it, myself, as fact, because that is conjecture.

If something like a cover up is mentioned, it's done as in the light of fleeting commentary, but it wouldn't be the headlined subject, for this forum, nor should it ever.

Why harp on the subject? Who cares what your opinion is? Science isn't the place for emotional rants.
You start pontificating in that manner, well, in the realm of science, it sure sounds unbecoming of science to carry on that way, and you do it a lot, otherwise I wouldn't mention it. You carry this self-righteous chip on your shoulder whilst making incorrect assumptions ( that aren't scientific, either) that is particularly annoying.
And that is why I assert your writing is substandard. If you had written such a thing in a general forum, I wouldn't have characterized as substandard. Only on this forum do I do so.

See what you are doing here? You go off on a tangential rant, it's unnecessary on this forum.

 

I assumed they were talking about a reactionless drive. If it wasn't that, then what was being discussed?

 

No, it is not. Science needs much more than evidence. And this is why you fail. You can not even separate evidence from fantasy.

 

They seem to be talking about the ships 'brain' or navigational computer.

 

My, what a lofty perch you occupy.

Your taking my sentence out of context. With a modicum of imagination, you might have considered my meaning insofar as
IF there is evidence of alien technology, it would be of interest to science.

Disingenuousness isn't science, either.

Arrogance isn't science, either.

Smug attitude isn't science, either.

So why don't you pester someone else in other forums where such attitudes belong.

 

But wasn't the astrophysicist, in general terms, accepting as possible Lazar's description of the propulsion system which is a reactionless drive, based on his description?

 

Dunno. Im just saying none of that is in the video.

 

No, I am not. And I can see that you actually believe that.

Case in point, you claim somebody made a car that ran on water. You claim a video and some people saying they saw it as "evidence":. Myself and others pointed out the impossibility. Actually scientifically, how it takes far more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you would get by burning the hydrogen as a fuel source. And your response? Yet more claims it was real, and others had seen it. Never once even attempt to discuss the impossibility.

So no, it is not out of context. You see "evidence" you want to believe, and that is all you need. Nothing else matters, your "evidence" trumps all. Even actual science. I very much took what you said in complete context. Just as you take some kook video of a UFO, and deny and scream at any that try to show you why and how it is fake, your "evidence" is enough in your mind to show you and they are 100% correct, and everybody else is wrong.

No, not out of context at all. I see exactly what you are trying.

 

Well, that is seriously limited. One can not send a message in this manner, for example. One can only learn about the state of the remote entangled object - a state which is not even dependent on its environment.

 

True. Yet.

Though, technically couldnt a single 'digit' binary (on or off = yes or no) message be sent?

 

My understanding is that when one examines an entangled particle, the particles become unentangled and you get to see what state that particle is in after becoming unentangled, and thus you know the state of the other particle, which is also unentangled, obviously.

But, you didn't get to choose the state of the particle you looked at and the state of the other particle isn't affected by whatever location it was moved to.

So, there wasn't any information actually transmitted.

 

Yep the result of any one observation is entirely random.

 

Lazar's hydrogen car is irrelevant to the discussion, and now that you are pinning me down on a matter of science in attempt to discredit me, I can prove, incontrovertibly, your disengenuousness, because if you queried, you'd understand that I was describing the car in very loose terms, obviously, what Lazar did was separate hydrogen from water and discard the water. But of course, everything is extreme with you, either you are up there on your high horse, or someone is down in the trenches in the gutter. There is no nuance, middle ground, no 'give them the benefit of the doub' or 'clarify what you meant' with you.

The are all false allegations, assumptions. You have no evidence to support those claims about me. None.

In the mean time, climb down from your high horse, it's nauseating and does not belong in a scientific forum.

The following sentence is true:

IF there are unexplainable craft in our atmosphere, it would be of interest to our military and to our science to figure out what it is, and where it comes from.

You say there is no evidence?

Well, there's enough empirical evidence to get the government to appropriate millions over decades. to study the phenomenon, and you don't get there with balloons and atmospheric anomalies.

That isn't absolute proof yet, but the military, though they used to say 'they don't exist' and now they are saying 'the question remains open".

That's a sea change in the military's attitude on the subject, and balloons didn't cause it. Something did, and whatever it was that did, is being looked at by some serious folks that do not have a smug holier than thou attitude.

 

How much effort do you believe it takes to twist the collective arms of our military to ask for more money?

Also, I disagree about your assessment of those you cite on this subject. They are stupendously dismissive, holding the line that science is irrelevant as long as some pilot thinks he or she saw aliens.

 

Not at all, because it is about credibility.

When the individual has none, nothing of what they say should be considered seriously at all.

 

I see, you are trying to trivialize the fact that the Pentagon has spent millions, employed engineers and scientists, over decades, to study the things.

Look, if they were just banal things, you really think someone would get funds appropriated?

I don't think so.

I didn't say 'science is irrelevant', I said his point about Lazar's hydrogen car was irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

 

You're way off point, this conversation stemmed from this statement I made:

If there is evidence, it it science.

You took that out of context, and I will admit I needed to clarify my meaning, but you went off on to a wild accusatory tangent riding a high horse,

what I meant by that is that IF there is evidence of alien visitation, that would be of interest to Science.

And when I say 'bob's car is irrelevant', it is, indeed, irrelevant to the above point which you have missed, totally, utterly, and completely. You're more interested in occupying some high horse posture and making irrelevant accusations than you are interested in a discussion on that one particular point.