Author George Knapp  (Read 622518 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #180 on: August 24, 2010, 11:54:46 PM »
i feel like anyone and everyone could be disproven at any time, even me, including this statement.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #181 on: August 24, 2010, 11:56:35 PM »
PE - I sort of agree with you regarding Lazar. I still love George Knapp but the Lazar thing does stretch the bounds of credulity.

On the other hand, while it's obvious Lazar is not who he says he is, the three things that stick in my mind are:

(1) George's FOIA of the Los Alamos employee telephone directory that supposedly lists a "R. Lazar" during one of the years he claimed to be working there
(2) the newspaper clipping George found (was it the Los Alamos Monitor?) at the library that showed Lazar in a picture with several others who were captioned therein as Los Alamos scientists
(3) the fact he operates a, by outward appearances, legitimate business that legitimately sells scientific supplies that would require some knowledge in which to deal

the rest of the "evidence" - John Lear's claims, Lazar's claims, Lazar's ID card, Lazar's W-2, etc. all fall incredibly short and the fact he has no verifiable educational credentials (or even professors who can remember him) seems explicable only if you're willing to pile a second conspiracy on top of the first

Given the high cost (~ $400/session) of professional polygraph testing I've often thought I'd like to start some type of non-profit foundation that did nothing but provide polygraph grants to paranormal researchers on a case-by-case basis.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #182 on: August 25, 2010, 04:51:56 AM »
(1) George's FOIA of the Los Alamos employee telephone directory that supposedly lists a "R. Lazar" during one of the years he claimed to be working there
(2) the newspaper clipping George found (was it the Los Alamos Monitor?) at the library that showed Lazar in a picture with several others who were captioned therein as Los Alamos scientists
(3) the fact he operates a, by outward appearances, legitimate business that legitimately sells scientific supplies that would require some knowledge in which to deal

the rest of the "evidence" - John Lear's claims, Lazar's claims, Lazar's ID card, Lazar's W-2, etc. all fall incredibly short and the fact he has no verifiable educational credentials (or even professors who can remember him) seems explicable only if you're willing to pile a second conspiracy on top of the first

Given the high cost (~ $400/session) of professional polygraph testing I've often thought I'd like to start some type of non-profit foundation that did nothing but provide polygraph grants to paranormal researchers on a case-by-case basis.
THANK YOU for articulating this as you did.  my thoughts on the lazar thing, completely.  i'm torn on the validity of his story, i must admit.  the phone book entry and newspaper clipping are pretty tough to explain, and lazar's story is so compelling and detailed it's hard to reject.  also, art has repeatedly assured that lazar's story has never changed from one appearance to another.  anybody know if lazar ever did take a polygraph?


Re: George Knapp
« Reply #183 on: August 25, 2010, 05:59:59 AM »
and by the way...
do you still sell the earth handle?

Yes, but we are all out of the 'crap into chili makers'.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #184 on: August 25, 2010, 06:04:27 AM »
PE - I sort of agree with you regarding Lazar. I still love George Knapp but the Lazar thing does stretch the bounds of credulity.

On the other hand, while it's obvious Lazar is not who he says he is, the three things that stick in my mind are:

(1) George's FOIA of the Los Alamos employee telephone directory that supposedly lists a "R. Lazar" during one of the years he claimed to be working there
(2) the newspaper clipping George found (was it the Los Alamos Monitor?) at the library that showed Lazar in a picture with several others who were captioned therein as Los Alamos scientists
(3) the fact he operates a, by outward appearances, legitimate business that legitimately sells scientific supplies that would require some knowledge in which to deal

the rest of the "evidence" - John Lear's claims, Lazar's claims, Lazar's ID card, Lazar's W-2, etc. all fall incredibly short and the fact he has no verifiable educational credentials (or even professors who can remember him) seems explicable only if you're willing to pile a second conspiracy on top of the first

Given the high cost (~ $400/session) of professional polygraph testing I've often thought I'd like to start some type of non-profit foundation that did nothing but provide polygraph grants to paranormal researchers on a case-by-case basis.

I know, there is just enough there to keep the story interesting, but still once you know someone is a bald faced liar on one subject it's pretty hard to accept anything else they say. My guess is that Lazar worked as a low level tech of some sort and made up the rest.

I have thought about finding whatever groups exist for MIT alumni and offering a reward for any printed period material from the school that mentions Bob. I mean I can go along with government conspiracy but how could they get a hold of every program from graduation ceremonies for instance? But I would settle for some coherent explanation of how a white male who finishes in the bottom third of his high school class ends up at MIT to begin with.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #185 on: August 25, 2010, 03:14:04 PM »
But I would settle for some coherent explanation of how a white male who finishes in the bottom third of his high school class ends up at MIT to begin with.

Yeah, that's really the giveaway. The idea that Edward Teller, or whatever scientist it was Lazar claimed, had groomed him from some early age just seems very off-kilter.

However, even on that count I have to hold my breath as Michio Kaku - for whom there's no question of validity of credential and profession - was scouted by Teller at a high school science fair and recruited to work on hydrogen bombs (though he ultimately didn't). The idea that you'd go looking for high schoolers at a science fair who might be willing to build an H-bomb for you seems really far-fetched, sci-fi stuff to me, though I guess it was either a different era or you're dealing with a different level of human mind.

If I had to put down money on the question I would bet for Lazar being a complete hoax. But, if I had a choice I probably wouldn't bet on it either way.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #186 on: August 25, 2010, 03:39:35 PM »
I always looked at the secondary conspiracy as an obvious given...

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #187 on: August 25, 2010, 11:10:09 PM »
i feel like anyone and everyone could be disproven at any time, even me, including this statement.

Yes, but there is a thing called truth.  THE TRUTH.  And we have to use our resources to at least try to get at this thing called truth, and not just blindly believe what anyone tells us, be they a C2C guest or not.  Things can be disproven, yes, but things can also be verified to back up a story.  We have a court system that uses evidence, witnesses, testimony, etc. to ascertain what the truth is in a given case.  We'd be fools not to apply the same tests to someone like Bob Lazar. 

Take General Corso for example.  He is who he says he is, and was where he says he was, it is independently verifiable.   Therefore it lends credibility to his story.  It doesn't PROVE his story but it definitely lends a lot of credibility.  Then take Dr. Jonathan Reed and the alien in the freezer.  He says he was a Doctor in Seattle and he wasn't.  He lied.  It taints his whole story and makes anything else he says hard to believe.

Then someone like Bob Lazar, we should be able to verify his education.  We should be able to verify his employment record.  We can't, and that casts a lot of doubt for sure.  Someone suggested lie detector tests, and while that is a good idea, it still doesn't tell you what was true or not.  It only tells you if the person taking the lie detector BELIEVES what they are saying.  And good liars believe what they are saying.  It is not uncommon for a really adept liar to fool a lie detector test.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #188 on: August 26, 2010, 06:26:22 PM »
i feel like anyone and everyone could be disproven at any time, even me, including this statement.

Yes, but there is a thing called truth.  THE TRUTH......
Excellent post General. Allow me to add:

Anyone and everyone cannot be disproven. I do not have anything as exclusive as an MS from MIT (k-e-y,m-o-u-s-e?) but you could not disprove my education to the degree Lazar's was. If I lost my diploma, and the goverment deleted the school copy along with my transcripts and all mention of me in any school records I could still:

Spend five minutes browsing a list of current professors and find some that I remembered. Even if I can't remember their names off the top of my head I would recognize someone.

I could find photos of my graduation.

I could Google 'My College class of my year of graduation' and find someone's name who would recognize me.

I could find family members who would remember my graduation.

There's only about a zillion other ways some indication of his attendance to MIT could be found. Not iron clad proof mind you, I am only looking for a hint of a sign that he might have attended.

If Lazar can't be called a liar on this issue then no one can ever be said to be lying.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #189 on: August 26, 2010, 06:31:34 PM »
But I would settle for some coherent explanation of how a white male who finishes in the bottom third of his high school class ends up at MIT to begin with.

Yeah, that's really the giveaway. The idea that Edward Teller, or whatever scientist it was Lazar claimed, had groomed him from some early age just seems very off-kilter.

However, even on that count I have to hold my breath as Michio Kaku - for whom there's no question of validity of credential and profession - was scouted by Teller at a high school science fair and recruited to work on hydrogen bombs (though he ultimately didn't). The idea that you'd go looking for high schoolers at a science fair who might be willing to build an H-bomb for you seems really far-fetched, sci-fi stuff to me, though I guess it was either a different era or you're dealing with a different level of human mind.

If I had to put down money on the question I would bet for Lazar being a complete hoax. But, if I had a choice I probably wouldn't bet on it either way.

I actually do not think it is unheard of for a scientist to mentor younger people interested in science. The glaring problem here though is that Kaiku was a brillant child whose science projects had been mentioned in the local media.

Lazar was in the bottom third of his high school class and only took one high school science course. MIT has it's choice of top science students from around the world, why would Lazar be admitted. Maybe there is some really great story of why and how that happened, but alas Lazar doesn't seem interested in sharing it with us.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #190 on: August 26, 2010, 11:49:52 PM »
i feel like anyone and everyone could be disproven at any time, even me, including this statement.

Yes, but there is a thing called truth.  THE TRUTH......
Excellent post General. Allow me to add:

Anyone and everyone cannot be disproven. I do not have anything as exclusive as an MS from MIT (k-e-y,m-o-u-s-e?) but you could not disprove my education to the degree Lazar's was. If I lost my diploma, and the goverment deleted the school copy along with my transcripts and all mention of me in any school records I could still:

Spend five minutes browsing a list of current professors and find some that I remembered. Even if I can't remember their names off the top of my head I would recognize someone.

I could find photos of my graduation.

I could Google 'My College class of my year of graduation' and find someone's name who would recognize me.

I could find family members who would remember my graduation.

There's only about a zillion other ways some indication of his attendance to MIT could be found. Not iron clad proof mind you, I am only looking for a hint of a sign that he might have attended.

If Lazar can't be called a liar on this issue then no one can ever be said to be lying.
you're right on with this.  i wish you could call in and get on the air if lazar ever appeared on the show again.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #191 on: August 27, 2010, 12:21:54 PM »
I have no direct opinion about the Lazar situation. Just want to play a little Devils advocate here. It is split down the UFO community whether Lazar is telling the truth or is a liar. I have heard many confirmational stories by credible people to keep him on my radar. Everything about his educational history being erased and probably false push this to being discredited. Stanton Freidman, someone who I respect immensely, believes Lazar is a phony based on his education and physics knowledge.

But a few points for the other side. Much of Lazars experiences after disclosure has been confirmed, being followed and harassed by the government. I remember a show with Art Bell where a South African officer made the statement that one of the UFO's Lazar described was a UFO that the S.A. government shot down and sent to the U.S.. Finally it seems that after Lazar, Area 51 doesn't have the same amount of UFO activity as in the past leading researchers to believe that the project has moved from Area 51 to somewhere else (NORAD facility in Colorado). Does this weigh as heavily against direct in the hand proof. Nope.

But this is how easily an event is discredited by misinformation. A large group of people see something unimaginable. Like the Phoenix lights. Since people who haven't seen the crafts can't imagine what it would be like through direct experience they need something tangible. Just one explanation that people have experienced or can relate to or imagine will easily replace the actual fantastic sounding event. So saying it was flares makes 99.9% of the population feel like they can relate and in turn discredits the real experiences.

If the black ops can make their own operations disappear from view I am sure they can make one simple person disappear. Somehow they make any and all information from reliable sources seem tinged with some level of disbelief. Bentwaters comes to mind. If you ever listen to Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston in an interview you would say this man is one of the most credible witnesses ever associated to the UFO controversy. But still the disbelief continues. How is this possible? Why does this continue to happen? I think if you can answer the how and why then a clearer picture of the UFO cover up will be produced.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #192 on: August 29, 2010, 04:24:30 PM »

Listening to a 2001 Lazar interview with Art on the Coastgab stream.  He sure sounds credible doesn't he?  He talked about a newspaper article being written about him when he was at Los Alamos (Los Alamos Monitor June 29, 1982).  Has anybody seen that?  Can't find any pictures of that article, just references to it.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #193 on: August 29, 2010, 05:40:19 PM »
...Listening to a 2001 Lazar interview ...
correction, it's from 1997

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #194 on: August 29, 2010, 06:24:10 PM »
Given the high cost (~ $400/session) of professional polygraph testing I've often thought I'd like to start some type of non-profit foundation that did nothing but provide polygraph grants to paranormal researchers on a case-by-case basis.

According to this, Lazar took a polygraph.  And passed. Interesting...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/9460/Bob_Lazar_passes_the_lie_detector_test_on_UFOs/

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #195 on: August 29, 2010, 06:31:12 PM »
Given the high cost (~ $400/session) of professional polygraph testing I've often thought I'd like to start some type of non-profit foundation that did nothing but provide polygraph grants to paranormal researchers on a case-by-case basis.

According to this, Lazar took a polygraph.  And passed. Interesting...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/9460/Bob_Lazar_passes_the_lie_detector_test_on_UFOs/
the plot thickens...

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #196 on: August 29, 2010, 07:12:56 PM »
Passing a polygraph test is ridiculously easy, it's not even used in court anymore. Although I think the Lazar story has much less of an odor than most of them.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #197 on: August 29, 2010, 10:56:55 PM »
Passing a polygraph test is ridiculously easy, it's not even used in court anymore. Although I think the Lazar story has much less of an odor than most of them.
i have read that in order to defeat a polygraph test, you need only tighten your sphincter muscle as each question is asked, beginning with the first baseline questions.  i wonder if this is true.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #198 on: August 29, 2010, 11:58:49 PM »
Quote
Like the Phoenix lights.

Personally, I am absolutely satisfied with the explanation that the Phoenix Lights were military flare testing.

(a) Lt. Col. Ed Jones of the Maryland Air National Guard has twice confirmed to media he was involved in a night flare drop from A-10 Thunderbolts outside of Phoenix

(b) I wish I could find it off-hand, however, a KNXV news helicopter photographed a known and confirmed nighttime flare drop happening over Luke AFB in 2008 against amateur footage of the Phoenix Lights and the two looked absolutely identical. I need to check the KNXV web archives ... it's pretty astonishing how on the mark the two are.

Quote

This is another thing that just screams fraud at me.

Aside from the fact there is no "Department of Naval Intelligence" (it's the Office of Naval Intelligence), in U.S. government divisional naming hierarchies, the prefix "Department" refers to a cabinet-level agency. So, even if there were a 'black' organization paralleling the real one, one would imagine they would be the Bureau of Naval Intelligence, the Division of Naval Intelligence, the Section of Naval Intelligence, or anything other than "Department."

And why would they stamp their ID badges with MAJ (obviously a reference to Majestic, MJ-12)? I know I usually just toss my work ID badge on a table or the kitchen counter or wherever else when I get home. Stamping an ID badge with MAJ would necessitate that the badge itself be kept secret, which would kind of defeat the point in having it. However, it does feed into the UFO mythos.

Quote
According to this, Lazar took a polygraph.  And passed. Interesting...

That is interesting. I didn't watch the whole story but my question would be: who administered the polygraph? With alien abductions you often find the hypnoregressionists are vaguely referred to as "qualified hypnotherapists" or "certified hypnotherapists." In many states, becoming "certified" as a hypnotherapist involves passing a multiple choice test and paying ten bucks to the state.

However, if the polygraph was administered by a legitimate and qualified tester that does raise an interesting question. Obviously someone can lie through a polygraph but it's not easy. So that would seem to leave, as options:

(1) Lazar has an exceptional talent for fooling polygraphs,
(2) Lazar's story is true,
(3) Lazar believes his story is true

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #199 on: August 30, 2010, 12:09:56 AM »
After listening to Punnett's show the other night on the origins of psychotherapy and Jungian psychology I've just ordered "Flying Saucers : A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies", the 1961 book by Carl Jung.

Has anyone else read this?

According to the summaries I've found online Jung makes the argument that UFO's represent a modern archetypal imagery that man imagines to fill the void left by the death of religion in an industrial society. Because it's an archetype, descriptions given by different people are identical.

But, most fascinating, he says that physical trace evidence - like radar logs, etc. - are created by the subconscious collective projections. That seems to have some vague corollary to the idea of the observer-created universe.

If I'm accurately synthesizing a book I haven't read correctly, I wonder if Lazar truly believes he has had these experiences as a compensatory mechanism? Which would explain why he passed a polygraph.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #200 on: August 30, 2010, 12:20:20 AM »
an expert confirms the sphincter angle:



Re: George Knapp
« Reply #201 on: August 30, 2010, 06:44:49 PM »
Like the Phoenix lights

Personally, I am absolutely satisfied with the explanation that the Phoenix Lights were military flare testing.

(a) Lt. Col. Ed Jones of the Maryland Air National Guard has twice confirmed to media he was involved in a night flare drop from A-10 Thunderbolts outside of Phoenix

(b) I wish I could find it off-hand, however, a KNXV news helicopter photographed a known and confirmed nighttime flare drop happening over Luke AFB in 2008 against amateur footage of the Phoenix Lights and the two looked absolutely identical. I need to check the KNXV web archives ... it's pretty astonishing how on the mark the two are.


I totally agree that the Maryland reserve air force group stationed at Phoenix could have dropped flares that night and this explains one part of what happened. Rather clever way to cover up an event. I saw the Discovery Channel documentary of the 10:30 pm Estrella Mountains flare event. It was impressive and convincing. But the real event occurred earlier starting well north of Phoenix and hours before the flare drop. Mostly I am riveted by the eyewitness accounts of a huge triangle craft flying over houses and people at a very low altitude throughout the region.

Like I was saying. Explain or create one event that is plausible and it replaces 100's of eyewitness accounts by putting doubt in other peoples minds. I cannot imagine a flying silent triangle the size of a football field flying over my head blocking out the stars. So those people MUST be wrong.


On a side note. That was a great show by George Knapp Sunday night. Bringing the very difficult subject of the many worlds theory into context with a tangible experiential feel.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #202 on: August 31, 2010, 12:00:58 AM »
Like the Phoenix lights

Personally, I am absolutely satisfied with the explanation that the Phoenix Lights were military flare testing.

(a) Lt. Col. Ed Jones of the Maryland Air National Guard has twice confirmed to media he was involved in a night flare drop from A-10 Thunderbolts outside of Phoenix

(b) I wish I could find it off-hand, however, a KNXV news helicopter photographed a known and confirmed nighttime flare drop happening over Luke AFB in 2008 against amateur footage of the Phoenix Lights and the two looked absolutely identical. I need to check the KNXV web archives ... it's pretty astonishing how on the mark the two are.


I totally agree that the Maryland reserve air force group stationed at Phoenix could have dropped flares that night and this explains one part of what happened. Rather clever way to cover up an event. I saw the Discovery Channel documentary of the 10:30 pm Estrella Mountains flare event. It was impressive and convincing. But the real event occurred earlier starting well north of Phoenix and hours before the flare drop. Mostly I am riveted by the eyewitness accounts of a huge triangle craft flying over houses and people at a very low altitude throughout the region.

Like I was saying. Explain or create one event that is plausible and it replaces 100's of eyewitness accounts by putting doubt in other peoples minds. I cannot imagine a flying silent triangle the size of a football field flying over my head blocking out the stars. So those people MUST be wrong.


On a side note. That was a great show by George Knapp Sunday night. Bringing the very difficult subject of the many worlds theory into context with a tangible experiential feel.

I definitely understand what you're saying, I just personally don't put any credence into eyewitness accounts at all. At one point I did but, since the Norway Spiral which - seemed to me to be - startling and out of this world and went a full day or two without conventional explanation I have to believe there are other things equally as - or more - incredible in appearance that never get photographed and so don't have the benefit of crowd sourced identification. It was really purely by chance that the Norway Spiral got photographed. Had it not been we might well be sitting here discussing it as the greatest UFO eyewitness sighting of the modern era, instead of an out-of-control Russian ICBM.

I also caught Knapp's show on Sunday and thought it was fantastic. I heard Bell when he interviewed Lanza some time ago and, hate to say it, I thought Knapp did an even better job than Art.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #203 on: August 31, 2010, 01:31:18 PM »
Passing a polygraph test is ridiculously easy, it's not even used in court anymore. Although I think the Lazar story has much less of an odor than most of them.
i have read that in order to defeat a polygraph test, you need only tighten your sphincter muscle as each question is asked, beginning with the first baseline questions.  i wonder if this is true.

please run an independent, empirical test to evaluate the efficacy of the sphincter defense and get back to us ASAP.  i have to appear in court  on Monday

jk ... no courty ... but seriously ... validate the sphincter defense for us ... just in case

cheers,

b

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #204 on: August 31, 2010, 03:05:31 PM »
there was a segment on an episode of penn & teller's bullshit that dealt with the lie detector test, and I believe that they taught someone how to beat the test using this method involving the tightening of the sphincter...

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #205 on: August 31, 2010, 08:19:04 PM »
Passing a polygraph test is ridiculously easy, it's not even used in court anymore. Although I think the Lazar story has much less of an odor than most of them.
i have read that in order to defeat a polygraph test, you need only tighten your sphincter muscle as each question is asked, beginning with the first baseline questions.  i wonder if this is true.

Pro Tip: I just think back to my first alien probing, works every time!

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #206 on: August 31, 2010, 08:27:19 PM »
Okay, fine, the shadow government made Bob's MIT career disappear. Right down to getting their hands on every paper he was ever on and re-writing things like all the programs from graduation, yearbooks etc.

Why can't he remember the subject of his own thesis? Why can't he recall the name of his faculty adviser? Why can't he come up with one student or faculty member that was there at the same time he was? Did the CIA buy a whole shipload of Peeman's mind and memory wiping cream and erase the memories of everyone at MIT? (If they did they never paid me for it).

Seriously Lazar has been dead bang proven to be a liar about his background. There are few things that ever truly get nailed down in the slippery field of UFO's, but there is just no excuse for believing this guy has the bona fides that he claims to have.

Of course he's totally telling the truth about the saucer, cause he only is lying when he gets caught, the rest of the time he is totally truthful....It wouldn't make me so mad but I really wanted his story to be true. And when it wasn't I really wanted George to retain some creditability by denouncing him for what he is.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #207 on: August 31, 2010, 09:09:36 PM »
Like the Phoenix lights

Personally, I am absolutely satisfied with the explanation that the Phoenix Lights were military flare testing.

(a) Lt. Col. Ed Jones of the Maryland Air National Guard has twice confirmed to media he was involved in a night flare drop from A-10 Thunderbolts outside of Phoenix

(b) I wish I could find it off-hand, however, a KNXV news helicopter photographed a known and confirmed nighttime flare drop happening over Luke AFB in 2008 against amateur footage of the Phoenix Lights and the two looked absolutely identical. I need to check the KNXV web archives ... it's pretty astonishing how on the mark the two are.


I totally agree that the Maryland reserve air force group stationed at Phoenix could have dropped flares that night and this explains one part of what happened. Rather clever way to cover up an event. I saw the Discovery Channel documentary of the 10:30 pm Estrella Mountains flare event. It was impressive and convincing. But the real event occurred earlier starting well north of Phoenix and hours before the flare drop. Mostly I am riveted by the eyewitness accounts of a huge triangle craft flying over houses and people at a very low altitude throughout the region.

Like I was saying. Explain or create one event that is plausible and it replaces 100's of eyewitness accounts by putting doubt in other peoples minds. I cannot imagine a flying silent triangle the size of a football field flying over my head blocking out the stars. So those people MUST be wrong.


On a side note. That was a great show by George Knapp Sunday night. Bringing the very difficult subject of the many worlds theory into context with a tangible experiential feel.

I definitely understand what you're saying, I just personally don't put any credence into eyewitness accounts at all. At one point I did but, since the Norway Spiral which - seemed to me to be - startling and out of this world and went a full day or two without conventional explanation I have to believe there are other things equally as - or more - incredible in appearance that never get photographed and so don't have the benefit of crowd sourced identification. It was really purely by chance that the Norway Spiral got photographed. Had it not been we might well be sitting here discussing it as the greatest UFO eyewitness sighting of the modern era, instead of an out-of-control Russian ICBM.

I also caught Knapp's show on Sunday and thought it was fantastic. I heard Bell when he interviewed Lanza some time ago and, hate to say it, I thought Knapp did an even better job than Art.


I agree. Eyewitness testimony is shaky and usually false 99% of the time. It is that 1% of the time that I am more interested in. I have a Masters Degree in Psychology so I like to visually see a person when they are being interviewed and describing an event. I want close encounters of the 1st to 3rd kind. And I think those people do not really talk about their sighting because it is so unexplainable to them and people automatically discredit the event. I rarely talk about my sightings in ANY detail. It is too unreal.

Regarding the ICBM's - I lived in the Santa Barbara area for a few years, outside of Vandenberg and witnessed 2 ICBM test launches in 4 years. One in the daytime and one in the middle of the night. They are a truly amazing sight if you get a chance to witness the event. The daytime launch was almost spooky the way the smoke hung in the air and was an unusual color. But you knew what they were with a little thought  It seems like people are really out of control with sightings these days and tiny anomalous lights mean nothing in the UFO/ET/Dimensional being conjecture.

I saw strange lights for about 5 seconds driving on I-5 going North near Fresno. About 8 lights, the size of headlights, went 10-15 feet above the highway from west to east and about 40 or 50 yards ahead of me disappearing into a field. Since I was driving my unconscious mind said there was a bridge up ahead (being from the East coast where there are plenty of bridges over highways) and the lights were a truck. But a bridge never came and I looked to the right of me trying to find an airport or something, anything to explain an object flying over a highway and going out of sight. But there was nothing, just blackness for miles and miles. All I can say is it was unexplainable with the information I have.

I am in the UFO camp that says what is happening is unexplainable by our standards of understanding the universe. Think like a particle physicist would. You don't see the actual particle. You only see the trace evidence or the effects it has on our physical world. I wonder if "like the when the Native Americans saw the 1st ships coming from Europe and they made up godlike stories about what they were" or as Jacques Valle says "we need to look towards the absurd to get any sort of understanding of the phenomenon" that we can only see these objects as something closer to our understanding but in reality it is so fantastical that it is currently unknowable.

Take a look at - http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_AM.htm   (at least to the 4th or 5th video) regarding 4th dimensional theory

or



for 10 dimensional theory. I would say the phenomena is best explained by the edges of what we can currently understand and comprehend. Hopefully I have not insulted anyone by providing links to things people already know and have accounted for. Just my 2 cents but I respect others viewpoint.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #208 on: August 31, 2010, 09:53:58 PM »
i thought Lazar had been dismissed as a hoax years back.  granted his story was compelling and seemingly credible ... when you get into the details his story falls apart.  i don't know why anyone is paying him any mind these days. 

i'm guessing the name on the phone directory is a coincidence or maybe he was there working as a low level functionary

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #209 on: September 01, 2010, 10:26:10 AM »
Okay, fine, the shadow government made Bob's MIT career disappear. Right down to getting their hands on every paper he was ever on and re-writing things like all the programs from graduation, yearbooks etc.

Why can't he remember the subject of his own thesis? Why can't he recall the name of his faculty adviser? Why can't he come up with one student or faculty member that was there at the same time he was? Did the CIA buy a whole shipload of Peeman's mind and memory wiping cream and erase the memories of everyone at MIT? (If they did they never paid me for it).
ok, you've sold me. 


lazar is a jism satchel.