From netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netnews Mon May 15 19:29:33 1995
From: Gufon@ix.netcom.com (Gene Huff)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: THE LAZAR FLAWS - The Academic Background
Date: 14 May 1995 17:25:43 GMT
In <tmahoodD86G8F.Gno@netcom.com> tmahood@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) writes:
THE LAZAR FLAWS - The Academic Background
-Tom,
I've had some computer problems during the past couple of weeks and for this reason I haven't been able to promptly insult your integrity and question your intelligence(just joking:). I resolved these things yesterday and now I'm back on line.I also think it's good that I respond to your last 3 posts now as some of the info and reasoning will overlap and this way it will be easier to follow for those who are interested.
I need to preface these responses with a little info about Bob Lazar's personality. He's very secretive and I always kid him about "compartmentalizing lunch". What I mean by that is that if Bob Lazar doesn't find that you have a need to know any of his personal business, even some things others would find trivial or irrelevant, he doesn't share it or blows you off in the most convenient manner. He is truly the one single judge of who he should share information with and he judges only a very small group of people to be worthy of responses regarding his personal dealings and personal life, in general. For example, when we first started socializing together, one day Bob returned a call that I had left on his answering machine. His voice sounded scratchy and I asked him why. He responded, "I was out 'til three thirty last night". I said, "Oh yeah, what did you do?" Bob said, "Why?". I was hardly prying and at first I thought this was curious, but quickly I learned that that is just him. The things he doesn't divulge are not terribly interesting or worthy of being secrets, he just considers those things to be his own private, personal property.
The problem with some of your posts is that you have to use excerpts of things Bob Lazar has said in years past as a constant, then you have to draw conclusions based on those presumptions. Because Bob had blown some of these people off in the manner he found most convenient, you're in the same position as a mathematician who believes he has a constant in a formula, then it turns out to be a variable. That variable changes everything, the problem, and it's outcome. The fact that he blows people off to keep them out of his personal business had been evident for years. When you quote things from old newspaper articles, bankruptcy statements, and things of that sort, you need to remember that he didn't know that he was going to become Bob, the international UFO superstar.
For that reason, he didn't know that everything he said would be so closely scrutized or critical to whoever for whatever reason. I'm not making excuses here, I'm just trying to put things in perspective, and the general readership can interpret his actions anyway they want. Also, back to the bankruptcy for a moment. You, and others always try and employ the bankruptcy as some sort of guide and you also imply things about Lazar's "financial troubles". He obviously had reason to file bankruptcy, but this doesn't mean he was destitute. Depending on the circumstances, when confronted with legal financial problems, the first words out of your attorney's mouth will be "file bankruptcy". It's a "get out of jail free" card, and attorney's use it everyday.
For instance, a year or two ago, entertainer Wayne Newton filed Bankruptcy here in Las Vegas, and he was making a million dollars a month. Numerous people file bankruptcy everyday and retain their home, car, and even charge cards, so let's not overstate the importance of a bankruptcy.
Also, Bob had his ex-wife, Tracy, fill out many of those bankruptcy papers. Tracy was not a high school graduate and was quite naive, though certainly not a complete dummy. If you look at those bankruptcy papers you'll see that she listed(and I'm not being specific here because I don't remember the exact figures) something like $15,000 owed to a bank on a little Honda car that was worth less than half that. As you know, one could never get a loan like that from a bank and certainly Bob Lazar knows that. This shows Tracy's naivety, which is evident throughout the bankruptcy statement, though I know it's also Bob's fault because he signed the bankruptcy statement. People also include people on their bankruptcy statement to allow others to get federal income tax relief in the form of a bad debt loss.
For instance, if one's father had paid a large chunk of money for one's schooling, the father would not necessarily consider that a loan, just part of the cost of being a parent. However, if that person was filing bankruptcy, that person could include that money as a debt, allowing that person's father to get tax relief. Now I'm not implying that Bob Lazar specifically did this, nor am I trying to incriminate him in any way. I'm just pointing out that bankruptcy proceedings are generally handled by a trustee who doesn't give a damn about anything but dividing up and distributing your assets, if you have any, to your creditors. This is the reason no one questioned Tracy listing that $10,000+ loan on that $5,000- car.
I had a female friend from northern Cal file bankruptcy and beat me out of $7,000 I had loaned her for ATTORNEY'S FEES of all things! I protested this, and the trustee didn't actually even know where she lived. He only knew the address she had submitted and he didn't verify that address, nor did he really care. I forfeited the whole seven grand.
My point here is that many people envision bankruptcy as this official, all encompassing, terrible thing that is closely monitored and researched by the court and that simply isn't true. I met Bob Lazar around that bankruptcy time and he had a jet powered Honda, a jet "rail type" dragster(worth about a hundred grand), a house, and a photo lab business. This was certainly not the most "down and out" person I've ever met.
OK, enough with the background, now I'll try and answer what I can.-
> I worked at Los Alamos for a few years as a technician and then as a physicist in the Polarized Proton Section, dealing with the accelerator there.
-I'd like to note here that Bob states that he started at Los Alamos in a technician's position and was later given a physicist's position. This was before anyone was closely scrutinizing his claims, and as you see, he was being honest.-
>From the Pre-Sentence Report, dated 7/27/90, for Lazar's pandering conviction. This was as related by Lazar to the Parole/Probation officer preparing the report:
8-76, high school graduate, Westbury, New York (verified)
1978, Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics and Electronic Technology, Pacifica University (correspondence university).
1982, Masters of Science in Physics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1985, Masters of Science in Electronic Technology, Cal Tech, California.
-We need to clarify this right up front. Bob never, ever, told this dept. of probation knucklehead that he graduated from Pacifica University. He told her he took an English course and a history course from there. Bob needed these courses to get complete the requirements for a degree. He was simply taking the course of least resistance to achieve his goals. He had taken enough courses in science related subjects mathematics, physics, electronics, technical writing, etc., but lacked a couple of courses which are required to assemble the other courses into a degree.
Why would the probation underling state that? Bob had a true personality conflict with this woman. She had an attitude and so did he. She wanted to treat him like he was an actual panderer, or pimp, and all he did was install some electronic equipment in a brothel. He had already plead guilty, but those of us around him were trying to convince him to change his plea, and he was considering this. For this reason, he wasn't sure the probation report would be required, and he wasn't terribly cooperative. He didn't envision himself as a panderer, and she did.
For instance, the probation report also stated that Bob had some wine when he was thirteen. That's a curious thing to include in a probation report and here's how it happened. Bob was being questioned by this probation woman and they were already at odds. She said, "Do you drink?", to which Bob responded, "NO", which is true. She said, "You mean you've NEVER drank?" Bob said, "Well, maybe I had a sip of wine at Thanksgiving when I was thirteen or something, but no, generally, I don't drink". And the interview degenerated from there. So this probation report was a summary from someone getting partial information from Bob, information which, in true Bob Lazar form, he deemed to be none of her business. He was not afraid of her as he could have easily changed his plea and gone to trial. The probation report summary is too lengthy and complex to include here, but the point is, he did not state that he graduated from Pacifica University, and that was a presumption on her part. As you personally know, this was not the only presumption that she made.-
> he listed his occupation as "Electronics Engineer". Curiously, he also listed his highest grade of schooling completed as 12.
-Again, he had taken all of the prerequisite math and science courses, but lacked the English and History credits to parlay it into a degree. Without yet having a college degree, he considered himself to yet be a12 grade graduate. He's not the type to say that he's completed 13th or 14th or 15h grade, as some tend to do.-
>From other statements in the article, it's apparent the Lazars had been in California for some time and that he had just started work at LANL.
-Actually, the article does imply that Bob had recently started at Los Alamos, however the article offers little to establish where Bob had been for the prior two years. And even if it had, which it doesn't, we would have to presume that he thought a newspaper reporter was worthy of knowing something about his personal life.-
> However there is no evidence whatsoever that Lazar was anywhere other than California or Los Alamos during this time.
-There is also no evidence that he WAS in California. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or at least that's what Stanton Friedman always says. Did you know that Bob has three high school buddies, one who's father was a scientist, who went to MIT after high school? Did you know that Bob has a sister, who was also adopted, who still lives in New York? If you had, this could have helped you with alternative theories of where he could have possibly lived, with whom, and when.-
>When Lazar filed for bankruptcy in July of 1986, the information he was required to provide gives a snapshot of his whereabouts and activities in the years immediately prior to his filing.
-No, actually, because Bob Lazar did not find a bankruptcy trustee worthy of knowing his personal business, it provides only a snapshot of how Bob blew them off, nothing more.-
>Well, in it he states that the only places he's lived in the previous 6 years were 2 addresses in Los Alamos (Note that this is already incorrect since he didn't arrive in Los Alamos until mid-1982). He also states that his occupation for the previous 6 years was as a photo processor at his residence. Oddly, Los Alamos employment was not mentioned.
-Yet we KNOW that he worked at Los Alamos. That's not odd, not from Bob. You have just proven that my assertion, about Bob Lazar and his personal business, has some merit.-
>
>It also shows that he was very active in the Los Alamos area in 1985, borrowing heavily, apparently in part to support his photo processing business.
-It would be a mistake to presume that monies that exchanged hands were evidence of his level of activity in New Mexico, especially since he was already living in Nevada, he just hadn't bought a house yet. What amounts can be interpreted as "borrowing heavily" is subjective and depends on one's personal financial predicament. The only reason he borrowed was to avoid borrowing money from his dad. His father could have solved all of Bob's finacial problems from his check book. BTW, one has to be financially solvent, or at least an acceptable risk to borrow that kind of money, doesn't one? He had photo processing machines in Nevada also. In fact, he still has both sets. What you find apparent, is inaccuarate and not really apparent at all.-
>If we are to believe "Omni" magazine (and I'll leave that to the reader's discretion), in 1985 Lazar was on vacation in Nevada and bought into a legal brothel near Reno.
-Omni is infinitely more accurate than the other fragmented public records on which you've had to rely.
> He did take Chemistry. I obtained this information myself first hand from the school. They will undoubtedly deny giving the class rank to me since that is privacy act protected...it is a long story."
-It's a long story alright, one right out of Friedman's dreams. The school said they simply told Friedman that Bob was not number one in his class, and did not give a specific rank. However, I can easily see Bob getting good grades in math and science and mediocre grades in other subjects as he would not deem classes like World History and English Lit as being worthy.-
Why would Friedman, a widely respected father figure from the UFO community, be so malicious as to fabricate or alter a story? Because Friedman is on welfare in Canada where he is allegedly caring for his AIDS laden children. Per Friedman, the AIDS is via blood transfusions for hemophelia, not homosexuality. Friedman supplements his welfare by giving UFO talks. He had not given Bob Lazar his seal of approval, and it truly hurts Friedman that he can't control this and so many people believe the Bob Lazar story. Friedman sees Lazar receiving financial remuneration from his story, from the movie/Testor model, and this enrages him. This was the cause for his outburst on the Larry King Live UFO Special. Friedman is on the ropes financially and he needs to disprove Lazar's story to get back into the limelight. This disallows him from being as neutral as he has historically been. This would be frustrating for any patriarch who wasn't able to properly care for his children, however, it still confuses me as to why a scientist couldn't better care for his children by getting a job and producing more income. That's curious.-
>
>This exhaustive searching, coupled with the June 1982 Los Alamos "Monitor" story that puts Lazar in Los Alamos newly arrived from California, leads to the inevitable conclusion that Lazar did not attend MIT as he claims.
-Bob Lazar had to petition for his diplomas because he had hodgepodged all of his classes from various institutions. This is the reason he doesn't show up as a full time student anywhere. The Los Alamos Monitor said he just moved there from California. It doesn't say where Bob was before that, and if it did, we would have to wonder if Bob thought they were worthy of the truth.-
>
>However, Ms. Gilmore provided some additional data that actually support Lazar's case, and in fairness should be mentioned. It seems that for most Masters programs at Caltech (including EE), a thesis is not required. Lazar has only claimed one thesis, in MHD, at MIT.
-So what do you think Tom? Did he fabricate all of this educational info and simply luck out by stating that he had two masters' degrees and one thesis or could there be some substance to that?-
>
>His statement to the probation officer of a 1985 degree is particularly absurd in view of the activities he himself listed for 1985 in his bankruptcy papers.
-I think we've more than covered that. Like it or not, those documents are not reliable, they're just the best you've had. You had to suspect their accuracy long before now.-
>
> Of this I am certain of beyond a reasonable doubt.
-Or at least you were certain when you thought you had more constants than variables. Now your equation is pretty much worthless. That doesn't prove that your answer is wrong, it simply proves that the method used to arrive at your conclusion is errant.-
>
>How then do I explain the mystery of why Lazar clings so tenaciously to his claims of degrees from these institutions? I can't really. To me it is one of the great mysteries of his story. I find it hard to swallow he would maintain such a story in light of all the means of verification. Of course there are other alternative explanations, but their probability is very small.
-Boy, I have to agree here. As I have been in no better position than anyone else to verify his credentials, to retain a measure of skepticism, I've had to examine the possibility that Bob has overstated his credentials. Even if he did, all things considered, I still believe he worked in the program at S4. However, if he had done that, why would he choose MIT and CalTech, the coveted technical institutions? Also, I don't know why a guy like Bob, who has a wealthy father, as well as thebrains to attend those instituions, would claim to do so when he had not. The probability of alternative explanations may be small, but they apparently do exist and you're right, only Bob has the answers.-
>
>3. The boys at S-4, as part of their efforts to discredit Lazar, in some way implanted the absolute conviction in Lazar's mind that he possesses the degrees, making him appear a fraud to anyone checking his past.
-No, this isn't even a possibility. Bob stated to me and others that he had these degrees before he ever worked at S4. If he's hiding something, other than those two correspondence courses he got from Pacifica, it runs deep in his mind and started long before he lived in Nevada. It would still be interesting to know why Los Alamos hired him, but they're not talking, either.-
>
>
Gene Huff
Back to The Bob Lazar Corner