• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

Forums New posts
Gene wasn't patronizing with Stanton Friedman. Stan is locked into his positions after all these years. If you don't lean on him a bit he falls back into telling his stories.
 
I started a chat discussion asking the community that question and it was deleted. Pretty lame.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
It was a just a question. It's obvious youre not really interested in what the truth was. Maybe they would have agreed with you. Now we'll never know. What a great forum.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
The truth is that your claim about those alleged 10 "rude" questions is not borne out by the facts. There is nothing else to discuss. Have a nice day.
 
One more thing: If you feel there were 10 rude questions, please post the timestamps where those questions were asked (I assume this is the free version of the radio show rather than the Paracast+ version). That way, people can go directly to those parts of the episode and verify for themselves whether the questions exist, and their nature.

It's in your court here, since you've made this silly claim. Your credibility in these forums hangs in the balance.
 
Oh my god... Since I was talking to you directly when I said that you asked stanton for proof, "like 10 times", you were supposed to understand that mean ," too often". My point was that you were rude and I believe condescending. I am a long time listener and my opinion should at the very least cause you to consider other perspectives. I opened a discussion to see if I others shared my view and asked the question in a way that was very fair to you. Instead of letting that process move forward, you shut it down. It was a question about the tone of your interview and did not attack you personally. I'd say that it's your credibility that's hanging in the balance. After all, I openly admitted in my forum post(that out deleted) that I could be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
You are wrong. You've been told that already — several times. I asked you to prove your point, and you can't.

Have a nice day, but this discussion is over.
 
Decker said:
As I have maintained over the years, Lazar has a corner in my "grey box". I met him right after he came out of the shadows, courtesy of George Knapp. Rich Sarradet and I have been to Lazar's house, I have interviewed him a number of times on my radio shows ... and I will say this. "In all the years I have known or spoken to Lazar, his story never changed. Nor did he ever really try to capitalize his situation."

Does this mean I buy his story? No, it does not. But it does mean I find his story very interesting. I have spoken to Knapp a number of times about Lazar. I respect Knapp and his abilities as a journalist. Knapp has never wavered in his support of Lazar, regardless of the business concerning advanced degrees.

Do I like Bob Lazar? Well, this much I will say. I never managed to "warm up" to Lazar on a personal level. However I try to keep my personal feelings out of it. Will we ever truly know the real story? I doubt it.

Decker
Click to expand...

I have often believed that Bob Lazar simply lied and mis-represented his background in order to get a job at Los Alamos (LA) via a sub-contractor. This bit is almost universally accepted despite his lack of educational background. Aside from Lazar being listed in the LA phonebook, we now have an actual Ph.D on record who remembers Lazar in classified meetings at LA.

Dr. Robert Krangle, said that he interacted and knew of Bob Lazar working at Los Alamos. Kringle said: "He was a physicist. Which, I am a physicist. We kind of recognize each other, you know it’s the classic pocket condom with all of the proper different colored pens, so he fit that mold. If nobody would have told me, one look, he is a physicist. You know, he is properly dressed in geekdom,” Krangle told Corbell. Not only did he look the part, but Krangle says he attended security meetings with Lazar. He explained that in these meetings “they give you the usual briefing asking you not to talk about that you are doing or seeing.” As for what specifically Lazar was working on, Krangle says, “I didn’t know what he was up to anymore than he knew what I was up to.”

It would not be the first time a person without a degree lied or forged their way to a very high position. For example, Marilee Jones had been with MIT for 28 years before the university realized that she never received the undergraduate or master's degrees that she said she got on her resume. In fact, Jones never received any college degrees. Even worse, In 1999, it was revealed that Jeffrey Papows, president of IBM's software maker Lotus Development, fibbed about his academic and military background. How many military projects that required a security clearance do you think Papows worked on or knew about as President of IBM/Lotus...

Finally, I believe the government eventually vetted Lazar and realized he didn't have the educational background he claimed when he tried applying for larger jobs, at places like Area 51. This then allowed the government a great deal of leverage when working with Lazar. That is to say, they could have easily prosecuted him for misrepresenting himself in order to gain a high security clearance. Rather than do this, they forced him to play a role in this whole Area-51 dis-info (perhaps) operation. However, Lazar was probably sworn to uphold his statements about his fake degrees, because that is how they were able to discredit him and, in a sense, have plausible deniability. "Why would we send a guy to work on a top project who didn't even have a degree, clearly this guy is lying." I believe if Lazar was to ever really tell us the complete story he would violate his security oath and probably be prosecuted for his original mistake of lying about his background to secure that sub-contracting job and subsequent security clearance. Curiously, for a fraud with no education, Lazar has done quite well for himself and still has government contracts. He recently posted photos of his two homes, one of which is for sale. They are quite impressive. I would be curious to compare Lazar, "the fraud's" home to that of Stanton Friedman.

Michigan & New Mexico Homes

mh0a.jpg
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You are wrong. You've been told that already — several times. I asked you to prove your point, and you can't.

Have a nice day, but this discussion is over.
Click to expand...
I gave an opinion that you don't agree with and you say that I'm wrong. I assure you that Im not wrong about my own personal feelings. I didn't intend to have this discussion with you in the first place...[emoji107]

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top