TL;DR Bob Lazar says he's a physicist that worked in classified laboratory, yet he wasn't able to produce any theoretical ideas above surface level, pop-science like statements. Rather than showing real evidence which would be the physics knowledge gained in these months he worked in S-4 (no one could've taken it from him), he decided to gain trust based only on the situational facts and scientifically meaningless statements - meaningless as not adding anything useful to current physics knowledge. I am a PhD physicist working in Europe on Dark Energy/Matter topics in Cosmology and it comes with a great deal of knowledge in General Relativity. As a researcher with 5 years of experience it is hard for me to believe in Bob Lazar story. I would prefer not to disclose my identity, thus the throwaway account. There is a lot of debate on Bob Lazar from his credibility and history standpoint, if he did graduate or not, if he lived somewhere or not, blah blah blah. Of course, this part is important to gain trust or discredit someone in such case, but I can't get rid of a feeling of a doubt, that he spent months in highly classified lab as a scientific researcher and didn't produce any significant theoretical outcome (or experimental, which still comes with a need of theoretical knowledge of what you experiment on). The way he explains his work or any "scientific" findings looks more like a testimony of a tourist that was invited to the laboratory and has been given leaflet about the place - "There is something there, it was alien and magical, there were tubes and generators, and they showed me they do fantastic things, there is this element 115 that somehow does things" This whole story lacks the only thing that no one could've taken from him - the real knowledge of physics he gained there. The first reflex of any physicist that whistleblow such thing, would be to write down any theoretical knowledge gained there in a language that the physics really speaks in - mathematics. How is it that he never showed any equations, experimental values, anything that would gain attention from real life scientist who actually work on gravity and cosmology (like I do)? If he spent months in a lab, he had to work and produce the results, not just do sightseeing as he presents his time there - "Dennis showed me that, another guy showed me that". The things he was shown by his colleagues (that is also the only things he talks about) could've been 2 day long training, not few months of researcher work. From my field of research, if he could show any field equations that could explain: the connection between strong force and Einstein equations or any hint on how they should be connected, how one should approach it to connect them. what experiments he did, with what equipment, what were the main observations and measurable results. what was the roadmap of reverse engineering this crafts. what were the assumptions they had to make to make it work with current scientific knowledge? what errors does General Relativity have now that it doesn't reproduce his claims? (we need negative mass to create anti-gravity and there is no way to focus "gravitational wave beam" such it will propel a spaceship. Btw, the theoretical warp drive that was proposed in the past by real scientists works differently than what Bob explains) And I don't say he needs to change whole General Relativity just to prove himself - any, no matter how small, real physics data would be sufficient. And if you work for months on the thing classified more than Project Manhattan was, you would remember these findings for life. I remember my PhD results or first small lab outcomes from undergrad for years now in great detail and so do many real life physicists that I know. And we don't get migraines if someone asks us deeper questions about these discoveries. There are also doubts about his actions after going public: Why, after he left S-4, he never picked up a research position and try to find a theory to explain this things? Why never give actual physics knowledge on stuff he did, so maybe other scientists can pick this up? Even if with his surface level claims he wanted to gain attention of wider audience, why he never addressed people with greater knowledge in physics? (For such great findings, it is more frustrating for physicist to boil down his findings to pop-science level as he needs to strip lot of things and it is natural to have an urge to explain the findings in full detail, which comes with a need to be more high-level in their explanation) Why since 1989 he never attended interview with real life physicist to discuss this ideas? That would help find real answers - even if he forgot or misunderstood things, such confrontation would help get to real deal behind his claims. His story looks like some random guy was taken from street, shown great things, told the world what he was shown, and came back to the streets. It takes a great will to graduate physics and that require a curiosity about world around you, curiosity about how it all works. You do not just throw away such knowledge as Bob gained, you want to know more, this curiosity is physicist's nature. One could say, he was scared for his life back then - okay, but why isn't he saying anything scientific now in his documentary, his interviews? If he would produce any meaningful theoretical framework that would work with General Relativity, QFT and Standard Model, he would gain not only trust but great attention. But rather than that, he just decided to present surface level ideas, without any physical meaning (no, saying that gravity does things to spacetime or that element 115 exists is not an explanation of scientific discoveries by someone who considers himself a physicist, it is more of a pop-science rambling). I have never seen him saying anything that would require anything more than popular science knowledge on this topic. No matter of how many people would say they trust him, or if there supposedly was attempt to silence him by government, or if George Knapp or Joe Rogan says he is truthful and sincere just because he didn't changed his story for years and that he lived in that time near Area 51 - it won't produce any evidence of his claims. And the evidence in physics doesn't need to be videos or photos, they are rather low value evidence of scientific breakthroughs on the level he claims to have seen. The only real evidence would be scientific research or work or equations or even good deep physics hints that would makes sense. submitted by /u/Secret_Roll4958 [link] [comments]