Extraterrestrials Exist

Well, so says Bob Lazar and countless thousands of others at least. I’d like to discuss a few claims from Mr. Lazar as well as a few claims made about him in the following short video. If you’re at all the type of person interested in the ET question, then this article is for you, but first I ask that you observe the evidence for yourself (the video associated with this post can no longer be found.

Hmmm… Where to begin?

I was amused when, in reference to the alleged S-4, the narrator used the phrase, "…undoubtedly the most top secret base."

Appeals to top secret projects and conspiracies never cease to amaze me. Controversial phenomenon X, Y or Z is of course always top secret or shrouded in some nefarious government conspiracy so complex and interwoven into our everyday lives that we can’t see it, yet people routinely come out of the woodwork claiming transparent and undeniable proof of controversial phenomenon X, Y or Z.

I’m also suspicious off the bat because the narrator begins with rhetoric and buzz words. Phrases like "top secret," "classified," "breaks his silence," and "extraordinary interview" appear as contrived to me. What is the narrator trying to convince me of? Besides, how might one presume ethically that a research facility is "…undoubtedly the most top secret facility?" Just a question, but wouldn’t the most top secret facilities undoubtedly be ones we aren’t hearing about? On YouTube?

The narrator makes the dual and ambiguous claim that Bob Lazar is a "former government employee" and "nuclear physicist." I know what a nuclear physicist is, in theory at least, but what exactly is a "government employee?" Anyone who ever held a municipal seat, worked the city bingo game or subcontracted federal work could make that claim. It’s a pretty meaningless claim, save for its appearance of credulity, because "government employee" says nothing about an individual’s qualifications or their motives. As history politely testifies, war, killing and general human atrocities routinely come from government employees.

Granted, accepting the scientific credentials of any document or its author is largely a matter of blind faith. Speaking from my own experience, the reader simply presumes the credentials are true, until grounds surface for presuming otherwise. As for whether Bob Lazar is a nuclear physicist, how would any of us ever know the better?

In this question, grounds for alternative presumption have surfaced, most notably the work of Campbell, Freidman, et al. In fact, Lazar’s credentials are thoroughly disputed, while claims that no Bob Lazar was ever enrolled at MIT and that a Professor Hohlsfield never taught at MIT remain undisputed. Lazar’s spokesperson has responded to these claims by ignoring them and becoming verbally abusive, deferring the talk to Los Alamos where Lazar is said to have allegedly been employed. The reader should also note that establishing Lazar’s Los Alamos employment records, if possible, does not establish his alleged degrees from renowned universities.

Always beware of rhetoric and buzz words. If Bob Lazar did receive a MS in physics from MIT, as he himself claimed in Rachel, Nevada on May 1st, 1993, why not just begin this video with that bit of compelling information? It would be a far stronger appeal to authority than using vague language that any decent journalist could legitimately attack. Why would somebody begin their account with only lukewarm appeals to authority, when piping-hot ones could be easily made if the claims are true?

If a woman is beautiful, she doesn’t need fancy clothes. In fact, she will arguably look much better without them. The narrator’s claims are pretty bold claims to make, especially when in the context of such an important issue and accompanied by rhetorical omission of credentials. People have every right to know the educational background of the person who instructs them, and writers have an ethical responsibility to their readership when delivering sensitive information. That is not too much to ask.

In defense of Mr. Lazar, I can see legitimate reasons why the man may wish to blow smoke on his past, considering the sensitive and potentially life threatening subject matter of his claims. Although it’s notable, so what if the guy can’t remember his professor’s name? To focus undue energy here will only further obscure things and detract from what I’d really like to say. Besides, whether Mr. Lazar holds the degrees in question has no bearing on his overall argument in this video.

What is Mr. Lazar’s overall argument in this video anyways? I think he sums it up neatly in his concluding line:

"Obviously, the ET craft exist, something had to build them, so there must be aliens… Factories… An entire civilization somewhere."

The either-or fallacy is a logical fallacy that forces the reader to accept a conclusion from a limited set of options. I’m assuming the ET’s Lazar conceives of represent lines of divergent, biogenetic evolution on other planets. Given the debated premise that mechanical, ET craft exist, it is a logical assertion that something not of this Earth built them. However, is it logical or scientific to posit a civilization of carbon-based ET factory workers as builders a priori, when other possibilities potentially exist? The more scientific approach is to ask, How many possible scenarios could explain the phenomena, and of all possible scenarios, which explanation is the most satisfying?

I’m not saying Lazar is lying, because I don’t think he is. I’m not saying Lazar is crazy, because he often appears to be a logical researcher with a good degree of internal consistency. Neither am I taking a stance on Lazar or UFO theory here. I wish only to show the logical weakness in Lazar’s argument as presented in this video.

I’m arguing that if we get mechanical discs, we don’t get carbon-based, ET civilizations for free.

When ingesting information about controversial phenomenon X, Y or Z, it can be helpful to read between the lines to see if we can detect any discernible motive. Information packaged in motive is almost always more deserving of scrutiny. In fact, "information packaged in motive" is just a verbose way of saying, "advertising."

The questions to ask in this case are the same questions we might ask regarding any other purchase. Who does the person delivering the information work for? Does the person delivering the information or the organization they work for have a religious, political, scientific, personal or philosophical ax to grind? What does the person delivering the information want us do, believe or buy as a result of hearing it? What product, idea or belief do they want us to consume as a result of their advertising? Why is their product, idea or belief superior to their competitor’s?

It is forcibly clear to me that the makers of this video want us to believe that extraterrestrial civilizations have constructed anti-gravity craft and traveled to Earth.

What remains unclear to me are the motives behind the product they’re attempting to sell, and how to best articulate the competing ideas.