"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135070950.829601.260400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi.

Take a look:

Lazar Critique http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm

Anyone wanna refute?

Here's my take: there are some problems with this critique. The most
blatant is that the criticizer demands Lazar put out a complete model
of his new theory, ASSUMING that he would be able to do that if he is
as well-versed in physics as he claims, and that if he can't, he
doesn't know jack. But this ASSUMPTION is wrong: Lazar was working on a
device that only a few people knew about and even they knew very little
about how it worked! So some of his ideas could be inaccurate, and he
CERTAINLY would not have enough knowledge about this machine to
formulate a complete, polished, new theory of physics! The argument
presented in the above site collapses.

What do you think?

I have seen several documentaries which included interviews with Mr. Bob
Lazar.  Now, I am not versed enough in physics to pretend to understand his
theoretical presentations on how the propulsion systems, he claims to have
worked on , function.  But that is really a moot point, since I also find it
hard to swallow that anyone, much less our Government, is in possession of a
UFO. I just want to see one single photograph, clear and in focus.  Alas, to
date all I ever saw were pictures of smudgy shapes that by some stretch of
the imagination, could be called UFOs.  If you look at clouds long enough,
you will see something that your brain identifies as a known object, even a
UFO. As much as I would like to believe that we are being visited, there is
simply no hard evidence. Show me a lug nut, a fender, anything that can be
analyzed by scientists and classified as extraterrestrial. As yet, nothing
has clearly been proven as such.
I am sure that gravitation will play a big part in future propulsion system,
either by attraction or repulsion, but unfortunately, we have a long way to
go, which leaves Bob Lazar's commentaries relegated to the bin of wishful
thinking.