3 ms·
You might need to follow some of the older links (e.g. [1]) but there's a very clear and specific statement of what he's explaining: this is what he claims Bob
by injb 6y ago
You might need to follow some of the older links (e.g. [1]) but there's a very clear and specific statement of what he's explaining: this is what he claims Bob Lazar observed at the so-called Area 51 (Groom Lake). He claims Lazar knew exactly what it was but decided to show his friends and tell them it was UFOs. Now he is stuck with that lie because if he ever tells the truth, he could be prosecuted. That's the theory anyway - I'm not saying any of that is correct but it strikes me as by far the most plausible theory I've heard.
Applying this theory to the tic tac thingy was something I just thought of, not something the author of that website ever claimed (to my knowledge).
The problem I have with statements like "they're too big/expensive/non-portable for that" is that we already know that we're dealing with something that we can't explain. In other words: at least one of our beliefs about the state of some kind of technology is very wrong. One thing I keep hearing about these objects is that they move instantly, as if they have no mass. Well, then, they probably have no mass - that's the simplest explanation.
[1] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/looking-at-the-bob-lazar-story-from-the-perspective-of-2018/ https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
- modzu 6y agojust because it hasn't been explained easily does not imply there's a problem with our beliefs about technology. for example, that they are objects at all is already an assumption that could be wrong. what do you make of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus