Rebuttal to Dr. David L. Morgan on Bob Lazar

OK, now I am going to rebut someone I think is not even worthy of being rebutted. I am going to do it anyway, because he is misleading less knowledgeable people.  Firstly, let me state my opinion loud and clear on this issue as I see it. Also, this article might have spelling and grammar errors, because I wrote it quickly. I have better things to do with my time than to rebut idiots. I also come off as an arrogant asshole, but that was not my intention or perhaps I am one, but for good reason. I am simply tired of dealing with stupidity. I want to help people, but at the same time, it is too stressful for me to do so and the gap of knowledge is just too wide.

Let me state a few things:

No one has the right to talk about Extraterrestrials if they either have not met one face to face or if they have not worked on a government project related to them.

Likewise,

No one has the right to comment on black projects if they have not worked around black projects.

Next,

No one has the right to authoritatively comment on physics if they themselves are not a physicist or at least in a related field.

That leaves few people who are qualified to speak on the subject of Bob Lazar and whether or not he is telling the truth. Of course, everyone has opinions about him. Ask any scientist. He will be full of opinions. Try to get a room of scientists to agree on almost any controversial topic: They will usually disagree.

Firstly, in the right black ops circles, Bob Lazar's story is just standard stuff. Of course, not all people in black-ops have been exposed to the scientific material Bob has been exposed to, because projects with black-ops are highly compartmentalized. So someone can believe they have the highest level security clearance in the world, and learn about all kinds of secret technology and still not run across anything to do with ET technology. That doesn't mean that ET technology back-engineering doesn't exist. It just means they were never privy to it.

OK, so this leads us to Dr. David L. Morgan. He makes irresponsible assertions everywhere. They are childish, stupid. I can't believe I am wasting my time, but here goes. The article I am referring to is: http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/lazar/critiq.htm

First Davd L. Morgan says that Bob Lazar's stuff will violate a "handful of physics law" if true. I have spoken with Bob and he knows that to be the case. The reactor makes a seemingly 100% thermo-electric conversion. This is generally known to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

However, assumptions abound here. There is a little understood or quoted statement made by Bob Lazar about this reactor, which I paraphrase here: "The reaction starts once the 115 is inserted into the reactor. Everything is coordinated like a miniature music box."

Now, there is a common mistake in the derivation of Maxwell's equations, where a minus sign is thrown away. This is specifically in the reverse-time field of EM derivation. It is thrown away, because we simply don't see why its needed. However a scientist by the name of John G. Cramer shows why this is a mistake. By keeping the negative sign, we are led to the Transactional Interpretation of QM where EM waves travel forwards and backwards in time. This allows for events to become synchronized in time. This is not that controversial: many scientists have proposed that time is symmetrical and that interactions can be seen as either going forward or backward in time. This includes Feynman and others... Even my professor at UCLA proposed it to us. But not all physicists are as well educated as I was. (see spontaneous suppression and reverse-time conjugation).

Secondly, the idea that Gravity is actual united with EM is not new. In fact, a 5-dimensional derivation of General Relatively shows a unification of the forces might be possible, only that such a derivation showed the EM force would be many times weaker than currently measured. But this is old news. More or less rejected, but recently resurrected in a different form in M-theory.

In the meantime, there has been a physicist who has unified EM-Gravity and the Strong Force. The name of this genius (whom I have met and have read all of his articles) is Harold E. Puthoff. Its a stochastic interpretation of gravity, which says that gravity is the result of EM energy which fills the universe. Matter shields this energy and therefore causes a 1/R4 force at close terms (strong force) and a 1/R2 force at further distances (gravity). His formulas work out very well and make a lot of sense. The only thing that he is missing is the reverse time components, which are filled with the Transactional Interpretation.

Let me also state that Puthoff's articles are thrown around in black ops circles as a sort of way of introducing the actual theories of gravity and the strong force. I have seen this with my own eyes.

When all these factors are combined, we are left with the theory that is used internally by the projects at S-4:
1. General Theory of Relativity.
2. The negative sign in Maxwell's equations.
3. Transactional Interpretation.
4. Putthoff Stochastic EM theory.

But its all combined using a derivation based on the four-vector (quaternion) which combines all of the above.

So, now that you understand this basic stuff, then you can proceed forward to explain what is really going on. To any physicist who wants to criticize anything I wrote up to this point. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Why? Because nothing I have started is controversial. For one thing: its too general. So if you start to criticize it, this is just you, making stuff up.

It is sad that I have to waste my time explaining such simple stuff.

Ok, let's move on and rebut Dr. David L. Morgan point by point.

1. "And gravity attracts EVERYTHING"

Ok, this is idiotic. This is proof Dr. Morgan was not listening at all or has no imagination or a very tiny understanding of the field of physics in general. Bob is talking about bendable gravitational fields, form-able ones, like the kind that forms wormholes. GR already allows for the existence of such fields. It is where the distortions themselves are not radial, they are focused, or the wrap upon themselves. Even Steven Hawking is known for proposing such theories all the time.

2. He criticizes Bob's saying that Gravity is thought to be "either a wave or particle", like Bob said something wrong.
There was nothing Bob made in reference to gravity being a wave or particle that has not already been stated in physic textbooks everywhere. In fact, it sounded like he was quoting a textbook. Being that Bob's specialty has never been General Relativity, I would not expect anything more. Dr. Morgan's criticism of the ultimatum Bob put up is ridiculous. Its ignorant. Bob said nothing technically wrong. To date, we have no proof that gravity is quantized. That is still an open issue in physics. In fact, there is no general consensus as to what gravity is. If you ask Puthoff, he thinks its just part of EM stochastics. So he thinks he has the answer. But M-theorists think they have the answer too. Only that M-theory is very new.

3. Surmising particles that don't exist?Here Dr. Morgan finally said the only thing that makes sense, "As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here." That's right, Dr. Morgan, you don't know what you are talking about. Finally you said something true. Firstly, there are many particles that have been surmised to exist that we are not sure about. For example, the Higgs-Boson was proposed to exist and perhaps we have found it as of the date of this article. I think Bob was referring here to gravitons and the top quark. The top quark was surmised to exist in 1973, but was not found until 1995, after Bob had made those statements.
4. You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter".

Most physicists don't understand the subtle differences you just pointed out, nor do we consider it important. However, after having read everything written on Bob and listened to every interview, I am not sure where you got this quote from.
5. the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY.Oh my God, Dr. Morgan. YOU ARE AN IDIOT AN IDIOT AN IDIOT. Why am I wasting my time. Firstly, you just offended every M-Theorist. In addition, even Einstein himself, who believed the forces were unified. But again, I refer you to the Puthoff's articles. Look 'em up.

6. Binary stars should have nothing to do with whether or not heavier elements exist.I don't know. You don't know. How can anyone know the answer to that? Only an ET could know, because only an ET has been to another star system. So, again, Bob is just repeating what he read, as he was doing in almost all cases. I think you are confusing the issue here. Everything Bob was saying was just what he was repeating from the folders he read and from what he was told. Again, not worthy of comment, just like this entire rebuttal. It is like an adult trying to correct children. I hated being a physics teacher when I was one for this reason. I have little patience for stupidity.

7. A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom.

According to Puthoff's theory, geometry is important. The larger the nucleus, the greater its effects will extend outward. And by the way, Puthoff's theory is the best unification theory I have seen to date. Best, meaning easiest to understand and it works. Just apply a little bit of imagination or if you don't have any, then write a computer program modeling Puthoff's theory. You will see it is true what I am saying.

8. Modern science can't be wrong!
Sure it can. It certainly is. 100 years from now, we will say that, just like we say it now about science 100 years ago. We will say, "Well it was right from their limited point of view."

OK, this was such a monumental waste of time. I can't believe I even wrote this article. I find you people to be so stupid. I wish you would just shut up. I see why Bob and others don't waste their time writing these rebuttals.