Talk:Bob Lazar

Can we include that Area 51 and stable superheavy isotopes were publicly reported before Lazar

Lazar's claims incorporated two elements that predated him: Area 51 and a stable superheavy isotope. Lazars supports often mistakenly claim that Lazar "broke the news" of Area 51 and the theorized Island of Stability, but in fact both were reported in mainstream media prior to Lazar. Area 51 was introduced to the public in 1980, BEFORE Lazar, not in 2013. The Island of Stability theory turns out not to be dead wrong.

@JoJo Anthrax has objected on my talk out of concerns that the material "serves only... to provide vague support for his claims". That's certainly not my intention, let's find a way to add more context so its clear to readers it does NOT support Lazar's claims, it serves to refute them. Obviously, my text didn't make that clear enough. Feoffer (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The best source to cite for that kind of content is Klass, Oberg, Schaeffer, et al who analyze Lazar's claims in detail. It does no good to be inserting WP:OR, even in the name of adding needed context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's OR to point out that Area 51 and Element 115 were part of the popular folklore predating Lazar, but since that pitch didn't fly, the onus is on me to dig up whatever source I once read that cited Lazar's antecedent folklore. Feoffer (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, here's one that might be used: According to Jacklyn Gates, a scientist with the Heavy Elements Group in the Nuclear Science Division for Berkeley Lab in California, Element 115 was discovered in 2003 in Dubna, Russia, at the Flerov Laboratory for Nuclear Reactions by a group of Russian scientists...but "there is no connection between this discovery and the claims of Bob Lazar." . - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The belief that the government was spying on the U.S. public was a conspiracy theory before Edward Snowden came forward. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had testified before Congress that it was untrue. Does that mean Edward Snowden's claims are possibly based on 'conspiracy theories'? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The truth may well be out there -- but Wiki articles are just a summation of what the most mainstream, widely-agreed-upon sources are saying. Right now, Lazar is treated with great skepticism in the reliable sources (and even UFO sources, if we're being honest). The article has to reflect that, at least for now. Contrast with Dave Fravor's very favorable coverage in RSes, where everyone agrees he has the background he claims and that he and others saw 'something'. Feoffer (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In fact, it was not. Before Snowden came forward, we had numerous, documented incidents of the government subjected citizens to intelligence-gathering efforts, for a variety of reasons. In fact, theories that the government spies on the population were never conspiracy theories, precisely because they arose out of real, documented incidents. That being said, the assertion that the government is spying upon a particular group for a particular purpose may be a conspiracy theory, depending on why it arose.

Regarding this topic as a whole, it should be understood that the existence of Area 51 and the theories (they are still theories, they have categorically not been confirmed) about various possible islands of stability do nothing to vindicate Lazar, as the former was known about since the early 1980's (before Lazar started talking about it) and the latter have existed since the 1940s. Neither Lazar speaking on them, nor any confirmation of their truth (no matter how definitive) does anything to suggest that Lazar is who he claims to be, and even if they did, that would do nothing to confirm his theories about UFOs or aliens. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

the former was known about since the early 1980's (before Lazar started talking about it) Exactly. I'd like to find a way to add that fact in -- Lazar didn't say anything he couldn't read about in the paper. Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

...or watch on TV. From our Area 51 article: On 14 October 1988, the syndicated television broadcast UFO Coverup? Live introduced Americans to the Majestic 12 hoax. It featured the first public mention of Nevada's Area 51 as a site associated with aliens. If you look at the UFO Cover Up? Live article, it names Doty as introducing the name Area 51. Lazar's first interview, where he appeared as an anonymous figure named "Dennis" was later, in 1989. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that Area 51 and UFOs were linked even earlier. I seem to recall a book from around '82 that I still own which does. Lemme see if I can find that book. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand all the interest in this Area 51 and UFO background material and when it Went Public, but what direct relation does it have with Lazar? Have any secondary sources made any kind of explicit statement along the lines of 'Lazar read/heard/knew about these things before gaining notoriety'? IMO this is all leaning heavily into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory. Why not also add information about the state of Nevada? Or Lazar armored vehicles? Or people with leprosy? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It stems from the discussion above. The new editor presented sources discussing the island of stability and the existence of Area 51 as evidence that somehow 'corroborates' Lazar's claims, and this spun off from that, it seems.

But as Lazar is not the first person to allege the existence of Area 51 nor the first to predict that an island of stability might be found, they don't actually demonstrate any such thing.

I don't think this should be brought up in the article unless we have a source explicitly discussing this content in the context of Lazar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

that somehow 'corroborates' Lazar's claims Precisely, and tossing in additional WP:OR/WP:SYNTH material to support, if only vaguely, that 'corroboration' seems inappropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit funny that the current article uses the lack of an existing stable isotope as evidence against Lazar's claim. And yet you also want to include the fact that the prediction that there is a stable isotope to also debunk him? That's an inconsistent narrative. Though I think it is far better to highlight that a stable form os Moscovium is predicted, rather than the current article's take on things. It would only further lend credence to Lazar if a stable isotope was created.

Also, I believe he was the first to publicly name S-4. Area 51 is at Groom Lake. S-4 is at Papoose Lake. KRLA18 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026

Under "Public appearances and media"

Add: In 2026, he was also featured in Luigi Vendittelli's documentary S4: The Bob Lazar Story. Whychangetheorderlol (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026 (2)

1982 LANL Directory Listing: Journalist George Knapp discovered that a 1982 Los Alamos National Laboratory internal phonebook listed "Lazar Robert" among the lab's scientists and technicians. ~2026-20840-67 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Source please? ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 14:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Mention of criminal convictions in lead section

I have boldly removed the sentence mentioning Lazar's criminal conviction from the lead section. I was very surprised to see relatively minor legal issues, 1 of which did not even result in a conviction of Lazar personally, mentioned in the lead of a BLP. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to discuss here so we can reach a consensus. Day Creature (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree if the only sources that mentioned it were court records or other primary sources. But as you can see, the legal troubles, charges and convictions are discussed by journalistic sources as possibly influencing the credibility of his other claims. So mention of them in the lead isn't gratuitous or a BLP violation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

NPOV and BLP compliance.

The lead is correct in referencing the general consensus that Lazar's claims are widely deemed dubious. However, the phrase "his claims about his education and employment history are replete with fabrications" may strain NPOV and BLP guidelines, and it might be better to rely on attribution as opposed to having Wikipedia's voice carry the weight of assertion here.

Original version: "his claims about his education and employment history are replete with fabrications"

Recommended alteration: "his claims about his education and employment have been widely disputed following independent investigations by journalists and skeptics"'

Also, more minor concerns with using Wikipedia's voice to say "A self-proclaimed physicist, Lazar supposedly worked at" and "denounced by some ufologists"... which could be more compliant if replaced by: "Lazar claimed to be a physicist who worked at" and "Lazar's claims have been rejected by some ufologists".

A secondary issue is sourcing. I do understand leads that behave in a summarial capacity don't necessarily require citations, however due to the fact that this article is: 1) a biography, 2) the subject has not passed away, 3) the assertions are polemical... this article may call for citations in the lead.

Again, I am not criticizing the lead summarizing the general consensus of sources, only questioning whether the lead is compliant with NPOV, BLP, and attribution guidelines. Angilas (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)