With most UFO evidence and or testimony I am usually able to make my mind up pretty solidly from my first impression. Incosistencies within someones story as well as evidence from body langauge and tone of speech usually give me a pretty conclusive idea of weather or not a UFO claim is or is not legitimate. With that being said I am torn on the testimony of Bob Lazar.
The first thing I noticed about Bob Lazar was his reluctant nature toward things UFO and alien ralted. You really get the idea that his life has been somewhat ruined by the testimony he has given, and when watching him recount certain details reguarding the events after he got caught in the desert I see certain body langauge and speech signals that are consistent with people recounting traumatic events.
The other thing that really makes me believe his testimony is the fact that his overall story about his work in 89' has remained consistent for over 25 years. typically if a person changes large details of their story or continously adds information that wasn't there before it is a sign they are being intentionally deceptive. Robert Lazar's testimony for the past 25 years has been consistent and he hasn't really given out any new information since he first acted as a whistelblower.
Despite this the part that always makes me somewhat doubt his story is the fact that he clearly fibbed about his educational background. Bob claimes to have degrees in both physics and electronic systems from MIT, but upon contacting MIT there is no record of him ever having gone there -which is definitley a hit on his overall credibility. Given how meticulous records are kept at elite colleges like MIT I find it hard to belive that the dept of defense was able to intimidate the school into wipping out student records.
Although he seems to have been deceptive about his educational record, His work record seems to be very legitimate. During his 1990 legal troubles a Nevada state judge confimed that Bob had existing W2 forms confirming that he did indeed work the the department of Naval Intelligence as well as the fact that he was in the phone directory for Los Alamos back in the mid 80's seem to confim that he is not being deceptive about his work experiance.
Another thing that sways me to believing Bob's testimony is the fact that he really knows his stuff, his interviews and projects indicate that despite likely fibbing about his educational background he really does have an extensive work experiance in fields relating to physics and chemistry, from rocket cars to owning a company that distributes checmical compounds for commercial use, i'm pretty convinced of his overall work background
The last thing I'll mention seems to hurt his credibiltiy in my mind and those are the legal troubles that he had back in 1990. From what I understand he did electronic accounting for a prostitute and that got him the felony charge or pandering. Even though being willing to engage in illegal activity is a known part of being a whistleblower of any kind, the fact that he was involved in something as shady as a prostitution ring makes me iffy about his credibility once more.
Overall I've known the the Bob Lazar case for almost 10 years now and still can't make my mind up weather or not he is legitimate or he is fraud, can anyone tell me if I'm missing anything impotant on the validity of his testimony?
P.S, Tell me what you guys think.