by Michael E. Salla, PhD
May 21, 2005
I wish to focus on some recent scientific advances that vindicate
some of the information that
Bob Lazar provided from his alleged
experiences at S4, and respond to some of his critics.
important criticism concerned Lazar's initial claim in 1989 of the
existence of a stable form of
element 115. The existence of such an
element was initially dismissed by some of his critics and became a
factor in Lazar not being taken seriously.
For example Stanton
Friedman wrote in 1997:
"There is no evidence that any 115 has been created anywhere. Based
on what we know about all other elements over #100, it would
certainly have been radioactive with a short half life, and 500
pounds could not have been accumulated. His scheme sounds good, but
makes no real sense especially in view of how difficult it would be
to add protons to #115."
However, in February 2004 scientists announced that they were able
to reproduce an isotope of 115 in a laboratory, and said that a
stable isotope is possible.
Dr Joshua Patin, one of the creators of
the 115 isotope, confirmed in an interview with Linda Moulton Howe
that with sufficient technological advances, the creation of a
stable form of 115 is possible:
"[Howe:] Could there be an element 115 isotope that is solid and can
be held in the hand?
[Dr Patin:] "Some day down the road, I think so. If it's true that
we find something that is long enough lived. To hold something in
your hand, you would need a significant quantity of these atoms.
We've produced four atoms of Element 115 in a month. It would take
you don't have enough time in the rest of the universe to create
enough that you could hold in your hand through these same kinds of
production methods (that we are using).
That's why I say a future
technology might allow us advances in terms of how much can be
produced and the target material, maybe a better way of producing
but somewhere down the road, there might be a possibility, sure.
As to how element 115 is formed,
Lazar claimed it is formed in
massive stars. In an article he wrote:
"[M]any single star solar systems have stars that are so large that
our Sun would appear to be a dwarf by comparison. Keeping all this
is mind, it should be obvious that a large, single star system,
binary star system, or multiple star system would have had more of
the prerequisite mass and electromagnetic energy present during
Scientists have long theorized that there are potential combinations of protons and neutrons which should provide
stable elements with atomic numbers being higher than any which
appear on our periodic chart, though none of these heavy elements
occur naturally on earth."
Lazar's idea that element 115 is formed in stars led to more
criticism this time by astronomers and physicists that Lazar was
incorrect since stars could not produce heavy metals with atomic
numbers greater than iron (atomic number 26) in stable stars.
criticism was raised by Dr David Morgan in 1996 whose critique was
kindly sent to me by Stanton Friedman.
Dr Morgan says:
"[Lazar] SEEMS to be suggesting that his
element 115, the alien fuel
source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be present in those
solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The
implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more
massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier
This is quite incorrect. Heavy elements - all elements
heavier than iron - are not formed during the normal life cycles of
stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked" is during the
collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae.
explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For
this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star
system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on
the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION!
Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the
galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements,
regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as
claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions
and it should exist EVERYWHERE!"
Dr Morgan's criticism of Lazar is not supported by recent
breakthroughs in understanding the formation of heavy metals in
It has been discovered for example that heavy metals with
higher atomic numbers than iron (26) can and are found in stars in
their normal cycle rather than just through supernova which was the
A NASA astronomer reflecting on this new theory
answers a question concerning the existence of heavy metals with
higher atomic metals forming in massive stars and answers:
"it does not require a supernova to
create elements heavier than iron. Heavy elements can also form
in the cores of massive stars before they go supernova".
This new theory has been recently confirmed with the
discovery of three massive stars that have 'lead' (atomic number 82)
"The theory has now been supported by data from the three
binary, or "double" stars, studied by French and Belgian astronomers
using the European Southern Observatory 3.6 meter telescope at La Silla, Chile.
Each star, which is otherwise light in metal, contains
an amount of lead weighing the same as the Moon.
The process by which some stars develop high concentration of
heavy metals such as lead towards the end of their lives is called
the 'slow fusion' or 's-process' and is described as follows:
"The high abundance of Lead in these otherwise low-metallicity stars
also provides detailed clues on how the s-process operates inside
the AGB stars. When a Carbon-13 nucleus (i.e. a nucleus with 6
protons and 7 neutrons) is hit by a Helium-4 nucleus (2 protons and
2 neutrons), they fuse to form Oxygen-16 (8 protons and 8 neutrons).
In this process - as can be seen by adding the numbers - one neutron
is released. It is exactly these surplus neutrons that become the
building-blocks for making heavier elements via the s-process."
It is estimated that half of all metals heavier than iron are caused
by supernova explosions where these are rapidly formed through
nuclear fusion (r-process) and the other half in stable stars with
low metallicity that slowly build up heavy metals in a more gentle
The new understanding of the formation of heavy metals in stars and
discovery of large quantities of lead in some stars basically
negates Dr Morgan's criticism and shows that Lazar's idea that some
massive stars in the normal stellar cycle may have element 115
developed in them is a very real possibility.
What are the exopolitical implications of this given Lazar's claims
that extraterrestrials use 115 for their propulsion systems?
element 115 is naturally formed in the core of some massive stars
and element 115 is used in the propulsion system of extraterrestrial
races, then it would be fair to assume that some extraterrestrials
may have discovered how to mine stars of their heavy elements to use
as a propulsion fuel.
Indeed, extraterrestrials with sufficient
knowledge in mining suns of element 115 and other elements may be
using this as part of an interstellar trade. Indeed, such knowledge
and possession of large quantities of 115 and other elements may
lead to interstellar conflicts over certain star systems.
the Earth's sun or nearby stars may have heavy elements that may
attract extraterrestrial races who seek to mine these precious
natural resources. We are now slowly moving to an understanding of
how certain star systems might be highly prized by extraterrestrial
races that seek to gain control and mine stars of heavy elements
such as element 115.
With new advances in physics and astronomy,
Bob Lazar's information so widely dismissed in the early 1990's appears
to have more relevance than ever.