Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

Well done Orion,

Rehash Boyd for the board, even though he and his stories have been subject of quite some bit of scrutiny here, why not add another thread that just touches all the points that were touched on in the last thread in one way or another.


Is there an organized effort to make UFOlogy look like loony bin subject?


When you go round and round in circles thinking your going get anywhere other than where you started it becomes an exercise in insanity, doing the same over and over hoping for a different result.

OH well TV has its re runs, Why not ATS?

a reply to: draknoir2

Ah, yes, that would be mr Scott Ferree..

This him?

media.licdn.com...

if so:
*SNIP*

We don't post other people's contact info on ATS...

a reply to: DrakNoir2

And I just sent him an invite. See what happens.

Maybe you could give him a ring?

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OrionsGem

i reply because the evidence proving your assertions are wrong is posted in this thread.

What evidence is that, exactly?

read the thread; is not my job to serve everything up on a silver platter because you refuse to do the research yourself.

I read the entire thread an I still have no clue what evidence you are talking about. the only evidence I have seen is evidence of this "alien" being a prop. none whatsoever that its ANYTHING else. unless you have a real alien to compare...

so you've read the countless posts here showing that the prop does not match the et in the video?

Did you formulate your own version of this thread in your mind to suit your flawed hoax explanation?

OG

ET was bathed in a watered down model ink. Hence the reason this looks more realistic. You honestly think they'd pull it out of the box and bingo? You do realize that's why they didn't zoom in to provide better pics right? They obviously know AV with the 45 correction. That alone proves this has been doctored.

Where's your proof they're not the same and one is just inked? Because as an avid miniature painter (40k and Acton Sets), it's obvious they inked it.

This is exactly why you've been asked multiple times to read the thread. NOT skim the thread... read the posts if you're going to comment.

I've refuted the "it's this prop, I've seen it before" claim multiple times and nobody has been able to explain it without grasping at straws. Now you're doing the same thing because you haven't read the thread. You looked at one post and hit the reply button so you could add your 2 cents.

Your ink explanation is weak. The ink wash would explain the skin tones and nothing more. Explain to me why the "alien" in the photos has moving eyelids. Explain to me why the "alien" in the photo and the prop have different jaw structures, different area around the mouth, different shape to the head and "ears", etc.

At first glance, a person could say "oh they're the same" because they do look similar. When you actually look carefully at both subjects, they are not the same. To claim otherwise is an extremely lazy attempt to debunk... but you've already proven that you're too lazy to read anything in this thread. You'd rather add your opinion without bothering to see if it has already been posted thereby adding nothing of value to the thread and restarting the same arguments over and over.

One poster said "why didn't they scan and upload the pics?" Right... because digital images are very trustworthy these days. Then we'd be fighting over how they photoshopped the images.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Well done Orion,

Rehash Boyd for the board, even though he and his stories have been subject of quite some bit of scrutiny here, why not add another thread that just touches all the points that were touched on in the last thread in one way or another.


Is there an organized effort to make UFOlogy look like loony bin subject?


When you go round and round in circles thinking your going get anywhere other than where you started it becomes an exercise in insanity, doing the same over and over hoping for a different result.

OH well TV has its re runs, Why not ATS?

Differences among types of members is crazy. I've researched Boyd several times. Unlike most here in this thread claiming to find truth I've actually made an attempt to find valid claims... not Rehash old bs.

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Well done Orion,

Rehash Boyd for the board, even though he and his stories have been subject of quite some bit of scrutiny here, why not add another thread that just touches all the points that were touched on in the last thread in one way or another.


Is there an organized effort to make UFOlogy look like loony bin subject?


When you go round and round in circles thinking your going get anywhere other than where you started it becomes an exercise in insanity, doing the same over and over hoping for a different result.

OH well TV has its re runs, Why not ATS?

Differences among types of members is crazy. I've researched Boyd several times. Unlike most here in this thread claiming to find truth I've actually made an attempt to find valid claims... not Rehash old bs.

you have made no effort whatsoever. You haven't even made the effort to read the whole thread which you've been asked to do many times, why? Because the educated replies posted here have disproven your debunkink attempts over and over.

But you continue to ignore this as if we never replied to you and continue to post your already debunked explanations.

Your right there are definitely stark differences between folks here.

OG

This case reminds me of the one I recently watched Moon Mona Lisa... nice attempt and all, looks real but in the end just a worthless junk. The first thing I felt when seeing the 'alien' photo was how unreal it looked, like as if ... some rubber toy. The video with the grey autopsy and damaged leg looks times more real than this one, even though it is also not.

So ask the question first - which came first - the doll or the photo, which was first created? For example if someone wants to make the case look fake, they would replicate the creature from the photo into a doll, so that when people see the doll will always think the picture comes from the doll, not the other way.

Sadly for the ones who hoped this is real, this case seems like the Mona Lisa case, fabricated, disinfo, nothing real. The man is just misled to believe he was given real things. What better way to cause confusion by making the hoax more real when it becomes a deathbed explanation?

It'll be hard for some of you to believe, but I am very "on the fence" about this story... as I am with any alien/UFO story.

What I'm trying to do is get the ATS skeptics to raise their level of debunking. I'm tired of seeing weak attempts to debunk every story and image that comes along and posters prancing around claiming to have things figured out when they've actually been incredibly lazy.

When a video or story is posted, present an intelligent argument... not a half-hearted attempt that does nothing but put smiles on the faces of the folks who hide the truth from us.

Before some dingus tries to claim it, I'm not saying you can't post your opinion... just that a poorly researched opinion should not be stated as fact.

originally posted by: Answer
It'll be hard for some of you to believe, but I am very "on the fence" about this story... as I am with any alien/UFO story.

What I'm trying to do is get the ATS skeptics to raise their level of debunking. I'm tired of seeing weak attempts to debunk every story and image that comes along and posters prancing around claiming to have things figured out when they've actually been incredibly lazy.

When a video or story is posted, present an intelligent argument... not a half-hearted attempt that does nothing but put smiles on the faces of the folks who hide the truth from us.

Before some dingus tries to claim it, I'm not saying you can't post your opinion... just that a poorly researched opinion should not be stated as fact.

Totally agree. Debunking is healthy when it is done in an intelligent and credible manner.

We all hate it when someone posts a "real" ufo video, yet offers no proof that its real.

The same should be applied to debunkers. If you scream HOAX then provide the PROOF.

Otherwise you are not stating facts you are stating OPINIONS.

And this may be even harder to believe...but as I said in my OP, Im on the fence as well about this case.

OG

a reply to: ForteanOrg

What else do we know - and do you have any suggestions what we should do with it? You seem to have a plan or line of thought?

I think your recap was pretty good. My only thought is that he was fed a bunch of pooh. Doesn't seem like he knew any real information but seemed to be a prime candidate for planting a story since he was so eager to share. I really haven't been the same since I watched Mirage Men. So I "see" government conspiracies everywhere now and I might as well get into the spirit of that.

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Well done Orion,

Rehash Boyd for the board, even though he and his stories have been subject of quite some bit of scrutiny here, why not add another thread that just touches all the points that were touched on in the last thread in one way or another.


Is there an organized effort to make UFOlogy look like loony bin subject?


When you go round and round in circles thinking your going get anywhere other than where you started it becomes an exercise in insanity, doing the same over and over hoping for a different result.

OH well TV has its re runs, Why not ATS?

Differences among types of members is crazy. I've researched Boyd several times. Unlike most here in this thread claiming to find truth I've actually made an attempt to find valid claims... not Rehash old bs.

you have made no effort whatsoever. You haven't even made the effort to read the whole thread which you've been asked to do many times, why? Because the educated replies posted here have disproven your debunkink attempts over and over.

But you continue to ignore this as if we never replied to you and continue to post your already debunked explanations.

Your right there are definitely stark differences between folks here.

OG

As other members here have pointed out...Boyd has been around for over half a decade. I've come across his claims YEARS ago and figured out he was fraudulent. Reading 40 pages of the same "you're a disinfo agent" bs is going to prove what to me? I have no desire to spend time on someone I've already researched. There's more theories out there to explore. Instead of defending a flawed story, why don't you cease posting and move on to the next?

I've pointed out several issues in this thread alone. Most of which have been neglected due to actually having merit.

And it's rather childish for believers to ask skeptics to find proof. Our proof is literally the believers inability to present a solid case. Like Sagan said, Fanatic claims require Fantastic proof... or something to that effect

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Why do you keep saying he was not a senior scientist but an engineer, they are not mutually exclusive.

en·gi·neer noun \ˌen-jə-ˈnir\
: a person who has scientific training and who designs and builds complicated products, machines, systems, or structures : a person who specializes in a branch of engineering

Of course, if somebody in here can prove he WAS a scientist

The man had a degree in both math and physics. Yes that proves he was a scientist!

I am reading a book right now by a scientist who is an engineer who has spent his life studying and working in the medical field and quantum physics and has worked at the collider among other things.

So what does this have to do with whether or not he has valid info about aliens?

a reply to: Jenisiz

I've pointed out several issues in this thread alone. Most of which have been neglected due to actually having merit.

care to reiterate them in nice easy bullet points with excellently sourced informational links?

ive just got back, it would be great to have a recap, like watching American t.v after every commercial

funbox

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: DrakNoir2

And I just sent him an invite. See what happens.

Maybe you could give him a ring?

Not likely. Not my thing. Just offering the info for those into the investigation side of things.

Hopefully someone can help me understand what the Senior Scientist is talking about at around 10:25. He says quintonia is 68 light years away. He says according to Einstein it should take 68,000 years but they make the trip in 45 years, but someone says he meant 45 minutes, ok whatever.

Where does the 68,000 year figure come from?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Bilk22

Why make a fool of yourself making a claim he's not what he said he was when it's clear from the evidence he was exactly who he said he was? How many patents do you have to your name?

How many would it take to prove he is a senior scientist? One? Five? Ten?

How many do you have? How many clearances have you held? How many defense contractors have you worked for?

I'm thinking triple goose eggs.

There's the fact that he doesn't seem to understand magnetic induction, which was discovered by Michael Faraday in the 1800's. Dropping the magnet down the copper pipe, for example---it's slower because of electromagnetic forces, and falls slower because the human hand holding it up is compensating for the extra force.

Or he knows all about it and is BSing the gullible. But I'm not sure.

Take a look at this patent of his.

www.google.com...:Boyd+ininventor:Bushman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WlxNVMu8IKiV8gGBsoD4CQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

The patent describes an electromagnetic transmission/clutch.

Quote: "For reasons not entirely clear, applicant's have discovered that rapidly moving a magnetic field through a nonferrous electrical conductor can cause movement of the electrical conductor."

What do you mean the reasons are not entirely clear? Changing magnetic fields induce an electromotive force (curl E proportional to dB/dt), which in a conductor, results in charge motion. This charge motion results in another magnetic field which will interact (have a mutual force) with the source of the original magnetic field.

It's how AC induction motors work (a great 19th century invention!)

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
He says quintonia is 68 light years away.

I believe Groucho was their leader.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Just another brain fart from a senile old man. Just like the Phoenix Lights happening only "two years" ago.