(tiptoes into thread) Hi. Just some food for thought. These are foot comparisons - I hope this hasn't already been done in the same manner as I am
presenting it, if so, my apologies.
The bottom of the foot in the original video of the OP, and the foot from the VIDEO titled "UFO DEAD ALIEN SENT TO ME FROM XXXXXX" Originally posted
(page 41 of this thread)
Then, the original photo of the "Kmart Prop" uploaded by SpikedMilk (from another thread and linked to this one) as brought in by Blue Shift
(page 20 of this thread)
This is the tops of the feet. Much harder to see, but...
In both pics (especially the first comparison) the alleged Alien in the OP's video is fleshier - has more "padding" in other words, and different toe
shapes entirely. They do not match.
Also, if we take the alleged alien in the OP and put it up against the Kmart Prop in the torso, as has been mentioned there are significant
differences, including the oddness of the ribs on the right side of the picture in the original OP "alien." There is a bumpiness to that, and a
difference in the shoulder width and joints (as others have mentioned.)
Now, the similarities are extremely high, which is quite interesting. I would like to note that both the alien doll props (as opposed to the alleged
alien in the OP) do not have the level of detail on the head. This includes indentations in the head, as can be seen here - the dolls are smoother,
the OP alleged alien is bumpy and has more coloring (pulled from other video, so I'm making a huge assumption that these are the same pics - the same
as the "blinking eye" video in other words).
Here is an example of the detail:
Other things I've noticed: I made an effort to notice if ANYthing other than the difference in the eye shape (for the 'blinking eye') moved or
altered. Without running some kind of forensic movement software which might show more detail, I saw NO movement - not in the throat or in the
nostrils where one might expect something alive to have a pulse or expansion from breathing. I also noticed the lighting seemed (and I say "seemed"
on purpose here) brighter in the pic where the eye was more closed - a reaction to a change in lighting conditions would cause squinting in a living,
light-sensitive being. These are just observations and food for thought.
So I'm left with being able to draw NO solid conclusions here. On one hand, I'm fairly convinced that the OP's alleged alien in the video pics is NOT
the same as the two Props presented that are the most similar to it (i.e. SpikedMilk and the video listed above.) Does that mean it is not a prop but
a real alien? No. There is NO way to tell that conclusively from the evidence presented.
It comes back to whether or not one believes
that 1) Boyd Bushman is who he says he is and is completely telling the unvarnished and
unembellished truth and, 2) that Boyd Bushman was not fed wrong information. We may be able to discuss the first, but the second remains completely
As tantalizing as the video is, it is impossible to prove one way or the other, unless I've totally missed where he wasn't a patent holder or Lockheed
scientist of some sort - this is a very long thread and I have read as much as I am able to so far - it keeps getting bigger so I had to stop and post
at some point...
It is very possible that I missed something!
My Current Conclusion:
I am neutral as to Boyd Bushman's truthfulness and qualifications. I therefore am unable to take a definitive stand other than to make the solid
statement that I do not believe the dolls presented are the same as in the OP video alleged alien photos, and to mention, as others have, the idea
that a doll could have been made in the likeness of a photo - not saying that IS what happened, but that it, too, is possible.
If I am biased, it is hopefully to neutrality...
edit on 27-10-2014 by AboveBoard because: tiny stuff