Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

originally posted by: AboveBoard

The burden of proof is with the extraordinary claim, and proof has not been delivered that allows me to think this is the real deal. I am neutral, however, because how the heck would I, or any of us, know if they were real or not?? That is where belief comes in. Proof = not met. Disproof = not met.

peace
AB

Wouldn't the extraordinary claim be that the blurry photo of what looks like a commercially available prop is actually that of a dead alien, and not a commercially available prop?

Proof of likelihood - not met. Proof of unlikelihood - met.

And that's without taking into account all the other problems associated with Boyd's claims.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Ah - now you are getting into the spirit of it!

This is very similar to my conclusion, actually... see post to draknoir2 above...

On a side note, I have seen what is unexplainable and undebunkable (not beings but UFO) - therefore I have a hard time being definitive in things like this. I can't prove it to anyone, but it is something that colors my neutrality on subjects like this...the "possibility" is a very real thing to me...

Thank you for your response.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

If we look closely at your foot image, the toes look like they're all together like a moulded toy/figure. They don't look realistic and neither does the shape of the sole. To me, it looks like a rough-ass generic foot shape rather than anything accurately anatomical.



I thought about posting several primate feet to strengthen my point, but the thread doesn't justify that level of effort. Rather than conceding that the foot looks like a fabricated model, the counter-point would inevitably be the 'get out of jail card' of 'we don't know what an alien's foot looks like.'

a reply to: draknoir2


I WAS saying that the likelihood was in favor of it being a prop... I was also saying that I am not able to "prove" it conclusively either way. That's all.

We see many of the same points, here. I'm just not willing to give a 100% definitive conclusion, not from lack of understanding, but because I don't have conclusive evidence either way. I would have to make a leap of belief in the direction of "prop" - not as much of one as I would have to make in the direction of "alien" - this is also true.

Still, I hold out the possibility that this could be something other than what it mostly likely appears to be - does that make sense? I'm not asking you to adopt a similar approach, just trying to explain mine...

Thanks so much for replying.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
(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 here. (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 here... (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 unknown.

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...

Thoughts?


peace,
AB

That is because the alien IS in fact a doll, unless the Kmart product was based off a real alien creature for debunking purposes, so that people react the way they react but the probability of the doll being created LATER is unlikely, more probable is the doll presented as real, aka hoax!

a reply to: Kandinsky

Thank you for looking at the comparison. I do hear what you are saying. My main point was that it was not the props presented and that it could not be easily pegged as one of those. That does not mean that it isn't a prop, it means it doesn't match. I also don't know what an alien looks like, this is true.


It is a foot. I can 100% agree with that.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AboveBoard

If we look closely at your foot image, the toes look like they're all together like a moulded toy/figure. They don't look realistic and neither does the shape of the sole. To me, it looks like a rough-ass generic foot shape rather than anything accurately anatomical.

I thought about posting several primate feet to strengthen my point, but the thread doesn't justify that level of effort. Rather than conceding that the foot looks like a fabricated model, the counter-point would inevitably be the 'get out of jail card' of 'we don't know what an alien's foot looks like.'

As he said in the interview. The toes of the beings are indeed connected, no space between.

a reply to: Air0x

As he said in the interview. The toes of the beings are indeed connected, no space between.

He would say that, wouldn't he?!

a reply to: AboveBoard
Nothing is really certain and that's not a bad way to approach these things. But my "gray bucket" can only hold so many maybes. I'm afraid not much more will be found out on this one.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2


I WAS saying that the likelihood was in favor of it being a prop... I was also saying that I am not able to "prove" it conclusively either way. That's all.

We see many of the same points, here. I'm just not willing to give a 100% definitive conclusion, not from lack of understanding, but because I don't have conclusive evidence either way. I would have to make a leap of belief in the direction of "prop" - not as much as one as I would have to make in the direction of "alien" - this is also true.

Still, I hold out the possibility that this could be something other than what it mostly likely appears to be - does that make sense? I'm not asking you to adopt a similar approach, just trying to explain mine...

Thanks so much for replying.

peace,
AB

I guess you are distinguishing a "leap of belief" from a "leap of logic". If you already believe that aliens exist and they look like store bought props, then it's not a huge step to store bought props being patterned after the actual alien in the photo.

It is, however, a huge leap of logic to go from no proof of aliens whatsoever to the photo being of one that just happens to look like a store bought prop.

You're right - the only way to have 100% conclusive proof is to either produce an alien body or uncover the hoaxer and his props. My personal belief is that the latter is the more likely to occur. I also doubt that it would deter the hard core believers.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: Char-Lee

Oh, come on.. try this: go to Google and type "Walmart alien halloween props". First link that pops up shows the new model. It is similar to the 1997 model, but has a bit more of a grim outlook. The older model simply looked to friendly, I guess. You may try the wayback machine and see if Walmart had an Internet presence in those days and if so, if you can find the older model.

Thankyou I waited through the whole thread to be shown any similar doll. This is clearly very different but similar that still of course rules nothing out in my book...personally all the hating on the guy astounds me, I get the impression of a very kind and caring person just like his obit says. This nullifies the idea he wanted hero worship as many have suggested. So at this poingt I think there is nothing left to say.

Boyd was blessed with curiosity, optimism and a keen eye to see beyond the surface of what might appear ordinary to others. He drew heavily from the wonders of the Creator and loved sharing his discoveries with people who were prepared to be amazed.

Boyd was gifted with the capacity of making everyone around him feel important and valuable. He did this by demonstrating a genuine interest in the individual, and by divining their qualities and traits with an ability so uncanny that it was both disarming and endearing. His gift of making others feel loved and of great worth was showered abundantly upon his children, who love and adore him as their father in mutual bonds that extend throughout eternity.

www.azjournal.com...

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: OnionHead

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: parker
How many on this thread have ever witnessed an actual UFO in full view ...I have in June 1992 with two orbiting drones spheres that connected into the main craft and then imploded..seeing is believing I need no further proof.

i have witnessed a landed ufo about half a mile in diameter which subsequently lifted off heading straight for us. .forcing myself and my family to jump in the car and get the hell outta there!

OG

Half mile wide craft? Surprised a craft that size and with the force's involved didn't blow the eyebrows clean off your face. Imagine the sonic boom of that fella, it's gonna show up on just about every radar.

Did you go back when you gathered your senses (and eyebrows) to inspect the massive launch site? Cause that's gonna leave a mark.

exactly what type of craft and physics are you imagining in that OnionHead?

OG

My daughter and her husband and brother-in law and Mother and Father-in law all saw the same, in Redding CA there was another report of a craft that covered a while valley floor sitting in mountains above Redding.

a reply to: draknoir2

[Hutchinson has no "effect" on real scientists].

Since Bushman is a real scientist your post makes zero sense.

From 1915 to 1920 the French artist Marcel Duchamp used "ready mades" which are off the shelf items used for artistic expression. Duchamp put his art career on hold and went into seclusion to play chess in 1920 (his USCF was 1917).

Point is that a dying Boyd confined in a nursing home might use similar props to express something much deeper.
I was going to put some garlic butter in the Zamboni and try to teach the snails how to skate but i'm not sure what that would look like in a few dimensions... Maybe by the time we get to page 66.

These UFO landings usually leave interdimensional clues that look out of place if you are sensitive. Sort of like runway markers in the desert.

Many of the small plane crashes we read about are just confused pilots flying into the path of a UFO.

originally posted by: draknoir2

I guess you are distinguishing a "leap of belief" from a "leap of logic". If you already believe that aliens exist and they look like store bought props, then it's not a huge step to store bought props being patterned after the actual alien in the photo.

It is, however, a huge leap of logic to go from no proof of aliens whatsoever to the photo being of one that just happens to look like a store bought prop.

You're right - the only way to have 100% conclusive proof is to either produce an alien body or uncover the hoaxer and his props. My personal belief is that the latter is the more likely to occur. I also doubt that it would deter the hard core believers.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. You are also right that it is way more likely that you will recover a hoaxer and his props than a genuine alien entity - totally true. I still hold that the props offered are not the ones in the original pics. That was what I was saying I was willing to 100% conclude. Period.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to state it this way: The props presented against the original pics are not total smoking guns in that they do not match. That is the ONLY conclusion I am really clear on. If they did match, the level of probability would be such that I would conclude fakery without hesitation. The most probable conclusion is that it is a fake and there is dishonesty in either Bushman or the people sending him information. That is as far as I can go based on the data available. I do not see black and white - I see plenty of room for shades of Grey...

How is that wrong? I allow for the Mystery as I have seen the Mystery (not aliens, mind you, not saying that, but a UFO, yes), therefore my conclusions are less definitive than they would be otherwise. If I had not seen it, I would not know to leave the door open to it. I don't think that makes me a hard-core believer, in fact I consider that a bit of an insult... I don't "believe" this is an alien and I don't "believe" this is not an alien.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

If I am biased, it is hopefully to neutrality...
Thoughts?
peace,
AB

You are an intelligent thinker in my opinion and honest I admire your post and its lack of derision and silly innuendo.
I also agree with your conclusion.

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.

Tucson Az

Home to DM AFB aircraft storage , flight training for international pilots around the world.
Home to Raytheon formerly known as Hughes. Missile design and storage facility
Home to University of Arizona . James E. McDonald ufo archive , Large mirror production
For telescopes around the world. Mars rover science teams.
Home of Mr. Parker the man that told us that the Hubble was
Blind because the mirror was made out of spec. I dated his daughter Lol.

Many many great scientist and engineers in tucson. I have no problem
In believing his story.

Fun fact - MT. GRAHAM telescope contract was signed in the 70's . Project
was held up by RED squirrels. Financed by the Vatican.

a reply to: Char-Lee

How to have an Opinion without sounding like a fool *yeah yeah I know* , given that their are no facts to be obtained how can these things be said for certain, without first hand experience of them , but, something's pinging me from a while back..,

he said that telepathic communication was made using the receivers own voice, wasn't there a case similar involving some Irish woman and a clingy alien ? .. I forget the circumstances but im sure it was related to Roswell

funbox

originally posted by: HomerinNC
Look closer, the head's shape and VERY similar, see the crease between the 'hemispheres'?

Are they similar? Yes. Is it the same prop? No.

I can go and see a very real likeness of a celebrity at a wax museum, but that doesn't mean that all photographs showing that celebrity are wax, nor that the celebrity themselves is a wax figure.

I think this just shows that the sculptor of alien available for purchase either did their homework, or the model for even informed by, or directly produced by, members of the conspiracy to cover up the existence of UFOs and alien visitation.

BTW, this does also match sketches of what are supposed to be Rigelian Grey Aliens. One sketch from the Blue Planet Project documents is an exact match. If they are all hoaxes, they are consistent in the material presented, which might just point to a conspiracy of hoaxes, rather than just coincidence.

As to these videos, Boyd Bushman comes across as credible and someone who believes what he is saying is true. These weren't rehearsed, acted out interviews.

My personal take is that there is truth mixed with disinformation in this material, but that any disinformation was perpetrated on Bushman by his contacts, rather than by Bushman. Just look at what the Airforce and Defense Intelligence did to Paul Bennewitz. It's possible that Bushman did come across some genuine information related to extraterrestrials during his time at Lockheed and once the government realized what he had stumbled upon, they strung him along with disinformation over many years in a similar fashion to which they handled Bennewitz.

The best disinformation contains a lot of fact and if even a portion of what Bushman shared is real, it's pretty spectacular.

I don't get what the purpose would be to provide false descriptions of an obscure alien type visiting earth would be, so, if the Amazon Alien/ The Blue Planet Project / Boyd Bushman are not related hoaxes, maybe the similarities actually point to separate bits of information describing the same entities.

Is it a prop? I don't know but there are no shortage of them out there.



Hollywood slump puts famous props on the block

It isn't all that difficult for someone who knows a little Hollywood magic to doctor up one or even make one from scratch. I even considered the one in the photos could have been the model that later went into production. IMO the photos can't be trusted for various reasons the main one would be they would be to huge a security leak.

His stories are interesting but I don't like that he used a rattleback and played dumb or that he thought the magnet through the copper pipe was worth while.

It is like Ripley's Believe it or Not.