Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Parthin
The mention of the elements and the crude measurements of the UFO parts makes me feel like I'm back in a High School chemistry lab. It is 1940's science. That and the crude black and white photos. Perhaps he was involved in this in the late 40's, and has only fragmentary knowledge or heard some rumors on the base. That's the best I can say for it. a reply to: game over man

You have to realize this guy was working with this stuff back in the 50s and 60s. I'd venture to guess he was in his 90s when the video was taken. So given the time, that's how they investigated things. Look at how they developed and planned the moon missions. A lot of it wasn't very hi-tech.

It was very recent...way after the 90's, as he references the 2000's in the video.

I have taken a break from ATS for awhile, but came back to check out this video and alas, it was first in the 'recent' postings. ATS didn't disappoint.

What is disappointing is the baseless hit and run debunking has devolved even worse. (which is why I initially left)

14 pages later and the best argument against Bushman is a doll from Amazon that shares few facial features to the pictures in question.

Now, thinking about this logically, is it really that far stretched to believe that a top-level scientist for defense contractors, leading the field in anti-propulsion technology wouldn't have contacts, associates, colleagues, or even friends within levels of the military and other high level clearance divisions? Watching these videos, this man has a very wry, all knowing smugness that implies deeper knowledge than even he was willing to divulge. This isn't to say he saw aliens in person, but ultimately knows much of his scientific advancements were attributable to foreign technologies.

Is it really so difficult to believe that a man who dedicated his entire life to science would spill the beans at this juncture in his life? Furthermore, presumably an axe to grind against his former employer Lockheed? His lawsuit to release his patented tech speaks volumes to me. This man still has national defense secrets buried but wants the people to know that his patented technology which is being held ransom by Lockheed, was his work and is either miffed by his inability to cash in and now wants to release some info to the public.

I can't fathom that a man intelligent as he, could be taken in by an intra-departmental hoax...

Is

originally posted by: Goldcurrent
I have taken a break from ATS for awhile, but came back to check out this video and alas, it was first in the 'recent' postings.

ATS didn't disappoint.

What is disappointing is the baseless hit and run debunking has devolved even worse. (which is why I initially left)

14 pages later and the best argument against Bushman is a doll from Amazon that shares few facial features to the pictures in question.

Now, thinking about this logically, is it really that far stretched to believe that a top-level scientist for defense contractors, leading the field in anti-propulsion technology wouldn't have contacts, associates, colleagues, or even friends within levels of the military and other high level clearance divisions? Watching these videos, this man has a very wry, all knowing smugness that implies deeper knowledge than even he was willing to divulge. This isn't to say he saw aliens in person, but ultimately knows much of his scientific advancements were attributable to foreign technologies.

Is it really so difficult to believe that a man who dedicated his entire life to science would spill the beans at this juncture in his life? Furthermore, presumably an axe to grind against his former employer Lockheed? His lawsuit to release his patented tech speaks volumes to me. This man still has national defense secrets buried but wants the people to know that his patented technology which is being held ransom by Lockheed, was his work and is either miffed by his inability to cash in and now wants to release some info to the public.

I can't fathom that a man intelligent as he, could be taken in by an intra-departmental hoax...

Is

I prefer to call it "drive by" debunking. But yes so far the best futile attempt is a doll from amazon. So sad.

OG

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: OrionsGem

i watched the video you posted - i didn't see anything there of substance - and why the spooky music?

i think i'd be wasting my time watching any more - but thanks for trying

LOL on the contrary i think ITS ALL SUBSTANCE in that vid. And yes you would be wasting your time since you clearly arent ready for such information. Thanks for coming, do visit again ya hear?

OG

Further to add, this is to the guy who questioned the validity of Youtube as a source for the video. Where else was this man to release his findings? The Learning Channel? Right after Honey Boo Boo, or maybe the History Channel? Right after Pawn Pickers? Maybe the networks would scoop up a special on a dried out scientist showing old pictures of aliens right after Dancing Rehab Stars with the cast of Different Strokes? Pfft. This stuff couldn't hold the attention of the numbed masses any more than the....oh never mind...

originally posted by: Shadoefax

originally posted by: jaccceee
Can someone explain the experiment in the 3rd video. At 15:00. I did this experiment with a 5 foot long pipe/magnet and it was definately slower than the other objects I dropped in there. The magnets I used are the really strong ones he mentioned. I bought them on Ebay about a year ago because of something I read here about them. Neo something something.

It's called Lenz's law. Basically it's because dropping a magnet through a copper tube induces a magnetic field that opposes the magnet's field thus slowing it down.

Thank you for posting that, hopefully those seeking substance will finally calm down.

OG

originally posted by: Goldcurrent
Further to add, this is to the guy who questioned the validity of Youtube as a source for the video. Where else was this man to release his findings? The Learning Channel? Right after Honey Boo Boo, or maybe the History Channel? Right after Pawn Pickers? Maybe the networks would scoop up a special on a dried out scientist showing old pictures of aliens right after Dancing Rehab Stars with the cast of Different Strokes? Pfft. This stuff couldn't hold the attention of the numbed masses any more than the....oh never mind...

Oh that poster? Yes he was arguing that if this case were true, that he would surely be able to see it on CNN and his 10 o'clock news. Am I the only one who sees how delusional such an expectation would be?

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Spiro

I think the whole thing is a dog and pony show. I'd love to believe what he is saying is true, but I just don't buy it. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.

By the way, I say this as someone who has seen one of these things up close, in broad daylight. Not what is in the pictures, but something not of human engineering.

LOL so the man produces photographs and you producing nothing yet we're to believe you?

And hence my frustration with individuals like this who scream hoax YET PROVIDE NOTHING TO BACK IT UP!

OG

OP ( or in this case OG ), you show a lot of enthusiasm for the UAP enigma. It is a great subject that can open doors to a lot of knowledge but you have to be careful of anything claiming to be proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

If are honestly interested in learning about facts and not just confirming your own bias you should read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark ( The link is a download to the free e-book pdf )

Specifically, Sagan talks about what he calls his baloney detection kit which spell out some basic rules to shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark has Sagan sharing nine of these tools:

The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

He also lists 20 logical and rhetorical fallacies to look for in an argument, here are the first 10...

1) Ad hominem -An ad hominem argument attacks the messenger, not the message itself.

2) Argument from authority-This type of argument relies on the identity of an authority rather than the components of the argument itself.

3) Argument from adverse consequences-Saying that because the implications of a statement being true would create negative results, it must not be true.

4) Appeal to ignorance-If something is not known to be false, it must be true.

5) Special pleading-Stating a universal principle, then insisting that it doesn't apply to your assertions for some reason.

6) Begging the question/ assuming the answer-This occurs when a statement has an unproven premise. It is also called "circular reasoning" or "circular logic".

7) Observational selection-Looking at only positive evidence while ignoring the negative.

8) Statistics of small numbers-Using small numbers in order to report large percentage increases

9) Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics-Ignorance about central statistical assumptions and the definition of metrics.

10) Inconsistency-Being inconsistent in any form, especially as in holding double standards.

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bulls***-Busting and Critical Thinking

To quote the author of the third link... "Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.:

Any of the above sound familiar?

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Totally familiar, too bad for the debunkers I don't eat cold cuts!

OG

originally posted by: Goldcurrent
I have taken a break from ATS for awhile, but came back to check out this video and alas, it was first in the 'recent' postings.

ATS didn't disappoint.

What is disappointing is the baseless hit and run debunking has devolved even worse. (which is why I initially left)

14 pages later and the best argument against Bushman is a doll from Amazon that shares few facial features to the pictures in question.

Now, thinking about this logically, is it really that far stretched to believe that a top-level scientist for defense contractors, leading the field in anti-propulsion technology wouldn't have contacts, associates, colleagues, or even friends within levels of the military and other high level clearance divisions? Watching these videos, this man has a very wry, all knowing smugness that implies deeper knowledge than even he was willing to divulge. This isn't to say he saw aliens in person, but ultimately knows much of his scientific advancements were attributable to foreign technologies.

Is it really so difficult to believe that a man who dedicated his entire life to science would spill the beans at this juncture in his life? Furthermore, presumably an axe to grind against his former employer Lockheed? His lawsuit to release his patented tech speaks volumes to me. This man still has national defense secrets buried but wants the people to know that his patented technology which is being held ransom by Lockheed, was his work and is either miffed by his inability to cash in and now wants to release some info to the public.

I can't fathom that a man intelligent as he, could be taken in by an intra-departmental hoax...

Is

Does it sound bad that I wish I had all of the names and addresses from this thread? I would be a FRIGGIN MILLIONAIRE!
I could sell friggin dirt and call it yeti poop!

Like I said before interesting thread... but this isn't proof. Not even close... not even a little. Not even a micrometer measurement of anything closely related to proof.. loool. Its a great thread to read and chuckle over though.


This old man is selling a crap full of lies WITHOUT PROOF.... and countless people here suck it up like a McDonalds flurry.

Its awesome to say the least.


Cheers.

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

I didn't pay a dime to watch these videos. Did you? Furthermore, I'd detect your shenanigans instantly due to the drool and stuttering.

I did not claim this to be proof, but you sure seem certain the man is a fraud. For some reason, this scientist seems more credible than your incoherence though.

I am not picking on his photos I just find it very strange if real that he would be in possession of them with how the government works.

The inconsistencies in his stories are what I find dubious.

In one story he retells a story that a doctor friends patient had shot down what is hinted at the roswell crash in the later video he says he is with the guy who shot down the aircraft. In the first story he didn't even say he knew the pilot in the second he was with him at the time.

It is things like that where the story changes dramatically like he is making it up on the fly.

I don't doubt that he is who he says I am just wondering how much of this is him telling tall tales in his old age because I watched a few of his other videos and he seems to really like the attention and I don't blame him.

Just means I take all of it with a pinch of salt.

a reply to: Grimpachi

In the second video, he is re-telling his doctor friends account.

eta; he does not state he was there.

a reply to: Goldcurrent

if he really was told this why should we assume he was being told the truth?

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

so , you've just come to deride people for taking an interest?

how very thoughtful of you

*sniff sniff*

funbox

a reply to: OrionsGem

lenz's law does indeed have substance, but it is an electromagnetic phenomena - it has nothing to do with gravity

perhaps you should read the link

a reply to: OrionsGem

I so wished this was credible, but no scientist would use his vocabulary. It didn't pass my smell test :-(

a reply to: aynock

I agree. That is a large assumption. But his willingness to believe a close associate probably had something to do with his black-op, top-secret, anti-gravity propulsion research undertaken for gov't defense contractors with technology and knowledge obtained that wasn't in his college textbooks. You do realize this site is called 'Above Top Secret' right? We openly discuss these things here.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is things like that where the story changes dramatically like he is making it up on the fly.

I don't doubt that he is who he says I am just wondering how much of this is him telling tall tales in his old age because I watched a few of his other videos and he seems to really like the attention and I don't blame him.

That is my take on it as well.

He was one of literally tens of thousands of brilliant engineers that have worked on cutting edge classified technologies while in the employ of Lockheed over the last 80 years.

Out of a sample size that large, you are invariably going to get a couple who enjoy the attention, like winding people up, have had their mental faculties compromised by dementia etc...

How much is Youtube paying per click these days?

As I was getting at above, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: OrionsGem

Well now that you've resorted to snide insults, you and answer can keep your thread. Everyone that knows me knows im truely serious in my search for ET and the truth.

Thank you for letting me keep that which was already mine. LOL

OG