Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

a reply to: draknoir2

Up to this point I had only focused on the alien doll, but this guy is completely lost... and leading those with an even worse sense of direction, it would seem.

yeah, all my "theories" are falling apart which would make this interesting. It would seem that he really didn't have a clue.

originally posted by: Parthin
Please let's let Orions Gem off the hook as he sincerely presented a video which closely corresponded to what is known about the Greys. The fake Wal-mart alien shows the the man was pure BS, as I suspected from the beginning, but the basic narrative of aliens, area 51, has been repeated by a number of reliable witnesses. a reply to: interupt42

I didn't think I had OG on a Hook? What do you consider a reliable witness?

a reply to: Pauligirl

It would seem these alien props are seasonal. I think I may invest in this years alien offerings at the local Halloween super store. Could prove useful in a few years when the next batch of alien photos emerge.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
yeah, all my "theories" are falling apart which would make this interesting.

A rare admission in these parts.

a reply to: Char-Lee

LOL! Even the ones who believe wholeheartedly that this is a hoax seem to be enjoying...as they are contributing to the thread so why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you think I have a problem with it.

I have watched so many re runs of so many shows because I enjoy them like I am here, just pointing out that some arguments for and against just sounded like scripted responses, no offence to anyone as we go over these subjects over and over and yes some responses become sounding scripted, that's what I was trying to say, sorry just a little cynical of late.

Also please think, if NOTHING was rehashed how much content would be on ATS?

Actually quite a bit, enough to keep a researcher in any alternative subject busy for a while, with all the rehashing you need a few lifetimes to get through it all before you realize you have rehashed so much so often that it might have blocked a new discovery because a clear line of research is nowhere to be seen and going in circles seems to be the way to go, to the point of it being entertainment for those that have been there and those that are new to this, its some new whistleblower info to conflict an impressionable young mind.

If there was one source where all could go to and add to that or rehash it from the source to see if they come up something new to add to that source is a much better research approach.

Creating numerous sources with many with almost identical info is great for entertainment purposes and yes spreading information whether real or false but it slows the progress of individual research when so many sources are brought to light especially when many say and argue the same thing in the same way.

The OP of this thread could have simply brought the other threads about Boyd back to life and anything new could have been added there, I read the OP and no where do they mention its been discussed before or they searched ATS or researched what they presenting, another Youtube and opinions OP using catchy words to get readers attention like deathbed confession, Area 51 scientist, I got so many De Ja Vu's reading this thread, either I had a dream foretelling my experience reading this thread or it was extremely similar to other threads and posts of past about Boyd and his claims.

You realize I am sure that years pass people forget ,people have new ideas about old things, some never heard of it before, why bother with your out of context post?

I really don't know Char-Lee

Maybe because it made you

LOL!

Sarcastic laugh though I sense.

I still ya

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

re: "probably the same place were the dam socks from the dryer go" - we all know that is the work of the 'sock gnomes'. Seriously, this subject does need a thread all by itself. We need to uncover this phenomenon. I have way too many unmatched socks and I would love an explanation for why and where the hell those socks have gone.

I think Bob Lazar hit it on the money. And there is a cross-witness consistency to most of these accounts. a reply to: Arbitrageur

There is a consistent narrative about Greys, what they look like, their being telepathic, the nature of their spaceships, their sometime cooperation with our government, and the reverse engineering project with their spaceships. This narrative covers most accounts of them, and when I see a presentation which differs substantially from those accounts, I do not believe it. The alien photos did not match the appearance of the greys as it has been described since the Roswell crash. a reply to: interupt42

a reply to: Parthin

Although it might be consistent narrative , I have yet to see any factual evidence to back any of it.

This coming from someone who actually saw one of those silent black triangles. However, I'm not looking for an answer I'm looking for the truth. So far I don't know what it was but I can't exclude it being advance human technologies.

a reply to: OrionsGem

I didn't say it was a hoax, I said he was not believable. How about some corroborating evidence?

I am certain that the black triangles are of terrestrial origin, although they are perhaps a result of reverse-engineering what little alien technology we can duplicate. The most likely explanation I have seen offered is that they utilize an anti-gravity field which was developed at the Lawrence Livermore high-energy physics lab. They are a somewhat recent phenomena. It makes sense that they were developed by studying captured flying discs, although, again, there is no hard evidence of that. I understand you desire for proof, but you should keep in mind that both the atomic bomb and stealth aircraft were kept a complete secret from the public until the government chose to reveal them. The government knows how to cover up a Big Secret very well. a reply to: interupt42

(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

a reply to: AboveBoard

Thoughts?

its not an alien, its a prop. I had another thought but was distracted by the drool running down my chin.

other than that, good work

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Is it the same doll prop as others have presented?

My answer is no.

I'm sorry you have a drooling problem...

I am amazed you are able to make a definitive conclusion, but that is your choice. Can you give me a point by point reason for why you have made this conclusion other than...ew...is that drool all over my screen?? How did you do that?!? Wasn't me... The alien???



Anyway - you have probably already done this - can you give me a link to your post where you've done this?

- AB

ps - I am mostly joking with you - not being snotty. Just making sure you know that.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Is it the same doll prop as others have presented?

My answer is no.

I'm sorry you have a drooling problem...

I am amazed you are able to make a definitive conclusion, but that is your choice. Can you give me a point by point reason for why you have made this conclusion other than...ew...is that drool all over my screen?? How did you do that?!? Wasn't me... The alien???

Anyway - you have probably already done this - can you give me a link to your post where you've done this?

- AB

The major stumbling block being that we have no alien body with which to compare our dummies. We know that dummies exist and that they look similar to the photo. We do not know that Aliens exist. Anywhere. In any configuration.

Such an obvious proven fake why not in hoax bin yet?

a reply to: draknoir2

You are 100% correct that dummies and prop dolls do exist. You are also correct that we do not knowingly and definitively have an actual alien body to compare these photos to - or at least one I know about. I'm in no way saying that this IS a "real" alien. I'm saying I don't know.

It is understandable that one would conclude that a photo presenting something so similar would be a prop dummy and not an actual alien - I get that. In my post I mentioned that it comes down to believing that Boyd Bushman is a fake, or was given fake information - I have no way to conclude that definitively, therefore I am neutral. The LIKELIHOOD of it being a prop is most certainly higher than it being a living or once-living being from another planet. I agree with that too.

I do not know what aliens look like - though the weight of mathematical possibility for them existing somewhere in our universe is pretty high - and I do not know if they have visited our planet. I also do not know that they haven't visited our planet.

The whole point of the Aliens and UFO forum is to hold open the possibility of Aliens and/or UFOs, in my opinion. So I'm looking at this from that point of view - holding open the possibility, which certainly does exist. That is why this thread has 145 flags and so many many posts. The possibility of truth. My point is that I cannot conclude "true" or "false" based only on what has been presented. If the photos had matched - the feet - the torso - I would be agreeing and rolling my eyes. They don't, so we either don't have the right prop or silly alien props have been based on the OP's video's photos.

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

a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm sorry you have a drooling problem...

I'm used to it.

I think the comparison is somewhat unfair in that we have really good examples of the prop. We can trace the origin and be fairly certain that nothing was doctored with those. With the "alien" photos, there really is no way to know where they came from. They are from you tube videos, we don't have originals.

the differences could be do to a number of factors, its not "exactly" the same, it was modified, photos were tampered with...
I'm thinking that I could take take different pictures of any object and have them NOT match fairly easily. That would be even easier if I was allowed to show one on a video without any other context.

in this case, I could show any object as being "alien" so long as there is no exact match!

further, there is nothing about the alien photo that distinguishes it from any prop. No orifices, alien guts, nothing...the veins on the back of the head was a nice touch, but there is nothing connecting those to the front photos.

could it be an alien picture? Sure! Could I be an alien? Absolutely!