Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

a reply to: AboveBoard
I have not even read this whole thread and most of these arguments are bunk. In fact there is no knowing if anything is real at all. Really it would be better if they got the original pictures from this Bushman guy, but seeing hes dead even then it wont matter, but likely he has kin and if he thought it was important he probably stored them somewhere. In any case if these photos are really from a supposed alien from the Roswell crash all the way back from 1947, well if you had the pictures should be able to tell whats what, who knows they may even have dates on them.

Now the doll everybody is bringing up from K-mart. Well first of all supposedly its way from 1997, so the argument goes that it was faked back then and the vids in the OP were put up on 2012 and 2014, and seeing he died in 2014 I suppose the its just a review of all of it. I didn't even look long but most vids on YouTube are from 4 to 5 years ago, so if there was something from 1997 on ATS probably missed the links, since supposedly some of those vids were just taken from 2014 before he died, hence the name of the thread.

But that doll from K-mart does not match certain things in the pictures of bushman crappy as they are, in fact the cranial shots of it even have what looks like veins on its head and a bunch of other things. Both look like dolls but the K-mart one more so. And if they got it from K-mart, well were was it made and when, because everything you would find at K-mart as a prop or doll for Halloween is likely made in china and would have a stamp on the bottom of its leg saying so. And if it has no mark, how the hell did it get in K-mart and who made it, last I checked I dont think individual crafters of dolls sell them through big chain stores, there may be some but most are made in china in a factory and likely its one of thousands.

But anyways all of these arguments dont mean squat. Because there is nothing off of which to work with, in fact they could all be fake. Bushman could of been hoaxed, or he was hoaxing, but also that K-mart doll definitely could as well be a hoax even if somebody bought it from k-mart in 1997, in fact if those pictures bushman had were really from 1947, should not be that hard to make a doll based on them copy and paste for anybody, and that is if those pictures are authentic. So really 150 something pages of absolutely nothing concrete. At the very least if somebody contacted bushman family and checked if they have those pictures and if there really from 1947 then we might have something, till then its just comparing one picture to another, and one opinion and theory to another, of which I can likely pull 100 out my ass in 30 minutes flat.

But if that is what were going on. Well then, some simple things would be best postulated before everybody goes crazy. In all what the hell are we talking about? And like I mentioned before even if it was some sort of alien from space, its not likely that it would be all biological in nature, in fact breathing oxygen and needing oxygen if lets say you were some advanced lifeforms traveling the depths of space may be a big hindrance, even having a circulatory system in space is a big hindered, so to expect that you would find flesh and blood creatures who just one day arrived from space from any travel distance more then the next star and longer then 10 years is not likely based on pure biology alone and facts anybody can check because we sent people in near orbit for weeks and months and the effects it had on them.

So if a weird flesh and blood alien showed up at your door tomorrow, even if it had 10 eyes and 20 toes, if it was biological in nature or even breathed oxygen like we do, then that means its probably has a spacestation the size of a small city somewhere, and these ufos are just buggies, or it did not come from as far away as we think, or any number of things, including faster then light space travel, but that to would leave so many holes to be answered that its likelier to be a teenage mutant ninja turtle green ooze mutant then that it came form outer space. But anyways arguing about who's picture could be more valid, is sort of pointless.

In all if there are any actual aliens out there and if there is some big conspiracy pulled over years and even ages on the denizens of earth, and if they can understand and read English, and are there reading this thread. I am quite sure they would be laughing there asses off...If they have asses that is. May as well play a game of guess who, at least in that boardgame there is a conclusion because stuff like this goes in circles and circles. Its like a monthy python movie.

a reply to: Pauligirl
Obviously so you can see the bottom of the feet, and to show that it has no date stamp on them and a made in china logo. Or maybe somebody is playing with all your heads and have for over 20 years on this UFO thing. Or... Well insert any theory you like...

I'll be surprised if the rubber alien does not become an internet meme. He is already the star of that notorious "peeping tom" video, and he's made several appearances around here. I'm sure there are threads about this mess at reddit and such places. Only a matter of time, really.

If Bushman's story made any sense, if there were something other than second-hand claims (at least second-hand) in that crappy video, if the pictures weren't atrociously bad, if it were even plausible that a camera was sneaked into and out of some facility as he claimed, if there was any corroboration at all anywhere for any of it, well, we would not be discussing rubber alien toys now, would we?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

this is on a par with the magnet under the table trick, I find it hard to envisage this man would pass this experiment off as antigravity,, does this not smack odd to you ?

funbox

originally posted by: Double_Nought_Spy
I really enjoyed the argument about the airbrushing being a bit different on the two rubber aliens. That was fun!

I know, right? It's not like anyone would make alternate versions of the same toy. Pffft! What would be the point of that?




Doh!!

The little guy gets around. Here's an old photo of him doing some PR:

originally posted by: AboveBoard

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

Your posts have added a lot of value to this thread. I've tried to present the same evidence but was not able to add the side-by-side comparisons which really help seal the deal.

Anyone still claiming that the props match the "alien" in the photos is clearly being dishonest.

Folks, you don't have to admit that the photos depict a real alien but you must admit that the photos do not show the prop that has been touted by so many posters. That's all I've been trying to say since the beginning.

a reply to: Answer

I have to do what now?

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: Answer

I have to do what now?

Reading some of the thread instead of assuming you're posting an original thought that hasn't been thoroughly addressed might help.

Your choice... continue posting the same ignorance or take a look at some of the evidence presented.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: AboveBoard

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

Your posts have added a lot of value to this thread. I've tried to present the same evidence but was not able to add the side-by-side comparisons which really help seal the deal.

Anyone still claiming that the props match the "alien" in the photos is clearly being dishonest.

Folks, you don't have to admit that the photos depict a real alien but you must admit that the photos do not show the prop that has been touted by so many posters. That's all I've been trying to say since the beginning.

I haven't personally said the props shown is the alien in the photos. The resemblance between the props and photo can't be ignored though. They both seem to be taken straight out of Alien Design 101.

This could be a store-bought and modified version of anyone of these props. That would be a simple method without the need to go to the expense of creating an entire alien body. Buy a premade version, add more detail here and there, repaint and sell as it a real alien. Add unnatural dark coloring to the recessed areas to bring it to life and BOOM instant alien.

Hello All,

I have followed this thread for the last few days with great interest.

If the supposed alien took the photo of their home planet with Boyd's camera then surely the negatives of the pictures are evidence of some sort, fake or not. We need the negatives not the photographs. Probably never get them though.

Good thread by the way it's brought out a lot of emotions in many of the ATS members.

Just to be clear, a lot of people on here I have noticed are somewhat humbled and taken in by Boyd's likeable personality. Now with all due respect to Boyd we are not here to discuss his personality we are here to discuss facts and evidence. If Boyd was not a nice person, would that have changed people's opinons of the supposed evidence that has been presented from the outset? No it doesn't in my opinion so the fact that Boyd was a decent guy doesn't mean that what he has presented is real.

Scaley

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

Stand in a field at night and look up at the clear sky and see the zillions of stars. How likely is it that some race has been or is HERE!? Very likely.

I look at it a little differently. I stand and look up at the stars and think about how remote and possibly insignificant we are, a speck in the vastness.

I do believe there's a good case for there being other intelligent life out there, but what are the chances of it being in anyway close enough to travel here? Are we even worth the visit? And if the universe is full of life, there's probably less of a chance they'd visit here, as there may well be many more planets worth an advanced lifeforms visit.

Or maybe we're the special one? And almost unique. It's finding us though

Did Orion get banned? I just want to know if I can expect a response or not

a reply to: Ridhya

If Boyd Bushman had a specific message to convey we may all be banned.
This appears to go way beyond anything a Mechanical engineer or Chemistry major could understand.
The London equations predict a gravitational Meissner effect.
This little alien may have traveled from a post general relativity world.

a reply to: Answer

But there have been soo many variations of the alien prop posted that ONE has to be the same.

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: Answer

I have to do what now?

We all have to join hands and collectively agree with me. That's the only way to resolve this.

originally posted by: Answer

Your choice... continue posting the same ignorance or take a look at some of the evidence presented.

I chose the latter.

originally posted by: Answer


Anyone still claiming that the props match the "alien" in the photos is clearly being dishonest.

Folks, you don't have to admit that the photos depict a real alien but you must admit that the photos do not show the prop that has been touted by so many posters. That's all I've been trying to say since the beginning.

Something to keep in mind, the photos were taken at different times, by different people using different equipment.

originally posted by: Double_Nought_Spy
I really enjoyed the argument about the airbrushing being a bit different on the two rubber aliens. That was fun!

Wasn't it, though? The very process of freehand airbrushing guarantees absolute uniformity!

originally posted by: Double_Nought_Spy
Old guy telling tall tales? What? How can that be? Old guy manipulated by some people he trusted? Why, I never!

Me neither! Who ever heard of old men telling tall tales or being easily misled by swindlers?

originally posted by: Double_Nought_Spy
What is it Skunkworks does, again?

Apparently hire Senior Scientists with poor understanding of physics.

originally posted by: Double_Nought_Spy
Some people really, really wanna believe.

Some people indeed!

a reply to: Pauligirl

Something to keep in mind, the photos were taken at different times, by different people using different equipment.

Also the alien photos are taken from screen shots of YouTube videos and we have no idea where they came from or if they have been altered. Even if it didn't match the prop at all, there would be nothing to distinguish it from any other prop. The fact that it matches this particular prop so closely is more than enough to draw a conclusion that its a prop.

honestly, where do we draw the line? Are we supposed to accept every claim simply because it can't be identified with 100% accuracy? So as long as something can't be identified, its possibly alien? In that case, I have a ton of candidates in my fridge.