Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

originally posted by: cuckooold
Of interest on the snopes website...

www.snopes.com...

The man who appeared in the video hasn't been positively identified as a former Lockheed Martin engineer named Boyd Bushman. But even if the fellow is who he claims to be and he genuinely believed the images displayed in the video were of a real alien, evidence points to someone's doing the hoaxing.

I believe we know a Boyd Bushman has several patents issued in association with Lockheed. It doesn't appear to be a fictitious name and the name appears to be associated with Lockheed.

Do we know that the man on video was definitely Boyd Bushman? I suppose not, but if the video itself is a hoax, that guy is one hell of an actor.

As to what the video "proves", I personally believe that though it proves nothing, it still may be of some interest. I think that it's likely this is Boyd Bushman. He likely did work for Lockheed. He possibly did have some access to information via his work related to the Government's involvement with UFOs. However, I think it's also likely that once he was identified as someone with an inordinate interest in digging into the subject via peer contacts, or even as someone who was willing to blab out of school about these things to friends with out clearance, he became the target of a Paul Bennewitz style disinformation campaign.

I do think the alien photos are a hoax, perpetrated on him. Probably a large portion of information he was given through second hand sources was part of that disinformation campaign. Since the best disinformation contains a good amount of truth, or even specifically truths one wants to taint via association with proven falsehoods, some of what he says on the UFO subject may be real.

The government had no shame in the way they manipulated Bennewitz, driving him to the point of madness, even though his deep patriotism offered benign avenues for assuring that he dropped research of commentary of what the government now claims were classified military signals from the local airbase, not in any way associated with aliens or UFOs. It's not hard to imagine them stringing this guy on in similar fashion, with "friends" in classified programs passing him hoaxes and disinformation as real material.

If he was a victim, what does it say of the video? Is he a whistle blower talking out of school, inadvertently revealing that he was the subject of a disinformation operation? Or, were the final phases of his manipulation convincing him to become a whistle blower, when in reality he was just a convenient tool for the government to spread the disinformation to the masses? What better tool than someone that believes the disinformation he is presenting is the God Honest truth?

I fail to see the reason for so much effort being dedicated to the ongoing campaign of debunking and ridicule for a subject that has already been muddied beyond the point where serious scientific or political discussion can take place, if, in fact, there is zero truth to it.

With political and scientific avenues for addressing the subject all but frozen out, we are left to personal belief/disbelief. The level of disinformation, ridicule and often bogus debunkery surrounding the field only really makes sense if the goal is to prevent the next step beyond belief, (or openness to belief), which is ascertaining the the true nature, scope and ramifications of extraterrestrial visitation.

... nevermind ...

a reply to: AboveBoard
Well, that response wasn't meant to be personal. It was more of a commentary on the overall belief methodology with aliens and many believers. People tend to humanize everything. From giving a dog or cat human levels of emotions, to alien beings looking human.

By the way, looking at the Autism link in your signature, you should read about Jacob Barnett.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: AboveBoard
Well, that response wasn't meant to be personal. It was more of a commentary on the overall belief methodology with aliens and many believers. People tend to humanize everything. From giving a dog or cat human levels of emotions, to alien beings looking human.

I think in the UFO community the tendency is to dismiss intelligence, social development and emotion displayed in non-human animals as "instinct" or purely "reward-based behavior", when the case can be made that this would explain our behavior as well. This is why we tend to look for intellectually superior HUMANOIDS in our search for ET... or at least aliens which are not all that alien to us.

I have a dawg. She can communicate with me, expresses emotion, and has a distinct personality. These things are not imagined by me... they are obvious to anyone. And she's not even the brightest animal on the planet.

This is why I balk at the usual array of humanoid alien reports... even the Mantis Aliens and Reptilians are more human than mantis and reptile. I think the scientific community is better prepared for, though not committed to, finding truly alien lifeforms with intellect completely foreign to us. I think the best way to prepare is to consider the vast diversity of life and intelligence on our own planet. The ET crowd will continue to look for a more advanced version of themselves that look like rubber dolls.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I see. It seemed personal as it was a reply to my comment, as if you had heard something I did not say and then replied to what you thought I said. Especially the take-down of Roswell and Area 51 as being bogus, which I made no claims one way or the other in regards to legitimacy. That specifically seemed as if you were attacking my post, without directly addressing what I said. Forgive me. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how what I said could have been misconstrued! Thank you for clearing that up.

I will check out that name in regards to autism. Thank you. Other forms of communication are indeed as valid as our over-emphasized verbal expression. (ETA - I thought that name was familiar! Yes...I've read about him/watched him. He is amazing. Thanks!)

I think that how life develops has a lot to do with the conditions of the place that life generates - the physics of the environment; temperatures, gravity, atmosphere, etc. The mechanics of musculature and joints, bones, etc. developed as they did due to the impact of bodies against the ground. Similar physical environments might produce similar beings, simply due to evolutionary processes.

That there is a vast array of diverse life that we may not even be able to imagine at this point is, in my mind, also a given. Some of that life may be intelligent and may see us as about as sentient as we see "lower animals," or even cells, to be. There might be highly intelligent "blobs" with tentacles that live in a vast pool of their own digestive juices that they pull other organisms into to drown and digest. They might communicate through complicated electrical pulses. See? I can think outside the box! lol! (Dang. Well now I'm going to have a nightmare on that one...)

Since we are being a bit speculative...

A friend of mine had an interesting idea that "aliens" might have the technology to connect to our perceptual systems/consciousness (through implants that are either physical or energetic structures) and "see through our eyes" and feel what we feel, etc. without having to come in contact with our environment, which might be dangerous to them. They could make "ride alongs" that send information back to them and store it for later removal. The most "out there" idea was that these little "ride along modules" were actually packets of consciousness from the beings themselves. Non-intrusive "possession."

It gets weird on the fringes sometimes... But it is fun to think about.

peace,
AB

so whats the consensus?hoax-senile old man or an honest man being fed false data?

2nd

a reply to: PHDIKOULAS

I don't know that there is a true consensus.

However, the extremely high likelihood of this information being primarily hoax material is very strong, in spite of Mr. Bushman's patents and employment, no matter who perpetrated it or why.

It may be possible that within the folds of dis-info there are a few threads of truth that will now be tainted with the label "hoax" - if that is the case, what an effective campaign for someone to create? Sprinkle a bit of truth in a pile of lies and let the truth be tainted. Of course - I have no idea if that is what happened, but???? Worth thinking about...

So there you have it. Others may disagree, but that's my take-away.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard

It may be possible that within the folds of dis-info there are a few threads of truth that will now be tainted with the label "hoax" - if that is the case, what an effective campaign for someone to create? Sprinkle a bit of truth in a pile of lies and let the truth be tainted. Of course - I have no idea if that is what happened, but???? Worth thinking about...

So there you have it. Others may disagree, but that's my take-away.

peace,
AB

The first step to productive discussion of the topic should be the eschewing of labels like this or the implication that differing POV's are part of a conspiracy to obfuscate a topic which is, in fact, of little importance to the broader population. I've seen far more "disinfo" being submitted by "true believers" from dubious at best sources [some of which are for-profit agenda-pushers] which must be shielded from the slightest scrutiny with such accusations as "paid disinfo agent!" or "professional debunker!" lest they be seen for what they are - unreliable, unprovable, and in some cases outright fraud. And to be fair, there are those who scream "hoax"!" with little to back up the charge.

Unfortunately this forum is all about skeptics vs. believers when most people fall somewhere in between. Just search the words "skeptic" and "debunker". Lots of threads [rants] will appear.

This particular case failed the test on a number of levels to a sufficient degree to convince some and sway others. There will always be those who refuse to even doubt, but convincing them is a fruitless endeavor. Personally I'd love to be convinced... I certainly don't come here because I have no interest in the topic.

a reply to: draknoir2

Allow me to reframe:

This doesn't mean that it HAS to be "disinfo" - it could simply be a prank.

I was making a speculative scenario - nothing more. It would be a brilliant way to hide truth, however, by putting it in the middle of lies... That was my point.

I am in the middle between "debunkers" and "believers" myself. I would agree that "believers" put out a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up, through WANTING it to be real, or being invested in a particular philosophy or personality. On the debunker side, it is an equally religious-seeming act to trash any and all evidence without much thought, and all evidence to the contrary is irrelevant to debunkers. As I have said, they are two sides of one coin.

Anyway - I appreciate your points. Sometimes I feel instantly labeled as one or the other (debunker or believer) because I may be investigating from a particular angle or point of view (as in this thread). I generally approach things from an "undecided" point of view until I comb through things on my own. As I gain experience, I am able to react more quickly to photographic evidence, etc. - I am open to learning. Sometimes I like to be exacting in ways that may be unnecessary for others, but that is just how I do it - no harm no foul.

Peace, draknoir. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

- AB

a reply to: Totemic
the man in the video is Boyd
Bushman. There are you tube video from f.e. 2012, it's definitely him. no doubt.

*post removed by author* had to scroll back a few to find another copy

I'm sorry if it was just posted in this thread... there are other fake UFOs in the Bushman'svid:

originally posted by: ufoofinterest
I'm sorry if it was just posted in this thread... there are other fake UFOs in the Bushman'svid:

Nice catch. Perfect match, right down to the reflections.

Hi Guys

Don't usually post here but think many of you have been easily lead away from the fresh game.
I don't have much doubt Bushman was either feed the fake photo's of a model early on - for plausible denial or similar photos were given to an model maker to create an alien which put on the market for the same reason.

Bushman clearly worked at Lockheed Martin and the other companies he claimed. He even had patents with them. I think he was higher put the food chain than you imagine. Far from being a doddery old man he knew his stuff.
I'm pretty sure he was very well aware of Lenz's law but could see that it was still an anti-gravity effect.

I read the whole of this thread at some point some great posts in here.
I've put some new information you may find interesting on the outpost forum.
Longeyes

a reply to: Totemic


I believe that you have hit the nail on the head. In terms of my personal discernment/intuition, this guy genuinely believes in what he is presenting. I find it quite sad that an intelligent, curious and honest old stoic can be so heartlessly manipulated by the forces who work in the shadows, whose sole remit is to muddy the waters, ridicule and discredit, and to craft illusions designed to lead the public away from the Truth.

I hope that he had personal life satisfaction and peace of mind before his passing, and I salute his efforts to shine a light on the murky swamps of military-industrial obfuscation.

I very much doubt that the Truth will come out, at least not until we have some paradigm-shattering worldwide events unfold within a short period of time.

All we can do is try to walk in personal integrity, and cautiously seek the Truth for its own sake, for it is the ultimate weapon generative of real freedom.

The universe is not hostile, but many within it are.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2

I am in the middle between "debunkers" and "believers" myself. I would agree that "believers" put out a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up, through WANTING it to be real, or being invested in a particular philosophy or personality. On the debunker side, it is an equally religious-seeming act to trash any and all evidence without much thought, and all evidence to the contrary is irrelevant to debunkers. As I have said, they are two sides of one coin.

That is the reality and neither of the two sides are helpful.

originally posted by: CollisioN

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2

I am in the middle between "debunkers" and "believers" myself. I would agree that "believers" put out a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up, through WANTING it to be real, or being invested in a particular philosophy or personality. On the debunker side, it is an equally religious-seeming act to trash any and all evidence without much thought, and all evidence to the contrary is irrelevant to debunkers. As I have said, they are two sides of one coin.

That is the reality and neither of the two sides are helpful.

That is an incorrect statement as has been proven in this thread and many others. On the believers side you either have a video/photograph posted, a story told, or both. That's where their evidence ends and they can provide nothing more. Many will use a title to help further substantiate the claim. As with- "Boyd Bushman senior scientist for Lockheed Martin says...." I guess we're to believe this title somehow eliminates the possibility of misidentifying an object or lying and fabricating.

On the debunkers side, photographs or videos are provided to give the argument that what is being shown, isn't what it actually is. In this case, the undeniable similarities between different alien props and these alien photographs can't be overlooked. Ufoofinterest above has shown two of the photographs aren't UFOs at all. One is a photograph of a painting/Photoshop created image of a UFO, the other is a photograph taken from the National Parks webcam in D.C. that's a long exposure of an airliner arriving/departing Ronald Reagan National Airport, or helicopter flying in the area. So, either Bushman was in on this, or he was confused and believed what was placed in front of him as evidence without any questioning. Coincidentally, the same process as many believers.

So, I can't see how anyone can say debunkers/skeptics/non-believers are not helpful in cases like these. They're extremely helpful in weeding through the BS.

You missed the point.

Skeptics are beneficial - as you say they weed out the BS.

Debunkers are not beneficial - they are equal to "Believers" (also not beneficial) in that they deny any evidence to the contrary of their BELIEF that "UFOs are BS" and therefore there CANNOT be any "real evidence." Both are BELIEVERS in their own positions, regardless of evidence.

That was the point.

Now, can't we all just get along??

peace,
AB

Can somebody save me the 60 page read... and just tell me what has been summarized till now in this thread?

Has this guys info been validated?
Does he talk about BBT's?

a reply to: AboveBoard

Skeptics and debunkers are seeing this from the same perspective. I've said this many times and will repeat it- There has been no concrete scientifically studied and proven evidence that alien beings are piloting UFOs or visiting Earth. That's after many decades, thousands upon thousands of cases, many claimed abductions, many claimed landings and encounters, as well as claimed crashed spacecraft. We have nothing but weak leveled evidence presented. That could be explained away if this were a phenomena based solely in the sky. But according to many believers, it interrelated with humans. Many opportunities have been there, but not a single one had evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

That being a fact, there's no foundational basis to even being to give equal arguments for intelligent alien beings on Earth. Or for a UFO to be piloted by an alien being. The default is still an Earthly one until overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. That's where skeptics and debunkers are coming from. I'm open to the possibility of intelligent alien beings existing as most others are, but I'm not going to jump onto the alien bandwagon as soon as I see an odd photograph, video, or hear a story. Give me real evidence, past or present, that intelligent life has visited Earth. Or in the least, overwhelming evidence outside of Earth, through SETI for ex., that intelligence is out there. Then you have a balanced argument for and against X case possibly involving intelligent alien life.