Boyd Bushman Kicked-Off Wikipedia

Above Top Secret was purged from Wikipedia this morning ...

Wikipedia entry for ATS

... looks like they're making the rounds cleaning-up all the nonsense stuff?

a reply to: maxzee
It's apparently an ongoing process though I don't know if current activity levels are typical, but for the last week it looks like maybe 50-60 or so potential deletions discussed per day (82 on November 23!). If 50-60 inappropriate articles are created per day then it's roughly in balance.

One commenter pointed out that the request for better references was in place for 4 years on the ATS article, so that should have been more than enough time to add better sources if there were any. I think your comment is relevant to this thread because it shows that Bushman isn't being singled out. Nonconforming article deletions appear to be quite common.

He appears to have Patents registered under his name where the assignee is identified as Lockheed corporation. If the Patents are real then this is a puzzle he has left us with.


patent.ipexl.com...

Object locator United States Patent 05452089

05452089 is referenced by 38 patents and cites 9 patents.

A search light employs variable polarization angles to enhance target identification. The search light shines a beam of light which may be directed across terrain. The beam of light is alternated in polarization angles at a rate of about five to twelve cycles per second. The alternating contrast in polarization angles produces flashing to an observer viewing certain targets struck by the beam of light. The flashing appears when striking man-made objects which tend to have a differential in polarized light between horizontal and vertical polarization. Natural objects do not appear to provide the flashing to the observer. The rotating polarization angles are accomplished in one instance by using a stationary polarizer and a liquid crystal retarder mounted in front of a light source. In another instance, the change in polarization angles is accomplished by rotating a polarizer in front of a light source. The light source may be infrared, visible or ultraviolet.
TitleObject locator Application Number947281 Publication Number5452089 Application DateJuly 5, 1993 Publication DateSeptember 19, 1995 InventorBoyd B Bushman
Lewisville
TX, US AgentJames E Bradley AssigneeLockheed Corporation
TX, US IPCG01J 04/00

S

a reply to: AthlonSavage

#1 - As I understand it, anyone can make anyone else the assignee on a patent with or without the assignees permission.

#2 - I didn't look at all of them, but at least several of the patents lapsed (meaning Lockheed never paid the maintenance fee); this suggests to me they were (at least the ones I viewed) considered by Lockheed to be totally worthless, or perhaps Lockheed didn't even know about them.

#3 - I don't understand how someone who had no advanced education in sciences or engineering (if, as someone else indicated, his only post-baccalaureate degree was a MBA) would be a "senior scientist" at Lockheed.

#4 - Putting 1, 2, and 3, together I'm going to guess he had a minor role in a business (non-engineering) office at Lockheed (maybe even in a very ho-hum unit, like Lockheed's monorail division or at Burbank Airport [which used to be operated by Lockheed under contract]), but may have been a garage inventor. He filed patents for his independent inventions but, as per a standard employment contract, still had to list Lockheed as assignee since he completed them while on Lockheed payroll (even if on his own time).

a reply to: maxzee

As I understand it, anyone can make anyone else the assignee on a patent with or without the assignees permission.

It will be helpful if you can quote the section of the patent law that says this as logically it will go a long way, either way to supporting if his claims are bogus or have a foundation of truth worth digger deeper into. Without seeing the law stating your understanding then we are only going of more claims.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

How's this:
www.nolo.com...
No place for an assignee signature.

I could assign my patent to my daughter and she wouldn't know. If I had a patent that is.

a reply to: Phage

Correct. Patent assignment is no different than leaving property to someone in a will. I can leave my '88 Ford Fairmount with flat tires, celephone wrap for a windshield, and a rusted body to Barack Obama whether he wants it or not.

Obama has a right to disclaim the inheritance, in which case the executor of my will would need to figure out something else to do with my Ford, but Obama can't stop me from naming him in my will and leaving him the Ford in the first place.

a reply to: maxzee
You wouldn't....
Would you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: maxzee
You wouldn't....
Would you?

Already did. Just haven't died yet.

The article "Illuminati symbolism" was also just deleted:

Wikipedia: Illuminati symbolism

However, "National UFO Reporting Center" was kept after being nominated for deletion this month:

Wikipedia - NUFORC

a reply to: Phage

www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com...

I went and did some checking myself and what your saying appears to the case, that there doesn't seem to be any law that precludes an assignor naming who they want as the assigned. A link I looked at describes "assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company"

Therefore next questions logical to ask is

- Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified?
- and, how many of his Patents were used by Lockheed or a third party by the consent of the assignee (Lockheed)

Industry expert Tony O'Lenick explains the difference between being an inventor and an assignee of a patent...

The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1, Section 8, that: the "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.

The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention. An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention, not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under the direction and supervision of the inventor.

The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.
- See more at: www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com...

According to Whitley Streiber, a reporter who he knows well tried to interview Boyd Bushman once ...

"When I asked if he had any college degrees in physics or other advanced science degree, he at first didn't want to talk about education. But finally after I persisted, he admitted on camera he had no Masters or Ph.D. degrees in any subject.The images Mr. Bushman showed us taped to cardboard as allegedly his private, confidential government insider images of extraterrestrials — I have seen in a lot of places and seem more like fantasy illustrations than based on actual photographic evidence from Area 51, Dulce, China Lake, Wright Patterson, Eglund and others. When I tried to ask him questions related to firmer information about ET types - even if nothing proved - his answers were like Star Trek quotes, not a scientists. In the end, nothing was produced further."

Read the original source: www.unknowncountry.com...

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Therefore next questions logical to ask is - Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified? - and, how many of his Patents were used by Lockheed or a third party by the consent of the assignee (Lockheed)

Does it really matter? Edgar Mitchell's credentials are undisputed. That does turn his opinions into facts.

- Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified?

According to the Lockheed Martin website:

Due to concerns with personal privacy and security, we regret that we cannot provide information about specific individuals at Lockheed Martin.

web.archive.org...://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/contact.html

If you check the Internet Archive, you'll see this text was also present one year ago, before Bushman's death.

- and, how many of his Patents were used by Lockheed or a third party by the consent of the assignee (Lockheed)

I can't imagine any situation in which Lockheed would want to disclose which patents they were using where outside of being compelled to do so in a lawsuit. It would be like letting engineers from BaE or MiG or Dassault wander around the factory floor unescorted. I would guess, based on the fact all of Boyd's patents I viewed were let lapse (they were worth less than the $130 maintenance fee to Lockheed), probably none.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

- Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified?

My wife works for LM as do a number of other people. Its not really a big deal.

a reply to: Phage

- Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified?
- and, how many of his Patents were used by Lockheed or a third party by the consent of the assignee (Lockheed)

I find the Bushman story is interesting and far from sold on it but an 80 year old guy just before he dies comes out with some fantastic story. A lot of what he saying hinges on his credibility, and my questions are aimed at establishing credibility. Different people will have different opinions on what they need to either refute or believe his claims, for me im on the fence until at least the questions above are answered.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

My wife works for LM as do a number of other people. Its not really a big deal.

I asked two questions not one, and they are both related questions so unless your wife knew Bushman I don't think it is a big deal.

originally posted by: maxzee

- Can his employment at Lockhead Martin be verified?

According to the Lockheed Martin website:

Due to concerns with personal privacy and security, we regret that we cannot provide information about specific individuals at Lockheed Martin.

web.archive.org...://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/contact.html

If you check the Internet Archive, you'll see this text was also present one year ago, before Bushman's death.

- and, how many of his Patents were used by Lockheed or a third party by the consent of the assignee (Lockheed)

I can't imagine any situation in which Lockheed would want to disclose which patents they were using where outside of being compelled to do so in a lawsuit. It would be like letting engineers from BaE or MiG or Dassault wander around the factory floor unescorted. I would guess, based on the fact all of Boyd's patents I viewed were let lapse (they were worth less than the $130 maintenance fee to Lockheed), probably none.

Then im staying on the fence with this one cause its unlikely we will ever get the answers to basic questions which can be used to establish his credibility.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I asked two questions not one, and they are both related questions so unless your wife knew Bushman I don't think it is a big deal.

No, she didn't know him. She never heard of him actually. Neither did anyone else that I asked that works there. So he isn't really famous within the company. So I am no use to you. Sorry. Seems to me the only people that have heard of him are people on the alien interwebs.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

If you read the thread you will see had a lawsuit against lockheed for one of the patients.