This is the user sandbox of HafizHanif. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Ascension

The ascension of Jesus is a main tradition in Islam, with only particular Muslim groups having different interpretations.

The day that Jesus was raised to heaven, he left behind nothing but a woolen garment, a slingshot, and two sandals. - No. 77 Hannad ibn al-Sariyy (d. 857). ^[1]

Ibn Kathir tells us...the Muslims believed: ‘The servant and messenger of God, Jesus, remained with us as long as God willed until God raised him to Himself.’ ^[2]

"Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised up alive!" (Maryam 33) ^[3]

elsewhere

Porphyry became one of the most able pagan adversaries of Christianity of his day. His aim was not to disprove the substance of Christianity’s teachings but rather the records within which the teachings are communicated. ^[4]

Even supposing some Greeks are so foolish as to think that the gods dwell in the statues, even that would be a much purer concept (of religion) than to admit that the Divine Power should descend into the womb of the Virgin Mary, that it became an embryo, and after birth was wrapped in rags, soiled with blood and bile, and even worse. ^{[5] [6]}

Boyd Bushman article

Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin, in the Fort Worth Division which produced the F-22 stealth and F-16 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. ^[7] At the time of his retirement in 2000, Bushman had 28 patents in his name, many of which contained classified technologies. ^{[8] [9]}

In October 2014 a video testimony of Boyd Bushman went viral, where he claimed to show proof of extraterrestrials living and working at Area 51. ^[10]

News articles soon released pictures of dolls looking similar to Boyd's images of aliens to answer his claims, but from unsourced origins ( see news articles ). ^{[11] [12]} The doll manufacturer quoted in news reports, Halloween FX Props, ^[13] was started by Guy Kitchell: "In 2009, he started building Halloween props for his home. Family and friends loved the products so he began selling them. That led to more props and more sales and what is now Halloween FX Props, a company that supplies haunted attractions and home haunts and shares the building with Klima." ^[14] This news article conflicts with the reported date of a doll made by the same manufacturer and offered at Walmart / Kmart in 1997.

In the October 2014 YouTube video, Boyd claims having top-secret clearance and describes evidence apparently forwarded to him by colleagues having direct personal contact and experience with UFOs and aliens at Area 51. ^[10]

The accounts in the October 2014 video were in the form of descriptions, explanations, pictures of spacecrafts, pictures of alien beings and pictures of unique alien materials. In the video testimony, he speaks about images of alien spacecraft having a heads up display similar to modern human aircraft, but more advanced. Boyd also states the beings held at Area 51 come from a planet called Quintonia, mentioning location in the universe and sharing images of their planet and images of earth from their planet. He mentions how there are two species who stand between four and a half to five feet tall, having five toes and five fingers like humans. Boyd further states the aliens do not communicate verbally but instead through telepathy. He further says there are currently 18 aliens at Area 51 and they can live to be over 200 years old. He shares some photos of an alien who died. He also shares a photo of a friend of his posing with the spirit of the deceased alien, saying their spirit, like that of humans, stays near the body for up to three days, maybe more. Boyd also shares a varied account of the Roswell UFO incident and some other information, like performing anti-gravity experiments on his own with alien materials he knows how to use. ^[10]

The claims were widely circulated by UFO enthusiast blogs and Oliver Darcy of the Blaze, ^[15] which stated they were made on the man's "deathbed." ^[15] The claims were similar in nature to inferences made by Boyd during an earlier appearance he made in the 1999 Discovery Channel program "Billion Dollar Secret", ^[16] whose premise was to chronicle a purported government UFO coverup. ^{[17] [18]} At a running time of 22:50 in the "Billion Dollar Secret," Boyd is interviewed and introduced as a "Lockheed Martin Defense Contractor" and speaks briefly about the subject matter, mentioning a real-world demonstration he did regarding anti-gravity. "If you're interested in anti-gravity, then talk to Bushman, they'd said" writes Nick Cook in The Hunt For Zero Point: Inside The World of Anti-Gravity Technology. ^[7]

A subsequent inquiry by Quebec news website TVQC reported the photos shown by Boyd Bushman were similar to those of a plastic collectible figure sold by Walmart. ^[19] This story was also repeated by the San Antonio Express News. ^[20] Urban legend index Snopes has rated the claim "Former Lockheed Martin engineer Boyd Bushman provided evidence of human contact with alien life before his death in August 2014" as "FALSE", ^[21] citing a YouTube video showing a model of an alien which looks similar to the alien shown in Boyd's film. ^[22] A German newspaper Bild reports the opinion "whether Bushman had actually worked at Lockheed Martin could not be confirmed. And the aliens he is shown with are, in all probability, fake. That raises questions about his other statements, as well." ^[23]

There has been analysis of the alien photos mentioned on a radio broadcast ^{[ citation needed]} not ruling out such dolls may have been based on the physiology of authentic aliens.

Boyd Bushman's obituary includes references to his career, his photo and a link to his birth certificate. ^[8]

References

{{Persondata
| NAME              = Bushman, Boyd
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION = American scientist
| DATE OF BIRTH     = 1936
| PLACE OF BIRTH    =
| DATE OF DEATH     = 2014
| PLACE OF DEATH    =
}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bushman, Boyd}}
[[Category:1936 births]]
[[Category:2014 deaths]]
[[Category:American scientists]]

Boyd Bushman talk page

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=Stub
|listas=Bushman, Boyd
}}

Lockheed

I have asked half a dozen ex-Lockheed ADP people who worked there from the 1950s until the 1990s and none of them have ever heard of this person. How many sources are there for his claims? Paul Suhler ( talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the few people you talked to might not have known him. Lockheed Martin employs over 140,000 workers. As a population comparison, if you tried that same experiment on your average university, I doubt that your few people would be able to connect you with or identify a random person elsewhere on that university. After all, Bushman isn't Kevin Bacon. :-)

The patents prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Bushman was a scientist and an inventor employed at Lockheed in the 1990’s. But there’s also a basis of evidence for this in reliable journalistic sources. Although I question Nick Cook’s conclusions, his past and current work as an aerospace journalist at Jane’s Defence Weekly provides a foundation of credibility when he states in his 2007 book “The Hunt for Zero Point” published by Crown Publishing Group:

“When I had first inquired about Trimble and RIAS at Lockheed Martin, my contacts there had recommended I interview a man who routinely talked about the kinds of things that had once been integral to the RIAS charter.

A man who tended to talk about Nature, not science; a physicist who looked at things quite differently from other people.

Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-016 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. If you’re interested in antigravity, then talk to him, they’d said.” { https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436 } Informedskeptic ( talk) 21:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a look around, and a "Boyd B. Bushman" is listed as the inventor on a number of patents that are assigned to Lockheed Martin, mostly filed in the 90s it appears. There's even one linked to on the wiki page. As for his claims, well, who knows, seems odd though with the 'parlor trick' section that he'd make such a mistake considering the kind of things he has patents on. I don't know enough about physics though to really judge this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awareenemy ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He did work at Lockheed. 34 patents via google patent search. All but one mention Lockheed: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=ininventor:boyd+ininventor:bushman -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at his US5,929,372 patent and the physics are not valid. He talks of a "beam " of magnetic field, magnetic monopoles, and permanent magnets generating "pulses". This man has clearly never had a physics 101 course. 108.184.225.180 ( talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, the papent is a lot of foolishness. Identity theft? Hoax? No such person as Boyd Bushman? Or a fellow who went off the deep end when he got old? 72.182.33.219 ( talk) 22:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Eric

He was not B. Bushman listed in all the Lockheed patents he has one patent for the sidewinder missile as Bushman without a B, THE REAL B. BUSHMAN IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.199.231 ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The above statements are incorrect: Boyd Bushman's patent "Apparatus and method for amplifying a magnetic beam" (the correct patent number is US5929732) { https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5929732.pdf } works precisely as described and is founded on indisputable mainstream physics. The field of a dipolar permanent magnet (or an electromagnet) can be compressed at one or both poles into a beam-like shape through opposing magnetic fields operating perpendicular to the target pole (producing a "monopolar beam," not a "magnetic monopole") as Bushman described. The field is simply "re-shaped" via opposition. The magnetic pulses described in the patent are produced by an inductive coil -surrounding- a permanent magnet, which modulates the field intensity. I'm a published theoretical and experimental physicist and co-host of a mainstream physics podcast with over 25 years of research and study: Bushman's patents are above reproach.

Many fallacious statements are being attributed to this respectable and accomplished scientist. The Snopes article for example states "former lockheed martin engineer said he spoke with aliens," which is false. In the "deathbed confession" video { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zof2kpl0Py8 } that started this recent pogrom against Bushman, Boyd states that his info and photos regarding aliens and the Area 51 base were provided to him by an unnamed man who claimed to work in a position of authority at that location. It appears that the well-meaning old scientist was hoaxed by this man, who is the real culprit here. Bushman's remarkable career and good character should not be sullied because the old guy got duped by some joker who sent him photos of a toy alien doll. And that fraud perpetrated upon him does not invalidate the testimony he gave regarding a highly energized material that appeared to reduce the weight of a crystalline test object in his lab - it appears that he tested this material personally, and took those photos in his own lab at Lockheed. Informedskeptic ( talk) 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Informedskeptic. Please see section below: #Bushman claimed to have personally seen aliens. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

except for one thing he is not the real Boyd B. Bushman here's the Link to the real Bushman and he is ANGRY and is going to sue! www.linkedin.com/pub/boyd-b-bushman/a8/642/762 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOYDBBUSHMAN ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2014? (UTC)

Another desperate attempt to obfuscate the truth and tarnish reality... hilarious and desperate ( this recent account at LinkedIn ); http://www.linkedin.com/pub/boyd-b-bushman/a8/642/762 -- HafizHanif ( talk) 20:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What would it take to convince you that is not an attempt to obfuscate the truth and tarnish reality? This man has tarnish my reputation and successfully obfuscate the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.199.231 ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me help you, AnonyMo. Firstly, show who you are; prove it with a link to something better than a recent LinkedIn page with all CAPS! Secondly, sign when you come on here and call foul. -- HafizHanif ( talk) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not AnonyMo I use my email boydbbushman@gmail.com to sign in,how else can I sign in ,maybe you know, then tell me how and I will,I will change my Link. What? if this isn't me calling foul then what is it then? Lets work together on this; to put up something about me to prove my claim, give me your email address so I can or anyone can contact you, I can not find your email address at this site anywhere Why?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.199.231 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You think people are so dull to believe an email address? As if Boyd was using gmail when he had business email addresses. Your ip address doesn't highlight and you have really bad punctuation too, the smell of bogus is getting pretty bad. Just quit, it's been fun and amusing. -- HafizHanif ( talk) 05:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not wast my time with an immature teenager, tell me can you prove that your are not, I can prove I am not, show your email on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.199.231 ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

http://www.google.com/patents/US5929732

I suggest you go to the United States Patent office website and do search with his name then read the major of the 27 patents in his name, then see that they are tied to Lockheed Martin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.214.241 ( talk) 06:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the patents, he is listed as the inventor and Lockheed Martin as the assignee. When one files a patent, one can nominate anybody that one wishes as the assignee. This does not prove any affiliation between Bushmand and Lockheed Martin. http://patents.justia.com/inventor/boyd-b-bushman 108.184.225.180 ( talk) 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are in fact 27 patents to this man's name, which he assigned to Lockheed Martin, that in and of itself creates an affiliation between him and Lockheed Martin. (I am not going to check myself, because I don't believe it matters.) However there are three main questions here, and whether he really was a Lockheed Martin employee is only one of them. First: 1) Whether he was an employee of Lockheed Martin; I'm inclined to say if he gave the company 27 patents, he probably was (since that's a huge amount of paperwork to say nothing of the effort actually inventing something). 2) If he was, did he have the kind of job that might conceivably have given him access to be a direct witness to the claims? And 3) How credible is this man? -- Personally, without a whole lot more documentation supporting his credibility, I'm inclined to say that his story is not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

IF THE PATENTS DOESNT MATTER WHY ARE THEY DELETED FROM THE WIKI PAGE FUCKING ZION MODS

Lockheed Martin would not allow and authorize someone to have their business card that does not work for the company plus they would not put the title under his name of Senior Scientist. Plus Lockheed Martin would not grant the same person to have email address of Boyd.B.Bushman@lmco.com plus have a direct phone land line to his office in their Fort Worth location on the card too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.214.241 ( talk) 06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but anybody could go to a print shop and print any kind of business card that they want! This does not prove anything. 108.184.225.180 ( talk) 17:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the claims made are so odd and the article has so few references, I'm questioning the accuracy. Autarch ( talk) 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

His official business card for LMCO last I saw him was "Chief Scientist Emeritus". Not kidding. This man is very notable, but the article quality is currently poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.120.96 ( talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all engineers are skilled writers.

If you want the truth about this guy, contact Lockheed Martin's Alumni Network. Kortoso ( talk) 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to his website no longer works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.54.216 ( talk) 07:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"To date, no evidence denies Boyd's claims." Except for the evidence that denies his claims. I.e: http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/bushman.asp#xBS1JUeMqG5wkwJH.99 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPQL9qoZ9I http://www.tvqc.com/2014/10/boyd-bushman-ingenieur-lockheed-martin-parle-dovnis-mort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.41.108 ( talk) 05:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article on Bushman has been re-written very badly in light of the "death bed confession" video and the tidal wave of false statements that have suddenly emerged pertaining to it. For example, the Snopes page constantly being cited as a "source" (how can one count a "source" that doesn't even name the author?) makes this false and incendiary statement "former lockheed martin engineer said he spoke with aliens," but the video makes it clear that Bushman is only relaying info given to him from an unnamed man who claimed to work at the Area 51 base { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zof2kpl0Py8 }. Many other bloggers have made similar false statements, alleging that Bushman claimed that he worked at Area 51, or that he got his patent ideas from aliens telepathically (who comes up with this stuff? Bushman never said it), or had first-hand knowledge of aliens - and in every article I've read so far, the statements *given to Bushman from his unnamed source* are presented as *first-hand claims by Bushman*.

People are so eager to crucify this nice old guy that they're making things up. Someone above even questioned Lockheed as the assignee on Bushman's patents. The going rate for a patent is $10K, minimum - who can afford to spend over a quarter of a million dollars to file dozens of patents and assign their rights protections to a major aerospace defense contractor? Let's put down the burning torches, folks. Bushman was hoaxed with some photos of a toy alien doll; there's no need to assassinate his character over it, and his Wikipedia page should reflect his career and achievements - not a lapse in judgement in his dying days. Informedskeptic ( talk) 05:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Great comment, Informedskeptic. But I disagree that those dead alien photos are necessarily a hoax. This is discussed in more detail by others in a section farther down. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Academic and work experience

This guy was showing a magnet slowing down inside a copper tube. He presented this as forces that no one could explain. The truth was that this was due to the magnetic field that is created by eddie currents created by the original magnetic field of the magnet. I don't understand why there is an article about someone with no credibility at all. Celestial mechanic ( talk) 06:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Boyd Bushman has a specific patent (5,514,926, May 7 1996) utilizing what is clearly an aspect of eddy-current drive. It does seem a bit strange that this patent says "For reasons not entirely clear, applicant’s [sic] have discovered that rapidly moving a magnetic field through a nonferrous electrical conductor can cause movement of the electrical conductor." But then, it's strange that examiner LaBalle, the attorneys at Bradley, et al. did not recognize the similarity to eddy-current brakes. (I do have to wonder whether someone who cannot spell 'eddy current' correctly is a competent authority on the subject... ;=})

My personal suspicion is that there's little available on Bushman for reasons of 'national security' -- look for example at some of his other patents, a few with intentionally obfuscated titles, particularly 5,836,549 in conjunction with a need for 5,680,135 and the application of 5,542,247 to the problem of ignition in pulse-detonation engines. This may be a situation like that with Shockley, where relatively high-quality and notable engineering is succeeded by 'unfortunate' voluntary activity in public. (Or perhaps, by extension, with the late career of another notable person involved with physics and 'other aspects', Isaac Newton...)

It does seem to me that there's enough to give Bushman his own page 'on the merits', but perhaps only referenced from another Wikipedia topic with more relevant potential scope, for example alleged Skunk Works black projects... and that might include a paragraph or two that covers the current 'viral' topic whether or not it turns out the person in the video is actually Bushman. I would certainly NOT have a Boyd Bushman page that only covers this (likely) hoax business. 74.242.179.45 ([[User talk:74.242.179.45|talk]R.M.Ellsworth]) 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Celestial mechanic - I assume that you're referring to David Sereda's interview with Boyd Bushman, which appears in "From Here to Andromeda" { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5lCAwHL0cc } from 1:37:44 to 1:38:30. Bushman did *not* present this demonstration of Lenz's law as an unexplained phenomenon. But Sereda was baffled by it, so Bushman tried to help him understand it by saying "It's a matter of 'what is the aluminum doing?'...what does it care about moving electrons?" Bushman's credibility is actually quite impressive if one pays attention to his statements, his life-long career in aerospace, and his elegantly conceptual patents.

@R.M.Ellsworth: excellent comments, sir. Regarding the anomalous "For reasons not entirely clear" comment in the patent, it's possible if not likely that Bushman didn't draft the patent text himself - his interview with David Sereda makes it clear that he's perfectly familiar with eddy currents aka Lenz's law. And the patent seems valid as a new embodiment because it describes transferring energy rather than dissipating energy via eddy currents (in fact until I saw his patent it hadn't occurred to me to use the effect that way - many of Bushman's patents reflect that kind of intuitive simplicity overlooked by others). It is Bushman in the unfortunate "death bed confession" video, but it's obvious from a single viewing of that video that Bushman was hoaxed by the man who gave him the photos of the alien toy doll - Bushman never claimed direct knowledge of alien beings or ufo's, he simply relayed stories he'd heard about them. Like you said, this hoax issue should be a footnote on Boyd Bushman's WP - his place as a public figure has been established for years and his professional work in the defense industry and on Skunk Works projects are his most notable achievements. Informedskeptic ( talk) 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Timeshifter - Stop adding your own words to my comments. If you have objections, make your own comments and credit them to -your own name- not mine. If you do it again I'll report you. Informedskeptic ( talk) 06:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Informedskeptic. I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't commented or edited in this talk section until now as far as I can tell from looking at the talk page history. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

the rubber doll controversy

The claims currently in the article about the alien in the video being revealed as just a toy need further citation too. The article in a San Antonio paper which is said to confirm this hypothesis actually only mentioned it in passing, and doesn't even picture the same doll as the previous article--thus it's misleading to cite it in that context. Also, I had trouble running down any specifics on the doll (a store page at Walmart or Kmart where it is supposed to be sold). The first article says almost nothing about it and provides only a home photo of dubious provenance. While it seems very likely to me that it is indeed a photographed toy, the article currently indicates a level of certainty about specifics which it probably should not based on the sources shown.

(There's also a YouTube video circulating, which the French news article links to at the very bottom. That seems to be the best source, and shows an alien very like the one in the photos. But it indicates said alien toy is rather old, in contrast to the claim that it can currently be had at WalMart. There's also other media and info available on forum threads.)

YouTube is not an acceptable source for WP articles. BlueSalix ( talk) 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. I was just trying to gesture at the evidence that is available to back the claim already made in the article. But that is why citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.20.64 ( talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is not evidence. BlueSalix ( talk) 01:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That, my good sir, is false. Evidence, of course, comes in degrees. Some items from YouTube do provide evidence. They are just not reliable enough, as a class, to be relied upon for a projects like this. But that doesn't render them devoid of evidential value, just useless as Wikipedia citations. Anyhow, that's all a little beside the point. We're in agreement, I take it, that the citations in the article are insufficient because all the so-called news story offers is a pic without a source and a YouTube video (which you don't think is evidence at all). Thus the entry should probably not say "inquiry" or "demonstrated" because there just isn't backing for it.

I don't know what you're trying to say. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's really simple: the current draft of Bushman's wikipedia entry claims, "A subsequent inquiry by Quebec news website TVQC demonstrated the photos shown by 'Boyd Bushman' were those of a plastic collectible figure produced by toy company HalloweenFX". But it doesn't: no such claim is made by the Quebec news article, footnote 4, which never even mentions the name HolloweenFX and doesn't claim to have done any demonstrating at all. On top of that, the entry claims that all this is "something later confirmed by the San Antonio Express News". But again, the San Antonio article, footnote 5, doesn't even mention that claim, much less do any confirming of it. So citation is clearly needed. (Our YouTube discussion was just a tangent. When I posted about citation being needed I thought it was a good idea to also point out that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is being made--I just haven't seen reputable sources backing it yet. That apparently got us off topic. At any rate,if a YouTube clip isn't a suitable source, and we agree it isn't, then the Quebec news story isn't of much use as a source either, because all it really is is a blog post sharing the Bushman claims and that youtube clip.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.20.64 ( talk) 12:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You can read WP:RS if you would like to learn more about reliable sources on Wikipedia. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says that this toy company HalloweenFX, couldn't fashion a model after the pictures shown by Bushman? Considering the age of these pictures they could have obtained these pictures from him or another source beforehand. So the existence of a plastic model does not disprove the Bushman testimony... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpba ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What is needed is a date of manufacturer, an actual manufacturer ( website or evidence showing the manufacturer existed ) with date and location of incorporation or business license, etc., where and when the doll was made available on the retail market and other pertinent specifics. Otherwise, it is hearsay and nothing more than a picture of a doll which may have been made and fashioned after the real thing.-- HafizHanif ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I object to this issue being the central (and only) topic of the WP. Bushman's only "sin" in this matter was to fall for some hoaxed photos given to him from an unnamed source. An accomplished scientist and patriot deserves better than this. Informedskeptic ( talk) 07:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I heard some good analysis of the alien photos in a radio show. The main point being that the logic used to claim they are hoax photos is circular. Just because there are similar toys does not make the photos a hoax. The archetypal grey alien images of various types have been around a long time. See Google Image search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=grey+alien&tbm=isch

Many, many people have claimed to have seen them over many decades. Both dead ones, and live ones. The photos of the dead aliens and the dolls are not exactly the same. They are not the same photos. One commentator said that the black discoloration around the eyes, etc. was due to the fact the aliens were dead. There are grey alien images and dolls of every imaginable type of color and texture variation. See the Google Image search. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The alien doll was debunked years ago when fraudster John Hutchison posted a YouTube video of these same photos, which were give to him by Boyd Bushman, which were in turn given to Bushman by a different fraudster { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpaOoru1j4 }. Setting aside the irony factor here, it's unfair to implicate Bushman in a fraud -perpetrated upon him- by an unknown party. And this whole alien doll issue -should not be- the central and only topic of Bushman's WP. It only merits a fleeting mention at the bottom of his page. Informedskeptic ( talk) 21:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is still the same circular logic. Here is the 20 second video of the dead alien photos passed on supposedly in 2008 by Boyd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkX83OAOuTo

I am not saying these photos are of a dead alien or a doll. I do not know. I have not seen a doll photo exactly like those photos. So I am not convinced either way. It was discussed here:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/11/02 - "Bushman alleged he had true photographs of the preserved alien from Roswell (see comparison photos), and Sereda concluded there was possibly some authenticity to his claims, as the face in the Bushman photo contained unique irregularities, while the knock-off dolls, sold at places like K-mart, could have been part of a smear or disinformation campaign to discredit the actual photo. Further, Sereda suggested that the alien body was likely preserved with chemicals and plastics, creating the effect of the darkened eyes and rings around them, as fluid was lost from the body."

Comparison photos:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/roswell-alien-comparison-graphic

https://www.google.com/search?q=Boyd+Bushman+dead+alien&tbm=isch -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you seem to be one of very few on here with any objectivity and integrity. Regarding the claim or evidence that Kmart, Walmart or any other 'mart' was selling the doll is not clear. The news outlets have shared a hearsay opinion without evidence. There has yet to be evidence the dolls pictured are from where it is said they are. The wiki entry should reflect factual evidence to contradict Boyd's claims, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2014? (UTC)

Thanks HafizHanif. The dolls are real. There are many dolls of aliens. Over decades. The fact that a doll photo looks similar to a photo of a dead alien proves nothing if the photos are not an exact match of each other. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the dolls are real, my point is in regards to the doll issue; (a) there is no evidence of any such likeness of a doll being sold on the open retail market. (b) In comparing the doll and what Boyd shared ( I saw the short video, thanks ); the images that Boyd showed were either very detailed 'dolls' or the real thing. One can also see 'age' in the images that Boyd shared. That was either quite a remarkable old looking doll that was sold at the likes of Walmart and Kmart or it was the real deal. Another noticeable point is where the two hemispheres of the cranium come together; it is quite deep and distinct, unlike the images purported to be a simple doll, along with the skin alongside the skull... that is some fancy plastic work to sell a plastic production doll. HafizHanif ( talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that the photos in Bushman's video are photos of a doll. I ran across the name of the manufacturer while looking into this whole sad business, but I didn't make note of it, because the obvious fact that it is a doll in the photos made that detail irrelevant. People arguing that the doll could be a real alien are only exacerbating the impact of this hoax, and making Bushman and everyone else who keeps an open mind on the topic of alien life look credulous and laughable. Informedskeptic ( talk) 07:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT painfully obvious what you suppose Skeptic. What is painfully obvious is the date accounts on wiki were created and their sole attention to particular articles ( mainly this one ). To mention who has been sharing their two bit's worth of sense on here, look at the anonymous ip addresses and their history. Look at Mr. Skeptic's history. Speaking to the matter: taking a closer look at the images of dolls and the images that Boyd showed, one could see detail in Boyd's images. Folks can deny it all they want. Maybe it's their job to deny and obfuscate, yes, some are paid to lie their entire life... what a miserable life it must be. To whomever else is reading this: put your video setting on HD and take a closer look, comparing images with images. To continue with what Boyd shared being dolls is ridiculous when compared. We are still waiting for some facts to contradict Boyd's claims, like who has manufactured the dolls. Without them, sorry to say to the skeptics, there is no real proof to defeat his claims, only hearsay and opinion... the likes of what passes for 'news' and dignified journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious to me that the thing is a doll. The black spray paint alone is a dead giveaway. Then there's the nose - it's not even a hole it's a dip, y'know, like a doll. And what about that insane "alien ghost" photo - the one where the alien ghost is hanging out with its arm around that guy's shoulder, like they're sipping beers together? Do you seriously believe that too? And I did some digging around and found a photo of this doll from July 2, 2000, taken at the 53rd Annual Roswell Convention: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/groups-dressed-as-aliens-ride-through-downtown-roswell-new-news-photo/665952 This entire debacle has done more damage to the field of real inquiry into this subject than any other hoax in history, and it's the "true believers" shouting from the rooftops that this dumb doll is an actual alien, who have made a mockery of; themselves, every living soul who expresses an interest in ufology from this event forward, and perhaps most tragically, the sweet and gullible old Boyd Bushman - an man otherwise deeply noteworthy and accomplished, who was naive enough to fall for this awful hoax perpetrated upon him. Informedskeptic ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The doll photos you found from the 53rd Annual Roswell Convention are not the same as any of the photos Boyd Bushman was passing on. Similar, but not the same. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A supposed Bushman polygraph test

Note. My original title for this talk section was "Bushman claimed to have personally seen aliens". Someone changed it to "A supposed Bushman polygraph test" and I prefer it too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

He was questioned about this in a polygraph test that he passed. See test questions in this article:

• http://www.openminds.tv/lockheed-martin-scientist-says-really-aliens-ufos-area-51/30767

My point is not really about the polygraph test. They are not accepted as accurate tests. My point is that he claims to have personally seen aliens. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The polygraph and whether Bushman said he saw aliens personally is irrelevant for now. The 2014 interview doesn't say he personally saw them, and this is furthered when he's describing how they communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2014? (UTC)

It is relevant because it means he would spot a photo that did not look like aliens he had seen personally. And he had no need to discuss what he had already discussed in previous interviews and videos over the years. He shared those photos years before with others, though I am not sure he showed them in previous videos that were made public. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkX83OAOuTo -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I say it is irrelevant simply because in the 2014 video, he doesn't say he personally saw aliens. Regarding the images; unless there is video evidence showing him sharing images in the past, but only hearsay ( what others would claim or say they heard him say, whether on video or not ), that wouldn't be much to go on in respects to factual indisputable citations. The polygraph is a great strength to further support the claim, but one would need witnesses and an authentic signature or agreement showing he did sit for a polygraph, but a polygraph isn't 100% and has been seen as dated attempts to read people's hearts / minds... a cool character / psychopath can keep calm while lying about everything. I don't find the polygraph being necessary considering Boyd's standing in the community, among his peers and the lack of defeating evidence. HafizHanif ( talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So the writer of that blog post, Alejandro Rojas, claims that he received an email transcription of a lie detector test (that nobody has ever corroborated as ever happening at all) from a woman he doesn't identify, and his effort to authenticate the transcript from Bushman himself is met with silence. It's hard to imagine a scenario offering a weaker foundation of credibility. Except perhaps making a fake LinkedIn profile and posting one comment on it using the name of a dead man, who claims that two "Boyd Bushman's" worked at Lockheed Martin (what're the odds?). You seem to believe -both- of these wildly non-credible and completely contradictory sources, Timeshifter. This is no way to do a service to the memory of an accomplished and respectable, if unfortunately credulous, research scientist. Please stop, so the rest of us can sift fact from fiction and do this man's defiled memory some justice. Thank you Informedskeptic ( talk) 05:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You make claims about my beliefs based on thin air. Please stop. I wouldn't be surprised if a polygraph was taken before he was accepted as credible by people investigating his claims over the years. Just because the source hasn't come forward publicly does not mean the polygraph is fake. But without a public source, I agree with you though that the polygraph is useless to us for now. Here is some of the more relevant info from the article concerning the polygraph:

"In early 2008, Bushman’s name came up in conversation with a UFO researcher I was working with. She said she knew him and that he had recently taken a polygraph test in which he admitted to have worked with antigravity at Area 51, had worked on alien technologies, had examined an alien spacecraft, and had even touched an alien life form. He also said he knew Lazar. She forwarded me an email she had received from Bushman with the polygraph results, ... I believe the person who sent me the polygraph test to be a trust worthy person. I believe she really did receive it from Bushman. Whether or not it is real, I cannot say."

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Belief" isn't evidence, and even the guy in that quote isn't saying that it's a real polygraph test. So it's totally worthless at best, and more grist for the disinformation mill at worst. Informedskeptic ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Bushman on Antigravity

{{edit semi-protected|Boyd Bushman|answered=yes}} reference: Former Lockheed Martin Skunk works Senior Scientist comes out about Antigravity Propulsion Devices and how they tie into what is known as "Singularity" which allow you to move anywhere within the universe instantaneously. Humans have this technology, and have had for more than 50 years

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNPBYtJyfZo

Fang3001 ( talk) 08:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. A youtube video is not a reliable source Cannolis ( talk) 13:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fang3001 is wrong - it was David Sereda (the interviewer with essentially zero scientific understanding), not Boyd Bushman, who mentioned "singularity" and the hypothetical idea that this had something to do with instantaneous motion. And I listened to the entire interview and I never heard anyone say that "we" have had antigravity technology for fifty years. Informedskeptic ( talk) 07:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I watched part of that video. What I got from it was Boyd discussing his own experiments in 1995 with slowing the rate of fall of an object by attaching it to some powerful $5000 neodymium magnets. The magnets had a quarter inch hole in them and were bolted together such that the same pole faced each other. In other words they repelled each other, and were only held together by the bolt. This object was dropped from a height of 59 feet along with another object that did not have the magnets attached. The test was run 9 times I believe, and the witnesses verified that the object with the magnets hit the ground later than the object without the magnets attached.

Bushman also discusses this antigravity experiment (in less detail) in the 1999 Discovery Channel program " Billion Dollar Secret." See video. At a running time of 22:50 to 26:56 in the "Billion Dollar Secret," Boyd is interviewed and introduced as a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin and speaks briefly about the subject matter. Later in his comments (at 25:10) he mentions this experiment he did with opposing magnets regarding anti-gravity. Direct links to 22:50 and 25:10 in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=22m50s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=25m10s

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Obituaries

You state that there are no obituaries for Boyd Bushman, yet you don't state how this search was completed. (Web--what sites?, Public Records--where from? etc). However all this is moot as his obituary can easily be found at </ref> http://www.azjournal.com/2014/08/12/boyd-bushman/</ref>

Most obituaries are self-inserted and not edited for content, similar to classified ads. They are not reliable sources as far as WP is concerned. (There are, of course, exceptions to this in the case of obituaries of notable people which are composed by newspaper editorial staff.) BlueSalix ( talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, common sense is sometimes necessary and allowed on Wikipedia. He was born in Globe, Arizona on July 20, 1936. Here is his birth certificate in Arizona. He also died in Arizona. And his obituary has the specific location of the funeral service in Tucson, Arizona: "Boyd was born on July 20, 1936 and passed away on Thursday, August 7, 2014. Boyd was a resident of Tucson, Arizona at the time of his passing. He is survived by his wife Mary. The funeral service for Boyd will begin 2:00 P.M., August 9, 2014 at Owens Livingston Mortuary - White Mountain Chapel, 320 N. 9th Street in Show Low with a visitation 1 hour prior. Interment will follow at the Show Low Cemetery." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tributes.com is not a reliable source for any article and it most certainly isn't for an article about a UFO enthusiast. Anyone can log-in and create and post an obituary. In the world of UFOlogy people have gone to much bigger extremes than that to perpetrate a hoax, sell a DVD, or hock a book. There was the case of Richard Theilmann, in 2010, who purchased an entire U.S. Navy dress white uniform, spent 4 years infiltrating the Army/Navy Club of New York, rose to the rank of club chaplain, got a detailed bio posted on the ANC website outlining his past military service, and then sprung his tales of UFOs. At that point a detailed inquiry revealed he had never served in any U.S. military branch. And the Theilmann case wasn't even that remarkable. I get what you're saying about common sense, and agree that's fine for most articles. But articles on UFO enthusiasts don't allow this more informal approach. BlueSalix ( talk) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that someone went that far. But still, we have 2 obituaries listed in this talk section so far, and a third one I found later (see other talk sections). The birth and death info is the same in all three obituaries, and one obituary is posted at the funeral home itself. So I have little doubt in my mind that Boyd Bushman was an engineer at Lockheed with 33 patents there, and that the birth and death info is correct. As for his claims, I haven't seen his videos to know what he said. I only wanted to know if he was credible from the point of view of being a real engineer for an aerospace company. Now the fun begins. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-composed obits, classified ads, and other user-generated content is not RS. It doesn't matter how many self-composed obits you find, they're still not RS. Finding 3 or 10 or 1,000 self-composed obits doesn't hit some magic threshold by which they suddenly become RS. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An obit at a funeral home is fairly definitive that the death was real. The funeral home staff would notice a fake entry in their list of deaths. So this is a reliable source for the fact that he died August 7, 2014. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

reply posted in one of the numerous other sections you've started on this topic BlueSalix ( talk) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Obituary with photo at Owens Livingston Mortuary in Show Low, Arizona

The obituaries found so far have listed the funeral service as being at the Owens Livingston Mortuary in Show Low, Arizona. I did a search and found its site:

• http://www.owenslivingstonmortuary.com - Owens Livingston Mortuary, 320 N. 9th Street, Show Low, AZ 85901. 928-537-2141.

It has obituaries sorted alphabetically and by date. Here is "B":

• http://www.owenslivingstonmortuary.com/?pagetype=memlist&alpha=B

Here is Boyd Bushman's obituary:

• http://www.owenslivingstonmortuary.com/memsol.cgi?user_id=1372493

It is almost the same as the obituary in the Arizona Journal:

• http://www.azjournal.com/2014/08/12/boyd-bushman

Both have the same photo of him. Here is info on the Arizona Journal:

• http://www.azjournal.com/contactus

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We have already addressed that self-inserted obits and classified ads are not RS in one of the numerous other sections you've started on this topic. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The obituaries are not exactly the same. And the staff at the funeral home would notice a fake entry. Fake in the sense that the person did not die. As for the background info in the obituary, who knows. I find it hard to believe though that the family would allow totally incorrect info about the man's background to be put in the obituaries. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

reply posted in one of the numerous other sections you've started on this topic BlueSalix ( talk) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The text and photo in the obituary at findagrave.com is an exact copy of the obituary at the Owens Livingston Mortuary site. See:

• http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=134131085

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index

The article currently says: "Another source observed there were no obituaries for anyone named 'Boyd Bushman' since the August date of his supposed death, and a person of that name was also not listed in the Social Security Death Index."

That is not very relevant since the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) "includes 93 percent to 96 percent of deaths of individuals aged 65 or older." The quote is from the Wikipedia article on SSDI. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC

Reliable sources

See WP:Reliable sources. I am not judging the merits of what this guy is claiming. It doesn't matter what I believe anyway. I support WP:NPOV. I have only read a little online, and heard something on the radio. I haven't seen any of the videos, and so I don't even know for sure what he is claiming.

I certainly don't trust what is in many articles online. They contradict each other about what he is saying. I am curious about what reliable sources are saying. Currently, there are 14,600 results in this Google News phrase search for "Boyd Bushman".

• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22boyd+bushman%22 - some of them are reliable sources.

Primary sources are sometimes allowed on Wikipedia. For example; to verify what he actually said. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on the first page of your google search meets the standard of a reliable source. Tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources. Citizen journalism sites are not RS. I didn't scroll past the first page. BlueSalix ( talk) 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

When you scroll through the search result pages one sees many credible sources for establishing his notability according to WP:Notability. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Such as what? It would be helpful if you provided links to what you believe are RS instead of saying "just google it." BlueSalix ( talk) 04:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Although Nick Cook's conclusions are often dubious at best, his long career as an aerospace journalist for Jane's Defence Weekly and the Wall Street Journal substantiate his source work as a RS. In his 2007 book "The Hunt for Zero Point," Cook states:

“When I had first inquired about Trimble and RIAS at Lockheed Martin, my contacts there had recommended I interview a man who routinely talked about the kinds of things that had once been integral to the RIAS charter.

A man who tended to talk about Nature, not science; a physicist who looked at things quite differently from other people.

Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-016 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. If you’re interested in antigravity, then talk to him, they’d said." { http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Hunt_for_Zero_Point.html?id=-T4FGMk-MnIC } pp239-40 Informedskeptic ( talk) 21:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Some help with getting the citations and sources exactly how wiki would like them would be much appreciated. I keep reading what it is asking for but I'm unsure how to proceed. Thanks! ( about citation #8 referring to the book ) HafizHanif ( talk) 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Educational background

Article currently only says "the man's evasiveness when asked to confirm details about his educational background."

Here is his educational background according to his obituary at the Owens Livingston Mortuary in Show Low, Arizona:

"He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Brigham Young University, majoring in both math and physics. He also earned an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We have already addressed that self-inserted obits and classified ads are not RS in one of the numerous other sections you've started on this topic. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the family would allow totally incorrect info about the man's educational background to be put in the obituary posted at the funeral home itself. But it is a starting point only, and should be verified by finding records at Brigham Young University and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a great project for you. We don't do original research at WP, but if you want to order his transcript at BYU that would be a great starting point for a book or article you could write elsewhere. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Many records about educational degrees are online, and they can be used as references on Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, you should definitely go and find Mr. Bushman's then and provide it to us. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I encourage anybody to find these and other references on Wikipedia. My time is limited. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, okay. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo, and video of man claiming to be Boyd Bushman

Article currently has this line:

In the video, the man claiming to be "Boyd Bushman"

I haven't seen the video. There is a photo of Boyd Bushman though in his obituary at the Owens Livingston Mortuary in Show Low, Arizona. The same photo is also found in the similar obituary in the Arizona Journal. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We have already addressed that self-inserted obits and classified ads are not RS in one of the numerous other sections you've started on this topic. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An obituary at a funeral home is pretty definitive. Hard to fake a death when the funeral home staff themselves would notice the fake entry. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A mortuary website is not RS. You can read about WP:RS if you want to familiarize yourself with WP's standards for reliable sources. As for a "faked death" - this is a claim you've introduced, not me. Let's dial-back on the conspiracy thinking and fringe theories pushing. This is WP, not Above Top Secret. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

At some point you might tire of the verbiage. I have tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia and the Commons, and know the guidelines. So please stop making scatter-shot claims about what I said.

My point in this section is about the photo. Since the family would not likely post a fake photo in a funeral home obituary. So the photo can be compared to the video. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We do not conduct forensic photo analysis on WP. If you need to familiarize yourself with our guidelines on Original Research, I invite you to do that. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not forensic science, nor original research. It is just another reference on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is based on providing as many relevant references as possible, and letting people make up their own minds. You might come off of your pedantic tone. I have tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia and the Commons, and know the guidelines. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A mortuary website is not RS. Self-composed obituaries, classified ads, and blogs, are not RS. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeshifter

You have started 8 new sections in the last 24 hours on the same, or closely related, topics. Can you please combine them? It's impossible to engage in a discussion in this way. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I prefer to keep the funeral home obituary in a separate talk section since it is the most certain proof of his death. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the need to be so disruptive. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not disruptive. You just disagree with me. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely disruptive to create 8 different comment sections within a 24 hour period all dealing with virtually the same topic. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not the same topic. Look at the section titles. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing obituaries in every single section you've created. Please choose to stop disrupting the Talk. Thank you. Also, do not under any circumstances, change other users edits as you just did here: [1]. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting another user's name by itself in the title of an article talk section is considered a personal attack by many. See WP:NPA. So I put your name also in the title. "Timeshifter and BlueSalix" versus "Timeshifter" as you originally had it. The obituaries may be part of the discussion in the talk sections but those talk sections discuss current article info, and specific topics such as education background and work record. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to bring that up at ANI then. We're pretty close to visiting there anyway, at the current rate. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not into drama, as much you seem to be. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Work record

Article currently says only:

periodically claimed to be a retired senior research engineer with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Texas Instruments and Hughes Aircraft.

The reference article for that is an 8-line article on a TV news site:

• http://wtnh.com/2014/10/31/man-claims-to-have-worked-with-aliens

His funeral home obituary says: "Bushman's career spanned over forty years and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin. Some of his accomplishments included being on the development team of the Stinger Missile, the F16 Fighter, as well as many other advanced weapons and propulsion systems. At the time of his retirement in 2000, Bushman had 28 patents in his name, many of which contained classified technologies."

More detailed info from other references is needed so that WP:NPOV is met and people can make up their own mind. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Funeral home staff do not verify the employment history of their corpses. They post the bio they've been given. A funeral home website is not RS. I would like to extend a final opportunity for you to stop creating a new section every 2-3 hours to push the obituary argument. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Repetition does not make something true. This section is about his work record. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned at the AfD, the site hosting the obit disclaims any responsibility for accuracy of submitted content: "Owens Livingston Mortuary does not control this third-party Content...Owens Livingston Mortuary does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content, and Owens Livingston Mortuary makes no representations or warranties regarding any information or opinions posted to or otherwise included on or transmitted through the web site." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, more references are needed. I said so already. I assume his family can help verify his employment history. Maybe they have been interviewed by reliable sources that have followed the trail further. And I highly doubt most families would allow a completely bogus obituary at the funeral home site of a loved one. So it is a good starting point for finding further references. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally agree the funeral home obituary is not RS. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very convincing, but not enough by itself. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Structure and Emphasis

The recent and unfortunate "death bed confession" video of Boyd Bushman sharing the disinformation/hoax he received from an unidentified party who fed him stories and gave him faked photographs of ufos and an alien doll is the most *recent* development, but ultimately *irrelevant* in the life-long career of this reputable innovator within the defense industry who produced at least 28 patents to his name while working at Lockheed. This whole ridiculous issue of an alien doll and such should be confined to a small paragraph relegated to the bottom of the WP. As it stands now, it's like re-writing the Mel Gibson WP and devoting it to the controversy surrounding his drunken arrest and the antisemitic statements he made at the time. If this can't be written responsibly with the proper perspective on this fleeting fad about the alien doll business, then this WP should be deleted entirely for irrelevance, and to spare his family the pain and embarrassment of seeing their recently-deceased loved one and an American patriot portrayed as a public joke. Informedskeptic ( talk) 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The alien doll photos do not exactly match the dead alien photos that Bushman was passing on. The Bushman photos are from various angles and show features that are not on any of the doll photos I have seen so far. Most importantly, the whole discussion about the dead alien photos is irrelevant in the sense that Bushman does not publicly claim he has personally seen the dead or live aliens. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That is quite the sound argument that none of the doll images match Boyd's images. It is that succinct. There are similarities but there are no matches. If Boyd was forwarded images of dolls, surely there exists these same detailed images from a source to prove Boyd wrong... but that is not what has been released! The alien doll issue is THE issue; the linchpin. Sadly the general public does not perform critical thinking efforts when looking into things. When news outlets forward opinions and hearsay and assume to have "journalistic integrity," you have lies being spread as truth and vice versa. The manner in which the article was changed when the 2014 video was released goes to show the attempt of some to cover things up and quickly cast doubt. This is evident in the manner the article was edited and this is also seen in the manner whic Skeptic writes his opinions; there is a slant. You can read the slant in my words and those of Shifter as well, but don't we put forth the desire for more proof instead of purveying a narrative? We are not pandering to emotion nor forwarding sensationalism. Boyd has notoriety for his contribution to science and invention ( the patents ), thus qualifying him for a Wiki entry. Since there is nothing substantial to refute his testimonial, his legitimate career legitimizes his claims which shall also stay along with his notable career highlights.-- HafizHanif ( talk) 20:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with all that. BlueSalix ( talk) 02:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Similar Testimonials to Boyd Bushman's

I figured other testimonials should be shared. I found this particular one to be quite insightful, closely corroborating what Boyd had to share.

In this one, a gentleman talks about anti-gravity, seeing footage taken from the Roswell crash, meeting with President Eisenhower and other interesting specifics:

- Retired CIA Officer's Testimony -- HafizHanif ( talk) 21:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

First, YouTube videos are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Second, we have no proof this elderly man is a "retired CIA officer" other than Richard Dolan's word which is extremely suspect as he's a professional UFO scam artist who makes his living hawking these stories and who has been succinctly debunked on his numerous other outlandish claims. If you really think this is "insightful" you should seriously reevaluate whether WP is the right place for you. BlueSalix ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)