Talk:Boyd Bushman

Those people with 'top secret clearance' (of whatever kind) do not normally mention it in the contexts in which those who claim such clearance do. 86.191.127.63 (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Rationalism please die.

Non-alien believer here stating you guys are stupidest realists in the world without licks of proof to counteract something. If a lie, show it. Vaguely mentioning counterarguments with no proof and insulting something does nothing. Also, no, a government guy would say top secret clearance. Top secret is a term started by government. Further still, they are people who are normal enough to have been civilians and still know of calling things top secret enough to say such things themselves. I can get the proof for you. But this wiki has no proof for me or any visitor. A shame. Realism rules by fact, rationalism is just thinking you think bigger than the other idiot. 98.220.189.127 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Realism is derived from Rationalism so... Yeah, there's that... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

All that angst just from seeing "top secret clearance" put in quotes. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All pseudoscience profits from the logical axiom that 'one cannot prove a negative'. On the other hand, those who claim something outside of normal human experience are obliged to present strong evidence. Anybody who has worked on anything secret may be tempted to exploit the fact dishonestly. After all, it will be impossible to check ... simply because of the secrecy. Having signed the UK's Official Secrets Act several times, I could easily pull that trick myself, if I did not despise pseudoscience so much. So the person above should be dismissed as being no better than one of those losers who tells gullible women that 'he works for the CIA'. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.106.148.235 / talk / contribs}

Patent Value

The man-in-the-street thinks, thanks to journalists, that a patent is a sure path to instant wealth resulting from some lucky thought. Even this Bushman profile seems to assume that patents are on a par with academic qualifications. So please note that a patent is useless unless it is granted; otherwise it is simply an application, no matter how neatly it is printed in the patent lists or posted online. Bushman made 29 applications for a patent. Of those applications, only 2 were granted. And they soon lapsed due to non-payment of the maintenance fee! ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.106.148.235 / talk / contribs}