Okay, first thing:
Nuclear powered aircraft that Boyd talks about were decided against for very good reasons, chiefly because they would release massive amounts of radiactivity into the atomosphere, and also because if the nuclear power source shut down for any reason such as xenon transience, they would have to land (if they didn't crash) wherever they happened to be at the time, such as over Siberia, and could not restart for days or weeks. Then there is the sheer weight of the shielding required to keep the crew from being fried.
Stanton Friedman worked on nuclear aircraft propulsion systems and has told us all we need to know about them, and were any of them able to produce anti-gravity effects Stanton most certainly would have told us about it.
Next:
Boyd starts talking about the nuclear power source, and David Sereda automatically assumes it's an anti-gravity drive, which it's not, and Boyd (who has not said that) does not correct him, just lets him assume that. He shows Sereda a picture of the alleged nuclear power source being placed in it's shielding, and Sereda goes on about it being an antigravity drive, while Bushman smiles and says nothing to correct him.
Then we are shown a simple line drawing of a supposed nuclear powered anti-gravity saucer, and told it had a service ceiling of 62,000 feet and a range of only 3000 miles.
Excuse me, but if it really was an anti-gravity craft why on earth would it have a service ceiling at all? Conventional aircraft have a service ceiling limit because beyond a certain altitude their engines cannot get enough air for fuel combustion. This would not at all apply to an anti-gravity craft, but we are not supposed to notice this or ask that question.
Also, why a range of only 3000 miles? Our nuclear powered aircraft carriers can operate for 18 years without refueling and definitely travel more than 3000 miles during that time.
I note also in this simple line drawing the saucer has heavy landing gear like that on a 747, made for taxiing, and why would an antigravity saucer have to taxi? Wouldn't it just set down vertically like a helicopter?
Throughout this interview David Sereda is assuming a lot, and reading his fantasies into everything Bushman is telling him and showing him, and Bushman just happily lets him do that seeming to enjoy the whole thing.
At no time has Bushman proven anything, he's made leading statements, fantastic claims, and shown papers anyone could have made up on their computers together with photos that prove nothing at all and which anyone can get on the internet.
Then Bushman claims to know someone flying in pursuit of the Roswell UFO with "the weapon" on board who shot it down. Bushman claims he was flying the fastest plane designed at the time, and we are shown pictures of jet aircraft of much later dates than 1947, when we had no combat jet aircraft.
He will not tell us what the weapon was or who the pilot doing the shooting was, and he's very vague about the details. He doesn't know what kind of weapon it was that supposedly brought down this saucer, but claims "we have all kinds of things out there."
Well Walmart has all kinds of things out there too, could you be a littler more vague?
Well, if it was shot down as he claims why was not the military right on top of it that day, instead of much later when Mack Brazel contacted the air force and finally got someone to come out and look at the crash site days later?
The man who allegedly brought down the Roswell UFO is supposed to be a very dear friend of his, but he can't give us anything more than this unverifyable story, even though he allegedly had beyond top secret clearances. If the pilot who did the shooting is such a dear friend of his why doesn't he know more?
This is all a load of BS! If you want to believe this guy be my guest, but I see it as full of holes, empty claims, leading statements, and the interviewer reading his fantasies into it.
You're probably right about Roswell being a crash but I'm not sure (considering the coverup) that we know all that the military had there at the time.
I've heard of Brookhaven but not that.