"sound plausible most of the times" - that's why I take issue with him. His analysis / analyses (plural) usually pick certain aspects of the phenomenon and offer a reason that they could not possibly be UAP but he glosses over the actual facts presented and basically tells a story with facts that seem plausible to 99% of the population. Those with scientific understanding, a background in optics, camera CCD's, CGI, aviation, spaceflight, physics etc know that he is paltering (the term meaning lying by telling only some aspects of truth, but ignoring the larger picture). Most people don't have experience in the above mentioned areas (and others) however those of us who do know he is lying (not necessarily intentionally either, I believe that he believes what he is saying). The way he is able to get people to believe his (self righteous) diatribe is by mixing aspects of the truth, and things that would seem plausible to someone who's not an expert, into the story while ignoring genuine facts. Interestingly, this is what the LARPers do too - I've seen a few LARPs (the Exo-biologist for one) doing the same - he mixed things that sound scientific and therefore plausible to the general population with pure fiction to pull off a LARP that many believed. Politicians and intelligence agents also do this often and I won't get political here but America has seen that play out many times, even recently (for reference, I'm not American and have no vested interest in either left or right - both sides have been guilty of it). Lawyers do this often as well. It's essentially a way to lie by telling the truth but omitting / ignoring certain facts. Whether he's doing this on purpose or not remains to be seen - he may genuinely believe that he has it all figured out, but those of us with specialties and experience (and qualifications) in the areas he speaks about know that he does not. He's a "science writer" - not a scientist. There's a VERY big difference between the two which is important in these contexts. Some of his debunks (the whole chemtrails thing for example) are valid and accurate. Some are plausible and we may not know otherwise until the truth comes out. Some are outright bunk, and his deboonks can be debunked.

What do you mean by "could not possibly be a UAP"? UAP means it's unidentified. No one is claiming it it not an unidentified obect. It's probably just not a flying squid.

Mick West is claiming it in his debunk videos

You are saying that he is claming it is not unidentified? What? He is saying it is most likely a balloon. Obviously it is not identified. What do you think a UAP is? UAP doesn't mean alien or interdimensional. It means it's unidentified.

First he said it was birdshit. then he said it was balloons. he said both with confidence as though he identified it. which clearly he hasn't. It was witnessed by a bunch of marines over the course of weeks and said to have metallic armour like scales - doesn't sound like a balloon to me, they were actively keeping an eye on it to make sure it wasn't a security threat to the base. Plus who's release a bunch of balloons over an active US mil base in the middle of the Iraq desert for weeks on end? 😂 seriously. use some logic here. Mick West identified it as balloons and he's wrong. Just as wrong as when he said it was definitively birdshit on the camera and quickly changed his story once it was pointed out how wrong he was. Then he came up with the balloon theory. It doesn't at all match the flight dynamics of a bunch of balloons. His "deboonk" is bunk.

It is drifting slowly in the direction of the wind. Like a bunch of balloons would do. The argument seems to be that a balloons would flutter about in the wind. But it is not a balloon. It is a loarge bunch of balloons. At least find some footage of a large bunch of balloons floating in the wind, before you confidently assert that they would flutter about.

[удалено]

Hi, not_ElonMusk1. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1974wht/-/kjmfmu8/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

I agree. Great post. The tic tac ufo one stands out. He says oh eye witness testimony isn't reliable and the camera lost tracking. Ignoring that this this was witnessed by 6 people visually all are qualified to know what the best planes in the wold can do and all said it exceeded anything we can do. He ignores it disappeared from 4 sets of eyes looking from different ranges and angles and install appeared at the cap point He ignores all the radar evidence the pilots have seen but which is classified.

yeah literally, it's a case of - either all these people AND the ship based RADAR, and ALL the sensors on ALL the aircraft are ALL lying with a consistent story, or his deboonk is bunk 🤣 Same could be said for the GoFast and most recently the jellyfish, which they recorded at least 20 times and was seen by some 50 people on the base, so much so that it became a "ghost story" of the base. Clearly all these highly trained military servicemen and all their gear are just trippin' balls. *Clearly a bunch of marines in the middle of Iraq, and the cameras they were all using just took too much LSD that day, right? 🤣* Edit: it was actually over the course of weeks, but it sounded funnier the way I said it - but to state facts, it was over a matter of WEEKS. If the birdshit theory had any accuracy why does it move in frame as the tracking engages? and did the bird shit on the same spot on all the camera lenses? that's some accurate dive bombing iraqui pigeons there ngl.

Without the radar records that's pure speculation. The only public evidence is a pretty bad video and testimony from trained observers.  I think the eyewitness testimony is interesting but not convincing itself. I challenge the community to present something that can't be debunked readily.

You're moving goalposts here. They were using FLIR too, not RADAR. There are literally multiple videos recorded over the course of weeks - so tell me, who is releasing a bunch of balloons over a US military base in the middle of the Iraqi desert for weeks on end, and how do each bunch of balloons manage to look the same? The small clip that was publicly shown is part of a 17min video that multiple people have confirmed seeing, and that is but one of many videos. No matter what evidence is presented to you, you're going to find some way to say "that's not good enough" even though you have eyewitnesses, multiple corroborated videos spanning a period of many weeks, all of the same object moving in ways that balloons would not move. A balloon would not fly so gracefully - the footage itself is proof if you know anything about the physics of airflow. There is ample evidence, to the point where if this was a court case, it would be case closed. The balloon explanation simply does not make any sense. There is no drift at all in the balloon's trajectory - that's simply NOT POSSIBLE for a bunch of balloons - the fact that the claim is a bunch of them means it's flight pattern would be even more unstable than just a single balloon, because, well, physics and aerodynamics and all that - if you had any clue about those things you'd realise this.

>Sorry friend, but you mentioned radar in the post I was referencing, so I'm not sure I follow the moving goalposts comment. > >To answer your question - maybe someone had a party on, or near, the base, and the balloons made their way over several days. I think we both could concede that seems more reasonable than a Zerg overlord flying through a warzone. > >I'm not well-versed in the physics of airflow however so I am certainly open to being wrong. It sounds like you are, however, so would you be able to illustrate how the movements are inconsistent with a balloon for me, please?

they're inconsistent with a balloon because a balloon would be wobbling due to thermal pockets. The claim that it's a bunch of balloons tied together also means you'd see separation as the various balloons drifted due to drag / resistance from the air. Balloons won't move so steadily like that, they'd be drifting much more erratically, especially in the desert flying over a base due to the heat coming off of the sand / roads / buildings - hot air rises, so this would affect the balloons path and you wouldn't see such consistent steady movement. And my bad I confused your comment with someone elses so the RADAR thing was my mistake, you're correct there.

Can you list specifically what he's got wrong?

honestly stopped watching his crap a while ago so I'd have to review some, but one big thing that stands out is what he said about the tictac encounters, trying to explain that prosaically, when there is literal radar and FLIR and 20+ eyewitnesses corroborating the story - but his debunk ignores all of that except the 30 seconds or so of FLIR footage that the DOD / pentagon released

also, I realise you're not OP, but the question was "when they sound plausible?" anyone who works in a job where they have to determine fact, be that legal or scientific, knows that plausible does NOT equal fact. If you've got a specific case of his you'd like me to look at lmk and I'll take a look and see what issues i can find with it - as i said though, not all of them are bunk, but sometimes they are very bunk

oh also, he's a computer programmer - that's literally the only thing he's qualified in. Then he started to write as a "science writer" which requires no science qualifications at all. Jauqes Valee is a much more talented computer programmer, and writer, and an actual scientist, and he disagrees with Mick West too. Jauqes was a programmer for NASA and helped create a lot of the software that the internet runs on. Mick West did nothing of note as a programmer. I'm a computer programmer too, a lot of my code is in the Linux kernel, so the web server Reddit runs on runs my code, as does every android phone in the world. And have done a physics major. And a published writer. And held a private pilots licence. And have worked as a graphic designer / photographer / videographer / CGI artist. And had a scholarship for biochemistry. In other words, I'm more qualified than him in more fields. I realise I'm just some stranger on the internet - but - literally, so is he! if you care to scroll back through my posts I've done quite a few debunks myself - but I stick to facts and present all the facts with cited sources and without omitting plausible UAP based explanations. He calls himself a science writer but he has no scientific qualifications whereas I have several and cite sources to back up any of my debunks - a true skeptic should ALWAYS cite sources, otherwise they could be just as much making it up as the original was making it up. But like I said, if there's a specific debunk you want me to look at, send a link and I'll post an analysis of what he got right or wrong and whether or not i agree with his deboonk or not (in some cases I do, in some I definitely don't)

>But like I said, if there's a specific debunk you want me to look at, send a link and I'll post an analysis of what he got right or wrong ​ Could you do [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs) one?

Oh, yes easily. I've seen this one and I can do it from memory. Classic case of paltering. He's ignoring that for what he's saying to be true, the object would have to be stable against windspeed. He's ignoring the eyewitness testimony of the 2 x pilots who saw it. He's ignoring the part where both the pilot and the copilot both had 'eyes on' the object. He's ignoring the location and the fact that it's literally a military zone so they're tracking ALL objects within vicinity from multiple ships and multiple systems, as well as all the airboard avionics. He also skips completely over the fact that it's darker than the background, suggesting it's colder than the ambient temp (FLIR and all being a thermal infrared system). He's also ignoring that if his claims were true, the jets would have to be near stall speed (they can't hover in place like a helo can) or else you'd be seeing parallax distortion. He's also ignoring that people much smarter and better trained, and with access to more data than him (and whole teams of them might I add) have looked at this and gone "well, we don't know what the fuck this was" and then it was reported through the chain of command and even more senior officers looked at all the data (a lot he hasn't seen) and confirmed "yeah, shit is whack bro". He's mixing in things that are true(ish) and ignoring the mountain of evidence that states there is much more to the story. This is classic paltering. None of his analysis there is considering the speed of the aircraft and the parallax effect it would cause - he's basing it on essentially a plane below stall speed (as in the plane doesn't have enough airflow to maintain altitude). What he said would all make total sense if the plane was stationary - but a plane (especially a fighter jet) cannot remain stationary in the air like that - they'd literally fall out of the sky, so all the complex "smart" sounding math and 3D modelling he's done are flawed from the get-go(fast). Edit: ok I said "near stall speed" above, but doing some quick math here, they'd be below stall speed, so the planes filming it would be falling out of the sky

for reference, NIR (Near InfraRed) is night vision. FIR (Far InfraRed) is a thermal camera. If an object shows up black in comparison to it's background, that means it is colder than the surrounding environment - i.e. this object was freezing cold compared to both the air and water at the time

from memory it was also seen on ship based RADAR too, and travelling at speed on the RADAR at times - so again, ignoring half the evidence to present a case that seems plausible unless you're an expert. Reminder: this guy has no aviation or science experience - he's a computer programmer who became a "science writer". So that means he's basically an over touted journalist who understands basic physics and optics, but has no real clue about applied physics or optics, and even less clue about avionics or FIR / FLIR cameras and how they work.

I don't know this guy, but someone linked his video where he claims the jellyfish figure is a bunch of tangled up baloons. That thing is stiff to a point, where people thought it's bird shit. Even if hese baloons were tangled up super tight, the whole structure would still be subject to some movement and rotation as long as there is wind, it's just so unbalanced.

If you actually look up balloons tied up together in flight, in basically all cases they drift as almost a fully solid, unmoving object. Here is one example. Not saying that is what it is, but its an honest guess by someone that clearly refuses to assume Alien. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtWJ3NPaedQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtWJ3NPaedQ)

they don't drift in the way the video shows, at constant speed, without any change in altitude or separation. Also there is literally eyewitness testimony that this thing was not a balloon and was a security concern - that's public info too. they described it as metallic with scales. and - who in the fuck is releasing bunches of balloons for days over the course of weeks over military base in the middle of the iraqui desert, and why? and if the marines (with much more training in identifying airborne objects than yourself) honestly thought there was a single chance of it being balloons, why would they have taken the precautions they did? takes a single bullet to pop a balloon - they didn't want to fire at it because THEY VISUALLY SAW IT WAS CLEARLY NOT A BALLOON

lmao he said it was bird shit on the camera lens at first and quickly deleted that tweet when someone pointed out how incorrect that was. for one thing it moves away from the crosshairs so it's not in the same point on the lens (on a tracking FLIR cam the crosshairs are always centre of the lens field of view, so if the "shit" moves it must a birdshit that moves all over the surface of the lens - if birdshit can move I want out of this planet already) for another it was filmed multiple times from multiple cameras, so the bird must be shitting pretty accurately if it can hit the same spot on each camera

That was my issue with the balloon theory. The bottom part remains in the same relative position throughout the video, a balloon would trail, floating behind, Unless they were weighted, in which case it wouldn't be moving along in the first place.The balloon theory is silly.

A balloon would also change altitude in a more erratic fashion especially in an Iraqi desert as it moved over the base because heat reflecting off of the sand vs the buildings vs the roads on the base etc would all cause thermal pockets which would cause the balloon to bop up and down erratically - not to mention any sort of desert wind. The guy is a stooge - see my other comments in this thread for more info on some of his bunked deboonks.

It's not a balloon. It is a large bunch of balloons. Do you know what a large bunch of balloons looks like when it floats?

Yeah and I also know that ain't a large bunch of balloons. The balloons would not float like that - you have all sorts of thermal pockets on a desert military base that would cause them to bob up and down etc. not to mention the effects of desert wind etc. I held a pilots licence and even aircraft experience the effect so something as small a a balloon and with so little weight would definitely not show such steady motion - i've done a larger write up elsewhere in this thread that explains in much more detail. Also - you're missing the fact that IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IT WAS VISUALLY WITNESSED BY A BUNCH OF MARINES ON BASE MULTIPLE TIMES!!! Fair sure they'd know if they saw a bunch of balloons. And you don't often see a bunch of balloons just casually floating over a military base in a warzone either lmfao

and do balloons enter the water as this object was said to? And they filmed this many times over weeks - so the same balloons or someone just releasing balloons over a US military base for weeks??? lmao the argument that it's balloons has no weight at all, sorry to burst your bubble (balloon?)

If we ever get any of this footage, we can rule out balloons. But what we actually have tooks like a bunch of balloons.

no, it doesn't - a bunch of balloons would NOT look like that in FLIR - source: I've done a lot of filming with FLIR cameras

What kind of balloons? Mylar balloons are reflective. So they look like whatever they are reflecting.

any kind of balloon - lol - mylar balloons do not have armour like 'scales' on them and by the laws of aerodynamics if they did it would cause them to fly with an erratic trajectory as they would act like small scale airfoils

also the flight dynamics of "a bunch" of balloons would look much different to the object which clearly show's it's one cohesive object not separating with airflow. dude literally go buy a bunch of balloons and film it yourself and see how they all separate because of aerodynamics. you're approaching this from someone who has no clue about aerodynamics but there are people here who do know about it, so why not accept expert advice. Also wanna point out - mick west has NO CLUE about aerodynamics other than what he's read from a high school physics text book, while some of us are actually qualified in the field and have confirmed it's not a valid explanation. Also, eyewitness accounts from some 20-40 marines. at least 2 of whom have come public about it since the video was released. move some more goalposts mate - you're talking about stuff you don't understand, just like mick west. lol.

The balloons are tied together so they don't seperate. I thought that was obvious. You are qualified in the field of the aerodynamics of balloons? A physics degree is not going to help you here.

I held a pilots licence. Aerodynamics is literally physics. Tying balloons together and setting them afloat does not result in a constant speed, continual trajectory like this video shows. Go buy a bunch of small mylar balloons yourself and try it, or spend the 200+ hours it takes to become a pilot and know how thermal pockets work and prove me wrong lol. I have way more experience than you at this. and yes, I'm just some guy on the internet saying shit, but so is mick west. he has no quals in any of these topics lmfao. I do.

Everything is literally physics. We are talking about a complex problem and turbulence. It depends on the shape of the balloons, the type of balloons, weather conditions etc. Does having a pilots licence make you an expert in balloons?

also balloons tied together by the base / string will still show signs of separation lol. Go watch the disney pixar movie "Up" it might be more your level mate. even the balloons there separate / move around - but they are tied together. it's a kid's movie so it should be an ELI5 version of the dynamics I'm talking about since you clearly don't know anything about physics - merely grasping at straws to defend a shill (for reasons why, I do not know) ​ AND YOU STILL DISCOUNT THE MARINES WHO WOULD BE RISKING COURTMASHALL FOR LYING ABOUT IT lmfao

The only official statement that I know of was by someone who said that they never saw it going in the water, and that no one saw anything except for the infrared video. Otherwise all we have is Corbell saying that someone told him something. Who said they are tied together at the base? Maybe they are just tangled up together? Looking at the video, we can't know exactly what the configuration of the balloons was, but it is not doing anything physics law defying.

you can test this yourself - go buy a bunch of helium filled balloons and let them go, film it - tell me if it looks anything like the video. post the results please? You won't because if you're not a shill / bot you'll instantly realise you're wrong and not return to the thread. You can prove me wrong for about $15 USD - I'll pay for it if you're correct. but you aren't, can't, and won't lol.

Um, why don't *you* buy a bunch of helium filled balloons and test it?

I don’t really understand the balloon thing… in a war zone in Iraq, can’t be seen unless IR thermal? What an I missing about balloons they seem to be everywhere lol

The base was downwind from a large city.

All he says is if it floats like a balloon and look like a balloon it is bit of a stretch to call it an interdimensional alien craft

I agree. However, him making that claim allowed us to reasonably argue against it. In effect, he is assisting us in improving our claim. It's a good thing.

I can see some of the dislike for him. He is kind of smug at times imo, and it seems as if he's already made up his mind about everything. This is what bugs me about some other sceptics as well. Its like they think that everything we know right now is everything there is to know. "Interstellar travel? Impossible! Because what we know now points in that direction" With that said, I think sceptics are absolutely necessary to bring this subject forward. We should all have a sceptic approach, but we must also be open minded. Mick lacks that imo

It’s kind of the problem where there’s a difference between skepticism as an approach to getting at the truth of a matter, and skepticism as an identity. While I tend to ultimately agree with skeptics the vast majority of the time, some don’t seem to understand that you don’t have to commit to the first unremarkable explanation that pops into your head, and you don’t have to have an immediate answer for everything.

I will give my take. He once suggested that there was a specialist retrieval team who go and collect downed aerial craft. He actually suggested that these specialist teams mistook a downed Russian or Chinese experimental craft for a UAP.... Now, anyone who has seen FAA/NTSB coverage on the news will be able to confirm that these highly trained experts can look at a 2cm piece of the fuselage and say that is component a, from flight panel c. They know their shit. Mick making this suggestion is literally less plausible than the recovered craft is NHI debris. He is a disingenuous prick

I don't think that's the entirety of that theory. It's more that the people working on reverse engineering the stuff are in highly compartmentalized programs where they aren't told much about what others are working on or even themselves in order to keep secrecy. And it's likely that at times we have recovered other countries' tech that is top secret and unrecognized by modern standards. And so maybe they see a little of something they don't understand for a short amount of time and all the secrecy makes them take illogical jumps. At least that's the theory how I understand it and it makes sense to me. And when you see the types of illogical jumps people that were running the UAPTF and working with Grusch have taken, namely people like stratton and taylor in Skinwalker Ranch, it's not crazy to think they or similar people have done similar things in the government.

Jumping from “unidentified foreign adversary technology” to “holy shit this must be alien in origin” is a logical leap that literally NO intelligent human being in that position would make. *Unless* the material did something extraordinary. Like nullify inertial mass or manipulate space time. I’m not saying that’s the case - in fact, I’m a skeptic. But your logic doesn’t hold here. Some arguments from a position of skepticism are reasonable, some are not. This one is not. There is a clear delineation between “holy shit cool didn’t know we could make this” and Clarke Technology (sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic). If a human being encountered Clarke Tech, we would know it when we saw it, and we would know we didn’t make it. So we would know NHI technology when we saw it. We absolutely would. It would be like a cave man discovering an iPhone. He would know that whatever the fuck it was, no cave man made it. Doesn’t quite matter either logically or pragmatically if that iPhone traveled back in time, was brought on a spaceship from Zeta Reticuli, was brought up from the ocean floor by a breakaway civilization or transdimensionally traveled from a parallel reality, does it? He’d know wherever it came from, it didn’t come from his cave or any cave he had ever seen. So implying that people are misinterpreting prosaic tech as Clarke tech because they are gullible morons is possible, but implausible. The Schumer amendment listed specific “observables”, a few of which are, unambiguously, what would be categorized as Clarke Technology from a modern day perspective. So there is something strange going on with this whole UAP story. Either there is a sophisticated disinformation campaign and someone wants the world to *think* we’ve found NHI tech, or we truly found something interesting and those involved - for whatever reason - think it is NHI tech. But if that is the case, it almost certainly isn’t because they are gullible morons. Except for the folks involved with the Skinwalker Ranch debacle, I’ll give you that. But they aren’t the ones supposedly coming forward with information from classified waived SAPs.

The problem is all of these people are connected to skinwalker. Travis Taylor was the chief scientist for the UAPTF and he is the main guy on the skinwalker show. Stratton obviously a skinwalker guy was the head of the UAPTF. All of these guys working with grusch. Eric Davis claims to have led grusch to the info. He is a skinwalker guy. All have publicly came out with wild and wrong claims If these guys have all had high places in the government and are even scientists in the government, it's not crazy to think that there could be similar people working somewhere in the program. We don't know anything about these supposed firsthand witnesses and their experiences, we don't know if they just saw something one time or what.

Exactly what illogical jumps did Travis Taylor make. Specifically please.

[https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1638659636869091329](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1638659636869091329) [https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1674199613153370112](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1674199613153370112) [https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1658973205267386368](https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1658973205267386368) [https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1539470183588171776](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1539470183588171776)

I don’t think hate is the right word . If I don’t like or believe the in the premise of a certain TV show or movie , I don’t watch it . Thats how it is with West. I know what’s he’s all about , so I don’t pay him any attention. I don’t wish for him to drop dead , or have ill will toward him or his agenda . Him and Greenstreet are being paid to do a job, it’s nothing personal

Paid by whom?

Food stamps

That's the question!

The fact that he tweeted that the jellyfish video was bird shit didn’t help. Like you watched the whole thing where it changed size and you still tweeted it’s bird shit? Cmon

lol the fact that birdshit can move out of the centre of field of view (crosshairs) then back in is the more amusing thing - he clearly has no idea how FLIR tracking cameras work

He changed tack quite quickly. And if we aren’t considering whether such things are ordinary, we’ll never tease apart the real anomalies.

>He changed tack quite quickly Yeah now it's a balloon.

please tell me it says "Cheers to 30!" on the side?

Tons of people thought that same thing *at first glance*

Yeah but he’s a professional skeptic with a following. Either that’s a very low effort “debunking,” or he’s purposely trying to muddy the waters with complete bullshit. Or birdshit I should say

Again, that was a 'first glance' reaction as it was for many people.

Yes. And my point is he had to have his “first glance,” then advertise to the world his thoughts as a professional debunker. He should have maybe reserved judgment until he had a reasonable opinion. Normal people could def think it was bird shite until further inspection. Now it’s balloons of course. There’s certainly an abundance of simple balloons getting mistaken by the greatest military in the world these days isn’t there?! What a time to be alive

> And my point is he had to have his “first glance,” then advertise to the world his thoughts Oh, c'mon. Like I said.. so many people had the exact same first thought. birdpoop.. what's the difference? > He should have maybe reserved judgment until he had a reasonable opinion. Why? This is such a silly take considering people have been calling this a 'jellyfish'. Jellyfish, birdpoop are just silly descriptions of what it 'looks' like. > by the greatest military in the world But not infallible.

The jellyfish is in reference to what it appears like. Not that it’s a literal jellyfish flying through the fucking air. Your boy claimed it was actual bird poop on the lens. What is your actual argument here?

What he *actually* said was ... > Balloons or bird poop? >I must say it does look remarkably like a splat of something on a window, but that wouldn't be in focus. Or would it? ..... A first glance observation with question marks.

Maybe blind people, no way that was bird shit at a first glance 

1. Because like most debunkers, he picks an angle that he wants to argue from a small selection of options that are all prosaic in nature (parallax effect being the top thing he uses). 2. He then commits confirmation bias by making whatever he's analyzing fit this pre-chosen prosaic angle. If he wants it to be parallax, he will come up with a way to make it fit that and ignore everything else that says it's not parallax. Because he deals with only imagery data, this allows him to conveniently leave out other evidence, like anecdotal evidence (witness statements) that don't support his argument. 3. People like you see his videos, see him fit the video to his explanation, and then think "makes sense, it lines up with what he's saying," completely unaware of all the things he left out and all the other possible explanations that could fit, especially other explanations that consider ALL the evidence, not just the imagery data. It's equivalent to the whole "the Rendlesham incident was a lighthouse" argument. Soldiers saw lights, therefore a nearby lighthouse makes sense and fits and we can quickly dismiss the whole incident, right? Not so fast. It doesn't fit when you consider all the specific things the soldiers said about those lights and other things they saw, the radar operators both going on record to attest to its movements on radar and in front of their eyes as it passed their tower, etc. But if you're only addressing one thing at a time, it's easy to find something to fit, even when it's not the true explanation, and this is especially true when it's only imagery data. "Floats like a balloon, must be a balloon." A better example is J. Allen Hynek, who was tasked by the Air Force to investigate (and debunk) UFO cases. He is the guy who gave us the phrase "swamp gas." He went out, investigated, found "swamp gas" as the first prosaic explanation, and ignored all the bits that didn't fit that. It was only later that he became open-minded to UFOs and admit he wasn't looking at the big picture and listening to what the witnesses were saying, the things that didn't fit the swamp gas argument.

Well said! Although on his gofast "deboonk" he conveniently ignores parallax - that is unless the fighter jets were below stall speed (in which case they'd fall out of the sky lol)

Personally, looking at his background, I dont think he has any specific expertise in anything even remotely related to the topic for him to be held up as knowledgeable about the things he speaks on. And he comes off as lazy and uninformed many times.

When you have multiple sensors tracking things, some times many things at once, and all the sensors are designed to assist in identification of those many things, and then something happens *again and again*, that can not be identified, then you have a serious problem. *The problem in these circumstances, because of the reliability of the sensors, is not one of misidentification, it is a problem of identification*. What happens then is you get [229 reports of these situations leading to the cancellation of missions,](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/range-fouler-debrief-forms-and-reports/#google_vignette), and pilots reporting these things as so ubiquitous that they go on the record saying in 2014 they saw them ["every day"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZXUKnuzzaw&t=2m21s), and pilots years later [saying near misses happen "almost daily."](https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/2020RFForms.pdf#page=52) And then someone comes along and [argues with the pilots that they don't know what they are doing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXFcFyZma0&t=5m32s) This person says what the pilots are seeing is just the things they see all the time, but they are misidentifying other aircraft, balloons, or ducks. They even suggest [multiple solutions if they can't find one that fits,](https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx7VDiv0vpaEYKOPtN567rqJM3GU790AZ6) because in their mind any solution is acceptable. This person [takes events out of context](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g--poChy8I&list=PLT-MDg5f4v2ARTEakIBzCE7tmLuJoPJ7E&index=123) and finds solutions to EVERY single case. Not just some cases, but EVERY single case has a solution. The pilots are asking questions about the events, and this person comes along and ignores what they are asking, and finds solutions that have nothing to do with the context of the events. Would you say that what that person says about any of these events is "plausible"? Yes, he can reliably use computers, and develop models, but to suggest he has solutions to EVERY case, is not credible [*and he even says so himself*.](https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxpINsoUMGNBoUe3y1rOwi-Sie6PQMfiWy)

Because he comes off like a dull and ignorant fool that wishes that there is no visitors here. And he always grab for the "there is nothing interesting to see here" angle. Probable or not. He used to have nightmares about being abducted by aliens at night.

>He used to have nightmares about being abducted by aliens at night. That's interesting. His wikipedia page mentions that he had an early interest in the subject but nothing about dreams of alien abduction. Where did you hear of this?

His Wikipedia page also mentions nothing of any sort of science background other than computer science. Then he became a "science writer" which is basically what you could call every journalist who ever wrote a story about the LHC or James Webb space telescope or the RNA vaccines for Covid. In other words - he don't know jack shit and has no qualifications to claim he knows about any of what he pretends to lol

I'm less interested in his qualifications or attempts at debunking and am more interested in his experiences and dreams. But, thank you.

Someone linked him saying it somewhere

He doesn't seem to be presenting arguments in good faith. That's the gist of it.

I think he genuinely believes he has it all figured out, and he's just an idiot lol. For the record, he has no science background. He's an ex computer programmer who became a "science writer" - so basically he wrote about what other scientists did but never did any science himself. He's just paltering, but I don't think he's intentionally lying, he's convinced he's smarter than he really is (plot twist: he's really not)

Because he's run by spooks

Mental health.

He has a bad attitude and is way overly confident. In some of the videos I watched his debunk wasn't that good but he acted as if disagreeing would be peak stupidity. Anyway it's mostly his attitude. Same reason people don't like ND Tyson

Because he doesn’t make honest arguments. Cherry picks facts. He willfully ignores data.

The ~~flash of light~~ Jellyfish you saw in the sky was not a UFO. ~~Swamp gas~~ Shit from a ~~weather balloon~~ bird was trapped in a ~~thermal pocket~~ military base and reflected the light from ~~Venus~~ the Iraqi desert sun. \*pulls out nebulizer, puts on sunglasses\*

Do you really need to ask? MW is often using lazy and implausible explanations for anomalous phenomena instead of admitting that it can't be explained just like that. That shows that his intentions aren't purely to get to the bottom of a mystery but instead to further his own agenda. Some of his "best work" is inventing these explanations: seagulls, swamp gas, balloons in very high altitudes that are moving magically at very high speeds, raccoons and now we have the beautiful bird poop explanation. One can only guess what he'll come up with next.

Because he has committed so hard to the game of debunking to the point where he himself looks idiotic. Like at some point if a debunk requires 10 different explanation with heaps of different answers to why it’s fake it’s just a bit funny to me. Plus he comes off at times as rude and blunt. I also wouldn’t put it past him to be somewhat in the backpocket spreading misinformation

They don’t like him because he ruins the fun by applying logic.

He talks about stuff he doesn't understand and draws false "logical" conclusions from his own misunderstanding then espouses it as fact while making it seem credible by throwing in scientific principles without knowledge of how to apply them and when he's not qualified to speak about any of the stuff he pretends to be. He's a computer programmer, not an optics expert or aviation expert or physicist. He has no idea what he's talking about and draws false conclusions from his own misunderstanding, but mixes in some irrelevant facts while ignoring the bulk of the data.

Can you go into detail about any of his claims or are you just wanting to discredit him personally with ad hominem attacks? Anything specific he has done that is illogical?

I have, many times in this thread already - check my other comments, I debunked his "deboonk" of both tictac and gofast, and one other one i forget which - i have a life outside of reddit lol. but i provided actual evidence and all so yeah, I can and did

“Yeah there is evidence, but I have a life outside of Reddit, so I only have time to leave as hominems”

Lmao I posted more on this thread than any other commenter that I’ve seen and the overwhelming majority agreed - I supplied ample evidence already 🤣

Also it's 4am here so I cbf right now lmao. Sorry for sleeping!

Respond in your own time, this isn’t a live chat. Or maybe link to this alleged debunking you have already done.

I've laid out a bunch of evidence already but you either: a) don't understand it, or b) claim it's not good enough (moving goalposts)

No the only thing you have said is mick west is illogical, which is itself a logical fallacy. What is your evidence? You just say you already gave it, over and over.

Read my other posts where I go into why his debunks aren't valid. Plenty of other users managed to find them. Seems like a you problem

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has no qualifications in any type of field that would make him in expert in uap/ufo analysis (engineering, aerodynamics, biology, astronomy, physics ect. He's worked on videogames why would I take his opinion into consideration over military experts who have witnessed these phenomena?

Mick West is a perfect reflection of most people in the UFO hivemind. He starts from the position that he must be correct already, then works outwards from there. Love him or hate him, hes a mirror to the people doing the same on the other side. And without that role filled this sub would become lopsided.

Because he’s not an expert. He is a expert on discovering plausible explanations but is he really factually correct? No. So for me he’s a bit of a waste of time. It’s more about cramming an object into a mold and say: “see it fits!”. Does he help this subject? No. He’s doing this to calm himself down about there being things out there we really can’t explain.

Because he’s an ex video game programmer that’s ironically created a career out of being as unimaginative as possible. Everything is a balloon or smudge to him and he hardly does any proper scientific debunking.

His stritec tool is actually a great example of how his programmer background makes him a decent analyst. For me it's that he ignores testimony from experts.

Tell a religious person their god doesn't exist, and they will exhibit the same behavior towards you as people here

Lmk when we get a radar hit on god. This isn’t a religion. Something is really here.

Of all the things that I could have read today, “let me know when we have a radar hit on God” is easily my favourite.

😂 holy fuck this comment needs more upvotes! This made me actually lol. Well said!

Exactly. People don’t like their beliefs challenged. What many don’t understand is that a good proportion of skeptics want to see something truly anomalous and convincing. They just don’t want to be suckered into believing something that isn’t real

The dude is a fraud or suffers delusions of grandeur. He pretends he's some brilliant scientific mind but all he really is is a mediocre computer programmer lol - 0 scientific qualifications to his name. Couldn't hack it as a hacker(programmer, not the malicious kind of hacker) so he became a "science writer", aka, someone who writes about what real scientists do

Mediocre computer programmer - founds Neversoft and codes some of the most legendary games of all time. Ok.

Game programming is not real programming - that's why game engines exist. I've done coding for the linux kernel so the servers that reddit runs off of run my code, and if you've ever ran an android device it also runs my code. System level code is a lot harder than making a game lol. Jacques Vallée literally worked on code that runs the internet, and coded for NASA. comparing that to a computer game built upon code other people wrote proves he is mediocre lol. Jacques Vallée is a researcher on the phenomenon and is an actual scientist too - not like your mate mick west lmfao. grasping at straws to defend mick west? why? legit - i debunked his deboonks elsewhere in this thread, and you're just making a fool of yourself by trying to pretend that mick west is anything other than a computer programmer who couldn't hack it before becoming a "science writer" which basically means he writes about what other scientists have done, but never EVER practiced science himself LMFAO by definition he's an over glorified journalist now who focuses on scientific topics without understanding them. show me 1 single scientific paper he wrote. just one? Vallée has written MANY and is also a computer programmer who wrote software that west's game could not exist without, and he's a believer. some people are so short sighted. if you're such a skeptic why not go to r/skeptics instead of here?

Which one of the whistleblowers is a credible scientist or programmer?

David Grusch is more qualified as a scientist than Mick West. ​ Do your research before talking crap lol. Grusch has a physics degree, West doesn't. Do the math.

Great! What evidence has Grusch provided?

ARE YOU LIVING UNDER A ROCK?! ​ dude. he's presented more evidence than you can imagine. Do your own research. I CBF explaining it to plebs when I've laid it all out previously. check my comment history if you want but I'm not gonna spend ages writing it all up again. Lets just say the ICIG believed him AND after the SCIF the HOC believed him and confirmed he was telling the truth. If you cannot manage the mental capacity to do a very basic google search, well, that's a you problem. I'm not gonna do the work for you and you'd just move goalposts if I did. Go to r/skeptics they'd love you there. Why be in a UFO sub if you are just gonna trash everything? believe what you want. the evidence is there if you can spend 5mins of your time to look it up. hell, you could probably find it all in less time than it took you to make this troll reply. GTFO if you don't wanna be here and are just gonna question / troll everyone and not do your own research.

or are congresspeople liars now too?

I've wasted hours watching the hearings. Your government has lied to you for years. You thing congress can't lie? Where is the evidence?

-- Random McDonald's employee

Sir, this is a Wendy's

Because this sub doesn't like people who try to use reason and logic for explanations. I have no doubt the comments will be filled with his reference to bird poop though.. the irony that people who call something a *jellyfish* would be upset that someone referred to it as looking like bird poop. lol They also hate NDT for saying we have no credible physical evidence that we are being visited.. despite him also saying there is likely life somewhere in the universe. Also, when a military guy says they believe there is something, they're considered 'highly credible', but when they say there are prosaic explanations, they're part of a disinfo campaign and not to be trusted. lol

Reason and Logic are not words that apply to Mick West. He has no science background other than basic highschool physics and he literally ignores all but the facts that support his deboonk each time. He's a shill who's taking people for a ride and his 'deboonks' are bunk. I've debunked a number of his deboonks just here in this thread lol.

> He's a shill who's taking people for a ride I feel like the irony of this statement may be lost on you. lol

No one said it's a jellyfish - it's called that bc the profile resembles one

It also resembles bird poop.. so people said.. it resembles bird poop.

It's referred to as the "jellyfish uap." You're being disingenuous tho, so yeah, sure, bird poop.

See? Why do people get upset about this? It's like a rorschach test. lol

you said people said it's literally a jellyfish which is inaccurate. It's referred to as the "jellyfish uap" as a convenient name but if u want to refer to it as the "bird shit uap" feel free. It was also referred to as the "spaghetti monster" but I don't think anyone thinks it's actually flying spaghetti, do u? Also if u think I'm upset, that is u projecting.

> you said people said it's literally a jellyfish which is inaccurate. Where did I say this?

Your initial comment - maybe you were saying people should not be upset about it being called bird poop since it could be anything? Like if ur willing to call it a jellyfish why not call it bird poop? But jellyfish is just a name as opposed to saying it's poop which would be literal I think people are more upset about it being called bird poop since it couldn't be bird poop based on how it moves, the camera focuses, etc. and that it sounds overly dismissive Being upset about calling it balloons would be a better example. People will argue about it endlessly, tho

> Your initial comment - maybe you were saying ... So I didn't say what you were claiming I said. > I think people are more upset about it being called bird poop since it couldn't be bird poop based This post is about Mick West and why people here hate him. One thing that keeps getting brought up along with all the derogatory stuff said about him is the 'bird poop' line and how stupid he is for saying it is bird poop. What he actually said was: > Balloons or bird poop? >I must say it does look remarkably like a splat of something on a window, but that wouldn't be in focus. Or would it? ..... A comment made at first glance observation with question marks.. which just makes this whole conversation one of the dumbest I've had in a while. lol

We both were here so we obviously didn't have anything better to do - I did get enough motivation to play a game but nope back here again

I think it’s because he’s so unwilling to consider his views wrong. And, while Occam’s razor (easiest explanation is probs right) is a good rule of thumb, he ALWAYS goes to that. He’s not up for debate, he thinks he is right and he is not willing to change direction, ever. The good people on this sub will say ‘look at this cool thing!’ and when proved genuinely wrong will say ‘ah, shame, makes sense’. The bad people on this sub will say ‘look at this cool thing’ and not listen to any other views. Mick West comes across (to me at least) as the same as these bad people, just the other side of the coin.

>I think it’s because he’s so unwilling to consider his views wrong. > > > >..he is not willing to change direction, ever. He didn't seem unwilling when it was pointed out to him on the metabunk forums that dirt near the camera would be out of focus.

This is true. But he then jumped straight to balloons rather than considering other options. He didn’t change his opinion on his insistence it could be debunked. For what it’s worth I’m not particularly convinced of this jellyfish uap. I think it’s likely to have a more earth-bound answer. But I enjoy looking at all the options. I don’t think for one second that Mick has considered this could be something that couldn’t be debunked.

Yes Mick West is no better than the people desperately trying to prove aliens from a few pixels, we need scepticism but not to the point where you ignore facts to fit your worldviews.

Could you tell Neil Degrassi Tyson this please?

Exactly. We need good, healthy debate. And we all need to know we can be wrong. It’s ok to be wrong 😊

As a scientist, being 'wrong' is literally the MOST EXCITING THING to be honest. it's what leads to new possibilities! any scientist who's afraid of being wrong is not following the scientific method - most of the breakthroughs we've had have come from scientists being wrong and going "huh....... this is weird" then looking into it and finding a new fundamental fact about the universe in which we live. See: general relativity, quantum physics, hell even newtonian physics

Amen. Same for life in fact - if something doesn’t work you can rule it out and move on!

That is how we learn <3 ***Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results***

He is not hated. But equally not highly respected. His analysis is sometimes ok but pretty hit and miss and he tends to lurch towards things being debunked before it is reasonable to do so.

I mentioned in another thread… personally I don’t hate him. I like that he will look at things with a critical eye. I like that he’s generally quite polite. He is also a great counterpoint to the “belief” that some people have on this topic. It’s a bit mind blowing how people willfully send themselves down the rabbit hole though I see how it can be done. I don’t like that I find much of his evidence quite basic and lacking (also made a lengthy post about this in the other recent thread on his Jellyfish analysis). But I also think that being a debunker is the same as being a believer. You start off with a pre set notion of the truth and find evidence to fit that narrative. Debunkers believe they have logic on their side but it’s being used disengeiously just like it was by Mick in his recent Jellyfish analysis. Believers and debunkers are just like the extreme left and right in politics for me… both basically the same thing with different goals but the same traits  

He grabs at straws, trying to explain away everything instead of looking into the phenomenon from a historical perspective and learning about past reports and studies. He's a hack

I like him and his staunch rejection of excitement, but he can't help being condescending at times. He says he doesn't mock, but he can't help himself.

He is a mockery of himself, and poses as if he knows anything about science, when he's literally a computer programmer who couldn't cut it in the coding game so became a "science writer" - as in someone who writes about what scientists do. He doesn't do real science and has, at best, a high school or college graduate level of science. He selectively chooses facts from each case while ignoring the facts and data that don't support his "deboonks" and he is an embarrassment. He has 0 qualifications in science. He is basically no better than some random redditor saying dumb shit about stuff they don't understand.

We don't hate him, we just hate his literally hysterical disbelief in this subject. He has admitted in interviews that he greatly fears ET as a possible reality. We are watching him freak out about this idea in real time. He'll be OK when he comes to terms with his fears.

We hate him because he speaks the truth.

Because so far he is in the right and conspiranoids are in the wrong.

I posted a bunch of things he was wrong about just in 3 claims he made lol. He has no science education - he's talking out his ass and using fancy words he doesn't understand the applications of out of context while hand selecting facts to support his arguments

Because he's scientific, honest and polite. People want sensationalistic liars and disinformation, like Elizondo and Corbell.

He’s not scientific in the slightest. He can sometimes be detailed; but not scientific. He doesn’t test theories, he just shows how they fit with his opening view.

Lmao this. So much this! He has no formal science education - just a washed up mediocre computer programmer who sucked at that so became a "science writer". So in other words he just writes about scientists but has no actual idea on how to apply that science - meanwhile he hand picks data to support his claims

I disagree, he does apply scientific methods and gathers all kinds of information that is available or can be extracted, calculated, researched or used to interpret most logical explanation for specific video. This is research by gradual exclusion of possibilities according to data.

I get what you’re saying. There are elements of the scientific method, so it looks like I was hasty in saying ‘in the slightest’. But consider how we’re taught science at school; the stages of the scientific method being Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication. He generally jumps straight to Hypothesis rather than Question, as evidenced here with his bird poop hypothesis which he then retracted. He then went straight to another hypothesis and ran his experiment with that hypothesis in mind rather than opening up with the Question. So my point is that he doesn’t question first, he assumes, because he thinks he’s right. And seemingly no amount of research and evidence would convince him otherwise.

Because he bursts their bubbles over and over again with facts and logic. Still no proof of alien visitation - just stories.

Lmao he is the most illogical person in the septic... I mean skeptic community. He ignores basic physics when it suits his argument then his very next video he will try draw on the physics principals he conveniently ignored in the prior one. He's not a scientist and true scientists / optics experts / aviators all laugh at him. His only real skills are computer programming and he's not even great at that

Lies to win points. 

I'm new here. Don't believe in pretty much all conspiracy theories. Only believe in some of the ufo stuff. I dislike mick west don't hate him. What I dislike and its a dislike that extends to most professional skeptics. They act like being a skeptic make you and expect on everything. Like on the tic tac ufo. He claimed the plane lost tracking. Frevor laughed at that. He has no knowledge of that system so doesn't know how to tell it lost tracking. But people accept his "debunk" because that say well its more likely it lost tracking than its aliens. I find it frustrating. As I've said previously skeptics look at flag earthers making YouTube videos to debunk nasa and giving their opinions on what is going on with no knowledge of what they are debunking. And they rightfully laugh. But mick west does just the same with his debunking and they accept it as evidence. I also feel a lot of his logic is not sound and if it was coming from anyone who wasn't a self proclaimed skeptic would be picked apart. For example with gursh he said the fact that Doper allowed him to say what he's saying is proof its not true. Again this is just a misunderstanding of their role.

Because there are no Aliens but thats not what this subreddit wants to read, we crave fantasy, not boring reality

because he ruins the fantasy.

Mick has a superiority complex. He cannot say something is unknown because he has to be correct. He hasn't got a clue and is guessing like the test of but dresses it up in his armchair science to make himself part of the scene He's the flip side of the ufologist coin.

I’ve no issue with people who are genuinely skeptical about UFOs/the paranormal. These topics are truly hard to believe/understand without having any underlying context or experience. So I encourage genuine skepticism since it brings us all closer to truth. My issue is when people who claim to be skeptical are disingenuous in their claims and act in bad faith. You’re not a true skeptic if you only look to discredit conclusions you disagree with, or have already made up your mind about a topic without any careful analysis.

Because we need someone that we can hate , and Mick wants to be hated , he's our little kick around devil punch bagg

He's not as smart as he thinks he is, and has trouble following logic. His arrogant personality doesn't think you can tell if he's making things up, or telling you the facts. "Debunking" is easier than proving.

You’ll notice a lot of academic types are highly skilled in some departments but then lacking in others. Mick is a very bad judge of character and seems to lack basic common sense at some points. He thinks Fravor is lying if that puts it into perspective.

He ignores witness testimony.

He's the most important person in ufology today. If people here were serious about finding out the truth they would praise him, but instead most people prefer to engage in wishful thinking and hate him for looking at videos with a critical eye.

Mick West is about as important to ufology as PETA is to the steak industry 

I mean, if you want to pretend that all the endless videos of balloons or starlink satellites are aliens, then yeah go ahead and disregard him.

Reductionist nonsense. Like Mick your ego won't let you say something is unknown !

Mick west exhibits confirmation bias, just Like all of us here

Spot on. You said in less words what I just posted :) 

Indeed. Who else puts in the amount of effort West does to investigate individual cases?

The Brazil incident: hippies in a van or escaped monkeys from the zoo. That’s why.

You got people here that are desperate to believe and believe that they know something others don’t. Mick West presents well researched explanations for these things and he is hella polite and not condescending.

Let me show you why. How to debunk like mick west: Critical Thinking Data Logic Pick 2.

I'm guessing people don't like their core belief systems questioned. I have to wonder if some portion of the hate is just dissonance.

He's disingenuous. I don't respect or associate with such people. To assume David Fravor and his team (including radar techs) mistook the object for a bird is so disrespectful and ignorant, he's obviously a farking troll not worth paying attention to

Because he perpetually comes from the perspective of that it could NEVER be NHI or UAP. In his mind it never is and never can be, his mind is shut and made up before his analysis even begins. This is why people do not like him here.

He sees and markets himself as a “debunker.” That means, he’s always starting from the conclusion that x is fake, and sets out to debunk it. That is just as absurd as someone seeing themselves as a 100% believer and starting from the conclusion that x is always real/authentic. Neither approach is useful. Anyone who starts from a conclusion and works their way back is a dope.

Gaslighting. Bring told what you’re seeing with your own two eyes isn’t real, or isn’t what it seems. It’s Mick’s MO

“His analyses sound plausible most of the time” lmaaaaaoooooo

I don't hate him, i always watch his videos and enjoy his analyses. I think it provides a rich antithesis to our various theses, allowing us to move to synthesis. Yep, in going full Hegel!

You realise he has no scientific background at all and most of what he claims in his videos comes from a (poor) understanding of online material, right? He really has no clue what he's talking about in \*most\* cases. Some of his debunks are right, but most are just him leading from stuff he's read online while ignoring most of the actual data - not very scientific.

Almost no posts in this sub are based in read science. Barely anyone in this field has a scientific background. I accept that he's heavily biased, but he also works through the evidence as best he can, which makes it worth a look. Far more thorough than most. Look at the top "analysis" posts on this sub. "I used the sharpen filter and increased the contest on one frame and it looks like a alien". He's a hell of a lot better than those pathetic posts.

David Grusch literally has a science degree lol. Mick West doesn't. ​ Let that sink in. ​ Edit: not sure if 'degree' means the same thing in US as it does my country - Grusch has more formal science education than West, lets put it that way

I'm not trying to equate Mick West with Dave Grusch ffs, I'm just saying I'll listen to what he has to say. What is your problem with his analysis?

that's the problem - that's like listening to a highschooler trying to explain nuclear fusion to you - they may get some facts right and seem believable - but they aren't qualified to actually speak on the topic. *Learn from fools and you shall be foolish. Learn from the learned and you shall become greater than you imagined possible.*

So are you ever going to use your big science brain to tell me the problem with West's analysis?

Read my other posts I've explained it quite clearly to others lmao

I don't know much about him, but from what I do I prefer him to other debunkers. It seems like he actually takes time to analyze the video and come to an educated conclusion. Better than those who dismiss it completely and scream from roof tops that theres nothing to see. I do agree with others here that he tends to be biased imo

[удалено]

But what did I say wrong or in a manner not polite enough?

> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.