The misconception of Mick & the UFO video's

[I'mConvinced]

Dear UM,

This thread is designed to help clarify certain facts regarding the Navy UFO videos recorded between 2004 and 2015.  If you are somehow on this forum, reading this and haven't heard the story then....congratulations, many pages await:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/forum/7-extraterrestrial-life-amp-the-ufo-phenomenon/page/1/

The above thread was, in my opinion, derailed by certain individuals, who-shall-remain-nameless, and their unwillingness to address this topic in an adult fashion i.e. without pointing fingers and posting the tin foil hat memes (that really aren't old and jaded, honest). To quickly recap; the self-proclaimed debunker, Mick West, believes ardently that he has solved the mystery of these videos and thus they are thoroughly debunked and contain nothing what-so-ever of interest. 

These claims by Mick West have been thoroughly examined, by myself and others, and found to be seriously flawed.  For those unfamiliar with Mick West I highly suggest checking out his debunk videos and understanding his argument (linked in above thread).  Once you do the following will make a whole lot more sense.  For those that have been following this topic, I hope you enjoy the new information and I look forward to discussing its implications:

1. Response to Mick West's Gimbal debunk.

Mick West gives his explanation for this video as what is shown is simply the glare from a jet engine as seen through a FLIR camera.  He explains the rotation of the object in the video as an effect caused by a derotation mechanism inside the ATFLIR. 

In coming to the above conclusions Mick West consulted a FLIR expert of some 30 years experience, Dave Falch, as his go to man for expert opinion and analysis in order to make his video.  Unfortunately Dave Falch disagreed with Mick West 's analysis and conclusions and yet was misrepresented as agreeing with Mick West in his videos.  Mick West has made many follow up videos trying to explain or clarify mistakes made in the first video he released.  You will find me arguing this point in the above thread, however, I needn't have bothered as Dave Falch himself addresses and refutes the glare argument below:

2. Response to the derotation theory

"Gimbal" UFO ATFLIR video rotation explained by a Depot Level FLIR Technician

 

Now of course we can't rely on just one experts opinion so how about asking another:

3. Meet John Ehrhart, ATFLIR expert

Disclaimer: I can't stand Jeremy Corbell's style, however that doesn't discount the experts opinion

Quote: John is an electro-optics specialist who was tasked by his employment with Boeing - an Aerospace defense contractor - to directly work on the operational Navy ATFLIR targeting pod systems. These systems are commonly used on American fighter jets. Jets like Cmdr. David Fravor’s - the pilot who chased a UFO for the United States Military.

So on one hand we have a debunk from a guy with an agenda, who has no experience working with FLIR or ATFLIR cameras, who ignored the very expert he himself chose to consult and on the other the opinions of two FLIR experts, without a vested interest in gaining clicks for their YouTube channel, disagreeing with the debunker's.

What's going on? That's for you to decide but I implore you to take in the arguments from both sides before dismissing the evidence. The question of who or what are behind the incursions into protected US military space grows ever more mysterious...

4. Lex and David - A Pilot's perspective on the Mick West explanation

Here is Commander David Fravor, eye witness to one of these incidents, giving his opinion of Mick West and his conclusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck&list=TLPQMTgwOTIwMjDHCBtU8r_NZQ&index=9

This won't embed unfortunately due to some odd YouTube rule but Lex Fridman poses exactly the questions people asked in the previous thread.  Enjoy!

[Hazzard]

This is an exorcise in futility.

Those who desperately need to believe that this is ET related will continue to do so, and the rest of us who demand extraordinary evidence to extraordinary claims will remain skeptical.

Either way, dead horse 

[I'mConvinced]

7 hours ago, Hazzard said:

This is an exorcise in futility.

Those who desperately need to believe that this is ET related will continue to do so, and the rest of us who demand extraordinary evidence to extraordinary claims will remain skeptical.

Either way, dead horse 

Bringing new information to people and allowing them to form their own conclusions is never futile.  What is futile is trying to provide information to those unwilling or unable to absorb it, and then expecting them to change.  I don't expect you to change but equally I think your position is somewhat illogical.

To give you an example, your position is analogous to taking the following stance:

You: I am skeptical and therefore demand extraordinary evidence before I'll look at the evidence that might in fact be extraordinary.

Me: I am skeptical but upon examination of the evidence purported to be extraordinary,I find there is a case for further investigation.

The only question is what you will accept as extraordinary evidence? There isn't one single bar to pass and as Commander Fravor said in the interview with Lex Fridman "What do people want us to do? Go out and scoop one up with a giant net?".

  

[I'mConvinced]

7 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Those who desperately need to believe that this is ET related will continue to do so, and the rest of us who demand extraordinary evidence to extraordinary claims will remain skeptical.

This statement in logically fallacious.  This is an example of a 'false dilemma' aka 'false dichotomy'.  There are more than two options yet you only present a factionalised view of believers vs skeptics.  There are many people, myself included, that take no such sides and taking this approach leads to an understanding that seeing things in such black and white terms is a sure fire way to create cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is the scourge of science, imo.

Edited September 19, 2020 by I'mConvinced
cant type

[stereologist]

This is just another thread that adds nothing new but is all about griping about people pointing out that there is nothing unusual in the videos.

That seems to the problem, the unwillingness or inability to absorb that information. You'd think that after pointing this out repeatedly that there would be some understanding, but no. Demanding that others cow down to accepting videos that do not show anything unusual as showing something strange is really pointless.

Nothing unusual or extraordinary in the videos.

Turns out the thread will again attempt to mix stories with these videos when there is no evidence that the stories are related to the videos. But in the minds of those unwilling to accept that the videos show nothing unusual they quickly demand that the stories are not really stories but are better than stories because there are unrelated videos to elevate the stories. No. Not all.

There are stories and as time goes on there are more stories. That's what happens with stories. They get embellished over time. Others jump on the bandwagon and add stories.

This has been an exercise in making money by the TTSA. They orchestrated the release of 3 videos and then went into their company mission - making entertainment.

Now that we have all of this entertainment coming out there is a demand that the videos are more than they show. That they are videos of unusual activity. Where? Never been shown to be unusual.

 

[stereologist]

Mick is right and shows through an analysis of the videos that there is nothing unusual in the videos.

This is probably disturbing for people that want to avoid the math issues in the videos. But those computations which are rather simple show nothing unusual happening.

So far no one has shown that any of the computations by Mick West are incorrect.

And of course he gets the credit although there was quite a bit of input from others as seen on his discussion forum.

His computations stand. They've been checked by multiple people.

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Mick is right and shows through an analysis of the videos that there is nothing unusual in the videos.

This is probably disturbing for people that want to avoid the math issues in the videos. But those computations which are rather simple show nothing unusual happening.

So far no one has shown that any of the computations by Mick West are incorrect.

And of course he gets the credit although there was quite a bit of input from others as seen on his discussion forum.

His computations stand. They've been checked by multiple people.

You're a Mick West fan, we understand.  Thank you for your opinion devoid of links or sources.

[stereologist]

9 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You're a Mick West fan, we understand.  Thank you for your opinion devoid of links or sources.

As I suspected there would be no rejection of the math in Mick West's videos, and therefore the Mick West analysis stands.

Pretending that I am a fan of any source of information is irrelevant. That has no bearing on whether or not the analysis is correct.

The issue is the math. The math shows that there is nothing unusual in the videos. Due to the video showing the mathematical quantities required to do analysis It is and was possible for a group to work out the motions and show that there is nothing unusual in the videos.

 

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, stereologist said:

As I suspected there would be no rejection of the math in Mick West's videos, and therefore the Mick West analysis stands.

Pretending that I am a fan of any source of information is irrelevant. That has no bearing on whether or not the analysis is correct.

The issue is the math. The math shows that there is nothing unusual in the videos. Due to the video showing the mathematical quantities required to do analysis It is and was possible for a group to work out the motions and show that there is nothing unusual in the videos.

 

Mick West doesn't use any math in his Gimbal video.  Mick West's explanation of the gimbal video has been refuted by two experts who worked with these exact systems for many years.  Mick West isn't an authority on anything, has never used or worked with a FLIR system before and the Dave Falch video above, with demonstration using actual lenses from a FLIR camera, refutes his claim precisely.  

The only math is in the gofast video and it's a good explanation of the speed, size and altitude of the object.  What his math doesn't do is prove it is either a bird or a balloon.  In fact Mick made a very basic error by suggesting it could be a bird, if that were the case the bird would need to be colder than the ocean and therefore dead.  So he changed to a balloon which is fine, it doesn't explain the commentary however.

So can you refute Dave Falch and John Erhart? How about you show us the experts that agree with Mick West.  You made the claim that many agree and I assume you weren't talking about random people but actual experts with FLIR systems, correct? 

[stereologist]

So the math stands which shows that the videos show nothing unusual.

Very well. It's just one of those things that seems to  be over people's heads - math.

Two non-experts if I recall from other threads with exactly this same topic were used to show nothing of interest.

There are plenty of other FLIR experts out there. I've seen quite a few which point out the absurdities in the comments from faux experts.

All of the videos have had math applied to them. All of them. And all of the math shows that there is nothing unusual in any of the 3 videos.

Here is a typical laughable mistake: " if that were the case the bird would need to be colder than the ocean and therefore dead. " Here is a hint, birds have insulation and the bird would be in air that is colder than the ocean. The air at 10,000 feet is roughly 20 degrees C cooler than the surface. So it could be a bird or a balloon.

So the math stands. The math shows that there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

[I'mConvinced]

15 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So the math stands which shows that the videos show nothing unusual.

Very well. It's just one of those things that seems to  be over people's heads - math.

Two non-experts if I recall from other threads with exactly this same topic were used to show nothing of interest.

There are plenty of other FLIR experts out there. I've seen quite a few which point out the absurdities in the comments from faux experts.

All of the videos have had math applied to them. All of them. And all of the math shows that there is nothing unusual in any of the 3 videos.

Here is a typical laughable mistake: " if that were the case the bird would need to be colder than the ocean and therefore dead. " Here is a hint, birds have insulation and the bird would be in air that is colder than the ocean. The air at 10,000 feet is roughly 20 degrees C cooler than the surface. So it could be a bird or a balloon.

So the math stands. The math shows that there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

No, it couldn't be a bird as Mick West agreed.  Get your facts straight and provide those links and source please.  How about you for once back up your claims:

19 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There are plenty of other FLIR experts out there. I've seen quite a few which point out the absurdities in the comments from faux experts.

Sources please.  You spout a whole bunch of word salad but provide nothing tangible to back your claims,  I wish to see the evidence of the 'quite a few FLIR experts out there' that you have seen or else I'm calling you out as a fraud yourself.

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

No, it couldn't be a bird as Mick West agreed.  Get your facts straight and provide those links and source please.  How about you for once back up your claims:

Sources please.  You spout a whole bunch of word salad but provide nothing tangible to back your claims,  I wish to see the evidence of the 'quite a few FLIR experts out there' that you have seen or else I'm calling you out as a fraud yourself.

How about you backing up this guy Falch as an expert. He admits he has never used the system in question.

The fraud is yours and yours alone. You are harping about Falch in every thread you create on this topic and Falch is not an expert.

The math makes it abundantly clear that there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

And this is the same subject in a new thread. Plenty of information was posted in all of the previous threads.

You have nothing but a fake expert.

 

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, stereologist said:

How about you backing up this guy Falch as an expert. He admits he has never used the system in question.

The fraud is yours and yours alone. You are harping about Falch in every thread you create on this topic and Falch is not an expert.

The math makes it abundantly clear that there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

And this is the same subject in a new thread. Plenty of information was posted in all of the previous threads.

You have nothing but a fake expert.

 

So you can't provide any sources is what you are saying? Answer my request and I will answer yours, seems fair no? 

[stereologist]

And more showing that this as been discussed.

We know that Falch is not the expert you claim he is. We know he has never worked on the system in question.

 

We know that the math shows there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

We know that you are clueless about the math having been worked out for ALL of the videos. All of the math shows that there is nothing unusual happening in any of the videos.

 

[I'mConvinced]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

And more showing that this as been discussed.

We know that Falch is not the expert you claim he is. We know he has never worked on the system in question.

 

We know that the math shows there is nothing unusual happening in the videos.

We know that you are clueless about the math having been worked out for ALL of the videos. All of the math shows that there is nothing unusual happening in any of the videos.

 

More avoiding the question, no links, no sources.  These, ladies and gentlemen, are the actions of someone trying to deceive.  It is not for me to prove Dave Falch is an expert, I believe he has shown that by producing his videos.  Your claim is that he is lying, that means the burden of proof is on you and for that you will need to provide relevant evidence.  First though you need to back up the statement you just made and stop trying to shift the emphasis, it's pathetic frankly.  

Provide your sources for these experts that only you know about please.  I'll be waiting.

Edited September 19, 2020 by I'mConvinced

[stereologist]

29 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

More avoiding the question, no links, no sources.  These, ladies and gentlemen, are the actions of someone trying to deceive.  It is not for me to prove Dave Falch is an expert, I believe he has shown that by producing his videos.  Your claim is that he is lying, that means the burden of proof is on you and for that you will need to provide relevant evidence.  First though you need to back up the statement you just made and stop trying to shift the emphasis, it's pathetic frankly.  

Provide your sources for these experts that only you know about please.  I'll be waiting.

Here is more clueless rambling by someone who needs to think before they post. "Your claim is that he is lying"

No one is suggesting that. That's the talk of someone trying to deceive.

The person claiming he is an expert needs to provide evidence for their claim. Let's see who did that? Why it's in the OP. " consulted a FLIR expert of some 30 years experience, Dave Falch "

So the the person posting that needs to support that claim. Pretty simple I'd say. Just show us where Falch worked  on the FLIR system in question.

The onus falls on the person making the claim and since we've seen Falch portrayed as an expert in all of the duplicate threads on this topic that should be easy.'

So please show us that Falch has expertise on this FLIR system used to produce the videos.

 

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

What is futile is trying to provide information to those unwilling or unable to absorb it, and then expecting them to change.

so why bother with this thread then? it's pointless- according to you 

[stereologist]

One of the claims by Day was that the object dropped from ridiculous thousand feet to 50 feet above the water in a fraction of a second. At the distance from the ship, Day's instruments would have to have been over 1500 feet above the ocean to see that happen. Actually much higher but you see what I mean. When one person makes up stories the next person makes up stories and it all about making up stories.

[Hazzard]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:29 PM, I'mConvinced said:

To give you an example, your position is analogous to taking the following stance:

You: I am skeptical and therefore demand extraordinary evidence before I'll look at the evidence that might in fact be extraordinary.

Me: I am skeptical but upon examination of the evidence purported to be extraordinary,I find there is a case for further investigation.

The only question is what you will accept as extraordinary evidence? There isn't one single bar to pass and as Commander Fravor said in the interview with Lex Fridman "What do people want us to do? Go out and scoop one up with a giant net?".

  

I think that you are a little bit confused about what constitutes extraordinary evidence. 

I have seen the best "evidence" the believers have put forth when it comes to the naval UFOs.

It doesnt even come close to extraordinary. 

I really dont think its evidence of anything.

You dont have anything to tell you where said UFO comes from,... Sure, some of them act and look strange enough, but I just dont see the evidence that any of them are of extraterrestrial origin.

They merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

Stories about "lights" or "things" in the sky do not impress me, especially when such reports come from people who have no idea of the vast array of natural, and, manmade phenomena that are visible in the sky if one would only take the time to look.

It clearly makes no reference to aliens, (that is a conclusion made by believers) and it clearly states exactly what I said. UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation. Evidence is the establishment of a proof based upon the observation, a proof accepted by the scientific method.

Furthermore, you must prove your case by providing the direct and compelling evidence for it, you cant prove it by eliminating a few token explanations and then crying, "Well, what else can it be?"

That might work on your believer buddies and those still on the fence, but not on scientifically minded and critical thinking skeptics.

 

So, like I said, when it comes to the three naval videos, I will remain skeptical.

 

[SeekTruth]

2 hours ago, Hazzard said:

I think that you are a little bit confused about what constitutes extraordinary evidence. 

I have seen the best "evidence" the believers have put forth when it comes to the naval UFOs.

It doesnt even come close to extraordinary. 

I really dont think its evidence of anything.

You dont have anything to tell you where said UFO comes from,... Sure, some of them act and look strange enough, but I just dont see the evidence that any of them are of extraterrestrial origin.

They merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

Stories about "lights" or "things" in the sky do not impress me, especially when such reports come from people who have no idea of the vast array of natural, and, manmade phenomena that are visible in the sky if one would only take the time to look.

It clearly makes no reference to aliens, (that is a conclusion made by believers) and it clearly states exactly what I said. UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation. Evidence is the establishment of a proof based upon the observation, a proof accepted by the scientific method.

Furthermore, you must prove your case by providing the direct and compelling evidence for it, you cant prove it by eliminating a few token explanations and then crying, "Well, what else can it be?"

That might work on your believer buddies and those still on the fence, but not on scientifically minded and critical thinking skeptics.

 

So, like I said, when it comes to the three naval videos, I will remain skeptical.

 

He never claimed it was alien. Good grief.  

Quote

They merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

That's a hell of a way to understate the observed capabilities of the Nimitz objects.

 

Quote

Stories about "lights" or "things" in the sky do not impress me, especially when such reports come from people who have no idea of the vast array of natural, and, manmade phenomena that are visible in the sky if one would only take the time to look.

I have to wonder if you would be impressed were you to see the lights that I saw a while back. I sure the hell was, and I was as skeptical as they come.

Edited September 22, 2020 by SeekTruth

[Hazzard]

2 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

He never claimed it was alien. Good grief.  

That's a hell of a way to understate the observed capabilities of the Nimitz objects.

 

I have to wonder if you would be impressed were you to see the lights that I saw a while back. I sure the hell was, and I was as skeptical as they come.

1. Are you saying that he isnt implying it at all?

2. Not at all, its exactly what happened. The didnt understand what they were looking at... 

3. I wish I could have been there.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Hazzard

[SeekTruth]

8 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

1. Are you saying that he isnt implying it at all?

2. Not at all, its exactly what happened.

3. I wish I could have been there.

1. I don't see where he implied this is alien tech, but perhaps you can show me where he did.

2. Not sure what you mean to say. The characteristics of the tic-tac as described by the pilots, if true, would be MIND-BOGGLING.

3. Me too.

[Hazzard]

13 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

2. Not sure what you mean to say. The characteristics of the tic-tac as described by the pilots, if true, would be MIND-BOGGLING.

That is a big IF... Whatever the origin of those UFOs, extraterrestrial spaceship has to be at the bottom  of a very long list.

Thats the way I have always done this, by falcification.

Because if we cant exclude everything else then we cant claim its ET either.

After all, that is the belief, wish and hope of the believers here (UFO=Alien) right?

Edited September 22, 2020 by Hazzard

[SeekTruth]

Just now, Hazzard said:

That is a big IF... Whatever the origin of those UFOs, extraterrestrial spaceship has to be at the bottom  of a very long list. Thats the way I have always done this, by falcification. Because if we cant exclude everything else then we cant claim its ET.

After all, that is the belief, wish and hope of the believers here (UFO=Alien) right?

If you simply mean that we should rule out the earthly before positing the unearthly, then I agree. If you are saying that the prospect of alien tech is the least probable explanation, then I'm not convinced. And I agree it is a big IF. Forget hope. I just want to know what these things are,

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

1. I don't see where he implied this is alien tech, but perhaps you can show me where he did.

2. Not sure what you mean to say. The characteristics of the tic-tac as described by the pilots, if true, would be MIND-BOGGLING.

3. Me too.

Thats the issue for me. People are unreliable and these pilots have very little credibility and lost their integrity with me,

So like you say "if true" and i see zero proof their claims are true and a lot to make me think the other way.