Pentagon releases UFO footage

Felon said:
Without evidence it’s all completely meaningless.

You can write as many walls-of-text as you like, but they’re meaningless without evidence or proof.
Click to expand...
But I have seen parts of the clear 4k high definition footage that seemingly shows he is telling the truth as he sees it. Which also proves your wrong in calling him a fraud and scammer. Along with the clear 4k footage he is backed up by 3 high level military veterans which despite what you say is not meaningless as it 100% disproves your made up story.

I don't see anything wrong with the evidence that he fly's craft recovery missions for the military or that he recovered craft he couldn't identify that part all checks out. Based on what we have so far I think even the white egged shaped debris part checks out, in so much as it was a real crash fitting that description and he really did get sent on a recovery mission with a team.

I know you like to call fact checking and background checks baloney but well that's your problem not mine.
 
keyser van someone said:

What do you see; advanced tech doing advanced tech things or a plane with a light on going up through the clouds? :) I haven't been following this one but it popped up on my feed.
Click to expand...
Not got time to watch all that so I skimmed it. The first words to come out was “Mick West is using false data to support his argument”. What do you have to say to that?

Mick does seem to have a bit of a reputation for using false data as well as a reputation for intentionally removing data to make the data support his conclusions. As well as ignoring experts who say his idea is wrong and it doesn’t work like that.

I am all for Healthy scepticism. What Mick is doing is not coming across as Healthy scepticism. You cannot just ignore a bunch of the data because it doesn't fit your conclusion then go case solved.

Mick isn't an expert. He is just a youtuber after clicks for money and trying to sell his books for money. Felon calls those people BS artists and I tend to agree with him.
 
Pottsey said:
The first words to come out was “Mick West is using false data to support his argument”. What do you have to say to that?
Click to expand...
His explanation is in the video. More on metabunk page showing their logic. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/news-nation-light-in-the-sky-video-tedesco-brothers.13684/

It was the first time seeing that 'UAP video' but flashing lights tells me it's plane. Plus lights pointing to the cloud. Plus it climbs through the cloud. That's before I get to the metabunk thread.
 
Last edited:
The grifters are grifting hard right now.

So, will Greer's claims of disclosure happening the past week... that never happened, now be enough for people to realise he's grifting?

Why are folk so gullible?
 
Last edited:
keyser van someone said:
His explanation is in the video. More on metabunk page showing their logic. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/news-nation-light-in-the-sky-video-tedesco-brothers.13684/

It was the first time seeing that 'UAP video' but flashing lights tells me it's plane. Plus lights pointing to the cloud. Plus it climbs through the cloud. That's before I get to the metabunk thread.
Click to expand...
An explanation they said is based on false data so it’s not a valid explanation if that’s true. I went into that thread and at the very end on page 7 is this


Some more data. The object had no thermal signature or radar return. This is the type of thing I am talking about. The data is not matching Micks conclusions of a plane which would have thermal and radar returns so he removes that data to make his conclusion fit.

EDIT: There even a guy in that thread complaining Mick stole his work and passed it off as his own and didn't give any credit.
 
Last edited:
Hellsmk2 said:
The grifters are grifting hard right now.

So, will Greer's claims of disclosure happening the past week... that never happened, now be enough for people to realise he's grifting?

Why are folk so gullible?
Click to expand...
I really don't like defending Greer as I see Greer and Mick as two of the big grifters. But to be fair Greers disclosure comments are linked to the interviews and footage that are meant to be coming out today (Saturday) in the US so we might not see the full footage till late 3am or what ever the time zone difference is. Effectively Sunday for us.
 
Pottsey said:
An explanation they said is based on false data so it’s not a valid explanation if that’s true. I went into that thread and at the very end on page 7 is this


Some more data. The object had no thermal signature or radar return. This is the type of thing I am talking about. The data is not matching Micks conclusions of a plane which would have thermal and radar returns so he removes that data to make his conclusion fit.
Click to expand...
I can do quotes from the thread as well, here is another quote from the same thread.

"Is there a three-sentence summation possible, for those not wanting to watch the hour long video? (Of course, starting a fight with Mick West would be a great way to gain some attention and cred in UFOria -- it would be very helpful to these folks if he was a little easier to provoke into belligerence! ^_^"

Mick West is just a bloke on the internet. Are these brothers scientists? From what I gather they released a science paper showing their findings. How was their paper received to the rest of the scientific community? If you are struggling to explain the paper to a lay person good luck vs actual science.
 
keyser van someone said:
I can do quotes from the thread as well, here is another quote from the same thread.

"Is there a three-sentence summation possible, for those not wanting to watch the hour long video? (Of course, starting a fight with Mick West would be a great way to gain some attention and cred in UFOria -- it would be very helpful to these folks if he was a little easier to provoke into belligerence! ^_^"

Mick West is just a bloke on the internet. Are these brothers scientists? From what I gather they released a science paper showing their findings. How was their paper received to the rest of the scientific community? If you are struggling to explain the paper to a lay person good luck vs actual science.
Click to expand...
I think you replied right as I edited my post. "Plus there is a guy in that thread complaining Mick stole his work and passed it off as his own and didn't give any credit." Anyway I am not defending the UFO brothers as being correct. I have not looked into there paper or watched there full video. What I am saying is I don't trust Mick debunks as being valid for the reasons I stated. Saying Mick is wrong doesn't automatically mean the UFO guys are right. They can both be wrong. From what I can see Mick is just a bloke trying to get clicks for money. As the others have said Mick seems to have a history of using false data and removing data that goes against his conclusions. That makes him an auto write off to me and not to be trusted.
 
Felon said:
Gutted.



Have you got any proof to back up that allegation?
Click to expand...
Seen him do it many times like the Gimble and GoFast video. My understanding is they are videos of the same object taken from the same event from the same Navy Carrier. Yet Mick ignores that and has written off the Gimble video as a jet flair in the distance and the Gofast Video as a Bird which doesn’t make sense if they are videos of the same object. His conclusions also don't match the witness statements as he discounts all that.

Further more when analysing the Gimble video. I think it was last year the link was posted in this thread. A military expert in the Gimble FLIR systems was invited to the stream and said along the lines of Micks idea on how the system works is incorrect, Micks stop gap talk was incorrect as the system doesn’t move in stop gaps and the expert said "this footage isn't a match" Mick ignored all that, took the same footage the expert said wasn’t a match and Mick then went onto to say its exactly the same footage and went to ignore everything else the expert said as it didn’t fit his conclusion. A conclusion that only works with stop gap movement which is not something that happens on that system.

Another time was that "Triangle"/Bokeh videos. Mick intentionally cut parts of the video out that didn’t go along with his conclusion. Mick leaped to conclusions and cut everything away that didn’t match. If I recall Mick didn't even explain he edited the video from its source.

I don’t like it when the UFO side do that which some of them are really bad for and its just as bad coming from the anti UFO side. As you know I am happy for debunks but debunks have to match the evidence and facts.

For reference the information removed by Mick was speed, course, and range information which was all relevant. Mick also removed the voice and info of the military on the ground talking about 4 drones Operating at a range of 1,000 yards. Guess why? Because Micks conclusion was claiming the objects are two lights which are stars. 4 drones moving at speed at 1000yars away doesn’t fit his conclusion. So he just cut it all out. even though drones at 1000 yards away makes way more sense as an explanation.

I also have a problem with his double standards. He will constantly dismiss things by saying stuff like we need two vantage points to prove Point X. If Point X goes against his point of view. But if Point Y support his point of view suddenly one vantage point is enough.

For clarity I am not saying Mick always get its wrong and just because I think he is sometimes wrong it doesn’t mean the UFO side are right. In short anything from anti UFO Mick or UFO Greer I take with a large pinch of salt and won't trust.

As for the video you want me to link which is a fair request. I am sure sooner or later it will get uploaded to the internet and when it does I will come back and tag you in a post.
 
I highly recommend reading the thread showing how the metabunk community dig through the data, showing different theories and opinions, anyone is welcome to question their findings.

www.metabunk.org

News Nation - Light in the Sky video - Tedesco Brothers

Mick posted this video (his edit of a clip from News Nation showing a light in the sky. Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1841938352284823716 It looks like an airliner taking off with lights on shining though and onto the clouds, however the people filming say it is not. They give (in...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

One of the things about this that stands out to me is the 2 'scientists' have published a paper that hasn't been peer reviewed (reg flag), to a publisher with questionable scientific trust (red flag) and they get very defensive when simple questions and requests for information is asked for (red flag). Those are all red flags in science. This is basic stuff.

"Peer-reviewed means that a scholarly work has been evaluated by experts in the same field as the author. This process is a form of quality control and is considered essential for academic research."

Without peer-review it's just garbage. But the UAP community can say '2 scientists have submitted a paper confirming the exist of advanced tech' which sounds impressive.

On the other hand, Metabunk threads show how they go there. And they aren't scientists. Maybe some are, who knows! it's an internet forum doing some detective work. The evidence needs to show up to scrutiny or it's just garbage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom