Which is my problem Metabunk often fails scrutiny and so is just garbage data as you put it. Like my example above with the radar that showed the drones was 1000 yards away and they ignored that data, edited that data out because it didn't fit there star conclusion.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Where’s the proof that Mick West uses false data? You haven’t shown any proof.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,575
- Location
- Scotland
Jacob Barber leaked world first footage of UFO which he and his team was send to recovered it.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
And anyone is welcome to ask them why they left this data out. I'm not seeing that page where they ignore the data. Let me know which page.
The brothers saying 'Mick ignored the data/you're wrong' without going into the same level of evidence that metabunk has just reduces their argument down to hearsay.
The footage has been released... Grifters grifting like it's the last grift on earth.
Absolutely laughable. Please can we stop listening to snake oil salesman like Greer, Coulthart, Elizondo, etc. They don't deserve the time not the money that they get from this continual scam.
Last edited:
I cannot win. If I explain it in detail with links you write my post off as a wall of text. If I describe in short what happen you want more proof.
As per the links I gave you Mick edited a video removing data that did not fit his conclusion then I believe he passed the video off as unedited in his debunk. In the original event and unedited video there is military officer talking. The event also had evidence of radar of the drones 1000 feet away and 4 people eyes on the drones/UAPs. Micks conclusion was there are no UAP, no drones it was military officers being confused by stars. That's Mick using false data by omission so that he doesn't have to admit his conclusion is wrong. He edited out/removed any data that went against his conclusion of stars.
Keyser yesterday linked to a thread where a complaint was made against Mick stealing there work and conclusions then passing them off as his own without credit which is a another major red flag. Keyser also posted the video with the two scientist saying “Mick West is using false data to support his argument”. Go ask Keyser about that one. I am sure Keyser watched the original video and not Micks edited cut down video right Keyser? I haven't watched the original video so I don't know all the details. All I know is its yet more people posting red flags about Mick West.
With the Gimble video debunk Mick created a experiment and used the results to do with stop gaps and the FLIR system to write off the Gimble Video as glare or jet glare. Despite the fact he wrote off the 2nd video of the same object as a bird. Which is it? a Bird or a jet glare? Again he omits data because his conclusions doesn't work if the videos are the same object. Then it appears Mick fabricated evidence with a fake expert to prove his glare theory. and move evidence how how Mick got it wrong
Mick and MarikvR hold a stream debate where a real military expert in Gimble and FLIR system was invited to join. In the stream debate the military expert in Gimble and FLIR systems talked about how Micks data was wrong. The systems doesn't work in stop gaps, effectively saying Micks conclusions is based on false data. The expert also said "this footage isn't a match" Which Mick then later on brought out the same footage which clearly isn't a match, the experts say it doesn't match but Mick say it does match, again false data.
I haven't got time to dig though the years past posts in this thread. I am sure we posted the video of that debate in here multiple times over the years. If not its an online stream between Mick and MarikvR with a militry expert invited to the stream all about stop gaps, grimble systems and FLIR systems.
EDIT: You have to click the twitter source and read the twitter tread for extra evidence. In short Mick expert witness was some random civilian guy with a old Patch. Micks due diligence was to look a the old patch and say it looked legit. This is also another exmple of what I mean by Micks double standards.
Last edited:
Providing links to tweets, of somebody disagreeing with somebody else - doesn't constitute proof of anything.
Yes he does if you read it all. As they posted the screenshots and evidence to black up there claims. Also the videos and explanations are valid as proof. Anyone can go watch the original video and the edited video by Mick to see he really did that and cut out info that went against his conclusion.
How is the militry expert in Gimble and FLIR systems saying Mick is wrong not evidence? That twitter feed has the evidence with screenshots that shows Micks so called militry expert was a civilian with a random patch that Mick as passing off as a militry expert.
Last edited:
Yawn.
It's all just white noise and you've done it from the start.
Make some stupid/daft point, or some nonsense - when asked for proof you provide nothing.
A tweet to a 2 second video showing nothing, someone with a link of a video with more lens-flare in it, showing nothing.
More of the same old guff, on and on it goes.
Last edited:
Yeah,
It’s also now gotten to the point where they’re not even bothered about how obvious it is.
Once the first guy (David Grusch) turned out to be a big load of nonsense, it was only - 6-12 months before they just find a new guy with another obviously bs story.
You watch - in another 12 months this new guy will be forgotten, and newsnation will suddenly find another liar, with another bs story.
Everytime they do it, they must be making some decent cash - and because it’s aliens, nobody really cares, there’s no real risk to them doing it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,070
@Felon I don't think Congress have formally discredited Grusch, the wider narrative or other witnesses yet? Until they do and formally close this down then it's all just opinion.
Who thinks they have discredited Grusch and what has been said around this; a few randoms on the Internet and twitter?
I mean, do you think that you are a credible source of info or discrediting Felon? all you post is conjecture and lifestyle opinion pieces?
Who thinks they have discredited Grusch and what has been said around this; a few randoms on the Internet and twitter?
I mean, do you think that you are a credible source of info or discrediting Felon? all you post is conjecture and lifestyle opinion pieces?
Last edited:
The burden of proof rests with David Grusch and his merry band of grifters, the onus is on him to substantiate and prove the claim he makes, (specifically the claim that the government was recovering alien bodies).
These people are making exotic claims, they need to prove it - there's no obligation for me to prove anything.
Where is you evidence that David was nonsense?
His official reports didn’t turn out to be a load of nonsense. It was confirmed he handed over a large amount of evidence, that evidence was verified and deemed credible by 3 different teams. Congress took out field trips based on that evidence. Davids department was interviewed and all his work colleagues backed him up. David passed the burden of proof with the IGIC, SKIF and Congress Committee.
You on the other hand turned out to be wrong on every step of the way in regards to David.
There is zero evidence or facts to show that David has been discredited. In fact the opposite everyone who has access to the data is saying its verified and credible.
Classic Felon, doesn't like the evidence presented so you blank it out and pretend its not there, then makes up bunch of nonsense. Same old story every time.
The video you say shows nothing in fact shows how the gimble and FLIR system works which directly contradicts how Mick says it works with stop gap rotation. It shows that Micks conclusion is built on false data and fundamentally wrong.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uoORs8rVfOGUYHTAOWn32A5bLA0jckuU/view Perhaps this is enough detail for you. I tried to make it simple but that wasnt enough. How about this well documented detailed paper with proper research?
As for the interview this is the one where a militry expert is brought on board and says everything I mentioned before “nowhere have I seen this stepped rotation right like no pretty smooth so it's it's voltage base and it isn't as like you're saying like a stepper motor uh that was something I know we'd discussed before but no it's not a stepper it's it's the motor is on the entire time and” which rules out the entire basis of what Micks conclusion is built on.
In regards to the night vision tringle craft video can you explain why Mick edited out the parts of the video and events that disagree with his conclusion? That's not white noise, it actually happened Mick edited out parts of the data. His conclusions is stars yet the full event unedited had radar and makes it clear its 4 drones holding 1000 yards away and moving with the navy ship.
What is your explanation for Micks fabricated militry expert? Just calling it white noise doesn't make it so.
How do you explain the Gofast debunk from Mick is a Bird and the Gimble debunk from Mick is a jet glare but both videos are meant to be of the same object from the same event? How can it be both a Bird and a jet?
Lastly Mick is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his anti UAP software and post debunks. What do you make of that? If people on the UAP side are Bull artists according to you for receiving money and selling books. Why doesn't the same apply to Mick who is receive large sum of money and selling books?
Your not seeing the page as there isn't page. That's my entire point they sometimes miss or cut out information that doesn't fit there conclusion. If you find and watch the original video and look at the background data the mention of the UAP/Drones holding at 1000 yards away is removed. Micks conclusion is its stars. Which makes no sense when you look at the original data as the drones are moving with the navy ship and hold at 1000 yards away and if I recall correctly 4 people on the ship had eyes on the drones. So while I agree with them its not a triangle UFO as the triangle object is an artefact of the night vision. The problem is there debunk is incorrect as its not stars but drone flying 1000 yards away.
As for the 2nd part of our post. So for clarity you watched the brothers full video and they didn't go into any evidence over the entire video 1hour+ video? Not the video Mick posted the original full video the brothers posted themselves? You watched it right?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,423
- Location
- Scotland
You guys seen the video of the egg tied to a piece of string yet!
Is that the one where a militry pilot picks up some unknown militry equipment? Only seen brief clips of it, I need to find time to watch the full video and interviewers. To me it sounds like its just militry equipment being mistaken as none human equipment due to the pilot wearing night vision. It does seem to be genuine militry footage though. In this case I don't think its a scam or fake rather a case of mistaken identity.
Yes, not convinced at all......and i believe in UAP stuff too!!!
It's an opinion, i think that David Grusch is full of ****, because it's an opinion, I don't need evidence.
Yes, classic me.
Somebody makes a claim - I ask for evidence.
Because you don't have any, you make up for it with a 20k essay of unreadable alphabet soup, and links to utterly meaningless tweets, that don't add up to jack ****.