UAP/UFO |OT|
- Thread starter Forerunner
- Start date
Yes he is awesome.
Without people like him a lot of people would still believe fake or just normal explanation video.
Edit: His forum https://www.metabunk.org/home/ is really good for discussion.
Last edited:
I was surprised to see people attack him quite a bit in this thread and the old one. All of his arguments seemed sound.
People tend to state he is not an expert, the pilots are expert trained observers... etc. After his last video debunking Grave's Starlink video, I wonder what they have to say now.
They've all moved over to a Discord.
He's still enemy #1 over on r/UFOs though, they just ignore everything.
I really wish Graves would address it, would give him more credibility, but it looks like he is going the way of the grifter as well.
Last edited:
Yes I think if he continues to ignore it he basically destroys his own point. If this is really about pilot safety than surely informing pilots of what starlink or other satellites look like is a part of that safety. We don't want pilot's focus to be pulled away from flying the plane when they see lights on the horizon. The longer he ignores it the more it looks like his pilot safety argument is just a veneer.
This also makes me think of the congressional hearing. Part of his statements under oath was about pilots seeing UAPs doing things that looked like 'dog fighting in space' this is a good example of sworn testimony being straight up wrong. But it wasn't perjury because he was only relaying what others told him. Something to keep in mind.
Except no one considered that anomalous activity. He put it out to say this is a report, lets track it and figure it out because there is no centralized way to do so. Notice in the report and with the camera, two things occurred:
1 - The pilot never said there was anomalous movement, the report went into detail that it was a light in the sky that was unknown. Why is that important? Because it clearly shows where there IS anomolous movement and it's not on video, it's not as if most pilots are suddenly tricked by Venus or a satellite. So the reports match up with what is being seen. He didn't say these unknown objects were veering left and right, like in the case below:
Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident - Wikipedia
2 - It shows how poor even the best camera phone is at taking video. This pilot was in the sky, had the best phone at a stable object, and still got virtually no detail out of the scenario. This shows how poor the tracking mechanisms are to actually accurately capture what could be just a prosaic object, much less ones that are more rare and move in unpredictable ways and are only there for seconds/minutes.
On the question about Mick West, the answer is simple: he's disingenuous and acts in bad faith. He takes shots at people like Grusch who come forward, or when radar operators say the videos released in 2017 say the sensors work in a certain way and show heat signatures and tilting in a certain way, that is definitely inside baseball to someone being able to spot an anomalous object - West simply just throws out terrible prosiac explanations. Like seagulls for the Gimbal UAP video. He's not determined to find the truth or even says 'I don't know' - he plainly acts in bad faith.
I think he's done good work with explaining Starlink, flares, or phone bokeh artifacts - but at the same time, no one is saying these are anomalous. They're being put out to the community to identify, which is what Graves is trying to get accomplished. Instead, people like West and others want to say 'Aha gotcha! You're stupid for putting this out here, its obviously Starlink/flares/artifacts.'
The point is to investigate, research, and identify, then ridicule has no place in it. Maybe if West and some others would start to get that, they wouldn't be pointed out for acting in bad faith.
Except no one considered that anomalous activity. He put it out to say this is a report, lets track it and figure it out because there is no centralized way to do so. Notice in the report and with the camera, two things occurred:
1 - The pilot never said there was anomalous movement, the report went into detail that it was a light in the sky that was unknown. Why is that important? Because it clearly shows where there IS anomolous movement and it's not on video, it's not as if most pilots are suddenly tricked by Venus or a satellite. So the reports match up with what is being seen. He didn't say these unknown objects were veering left and right, like in the case below:
Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2 - It shows how poor even the best camera phone is at taking video. This pilot was in the sky, had the best phone at a stable object, and still got virtually no detail out of the scenario. This shows how poor the tracking mechanisms are to actually accurately capture what could be just a prosaic object, much less ones that are more rare and move in unpredictable ways and are only there for seconds/minutes.
On the question about Mick West, the answer is simple: he's disingenuous and acts in bad faith. He takes shots at people like Grusch who come forward, or when radar operators say the videos released in 2017 say the sensors work in a certain way and show heat signatures and tilting in a certain way, that is definitely inside baseball to someone being able to spot an anomalous object - West simply just throws out terrible prosiac explanations. Like seagulls for the Gimbal UAP video. He's not determined to find the truth or even says 'I don't know' - he plainly acts in bad faith.
I think he's done good work with explaining Starlink, flares, or phone bokeh artifacts - but at the same time, no one is saying these are anomalous. They're being put out to the community to identify, which is what Graves is trying to get accomplished. Instead, people like West and others want to say 'Aha gotcha! You're stupid for putting this out here, its obviously Starlink/flares/artifacts.'
The point is to investigate, research, and identify, then ridicule has no place in it. Maybe if West and some others would start to get that, they wouldn't be pointed out for acting in bad faith.
Can you point to instances of this bad behavior?
This is not that same as saying it was anomalous though, he never claimed it was anomalous, he's totally in the clear.
I dislike mocking people during debunk, and that's sadly something that sometimes transpire in some of Mick West content.
But I also dislike the huge amount of reliance on people testimonies, and the usage of the argument from autority to try to put unreasonable value to said testimonies, and to circle back to Mick West, to argue only a xxxx can debunk something said by a xxxx.
Mostly ignoring testimonies is not something done because one does not want to find the truth or act in bad faith, it's something done when you come from the point of view that it's more likely that prosaic explanations which necessitate someone ( even multiple people ) to be wrong ( even if in good faith ) than the more.. technologically/physics breaking explanation where people were right in their recollection and perception of an event.
Also I think it's good to remember that in some case it include debunking not only things left to the community to discuss about ( including mocking the possibility of it.. being starlink ), but even slide shown to Congress, and we circle back to the argument from autority. Because the fact is some of the Congress reaction from said briefings is ultimately used as an argument from autority to say that "well if they think that way after such briefing it must mean when they were shown undeniable evidence", so any debunk showing that maybe, the bar to get shown to congress, might not be that high, is very much of value.
Ultimately I very much think what he does is very much important, and that even people who believe should start from a position of trying to disprove that scenario, to only be left with the actually interesting cases. It would also be nice if fewer people automaticaly assumed that a debunked fake is somehow also the proof a conspiracy because it would be some kind of psy op to discredit other real cases.
But I also dislike the huge amount of reliance on people testimonies, and the usage of the argument from autority to try to put unreasonable value to said testimonies, and to circle back to Mick West, to argue only a xxxx can debunk something said by a xxxx.
Mostly ignoring testimonies is not something done because one does not want to find the truth or act in bad faith, it's something done when you come from the point of view that it's more likely that prosaic explanations which necessitate someone ( even multiple people ) to be wrong ( even if in good faith ) than the more.. technologically/physics breaking explanation where people were right in their recollection and perception of an event.
Also I think it's good to remember that in some case it include debunking not only things left to the community to discuss about ( including mocking the possibility of it.. being starlink ), but even slide shown to Congress, and we circle back to the argument from autority. Because the fact is some of the Congress reaction from said briefings is ultimately used as an argument from autority to say that "well if they think that way after such briefing it must mean when they were shown undeniable evidence", so any debunk showing that maybe, the bar to get shown to congress, might not be that high, is very much of value.
Ultimately I very much think what he does is very much important, and that even people who believe should start from a position of trying to disprove that scenario, to only be left with the actually interesting cases. It would also be nice if fewer people automaticaly assumed that a debunked fake is somehow also the proof a conspiracy because it would be some kind of psy op to discredit other real cases.
"slunk"
don't do that. they could easily all be back here in a moment.
just because people don't want to argue Mick West ad infinitum in this thread.
people actually support him when he's not trying to "one size fits all" one ufo solution for every ufo event. Like now he's saying "all those pilots are seeing starlink" when he finds one pilot possibly seeing Starlink. should only be a case by case thing, but he can't help trying to explain away ufos. They see flying trash, now they see flaring satellites, and maybe SOME are, but you can't just assume that for all.
Last edited:
Well I will agree with you there for the most part. I don't like the Corbell hype machine to put the videos out, and when they were out - everything from the 'pyramid bokeh', to flares, to Starlink - most people didn't think anything was anomalous. The issue a lot of times these camps get brought up, and then it's always gotchas to get to the other side.
The argument from authority/expertise I will agree with that they're not always right, but also the fact is that Mick West isn't qualified to say what is or isn't anomalous on the 2017 videos. It's inside baseball, but he attempted to propose a solution to the anomoly with rudimentary understanding just the same instead of just saying, 'well this is outside of my wheelhouse but it could look like this.'
The world DOES function as an appeal to expertise in everything we do. We can't possibly know the nitty gritty at a small detail to call a spade a spade and a bluff a bluff. Look at mRNA vaccines, there's very few virologists in the world who understand at a mechanical level how they work - and then this leads to people thinking its something nefarious or something rudimentary (ahem, bleach?) could be a cure.
That's the point. If West doesn't know, he doesn't know. I think phone videos of flares, Starlink, and bokeh are definitely in his wheelhouse. When he tries to run his mouth about radar systems in the military and what they really are or aren't showing, it's arrogance. Just as much as anyone explaining to a virologist why they're wrong about their field.
In the end, the goal is to identify and work together to get answers for things, and not try to make a round peg fit in a square hole, just because the answer is simpler to the person attempting to debunk.
OP
OP
Ironicaly that part stood up to me because the biggest instances of appeal to authority I was exposed to was during the pandemic with a 'physician and microbiologist specialising in infectious diseases.", quoting myself from 2-3 years ago from similar threads :
Now I'm not saying that what you describe is a similar case, but I am not sure if it's a good or bad thing.
In Didier Raoult case, people had a study ( and I think ultimately, multiple ) they could analyse to see the mistake they could find in it, which did show that even with limited knowledge, you can ""debunk"" an expert on it's field if they made mistakes. Now obviously anyone can also "fake debunk" something based on bad argument, but just because it can happen does not mean that it can't be done properly too.
So we know non expert can find out mistakes made by an expert if they can produce evidence you can work on. Just because we lack such evidence/element to check the veracity of what they are saying ( for example because of army secrecy not sharing radar info ), should not increase the amount of confidence you have in what they say, or from speculating they might be wrong. It just becomes an evidenceless claim which in turn does not necessitate much to ignore/reject ( Hitchens's razor ).
It's why a good debunker also ask for more transparency, just like the 'other side', they very much want as many 'physical' evidence available as possible to analyse a case.
Last edited:
I wish there were historical records of polls on this topic through the decades, I feel like public sentiment has only grown in favor of disclosure, if only to put an end to the endless speculation and sensationalism
OP
OP
There have been a number of polls throughout the decades, I don't have them all off the top of my head, but the first one was in the 60s. The acceptance that some of UFO/UAP being nonhuman has been increasing steadily throughout the decades.
Here’s Why Gallup Polled Americans About UFOs for the First Time in Decades
If they’re asking about aliens, they must be real.
www.vice.com
Americans Skeptical of UFOs, but Say Government Knows More
While relatively few Americans believe aliens have visited Earth, the majority thinks the government knows more about UFOs than it has said.
news.gallup.com
Larger Minority in U.S. Says Some UFOs Are Alien Spacecraft
Americans regard reports of UFOs less skeptically than they did two years ago. UFO doubters still outnumber believers, but 41% now think some sightings have involved alien visitors.
news.gallup.com
Do Americans Believe in UFOs?
UFOs could be anything from figments of the imagination to cases of mistaken identity to alien spacecraft. Learn what Americans think on the issue.
news.gallup.com
Most Americans believe in intelligent life beyond Earth; few see UFOs as a major national security threat
About two-thirds of Americans (65%) say their best guess is that intelligent life exists on other planets.
www.pewresearch.org
Infographic: More Americans Now Believe in Aliens
This chart shows how an increasing share of U.S. adults believe UFOs are aliens.
www.statista.com
Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Recently, former and current government officials, legislators, and faculty in the United States have called for research on what their government terms Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP, now called Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena). Investigative journalism, military reports, new government...
www.nature.com
How a Harvard Professor Became the World’s Leading Alien Hunter
Avi Loeb’s single-minded search for extraterrestrial life has made him the most famous practicing astronomer in the country — and possibly the most controversial.
a few excerpts
interesting article about Avi Loeb's efforts since 2017
*small point of uh....annoyance. Avi Loeb said the interstellar object may have been a solar sail, which would make it trash. not an alien spaceship. even when the author is trying to be as fair as possible, our human tendency to colloquial extremes pops up in a way that does affect the data being conveyed. And before someone says "spaceship, space trash, what's the difference?" Well one of the theories Avi works with is the idea that intelligent life evolved on Earth late in the relative galactic phase, and that since there are so many potentially habitable planets, intelligent life may have bloomed and travelled the stars long before our planet started evolving life forms.
So the answer to the Fermi Paradox could be that we're surrounded by the remnants of dead civilizations, and Avi has the theory that there might be space junk flying around out there that could find it's way into our solar system. He isn't even the originator, it's an old idea that comes with the common hypothetical conversation space scientists have had in the past. But to talk about this stuff is to apparently be pulled into saying "the aliens are here." or "the spaceships are flying by". At that point you may as well start looking for UFOs.
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/magazine/avi-loeb-alien-hunter.htmlHow a Harvard Professor Became the World’s Leading Alien Hunter
Avi Loeb’s single-minded search for extraterrestrial life has made him the most famous practicing astronomer in the country — and possibly the most controversial.www.nytimes.com
Loeb maintains that looking for alien spacecraft is less speculative than a lot of mainstream science. His go-to foil is fundamental physics. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson particle more than a decade ago, the multibillion-dollar particle colliders that physicists built to find postulated forces and fields have mostly come up empty, and still, Loeb says, scientists believe with quasi-religious faith that if they just build even bigger colliders, their theories will be redeemed.
I heard Science Bob McGwier who used to work at Va Tech and has a lot of interest and experience say that Avi is kind of an egomaniac and treats all his team like grad students that can be bossed around.
One thing I will agree with though is the above. They spend all this money on particle colliders for theories, when things like string theory have no evidence to them - they're just a theory. He does do a good job of explaining scientific dogma often leads to these wild goose chases to prove something, and all he wants is a detection system right here on Earth.
It's a very good point, scientists get funding and build these gigantic colliders or lab grants based off of a theory, and little has come from it. The theory there could be some phenomenon rarely observable outside of personal anecdotes, with more knowledge in government programs, isn't any less worthy of investigation and funding. At least people are giving anecdotal accounts of their experiences, when things like string theory can't ever likely be proven or disproven.
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
Astrophysicist Avi Loeb: ‘UFOs should be the subject of mainstream inquiry. Science must bring clarity’
The Harvard scientist on his search for alien technology, academic jealousy and why we must fund space exploration
www.theguardian.com
OP
OP
China may be to blame for UFOs, says ex-head of Nasa inquiry
Dr Thomas Zurbuchen says unidentified flying objects are real and may be ‘unfriendly’ advanced technology
www.telegraph.co.uk
China may be to blame for UFOs, says ex-head of Nasa inquiry
Dr Thomas Zurbuchen says unidentified flying objects are real and may be ‘unfriendly’ advanced technology
"A recent paper, published in the Journal of Astrobiology asserts that there is evidence of "humanoids, bodies, bones, skulls, UFOs and spacecraft wreckage on Mars"
Really?
OP
OP
OP
OP
Are the images from this paper real? Because if they are.....they seem very convincing that something organic/artificial is on Mars.
The Journal of Astrobiology:
I'm not an expert in such things, but this seems questionable to me:
Locking out NASA from an Astrobiology journal seems paranoid and impractical considering the amount of expertise present and that they are the primary source for many images and data.
I'm not an expert in such things, but this seems questionable to me:
- Unlike all other space-science and astrobiology journals, JOA does not have NASA-government agents serving as "editors" and is therefore completely free of government control.
Locking out NASA from an Astrobiology journal seems paranoid and impractical considering the amount of expertise present and that they are the primary source for many images and data.
Its honestly pretty funny that the telegraph would cite something like this. The paper is just pictures of rocks and then saying its aliens actually. The author is also...interesting. Sued NASA because they weren't taking his ideas seriously. Has his own 'journal' that he post his stuff on so he can say hes published. Thinks evolution by natural selection is bunk. The big bang is fake. Misogyny. Classic crackpot stuff https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rhawn_Joseph
The journal that published this paper is owned by OMICS Publishing Group. The very first hit on google is how they're a predatory publisher. Meaning they'll publish anything if you pay them enough.
From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group
The journal that published this paper is owned by OMICS Publishing Group. The very first hit on google is how they're a predatory publisher. Meaning they'll publish anything if you pay them enough.
From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group
Last edited:
I wouldn't say "funny" because mixing seemingly random quackery with purportedly legitimate attempts at scientific inquiry only makes everything seem like quackery. But I get what you meant. You're reading through the article and all of a sudden "wait, what!?"
OP
OP
He definitely thinks a lot of himself and has quite an ego to think he, or we, would know about it because it would just be super obvious to anyone. And people have come forward, but much of it gets muddled with disinformation or the crazies in the field. Saying the government can't keep a secret when the Manhattan Project happened and a hotel was used as a government nuclear bunker and people who worked there never even knew, is a bit ridiculous.
Not to mention the Church commission in the 70s exposing MKULTRA with illegal use of psychedelics as experiments on unwitting people from the CIA, along with who knows what else since the documentation of other crimes was burned by the CIA.
Make another equivalent to the Church commission, pass laws that state any activities or knowledge of UAPs by government officials or private military contractors is immediately declassified, use subpoena power to bring to a public setting the 40 witnesses that went to David Grusch, and grant amnesty to anyone else who knows anything to testify by a certain date or face prosecution if they broke the law.
Then lets see what comes out.
OP
OP
He can fuck off into the sun for all I care, he's a fucking creep. Also the need to feel to explain away imaginary physics in stuff like star wars sealed his fate as someone entirely less serious than he likes to portray himself as.
OP
OP
Definitely interested in seeing what comes out tomorrow. Also glad he mentioned Grusch venturing too far outside his lane on the physics front. People really latched onto what he said about the possibility of them being from another dimension more than they should.
I can't stand him. He is not even a poor man's Sagan. Just an ass really.
OP
OP
They want to believe: Florida members of Congress seek answers on UFOs
Florida lawmakers led the push for last month's hearing with explosive testimony about alien spacecraft and remains.
www.cityandstatefl.com
Yep... I'm glad that it seems like the media have tired of him and replaced him with Michio Kaku and Brian Cox as the go to scientists.
View: https://twitter.com/IOHK_Charles/status/1696329720965566621
looks like Avi found his space rock
OP
OP
The more I heard this Kirkpatrick talking the more I am convinced he's just another government toy heading a new Project Bluebook. The speach is the same and it always seems that he is no open minded at all and is just there to "solve" the cases by giving them possible explanations, exactly like was done in Bluebook.
I wish someone would ask him hardball questions. Like, Lue Elizondo said there are much more compelling videos during his time at AATIP, why not release them publicly? David Grusch gave a list of witness, programs, and places - have you interviewed those people or got access to those places?
You can't claim to say there's no evidence if there's no access or otherwise not looking into it. This stonewalling and softball questioning isn't getting anything done.
Exactly! How the hell did they not actually ask him about why some photos and videos are still highly classified? That would seriously be one of the first ones I would ask since the high classification has never made any sense to me.
OP
OP
Hicks takes direct oversight of Pentagon’s UAP office; new reporting website to be launched
OP
OP