The following submission statement was provided by /u/Tricky-Display3982:
---
I am all for skepticism and discussion around this topic. But Mick doesn’t do that side any favors when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/mick_west_solves_the_case_dont_worry/ktq439i/
He is very frightened. He has admitted as such. Doesnt make him a good analyst but does make him a nice safety blanket for others who are frightened too. I kinda feel for the guy when he delivers such shit takes its obviously the fear talking.
And in that very short answer he gave, IIRC, he managed to talk about fucking _owls_…
If that doesn’t ring a bell, read “The Messengers: Owls, Synchronicity and the UFO Abductee” by Mike Clelland
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B08J8BSPTC/
He's either delusional and will never admit that he's wrong. Or someone is paying him to constantly put out bs explanations and distractions. But in that case, I'm not sure they are getting their money's worth.
Edit: lol at the down votes. So many fanboys here?
Why wouldn't he admit to being wrong now? He does it constantly. Did something happen over the past couple of days that makes you say that or are you just bsing?
Perhaps, but that's completely irrelevant. What he says has no effect on the validity of what you said, most of which can be refuted with a quick 10 second search. You can both be bsing.
Don’t lie to me and say Mick West brought us Tony Hawk Pro Skater…Maybe Mick West isn’t so bad after all.
He actually brought us Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. Dammit, I have to respect him for that.
Hi, ConsiderationKey1658. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktq6b83/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
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.
Hmm I'm still not sure what it is exactly. It could be a cover story. He's not stupid, he knows that it's better to lie by mostly telling the truth and then changing it a little.
Many kids were afraid of aliens because Hollywood movies put the fear into kids brains while growing up. It's always the evil, ugly alien trying to take over earth even though it makes zero sense 🙄
He could have been afraid as a small kid but then obviously overcame that fear as he got older and instead gained some, let's say generous donors, that motivated him to keep going.
Wasn't it the Center for Inquiry?
I have no problem with him being paid by them to be honest. And I think skepticism is healthy and necessary. But he's not a skeptic. He's a debunker and they are two different things.
In the strict definition of the word, sure.
But a debunker in this context sets out already knowing the answer and then seeks evidence to fit that theory. The trouble with this is:
1. You can cherry pick data to support your claim and ignore data that's harder to explain or that you can't analyse.
2. You won't let the data lead you to the answer, like a more scientific approach would do. Instead you force the data to fit your theory. That's backwards science.
I agree, I suppose Mick could have said he thinks it is most likely one thing, but at the same time state that it could possibly be something else.
Wait a second, that is what he said. Maybe he isnt biased afetr all.
if it were a balloon , then the pentagon would not have classified the footage and refused to let the public see it .
With the Chinese spy balloon last year they showed us footage , the pilot himself took a photo with his phone , that was released to the public .
If this was also a balloon of some sort we would have seen it
Unfortunately, a *lot* of footage of absolutely nothing remains classified just because of the technology the footage was shot on and nothing to do with the footage’s focus. So it’s almost impossible to know whether footage is being withheld because of the content or the filming device.
Right?
If we had 500 spy balloon incursions a year it would be public fucking knowledge and a HUGE HUGE issue in Congress.
Generic plane photos of them would not be classified.
Yet THESE are without exemption.
The problem with the debunker is the faith based zealotry to never consider any evidence ever *against* other evidence or in context. Hundreds of people, multiple planes, ground control, a CARRIER, were involved with Fravor & Dietriches Tic Tac. Multiple Navy people said DOD/IC types came aboard and took a huge amount of data. Tapes or discs were gone from the flight.
That’s a lot of hassle for a SpongeBob balloon or a Chinese lantern.
But to the debunker, they simply need to invent a solution to one small part of an incident, and thus they choose to hand wave off the *entire* incident. Ten men saw a UFO hover overhead for an hour and an EMP pulse like effect seemed to disable vehicles and electronics is reported?
Oh dear, the police report said the ten men had split a bottle of whiskey and two joints. That’s drunk and high enough to eat a whole bag of Doritos. Mass sudden onset alcohol psychosis and marijuana addiction is more reasonable than the rest of their report. Not a more reasonable explanation, no. Just more reasonable to *me.*
Case debunked! Now I shall repeat my remarks verbatim in regard to any challenge. Are you still speaking?
What’s that? Can’t hear new things.
People can mock this line of thinking all they want but it's the correct way of thinking.
To prove something is extraordinary we first need to remove the ordinary, if that can not be done the ordinary is just the most probable conclusion.
It doesn't make it correct but it is the most logical conclusion based on the available evidence.
The only reason people don't understand this or ignore it is because they have the I want to believe bias. That's why they work in reverse and try and shift the burden of evidence to the person or "debunker". People want everything to be a 50/50 chance of being aliens unless someone can prove it isn't which is completely backwards.
It’s not the most logical conclusion based on evidence. There are heaps of data that shows that there is something unexplainable in our skies that defies our known physics and is a common occurrence. Saying balloon every-time and ignoring data, a consistent pattern, and witness testimony is being close minded.
You are falling into the trap of thinking one claim or sighting supports another. All cases need to be looked at independently.
There's heaps of data to show people see things in the air they can't easily explain but there's not heaps of data to support much else.
I understand that the vast majority of sightings are explainable. I’m not claiming that this particular event is undeniably a UAP. I’m claiming there has been consistent patterns of unexplainable sightings, data to back it up, and endless reputable eye witness testimony. So to say something is a balloon with no definitive proof is being intentionally close minded.
UAP data has shown these phenomenons are not rare. So stop acting like it’s scientific to thing they are non existent.
This is why I think debunkers are useless and I say this as a skeptic. They say to not have such an open mind that your brains fall out but these people have such a close mind sometimes that they let no fresh air in and their minds are stale and musty
End of the day what’s most important is having an open minded.
Most ufo claims can be explained by conventional things. I believe the 98/2 ratio to be true. UFO believers need to be more open minded to this fact.
But the serial debunkers are even worse. Just being totally close minded is insanity and does no one any good.
Agreed, and I'd even call myself a hard skeptic, but when you're a debunker like some of these folks are, you've already got the answer and will fit the evidence for your narrative.
And to be clear, as a skeptic, I think the same thing of believers. Opposite side of the same coin.
Sadly the middle ground (keep an open mind, don't jump to conclusions until you have solid evidence) is the least listened to.
I mean, are y'all gonna change your mind on him if it does turn out to be a balloon? "Stationary thing in the sky" is not evidence of aliens. That's just low resolution data. If I made all the cameras in the world take blurry pictures that make it hard to see what they're of, I would not be increasing the likelihood of alien visitation because suddently we have tons of images of what "could" be aliens.
Here is the bar: obvious, multisensor recording of some tech doing super-human things. I.e. it exhibits one or more observables accross multiple high-resolution, multimodal sensors. If you hear something rattling around in the trunk of your car, it could be an alien *for all you know*, i.e. it is more a statement about how much you know given the quality of your data rather than a statement about how likely alien visitation is.
So a stationary floating thing with sophisticated electrical systems? Didn't China just send over one of those? At least we're pretty sure Chinese people exist. We have no strong evidence of any kind of alien life existing at all, let alone the "starionary floating thing" sending kind.
It is also possible that we did shoot it down, or that we don't always try to shoot down balloons, like how we allowed the Chinese Balloon to transit the US before shooting it down. Or, this eyewitness testimony might be mistaken or deceitful, or any of the people between its transcription and dissemination to you could have been mistaken or deceitful. Or, you know, it could be an advanced alien civilization.
Advanced aliens are a sufficient explanation for any phenomenon, but they are a proportionally unparsimonious one. If I see a Frisbee on my roof "aliens put it there" is a possible explanation, but "those kids playing Frisbee earlier probably got it stuck up there" is more parsimonious because we don't need to assert that a completely new thing exists, like a Frisbee cult marking your house for slaughter or, at the extreme end, an entire advanced alien civilization. This is why high-quality, multimodal evidence is so critical. For any given "vague thing floating in the sky doing things humans are capable of" there are few explanations less parsimonious than aliens. Even if we have something doing super-human stunts, there is still the consideration of whether we are wrong about what humans are capable of, aka technological surprise.
...therefore aliens? Are you of the opinion that eye witness reports are infallable and all wars are incited by aliens? If your standard for deciding whether to hit the "aliens" button is "eye witness report of an act of war", why don't you think 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens? "Well, we have very good footage from multiple angles as well as many radar signals of the planes hitting the towers plus detailed records of how the hijacking occurred etc". In other words, because we have high resolution data that excludes aliens as an explanation. This means, the only reason you think it's aliens in this case is because we have no such data. This is the issue: what causes you to posit aliens is a *lack* of data. Rather, you should demand mountains of high resolution data from multiple sources who can't all be wrong or lying to you of things so extraordinary that we are forced to invent an otherworldly explanation. And I'm the naiive one?
What the fuck are you talking about? "All wars incited by aliens?" What? When did I say that? I am talking about multiple highly trained soldiers, all seeing the same thing up-close, all agreeing it's off this world. Your reasoning is straight up delusional. You sound like West. You're fixated on the bullshit that AARO put out, which is the modern day Project Blue Book, completely disregarding the testimony of the eye witnesses. You could say the same shit about The Nimitz incident - just Fravor's and his wingman's words.
I agree that "all acts of war are incited by aliens" is a very unreasonable stance, so why do you think this one was? What evidence was presented that excludes humans from being the owners of this object? It was stationary and jammed radar which are both things humans can do. If it had a big picture of Putin on it, I'm guessing you wouldn't think it's aliens. The fact that it does not should not make you more confident that aliens exist, it should only make you less certain of who the item might might belong to.
Similarly, you should not conclude that a car missing its plates belongs to aliens unless there is positive evidence that it does, like if an alien is driving it. Can aliens make cars? Probably. But so can humans, and we have lots of unambiguous evidence of humans existing in large numbers and making lots of cars on earth. We have no high resolution positive evidence of aliens existing at all, let alone entering the auto business.
Without such evidence, "arbitrarily advanced aliens" is an explanation on par with "magic" or "Vishnu's will". Yes, jamming the radar systems could have been Vishnu's will, but we have other explanations available to us before needing to posit an omnipotent being who is just defined as "sufficient cause for any thing". At least the definition of aliens is mostly circumscribed to "otherworldly sufficient cause of anything we only have blurry pictures of", so in that sense it's marginally better.
Yes, you're right, I have absolutely nothing of substance to say and you overpowered me.
Overpowered with the most generic, uncompelling and non-telling arguments, that every "debunker" and "skeptic" keeps repeating over and over again, that are quite frankly not taken serious by many people these days.
So, brother, you are as obvious as they come, both you and I know what your agenda is here. Therefore I choose to not reply to you anymore, you're simply not worth my time.
Deep down, I am assured that you know that this is wrong. Reflect on yourself and reconsider your decisions.
Hi, waltz0001. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktwfhqi/) 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.
What did you guys decide the jellyfish UAP actually was? I stayed away for two months and missed your conclusion. The last discussions I see are from two months ago so I'm guessing everyone lost interest and moved on?
You're all a bunch of idiots for still paying attention to someone who uses alt accounts to vandalize Wikipedia articles of actual relevant people.
Give Mick West what he wholeheartedly deserves: to be forever forgotten.
Some group made a couple of videos that are over 5 hours long to try to prove it, but never did. I doubt anybody actually watched all 5 hours and are just going by the Title of the videos.
Mick West is a known troll. He got banned on Wiki for using sock accounts to troll religious people.
He also gets paid through a 6 million dollar company called Guerilla Skeptics.
He absolutely deserves to be forgotten about.
Ah, now I get your "bingo"..
Calling it sock puppeting is quite an incorrect use of the term. Simply explaining what happened got his account unbanned immediately, no problems. Why? Because it wasn't sock puppetry.
He's explained the whole situation multiple times, on reddit, twitter and other places. Still, for whatever reason, some people would rather believe some conspiracy youtube videos/twitter messages from people who have no idea how Wikipedia works and don't bother even doing minimal research.
All his edits on Wikipedia are easily viewable. He encourages people to correct them if they're wrong, he lists sources etc. He follows the rules from what I've seen.
What did he post that's wrong? He gave a hypothesis that it could be what's most commonly seen.
Why are people so salty over one guy? It's not stated fact that it's a balloon. Nobody is saying case closed: Balloon.
There's little data to go on...AGAIN. If people get attacked for asking questions. Posting theories or opinions should be encouraged. Not attacked. It's one reason why so many in academia stay away from this subject. Chill out and have a discussion, not a public lynching.
I for one am “salty” because nothing he says would ever be admissible in court, because there is never any foundation to establish he is an expert in literally anything he confidently speaks about. He’s a master of nothing. Except developing video games.
Why are people shocked and outraged by this? This *could* be a balloon unless more data is made public like the photo and more importantly the video. We have almost nothing to go off of but a drawing and a brief summary that omits almost all information about the sighting. That's the whole point of why we should be pressuring the government to make more data on UAP public. Yes the radar jamming is curious, but again, with the data we have, essentially none, how can we prove the radar was jammed by the UAP and not just a random glitch?
Radar jamming has been reported for decades upon decades by countless pilots. The amount of info redacted is telling. Why would a balloon need so much info redacted?
Okay lets speculate.
Lets pretend for a second it wasnt space aliens but instead adversarial spy device. Lets say Chinese.
So what are they doing with it? Theyre sneaking in, and trying to see when theyre spotted. Write time down when the balloon is acted upon and bam, you know exactly how you can sneak in.
Perhaps they have tried it multiple times thru the years, maybe with multiple types of balloons. Cannot say, its all classified after all.
Radar jamming then, why do that? Thats pretty obvious. To see which types of signals the radars use.
It would actually be pretty genius to float balloons over radars to block them and while their blind, attack with other assets which gain from radars being down.
But heres the kicker. The real scoop that relates to UFOs. We know the stories about the radars and how they can track baseball sized objects at 200miles, right?
So how can they operate when theres little Johnny throwing fastballs at every backyard, and floks of birds and all the trash and shit flying around? How can they get any meaningfull data to use for military stuff with the screens filled with shit?
They cant! They have to filter stuff out, with software. Easy peacy. Were tracking bombers and missiles and fighter jets and such war stuff so anything slow can be taken out, right? Right.
See where this is going?
Long story short, balloons can get thru now apparently. Theyre slow, theres like thousands released every day for all kinds of unnefarious purposes so couple in there can go unnoticed.
It doesnt mean the balloons are doing it now to start action. Its just like any military has assets that _can_ be used in action.
I think this, while speculation, doesnt seem that far fetched. All this ofcourse is highly classified from US side ofcourse ofcourse. They wont in million billion years show the world what type of balloon at what speeds can float over their bases willynilly.
And if someone cannot understand that, theyre too far gone for sure.
All this is just speculation ofcourse, it could be these balloons, it could be space aliens, it could be bigfoot flying a kite, who knows.
Funny how mild mannered West is, yet he never fails to make people in here reeeeeeeeeee.
"wtf is this guy's problem!?"
"he's afraid!!!"
"he's getting paid!!!"
Do you hear yourselves? You're behaving exactly how the hardcore skeptics *want* you to behave - cultish.
He simply offered up the possibility of a prosaic explanation. He didn't insult anyone. He didn't assert anything to be true. Calm down and *relax*.
True, Mick never makes absolute statements like this sub is implying. If you actually watched more of his content you would understand that he never eliminates anything from the list of possibilities for every UAP/UFO, all he does is organize his list from most likely to least likely. Is he not allowed to have an opinion? Make your own list instead of crying about it. This sub is literally screeching because there has been nothing yet that has warranted putting "Yep it's aliens guys, no way it could be anything else" at the top of his list. Grow the fuck up.
It's because they have formed a belief and anyone challenging that feels like a personal attack on them.
Plus it's Reddit, people just like to jump on trend trains and it's a trend in this sub to shit on West.
Most of these people probably couldn't even understand any of his breakdown videos, that's why they just resort to hate comments and smart ass remarks instead of actually providing any kind of data driven counter arguments.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I am all for skepticism and discussion around this topic. But Mick doesn’t do that side any favors when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context.
>when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context.
Thats not at all true.
Like him or hate him but hes basically only one in the scene who does, or facilitates, any kind of investigation or analyzation of these things.
Testimony corroborates other recorded data. It shouldn't be entirely discarded, it should be weighted.
Do you know of any balloons that disable multiple military systems?
A radar Jamming system could.
(They are illegal for a citizen to use, so that would mean it's either a testing system of our own. Or it's another countries. Worst case scenario it's from within our own nation "Fear of a 9/11".)
Why do people give this UFO denialist any attention at all? What makes some video game dev who is master of nothing somebody that people want to listen to? It’s such a goddamn curiosity.
We have yet to get a UFO landing or Alien contact on video… so really you have to go with what is it most likely and most likely not … it’s most likely not an Alien in a spaceship. You all need to come back down to reality.
When the earth was believed to be flat by most and sailors were reporting that they believed it was round because the hulls of ships disappearing over the horizon would disappear before the masts did, someone like you popped up and said "it's most likely not that the earth is round," because "most likely" for you was limited to what had been discovered and proven up until your era.
When thousands of sailors reported the same thing, "trickery of the eyes," became the less likely explanation and the earth being round became more likely, despite not being proven.
This is called *evidence*. We determine what is most likely based on the evidence for each case or the collective evidence over time. We do not determine what is most likely based on the lack of *proof,* because everything was unproven at one point, everything.
The evidence in this case (and do not start an argument about evidence just because skeptics struggle to understand the difference between that and proof):
1. A group of pilots reporting an anomalous (meaning unlikely to be a balloon) object that was encountered within 50 feet at least one of their jets, meaning they had a clear view of it.
2. Three Congress members who viewed the image stating that what they saw was "not man-made."
3. The object disabled sensor systems on the aircraft as the pilot approached it, which has been seen in multiple UAP cases going back as far as fighter jets with radar do (1976 Tehran incident, 2004 Nimitz incident, 2023 Alaska shootdown incident, etc.)
4. The military has yet to release footage of it, when Gaetz pointed out that he, on the Armed Services committee, knows those sensors are not classified, and we quickly saw images of the Chinese spy balloon as soon as it was discovered.
The thing is, weren’t the pilots trained military who do this for a profession? Like these are people protecting the country and they can’t identify a balloon? Multiple of them? Seems highly unlikely.
Oh please. As I just commented, West is a master of nothing. He has no foundation to qualify as an expert in what is and is not a balloon, whereas these expert pilots absolutely do.
because it contributes nothing. We **know** it can be balloons. We know it can be anything non-prosaic. But he never takes context into account. I had a back and forth with him on his Jellyfish analysis here on r/ufos and he decided not to continue talking when I called out the approach of cherry picking evidence.
But that's the role of the debunker - focus on the non-prosaic only. One day, occam's razor will cut back.
> We **know** it can be balloons.
Then maybe y'all need to be able to hear someone else say that without hissing and posting dozens of attacks on that person.
He sticks to video and image analysis because that's what he's good at. He stays on his lane, that's something to commend him for, not condemn. He doesn't make truth statements about things he doesn't address.
A couple years ago he had a jet pilot apologize to him, on stream, for being wrong. He's had an ATFLIR technician concede his points. And he literally coded a 3D situation recreation tool called Sitrec that even some of his detractors use. He has done more work than 99% of you.
Even his simple tweet that you all are freaking out over, is needed to counter the people who immediately jump to "OMG NHI!!!!"
>He sticks to video and image analysis because that's what he's good at
That he is, and Sitrec is indeed an excellent tool.
>that's something to commend him for, not condemn
To a point. If you're going to ignore context though, then your debunk is as worthless as someone saying it's an alien spaceship. And that's my problem with his analysis. Again, I went back and forth with him on his Jellyfish UAP analysis and called out his very careful dismissal of wind speed and direction in his video. He casually throws weak corroborating evidence in that proves nothing to come to an end point.
Debunking, for me personally to take it seriously, needs to be stronger with data and conclusions that are testable and repeatable.
And I've written here on the topic of the weakness of witness testimony in the absence of other data. I don't just believe what people say, but that's for both sides.
Simping for either side is weird.
Not simping for Mick, at all. Look at many of the comments here and tell me it isn't reasonable to come to his defense.
And I just checked Mick's analysis on the jellyfish UAP and he does, indeed, talk about wind speed and direction. Were you just lying about that?
>And I just checked Mick's analysis on the jellyfish UAP and he does, indeed, talk about wind speed and direction. Were you just lying about that?
hmmm
>called out his very careful dismissal of wind speed and direction in his video. *He casually throws weak corroborating evidence in that proves nothing to come to an end point*.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Feel free to follow along here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1arrqjn/what\_do\_you\_think\_of\_mick\_west\_and\_his\_debunkings/kqsqxnf/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1arrqjn/what_do_you_think_of_mick_west_and_his_debunkings/kqsqxnf/?context=8&depth=9)
My argument with him was specifically on this point (timestamped) and emphasis mine:
[https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?t=128](https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?t=128)
>"in the video we briefly see a flag fluttering in the wind. Isolating it, we can see that it is blowing to the left, to the West in the same direction the object is traveling, *consistent with that object being a balloon*"
An object travelling in the same direction *absolutely isn't* consistent with it being a balloon. What sort of logic is that? It just means they're going in the same(ish) direction (and btw, you can't prove it's the same direction, because an object going W vs SW would look very similar here, and therefore the object would not be going in the same direction as the wind.. it's a rough guess and as good as any believer saying it's aliens)
But there's more detail in the thread I linked to.
Finally, his last comment on my discussion with him:
>It just fits a balloon-like entity. That does not prove anything.
Of course, we know that. Even skeptics like me know that. So what's the point of the contribution? To remind everyone? Okay then, thanks for the reminder.
>An object travelling in the same direction absolutely isn't consistent with it being a balloon.
Excuse me, *what*? How is the object travelling in the same direction as the flag (blown by the wind) *not* consistent with a balloon? Are balloons immune to wind power?
>It just means they're going in the same(is) direction
Yeah... the flag is being blown west by the wind, so it makes sense a balloon would also be blown west... are *you* being intentionally obtuse?
>and btw, you can't prove it's the same direction
Again, Mick isn't saying he is 100% right. He is offering up prosaic possibilities.
>Of course, we know that. Even skeptics like me know that. So what's the point of the contribution? To remind everyone?
Uh, yeah. Look at the insanity that goes on in this sub - simple reminders are clearly needed.
And you have acknowledged that he has done more than that. Sitrec itself is a great singular achievement, I'd love to see a believer put in that kind of work.
You missed the point. He doesn't know the direction the wind is moving besides something *general.* He sees a flag moving left to right, he sees an object moving left to right, and thinks correlation = causation. Like I said, which people seem to ignore.... if the object is moving WEST, and the wind is blowing SOUTH WEST, you've got an anomaly, and the very fact that this is possible means going to a conclusion either way is stupid.
(edited clarity on object vs wind)
Context is what surrounds a statement and gives meaning to it. You're clearly ignoring the context around what you just said. You're cherry-picking what to pull from his overall statement just like he cherry-picks what to pull from each case he analyzes to fit his agenda.
oh, so this is the ufo fearing batman? lol, I thought it was mike\* ...
Yes, Mick.. it's a Balloon this time.
Get's downvotes! lol, what a guy can't cheer someone up?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b885yc/how\_to\_spot\_an\_idiot/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b885yc/how_to_spot_an_idiot/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
At least, Mick is trying to provide some comfort to sanity. Rather it's for himself, or other people who are afraid of UFO's doesn't matter to me. I'll give him some credit, as he did help develop some games, and that is a signature of intelligence. Not all UFO's can be explained by rudimentary physics. It's only when we look at speeds do they sometimes ignore the known boundaries of human comprehension. Beyond this synapsis of commonality, UFO's are often known to break rules. Cases where they can pass through solid objects like this: [https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/close-encounters/ufo-home-invasion-ufo-orbs](https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/close-encounters/ufo-home-invasion-ufo-orbs) Where one flew through a woman's house cannot be explained so easily.
Or this case: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ufo-splits-two-before-mysteriously-30796479](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ufo-splits-two-before-mysteriously-30796479) Where the object splits itself into two.
"How can you be in two places at once?"
Stay vigilant.
It's also impossible to rule it was just \[insert literally anything that *could* be in the sky at any point in time\].
What is it with this guy and balloons? Why does he promote balloon to his top spot despite not having any evidence of anything? Wouldn't a more honest approach be to say "I don't know" and leave it at that?
I know all the Captain Logics out there think he's fighting a valiant battle against the ignorant hordes of tin-foil hatted nutters but he's really not.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I fucking can't wait till the reverse engineering stuff actually comes out and this MF is jobless because his obnoxious ego prevents him from actually expanding his "explaining" onto anything else than drones and balloons.
You'll be glad to know then that he's been pretty much jobless for quite a few years now.
At least since he sold his company, Neversoft, to Activision for millions of dollars.
It's more of a hobby of his, it seems, to search for legit videos, which seems there are none of.. yet.
Hi, Total-Amphibian-7398. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktru19e/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
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.
Why do you guys keep giving him attention? If you don’t mention him or post, he goes away. Let him sit in speculation land, he’s entitled to his freedom of thoughts. But I sure as hell don’t listen or pay attention to him.
I don't understand Mick at this point, why not just say you don't know what it is either and leave it at that, instead he throws the balloon label on just about everything that has some credibility to it, like this one here, he would never even talk about it otherwise. This is a problem thats been brought up by guests on his show and he even admits its a problem of his, but he keeps doing it. I get what he's saying, that alien life is last on his list of explanations, but there is more going on here than just balloons, come on Mick... He doesn't even want to entertain the idea of breakthrough technology, that everything is just balloons or something insignificant.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
>I keep forgetting he is not american
He's a US citizen. And along with our other successful exports of James Corden and Prince Harry, you can keep him.
Man... we really need to get these Rogue Balloon Nations under control. People worry about AI and WW3 but really the fate of mankind rests on the Balloon invasion. Thank goodness we have warriors like Mr. West fighting the war against anomalous balloons.
:P
Whats your definition of a failed software developer? He founded (and later sold) Neversoft which has some of the most popular game franchises in the world under its belt. I think most would call that quite the opposite of a failure.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Tricky-Display3982: --- I am all for skepticism and discussion around this topic. But Mick doesn’t do that side any favors when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/mick_west_solves_the_case_dont_worry/ktq439i/
Radar jamming balloons!
*slaps balloon* you won't believe the range this baby has on disabling fuses in a fighter jet!
This is the meme I’m here for
What is the "new Elgin UFO". Is there a vid?
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/air-force-releases-details-about-2023-uap-sighting-first-brought-to-light-by-congressman-matt-gaetz/
Wow, thank you for the link!
What the fuck is this guy's problem?
He is very frightened. He has admitted as such. Doesnt make him a good analyst but does make him a nice safety blanket for others who are frightened too. I kinda feel for the guy when he delivers such shit takes its obviously the fear talking.
[удалено]
And in that very short answer he gave, IIRC, he managed to talk about fucking _owls_… If that doesn’t ring a bell, read “The Messengers: Owls, Synchronicity and the UFO Abductee” by Mike Clelland https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B08J8BSPTC/
lol guy was abducted as a child and wants to prove to himself it wasn't real
Mick is coping. He is replaceable by a script that calls everything a balloon.
The small part that is valuable is, he posts the pictures and people can't unsee the pictures.
> He is very frightened. He has admitted as such. [No, that's a quote from his book taken out of context](https://youtu.be/_6nURxJfdaM?t=5551).
He's either delusional and will never admit that he's wrong. Or someone is paying him to constantly put out bs explanations and distractions. But in that case, I'm not sure they are getting their money's worth. Edit: lol at the down votes. So many fanboys here?
Why wouldn't he admit to being wrong now? He does it constantly. Did something happen over the past couple of days that makes you say that or are you just bsing?
Me bsing? I'm not the one claiming that UAP recorded on military equipment are actually swamp gas, seagulls and raccoons 😂
Perhaps, but that's completely irrelevant. What he says has no effect on the validity of what you said, most of which can be refuted with a quick 10 second search. You can both be bsing.
He said, quite literally straight faced, that the leaked military videos just show **commercial aircraft**. Clown of a dude.
[удалено]
Don’t lie to me and say Mick West brought us Tony Hawk Pro Skater…Maybe Mick West isn’t so bad after all. He actually brought us Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. Dammit, I have to respect him for that.
Hi, ConsiderationKey1658. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktq6b83/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. 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.
Hmm I'm still not sure what it is exactly. It could be a cover story. He's not stupid, he knows that it's better to lie by mostly telling the truth and then changing it a little. Many kids were afraid of aliens because Hollywood movies put the fear into kids brains while growing up. It's always the evil, ugly alien trying to take over earth even though it makes zero sense 🙄 He could have been afraid as a small kid but then obviously overcame that fear as he got older and instead gained some, let's say generous donors, that motivated him to keep going.
He’s being paid. I will try to locate which company he’s working for some sceptics sociality
Wasn't it the Center for Inquiry? I have no problem with him being paid by them to be honest. And I think skepticism is healthy and necessary. But he's not a skeptic. He's a debunker and they are two different things.
What's a debunker? isn't the removal of bunk a good thing?
In the strict definition of the word, sure. But a debunker in this context sets out already knowing the answer and then seeks evidence to fit that theory. The trouble with this is: 1. You can cherry pick data to support your claim and ignore data that's harder to explain or that you can't analyse. 2. You won't let the data lead you to the answer, like a more scientific approach would do. Instead you force the data to fit your theory. That's backwards science.
It just has to be done in a balanced way. Being biased isn't how we do science anymore.
I agree, I suppose Mick could have said he thinks it is most likely one thing, but at the same time state that it could possibly be something else. Wait a second, that is what he said. Maybe he isnt biased afetr all.
I think you have to ask yourself if you're coming to a conclusion before you've seen that data or not.
He’s a denialist.
Bullshit
if it were a balloon , then the pentagon would not have classified the footage and refused to let the public see it . With the Chinese spy balloon last year they showed us footage , the pilot himself took a photo with his phone , that was released to the public . If this was also a balloon of some sort we would have seen it
Unfortunately, a *lot* of footage of absolutely nothing remains classified just because of the technology the footage was shot on and nothing to do with the footage’s focus. So it’s almost impossible to know whether footage is being withheld because of the content or the filming device.
Right? If we had 500 spy balloon incursions a year it would be public fucking knowledge and a HUGE HUGE issue in Congress. Generic plane photos of them would not be classified. Yet THESE are without exemption. The problem with the debunker is the faith based zealotry to never consider any evidence ever *against* other evidence or in context. Hundreds of people, multiple planes, ground control, a CARRIER, were involved with Fravor & Dietriches Tic Tac. Multiple Navy people said DOD/IC types came aboard and took a huge amount of data. Tapes or discs were gone from the flight. That’s a lot of hassle for a SpongeBob balloon or a Chinese lantern. But to the debunker, they simply need to invent a solution to one small part of an incident, and thus they choose to hand wave off the *entire* incident. Ten men saw a UFO hover overhead for an hour and an EMP pulse like effect seemed to disable vehicles and electronics is reported? Oh dear, the police report said the ten men had split a bottle of whiskey and two joints. That’s drunk and high enough to eat a whole bag of Doritos. Mass sudden onset alcohol psychosis and marijuana addiction is more reasonable than the rest of their report. Not a more reasonable explanation, no. Just more reasonable to *me.* Case debunked! Now I shall repeat my remarks verbatim in regard to any challenge. Are you still speaking? What’s that? Can’t hear new things.
Could be. Balloon floated by and threw my circuit breaker the other day and couldn't get it back on til it popped.
You popped it with a missile, right?
People can mock this line of thinking all they want but it's the correct way of thinking. To prove something is extraordinary we first need to remove the ordinary, if that can not be done the ordinary is just the most probable conclusion. It doesn't make it correct but it is the most logical conclusion based on the available evidence. The only reason people don't understand this or ignore it is because they have the I want to believe bias. That's why they work in reverse and try and shift the burden of evidence to the person or "debunker". People want everything to be a 50/50 chance of being aliens unless someone can prove it isn't which is completely backwards.
It’s not the most logical conclusion based on evidence. There are heaps of data that shows that there is something unexplainable in our skies that defies our known physics and is a common occurrence. Saying balloon every-time and ignoring data, a consistent pattern, and witness testimony is being close minded.
You are falling into the trap of thinking one claim or sighting supports another. All cases need to be looked at independently. There's heaps of data to show people see things in the air they can't easily explain but there's not heaps of data to support much else.
I understand that the vast majority of sightings are explainable. I’m not claiming that this particular event is undeniably a UAP. I’m claiming there has been consistent patterns of unexplainable sightings, data to back it up, and endless reputable eye witness testimony. So to say something is a balloon with no definitive proof is being intentionally close minded. UAP data has shown these phenomenons are not rare. So stop acting like it’s scientific to thing they are non existent.
He's not saying it's definitely a balloon he's just saying it's the most likely option based on the available data.
I know what he’s saying. I know what he always say, despite the hard data. It’s lazy and quite frankly suspicious.
This is why I think debunkers are useless and I say this as a skeptic. They say to not have such an open mind that your brains fall out but these people have such a close mind sometimes that they let no fresh air in and their minds are stale and musty
End of the day what’s most important is having an open minded. Most ufo claims can be explained by conventional things. I believe the 98/2 ratio to be true. UFO believers need to be more open minded to this fact. But the serial debunkers are even worse. Just being totally close minded is insanity and does no one any good.
Agreed, and I'd even call myself a hard skeptic, but when you're a debunker like some of these folks are, you've already got the answer and will fit the evidence for your narrative. And to be clear, as a skeptic, I think the same thing of believers. Opposite side of the same coin. Sadly the middle ground (keep an open mind, don't jump to conclusions until you have solid evidence) is the least listened to.
I mean, are y'all gonna change your mind on him if it does turn out to be a balloon? "Stationary thing in the sky" is not evidence of aliens. That's just low resolution data. If I made all the cameras in the world take blurry pictures that make it hard to see what they're of, I would not be increasing the likelihood of alien visitation because suddently we have tons of images of what "could" be aliens. Here is the bar: obvious, multisensor recording of some tech doing super-human things. I.e. it exhibits one or more observables accross multiple high-resolution, multimodal sensors. If you hear something rattling around in the trunk of your car, it could be an alien *for all you know*, i.e. it is more a statement about how much you know given the quality of your data rather than a statement about how likely alien visitation is.
it literally jammed their systems for hours
So a stationary floating thing with sophisticated electrical systems? Didn't China just send over one of those? At least we're pretty sure Chinese people exist. We have no strong evidence of any kind of alien life existing at all, let alone the "starionary floating thing" sending kind.
And you think they wouldn't bother to shoot it down? Jammimg is an act of war.
It is also possible that we did shoot it down, or that we don't always try to shoot down balloons, like how we allowed the Chinese Balloon to transit the US before shooting it down. Or, this eyewitness testimony might be mistaken or deceitful, or any of the people between its transcription and dissemination to you could have been mistaken or deceitful. Or, you know, it could be an advanced alien civilization. Advanced aliens are a sufficient explanation for any phenomenon, but they are a proportionally unparsimonious one. If I see a Frisbee on my roof "aliens put it there" is a possible explanation, but "those kids playing Frisbee earlier probably got it stuck up there" is more parsimonious because we don't need to assert that a completely new thing exists, like a Frisbee cult marking your house for slaughter or, at the extreme end, an entire advanced alien civilization. This is why high-quality, multimodal evidence is so critical. For any given "vague thing floating in the sky doing things humans are capable of" there are few explanations less parsimonious than aliens. Even if we have something doing super-human stunts, there is still the consideration of whether we are wrong about what humans are capable of, aka technological surprise.
[удалено]
...therefore aliens? Are you of the opinion that eye witness reports are infallable and all wars are incited by aliens? If your standard for deciding whether to hit the "aliens" button is "eye witness report of an act of war", why don't you think 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens? "Well, we have very good footage from multiple angles as well as many radar signals of the planes hitting the towers plus detailed records of how the hijacking occurred etc". In other words, because we have high resolution data that excludes aliens as an explanation. This means, the only reason you think it's aliens in this case is because we have no such data. This is the issue: what causes you to posit aliens is a *lack* of data. Rather, you should demand mountains of high resolution data from multiple sources who can't all be wrong or lying to you of things so extraordinary that we are forced to invent an otherworldly explanation. And I'm the naiive one?
What the fuck are you talking about? "All wars incited by aliens?" What? When did I say that? I am talking about multiple highly trained soldiers, all seeing the same thing up-close, all agreeing it's off this world. Your reasoning is straight up delusional. You sound like West. You're fixated on the bullshit that AARO put out, which is the modern day Project Blue Book, completely disregarding the testimony of the eye witnesses. You could say the same shit about The Nimitz incident - just Fravor's and his wingman's words.
I agree that "all acts of war are incited by aliens" is a very unreasonable stance, so why do you think this one was? What evidence was presented that excludes humans from being the owners of this object? It was stationary and jammed radar which are both things humans can do. If it had a big picture of Putin on it, I'm guessing you wouldn't think it's aliens. The fact that it does not should not make you more confident that aliens exist, it should only make you less certain of who the item might might belong to. Similarly, you should not conclude that a car missing its plates belongs to aliens unless there is positive evidence that it does, like if an alien is driving it. Can aliens make cars? Probably. But so can humans, and we have lots of unambiguous evidence of humans existing in large numbers and making lots of cars on earth. We have no high resolution positive evidence of aliens existing at all, let alone entering the auto business. Without such evidence, "arbitrarily advanced aliens" is an explanation on par with "magic" or "Vishnu's will". Yes, jamming the radar systems could have been Vishnu's will, but we have other explanations available to us before needing to posit an omnipotent being who is just defined as "sufficient cause for any thing". At least the definition of aliens is mostly circumscribed to "otherworldly sufficient cause of anything we only have blurry pictures of", so in that sense it's marginally better.
Yes, you're right, I have absolutely nothing of substance to say and you overpowered me. Overpowered with the most generic, uncompelling and non-telling arguments, that every "debunker" and "skeptic" keeps repeating over and over again, that are quite frankly not taken serious by many people these days. So, brother, you are as obvious as they come, both you and I know what your agenda is here. Therefore I choose to not reply to you anymore, you're simply not worth my time. Deep down, I am assured that you know that this is wrong. Reflect on yourself and reconsider your decisions.
Hi, waltz0001. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktwfhqi/) 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.
What did you guys decide the jellyfish UAP actually was? I stayed away for two months and missed your conclusion. The last discussions I see are from two months ago so I'm guessing everyone lost interest and moved on?
So nothing?
> without actually analyzing the data in context. Can you put the data in context for us please?
You're all a bunch of idiots for still paying attention to someone who uses alt accounts to vandalize Wikipedia articles of actual relevant people. Give Mick West what he wholeheartedly deserves: to be forever forgotten.
>uses alt accounts to vandalize Wikipedia How do you know he uses alt accounts to vandalize Wikipedia?
Some group made a couple of videos that are over 5 hours long to try to prove it, but never did. I doubt anybody actually watched all 5 hours and are just going by the Title of the videos.
Did you?
Bingo
Why bingo? That guy obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Spreading misinformation shouldn't be encouraged I think.
Mick West is a known troll. He got banned on Wiki for using sock accounts to troll religious people. He also gets paid through a 6 million dollar company called Guerilla Skeptics. He absolutely deserves to be forgotten about.
Ah, now I get your "bingo".. Calling it sock puppeting is quite an incorrect use of the term. Simply explaining what happened got his account unbanned immediately, no problems. Why? Because it wasn't sock puppetry. He's explained the whole situation multiple times, on reddit, twitter and other places. Still, for whatever reason, some people would rather believe some conspiracy youtube videos/twitter messages from people who have no idea how Wikipedia works and don't bother even doing minimal research. All his edits on Wikipedia are easily viewable. He encourages people to correct them if they're wrong, he lists sources etc. He follows the rules from what I've seen.
What did he post that's wrong? He gave a hypothesis that it could be what's most commonly seen. Why are people so salty over one guy? It's not stated fact that it's a balloon. Nobody is saying case closed: Balloon. There's little data to go on...AGAIN. If people get attacked for asking questions. Posting theories or opinions should be encouraged. Not attacked. It's one reason why so many in academia stay away from this subject. Chill out and have a discussion, not a public lynching.
I for one am “salty” because nothing he says would ever be admissible in court, because there is never any foundation to establish he is an expert in literally anything he confidently speaks about. He’s a master of nothing. Except developing video games.
Why are people shocked and outraged by this? This *could* be a balloon unless more data is made public like the photo and more importantly the video. We have almost nothing to go off of but a drawing and a brief summary that omits almost all information about the sighting. That's the whole point of why we should be pressuring the government to make more data on UAP public. Yes the radar jamming is curious, but again, with the data we have, essentially none, how can we prove the radar was jammed by the UAP and not just a random glitch?
Radar jamming has been reported for decades upon decades by countless pilots. The amount of info redacted is telling. Why would a balloon need so much info redacted?
Okay lets speculate. Lets pretend for a second it wasnt space aliens but instead adversarial spy device. Lets say Chinese. So what are they doing with it? Theyre sneaking in, and trying to see when theyre spotted. Write time down when the balloon is acted upon and bam, you know exactly how you can sneak in. Perhaps they have tried it multiple times thru the years, maybe with multiple types of balloons. Cannot say, its all classified after all. Radar jamming then, why do that? Thats pretty obvious. To see which types of signals the radars use. It would actually be pretty genius to float balloons over radars to block them and while their blind, attack with other assets which gain from radars being down. But heres the kicker. The real scoop that relates to UFOs. We know the stories about the radars and how they can track baseball sized objects at 200miles, right? So how can they operate when theres little Johnny throwing fastballs at every backyard, and floks of birds and all the trash and shit flying around? How can they get any meaningfull data to use for military stuff with the screens filled with shit? They cant! They have to filter stuff out, with software. Easy peacy. Were tracking bombers and missiles and fighter jets and such war stuff so anything slow can be taken out, right? Right. See where this is going? Long story short, balloons can get thru now apparently. Theyre slow, theres like thousands released every day for all kinds of unnefarious purposes so couple in there can go unnoticed. It doesnt mean the balloons are doing it now to start action. Its just like any military has assets that _can_ be used in action. I think this, while speculation, doesnt seem that far fetched. All this ofcourse is highly classified from US side ofcourse ofcourse. They wont in million billion years show the world what type of balloon at what speeds can float over their bases willynilly. And if someone cannot understand that, theyre too far gone for sure. All this is just speculation ofcourse, it could be these balloons, it could be space aliens, it could be bigfoot flying a kite, who knows.
Funny how mild mannered West is, yet he never fails to make people in here reeeeeeeeeee. "wtf is this guy's problem!?" "he's afraid!!!" "he's getting paid!!!" Do you hear yourselves? You're behaving exactly how the hardcore skeptics *want* you to behave - cultish. He simply offered up the possibility of a prosaic explanation. He didn't insult anyone. He didn't assert anything to be true. Calm down and *relax*.
True, Mick never makes absolute statements like this sub is implying. If you actually watched more of his content you would understand that he never eliminates anything from the list of possibilities for every UAP/UFO, all he does is organize his list from most likely to least likely. Is he not allowed to have an opinion? Make your own list instead of crying about it. This sub is literally screeching because there has been nothing yet that has warranted putting "Yep it's aliens guys, no way it could be anything else" at the top of his list. Grow the fuck up.
Yeah lol. Don’t know why they take it so personally
It's because they have formed a belief and anyone challenging that feels like a personal attack on them. Plus it's Reddit, people just like to jump on trend trains and it's a trend in this sub to shit on West. Most of these people probably couldn't even understand any of his breakdown videos, that's why they just resort to hate comments and smart ass remarks instead of actually providing any kind of data driven counter arguments.
Yup, they're only making him more famous too, lol. Mick's audience *love* the effect he has on these people.
[удалено]
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed. Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
he says it might be an alien spaceship. Don't you believe him?
I am all for skepticism and discussion around this topic. But Mick doesn’t do that side any favors when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context.
What is the context?
>when he just dismisses everything without actually analyzing the data in context. Thats not at all true. Like him or hate him but hes basically only one in the scene who does, or facilitates, any kind of investigation or analyzation of these things.
What "data" is being ignored? If you tell me testimony, I swear to god...
Testimony corroborates other recorded data. It shouldn't be entirely discarded, it should be weighted. Do you know of any balloons that disable multiple military systems?
A radar Jamming system could. (They are illegal for a citizen to use, so that would mean it's either a testing system of our own. Or it's another countries. Worst case scenario it's from within our own nation "Fear of a 9/11".)
Why do people give this UFO denialist any attention at all? What makes some video game dev who is master of nothing somebody that people want to listen to? It’s such a goddamn curiosity.
We have yet to get a UFO landing or Alien contact on video… so really you have to go with what is it most likely and most likely not … it’s most likely not an Alien in a spaceship. You all need to come back down to reality.
When the earth was believed to be flat by most and sailors were reporting that they believed it was round because the hulls of ships disappearing over the horizon would disappear before the masts did, someone like you popped up and said "it's most likely not that the earth is round," because "most likely" for you was limited to what had been discovered and proven up until your era. When thousands of sailors reported the same thing, "trickery of the eyes," became the less likely explanation and the earth being round became more likely, despite not being proven. This is called *evidence*. We determine what is most likely based on the evidence for each case or the collective evidence over time. We do not determine what is most likely based on the lack of *proof,* because everything was unproven at one point, everything. The evidence in this case (and do not start an argument about evidence just because skeptics struggle to understand the difference between that and proof): 1. A group of pilots reporting an anomalous (meaning unlikely to be a balloon) object that was encountered within 50 feet at least one of their jets, meaning they had a clear view of it. 2. Three Congress members who viewed the image stating that what they saw was "not man-made." 3. The object disabled sensor systems on the aircraft as the pilot approached it, which has been seen in multiple UAP cases going back as far as fighter jets with radar do (1976 Tehran incident, 2004 Nimitz incident, 2023 Alaska shootdown incident, etc.) 4. The military has yet to release footage of it, when Gaetz pointed out that he, on the Armed Services committee, knows those sensors are not classified, and we quickly saw images of the Chinese spy balloon as soon as it was discovered.
"Breaking! Mick West declares craft could be an alien spaceship!" FTFY
The thing is, weren’t the pilots trained military who do this for a profession? Like these are people protecting the country and they can’t identify a balloon? Multiple of them? Seems highly unlikely.
People don't make mistakes?
Oh please. As I just commented, West is a master of nothing. He has no foundation to qualify as an expert in what is and is not a balloon, whereas these expert pilots absolutely do.
Don't you know mick is more qualified then those people! Or at least that's what he wants you to believe
Fuck this guy always trying to figure out what UFO's are..Like why
Believe it or not, some people are interested to know what they are. Its allright not be, completely, dont get me wrong.
I remember seeing his b&w mug on metabunk years ago, I can't recall what for. Maybe 9-11 or Iraq war stuff?
Metabunk is Wests forum.
This guy is one of the worst data analysts I have ever seen.
Don't post this shit here. He doesn't need any attention and only has purpose if you give him any.
West says "it might also be an alien spaceship" yet gets attacked at r/ufos 💁
Don’t simp for him, it’s cringe. That’s not what he’s saying and you know it
How is he mistaken in saying that "balloons cannot be ruled out" if there was no measured airspeed? Are you saying balloons *can* be ruled out?
because it contributes nothing. We **know** it can be balloons. We know it can be anything non-prosaic. But he never takes context into account. I had a back and forth with him on his Jellyfish analysis here on r/ufos and he decided not to continue talking when I called out the approach of cherry picking evidence. But that's the role of the debunker - focus on the non-prosaic only. One day, occam's razor will cut back.
> We **know** it can be balloons. Then maybe y'all need to be able to hear someone else say that without hissing and posting dozens of attacks on that person.
He sticks to video and image analysis because that's what he's good at. He stays on his lane, that's something to commend him for, not condemn. He doesn't make truth statements about things he doesn't address. A couple years ago he had a jet pilot apologize to him, on stream, for being wrong. He's had an ATFLIR technician concede his points. And he literally coded a 3D situation recreation tool called Sitrec that even some of his detractors use. He has done more work than 99% of you. Even his simple tweet that you all are freaking out over, is needed to counter the people who immediately jump to "OMG NHI!!!!"
>He sticks to video and image analysis because that's what he's good at That he is, and Sitrec is indeed an excellent tool. >that's something to commend him for, not condemn To a point. If you're going to ignore context though, then your debunk is as worthless as someone saying it's an alien spaceship. And that's my problem with his analysis. Again, I went back and forth with him on his Jellyfish UAP analysis and called out his very careful dismissal of wind speed and direction in his video. He casually throws weak corroborating evidence in that proves nothing to come to an end point. Debunking, for me personally to take it seriously, needs to be stronger with data and conclusions that are testable and repeatable. And I've written here on the topic of the weakness of witness testimony in the absence of other data. I don't just believe what people say, but that's for both sides. Simping for either side is weird.
Not simping for Mick, at all. Look at many of the comments here and tell me it isn't reasonable to come to his defense. And I just checked Mick's analysis on the jellyfish UAP and he does, indeed, talk about wind speed and direction. Were you just lying about that?
>And I just checked Mick's analysis on the jellyfish UAP and he does, indeed, talk about wind speed and direction. Were you just lying about that? hmmm >called out his very careful dismissal of wind speed and direction in his video. *He casually throws weak corroborating evidence in that proves nothing to come to an end point*. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Feel free to follow along here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1arrqjn/what\_do\_you\_think\_of\_mick\_west\_and\_his\_debunkings/kqsqxnf/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1arrqjn/what_do_you_think_of_mick_west_and_his_debunkings/kqsqxnf/?context=8&depth=9) My argument with him was specifically on this point (timestamped) and emphasis mine: [https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?t=128](https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?t=128) >"in the video we briefly see a flag fluttering in the wind. Isolating it, we can see that it is blowing to the left, to the West in the same direction the object is traveling, *consistent with that object being a balloon*" An object travelling in the same direction *absolutely isn't* consistent with it being a balloon. What sort of logic is that? It just means they're going in the same(ish) direction (and btw, you can't prove it's the same direction, because an object going W vs SW would look very similar here, and therefore the object would not be going in the same direction as the wind.. it's a rough guess and as good as any believer saying it's aliens) But there's more detail in the thread I linked to. Finally, his last comment on my discussion with him: >It just fits a balloon-like entity. That does not prove anything. Of course, we know that. Even skeptics like me know that. So what's the point of the contribution? To remind everyone? Okay then, thanks for the reminder.
>An object travelling in the same direction absolutely isn't consistent with it being a balloon. Excuse me, *what*? How is the object travelling in the same direction as the flag (blown by the wind) *not* consistent with a balloon? Are balloons immune to wind power? >It just means they're going in the same(is) direction Yeah... the flag is being blown west by the wind, so it makes sense a balloon would also be blown west... are *you* being intentionally obtuse? >and btw, you can't prove it's the same direction Again, Mick isn't saying he is 100% right. He is offering up prosaic possibilities. >Of course, we know that. Even skeptics like me know that. So what's the point of the contribution? To remind everyone? Uh, yeah. Look at the insanity that goes on in this sub - simple reminders are clearly needed. And you have acknowledged that he has done more than that. Sitrec itself is a great singular achievement, I'd love to see a believer put in that kind of work.
You missed the point. He doesn't know the direction the wind is moving besides something *general.* He sees a flag moving left to right, he sees an object moving left to right, and thinks correlation = causation. Like I said, which people seem to ignore.... if the object is moving WEST, and the wind is blowing SOUTH WEST, you've got an anomaly, and the very fact that this is possible means going to a conclusion either way is stupid. (edited clarity on object vs wind)
Saying it might be an alien spaceship and in the next sentence saying but I think it’s a balloon is idiotic.
Being open to multiple possibilities is idiotic?
Context is what surrounds a statement and gives meaning to it. You're clearly ignoring the context around what you just said. You're cherry-picking what to pull from his overall statement just like he cherry-picks what to pull from each case he analyzes to fit his agenda.
Back to balloons huh? I’m surprised he didn’t think it was a glass greenhouse.
oh, so this is the ufo fearing batman? lol, I thought it was mike\* ... Yes, Mick.. it's a Balloon this time. Get's downvotes! lol, what a guy can't cheer someone up? [https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b885yc/how\_to\_spot\_an\_idiot/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b885yc/how_to_spot_an_idiot/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) At least, Mick is trying to provide some comfort to sanity. Rather it's for himself, or other people who are afraid of UFO's doesn't matter to me. I'll give him some credit, as he did help develop some games, and that is a signature of intelligence. Not all UFO's can be explained by rudimentary physics. It's only when we look at speeds do they sometimes ignore the known boundaries of human comprehension. Beyond this synapsis of commonality, UFO's are often known to break rules. Cases where they can pass through solid objects like this: [https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/close-encounters/ufo-home-invasion-ufo-orbs](https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/close-encounters/ufo-home-invasion-ufo-orbs) Where one flew through a woman's house cannot be explained so easily. Or this case: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ufo-splits-two-before-mysteriously-30796479](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ufo-splits-two-before-mysteriously-30796479) Where the object splits itself into two. "How can you be in two places at once?" Stay vigilant.
Well at least he has moved on from a seagull
don't you just love when a balloon jams your most advanced shit for hours?
looks like my toddlers dehumidifier
It's also impossible to rule it was just \[insert literally anything that *could* be in the sky at any point in time\]. What is it with this guy and balloons? Why does he promote balloon to his top spot despite not having any evidence of anything? Wouldn't a more honest approach be to say "I don't know" and leave it at that? I know all the Captain Logics out there think he's fighting a valiant battle against the ignorant hordes of tin-foil hatted nutters but he's really not.
This is beyond parody at this point
[удалено]
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed. Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
What a loser. Everyone knows it's a balloon drone hybrid that is fuelled by swamp gas.
I fucking can't wait till the reverse engineering stuff actually comes out and this MF is jobless because his obnoxious ego prevents him from actually expanding his "explaining" onto anything else than drones and balloons.
You'll be glad to know then that he's been pretty much jobless for quite a few years now. At least since he sold his company, Neversoft, to Activision for millions of dollars. It's more of a hobby of his, it seems, to search for legit videos, which seems there are none of.. yet.
A lot of people don't research UFO's for money.
Lmao Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
I'm starting to wonder if Mr West has some financial stake in marketing balloons.
I disagree. Its clearly bird poop. Mick West? More like Mick East.
Did he say in the Puerto Rico UFO that the balloon/drone had cell division? I would really like to see his explanation.
Cell division? lol no.
[удалено]
Hi, Total-Amphibian-7398. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b8lvbd/-/ktru19e/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. 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.
Why do you guys keep giving him attention? If you don’t mention him or post, he goes away. Let him sit in speculation land, he’s entitled to his freedom of thoughts. But I sure as hell don’t listen or pay attention to him.
I don't understand Mick at this point, why not just say you don't know what it is either and leave it at that, instead he throws the balloon label on just about everything that has some credibility to it, like this one here, he would never even talk about it otherwise. This is a problem thats been brought up by guests on his show and he even admits its a problem of his, but he keeps doing it. I get what he's saying, that alien life is last on his list of explanations, but there is more going on here than just balloons, come on Mick... He doesn't even want to entertain the idea of breakthrough technology, that everything is just balloons or something insignificant.
[удалено]
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed. Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
"It's a BALLOON" - favorite debunking excuse. It's the easy way out for debunkers.
Guys like this clown won't ever change their opinions on the topic. They even dismiss data as malfunctions.
>Guys like this clown won't ever change their opinions on the topic. Is there anything that would change *your* mind?
Yes, data. Mick West doesn't even accept data and dismisses them.
I keep forgetting he is not american and thinks the us military is as shit as his own.
>I keep forgetting he is not american He's a US citizen. And along with our other successful exports of James Corden and Prince Harry, you can keep him.
Man... we really need to get these Rogue Balloon Nations under control. People worry about AI and WW3 but really the fate of mankind rests on the Balloon invasion. Thank goodness we have warriors like Mr. West fighting the war against anomalous balloons. :P
Lol.. as expected.
Can we just ban Mick West posts need to stop giving this failed software developer air to breathe.
Whats your definition of a failed software developer? He founded (and later sold) Neversoft which has some of the most popular game franchises in the world under its belt. I think most would call that quite the opposite of a failure.
He’s just popular because he’s unpopular against the reality it may not be a balloon
FFS this guy is insufferable.