I wasn’t really planning on making another post for this. I was hoping the amount of information I provided in the first post would suffice to get some people to honestly question Mick and his “stars” theory. Some people have been reluctant to do so… I’ve noticed some additional glaring issues with more of the claims in his video. I felt they were worth bringing attention to. I’m going to avoid rehashing the entire original post, but some points need to be raised again for context, and so people don’t have to jump between posts.
It will be long. I apologize in advance. I understand it won’t be everyone. It’s not intended to be. It’s just for people who care about the details, and how Mick West repeatedly gets them wrong. There’s a lot to point out… So bear with me.
I’m not here to explain what the objects were, there’s not enough info provided to the public to reach a conclusion in either direction, prosaic or not. But there IS enough info available to completely dismantle Mick’s supporting “evidence”, if not his entire theory.
My first post can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/9TYvGswkGQ
And just so none of Mick West’s followers can wrongly cry “Bias!” for not linking his video (decent chance they just want to increase views on it for the algorithm), Mick’s ridiculous theories, claims, and assumptions can be found below.
Some of those fans seem to think no one is allowed to comment on or like these posts unless you watch Mick’s video first. Because what’s the point of being a Debunker if you don’t get to gatekeep basic human interaction? But we’re all fuckin adults here, so you do you. Watch it if you want to. Avoid it if you don’t.
https://youtu.be/X3VmVbo8xJQ?si=fweXOYcArLx2ujM0
First point
Mick starts the video off talking about the slide, so I’ll do the same. He is patently wrong about what the slide says.
“USS Russell OBSERVED 3x UNK UAS, seemingly triangular in shape from the angle of observation, hovering approximately 700 ft over RSL’s fantail. Two of the UAS are PICTURED above.”
The use of “observed” and “pictured” are the giveaways here. Worth reminding people this was a briefing slide, NOT a report. That means the sentences are NOT automatically directly connected. They’re talking points used during the briefing. Additional information about each one was likely provided during it.
“Observed hovering”: at the time the objects were hovering over the ship, there are no video or photos of it. It doesn’t say they were “Recorded hovering”. So it’s not claiming the images are from that point in time. Mick is making that assumption all on his own.
“2 (of 3) are pictured above”: In the video those pictures are taken from, the radar range data to the objects at that time is stated plainly during it. They were “1000 yards out and holding”. So that data completely contradicts Mick’s claim about the 700 feet applying to the images. Just in case you were wondering why he repeatedly cut it from his own video… It destroys the basis of his argument. “They thought distant stars were hovering over their ship”.
We also know the SNOOPIE team was sent out because objects were being tracked on radar. It’s why they were out there; To get eyes on whatever was being tracked. So whether or not radar range data exists on them over the course of the encounter… It’s not up for debate. It was always a ridiculous take that the 700 feet was an assumption on the Navy’s part, and not a round up or down from a sensor measurement just for the sake of the presentation.
Given that there are two radar ranges given, both in the official slide, and the official video the slide took stills from? The objects moved after the video. I’ll trust sensor data and eyewitness reports over his assumptions based off a 30 second video clip and a misreading of the briefing slide.
All this also means that his claim about the third object “was just another star in the video” has absolutely nothing to support it, since “3 hovering over the deck” was at a different time. “The objects in these images are not hovering 700 feet directly over the ship” seems to be the only assessment he actually formed correctly. Dead Clocks, amiright?
With the different ranges provided, his claim about “seemingly triangular in shape” being a direct reference to the Bokeh in the images provided, also isn’t supported. The images and video do have triangular Bokeh, yes, but that just means we can’t see the actual shape of them. So it’s possible the shapes directly observed by eyewitnesses, even with night vision, could have been triangular. (Bokeh in the video is caused from the DSLR being out of focus, not the scope itself; proven below).
Worth noting, this fact by itself does not mean they were anomalous UAP by default. Triangular, human made drones could explain it, too:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1771576422793953457
So Mick could be right about it being prosaic, but his theory can still be completely wrong. It will still matter if he’s wrong. Debunking should be done correctly, using all available evidence, and not intentionally stripping any of it out just because you don’t like what it’s suggesting. If he dropped the ball this fuckin hard in this debunk… It should raise questions about the others he’s made. Like UFO videos, each debunk stands alone. A previous successful one doesn’t mean you just accept all the others at face value. As Mick loves to point out, people can make mistakes. He just fails to recognize that includes him.
Second Point.
Mick and his fans repeatedly point to Mick’s star map to write off ANY kind of sensor information relayed. It only proves alignment. Not in any universe does a star map provide distance information for any light in the sky. Objects can be between you and a star. Even a drone. If anyone actually needs evidence of this (🤦), here ya go:
https://youtu.be/ewSEW9DQfGk?si=eKPwhoU6ZPD9KYQT
Yes, the drone is closer. But it still proves all you can see is the light, not the drone. The glare from the drone still blocked out the light from any star it passed over. So Mick’s star map is NOT a definitive debunk. It’s just an assumption that they refuse to accept, or are incapable of accepting, is just an assumption. One or more of those “stars”… might not be stars. Without a second vantage point to prove there was no parallax between any of the lights, his star map isn’t sufficient evidence. In exactly the same way he argues that one vantage point doesn’t prove a still light in the sky in a UFO video isn’t a star or planet. He’s trying to apply a double standard here. We should have fucking NONE of it.
Third point.
Mick claims that the voice we hear in the video belongs to the person recording the video. He edited the clip to “prove” that. He wants you to believe that the statement “Course unknown, speed unknown” was an estimate based on what the person speaking was seeing through the scope. Evidence provided here:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1771292515972599899
“Not realizing HE IS LOOKING at stars, or that HIS night vision device was out of focus…”
The biggest problem is he never proved the person speaking is actually operating the scope to begin with. Microphones on cameras record ANYONE speaking nearby, not just the person holding it. He either never considered it could be a different person, or he just wants YOU to think it’s not. Either way, he incorporates this assumption into his theory.
Fourth Point.
His statement of “HIS night vision device was out of focus”. Demonstrably false. The DSLR was out of focus when it zoomed in on the scope’s viewfinder. You can watch it happen in the video.
https://youtu.be/Ybakt2q2zQw?si=dTk9X9ddDta5GxV5
It’s the original unedited video. At the beginning, you can see a ring around the green screen. That’s part of the eyepiece for the viewfinder. You can also see the image shift around a bit as the camera moves. It’s evidence the NV screen was being recorded by second device, we AREN’T looking at video the scope recorded itself. You then see the screen get bigger because the camera was being zoomed in to get a better look. Around 8 or 9 seconds in, when the “triangle” shape starts to become obvious, the edge of the green circular screen starts to get blurry. Because the camera is going out of focus. Not the scope.
This matters, because anyone using another scope by itself wouldn’t have seen Bokeh unless their scope went out of focus, too. There’s no evidence to support that ever happened. So any suggestion that it did? Please provide the evidence when you do suggest it. Regardless, it’s another point Mick got wrong. Reported triangle shape is not definitively linked to the Bokeh. It’s not even proven related to the NV scope
Mick uses his assumption about who is speaking (“HIS night vision”) to baselessly declare that the 3rd and 4th objects were assuredly just more stars that were visible on the screen in the same video. Absolutely nothing supports this if he doesn’t PROVE the cameraman and speaker are the same person. A second person could have been looking literally anywhere BUT the DSLR screen (the NV viewfinder was covered by the camera). The extensive information about the ship that they rattle off suggests this is exactly the case… They were reading from a different screen altogether. So he has no way to declare what the speaker could see. NOTHING they say directly supports his theory about it being the same person.
As for the radar track information that he repeatedly refused to include:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770593078430081242
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1771292515972599899
Fifth Point.
Worth pointing something out here.
As I shared in my last post, Scott Bray admitted during the 1st hearing that AOIMSG only made an assumption about those lights based on secondary sensor data. “Other assets saw…” “So we’re reasonably confident…”
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1769587637369868632
I tried to ask Mick if he felt ANY sense of alarm about their approach leaving a hole to not identify possible advanced tech from an adversary being in the air at the same time as drones, by just assuming the lights were on regular drones, too. Seems likely if you were going to use a new form of tech against an adversary, accompanying it with traditional tech might be a good way to mask it.
It’s been a week. No response. Seems like Mick cares more about “debunking” a UFO case, than whether or not AOIMSG or AARO performed their jobs correctly to protect national security. Speaks VOLUMES about how he approaches this subject.
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1769596991959704020
Sixth Point.
I think it’s important to note something here. As I previously mentioned — “At the beginning, you can see a ring around the green screen. That’s part of the eyepiece for the viewfinder. You can also see the image shift around a bit as the camera moves.” — This actually holds true for both triangle videos. “2 stars”, and the clip Corbell originally released. You can see the image isn’t stable within the frame in the beginning.
Original “Pyramid” clip: https://youtu.be/-Pjqdaz_b24?si=X8GQgt6-iSF7wDAK
“2 stars” Clip: https://youtu.be/Ybakt2q2zQw?si=eCF24IDtPszroWIe
And note that the Bokeh appears the same in both. Same size, same direction.
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1772374478510584243
Pretty big indicator both clips were recorded in the same exact way. Not unlikely it was recorded by the same person, with the same scope and camera. So it’s the camera being out of focus that’s causing the Bokeh in both clips, not the scope itself. This also means it’s not impossible the “pyramid” video is of one of the 2 “stars” Mick claims we see in the other video. The SNOOPIE team was tracking them, so they would’ve followed any that moved. It’s a possibility that should not be written off without the evidence to do so.
End.
Let me preempt the likely endless responses about “Mick shared the link to the full video, so he wasn’t hiding anything”. He did so AFTER convincing people his takes were accurate. He had already told them what to think about who was speaking, and left no room for it to be anyone else. So anyone with that mindset, would hear that dialogue and just perceive it was confirming Mick’s takes.
THAT’S why it doesn’t matter much that he provided it. He had already spun the video. He convinced his listeners that mistakes were made by the Navy and not himself. So they would hear what HE wanted them to hear when they listened to the unedited original clip.
He also intentionally left the radar range info on the cutting room floor twice, which let him spin the speed and course statement as a guess, which would then lead many of his followers to assume it extended to the range data when they heard it since that statement followed immediately afterwards.
There’s NO possible way to defend any of that shit. So please stop trying. What this should do for people… Is get them to start asking themselves these questions:
If there is truly nothing anomalous about this case… Why did he go to such lengths to misrepresent most of the data, and leave out the rest, when all the data can still point at a prosaic explanation?
Has he done this more than once???
For the final time, since stating it once doesn’t seem to be enough for some people: I’m STILL not claiming it was anomalous. There’s not enough public data to say either way… But after his performance here, I definitely have questions about it. I think most people should.
submitted by /u/SkepticlBeliever
[link] [comments]