Just wanted to share this here for anyone that doesn’t follow along on Twitter. People need to start grasping how he operates.
It’s in regards to the “Triangle”/Bokeh videos.
Someone had pointed out to me yesterday that Mick had clipped off the end of one of the videos when he presented his own theory on them. That the information he cut off was relevant. I created a compilation today proving that was the case. That video can be found here:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770593078430081242
Here’s his admission that he removed the information from his video intentionally:
“I cut the audio for length. The full audio makes it far worse.”
https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1770659234126176617
He’s admitting he leaped to the conclusion he wanted, then cut out anything that didn’t support it.
“The full audio makes it far worse”; he’s saying that the information that they provided makes the NAVY look worse. Because he’d already reached his conclusion… that is not, not, NOT how this works.
Worth noting, the extra audio is only about 5 seconds long. And it DOES cast doubt on what he’s claiming… So I have extreme doubts about his answer. It took multiple hours and multiple tweets to get him to provide it… And it’s STILL lacking.
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770635881373982844
The information he cut off was in regards to speed, course, and range information, and honestly, it’s all pretty fkn relevant. He has tried to unilaterally declare them to be stars (in the video in question at least).
“We have visual of FOUR PROBABLE unidentified drones, with course unknown and speed unknown. Contacts are operating at a range of 1,000 yards and holding”.
It’s relevant for SEVERAL reasons.
Four
I recommend paying attention to the sheer amount of data the person speaking states for the record throughout the video.
One thing you should notice… There’s no data on the screen. Just the video of the two lights off in the distance. At no point does Mick seem to question where, exactly, all of that data came from. He just takes it all at face value and uses it to locate where the ship was at the time.
Also plainly visible: There are just two sources of light. Not four. So it’s not a description of what we’re seeing on screen. It’s likely the team leader in contact with someone else over radio, or they’re stating the description of what’s happening around the ship so it’s part of the record in the video.
The person speaking isn’t the person that’s recording the video (supported further below). Whoever is speaking is clearly reading all of that information off of another screen… It’s entirely too much data, and you can tell by their voice they’re reading it off.
Scott Bray said during the 1st hearing that the videos were recorded by a DSLR camera held up to a night vision scope. This is actually SUPPORTED by the beginning of the video Mick West used.
Just to share it again:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770593078430081242
You can see the viewfinder of the NV scope enlarge as the DSLR camera is zoomed in on the screen. You can also see the rim of that viewfinder blur out around the time the triangle shapes become apparent. This is definitive evidence the triangles we see in the video ARE actually caused by Bokeh. It’s no longer relevant whether or not the NV has a triangular iris since the DSLR is what was doing the zooming in and recording. Those def have irises.
BUT:
Holding up a DSLR to a NV scope, zooming in with the DSLR while keeping the viewfinder in frame, while ALSO keeping the object(s) you’re trying to see in frame on the NV scope… That took someone’s full attention and both hands. They absolutely aren’t holding up a third device and reading off of it.
Operating at a range of 1,000 yards and holding
Since someone was clearly reading a ton of data off a screen, that is every reason you need not to just randomly throw out the range information. It was from the radar system, not just an assumption or unsupported claim by someone filming what we see in that video. It’s extremely pertinent information…
Course unknown and speed unknown
These two admissions are also super relevant, and interesting. “1000 yards and holding” means they’re not moving in relation to the ship, not getting closer or further away. Very likely they were all hovering in place: You can’t determine the course unless you have speed data over time. This heavily implies all four objects being tracked around that ship stopped moving completely.
WHY all of that is relevant.
Mick is claiming both lights we’re seeing in that video are stars. He’s produced a star chart to support his claim…
I asked him directly, if the video we’re seeing would have looked any different if one of the objects he was claiming was a star, was in fact a UAP/Drone hovering in place, blocking a star.
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770666300748243385
“How is that relevant. Those are stars.”
https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1770666508857082032
He’s refusing to answer. To even so much as consider it. Of course it’s relevant. We have every reason to believe the UAP/drones all stopped and hovered in one place, based on the radar information that was relayed during the video… It’s “not relevant” if his claim is actually wrong about both lights being stars???
If one of them was actually a UAP or even a drone, it’s completely feasible it could have just by chance stopped in front of a star. I have an easier time believing THAT happened over the SNOOPIE team not recognizing a star when they see one. They’re all trained on night vision… They’ve absolutely seen stars at night. They were focused on at least one of those lights for a reason.
Probable unidentified drones
For anyone who’s convinced the SNOOPIE team was convinced they were just drones… You just heard the team leader say it himself. Probable unidentified drones.
For anyone who needs it defined:
Probable: reasonably sure but not certain of happening or being true : likely
I don’t care what was written on which deck logs… They did NOT positively ID them as drones. They weren’t sure. And it supports not just Corbell’s claim to the same, but the secondhand testimony we heard from the servicemember Corbell had on Weapons who spoke to firsthand witnesses. They were never sure about the term UAS. Not even as it was happening…
This actually makes them UAP.
And given that the DSLR caused the light to Bokeh, it hid the shape. No one who wasn’t there will know what the actual shape of them was until someone who was steps forward.
I’m not opposed to the idea they were actual triangles… A single light in/on a triangle frame would still have triangle Bokeh from the camera that was used. The ONLY things anyone can say for sure is that the shape isn’t displayed this video, and Mick West is being completely disingenuous.
For anyone who wants to try to claim “Bray said they were drones at the hearing. 🙄”
That’s actually NOT what he said. Here’s a clip:
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1770042217295384765
“We’re reasonably confident”. Just because other Navy assets saw “Also drones in the area”.
It means they DIDN’T have definitive evidence proving it. They made an assumption and tried passing it off as a conclusion. There being drones anywhere nearby DOES NOT MEAN there couldn’t have been other technology buzzing the ships, too. Advanced tech from foreign adversaries we aren’t aware of yet…
I don’t care who you are, and which side of the debate you fall on. That was a stunning admission. It should be infuriating for every taxpayer… Whatever these objects were, whoever was piloting them…. They were harassing a fleet of Navy vessels off the American Coast. For weeks. At no point should anyone just blindly accept an assumption just because DoD wanted to make the case go away.
For anyone who needs to hear it: I’m not claiming they’re NHI or ET tech (but it’s on the table). I’m just pointing out we’re being misled about what was recorded.
That’s. It.
That alone should make this case worth not losing interest in. That they want you to, should be every excuse you need NOT to.
submitted by /u/SkepticlBeliever
[link] [comments]