4 ms·

This YouTube channel does a great job of analyzing and explaining "UFO" videos, including those mentioned in the article. They even do experiments and recreatio

This YouTube channel does a great job of analyzing and explaining "UFO" videos, including those mentioned in the article. They even do experiments and recreations to demonstrate the effects being seen. https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword In one example, they were able to fully explain a previously "mysterious" UFO seen in a video taken by a military helicopter in South America. Thanks to the overlaid GPS coordinates and time, they were able to create a 3D model recreating the camera's viewpoint and then overlay the flight tracking data from that day. That along with weather information allowed them to demonstrate that the UFO was in fact an IR reflection from a commercial airliner as seen through a somewhat rare but well-understood atmospheric effect combined with lens blooming. It was impressive sleuthing and very cool to see the flight's 3D track line up exactly with the mysterious blob from the helicopter's POV.

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago
Mick West is a commonly known "debunker". IMO he's not interested in objectively finding the truth, he wants to debunk at all cost. He has his conclusion before he starts analyzing the evidence. He's even known to edit pictures [1] so that they prove his point. He said in an interview that he's doing it in part because he was terrified of UFOs as a kid [2]. And in general, he will just ignore the evidence he can't explain, and focus on what he thinks he can explain. "Radar logs show something traveling at 50k mph, and eye witnesses claim it was Ferrari red. Since it's Ferrari red, it's obviously just a Ferrari". If you want to listen to opinions that contradict West, listen for example to Cmdr David Fravor [3], or Robert Powell [4]. He reminds me of the Condon Comittee. In "The Edge of Reality", Allen Hynek claims that in the first week of the investigations the conclusions were already being written on the boards. [1] https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck [4] https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=211e03dacdb94d43 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=2...

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago

Mick West is a commonly known "debunker". IMO he's not interested in objectively finding the truth, he wants to debunk at all cost. He has his conclusion before he starts analyzing the evidence. He's even known to edit pictures [1] so that they prove his point. He said in an interview that he's doing it in part because he was terrified of UFOs as a kid [2]. And in general, he will just ignore the evidence he can't explain, and focus on what he thinks he can explain. "Radar logs show something traveling at 50k mph, and eye witnesses claim it was Ferrari red. Since it's Ferrari red, it's obviously just a Ferrari". If you want to listen to opinions that contradict West, listen for example to Cmdr David Fravor [3], or Robert Powell [4]. He reminds me of the Condon Comittee. In "The Edge of Reality", Allen Hynek claims that in the first week of the investigations the conclusions were already being written on the boards. [1] https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck [4] https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=211e03dacdb94d43 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=2...