I'm absolutely sick of seeing Mick West's analyses get trotted out every time some of these more concrete pieces of evidence get presented. For one thing, he m

I'm absolutely sick of seeing Mick West's analyses get trotted out every time some of these more concrete pieces of evidence get presented. For one thing, he makes arguments in bad faith and with poor use of honest analysis. Consequently, many people have done a pretty thorough job of debunking his own debunking efforts (you can easily find some of these through both a YouTube or a Google search). West takes a very classic debunker approach (not that I don't say skeptic, but debunker specifically) of prima facie deciding that the inexplicable can't possibly be the case and thus guiding all of his arguments, rather dogmatically, to showing how it isn't the case, regardless of the quality or plausibility of what he argues. It's a dishonest and tedious way to view the world, but couched in enough rational sounding discourse to seem solid. Many people give such arguments more weight than they deserve because, well, nearly any aspect of examining the UFO phenomenon is at least associated (often very unfairly) with the most extreme of quacks and cranks and thus bias tends towards giving more weight to a seemingly skeptical interpretation, regardless of its specific qualities. I've communicated with West on this subject even and noticed quickly that when questioned on the weaknesses of specific arguments, he simply doubles down on his base statements, but without addressing the precise counter-skepticism being thrown at him. This does not make for honest reasoning and good faith..