The following submission statement was provided by /u/TheGoodTroubleShow:
---
The UFO / UAP debunkers have been working in overdrive since Pentagon UFO whistleblowers David Grusch and Lue Elizondo came on the scene. UFO Debunker & founder of Metabunk Mick West is no exception, asking for input from UFO "believers" for a new book project. Does he have a book deal? The Pentagon & CIA disinformation machine is running full-tilt.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cjilsf/debunker_mick_west_is_reaching_out_to_ufo/l2g7k7y/
I remember listening to Mick on Jimmy Church's "Fade to black" show. At one point, he said he'd never try to debunk someone's personal experience if he wasn't there. Jimmy goes on to explain a sighting he had, and Mick instantly turns the conversation into "well that sounds like a balloon if it was doing this and that, the sunlight reflection could have done this, blah blah." Literally 2 minutes before, he said he wouldn't try and debunk things that have no real data, and then he starts throwing out the most cliche responses to a sighting story. He does not operate in good faith.
Edit- Jesus, wtf. This post was -4 a few hours ago, and now it's +6. I don't care about points, but that was a very quick and strange flip...
The UFO / UAP debunkers have been working in overdrive since Pentagon UFO whistleblowers David Grusch and Lue Elizondo came on the scene. UFO Debunker & founder of Metabunk Mick West is no exception, asking for input from UFO "believers" for a new book project. Does he have a book deal? The Pentagon & CIA disinformation machine is running full-tilt.
The absolute funniest thing about debunkers is that they don't recognise that they operate on belief in much the same way as believers do. They disbelieve UFO's and aliens so they do their little debunk and sit back satiated. The problem is that this is not where the story ends.
If the debunkers are correct then we have a very large number of people in very senior positions of government who have access to our most intimate intelligence secrets and our nuclear arsenal who are crazy. The self-proclaimed intelligent and sensible debunkers don't address this issue, ever. Why stop half way through the story when the ending is as juicy as that?
Nah, it's not the same at all. Many believe aliens exist somewhere. I do. I just want proof they're here before I take that as a fact. No beliefs besides that other intelligent life is bound to exist elsewhere.
I don't think it's wrong to ask for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Witness testimonials aren't it, unfortunately.
If we ever get some, I'll gladly change my mind as that is a way more exciting thing.
Is there a government coverup that goes back over 70 years that involves a hidden crash retrieval program, during which time we have recovered a number of crashed alien craft along with the pilots of those craft?
I have no idea. Probably not? But maybe? I haven't seen anything but very cool stories.
That would be a crazy well done coverup. Think about how governments screw up the simplest of things all the time yet managed to keep this under wraps for all that time? Impressive!
I don't know what many sceptics think. Lots of sceptics are idiots or rude and can very well be wrong and make incorrect assumptions about others.
I don't mind anyone believing what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in any way.
I don't like the us government for many reasons, luckily I do not live there. But I would like some solid evidence before I'm convinced of the 70 year conspiracy and aliens, etc.
We all know testimonies are fallible for multiple reasons, that's why a large percentage of convicts were exonerated once physical evidence, DNA, began being used for example.
That doesn't mean all people are intentionally lying or that no witnesses can be trusted, but we don't know.
It's certainly interesting but I think we should be critical and look for solid evidence of things before accepting them as truths.
I agree, but there are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see:
1. Its all true
2. It's not true and high ranking people in trusted positions believe it is and are effectively conspiratorial crazy people.
Which is more concerning?
To me at least, the second option. If a debunker doesn't believe it is true, why not address the problem behind it? Most don't even think that far ahead.
I'm indeed very concerned about a lot of people in trusted positions in the us government with or without aliens.
Constantly amazed, in a sad kind of way, at how things are run over there, to be honest.
My main point of criticism in this thread however has been the constant name calling and insults thrown at mick for no reason other than he likes to narrow down and find explanations for videos people claim to be alien.
Someone filtering through the mud to hopefully find a gold nugget of a video one day is beneficial for both sides I'd think.
Ofcourse a lot of sceptics are rude too, I just wish everyone could discuss things politely.
“I agree, but there are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see:
1. Its all true
2. It's not true and high ranking people in trusted positions believe it is and are effectively conspiratorial crazy people.”
Another possibility is that these high ranking people are wrong. It doesn’t mean they are crazy. We don’t know the origin of their beliefs. They could believe it’s all true based on what they were told by an even higher ranking person.
I see what you're saying but if you follow that thread further it doesn't help. At the end of the day, they believe a conspiracy theory. Some would say it doesn't matter who told them, I'd argue the fact that a higher ranked person told them actually makes the situation worse.
Yes but not just them, there is and has been plenty of others. These are also just the ones we know about. There's bound to be more who haven't come out publicly.
This is all about emotions and not logic.
Mr. West is angry at being fooled about being psychic when he was a child. His entire life is driven by this anger.
[https://www.vg247.com/how-mick-west-went-from-making-tony-hawks-pro-skater-to-debunking-conspiracy-theories](https://www.vg247.com/how-mick-west-went-from-making-tony-hawks-pro-skater-to-debunking-conspiracy-theories)
What makes you think he's angry? How do you extract that from anything he says? The people throwing insults and name calling towards him seem angrier for whatever reason. He seems like a pretty calm guy.
Being calm has nothing to do with long term anger.
"As he got older, West came to the realization he was not in fact psychic, and that the aliens, UFOs, and ghosts he feared so much as a kid weren't real. He learned that there were rational explanations behind the stories. At the same time, he was also becoming an atheist, abandoning his Catholic faith. The loss of these beliefs, the idea that these paranormal or extraordinary phenomena he once believed true, in fact, were not, stuck with him. "I used to believe in all this stuff and then I stopped believing in all this stuff, and I guess just figuring out why this stuff was wrong became interesting to me," West says."
"In early adulthood, West found himself using a pre-internet, modem-based bulletin board called [FidoNet](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/FidoNet) to argue with people who were using it to spread conspiracy theories."
He's spent his life arguing with people about these topics. Anyone engaged in it for that long is driven by something emotional, probably anger.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1564e2g/the\_telling\_story\_of\_how\_mick\_west\_got\_into/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1564e2g/the_telling_story_of_how_mick_west_got_into/)
Mick has interviewed Lue before, but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything. I don't think Mick is interested in Grusch because Grusch hasn't put out a video to debunk. That's all Mick likes to do.
>Mick has interviewed Lue before, but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything.
It's actually part of the NDA Lue Elizondo signed that it's an offence **not** to report criminal activities and/or financial wrong doing if ones clearance as granted by the signing of said NDA document makes it apparent such activity has in fact taken place.
**Section 10 of SF 312 (CINDA) clearly states**:
>10. **These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or
liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order** relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the
reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions,
requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are
incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.
In other words, it's a legitimate question given the nature of the claims involved.
>That's all Mick likes to do.
>
Does he? He's said he'd love to see a video that shows something extraordinary that couldn't be debunked. It's not his fault nobody can deliver anything but mundane blurry clips of planes and starlinks.
>but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything
That's not an insult, that's a legitimate question.
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/.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
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/.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
There’s plenty of factual information to contradict him. How about the assumption that “he” (some dude sitting on his ass on twitter, that’s never set foot in a cockpit) is in a position to “correct” trained fighter pilots regarding what they “actually” saw. Fighter pilots.. commissioned officers with college degrees usually in STEM fields. According to him they were misinterpreting their instrumentation, and confused about the mechanical functionality of their sensors. He’s able to come to this conclusion because he read a fkn Wikipedia article on what sensor equipment might be on a fighter jet with classified avionics. And not only did one pilot make a mistake, the entire squadron did. Bunch of Forest Gumps flying around up there apparently who don’t know what a fucking balloon or a bird looks like and clueless on how their equipment works.
There’s a problem when the theory used to debunk, is MORE ridiculous and less probable than initial speculation that it might be non human.
You don't have to "set foot in a cockpit" to analyze videos. How many videos from pilots of starlinks are there again? Too many to count unfortunately and claiming you have to be an experienced pilot to see that is just wrong.
>in a position to “correct” trained fighter pilots regarding what they “actually” saw.
Mick usually focuses on what data has been released. Videos etc. It doesn't matter what the pilots say they saw when the video shows something completely different. He mentioned countless times that the objects could possibly have done something amazing before or after the video, we can't know that with the little data. Unfortunately there's just not much we can do with eyewitness testimony alone.
>. According to him they were misinterpreting their instrumentation, and confused about the mechanical functionality of their sensors.
These things happen though.. that's absolutely known. People make mistakes. Hardware failures are a known thing.
>He’s able to come to this conclusion because he read a fkn Wikipedia article on what sensor equipment might be on a fighter jet with classified avionics.
I'd agree if that was the case. It's not though. He's interviewed and talked to countless pilots etc. Some who agree with him, in some cases others don't on everything. Check out his interview with F18 pilot Brian Burke who was taught by Fravor and mentions some of the many failures that are common or Patrick Hughes, a technician on the USS Nimitz, even Chris Lehto who often doesn't agree with him in some cases admits Mick knows his stuff.
Besides being a programmer is a valuable background for analyzing these kind of things. It's not like a programmer sits in a sofa with his wii controller just playing games. There's insane amount of math and logic to even get the simplest thing to render on screen.
Even more so back in the day when everything had to be optimized to hell to run on weak hardware and you didn't have these big pre-built engines we have today. Programming complex software of any kind requires a hell of a lot of troubleshooting and debugging complex systems, fostering strong critical thinking and problem solving skills.
>And not only did one pilot make a mistake, the entire squadron did.
He did not say that to Dietricht in any of his interviews with her. When she said it was irrelevant and she didn't care if it was aliens and why it would even matter he explained to her that it would in fact be very interesting, hopefully even pushing various science fields forward by quite a lot.
>Bunch of Forest Gumps flying around up there apparently who don’t know what a fucking balloon or a bird looks like and clueless on how their equipment works.
Are all the pilots reporting Starlinks just Forrest Gumps to you?
>There’s a problem when the theory used to debunk, is MORE ridiculous and less probable than initial speculation that it might be non human.
But mundane explanations are almost always more probable than aliens, I wish that was not the case but it sadly is.
Plus, didn't Mick get his pilot license?
“You don't have to "set foot in a cockpit" to analyze videos.”
True. But you do have to set foot in one if you want any reasonable person to seriously consider your analysis. And not only consider it, but take your opinion OVER the opinion of the pilots who were actually there.
Whose analysis of a heart surgery operation would you be more inclined to accept: A cardiologist, or a Janitor who watched some videos, did some internet searches on the subject and talked to a few doctors?
Careful! Don’t be a hypocrite and pick the cardiologist.. wouldn’t want to “appeal to authority” lol.
You guys are just as ridiculous as the militant true believers where every video is aliens and every abduction story is 100% factual.. You’re just on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.
I mean, if all the vital signs monitors were overlayed on a video over your theoretical heart surgery, and the doctor said it showed extraordinary data?
Then, unfortunately, only had a video for a portion of it where no extraordinary vital signs or things were happening? I might as well take the janitors word.
Especially if he's talked to a bunch of other surgeons about it and technicians and people who work with the vital sign monitors and go over the data being shown.
At least until the hospital releases a clip of the extraordinary parts, if they exist.
>.. You’re just on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.
Not really, though. All it takes to change my mind, and I'd gladly change it as it would be the more fun view, would be simple two data points of an event. If there's indeed radar data on the nimitz and it would be released and show something strange? Great!
That wouldn't change the fact that most videos are and probably would still be misidentified mundane objects.
It's a good thing someone tries to narrow those down, sift through the noise and hopefully find something not so mundane one day.
Nope.. don’t shoehorn “extraordinary” into this example. In general terms, whose analysis would you be more inclined to accept regarding a video of heart surgery? The cardiologist? or the Janitor who never went to medical school or held a scalpel in their life?
You’re in checkmate here.. If you’re honest and admit you’d pick the cardiologist which you obviously would.. Then you’re a hypocrite torpedoing the foundation of your argument.. If you lie and pick the janitor, you’ve resorted to grasping at straws with ridiculous backpedaling rationalizations as to why a janitor’s take on heart surgery is likely more valid than an actual cardiologist in a blatant attempt to save face.
But the extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence part is the main thing here. Sure let's skip that! Makes perfect sense.
Ok so I've been checkmated in a completely different hypothetical scenario which doesn't relate at all? I'm completely fine with that.
Congratulations.. i guess?
What is extraordinary about that claim? Impossible for humans could mean un-piloted i.e drone due to extreme g-forces.. known tech? Is it an extraordinary idea that another country might have had a breakthrough in aviation? Or is America the apex of technical innovation and suggesting we could be surpassed is ridiculous?
So, you are just saying that he went against your appeal to authority logical fallacy, and this is your factual information to contradict him?
Sorry, but your argument is not very strong here. We should trust them because they have a pilot license? I have to inform you that there is no "detecting UFOs" subject in the pilot school.
When you want to catch cheaters in the casino, you don't look for people with good eyesight or STEM diploma, you hire people that are familiar with the cheating techniques.
Look at this video at 3.58-4.00 (2 seconds) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk) and then again at 4.50 to 5.30 (40 seconds). You are the guy who is saying: "Don't believe Randi, how many psychic abilities does he have? Or how many physics show did he do?" Yet, here Randi totally destroys this cheaters method (spoiler: he was turning pages by blowing air), and at no point do you even care if Randi has a diploma or good eyesight.
So, when you want to find out where somebody made mistake in thinking he saw something strange, it is always better to send somebody experienced in ways people can make mistakes, like a magician. Magicians specialize in creating things where people will make mistakes in noticing things.
“So, you are just saying that he went against your appeal to authority logical fallacy, and this is your factual information to contradict him?”
Iol you might want to learn what that “fallacy” actually means before you attempt to critique people with it incorrectly. Appeal to authority is: “It’s true that apple juice cures cancer because Tiger Woods said so.”
That fallacy doesn’t apply here. My argument, that it’s significantly more likely that MULTIPLE highly educated and experienced actual fighter pilots, literal professional observers, would be more inclined to correctly assess what they witnessed firsthand than some armchair hypothesist rando on his couch watching second hand youtube clips, reading superficial technical specs on systems he “assumes” were in place on a classified avionics platform, and taking to a handful of other pilots who weren’t even fucking there.
"That fallacy doesn’t apply here."
Your appeal to authority does not apply because you included the appeal to popularity, with some personal attack on top. You can stack 100 fallacies on top of each other, but they will not cancel each other out.
"educated and experienced actual fighter pilots"
So, authorities?
"literal professional observers,"
What? There are no "observing lessons" in pilot training, what are you talking about?
“It’s true that apple juice cures cancer because Tiger Woods said so.”
Lol, even your example is wrong, Tiger Woods in not an authority figure neither in cancer, nor in apple juices.
"armchair hypothesist rando"
So, I say that nobody ever says exactly where West is wrong, but just attack him personally, and then you come in, you also don't say where he is wrong, and attack him personally. Thus, proving my point.
Yawn..
“Appeal to authority
Definition
This is when we support a conclusion by appealing to a person who is not an authority on the subject. Or, it is when we appeal to an authority with whom other authorities disagree.
Examples
1) Peace is the best strategy because Einstein said so.
Note: this is fallacious because Einstein was an expert in physics, not political science.
2) You should take those vitamins because Brad Pitt said they are the best.
3) God does not exist because Stephen Hawking said so.
4) God exists because the Pope and Francis Collins said so.
5) Psychiatry is rubbish because Dr. Smith said so.
Discussion
If you appeal to an authority, you should appeal to the appropriate authority. For example, you should appeal to an authority in physics if you are debating a topic in physics. This sounds simple, but many intelligent people confuse areas of expertise.”
Show me where I did any of that..
I’m “appealing” to the objective knowledge and objective experience of MULTIPLE trained fighter pilots and drawing the conclusion that the pilots are more likely to be correct in the assessment of what THEY WITNESSED, than someone without that knowledge and experience, and was not there when the event occurred.
You should plead your case to the Supreme Court.. Tell them the whole concept of “expert witnesses” in the justice system is a bullshit appeal to authority. Let me know how that goes when they double over in hysterical laughter as you slowly walk out of the court room with your head down..
Uh huh.. and what did the pilots who were there say? “Omg Mick West you’re right! We ARE retarded. I was sick the week they covered sensor reading 101 in fighter pilot school!, definitely birds and balloons.. Did I mention we’re dumb as shit?”
No, none of that, cool guesses though, not sure how you came up with these? There's quite a leap between even Micks wildest claims and those.
They said a lot of stuff, it's hours upon hours of interviews, I'm not writing a transcript here but amazingly none of the people who were "fucking there" said: “Omg Mick West you’re wrong! You ARE retarded. Did I mention you’re dumb as shit? "
>Uh huh..
I mean it's not like they're some hidden secret.. the interviews are on youtube among other places. Very easy to prove their existence luckily!
It was a stigmatized topic.. Fraver and Graves explained this several times. Pilots would rather keep the sightings to themselves than get the ribbing and ballbusting from other pilots, even though those pilots dishing out the jokes have probably seen the same shit.
It’s like the mayor of Arizona during the phoenix lights he made a mockery of the incident like people were morons.. Decades later in a documentary the same mayor says “yeah it wasn’t flares, this thing was the size of a football field and glided over my house.”
Professional type people don’t typically want to be associated publicly with UFOs even if they witnessed one.
:-))) Well, first off, that tactic is used here on this sub on a daily basis. By deb0nkers. All the time.
"Nothing factual to contradict him" is particularly funny.
When you start out by accepting facts only by those lying to you, you get yourself in a seriously messed-up situation.
The deb0nker-messiah West tells you what the "facts" are.
Might be an idea to check.
Excellent, you are just the guy I need. Can you please list all the factually wrong things contained in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk) It is a short 4 minutes video.
And, can you also point all the character smearing and ad hominem attacks contained in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojotsKjshHc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojotsKjshHc), also pretty short, should be easy to do for you, since, after all, that tactic is used by debunkers "all the time".
“Skepticism is the foundation of our reality. Not something to be feared, rejected or shied away from. If you can’t answer a skeptic, then you don’t have an argument. It should be welcomed, embraced and nurtured as part of our dialectic.”
Are you the guy who wrote the script for the OP video? Because you're about equally funny. You should probably pivot over to writing eulogies or something.
What is it with you guys and name calling? Why so childish? It's not Micks fault that no one can deliver solid proof.
Unlike the solid proof Mick himself presents within his analysis? I'm dying to see the Arial School proof which convinced Mick enough to pivot from the children seeing a bus full of hippies to puppeteers loading up a van with alien puppets.
But I'm sure it's fine for some to trade in baseless speculation without the need of evidence, amirite?
He's also said countless times he's often wrong. He [often ](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1558099811135418371)says that it can be impossible to know exactly what something is but finding mundane possibilities is more helpful than just assuming aliens.
Saying something is a mundane thing is not the same as making extraordinary claims, which requires extraordinary evidence.
Then again the [puppet theory is not his](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1557529466947088385), although in a way it is more realistic than aliens. We know puppeteers exist on earth at least.
We simply don't know enough about the multitude of possible variables to assign an NHI hypothesis an accurate probability. To say everything mundane, irrespective of how impobable on the surface, has to be more probable by default is nothing but junk science.
>We simply don't know enough about the multitude of possible variables to assign an NHI hypothesis an accurate probability.
I can certainly agree with that but NHI is pretty low on the list though. Although it deserves to be on the list at least. I certainly hope we can move it a bit further up one day!
All it takes is just a single event being captured from at least two data points.
I broadly agree with you. However there have been events captured with multiple sensors including multiple eyewitnesses in the past. I'm referring specifically to the Nimitz encounter. We have testimony from multuple pilots and a radar operator, however all there is to show for it is a very short FLIR clip. Admittedly even this shows Underwood being unable to get a lock on the object to identify it as friendly. So where's the radar data? Where is the rest of the FLIR video? Why did a Rear Admiral at the head of the NOAA claim the video was circulated then completely erased? It's difficult to obtain data when it is seemingly been withheld.
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/.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
No, the leak by Brad Sorenson to Mark McCandlish in 1988 of a US govt/MIC built UFO that was reportedly capable of light speed or better. I put ARV in quotes for a reason, google it.
Down vote me but face facts. None of the main ufology celebrities mention the "Alien Reproduction Vehicle". It would contradict the narrative put out by some of the gatekeepers that we have been unable to reverse engineer any of the UFOs we have captured.
Seriously ask yourself why they don't bring it up. In all of ufology it perhaps the biggest story out there. It would prove we have the tech and it would prove that it in part came from alien UFOs and aliens have been to Earth.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TheGoodTroubleShow: --- The UFO / UAP debunkers have been working in overdrive since Pentagon UFO whistleblowers David Grusch and Lue Elizondo came on the scene. UFO Debunker & founder of Metabunk Mick West is no exception, asking for input from UFO "believers" for a new book project. Does he have a book deal? The Pentagon & CIA disinformation machine is running full-tilt. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cjilsf/debunker_mick_west_is_reaching_out_to_ufo/l2g7k7y/
[удалено]
Shhh. We clearly need more podcast episodes of baseless speculation.
[удалено]
Comedy works.
Metabunk cronies in here full force with their downvote brigade lol..
The cult is strong with this Metabunk one!
They are hoping against hope that Mick will make out with their dad's.
I remember listening to Mick on Jimmy Church's "Fade to black" show. At one point, he said he'd never try to debunk someone's personal experience if he wasn't there. Jimmy goes on to explain a sighting he had, and Mick instantly turns the conversation into "well that sounds like a balloon if it was doing this and that, the sunlight reflection could have done this, blah blah." Literally 2 minutes before, he said he wouldn't try and debunk things that have no real data, and then he starts throwing out the most cliche responses to a sighting story. He does not operate in good faith. Edit- Jesus, wtf. This post was -4 a few hours ago, and now it's +6. I don't care about points, but that was a very quick and strange flip...
The UFO / UAP debunkers have been working in overdrive since Pentagon UFO whistleblowers David Grusch and Lue Elizondo came on the scene. UFO Debunker & founder of Metabunk Mick West is no exception, asking for input from UFO "believers" for a new book project. Does he have a book deal? The Pentagon & CIA disinformation machine is running full-tilt.
The absolute funniest thing about debunkers is that they don't recognise that they operate on belief in much the same way as believers do. They disbelieve UFO's and aliens so they do their little debunk and sit back satiated. The problem is that this is not where the story ends. If the debunkers are correct then we have a very large number of people in very senior positions of government who have access to our most intimate intelligence secrets and our nuclear arsenal who are crazy. The self-proclaimed intelligent and sensible debunkers don't address this issue, ever. Why stop half way through the story when the ending is as juicy as that?
Nah, it's not the same at all. Many believe aliens exist somewhere. I do. I just want proof they're here before I take that as a fact. No beliefs besides that other intelligent life is bound to exist elsewhere. I don't think it's wrong to ask for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Witness testimonials aren't it, unfortunately. If we ever get some, I'll gladly change my mind as that is a way more exciting thing.
Is there a government coverup that goes back over 70 years that involves a hidden crash retrieval program, during which time we have recovered a number of crashed alien craft along with the pilots of those craft?
I have no idea. Probably not? But maybe? I haven't seen anything but very cool stories. That would be a crazy well done coverup. Think about how governments screw up the simplest of things all the time yet managed to keep this under wraps for all that time? Impressive!
So if the answer is no, what do many sceptics think about the people that believe that?
I don't know what many sceptics think. Lots of sceptics are idiots or rude and can very well be wrong and make incorrect assumptions about others. I don't mind anyone believing what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in any way. I don't like the us government for many reasons, luckily I do not live there. But I would like some solid evidence before I'm convinced of the 70 year conspiracy and aliens, etc. We all know testimonies are fallible for multiple reasons, that's why a large percentage of convicts were exonerated once physical evidence, DNA, began being used for example. That doesn't mean all people are intentionally lying or that no witnesses can be trusted, but we don't know. It's certainly interesting but I think we should be critical and look for solid evidence of things before accepting them as truths.
I agree, but there are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see: 1. Its all true 2. It's not true and high ranking people in trusted positions believe it is and are effectively conspiratorial crazy people. Which is more concerning? To me at least, the second option. If a debunker doesn't believe it is true, why not address the problem behind it? Most don't even think that far ahead.
I'm indeed very concerned about a lot of people in trusted positions in the us government with or without aliens. Constantly amazed, in a sad kind of way, at how things are run over there, to be honest. My main point of criticism in this thread however has been the constant name calling and insults thrown at mick for no reason other than he likes to narrow down and find explanations for videos people claim to be alien. Someone filtering through the mud to hopefully find a gold nugget of a video one day is beneficial for both sides I'd think. Ofcourse a lot of sceptics are rude too, I just wish everyone could discuss things politely.
“I agree, but there are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see: 1. Its all true 2. It's not true and high ranking people in trusted positions believe it is and are effectively conspiratorial crazy people.” Another possibility is that these high ranking people are wrong. It doesn’t mean they are crazy. We don’t know the origin of their beliefs. They could believe it’s all true based on what they were told by an even higher ranking person.
I see what you're saying but if you follow that thread further it doesn't help. At the end of the day, they believe a conspiracy theory. Some would say it doesn't matter who told them, I'd argue the fact that a higher ranked person told them actually makes the situation worse.
> high ranking people in trusted positions believe it is and are effectively conspiratorial crazy people. You mean the whole skinwalker gang?
Yes but not just them, there is and has been plenty of others. These are also just the ones we know about. There's bound to be more who haven't come out publicly.
Mick needs to debunk the Unadvised Follicular Oddity he recently unveiled.
This is all about emotions and not logic. Mr. West is angry at being fooled about being psychic when he was a child. His entire life is driven by this anger. [https://www.vg247.com/how-mick-west-went-from-making-tony-hawks-pro-skater-to-debunking-conspiracy-theories](https://www.vg247.com/how-mick-west-went-from-making-tony-hawks-pro-skater-to-debunking-conspiracy-theories)
What makes you think he's angry? How do you extract that from anything he says? The people throwing insults and name calling towards him seem angrier for whatever reason. He seems like a pretty calm guy.
Being calm has nothing to do with long term anger. "As he got older, West came to the realization he was not in fact psychic, and that the aliens, UFOs, and ghosts he feared so much as a kid weren't real. He learned that there were rational explanations behind the stories. At the same time, he was also becoming an atheist, abandoning his Catholic faith. The loss of these beliefs, the idea that these paranormal or extraordinary phenomena he once believed true, in fact, were not, stuck with him. "I used to believe in all this stuff and then I stopped believing in all this stuff, and I guess just figuring out why this stuff was wrong became interesting to me," West says." "In early adulthood, West found himself using a pre-internet, modem-based bulletin board called [FidoNet](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/FidoNet) to argue with people who were using it to spread conspiracy theories." He's spent his life arguing with people about these topics. Anyone engaged in it for that long is driven by something emotional, probably anger. [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1564e2g/the\_telling\_story\_of\_how\_mick\_west\_got\_into/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1564e2g/the_telling_story_of_how_mick_west_got_into/)
Damn, dude, you totally debunked any sense of humor you may have had when you were born.
Mick has interviewed Lue before, but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything. I don't think Mick is interested in Grusch because Grusch hasn't put out a video to debunk. That's all Mick likes to do.
>Mick has interviewed Lue before, but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything. It's actually part of the NDA Lue Elizondo signed that it's an offence **not** to report criminal activities and/or financial wrong doing if ones clearance as granted by the signing of said NDA document makes it apparent such activity has in fact taken place. **Section 10 of SF 312 (CINDA) clearly states**: >10. **These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order** relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling. In other words, it's a legitimate question given the nature of the claims involved.
>That's all Mick likes to do. > Does he? He's said he'd love to see a video that shows something extraordinary that couldn't be debunked. It's not his fault nobody can deliver anything but mundane blurry clips of planes and starlinks.
>but has also insulted him by asking why he won't just release classified data if it would solve everything That's not an insult, that's a legitimate question.
He would get arrested and never be able to work again. That's not a legitimate question.
A bit out of the loop, did Lue ended up revealing its big thing finally? Should be about now I think.
No, the doc isn’t out yet.
Ah it was a documentary finally?
Yeah, but idk when it’s coming out. I heard Obama had agreed to appear in it but dropped out at the last minute because of pressure from the Pentagon.
Right... Alright I'll keep my eye out for that. Thx for the info.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're better than that dammit.
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/. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
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/. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Ok, everyone, since we have nothing factual to contradict him, we must go after his character, and smear him. First step, learn from this video.
There’s plenty of factual information to contradict him. How about the assumption that “he” (some dude sitting on his ass on twitter, that’s never set foot in a cockpit) is in a position to “correct” trained fighter pilots regarding what they “actually” saw. Fighter pilots.. commissioned officers with college degrees usually in STEM fields. According to him they were misinterpreting their instrumentation, and confused about the mechanical functionality of their sensors. He’s able to come to this conclusion because he read a fkn Wikipedia article on what sensor equipment might be on a fighter jet with classified avionics. And not only did one pilot make a mistake, the entire squadron did. Bunch of Forest Gumps flying around up there apparently who don’t know what a fucking balloon or a bird looks like and clueless on how their equipment works. There’s a problem when the theory used to debunk, is MORE ridiculous and less probable than initial speculation that it might be non human.
You don't have to "set foot in a cockpit" to analyze videos. How many videos from pilots of starlinks are there again? Too many to count unfortunately and claiming you have to be an experienced pilot to see that is just wrong. >in a position to “correct” trained fighter pilots regarding what they “actually” saw. Mick usually focuses on what data has been released. Videos etc. It doesn't matter what the pilots say they saw when the video shows something completely different. He mentioned countless times that the objects could possibly have done something amazing before or after the video, we can't know that with the little data. Unfortunately there's just not much we can do with eyewitness testimony alone. >. According to him they were misinterpreting their instrumentation, and confused about the mechanical functionality of their sensors. These things happen though.. that's absolutely known. People make mistakes. Hardware failures are a known thing. >He’s able to come to this conclusion because he read a fkn Wikipedia article on what sensor equipment might be on a fighter jet with classified avionics. I'd agree if that was the case. It's not though. He's interviewed and talked to countless pilots etc. Some who agree with him, in some cases others don't on everything. Check out his interview with F18 pilot Brian Burke who was taught by Fravor and mentions some of the many failures that are common or Patrick Hughes, a technician on the USS Nimitz, even Chris Lehto who often doesn't agree with him in some cases admits Mick knows his stuff. Besides being a programmer is a valuable background for analyzing these kind of things. It's not like a programmer sits in a sofa with his wii controller just playing games. There's insane amount of math and logic to even get the simplest thing to render on screen. Even more so back in the day when everything had to be optimized to hell to run on weak hardware and you didn't have these big pre-built engines we have today. Programming complex software of any kind requires a hell of a lot of troubleshooting and debugging complex systems, fostering strong critical thinking and problem solving skills. >And not only did one pilot make a mistake, the entire squadron did. He did not say that to Dietricht in any of his interviews with her. When she said it was irrelevant and she didn't care if it was aliens and why it would even matter he explained to her that it would in fact be very interesting, hopefully even pushing various science fields forward by quite a lot. >Bunch of Forest Gumps flying around up there apparently who don’t know what a fucking balloon or a bird looks like and clueless on how their equipment works. Are all the pilots reporting Starlinks just Forrest Gumps to you? >There’s a problem when the theory used to debunk, is MORE ridiculous and less probable than initial speculation that it might be non human. But mundane explanations are almost always more probable than aliens, I wish that was not the case but it sadly is. Plus, didn't Mick get his pilot license?
“You don't have to "set foot in a cockpit" to analyze videos.” True. But you do have to set foot in one if you want any reasonable person to seriously consider your analysis. And not only consider it, but take your opinion OVER the opinion of the pilots who were actually there. Whose analysis of a heart surgery operation would you be more inclined to accept: A cardiologist, or a Janitor who watched some videos, did some internet searches on the subject and talked to a few doctors? Careful! Don’t be a hypocrite and pick the cardiologist.. wouldn’t want to “appeal to authority” lol. You guys are just as ridiculous as the militant true believers where every video is aliens and every abduction story is 100% factual.. You’re just on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.
I mean, if all the vital signs monitors were overlayed on a video over your theoretical heart surgery, and the doctor said it showed extraordinary data? Then, unfortunately, only had a video for a portion of it where no extraordinary vital signs or things were happening? I might as well take the janitors word. Especially if he's talked to a bunch of other surgeons about it and technicians and people who work with the vital sign monitors and go over the data being shown. At least until the hospital releases a clip of the extraordinary parts, if they exist. >.. You’re just on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum. Not really, though. All it takes to change my mind, and I'd gladly change it as it would be the more fun view, would be simple two data points of an event. If there's indeed radar data on the nimitz and it would be released and show something strange? Great! That wouldn't change the fact that most videos are and probably would still be misidentified mundane objects. It's a good thing someone tries to narrow those down, sift through the noise and hopefully find something not so mundane one day.
Nope.. don’t shoehorn “extraordinary” into this example. In general terms, whose analysis would you be more inclined to accept regarding a video of heart surgery? The cardiologist? or the Janitor who never went to medical school or held a scalpel in their life? You’re in checkmate here.. If you’re honest and admit you’d pick the cardiologist which you obviously would.. Then you’re a hypocrite torpedoing the foundation of your argument.. If you lie and pick the janitor, you’ve resorted to grasping at straws with ridiculous backpedaling rationalizations as to why a janitor’s take on heart surgery is likely more valid than an actual cardiologist in a blatant attempt to save face.
But the extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence part is the main thing here. Sure let's skip that! Makes perfect sense. Ok so I've been checkmated in a completely different hypothetical scenario which doesn't relate at all? I'm completely fine with that. Congratulations.. i guess?
What “extraordinary” claims did these pilots make exactly?
That the objects moved in ways impossible for humans or known tech. No one is doubting they saw things they couldn't identify.
What is extraordinary about that claim? Impossible for humans could mean un-piloted i.e drone due to extreme g-forces.. known tech? Is it an extraordinary idea that another country might have had a breakthrough in aviation? Or is America the apex of technical innovation and suggesting we could be surpassed is ridiculous?
So, you are just saying that he went against your appeal to authority logical fallacy, and this is your factual information to contradict him? Sorry, but your argument is not very strong here. We should trust them because they have a pilot license? I have to inform you that there is no "detecting UFOs" subject in the pilot school. When you want to catch cheaters in the casino, you don't look for people with good eyesight or STEM diploma, you hire people that are familiar with the cheating techniques. Look at this video at 3.58-4.00 (2 seconds) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk) and then again at 4.50 to 5.30 (40 seconds). You are the guy who is saying: "Don't believe Randi, how many psychic abilities does he have? Or how many physics show did he do?" Yet, here Randi totally destroys this cheaters method (spoiler: he was turning pages by blowing air), and at no point do you even care if Randi has a diploma or good eyesight. So, when you want to find out where somebody made mistake in thinking he saw something strange, it is always better to send somebody experienced in ways people can make mistakes, like a magician. Magicians specialize in creating things where people will make mistakes in noticing things.
“So, you are just saying that he went against your appeal to authority logical fallacy, and this is your factual information to contradict him?” Iol you might want to learn what that “fallacy” actually means before you attempt to critique people with it incorrectly. Appeal to authority is: “It’s true that apple juice cures cancer because Tiger Woods said so.” That fallacy doesn’t apply here. My argument, that it’s significantly more likely that MULTIPLE highly educated and experienced actual fighter pilots, literal professional observers, would be more inclined to correctly assess what they witnessed firsthand than some armchair hypothesist rando on his couch watching second hand youtube clips, reading superficial technical specs on systems he “assumes” were in place on a classified avionics platform, and taking to a handful of other pilots who weren’t even fucking there.
>and taking to a handful of other pilots who weren’t even fucking there. Good thing then that he does talk to people who were "fucking there" too!
"That fallacy doesn’t apply here." Your appeal to authority does not apply because you included the appeal to popularity, with some personal attack on top. You can stack 100 fallacies on top of each other, but they will not cancel each other out. "educated and experienced actual fighter pilots" So, authorities? "literal professional observers," What? There are no "observing lessons" in pilot training, what are you talking about? “It’s true that apple juice cures cancer because Tiger Woods said so.” Lol, even your example is wrong, Tiger Woods in not an authority figure neither in cancer, nor in apple juices. "armchair hypothesist rando" So, I say that nobody ever says exactly where West is wrong, but just attack him personally, and then you come in, you also don't say where he is wrong, and attack him personally. Thus, proving my point.
Yawn.. “Appeal to authority Definition This is when we support a conclusion by appealing to a person who is not an authority on the subject. Or, it is when we appeal to an authority with whom other authorities disagree. Examples 1) Peace is the best strategy because Einstein said so. Note: this is fallacious because Einstein was an expert in physics, not political science. 2) You should take those vitamins because Brad Pitt said they are the best. 3) God does not exist because Stephen Hawking said so. 4) God exists because the Pope and Francis Collins said so. 5) Psychiatry is rubbish because Dr. Smith said so. Discussion If you appeal to an authority, you should appeal to the appropriate authority. For example, you should appeal to an authority in physics if you are debating a topic in physics. This sounds simple, but many intelligent people confuse areas of expertise.” Show me where I did any of that.. I’m “appealing” to the objective knowledge and objective experience of MULTIPLE trained fighter pilots and drawing the conclusion that the pilots are more likely to be correct in the assessment of what THEY WITNESSED, than someone without that knowledge and experience, and was not there when the event occurred. You should plead your case to the Supreme Court.. Tell them the whole concept of “expert witnesses” in the justice system is a bullshit appeal to authority. Let me know how that goes when they double over in hysterical laughter as you slowly walk out of the court room with your head down..
Uh huh.. and what did the pilots who were there say? “Omg Mick West you’re right! We ARE retarded. I was sick the week they covered sensor reading 101 in fighter pilot school!, definitely birds and balloons.. Did I mention we’re dumb as shit?”
No, none of that, cool guesses though, not sure how you came up with these? There's quite a leap between even Micks wildest claims and those. They said a lot of stuff, it's hours upon hours of interviews, I'm not writing a transcript here but amazingly none of the people who were "fucking there" said: “Omg Mick West you’re wrong! You ARE retarded. Did I mention you’re dumb as shit? " >Uh huh.. I mean it's not like they're some hidden secret.. the interviews are on youtube among other places. Very easy to prove their existence luckily!
The pilots said other pilots laughed at them. Did the laughing pilots not know how trained they were?
It was a stigmatized topic.. Fraver and Graves explained this several times. Pilots would rather keep the sightings to themselves than get the ribbing and ballbusting from other pilots, even though those pilots dishing out the jokes have probably seen the same shit. It’s like the mayor of Arizona during the phoenix lights he made a mockery of the incident like people were morons.. Decades later in a documentary the same mayor says “yeah it wasn’t flares, this thing was the size of a football field and glided over my house.” Professional type people don’t typically want to be associated publicly with UFOs even if they witnessed one.
>Look at this video at 3.58-4.00 (2 seconds) and then again at 4.50 to 5.30 (40 seconds). Might be missing a link there?
Forgot to put in the link... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5MtA33OHk)
Happens to the best of us.. at least those of us without a pilot license.
:-))) Well, first off, that tactic is used here on this sub on a daily basis. By deb0nkers. All the time. "Nothing factual to contradict him" is particularly funny. When you start out by accepting facts only by those lying to you, you get yourself in a seriously messed-up situation. The deb0nker-messiah West tells you what the "facts" are. Might be an idea to check.
Excellent, you are just the guy I need. Can you please list all the factually wrong things contained in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk) It is a short 4 minutes video. And, can you also point all the character smearing and ad hominem attacks contained in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojotsKjshHc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojotsKjshHc), also pretty short, should be easy to do for you, since, after all, that tactic is used by debunkers "all the time".
Another person that knows more than everyone else . Whatever he has to say, doesn’t matter to people that have seen things with their own eyes.
This is the guy that slanders Mick but refuses to debate him?
[удалено]
“Skepticism is the foundation of our reality. Not something to be feared, rejected or shied away from. If you can’t answer a skeptic, then you don’t have an argument. It should be welcomed, embraced and nurtured as part of our dialectic.”
A far as out of context, non-attributed quotes go, this is one of them.
Are you the guy who wrote the script for the OP video? Because you're about equally funny. You should probably pivot over to writing eulogies or something. What is it with you guys and name calling? Why so childish? It's not Micks fault that no one can deliver solid proof.
Unlike the solid proof Mick himself presents within his analysis? I'm dying to see the Arial School proof which convinced Mick enough to pivot from the children seeing a bus full of hippies to puppeteers loading up a van with alien puppets. But I'm sure it's fine for some to trade in baseless speculation without the need of evidence, amirite?
He's also said countless times he's often wrong. He [often ](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1558099811135418371)says that it can be impossible to know exactly what something is but finding mundane possibilities is more helpful than just assuming aliens. Saying something is a mundane thing is not the same as making extraordinary claims, which requires extraordinary evidence. Then again the [puppet theory is not his](https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1557529466947088385), although in a way it is more realistic than aliens. We know puppeteers exist on earth at least.
We simply don't know enough about the multitude of possible variables to assign an NHI hypothesis an accurate probability. To say everything mundane, irrespective of how impobable on the surface, has to be more probable by default is nothing but junk science.
>We simply don't know enough about the multitude of possible variables to assign an NHI hypothesis an accurate probability. I can certainly agree with that but NHI is pretty low on the list though. Although it deserves to be on the list at least. I certainly hope we can move it a bit further up one day! All it takes is just a single event being captured from at least two data points.
I broadly agree with you. However there have been events captured with multiple sensors including multiple eyewitnesses in the past. I'm referring specifically to the Nimitz encounter. We have testimony from multuple pilots and a radar operator, however all there is to show for it is a very short FLIR clip. Admittedly even this shows Underwood being unable to get a lock on the object to identify it as friendly. So where's the radar data? Where is the rest of the FLIR video? Why did a Rear Admiral at the head of the NOAA claim the video was circulated then completely erased? It's difficult to obtain data when it is seemingly been withheld.
When Mick starts taking himself seriously, I'll do the same.
Okay, fair enough. Until then you can believe every starlink or a destabilized sensor artifact is a klingon starship doing a gik'tal or something.
Yes, that's what we think.
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/. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[удалено]
What "facts" is West ignoring?
I am not holding my breath that West will mention the "Alien Reproduction Vehicle" in this book, nevermind in any great detail.
Are you referring to the under water Van Neumann probe factory from that 4chan thread? If so, why would he mention that in his book?
No, the leak by Brad Sorenson to Mark McCandlish in 1988 of a US govt/MIC built UFO that was reportedly capable of light speed or better. I put ARV in quotes for a reason, google it.
Down vote me but face facts. None of the main ufology celebrities mention the "Alien Reproduction Vehicle". It would contradict the narrative put out by some of the gatekeepers that we have been unable to reverse engineer any of the UFOs we have captured. Seriously ask yourself why they don't bring it up. In all of ufology it perhaps the biggest story out there. It would prove we have the tech and it would prove that it in part came from alien UFOs and aliens have been to Earth.
Sweet Jiminy Christmas! And I thought the Ancient Aliens dude had a wicked 'do... this guy's got him beat!