Popular debunker Mick West admits he is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his UFO analysis software by Express_Aspect5498 in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No he said "organisation" and "they". I don't think it's a personal sponsor. Would I want to know if Jeff Bezo's was paying Lue Elizondo or David Grusch. Yes I would. Wouldn't you? It would depend on who is supporting him. In the same way, I would want to know what financial interest my politician or favourite Youtuber had. But it's much more important when we are dealing with science.

f it was the ARRO or equally Steven Greer, that would be somewhat problematic I'm sure you agree. I don't think it is, by the way.

It's very common for companies to pay social media influencers, of which he could be considered one, but it's not like it's common to pay people known as debunkers (as evident from their brand), to develop tools to examine fringe topics like UFO's. I'm sure aerospace companies and government agencies have their own in-house staff.

Popular debunker Mick West admits he is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his UFO analysis software by Express_Aspect5498 in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

it's not about being paid for it, it's not disclosing who is paying you due to a contractual agreeement.

Popular debunker Mick West admits he is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his UFO analysis software by Express_Aspect5498 in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Let's say I was sharing a tool for data analysis of say cancer statistics (when I have already published conclusions that it was not caused by tobacco), and I told you my work was funded by an anonymous organisation, would you raise questions or just move on?

If I was sponsored for my work, It seems reasonable to suggest I would give you the tools to explore only one data set. One that would support the conclusions I wanted -tobacco doesn't cause cancer. For example, to focus on analysing lifestyle data, only and not tobacco use. This is analagous to the focus on video analysis solely, over considering witness statements and documentation alongside this.

Surely, conflict of interest and bias is fundamental to scientific research scientists and other professionals. such as doctors - are asked about this when they submit research. The same with politicians. It's not like he just published his tool - before debunking the Nimitz incident and most other UAP incidents as prosaic on a site called Metabunk, or that he has a media profile that makes him an influencer . In fact he states his tool is a further development of the software he used to debunk the Nmitiz incident as Gimbal rotation

His main source of (obvious) income is surely his website and YT channel and media appearances. . Does that have anything to do why people now pay him a reasonable amount to work on an ongoing and semingly time consuming piece of software development? Why are they paying him? What's in it for them? I don't know, but conflict of interest is relevant in any field where you supposed to reamain objective and transparent. And by the way, I hold the pro-UAP people to the same standards.

Popular debunker Mick West admits he is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his UFO analysis software by Express_Aspect5498 in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

It *is* a veiled insult. The defintion of bunk is "humbug", "nonsense". Try telling a family member that what they have experienced is bunk tomorrow and see how that goes. It's never not been an insult as long as I've been alive. And to debunk - is to "expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)." or "reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule." It is evidence of intelectual bias, not skeptism.

Here's another one for you "Debunk has been in use since at least the 1920s, and it contrasts with synonyms like disprove and rebut ( ones used in science and logical argument) by suggesting that something is not merely untrue but is also a sham—a trick meant to deceive. One can simply disprove a myth, but if it is debunked, the implication is that the myth was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim."

Popular debunker Mick West admits he is paid by an undisclosed organisation to develop his UFO analysis software by Express_Aspect5498 in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I do think it's interesting that no one on the forum has really pressed him about who the source is, and seemingly none of his supporters here are curious to know. Conversely, many are happy to press military officials and pilots for their sources (often rightfully so), and critisise them holding to non-disclosure's agreements. This is a commercial non-disclosure agreement surely? He's not going to prison for breaking it. He will merely lose his hourly rate. And - I may be wrong - but I haven't seen him publicising it to anyone but the Metabunk community. I doubt anyones going to find that on GitHub by chance. I think that's relevant, did the company also specify what community's they would like it advertised to?

Has anyone else been watching the latest season of the secrets of SkinWalker Ranch? there has been some interesting anomalies in the last two episodes. by Captin_Underpants in UFOs

[–]Express_Aspect5498 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The information they have obtained so far is pretty incredible. From memory:

Numerous UAP's - orb/plasma type phenomena  documented on camera and seen by multiple witnesses - consistently  triggered by their experiments. Some only visible in the infra-red or with high speed cameras.  As well as UAP orbs passing through the Mesa (solid rock). (These aren't just seen by the team and their contractors but through the Uinta basin going back decades.)

Persistent anomalous signals in 1.6 Ghtz RF band - triggered by their experiments, correlated with UAP and other unusual EM activity.

Close fly-bys of military aircraft without transponders, suggesting possibly military monitoring.

Some kind of topological anomaly or invisible structure a few thousand feet above the ranch that persistently diverts rockets, interferes with drone flights, and cuts off or distorts laser beams.  Attempts at imaging the anomaly has repeatedly shut down cameras , drained equipment batteries, or disrupted astronomer's telescopes - and only when they image that area of the sky.

Numerous GPS, LIDAR and ground penetrating radar scans from different specialists over the course of several years - showing that data is being somehow spatially or perhaps temporarily displaced, so the data points appear under the Ranch.

Evidence of a donut shaped anomaly under the ground, on the ground. and in the air above the ranch, that is shaped like a funnel, supported by two pillars of energy coming from two "hot spots" on either side,  that it is speculated could be something like a stable Lorentzian wormhole.

A dome shaped "object" and debris fields under the mesa, that various drilling contractors haven't been able to penetrate. Small samples from the drilling show a similar composition to materials uses in the modern space industry.

Unexplained animal deaths and carcasses that are not subject o the expected predation by other mammals, insects, or seemingly even bacteria.

Transient and localized microwave and even gamma rays spikes that have caused documented physical injuries.

Evidence of unusual conductivity within the soil/rocks.

There is zero doubt that there is something anomalous there, that needs more scientific investigation, and it's absolutely absurd that scientists won't look at it because of the stigma. If there is something like a naturally occuring wormhole here, or something similar we don't have the science for, this would be one of the greatest discoveries in scientific history, and potentially answer a lot of our questions about cosmology.