The public technical challenge to @MickWest is now closed — almost at the same ultra-fast speed with which these “analyses” are usually produced. When the Department of War released PURSUE Release 01 on May 8, with around 160 files including videos, images, and documents, the material was already being rapidly filtered through the same familiar vocabulary: “probably,” “possible,” “hypothesis,” “parallax,” “small IR features,” “limited context,” “balloon-like,” “birds,” “planes.” But speed is not rigor. A label is not a reconstruction. A hypothesis is not an identification. And “probably” is not data. That is exactly why I made the challenge. Because anyone can look at a difficult UAP video and quickly attach a conventional label to it. The hard part is proving it technically: frame by frame, with timestamps, coordinates, platform data, sensor source, range, bearing, azimuth/elevation, object count, track continuity, aircraft identification, thermal behavior, flight-track correlation, chain of custody, assumptions, and uncertainties. That was the challenge. And when confronted with that standard, Mick West did not provide a technical reconstruction. He provided one sentence. Then, when pressed again, he doubled down: “Analysis is not needed beyond 2 != 4. Boring != Amazing.” That sentence says everything. “Analysis is not needed” is the entire problem. I asked for data. Not rhetoric. Not reputation. Not “clearly.” Not “probably.” Data. The challenge was specific: If the USS Jackson / Corbell / WEAPONIZED clip is not related to Wiggins’ incident, show the metadata separation. If the objects are military planes, identify the aircraft. If there is no corroborating data, explain why Star SAFIRE EO/IR footage, radar context, CIC observation, crew recording, time/location/platform readouts, and witness statements are excluded from the evidentiary record. I asked for: frame-by-frame analysis, timestamps, coordinates, platform data, sensor source, range, bearing, azimuth/elevation, object count, track continuity, thermal behavior, aircraft identification, flight-track correlation, chain of custody, assumptions, uncertainties, and the relevant statements from Wiggins, Corbell/WEAPONIZED, and the congressional record. Mick West’s answer? “It’s clearly not the event he described, as it’s just two objects doing nothing that planes don’t do. That’s all you need.” No frame-by-frame analysis. No timestamps. No coordinates. No platform data. No sensor source analysis. No range. No bearing. No azimuth/elevation. No aircraft identification. No flight-track correlation. No thermal explanation. No chain of custody. No metadata separation. No technical reconstruction. No link to a complete analysis. Nothing. Just a conclusion. That is the entire problem. He was not asked for a slogan. He was not asked for a personal impression. He was not asked to repeat “probably planes.” He was asked to prove the claim technically. And he did not. “Two objects doing nothing that planes don’t do” is not analysis. It is an unsupported assertion. “Clearly not the event” is not metadata separation. “Planes don’t do” is not aircraft identification. “2 != 4” does not establish range, bearing, altitude, sensor geometry, thermal behavior, track continuity, flight correlation, or chain of custody. “Boring != Amazing” is not a reconstruction. “That’s all you need” is not a technical standard. It is exactly what happens when speculation is forced into a technical arena and cannot survive. The issue was never whether the public clip, by itself, shows every phase Wiggins described. I already conceded that it may not. The issue is whether Mick can prove his broader claims: that the clip is not related to the Wiggins incident, that there is no corroborating data, and that the objects are probably military planes…

Man, that’s crazy. No wonder the Mets keep losing.

Don't remember them in 70s and 80s If they are just water why have states in USA banned it

Hold up what did he squirt on that guacamole???

Best Drill Instructor in a Movie? A B C or D