Limina Inaugural Symposium Day 3 - Mick West

Mick West provides a detailed line-of-sight analysis in connection with the Aguadilla, Puerto Rico UAP incident of 2013. West uses this analysis in an effort to demonstrate the plausibility of a much more mundane explanation for the UAP: that it was a simple set of Chinese lanterns moving with the prevailing winds. West therefore challenges the analysis offered by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), which argues in favor of the object being inexplicably anomalous. Recorded Feb. 5, 2023.

[@isodoubIet]

Matthew Szydagi doesn't understand Occam's razor. It's not about the simplest explanation, it's about the simplest explanation that _fits the facts._ Newton's gravity is simpler than GR, sure, but it doesn't fit Mercury's orbit. So much for that, on to the next one. So no, the history of physics has been a long and storied _validation_ of Occam's razor as a guiding principle, extremely far from a _refutation_ of it.

[@mikip3242]

Exactly! What fascinantes me is the fact that these guys have very little understanding about what the scientific method actually is.
I spotted two ways they missunderstood occam's razor:
1) The razor is about the most probable explanation (wrong)
2) The razor is about the simplest explanation (wrong again).
They also don't understand what the occam's razor is meant to do. In science we are not really trying to say what is the onthological absolute truth of anything. We are just trying to come with explanations that Will allow us to better predict futuro observations, that's It. Those might perfectly be wedding lanterns, alien UFOs, atlantian ships, secret weapons, eather spirits etc... Occam's razor won't tell us which is true, occam razor will tell us which of these hypothesis has the most potential of explaining future observations without an overly convoluted set of ideas. The wedding lanter hypothesis has something that the rest doesn't have: is reproducible and we could discard It eventually as more data is gathered. The alien hypothesis will hold always, since It can always be explained by aliens that have qualities that adapt to the evidence. In that way It is also weak because It doesn't allow for future prediction at all. If those are aliens then where is the next place and date we will see them? The chinese lanterns hypothesis allows for specific predictions that can or cannot be fullfilled. And the reason that the alien hypothesis is so flexible and can adapt to any new evidence is because is as complex as needed. That's why we really need and use occam's razor: because the best explanations are the ones that are farther away from not been falsifiable, and those are the ones that don't rely in overcomplicated ideas that can make It adapt to whatever analysis you make.

[@JCO2002]

Indeed. Thank you.

[@75YBA]

Here’s my unifying theory. Wookiee’s are getting confused for Bigfoot and their YT 1300 stock light space freighters are the flying saucers. See? Easy! Who needs science and fancy book learnin’? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@warrenbooysen]

The odds of the lanterns finally splitting when it just so happens the ocean is in the background is a leap of faith as well. As is discounting the radar data pre-video.

[@MickWest]

Why? The ocean is in the background for a long time. The objects are seen to seperate slightly several times before that. (SCU attributes that to some gravity warp field, in what I think is LITTLE more of a leap)

[@Living_Matrix1]

Even if it’s not a lantern, you have nowhere near enough evidence to claim this is alien. Its a boring video that shows nothing even remotely interesting. There are a thousand more likely explanations than aliens.

[@dustyWayneJr]

​@@MickWest Wow! Mr. West? You're still pushing your Optical, Special and Visual Effects lessons? I really thought you were going to DO at least ONE real world Science Experiment of a BALLOON or BIRD performing any one of the data points recorded on radar data and FLIR/IR?
Or show the artifacts and compression errors in the DHS FLIR cam feed? But you're just here to obfuscate, because you don't know what the object is and worse, you chase actual physicists away from studying the data.
Try doing some science and physics experiments for one event? Or you're just interested in selling your optical, special and visual effects tutorial and sims and not actually working to prove what the "UAP objects are?
What was your airspeed, altitude and equipment used to repeat anomalies detected for Aguadilla, PR event? Let me guess... wherever your office is, your desk chair height & Desktop computer? Wow keep delivering on that Science?

[@liamnorth555]

@@dustyWayneJr tosser

[@75YBA]

Don’t worry Warren…it’s Wookiee’s. I learned about them in a documentary called “Star Wars”. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@AnxWhisperer]

Where is the follow up Powell presentation?

[@cifonemc]

Here you go: th-cam.com/video/UfVbiKWbo6w/w-d-xo.html