NASA UAP FOIA Black Vault release and Mick West

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The Black Vault has recently posted a release of an FOIA request they made to NASA

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/nasa-uap-ufo-related-internal-communications/

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nasa/21-HQ-603-6.pdf

The full release document is an interesting read, oddly enough especially if you search for keyword "Mick"

It seems there has been focussed misrepresentation of Mick's (and by connection without mention Metabunk) various theories, by the SCU. Using Chris Lehto as a key expert.

emails between Nijo Abraham (of NASA) and Peter Reali of the SCU

"Mick makes many obvious mistakes in his presentations and you must remember he is basically not interested in scientific analysis but entertainment for his Youtube audience. It is basically tabloid internet an the SCU was formed to counteract this type of misinformation but more to make the study of this phenomenon respectable to the scientific community. "

"I will point out why the Go Fast video presents anomalous characteristics. You pointed to the Mick West video but there is a much better analysis by Chris Lehto who was a 16 year veteran who flew F18's and understands how these targeting pods work. He points out the errors in both Mick's analysis of the Go Fast and Gimbal"
Content from External Source
I mean there is a lot to unpack here, just of the bat Lehto flew F16's not F18's and thus never used ATFLIR for a start but there is so much else in these documents that does not fill me with hope for a rational outcome from whatever aspects of NASA are apparently involved in this.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Wow they considered asking Mick to attend

p573

"No, I don't think he will add value. Your audience is experienced engineers and scientists that have worked with actual data and designed aviation technology. I don't think West has that experience. You can consider the audience as a team of Mick Wests w/ actual experience."
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Interestingly the mentions of Mick end soon after this email asking for why Mick is wrong by Ravi kumar Kopparapu but never seemingly answered.

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nasa/21-HQ-603-6.pdf
As I mentioned in our chat, these are the explanations that a LOT of people point to reach a conclusion that the Navy videos are known objects or misunderstood observations. If the desire is to change minds, then these videos by Mick West must be addressed. No one countered him on these explanations. So they stand as of now. Some questions are: Is there anything in his analysis that he is missing? What is the counter argument to his analysis?
p562

So maybe there is hope yet
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Wow they considered asking Mick to attend

p573

"No, I don't think he will add value. Your audience is experienced engineers and scientists that have worked with actual data and designed aviation technology. I don't think West has that experience. You can consider the audience as a team of Mick Wests w/ actual experience."

It seems like Mick West's the guy who could build a simulacrum of the system from scratch in his shed using little more than a GoPro, a broomstick, and a ball of string. Maybe he's more of an expert? :)

Can Mick make an argument that agrees with the evidence that the "experts" can't refute? If so, either (a) they aren't experts; or (b) Mick's right enough to be listened to. Either conclusion works. And given that, as mentioned in your other post, such arguments have been made, between them they are making a bit of a case against themselves.
 

RTM

Member
Interestingly the mentions of Mick end soon after this email is asked but never seemingly answered.

p562



So maybe there is hope yet
I seem to remember Mick asking Luis Elizondo about the kind of investigating involved in the gofast video and being given a very vague answer.
It now seems like all the ET hypothesizers hopes are in the video that Mick explains as glare.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
It seems like Mick West's the guy who could build a simulacrum of the system from scratch in his shed using little more than a GoPro, a broomstick, and a ball of string. Maybe he's more of an expert? :)

Indeed.

If the UFO flap has taught me anything, it's reminded me to continue guarding against putting too much stock on people's formal credentials as experts. Study their argument rather than their fancy titles and lists of publications.

While obviously not always the case, many a credentialed expert has proven to perpetrate critical errors in reasoning and the observance of scientific principles. Some betray blatant bias and being narcissistically besotted by their own titles. Pride can reduce genius into idiocy.

A number of non-credentialed ones, not the least our own Debunker-in-Chief at MB, demonstrate superior analysis and scientific humility. The latter, paradoxically, sharpens the former.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
My personal feeling is I think they likely deep down know these specific cases are not backed by rigorous enough analysis to show something extraordinary, otherwise they would be all over the place with that analysis. There would be specifics in the emails, Ravi's email would not have gone apparently unanswered.

Personally I think they believe in ETH/NHI etc at a deeper level, maybe based on some other older 'evidence' or a personal experience that they feel is less likely to be convincing to people and are trying to use these cases that have reached critical public mass and have "Navy backing" as a shim to drive things forward / get disclosure or whatever. If they can get NASA to regurgitate with NASA logos whatever analysis they chuck at them then that further legitimises the subject.

I have asked before what this topic looks like without Mick West/Metabunk/other sceptics and these emails almost make it look like it's elements of NASA buying whatever the SCU throws at them.

That or they want on a Bigelow style gravy train and/or a mix of both.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
My personal feeling is I think they likely deep down know these specific cases are not backed by rigorous enough analysis to show something extraordinary, otherwise they would be all over the place with that analysis.
The main point is that Mick presents an independent narrative which threatens certain people's agendas, and that's why he's excluded from the discussion as much as possible.
Truth doesn't matter for this.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The main point is that Mick presents an independent narrative which threatens certain people's agendas, and that's why he's excluded from the discussion as much as possible.
Truth doesn't matter for this.
Indeed the agenda seems to be get someone in the government to say these videos show NHI etc.

The problem seems to be that the foxes are well and truly in the chicken coop and giving presentations and enjoying NASA hospitality.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
The main point is that Mick presents an independent narrative which threatens certain people's agendas, and that's why he's excluded from the discussion as much as possible.
Truth doesn't matter for this.

Total agreemenent, apart from the fact that I'd have included the word "budget" or "funding" somewhere near where you have just "agendas".

I don't remember when I first encountered the first of this related family of quotes: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
but all to often a vague hybrid of them pops into my head. I'll stick to canon today, and select this one, which is about as succinct and on point as it gets:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Interestingly the mentions of Mick end soon after this email asking for why Mick is wrong by Ravi kumar Kopparapu but never seemingly answered.

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/nasa/21-HQ-603-6.pdf
If the desire is to change minds, then these videos by Mick West must be addressed. No one countered him on these explanations. So they stand as of now. Some questions are: Is there anything in his analysis that he is missing? What is the counter argument to his analysis?
Content from External Source
Why is the desire "to change minds"? Why isn't it to find out the truth? Nobody needs a "counter argument" unless they simply don't have "counter evidence". This looks like prima facie evidence that the cult mentality has taken over and serious analysis of cases is not wanted.

I realize that I've not been following this as closely as I might, but I found my way to Metabunk precisely because the video releases were in the news, and I found @Mick West and his explanations to be far more lucid and credible than the original claims.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Why is the desire "to change minds"? Why isn't it to find out the truth? Nobody needs a "counter argument" unless they simply don't have "counter evidence". This looks like prima facie evidence that the cult mentality has taken over and serious analysis of cases is not wanted.

I realize that I've not been following this as closely as I might, but I found my way to Metabunk precisely because the video releases were in the news, and I found @Mick West and his explanations to be far more lucid and credible than the original claims.
Yeah reading through the release there is so much inherent bias, despite various early statements against such talk.

This Ravi person suggests inviting Mick it gets turned down, but at one point he is penning an email to Leslie Kean, like man why not just google Mick, email/DM him, find Metabunk, come on here and realise its not just a Youtuber out for views as suggested by the SCU guy.

Maybe this all sort of grinding to a halt as far as discussion of Mick goes around mid 2021 tells a story. Although I do think Mick should do an FOIA request for his name.. (if allowed)

I would absolutely love to see the recording of the presentation that most of this seems to be based around. If that can be FOIA'd
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Mick in full:

June 29th, 2021 5.06pm

From: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu
To: Nijo Abraham

Have you considered asking Mick West?
Content from External Source
June 29th, 2021

From: Nijo Abraham
To: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu

No, I don't think he will add value. Your audience is experienced engineers and scientists that have worked with actual data and designed aviation technology. I don't think West has that experience. You can consider the audience as a team of Mick Wests w/ actual experience.
Content from External Source
June 30th 2021, 3.42pm

From: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu
To: Nijo Abraham

Here are some sample videos from Mick West, who seems to explain “Go Fast” and “GIMBAL”. As I mentioned in our chat, these are the explanations that a LOT of people point to reach a conclusion that the Navy videos are known objects or misunderstood observations. If the desire is to change minds, then these videos by Mick West must be addressed. No one countered him on these explanations. So they stand as of now. Some questions are: Is there anything in his analysis that he is missing? What is the counter argument to his analysis?
Content from External Source
June 30th 2021, 2.43pm

From: Nijo Abraham
To: Peter Reali

Dr. Ravi Kopparappu and I were discussing the presentations and the audience for the AIAA UAP session. If there are questions based on Mick West's explanations to the Navy videos, would your analysis/presentation be able to address them? If you have not seen Mick's videos, the links are below. Please take them into account to make a strong point that all explanations were considered.
Content from External Source
July 1st, 2021 1.10pm

From: Peter Reali
To: Nijo Abraham

I have fully analyzed the Nimitz Video and I will represent the SCU's official analysis of this event. The SCU as an organization has no opinion on the Go Fast or Gimbal videos as these have not been studied in detail as official projects. You have to realize that it took a year and a half to analyze the Nimitz video to produce the 270 page report that I sent you. There is a huge amount of research to understand and analyze the specifications for the Raytheon FLIR targeting pod, which is highly classified military gear and it was only through painstaking research that we found background information on the metadata to understand the meaning of the data on the screen and interview the witnesses, get ship logs from FOIA requests, and do time line analysis and peer reviews.

This was the targeting pod in 2004 the more recent video like Go Fast have similar information but it is a more modern version which has changed where the metadata on the screen has moved around some are different and this would need to be researched to come up with a definitive report. I have partially analyzed the go fast video. I have not analyzed the Gimbal video so I will try and add rebuttals to the go fast video but in questions and answers I will only be able to point out where I disagree with Mick's analysis. This will be a personal rebuttal and does not represent an official position of the SCU and I will state that in any question and answer period. Mick makes many obvious mistakes in his presentations and you must remember he is basically not interested in scientific analysis but entertainment for his Youtube audience. It is basically tabloid internet an the SCU was formed to counteract this type of misinformation but more to make the study of this phenomenon respectable to the scientific community.

I will point out why the Go Fast video presents anomalous characteristics. You pointed to the Mick West video but there is a much better analysis by Chris Lehto who was a 16 year veteran who flew F18's and understands how these targeting pods work. He points out the errors in both Mick's analysis of the Go Fast and Gimbal videos and here is a link to the Go Fast video. Mick's analysis critically depends on the RNG reading on the meta data and as Chris points out this is wrong because the screen shows it is not locked and is giving a wrong indication that Mick uses to calculate his results. It is obvious he has not done any research on obtaining information and how to interpret the meta data on the screen. He has just borrowed the information from the TTSA website which was another entertainment site and did no detailed analysis of the videos.

Here is a link for you or your friends to watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLKK6ZlCHc&t=858s
Content from External Source
July 2nd, 2021 10:13am

From: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu
To: Nijo Abraham

Thanks for forwarding Peter’s response. Intriguing indeed. I just wish both the youtube creators (Chris Lehto and Mick West) actually respond to each other face-to-face (or online to online) and discuss why they think they are right. This is what we do in science! And that is how we can make any progress. Can you imagine how far we will be able to progress if scientists try to resolve each other’s disagreements on youtube? We will get nowhere. We won’t even have Youtube. Someone needs to get these people talking. If Mick is really interested in truth, he should talk to pilots and see if his analysis is correct. Maybe he did? I do not know.
Content from External Source
July 2nd, 2021 11:13am

From: Nijo Abraham
To: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu

The problem is these are not scientists and they do not know the rigor involved that you mentioned. Hence, why we need a scientific study instead of a pilot and a journalist posting videos, and the public swaying from one to the other. Clearly it seems mick just comes with a theory and supports it with math, without cross checking. As you said, there seems to be no peer review by experts in this case.
Content from External Source
July 2nd, 2021 12.20pm

From: Jacob Haqq Misra
To: Ravi Kumar Kopparappu

Thanks! I had not seen Mick's videos before. The "debunking" video about focal lengths maybe makes some points, but the presentation (toys on a tile floor) will make it difficult for many scientists to take seriously.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
I have fully analyzed the Nimitz Video and I will represent the SCU's official analysis of this event. The SCU as an organization has no opinion on the Go Fast or Gimbal videos as these have not been studied in detail as official projects. You have to realize that it took a year and a half to analyze the Nimitz video to produce the 270 page report that I sent you.
It is striking to me that a year and a half was spent and 270 pages written on a video in which a distant target does not do anything. When they get around to Gimbal, which at least SEEMS to do interesting things, they'll be busy for a great many, many years and will need a forklift to lift the report!
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The justification to not involve Mick reminds me of when TV and YouTube channels were getting astrophysicists to debate flat earthers - they may know most of the answers but they probably don't understand the questions or the real intricacies of the issue. Those exchanges don't give me much confidence in their abilities to properly investigate UAP sightings.

Questions that occur to me:
  • Why does Kopparappu want to "change minds"? Change them to what? And has his own mind changed much since June/July 2021?
  • Where is the 270-page Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) report? (Answer: here)
  • Have its conclusions been discussed here?
  • Are the "many obvious mistakes" that Reali feels Mick made in his presentations actually mistakes on his part?
  • Why would Reali say something as obviously wrong as "Mick [is] basically not interested in scientific analysis but entertainment for his [tabloid internet] Youtube audience"?
  • Why did he think Lehto's analysis was "much better"?
  • When Reali says Lehto "points out the errors in both Mick's analysis of the Go Fast and Gimbal videos" am I right in thinking that Lehto was actually the one in error and later came to understand that?
  • Did Kopparappu and Abraham simply take Reali at his word or is there a reason to believe they looked deeper and investigated his assertions themselves?
  • Is the "toys on a tile floor" video referenced by Misra actually referring to one of Mick's videos or has he confused it with someone else's?
  • Being as these emails are from over 15 months ago I'm guessing Kopparappu, Abraham and Reali must have changed and updated their viewpoints since then - anyone know how?
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Senior Member
Is the "toys on a tile floor" video referenced by Misra actually referring to one of Mick's videos or has he confused it with someone else's?
I thought he was alluding to Chris Lehto's 'debunk' of Mick's analysis. 'Toys on a tile floor' sounds more like Chris than anything I recall of Mick's. Specifically this video by Chris:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLKK6ZlCHc&t=737s


I haven't re-watched it all, but on skipping through it there are toys on a tile floor at 18:30.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is striking to me that a year and a half was spent and 270 pages written on a video in which a distant target does not do anything.
They think it does stuff. They think it actually rapidly accelerates off screen.

Also a lot of the report is about eyewitnesses.
 
I thought he was alluding to Chris Lehto's 'debunk' of Mick's analysis. 'Toys on a tile floor' sounds more like Chris than anything I recall of Mick's. Specifically this video by Chris:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLKK6ZlCHc&t=737s


I haven't re-watched it all, but on skipping through it there are toys on a tile floor at 18:30.

I beg your pardon, but would you please provide the correct YouTube link for that video from Lehto's YouTube Channel you posted above? Because I just couldn't find it there, instead I get this other one below. Thanks!

Source: https://youtu.be/fBeqP4z3rXo
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I beg your pardon, but would you please provide the correct YouTube link for that video from Lehto's YouTube Channel you posted above? Because I just couldn't find it there

It's the one David posted, just his timestamp was wrong. Tile floor scene runs from about 14:35 to near the end.
 
Last edited:
It is that one, just the timestamp was wrong. Tile floor scene runs from about 14:35 to near the end.

Ah okay then. The Logo on the upper left corner just induced me to think I could find it on Lehto Files YouTube channel, but I see that I really can't find it there. Anyway I realise now there's an excerpt of Lehto's video inserted on this West's video.
 
Last edited:
This Ravi person suggests inviting Mick it gets turned down, but at one point he is penning an email to Leslie Kean, like man why not just google Mick, email/DM him, find Metabunk, come on here and realise its not just a Youtuber out for views as suggested by the SCU guy.

Ravi Kumar Kopparappu is a planetary scientist at NASA who is studying the potential habitability of Earth-like planets. He is currently co-chairing the AIAA’s Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Community of Interest project, joined by Ryan Graves, a former Navy fighter pilot and defense contractor.

As for this aforementionedmentioned AIAA' s project, it's worth noting that scores of members of the 30,000-strong AIAA — drawn from aerospace contractors, government agencies, think tanks and startups — have already signed on to the effort, running the gamut from “people that have 30-plus years at NASA” to “nontraditional members from the tech community", as stated by Ryan Grave on an interview done by Bryan Bender to Politico.com four days ago. This project, which was approved by the AIAA Council of Directors, is expected to be officially announced on Thursday.
 
Why does Kopparappu want to "change minds"? Change them to what? And has his own mind changed much since June/July 2021?

I just can't help but wonder, was he referring to changing the academic attitude on the phenomenon by means of their referred program content discussed on that presentation session about UAPs?


Ravi,

I am cc'ing Lisa from AIM to address the media concerns. Please see the email chain below.

The media will be able to attend if they register.

Lisa,

Can you clarify what sort of promotion you were referring to? If it was only 10 people attended the session, it would not satisfy our objective is changing the academic attitude on the phenomenon. Were you referring to displaying it on the following page: https://www.aiaa.org/aviation/program

Nijo Abraham
Content from External Source
Another interesting point worth of note was the conversation between Ravi and Martin J. Kernan that I quoted below. By reading this excerpt, I could though only surmise what's the actual subject of their conversation. IMO, it could be about Ravi's idea for the framework within which to cover all the issues raised elsewhere about the UAP subject on their further presentations:


Thank you Ravi. You have provided an essential framework within which to think about tlris. I'll be working on the story idea more the next month or so, and will likely be in touch again.

Best to you,

Martin J. Kernan

> On Jul 6, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi K1UlIar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
> I think so. What I would say is that having tile data available to a wider and diverse group of experts (aviation experts, aerospace engineers, physicists etc.) may provide a much better understanding of the phenomena. It will also hopefully help in de-mystifying and reduce the pre-ponderance of speculation about their nature. Data availability and collection is critical. This is how we all in science work to make progress on something that initially appears to be puzzling.
>
> And yes, I would be happy to respond the best way I can if you have any further questions.
> Best
> Ravi
>
>
> --
> Ravi kumar Kopparapu
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
> Greenbelt, MD 20771
> email: ravikumar kopparapu@nasa.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/5121, 4:29 PM, "Martin J. Kernan" (b) (6) wrote:
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful response Ravi. You raise a very interested and exceLlent point, one I hadn't considered. I I didn't realize (though I should have) that the data collection being so fragmented, hampers if not cripples scientists' ability to interpret it in a comprehensive way. I imagine the fact that the US military is a big collector, albeit uintentionally, certainly complicated matters. I'm starting to see the outlines of a story here, we have all the brains and ability and technology to data visualize/interpret - but no system to funnel that data to the right people so that it can be reviewed in a comprehensive way. Is that right? Would you add to, revise that statement?
>
> As I develop the story idea, I hope it's okay if I keep in touch.
>
> Best to you,
>
> Martin J. Kernan
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Top