Spot on. Taylor's fallacy boils down to using a digitally processed IR image as a thermometer from which an object's temperature can be accurately extrapolated while ignoring a range of digital image-production and optical variables.
A related fallacy is the assumption that invisible electromagnetic radiation isn't physically light and hence cannot produce a glare or other optical effects on an IR camera which are similar to the optical effects of visible light in standard cameras.
The "related fallacy" (in
italics in the above) relates to the topic as follows:
(1) It's been advanced by other ufologists, as a counter-argument to Mick, that there's no glare in IR images as glare, they claim, only relates to the visible spectrum.
(2) The "related fallacy" concerning the physics of light could therefore explain why Taylor's 'main fallacy' (in
bold in the above) entirely ignores optical factors such as
glare,
sensor type, pixel size, perceived brightness not varying with distance etc.
(3) The 'main fallacy' of regarding the IR image as a reasonably accurate thermometer also explains why Taylor doesn't trust the range-to-target readings shown or mentioned in some of the footage and considers even their absence in others (GIMBAL) suspect. To him Mick's ranges just don't add up to the temperatures the IR image demonstrates by extrapolation.
This in addition to Taylor ignoring camera settings and image edits as factors.
P.S. Even some non-ufologists seem to fall into the same trap by claiming optics don't factor in in the infrared spectrum because infrared light is invisible to the naked eye.