Livestream Discussion: Chris Lehto and Mick West Discuss UFO Videos

Some of us have been waiting for this discussion for a while now and now it's finally here. Mick West is a video game developer responsible for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater video game among others.

Some people have claimed that Mick West has debunked the tic tac or gumball videos.

Chris Lehto is an 18 year fighter pilot that is here to debunk Micks supposed debunking and put this to rest.

Mick, in some of his previous videos, has made what some claimed as very good points that actually debunks the video as being craft not of earth. Chris Lehto has made some videos countering Mick's points pretty decisively. Now they are finally together in the same chat for a face to face debate.

I haven't gotten through this whole video yet but hopefully this will be the end of the debate with one of them coming out as the clear winner. Chris had some internet issues in the beginning so if you want to just skip to where the debate starts then skip to 11:16 in the video.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Awesome definitely been waiting for this

I’ve not watched, literally just wanted to thank for posting

But here we go… early prediction… I’m betting Lheto blew a few holes in mick wests ship again

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Brutally painful to watch. In typical Mick West fashion who never spent a single second either in the cock pit of a fighter jet let alone a single minute in any form of training as a fighter pilot used nothing but conjecture and speculation.

And to Chris's discredit, Chris does not know how to hold a position or string together coherent sentences.

West is arguing points he has no way to validate because he does not know how the targeting pods actually work. He even admits this yet, ironically, holds that his opinions are the facts. lol.

Ultimately I think this never-ending debate over grainy videos is useless. The quality of the videos are of such a poor and low quality it leaves literally everything open to interpretation.

Which is precisely why they were released as grainy videos.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Chris Lehto has made some videos countering Mick's points pretty decisively. Now they are finally together in the same chat for a face to face debate.

Did you read the description of the video you posted, where Chris Lehto himself admits that he's retracted at least one of those videos that you describe as "countering Mick's points pretty decisively". (Lehto retracted his "The FLIR1 video is NOT debunked..." video)

Lehto definitely knows some details of flying the aircraft that West doesn't, but he has had to backtrack on some of his claims that Mick West was wrong on some points where he now admits he was the one who was wrong, and that Mick West was right. Here is the video description, not the most coherent but hopefully you can at least get that he's retracted his video and has admitted that West made some good points where Lehto has had to admit he was wrong.

Chris Lehto
5.01K subscribers
Skip my technical buffoonary and go to 11:26

This video is a recording of Mick and I's livestream discussion after I retracted the Video Titled "The FLIR1 video is NOT debunked - video example of advanced dynamic maneuvering." But after subscriber comments I realized I needed to seriously consider his case and found his math to be correct based on the FOV size information in the SCU report. It hurts to change and retract my views but if we can't change our minds when presented with valid we won't get to the truth. And the truth unfortunately often hurts hah. Sorry for the technical issues at the beginning that was on my end. Mick ran a great stream. I am disappointed for missing twice, I was behind timeline and overconfident that my view as obviously correct. His points really did clear a lot of questions in my mind though. I thought it was very helpful and do believe that is a solid TV image of the Tic-Tac. Maybe the haze is that wavyness LCDR Slaight was talking about?

Anyway I think it's good that they can come together to try to get to the truth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah I'm aware if this. It was on minor points and not a big deal.

However I would like to point out that Mack's argument is solely based on the video evidence. He doesn't take into account the eye witness testimony and the fact that these were also tracked on radar systems as well. Knowing this, Mack's argument for a mundane explanation fails horribly.

Thanks for posting.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah I'm aware if this. It was on minor points and not a big deal.

However I would like to point out that Mack's argument is solely based on the video evidence. He doesn't take into account the eye witness testimony and the fact that these were also tracked on radar systems as well. Knowing this, Mack's argument for a mundane explanation fails horribly.

You obviously don't understand Mick's argument.

Mick's argument is that the video doesn't show anything amazing. It doesn't. The argument is 100% successful in demonstrating that mathematically, a point that now Chris Lehto confirms in the video you posted.

Chris admits that when he made his first video, he didn't check Mick's math, and he should have. But, now that he' checked Mick's math, he basically agrees with it.


So here's the story. Dave Fravor and several other pilots say they saw something making amazing maneuvers. They didn't make any video. The pilots all say that the object basically disappeared and they lost track of it. So nobody really knows what happened to the object after that. There is no video of that encounter to analyze, so Mick West's video analysis doesn't even apply to that, though you seem to think it does. It doesn't. It only applies to the video.

Then another pilot Chad Underwood goes out and makes the FLIR1 or "TicTac" video, as requested by commander Fravor. They seem to think it might be the same object, but nobody can really be sure of that since Fravor and others lost track of the UFO they saw. So maybe it's the same, maybe it's not the same. Whichever is the case, the object in the video doesn't do anything interesting, it doesn't accelerate in the video.

Now, Chad Underwood, and David Fravor both have said they see the UFO in Underwood's video accelerate off the screen at the end. Initially, Chris Lehto agreed with them when he saw the same illusion and before he checked Mick West's math.

But now as Lehto says in the video you posted, he has since reviewed West's math, and he agrees with West that the movement at the end of the video is an illusion of acceleration. These are Chris Lehto's exact words from the video in the OP:

24:45 "based on the field of view for the IR of 0.7 (degrees), basically that last maneuver ok, is .18 degrees, that's what I calculated, that's how far it travels in 1.13 seconds, as the angle's moving."

25:54 "I agree. We can't show definitively, I believe, that it moved quicker than it was tracking ...it's too close...the angles that it's moving before we get the break lock ...those angles match too closely to the speed that it travels out of frame."

So in other words, the UFO had an apparent motion to the left before lock was broken, and after the lock was broken and the UFO moves out of frame, the apparent motion is about the same, so there's no acceleration.

Lehto explains that doesn't mean that Fravor didn't see something accelerate, just that the video doesn't show acceleration. I don't think Mick West disagrees with that, so there's no failure on Mick West's part as you claim. In fact there's really no good evidence the object in the video is the same thing Fravor saw, since Fravor and the other pilots all say they lost track of the UFO they saw when it disappeared from their view.

Today there's supposed to be a video interview with Chad Underwood conducted by Corbell released, where apparently Underwood will still claim the UFO is seen to accelerate in his video. I think Underwood needs to listen and learn from the lessons of Lehto who was also initially fooled by that illusion, but, after careful study, has now come to the same conclusion as Mick West, which is that Fravor may have seen some object making amazing maneuvers, but, no amazing maneuvers are shown in the video Underwood made. So I think Lehto helped advance some significant progress here. In no way does he debunk Fravor's sighting, but he does debunk some of the claims about amazing acceleration shown in the video, as a convert who used to believe those claims but now believes West since he checked the math himself.

And if any of you check the math yourself, you will come to the same conclusion if you have any idea what you're doing.

In Chad's interview, he says that he did in fact attempt to reacquire target, and it was gone from NOT ONLY his scan volume, but also the Princeton's and the Hawkeye's much much larger scan volume.

Mick thinks this was a small and close plane (to mitigate perceived acceleration), under that assumption...how did it exit the scan volume so quickly? I understand Mick doesn't care much about anything outside of the video, but I'm hoping he at least addresses Chad's statements rather than ignoring them and con't to claim Chad "messed up" and didn't look for the tic-tac after it exited his 2x FLIR view (which I thought was a unreasonable and convenient assumption, given Chad was ORDERED to track it down)

If I were investigating a video, I would not want to ignore witness statements (directly related to said video), since they can inform your analysis. You can even do sensitivity analysis assuming Chad's is telling truth, and then run another analysis assuming he's lying or mistaken (Which is where Mick always starts from when dealing with event he hasn't seen with his own eyes).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There is no video of that encounter to analyze, so Mick West's video analysis doesn't even apply to that, though you seem to think it does. It doesn't. It only applies to the video.

I think you should re read my post you are referring to. I didn't say Micks video analysis applies to something that isn't in the video. Read it a little slowerrrr.

I said "However I would like to point out that Mack's argument is solely based on the video evidence. He doesn't take into account the eye witness testimony and the fact that these were also tracked on radar systems as well. Knowing this, Mack's argument for a mundane explanation fails horribly."

He has FAILED to debunk the incident as something spectacular into just something mundane. He doesn't take into account ALL of the evidence. The video isn't ALL of the evidence.

originally posted by: aairman23
In Chad's interview, he says that he did in fact attempt to reacquire target, and it was gone from NOT ONLY his scan volume, but also the Princeton's and the Hawkeye's much much larger scan volume.

Mick thinks this was a small and close plane (to mitigate perceived acceleration), under that assumption...how did it exit the scan volume so quickly? I understand Mick doesn't care much about anything outside of the video, but I'm hoping he at least addresses Chad's statements rather than ignoring them and con't to claim Chad "messed up" and didn't look for the tic-tac after it exited his 2x FLIR view (which I thought was a unreasonable and convenient assumption, given Chad was ORDERED to track it down)

If I were investigating a video, I would not want to ignore witness statements (directly related to said video), since they can inform your analysis. You can even do sensitivity analysis assuming Chad's is telling truth, and then run another analysis assuming he's lying or mistaken (Which is where Mick always starts from when dealing with event he hasn't seen with his own eyes).

Thank you, you explained it a hell of a lot better than I could

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There was ZERO truth revealed in this 3rd grade "discussion". Little Mickey continues with his strawman arguments while Lehto struggles to string together a single coherent sentence.

This video was a complete waste of time.

Lehto now has a follow-up video where he interviews "Dave Falch, a FLIR depot level technician for over 15 years! He has worked on 15 different FLIR infrared imaging systems for the US Government and has spent much of his free time investigating the UAP videos."



In short...Mick is shot.

originally posted by: aairman23
If I were investigating a video, I would not want to ignore witness statements (directly related to said video), since they can inform your analysis. You can even do sensitivity analysis assuming Chad's is telling truth, and then run another analysis assuming he's lying or mistaken (Which is where Mick always starts from when dealing with event he hasn't seen with his own eyes).

The key point of contention is, does the object accelerate to the left at the end, as Underwood claims, or does it just continue moving left at the same rate it's been moving to the left, after target lock is broken?

To the extent we consider eyewitness testimony in answering this question, the video evidence clearly demonstrated that eyewitness Underwood's claim of acceleration is wrong. As for any other claims Underwood makes that are not apparent in the video, those are a separate issue. But I must say it doesn't help his credibility that his eyewitness claims about acceleration at the end of the video contradict the video evidence.

I also think it's really sad if anyone here who has a high school education is unable to plot this simple graph from the video which demonstrates that Underwood's acceleration claim is wrong. The graph clearly shows no acceleration and "being there" or "not being there" has no bearing on the graph. The graph is data that comes right from the video, and if there was acceleration at the end as Underwood claims, the leftward movement wouldn't be smooth at the end, but it is smooth, there's no detectable change.

www.metabunk.org...


To Chris Lehto's credit, he may not have plotted this graph but he sort of did mathematically, by calculating the left movement both before and after target lock was broken to conclude that there's no detectable acceleration. Therefore he changed his opinion to fit the facts, which I give him credit for. I give Underwood no credit for doing the math, since I've never seen him do it. If he did the math and did it right he would come to the same conclusion Lehto and others have done, when they actually did the math.

originally posted by: democracydemo
In short...Mick is shot.

I would say it's your credibility that's shot if that's your reaction to that poor performance by Dave Falch which only served to illustrate he doesn't understand West's argument, therefore he never debunks it, and he makes a major blunder on his claim of the glass in infrared systems showing his lack of expertise, plus he admits he's never worked on the type of targeting pods being discussed.

Here is Mick West's response video. If you want to try to redeem your credibility, you can watch this and see if you can understand West's argument where Falch failed to do so.

A Response to Dave Falch's "debunking" of the Gimbal Rotating Glare Theory


Pay attention to the segment from 4:22 to 4:37 where West demonstrates what can happen. Falch never seems to acknowledge that DOES happen, and then he also fails to explain why it can't happen, even Chris Lehto at first doesn't understand his explanation and later he says he does but I don't see how that's possible because Falch never gives any coherent explanation of why it's not possible. Here are some highlights you might want to pay attention to should you watch West's response:

4:22 to 4:37 See West's example showing how glare rotates when the scene is derotated

5:40 to 6:22 Falch destroys his claim of appeal to authority that he's the expert so we should listen to him, when he makes statements that are demonstrably false about types of glass that block infrared.

6:45 Chris Lehto: "I didn't understand that argument actually, can you go through that again?"

Dave replies but he doesn't actually make any points, he makes an "appeal to authority" type statement talking about the internal workings of the device saying "you're not going to have any exposure to them unless you're somebpody like myself", but he never explains why it wouldn't do exactly what Mick West says.

7:40 Mick West: "Notice he doesn't really make any points here, and then ends it with an argument from authority"

7:50 Mick West: "Chris recognizes this appeal to authority and the lack of a point, and presses him some more"

9:04 (Dave) doesn't really understand my arguments, and since his debunking doesn't really make any sense, then Chris's claim that he understands is also a little suspect.

So if you review West's demonstration from 4:22 to 4:37 showing how the glare rotates when the scene is de-rotated, my attempt to understand Falch's claim is that he says essentially that can't happen, but obviously that does happen in that demonstration. Falch never gives any reason why that can't happen in the targeting pods. By the way, he's never had any experience working on those targeting pods so his appeal to authority is especially ridiculous when his debunking doesn't even show an understanding of West's explanation and he has zero experience working on the system in question.

My understanding is there is much more compelling/detailed video material that is under lock and key. The way I see it is this is a lot of effort to go up against some very NON dubious claims of veteran aviators. I appreciate the technical analysis and the math involved but not sure it will lead anywhere. There are two choices: either the objective technology is domestic or ET unless you discount the visual sightings ( then you have two choices: you are a moron or attempting to intentionally disinformation).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

A Response to Dave Falch's "debunking" of the Gimbal Rotating Glare Theory

So if you review West's demonstration from 4:22 to 4:37 showing how the glare rotates when the scene is de-rotated

Great watch Arbi and you're right, zero experience working on the system in question.

As Lehto responded to Mick:

little Micky, & the Ostrich ACOLYTES
great, Innit
boots getting smoked, and Not before time
Why So?
'we called him' Worzil Gummage, you may know of him, as Strawman non Don
Chris Lehto, David Fravor (miss) Alex Deitrich, Kevin Day, Chad Underwood, Jason Turner, and each & every one of the 5000 plus active, service personnel, on ops, at that time, would travel a million miles to gladly buy, each & everyone of them a thankyou drink.
likkle metal Micky, I wouldn't travel a centimetre,and would rather be Bankrupt.

originally posted by: democracydemo
As Lehto responded to Mick:

Lehto says "How do you guys answer that one?" after explaining the size of the glare is smaller than a typical jet.

First, he's confusing glare and flare. Lens flare does involve reflections as he suggests but West calls what we see on the Chile and Gimbal UFO videos "glare".

My rebuttal to him is an infrared video showing his assumption is false that the glare needs to cover the wings to be able to not see the wings.

www.youtube.com...
Here we don't see any wings in the infrared video. If you apply Chris Lehto's logic, these cannot be F-15's because the wings would be visible if they were. I don't see any wings, do you? But these are F-15's, so this is absolute proof Lehto is wrong again about being able to see wings, in a long string of being wrong, wrong, and wrong again claims. Don't take my word for it, watch the video yourself.

At higher zoom we can see the wings and see that the infrared glare doesn't cover them.

Those two screenshots completely debunk Lehto's latest "debunk" and show whether the wings show up or not can depend on how close the plane is and on zoom level. We can't assume that if the wings don't show up that it can't be a plane like Lehto assumed in that latest video.

A lot of his other misunderstandings are addressed in this video which demonstrates rotating glare, Lehto needs to watch this, I don't know if he's seen it: