The problem is there does seem to be a selection bias problem, where Mick gets a lot of distribution on these kinds of thing, and people do not hear the subsequent refutations from true experts about flaws in his analysis. He speaks very authoritatively, often over his skis imo. He also has a tendency to overemphasize forensics against things like video in a way that just ignores completely the surrounding context.
Also curious for any links to Mick West refutations.
I've found him to be methodical and well-thought, though occasionally "reaching", like his claim that the four F-18 fighter pilots all mistook the "tic-tac" actually being a balloon, or something to that effect.
