Jerald Brady

Computer Scientist who believe in science, loves space travel, space exploration and any really cool technology!

[Eric Burlison @EricBurlison]

We told MIT Lincoln Labs we know the exact video file you are holding, by name, and we want it.

They admitted it exists and agreed to turn it over. That is what happens when you stop asking politely and start naming names.

[Eric Burlison @EricBurlison]

Secrets were buried in quasi private labs created right after the Manhattan Project so nothing would leak.

I am sending interrogatories and subpoena requests to every one of them. Time for an uncomfortable conversation.

[Daniel Miller - SiCcOp @SicCoP1]

Kudos to @MattLaslo as always for running this down! 🏃

If you can, support his work. His tenacity gets our questions asked.

[Fernado Longo @FernandoFLongo]

@GoodTroubleShow @JeremyCorbell

What finally changed my view of @MickWest was not simply whether he was right or wrong in one particular UAP case. It was watching what happens when he is confronted with detailed technical work. When challenged with frame-by-frame analysis, timing, camera geometry, background motion, cloud interaction, MGRS/northing data, and falsifiable tests, the response too often is not an equally detailed reconstruction. It is a label. “Lens flare.” “Parallax.” “Camera motion.” “Not instantaneous.” A conclusion appears first; the full technical burden rarely follows.

That is the real issue. Science is not the act of naming a hypothesis. Analysis is not the act of attaching a prosaic word to an unresolved observation. A hypothesis must be tested, quantified, reconstructed, and limited by the available data. If the explanation is lens flare, show the optical model. If it is camera motion, show the causal sequence. If it is parallax, show the geometry. If it is aircraft, identify the aircraft. If the observed acceleration is not independent, show precisely where the timing, background motion, and sensor data prove that. Otherwise, the public is not being shown analysis. It is being handed a label and asked to mistake it for a conclusion.

The Syria acceleration case and the sphere-in-the-clouds case expose this pattern clearly. @MvonRen may ultimately be right or wrong on every specific point. That is not the central issue. The central issue is that he is doing what analysis is supposed to do: showing the work, presenting the sequence, testing the hypothesis, making the reasoning visible, and allowing others to challenge it. That is how technical debate should function. If Mick West disagrees, fine. But then the answer must come at the same technical level: with measurements, models, assumptions, uncertainty, and reproducible reconstruction — not with jokes about arrows, rhetorical dismissals, or one-line denials.

This is why the public challenge mattered. Mick West was not asked to perform magic. He was asked to do the basic work required to sustain strong claims: show the data, show the reconstruction, show the model, show where the opposing analysis fails. Instead, the pattern repeated itself. When the debate demanded evidence, the answer came back as confidence. When it demanded reconstruction, the answer came back as rhetoric. When it demanded falsifiable analysis, the answer came back as a label.

That is not rigorous skepticism. Rigorous skepticism tests every hypothesis, including the prosaic one. It does not give conventional explanations a free pass simply because they sound more comfortable. If someone claims “this is extraordinary technology,” they need strong evidence. But if someone claims “this is lens flare,” “this is parallax,” “this is a bird,” or “this is a plane,” that claim also requires evidence. The burden of proof does not disappear just because the explanation is mundane.

The problem with Mick West’s public role is that unresolved cases are repeatedly made to look solved before the technical work has been fully shown. Whether intentional or not, that produces the effect of disinformation: complexity is flattened, uncertainty is erased, and the public is left with a prosaic label where there should have been a transparent reconstruction. That is not how serious aviation, sensor, or incident analysis works. In a true investigative method — closer to an NTSB-style approach — you collect data, test hypotheses, reject what fails, quantify uncertainty, and only then state a conclusion.

Marik is showing the work. Mick West is being asked to show the same level of work. Until he does, the contrast is obvious: one side is testing hypotheses; the other is defending labels. One side is building a visible chain of reasoning; the other is asking the public to accept authority without the complete technical model. And in serious analysis, that is not enough.

[Jerald Brady @BradyJerald]

@SicCoP1 Haha yeah and now I'm thinking of bs card game rules spreading

[Jerald Brady @BradyJerald]

@ddeanjohnson 🤣

[Lester Nare @lesternare]

People keep discussing UAP as though the entire subject exists only in podcasts and internet culture.

Meanwhile, the FBI appears in recently released 2025-era UAP files and members of Congress are reportedly receiving classified briefings on the issue.

The FBI investigates threats, counterintelligence concerns, and potential criminal activity.

That doesn’t tell us what the phenomenon is.

But it does tell us the U.S. government is treating at least parts of it as operationally real.

[Dave Falch @DaveFalch]

My video analysis of the UAP files from the DOW: 👽 https://t.co/Hum3gLucGn

@RepLuna
@timburchett
@DeptofWar
@jamescfox
@DoW_AARO
@EricBurlison
@Reddit_r_UFO
@Graham__Hancock
@AlchemyAmerican
@tomdelonge
@ChrisKMellon
@RedPandaKoala

[Anna Paulina Luna @realannapaulina]

Finished review of 40+ videos set for declassification out of @DeptofWar in coming weeks this am. We are standing with the NEW and very QUALIFIED Director of AARO who now has my full support and has proven through action that he is working in good faith on declass efforts. 🇺🇸

[Rep. Eric Burlison @RepEricBurlison]

🚨The two documents that most people missed in the new UAP files.

It's not a random third-hand report, but two documents detailing multiple federal officials/agents independently reporting "orbs launching other orbs."

This deserves special attention.👇

[Eric Burlison @EricBurlison]

I sent a letter to MIT Lincoln Labs asking for a classified 1952 briefing video referenced as a "flying saucer talk." Their attorneys wrote back fast. They'll comply within 30 days.

Congressional letters carry weight. We're going to keep sending them.

[Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell @JeremyCorbell]

To be clear… @RepLuna just told me…

“The new director of AARO is actually fully complying with us now and working at the direction of the White House. We are in process of reviewing part of the videos set to be released next. Have not asked for any audits but can confirm that the 40+ videos will be released.”

THIS IS WHAT’S UP. YOU DONE BEEN TOLD 🫡🛸

LFG @G_Knapp!!! 🥷

[Eric Burlison @EricBurlison]

This was the low hanging fruit.

Apollo 17 photos.
Pilot accounts.
Predator drone footage.

More is still classified, and I've seen some of it. If the administration doesn't release it, I will, under Speech or Debate.

[Alex Anne Dietrich @DietrichVFA41]

https://t.co/Q9SS2dRWjy

[Joe Murgia @TheUfoJoe]

Clearly the best of the bunch, thus far, from today's UFO release by the U.S. government. I don't know what it is.

Most of the other videos show a similar-looking, unknown object.

[Jerald Brady @BradyJerald]

@SicCoP1 Same

[Anna Paulina Luna @realannapaulina]

8am.

[Daniel Miller - SiCcOp @SicCoP1]

8/ The most important point in this thread, and one those in bad faith will do anything to ignore:

A dozen or so of 40 cooperative witnesses went to the ICIG to testify under oath. They touched the craft(s), were in the facilities. Not rumor- mongering

[Jerald Brady @BradyJerald]

@DaveFalch Your typical 2AM Extremely Hot (or reflective?) Frisbee Golf of course! Interesting video for sure. Appears like it's in front of the trees.
You/they have a nice backyard.

[Daniel Miller - SiCcOp @SicCoP1]

(1/?) 🧵🧵

Grusch’s latest interview was brimming with interesting details, so let’s get into it:

To start he begins with what he DID in the military, which I find supremely relevant given his claims.