I'm beyond skeptical of the 'alien' videos, but Mick West is no better. He comes up with some pet theory that can create a similar visual phenomena, completely ignores any and all other factors, and then declares his pet theory the 'truth.' It's literally the exact same sort of conspiracy theory style behavior he claims to be fighting against, but he feels his theories are special because they're mundane, so they must be true - even if they're also about as sound as a house of cards.
So for instance at 2:00 in the video you linked, he at least acknowledges that he's "not going to address" among other things that there were reported to be a fleet of the observed objects. He fails to acknowledge that he's also not addressing that the object was also observed from multiple sources. And the "SA" was also picking them up, which I can only assume is a sort of scanned array radar type system. In which case you have multiple forms of instrumentation picking the signals up, multiple trained pilots interpreting them as meaningful and distinct, and more. So in other words he's not going to address the countless things that effectively falsify everything else he's about to say.
Finally, this seems to be a newer video. In his past videos he went so far as to suggest that the glare caused by the exhaust of a jet, when one fighter jet was (apparently?) locking onto another jet, all without realizing it. I fully agree with the implied idea there of tossing appeals to authority in the trash, but.... like with all things, sometimes this can be overdone. It seems that part of his theory was removed, and now it seems he's just leaving it as glare from nowhere? Ah yes, that's also one of those things he's "not going to address" now.
How does any of that affect his thesis that the black object in this specific video isn't the aircraft but is rather an artifact of the camera?
He doesn't make any claims about the aircraft because he is saying it isn't visible... and the scope of his analysis is this single piece video evidence.
So for instance at 2:00 in the video you linked, he at least acknowledges that he's "not going to address" among other things that there were reported to be a fleet of the observed objects. He fails to acknowledge that he's also not addressing that the object was also observed from multiple sources. And the "SA" was also picking them up, which I can only assume is a sort of scanned array radar type system. In which case you have multiple forms of instrumentation picking the signals up, multiple trained pilots interpreting them as meaningful and distinct, and more. So in other words he's not going to address the countless things that effectively falsify everything else he's about to say.
Finally, this seems to be a newer video. In his past videos he went so far as to suggest that the glare caused by the exhaust of a jet, when one fighter jet was (apparently?) locking onto another jet, all without realizing it. I fully agree with the implied idea there of tossing appeals to authority in the trash, but.... like with all things, sometimes this can be overdone. It seems that part of his theory was removed, and now it seems he's just leaving it as glare from nowhere? Ah yes, that's also one of those things he's "not going to address" now.