The shifting stance of bad faith skeptics is evident in Mick West’s change of opinion regarding James Clapper. In 2021, West presented Clapper as a credible figure whose views on UFOs should be taken seriously. However, after Clapper participated in a UFO documentary where he addressed the topic earnestly, West now dismisses him as just another “usual suspect” repeating the same old narratives.
It’s interesting how opinions can shift based on the context and timing of an individual’s statements. Mick West’s initial endorsement of James Clapper as a credible voice in the UFO discussion suggests that he valued Clapper’s insights when they aligned with his own skepticism. However, it seems that Clapper’s subsequent engagement with UFO topics in a more serious light has led to a change in perception. This reflects a common tendency where figures in the skepticism community can dismiss those they previously championed if their views evolve in a way that contradicts their own narrative. It raises important questions about objectivity and the criteria used to evaluate credibility. Are there really “usual suspects,” or does this merely reflect the complexities of a rapidly evolving discourse around UFOs?