I take issue with the milk example, equating “it would seem” with “I think”. I guess it would seem, or even “it appears” implies evidence, whereby “I think on this theory…” doesn’t. A little more than a baby. “It would appear” of the movie is closer. What else has happened in order for the speaker to reach this conclusion? Now that I am not cognizant of the names of tenses I do understand structure and do agree with the overall conclusion. “It would seem” implies evidence, as I tried to put the situation in the present with the speaker. How is that interpreted as consideration, or understatement is another matter. At some time in the past the speaker had reassessed the situation, maybe had dismissed the fear, or had become less fearful either way, there had been a change. Omitting “had” suggests to me, at least, no change of mind. An example of “had feared” might be, spotting a wild boar, seeing that it is but a baby and retreating. When you breathe a sigh of relief only to see it return with its parents. For one example of “feared” I like that one axe murderer that is seeking you out, but will be followed by another person who seeks your love. Is there any change of mind but still the

situation has always been worse?