Gadianton wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:44 am
At what point do we suspend disbelief on the meta discussions and agree to look at the footage?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I like the way you modalise 'discussions' by sticking 'meta' in front of it ...
No-one is suggesting that (some of) the data relating to unidentified flying objects over past decades, much of which is in the form of images is unworthy of attention.
The point is, however, to decide what physical reality underlies such data. Just staring at the data and saying 'wow ...!' gets us nowhere useful. That is where we have that boring thing called a 'discussion'. Present indications, so far as I can tell, are that when a 'discussion' of the data is conducted by calm and scientifically well-informed people, they tend to come to a provisional conclusion such as the following:
(a) We have as yet no good explanation of the physical reality underlying much of these data, whether in image form or other forms.
(b) Of the possible explanations known to us, activity originating in stellar systems light-years away from our own still appears much less likely than activity or phenomena originating on the earth itself.
Yeah, boring and perhaps even disappointing, I know. But reality seems to function like a TV series that is always renewed for another season, regardless of audience figures and the number of people who actually like the program.