Amazing. I think the thing to remember is that scientists are just fallible people --they have no more vision or sense than the average person. Think about doctors that managed to pass tests, absorb knowledge, but can still be totally incompetent. I've know many scientists and engineers, and some of them have a certain hubris born of total confidence in human science and the current paradigm. If something can't be slapped with a mundane explanation, no matter how silly, it is ignored. To investigate UFOs is also stigmatizing for scientists, who want to advance and publish in peer-reviewed journals. If they take an objective open-minded look at the phenomenon, as some scientists have been capable of, they become outsiders, shunned by the rest. Unfortunately for those clinging to the current paradigm, the anomalies are accumulating (been for years), and that is how change and a paradigm shift will come --a change that they shun and ignore. An extreme example is the folks at the debunking sites; every day they claim some new explanation for the recent clips released, and
every next day they are shewn to be wrong.
Repeatedly. They embarrassingly and insultingly ignore 70+ years of witness testimony from those who would give the data context. That's not science, but some kind of mental problem. Now they are actually claiming that Fravor misidentified another jet as the Tic Tac! Bizarre. Laughable. Sad. If they had done their due diligence on research, by actually looking at history, they would see the same objects have been reported in the past.
A Preponderance of evidence is the way to go with UFOs; it isn't a hard science question at this point. If you have unknowns under intelligent control doing whatever they want in secured airspace, one can't wait 100 years for scientists to get enough evidence to satisfy themselves --we'd be destroyed by them long ago if that was the intent of the objects. We are totally vulnerable, technologically and paradigmatically. Eventually we'd hear from scientists that they have determined that manufactured devices exceeding our technology that we haven't made on earth are flying around with impunity, but that doesn't prove that they are alien!!
D'oh!!! <dopeslap>
Best just to focus on working with scientists who have looked at the history and who are open-minded, and who don't care what their colleagues think.
Here's a recent example from a debunker:
"Now we just have low quality video of saturated, unresolved blobs, which basically give us no information from which to determine its nature. Speculation of origins that go beyond the mundane are merely fanciful whimsy without additional, reliable information (and eye witness testimony does not count)."
--So, in this case let's refuse to look at any historical context or past examples of the phenomenon! Instead only focusing on the couple of released items to draw a broad conclusion that reinforces our mundane explanations! Also, let's ignore all witness testimony so we can properly paint ourselves in the a corner where we can sit with our blinkers on. Yeah.
I mean of you were trying to understand how ball lightening forms --wouldn't you want to read historical accounts to try to give you some more ideas??