I ran into one such individual who told me my head was in the sand when I disagreed with his narrative and by disagreeing with him he wrongfully assumed I supported the opposing narrative, which appears to be a common line of thinking for these types...They wrongfully assume that if you don't agree with them you must be supporting the opposing side yet all the while claiming to be free independent thinkers...
...
There is a tendency to focus on one issue as a "gotcha" that proves all theories but theirs are impossible.
In the real world, an expected occurrence generates information that is not uniform.
There is too much information in some areas (some of which is in conflict) and not enough or none in other areas.
So you look at something, like a UFO sighting and go "given this fact base, what is the most likely thing to have happened".
In engineering school we would have test problems where there was too much information and you could solve the problem multiple ways and get different answers.
That is the way life is. You get information, and it has an error range, and you don't get a right answer but a "closest to correct given known information".
There are some things I don't dismiss out-of-hand because the alternate explanations have more holes than assuming it is something we don't understand.