Some people see anything mildly unusual in the sky and rapidly conclude that it can't have a mundane explanation, so it must be some anomalous or extraterrestri

Some people see anything mildly unusual in the sky and rapidly conclude that it can't have a mundane explanation, so it must be some anomalous or extraterrestrial object, without any further investigation. Some people do the exact opposite: if the available data even remotely fits some mundane explanation, they conclude that it must be mundane, without any further investigation. Naturally, we are all aware of plenty of mundane objects, so it is natural to have strong priors. However, I also think that it is worth being a little curious and a little open-minded: when some data looks unusual, let's try to gather some more data, as there may be something interesting to discover. This requires gathering data systematically, as data gathered accidentally can't be replicated. In other words, we should study objects in our atmosphere like we study the stars: systematically, with callibrated instruments, and an open curious mind. That is why the Galileo Project by the astronomer Avi Loeb is such a breeze of fresh air.