This reminds me of something I’ve never understood about the UFO conversation- especially about people who believe in it. Shouldn’t the conversation primarily

This reminds me of something I’ve never understood about the UFO conversation- especially about people who believe in it. Shouldn’t the conversation primarily be about radar and sensor evidence? Not videos or (worse) eyewitness accounts, which should be the thing we talk about last. Whenever there is a field which is too complicated or hard to track accurately by humans, we turn to computers. A good example: high frequency trading. Another example: the calculations and work machines do in all kinds of factories. It’s too fast for the human mind to do and also it would be inaccurate, so we design machines that can do it, and rely on them. I think the UFO conversation should primarily be about conversations like this: “We have this radar data which we consider trustworthy (explain why). It doesn’t have any pictures to go along with it, but if you look at the numbers, it shows a vehicle accelerating at very high speed. It isn’t much for the senses, BUT because of the way the data is collected, we have very, very high confidence that this vehicle acted in exactly the way described. It’s definitely not a hallucination, which isn’t possible on a radar system, and here are the reasons why it’s not an error…” It seems to me that this is where most “serious” UFO conversations of the type NASA is describing should start. Yet I can’t name a single one which fits this description.