Ok here it is.... Evidence for unidentified flying objects would exist if it could satisfy all of the three criteria in the name:
Unidentified: this would mean it is not identifiable (and not just to You this would need to be unidentifiable to the human race) beyond anything that we are currently aware of. This would include all military. We cannot reasonably provide evidence of any flying object which is truly unidentifiable.
Flying: a deliberate act of overcoming the force of gravity to maintain an altitude above ground level
Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched
There is no evidence that proves the existence of such things while satisfying all of the three criteria in unison.
My argument is not flying objects don't exist, they might do. My argument is there is no evidence for their existence, this is different.
This evidence could be garnered and with it we could truly move the field from one of fringe to one of serious scientific interest.
Here in lies a big problem. When we say a pilot has seen them: they must exist OR a radar trace was recorded: they must exist and then move on to discuss where they may be from etc etc we start overlaying assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption.
This is actively helping to keep the UFO field in the 'specialist interest' or 'fiction' section because we don't have a significant enough body of data from instrumented sources and across a range of measures.
Imagine if the field as a whole could align their collective energies and efforts to such an endeavour, the work that followed it would be exponentitally more productive than what has been done in the 'modern day era' where a case has been made with a lack of evidence.
Garbage in to the study of UFO's = garbage out and what do we have in this field so far.. a big stinking hot mess of garbage
