My question to you is sincerely, what about the buttload of experiential data? Certainly, devouring as much 2nd and 3rd party substantiated reporting as you have, you must be convicted with some degree of significance in as much to fully contend that we are in fact dealing with an anomalous (strictly to us, that is) portion of our observational and experiential based reality, for which we currently possess no working understanding.
Yes and no.
I think the concept of a working understanding is a subjective one. What you might well understand, academically or otherwise, another person might not. The two of you could observe the same phenomenon, or series of phenomena, and come away with two very different experiences, existentially and cosmically, based solely on your a priori knowledge. That is just one layer of the experience -- the intellectual. Emotional and perceptual (based on established worldview) are two more layers that would lead to differences in the experience the two of you would independently perceive while being exposed to the same phenomenon. While there may be a cosmic truth to the condition of the phenomenon, barring certain, strict controls, it's possible that neither of you might perceive it. The things that make the two of you who you are, intellectually, emotionally and perceptually, lead you to construct independent beliefs based on your observation.
What one person might see as a UFO, another person might see as a known, natural or man-made phenomenon. When reviewing the information second hand, especially in the absence of any tangible evidence, all of these layers fold in on themselves, and the effects of the intellectual, emotional and perceptual consciousness of the second hand experiencer are exponentially affective.
I am open to the idea that UFO's, as the fundamental idea, exist. The fundamental idea being something "unidentified." I believe people see things they don't understand as an individual. I'm open to the idea that people may see things that are unknown to all individuals, at this time. I think the latter is unlikely, given that so little has come from researching data, but I still accept it as an obvious possibility.
I think there is 0% chance that UFO's are related, in any way, to unknown intelligent entities. I think this based on my personal review of videos, photos, and narratives. I've yet to see the piece of video evidence that matches an experiencer's description of an object or its movements. They always seem to only catch objects when they're moving in unremarkable straight lines, or in patterns not unlike insects and/or other nature-based phenomena. Might the objects in these videos be something unknown? Sure. While being videotaped, however, they generally show no signs of having the need for human-brand intelligence to do what they're doing. I explained this part because you seem to be asking me what I believe.
To me, it's way more interesting exploring the subjective beliefs that an experiencer constructs following exposure to a phenomenon than it is to explore or debate the phenomenon itself. Without having been a part of the initial experience, it's basically impossible for me to explore the phenomenon. The subjective belief of the experiencer -- the narrative -- is a phenomenon, unto itself, that I can directly experience. I see the two phenomena as independent, conceptual entities.
For example, in regards to your personal experience, I have no more reason to disbelieve than I have to believe you.
Believe meaning here that you are communicating a cosmically tangible experience you had with unaltered accuracy. Since I have no more reason to believe than I do to disbelieve, the point is somewhat moot. I could point out problems with the narrative of the experience, should there be any that I perceive, but it wouldn't be to debunk or disprove the experience. It would be to illustrate, mostly to myself, that something internal is taking place within the experiencer that caused or inspired them to create the narrative -- not something external, like a true-life experience (even if a true-life experience took place, but the narrative is pragmatically flawed, the inaccurate narrative is its own experiential entity, and its manifestation has a cause or inspiration). The internal phenomenon is much more interesting to me than any external one.
The performance mythology structure of the running paranormal narrative gives it a unique feel and method of consumption that makes everything even more interesting for me, as a whole.
In regards to the books, there a ton of those books in the libraries around here. Have you checked yours?
EXCEPT, for the last sentence. IMO, there is positively nothing more stimulating than reality, because frankly, it's the variable context post consciousness within which truth is defined. Nothing is certain. Absolutely nothing. Do you know why? Because we ourselves are in constant change. Ourselves and the basic constructs of consciousness are synonymous. Without consciousness, there is nothing. All certainty is subject to change.
The second experience last for just a couple of minutes at most, and oddly, this time again I was with someone else, my Dad. Sadly his sight was extremely poor at this time due to the fact that he had yet to have cataract surgery. But he did barely make it out even though what I saw was as crystal clear as viewing any old airplane. I reported this latter sighting to Mufon, they called me and carefully got all the details. 