UFOs and the scientific reputation

 Is it reasonable to claim that the US Government’s reports of unidentified flying objects require a more plausible explanation than the official ones? I think that any reasonable person would agree that some explanations of certain occurrences given by government officials with the aid of mainstream scientists seem implausible, and appear to be biased towards scientific reputation. I also find it interesting that in a general sense any form of government skepticism also appears to be euphemized and/or categorized under the term “conspiracy theory”. I am not claiming that every single report concerning UFOs necessitate a better explanation, but maintaining that some reports do demand a more reasonable one. The term conspiracy theory seems to be besought to take over mostly any form of government opposition/skepticism and to abruptly be utilized beforehand so that any theory that does not assist in the substantiation of government power becomes inevitably concealed.

As a result of its concealment, the term conspiracy theory itself becomes intelligently conspired, concealed, and camouflaged under its own definition to be standardized as a legitimate hyponomy with an automatic function without even really having been hypothesized. The closest way to really understand the bias within the term that supports the uphold of scientific reputation is to correlate it with an analogy of a term with similar make-up but with distinct nature. I will, for that matter associate the term conspiracy theory with the term reality. Reality is, strictly speaking, an umbrella term for whatever it is that it renders; physical objects or elements within it, 3 dimensional entities, everything perceive as independent.

Now, with that being said, the term conspiracy theory seem to have a reality of its own, portrayed with homogeneous parts: It’s either true or untrue, and whatever falls within it will be more likely seen false due to its embedded reputation that continues to reinforce its aim, which is really a confirmation bias because it’s been already settled to prove its falsity,  but a few will see its truthfulness. I know this analogy does not follow consistently in terms  because in reality people tend to have hold belief to their perceptions as objections and those objections as truthfulness, and that is the opposite with the term conspiracy theory; its objection will be more doubtful and false.  To clarify this abstraction, people is more likely to believe what they see than to remain skeptical and doubtful about what they see or perceive.