It only makes sense that in a universe as vast and ancient as ours and with us being such recent arrivals here (amd how prolific life is under the right conditions) that more technologically advanced intelligent life forms most likely do exist out there somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos. They are probably just waiting for our humanity to match our technology and for us to stop killing one another like tribal bands of chimpanzees of the rampage before making full contact (Nothing against chimpanzees, -they can be very violent).

This simply ten of many speculated reasons why the proof you seek is elusive. It isn’t that simple because of us altogether.

In this context the view of mainstream science and typical skeptics if it insists on asking the wrong and predictable questions, will never discover the wonders of the universe.

The acceptance that life does exist in such a vast universe as mainstream scientists will admit to, is the wrong question.

The bold question to ask is whether the life forms out there if so much more advanced than us have discovered ways to manipulate time and space to get here. This seems to be the question that mainstream scientists are rigid about.
Much of their reasoning is often man-made science based as-in
the impossibility of space travel. This is the perfect example of in-the box thinking.
The circumstantial evidence from former US officials, pilots, whistle blowers by an irrefutable number, as well as trace evidence representing 5 percent of the phenomena, is simply overwhelming. It is a travesty that so many scientists have stuck their heads in the sand or stick their fingers in their ear
while screaming in order to avoid listening to these testimonies.
My interest is not in believing in proven hoaxes and hoax makers, inconclusive photos, videos, testimonies and cases;I am wholly accepting of objective debunking as opposed to de-bunkers’ explanations against the phenomena that is more incredible than the phenomena itself. When this happens, you’re just dealing with someone with a subjective disbelief
that’ll lead him/her to do anything to discredit the phenomena.

If you’ve listen to the conclusion of many scientists outside of the US landscape, you’ll see that this topic and the highly credible circumstantial evidence has been taken seriously.

In conclusion, the film was not very good. It felt like the documentary presenter had a set of beliefs and angle that he had set out to prove. His theory pre-supposed that the US government and the CIA has this wizardry of world manipulation and has devised all of these clever disinformation devices in order to protect its top military secret aircraft experiments. I was not convinced by his sources
of information. They all sounded as though they shared his theories but were not stating that in fact they knew what he deducted to be the truth.
The documentary assumed that the technology was all man-made. So the whole ET factor was totally avoided. He left critical UFO encounters that would have badly weakened his conclusions.
His sources were not as clear in their belief as the former government officials who came forward in the “Disclosure Project”.

Science. Eh, who needs it? It just gets in the way ;)

“you will never be convinced if you wish to remain skeptical.”

More like I will never be convinced until you put up some actual, verifiable evidence that the phenomena under discussion are real. If you are suggesting I follow your example and suspend my critical judgement because I really need to believe something so badly that I mustn’t question it, then sorry, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

More proof, less diatribe next time.