Right here is the flaw in your education, upbringing, background, culture, whatever it is: it is not our idea of argument or logic. It is not a case of equal preference of one thing over an other. The foundation of a rigorous argument was laid several hundred years ago and forms the background of millions on man-hours of work and thought. Those who use it have more to assert over those who don't. You can throw up whatever YouTube video you like or movie scene which 'explains it' but you have nothing convincing to say unless you accept the rules of the 'game'.
No that's wrong.
No that's wrong again. Even a premise (or a hypothesis) you've arrived at yourself must be treated with scepticism. It's just the way the mind of a homo sapiens flows. Having evolved in a cluttered environment it's a known predisposition which is therefore compensated for in the above mentioned workflow. It's just unfortunately that that shape of mind is vulnerable to this.
In general (UFOs, man-made climate change etc. notwithstanding) your sin is that you form an idea and gather evidence to support that idea, dismissing that which does not accord with your idea. In other words, you let your 'theory', your 'premiss' or your 'feeling' filter all of the 'data' you find in a cart-before-the-horse stylee. It isn't unreasonable to come up with a hypothesis and then validate it against other known phenomena and knowledge BUT! with the idea that you are trying to disprove it, not prove it.
I want to take issue with this point as it's teetering on the edge of an ad hominem argument which is disrespectful and you already criticised Captain Trips for doing the same. I am not a hater, nor have I forwarded my own thoughts on aliens. What I have been doing in this thread is showing you where your chain of reasoning is flawed and the implications of that.
Pertinent to this discussion:-
"Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan (circa 1995).
It is bordering on primitive pre-religion to not be able to tolerate ambiguity. In fact there is quite a lot of that around and it's still far better than making 5h!t up to fill in gaps. 
I've actually taken an arguement and logic class. Was actually a really tough class. Who knew so much math was involved. In any case, there is no "Flaw my culture/background", as you wish to discredit my approach to reasoning and understanding... I'm pointing out how your approach to this particular arguement is incorrect because you are assuming the video is the hypothesis/theory rather than the proof being presented. In any case in court, if I have a video showing you stealing a peice of candy, the jury is going to believe the video is real. If they can identify you, they will use it to prosecute you, UNLESS, you can prove its not you or hire a forensic expert to prove it was created by AI. That would change the Jurys opinion, would it not? That's how it works man. Again, refer to the 911 film I posted. When has the media had to prove their footage wasn't the truth? They haven't. Its true because "that's the video proof they are showing us". It's being shown as truth, taken by the public as truth, therefore it is "true in the eyes of the public" because surely they wouldnt deceive us right? So this guy is trying to "prove" that they have deceived us in some way because he doesnt belive it. Do you understand that? So you can try to discredit my approach all you want, but I have shown here that you are merely trying to trick the audience by discrediting the way I present information so as the audience doesn't take the time to research the information I've presented. A clever way to keep people's heads in the sand rather than expand their understanding of the subject.
By claiming "muh youtube video" you disregard anything in the video and lump it into some idea that it shouldn't be acknowledged because it's "muh youtube video and they are all the same". See, you are acknowledging that you haven't taken the time to understand the information I have provided. Therefore, I have infact done more research to come to my conclusions that there is a phenomenon going on, and it's being recorded in human history. You are trying to discredit that by attacking the way I argue and present ideas or understanding of the information.
I don't just go into the subject believing it the way I want, however you have to start somewhere. If I believe I'm being lied to, I will research to find holes in the lie. I will also acknowledge what they are saying as in good faith, however If I am unable to find holes in their line of research than I will begin to accept that their presentation is infact correct. As with man made global warming, you and others are asserting their research is correct while disregarding any counter arguement/claim being made just like Bard did. You see, I never asserted that films were 100% the truth. I'm just throwing them out there so people can expand their thinking on the subject like I have and possibly understand that all of these different angles I am posting may infact lead some to do more research into the subject because through multiple examples its proven that there is a phenomenon. If you don't want to acknowledge that, it's your own problem and you can present data to counter it, rather than attack my arguement structure. Like Man made global warming, you can stand up there and present your "proof" and "truths" all day long, but people are still going to challenge that data and ask questions against that "proof" because that's how it works when it comes to "what is really truth and what isn't". Just because 10 state backed organizations throw something in your face as "truth based on the data" that doesn't mean it won't get challenged, and you are the ones not acknowledging counter arguements and simply writing every thing off in the same basket as "disinfo", to get people to not do more research into those claims. This is exactly what happened with Covid as well, where they even had to ban sources challenging them, so others wouldnt do more research agaisnt their "truth". Imagine that.
