Taking Stock of UAP Explanations

As we know, there’s a whole gamut of competing theories to explain UAP/NHI, but each with their own issues.

1) NHI are ETs coming from elsewhere in the galaxy.

Issues: time for travel over vastness of interstellar space without solutions varying from cryogenics to allow survival for potentially thousands or millions of years, physical effects of space travel, or ‘shortcuts’ such as portals/wormholes. Faster than light travel conflicts with physics, where massive bodies cannot accelerate to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. Why do we not detect transmissions from alien civilisations? It’s a certainty that life must exist elsewhere, but maybe the distances are just too vast to facilitate exploration?

2) NHI are ‘future humans’ travelling back in time.

Ostensibly a much more plausible explanation that obviates issues with travelling vast spatial distances, yet falls foul of the third law of thermodynamics, besides the various paradoxes that could result from changing the future.

3) NHI come from ‘another dimension’

A much less robust theory which runs into multiple logical and theoretical problems when examined properly. Porting from a separate ‘multiverse’ via a wormhole of sorts would be more likely, assuming that creating wormholes to facilitate travel is feasible/possible and can be engineered.

4) NHI have always existed on earth and live hidden, eg under the oceans.

This dispenses with need for problematic and unattested concepts like FTL travel, portals/wormholes, ‘interdimensional beings’, etc, but they’ve done a good job hiding. The issue of resources comes up, but they could no doubt extract air and food easily enough. But the question arises, if they are so clearly superior to us, why are they hiding at the bottom of the sea and not ruling the world, protecting it from the wars and climate changing of feckless humans?

5) NHI are some more esoteric phenomenon that may exist in some ‘other reality’, such as a psychic/spiritual/consciousness plane.

Given it’s so hard to prove any of these, do such explanations offer any utility at all? If it comes between this and an entirely prosaic explanation based on psychology, neuroscience, etc, what real evidence would lead us to entertain the quasi-mystical?

No doubt there’s other potential explanations for the phenomenon that I’ve missed (please add) but these are the ones that come to mind.

Using the principle of parsimony, then the one that requires is least problematic in terms of difficulties with physics would seem the most likely, but it’s not easy to choose, as all have issues.

Keen to hear others’ thoughts.