UAPs = ET/NHI = Social Contagion?

A question please:

Due to the possibility that, what’s known as, “Social Contagion” may be responsible for the assumption that UAPs are directly connected with ET/NHI: how come it (this assumption) keeps being so persistent throughout multiple decades, although no proof (≠ evidence) was ever established?

How do you explain this?

Do you have other examples of this magnitude?

Please note the following: Try to stray away from using religion as an example, as I’m trying to keep falsifiability as a necessary factor in spotlight.

Explanation: Arguably, and I’m begging for some common sense, UAPs, understood as highly advanced machines, are directly observable and therefore falsifiable, that is, if they do exist (rumors about classified satellite imagery existing, is as common as it can get). Religion, on the other hand, may be more complex in that regard, and can, due to its key-components inherent metaphysical nature, not be falsified (only its symptoms can).

Further: This discussion may change in the future, if we can solve more complex issues such as the hard problem of consciousness and be able to may or may not show that consciousness isn’t necessarily tied to the brain in its most basic sense, as arguably consciousness seems to be a key-component of religious beliefs (another topic, mentioned purely to establish religion as an insufficient candidate for my request).

Thank you very much in advance and have a good day.

Additional notes:

In case anyone’s confused by my request to exclude religion as an example, I shall note that I do understand that this is confusing, as both topics partly and/or heavily reside on metaphysical properties of the concept of belief. But this perspective is superficial only, as (currently available) instruments dictate falsifiability to be bound to purely physical items (whereas even that depends on budget, the instruments capacity, and is no guarantee for anything at all). Yes, I’m siding with discovery of ET/NHI being more likely versus understanding what consciousness is, although they may or may not be directly interconnected. The alternative might be it being a psyop, used as a deescalating, strategical tool, since the dawn of the cold war, built upon religious tales of “space-people” visiting earth. Yes, although hard to imagine (due to the necessary level of secrecy), I’m open to the idea that UAPs = ET/NHI, and that there’s a multi-decade cover-up, but that isn’t my question. Just in case the main-question isn’t as clear: as pure belief is built upon corroborating evidence only (because proof could shatter or approve it, and therefore would nullify belief), I do wonder how an assumption that inherently does possess potentially falsifiable characteristics still remains able to inflict such a strong response in favor of something not proven – mind you, this can go both ways. Also, I’m wondering if there are other examples of such instances (astonishing claims which but potentially, realistically are falsifiable, but simply not proven). Mentioned: I can see insufficient usage of available instruments (or heavily classified use only) being a part of the problem here for sure, especially if paired with a sociological stigma. A question at this point remains, how much direct intervention in favor of leading curious individuals astray you’d actually need, after establishing classification and national security as a legitimate primer, and have casted social expelling per default upon those who still try to dig in. Because, potentially, you could expel everyone from gaining proper access to hard data. That is, is you’ve already established a professional intervention-pipeline already, to be way ahead of random people encountering stuff they shouldn’t. But arguably, 80years and unlimited financial resources may buy you exactly that. We should maybe try to distinguish here between conspiracy theories that are complete nonsense and such that carry a kind of realistic aspect to them (such an example are politicians being bribed to serve whatever agenda a lobby has). Reasoning here: we do know that life exists, we also do know that life can be self-aware, and we do know that such life is able to build technology to far exceed its natural boundaries (for example, us building machines that enable us to fly). I’m aware that you can’t really proof a negative, especially if you don’t trust the person that claims there to be nothing.