No, there's nothing wrong with questioning things or putting personal views forward, I quite agree.
But just as we should be open to the possibilities that there are things that we can't explain, we must equally be willing to accept that something could be mundane.
The explanation that the big rod in the first photo
could be a plane, is a good one and worthy of serious consideration, especially given the evidence that planes fly about in this area, and the (what I think is) quite noticeable 'tail fin' visible on it. But of course we don't know with one hundred percent certainty; it just seems quite likely.
Does that mean
all rods are planes, or are so easily explained (if indeed it has been?) no, of course not. Just like with 'normal' (ha!) UFOs - some will turn out to be identifiable after all (or hoaxes, or whatever) but that doesn't make them
all that way.
So while it would be silly to dismiss everything off-hand as 'nothing to see here', it would surely (I hope you'll agree) be just as silly to dismiss quite logical explanations.
My sighting, for instance, can certainly not be ascribed to a plane, or a bird. Whether it turns out to be perfectly mundane remains to be seen, but I know of nothing at the moment which can explain it (hence why I mentioned it on this thread, as it seems to fit, I think). If someone were to provide a perfectly logical explanation for it that seemed quite likely, then I would have to
* accept that and I think that is just as important as questioning things.
*reluctantly accept, because I'd love it to be something truly unexplained