nothing else will? how about high resolution photos and sensor data. a black blob that looks like a bird is not convincing.
Discussion
Did you look at the second trajectory of the #UFO from the bottom left corner to the top right corner after the explosion? The sphere can be seen passing behind the explosion at incredible speed (you can barely notice it at normal speed), so it’s definitely not a bird. It’s literally the definition of Unidentified Flying Object (unless you have an explanation for it). Here are 4 screenshots with the sphere being circled (it is visible on more frames). It happens at second 3 of the video. https://odysee.com/@StrangeTV:9/SpaceX-UFO-Explosion---Slow-Motion!:4 
you don't know how close it is to the camera, if it was close it would look like its moving faster than possible. this is the biggest mistake that ufo "researchers" make.
I keep watching the video and it literally looks like a small bird flapping its wings close to the camera
and this is why ufo "researchers" aren't taken seriously. they don't try to disprove their theories... like what you're supposed to do with any theory? I actually like Mick West for this, he uses critical thinking, simulations, and tries to find conventional explanations for things, which they usually have. He even did an analysis of the NYT videos and could explain it with lens flares and parallax effects. Everything can be explained. Visiting aliens are astronomically unlikely in comparison.
Buzz kill 👽
no I've just been looking at all of this for so long I'm officially tired of it because it all ends up as nonsense
Agreed , I was just trying to be funny
Not to mention the disclosure groups within the US government are all certifiable wackos the more you research them
Civil servants are a different class on nutjob
Certainly a lot of disclosure groups are disinformation agents starting with Steven Greer.
I’m showing you untampered video evidence of a #UFO and you disproved it by saying it’s a bird closed to the camera flapping its wings. Please show me the wings. Until then, it meets the definition of a UFO.
It’s not that #UFO researchers aren’t taken seriously (the legit ones) but rather that many people don’t consider this topic seriously probably due to a mix of prevalent propaganda/censorship, personal beliefs, and social peer pressure. Good UFO researchers will always try to disprove a UFO case but sometime there isn’t just a good explanation for it. Honest UFO researchers are a lot more credible than UFO debunkers which will either pick and choose the cases that can easily be debunked or come up with improbable or even absurd explanations. To take the exemple of the SpaceX video, I’m not aware of any solid debunking of it. The best I have heard is fly or bird closed to the camera but again these conclusions are made while ignoring the second trajectory that can be seen of the object passing at high speed behind the explosion.
If it was a bird closed to the camera it wouldn’t passed behind the explosion. It’s not even the first time a #UFO is caught on camera blowing a man-made rocket. There is also a video of a Russian space rocket being blown up by a similar flying object.
By the way, in this video the #UFO researcher estimates that there is one chance out of one million that the object is a bird or that there is 99.9999% of chance that it is an intelligent object. https://odysee.com/@ChrisEssonne:6/explosion_SpaceX:8