So you think I'm "programmed" to believe in the existence of non-human entities living on this earth, that there is simply no other way I could come to such a conclusion, that I'm simply and obviously wrong on this topic, and that I'm obviously trying to impose a false reality on others? You've lept to quite a conclusion. Going down this path, and since it's for my own good, who would you venture to say obviously programmed me?
I can probably write books about the answer to that question! But I'm hesitant to even attempt a comprehensive answer for a couple of reasons. First, I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile. Most people lose much of their neuro-plasticity before they leave their 30s, and it doesn't make sense to expend effort to craft a good response, if it ends up unrequited. Secondly, half-time is pretty short.
However, I'll elaborate briefly.
People, in general, are not trained in the correct methods of obtaining knowledge and explanations in their daily lives. People do apply those methods in many professions (what we call scientific), but very few apply it to their understanding of the world at large. That is why you have billions who believe practically the same thing their parents believe, and they believe so strongly that they're willing to die to defend their beliefs. Yet, none of them can even explain WHY they believe. It is always about "faith" and "just knowing" and so on. It is because of an astonishing happenstance, where a naturally evolved species awoke from animal automation, and found themselves in a dangerous unforgiving universe, that almost seemed incomprehensible. Apes who gained the ability to question their place in the cosmos! And as answers proved difficult to attain, people started making up their own answers. And since those were the ONLY answers, cultures evolved to accept such behavior as "normal".
It did not help that Plato and his philosophy managed to utterly infiltrate and dominate human thought for thousands of years. It was so potent that, for all intents and purposes, the educated minority (in the West and Near East) was wholly platonic in ideology. And so it was until the Renaissance. At that time, legitimate knowledge was reborn and became integrated into more and more systems. In 500 years, the world changed vastly more than it did in the previous 10000. All with the idea that the only useful knowledge is one based on evidence and that mechanistically follows causal logic.
Unfortunately, the foundation of culture that was built through EONS could not transform in a few hundred years. So while we have more elements of science and logic, we still have the magic of old.
In your alien example, your position is very modern in that way. Back in the day, a sighting of a strange looking man will simply be explained away as a demon or a devil or such. A non-explanation that satisfies the audience as long as they're not directly confronted by whatever they're trying to explain away. Nowadays, only a very small group of people would openly make that assumption. You need a basis of truth now. Aliens are indeed more plausible than demons. They are just creatures who emerged on different worlds, and achieved superior knowledge. That's within the constraints of reality. The camera sync thing is also based in reality. Camera do exist, and they do have a refresh rate. Your explanation however is just as meaningless and made up as an ancient Greek insisting he saw Athena walking down an isolated path. It is just a mosaic of possibilities stitched to conform to what you want to be true.
In other words, your claim of "out of sync with camera" exist solely to explain an aspect of the story that you desire. You could not begin to explain what it means to be invisible to ****loads of people around you, and yet out of sync with the camera. It is a string of words that SOUNDS kind of plausible if you're not paying attention, but they don't have any actual meaning. Additionally, you make a mountain of assumptions. Let's ignore the fact that aliens look a lot like humans and dress in suits even though they're invisible to non-cameras, you're proceeding on the assumption that aliens exist. That they secretly visit the earth. That they take interest in our political affairs. And so on and so forth. None of those things are consistent with any verifiable knowledge. It's simply the story that you like. My suggestion is entirely based in consensus reality. We all agree that people exist, and that they can get injured. And yet, It's just an example of a possibility. Maybe the explanation is something else. But whatever it is, it will be logical, falsifiable, and verifiable.
Time to go back to the game.
