What's the difference between 'magical thinking' and wild conjecture? If you want to be consistent, there is more evidence for UFOs having a non-human intelligence governing them, then Omuamua being alien technology. That's more acceptable because you're a scientist and Spielberg isn't?

Science fiction is based in the hypothetical, not the magical. Invention, advancements, comes from not only exceeding the present paradigm, but pushing past the limits of what the experts declare are the theoretical limitations. The limitations imposed by scientists is magical thinking at it's best.

The evidence for nonhuman intelligence on this planet is vast, wide, and yes subtle- going back at least 75 years, with FOO FIGHTERs, further if you want to change the word 'gods' to aliens in the Sumerian knowledge bringers, and all the anomalous activity between there and here, which is why when the US government says "UFOs are real, and not us" that means something. Spielberg was tapped into this before you were, and the research that went into his movies was based on reported UFO events. What scientist has done even that much anecdotal research? John E Mack! Your fellow Harvard professor. Do you throw him under the bus with Spielberg and magical thinking?

Seriously, what is you position on Doctor John E Mack. Are you on the fence? Was he nuts?

You, Sir, said 'if you only look for the ordinary, you will never find the extraordinary.' Can we hold you to that philosophy? Arthur C Clarke, science fiction writer, and dare I say scientists, said: any sufficiently advance technology will look like magic. You are looking for ordinary and missing the magic because you have denigrated magical thinking to such a degree it has killed your creativity. Which is likely why it takes someone like Elon Musk to do more to advance rocket science in 20 years than all the NASA scientist and academics in 50. What happened there? I thought it was 'just' rocket science.