Sure you do. Everyone does. Science is nothing but belief. (An elementary error that people make on discussion boards like this is to assume that 'belief' means 'bullshit'.)
A 'factual belief' (a belief about a matter of fact) is a psychological state, with a proposition as its content and reality as its object, in which the truth of the proposition regarding the reality is asserted. My belief that a large body of lead is massive has the proposition 'a large body of lead is massive' as its content, it's about physical reality, and it's only going to be true if a large body of lead really is massive.
I present solid evidence of a phenomenon that's been occurring around the world for over 70 years now.
More than 70 years.
People have been exclaiming about extraordinary events in the sky since ancient times. I expect that stone-age people did as well. What's changed are the interpretations. The ancient Mesopotamians thought that they were observing the movements of the gods 'in the heavens' (a phrase that they used quite literally, they thought that they could look up and see the realm of the gods), and hence that turbulence in heaven might foretell turbulence on the ground. (Astrology evolved out of that.) The ancient Romans reported seeing glowing shields in the sky. The medieval Christians reported flying ships or heavenly appearances of the Blessed Virgin or things like that. In the 1800's people saw mysterious airships chugging through the sky, apparently powered by steam engines. (That was science-fictionish high-tech to the Victorians.) And after World War II and the sudden appearance of jet planes, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, people started seeing what they said were alien spaceships in the skies.
My point is that 20th century ufos are just the latest manifestation of something that's been happening throughout human history.
I don't presume to believe anything more about it than that it is real
I agree that it's real, but we would probably disagree in how we interpret 'real'. I think that ufos and the other heavenly manifestations are real in much the same way that religious beliefs are real. They are real cultural manifestations and real items of belief. But I'm much more skeptical about whether alien spaceships, the Blessed Virgin or the Babylonian god Marduk literally exist. What is real is the fact that people have believed in all of these things and associated them with things seen in the sky.
In other words, while I think that ufos are a real phenomenon, I'm inclined to see them as a cultural, historical, mythological and psychological phenomenon. Not necessarily a physical or interdimensional phenomenon. Having said that, I am happily willing to speculate that there may be one or more as yet unknown physical (or other) phenomena that are generating some of this.
and driven by some sort of transhuman intelligence
That looks like speculation to me and I don't share it. It sounds like a remnant of religious belief, the heavenly gods making their appearance once again. But I can't conclusively rule it out either, so I'll leave it as an open possibility, albeit one that I would currently assign a low probability.
What I will not tolerate is the abuse of the noble name of science to defend your own faithheld worldview that ufos are not real or are somehow unexplainable. I will also not accept the glib dismissal of all this empirical evidence for ufos as nothing worth being concerned about.
Here on Sciforums, the word "science" seems to be used in a peculiar way, to refer to any and all examples of sound reasoning and empirical justification. So 'science' becomes conflated with 'reason' generally, with logic, epistemology and even with common-sense. Unfortunately some of our fellows have never studied logic or epistemology and are prone to ignorance and naivete regarding them. Even worse, they sometimes take an aggressively hostile attitude of willful-ignorance towards them.
What I don't like ("will not tolerate" is probably too strong, since there's nothing I can do about it) is the way that people believe that even bad arguments for what they are convinced is a true conclusion somehow become good arguments. You do that with some of the things you say, because you seemingly want the conclusion to be true. And your opponents are equally prone to doing it.