Both UAP and debunker claims are subject to burden of proof.

A debunker saying: I don't believe you.

It's not subject to BoP as you're not making a claim.

A debunker saying: It's lights on a hill.

Is a new claim and it's subject to burden of proof, just like the initial UAP claim.

...but you don't need red hot evidence for the 100% human hypothesis :)

Not really a debunk as there is airspace between the camera and the mountain. It's an alternative explanation, not a debunk. A debunk conclusively proves something is false and this isn't conclusive.

If they're that good just upload raw footage and the rest will take care of itself.

There is no evidence indicating it is false, and no evidence indicating it is true. Choosing to believe something is true or false without evidence is called faith. You wait for evidence, you don't pick a side and have faith.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Sit on reddit /r/UFOs sub and it is plain to see.