The part that is worth dismissing is the immediate jump to aliens. This topic is really a sensor data analysis discussion, not a conspiracy theory convention.

Why does the government not just say that? Hey, our instruments are having errors/artifacts and we want to fix it AND also dismiss any suggestion of alien craft --but, no, they go along with the most unlikely scenario. Are they looking to look stupid?

Because it would be dumb to publicly acknowledge any specifics of their weaknesses to their enemies.

They don't have to make any of it public. It was never public till they decided that they wanted to inject aliens into their strategy. Now, the Chinese communists and the Russian Oligarchs both still know our instruments suck, except they attributed to aliens.

> Now, the Chinese communists and the Russian Oligarchs both still know our instruments suck

There is no strategic or actionable value in a broad judgement of "sucks" or "doesn't suck". The point of keeping details secret is to prevent someone from building mechanisms to specifically counter it. Information disparity in war is an advantage because it can cause an enemy to misjudge their allocation of resources. (either they underestimate and are out-powered, or they overestimate and waste resources)

It's like poker. You might choose to selectively give off some information with your expressions, but you'd easily lose if you showed your cards.

> they decided that they wanted to inject aliens into their strategy.

The US military has not entertained the idea of aliens.

To preface: I am strongly in the opinion that this 'phenomenon' that's being seen is most probably a US-based contractor that's been testing exotic aircraft, as opposed to any of the other possibilities. There's a documented history of that over the years, and looking at where China and Russia are at currently indicates they might not have these capabilities.

However, I am going to hold off on the 'dismissing is the immediate jump to aliens' part as well, purely due to the position of this guy and the specifics of his claims - he was part of a team investigating the subject and so until he's proven unequivocally of lying I'll just assume there might be documentation he has access to that we don't. His credentials line up and it sounds as if the people who vouch for him are the same.

I'll think it's silly to discredit the fact the government wants to study what's being reported in the sky like some people are doing. Beyond that I'd rather not comment because it's safer to discuss the parts we are actually privy to rather than the parts we aren't, until the dude gets charged for lying to congress or some other official discrediting of his claims.

Unless the assertions made by those interviewed in the article are true. We are all arm chair quarterbacks who only have a view from the goal line to the one yard line. There is no sense in trying to say we know what happened in the game. We don't know what's actually happening and I don't see much sense in eliminating plausible explanations. It could be sensor aberrations, China, or something else. Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it? Yes, we should probably focus on eliminating the more mundane explanations, but I don't think we would want to give up if we don't find it at first.

> Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it?

I am for keeping an open mind, scientifically speaking. Entertaining theories rooted in fictional fantasy is not that. There is zero scientific evidence of technologically advanced life outside of Earth. It is a hypothesis that is just as unsupported as anything anyone might make up on the spot. Just because it is a hypothesis people want to believe doesn't make it any more supported than a hypothesis that it is the flying spaghetti monster.

By entertaining do you mean considering them plausible?