I’m sorry that you seem upset here and in your comments generally on this thread. I can relate to some degree; there is is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to the topics of evidence and people’s ability to evaluate truth claims.
Still, it is your responsibility to not take out on your frustrations on me or anyone else. Treat us with respect or your reputation will suffer.
Finally, you are making many assumptions which you then use to knock down straw men arguments. If you manage a civil tone, I will engage with you further. Otherwise, I don’t see it being productive enough to warrant the effort.
To be specific, I suggest reviewing the HN Guideliness. In particular, strive to ask charitable clarification questions and avoid emotionally charged claims; e.g. that what I’m saying is bogus.
Now, your idea of hallucinations being an explanation for such sightings, obviously impossible due to said sensors systems in the first place, is utter bogus since not only do you not have "strong priors" in such a situation, you also do not employ people suffering from hallucinations as pilots for mulit-million dollar fighter jets to begin with.
Your article finally describes an entirely different phenomenon than "seeing an object consistently for an extended period of time". Which is what is relevant here.