That hypothesis and also video/optical/signal "lens flares" and other such technical glitch theories have been discussed widely. The reason none of that holds

That hypothesis and also video/optical/signal "lens flares" and other such technical glitch theories have been discussed widely. The reason none of that holds up is because of the way advanced "sensor fusion" and direct observers with the naked eye have all agreed and converged on highly detailed accounts from multiple angles. You might imagine that "sensor fusion" involves some centralized control plane that collects and controls the redistributed captures at a focal choke point, where maybe the NSA (or a foreign APT implant, or some such high tech evil-doer) could sneak in and spoof some deep fake concoction into the mix, but these are fault tolerant systems, including direct observations from boots on the ground in visual contact with the objects. You have personnel with ordinary binoculars. You have vehicles with weapons systems that expect jamming and hostile environments. Sensor fusion is one tool, and not the only tool in the kit. They have ships with eyes in multiple spectrum bands, especially radio, microwave, IR and broad daylight. People looking at unfused radar, sending planes to a radar return, and then seeing and following the object by visual flight rules. This isn't a situation where a single point of failure introduces doubt. In fact, it is the very opposite: multiple independent sources of high integrity, at least if you trust The U.S. Navy.