From the article: Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony [...] What a scientist needs are precise measurements

From the article: Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony [...] What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). I thought, this is exactly what the 2004 Nimitz case provided? Plus the testimony of "Top Gun" pilots, who are under constant psychological monitoring, whose eyes must be in 1A shape (friend/foe distinction within the fraction of a second), who are well studied and trained in practical avionics... What I do not understand here: * on the one hand you got data from the most advanced radar network of its time, one, that has been created specifically for this task: detect flying objects of unknown origin. * on the other hand you got T.O.P. pilots, Aces, witnessing the same and the answer of this scientist is: * there is no data from different point of view * witnesses are unreliable And each time, somebody tries to come up with an example on what it could have been, the probability of the example holds only, unless you disregard the rest of the information.