I think it's funny that lots of the replies here are like:

- The data is wrong, these are not as described.

That's one possible response to new data. Some others are:

- The data is right, how could this be?

- The data is inconclusive, here's how to make it better.

What I wonder is:

- How would you know?

- The first response is unscientific because it prevents further inquiry by the assumption: there's nothing interesting here.

- The latter two are scientific because they encourage further investigation.

The "how would you know" point is important. It's the data denier versus dozens of observers and instruments. Somehow they were all fooled, but the data denier is the one who sees clearly?

Actually, I think data denier is not a great term here, by imprecision. I think what's really going one is more like: fear of new data. Indicated by the bold and frankly ridiculous explanations conjured to hold the existing world view together in the face of new data.

Some examples of the perceptual gymnastics are quite funny: chewing gum was stuck to the sensor (erm, presumably to all sensors on all ships and aircraft?); or, it was actually an insect crawling on the sensor lens (at the same time as the humans were hallucinating in sync, no doubt?); or, the sensors tracked closer birds and erred on their size and speed (while the humans, simultaneously saw drones, I guess?); or, it was atmospheric phenomena dropping, in groups of 10 to 20, from low earth orbit to 'cruising altitude' (pretty crafty weather, right?) -- AFAIK no one yet has claimed it was birds, insects or chewing gum dropping from low earth orbit, but there's still hope we might see such hilarious 'explanations' at some point.

Actually I prefer the term, "escapation" to "explanation" here, because it's less explaining something, than escaping from explaining it.

I don't want to throw shade against the (coinage alert) dataphobes among us (they may even be someone you know, someone even in your own family...oh goodness), because their effort is fundamentally a noble one: protect the world we know. From all influences and enemies, foreign and domestic (and now alien, I guess?). And very human: for the new is scary. It means we are in the unknown, it means maybe we cannot rely on what we now merely thought we knew. (I'm reminded of a Beatles song here, anyone care to guess which one).

In the light of new data and facing it head on, the world has shifted underneath our feet. Proverbial security rug pulled out from under us. We're...ahem...floating in space. In a...erm...zero g environment. Without bearings. Not knowing which way is up or down. So it is human. A response to fear. Which explains some of the anger that sometimes erupts, too. A noble, if misguided effort, to hold onto what is, at all costs.

But it also is connected to another human frailty: confirmation bias - the bias everyone exhibits for confirming what they know, over discovering what they don't.

I'm not sure how we "get over" this dataphobia as a collective--even in the face of new evidence it shows robust persistence--and I'm not sure what cue the dataphobes will eventually take, to change their views (nor from whom they may take it), but, you know--while it lasts, it is entertaining, in a harmless way (not laughing at the dataphobes themselves, but at the Herculean effort of there ideas in the face of data). And it provides refuge for those who cannot clip at the quick pace of change we now face. Not everyone has to find solace in that path, but for those who do--for the stragglers who lag behind our current pace--there's no shame in it. It's very human. And what better "antidote" (if one is needed) to all the new "alien" information upon us, than to double down on being "extra" human?

So, friends, be not unkind to the sufferers of dataphobia among us. One day, on some topic, we may be dataphobes too.

(Tone guidance: delivered with sincerity and only a little bit of gentle friendly prodding/ribbing)