I get the impression that all that skeptics want to do is create doubt about the evidence and accounts of the event like some sleazy defense lawyer would. There is really no attempt at gathering real evidence of an alternative explanation. That's why they deny that they are offering any story or claims to the contrary of the eyewitness's testimony. They know the minute they commit to an explanation they are going to have to support it with evidence. And they have no evidence. It's also why almost every time they poison the well by attacking the eyewitnesses personally, hatefully alleging motives for fame and book deals and preexisting agendas about aliens when they have no evidence of such. It's also why they are all over the map about what happened. From whales to birds to jets to submarines and drones to faulty memories and radar glitches, any old speculation will do in order to create doubt about the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Unfortunately they remain little more than unevidenced speculations that never rise to the level of epistemic certainty that the official accounts do, especially when motivated by the assumption that the official accounts are just given as false. That's because the official account is based on what the people who were actually there observed and inferred, which isn't called into question by whatever speculative alternative account the skeptic can pull out of his ass. The skeptic would have to present other eyewitness testimony conflicting with the official account in order to raise doubt about it. And they can't do that because such doesn't exist. It's all just a disingenuous ploy to create the illusion of doubtfulness where there really isn't any.