Why Are Astronomers and Astrophysicists Considered “Relevant Experts” on UFOs?

I was reading through David Grusch’s wiki last night and I noticed a “Response From Relevant Experts” section. Naturally I clicked on it and found it was a long list of physicists and astronomers making the same claim over and over again: “David Grusch is not credible because we haven’t see any evidence for extraterrestrial visitation or UFOs”. The only person open to the idea of Grusch’s claims, Michio Kaku, even got his own rebuttal in the wiki article from a physicist who said he was risking his reputation and scientific integrity by putting the burden of proof on the pentagon for proving UFOs aren’t ET spaceships.

The thing is, I believe them. They probably haven’t see any evidence of ET visiting earth. You wouldn’t either If you fixed a telescope at a minute fraction of the sky and gathered data about far away light sources unless it flew right into your line of sight in the perfect position.

Astronomers study things far outside of our atmosphere using finely tuned light sensors and astrophysicists use math to make sense of the movements and principles which govern celestial bodies. They are experts in projectile motion, the principles of quantum mechanics, waves, energy, and universal forces like gravity and electromagnetism. They are brilliant people in a wondrous and profound field. Their work is beautiful and they certainly could be considered experts in searching for life on distant planets.

But what about UFOs? What makes an astronomer or astrophysicist a “relevant expert” in a phenomena with an average sighting elevation of 30,000 feet ASL (per AARO)? Why would an astronomer or astrophysicist know more about objects within our atmosphere than a former geospatial defense intelligence officer who spent all his time looking at atmospheric threats to US national security? Why would an astrophysicist be able to tell a pilot, someone who spends all their time flying around in the atmosphere, that their experience doesn’t count as evidence of UFOs? Is it just because they couldn’t see it through their telescope?

I’m not saying astronomers and astrophysicists shouldn’t look at UFOs. I commend Avi Loeb and the Galileo Project. He is, perhaps, the one astronomer who I would say could qualify as a “relevant expert”. But then again, how could anyone be a “relevant expert” on a subject whose name starts with “unidentified”? Even if we take Grusch at his word, no skepticism whatsoever, even he doesn’t seem to have all the answers.

It’s clear to me that this is an appeal to authority fallacy, which is bad enough, but the authority it appeals to isn’t even relevant to the topic at hand. Thats not to say they are malicious or dishonest people, and they are right that Grusch needs to back up his claims with evidence. That said, the narrative from physicists and astronomers should be “we don’t know if Grusch is being truthful, that’s not the type of mystery we investigate”.