I notice "argument from personal ignorance" is common in "believer" circles (not just of aliens, but of all kinds of conspiracy theories). If you happen to be well educated enough to provide a detailed explanation of why a particular thing they've said doesn't hold water, it's frustratingly common for them to fall back on "well I'm not an expert, I don't know all the details, I'm just asking questions." Somehow it never occurs to them not to make wild assertions when they "don't know all the details".
But that is not my argument. I am not an expert in Seismic Sensors, yet I believe the experts that tell me this happened. The military Experts directly witnessing the Nimitz events and the sensors they are trained on tell me something really extraordinary happened. The best "ordinary event misinterpreted" explanation comes from a game developer turned professional skeptic that ignores a heap of evidence and direct testimony from the experts. I tend to believe the experts with the caveat that the best explanation I can think of is either:
a) they witnessed an alien probe, potentially the equivalent of a mars rover from an advance civilization or
b) this is a big Psyop by the CIA.
I believe North Korea has nukes on the same premise that it's more likely a diverse set of experts saw what they saw and interpreted the sensors they work with every day correctly than that it's all a big psyop by the CIA to fake NK Nukes. Where do you see the difference between both cases?