I think if you looked at the specific questions that top US scientists were asked, the questions may have been political at times, but the responses have always been scientific and based on evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, although some have misinterpreted their responses to mean that. Science is a nuanced thing. Politics is a steamroller to nuance.

> yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.

You can discount it from the lack of evidence. I can be considered again once some evidence is available.