We don't know that he's right, and the Navy has officially verified the videos belong to them just last week -- these aren't a product of the organization that released them. However, the Go Fast video was not the interesting one from a witness testimony standpoint. See the Nimitz incident [0], in which the object was observed by dozens of witnesses from several vantage points, including three fighters (at two different times), the passive radar on the Nimitz (intermittently for over a week), and an AWACS.
Whether we know anything at all is a matter I'll leave to philosophers. I'm sufficiently confident that he's right about the Go Fast video that I'd bet my left nut on it.
The Go Fast video being wrapped up in this matter leads me to conclude that the Navy didn't try very hard to figure out that video, which leaves me with no reason to believe they tried harder with the others.
Or that the Navy is happy with these pedestrian explanations, but realize that the public will claim "weather balloons again, another government cover-up" if they provide such an explanation. So they release them as "unexplained" without further comment.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident