I remember that slightly different. No one doubted that it was our drone, and that part was confirmed almost immediately. What was doubted was Iran's story of how they got it, that's where the contention was. They said they hacked it and then remotely flew it back to their airbase and landed it safely, whereas the US would later say "It malfunctioned and we lost contact with it. It went into a flat spin and probably crashed, that's why they have the bottom skirted off". I don't doubt that "project" could eventually fly with some major changes, but as it stands there are quite a few things wrong with that thing. If it's a really rough mockup, it's possible engineers are working on something like it, but it won't look anything like that when it's done. Flight surfaces will have to change, won't use the ejection seat from an old F4, and won't use Garmin domestic products for it's "instrument" panels. So yes they could be working on a new plane, but why try to sell us this as "real"? Plus, building a modern fighter is difficult, even China can't get it right. Even with plans and fighters cloned from American and Russian blueprints, they still can't produce their own jet engines domestically, and have to rely on purchasing them from Russia for their fighters. These factors also kind of make me doubt they (Iran) will be flying anything that was domestically built anytime soon. Plus, unlike China, they have to deal with massive sanctions as well. For reference about the difficulties China is having producing an indigenous fighter, and more importantly a reliable jet engine. http://thediplomat.com/2012/12/09/the-long-pole-in-the-tent-.../The "it's plasticky and obviously fake" charge was leveled against the RQ-170 they dragged out, and then once the US said "yeah, that's our UAV" all the nay-sayers pretended they'd never said anything.
what we've been shown could fly, probably will fly, and represents PR over-reach rather than full-court bullshit.