His argument about glare and the way the camera corrects rotation makes total sense, and the examples where he showed similar glares looked really comparable. I am pretty convinced that he is correct and that the object was not shaped or maneuvering the way it looks. He didn't debunk it as being a UAP though and stated that it could still be an interesting object.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|