Doug - when I invited you to "get real" what I meant was just to try to consider things objectively and impartially. Here's a good example (my emboldening):
Yes, you are correct. I should have said "in a *literal* world". I would have to argue against your "on the whole, "overhead" means exactly what you say it doesn't: "in the sky over to my right", "... over to my left", etc.". Here's you a real life example of how that works: I have two military jets that fly over once a week here. Sometimes they come "right overhead", which means they come right over the top of MY house. Other times, they come over a little further down the road, over the neighbor's house. Now see, that would be "right overhead" if my *neighbor* was describing it to someone, but if *I* were describing it, I would say that "they came over the neighbor's house, to the left of me".
You see, you, yourself, have introduced the notion of
degrees of "overheadness" when applying the word "overhead". "Right overhead", I agree, means what one would expect it to mean,
directly above, but by definition, therefore, anything other than "right overhead" is not directly above. It must, therefore, be either somewhat to the right, left, in front, behind or a combination thereof. Now, please remind yourself of the words that the folks at Indian Lake Marina and Jim Stop uttered, as quoted by you. Here, I'll save you time: "close overhead" and "over" respectively, keeping in mind that the former was based on the sound of the plane alone, not sight, and the latter is the reporter's choice of word, not necessarily Jim Stop's, although I doubt that even you would posit that Jim might have said "right overhead'!
Moreover, please remember that we're discussing a plane here that was, according to the FDR, essentially plummeting from around 10,000ft altitude. Simple trigonometry reveals that, at that altitude, a plane directly above the crash site would subtend a viewing angle of around 55 degrees, assuming an observer-to-crash site distance of 2.5km, which I believe is about right.
Now, Doug, being as objective and impartial as you possibly can be, please don't tell me that you disagree that a person sitting inside a building at the India Lake Marina, upon hearing a loud plane at a 55-degree elevation, or an observer actually looking up into the sky over India Lake at around a 55-degree elevation, would not conceivably tend to describe the plane as "close overhead" or "over". Please tell me that you agree that the vagueness of the words "overhead" and "over" is such that one cannot reasonably rely on the use of such words by Joe Public as meaning "directly overhead".
And that changes the fact that the plane *had been* overhead.... how?
You miss the point. It doesn't change the assertion that the plane had been overhead, sorry, "directly overhead", at all. It simply demonstrates that the observers cannot claim with any degree of certainty that the plane had passed directly overhead, or even close to, for that matter. Again, Doug - objectivity, if you please.
I'm as real as they come, my friend, as real as they come. I don't pretend to be anything I'm not as I have no reason to. I've been me for 45 years already, and I don't know how to be anyone else. It's really just that simple.
I'm not asking you to be somebody else, Doug. I'm simply asking that you consider things impartially and objectively, which means shedding those preconceptions that you clearly seem to harbour. It's difficult, I know, I've been there, and it spoils the fun, so to speak, but you need to decide whether you're interested in the truth or the chase. If the truth, great, let's work with the facts and see what we have; if the chase, fine, carry on, but you'd only be fooling yourself, and dishonest to all concerned. If that's what you get off on though, well ...
Thanks for being civil, I appreciate it a lot.... it helps further discussion a lot better, don't you agree?
I do. There's nothing to be gained from allowing one's frustrations to affect civility, although it's easy to lapse, sometimes.
