I’ll try more to indicate to you that I’ve understood and how I’ve accounted for each point in the summary.
I would answer that a path could follow A, B or C and an eyewitness might describe it as “over the Navy Annex”.
In fact, we could place an arrow anywhere in the sky in that particular image and I would not be at all surprised for an eyewitness to describe it as “over the Navy Annex”. It is the biggest building in the area; the obvious reference point.
Here are the three areas where Probst interprets the event: -
- Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but perceived it was headed across his view of the Navy Annex (if you extend that arrow it is moving from left to right across the image). When he makes that split second observation, his obvious interpretation might be, “over the Navy Annex”.
- Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, when he later recalls it, the memory is not precise (not many have photographic memories). But he does know that the plane came from somewhere above and in direction of the Navy Annex. Again the obvious interpretation he might provide is, “over the Navy Annex”.
- Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, even if his memory were unusually perfect, he’s not likely to put it in words, “It came kinda over the Navy Annex but a bit more to the left over that non-descript building just the other side of Columbia Pike.” Once more the obvious interpretation he gives might be simply, “over the Navy Annex”.
Then we read his comment, “over the Navy Annex” - how should we interpret it?
We could be inflexible about it, take it to the letter, fail to account for nuances of the human memory described above. In which case, we would have to say Probst saw the plane at ‘B’ (that is the arrow literally “over the Navy Annex” which you picked out).
Of course then, we’d be wrong…
As noted, the plane came from ‘A’ in each example above (ok Scott, calm down, it‘s only theory to get the point across). Probst’s observation, recollection and communication of the event, along with our own interpretation of his statement has led us away from this correct answer.
Do you see why I will never agree with you that the plane was at ‘B’ based on an eyewitness claim of “over the Navy Annex”?
This is just one of many fundamental differences we have in our treatment of the eyewitness testimony.