It's completely disingenuous to just link that video as an authoritative source (when it's not... in any way).

You should also put Ryan Grave's response to that video - https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0

Except for that the reply doesn't actual counter any of the analysis made in the sceptic video, but instead criticises Mike for taking a sceptic approach and disregarding the audio from the pilots (because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video). This is the typical approach one sees over and over again from most people invested in some sort of conspiracy theory, they never reply to technical criticism, but instead either switch to some other "evidence" or criticise the sceptic for "not taking an open minded approach".

> because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video

If the pilots see the same thing with their eyes then that significantly undermines West's theory, because human eyes wouldn't have the same visual artifacts as these sensors. It would have to be an extreme coincidence for this all to line up just right across multiple sensor systems and human eyes as well. No impossible, but very implausible.

But they couldn't the video was incredibly zoomed in, it is too far to see with the naked eye. The video actually explains this.

It could be like a lens flare / bokeh that rotates with the camera, but that doesn't change the fact that it originated from a flying object. A camera artifact doesn't rule out that the camera was still tracking something, even if the remarks about it "rolling" and maneuvering were off base. Just as you'll see lens flare when you film the sun - the sun is real even though the flare streaks on video are artifacts.

You're right, the camera was tracking something: an airplane.

stfu