[willy_k]

> I’m not super confident in your estimate of angular size.

Neither am I, but I am confident it was a drone. Does “given all the rest” mean I wrote so much I have to be crazy, or do you actually have an explanation that better fits what I saw? Given the light configuration I don’t see how it could be a plane. And helicopters make a very distinctive noise. Maybe I saw a military helicopter, but at that point drones seem more likely.

I am interested in alternative proposals that take into account everything I observed. Less so in single-point criticisms coming from the assumption that there’s nothing to see so I must be deluded if I think I saw something.

[Eisenstein]

Nobody can explain what you saw because they didn't see it with you. Your vision is interpreted by your brain and memories are reinforced by whatever narrative you produce when you recollect them each time and grow stronger into that narrative. It will always have been a drone to you, no matter what anyone can say about why it probably wasn't.

I am not discounting what you saw and have no particular reason to doubt you, but human psychology operates in a way that is not conducive to being proven wrong about such things. Take that as you will.

[willy_k]

All true. Although I meant all the observations I’ve noted here - namely the light pattern coupled with not being far enough to be silent if a plane (sure distance is extremely iffy at night but one can tell if a plane is six miles up or one without needing to know it’s exact size).

You’re right that my interpretation in the end will be heavily influenced by my expectations, but unless I completely hallucinated the light pattern or gained temporary telescopic vision such that I saw each nav light separated by multiple visual-field-feet (if that makes any sense) on a plane at cruising altitude, I just can’t think of any explanation that fits better than drone.