One cannot talk about "extraordinary coincidences" unless one is in possession of the data. For example, we are in possession of the data for the glare rotation and the data for the ATFLIR azimuth and elevation angles, which lets us calculate the expected roll angle. We find an extraordinary match, evinced by the fact that if you substitute the glare angle for the ATFLIR roll, the head remains always within 3 degrees or so of the target, which is very close to the 5 degrees cited in the Raytheon patent, and even closer to the number cited by that Raytheon engineer in those ill-fated tweets. That's an extraordinary coincidence. When you look between 15 and 20 seconds of video, notice that the airplane banks but the glare remains dead static, that's an extraordinary coincidence. It's on the basis of those coincidences (that surely have a minuscule if difficult to quantify precisely p value) that we can now be very confident in claiming that the rotation of the object is due to glare.
But if you're talking about Ryan Graves' description of the SA page... well, you're not looking at the SA page. You don't know when this stop-and-reverse movement happened, or even if it happened within the span of the video excerpt. You don't know if it coincides with any trajectory that has been mocked up (importantly: there are
zero models that have "found" the distance to be 10 nautical miles). So there's no coincidence at all, extraordinary or otherwise, that can be confidently asserted with basis on any data we have available.
But say we assume that the trajectory Graves was describing is actually the one you get when you take lines of sight and artificially set their distance, that is, let's say we give you that coincidence. Now there's an even bigger coincidence to be contended with, namely, that the trajectory of the object looks
exactly like that of an airplane-like object flying an airplane-like trajectory at constant altitude and speed, in
just the direction required for the glare hypothesis to make sense for a jet, at a distance sufficient for the glare to cover most plausible candidates. That's an extraordinary coincidence. We don't know where the data in the SA came from, and the new FOIA'd documents don't say much other than a partially redacted sentence:
He took a ______ lock. A what lock? Radar doesn't fit:
What's the missing word? Passive? Datalink? How reliable is this tracking method? That's in addition to the existing question of whether or not the pilots were tracking the target they thought they were tracking (is it the L&S or isn't it?) In the dispute between a mysterious sensor fusion package taking data from some unknown source, that has been possibly misinterpreted, and the clear evidence that the object was traveling an ordinary path -- that extraordinary coincidence begins to suggest quite the opposite, that it was the information in the SA page that was wrong (or misinterpreted), not the trajectory as can be reconstructed from the ATFLIR lines of sight.