Ross Coulthart's September 8 X summary of his Kevin Knuth interview includes an unusually clear opportunity for a basic evidence check. In its account of an alleged New Zealand Navy sonar observation, the post pairs a 2.5-kilometer closing distance over 25 seconds with approximately 3,000 miles per hour. Those quantities do not match.

The arithmetic readers can reproduce

Dividing 2,500 meters by 25 seconds gives 100 meters per second: 360 kilometers per hour, or about 224 miles per hour. Conversely, 3,000 mph maintained for 25 seconds would cover about 33.5 kilometers. This is a mismatch within the written post; it does not establish which number, if any, reflects an original record.

The calculation also does not identify an underwater object. Closing distance can describe relative motion, and a sonar claim needs the original timeline, measurement definitions and platform information before it becomes a defensible performance estimate.

The interview and the paper are different sources

The post links a Reality Check interview and also discusses Knuth's 2019 work with Robert Powell and Peter Reali. Their published Entropy paper estimates flight characteristics for several UAP reports. Its abstract explicitly allows serious observational error or fabrication among the alternatives to advanced technology. It is not the sonar record described in the X summary.

The University at Albany faculty page confirms Knuth's physics appointment and earlier NASA Ames work. Those credentials establish his professional background; they cannot resolve conflicting numbers in a social-media summary.

A correction with a narrow scope

Editorial assessment: the appropriate correction is to flag the inconsistent distance, elapsed time and converted speed, then seek the original source. It would be premature to attribute the numerical mistake to the speaker rather than the written summary without checking the relevant recording passage.

A strong follow-up would provide a timestamp for the statement and a traceable sonar record, if one can be released. Readers should preserve the distinction between an interview claim, a journalist's summary and an instrument measurement. The discrepancy can be demonstrated now; the claimed encounter remains unverified here.

Hero: original AI-generated conceptual artwork, not evidence or a reconstruction of an encounter.