Look, I started my web page believing that the video actually showed the shuttle in some detail. There is nothing "tinfoil" in my decision that the video is actually a aperture/zoom/focus effect. I'm not proposing some sort of grand conspiracy or anything else. I've shown how, using my own camcorder, you can produce a similar effect by viewing a relatively bright point out of focus.
If you believe this is actually an image of the shuttle flying sideways, you have to answer the following questions:
1. Why are the OMS pods too far apart? No amount of motion blur would make them that far apart without also stretching the "wingspan", too. I tried to map a 3d view of the shuttle from beneath and behind to the still and couldn't.
2. Why is the shuttle oriented exactly perpendicular to the camera?
3. Why is there no change in the orientation of the shuttle during the zoom in?
4. Is the amount of zoom required to capture such detail available on a video camera, even one the pros use for TV stations? An optics expert should be able to guesstimate the amount of zoom necessary. I'm no optics expert.
I couldn't answer these questions with any confidence. Maybe you can. I would like for this to actually be an image of the shuttle flying sideways. It would explain the break up although it wouldn't be of help in determining the cause of the disaster.
So your aperture/zoom/focus effect is what I'm seeing on the video. ? Is there no object or subject ? Is this just an effect ? Sorry friend, I saw a subject in the video.
I guess you are willing to ignore the smoke/debris trail ?
I guess you are willing to ignore the material that can be seen coming/burning off the shuttle about half way through the video ?
Before the cameraman zooms in, we see the same image that dozens of other amateur and professional cameramen took of the shuttle. There is a bright glow which looks like fire/flame/explosion, as the shuttle streaks across the sky.
The reality of this effect appears to be caused by the sun glinting off the ship, as the effect disipates once the cameraman zooms in on the shuttle.
FWIW I haven't seen any other captures that zoom in. Every other capture had basically the same appearance of a glowing, burning image, with a smoke trail following the ship's path.
The image captured, shows the ship prior to disintegration, due to the position of the cameraman on the ground and in relation to the re-entry position of the shuttle, which is intact, (prior to it's break up).
It's possible that a later capture will show, not only the glow or burn appearance, but a disintegrating shuttle when viewed at magnification. This would be due to the passing of time and the obvious fact that the shuttle would be further down range and well into catastrophic break up.
1 Why are the OMS pods too far apart ?
This is like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife ? It looks like a shuttle to me. Not a spacecraft, not a frisbee, not a street light, not an experimental single engine aircraft, not an aperture/zoom/focus effect, but the shuttle. In what little detail one can make out, it appears proportional, realistic, and actual. 2 Why is the shuttle oriented exactly perpendicular to the camera ?
You use the term exactly as if there is something suspicious about the shuttle's position. Why can't the ship be perpendicular to the cameraman ? The cameraman is more or less perpendicular to the shuttle. It's a non issue. No mystery. That is (the point in time and space) where the ship passed over the earth, AND, it is also, simply the place on the ground where the camerman happened to be inhabiting the planet, when the ship passed by in the flight position it was in.
It could have been upside down, tumbling, spinning, rolling, nose facing cameraman, or on any other random degree of inclination in relation to the three axis mentioned.
3 Why is there no change in the orientation of the shuttle during the zoom in ?
There wouldn't be a change in orientation because of the zoom in. Why would there be ? Can you explain ? The line of sight doesn't change. The angle is the same.
4 Is the amount of zoom required to capture such detail available on a video camera, even one the pros use for TV stations?
The zoom was what it was. My guess is that it is at least 6X, but maybe as much as 20X. It appeared to be automatic and very smooth. As far as detail, it went from a round glowing unidentifiable object to a shape recognizeable as the shuttle with little in the way of minuit detail.
I believe NASA will use this video in their investigation and I believe in the days, weeks, and months to come, they will reference this video capture repeatedly.