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?No one is disputing that the video shows the shuttle reentering over Texas with the contrail and breakup beginning at the end. What IS in dispute is whether the zoomed-in portion of the video actually shows the shuttle in detail.
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.
It is NOT proportional. The "OMS pods" are way too far apart. Here's a comparison:
They don't match.
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? ... 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? ... There wouldn't be a change in orientation because of the zoom in. Why would there be? Can you explain?
What is suspicious is that the "shuttle" appears to be pointed exactly away from the camera. Of course, it could have been pointed that way but it is odd that the zoom-in captured it in exactly that orientation. Also, the orientation doesn't change. If the shuttle was spinning out of control, it should have changed orientation to some degree in the video. It doesn't.
The shuttle had a speed of mach 18, give or take. I would venture a guess that such a speed could easily distort it's image, epecially when viewed from such a distance. The zoom feature (magnification factor) and the quality of optics would play a role in how clear the image appeared to the viewer. Heat would be a factor as well.
It seems like the argument is being shifted from- the image is of an aperture/zoom/focus effect vs the image is of the shuttle, to- it's an image of the shuttle yet details are inaccurate so... it's what ? I honestly don't understand the point of this debate any longer ?
I think it's down to splitting hairs.
I do not dispute the lack of detail in the image, nor do I dispute that the image is somewhat distorted.
Looking at the image that you provided, one can easily reason that the shape of the wings from the captured video image doesn't replicate the shape of the wings in the graphic provided. It doesn't change my mind about what I believe I see.
Finally we don't know how much of the shuttle may already be missing (deformed) as it is captured on video at this particular point in space and time.
I concede a draw. As Roberto Duran might say- No mas ! No mas !