No the camera isn't lying, you are just clueless when it comes to understanding what you're seeing in the footage. I'm sorry, but there is no better way to state it.
No I looked at the whole thing again and I have to agree with Mr Omsk.
The object has absolutely no discernible tail, nose or wings. It has a consistent height across it's section that is not consistent with a plane regardless of the pitch angle.
If the footage isn't good enough to discern these things then neither is it good enough to tell whether it is approaching or departing; yet you claim emphatically that it is approaching. So there is a contradiction if ever there was one.
The people that blindly follow you may well be convinced about this but others are not; it's you who is clueless about interpreting the footage.
If you don't like the fully zoomed in image then look at the zoomed out image. The definition of the cross section and it's lighting arrangement is still there to be clearly seen.
Camera's don't lie and that is the virtue of hard objective evidence. It's difficult to accept I realise but that is the nature of objective truth. It is hard to face, and no one can make a case to say otherwise when we have footage like this.
The images in the footage are consistent. If the was at least one frame where a nose, tail or wing could be discerned I would acquiesce and agree with you but there is not even one.
The argument that the camera gives too poor an image does not wash and is wishful thinking in order to try and reinforce a biased viewpoint.
Right case closed what's next?
Time we looked at another classic case I think. See you later.