Here we are dealing with "people trying to figure out a way to trick us" - to the opportunities are endless.
No, they really are not, because EVERY possibility introduces something else you need to account for.
But for the TD case, you have to deal with a context of "normalcy" -- there are no humans trying to trick you. Whatever explanation a TD can come up with is confined to the realm of "physics, machine mechanics, etc".. normal stuff.
Your hoax explanations are still bound by physics and 'normalcy'. You don't get to handwave any old explanation without considering its implications.
If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to write it up either, because I'd find myself unable to reasonably provide a viable explanation.
Once again, STOP ascribing motivations to me. YOU claim this is abnormal. YOU bear the burden of proof to show that it is what you claim it to be. YOUR explanation has to hold water.
I do not know if the movements are programmed responses to loss of tracking, a glitch caused by spurious input, a system disrupted by a sudden movement settling down to a static position, or what it might be. But any of those suggestions are possible and do not require the invention of external rigs and editing of the footage. You have no evidence for such things beyond 'it looks odd to you so those things must exist to explain it', and that is a common theme of all your arguments so far.