I don't see anything about Rayleigh scattering being used to determine distance. They use it only as a detection. If something is causing Rayleigh scattering, they assume there is an object. The distance is then calculated either via atmospheric dimming (how dim the object looks means how far away it is) or parallax calculation between two cameras. The dimming method has all sorts of problems itself, a camera noise could have produced all levels of dimming. The parallax method is used for the last two figures only, and they make the outrageous claim of detecting an object 3 times higher than ISS and travelling at 0.1% of the speed of light, which was detected by their daytime color camera and no one else in the world.
Many of their other detection figures assume an object is at X distance because how dim it is, caught by a single camera for a single frame. By their assumed distance X and the field of view of the camera frame, they assume the object travels faster than more than one frame can capture, therefore it must be travelling faster than speed Y.
The biggest statistical probability here is camera noise. Their detection assumptions are so incredibly basic and open to disruptions or complete randomness due to possibility of camera noise.
Another statistical bullshit is that they pointed a color camera (they give the brand/make of the camera, which is less than $300 at amazon) at the sky (something that a million people can do at any given moment) with a field of view of 45 degrees, and saw like 15 UFOs.
Which one do you believe to be statistically more likely:
two guys in active warzone pointed $300 cameras at the sky and saw 15 UFOs some of them flying faster than 0.1% of the speed of light, that no one else in the world has ever seen, using a detection method that they boldly claim to have invented themselves.
their camera had some noise and they miscalculated simultaneous detections.