Currently, the human race has several billion cameras readily available to take footage of rare occurrences. Not just mobile phones, but think also of CCTV security cameras, dash cams, etc...
The simple logical conclusion is that footage of rare but real events ought to be more readily available.
And in fact, that's exactly what's observed! There is now a wide variety of high quality videos to choose from, if what you want to see is things like bright meteors. They're real, in the sky, fleeting, and rare. We now have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of full colour, high resolution, in-focus videos of them.
Well, camera phones, even really good ones, suck for filming anything more than 50+ yards away. Try to film a Jet with it that is clearly visible to your eye.
Secondly, meteors aren't rare. Go anywhere with a clear sky and you can see shooting stars many times pretty much every night of the week.
Thirdly, there are plenty of pictures and videos of flying saucers, balls, lights, etc. out there, but everyone's response is "that's fake". I mean, that's the correct response, but your argument is wrong in light of that.
On the contrary, there are rare but real phenomena that have no good videos. Meteors aren't that rare, try ball lightning instead. The only videos we have are blurry unclear blobs of pixels, totally unconvincing. Here's the "highest quality" video ever made of one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXm3zDM_v80
Sadly we are living in the very short window in which a decent resolution video of events is worth anything. Soon enough video synthesis will forever render that option useless.
In the years to come people will forget that during this time we saw no reliable proof, and fall for bullshti clickbait fake videos.
Which is IR. I think the IR videos are the most promising, since high quality IR tech is restricted and optical camo could explain why sightings happen infrequently
Also, the interviews about Navy/5gon UFO videos have stated that the original footage was much higher resolution and showed some "protuberances" coming from the TicTac, like landing struts or whatever. The also said that the released footage was much lower resolution and also that it was unlikely the radar data would ever be released (but in other cases, JAL, Belgium, there have been radar data of anomalous objects released).
I don't think it's surprising that it's hard to get great quality footage of high tech things like this.
For the following reasons:
- the large number of cameras you mention are mostly low quality cameras
- the objects are supposed to be very fast
- the objects are often very far away
- the object might use optical camo
For example, if you are sitting on the ground in high visibility day with bright sunlight and you see a 737 in the sky at 10km it will look like a mostly translucent white speck. The obvious thing will be the contrail.
If you have an object smaller than that, faster than that, and even higher than that, you'll have a worse image.
Section bias seems like a misnomer for this situation. It'd be selection bias if grainy blurry alien videos were more likely to get popular than high-def ones. There doesn't seem to be any kind of "selection" to be biased here.
The selection occurs when hi-res videos depict so clearly what is actually going on that it's revealed to be some mundane event, and doesn't even qualify as a UFO any more (even if it were positively identified as an alien spacecraft, in which case afawk it remains classified)
The reverse argument is that if blurry evidence of aliens exists and aliens are real then there is also lots of extremely clear evidence of aliens that has never been released to the public. I find it unlikely that we haven't had a leak yet. The reality is that this extremely clear evidence and the aliens that it is supposedly depicting simply does not exist.
Also, if it were the case that the intelligence community had very clear evidence of aliens, they would be extra cautious about the blurry evidence they release. Also, it would be a huge statistical anomaly that either civilians didn't catch some of that clear evidence, o that intelligence are actually that proficient in doing global cover ups.
