[learningalways (OP)]

 Well I can answer the title question with a big yes, I had observed atmospheric anomalies regularly now for more than two years.

 They usually are amorphous autonomous objects that move at high altitudes, since usually they are small and bright they are masked by the sky scattering of visible light as the stars are masked in daylight. But it is really well known that the sky scattering of visible light decreases when moving to the red portion of the spectrum and it is even lower in the infrared segment. This implies that the relative reflection of an object respect to the sky scattering will be greater in the infrared segment of the spectrum, meaning that objects will be better seen /spotted in infrared in daylight than in visible light, and experience fully confirms that. The brightest stars are easily spotted in daylight in infrared in a clear sky.

 But if you scan a clear sky in infrared in daylight you will not only find the brightest stars, you will spot lots of other objects that are not visible to the naked eye, many of these objects will be mundane objects like birds, bugs, balloons, airplanes, drones. But also you will find autonomous objects that are not any of these mundane objects.

 Now how can we be sure that a spotted in infrared autonomous object not visible to naked eye is an "anomaly"? There are several ways: If you have an aligned telescope to the infrared spotter you will be able to see optical details of these objects, many of these anomalies have polymorphic/dynamic geometry, once you observe these objects in detail you will realize that they are "anomalous". A second way to verify the anomalous nature of these objects is by observing their reaction to direct signals, some of these autonomous objects that are not visible to naked eye will respond to direct light signals making a huge flash that will make them visible to the naked eye as Venus in daylight, no mundane object will respond in that way, that response is an unequivocal signal of the anomalous character of these autonomous objects.

 I know by experience that many people will respond with dismissal to claims like this, that reaction is an old reaction in science, the tendency to dismiss and many times suppress knowledge about new facts is actually not foreign to scientists: for example Lavoisier denied the reality of meteorites when the idea about their reality was first exposed, the French Academy of Sciences fully supported Lavoisier "position" doing with that a big disservice to science.

 The reality of anomalies is an observational claim that only can be verified by direct observation, many armchair theoreticians had dismissed many things based in preconceptions and ultimately in ignorance as Lavoisier did, history later proved them wrong.

 Anomalies are being observed regularly around the world, knowledge about their reality had been known at least since the 1950's, see the Trevor J. Constable 1958 book: They live in the sky.

 This is an example of an anomaly that looks like a vertical line undulating  moving autonomously:

[learningalways (OP)]

 A very basic scientific principle is that consistent observational data across multiple independent observers reign supreme. If your ideas/theories about reality are in contradiction with this consistent observational data then if you follow a scientific approach these ideas need to be changed and make them consistent with the data.

 There are already clear, objective, repeatable procedures to observe unequivocally anomalies, this describes one of these repeatable procedures:

[RD]

This is an example of an anomaly that looks like a vertical line undulating  moving autonomously:

could be ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference

Alternatively, video camera pixels can behave like cellular automata ...
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

[alysdexia]

How do your videos apply to multiple independent observers?  And why were your specimens still frames?