Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear

I'm limiting this to what seem like technically oriented groups, not
including UFO forums in an attempt to avoid slobbering tirades from
the tinfoil hat brigade.

I'm wondering why it is, in all the incidents of "UFO" sightings,
including some that have made the news, any images that aren't obvious
hoaxes (and many that are) are always grainy, shaky, indistinct blobs
blurs, pinpoint lights etc.

Okay, the conspiracy buff's default is always going to be that
anything the gov't has is instantly going to be hidden and disavowed
by the MIB. Maybe my perception is incorrect, but it seems powerful
consumer photographic gear has been available for some time and there
are legions of skilled photography and videography enthusiasts amateur
and professional. How hard would it be to get that suped-up telephoto
or zoom lens trained on the objects in question to get something
resembling a clear shot in the case of something like this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MAox0pcZZxo


where the objects are clearly visible for some time, seemingly plenty
of time for someone who's skilled to get their gear onto a tripod and
get a reasonably close-up shot.

Or do I have a mistaken notion of how powerful the available optics
are? The News stations show clear, distinct shots of the fast-moving
Space Shuttle when it's well into its trajectory on launch days, I
would guess from at least as far if not farther than these objects are
from the cameras. The above link is an incident that occurred over a
major city and apparently caused quite a buzz. *Nobody* there had good
gear they could whip out to take some pics?

I would think a major city has astronomy buffs and universities who
have fairly sophisticated gear already set up to photograph distant
objects. Wouldn't capturing something at airliner altitude be quite
possible?

Thanks