OK, let's get specific about the OP and the video (which I've finally been able to view).
First up, the guy hasn't a clue - I'm sorry, but some of that footage is ludicrous and is clearly done by someone who is unfamiliar with the basic operation of the equipment he is trying to use. Secondly, he is mixing up a whole pile of different stuff, and the fact that he hasn't captured any of it well (and some of it *awfully*) means it is difficult to properly identify with any confidence. But here goes:
1. At 0:00 to 0:06 - this is a small light source, effectively unresolved by the optics, that is showing a very clear case of 'coma', ie light smear caused by the optics. I'm guessing that the object (which is either a star so near to the horizon that it is scintillating very badly, or possible a police chopper or even car) is not only way off centre in a poorly collimated telescope, he is also filming via a camera at an angle through the eyepiece - the fuzziness is no exotic force field effect, it is simply crappy optics and technique. The shakiness is obviously movement of the telescope and camera combined - it is impossible to determine if/how the object is moving.
2. At 0:07 to 0:12 - oh dear. He clearly uses digital zoom on his camera to make a fuzzy blob even worse. Please, folks, TURN DIGITAL ZOOM OFF.
It is also EXTREMELY notable that he doesn't zoom back (or sue the camera natively), he doesn't show or discuss what happened before or after his filming - where did it go/come from? It is also very notable that he doesn't zoom back or pan to show the surrounds or the horizon, NOR does he show what a known object (like a distant streetlamp or star or planet (Jupiter is perfectly positioned right now). That points to extreme ignorance/amateurism, or deliberate scamming - those are VERY common techniques used by those like Michael Lee Hill in order to deceive.
3. At 0:33, the image is obviously a time exposure, and that little trail is exactly consistent with that of an aircraft moving across the sky during the time exposure.
4. At 0:38, the earlier fuzzy blob is repeated as an even more zoomed still image. It is obviously enlarged using interpolation - this is NOT a valid way to zoom, even if the original *wasn't* already corrupted beyond hope by crappy optics, bad filming and in-camera digital zoom.
5. At 0:46 - 0:58, those are contrails. Good grief.
6. At 1:10 it is simply a repeated, over-enlarged version of the initial footage - seriously, this guy needs to learn how to get his equipment steady.
7. At 1:15 he makes claims about 'orbs' doing maneuvers around aircraft, but none of his footage shows anything like that.
8. At 1:30 he talks about 'jellyfish' like things - I guess if you use your imagination on that first coma-smeared object, yes, it does look a bit like that.
9. At 1:36 he shows some sort of odd time lapse effect showing what again appears to either an aircraft or a satellite (or perhaps the ISS or similar - it appears to be taken near dusk, when such spacecraft are most visible.
10. At 1:52 he talks about red objects shining lights onto clouds, and then shows some brief (stills of?) amorphous blobs that could be anything - again, no attempt to zoom back or show surroundings or known objects, even though he says he watched for long periods.
11. At 2:11 he shows more lights that are 100% out of focus bokeh blobs. I find it hard to believe that he wasn't deliberately defocusing - that stuff is the first you learn when operating a telescope. Again, the images are in some sort of time-lapse sequence - why? who knows.
12: At 2:15 the footage looks, if anything, like a bird flying through the field of view - again it's in that weird time lapse effect for no apparent reason.
13. The sequence around 2:53 is particularly damning - that is almost certainly a deliberate attempt to get an 'effect'. I think most folks familiar with telescopes and night imaging will know why I say that. At the moment I will withhold my reasons, as I'm interested to see if any excuses are raised beforehand.
Frankly, I think they had a slow news night and this case was sitting there from some guy who wanted fifteen minutes of fame. I invite him, the reporter and the UFO groups he was advised by, to join up and discuss - I'm happy to back up my analysis as required, and would love to hear more about the techniques, and to ask why some basic investigation and verification wasn't done (like the zooming back and showing known objects)... And then I'll be asking if he will agree to do it NOW.
BTW, I wonder why he went to UFO groups to discuss his sightings, rather than an astronomy club? I think I know why..
If he had done that instead, he would have (perhaps with some embarrassment) learnt what he was doing wrong and what he should have done to verify his claims.. I'm also curious why the UFO 'experts' haven't pointed out the very obvious issues with most of that footage? Even they should have spotted the problems from a mile off..