Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it could be a "field" that might as well be described as magic. But where's the craft's interaction with the atmosphere? Normally an object traveling thousands of miles an hour hits a fair amount of atmosphere. An object traveling fast enough actually turns atmospheric gases into a plasma. Plasma is not only hot but will reflect radio waves. Now you need to invent a second magic technology that explains the lack…
Sure it could be a "field" that might as well be described as magic. Do you believe in magic? That's a pretty good difference for me. Now you need to invent a second magic technology that explains the lack of plasma trails following the path of this supposedly hypersonic object. I don't, fields have gradients, but there's a previous question here, at least for me. If you start with the premise that this kind of pheno…
I don't believe in magic. If you're going to suggest some super technology that might as well be indistinguishable from magic same incredulity as claiming it was just unicorn farts of dragon blood. Suggesting some craft operates via some "field" without any basis for how such a "field" might operate is just a long way of saying "magic". It's god of the gaps sort of reasoning, seeing a thing that you can't explain and jumping to the least rigorous and fantastical explanation.
> If you start with the premise that this kind of phenomenon is impossible
I'm starting from the premise of the universe and the things in it obeying some fundamental laws. If I see something that appears to break some fundamental law, insofar as I understand it, I'm going to question my perception before questioning some physical law.
Personally, I've got a pretty good understanding of how electronic sensors in cameras work, how cameras themselves work, how optics in cameras interact, how data from cameras is processed, and how that data is then stored. I'm no Fabrice Ballard but I've got a better understanding than the average person on the street. When I see a video of a "UAP" I'm going to think back to all that camera knowledge and think up the thousand different ways mundane things can be misinterpreted by cameras and people viewing the output from cameras.
Just being a skeptical person I'm also going to instantly question "eye witness" accounts. Eye witnesses are extremely unreliable. It's not that people are necessarily untrustworthy it's just everything a person "sees" is filtered through their imperfect senses, natural and unconscious apophenia, natural and unconscious pareidolia, preconceived notions, cultural biases, imperfect memory, and imperfect language. I don't put much weight into appeals to authority like "the observer is a PILOT". An Air Force pilot is as human as the next person with the above listed limitations on their perception or recollection of their perception.
Knowing what I do about how cameras in particular work, I also assume there's aspects of radars that are equally complicated (I do know a little bit about how radars work). So there's a thousand little ways a radar is going to give confusing readings just like an optical camera will. Radars come in different types depending on the intended task. There's air search radars just looking for anything roughly jet or missile sized and targeting radars that have very narrow beam angles to guide a weapon to the target. The way they estimate size, distance, and heading are going to be up to processing software.
If you want to have me even entertain the idea that something is a super high technology craft powered by a "field" you're going to have to at least show your work. Why is this phenomenon not a drone/bird/Piper Cub/Venus? You're also going to need a better explanation than "field", at least some falsifiable hypothesis of how such a "field" could possibly work. That hypothesis also needs to not fall down to any reasonable scrutiny.
It's unscientific and intellectually dishonest to jump to fanciful explanations for things. Even presupposing a phenomenon even exists is unscientific.