The problem with that whole talk is it pre-supposed the observed phenomena are in fact objects. If the "Nimitz" UFO was indeed an object it had 5000Gs of acceleration and used a terawatt of power. If you pumped a terawatt of power into an object the size of an F/A-18 it would turn into plasma.
So your hypothetical object has completely unsupported "engineering" requirements to simply exist. You don't need to understand all "physics" to know that your hypothesis that a UFO is an actual object and not a mistaken measurement is unfalsifiable. It's basically saying a UFO is magic. Further such hypothesis is not skeptical. It makes unsupported assumption ls because an observation doesn't match an expectation.
It's far more rational to approach UAP from the position that they're measurement error. Instead of crazy logical leaps assuming these objects run on essentially magic, it only relies on a much more prosaic understanding of the mechanisms of measurement.
A reflection inside a telephoto lens can look like all sorts of things. The depth of field further transforms in-lens illusions. Lenses designed to correct chromatic aberrations can have an effect on the transmitted image. The projection onto the flat plane of a CMOS sensor further amplifies the odds of optical illusions. Also the fact many cameras are monocular again increases the odds an optical illusion being seen in the output.
An out of focus moth close to a camera moving at very boring moth-like speeds can look like a much more distant object moving at ludicrous speeds. Camera movement can make a close stationary/slow object appear to be moving quickly. A distant object moving at boring speeds relative to a moving observer can appear to be making crazy movements.
At the core of these illusions is the fact a monocular lens is projecting rays from any numbers of things at a variety of distances onto a single flat sensor plane. The rays aren't tagged with a distance value. The planar sensor has no idea where a photon originated from. Without good references it's hard to judge the actual size and distance of objects. There's precious few good references in the sky for judging the size of distant objects.
Jumping to conclusions phenomena are in fact objects is not scientifically rigorous and intellectually lazy. Assuming an observation must be some unknown physics is just god of the gaps logical fallacies. A jillion measurements of different phenomena doesn't really help since the same type of sensors (monocular CMOS cameras with refresh rates of tens or dozens of Hz) will just misidentify the same class of phenomena the same way.