I think it's even more likely that it points to a mistaken identity, in which the size, distance, and/or speed are unknown, just calculated based on what it looked like to the person reporting it. If it doesn't interact with the atmosphere in the way that would be expected, something is wrong with the story. If you don't really know the size, you don't know the distance or speed, period. If it's something illuminated (such as a view of jet engines), any photo will look bigger than it actually is. And if it's not really an object at all (such as a reflection or mirage) then you can throw ALL the observer's assumptions of size or acceleration out the window.1 Hovering while overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.
2 Sudden and instanteneous acceleration.
3 Hypersonic velocities without signatures.
This 'signature' could point to a breakthrough technology as yet unavailable to us.
We've all seen pictures of mysterious and enormous "things" that turn out to be an insect on the lens.