Creative Speculation

Without even knowing the specifics -- frame rate, exposure time, actual distance to the object or its speed -- the motion blur should have been a very noticeable percentage of the distance traveled from one frame to the next, which is simply to say that the exposure time should have been a noticeable percentage of the frame capture cycle. That would be true even if it was a small object very close to the camera, not flying particularly fast (e.g. the "rod" phenomenon that some people find so baffling is caused by bugs flying close to the camera). Even if the camera was capable of the high shutter speed necessary to essentially "freeze" an object flying at 4000 to 6000 MPH (which is doubtful, anyway), standard CCD and CMOS sensors are not nearly sensitive enough to shoot that fast in ordinary daylight and get a useable image.

Apparently, there was no sonic boom, either.

Without saying what it is, we can safely say this was not an object flying 4000 to 6000 MPH. If the CEFAA hasn't even noticed the problem with the lack of motion blur, I'm not holding my breath waiting for their analysis.