posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by elevenaugust
Basically, it comes down to perspective.
When it's viewed side on the triangle appears to be obtuse, for it to appear (close to) equilateral like in the picture it would need to be flying on
it's side, right?
Or almost directly overhead.
Then, as you say there is the fact that there is no change on colouration between the lights, suggesting there's nothing there.
THEN, with the video showing two lights gone, makes me lean even further towards lanterns...
I understand where you're coming from, thanks for the explanations, and I agree that it's about perspective.
Interestingly, and at the light of what tacjtg said "The rear lights faded before the front one"
, we know that two lights faded away, but how
do we know that there were the rear lights? We have no references points to say so.
It could be that the "solid triangle ship" (in this hypothesis) was either flying its back ahead or that it shut down two of its lights...
Yes, it's pretty rare to have them in an (almost) equilateral triangle but it isn't impossible and more probable than the craft being perpendicular to
Well, you'd be surprised about the capacities of some "exotic" aircraft. I recently investigated a "triangle" hovering above a major city in France
with its back ahead...
But, like I said, unless I (or someone else) will be able to show any solid object between the lights, I tend to agree with you about the thai
lanterns to be the more logical explanation.
The question to ask to the OP now could be:
-"Was the triangle stayed in the same exact triangular shape for the whole observation, and if so, for how much time?"
If the answer if more than a handfull of seconds, then I doubt that it was thai lanterns, unless there's something not right in tacjtg's
edit on 6-6-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)