Can't really discern much with out being able to look at the original image source, although I am not one to put much stock in video information in any case. I just don't trust video in today's technical age, although virtually every manufacturer of video camera/recording equipment now inserts a hidden data signature 'hashed' in with the image data. The purpose of this is to enable equipment determination and image authentication. These signatures are utilized by the world's police agencies. Then there is the US FBI's AI statistical video analysis software (some of which was described in the April 1998 edition of 'Computer Design' magazine). That software was purported to be able to discern whether or not supposed video camera recording has been modified by CGI. Not much is known in the public domain regarding the state of the art of that technology today. However, any competent CGI technician can visually determine if a video has been hacked using CGI.
However all that is, it is not commonly known within the public domain regarding the 'fuzziness' of visual recordings of suspected alien objects and that of the suspected cause of the 'fuzziness'. One of the skeptic's common contentions is, "why are all the UFO photos blurry?" An astute observation actually and one that has been quietly, by any physicist of any intelligence or common sense likely has decyphered, but which was only publically revealed by Paul Hill in his technical treatise of suspected alien mecha, namely, "Unconventional Flying Objects, - a scientific analysis". Paul Hill, a NASA propulsion physicist personally observed several objects, while like myself, he did not know where these objects were from, but, also like myself, he recognized that these objects were not from around here! In all my years working in, and around military and contractor facilities, I have never seen any similar objects, parked, in repair, operating or being manufactured. Yet I have observed lots of gadgets that are not for public review, with and without clearance. Things happen.
Ad rem.... So it was a bit of surprise to see the flash, the clueless would likely recognize that artifact as being simply very reflective, yet both times when the triangle accellerated it also appeared to become highly reflective, but that is not what the video suggests, rather, that the laminar-air-sheath energy spiked causing the atmospheric ionization to become momentarily brilliant, thus giving the appearance of becoming highly reflective. A bit like seeing a flash-tube at a distance being pumped. That visual behavior is consistent with Paul Hill's description of the purpose of the fuzziness. And it has nothing to do with balloons.
Personally I find it odd that the triangle seems to float about as it does and then momentarially transit along in a straight hard vector. Something about that seems odd to me. It could be a hoax, but all of the folks that I've chatted with, mainly other conference speakers, who are yakking Paul Hill's information as though they know something, have all been completely unaware of the actual purpose and have not connected the implied dots presented in Hill's book regarding the reported fuzziness.
plutronus