The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Obama Inaugural UFO

Here's a YouTube link to one of the few available videos of the UFO that sped across the sky and was caught by CNN during an on-air discussion of President Obama's 2009 Inauguration.

The UFO has been attributed to birds by some and an insect by others.

The "bird" explanation has been discounted because of the speed of the UFO (but there does appear to be wing-flapping) and insects have been dismissed as the temperature at the time was 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Note the similarity to the Colorado UFO -- trajectory and speed.

Click here to see the clip at YouTube.

7 Comments:

  • Sorry, that is quite clearly a bird. It doesn't even take the slo-mo to see the flapping wings and shape.

    By Blogger Armakan, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Are you trying to destroy your own credibility? It's obviously a bird. Without knowing how far it is from camera you can't tell its speed.

    By Blogger Andrew, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • So, Andrew, what does this tell us about the Colorado UFO?

    Was that UFO filmed at night? Was it a bird also?

    Our agument there and here has to do with Frank Warren's proviso that UFOs are nothing more than "unidentified flying objects."

    They are thus defined: unidentified, flying, and have a kind of solidity.

    Do you get our point?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Part 1 of 2:

    "So, Andrew, what does this tell us about the Colorado UFO?

    "Was that UFO filmed at night? Was it a bird also?

    "Our argument there and here has to do with Frank Warren's proviso that UFOs are nothing more than "unidentified flying objects."

    "They are thus defined: unidentified, flying, and have a kind of solidity.

    "Do you get our point?"


    Well, I don't think this video tells us anything about the 1963 Colorado UFO. They are completely different.

    Yes, both could be considered "unidentified flying objects" in a general sense, in lieu of positive, proven identification, which would require more data than is available, but if that is the generic criteria, then many youtube videos claiming to have filmed UFOs would have to be included.

    I think it's more an issue of basic logical discrimination based on the available visual info that should guide us, instead. I.E., each individual case should be judged on its own inherent merits or data.

    I would concede that the 1963 Colorado object is an unknown, flying, and probably some kind of object. So, it's a UFO. But does that mean it's an alien craft or morphing non-human probe of some sort? Not at all, although that cannot be entirely ruled out, either.

    It's simply unknown, largely due to the short duration, circumstances of filming, lack of quality imagery, and image artifacts introduced by virtue of the above to create whatever impression one chooses to assign to it. But that is simply human interpretation or speculation. If one so wishes to interpret the object in the '63 Colorado film as a UFO, and that the self-illuminated object is changing shape from one form to another, that does not necessarily make it so--that would be a rush to premature judgment.

    And that is where things become problematical: how such imagery is interpreted, in the absence of clear visual data. Speculation is fine, but without objective foundation for such, various interpretations are just speculation without facts, based on personal impressions and perhaps a form of confirmation bias, either way.

    For example, in turn, I'm pretty damn sure the Obama Inaugural UFO is a bird. Can I prove it? No, but the artifacts of the apparent wings flapping, and the dark movement both above and below the central object, plus some frames seemingly showing wings both above and below the object, at nearly right angles, as the object moves into the distance, is fairly convincing to me that this is a fast-moving "unidentified avian object." 8^}

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Part 2 of 2:

    Unless UFOs on occasion take on the form of flying birds, bolides, and Cessna aircraft, which I guess is possible, I think we have to conclude at least on a preliminary basis that some objects that are filmed and present an ambiguous form may also, and I would suggest most often, be of actually prosaic objects and origins. This is a statistical argument.

    "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," as Freud was apocryphally said to have muttered when confronted by a student of his asking about the sexual symbology of Freud's affection for cigar smoking. And, sometimes, it isn't! Kinda depends on the context, etc.,....

    Is this bias, that I think this video is of a bird, or a more balanced opinion based on limited data, the lack of any other film or video, lack of witness sightings, etc., of any alleged UFOs at the Inaugural? I suppose that, too, is in the eye and mind of the person interpreting the information. As the kids used to say, your mileage may vary, or YMMV. Everyone's does.

    So, regardless of Frank Warren's timely reminder that the term UFO is defined as unidentified flying object, as opposed to non-human vehicle or other "paranormal" manifestation, how is that open question of yours related to the subject at hand, which is what the Colorado and Inaugural videos show?

    Are you distinguishing something between the two? What really is your point, as it's not clear what you intend to mean. Or are you illustrating ambiguity for philosophical reasons, an ontological challenge of sorts?

    Are you "having us on," as the British say?

    Sometimes, Rich, it seems you post things which it might be thought you don't mean to be taken too seriously, just to gauge the reaction. Is this some form of elaborate Machiavellian or sardonic humor? The great "unwashed masses" would dearly like to know! 8^}

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Steve:

    What's the title for this blog?

    You mention ontology.

    I have been planning a piece on UFOs wrapped around the concepts of Sartre in "Being and Nothingness."

    You could cope with the topic but I'm afraid a few others who visit here couldn't, so I hesitate.

    For me, UFOs fall in to the scholastic realm, where "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" once prevailed.

    My approach seems flip but it really isn't, or isn't meant to be.

    Stick with us, and keep us tethered to sensible ramblings as best you can.

    We appreciate, I appreciate, one who can separate the wheat from the chaff as it were.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • I've never discussed my own UFO sighting, but it certainly informed my opinions about UFO witnesses in general.

    It was 37 years ago and I was 13, saw an unusual light in the night sky, orangish color, maybe a bit smaller than a full moon. It hovered for a few minutes and then vanished. Had no idea what it was at the time . . . it was a UFO!

    Now I never thought a moment that it was an alien spacecraft, but as I got more interested in the subject the last couple years and knowing now what I didn't know 37 years ago at 13 years of age, I'm certain it was a Chinese lantern.

    So it's not a UFO any more. :O)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home