UFOs and ancient artwork [Archive]

Explorer

23rd October 2003, 11:36 PM

Whatever the object was, it clearly had some religious significance for the artist, simply by association.

The fact that an apparent ordinary person is viewing the object, presumably out on a stroll with his dog, is also interesting. The object is postioned close to the halo around the head of the Madonna. Now, I wonder whether again this is significant or the artist put this in as an afterthought in the sky space available and where a balanced effect could be achieved.

In the context of it's time, when religion ruled, and Gallileo was being accused of heretical behaviour by Rome for his astronomical theories, any unusual aerial phenomena could and would have only been explained in the context of religious belief and dogma. There was no speculation about alien beings on other planets, as religious dictact stated that Earth was the centre of the universe and only man was created in God's image. There was no other body to argue the point, or for that matter, who dared to argue the point.

Unusual aerial phenomena, no doubt has been observed over many millenia and explained in the context of contemporary belief.

Can we not remain open to the possibility that this is a natural manifestation hitherto unexplained by today's science?

UnrepentantSinner

24th October 2003, 12:24 AM

http://www.2012.com.au/Historical.paintings.pdf

This guy has a great collection. He even has some with Paranormal Hat Forms. He has all the ones I'm familiar with.

I can't explain why it looks like there are alien space craft depicted in these pieces of artwork, but it does look like there are.

Marvel Frozen

24th October 2003, 12:54 AM

This site pretty well explains the "ufos" in ancient artwork: ART and UFOs? No thanks, only art... (http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm)

plindboe

24th October 2003, 04:23 AM

If it wasn't so flat I would have suggested it to be an eclipse. Often art known to depict meteorites look quite strange and unmeteoritic(I like that word), so it could quite well be such an event as well.

It's impossible to know what it is, by looking at an old painting. But there have always been UFOs in the sky, and people have always come to strange conclusions because of such sightings. It's just a shame the flying saucer fanatics don't know about Occam's razor.

Correa Neto

24th October 2003, 04:31 AM

I remember that years ago, when there was no space shuttle, ufologists compared these images to Gemini and Mercury capsules. Now, what are the chances that a civilization with technological ability to travel between stars would use designs like the ones we used in our first steps in space exploration?

These are typical cases of (mis)interpretation of old cultural manifestations based on modern-day social/cultural background. People just forget that these artwork were made on a completely different environment. This reminds me of Kumar´s thread where he affirmed that ancient Hindus had nuclear weapons, based on the Rive-Veda.

And its just like the space capsule at the Palenque tomb...

Nyarlathotep

24th October 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by EdipisReks
my guess is that it is Nyarlathotep, or maybe a very artistically liberal portrayel of a Byakhee.

Nope, it wasn't me. I never went anywhere near that woman. I was out of town. Ask Yog-Sothtoth, he'll vouch for me.

NoZed Avenger

24th October 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
This site pretty well explains the "ufos" in ancient artwork: ART and UFOs? No thanks, only art... (http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm)

Neat site.

arcticpenguin

24th October 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

That said, it looks to me like someone squashed a cockroach before the paint dried.
Not a very good point. Too many legs; probably a centipede.

Abdul Alhazred

24th October 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Not a very good point. Too many legs; probably a centipede.

Those aren't legs, those are rays of beatitude.

Praise the Holy Cucaracha! :D

headscratcher4

24th October 2003, 12:25 PM

COuld it be a pictorial representation of the thing Ezikial saw in the Bible? I seem to recall that somewhere in Ezikial (sp?) -- which is said to be one of the books that foretells the coming of Christ -- that he describes a vision in the sky (Von Dahniken (sp?) claimed Ezikial was seeing a space ship and aliens). I wonder if that isn't what is behind the Madonna and babe here, and a reference to a foretold coming of the Messiah.

Just a thought...which I could remember the passage.

PS: what ever it is, it looks like it needs to be cleaned...if you saw it without an accumlation of dirt, I wonder if it would seem the same and so mysterious?

Bentspoon

24th October 2003, 04:49 PM

for this

"This site pretty well explains the "ufos" in ancient artwork: ART and UFOs? No thanks, only art... "

That pretty much puts it all to rest. It was a revelation, like the PBS special on Von Doniken years ago.

It is poignant for another reason. Therer is no substitute for rigorous research. You must avail yourself of present knowledge. The archaeologists knew that Von Doniken was full of cow poop but he could easily dupe the average person.

I learned something form this site that I had not known and it was powerful.

Many talk about how they turned to Skepticism.

I would have to point to Von Doniken in my own past. PBS opened my eyes.

Bentspoon

jallenecs

24th October 2003, 05:31 PM

Wonderful site! I like the fact that there are insets and blowups of the "saucers" and such, and other paintings for comparison!

BTox

24th October 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer

Let's recall that this painting was made far before a human being ever flew in a ballon, so I wonder what artistical motif, if any, was behind this representation.

Any art literates here?

Very interesting painting. Have to wonder why would such a bizarre object would be included in the background of this painting.

Also of interest is the giant paramecium hovering over Madonna's head... what's that about?

Ratman_tf

24th October 2003, 08:21 PM

These particulars - three stars, a luminous cloud - tell us that this painting follows an ancient iconography,

It's supposed to be a luminous cloud. Da angel comes out and toots his horn for baby jebus, or something...

Patricio Elicer

24th October 2003, 09:09 PM

Thank you all for your replies.

Marvel Frozen's link cast a lot of light into the matter. Now I see that people watching the sky shielding sunlight with a hand in the forehead, was a rather common place in old paintings. The motif for doing this is pretty clear in the religious context as well.

But even there, the Madonna painting still strikes me as odd, because of its remarkable resemblance with modern UFOs accounts.

A glowing meteorite entering the atmosphere, an unknown phenomenon for most people of that time, may have been the subject of religious inspiration for this painting as well.

Headscratcher4 makes a good point. Prophet Ezequiel's account may have been the source of inspiration for most of the religious paintings depicting people watching glowing objects in the sky.

I don't have the full text at hand, but from memory, Ezequiel's account involves divine beings coming to Earth from the sky in fire balls. Quite interesting comparison.

Hand Bent Spoon

25th October 2003, 02:34 AM

So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer.

CASE CLOSED:)

CFLarsen

25th October 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer.

CASE CLOSED:)

King of the Americas will be crushed! :p

25th October 2003, 06:14 AM

Using art as an accurate record of anything has it's pitfalls. I give you this as an example

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/artchive/b/bosch/delightd.jpg

Now, what would a woo say about it? Birds ate people back then? It was common for people to play the Ano-flute(tm)? If one picture is authoratative and can be viewed with a 21 cent. perspective, why not this one?

The woo might say "Yes, but this picture uses arcane symbolism and, anyway, the artist was a nut". To which the clever sceptic replies "annnnnnnnndddddd ........"

It has long been a contention of mine (I'm sure others, too) that a 21st c. person cannot apprehend medieval/renaissance art for the simple reason that religion informed everything back then and people really believed it. The would look at the same painting as you and see 3 more levels of meaning.

Though it was absurd in the extreme, the book The Da Vinci Code illustrates how arcane some of this symbolism is.

All of that said, a non-specialists interpretation of religious art of this period is worthless and dismissable on the face of it and, yes, this is an appeal to authority but not of the logical error flavor.

Reaver

25th October 2003, 06:38 AM

...and this one time at band camp...

25th October 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Reaver
...and this one time at band camp...

?

epepke

25th October 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Using art as an accurate record of anything has it's pitfalls. I give you this as an example

Now, what would a woo say about it? Birds ate people back then? It was common for people to play the Ano-flute(tm)?

Looks like a load of Bosch to me.

Explorer

26th October 2003, 12:56 AM

Hand Bent Spoon said:

"So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer."

That explanation is not tenable I'm afraid.

Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

I dont think that renaissance artists were into "careless strokes". This is a religious painting and it all had to have a significance for the masses. It still doesn't make the object an alien craft, but it was almost certainly meant to look like it does.

Marvel Frozen

26th October 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
Hand Bent Spoon said:

"So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer."

That explanation is not tenable I'm afraid.

Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

I dont think that renaissance artists were into "careless strokes". This is a religious painting and it all had to have a significance for the masses. It still doesn't make the object an alien craft, but it was almost certainly meant to look like it does.

In almost all renaissance nativity paintings they showed a single shepherd looking up at the angels announcing the birth of Jesus. The shephered generally holds their hand to their forehead, and there is quite often a dog standing nearby as well. In many cases the Angel comes out of a cloud lined golden rays. The only thing special about this particular picture is that there are no angels, just the cloud with golden rays (which is unusual in such pictures but not unique), and the fact that the cloud is small and badly drawn.

Taken in context of other nativity paintings of the time it's pretty clear what the cloud represents.

Ratman_tf

26th October 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
Hand Bent Spoon said:
Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

Yes, and it's represented in the left of the painting. With 3 flames below it. The 'blob' is on the right, and is supposed to be a luminous cloud.

Explorer

26th October 2003, 12:03 PM

Marvel Frozen

I bow to your superior knowledge re the single shephard in other examples. You then went on to say:

"The only thing special about this particular picture is that there are no angels, just the cloud with golden rays (which is unusual in such pictures but not unique), and the fact that the cloud is small and badly drawn."

I have to say that if it is a luminous cloud it is indeed badly drawn, which is a strange inconsistency when compared to the rest of the well executed painting. I would have thought a cloud is a relatively easy thing to depict, after all school children have done a better job.

If you look very closely at the "cloud", it isn't luminous at all, but quite dark against the background of the lighter sky. There appears to be points of yellowish light around the circumference of the object in addition to the obvious light rays. I have yet to be convinced that it is either an alien craft or indeed a luminous cloud.

Ratman_tf

26th October 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Explorer
If you look very closely at the "cloud", it isn't luminous at all, but quite dark against the background of the lighter sky. There appears to be points of yellowish light around the circumference of the object in addition to the obvious light rays. I have yet to be convinced that it is either an alien craft or indeed a luminous cloud.

Follow the link to 'Art or UFO?' and check out the other examples. The cloud itself isn't glowing, it's often depicted as a dark storm cloud. The luminosity seems to be coming from inside the cloud, where I assume the angel is emerging from.

UnrepentantSinner

26th October 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Explorer
Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

{pedant}

The number of shepards who were present (if any) is never specified. Three was the number of Magi.

{/pedant}

Mr Sagan

26th October 2003, 11:06 PM

The first thing that comes to mind is a cloud with the sun behind it.

Still, it's interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention Patricio Elicer.

Explorer

26th October 2003, 11:30 PM

The first thing that came to my mind was how much it did look like a modern UFO image. An upturned piedish with some kind of galleried section on the top. It looks nothing at all like a cloud but an object with a distinct and hard outline. That surely is why we are having this debate.

ASRomatifoso

27th October 2003, 01:11 PM

I agree that it is folly to try to extrapolate meaning from the symbols in ancient or even "old" artworks (though many art historians make their living at it). Without the social context, the artist's own personal symbology, etc. we can only guess.

Da Vinci Code was absurd but pretty fun to read. Far better than Angels and Demons, with that ridiculous leap from the helicopter.

I have actually seen one of those paintings in the Museo Di Capodimonte in Naples and remember thinking at the time that it depicted flying saucers.

LawnOven

27th October 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

{pedant}

The number of shepards who were present (if any) is never specified. Three was the number of Magi.

{/pedant}

um...
{super-pendant} Actually nor is the number of magi specified. There could have been like a million of them. :) {/super-pendant}

Tricky

27th October 2003, 02:26 PM

I believe it looks like a radiant taco.

TechMage

27th October 2003, 07:49 PM

my guess is that it is Nyarlathotep, or maybe a very artistically liberal portrayel of a Byakhee.

Nah, it was the avatar of Azathoth. :roll:

I've noticed by the usernames, there seems to be alot of HPL fans here? Hey I will sell you all copies of the original, real, Necronomicon for only 1 billion U.S. Dollars! Sound like a deal? Oh and by the way, no returns. *grin*

TechMage

27th October 2003, 07:54 PM

http://www.boomspeed.com/pelicer/madonna.jpg

Oh and the first thing I thought when I looked at the up close picture of the "UFO," I honestly though that it looks like a sea ship. Like Noah's Ark. Why Noah's Ark would be sailing through the sky with beams of light coming out of it though, I have no clue. :)

Checkmite

27th October 2003, 08:47 PM

A tall ship, and a star to steer her by?

wayrad

28th October 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by TechMage
Oh and the first thing I thought when I looked at the up close picture of the "UFO," I honestly though that it looks like a sea ship. Like Noah's Ark. Why Noah's Ark would be sailing through the sky with beams of light coming out of it though, I have no clue. :) Before I read the explanation, my guess was that the artist was depicting the Star of Bethlehem as a comet, and somehow had that confused with a meterorite!

DangerousBeliefs

28th October 2003, 04:49 AM

A great deal of this "UFO in Art" stuff looks like wishful thinking.

We have to keep in mind the mindset and beliefs of pre-modern people.

I see lots of comets, hats!, angels, stars, etc.

Who knows what that image is with the Madonna. It looks to me like a deep-sea exploration submarine. But the only way to really know is to ask the artist (who is dead).

The Mighty Thor

28th October 2003, 10:28 AM

It would be interesting to know if Halley's comet, or some other bright astronomical phenomenon was taking place when this painting was made.

If it is indeed a badly executed cloud with rays of light emanating, then I think this is an iconic representation of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.

Given the subject matter, Mary, John the Baptist and Jesus, this would be seen to prefigure the descent of the Paraclete at the Baptism of Christ.

The Paraclete was often represented by a dove in paintings (“The Baptism of Christ,” panel painting by Piero della Francesca, c. 1440–45; in the National Gallery, London) but the form of 'rays' in the sky emanating from a cloud or 'all-seeing eye' would have been immediately recognisable to contemporaries.

Religious paintings often 'quote' events in the life of Christ to emphasise the 'eternal nature' of the Godhead. A cross, or tree might be seen in the background to a 'Jesus as boy carpenter' painting. The iconography of painting is truly fascinating -- skulls represent 'mortality', mirrors=vanity, broken jar = a life cut short etc. There are probably millions of them and they were important elements in devotion when populations were mainly illiterate. They would immediately recognise the icons for 'Faith, Hope, and Charity', or for the various Saints, for example.

Symbolism can be much more compelling when used to represent abstract ideas than mere words.

From Britannica:

"also called Paraclete, or Holy Ghost (from Old English gast, “spirit”), in Christian belief, the third person of the Trinity. Numerous outpourings of the Spirit are mentioned inthe Acts of the Apostles, in which healing, prophecy, the expelling of demons (exorcism), and speaking in tongues (glossolalia) are particularly associated with the activity of the Spirit.

Christian writers have seen in various references to the Spirit of Yahweh in the Old Testament an anticipation of thedoctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word ruaR (usually translated “spirit”) is often found in texts referring to the freeand unhindered activity of God, either in creating or in revitalizing creation, especially in connection with the prophetic word or messianic expectation. There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard. One suggestion of such belief is the promise of another helper, or intercessor (paraclete), that is found in the Gospel According to John.

The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, following challenges to its divinity. The Eastern and Western churches have since viewed the Holy Spirit as the bond, the fellowship, or the mutual charity between Father and Son; they are absolutelyunited in the Spirit. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Trinity has been described in the Westas proceeding from both the Father and the Son, whereas in the East it has been held that the procession is from the Father through the Son.

Most Catholic and Orthodox Christians have experienced the Holy Spirit more in the sacramental life of the church than in the context of such speculation. From apostolic times, the formula for Baptism has been Trinitarian. Confirmation (in the Eastern Orthodox Church, chrismation) although not accepted by most Protestants as a sacrament, has been closely allied with the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. The Eastern Orthodox Church hasstressed the role of the descent of the Spirit upon the worshipping congregation and upon the eucharistic bread and wine in the prayer known as the epiclesis.

From the earliest centuries of the church, various groups, discontented with the lack of freedom, active charity, or vitality in the institutional church, have called for a greater sensitivity to the ongoing outpourings of the Holy Spirit; one of many such movements was the Pentecostal movement of the 20th century. See also Trinity."

and

"The Paraclete is promised to come to the disciples, and it is necessary that Jesus go away in order that the Paraclete may come to the church. In John, Christ is depicted as belonging to a higher world, and his kingship is not of this world."

malc

The Mighty Thor

28th October 2003, 10:40 AM

Also, notice the shape of the large cloud in “The Baptism of Christ,” panel painting by Piero della Francesca.

Same shape as a 'UFO'.

malc

The Mighty Thor

28th October 2003, 11:06 AM

Since the object looks more substantial than a cloud, I suggest the artist was depicting the Paraclete as described by Ezekiel, just as an earlier poster suggested.

Boy, was that one bad trip old Ezekiel had:

Ezekiel 1:1 ¶Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,
3 The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
4 ¶And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

Ezekiel 1:14 And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.
15 ¶Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.

Ezekiel 1:21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26 ¶And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Ezekiel 1:25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26 ¶And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

malc

Patricio Elicer

28th October 2003, 08:14 PM

Hey Malc!, thanks for your enlighting posts.

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Since the object looks more substantial than a cloud, I suggest the artist was depicting the Paraclete as described by Ezekiel, just as an earlier poster suggested.

4 ¶And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. Ezekiel's account is fascinating indeed. (Emphasis mine)

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 08:41 AM

Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

From one of the 'Explaination' links provided:

---

I disagree:j2:

Whole heartedly...

Artists have depicted 'gods of heaven'/'Extra-terresterials', in MANY different ways, from MANY different perspectives. Sometimes, their 'views' came from first-hand experiences, and sometimes they came from hearsay from another person of an event.

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

Sometimes that 'something' is an emotion, or a feeling, and sometimes that something is a nothing...

THIS time...I gotta say 'I' can identify the 'something' the artist was going for. I've seen that air-bound image in other forms of media, not so bound by an artist's perception & his ability to recreate it.

Personally, I think it is sad that so few of you 'get' Sebastiano Mainardi. Moreover, I think it's a little disingenuious to apply such an ignorant standard to Art in general.

Most Art is clear and direct in its motive, a lot of it isn't, but to 'ignore' or mis-place & mis-characterize rather accurate representations is intelectually irresponsible, if you ask me.

'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological. But to ignore the present consistancy, or theme in these heavenly beings/forms showing up...

...well what's good for you is good for YOU.

Tricky

29th October 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological
This is very interesting. Can you give me any examples of the "accurate" representations of "gods of heaven"? I think all of us are curious.

The Mighty Thor

29th October 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

From one of the 'Explaination' links provided:

---

I disagree:j2:

Whole heartedly...

Artists have depicted 'gods of heaven'/'Extra-terresterials', in MANY different ways, from MANY different perspectives. Sometimes, their 'views' came from first-hand experiences, and sometimes they came from hearsay from another person of an event.

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

Sometimes that 'something' is an emotion, or a feeling, and sometimes that something is a nothing...

THIS time...I gotta say 'I' can identify the 'something' the artist was going for. I've seen that air-bound image in other forms of media, not so bound by an artist's perception & his ability to recreate it.

Personally, I think it is sad that so few of you 'get' Sebastiano Mainardi. Moreover, I think it's a little disingenuious to apply such an ignorant standard to Art in general.

Most Art is clear and direct in its motive, a lot of it isn't, but to 'ignore' or mis-place & mis-characterize rather accurate representations is intelectually irresponsible, if you ask me.

'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological. But to ignore the present consistancy, or theme in these heavenly beings/forms showing up...

...well what's good for you is good for YOU.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the artist was depicting the 'UFO' because he had seen such an object?

Remember this is an imaginary, highly iconographic, religious scene. It is as unlikely that the artist had actually seen the object in the sky as it is that he had seen any of the characters (other than as 'models' or in his 'mind's eye') or that he had seen anyone with a halo above their head.

If, however, there was a comet in the sky at the time he was painting, it is quite possible that the astronomical event is being recorded by the artist and he has associated this with the 'Glory of God' imagery that was common to his artistic tradition.

malc

The Mighty Thor

29th October 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Hey Malc!, thanks for your enlighting posts.

Ezekiel's account is fascinating indeed. (Emphasis mine)

You are most welcome. It is indeed a fascinating topic.

malc

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 09:47 AM

Those would be the popularly ignored 'home video footage' of UFO's, that skeptics claim aren't 'conclusive enough', to PROVE anything.

To ME, the images, across millenia, have been quite consistant, from my perspective.

c0rbin

29th October 2003, 10:08 AM

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

KOA, you cannot compare the personal work of an artist like Monet to the commissioned work of the religious depictions.

Further, Monet was an impressionist. Very different approach when compared to religious work where specific details were required by the commissioner of the piece.

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 10:12 AM

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the artist was depicting the 'UFO' because he had seen such an object?

*No. I said 'some' artists paint from a first hand experience, while others do not. While this artist may NOT have seen anyone with a halo, I think (given the detail) he MAY have seen a 'skybound god', or maybe a shepard told him what he saw...not unlike a police composite sketch...

Remember this is an imaginary, highly iconographic, religious scene. It is as unlikely that the artist had actually seen the object in the sky as it is that he had seen any of the characters (other than as 'models' or in his 'mind's eye') or that he had seen anyone with a halo above their head.

*I think you make a common mistake among skeptics. 'I' have never seen a "Halo-ed", nor have I seen video footage of one, and I always interpreted these images to mean an enlightened person. I HAVE however seen first-hand, unidentifiable flying objects, and I can't tell you how many samples of video footage I have seen of that VERY image in the painting. I KNOW 'gods' exist, and it appears to ME that this artist did too.

If, however, there was a comet in the sky at the time he was painting, it is quite possible that the astronomical event is being recorded by the artist and he has associated this with the 'Glory of God' imagery that was common to his artistic tradition.

*Comets have tails. This is clearly an image of something, that he pictured someone looking at it, in the background of a religiously significant scene. 'I' interpret this as the artist trying to say, there is some kind of relationship between this heavenly image & the scene in the foreground. It is almost as though one is overseeing the other, and to boot there is a common man witnessing the whole thing.

malc

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 10:26 AM

KOA, you cannot compare the personal work of an artist like Monet to the commissioned work of the religious depictions.

*I wasn't comparing the two. I was characterizing Artists, and their common goals.

Further, Monet was an impressionist. Very different approach when compared to religious work where specific details were required by the commissioner of the piece.

*Different approach, but the SAME goal- to relay a 'something' (or sometimes a nothing, or possibly an emotion) to their audience.

'Artists' paint to express something.

'I' get what this Artist was trying to show us, it is sad that you don't...

hgc

29th October 2003, 10:47 AM

All this fuss over just another Madonna phone home painting?

http://is6.pacific.net.hk/~shung/favorites/et.jpg

By the way, I saw a spaceship in this movie. Further proof of alients/gods?

c0rbin

29th October 2003, 11:13 AM

One can clearly see (in the enhanced image below) the evil demon the artist included in the piece. Perhaps he or she was saying "Look. ET is an evil demon."

http://www.sopus-staging.com/staging/elliot.jpg

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 11:25 AM

See, you miss the point, yet again.

It isn't about saying ALL things are as they appear. It is about trying to decipher what it was the artist was trying to reveal to us through their work.

I don't think Speilberg was saying that aliens exist in that form, but rather it was a portrail of innocence when faced with the unknown, in a drastic comparison of how 'non-innocent' persons deal with the unknown.

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either...

Tricky

29th October 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Those would be the popularly ignored 'home video footage' of UFO's, that skeptics claim aren't 'conclusive enough', to PROVE anything.

Um... that's very interesting. Now could you show us an image of God or gods that you consider to be realistic, as per my original question?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
To ME, the images, across millenia, have been quite consistant, from my perspective.
Yes. To you. From your perspective. I am aware that each believer in God/gods has their own concept of the appearance of God/gods. Now I want you to tell me what you meant when you said:
Originally posted by King of the Americas
Some have been accurate

In order to be "accurate" you would have to have a real God/gods to compare them to. See, that's how realism works.

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 12:29 PM

Speaking UN-metaphorically...

'god' is/are those entities NOT 'from' Earth.

Generically speaking, of course.

'god' has assumed MANY different forms, to many different people, ONE of which is the image found in this painting, of which I HAVE seen in numerous clips of present UFO footage.

I think you are confusing terms here.

I am not talking about the supreme being-"God", but rather our heavenly betters, the 'gods'.

There is no comparison work to be done here, other than that of comparing what this Artist tried to portray yesterday, and what I have seen for myself today.

hgc

29th October 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
See, you miss the point, yet again.

It isn't about saying ALL things are as they appear. It is about trying to decipher what it was the artist was trying to reveal to us through their work.

I don't think Speilberg was saying that aliens exist in that form, but rather it was a portrail of innocence when faced with the unknown, in a drastic comparison of how 'non-innocent' persons deal with the unknown.

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either... Hey KOA. I'm not as dumb as I look. I can handle things. I'm smart! Not dumb, like everybody says - I'm smart, and I want respect!

I'll admit to not getting Spielberg, but I have a pretty damn good idea what Ghirlandaio was up to. His intention was to convey that the virgin should get on the phone and give God a call. I mean he gave her a pretty good ride, and got her full of the arms and legs of a Godlet. What kind of respect does she show? She sticks with that good-for-nothing (in the sack) husband of hers, and doesn't even acknowledge the father of her baby. You might ask, well why doesn't God call her? Everyone knows that God is restricted for outgoing calls. By Satan. Ever since that telling Abraham to kill Isaac fiasco.

thaiboxerken

29th October 2003, 12:53 PM

*I think you make a common mistake among skeptics. 'I' have never seen a "Halo-ed", nor have I seen video footage of one, and I always interpreted these images to mean an enlightened person. I HAVE however seen first-hand, unidentifiable flying objects, and I can't tell you how many samples of video footage I have seen of that VERY image in the painting. I KNOW 'gods' exist, and it appears to ME that this artist did too.

If you've seen a UFO, how do you know if it was man-made or not? How do you know it's a 'god' and not just a mundane celestial object, a bird or any other accepted and existing thing? After all, UNIDENTIFIED is the key word here. I think the problem is that some people just can't accept that what they saw is, most-likely, not a spaceship, alien or pixie. They don't know what they saw, so they assume it must be a 'god'.

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 01:47 PM

Well, what 'I' saw was "unidentifiable", in that it performed tasks that terresterial pilots could NOT, and at one moment it disobeyed the laws of physics, as I understand them.

What 'I' saw were star-like objects that moved with a constant velicoty while making right-angle turns.

At one point 2 of them headed toward one another, combined to make a larger version of themselves, and then seperated again.

I was not alone, in seeing this event, and both of us saw the same thing.

Thereafter, I saw no less than 3 different vidoe clips that portrayed the same 'kind' of event, featuring the same kinds of feats.

You don't believe my perception, and I am not asking you to. However, I WILL say this, your ignorance or refusal to accept my findings will NOT lead you to an increased understanding of these things.

thaiboxerken

29th October 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

You don't believe my perception, and I am not asking you to. However, I WILL say this, your ignorance or refusal to accept my findings will NOT lead you to an increased understanding of these things.

I doubt that you saw anything weird, you only saw the mundane and percieved weirdness. Those objects could easily be birds at at distance. Some birds are very agile and can turn very sharply. I also doubt that there is clear video of this event, probably the same crappy and blurry video that is always taken of such things.

What is there to understand of "these things"? You and your buddies thought you saw spaceships? I understand that. The thing is, it is highly improbable that you did see spaceships.

King of the Americas

29th October 2003, 02:37 PM

...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

Since when do birds come equiped with star-like lights?

thaiboxerken

29th October 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

Since when do birds come equiped with star-like lights?

You said star like objects.. now it's star like lights. Which is it?

Nyarlathotep

29th October 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

Since when do birds come equiped with star-like lights?

While it is true that improbable does not mean impossible, let me put it to you this way. It is also not impossible that a pack of wild rabid dogs will kill me as I leave my office today, it is actually more likely than your lights being anything like an alien spacecraft. However, I really, really, doubt that such a thing is going to happen today or any other day.

Ratman_tf

29th October 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

You don't believe my perception, and I am not asking you to. However, I WILL say this, your ignorance or refusal to accept my findings will NOT lead you to an increased understanding of these things.

Pretty forceful statement there. What makes you think it's true? What do you mean by 'accept your findings'? That you saw something in the sky that you didn't understand? Hell, that happens to a lot of people. It's happened to me more than once.
But the leap from unidentified to alien craft or so-called 'gods'? That's quite a stretch with no evidence. (That you have relayed.)

Once again, the evidence for alien saucers (or sky gods, or whatever the heck they're being called nowadays) is anecdote and appeal to emotion.

The Mighty Thor

29th October 2003, 04:23 PM

I have seen many UFO's that looked very convincing as possible extra-terrestial craft. But with a bit of thought, all were identified. For example:

Magpies' white feathers lit up in sunlight.

A flock of migrating geese lit by moonlight -- the eventual noise gave that one away.

Aircraft landing lights, low on the horizon.

A hot-air balloon that was lit up at night looked so eerie I actually stopped my car to look.

I've also seen a cloud that looked like a rabbit. :)

There is one 'ET visitation' case that fascinates me. That is the incident at the USAF Base at Rendlesham Forest / Bentwaters in England at Christmas 1980.

There are many questions to be answered in this case. I suspect it was a "heads up" security test by the military. But it is a strange case that is worrying due to the breach of security issue.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm

malc

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 07:09 AM

:)

Since WHEN is a light not an object? This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could. Moreover, their ability to disobey the Laws of Physics, as I understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

That I have seen no less than 3 different video clips, of this same type of event, fortifies my own personal experience, of this unidentifiable phenomonia.

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

I 'find' that these things exist, the 'gods of Heaven'.

You want to ignore this consistancy, my first hand eyewitness account, 'inconclusive' video clips, and then misrepresented/misinterpreted these artistic renderings...

...Well like I said what is good for you is good for YOU.

Psiload

30th October 2003, 07:56 AM

King of the Americas wrote:

Since WHEN is a light not an object?

When it's reflected.

This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could.

How do you know these "objects" were piloted? Did you see the pilots/occupants? How do you know they were "objects" at all?

Moreover, their ability to disobey the Laws of Physics, as I understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

How do you know they disobeyed TLOP?

That I have seen no less than 3 different video clips, of this same type of event, fortifies my own personal experience, of this unidentifiable phenomonia.

Unidentifiable? But you have already identified the objects as piloted alien spacecraft, haven't you?

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?

I 'find' that these things exist, the 'gods of Heaven'.

No... you 'believe' these things exist. If you had actually found them, you could show them to us, and this discussion would be moot.

You want to ignore this consistancy, my first hand eyewitness account, 'inconclusive' video clips, and then misrepresented/misinterpreted these artistic renderings...

The only consistency I see regarding the whole flying saucers flap, is consistently inconclusive evidence- i.e. 'inconclusive' video, anecdotal eyewitness accounts, etc...

Regarding the artistic renderings, specifically The Madonna and Saint Giovannino painting, let me ask you a question...

The Madonna in the painting is depicted with a halo over her head. Do you think the artist rendering of the halo was symbolic, or realistic?

*edited to correct grammer- no animals were harmed during the editing of this post*

Psiload

30th October 2003, 08:05 AM

Here's one of my favorites...
http://www.najaco.com/mystery/pictures12/hieroplanes.jpg
The "helicopter hieroglyphic".

Funny, you'd think the Egyptians would've made use of their cobra attack helicopters when the Roman's were mopping the floor with them.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 08:08 AM

Hey, Psiload - forget this UFO/Chariots of the Gods crap. This is even lamer than the last time KOA took a swipe at it - which explains the general lack of response. Seen it, done it, debunked it.

What about this new solar storm headed for earth to coincide with Halloween? I mean, KOA creamed his Walmart jeans when Mars got close - imagine what he's thinking now...!

BTW, you never told me your email for the "package."

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 08:17 AM

Look, you ignorant f*cker...

Ah, nevermind. I am not going to argue with you. You utterly failed to accurately represent me, and my 'findings'. You and your Strawman Fallical Reasoning can suck my cack.

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

I said it was true because I saw star-like OBJECTS(6), emitting a visible light, move with a constant velocity and make right-angle turns, and move in cordination with one another, and at one point disobey the Laws of Physics. AND I have seen more than one other example of this event in a video recording, that couldn't be identified with any terresterial craft. AND that this same 'theme' is present in EVERY form of Media throughout the Ages...is what leads me to this 'finding'.

I have seen them for MYSELF, I have seen recorded images using current media devices, AND I've seen historic renderings that portray these 'gods of Heaven'.

If you saw 'chickens', videos and pictures of chickens, and then historical artists' renderings of like animals, what would you say to someone who HADN'T seen these things 'live' & in person? And they say that you didn't really see chickens, and that ALL of the images you have are fakes or misinterpretations? Short of giving them feathers, what can you do?

Jocko

30th October 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
:)

Since WHEN is a light not an object?

Uh, since light is radiation (energy) and an object is matter? The two don't equate, unless you want to apply the special theory of relativity here... and I wouldn't recommend it. You've dug halfway to China already.

This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could.

Show the Wright brothers a helicopter, and they'd say the same thing. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean some terrestrial designer couldn't. As usual, it could ONLY be beyond your regal comprehension when there is extraterrestrial shenanigans involved.

I mean, what DOESN'T the KOA know about aerodynamics, right?

Moreover, their ability to disobey the Laws of Physics, as I understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

You're learning! "As you understand them" - what laws were broken, and why? Right angles occur all the time in nature. Bounce a flashlight off a mirror at 45 degrees if you want proof. What was so impossible, as "you understand it"? Specifics please.

That I have seen no less than 3 different video clips, of this same type of event, fortifies my own personal experience, of this unidentifiable phenomonia.

Of course, no natural phenomena ever occurs twice or in two places. Hell of a conclusion there, Oppenheimer.

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

You have seen nothing of the sort. Your drug-soaked delusional mind believes - as it has always LONGED to believe - that it witnessed aliens barnstorming over Texas. Oh really...

And you need look no further than Psiload's example to see the value of ancient documents when interpreted by a complete loony such as yourself.

I 'find' that these things exist, the 'gods of Heaven'.

I wish you'd find an antipsychotic drug that exists, to spare us more of your megalomaniacal messianic ravings about the ET's.

You want to ignore this consistancy, my first hand eyewitness account, 'inconclusive' video clips, and then misrepresented/misinterpreted these artistic renderings...

It's not a matter of want. We have no choice. We're not as gullible as you are, not as hungry for some outside significance to the meaning of life.

You know, I can't abide him myself, but you could use a heavy dose of Sartre.

...Well like I said what is good for you is good for YOU.

Funny, you saying that. It's true on planet earth as well.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Look, you ignorant f*cker...

Hardly a royal phrase, yer majesty. But to be expected when confronted with blindingly simple evidence that you are, in fact, a lonny.

Ah, nevermind. I am not going to argue with you.

Oh, thank GOD!

You utterly failed to accurately represent me, and my 'findings'.

Hey, wait a minute. You said you weren't going to argue.

You and your Strawman Fallical Reasoning can suck my cack.

Heavy on the ad hominems, but dammit, you're still arguing! You said...

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

Yes you did, and you're STILL ARGUING!

I said it was true because I saw star-like OBJECTS(6), emitting a visible light, move with a constant velocity and make right-angle turns, and move in cordination with one another...

STOP ARGUING! YOU PROMISED!

...and at one point disobey the Laws of Physics. AND I have seen more than one other example of this event in a video recording, that couldn't be identified with any terresterial craft.

Please, someone, make him stop.

AND that this same 'theme' is present in EVERY form of Media throughout the Ages...is what leads me to this 'finding'.

You'd think no one ever made a painting without a flying saucer in it. When are you going to NOT argue this with Psiload, who has graphically shown your folly?

I have seen them for MYSELF, I have seen recorded images using current media devices, AND I've seen historic renderings that portray these 'gods of Heaven'.

You saw stupid little lights while you were smoking peyote in the desert. Big deal. That's not evidence of UFO's, that's evidence you found a good dealer.

If you saw 'chickens', videos and pictures of chickens, and then historical artists' renderings of like animals, what would you say to someone who HADN'T seen these things 'live' & in person? And they say that you didn't really see chickens, and that ALL of the images you have are fakes or misinterpretations? Short of giving them feathers, what can you do?

I'd show them a chicken. Duh. I wouldn't show them a feather and say, "This is from God because you don't know what it is."

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 08:40 AM

...seen the evidence I have, how could you expect to reach the same conclusions I have?

To Jocko & Psiload:

You are simply under informed in this matter, and ignoring my findings and mischaracterizing my arguments does NOT discount the evidence I rely on for my conclusion.

If you haven't seen a 'chicken', maybe it is because you head is neck-deep in the sands of ignorance...

I have seen what I've seen, and I've seen it documented.

What I have seen, others throughout history have seen.

These things EXIST.

Whether, you've seen them or not.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...seen the evidence I have, how could you expect to reach the same conclusions I have?

To Jocko & Psiload:

You are simply under informed in this matter, and ignoring my findings and mischaracterizing my arguments does NOT discount the evidence I rely on for my conclusion.

If you haven't seen a 'chicken', maybe it is because you head is neck-deep in the sands of ignorance...

I have seen what I've seen, and I've seen it documented.

What I have seen, others throughout history have seen.

These things EXIST.

Whether, you've seen them or not.

Ah, so we've come from your mountains of evidence to "you just don't understand" and "it's true because I say so."

You know, there's a lot more in that picture Psiload posted... I took a good look and I'm sure you could make a good argument for any of these:

http://greetings.123city.net/TempPictures/32256.jpg

Psiload

30th October 2003, 08:56 AM

King of the Americas wrote:

Look, you ignorant f*cker...

Ah, nevermind. I am not going to argue with you. You utterly failed to accurately represent me, and my 'findings'. You and your Strawman Fallical Reasoning can suck my cack.

Okey dokey... that was a little frightening. Moving on...

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

I never said you did.

I said it was true because I saw star-like OBJECTS(6), emitting a visible light, move with a constant velocity and make right-angle turns, and move in cordination with one another, and at one point disobey the Laws of Physics. AND I have seen more than one other example of this event in a video recording, that couldn't be identified with any terresterial craft. AND that this same 'theme' is present in EVERY form of Media throughout the Ages...is what leads me to this 'finding'.

Star-like object? I though they were piloted spacecraft? Now they're star-like objects? By star-like, do you mean they were small points of light visible in the sky, or do you mean they were massive spheres of superheated gases?

I have seen them for MYSELF, I have seen recorded images using current media devices, AND I've seen historic renderings that portray these 'gods of Heaven'.

Objects, piloted spacecraft, Gods of Heaven... make up your mind, will you?

If you saw 'chickens', videos and pictures of chickens, and then historical artists' renderings of like animals, what would you say to someone who HADN'T seen these things 'live' & in person? And they say that you didn't really see chickens, and that ALL of the images you have are fakes or misinterpretations? Short of giving them feathers, what can you do?

Substitue the word 'fairies' for 'chickens' and we've got ourselves a valid analogy. I'll show you historical artist's renderings of fairies. I'll show you contemporary photographic evidence for fairies. I'll show you people who will give you anecdotal accounts sightings of, and interactions with, fairies. I'll bet you I can even find someone willing to sell you genuine fairy feathers... probably on e-bay.

Now... do you believe in fairies?

Why not, you ignorant f*cker?! :wink:

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 08:56 AM

I think your interpertative skills are somewhat lacking, at least in the area of heiroglyphics.

Liek I said before, it isn't that ALL things are as they appear. You actually have to try and intepret what it was the author or artist was trying to portray.

That you don't 'get' Heiroglyphics either, isn't suprising to me. Given your tendencies of mis-interpretation and mis-characterization...

Jocko

30th October 2003, 09:03 AM

http://greetings.123city.net/TempPictures/32256.jpg

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I think your interpertative skills are somewhat lacking, at least in the area of heiroglyphics.

You're right, they're utterly pathetic. As are yours. The difference is that I'm not pointing to something that might look like something else and screaming, "Look, it's GOD!"

Plus it's a joke, you insufferably arrogant nabob. Just like you are.

Liek I said before, it isn't that ALL things are as they appear. You actually have to try and intepret what it was the author or artist was trying to portray.

Ah, but when the interpreter is a madman with drug-induced delusions of his own royalty and has a firm belief that the aliens will land soon - just to show the rest of humanity that would should have been listening to his royal ass-ness this whole time - well, then your interpretation is suspect and hardly original.

That you don't 'get' Heiroglyphics either, isn't suprising to me. Given your tendencies of mis-interpretation and mis-characterization...

Oh, listen to Dr. Carter going on about how well schooled he is about heiroglyphics. Okay, you want to play grown-up, I'm game.

What is your interpretation of the heiroglyphics Psiload posted? I'll bet mine make more sense, as well as more entertainment.

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 09:13 AM

I WROTE:

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

YOUR RESPONDED:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

*THEN I WROTE*

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

And YOU responded:

"I never said you did. "

I think your double-talk, and circular reasoning has you trapped in a loop of ignorance.

YOU WROTE:

"Star-like object? I though they were piloted spacecraft? Now they're star-like objects? By star-like, do you mean they were small points of light visible in the sky, or do you mean they were massive spheres of superheated gases?"

*I don't recall using the term "spacecraft". By 'star-LIKE', I mean to characterzie them as "twinkling points of light".

YOU Wrote:

"Objects, piloted spacecraft, Gods of Heaven... make up your mind, will you?"

*I think these 'gods of Heaven' ARE unidentifiable 'objects', and again I never used the term "spacecraft".

If I SAW a fairy for 'myself', AND I saw video footage that I couldn't attribute to some kind of fakery or another phenomonia, AND I had countless historical images depicting these things as REAL,...then "Yes, I would believe in fairies". The difference in the two subjects are fold:

-One, I have NEVER seen a fairy myself
-Two, I have never seen video footage of them that I couldn't attribute to fakery
&
-Three, I have never heard of an artist painting fairies from a REAL entity. EVERY artist I have studied, portrayed these things a 'mythical'.

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

If I SAW a fairy for 'myself', AND I saw video footage that I couldn't attribute to some kind of fakery or another phenomonia, AND I had countless historical images depicting these things as REAL,...then "Yes, I would believe in fairies". The difference in the two subjects are fold:

-One, I have NEVER seen a fairy myself
-Two, I have never seen video footage of them that I couldn't attribute to fakery
&
-Three, I have never heard of an artist painting fairies from a REAL entity. EVERY artist I have studied, portrayed these things a 'mythical'.

In other words, Psiload's word is worthless but yours is golden. Gotcha. What else could be expected from you? The only difference between the two examples is that you are predisposed to believe in aliens/gods/etc. and not similarly inclined to believe in fairies. Ironic, ain't it?

In other words, the standard of proof shifts based your your royal ass-ness's idea of what is true and what is not.

The KOA has seen lights; the KOA avows himself as a bastion of truth; therefore aliens/gods/etc. a barnstorming Texas.

Shakespeare wrote of faires; Shakespeare wrote historical plays; therefore, fairies are historical.

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

It is no strawman. It's an excellent example of your own double-standards, willful ignorance and childish temper.

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 09:36 AM

You know you shouldn't be surprised to get butted and made a fool of, after your relentlous 'poking of the goat'.

Any arguments that focus on personal attacks and mischaracterizng another's argument are doomed to design failure, because they are wholly without merrit.

Again, I didn't see "a light", and I didn't characterize it as a spaceship.

I pity you, if you sincerely believe in your retorts.

Psiload

30th October 2003, 10:16 AM

KIng of the Americas posted:

WROTE:

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

YOUR RESPONDED:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

*THEN I WROTE*

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

And YOU responded:

"I never said you did. "

I think your double-talk, and circular reasoning has you trapped in a loop of ignorance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your words are as twisted as your logical, pretzel man.

You wrote:

I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

and:

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

See the twist? First it's "EVERY", and then it's "one". I never accused you of basing your conclusion on the interpretation of a single piece of historical evidence... that was your accusation, no? No double talk, no circular reasoning. I stand by my original denial... I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

*I don't recall using the term "spacecraft". By 'star-LIKE', I mean to characterzie them as "twinkling points of light".

But you clearly assumed they were piloted, did you not? It seems odd to me that a twinkling point of light would contain a pilot.

I think these 'gods of Heaven' ARE unidentifiable 'objects', and again I never used the term "spacecraft".

So you have indentified the unidentifiable? Is that sorta like dreaming the impossible dream?

If I SAW a fairy for 'myself', AND I saw video footage that I couldn't attribute to some kind of fakery or another phenomonia, AND I had countless historical images depicting these things as REAL,...then "Yes, I would believe in fairies". The difference in the two subjects are fold:

I haven't personally seen a "god of Heaven", and I don't accept their reality, and this makes me an "ignorant f*cker", yet you will not accept the reality of fairies until you have personally seen one... and this makes you...?

-One, I have NEVER seen a fairy myself

I have NEVER seen a "god of Heaven" for myself, and you criticize my skepticism. Why do you hold me to a different standard of evidence than you hold yourself?

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

Seasonally appropriate belligerence... how charming.

c0rbin

30th October 2003, 10:20 AM

Don't be coy, KOA, this board is littered with your hopeful reports of alien dieties.

It is as moot a point as the invisible dragon in my garage.

hgc

30th October 2003, 10:27 AM

I'm still awaiting evidence against my Madonna phone home hypothesis.

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 10:33 AM

When you wrote:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

What do you mean?

---

You wrote:

I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

and:

***I didn't*** say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

See the twist? First it's "EVERY", and then it's "one". I never accused you of basing your conclusion on the interpretation of a single piece of historical evidence... that was your accusation, no? No double talk, no circular reasoning. I stand by my original denial... I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

*Yes you DID.

But you clearly assumed they were piloted, did you not? It seems odd to me that a twinkling point of light would contain a pilot.

*NO, what I SAID was they "couldn't have been piloted by a terresterial pilot". That doesn't mean they WERE piloted by someone else, just that no Man of Earth was doing it.

So you have indentified the unidentifiable? Is that sorta like dreaming the impossible dream?

*No, that's like saying they are NOT anything that I could identify as being of a terresterial origin.

I haven't personally seen a "god of Heaven", and I don't accept their reality, and this makes me an "ignorant f*cker", yet you will not accept the reality of fairies until you have personally seen one... and this makes you...?

*If I saw video footage of a fairy that I couldn't attribute to some form of fakery, AND I had a mountain of historical evidence that siggested these WERE 'real entities'...I WOULD BE open to the possibility of YOU came to me and told me you saw such a thing, and that you had someone that would back up your story. With the first two pieces of evidencce I would be compelled to search for the latter

I have NEVER seen a "god of Heaven" for myself, and you criticize my skepticism. Why do you hold me to a different standard of evidence than you hold yourself?

*Since when are personal attacks and use of the Strawman Fallacy considered 'skepticism'?

Seasonally appropriate belligerence... how charming.

*I thought it was sitty. :cool:

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 10:42 AM

Tricky

30th October 2003, 10:48 AM

This "star-like lights" thing interests me. Okay, why would an alien space craft need lights? Their remote sensing technology must surely be very advanced, also, KOA never said they were shining the lights on the ground. Now we know why airplanes have lights. They need to see each other in the flight lanes. Why would alien starships need them though? Again, they should be able to communicate without them. Now it could be argued that the lights are due to some sort of rocket drive, but then we would also hear a loud sound. No sound was mentioned.

Now let us examine a good reason why aliens wouldn't have lights. Think real hard. Because they don't want to be seen. Duh. Now it is very obvious that aliens don't want to be seen, or they would have simply landed in a mall parking lot or something. This is a recurring conflict that no alien spacecraft believer has been able to solve. Why would they be simultaneously show-offs and recluses?

Another interesting thing is that another poster here (who is MIA) also believed he knew exactly what alien spacraft looked like and how they behaved. I've bumped that old thread so you can see his stories and how they differ from yours.

King of the Americas

30th October 2003, 11:03 AM

This "star-like lights" thing interests me. Okay, why would an alien space craft need lights?

*I wouldn't BEGIN to characterize the motives of someone/something that I didn't get to cross-examine.

Their remote sensing technology must surely be very advanced, also, KOA never said they were shining the lights on the ground.

*Indeed, the lights never shown down onto the ground, in a spot-light form.

Now we know why airplanes have lights. They need to see each other in the flight lanes. Why would alien starships need them though?

*What I witnessed could only be characterized as a 'super natural display' of abilities.

Again, they should be able to communicate without them. Now it could be argued that the lights are due to some sort of rocket drive, but then we would also hear a loud sound. No sound was mentioned.

*Indeed, there was no 'sound' associated with this phenomonia.

Now let us examine a good reason why aliens wouldn't have lights. Think real hard. Because they don't want to be seen. Duh.

*These entities made no effort to 'hide' themselves and did not retreat, upon my 'flashing my headlights' to acknowledge that 'I' or My Car was aware of them.

Now it is very obvious that aliens don't want to be seen, or they would have simply landed in a mall parking lot or something.

*I have never introduced MYSELF to the world via a mall parking lot, nor have I driven my car up to the White House to announce to the world that I exist, but that doesn't mean I don't still EXIST. INDIVIDUALS know I exist, but the planet doesn't. That 'I' know 'gods' exist and YOU don't isn't an argument.

This is a recurring conflict that no alien spacecraft believer has been able to solve. Why would they be simultaneously show-offs and recluses?

*I just don't know. Why would a killer wipe off EVERY finger print from a murder weapon, and then leave it to be found by the police?

Another interesting thing is that another poster here (who is MIA) also believed he knew exactly what alien spacraft looked like and how they behaved. I've bumped that old thread so you can see his stories and how they differ from yours.

*Again, I didn't charaterize these things as spacecraft, but rather unidentifiable flying objects that had supernatural characteristics and abilities.

Psiload

30th October 2003, 11:35 AM

King of the Americas:

When you wrote:
"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"
What do you mean?

I meant that just because something has been voluminously written about over the ages doesn't make it true. Only a fool would accept the gospels, as the gospel truth.

I had written:

I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

You wrote:

Yes you DID.

Please show me specifically where I made this accusation... feel free to cut, and paste my exact words.

NO, what I SAID was they "couldn't have been piloted by a terresterial pilot". That doesn't mean they WERE piloted by someone else, just that no Man of Earth was doing it.

But you also wrote the following:

Improbable...
...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

But you'd like to believe they were being piloted, no?

*No, that's like saying they are NOT anything that I could identify as being of a terresterial origin.

So, the only two choices you'll allow yourself are:

1- Things I can personally identify.

or

2- gods of Heaven.

You'll not entertain the notion that there could possibly be something between the two?

If I saw video footage of a fairy that I couldn't attribute to some form of fakery, AND I had a mountain of historical evidence that siggested these WERE 'real entities'...I WOULD BE open to the possibility of YOU came to me and told me you saw such a thing, and that you had someone that would back up your story. With the first two pieces of evidencce I would be compelled to search for the latter

You've changed your tune... first hand observation is no longer required. I see a foolish consistency taking place here.

As an aside... is there really such an animal, in this day and age, as video footage that COULDN'T be attributed to fakery? I defy you to observe the last Lord of the Rings movie, and point out the signs of fakery in the Battle of Helm's Deep siege scene. You know it's fake, because you know it is... not because you can tell it is.

Since when are personal attacks and use of the Strawman Fallacy considered 'skepticism'?

#1- For all the grasp you've got on what exactly constitutes a 'strawman fallacy', it may as well be the scarecrow man in my next door neighbor's Halloween decorations.

and

#2- Personal attacks? I'm not the one throwing around terms like "ignorant f*cker", and suggesting people stick certain objects up their pumpkins.

I thought it was sitty.

It sure was that! :confused:

Tricky

30th October 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I wouldn't BEGIN to characterize the motives of someone/something that I didn't get to cross-examine.
Actually, you've been doing that all along. You called them "gods". This indicates you feel you have a great deal of inside knowledge about them.
Originally posted by King of the Americas
What I witnessed could only be characterized as a 'super natural display' of abilities.
No, it could easily be characterized as a display that you don't understand. You are making the classic "argument out of personal incredulity."
Originally posted by King of the Americas
These entities made no effort to 'hide' themselves and did not retreat, upon my 'flashing my headlights' to acknowledge that 'I' or My Car was aware of them.
But they didn't hang around for any sort definite identification, nor did they leave a scrap of solid evidence. This is exactly the sort of description people give of ghosts. Or leprechauns. Or ___________ (fill in the blank with your favorite paranormal being).
Originally posted by King of the Americas
I have never introduced MYSELF to the world via a mall parking lot, nor have I driven my car up to the White House to announce to the world that I exist, but that doesn't mean I don't still EXIST
But you have introduced yourself to a number of people, no? You are not tantalizing people with visual displays and then disappearing before they can talk to you. If these UFOs make no attempt to avoid YOU, then it makes absolutely no sense that they go to such great lengths to avoid being discovered by others.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I just don't know. Why would a killer wipe off EVERY finger print from a murder weapon, and then leave it to be found by the police?
I imagine this has happened very rarely in the past, but I can see several reasons. They may think that if the police find the gun then they will be thrown off track. Also, they may wish to be caught, but want it to be sort of a game. Criminals are pretty twisted, but we know they exist. We have many well documented cases of criminals. This is in no way comparable with entities which manage to never leave a trace.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Again, I didn't charaterize these things as spacecraft, but rather unidentifiable flying objects that had supernatural characteristics and abilities.
But you have no evidence. None. This presumption on your part is simply because you think you are incapable of being mistaken about them.

By the way, I saw a UFO too. Really. It did things which were impossible by the laws of nature. Years later, I figured out what had happened. I had been fooled by a very natural phenomenon, but because I wanted to believe in UFOs, I would accept no other explanation. I eventually grew out of that stage.

Starrman

30th October 2003, 01:42 PM

King of the Americas

Two quick questions:

1) What specific law of physics did the objects violate?

2) Do you know how far away or how large the objects were and, if so, how do you know this?

Thanks.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
You are not tantalizing people with visual displays and then disappearing before they can talk to you.

Wait till tomorrow morning when he stomps off in a huff.

This is the gaudy display. TOMORROW is the disappearing part, and thereafter there shall be no mention of his temper-tantrum illogic. Until the next time he brings this crap up, of course.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 03:27 PM

Occam's razor.

Think about it.

Jocko

30th October 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You know you shouldn't be surprised to get butted and made a fool of, after your relentlous 'poking of the goat'.

The only fool here is you, Knabe. And I would never poke a goat - it's cruel and inhumane. I reserve my "poking" for God's stupidest creatures. You're a good example.

Any arguments that focus on personal attacks and mischaracterizng another's argument are doomed to design failure, because they are wholly without merrit.

You argument has been characterized with complete accuracy by half a dozen posters, of which I am only one. Psiload's Fairy analogy is right on the money, but you're blind to that because.. .well, because you're a raving loony.

That's not a personal attack. It's a fact.

Personal attacks look like this:

'I' get what this Artist was trying to show us, it is sad that you don't...

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either...

However, I WILL say this, your ignorance or refusal to accept my findings will NOT lead you to an increased understanding of these things.

Look, you ignorant f*cker...

You and your Strawman Fallical Reasoning can suck my cack.

Given your tendencies of mis-interpretation and mis-characterization...

I think your double-talk, and circular reasoning has you trapped in a loop of ignorance.

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

Funny, you demand the same double standard for courtesy that you demand for "proof" - you can do no wrong, can you? Why not just admit you were high in the desert and saw some lights in the sky?

Again, I didn't see "a light", and I didn't characterize it as a spaceship.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal:

By 'star-LIKE', I mean to characterzie them as "twinkling points of light".

I said it was true because I saw star-like OBJECTS(6), emitting a visible light...

What 'I' saw were star-like objects that moved with a constant velicoty while making right-angle turns.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. What is a "star-like object" EXCEPT a light? Caught again by your own words. It's amazing the psychological donuts your diseased brain can do in the parking lot of life. Round and round you go, never facing the same direction twice.

I pity you, if you sincerely believe in your retorts.

Save your pity, Knabe. I can't believe you seriously believe the crap you spew, lie about, revise and contort, all within an hour.