17th century coin portrays unmistakable UFO
- Thread starter certified psycho
- Start date
It's obviously a UFO. It's a 17th century French coin and back in those days, many religious paintings had UFOs in them. I forget the name of a certain painting, but the UFO on that coin looks exactly like the one in the painting.. angle and all.
Now just because there's a UFO on the coin, it still won't prove anything for the same reason why those same century paintings, primitive artwork, or other such forms depicting UFOs/ETI aren't convincing to some. The same applies to a real picture or video. No such proof will convice those types of people unless they see it with their own eyes. Too bad they don't hold the same view when it comes to anything else regarding history, even "normal" stuff.
- N
Now just because there's a UFO on the coin, it still won't prove anything for the same reason why those same century paintings, primitive artwork, or other such forms depicting UFOs/ETI aren't convincing to some. The same applies to a real picture or video. No such proof will convice those types of people unless they see it with their own eyes. Too bad they don't hold the same view when it comes to anything else regarding history, even "normal" stuff.
- N
They would probably start to debunk their own story, then go see a shrink.
As for the coin, that's cool. Though honestly the first time I saw it I thought, "A wheel". But thats because of the stick in the middle of it. Maybe that's the red lazor beam that comes out of some of these saucer shaped crafts..
I suppose we'll never know for sure, but it's a cool coin to look at. I want one.
As for the coin, that's cool. Though honestly the first time I saw it I thought, "A wheel". But thats because of the stick in the middle of it. Maybe that's the red lazor beam that comes out of some of these saucer shaped crafts..
I suppose we'll never know for sure, but it's a cool coin to look at. I want one.
Does anyone know if this is any good?
http://www.alien-technology.com/cgi...d&page=2&trail=&st=&p=alientechnology.7560656
I am needing one of those.. thinking I might get me a bumper sticker like that.
http://www.alien-technology.com/cgi...d&page=2&trail=&st=&p=alientechnology.7560656
I am needing one of those.. thinking I might get me a bumper sticker like that.
Doesn't the Mona Lisa have a picture of a UFO
I prefer my version.....btimsah said:Does anyone know if this is any good?
http://www.alien-technology.com/cgi...d&page=2&trail=&st=&p=alientechnology.7560656
I am needing one of those.. thinking I might get me a bumper sticker like that.
<IMG SRC="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3745&stc=1">
Last edited:
It is utterly fascinating the lengths that some will go to in order to apply 20th century Western concepts to ancient or pre-Victorian art.
You guys claim to be "impartial, open-minded investigators" of the UFO phenomenon, yet you ignore the fact (which I posted at length in another thread) that Byzantine and medieval iconography used symbols to relay religious concepts. To early art appreciators, these symbols didn't speak of "alien spaceships," but rather the power of god, heavenly light, connection to the trinity, the mythical chariots of mythical beings/deities/angels, and other superstitious concepts.
Looking for "evidence" in ancient art will get you no where unless you at least educate yourselves on ancient art.
This is all part of the fascinating religious characteristics of the ETI-UFO movement that are beginning to emerge in modern society.
ETI-UFO = religious cult in the making.
You guys claim to be "impartial, open-minded investigators" of the UFO phenomenon, yet you ignore the fact (which I posted at length in another thread) that Byzantine and medieval iconography used symbols to relay religious concepts. To early art appreciators, these symbols didn't speak of "alien spaceships," but rather the power of god, heavenly light, connection to the trinity, the mythical chariots of mythical beings/deities/angels, and other superstitious concepts.
Looking for "evidence" in ancient art will get you no where unless you at least educate yourselves on ancient art.
This is all part of the fascinating religious characteristics of the ETI-UFO movement that are beginning to emerge in modern society.
ETI-UFO = religious cult in the making.
Oh yeah, they've already existed for the past couple decades. While I belong to no such group, I fully believe without a doubt in the whole Ancient Astronaut theory and that they're our creator (unless one considers those two different subjects). But I also believe in Darwinism (far from flawless though) and am agnostic towards "Almighty Creator of All God".
Ain't no shame in it.
Well I'm impartial and open-minded when it comes to people showing proof of them. As I said earlier, I believe without a doubt in the Ancient Astronaut theory and there really is no way to disprove it to change my opinion on the matter unless we somehow find some holographic device that shows the past history of the world since there is no way to accurately know history. That's just the fact of the matter when it comes to events that we personally haven’t experienced, we’ll never have absolute proof, and the problem applies to debunkers too, nothing will be good enough except for actual evidence which well, good luck getting it. There’s just some things that cannot be proved or disproved and there's nothing we can really do about it. It then just becomes a simple 50/50 yes or no answer and one just gets to decide which side of the fence they wanna be on and neither side is anymore right or wrong in the matter as it’s all unknown.
However though, if people do find ways to disprove all that, I'm all for it, it's just that it's a hard thing to disprove. Things that CAN be proved and disproved such as actual evidence, that's the only real thing that can be judged period, regardless of one having an open mind or not, which I have. I agree people tend to make large stretches of connecting various things to UFOs or similar things, and I usually tell them they're loony too, heh. But when it comes to gut feelings, nothing can take that away even though I'm open-minded, especially when my gut feeling has never been wrong. And I don't just mean simple gut feelings, I mean the type where you just absolutely know without a doubt with no way to explain it. One person may absolutely know one thing, another may know something else, but this is the one mine knows. All animals carry this ability, it's just that humans are the least to put it to use due to their inherant intellegence which comes with the good and bad counter-balance curse of self-doubt and skepticism.
So for now, we’ll all just have to wait and see. I also promise not say say “I toldja so”.
- N
On the other hand we could persuade you that belief without proof is not particularly rational. People who actually study ancient peoples would not find it useful to believe in an Ancient Astronaut theory that has no supporting evidence, for a number of reasons. 1) If you believe something in advance, you are likely to prejudice the evidence that you do find in favour of the theory you believe in, which is likely to lead you into error. 2) Ancient Astronaut theories deny the intelligence, resourcefulness and creativity of Early humanity - something which I don't particularly see any reason to contemplate. They are our forefathers, and they are the forerunners of everything Humanity has achieved since then, and to pretend that 21st-Century and above technology equivalent aliens were needed to kick start what we please to call civilisation not only denigrates them, but it also speaks of our own arrogance, as if to say, "Only people of our era and technological attainment could have created those achievements." What egoism!Neildo said:
As opposed to not believing in advance you are likely to prejudice the evidence that you find in favor of the theory you don't believe in, which is likely to lead you into error? That reasoning doesn’t work because everyone believes in something, so are you saying everyone just runs into nothing but biased errors? Not everyone takes every piece of evidence or far-fetched evidence and automatically believes in it. Some actually dismiss evidence that could apply to their theory and I’m one of those types.
Well as you said "theories". There is no one solid theory on Ancient Astronauts as everyone has a few fine tweaks here and there. I guess I could specify my beliefs, but I don't really feel a need to. I've never said that past early human achievments weren't the work of their own. That's not to say that civilization being kickstarted by some other force can't coexist with each other. Take a school kid for a quick example. Any achievments that a student may make in life, does that mean their teacher did all of their achievments for that student? Nope, the teacher just gave them the skill and the student applied it for themselves. So I don’t deny the complete intellegence of our people, but I do deny the intellegence of mankind starting the high civilizations of the past on their own. Everything thereafter was left to our own hands though like a teacher to a student.
I agree completely. While I believe that civilization was kickstarted by some other force, I do think that humans of the past were much smarter than we believe.
- N
Skinwalker nailed it with his post about the period of the art. Re-interpeting these images without understanding their context is meaningless.
Take a look at images of various other religious figures, from Jesus et al, to run of the mill saints;
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&lr=&q=catholic+icon&btnG=Search
... do we really think these people, even the mortals, really had glowing halos, or golden disks hovering behind theirs heads? Or was it just a way of conveying their divinity?
Take a look at images of various other religious figures, from Jesus et al, to run of the mill saints;
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&lr=&q=catholic+icon&btnG=Search
... do we really think these people, even the mortals, really had glowing halos, or golden disks hovering behind theirs heads? Or was it just a way of conveying their divinity?
The only "evidence" would either be seeing it with your own eyes or if one crashed to the ground, otherwise there is absolutely nothing one can do to even remotely sway your disbelief. Actually not even seeing it with your own eyes would work because you could say you're hallucinating, dreaming, or some other lame psychological excuse.
In these days, photos and video is no longer convicing due to the ease of altering them. And then any evidence we have such as past historical references to them, drawings, or whatever else, it's all labelled as myth. So basically there will never be any such thing as proof because even if one did crash land in front of you, good luck being able to get it since it'd get snatched up so quickly by anyone catching it on radar.
You know, there IS such a thing as evidence without seeing something for yourself. I suppose we should release all people currently in jail due to murder or some other crime for lack of true "evidence". If you ever become a judge and I somehow commit a crime, I sure hope you're involved in my trial so I can get off scott free.
- N
Rules of evidence in criminal cases compared to rules of evidence in the scientific method is a poor analogy. This is because both are often misunderstood and mischaracterized by the personmaking the analogy.
It is often assumed that people are convicted of murder with hearsay evidence and a complete lack of "physical" evidence, but this ins't the case. Sure, when the entire enormous legal system is considered (thousands of people go to jail every day, many for murder), you will find cases where people went to jail that didn't involve appropriate application of physical evidence.
But this is because humans are fallible and the fate of one person lies in the hands of 12 jurors who are being influenced by defense and prosecution teams that are more intested in salesmanship than what evidence has to say.
But it is still the evidence that these jurors should base their cases on. Any prosecutor who relies solely on anecdotal account, the way Ufoologists seem to, would never win a case. And nor should he. The most well-meaning and honest observer of an extraordinary event is a poor witness. This is something that police investigators figured out many years ago: the human brain has a tendancy to add information when presented with an extraordinary event.
Sure. There's evidence without seeing something for your self. Its the artifactual evidence that occurs that can be measured and compared. Criminalists look at fingerprints, foot prints, stratification of both prints, body temperature, tool marks, and gunshot residue.
Meteorologists look at high/low pressure systems, wind directions, temperatures, relative humidity, etc. They compare these observations with past observations and make predictions. Sometimes they're wrong but mostly they're right. If they say "high probability of a tornado" in my area, you pay attention, and hope this is one of the times they're wrong. I've never seen an actual tornado for myself, but I've seen the evidence of their existance.
Nor have I ever seen a black smoker, but I'm reasonably sure that these formations exist on the ocean floor based on the observations and study of others.
If ETI-UFOs are indeed a reality, then they too can be measured and observed in objective ways. If, however, they are not, they will remain a thing of legend and "elude observation" in the same manner as any other urban legend or modern myth, offering only fleeting glimpses in blurry photos and many, many anecdotal accounts of their existance. Much in the same way "Bigfoot" did in the 1970's and 1980's, before the Wallaces came clean about their hoax. People all over the nation started having "sightings" of Bigfoot, even in urban or semi urban areas. Nobody sees him now, because only the die-hard believers, who don't accept the Wallace confessions, give Bigfoot any credit.
It is often assumed that people are convicted of murder with hearsay evidence and a complete lack of "physical" evidence, but this ins't the case. Sure, when the entire enormous legal system is considered (thousands of people go to jail every day, many for murder), you will find cases where people went to jail that didn't involve appropriate application of physical evidence.
But this is because humans are fallible and the fate of one person lies in the hands of 12 jurors who are being influenced by defense and prosecution teams that are more intested in salesmanship than what evidence has to say.
But it is still the evidence that these jurors should base their cases on. Any prosecutor who relies solely on anecdotal account, the way Ufoologists seem to, would never win a case. And nor should he. The most well-meaning and honest observer of an extraordinary event is a poor witness. This is something that police investigators figured out many years ago: the human brain has a tendancy to add information when presented with an extraordinary event.
Sure. There's evidence without seeing something for your self. Its the artifactual evidence that occurs that can be measured and compared. Criminalists look at fingerprints, foot prints, stratification of both prints, body temperature, tool marks, and gunshot residue.
Meteorologists look at high/low pressure systems, wind directions, temperatures, relative humidity, etc. They compare these observations with past observations and make predictions. Sometimes they're wrong but mostly they're right. If they say "high probability of a tornado" in my area, you pay attention, and hope this is one of the times they're wrong. I've never seen an actual tornado for myself, but I've seen the evidence of their existance.
Nor have I ever seen a black smoker, but I'm reasonably sure that these formations exist on the ocean floor based on the observations and study of others.
If ETI-UFOs are indeed a reality, then they too can be measured and observed in objective ways. If, however, they are not, they will remain a thing of legend and "elude observation" in the same manner as any other urban legend or modern myth, offering only fleeting glimpses in blurry photos and many, many anecdotal accounts of their existance. Much in the same way "Bigfoot" did in the 1970's and 1980's, before the Wallaces came clean about their hoax. People all over the nation started having "sightings" of Bigfoot, even in urban or semi urban areas. Nobody sees him now, because only the die-hard believers, who don't accept the Wallace confessions, give Bigfoot any credit.
Well I specifically wrote what I did with forensics in mind. You see, forensics is much like archaelogy. The only thing evidence does is increase the probability of a theory being correct, but it proves nothing unless someone were to witness the event completely for themselves.
Again, it just increases the probability of a theory being true, but doesn't mean it is.
As to you never having seen an actual tornado, what "evidence" have you seen of their existance? Sorry, but photographic and video documentation is no longer accepted as evidence due to the ability to docture them. So again, what evidence have you seen of an actual tornado? Even the aftermath of one isn't proof as many things can cause destruction.
You see, these are the ridiculous types of points that debunkers hang on. While many things can increase the probability of a theory to be true, if somehow just ONE of those pieces of evidence is false or at least not good enough, the whole theory winds up being labelled as whacky which is silly.
They are, and have been. The thing is that many people decide to dismiss photographic or video footage as “fake or docturered”. Any ancient writings or stories turn into “myth”. Any artwork or cave drawings is all just “interpretations”. Any ability for a UFO or ETI to actually visit our planet is automatically dismissed due to “our technological limits” applying to every living or possible living due to our ego. Any first-hand accounts from eye-witness testimonies are just people who have “hallucinated”, been “drugged”, have a “mental issue”, “lie”, or some other lame reason. It’s very easy to debunk and prove anything wrong, but it’s darned near impossible to actually prove something if the “judge” didn’t experience whatever the claim is for himself.
I actually don’t make any claims for something to be absolutely true or not nor do I have a problem with someone not believing in something as they’re free to their own opinion. What I tend to do is rate things on a chance of probability. I just hate when people dismiss certain things as being impossible no matter what. Regardless of me having not seen a UFO or an alien, I have a high probability of them actually having existed and been to our planet, whether in the present or past. Since it’s only a probable percentage, people can go ahead and believe in the other percentage of it not being probable. Go ahead and have your non-belief, just don’t be an ass and do exactly what you (you, in general) accuse believers for being and doing. Many debunkers fanatically dismiss “evidence” and reach for radical conclusions (everyone always hallucinating or always lying, etc) the same way many believers fanatically try and connect any slight possible evidence towards being UFO/ETI. But hey, I guess it’s expected since both sides are the same. Just thank goodness for those in the middle.
Well I never really believed in Bigfoot, but I do believe in the chance, as small as it may be, of something stange living amongst us that we’re unaware of in our many remote and unexplored parts of the world. I’m skeptical of all evidence since almost anything can be faked, and the reason why I didn’t care to believe in Bigfoot is due to the lack of amount of evidence, not quality of it, even if one claims that footprint molds and video to be of high quality.
The amount of various “types” of evidence, even if it’s hard to confirm most of it without a doubt towards ETI or whatever the case may be, is what I prefer. Even if there was an absolutely genuine video clip of a UFO/ETI, I’d prefer all the various hints and small pieces of evidence of their existance towards the video. The video is a limited view of it. There’s just so many various “types” of evidence, even if many dismiss it, that point towards ETI having been on Earth and paints a bigger picture to it all rather than just them simply existing that makes me come to my conclusion, even if I’ve yet to see one with my own eyes; assuming I weren’t “hallucinating” and all.
- N
Neildo said:
I would even go so far as to say that "criminal forensics" is a kind of archaeology. In fact, I know a couple forensics criminalists who were trained as physical anthropologists/archaeologists.
Let me begin by saying that I have always maintained that alien visitation to our planet is possible and that the possibility exists that some of the UFOs that people have seen are actual ETI visitations. Its possible. I simply don't apply the same probabilities to it as you do, and certainly not the same probabilities as those that see ancient artwork as evidence for alien visitation.
Neildo said:
Not necessarily true. Photographs and video of tornados is more valid than that of ETI-UFO photos and videos because of four things: 1) tornado photographs are of better quality; 2) tornado photographs of high quality are numerous; 3) enough tornado photographs have far better provenience and context than ETI-UFO counterparts and enough come from credible/reputable sources (NOAA, et al) to draw correlations; 4) tornado photographs will nearly always have correlating and coroborating data.
As a demonstration, I went to Google and clicked on "Images" and typed two different search terms: "tornado" and then "UFO." Here are the first photos of each search:
<img src="http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/alfalfa.jpg"><img src="http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/ql17/ufo.jpg">
One is clearly an atmospheric phenomenon, but definately a complex composition to create if not genuine. The second... well... it might be an alien spacecraft. But as a photographer (and I am), I could duplicate this same effect with 800 iso film and a hat tossed in the air.
Neildo said:
Demanding extraordinary (or even basic!) evidence for the extraordinary claim that one has witnessed an alien spacecraft is hardly ridiculous. I would demand the same if someone said they witnessed my wife kissing another man at the movie theater. My skepticism would be at the same level and I would demand some extraordinary evidence to support this claim if a friend made it. A blurry photo that may or may not be my wife wouldn't do. A ticket stub with a correlating date/time would be a start, but still more would be needed for me to be sure that I not misunderstand something more innocent. I would start by brainstorming alternative hypotheses and see if I could falsify the primary hypothesis that she's cheating. Could she have spent the day with her brother and gave him peck on the cheek when he met her at the theater? Could my friend have observed my wife and then observed another couple in the darkened theater that wore a similar outfit? etc.
Ufologists don't follow this pattern of falsification (my analogy isn't the best, by the way, I'm just rambling on), mainly because once an alternative, more prosaic explanation is possible and cannot be legitimately falsified, the primary hypothesis (that the UFO is ETI) becomes less probable. This is why Ufoologists will say things like, "why would he lie?" or "who would toss their hat in the air to fake a photo?" or "why would a 17th century artist depict Ezekiel's vision of a wheel on a coin?"
Neildo said:
The very fact that you chalk these human fallacies as illegitmate possibilities ("lame reasons") supports what I was saying about not willing to go through the falsification process that the scientific method requires.
Neildo said:
Not at all. In fact, debunking much of the nonsense that is presented by the proponents of paranormal and supernatural phenomena is next to impossible. This is because it requires proving a negative in many cases. Debunking is really an application of the skeptical attitude that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence in order to accept them as probable by demonstrating more prosaic and often more probable explanations.
Your criticisms and points are each worthy of discussion, however. I'm glad you've brought them up.
Well I don't know why we're even having this discussion then since all seems good.
All that would mean is that the tornado picture market has been flooded more than the UFO picture market and that the docturers of the tornado pictures are more skilled than the amateur's trying to fake UFO sightings.
Well you see, Occam's Razor proves that your complex theory of tornados is wrong. If it's not K-I-S-S, then the theory is wrong muchlike there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory due to the complexity of it all. I mean hey, what's more simple? There are billions of planets in the universe and since we're one planet that has intellegent life, it means another one would exist too so ETI exist.
Now what is this crazy theory about tornados you're talking about? It requires perfect atmospheric scenarios where a buncha molucules do their thing in a complex way and all sorts of other gibberish that people spout to make a tornado happen. You're crazy man with your complex stuff. It MUST be false! I can't believe so many people believe in such a complex and crazy theory of air vaccuums that happen in the sky, what whackos! So sorry bro, but I just trumped you with Occam’s Razor. Whew, thank goodness I’m able to rely on such things!
Although, I'll have to give you some credit though as you didn't bring up Zeus' 4th cousin from marriage who was birthed by his sister who hurled these "mystical" tornados down at worshippers who disappointed him.
That picture of your tornado doesn't really hold up either. That is much too easy to make in photoshop by taking a picture of a normal cloud and altering it to form your "tornado". And all past artwork one sees which depicts this "tornado" is merely an "interpretation" of an event in the Bible so that just further shows how silly your little so-called "theory" is.
What’s so extraordinary about witnessing an alien spacecraft? An extraordinary claim would be if that person also had sex with a female alien and produced a litter of half-man, half-alien monstrosities that later became members in the U.S. Senate.
But you asked for “basic” evidence and LOTS of basic evidence exist but you know what the problem is? Lots of those types of evidence winds up “unexplained” so it somehow doesn’t count. Well what the hell, if someone shows you a video of a UFO and you can’t explain what it is, uh, well duh, it’s because it’s a UFO that doesn’t exist on this planet.
Yeah, and how exactly would that be able to be proved? The event has passed so there’s no way to record it other than waiting a long ass time in hopes that it happens again, which hopefully some proof can be taken, which isn’t so easy to do ya know. Having to be in the right place at the right time expecting it nonetheless. Heck, your wife could even admit to kissing a guy, but that wouldn’t mean anything since people are so skeptical of first-hand testimonies. She could just be saying that to piss you off and get you to divorce her or some other silly reason I can say to debunk your theory of her kissing a guy as false. That incident was clearly two people in agreement to make a false case and fool everyone.
But it can also not have happened but evidence can still be found to show that it did happen such as what you mentioned. Anything can easily be proved false, but it’s also easy to manipulate things to make something seem like it happened. However, finding the truth is practically impossible.
You see, there’s no way to actually prove it OR disprove it. There’s just certain events that cannot be explained due to the past being the past. There’s no point in flat out believing or denying it like a fanatic. Go ahead and say it can be highly probable and leave it at that. Unfortunately that’s not good enough for many people. They HAVE to know the outcome, whether it’s true or not and will not settle until they can prove without a doubt with a yes or no answer so we have zealots on each side fighting against each other like flippin morons.
I didn’t call them lame reasons because of those being legitimate reasons, but rather because they’re ALWAYS used to debunk something. You know how when people can’t understand the workings of something, they chalk it up to being the work of God? Well the same applies to debunkers when it comes to things that cannot be explained. That person saw a UFO? No, they didn’t, they “hallucinated” it. Sheesh, I don’t even think there’s a UFO case that doesn’t try to end with a person hallucinating, being drugged, being a mental case, or some other similar reason to try and make the person seem less credible. Character assassination is the #1 thing to try and do to make a person seem less compitant. This applies to people who claimed to have seen UFOs, this applies to every day court cases, you name it.
Well I don’t mean the theory as a whole, but rather the evidence shown to prove the existance of their theory. Yeah, one can’t claim the existance of God, invisible flying pink unicorns, or whatever. A picture, video, testimony, artwork, or something else though? Easy. Photoshop, video editing, person hallucinating, and interpreted artwork. Oh yeah, let’s also not forget about the infamous Occam’s Razor too as that’s an ol’ favorite. Those are basically the end results of every case. Debunkers like throwing those around as trump cards and that’s why it’s lame. Not because they’re valid explinations, but because only those reasons apply to every.. single.. damned.. case.
Yeah, they’re legitimate, but I figure those are common sense points. I’m just having more fun with the sarcasm and showing the irony how any debunking excuse can apply to any real situation, not just UFO/ETI stuff. It’s just fun to use a person’s own words against em to show how irrational and silly they’re being with some of their debunking results (which the same applies to the one presenting the case in the first place). And with those reasons, if it can apply to everything, then most things as we know it are false. That, or things wind up turning into a huge pick and choose battle of what others want us to believe is true, kinda like history where things are picked and chosen to either be “really happened”, “didn’t happen”, or “myth”. Gotta love the predicament of “truth”.
- N
Just in case anyone is still interested in the Jetons of Europe being minted to depict UFOs, here's a site that has a wild speculation that hinges on flipping the coin upside down: http://www.profindpages.com/news/2005/03/22/MN839.htm
If you click on the site, you see this image:
<img src="http://www.profindpages.com/Img/UFOCoin.jpg">
But if you flip the image, and can read Latin, you see:
<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4041&stc=1">
The Latin (mine is rusty, but this is relatively straightforward) reads: "Resist the few, overwhelm (or "destroy") the many" It only makes sense if you read it flipped as the second version starting with "resistit" as it is separated from "pluribus" by the pentagonal symbol.
In the first example, we see arrows being hurled (by the "star people" according to the pseudo-site) and intercepted by the UFO.
In the second, we see the wheel of Gabriel -a common theme within European architecture of the period- with the angel Gabriel itself (if you saw Constitine, you know why I say "it" ) over the trees.
PseudoSite said:
If you click on the site, you see this image:
<img src="http://www.profindpages.com/Img/UFOCoin.jpg">
But if you flip the image, and can read Latin, you see:
<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4041&stc=1">
The Latin (mine is rusty, but this is relatively straightforward) reads: "Resist the few, overwhelm (or "destroy") the many" It only makes sense if you read it flipped as the second version starting with "resistit" as it is separated from "pluribus" by the pentagonal symbol.
In the first example, we see arrows being hurled (by the "star people" according to the pseudo-site) and intercepted by the UFO.
In the second, we see the wheel of Gabriel -a common theme within European architecture of the period- with the angel Gabriel itself (if you saw Constitine, you know why I say "it"
) over the trees.