aliens do exist in historical artwork

Dywyddyr said:
Your government isn't developing flying saucers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Correct, of course. :D And neither is any other government, for that matter.

Did you also notice another bit of his super-ignorance? That the government does so (flying saucers, etc) WITHOUT taxes??? I guess he thinks aliens are funding the "development!" :bugeye:

To borrow a line from Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
 
Read-Only said:
Correct, of course. :D And neither is any other government, for that matter.

Did you also notice another bit of his super-ignorance? That the government does so (flying saucers, etc) WITHOUT taxes??? I guess he thinks aliens are funding the "development!" :bugeye:

To borrow a line from Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
Click to expand...

Actually, the US government were developing ways to create saucer shaped craft, allegedly through the work of the Die Glocke German experiment.
 
Mister said:
Actually, the US government were developing ways to create saucer shaped craft
Click to expand...

Of course:

Apollo%2011%20Command%20Module.gif


299746main_Orion.jpg


A bit far from "flying saucers" though.
 
No, that is not what I was talking about... sheesh... hold on, I'll see if I can find it now.

The saucer shaped craft the americans built decades ago hardly got off the ground.
 
Anway, after this usual skeptical misdirection you often see on sites like this, anyone for a taste of art cannot say half the things which have been said on the first page of this thread.

Most of the art depicting UFO's are not calignous or tenebrous in any way. The art form's usually try and depict life as close as it can interpret it. From accurately-believable murals of saints, to buildings and the texture of the sky, surely it cannot be argued when you see a circular, traditional saucer shaped craft in the sky of certain paintings, it surely does look out of place, odd and conspicuous!!!

Some here have likened it to angels... I mean comon. Even the earliest christian cave drawings depicting angels look nothing like these odd structures in the paintings skies.
 
Mister said:
Most of the art depicting UFO's are not calignous or tenebrous in any way.
Click to expand...

I think you meant 'caliginous'. When you get words from a Thesaurus it is best to cut and paste them since they are unfamiliar to you and the chance of misspelling them is pretty great.

Some here have likened it to angels... I mean comon. Even the earliest christian cave drawings depicting angels look nothing like these odd structures in the paintings skies.
Click to expand...

Christian cave paintings; by Christian cave men? WTF are you talking about. Angels have changed alot over time. We settled on a cool prototypical angel in the Renaissance.

Angels are first mentioned in the old testement. In a course I took on the Torah at college the Rabbi teaching the couse said no one has any idea what an angel of the lord actually is suppose to be, they were never described.
 
origin said:
I think you meant 'caliginous'. When you get words from a Thesaurus it is best to cut and paste them since they are unfamiliar to you and the chance of misspelling them is pretty great.



Christian cave paintings; by Christian cave men? WTF are you talking about. Angels have changed alot over time. We settled on a cool prototypical angel in the Renaissance.

Angels are first mentioned in the old testement. In a course I took on the Torah at college the Rabbi teaching the couse said no one has any idea what an angel of the lord actually is suppose to be, they were never described.
Click to expand...

hahaha... aren't you funny. Typo.

And no, not cave paintings by cave men. Why would I be suggesting this?

Early Christians often found bathing spots so they could baptize their followers. Many of the bathing spots could be found the deep of cool caves.

Seriously, get an education.
 
I'll submit that these are UFOs in the paintings. They are unidentified as to what they are actually supposed to depict. Here's some issues with them being presented as anything out of the ordinary.

1) Paintings are done over hours, days, weeks. Short of having a still subject, much is done through memory of the artist, and even accurate attempts to capture that moment can be reinterpreted over time.

2) We see a wide variety of UFOs. Easily explained by artistic variation, but if they were real and accurately shown, why would there be so many different versions? Are there that many different crafts flying around with different aliens?

3) Why are they so commonplace in the paintings? You would think that they'd have their own paintings, not just remain in the background, if they were so unusual.

4) As we've gotten better at capturing the instant moment through photography, video, and the sheer number of cell phone cameras out there now, why haven't we gotten better samples of all these mysterious occurrences? These paintings are essentially their version of our Youtube blurry lights...or not even that, given my #3, as all that I see are "normal" background settings.
 
''As we've gotten better at capturing the instant moment through photography, video, and the sheer number of cell phone cameras out there now, why haven't we gotten better samples of all these mysterious occurrences? These paintings are essentially their version of our Youtube blurry lights...or not even that, given my #3, as all that I see are "normal" background settings. ''

Yes, indeed. In fact, this point is what closely mirrors my point: These paintings are not caliginous or even tenebrous in any sense of the words concerning their contents - the contents are set as close to life as the artist can capture. Not all of us have seen the traditional saucer shaped craft in the sky, but thinking no one in those times have would most likely be folly. These are examples of UFO's being observed and taken as a divine influence, then captured on canvas so that their appearances will be known for many years to come. In much the same sense, it is very like a youtube video, a home camcorder, a photo, a group of witnesses. What they saw back then, is like what we still see today.

For a while in the modern age, skeptics would say we never even saw them, that it was a figment of our imagination. Indeed, if we had all continued putting them on canvas, they would have never been proven wrong.
 
Interesting how you turned my point around to support your stance. I agree, it was their form of recording, much like our Youtube or video.

And we still don't have anything that's beyond the definition of UFO, even with the much better method of recording. The self-titled videos of "Best evidence to date" is always still a blur, a light, something out of focus or a split second of unknown shape. Or a hoax.

After how many combined years of footage...what have we got that's remotely Identified as alien?
 
Nothing as far as I can tell. This is the great mystery.

If there has been evidence, it might be long gone. If there continues to be evidence, it must be being kept secret somewhere.
 
See, I don't think footage will ever amount to as proof of aliens. Some footage however is arguably evidence.
 
Evidence that things happen often that we don't have enough good info on to account for its cause.

Which is normal...it's not conclusive of some coverup or mysterious event. Unless you're looking for something, ie a form of apophenia.
 
The fictional character, Sherlock Holmes once said, ''when you eliminate the possible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must remain the truth.''

Even though this character was imaginary, there is actually a lot of truth behind that statement.
 
Last edited:
Holmes?

"We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination."

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
 
Rhaedas said:
Holmes?

"We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination."

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Click to expand...

Oh of course. I agree with those two statements entirely.

In my own language, ''we may choose to have the evidence evaluated under different interpretations, to see which of the evidence best suits which facts.''
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top