UFOs in Rennaissance paintings

[Tommy_Wiseau]

this show makes me rage endlessly

[Biffins]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know, depicting the moon via painting it as if it's a flying vessel with someone inside it?

Yeah but you're still interpreting it as someone from 2011 though. Why would the artist paint people inside flying machines? Flying machines were not exactly a widespread idea until very recently, so what purpose would that serve to paint it, especially in a church? It's like the ancient aliens guy seeing a flower carving in an Egyptian tomb and interpreting it as a lightbulb.

Older pagan religions had deities for everything, and those things were depicted in human form. Obviously Christians didn't see it that way, but part of Christianity's success was that they didn't just throw out old beliefs. They incorporated them but gave them new names and direction. Ex. that ritual you do in the spring time to celebrate a season of renewal and rebirth, and to promote the upcoming harvest? Yeah keep doing that, but also throw in the part about this other guy who was resurrected in the spring, and come do it at the church also. Sup followers of Mithras, one of the largest religions in Rome. What a coincidence, your dude was born at the end of December too? He died for your sins too? You have eucharist-like ritual as well? Fuck yeah, come on over.

tl;dr: pagan personification combined with Christian imagery, or aliens. You decide.

[Piff]

feelin' so tinfoil in here.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Biffins [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah but you're still interpreting it as someone from 2011 though. Why would the artist paint people inside flying machines? Flying machines were not exactly a widespread idea until very recently, so what purpose would that serve to paint it, especially in a church? It's like the ancient aliens guy seeing a flower carving in an Egyptian tomb and interpreting it as a lightbulb.

Well I'd say you're interpreting it as if it's impossible that people long ago saw aliens or flying craft. You're jumping to a conclusion and basing your interpretation on that.

I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no. I'm more interested in the Nazca lines than this art. I do know I do not say "aliens do not exist, therefore all this stuff must mean something else". We don't know what it means. We can't say what the creators meant. Nuremburg 1561, can we just dismiss it as mass poisoning or something? Reports from our astronauts and airline pilots, can we dismiss them as hallucinations? I'm not talking Roswell conspiracies, I'm talking reports of unidentified craft, some of which might be military but are all of them military?

I keep an open mind about it. Some stuff is too weird, like the Nazca lines. Other stuff can be explained, like military aircraft or just hoaxes.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

Originally Posted by Biffins [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's like the ancient aliens guy seeing a flower carving in an Egyptian tomb and interpreting it as a lightbulb.

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're jumping to a conclusion and basing your interpretation on that.

Second guy - you're accusing first guy of what ancient aliens does. You shouldn't work to debunk your own methodology! First guy is exactly right.

In the intro to the video posted at end of last page, the narrator speculates about how aliens could have provided ancient people with technology. Then he asks "what if we could find...THE EVIDENCE?"

That's not a predictive hypothesis. You don't form your conclusion first and then search backward for vague evidence - that isn't valid science or logic. It's just a tinfoil hat TV show, but the methodology is so flawed that I can't find get any enjoyment out of it (especially when I realize there are people, like quoted, who lap this shit up like it's a thrilling scientific hypothesis).

[Naez 4.20]

I think it's pretty obvious that aliens exist and deniers are lemmings following their oil financed leaders over the cliff.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Wiseau [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Second guy - you're accusing first guy of what ancient aliens does. You shouldn't work to debunk your own methodology! First guy is exactly right.

In the intro to the video posted at end of last page, the narrator speculates about how aliens could have provided ancient people with technology. Then he asks "what if we could find...THE EVIDENCE?"

That's not a predictive hypothesis. You don't form your conclusion first and then search backward for vague evidence - that isn't valid science or logic. It's just a tinfoil hat TV show, but the methodology is so flawed that I can't find get any enjoyment out of it (especially when I realize there are people, like quoted, who lap this shit up like it's a thrilling scientific hypothesis).

I've never seen this show and I don't have the time/desire to watch whatever video was posted. Sorry.

Biffins formed the conclusion, that aliens don't exist therefore these strange things must have other explanations. Spaceships in paintings can't be spaceships because they don't exist. Isn't that the conclusion? He said flying machines weren't a widespread idea of ancient people, but that's only true if aliens do not exist, right? You see what I'm saying? What if there were sightings? Do we know there weren't any? What about Nuremburg? Big hoax? Mass hallucination of many people of the same thing?

I'm not saying yay or nay. I'm saying I keep the possiblity open, because we don't know. We can't read the dead artists' minds. We weren't there in Nuremburg. I haven't formed a conclusion because there's none to form. I won't say "no such thing, and the ancient depictions are falsely interpreted" or "yes they exist, and the ancient depictions are part of the proof".

Again, I ask about the Nazca lines. Does nobody here know what they are? They're a little less easy to explain than paintings considering they were discovered less than 100 years ago. They can only be seen from the sky.

It could be my Trekkie side talking here. I don't think the pyramids were built by aliens or anything, but I do think there's a possibility there were ancient sightings. Nobody knows for sure.

I once heard a theory that humans are the result of a cross between aliens and earth primates, like we're either a genetic experiment or some attempt at populating the planet with a higher intelligence than the existing primates. There's all sorts of weird theories out there (hollow earth anyone?).

[Biffins]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Biffins formed the conclusion, that aliens don't exist therefore these strange things must have other explanations. Spaceships in paintings can't be spaceships because they don't exist.

My conclusion was not that aliens and spaceships don't exist. But there's no evidence in this thread which shows that they do, unless we are operating on the assumption that art is to be taken literally and contains no iconography - and that we disregard the time period in which it was painted and the way in which certain ideas were commonly expressed by artists of the day.

[jarshale]

You people who don't believe we're controlled by aliens are just brainwashed by the NWO illuminati skull and bones freemason zionist liberal agenda. Sheeple.

[Naez 4.20]

finally someone who knows what they're talking about