Ancient UFO Depiction Discovered in Romanian Monastery Painting?

a reply to: theantediluvian

It also appears to either be at the end of a fiery trail or to perhaps have a pillar of light emanating from the "top." Looking at the image, it's difficult to imagine what the painting could be depicting if not a spacecraft!

looks more like a flying saucer than a spacecraft to me

a reply to: Phage

You seem to be looking at a different painting.

This seems like quite the elaborate and unnecessary design for a shield...

i62.tinypic.com...

It is in no way round and if the artist wanted to represent a circular shield, he would have drawn an ellipse, not what i have sketched in the above link.

You are going to argue its just a round shield, Im arguing it is in no way representative of what shields in that time would have looked like to the average peasant.

Here are a few more coins showing a similar motif.





I'd be putting my money on shields over Ufos.

a reply to: NoNameNeeded

You are going to argue its just a round shield, Im arguing it is in no way representative of what shields in that time would have looked like to the average peasant.

It's called symbolism.

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: Phage

But with some understanding of mythology it is not so difficult. It is a representation of a mythical Roman shield which, in the middle ages, took on the ability to offer protection from lightning. Looks like a pretty stormy sky there.

is it meant to be protecting the building?

if so it doesn't seem to be working - looks like the building is on fire to me

But hey, at least the tv antenna didnt get hit!

or the satellite dish!

when was this picture painted?

Yet notice how those shield are actually spherical in shape rather than bulged as in the painting and my sketch.

You might find that to be overanalysing, fine by me, i just like to keep the option open that this is not plain symbolism, you know why? Because we dont know.

Phage, self proclaimed expert on the arts so it seems, knows just as much as me when it comes to the actual motives of the artist and as a fellow artist, i feel it is my duty to keep work open for interpretation, no matter what that might be. Throwing in elements of symbolism into realistic work is not uncommon at all, but in this case it just doesnt fit, its not a symbolic representation of a shield and any artist wanting their audience to go "ahh a shield to protect our church" would have been smarter when it comes to the design of the shield displayed, and the ones that were actually used back then. Instead, the artist chose to leave it open for interpretation, something you guys are trying to corrupt with drawing easy conclusions.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoNameNeeded

You are going to argue its just a round shield, Im arguing it is in no way representative of what shields in that time would have looked like to the average peasant.

It's called symbolism.

Fine, then please elaborate on how turning an easily recognisable object into something people in the 21th century cant even agree on what it is, defines "symbolism"?

a reply to: aynock

is it meant to be protecting the building?

if so it doesn't seem to be working - looks like the building is on fire to me

You should see the buildings that didn't have a giant space shield protecting them that day.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: aynock

is it meant to be protecting the building?

if so it doesn't seem to be working - looks like the building is on fire to me

You should see the buildings that didn't have a giant space shield protecting them that day.

Thank god everyone was in that church watching the game on the only tv in town!

originally posted by: Phage

Looking at the image, it's difficult to imagine what the painting could be depicting if not a spacecraft!

But with some understanding of mythology it is not so difficult. It is a representation of a mythical Roman shield which, in the middle ages, took on the ability to offer protection from lightning. Looks like a pretty stormy sky there.

The representation is seen elsewhere.
translate.google.com...

I see that this has already been covered.

To me it looks like a building on fire and there are people on the bottom left either waiving for help or trying to put out a fire and there also looks like a person on the roof waiving as well meanwhile this whatever it is appears to be sucking up smoke as to help out?

a reply to: NoNameNeeded

Fine, then please elaborate on how turning an easily recognisable object into something people in the 21th century cant even agree on what it is, defines "symbolism"?

People today, and mostly people in a UFO forum, will see any circular object depicted in the sky as a UFO when the meaning was totally different. The symbolism of that time was meaningful to people of that time just as the symbolism of our time is meaningful to us. Though the imagery may be similar, its meaning is completely different.



The average peasant would be wondering why the shields are shooting at those people.

The shape of the object is very strange and I have never seen it before. Just now I decided to watch an illuminati defector interview on youtube and the exact shape is on the ground surrounded by hooded worshippers. Is this some sort of illuminati symbol? Heres the link. You cant miss the big red thing.

Linkwww.youtube.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Im arguing the very point that it even IS symbolic, as Im not so sure. Not suggesting aliens and i have repeatedly stated so in this thread, but this imo is not a symbolic shield


And yeah, but to the peasants im sure THOSE would resemble shields as they knew them a LOT better than the anomaly in the ops painting

a reply to: NoNameNeeded

I understand the point but....The painting in the OP is out of context. Meaning that we are looking at one painting from a particular area in a particular time period. That particular shield pattern looks like it matches other shield patterns. Was this painting meant to depict an actual event? Was it a vision of a future event? A dream?

Looking closer, there's a lot of fun stuff in this picture.

Look directly to the right of silver thing above the church...thats a hand and forearm coming out of the cloud making a bird shadow puppet. Looks like a lot of burning and explosions behind and to the right of the church not inked but drawn.

originally posted by: Phage

Looking at the image, it's difficult to imagine what the painting could be depicting if not a spacecraft!

But with some understanding of mythology it is not so difficult. It is a representation of a mythical Roman shield which, in the middle ages, took on the ability to offer protection from lightning. Looks like a pretty stormy sky there.

The representation is seen elsewhere.
translate.google.com...

I see that this has already been covered.

Two things.

1. Could you please cite another source for this? The following statement sounds very authoritative, but a few cursory web searches haven't yielded additional information to substantiate it:

It is a representation of a mythical Roman shield which, in the middle ages, took on the ability to offer protection from lightning.

What I find particularly interesting is that the shields allegedly conferred protection against lightning — is this based solely on the image on a single coin or is there some reason to believe this was a commonly held belief?


2. There is some historical precedent for flying shields several centuries earlier. The following is excerpted from historian Yannis Deliyannis' blog, Chronicon Mirabilium:

The Annales Laurissenses indeed contain an entry for the year 776 which reads as such:

[776] [...] and the same day, while they [the Saxons] were preparing for another assault against the Christians who were living in the castle, the glory of God manifested itself above the church inside the fortress. Those who were watching in the square outside - many of which still live today - said that they saw something resembling two large flaming shields of reddish color moving above the church itself. [...] (Annales Laurissenses Maiores, in MGH SRG 6, p. 44)

Setting aside any images (this blog post is in fact about revealing two hoaxed images purporting to show UFOs in medieval paintings), this is still a very interesting account as an argument could be made that in 776, these people observed *something* in the sky above this church which cannot be easily identified as a known atmospheric or celestial phenomena.

Whatever the two objects actually were, to a person of that time and place, they resembled flaming shields. This is an important distinction — the claim made isn't that they were shields, but rather that they resembled shields.

Felt like an idiot when phage pointed out it was a shield, it all of a sudden became so obvious.

But I'm still personally thinking it's a comet that has been interpreted as a sign from God in the form of a symbolic shield, but that's just me.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Could you please cite another source for this?

I cannot, not directly. However the French coin seems to be strongly indicative. And the story of the shield from Jupiter (who hurled lighting) adds weight.

this is still a very interesting account as an argument could be made that in 776, these people observed *something* in the sky above this church which cannot be easily identified as a known atmospheric or celestial phenomena.

Eyewitness accounts are often very unreliable. Second hand accounts more so. Four hundred year old second hand accounts with a religious slant still more so. Trying to make guesses about what, if anything, was actually seen is futile.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Felt like an idiot when phage pointed out it was a shield, it all of a sudden became so obvious.

First off it wasn't phage that made that connection.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And second you guys really need to get over your "Attack Phage Fetish"

The symbolism is pretty damn obvious to anyone willing to do even the most basic research.

My first thought was UFO when looking at that image....But with a little research.....or simply reading a few post down it becomes obvious its not.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Felt like an idiot when phage pointed out it was a shield, it all of a sudden became so obvious.

But I'm still personally thinking it's a comet that has been interpreted as a sign from God in the form of a symbolic shield, but that's just me.

Nope, its not just you, its me too. The bulged edging is what makes it hard for me to accept this is a depiction of a shield and instead leads me to think someone, possibly or probably not the painter, saw something over the building, a comet is one option. They obviously interpreted it as something heavenly and it went together with earthly events such as the ones depicted, which would also be possible with the impact of an object.

I stick with my opinion that if the artist wanted to depict a shield, such as in the case with the coins, wher the shields are eliptical and thus circular in design, they would have went for the stylistically easier choice, rather than making the weird design choice to make a difficult shape such as the one i posted earlier. Its simply not logical to me, the intricate design is an indication of some description that the artist was working from, RATHER than working from an actual shield which was easily available as reference in order to depict a simple symbolic shield.

I almost feel urged to do a paintover of what an actual symbolic shield would look like in my opinion and why it wouldnt make sense then to have such a strange looking design which can ONLY confuse people as to what it really is. Remember, the shield on the coin is an actual shield, why would the artist in this painting choose to be vague and confusing? (Please dont deny this, look at my simple technical sketch and then ask yourself if this was a common design for a shield back then, and why the artist preffered it (an unknown conceptual shield) over a conventional one which can easily be symbolised.)