Ancient UFO Depiction Discovered in Romanian Monastery Painting?

It's clearly a flying clam..the bivalves are taking over!!!

Who knows...if I had a flux capacitor and a DeLoran laying about I'd query the artist myself, that would be the sure way to end the speculation.

Or you can go with the consensus and take it for what it is: art. It could be a UFO or it could be a shield, maybe both.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: draknoir2

That's actually a 16th century gun-shield from the armory of Henry VIII, possibly of Italian origin. (see here).

It does bear a passing resemblance but the fire emanates from the opposite side in the painting and if it's indeed a shield (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), it has a striker instead of a barrel so I'm assuming that's not what is depicted

I know. The point was that it bears more than a "passing resemblance" to the object depicted in the painting and on the coins [for those who simply "cannot" see it], and it is a shield style that would be familiar to a 16th century artist.

The age of the painting is unknown, but monastery was originally built in the 14th century. It was later destroyed and rebuilt in the 17th century.

The gunsmith Giovanni Battista of Ravenna proposed this gun shield to King Henry VIII of England in 1544.

Coin from 1656

a reply to: Phage Cool explanation man. Makes sense to me? Why the hate when you explain stuff, and usually politely.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: draknoir2
So why is it more likely that what is depicted is symbolic?

Doesn't have to be symbolic... just artistic.

Looks like a bug too close to the Lens to me.

originally posted by: Vaedur

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: draknoir2
So why is it more likely that what is depicted is symbolic?

Doesn't have to be symbolic... just artistic.

Looks like a bug too close to the Lens to me.

It's not.

Here is an interesting study of religious symbology in artworks.

It's a depiction of a round loaf of bread, nothing more. This represents "manna from Heaven" with the inscription of "Israel, put your hope in the Lord" to signify Israel's deliverance.

originally posted by: Airth
It's a depiction of a round loaf of bread, nothing more. This represents "manna from Heaven" with the inscription of "Israel, put your hope in the Lord" to signify Israel's deliverance.

All the representations of that I've seen have shown "flakes" raining down and being gathered, not a giant fiery metal shield-looking thing.

originally posted by: draknoir2

The age of the painting is unknown, but monastery was originally built in the 14th century. It was later destroyed and rebuilt in the 17th century.

Thing is, going with the protection shield from lightning flow, did the say, (and most likely) 17th Century artist cock-up a bit? maybe copying the dodgey 'coin' the wrong way up, the arrows could easily be ahem.. a symbol of lightning, and the shield like a protective parasol.

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.

Looking at the devastation... It doesn't look to have helped on this occasion.

Forever learning though, thanks.

originally posted by: Vaedur

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: draknoir2
So why is it more likely that what is depicted is symbolic?

Doesn't have to be symbolic... just artistic.

Looks like a bug too close to the Lens to me.

LOL

Ezekiels Wheel, anyone?

Hmmmm?

There is so much history "mainstream" science or religion never even remotely tries to explain. The Vimanas, nuclear weapons and fallout sickness from The Bagavad-Gita, the "space brothers" from ancient American Indian myths, nephilim from the bible and book of Enoch (The "men of reknown" aka Hercules, Achillies, Gilgamesh, Nimrod, Chuchulain, Rama, and many many more from ancient myth and legend.)

Its really a damn shame more folks aren't better read and informed. The Bible, when read properly with the proper books, sans Roman influence, actually spells out in stark terms what took place on this rock in the dim recesses of the past.

Satan can only veil and separate the knowledge, he can't completely hide it. He is many hundreds of times smarter than the smartest human. If he was allowed to hide it completely he would have. We wouldn't even have a bible at all if he had free reign, much less the dead sea scrolls and, more importantly, the Naj-Hammadi Texts.

He has rules, you know? He works FOR The Ancient of Days.

a reply to: Phage
After Googling Ancient Roman Shield, I tend to agree with you.

www.vroma.org...
This image looks similar in some respects. Notice the dots around the rim that in a painting could be interpreted as space ship windows or lights?

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded
FURTHERMORE

why, if it IS a shield, does it not even protect HALF the building? Is it a shield that only served to protect the tv antenna of the local church??

Moreover, the shield is pointed towards the building as if something from the sky needs protection from the building. The shield theory doesn't make much sense.

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded
FURTHERMORE

why, if it IS a shield, does it not even protect HALF the building? Is it a shield that only served to protect the tv antenna of the local church??

Moreover, the shield is pointed towards the building as if something from the sky needs protection from the building. The shield theory doesn't make much sense.

originally posted by: Pearj
I don't have an opinion on the UFO question, but as an artist; I know this:

When the aim is symbolism, the majority of the work is generally symbolic. It's a part of getting the point across.

For instance:

All of this work is symbolic:


If this is a shield, then only 10% of this work is symbolic:


Typically, more of the subject mater would be symbolic, if the goal of this work was to relay a symbolic message to it's viewers... Otherwise viewers would take this as a depiction of an actual event.

Lastly, a few rhetorical questions come to mind...

If this is a painting from the 1300's and is in German, why would the artist use Roman symbolism from the 6th century?

A one-off symbolic element that was relevant 600 years prior, inserted in an otherwise realistic current depiction?

Commissioned pop-art in a Monastery?

If most Roman shields were square (rectangle); then why would you paint a circle to represent a square? Wouldn't you paint a closer representation of a common shield - so people knew what you were trying to get across?

Maybe the 'shield' on the coin isn't a shield, of course the coin is hundreds of years before the painting.

Great thread, thanks.

There we go

Sorry for the long quote but I want to thank Pearj for putting into words what took me 4 pages!

I agree 100%. Like I mention on p1, symbolism and realism mixed in a similar manner are rather uncommon, hence indeed, the only 10% being symbolic is very unusual and actually confusing to the viewer

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded
Like I mention on p1, symbolism and realism mixed in a similar manner are rather uncommon, hence indeed, the only 10% being symbolic is very unusual and actually confusing to the viewer

Mixing symbolism and realism is not at all uncommon.

www.georgewashington.si.edu...

www.johfra.net...

a reply to: NoNameNeeded - Thank you.

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded
FURTHERMORE
why, if it IS a shield, does it not even protect HALF the building? Is it a shield that only served to protect the tv antenna of the local church??

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Moreover, the shield is pointed towards the building as if something from the sky needs protection from the building. The shield theory doesn't make much sense.

Great points, stared.

originally posted by: draknoir2
Mixing symbolism and realism is not at all uncommon.
www.georgewashington.si.edu...
www.johfra.net...

Both links you provided are largely symbolic. A quote from your link:

“He is surrounded with allegorical emblems of his public life in the service of his country, which are highly illustrative of the great and tremendous storms which have frequently prevailed. These storms have abated, and the appearance of the rainbow is introduced in the background as a sign.”

Just saying, symbolic works typically have more than one symbolic element - just like the paintings in your links.

originally posted by: Pearj

a reply to: NoNameNeeded - Thank you.

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded
FURTHERMORE
why, if it IS a shield, does it not even protect HALF the building? Is it a shield that only served to protect the tv antenna of the local church??

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Moreover, the shield is pointed towards the building as if something from the sky needs protection from the building. The shield theory doesn't make much sense.

Great points, stared.

originally posted by: draknoir2
Mixing symbolism and realism is not at all uncommon.
www.georgewashington.si.edu...
www.johfra.net...

Both links you provided are largely symbolic. A quote from your link:

“He is surrounded with allegorical emblems of his public life in the service of his country, which are highly illustrative of the great and tremendous storms which have frequently prevailed. These storms have abated, and the appearance of the rainbow is introduced in the background as a sign.”

Just saying, symbolic works typically have more than one symbolic element - just like the paintings in your links.

I was responding to the assertion that the mixing of symbolism and realism in a painting is a rarity. It is not, whether it be a single symbol or many depicted in the work.

One would expect religious symbolism to some degree in a painting associated with a monastery. That it resembles other very specific depictions of very similar objects similarly placed in the sky would suggest they are all describing the same event, object or symbol.

originally posted by: smithjustinb


Moreover, the shield is pointed towards the building as if something from the sky needs protection from the building. The shield theory doesn't make much sense.

That's one reason why I turned Drake's, 'coin' over in my post (on the right) the artist got it wrong and painted it upside down...maybe????