reply to post by Harte
Originally posted by Harte
Skyfloating,
This makes me wonder if you've ever read this thread here at ATS - which I consider one of the best all-around threads in this genre:
Cicada's excellent thread on UFOs in Artwork
You should read that thread before your foot gets any further in.
I have taken a look to that thread too if you don’t mind and this is my take on two examples.
But it is a matter of interpretation in my opinion.
Originally posted by Cicada
Next we'll deal with image 1 and 1b of the above post, Carlo Crivelli's "Annunciation". The reasons why some would feel this image depicts UFO
contact is obvious but once again most of this confusion lies in poor, blurry reproductions. It is in no way uncommon for Annunciation scenes to
feature a ray of light descending from the sky to contact the Madonna.
Originally posted by Cicada
What appears here to be a flying saucer is in fact an illuminated cloud within which are two rings of golden angels.
Cicada is absolute right with this remark.
It looks indeed an illuminated cloud within which are two perfect round rings of golden angels, with a corona of lights at the outside ring that
shines in all directions, and a very strong pencil like beam of light that is pointed strait down on “Madonna”.
But ask yourself the question, how realistic is it that real clouds look like that, even then.
So is it not absolute possible that the artist painted such an image because he new of the existence of such strange and unknown flying/floating light
emitting objects or crafts of some kind.
And because he absolute don’t understand, and had no idea of what those strange crafts are, he painted it like an illuminated cloud within which are
two perfect round rings of golden angels [crew?], with a corona of lights at the outside ring that shines in all directions, and a very strong pencil
like beam of light, because that is acceptable in his view?
There is in my opinion nothing wrong with that possibility, and there is absolute evidence of trustworthy witnesses that speak of that reality, if you
good accept that as evidence of course.
Originally posted by Cicada
Essentially the same can be said of the Aert DeGelder's (a rather obscure artist) "Baptism of Christ". The image as provided in the above post is
extremely poor. In a better version the circular field in the sky is obviously occupied by a white dove, a standard symbol of the Holy Spirit. As an
aspect of the Holy Trinity it is wholly normal that it is depicted within a luminous circle. Representing divine entities with radiant
disks or halos is common in iconography of many cultures and religions. A clearer image again makes this easy to see:
Again, how realistic is it that you get the change to see a cloud such like this one too, I never have seen clouds like those, do you?
So, is it not realistic to ask why and for what reason is it so common in iconography of many cultures and religions to make images like that?
Is it not possible that they in fact did that because they see also in their timeframe these real extraterrestrial light emitting crafts of some sort,
and what we today call Ufo’s?
[edit on 30/3/08 by spacevisitor]
