It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 41
108
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
It COULD be the artists interpretation of God and his angels looking down upon them from the sky and giving them their blessing...


As I said, it is a matter of interpretation, but I see clearly a flying/floating disc shaped craft of some sort.
Those we see flying and floating in our skies for some decennia now.




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
As I said, it is a matter of interpretation, but I see clearly a flying/floating disc shaped craft of some sort.
Those we see flying and floating in our skies for some decennia now.


And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.

What did the artist intend?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.
What did the artist intend?


What I see is not the problem; it is the difference in explanation we have in what we see in it.
The million dollar question is, “what really where the artist intends to paint it like that”?
Wouldn’t that be fascinating to know?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Quiintus
I think that every book I have ever read points out scholarly quotes and they usually refer to these peoples as people that should have been primitive but knew a lot about things they shouldn't have.

Are the quotes genuine, and who did them? We've seen a lot of cases where quotes seem to be made up.

Scholars and archaeologists usually don't refer to people who "know things they shouldn't have" because they rejected the "cultural evolution" theory of the late 1800's that says cultures go through certain phases as they become more modern. I can't remember if the Nazi or Stalinist scientists were the very last holdouts on this, but speaking as an anthropologist I do know that this idea (called "unilineal cultural evolution)was initially rejected about 100 years ago and has been thoroughly dismissed.

While there are a number of contemporary sources that talk about culture as though everyone goes through the same stages and are astonished that a culture might develop a certain technology, these are not people who have actually gone to the places where those cultures were found and conducted digs (for many years) and identified artifacts and so on and so forth. Generally they're "armchair explorers" who have only read a few things about the culture and believe they know everything there is to know.


I know it's good to question things mate. But if you want me to go back through every book I've ever read cross reference and double check it then you're dreaming. I'd take a punt on the people that have been doing the research for 20-40 years plus, over anyone that comes on these forums. Sure some people claim to have been doing the research but I think that's highly unlikely.

When you can read and write several modern day languages as well as Sumerian, Egyptian, Hebrew and other languages of antiquity, then I'd say you're in a position to judge the topic we're talking about. This gives the linguistic expert the ultimate say in whether or not he thinks these tales are fairy floss or actually history or somewhere in between. If you think you're qualifications as an anthropologist put you above such a person then I find that humorous.


The man that has the ability to pool all the resources and put all the pieces of the puzzle together knows better.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.

What did the artist intend?



There is the remote possibility that ancient and medieval authors and painters actually intended to write and draw what they saw.

This is where the entire debate hings, where our antagonism towards mainstream academia comes from: To label anything that doesnt fit into the consensus as "science fiction" and accept anything that does fit the consensus.

The possibility of ancient technology remains.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.

What did the artist intend?


I might just jump in here and say, what do YOU see?

in other words, without the artist here in front of us to ask, it is ALL just interpretation. Two main things we can base our interpretation on are what it actually looks like and common iconography that may be represented.

you seem to be basing your interpretation on mainly on iconography (angels, doves etc), whereas those that see a possible ufo there are looking beyond that and asking:

"Ok, so the artist probably intended that the 'ufo shape' cloud with angels in it and pencil beam coming out represent some divine encounter...but WHY does he/she think that?
WHY did he make them that PARTICULAR shape? is it mere coincidence of artistic choice?

OR could it be maybe he saw or heard of a ufo and interpreted it in the only way he could(religiously)?"

now of course, as Im sure you'll agree, given only one painting/occurance of this, it would be a wee bit of a leap to say this proves or even strongly suggests anything at all. But if it is a repeated motif among unrelated artists (and it seems to be) and there doesn't seem to be any other logical reason for the particular "ufo like" attributes being repeated, it becomes interesting... (to me at least, I find these images of what I would personally interpret as "ufo like shapes" in old paintings quite interesting)

its basically the same thing as has been discussed here re ancient god encounter myths/stories/accounts, which are often written as if they are literal accounts, but which are usually interpreted as symbolic fiction or allegory (or true divine encounters for the believers).
an example of this is Ezekiel's wheel.
It does not matter if the writer thought he was seeing aliens or angels, ufos or cherubim, all that matters is whether the description is an as accurate as the author could be description of an event, given his world view, or if it is fiction.

If it is symbolic fiction, it makes no real sense: I've read "Christian based" attempted interpretations of this and they make me laugh with how far they try to stretch things.

So lets consider the possibility for a minute it is a real description of some encounter using the available language. I say it sounds like an encounter with some sort of rocket/ufo/flying vehicle. You might say "thats just your interpretation". To that I say:
1)It's the ONLY interpretation I have that makes any sense, beyond it being a bunch of gobbledygook nonsense.
2) Of course its just my interpretation. without asking the original author, there is nothing else BESIDES interpretation to go on. To me, UFO encounter is a much more realistic possibility than some nonsensical encounter with magical beings representing an all knowing all seeing being etc etc.

of course the third option is fiction, and on a story by story basis this might be the most likely case, however, personally, when I find so many ancient "myths" can be quite convincingly RE-interpreted(*) as encounters and interactions with some sort of advanced race, the evidence starts to add up. Eg Jacobs ladder: a ladder on which angels ascended and descended from heaven: sounds like nonsense (I thought angels flew?) OR a space elevator to me...Or the descriptions of Vimanas, no matter how detailed or garbled, if I read about vessels that can carry people/gods through the sky, that says aircraft to me. IRRESPECTIVE of how they are described, since the describers probably had no aeronautical knowledge and the descriptions have been passed down orally for so long.



(*) note the RE, all understanding of myths/stories/accounts comes from interpretation, whether as literal, confused literal, fictional, symbolic etc



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





There is the remote possibility that ancient and medieval authors and painters actually intended to write and draw what they saw.


That's just it. The possibility is "remote", as in "slight". Why do their writings and drawings have to mean what you want them to mean? The ancient peoples were far more religious than today. Why can't their writings and drawings just be taken as representations of their beliefs, without being twisted to conform to some fringe agenda?





To label anything that doesnt fit into the consensus as "science fiction" and accept anything that does fit the consensus.


Out of Place Parts (OOParts) aside, which are just that "out of place", as in "unknown", when an idea sounds like something taken from an episode of SG-1 or Battlestar Galactica, because someone WANTS TO BELIEVE IT, then yeah it qualifies as science fiction.




The possibility of ancient technology remains.


Yes, as remote as that is. But until someone finds evidence alot better than anything presented so far on ATS, that's all it will ever be, ONLY A POSSIBILITY.

cormac



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Are you serious?

I could be asking YOU the same questions you just asked me.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The ancient egyptian "stonehenge"



Nabta Playa was once a large basin in the Nubian Desert, located approximately 500 miles south of modern day Cairo[1] or about 100 kilometers west of Abu Simbel of southern Egypt,[2] 22° 32' north, 30° 42' east.[3] Today the region is characterized by numerous archaeological sites.[2]




Archaeological findings indicate occupation in the region dating to somewhere between the 10th and 8th millennia BC.[



One of the world's earliest known examples of archeoastronomy
One of the world's earliest known examples of archeoastronomy
By the 5th millennium BC these peoples had fashioned one of the world's earliest known archeoastronomical device (roughly contemporary to the Goseck circle in Germany), about 1000 years older than but comparable to Stonehenge[2] (see sketch at right). Research suggests that it may have been a prehistoric calendar which accurately marks the summer solstice.[3]

The research done by the astrophysicist Thomas G. Brophy suggests that these monoliths might tell much more. The calendar circle itself is made up of one doorway that runs north-south, a second that runs northeast-southwest marking the summer solstice, and six center stones. Brophy's theory proposes first that three of the center stones match the belt of Orion at its minimum tilt and the other three match the shoulder and head stars of Orion at their maximum tilt. This cycle repeats approximately every 25,000 years, following the precession of the equinoxes. The last minimum of Orion's belt occurred between 6400 BC and 4900 BC, matching the radio-carbon dating of campfires around the circle..[5][6]



Source


I am posting this without much further explanation for "fringe"-researchers eyes. These eyes know why I post.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I believe the difference between us is this. I look at ancient writings or drawings and put them in the context of what we know of ancient peoples and their cultures. And yes, I still have questions. You seem to look at the same things and automatically see aliens, genetically created humans or ancient advanced civilizations involved, none of which there is any evidence for.

Also, to note: As I know you are an AAT believer. Regardless of the problems with religious interpretation of history that WERE predominant before modern archaeology, AAT is just as bad. Both tend to take responsibility for mankinds achievements, placing those achievements in the hands of a "higher" power, whether a god or an extraterrestrial. In that sense both are an insult to human history.

cormac



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Also, to note: As I know you are an AAT believer. Regardless of the problems with religious interpretation of history that WERE predominant before modern archaeology, AAT is just as bad. Both tend to take responsibility for mankinds achievements, placing those achievements in the hands of a "higher" power, whether a god or an extraterrestrial. In that sense both are an insult to human history.



Actually I am not the "bow down in front of higher powers" type of person. Im more the "life is less dull than they think and the universe is full of life and intelligence" type of person.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Byrd
And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.
What did the artist intend?


What I see is not the problem; it is the difference in explanation we have in what we see in it.
The million dollar question is, “what really where the artist intends to paint it like that”?
Wouldn’t that be fascinating to know?

But we do know, from the title of the painting and from other paintings done by this artist and other artists of the region. This is "holy art." In "holy art", the story is depicted with trappings to make the scene holy (halos, glorys, etc.) They don't add other elements such as local jousting tournaments, local wars, important buildings of the area, etc, etc. They may add important nobles as worshippers... we've seen this.

The art also had to pass muster with the religious authorities AND the nobles of the area.

With the title and theme specifically ordered, and no 'ufos' in other similar paintings by the same artists, and having to have the thing pass muster by any number of officials -- why would an artist put a "ufo" in a painting, particularly when it had nothing to do with the subject? Why not put it in a regular painting; a "documentary" scene (of which there were many examples)?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by diablomonic

Originally posted by Byrd

And there's the problem: that's what YOU see.

What did the artist intend?


I might just jump in here and say, what do YOU see?


I see a piece that had a specific purpose for a specific holy place, that is designed to teach a specific lesson (story) from a very specific book (bible) to encourage the beliefs and religion of that place. It has specific symbols that are associated with a time period (including use of colors) as well as symbolic animals. It produces a "code" or kind of "text" that can be read by everyone and there's no confusion about the meaning.


you seem to be basing your interpretation on mainly on iconography (angels, doves etc)...

And on visiting a lot of cathedrals and seeing and studying a lot of religious art (in cathedrals and in museums... I lived in Europe for awhile) and reading translations of things of that time period.


OR could it be maybe he saw or heard of a ufo and interpreted it in the only way he could(religiously)?"


Religious paintings followed a forumla. Most of the artists also did historical paintings and painted family portraits and did other commission work. There's plenty of places to put in "ufos" and to draw them out -- places where it wouldn't endanger their money or chances to get other commissions.



But if it is a repeated motif among unrelated artists (and it seems to be) and there doesn't seem to be any other logical reason for the particular "ufo like" attributes being repeated, it becomes interesting... (to me at least, I find these images of what I would personally interpret as "ufo like shapes" in old paintings quite interesting)


It's more likely to be a cultural symbol. For example, there's "pictures" of "pyramids" in all sorts of Pueblo/Navajo/Southwest art (pictographs and petroglyphs as well) that dates back to over 6,000 years. I suppose a UFO researcher might say that they represented Egyptian pyramids, but if that same UFO researcher took the time to talk to the Native Americans and look at some of the older records (1800's) from ethnographers, the UFO researcher would find that this was the symbol for Tlaloc, that it is a stylized thunderhead, and that it is a symbol for one of the oldest North American gods and had nothing to do with pyramids or Egypt.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Regardless of the problems with religious interpretation of history that WERE predominant before modern archaeology...


Actually, you bring up an important point -- that the pictures have titles and throughout time since the painting of these pictures, there is no reference to the objects as being anything other than standard religious symbols.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Originally posted by merka
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The earth is made up of horizontal layers you know.


Thanks merka, I didn't know that actually. I learn something new here everyday.



Its easy to see if a giant flood happened if you dig in the ground.


And how deep, you reckon, would they have to go to see evidence of an ancient flood?


....or tree rings showing drought.


Do tree rings show flood too?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Thanks for the explanation cormac,

It's the similarities of the accounts (and interpretations) by some 20 different ancient cultures regarding a huge flood that makes me go hmmm...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
On topic and relevant:

Scott Creightons visit to Giza



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



Originally posted by Byrd
why would an artist put a "ufo" in a painting, particularly when it had nothing to do with the subject?


The strong point you make here is closer to the truth then you know, because it has everything to do with the subject, to be more specific, with that heavenly person who is lit by those beautiful beams of light.


[edit on 1/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
I look at ancient writings or drawings and put them in the context of what we know of ancient peoples and their cultures. And yes, I still have questions.


Will you share those questions about that with us?


Originally posted by cormac mac airt
You seem to look at the same things and automatically see aliens, genetically created humans or ancient advanced civilizations involved, none of which there is any evidence for.


There is evidence, but you dismiss or can’t accept that as evidence.
That is the difference.


Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Both tend to take responsibility for mankinds achievements, placing those achievements in the hands of a "higher" power, whether a god or an extraterrestrial. In that sense both are an insult to human history.


So, if I understand you correct, you believe in the evolution theory, am I right?
I am just curious, nothing more.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It produces a "code" or kind of "text" that can be read by everyone and there's no confusion about the meaning.


Perhaps for you Byrd, but not for all, you surely must be aware of the confusion many people have about the meaning of the "code" or kind of "text" of the Bible.


Originally posted by Byrd
For example, there's "pictures" of "pyramids" in all sorts of Pueblo/Navajo/Southwest art (pictographs and petroglyphs as well) that dates back to over 6,000 years.
I suppose a UFO researcher might say that they represented Egyptian pyramids,


Why do you suppose that, because when I search on Google to those pyramids you mean of Rain God Tlaloc, they look much more on the South American pyramids then the Egyptian pyramids?

Can you show me a link to the pyramids you mean?
I am just curious, nothing more.



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join