It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by Exuberant1

The problem with Talos (and other Greek mythological entities) is that there is more than one version of their story, and you can see that in this Wikipedia article, making even more difficult to know if any of those versions were true.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:37 PM
Eyewitness testimony is not worthless. If 50 people witnessed a man walking up to someone, pulling out a gun, shooting them, and then throwing the gun into the ocean, and they could not find the gun, would this guy go to prison? You bet they would. Why is it good enough for that, but NOT good enough when it comes to UFOs? And while I agree that dots in the sky may fool eyewitnesses, there have been many clear sighting by many witnesses, often groups. I think it's ironic that eyewitness testimony can be used to great effect in our court system, but loses credibility when it comes to ufos, even when the witnesses are very reliable.

But anyways, I believe in UFOs, I just believe that ancient art or religious symbols, costumes, or rituals, are often misinterpreted as meaning 'alien' in nature. Our ancestors worshiped the stars, the sun, the moon. Just because something faces up doesn't mean it was for the benefit of aliens. This is no clincher.

Imho, the 'clincher' is much more recent history. In the 30s and 40s. I think this is the most important period from which to really study UFO activity. Because at that point, people didn't hoax, because there was nothing TO hoax. This was a new phenomena. They saw things they couldn't explain. And caught on radar, and seen by professionals, were UFOs whose capabilities went far beyond anyone had at that point in the world. Photos from that era should be given a lot of credence.

And even the military didn't know how to react. For Roswell, the base COMMANDER, who was a veteran, who worked with not just all aircraft, but all secret aircraft, authorized the press release that a flying 'disc' was recovered. Why a disc? Discs are round. Any balloon wreckage obviously wouldn't be mistaken for a flying saucer.

I think the proof really came to the front during those years. And now, there is just as much proof being provided, but unfortunately is being muddied by hoaxes, cgi, and people who know what to hoax. In the 40s there was nothing to hoax, because there was no precedence for those sorts of hoaxes.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by fleabit
For Roswell, the base COMMANDER, who was a veteran, who worked with not just all aircraft, but all secret aircraft, authorized the press release that a flying 'disc' was recovered. Why a disc? Discs are round. Any balloon wreckage obviously wouldn't be mistaken for a flying saucer.

It's hard to say. If you read the national newspapers around that time, the country was caught up in a kind of "flying saucer fever." Some unidentified wreckage with a bit of a curved shape (rocket fin or curved bit of a Horten flying wing) might have convinced the commander that a damaged disc had been recovered, and that he had a scoop of some kind.

Don't know. Wasn't there. Maybe "aliens," whatever that means. But I do know that there was an awful lot of secret stuff going on at places like White Sands, just up the road, that we probably still don't know about.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08
That is unfair,actually we don't accept 'any thing as proof'.
That is the problem with generalistions.

There are some Alien believers that accept anything that is presented as such, without asking any question, and I am sure you have seen some of those here on ATS; there are other believers (I think the most common case) that accept things that look like what they have seen before, without even stopping to ask if this is really the same type of thing; but there are also some believers that do not accept things just because other people say so, they want to understand the phenomena and so they want to know more, and ask for more evidence that the event was really connected to or was a sign of an Alien presence.

In the same way, some sceptics refuse to talk about anything that has the words "UFO" or "Alien" in it, they think all those things are fabrications of some people to fool other people (or something like that); other sceptics accept some things as evidence but refuse other things (like eyewitnesses accounts, considering that if people can be deceived they are not trustworthy); some sceptics (I like to consider myself in this group, but who am I to interpret my own actions?) accept all things related to an event as evidence, either pro or against, because even if it does not look like something helpful now it may be so some time latter, when another piece of data (a missing link) makes the whole connection possible.

That is why I accept the Vimanas, for example, as evidence for the Alien's case (something like exhibit "A", as they do in the movies
; it may be vital on the trial or not, but it was considered relevant and that it was part or related to the event), but I have some doubts about their source.

As far as I know (and I may be totally wrong, I have only looked at it this weak) there is only one source of that myth*, and, usually, ancient stories have more than one version because they evolved while they were told from mouth to mouth, suffered adaptations when they passes from one region to another, etc., so something with only one source looks a little suspicious.

PS: IST means Indian Standard Time, that is why it's a little difficult to maintain a steady flow on these convesations, this thread has people from at least four different continents posting in it.

* Calling something a myth is not pejorative, it only means that it's a traditional story with some supernatural connection. Supernatural means "above natural" and means only something that can not be explained like other natural things, but some things that were considered supernatural in ancient times are considered natural now

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

Good post(starred),I respect skeptics like yourself,that's why I like debating with you on here.Thanks for the IST clarification BTW.It really is like a trial though isn't it,lol.So what kind of believer do you think I am?

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Thanks for the star.

I think you are on right track, but you should try to be less affected by your opinions when analysing some case.

I say this because the way you wrote your OP, it looks like you had already some things on your mind and you looked (at least a little) for a way of backing up your previous opinion instead of trying to just analyse the data.

Obviously, if you consider these "three clinchers" you have some idea about them, but what I mean is that you almost closed the door to other possibilities unless they agreed with your idea.

I know this is easier said than done, and I have fallen on that trap many times, but the most important thing is not to become attached to some theory, because even what we think are facts may, in the future, be proved as illusions.

PS: I hope you don't feel bad with my answer, but I always say what I think.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:12 PM
Oh wow, after reading most (not all pages of this discussion) I felt the need to join and add my 2 cents. There are a few points I'd like to make to no one in particular about things that have been brought up in this thread.

Abandon all hope for those people caught up in the religious viewpoint. One of my family members put this into perspective for me during a recent phone conversation. Somehow the topic of aliens and The Rapture was brought up (not by me, mind you. So it's obviously because this is something that has been on her mind) She mentioned how she expects non-believers to react when this actually happens." They won't even believe it was him (God) They'll try to blame it on aliens." When she said this my mind automatically turned to similar reactions over the existence of Dinosaurs... THE DEBIL PUT THOSE THERE! it was to test your faith... You have to remember these people were force-fed this since they came out of the womb. They stewed in families and communities who all believed in the same thing, constantly, everyday, never opening their minds to other possibilities. In effect, they were hardwired/brainwashed into these beliefs during a time in their development when they were forming their own interpretations and learning about the world. Most of you are dead-on when you say they wouldn't believe it if they had shaken hands with an alien. This ORGANIZED religion thing has damaged us more than we know. We've been majorly side-tracked from progress as a species because of it. I have a hard time believing that we'll ever recover from the damage it has done.

I really dislike skeptics, who, when presented with things pulled from the internet, discredit possible evidence ONLY because it came from Youtube or some other internet source... The computer and network it is connected to is only a way of linking other computers. It is simply a medium for information to travel. This information can be credible as well as not credible depending on where it is coming from. Don't dismiss something JUST because it came from the internet. It's an individual case-by-case sort of determination you make based on the content of the information, not where it came from.

The cave paintings, specifically, are hit and miss for me. There are so many other better instances of things showing up in art that shouldn't be there. The old religious paintings and icons that have whole flying crafts depicted in them do it for me, I don't understand why there isin't more discussion about this thing today. I mean, we can touch it we can look at it, it's real and because of that I would think it's some of the most amazing evidence we have.

Somehow the rest of the world doesn't find this significant enough to talk about and start asking each other questions?

want more?

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by Gloomilyeuphoric

"The old religious paintings and icons that have whole flying crafts depicted in them do it for me, I don't understand why there isin't more discussion about this thing today."

That one is very easy. The objects you assume are flying saucers are, in fact, religious iconography common to the era.

Of course, you can assume that the artist(s) saw a fantastic flying object and decided to not make much of it, just a jot on the painting, five minutes' work, tops. After all, flying things like that were old hat in the 15th century, so they didn't want to over use them in the paintings.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:51 PM
I see this thread has started something that led to another thread(no names mentioned),I realize that this is a very heated and controversial topic but can we not all continue with civilized debate(like me and Armap)?I think the main issue is that we make this difference in thought become more of an ideology than it is scientific method.

Armap:Thanks for your honesty although I am sure we will soon be at it again with other evidential(trial like) debates.
Gawdzilla:On a post in the other thread-I didn't mean you,I meant the other guy with the 'evidence'.Now back on topic I disagree you can infer that those UFOs in the back ground of mid-ages paintings are religious symbolism.That simply has not been proven and is a common,un backed skeptic response.....simply,you will have to do better,those painting clearly depict a 'craft'.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by Gloomilyeuphoric

Thanx for your reply,in fact we have discussed numerous middle aged paintings.I agree with you that religion is a major factor for some not believing,but in fact the Bible says nothing prohibiting alien life.The Vatican,last year said that to deny ETs is to deny Gods power.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by Gloomilyeuphoric

Madonna and Child with the infant St. John and Annunciation by Carlo Crivelli are examples of the standard iconography of The Annunciation of Christ's conception. There are many, many more.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Phage]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08those painting clearly depict a 'craft'.

Clearly they don't, as posters prior to me have pointed out. Just because it bares some resemblance to the standard Rigelian SUV doesn't mean the artist saw one.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Phage

I agree with you phage, I have often giggled at the Byzantine icons or medival frescoe 'UFO's', however.....

These 2 are not common ways to depict a angel in Byzantium, Italy, or anywhere really.
They have me stumped and I cant explain them

The delivery of the immaculate conception was done through the ear, not a craft. This is a craft. Whether they are painting from descriptions in the Ezekial texts or somehtng they saw, I dont know, I wish someone could explain it to me.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

Not angels. More symbolism. In this case the Sun and the Moon represented as human figures. Again, there are many examples.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Phage

I think they are symbols of UFO's

what else needs to be drawn, a map?

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Seany]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by Phage

Right OK, cool I'm versed on the sun and moon (eclipse) imagery withnessing the crucifiction, I should have made the connection, thanks for that Phage

These are still a little different, very craft like, traditional moon/sun are more a round face with rays rather than a whole human in an object. And these flames are also quite different to the norm, but that doesnt make it a craft, just the artists style.
Acceptable explanation though jury still out.

Cheers Zazz

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Seany

Phage is right, when they painted certain scenes from the bible they had a set of 'rules' they had to add to all paintings. The sun /moon imagery was added to the crucifixion frescoes or painted wooden icons. It was the eclipse at the time of the crucifixion portrayed as round face in sun rays. This was the only way to paint the eclipse, and it HAD to be added to a crucifixion scene.

Like if you wanted to paint ST peter you painted a man with keys in his hands or around his waist ( representing keys to heaven)
If you painted John the baptist you painted a man with animal skins (wild man that he was) and so on.
They didnt stray from these rules until centuries later, they were paid craftsmen like a carpenter not 'artist' with freestyle technique.

This dont mean I still think the pointy one isn't fishy.....

[edit on 9-4-2009 by zazzafrazz]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

Look at the various representations, there is a wide range (including beasts of burden). Also, if they are spacecraft, they are two very different models.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by Phage

2 models! LOl
Yeh'I'll take the more aerodynamic 2nd one anyday, that baby looks like it could get you to the moon in a nanosecond.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:07 PM
Those objects are clearly craft!I am all for logical reasons but when it appears overwhelmingly likely that one reason is more likely than the other you must stop with denial and abstract reasoning.I wish skeptics would stop in one post saying"You don't give ancients enough credit" while in another saying"They were using symbolism cause they didn't paint what they actually saw back then".Quit being hypocritical and contradicting yourselves please.

This is medieval symbolism:

Symbolism ~ A form of art in which symbols are used to represent ideas. Painters in the Middle Ages relied on religious symbols to tell the stories in their paintings.

Not flying craft......


This IS NOT symbolism:

There is also WITNESS TESTIMONY of what this picture is depicting actually happening this day over Germany.You know they didn't have pictures so they had to draw what they saw.Meteor shower?I think not after listening to this account....

1561: UFOs over Nuremberg
Between 1561 and 1566 residents of Nuremberg, Germany and Basel, Switzerland witnessed spectacular displays of spheres, disks and tubes zooming about the sky and engaging in an aerial ballet.
As a result of religious interpretation, medieval artists interpreted fuselages and wings as crosses, and rockets became tubes full of balls.

Image-Note that two people seem to be witnessing a crash of at least one of these flying objects in the woodcut.

At dawn of April 4, in the sky of Nuremberg (Germany), a lot of men and women saw a very alarming spectacle where various objects were involved, including balls "approximately 3 in the length, from time to time, four in a square, much remained insulated, and between these balls, one saw a number of crosses with the color of blood.

Then one saw two large pipes, in which small and large pipes, were 3 balls, also four or more. All these elements started to fight one against the other." (Gazette of the town of Nuremberg).

The events lasted one hour and had such repercussions that an artist, Hans Glaser, drew a woodcut of it at the time. It describes two immense black cylinders launching many blue and black spheres, blood red crosses, and flying discs.

They seem to fight a battle in the sky, it also seems that some of these spheres and objects have crashed outside the city.

Source & References:

Archived UFO Articles and News Items, 2007
UFO Casebook Home Page

There have also been threads on ATS on this.The witnesses also described the objects "turning to fire upon impact with these 'crosses'."So yes you are right in some aspects......symbolism is used in describing what they saw.So what say you about this account?All hoax,misinterpretations,what????

Yea,I thought so

That was what could be described as another clincher but wait,there's more......

Misidentifacation?Lenticular clouds you say?

Here is a painting with clear depictions of lenticular clouds......

Here is one that depicts something else....

This one is dubbed 'Jesus and Mary'..........again we see religious symbolism being used to describe what is clearly a ancient depiction of what Ufology calls a "fleet" sighting.The ancient witnesses assumes that Jesus and Mary were commanding these objects.So again yes there is a lot of symbolism,but one you have to know when it is that and when it is actuality.Two you have to know when symbolism is being used to explain something paranormal,like UFOs or aliens.I don't know,that seems just about case closed,I'm sure you will come with something though?!

[edit on 4/9/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 4/9/2009 by jkrog08]

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in