UFO's in Ancient Art Debunked (Video)

I made this video based on an extensive article by an Italian art critic.
this doesnt mean I dont think the ufo thing is genuine, I only think its origins are quite different that most ufologist consider.

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

Related...

Art and UFOs



Which is a shame. Many see something they believe to be strange, something they do not understand, in these works and jump to the conclusion it must have something to do with aliens. Instead of asking "what does this mean" they say, "it must mean..." and in doing so they are robbing themselves of a deeper understanding of the richness of human art.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

---

Yes this is the article I was using to make the video. (except for the last part of the Egyptian art video which I got from another article which is also linked in the video description) Diego Cuoghi agreed with, and endorsed the video personally.

I agree with your sentiments.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Amenti]

I think the biggest misconception with ufos in art is that people choose not to accept that a ufo may be exactly what the acronym was created for, an unidentified flying object. As artists throughout history have used the gift of visual stimulation to create thought, and maybe...just maybe these artists where trying to create a mystery that would allow thoughts to forever expand, in a sense laying the groundwork for the Jules Vern's and Dan Brown's. It is what it is and there really isn't any conclusive evidence as to what each author was implying as they are no longer available for comment, so we are all just left to speculation.

reply to post by Amenti

---

I watched the first video a couple weeks ago and I found it really interesting. It answered a lot of the questions that I'd had about the UFOs in art thing. Maybe tonight I'll watch the second video.

Anyway, thanks for sharing this on ATS. I really enjoy your other videos that you have up on YouTube as well. Keep up the good work.

Great work! I've given you a star and will recommend this to others

yeah i saw the videos "you made" quite some time ago. they arent debunked. I can make videos of the same thing from the oposing perspective, and say "UFO's in early art.. evidence showing the possibility aliens did form our social structure." and then in the video show people like Stanton Friedman, RC Hoagland, Lear, Santa clause and Obama saying "yup its real alright" and THEN present it to the world as true evidence just as easily. its not evidence, its not debunked. We werent there when the images were painted. We have no idea what they are, what they mean, or anything akin. GAH so sick of that... "PROOF OF< PROOF AGAINST!" Get tied and look at both angles.. not just what jeebus says

reply to post by Amenti

---

I'm thankful that these videos were made and are posted here on ATS merely for the benefit of the believers. Many posts have been made by those who considered the content of the art to represent more than the logical explanations offered.

I've known about these explanations since the '60s but I'm glad to see they've been offered in one fell swoop as opposed to all of the separate sources I used.

Logic always wins. My thanks, Amenti, well done.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Yes, but speculation has to be tempered with common sense, logic and reason. I do not consider for one moment that any of the artists actually saw UFOs. There are a lot of other natural atmospheric phenomena that could have influenced them.

If you were to make videos from the opposing perspective, it would be simple to criticize your video as not conforming to logic. A simple, prosaic explanation is always prefered to a complicated one. If you showed Friedman, Hoagland and other pro-alien popular authors, I wouldn't even watch your video.

Somebody shows "proof" for UFO's and it's scoffed at. Somebody shows "proof" against UFO's and it's accepted with open arms.

Great videos! Should explain a lot of things for people who think to the contrary.

Will flag this so it get's more attention.

No, that's not the way it is. First, there is no "proof" for UFOs but there is plenty of circumstancial evidence which is as good as it gets, for now. There are those for which the available circumstancial evidence in the form of photos/films/videos will never suffice. Something in their makeup keeps them from jumping from close-minded skeptics to open-minded skeptics. Open-minded skeptics accept what millions have produced.

I assume that the UFOs you refer to in your second sentence are of the questionable kind since they're mostly found in ancient artworks and no one in their right mind would say that what is represented in the artworks are real UFOs. An open mind doesn't help in this case, just logic.

reply to post by Skeptical Ed

---

yes thank you ed.
I think it would be a bad move from an investigative standpoint to assume ufo must be of extra-terrestrial origin. as opposed to either secret govt stuff or even inter dimensional.

but in regard to this video its not a matter of an anomaly being portrayed in them, that isnt the case at all. Everyone would have known what those images were supposed to represent at the time, the same as art critics do today, there is literally no mystery about why they were put there and what they are supposed to represent.



[edit on 31-10-2009 by Amenti]

Yeah, it does a pretty good job of covering Christian art and why the instances of alleged UFOs in there are probably nothing, however, other contexts, like prehistoric art, are not covered.

Come on, what in those videos is going to debunk UFOs in old paintings? I'm not sure what some of those things are in the paintings, but some of them seem quite close to what people are spotting these days.

What is illogical about seeing a UFO anyway? What is illogical about there being unidentified flying craft up in the air? Why, because our history books don't cover such things?

There are tons of eyewitnesses, photos, video, yet someone just posted here that there isn't any proof? I'm sorry, whatever these things are, sometimes they seem to be a bit secretive, so even though they are out in the open, they kind of aren't "out in the open." I'm sorry that they aren't out on the street kissing babies and shaking hands, and posing with the president, at least not looking like little green men.

Different subject, but something to note. The fact that these things are a bit secretive, what does that tell you? To some degree, they are hiding, in this case not contacting earthlings on a huge scale like publicly coming out on tv, saying, "hey, I'm Mork..." But they are visible, to a certain degree. Anyway, keyword here, "hiding." Why would they do that?

Troy

[edit on 31-10-2009 by cybertroy]

reply to post by cybertroy

---

So you didnt watch the videos I see.

Two things you didn't debunk too well..

Ufologists say that the "UFOs" in the paintings..are..well UFOs..and then you say they are Angels looking down to the shepards watching over them....doesn't debunk it in the slightest. All you said was that they were angels(Other than ufologists possibly linking it with UFO sightings today) and then you were talking about how the angels appeared in more paintings then went on to say that they weren't UFOs

...that does not at all debunk it.

You just went back to calling them angels


Next one.

The Heiryoglyphs(excuse my spelling) Just because the carved stone was carved over from it's original carving (due to unavailible carving space or whatever reason) doesn't make it any less true that it could be linked to helicopters, submarines and aircraft. You were doing well in debunking it at first..but you got carried away again. You then started talking about how the egyptians had no evidence for these things because it would need factories and machinery and such that would be obvious.... ..except..the whole idea isn't about them having this technology..it could have been a number of things..It could have been a vision into the future..

You know, I've seen a few documentaries showing some of the prehistoric art that is deciphered by some as being of aerial objects and some are detailed in the representation of "occupants" and I just don't know which way to go with some of the claims.

The documentaries have never shown any kind of lab work on the pigments to show if they're really old or someone snuck into one of those caves and painted nice, clear UFOs and aliens. Some of the art is that mindblowing. But when you look at the other images around the UFOs/occupants, they're a bit more primitive than what we are interested in. Which is why I'm a fence straddler when it comes to stating whether they could be real or modern fakes.

The one art that I'm referring to can be seen here:
www.bibleufo.com...

reply to post by Amenti

---

but thats just the viewpoint of Diego Cuoghi and mostly in italian..........

the 'translated version' which you refer above.... was actually a 2004 article which featured........ "The Art of Imagining UFOs", in Skeptic, Vol.11 No.1

however keeping the 'italian' historian's expertise in mind...... specially the 'anthropomorphic symbolical deciphering'

i wonder whats his take on this.....


Val Comonica, Italy, c. 10,000 BC