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.

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

Originally posted by Jnewell33
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.

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.

Originally posted by stanlee
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

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.

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89
Somebody shows "proof" for UFO's and it's scoffed at. Somebody shows "proof" against UFO's and it's accepted with open arms.

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.

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]

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..