Originally posted by Triple_helixxx
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.

It does debunk it.
Because UFOlogists are reasoning that the iconography is inspired by UFO's.
It is not. The symbology and iconography are explained so as to clear up any inference that they are inspired by UFO.
The Images are symbolic of religion.

...that does not at all debunk it.

You just went back to calling them angels

Yes, becaus they are images of Angels that fit in with the narrative of the scenes being painted. So there is no UFO influence in the narrative because there was no UFO.

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.

In that case where is the supporting documentation of these hieroglyphs in other egyptian locations. Why is there no evidence of these craft in hieroglyphs among other egyptian structures?

You were doing well in debunking it at first....it could have been a number of things..It could have been a vision into the future..

In which case there was no UFO influence responsible for the art. So effectively the video does a good job.

Great Links OP, I have actually linked that site(Art and Ufo/s?) a few times in other threads.
Those video's do a great job.



[edit on 1/11/09 by atlasastro]

So are you saying that all art in history has no aliens or UFOs referenced in them and that it is just misinterpretation? I agree some art that is said to depict aliens or ufos is really something else and has just been misinterpreted. What are your thoughts on other pics that havent been "debunked"? What do you think about this one?



The Baptism of Christ by Aert de Gelder

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89

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.

Thats kind of rude to say dont you think, the part I highlighted. So you think people who are in a sense crazy are the only ones who would see UFOs in these works of art? Well I have to disagree. I am of the right mind and I do think some of these are UFO's and others are not. There are so many more works of art and paintings and cave drawings that depict alien like beings or UFO like objects. Im not saying all are these things but some of them are very interesting and MY logic tells me some have to be UFOs.

[edit on 11/2/2009 by mblahnikluver]

Great videos. The Sun/Moon explanation and the Egyptian plant definitely makes a lot more sense than aliens and saucers. I do wish however, that the narrator would have touched upon the bug looking guy at the bottom of the dove painting posted above. I have seen ppl alluding to the bug guy as an alien, but I cannot tell what it was meant to really be. Is it a rock, a guy or what? Anyone have a simple mundane explanation for this?

Well put together vids, and its probably accurate.

Some issues...

Jesus was crusified for approximately 2 hours. According to these paintings, the sun and moon witnessed it. Does that not strike anyone as odd?

Now sure, if it was done right at dawn or right before dusk on a full moon its possible to see both sun and moon in the sky, however if my history doesn't fail me here, crusifictions were done around noonish...

Consider the tale of Christ. born under some unusual shining star, talked about how his dad was in heaven (sky), birthed from a woman whom never slept with a man (allegedly), lots of secret meetings with his dad, miracles, etc etc etc. now, I think that the whole story is just that...a story, but if it was absolutely factual, whats the easiest answer, that some diety has stock in a tiny little blue ball on the edge of a galaxy amidst billions of other galaxys or some more advanced race happened by and meddled a bit with us?

Whats to say that the initial painters simply assumed that it was the sun/moon spirits or whatnot or angels because they couldn't think of a different answer. Not saying its not simply what it is, but I accept this as a simple possibility verses the absolute answer, just like every other theory out there (have yet to complete it, stopped at the christian stuff...will continue to watch with a open yet skeptical mind)

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
So are you saying that all art in history has no aliens or UFOs referenced in them and that it is just misinterpretation? I agree some art that is said to depict aliens or ufos is really something else and has just been misinterpreted. What are your thoughts on other pics that havent been "debunked"? What do you think about this one?

The Baptism of Christ by Aert de Gelder

Clearly thats a weather balloon

Originally posted by Jnewell33
in a sense laying the groundwork for the Jules Vern's and Dan Brown's.

Jules Vern maybe, but Dan Brown? Dan Brown spreads misinformation and half-truths to throw off those who are interested in certain topics. On top of that, most all of his work is stolen material. Just ask Jordan Maxwell.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

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.

It would certaintly seem that it's easier to find ""proof"" of aliens than it is to disprove them. You can only debunk a believer's evidence. Hardly disproving anything. By only using logic to try to disprove aliens, you're not using any logic in the first place.

The Egyptian thing is obviously a flower, definitely not an alien; i've known this for a while. Glad that it is coming to more peoples attention; But nothing was debunked in the video except the Egyptian alien flower because with the other paintings the OP makes a fatal flaw . . .

He assumes that Angels & G*d are not ET’s & Flying Saucers to begin with.

In my opinion, some of those paintings are unmistakably flying saucers.

Most specifically the

The Baptism of Christ by Aert de Gelder
&
The Madonna and Child with the infant St. John

As the video mentioned, ancient artwork used much symbolic anthropomorphism in their carvings and paintings.

As seen in the video, they depicted the sun and moon as people/chariots/etc, and because of the way they were consistently drawn, people could quickly identify the two.

Now . . . they anthropomorphically represented the moon and sun in human forms symbolically-

-it is not a stretch to say that they depicted Flying Saucers through symbolic anthropomorphism as Devinelight/Angels/G*d in the same way .

In fact it's a hell of a lot more logical.

So you see, the video debunks itself and it’s actually the other way around.

The Flying Saucers in the paintings I mentioned are not Angels and the Angels in the “normal” paintings are actually the traditional anthropomorphic symbolic images of Flying Saucers.

[edit on 11/3/2009 by JPhish]

---

---