Originally posted by karl 12
Neston, England - July 1857:
On the outskirts of town a young shepherd named Robert Clancy was tending his flock---and his sweetheart---when he noticed a round gleaming
vessel sanding on three legs at the side of a field. A golden haired woman in unusual green clothes stood by the unearthly craft watching Clancy and
his girlfriend for a while, then waved and climbed into the vehicle, which afterwards took off into the sky and headed northwards. For months
afterwards, no sheep would graze on the spot where the craft had stood.
Sorry for bringing up this rather old post, but this is an obvious hoax.
The painting could be real, but the UFO is very obviously added into the painting. Perhaps not visible to the untrained eye, but there is a clear
difference in technique when it comes to the overall painting and the ship with the figure next to it.
There are plenty of paintings of that period where metallic objects are depicted and they always follow the style the painter worked in, which is not
the case in this one, where there is a huge contrast between the landscape, the people,... and the ship and the figure next to it.
I've been intrigued by this because I love art, especially of the 17th to 20th century, but I can't seem to find the supposed artist of this and the
few reports I could find were that it was a hoax, which I can most likely confirm from the obvious difference in technique.
Compare the UFO painting with the following paintings;
This is a 17th century still life, notice how the metal is shiny, but it fits in with the rest of the painting because it's obvious the same technique
was used for the entire painting.
Or this one, where metal is painted convincingly while still keeping the same technique that was used in the rest of the painting.
And perhaps this is the best example to compare with, as it makes it obvious that though there are lots of different textures, fur, metal,... they all
blend in well.
The latter is not the case in the UFO painting, there is a very distinct difference between the cloth, the trees, the flowers, the lamb,... (how they
are painted) and the UFO and the figure.
Another thing that gives it away is when you look at the water (below the UFO, right of the woman in red), the reflection is so delicate while the
UFO's reflecting is nothing but a big diffused white spot. Artists in the past knew this would not look convincing and it's really unlikely that IF
the painter really did see a UFO, he would depict it in such a manner. There is not a single thing in the painting that was diffused (made 'soft')
except for the reflection on the UFO. If the artist was to implement diffusing as a technique, he would not simply use it on a single spot only to use
a different technique everywhere else.
Don't want to burst anyones bubble, it's not a bad fake, but very, very obvious to the trained eye.
I think if I were to make a comparison of heights by applying the correct perspective, the figure next to the UFO would be rather tiny compared to the
humans and the sheep. Unless it was a tiny ship with a tiny driver
Another observation would be that the ship's left side (our left) is blocking out what looks like a deer or something, which again, makes me seriously
question the legitimacy, as I find it unlikely the painter would add an animal in the background only to have it's head covered by the ship in front
The focus would be on the ship, not on putting details behind it that make little to no sense.
Also worth mentioning, painting "en plain air" would not become popular and in many cases even possible until the 1870's when paint in tubes was
"invented", allowing artists to travel to a location with their canvas and paint, whereas before, they were confined to their studios. This implies
that the artist most likely did not paint it on location, rather in his studio, which raises even more questions as most artists made an
interpretation of things they saw, based on sketches and notes, and made everything work as a whole, based on what they saw, combined with how they
envision the final piece. Nearly all landscape paintings of that period were "from memory".
edit on 7/7/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no
I might make a fake one some day, making it clear it is a fake of course, but to show that it can be done, even without a computer (which I think
could be the case here)
edit on 7/7/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no reason given)