Star and Flag

This is the most awesome theory to research!!! I certainly believe that we are hybrids form alien DNA and were created by ancient 'alien' astronauts. The more this is accepted, which it is and at an alarming rate, the more I enjoy talking about this subject!!!!!!!!!!

The problem with this is that when we are talking about art, specially religious art, we must remember that some things have specific meanings and had specific ways of being represented.

Also, we should never consider enough one or two copies we see in the Internet, some of those paintings are large and with much more detail than what we can see on the copies used to promote the idea of interaction between extraterrestrials and humans from some centuries ago.

Another thing is that when we compare something to an astronaut we should also think that 50 years ago we would call it a diving suit, not a space suit, so if we see today a drawing from a child (for example) representing a diving suit we can see it as a astronaut suit when it's not.

The theory is interesting but should not be based in wrong data.

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
Call me ignorant, stubborn or whatever. But to believe that nature just took it's course and behold... clear images of flying machines are found... well, it's just too much. Far too much in my opinion.

You're really a "whatever".

The problem with your sentence above shows the larger problem that we face when dealing with things like this.

Those are not "clear images of flying machines", those are images that are somewhat similar to some of today's flying machines, but not only they do not look exactly like our flying machines, nothing shows any evidence of them being machines or in the air.

Another thing, why should those flying machines be mixed with text? It's not like it's a "", what would be the reason to write something like "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, helicopter"?

Weren't the egyptian carvings of the helicopter and what not proven to be a hoax? And I'm pretty sure the "ufos" in the crucifixion were misinterpreted images of the sun and moon.

Originally posted by serbsta
Some of those paintings with 'UFO's' can simply be misinterpreted, they could be symbolic of many things (guiding light, holy spirit, divine presence) before actually being a physical alien craft.

[edit on 24/1/2010 by serbsta]

I've long argued that a person's conclusions are always going to be both coloured and influenced by whatever preconceptions they bring to the analysis.

Example:
Person one will feel quite comfortable with the idea that otherworldly entities (aliens) have been interacting with mankind throughout it's history. They will look at specific events as told by our ancestors, see how our ancestors depicted these events (the OP's drawings) and quite comfortably INCLUDE the possibility that what has been recorded are actual encounters with aliens and their technology.... I emphasize 'include' because to person one it is as equally valid an explanation as interpreting it as myth, allegory, symbolism, etc

Person two, however, will look at every possible other explanation (possibly even ones that barely fit the facts), RATHER than consider the possibility that the ancients might have been reporting/depicting actual alien encounters. To them the possibility of a picture, tablet, manuscript, etching referring to actual UFO/aliens is only so much nonsense and not to be entertained for one second.

Given the differences between the starting points of person 1 and 2, and what scenarios they are prepared to entertain, their conclusions are probably going to be quite different (at least some of the time)

In my opinion, and it's only an opinion, while on some occasions the most obvious explanation might be 'guiding light, holy spirit, divine presence', at other times the simplest explanation (provided one is prepared to accept the premise) is that what they recorded/referred to was a UFO/alien encounter.

Incidently... I use the term UFO in the 'alien craft' sense of the word.

On a final note, and to further illustrate my main point... I am reminded of a thread I read recently on ATS, where it was you who pointed out

Was there indeed a period in the distant past where these believed to be ‘God’s’ actually ruled the lands? Were these the human Gods that taught them the knowledge of architecture, agriculture, religion, astrology and even passed on their own language, the hieroglyphs? Could the currently unaccepted timeframe which puts the origins of the Egyptians prior to 25,000 B.C. serve as an explanation to the sudden expanse of the Egyptian civilization, fully equipped with a complex set of religious beliefs?

The current conclusion is simple, yet so ignorant. The Turin King List is seen as recorded history, but the ‘age of the God’s’ is placed under that petty little word, myth. Why?

The truth current Egyptologists/Historians see is coloured by their preconceptions