Ancient Anomalies and Aliens - Part 1: Art, page 21

privacy

Pages: << 18 19 20 21 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 237 times

reply posted on 28-10-2010 @ 08:41 PM by openmind444

reply to post by Harte

Or are you just trying to be a self-righteous, arrogant, "I will speak for everyone, because I have all the answers" dick? Just wondering, because I don't know you and that is the way that you come across, that seems logical enough for me.

reply posted on 28-10-2010 @ 08:42 PM by openmind444

reply to post by openmind444

You know..the stuff that makes sense.

reply posted on 28-10-2010 @ 08:48 PM by elpistolero

off topic: The second picture looks a lot like Subject delta from bioshock LOL

reply posted on 28-10-2010 @ 09:03 PM by FireMoon

I have tried any number of google searches but come up a blank on this one. It doesn't help that the moment you use a term like Indian no matter how much you try to narrow the search down by use of parentheses, you still get a flood of stuff from the Americas

In the book Ghost Stations III by Bruce Barrymore Halfpenny on page 47 there is a photo of an object purportedly found in the Indus valley and dating back to circa 1500BCE. . That object is a *plane*. it's not a fish it's not bird it is a plane. It looks like a F86 Sabre or a Mig 15. it has swept back wings and a full tail plane assembly. Not just the tail planes but a tail fin as well. It has some sort of psychedelic paint job on it, aside from that it looks every inch like a model of a 1950s jet fighter. I haven't a clue as to whether the veracity of the model has been proved or if was later to be found a fake,. I'd just think it would make a good addition to this thread as a talking point.

reply posted on 30-10-2010 @ 11:12 AM by CanuckCoder

reply to post by Phage

Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach

Why is looking at a picture and think its context is reality a reach? Symbolism is a reach in my opinion. Who says the artist was not drawing what he saw in hopes to pass down to the ages what he had seen?

I challenge conventional thinking on this, because the interpretation does not make it a reality. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. Such as a picture of a flying craft, they can be just that from the artists perspective: A craft that is flying in their times.

I hear artists and collectors speak all the time that a painting is not a reflection of reality and is a metaphor for other things but thats all talk without proof and unless the artist is there to say "this is a metaphor" then i see no reason to assume anything.

edit on 30-10-2010 by CanuckCoder because: Finished a thought.

reply posted on 30-10-2010 @ 01:31 PM by NavalFC

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by Phage

Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach

Why is looking at a picture and think its context is reality a reach? Symbolism is a reach in my opinion. Who says the artist was not drawing what he saw in hopes to pass down to the ages what he had seen?

I challenge conventional thinking on this, because the interpretation does not make it a reality. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. Such as a picture of a flying craft, they can be just that from the artists perspective: A craft that is flying in their times.

I hear artists and collectors speak all the time that a painting is not a reflection of reality and is a metaphor for other things but thats all talk without proof and unless the artist is there to say "this is a metaphor" then i see no reason to assume anything.
edit on 30-10-2010 by CanuckCoder because: Finished a thought.

But the mistake the anomaly hunters make is to judge everything by OUR context.

For example, ancient anomaly hunters have provided many examples of what they say are "the greys" in aicnet art, be it cave walls, statues etc. Ok, but the reason they are able to say this is because the grey is a modern phenomenon, a cultural icon representative of the UFO field.

Absent that frame of reference, one would lack the ability to make that comparison.

Or to simplify it, the reason people are able to find objects in cloud shapes is because they know what the objects normally look like and as such can imagine other things in such away.

Before the dawn of the modern UFO age, ie: pre kenneth arnold, no one would make such claims because they lacked the frame of reference. It is only because people have a mental picture of what a grey is to look like, what saucers look like, what modern machines look like that they are able to go back and say of ancient art things like

"Oh, this painting looks like a man in a rocket" "this trinket looks like a airplane!" etc etc. It is a mistake to do so, because you are judging these things by a context that did not exist to the original creators of said ancient art, and therein lies the fallacy in all of these ancient anomaly scenarios.

reply posted on 30-10-2010 @ 03:36 PM by GreyEagle

Regarding the crystal skulls portion of this topic -

Some of the THEORIES “debunking” these skulls are more absurd than the origin theories themselves! It’s plausible SOME are frauds but to claim all are possibly fraudulent is ludicrous!

We “modern” humans are awfully arrogant & presumptuous in matters such as this.

There’s no way to be certain our current modernness in truly modern. Technology could exist that’s centuries more advanced than our modern tech.

reply posted on 31-10-2010 @ 08:50 PM by SpaceLordDom

reply to post by CHA0S

I Can't help but always come up with the same explanation for UFOs and the kind of ancient artifacts and writing. Life on any planet is pretty much a miracle. I always seem to come back to the conclusion that they are not aliens but time travellers. Think about it... If you could go back in time you would go see Jesus Christ yourself. Thus explaining the UFOs around him at that time. Plus arent the grey reminescant of what we could end up looking like. Not saying this is what it is but it always ring special to me when looked at this way. That would explain time shift during abductions. The greys actually look like the evolution of a dolphin ;p. But anyway... YOUR TOUGHT!?

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 02:33 AM by atlasastro

Just so you know guys, especially the ones directing replies specifically to Chaos, the OP has been banned by ATS.

I know the discussion will go on, as it should, but just so people know why the OP is not participating anymore.

edit on 1/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 11:28 AM by vinunleaded

The flying fish hypothesis works for me. At first I did think the artifacts represent WWI-WWII era airplanes but I began to question why our ancestors modelled these artifacts after such primitive airplanes. This is just another case of modern man judging history with their current perspective. There's a term for that but I forgot...

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 11:40 AM by FireMoon

For example, ancient anomaly hunters have provided many examples of what they say are "the greys" in aicnet art, be it cave walls, statues etc. Ok, but the reason they are able to say this is because the grey is a modern phenomenon, a cultural icon representative of the UFO field.

The Greys have been round and known about for centuries. I had a most enlightening conversation with a North America Shaman who made this quite clear to me. The problem is, many Shaman had absolutely no interest in speaking of their knowledge of such things to people who arrogantly dismissed their *spiritual beliefs* as * childish and primitive". .

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 08:18 PM by Thinker1

very nice post.

when these pictures were created by the artist, which is likely to be by many different people, im sure they werent just painting things that come to mind, because most early cultures have these types of art. considering that early humans practically paved the way of our future, and alot of our history is based on what was left behind by ancient civilizations, i dont see why more and more people dont start questioning what was being seen at that time, and yet even today there are more and more people seeing these types of things and are almost immediatly being dismissed, claiming they have logical explanaitons. but for these types of things being seen for thousands of years, there is definatly alot more going on than what the general public knows about. anyone agree?

reply posted on 2-11-2010 @ 03:16 PM by IRONADDICT

Yes, I think I know what object your talking about. A few gold pieces were found that look like a jet plane. The gold pieces have distinct delta wing shape, a bubble were the pilot would sit, and a small groove at the rear where the end wing fits. That object was reproduced exactly to scale and it flew.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:15 AM by Immortalgemini527

I will go down the liist and show u all what your really looking at.

1.There showing what the unevolved race of reptillien looked like before now.
2. those suits are water diving suits immatated from the reptillien water race as well as all the suits down to the.
3.when the egypt tions found out about a cats purr ,they used the ability to go far in there dreams,that picture there is how far one went.helicopter submarine and such.
4. The reptillien race in rare form unevolved from how they look now.
5.the gold plate ,i dont know.
6.and YESSSS,the trinkets of existence OF NOT A FLYING AIRCRAFT but the transportation for the reptillien race that only came out in bundles during the world war 1 and 2 era.and that was the day i stopped looking at ufohunters,they tried to fly it,...my GOD!
7.CRSTAL SKULL ,STILL LOOKING.
8.This drawing depicts a UFO sighting over Hamburg, Germany on the 4th November 1697.
they was just looking underneath at the triangle with just 2 of its three engines tuned on.
9.This is an illustration from a book entitled "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum" by Admiral Blaeu.
SAME THING AS 8.
10. AND ALOT OF THE ANCIENT PICTURES WAS DRAWING OF ABDUCTIONS AND FERTILE IMPLANT DONE TO WOMAN AND EXPERIMENTS THAT CHANGED HISTORY.

reply posted on 6-11-2010 @ 11:42 AM by AnteBellum

I have already written off that they do not exist. Circumstantial evidence in this area along with astrobiological studies have led me to believe this fully. With that being said my attention draws to not 'if' they came but 'why'.
So if an alien race came here for something they needed thousands of years ago then left. Does it really matter what the motive: experimentation, gene pooling, gold, expansion. . . whatever. The fact that our history is vague at the least back then and subscribing to ancient alien theory it seems they may have altered us in some way after years of trial and error for some purpose. Paleontologists and other disciplines still can't figure out why our brains spontaneously grew 3 times larger 'overnight' as it relates to species development all roughly before written Sumerian history began, pyramids, etc. This one fact is not consistent to punctuated equilibrium or evolutionary theory (for all you Darwin buffs) for any known specie on our planet. Then after these aliens took what was needed some decided to stay. I mean it was an investment of sorts, wouldn't they want to protect there interests even for a short time. Then the project was complete! All available resources pulled for some other venture. Is it so far fetched to think if they did it here they could have done it hundreds of other places, before and later, for other reasons. Now from time to time they come back to look at what they did, call it curiosity. That's it.
I can't see an advanced alien race wanting anything from us as a whole, but maybe this. An example being the way we farm fish. We need fish so we take a few and farm them. We don't use the entire ocean just a couple to get things started (alien abduction). Now they need to feed them (cow mutilations), from there perspective we seem to like beef and milk quite a lot here, but the mutilations don't stop with cattle, the other animals are just not needed as much so they go mainly unnoticed. Maybe they do this to help develop other planets, speed things along, be more efficient. We have created a seed bank here on Earth maybe they are creating a gene bank. If I had advanced knowledge of gene splicing I would want the largest kit of parts available to me, knowledge is power.
As for there agenda, I think it already happened a long time ago. But that is the problem now, it is no longer about there agenda, it is now about our agenda. The left us like parents have left children after 6 years of age, to find our own fates, our own direction.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:28 PM by RaKais

Originally posted by NavalFC

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by Phage

Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach

Why is looking at a picture and think its context is reality a reach? Symbolism is a reach in my opinion. Who says the artist was not drawing what he saw in hopes to pass down to the ages what he had seen?

I challenge conventional thinking on this, because the interpretation does not make it a reality. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. Such as a picture of a flying craft, they can be just that from the artists perspective: A craft that is flying in their times.

I hear artists and collectors speak all the time that a painting is not a reflection of reality and is a metaphor for other things but thats all talk without proof and unless the artist is there to say "this is a metaphor" then i see no reason to assume anything.
edit on 30-10-2010 by CanuckCoder because: Finished a thought.

But the mistake the anomaly hunters make is to judge everything by OUR context.

For example, ancient anomaly hunters have provided many examples of what they say are "the greys" in aicnet art, be it cave walls, statues etc. Ok, but the reason they are able to say this is because the grey is a modern phenomenon, a cultural icon representative of the UFO field.

Absent that frame of reference, one would lack the ability to make that comparison.

Or to simplify it, the reason people are able to find objects in cloud shapes is because they know what the objects normally look like and as such can imagine other things in such away.

Before the dawn of the modern UFO age, ie: pre kenneth arnold, no one would make such claims because they lacked the frame of reference. It is only because people have a mental picture of what a grey is to look like, what saucers look like, what modern machines look like that they are able to go back and say of ancient art things like

"Oh, this painting looks like a man in a rocket" "this trinket looks like a airplane!" etc etc. It is a mistake to do so, because you are judging these things by a context that did not exist to the original creators of said ancient art, and therein lies the fallacy in all of these ancient anomaly scenarios.

But... surely, you can apply things from a modern context BECAUSE we know back then said context should not exist in ancient art? If we see artefacts shaped like F-16 fighter planes, should we not question why an ancient piece of art is depicting such a craft? Why would an artist be able to imagine such a construct that clearly could not exist? Not even in someones imagination. We are able to imagine things in a modern time, things that are out of this world because we have a fundamental grasp on the way the world works, the way the laws of physics operate. Back then, why would anyone even dream of flying craft, strange sights in the sky, unexplained anamolies unless the event/sighting ACTUALLY happened? I see alot of these pictures and I do wonder, "is this not just a depiction of a spirit or an angel, maybe their god?" but their similiarities to modern day sightings and depictions of UFO's is just too much of a coincidence to ignore solely on supposed context of the time the piece was painted/drawn/enscribed.

Of course, maybe I just read what you said wrong and I apologise if you meant something else but thats just my own two cents.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 05:28 PM by minortimes

reply to post by CHA0S

Great post, thank you for the photos!!

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 08:52 PM by Harte

Originally posted by openmind444
reply to post by Harte

Or are you just trying to be a self-righteous, arrogant, "I will speak for everyone, because I have all the answers" dick? Just wondering, because I don't know you and that is the way that you come across, that seems logical enough for me.

What seems logical enough for you is actual nonsense to thinking people. If you want to believe that I care to "speak for everyone," go ahead and believe what you want. It's obvious that you do that anyway, in the face of facts to the contrary.