posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Shamatt
I couldn't say exatly what this is, but those very stupid examples of what it myght be from the sceptics really bug me. What is it with these people
that they have to make up such incredibly unreasonable stories? A mushroom for gods sake? Are these people really so afraid of what the truth may be
that they are willing to look like fools suggesting that these unexplained things are so mundane, and so very completely unlikely? They ust be
I don't know what is on the cion, but if I had to make a guess I would say it was a representation of the flying shield. Seems most likely. Although
I would rather think it was a UFO, I don't see any corroborating evidence in history which would surly exists if a UFO event big enough for this type
of coin to be minted had occured.
This response isn't necessarily aimed at you Shamatt, but your post holds relevance to my forthcoming words so i quoted.
The thing that confuses me, and i may be wrong in assuming this, is that when people refer to the flying shield, they write it off as myth or in other
words: not a UFO. We can get so lost in the literalism of words that we forget the other part, cognitive. Every noun is just a word, assigned by
to refer to an object with particular adjectives, which are also just man's
words. So now that we know this why do we read any
ancient text or evidence in a litteral form (the Bible included)? Surely we cannot understand the cognitive purpose of the language in a "definite"
manner as none of us were alive to feel the cognitive relevance of the words.
Going from here, could the "flying shield" not be a ufo? Think about why they would use these words.
Flying: quite obvious, I doubt an explanation is necessary.
Sheild: v. to protect. or n. an object that protects.
So this object is one that can fly, and one that protects something. Surely a UFO of extraterrestrial origin would protect its occupants from anything
the Romans or any "civilized" society would have had at the time.