This is old.
Isn't there a post here about this already? Maybe I read it somewhere else a long time ago, and 90% of the explanations did make sense. There was that 10% that you would say, "No, that explanation doesn't really fit with what we are looking at."

Crap Italian sounding voice:

Artist: "Sos you wanna biga cloud, witha fantastico illuminations?"

Customer: "No I want a golden disc with four poles of light shining directly down onto Jesus! Because that's what was there!"

Artist: "Buta ita donna looka likea cloud"

Customer: "Well, that's how it looked like in my eyes"

Artist: "Ok mista, you da bossa, Goldens dics it is"

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Crap Italian sounding voice:

Artist: "Sos you wanna biga cloud, witha fantastico illuminations?"

Customer: "No I want a golden disc with four poles of light shining directly down onto Jesus! Because that's what was there!"

Artist: "Buta ita donna looka likea cloud"

Customer: "Well, that's how it looked like in my eyes"

Artist: "Ok mista, you da bossa, Goldens dics it is"

Yes, because we all know that everything depicted in paintings exactly resembles real life. There is no such thing as stylization or symbolism. Do i really need to start posting pictures of other paintings from that era that depict non-religious events, and point out all of the things that don't look completely realistic?

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
No, it represented a glowing disc?

Mate, apples are apples?

Sorry, sometimes i forget that there is no such thing as symbolism in artwork. Especially religious artwork depicting otherworldly events with no realistic template on which to base them....

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Alright, i'll tackle this one, although there really isn't much to it.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you haven't actually bothered to learn anything about this painting or what it depicts, as you would rather cling to your fantasy than be bothered by something as inconvenient as facts. So allow me to explain.

This is "The Founding of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore," also known as "The Miracle of Snow." It is depicting a specific event known at the time, obviously, as The Miracle of Snow.

The man in the front is Pope Liberius. The event in question is a legend surrounding him and the founding of the church.

According to this legend, there was an elderly couple who lived in this area. They desired to do something to honor God, and prayed for guidance as to what they should do.
The Virgin Mary appeared to them in the sky, and she told them that wherever snow fell the next day, they should build a church.
The next morning, despite the fact that it was August, snow fell in that town.
They went to tell Pope Liberius, and holy cow, he had a similar vision! Angels had appeared and told him to build a church in the place of a forthcoming miraculous snowfall!
So the Pope outlined the area for the church (which is what he is doing in this painting), and the elderly couple paid for it. This became such a popular story that for some time it was celebrated as a holiday.

So, Mary appeared in the sky, told them to build a church where it snowed, and then it snowed.

So here we have Mary and Jesus appearing in the sky. This is obviously depicted in this painting where they appear in the sky in a circle. Immediately below them (i hope we can all agree on this) is a cloud.

So what of the "mysterious" objects floating behind them? Well, it seems fairly obvious to me that they resemble the cloud in the foreground, only with less detail due to their distance and smaller size.


But just for the hell of it, let's zoom in on these mysterious objects and see what we find:



Wow! Little white dots are falling from the objects! Almost like, like...snow!
And snow happens to fall from clouds!

So, in a painting depicting an event in which there was a "miraculous" snowfall, there are white objects in the sky from which small white dots like snow seem to be falling!
It's almost like those are supposed to be clouds, and it really is supposed to be snowing! Just like in the events the painting is supposed to depict!
Will wonders never cease??? Truly a strange coincidence!

Next up:

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

This is the Baptism of Christ. Let's look at the passage this is supposed to be depicting:

I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.

and, lo, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Like a dove. This is always phrased in this manner,

Once again, just for the heck of it, let's see what happens when we take a closer look at the "UFO"


What's that in the middle of the UFO? It's almost shaped like a bird.
Heck, may as well take an even closer look:



Wow! It IS a dove! In a painting an event wherein God descended "like a dove!" What a coincidence! And here, i didn't even realize doves could fly UFO's!

Or is it simply a disc of light which symbolizes the heavens opening, and God descending like a dove? That couldn't be it.

Besides, if my stupid "theory" about specific religious symbolism was actually true, other paintings from this tradition would have similar imagery.
Oh, wait a second....









Well, I'll be!!!!

No wait, let me guess...those aren't depictions of doves, they are actually winged UFO's...

One of my favourite paintings by Piero Della Francesca, in about 1450, now at the National Gallery in London .........

Just love the saucer shaped clouds in the sky..........

[

Nice thread, nice clear work!

I do not want to debate this as personnal reality comes into it.

One thing though.

"You're right, that can't possibly be a luminous loud like every other depiction of this same event from this same tradition. Must be a UFO... "

I hate to spoil it, so much of what you have said is eminently logical but 'a luminous cloud shooting rays towards the ground is in fact a flying object and it is unidentified so it must by pure logic be a UFO.

God was not born on Earth and neither were the heavenly hosts and by the purist of meanings they are in fact extra-terrestrials or Aliens.

God is an Alien by definition, luminous clouds are flying objects that some would say are unidentified.

Having said my piece, nice work on the obvious sun and moon depictions.

Both sides of this debate are suffering from all or nothing thinking. Happens a lot on ATS.

P

PS. Why is Jesus so white in these paintings, he is almost like an Albino. He was in fact from a section of our race that are quite dark skinned. These depictions may not be all that accurate.

Just wanted to say great thread! Your explanations make too much sense. Sorry too many people can't get out of the religious side of the paintings or the "it's a ufo, it's the only explanation" side of it.

But don't let them spoil the thread. I hope you have more to post as this is very interesting!

Bottom line -- there is solid evidence for aerial craft of various types in the bible and other religious and historical traditions all over the world, and aerial objects of religious significance are a recurring theme for this very reason plus the fact that they have been continuously observed throughout history.

interstellar and/or interdimensional, they are quite reality based, and will, of course, be stylized by artists according to the custom of one's particular culture or convention. But all derive from real events.

remember the cigar shaped craft that remained continuously with moses and his party in the desert, permitting their survival?

virgin birth = artificial insemination, resulting in a superior, or superhuman, being.

all the great ancient cultures tell the same story about sky gods descending and teaching them advanced scientific principles. But, of course, they were all lying or hallucinating.

have you gotten to your explanation for vimanas in ancient hindu texts about nuclear wars? guss what, there are areas identified today in that region where the earth shows signs of artificial vitrification.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Really not much to this one, either. Really not worth bothering with, but the irony of the answer in relation to your mocking post will be amusing.

And yet again, it would do wonders if you researched who/what/where these paintings were depicting.

This is a tapestry titled La La Vie Da Le Vierge. Of key importance is the fact that it hangs in a church in Beaune, France. Also of key importance is that it was commissioned by Cardinal Jean Rolin.

The city in the background is Beaune, which was Jean Rolin's diocese at the time he commissioned this tapestry (he later moved to another diocese).

It was a common artistic practice at that time to signify ownership of a city or castle by portraying a possession associated with the owner in the sky directly above that city or castle, in close proximity to it.
Hmmm, i wonder what symbol was associated with Cardinal Jean Rolin, the guy who commissioned the painting and oversaw that particular diocese depicted in the background?
If only there was another painting of him which would let us know....



Hey look! There's a hat floating above him!

So, it was common to symbolize ownership by portraying something associated with the owner in the sky above the area in question, and Rolin was apparently associated with his ecclesiastical hat.
Let's look at the original painting again:



Gee, you were right...it DOES look like a hat, doesn't it??? What a coincidence....



Also note this other painting you tried to mock me with...
Three diocese, as symbolized by the three different flags which depict the heraldry of whoever "rules/owns" that diocese.
Floating above each diocese/heraldry.... a floating ecclesiastical hat, signifying the ownership of that diocese by the family represented in the heraldry beside it:

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Originally posted by KaosVox
Also, just because someone belonged to a certain religion/culture doesn't mean we should assume they FOLLOWED every standard/rule when it came to art.

Then i'm assuming that you don't know very much about the Church in the Middle Ages. They weren't exactly lenient in these matters.

If you were commissioned by a clergyman to do a painting, you didn't choose whether to follow the standards and rules. You either followed them, or you were excommunicated or killed.


So when they asked you to depict, say, The Announcement to the Shepherds, you had two choices:

A) depict it strictly according to the accepted and established religious symbolism of the time (man gazing up at luminous cloud) and get paid, or
B) add your own flourishes and interpretations (like, say, UFO's) and either be excommunicated or killed.

It wasn't a matter of choice. Which i've tried to explain numerous times, and which certain people still can't seem to grasp for some odd reason.

The problem is, some of you seem to be thinking of art and painting according to modern terms, where artists are free to paint whatever they want however they want. That is not only a huge mistake, it is patently absurd.

The fact of the matter is, art was much different in those times. Painters primarily got paid either by being commissioned to do portraits, or by being commissioned by the church or a clergyman to do religious paintings.

If they were commissioned by the church/clergy to do religious paintings, they HAD to follow accepted Church guidelines and accepted Church symbolism. There was no choice. As i said, to do otherwise was basically to forfeit your life. They were searching for heresy at every turn. People were burned at the stake simply for wearing the wrong clothes on the wrong day.

To depict Biblical events in any other way other than the accepted symbolism of the church was considered heresy, and was tantamount to suicide.

(Should this be in the "Religious Conspiracies," "Mysterious Subjects," or one of the Conspiracy forums instead of this one? I feel as i more people would notice it on those forums....)

Oh poor OP.. I honestly feel pretty bad for you.
I've just read every page of this thread, and I've been laughing most of the way.
You probably have the most clear, concise, logical explanations that I've ever heard. I truly mean it. I can tell that you are well educated, and that you know what you are talking about. I can tell that you have thoroughly researched the topics, and you are very well versed in them.
It's hilarious to see you make such a clear point, backed with plenty of evidence, just to be shot down by stupid people who come up with such illogical responses.
Then, what's worse is that you try to re-explain it again to them in an even MORE clear way, and they still don't get it! You're responses are just riddled with sarcasm, and it kept me laughing the whole way. I was just thinking, wow, how much clearer and step-by-step can this guy explain these things?

Anyways, you've definitely converted me. I've always thought that these religious paintings depicted ufo's. I entered the thread thinking okay let's see what kind of baloney this guy is going to have. Instead, you presented a list of pure facts that, once the background story of the paintings and symbolism is explained, are really irrefutable. I appreciate the time you put into this thread. Thanks.

Thank you for explaining these paintings. Like you I decided there must be life somewhere else in the universe. And while I would like to believe we have been visited, I have yet to find proof. That said you explained the painting logically which is as it should be. To those giving you grief that just their way of saying that they are hard nuts to crack.... Or just morons.
For me your explanation cleared a few "to do's" off my list. Many other things within a multitude of cultures will keep me busy pondering the mysteries. For me this group is case closed.. Well maybe not that one with the hundreds of ships fighting above Nurenberg(sp). My understanding was that there is also a wood carved relief made by another source of the age.

Can't wait to see how it is explained.. Therian

Originally posted by thegrayone
This is old.
Isn't there a post here about this already? Maybe I read it somewhere else a long time ago, and 90% of the explanations did make sense. There was that 10% that you would say, "No, that explanation doesn't really fit with what we are looking at."

Paintings and UFOs etc in paintings have been discussed a few times, but I actually really like this thread.

Solid write ups, something to really discuss, and if there is a real UFO in a painting somewhere this would be a fantastic way to narrow it down and find the most compelling objects. It's like the moon landing threads ... we likely have a few sacks of those.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
How about the so-called "Sputnik" painting?

This is often described, as i said, as being a depiction of a Sputnik-like satellite of UFO, complete with two "antennas."

Note that we have Jesus, God, and a dove. This is how the Holy Trinity was often depicted, with the Holy Ghost taking the form of a dove.
Two other things were also common in paintings of the Holy Trinity: God and/or Jesus holding the Celestial Sphere which represents the universe, and Jesus and/or God holding wands.
A common characteristic of the Celestial Sphere is that the Sun is sometimes visible on it, as are lines representing the lines of longitude and latitude.
The Sphere AND wands being held by Jesus and/or God are not ALWAYS present together, although usually they are. But at least some of these characteristics were almost always present.

In the "Sputnik" painting, we simply have a case where the position in which God and Jesus are holding their wands makes it appear as if the wands are projecting from the sphere itself.

Other examples:

Celestial Sphere present, God holding wand:

God holding celestial sphere, both holding wands:

Sphere present, both holding wands:

Sphere and wand:

Sphere, no wand:

edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)

Your not doing any debunking! Your stating what's in the picture, lol, the pictures are more than a snapshot! What's the story?

Scratches head, your doing it again on the next one. Announcement from who, who is the Shepard depicting? The governments leading the Sheeple perhaps? What is a luminous cloud representing? My friend you are doing nothing but staing the obvious. Look abit deeper, you can, your sopposed too.

All these paintings are sopposed to be from biblicle events, painted by biblicly trained artists. How is the bible sopposed to be interpreted? By the individual, it has different metaphoricle meanings for different people... So then.... So would the paintings, no? What you are stating it seem to me, is that these painting and the bible are to be taken only literally and have no other meanings, no hidden, subliminal, metaphoricle meanings have any significance. It's exactly how it says in the bible and nothing else, just the black n white. I think they got you, what's the word...abduction.

The bible and the painting mean much more than the words and colours say(I think)
I dare you to challenge yourself to read and interpret it differently to what you think now! It can be done in many ways, not just the religious way.

The fact of the matter is, art was much different in those times. Painters primarily got paid either by being commissioned to do portraits, or by being commissioned by the church or a clergyman to do religious paintings. If they were commissioned by the church/clergy to do religious paintings, they HAD to follow accepted Church guidelines and accepted Church symbolism. There was no choice. As i said, to do otherwise was basically to forfeit your life. They were searching for heresy at every turn. People were burned at the stake simply for wearing the wrong clothes on the wrong day. To depict Biblical events in any other way other than the accepted symbolism of the church was considered heresy, and was tantamount to suicide.

Religious fanatics, extreaminst, indoctrinating the minds of the creative, "get in the box"