It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"For now, I believe that it is safe to say that UFOs appear to be more of a problem for the Judeo-Christian tradition. Most scientific and religious literature in the West does not address the issue of UFOs. On this both science and religion agree: UFOs are a drunken relative that we would well never to speak of in public," writes Rev. Carter (page 100).
Before Rev. Downing, now a retired Presbyterian minister in Endwell, N.Y., first brought the subject up in his 1968 book, republished in 1998, clergy were openly involved in UFO investigations and sightings. A clergy member served 45 years ago on the board of directors of pioneering NICAP, the National Investigations Committee of Aerial Phenomenon. The Rev. William Gill, an Anglican priest, along with other witnesses at is mission, saw and communicated with hand-waving UFO entities over Boi-ni in Papua, New Guinea on June 26, 1959, a famous sighting report.
Bringing the issue into the public arena, Rev. Carter writes, "The UFO phenomenon must force us to rethink our concept of the sacred," asking us to "open ourselves to endless possibilities" and to consider that "the questions are much more important than the answers."
In raising this, Rev. Carter, a comparitive religion student, also cites Hindu, Mayan, Vedic, Greek and Buddhist text and sources, among others, including the Book of Enoch, excluded from the Bible like the Gnostic texts.
Roughly 11 11 in the video.
(At 11 14, it shows this craft, and wind RU and A. I suppose it could be an acorn wearing a strangely bent streamlined helm or something like that. Hmmmm......) me lol.
--He says, because the word isn't Jewish, but Sumerian origin.
--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.
So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.
---As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.
If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.
---The ones of you that just saw that stuff now will realize that it's an unknown thing that hovers on the water.
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Now the OP seems to think that they're all explainable in some way, shape or form which they are clearly not. Secondly, due to the OP not answering my question on his stance on UFOs, I would have to question the true motives of this thread
I still see there has been no explanation offered for the Nuremberg carving of 1561 either.edit on 7-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Yeah, this thread confuses me. Let's all take a step back for a minute. None of these paintings were done by artists that actually "saw" any of this. Each painting is based on biblical events that were supposed to have occurred years and years and years earlier.
There are at least two fallacies here:
1) People arguing that the OP can't know what the artists were thinking or trying to convey... As the OP has nicely explained and demonstrated, there were strict guidelines in place that determined how certain events were supposed to be depicted. Again, the artists aren't depicting what they personally saw. However...
2) The OP claiming that there is no mystery here because the actual depictions are exactly what they seem to be... While the OP can explain which events are portrayed a certain way, he does nothing to explain why those events are portrayed that way in the first place. It's kind of like this:
Person A: "THERE'S A UFO IN THIS PAINTING!"
Person B: "No, it's a luminous cloud with two circles of angels in it shooting a beam of light down to the Earth."
Person A: "Oh OK, that explains everything!"
The real question here is why?
[The previous does not apply to the painting of the red hat with tassles. That one is stupid to argue, as the OP mentioned.]
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
No, you didn't explain in full detail, you gave your theories on what you thought they all meant.
Originally posted by TurkeyTots
2) The OP claiming that there is no mystery here because the actual depictions are exactly what they seem to be... While the OP can explain which events are portrayed a certain way, he does nothing to explain why those events are portrayed that way in the first place.
Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Maroboduus
That "disc" could also just be a gateway to heaven. It doesn't really look like a disc anyways. Just sayin
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Ahhh, so you don't believe the UFO phenomenon is real then?
Looks like someone hasn't weighed up all the evidence properly.edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)
you are just another brick in the wall of the deluded imaginary world of space aliens. You are all the evidence I need.edit on 6-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)
I never even said aliens and nor would I, huge difference between UFOs and aliens mate.
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And when the term "UFO" is used it means UNIDENTIFIED. The Op may believe it's a cloud, however some of these objects look nothing like clouds.
Originally posted by Maroboduus
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Maroboduus
Thanks for answering. I have to admit, you make a convincing case with the paintings... Are you saying, in summary that not only are these examples not depictions of ufo's, but that you also don't even believe they exist?
Not necessarily. I believe 100% that there are other lifeforms in the universe.
But as for UFO's visiting Earth...i must admit, i'm still undecided. I keep an open mind about it, but i feel no need to jump to conclusions one way or the other. Not until i finally see something that convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt, one way or the other. I just don't feel the need to immediately formulate answers to every question/mystery without proof. Nothing wrong with mystery.
I would like to think we have been visited by UFO's, if for no other reason than it would make life seem a bit more interesting and mysterious. But at the same time, i have yet to find evidence that convinces me entirely.
Originally posted by Wifibrains
But scince the hat, all the other explanations have been pretty weak, a luminouse cloudwith angels being the gospel for what actualy happened sounds as ludicrous as a UFO, depending from what side of the fence you are looking, and so do the words in the book for that matter.
Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.
Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.
Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.
In typical religious fashion, "do as you're told".