Debunking "UFO's" in Biblical Paintings

reply to post by Maroboduus


It's the logic that you are using, that confuses me. Angels sitting on clouds means that's what the picture is! Thats so bland, what is an angel? Why does it have wings? Why is it depicted flying on a cloud if it has wings to fly? Why do some of the things you say are luminous clouds look more like holes in the cloud letting light shine through and some clearly look more like something solid, I thought they had to follow doctrine but some pictures are showing holes with light and some are very solid looking clouds? How did they get away with this blasphemy?

Anyways, i promise from this point forward to quit arguing and stick to posting more examples and explanations. Sincere apologies for repeatedly getting sidetracked with petty arguments.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

It's the logic that you are using, that confuses me. Angels sitting on clouds means that's what the picture is! Thats so bland,

Best spice it up with some UFO mystery, eh?

Originally posted by Maroboduus

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".

That's basically exactly it, to be honest.
Only in those days, if you didn't do what you were told, you were branded as a heretic and probably killed. That's just the way things were in those times. That's exactly what i've been trying to explain.

When they commissioned you to depict a certain Biblical event, you weren't free to choose HOW to depict it. You had to do it exactly as the Church wanted, exactly according to the accepted church symbolism of that time and place, or you were committing heresy.

There was no way around it.
Paint a UFO where you're supposed to paint a cloud, or paint a flying disc where you were supposed to paint a dove within a circle of light, or paint flying saucers where you're supposed to paint clouds dropping snow, and you were forfeiting your life by committing heresy. It was as simple as that.

So my question is what are they really? It's obvious the church want us to think they are clouds, but what where the beings really and what are the clouds really... Don't tell me, angels, just like the picture. The art is more conciouse and cryptic than that.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
Anyways, i promise from this point forward to quit arguing and stick to posting more examples and explanations. Sincere apologies for repeatedly getting sidetracked with petty arguments.

Hang on your not answering my questions, lol. I'm not trying to argue, honest, like I said, what you are saying is what a priest would say, is this a lesson on the doctrine of riligious art,or are you debunking UFO's in religious art?

Originally posted by Unity_99
community-2.webtv.net...

"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.

yes citing other ancient documents of Hindu, Mayan, Vedic, Greek, Buddhist, Enoch and I would also include Sumar, would tend to lend a supportive hand.

In the Literal Translation, Mauro Biglino points out that the Hebrew language did not exist in the time of Moses, and that it consists only of consonants, and placement of vowels changes word meanings, so 70 different translations are possible, but there are default words, that come from more ancient places and literature from other places that link words, or define them. Elohim and Annanuki for example.

Ruach which after many many years became associated with God's Spirit, in Genesis, God's Spirit upon the water, which is a Sumar word, that depicts something hovering over the water creating wind.

From my thread here and quote from the video's translated of Mauro Biglino's lecture.

Mauro Biglino: Unexpected Bible - Translating it literally (1 of 6) - Eng. subs


www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

The reason there are depictions of ufo's in the artwork is because there are ufo's depicted in the bible and the Vatican even has this information buried in its texts.

And Mauro Biglino was credentialed in the thread as well.

Best post on this thread!

The U.F.O.'s are in these paintings not because they saw U.F.O.'s, they were just capturing the imagery from the Bible. This actually makes it even more powerful.

If you look at all the mentions of swift clouds that take people up into the cloud. The Bible says God rides on a swift cloud. When Jesus returns he will be with clouds. You have Ezekiel, chariots of fire and when people saw angels some of them were frightened at first just like people who describe close encounters.

I think the Bible is describing interactions between the Ancients and an advanced civilization.

reply to post by Wifibrains


Why wouldn't it be angels, if the picture is about angels?

If you're asking what actually happened in the story they're depicting... it's the bible.

Originally posted by Wifibrains

Originally posted by Maroboduus
Anyways, i promise from this point forward to quit arguing and stick to posting more examples and explanations. Sincere apologies for repeatedly getting sidetracked with petty arguments.

Hang on your not answering my questions, lol. I'm not trying to argue, honest, like I said, what you are saying is what a priest would say, is this a lesson on the doctrine of riligious art,or are you debunking UFO's in religious art?

edit on 7-9-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

Here's what i'm doing....

Time and time and time again, i see these exact paintings cited as evidence of UFO's, or that aliens were directly involved in Biblical events.
Not once have i seen the people making these claims provide context for the artwork.
Their "evidence" basically equates to:
"Look at this painting, consider it completely out of context, and now look at that thing; kind of looks like a UFO, huh?"


I am providing context. I am explaining what each of these paintings was actually depicting; the people, the places, the events, the Biblical passages. I am explaining the accepted religious symbolism of the time period. I am explaining the interaction between the artists who were commissioned to do these works, and the church that commissioned them. I am explaining the religious atmosphere of the time, the strict guidelines that had to be adhered to, and the consequences for not following those guidelines.

The people selling you the idea that these are UFO's are profiting from that idea, and providing little to no evidence or context.
I derive no benefit. I make no profit. I provide ample context and evidence. I simply wanted to share information so that people could understand these paintings more clearly, and understand what they were truly trying to depict and why.
Which of us do you think is being truthful?

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

Do you have any links or material covering the specifications that you could share?

I'd like to do some research myself as well.

Try this one for starters "http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm"

Thoroughly enjoyed your thread, I've learned something new about these pictures.

I'm sceptical when it comes to UFOs in general, but the historical paintings depicting what looks like UFOs has always fascinated me.

After reading your thread I have a better understanding of how art was done in these periods, and I can actually see what is really depicted.

Nice to see a new member on ATS who actually contributes something useful and informative, too many trolls as of late.

On that note, keep a cool head with some of the people who are clearly trying to wind you up, and/or put you down because your explanations don't fit their small way of thinking.

Keep up the good threads.

I've found most of these supposed UFO paintings by searching ancient alien and UFO sites such as these:

www.neoseeker.com...

www.in5d.com...

www.bibleufo.com...


I'll get to more of those examples in a bit. In the meantime, if anybody has any specific painting/engravings/etc. they would like me to cover, let me know.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Honestly, I hear what you are saying. But you are taking the context from literal meanings of something maliable.

To come from heaven is to come from above, the world is round so to come from above means to come from space, now explaine the pictures in this context... Do you see what I'm saying?

The people selling you the idea that these are UFO's are profiting from that idea, and providing little to no evidence or context. I derive no benefit. I make no profit. I provide ample context and evidence. I simply wanted to share information so that people could understand these paintings more clearly, and understand what they were truly trying to depict and why.

Selling me this idea? How much have I spent? Not a penny to my knowledge, how much is made from selling these as " angels on clouds"? Much more. but what they represent are words, passages, stories of Devine beings coming from space spreading the Devine message of the Devine creator. Why would they not be et? The word extra terrestrial means not from earth, angels are from heaven, not from earth, back then we used to call them angels, but times change, the churches are not as powerfull as they used to be and may have been corrupted since this time. Now we call those that come from space ETs. The paintings and words still tell the same story, we just have a broader understanding now. Or where there really angels on clouds? Playing harps, what does the angel and harp represent?

It may not be UFO's if you want my take on it, it could represent Devine energy that brings about change to humanity, via love and peace hence the doves and dove wing people, symbolically. Hence the harps, trumpets, wands ect. To aim this harmonious energy, these pictures could be depicting a future event, ties in with 2012 nicely. The harmonics is symbolic to our current understanding of reality. are tthese Angels or guiding us, via the harmonics of our conciousness? I have many questions becouse I'll admit. "I don't know" all you know is the doctrin of the bible and are touting it as truth. If just by chance even, these pictures are relevant to today... How would you look at them?

Originally posted by trisvonbis
Do you have any links or material covering the specifications that you could share?

I'd like to do some research myself as well.

What exactly are you looking for?
For information about art in the Middle Ages, and the interaction between the church and the artists, any comprehensive study of the Middle Ages should do. "A World Lit Only by Fire" immediately jumps to mind as one that is fairly comprehensive and informative, without being overly dense.
Any number of books about Medieval art, or religion in the Middle Ages, should also do the job.
Art history books that cover that time period are also nice.
For symbolism, any academic work concerning Semiotics is very interesting. Umberto Eco has a large number of academic works about Semiotics.

Googling "UFO's in Biblical paintings" brings up a ton of stuff, almost all of which cite these same pictures i have used (which is obviously why i chose them).
From there, it's easy to find information.
Get the name of the piece of art, do some research on it, find out what it is depicting, search for other paintings from the same time period that depict the same event, and off you go.
It's also easy to find better images than the ones cited as evidence, when applicable. It's just that they conveniently ignore the better images in order to maintain the illusion that whatever is depicted is a UFO.
A simple Google image search for "close-up of 'The Annunciation,' for example, will immediately bring up the clearer image of the "glowing disc/cloud of angels" that i used earlier.
Once you know the symbolism that was commonly used at that specific time period, there really isn't much mystery left. Just a matter of examining the image, referencing the symbolism used for that specific event, and putting the pieces together.

Trust me, it isn't hard to find this information, so long as you actually make an attempt. It's just that the people making these claims either never made that attempt, or they just blatantly chose to ignore the facts....

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

Honestly, I hear what you are saying. But you are taking the context from literal meanings of something maliable.

To come from heaven is to come from above, the world is round so to come from above means to come from space, now explaine the pictures in this context... Do you see what I'm saying?

edit on 7-9-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

True. These could be depictions of hats thrown into the air to hoax UFOs. Perhaps the religious meanining is lost because people confuse UFO's and hats. If these are in fact space hats then Jesus may be an alien.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Nice description and explanations! It's too bad some people believe they are spaceships over stylistic contexts in art. I guess if that means they are denying ignorance and having an "open" mind, then fantastic for them.

I wondered the same about most of those paintings, but never looked into it deep enough to explore the different styles.

Thank you for providing me with information, to form a more reasonable opinion.

reply to post by Wifibrains


I think you're arguing a point that isn't really relevant in this thread. You're saying the OP's description of the paintings is accurate and that what they're painting is coming from texts which themselves describe aliens, correct?

That's not really the scope of this thread, if I understand it correctly. The point of this thread is to explain objects that are commonly cited when using ancient art as evidence of aliens. Ancient art is depicting angels, God, Jesus, and so on, and if angels, God, Jesus and so on are aliens then you're absolutely correct. However, the general consensus when using these pieces of art as evidence for aliens is they are physically painted to depict aliens, rather than as symbolic to describe holy events.

Whether or not the holy events they're depicting are aliens... that's being debated as well, but it probably shouldn't be discussed here, at the risk of derailing the original intent of this thread.

Originally posted by Maroboduus

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".

That's basically exactly it, to be honest.
Only in those days, if you didn't do what you were told, you were branded as a heretic and probably killed. That's just the way things were in those times. That's exactly what i've been trying to explain.

When they commissioned you to depict a certain Biblical event, you weren't free to choose HOW to depict it. You had to do it exactly as the Church wanted, exactly according to the accepted church symbolism of that time and place, or you were committing heresy.

There was no way around it.
Paint a UFO where you're supposed to paint a cloud, or paint a flying disc where you were supposed to paint a dove within a circle of light, or paint flying saucers where you're supposed to paint clouds dropping snow, and you were forfeiting your life by committing heresy. It was as simple as that.

Just stop already, you missed my point about ten blocks back.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


Well the title says debunking UFO's in biblical paintings, I'm saying that can't be done as the paintings are depicting UFO/flying scaucer, Devine beings, angels aliens ETs. Not all, like the hat, and sun and moon. But beings riding down on clouds,? He says they are not UFO they are clouds..... You cannot stand on a cloud, the cloud itself in those pics is symbolic for what we would call today a UFO. What am I missing. Back then it was angels, what would we call them now? ETs. Coming down in crafts, because we now know what a craft is. Back then it would have been a mechanicle cloud, but they didn't know what machanics where back then so it was painted/written as a cloud.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by EsSeeEye

 

Well the title says debunking UFO's in biblical paintings, I'm saying that can't be done as the paintings are depicting UFO/flying scaucer, Devine beings, angels aliens ETs. Not all, like the hat, and sun and moon. But beings riding down on clouds,? He says they are not UFO they are clouds..... You cannot stand on a cloud, the cloud itself in those pics is symbolic for what we would call today a UFO. What am I missing. Back then it was angels, what would we call them now? ETs. Coming down in crafts, because we now know what a craft is. Back then it would have been a mechanicle cloud, but they didn't know what machanics where back then so it was painted/written as a cloud.

I honestly believe that people could of had "visions" of angles on clouds. I am certain people hallucinated in biblical times. Perhaps these are symbolic representations of "visions". Or they could be aliens on mechanical robot cloud things. It is really a coin toss