Ancient UFO Depiction Discovered in Romanian Monastery Painting?

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded


What? Did you even compare the painting to the coin? Why is the shield on the painting not circular in shape? It is on the coin, which you suggest the artist duplicated.. I disagree

And why would he not had have access to a shield for reference? If not an accurate one, any shield would do.

I can't really understand why I'm having to explain this to someone who claims to be some kind of expert on art, but it's called "perspective". When a 3-dimensional disk-shaped object is rendered from an angle, it will appear as an ellipse.

I am an artist myself, and before the internet, yea even in the last days of the 20th century, it was difficult for me to find suitable material for reference. I contend that it would be even harder back in the 1500s. And "any shield" would NOT do, if the artist was trying to depict one in the same style as on the coin - which quite possibly could have been his only reference.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


I'll readily agree that it bears a resemblance to a shield... but what does that mean?

...

It could very well be that the jetons and the painting all depict Numa's mythological shield falling to Earth (or a Christian adaptation) but then again, it might be something else entirely.

It's also plausible that it is intended to bear a resemblance to a shield AND its also a depiction of an event that is NOT mythological in nature.

I do completely agree with the possibilities here. By no means am I 'dismissing' this as unimportant. After doing a bit of research on other old pieces with objects in the sky, I came to the conclusion that several of those were also depicting shields.

Instead of being disappointed, my thoughts swayed back in the direction you're talking about. Kind of full-circle. I feel like a tiny portion of the puzzle has been solved.

I believe it is entirely possible that this symbolism was inspired by an 'unexplainable' event.

btw, you can find the same shield on the Prodigiorum Liber image and on 16th century french coins called Jetsons. So imo it's fairly obvious that the original image is indeed deplicting a shield.

Check this out:

commons.wikimedia.org...:English_-_Gun_Shield_-_Walters_511414.jpg



From the period, 12 lobed segments, and a source of a fiery blast at the center.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
btw, you can find the same shield on the Prodigiorum Liber image and on 16th century french coins called Jetsons. So imo it's fairly obvious that the original image is indeed deplicting a shield.

The Prodigiorum Liber is the only known work of Julius Obsequens, a Roman author who is believed to have lived in the 4th century AD. Everything in it was taken from the annals of the Roman historian Livy. It's basically a book of signs and wonders that occurred within the Roman empire, 249 BC-12 BC. The illustration you've referenced is from a medieval (renaissance-era) edition. As far as I know, the passage that it depicts is as follows:

in Latin:

45. C. Mario L. Valerio coss. AUC 654/100 BC

fax ardens Tarquiniis late visa subito lapsu cadens. sub occasu solis orbis clipei similis ab occidente ad orientem visus perferri. in Piceno terrae motu domicilia ruinis prostrata, quaedam convulsa sede sua inclinata manserunt. fremitus armorum ex inferno auditus. quadrigae auratae in foro a pedibus sudaverunt. fugitivi in Sicilia proeliis trucidati.

The English translation of the line bolded line is:

"When C. Murius and L. Valerius were consuls, in Tarquinia towards sunset, a round object, like a globe, a round or circular shield, took its path in the sky from west to east."

Not symbolic. It's meant to be a literal account of round object that moved across the sky. Do the jetons also depict this? I don't know, but a common interpretation is that they actually depict a shield gifted to Numa, legendary 2nd King of Rome, by Jupiter, falling from the sky. If that's the case, those items are not depictions of the same thing.

My personal belief, is that the painting may actually be a depiction of an account from the Annales Laurissenses maiores (Royal Frankish Annales) (MGH SRG 6, p. 44) about flying shields over a church in the year 776 AD:

"...and the same day, while they [the Saxons] were preparing for another assault against the Christians who were living in the castle, the glory of God manifested itself above the church inside the fortress. Those who were watching in the square outside - many of which still live today - said that they saw something resembling two large flaming shields of reddish color moving above the church itself."

Again, a shield-shaped object in the sky. There are several other references to such things in the historical record. An artist depicting any of these scenes would draw a shield because that's how they were described (perceived by witnesses) and it has zilch to do with symbolism.

a reply to: draknoir2

That's actually a 16th century gun-shield from the armory of Henry VIII, possibly of Italian origin. (see here).

It does bear a passing resemblance but the fire emanates from the opposite side in the painting and if it's indeed a shield (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), it has a striker instead of a barrel so I'm assuming that's not what is depicted

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
What we really need here in this thread is not a historian or UFOlogist, but a true artist, to understand the artistic and symbolic approach behind the painting. lol

Dont think you read the entire thread so wont take offense, but I offered my opinion in the first couple of pages from an artistic pov. I've studied art and art history and have an artistic career, though I wont disclose much on this due to obvious privacy reasons regarding the stuff I write here and my private life...

I dont agree its a symbolic representation, i've studied symbolic art, seen plenty of stuff from the period, and the work that is similar to THIS painting imo is more representative of the retelling of a story, involving an object possibly a comet that caused destruction in the area and was seen by eyewitnesses over the building perhaps.


(Btw Id put more effort in posting sources or reference, but Im on an ipad and due to past experiences, i prefer not to get too involved in the digital universe anymore, i dont have a pc, I am a compulsive document photo and file hoarder and i prefer a simple device that simply cant handle my ocd side . Maybe I'll try to get some scans later and I've said earlier I would illustrate a symbolic shield that would have been much more convenient and plausible to have been used to show a symbolic shield.)

originally posted by: Teratoma

originally posted by: NoNameNeeded


What? Did you even compare the painting to the coin? Why is the shield on the painting not circular in shape? It is on the coin, which you suggest the artist duplicated.. I disagree

And why would he not had have access to a shield for reference? If not an accurate one, any shield would do.

I can't really understand why I'm having to explain this to someone who claims to be some kind of expert on art, but it's called "perspective". When a 3-dimensional disk-shaped object is rendered from an angle, it will appear as an ellipse.

I am an artist myself, and before the internet, yea even in the last days of the 20th century, it was difficult for me to find suitable material for reference. I contend that it would be even harder back in the 1500s. And "any shield" would NOT do, if the artist was trying to depict one in the same style as on the coin - which quite possibly could have been his only reference.

I cant really understand either, why you cant even bother to read a few of my posts, so Ill refer you to one in particular: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Indeed, when a 3d disk shaped object is rendered in perspective it will appear as an ellipse. Now tell me, fellow artist, is the technical sketch in the above post an ellipse? Is the object in the op painting an ellipse? No, they're both not, they are ELLIPTICAL yes, but they are not ellipses, which indicates the object in the op painting is not a circle and thus not a shield, or at least not a common or an easily identifiable one. Its a flower shape at best, and that is not a common design for a shield, nor would it be practical or even conceivable for the time, given the moulding technique required to form this kind of shield, thus resulting in a rare appearance, not something an artist would choose to represent something easily recognisable and thus, symbolic.

Oh and obviously you were not an artist in that era now were you? Id venture a guess (no I actually know, but you seem to doubt that, which is fine) the average artist that was capable of THIS back then was highly enough regarded to request a simple SHIELD from the people that ordered this piece from him.


Oh and if you seriously believe the artist was trying to depict the shield from the coin, its YOUR artistic expertise that is to be doubted. Please just explain then why the artist opted to leave out the DEFINING outer ring that makes the flower an actual circle? In the op painting, the outer circle that is clearly visible in the engraving on the coin, is NOT painted... Why?

I don't have an opinion on the UFO question, but as an artist; I know this:

When the aim is symbolism, the majority of the work is generally symbolic. It's a part of getting the point across.

For instance:

All of this work is symbolic:


If this is a shield, then only 10% of this work is symbolic:


Typically, more of the subject mater would be symbolic, if the goal of this work was to relay a symbolic message to it's viewers... Otherwise viewers would take this as a depiction of an actual event.

Lastly, a few rhetorical questions come to mind...

If this is a painting from the 1300's and is in German, why would the artist use Roman symbolism from the 6th century?

A one-off symbolic element that was relevant 600 years prior, inserted in an otherwise realistic current depiction?

Commissioned pop-art in a Monastery?

If most Roman shields were square (rectangle); then why would you paint a circle to represent a square? Wouldn't you paint a closer representation of a common shield - so people knew what you were trying to get across?

Maybe the 'shield' on the coin isn't a shield, of course the coin is hundreds of years before the painting.

Great thread, thanks.

originally posted by: Phage

Looking at the image, it's difficult to imagine what the painting could be depicting if not a spacecraft!

But with some understanding of mythology it is not so difficult. It is a representation of a mythical Roman shield which, in the middle ages, took on the ability to offer protection from lightning. Looks like a pretty stormy sky there.

The representation is seen elsewhere.
translate.google.com...

I see that this has already been covered.

I get your argument, which is a good one. However, there are also so many really strange representations of objects across multiple cultures and also Europe that are a little to anomalous to just contextualize as "mythology" or shield memes.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Interesting find, although to me, it looks like it was painted yesterday. Has a modern feel about it, and reminds me of scenery painting from the theatre.

I get the impression it was painted by a female - do we know who the artist was?

Great find. Really looks like a UFO

Put it this way.
If you asked someone from that village in that timeline what it was, would they say UFO or shield?
If you asked someone form 100 years ago what would they describe?

it seems to suggest the Heavens opening like a flower.

Sure, a flower with portholes.

I guess they had portholes on their shields too? lol

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not to mention Mr. Potato Head over on the center-right there,



...or could that be one of the visitors from the shield floating down the hill?

a reply to: Aleister
And the bown dog peeing on the green elephant at the bottom
Looks like this pic has been messed with a lot
Back to Mars anomalies..

nice painting it really does seem like UFO , hovering over monastery, but i think the explanation for the painting is more casual. Most definetly religion related.

The only confusing part in the painting is the shape of the shield, but as i said it`s the artist "vision" and "creation"

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: intrptr
Is this pic in the midst of refurbishing does anyone know? Try as I might I can't keep from noticing how pristine the top portion looks compared to the weathered and decayed bottom.

It's since been fully restored.

Outstanding

a reply to: NoNameNeeded

Thank you for your meaningful reply, I respectfully take heed of your points and the fact that you have a solid artistic background while I merely have a passing interest in art.

Just wanted to voice my own personal thoughts on the discussion, as I just didn't understand why many were so fixated on the the object being a flying saucer when it doesn't seem that obvious (far less likely), however following your interpretations of a foretelling of a story or portrayal of an event... I see where you are coming from.

Cheers,

Great find, OP. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

The element of the painting in question looks 3 dimensional. It is unlikely the fade patterns were responsible for this effect, as the shiny and brighter sections indicating bulging, curved, raised surfaces are quite complex across its 7 visible facing sections, more so than could be accounted for by random wear or debris on the paint or wall. The top of it is also brighter, also suggesting to my perception that these bulges continue on top to complete a filled 3 dimensional shape, as opposed to something concave like a grey flower or shield.

A yellowish rectangular section is also seen above, which can also be expected to be a full shape, or cylinder, connecting to the object below it, and reaching up into what appear to be clouds. Inside this is at least another feature, which looks like a partly slanted saucer. It has a bright center, dark outline midway, and a brighter top section. Again, to my perception, it is the lighting one would expect from a shiny object with either an indent at the bottom like an upside-down dinner plate, or a symmetrical saucer, the former being the stronger of the two visual interpretations.

The distance between what appear to be clouds, and the church building, makes the positioning of this feature-in-question to be very large, at least many times larger than the building, or at best ambiguous if it were something suspended in the air without any other perceptual distance cues, such as fog, retinal disparity, motion relative to other features in the sky, prior experience with similar features in the environment, and so on.

Beyond this, I don't know what the feature is supposed to be, and don't claim to know what its painter meant to convey.

what is known is accounts of paranormal phenomena, including what's presently categorized as UFOs, were present then, as they are now. The evidence of this can be found, for one, in the works of Jacques Valleé.

The features in such accounts strongly overlap with religious, spiritual, and known properties of basic physics. The emission of photons from a highly energetic surface is one such example. Visual distortions and interaction with beings is another in what is often attributed or reduced to altered brain chemistry, whether from spiritual practices alone, or combinations with accidental or deliberate use of plants, and physical illnesses, not excluding conditions directly relating to mental health.

Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility that the painter's depiction is that of a UFO or some other paranormal phenomenon that either they themselves, or someone or a group they know saw and experienced, and for whatever reason decided to portray it in close association with the church, with or without the knowledge and consent of the church authority to whatever degree their 'understanding' of said phenomenon was at the time and place.