Clear evidence of ufo sighting in 10th and 12th century manuscripts

Um...very few of these are hats.

And a few of these...like the black blobs in the sky one...have a description of the event by the ARTIST. He even described how they seemed to be engaged in combat with other white blobs....and this was witnessed by multiple people.

The religious ones are kind of iffy to really determine what the artist was trying to convey, but to say all of these are just a coincidence doesn't seem right to me.

Awful lot of super-old painting and depictions of weird stuff in the sky, in a few cases even depicting air-disturbance or some kind of atmospheric disturbance, your seemingly arguing against ArMaP.

Dunno, I used to be skeptical, until I was overwhelmed with the numbers.

Dallas

I wonder how many people have seen some of these paintings which they are claiming are clear proof of the existance of UFOs visiting Earth. I for one have seen several of these paintings as I have an interest in Renaissance art and illuminated manuscripts. The paintings which I have seen do not look anything like UFOs. I have a book dedicated to the "hidden language" of Renaissance art. It nicely explains away many of these so called UFOs.

I also fail to see how a medieval painter deciding to add a "UFO" means that they UFOs must have been present at the time of the Biblical events. If I decide to paint pictures on WWII with UFOs in them does it mean that there were UFOs in WWII?

Please note I am very sceptical of medieval paintings but I am open minded about the other pictures e.g. cave paintings etc.

Originally posted by Spartannic
We arent claiming anything the only thing this thread do ,is giving a place to discus strange things in old art. Nothing more !
[edit on 19-5-2007 by Spartannic]

But you cite these pieces of work as "clear evidence of ufo sighting" in the thread title. Very misleading. This is clearly not the case once these paintings are taken in their historical/cultural context... or the originals are examined (e.g. that UFO next to the cross in the Paolo Uccello piece is clearly a cardinal's hat).

Such shoddy analysis and unbased claims only further damage the credibility of UFOlogy.

Best,
AG

I have to agree with homeskillet, it's amazing how few people seem to have read the material at the afore-posted link. It's actually well researched and cited, and I found the explanations pretty watertight.

www.sprezzatura.it...

It goes far beyond explaining the "ufos" as cardinal's hats... it's got dozens of examples of similar or related works, especially with regard to sun & moon symbolism in Byzantine art (the explanation for the piloted crafts in one of the paintings). Much clearer detail and a quick, interesting art history lesson.

I think a lot of the ancient (or just old) stories or drawings of encounters are really cool, too, but I would rather focus on the truly unexplainable ones... wouldn't you?

[edit on 5/19/07 by skip_brilliantine]

Originally posted by yeti101
no not photoshopped just completely misrepresented by ufology websites

alot of the pictures that have been posted in this thread are covered here www.sprezzatura.it...

Or perhaps this lone Italian site is misrepresenting them. Its his opinion that they are ALL easily explained religious symbols.

But that would require him knowing what was in the mind of the artist... In our Stargate theory we too found several interesting pictures that back our theory...

One in particular of the bannishment from Eden to a barren desert comes to mind. It was so good even William Henry uses it now




Giovanni di Paolo, 1445

Did that site say what religious symbol this one was? This one is one of the few pictures that stood out to me, it was just weird. I guess the closest thing was that 'nativity' thing? But it looks three dimensional to me, like it is a type of structure. It's just weird I guess.

Originally posted by zorgon
Or perhaps this lone Italian site is misrepresenting them. Its his opinion that they are ALL easily explained religious symbols.

Did you saw that site? One of the reasons many of those things look like UFOs is the fact that they are bad reproductions of the paintings, a good reproduction (or even better, the original) shows that, in some cases, the UFO does not look like a UFO, like the example of the hat.

Also, if you know anything about art history you know that what he says on that site is what all people who have studied art history say.

If we want an analysis of a rock we should talk to a geologist, if we want an analysis of a painting, specially an old painting, we should talk to an art expert, specially someone who knows about art history.

Originally posted by laiguana
Did that site say what religious symbol this one was? This one is one of the few pictures that stood out to me, it was just weird.

That is why I said that if someone really wants to see ancient reports of UFOs then they must forget about religious paintings that are full of hidden symbolisms and stick to those drawings, paintings and engravings that were the equivalent of today's photos.

That image may be one of those cases.

Virtually every culture since the earliest known HISTORY OF MANKIND has recorded accounts of alien visitation. Our ancestors obviously had a profound respect and appreciation for these visitors, and went to great lengths to get the message to future generations. They depicted UFOs in their artwork, etched drawings on the ground and into granite walls and published their accounts in biblical texts. They constructed beacons of information; some of the most massive structures on the planet, specifically meant to focus our attention to the skies. On many of these sites the advanced techniques of engineering and astronomy involved serve as testimony to their commitment. Something tells me that our ancient relatives were looking out for our best interest much moreso than these modern day cowboy skeptics/debunkers. To cast doubt on the concensus of previous intelligent civilizations is the rhetoric of fools.

Just remember...that art, as well as many theories discussed here is ambiguous. In other words many different people have many different opinions and is always open to interpretation. I think that some paintings, etchings and reliefs bare a striking resemblance to aerial phenomenon, ie. ufo's.

Many biography's of well know artists such as Domenico Ghirlandaio, apparently contain strange air ships and other such phenomenon. (I refer to this painting shown in a previous post.)




Although it is not clear the artists true meaning for this anomalous object painted in the above picture,
many speculate this was a scene he ( Ghirlandaio )
witnessed during the painting of this picture, and since there were no camera's back then he felt the sighting relevant enough to depict it in this work that has absolutely nothing to with this phenom. I find it intriguing
that there are more current photo's of objects that bare a resemblance to these early artist's renderings...



Just food for thought..interesting subject indeed.

Hey y'all

First of all i would like to thank al of you for the nice links and pictures posted. I have some more pictures on ancient annomalies in paintings. But since my GF just came back from a 2 week leave to China . I currently have no time to post them. (she even meantioned shes proud of me reaching the First page with leading toppic ) Ill get back to you al in like a day or so. Sorry for that , but i believe y'all gonna understand!

Its nice to see that for once people dont *$^% µ§ the thread by saying photoshop al the time. Well now the use the HAT theory.ROFL . And ok some of those pics can be altered but since me and my GF see alot of museums (from the inside ) i can say that alot of those ancient "signs" really are strange. I'm a true believer, my GF is kinda skeptic about it (she's a historian for a reason) and on some of those signs she really doesn have a clue how they could be relatted to any devine creature or natural stuff like meteors or comets.

Originally posted by Spartannic

Well now the use the HAT

theory.ROFL .

I don't know what you're ROFLing about. It's a hat. It's plainly evident to anyone not getting all their "research" from UFO fan web sites. Denying this obvious fact makes you seem like a ignoramus.

Your "clear evidence" isn't clear at all. Maybe it's simply that...

I'm a true believer...

Ah.

Ok i understand where you going at . And it seems that i kinda made it unclear what i meant to say was : That everytime u show pics of Ufo related stuff u have people who say "its al photoshop , its all hats" !!

i aint saying all of thos pics show ufo/aliens in them , but it seems to me that most of those objects arent hats IMO

It's tough to say what people had in mind when they created some of this stuff. Certain symbolic images involving halos or eliptical pools or beams coming from the sky are often associated with religious concepts. The good old "tongue of flame" above people's heads was often used to indicate someone was imbued with the Holy Spirit (whatever that is). It's not meant to imply that there was literally a visible little flame above their heads. These are works of art, not necessarily attempts at capturing a realistic image. They're not photographs.

And there is something else you might have heard of. It's called imagination. I saw a picture the other day about some guy who could swing around tall buildings on a web. I doubt that it represented something that really exists. And the imaginary notion of boats flying around in the blue, sea-like sky has been around since, well, since there were boats. Imagine seeing the bottom of a boat in the sky and you've got a pretty good saucer or cigar shape.

Anyway, it's easy to read way too much into these pictures, especially when looking at them from a 21st Century perspective.

Let's remember that for much of history paintings and artworks were representational, i.e. they had pictures and iconography which had certain known and conventional meanings to contemporary viewers.

It can be quite erroneous to make modern interpretations as if the paintings were "virtual photographs".

For example, on most of the paintings with Christian religious figures I believe the 'ufo-cloud' is intended to represent the Holy Spirit, a part of the christological trinity in Christian theology. All the contemporary viewers would have understood it thus, and the lights/dramatic shapes were artistic inventions of the painter.

By contrast, the Japanese print which apparently showed a description of some odd craft with odd symbols is distinctly different. This seems to document a specific tangible historical moment---as opposed to hypothetical and non-literal representations of established well-known mythical scenes like the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary (who happens to be dressed like a wealthy Early Renaissance European woman instead of a poor semitic rustic girl married off to an old man).

On that Japanese thing it would be very important to verify its provenance---(art world term for 'clear reliable documentation about where the thing came from with external support').


I have the suspicion it is probably a modern-day invention. If it can be firmly established it is not, then it is very intriguing.

Major European paintings are generally pretty secure in provenance by now, as they've been exhibited in museums and churches with good records usually since their creation.

Something tells me that our ancient relatives were looking out for our best interest much moreso than these modern day cowboy skeptics/debunkers.

Evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence that any ET has ever done jack squat for our interests.

Penicillin would have been really nice for starters.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by mbkennel]

[edit on 21-5-2007 by mbkennel]

According to an ancient tradition, on the night of August 4, 352, the Virgin Mary appeared on the Esquiline Hill in Rome to Pope Liberius (352-66) and a Roman nobleman by the name of John. Her message was that they were to build a church in the honour on the spot where in the morning they would find snow outlining the form the basilica was to take. The promised snow appeared, plans were drawn up, and the first major church in Rome in honour of Mary was erected.

Or at least that's what the property developers told the zoning commission!

(ahem)


[edit on 21-5-2007 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by ArMaPif we want an analysis of a painting, specially an old painting, we should talk to an art expert, specially someone who knows about art history.

And how does an art expert prove that he or she has the CORRECT interpretation?

Symbols in art mean different things to different cultures in different times. What looks like a UFO beaming a laser at the Virgin May to a 21st century audience was meant by the artist at the time to be circles of angels surrounding God and his light descending on Mary.

You could just as easily turn that around and say that what was a UFO was only interpreted by the uneducated(compared to today) artist as circles of angels surrounding god.

Originally posted by Tiloke

Symbols in art mean different things to different cultures in different times. What looks like a UFO beaming a laser at the Virgin May to a 21st century audience was meant by the artist at the time to be circles of angels surrounding God and his light descending on Mary.

You could just as easily turn that around and say that what was a UFO was only interpreted by the uneducated(compared to today) artist as circles of angels surrounding god.

Yes, but 99.99% of the time the artists were not intentionally depicting an event they personally witnessed.