"Knud" <Knud@nowhere.com> wrote in message

VTRusso wrote:

Could any of you non-believers please explain to me why ancient

artists

included in their artwork UFOs.

This is a good question- I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer

No ancient artists included UFOs in their artwork. That is a myth.
Modern UFO kooks like you just assume they must be UFOs because
the artists weren't kind enough to explain what they really are.
The plain and simple fact is that there are no unambiguous reports
of UFOs from any time before humans had the power of flight. UFOs
are modern mythology. HTH.

Like I said, "Intelligent."

Here's a site to check out:  Explain the 2 flaming, piloted objects in
the fresco called "The Crucifixion," please.

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/ancientart.html

Knud, only your preconceptions impose the descriptions "flaming" and
"piloted" on these objects. Look at them again, and see what is actually
there, rather than what you'd like to see. Two crudely-drawn dark dome-like
shapes, with faces inside, and triangular projections pointing downwards.
That's all. In no way do these resemble any conventional flying vehicle, or
anything that has ever been reported as a UFO sighting, so why use the word
"piloted"? The triangular shapes are pointing downwards and are
dark-coloured, so in what way do they resemble flames?
Think of the religious context of the painting, which was made over three
hundred year ago. These shapes could represent the dark dome of the sky,
since the gospels relate that the skies darkened when Jesus died. Or they
could equally be some symbolic representation of the curtains of the Temple
being torn in two. Or they could just be dark clouds. There are dozens of
possible explanations, any of which are far more likely than "flaming,
piloted objects".

The same logical approach can be used to dismiss all of the pictures on the
website you've linked to. There are objects that look much more like
jellyfish that any sort of spacecraft, and at least one excellent
representation of the optical phenomenon known as 'sundogs'. There are
figures in ceremonial headgear (which is used by most tribal societies
across the globe), a couple of clouds and a fairly good drawing of a comet.
But no flying saucers.

It's this kind of wishful thinking and wilful misidentification that makes
the study of UFO phenomena such a frustrating subject. Somebody points to a
moving object in the sky and says "Well, it could be a flying saucer" and
suddenly you've got a 'sighting', and then the kooks come out of the
woodwork to defend it against all rational explanations, decrying all
attempts to do so as the work of 'debunkers'. Sure, it could be a flying
saucer, but isn't it far more likely to be a plane, a satellite, a balloon,
a meteor or a bird? Only when you have completely eliminated all
conventional explanations do you truly have a UFO. That's not debunking,
it's just plain common sense, a faculty which kooks, almost by definition,
lack.

Some kook with a website and a book to sell saying that an ancient picture
looks like what he imagines an alien spacecraft to look like doesn't
constitute proof of anything, other than that person's extreme ignorance of
the history of art and human culture. As for the comparison at the bottom of
the page between the detail from Michelangelo's Creation of Adam from the
Sistine Chapel and the poster from the movie ET, that's just the icing on
the kook-cake. Leave nonsense like this well alone if you want anyone to
take you seriously.

--
Cliff Smith

"And we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere.
And to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together,
guys."