Howdy Cliff:
"Cliff Smith" <cliff(nospam)smith@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
news:5IHeb.3879$RU4.42200@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
"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."
I think with this Otis dude you are dipping you're
bucket in an empty well.
Regards,
Harry