The UFO Phenomenon - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 04 2014 at 19:43

Edited by Svetonio - January 04 2014 at 19:49

Luna

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794

Posted: January 04 2014 at 19:46

this f**king thread

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 04 2014 at 19:50

Atavachron wrote:

Dean wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

I assume his point is that seemingly otherworldly events are captured in ancient art. Though to me, a man in a starship or balls of fire in the sky don't indicate anything paranormal.

I know what he was probably inferring, I wanted it from his own mouth in his own words. I don't presume to assume anything.

A man in a starship in the 12th century is paranormal. Even if it was 100% real it is still paranormal. We must agree use a common vocabulary here or it just becomes a game of clever word play, and that will only add to the confusion, especially for those for whom English is a second language.

A man in a starship in the 12th century is indeed paranormal. But a painting of one is not. Rather, it reflects both man's imagination and yearning to trek outward.

Well, yes... but only if the 12th century artist intended to paint a man in a starship. If, on the other hand, he painted the personification of the the Sun and the Moon, which is in keeping with mythology if not perhaps theology, then it only reflects man's imagination. But that is not what Sventonio is now saying - he is taking the image literally as if it were a Polaroid photograph.

What?

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65410

Posted: January 04 2014 at 19:52

^ Agreed.

Oh no, more videos !

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:05

^ i hope that the conservatives will determine that the videos I posted are helpful in this duscussion.

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:17

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65410

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:26

I'm guessing some of the 'conservatives' here are that way because they're more interested in the realties of the mystery and not just the mystery itself. What draws me to the UFO phenomena is the same thing that draws me to crop circles, biometric communication, and JFK: I want to know what's really going on. If it turns out it's all man-made myth, then I want to know that.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:30

Atavachron wrote:

Oh no, more videos !

'fraid so - once he gets going there is no stopping him.

I'm not bothering watching any of the more recent ones because they're all well known and have been shown to be specious and/or pure fabrication for years now.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:34

Atavachron wrote:

I'm guessing some of the 'conservatives' here are that way because they're more interested in the realties of the mystery and not just the mystery itself. What draws me to the UFO phenomena is the same thing that draws me to crop circles, biometric communication, and JFK: I want to know what's really going on. If it turns out it's all man-made myth, then I want to know that.

Same here, though I would never see myself as a 'conservative' (so find the term to be mildly insulting).

What?

Horizons

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:37

Luna wrote:

this f**king thread

Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65410

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:38

^ ^ I took a breath and realized he meant skeptic... though that's not much better LOL

Dean wrote:

I'm not bothering watching any of the more recent ones because they're all well known and have been shown to be specious and/or pure fabrication for years now.

You don't need no stinking badges.

Edited by Atavachron - January 04 2014 at 20:39

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:49

Atavachron wrote:

^ ^ I took a breath and realized he meant skeptic... though that's not much better LOL

No, he means 'conservative' - it's a jibe he's used before outside this thread so cannot mean sceptic.

What?

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65410

Posted: January 04 2014 at 21:02

Well that simply doesn't follow then, as I tend to be progressive both politically and in thinking. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 05 2014 at 00:48

Dean wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

Isn't very strange that the renaissance artist - who painted that Maddona so beautiful - "doesn't know" to paint the Sun well, although he painted the figure in a landscape who is watching that "sun"?

It is not the Sun. No one has ever said it was the Sun. If there is a Sun in the picture it's on the left of the Madonna (one "D" two "N"s).

I don't know what it is, the best guess is it is an illuminous cloud or the holy spirit, except it could be a lot brighter. There is a similar object in a painting of the Annunciation that shows the holy spirit in the form of a dove descending from an illuminous cloud. I cannot think of one valid reason why Filippino Lippi would paint a UFO in this painting and not in any other.

In all these: Why would any religious paintings ever depict a UFO? Give me one good reason. Hell, I'm feeling generous: I'll accept one half-baked reason.

It may not be the holy spirit because the holy spirit is painted as a dove due to canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon) in religious art (dove as the holy spirit is apply for both the Roman Catholic Church and Ortodox Church) :

"Illuminated cloud" is just your explanation. LOL ok it can be an "illuminated cloud" but I believe that the Renaissance artist could far better to paint an illuminated cloud; I mean, not to look like a flying piece of s*hit (since 20th century and knowledge about UFO phenomenonn).

More "illuminated clouds" for your eyes only:

15th century tapestry, French Basillica Notre-Dame, Beaune, Burgundy

Summer's Triumph tapestry, 1538 AD, the city of Bruges, Belgium

Edited by Svetonio - January 05 2014 at 01:40

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 05 2014 at 04:04

Svetonio wrote:

It may not be the holy spirit because the holy spirit is painted as a dove due tocanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon) in religious art (dove as the holy spirit is apply for both the Roman Catholic Church and Ortodox Church) :

Don't be obtuse Svetonio, I said: "There is a similar object in a painting of the Annunciation that shows the holy spirit in the form of a dove descending from an illuminous cloud." At some point the Holy Spirit had to be inside the illuminous cloud before it could descend or after it has ascended, it only descends upon Mary during the Annunciation (and possibly during her Assumption,though that is not certain), it does not descend from heaven to visit Mary for a cup of tea while she is playing with the infants Jesus and John (the baptist) so would remain inside the fecking cloud. Since not all paintings show the holy spirit descending from a cloud or as a dove, for example the The Baptism of Christ painting you posted yesterday shows no dove while the scripture clearly states that the spirit of god descended like a dove, it doth appear that your canon has misfired.

One artist who did manage to paint an illuminous cloud that didn't look like a glowing turd was Carlo Crivelli:

See: illuminous cloud -> holy spirit dove -> Mary.

There is a scientific name for this, (and for imagining the structures on the moon and other planets), it is called pareidolia.

What?

Toaster Mantis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898

Posted: January 05 2014 at 04:54

Dean wrote:

How so? There isn't actually a consistent description of either [faeries and aliens] so there cannot be a not insignificant correspondence between them. However, I do agree with the premise in principle - aliens are the new mythology or as (my favourite SF author) John T Sladek put it.

Back in pre-modern times, people would disappear for long times and returning deliriously claiming to have been kidnapped by either faeries or demons. (who in Judaism and Christianity - but not Islam - are identified with fallen angels just like Crowley's Lam) Likewise, both the entire mythology around "changelings" of faerie stories and the Nephilim of the Bible parallel all the talk in UFO lore about alien/human hybrids walking among us. Then there's how faeries were said to live in barrows that would at night stand up high on glowing poles. (reminiscent of a landed spaceship, isn't it?)

Also, notice how faeries are almost always "the little people" and said to have large hypnotic eyes. These figures from bronze-age Eastern Europe, probably representing deities or spirits or other supernatural entities, also look very much like the being gracing the cover of Communion:

Being neither religious nor convinced of alien contact, I have to go with the explanation of the same archetype taking different forms depending on the cultural and sociological context.

Edited by Toaster Mantis - January 05 2014 at 05:53

"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 05 2014 at 05:01

Dean wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

One artist who did manage to paint an illuminous cloud that didn't look like a glowing turd was Carlo Crivelli:

See: illuminous cloud -> holy spirit dove -> Mary.

There is a scientific name for this, (and for imagining the structures on the moon and other planets), it is called pareidolia.

I can see that you do not know well the subject matter of the ancient visual art (..medieval, renaissance, high renaissance time period, baroque...) and due of lack of the knowlegde you are pulling so much of the arbitary conclusions wrongly.

Anything that flies on the painted skies on the old paintigs, icons, frescoes, tapisteries, carvings - what is not Sun & Moon, angels and demons, clouds (iluminated or not) dove as the (un)holy spirit - are the "god's signs". Also, the monasteries' books are full of writings about seeing the "god's signs" - in various forms.

As everybody can see, some flying forms in the ancient paintings showed above are almost indentically as in the very first UFO report by professional pilot Kenneth Arnold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting

As I do not believe in god nor in "god's signs", I think that people from the past were ( including the ancient painters who naturally were much more better in observation the objects and have much better medium to describe what they exactly saw on the sky than fratres who wrote about "the god's signs" in their books ) saw the same things that Kenneth Arnold reported in 1947.

Edited by Svetonio - January 05 2014 at 06:38

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 05 2014 at 05:08

I suspect that stories of the incubus and succubus (along with virgin births) are cover-stories for something far more human - sex outside marriage. In those days that was a serious offence (and in some parts of the modern world it still is). They could also be the result of violent sexually induced trauma, such as rape or child abuse, sadly these have always had a stigma of blame for the victims so few victims ever admit to being abused even to themselves. We live in a horrible world where these things are more common than they ever should be, and unfortunately it is not limited to modern times, and if there are demons on this earth the worst of them are most certainly human.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 05 2014 at 08:50

Svetonio wrote:

Unlike you, I do not make assumptions. Nor do I make arbitrary conclusions, unlike those who spout: "It's a flying saucer","It's a starship", "It's a spacecraft", those are all arbitrary conclusions

Svetonio wrote:

And nothing I have written contradicts that - an illuminated cloud from which the scriptures say holy spirit descends to Earth from is a sign of/from god. It is a wild, baseless and unsupported assumption to then claim it is evidence of a flying saucer, spacecraft or starship when there are literally hundreds of more rational, plausible and historically established explanations. You can open your mind and consider more rational possibilities, your brains will not fall out. You can be a less "conservative" ufologist, they are rare and hard to find, but apparently it is possible they exist.

Svetonio wrote:

You have a very bizarre interpretation of the phrases "almost identical" and "everybody can see". Some objects in ancient painting can be falsely interpreted by modern eyes as being similar to the flying saucers of pulp Science Fiction and 1930s space serials such as Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, those same eyes can also misidentify natural objects such as clouds, contrails and weather balloons.

You seem capable of not believing in god but are happy to believe in alien visitors. This is curiously interesting. I too do not believe in god, but I do believe that religion exists in the world and those religions are the invention of man (this is called post-theism). Just because I do not believe that god exists do I then believe that things attributed to god in scripture that are then represented in art by artists should then be attributed to some other non-human entity? Those religions that man invented created mythologies and they commissioned artists to paint those mythologies.

For example, this painting shows Saint George slaying a dragon:

Is this painting a better observation from the artist of something he actually saw, or is it an artistic rendition of a mythology? From this painting do we conclude that dragons must have existed in antiquity or that the artist had a very good imagination?

Of course you can cherry-pick all these mythologies and artistic interpretations (because that's exactly what you have done so far), you can discard all those that do not support your beliefs and only accept those that do. It's not scientific, nor is it rational, but you can do it, you will not be the first and you will not be the last. It will convince some gullible people if you present it passionately enough,especially if you trivialise anything that contradicts your view. Or you can present both sides of the argument impartially and allow people to make their own conclusions: You can say "That object looks like a UFO so therefore it is a UFO" or you can say "That object looks like a UFO, but it could be this or that or something else" - the choice is yours to make. You are adamant that an object in a painting that you have called a glowing turd is a UFO... why not say it can be many things?

Edited by Dean - January 05 2014 at 08:56

What?

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: January 05 2014 at 10:27

^ What about that Dogon cosmology?