TO ALL YOU DEBUNKERS!
Michael Davis
> Otis Reed <or...@spammenot.net> wrote in
> news:s0dhnvk2vdgvhma4p...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:32:31 GMT, Michael Davis
>><mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
Who knows what they are? Dig up the artist and ask him. The fresco
was created 1600 years after the time of Christ, if he really ever
even existed. So the artwork is just something the artist made up
out of his mind, not something he witnessed.
As for the interpretation of the objects in the Fresco, well they
were never interpreted as flying craft by the generations of art
critics, historians, theologians, etc., who came along before the
UFO fad began. Your interpretation that they must be UFOs of some
sort is totally unsupported and without any merit. It is also
amazingly inconsistent with current UFO mythology. (Not that
anyone seriously expects the arguments of you silly saucer heads
to have any internal consistency.)
This goes for all the examples on that page. There still is no
unambiguous report of a UFO from any time before humans had the
power of flight. HTH.
--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)
Cliff Smith
> >>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."
E. L.
copy of Lt. Col Wendelle C. Steves (Ret.) book "UFO contact from the
PLEIADES - A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT (yahoo!). On page 197
there is a badly copied black and white reproduction of a painting by
Pier della Francesca titled "The Legend of the Cross." It's an Italian
offering with the text under the picture in Italian (UN CASO
CURIOSISSIMO) but I can make out pretty much what it says which is that
it alleges about the reality of flying saucers.
It is a real bad reproduction (in the book, looks like low quality
"Xerox") and even the "domed flying saucer" pointed out by a thick,
black arrow cannot be made out. So I went to the library and got a book
on art by della Francesca and found a better painting with "flying
saucers" all over the sky in the background. Except these "flying
saucers" were clouds!
I next spent time on the roof our apartment building in North Hollywood
waiting for the right image and sure enough was able to take photos of
"flying saucer-shaped" clouds.
While I mostly agree with Davis, there are still some ancient (?)
artwork that is more definite in detail as far as what is being shown.
The question for me is who dated the artwork since at least one has
modern-looking images (spacesuits, etc.). Of course, while it may be
true that none of the artwork really shows flying saucers, UFOs, etc.,
one should not make blanket statements about the "unknown" and the
unknown in this case is what the artist was thinking about when he/she
painted the images under question. Thank you.
el
----------------------------------------------------
Re: TO ALL YOU DEBUNKERS!
Group: alt.alien.visitors Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 9:50am (EDT+4) From:
mdav...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Davis)
CIAspook
"Cliff Smith" <cliff(nospam)sm...@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
news:5IHeb.3879$RU4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
I think with this Otis dude you are dipping you're
bucket in an empty well.
Regards,
Harry