• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

King of the Americas said:
How so?
Click to expand...
you have already been given the answer to that earlier in the thread, I am not going to continue to educate you when you refuse to learn

King of the Americas said:
Why do "angels of the lord" look so similar to flaying saucers/UFO's?
Click to expand...

you have already been given the answer to that earlier in the thread, I am not going to continue to educate you when you refuse to learn
:rolleyes:

Ask yourself, why couldn't you see it was her halo, bloody obvious now isn't it
why couldn't you see the truth earlier on your own, what was stopping you. When you have figured that out, apply the same answer to everything else that you think you know
;)
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Why do "angels of the lord" look so similar to flaying saucers/UFO's?
Click to expand...

There's only one answer you will accept.

Because they have always been aliens in flying saucers visiting our planet. They've just been perceived as angels or manatees or whatever you want to believe.

Why does everyone tease KotA with answers that he doesn't want to hear?
 
Marduk said:
...

Ask yourself, why couldn't you see it was her halo, ...
Click to expand...

I just saw the image I mistook for a finger yesterday... I made the mistake because I was looking at small images of the work, AND the halo was made to look semi-transparent.

Moreover, I've not seen or read your references to Mary's virginity, by the placement of flames in the sky... Maybe you edited a previous post to include this. I'll scan the thread, again.

---

ETA:

Taken from your link:

"...The religious symbology which we find in this Madonna is therefore in line with this older iconography that in the Florence of the humanism and Neo-Platonism had been lost. The three stars, for example, appear often in the paintings of the previous century, and especially in the byzantine icons of the Madonna; often, they were painted on her veil, on the shoulders and forehead; other times they are replaced by three rays; they always represent the "threefold virginity" of the Madonna, i.e., before, during, and after the virgin birth. The three stars, in the same meaning, are also found on the coat of arms of the Oratorian order of Saint Filippo Neri (hence, also called "Filippini"), who are particularly devout to the Madonna..."

Except that in THIS painting, the images ON the Madonna are more than "3". In fact on her left shoulder are "12" somethings falling from a larger something.

While in the sky there are "3" somethings beneath a singular star-like object to make a total of "4".

With all due respect to the person who offered the interpretation, his insights simply don't fit with this painting.

I think as with all art, we see what we WANT to see.

'I' see angel, clouds of light & fire, and silvery objects as UFO's.

While your art debunkers twist these images in an attempt to force their interpretation onto them.

If "3" means Mary's 3-fold virginity, represented ON Mary, you can't turn around and say "4" icons NOT on Mary represent the same thing. There are "13" such images ON the Madonna's left shoulder. So MAYBE the artist was saying he REALLY REALLY REALLY thought she was a virgin???

In short, I wholly disagree with your link's findings, and find no value therein.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
I just saw the image I mistook for a finger yesterday... I made the mistake because I was looking at small images of the work, AND the halo was made to look semi-transparent.
Click to expand...
So you weren't looking at the big picture, maybe in future.........
King of the Americas said:
Moreover, I've not seen or read your references to Mary's virginity, by the placement of flames in the sky... Maybe you edited a previous post to include this. I'll scan the thread, again.
Click to expand...
Post 51 might be helpful
;)
King of the Americas said:
I think as with all art, we see what we WANT to see
Click to expand...
True, however this isn't just art, its religious iconography, every single piece holds a symbolic meaning, the meaning is not open to unqualified interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconography
King of the Americas said:
With all due respect to the person who offered the interpretation, his insights simply don't fit with this painting.
In short, I wholly disagree with your link's findings, and find no value therein.
Click to expand...
Diego Cuoghi who created that website is a famous italian art historian, he is an author on renaissance art and globally recognised as an expert on religious iconography.
What are you, apart from someone who has never studied anything, never achieved anything and by his own admittance is unable to look at the big picture, Basically youre not qualified to dismiss Diego's work. Stop wasting my time

you just don't see it do you, the painters responsible were painting scenes from the bible, they were not present at those scenes and they couldn't just write what was happening on the canvas, so they used symbols instead of words.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
http://www.2012unlimited.net/Historical.paintings.pdf

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.
Click to expand...
this from the boy who can't tell a halo from a finger
:p
youre not qualified to question anything about me
btw, your link was apparently written by an unqualified nobody
can't you find anyone who actually is qualified to know what they're talking about ?
don't you know why that is, or are you just happy to keep bringing the dull knife of your wasted perception to a gun fight
:D

RoboTimbo said:
Can I call it, or what?
Click to expand...

go right ahead
;)
 
Last edited:
Moderators,

Could you please put this thread back where I put it?

These are two very different discussions, and merging them is clouding the issues.
 
King of the Americas said:
So, the painting I referenced does NOT show a flying saucer as an "angel of the lord"?
Click to expand...
I don't know what it shows, since I have not seen the painting up close, nor do I know its history of damage and restoration. Unless you can come up with a really god closeup of the painting, and evidence that it has not been damaged, stained, restored or altered, I think the evidence is poor.
And anyone else who has seen UFO's, flying saucers, or gods in heaven simply haven't...because there's no evidence of it?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I think the evidence is poor, and the evidence of any link between UFO sightings and theology is much poorer. Certainly so far you've provided nothing but your assumption.
And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk???
Click to expand...
Exactly. Unless you can present evidence, historical or otherwise, that the myths of mer-people occurred first to those who saw manatees, and did not occur independently of manatees, then you have no evidence.
Yet silvery oval shaped UFO's, instantly become blimps to skeptics, because we KNOW they exist and they are the same general shape.

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, yet I produce a painting, of a religious nature, featuring the Madonna and the invisible hand of god pointing toward a UFO/flying saucer from over 100 years before that, and it means nothing? So, you claim that what exactly? That there's absolutely no connection or consistency between the historical gods of heaven, and what people are STILL seeing today?

Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to...
Click to expand...
I realize you're not going to dance to anyone else's beat, but yes, I think the things you presume to see in the painting mean nothing, and your evidence for UFO's as a basis of religion is nonexistent, based largely on wishful thinking about a subject about which you have so far evinced little or no scholarship.
 
dafydd said:
In one big steaming pile.
Click to expand...

noooo, I was referring to my link to "one trick pony" further up the page, I would never refer deliberately to King with the pony and trap comment. I don't speak cockney or understand the rhyming slang, allright china

:D
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk???
Click to expand...

Manatee:
FL_fig04.jpg


Mermaid:
385px-Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg


I really don't think you should be criticising other people's perceptive and reasoning skills if you seriously think those two things look alike.
 
King of the Americas said:
Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Let's take a look!

Hmm. Well, the first thing I notice is that some of the paintings referenced in your link aren't mysterious at all and show things that are clearly not UFOs. This one in particular is obviously a hat, as my link shows. I knew that even without looking it up though, because it's not a bad painting of a hat at all.

I also see some of the paintings are only shown seriously cropped, and a few aren't properly sourced - it doesn't give the name of the artist or the painting, so I can't see them in context. In fact, the person who made the PDF doesn't seem to know what some of the things he's referencing are. So his credibility is pretty poor.

That's okay, let's look to someone with better credibility. These are all works where the original artist is dead, so maybe there's an expert we can look to? Oh, wait! Diego Cuoghi is an expert, and you've already been provided with links to his assessments. They seem consistent and solid, with references and research to back them up. How convenient!

Okay, so the expert has explained these things in a way that is logical and fits with the evidence. Phew! Glad to have that one settled!

King of the Americas said:
If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's unreasonable to go with an expert rather than idle musings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom