UFO'S: A possible explanation

[Marduk]

Doesn't "heavens" almost universally translate to "sky"?

yes it does, but heaven doesn't, heaven was the mountain, it was surrounded by the heavens,
the Sumerians who first wrote about Heaven (but obviously not neccesarily had the idea) used two seperate words, they didn't simply pluralise like we do, the reason they didn't is because they understood the difference between heaven which they saw as a mountain and the heavens which they thought was the water that surrounded the bubble that contained the earth
here is Heaven
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e391.html
and heavens
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6518.html
these words are not even linguistically related.

You need to remember that until the advent of monotheism heaven wasn't some invisible place in the sky and the advent of monotheism is a recent (historically) event.

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

AD images, #16

That we see the same type/kind of images throughout time, means what?

That ALL Men are subject to the SAME delusion?

it means simply that certain people don't know anything at all about religious iconography, obviously you included, there is a whole website here dedicated to explaining what religious iconography is and how it is used in religious art
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm
this page is dedicated to "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", your AD image 16
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm

Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

you could obviously have researched this yourself, it took me all of two minutes, the fact that you didn't and also that you seem unable to grasp ancient world concepts speaks volumes about what you are using as a basis for comparison for these images, i.e. your imagination and not the facts, and lets remember, your imagination has been fed by sci fi since you were born, this could not be said of any other culture but ours.

what do you make of the fact that until the invention of the telescope, not a single culture on earth knew of the existence of more than 5 planets, surely if they were interacting with alien gods they would be better informed

 

[King of the Americas]

yes it does, but heaven doesn't, heaven was the mountain, it was surrounded by the heavens,
the Sumerians who first wrote about Heaven (but obviously not neccesarily had the idea) used two seperate words, they didn't simply pluralise like we do, the reason they didn't is because they understood the difference between heaven which they saw as a mountain and the heavens which they thought was the water that surrounded the bubble that contained the earth
here is Heaven
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e391.html
and heavens
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6518.html
these words are not even linguistically related.

You need to remember that until the advent of monotheism heaven wasn't some invisible place in the sky and the advent of monotheism is a recent (historically) event.



it means simply that certain people don't know anything at all about religious iconography, obviously you included, there is a whole website here dedicated to explaining what religious iconography is and how it is used in religious art
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm
this page is dedicated to "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", your AD image 16
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm

you could obviously have researched this yourself, it took me all of two minutes, the fact that you didn't and also that you seem unable to grasp ancient world concepts speaks volumes about what you are using as a basis for comparison for these images, i.e. your imagination and not the facts, and lets remember, your imagination has been fed by sci fi since you were born, this could not be said of any other culture but ours.

what do you make of the fact that until the invention of the telescope, not a single culture on earth knew of the existence of more than 5 planets, surely if they were interacting with alien gods they would be better informed

Your link helps make my point, UFO shaped objects appear in the heavens, in many religious painting, of old. The ancients thought of these things as "god(s)"... and they documented their existence continuously.

The "gods" got pissed when one of them gave us fire... Imagine the trouble some under-god would have gotten in if they told us about the moons of Jupiter?

 

[makaya325]

Your link helps make my point, UFO shaped objects appear in the heavens, in many religious painting, of old. The ancients thought of these things as "god(s)"... and they documented their existence continuously.

The "gods" got pissed when one of them gave us fire... Imagine the trouble some under-god would have gotten in if they told us about the moons of Jupiter?

Why werent all Ancient UFO drawings viewed as SPACECRAFT, and not dragons, gods, and witches. Maybe it was a fear of the unknown instead of aliens.

 

[MikeSun5]

...see the only thing that links therianthropes from different cultures is that they are based on animals known and respected by the cultures that created them. And all those animals are from this planet...

I hadn't considered that. Reports of aliens usually consist of reptilians and other human-shaped creatures -- nothing really "alien." Just combinations of species on Earth. Nobody really reports being visited by a highly intelligent form of the color blue, now do they? Interesting point.

...the moon (yes the moon - I have read cases with the moon as the source)...

Read (and listen to) this. Good stuff!

 

[King of the Americas]

Why werent all Ancient UFO drawings viewed as SPACECRAFT, and not dragons, gods, and witches. Maybe it was a fear of the unknown instead of aliens.

Some of them ARE..."spacecraft"...others are hearsay, rather than first hand accounts.

 

[Vortigern99]

If we scuttle all the other explanations (from the growing list on the previous page), and entertain the possibility that yes, these are indeed alien spacecraft we've been seeing, and which ancient peoples recorded in myths and imagery...

... what then? Where do we take this idea? What avenues does it open up? How do we benefit by it? What purpose does it serve? What is our next step?

 

[MikeSun5]

If we scuttle all the other explanations (from the growing list on the previous page), and entertain the possibility that yes, these are indeed alien spacecraft we've been seeing, and which ancient peoples recorded in myths and imagery...

... what then? Where do we take this idea? What avenues does it open up? How do we benefit by it? What purpose does it serve? What is our next step?

Then all woo is real. For ever.

 

[Vortigern99]

Okay, let's say we set aside for a moment, for the sake of the debate, the other, more immediate, worldly, rational, "mundane (as jake steele would have it)" explanations of UFO sightings, and entertain, for a moment, the possibility that they are, some or many or most of them, alien visitors. We're not letting go of our critical faculties, we're imagining a scenario in which this might possibly be true, for the purpose of exploring the potential inherent in the idea.

What now? What do we do? How do we use this information?

 

[MikeSun5]

What now? What do we do? How do we use this information?

I'm sure after everyone quits freaking out, we'd probably attempt to establish contact. To learn their technology, biology, secrets of the universe, etc. The SETI people probably have a plan for it already. "Plan A."

 

[jakesteele]

OK. I will. You are right. Nickel is wrong.

However, there is no unequivocal evidence of any "visitors from outer space".

Thanks for watching the clip and thanks for addressing it straight on. So far I think you're the only one that did.

If by unequivocal you mean 'beyond doubt' you are right. There are pieces of wreckage or bodies that the civilian population knows about.

I think there is plenty enough unexplainable sightings/incidents to not just dismiss it entirely and try to put it into fantasy land because of yet I haven't heard of any hunters claiming they had a unicorn sighting while they were out looking for Sasquatch.

The stuff I posted about Professor Allen J. Hynek, one of the directors of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and later consultant for Project Grudge and Project Blue Book, is pretty much my point of view on the subject.

 

[jakesteele]

To expand, expound and build on the list of possible explanations for UFO sightings, I've started with jake steele's fine list, and added a few of my own, minus the over-generalization catch-all of "anything I might have missed" in hopes that others will continue to add their own reasonable, rational and logical (or instructively absurd) possibilities:

1. Atmospheric/weather phenomena, including enhanced perception of moon or stars, and streak lightning

2. Ball (as opposed to streak) lightning

3. Meteors and their variations:

a. Meteorites

b. Fireballs

c. Bolides

d. Meteoric dust

e. Ionization trails

4. Hallucinations (a known and documented human experience owing to neurological and psychological conditions leading to perceptual distortion)

5. Intentional fraud

6. Weather balloons

7. Flares

8. Birds

9. Sprites (near infra-red electrical signatures which occur above stormclouds during lightning events)

10. Burning oil rigs seen at a distance by pilots inside aircraft (eg the Mexico pilot footage)

11. Burning structures atop distant hills seen at night (where the hill is as black as the background, imbuing the fire with a "floating" effect)

12. Dust or ice particles on the camera lens

13. Gradual and accidental memory embellishment, aka the known and documented impermanence of human memory

14. Experimental military aircraft, the secrets of which the armed forces (of any nation) would be reluctant to disclose

15. Standard aircraft, flying in formation

16. Swamp gas

17. Any combination of the preceding categories

18. Alien visitation

19. Supernatural deities

20. Dragons

What else have we got?

ETA: 21. Debris from derelict satellites

22. Satellites themselves

I forgot to add the 'forced plausible' explanation to the list, that's why I showed the Joe Nickell clip. He's taking something that he thinks fits into the mundane category and stretching it to the breaking point and beyoned. Classical pseudoskepticism.

Did you know that Unicorns taste like chicken?

 

[EHocking]

Woa woa woa.. The Lonnie Zamora case? If im not mistaken,

I think you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora

...wasnt zamora working on the fields (Farm) at Night?

No

Also, didnt he have some kind of radiation poisoning?

No

 

[Marduk]

Your link helps make my point, UFO shaped objects appear in the heavens, in many religious painting, of old. The ancients thought of these things as "god(s)"... and they documented their existence continuously.

The "gods" got pissed when one of them gave us fire... Imagine the trouble some under-god would have gotten in if they told us about the moons of Jupiter?

right, I'm gonna have to point out to everyone here then that you did not read the page provided, if youd done more than glance at it you would have seen this

the page said that the glowing cloud is the way that religious painters depicted the presence of god, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that what you are claiming is a U.F.O manages to appear inside the stable where Jesus is being born.

do u.f.o.s come indoors in your world ?
they don't in anyone elses, so I think its quite obvious that you are suffering from a belief manufactured by your imagination that isn't supported by the evidence. You like all woo believers seem to be incapable of evaluating real evidence, even when its been handed to you on a plate.
that I can assure you is your loss, not anyone elses.

 

[King of the Americas]

right, I'm gonna have to point out to everyone here then that you did not read the page provided, if youd done more than glance at it you would have seen this

[qimg]http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Lorenzo_Monaco_Nativita.jpg[/qimg]
the page said that the glowing cloud is the way that religious painters depicted the presence of god, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that what you are claiming is a U.F.O manages to appear inside the stable where Jesus is being born.

do u.f.o.s come indoors in your world ?
they don't in anyone elses, so I think its quite obvious that you are suffering from a belief manufactured by your imagination that isn't supported by the evidence. You like all woo believers seem to be incapable of evaluating real evidence, even when its been handed to you on a plate.
that I can assure you is your loss, not anyone elses.

Firstly, I'd like you to tell me what 'shape' the angel appears as? Trace the outer edges, and you'll find an object similar to #16 in the link I provided.

Secondly, if you took into perspective, you can see the people looking up at said angel/ufo, are shorter than the ones 'inside or under said stall. From what 'I' see, only Mary, Jesus, and the animals appear to be 'under' the protection of the roof.

Third, ALL art is subjective. We see what we want. We impose our values and beliefs onto it. The artist's 'true' meaning is almost always lost to his peers, much less people thousands of years later...

 

[Astrophotographer]

I forgot to add the 'forced plausible' explanation to the list, that's why I showed the Joe Nickell clip.

Can you demonstrate that all skeptics force "plausible" explanations on UFO reports? You are cherry picking, which is why you needed to go to some levitation video to prove your point. Get back to the topic of UFOs. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that all Skeptical UFO explanations fit into a 10-15 cookie cutter explanation scenario. Feel free to post your revised list so we can pick that apart with new examples.

 

[Marduk]

Firstly, I'd like you to tell me what 'shape' the angel appears as?

It has arms, wings a human head, this what you think your average U.F.O. looks like ?

Secondly, if you took into perspective, you can see the people looking up at said angel/ufo, are shorter than the ones 'inside or under said stall. From what 'I' see, only Mary, Jesus, and the animals appear to be 'under' the protection of the roof

youre not asking the right question here, why would a U.F.O. be stationed above a stable in bethlehem, do you think they came to see the birth of their saviour ?
this event has been written about quite a lot, I don't remember any of those writing mentioning the guys from Alpha centauri being present do you, its also a painting drawn after the fact, by someone who didn't witness it, why in that case would someone add something that wasn't relevant, that would be heretical and trust me people weren't all that heretical in th 16th century, (well some were, but not for long.)
if the artist had wanted to draw God in the sky he would have, he didn't so your conclusion is forced

Third, ALL art is subjective. We see what we want. We impose our values and beliefs onto it. The artist's 'true' meaning is almost always lost to hid peers, much less people thousands of years later...

baloney, the picture is not thousands of years old, its barely 500, and the images that appear in it are well known and documented, the only person who has lostthe artists true meaning here is you. I mean really ask yourself, why would someone whos painting is an extension of their faith paint things in a religious picture, that aren't relative to their dogma.
in this case the glowing cloud description is taken from scripture

They stood in the place of the cave, and behold!, a luminous cloud over-shadowed the cave. And the mid-wife said: My soul has beenmagnified this day, because mine eyes have seen wondrous things: that salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave that the eyes could not bear it»

now you want to use that imagination of yours to tell me how the U.F.O. manages to enter a cave ?
are you unaware that God takes the form of a cloud ?

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

or were you thinking that aliens regularly led the children of israel on 40 year marches around the levant ?

so what have you shown us so far
you don't know anything about history
you don't know anything about religious iconography
you don't know anything about evaluating evidence
you don't know anything about the bible
you are incapable of reading a source that you have requested

are you really still going to claim that you know about u.f.o.s in history ?
you can if you like, but don't expect anyone except other woos to listen, youve used up all your credit in this thread.

perhaps in future when you challenge someone to explain something to you and they do that by providing you a website written by an expert, you might actually bother to read it. But this is so typical of alien believers, you don't know the subject matter at all so your claims are based on gaps in your knowledge, and not the gaps in anyone elses.

only you can change this. Better start now bud, youre way behind the pack

 

[Marduk]

Can you demonstrate that all skeptics force "plausible" explanations on UFO reports? You are cherry picking, which is why you needed to go to some levitation video to prove your point. Get back to the topic of UFOs. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that all Skeptical UFO explanations fit into a 10-15 cookie cutter explanation scenario. Feel free to post your revised list so we can pick that apart with new examples.

if you like I could quite easily demonstrate that woo believers force unplausible explanations on pretty much everything

 

[jakesteele]

The title reads: "UFOs: A possible explanation". I don't see levitation and skepticism. Start your own thread if you want to go there. Otherwise, stay on topic. Still waiting for you to show me how all UFO explanations fit nicely into 10-15 cookie cutter explanations. Unless you use, "Anything not mentioned", then you can't say this is the case. If you use "Anything not mentioned", then you blow your claim because it means that anything (i.e. an infinite number of possibilities) can be used to explain a UFO sighting.

I gave Phil Plait’s explanation for a UFO sighting, which is what the thread is asking for, and then I refuted it, and people started firing back, especially you and one or two others. So don’t start bitching now. The Joe Nickel vid is a prime example of how a James Randi type of skeptic tries to reduce to the ridiculous in any area, of which, UFOs are but one.

Apparently, I need to clarify my (anything I might have missed) point. What I mean by that is any of your mundane explanations I might have missed. To help you out I have included this link.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm


By the way, I’m really interested in your take on the Joe Nickel attempted debunkery of levitation. Do you think it’s good, bad, ugly or indifferent?

 

[jakesteele]

That is funny. Other than UFOs, what is Hynek's great claim to fame? What did he do that was so earth shattering? What were his astronomical discoveries and theories? If you really want to know about the real Dr. Hynek, you might want to read Quintanella's opinion on him.

http://www.ufologie.net/doc/quintanilla.pdf

Start with page 66. I know this is an AF officer's opinion but it sort of indicates how Hynek conducted himself. It was amazing how Hynek stuck people in the back and tried to manipulate congress so he could head a future UFO research program. Luckily, Dr. Condon shot him down with his report and Hynek was left to wallow in obscurity.

Let's see, we've got: discrediting the source, character assassination, down playing, diminishing and minimizing. I guess that's one way to do it.

Feynman won the nobel prize, which is pretty good. The rest of his accomplishments are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Once again, I suggest you not cut and paste from other websites without giving credit to the source.

So how does winning a Nobel for “fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles” (wiki) make you any more or any less qualified to opine about UFOs?

I’ll bet you twenty dollars to a cold horse turd that if Hynek was a non-believer in UFOs you would throw his name out there and say, “This guy was involved with running Blue Book and you can’t get more qualified than that.”



FYI:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

I’ve included this list of possible explanations for UFOs, compiled by skeptics, for you for future reference. The reason I’m doing this is to drive home a point. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 mundane explanations. Implied in your claims is that this small amount of mundane explanations (under 100) applies to tens of thousands of sightings from the dawn of man, up to and including, the present, and by extrapolating, all sightings in the future. That is an incredibly bold assumptive statement.

 

[jakesteele]

Can you demonstrate that all skeptics force "plausible" explanations on UFO reports? You are cherry picking, which is why you needed to go to some levitation video to prove your point. Get back to the topic of UFOs. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that all Skeptical UFO explanations fit into a 10-15 cookie cutter explanation scenario. Feel free to post your revised list so we can pick that apart with new examples.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

Here’s you list. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 mundane explanations. The point is that you rubber stamp thousands, upon thousands of sightings, past, present and future with the same template. That is a very bold assumption that requires a lot of explanation especially when there are a fair amount of cases that haven’t been explained away by your cookie cutter.

And stop playing around. You know exactly the point I am making with the Joe Nickell vid. It graphically shows the narrow minded, fundamentalist mind set that is employed by the CSIOPtic type of skeptism.

Pseudo-debunkery like Joe’s pathetic, weak attempt at levitation brings into question any other acts of debunkery he may have committed with UFOs.

Since we’re on the subject of levitation, inquiring minds are dying to know what you take on it is. Can you help a brother out by commenting on it?