• 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.

UFO's in history?

You may dismiss UFO's and Alien beings for the same reasons, but I feel I 'know' they exist.

Assuming there are alien spacecraft visiting the earth, my basic question remains, "So what?" It's quite obvious the aliens have not interacted with us in any official way. They have not even revealed themselves to us unambigiously. They show up occasionally, dance around the sky like they're mentally ill and disappear. What possible difference would it make if we knew they were real?

I can see no actual effect on human society in proving that aliens are visiting us, at least under the conditions aliens tend to visit us currently. Heck, 34% of Americans already believe aliens are here. That's about the same number of Americans as attend church once a week. Ibid. Whatever the knowledge of alien contact would do to society, it's already doing it.

Also, according to the pictures I found from Mexico City, these alien spaceships suck. I mean, they really suck.

Here's their piece of junk:

UFO2%20sopra%20%20Mexico%20City%201997.jpg


And here's what a spaceship should look like:

ColonialOne.jpg


My idea of the perfect spaceship is Colonial One? Yes. Yes, it is.
 
Last edited:
UFO's and the ones that appeared over Mexico City have not been 'disproved'.

I think the word you are looking for is 'debunked', but I think even that term is heavy handed when it comes to identfying what exactly was flying over the city that day...

By sheer defination, a UFO is an unidentified flying object. To my knowledge the 'things' fying over the city that day still have not been positively identified.

What I think you meant to say was that such objects have not been positively identified as UFO's...

Supposedly, those 'sucky' flying disks could out run and out manuver Mexico's best fighter jets, for what that's worth.
 
I think there's an interesting question in the OP - distinct from any woo/woo debunking.....

taking this image

933844eb28b59cae4.jpg


now assuming

the image is genuine (As far i'm aware it is - but let me know if there's doubts :) )

then we have to choose which of the following is true;

1) The image is intended to show a UFO not dissimilar to the "flying saucer" depictions of the 20th century.

2) The image is actually depicting something else entirely (an eagle? Mountain? etc etc.)

personally, it seems a little debatable to me, but if we take (1) .....then in this case

1) The image should be seen in the context of Sumerian God mythology - perhaps representing a particular god myth.....

2) The image was a record of some real phenomenon/incident

3) The image was purely a invention of the artist's mind - and meant to be seen as such.

Now, which of these strands is most likely seems like a good start - and from that stems plenty more questions later....
 
This image...

...'alone' and by itself proves nothing, other than that the artist who's work this is, was famous enough for his work to have survived till today.

That said, when you place this image alongside the thousands of other like it, then you can begin to draw some conclusions.

However, all the pieces of artwork in the world concerning or displaying these images don't 'prove' anything, except that artists depict such things.

I don't think proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists today, but I think that it IS reasonable to conclude that there has been and there still are 'things' in the heavens that are not human.
 
I don't think proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists today, but I think that it IS reasonable to conclude that there has been and there still are 'things' in the heavens that are not human.

like birds? :)

but seriously, are there really "thousands"? Any links?

Personally, from a stand-alone pic such as the one above, I'd put it down to a illustration of a Sumerian god-myth - which was all rather heavens based (Anu indeed meaning sky....)
 
Is Von Danakin (Van donakin? Von Denikin) still alive and making documentaries?

Yup, Erich von Däniken is still alive and spewing his nonsense. I find it hard not to gloat over the fact that his alien-themed "Mystery Park" turned out to be a financial disaster.
 
Firstly, by heavens I meant beyond the atmosphere.

Secondly, 'thousands' would be an understatement. No kidding, do a google search of "UFO, historical artwork", and see what you get...

As far as the single image above, I will conceed yoru point, that it could very well be a depiction of a sumerian god.

Let me know if you change your mind after a simple search or two.
 
Von Daniken's park fails...

That's probably NOT because the visitors 'thought' the depictions were unreal...

I mean ALL of Disneyland is made up of fictional characters, and it makes a mint.

The park failed, likely do to non-thrilling rides, and overpriced entry fees.
 
I take it from the lack of debate on the subject that everyone here agrees that Colonial One kicks ass as a spaceship.
 
Von Daniken's park fails...

That's probably NOT because the visitors 'thought' the depictions were unreal...

Sadly, I agree with you there, although there is an important distincion to be made between Disneyland and Mystery Park: I don't believe many grown up people are intentionally mislead into thinking Goofy and Pluto are real beings.

The park failed, likely do to non-thrilling rides, and overpriced entry fees.

That and simple lack of interest. Pyramids and Aliens are out of fashion, you need at least to be able to talk to ghosts to make a decent living nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, by heavens I meant beyond the atmosphere.

Secondly, 'thousands' would be an understatement. No kidding, do a google search of "UFO, historical artwork", and see what you get...

As far as the single image above, I will conceed yoru point, that it could very well be a depiction of a sumerian god.

Let me know if you change your mind after a simple search or two.

well, it's interesting....i'll give you that :)

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

has various images......i'll look into it some more.....
 
how many images...

...did you review, Andyandy?

I think "interesting" is putting it mildly...

---

Edited to add:

After I posted a link to such works on this sight before, someone came behind me and posted a bunch of pictures of dragons, both A.D. & B.C. and then asked if I believed that such creatures really existed...

To which I responded with linked to picture of dinosaur fossil bones. While fire breathing flying, "dragons" may not have existed, I think I could find LOTS of examples of big lizards that once roamed the earth.

Now, their co-existance with man, as depicted in many many images may be less plausible.

Then again, you have the "Comodo Dragon", a child snatching, human eating beast that still roams parts of the world today...
 
Last edited:
I take it from the lack of debate on the subject that everyone here agrees that Colonial One kicks ass as a spaceship.

I do not agree that Colonial One "kicks ass" as a spaceship. Mostly because every time I think of Battlestar Galactica, I get slightly sick to my stomach. But I still watch it. Hmmmm....
 
Assuming there are alien spacecraft visiting the earth, my basic question remains, "So what?" It's quite obvious the aliens have not interacted with us in any official way. They have not even revealed themselves to us unambigiously. They show up occasionally, dance around the sky like they're mentally ill and disappear. What possible difference would it make if we knew they were real?

I can see no actual effect on human society in proving that aliens are visiting us, at least under the conditions aliens tend to visit us currently. Heck, 34% of Americans already believe aliens are here. That's about the same number of Americans as attend church once a week. Ibid. Whatever the knowledge of alien contact would do to society, it's already doing it.

But is this a poll that was taken by the people who view and follow fox news? If so that is completely understandable. If you are the porn company named Vivid and took a poll asking if there was enough sex on T.V. wouldn't the poll be bias?
 
Seeking Information

All the space ships we know are phallic symbol rockets or adapted jetliners like the space shuttle, or footed coffee-makers like the LEM. With only a limited knowledge (boy, an understatement) of aerodynamics and rocketry, it still seems to me that a saucer shape might not be the optimal design for interstellar travel. Particularly the kind that spin at dizzying speed, as seen in old films and TV shows.

Any thoughts from those who did not fail physics? Or even those, like me, who did?
 
But is this a poll that was taken by the people who view and follow fox news? If so that is completely understandable. If you are the porn company named Vivid and took a poll asking if there was enough sex on T.V. wouldn't the poll be bias?


It was taken by Opinion Dynamics Corp., which had this to say:

Polling was conducted by telephone September 23-24, 2003 in the evenings. The sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.

The actual questions asked are reported under the story, so you can do your own analysis if you want. As far as I can tell, it looks pretty valid. It wasn't a "phone in" poll or any other self-selecting sample ...

... Not that I think that would do much damage to my main point.
 
snip it still seems to me that a saucer shape might not be the optimal design for interstellar travel. Particularly the kind that spin at dizzying speed, as seen in old films and TV shows.

Any thoughts from those who did not fail physics? Or even those, like me, who did?

From what I've read, a ship designed for microgravity could be as boxy and ungainly as you want. But it would probably have to be somewhat phalic because you've got to get the bulk of the ship behind a large shield to protect it from small particles when traveling at velocity. You'll probably also want your crew compartments to be round because you need to insulate the crew from radiation and a round (or cylindrical) shape is going to make that easier.

For ships operating in air, you're going to want as much as an airplane/wing shape as possible unless you're depending on a completely different type of propulsion than is known to man. anti-gravity propulsion could allow your ship to be spherical.
 
Ok here are some examples on this site I'll go through each from top to bottom and list my comments and questions.

http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art.shtml

1.) ~ "The Baptism of Christ" ~ 1710 AD

In my opinion this painting could depict a parting in clouds where the sun is shining down on the main characters.

But looking at the detail the artist put into the rest of the painting I find it odd that this ray of sunshine or moonlight looks so poor.

Given that this was painted well after the "birth" of "Christ" I could be just a silly theory the artist had like many people do nowadays about why Christ was so significant.

2.) "The Crucifixion" 1350 AD

This painting I do find interesting because yet it was painted well after the time period of the so called crucifixion the artist included a two passenger vessels in the sky one chasing the other. Obviously the artist intended it to look like a chase because the person in the vessel on the right is looking back.

3.) ~ "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino" ~ Late 1400's AD
Another religious painting.... with an object over the right shoulder of Mary and a person cupping their hand over their brow to either look at the object or look at Mary.

4.) ~ "The Annunciation" ~ 1486 AD
Another painting that shows an oval in the sky with a ray of light coming down from it but this time to a single point. Could be an interpretation of the parting of the sky with light coming down from it but like the ~ "The Baptism of Christ" ~ painting the rest of the painting is so detailed why would the artist choose to lack so much detail in rays of sunshine?

Perhaps this painting influenced the artist who painted ~ "The Baptism of Christ" ~

5.) "Glorification of the Eucharist" 1600 AD
I don't see how this could be construed as a satellite when it clearly looks like earth to include an orbiting moon. Obviously I think this artist was trying to depict "Jesus" and "God" painting the earth.

Seems like a very far reach to think of this painting as a depiction of an alien craft.

6.) ~ "The Assumption of the Virgin" ~
The "saucers" in this picture look like altocumulus standing lenticuler if they were meant to be an accurate depiction of clouds.

Although it seems in this painting the artist used the clouds as filler and more or less focused on the people in the sky and on the ground. The background terrain doesn't seem to have much focus on it either. So I think these saucers are definitely supposed to be clouds. They were not a focal point as in ~ "The Baptism of Christ" ~ and ~ "The Annunciation" ~

7.) Painting on Earls D’Oltremond's wooden drawer.

Well, the bible has a story of fire falling from the sky (meteorites anyone?) so it only seems fitting that this artist would try to include something along those lines rather than something from out of this world.

I interpret it as the artist wanted to depict Moses as pleading with God asking him to stop the wrath because he will show the people the commandments and they will obey.

8.) Notabilia Temporum -1465 AD

Some kind of ornament or symbol and a burning stick or symbol maybe to show two opposing sides? Or simply something else I don't know, but I do not think these represent spaceships!

9.) Ancient Mandarin Chinese painting - No idea on time period

Chariot with people in it, but in the sky..... The vessel looks like nothing that an ancient era couldn't have seen traveling on the ground but the artist put it in the sky. No big deal either way, it’s just a vivid imagination probably.


10.) The Magnificat and the painting just below it... - 15th century

Yes the object does look like a hat and is obviously contrasted against the rest of the skyline which indicates to mean the artist either intended it to stick out or he made a mistake and covered it up in a poor fashion.

The styles of both paintings look very similar so I think they could have been painted by the same artist or one artist mimicking the other. If it were the same artist it could have just been a signature in most of his or her paintings.

But it certainly does not look like a cloud simply because in the top painting it contrasts the cloud looking white clouds. In the bottom painting there are black clouds that have shade and detail while the hat looking object looks very out of place if it were meant to be a cloud.

11.) ~ England UFO Sighting from 1742 ~

If this is indeed a real document, I think it is very detailed in the description of what this person saw or thought he saw which does seem very interesting. However the Chinese invented fireworks back in the 8th century A.D. Although it seemed to travel very slowly unlike many common flying fireworks.

What I find even more interesting is the person’s comparison to objects that were common to the time but definitely perceived as very mysterious.

UFO sighting from Windsor Castle - August 18, 1783

Seems like a meteorite to me even in its description. But it was claimed to stop and change direction which is an attribute not often associated with meteorites burning in the earth's atmosphere.

13.) 17th Century fresco depicting the Crucifixion of Christ,

Looks like faces meant to be looking down on the crucified person. To me it doesn't seem mysterious it just seems to me that the artist wanted to make the faces look simple. Maybe the artist couldn't fade the faces into the skyline the way he wanted to so he chose this as an alternative?

14.) "Le Livre Des Bonnes Moeurs" by Jacques Legrand, 1338 (left).

At first I thought hot air balloon but after a little research I found out they were not invented until 1783 by Jacques and Joseph Montgolfier. Then I thought maybe a makeshift balloon? But what would have kept it airborne back in 1338. What’s with drawing all the gold shiny objects around it?

Maybe it was meant to be the moon and the shiny things stars? At dusk?

15.)~ "The Miracle of the Snow" ~ - 1400 AD
Simply looks like an artist’s depiction of Jesus looking down from heaven.

16.) Illustration of a Nuremburg UFO sighting, April 14, 1561.
A meteor shower mixed with a tad of Picasso?

17.) "Prodigiorum Ac Ostentorum Chronicon" by Conrad Lycosthenes - published 1557

Looks like a neat little drawing but nothing seems to scream out weird. People have imaginations and they try to invent!

18.) Broadsheet picture by Samuel Coccius

Looks like the sun over powering the stars light in the morning. Making them vanish.

19.) This 15th century fresco from Kiev

Halos around the heads and the central person having more meaning to the artist so he made him cooler looking.

20.)UFO sighting over Hamburg, Germany ~ on November 4, 1697

The artist depicts 2 larger objects than the moon which is on the right which seems kind of odd.

21.) UFO Sighting over Angers France, in 842 AD

Meteorite or comet hands down.

22.) "Annales Laurissenses" - 776

Probably stars, but its weird because there are objects within them. Maybe planets orbiting the stars? It wasn't common knowledge at the time but people do have an imagination which is why it is common knowledge now!

But seems kind of borderline to me.

23.) "La Tebaide" ~ Academy of Florence, painted c.1460-1465 by Paolo Uccello

Looks like a rock on the hill. What a stretch.

24.) UFO sighting by two Dutch ships - North Sea, 1660

I don't know when this was drawn but it could be modern but the sighting old. I think the picture is fairly modern though. But the sighting report seems fairly interesting although I couldn't find anything backing up that this sighting actually existed, other than on wuwu sites like this one.

25.)"Summer's Triumph" ~ tapestry created in Bruges, in 1538 ~ Bayerisches National Museum.

Clouds, although they do look similar to the ones in "10." but they don't stand out like the ones in "10" however they were painted at around the same time. Maybe artists like to depict certain clouds as hats back then? who knows.

26.) burning wheel over Japan, in the year 900 AD.

Wheels are round and so is the sun. I think the artist is trying show what he thinks of the sun.

27.)Nankin, China ~ September 28, 1890

Bigger please.... Seems like a stretch.

28.)Haratonohama, Hitachi, Japan ~ 1803 The book "Ume No Chiri" (Dust of Apricot)

Interesting to me. Very interesting. Imagination probably but what sparked it to fall into this category.

29.) 10th Century Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit text "Prajnaparamita Sutra"

Portholes? Please...... it looks like a plain old holy hat!
Hats do like to move at the speed of the wind and sometimes the wind does make melodious sounds.

Huge leap........

30.) last one in the photograph.

Not enough information given and it doesn't look to mysterious to me. Just seems like this artist liked to depict different Gods to different places or things in the painting.
 
Last edited:
All the space ships we know are phallic symbol rockets or adapted jetliners like the space shuttle, or footed coffee-makers like the LEM. With only a limited knowledge (boy, an understatement) of aerodynamics and rocketry, it still seems to me that a saucer shape might not be the optimal design for interstellar travel. Particularly the kind that spin at dizzying speed, as seen in old films and TV shows.

Any thoughts from those who did not fail physics? Or even those, like me, who did?

Well what if it rotated while the center containing the passengers remained still?

Like coke can surrounded by ball bearings surrounded by a ring and the ring is what spun around.

But ya wouldn't make much sense though. Maybe if there were flaps underneath the outer shell that roated and acted like a helicopter in reverse.

Still not intersteller travel worthy and if low to the ground would create alot of wind in a downward motion.
 
Last edited:
Ceritus,

Maybe you missed this post by Wolverine?. It contains in-depth analysis of the most emblematic "UFO's" in ancient artwork cases. The title says it all: "Art & UFO's?,.... No Thanks!, Only Art".

It's a real shame that not all articles are translated into English, but anyway there's great stuff in there, the most comprehensive treatise on the subject I've ever read. Some of the articles appeared on the "Skeptic" magazine, as is publicized on the site.

You'll likely find this page very helpful, even though not all of it has been translated into English.
 

Back
Top Bottom