UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[FlexGunship]

We have testimony and evidence to this effect that wouldn't even be questioned were it not for the implications of these reports.

Ivan, you're so right about this! But you need to take that idea and really run with it. Why is it that we accept eye witness accounts of trees blowing in the wind, but we don't accept eye witness accounts of telepathy?

And the very reason we don't accept these reports at face value is that we have no idea how to explain them. Its often isn't the claim that raises eyebrows, it's the implications of the claim. If the witnesses really saw what they said they saw, then we have no explanation.

I disagree strongly. It is possible to see something totally explicable that does not fit into your experience and then to assign that idea to something new, rather than a familiar object seen in a new way. I think I need to point no further than the thousands of UFO reports involving Venus. Some of which claim it was buzzing around the sky making impossible moves: (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm - see newspaper article)

The more time I spent learning about the facts, the harder it became to explain it all away while maintaining any semblance of intellectual honesty There exists a fair amount of non-scientific evidence that leaves one scratching their head. Sure, we can always guess at ways to explain all away, but when these guesses require that we ignore everything but the desired conclusions, it becomes nonsensical. It becomes a leap of faith to dismiss it all.

It's not your responsibility to "explain it all away." It is, however, your job as an impartial judge to challenge any claimants to hold their hypothesis up for the most critical of examinations. You continually divide this argument into two camps: the "faithful" and the "unfaithful".

But that's really unfair. I'm still not dismissing the possibility of ET visitation. I'm saying firmly that there exists absolutely no evidence whatsoever that points towards this conclusion. I'm going on step further to say that it is a waste of time to consider it on such flimsy evidence. And finally, I'm going exactly one step further, saying that the type of evidence that must be presented to support this hypothesis must be at least as extraordinary as the hypothesis itself.

I mean, honestly, exactly how inexplicable must a light be, before we start allowing just any explanation in? ET visitation proponents can't even agree on a metric! There's no discussion to be had yet, and attempts to start that discussion are premature by at least 3 steps of the scientific process!

Again, no one is saying it's impossible, but you can't come to the table with a deck of blank cards and say: "well, it could be a royal flush."

Given that we have no way to extrapolate knowledge such that we can predict what technologies may be possible, for a race of beings a thousand, or a million, or a billion years more advanced than us, and given that even our understanding of physics may allow for ways to beat Einstein's speed limit, and given that life may indeed be common in the Universe, we have no way to set any limits here. If we are to be honest, we have to consider that a visitation might be possible. We can't rule out the possibility that people do occassionally encounter something not of this earth. We certainly have plenty of stories that imply as much, and they go back thousands of years. Some of these stories are in part the basis for some religions. How profound is that??

Appeal to grandeur/beauty. I freely admit that the idea is fascinating, and beyond interesting; still has no scientific content.

The biggest lesson that I've learned is that most skeptics will spend far more time arguing about this, than learning about it. Have you even looked at the UFO Napster?

Yes, I find it grossly speculative, and indiscriminating in which topics is allows to be included. I openly admit I haven't read every single link, because they all seem to be roughly the same thing. An FBI report filed about a light, two NSA agents take down a report of a weird noise, four people in a field observe something land... they all follow the same format.

What makes this subject so difficult to broach are the implications. If even one case really was an encounter with ETs, the implications are so deeply profound that, as a matter of self-preservation, we keep the very notion at arm's length.

I kind of resent that. The idea that there is some sort of push-back against the alien visitation hypothesis. Have you seen any of the conventions? Have you seen the shows? The vast majority of the public is not at all afraid of this, most already believe it has happened, and I can't think of anyone other than fundamental religionists that would find the idea offensive in anyway! You're clearly inventing a straw man.

I sincerely hope we make contact before I die. That is a piece of information I would love to know more than any other! Honestly! the idea is so invigorating and fascinating. But that is EXACTLY the reason why we must insist on impartiality above all else. And our best tool for avoiding the wishful thinking bias is science. So I will stand with science on this one and will remain a rapt spectator (if perhaps a bit of a cynical and disillusioned one).

It is not logically consistent to accept eyewitness testimony is cases of life and death, or when someone's freedom is at stake, but not in cases that we don't know how to explain, simply because we can't explain them. That is cherry picking.

Flat out wrong.

Giving eye witness testimony to something that is already within the purview of human experience is vastly different than asking someone to give an impartial picture of something they can't fathom. We know, for a fact, that people can report events comprised of objects and actions that understand.

What would the police report look like if three guys flew out of the sky, hovered around a woman, a pulsating green light appeared nearby, and then the woman dropped dead producing a shower of bright red sparks. What police report would be given if it were comprised of events that aren't understood by humans? Do you think all witnesses would agree? Do you think that evidence would be enough to convict someone of murder?

The test has already been done, Ivan, it's called the "Phoenix Lights." Granted, it wasn't up to scientific standards and there was only a control group (no "test" group), but the control group failed so spectacularly, that we cannot distinguish reports of the "real" from reports of the "control".

It's like giving LSD to the control group in a test for a new drug that may cause hallucinations.

 

[nismaratwork]

You are assuming that there is a lot of room for interpretation. I saw an ~ 100 ft diameter craft hovering 10 feet about my house, is pretty hard to argue as a mistake. And you find reports like these, for example, in the Belgium wave, where two police officers reported an extended observation of a large craft hovering over a church at close range. Your objection is valid within its domain, but it doesn't apply in all cases.

It's easier to argue that you were hallucinating, misinterpreting another phenomenon, seeing a 100' craft of terrestrial origin, than it is to do the same with someone stabbing another person 10 feet away from you. One is naturally within the realm of our brain's capacity to recognize and interpret, the other requires engaging exotic reasoning.

But eyewitness testimony is certainly evidence enough to start an investigation. If no supporing evidence is found, the case goes dormant, it isn't closed.

The same can be said of ET and UFO issues... I don't dismiss them out of hand or believe it's impossible, but in the absence of something more the issue remains null. Remember, a dormant case is likely to remain dormant (cold), but for UFOs or ETs we need more and better evidence. I never said that we should ignore all future evidence related to the case of ET, I just set a standard... like finding a murder weapon, or a body.

Again you are arguing for proof, not evidence. This is a point that I have probably made hundreds of times over the years: They are not the same thing.

Here you fall victim to a basic misunderstanding: fingerprints and DNA are not PROOF, they are evidence, which can then be strengthened by circumstances (how did you DNA end up in that lady if you never met her?), but proof?... no, just a high degree of evidence when added to eyewitness, testimony of others, and detailed investigation.

We have tons of videos. They count for nothing.

The videos aren't anything like conclusive... so in the end it's more to do with eyewitness again.

Again with the proof. No one is talking about proof here. The question is, what justifies an interest in claims of gorillas. What happened was that someone made the effort to find and catch one, based on the claims.

We're having this conversation... I'm interested, believe me. Most in this thread agree that there are at least SOME currently unexplained phenomena, but there is no evidence they aren't of terrestrial origin. In essence, SETI, this discussion and thousands like it ARE our debates over the existence of mountain men... we're waiting for gorillas however, and until then it's just talk and speculation. For every gorilla, there have been a lot of hoaxes or "giant ants" that turn out to be marmots (points if you get the reference).

 

[FlexGunship]

We're having this conversation... I'm interested, believe me. Most in this thread agree that there are at least SOME currently unexplained phenomena, but there is no evidence they aren't of terrestrial origin. In essence, SETI, this discussion and thousands like it ARE our debates over the existence of mountain men... we're waiting for gorillas however, and until then it's just talk and speculation. For every gorilla, there have been a lot of hoaxes or "giant ants" that turn out to be marmots (points if you get the reference).

Hah, Nismar, I was actually thinking of how to make this point!

Ivan, the investigation is afoot! As a species, we've heard enough gorilla stories to start keeping our eyes open. The problem is that we're getting a million and one reports in a form that just doesn't count. Instead off gorilla-like evidence we have bigfoot-like evidence.

Doesn't mean we have to throw in the towel, we should keep looking... but it's certainly too soon to even be speculating about ET visitation.

How many points? This is the story of El Dorado, right? They would dig up gold, or something? I think that's an unfair comparison, Nismar, there's a lot of evidence in favor of the giant ants. I heard a Mexican general saw them and he confirmed radar contact on it too! Pilots in pursuit were baffled when their missiles wouldn't lock onto the giant ants!

EDIT: Sorry, that was a cheap shot.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ivan,

You would do well to realize that the people you are discussing this with are not disinterested in the phenomenon. I am so passionate about it, not because I don't care, but because I've looked at all the same evidence that you have.

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, and we read as many new reports as we can (just like you, I'm sure).

It's just that we are more discerning about what information we accept. And when we are unsure, we resort to science. Cold, hard, unforgiving science. We absorb stories about UFOs, ghosts, telepaths, and psychics... but we don't take them at face value.

 

[alt]

Ivan,

You would do well to realize that the people you are discussing this with are not disinterested in the phenomenon. I am so passionate about it, not because I don't care, but because I've looked at all the same evidence that you have.

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, and we read as many new reports as we can (just like you, I'm sure).

It's just that we are more discerning about what information we accept. And when we are unsure, we resort to science. Cold, hard, unforgiving science. We absorb stories about UFOs, ghosts, telepaths, and psychics... but we don't take them at face value.

We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, ..

But in earlier posts you have categorised everyone - us, we, them, and YOU included, as 'silly meatheads'. Thus you boil it all down (YOUR opinons as well) to those of silly meatheads, which doesn't say much about 'nuthin' ..

 

[alt]

Hah, Nismar, I was actually thinking of how to make this point!

Ivan, the investigation is afoot! As a species, we've heard enough gorilla stories to start keeping our eyes open. The problem is that we're getting a million and one reports in a form that just doesn't count. Instead off gorilla-like evidence we have bigfoot-like evidence.

Doesn't mean we have to throw in the towel, we should keep looking... but it's certainly too soon to even be speculating about ET visitation.

How many points? This is the story of El Dorado, right? They would dig up gold, or something? I think that's an unfair comparison, Nismar, there's a lot of evidence in favor of the giant ants. I heard a Mexican general saw them and he confirmed radar contact on it too! Pilots in pursuit were baffled when their missiles wouldn't lock onto the giant ants!

EDIT: Sorry, that was a cheap shot.

but it's certainly too soon to even be speculating about ET visitation.

What a strange statement. Too soon to be speculating ? Almost oxymoronic. Speculation of any matter is precisely what occurs PRIOR to any proof of it either way. When do you feel speculation would be more appropriate ?

 

[FlexGunship]

but it's certainly too soon to even be speculating about ET visitation.

What a strange statement. Too soon to be speculating ? Almost oxymoronic. Speculation of any matter is precisely what occurs PRIOR to any proof of it either way. When do you feel speculation would be more appropriate ?

"Speculating about ET visitation." Not hypothesizing it. You can hypothesize the existence of ET life without any UFO reports: life is prevalent and tenacious on Earth; there is nothing to prevent it from being true elsewhere. Therefore, I could hypothesize the existence of life on other planets without a single UFO report based on the proliferation of life on Earth in areas that have similar habitats to those that may exist on other planetary bodies.

Given examples of life on Earth, we could even go so far as to speculate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speculate) about the nature of that life (moving far past the hypothesis). But you have to do some inventing/bypassing to get to speculate about ET visitation.

Going much farther than that is really premature. And then somehow connecting that speculation to, what seem to be, random local observations is a stretch in the highest degree. The only reasoning I can see here is that, if something you don't understand happens (or better yet, TWO things that you don't understand happen) then you are free to apply it to whatever speculation you were already working on.

Let's speculate about the natures and intentions of ET visitation when we've got a better idea of their biological chemistry, ethical imperatives, and the like.

 

[FlexGunship]

We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, ..

But in earlier posts you have categorised everyone - us, we, them, and YOU included, as 'silly meatheads'. Thus you boil it all down (YOUR opinons as well) to those of silly meatheads, which doesn't say much about 'nuthin' ..

EDIT: To be clear, I was contrasting the "faithful" and the "unfaithful." Simply taking a statement out of context doesn't constitute a compelling argument.

I have also reiterated the point that the only thing that keeps our society moving forward is the scientific imperative. When we let go of it, our worst aspects become dominant: the tendency to find patterns in noise, the ease with which we apply "intent" to inanimate objects, our inability to properly store uncorrupted data, etc..

Science textbooks are flooded with scientists who allowed the tiniest bit of bias into an experiment and ruined it utterly. Some of these ideas had good solid basis in fact! The luminiferous aether, alchemy, the Bohr atomic model, corpuscle theory, and hundreds more are all examples of scientific theories that seemed to work, but were still wrong (sorry, I had to group the Bohr model with alchemy).

Even with mountains of observations, you need to reserve judgement because history has shown over and over that we, as humans, jump to conclusions.

If you are willing to accept the ET visitation hypothesis as a possibility, then I insist you must consider "ghost planes" (the spirit of dead airplanes) as being at least as likely since they are both based on roughly the same amount of actual evidence. On the plus side, the ghost plane doesn't need to break the speed of light to visit us... granted, you do have to allow for ghosts to exist.

You should also accept the possibility that UFOs are humans from the future, traveling into the past to observe their own history.

 

[jreelawg]

Aert de Gelder (October 26, 1645, Dordrecht – August 27, 1727, Dordrecht)

"Baptism of Christ"

 

[Andre]

Aert de Gelder (October 26, 1645, Dordrecht – August 27, 1727, Dordrecht)

"Baptism of Christ"

Interesting, could it be that Aert de Gelder set the trend about what UFO's would have to look like?

 

[alt]

EDIT: To be clear, I was contrasting the "faithful" and the "unfaithful." Simply taking a statement out of context doesn't constitute a compelling argument.

But I don't think I took you out of context at all, and implying thay I did, does not constitute a compelling argument. Look, you said;

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, and we read as many new reports as we can (just like you, I'm sure).

The second sentence therein, is fairly intependent of the first, and can be read to apply to all forms of sceptisism, not just religious. In any case, you missed my query, which was ..

But in earlier posts you have categorised everyone - us, we, them, and YOU included, as 'silly meatheads'. Thus you boil it all down (YOUR opinons as well) to those of silly meatheads, which doesn't say much about 'nuthin' ..

What is your response in relation to this ?

I have also reiterated the point that the only thing that keeps our society moving forward is the scientific imperative. When we let go of it, our worst aspects become dominant: the tendency to find patterns in noise, the ease with which we apply "intent" to inanimate objects, our inability to properly store uncorrupted data, etc..

Science textbooks are flooded with scientists who allowed the tiniest bit of bias into an experiment and ruined it utterly. Some of these ideas had good solid basis in fact! The luminiferous aether, alchemy, the Bohr atomic model, corpuscle theory, and hundreds more are all examples of scientific theories that seemed to work, but were still wrong (sorry, I had to group the Bohr model with alchemy).

Science textbooks / history also have many examples where scientists (and others) have followed their bias, intuitions, etc, and have been spectacularly successful.

Even with mountains of observations, you need to reserve judgement because history has shown over and over that we, as humans, jump to conclusions.

Yes, I don't disagree. But you must admit, they've on occassions, jumped to the CORRECT conclusions.

If you are willing to accept the ET visitation hypothesis as a possibility, then I insist you must consider "ghost planes" (the spirit of dead airplanes) as being at least as likely since they are both based on roughly the same amount of actual evidence. On the plus side, the ghost plane doesn't need to break the speed of light to visit us... granted, you do have to allow for ghosts to exist.

I'm not too hot on ET's. That's why I believe it is far more likely, and mundane, that a small percentage of sightings are secret militaty technology, and the rest are noise, deliberate or not.

You should also accept the possibility that UFOs are humans from the future, traveling into the past to observe their own history.

I don't thinks so !

spelling edit

 

[nismaratwork]

Aert de Gelder (October 26, 1645, Dordrecht – August 27, 1727, Dordrecht)

"Baptism of Christ"

A cloudbreak, a "portal" to heaven, a lot of things... UFO doesn't spring to mind.

 

[FlexGunship]

Aert de Gelder (October 26, 1645, Dordrecht – August 27, 1727, Dordrecht)

"Baptism of Christ"

It would be interesting to see who finds this to be compelling evidence of a "flying saucer" in our past.

 

[FlexGunship]

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). We aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [you] have seen." We have carefully considered it, and we read as many new reports as we can (just like you, I'm sure).

The second sentence therein, is fairly intependent of the first, and can be read to apply to all forms of sceptisism, not just religious. In any case, you missed my query, which was ..

What is your response in relation to this ?

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). [A-UFO-ists, or non-believers in the various traditional UFO hypotheses] aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [UFO-ists] have seen [as contrasted with those who are UFO-ists, or believers in the various traditional UFO hypotheses]." [A-UFO-ists] have carefully considered [the same evidence you have considered], and [a-UFO-ists] read as many new reports as [a-UFO-ists] can (just like [UFO-ists], I'm sure).

EDIT: removed all traces of pronouns.

 

[jreelawg]

A cloudbreak, a "portal" to heaven, a lot of things... UFO doesn't spring to mind.

It certainly doesn't look like he intended to paint a cloudbreak. The reason UFO might spring to a persons mind, is that it looks like a typical flying saucer. Sure it is probably coincidence, or maybe a depiction of a lenticular cloud? It could be the myth of the flying saucer is much older than we know? It certainly is not typical of biblical art to depict spiritual forces in this way.

 

[FlexGunship]

It certainly is not typical of biblical art to depict spiritual forces in this way.

Actually, I was just reading about this. It appears that it is actually fairly common in paintings about the Baptism of Christ. Also, paintings about the Annunciation of Mary seem to show a disc with a single beam. In the painting below, it is somewhat less obvious.

In other paintings about the Baptism of Christ, there seems to be a clear trend:

I would argue that they all show, principally, the same thing. This is just a symbol (like the dove) of divinity. I suppose the only thing left to be said is that Gelder seems to be a pretty poor artist when it comes to painting doves, and the like.

 

[jreelawg]

Actually, I was just reading about this. It appears that it is actually fairly common in paintings about the Baptism of Christ. Also, paintings about the Annunciation of Mary seem to show a disc with a single beam. In the painting below, it is somewhat less obvious.

I would argue that they all show, principally, the same thing. This is just a symbol (like the dove) of divinity. I suppose the only thing left to be said is that Gelder seems to be a pretty poor artist when it comes to painting doves, and the like.

I think it is safe to say Gelder didn't intend to paint a dove.

If you could post some of the more obvious paintings which depict a disc it would be helpful.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think it is safe to say Gelder didn't intend to paint a dove.

If you could post some of the more obvious paintings which depict a disc it would be helpful.

Yeah, but as standards of proof go, "didn't intend to paint a dove" is weak.

 

[jreelawg]

Yeah, but as standards of proof go, "didn't intend to paint a dove" is weak.

I think that an artist of his caliber could paint a dove, if he intended to have painted a dove, he would have, but he didn't.

 

[alt]

Actually, I was just reading about this. It appears that it is actually fairly common in paintings about the Baptism of Christ. Also, paintings about the Annunciation of Mary seem to show a disc with a single beam. In the painting below, it is somewhat less obvious.

I would argue that they all show, principally, the same thing. This is just a symbol (like the dove) of divinity. I suppose the only thing left to be said is that Gelder seems to be a pretty poor artist when it comes to painting doves, and the like.

So some religious painter painted some doves, or something .. I suppose the other thing left to be said is what does this crop of visual aides contribute to the UFO debate here.

 

[alt]

Like a person who studies their religion a little too closely and becomes an atheist, I've studied too many UFO reports and now I'm an a-UFO-ist (in the traditional "ET" "secret military craft" fashion). [A-UFO-ists, or non-believers in the various traditional UFO hypotheses] aren't a bunch of fools that simply haven't "seen the evidence [UFO-ists] have seen [as contrasted with those who are UFO-ists, or believers in the various traditional UFO hypotheses]." [A-UFO-ists] have carefully considered [the same evidence you have considered], and [a-UFO-ists] read as many new reports as [a-UFO-ists] can (just like [UFO-ists], I'm sure).

EDIT: removed all traces of pronouns.

It would have been the same had you removed all traces of nouns .. and verbs. It's confusing.

I think what you're saying is you've studied it and don't believe in UFO's. Fair enough.

Others have also studied it and do believe, or at least allow the possibility.

Others have studied science and abandoned religion. And others have studied religion and abandoned science. That's the beauty of this world - there's a lot out there.

BTW, I haven't read many reports at all, though am innately skeptical about the existence of ET's. Far more sensible and mundane to suppose that a small percentage of sightings could well be man made technology, against a background of much - deliberate or otherwise - noise.

 

[FlexGunship]

So some religious painter painted some doves, or something .. I suppose the other thing left to be said is what does this crop of visual aides contribute to the UFO debate here.

Okay, this is getting absurd. The discussion was about whether or not a post by Jreelawg constituted evidence of flying saucers in times prior entertainment media. Specifically, he gave the example of "The Baptism of Christ" by Gelder.

There were also musings about whether or not this was a dominant theme in paintings of that era. I then produced several examples which (arguably) could show that it was a theme for this particular topic of a painting. I also added an example of a disc/disk appearing in an unrelated painting producing the halo around Mary's head.

This is where the discussion is now. If you can not follow it, then do not contribute.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yeah, but as standards of proof go, "didn't intend to paint a dove" is weak.

I think that an artist of his caliber could paint a dove, if he intended to have painted a dove, he would have, but he didn't.

Okay, you're both correct, my argument is incredibly weak since I'm forced to "assume" the intent of the painter; clearly not a good way to further the discussion. Let me see if I can build a bit more on that point.

These paintings were not painted by witnesses of the event. In fact, if you take Biblical mythology as fact and assume the event happened at all, then we are off by some 15 to 17 centuries (allowing for various theories on the birth date of Christ).

In most cases, when an artist chooses to paint this event he chooses to paint a dove in the sky. I've done my best to compile a few paintings that show this. These artists are, presumably, working from the same story, but only one of them has chosen to put a "disk" in the sky, while the others have chosen to place a dove there. In one case we have hands releasing a dove, and in another we have the Abrahamic god watching over as well.

Of course this doesn't constitute proof of poor artistry, not by a long shot; but isn't it possible that we're reading too much into it, and this is just another case of religious symbolism? Here I will show another example of the same thing happening:

Here we see a dove:

Here we see a dove with a laser beam:

http://www.analogartsensemble.net/blog/maryannunciation.jpg

And here we see a saucer with a laser beam:
[URL]http://grhomeboy.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/25-03-08_annunciation_virgin_mary.jpg[/URL]

In all cases, the subject of the painting is the event known as "Annunciation of Mary." This is just another type of religious symbolism in painting.

 

[alt]

Okay, this is getting absurd. The discussion was about whether or not a post by Jreelawg constituted evidence of flying saucers in times prior entertainment media. Specifically, he gave the example of "The Baptism of Christ" by Gelder.

There were also musings about whether or not this was a dominant theme in paintings of that era. I then produced several examples which (arguably) could show that it was a theme for this particular topic of a painting. I also added an example of a disc/disk appearing in an unrelated painting producing the halo around Mary's head.

This is where the discussion is now. If you can not follow it, then do not contribute.

Flex, I can follow the discussion, but you're right - it is getting absurd. Your commnets in the latter post are relevant;

Okay, you're both correct, my argument is incredibly weak since I'm forced to "assume" the intent of the painter; clearly not a good way to further the discussion.

I still have NO idea what direct relevance this religious iconology has with the UFO debate, other than some oblique notion that someone might have painted something that denoted UFO's.

But that's OK - in fact, I'm finding the images quite interesting. Actually, I've been looking for one - a portrait of JC where he has his right arm raised, his palm out, and his four fingers and thumb in a particular configuration signifying the Alpha and the Omega .. although someone told me once it was some ET signal .. or something. Do you have that one too ? It would be interesting to examine !

 

[FlexGunship]

I still have NO idea what direct relevance this religious iconology has with the UFO debate, other than some oblique notion that someone might have painted something that denoted UFO's.

I believe the idea is this:

• claim: modern UFO reports get the "flying saucer" image from popular fictional media
• an example of a flying saucer far in the past would disprove this claim (above)

So, I was endeavoring to show that "flying saucers" in religious art have a significantly different meaning to the artist than how we choose to interpret them today. By showing several examples of artists renditions of the same event side by side, I was trying to show that disks (like halos) are often used to represent divinity in the same way a dove is.

But that's OK - in fact, I'm finding the images quite interesting. Actually, I've been looking for one - a portrait of JC where he has his right arm raised, his palm out, and his four fingers and thumb in a particular configuration signifying the Alpha and the Omega .. although someone told me once it was some ET signal .. or something. Do you have that one too ? It would be interesting to examine !

I have heard that claim made about this painting, but I (personally) don't see the resemblance at all. Perhaps it is better shown in a different painting.

Perhaps this is a better example?

 

[alt]

Flex said;

but isn't it possible that we're reading too much into it, and this is just another case of religious symbolism?

Yes, I would say it's exactly that, and no more - religious symbolism. I don't see that it's got anything to do with UFO's or ET's.

 

[alt]

I believe the idea is this:

• claim: modern UFO reports get the "flying saucer" image from popular fictional media
• an example of a flying saucer far in the past would disprove this claim (above)

So, I was endeavoring to show that "flying saucers" in religious art have a significantly different meaning to the artist than how we choose to interpret them today. By showing several examples of artists renditions of the same event side by side, I was trying to show that disks (like halos) are often used to represent divinity in the same way a dove is.

Praise the Lord - I agree entirely ! :-)

I have heard that claim made about this painting, but I (personally) don't see the resemblance at all. Perhaps it is better shown in a different painting.

Perhaps this is a better example?

Yes, that's the theme, you will note the book held up with the Greek Alpha and Omega. There is another rendition of this theme, however, in an icon commonly seen in Greek Orthodox churches, that is starkly more poignant and precise. The forefinger and the the second finger are tapered to form the Alpha. The next and the thumb form a circle (the top part of the omega) and the little finger forms a straight line (the bottom part of the omega).

In the few occassions I go to church (weddings, etc) it always captivates me - I find it quite beautiful. Some wacko was once trying to convince me that it was a secret coded signal to or from ET's .. or something.

Anyhow, I shall not digress ..

Edit - fixed fingers / thumb

 

[nismaratwork]

Flex said;

but isn't it possible that we're reading too much into it, and this is just another case of religious symbolism?

Yes, I would say it's exactly that, and no more - religious symbolism. I don't see that it's got anything to do with UFO's or ET's.

AFAIK that's his entire point.

I think that an artist of his caliber could paint a dove, if he intended to have painted a dove, he would have, but he didn't.

Yeah, but leaping to "flying machine" seems extreme. Seems like the imagery of a cloud-break mixed with the notion of the "in the heavens above" reaching out to bless with golden light.

 

[nismaratwork]

Praise the Lord - I agree entirely ! :-)



Yes, that's the theme, you will note the book held up with the Greek Alpha and Omega. There is another rendition of this theme, however, in an icon commonly seen in Greek Orthodox churches, that is starkly more poignant and precise. The forefinger and the the second finger are tapered to form the Alpha. The next and the thumb form a circle (the top part of the omega) and the little finger forms a straight line (the bottom part of the omega).

In the few occassions I go to church (weddings, etc) it always captivates me - I find it quite beautiful. Some wacko was once trying to convince me that it was a secret coded signal to or from ET's .. or something.

Anyhow, I shall not digress ..

Edit - fixed fingers / thumb

Explain to your gullible friend that it equals "holy trinity". Hell, I'm an atheist and even I know this ****... what happened to this thread?!

 

[FlexGunship]

Explain to your gullible friend that it equals "holy trinity". Hell, I'm an atheist and even I know this ****... what happened to this thread?!

So, to conclude, I think w can all agree that the UFO phenomenon yields no evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. The best explanation for the prevalence of reports is: confusion, illusion, delusion, and hoax.

Confusion: planes, blimps, celestial bodies, and weather phenomena conspire to confuse our primitive human senses

Illusion: as is so often the case, what you see is not what you get. As established earlier in this thread, relying on a human brain to process data can sometimes yield faulty results.

Delusion: sadly, sometimes people convince themselves that what they've seen is something specific regardless of the evidence for it. The delusion can become to real for some people that they are immune to discussion about it.

Hoax: well, we can all understand this one! Who doesn't want a moment of fame, even if their name isn't attached to it. An anonymous picture here, a nameless video there, and you get to see your work on the news, in documentaries, and even in books.

Until better evidence is available, these seem to be the best explanations of the UFO phenomenon. Let's all keep our eyes out for something truly compelling!