It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For a number of years I have been intrigued by old artwork that appears to depict UFOs. The artwork in my collection consists of frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings and early photographs.
Although some of the artwork represents actual sightings, others feature UFOs in a religious context.
One can only guess at why these artists chose to insert UFOs into their artwork. Did they have UFO sightings in their day and decide to add them in ? Perhaps they had an inner urge to insert them. Maybe they had some arcane knowledge about the relationship between UFOs and certain religious events.
Whatever the truth is, there are UFOs in these artworks...
I hope this collection, and my book The Alien Chronicles, will give gravitas to the idea that we have been visited by UFOs for thousands of years and whose occupants may have had an effect on our own genesis & evolution.
Originally posted by Quiintus
I think that every book I have ever read points out scholarly quotes and they usually refer to these peoples as people that should have been primitive but knew a lot about things they shouldn't have.
Originally posted by spacevisitor
I found after some searching a link with most of on his then site showed frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings.
I don’t know if you have seen it already, but I post it anyway to be shore.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
The argument that I as an ancient-astronaut-theorist, believe ancient humans to be primitive, is not valid.
Why? Because ancient-astronaut-theory says that the "Gods" were either extraterrestrials and humans created in their LIKENESS or the "Gods/Angels" were advanced human beings.
Originally posted by Harte
While I can't speak for [your interpretation of the AA theory, I can certainly know what VonDaniken and Sitchen say about it, and both of those guys point out things from the past that those "poor primitives couldn't possibly have done wiothout ET's help."
Are you going to deny this easily demonstrable fact?
Harte
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by spacevisitor
I found after some searching a link with most of on his then site showed frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings.
I don’t know if you have seen it already, but I post it anyway to be shore.
Hurley's a pretty good example of what I talked about before. He appears to be a very nice man who has no real knowledge about art history and who can't tell a fake from a real piece. There were a number of fakes on the site, including a "Chinese painting" which very clearly wasn't drawn by anyone from the Orient and which wasn't more than 10 years old. His site consistantly identifies "glories" as UFOs, even when there are texts in the painting that talk about the thing being a "glory."
(...yes, I also studied art history...)
During the course of my research numerous people have given me valuable information concerning the artwork on my site. Several of the images have turned out to be hoaxes or from works of fiction, others have been cases of misinterpretation. I feel it is only right to point this out to you all. Therefore I have set up this page to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
The point I was making is that I dont mind people not agreeing with the ancient astronaut theory. But its important to at least make clear what the theory IS and IS NOT, what it suggests and what it does not suggest.
One thing I keep hearing is that believing in the ancient astronaut theory also means that I believe the ancients were stupid.
This I dont believe, have never believed and will never believe. Why do I keep hearing it?
Originally posted by Illahee
reply to post by PhotonEffect
A typical Djed;
Can I ask what material the object is made from? Do you own that one?
Thks.
On Sunday, 17 December 1995, viewers in U.K. saw an hour-long T V. program which, at long last, puts across the clear message that "free energy" is on the way. In our New Energy News forum we already know much of the substance of what was covered, but it may be of interest to have this report.
The program was featured in the EQUINOX series which appears periodically on our T.V. Channel 4, its title being "It Runs On Water."
In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke [now deceased] explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.
"Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:
a) "It's nonsense,"
b) "It is not important,"
c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
d) "I thought of it first."
Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
In general, when they see an artifact or a picture thats outside of what the new inquisition says is "history" they will say one of the following things:
1. Its a hoax/fake
2. It means something different / doesnt mean anything
3. Its not from back then / Its been dated earlier
4. That may be the case, but its not enough evidence.
And if they cant disprove it, they wont comment on it at all but move on.
If you take a look around the ATS Archive you will notice how not once do they say "Hm....that points to the possibility of history being different than we were taught".
Originally posted by spacevisitor
You are no doubt a very educate man Byrd...
The general ancient astronaut theory says advanced extraterrestrials OR advanced humans were involved.