Ancient Anomalies and Aliens - Part 1: Art

reply to post by XPLodER


CHAOS has gone Viral !!!




Good job CHAOS

reply to post by Come Clean

Ah, yes. The employed debunker claim; "You disagree so you must be an agent." A perfect compliment to "prove they don't exist."
Pointless drivel which is resorted to when out of rational arguments.

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple


Sure, it does look like UFOs if that's what you want to see. But to someone who wants to look for a logical explaination they may want to check

.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here BUT....

If a scientist wants to see a black hole or iron core deep inside the Earth....will they see it? Of course they will see it because that's what they want to see.

Would you agree with that? If so, then why do the debunkers not want to see UFO's in these pictures. WHY? Because they don't want to see it period. They would rather believe a series of binary numbers in the form of data BEFORE they believe in eyewitness testimony.

Originally posted by randyvs
One thing I have to agree with Phage on is that an artists rendering of something or anything for that matter
is evidence of absolutly nothing. We can only consider the possibilities for why these things exist.? Evidence not.

Speaking to you as a scholar in design (art, art history,etc...) and psychology, you are pretty much on the correct track. Many of humanities older pieces are reflection of social issues, changes, and religions. It is very rare to find absolute subjective interpretation in their pieces. However, the more you follow art history, the time period that leads up to the 1960s (New York School), art becomes very non-representational. Expressionism, Impressionism, Art Nouveau, and many other modern art movements are based upon personal interpretation. Jackson Pollack and Vincent van Gogh were driven by two different paradigms. One sought out impressionism though non-representational work, and the other sought out emotionally driven non-representational work. Capturing one moment in time versus capturing emotions.

If you go back to the Renascence time period (Antiquity), artists were seeking a more affective means to capturing the physical. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael sought to capture the human form and facial expressions into painting and sculpture. Everything was about 'the here and now'.

Egyptians were also trying to capture the human form; however, they used their art to project the metaphysical. Everything was about life, death, and the afterlife. Interesting note: Egyptians were the first civilization to put sculpture into motion. If you look at their statues, they have one foot and one hand forward. It was the first civilization to put sculptures into motion.

During and around the reinsurance time period, art was being developed for religious and scientific exploration. Catholic church hired artists to create pieces based upon biblical scripture. Everything you see in these images are an artist's interpretation of what is found in the bible. Religious symbolism was in everything.

As for the Mayan civilization, they matched what came before them. All their interest in astronomy was influenced by outsiders. Around the time the Spanish invaded their civilization, the Mayans started to suffer nightmares and mental illness. All their artwork went from rational to hellish. Some have speculated that the food and water sources become polluted. We still need to dig further.

Symbolism is everywhere.

reply to post by Phage


Phage,

How can a black hole be so massive that nothing can escape it and yet the "singularity" before the Big Bang contained all the mass of the universe...yet it wasn't massive enough to keep mass or light from escaping?

reply to post by Phage


More misdirection and stall tactics huh Phage. Why don't you ever answer any questions posed to you? I'm sure you will say you don't answer nonsensical questions. Okay, I'll give you that one. So answer this ONE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR ME PHAGE. If you answer then I will leave you alone for the day.

Explain to me how the Mayans created a calendar that equals 26K years which also matches the 26K year precession of the Earth?

reply to post by Phage


No Phage, it's not an alien, but there isn't even a hint of subjective CONTEXT that might lead us to SUSPECT that the artist may have been trying to convey something beyond his understanding (such as a religious experience, or possibly a UFO, or perhaps an alien encounter.

What you have linked is a picture by Picasso (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). There is nothing in the work of Picasso that suggests he ever tried to depict UFOs, aliens and so forth. If there was, and the painting was done many centuries ago when artwork was ALL THAT THEY HAD to make visual records of what they witnessed around them, then I might give your 'argument' a bit of thought. However, you're using false constructs for your arguments.

Chin up - science isn't the bad guy in my books, but I really would like to see a bit more openness from you. Applying your intellect to solve the mysteries would be a more productive use of it than pseudobunking everything outside the mainstream.

I agree with Chaos when he (effectively) says that some of the scientific theories to explain these ancient mysteries are more ridiculous than even a child would believe. I mean, seriously. Fish or aeroplane? Hmm.

Originally posted by Phage


For me, the Inca objects bear a stylized resemblance to the family of fish, rhinobatidae, more than any aircraft I've ever seen. The arrangement of the empennage does not really make sense from an aerodynamic standpoint, with the horizontal stabilizer positioned so far forward of the vertical. Yes, it can be made to fly, but so can a lawn mower.

come on, it comes to something when you have to fool yourself in order to dismiss things that go against your belief system. i don't believe you really even think it yourself. if the inca objects look more like a fish than a aircraft, then i'd really like to know how you see aircraft. the objects have everything you would expect to see a aircraft have barring engines under the wings

they have wings, a cockpit. a body, tail wings exactly how you would expect on a plane. i have never seen a fish or bug that has a tail like that. the objects resemble planes more than anything else regardless of if they were created to be planes.

so to say " the Inca objects bear a stylized resemblance to the family of fish, rhinobatidae, more than any aircraft I've ever seen." proves to me you are simply denying the obvious in order to ignore what the OP's information could mean.

i mean we cannot have primitive man making models of aircraft now can we, better to deny they even look like them.

reply to post by Come Clean


I guess you didn't see where I mentioned that I agree that there is evidence of UFO's in ancient art. I'm not a debunker, I just didn't agree with every exhibit. Is that hard to understand?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Actually it is hard to understand. It's like saying I agree fish live in the water but not all fish live in water.

Tell me, where can I find fish that live on land? Oh wait, ancient fish crawled on land right? That's where we came from right?

Seems funny we can use ancient fish to make a claim but ancient text/pictures is total nonsense.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Phage

 

There is nothing in the work of Picasso that suggests he ever tried to depict UFOs, aliens and so forth.

Absolutely correct.

What many of these UFO believers miss is that art movements were driven to advance the tools of the trade. Artists were too busy trying to make or break reality; thus, they were using tools in creative ways to invent a better means to express themselves.

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/]
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?8d9cefa66f.jpg]

Hello, My first real post on ATS - anyone notice any similarities?

No idea how to attach the images, maybe someone could do it for me if they have time?

Also i can't see the name of anyone who is posting for some reason, its been like this for a few weeks, very weird.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Phage

 

There is nothing in the work of Picasso that suggests he ever tried to depict UFOs, aliens and so forth.

Absolutely correct.

What many of these UFO believers miss is that art movements were driven to advance the tools of the trade. Artists were too busy trying to make or break reality; thus, they were using tools in creative ways to invent a better means to express themselves.

edit on 9-10-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Well, its not like they went to a one hour picture shop to have their thoughts put on canvass right? It took weeks or months to paint these drawings. You telling me these anomalies were surreptitiously added for FLARE?

Tell us all, how exactly do you know what the focal point of those drawings were? What if the focal point was the object in the background?

Explain to this board how YOU know what the focal point of these paintings were.

reply to post by Section31


i don't believe anyone knows what these artist were doing or were not doing, were they being creative or recording history by the only means they had at the time?

anyone claiming to know is simply guessing.

reply to post by Kcomplex

Yes. However, the circle and triangle are universal.

You will not find one piece of art without them.

This is really well put together, can't wait to read your next one. This is the perfect bit of information I need to get my friends to think a little more about what is out there.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Section31

 

i don't believe anyone knows what these artist were doing or were not doing, were the being creative or recording history by the only means they had at the time?

anyone claiming to know is simply guessing.

Really? Wow! Hahaha...

So, you dismiss all the artists who left behind letters, portfolios, and philosophical arguments for what they were doing? Hahaha...

A lot of our information about these artists come directly from their own words, which they left behind for people to reflect upon. We call them letters, portfolios, journals, and reflection pieces.

When you talk about art pieces without having prior knowledge, you people are missing a mess of details that come from documented elements.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

No Phage, it's not an alien, but there isn't even a hint of subjective CONTEXT that might lead us to SUSPECT that the artist may have been trying to convey something beyond his understanding (such as a religious experience, or possibly a UFO, or perhaps an alien encounter.

That's exactly it. If you can't see why Aliens have relevance here you are completely blind IMO, whether or not that's what they were actually depicting, it needs to be looked at seriously.

reply to post by lifeform11

come on, it comes to something when you have to fool yourself in order to dismiss things that go against your belief system. i don't believe you really even think it yourself. if the inca objects look more like a fish than a aircraft, then i'd really like to know how you see aircraft.

I spat water all over my screen because of that comment! I shouldn't give you a star but it was hilarious.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Good job CHAOS

Thank you, and I enjoyed your post on the last page.

All of the art could be depicting humans in headdress's and comets/meteor showers in the sky. Or just ancient Gods they thought of. Egyptians believed in Anubis. Does that mean there was really half-canine people walking around since they made art depicting such?

How would any logical conclusion end up with this being "ancient aliens"?



People are creative.

reply to post by Section31


please show me these writings left behind by the artists from 7,000 b.c. etc. or any writing left behind explaining why they painted the wired object in the picture and what it is meant to resemble, then we can put that painting out of the 'picture' .