New Research Topic - The Airships of King Solomon

[ArMaP]

Awesome Thread, did some googling and found some other cool paintings from him.

No, those are paintings from different artists showing the same story, Bacchus and Ariadne.
The first was made by Carlo Maratta, the second by Guido Ren and the third is a study by Jzin of the original Bachus and Ariadne by Titian.

It almost looks like the guy was obsessed with ufo's.

The first painting clearly shows that the "stars" where painted as if they where spinning.

One version of the Bachus and Ariadne story says that Bachus found Ariadne, after she was abandoned by Theseus on an island while she slept, and he took the crown from her head and threw it up to the sky, so she could shine among the stars, and the crown became the Corona Borealis. In another version Ariadne herself was transformed into the Corona Borealis by Bachus.

[Senduko]

Oh I see, did not know it was from 3 different artists, thank you.  I found them by reverse searching that one image. So I always got the same painter and these paintings.


But the story itself, I don't know man, sounds pretty spacy to me:D

[ArMaP]

But the story itself, I don't know man, sounds pretty spacy to me:D

The ancient Greeks had some strange stories.

[zorgon]

One version of the Bachus and Ariadne story says that Bachus found Ariadne, after she was abandoned by Theseus on an island while she slept, and he took the crown from her head and threw it up to the sky, so she could shine among the stars, and the crown became the Corona Borealis. In another version Ariadne herself was transformed into the Corona Borealis by Bachus.

So your saying a "crown" went up into space and became a constellation?

So that is more believable than a UFO?



Like the ' coin story" The God Jupiter sends a shield to win a war from Heaven....

and you cannot see how that is a UFO expressed in terms available to them at that time?

NOTE I said UFO  as in UNIDENTIFIED flying object  

I suppose you could argue that the flying crown was an IFO, same with the flying shiels   But are you really that desparate to disprove that Aliens were messing around with us in the past and were called "Gods" because they were deemed powerful?



Most likely it was similar to THIS







I wonder what THIS tribe saw? 

[zorgon]

The ancient Greeks had some strange stories.

Well strange stories a lot of times have roots in very strange events

Today the UFO/Alien scene is almost a religion too

Oh wait  it IS  The RAELIANS



I DO love those guys  Their women run around naked like the Hippies of the 60's

Well you can try to debunk those paintings all you like, the fact is that our ancestors were OBSESSED with glowing objects in their skies

UFO 'battle' over Nuremberg, Germany in 1561
Date: April 4,
Location: Nuremberg, Germany


At sunrise on the 14th April 1561, the citizens of Nuremberg beheld "A very frightful spectacle." The sky appeared to fill with cylindrical objects from which red, black, orange and blue white disks and globes emerged. Crosses and tubes resembling cannon barrels also appeared whereupon the objects promptly "began to fight one another." This event is depicted in a famous 16th century woodcut by Hans Glaser.

Below are descriptions of the event from various sources:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm

Interesting how those 'motherships" look similar to the NAZI Andromeda Class ships. Was it an earlier visit to Germany of the Alderon Committee? 

[ArMaP]

So your saying a "crown" went up into space and became a constellation?

So that is more believable than a UFO?

Sometimes I think you only have this forum so you can be the its biggest troll. 

I didn't say that a crown went up into space and became a constellation, I said that was one of the versions of the Bachus and Ariadne story.

I didn't say that it was more believable than an UFO either.

Like the ' coin story" The God Jupiter sends a shield to win a war from Heaven....

I missed that part of the "coin story", what story is that? I like stories.

and you cannot see how that is a UFO expressed in terms available to them at that time?

I can only comment if I know the story.

I suppose you could argue that the flying crown was an IFO, same with the flying shiels

You can suppose all you want, but please stop implying I said things I never said.

But are you really that desparate to disprove that Aliens were messing around with us in the past and were called "Gods" because they were deemed powerful?

No, that's why I don't say those silly things you talk about as if I had said them.

I wonder what THIS tribe saw? 

Don't forget imagination.

[ArMaP]

Well you can try to debunk those paintings all you like, the fact is that our ancestors were OBSESSED with glowing objects in their skies

You can try to imply that I am trying to debunk the paintings, that doesn't make it the truth, the truth is that I have been trying to make you understand that in religious art, specifically in the 16th and 17th century, the artists were completely free to do things as they wanted, they had "rules" (I still haven't found the best word for it) that they should follow.

Interesting how those 'motherships" look similar to the NAZI Andromeda Class ships. Was it an earlier visit to Germany of the Alderon Committee? 

Or vice-versa.

[zorgon]

Sometimes I think you only have this forum so you can be the its biggest troll. 

How is it TROLLING when I point out the obvious conclusions you seem to be missing?

The OBJECTS  no matter what they are or may be are in the sky with references to 'heavenly connections'

I didn't say that a crown went up into space and became a constellation, I said that was one of the versions of the Bachus and Ariadne story.

I like stories too. The difference between you and I is a matter of interpretation of what the stories mean. You need to stop taking everything so literally... and yes I realize English is not your first language

I didn't say that it was more believable than an UFO either.

I was asking if it was more believable... and if it is NOT more believable then it could just as easily be a representation of UFO's in the sky told in the understanding of events in that time period... when anything odd happening in the sky HAD to be 'from the gods'

I missed that part of the "coin story", what story is that? I like stories.
I can only comment if I know the story.

From Post #55 on previous page

Although, Dantonio says the object is a shield, he admits that it is still a mystery as to why they are in the sky or coming out of the clouds. He writes:
"One story is that this particular coin is showing Jupiter's Shield falling to Earth to aid Numa Pompilius, the second Roman king. The shield it said led them to victory during desperate times. But even so, it is still interesting that the shield was bestowed from on high. Was there some otherworldly influence rooted in their culture that prompted putting the shield in the sky? Protection or technology from above perhaps? That's still a mystery."

You can suppose all you want, but please stop implying I said things I never said.
No, that's why I don't say those silly things you talk about as if I had said them.

As I said you take everything too literally.  When I reply I reply based on what you SEEM to be IMPLYING

Don't forget imagination.

Now why would people in the past be imagining glowing flying things in the skies?

[ArMaP]

How is it TROLLING when I point out the obvious conclusions you seem to be missing?

It's not a question of conclusions, obvious or not, that I may or may not miss, it's your persistence in writing things as if they were answers to things I said when I said no such things, as if you are trying to make people think that I did say those things I did not say.

The OBJECTS  no matter what they are or may be are in the sky with references to 'heavenly connections'

So what? The discussion was never about the objects being there or not, with or without references to "heavenly connections", as, in this thread, the discussion started because you said that a glory "seems to be a glowing flying object or a portal" and I said that it's suppose to be only the light, not an object.

When I talked about the "rules" of religious paintings you said that "people describe what they see in the sky based on what is popular at the time", as you have said in other occasions, as if the paintings were an exact description of what the people in biblical times described and ignoring both the artist's interpretation and the "rules" in use at the time the paintings were made.

I have only tried to point that paintings made in the 16th and 17th century, being the result of the artist's (and of those paying for the paintings) and of the thoughts of the time, should not be seen as an exact representation of what happened hundreds of years before.

If we include wrong data in the whole body of data we use to create a theory and eventually reach a conclusion, how can we be sure that our theory and/or conclusion is correct? We should first separate the wheat from the chaff, that's just what I have been trying to do.

I like stories too. The difference between you and I is a matter of interpretation of what the stories mean.

In some cases, in this thread you have only assumed what my interpretation is, as I haven't presented it.

You need to stop taking everything so literally... and yes I realize English is not your first language

That's true, I do tend to take things literally, in any language.

But that's probably because if we don't take things literally then we can take them in any other way possible, otherwise we are favouring one or two possibilities and ignoring all the others.

I was asking if it was more believable... and if it is NOT more believable then it could just as easily be a representation of UFO's in the sky told in the understanding of events in that time period... when anything odd happening in the sky HAD to be 'from the gods'

But I wasn't talking about it being believable or not, I was only presenting the story in which those paintings were based. That's that change of subject between my posts and the answers I get that are making me tired of posting here, almost half of my posts these days are just pointing that I wasn't talking about what was implied in what is supposed to be an answer to my post.

From Post #55 on previous page

Although, Dantonio says the object is a shield, he admits that it is still a mystery as to why they are in the sky or coming out of the clouds. He writes:
"One story is that this particular coin is showing Jupiter's Shield falling to Earth to aid Numa Pompilius, the second Roman king. The shield it said led them to victory during desperate times. But even so, it is still interesting that the shield was bestowed from on high. Was there some otherworldly influence rooted in their culture that prompted putting the shield in the sky? Protection or technology from above perhaps? That's still a mystery."

Thanks.

As I said you take everything too literally.  When I reply I reply based on what you SEEM to be IMPLYING

I have said it before, I don't imply things, what I have to say I say it, even if it creates problems when the other person reads/ears it, as it happened today when my boss asked me if I think he is rancorous and I said "yes".

Now why would people in the past be imagining glowing flying things in the skies?

My comment about imagination was in relation to the "I wonder what THIS tribe saw?", I even included the photo, so why are talking about "glowing flying things in the skies"? This is a good example of what I have said above, I write about something and get an answer about something else. 

[A51Watcher]

Yes, often higher rez version can give us further insight into what was meant to be depicted -






It has been said that this is supposed to be a Cardinal's hat.

Ok I can buy that.











Crap cloud drawn by an apprentice with bright beams of light coming out all sides?

Not buyin it.




Mary gettin the blue beam to the head from a UFO (excuse me gold beam), and then next thing she knows, bingo she's pregnant. (Now where have I heard THAT story before? )




Nice cloud though.





Baptism of Jesus performed by John The Baptist of course.

Pilots of this cloud have the beams on once again.




A main point being overlooked in this discussion is that in much ancient art from Egyptian, religious and secret cult imagery, is that it presents one image to the masses, and yet quite another to initiates.

[Sinny]

Nice work Watcher.

It's not something you were discussing, but would somebody mind educating me on the sun symbol depicted at the bottom of A51's 3rd posted image in the post above this? I'm still trying to get my head around the sun worshipping cults... Somebody told me the other day that the sun is a metaphor,and it's not the actual sun they are worshipping.. Not knowing the answers to this stuff is really starting to hurt my head... I'm in permanent dissonace.

ArMaP, to put it real simple, why are all these clouds depicted as 'alien' ufo's?
I don't even want aliens to be real, I've been working on Dot Mil hypotheses (spelling), but ignore the facts I can't.

[A51Watcher]

The sun symbol is depicted on Mary's robe in that picture -



in the upper left of the above picture we see -



...which could be related, but in terms of this painting it is a clear indication that this is the sun in the upper left and what we see in the upper right is clearly NOT to be misinterpreted as the sun even though it is shining brightly.


... and in other depictions as well -






But to my knowledge there is no 'official' explanation for what it represents.

[Sinny]

Thanks.

Now I'm wondering what all those squiggly things are floating beneath the sun...
I'm sure I read something to do with them the other day.. Humm dumm.

[A51Watcher]

Well to my eye there are 12 of them around the sun.

Representation of advanced knowledge for initiates?

[A51Watcher]