By your explanation, we’re applying the razor to divide between something known (the history of Italian Renaissance art) and something that is unknown. We also have over 50 years of 20th century ideas about UFOs to shape our concept of what we should be seeing.

What about the “flaming log” thing from the Nuremberg woodcut? No one seems to care about that one. Why wasn’t it shaped like a flying saucer? I think it was because the people who saw it didn’t have a mental or cultural context in which to describe it. Ezekiel’s Biblical account comes to mind.

Since I wrote this piece, I have thought a bit about it. The main thing I have considered is “Where did the iconography come from in the first place?” In other words, perhaps the saucer-shaped things in the Italian paintings were based on something that WAS seen in the sky and later used as depictions of the divine. Perhaps the shapes were codified by convention and used by the artists, whether they had seen UFOs or not.

If one to believe that the US (or other) government had in fact been experimenting with some rather advanced technology, as rumored to come partly out of Nazi Germany, and we consider things such as the Philadelphia Experiment, what if they managed to work with some type of time dilation/viewing/travel?

That would explain some of the sightings in these ancient works, and the gold trinkets in Inca shaped like airplanes, and the Egyptian hieroglyphs at New Kingdom Temple (Google for “egyptian ufos”), once which looks hauntingly like an Apache Helicopter that we’re all familiar with.

I could go on and on; but my point is it’s rather difficult to reconcile all these apparent “coincidences” in something simple like local symbology.

My theory is that we’re dealing in part with a real alien presence as well as gov’t projects. And who knows what variables exist in between.

Thought you might find this video interesting, coming as it does from a prominent member of the Catholic clergy. Also included are several of the paintings under consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAS5EC1DzV8

Templar,

As I admitted up front, I’m aware Mike Heiser’s views are probably colored at least a bit by his quite open Christian fundamentalist beliefs. I have no knowledge that he is a 6600 year Creationist subscriber. In the several of his video presentations in my collection that idea has never come up, so it he is in that camp that’s something I wasn’t aware of.

However, that possibility notwithstanding, I think the ATS discussion you referenced may provide a less than complete picture of Heiser’s academic credentials. For the sake of disclosure he openly posts his areas of professional study here:

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/MHeiserCV.pdf

You’ll note that while it does focus to a large degree on Hebrew and Semitic languages, he also has graduate coursework completed (presumably as a part of his Ph.D) in Akkadian (a Mesopotamian language), Aramaic (also Mesopotamian), and…well, you can read his resume’ for yourself.

From an interesting site dedicated to Sumerian in particular,

http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerlanguage.html

we read:

“The Sumerian language of ancient Sumer was spoken in Southern Mesopotamia from at least the 4th millennium BC. Sumerian was replaced by Akkadian as a spoken language around 2000 BC, but continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial and scientific language in Mesopotamia until about 1 AD. Then, it was forgotten until the 19th century. Sumerian is distinguished from other languages of the area such as Hebrew, Akkadian, which also comprises Babylonian and Assyrian, and Aramaic, which are Semitic languages, and Elamite, which may be an Elamo-Dravidian language…Leaving aside the problems of classification and typology, however, linguists have pieced together what might be termed a “framework” descriptive grammar of the language, aided lexically by lists of Sumerian words with Akkadian counterparts left to us by ancient scribes.

These lists were necessary as Sumerian was, apparently, the “official language” of Mesopotamia for some time after the language ceased to be spoken by the local population.

It is this grammar, albeit incomplete and often frequently revised and updated, that we can use to read the basic meanings from a wide variety of the extant texts found throughout Mesopotamia and the surrounding lands.”

In Heiser’s presentations he makes copious use of these ancient lexicons providing links and resources so that even a non-specialist can look at them, compare a text and come up with a fair idea of the text’s meaning. This is in fact, one of his most scathing criticisms of Sitchin’s “translation” work; that we have veritable dictionaries compiled by native speakers of these ancient languages which Sitchin ignores entirely in favor of his own rather dubious “translations”. Heiser repeatedly advises his audiences not to take his (Heiser’s) word on his translations, but to look things up in these lexicons for themselves and verify that he is in fact providing accurate translations.

So I don’t discount his academic work because he may or may not hold some religious views that I personally don’t agree with. I’m more concerned with his academics, particularly with the fact that he provides the technical references to support his work and repeatedly advises people to go to these sources and look things up for themselves.

With regard to the word “Nephilim”, Heiser writes extensively about its origins here:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf

Read it for what it’s worth and compare it to what you referenced above.

~R~

Yes, civilized debate (especially on the internet) seems rare!

I made my allegiance to Cuoghi’s ideas clear by limiting my title and discussion to the period specified. He apparently chose to delve into other periods and cultures where I do not necessarily agree with him, but his discussion should not be rejected out of hand.

You don’t need to convince me that sightings in other countries were documented and depicted in paintings and prints. I was looking for accounts from Italy from the period specified. If these were snuffed out by the Church, we are only left with guesses.

The “bishop’s hat” (acutally a Cardinal’s hat) that you refer to is, I believe, referenced to a standard Cardinal’s seal showing essentially the same thing. Additionally, the “hat” in the painting is on the ground below and to the right of Christ on the cross. Why isn’t it in the air?

The only people I see pointing excitedly to objects in the sky in the paintings referenced on Cuoghi’s site are men with dogs or sheep, reniforcing the biblical reference to shepherds. In the depictions from outside Italy, there is little or no religious content present.

Of course I leave open the possibility that the Italian artists were painting strange objects in the sky according to accepted dogma, but the fact that their depictions fit so well with other symbols and arrangments in non-mysterious artwork makes it difficult to make a final determination. And yes, the standard symbols could be based on earlier descriptions of anomalous aerial phenomena. I don’t know why halos developed from simple circles to what look like saucers balanced precariously on the backs of people’s heads! Perhaps I should. In any case, historically-referenced comparisons seem to make more sense to me, as well as flattering my admitted bias with a degree in art history.

If people want to go looking for UFOs in art before the modern (early 20th century) era, they could do much better.

BTW: Colonel Corso, good to see you back among the living! haven’t heard from you since your death in 1998. How’s the weather in Heaven?

First, a word to Raven about Mr. Heiser: I have a hard time accepting conclusions presented by a scientist (or linguist, in Heiser’s case) who holds a religion-influenced conviction that the planet (in fact, the entire Universe) is only 6600 years old. Any researcher who wears blinders that severely limiting, must admit their every conclusion is biased from the word go. This pattern of “believe, uncover support, then preach,” runs counter to the scientific tradition of “theorize, discover, and confirm.”

More doubt about Heiser’s conclusions are covered on this interesting thread discussing Sumerian linguistics: “Heiser is good at destroying Sitchin’s Hebrew gaffes but doesn’t speak or understand any Mesopotamian language, so he might as well be a good French speaker trying to solve a problem that involves Sumerian. Nephilim is a loan word in Hebrew the same as Adam and Eden are; they are sourced in Sumerian, and what ends up in Hebrew is a similar sounding word that has a similar meaning. But you need to allow the change in language that normally happens (when you) jump from one language to another.” (from http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread222961/pg1)

Now, to Greg’s replies to my original post:

GB said: “…(A)lthough I am loath to agree with most debunkers, Cuoghi’s analysis injected a bit of sober thought into a subject that had been almost completely ignored as a fait accompli amongst UFO enthusiasts.”

I share your…um, loathing. (:^D) And I agree, sober evidence-based thinking is always welcome, especially in a discussion where little concrete evidence is present (other than first-person accounts, which are numerous and substantial, yet too often circumstantial).

The main problem I have is when one scholar (Cuoghi) attempts to explain away the entire possibility of UFOs captured in artwork, by the limited traditions employed by religious artists in a limited timeframe (the Renaissance). You may think that wasn’t the intent of your post, but by including Cuoghi’s comments such as “an Italian artist of the [1400s] or an anonymous Byzantine painter,” a span of over a thousand years, do indicate a much wider interpretation than the limited one now suggested.

GB: “Your discussion of Biblical references to strange aerial phenomena seems disingenuous, as the scenes depicted in the paintings (at least the ones discussed on the Cuoghi site) are not of Ezekiel’s wheel or any other strange aerial phenomena mentioned in the Bible.”

I disagree: those examples are completely relevant. They represent well-known (to Biblical readers, at least) events that can hardly be interpreted as anything other than what they were: physical objects interacting with humans, who were then considered blessed for their interaction with God (or God-like people and their vehicles).

These were events that are now accepted as dogma by the same religious authorities that accept the earth stood still for one day, that Jesus held physically sway over life and death (as well as control over the weather), and that numerous dead saints in Jerusalem rose from the dead right after the Crucifixion (see Matthew 27:52: “And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose…”)

Graham hancock’s “Supernatural” has some interesting comments on the subject of the paranormal and how it’s recorded by those who experience it. On page 411, he includes a woodcut from the 16th century that shows fairies inside a hollow hill, beckoning a passerby to join them. The fact that the fairies are dressed in contemporary 16th century garb should not be accepted at face value as the actual dress of the so-called fairies. Similarly, when Renaissance artists depicted warriors of Biblical times (Joshua, David, the Israelites) wearing plate armor, it’s merely indicative of an accepted method of representing actual events in a method accepted by the artists’ sponsors (the Church and their obedient nobility).

Then we have the fascinating occurrences of “angel hair,” strange strands that fell from the sky throughout the world (Hancock includes a record of such a fall in the 17th century — in Japan!), but for whatever reason, most often in Italy. Images of such falls have been painted. Does the fact that they are recorded in artwork by the same artists as Cuoghi covers, mean that we must relegate the recorded events as little more than artistic traditions employed by their contemporaries, as he would have us believe?

Or can we accept that perhaps the exact opposite is possible:

That the traditions of painting holy personages so much like UFOs, may be due to the influence of actual events, perhaps witnessed by some of the same influential artists Cuoghi covers?

GB: “It would be nice to uncover contemporary (i.e. 15th-17th century) accounts of strange aerial phenomena in Italy to have objective confirmation that weird things were there for artists to see and paint. I can’t seem to find any.”

Here’s an interesting point: Other non-Catholic countries, such as Germany, where the RC Church held almost no sway thanks to the Reformation, and where independent artists had recourse to that “devil’s tool,” the printing press, holds hundreds of fascinating events that were recorded in print, as well as by contemporary artists.

One excellent event occurred in Nuremberg in 1561, which you mentioned, as retold at http://ufologie.net/htm/1561.htm (in both English and the original German of the town’s Gazette). Basel, Switzerland had an equally inexplicable aerial ballet in 1566 (woodcut), as did Utrecht in 1528 (painting and woodcut), Hamburg in 1697 (woodcut), and even the members of the Royal Society at Windsor Castle in 1749 (a nice oil, suitable for over the fireplace).

Why is it that during the same time period as covered by Cuoghi, we have multiple events outside the influence of Rome, illustrated just as the witnesses described them? This evidence does more than suggest the aerial events were “limited” to 80% of Europe, but oddly, not Italy proper. Instead, they suggest that the events recorded in that limited arena were simply clothed in the religious garb approved by those who paid the artists.

GB: “The art historian referenced in the post made a convincing argument that most if not all strange objects in the sky in paintings of the Italian Renaissance (15th to the 17th centuries) can be explained as religious symbols that are readily recognizable as such.”

Not so. What he’s convinced me of is the limited way of depicting aerial objects as Bishop’s hats (how absurd!), for example, a finite and oft-repeated pallet of Rome-approved iconography. How these icons were originally derived, how close they resembled witnessed objects from that time (with people on the ground pointing in excitation in many instances), he never addresses.

In fact, as I hope I’ve shown above, there are many countries that had well recorded events in print and art. These were, however, countries devoid of RC religious oppression.

Rather than suggest that “most if not all strange objects” as painted in their skies are religious icons, I would suggest that ANY strange aerial objects, as painted by Roman Catholic-controlled Italian artists, could ONLY by painted and interpreted as “symbols of divinity.”

Greg, I appreciate your exhaustive work compiling the latest info on UFOs and the other mysteries of the world. I also hear and understand your claim not to be unbiased, but are trying for “equity.” As is noticeable by my posts, I too display my own bias, in this instance, for UFOs as physical events recorded accurately down through time.

But I respectfully suggest that you might accept the possibility, if nothing else, that the Italian artists discussed were recreating strange but very real and contemporary events the only way they were allowed: under the guise of acceptable religious dogma.

TemplarScribe

I’d never heard about the Sitchin rebuttal. Good one.

It seems that when people take the time to examine the research of those who seem to (or actually do) know what they’re talking about, some issues become more complicated, not less so. And in a significant set of these instances, our minds are changed, or at least challenged. Of course, there is the problem of figuring out if the person’s emotional need to convince us outweighs their evidence and logic.

I used to take a different attitude about these renaissance paintings, until I read Cuoghi’s analysis.

If by “early art,” you mean the paintings of the period in discussion, yes, I tend to think that the anomalous objects are most likely standard symbols, and not UFOs. To me, “early” in art history refers to the Roman Empire and anything before. This may have been one of the problems in my discussions in the comments. It’s a very inexact term.

Yes, the objects still do look a lot like UFOs!

I see your point. You’re probably familiar with Mike Heiser; notorious Zecharia Sitchin debunker. Heiser approaches the subject of early Babylonian/Sumerian writings from a decidely fundamental Christian perspective so I can’t honestly say his work is 110% unbiased, but he does have impressive advanced degrees in the ancient languages he’s commenting on.

One of his video presentations deals with Sitchin’s interpretation of characters which Sitchin says represent our sun in the middle and a specific number of planets orbiting the sun, one of which is Sitchin’s favorite Anunnaki homeworld, Nibiru. Heiser shows a photo of the tablet in question and, if you’re just a Sumerian-illiterate like me you might think to yourself, sure, that looks like a star in the center with planets arranged around it. I mean it DOES sort of look like that.

As it turns out, the resemblance is only really compelling at first blush because Sitchin has told you those are planets orbiting our sun. But Heiser shows examples from the dictionaries left behind by the culture that invented the language and then he shows several other writings that employ the exact same symbols in which it is clear from the context that the character Sitchin translates as “planet” is actually the character for “star”. Then that entire tablet becomes not our sun surrounded by planets (including Nibiru), but rather its just depicting a group of stars.

Easy to misinterpret, especially if you have an “authority figure” to hand you an incorrect interpretation up front, but much clearer once the truth of the matter gets probed a little deeper.

And I guess that’s kind of the thrust of what you are saying about early art if I’m reading you right. But I still look at those paintings and think, “Hmmmm….quack, quack!”

~R~

This is indeed one of those rare cases. When I first look at the pages (three or four years ago), it was a breath of fresh air. Nothing has changed. Diego Cuoghi’s performance is flawless, and I appreciate the specialized skill that necessarily such an undertaking requires.

One person’s over-analyzation is another’s in-depth examination.

You wrote that ” There is no logical explanation given to counter the evidence of UFOs in ancient art.” “There is no logical explanation” seems to remove all doubt that there are any other possible explanations, which I don’t agree with. This statement shuts down any debate, which is exactly what fundamentalist skeptics do when presented with well-documented UFO evidence. “Ancient art” is vague in definition. Does this cover the period from prehistory to the 19th century? The 17th? As we move closer to our own time, it becomes easier to check on other factors.

UFOs and aliens do not defy my “context for reality” even if they might for the art historian who wrote the articles. All you need to do is look at my other posts on this site, and the entire post up top, which I added to yesterday in order to clarify my position.

I don’t know if other examples of UFO-like objects in artworks are actually depictions of extraordinary aerial phenomena, but in this case there is a good alternate explanation from an era where the philosophy, politics and standard symbols are known.