What do you think of this pic???

by **arc2** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:36 am

I have had this pic since I tore it out of my Smithsonian calendar in 2001. It was always a little intriguing so when I brought it out in another thread earlier tonite and I realized it might be interesting to the group.

Anyway, any thoughts about the significance of this design?

by **qzzq** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:59 pm

It looks like Voyager or Enterprise.

***

by **skyeagle409** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:00 pm

arc,

That's very interesting! Here's another from the year, 1479.

http://www.edicolaweb.net/nonsoloufo/trave.jpg

by **arc2** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:55 am

Funny, neither the believers or the naybobs (with the previous two exceptions) are rushing to a conclusion on this one....

My two cents worth: I don' t think it is a religious themed object nor do I think it is a representation of the sun (because of the trailing sylized flames). I do think it was meant to fly in a "dome up" orientation.

I have no idea regarding its creator's motive. I don't think it is a weapon.....

by **arc2** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:45 pm

You know, I read posts by the more aggressive and righteous naysayer's as they attack others for the percieved silliness of their positions.... but where are they when a real discussion is possible? Where are the naybobs when the evidence isn't as supportive of their paradigm????
I am not claiming this is a representation of an alien space craft, but it is interesting that nobody is making any claims about what it is or isn't.....
No comments on the gullibility of ET adherents, no riposts regarding the intractability and lack of education of the naybobs.....
Geez, is this a pic that nobody wants to think about?
Johnny C and Stevehw3 have been absolutely brutal and abusive in the various threads regarding UFOs in art and any other position that suggests that there is a snowballs chance in hell that UFOs are anything but what Johnny C and Steve say they are yet, where are they in regards to this pic? Its art, its looks like a UFO..... maybe that's it. There is no simple way of detracting from the nature of the object itself. There is no easy way to point out that it is simply something being misrepresented or misunderstood.....
Could it be that the posturing by the keepers of rationality is simply that? That when confronted with a call for objectivity and simple discussion, they are simply not capable of it because they have been masquerading as rational when they really have an axe to grind and are as biased as one can be? Are they too concerned with arguing their bias and not concerned at all with objectively examining materials as they arise and witholding judgement if it isn't appropriate?

Personally, I don't think anyone can say what this represents, one way or the other. What one can't say is that it DOESN't represent a UFO - and that is probably why we aren't hearing from the naybobs.....

I expect the believers to be impressed though I am not promoting their viewpoint - again, I have no idea what the artist intended whe

by **bobvanx** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:59 pm

I had a book, given me by my missile-designing father, and this was own of the things in it. I'm pretty sure it was steam-driven. A globe holds the most volume, of course, but it's less aerodynamic, so the next easiest pressure vessel is the dome. I think the tubes are explosive, lit before the missile is launched.

It's accidental that we think UFOs have this shape.

by **arc2** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:20 pm

I didn't say you were right, I don't have a position in all this......
I do consider you and several other members to be intellectually dishonest - you aren't opposing positions for the sake of argument, you are doing it to satisfy your own ego.
You still haven't engaged my discussion on this pic, but you have managed to add an abusive comment to the thread....

by **arc2** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:21 pm

Another astute comment from someone who can't be bothered to read the thread and participate in the discussion....

by **arc2** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:22 pm

I don't think it is steam powered, the rockets have fuses.... so your premis regarding design isn't strong...

by **bobvanx** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:44 am

In reply to:
your premis regarding design isn't strong

Actually, I have no premise. I am just trying to recall what someone who wrote a book about ancient missiles determined. My memory could be faulty, and the research could be poorly done.

In any case, if you're hoping that someone will say this looks like an object inspired by a UFO, you're going to have to find that conjecture somewhere else.

by **bowlofpetunias** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:41 am

NaybobPetunia says solved, see ancient art thread.
Oh I can say it doesn't represent a ufo, it doen't have that pedigree as it wasn't meant to fly.
Somebody sunk my battleship.

by **omega_man** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:53 am

Funny, neither the believers or the naybobs (with the previous two exceptions) are rushing to a conclusion on this one....

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone on SDC does not wait patiently until you make a post. I mostly observe, and do not usually engage in idle banter. However, your egocentric comments seemed to deserve a rebuttal. From the pattern of postings, I conclude that most members appear at random, and as their outside interests allow. Further, I note that many do not post on occasions that are clearly futile and non-productive. Therefore you lack of response is probalby related more to the relevance of the material than to the reticence of the rmembers.

There is another possibility. Some people may simply have no opinion on the subject (image).

by **beartooth** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:28 am

Maybe it's an ancient shield with 2 spears pointing in the somewhat down position & the "tubes" are just really metal scrolls?

by **pizzaguy** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:49 am

And........ maybe .......... many of us are growing tired of the "E.T. is here, or he was here" kind of post.

These is a whole world of REAL science out there, and interesting history, to study. Why spend time trying SO HARD to build a case for E.T. visitation? If E.T. was dropping in on us - you wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it.

Note to Dr. Henry: The testosterone shots are working!

by **beartooth** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:49 am

These is a whole world of REAL science out there, and interesting history, to study. Why spend time trying SO HARD to build a case for E.T. visitation? If E.T. was dropping in on us - you wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it.

I agree - works for me.

by **kmarinas86** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:59 am

If E.T. was dropping in on us - you wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it.

They have been dropping in, but not on everyone. That is the problem. In addition to that, only the some of those who are convinced that they've seen a UFO are convinced, or have proved to themselves, that E.T. visitation is possible. If God is willing, then maybe you will see a truly unusual flying craft sometime in your lifetime.

by **beartooth** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:12 pm

If you're basing people seeing a UFO on whether God allows it or not there's a problem, most here don't believe in God & those of us who do haven't seen a UFO.

by **skyeagle409** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:48 pm

Pizza---If E.T. was dropping in on us - you wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it.

Sky---The collected data speaks for itself.

by **bobvanx** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:18 pm

In reply to:
The collected data speaks for itself.

LOLTIC

(wiping the tears from my eyes)

Then I guess that's why you spend so much effort preaching about alien visitations!?

(you know I tried so hard to be kind, but it's just too funny. I'll face my karma on this one, thank you)

by **skyeagle409** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:27 pm

Bob---Then I guess that's why you spend so much effort preaching about alien visitations!?

Sky---Not that I am just familiar with what the data depicts (I"ve been using its services for over 30 years) I've had my own UFO sighting back in 1968.

Become a Space Member

Curious? Join our community!