Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 19 Jun 2013 6:53 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 260 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:16 pm 
Was Aert de Gelder a witness to the subject matter he was painting?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:21 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
I cannot say if he ever witnessed such things independently. However I can say the concept already existed in the 1600's. What amazes me is that no art like this exists idependently except in relation to Bible stories....it has been presumed that these people had access to information within the Vatican until it was closed down to the public.

So the question is not, was he a witness at Jesus' crucifixion. The question is why would such concept like UFO's and the Bible be connected to Jesus at all? What basis would there be to make such allegations when flight capabilities and concepts did not even exist then?
That's what I don;t understand.

S.

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:25 pm 
Shasta wrote:
I cannot say if he ever witnessed such things independently. However I can say the concept already existed in the 1600's. What amazes me is that no art like this exists idependently except in relation to Bible stories....it has been presumed that these people had access to information within the Vatican until it was closed down to the public.

So the question is not, was he a witness at Jesus' crucifixion. The question is why would such concept like UFO's and the Bible be connected to Jesus at all? What basis would there be to make such allegations when flight capabilities and concepts did not even exist then?
That's what I don;t understand.

S.




I cannot take things like this seriously.
And I cannot understand why people even begin to accept such irrationalities seriously.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:32 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
But that does not explain why was there an obvious concept of flight in metal vehicles no less, before such time as we were developed enough to do it ourselves? This is quite a jump from Icarus and his waxed wings.

Quote:
I cannot take things like this seriously.
And I cannot understand why people even begin to accept such irrationalities seriously.


Who are you criticizing? De Gelder and the other artists? Norton, this is a very simple question to you; what do YOU see? What is YOUR explanation?

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Last edited by Shasta on 26 Dec 2008 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:37 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2008 6:44 am
Posts: 2593
Location: Winchester
M Norton wrote:
I cannot understand why people even begin to accept such irrationalities seriously.


When a former astronaut who walked on the moon (see link below) takes it seriously, and says that this is real, and it's been covered up for sixty years, then it's worth taking it seriously.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/newstext.asp?id=368


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:38 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
Norton,
I ask again:

what do YOU see? What is YOUR explanation?

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:41 pm 
I do not see Flying Saucers!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:42 pm 
richard.webster wrote:
M Norton wrote:
I cannot understand why people even begin to accept such irrationalities seriously.


When a former astronaut who walked on the moon (see link below) takes it seriously, and says that this is real, and it's been covered up for sixty years, then it's worth taking it seriously.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/newstext.asp?id=368


Good for him!
That does not mean he should be taken seriously.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:43 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
Then please explain what you DO see....what are those objects in the sky?
Please explain to me. I am blonde.
Thank you.
S.

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:46 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2008 6:44 am
Posts: 2593
Location: Winchester
Shasta wrote:
But that does not explain why was there an obvious concept of flight in metal vehicles no less, before such time as we were developed enough to do it ourselves? This is quite a jump from Icarus and his waxed wings.


For Shasta,

Ancient Egyptian flying machines, from "Crystalinks":

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

As this is Roger's thread about "What Berenger Found at RLC", and because this line of thought may not be his cup of tea :wink: , I'm going to put the whole of the Crystalinks UFO in art archive up on a thread of its own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:46 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
Richard,
I personally think the entire concept of Biblical stories interpreted as possible 'First Encounters' is a crucial question for all mankind...

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:47 pm 
richard.webster wrote:
"Crystalinks".


Yes, a heap of hooey website...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
Quote:
As this is Roger's thread about "What Berenger Found at RLC", and because this line of thought may not be his cup of tea , I'm going to put the whole of the Crystalinks UFO in art archive up on a thread of its own.


I think that's a good idea...I wonder if Norton will help us by making his contribitions available there? If those are not UFO's in those paintings, what are they?
Seeking sane answers.
Shasta

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:48 pm 
Shasta wrote:
the entire concept of Biblical stories interpreted as possible 'First Encounters' is a crucial question for all mankind...


Think again.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 4:56 pm 
Shasta wrote:
what do YOU see? What is YOUR explanation?


I see this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fO1ChfM94yQ


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 5:00 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 1702
Norton
Thanks for the cartoon...maybe it's better you don't contribute to this thread after all.
All the best
Shasta

_________________
Don't make the same mistakes twice. Say NO to reincarnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 5:03 pm 
Shasta wrote:
Norton
Thanks for the cartoon...maybe it's better you don't contribute to this thread after all.
All the best
Shasta


You can't understand the cartoon mentality of the Ancient Astronaut position, and that the idea first surfaced in pulp science fiction comics.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2008 5:15 pm 
Roger wrote:
richard.webster wrote:
M Norton wrote:
Yes, you make the material discovery FIRST - THEN you announce its existence. Not vice-versa.


Yes, but it would appear that the material discovery has been made, and yet those "of the secret" (see the footnotes of the revised paperback edition of HBHG that I'm sure you have for more on that phrase) have chosen not to announce its existence, even those seemingly hungry for publicity and advancement, such as Monsieur Plantard.

Strange, is it not, that so many down the ages appear to have known what the secret is, and yet can't bring themselves to mention it? Why not? Fear? Shame? Because it would be considered shockingly bad form in their circle to do so? You'd have thought there'd have been at least one black sheep down the years who would have been indiscreet about it. And yet apparently not. That's quite fascinating really, isn't it? Don't you think?


The object is a material discovery, and it is precisely depicted in Sauniere's church. It is no longer in RLC, but it is in another Ecclesastical building... The reason for the reluctance of many parties in discussing it, is that, from a Catholic point of view (and from the point of view of a Catholic Aristocracy/Monarchy) it represents something deeply shameful. From a political point of view, its implications are more dubious in our present day, but would have been quite powerful only 100 years ago.


None of what "Roger" has written above is "real" - it is all a figment of his imagination.

"National Treasure" anyone...????


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2008 2:41 pm 
Archaeologists produce the goods before they announce the discovery.
Conspiracy Theorists do it vice-versa without ever producing the goods.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2008 3:18 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 04 Dec 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 2060
Location: Vienna, Austria
Methinks it is the Dauphin. He is depicted in the church of RLC (in the relief opposite of the altar, looking at Jesus) and is buried somewhere near RLC and dwells at the core of the Hautpoul family secret.
He didn`t die in jail as was told but was freed instead by some clerics. Shame on them for the theft.
The Dauphin's corpse was important for some aristocrats as long as they had hope for kingdom reign. Now there is no more hope for Sarkozy's throne 8) ... so within two or three years some freemasons will publish the whole story. Maybe it'll be someone of the Hautpoul family.
Roger and Over.
No more mystery. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2008 2:49 pm 
Eginolf wrote:
Methinks it is the Dauphin.


And what about Sauniere's Account Books?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2008 4:43 pm 
"Roger" twists and distorts the evidence.
Thousands of different sources for a variety of different reasons sent money to Sauniere - there were thousands of diffrering amounts that cannot be generalised in the way that "Roger" would like.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2008 5:16 pm 
"Roger" wants to generalise Sauniere's Account Books...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2008 6:48 pm 
Roger wrote:
cult of the dead


Sauniere and necrophilia...

Roger wrote:
and its history within the Church.


Book of Tobit, Penitential Movements, etc...

Roger wrote:
that Sauniere retrieved.


Only in "Roger's" imagination and wishful thinking...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Dec 2008 2:27 pm 
And "Roger" belongs with the Flying Saucers gags and gang.
They are the only folks who would be prepared to take his rubbish seriously.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 260 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group