Has anyone taken into account that bad vision could possibly be the explanation of ufo like objects in ancient drawing?
Today most people have bad vision and need corrective glasses or contacts, like me, but of course there was none back then and I doubt all ancient man had 20/20 vision. Reason why I am saying this is because I went outside to take my dog out for a walk, I did not have my contacts in, and I look up to see the sky and all these bright orbs and whatnot (stars). Blurred vision cause light that is far away to look circular. Now how about a shooting star? With bad vision all you see is a orb flying above you really fast.

Witch leads me curious as to how ancient man dealt with vision and communication, one man who sees well pointing out something and the other man is like wtf? because his vision sucks.
Maybe there was some way these people figured out witch person could see further and who had bad vision that way certain task can be planned out by certain people only, for example ancient astronomy, you have to have pretty good eyes to measure the sky and take note of star formations and patterns. Maybe there were conflicts between people with good vision and bad vision on who was right about what they saw. ( here is a stretch but that could be a motive for anger witch could possible lead to ancient murder?)

Again witch make me think of the possibly of history having flaws in it due to some people with poor vision recording their accounts.

I just thought this up and thought I would post it before I forget, and now I go to put my contacts in so I can see

Sure, that might explain poor Ezekiel's problem - on the other hand, I doubt it!!

And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. (Ezek. 1:4)


http://www.atlantisquest.com/Ezekiel.html

Looks like alot of ancients turned to Psilocybe for sharper eye sight...especially when hunting.

Hi, Ripefruit.

That's a very interesting hypothesis. You could write a book .

There would be a lot to write about. Our visual experience is only loosely coupled to the physical particulars of the light falling on our retinas. A huge portion of what we claim (even to ourselves) to see is in fact our inference about the "best explanation" for what, if it were actually out there, would account for the patterns made by the light on our retinas.

So, the more fleeting the phenomenon, and the fewer enduring consequences that would allow us to amend our "recollection" after the fact, then the weirder the "best explanation" might be. And as you say, the worse the focus, the more candidate objects there are to fit any particular encounter with light equally well.

So, good thinking! (Regards to your dog, btw).


The way to bet is that the poor-vision witness might come to agree with the better-vision witness, maybe even to the point of believing that he, the poor-vision man, actually saw the same thing. Our recollections are as much inferences as the perceptions upon which they are based.

Hey there Bits , thanks for reading my post and sharing that useful and interesting information! And I love the thought of writing a book! The information you posted just added some interesting insights on the subject and took it to the next level, and this intrigues me more than ever now! I would love to read any further information that you may have.



^That made me think:
The better-vision witness sees something that can be common in ancient times, but he may misinterpret the object to be something more interesting than it really is. And the poor-vision witness, if he were able to see well, would know that the object is not anything special because he could relate it to something he saw before, unlike the better-visioned witness. But since he cannot see it then he is forced to believe that the object was something not ordinary because the better-vision man told him so. Witch could lead to them passing on this false information that if later it can be reviewed will be almost impossible to provide an explanation for because we, the reviewers, will not think too compare it to something common because we are going on the fact that it was recorded to be something amazing/

Me and my dog thank you!

I really only have one thing to add about corrective lenses, and it is just a "think piece."

If someone is sighted, but has never seen 20/20, then they are apt to think that whatever their acuity happens to be is normal. That is, corrective lenses not only improve our vision, but reveal to us how bad our eyesight really is.

I apologize that I do not have the reference at hand, but Peggy Noonan, in one of her biographies of Ronald Reagan, wrote that Reagan needed eyeglasses as a child, but did not get a pair for many years. When he finally got them and put them on, it was revelation to him to see for the first time what the world really looked like.

In her telling, it was almost like a spiritual awakening, or a religious experience.

If that fits into your work at all, maybe it is the idea that a world of mists and shadows can seem totally normal if no alternative can ever be experienced, because there are no corrective lenses.

And if your vision is better than mine, and you tell me what you see, but I cannot, might we both not think that you are spiritually advanced? And if I then looked at the world through just the right crystal, might I not think magic was at work if I, too, could now glimpse this world otherwise hidden from my view?

Anyway, I think you are on to something. Good luck with it.