Is Pascal the Great's tombstone carving

[Kipperphoenix]

I was watching a show about ancient aliens on history and they brought up an interesting theory. The theory was the that the tombstone carving on the tomb of Pascal the Great (One of the leaders of the Mayans) shows him not being sucked into the underworld, but him piloting a spaceship. You can see what looks like Pascal breathing into some air supply tube, and at the very bottom of of the tombstone carving, you can see what looks like fire is coming out at the bottom of the supposed ship, like a space shuttle.

Here is a picture.

What do you think about this theory?

[fandango]

Well it certainly looks the part and mechanical to a degree.

I must admit though it doesn't look very comfortable for interstellar travel. I recon he would have pins and needles after the first light year.

[W Kein]

Why would it be for interstellar travel? Most ancients account of human space travel involve visiting the Moon, and many of them have some pretty convincing and scientifically correct descriptions of the Moon's environment.

[marsapien]

It's a complex carving/engraving it is a bit hard to tell what it is without examining mayan symbology which is what I sugest for you to do, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of these things.

I know the Mayan belief system revolved around interdimensional travel the shamans used to gather information this way and it is said the main reason for the temples are for the purpose of interdimensional travel.

Edited July 18, 2009 by marsapien

[Hazzard]

I believe that all these UFOs in old art is a clear cut case of you see what you want to see.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Hazzard

[W Kein]

I believe that all these UFOs in old art is a clear cut case of you see what you want to see.

Well, ignoring the fact that there are no "UFOs" in Pascal's tomb carving, and no one is saying that there is...

What do you see in this 15th century painting?

Even that guy in the background of the painting is trying to figure it out. His little dog too, evidently.

These close-ups from a 14th century painting are fun too.

If it's so clear cut, what do you want to see in those?

Edited July 18, 2009 by W Kein

[Space Commander Travis]

I was watching a show about ancient aliens on history and they brought up an interesting theory. The theory was the that the tombstone carving on the tomb of Pascal the Great (One of the leaders of the Mayans) shows him not being sucked into the underworld, but him piloting a spaceship. You can see what looks like Pascal breathing into some air supply tube, and at the very bottom of of the tombstone carving, you can see what looks like fire is coming out at the bottom of the supposed ship, like a space shuttle.

What do you think about this theory?

Most interesting. It does look like a rocket engine at the bottom, although there obviously wouldn't be enough space for fuel for long distance flight, so I expect it's a landing module, like the Apollo lunar modules. That's probably why he's sitting in that position, it's probably designed to withstand the G forces during takeoff.

[marsapien]

Fell take a look at this thread it will show you some more pics like this and peoples views on the old art

Here

[jaylemurph]

There's an entire thread on this in the Alt./Ancient History thread that provides a very thorough description of the very artistic conventions behind these images. Once you learn a little about it, it's amazing how these things that "can't be anything else" to a variety of credulous believer become much more tame.

This is the page -- and amusingly, it starts with the very image above.

--Jaylemurph

PS: The name of the Mayan leader is Pacal, not Pascal. Although I can recommend a Detroit band named PAS/CAL.

Edited July 19, 2009 by jaylemurph

[KidInTheHall]

That's pretty cool stuff, especially the tomb. That seems a little bit too detailed to just be the sculptor's imagination though of course I could be wrong. It has happened before.

[W Kein]

There's an entire thread on this in the Alt./Ancient History thread that provides a very thorough description of the very artistic conventions behind these images. Once you learn a little about it, it's amazing how these things that "can't be anything else" to a variety of credulous believer become much more tame.

This is the page -- and amusingly, it starts with the very image above.

--Jaylemurph

So, let me get this correct here; Because art critics, previous to the modern UFO age, didn't know what to make of these artistic representations, so came up with conclusions that made sense at the time, we are are meant to accept that? That's quite a leap; I don't think I'm comfortable jumping to such speculative conclusions on, of all things, what a painting is supposed to represent.

Add to that the track record of actual artists usually mocking what the critics happen to think concerning meaning.

And yes, amusingly enough that page starts with the first image I posted. Amusing in the sense that the conclusion that they come to is it's a cloud of light. Oh, silly me, cloud of light. It should have been so obvious.

Edited July 19, 2009 by W Kein

[KidInTheHall]

Hmm doesn't strike me as a cloud of light. Could have been a malfunctioning weather balloon. Those things are everywhere!

[W Kein]

Hmm doesn't strike me as a cloud of light. Could have been a malfunctioning weather balloon. Those things are everywhere!

Weather balloons, luminous clouds, dragons, ball lightning - it's a wonder we can actually get any business done up there.

[marsapien]

Weather balloons, luminous clouds, dragons, ball lightning - it's a wonder we can actually get any business done up there.

Ball lightning is a proven act of nature.

[W Kein]

Ball lightning is a proven act of nature.

And weather balloons are a proven creation of man... ?

Wait a sec, lol. Ball Lightning is not a "proven" anything!

Edited July 19, 2009 by W Kein

[Wallydraigle]

So, let me get this correct here; Because art critics, previous to the modern UFO age, didn't know what to make of these artistic representations, so came up with conclusions that made sense at the time, we are are meant to accept that? That's quite a leap; I don't think I'm comfortable jumping to such speculative conclusions on, of all things, what a painting is supposed to represent.

Yeah, it's a much more comfortable leap to assume that they're spaceships from another planet.

[W Kein]

Yeah, it's a much more comfortable leap to assume that they're spaceships from another planet.

I didn't know anyone said that, nor did I know those were the only two options.

[Kipperphoenix]

PS: The name of the Mayan leader is Pacal, not Pascal. Although I can recommend a Detroit band named PAS/CAL.

Oops, thanks for the correction.

[Space Commander Travis]

Hmm doesn't strike me as a cloud of light. Could have been a malfunctioning weather balloon. Those things are everywhere!

Or a lantern.

[jaylemurph]

So, let me get this correct here; Because art critics, previous to the modern UFO age, didn't know what to make of these artistic representations, so came up with conclusions that made sense at the time, we are are meant to accept that? That's quite a leap; I don't think I'm comfortable jumping to such speculative conclusions on, of all things, what a painting is supposed to represent.

Add to that the track record of actual artists usually mocking what the critics happen to think concerning meaning.

And yes, amusingly enough that page starts with the first image I posted. Amusing in the sense that the conclusion that they come to is it's a cloud of light. Oh, silly me, cloud of light. It should have been so obvious.

That was rather my point. I'd be willing to gamble that you don't have the sort of working knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance artistic conventions to make these educated interpretations. Those people do. That said, you're left with finding what you /want/ to see rather than what you /know/ is there, and it's more a mark of pride than intelligence you choose not to believe these experts.

I suppose it is foolish to expect most people to just humbly admit they /don't/ know something. And as pointed out, it's clearly a much simpler and more logical conclusion to jump to, the idea that object is supposed to be a interstellar spacecraft piloted by intelligent, humanoid extraterrestrials.

Perhaps you could point out the blue police boxes to be found in historical artwork, too, since it's no farther a jump to try to pawn off Doctor Who is wandering around history than it is the crew of Star Trek.

--Jaylemurph

Edited July 19, 2009 by jaylemurph

[badeskov]

Wait a sec, lol. Ball Lightning is not a "proven" anything!

Really? And what exactly do you mean is not proven about ball lightening?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[W Kein]

That was rather my point. I'd be willing to gamble that you don't have the sort of working knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance artistic conventions to make these educated interpretations. Those people do. That said, you're left with finding what you /want/ to see rather than what you /know/ is there, and it's more a mark of pride than intelligence you choose not to believe these experts.

So you're trying to say that instead of using your own reasoning, that you would just rather trust the experts? Well, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Try not to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

I suppose it is foolish to expect most people to just humbly admit they /don't/ know something.

True, which is why I don't expect you to admit that.

And as pointed out, it's clearly a much simpler and more logical conclusion to jump to, the idea that object is supposed to be a interstellar spacecraft piloted by intelligent, humanoid extraterrestrials.

It seems that the only people even making that claim are the ones who claim to "believe" something else. I'm pretty comfortable in not believing anything.

But you know all this, and I made it pretty clear already. It just doesn't suit the argument you want to make.

Really? And what exactly do you mean is not proven about ball lightening?

Cheers,

Badeskov

That National Geographic calls it a "Mystery."

That the mystery may be solved?

Maybe what Wikipedia has to say about it?

Ball lightning may be an atmospheric electrical phenomenon, the physical nature of which is still controversial.

Edited July 19, 2009 by W Kein

[jaylemurph]

So you're trying to say that instead of using your own reasoning, that you would just rather trust the experts? Well, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Try not to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Actually, no, there's not. There's something called consensus amongst experts -- and perhaps unsurprisingly, the only consensus that there' UFO in pre-modern art is amongst people (like you) who don't know anything about the subject.

It seems that the only people even making that claim are the ones who claim to "believe" something else. I'm pretty comfortable in not believing anything.

Awww, you rebel, you. It makes you seem all dangerous and edgy an' stuff. I bet you park in handicapped spaces when it suits you and don't take no guff from nobody, never. I bet when you snap your finger and say " 'Tain't so. Them's UFOs in those pictures!" all the girls come running.

--Jaylemurph

[W Kein]

Actually, no, there's not. There's something called consensus amongst experts -- and perhaps unsurprisingly, the only consensus that there' UFO in pre-modern art is amongst people (like you) who don't know anything about the subject.

That's pretty laughable if you think that experts agree on everything all the time. It not necessarily the dumbest thing I've ever heard or anything like like, but it sure is ridiculous.

Awww, you rebel, you. It makes you seem all dangerous and edgy an' stuff. I bet you park in handicapped spaces when it suits you and don't take no guff from nobody, never. I bet when you snap your finger and say " 'Tain't so. Them's UFOs in those pictures!" all the girls come running.

Astounding. That's what you stoop to when you are incapable of debating a matter?

I think anyone (except you, evidently) can easily discern what I have posted in this thread, you know, by simply reading my posts - that I don't know what the images in the paintings are meant to represent; And what you have posted - that you "think" you do know, when it isn't even your own thinking, but the opinions of someone else.

Edited July 19, 2009 by W Kein

[jaylemurph]

That's pretty laughable if you think that experts agree on everything all the time. It not necessarily the dumbest thing I've ever heard or anything like like, but it sure is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is how you're simplifying my statements in an effort to make them look absurd. Nowhere did I suggest all historians or all scientists agree on every single point -- that's just you reflecting your own specious idea. But there is obviously broad agreement on broad points: virtually all historians, for example, would agree that the Franconians divided their kingdom into Nuestria, Austrasia and Burgundy (for example) and most scientists agree that the planets in our solar system travel in elliptical paths.

And it'd be farcical for you to argue the contrary, wouldn't it?

As to the second bit, I wasn't the one who implied that you were all smart and sexy and rebellious for being non-conformist. I can only work with what you give me, after all -- and who couldn't resist such obvious ego-stroking?

--Jaylemurph