It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The MYSTERIOUS Case of The NAZLET ALIEN (Egypt)

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Aren't those the Nordics (aliens)?




posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Firstly, looks like a grey to me, with nipples - how disturbing, I mean wtf sucked at those nipples?
Secondly, it is against Islamic law to depict any living thing in artwork. So I think that the owner, while he was having work done on the house to the right of the gate, decided it was time to get rid of this abomination. However he only did a half arsed effort at it.

Alternatively that keystone or whole gateway was reused, came from a previous building. Maybe that building was built by greys, how do we know that greys aren't crappy stone carvers, or crappy at any sort of art?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
How can people say it's not the same archway XD... Top left of the arch you see the creamy paint has come away, making the exact same pattern in both! Yet yes the buildings to the right have been altered... As in torn down and more modern buildings have replaced them hense the clearly more modern brickwork.

Also the damage to the arch is on the right... Hmmmmm... Hmmmmmmm I wonder what caused it lmao... In my mind there are 2 options... There was some kind of natural disaster type damage that caused the buildings to collapse like an eartquake and damaged the arch... Or people pulled the buildings down and damaged the arch... Okay or a third option wildcard... Aliens... lol
edit on 2-11-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
the inscription above was damaged as well. i wonder what it said.



It says " Beware of the dog!!!"



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Can i just be one to point out that the 'removed alien' carving in image 4 appears almost flush with the surrounding concrete carving. Comparing this to image 1 where the 'original alien' carving sits,for arguments sake, on a toblerone shaped concrete slab - if it was grinded away and concreted over there is no possible way it would sit flush with the surrounding concrete and the remnants of the carving still be visible. The carving itself in image 1 does not sit deep enough in the concrete.

I am suggesting this to be a completely different archway, at best the other side of the archway. This is further supported that the background buildings have completely different aesthetics.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: JamesTB

I'll go with a poorly done *At the time, Almost cartoonish* representation of a Knight with his helmet removed revealing his chainmail.




Yeah, no kidding. Anyone who thinks that is an ETBE is just silly! Everyone knows that Egyptian archway art from that era was incredibly detailed, skillful work but for some unknown reason artists at the time could accurately depict animals, but when it came to humans they just couldn't get the proportions correct so they gave humans massive heads as wide or wider than the hips with huge almond shaped eyes and a small mouth. Sadly the knight who modeled for the artist had his nose cut off in battle but it did make the carving easier for the artist and saved the buyer some goats and a slave girl, so it was a win/win for everyone involved!


edit on 11/3/2014 by LowTechRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The building on the right mysteriously changed from Stone to Brick, and they must obviously have changed the door.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
one thing that i found kinda odd, and that is neither here not there.

notice how the alien/ knight is in a chevron kinda like what they used in the StarGate franchises.

just sayin.


edit on 3-11-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: L.A.B
a reply to: JamesTB

Can i just be one to point out that the 'removed alien' carving in image 4 appears almost flush with the surrounding concrete carving. Comparing this to image 1 where the 'original alien' carving sits,for arguments sake, on a toblerone shaped concrete slab - if it was grinded away and concreted over there is no possible way it would sit flush with the surrounding concrete and the remnants of the carving still be visible. The carving itself in image 1 does not sit deep enough in the concrete.

I am suggesting this to be a completely different archway, at best the other side of the archway. This is further supported that the background buildings have completely different aesthetics.

Already pointed that out long before and the answer is simple: The ones putting the collapsed archway back together (right part, including the "alien") didnt know how exactly it looked before. So the stone with the figure ended up flush with the lower part of the arch, then they smeared plaster all over it to keep it in place.

Its just like how they use flimsy eye measurement for the right arch, no tools at all. Just put the stones in a similar shape, plaster over it and hope its the same smooth arch as the left (hint: its not).



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: merka

Are you suggesting the Archway was re-assembled at another location?



...The ones putting the collapsed archway back together (right part, including the "alien") didnt know how exactly it looked before. So the stone with the figure ended up flush with the lower part of the arch, then they smeared plaster all over it to keep it in place. ...


If this isn't the case how does it account for different background buildings (in image 2) which look older than those in image 1?

I completely understand where you're coming from with the smearing of concrete and re-assembly though.


Edit: Actually the building in image 2 looks like it has been rebuilt and may have knocked down the right half of the archway in the process.. still curious to postulate on its origin though..
edit on 3/11/2014 by L.A.B because: retracted statement: If this isn't the case how does it account for different background buildings (in image 2) which look older than those in image 1?



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I'm inclined to think they're different gateways, but even if they are the same, there's really no big mystery here. This is in Egypt, a predominantly Muslim country. To Muslims, graven images are blasphemous, especially graven human images. Maybe some Wahabi landlord or tenant came along and defaced the wall the way the Taliban did to the Bamyan Buddhas.

The animal images on either side are still there, but perhaps those were considered tolerable.

That building is not very ancient, by the way. It's in Ottoman style (therefore no older than 1517AD), but so crudely excecuted that I suspect it is a modern imitation. My guess is that it is post-Napoleonic, less than two hundred years old, and probably very much less than that.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

It might be construction from the Mameluke era also. The Egyptians have their own version of Islam, especially before the rise of the 'moneyed' Arab states, which had a different slant to it. They didn't go in for destroying the AE ruins, etc. That all began to change after the Madhi arose in the Sudan and since then - and well oiled by rich Arab states a more fanatical brand of Islam has been growing. I saw a change in how people acted from the late 70's to the early 200o's when I last went there.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Sure, Hans. Right now, Saudi money is funding Wahabi-influenced extremism all over the Muslim world, even in historically tolerant places like Indonesia.

I went back all the way to the beginning of the Ottoman era for safety's sake, but frankly I don't think that gateway is more than 150 years old, if that. It looks like a crude, modern imitation of the Ottoman style. I can't really tell from the images, but the bas-relief seems to be moulded out of concrete, not carved from stone.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
It actually looks like that whole part was just cut off. Maybe someone wanted it for a private collection of some sort? The photographer put it out. It became known and who knows how many people went there in search of it



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: L.A.B
a reply to: merka

Are you suggesting the Archway was re-assembled at another location?



...The ones putting the collapsed archway back together (right part, including the "alien") didnt know how exactly it looked before. So the stone with the figure ended up flush with the lower part of the arch, then they smeared plaster all over it to keep it in place. ...


If this isn't the case how does it account for different background buildings (in image 2) which look older than those in image 1?

I completely understand where you're coming from with the smearing of concrete and re-assembly though.


Edit: Actually the building in image 2 looks like it has been rebuilt and may have knocked down the right half of the archway in the process.. still curious to postulate on its origin though..

How do they look older?

In the original pic, you can see an old grey brick wall above on the left, with larger stones making up the lower construction (seem to be same design as the arch, so possibly part of the original building).

In the newer pic, the old lower wall has been replaced by a new concrete wall while the grey stone wall above has been partly cut away and they have built an entire new floor on top of it (red bricks) with a new building behind the arch as well, the brown bricks.

Anyway... Another thing that shows its the same arch and something I missed in my original comparison - look at the left wall (not the arch, the building). There is purple/black text on it in about chest height. Look at both pics and compare. In fact, compare that entire area to the wooden door. Just move your eyes from the text. To the edge of the wall. To the black spot on the ornate pillar. Same. Darn. Arch.

Sigh, I'm out of this thread for good now.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB
Agreed work has definitely been done, new door, as to the discoloration of the wall, weather, as for the alien, looks almost like quick dry concrete possibly upkeep, still why cover something like that? I would think that would be the small things you want to keep to bring charm to the old city



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: merka

Well stated, right you are! and I did edit my previous post with a retracted statement as I realised it was the same building.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

It's definitely the same gate but the right hand side has been damaged and rebuilt very badly. You can see the archway on the right hand side is no longer evenly rounded. The left hand side matches exactly the same as the first picture, but not the right side any more.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

What makes him look like an African? Was it the oddly pointed chin? The extra small and oddly thin lips? Or was it the bulbous head that looked way too large for it's body? Yeah. I thought so.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: merka

The second (fixed) pic seems to be ground-off, as if they were trying to remove the image, failed, and just placed some plaster over it to try to conceal it even further. Perhaps i'm wrong, I'd love to see it in reality.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join