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.

 

ancient aircraft

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
i was doing some researching and i came across these, i thought these looked interseting as they looked quite authentic, what are peoples views on these are they ancient vehicles (possibly mechanical ) or are they another freak coincidence from ancient times?

peoples thoughts on this would be much appreciated!



www.veling.nl...
www.crystalinks.com...




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
They've been debunked thousands of times, I think they were hyrogliphics that had been restored so many times they got deformed.

But I'm no expert.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Byrd (the supermod) did a pretty darned good debunking of these before. They're hyroglyphics that start out as one thing, and they deform over time, and we translate them into something else when we look at them. (I think that was the explanation.)



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
i dont buy into that theory what heiroglyphics are they ment to look like



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by fred3110
i dont buy into that theory what heiroglyphics are they ment to look like


I agree dude,

How are we suposed to know what the look like!

The rosetta stone was basically our route to translating the heiroglphs!
One bit of evidence!

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Chris the watcher]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Debunked thousands of times -- by the way, that image of the "helicopter" has been photoshopped unto death to get it to look like a helicopter.

The "Vimana aircraft" comes from "channeled" documents that didn't exist until 1910 or so, and the flaws in the designs (including thrusters and so forth) are very clearly the product of that era (when they didn't know much about flight.)

Hieroglyphs... they're not pictures. They are letters of the alphabet. The inscription is part of a sentence that says (translating into a context that's easy to understand): "(this is) the temple of Ramses, great lord of the upper and lower Nile, who protects his people from foreign invaders."

You're trying to read it as "Ramses, great lord of the upper and lower Nile, AIRCRAFT who UFO from."

They're also cheating because they don't show you the full inscription with the cartouche of Ramses on the left and the signifiers of his titles (this is actually a "two ladies" title, referring to the goddesses of upper and lower Egypt.)

If you went there and looked at the REAL inscription, you would see that there was a layer of plaster over the stone and that some of it has fallen off and that there's a different inscription underneath.

What happened was that Ramses wanted magnificent temples to himself (as god of Egypt... that's what the pharoahs were; they were considered gods.) So he got a jump start on the worship bit by reclaiming some older temples and plastering over the names of the person that it belonged to and recarving his own name there (he had workmen do it. He didn't do it himself.)

This isn't the only example of recarving names and titles... it's just that the other ones can't be made to look like UFOs, even when they're heavily photoshopped, so they're never trotted out as proof.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There are many examples in Egypt of old carved hieroglyphs being covered and re-carved. The result of such revisionism (which the Egyptians were continually practicing) is called a palimpsest.

The carving you found is exactly what Byrd described - Ramses II humongous egotism at work. Not that he was any diofferent than the other kings of Egypt - well, except maybe for Akhenaten.

Anyway, here's a link to an extremely educational website run by a very friendly guy that explains the whole thing. Has the translation of the actual inscription, the relief shown in context, and the two different inscriptions are shown in another pic, superimposed in different colors so you can see that these glyphs, as Byrd said, are elements of an alphabet and not carved depictions of objects.

Catchpenny's Site - Pharoah's helicopter page

The Catchpenny site is a good one to save. There are explanations there for several of the "alternative history" claims made by pseudoscientists these days.
Put this in your collection of links:
Catchpenny Mysteries of Ancient Egypt

Harte

[edit on 7/27/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
yea the helicopter may look photoshopped, how can you explain original photos of them by people who have been there to see them with there own eyes? (not all can be photoshopped unless theres some sort of conspiracy to make people believe) even in these photos it to me it still looks like a helicopter, i couldnt offer an opinion on the ufo shaped one as it really could be anything it could just be a rectangular shaped nothing
the zepplin shaped pic does actually resemble a vimana (Sixth Canto, Part 3) its a top view though so use ur imagination.

1910 is wrong its in one of my books but the first mention of vimanas was long before this.

yes these pictures looked flawed to us, they may have not have relied on pictures and designs as people do today(people cannot build anything nowadays without detailed schematics) people could make potts thousands of yrs ago which are a better standard than ones produced today.

"You're trying to read it as "Ramses, great lord of the upper and lower Nile, AIRCRAFT who UFO from"

im not trying to read it as anything i see what is infront of me and think wow where have i seen these before lol these aircraft,ufo, zepplin should resemble some word or they wouldnt have cut the stone in this manner its not like writing in a book and misspelling somthing these things would take time to chip away. what does it say i cant find any meaning to these heiroglyphics

as for them not knowing much about flight...we cant really be the judge of this, people have destroyed our history over and over again since the begining of civilisation so who knows what important texts have been lost in time, some of the vedas are actually kept hidden in the vatican library this baffles me why would catholics want the vedas from india hidden?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred3110
yea the helicopter may look photoshopped, how can you explain original photos of them by people who have been there to see them with there own eyes? (not all can be photoshopped unless theres some sort of conspiracy to make people believe) even in these photos it to me it still looks like a helicopter, i couldnt offer an opinion on the ufo shaped one as it really could be anything it could just be a rectangular shaped nothing

...i see what is infront of me and think wow where have i seen these before lol these aircraft,ufo, zepplin should resemble some word or they wouldnt have cut the stone in this manner its not like writing in a book and misspelling somthing these things would take time to chip away. what does it say i cant find any meaning to these heiroglyphics...

fred,
Apparently, you only believe what you want to believe, and you've made your mind up as to what you're going to believe in this case, facts be damned.

I provided a link to perfectly good explanations as well as translations of what these hieroglyphs say. They are writing, not pictograms, and your continued intepretation of them as such makes about as much sense as claiming that our capital letter "W" is actually a drawing of the teats on an old woman.

Is the letter "Y" a pictogram for the female crotch?


Originally posted by fred3110
as for them not knowing much about flight...we cant really be the judge of this, people have destroyed our history over and over again since the begining of civilisation so who knows what important texts have been lost in time, some of the vedas are actually kept hidden in the vatican library this baffles me why would catholics want the vedas from india hidden?

History has certainly not been "destroyed over and over again" since the time of Ramses II.

You've made a lot of fantastic claims. You have provided not one single shred of support for these claims. If you want to be taken at all seriously, I suggest you start linking us to the information you are posting here. Or do you expect us to just take your word for what the Vatican is "hiding"? Also, it might profit you to actually examine both sides of an issue like the "Pharoah's helicopter," especially when two posters here have made it so easy for you to do so - myself having given you a link, and Byrd having shared her professional knowledge of the subject with you.

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
apologies harte ive just read ur post above mine, you must ov post while i was writing one out, yea that site does shed quite alot of light on the abydos subject wish i had of seen it sooner i may have written a totally different post!


most of the information i read is in books and texts ill try to find internet links though aswell for other ppls benefit.

the vatican hiding some of the vedas was on a tv program on bbc a little while back im sure it was part of a series

i do think that our history has been destroyed over time, by wars and nature i do believe the quote "history is written by the victors"

really i dont believe only what i want to believe lol



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred3110
apologies harte ive just read ur post above mine, you must ov post while i was writing one out, yea that site does shed quite alot of light on the abydos subject wish i had of seen it sooner i may have written a totally different post!


Fred,

Sorry to sound harsh, but I believe if you search through my posts here, you'll see where my attitude comes from!

I was going by the time stamp on my post and your subsequent post. Around 45 - 50 minutes I believe (it's not displayed here on the "reply to post" screen.)
I assumed you'd had more than enough time.


Originally posted by fred3110the vatican hiding some of the vedas was on a tv program on bbc a little while back im sure it was part of a series

The BBC is a source. Not a good source, but a source.

Many believe the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel and the History Channel are good sources as well. The problem is, these are just television networks - not authorities on these subjects. These networks buy (lease, really) "documentaries" that independant companies have produced. Some of these independant companies are just not to be trusted.

See John Anthony West. Or try "The Mysterious Origins of Man" (MOM). The MOM "documentary" was based on a book by Michael Cremo that had so many mischaracterizations, slanted views, obfuscations, omissions and downright fraudulent statements (lies, in other words) that anyone with the time and inclination could debunk seventy-five percent of it in one afternoon on the internet, without much effort.

Yet, the MOM documentary was shown on network television and later on one of the above cable networks, with no disclaimers, no statements about how "...the following represents the opinion of the producers, and not of this television station..." nothing like that. Anybody that didn't already have a little knowledge in the area would have come away from the MOM documentary thinking that there were three different well-established pieces of evidence for the coexistance of humans and dinosaurs, and that's just one example of a great many idiocies in that documentary.

So, no, a show on the BBC is not gonna cut it for me. However, if you provide info on that show, I can use the info to find search terms to use in an attempt to verify for myself the claims being made. You know, the name of the guy that says it, the evidence he has, if he names it, etc.

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I have a general question about this all...

I saw a few people say that ancient aircrafts, like the glyphs from Egypt, have been debunked numerous times.

My question is, how can we debunk these things when we don't even know for sure if they are decoded correctly. If you think about it, people who claim to be able to read them could be totally wrong. Its pretty obvious if you look at that inscription, with what looks like helicoptors and aircraft, that it isn't a mistake. people didnt carve that # into the wall so humans, thousands of years later, could say "well, its just worn down, thats why we don't know what is says"

Those are flying machines if you ask me...humans today cannot admit that the technolgoy we hold dear today pales in comparison to that which was achieved thousands of years ago



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
My question is, how can we debunk these things when we don't even know for sure if they are decoded correctly. If you think about it, people who claim to be able to read them could be totally wrong. Its pretty obvious if you look at that inscription, with what looks like helicoptors and aircraft, that it isn't a mistake. people didnt carve that # into the wall so humans, thousands of years later, could say "well, its just worn down, thats why we don't know what is says"

OSM,
I gave you all you need to find out the answers to your questions. It is not up to me to ensure that you look into it.

You might fall into the category into which I was attempting to place fred3110.

These hieroglyphs have been translated. We do "know what it says."

Before you start saying that all the translations of Egyptian Hieroglyphics might be wrong (they aren't,) perhaps you should spend a modicum of your time finding out

how they

were translated.

If the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics is wrong, then we can't translate Ancient Greek or Demotic either.


Originally posted by OuterSpaceMasterThose are flying machines if you ask me...humans today cannot admit that the technolgoy we hold dear today pales in comparison to that which was achieved thousands of years ago


You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I myself prefer to only hold informed opinions but, hey, that's just me. I'm not on some "Deny Ignorance" campaign here.

Harte

[edit on 7/27/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
www.s8int.com...

Some background on page 1 and 2 ..... I always find it striking that people are so ready to dismiss all the obvious clues hinting at a VERY different past than the one in our history books. I have not spent a lifetime researching this topic but luckily others have and the evidence is not only overwhelming but VERY obvious so one should seriously question the motives of those who propose that history is as our text books tells us.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
www.s8int.com...

Some background on page 1 and 2 ..... I always find it striking that people are so ready to dismiss all the obvious clues hinting at a VERY different past than the one in our history books. I have not spent a lifetime researching this topic but luckily others have and the evidence is not only overwhelming but VERY obvious so one should seriously question the motives of those who propose that history is as our text books tells us.

Stellar


Your link to that Creationist site was particularly unwelcome, IMO.

I for one certainly do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

BTW, the site (s8int.com) contains no artifacts whatsoever that have not been perfectly explained by scientists that have spent a little time looking into the claims, and several of the claims (bullet hole in a Neanderthal's head) are just obvious attempts to mislead.

You may not have spent a lifetime researching these topics, but I've spent 20 or so years (that's not a lifetime to me, maybe to others here) doing just that - though of course, not full time.

I was taken in by von Daniken back then, and found out how I'd been lied to. Been researching this kind of stuff ever since.

Your linked site has resided in my "Favorites file" for quite some time. I use the claims it makes sometimes to make my point about this or that mischaracterization about artifactual evidence.

If you want a source for these kinds of silly claims that is not so overtly religious, here:
Check's in the mail

I swear I'll pull out

If you believe these things because of your Christian upbringing (not saying you do,) then I suggest you take another look at the url of the website you linked:

s8int.com

Say it with me slowly:
S 8 int

S eight int

Sa tent

SATAN!!!


Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Those are flying machines if you ask me...humans today cannot admit that the technolgoy we hold dear today pales in comparison to that which was achieved thousands of years ago


You know, I can't help but to wonder if the reason humans can't admit this ancient technology existed, is because.....wait.....get this......IT DIDN'T. Aside from these "original" inscriptions people keep refering to, what archaeological evidence would you prescribe to counter this statement? Ramses II reigned from 1278-1237 B.C. Do you want to know what vehicles history describes existing in this time frame in Egypt?
Chariots

Chariots were expensive, clumsy and prone to breakdowns. Yet their use continued for centuries, and they were not replaced by horseback riders until the first millennium BCE [5]. The reasons for this were manyfold. Bronze Age cavalry was mostly deployed as a highly mobile archery force against lightly armed and scantily protected infantry.

The Egyptians were at war alot. In fact, most accounts of ancient feuds in and around Mesopotamia and the outlying province usually included some quarrel with the Egyptians. Wouldn't you think that a man deeming himself a god would use ever advantage available to defeat his enemies? And say for the sake of argument that some ancient vehicle such as this existed. Why is there no record anywhere else? We have found chariots the world over, and from varying points in time. I believe we have yet to find a single helicopter blade or alternator dating before the time of Henry Ford or Paul Cornu. I ask you to bring that evidence to the table.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Your link to that Creationist site was particularly unwelcome, IMO.


Well i guess that would have been a problem for me had my intent been to please you.



I for one certainly do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.


Well i have not seen much evidence for that either....


BTW, the site (s8int.com) contains no artifacts whatsoever that have not been perfectly explained by scientists that have spent a little time looking into the claims,


Well that is very interesting considering how many of those scientist frequently say that they have no explanation for artifact X or Z.... I love the blanket statements that is the staple of your kinsmen.



and several of the claims (bullet hole in a Neanderthal's head) are just obvious attempts to mislead.


Obvious how exactly?


You may not have spent a lifetime researching these topics, but I've spent 20 or so years (that's not a lifetime to me, maybe to others here) doing just that - though of course, not full time.


And frequently scientist spent their lifetimes ending up being dead wrong anyways. Time spent is absolutely no indication of achievement or understanding even if it generally helps when one is not particularly astute, imaginative or interested in finding flaws in popular theories


I was taken in by von Daniken back then, and found out how I'd been lied to. Been researching this kind of stuff ever since.


So everyone disagrees with at least SOME things von Daniken said but is that any reason to disregard the entire body of evidence? Only if that is your intent imo.


Your linked site has resided in my "Favorites file" for quite some time. I use the claims it makes sometimes to make my point about this or that mischaracterization about artifactual evidence.


It's a great site even if i do not agree at all with their basic premise.


If you want a source for these kinds of silly claims that is not so overtly religious, here:
Check's in the mail

I swear I'll pull out


Would be funny if the topic was not so deadly serious....


If you believe these things because of your Christian upbringing (not saying you do,) then I suggest you take another look at the url of the website you linked:


Agnostic; I'm not searching for one ( and non of the one's with names makes any sense) but who the hell knows....


s8int.com
Say it with me slowly:
S 8 int
S eight int
Sa tent
SATAN!!!


Stupidly strange attempt in my opinion but i will make a note of the detours your mind apparently takes from common sense approaches to dismissing evidence!


Stellar



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I for one certainly do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.


Well i have not seen much evidence for that either....

Yet the "evidence" you cite supports that idea moreso than any other dating.


Originally posted by StellarXWell that is very interesting considering how many of those scientist frequently say that they have no explanation for artifact X or Z.... I love the blanket statements that is the staple of your kinsmen.

If there are so many scientists out there "frequently say(ing) that they have no explanation for artifact X or Z..." then why not cite a few? Surely if this happens all the time it can't be hard to find such statements in reference to these very objects you've linked us to on Satant's webpage.


Originally posted by StellarX

and several of the claims (bullet hole in a Neanderthal's head) are just obvious attempts to mislead.

Obvious how exactly?

Obvious to anyone that looks beyond s8int.com.
The skull in question can be found on the web here:
www.mnh.si.edu...
more info here:
kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com...
You can see from that site that the claimed age is wrong by a factor of from 5X to 8X, the "bullet hole" did not kill the individual, in fact it was healing, and there was no "exit wound" at all on the opposite side of the skull, though the existence of the "exit wound" hole is stated as fact on s8int.com (not just them, all of the OOPART sites say the same thing.) The hole, upon examination, appears to be pathological in origin, rather than traumatic, though there is some question as to that, and all this info is available to anyone that merely looks for it. Obvious like that, in other words.


Originally posted by StellarXAnd frequently scientist spent their lifetimes ending up being dead wrong anyways. Time spent is absolutely no indication of achievement or understanding even if it generally helps when one is not particularly astute, imaginative or interested in finding flaws in popular theories

Many people here and elsewhere make this claim about scientists not being interested in "upsetting the applecart" as it were. I've yet to see it supported. To my mind it is an untruth fabricated to prop up the more ridiculous theories out there.

Originally posted by StellarXWould be funny if the topic was not so deadly serious....

Well I guess that would have been a problem for me had my intent been to make you laugh.


If you believe these things because of your Christian upbringing (not saying you do,) then I suggest you take another look at the url of the website you linked:
s8int.com
Say it with me slowly:
S 8 int
S eight int
Sa tent
SATAN!!!

Stupidly strange attempt in my opinion but i will make a note of the detours your mind apparently takes from common sense approaches to dismissing evidence!

Stellar
Naw, just something I noticed a few years ago!
You gotta admit finding Satan in the URL of a Creationism website is at least worth a chuckle.


Harte



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by fred3110
yea the helicopter may look photoshopped, how can you explain original photos of them by people who have been there to see them with there own eyes? (not all can be photoshopped unless theres some sort of conspiracy to make people believe) even in these photos it to me it still looks like a helicopter, i couldnt offer an opinion on the ufo shaped one as it really could be anything it could just be a rectangular shaped nothing


Here's a very good page about the whole thing, including the unretouched photos:
www.ufocom.org...

If there WAS a real helicopter, etc, then there would be a special set of hieroglyphics that designated them and we'd see them in context -- where there would be more references to it. There are no unknown phrases and objects in the inscription (only some bad carving).

If they were real, then we would see big art panels about them (because the Egyptians "wrote" sort of comic-book style. You have a big picture and then a lot of text around it that describe the text. We have big pictures of feasts, wars, weaponry (a lot of that) and so forth. No flying things and no UFOs.


1910 is wrong its in one of my books but the first mention of vimanas was long before this.

No, that's the correct date. The *channeler* said it was channeled from 6,000+ years ago and the *channeler* claimed this was the content of these books.

There's a huge thread on this somewhere, where I actually looked up all the Hindu texts and what was in them. And "vimana" means "temple roof" and not UFO. It's an architectural term (in their folklore, demons climb up temple roofs like King Kong climbs the Empire State Building, and when attacked, the demon levitates the roof.)


yes these pictures looked flawed to us, they may have not have relied on pictures and designs as people do today(people cannot build anything nowadays without detailed schematics) people could make potts thousands of yrs ago which are a better standard than ones produced today.


But... we can READ the language. Really. It's not "undecypherable pictures". In fact, here's a page on how to read them and you can use it to start reading it and check the claimed translations:
hometown.aol.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Nice to see not every one is Iggnorant...... Thanks for the comments StellarX.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join