History Channel, On Now, 1:05am, Ancient transportation

Originally posted by cybertroy
Even if the thing wasn't to scale, there's no doubt those things have the characteristics of airplanes. There is nothing to argue about.

So you are saying that the little centimeter long gold figures have jet or propeller engines, lightweight metal alloys and plastics, a cockpit with 3D HUD, flaps, gears, kilometer length wiring and advanced computer systems or fly-by-wire technology, complex aerodynamical characteristics like flexible wings, radar, place for 200+ passangers and possibly in-flight movies?

Sometimes a little gold figurine is just a pretty piece of jewelry.

Are you even listening to what I am saying? A model of something does not have to be perfectly scaled in order for it to be a "representation" of that thing.

Even with todays model car kits, some of them don't have all the details. But it still represents a car.

Similarly, I could draw a picture of a car. Now, every little detail might not be perfect, but it still represents that car.

None of your arguments disprove these items as being representations of actual airplanes.

Troy

[edit on 5-2-2007 by cybertroy]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by cybertroy]

Originally posted by merka
That lawnmover is hilarous, lol. You really can make anything fly if you strap a large enough jet engine on it.

It's really amaing what they can get in the air. Just last week I saw plans for a flying doghouse, complete with a cutout of snoopy on top!

Alright, there are two problems with this whole deal. First is the assumption that because a miniature's shape is reminiscent of a semi modern fighter jet that it must be a representation of an aircraft. That is a very large assumption to make out of hand.

Second even if we were to assume that that is what this model was of. How would they fly something like this? We certainly have found no evidence of turbines or other propulsion devices. And something like this would require a good amount of thrust, given how small the lifting area was in relation to the rest of the airframe.

A delta winged configuration like that will not make a good glider. Deltas are for high speed aircraft, typically those that fly around or above the speed of soundAnd those that fly at high angels of attack at those speeds. They preform poorly at slow speeds and low altitudes.

Interestingly we are moving beyond the traditional delta and they are becoming increasingly rare in modern aircraft design. Effectively giving them a design life of less than 50 years. So the ancients happened to come across the exact same solution to a problem that we used for half a century and now are moving beyond?

Basically what we are looking at here is an object that looks like a modern fighter. That doesn't mean it is a model of an airplane at all. It is most likely a coincidence, albeit an interesting one. Unless we find additional evidence, an engine, maybe an airframe, or even a drawing of the real deal in use, at wich point we will have to re-evaluate.

Originally posted by cybertroy
Are you even listening to what I am saying? A model of something does not have to be perfectly scaled in order for it to be a "representation" of that thing.

None of your arguments disprove these items as being representations of actual airplanes.

I honestly don't think, given the historical record, that it is our job to disprove that those are not represntations of actual airplanes. We know of no evidence that they had such things back then. Accepted history is powered flight was started in the early 20th century. By proposing the contrary it is up to you to provide conclusive evidence to support your claims. Something you and others in support of this theory simply have not done.

There has been evidence presented that this may have flown if the assumptions about wing shape and thrust (big assumption) are correct. But there is no direct evidence that it was intended to represent anything that ever did.

Also there is no evidence about the foil and weights in the artifact, wich is what enables a plane to fly. Not just the appearance and arrangement of lifting elements but the actual shape of them. This was filled in by the modeler on this program using modern information. But there is no evidence that they had even the most basic understanding of aerodynamics back then. Or were capable of making something of the correct shape that was still light enough to fly.

Do you see the problem here?

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Cedhed]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Cedhed]

Originally posted by cybertroy
Similarly, I could draw a picture of a car. Now, every little detail might not be perfect, but it still represents that car.

Your argument is flawed, since you do it the other way around. Painting a picture of a say a plane is easy because we all know what it means: We all know how it functions even if we dont know the details.

But doing it the way discussed here is without any knowledge of the full scale item. You cannot turn your drawing into a real car without actually knowing how to build a car. It will still just be a bigger drawing when you upscale it.

"Jet aircraft from a culture that didn't have the wheel
amazing
so it must have taken off straight up like a rocket
this certainly solves the problem of there being no runway in the area
and they must have been importing the fuel in tankers from the middle east
one question
where did they refine it
still its obvious what happened to this aircraft and why its not still sitting there on top of a temple eh
must have crashed after the pilot passed out through lack of oxygen"
(Excerpt from the Semir Osmaganic junior guide to "how the aliens did it")

This argument is pointless, you guys make a joke of everything. It makes me question your purpose here on ATS. Anyway, moving on.

Hey folks,

Don't forget tomorrow night (and early Wed morning), a new episode of "Ancient Discoveries" will be on. History Channel. You will get two chances to watch it, and you get to see last weeks episode as well.

Eastern time : 8-10pm, last weeks episode + new episode. And the same thing at 12am-2am.
"Cars and Planes" and "Machines of the Gods"

Troy

[edit on 6-2-2007 by cybertroy]

I may have missed it,but no one seems to have mentioned this. The bird like glider figurine was scanned using lasers in 3d. The exact dimensions and weight were entered into the computer. The computer just upscaled the dimensions to replicate a life size glider. The specs were input into a flight simulator and they had a pro glider pilot try to fly it.

It was totally unstable,until they added the tail section that seemed to be broken off. AFter that the glider flew perfectly.

Seemed like there was some confusion with whether they built a big version or not,and physically flew it.

it was a model of a bird nothing more
it did not have a tailplane
www.catchpenny.org...

painted details of the eyes and beak are still observable on the model.

as it is it wouldn't fly
making amodel refined which does is just proof that a refined model would fly

The requirements for a Free Flight model glider to be automatically stable in flight are that it should:

Balance somewhere between 25% and 60% of the wing chord back from the leading edge. The wing chord is the average width of the wing, measured from front to back. A glance at the bird shows that the body is made from a single piece of wood whose proportions are such that the balance point is at or behind the trailing edge of the wing. The bird's head region has clearly never had a weight attached to it or buried within it. Such a weight would be needed to bring the balance point forward into the range given above.

Have a horizontal tail surface of around 20 - 25% of the wing area. Despite some claims to the contrary, no such tail surface currently exists and there are no traces of a tail plane's attachment point on the bird's fin or rear body. The fin is the vertical tail surface that forms the rear of the bird's body.

Be shaped to provide spiral stability. The presence of a large fin at the rear of the body must be balanced by a dihedralled wing if the bird is to glide without tipping over sideways into an terminal spiral dive. A dihedralled wing is one with the tips raised above the center of the wing like virtually all passenger planes and model aircraft. The bird has the opposite wing arrangement. Its wing tips are drooped to give anhedral, which would only serve to increase the bird's spiral instability.

www.catchpenny.org...

you guys make a joke of everything

why bother to take this seriously
the egyptians didn't know about gliders
they did know a lot about birds
if you knew more about the egyptians then you guys wouldn't make these silly mistakes and get ridiculed would you

this program is obviously sensationalised
Ancient transportation i haven't seen but tell me
did it mention feet at all anywhere in it ?

It was totally unstable,until they added the tail section that seemed to be broken off. AFter that the glider flew perfectly.

so what youre saying is
that it wouldn't fly until a modern aeronautical engineer tinkered with it using computers
ok then

Originally posted by Marduk
it was a model of a bird nothing more
it did not have a tailplane
www.catchpenny.org...

Excellent example of why the "search" function should be used. The Egyptian and South American "airplane models" have been talked to death here at ATS. Above, Marduk links to the exact same site I linked to last summer in another ATS thread regarding the Egyptian model (Pharoah's "Glider.")

I used to post here far more often. It has become disheartening, this constant barrage of ignorance. Before I joined ATS, I read here extensively under the topics I was interested in. I suggest future members do the same. Otherwise, prepare to be ridiculed.

Harte

I used to post here far more often. It has become disheartening, this constant barrage of ignorance

ahhhhh
familiarity
next thing you know you'll be as rude as me

Ced's absolutly correct, here.

Originally posted by Cedhed
First is the assumption that because a miniature's shape is reminiscent of a semi modern fighter jet that it must be a representation of an aircraft. That is a very large assumption to make out of hand.

Exactly... and in fact there are a number of things that could be "assumed" (badly) to represent aircraft. For instance, moths with wings at rest... an abstraction of that shape looks like an aircraft.

Second even if we were to assume that that is what this model was of. How would they fly something like this? We certainly have found no evidence of turbines or other propulsion devices. And something like this would require a good amount of thrust, given how small the lifting area was in relation to the rest of the airframe.

And another excellent point.

I should also add (because I've seen these objects in the Museo del Oro in San Jose, Costa Rica) that they're showing you only a specially selected set of them. If you look at the WHOLE COLLECTION of objects, it's pretty obvious that they're insects. Some of the ones that are NOT shown have antenna and veins on the wings and insect legs.

They don't show those because they can't be used to "prove" the "ancient aircraft" connection. But it's easier to get you to believe it if they show you only one example from part of the collection.

Beyond that, if there was such a thing there would be many local legends and stories about flying in these things.

Think about it this way: I have a silver charm of the space shuttle. 500 years from now, archaeologists might find my charm. They'd also have stories of shuttle flights, they would have the engines and rockets (which wouldn't decay to atoms in 500 years), they would have the aircraft plant remains, they'd have other aircraft parts and aircraft in municipal dumps and there would be toys and a host of other things to indicate flight, including airports in every major city and a lot of minor cities. There'd also be stories of astronauts and space flights.

The artifacts are about 500 years old (pre-Columbian, but not extremely old.) You wouldn't have all the evidence disintegrate to atoms in 500 years -- and the Spanish priests would have recorded the tales of "flying."

Furthermore, if they'd had planes at the time they were making those, then they'd still have them when the Spanish Conquistadors came around. They'd have had a wonderful time strafing the Conquistadors.

If they'd had planes, the Spanish would never have conqurered the natives of South America and Central America.

Alright, we obviously have conflicting opinions. Fine. Believe what you want.

I am only seeking truth. Sometimes the truth might conflict with what we are traditionally taught.

Anyway, the new episode has some hydrolic machines in it, and some levetation stuff. Perhaps magnetic. It was interesting. I wonder what next week will bring?

Peace,

Troy

[edit on 7-2-2007 by cybertroy]

I am only seeking truth. Sometimes the truth might conflict with what we are traditionally taught.

if you were really seeking the truth then you would look at all the facts.
from what I can see you watched a tv show and decided on an opinion based on that and your imagination without knowing anything about the culture that these artifacts came from
if you had you would know how ridiculous the claim was
further to that you were given lots of empirical data by posters who know more about aeroanutics and mesoamerican culture than you ever will but you decided to ignore it in favour of your unproven hypothesis
there is a word that describes that method
but it isn't "truth"
here I'll give you the dictionary definition and maybe you can use your analytical methods to work out the word yourself:-

any of various methods, theories, or systems considered as having no scientific basis.

Originally posted by Marduk
...you decided to ignore it in favour of your unproven hypothesis
there is a word that describes that method
but it isn't "truth"
here I'll give you the dictionary definition and maybe you can use your analytical methods to work out the word yourself:-

any of various methods, theories, or systems considered as having no scientific basis.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Could it be....Pseudoscience??!!

Harte

Look Marduk,

They look like freakin' airplanes. Delta wings, and rudders. It is shameful that I even have to argue about this on a forum called ATS (Above Top Secret).

You guys can continue the skeptical talk amongst yourselves. I will talk about the show.

Troy

did you read Byrds post

I should also add (because I've seen these objects in the Museo del Oro in San Jose, Costa Rica) that they're showing you only a specially selected set of them. If you look at the WHOLE COLLECTION of objects, it's pretty obvious that they're insects. Some of the ones that are NOT shown have antenna and veins on the wings and insect legs.

you've been conned
admit it


and they only look like recent aircraft
do you think the wright brothers would agree that they look like aircraft


or the pilots of world war 2


or how about the pilots of the future



they only look like aircraft because the choosing of which artifact to show is highly selective and because your imagination is just the same
you need to consider all the facts before making a decision
not just the ones that you want to believe

what is a freakin airplane anyway ?
is that one of those new russian interceptors

It is shameful that I even have to argue about this on a forum called ATS (Above Top Secret).

did you notice the forum motto yet ?


[edit on 8-2-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by cybertroy

They look like freakin' airplanes. Delta wings, and rudders. It is shameful that I even have to argue about this on a forum called ATS (Above Top Secret).

Just because something from the past looks like something from today, does not mean it is proof of the modern object existing then. Yes it is reminiscent of a modern jet fighter. But we are looking at it from a position of seeing that shape everyday, and having it associated with a very specific object.

They had no such issues and saw something entirely different when looking at it.

So yes it is an interesting coincidence, nothing more.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Cedhed]

Originally posted by Marduk

what is a freakin airplane anyway ?
is that one of those new russian interceptors

Dunno, but I hear this one is quite the Fokker



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Cedhed]

Here are a bunch of those models. It took a while to find them.

www.2atoms.com...

While they have some insect-like features, they hardly look like any particular insect I have ever seen. Look at the tails.

So, when you guys find insects that actually look like these models, I will speak deeper with you about the insect theory.

Troy



[edit on 8-2-2007 by cybertroy]