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 Airport?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Hey 'kerky' you passing on one of my posts ? OMG it's a miracle


That post was directed to Hanslune referring to one of his earlier posts ... perhaps you haven't read through them all yet. Once you've had chance to catch-up I'm sure you'll see what I was referring to. You seemed a bit confused by my comment ... I've never specifically said that I believe the Nazca Lines were runways but neither do I dismiss the theory out of hand. The reality is no-one at this point in time really knows what their intended purpse was (this was covered earlier).

Might be a good idea to read through the posts you've missed, especially the one about unnecessary derogative comments that don't actually add anything productive to the thread topic.

There has been some intellegent input throughout the day (on both sides) I'm sure we don't want to scare off anyone who might be thinking about joining the thread with a good point to make because they feel intimidated by the tone of discussion here.

Bless you. Woody




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
my first paragraph was directed to your post

the rest was in general to the other comments made repeatedly about how valid theories based on nothing but personal belief and the works of the criminal hotelier Erich Von Daniken are


perhaps you could ask your doctor for some ego pills



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwytch
 


Hi Woodwytch,
Have alook at this site:
www.unitedearth.com.au...

Scroll down to this:

Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority.
Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive".
That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane.


Sound familiar??

but wait!, there's more!!


But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into
question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective
strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions.


Now I have no doubt that the gang and one in particular will fly into this.
It has been 2 days since the last posting, (I wonder why?)

For my 2 cents, if the achedemia were willing to look at alternative 'theories' then apply the theory into practice, at least it will 'encourage debate' and not attempt to silence it by personal snyde remarks that attempt to make those that have an alternative theory into criminal hoteliers. (Has he been charged yet? or is this an alternative theory? - show me da proof!)
*Incedently, I don't support all of Von Danikens theories,* but it is an 'alternative' theory and one that should at least be discussed, not harangued with evil vitreol from the establishment - or posters that have a one track mind!

This topic is being 'sidetracked by such comments as ; join a library, or talking about 'ego's'. We are talking about Ancient Airports - not ego's or who should join the establishment's library. - Never forget - most of the ancient library were destroyed by narrow minded people.

just a couple of cents worth to keep the thread and discussion alive!
H


(can't wait to see the reply - not that I care,




[edit on 25-11-2007 by Havalon]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Howdy Havalon

Do you actually think that squabbling and professional infighting is limited to mainstream disagreements with Fringe? Disagreement and personalization of conflicts effects all professions. Or do you doubt that? I once saw a fist fight between late 50ish pottery experts over the classification of Cypriote pottery.

Of course you are not at all concerned about the fact that fringe authors (as in your link) allege that the mainstream are conspirators, liars and criminal – I guess that is okie dokie and mainstream must accept this?

Most of the fringe writers start off hinting at or directly stating that mainstream scientists are either stupid, misguided, narrow minded or part of a vast conspiracy.

Oddly mainstream scientists take offense at this




Now I have no doubt that the gang and one in particular will fly into this. ....why no posts for 2 days?


Is this somehow mysterious or suspicious – please explain why?


So Havalon how many times or for how long does the mainstream have to take into consideration alternative theories? Is there some benchmark as to how long an idea must be entertained before it can be discarded? How many times does an idea have to rejected/or shown to be lacking before it can be tossed the intellectual dust pile?

Can it EVER be discarded? Or do we have to look at debunked stuff like the airfield at Nazca thirty or forty times a year….Please tell us what the standards of “looking at something” should be before it finally permanently rejected



(can't wait to see the reply - not that I care,


Actually you seem to care a great deal – why is that?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Howdy Havalon

Howdy Hanslune! I was talking to Woodwytch actually, however, since you are here!


Do you actually think that squabbling and professional infighting is limited to mainstream disagreements with Fringe? Disagreement and personalization of conflicts effects all professions. Or do you doubt that? I once saw a fist fight between late 50ish pottery experts over the classification of Cypriote pottery.

Now that! I would have paid money to see! Do you have pictures? Who won?


Of course you are not at all concerned about the fact that fringe authors (as in your link) allege that the mainstream are conspirators, liars and criminal – I guess that is okie dokie and mainstream must accept this?

I’m sorry, where does it say that the ‘mainstream’ are ‘conspirators, liars and criminals??
Mainstream authors, and posters (in this thread) call other egotists, criminals, fools, or other insulting names! and, whoa! no-one is supposed to reply. Perhaps we are not qualified to reply!!


Most of the fringe writers start off hinting at or directly stating that mainstream scientists are either stupid, misguided, narrow minded or part of a vast conspiracy
Oddly mainstream scientists take offense at this


And we are not supposed to take offence at some jerk quoting that anything other than their point of view is sacrosanct. Get a life!
Where??? What are these fringe writer people conspiring against?? Wait - hmmmmmn!



Oddly mainstream scientists take offense at this


And people who seek alternative answers are not supposed too! We too take offence, we are human after all!

Now I have no doubt that the gang and one in particular will fly into this. ....why no posts for 2 days?
Here is the first!!


Is this somehow mysterious or suspicious – please explain why?

Because you are making personal attacks – by your comments – certainly not by your wisdom or open mindedness Hanslune, I thought you were better than that! I was wrong!



So Havalon how many times or for how long does the mainstream have to take into consideration alternative theories? Is there some benchmark as to how long an idea must be entertained before it can be discarded? How many times does an idea have to rejected/or shown to be lacking before it can be tossed the intellectual dust pile?

I did not know there was a time limit on any theory!!



Can it EVER be discarded? Or do we have to look at debunked stuff like the airfield at Nazca thirty or forty times a year….Please tell us what the standards of “looking at something” should be before it finally permanently rejected


So! You think - and here is the rub! - that you can put a time limit on archeaology? On evidence that may, sometime in the future, suddenly turn the establishment on it's head - oh! wait, Gallilao did it once before!
Here you go again! You are asking me! Well since you do! It should NEVER’ be discarded! That is the problem, don’t you see? Never discard one mans/womans (sorry kw!) theory. One day it may be valid and if you do not have all the input/discussion, you end up with a “one eyed theory”


Actually you seem to care a great deal – why is that?

Because ‘I Deny Ignorance’, whether it be from a totally one eyed perspective, or from one who chooses to insult the messenger, not the message!
Oh and BTW, you are doing a fairly decent job at derailing the topic. Do you think you can remember (without re-reading it all again) what it was about in the first place?
Hint - A nc i e n t A i r p o r t s! Get back on topic or get off the thread!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you for your patients and understanding in reading this reply.







[edit on 25-11-2007 by Havalon]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Howdy Havalon

Well I think you now accept the idea that bad manners exist on both sides, or do you think its all mainstream to fringe?

And yes your link implied that mainstream scientist are involved in conspiracies.

So no theory can EVER be discarded? Well gee, then we should write text books saying that the world MIGHT be flat, that giants and trolls might exist.

The facts always remain the theories are discarded. So how many times should we look at the Nazca lines, how many times at the same theory over and over again? At some point you say, nope nothing here, as they did with phrenology, women don't have souls, maggots are spontaneous created and certain races are inferior to others- should we relook at these - how many times?

You are mistaking the rejection of theories for the rejection of evidence, evidence is never rejected. It is however used to make up NEW theories that better explain the evidence.

Example: The Nazca lines are evidence of a human activity:

Looking at this evidence we see that the theory "they are an airport" is nonsense and we reject it. We come up with another theory, "maybe the lines are religious based", etc, etc



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy Havalon


Well I think you now accept the idea that bad manners exist on both sides, or do you think its all mainstream to fringe?

I can agree on that, both sides have something to lose and something to gain. (mainly book sales and personal standing in their own academic community.)


And yes your link implied that mainstream scientist are involved in conspiracies.

So we both agree on this? or yes you agree it just 'implies' that they are?


So no theory can EVER be discarded? Well gee, then we should write text books saying that the world MIGHT be flat, that giants and trolls might exist.

can you prove that giants and trolls (I do not mean the ones on here!!) did not exist! (The 'flat earth society may take issue on that - I am not one of them btw!)


The facts always remain the theories are discarded. So how many times should we look at the Nazca lines, how many times at the same theory over and over again? At some point you say, nope nothing here, as they did with phrenology, women don't have souls, maggots are spontaneous created and certain races are inferior to others- should we relook at these - how many times?

As many times as human curiousity wants too. There should be no hard and fast rules.
If you do not want to get involved in it, then don't - walk away, but do not discourage others from trying, no matter how futile it may seem to you!


You are mistaking the rejection of theories for the rejection of evidence, evidence is never rejected. It is however used to make up NEW theories that better explain the evidence.

The best thing you have said in a long time! Remember that!


Example: The Nazca lines are evidence of a human activity:

Looking at this evidence we see that the theory "they are an airport" is nonsense and we reject it.

You reject it? There are some who don't reject it. Please do not call them ignorant, or fools, or misguided.
They too should be 'allowed to theorize'. You can choose not to pay any attention to it, that is your right.


We come up with another theory, "maybe the lines are religious based", etc, etc

Absolutely, maybe they are Aqua based, maybe they are just art. Who can say? One day - if we keep looking - and not stick our head in the sand with one only theory up our a$$ we may eventually know their wisdom'

Okay H
I'm off to bed, catcha tomorra!



ps, see how cool it can be when when we swop ideas, not insults?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
the idea that Nazca is a desert is not a theory
it was only ever a hypothesis
and seeing as it was based on personal belief and not evidence it will never be proven

this isn't science its science fiction



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Jules Verne was science fiction writer, but some of what he has written has since come to be fact.
(perhaps not verbatum!) but his novels were based on theory. Time will tell!

I think this is an interesting tale, a hypothesis with some follow up!

www.nott.com...




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
the Nazca balloon hypothesis has been debunked, It was an answer to a question that didn't exist anyway.
www.hallofmaat.com...

I have shown that the “evidence” that Woodman put forward to support his theory of Nasca flight is flawed. Researchers with decades of experience at Nasca have amassed evidence that shows that the Andean people believed that the gods lived in the mountains, and they prayed to these gods in various ways for the water that the mountain gods alone could give. The last thirty years have been remarkable ones in Nasca research and the results of that research point to the purpose behind the lines being related to fulfilling a need for water in a parched environment through the veneration of ancestors and the worship of mountain gods. The Nasca lines have nothing to do with balloons



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Interesting article! thank you for that.
You will notice that I said Notts was an interesting site, do you not agree it is interesting?

Katherine Reece was once an 'alternative' theorist and she too used to harangue the establishment, but now she has joined the establishment and like a true convert she has now become obsessively transfixed in using the establishments findings to debunk anything and everytrhing that she considers psudo-archaeolgical or psudo-science. Her site (the hall of maat is dedicated to that. Now I have no problem with that, I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. People will always (I hope) beg to differ.

The Nazca lines have been done to death by both sides, each with their own point of view. However, as long as the establishment continue to block the path of an alternative view by refusing to accept that "hey! there may just be another explanation for why they did that!". Then it is all moot.

Thank for the post and the link.




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
My, my, such fighting in the name of truth. The gods, at least the ones we know of that have pushed so many to war, must be proud of both sides in this issue.

Ancient airports, eh? Well, the evidence is flimsy for the people of that time having flight themselves. The ability to fly gives one a pretty healthy advantage over surrounding ground pounders, and should lead to complete domination of anyone they came into contact with.

On the flip side, building massive religious markers that could only be seen from the air is a pass time when goaded by the priest caste showing their power to the people. But usually it has to be something the people can see and appreciate to keep the workforce from rebelling. (Pyramids, temples, statues, that sort of thing.)

Outlining underground water aquifers begs the question of where they got the technology to locate said aquifers? I mean, stone age people don't usually use bore holes and ground penetrating radar and such. Dowsing doesn't sound like it fits in with the scientific take on all this either, not to mention that such straight underground rivers seems just a tad odd anyway.

We're left with one of two gods that could see all this work by a needy people. The mountain god, and the sky god. (And every culture has at least one sky god, usually more.) So you offer to this god, whichever one, what you think would please him/her most. Your best, in other words, or something you think the sky god wants.

The mountain god would have the spiders and the birds and the snakes and a lot of these things already on his mountain. He might have a shortage of straight lines, but most of the stuff offered up wouldn't appear too useful to a mountain god. (That's why so many cultures practiced sacrifice, it was a unique gift that could only be given by the humans.)

But a sky god, one from beyond even the hight birds soared to, would have none of these things. You would be offering unique gifts, symbolically of course. These might even be gifts that the sky god had shown an interest in on some previous visit. You might even make straight lines in the dirt to show that you remembered the direction the sky god came from and where he went to next.

You might even form a cult based on the idea that this sky god would return if you were faithful to keep the images and "memory lines" intact to show good faith.

Maybe someday the sky gods will return.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havalon
Interesting article! thank you for that.
You will notice that I said Notts was an interesting site, do you not agree it is interesting?

yes it was interesting, I read it when it first came out but even then I didn't think they were balloons on Nazcan pottery

Originally posted by Havalon
Katherine Reece was once an 'alternative' theorist and she too used to harangue the establishment, but now she has joined the establishment and like a true convert she has now become obsessively transfixed in using the establishments findings to debunk anything and everytrhing that she considers psudo-archaeolgical or psudo-science.

yes its amazing isn't it that the more someone learns the facts about something the less pseudo ideas become acceptable.


Originally posted by Havalon
The Nazca lines have been done to death by both sides, each with their own point of view. However, as long as the establishment continue to block the path of an alternative view by refusing to accept that "hey! there may just be another explanation for why they did that!". Then it is all moot.

if the establishment were blocking anything then this thread wouldn't exist.
they have better things to do like starting wars with other countries and rigging elections.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by amitheone

By connecting these 2 evidences together, it strongly suggest that the ancients were already flying. But how?


2 pieces of evidence based on assumptions strongly suggest something????

Have we not learned anything my making assumptions?

How does it go? When we assume you make an "ASS" out of "U" and "ME".

[edit on 26-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I think it is important to note that in the future if any of us plan on constructing an airstrip it is vital that we also carve out the figures of monkeys, spiders, hummingbirds, sharks and lizards. It is essential these glyphs are present so there is no confusion at all to the people of the future what we intended to build.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I would also suggest the Cargo Cult exlanation.

The Nazca lines are made of soft earth, and so would be a useless runway...thats true, but the Cargo Cults used to build wicker planes to attract the Gods...so even if it did function as an utterly useless runway, that is no indication that the natives didn't try it anyway.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
But that brings up the question-where are the real airfields they saw to inspire them?

Except for early airfield pre-world war I the 1920s aircraft could land on reasonably level ground. As they got int multiple tons they had to go to concrete strips. Of course they could be VTOL type aircraft but it all boils down to a:

Lack of a technology base to support these types of machines, and lack of evidence for a civilization that could have produced such technology. Until evidence of this sort is found (if it exists) the question remains in the hypothetic range.

.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Well, I think the point is that these patterns in Nasca cannot be explained by any current archaeological theory for purpose. That they should correspond so closely to effects created by modern means for modern purposes is obviously highly intriguing. If they are merely imitative also has to be considered. So what were they "imitating" and why? Why make forms that make most sense when seen from high in the sky? No one can look at these patterns who has been to an air port and seen them from above can escape the shock of remarkable similarity. Keep an open mind. Even the most sceptic person in the form of Carl Sagan suggested we may have been visited by advanced explorers in ancient times. Maybe they were doing a survey and created these airports when the area was rarely seen by "natives". After all, conventional theory says most people of the area lived by the sea shore where food was available, and these higher regions seem unlikely areas for habitation. A million possibilities exist for explaining these things. I don't see any point in trying to pass them off just because some book writer like Von Daniken talked about them and we should just drop the interest in them or say it's "old hat". It is very interesting, and I'm glad for the original post. It was well made and layed out nicely with good links. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The problem is people view this from the wrong angle. Ok, they build an airport and that's it?? Where is the rest of it? The machines, the roads, the factories, refineries, where is any single shred of proof that these people constructed something more complex than drawings in the dirt? They are simply drawings in the dirt, period. Until someone digs some kind of flying device out of the ground they will always be drawings in the dirt. Does it resemble a runway? Sure, I can see that.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
The only thing I don't understand is that these runways are only needed for craft that well, need runways.....which is only what method we have for our current aviation tech.....

I don't think this is lost knowledge, but it can't be alien because it's too primitive, aliens I wouldn't expect to still be at the runway level in aviation technology, if they can get here from another planet, I don't think runways are needed.......

And when looking at the op's pics of the 2000 year old planes, they look just like our modern day craft, and so my only theory I can think of is we NOW have the tech to time travel and are sending scout groups in planes to view the African tribes....that's all I can assume, and so some tribe have seen the planes and have then made a model sculpture.....




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join