It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:51 PM
Check out the hieryoglyphic of a 3ft high "grey" at this will enlighten some people and make sceptics think twice..I think these "creatures" come from a parallel universe!!!

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:12 PM
the link doesn't work

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by purplemonkey

A "G" is missing in that link

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by mikerochip666

Hi,I watched this documentary on myspace called The secret ufo KGB files.On it there is a guy saying he has video evidence etc,etc.that the russians supposedly excavated in Egypt before the 2nd world war and found a dead Alien grey in a tomb...
perhaps the ancient egyptians worshipped an alien

The video is already posted on this site by a member called popcorn playah..I tried linking to his thread but don't know how to
[edit on 13-12-2007 by defcon2]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by defcon2]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:56 AM
About the "alien" found in Ptahhotep's tomb that we can see in this image:

First of all, this image has been purposely decreased in contrast, and cropped out from its own original contest, which is this one:

It's a vase that contains a plant that was usually offered to the Gods together with fruit and animals.

Also in other areas of the Ptahhotep's tomb is represented the same plant.
Another bearer brings a small vase of the same shape of the "alien":

I would like to point out that the "analysis" made by people who hasn't the necessary knowledge in that specific field (like egyptian archeology, in this case), are NEVER reliable.

About this image taken in the Abydos Temple

this is its natural appearance:

and this is the explanation provided by
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, ( Website )
American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies

":..., I am afraid that you have been subjected to the famous "Abydos helicopter" mania, here. There is a simple explanation to what you are seeing, at least, as we see it in Egyptology. There is no mystery here; it's just a _palimpsest_ (though without the use of that term, and which is defined as "... A manuscript, typically of papyrus or parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier writing incompletely erased and often legible" AHED). It was decided in antiquity to replace the five-fold royal titulary of Seti I with that of his son and successor, Ramesses II. In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II. With some of the plaster that once covered Seti I's titulary now fallen away, certain of the superimposed signs do indeed look like a submarine, etc., but it's just a coincidence.
What is happening in the photographs is quite clear; just consult Juergen von Beckerath, Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner aegyptologische Studien 20, pages 235 and 237.
This issue comes up from time to time on such academic e-mail lists as the Ancient Near East (ANE) List and so on, so we're all pretty familiar with it. Regards. "

Read more here

Many times has been provided an explanation, this is just one of those

[edit on 13/12/2007 by internos]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:08 AM
Excellent work!!Internos.
That wraps this one up for me.No Aliens in Egypt

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:29 AM
It´s just as Internos said.

It is not an alien drawing, it´s just a lotus plant drawing.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by internos

Hi Internos... I really like your posts as they are very clear and lucid.
Although I agree with the "no gray alien just a plant" explanation (it's very obvious) I have to disagree with the explanation on the egytian submarine and helicopter.

(...)There is no mystery here; it's just a _palimpsest_ (though without the use of that term, and which is defined as "... A manuscript, typically of papyrus or parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier writing incompletely erased and often legible" AHED)(...)

There IS a mystery indeed. First of all that picture is NOT from a manuscrit or papyrus. Its carved high on a wall of stone. (I don't know the word in english for the "section" of the wall in which it's carved).

In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II.

I fail to "clearly see" what the explanation is trying to tell. I can clearly see an helicopter. Not a bug, not a bird, not a bow or arrow... but a clear helicopter it even shows the opening on the side as many helicopters have.
Near it, using almost no imagination what so ever, there is a submarine shape-like figure AND two others that, IMO, show aircrafts or maybe spacecraft if you're ready to jump a little.

But the most interesting thing IMO is that those objetcs (let's assume they are objects) they are almost of the same size, and have the right "proportions" (is this word correct?).

Well I don't think I am ready to dismiss my observations and questions about this subject and I don't pretend I can prove my claims. But the fact of the matter is that I (and many others) still are not convinced of the "official explanation" on this.

C'mon... I keep asking myself: if they could build a million-tons pyramid where there were not even stones nearby, could they as well build a submarine and an helicopter? Perhaps... a HUGE perhaps.


posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:12 AM
Frankly, i've quoted the first explanation i've found in order to not exceed the allowed external quote (my bad to do not have chosen the best one IMHO);
first of all, i appreciate your construction (thank you for it) which of course is far better then the one which has been made in the website the op posted;
That being said, there's to say the we're used to see egyptian symbols as drawings, but what we miss almost always to do is to "convert" them in a written meaning and to look at them in their own separated contests: for example (i don't thik to have said it before) these are two different groups of hieroglyphs: but the most important thing is that their present appearance is not the original one: i mean, it has been retouched, maybe more than one time.
This fact, would debunk their genuinity by himselfs, like a photo after being retouched with photoshop, doesn't matter the purpose. But this wouldn't debunk it in a conclusive way; besides, many attempt have been made in order to "rebuild" the original "drawings" but all failed because there were not enough recognizable symbols on which to work and some unknown additions; i mean, it was too different from its original version
There are also many esotic shaped symbols which have a very terrestrial interpretation, i mean.
Anyway, no one of the many experts which analyzed it has given a single chance that they actually may represent what they look to represent: also for a total lack of confirmation of documents found in the same area and related to the same years/decades. In other words, there's a fishy drawing against the whole egyptian hystorical documents which have been found so far.
Here are some other opinions (but there are more)

The strange hieroglyphs are the result of a recutting of the texts - the original signs were covered in plaster, and new ones cut into the surface. This plaster has now fallen out, leaving images that look rather like modern items!

Local guides make up all kinds of mysteries about them, but there is a very simple explanation!

Aidan Dodson
University of Bristol

If you take a look at the second image, that gives the context of the "mystery text", you will notice that the text is written in sunken relief (signs are carved in the stone). If you compare that to the first image (the detail), you will see that it is in raised relief (signs are lying on the stone). In the first image, the stone looks more like copper or bronze then like stone.

Compare in the first image the sign that looks like a helicopter to the corresponding sign in the second image. You will see that they are not completely the same. The sign in the second image shows three hills and doesn't look like a helicopter. The three sets of three strokes in the second image are not entirely alike to the first image either.

The second image allows us to identify the text as part of the titulary of Ramesses II and can be translated as "The one of the Two Ladies, who surpresses the nine foreign countries".

Conclusion: the first image has been tampered with. It is a hoax, a fake, a fraud. The person who created this fake didn't even take the time to cover his tracks and left some very obvious traces of his "work".

Kind regards,

Jacques Kinnaer.

This is the one i've found more convincing

Dear Mr.,
What appears to be a "helicopter" is actually an example of two groups of hieroglyphs carved one on top of the other. The words psd.t "the ennead of nine" and X3s.wt "foreign countries" seems to have been carved one of top of the other. Clearly the artist / craftsman changed the hieroglyphs (perhaps from the change of kings Sety I to Ramesses II). The actual "helicopter" seems to be a portion of the psd.t sign and the X3s.t sign on top of each other with portions erased.

Hope this helps.

Eugene Cruz-Uribe
Associate Dean
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Northern Arizona University

By the way, i've found this image which i don't think it has been posted before here

[edit on 13/12/2007 by internos]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:35 AM
Excellent work, internos. I don't think there can be a lot of doubt about this any longer. It is amazing that there was an "accidental" shape that could suggest these things, but coincidence and the human imagination are very powerful when working in tandem.

I like the last picture, which shows the "accidental" nature of this much better, IMO. Thanks.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:05 AM
Finally i've found the images i was looking for

The first one shows a comparison between the "reconstruction" and the actual appearance:
as we can see, the helicopter is no longer "alone" in the actual image;

© Bruce Rawles

but the most interesting is this one:

© Lumir G. Jancu

I would like to clarify that when i say that it has been "retouched" i mean simply "altered" and not necessary with hoaxing purposes:
it was a quite normal procedure to "overwrite old symbols with new ones, for many different reason;

The second image i've posted here, shows what has been conclusively identified (in black)
what has been possibly identified (blue) and what is still unidentified at all (red); basically, the explanation is missing only for what we see in red in the last image.
Sorry for haven't posted this before, but i couldn't retrieve it from my "old sources".

[edit on 13/12/2007 by internos]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:31 AM
Thanks a lot for the discussion, I appreciate the discussion I really do. But I'm still not convinced.
The official explanation carries too many "coincidences"... far too many to believe it's mere "fate" or "destiny"... this is, in my opinion, an excuse to avoid explaining or admiting something in the face of the extraordinary: "It's not true what you see.. just your imagination and a big coincidence.. that's all."

I can understand altering something may not be intentional hoax. But I also know that "cover-ups" are around this Earth for far too long...


posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:05 PM
What are the odds of having 3 or 4 objects on ANY ancient tablets being innocently altered and left resembling modern machinery? Not just symbols like a bird or an eye, but actual machinery, including tails and rotors. Now what are the chances of them all being on the same one? After this, what chance is there that they'd be just about side by side? I think the odds are largely ( if not astronomically) against innocent overwriting creating such a cluster of obviously recognizable items. I'm not saying this is proof positive of an Egyptian Alien link, but it is definitely very intriguing. More research is needed.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:39 PM
I'm talking about the images mentioned in this topic, not to the ooparts in general.
Well, my purpose is not to convince anyone, and i always fully respect other people's opinion, but i don't respect the people who tries to deceive other people (as that website and other ones are doing), and if we really want to deny ignorance that people's claimings are THE FIRST to deny, IMHO.
We are able to make our own choice: in one hand we have rational/scientific/trained explanations, in the other one an asinine/untrained/deceiving one (proved that it is so by the alterations and the interpretations of the images):
in one hand we have archeologists who dedicated their lives in studing egyptology, in the other one someone who tries to get attention making otrageous claimings and who most likely doesn't know were is Egypt:
in one hand we have people who uses original images and interpretes correctly the symbols in order to provide their explanation, in the other one someone who crops and manipulate the images in order to make them match what he's claiming:
NO, this way to act is not worthy to be taken seriously, at least by ME;
the people like the guy of that website, recalls me the ones who still believe that the Santilli footage is genuine, that the reptilians own the world,that a black rectangle on Google earth is a gigantic spacecraft orbiting the earth instead of an ordinary imagineering issue, and that Ufo Haiti was the real deal.
Should i believe that the egyptian knew helicopters, submarines and flying saucers but all that they did in order to let it know to us has been to draw them in a half foot sized hieroglyph and besides mixed with other ones?
A strange way to communicate ...

[edit on 14/12/2007 by internos]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:51 PM
Why do the ancient Egyptians look like Asians and not Arabs? Anyone else notice this?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by cloakndagger]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by cloakndagger
Why do the ancient Egyptians look like Asians and not Arabs?

Egyptians aren't Arab. But they don't look like Asians to me anyway.

Also, it's kind of strange that there are NO OTHER helicopter or submarine hieroglyphics found anywhere else in Egypt. You would think they would have drawn or written about them a little more often than just once.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:49 AM
Maybe is my bad, because english is just my fourth language, and i'm not able to explain it correctly (in this case, i apologize for this):
They are overlayed symbols, that's not a theory, it has been assested conclusively.

Is like i'd take three letters from our alphabet, for example, D,L and T,
i'd overlay them, so:

and i'd try to pass this one as an alien alphabet character.

I would like to say that if someone keeps in believing what those website claim it doesn't matter to me, but it wouldn't be the truth.
Since they're continuosly HURTING the good ufology, i would find it DISAPPOINTING, but at least i would have found an answer to the question: "why ufology is not being taken seriously?"

[edit on 14/12/2007 by internos]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:11 AM

Vases are often mistaken for aliens.


posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:01 AM
Good job Internos on explaining the mistery!
Keep it coming!

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by internos

internos... about the language "barrier"... I think we share this one, and for that I appreciate your effort in putting this all forward.

After analyzing and meditating upon the subject I begin to tend and start giving credit to the explanation on "overlaied" simbols. Although (maybe because I WANT to believe the other way around) I still like to think of this explanation as a theory just because of the mathematical coincidences, as a previus poster said: what are the odds of "overlaying" simbols and come out with PERFECT depicts of modern machines.

Well, my purpose is not to convince anyone, and i always fully respect other people's opinion, but i don't respect the people who tries to deceive other people (as that website and other ones are doing), and if we really want to deny ignorance that people's claimings are THE FIRST to deny, IMHO.

You said it all with this comment and I think we're on the right track. I know what you mean when you say your purpose is not to convince anyone but the fact is that all of us must feel some sort of responsability with the truth when we have good feelings in our hearts. And all we need to do to find the truth is to search and talk, talk and talk. And I think you do... So, despite the fact I may not agree with all you say (but most of it I do agree) is something very, very interesting and right to do.
Congratulations, you gained my respect.


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in