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.

 

Some more pictures to add to the ancient alien theory ??

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Some more pictures to add to the ancient alien theory

Just found these while looking at some old text and tablets of the 3000 BC Harappan civilisation.





A little background -

"the entire culture seems to have died out in the early 2nd millennium BC. Hence, little is known of the people, or how they lived.
One thing the people of the city did leave behind was an enigmatic script that, to this day, no one has been able to dicypher."

Who knows, but I'm sure you could put these with other ancient alien pics.

Apart from these pictures (which are just my opinions), their writings have been compared to that found at Easter Island, thousands of miles away in the middle of the ocean and of a different time, also unable to be dicyphered. I didn't even know Easter Island had undicyphered writings until today.

www.harappa.com...
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...




posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Im not sure what you are seeing in these photos? Care to elaborate? The subject is always interesting, but I just don't see much in these.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
That 3 fingered hand is actually a three pronged wooden hay fork. I'd venture to day that the UFOs in the plate are actually flowering plants.
sorry



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
That 3 fingered hand is actually a three pronged wooden hay fork. I'd venture to day that the UFOs in the plate are actually flowering plants.
sorry


Sorry for what? in your OPINION its a fork but sadly its not described like that by the 'experts' .... they say hand if you read the link I posted. I'm more inclined to go with them, and they also describe the 'flowers' as stars because they're in the sky.

I wish people would say 'in my opinion' rather than state something as fact, regardless of whether these are UFO's or not, in my opinion it could have a link but I don't know for sure just like everyone else. That's why I put question marks after the threads title and also said "who knows".

That's the problem with posting here, you make a theory and it gets jumped on like the people have evidence or facts of their own.. when they don't... if you do post it, otherwise its opinion. When it comes to art from a very much unknown civilization any evidence regarding this is opinion anyway as no one can know for sure what they wanted to show.

To answer Dulcimer - all I see is a three fingered man and strange objects in the sky... on its own that's not much I know but put with other claimed UFO ancient art, it has some small meaning I guess. However the experts are not saying these are UFO's only me, and I don't know, I'm just using my eyes and brain, and putting out a theory. The two round objects behind the guys head are described as hair buns, I dont think these look like hair buns but more like round objects in the sky (Stars, planets or UFO's) but again thats what I see and it goes against the experts. And as for the stars in the sky (on the dish), well they look like objects in the sky to me.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
That's the problem with posting here, you make a theory and it gets jumped on like the people have evidence or facts of their own.. when they don't... if you do post it, otherwise its opinion. When it comes to art from a very much unknown civilization any evidence regarding this is opinion anyway as no one can know for sure what they wanted to show.


Well, then why get all bent out of shape when your "theory" is disputed? You asked, and people said "no." Simple as that.

If you really want your idea to be taken more seriously, provide more detailed information and support of your assertion that what you're presenting might actually be representations of aliens, or other planets or whatever. You didn't do any of that. If you're going to make a claim, back it up with something other than, "Gee, this sort of looks like an alien or something." Come on!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 


I am a bit of an antique hand tool expert and there can be no mistaking the hay fork. I didn't mean to attack you I was only expressing my opinion as this is obviously not a peer reviewed message board. I am only interested in finding the truth. I don't consider those two pictures you posted to be ancient alien related in anyway.

peace



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
Sorry for what? in your OPINION its a fork but sadly its not described like that by the 'experts' .... they say hand if you read the link I posted. I'm more inclined to go with them, and they also describe the 'flowers' as stars because they're in the sky.

Did you ever venture to think that the "experts" opinion is as valid as anyone elses? You said they haven't translated the language so the experts and therfore you have nothing to go on but a guess.

I am also going with the flower theory. Don't you think it makes more sense to have a cow or other animal in a spring time setting with flowers rather then have a cow with a bunch of UFO's/stars?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Rubber Bullet - Yes I know its a guess... thats the point of my previous thread, and who says its a spring time setting?

stikkinikki - "there can be no mistaking a hay fork" that looks like a hand. if these guys used those tools in their art why didn't the people describing this say it was a hay fork, I'm sure they have a better idea of their style of art than anyone here.

I know you were not attacking me but the reason I got "bent out of shape" as Nohup puts it, is because you didn't state your opinion you stated a fact that isn't true and makes my point of view less when its just as valid - "That 3 fingered hand is actually a three pronged wooden hay fork" thats not an opinion.

Nohup - You obviously missed the reason I got bent of of shape, it wasn't because TWO people said no it was because of an OPINION being stated as fact.... read again!! As you will see I didn't get bent out of shape with Dulcimer who gave his OPINION which was no.

If I'm going to make a claim, why cant I just say gee this looks like an alien??? its a conspiracy forum and this is related to a well known conspiracy, even if wrong.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 


Would it be possible for you to provide a direct link or a caption to your pictures? To me, it's a hayfork. You want me to change my mind? Provide evidence (and don't make me find it for you).



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 



I dont want you to change your mind, as I say its opinion and I'm happy for you to have yours, I'm not saying this is fact so why would I try. To me it looks like a hand. I wont cry if its proven not to be as it just looks odd, and is just a theory.... not even that... part of a theory.

I cant prove to you this is real just like you can't prove it isn't, so I wont ask.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
If I'm going to make a claim, why cant I just say gee this looks like an alien??? its a conspiracy forum and this is related to a well known conspiracy, even if wrong.


Nothing stopping you from saying that you think it looks like an alien. A lot of things look like aliens if you have a vivid imagination. We can do it all day. Mickey Mouse only has four fingers on his hands, and his big ears look a lot like those big black eyes grey aliens have. Subliminal message by Walt Disney to prepare children for alien arrival?



Yeah, right!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 

From looking at these two pictures, I first didn't relate to the first one because it appears vague. But when I went back to it, I changed my point of view at 90 degrees and then I noticed what looked more similar to an aligator or crocodiles head. I suppose this might also explain the claw arm also?
The second one with the faces or skulls on it remind me of monkeys.

I don't really see anything alien about these otherwise.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by aleon1018
 



Funny you should say that... I've just seen a dragon in the middle of the dish picture (2nd) sicking up balls... no joke lol




[edit on 5-2-2008 by II HAL II]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



I didn't change those pictures to look like aliens.... like yours have been, if you look at the first picture of 'Mickey' he doesn't look like an alien???



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 


The script hasnt been deciphered yet, but it isnt an alien language.
There has been some research that suggests that the script on the steatite seals is a proto dravidian writing rather than proto sanskrit.

Dravidian


Dravidian languages are spoken by more than 200 million people. They appear to be unrelated to languages of other known families like Indo-European, specifically Indo-Aryan, which is the other common language family on the Indian subcontinent. Some linguistic scholars incorporate the Dravidian languages into a larger Elamo-Dravidian language family, which includes the ancient Elamite language (Haltami) of what is now south-western Iran. Dravidian is one of the primary linguistic groups in the proposed Nostratic language system, linking almost all languages in North Africa, Europe and Western Asia into a common family with its origins in the Fertile Crescent sometime between the last Ice Age and the emergence of proto-Indo-European 4-6 thousand years BC.
Dravidian grammatical impact on the structure and syntax of Indo-Aryan languages is considered far greater than the Indo-Aryan grammatical impact on Dravidian. Some linguists explain this anomaly by arguing that Middle Indo-Aryan and New Indo-Aryan were built on a Dravidian substratum.[3]


Personally i think its incorporation into the larger Elamo-Dravidian language family makes sense as the Indus Valley civilizations were in contact through trade with Mesopotamia. It makes sense that there would be some cultural crossover of language.

proto Dravidian


This geographical and chronological horizon would correspond well with an identification of Proto-Dravidian with the unknown language of the Indus Valley civilization, and the individual groups of Dravidian speakers would have been scattered after its collapse in the early 2nd millennium BC, a fact that receives some support from human genetics: the frequency of Haplogroup L (Y-DNA) in Dravidian upper and middle castes suggests that it may have been (perhaps besides J2) the original Y-haplogroup of the creators of this civilization (Sengupta et al. 2006). Various substratic influence on Vedic Sanskrit ascribed to Dravidian lends further support to this Proto-Dravidian as the IVC language. Asko Parpola has suggested that Meluhha may be the Sumerian rendition of the a native Proto-Dravidian name for the Indus Valley Civilization.


The trident symbol in your first photo appears to be the symbol for a plant according to this picture from the WWW.Harappa link.




The origins of Indus writing can now be traced to the Ravi Phase (c. 3300-2800 BC) at Harappa. Some inscriptions were made on the bottom of the pottery before firing. Other inscriptions such as this one were made after firing. This inscription (c. 3300 BC) appears to be three plant symbols arranged to appear almost anthropomorphic. The trident looking projections on these symbols seem to set the foundation for later symbols such as those seen in 131.


Your second picture is a burial artifact. It looks like a deer and the heads above i would guess are skulls.

mojo



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
I didn't change those pictures to look like aliens.... like yours have been, if you look at the first picture of 'Mickey' he doesn't look like an alien???


Yeah, but did you know that for the first six months of a baby's life they can't focus their eyes, and they see everything pretty much the same way as it looks in the center picture?

No, Mickey doesn't look a lot like an alien. But neither does the figure in the first image you posted. It's all about perception and opinion, then, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 


You've obviously done some looking into this...


Good post and some good points, I never said their writing was alien though, and the trident picture you show although looks very similar to my one I would say my picture looks more like a hand... in that its not as spread out and in context with a person next to it I'm not 100% convinced but getting there.

Nohup - I think my first picture looks like an alien so thats one person and I said it was just my opinion..... there's not a single person (apart from six month old babies) that think Mickey Mouse looks like an alien so your argument is just 'Mickey Mouse' and the comparison isn't balanced as everyone would say "he doesn't look like an alien" because he looks like a mouse



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
reply to post by mojo4sale
 



and the trident picture you show although looks very similar to my one I would say my picture looks more like a hand... in that its not as spread out and in context with a person next to it I'm not 100% convinced but getting there.



I can understand you seeing it as a hand, but the trident type symbol i posted is the precursor to the symbol in your picture. It evolved from the basic stick figure type symbol to the more stylised symbol in your first picture. Its a natural evolution of style as their pottery and art skills improved.
But thats just my opinion. lol.

keep looking though.




top topics



 
3

log in

join