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.

 

UFOs Have Been Here Since Ancient Times

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Is it just me or do those chippings below the slab appear to be somewhat newer compared to the other chips along the upper portions of the support beam where the slab has a huge missing section?

Odd.


Cheers!!!!




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I know we are talking about old ancient drawings , but this is still fairly old.. and should be considered IMHO

Hows this story in 1897 before we ever had anything that could be air born (plane,blimp,etc) I know its not ancient but it's still valid :

UFO'S IN THE 1800'S



The first sightings started on the night of April 5th in Omaha , Nebraska with more than a 100 people witnessing the appearance of a flying object approximately 12 foot long , sperical in shape, shiny with a steel like body. The term UFO had not be coined at this time. As the reports go, the object became so luminous that the brightness awakened people from their sleep as the light flooded through their bedroom windows. Many of the witnesses went into a panic , understandably. Several nights later, in Sioux City, Iowa, another craft, cigar-shaped, attracted more attention from the people there. Similar sightings that night were reported in Cedar Rapids and Burlington Iowa. The mysterious object was reported to be elongated with a glaring headlight of some kind and a shiny steel haul, gliding with a 'hissing' sound


more - year 1800 ufos


Any sightings or photographs that were reported before we had the technology to fly are just as credible , there were no movies of that time depicting aliens or UFOs so people didn't just come up these ideas from no where.. just like the ancient drawings there has to be some reason behind it.

Edit: Sorry if this is a bit off topic but thought it deserved a mention because it's more information they have been here for a long time





[edit on 22-2-2009 by nasacarl]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
The images do look like helicopter and other craft, even some Egyptologists accept it. It's hard NOT to see modern aircraft. To my eyes, they also look like plasterers or a stone mason's tools.

Large untouched image

Whatever the case, the glyphs bear great similarities to aircraft as seen here...



The overriding problem with them being craft is that also make sense in heiroglyphics. They say something. If they were simply images without meaning, they would be very enigmatic. The text is part of the titulary of Ramesses II and can be translated as "The one of the Two Ladies, who suppresses the nine foreign countries." It was originally carved in honor of Seti 1. The helicopter is part of two signs on top of each other. Although not the greatest jpeg ever, this highlights the differences..


Catchpenny

It's more exotic and thought-provoking to believe that they remain some ancient message that they either used or knew of helicopters. People can start thinking, "Ahah! So that's how those huge blocks were lifted!" Unfortunately, it isn't the case. They are representing a message only that Ramases II was pharaoh at the time of their creation. It is similar today with Queen's head on British currency.

Applying reason also disputes their technological appearance. There isn't any evidence that ancient man was smelting metal on a scale to produce aircraft or even the steel presses to make the parts, no lathes, not even drawing boards to design the blueprints. Does anyone know how much technology is involved making a nut and bolt? Furthermore, why is the helicopter the only one in Egypt and any other culture? Most people accept that humans can't see into the future, what would make the Egyptians any different?

These glyphs have a reasonable explanation, why exchange it for an extraordinary one?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
This standard response of the Egyptologists seems to be ducking the issue...



Speaking of ducking issues...if this palimpsest represents wondrous technology, why is there no record of it elsewhere in Egyptian records? Why is this lone temple in Abydos the singular record of it?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
This standard response of the Egyptologists seems to be ducking the issue...



Speaking of ducking issues...if this palimpsest represents wondrous technology, why is there no record of it elsewhere in Egyptian records? Why is this lone temple in Abydos the singular record of it?

Actually, the content you quoted me as speaking, was from an external source, certainly not my quotation, it was to reflect the opinion of an independent researcher and author, perhaps you should edit your post SaviorComplex, you wouldn't want to be falsifying quotes, now would you.

To answer your question, at least from my point of view; because they haven't found any other yet, perhaps the point you're trying to make for your own perspective, may also serve as a polar opposite perspective..absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This could mean, that these particular carvings are scarce and rare.. since they were re-carved, one has should have the right to wonder, why there are apparent numerous vehicle shapes?..perhaps you see it, perhaps you don't.. I just think that it would be a very strong coincidence, and I'm not one whom believes in coincidence, this is where you and me strongly differ SC, I wish you would respect that, rather than entering every thread and single me out. And yes, I have reviewed the more 'skeptical' links and info, more than once. But there are opposing views and perspectives out there, take this for example;

MYSTERY AT ABYDOS

I haven't finished up reading it yet, but it seems to strongly differ, from the first usual 1-10 results on a Google search.


[edit on 23/2/09 by Majorion]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Why is this lone temple in Abydos the singular record of it?


According to many sources I've been reading now, there seems to be an almost identical record of the same,


In 1848, one of numerous archeological expeditions working in Egypt discovered strange hieroglyphs at the height of about ten meters right above the entrance to the Seti Temple in Abydos.


1848? the helicopter wasn't even invented yet, if I'm not mistaken. However, those who discovered it at the time thought;


The only thing the researchers realized at once was that they had discovered some images of strange mechanisms that nobody ever saw before.


And here's where there is says that there was a second record, at Amon Ra temple in Karnak, beside the one from Abydos;


Two almost identical sets of drawings were found at Karnak and Abydos. In Abydos, a submarine was engraved on the walls of the temple, along with a battle helicopter.


Problem, is that I haven't found the photographs as of yet, of this other record. But numerous others sources on the net cite the same regarding the Arab newspapers' publication.


The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published several sensational photos taken in the Amon Ra Temple in Karnak.

www.burlingtonnews.net...

[edit on 23/2/09 by Majorion]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


It's a bit suspicious when they talk about a known newspaper as publishing some photos but do not even say in what year were the photos published, that part is too ambiguous.

Has anyone seen anywhere the description of the original finding of the Abydos temple? If we can see what the finders thought about the inscription maybe we can shed some light over this issue.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Recently, the respected Arab newspaper 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat' published several photographs taken at another Egyptian temple, the Amon Ra Temple in Karnak. The photographs are of carvings believed to be three thousand years old. They appear very similar to the carvings found at Abydos. There is a battle helicopter with a distinct rotor and a tail unit, and nearby, other modern-looking flying craft. So, there are in fact not one, but two almost identical sets of carvings at Karnak and Abydos. What are the chances of that being due to identical palimpsest effects at both locations?
Source

It's intriguing that these photos haven't leaked out onto the internet. With several thousand sites and blogs devoted to the 'Egyptians couldn't have done it' theme, they've really missed a free home run there.


So accepting the fact that the ancient Egyptians did not have the technology to build helicopters or other aircraft, where did the images of the flying machines come from?


Is the emphasis on the *did* here? Surely they aren't implying that the complete lack of evidence can be dismissed on the basis of the existence of the glyphs? The 'cart before the horse' approach to debating.

The argument about whether the Egyptians could have designed and built the pyramids and Giza complex has been there for years. Mostly, these questions are prompted by enthusiasm and a genuine sense of wonder. Sadly, the origins lie in the beginnings of the Abolitionist Movement when the slave traders et al were justifying themselves on the grounds of racial superiority.

If the Pyramids could have been created by a lost civilization of non-black people the argument would gain strength. This assertion that red and blonde haired (Caucasian) were responsible is hopefully just reckless misrepresentation of evidence.

The implication is that at somehow Egyptians removed all the evidence of manufacturing industries, somehow removed the carbon traces in the Arctic ice cores (smelting causes pollution), censored every record of the technology and encouraged their neighbors to leave out all mention of helicopters and gunships.

Either that or that glyph is just a cocked up re-write from thousands of years ago by a black Egyptian


Edited to avoid being provocative.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Actually, the content you quoted me as speaking, was from an external source, certainly not my quotation, it was to reflect the opinion of an independent researcher and author, perhaps you should edit your post SaviorComplex, you wouldn't want to be falsifying quotes, now would you.


Anyone can scroll up and see what you wrote and what you quoted. Thus it would be stupid for anyone to attempt to attribute words to you that were not your own; almost as stupid as the accusation.


Originally posted by Majorion
To answer your question, at least from my point of view; because they haven't found any other yet...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


That is true. However, the inverse is also true. Just because you have not found evidence to support your beliefs does not mean that evidence is out there waiting to be found. We are talking about something extraordinary here, a flying machine. Despite Egypt being scoured for over 200 years, nothing has turned up suggesting they possessed such things, no legends, no artifacts, nothing in their records or the records of the cultures they had contact with. There is nothing outside of one lone relief, which (if you believe it represents a helicopter) is alien to what we know about the Egyptian writing system. And it would not be just a record of a helicopter, but records of the complex machinery and systems that go in to making a helicopter. There is nothing like that in Egyptian records. Nothing.

We have to ask ourselves, all things being equal, what is the strongest possibility? That Egypt possessed these machines and all records have been lost or that this image is a coincidence that only has meaning to modern eyes?


Originally posted by Majorion
1848? the helicopter wasn't even invented yet, if I'm not mistaken. However, those who discovered it at the time thought;


The only thing the researchers realized at once was that they had discovered some images of strange mechanisms that nobody ever saw before.


This story makes no sense. Being that the helicopter and submarine would not be invented for several decades (or over a decade in the case of a sub), they would have no context to know from a simple relief on a wall that they represented some sort of machine and were not just some weird hieroglyph not-yet-seen.

One also has to question how do those proclaiming these are "battle helicopters" and "submarines" know they are those very specific things. Why not any other variety of helicopter? Why is that a submarine and not a cigar-shaped flying machine?

[edit on 23-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
they would have no context to know from a simple relief on a wall that they represented some sort of machine and were not just some weird hieroglyph not-yet-seen.


Jules Verne anyone?
kidding of course. I'm also a bit skeptical of this to be honest.

But there seem to be numerous sources on Google that cite the same copy and paste type material, which confirms that a second record may exist. Take this for example from another website;

english.pravda.ru...


In about 150 years, the respectable Arab newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published several sensational photos taken in the Amon Ra Temple in Karnak.


This is also a bit interesting on the same page;


After the sensational publication of the photos it became clear why Egyptologists of the 19th century could not tell what was depicted on the walls of the temple in Abydos. Indeed, the researchers did not know how helicopters and aircrafts look


And here it goes on to speak of an identical glyph;


So, researchers got two almost identical sets of drawings from Karnak and Abydos which seemed be not accidental at all. Skeptics recollected that “Bee” was one of the names of Pharaoh Seti I and stated that the mysterious drawings were in fact attempts of an ancient artist to draw a bee. They would not believe that Egyptians might know about helicopters.


It would be intriguing if we could actually find a photograph of the alleged glyph at Karnak. A comparison of the two, may shed more light on this issue.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Jules Verne anyone?
kidding of course. I'm also a bit skeptical of this to be honest.


Jules Verne would not start writing that type of what we now call science fiction until the 1860s.


Originally posted by Majorion
Take this for example from another website;
...english.pravda.ru....


That should tell you enough about the story not to believe it.

Pravda Online is not the Soviet-era newspaper we are familiar with. That was shut down in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin. It is one of the many successors bearing the Pravda name, but in this case Pravda Online is the equivalent to the United States' Weekly World News. If there is any truth to the story, Pravda will have so twisted it and buried it under so many layers of sensationalism and outright fabrication to make it unrecognizable.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
Well, in that case, it would have to be an extremely coincidental recarving, wouldn't you agree. I personally see more than just a helicopter, as I said earlier...


Yes, but coincidences do happen; and the human brain is wired to recognize patterns where there are none. Seeing a helicopter there is as much as result of coincidence as it is pareidolia.

But if one wants to believe that palimpsest does represent a helicopter, one must ask themselves why there is no other evidence for helicopter or any other of the supposed wondrous objects represented therein. Why are these representations only found at that one temple?


It could just be that the person who carved it (or someone the carver knows) saw into the future, same as Nostradamus and the biblical prophets allegedly did. If it was just the "helicopter" I would've agreed that it's more than likely a coincidence, but we can see a "helicopter", an "aeroplane" and other things looking like modern craft.

I haven't really studied Revelations myself, but apparently it's filled with possibly modern occurences.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Most of UFO's from ancient times in pictures and art aren't UFO's at all they are religious drawings depicting God's power and angels. Yesterday a story was posted that completely proved all UFO's are only sprites.

So no we haven't had UFO's since ancient times and we don not have UFO's now just people who mistake sprites and other natural phenomena it is completely impossible for any Alien to get to earth the distances are to much.

So if there are no Aliens there are no UFO's.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Most of UFO's from ancient times in pictures and art aren't UFO's at all they are religious drawings depicting God's power and angels. Yesterday a story was posted that completely proved all UFO's are only sprites.

So no we haven't had UFO's since ancient times and we don not have UFO's now just people who mistake sprites and other natural phenomena it is completely impossible for any Alien to get to earth the distances are to much.

So if there are no Aliens there are no UFO's.


On that note, let's close ATS. It's all been solved. Nothing left to discuss. Will the last one out turn the lights off, please? Thanks



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
It could just be that the person who carved it (or someone the carver knows) saw into the future, same as Nostradamus and the biblical prophets allegedly did.


Now you are both grasping at straws and moving the goal-posts to believe this is depicts actual machines.


Originally posted by Lannock
If it was just the "helicopter" I would've agreed that it's more than likely a coincidence, but we can see a "helicopter", an "aeroplane" and other things looking like modern craft.


Some people see an airplane, of the Millennium Falcon, or a submarine. It depends on the viewers' own bias.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 

Does that mean you see it as not a helicopter because of your bias of wanting to believe theres not much more to this world than stated in history books?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
Does that mean you see it as not a helicopter because of your bias of wanting to believe theres not much more to this world than stated in history books?


Not in the least. Being a fan of history, I would love for something like this to be true. And being a fan of history, I recognize that our perception of the past changes on a frequent basis; for instance, one of the books I am reading right now is Warhorse which flips long-held perceptions of Roman cavalry on their collective heads. Only those who do not understand or have a knowledge of history think our perception of it is static at the expense of evidence to the contrary.

Produce evidence, outside of one lone palimpsest in one lone temple, that such things existed before the 20th century, and I will be willing to accept it. I won't go through all the points against this palimpsest representing machines again, but I will remind you the entire basis for you or anyone saying these are machines is "well, they kind of look like them." That is your entire argument. I would suggest that you have ignored all the evidence to the contrary due to your want-to-believe and unwilling to change your own perceptions of history.

That aside, you missed my point.

Take a look at the Abydos palimpsest again. Yes, one does resemble a rather weird helicopter. But other than that, if the other carvings our machines, what are they? People have said with great confidence they are strategic bombers, land-speeders, the Millennium Falcon, submarines and the list goes on and on. Among those who believe they are machines, what those machines are depends on the viewer.


[edit on 25-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Yesterday a story was posted that completely proved all UFO's are only sprites.

Thank you for making me laugh today. You obviously didn't read the article or else you would have known the article clearly states that some UFOs could be explained by natural phenomenon like sprites, which is a reasonable assumption. Futhermore the article doesn't prove anything, just that sprites are a natural phenomenon. Nice twisting of the facts on your part.

I would like to show you a picture of an amazing sprite. This sprite was tracked on radar and HUD doing baffling manoeuvres. F16 fighter planes were scrambled to intercept this sprite but were heavily outclassed. Hundreds of witnesses on the ground saw the sprite and even took pictures of it as the sprite turned on a dime and accelerated at such speeds the air force launched a thourough investigation to indentify this awsome sprite.


Sprite

Care to comment on this unusual sprite?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Thank you for making me laugh today. You obviously didn't read the article or else you would have known the article clearly states that some UFOs could be explained by natural phenomenon like sprites, which is a reasonable assumption...


Fastwalker, I could kiss you on the mouth. I think you and I were the only people who bothered reading the article.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Fastwalker, I could kiss you on the mouth. I think you and I were the only people who bothered reading the article.

It indeed appears so. I think the title of the article is somewhat to blame because it is misleading. If the title would represent the content better people would not act so offended and actually take the time to read the whole thing and discover the author makes a reasonable case. I mean it is generally accepted that over 90% of UFO sighting can be explained by misidentification of aircraft and natural phenomenon. So what's the big deal? That still leaves 10%...

And no kissing until after we have been on a date.


On topic:
My opinion is that if ET are visiting earth now they probably have done so in ancient times. I mean 10.000 years is nothing on a cosmic scale. But I do feel extreme caution needs to be taken when analysing old artwork and such, because we have no way of knowing what the painters meant with their depictions.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join