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.

 

1.000 years old Inca artifact proven to be a replica of an ancient aircraft.

page: 10
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I'm sorry, the fact that they do fly is the smoking gun and makes it awfully hard to debunk these as "ceremonial birds". It proves that when these things were created, the people who created them had knowledge of aerodynamics, which proves they had some knowledge of the ability to fly, thousands of years prior to the first manned flight of any kind.

You're right, it does not mean "aliens". But if they did know about aerodynamics, and created replica flying machines based on what they have seen, then I think the only theory that would begin to explain this would be Ancient Astronaut theory.

At what point does enough proof happen? These things look like a plane, FLY like planes, and were created thousands of years ago. If looks like a pig and smells like a pig...well, you know the end of that one. There's something we don't know about our past history, and these pieces may go a long way to uncovering long-lost answers.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
As much as I like a balanced, common sense, and well investigated approach to the topics discussed here on ATS. And as much as I like to see diverse, well reasoned comments from both sides of the fence on issues such as this one. The problem I consistently notice, is the complete disregard for sources other than the ones which support a given poster's case. This flies in the face of basic investigatory principles of collecting all evidence, and sifting through it to reach a conclusion based on what you have to work with.
Anyone who has read my post history knows that I am not a fan of public and corporate mainstream scientists or ologists. And sometimes I can be a bit overboard in my critique of them. This is based on personal experience as much as it is extensive research. But I don't just blatantly ignore their work either. I have just as much disdain for those in the "alternative" sector of science who have consistently shown they are more interested in their theories than real investigative research.

Having said that. The problem with investigating items such as these artifacts are numerous. The tendency to say if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, is a bit over simplified. Nevertheless, taking the opposite approach, and telling people they don't see what they think they see is over simplified as well.

In the case of these seemingly out of place artifacts, and the many others like them throughout the world, I think we have to question the motives of both sides of the issue. On the one hand, we have those who are very interested in maintaining the status quo, and therefore, are far more inclined to find every reason these are not what they seem to be. And they have the advantage of being the larger sector of science, and having a lot more money to throw around because of the system that stands behind them, and has a vested interest in a given outcome. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. On the other hand, you have a smaller group of men/women who frequently are just as educated, and just as adept, as the aforementioned. They are also more willing to think outside the box, because they don't have many of the constraints their counterparts do. But this doesn't mean everything they say or theorize is true. Because some of these folks have a vested interest in proving the mainstream of scientific thought invalid, for whatever their personal reasons may be. And therefore tend to strain out inconsistencies they don't like, even if they are sound evidence or theory.

In my own opinion (because I have nothing to gain either way at this point in my life) the evidence has mounted over time (because of other finds throughout the world) in favor of these being just what many think they are. Models of aircraft with a religious motif. Just because we don't fully understand how this could be, And just because it doesn't fit our paradigm, doesn't mean they aren't what they appear to be. There are many things we (the public) don't yet understand about the ancients. Partly, because not all evidence that exists from either side of the argument has been presented to us in full. So making a truly informed argument is tenuous at best. No matter which side you fall on.

It seems obvious to me, that building a case for or against these artifacts based solely on one set of standards, from one side of the argument, is an exercise in futility. Because you purposely ignore a whole nother set of data, and only those are like minded will agree with you, and you will not have convinced anyone else to your way of thinking but yourself, and the aforementioned like minded folks.

A closed mind to possibilities that don't fit your belief system does not make for a thorough and fair investigation of whatever evidence and theory you have available to you.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
These artifacts are made from pure gold, so the chances are they weren't made by some kids killing time by the beach. They were clearly important and expensive objects, probably made by specialist craftsmen for a man of some importance.

Flying fish? Possibly. But why? So far, I've not come across any mention of flying fish as significant animals in Inca mythology or religion. So why create gold models of them? In fact, I've not come across any animal in Inca mythology that looks remotely like the gold objects.

You cannot just say "oh... they are flying fish or birds or rays".

SHOW some evidence, or reasoning, as to why these expensive objects were fashioned in the likeness of a particular animal.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 




then I think the only theory that would begin to explain this would be Ancient Astronaut theory.




It hasn't even been established that these are replicas of something that was actually built or actually flew, merely because a model airplane was made BASED on them and flew. Perhaps they are scale models of something that an Incan engineer was working on, sort of like those sketches of Da Vinci's flying machine.

Because we all know human beings could never guess at principles of Aerodynamics


How about giving the ancients some credit, if these really are replicas of flying machines the best explanation is that the Inca's invented some sort of flying machine, perhaps a glider, and these are replicas of it.

Aliens wouldn't be good explanation, why on Earth, if they have machines that can traverse massive amounts of interstellar space, would they need to bring airplanes with them?

I'm so tired of the ancient astronaut proponents insulting ancient people. Oh they couldn't have possibly built the pyramids, or built winged relics that seem to have correct dimensions for flight, clearly it was ALIENS



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard


It's funny 'cause when someone is wearing a Suunto wrist watch, with barometer, altimeter, compass, yadayadayada, it's called "wrist computer". But an ancient device, whose the existence annoys the pathetic skeptics of ancient astronaut theory, is despised and discredited. Even when many scientists have admitted the Antikythera Mechanism IS a mechanic computer.

it is funny how the best you can do is commit ad hom attacks because i disagree with your beliefs.


And about the Vymanika Shastra, it was PROVEN to be over 4.000 years old by Indian Aeronautical Institute. If you are interested, do your own research.

you are making the claim, provide the evidence, show a manuscript that is older than the early 20th century.


And like I said before, you debunker-wannabe of ATS, can do NOTHING to discredit or disprove the evidences that point out to advanced technology of possible alien origin, in ancient civilizations.

that is because you are unreasonable and never look at why you think they are evidence, you commit every fallacy you can to discredit those who know more than you.


The ONLY thing you can do, is calling people "hoaxers" or "delusional", in attempt to make them lose their temper and get banned from forum.

where DID i do that? oh right this is just mindless rhetoric and personal attacks, i never said anything about hoaxers or delusion, i happen to find you uncritical of your own beliefs though.


You CAN NOT disprove the test flight of the Inca model, ancient megalithic technology theory, ancient Vedic aeronautic scriptures, etc, etc. You have nothing but empty words and boring systematic denying.

edit on 11/27/2010 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)

YOU don't have a clue what i can or can't do, you are more closeminded than any of the people you flail against.
if you were half as openminded as you expect your opponents to be, you wouldn't just handwave away issues or ignore them.

what about my questions? why do AA believers always ignore the flaws in their own beliefs? did you even read what i wrote or is this purely knee-jerk reaction to my disagreement?
try answering me like a thinking person please.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


You cannot say "definitely".

There is no proof other than your own personal interpretation of the objects and art is "definitely" open to interpretation.

And unless you have the artist who created said objects around to ask them what the objects are depicting, all one can do is speculate as to what they might be. So you cannot say "definitely" to any of this. (unless someone builds a time machine)


ps: I really enjoy watching the "ancient aliens" series, but those guys sometimes really stretch things. I'm pretty open minded, but they still have yet to provide any proof beyond speculative theories.


I can't say it's "definitely" a scaled aircraft, after a blatant flight test, but when a mainstream archeologist says it's "definitely" a "ceremonial bird", It's ok and acceptable??? Regarding that the mainstream scholars ALSO hadn't any Inca artist around them, to confirm it. So that they ALSO are speculating.
Based in this reasoning, I'm still using the word "definitely". And honestly, if you are fighting 2.000 years of lies and disinformation, and you don't "stretch" the things a little bit, to make your points, you are gonna lose the cause.


You said: "Based on this reason, I'm still using the word "definitely."
That statement alone flies in the face of all clinical thinking and research.

I never said the mainstream scholars have proven anything. You did. They are speculating on a lot of evidence as well. But the difference between junk science and true science is that the real scientist says "we think this MIGHT be A or B, but we don't know for sure."

The junk scientist says: "I have definitely proven this to be what it is!" ...without providing solid evidence beyond speculative theories.

As stated and shown earlier, you can make a model of just about anything and make it fly. Therefore, nothing is proven by the model in the video.

But to go around saying that it has been "definitely" proven is false. The burden of proof is upon you and the people that make the claims.

And 2,000 years of lies and disinformation? By whom? Proof please. If your going to make statements that you claim as fact, you need to back them up.


I'll leave this useless semantic debate to anybody else that wants to spend time discussing if the word "definitely" is inconvenient, inappropriate or whatever you wanna call it.
About the 2.000 years of lies and disinformation... In case you have some difficult to understand it, I'll use the Bible, the sacred book of the Christians, that hijacked several scriptures reporting extraterrestrial contacts with the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and turned them into fantastic fairy tales of an invisible God and armies of angels. Abductions turned into "raptures" and spaceships turned into "splendorous chariots of the Lord". This is a example within a religious context, so I'll use some examples of scientific lies: All over the world there are several megalithic buildings that our modern technology can't reproduce. Some of them directly sculptured in entire mountains, or gigantic stone blocks. Everything cut with laser precision and assembled, in some cases, in baffling areas, stunning angles like legos models or puzzles. Any reasonable person knows that it needs high tech logistics, plotting computers, heavy machinery and vehicles to make anything like that:

Abu Simbel


Baalbek


Puma Punku



Tiahuanaco


We are seeing pictures of ancient ruins that once were perfect buildings, master pieces of engineering, but we are still seeing industry plotting patterns, perfect designs only achievable through machines. In the case of Puma Punku, the blocks of the city are literally 20, 30, 40 ton. lego-like industry blocks and most of them presents clear symmetrical drill holes in connection grooves. Baalbek dismisses presentation. Massive blocks with over 100 ton. cut with laser precision spread all over the place. Many of them are still assembled in ruins of temples. No less than 15 high capacity modern cranes are needed to lift just one of these blocks.

What have we learn for 2.000 years, in the history books???? That these megalithic structures, with over 2.000 years, were built with wood cranes, bamboo scaffolding, ropes, obsidian blades and other primitive hand tools.

You still having doubts about 2.000 years of lies and disinformation???



edit on 11/26/2010 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/26/2010 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)


Proof please.

Having trouble recreating a building from the past does not automatically mean ETs.

You did nothing but make a few statements and showed a few pictures of some ruins. Nothing you have said can be backed up with proof. Show me the original biblical texts that mention ETs. I'd really love to see them, but I'm really having a hard time believing anything you're posting here. I'm not trying to debunk you, but if you are going to make claims such as these, you'd better have stronger proof than what you just presented. Weak at best.


edit on 29-11-2010 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Funny you would say something like this.


Aliens wouldn't be good explanation, why on Earth, if they have machines that can traverse massive amounts of interstellar space, would they need to bring airplanes with them?


and then this...



I'm so tired of the ancient astronaut proponents insulting ancient people. Oh they couldn't have possibly built the pyramids, or built winged relics that seem to have correct dimensions for flight, clearly it was ALIENS


You seem to want evidence to prove the Ancient Astronaut theory, but can you show proof that there wasn't Ancient Astronauts that visited this planet. Also let's see the evidence that it is something different if you have it.
You say your tired of hearing the Ancient Astronaut theory, well I am sure there are people tired of hearing the question of why would they come to earth if they can travel thru space.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


So how come when we have a better understanding of engineering than what they had back then, yet we cannot reproduce the same results as they had back then, how did they do it? Feel free to explain it for me I am very interested to see your take on this will be.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
These incan artifacts have always seemed facinating to me. And after many years of contemplation, I am no closer at understanding them then when I first saw them... There are just so out of place to what we know of Incan culture and the actual physical properties of them being nothing that comes naturally in nature, with seemingly intentional design, that they are proof of something but what? I have come to the conclusion that there are several 'likely' possibilities that hold more water than pure unfound conjecture, and they are as follows.

1. Incas were known not only for there vast understanding of the sky, but also of there surroundings, nature. I do not find it inconcievable that they came to the conclusion that the fixed structure displayed in the Incan artifacts in question would be condusive to manufactured flight. Just because there is no evidence that this technology was translated to actual maned flight is not proof that this was not the case. I firmly believe the most logical explaination is that this was a depiction of a very special 'thought expieriment' that simply never came to full fruition.

2. Obviously, this is nary a replica of any kind of alien technology, or nothing we see as having attributes to alien craft, but perhaps aliens came down and gave them detailed instruction on how to build a flying device using current, earthly materials. And these were icons of said technology.

3. Perhaps they had visionaries who could catch glimpses of the future and this was simply a replica of something seen durring such an instance. Like many cultures, when they see something they really dont understand, they liken it to things they do and often only can reproduce it in a skewed combination of what they actually saw and what makes sence to them.

4. Perhaps this was something similar to #3, but they actually did see flying craft in there time. Maybe some expirament held in the distant future made modern flying craft blink in and out within there reality and these artifacts were created to enshrine what they saw, again with the basis of #3 in mind as to how they were able to reproduce it.

5. They were recreating a depiction handed down to them from civilizations of the past. Perhaps long ago, think something akin to Atlantis, there was a civilization with the means for air flight/gliding. And although long gone, stories were passed down through the generations. What we see in these artifacts could simply be a reproduction of a long dead technology.

Ultimately, I really believe these artifacts have little to nothing to do with 'proof' of aliens, and if I had to wager my money would be on #1. But would not be supprised if any of the above were true.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard All over the world there are several megalithic buildings that our modern technology can't reproduce. Some of them directly sculptured in entire mountains, or gigantic stone blocks. Everything cut with laser precision and assembled, in some cases, in baffling areas, stunning angles like legos models or puzzles. Any reasonable person knows that it needs high tech logistics, plotting computers, heavy machinery and vehicles to make anything like that:

Abu Simbel



Interesting choice.

In 1964, the temple pictured above was cut into smaller blocks and relocated. They didn't use plotting computers, they didn't use GPS, they didn't use lasers for accuracy. None of those things existed at the time.

Relocation of Abu Simbel.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The biggest problem I have with these little "airplane replicas" is that there are absolutely no remains or even fragments of the actual airplanes they're supposed to be replicas of. Where are they? Oh, well, I suppose you could say that they were all destroyed or rotted away (even though in some of these places they still find mummies wrapped in undecayed cloth after 1,000 years). No machined metal screws, bits of metal, wires, plastic, glass or anything else of these fabulous aircraft survived -- or anything like a gas pump or hangar or any other support object -- but somehow these tiny little gold bits of jewelry did. Do you see the disconnect here?

As for the topic title, as far as anything be "proven" to be a replica of an ancient aircraft goes, don't you pretty much need to have the aircraft of which the little thing was a replica? As it is, the most you can say is that some curious jewelry happens to have aerodynamic qualities like our modern aircraft. Just like a lot of birds and fish do, or vice-versa.

Nothing about any hypothetical ancient aircraft has been proven.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




but can you show proof that there wasn't Ancient Astronauts that visited this planet


No. But then again I can't show proof that Unicorns DON'T exist, or fairies, or elves, or goblins, or magic. Its nearly impossible to entirely disprove something. You shouldn't accept something because it can't be disproved but you should accept something if it has solid objective evidence supporting it. You wouldn't accept that fairies exist simply because they haven't been completely disproved would you? What if I could build a robotic fairy that could fly, would that prove that fairies existed and couldn't have been imagined by man? That's what's happening here, a modern toy airplane has been made based on scaled up dimensions of an ancient relic, it doesn't prove the Inca's had flying machines and it most certainly doesn't stand as evidence of aliens.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HomeBrew
 

Or they were not Incan creations at all. They could be much, much, older than the Incan civilization, and were either handed down, or found and kept.

If one can only see man as "evolving" from a linear perspective, then these become totally out of place.
But if you see man from a perspective of peaks and ebbs on a graph, then things start making more sense.

We have a tendency in this country especially to see history as a social and physical evolution and progression because of the prevalence of Darwinism. Which, simplified, teaches that man is on a constant uphill climb to evolve into something better than he started out to be. Therefore, when things don't fit that linear view, we look for reasons they can't be what they appear to be. Or, we call them a fluke.

But if you set aside the idea of a linear progression, and see man from the perspective of a series of peaks and ebbs, then it's not so far fetched to find items such as these. The peaks are the so called pinnacle, and the ebbs could be war, famine, disaster, etc. making survival more important than technology until the next peak and ebb.

Just a few thoughts, not calling anyone to task.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


That has got to ne one of the most well-thought out, rational posts I have seen regarding evolution and ancient history/ artifacts. It makes very good sense and is very reasonable. Thanks!!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Exactly how many of the Inca "replica airplanes" were found? This is a really important question, so I hope someone can help me find the answer?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 

It is a bit over simplified, and doesn't address certain issues, but it was the only way I could think to explain it without writing a dissertation.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Shikamaru
 

All the info that I can find says there were only 5. Exactly what is in the OP's post. Hope that helps.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Only 5.

Well, you get a star for finding that out.

Take it for what it's worth.....my opinion?

Absent ANY sort of supporting evidence of ANY kind, to confirm so-called "proof" that these artifacts are "replicas of an ancient aircraft".... it appears to be quite conclusive. They are not "proof".

Adding....another thought to ponder on....the discovery of these particular 'sculptures', in the shapes seen??

How much is OUR 'modern-day bias' affecting the interpretation??

Think here....IF these same artifacts were first viewed by an "outsider" (as, the Spaniards who conquered the region)...when THEY saw them (having no preconceived experiences with heavier-than-air flying machines)....what do you think THEY would have interpreted them to be??

Can anyone see my point, here?

Bias. Experience. Context.

It ALL matters. One must be VERY, VERY careful, when trying to ascribe motivations, or 'beliefs', on what could be something that means very different things, to a very different people, from a very different era in time.....



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Well, thanks for the star, but anyone could have found it out in 5 minutes, and several sources, just like I did.

As to your opinion, it's as good as mine or anyone elses. Disagreement with someones opinion doesn't negate it's value in a discussion.

Proof? I certainly never said anything about their being proof. There is only evidence. It only becomes proof to someone who considers it enough evidence to make a believer out of them.

I think our modern day bias definitely affects our interpretation of these, and other artifacts. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, as long as one takes into account the obvious variables. Some of which you mention.

I think the spaniards would have looked at them with the same bias they had knowledge of then, that we do now with our present knowledge.

I think your point is obvious to anyone who has the slightest bit of their critical faculties engaged. It is also welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

I also didn't miss your point as to the number of artifacts found. The same question could be asked twice.
If they are model planes. Why only 5 pieces?
If they are modeled after birds. Why only 5 birds?
Either way, it's a good question.



edit on 29-11-2010 by Klassified because: of. Not on.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I just wanted to point this out again, as I stated previously that just because something flies as an "model" doesn't mean it's an accurate representation.

Here is a video showing the failure of a replica of one of these crafts. Why? Because of the difference in weight. Something as simple as being too heavy caused it not to fly. Now, as an aside, he remade the aircraft as a "profile" and it flew just fine. Again I am pointing out that you can make a variety of things fly that wouldn't normally take to the skies.



Think about it.


EDIT: This man is no stranger to RC Aircraft and building, or the aeronautics field.
EDIT EDIT: Skip to 4:30 for the flight.
edit on 29-11-2010 by rockn82 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join