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: 11
77
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I dont think that proves anything, they could have built a model of the pyramid and flown it.





posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rockn82
 

You bring a good point to the table. I have seen people that were quite good at whittling things with a pocket knife. I've seen birds, planes, animals, etc. that were quite realistic. But I don't think any of these folks were trying for exact scale of what they were whittling an image of. Neither do I expect that whoever made these was trying too either.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Despite the fact that this is not a new disclosure on the Ancient Astronaut Theory, I'm sure that few people know about that, 'cause this definitely is not the kind of stuff that MSM reports or the mainstream scholars talk about.



Yeah but...

I see nothing wrong with classifying them as stylized birds or even fish- which is what they were intended to represent I think

Flying machines seem a little far fetched to me
edit on 29-11-2010 by PhotonEffect because: im a spaz



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Like i have always told you all, those are not aircraft, they are the water craft of the usos reptilian race that the east and south of all life was influenced by in your history.
Remember' the triangle race of aliens only influenced the Egypt Syria and Iraq.
Every thing else found is always reptillien,rthe reptilian race does not have flying ships,'REPEAT’,the reptilian race of aliens do not fly like the triangle wasp race fly’s.
just follow the mask of the ancients and you can tell who influenced who but that trinket there, is a usos water craft, they came out in record numbers during world war 1 and world war 2,might of been some other sightings.


edit on 29-11-2010 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Only thing I dont get is why have a vertical and horizontal stabilizer ?
Somewhere thousands of years ago some one made that part up for some reason.... perhaps it was to represent the two ways a bird could use its tail ?

Im skeptical obviously, only way I will believe is if there is an ancient ufo or some other piece of tech found.
The whole argument is faith based, like religions.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
Only thing I dont get is why have a vertical and horizontal stabilizer ?
Somewhere thousands of years ago some one made that part up for some reason.... perhaps it was to represent the two ways a bird could use its tail ?

Because they are fish, not birds.
Those are the tail and fins.

Harte



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
This is something interesting. While doing a little investigating, this little guy pops up. Now, supposedly it is dated to the same time as the other pre-Columbian "aircraft". This one, however, actually resembles a fish. This also casts a bit more doubt, in my opinion, on the "aircraft" being fish.



Next is a bird type object found in Egypt dating ~3000 years ago. Notice the vertical part in the back. If this were to be a bird would that not have been carved parallel with the wings?




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The egyptian thing is thought to be sort of a windvane.

There are ancient Egyptian paintings depicting such things on boats.

Harte



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 


I THINK you may have missed my post...WAY back on Page#2:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, more recently....look for the "Flying Stop Sign". Forget the page #........



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockn82
This is something interesting. While doing a little investigating, this little guy pops up. Now, supposedly it is dated to the same time as the other pre-Columbian "aircraft". This one, however, actually resembles a fish. This also casts a bit more doubt, in my opinion, on the "aircraft" being fish.



Next is a bird type object found in Egypt dating ~3000 years ago. Notice the vertical part in the back. If this were to be a bird would that not have been carved parallel with the wings?




The second picture you show was actually the focus of an experiment a while back. It is made of wood and the "wings" were carved in a manner that implied an efficient lifting surface. The object is old, but as it was a while ago I forget the details, I'll look for some more info.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I would like to welcome some of the skeptics and believers to come check out my theory on why these artifacts are actually based off of flying machines.

Thanks

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The egyptian thing is thought to be sort of a windvane.

There are ancient Egyptian paintings depicting such things on boats.

Harte


I did some looking at the theory just now. I did not find much on it but I did find some. So the information I found led me to a few questions. Let us say for a moment it is a weather vane; why in the world would it's wings be shaped to produce lift? My next question would be, the exact shape of the wings are very reminiscent of trainer aircraft of modern times (stable flight and high lift at low speed). The only thing they would be missing is the upturn at the tips of the wings to help prevent tip stalls. Sorry I am generalizing. Still it begs the question; why would it be made of wood that is extremely light, not all that strong, and would be torn apart in strong winds because the wings produce lift? Let alone how would you fasten that particular "model" to the mast of a ship. Does the original have the short rod protruding out the bottom? Did it have anything on its underside suggesting that it could be fastened? Why make a weather vane 7 inches wide and 5 inches long if it is going to be 20 feet above you?
The very last thing I could find related to the "model" being a child's toy. Just the notion would make me ask why if it is supposed to be a bird, would the tail not be horizontal? Then I would ask if you would give your child a mini weather vane as a toy. Obviously it would not fly without some form of horizontal stabilizers. But then again...why go though the trouble of creating the wings to produce lift for a child's toy?

I have had no luck finding pictures from various angles, but if somebody out there has a few please link them. I would love to see it in some more detail and from the bottom perhaps.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rockn82
 



....the exact shape of the wings are very reminiscent of trainer aircraft of modern times (stable flight and high lift at low speed).


No, "they" aren't. There is nothing "trainer aircraft" about them. Those are delta-wing plan forms.

Stylized fish forms, actually.


The only thing they would be missing is the upturn at the tips of the wings to help prevent tip stalls.


Well, not exactly. You might be referring to "winglets", as seen most lately on some Boeings.

Their actual function isn't to prevent tip stalls...they help to reduce drag from the normal production of wingtip vortexes.

Most wing airfoil designs include a slight "twist", to prevent those "wingtip stalls" you mentioned. Only takes a small difference, in angle of incidence, compared to the relative wind, and the chord of the rest of the wing. Hardly noticeable, by "eyeballing" it....



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockn82

Originally posted by Harte
The egyptian thing is thought to be sort of a windvane.

There are ancient Egyptian paintings depicting such things on boats.

Harte


I did some looking at the theory just now. I did not find much on it but I did find some. So the information I found led me to a few questions. Let us say for a moment it is a weather vane; why in the world would it's wings be shaped to produce lift?

Do you know anything about what it takes to produce lift?

Also, why do you think it produces lift at all?

Also, it doesn't take some complicated shape to produce lift. I can build a kite in about a half hour.


Originally posted by rockn82
Let alone how would you fasten that particular "model" to the mast of a ship. Does the original have the short rod protruding out the bottom? Did it have anything on its underside suggesting that it could be fastened? Why make a weather vane 7 inches wide and 5 inches long if it is going to be 20 feet above you?

"Why" is likely to be an unanswerable question, in this case and in hundreds more stemming from the ancient world.
You can read about this "bird" at Larry Orcutt's excellent site: Catchpenny Mysteries of Ancient Egypt Explained.

There you will find I misspoke earlier. The "weathervanes" I mentioned were not in paintings. They appear on carved reliefs in the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak.


Originally posted by rockn82
I have had no luck finding pictures from various angles, but if somebody out there has a few please link them. I would love to see it in some more detail and from the bottom perhaps.

Several angles are shown at the above website.

Harte
edit on 11/30/2010 by Harte because: fat fingers again



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Oh my, a lot of mis-communications and simple attacks here. I will take them one by one.

So in reply to weedwhacker:



No, "they" aren't. There is nothing "trainer aircraft" about them. Those are delta-wing plan forms. Stylized fish forms, actually.

I was refering to radio controlled trainer aircraft and the supposed "bird object" not the Columbian artifacts. It was indeed my fault for forgetting to toss in "rc"; so I apologize for that.
The following link is just one of the many trainers out there; notice the wing shape. You can look at many, many other trainers and see the same wing airfoil.

and

The following is a picture depicting a TA4-Skyhawk trainer, which closely resembles the a couple of the Columbian artifacts. Don't for a moment think that because they are similar, I think they are aircraft. Just note the similarity and attach that to your statement above. Subsonic and supersonic speeds require very different characteristics.





Well, not exactly. You might be referring to "winglets", as seen most lately on some Boeings.

I do not mean "winglets' those are made to deal with the access air flowing off the wingtips to gain efficiency. I am speaking of the "dihedral" as shown here:

And, in reply to Harte:


Do you know anything about what it takes to produce lift? Also, why do you think it produces lift at all?

These two questions are rather ridiculous, but I shall answer them. First, yes I do. Second look at the shape of the wing. Notice it has a convex surface on the top and a concave surface on the bottom. That is the standard shape of a high lift low speed wing. Have a look at this link and note the "early airfoil", and the "later airfoil".



Also, it doesn't take some complicated shape to produce lift. I can build a kite in about a half hour.

You are detracting from the point of everything I am saying by introducing kites into the conversation. They work on a different principle than that of an airplane. Yes they still produce lift, but the lift is generated by the wind, as the kite is tethered to an object on the ground. In this scenario I can make a plastic bag into a kite, but I cannot turn a plastic bag into a glider.

The site you linked tries to deal with both sides of the issue. However, it states only in the last sentence does it "explain" it to be a bird. "...In any case, of the two theories that the artifact is intended to represent either a bird or an aircraft, the former is the only one tenable based on the corpus of evidence that is known to exist..." This statement is a simple opinion based on a belief. The author borders on "well if it can't fly as it is then it must be a bird." He does not take into account the thoughts of the previous people in the article in which there my be a
missing piece on the tail.

It was a very good read though. This Dr. Messiha was thinking along the same lines as me. Thank you for linking it. As for the pictures, now I am looking for some close up's of the tail, so if anyone can oblige, I would be appreciative.
edit on 1-12-2010 by rockn82 because: A picture link-didn't

edit on 1-12-2010 by rockn82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by rockn82 because: I fail at linking pictures.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
That's nice

you can also look VIMANA (ancient indian aircraft)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Obviously the fancy rounded features across the wings of the artifacts, are the "artistic touch" of the native that reproduced the aircrafts,

In fact, they represent water in the wind, or something like that, as I recall, and the motif exists in other settings as well.

Harte



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockn82


Do you know anything about what it takes to produce lift? Also, why do you think it produces lift at all?

These two questions are rather ridiculous, but I shall answer them. First, yes I do. Second look at the shape of the wing. Notice it has a convex surface on the top and a concave surface on the bottom. That is the standard shape of a high lift low speed wing.

I've looked at the wing many times. I haven't noticed any appreciable concavity in the underside.

No, the wing is round on the top, which would of course increase lift. But it's no glider wing. It's a little like the Clarke "Y" Airfoil in your linked pic. But it's not massive in front tapering off to a thin trailing edge.

And BTW re. kites. A glider gets about 30% of its lift from having the leading edge tilted upward so it meets the wind at a higher point than the trailing edge of the wing. This is precisely the description of lift acheived by any simple kite


The site you linked tries to deal with both sides of the issue. However, it states only in the last sentence does it "explain" it to be a bird. "...In any case, of the two theories that the artifact is intended to represent either a bird or an aircraft, the former is the only one tenable based on the corpus of evidence that is known to exist..." This statement is a simple opinion based on a belief.

Really? How so? He's saying that there is evidence for things such as this being ornamental wind vanes (or just ornaments made to catch the wind,) and even presents the evidence right there on that page.

How is this opinion? Do you have reliefs of these things being used as gliders, or that show some sort of glider in the sky? No, you don't.

So, it appears that Orcutt's statement that the theory that it is an ornamental bird (it is actually painted as a bird as well) is, in fact, the only theory of the two to have any evidence at all behind it is absolutely true.

That's merely a statement of the facts as they exist today. That can hardly be called an "opinion."

Harte
edit on 12/1/2010 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rockn82
 

That's the thing, when you look at other artefacts from around the same time depicting animals you can tell what they are because of the realistic detail, but my initial reaction to seeing these was that they are an aircraft of some sort.

Let's look at technology for a minute. Nikola Tesla, who should be a household name imo because with out his work I seriously doubt we would be where we are today in regards to technological advancement, but he died penniless and pretty much forgotten about despite the fact he was thee greatest inventor of his time and quite famous for his demonstrations. If Tesla's greatest work had been realised, today there is no telling where mankind would be and we'd have stopped using fossil fuels at least 80 years ago.

If Tesla was able to harness and use such technology, is it so hard to believe that the ancients did too given that advanced are we as today can't replicate some of their achievements? I've been skeptical believe me, but it was after reading a book called Gods Of The New Millennium about 10 years ago that changed my whole outlook on whether aliens had actually visited Earth and built the pyramids or was it really man that built them, but using advanced technology, because we must have been far more advanced in ancient times than what we've been led to believe, because the context just doesn't fit the evidence.

Look at Edward Leedskalnin's "Coral Castle" and the secrecy he went to to conceal it, was he using similar energy to what Tesla demonstrated? Could he have wanted to protect his discovery for fear of going through a similar fate to Tesla?



Look at the "Hutchinson Effect" (see vid), had Tesla and Leedskalnin already discovered and perfected it, and is it just possible that the Sumerians 6000 years ago were the first to discover, harness and use such technology, because if they were, then what else were they capable of?




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
OMG . They are just trinkets . Get a life people . I can't believe this topic is even being discussed . Is your life so empty that you need to believe in this rubbish ? Get a grip . Santa is on his way



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join