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

Originally posted by davespanners
In what way is thisAlso why do all of these planes have eyes?

edit on 25-11-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

Because humans are wierd.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


I'd go with the flying fish thing - but the tail is the wrong way.

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.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


I'm sorry, but....

The fantastic ramblings of an Indian "channeler"???

What people will swallow, so readily, nowadays boggles my mind:

The Vaimānika Shāstra वैमानिक शास्त्र ("Science of Aeronautics"[1]; also Vimanika, Vymanika) is an early 20th century Sanskrit text on aeronautics, claimed to be obtained by mental channeling, about construction of vimānas, the "chariots of the Gods", self-moving aerial cars mentioned in the Sanskrit epics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Once again, no proof of this, either. In any event, this fantasy is in INDIA!!!! Secondly, the Inca artifacts resemble those Indian sanskrit drawings in what way, again?? Not even apples and oranges, here....more like charm bracelets compared to construction blueprints!

I've seen and read about these before; that was a cool documentary segment. My opinion is that these may have been replicas or interpretations of working gliding suits wearable by humans. They watched the birds and bugs fly, and they had all the time in the world to try, fail, correct and perfect a way to glide or fly from the top of a mountain or temple on a hill. It seems that if one was crafty enough, a canvas and wooden-pole glider suit could be built. Wear one of those with a ceremonial mask or some face paint and you're good to go.

This is far older than the ancient alien TV series. I am surprised they even put it on TV. But then again TV is a powerful weapon.

It definitely makes me laugh when anyone says that Pyramids are landing pads for ships. Or that paintings or carvings on the wall look like Ancient Astronauts. Or that the Pyramids in Egypt could only have been made with the help of Aliens. Show me one iota of proof.

Regarding the Incan artifacts, they are birds. Nothing more, nothing less. It's what I thought when I first saw them years ago, it's what I still think. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have seen none since I started coming to this site years ago regarding Ancient Astronauts. It's more than likely that early Humans couldn't draw or paint properly (Hence the lack of clearly distinguishable drawings or paintings of Humans from those times). I'd also imagine that people living simple lives would find it very hard to make a bird using the resources available at the time and without the technology available to us now so would make a rough model. People need to give more credit to Humans - We're a very intelligent species and manage to find a way even in the most difficult of problems or situations (I'm referring to how the Pyramids were built)

reply to post by QuantumSanctum


Why does the burden of proof have to fall so heavily on us? The fact is, our natural history has been recreated by scientists and historians through a variety of methods because of the simple fact that WE CAN'T VERIFY MUCH OF ANYTHING. We don't KNOW why they built the Nazca Lines, so how can you rule Ancient Astronaut theory out? We don't KNOW why they built the Pyramids, we don't KNOW why they built the Moai, actually, we don't KNOW much of anything. So if you're willing to provide 100% proof of these things NOT being of extraterrestrial origin, then we can talk.

Originally posted by QuantumSanctum
It's more than likely that early Humans couldn't draw or paint properly (Hence the lack of clearly distinguishable drawings or paintings of Humans from those times). I'd also imagine that people living simple lives would find it very hard to make a bird using the resources available at the time and without the technology available to us now so would make a rough model. People need to give more credit to Humans - We're a very intelligent species and manage to find a way even in the most difficult of problems or situations (I'm referring to how the Pyramids were built)

I'm undecided as to weather these artefacts are fish or planes but you can't say on one hand ancient humans probably couldn't draw and on the other they were perfectly capable of building pyramids! Why couldn't our ancestors draw in your opinion? Some of the art and sculpture from early and pre-history is exquisite much better than the unmade beds and brick circles our 'modern' artists come up with!

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Advance spacecraft or aircraft don't need wings

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
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9331b14860d2.jpg[/atsimg]

Baalbek
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/287333aa9530.jpg[/atsimg]

Puma Punku
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2430818d4027.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a51994dfd181.jpg[/atsimg]

Tiahuanaco
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43e548667fcf.jpg[/atsimg]

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???

reply to post by psychederic


Do you know that for sure? We have no idea what crafts need to fly, because we have never seen one or at least that is what some people want you to believe. Unless you have actually seen one there is no way that you could know what it takes for those things to fly.Depending on who you talk to we are the only planet in the Milky Way galaxy that has life on it.

Lets say these were aircraft. It seems they were made to give the onlooker the idea that the pilot was flying some sort of great beast or monster....a type of dragon. As well if they were aircraft they would have had to have had a sort of jet or thrust engine that made a lot of noise adding to the shock effect. Now these days they couldnt get away with that sort of mind game. Would they?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

I'm sorry, but....

The fantastic ramblings of an Indian "channeler"???

What people will swallow, so readily, nowadays boggles my mind:

The Vaimānika Shāstra वैमानिक शास्त्र ("Science of Aeronautics"[1]; also Vimanika, Vymanika) is an early 20th century Sanskrit text on aeronautics, claimed to be obtained by mental channeling, about construction of vimānas, the "chariots of the Gods", self-moving aerial cars mentioned in the Sanskrit epics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Once again, no proof of this, either. In any event, this fantasy is in INDIA!!!! Secondly, the Inca artifacts resemble those Indian sanskrit drawings in what way, again?? Not even apples and oranges, here....more like charm bracelets compared to construction blueprints!

Wow, now you are getting so desperate that the best thing you can do, is pulling the ethnic card??? You are quite disoriented in your debunker-wannabe attempts, but that racial insults won't discredit this thread. I used the Vymanaka Shastra to corroborate the theory of the Ancient Astronaut, showing that two cultures of opposite sides of the world had contact with aerial vehicles. You are way too absorbed by your disastrous commentaries, that became unable to notice subtle analogies.

Again... if there was ancient technology, we'd have the proof. We do not. Ergo there was no ancient technology, it's quite as simple as that.

Explain how ONLY ancient art depicting these things survived? Were are the objects they were basing these art objects on? Where are the factories needed to produce the materials needed to make advanced aircraft? They don't exist, it's pretty obvious. We can dig up proof of life from millions of years ago.. no problem. We can dig up everything BUT proof of these crafts from the civilizations depicting them. This doesn't strike you as ODD in any way?

reply to post by fleabit



Thats fair enough. However who knows what has been found but was hushed up and moved out of sight. We know for a fact they have been finding very large skeletons for years and look how this is handled. (fakes and the like not withstanding)

Originally posted by fleabit
Again... if there was ancient technology, we'd have the proof. We do not. Ergo there was no ancient technology, it's quite as simple as that.

Seriously??



A 2.000 years old portable mechanic computer counts as proof???

reply to post by fleabit


Just because we haven't found the evidence yet doesn't mean it didn't exist. Maybe we aren't looking in the right place yet. Interesting how things are being found all the time that we never knew existed. But to say point blank that it never existed is a bit premature don't you think?

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


"ETHNIC card"????

NO!! GEOGRAPHY!!!



Gawd, didn't think I would have to write the obvious. India versus South America.....heck the west coast of SA!!! Know how far away from India that is?

The assertions just don't survive rational scrutiny, sorry. Can fool some people, who may not stop to ponder, and apply logic and reason to them, first. It SHOULD be taken into consideration, though...rather than blindly believing any crackpot idea, base don flimsy interpretations, and perhaps, "gut" feelings......