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: 8
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard


Well, by one side we have a 2.000 years old industry-like mechanic portable computer, 6.000 years old Vedic scriptures with technical specs of giant aircrafts, 4.000 years Egyptian steles depicting electric lamps and also aircrafts and by the other side we have a couple of skeptics and disinfo shills in a conspiracy forum


This disinfo agent bails out whenever the tired ol' Egyptian light bulb comes up. Not a light bulb. It's clearly a corndog with a squiggle of mustard atop it's crunchy fried cornmeal outer shell. Later.



WOW, I was way off, I thought he must be a GOD with a really big...You know
And that was worlds first Condom




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Well, by one side we have a 2.000 years old industry-like mechanic portable computer, 6.000 years old Vedic scriptures with technical specs of giant aircrafts, 4.000 years Egyptian steles depicting electric lamps and also aircrafts and by the other side we have a couple of skeptics and disinfo shills in a conspiracy forum, attempting to discredit these evidences of high-advanced technology of probable extraterrestrial origin, in ancient civilizations. This thread can reach hundreds of pages and none of you will disprove their authenticity. The only thing you can do is repeat 10.000 times these are not evidences. Just empty words and nothing more.


It wasn't an "industry like portable computer." It was thought to be for a fancy clock, and probably displayed in a museum. What industrial use would a "computer" be that only tracks heavenly bodies? Lamps? You mean your interpretation of what it is - I see plant-like leaves on that, it's probably a flower of some type. Just because something looks like a lightbulb doesn't mean that's what they were trying to depict. If they had lightbulbs.. then they had to have energy to keep them lit. Where is the power plants? Were are the actual devices? No.. we just jump to conclusions about Egypt having all sorts of lighting based on a piece of art.

Your "proof" is artwork. Plenty of artwork.. but oddly no actual devices. You assume 70 gears in a clock proves there were jet fighters in our past. How about they find a cockpit, wing, engine, turbine.. schematics, factories, or anything else that would actually prove they existed.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Well, by one side we have a 2.000 years old industry-like mechanic portable computer,

except it isn't a computer.. it is a device used to track celestial movements., it would be like calling an abacus a calculator

6.000 years old Vedic scriptures with technical specs of giant aircrafts,

except that nonsense isn't 6000 years-old, it is claimed to be old solely because someone says so, there isn't even manuscript older than 1918!

4.000 years Egyptian steles depicting electric lamps and also aircrafts and by the other side we have a couple of skeptics and disinfo shills in a conspiracy forum,

except it isn't it is a plant, most likely an iris, do you ignore the leaves on the so called "lamp"? good critical thinking there. those so called "aircrafts" are nothing but the plaster breaking off in a way that looks like stuff we recognize. i love how the best people who believe this nonsense can only poison the well, it means you have no refutations.


attempting to discredit these evidences of high-advanced technology of probable extraterrestrial origin, in ancient civilizations. This thread can reach hundreds of pages and none of you will disprove their authenticity. The only thing you can do is repeat 10.000 times these are not evidences. Just empty words and nothing more.

you can't disprove anything when the other person is so in love with the beliefs they hold to, logic,facts, or commonsense won't penetrate the shell of a closed off mind.
why don't you ask yourself why there isn't more depictions of the things you believe this so-called proof is of?
why is it that you only find one thing that depicts something like aircraft in egyptian art? why is it that there is no depictions of electricity in writing?
why do none of the mesoamerican peoples talk about planes? why do we find no evidence of anything except these bits and pieces that could be shown to be other things just as easily?

in all the cases i've seen as evidence for the AA theory, it comes down to misapplied beliefs about objects or flat-out ignorance.
nothing i've ever seen points to the AA theory over something mundane, like religion or cultural imagery.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thecsb
 


Those are still flying fish. What's the point? There is open minded and then there is so open minded our brains fall out.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For someone who claims to hold a belief in the ancient astronaut theory, you sure do go to great lengths to argue against the evidence being presented.



well, they are assuming they are holding it right side up first off...if you flip the statue over, then voila...the wings are on top like any other bug.


Think about what you are saying here for example.

OK...let's do as you suggest...let's mentally take hold of one of the many golden flying machine models (because *that* is what they are)..now, mentally turn the thing over, so the wings are now attached to the top half of the model.

What do you see?

We can now see the wings, attached to the top half yes, but what else?
The wings are now in the correct position to reasonably be able to claim they are representations of a flying insect, a moth for example.

OK, it now looks like a moth, or other flying critter...right?

*Wrong*!

Why wrong? In your minds eye, look along the upside down model, towards the rear..how many moths, or *any* other flying insect, or bird, that has a set of horizontal stabilizer fins, with a very large classic aircraft tail fin, in a vertical position pointing straight downwards?

It looks absolutely *nothing* like a moth, but now looks everything like an inverted delta-winged aircraft!

It's one thing to look at the evidence with a critical eye, it's totally another to be in denial of it, and look for reasons not to believe what is obviously directly in front you.

Whenever any object or evidence of a process is searched for by alternative researchers, skeptics are very fond of often saying that 'He who looks hard and long enough, will find what they want to find. In other words, we see what we want to see.

This is what you are doing now. You cannot believe the evidence before you is representative of an ancient aircraft, so you look for reasons to deny what you see, until you see what you are looking for - in this case a model of a moth.

The problem is of course, no moths or other flying creatures have a vertical tail fin..least of all in a classic aircraft tail stabilizer configuration!

As the man said: "Just say what you see".



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well you are assuming it's an insect or bird yourself. It may be something else entirely. They depicted many odd bits of art solely based on religious beliefs. Just because it has the shape of what you know as a plane, doesn't mean that's what they were creating when they made it.

The fact remains that no one can adequately refute: there is no PROOF - no actual devices, manuscripts, or any proof at all, that actual planes existed. NOTHING. If they had PLANES, they most certainly had other technology. And there is evidence of none! An astronomical clock proves nothing! It's one device.

Actual archaeologists only create their facts of past civilizations by linking artifacts from many sites. You can't even link two items.. or even find ONE! There is nothing. You have zero proof other than artwork.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Well, by one side we have a 2.000 years old industry-like mechanic portable computer,

except it isn't a computer.. it is a device used to track celestial movements., it would be like calling an abacus a calculator

6.000 years old Vedic scriptures with technical specs of giant aircrafts,

except that nonsense isn't 6000 years-old, it is claimed to be old solely because someone says so, there isn't even manuscript older than 1918!

4.000 years Egyptian steles depicting electric lamps and also aircrafts and by the other side we have a couple of skeptics and disinfo shills in a conspiracy forum,

except it isn't it is a plant, most likely an iris, do you ignore the leaves on the so called "lamp"? good critical thinking there. those so called "aircrafts" are nothing but the plaster breaking off in a way that looks like stuff we recognize. i love how the best people who believe this nonsense can only poison the well, it means you have no refutations.


attempting to discredit these evidences of high-advanced technology of probable extraterrestrial origin, in ancient civilizations. This thread can reach hundreds of pages and none of you will disprove their authenticity. The only thing you can do is repeat 10.000 times these are not evidences. Just empty words and nothing more.

you can't disprove anything when the other person is so in love with the beliefs they hold to, logic,facts, or commonsense won't penetrate the shell of a closed off mind.
why don't you ask yourself why there isn't more depictions of the things you believe this so-called proof is of?
why is it that you only find one thing that depicts something like aircraft in egyptian art? why is it that there is no depictions of electricity in writing?
why do none of the mesoamerican peoples talk about planes? why do we find no evidence of anything except these bits and pieces that could be shown to be other things just as easily?

in all the cases i've seen as evidence for the AA theory, it comes down to misapplied beliefs about objects or flat-out ignorance.
nothing i've ever seen points to the AA theory over something mundane, like religion or cultural imagery.



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.

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.

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. 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. 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)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For someone who claims to hold a belief in the ancient astronaut theory, you sure do go to great lengths to argue against the evidence being presented.



well, they are assuming they are holding it right side up first off...if you flip the statue over, then voila...the wings are on top like any other bug.


Think about what you are saying here for example.

OK...let's do as you suggest...let's mentally take hold of one of the many golden flying machine models (because *that* is what they are)..now, mentally turn the thing over, so the wings are now attached to the top half of the model.

What do you see?

We can now see the wings, attached to the top half yes, but what else?
The wings are now in the correct position to reasonably be able to claim they are representations of a flying insect, a moth for example.

OK, it now looks like a moth, or other flying critter...right?

*Wrong*!

Why wrong? In your minds eye, look along the upside down model, towards the rear..how many moths, or *any* other flying insect, or bird, that has a set of horizontal stabilizer fins, with a very large classic aircraft tail fin, in a vertical position pointing straight downwards?

It looks absolutely *nothing* like a moth, but now looks everything like an inverted delta-winged aircraft!

It's one thing to look at the evidence with a critical eye, it's totally another to be in denial of it, and look for reasons not to believe what is obviously directly in front you.

Whenever any object or evidence of a process is searched for by alternative researchers, skeptics are very fond of often saying that 'He who looks hard and long enough, will find what they want to find. In other words, we see what we want to see.

This is what you are doing now. You cannot believe the evidence before you is representative of an ancient aircraft, so you look for reasons to deny what you see, until you see what you are looking for - in this case a model of a moth.

The problem is of course, no moths or other flying creatures have a vertical tail fin..least of all in a classic aircraft tail stabilizer configuration!

As the man said: "Just say what you see".



The vertical tail fin and the elevators are the main argument of Ancient Alien theorists, to support these artifacts are not depicting flying animals, but actual aircrafts. The question in this thread, is that there are a bunch of shill disinformers here, committed to discredit the video of the test flight, NOT BY PROVING they are not models of aircrafts, 'cause the DON'T HAVE how to prove it, but by calling anyone that believes they are actual models of crafts, of "delusional" of "charlatans". They are not debunkers, but disinformers.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 



I HAVE been doing some research, and what you say is bunk. You are repeating what you've been told, and you accept it without question apparently, because you WANT to:


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.


And, you had NO RIGHT to accuse me of "racism"! How vile...

My point has always been that, A): The geographical distance between India and South America PRECLUDES any contact between the two cultures, back thousands of years ago, so bringing up the Hindu "scriptures"** in relation to the point of this thread, and ancient Inca civilization, is moot;

B) ** - The ONLY place you see mention of "flying machines" is in the crock websites that make the claims, and point at certain ancient Hindu scriptures...I saw one site that specified four different "sources". Looked them up, and nothing in any of them....except the blend of rich stories, mythology and history, of ancient peoples from that region of this planet, and their culture of the era.

Finally, this Vaimanika Shastra claim is more, total bunk.

It came from some "channeler", and was written down, from HIS "dictation", in the early 20th century!!! Fantastical ravings of a lunatic, is most likely. AND, no it hasn't been "PROVEN" (you use that word too much, in these contexts) to be over 4,000 years old by the Indian Aeronautical Institute. Either you made that up, or someone wrote it and you believed it, without checking?



A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed a complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
en.wikipedia.org...


AND, read this:

A Critical Study Of The Work Vaimanika Shastra
.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I find this subject matter of great interest but alas the truth of this situation was lost to us by the sands of time. We will not recover this information from artifacts or reconstruct it from the fables handed down from ancient people. The only way to recover this information if from the quantum foam or sea we all live in that records everything. We still can find echos of the big bang so why not more subtle information that is imprinted on the sea of information on which reality is based.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

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.


So what? It's a brilliant device.. for its time. I saw a show on this device.. it's pretty amazing. And this proves there were planes HOW? You are making broad leaps of bad logic when you assume that one device, that probably took many years to complete, and is probably singular and not at ALL like the technology needed to make an airplane, proves aircraft existed in the past. Art + a box with 70 gears does not equal your conclusion.

So.. how did they power these planes? For planes to have existed, an entire industrial culture much like the one we have must have had to exist. We would have PROOF! Something metal... some structure.. something would have survived.

A long straight road isn't a runway simply because it's long and straight. That's very poor logic.. and I am seeing a lot of that in your threads.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I guess that is your story and your going to stick to it. That is a shame because you should have done a little better research my friend.


The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana. There are 230 stanzas dealing with the construction, take-off, cruising for thousand of miles, normal and forced landings, and even possible collisions with birds. In 1875, the Vaimanika Sastra, a fourth century B.C. text written by Bharadvajy the Wise, using even older texts as his source, was rediscovered in a temple in India. It dealt with the operation of Vimanas and included information on the steering, precautions for long flights, protection of the airships from storms and lightning and how to switch the drive to "solar energy" from a free energy source which sounds like "anti-gravity." The Vaimanika Sastra (or Vymaanika-Shaastra) has eight chapters with diagrams, describing three types of aircraft, including apparatuses that could neither catch on fire nor break. It also mentions 31 essential parts of these vehicles and 16 materials from which they are constructed, which absorb light and heat; for which reason they were considered suitable for the construction of Vimanas.


And something else for you.


This document has been translated into English and is available by writing the publisher: VYMAANIDASHAASTRA AERONAUTICS by Maharishi Bharadwaaja, translated into English and edited, printed and published by Mr. G. R.Josyer, Mysore, India, 1979 (sorry, no street address)


www.sacred-texts.com...

Feel free to check this out for yourself. And note that the Fourth Century B.C. is well before the early 20th century.One more thing these were rediscovered in 1875 in India.So if you need more than this the documents are available as it says above so try to do some better research next time. I will not post anymore here because if you want more you will have to do your own research, but what I posted is a good place to start. Enjoy the reading.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 




The vertical tail fin and the elevators are the main argument of Ancient Alien theorists, to support these artifacts are not depicting flying animals, but actual aircrafts.

Vertical tail fins are present on Exocoetidae and Guitar fish.Also the so called elevators are in the same position on the artifact as they are on the fishes.The fact that the the lower part of the tail is omitted on the Gold artifacts is not lost on me.It could be simply that they wanted them to lay flat for what ever reason.There are a lot details added or subtracted,for me this is artistic interpretation.



The question in this thread, is that there are a bunch of shill disinformers here, committed to discredit the video of the test flight, NOT BY PROVING they are not models of aircrafts, 'cause the DON'T HAVE how to prove it, but by calling anyone that believes they are actual models of crafts, of "delusional" of "charlatans". They are not debunkers, but disinformers.

I am not committed to discredit the video of the test flight.Like I said I'm an RC designer and builder,in fact I could build a RC aircraft "with the exact dimensions"of the gold artifact"-Including the waves on the fins leading edge"and all the other details.I can do all this and guess what it would fly-but this does not prove the Inca had any knowledge of advanced aircraft.
If this makes me a" delusional charlatan" so be it,but dis informer? Come on now who's delusional

edit on 27-11-2010 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I linked to the website.

Appears to be a LESS than credible source.

I mean, anyone who wanted to could write all of that, and form a website, and put it up for others to be hoaxed by.

Where is the independent verification/peer review????



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Here lets look at something here shall we. If you go back and read the OP on page 1 you will notice that nobody said the Incas had flying machines they had made replicas of what they had seen. So to keep asking what did they use to power these crafts is silly. Unless you knew where these crafts were from then you may be able to answer that question. How do you know that there hasn't been any evidence found to show ancient crafts? Just because you haven't physically been shown this evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. Do you think that any government on this planet will give out that type of evidence especially given the implications that would have on all that we have been taught about the history of mankind and this planet. I guess you have already thought of that, am I correct? If we are told by our governments that this planet was visited in the past and have the evidence to prove it that would open up pandoras box and they then would have to answer questions they have tried so hard to cover up.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


No.

This was not proven to be a replica of an aircraft. It is assumed as such by ancient astronaut proponents to support their preconceived belief (which is not how evidence is supposed to work). More importantly even if these were replica of aircraft it wouldn't indicate aliens. It would be infinitely more likely that the Inca's invented these machines themselves or conceived them in the imagination. Invoking some advanced alien force to explain a simple relic is absurd without direct evidence to point to the existence and intervention of said extraterrestrials. To claim these relics could not be conceived without alien intervention is belittling to the ancients that made them.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


About the author...




David Hatcher Childress (born 1957) is an American author and publisher of books on topics in alternative history and historical revisionism. His works cover such subjects as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, Nikola Tesla, the Knights Templar, lost cities and vimana aircraft.[1] Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study.


D. Hatcher Childress

The Vaimanika Shastra is absolutely, positively a 20th century new age construct with no historical provenance.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 



I HAVE been doing some research, and what you say is bunk. You are repeating what you've been told, and you accept it without question apparently, because you WANT to:


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.


And, you had NO RIGHT to accuse me of "racism"! How vile...

My point has always been that, A): The geographical distance between India and South America PRECLUDES any contact between the two cultures, back thousands of years ago, so bringing up the Hindu "scriptures"** in relation to the point of this thread, and ancient Inca civilization, is moot;

B) ** - The ONLY place you see mention of "flying machines" is in the crock websites that make the claims, and point at certain ancient Hindu scriptures...I saw one site that specified four different "sources". Looked them up, and nothing in any of them....except the blend of rich stories, mythology and history, of ancient peoples from that region of this planet, and their culture of the era.

Finally, this Vaimanika Shastra claim is more, total bunk.

It came from some "channeler", and was written down, from HIS "dictation", in the early 20th century!!! Fantastical ravings of a lunatic, is most likely. AND, no it hasn't been "PROVEN" (you use that word too much, in these contexts) to be over 4,000 years old by the Indian Aeronautical Institute. Either you made that up, or someone wrote it and you believed it, without checking?



A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed a complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
en.wikipedia.org...


AND, read this:

A Critical Study Of The Work Vaimanika Shastra
.


Besides racist, you are an ignorant that doesn't know the difference between "channeling" and "enlightenment". The writer of the first version of Vymanika Shastra, didn't channelize ANYTHING. The Sanskrit scholar, Sri G
Venkatachala Sharma, received VERBALLY a series of manuscripts and sketches, from a SADHU named Pundit Anekal Subbaraya Shastry. Assuming you don't have a CLUE about what a Sadhu is, I'll put some light on your blatant ignorance: It's an ASCETIC that seeks mental enlightenment and spiritual freedom by practicing yoga, in isolated conditions.

This is a picture of one page of the original ancient manuscripts:



The Sadhu DICTATED in Sanskrit idiom, the containing of the manuscripts and Sri Sharma TRANSCRIBED it to HIS VERSION of the Vymanika Shastra, during the times when they had close contact. The Sadhu became the spiritual Yogi teacher of Sri Sharma. Not a "spiritual channel" as your ignorance is implying. I assume you nor even read the article YOU provided, 'cause it's pretty clear, even being a clear disinformation material about the real story, properly scrutinized by Dr.T.N.Prakash, Coordinator of Aeronautical Society of India. The transcriptions of Sri Sharma were corroborated by several Indian authorities as:

1. Dr. T.N. Prakash, panel coordinator AR & DB.

2. Wg.Cdr. A.E. Patrawalla, Honorary Secretary, AeSI, Bangalore.

3. Sri. Bannanje Govindacharya, Eminent Scholar on Indian
Philosophy, Bangalore.

4. Dr. V. Prabhanjanacharya, Professor of Sanskrit and
Illustrious scholar on Indian Philosophy.

5. Dr. P. Ramachandra Rao, Director, NML, Jamshedpur.

6. Air Cmde. P.S. Subramanian. V.M, Bangalore.

7. Dr. B.G.Siddarth, Director Birla Science Centre, Hyderabad.

8. Dr. Maheshwar Sharon, Dept. of Chemistry, IIT, Bombay

9. Dr. V.K. Didolkar, Sri. Deepak Deshpande, Sri. M.K.
Kawadkar. (Bharatiya Boudhika Sampada) Nagpur.

10. Dr. R. Ganesh, Eminent Scholar on Indian Philosophy, Bangalore.

11. Dr. K.H. Krishna Murthy, Former Professor of Ayurvedic
Medicine, Pondichery Medical College, Bangalore.

12. GP. CAPT. M. Matheswaran VM. Indian Air Force.

13. Wg. Cdr. S.S. Yegnaswami, Bangalore

14. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore(...)

Go around 30 names.

Full review of Dr. Dr.T.N.Prakash

Plus here there's a series of non-Indian scholars that have corroborated the Vymanika Shastra.

Better you check your sources, before playing debunking. I could spend all day refuting all your bizarre baseless comentaries, but I need to give some attention to other people interested in the subject.

You have failed. AGAIN!




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



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 




Vertical tail fins are present on Exocoetidae and Guitar fish.Also the so called elevators are in the same position on the artifact as they are on the fishes.The fact that the the lower part of the tail is omitted on the Gold artifacts is not lost on me.It could be simply that they wanted them to lay flat for what ever reason.There are a lot details added or subtracted,for me this is artistic interpretation.


What?

You're going to claim that these model aircraft are actually models of fish, simply because fish can have a vertical tail fin? Even though you acknowledge none of the models are anatomically representative of a fish, inasmuch as the unsymmetrical nature of the tail, at the least.

The large wing assembly would only really be representative of a large fish, such as a ray or flatfish of some sort, which wouldn't have the vertical tail fin, or body shape depicted in the model aircraft.

There is also the matter of the glyphs found on these models. They are representative of flight, not swimming. The swirl glyphs are found elsewhere to represent 'wind', gusts, and or air. Depending on the swirls orientation on the lifting surfaces on the models, forward or backwards represents ascent or descent, or lift or stall.

These glyphs, and the fact that a modern scale model, built to the exact same specifications and design of the Inca models, flew perfectly and ably, wouldn't immediately point to marine environments, or fish.

They do support flight, and that these little golden models are exactly what they appear to be, as fantastic as it sounds, actually models of ancient aircraft, or at the very least models of what ancient peoples had seen flying around, or landed on the ground.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Here lets look at something here shall we. If you go back and read the OP on page 1 you will notice that nobody said the Incas had flying machines they had made replicas of what they had seen. So to keep asking what did they use to power these crafts is silly. Unless you knew where these crafts were from then you may be able to answer that question. How do you know that there hasn't been any evidence found to show ancient crafts? Just because you haven't physically been shown this evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. Do you think that any government on this planet will give out that type of evidence especially given the implications that would have on all that we have been taught about the history of mankind and this planet. I guess you have already thought of that, am I correct? If we are told by our governments that this planet was visited in the past and have the evidence to prove it that would open up pandoras box and they then would have to answer questions they have tried so hard to cover up.


So.. you are going with the "aliens flew around our planet on airplanes and then left without a trace" theory?

If something so amazing as airplanes were flying around the planet, we'd see a -lot- more depictions of them. If we made them, there would be proof of some kind. If aliens brought them, imo there would be a lot more accounts of their presence.

Tell me this: Is it at all possible in your opinion, for ancient art to imitate know objects we have now? Or absolutely impossible?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join