Possible Ancient Human/Alien Technology and Civilisations?

Red Hand · 21-05-2009 11:44pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If the Mayan Civilisation was so advanced as to have aircraft and airports resembling those found in the 20th Century (or beyond), why was there no evidence of other related technological development typical of the 20th Century (or beyond)? You have modern day flying machines, but still have to cast clay or pound rocks to transcribe? No MS Word for your Mayan laptop? The digs over the past decades have found nothing to suggest anything other than what you would expect from a Pre-Columbian Civilisation.

And sad as it sounds, technological development often is correlated with weapons development, and the vastly larger Mayan population was out-gunned, so to speak, when confronted by small parties of Spanish with gunpowder firearms, because Mayan weaponry was typical of the primitive Pre-Columbian times.

If the Mayan were as bright for their times as everyone claims, and were visited by ET lifeforms, why didn't they adopt and diffuse the technology in Central America, like the Great Plains Sioux did when trading (or capturing) more advanced weaponry from the invading Europeans? Just ask George Armstrong Custer of the 7th Cavalry if the Sioux were early weapons technology adopters at Little Big Horn?

Not to mention pollution. Why aren't the residues of heavy metals making fish go belly-up? Where the strip-mines?

Is there a record in ice deposits in Antartica for CO2 levels during this pre-Western Industrial Age Industrial Age?

Surely with planes and stuff, they should have colonised other areas of the globe and enslaved us as European cultures did?

WakeUp · 22-05-2009 4:37am

thats a really interesting video although I know very little about the nasca lines, not yet anyways but Im defo going to look into them there well cool cant really contribute more than that just yet.

I think its a little unfair asking Mahatma to produce evidence for this and for that as the saying goes absence of proof is not proof of absence people used to think the world was flat for example until it was shown not to be. As 6th already said give him a chance who is anyone to say yay or ney really fact is we just dont know for sure maybe they are runways who knows.

I think that gold thing defo looks like a plane ive never seen a fish that looks like that maybe one exists but Ive never seen it.

espinolman · 22-05-2009 8:14am

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Not to mention pollution. Why aren't the residues of heavy metals making fish go belly-up? Where the strip-mines?

Is there a record in ice deposits in Antartica for CO2 levels during this pre-Western Industrial Age Industrial Age?

Surely with planes and stuff, they should have colonised other areas of the globe and enslaved us as European cultures did?

Fossil fuel might not have been used as an energy source , they may have used radiant energy or energy from the vacumn or magnetics , you don't have to polllute to have a power source , the only real reason we use fossil fuel today is to keep oligarchs' in power .

bonkey · 22-05-2009 9:08am

WakeUp wrote: »

I think its a little unfair asking Mahatma to produce evidence for this and for that as the saying goes absence of proof is not proof of absence

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It is, however, also not evidence of existence.

Asking for evidence allows us to determine the basis on which a claim has been made. In the absence of evidence, then we can fall back on reason, or even speculation...which are perhaps more subjective, but its still better than nothing.

I think that gold thing defo looks like a plane ive never seen a fish that looks like that maybe one exists but Ive never seen it.

I think it looks more like a plane than anything else I can identify. That said, I can see several things which look distinct "non planelike" about it. Should I ignore those, and just accept that its allowed to be a plane that doesn't look quite like a plane....but at the same time refuse to accept that it could be a depiction of a (real or imaginary) animal that doesn't quite look like an animal?

Personally, I currently side with the notion of "I don't know what its supposed to be". The absence of evidence, for me, is just that...an absence, sufficient to prevent me from reaching a conclusion, even speculatively.

This is one of the reasons I'd like to see pictures of the "back" of the thing. It might give me more of an idea...

Looking at some of the ideas postulated here...what if the Nazca had flying machines? As has been pointed out, a lot of the other evidence seems to suggest a society which didn't have such advances. One can argue that maybe they used some power-source that we have no concept of, so this is why we see no traces of industrialisation...but they still had to manufacture the things, right? This, in turn, would beg the question...why is this golden artefact so relatively crude, in comparison to what one would expect from a society advanced enough to understand the aerodynamics of a delta-wing, to have manufacturing capability for flying craft, and so forth. As an explanation, it seems to pose more questions then it answers.

The idea that Nazca had seen flying machines, rather than having them is, perhaps more credible. Unfortunately, it doesn't really answer much...and begs a whole load of new questions. It would, be consistent with the notion that the Nazca worshipped some sort of "sky god", and that their various line-drawings were some sort of tribute to said god. Of course, other cultures have worshipped sky gods, sun gods and the like with no evidence of flying machines...so we should (at the least) note the distinction of an explanation being consistent with something, and an explanation being the only grounds for something.

Mahatma coat · 22-05-2009 9:16am

to those people who say that it superficially looks like a plane

I tender this for your consideration

I'm willin to believe the Nazca plane was a toy/symbolic model of some description, dosent have to be exact, so long as the concept is there, anyone of us can see that the above image is a toy plane, now consider what would an archeologist from a hundred years ago have thought it was?

Mahatma coat · 22-05-2009 9:25am

the other thing that interests me here, people have asked why we dont see evidence of colonisation or Trade

Now, I have to go off and research this again, but, I believe that about ten or so years ago they did some tests on the Mummies in Egypt, bloodwork,or whatever the equivelant fir mummies is, and in the course of this scientific investigation they found that a few of the Dynasties had serious amounts of Cocaine in their systems, and as far as I know the coca plant only really thrives in one part of the world.

King Mob · 22-05-2009 9:44am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

to those people who say that it superficially looks like a plane

I tender this for your consideration

I'm willin to believe the Nazca plane was a toy/symbolic model of some description, dosent have to be exact, so long as the concept is there, anyone of us can see that the above image is a toy plane, now consider what would an archeologist from a hundred years ago have thought it was?

So then if it's not exact how do you know what it is meant to represent?

Is it possible that by coincidence it looks a bit like a plane to modern eyes?

And is this thing the only depiction of planes? Are there temple drawings, other larger carvings in different materials?

And what would a archeologist think about these artifacts a hundred years ago? How could they possibly conclude that it depicts a flying machine when there is no evidence to support that conclusion?

bonkey · 22-05-2009 11:11am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Now, I have to go off and research this again, but, I believe that about ten or so years ago they did some tests on the Mummies in Egypt, bloodwork,or whatever the equivelant fir mummies is, and in the course of this scientific investigation they found that a few of the Dynasties had serious amounts of Cocaine in their systems, and as far as I know the coca plant only really thrives in one part of the world.

Here ya go...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2375/whats-up-with-the-cocaine-mummies

bonkey · 22-05-2009 11:13am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm willin to believe the Nazca plane was a toy/symbolic model of some description, dosent have to be exact, so long as the concept is there,

So it could equally be a toy / symbolic representation of a bird or fish, then?

Mahatma coat · 22-05-2009 11:41am

thanks bonkey thats the link I was after

as for the toy, No I just cant see a fish or a bird in it, the egyptian glider, yeah thats birdlike, but the Nazca one has too many 'engineered' features to be anything natural IMO

as someone mentioned earlier they could hve built baloons and hang gliders fairly easily. so thats where I'm leanin at the moment, but I wouldnt rule out powered flight or Alien involvement just yet

bonkey · 22-05-2009 12:12pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for the toy, No I just cant see a fish or a bird in it, the egyptian glider, yeah thats birdlike, but the Nazca one has too many 'engineered' features to be anything natural IMO

The point I was making is that once we allow for inaccuracies on account of it being a toy or a symbolic representation, then the very same allowances mean it can be pretty-much anything.

We know that many ancient cultures had depictions of mythical beasts. Parts of the profile of that golden whatever-it-is remind me somehow of Chinese dragons.

As for appearing "engineered"...I certainly agree that aspects of it have that appearance. I hope we can agree that its a subjective question, though, and remember that we should correctly say that it [has features that appear engineered, rather than that the features are engineered.

as someone mentioned earlier they could hve built baloons and hang gliders fairly easily.

I know that someone has played around trying to create a hot-air balloon with the materials and tech of the day, with limited success. I'm not sure of any such claims or experiments regarding hang-gliders.

Black Swan · 22-05-2009 8:05pm

bonkey wrote: »

The point I was making is that once we allow for inaccuracies on account of it being a toy or a symbolic representation, then the very same allowances mean it can be pretty-much anything.

The head of the toy looks like a fish head, with protruding eyes and open fish mouth?

King Mob wrote: »

Looks like a fish too.

The toy looks like a flying fish, even with the second smaller wings aft of the larger wings?
flying%20fish%202.jpg

The curved symbol on the wings of the toy looks like the curved symbol that goes through the center of the Mayan fish god?

Steyr · 23-05-2009 12:00am

Always found Conspiracy Theories interesting, also find these Egyptian Hieroglyphs/paintings interesting too

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/alien3egypt6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/alien_pictures5.html&usg=__UhOktDBE-pUFcW0ff_EYnekWkt0=&h=538&w=800&sz=63&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=vk15R7OtsCDFhM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalien%2Bhieroglyphs%2BEgypt%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4RNWE_enIE306IE306%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Mahatma coat · 23-05-2009 6:25am

OK new Lappy acquired, now the theory

as has ben pointed out, we have no power source for a flying machine, so barring majical fairy dust powered engines.

We have already postulated that they had hot air baloons, and I dont consider it too big a stretch that a people that liven in mountainous regions had knowledge of Kites and Gliders.

So what are the advantages of Baloons? Lift

What are the disadvantages of Baloons? Control

what are the advantages of Gliders? Directional control

What are the disadvantages of Gliders? lack of power to get you elevated.

So what if they combined both?

Consider the artifact again, what if the central ( fishlike :rolleyes: ) part was some sort of large Blimp like hot air baloon, and the wings are just that, glider wings.

a machine like this would be fairly simple to operate

1) stoke teh fires ad lift the craft to desired altitude
2) once you are at the correct altitude orientate the craft in the right direction
( this could be what the tail nubs are for)
3) cut the fires and Gravity and Aerodynamics are on your side
4) cruise to your intended destination
5) as you get closer to your intend destination restoke the fires
( this should slow the crafts descent)
6) land the craft.
(obviously without engines to slow the approach a very long runway is required to land)

tis possible to build a such a craft with just the (known) technology available in S.America at the time, and we know that they had a reasonably decent grasp of maths and sciences

so what do ye think of the theory? Will it Fly:D:D

WakeUp · 23-05-2009 6:35am

bonkey wrote: »

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It is, however, also not evidence of existence.

Asking for evidence allows us to determine the basis on which a claim has been made. In the absence of evidence, then we can fall back on reason, or even speculation...which are perhaps more subjective, but its still better than nothing.

I think it looks more like a plane than anything else I can identify. That said, I can see several things which look distinct "non planelike" about it. Should I ignore those, and just accept that its allowed to be a plane that doesn't look quite like a plane....but at the same time refuse to accept that it could be a depiction of a (real or imaginary) animal that doesn't quite look like an animal?

Personally, I currently side with the notion of "I don't know what its supposed to be". The absence of evidence, for me, is just that...an absence, sufficient to prevent me from reaching a conclusion, even speculatively.

This is one of the reasons I'd like to see pictures of the "back" of the thing. It might give me more of an idea...

Looking at some of the ideas postulated here...what if the Nazca had flying machines? As has been pointed out, a lot of the other evidence seems to suggest a society which didn't have such advances. One can argue that maybe they used some power-source that we have no concept of, so this is why we see no traces of industrialisation...but they still had to manufacture the things, right? This, in turn, would beg the question...why is this golden artefact so relatively crude, in comparison to what one would expect from a society advanced enough to understand the aerodynamics of a delta-wing, to have manufacturing capability for flying craft, and so forth. As an explanation, it seems to pose more questions then it answers.

The idea that Nazca had seen flying machines, rather than having them is, perhaps more credible. Unfortunately, it doesn't really answer much...and begs a whole load of new questions. It would, be consistent with the notion that the Nazca worshipped some sort of "sky god", and that their various line-drawings were some sort of tribute to said god. Of course, other cultures have worshipped sky gods, sun gods and the like with no evidence of flying machines...so we should (at the least) note the distinction of an explanation being consistent with something, and an explanation being the only grounds for something.

fair comments. I think the Golden artifact though looks pretty slick actually well crafted, seems to be a bit of detail to it aswell, you had any luck finding a picture of the back of it yet?...

King Mob · 23-05-2009 11:45am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK new Lappy acquired, now the theory

as has ben pointed out, we have no power source for a flying machine, so barring majical fairy dust powered engines.

We have already postulated that they had hot air baloons, and I dont consider it too big a stretch that a people that liven in mountainous regions had knowledge of Kites and Gliders.

So what are the advantages of Baloons? Lift

What are the disadvantages of Baloons? Control

what are the advantages of Gliders? Directional control

What are the disadvantages of Gliders? lack of power to get you elevated.

So what if they combined both?

Consider the artifact again, what if the central ( fishlike :rolleyes: ) part was some sort of large Blimp like hot air baloon, and the wings are just that, glider wings.

a machine like this would be fairly simple to operate

1) stoke teh fires ad lift the craft to desired altitude
2) once you are at the correct altitude orientate the craft in the right direction
( this could be what the tail nubs are for)
3) cut the fires and Gravity and Aerodynamics are on your side
4) cruise to your intended destination
5) as you get closer to your intend destination restoke the fires
( this should slow the crafts descent)
6) land the craft.
(obviously without engines to slow the approach a very long runway is required to land)

tis possible to build a such a craft with just the (known) technology available in S.America at the time, and we know that they had a reasonably decent grasp of maths and sciences

so what do ye think of the theory? Will it Fly:D:D

Firstly you wouldn't need a 23km long runway to land something like that.

And there's a huge difference between a blimp/gilder and an airplane.
Why the sudden change?

And if they could build something like that how come there's no other evidence for it aside from this one type of artifact?

6th · 23-05-2009 11:54am

King Mob wrote: »

And there's a huge difference between a blimp/gilder and an airplane.
Why the sudden change?

Because he is theorising and willing to adapt his stance.

ilkhanid · 23-05-2009 1:07pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How did the Allies Build Runways in the Pacific during WW2? they sent advanced crews in to make them, they didnt just send a squadron of P57 Mustangs off in the hope that there would be a runway.

Hold on a moment...The advanced crews arrived by ship. But if there are aliens arriving, the only way they can arrive is by spaceship. So the question stands.

6th · 23-05-2009 1:14pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

Hold on a moment...The advanced crews arrived by ship. But if there are aliens arriving, the only way thay can arrive is by spaceship. So the question stands.

The only way they can arrive is by spaceship? What are you basing these rules/limitations on? Only playing devils advocate here but why could a ship not hozer over land and set down vertically?

King Mob · 23-05-2009 1:23pm

6th wrote: »

The only way they can arrive is by spaceship? What are you basing these rules/limitations on? Only playing devils advocate here but why could a ship not hozer over land and set down vertically?

Then if they could do that, why build a runway at all?

6th · 23-05-2009 1:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then if they could do that, why build a runway at all?

Different types of craft? Larger craft may have different needs?

I'm not saying aliens did it but the stuff is weird, why not discuss some ideas - even if they seem wild.

jonbravo · 23-05-2009 1:58pm

did anyone ever hear of 1991 vg!?
have a read of this; http://wanderling.tripod.com/1991_vg.html
its a bit of [alien??? ]technology
which will return to earth 2016.
i was listening to cliff stone of the disclosure project in an interview and he mentioned 1991 vg.

King Mob · 23-05-2009 2:08pm

6th wrote: »

Different types of craft? Larger craft may have different needs?

But it would be far far more efficient to keep the larger ship in orbit and use the smaller ships to land and do whatever it was they did.

6th wrote: »

I'm not saying aliens did it but the stuff is weird, why not discuss some ideas - even if they seem wild.

There's more than a few problems with the theory.
And one type of trinket that could represent any number of things is not enough evidence to conclude that aliens visited Earth or that ancient civilisations had flying machines.

6th · 23-05-2009 2:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

And one type of trinket that could represent any number of things is not enough evidence to conclude that aliens visited Earth or that ancient civilisations had flying machines.

I'm sure MC has based the theory on more than just one little gold plane/fish .... MC?

King Mob · 23-05-2009 2:26pm

6th wrote: »

I'm sure MC has based the theory on more than just one little gold plane/fish .... MC?

And that's why I've been asking if there where other depictions or artifacts that would support the theory.

foxinsox · 23-05-2009 2:27pm

Not derailing the thread of it's plane/fish angle.. but

I read a book recently and found it fascinating, covers some of the things mentioned in this thread already,not saying it's true or I believed all of it but it made me google lots and read some very interesting things referring to ancient civilisations!

Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock

Just my small addition to the thread...

There is stuff on youtube about it too!

Mahatma coat · 23-05-2009 2:58pm

well yes 6th more than one object,carving, precedent, across many regions, but not many more tho;) as it is I'm just theorising.

Why did I change my 'stance' as I have been asked, well I was presented witha series of qwstions and I felt that to resolve some of the technological issues it woul be best to attempt andsimplify the solution to something that those questioning would consider plausible for humans of the time, even tho they are merely specualting at the level of advancement themselves

King Mob · 23-05-2009 3:41pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well yes 6th more than one object,carving, precedent, across many regions, but not many more tho;) as it is I'm just theorising.

Why did I change my 'stance' as I have been asked, well I was presented witha series of qwstions and I felt that to resolve some of the technological issues it woul be best to attempt andsimplify the solution to something that those questioning would consider plausible for humans of the time, even tho they are merely specualting at the level of advancement themselves

So if you have to invent a new type of aircraft to fit the trinket, why do you believe it depicts a flying machine at all?

6th · 23-05-2009 4:24pm

The trinket is just that, its not a scaled model of a craft. Toys, jewellery, art etc often represent objects without being working models.

Here's a modern trinket, is it a plane, is it a fish? The same problems could be applied to it but the fact is its not meant to fly, its meant to represent something that does.

21lNIzvh9gL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

King Mob · 23-05-2009 4:40pm

6th wrote: »

looks like a whale.

Possible Ancient Human/Alien Technology and Civilisations?

Comments