Possible Ancient Human/Alien Technology and Civilisations?

Mahatma coat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0xmXo77pX0

This is something that intrigues me, there have been a lot of advanced civilisations throughout human history, the most interisting ones IMO are the ones in South America, because we know so little about them and the people who built them, but as we examine their legacy it sems that they built some monumentaly huge things, so big that we didnt notice them at first glance but assumed a lot of it to be natural to the landscape.

I will add a few posts to this either during my lunch or tonight when I get home, there are a few morte things besides Nasaca I wish to discuss.

also the phenomenen is not isolated to S.America with large temple cities all over S.E Asia. and IMO evidence of a long gone civilisation in Australia

What exactly about the Nasca lines show it was impossible for the people to make them without the intervention of aliens?

And if we know so little about these civilisations can you honestly conclude that they had contact with aliens?

And if these aliens needed runways to land, how did they land to build the runways?

Mahatma coat

thats why it says Ancient SLASH Alien Tech.

I consider it feasible that these things were built by Humans for human invented machines.

I'm not so bold as to start a thread with a conclusion, what'd be the point of askin questions if I started with my conclusions

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.

the other thing to look at is Why are modern Runways shaped the way they are, if we understand the specific features of a modern runway we can apply that knowldege to these Runways and see if they conform, but from an initial look they seem to look a lot like modern runway complexes, some more than others tho, which is where I think the Cargo Cult thing comes into it.

I'll find a few photos for comparisons shortly

Black Swan

Where's the conspiracy theory?

The Mayan civilization in the Yucatan has been studied and continues to be by research teams from many nations, with extensive publications as investigations continue, along with Nova, National Geographic, and related documentary films. If someone was attempting to hide something about these investigations, they are doing a pretty poor job given the frequency and amount of information thus far made available to scholarly and public audiences.

As for the Mayan or other pockets of advancement about the world, certainly one would expect that civilization would advance in some areas at a faster rate than in areas not favoured by the environment or other preexisting conditions? Today we have lesser developed countries and more advanced countries, and ET help was not needed to account for the differences in the historical record.

Mahatma coat

OK the Conspiracy/Coverup as far as I see it

So the Aztecs/Incas/Mayans or some other such society existed in S. America before the conquistadors

disease wipes out a huge tract of the populations, especially those in Urban centres, years before the Spaniards get there.

the spaniards find ancient Flying machines and other stuff, they have no idea what it is, but they bundle it int their ships and take it back to Europe

spain is doin it inquisitions at the time, so anyone who might have an inkling as to what this stuff is stays quiet fr fear of bein tortured as a heretic

Stuff gets buried in a royal palace basement somewhere and remains there till the spanish civil war

Germans then lay their paws on it, realise what it is, smuggle it back to the fatherland and work on replicating the technology.

suddenly We have Rockets, Jet engines and Delta Wing aircraft, and supposedly Nazi flying Saucers at a base in Antartica

Black Swan

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the spaniards find ancient Flying machines and other stuff, they have no idea what it is, but they bundle it int their ships and take it back to Europe

Where is the physical evidence of these flying machines? Have there been any found by reliable researchers during one of the many digs in the Americas (or uncovered in Spain)?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Germans then lay their paws on it, realise what it is, smuggle it back to the fatherland and work on replicating the technology.

suddenly We have Rockets,

Rockets did not "suddenly" appear as a new form of technology in WWII. They had been around for hundreds of years in rudimentary forms. For example:

• 100 BC a Greek inventor known as Hero of Alexandria came up with a new invention that depended more on the mechanical interaction of heat and water. He invented a rocket-like device called an aeolipile.
• 1232 AD the Chinese used rockets against the Mongols who were besieging the city of Kai-fung-fu.
• All through the 13th to the 15th Century there were reports of many rocket experiments. For example, Joanes de Fontana of Italy designed a surface-running rocket-powered torpedo for setting enemy ships on fire.
• In 1650, a Polish artillery expert, Kazimierz Siemienowicz, published a series of drawings for a staged rocket.
• The success of Indian rocket barrages against the British in 1792 and again in 1799
• Rockets were used by British ships to pound Fort McHenry in the War of 1812.

Sources: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/tl1.html
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/rockets/history.html

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Jet engines

The concept of a jet engine was first theorized by Sir Isaac Newton in the 18th century; i.e., that a rearward-channeled explosion could propel a machine forward at a great rate of speed. This theory was based on his third law of motion. As the hot air blasts backwards through the nozzle the plane moves forward.

The WWII Germans were not the first to use a jet engine. It was Frank Whittle, a British pilot, who designed the first turbo jet engine in 1930. The first Whittle engine successfully flew in April, 1937. This engine featured a multistage compressor, and a combustion chamber, a single stage turbine and a nozzle.

Source: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljjetenginehistory.htm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and Delta Wing aircraft

Conception of this wing and its name have been suggested in 17th Century by Polish inventor Kazimierz Siemienowicz.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wings

Here is a history of the gradual evolution of these technologies occurring without the help of ancient civilizations in the Americas or from ET interventions? If so, then this would suggest contrary evidence for a conspiracy theory based upon Americas>Spain>Germany linkages mentioned above in your qualifying post?

Mahatma coat

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.

So if these aliens could land with out a runway why build one in the first place?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the other thing to look at is Why are modern Runways shaped the way they are, if we understand the specific features of a modern runway we can apply that knowldege to these Runways and see if they conform, but from an initial look they seem to look a lot like modern runway complexes, some more than others tho, which is where I think the Cargo Cult thing comes into it.

I'll find a few photos for comparisons shortly

They only look a bit like runways, as in they are long and straight, that's pretty much it. That does not imply that was their purpose especially when that is the only evidence for it.
But I don't think there is a runway that is 23 Km long.

To me it looks more like a racetrack.

Mahatma coat

found near Nazaca

predates the Conquistidors

how would you explain it??

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

found near Nazaca

predates the Conquistidors

how would you explain it??

Looks like a fish too.

But just so we're clear is the only evidence you're going to present along the lines of "It kinda looks like a plane"?

6th

Lads even the thread title says its just a possibility, why not discuss the possibility rather than put the idea down?

Mahatma coat

OK it only looks like a flying fish if you've never seen a flying fish, I caught one off the Solomons once, their wings are their pectoral fins, they dont look like that, find me one creature in nature with that shaped wing.

and yes as 6th poined out I'm just theorising here, theres evidence of toy planes found in Egyptian tombs too, I believe that we (thats Humans) have probably surpassed our current technological benchmarks before

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK it only looks like a flying fish if you've never seen a flying fish, I caught one off the Solomons once, their wings are their pectoral fins, they dont look like that, find me one creature in nature with that shaped wing.

And can you show a single plane that has a delta wing and a tail with those little nubs on it?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and yes as 6th poined out I'm just theorising here, theres evidence of toy planes found in Egyptian tombs too, I believe that we (thats Humans) have probably surpassed our current technological benchmarks before

And those "model planes" are model birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqqara_Bird

It's possible that the Egyptians could make little gilders. But there is nothing to suggest that they had man sized flying machines.

The Chinese had these little things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter
Does that mean they had helicopters?

But what exactly leads you to believe that we had more advanced technology then we do now?
And why would this fact be covered up?
And how could this fact be covered up from the archeologists?

Mahatma coat

thanks mob, I think you've just copperfastned my point

these 'toys' would not have come about lest ther was a frame of reference for them, hell I had something like one of those toy copters when I was a kid, and that egyptian plane is like the one I mentioned earlier.

the advanced technology wasnt so much covered up as LOST

and archeplogy is a rather specific discipline, we're only discovering the truth of ancient writings nowadays even though they wre translated up to a century ago, the reason, frames of reference, you can translat a book into any language, dosent mean you'll understand what its about, and a lot of the archeologits have a very narrow mindset and cant make the connections

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thanks mob, I think you've just copperfastned my point

these 'toys' would not have come about lest ther was a frame of reference for them, hell I had something like one of those toy copters when I was a kid, and that egyptian plane is like the one I mentioned earlier.

the advanced technology wasnt so much covered up as LOST

and archeplogy is a rather specific discipline, we're only discovering the truth of ancient writings nowadays even though they wre translated up to a century ago, the reason, frames of reference, you can translat a book into any language, dosent mean you'll understand what its about, and a lot of the archeologits have a very narrow mindset and cant make the connections

So then because the Chinese had those little helicopter things, they also had full sized powered helicopters?

Those toys could very much come about without full sized powered versions.

So if it was just lost how come no one has presented solid evidence for any of it?

The only reason archeologists don't go about proclaiming the Aztecs had airplanes is because they are bound by the evidence.

Mahatma coat

And can you show a single plane that has a delta wing and a tail with those little nubs on it?

this, this deserves to be taken seperatley, I can show you a plane with delta Wing, concorde Springs to mind, and I can show you a plane with those Nubs on the tail - Mcdonnel douglas planes had that.

you dismiss the concept, yet when pushed you demand evidence that modern planes are built in the same way as the model, which is it????

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this, this deserves to be taken seperatley, I can show you a plane with delta Wing, concorde Springs to mind, and I can show you a plane with those Nubs on the tail - Mcdonnel douglas planes had that.

you dismiss the concept, yet when pushed you demand evidence that modern planes are built in the same way as the model, which is it????

No I'm saying that it also looks like a fish. You correctly pointed out that some of it's features were not consistent with any fish.
I pointed out features that are not consistent with planes. Delta wing plus a tail plus those nubs all on one aircraft.

My point is it only looks superficially like a plane just as much as it only looks superficially like a fish.

Edit: And which McDonnell Douglas plane has these nubs?
I can't seem to find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas#Products

Mahatma coat

MD-90

Engines on the tail

a design feature of many MD planes

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

MD-90

Engines on the tail

a design feature of many MD planes

But on that ancient model the nubs are pointing upwards and would be on the tail plane.
It looks nothing like the engins on a MD-90.
And on top of that the MD-90 doesn't have a delta wing and has a T-tail.

Mahatma coat

they MIGHT rotate, VTOL Style;)

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

they MIGHT rotate, VTOL Style;)

And they might be powered by fairy dust. It's as about as likely.

So the only evidence for any ancient human flight is that some trinkets kinda look a bit like planes.
But on closer inspection they actually don't.

So why exactly do you believe that there was ancient technology that surpassed ours?

Take this huge structure in America.



So the Native Americans in the area must have had Ipods right?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thanks mob, I think you've just copperfastned my point

these 'toys' would not have come about lest ther was a frame of reference for them,

Nature?

Taking the sycamore seed. As it falls, it has a "helicopter" effect. Reverse the rotation, and you have something that can fly, as long as the power which supplied the reversed rotation is still in effect.

We know from the work of daVinci that he analysed nature (dissecting birds etc.) to gain an understanding of how it functioned...and then created sketches for ideas based on an application (and sometimes abstraction) of those ideas.

the advanced technology wasnt so much covered up as LOST

There is no question that there was techniques and technology which has been lost. The question is how "advanced" it may have been.

and archeplogy is a rather specific discipline,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Experimental archeology relies as much on experts in the relevant field as on archeologists. If you want to try and figure out, for example, how the stone-work in Machu Picchu was worked, you involve stone-cutters.

I have a friend, for example, who knaps flint. He uses an antler for his work. The tip is for fine work, and the "root" is for the brute-force stuff. He shaped and polished it himself, using no modern technology at all. Much of the technique which he uses...he figured out himself. He may not be as fast as stone-age knappers were. He may, in fact, be doing it completely differently. But he can show that the effects that they produced are possible to produce using only the tools that they had at the time.

we're only discovering the truth of ancient writings nowadays even though they wre translated up to a century ago, the reason, frames of reference, you can translat a book into any language, dosent mean you'll understand what its about, and a lot of the archeologits have a very narrow mindset and cant make the connections

The modern understandings of ancient languages are as much the work of cryptanalysts as archeologists.

The archeologists make the connection that if you want something decipehered / decrypted, then you either learn crypto techniques, or find an expert in crypto to help.

Archeology isn't just a field for stuffy academics who have a narrow view. It may have been that way up until a decade or so ago, but in that time, the experimental archeologists have started proving their worth, and are more and more accepted in the mainstream.

Even in that field, there are degrees of "experimental". Some people have way out ideas, others have really mundane ones. Ultimately, results are judged on success....if someone can show that something should have been possible, then its accepted that it may have been possible.

As an aside...this thread reminds me so much of Erich von Daniken's various writings.

6th

King Mob wrote: »

Take this huge structure in America.



So the Native Americans in the area must have had Ipods right?

I'd call it a formation rather than a structure.

What about this?



Evidence of a race of cloud spirits?

Simulacra.

jackiebrown

<snip>

6th

jackiebrown banned for 1 month.

6th

King Mob wrote: »

No I'm saying that it also looks like a fish.

Yeah but you have to admit it looks more like a plane than a bird.

6th

6th wrote: »

Yeah but you have to admit it looks more like a plane than a bird.

It does a bit.
But it's not a stretch to see it as a bird either.

6th

Ah now, it looks alot more like a plane than a bird and you're not doing yourself justice by dancing around the fact.

6th

6th wrote: »

Ah now, it looks alot more like a plane than a bird and you're not doing yourself justice by dancing around the fact.

And I did say it looks superficially like a plane Just as much as it superficially looks like a fish a few posts ago.

But there's several features the artifact has that a plane wouldn't, namely those little nubs on the tailplane. Just as it has features that fish don't, namely a delta wing.

bonkey

6th wrote: »

Yeah but you have to admit it looks more like a plane than a bird.

No question. It absolutely looks like a plane....to a point.

Its interesting to search about it on the 'net.

There seems to be an abundance of hits all of which are using the exact same wording. Also, some sites claim that "experts say" it is aerodynamically sound. Other sides claim that "experts say" the nose isn't aerodynamic and the wings are too far back. One site even manages to claim one of these, while linking to another site which claims the other!

Does anyone know where I can find pics of the back of it? I ask because when you see it in side-profile there is clearly some detail "behind" the delta...and I'd be interested in seeing what it is...

Black Swan

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?

Red Hand

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Mahatma coat

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

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

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

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

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

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?


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

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

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

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?...

Mahatma coat

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

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

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

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?

6th

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?