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

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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??

King Mob

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

King Mob

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

King Mob

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????

King Mob

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

King Mob

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;)

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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?