Ancient Airport?

i know about the aerodynamic claims and you got it wrong
they were tested and found to be aerodynamically unsound until two "researchers" happened to build one to demonstrate it at the " Ancient Astronaut Society World Conference,"

as you can see there are a lot of changes that have been made to make their model viable aeronautically because they couldn't get an exact replica to do anything but crash into the ground



perhaps thats why you couldn't bring yourself to mention it with your wide open mind


something I can't find though
not one single report of the location or excavation that these were allegedly found at which would prove them genuine. the photographs are always listed as by Pinney and Nashold who's only other work seems to be pseudo historic quackery for the archnemesis of logical thought David Hatcher Childress

I had a look in chariots of the gods which holds the claim for bringing them to the attention of the general public
guess what
no reference or details at all as to where they actually came from. just the claim over and over that they are south american and over 1000 years old. which incidentally places them far too late to have anything to do with Nazca and far too early to have anything to do with the height of mesoamerican culture

which means they have no provenance at all as far as I can see.

anyone else got any more details ?

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


I do admire the way you love to prove a point ... and I thank you so much for just proving mine with such dexterity.

Well done 'kerky', I knew you wouldn't let me down

Every thread that I've dipped into because it looks promising (since i joined ATS), seems to get hijacked by the same set of debunkers who are hellbent on destroying the potential for a damn good topic. I'm not saying they're not entitled to an opinion but why do they feel such a passionate need to derail every thread that strays from their own mind-set ?

Hanslune: Why is providing accurate information “derailing”, if you want to discussion something in a fact free world, then I would recommend star trek, star wars or LOTR – those are made up places

Question; why do such 'passionate debunkers' assume that any advanced, ancient civilization would (if they 'did' exist), automatically have developed exactly the same way that our own civilization (and I use the term loosely), has ?

Hanslune: My only assumption is that they are human and humans like ourself. If they are not human then all bets are off, however if they eat stuff, then they will tend to leave a trace.

Question; why is it assumed by the same family of debunkers that 'if' intelligent life exists elswhere it 'must' be carbon-based. This has always puzzled me. I'm sure at least two of you debunkers will have an indisputable comeback for me !

Hanslune: I wasn’t aware that that subject has come up – or why it has come up? I presume all Egyptians are carbon-based, LOL

I think there has been the mention of something smelling bad in a couple of previous posts in this thread ... well I have to agree ... it is the smell of pedantic narrow-mindedness.

Hanslune: you mean reality based on evidence? We are discussing reality in a real place if you want a purely fictional discussion I can do that – I tend to not mix the two.

But more disconcerting is something that 'Cybertroy' mentioned previously. Do the usual suspects from the 'debunk mafia' invade particular threads in an effort to ridicule the opinions of those people who are not afraid to stretch their minds ... beyond what can be read in scholarly books or learned via robotical school taught methods, to deliberatley deliver the kiss of death to some very thought-provoking threads.

Hanslune: “invade” this is a public discussion board – if you don’t want to deny ignorance go to private boards

What are they so irrationally scared we might turn-up ?

Hanslune: ???

Does academic intellect always mean having the answers ?

Hanslune: It means knowing how to look for evidence and basing your conclusions on that evidence – NOT on what you want to believe

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


i'd just like to interject and say that the model plane you have shown is nothing like the model i saw which flew, I believe it was done by some south America dudes. If my connection was better i would search and provide links to the video documentary I saw (the original one i have has funnily enough, been removed from video.google, hmmm wonder why!). I can assure you though, the ones that flew were exact models of the artifacts apart from the fact they had a propeller to keep it air born. If it wasn’t aerodynamic and irrespective of it having a propeller or not, it would have struggled and crashed.

And as far as im concerned, there’s nothing wrong with people being overly skeptical and debunking everything and anything, makes us more open minded people use our brains harder to find better proof or better theories

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

Originally posted by woodwytch
Every thread that I've dipped into because it looks promising (since i joined ATS), seems to get hijacked by the same set of debunkers who are hellbent on destroying the potential for a damn good topic.

Dont worry about it. They will be taken care of in the course of time. If our evidence is really that strong it can stand up to any type of attempted rebuttal. Something that is said to be and claimed to be debunked is not necessarily debunked. Just because someone says it is, doesnt make it so. Truly, a lot of things have been debunked, but many more just appear to have been.

Dont worry about it. They will be taken care of in the course of time. If our evidence is really that strong it can stand up to any type of attempted rebuttal. Something that is said to be and claimed to be debunked is not necessarily debunked. Just because someone says it is, doesnt make it so. Truly, a lot of things have been debunked, but many more just appear to have been.

My my how will I be "taken care of in the course of time"? That is an interesting use of words Skyfloating what exactly do you mean? Since these are academic discussions between friends this seem an odd use of language.

The problem is that your evidence is weak, in many cases it just made up, you appear to be taking a subject and "personalizing" it. If new evidence of aliens showed up tomorrow I would be very pleased and would accept it.

So Skyfloating what only "appears" to be debunked? Some sorta concrete evidence? Please bring it forth.

reply to post by Hanslune


By "taken care of in the course of time" I mean that truth will prevail and BS be debunked. In other words: Time will tell.

Unless new evidence arrives nothing much is going to happen. Most of the evidence you appear to use is 4th or 5th hand. So unless the archaeological or other scientific groups finds something new the present stuff isn't going to go forward and change anyones mind

reply to post by Hanslune

Hanslune: Why is providing accurate information “derailing”, if you want to discussion something in a fact free world, then I would recommend star trek, star wars or LOTR – those are made up places

The accuracy of your information comes from….where?? An old boys club (that's how it started!)

Hanslune: My only assumption is that they are human and humans like yourself. If they are not human then all bets are off, however if they eat stuff, then they will tend to leave a trace.

Assuming! I thought that fact finders (such as yourself) never assumed anything, “to ‘assume’ makes an ass of u and me”
I thought (and I could be wrong here) you only went on facts that were presented to you as you grew up!
Traces of human (or other organic material) fade over time. You might get lucky and find a skull or two!

Hanslune: I wasn’t aware that that subject has come up – or why it has come up? I presume all Egyptians are carbon-based, LOL

And now you are presuming (what next!! Will you be opening your minds to ‘other possibilities’)

Hanslune: you mean reality based on evidence? We are discussing reality in a real place if you want a purely fictional discussion I can do that – I tend to not mix the two.

Based on whose evidence? that of a ‘country club’ load of archeologists who’s main income is from peddling their books and doctrine to a closed minded society??

Hanslune: “invade” this is a public discussion board – if you don’t want to deny ignorance go to private boards

And if you want to deny ignorance, lay off this doctrine of everything that went before is sacrasant, and you believe, is true. That, is ignorance!

Does academic intellect always mean having the answers ?

Hanslune: It means knowing how to look for evidence and basing your conclusions on that evidence – NOT on what you want to believe

“Captain Columbus? You mean to tell me you are going to look for a passage to India by sailing West” “Yes Ma’am I believe there is a way!!” (My interpretation of the facts)

You guy's! ! lol, pfft! open your eyes to a doctrine that has a society based on a 'club' mentality.

Almost forgot: Thank you for your post!


[edit on 23-11-2007 by Havalon]

Sorry Havlon but your assumptions about archaeology are incorrect

Archaeology is publicly open methodology using the scientific method, most if not all materials are open to the public (you might need to join a library or buy a subscription) but the information is available to anyone.

Anyone can challenge the information.

To Columbus, unfortunately Columbus was wrong, he had the wrong size of the earth – the queen’s advisors were right – they thought the earth was round and of the size we now know. But it turned out alright, both sides didn’t realize that the Americas were in the way.

Aaaaaand ... yep the tag-team are back in action and another good thread has gone way off topic yet again.

Hanslune; (see the reply I posted to 'kerky') ... now I'm no angler so why am I seeing a clear image of fishing tackle in my head ... I can see a hook ... a line ... what's that other thing ... ah yes ... a sinker. And the sound of a great big reel whirring like crazy. lol

Ok, I'm being serious now, the point I am trying to make (with a little humour to lighten the mood), is it's fine for people to disagree and have opposite opinions (life would be so boring if we all agreed).

Heck, it can even bring about a completely new understanding of a particular topic ... but when it gets personal it can put other people off joining in with the discussion. This means ALL of us (whichever side we're on), could miss out on a fantastic ... never before heard piece of information/evidence ... that could lead to concrete proof (for either side).

The derogative terminology e.g; pseudo-historians/writers ... quacks etc. made by some who post on these topics, is very personal and offensive and is (I'm certain), a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of anyone who does not share their own opinions. Sadly and more often than not, this results in the death of a thread that has the potential for many more valuable and interesting posts for all of us.

Question; Because we can't see electical currents ... or invisible energies, does it mean they don't exist ?

As yet no-one can say with absolute certainty whether the Nazca Lines were designed for use as a runway/underground water systems/ritual pathways ... or whether the ancient Columbian/Egyptian artifacts are aeroplanes/insects/toys !

But one thing that is absolutely certain is, if we don't open our minds and never dare to summize with an obscure perspective (at least occasionally), we could all be missing out on the reality of such things.

The guy who started this thread took the time and effort to share personal observations with us all ... I for one appreciate that because I am curious about this topic and have a desire to learn more about it.

WITHOUT CONTINUED EXPLORATION & EXPERIMENT WE CAN NEVER HAVE NEW DISCOVERY !!!

This is to anyone out there; Please keep posting information on this subject, I for one find it fascinating.

Rapturas & Sky; nice to catch-up with you guys again and still fighting the good fight. Good comments

reply to post by Hanslune

Unless new evidence arrives nothing much is going to happen.

But new evidence is happening all the time, it is just that the ‘old guard’ do not want it tainting their reputations, and rather than embrace it, they see it as a threat to their reputation, (and book sales!)

Most of the evidence you appear to use is 4th or 5th hand.

And how old is your evidence? How many ‘hands’ has it passed through, quite a few I’d say!

So unless the archaeological or other scientific groups finds something new the present stuff isn't going to go forward and change anyones mind

Why does it have to be the ‘archaeological’ groups that have the final say? There are plenty of ‘alternative theories’ that fit in with what is found amongst the dust and rubble.

Sorry Havlon but your assumptions about archaeology are incorrect

I never assume anything! I check wherever possible. Did you check my name?

Archaeology is publicly open methodology using the scientific method,

It uses the scientific method available at the time.

most if not all materials are open to the public (you might need to join a library or buy a subscription) but the information is available to anyone.

Unbeknown to you, I have held a membership too and a subscription to some of the finest libraries in Britain, I do not come here unprepared. The information to which you refer is based upon what was known at the time.

Anyone can challenge the information.

And yes we do!

To Columbus, unfortunately Columbus was wrong, he had the wrong size of the earth – the queen’s advisors were right – they thought the earth was round and of the size we now know. But it turned out alright, both sides didn’t realize that the Americas were in the way.

And what did the Queens advisors have to go on? Had they been there before him?
Had they got the full ‘facts’ of the earths circumference? I don’t thinks so..they were ‘speculating’ they 'thought' the earth was round.

Thank you for your post.

reply to post by woodwytch


My goodness! you are so right, we do tend to get distracted so easily by these interuptions. The last time this happened the thread disappeard into the ether, is that right Sky? Just when it was all begining to make sense.

The gang tackling is something of the 'norm' now sad to say. ("Me thinks they doth protest too much!")

Let us get back on topic,

But new evidence is happening all the time, it is just that the ‘old guard’ do not want it tainting their reputations, and rather than embrace it, they see it as a threat to their reputation, (and book sales!)

Ah text books sale are dwarfed by sales of pseudo-history. How does new evidence effect “the reputations” of people who never saw it before?

Question who become a famous scientist -those who discover new things or those who discover nothing? .......

And how old is your evidence? How many ‘hands’ has it passed through, quite a few I’d say!

I read published papers which are second hand knowledge, in some cases I have first hand knowledge in some subjects. But that is not the meaning of the sentence what I meant was everything alternative people use is provided by the orthodox. Very little new material comes from that source.

Why does it have to be the ‘archaeological’ groups that have the final say? There are plenty of ‘alternative theories’ that fit in with what is found amongst the dust and rubble.

Alternative theories are based on the materials provided by the archaeological groups, very little amateur material is coming in these days. They are not accepted due to the weakness of the evidence.

I never assume anything! I check wherever possible. Did you check my name?

Then why are you wrong?

It uses the scientific method available at the time.

Not sure what you mean here, explain please? We are talking about now (or at least I am)

Unbeknown to you, I have held a membership too and a subscription to some of the finest libraries in Britain, I do not come here unprepared. The information to which you refer is based upon what was known at the time.

Then why do you feel archaeology is a “club” ?This is a false analogy

And what did the Queens advisors have to go on? Had they been there before him? Had they got the full ‘facts’ of the earths circumference? I don’t thinks so..they were ‘speculating’ they 'thought' the earth was round.

i see you are making assumptions again - why not just look it up?

From the link below:

All these results were known to the panel of experts which King Ferdinand appointed to examine the proposal made by Columbus. They turned Columbus down, because using the original value by Eratosthenes, they calculated how far India was to the west of Spain, and concluded that the distance was far too great.

Columbus had an estimate of his own. Some historians have proposed that he used an argument like Strabo's, but Dr. Fischer found his claim to be based on incorrect units of distance. Columbus used an erroneous estimate by Ptolemy (whom we meet again), who based it on a later definition of the stadium, and in estimating the size of the settled world he confused the Arab mile, used by El Ma'mun, with the Roman mile on which our own mile is based. All the same, his final estimate of the distance to India was close to Strabo's.

I other words Columbus thought the world was much smaller than it actually is, he expected to find India - right where the Americas are. The Queen's experts were certain he lacked the technology (water and food) to get that far

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I honestly am a bit surprised at rather local reach of some people's conclusions. What surprises me is that nobody has proposed (in most of these such threads) that another possibility exists; Someone ending up in the wrong time.

I would imagine, for example, that a pilot that suddenly found themselves 2000 years in the past (Or what not) might influence local peoples in the same form as the famous cargo cults.

The question being, of course, if there were people lost in time... there would be evidence for it. Perhaps, or perhaps most of the evidence was salvaged for more useful purposes of the time. This might explain anomalous OOP artifacts.

Of course, it's also just as possible that someone was flying about and the locals wanted to get their attention (Concerning the Nazca Lines).

reply to post by TheColdDragon


I like your thinking !

It certainly has as much potential as the idea that those doing the flying were responsible for creating the 'lines'. As silly as it might sound, I've never thought about it that way before.

New idea (to me at least), that's what I am personally looking for ... I can feel my mind stretching that extra little bit. I shall ponder on that awhile.

The nazca lines are made by clearing rocks away - showing a lighter colored subsoil. Any aircraft trying to land on such a "strip" would have major difficulties from FOD (foreign object damage) from sucking up rocks into the engine - of course if it was high tech they would have VTOL and woudn't need a strip at all.

reply to post by Hanslune


Please explain why this theory has to be correct ... how do we know they only had crafts that landed vertically? How do we know 'their' engines would 'suck-up' debri ?

Maybe they had various crafts (some for multi-dimesional travel ... others for localized activity), just like some families have more than one car e.g; people carrier for family outings ... smaller car for city travel etc ?

[edit on 23-11-2007 by woodwytch]

Originally posted by Havalon
reply to post by woodwytch

 

My goodness! you are so right, we do tend to get distracted so easily by these interuptions. The last time this happened the thread disappeard into the ether, is that right Sky? Just when it was all begining to make sense.

The gang tackling is something of the 'norm' now sad to say. ("Me thinks they doth protest too much!")

Let us get back on topic,

apparently it vanished because skyfloating was trolling information he had already posted elsewhere in a debate which he had lost. He wanted another go so he could lose again most probably

when you "pseudo quackery" believers come up with some concrete evidence I will look at it, at the moment you are recounting completely unsubstantiated claims that we have all heard which originate from people who use your gullibility to make money, we have examined this years out of date rubbish and seen it debunked many times already

its boring, please try harder and for gods sake get something original



btw EVD is not a good source

Originally posted by woodwytch


Please explain why this theory has to be correct ... how do we know they only had crafts that landed vertically? How do we know 'their' engines would 'suck-up' debri ?

Maybe they had various crafts (some for multi-dimesional travel ... others for localized activity), just like some families have more than one car e.g; people carrier for family outings ... smaller car for city travel etc ?

huh ?

youre the one claiming that they needed runways, now that you see they didn't you are asking for the rest of us to validate your personal belief in aliens....

I'll pass if thats ok with you