300 BC ....is that enough proof...

This site has very nice BC artwork related to this topic...check it out, some of them imo are much clearer than the "mayan rocketman".

reply to post by senshido


Nice site. The presence of (UFO's if thats what they are) is much stronger evidence for Alien Astronauts, I like the renaisseance pics with disc in the background and rockets.

very intriguing..

History is littered with clous that suggest visits of alien life and their technology.

Originally posted by merka
300 BC? That's nothing. Those bastard birds went MILLIONS of years into the future and stole the theory of flight from us!!!

I mean think on it. Just like the "Saqqara Plane" on that site, there are clear similarities. Planes fly and birds fly, thus birds must have been inspired by planes. Planes have wings and birds have wings, yet another nail in the coffin as birds clearly stole our modern wing design. Planes also got a tail wing, just like birds do. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!

So the UFO's or strange things we see could be us visiting from the future?

I suppose like that tv series we could come back to see some historical disasters ,so the more UFO sightings the more likely something is going to hit the fan.

Ive always wondered if there would be any evidence if time travel was to become a reality, i even keep my eyes open during my many hours researching and closley examining pictures etc, Some of these items could be evidence of time travel.

Maybe not into the past but from the past to the future and back again (and i dont single out the delta wing/flying fish) it would be a fantastic day if maybe one day we found a cave painting depicting someone wearing a digital watch.

I am a firm believer in the ancient advanced civilisation and i am collecting evidence as i find it, i promise you there is so much circumstantial evidence of a race more advanced than we are, the problem is in the translations, one misinterpretation can destroy years of work for even the most careful researcher.

Someone said earlier that its our modern day vision or interpretation of what we see, However isn't the more important thing the interpretaion of the person who paints or creates these items or paints the picture?

What was on their minds when these things where born into existance? what had they seen? Yeah a flying fish perhaps but flying fish does not and can not account for them all.

There are no flying fish on the Nile!! The ocean is far away!! There are no reports of flying fish in all of Egyptology and they have no shape even close to the article mentioned. It could be that some ancient had an inspired vision of a flying craft and carved that out..but then again..

No matter what, it ain't no flying fish!!

Originally posted by qonone
So the UFO's or strange things we see could be us visiting from the future?

Much more likely than aliens. At least we know we exist, and may have a good chance of making it into the future. A craft created by humans who are familiar with the atmosphere and how to fly in it would be much more likely to build a craft like that. It's a relatively efficient way to get around without having to rely on fusion engines for gravity drives, etc.

Which is not to say that's what it is. It could be just a fancy trinket that just happens to look a little like what we recognize as an airplane. As with the seemingly endless "OMG! Ruins on Mars/Moon!" threads, just because something looks like something, that's not proof that that's what it is.

But, since it's just as likely to be a time travel artifact as E.T., that leaves it up to the proponents of E.T. to come up with more evidence to positively identify it as such. So get to work you ETH people!

What amazes me is how so many people ignore the artistic capabilities of common human beings. Maybe I am a little (or a lot) influenced by my sister, who is an artist, but I am used to see how common it is to stylize things when making artistic (meaning not made to just be useful) objects.

When we see a Mayan statue (especially a small one) of a man are expecting to see a perfect reproduction of a man?

Or the representations of jaguars on Mayan art? We recognise them as jaguars because we are not expecting to see esoteric things in them.

In the same way, we should look at those "birds", "UFOs", "fishes", etc., in the same way we see other art pieces, as art and not as faithful representations of things that existed like that at the time.

Should we also think that the "UFOs" were of that size? Why can we adjust the size to make it fit some ideas and not fit other characteristics to fit some other idea?

Seriously, this type of discussion just shows how little people know about their own (human) race...

these image is probebly the most difficult to debunk, i expect....

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

Nope.
Abydos Debunked
The Egyptians didn't have the benefit of whiteout.

Originally posted by Jshock
Nope.
Abydos Debunked
The Egyptians didn't have the benefit of whiteout.

its so funny how something like that which is obviously a helicopter is given some ridiculous "explanation" of how it cant be and people really buy into it and will say it is obviously not a helicopter.

ITS A HELICOPTER!! come on, use your own brain, dont believe what everyone tells you. what are the chances that these ancient depictions would be done, "redone" and eroded to look that close to a helicopter, a spaceship and a jet?

how can you really believe that?

reply to post by eyewitness86


Sorry eyewitness86, I have gone fishing on the Red Sea at least 100 times and there are flying fish everywhere just about jumping in the boat as you cruise and dontforget Ramses chased Moses into the Sinai across the Red Sea, but as you say theres nothing on the walls of the temples relating to flying fish, the Red Sea is only 130 Kms from Luxor in Upper Egypt.
I have tried to draw similarities for many years as to the Myans and Egyptians having commonalities, but there are to many skeptics, Reed boats were possible around the 18th dynasty which was the last of the real Pharoahs, where did they go or did the Greeks kill them all.
gwhint

Thought I would put up a little addition to help with the OP and flight recorded in ancient history.

India (circa 3000 B.C.)
One type of aircraft used in India was “as big as a temple and
five stories high.”

The Mahabharata (written 500 B.C., but referring to a period
1,000 to 2,000 years earlier) makes repeated references to great god-kings
riding about in vimanas or “celestial cars,” described as “aerial chariots
with sides of iron clad with wings”. They were used both for peaceful
transportation and in war.
There is mention of some flying cars which have crashed and are out of
action, others standing on the ground, others already in the air.
The vimana was shaped like a sphere and borne along at great speed on
a mighty wind generated by mercury. It moved in any way the pilot might
desire, up or down, forward or backward.

The Ramayana (likewise very ancient) describes one vimana as
“furnished with window compartments and excellent seats.”
“Bhima flew along in his car, resplendent as the sun and loud as
thunder…The flying chariot shone like a flame in the night sky of summer.”
The vimana was a double-deck circular aircraft with portholes and a
dome. It flew with the “speed of the wind” and gave forth a “melodious
sound.” A pilot had to be well trained; otherwise no vimana was placed in
his hands. The craft performed maneuvers which only helicopters can do
partially today, i.e., stop and remain motionless in the sky.
Detailed descriptions of the ocean and landscape from a great aerial
height are given.
The vimanas were kept in hangars, and employed for warfare, travel or
sport. “A vimana rose vertically into the air with a whole family on board,
and with a tremendous noise.”

The ancient Samarangana Sutradhara relates that “the chariot
was automatic; big and well-painted, it had two floors and many rooms and
windows.”
This document deals with take-off, cruising for thousands of miles,
normal and forced landings, and even with possible collisions of aircraft
with birds.
The advantages and disadvantages of different types of aircraft are
discussed at length, as to their relative capabilities of ascent, cruising speed
and descent, and recommendations given regarding suitable metals for
construction.
Also dealt with are informative details on how to take pictures of enemy
planes, methods of determining their approach pattern, means of rendering
their pilots unconscious, and how to destroy enemy planes. The secret of
making planes invisible, and the secret of hearing conversations and other
sounds in enemy planes is documented.

The Mahavira records that “an aerial chariot, the Pushpaka,
conveys many people to the ancient capital of Ayodhya. The sky is full of
stupendous flying-machines, dark as night, but picked out by lights with a
yellowish glare.”

The Vedas tell us of vimanas of various types and sizes: the
“agnihotravimana” with two engines, the “elephant vimana” with more, and
other types named after the kingfisher, ibis, etc.—very much as we now
christen aircraft types.

The Sanskrit term “vimana vidya” means the science of
building and piloting airships.

Of course most of the aircraft descriptions are along the lines of what we commonly refer to UFO's, however these are clearly man made and not alien. If you have read the book of Dizan (not sure of spelling) it describes aircraft used in war. This is not an isolated story but one told around the world.

Not that the Aztec / Mayan artifact might not be a flying fish but I don't know of any flying fish carrying people in flight.

reply to post by Jshock


This is a ridiculous attempt at debunking. Egyptian scribes were trained to communicate with their hieroglyphics. How can you read hieroglyphics superimposed on each other? This would make them unreadable to whom they wanted to communicate! And to state that the Egyptians didn't claim to have flying machines is false. The stories of their gods such as Horus, the FALCON GOD, are replete with descriptions of Horus defeating his enemies in his flying machine that had lights that could change from red to blue and back to red. In fact the ancient Egyptians, on their holidays, would visit the BEN BEN SHRINE, just as how modern Americans visit the Smithsonian to view with awe the space vehicles of our heroes. You see, the BEN BEN was the flying machine that brought their gods to earth, and was housed in their Smithsonian for tourists to view!

I bet Iif I had some wild imaginations back then and made up whatever object some dude in a few thousand years later is going to make a connection to something that was invented in that thaousand years later era.

So if I made something cyllindrical in shape or bird looking shapes thousands of year ago to denote some random stuff that popped in my mind (like the representaion of a bird in my mind or a ummmmm let's see a log? ) thousands of years ago some tin foil hat wearing 'scientists' in this era is going to say "OMG it's a UFO!" "OMG its a Columbia Jet".

I find that to be utterly ridiculos.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by omnicron]

Ok i didnt read all the posts so if someone had already suggested this i apologise.
Ancient Mayans probably didn't have any aircraft but definately observed them. Societies that have not reached our level of technology are only concerned with the things around them and things that affect their way of life. Aircraft landing near them or flying by would definately be a big deal and they would be inclined to keep a record of such an event or at least for storytelling purposes.
Now since they were at a much lower level of technology, they would have no words to describe what it is they saw, no reference to anything like it in their histories and nothing to compare them to in their known world. The only thing they would be able to compare them to are birds and thus probably the only conclusion they would come to. Especially if they did not know that they were artificial craft and that someone or something was inside of it, flying it. It would only appear to have flown by or landed and took off again, much like a bird.
Also take into consideration that cockpit windows are usually located where the eyes of a bird would be, the possibility that there were unique characteristics about the object ( logos, decals, peripherals, ordinance) and finally what look like little engines under the wings of the carvings, and you have yourself an ancients perspective of modern day aircraft.

reply to post by omnicron

I bet Iif I had some wild imaginations back then and made up whatever object some dude in a few thousand years later is going to make a connection to something that was invented in that thaousand years later era.

Lots of ideas that were out of place in their point of time have been generated throughout the years. If you look at authors lie HG Wells for example. in the late 1800s early 1900s he was writing books about space travel, time travel, alien invasion, dna manipulation etc. And lets not forget Gene Roddenberry whose writings are now the focus of major research into advanced technologies such as anti gravity, warp drive, teleportation, replication, the list goes on.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can produce ideas that many years later end up being scientific fact, either they are well informed asif they are connected to something or someone who knows something we don't.
Its like these carvings, if my theory from my previous post is correct however that is not the case. but if i am right why were aircraft patroling the skies over a primitive race of people?

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Ok i didnt read all the posts so if someone had already suggested this i apologise.
Ancient Mayans probably didn't have any aircraft but definately observed them. Societies that have not reached our level of technology are only concerned with the things around them and things that affect their way of life. Aircraft landing near them or flying by would definately be a big deal and they would be inclined to keep a record of such an event or at least for storytelling purposes.
Now since they were at a much lower level of technology, they would have no words to describe what it is they saw, no reference to anything like it in their histories and nothing to compare them to in their known world. The only thing they would be able to compare them to are birds and thus probably the only conclusion they would come to. Especially if they did not know that they were artificial craft and that someone or something was inside of it, flying it. It would only appear to have flown by or landed and took off again, much like a bird.
Also take into consideration that cockpit windows are usually located where the eyes of a bird would be, the possibility that there were unique characteristics about the object ( logos, decals, peripherals, ordinance) and finally what look like little engines under the wings of the carvings, and you have yourself an ancients perspective of modern day aircraft.

this is exactly what ive been trying to explain all along and if you still have trouble understanding this then look at this link and then read the quote above.

www.philipcoppens.com...

and this one too!

www.conspiracyresearch.org...

reply to post by senshido


Great link, was quite interesting to see the pictures and read some of the descriptions behind them.

As far as these being evidence of Aliens, sure it's possible. It is also quite possible that they were seeing time travelers in the past and we still are today. Having read recent articles on both time travel and faster than light travel being theoretically possible I could see either explanation as being likely. I also believe in the many worlds theories, I could see dimensions kind of interacting in strange ways so that we see at least a small part of a universe where technology advanced faster than ours. All in all a very neat subject and open to many different levels of interpretation.

remember that insects & birds always have the wings connected to their shoulders and their legs underneath the artifact in question has the wing underneath the body
this leeds me to conclude that this isnt an insect or bird!!!!

[edit on 10-1-2008 by ST SIR 86]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by ST SIR 86]