Five Mysterious Artefacts

Vimana? Byrd has addressed that in detail. A mythical reference, overly hoaxed and having the same problem, no evidence beyond legend.

Nasca. I've never underestood what geoglyphs would have to do with aircraft. Again no evidence beyond a new age interpretation of ancient symbols.

Why these two areas would inspire production of jewelry that looks like an "airplane" from parts of the Americas doesn't quite hit the old nod button. I've seen a similar netsuke made of ivory, of a flying fish - if you looked at from the side it to could be mistaken for aircraft.

IMHO

Originally posted by Hanslune
Vimana? Byrd has addressed that in detail. A mythical reference, overly hoaxed and having the same problem, no evidence beyond legend.

Nasca. I've never underestood what geoglyphs would have to do with aircraft. Again no evidence beyond a new age interpretation of ancient symbols.

Why these two areas would inspire production of jewelry that looks like an "airplane" from parts of the Americas doesn't quite hit the old nod button. I've seen a similar netsuke made of ivory, of a flying fish - if you looked at from the side it to could be mistaken for aircraft.

IMHO

The thing is, the damn thing appears to have a cockpit, aerodynamic "f16-style" wings and the raised tail fin with two stabilizing fins (there are probably very technical names for these parts of an aircraft that I am completely unfamiliar with!).

Artifact


Fish


I mean, they don't look anything alike.

I don't even care if, despite looking almost identical to an airplane, it isn't, I just know that is not a flying fish.

Compare with an F16 plane:


And you can see that it shares exactly the same geometric shape of the wings, tail arrangement and the area for a cockpit.

I can see why you'd think it was a fish and find it easy to explain away like that, as the flying fish do sometimes have what appears to be a second set of tail fins (although one site I saw while researching this claims they are an extension of the first), but the triangulation of the tail is completely different to that of the rounded fins of the fish, and the fact the fishes tail fins go below mainly, rather than above, its body.

The body also does not resemble the streamlined look of the fish - the fish are long and sleek, the artefact is short and dumpy, with some kind of undercarriage.

I could also find no images of flying fish with markings even vaguely similar to the spiral patters on the artefact.

If vimanas have been utterly debunked in every concievable way, any chance of getting your sources together and updating the wikipedia article? It still thinks they were flying saucers.

Howdy CC

Recommend you do a comparsion and assemble all known examples of this art form. Determine how many look like a "F-15" and how many don't. I believe you'll find that the ones that remotely look like aircraft are very rare. ie, if you cherry pick the data and look at that information in isolation you can come up with some interesting stuff. What are the ones that DON'T look like airplanes then?

Bottom line, besides, "it looks like" what do you have to back up high technology at that time period?

Madame Byrd is the Vimana expert.