Ancient Technology

reply to post by merka


Hi Merka, how are you?

First of all, I never said it was sputnik or a Satellite. The object being the Earth is interesting, but its not that either. Thankyou for the opportunity to debunk both theories. In the following presentation, note that I have only adjusted color, scale, and resolution of the image, adding nothing to any of them besides cleaning them up a bit, and readjusting hues, contrast, and the colors.

The first image presented is the high resolution image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5fe9a3356300.jpg[/atsimg]

The next series of images show the clean up process. With the last image being the conclusion:

1.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d82ddd35a3d.jpg[/atsimg]


2.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/500eb3343036.jpg[/atsimg]


3.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d3c6634eef9.jpg[/atsimg]


Final: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abc58682696a.jpg[/atsimg]

It is my artistic opinion, that this is a painting within a painting, within the sphere. It is not the Earth, or a Satellite. You can clearly see the Sun, clouds, a building, and what appears to be a tree. Around the left and right sides of the sphere also appear to be trees that are reaching up to the sky, you can even discern branches as well. As far as the sticks are concerned, those might be paintbrushes.

Much like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/173bbd614793.jpg[/atsimg]

Interesting, and thanks again for making this possible.

reply to post by HermitShip


This entire scene is truly a work of Art. You have God, and his Son, creating the World as the Cherubs look on through the clouds. Then you have the saints below transcribing the Creation account. In the middle between the God and Son is the Dove, which is a symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit.

The Abydos carvings are a series of hieroglyphs, which were written over, leading to the imgaes today, some of what we equate with modern imagery.
CatchPenny has a excellent explanation. It should be noted the picture on the Ancient Tech site has been touched up with photo editing software.

The "Dendera Lights" are not lights, like it mentions they are part of a creation myth among the Egyptians tying into the Djed pillars in Egypt. It neglects to mention that the hieroglyphs around the pictures detail the myth.

The Baalbek Megaliths are the result of Roman engineering, which as evidenced by the antiketheruan device, as well as the amazing inventions of Hero (who was a Greek, yes, but much of his and others inventions were used by the Roman empire).
The quarry the stones were removed from was located uphill from the site, moving them would not have been incredibly difficult.


The Baghdad Battery is possibly my last favorite supposed oopart because it used to be my favorite.
They were simple religious jars, much like were found in the area at the time.
however, the fellow who excavated them made note that they resembled batteries.
Much later someone decided to try to set them up as batteries. It took seriously changing them to make them useful as any sort of batteries.
The bitumen completely covered the copper rods, rendering it unable to pass a charge, and for the type of cell as they recommend, you'd have to continuously top it off, something that the bitumen seal would have made improbable.

The Coso artifact is a spark plug. When metal rusts it tends to form concretions, if you ever get to work on a site that features metal artifacts you'll have plenty of experience with them. Here's an example of another more recent sparkplug:

The Vimanas as described in the webpage do not appear in the actual Indian documents, instead they come from a series of "channeled" documents called the Vaimanika Shastra, and revealed in the 1950's.

The site mixes reall information with false, and nothing particularly new or revealing.

Here's a thread I put together back in '09 that got closed where I detailed a few ofthe common OOPArt's.

reply to post by HermitShip


The problem with this painting is that it is from 1599... Not 2000BC
We have massive amounts of data, first hand accounts of life / science / medicine and everything else from 1599 and not a single bit of it suggests that they knew anything about some kind of futuristic satellite device as the website suggests.

The site then says

This too cannot be true as in 1600 AD the prevalent belief was that the world was flat not round.

Which is an absolute lie, it's been generally accepted that the world was round long before that date, the "they used to think the earth was flat" line is an urban myth.

If the site is so wrong about this picture how can I trust it about anything else?

Which is an absolute lie, it's been generally accepted that the world was round long before that date, the "they used to think the earth was flat" line is an urban myth.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves, I can't believe I missed that!

For a little more information, the first person (That we know of) to prove the Earth was round was Eratosthenes, around 200 BC.

have seen all these on Ancient Aliens on the History Channel....actually im watching it now....getting ready for the new season opener coming on here in about 15 min very good stuff indeed.

reply to post by Funkydung


That show sucks. It doesn't go over any of the historical information, or contextual information, just presents horse hockey psuedo science.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by Funkydung

 

That show sucks. It doesn't go over any of the historical information, or contextual information, just presents horse hockey psuedo science.

yeah well its either this or jersey shore. trust me i know it doesn't go into any kinda depth as far as historical information but what do you expect from television and besides when The Hearst Corporation has their fingers in it how can you trust it? i really do despise television and everything that involved with it. but i do watch it from time to time. i was just pointing out that what the op was about was just on the history channel.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Im busy with some other stuff right now so I am going to get back to some of this later on. But not all. Im not interested in all of it. But I do have some questions. It is stated that "When examining the original hieroglyphs the provocative images are commonly explained as being the result of erosion, and later adjustments, or re-writing over the original inscriptions that left parts of the older text visible creating the illusion of modern looking machines"

If the original hieroglyphs are rewritten over, then what is the combined format supposed to mean? That doesnt make much sense to me, because then the hieroglyphic dictionary would have to incorporate the sum total of the writing for future Generations; or even the present one at the time of the writing, to understand what they mean. If in fact erosion has eaten away at the overlapped writings to begin with, then that even further compounds the problem of confusion. So in reality; considering what I just stated, no one would know what they mean, meant, or could mean, because the structure of the entire writing is lost. For instance, what does the layered over writing mean, and how is one to know what is from the earlier writing, opposed to the later writing, if the erosion has distorted the two to begin with. I know this is common in Egypt, so I am going to make an example using an image soon, maybe tomorrow if I have time.

As far as computer touch up is concerned, I have compared to two, and the only manipulation I can find is dilation filtering. And this could be caused by a host of reasons, not all which are nefarious in nature.

I noticed at catchpenny the statement was made:

If the ancient Egyptians had vehicles such as helicopters, submarines, and jet airplanes, one would expect to find some evidence of this other than in a single inscription on the lintel of a single temple. This type of large machinery requires a vast amount of support (including fuel, parts, factories, etc.) but there is no trace of any such support in all of Egypt. The Egyptian literature is also bereft of any boast, much less passing mention, of advanced aircraft. Obviously this situation doesn't seem peculiar to those who really want to believe that the ancient Egyptians flew around in airplanes.

This premise is working under the assumption that they had planes, or helicopters. What if it is more complex than that? What if they in fact did not, but were referencing the future, or observed such things in the air? That is not a stretch considering that there are many Indigenous paintings of what appear to be UFOs; emphasis on unidentified; as a Helicopter would be unidentified to them in their time, and strange unearthly Humanoid; and non Humanoid, depictions of being.

The problem I have with the object from Iraq, is that it is also a presumption to discredit it based upon the presumed working knowledge of it from our standpoint in time. We assume that we know what should make it work, and since it does not work when we apply this presumption to it we discard a presented hypothesis based upon the fallacy that because it doesnt work for us, it must have not worked for them in that capacity, and therefore must have been used for something else other than what the hypothesis is stipulating. Maybe there is a chemical process that we lack in knowledge to activate it. Maybe there is a physical process or device that we are not factoring into the equation. The what ifs are endless. And so is the presented fallacy.

Anyway, I will address the other issues of topic at a later date is you are still interested. And bear in mind that I neither confirm or deny anything, Im looking for real answers, and dont subscribe to the present construct of Humanity Historical account because of the many fallacies that are abundant in it. I have read books, and sites about this information before, and my mind is not satisfied with any of this answers I have come across to date. Including some found here at ATS. And that is why I started this thread.

reply to post by HomerinNC


lol gotta comment on the mod edit, thats funny as.

Also i have to say that all of those artifacts have been discussed here and in many other although none the less very interesting and i do thinks it's worth reposting evry once in awhile to refresh peoples memory.

Something else that is very interesting and which i am sure many of you have heard are the Dropa stones -

The disks were labeled along with other finds of the expedition and stored away at Beijing University for 20 years, during which deciphering attempts were unsuccessful. When the disks were closely examined by Dr. Tsum Um Nui of Beijing around 1958, he concluded that each groove actually consisted of a series of tiny hieroglyphs of unknown pattern and origin. The rows of hieroglyphics were so small that a magnifying glass was needed to see them clearly. Many of the hieroglyphics had been worn away by erosion. When Dr. Tsum deciphered the symbols, they told the story of the crash-landing of the Dropa spaceship and the killing of most of the survivors by local people.

Alot more can be found online and source of this article here:

www.crystalinks.com...

reply to post by HermitShip

If the original hieroglyphs are rewritten over, then what is the combined format supposed to mean?

They are not so much combined, as written over. Symbolically it destroys the original meaning of the inscription, and puts in place what's replacing it.
You have that happen occasionally, when someone was attempted to be removed from Egyptian history, like Akhenaten.
Catchpenny offers the translations of both sets of glyphs.

It should be noted objectively that these happen in a sequence of hieroglyphs, which is the Egyptian form of writing. If these really were what they were supposed to be represented as, then you'd see them used in more writing as well.

The problem I have with the object from Iraq, is that it is also a presumption to discredit it based upon the presumed working knowledge of it from our standpoint in time. We assume that we know what should make it work, and since it does not work when we apply this presumption to it we discard a presented hypothesis based upon the fallacy that because it doesnt work for us, it must have not worked for them in that capacity, and therefore must have been used for something else other than what the hypothesis is stipulating.

As I mentioned before, there's nothing to suppose that these are anything but traditional religious scroll holding jars that were known from the area.
The entire basis for them being used as an electronic source comes from a archaeologist person musing on their shape, and then someone remaking them so that they do work as batteries.

reply to post by Havick007


The "Dropa Stones" are Jade bi discs, and the surrounding stories are entirely made up. There is nothing unusual about the actual Dropa people that set them apart from any other person in their area.