It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Who said the Incas built aircrafts??? They built golden scaled replicas to mimic the actual crafts they saw.
Originally posted by Danbones
FanS
To build a scale model and have it fly?
by accident?
when it took modern man so much work and trial and error?
and death
Thats like the " 9 million monkeys typing for 9 million years would accidentally write the bible"
if it IS the case that the model planes were an accident..then maybe the bible was writen by nine million monkeys...
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
The burden of proof is on the TV series "Ancient Astronauts".They need to prove to me the Inca artifacts are representing actual ancient aircraft.
Using modern flight technology and techniques is not going to do for me especially when the Inca practically worshiped the Guitar fish.It is not lost on me they would immortalize it in sculpture.
To take that away from them and say their beloved icons are "representing actual ancient aircraft's".which by the way there is no proof they had any knowledge of aviation beyond birds and insects let alone build and fly aircraft.
Well this test was made in 1997..
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
I have a logical question, since it seems a contra-indication to modern-era (since Roswell, anyway) sightings and descriptions of "UFOs", that are attributed to being extraterrestrial in origin.
First, a snippet of your comment:
Who said the Incas built aircrafts??? They built golden scaled replicas to mimic the actual crafts they saw.
OK, fair enough. Let's go from that assumption.
I presume you are inferring that a society of non-technological people would see flying craft (what WE today understand, aerodynamically, and associate) and thus make small "charms" or other gold representations of them, in mimicry and "awe" (perhaps even some religious overtones involved...but, we won't go there....)...
OK...well, problem is the thinking, in this, is a bit TOO conventional. Meaning, in the lore of ET visitation, their sophisticated technology is WAY, WAY beyond the need for aerodynamics, and the form and structure that we use, today, in our airplanes. Even, in our Space Shuttle design. IT is a compromise design...since wings, and other flight surfaces that work in an atmosphere are superfluous in a vacuum...BUT, the STS is meant to be reusable, and controllable on entry...to 'transition' to a 'glider', essentially.
The point I am trying to make, here, is this: A species from off-planet that is capable of (presumably) some sort of "faster-than-light" transit technology (this also is presumed, isn't it? To traverse the many light years' distance?).
In order to have that level of technology, one would think they would NOT need to design the vehicles that traverse within the atmosphere in the ways that 20th century HUMANS developed!! I mean, their methods, techniques, etc would be far more advanced, n'est pas?? Exotic "anti-grav" ways to move, and hover, etc.
Just ponder on that, for a while......
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
I am sorry....did I miss part of the plot?? (It's like, when you go to see a movie, and drink too much diet soda...and you THINK you picked a slow part to go pee....BUT you miss something really, really important to the plot.....)...
Well this test was made in 1997..
What "test", exactly??
They reported that the Dogon believe that the brightest star in the sky, Sirius (sigi tolo or 'star of the Sigui'[19]), has two companion stars, pō tolo (the Digitaria star), and ęmmę ya tolo, (the female Sorghum star), respectively the first and second companions of Sirius A.[20] Sirius, in the Dogon system, formed one of the foci for the orbit of a tiny star, the companionate Digitaria star. When Digitaria is closest to Sirius, that star brightens: when it is farthest from Sirius, it gives off a twinkling effect that suggests to the observer several stars. The orbit cycle takes 60 years. [21]They also claimed that the Dogon appeared to know of the rings of Saturn, and the moons of Jupiter.[22] Griaule and Dieterlen were puzzled by this Sudanese star system, and prefaced their analysis with the following remark:- The problem of knowing how, with no instruments at their disposal, men could know the movements and certain characteristics of virtually invisible stars has not been settled, nor even posed.[23] In 1976 Robert K. G. Temple wrote a book called The Sirius Mystery arguing that the Dogon's system reveals precise knowledge of cosmological facts only known by the development of modern astronomy, since they appear to know, from Griaule and Dieterlen's account, that Sirius was part of a binary star system, whose second star, Sirius B, a white dwarf, was however completely invisible to the human eye, (just as Digitaria is the smallest grain known to the Dogon), and that it took 50 years to complete its orbit. The existence of Sirius B had only been inferred to exist through mathematical calculations undertaken by Friedrich Bessel in 1844.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
I have a logical question, since it seems a contra-indication to modern-era (since Roswell, anyway) sightings and descriptions of "UFOs", that are attributed to being extraterrestrial in origin.
First, a snippet of your comment:
Who said the Incas built aircrafts??? They built golden scaled replicas to mimic the actual crafts they saw.
OK, fair enough. Let's go from that assumption.
I presume you are inferring that a society of non-technological people would see flying craft (what WE today understand, aerodynamically, and associate) and thus make small "charms" or other gold representations of them, in mimicry and "awe" (perhaps even some religious overtones involved...but, we won't go there....)...
OK...well, problem is the thinking, in this, is a bit TOO conventional. Meaning, in the lore of ET visitation, their sophisticated technology is WAY, WAY beyond the need for aerodynamics, and the form and structure that we use, today, in our airplanes. Even, in our Space Shuttle design. IT is a compromise design...since wings, and other flight surfaces that work in an atmosphere are superfluous in a vacuum...BUT, the STS is meant to be reusable, and controllable on entry...to 'transition' to a 'glider', essentially.
The point I am trying to make, here, is this: A species from off-planet that is capable of (presumably) some sort of "faster-than-light" transit technology (this also is presumed, isn't it? To traverse the many light years' distance?).
In order to have that level of technology, one would think they would NOT need to design the vehicles that traverse within the atmosphere in the ways that 20th century HUMANS developed!! I mean, their methods, techniques, etc would be far more advanced, n'est pas?? Exotic "anti-grav" ways to move, and hover, etc.
Just ponder on that, for a while......
Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6ad7d8429fc.jpeg[/atsimg]
These are definitely aircrafts portraited by the ancient Egyptians and one of them is just identical to modern helicopters.edit on 11/25/2010 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by SaturnFX
hen something is proven..like absolutely proven through the scientific method, it ends up reported throughout the world
That is extremely naive...
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by SaturnFX
hen something is proven..like absolutely proven through the scientific method, it ends up reported throughout the world
That is extremely naive...
Yeah.
Something like that only gets reported on ATS.
LOL
Harte
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
You have "conveniently" avoided ALL of the other points I've raised. Instead, you selected and chose one point to counter.
TYPICAL.
FAIL.
TYPICAL.
(prove YOUR OP, or else admit it is based on the flimsiest of "evidence" to begin with. I am sorry, but your premise needs a better foundation, if it wishes to remain on solid ground)....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(edit)
Oh, the video, in your OP?
Yeah....
Got through it. ONLY took until about 2:00, or so (I assume you mean the SECOND video?? That is the one I am talking about here...)...at that point, he (Mr. "T"....is it Tsoukalis? Not sure of spelling) goes way off....sorry you don't realize it.
He ascribes motivations to ancient peoples, and how HE thinks they behaved, based solely on his "guesses".
THAT is NOT science!!!! It is OPINION, and lacks the basics of anything that is barely related to scientific inquiry.
Many of us can see through is BS, in a couple of heart beats....guess you can chalk it up to experience.....because, adding here....THIS is the perfect example of what's called "pseudo"-science. It is rampant, lately. Be on guard against it.....
edit on 25 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)edit on 25 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by badw0lf
Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6ad7d8429fc.jpeg[/atsimg]
These are definitely aircrafts portraited by the ancient Egyptians and one of them is just identical to modern helicopters.edit on 11/25/2010 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)
Oh man... How many times must this be debunked.
That is a sarcophagus that was covered up over time, not a helicopter. Look closer... CLOSER...
As has been stated time and time again, apart from the fact that it IS a hieroglyph that was retouched up, hieroglyphics are phonetic in their use, so it would be like me saying
Oh Hi there, have you seen my I am sure I left it over if you see it let me , thanks.
Randomly throwing in a picture of a modern chopper is nonsensical. But if you can find the wreckage of one of these puppies, I'll be open to reconsider...