Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
qxcontinuum

Modern technologies in an Egyptian tomb

70 posts in this topic

What is the chance that exact resembances of a Helicopter, tank, spaceshuttle and light plane would have been carved 3000 years by egyptians in the Abydos Temple

palimpseste.jpeg

maxresdefault.jpg

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a "modern" tank.

or a "space shuttle".

Or a helicopter for that matter, I see what looks like the same glyph at the bottom (bloke lying down, seen side on) with a line through it, a line just like the line next to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The helicopter is the closest match, but the tank and space shuttle are really stretches. The tank is just a block with a line coming out of it, and the space shuttle isn't really a space shuttle, as much as something out of the Jetsons, in my eyes.

I don't know how honest Sir was in claiming to not see a helicopter-ish form. You have to really be trying to not see that general shape to miss that. I understand you don't think it is more than just vague coincidence, but c'mon, you see it.

edit: Light plane I'm not able to search out, though.

Edited by _Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not modern technology of any sort. It's a palimpset comprised of overlapping hieroglyphs for two different Egyptian kings. It's been rehashed many times here at UM.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Roger Ramjet's plane!! How could they possibly have known about future cartoons?

As for the tank.. ? The Space Shuttle .. ? I can see a vague resemblance to a chopper, but why wouldn't there be several icons that vaguely match things we have today, given the stylistic nature of that type of imagery? But let's first discuss whether we are seeing what was really found, and whether it is what is claimed... Qx, you being observant and all, how is it that the bottom image clearly doesn't match the top one, in a number of ways? Please provide all supporting info when you post stuff like this... And a quick search on UM (it's also covered in more detail at lots of places on the webz) would have found this:

http://www.unexplain...n.php?id=226188

Seems to pretty much put this to bed - any comments, Qx?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing unusual about this at all.

It's just telling the well-known story of how the Pharoah's air force was once routed by the ancient giant bees.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the 'spaceshuttle' dropping a heiroglyph meaning 'thermal nuclear bomb'?

Edited by taniwha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, vague shapes. is there anything you can't be?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the chance that exact resembances of a Helicopter, tank, spaceshuttle and light plane would have been carved 3000 years by egyptians in the Abydos Temple

0%. This has been explained many, many times.

[media=]

[/media]

http://members.tripod.com/~a_u_r_a/abydos.html

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel the need to put out there that the helicopter's blade hits the tail. That thing is doomed for failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness: link.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The glyphs are a result of both erosion of the stone surface (evident elsewhere in the temple) and the process of filling in and re-carving the stone to replace some of the original hieroglyphics. The technical term for such a surface that has been written on more than once is a palimpsest. The usurping and modifying of inscriptions was common in ancient Egypt throughout its history. The Abydos glyph was modified at least once in antiquity, and perhaps twice. Some of the filling has fallen out in places where the older and the newer inscriptions overlap, and the result is unique and odd-looking.

abydos3.gif

http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

And before anyone gets any ideas, this is not a depiction of a UFO:

hqdefault.jpg

And this is not a depiction of a 'lamp' or 'lightbulb':

72-lampe.jpg

You can't offer any meaningful speculation about AE without context. Such is the case, with these three depictions being the worst of the lot far too often.

Edited by Slave2Fate
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erosion does surprise me with its taste for art and high technology :)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Abydos the name of the planet from Stargate?

I can see the helicopter and Roger Ramjets plane (thanks for pointing that one out ChrLzs :D) but everything else is a real stretch. Sometimes when the stars and planets are properly arranged and the moon is a crescent I can see a smiley face, that doesn't mean it's a smiley face.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Roger Ramjet's plane!! How could they possibly have known about future cartoons?

As for the tank.. ? The Space Shuttle .. ? I can see a vague resemblance to a chopper, but why wouldn't there be several icons that vaguely match things we have today, given the stylistic nature of that type of imagery? But let's first discuss whether we are seeing what was really found, and whether it is what is claimed... Qx, you being observant and all, how is it that the bottom image clearly doesn't match the top one, in a number of ways? Please provide all supporting info when you post stuff like this... And a quick search on UM (it's also covered in more detail at lots of places on the webz) would have found this:

http://www.unexplain...n.php?id=226188

Seems to pretty much put this to bed - any comments, Qx?

Lousy article that offers no proof, whatsoever. Full of agenda and personal bias, though:

I am a firm believer in the accomplishments of humans, in our ingenuity, and not in "gods" or "aliens" needing to hold our hands. And, it is my belief that archeologists seek the truth to that resourcefulness as well. The photographs I found have again proven me right.

All that writer proved is that she has an aversion to anything other than a secular humanist POV of our reality.

In an effort to debunk what's plainly there for all to see, we are told it's palimpsest, i.e., RECARVED STONE; "erosion", i.e., bits wore off or fell off; it's photoshopped and it's not photoshopped. Since there is no evidence of recarving or erosion, other hieroglyphs are presented and we're told that what we're looking at was really like these other ones - conveniently not recarved or eroded.

Try harder, m'kay? Or, maybe lets get back to 100,000 slaves and mud ramps for the buidling of the pyramids. :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susano, instead of looking for motivations and attempting to 'Poison the Well', why didn't you address ANY of the information provided in the article? Also, why did you not bother to research this elsewhere, where the same points have been made by many investigators? I think I might know the answer, but I'm asking anyway.. In your next post how about you address some of those issues, starting with the one that the two images DO NOT MATCH.

(link added)

Edited by ChrLzs
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an effort to debunk what's plainly there for all to see, we are told it's palimpsest, i.e., RECARVED STONE; "erosion", i.e., bits wore off or fell off; it's photoshopped and it's not photoshopped. Since there is no evidence of recarving or erosion, other hieroglyphs are presented and we're told that what we're looking at was really like these other ones - conveniently not recarved or eroded.

Except when you you look at pictures of the entire frieze and you see the missing segments and symbols clearly carved over one another:

http://www.crooktree...VF&id=902756619

and others from the same temple which show the unaltered version as it's supposed to be, "plainly there to see."

http://www.unexplain...om/user/tb2.jpg

Edited by Oniomancer
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susano, instead of looking for motivations and attempting to 'Poison the Well', why didn't you address ANY of the information provided in the article? Also, why did you not bother to research this elsewhere, where the same points have been made by many investigators? I think I might know the answer, but I'm asking anyway.. In your next post how about you address some of those issues, starting with the one that the two images DO NOT MATCH.

(link added)

I can hardly "poison the well" with the author's own words. And, btw, earlier in the article she says she wants to believe in aliens, then later says she doesn't, so the first statement was what - bull****? Anyway, what one wants to believe should not enter into any examination of some ancient artifact. I have no idea what the glyphs in question are but the recarved or eroded arguments don't have any evidence backing them up. She says:

The "helicopter" hieroglyph is indeed a "deliberate creation" but not of flying machines. These were deliberately scoured and modified glyphs to make way for new writings, especially when you look at how the double carvings continue to the right of this so-called "alien" hieroglyph.

Where is the evidence for that? Who got up there with a magnifying glass and where is the report detailing why that conclusion was drawn? Oh, there was no one who did that and there is no report - just someone on the internet with a bias and a desire to believe. Sorry, that's not evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except when you you look at pictures of the entire frieze and you see the missing segments and symbols clearly carved over one another:

http://www.crooktree...VF&id=902756619

and others from the same temple which show the unaltered version as it's supposed to be, "plainly there to see."

http://www.unexplain...om/user/tb2.jpg

I don't see anything "clearly carved over". Going with that theory, though, why would the other glyphs, that are being used for comparison and an argument for what the alleged flying machines should have been, not be carved over (or eroded, as the other story goes) as well?

The problem is that people bring their wishes and biases to the subject. There is neither proof that these were carved over or eroded, nor is there proof that these are flying machines. The orthodox prejudice against an advanced civilization with flying machines, alien visitation and other weird stuff is just as unobjective as the desire to attribute the unknown to the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything "clearly carved over". Going with that theory, though, why would the other glyphs, that are being used for comparison and an argument for what the alleged flying machines should have been, not be carved over (or eroded, as the other story goes) as well?

The problem is that people bring their wishes and biases to the subject. There is neither proof that these were carved over or eroded, nor is there proof that these are flying machines. The orthodox prejudice against an advanced civilization with flying machines, alien visitation and other weird stuff is just as unobjective as the desire to attribute the unknown to the same.

A better question is "why should they?" considering the unaltered picture Oniomancer is referring to is only addressed to a single king. And why, if these were actual airplanes, tanks, etc. can each be read as a specific, known title for the pharaoh's Seti I and Ramesses II?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything "clearly carved over". Going with that theory, though, why would the other glyphs, that are being used for comparison and an argument for what the alleged flying machines should have been, not be carved over (or eroded, as the other story goes) as well?

The further right you go, the more they go from discrete glyphs to glyphs overlain atop one another, such as the ankh. And it's not an alternate theory but a single coherent one, that they were re-carved, then infilled with plaster, which then fell out.

You would have to ask the ancients their reasoning. One doesn't need to scribble out every name to get one's own in though.

The problem is that people bring their wishes and biases to the subject. There is neither proof that these were carved over or eroded, nor is there proof that these are flying machines. The orthodox prejudice against an advanced civilization with flying machines, alien visitation and other weird stuff is just as unobjective as the desire to attribute the unknown to the same.

One has to adopt considerable bias to pretend not to notice the large chunk of missing material adjacent to the "helicopter" making it look more helicoptery. One would have to go to even greater lengths to ignore the fact that the glyphs of the unaltered text so closely resemble those being labeled as machinery and that they are perfectly readable as a king name where the others are illegible gibberish and dammit cormac, I was typing as fast as I could...

:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The orthodox prejudice against an advanced civilization with flying machines, alien visitation and other weird stuff is just as unobjective as the desire to attribute the unknown to the same.

No, it's not - and it's not a 'prejudice'. It's a view based on purely objective measures such as archaeology and anthropology (inc, cultural anthro.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The further right you go, the more they go from discrete glyphs to glyphs overlain atop one another, such as the ankh. And it's not an alternate theory but a single coherent one, that they were re-carved, then infilled with plaster, which then fell out.

You would have to ask the ancients their reasoning. One doesn't need to scribble out every name to get one's own in though.

One has to adopt considerable bias to pretend not to notice the large chunk of missing material adjacent to the "helicopter" making it look more helicoptery. One would have to go to even greater lengths to ignore the fact that the glyphs of the unaltered text so closely resemble those being labeled as machinery and that they are perfectly readable as a king name where the others are illegible gibberish and dammit cormac, I was typing as fast as I could...

:D

I had to hurry up, it's spaghetti night. :tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not - and it's not a 'prejudice'. It's a view based on purely objective measures such as archaeology and anthropology (inc, cultural anthro.)

But it is a bias, Leonardo. We're biased towards facts. :w00t:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.