Dimension_X Posted October 9, 2009 #1 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Is the concept of an airplane limited to Egypt? That doesn't seem to be the case. Gold trinkets were found in an area covering Central America and coastal areas of South America, estimated to belong to a period between 500 and 800 CE, but since they are made from gold, accurate dating is impossible and based essentially on stratigraphy which may be deceptive. However, we can safely say that these gold objects are more than 1000 years old. What do you think? More at world-mysteries.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted October 9, 2009 #2 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Is the concept of an airplane limited to Egypt? That doesn't seem to be the case. Gold trinkets were found in an area covering Central America and coastal areas of South America, estimated to belong to a period between 500 and 800 CE, but since they are made from gold, accurate dating is impossible and based essentially on stratigraphy which may be deceptive. However, we can safely say that these gold objects are more than 1000 years old. What do you think? More at world-mysteries.com It is a massive and illogical jump to assume that either are aeroplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #3 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is a massive and illogical jump to assume that either are aeroplanes. Since when is the fringe about logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted October 9, 2009 #4 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Thought those were flying fish or rays? Also thought that we already had several threads about this? Nibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #5 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Thought those were flying fish or rays? Or something the artist created after an overdose of Coca leaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted October 9, 2009 #6 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Or something the artist created after an overdose of Coca leaves. Even better. Nibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #7 Share Posted October 9, 2009 A JET FROM ANCIENT SOUTH AMERICA Photos in this section show the “airplanes” and the very airworthy mockup of the artifacts constructed by two aeronautical engineers and flown with remote control. The story: "In 1954 the government of Colombia sent part of its collection of ancient gold artifacts on a U. S. tour. Emmanuel Staubs, one of America's leading jewelers, was commissioned to cast reproductions of six of the objects. Fifteen years later one was given to biologist-zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson for analysis. After a thorough examination and consulting a number of experts, Sanderson's mind-boggling conclusion was that the object is a model of a high-speed aircraft at least a thousand years old. Approximately 2 inches long the object was worn as a pend ant on a neck chain. It was classified as Sinu, a pre-Inca culture from A.D. 500 to 800. Both Sanderson and Dr. Arthur Poyslee of the Aeronautical Institute of New York concluded it did not represent any known winged animal. In fact, the little artifact appears more mechanical than biological. For example, the front wings are delta-shaped and rigidly straight edged, very un-animal-like. The rudder is perhaps the most un-animal but airplane-like item. It is right-triangle, flat-surfaced, and rigidly perpendicular to the wings. Only fish have upright tail fins, but none have exclusively an upright flange without a counter-balancing lower one. Adding to the mystery, an insignia appears on the left face of the rudder, precisely where ID marks appear on many airplanes today. The insignia is perhaps as out-of place as the gold model itself, for it has been identified as the Aramaic or early Hebrew letter beth or B. This may indicate that the original plane did not come from Colombia, but was the product of a very early people inhabiting the Middle East who knew the secret of flying. Subjecting the Objects to Flight Tests In 1997, two Germans, Algund Eenboom and Peter Belting, put the theory to the test. (pictured) Eenboom centered his research on historical evidence and concluded the "wings" of all insects are attached at the top of the corpus, not at the bottom, and that all Incan artifacts except these few suspected "planes" were made correctly. Belting made a model plane, first with a propeller, afterwards with a jet engine. Whereas the first has to be launched by hand, the jet engine one was also equipped with landing gear. At the recent Ancient Astronaut Society World Conference in Orlando, Florida, the two researchers showed extensive footage of their model planes. The propeller-powered plane flew perfectly stable. But the crowd almost gave a standing ovation for the jet-engine model plane. With an impeccable take-off, flight and landing -- and an exact match to the model found in the Inca grave -- the model is truly an airplane. Eenboom and Belting gave a live demonstration in a parking lot of the Florida Mall in Orlando, in case anyone would still doubt it after the videos...... Michael Lindemann, Editor, CNI News http://s8int.com/phile/page54.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalartist Posted October 9, 2009 #8 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Is the concept of an airplane limited to Egypt? That doesn't seem to be the case. Gold trinkets were found in an area covering Central America and coastal areas of South America, estimated to belong to a period between 500 and 800 CE, but since they are made from gold, accurate dating is impossible and based essentially on stratigraphy which may be deceptive. However, we can safely say that these gold objects are more than 1000 years old. What do you think? More at world-mysteries.com Rays in the ocean. Really close to the supposed airplanes http://www.aquarticles.com/images/China4b/p47a%20Manta%20rays.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #9 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Close? Not even in the ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #10 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Close? Not even in the ballpark. As close as the "object" is to an airplane..which with that funny gap that looks like a mouth could never have worked as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #11 Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) For heaven's sake. It probably isn't an exact replica. It was a piece of jewelery. I'm sure if I work a pendant around my neck of a car with a "shark-tooth" bumper on it, no one would expect it, in a 1000 years, to actually run and they'd wonder what the shark's teeth were for. Decoration. If you'd have linked to the article, you'd find that the nose folds under, therefore the gap. Edited October 9, 2009 by Qoais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #12 Share Posted October 9, 2009 For heaven's sake. It probably isn't an exact replica. Which then also applies for a manta, or a long nosed bloke or.... (fill in the blanks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #13 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Mantas don't have a 3 piece tail fin, especially one sticking upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #14 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Mantas don't have a 3 piece tail fin, especially one sticking upwards. Planes don't have gaps that look like mouths ... so your point was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted October 9, 2009 #15 Share Posted October 9, 2009 In fact, the little artifact appears more mechanical than biological. For example, the front wings are delta-shaped and rigidly straight edged, very un-animal-like. The rudder is perhaps the most un-animal but airplane-like item. It is right-triangle, flat-surfaced, and rigidly perpendicular to the wings. Only fish have upright tail fins, but none have exclusively an upright flange without a counter-balancing lower one. Side views of the guitarfish I brought up in the other thresd: http://www.arkive.org/media/4D/4D14879E-6A69-4919-8CD5-D397A8F79774/Presentation.Large/photo.jpg http://www.cac.es/oceanografic/animales/ficha/?contentId=109670 Kind of puts the lie to that, doesn't it? Shorten the tail by about a foot and what have you got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted October 9, 2009 #16 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Hmm...even the "face" looks like the little gold thingies. Nibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 9, 2009 #17 Share Posted October 9, 2009 OMG it's the Nephilim........... RUN !!!! oh wait a sec lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #18 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Not the artifact, that's for sure. It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch. The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold. It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact. Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted October 9, 2009 #19 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Not the artifact, that's for sure. It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch. The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold. It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact. Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin. Just out of curiosity, how do we know what is the front and what is the back? I mean, the artifact is always photographed in a "pose" that is similar to a modern aircraft. But how do we know that is the "top"? If you flip it over, it is far "fishier". Nibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #20 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted October 9, 2009 #21 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves) Fresh out of cocoa leaves. Ok, I'm not sure I am explaining myself well... This is a dragon fly pendant - I don't think it looks like a dragonfly. It's the artists interpretation or a natural creature. Wouldn't it be most likely that the "artifact" is the same type of thing? What else was found with it? Nibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted October 9, 2009 #22 Share Posted October 9, 2009 For heaven's sake. It probably isn't an exact replica. It was a piece of jewelery. I'm sure if I work a pendant around my neck of a car with a "shark-tooth" bumper on it, no one would expect it, in a 1000 years, to actually run and they'd wonder what the shark's teeth were for. Decoration. If you'd have linked to the article, you'd find that the nose folds under, therefore the gap. I couldn't find anything in the article that said the object itself was hinged, just that they thought it represented a hinged vehicle. Either way, it's worth noting that the guitarfish has a second "face" under it's body. (which Hernibs beat me to) http://fishanatomy.net/webpages/fish/guitarfish/external/Large/guitarfish012.jpg Since the objects were meant to be displayed top up, this presents a problem unless one bends the front of the animal up to attempt to affectively show both sides at once. That this may have been the case is most dramatically shown when one compares the animal against the head-on view of the object in the article. The lines appear to form almost the exact same "smile" as the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted October 9, 2009 #23 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Not the artifact, that's for sure. It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch. The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold. It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact. Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin. I think it's been shown elsewhere the artists were no strangers to embellishment on critters. I'm not just sure what type of ornament these were supposed to be, but it may not have been one suited to a long thin pokey bits that're easily broken, hence cutting out the middle length of the tail. Maybe they were just chibified;. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 9, 2009 #24 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves) What we don't know is the context it was found in. It could be that this is a piece of an installation and the "fin" is nothing but the piece that held it to a base. Certain is, you cannot have it both ways, it is either a precise depiction or it is not. If it is not it could be all kinds of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qoais Posted October 9, 2009 #25 Share Posted October 9, 2009 1) I think the dragonfly looks very much like a dragonfly. 2) As was said, the tail is not similar to a fish or a bird. 3) The point is, when duplicated in larger scale, it does fly. Whether or not it's an exact replica as far as embellishment goes, is irrelevant. It's the design that's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now