Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
TrumanB

The origins of the term flying saucer

45 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Myles
41 minutes ago, Coil said:

Papyrus was discovered a very long time ago, but representatives of the world of science still can not explain the text written about 3,500 years ago.

Experts are in no hurry to talk about aliens. Perhaps already in those days science fiction writers existed. However, for the sake of justice, it is worth noting that more than a dozen sources tell about the arrival of some creatures.
So far, scientists are not able to explain the images of rockets, flying saucers, etc., carved in ancient times on stones. All devices seem to be technically complex; ancient people could not come up with them.

 

You see, if all the figures of airplanes  they call them birds, dragonflies or fish, then this is a bad thing even with what they see firsthand.
Well, it’s inconvenient for them, it’s not part of their classical theory of development or visiting aliens. And the ancients depicted exactly what they saw.
If it’s a fish, they accurately captured the fish, and if it’s an airplane, then this can be seen from the honed figure that has excellent aerodynamic characteristics  and the division of the body into a physical compartment and a cabin.

You need to watch this video it will explain why these are not what you describe as " the ancients depicted exactly what they saw".

They found hundreds of these pendants.   Only 10 of them were even similar to planes.

 

Here's a frog.   Is that exactly how frogs looked back then?   I doubt it.  

 

image.png.87ec38bc7edc12705353c3c3af5b17f8.png

 

 

You need to watch this video.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Coil
29 minutes ago, Essan said:

The problem is, birds, dragonflies and fish have looked like that for tens of millions of years.  Aircraft  only looked like that for a couple of decades.

So what is the coincidence that space aliens used 1960s aircraft.  And not 1920s ones.   Or, indeed, 2120 ones.

No, if you take ancient fish, they are different from the current ones and you will unmistakably distinguish a dinosaur from modern animals.

Regarding why the figures are similar to modern devices, we are now repeating the technical cycle that they went through as evolution develops in a spiral with the repetition of what they went through, but in our own way.And since there is nothing left of their civilization, only these figures as well as our civilization can overtake complete oblivion and there will be no physical objects left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
4 minutes ago, Coil said:

No, if you take ancient fish, they are different from the current ones and you will unmistakably distinguish a dinosaur from modern animals.

Regarding why the figures are similar to modern devices, we are now repeating the technical cycle that they went through as evolution develops in a spiral with the repetition of what they went through, but in our own way.And since there is nothing left of their civilization, only these figures as well as our civilization can overtake complete oblivion and there will be no physical objects left.

Your only piece of pseudo evidense is gone, so this is just a story if you want to blindly believe its true. More power to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
15 minutes ago, Myles said:

You need to watch this video it will explain why these are not what you describe as " the ancients depicted exactly what they saw".

 

Here's a frog.   Is that exactly how frogs looked back then?   I doubt it.  

It is necessary to consider each object separately. In shape it is a frog and inside there are some curls.
Doesn't look like a full copy of a frog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Your only piece of pseudo evidense is gone, so this is just a story if you want to blindly believe its true. More power to you.

You see, in the end it all comes down to whether you believe it or not and not to the evidence of science.And they are not very interested.
Therefore, the commentator on the video, far from logic, will give out figures for fish, and modelers will admire the flight characteristics of a copy of the aircraft.

And reality is proved by practical experiments of repetition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
10 minutes ago, Coil said:

You see, in the end it all comes down to whether you believe it or not and not to the evidence of science.And they are not very interested.
Therefore, the commentator on the video, far from logic, will give out figures for fish, and modelers will admire the flight characteristics of a copy of the aircraft.

And reality is proved by practical experiments of repetition.

Actually fish fly pretty well, ive been a life long RC hobbyist and seen some wild planes, kites too,

Believe it or not?

I have no artifact, only pics and the alleged artifact was of dubious background, the people who did have it not known respected names, so ill respect you believe it but i dont,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Coil said:

It is necessary to consider each object separately. In shape it is a frog and inside there are some curls.
Doesn't look like a full copy of a frog.

That is wrong.   Since there were other pendants that resembled frogs, fish, alligators, cats and other animals, it is fair to compare.  In fact it is crucial to compare.  None of the others were exact copies.  Just like the fish are not exact copies.  

 

1 hour ago, Coil said:


Therefore, the commentator on the video, far from logic, will give out figures for fish, and modelers will admire the flight characteristics of a copy of the aircraft.

And reality is proved by practical experiments of repetition.

Did you see how the pendant was changed in order to make a model capable of flying?   Minute 4:20 of the video.

 

https://youtu.be/cge4UgD_yTk

 

Edited by Myles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Coil said:

It is necessary to consider each object separately. In shape it is a frog and inside there are some curls.
Doesn't look like a full copy of a frog.

Stylized its still a frog, they had frogs we still have frogs, when i was a kid i saw chariots of the gods with my grand mother,

Von everythingisalien, suggested this was an alien craft.

OIP.loDSkTfKuf2rZzJgrtf5BwHaEL.jpg.a77a5c75aea49d932b40460da5b02401.jpgOIP.yqas_TjHcTuH8sv2XZwSRwHaFN.jpg.5957034699bb1f31cf478b9458fce0e4.jpg

 

I was a young child and thought wow space men came here in these craft,

But i had a very racy brain and my play pal growing up was a couple years older, and when she first showed me something like,

20200518_180519.jpg.9666b9b2eb5d25cb72afa9253684743b.jpg

I thought cool, that bug looks like a jet and it soon hit me it also looked like the alien craft von itsalien was pushing, then in this thread someone posts a fish that really looks like the artifact,

As i learned more thru the years the artifact if an aircraft is a design not for space but rather in an atmosphere,  never has anything supporting early astronauts been found, and its insulting that some true believers think ancient people were too stupid to build mud huts or anything without alien help,

Where does that leave me?

Its most likely the artifact is a stylized artists interpretation of a fish or bug, i realize thats boring but with the total lack of any other evidence im going that route.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
14 hours ago, Coil said:

No, if you take ancient fish, they are different from the current ones and you will unmistakably distinguish a dinosaur from modern animals.

 

Are you saying that you believe these people lived with dinosaurs?   I'm sorry, you lost me.  

The "airplane" pendants look just like some known fish.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
16 hours ago, Coil said:

You see, in the end it all comes down to whether you believe it or not and not to the evidence of science.And they are not very interested.
Therefore, the commentator on the video, far from logic, will give out figures for fish, and modelers will admire the flight characteristics of a copy of the aircraft.

And reality is proved by practical experiments of repetition.

If you conclude that those pendants are of ancient airplanes instead of the much, much more likely explanations, then you have issues that we cannot help you with here.

Even if they are not depictions of flying fish, they may be depictions of common fish in the area as the video shows at 3:07.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
On 5/19/2020 at 3:15 PM, Myles said:

If you conclude that those pendants are of ancient airplanes instead of the much, much more likely explanations, then you have issues that we cannot help you with here.

Even if they are not depictions of flying fish, they may be depictions of common fish in the area as the video shows at 3:07.

Anyway, the shape of the fish and the plane are different.

In general, I found big differences between fish and aircraft in these pictures:

-the fuselage of the plane is smoothly oval and the fish is large front and tapers toward the back. For fish and animals this is important and harmful to the aircraft.

- separation into the cockpit and fuselage in the second photo of what the fish do not have
- wide rear horizontal steering wings with extra small wings on the plane to stabilize

- the aircraft has a vertical tail in the rear part and it starts from large wings in fish. Because the maneuverability in water is important for fish; the air flow helps the aircraft at high speed and there is no need for a long elongated tail.
 

There are other minor but important differences.

I doubt that if you make a full copy of the fish and make it fly, it will fly well, but the figure of the plane will fly well. Because it was created for flight, although all planes retain the overall design of the bird.

Edited by Coil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Coil said:

I doubt that if you make a full copy of the fish and make it fly, it will fly well, but the figure of the plane will fly well. Because it was created for flight, although all planes retain the overall design of the bird.

That is simply hogwash and delusion, you only accept what fits your beliefs.

When models are made of the artifact to test its flight 100% of the time its highly modified from being a larger exact copy of the artifact,

Its also weighted and adjusted

You are also wrong that a model of that fish wouldnt fly if enlarged and modded and adjusted,

And head up, fyi flying fish are real and do fly,

Also the artifact if a jet aircraft would be for air not space travel, how did it get here and where did it go, slick?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Myles
1 hour ago, Coil said:

Anyway, the shape of the fish and the plane are different.

In general, I found big differences between fish and aircraft in these pictures:

-the fuselage of the plane is smoothly oval and the fish is large front and tapers toward the back. For fish and animals this is important and harmful to the aircraft.

- separation into the cockpit and fuselage in the second photo of what the fish do not have
- wide rear horizontal steering wings with extra small wings on the plane to stabilize

- the aircraft has a vertical tail in the rear part and it starts from large wings in fish. Because the maneuverability in water is important for fish; the air flow helps the aircraft at high speed and there is no need for a long elongated tail.
 

There are other minor but important differences.

I doubt that if you make a full copy of the fish and make it fly, it will fly well, but the figure of the plane will fly well. Because it was created for flight, although all planes retain the overall design of the bird.

You are purposely being difficult now.  Watch the video.   Watch the video.   The only way it flew as a plane was with many, many changes.  They added flaps.   They had to remove the swirls on the front of the wings.   Several other changes as well, so your arguement that it isn't an exact replica of a fish is a poor argument.   

Also, you are ignoring the other 90 pendants of animals that were found.   What do you think the frog looking one really was depicting?    Couldn't have been a frog because it was not exact.

 

 

Edited by Myles
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo

I believe Arnold saw a squadron of experimental aircraft that were developed from the German science contingent that came to the US after WWII. There was a Nazi craft that looks almost identical to the depictions from Arnold. A (group of) next generation of the Horton HO 229 is what I think Arnold witnessed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
On 5/21/2020 at 5:33 PM, Myles said:

You are purposely being difficult now.  Watch the video.   Watch the video.   The only way it flew as a plane was with many, many changes.  They added flaps.   They had to remove the swirls on the front of the wings.   Several other changes as well, so your arguement that it isn't an exact replica of a fish is a poor argument.  


These curls have some purpose unknown to us, but it’s not a fish, it’s for sure. It’s either an artistic technique or the air was drawn onto the wing.


Radio-controlled models were able to perform even such aerobatics as barrel and loop. They confidently maneuvered in the air and landed, despite the wind rising from time to time. During the tests, the models showed absolutely no aerodynamic flaws. Even with the engine turned off, they had excellent planning.
After this experiment, many aircraft models began to create aircraft models of various gold figures. And in April 1998, hundreds of participants in the annual congress of the German Society for Aviation and Cosmonautics watched the demonstration flights of models. After the seen flights, the scientists, aircraft designers, pilots and engineers present at the speech had no doubts that the golden “airplanes” are copies of flying vehicles. And they were all unanimous in their opinion - the design of these aircraft is perfect! ..

Specialists in archeology of pre-Columbian civilizations, far from knowledge in technical fields, did not react to the results of model tests and remained of their own opinion. The plate at the Museum of Gold still says that in the window there are "stylized birds, lizards, amphibians, fish and insects typical of this region."

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
7 hours ago, Coil said:


These curls have some purpose unknown to us, but it’s not a fish, it’s for sure. It’s either an artistic technique or the air was drawn onto the wing.


Radio-controlled models were able to perform even such aerobatics as barrel and loop. They confidently maneuvered in the air and landed, despite the wind rising from time to time. During the tests, the models showed absolutely no aerodynamic flaws. Even with the engine turned off, they had excellent planning.
After this experiment, many aircraft models began to create aircraft models of various gold figures. And in April 1998, hundreds of participants in the annual congress of the German Society for Aviation and Cosmonautics watched the demonstration flights of models. After the seen flights, the scientists, aircraft designers, pilots and engineers present at the speech had no doubts that the golden “airplanes” are copies of flying vehicles. And they were all unanimous in their opinion - the design of these aircraft is perfect! ..

Specialists in archeology of pre-Columbian civilizations, far from knowledge in technical fields, did not react to the results of model tests and remained of their own opinion. The plate at the Museum of Gold still says that in the window there are "stylized birds, lizards, amphibians, fish and insects typical of this region."

 

It is 99% a fish.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
42 minutes ago, Myles said:

It is 99% a fish.  

a picture of a flying disc is uploaded telling everyone it's a ufo.

Even though everyone can clearly see teeth marks & slightly faded marker pen writing saying: 'fido's frisbee'

some will still not have it;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
15 hours ago, Coil said:


Radio-controlled models were able to perform even such aerobatics as barrel and loop. They confidently maneuvered in the air and landed, despite the wind rising from time to time. During the tests, the models showed absolutely no aerodynamic flaws. Even with the engine turned off, they had excellent planning.
After this experiment, many aircraft models began to create aircraft models of various gold figures

That just doesnt count, to rc that model and i do have over 40 years in rc, hobby and professional it was highly modified,

I am not really arguing its not slick, most fish are, many things can be made to fly doesnt make them alien craft,

You need to think outside your box,

OIP.JRQlrXASzWhb-qaWRAxNLAHaFj.jpg.7d6fa5a6793b81828253a0c1c1d34282.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Coil's take on that image will be:   Alienz have to mow their lawnz.  Evidence.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
Spoiler

44444.jpg

 

222222.jpg

11111.jpg

3333.jpg

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.