Reflection on Ancient Aliens
This blog has had its share of UFO and alien related blog posts. Though in all of them i have tried to demonstrate a Christian perspective, i have frankly had my fill of aliens and so-themed blogs for a while. So, this post is announcing my moratorium on blogs about UFOs, aliens and the like UNLESS i get a specific leading from the Lord. So who knows, there may be one next week. But i'm not planning any more for now.
That said, i wanted to maybe reflect on my experiences debunking Ancient Aliens. Though much of the work i've done on that doesn't really point back to Jesus directly, hopefully it shows that a follower of Jesus is dedicated to truth. The truth is that the ancient astronaut theory (and by proxy ancient high-technology theory) has been proven to be a lie.
My experience with ancient aliens goes back to my teenage years, and maybe further. Perhaps my whole life has been covered by its shadow. As a child i watched Star Wars ("long time ago, galaxy far far away) and Transformers (they are robotic aliens who crashed in prehistoric times) so the seed was always there. In my later years, it got me wondering if fact shared anything with fiction.
As a teen, i was introduced to the works of Erich von Daniken. I'm not sure how, i probably saw his books at the library. I've never been one to read a whole book from their, so i probably looked at the pictures and captions and bought into the ancient astronaut lie there. This was further reinforced through Fate magazine, the videogame Illusion of Gaia and numerous science fiction novels.
Into adulthood, even after becoming a Christian i recall reading a book on time travel which cemented the idea that there were OOPARTs (out of place artifacts) so the idea of time travel and/or ancient aliens was stuck even deeper.
However, once my faith had withered from 2004 - 2008 or somewhere in there, i repented and turned back to Jesus Christ and I re-learned that aliens were a demonic deception through Joe Jordan's, Rev. Radio and LA Marzulli's work among others but then what about these OOPARTs? Though there weren't aliens, i wondered if the ancients were merely super smart. Especially since some Christian theories allow ancient high-technology on account of fallen angels giving it to us or through nephilim-einsteins.
How else can we explain the pyramids, ancient structures (Baalbek) and clear proof of ancient flight? Nephilim and angels of course. Just swap out aliens for fallen angels/nephilim, and i can keep my comfortable world view of an ancient sci-fi world
Same lie, different cause.
After researching even just a few ancient alien claims in-depth, i've had to completely reject the entire concept of ancient high-technology. The evidence for AA is the same for high technology (from angels) and unfortunately the evidence is completely ridiculous.
I've found that all of the evidence for both theories to be at best, a misrepresentation or of a given event/evidence and at worst (and more often than not) a complete fabrication. Facts are taken out of context or embellished. Often they are just made up.
The saqqara bird and Tolima figures are completely taken out of context. The skyanchor stories are too, as they are contained right next to stories about sailors dropping knives in the sea only to land on their kitchen table back home.
Space suit figures shown on TV, when viewed from a different angle have skin showing and toes.
Meanwhile sitchin makes up his own translations and uses 25 year old plaster statues and von daniken use sci-fi magazine pictures as cave paintings.
Even worse, the theories and evidence contradict each other. Sure, aliens may need space suits to get through space (unless they've heard of pressurized ships like our space shuttle), but how is it they need one in our atmosphere? They don't breathe oxygen? OK, then how do they get their pants of do mate with human women? The whole point of a space suit is to protect the body.
And how many kinds of aliens supposedly have their fingers in our pie? Each theory proposes a new species, surely one ET experiment is already a stretch, the dozens or hundreds already out there make it even more so, especially when each one (or at least several) claim to have made us? Each individual Kachina of the Pueblo looks completely different, and those differ from the aliens in Egypt and so on and so on
They can't all have created us, and by the way. Who created the aliens?
So, with all of that said, the ancient alien theory offers no concrete answers merely half-truths and contradictions. It also offers no hope. After all, the aliens merely made us from apes to be a slave race. Great. If we're lucky enough to even have souls, then when we die all we have to look forward to is endless reincarnations. If we're lucky, we'll evolve to another rung on the ladder. Except the ladder is endless, and we are finite.
But the Bible on the other hand, tells us exactly where we come from and why we're screwed up. It also tells us how to fix the screw up - Jesus Christ. It also tells us exactly where we are going. And by the way, God's plan of redemption through Jesus Christ was foretold innumerable ways in the old testament, both through symbolism (covering nakedness with animal coverings, serpent in the wilderness) and encoded (the names of all of the patriarchs. Check out Chuck Missler's take on that) all CENTURIES before they happened.
Like atheism, the big bang theory, and evolution it takes more faith to believe in the ancient alien theory than it does to believe what it says in the Bible. The AA theory has proven itself wrong time and time again, or at best proven that there is a shadow of a doubt.
The Bible on the other hand has a proven track record across MILLENIA. To paraphrase Chuck Missler "66 books by 40 author written across centuries and yet there are consistant idioms and symbolism tying each book together.
Jesus Christ is the only hope for man kind, His Word, the Bible is the only possible explanation for what happened in the past and what will happen in the future.
Showing posts with label ancient aliens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ancient aliens. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Caves of the Past: Ancient Aliens in Cave Paintings
In September, Ancient Aliens will be debunked. Here's the trailer:
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/video-only-ancient-aliens-debunked-trailer/
And here's some details on one of the claims being looked at in the film.
This particular post is just about cave paintings and rock art in general.
The key thing to note about virtually all artwork is that much of it is open to interpretation. No two interpretations are the same, nor are they all correct. Artists use symbols and colors to depict concepts and ideas making a given artwork mean something other than the obvious. The older the artwork and the further it is removed from its creator, the harder it would be to discern the symbols being used.
Ancient art found in caves or on rock faces is not so easy to break down. Some of it is highly strange to modern eyes and some would speculate that this is proof of ancient astronauts.
Ancient astronaut theorists use a variety of strange petroglyphs and cave paintings as proof of visitation by extraterrestrials in the far past. Rather than disproving each individual piece, or even the most famous pieces, it may be more productive to offer an explanation as to what people were trying to convey through their prehistoric graffiti.
It’s highly possible that all ancient artwork had at least a similar purpose, meaning or intent behind them. One researcher has found and documented a number of identical symbols that have appeared across a number of rock art sites over various spans of time. This suggests that all rock art originated from some common concepts and evolved their own meaning from there based on common symbolic origins.
“26 symbols have appeared repeatedly. These symbols appear in other parts of the world as well, leading to the possibility that symbolic communication through geometric signs arose with early humans. The diagram below shows regions around the world where the these 26 symbols have been found.”
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs.php
They also provide this interactive map on their Webpage which shows which symbols appear in each location.
Alien theorists though use slightly more complex pictures as proof of their alien visitations. This link provides some of the pictures that are used by alien theorists and many of these are strange enough to be considered “alien” by some, but could mean something else entirely.
http://www.bibleufo.com/anapetro1.htm
And here is perhaps the world’s largest image archive of rock art. Their purpose is preserving rock art and promoting study of it. They provide a small amount of analysis of the art, none of which has anything to do with ancient astronauts. They instead focus more on the artistic merits of the work. Unusual figures are referred to as figurative rather than aliens.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com
What are cave paintings and petroglyphs really depicting though?
Certainly not every petroglyph or cave painting represents something that the artist saw or encountered. There are examples of that kind of art everywhere, but some of the more unusual rock pictures, rather than being aliens, could merely be symbols or an early attempt at writing.
“The artistic mastery shown in the rendering of the animals cannot be denied, but what about all the geometric signs that so often appear around or near the animals at the same sites?... I believe that the abstract nature of these signs is some of the best proof we currently have that these images were not being made purely for their aesthetic quality. It suggests a more symbolic role for these markings, and a desire to communicate ideas that were not necessarily easy to depict in a physical form.”
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs_france.php
Perhaps many of these images had some sort of context within their culture. That context may have given rise to symbols or ideas that have simply been lost forever.
“These images probably had deep cultural and religious significance for the societies that created them…Many petroglyphs are thought to represent some kind of not-yet-fully understood symbolic or ritual language. Later glyphs from the Nordic Bronze Age in Scandinavia seem to refer to some form of territorial boundary between tribes, in addition to possible religious meanings.”
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Petroglyph_-_Interpretation/id/5425289
(Emphasis added)
“Perhaps the greatest difficulty in getting at the meaning of prehistoric art is that we do not know the symbolic conceptions which were involved even in naturalistic representations. Are these to be taken literally, that is as signs? Or are they loaded symbols, part of a code to be broken?””
http://archaeology-easterndesert.com/html/rock_art_analysis.html
(Emphasis added)
In addition to the art containing symbols and concepts that were relevant to the culture in question, but have possibly been lost to the centuries, it’s entirely possible that today’s “experts” may be projecting modern ideas into the artwork. Considering this in the light of ancient astronaut theorists with books to sell and an axe to grind against Christianity and the Bible, it’s easy to see how present ideas of ancient aliens can be thrust upon art from long ago. Especially when the artist isn’t around to defend their position.
"However, it is all too easy for modern minds to have culturally determined ideas on ancient art that was produced by very different cultures and lifestyles. Ideologies and values of the modern onlooker may be very alien to those of the artists, and we have no way of knowing what types of image are purely representational or symbolic – and if symbolic, we have no access to the thought behind the symbols…Even the excellent Cyril Aldred, for example (1998) referred to Egyptian rock art as “magic-working rock drawings” (p.66). As Renfrew and Bahn point out, these theories were often speculative and some were undisciplined, and they were in danger of producing, ‘imagining’ what ancient people must have thought or believed” (2000 p.385)."
http://archaeology-easterndesert.com/html/rock_art_analysis.html
(Emphasis added)
Without a reasonably solid understanding of a given culture and what was important to them to inform us of what they were trying to communicate, understanding their cave and petroglyph artwork is made all the more harder. This of course opens wide the door for modern ideas like ancient astronauts to attach themselves to a piece of art.
A good example of this would be the gold figurines of the Tolima in South America. While most of these figures are obviously animals, some of these figures have odd features which make it hard to identify a specific animal. Ancient alien enthusiasts use these gold figures as proof of ancient flying machines provided by aliens. A deeper look however reveals that the “airplanes” are in all likelihood fish (flying fish, stingrays) that the Tolima encountered probably daily in the river. The river was a central fixture of Tolima life. Knowing about their livelihood and environment gives a context for their artwork that makes more sense than the modern idea being projected onto it. This principal can and should easily be applied to cave art and petroglyphs.
Looking at many of the petroglyph and painted figures depicted (http://www.bibleufo.com/anapetro1.htm) in ancient art through the new lens of lost symbolism and lost context should call into question their being proof of alien visitation. Exaggerated or contorted humanoids (people with “antennae” or non-human looking beings) may represent normal people with different skills or positions and even perhaps a message for travelers.
Another hypothesis is that what we think is ancient art may actually have been an ancient form of writing. And why not? That may certainly explain some of the more esoteric looking petroglyphs and cave paintings, the ones that look like aliens.
“It is important to remember that the intent behind what we now call "art" was, in all likelihood, not to create art at all.”
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
Certainly, Chinese language started out as pictograms, that is pictures meant to convey a commonly understood idea, and evolved over time to what it is today. Using pictograms as writing makes a good deal of sense as it possibly lends itself to being interpreted properly by people of different languages and as a good foundation to build a written language from. Here are some examples of original Chinese pictograms, clearly depicting a recognizable idea, and their evolution to today’s writing.
http://www.ancientscripts.com/chinese.html
So if it wasn’t artwork, and it was writing of some sort, what does it mean? Although his views and interpretations are somewhat controversial amongst scholars, LaVan Martineau has possibly identified interpretations for a variety of rock/cave art. Interpretations that make a good deal more sense than the ancient astronaut theory. Martineau was an adopted Paiute Indian who learned a great deal from his time spent with the tribe. He was also a trained cryptographer for the United States Air Force. These two things should lend him some degree of credibility in deciphering Native American cryptograms.
“Martineau learned from the Paiutes that rock writing was based on many of the gestures used in Native American universal sign language. Sign language consisted of a few hundred gestures that could be combined together to communicate complex ideas between the various Native American tribes. Their spoken languages were so very different as to preclude any verbal communication, but the sign language was universal from the Paiutes of Utah, to the Pawnees of Nebraska or the Iroquois in New York.”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
Some of his interpretations:
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
This one is of particular interest. This pictogram is possibly directing the reader to the other side of a given boulder for some purpose.
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
But it looks slightly similar to this Zuni petroglyph that is espoused as the body of an alien being. A directional marker would make far more sense than an ET visitor.
(photo taken directly of TV screen while watching Ancient Aliens)
Even pictographs of what look like aliens, actually may have a far more mundane meaning. These are reproductions of rock art said to be created by Native Americans in the area of Dalles, Oregon. It is not specified who made the interpretations.
http://www.ancestral.com/art/north_america/pacific_northwest.html
This petroglyph looks incredibly alien, yet a deeper analysis of it reveals something far less incredible.
“The petroglyph shows a man bent-over, signifying "old man", and without a belt or crotch line, signifying "poverty". The upper hand showing the palm at the same level as the heart signifies "good". The key to the meaning is given by the triangular symbol extending away from the buttocks.
Native American fisherman in the area had the custom of leaving their catch on the rocks so that those in need could take a fish to eat. Whenever someone came by, a fisherman who did not have any fish to spare would indicate this by slapping his buttocks loudly since speech could not be heard over the roar of the falls. The slap and gesture, however, were unmistakable. The individual would then move along without taking any fish. This practice is known because of historical records and oral tradition.
The reverse arrow on the petroglyph therefore signifies "please do not let those in need go hungry by slapping your buttocks". While two figures, that of an old man and that of a fisherman, would have been clearer, it would have taken twice as long to make the petroglyph. Shorthand, it appears, is particularly useful when the message must be carved into rock.”
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
Martineau also suggested that some of the rock art is historical record. Even rock art that looks incredibly exotic may be merely a historical record of normal events. The use of symbolism makes this picture looks somewhat fantastical, but it is said to represent Kit Carson’s conquest of the Navajo. It’s doubtful that Carson or the Navajo employed horned giants in this episode. (not pictured, please follow the links)
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
And this one a war between different tribes over resources.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
And some pictures held religious significance. This piece is interesting, because if one wanted to project an ancient astronaut viewpoint onto it, it would be quite easy. It looks enough like beings coming from the sky and coming to live on Earth. However, the opposite is true. This is a prophecy stone of the Hopi and it depicts the Creator leading the Hopi out of the ground and the possibility that the Hopi will be offered a chance to get onto the straight path for eternal life. When interpreted properly, this is an excellent “Mars Hill” moment to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the Hopi.
“Symbol a represents the Creator pointing down close to the ground from where the Hopi claim to have come. The short vertical lines near the Creator's hand b represent the Hopi people. The Creator is holding in his left hand "the life plan" or "trail" c upon which the Hopi are to embark. Near this hand is a circle d which represents "holding" of the entire continent in trust for the Creator, as he had instructed. (Since this photograph was taken, viewers of this panel have added a bow to the right hand of the Creator which was not apparent when Martineau surveyed the carving.)
Point e on the trail or life plan represents a time when it was predicted by the Creator that the Hopi would digress from the true path given to them and pursue another way. The square f is said to represent Oraibi, and the line or path g coming down from the square represents the false path of the wicked Oraibi . . .
The figures h standing upon the false path represent the wicked themselves. Older Hopi claim that heads have recently been added to these symbols, for they remember a time when no heads existed on these figures. The absence of heads would represent the punishment or death that the wicked must undergo as a result of following the false path.
The two zigzag lines I stemming from the false path represent the careless and different paths to permanent destruction pursued by the wicked. . . .
Symbol k is the true path of everlasting life, symbol l, which is shown at four points along this true path. The incorporation of the symbol old age (a cane) with life (a branching corn leaf) represents everlasting life. . . . The Hopi say that they are gourds which are shaken, thus representing three great wars or shakings that will transpire before the everlasting life is reached. The last circle represents the "final war" of purification in which all evil will be destroyed.
At point n on this panel the false path connects with an everlasting life symbol, showing that some may return to the true path and to everlasting life. The two zigzag lines which extend beyond this point of possible return to the path of everlasting life thus truly indicate permanent destruction, since the wicked have gone beyond this point of no return. Symbol o, at the end of the path is the great spirit holding an everlasting life symbol in his hand. He is shown waiting here at the end of the trail just as he was shown at the beginning of it. For this reason he is called the first and the last.[35”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
It’s interesting to note that some of the Hopi mention that the above petroglyph had been changed even within their own lifetime. So in addition to the above concepts that we are dealing with, lost symbolism or some sort of sign language depicting directions, historical events and religious ideas, we must also consider that the pictures that we see on rock faces and in caves very well could have been changed since they were originally drawn.
The Wondjina (sometimes spelled differently, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondjina) are rain spirits of the Aborigine people. Obviously rain is highly important in the Australian outback. Of course, even though they are rain spirits, the Wondjina are sometimes alleged to be ancient aliens. Based on their appearance alone, this theory cannot be proven based on the current rock paintings.
“Testing at the Wandjina site showed some drawings had been repainted numerous times over, with the images evolving over time at the artists’ discretion, rendering the original artwork unknown"
http://listverse.com/2010/07/06/10-human-creations-attributed-to-aliens/
Indeed, the painting of the Wondjina every year has created layer upon layer of painting, and as the new portraits are added, no one can be sure what the originals looked like. What is certain is that the Aborigines do admit there are differences.
“Today, certain Aboriginal people of the Mowanjum tribes repaint the images to ensure the continuity of the Wondjina's presence.[2] Annual repainting in December or January also ensures the arrival of the monsoon rains, according to Mowanjum belief.[3] Repainting has occurred so often that at one site the paint is over 40 layers deep. The painting style evolves during this process: the figures of recent years are stockier and some now possess eyelashes.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondjina
Small change after small change for who knows how many centuries and millenia could easily cause a wild departure from the original depictions, like a game of telephone. In any event, one wonders why aliens would demand their portrait be painted every year before sending life giving rain.
Added to the idea of constant revisionism over time is the presence of actual hoaxes and cherry-picked art pieces.
One of the most famous ancient astronaut rock paintings is a great example of this selective representation.
"The popular image of two “alien” figures in Val Camonica was picked out of over 200,000 drawings – a pretty clear sign of confirmation bias.”
http://listverse.com/2010/07/06/10-human-creations-attributed-to-aliens/
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKlmIbNPthUALOuJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtwo%2Balien%2Bfigures%2Bin%2Bval%2Bcamonica%26fr%3Dytff1-yff80%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D9&w=320&h=318&imgurl=elbohemio.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fpaintings-from-val-camonica-italy.jpg%3Fw%3D450&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Felbohemio.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2F08%2Falien-evidence-in-religious-art%2F&size=25+KB&name=paintings-from-val-camonica-italy&p=two+alien+figures+in+val+camonica&oid=f18c35e3dc181126e4a906e36e714db3&fr2=piv-web&fr=ytff1-yff80&tt=paintings-from-val-camonica-italy&b=0&ni=60&no=9&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12a3ajpbv&sigb=13srovcp6&sigi=12hcs83po&.crumb=J29068lQMBu
And of course outright hoaxes. One hoax was perpetrated by none other than Erich “ancient aliens” von Daniken himself. He provides a piece of artwork, allegedly from a cave in Uzbekistan, as proof of ancient visitation both in his book Gold of the gods and his video of Chariots of the gods.
“It's a bit difficult to believe that von Däniken had no doubts about the painting at the time of publication, given that The Gold of the Gods carefully crops the image to hide the most ridiculous and obviously modern parts, and even reverses the image to obscure its origin…But von Däniken cared nothing for the evidence of hoaxing. Even more brazenly than in The Gold of the Gods, the complete image is reproduced… as figure 61 of the follow-up book later editions of Chariots and In Search of Ancient Astronauts: My Pictorial Evidence for the Impossible (1973; English version 1974)--even many years after von Däniken was alerted that the picture was not ancient. In the 1974 book, von Däniken again claims the painting is absolute proof that ancient people witnessed ancient astronauts.”
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/faking-ancient-art-in-uzbekistan.html
Indeed, the ancient alien crowd has falsified a good deal of evidence beyond cave paintings, some of which can be found here.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/collection-ancient-alien-fraud.html
In looking at cave paintings and petroglyphs as proof ancient visitation by aliens, one is left with many other options to consider before jumping to conclusions about ET. Firstly, Ancient people were likely using symbolism that was relevant to them at the time, but symbolism (including, but not limited to religious) that has since lost its meaning. Second, and somewhat tied into the first idea, cave paintings and petroglyphs easily could have been a rudimentary form of writing to communicate across different spoken languages. There are some pieces that look like an odd creature, yet are actually communicating a complex idea that would have been known by the people who made it. There’s also the fact that rock art does not exist in a secure, sterile environment like a museum. As such, anyone could make changes in the large span of time between the art’s creation and now, thus obscuring the original image. And lastly, at least some ancient astronaut art has been fraudulently presented as evidence. When exposed as fraud, the ET theorists merely ignore the evidence. Viewed in light of these possibilities, the ancient astronaut theory is cast into serious doubt and as “Crazy-haired Georgio” likes to say about two independent “proofs,” “In any court of law, that’s evidence that would hold up.”
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/video-only-ancient-aliens-debunked-trailer/
And here's some details on one of the claims being looked at in the film.
This particular post is just about cave paintings and rock art in general.
The key thing to note about virtually all artwork is that much of it is open to interpretation. No two interpretations are the same, nor are they all correct. Artists use symbols and colors to depict concepts and ideas making a given artwork mean something other than the obvious. The older the artwork and the further it is removed from its creator, the harder it would be to discern the symbols being used.
Ancient art found in caves or on rock faces is not so easy to break down. Some of it is highly strange to modern eyes and some would speculate that this is proof of ancient astronauts.
Ancient astronaut theorists use a variety of strange petroglyphs and cave paintings as proof of visitation by extraterrestrials in the far past. Rather than disproving each individual piece, or even the most famous pieces, it may be more productive to offer an explanation as to what people were trying to convey through their prehistoric graffiti.
It’s highly possible that all ancient artwork had at least a similar purpose, meaning or intent behind them. One researcher has found and documented a number of identical symbols that have appeared across a number of rock art sites over various spans of time. This suggests that all rock art originated from some common concepts and evolved their own meaning from there based on common symbolic origins.
“26 symbols have appeared repeatedly. These symbols appear in other parts of the world as well, leading to the possibility that symbolic communication through geometric signs arose with early humans. The diagram below shows regions around the world where the these 26 symbols have been found.”
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs.php
They also provide this interactive map on their Webpage which shows which symbols appear in each location.
Alien theorists though use slightly more complex pictures as proof of their alien visitations. This link provides some of the pictures that are used by alien theorists and many of these are strange enough to be considered “alien” by some, but could mean something else entirely.
http://www.bibleufo.com/anapetro1.htm
And here is perhaps the world’s largest image archive of rock art. Their purpose is preserving rock art and promoting study of it. They provide a small amount of analysis of the art, none of which has anything to do with ancient astronauts. They instead focus more on the artistic merits of the work. Unusual figures are referred to as figurative rather than aliens.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com
What are cave paintings and petroglyphs really depicting though?
Certainly not every petroglyph or cave painting represents something that the artist saw or encountered. There are examples of that kind of art everywhere, but some of the more unusual rock pictures, rather than being aliens, could merely be symbols or an early attempt at writing.
“The artistic mastery shown in the rendering of the animals cannot be denied, but what about all the geometric signs that so often appear around or near the animals at the same sites?... I believe that the abstract nature of these signs is some of the best proof we currently have that these images were not being made purely for their aesthetic quality. It suggests a more symbolic role for these markings, and a desire to communicate ideas that were not necessarily easy to depict in a physical form.”
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/geometric_signs/geometric_signs_france.php
Perhaps many of these images had some sort of context within their culture. That context may have given rise to symbols or ideas that have simply been lost forever.
“These images probably had deep cultural and religious significance for the societies that created them…Many petroglyphs are thought to represent some kind of not-yet-fully understood symbolic or ritual language. Later glyphs from the Nordic Bronze Age in Scandinavia seem to refer to some form of territorial boundary between tribes, in addition to possible religious meanings.”
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Petroglyph_-_Interpretation/id/5425289
(Emphasis added)
“Perhaps the greatest difficulty in getting at the meaning of prehistoric art is that we do not know the symbolic conceptions which were involved even in naturalistic representations. Are these to be taken literally, that is as signs? Or are they loaded symbols, part of a code to be broken?””
http://archaeology-easterndesert.com/html/rock_art_analysis.html
(Emphasis added)
In addition to the art containing symbols and concepts that were relevant to the culture in question, but have possibly been lost to the centuries, it’s entirely possible that today’s “experts” may be projecting modern ideas into the artwork. Considering this in the light of ancient astronaut theorists with books to sell and an axe to grind against Christianity and the Bible, it’s easy to see how present ideas of ancient aliens can be thrust upon art from long ago. Especially when the artist isn’t around to defend their position.
"However, it is all too easy for modern minds to have culturally determined ideas on ancient art that was produced by very different cultures and lifestyles. Ideologies and values of the modern onlooker may be very alien to those of the artists, and we have no way of knowing what types of image are purely representational or symbolic – and if symbolic, we have no access to the thought behind the symbols…Even the excellent Cyril Aldred, for example (1998) referred to Egyptian rock art as “magic-working rock drawings” (p.66). As Renfrew and Bahn point out, these theories were often speculative and some were undisciplined, and they were in danger of producing, ‘imagining’ what ancient people must have thought or believed” (2000 p.385)."
http://archaeology-easterndesert.com/html/rock_art_analysis.html
(Emphasis added)
Without a reasonably solid understanding of a given culture and what was important to them to inform us of what they were trying to communicate, understanding their cave and petroglyph artwork is made all the more harder. This of course opens wide the door for modern ideas like ancient astronauts to attach themselves to a piece of art.
A good example of this would be the gold figurines of the Tolima in South America. While most of these figures are obviously animals, some of these figures have odd features which make it hard to identify a specific animal. Ancient alien enthusiasts use these gold figures as proof of ancient flying machines provided by aliens. A deeper look however reveals that the “airplanes” are in all likelihood fish (flying fish, stingrays) that the Tolima encountered probably daily in the river. The river was a central fixture of Tolima life. Knowing about their livelihood and environment gives a context for their artwork that makes more sense than the modern idea being projected onto it. This principal can and should easily be applied to cave art and petroglyphs.
Looking at many of the petroglyph and painted figures depicted (http://www.bibleufo.com/anapetro1.htm) in ancient art through the new lens of lost symbolism and lost context should call into question their being proof of alien visitation. Exaggerated or contorted humanoids (people with “antennae” or non-human looking beings) may represent normal people with different skills or positions and even perhaps a message for travelers.
Another hypothesis is that what we think is ancient art may actually have been an ancient form of writing. And why not? That may certainly explain some of the more esoteric looking petroglyphs and cave paintings, the ones that look like aliens.
“It is important to remember that the intent behind what we now call "art" was, in all likelihood, not to create art at all.”
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
Certainly, Chinese language started out as pictograms, that is pictures meant to convey a commonly understood idea, and evolved over time to what it is today. Using pictograms as writing makes a good deal of sense as it possibly lends itself to being interpreted properly by people of different languages and as a good foundation to build a written language from. Here are some examples of original Chinese pictograms, clearly depicting a recognizable idea, and their evolution to today’s writing.
http://www.ancientscripts.com/chinese.html
So if it wasn’t artwork, and it was writing of some sort, what does it mean? Although his views and interpretations are somewhat controversial amongst scholars, LaVan Martineau has possibly identified interpretations for a variety of rock/cave art. Interpretations that make a good deal more sense than the ancient astronaut theory. Martineau was an adopted Paiute Indian who learned a great deal from his time spent with the tribe. He was also a trained cryptographer for the United States Air Force. These two things should lend him some degree of credibility in deciphering Native American cryptograms.
“Martineau learned from the Paiutes that rock writing was based on many of the gestures used in Native American universal sign language. Sign language consisted of a few hundred gestures that could be combined together to communicate complex ideas between the various Native American tribes. Their spoken languages were so very different as to preclude any verbal communication, but the sign language was universal from the Paiutes of Utah, to the Pawnees of Nebraska or the Iroquois in New York.”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
Some of his interpretations:
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
This one is of particular interest. This pictogram is possibly directing the reader to the other side of a given boulder for some purpose.
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
But it looks slightly similar to this Zuni petroglyph that is espoused as the body of an alien being. A directional marker would make far more sense than an ET visitor.
(photo taken directly of TV screen while watching Ancient Aliens)
Even pictographs of what look like aliens, actually may have a far more mundane meaning. These are reproductions of rock art said to be created by Native Americans in the area of Dalles, Oregon. It is not specified who made the interpretations.
http://www.ancestral.com/art/north_america/pacific_northwest.html
This petroglyph looks incredibly alien, yet a deeper analysis of it reveals something far less incredible.
“The petroglyph shows a man bent-over, signifying "old man", and without a belt or crotch line, signifying "poverty". The upper hand showing the palm at the same level as the heart signifies "good". The key to the meaning is given by the triangular symbol extending away from the buttocks.
Native American fisherman in the area had the custom of leaving their catch on the rocks so that those in need could take a fish to eat. Whenever someone came by, a fisherman who did not have any fish to spare would indicate this by slapping his buttocks loudly since speech could not be heard over the roar of the falls. The slap and gesture, however, were unmistakable. The individual would then move along without taking any fish. This practice is known because of historical records and oral tradition.
The reverse arrow on the petroglyph therefore signifies "please do not let those in need go hungry by slapping your buttocks". While two figures, that of an old man and that of a fisherman, would have been clearer, it would have taken twice as long to make the petroglyph. Shorthand, it appears, is particularly useful when the message must be carved into rock.”
http://www.ancestral.com/meaning.html
Martineau also suggested that some of the rock art is historical record. Even rock art that looks incredibly exotic may be merely a historical record of normal events. The use of symbolism makes this picture looks somewhat fantastical, but it is said to represent Kit Carson’s conquest of the Navajo. It’s doubtful that Carson or the Navajo employed horned giants in this episode. (not pictured, please follow the links)
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
And this one a war between different tribes over resources.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
And some pictures held religious significance. This piece is interesting, because if one wanted to project an ancient astronaut viewpoint onto it, it would be quite easy. It looks enough like beings coming from the sky and coming to live on Earth. However, the opposite is true. This is a prophecy stone of the Hopi and it depicts the Creator leading the Hopi out of the ground and the possibility that the Hopi will be offered a chance to get onto the straight path for eternal life. When interpreted properly, this is an excellent “Mars Hill” moment to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the Hopi.
“Symbol a represents the Creator pointing down close to the ground from where the Hopi claim to have come. The short vertical lines near the Creator's hand b represent the Hopi people. The Creator is holding in his left hand "the life plan" or "trail" c upon which the Hopi are to embark. Near this hand is a circle d which represents "holding" of the entire continent in trust for the Creator, as he had instructed. (Since this photograph was taken, viewers of this panel have added a bow to the right hand of the Creator which was not apparent when Martineau surveyed the carving.)
Point e on the trail or life plan represents a time when it was predicted by the Creator that the Hopi would digress from the true path given to them and pursue another way. The square f is said to represent Oraibi, and the line or path g coming down from the square represents the false path of the wicked Oraibi . . .
The figures h standing upon the false path represent the wicked themselves. Older Hopi claim that heads have recently been added to these symbols, for they remember a time when no heads existed on these figures. The absence of heads would represent the punishment or death that the wicked must undergo as a result of following the false path.
The two zigzag lines I stemming from the false path represent the careless and different paths to permanent destruction pursued by the wicked. . . .
Symbol k is the true path of everlasting life, symbol l, which is shown at four points along this true path. The incorporation of the symbol old age (a cane) with life (a branching corn leaf) represents everlasting life. . . . The Hopi say that they are gourds which are shaken, thus representing three great wars or shakings that will transpire before the everlasting life is reached. The last circle represents the "final war" of purification in which all evil will be destroyed.
At point n on this panel the false path connects with an everlasting life symbol, showing that some may return to the true path and to everlasting life. The two zigzag lines which extend beyond this point of possible return to the path of everlasting life thus truly indicate permanent destruction, since the wicked have gone beyond this point of no return. Symbol o, at the end of the path is the great spirit holding an everlasting life symbol in his hand. He is shown waiting here at the end of the trail just as he was shown at the beginning of it. For this reason he is called the first and the last.[35”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2006/petroglyphs.html
It’s interesting to note that some of the Hopi mention that the above petroglyph had been changed even within their own lifetime. So in addition to the above concepts that we are dealing with, lost symbolism or some sort of sign language depicting directions, historical events and religious ideas, we must also consider that the pictures that we see on rock faces and in caves very well could have been changed since they were originally drawn.
The Wondjina (sometimes spelled differently, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondjina) are rain spirits of the Aborigine people. Obviously rain is highly important in the Australian outback. Of course, even though they are rain spirits, the Wondjina are sometimes alleged to be ancient aliens. Based on their appearance alone, this theory cannot be proven based on the current rock paintings.
“Testing at the Wandjina site showed some drawings had been repainted numerous times over, with the images evolving over time at the artists’ discretion, rendering the original artwork unknown"
http://listverse.com/2010/07/06/10-human-creations-attributed-to-aliens/
Indeed, the painting of the Wondjina every year has created layer upon layer of painting, and as the new portraits are added, no one can be sure what the originals looked like. What is certain is that the Aborigines do admit there are differences.
“Today, certain Aboriginal people of the Mowanjum tribes repaint the images to ensure the continuity of the Wondjina's presence.[2] Annual repainting in December or January also ensures the arrival of the monsoon rains, according to Mowanjum belief.[3] Repainting has occurred so often that at one site the paint is over 40 layers deep. The painting style evolves during this process: the figures of recent years are stockier and some now possess eyelashes.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondjina
Small change after small change for who knows how many centuries and millenia could easily cause a wild departure from the original depictions, like a game of telephone. In any event, one wonders why aliens would demand their portrait be painted every year before sending life giving rain.
Added to the idea of constant revisionism over time is the presence of actual hoaxes and cherry-picked art pieces.
One of the most famous ancient astronaut rock paintings is a great example of this selective representation.
"The popular image of two “alien” figures in Val Camonica was picked out of over 200,000 drawings – a pretty clear sign of confirmation bias.”
http://listverse.com/2010/07/06/10-human-creations-attributed-to-aliens/
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKlmIbNPthUALOuJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtwo%2Balien%2Bfigures%2Bin%2Bval%2Bcamonica%26fr%3Dytff1-yff80%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D9&w=320&h=318&imgurl=elbohemio.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fpaintings-from-val-camonica-italy.jpg%3Fw%3D450&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Felbohemio.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2F08%2Falien-evidence-in-religious-art%2F&size=25+KB&name=paintings-from-val-camonica-italy&p=two+alien+figures+in+val+camonica&oid=f18c35e3dc181126e4a906e36e714db3&fr2=piv-web&fr=ytff1-yff80&tt=paintings-from-val-camonica-italy&b=0&ni=60&no=9&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12a3ajpbv&sigb=13srovcp6&sigi=12hcs83po&.crumb=J29068lQMBu
And of course outright hoaxes. One hoax was perpetrated by none other than Erich “ancient aliens” von Daniken himself. He provides a piece of artwork, allegedly from a cave in Uzbekistan, as proof of ancient visitation both in his book Gold of the gods and his video of Chariots of the gods.
“It's a bit difficult to believe that von Däniken had no doubts about the painting at the time of publication, given that The Gold of the Gods carefully crops the image to hide the most ridiculous and obviously modern parts, and even reverses the image to obscure its origin…But von Däniken cared nothing for the evidence of hoaxing. Even more brazenly than in The Gold of the Gods, the complete image is reproduced… as figure 61 of the follow-up book later editions of Chariots and In Search of Ancient Astronauts: My Pictorial Evidence for the Impossible (1973; English version 1974)--even many years after von Däniken was alerted that the picture was not ancient. In the 1974 book, von Däniken again claims the painting is absolute proof that ancient people witnessed ancient astronauts.”
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/faking-ancient-art-in-uzbekistan.html
Indeed, the ancient alien crowd has falsified a good deal of evidence beyond cave paintings, some of which can be found here.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/collection-ancient-alien-fraud.html
In looking at cave paintings and petroglyphs as proof ancient visitation by aliens, one is left with many other options to consider before jumping to conclusions about ET. Firstly, Ancient people were likely using symbolism that was relevant to them at the time, but symbolism (including, but not limited to religious) that has since lost its meaning. Second, and somewhat tied into the first idea, cave paintings and petroglyphs easily could have been a rudimentary form of writing to communicate across different spoken languages. There are some pieces that look like an odd creature, yet are actually communicating a complex idea that would have been known by the people who made it. There’s also the fact that rock art does not exist in a secure, sterile environment like a museum. As such, anyone could make changes in the large span of time between the art’s creation and now, thus obscuring the original image. And lastly, at least some ancient astronaut art has been fraudulently presented as evidence. When exposed as fraud, the ET theorists merely ignore the evidence. Viewed in light of these possibilities, the ancient astronaut theory is cast into serious doubt and as “Crazy-haired Georgio” likes to say about two independent “proofs,” “In any court of law, that’s evidence that would hold up.”
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Flights of Fancy: Debunking Ancient Aliens' Claim of Ancient Flight
In September, Chris White (Revelations Radio Network) will be presenting a video debunking the claims of the Ancient Aliens TV series. In doing this, he put out a call for researchers to help compile the refutations as it really is a huge and daunting project.
Answering the call to join the Christian Justice League, I will share some of the research that I provided. This information will be available in the associated Wiki once the film is released along with the research that other folks provided.
Here's the trailer:
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/video-only-ancient-aliens-debunked-trailer/
and here's the first claim that i took a look at: Ancient flight via the saqqara bird and gold figures of South America. Georgio, that's a nice fish pin that you wear on the show.
Saqqara bird
Claim:
“They are not representing birds, but aircraft.”
“The wings are clearly not bird wings.”
Refutation:
(pictures are available by clicking on the links)
The first claim we’ll look at is that the saqqara bird is not representing a bird, but an aircraft. If they are not representing a bird, why give it a bird-shaped head? Why give it eyes? Both of which are highly obvious in the below photos. If it’s the model of life-sized glide, why is their no cockpit present in the saqqara bird?
Today, we do have aircraft that implement an animal face on the plane or unusual nose art, but that added décor never changes the shape of the aircraft. If the saqqara bird represents an aircraft and not a bird, why make nose of the plane bird-like?
The claim that the wings are not bird’s wings doesn’t necessarily prove they are airplane wings either. The face, while a bird’s face is somewhat simplified, or stylized one could expect the same in regards to the wings.
Furthermore, the wings are not uniform. Martin Gregorie, a model airplane enthusiast, concluded
“the original bird's wings are of unequal length and are not level with the rest of the body and the vertical tail is actually set at an angle.”
http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/07/shooting-down-saqqara-bird.html?m=1
http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=92
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7A0QqR-OX2ceHpDQecOHfiFBA5hisT5DCj3ZYuYZ8jiVhr3dh-7gMf7A7M8DxuH2Lsa2wG_3ltR4mKR4G557DnLutpeBU3FRLy04ExPZAsMnBMA6Bubu_UrRVnr2WwxjCEK7SqF1JuI/
Claim:
“It’s a very Modern aerodynamic design”
“It is a highly developed glider. This is the design we use today.”
Refutation:
If you see the above picture, the bird “glider” is very thick. Very heavy looking. If the saqqara bird is representing a glider, then this design is not terribly aerodynamic, or modern. Modern gliders are very thin. This is very likely to reduce drag. The more plane there is, the more drag there is and the less flight time there will be.
“Sports gliders benefit from creating the least drag for any given amount of lift, and this is best achieved with long, thin wings and a fully faired narrow cockpit. Aircraft with these features are able to climb efficiently in rising air and can glide long distances at high speed with a minimum loss of height in between.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)
If the saqqara bird is using modern design and is a glider, why is there so much surface area?
Even in modern glider designs that don’t incorporate the minimalist designs, the wings are largely exaggerated to reduce the rate of sinking once the craft is in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlift_glider
Claim:
“The chips on the tail, possibly indicate an elevator had been present.”
Refutation:
The chips on the tail are on only one side of the tail. If a tail had broken off, one would expect the chips to be on both sides and of larger size. Take a look at the chips from the history channel special. Then, my crude snapshot of the other side as it was presented on the Ancient Aliens. Notice, there do not appear to be any chips on the other side of the tale. You may have to see it in the show for yourself, but there are no chips on the other side.
Claim:
“Scale model, they put it into a wind tunnel. Tests show it would fly.”
“The only thing missing and preventing flight, is lack of an elevator rear stabilizing rudder.”
Refutation:
In the “Ancient Aliens” special, in order to get the saqqara bird to be air worthy, they had to add a tale to stabilize the craft. However, merely adding a tail is not enough to make this bird fly.
Here are some quotes from articles that have picked that theory apart.
"Wow - those guys put a model of the bird through a wind tunnel AND a computer simulation and they say it can fly! That's conclusive proof, right? Wrong. Watch the video again and pay attention - these guys aren't testing the Saqqara Bird, they're testing a balsa wood model fitted with a large horizontal tail surface. The real bird has no horizontal tail at all and is made from sycamore, which is something like three times as dense as balsa wood. The real conclusion here is that if the Saqqara Bird was made of different material and actually shaped like an airplane, it could fly. How much does that prove?"
"More to the point, a few years ago model airplane enthusiast Martin Gregorie tested the flight capabilities of a model of the Saqqara Bird and his results were far less enthusiastic. Unlike our friends with the History Channel, Gregorie notes that the original bird's wings are of unequal length and are not level with the rest of the body and the vertical tail is actually set at an angle."
http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/07/shooting-down-saqqara-bird.html?m=1
Martin Gregorie, the model airplane enthusiast mentioned earlier, seems to have tried a number of wings and tails in an attempt to make an exact duplicate of the saqqara bird fly. Most of these configurations were unsuccessful. In order to get it to fly, he had to manipulate the tail stabilizer, which the saqqara bird lacks completely.
Below are the results of Gregorie’s flight.
"The model will not fly without a tail or with the scale tail fitted. The result is always a pitch up if the model is launched at its gliding speed and a pitch down if launched faster, followed by a tumbling motion. Adding ballast to the nose to move the balance point forward has no effect. The result is the same with either wing fitted, except that when the scale wing is fitted the model often tumbles laterally as well.
The model does make a splendid weather vane if it is mounted on a pivot set into its belly under the midpoint of the wing."
"Fitting the big tail enables the model to glide. Both wings require up trim on the tail, i.e. the rear of the tail must be raised. The result is a fast, not very flat glide."
Conclusion
"The performance of this model proves conclusively that the Saqqara Bird never flew. It is totally unstable without a tailplane. A cursory inspection of the photos shows that it never had one.
Even after a tailplane was fitted the glide performance was disappointing. The Saqqara Bird was certainly never a test piece for a low speed, cargo carrying aircraft.
The model makes an excellent weather vane. It points directly and steadily into the wind and does not veer from side to side. In my opinion the Saqqara Bird was probably made as a child's toy or a weather vane. As such it is an interesting artifact and is certainly not an example of Pharaonic High-tech or ancient lost knowledge.”
http://www.catchpenny.org/birdtest.html
Another article mentioning Martin Gregorie's Catchpenny article.
http://books.google.com/books?id=awF5hqJpErAC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=the+saqqara+bird+never+had+a+tail&source=bl&ots=6D3tefyxIY&sig=073SODak2BKJKPeScUSS2NqDF7c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XGuAT-StM822twfE3sSdBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA
Claim:
“Used a catapult to launch it. Modern gliders sometimes use a bungee cord.”
“Scientifics of Egyptology told us that such a bird could be launched via catapult.”
Refutation:
The most popular method of glider launch seems to be using a tow plane, then releasing the glider high in the air. Bungee cords are sometimes used to launch gliders, but that was more common in gliding’s early days and less so now.
“Elastic ropes (known as bungees) are occasionally used at some sites to launch gliders from slopes, if there is sufficient wind blowing up the hill. Bungee launching was the predominant method of launching early gliders.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)
Launching this glider via ancient catapult seems precarious at best.
“I don't know about you, but I'm picturing some ancient Egyptian screaming his lungs out as his catapult propelled glider hurdles away, spinning head over tail until it smacks into a pyramid. This Dr. Eenboom seriously believes that you could get some sort of controlled lift off using an ancient catapult!
The show, at this point, displays a hokey computer animation of an ancient glider achieving perfect liftoff by this method. That seems extremely unlikely to me. But if anybody out there wants to actually test this and perhaps prove me wrong, why not try doing a small scale experiment? Get yourself a model catapult and a paper airplane... then let me know if you get anywhere with that.
And what exactly are the "scientifics of Egyptology"? “
http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=92
An expert model airplane enthusiast has pretty much proven the saqqara bird to be incapable of flight. Launching it via primitive catapult seems a tad ridiculous in light of the fact that it isn’t even airworthy.
Regarding the science of ancient Egypt. While they did have impressive inventions such as paper and building the pyramids, keep in mind their science was not without faults. If you don’t believe me, let me paraphrase Chuck Missler and advise you to ask your doctor to try one of these medical treatments.
“Practices such as applying cow dung to wounds, ear piercing, tattooing, and chronic ear infections were important factors in developing tetanus.[39] Frank J. Snoek wrote that Egyptian medicine used fly specks, lizard blood, swine teeth, and other such remedies which he believes could have been harmful.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_technology
Claim:
One researcher believes aliens came and gave us technology.
Refutation:
If aliens gave us the technology to make a people-sized saqqara bird, the Egyptians should have asked for their money back since it never flew. For the sake of argument though, even IF the saqqara bird were capable of flight, which it’s not, aliens are not necessary for giving us the technology. The Wright brothers need no introduction, having invented powered flight. They developed their powered plane by trial and error and it was the culmination of a number of gliders. Nowhere in their invention of the airplane was there a need for an alien intervention. In the unlikely event that the Egyptians ever developed air travel, human ingenuity and perseverance go a long way.
It wouldn’t take aliens to tell the Wright brothers to look at all of the attempts at flight that failed and try something else from there. Same thing with the ancient Egyptians. They would have likely used trial and error as well, only they would have been in the beginning stages of any trials.
Claim:
“Philip coppens said “It’s a fact that our ancestors were more intelligent and had more technological capabilities.”
“Graham Hancock: There is a forgotten episode of history. As a species we have amnesia. Ancient times people were visited by beings not of earth and they gave us technologies, etc.”
Refutation:
(NOT Really sure what direction to go here. One could refute this, but their statements are mere opinion backed by little facts.)
The statement that our ancestors were more intelligent and had more technological capabilities is not especially easy to prove or disprove. Indeed, they did build ancient monuments, but this is not necessarily proof of greater intelligence. Earlier, ancient Egyptian medical practices (involving animal parts and excrement) clearly demonstrate a primitive understanding of basic medical facts. If they were more intelligent, why not have more advance medicine?
This is also a claim that ancient astronaut theorists flip-flop on. On one hand, they want us to believe that yes, our ancestors were super advanced and used high technology given to us by aliens. This technology allegedly enabled us to fly, build monuments with lasers and hover technology. But in the next breath, they want us to believe that these same ancestors were too stupid to understand what the aliens were and called them gods and worshipped them. They claim that the technology was understood as magic.
It can’t be both ways. If they were smart enough to use advanced technology, they would understand it wasn’t magic. If we were smarter long ago, the aliens could easily have explained that they were aliens, not gods and our ancestors would have understood.
Graham Hancock’s statement that there is a forgotten episode of history and that we have culturally forgotten is hard to prove or disprove. Just how far back is he talking about? Written records seemingly go back 5,000 – 7,000 years back and this is
The Egyptian history goes back to 3,100 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Egypt) that’s about 5,000 years.
Chinese history, one of the most documented cultures goes back to about 7,000 BC. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China). Some of this is just evidence of farming, while later into the 5,000 – 6,000 BC range, they had their earliest forms of writing. 2,100 BC gives us probably the beginning of actual records for history.
This article gives a basic run down of when written records for a number of cultures began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing
The 3,100 BC date for ancient Egypt fits sort of well with the accepted dating of the pyramids. Not that everything Zahi Hawass or “experts” say should be taken as absolutely true, most of what they say is within a believable scope.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html
They also emphasize that New Agers and others want an older date for pyramids and want alien involvement and so, stretch facts a bit. This author even went to Egypt and studied hoping to find Edgar Cayce’s claims (whatever those were) were true, but has been convinced of a much younger age for the pyramids than most AA proponents want to throw out.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold2.html
Pre-Colombian Gold Figures
Claim:
Pre-colombia, Tolima made many gold figures. Funerary objects.
They found about a dozen eerily reminiscent of modern fighter jet. (They have components of jets.)
Georgio said some were like modern fighter jets.
Compared to space shuttle, the basic shape is similar. Wing shape is similar.
Refutation:
To best understand what the gold figures found in the Magdalena River valley actually represent, one must understand the culture that made them. The Tolima lived near the Magdalena river, which they relied upon for food and apparently had extensive access to gold.
“the Magdalena valley was inhabited by communities of farmers, goldsmiths and potters. Some of these built their settlements on the broad alluvial terraces that this fast-flowing river formed.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/tolima-and-the-gold-museum-exhibition
The Tolima eventually stayed in one spot and stopped their nomadic ways for the most part. This allowed them to farm and also take up more complex art forms like pottery and proably more detailed gold work.
“the nomadic groups living along the banks of the middle section of the River Magdalena were still experimenting with tuber and maize crops.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/pottery-in-the-magdalena-valley
In summary, the Tolima were sort of nomadic, and eventually farmers and artists. Nothing in their lifestyle suggests any needs for airplanes, much less being familiar with the laws of flight. Their lifestyle kept them in close touch with nature (river animals: fish, alligators; jungle animals: insects and bats). As one would expect, the things that impacted their daily life would likely be the focus of their artwork.
And it was.
One common animal depicted in Tolima art is the bat. Preceding Batman by centuries, human figures were made with bat features. By doing this, they felt somehow that humans would obtain the bat-like abilities. In addition to this, regular old bats may have initially inspired the creation of gold animals in the first place.
“The golden bat is known by this name because when its skin comes into contact with pollen, it turns yellow. This fact could have been the inspiration for the examples that are made of high quality gold.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/man-and-bat
But why do the wings look like aircraft and shuttle wings?
“One might argue that it is impressively aerodynamic, like an airplane. In response i say, are birds not impressively aerodynamic? Isn’t it a simpler assumption to assume that it was modeled after a bird?...the vertically oriented tail at the rear of the bird figurine is not a trait of birds and is the only anomoly present, which like the fish figure’s abnormal horizontal tail and doubled pectoral fins, is easily attributable to the creative liberties taken by the Tolima.”
http://www.squidoo.com/aahc
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
And here’s a fighter jet and space shuttle.
Fighter jet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Space shuttle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
The better question might be, why do only two out of many depict what looks to be aircraft, when the rest are clearly animals?
Why would a culture that makes gold animals randomly put in two aircraft? In the top picture, the closest object seems to be an alligator or similar animal. Which makes sense since they were a regular feature in Tolima life. The rest are probably birds and fish of various sorts.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/ancients/ancientastronautsphotogallery.html
The left most figure could be a stingray.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
Many of these animals are hard to identify, but would hardly be airworthy. The reason for this difficulty is that some of the figures are amalgams of multiple animals and heavily stylized.
“Their goldsmiths have left us figures of insects and small animals cast in gold, some fantastic, others naturalistic. There are fish, lizards, crickets or beings that boast features of various species, like the famous "little planes", which have the head and mouth of a jaguar, the wings of a bird and the tail of a fish”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/tolima-and-the-gold-museum-exhibition
The two most famous“airplanes” will be easily explained and actually do have easily explainable animals. More on that later.
With nature playing such a critical role in inspiring Tolima art, it is absurd to assume that something as fanciful as airplanes were being depicted. While the below quote makes some assumptions that may not necessarily be true (the Wright’s flew without sheet metal and the like) but the questions they ask and conclusion are sound. Why didn’t these supposed aircraft leave a large impression than a few figures?
“this idea starts to fall apart as soon as you think of how a South American culture would practically make airplanes.
For one, making the plane itself could be an issue. Metallurgy was not unknown to South American cultures by any means but most objects produced were ornamental or small practical things like knives. For a plane, you’d need to produce sheet metal, screws, have some sort of welding/soldering tools of which, as far as I know, there has been no archaeological evidence of. I’m also not sure how well bronze would work as your main building element since steel didn’t make it to the Americas until Spain brought it along.
An internal combustion engine could also be useful. And what about fuel? Did the peoples of South America have an industrial revolution a thousand years before anyone else? All archaeological evidence seems to point towards no. You’d think that sort of technology would leave a larger mark than some 2 inch gold ornaments.
Landing the plane could also be an issue what with the unpopularity of the wheel in the Americas. Without large draft animals, the wheel never really caught on in Meso/South America. The extreme highs and lows of the area made transport on foot the easiest and quickest way to get from point A to point B. Unless, of course, you were flying your plane that ran on magical fuel with a non-existent engine that could withstand a gliding landing.
Another problem with this entire theory is that all the speculation is centered on just one of the so-called ‘models’. Of the seven that I’ve seen, not one of them is alike. What seem to be jet-like wings on one becomes curved swoops or scalloped edges in another. The pointed beak of the main ‘airplane’ (the one that was scaled up to fly) is the exception rather than the rule with blunt, rounded heads on the rest. To base an entire theory on just the proportions of one of the artifacts isn’t sound. Just because one flew doesn’t mean the others will. Nevermind that a sample size of seven is too small to draw any sort of conclusion anyway (providing another reason for the lack of legitimate knowledge on these artifacts.)”
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/2010/10/12/ancient-airplanes-sleep-with-the-fishes/
Keep in mind to make these two “planes” fly, they had to shave off the frills from the wings, get rid of the holes in the wings, add flaps to the wings and add an engine and landing gear.
http://www.squidoo.com/aahc
Appendix:
More examples of other Tolima Gold work. Note a gold bird-like creature in the same vein as the “airplanes.” Also note, that human figures are flat and highy stylized. Using the same logic apllied to the “airplanes” are we to assume that the Tolima were flat or excessively skinny?
http://www.precolumbiangold.com/tolima.htm
“Later, fish, lizards, crickets and fantastic beings in which features of various species were combined were cast in gold. Symmetrical pendants evoke man in different degrees of schematization, while men, bats and feline figures merge in a continuous stream of transformations…the human body is restricted to two dimensions but is set in multiple symmetries.”
http://www.precolumbiangold.com/tolima.htm
The Tolima art was very stylized as evidenced by the human figures in the below links. The second link shows evidence of highly stylized humans that were used in funeral rituals.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/eng/o_tolima.htm
Artwork from the Zenu people for contrast. The Zenu lived on the coast of the ocean while the Tolima lived more south.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/eng/expo_cartagena3.htm
A Zenu cat. It has holes in its back and a dinosaur tail. Just more evidence that artistic liberties were taken with all gold figures in that general area.
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/zenu
another photo of the objects
http://www.unsolved-mysteries.info/english/earchiv/e8archivobj001.htm
Claim:
Georgio, not a single insect has it’s wings at the bottom.
Georgio: They have nothing in common with anything similar in nature.
Refutation:
Firstly, neither of the two figures that Georgio thinks are planes are depicting insects. There may be others, but this one may be one of the few actually depicting an insect. Perhaps a moth. Perhaps a bat.
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/2010/10/12/ancient-airplanes-sleep-with-the-fishes/
These are the craft that Georgio seems to be referring to.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
And his claim is that they have nothing in common with an animal found in nature.
Alright, let’s play.
One possibility, for the first one is that it’s a Sphingid moth.
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/category/student-blog-posts/page/10/
Based on the wing shape, that’s possible. But it does seem that this would be upside down. The head and eyes seem to be here.
What else could it be?
A lithoxus lithoides from Guyana.
“That’s an armored catfish. And what’s that? It’s found on the north coast of South America? In fact, a catfish could easily explain a lot of the features: the upright tail fin, the two bulging eyes on top, the flat underbelly, the “wings” or fins in two pairs along the side.
But hah, the gold artifacts don’t have a dorsal fin, you say? Well, when you commonly see an Plecostomus (“algae eater”) or Loricariidae (catfish) resting on the bottom of a river, its top fin is flat on its body. And for crying out loud; these are very simplified tiny pieces of jewelry!”
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
the catfish perhaps fits this one as well, but this guy has another fish that’s a little closer to a match.
A flying fish.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/005/cache/flying-fish_526_600x450.jpg
http://lintasportal.blogspot.com/2011/04/amazing-flying-fish-flying-fishs-facts.html
Flying fish live near the coast of Venezuela, somewhat far from the Tolima, however not so far that it would be unbelievable they would know about them.
Although these are highly stylized, we can be sure that they are meant to be real animals. The below figure, while slightly exaggerated seams to represent a real fish. The artist perhaps was depicting a guitar fish and took some liberties in making it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/u-eet/82214113/
http://www.elasmodiver.com/Sharkive%20images/BowmouthGuitarfish004.jpg
http://www.ufocasebook.com/ancients/ancientastronautsphotogallery.html
The left most figure could be a stingray.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
Claim:
Georgio: Pre-colombian culture knew about aerodynamics
2 examples from across the world, that are aerodynamic defies coincidence.
Refutation:
In the overview of the Tolima culture presented earlier, it’s plain to see that they were an agricultural society which relied on the river for much of their livelihood. We also saw that there was little evidence to support them using or needing aircraft for any part of their existence. If they had developed aircraft, why would they make only two models (widely different) among dozens of animals? Where is the other evidence for the use of aircraft? How did they land the planes? Were there hangars?
The evidence that these two “airplanes” are anything but animals, amongst many other animals is overwhelming.
The second claim that two examples of aerodynamic craft from across the world defies coincidence. The saqqara bird was proven to be completely un-airworthy. Comparing the Tolima objects to the Saqqara bird in light of that does nothing for the credibility of this claim.
Despite the fact that neither the Tolima objects nor the saqqara bird are airworthy, they do have a lot in common. Both are representations of animals. Both require extensive modification to be able to fly. And both objects are being used to promote the false claim that the ancients knew how to fly and were given this knowledge by aliens.
Answering the call to join the Christian Justice League, I will share some of the research that I provided. This information will be available in the associated Wiki once the film is released along with the research that other folks provided.
Here's the trailer:
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/video-only-ancient-aliens-debunked-trailer/
and here's the first claim that i took a look at: Ancient flight via the saqqara bird and gold figures of South America. Georgio, that's a nice fish pin that you wear on the show.
Saqqara bird
Claim:
“They are not representing birds, but aircraft.”
“The wings are clearly not bird wings.”
Refutation:
(pictures are available by clicking on the links)
The first claim we’ll look at is that the saqqara bird is not representing a bird, but an aircraft. If they are not representing a bird, why give it a bird-shaped head? Why give it eyes? Both of which are highly obvious in the below photos. If it’s the model of life-sized glide, why is their no cockpit present in the saqqara bird?
Today, we do have aircraft that implement an animal face on the plane or unusual nose art, but that added décor never changes the shape of the aircraft. If the saqqara bird represents an aircraft and not a bird, why make nose of the plane bird-like?
The claim that the wings are not bird’s wings doesn’t necessarily prove they are airplane wings either. The face, while a bird’s face is somewhat simplified, or stylized one could expect the same in regards to the wings.
Furthermore, the wings are not uniform. Martin Gregorie, a model airplane enthusiast, concluded
“the original bird's wings are of unequal length and are not level with the rest of the body and the vertical tail is actually set at an angle.”
http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/07/shooting-down-saqqara-bird.html?m=1
http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=92
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7A0QqR-OX2ceHpDQecOHfiFBA5hisT5DCj3ZYuYZ8jiVhr3dh-7gMf7A7M8DxuH2Lsa2wG_3ltR4mKR4G557DnLutpeBU3FRLy04ExPZAsMnBMA6Bubu_UrRVnr2WwxjCEK7SqF1JuI/
Claim:
“It’s a very Modern aerodynamic design”
“It is a highly developed glider. This is the design we use today.”
Refutation:
If you see the above picture, the bird “glider” is very thick. Very heavy looking. If the saqqara bird is representing a glider, then this design is not terribly aerodynamic, or modern. Modern gliders are very thin. This is very likely to reduce drag. The more plane there is, the more drag there is and the less flight time there will be.
“Sports gliders benefit from creating the least drag for any given amount of lift, and this is best achieved with long, thin wings and a fully faired narrow cockpit. Aircraft with these features are able to climb efficiently in rising air and can glide long distances at high speed with a minimum loss of height in between.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)
If the saqqara bird is using modern design and is a glider, why is there so much surface area?
Even in modern glider designs that don’t incorporate the minimalist designs, the wings are largely exaggerated to reduce the rate of sinking once the craft is in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlift_glider
Claim:
“The chips on the tail, possibly indicate an elevator had been present.”
Refutation:
The chips on the tail are on only one side of the tail. If a tail had broken off, one would expect the chips to be on both sides and of larger size. Take a look at the chips from the history channel special. Then, my crude snapshot of the other side as it was presented on the Ancient Aliens. Notice, there do not appear to be any chips on the other side of the tale. You may have to see it in the show for yourself, but there are no chips on the other side.
Claim:
“Scale model, they put it into a wind tunnel. Tests show it would fly.”
“The only thing missing and preventing flight, is lack of an elevator rear stabilizing rudder.”
Refutation:
In the “Ancient Aliens” special, in order to get the saqqara bird to be air worthy, they had to add a tale to stabilize the craft. However, merely adding a tail is not enough to make this bird fly.
Here are some quotes from articles that have picked that theory apart.
"Wow - those guys put a model of the bird through a wind tunnel AND a computer simulation and they say it can fly! That's conclusive proof, right? Wrong. Watch the video again and pay attention - these guys aren't testing the Saqqara Bird, they're testing a balsa wood model fitted with a large horizontal tail surface. The real bird has no horizontal tail at all and is made from sycamore, which is something like three times as dense as balsa wood. The real conclusion here is that if the Saqqara Bird was made of different material and actually shaped like an airplane, it could fly. How much does that prove?"
"More to the point, a few years ago model airplane enthusiast Martin Gregorie tested the flight capabilities of a model of the Saqqara Bird and his results were far less enthusiastic. Unlike our friends with the History Channel, Gregorie notes that the original bird's wings are of unequal length and are not level with the rest of the body and the vertical tail is actually set at an angle."
http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/07/shooting-down-saqqara-bird.html?m=1
Martin Gregorie, the model airplane enthusiast mentioned earlier, seems to have tried a number of wings and tails in an attempt to make an exact duplicate of the saqqara bird fly. Most of these configurations were unsuccessful. In order to get it to fly, he had to manipulate the tail stabilizer, which the saqqara bird lacks completely.
Below are the results of Gregorie’s flight.
"The model will not fly without a tail or with the scale tail fitted. The result is always a pitch up if the model is launched at its gliding speed and a pitch down if launched faster, followed by a tumbling motion. Adding ballast to the nose to move the balance point forward has no effect. The result is the same with either wing fitted, except that when the scale wing is fitted the model often tumbles laterally as well.
The model does make a splendid weather vane if it is mounted on a pivot set into its belly under the midpoint of the wing."
"Fitting the big tail enables the model to glide. Both wings require up trim on the tail, i.e. the rear of the tail must be raised. The result is a fast, not very flat glide."
Conclusion
"The performance of this model proves conclusively that the Saqqara Bird never flew. It is totally unstable without a tailplane. A cursory inspection of the photos shows that it never had one.
Even after a tailplane was fitted the glide performance was disappointing. The Saqqara Bird was certainly never a test piece for a low speed, cargo carrying aircraft.
The model makes an excellent weather vane. It points directly and steadily into the wind and does not veer from side to side. In my opinion the Saqqara Bird was probably made as a child's toy or a weather vane. As such it is an interesting artifact and is certainly not an example of Pharaonic High-tech or ancient lost knowledge.”
http://www.catchpenny.org/birdtest.html
Another article mentioning Martin Gregorie's Catchpenny article.
http://books.google.com/books?id=awF5hqJpErAC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=the+saqqara+bird+never+had+a+tail&source=bl&ots=6D3tefyxIY&sig=073SODak2BKJKPeScUSS2NqDF7c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XGuAT-StM822twfE3sSdBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA
Claim:
“Used a catapult to launch it. Modern gliders sometimes use a bungee cord.”
“Scientifics of Egyptology told us that such a bird could be launched via catapult.”
Refutation:
The most popular method of glider launch seems to be using a tow plane, then releasing the glider high in the air. Bungee cords are sometimes used to launch gliders, but that was more common in gliding’s early days and less so now.
“Elastic ropes (known as bungees) are occasionally used at some sites to launch gliders from slopes, if there is sufficient wind blowing up the hill. Bungee launching was the predominant method of launching early gliders.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)
Launching this glider via ancient catapult seems precarious at best.
“I don't know about you, but I'm picturing some ancient Egyptian screaming his lungs out as his catapult propelled glider hurdles away, spinning head over tail until it smacks into a pyramid. This Dr. Eenboom seriously believes that you could get some sort of controlled lift off using an ancient catapult!
The show, at this point, displays a hokey computer animation of an ancient glider achieving perfect liftoff by this method. That seems extremely unlikely to me. But if anybody out there wants to actually test this and perhaps prove me wrong, why not try doing a small scale experiment? Get yourself a model catapult and a paper airplane... then let me know if you get anywhere with that.
And what exactly are the "scientifics of Egyptology"? “
http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=92
An expert model airplane enthusiast has pretty much proven the saqqara bird to be incapable of flight. Launching it via primitive catapult seems a tad ridiculous in light of the fact that it isn’t even airworthy.
Regarding the science of ancient Egypt. While they did have impressive inventions such as paper and building the pyramids, keep in mind their science was not without faults. If you don’t believe me, let me paraphrase Chuck Missler and advise you to ask your doctor to try one of these medical treatments.
“Practices such as applying cow dung to wounds, ear piercing, tattooing, and chronic ear infections were important factors in developing tetanus.[39] Frank J. Snoek wrote that Egyptian medicine used fly specks, lizard blood, swine teeth, and other such remedies which he believes could have been harmful.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_technology
Claim:
One researcher believes aliens came and gave us technology.
Refutation:
If aliens gave us the technology to make a people-sized saqqara bird, the Egyptians should have asked for their money back since it never flew. For the sake of argument though, even IF the saqqara bird were capable of flight, which it’s not, aliens are not necessary for giving us the technology. The Wright brothers need no introduction, having invented powered flight. They developed their powered plane by trial and error and it was the culmination of a number of gliders. Nowhere in their invention of the airplane was there a need for an alien intervention. In the unlikely event that the Egyptians ever developed air travel, human ingenuity and perseverance go a long way.
It wouldn’t take aliens to tell the Wright brothers to look at all of the attempts at flight that failed and try something else from there. Same thing with the ancient Egyptians. They would have likely used trial and error as well, only they would have been in the beginning stages of any trials.
Claim:
“Philip coppens said “It’s a fact that our ancestors were more intelligent and had more technological capabilities.”
“Graham Hancock: There is a forgotten episode of history. As a species we have amnesia. Ancient times people were visited by beings not of earth and they gave us technologies, etc.”
Refutation:
(NOT Really sure what direction to go here. One could refute this, but their statements are mere opinion backed by little facts.)
The statement that our ancestors were more intelligent and had more technological capabilities is not especially easy to prove or disprove. Indeed, they did build ancient monuments, but this is not necessarily proof of greater intelligence. Earlier, ancient Egyptian medical practices (involving animal parts and excrement) clearly demonstrate a primitive understanding of basic medical facts. If they were more intelligent, why not have more advance medicine?
This is also a claim that ancient astronaut theorists flip-flop on. On one hand, they want us to believe that yes, our ancestors were super advanced and used high technology given to us by aliens. This technology allegedly enabled us to fly, build monuments with lasers and hover technology. But in the next breath, they want us to believe that these same ancestors were too stupid to understand what the aliens were and called them gods and worshipped them. They claim that the technology was understood as magic.
It can’t be both ways. If they were smart enough to use advanced technology, they would understand it wasn’t magic. If we were smarter long ago, the aliens could easily have explained that they were aliens, not gods and our ancestors would have understood.
Graham Hancock’s statement that there is a forgotten episode of history and that we have culturally forgotten is hard to prove or disprove. Just how far back is he talking about? Written records seemingly go back 5,000 – 7,000 years back and this is
The Egyptian history goes back to 3,100 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Egypt) that’s about 5,000 years.
Chinese history, one of the most documented cultures goes back to about 7,000 BC. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China). Some of this is just evidence of farming, while later into the 5,000 – 6,000 BC range, they had their earliest forms of writing. 2,100 BC gives us probably the beginning of actual records for history.
This article gives a basic run down of when written records for a number of cultures began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing
The 3,100 BC date for ancient Egypt fits sort of well with the accepted dating of the pyramids. Not that everything Zahi Hawass or “experts” say should be taken as absolutely true, most of what they say is within a believable scope.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html
They also emphasize that New Agers and others want an older date for pyramids and want alien involvement and so, stretch facts a bit. This author even went to Egypt and studied hoping to find Edgar Cayce’s claims (whatever those were) were true, but has been convinced of a much younger age for the pyramids than most AA proponents want to throw out.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold2.html
Pre-Colombian Gold Figures
Claim:
Pre-colombia, Tolima made many gold figures. Funerary objects.
They found about a dozen eerily reminiscent of modern fighter jet. (They have components of jets.)
Georgio said some were like modern fighter jets.
Compared to space shuttle, the basic shape is similar. Wing shape is similar.
Refutation:
To best understand what the gold figures found in the Magdalena River valley actually represent, one must understand the culture that made them. The Tolima lived near the Magdalena river, which they relied upon for food and apparently had extensive access to gold.
“the Magdalena valley was inhabited by communities of farmers, goldsmiths and potters. Some of these built their settlements on the broad alluvial terraces that this fast-flowing river formed.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/tolima-and-the-gold-museum-exhibition
The Tolima eventually stayed in one spot and stopped their nomadic ways for the most part. This allowed them to farm and also take up more complex art forms like pottery and proably more detailed gold work.
“the nomadic groups living along the banks of the middle section of the River Magdalena were still experimenting with tuber and maize crops.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/pottery-in-the-magdalena-valley
In summary, the Tolima were sort of nomadic, and eventually farmers and artists. Nothing in their lifestyle suggests any needs for airplanes, much less being familiar with the laws of flight. Their lifestyle kept them in close touch with nature (river animals: fish, alligators; jungle animals: insects and bats). As one would expect, the things that impacted their daily life would likely be the focus of their artwork.
And it was.
One common animal depicted in Tolima art is the bat. Preceding Batman by centuries, human figures were made with bat features. By doing this, they felt somehow that humans would obtain the bat-like abilities. In addition to this, regular old bats may have initially inspired the creation of gold animals in the first place.
“The golden bat is known by this name because when its skin comes into contact with pollen, it turns yellow. This fact could have been the inspiration for the examples that are made of high quality gold.”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/man-and-bat
But why do the wings look like aircraft and shuttle wings?
“One might argue that it is impressively aerodynamic, like an airplane. In response i say, are birds not impressively aerodynamic? Isn’t it a simpler assumption to assume that it was modeled after a bird?...the vertically oriented tail at the rear of the bird figurine is not a trait of birds and is the only anomoly present, which like the fish figure’s abnormal horizontal tail and doubled pectoral fins, is easily attributable to the creative liberties taken by the Tolima.”
http://www.squidoo.com/aahc
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
And here’s a fighter jet and space shuttle.
Fighter jet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Space shuttle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
The better question might be, why do only two out of many depict what looks to be aircraft, when the rest are clearly animals?
Why would a culture that makes gold animals randomly put in two aircraft? In the top picture, the closest object seems to be an alligator or similar animal. Which makes sense since they were a regular feature in Tolima life. The rest are probably birds and fish of various sorts.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/ancients/ancientastronautsphotogallery.html
The left most figure could be a stingray.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
Many of these animals are hard to identify, but would hardly be airworthy. The reason for this difficulty is that some of the figures are amalgams of multiple animals and heavily stylized.
“Their goldsmiths have left us figures of insects and small animals cast in gold, some fantastic, others naturalistic. There are fish, lizards, crickets or beings that boast features of various species, like the famous "little planes", which have the head and mouth of a jaguar, the wings of a bird and the tail of a fish”
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/tolima-and-the-gold-museum-exhibition
The two most famous“airplanes” will be easily explained and actually do have easily explainable animals. More on that later.
With nature playing such a critical role in inspiring Tolima art, it is absurd to assume that something as fanciful as airplanes were being depicted. While the below quote makes some assumptions that may not necessarily be true (the Wright’s flew without sheet metal and the like) but the questions they ask and conclusion are sound. Why didn’t these supposed aircraft leave a large impression than a few figures?
“this idea starts to fall apart as soon as you think of how a South American culture would practically make airplanes.
For one, making the plane itself could be an issue. Metallurgy was not unknown to South American cultures by any means but most objects produced were ornamental or small practical things like knives. For a plane, you’d need to produce sheet metal, screws, have some sort of welding/soldering tools of which, as far as I know, there has been no archaeological evidence of. I’m also not sure how well bronze would work as your main building element since steel didn’t make it to the Americas until Spain brought it along.
An internal combustion engine could also be useful. And what about fuel? Did the peoples of South America have an industrial revolution a thousand years before anyone else? All archaeological evidence seems to point towards no. You’d think that sort of technology would leave a larger mark than some 2 inch gold ornaments.
Landing the plane could also be an issue what with the unpopularity of the wheel in the Americas. Without large draft animals, the wheel never really caught on in Meso/South America. The extreme highs and lows of the area made transport on foot the easiest and quickest way to get from point A to point B. Unless, of course, you were flying your plane that ran on magical fuel with a non-existent engine that could withstand a gliding landing.
Another problem with this entire theory is that all the speculation is centered on just one of the so-called ‘models’. Of the seven that I’ve seen, not one of them is alike. What seem to be jet-like wings on one becomes curved swoops or scalloped edges in another. The pointed beak of the main ‘airplane’ (the one that was scaled up to fly) is the exception rather than the rule with blunt, rounded heads on the rest. To base an entire theory on just the proportions of one of the artifacts isn’t sound. Just because one flew doesn’t mean the others will. Nevermind that a sample size of seven is too small to draw any sort of conclusion anyway (providing another reason for the lack of legitimate knowledge on these artifacts.)”
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/2010/10/12/ancient-airplanes-sleep-with-the-fishes/
Keep in mind to make these two “planes” fly, they had to shave off the frills from the wings, get rid of the holes in the wings, add flaps to the wings and add an engine and landing gear.
http://www.squidoo.com/aahc
Appendix:
More examples of other Tolima Gold work. Note a gold bird-like creature in the same vein as the “airplanes.” Also note, that human figures are flat and highy stylized. Using the same logic apllied to the “airplanes” are we to assume that the Tolima were flat or excessively skinny?
http://www.precolumbiangold.com/tolima.htm
“Later, fish, lizards, crickets and fantastic beings in which features of various species were combined were cast in gold. Symmetrical pendants evoke man in different degrees of schematization, while men, bats and feline figures merge in a continuous stream of transformations…the human body is restricted to two dimensions but is set in multiple symmetries.”
http://www.precolumbiangold.com/tolima.htm
The Tolima art was very stylized as evidenced by the human figures in the below links. The second link shows evidence of highly stylized humans that were used in funeral rituals.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/eng/o_tolima.htm
Artwork from the Zenu people for contrast. The Zenu lived on the coast of the ocean while the Tolima lived more south.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/eng/expo_cartagena3.htm
A Zenu cat. It has holes in its back and a dinosaur tail. Just more evidence that artistic liberties were taken with all gold figures in that general area.
http://www.banrepcultural.org/gold-museum/zenu
another photo of the objects
http://www.unsolved-mysteries.info/english/earchiv/e8archivobj001.htm
Claim:
Georgio, not a single insect has it’s wings at the bottom.
Georgio: They have nothing in common with anything similar in nature.
Refutation:
Firstly, neither of the two figures that Georgio thinks are planes are depicting insects. There may be others, but this one may be one of the few actually depicting an insect. Perhaps a moth. Perhaps a bat.
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/2010/10/12/ancient-airplanes-sleep-with-the-fishes/
These are the craft that Georgio seems to be referring to.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
And his claim is that they have nothing in common with an animal found in nature.
Alright, let’s play.
One possibility, for the first one is that it’s a Sphingid moth.
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/pseudoarchaeology/category/student-blog-posts/page/10/
Based on the wing shape, that’s possible. But it does seem that this would be upside down. The head and eyes seem to be here.
What else could it be?
A lithoxus lithoides from Guyana.
“That’s an armored catfish. And what’s that? It’s found on the north coast of South America? In fact, a catfish could easily explain a lot of the features: the upright tail fin, the two bulging eyes on top, the flat underbelly, the “wings” or fins in two pairs along the side.
But hah, the gold artifacts don’t have a dorsal fin, you say? Well, when you commonly see an Plecostomus (“algae eater”) or Loricariidae (catfish) resting on the bottom of a river, its top fin is flat on its body. And for crying out loud; these are very simplified tiny pieces of jewelry!”
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/09/17/ancient-alien-aircraft/
the catfish perhaps fits this one as well, but this guy has another fish that’s a little closer to a match.
A flying fish.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/005/cache/flying-fish_526_600x450.jpg
http://lintasportal.blogspot.com/2011/04/amazing-flying-fish-flying-fishs-facts.html
Flying fish live near the coast of Venezuela, somewhat far from the Tolima, however not so far that it would be unbelievable they would know about them.
Although these are highly stylized, we can be sure that they are meant to be real animals. The below figure, while slightly exaggerated seams to represent a real fish. The artist perhaps was depicting a guitar fish and took some liberties in making it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/u-eet/82214113/
http://www.elasmodiver.com/Sharkive%20images/BowmouthGuitarfish004.jpg
http://www.ufocasebook.com/ancients/ancientastronautsphotogallery.html
The left most figure could be a stingray.
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm
Claim:
Georgio: Pre-colombian culture knew about aerodynamics
2 examples from across the world, that are aerodynamic defies coincidence.
Refutation:
In the overview of the Tolima culture presented earlier, it’s plain to see that they were an agricultural society which relied on the river for much of their livelihood. We also saw that there was little evidence to support them using or needing aircraft for any part of their existence. If they had developed aircraft, why would they make only two models (widely different) among dozens of animals? Where is the other evidence for the use of aircraft? How did they land the planes? Were there hangars?
The evidence that these two “airplanes” are anything but animals, amongst many other animals is overwhelming.
The second claim that two examples of aerodynamic craft from across the world defies coincidence. The saqqara bird was proven to be completely un-airworthy. Comparing the Tolima objects to the Saqqara bird in light of that does nothing for the credibility of this claim.
Despite the fact that neither the Tolima objects nor the saqqara bird are airworthy, they do have a lot in common. Both are representations of animals. Both require extensive modification to be able to fly. And both objects are being used to promote the false claim that the ancients knew how to fly and were given this knowledge by aliens.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
UFO Battle: Nuremberg 1561 (Nuernberg 1561)
update: 12-13-12
looks like I've been upstaged. this explanation details the sundog theory quite well, and I think I'm more cinvincef than what I originally posted. so take a look.
http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/nuremburg-ufo-battle-debunked/
old post:
Having studied UFOs for a good long while, there is one case that's been bothering me since i started viewing UFO's from a Christian perspective. That is, the 1561 (drawing made in 1566) Nuremberg UFO battle. In fact, this case was one that sort of got me thinking ET is real, here's proof. Here's the best resources on the internet I could find, for a generic overview. That's actually about all their is on the topic, most actually just repeat this.
On the surface, it seems to be a reasonably good proof of an ancient aliens scenario. Regardless of how credible this is, a lot of folks on the Internet think it's legit.
Here's some links, proceed with caution.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm
http://www.altereddimensions.net/aliens/NurembergUFOBattle.aspx
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/04/a-ufo-is-still-a-ufo-from-antiquity-to-today/
Pretty compelling, huh? Especially if you lack discernment like I did. Especially when you factor in the crash, and the large black arrow that looks like it came from Star Wars. Spaceships.
A modern view of the Nuremberg skyline, from a similar vantage point. Just for the heck of it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&biw=480&bih=295&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=nuremberg+city&oq=nuremberg+city&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=11644l12553l0l13221l5l5l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&mvs=0#i=6
There are of course people who think this whole case is BS, and so try to rationalize it. One rational explanation is that it's a "sun dog". That is, a weird effect of the sun producing a light effect.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog
Maybe that explains part of it, the boomerang shapes by the sun could be sun dogs, this event did happen at dawn. But I can't be convinced it can be explained totally as a sun dog. The orbs, and the crosses fighting each other and the "star destroyer" are hard to explain as natural phenomena. Not to mention, the Nuremberg woodcut is remarkably different from current photos of sun dogs (see the wiki), and also a Swedish painting of one.
Note how the painting is relatively obvious it's a sun dog. ("Sun Dog Painting" (Vädersolstavlan) Stockholm 1535) despite it being a little weird looking. It looks natural, and different from the Nuremberg event. The description is a little similar, in that the Swedish account is described as multiple suns and arcs across the sky for 2 hours.
But notice, this is 30 years earlier, and while they did interpret the Swedish event as an omen, they don't seem to be attribute any battle going on, and no crash. The Swedish painting looks more natural than the Nuremberg woodcut. Not to mention, the images don't seem to fight.
So, in light of another event, i will concede the Nuremberg event could have been a sun dog. Or at least happening at the same time as one. What keeps me from being totally convinced is the alleged crash object(s), the fact that the objects appeared to chase and battle each other. There is also the fact that the rods, circles and crosses all were separate.
In all the sun dog pics online, and a few youtube videos (first sun dog in mongolia is a really good one.) there are circles, and crosses, maybe even what could be perceived as cylinders (of light, not gray). But the crosses are inside the circles and the none of them appear to be interacting, and they all seem quite stationary in the videos. So until someone shows me a sun dog that does the things the Nuremberg one did, i won't buy it.
So, this moves us to the possibility of a hoax. This article postulates the entire event is fake. This is entirely possible...
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/18/the-case-of-the-legendary-nuremberg-ufo/
Except for the fact that it appears Hans Glaser,was a real person and did other woodcuts. It was also referenced in older materials by Jacques Vallee.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hans_Glaser
http://www.telelaget.com/histcult/bonde.htm
But here's a few things in favor of a hoax. The history of the city of Nuremberg addresses a few historical things in the 1500's, and the UFO battle is not one of them. Look at Roswell, there's like 3 books a year about "new Roswell evidence" and festivals, etc, and that's only 60 years ago. Wouldn't people have made a bigger deal then? Wouldn't the city, with a link for tourism, market this even now? I would.
http://www.nuernberg.de/internet/portal_e/buerger/imperial_city.html
And no mention of Glaser, or this woodcut here. One would think, as a source exploring the art of the period, such an interesting piece would be addressed, but it's possible it was avoided because of controversy.
http://www.archive.org/stream/nurembergandits00regoog/nurembergandits00regoog_djvu.txt
So, if it's a hoax it's probably a 500 year old hoax. Evidence in favor of a hoax 500 years ago, no current attempt to exploit it for tourism and no crash wreckage ever seems to have been recovered.
This one, may be possible, and it ties into where we're going next. Ergotism was the cause, and it was all a "mass hallucination". This would certainly explain why people saw a crash, yet make no mention of any wreckage.
Basically, people ate bread that wasn't good, and as a result hallucinated. Apparently, the mold acted similarly to LSD and therefore caused people to see this light show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism
http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t139128.html
Given that ergotism has some relation to LSD, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate. LSD and certain other drugs, especially DMT have the ability to open a person's mind to the spirit world. This is not a good thing. The Bible warns us repeatedly not to engage in witchcraft and sorcery.
As Dr. Future says frequently, in Revelation 18:32 the word "sorceries" means pharmakeia (G5331), that is drugs. But in addition to drugs, my understanding is there's also a spiritual component as well, that is drugs and spirit contact go hand in hand. What's more, as i understand it, the Septuagint uses pharmakeia for witchcraft throughout the Old Testament.
Here's some podcasts that address drugs, spirit contact and UFOs, and you should be able to see some sort of connection.
LA Marzulli on Drugs, and spirit contact
http://futurequake.com/Audio/FQShow157.mp3
Adam "Ayawasca" Ellenbas (Caution, non-Christian guest)
http://futurequake.com/Audio/FQShow236.mp3
Dr. Will Alnor, UFOs and the End of Days
http://futurequake.com/Audio/FQShow158.mp3
Gary Stearman
http://www.pidradio.com/2011/08/10/p-i-d-radio-special-gary-stearman-the-luciferian-ufo-agenda/
So, my working theory is that the people in Nuremberg, sick with ergotism had their spiritual "eyes" opened through this LSD-like mold. Then, they saw into the spirit world, that is "hallucinated" a big "UFO battle". The battle in the sky, was perhaps the Ephesians 6:12 spiritual battle always going on around us, except they saw it. Perhaps also, Satan and his forces manifested in this manner during the battle, knowing that one day he'd be able to use it as proof for UFO visitation.
So the sun dog theory has something to be desired, especially in light of contemporary artwork. Not to mention, that i don't think people would be so stupid as to think that sun dogs are fighting each other.
The possibility of a modern hoax doesn't seem feasible, it would be easily disproven. The fact of an ancient hoax leaves a question of motive. Why would they manufacture such a story, and record it as a factual event in their news? Hans Glaser, to the best of my knowledge was a real person, and an artist in the period. He seemed to record other real events, why would he record a fake one as news?
Ergotism is a good answer, especially in light of a possible spiritual connection. But if this was a battle of "principalities and powers" what were they fighting over? Did they manifest because of the ergotism, or were they able to manifest without it? What's with the "star destroyer"?
We may never know this side of eternity for sure, but my money, for now, is on an "LSD" door opening which the locals witnessed.
Update 11-14-11
I did a little more digging. The city of Nuernberg has pointed me to a couple websites, one of which has been extremely useful. Of course, it's just the German wikipedia, but it's pretty good.
It turns out Hans Glaser was real, and he did actually produce the famous woodcut. You can read about it here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Glaser
There's also talk of the 1561 UFO in here
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO
Pop over to google translate to get the gist of what they say.
Next, with the ergotism. In their history of ergotism (ergotismus, Mutterkornalkaloide) there doesn't appear to be any connection between the Nuremberg event and ergotism. That doesn't mean there wasn't a connection, but it's not clearly stated.
These links give some good info about ergotism and it's symptoms
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/bot135/lect12.htm
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/ergot.htm
But here is one article that connects the 1561 event, and other "ancient aliens" with ergotism.
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/ufos-in-history.html
So, i'm still sticking with my theory, but this is new info that makes old evidence a bit stronger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)