|
Post by timtebow on Oct 16, 2010 3:38:04 GMT 10
When did these water toys become airplanes? Ancient Water Toys. You seem to be the authority on ancient water toys. Why would they draw similar ancient water toys all over ancient walls? Flat out, your theory holds as much water as those tiny gold birds do. Take a nap, you're becoming even more irritable then you usually are. When I get home and start drinking this evening, I'll let you know and you can mix yourself a nice glass of Metamucil. It'll be just like you're on the back porch with me.
|
|
|
Post by Eagan Thorn on Oct 16, 2010 3:56:42 GMT 10
Who said I was irritable? I think your nonsense is hilarious!
The idea that a pre-Colombian culture would model an object intentionally after something not ever seen nor invented by any of mankind at the time, instead of modeling after things relative to their time period and culture is a very real sign of senility if you believe it, which kind of makes YOU the joke. I simply speculate that your condition, your senility is brought on by your self proclaimed propensity to continually imbibe, compounded by your presumed advance state of syphilis. And while your lunacy may very well be attributable to some other unforeseen condition, I'm gonna stick with the syphilitic explanation, purely for entertainment purposes. As I do find you amusing.
Sooo, you gonna stick with the idea that these are airplanes, huh?
|
|
|
Post by timtebow on Oct 16, 2010 4:22:17 GMT 10
I love "name that symptom"! It's FUN! So for you Eagan; You're a Self Ingratiating Manipulative Narcissist. You wear that personality like a 25 pound goiter. But to answer your question. Yes, I would stick to the idea that the gold trinkets as well as other representations symbolized some sort of arial phenomena over a water toy shaped like a bird. Now, don't get me wrong, the above items would make some FUCKING FANTASTIC ancient pool toys! But, nah. I think that explanation is a much further leap of speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Eagan Thorn on Oct 16, 2010 4:38:40 GMT 10
Sooo, in this alternate reality of yours, these ancient people of Central and South America not only believe that gold is a proper material in which to construct model airplanes but also influenced the hieroglyphics of ancient Egyptian cultures. Obviously you've thought this through, and in doing so successfully thwart and refute any question of your sanity. Tell me more, Ahab, tell me more.
And the fact that these designs and the material of which they are constructed in their original state do provide a subtle effect in water, has no place in your theory? Interesting that you go beyond a leap but rather into a full springboard, catapult of faith here, classic sensibility for a deranged syphilitic mind like yours. I should expect nothing less, nor do I. Please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by timtebow on Oct 16, 2010 4:52:44 GMT 10
It's speculation based on cross-cultural evidence, all the other horse shit, you have assumed I have said, and as you ALWAYS DO, force words and ideas on someone else.
However, I will say that speculation on the reality of ancient, cross-cultural, intercontinental references to aerial phenomena holds more water then your ancient pool toys.
I mean - why water toys, Wham-O? You could just as easily say they were kinky butt-plugs and it would make equal sense.
|
|
|
Post by timtebow on Oct 16, 2010 4:56:54 GMT 10
So again... If something like this is dug up in 2,000 years from now - some Einstein will say it a water toy that was cast to look like a bird - or a butt plug.
|
|
|
Post by Eagan Thorn on Oct 16, 2010 6:41:01 GMT 10
It's speculation based on cross-cultural evidence, all the other horse shit, you have assumed I have said, and as you ALWAYS DO, force words and ideas on someone else. However, I will say that speculation on the reality of ancient, cross-cultural, intercontinental references to aerial phenomena holds more water then your ancient pool toys. I mean - why water toys, Wham-O? You could just as easily say they were kinky butt-plugs and it would make equal sense. Dude, you added the Egyptian references, not me. So, sorry but your eagerness to accept global connectivity is also very flawed when speaking of ancient cultures. What kind of school did you go to? Wait, don't tell me, one that specialized in clown theory. Many primitive cultures had similarities in development simply because progressive development works in simplistic terms. A pyramid is and has always been one of the fundamental architectural designs that primitive cultures will explore first, Even children start in a sand box building little piles of sand, apes collect nuts and berries and put them in a pile which is the crude shape of a pyramid, no mystery there, except perhaps to a syphilitic mind like yours. Cultures that begin writing in stone will often share similar shaped characters simply because those are universally easier to carve, get my drift "blue boy"? They then develop up from there. So cancel out your silly transatlantic, cross cultural examples, they are not valid nor sound. Fail, but I'm guessing you are use to fail aren't you, my MEPeleptic little friend. Odd that you fixate on a butt plug as a water toy reference, you are a kinky bastard, aren't you? Spock, what ever you wish to stick up your ass is your personal business, seriously, I don't want to know. Please refrain from bringing it up in my threads again. Now, why water toys? Because that would be something more attuned to the culture and time period than an airplane or jet. Seriously, how fucked up is your thinking? Do you even bother to think before typing shit up? Now if some one in the future digs up a toy airplane manufactured in the year 1979, I am have a certain degree of confidence that it will be properly identified as such. Unless of course that person were related to you, in which case my confidence would drastically drop ten fold, considering your comments, inability to articulate logic and that syphilis thing you've got going on. Say, don't you have a side show to perform? Be honest, you like this abuse don't you? Its why you keep coming back, fess up, sunshine. I certainly wouldn't think any lower of you to admit it, wouldn't be possible.
|
|
|
Post by timtebow on Oct 16, 2010 8:07:14 GMT 10
It's really quite simple Methusala. You're coming from a position that there should be no speculation of the possibility of the ancients globally; from South America to India to the Middle East to Canada, to the tribes of Africa, to the American Indian, from Asia to Mexico; regardless of all their own stories, all their legends, all their drawings, you insists that: This: Equals This: And to in order to empower your position you say about me: Alcoholic, syphilis, MEPish, that I put strange objects in my ass, Blue-Boy, fucked up thinking, obsessed, that I should be running a slide show(?) - and those are just the ones I can think of at this moment. That's how you get your point across. But at the end of the day, you're still saying these are water toys, old man. And you can't explain away all the other very real, very similar instances that have occurred throughout time, across the globe. Ah, I guess their all water toys too. You have articulated your point much as I expected, and the same I expect to always see it - like a complete fucking jack-ass.
|
|
|
Post by Eagan Thorn on Oct 16, 2010 9:44:35 GMT 10
And yet here you are, back for more, trying your best to equate water toys to that of floats and boats, while completely ignoring the logic and facts. Instead, you are subscribing to the most impossible of theories by way of slight of hand. Not going to happen, not today, not ever. Guess you don't know what other kinds of water toys there are. Sorry, maybe that is all you could learn at clown school, to ignore the obvious and embrace the lunacy, or did you develop that on your own over the years? Wait, I almost forgot, you have your alcohol enhanced syphilitic mind, completely void of reason for that, maybe your school isn't to blame. Hmm, I'll have to ponder that for a while, maybe they don't care what kind of people pass through their halls. Take heed my friends, see your Doctor regularly and always wear a condom when having sex with strange partners (I say partners cause you do seem gay, spock, and I didn't want to offend you in THAT way. See bitch, I can be sensitive) Or else you too might contract a social disease. Spock, at least you are useful as an example, therefore you aren't a total waste of human flesh. Now, everyone make a note of this, here is spock, one of the lords and masters of the DTV loony bin, coming all the way over here for the sole purpose of objecting to an OP of yours truly. He has openly confessed that he doesn't have any viable answers, just wants to object to me, my opening statement, plus he has admitted that he just absolutely hates me, considers me to be an "evil fucker", yet spends all this effort posting on my thread arguing that a collective of primitive people, arguably of stone-age era and skills, long since dead and buried, created artifacts modeled after jets, fighters and airplanes. Which of course defies all sensible logic and shamefully ignores the culture of those good people. The question is why. Why? Lets ask this creepy stalker guy. Why Spock, why are you stalking me? I don't go to DTV and start shit, why do you come here to start shit with me? Is DTV just not fulfilling enough for you? Now run back to your group of "friends" and ask them what you should say next, run, run quick now. Skee-dattle. .........some Einstein will say it a water toy that was cast to look like a bird - or a butt plug. Oh, wait, now I understand why you are fixated on butt plugs....you have your own ideas about water toys. Sorry dipshit, I didn't mean THOSE kinds of toys. Perverted fucker. $$$$$
|
|
|
Post by theshee on Oct 16, 2010 10:17:21 GMT 10
Come on guys, play nice. I just wanted to share this that I read a good while back, I thought it was quite interesting. As seen from the pictures, the shape of the sample object is rather ambiguous. The archaeologists labelled these objects as zoomorphic, meaning, animal shaped objects. The question is, what animal do they represent? When we compare these with other objects from the same cultures depicting animals, a curious facet of the comparison would be obvious: the other objects are recognizable, rendered usually with a great accuracy and attention to realistic detail. There are several types of animals which fly—birds, insects, and several mammals, such as bats and some gliders, for instance flying squirrels, oppossums, and then there are some lizards; there are also some fish which for brief periods glide through the air. There are water animals which seem to fly through the water, such as rays, skates and some selachians. But how does the depicted object compare with these choices? All its features taken into a consideration, we have no match. Seen from above, the object obviously has no fish features, but seems to show rather explicitly mechanistic ones. The structures just in front of the tail are strongly reminiscent of elevons (a combination of ailerons and elevators) with a slight forward curve, but they are attached to the fuselage, rather than the wings. In any case, they look more like airplane parts than like the claspers of a fish. If the two prominent spirals on the wings are supposed to be a stylized version of the eyes of a ray, then what are the two globular objects positioned on the head supposed to represent? To complicate the identification even more, the spirals on the wings have their copies positioned on the nose of the object, in the opposite direction. When the object is viewed in profile, the didsimilarity to anything from the animal kingdom is even more pronounced. If the zoomorphic explanation is supposed to hold, then why did the artist cut the head off almost three quarters from the body? And why is the nose is practically rectangular and the cut tilted forward, with eyes positioned at either side, when fish eyes are usually more near the center of bodyline and far forward on the head? What we can make of the semicircular grooves on the inside of the cut? What is it supposed to be—fishwise? And what about the scoop, forward and under the cut? It is a scoop, not just a ridge for drilling a hole through to place the object on a necklace chain. Then there is another rectangular feature, positioned further back at the approximate center of gravity under the fuselage. The wings when viewed from the side are perfetly horizontal, but when seen from the front, they curve slightly downward. The elevators, which are right behind the wings, are positioned on a slightly higher horizontal level and are square-ended, thus a definite geometric shape. Above them is another rectangular shape, with a relief which may be reminiscent of knobs. The tail is equally intriguing. No fish has only a single, upright and perpendicular flange. But this tail fin has an exact shape of fins on modern airplanes. There are also some markings on the tail which are hard to identify, but it does not seem to be anything related to animals, either. When all the features are taken into an account, the object does not look like a representation of any known animal at all, but does look astonishingly like an airplane. The photos and enlarged outline of the object has been submitted for an analysis to several people from the field of aerodynamics. One of them was Arthur Young, a designer of Bell helicopters and other aircraft. His analysis confirmed that the object contains many features which would fit the airplane hypothesis, but there were several ones which would not fit that scenario. Wings do seem to be in the wrong place—they should be further forward so that their 1/4-chord coincides with the center of gravity. The nose is not like anything on airplanes, as well. So, while the object is suggesting an airplane, some features would not seem to support this hypothesis. But let's entertain several possibilities. If we imagine that the separation after the windshield is not a cockpit and that the pilot and the cargo were located somewhere in the main fuselage body, then we can envision the nose as something else. Let's assume that the nose is actually a jet. If the machine needs to slow down, the jet flow directed against the path of flight would accomplish just that. But how to redirect the jet into the opposite direction? If we envision the nose as a movable part of the plane, turning around the point located where the nose and fuselage meet, thus pivoting the nose downward to tuck it under the fuselage, that would enable the desired effect. What's more, it will re-adjust the center of gravity and the wings would be just in the right place for a high powered flight. Another problem, though, will appear and that is the drag which would be created by the back of the nose now positioned in front. But that can be attributed to artistic license. That seems to be the case, because several other similar planes feature the back part of the nose tilted more forward, so the angle of the back of the nose when pivoted is more corresponding to aerodynamic principles. All things considered, the object seems to represent a convertible type of craft, with two possible configurations—one for ascent when the nose is facing backwards, and the other for descent with the nose facing forward. One unsolved item remains—the spirals on the both wings and the nose. According to Amerindian iconography, these spirals have discernable meaning—they represent ascending and descending, depending on whether they are right-oriented or left-oriented, respectively. As the spirals are not only on wings but also on the nose, the meaning is fairly obvious—the wings and the nose (as much) were the features which were directly involved in ascent and descent. There are other cultures which mention flying vehicles of some sort or another. The most known of these sources are Indian epics, especially the Mahábhárata and other Védic sources as Bhágavata Purána and Rámáyana. The flying devices were called vimánas and were extensively discussed in Vaimánika Shástra, describing multitude of machines with different purposes and capabilities. Other source of information about flying machines may be considered, such as the Bible and some apocryphal works. The book of Ezekiel seems to be describing the close encounter of a man from a non-technological culture with a device which to him must have been miraculous. We have to put ourselves into his shoes to comprehend his astonishment and the otherworldness of his encounter. The limited scope of knowledge of the world around him, his primitive environment, dictated the language and conceptual framework with which he tried to capture his encounter for fellow tribesmen. For him it seemed that he encountered The God, with his suite of angels, because in his simple world, there was no other interpretation. It is not necessary to reach for an alien type of scenario to explain the encounter; we can entertain a possibility that a remnant of an advanced civilization was still present, in a limited scope, at the time of Ezekiel. But for some, the encounter bears uncanny similarity to the modern-day encounters with UFO's. Another source of similar material is the Book of Enoch, particularly the Slavic version, which contains some parts which the Greek version is missing. The book not only describes flying in the air, but also through outer space, including the relativistic effects mentioned—Enoch spent several days on a spacecraft, but when he returned to Earth, several centuries had passed by. There is no shortage of descriptions of flying machines in ancient sources. If we try to extract the core of myths of different provenience and remove the embellishments, we discover to our surprise that flying in ancient times seems to be the rule, not the exception. Text and Illustrations ©1996 Lumir G. Janku Photographs courtesy of Government of Colombia, Roy Pinney and Barney Nashold
|
|