The Abydos temple helicopter

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:42 pm

Could you be specific which panel or part of the inscription this came from?

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

This link shows the original inscriptions, has nothing to do with aviation or nautical machines.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:36 am

Prove it, Moverguy.

The Mayan pic is a pic of one of the gods, has nothing to do with spaceflight.....

Same with the other civilizations.

And I didn't know you were an aunt............................:wah:

No, until an alien comes up to shake my hand, we are alone.

I do not believe in ET.

*but I liked the movie*

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:14 am

Remarkable, isn't it? An exact silhoette (sp?) of an Apache attack helicopter. to the right is what looks a bit like a Russian nuclear submarine and below that is the space shuttle.

I'm betting that we have a psychic here. The carver just tapped into the future and carved what he drew. Since all of these machines are from the same time period, that is suggestive.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:52 pm

Tsk. Tsk, Mover, where's your faith? lol.

Let's just say that the Bible is a good book to live by, and that Jesus is our Lord and leave it at that, shall we?;)

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:03 pm

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

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

Attached files

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:37 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: :-6

Fly by....been there, done that.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:39 pm

Well how about that! Way to solve the mystery, Chonsi!

Here...you deserve my Indy hat more than I do!!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:08 pm

sixyearsleft wrote: Just got email from The British Museum, they agree also,

Thank you for your enquiry. I'm afraid the Ancient Egyptians did not have helicopters or light aircraft. The illusion is the result of a palimpsest. Originally a portion of the royal titulary of Seti I was carved on the architrave. It read 'Who repulses the nine bows'. Later, this section was recarved to represent a portion of the titulary of his son Rameses II. It reads 'Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries'. During the recarving, portions of the older hieroglyphs were filled in with plaster and new hieroglyphs directly overlapped the old. Through time as the stone wears and plaster drops away, portions of the underlying hieroglyphs, that were not totally removed, have become visible thus creating the illusion. Hieroglyphic versions of both titularies may be found in the following reference:

von Beckerath, J. 1984. Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner aegptologische Studien 20, 235, 237.

I hope this is of assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Julie Anderson

Duty Curator*Respectometer pegs for the Six-meister* :yh_clap

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:02 pm

sixyearsleft wrote: Just got email from The British Museum, they agree also,

Thank you for your enquiry. I'm afraid the Ancient Egyptians did not have helicopters or light aircraft. The illusion is the result of a palimpsest. Originally a portion of the royal titulary of Seti I was carved on the architrave. It read 'Who repulses the nine bows'. Later, this section was recarved to represent a portion of the titulary of his son Rameses II. It reads 'Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries'. During the recarving, portions of the older hieroglyphs were filled in with plaster and new hieroglyphs directly overlapped the old. Through time as the stone wears and plaster drops away, portions of the underlying hieroglyphs, that were not totally removed, have become visible thus creating the illusion. Hieroglyphic versions of both titularies may be found in the following reference:

von Beckerath, J. 1984. Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner aegptologische Studien 20, 235, 237.

I hope this is of assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Julie Anderson

Duty Curator
:) Good for you, 6yrsleft, that was cool you wrote Dr. Anderson.

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:43 pm

if it was just one hieroglyph looking like a modern craft i might be convinced that it was a coincidence, but there are four on the same piece of stone. just because there is no direct proof that they had helicopters doesnt mean that they didnt have them. having aircraft would have made the pyramid biulding process a lot easier and explain what the so called experts still cant. how they managed to raise heavy stone to great heights.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:55 pm

paintballmarshal;1255826 wrote: if it was just one hieroglyph looking like a modern craft i might be convinced that it was a coincidence, but there are four on the same piece of stone. just because there is no direct proof that they had helicopters doesnt mean that they didnt have them. having aircraft would have made the pyramid biulding process a lot easier and explain what the so called experts still cant. how they managed to raise heavy stone to great heights.
Again I agree with you. I have read much about the ramp theory in the building process of the Pyramids. I can't remember exactly word for word, but many theories are that any ramp system used to raise the stones simply would not be able to support the weight especially the closer to the peak they got.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:14 pm

paintballmarshal;1255826 wrote: if it was just one hieroglyph looking like a modern craft i might be convinced that it was a coincidence, but there are four on the same piece of stone. just because there is no direct proof that they had helicopters doesnt mean that they didnt have them. having aircraft would have made the pyramid biulding process a lot easier and explain what the so called experts still cant. how they managed to raise heavy stone to great heights.

You've already been told it's a palimpsest, which would apply to the entire stone.

Just because the Ancient Egyptians didn't have our technology, it doesn't mean they had NO technology. People who built cathedrals in the 12th century had different technology to us too but it doesn't mean they used helicopters to help them build! :-5

Look at the facts, not at conspiracy theories.

Here's a game for you:

Play the game and build a pyramid - see if you can do it without a helicopter too. :rolleyes:

Journey back four and a half thousand years to Egypt's Old Kingdom, to the Pyramid Age.

As the vizier, or head of state, you are about to undertake the most important project of your career - the building of the king’s pyramid.

To succeed in this task, you must be a good all-rounder. Not only should you be able to motivate your workforce, but you must have good observational skills and the ability to steer a barge up the Nile, avoiding hippos and crocodiles.

Have you got what it takes to be a pyramid builder?

BBC - History - Pyramid Challenge

Click on 'Launch the game.'

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:12 am

yes the building techniqes used to create cathedrals is very different to the way buildings are built today, but we know how they did it. it is recorded. the ancient egyptians seemed to record a lot of stuff in their carvings. why is it that there is no evidence of the techniques used to hoist the stones, and no record of how the greatest statue ever (the sphinx) was carved out of the stone. or perhaps they were and the evience destroyed by people that didnt want the public to find out. if it wasnt for the cameras being there at the opening of the tomb, would we have even seen the hieroglyphs. there is a lot of money to be made if you can invent some new tecnology, what if someone found evidence of techniques and technologies ( such as freemasons) that were new and then destroyed the evidence. pythagoras studied in egypt before he came up with his theorem. it is clear that he must have got the knowlegde from there but no credit has ever been given to egyptians for it. he took the knowledge and claimed it as his own to his own people. i believe that the egyptians had some sort of crane that used a pulley system to help lift the massive stones blocks. it makes sense that if you are smart enough to build the pyramids then they would be smart enough to invent a simple pulley system.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:20 am

Take it from a stonemason. It aint all that remarkable for one man to move a stone of several tons. I've done it. Find several thousand men and you can move much bigger stones anywhere you want.

Helecopters my arse

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:46 am

did u lift it as high as the top section of the pyramid of giza on your own without any lifting equipment. if so i would like to know the technique and it might help the experts figure out how the egyptians did it

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:43 am

Thats not what I said. If I can move a stone of 3 or 4 tons on my own, then its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to work out what a couple of thousand men could do. Rope block and tackles are extremely efficient and have been available for many thousands of years. They are a simple device and simple mathematics can work out their work load. The Egyptians were a resourcful and inventive people and their needs were met with simple mathematics and inventive tools. No Gods. No combustion engines. No mysticism

I say again, you do not need a helicopter to build a pyramid. Just a well fed army of workers and sufficient motivation to carry out such a task

Its an interesting pastime to look for the most convoluted answers when none are needed

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:27 am

all im saying is that they might have had flying devices, i didnt say they couldnt build the pyramids without them. the small models are aerodynamically sound and would fly if build to full scale. and u dont need an engine to fly, they could have used them as gliders.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:14 am

Ian;1255944 wrote: Perhaps Edd Leedskalnin knew how the pyramids were built?

Resonance plays part in these constructions, the builders have a secret that we don't know, nobody knows how they were built... It would still be a huge task for us to recreate today.

A huge task but certainly not impossible. The motivation's not there, least of all economic ones. It isnt as difficult a task to move such huge stones as you might expect.. A ten ton stone on rollers can be pushed by my grand daughter. Levers make such weights look like a sack of feathers, as do blocks and tackle. I do it for a living. ( I built 4 very small pyramids in Africa some years ago )

Those that see mysticism in doing such things usually have books to sell

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:51 pm

paintballmarshal;1255941 wrote: all im saying is that they might have had flying devices, i didnt say they couldnt build the pyramids without them. the small models are aerodynamically sound and would fly if build to full scale. and u dont need an engine to fly, they could have used them as gliders.

Hmmmm - if they were using them as gliders they would have had zero lift capacity and could not have raised the stones :wah:

And in order to build engines to power a helicopter powerful enough to lift the stones would have required a technology and an infrastructure that would have had a massive impact on their culture.

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:53 pm

Snowfire;1255964 wrote: A huge task but certainly not impossible. The motivation's not there, least of all economic ones. It isnt as difficult a task to move such huge stones as you might expect.. A ten ton stone on rollers can be pushed by my grand daughter. Levers make such weights look like a sack of feathers, as do blocks and tackle. I do it for a living. ( I built 4 very small pyramids in Africa some years ago )

Those that see mysticism in doing such things usually have books to sell

the key words here are very small. did u also carve the blocks so that when they were put together a razor blade would not pass between them like the ancient egyptians did.

a quote from a website about the subject -

"Since the Egyptians made no use of block and tackle methods, or cranes, it is usually assumed that wooden and bronze levers were used to manoeuvre the blocks into position."

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;1256368 wrote: Hmmmm - if they were using them as gliders they would have had zero lift capacity and could not have raised the stones :wah:

And in order to build engines to power a helicopter powerful enough to lift the stones would have required a technology and an infrastructure that would have had a massive impact on their culture.

i believe i said if they were gliders that they could have used for surveying not lifting the blocks

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:12 pm

paintballmarshal;1256371 wrote: i believe i said if they were gliders that they could have used for surveying not lifting the blocks

Where?

What you did say, in your first post in this thread, was :-

paintballmarshal;1255826 wrote: if it was just one hieroglyph looking like a modern craft i might be convinced that it was a coincidence, but there are four on the same piece of stone. just because there is no direct proof that they had helicopters doesnt mean that they didnt have them. having aircraft would have made the pyramid biulding process a lot easier and explain what the so called experts still cant. how they managed to raise heavy stone to great heights.

If that is not suggesting that the helicopters were used to lift the blocks then I don't know what would.

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:13 pm

paintballmarshal;1256371 wrote: i believe i said if they were gliders that they could have used for surveying not lifting the blocks

my appologies i said about surveying on a different thread such a large project and the obvious alignment of the pyramids with the stars would have been a lot easier from the sky so if they knew how to make aerodynamically correct models why wouldnt they make it easier for themselves its like having a remote control for the tv and then deciding to get up and change the channel manually

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:05 am

Ian;1256216 wrote: I would suggest you go and buy some of these books and educate yourself on this subject.

I assume you mean Egyptian helicopters not stonemasonry :rolleyes:

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:11 am

paintballmarshal;1256369 wrote: the key words here are very small. did u also carve the blocks so that when they were put together a razor blade would not pass between them like the ancient egyptians did.

a quote from a website about the subject -

"Since the Egyptians made no use of block and tackle methods, or cranes, it is usually assumed that wooden and bronze levers were used to manoeuvre the blocks into position."

Is it proven that the ancient Egyptians had no access to block and tackles or cranes ? I find that hard to believe. I'm leaning more to the use of tackles and cranes than helicopters. Lets put it that way. If they had access to such sophisticated machines to survey or manouvre blocks of stone, why is it "assumed" that they used wooden or bronze levers

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:23 pm

Snowfire;1257000 wrote: Is it proven that the ancient Egyptians had no access to block and tackles or cranes ? I find that hard to believe. I'm leaning more to the use of tackles and cranes than helicopters. Lets put it that way. If they had access to such sophisticated machines to survey or manouvre blocks of stone, why is it "assumed" that they used wooden or bronze levers

so there is a hieroglyph that looks a helicopter and you agree that the egyptians carved images of the things around them but you believe that they had a block and tackle that there is no evidence of at all. if you can find any evidence of a block and tackle then i would be very interested to see it. the great pyramid is approx 50 stories high its hard to believe that they could have levered that many blocks that high in such an short amount of time.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:23 pm

paintballmarshal;1257015 wrote: so there is a hieroglyph that looks a helicopter and you agree that the egyptians carved images of the things around them but you believe that they had a block and tackle that there is no evidence of at all. if you can find any evidence of a block and tackle then i would be very interested to see it. the great pyramid is approx 50 stories high its hard to believe that they could have levered that many blocks that high in such an short amount of time.

I have no idea that there is no evidence of block and tackles, purely because there are no carvings. Maybe they were so unremarkable, they didnt feel the need to carve them on the walls. I just dont know. What I'm suggesting is that it is a whole lot more likely than the use of powered flight of any kind. Personally I dont find it hard to believe that the pyramids could have been constructed using conventional means, given the man power available.

Maybe I prefer to think along the terms of Occam's Razor. The simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

"This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. "

paintballmarshal · Post by **paintballmarshal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:54 pm

i also believe that they had the block and tackle, among many other technologies that have long since been lost and then rediscovered. i dont believe that they would have powered a helicopter in the same way as we do today, it would be very arrogant to assume that our way is the only way. if and army of thousands are thought to have moved millions of large haeavy blocks of stone, some weighing up 15 tonnes, and lifting them almost 50 stories high. a few men on some horses pulling a glider to generate lift would not be at all beyond their capabilities. how many times have the history books had to be rewritten when a new discovery is made.