RECAPTURING LOST TECHNOLOGY

[mdsungate]

 

RECAPTURING LOST TECHNOLOGY

By Michael J. DeRosa

   It is said that “we’ve forgotten more than we know.  How many times must we humans re-invent the wheel?  All over the world relics are unearthed that don’t fit into our “scientific” timeline for the technology of human civilization, and are classified as Ooparts.  (With no disrespect meant toward Eddy_P who coined the new term DOOPArt, being an acronym for documented-out-of-place artifact, which is posted in this section.)  Many of these are not even documented for fear of ridicule, and there are rumors that the Smithsonian dumped an entire boatload of them into the ocean as a cover-up.  The ones that are classified get referred to simply as “Out of Place Artifacts” and are politely placed on a shelf, no doubt stuck behind something.

   So in deference to this notion I’m starting this thread on some of them and perhaps attempting to try to re-create some of this lost technology.  If you are of a strictly scientific bent, I suggest that this thread is not for your taste and that you try “The Scientific Atlantis” in another section.  I for one am an advocate that Atlantis was not just on a par with modern technology, but surpassed our technology in many ways.  And in other ways, was just used a different approach to meet their needs.  But if you’re of the mind that, when we do discover the resting place of Atlantis, we’ll finally figure out why there are Clovis heads on both sides of the Atlantic, then again, what I’m devoting this thread to will undoubted just irk you.

     I’ll start with a curious gold Oopart that resides in several Pre Columbian exibits in museums throughout the world.  There are no less than a dozen of them.  When first discovered in the late 1800’s modern aircraft simply did not exist yet.  And so it was classified as a “zoomorphic gold bug.”  At this point in time no credentialed scientist in archeology has had to courage to challenge what his professor’s, professor’s, professor had classified. 

     And so another case in point for the theme of this thread is: If we haven’t rediscovered the same technology, would we even be able to recognize what it is and what it was supposed to do, or be a part of?
Mike

[mdsungate]

   Here you have a representation of Ian Sanderson's zoomorphic gold bug.  Check out this site for better pictures of the actual gold artifacts:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm

Here's a quote from that site:

Quote

Precolombian Airplane Models
Is the concept of an airplane limited to Egypt? That doesn't seem to be the case. Gold trinkets were found in an area covering Central America and coastal areas of South America, estimated to belong to a period between 500 and 800 CE, but since they are made from gold, accurate dating is impossible and based essentially on stratigraphy which may be deceptive. However, we can safely say that these gold objects are more than 1000 years old.

And here are a few pictures, (not too many, the last post I tried failed).



The actual artifact is a small gold piece of jewelry. There are about 25 of these objects worldwide, and they sit in museums and collections of Pre-Columbian art.  They were discovered and classified in the 1800's before anyone knew what a jet plane looked like.  Now no respectable archelogist will challage what his professor's professor called a zoomorphic bug.  Yet there they sit for all to see.  Too late for suppression of this knowledge by any secret brotherhood, LOL

Here's another view:



Ian Sanderson took a reproduction of this object to an aeronautical engineer, not telling him what it was, and asked him to analyze it.  The engineer said that in his opinion it was a type of aircraft that we have not yet designed or achieved.  The craft in his opinion was designed to leave the earth’s atmosphere and reenter it.  The front of the plane was designed to fold down to create a heat shield in front of the craft to  prevent it from burning up on reentry.  You can see that in this sketch:



The Hindu texts are not the only source of these crafts, which David Hatcher Childress has covered quite nicely in his book about "Virmani".  Modern man is only now just begining to recognize them for what they are representation of: left behind as gold jewelery. 

If we are to take what Edgar Cayce said seriously, this is the technology of a long lost technological civilization, not from a mere 10,500 years ago, (when the last remants of the Island continent sank), but from 28,000 years ago when it flourished.
 
Mike
 
 

[mdsungate]

  
In his book “Investigating The Unexplained”  the late Ivan T. Sanderson devotes an entire chapter to the subject of these “Little Gold Airplanes” as he title the chapter.

Here is a quote from page 148:

“This neat little trinket is ambiguous, to say the least.  It was one of a group of somewhat similar figurines, all of which were listed in the catalogue that accompanied the exhibit, as “zoomorphic,” menaing simply, animal-shaped objects.  This was fair enough considering the age of these gold pieces, which has been pinned down to between 750 and a thousand years.  However, the collection also contained dozens of most clearly identifiable animals, all rendered with the greatest accuracy and attention to realistic detail.  The startling question asked about this particular trinket therefore was rather naturally: What animal?  So, let us look at the biological possibilities:”

He goes on to eliminate  practically everything known to man including “ birds, bats, insects gliders like flying opossums, squirrels, and some lizards.  Then he goes on to look at the aquatic possibilities:

“Seen from above, the gold model proves to have practicall no fish-like attributes at all, but rather, to show some most explicitly mechanistic ones.  What appear to be structures which are now called “elevons” when on airplanes (being a combination of ailerons and elevators), have a slight forward curve.  These latter however, are attached to the fuselage rather than to the wings, and would seem to be elevators, rather than ailerons.  In any case, they certainly look more like airplane parts than tlike the claspers of a fish.”

 
Mike

[mdsungate]

   At the risk of "spaming" I'm putting in some of what I've posted in Gold Icons about this.  But I promise that this is just to get the thread started.  I'll be putting in other Ooparts, and making my own personal observation about the "Staff of Hermes" and the hidden technology I think it contains.

Here's what I've already stated in Golden Icons about these "Little Gold Airplanes":

The following quote is taken from

http://www.philipcoppens.com/bbl_plane.html




Quote

In 1994, three Germans, Algund Eenboom, Peter Belting and Conrad Lübbers, decided to create a scale model of the “airplane”. They wanted to experiment with its flight capabilities. At the same time, they began to draw parallels between the features of this artefact and other similar artefacts – as well as insects, and airplanes.
The trio soon realised that the people of South America were always able depict insects and other flying animals anatomically correct. If this gold artefact was indeed an insect, than it was still an anomaly, as this “insect” was not depicted anatomically correct. The wings were at the bottom of the body, not the top; all insects have their wings at the top of the body. Still, even some planes do; in fact, most propeller planes do; only the more modern jet engine planes have their wings attached to the bottom of the body.
Eenboom, Beltung and Lübbers concluded this could therefore not be an insect. The design of the artefact nevertheless corresponded perfectly with the design of aircraft – and even the space shuttle and the supersonic Concorde.

Quote

By 1996, Peter Belting had created a scale model – an area he was well-versed in, so much so that his interest in the field of scale models had led to his decision to study the Columbian artefact. The scale model was baptised “Goldflyer I”. Built at a scale of 16:1, the plane measured 90 cm long, with a wingspan of approx. 1 metre. It weighed 750 gram. A propeller was added to the nose of the plane and the wings were equipped with the necessary flaps and rolls.
Early test flights were a success. The plane had a stable flight path and was able to make accurate and comfortable landings. In short: the artefact behaved as a plane was meant to behave.
Next in the “BBL” development line was the Goldflyer II. The model had the same dimensions, but was equipped with a landing gear and a jet engine. The engine itself was a “Fun jet”, able to make 20,000 rotations per minute. The modification from a propeller to a jet engine was made as the scale model did not have a propeller. If it had, it would have been an ominous task for established scientists to label the artefact an insect… If the “insect” had been an airplane, then it was clear that its mode of propulsion was a jet engine.

Quote

The next problem to overcome was the location of the jet engine. On modern airplanes, this jet engine is on the wings (e.g. modern Boeings and Airbuses) or at the back (e.g. Fokker); the space shuttle has them at the back, but its take-off and flight is vastly different from traditional airplanes, as its airborne status is aided with the aide of booster rockets. Goldflyer II’s jet engine was positioned at the back of the aircraft, the only position the artefact allowed for such a position. This insertion of the jet engine in that position was a novelty and a risk; the air flow into the engine would be different from the accepted standard. Test flights learned that the plane continued to behave impeccably: take-off and landings were perfect and its flight path was stable. In short: the insertion of an engine at the back of a plane could be perfectly achieved in modern aviation, if they wanted to!

 
Mike

[mdsungate]

   I fairness to accusing myself of “spamming” I’m adding things here that haven’t been said and elaborating on what has been said about these artifacts.

Here’s another quote form Ian Sanderson’s “Investigating the Unexplained” on page 154, which elaborates on him giving the artifact to an engineer. 

“I turned the matter over to Jack A. Ullrich, who was one of the first rocket-plane pilots in Germany, and who flew all types of prop planes and many early jets, and who has a ver considerable engineering background, including aerodynamics.  His preliminary report reads as follows:

The first impression I got from this thing, not knowing its origin or anything else about it , was that it represented some form of aircraft; and a high -performance one at that.  With its delta-wings, it looked like an F-102 Fighter.  Since first impressions are often the best, let me start off by assuming that it is and aircraft, and then let me try to analyze its external features, and then make some tentative suggestions as to what might be hidden in its interior as a propulsion unit.

Starting at the nose, we find, first, two decorative “whirls” on the top and then two things that look like eyeballs arranged laterally at the back end of said “nose.”  Such items are not normally found on aircraft as we know them.  They could be due to what is called “artistic license” but the funny thing is that, if such things were put on modern airplanes, said planes would still fly.  Many modern aircraft have more junk than tha hanging on their outsides, and they still manage to “stagger” into the air.  Take a look at some of the fighter-bombers flying today in Viet Nam.  They are literally “hung up” with stuff, hanging on their outsides. 

Reverting to the model, the cockpit is broad and, depending on the overall size of the craft which, of course we cannot estimate, could accommodate one, two, or more persons.  Again I refer you to the F-102, which is about the size of a C-47, and you may then see what I am talking about.   The body could have been streamlined with a bubble over the cockpit.  In fact since the delta-wing configuration implies high-performance --by which I mena speed -- it would be a necessity. Otherwise, the occupants would not “do so well” with the resultant air turbulence.

The body of the “plane” is nicely tapered and has enough volume to allow instaltion of a power plant, which should be, in this type of thing, a turbo-jet engine, or anything like that, into a fuselage such as this. (Propellors do not give the performance required to make a delta wing construction, thought they can be made to perform with such a structure up to several hundred miles per hour.  But we are talking here of much greater speeds.)  But this obuect spells out but one thing to me -- namely JET.  But I wihs tgo analyze this further.  If it be a jet, where the exhaust should be -- I.e., near or under the tail-- detail is lacking this little image.  But what if there was no exhaust?  Maybe it could have had a propulsion system other than that which we call a jet, but I will not speculate on that…

His report is pages long, and then Sanderson consults yet another engineer, Adolph Heuer who comes the the conclusion that the entire “nose” of the object was hinged, and moved 180 degrees to be come a heat shield for re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere.
 
Mike

[mdsungate]

   For more about the “Zoomorphic Gold Airplanes”  see these other posts about them here in Atlantis Online:

Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #90 on: July 26, 2007, 01:43:33 pm »

Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #91 on: July 27, 2007, 10:36:23 am »
Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #92 on: July 27, 2007, 11:00:29 am »
Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #93 on: July 31, 2007, 12:16:06 pm »
Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #97 on: August 07, 2007, 03:41:59 pm »
Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #98 on: August 08, 2007, 02:12:33 am »
Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES
« Reply #100 on: August 08, 2007, 02:55:13 pm »
Re: HINDUISM - Ancient Flying Machines
« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2007, 02:10:20 pm »
Re: HINDUISM - Ancient Flying Machines
« Reply #71 on: July 01, 2007, 03:24:43 pm »
Re: HINDUISM - Ancient Flying Machines
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2007, 11:37:20 am »
62 the Unexplained / Ancient Flying Machines / Re: VIMANAS USED QUICKSILVER
Reply Quote Notify

63 the Unexplained / Ancient Flying Machines / Re: ANCIENT FLYING MACHINES

110 the Unexplained / Ancient Flying Machines / Re: HINDUISM - Ancient Flying Machines on: July 01, 2007, 02:10:20 pm


If you caught it, one of the engineers, (Jack A. Ullrich), who studied the plane, noticed that it didn’t have any detail for the exhaust of the JET, which he surmised it must be, because the shape of the wings would only allow it to fly at high speeds.  He said he wouldn’t speculate as to what kind of propulsion it used if it wasn‘t powered by a turbo jet, but coming up next,  I will…
 
Mike