Also, my question? Do you really believe that it's not a coincidence that mountains on Mars look like a constellation? What's your explanation for why they do then?

The aliens. Haven't I already stated that?

Don't you know Drano? God did it as a sign for the aliens he made so they could get here. Of course, the fact that the constelations have changed over billions of years and that, do to distance, the patterns of the stars change as you travel across light years doesn't matter.

So the aliens either placed the stars in the sky to look like the mountains on mars, or they built mountains on mars to look like the constellations?

Do I have your belief right CM?

Draug +1 constellation (your choice)

Don't forget the aliens made the face of the moon look like a human face so ancient man would remember they were watching from above.

"@Chrisp: But did the ancients even have that technology. According to the History Channel, they didn't even have the wheel yet. (If that's wrong, tell me)"

Are you kidding me? Wheeled vehicles existed by 4000 BC, the concept of the wheel is probably one that is evolutionarily ingrained and over millions of years old. Shit, even honey badgers know to roll a small log somewhere so that they can stand on it for the higher vantage point. The understanding of physics necessary to create and manipulate simple machinery such as levers is something that is included in our instinctive physical intuition. Even most apes probably understand the wheel...

Wait, I thought the moon was made of cheese? All these years I've been hoping for some cheese from the moon......my hopes, my dreams.........all gone......

You have to understand the subtlety of the aliens. To show us that they're out there, they crafted an entire cluster of mountains on mars to match another random constellation. I mean, with their mountain crafting powers they could have easily just wrote out "Hey monkeys, look up!" with mountains in a region where the development of mountains was geologically unlikely... But that would just lack tact. I mean, that would be like making your alien existence known to the President instead of some random hick. Totally not their style.

@Chrisp: Okay, well the the people at the History Channel are idiots. So, that leaves one thing. The ancient statuettes of what looks to be an airplane. When enlarged, they actually flew. So their aerodynamic principles were sound. How do explain that?

Please cite a source OTHER THAN the History Channel for that. I have never heard of such a thing, but if you have a source I'd be glad to read up on it.

@Chrisp: A mountain pattern of a word seems just as likely to me as a mountain pattern of a specific constellation.

@Drano: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm
It's the same artifact they made fly on the History Channel too.

CM - That article actually points out that there are inaccuracies with that being a plane. Parts are in the wrong locations and we have to make ASSUMPTIONS that the nose of the plane can pivot underneath the plane for it to even remotely work. Also, the article ASSUMES that the nose is in fact a JET ENGINE that allows it to speed up when the nose is under the plane and slow down when in front of the plane. If they had JET ENGINES back then, why don't we see any more evidence of them? One statue that isn't even confirmed as a plane and has inaccuracies with flight all of a sudden means they had JET ENGINES?!?

Oh you mean they flew after you enlarged them, changed the material, and added engines/propellors to them? Gee, giving them much credit yet? One of the things about enlargement is that the small original lacks the information to make a detailed large. For example, if you have a really small picture of Abraham Lincoln, and you blow it up, it's extremely pixelated. How big are the statuettes vs. their flying replicas? Could it be that whoever created the flying replicas interpreted the statuettes such that the wings created the pressure differential required for flight?

I would like a source, so I can be more sure that the statuettes themselves actually reflected understanding of the physics behind lift, or if it was mostly modern interpretation. See, I'm impressed by replica's of Da Vinci's plans that work because he left a lot of information regarding his blueprints, and included dimensions and materials to use, and whatnot. When I see someone grab a little statuette made of clay or whatever, and make a flying replica I'm not so impressed.

Also, I've been to Chichen Itza and I've seen the famous little wall carving thingies that supposedly depict different cultures from around the world, and the little spaceman and rocket thing, and it's complete bunk. It's this tiny little section on a forlorn segment of the wall and it takes a liberal amount of imagination and interpretation to see what you want to see. You'd think that if aliens helped build the freaking thing they'd be depicted front and centre, maybe with pictures of locals kneeling in reverence around the alien and its flying ship or something.

Ok, this is fucking ridiculous.

First off, just because it;'s on TV doesn't mean it's true

Secondly, I haven't read that douchebags novels since before you were born.

Third, critical analysis is here:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/books/x/x8472.htm

Fourth, your immunity from common sense leads me to one of two conclusions:

1) You're just looking to pick an argument out of boredom
2) You're an idiot who believes whatever tripe is shoveled down his throat.

I hope for your sake it's #1, because you're going to have one hell of a reality check when mommy and daddy aren't taking care of you any longer.

In either case, you're not worth my time.

Looking at a bird and dreaming about flying, making little models or speculating about flight is not the same as practically doing it. The article consists of applying a contemporary lens on ancient artifacts. I see no mention of replicas that could fly, though I did not read the entire article.

You can't come out of every persuasive documentary believing everything that was said, even if it a great deal was true, because it is cardstacking, and they don't show the other sides of the argument with any earnestness. Go watch Loose Change and all the Michael Moore movies, and see if you don't come back a truther and a liberal. =P

Why would creatures that can cross the vast voids of space, Make pyramids out of stone when concrete would be so much easyer? Leave no trace of advanced alloys, or other materals?

@Chrisp: They didn't change the material, but they did add an engine. The fight was to show that the statuette had sound aerodynamic principles.

CM - In order to have "sound aerodynamic principles", they would have had to hinge the nose underneath the body as pointed out in the article you posted. Otherwise, certain aspects of it were off compared to planes. I hardly think changing the configuration of the object and adding an engine count as it being a plane. After all, if it DID truly fly back then, why not carve the piece in flying configuration? Why carve it in this odd configuration? Also, as warsprite and I have said, where is the other evidence? Surely if they had planes, they would have had numerous carvings, drawings, statues, records of this magnificent invention. If not that, then surely somewhere in the ruins, there would be evidence of a real flying machine or a trace of alloys or metals used to make it.

@Stratagos: I believe everything that is shoved down my throat that has evidence and is from a legitamite source. This theory seemed to have evidence, and I considered the History Channel a legitimate source.

"@Chrisp: They didn't change the material, but they did add an engine. The fight was to show that the statuette had sound aerodynamic principles."

Source? The article didn't mention flying replicas. The only real mention of material was of gold with that little gold statuette, and you can't seriously expect me to believe they created a replica flying machine out of gold.

On a sidenote, there are roughly 6000 stars visible to the naked eye, the word "alien" on a QWERTY keyboard probably resembles a constellation.

@Chrisp: I WATCHED them do it on the History Channel. So it wasn't faked.

"On a sidenote, there are roughly 6000 stars visible to the naked eye, the word "alien" on a QWERTY keyboard probably resembles a constellation." I doubt that, but there's no evidence for or against that assumption.

all i can say to this thread is....

lol

Stratagos started it.

UFO: Unidentified FlyingObject.
I bet there are a lot of those...

Mostly after a few drinks and tokes, or after looking into the Sun.

That little statue thing is an animal. It has eyes and a mouth and is very much in the style of the time period. I would guess it to be a bat based on the rear "elevons" seeing as a bat's wings attach to it's hind legs as well and would look to primitive man like a set of rear wings.