Flight has been the dream of humankind since they watched in
awe as birds soared effortlessly through the sky. But, according
to accepted history, it wasn't until the 1780s that two Frenchmen
achieved lighter-than-air flight when they were lifted into
the air in a hot air balloon near Paris. Then powered, heavier-than-air
flight became the goal. And although it was theorized that heavier-than-air
flight was possible as early as the 13th century, and in the
16th century Leonardo da Vinci designed winged aircraft and
a crude kind of helicopter, it wasn't until the Wright brothers
made their first successful flights at Kitty Hawk in 1903 that
powered flight became a reality.
That's the widely accepted history. Some researchers and a
few rogue scientists believe there's evidence to suggest that
humans achieved flight earlier in history - much earlier...
so early, they say, that the knowledge of this technology has
been lost and ancient stories that recount adventures of human
flight have been relegated only to myth.
Is it possible that humans developed the technology to fly
in early civilizations - or in civilizations that are now lost
to history? Let's take a look at what some call the evidence
- intriguing artifacts, carvings, inscriptions and legends -
that they say point to the true record human of flight.Colombia
Airplane Models
This object (shown in sketch) was found in 1898 in a tomb at
Saqquara, Egypt and was later dated as having been created near
200 BCE. As airplanes were unknown in the days when it was found,
it was thrown into a box marked "wooden bird model"
and then stored in the basement of the Cairo museum.
It was rediscovered by Dr. Khalil Messiha, who studied models
made by ancients. The "discovery" was considered so
important by the Egyptian government that a special committee
of leading scientists was established to study the object.
As a result of their findings, a special exhibit was set up
in the center hall of the Cairo museum, with the little model
as its centerpiece. It was even labelled as a model airplane.
To elucidate the reasons for the decision of the committee,
almost unprecedented in the field of archeology, let's consider
some aspects of the model. The model has the exact proportions
of a very advanced form of "pusher-glider" that is
still having "some bugs ironed out". This type of
glider will stay in the air almost by itself—even a very small
engine will keep it going at low speeds, as low as 45 to 65
mph., while it can carry an enormous payload. This ability is
dependent on the curious shape of wings and their proportions.
The tipping of wings downward, a reversedihedral wing as it
is called, is the feature behind this capability. A similar
type of curving wings are implemented on the Concorde airplane,
giving the plane a maximum lift without detracting from its
speed.
In that context, it seems rather incredible that someone, more
than 2,000 years ago, for any reason, devised a model of a flying
device with such advanced features, requiring quite extensive
knowledge of aerodynamics. There were no such things as airplanes
in these times, we are told by archeologists and historians.
But this case seems to be an exception, living in the midst
of the rather unimaginative and rigid paradigm of contemporary
science. It is also necessary to point out that Egyptians are
known to have nearly always made scale-models of projects and
objects which they planned to create or build.
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.
Whatever this object is supposed to be or
represent,
its remarkable resemblance to a modern aircraft or spacecraft
is uncanny.
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
