Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

Ancient jets? The amazing flying beings

At the end of the 1960s, biologist Uvan Ivan Sanderson, more well-known as a promoter of Bigfoot, called the attention of the world to some gold pre-Columbian artifacts, centuries old, produced by indigenous cultures.

According to him, those were reproductions of jet aircrafts, a conclusion supported by doctor Arthur Poyslee, of the New York Aeronautic Institute.

Absurd, if only the artifacts didn’t in fact look so much like modern airplanes. Click on the image to continue reading:

One can identify vertical and horizontal stabilizers and swept-wings, ideal for supersonic flights. We can even see what could be looked as corrugated metal or underlining structures. And there are not one, but many of these artifacts, like the other one at right.

On its wings, in this case smooth, we can also see what could be a symbol, much like the ones adorning our planes today.

The artifact ended up becoming the symbol for the AAS (Ancient Astronaut Society), and the comparison below can be seen on many places, both online and offline, of the years before the Internet in the books of one Erich von Däniken.

Some years ago, the AAS-RA (Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association) even tried to actually reproduce those ancient jets.

One was fitted with propellers, while the other was actually fitted with a small jet engine, in the exact location they assumed it was in the original jets.

If you are still skeptic, then swallow this: the models by Algund Eenboom and Peter Belting flew. They didn’t brake the sound barrier, but they flew quite well.

The location of the jet engine and the air intake may look strange, but it’s incredibly similar to the design seen in one of the first jet airplanes of the modern age, the Heinkel-162 (at right), of 1944.

Finally, if this is all sounding too good to be true, and your debunking sense starts to doubt the whole thing — do these artifacts actually exist? Are they actually pre-Columbian? — we have to tell you.

They can be found in the Museo del Oro, in Bogota, Columbia. They are solidly dated and accepted as being some centuries old. Those are the real thing.


If you ask conventional, orthodox experts about them, they will tell you that they these small gold artifacts in fact represent insects, like bees, or maybe birds, fishes or flying fishes.

Flying fishes?

Fact is, one other pre-Columbian gold artifact, particularly beautiful, clearly represents a flying fish.

That proves those ancient people had contact with these flying things and cared enough about them.

And if you think again about it, flying fishes are the only animals with a tail that’s vertical in relation to its body — which could be the “vertical stabilizer” of the more strange gold artifacts. They also have longer fins that act as wings. And they do fly.

Now, anyone must admit there’s some similarity between flying fishes and the artifacts we are discussing, just as the similarity with jet aircraft is also a fact. The question is if the artifacts are more related to a jet aircraft or with a flying fish.

And some characteristics particular to flying fishes, but not to jet aircrafts, can be clearly identified on the artifacts. The vertical and horizontal “stabilizers”, for instance, are not fit together at the end of the tail, as most aircrafts.

The horizontal stabilizers in the gold figures are always closer to the wings, which actually is not very good aerodynamically, since the stabilizer will not stabilize much in that position. It will help, though, and curiously is exactly what one can see in flying fishes.

All the artifacts also have eyes and mouths, often with teeth. That’s another thing one do not see very much in aircrafts — except, ironically, in paintings made to make them resemble animals.

Granted, there are some characteristics in the gold artifacts that do not fit very well with the flying aquatic animals. The vertical stabilizer, for instance, does not extend below the body, unlike the fishes.

But these small differences can be accounted for by the stylization of the figures. There’s actually a continuum between the clear and pretty representation of a flying fish seen previously, and the more stylized artifacts we are wondering about:

Each artifact has a slightly different style, but seen as a whole, it’s clear they all represent flying fishes. Eyes, mouth with teeth, even gills. They all have gills, which was interpreted as an air intake for jet engines. Air intake, in a way yes, jet engine… no.

Finally, one can ask then how could the scale model of the artifacts fly so well. But that’s not more surprising than the fact that some fishes can actually fly. And this goes on to show how amazing it is that pre-Columbian people stylized these animals but preserved some basic elements that allowed them to fly.

Or not that amazing, since the scale models are not actually 100% accurate reproductions of the artifacts, allowing for many crucial modifications that ensured the flying success, like a modified profile for the wings, that gave them lift. Note also how a cumbersome detail that in the original artifact is located exactly where in alleged jet exhaust was simply ignored.


These are really wonderful artifacts. Some of them do resemble jet airplanes, some not. Flying fishes have this similarity with jets too, and had people been more inspired by them than with birds, maybe we would have been flying long before the Wright brothers. Who knows, but before Columbus is still quite a stretch. And without any evidence, unfortunately.

– – –

Museo del Oro
Postales del Museo del Oro
Fliegende Amulette
Flying Fish

– – –

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Popularity: 5% [?]

Posted in Aliens,Fortean,Skepticism | 50 comments

50 Comments so far

  1. radiorick January 11th, 2008 3:24 pm

    The explanation offered here appears to answer the question of ancient flight as offered by some speculators. But, to me, the question goes a bit further when its noted similar golden objects were discovered in the Egyptian tomb of Tutankhamen. The similarity between the objects depicted here and the object(s?) found in the Egyptian tomb bear on the location of the Biblical “land of Ophir” from whence came the gold and other items of King Solomon. Did the navy of Hiram and Solomon bring these objects found in King Tut’s tomb from South America?

  2. craig york January 11th, 2008 6:22 pm

    I re-read INVESTIGATING THE UNEXPLAINED not long ago, and
    Sanderson makes an intersting, if not terribly convincing
    case for the artifacts representing aircraft. But my recoll-
    ection of the chapter is that much more of it was spent on
    comparing a figure of a Jaguar to a modern backhoe.

    Granted it makes a lot more sense for them to be representations of flying fish, but still, what a strange
    and wonderful notion.

    Glad to see you posting again-best wishes for the New Year.

  3. […] folks at Anomalist mentioned (thanks!) the relation between the pre-Columbian gold artifacts and the so-called Saqqara bird. I had already seen it mentioned before, but had never looked upon […]

  4. Mori January 12th, 2008 1:28 pm

    <p><p>Thanks, Craig. Many thanks also for the references in Precognitive Dissonance to the work around here, and wishing you a happy 2008 too!</p></p>

  5. e baranosky January 12th, 2008 4:43 pm

    It just doesn’t fit. Why even make such a representation?
    I’ve seen flying fish, and these aren’t.

    Nice try at cognitive dissonance.
    Nice try at scientific method f debunkers,
    if it’s out of my range of acceptance, it can’t be.


  6. Susan Lynn Rapp January 12th, 2008 7:50 pm

    The problem with your debunking efforts in my view is that the actual gold flying fish object looks substantively different from the other gold objects. Also, while a modern reproduction of the gold flying fish object wouldn’t fly if your life depended on it, the other gold objects that look like aeroplanes more than they do flying fish have been proven to fly. Nothing has been debunked here….the debate is still wide open as to what those objects were really intended to be.

  7. Friends of meatpuppet January 12th, 2008 8:40 pm

    Are the flying fish in question available in that part of the world? Where were they (artifacts) found and where are the fish located?

  8. sue phi January 12th, 2008 9:02 pm

    could they possibly through observation of flying fish been inspired to attempt to make flying craft which mimic the form?
    maybe it is a both/and rather than an either/or situation. 😉 fun to think about.

  9. Cat Thunder January 12th, 2008 10:57 pm

    I believe these designs are more of a predictions to what’s coming.I believe these so-call prophets learn to design their visions and have a sketch artist do their vision quest.
    Like our people have done to develope the “Crooked Beak Of Heaven” is a great example.If you google up the name and see the design yourself,you can see how the shamans learned to have a council meeting to describe their vision quest.
    All the ones we see now through the eyes of Von Daniken and the ancient drawings are symbols of what’s going to transpire in the future.hey draw it out.Shape it out.That’s what I believe so far and I hope this helps out at least?Thank you for your time and patiences>>>>———————>>::::::/\

    Cat Thunder

  10. Derek January 12th, 2008 11:15 pm

    Ancient peoples basically copied their surroundings when fashioning idols, and artpieces … everything from plants and animals, to celestial objects. So more than likely, these gold artifacts are replicas of flying fish.

    But imagine some primitives who actually witnessed flying airplanes 5000 years ago. They would try to figure out what those planes were, and they’d only have their natural surroundings to compare their experience to, and so they’d probably think that the plane in the sky was a god … the “God of the Flying Fishes”.

  11. Tom Haberthaler January 12th, 2008 11:59 pm

    Maybe because of someones beautiful and immaginative artwork of the past, we are able to fly today. I mean they say the fiction of today is the truth of tomorrow. I remember an ancient Greek story about some who made wings of feathers and wax and flew, one flew too close to the sun, the wax melted and the boy crashed. Today is the only thing between yesterday and tomorrow. Maybe the people who made the Nazca lines knew that someday, man would fly like the birds. I mean we had science fiction writings of man on the moon way before he got there. Now is the only time between then, and some day when. I think that probably plenty of things have been pulled into reality, from fantasy. We all need to pay attention, to our dreams.

  12. Meadow January 13th, 2008 6:45 am

    Interesting. But one correction. The biologist was Ivan Sanderson, not Uvan. As a kid I had a book of his about the rain forest.

  13. Ian January 15th, 2008 8:54 pm

    So they can make representation of a flying fish actually look like them but take the effort to stylize them beyond their natural feature. You’ve debunked nothing.

    Next you’ll claim those ancient depiction of Dinosaurs aren’t dinosaurs.


  14. Sinisa January 16th, 2008 11:50 am

    it’s hard to prove or disprove a thing like this
    because it does not imply that the makers of these figurines flew in them, it implies that they saw something like that in their lifetime, and if they really did see an airplane, they would of course regard them as giant metallic flying fish – and that means SEE, DESCRIBE and FORGE them using concepts of their minds and lives

    for instance, if they saw intake for jet engines, they would describe them as gills, wouldn’t they?

    not that I think these are airplanes, but to be fair
    its so hard to be scientific sometimes
    this debunking effort is not

  15. Pericles January 23rd, 2008 2:20 pm

    There is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY of the ancient people to have built airplanes. Why? Because to built an airplane you need factories, computers, microprocessors, electronic equipment, factories which construct computers etc. etc. in other words a full techological civilization. Where are all of these?


  16. Tom Haberthaler February 5th, 2008 6:25 am

    The stones depicting the dinosaurs, yes, I’m glad someone brought that up, those might be very, very, very , very old carvings on very old stones. I mean maybe even older than carbon 14 lets on. Hey, a machine at the pump can’t give you a receipt and you have to go into the convenience store for the cashier to make you one inside, therefore, how do I really know carbon 14 or anything else mankind “has” is accurate. I’m just saying that Appolos have blown up before, and there have been automotive recalls, see what I’m saying? A cut down tree has 85 rings so we know the tree was 85 years old right? Well maybe not. Is it fact or is it handed down and accepted theory. One other point is that there was this theory about these beautiful gold artworks being airplanes, and I certainly want to believe they are, and now let’s not forget the paintings on the egyptian walls that seem to depict flying aircraft and modern day machines as well. I’m just saying that if someone wasn’t at least up in a glider of some sort in Peru, or a hot air balloon, or whatever the heck, what did they do, make a tall pole so they could climb up it and look at the spider monkey design on the ground? Peru looks to me now to be about the most fascinating country on earth!

  17. Tom Haberthaler March 28th, 2008 7:12 am

    Today is still the only thing standing, between yesterday, and tomorrow.

  18. Tom Haberthaler March 30th, 2008 11:23 pm

    If I could say just one more thing, if these objects were made of gold, they obviously were held in high regard. It was like they were important, representations. Lesser important representations would have been made of clay. Baked Clay. So we have gold objects resembling flying fish? Why do we not have gold objects resembling cows, or goats or other creatures from nature from this same country. No, those aren’t flying fish, those are aircraft!

  19. Tom Haberthaler May 7th, 2008 2:51 am

    I just feel like saying again that today is the only thing that stands between yesterday and tomorrow. Now is the only time between then, and someday when. I hope people can understand, my point! The ancient peoples couldn’t have possibly generated electricity of any kind, it’s absolutely impossible. It couldn’t have been done. Yet there stands the Baghdad Battery! Now is the only time, between then, and someday when!

  20. star May 27th, 2008 1:55 am

    how cool

  21. Tom Haberthaler September 30th, 2008 10:12 pm

    If there isn’t a way, who is to say that someone among us can’t find a way. I bet if we put our minds to it, we could find a way to fly, right now, without having to rely on oil. I believe we could, find a way to make a plane or something simmilar fly, without oil. And also cars to go back and forth to work in. I believe someone long ago had a stanley steamer? I’m going to try to pull up some information on the stanley steamer tonight on the computer. But oil is a finite resource that will one day be all used up. there are going to need to be steam powered cars or cars powered by some other means for us to be able to get around. around.

  22. Tom Haberthaler September 30th, 2008 10:20 pm

    I mean I find it ammusing that man has even developed a way for man to walk on water, so to speak. I saw this english sci fi movie where a guy was in this plastic, air filled bubble. Needless to say, it floated, and he kept putting one foot in front of the other inside this air filled plastic bubble and got across the water. when he arrived at the other side, he unzipped the bubble and got out and went along his way. anything, anything is possible. Man may have flown somehow, four thousand years ago, and man may fly some different way, four thousand years from now. I like to dream and immagine. How do I know that the Tesla tower couldn’t have made an electronic bubble which could have collected me up and taken me from the United states to England. and if not, maybe some day! Maybe some day a thousand years from now, people will go to the airport and be placed in an electric bubble of some sort and fired to their destination. We will go like balls of light, from this place, to that.

  23. Tom Haberthaler November 3rd, 2008 9:59 pm

    “Beam me up, Jesus!”

  24. Luis Martinez November 25th, 2008 8:00 pm

    When a person dedicates time to make some kind of sculpture the work of art is familiar and usually something which has some sort of personal meaning. Feelings are expressed through all the hard work behind the art. Whatever inspired these people into making gold artifacts such as these, must have made some kind of impact on their lives. But, could flying fish really do this to someone’s life? More questions cross my mind. For example, “Has a search been made to find more of these artifacts? Were any drawings left behind with their culture? Why did they make them out of gold and not clay? Doesn’t it strike anyone that they were found in South America just like the Nazca lines of Peru??!!!

  25. Raoul Butler December 17th, 2008 9:51 pm

    If they were found in land then one can discount flying fish. Also I have seen many images of these, most have cockpits and undercarriages… As for the teeth and heads at the front… looks no different to WW2 fighter planes, or to a primitive mind, the machine would be a creature, the teeth would be the propellers or jet engine. Also the artifact of the flying fish shown… it looks like a flying fish the jet planes do not.

    I’m interested to know where the artifacts were found?

  26. Tom Haberthaler December 23rd, 2008 8:40 pm

    Maybe some ancient peoples developed gliders, and one man kites which they used to fly off the sides of mountains with. I mean how hard could it be to make a glider and glide off the side of a mountain, or a kite of some sort. Maybe something like this was done way before the Wright brothers in KittyHawk, NC. Maybe using wind currents they could hover around for hours up there. I’m just thinking out loud but how do we really know that ancient peoples didn’t have papyrus type hot air balloons. Maybe they floated all around the globe in some type of hot air balloon. I’ll bet all my neighbors would flip out if I built a hot air balloon out of maybe tinfoil and saran wrap and went floating about in a chair! Maybe I’d go floating about in a wiccer basket of some sort, lifted by the tinfoil and saran wrap balloon. My point is, I live in a mountain range long, long ago. I want to make wings of some sort for myself, so I can fly off the mountain. Well maybe. Maybe one made a parachute of some kind. I’m just thinking out loud here but I’m thinking especially some little skinny people whom didn’t weigh much. they might have mastered the power of flight some five thousand years ago!

  27. Wayne McIntee March 20th, 2009 2:07 am

    My Opinion is that these models should not fly. You take that model of the flying fish and scale that up to size and see if it can fly. You look at old paintings that depict a man flying in a space craft. Now if we scaled up a model it surely would not fly. But the FACT that these little airplanes scaled up fly extremely well is AMAZING and if you do not call it evidence than you need to go to dictionary.com and define evidence because this is solid evidence that eather they understood arrowdinamics well enough to build gliders or they where good enough at sculpting that they did a great job sculpting something they saw, a flying machine. It is surely one of the two. This thing flies and that is solid evidence of one or the other. Hands down no ifs ands about it. But you add that to the FACT the all the humans of the world where building pyrmids at the same time frame, all worshuping reptile gods and they all knew about the placement of the sun and the worlds.. This is not coincidence at all by no means. and though these little model planes may not tell us everything we need to know but the entire history does lead to a conclusion of a early culture that was right up with us today in the respect of technology. I mean the Holy bible for example when Moses lead his people through the parting sea. How many people speak of the words that are in the bible about the pillar of a cloud of smoke by day and a pillar of a cloud of fire by night?? Well lets see what is a pillar shaped like? A rocket? And what does a rocket look like at night? Perhaps a cloud of fire? And by day? You can’t see the fire so smoke.. Keep in mind we did not have light bulbs in the B.C. So Fire was the ONLY known source of light. And the sky was the heavens.

    I absolutely believe beyond any doubt that all this evidence leads to the one of three possibilities, 1. We humans where a lot more advanced thousands of years ago, So advanced that we had rockets and airplanes but we hide our advanced culture away from other cultures like Moses so there where two cultures existing at once. Not likely in my book but possible.. 2 Aliens who where at a level of technology equal to where we are today with rockets and airplanes and today the reason we see flying saucers is because they are not 2000 years more advanced than we are. Or#3 we traveled back in time taking todays technology to 1500 years ago and then some. If this is the case we then have to ask what major changes where made back then that could stand as a motive for time travel? Perhaps the fact that these people vanished completely and nobody knows where.. Perhaps our future needed people from our past..

    I am much more leading to believe the Alien theory. I think Aliens have Obviously been very interested in our culture. I mean why else would beings with the likeness of man decend from the heavens to instruct Ezikul to take over a kingdom? I mean why would they care who is king and what the humans do??

    Now all those 3 possibilities are great but one thing is missing.. All the UFOlogy and all the evidence we have that today we are still being watched, abducted, visited by aliens. Now we ad that to all this History and that Narrows it down to the Alien theory.

    Nothing can take away from the FACT that these models Fly and that surely means the write brothers did NOT envint flight. Arrow Dinamics was well understood 1500 years ago and we have absolute proof now!!! Again I will again add that the flying Fish Model WILL NOT FLY!!! Sso to claim these little plains are some animals is hawgwash. Simply because first.. They seem to be amazing sculpters to the point that you can look at the fish and clearly see it is a fish. So then why would we look at the plane and not clearly see what they are trying to depict??? Come on,, Get real.. Its a ship or a plane or a glider.. But that is a fact.. They know how to depict what they want to express and what they are clearly and obviously expressing is an airplane of some kind rather it be a space shuttle or an airplane.. However the design fits the arrow dinamics of the space shuttle more so than an airplane. Because of the way the body becomes the uplifting wing foil and causes it to land properly..

    Anyway thats my opinion..



  28. Blly Hackleman July 17th, 2009 8:12 pm

    I don’t know much about planes or flight at 64 yrs. old, but can anyone tell me why when i was a young boy flying paper airplanes in class whether it was the long narrow look or the flying wing type they always seemed to stablize better in flight when i would add the pushed in notch in the tail?

  29. Zane Nobbs August 9th, 2009 7:23 am

    There may indeed have been ancient aircraft. Who is to say that the technology or even the building materials would be the same as we have today? The logic may have even been different. The sculpture that the flying models are based on did have one difference . . . a NASA engineer noticed that the original had swirls in front of the wings. His comment? They represented the airflow just before it circumvented the airfoil. He was amazed that this would be noticed at that time. As for the ancient runways, the hard surface would have deteriorated by now, just as our roads disintigrate within five years if not properly maintained. In short, nothing is debunked, nor is it proven . . . yet.

  30. Cliff W. August 17th, 2009 1:53 am

    So, here we are talking about ancient aircraft, flying fish , runways and guys running around in some kind of space suit with a helmet. Ok, a little to much. Getting to the point, #1) Could the little aircraft looking objects be flying fish? Yes. #2) Could they be Aircraft / Jets? Yes. Let’s set aside the objects that knowingly look like flying fish, and focus on the ones that look like aircraft. Ok, we all know that travel through time and space is hypothetically possible, as it has been pointed out by many renown scientists around the world. And we know that there are things in nature that we have not been able to explain that deal with magnetism, radiation, polar shift, etc….
    Alright, so let’s say off the wall that an aircraft was seen by people a few thousand years ago, that they carved pictures in rocks of the craft or the guy in his flight gear. Is this so unbelievable. Could it be that the aircraft just flew over and disappeared? And if the aircraft didn’t come back to its time and space, and crashed, then what. Maybe someday someone will find a wing or a part of an F4 or F16 in a tomb. Or maybe a helmet, who knows. But, will that information ever be let out to the public?

  31. Zane Nobbbs August 23rd, 2009 11:38 pm

    In regard to the “runways” in South America, the gigantic sculptures that can be observed from the surrounding peaks, on the mountains with the perfectly flat surface . . . a question has bee posed and so far no one can answer it: Where are the tops of these mountains? These are ENTIRE mountains with the tops leveled off, and no structures or huge piles of discarded dirt or rubble nearby that can equate with volume of the missing tops. Curious! Also, that sand like substance on the “runways” has been analyzed as small, melted, sand-sized, glass globules. Glass never biodegrades. So what kind of propulsion was used and what kind of landing gear would work on this type of surface? More evidence of some kind of advanced and different technology! As an aerospace engineer, I am going to be conducting some heavy-duty research. Hope to have some “logical” and realistic answers sometime soon!

  32. Kris k. September 11th, 2009 10:39 am

    The models flew beautifully.

    When a bug, or a bird, or a flying fish was the need of the hour, these fabulous ancient artists had no problem recreating them accurately and in fine detail.

    Two replicas of the “pre-Colombian” artifacts are sitting on my laptop as I type this.

    Flying fish?

    You wish.

    They’re little airplanes. That’s all they are. They made them like they saw them.

    And they fly, yo.

    Ancient humans spent more time looking into the sky than we do. Of course they figured out the physics of flight — why is this such a big deal to people?

    It’s no secret. Birds have been doing it for millions of years — and we eat them.

    These little golden airplane models may be nothing more than toys, but they represent something that flies, and they’re made of gold.

    They were important then, clearly.

  33. Josh January 3rd, 2010 8:07 am

    Just a bit of old news to add to this, these are hummingbirds, the larger ones make it pretty obvious, the “tail” of the “jet” being oriented upwards, the wings are raised upwards as is not uncommon when portraying birds. underneath the actual birds tail they typically have heads of people, sort of like headdresses, these are very common representations for the meso-american art styles and they have several of these at the dallas museum of art (dallas texas) that i myself have seen oriented in the proper way. if you notice a lot of them even have curved beaks at the base of what some think is a “vertical stabilizer”, and eyes on either side of that

    Im surprised no one mentioned that, humming birds as im sure you well know were part of the central pantheon of meso-american animal gods, namely huitzilopochtli or left handed hummingbird, the aztec god of war and patron god of tenochtitlan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli this makes sense as these were likely pendants, earrings, or other jewelry worn by warriors and kings.

  34. Josh January 3rd, 2010 8:12 am

    oh and one more thing to add to my evidence, the jewelry typically has ornamentation on what would otherwise be the leading edge in the plane idea, that would create drag. and the “wings” are not shaped for lift, they are flat pieces of metal, no aerodynamic shape to give lift, the demonstrations of them as planes clearly mean nothing when planes flew just fine with straight edged wings, just not as fast, and you can make a lawnmower fly if you shape it right, its all the aerodynamics that create the lift, not the general shape. this is an example of looking at something ancient with our modern ideas and assuming its something modern, when its “simply” a hummingbird.

  35. Ganesh J. Acharya February 6th, 2010 9:25 am

    The Ancient Model has “Vertical Rudder” and those are not seen with flying fishes. Flying fishes instead have a split “caudal fin”. The Model “possibly” represents a teaching aid of how airplanes derived from Flying Fishes in the Ancient World.

  36. […] left archaeological traces.  To date, no traces have been found.  The same can be said of the old Columbian gold carvings which appear to depict modern jets; these may actually depict flying […]

  37. Joe May 22nd, 2010 5:21 pm

    This article is absurd. It’s amazing how little thought people put into “debunking” anything. First, this guy may be right. These could very well be idols of flying fish. Seems like a stretch, but whatever. Let’s say primitive man didn’t build airplanes, which these certainly look like more than a flying fish. Primitive man would have judged airplanes flying overhead as creatures, probably not vehicles. They would have then stylized them with animal faces, ornamentation, any number of things. Who flew these craft? We don’t know. And to the dope who claims we need factories and microprocessors etc. to fly I guess he never heard of the Wright Brothers, or any other flying machine until the advent of the microprocessor. These sculptures truly could be nothing more then flying fish or bird representations, but you have just as much evidence to support that theory as those who believe these represented aircraft. I defy you to find any layman who would look at these artifacts and think flying fish. They would immediately think aircraft. Saying otherwise is just being dishonest and making up things to fit your theory.

  38. Joe May 22nd, 2010 5:23 pm

    Hey Josh, toy airplanes today don’t have wings shaped correctly. Your argument is meaningless since these are representations of airplanes and were never meant to fly. Your evidence is crap.

  39. Mori May 22nd, 2010 6:25 pm

    Not quite. Aircraft doesn’t have teeth or gills. Also, we know the people who created these idols saw flying fishes, as they also represented them quite accurately. But we don’t know, and it’s in fact very dubious, that they would have seen any swept-wing airplanes.

    Overall, the evidence for the interpretation of flying fishes rather than airplanes is overwhelming. Not dishonest at all.

  40. Just 1 Random Guy June 15th, 2010 9:22 pm

    I was just now watching Ancient Aliens on history and was surprised they never mentioned the pretty obvious connection. I mean they did say many of the golden figures were obviously based after fish but that the dozen or so were “clearly” not in nature by showing dissimilarities to birds and insects. Immediately flying fish came to mind and so I did a search to see if anyone else had a similar theory. Found your blog and here I am commenting.

    I do believe in a few aspects of the “ancient aliens” or believe that many things are unexplained. This, however, is not one of them. That is not a bad thing either, as the more things you can rule out (debunk) allows you to put more thought to those you can’t.

  41. Scott October 3rd, 2010 5:40 pm

    Great article, well written. Why are so many crackheads unable to accept the clear convincing evidence that you provide…and instead cling hold of the irrational explanation. It is so shocking and sad. All of the examples above have faces…!

  42. Zane Nobbs October 3rd, 2010 8:30 pm

    Working with models of these little aircraft (replicas from the musuem) no matter what material they are made from, when you balance them at the mid-point the nose (head) does equate to the remainder of the aircraft (center of gravity) just like modern jets. As for various “heads” on them, if you look at the island cultures of the South Pacific after WWII, considering that some pilots put shark-heads, cat-heads or others on their aircraft, this would explain this variation. And the little swirls on the leading edges of the wings, not decorative at all, but consistent with air patterns in wind-tunnel models and in operational conditions (as per NASA commentary).

    Even discounting all of the above, what happend to the mountain tops? Where did all of that rock and dirt go? We can’t do that even today! Why runways? Where did the melted glass globules come from? Why can you only see the giant drawings from so high up?

    Depending on the materials used, if you leave even a modern aircraft unattended, it will deterioriate in a matter of decades down to a structure that does not resemble an aircraft at all. So, not surprisingly, after several millenia, the remains of the actual flying craft could be dust. As for needing factories and massive materials, perhaps each aircraft was unique and the builders never heard of an industrial revolution or mass production (much like the Wright brothers or Mr. Dumont)? In the ancient Hindu literature Vimanas (ancient aircraft in one intrepretation) were only for the very priviledged and constructed of wood with a gold type cover. It may be that the ancient civilizations were more in harmony with earth than modern man. Who knows? All we have left are the pyramids around the world and these little gold replicas. Are we so arrogant as to assume we are the epitomy of mankind? Even the Bible says “What is has been before and shall be again.” Sorry, can’t remember the exact verse. Pop (deceased) used to quote it to me when we talked of things like this.

  43. Cliff Wheeler October 3rd, 2010 11:13 pm

    I’m looking at this from the point of view of standing in the sandals of one of the people that lived back then. Could it be a flying fish, bird, or humming bird? Of course. But, there is the chance that some of those little golden trinkets are representations of modern aircraft that was seen by the person or persons who made them. How many times have we read stories about people who leave home to drive somewhere that may take 3 or 4 hours and they arrive to their destination an hour earlier than expected. I know of a few of these stories. Or, aircraft that have navigation problems in certain areas around the globe, they vanish off the radar then come back. Yes, many stories. So, how unlikely is it that an aircraft can travel through time and space for a split second, appear over head and then vanish. Ancient people were familiar with the sounds around them, and anything that was out of the ordinary would draw immediate attention. If a sound was over head, they would look up, just as we would if the sound was not normal. And the ancients had a good eye for detail. You have to remember that they can only relate to a new object by comparing it to things they have already seen in their world around them such as birds or flying fish. So, if we lived back then and were standing outside and a loud roar came over head and we looked up and saw this large glistening silver object fly by, We might think that it was the king of the flying fish, and make an gold or silver representation of it.

  44. Christopher Gabehart October 4th, 2010 7:54 pm

    What makes people think man did not have aircraft thousands of years ago? Man is devolving and getting stupider.The more knowledge we get,the more stupider.Men were wiser in the ancient days,with less knowledge.Dont sell the human race short because of DUURRwin.

  45. Sandy Combs November 6th, 2010 6:07 pm

    If we are to use comparative observation between the artifacts, airplanes and flying fish it is evident that there are a great many more similarities between the artifacts and airplanes. Several of the artifacts have very few visual similarities compared to flying fish, and have striking similarities when compared to airplanes. The artifacts are very mechanical in appearance with several right angles used in the design. Not very biological looking. The fact that, with very few small adjustments, researchers were able to fly an enlarged scale model of the artifact, is very compelling evidence to support the plane theory. If I attached an engine to an enlarged scale model of my grandmothers dragon fly broach and tried to fly it, I doubt I would have much success. In the “Rig Veda”, ancient Indian text, it is commonly mention and discussed at length the use of flying machine by the gods. There are many depictions in art from around the world of beings with wings, perhaps symbolic for their ability to fly. Considering the great engineering accomplishments of mankind in the past, it is not that difficult to believe that in the past 5000 years someone somewhere on this vast planet was able to develop an airplane. Remember we went from the Wright Brothers airplane of sticks and canvass to our modern war planes and space shuttle in less than 100 years.

  46. hmmm January 2nd, 2011 3:18 pm

    Looks like flying gurnards to me.

  47. WS April 25th, 2012 2:29 am

    I’m glad someone else looks at them and sees fish! I’ve always assumed they were representations of stingrays, which those cultures would have had contact with, and which have vertical caudal fins, a flat, “winged” body with a “cockpit” like skull area, and the mouth on the bottom (which I believe is depicted on some of the models).

  48. Ella May 8th, 2012 11:03 am

    These gold artifacts represent an entity that is now back in our skies, once again here to change our DNA. It is a self-replicating bio-plasma life form, and is spreading a vector, which we are inhaling and it is setting up housekeeping inside our bodies. Once you are wired up, it can fly out of your head and go up into the sky and shapeshift into any form. Right now they appear as “Chemtrail Planes”, or “Morgellons”. It is the same entity. They are from Sirius star system, and their base is the Moon.

  49. Ganeshan Nadarajan January 17th, 2013 8:12 am

    Some of them do resemble jet airplanes, some not. Flying fishes have this similarity with jets too, and had people been more inspired by them than with birds, maybe we would have been flying.

  50. […] with their proportions and fitted them with propellers and (again, allegedly) jet engines, they flew perfectly. All of this has led to speculation that the Incas may have been in contact with (likely […]

Leave a reply

Live Comment Preview