4

I watched this documentary, but I am doubtful of the evidence that they are using and their claims.

Ancient Aliens Season 1 Episode 2

The documentary uses ancient relics and evidences to try to prove that ancient civilizations built flying vehicles.

It attempts to explain that by appealing to ancient people having been visited by aliens.

Did ancient people have have and build flying vehicles (no matter if assisted by alien visitations)?

F1Krazy
  • 3,520
  • 5
  • 20
  • 29
  • What are we defining as a "flying vehicle" does it have to carry humans or would just a flying device in and of itself quality? Also, what are you defining "ancient people" as? – rjzii Apr 10 '12 at 13:21
  • While this documentary was probably just a bunch of bogus sensationalism, we can't completely dismiss the concept. Many ancient civilizations did mention accounts of "beings from other worlds", and it is even fitting with a Biblical account (I'm a Christian - but I'm going based on historical accounts here). While none of these accounts "prove" that these civilizations were visited by anyone or anything, or that they had flying vehicles and other advanced technologies, they do at least make it seem plausible, because it would be a bit weird for them to come up with the same storyline over and – RolandiXor May 22 '12 at 18:37
  • 10
    @RolandTaylor What would make it plausible is any sort of artifacts or actual writing stating that this technology existed. As it is, all we have is (1) no artifacts displaying advanced technology (the closest I'm aware of is basically a gear) and (2) no one claiming to have that kind of technology (documentaries usually reference things like "The gods were said to fly through the air in chariots -- clearly they mean space ships!"). – Brendan Long May 23 '12 at 05:08
  • 5
    Re BrendanLong's 'point 1', I think kites are closer. @jwenting, this looks to me like an un-disprovable claim. Clearly it is *physically* possible to construct a flying, or at least gliding, machine with fairly ancient tech (something like the Wright Flyer). It's also physically possible to build a boat from reed or balsa and sail across an ocean. But while there is no conclusive evidence of this happening, you can't prove that it didn't. – hunter2 Jul 08 '13 at 11:08
  • 6
    -1 for poor question: (1) Which specific claim are you asking about? Pointing to a whole "documentary" doesn't help narrow down to specific verifyable claim; (2) You talk about 2 distinct things, ancient flying apparatus and alien influence. Which one are you asking about? Your title stresses the former and your body, the latter. – user5341 Aug 21 '14 at 14:07
  • 2
    The question should have been closed as unclear then. Leaving an open question with a title stating something different than the body, and deleting an answer because it answers the body is just not quite right. – Yisela Aug 22 '14 at 14:05
  • 1
    This clearly falls into: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3453 – nico Aug 22 '14 at 20:54
  • "None of the planes has properties or capabilities of being flown; the geometries are unimaginably horrendous from the point of view of flying; and the principles of propulsion make then resist rather than assist flying. The text and the drawings do not correlate with each other even thematically. The drawings definitely point to a knowledge of modern machinery." per research on ancient Indian flying vehicles in India by Indian scientists in 1974-http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/Portals/0/Publications/ReferedJournal/ACriticalStudyOfTheWorkVaimanikaShastra.pdf – pericles316 Jul 27 '15 at 08:44
  • Related: [What are the differences between Shakuna, Sundara, Rukma and Tripura Vimana flying machines?](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/q/599/51) – kenorb Oct 09 '18 at 14:52
  • I get "video unavailable". Can you transcribe some of the key claims and the evidence cited, or identify other sources for them? – Paul Johnson Jul 28 '19 at 16:22
  • @pericles316 This looks like it should be posted as an answer. – Paul Johnson Jul 28 '19 at 16:22
  • @pericles316 that publication has been debunked long ago as a fake. https://www.ancientaliensdebunked.com/vimanas – jwenting Jul 30 '19 at 07:05
  • 13
    English historians found remnants of railroads from year 1800 and boasted that Englishmen already traveled by train two centuries ago. Unimpressed, Italians showed old cobblestone roads and replied that Romans were using horse-driven wheelcarts 25 centuries ago. Then Frenchs dug very deep and found zero infrastructure for any ground transportation in the 4th millenia BCE : they proudly concluded that by that time, the inhabitants of France were using flying cars. – Evargalo Aug 12 '19 at 14:05

2 Answers2

1

An unmanned aerial vehicle is an aerial vehicle, so... the Kongming lantern is famously attributed to Zhuge Liang (courtesy name Kongming), from the second century AD, who used it to send a signal to military allies. Wikipedia's article cites a historian, sans citation, claiming much earlier usage. I'll leave it to a more motivated reader to find a reference to this that doesn't trace back to Wikipedia itself - possibly this has something? (Laments for Aaron)

Since the principle of the sky lantern scales up to hot air balloons, there is no telling what attempts might have been lost to history, though one would surmise they did not work out well.

Mike Serfas
  • 317
  • 1
  • 6
  • 3
    I think this hinges on how the OP defines a "flying vehicle". Komgming lanterns are not only unmanned, but uncontrolled, so they probably don't meet the definition of a "vehicle". Unfortunately, OP has been suspended for attempting to deface this and other questions of his, so he can't clarify right now (and I suspect he has no interest in doing so). – F1Krazy Aug 11 '20 at 12:58
  • @F1Krazy: Pedantry, but the user wasn't suspended. It was a self-deletion. – Oddthinking Aug 13 '20 at 15:24
-2

For now no, because we have not found something that could be solely a flying vehicle beyond doubt. But we have found tons of stuff, from coins, weapons and graves to entire building (temples, pyramids). But we have found nothing directing to a a flying vehicle.

The documentary mixes different archaeological devices to produce this assumption: I do the same with another real archaeological device:

For example we have found Antikythera mechanism: "The Antikythera mechanism (/ˌæntɪkɪˈθɪərə/, /ˌæntɪˈkɪθərə/) is an ancient Greek analogue computer[1][2][3][4] used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance.[5][6][7] It could also be used to track the four-year cycle of athletic games which was similar to an Olympiad, the cycle of the ancient Olympic Games."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

We know that this artifact has a certain age, does a certain function but we do not know where it was used and why. It is certainly an amazing construction but we cannot even be sure if its functioning was accepted by the people of the time.

Assuming it was crafted by aliens instead of human minds of the time is equal to say that every important person on earth was actually either alien or under alien 'control'.

Similarly say that this device is part of an ancient spaceship build by humans with help from aliens and not a stand alone device counting something needed or just proving something, is just like above. We assume the most least possible against the most possible.

This answer assumes that 'ancient flying vehicle' will be something aged BC, relatively controllable, carry at least 1 person and 'fly' at a logical height of 1 meter or more and for some logical time of 1 minute or more. Thus i do not consider tower or mountain jumps of people wearing various sorts of 'wings' as 'flying vehicle'. The first 'flying vehicles' to fit those requirements where the well known balloons appearing about 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flying_machines

Stefanos Zilellis
  • 163
  • 4
  • 6
    Sadly, I have to say that this answer doesn't add anything new. I also don't think it answers the question. The fact that there are complex ancient devices isn't proof that there were ancient flying vehicles. – Barry Harrison Jul 26 '19 at 18:11
  • 2
    [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) Please [provide some references](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5) to support your claims. In particular, that we have NOT found evidence (After all, the show claims we HAVE, so simply saying we haven't isn't sufficient.) Your claim about "every important person on Earth" seems unfounded. – Oddthinking Jul 27 '19 at 16:53
  • 1
    We certainly do not need to assume the most possible against the least possible. Yes, it is true that "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras", but that's not a proof that zebras don't exist. Just a heuristic of what to check first. – Oddthinking Jul 27 '19 at 16:54
  • 5
    I'm not sure how linking to the Antikythera mechanism helps make a point here, or what point it is trying to make? Practically all sources I can find just claim it's an ancient analog computer made somewhere in ancient Greece. – JMac Jul 29 '19 at 12:09
  • With Antikythera mechanism example i try to deem false that discovery of an ancient artifact of proven age and function does imply existence of more complicated 'engines' or 'vehicles'. The episode mentioned uses various artifacts and unexplained phenomena to compose aliens and alien-made flying vehicles. – Stefanos Zilellis Aug 12 '19 at 15:00
  • " assume the most possible against the least possible " is not my primary reason for answering no. The primary reason is simply the lack of a proper discovery of such a vehicle. I cannot post any source for something that does not exists because there is none - this works reversibly - is there an official finding? Because as i state, there are millions of proven ancient findings, scientifically proven about age and function, but none as a 'flying vehicle'. – Stefanos Zilellis Aug 12 '19 at 15:05
  • "this work reversibly" : So, something doesn't exist *because* you cannot post any source for it ? – Evargalo Aug 12 '19 at 17:01
  • Not just 'something', a specific ancient device with specific characteristics. Yes, i think it is plain logical to assume that if it existed we have found it because we have found tremendous amounts of other items of all kinds as i explain above. If i claim that there are stars thousands of times larger than an O type star because of some yet unexplained phenomena and other real but irrelevant discoveries (like the documentary does), how it would be possible to find a source for an imaginary assumption to state that it does not exists? – Stefanos Zilellis Aug 13 '19 at 11:11