MUST SEE!!! NEW Ancient Mayan artifacts found!

[Eric J (Viking)]

MUST SEE!!! DISCLOSURE!!! NEW Ancient Mayan artifacts found!

Nassim Haramein & Klaus Dona. Ancient artifacts with pictures of ufos and wormholes,stargates in operation.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Ue63DMKN0M

viking

[Daft Ada]

Very good thanks Viking

[Ilie Pandia]

Does anyone have links to photographs of those articles?

And how did this get published if Nassim said "No recording please"

Some of Nassim's comments: "This is a comet", "This is the Earth" and so on... well that is not "obviously so" to me. I'd like to see those pictures and make my own mind.

[Ilie Pandia]

I've extracted some photos from the Youtube clip.

These photos are not in their original form. I've heavily boosted contrast and sharpening in my attempt to bring out details that were not easily noticed.

I'm still looking for original hi-res photos.

[777]

Wow nice find Viking. I sincerely hope there's some validity to these.

[Cidersomerset]

Thanks Viking , this was very da ja vous for me, I can't recall seeing this clip off hand but it seems very familier and the sun being
a 'portal' is familier, Was this on another Vid recently ? or did I dream it ? ..LOL..Steve...interesting stuff...Cheers.

[RMorgan]

First, to be actually scientific, they NEED to present expert reports that prove these artifacts are genuine and are indeed Mayan. This should take a long time, but this is fundamental.

I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Here are some pictures o genuine or perfect replicas of Mayan artworks:







Cheers,

Raf.

[Cidersomerset]

I think you have a good point Raf......The stone maps are a bit crude, we better not get to excited yet, but still interesting.....Steve

[GaelVictor]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Art that is typical of a civilisation changes often enough, it evolves, has periods and different styles. And that can happen in just a decade. I don't see why Mayan art should be different.

Looks early Mayan to me or even pre-mayan.
Very nice pics. One of them reminds me of a solar flare coming from the sun and a spaceship getting away from earth to escape it.

[RMorgan]

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Art that is typical of a civilisation changes often enough, it evolves, has periods and different styles. And that can happen in just a decade. I don't see why Mayan art should be different.

Looks early Mayan to me or even pre-mayan.
Very nice pics. One of them reminds me of a solar flare coming from the sun and a spaceship getting away from earth to escape it.

Of course, it could be Mayan. However, they need to present an expert report. Such clay/stone tablets are very easy to be falsified, in fact, when you travel trough South-America, you see lots of very nice crafts like these for sale.

When I was studying art history, in design school, I´ve learned that ancient civilizations couldn´t draw perspectives, this is a fact. That´s why most ancient drawings are just flat. What calls my attention in these supposedly Mayan artifacts, is that, in one of them (post #4, last image) you can see a flat side view of a flying saucer and another one in perspective, showing part of its bottom section.This seems a little incoherent. And if it´s a pre-mayan artifact, it´s even most incoherent.

Anyway, as scientists, they have the obligation to make a complete analyzes of these objects, before using them to build part of a theory.

Cheers,

Raf.

[GaelVictor]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Art that is typical of a civilisation changes often enough, it evolves, has periods and different styles. And that can happen in just a decade. I don't see why Mayan art should be different.

Looks early Mayan to me or even pre-mayan.
Very nice pics. One of them reminds me of a solar flare coming from the sun and a spaceship getting away from earth to escape it.

Of course, it could be Mayan. However, they need to present an expert report. Such clay/stone tablets are very easy to be falsified, in fact, when you travel trough South-America, you see lots of very nice crafts like these for sale.

When I was studying art history, in design school, I´ve learned that ancient civilizations couldn´t draw perspectives, this is a fact. That´s why most ancient drawings are just flat. What calls my attention in these supposedly Mayan artifacts, is that, in one of them (post #4, last image) you can see a flat side view of a flying saucer and another one in perspective, showing part of its bottom section.This seems a little incoherent. And if it´s a pre-mayan artifact, it´s even most incoherent.

Anyway, as scientists, they have the obligation to make a complete analyzes of these objects, before using them to build part of a theory.

Cheers,

Raf.

There is a lot of art in South America and indeed around the world that cannot be classified in the classical scientific dogma and is therefore totally discarded by it.

Claus Dona has made some wonderfull inquieries into this;

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XmMwo1Xzgus

[RMorgan]

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Art that is typical of a civilisation changes often enough, it evolves, has periods and different styles. And that can happen in just a decade. I don't see why Mayan art should be different.

Looks early Mayan to me or even pre-mayan.
Very nice pics. One of them reminds me of a solar flare coming from the sun and a spaceship getting away from earth to escape it.

Of course, it could be Mayan. However, they need to present an expert report. Such clay/stone tablets are very easy to be falsified, in fact, when you travel trough South-America, you see lots of very nice crafts like these for sale.

When I was studying art history, in design school, I´ve learned that ancient civilizations couldn´t draw perspectives, this is a fact. That´s why most ancient drawings are just flat. What calls my attention in these supposedly Mayan artifacts, is that, in one of them (post #4, last image) you can see a flat side view of a flying saucer and another one in perspective, showing part of its bottom section.This seems a little incoherent. And if it´s a pre-mayan artifact, it´s even most incoherent.

Anyway, as scientists, they have the obligation to make a complete analyzes of these objects, before using them to build part of a theory.

Cheers,

Raf.

There is a lot of art in South America and indeed around the world that cannot be classified in the classical scientific dogma and is therefore totally discarded by it.

Claus Dona has made some wonderfull inquieries into this;

Of course. However, this small tablets could easily be scientifically tested using carbon analyses together with professional artistic/historic analyses, by qualified professionals. This would give precise results about their legitimacy. That´s why they do in archaeology, right? These kinds of analyzes are a standard before any piece can get into a serious museum.

Cheers,

Raf.

[jackovesk]

Thanks Viking,

Looks pretty real to me, dislosure is happening almost on a daily basis right before our very eyes...

I'm not bothered by Govts. making some kind an official statement, I don't believe a word they say anyway...

As for him warning someone not to record the presentation, it may have been becasue of exclusivity? Again not everything that finds its way onto You Tube is some kind of Conspiracy...

Rgs,

Jack

[Lazlo]

I agree that they definitely don't look Mayan. My education was in Anthropology, specialing in religious archaeology. I have traveled to the Yucatan and visited multiple Mayan sites. I have reproductions of Mayan artwork hanging right above my monitor, and there is no way that I would classify these pieces as authentic Mayan without professional analysis.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When visiting Mayan sites, you invariably run into locals selling reproductions of Mayan art. Some of them are very good, and they will admit that they change or highlight certain elements of the reproductions to give the impression that they want to sell.

They will claim that they are authentic (meaning that they are made by modern Maya, and therefore authentic) unless you press them on it and assure them that you will offer a fair price for the item based on it's aesthetic qualities, and regardless of it's age or provenance.

The bottom capture by Ilie showing South America as viewed from space is just over the top. The Maya weren't from south America.

[TargeT]

https://youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=1Ue63DMKN0M

Ipad users..

[Ilie Pandia]

I've stitched together a few frames from the video to get a larger picture of the first artifact.

Then, I've decided to trace the contour to see if anything interesting shows up... It looks like I may have wasted my time

Stitch up:


Contours traced:


Contours Only:

[mojo]

Thank you for posting. Is there a back story? How, where & when was it found? Perhaps is wasn't made by the Mayan's, but given to them.

[GaelVictor]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by Hatemachines (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
I´m not a Mayan expert, nor an archaeologist, but in my opinion, something is definitely wrong with the style of the drawings. I have got a very exquisite sense of aesthetics, and these drawing don´t look right.

Something about the elements distribution looks wrong...The lack of details as well...The flying saucers are also drawn in such an obvious way; Mayan artwork is much more symbolic.

Art that is typical of a civilisation changes often enough, it evolves, has periods and different styles. And that can happen in just a decade. I don't see why Mayan art should be different.

Looks early Mayan to me or even pre-mayan.
Very nice pics. One of them reminds me of a solar flare coming from the sun and a spaceship getting away from earth to escape it.

Of course, it could be Mayan. However, they need to present an expert report. Such clay/stone tablets are very easy to be falsified, in fact, when you travel trough South-America, you see lots of very nice crafts like these for sale.

When I was studying art history, in design school, I´ve learned that ancient civilizations couldn´t draw perspectives, this is a fact. That´s why most ancient drawings are just flat. What calls my attention in these supposedly Mayan artifacts, is that, in one of them (post #4, last image) you can see a flat side view of a flying saucer and another one in perspective, showing part of its bottom section.This seems a little incoherent. And if it´s a pre-mayan artifact, it´s even most incoherent.

Anyway, as scientists, they have the obligation to make a complete analyzes of these objects, before using them to build part of a theory.

Cheers,

Raf.

There is a lot of art in South America and indeed around the world that cannot be classified in the classical scientific dogma and is therefore totally discarded by it.

Claus Dona has made some wonderfull inquieries into this;

Of course. However, this small tablets could easily be scientifically tested using carbon analyses together with professional artistic/historic analyses, by qualified professionals. This would give precise results about their legitimacy. That´s why they do in archaeology, right? These kinds of analyzes are a standard before any piece can get into a serious museum.

Cheers,

Raf.

Carbon dating can only be applied on organic material, unfortunately it doesn't work on stone or other inorganic materials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

[baddbob]

Very nice thank you for this post. A question comes to mind about the eye on the dollar bill has it ever been discovered whose eye it is on the bill ? That would be interesting to know. Anyone know ?

[TargeT]

Posted by baddbob (here)
Very nice thank you for this post. A question comes to mind about the eye on the dollar bill has it ever been discovered whose eye it is on the bill ? That would be interesting to know. Anyone know ?

the all seeing eye, the eye of Ra, its an occult symbol representitive of an idea, not (necessarily)"someones" eye.