Click  for larger version   
         photograph by Sheri Nakken

(photographed November 1992 by Bruce Rawles )

The top machine in the stack could be anything - a boat, a hovercraft, a tank, even a flying saucer, or a vimana. Below it seems to be a large airplane, or airship, possibly carrying a big object underneath, perhaps to the craft pictured below.Could it be a behemoth futuristic ship further off in the distance?
The scene had caused some sensation in the nineties, but soon Egyptologists had identified at least two sets of overlapping hieroglyphics in this picture. This proffered a simple scientific explanation: What we see is a palimpsest, i.e., an accidental illusion. First there were some original glyphs, which were later hidden by plaster, and replaced by a set of different glyphs, engraved partially in stone and partially in plaster. Eventually, the plaster fell out, and the overlapping hieroglyphs began looking like images of modern craft.. 

Like it or not, there is no denying that the images seem composed of standard hieroglyphs, although it must be pointed out that some are strangely distorted. Is this the final word then?

The Real Issue

What is at issue here? That the scene is a palimpsest, and not a single work? It looks like it, but would it make any difference if the scene were not a palimpsest? Of course, it wouldn't. The Abydos scene would never be judged on its own, but rather be judged by extrapolation from the rest of reality, which is then presented monolithically opposed. This verdict would continue to present it as the result of accidental, chaotic forces. Entrenched conservative consensus is not a figment of imagination. There are many other relatively relevant controversies in this world like "vimanas" for instance, and all have been discounted. Thus, justly or unjustly, the Abydos scene would seem bound for the dustbin of odd but explicable curiosities.
Having reduced the Abydos scene to a philosophical problem of Order & Chaos, we may feel betrayed by the ancient artists. Perhaps, they knew something we don't, and chose to essentially tease future spectators like us by some true reflections of reality, which are yet worthless from a scientific viewpoint as evidence.  But, did they?

Order & Chaos

Before giving up, however, we should re-examine the basic assumptions archaeologists and historians had made in this case. Supreme among them is the assumption of chaos, as the creating force behind the Abydos scene. This applies especially, when the scene is believed to be a palimpsest, which is chaotic by definition. If the scene were not judged as palimpsest, it could not be hieroglyphic, as well, and thus would have to be deemed art, and art is not always about realism, but also about imagination, and fantasy. We would wind up with a blend of fantasy and laws of chance at work, and the verdict would still be the same.
Evaluation: Present scientific consensus depends on the assumption of Chaos as the ruling creative force behind the Abydos Helicopter scene. To thwart the consensus, one would have to prove that the fundamental nature of the glyphs is not subject to chaotic forces, but instead to rational order. Not only do we have to prove that the objects in the glyphs were created deliberately, but we have to establish that the creator was more than an artist. To make the glyphs scientifically meaningful, they would have to be custom designed, constructed and encrypted with exact order. Then the glyphs would take on special significance. Geometrical engineering of the glyphs draws parallels with engineering of advanced transportation technology, which it may be showing. 

There was no layout analysis of the Abydos scene by other researchers, because of their a priori certainty that there was no need for it. But, I felt this need, years ago, after getting briefly involved in a discussion about the Abydos Helicopter then raging on the Usenet. The more I thought about the subject, the more I disliked as unnatural, and illogical the Egyptological solution, of which the citation below from a post by a well respected scholar, is a fine example. 

1998, Usenet Subject:  Re: India & UFOs - a pict of helicopter,  etc. Translattions?
Usenet groups: sci.archaeology, sci.skeptic, alt.alien.visitors, soc.history.ancient 

 Katherine Griffis-Greenberg (Deus ex Machina) said:

> ..................................It is acknowledged by all (AFAIK), that it is a
> carved limestone that  was altered in antiquity with plaster, to give a
> new meaning to the phrases.  That is, BTW, part of the definition of
> a palimpsest, of which these inscriptions are a prime example.

<snip rest>

> Regards.
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg"  Member,   American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists University of Alabama at Birmingham  
> http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html

To register reserve to how the mystery of Abydos Helicopter was treated by Egyptologists, I put my final post to Katherine on the web. There, I let it slide until I saw to my great surprise that the item ranked first in Google search for the keywords  "Abydos" and "helicopter". Under the spotlight, suddenly, the article was in dire need of upgrading. 
Geometrical analysis can sometimes be the key to secrets in art. Yet, I had never heard of it applied to the Abydos glyphs, and so, I decided to give it a try. Importation of the image into CAD (Computer Assisted Drafting) gave me the means of working accurately. Twice before, when dealing with controversial ancient artwork, I successfully tested the hypothesis that the authors of thought-provoking imagery had graciously validated it by meaningful and derivable design methods.

seat1.htm                              
namon.htm

In both cases, Golden Section played a major role, so it was the first thing to look for in the Abydos glyphs. Already, some rectangles in the image struck me as very similar to the Golden Rectangle.

Egyptians Knew the Golden Section - Reconstruction as Proof

Contrary to being chaotic, the Abydos Helicopter scene is a deliberate creation. Its order is of the highest magnitude, being based on the historically famous Golden Section. The palimpsest explanation is simply out of the question, because one can just fire up a CAD program, and easily recreate the area under the helicopter in its exact main proportions from memory. The engraving utilizes Geometry, and the layout of the area is a variation on the basic Golden Section, wih emphasis on Golden Rectangles. The measure of ability to produce a given item measures understanding of that item. Pure opinions are hard to measure.
To begin with, golden rectangles in the area are quite auspicious, and beg testing. To test the area under the helicopter for golden section proportions I had assumed the semicircle's diameter as the starting unit for the construction below.

1 - a unit (semi)circle 
2 - an axis 
                               

Above - The semicircle in the glyph looks quite true, when tested by a circle. 


The usual construction begins with the six operations, or steps, as shown above. Circles '4', and '5' help in obtaining the axial cross, and are discarded afterwards. After this we have a choice of two operations, which will produce the Φ-ratio in the position. The diagram below uses the big green circle concentric with the red circle.
The yellow circle represents the glyphic semicircle, and becomes the red circle in the diagram below. The green circle from above is replaced by the blue square below.

The diagram of the classic Golden Section was imported into the Abydos image by scaling the unit circle to the semicircle in the image. As seen below, this experiment worked like a charm.

We are looking at the proof that the glyphs are proportioned by the Golden Section along the horizontal axis. The area under the helicopter is sectioned by vertical lines into Φ proportions. 

If the semi-circle's radius counts as 1 then the breadth of the row of six columns on the horizontal axis is (Φ²)  2.618..  From the semi-circle to the left on the axis we see successively the distances of  

  0.5  ←→ 0.5 ←→ Φ-1 (0.618..)   ←→  Φ-1 x Φ-1 (0.381966..)   ←→ Φ-1  

and combined distances like

    1   ←→  Φ (1.618..)   ←→  2   ←→    Φ² ( 2.618..)

Above - A square divided by golden grid

The square that we employed for the Golden Section turns out to fit the square formation of columns, and triangles.
To get to its present location, the square rotates 45 degrees, and slides to the area's boundary on the left. Then it slides down, until the x-axis becomes the square's upper Golden Section divide (below).

 


The square fits the glyphic square of columns, and triangles very well on three sides, but we do see a bit of imprecision at the top. But, this is amply made up for by the accuracy of the Φ-rectangles within this square.
Here, it should be pointed out that it is the triangles, which give us the width of the square, and actuate the golden  proportion. According to Egyptologists' chronology, the columns came first, but according to the reconstruction by the Golden Section, the points of the square had been given  before any corresponding columns could be created! 



Horizontal lines from E, and F, with the vertical line from H, divide the square into golden sections. The lines are set by both the top and bottom of the middle triangle row,  the upper columns, and by the upper edges of the inner rectangles at bottom left . The square as above contains no less than eight Golden Rectangles, plus corresponding squares. All fit the layout of the engraved square really well. 

• Two big golden rectangles: horizontal width = 2.618..units, height = 1.618 units 
• Golden rectangles based on the unit circle (base 1 unit long, height 0.618)

We can recreate the golden rectangle limiting the area under the helicopter, because its left bottom corner coincides with the square's corner. The big rectangle from under the helicopter just happens to also be the perfect container for the upper two craft on the right, as well, if we see the plane as transporting a suspended object.  The plane's horizontal axis, which seems engraved in, is at the same time a Golden Section line for the rectangle. 
The rectangle on the left contains five smaller golden-rectangles, and they all fit the engraving. The entire area under the helicopter forms a perfect Golden Rectangle, when the helicopter's belly rests upon the upper line of the rectangle, although it's hard to see atthis resolution. Fortunately, this marvellous fit is easy to see in the blow-up below .

A part of the rectangle line was cut away, because it was screening out the belly line of the helicopter.  The fit is visually perfect. Mindful of the excellent fit of the other three sides, we can say that this rectangle is highly accurate.

 Another close-up then shows how the other rectangle also fits right on, at the top. 

Layout - Framing

There is a container for any object, and the equivalent for these Abydos craft would be rectangular frames, whose size should be detemined by the objects themselves.

This rectangle frames two of the suspected craft together with visual perfection (i

The six rectangles in the image above are all CAD-drawn golden-rectangles.
Interesting notes:
a - All of the area under the helicopter is contained in a golden rectangle
b - The helicopter and the boat/tank both sit on golden rectangles
c - Four of the rectangles originate from the lower left corner and two from the lower right corner
d - The two yellow rectangles are of the same size
e - The rectangle on the lower right also contains a perfect square and a smaller rectangle.  Adding, or subtracting a square from a golden rectangle makes for another golden rectangle.  So, the smaller rectangle is also a golden rectangle!

Each of the four Φ-rectangles above (two yellow, two cyan, with bases equal to the semicircle's base) has an engraved line, which divides it into a square, and another golden rectangle. That's altogether eight golden rectangles. Evidently, the whole area is carefully planned.

The overlap between the rectangles sets the column thickness for the eventual reconstruction. 

                                        Two Reconstructions

1) In principle, we can reconstruct the area from the collected data, as shown below.

2)  When given the image of the Abydos Helicopter, it is possible to draw visually perfect golden rectangles, and squares, and to divide segments into golden proportions just by relying on guidance by major edges, and boundaries of the image.

We see a couple more pretty alignments, which should not be there, if the scene were really a palimpsest. 

Conclusion

This study of the Abydos Helicopter image now has significant scientific value, as hoped for from the outset. At the very least, the study provides the only grounds, on which we can reasonably disagree with the reigning scientific consensus. It shows the noteworthy mathematical properties of the image, indicating that the image is not a palimpsest, something that has never been demonstrated before. 
Moreover, this is the third instance in my research of constructed ancient art, which deals with the Golden Section.  From the prehistoric France 14,000 years ago, to the Nazca lines, to the Abydos temple, the mathematical connection is clear. The Abydos Helicopter study provides a fairly simple and easily comprehensible example of what I have done in the former two cases, which I admit, are harder to grasp. Yet, look at their predictive value in this case, since this study has literally breezed through to a successful finish. All three studies are the same in that in each the image has been constructed by relying in large measure on the Golden Section. Only the first two discoveries, however, are both based on exactly the same unique idea - aptly titled "Seal of Atlantis".
In the end, we have to come to terms with the consequences of these three discoveries backing up as possibly true a whole range of fantastic suppositions about our past. What's reasonable is that somewhere there was once an advanced prehistoric civilisation. Was it on this planet? I don't know. There were advanced flying machines. There was also the encoding of mathematical information into art. The rest is up to the reader.  

Prediction

The Cubit (basic unit of length) used in the temple, will in some manner be derived from the construction of the 5-pointed star seen in this article.
• It is possible that the diameter of the unit circle will prove to be the Cubit (basic unit of length) used in the temple,
or
•  the cubit used in the temple will be found by substituting the Cone & Square formation (learned from my study of La Marche, and Nasca) over the square in our Abydos construction, and will be the same as the La Marche, and Nasca units. 
• the cubit used in the Giza plan, was again conceived in an original manner, although derived from the construction of the 5-pointed star
This would further prove a direct connection between La Marche, Nasca, Giza, and Abydos.

 © Jiri Mruzek
  Vancouver, BC, Canada  To write to me, just use my full name minus the space. I'm over at yahoo dotcom.

Notes - My Original Reasons to be skeptical of the Egyptological explanations

In December, 1998 I pretty well signed off from the discussion with this observation: ... contrary to the popular scientific myth that the glyphs are engraved on a solid block,  photographs indicate otherwise.
The glyphs appear to be engraved on a thin layer of stone facing covering the solid stone, except, where the facing broke away.

There is the self-evident - the smooth surface of the inside block laid bare, where the limestone plate fell off -  the jagged dark breakline in the facing against the smooth unbroken block - the ledge, which looks chiseled into the pillar itself, on which the now broken plate had rested.


 

Detail from a photograph by Sheri Nakken
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/egypt.htm
http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/abydos2.htm>
 

The glyphs are engraved on stone plates encasing solid stone block, except where the plate broke away. This reveals an option the ancient Egyptians had.  Being the great stone masons that they were, wouldn't it be better to:
 
Strip the Old Facing, and replace it with a brand new one?

Using a 'tabula rasa' should be far superior to hocus-pocus  plaster. If the objective was to get rid of the old writing, so as not to play games with the new writing's future, the technique of using new outside plates of limestone would have been most efficient in accomplishing this goal.
The engraving work on the plates was most likely done on the ground, then elevated into position on the supporting ledge. For any subsequent changes, I believe, the facing plate could be brought back to the ground, and resanded, or replaced by a new limestone plate. This could explain the fine quality of the glyphs with regard to their alignment and proportioning.

Some obvious disadvantages of plaster.

The inscription on the stone plate was important, how could it have been sloppily patched over with plaster?
One, plaster would be hard to match exactly to the stone's texture and shade of color. There would always be some shadows of the old writing haunting the new.
Two, the plaster filling is bound to react differently to changes in moisture and temperature than the solid stone.  It should become loose in its shallow bed fairly fast.
Three, whoever was to alter the text had to become a willy nilly composer of the form created out of the old and the new texts seen together. This person had to be aware of the combined shapes lurking on the limestone with the plaster absent, unless we presume him senseless. Therefore, it is likely that the designer-composer would strive to give these shapes some
meaning. It is not my fault, this meaning translates into an array of high-tech machines.
Four, how could the solid, perfectionist Egyptian artisans and architects be so naive as to suppose someone would help in the future to preserve the plaster and the usurping texts over the ones plastered over? Solid stone wins over plaster in lasting almost forever, so why would the pharaoh junior face eternity of exposure as thief and liar after a spell of undeserved fame as shortlived as the conterfeiting plaster?
Lastly,  the work on the temple was still in progress in Ramses' time. There were materials and artisans available on site to do a solid job, no need for the monkey business of the palimpsest unless the palimpsest was deliberate.

Most all of Katherine's colleagues seem oblivious to these options. Martin Stower thought that the blocks were solid, as he wrote that the 'structural integrity' of the blocks holding up the weight of the massive roof might have been compromised if the Egyptians had exercised yet another option, I had mentioned in our discussion:   

Completely Rubbing Out the fairly shallow Old Glyphs".

Doing a solid job on the inscriptions would not require much extra effort, considering all the work that had to be done - like scaffolding. Using sanded or resanded stone instead of plaster was the only permanent solution, and the Egyptians knew it. That's how things were done throughout the temple with one alleged exception - our Abydos Helicopter scene. This strains my credulity. After all, this was the civilisation of artisans, who once had polished 22 acres of hard Mokattan limestone with optometrist's precision in a rather short span of several years of mantling the Pyramid. Yet, here, we have an extremely important message about a victory by the father pharaoh, which the pharaoh junior is stealing credit for. So he has it done in the cheapest and shoddiest possible manner using plaster over the few square feet of stone, which could easily have been resanded first. If need be, the artisans could have easily done the same even in granite, this was just limestone. Moreover this is reported to be the only one such negligent spot in the entire temple. The rest is marked by outstanding craftsmanship.  Yeah, right..

Katherine Griffis said:
> There is a graphic representation of the original titulary, showing how
> it was rendered a certain way, and then, by visual overlay, how the
> successive titulary was imposed into the older one.  This representation
> is at the website as well.

That graphic is above - It shows two recarvings, and is still short on the origin of some parts of the glyphs, which are shown in red in the graphic. Please, note, how the supposed glyph of the hand was fraudulently restored to normal proportions.

The Hand    
                  
                        

If there ever was plaster, it had since fallen out completely.
This is attested to by the smooth and regular edges of the glyphs as they are now.
          

                                     

What bird?

There is a bird perching on the (semi)circle. Janku believes it is a chick. So, we overlay the chick over the stone shape, and it fits fairly well, in the head area especially.  However, when we overlay another sign of a bird over the area - it fits even better! It fits everything perfectly except for the top of the head.


w           Negativity                

More good fit with the birds below..

K    

Katherine Griffis:  It was decided in antiquity to replace the five-fold royal titulary of Seti I with that of his son and successor, Ramesses II. In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I,  replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II.  


© Photo copyright  Lumir G. Janku

http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_us/m_archeo/Abydos/abydos.html

Quote from an article by Lumir G. Janku,  in which Janku admits to a few questionmarks still remaining. 
http://www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/abydosm.shtml

There is one aspect of the inscription which is puzzling. The temple in Abydos (or Abdjou, as the location was called by Egyptians), is quite a remarkable edifice, especially as far as the quality of glyphs is concerned. They are all very precise and as far as I can judge, there's no trace of sloppy workmanship anywhere in the temple, bare the above inscription.

!!! That really deserves an exclamation mark. The truth is diametrically opposite. Once the truth is twisted it becomes a pretzel.

Janku also wrote:
The temple was build by Seti I and finished by his son, Ramses II, during an era of classical revival. The obvious corrections on the inscription in question are thus seemingly out of place. But without the translation of the inscription, it is difficult to propose a hypothesis for why the original inscription was changed, apparently twice.  

In other words, as Egyptologists try to put everything back together, there is always something left over, something unidentifiable, and so there arises the need for yet another supposed alteration by the Egyptian carvers. The official story line gets all messed up. Really, granting possession of secrets by the Egyptian Temple, why should some of those not be perpetuated  on temple walls in enigmatic scenes created out of hieroglyphical Lego?

Stone-Age analogy of the Abydos Helicopter scene - Another Palimpsest?

I've faced a similar predicament once before. In a picture of a 14,000 years old engraving from France,  I've discovered a scene, which to me is equivalent to the Abydos scene in that it shows an array of ancient technology. Naturally, I was keen on announcing it to the world at large.


 

The girl could be almost completely dismantled into sections representing machines. Two legs as planes, left thigh as a sailing ship, right thigh as perhaps a submerine, the torso as a lens with a pyramid inside, the lens being further divisible into a flying saucer and a fighter like aircraft.




By the way, this Stone-Age engraving is also considered a palimpsest. This time it is an agglomeration of successive engravings on a single limestone tablet, in which it is only easy to make out the figure of a young woman wearing a hat, jacket, pants, boots, and apparently toting a handbag - an otherwise utterly revelational fact per se. 
My vision had been attributed to wishful, selective perception. I was cited faces in clouds, Rorschach ink-blots, the man in the Moon, etc. Of course, I had always understood such counter-arguments perfectly well, as in general they are valid more often than not. For instance, I saw the girl as well as anybody else, but I felt strongly that her legs were designed to look like aircraft, when tipped back 90 degrees to the left. Each orientation was dominated by its own scene. The picture had a logic of its own.