Just as well that thread was closed - it went south right quick.
In an effort to preserve some minimal level of discourse on the
forum, I'd just like to throw my two cents' worth in.
It is an interesting article, but it is ultimately far from
conclusive. I am only going to deal with the initial post - the
arguments in subsequent posts only taint the analysis.
Amongst the issues I have with the way the article was
written:
1) A lot of statements are introduced which are phrased as a matter
of fact. However, sources of such information are reported as
"lost" or "unknown". Without sources that can be cited and
independently examined, the assertions cannot be taken as the basis
of any conclusions, and that pretty much eliminates about a quarter
of the article.
2) With ancient scripts, the often poetic style of writing allows
for a wide degree of artistic licence, both in the writing and
interpretation. This, of course, is not limited to Indian scripts;
other writings such as the Bible are subject to misinterpretation.
A classic case would be Revelations, in which the description of
giant dragonflies with the heads of men has been tenuously
extrapolated to be a description of a helicopter. Given that the
data from the ancient sanskrit documents has not been known to have
been translated into any current applications, we may conclude that
the documents are either too vague, incomplete or just plain wrong.
That eliminates most of the rest of the article.
3) Most of the article deals with reporting only the "what"; the
"why" and "how" are at best only lightly touched upon, and when
they are, vague concepts such as "the unknown power of the ego
existing in man's physiological makeup" are used. Lacking the
presence of factual proof, at least some logical thread
incorporating, at the very liberally least, "what" and "how" is
required if some logical integrity is to be maintained in the
article. Unfortunately, this requirement has not been met
either.
Given the use of the word "proof" in the title, MunnaBhai, the
burden of proof rests upon you. This article in itself may be
enough to get a discussion started, but is far from conclusive
enough for you to expect to convince anyone of anything.
At the very least, if you're hoping to convince anyone of your
assertions, some factual evidence must be presented. For example,
are there any research articles reporting the radiation levels
found in Mohenjodaro? Given that the radiation from nuclear weapons
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have already subsided substantially,
there must be a fair amount of radiaactive material left in
Mohenjodaro - has such material been collected and studied? Of
course, the data needs to come from an institution which allows all
of its research to be verified by an independent body.
Bottom line is, I'd love to believe you, and presented with the
right materials, I actually might.
