Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Cradle of civilization-Is it Dwarka


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#46    TheSearcher

TheSearcher

    Coffee expert extraordinair

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:16 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:21 AM

So Harsh, why the quip about Big Brother? Why this personal attack? Any reason for that? Some of us do not just take the word of Hancock for it.

So as to the subject at hand I'll be brief, instead of dredging for artefacts and most likely destroying half of the proof they need in the process, NIOT should have let NIO and their submarine archaeology department do it the right way. They would still have received the credit for finding it and at least there would have been no controversy as to the legitimacy of the site.

But as far as I can tell this was a political play from A to Z, with the gods know what agenda.

It is only the ignorant who despise education.
Publilius Syrus.

So god made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?!

#47    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:22 AM

 The_Spartan, on 24 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

desperation??

Not depseration.

Just sadness that i am dealing with a fringe rainbow chaser named harsh patel instead of a Skeptic or intelligent man who uses common sense!!




Are these gentlemen who authored the paper trained archaeologists to make that claim?
No.
have they considered the possibilites of these artefacts and objects being transported there, by natural means??
No.



there is nothing in this report that is wrong.
the NIOt team found some material they dedged from the spots and they have doubts that these could be from human habitations along the rivers in the area.
thats all.  They havent claimed

1. That there was a city down there.
2. thery didnt claim a civilization older than IVC
3. All they did was find some stuff and they have informed the government, which from advice of archaeologists, have found their find "wanting".

Thats all.

I am reading the article with common sense.
I think you are looking for deliberate textual paraidolia in the articles.

The article you have linked from Hancock's website is suspicious.

1. The chief scientist of NIOT during the finds was Dr. Sa Badrinaryan and not Badirnaryan Badrinaryan
2. Unless i get the articles from NIOT, i cannot confirm whether the pictures with NIOT logo as displayed in the article, is actually from NIOT. (i can also make NOT logos and put on them pics top claim that they are from NIOT)
3. Prominent Indus Valely experts like Asko parpola and iravatham mahadevanbhave refuted and debunked "evidences" trying to connect the finds to Indus Valley and Harrapan Cvilization.
4. The valid questions raised by archeologists have not been asnwered aby anyone.
5. Why hasnt there been any further dive or exploration in this area where the finds were made, if it were true and the Indian Govt shouldf have been on the move last decade itself. Why no no action for a decade and till now???

More questions bro, which you cant or wont or wil lfind it tough to answer!!

The inferrence drawn from the data will vary the facts remain the same.Hence we are discussing it.

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1345150.stm

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1768109.stm

Abstract:


The images gathered over the past six months led to a surprising discovery - a series of well-defined geometric formations were clearly seen, spread irregularly across a nine-kilometre (five-mile) stretch, a little beneath the sea bed.
Some of them closely resemble an acropolis - or great bath - known to be characteristic of the Harappan civilisation.
The Gulf of Cambay is one of the largest tidal areas in the world - with a current of very high velocity - and so it is conceivable that the area may well have submerged an entire ancient settlement, Mr Ravindran said.

Using sidescan sonar - which sends a beam of sound waves down to the bottom of the ocean they identified huge geometrical structures at a depth of 120ft.
Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old.





Now lets come over to the debunking as claimed by you:

http://www.frontline...05/19050670.htm


Prominent members of the archaeological community have since debunked the Ministry's claim. While not disputing the possible existence of underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat, they argue that the evidence found so far is far too flimsy to support the grand claims that are being made. Their contention is that the government should hand over the excavation work to qualified marine archaeologists. It is a well established that civilisation began around 3500 B.C. in the Sumer valley (now in southern Iraq), and around 2500 B.C. in the Indian subcontinent with the Indus Valley civilisation. In archaeological methodology, the records generated from fieldwork have primacy in establishing the value of an excavation and the conclusions that are drawn. "It is highly unorthodox to go public so soon after a discovery and without first presenting the findings to one's peers," Jaya Menon, a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University, Baroda, told Frontline. "I don't see how claims were made without the involvement of marine archaeologists."
Professor K.V. Raman, former head of the Department of Archaeology, University of Madras, and former Superintending Archaeologist with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), says that the site needs more probing. On the pre-Harappan label being attached to the site, he says, "I am really sick of the politicisation of matters like this. It destroys the integrity of my profession."
Many aspects of the Khambat discovery are open to question. For instance, though the NIOT discovered the site last year, it has not involved agencies such as the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), which has a marine archaeology department and has many submarine excavations to its credit. Nor have the respected departments of archaeology at Deccan College or the University of Allahabad been involved. Kathiroli says: "The work done so far is very little and helps only to establish the existence of an archaeological site. Much more detailed investigations are required to unravel the complete truth. With this in mind, a national project is being contemplated involving institutions such as the NIO, the ASI, the National Geophysical Research Institute, the Physical Research Laboratory (in Ahmedabad) and other academic institutions."
There are some basic objections which have been raised against the claim that the remains of a 9,500-year-old settlement exist under the sea in the Gulf of Khambat. First, no marine archaeologist has actually gone down and seen the site. Says Shereen Ratnagar, Professor of Archaeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the author of many books on the Harappan civilisation: "There have been no divers, no mapping, no underwater photography in this case. These are the basics of excavating a submarine site. It's a long, tedious process. Even the work of mapping by people trained in archaeological draughtsmanship takes very long." Kathiroli says that an attempt to photograph the site failed because the water was turbid.


The debunking was based on inconclusive evidence and not anything else, they were debunking the Harrappan connection.This is something that i have been highlighting again and again that these sites should be further explored and analysed in detail, which is something that is not happening.



http://www.frontline...07/19070940.htm

Regarding what Parpola and Ivartham had to say:


How significant are the artefacts found at the Gulf of Khambat site? What are your first impressions on examining them? Is there any method by which the structures there can be examined?
To begin with, let us keep the Indus or the Harappan civilisation completely out of this. First, they (the NIOT scientists) are not claiming it to be the Indus civilisation. No Indus script or metal has been found there. No piece of pottery has been found there that can be identified; except some very minute pieces.
There are a few stone-like implements. But, as Prof. Parpola emphasises, due to tidal action it is very difficult to say for sure whether they are paleolithic which have been smoothened to look like neolithic or just natural stones that can acquire any kind of shape.
One point Dr. Badrinarayan is insistent about is that the square plinth areas have foundations. Dr. Parpola asked some probing questions such as whether there could not be some rock formations underneath? To this Dr. Badrinarayan says, "no". To prove this, I have suggested that one of the plinth areas be opened up by bucket excavators. It is a crude method. But one cannot do better than that. We do not expect brick structures. They could be random rubble structures.
This is only a beginning. They should do this (excavation) for a few more seasons. And they should associate well-known international experts in underwater archaeology and neolithic age. I am told that Dr. S.R. Rao, India's best expert in underwater archaeology, looked at the findings and was quoted as saying that he is "baffled". He is not able to come to any conclusion, as Dr. Parpola has also said.
I would like to maintain a cautious optimism. If the criticism is destructive, you would discourage the scientists who are honest and going about their jobs. Let us take their claims at face value. When an expert says he has been doing underwater exploration for long and has never found anything like this before, the claim has to be taken at face value.
NIOT scientists stumbled on the site. They have made known their findings. Should it still remain with them or be given to experts in the area of marine archaeology and Indian archaeology?

Also,
Parpola: That is too much.
Mahadevan: Absolutely not. That is politics. But I would not say that the finding should be discounted. We should ask questions and take a helpful attitude. If all experts say that there is nothing there which is man-made then scientists like Dr. Badrinarayan and Kathiroli will accept it. But the arguments and approach should be scientific, and the debate academic - keeping out politics.
In archaeology, any culture is a period of human activity. You can talk about palaeolithic culture and so on. Whereas civilisation would involve urban settlement. The comparisons with Jericho are all very far-fetched. Any link with the Harappan civilisation is unwarranted. There is no Indus script, no writing, no metal, no seal and not even pottery. In fact, even if pottery is found it is very significant because pottery is a human activity. But then again they are embedded in clay. They could have been washed in by the palaeo channel. All that is not conclusive.
One point is that it has been found in an area known to be Harappan in the later period. In that area there are probably a hundred Harappan sites. I have myself joined in one of the excavations, at Rojdi, by an American team led by Possehl. But these are all on land. Take Dholavira, in the Rann of Kutch, above land, but only barely so. With or without the claim of Carbon-14, even the look of it suggests that it is pre-Harappan.
So, let us not talk about the Harappan civilisation or the Indus Valley culture. It is far earlier than that. But the question is whether there is a culture there at all or we are imagining something. My position would be that we should not jump to conclusions nor should we straight away pooh-pooh it. We should take a helpful attitude.


Then how do you go about dating the findings?
Mahadevan: There are two points in this. They have some figurines. Prof. Parpola is rather sceptical - (he feels that) they could have been formed naturally. But some of them have perforations and some look like two pieces of clay fused together. It is difficult to find out if these had occurred naturally or not. This is again for experts to say.
But semi-precious stones clearly show human activity. They are very small and could have been washed into the sea but some are perforated. They are not exactly beads. They are rough pieces. Nevertheless perforated. Semi-precious stones are all hard. They do not get perforated naturally.
Parpola: I am sceptical about the significance of the perforation. More material needs to be excavated to get a clear evidence of human activity on those stones.

Regarding the dating:

Are the methods of dating followed in this case credible and reliable?
Mahadevan: The only method of dating used is carbon-14.
Parpola: The other most important dating method used (in this case) is geological - submerging. They made it clear that it could not have been above water after 5000 B.C. So, the sea-levels and geological reasons given for dating this as being 5000 B.C. or earlier and not after 5000 B.C. is an important method of dating.

Regarding credibility of NIOT scientists:

What is your overall assessment of the Khambat findings?
Overall, an interesting discovery has been made by scientists who have the right credentials and whose bona fide is hardly suspect. So I repeat, be sceptical, which is a good scientific attitude, but not negative and destructive. It could be a major discovery. We do not know. Several more seasons of work would be required. And clearly international cooperation is called for.

Regarding the alleged role of Murli Manohar Joshi:
But, then, I would not judge what is happening in NIOT by what Murli Manohar Joshi is saying.

Regarding other such underwater sites:

Are there any similar underwater sites? What methods of archaeology, dating and so on have been used there?
Mahadevan: Outside Cambay, one has been found by S.R. Rao at Bet Dwaraka, where there were cyclopean walls and huge structures. A Harappan seal was also found. These findings have been published. That was a regular underwater archaeology from Goa done with divers using diving bells and so on.
S.R. Rao has also done a smaller one, off Cauvery valley, in Poompuhar, but not as extensive as in Dwaraka. As far as I know, no diving bells were used in this case. But they did find some brick structures about 5-6 km off the coast of Kaveripoompatinam. It has not been published fully. But it has got some notice.
Dwaraka is a good example of huge structures found underwater. But this was to be expected. The high tide rises several metres up and down. And Rann of Kutch area is virtually above water for six months and under water for the next six months. In that area because of tectonic activity the land level keeps rising and falling. That coastal towns should go under water in such areas is no surprise. But this is not as deep as in the case of Cambay. And that makes all the difference.
Parpola: Cambay is very deep. And also, as the underwater currents are strong, it is extremely difficult and risky for any marine archaeologist to go there. As for other sites, there was recently news about parts of ancient Alexandria being discovered underwater. They have found houses, statues and some structures belonging to the Roman period. Underwater sites are being found. But Cambay is one of its kind - it is very deep, the currents are strong and the sand is constantly shifting. I do not know of any other site as difficult as this one.
What is interesting (in the Gulf of Khambat site) is the macro picture of several kilometre area of square plinths, something which look like tanks, one that looks like a check-wall for break-water, another like a fortress and so on. These are all sonar images and not direct photographs as the water there is very murky to be directly photographed.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 24 April 2013 - 09:26 AM.


#48    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

Harsh, can you state your point in the above post?

Why are you selectively picking on certain aspects of my post?
why are you not answering the valid questions i have put forth?

Edited by The_Spartan, 24 April 2013 - 09:40 AM.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#49    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

Spartan a point wise response for you:

1.
The gentleman who authored the paper are expert in Marine exploration, they are trained to spot natural occurences and those that seem manmade.These scientists can easily make the distinction between underwater natural formations and those that look manmade, better then archeologists.
Even the archeologists who later were following up on the report only contest the connection to Indus Valley Civilisation, saying that there was no script or other IVC like artifact yet found. They are not saying that the site is null and void.I mentioned in one of the initial post to you that there is no script yet associated with this site.

The above article where you claimed Parpola and Mahadevan have debunked the finds, is an older article when many other dating procedures were not yet used and onle c14 was used. Even they do not dismiss the finds completely as natural and the site as a fraud.

2.
They have already considered the possibility of these artifacts landing there from elsewhere, that is the reason they did the X-ray Diffraction studies and the radio-active element studies to prove that the artifacts were Insitu.Have already answered this question before.

3.
Regarding the city claim, it is very obvious from the reports of the underwater structures that showed up in the side scan sonar that there were huge citadels, baths and neatly placed houses in grids with foundations.
I don't know what else would you call these structures if not a City.

4.
Regarding your skepticism of Hancock Article....Badrinaryan actually reported these structures and was convinced:

One point Dr. Badrinarayan is insistent about is that the square plinth areas have foundations. Dr. Parpola asked some probing questions such as whether there could not be some rock formations underneath? To this Dr. Badrinarayan says, "no". To prove this, I have suggested that one of the plinth areas be opened up by bucket excavators. It is a crude method. But one cannot do better than that. We do not expect brick structures. They could be random rubble structures.

This is what Parpola had to say about the find:
I was very suspicious about the dating of the site from a piece of wood. For one, it could have come from anywhere. But Dr. Badrinarayan says it actually comes from under the seabed. Thus, it is from a stratified context. So, if the site went under water about 5000 B.C., dating this a little bit earlier does not seem unreasonable.
But I object to the use of the words "Cambay civilisation" as it implies literacy and city life. On the basis of the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that it is possible that this could be a Neolithic site of 5000 B.C. Of course, I have not seen any incontrovertible evidence for this. I am only saying that it is possible. That is all.

I have seen some interesting materials that seem to occur only in this place; not in the surrounding areas. But the problem with this site is that there is very heavy tidal influence and the sands are shifting all the time. So when we find flat objects here it seems to me perfectly possible that this flattening is done by sand activity - erosion by the sand. Even the holes that we found in the stones got from this area may not be due to human drilling. A flat object could have been stuck on a stone and started rolling around because of water activity (currents). So, these holes may have occurred naturally. Thus, I want to have a sceptical attitude about these findings until we get incontrovertible proof.

What would you term "incontrovertible proof"?

For instance, very hard stones clearly drilled by human activity. Or, if we are speaking of stone tools - flints, usually chipped. The material found so far are smooth; they could have been smoothened by sand. That is what is expected to happen if they remain under water for thousands of years and the sand is shifting heavily all the time.

But they have found hard stones. They have also found what to a layperson looks like pottery. All these things can be analysed, no doubt. My impression is that the NIOT is quite open and willing to let experts help it analyse these materials. It also appears that it is doing its best to study the material scientifically.

What artefacts did you see? Do they give any clues that they are man-made? What is their significance?

The most interesting things were animal remains, fossilised vertebrae, different kinds of stones and so on. They could have been man-made. But I am not fully convinced (that they are man-made) as I see the possibility of natural activity. But, as I said, there are semi-precious stones. It seems quite likely that the Tapti river flowed to the Saurashtra side and this habitation, if it was such, would have been on it. So, on the basis of what I have seen, I would expect that this might be a Neolithic site of about 5000 B.C., similar to that in Saurashtra and mainland Gujarat. They hypothesise that there could have been a dam. On the basis of what has been discovered in pre-Harappan cultures in Pakistan, we know that such dams were built.

With what certainty can sonar images be used to conclude the existence of such structures as dams, granary and pillars? Have sonar images been used to decipher such underwater sites?

I am not an expert on sonar images to make a pronouncement on this. But Dr. Badrinarayan says that because they seem to continue under the seabed these projections seem to have some foundation. I asked them: 'Is it not possible that the stone formation here is of different hardness and while the soft parts are wiped away the hard parts remain.' They want to do more research to find out if they are man-made by taking more samples from there.



Here you can get the Jist of Badrinaryans position on the find.


5.

Why further activity is not going on at the site? this is a question i have been asking too, i blame the leftist pseudosecular Congress government that is ruling currently for obstructing further efforts.Most of the so called debunking that you suggest is based on lack of further research.

I am not only interested in this underwater city but also other under water lost cities around the world.


6.

Which valid questions raised by which archeologists have not been answered? should we just take your word for it?

Why don't you reproduce more questions from such Archeologists right here.



#50    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:53 AM

 TheSearcher, on 24 April 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

So Harsh, why the quip about Big Brother? Why this personal attack? Any reason for that? Some of us do not just take the word of Hancock for it.

So as to the subject at hand I'll be brief, instead of dredging for artefacts and most likely destroying half of the proof they need in the process, NIOT should have let NIO and their submarine archaeology department do it the right way. They would still have received the credit for finding it and at least there would have been no controversy as to the legitimacy of the site.

But as far as I can tell this was a political play from A to Z, with the gods know what agenda.

Again i asked you to atleast read the link in the start of the post before you launch your assault of questions as most of them would be answered.

The gulf of Khambat in words of Parpola:

What are the standard, accepted procedures of excavating such underwater marine sites? Is mechanical dredging the common procedure? Would it not disturb the evidence?

Mechanical dredging is probably the only way to excavate such sites because of the depth, the strong tide, the turbid water and the strong currents. It is an extremely dangerous site for divers. So, mechanical dredging is probably the only way of excavation here. But I think they would like to get advice from marine archaeologists working elsewhere, as the scientists who are involved in this are basically ocean technologists and geologists who are not experienced in marine archaeology.



There is a bigger political ploy in scuttling the site.



#51    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

 The_Spartan, on 24 April 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:


I will surely do so.
Have you done so? do you have the reports?
If so, why the hell arent you sharing them with us over here now????


You posted the links to the NIOT articles.
So,naturally we would be wondering if you had got access to the articles.
If you have got the article from NIOT, why are you not sharing it? with us?
If you have not got access, then whats the purpose of posting the links, if you yourself dont know the contents of the article?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#52    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:27 AM

 The_Spartan, on 24 April 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

You posted the links to the NIOT articles.
So,naturally we would be wondering if you had got access to the articles.
If you have got the article from NIOT, why are you not sharing it? with us?
If you have not got access, then whats the purpose of posting the links, if you yourself dont know the contents of the article?
Check post no.43.

I don't have the articles for NIOT neither did i ever request them, i believe the article on the Hancock site to be factual.
Most of the things mentioned in the article are also mentioned in news articles, which i linked. (including national geographic and BBC).
I have given you the link on the NIOT site, now the onus is on you to verify them and prove Hancock to be a lair and a forger.

I don't think Hancock is an idiot to put fabricated articles on his website.
I have been clear about the purpose of posting this link. If you don't like the topic or the link,there are many other topics on this forum where you can go and ask for all sorts of evidences.

The link i have posted at the start of the topic has most of the relevant information from the NIOT reports, why would i go on demanding more.

Badrinarayan reported and asserted these underwater structures that he observed, this can be verified from other sources like newspapers quoting conversations that experts had with Badrinarayan.

Even better if you feel that Hancock has fabricated the article and wrongly used Badrinarayan and NIOT's name to promote his agenda and that he has photoshoped the NIOT logo on his personal photographs and misrepresented them then why don't you write to NIOT and Badrinarayan and complain, they will surely sue him.


#53    TheSearcher

TheSearcher

    Coffee expert extraordinair

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:16 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:13 AM

 Harsh86_Patel, on 24 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Again i asked you to atleast read the link in the start of the post before you launch your assault of questions as most of them would be answered.

The gulf of Khambat in words of Parpola:

What are the standard, accepted procedures of excavating such underwater marine sites? Is mechanical dredging the common procedure? Would it not disturb the evidence?
Mechanical dredging is probably the only way to excavate such sites because of the depth, the strong tide, the turbid water and the strong currents. It is an extremely dangerous site for divers. So, mechanical dredging is probably the only way of excavation here. But I think they would like to get advice from marine archaeologists working elsewhere, as the scientists who are involved in this are basically ocean technologists and geologists who are not experienced in marine archaeology.


There is a bigger political ploy in scuttling the site.

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....

It is only the ignorant who despise education.
Publilius Syrus.

So god made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?!

#54    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

 TheSearcher, on 24 April 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....
You are talking about the 'big brother' refference.
I was not being personal at all as i was speaking of it as a figure of speech.
I get irritaated when the evidence is put out for people to see and evaluate for themselves, and accept or criticize it for themselves but they still end up taking a sweeping opinion given by others rather then utilising thier own brains.


#55    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 24 April 2013 - 01:04 PM

 TheSearcher, on 24 April 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....

This is a classisc example of Beating around the bush!!! :innocent:

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#56    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:49 AM

 The_Spartan, on 24 April 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

This is a classisc example of Beating around the bush!!! :innocent:
I found you beating around the bush, without reading the article you are asking the same questions that are specifically answered in the article.

For eg- The artifacts could have been deposited there by through a river channel etc. When the article answers this same question specifically i.e which studies the did to support the fact that the artifacts were not washed by any river channel and they were found and belong to the underwater site.

You asked that a single piece of wood cannot be used to date the site. when the article specifically mentioned that "3 or 4 different samples including pottery using a wide scale of dating techniques in multiple laboratories around the world were used to date the site"

All that you did was not read the evidence and reffered to old articles related to the site when many of the confirming studies were not yet done, and went gung ho on asking the same questions that were specifically answered in the article.

I had to post whole section of the article again and agian. After realising that this article is aimed at answering most of the questions which were raised when the find was relatively new and many confirming tests were pending at that point of time which were later carried out, you went on the question the source of the infornation in the article.
We could have avoided so much time wasting if you had read the article first and then levelled your criticism.


#57    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:26 PM

I stick to debating on all points. answering all points.
I dont show selective blindness or deafness when deabting.
But thats not the case with you.
You beat around the bush.
When you are aksed some questions, you deliberately skirt answering the ones that put you in a weak light, change the topic to politics and racism etc, conveniently avoiding answering the questions.

Typical Fringe!!

good to have a Indian fringie over here!!

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#58    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:12 AM

 The_Spartan, on 25 April 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

I stick to debating on all points. answering all points.
I dont show selective blindness or deafness when deabting.
But thats not the case with you.
You beat around the bush.
When you are aksed some questions, you deliberately skirt answering the ones that put you in a weak light, change the topic to politics and racism etc, conveniently avoiding answering the questions.

Typical Fringe!!

good to have a Indian fringie over here!!
Please put down the question you think i have avoided, in a post. And though i have answered all of them, using the same article that i have posted in the first post, i will do it again so you can't go around leveling such flimsy allegations.
Don't tell that you think there is no racism in the world even in mainstream history. If you believe it to be so then i think you are from a different planet.
You have not asked me a single question yet regarding the material i have posted that i haven't answered.All the questions that you have put out, i have answered point wise using the same article in the topic and other sources.

So once again put down the questions that you think i have avoided or not answered,i will also mark you the posts where i have specifically answered or addressed those same question from this same topic, hope that will put an end to your whining and false allegations.


#59    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:34 PM

not wanting to jump into all your arguments, i'll just answer the originally posted question 'the cradle of civilisation- was it dwarka?' instead.
no, it wasn't.
australia was first settled by the aborigines 60,000 years ago, meaning they had a sufficiently developed technology to sail there, as at no point in human history has australia not been an island, it's been separated from all other landmasses for at least 50 million years.
for the aborigines to have reached it by boat, tens of thousands of years before anyone else on earth was using boats means their civilisation was far more advanced than anyone elses.
if they set off from the nearest landmass, timor, they would have had to travel at least 60 miles, towards a landmass they could neither see, nor possibly have known to exist, but yet they did, and populated an entire continent.
the aborigine peoples have the oldest continual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.
not by a long way.

Edited by shrooma, 30 April 2013 - 10:37 PM.

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#60    Sheep Smart

Sheep Smart

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Back in town!

  • Im so happy I bleed it.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:49 PM

 shrooma, on 30 April 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

not wanting to jump into all your arguments, i'll just answer the originally posted question 'the cradle of civilisation- was it dwarka?' instead.
no, it wasn't.
australia was first settled by the aborigines 60,000 years ago, meaning they had a sufficiently developed technology to sail there, as at no point in human history has australia not been an island, it's been separated from all other landmasses for at least 50 million years.
for the aborigines to have reached it by boat, tens of thousands of years before anyone else on earth was using boats means they're civilisation was far more advanced than anyone elses.
if they set off from the nearest landmass, timor, they would have had to travel at least 60 miles, towards a landmass they could neither see, nor possibly have known to exist, but yet they did, and populated an entire continent.
the aborigine peoples have the oldest nual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.
not by a long way.
I often wonder(i forget the term for it that someone coined) if humans could have possibly evolved in several areas rather than the general accepted notion of having spawn out of africa branching outward later . the chinese from what i understand seem to adhere to this theory.
there is evidence that around the time of the dawn of primitive australopithicus that grass almost simulteanously popped up in every continent aside from that of the poles. sometimes its difficult to imagine man having crossed the sahara upward then crossing the beiring strait which would have been uncomfortable in subzero temperatures and all its obstacles, down into the americas in particular. if thelaws of evolution are accurate it might stand to reason why peoples in different corners of the world physically appear so different.

Edited by Sheep Smart, 30 April 2013 - 10:54 PM.

Other life in the universe?, you dare to imply there are entities possibly far greater than us almighty humans, creators of canned ham and reality tv. Nonsense. Absurd.

   The reality that stupidy exists in abundance doesnt bother me. Its the fact that theres still no cure.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users