This is the same thing he is being told in the other evolution thread. He hasn't got any of his ideas straight. Well, actually they aren't even his ideas at all.

He is attempting to debunk evolution in the other thread by cutting and pasting Creationist websites (with no credit to the original author) and instead of answering what he is asked, he diverts, copies, pastes, and stalls.

What I don't understand is what he DOES believe. From what I gather so far, he believes humans have been around for millions of years, did not evolve, because we are too complex of a species, but that simple organisms evolved, and something about Atlantis.

You should check out the other thread, Jaylemurph. It's entertaining. (And maddening.) I'm waiting for Emma to jump in.

For the Evolution theory, I told the thread from day one, i dont have the credentials to debunk anything, i said i would use material from people who know what they are talking about, and if you read my post properly, u would see that, many poeple have provided alleged links to my material, where as I have tld you numerous times, I have the books as E-books and in Hardback... Which part does not make sense.

Jay the references are they go fins them.......dont whinge about it, when you cant provide the rebuttal, Just beause the material is not mine, like most of the sh** you and harte post is not yours, does not mean i dont understand it. Linky's are all good etc, but thats if the information is coming from links, mine aint.

I'm picking pieces of my head up off the floor and trying to reassemble my brain as we speak.

Maddening is definately the word.

airborne chariot = flying car? Big deal, just about every religion on record, past and present has gods, deities or heroic figures running around on sky chariots. They even use them in Dragon Ball Z for crying out loud. It is a well known description in story used to impress people with the power of the deity, hero... whoever. Much like changing shape, messing with the weather, tossing about curses, riding fiery horses and throwing lightning bolts. There is no evidence that any of this is true. As was said earlier by Harte, the book you are drawing this from is highly questionable.

You don't address any of the points returned to you and instead you throw out more challenges, which are also then disputed skillfully.

Hi emma, your always welcome, i love debating with you.

obviously die, you aint read anything properly, the main thing in dispute is the source and the translation, is like me sticking to king james version of the bible and harte sticking to some other version and translation. I have not seen any skill rebuttal of the artifact, ancient ones, including the footprint, which is millions off years old and the person is wearing footwear.

Ofcourse other religions also support the idea of ancient poeple having aircrafts, by pointing this out, your helping my argument, by saying there are more sources refering to this ancient phenomena, which comes from other ancient sources.

Look today, we have the the west, the U.S for example , highly developed, has aircraft etc, weapons of mass destruction etc, at the same time you have a civilisation so primitive, thats its shocking, it exists within amazon for example. This shows, that highly advanced civilisations can co-exist at the same time as those who so prmitive. Why then can this not be the case in the past........

The point orinigall was, that there is no nuke war in ancient india, the point of contention is the one translation, lets for argument sake, that you guys are right and my translation is wrong. The why have you still not explained the Iron Thunderbolt from the Sky. This is in almost all the translations.

You say i dont anwser anything, i think your wrong, i do and then i post further challenges, to your mindset.

I think he's pointing out more that these descrpitions are more to do with exaggerating a character than with a literal event. You simply cannot say an ancient event is descriping complete fact without other verifiable sources. There is nothing certain about such a claim. you can say it's possible but not certain. A description of a flying chariot does not mean they existed. For example lets take a slightly more recent text. geoffry of monmoths history of the kings britain. He makes it clear he is writing this as a factual history of britain. If this was the only information we had about the time periods he discussed we could be lead to believe all manner of erroneous things, like that Rome never invaded Britian. his texts has elements of fact mixed up with fantasy and a lot of confusion on dates and timelines. We know this becuase we have other sources with which to compare his information against. So no matter what translation you use of an even more ancient text how can you possibly know which elements are factual and which are elaboration. Further to that it seems you are selecting the most outrages translations and sections to be the factual ones. There is no logic to bear out this conlcusion.



I dont think a thunderbolt is indicative of advanced cilivilsation no matter how colourful the description of it.

Well an rion thunderbolt from the sky, it does seem pecular that they refer to an iron thunder bolt, not lighting, or gods wrath etc.
Still please explain why through out the ancient vedas this term i used. Secondly i understand your point about text exaggerating things. But this clearly shows that most of you have anatural dispostion to to assume that all the ancient vedas are simply relgious fairy tales. what u dont realise is that some of the books are written deliberately as historical accounts, just like we would today, and secondly the one aircrafts are written as manuals, instruction manuals, they were not regarded much by the priest of hinduism in todays time because they did not know what to make of them, they udnerstood the words what they were referignt o was a mystery, until poeple with scientific and lingustic backgrounds translated the material to find out that one whole book is an instruction manual on how to fly a vimana, using say mercury, other fuel types and anti-gravity etc.

The fact other ancient scriptures refer to similar phenomena would simply back me up.

This is why i used the example text that I did. It was written and portrayed as a factual historical document jsut as you say the vedas are but we know much of it is exaggeration and a dash of imagination based on oral and older written accounts. there are some very matter of fact descriptions of utterly impossible events. You cannot say for certain that this is not the case for the vedas as well.

i never said this is the case for all vedas, what you need to realise is the vedas is vast number of books, dealing with different things, amongs them instruction manuals have been discovered, whole books, which are written like instruction manuals. The point is, is there is evidence for advanced civilistion in the past, arcgeoligical evidence too, which so far cannot be anwered, and in todays time we have highly technoligical civilsation living in co-esitence with very primitive ones, so why cannot this have happened before.

becasue there is no accepted archological evidance that this was the case. No huge advanced city has been discovered. You claim a place with space ships and metal use etc based on one or two disputed finds. Where are the remains of these ships? i find it incredible that you dispute evolution and claim there is not enough evidence to support it and yet cling to a theory which has by far less evidence to support it. if there was an ancient text that described the theory of evolution but no scientific data for it would you believe it then? Also you stated again that many of the texts you refer to are written as facts and instruction manuals. That does not make them factual. An alchemist would have written a very factual account of their theories but it doesn't make them any less fanciful.

if you u.r are so shore that you found atlantis then you must be here were I AM is, you found your root that makes you, you.

you must have a good foundation being with your mother that provids you with your earthly wants.

but see this is only half way you must clime that latter of light to be with our god the father.

and don't take much from these mental migets ,there like that you know small in mind.

as far as i can see they are stuck in a ditch i keep putting out my hand to help them out but they are just to blind to see it right in front of there faces.

iM SURE YOU HAVE NOT READ EVERYTHING ON THIS THREAD.

Firstly, one of points regarding mainstream history and archeology, is that they are confined to the evolutionary timeline. Which suggests, that it was not so long ago, that modern man got the ability to become intellectual and advanced, thus we are where we are now. My point is also this, any evidence, regrding the ancient world, any discovery be it an object or literal, is given no emphasis or credibilty if it does no adhere to the evolutionary timeline. For example, the foot print, millions of years old hut, the metalic sphere, with grooves and metal pot found in coal etc, and more some only going back as far as 10,000 yr when we allegedly we pretty primitive in technolgy and advancement. but somehow those humans were able to make intrecate jewlerywith tiny holes in it, by allegedly rubbing stones together.LOL.

The vedas in large aspects gives man historical accounts of a time we have forgotten. U say there are no ancient cities, i agree, there is not much left, but you have stil enough that we need to ponder, the pyramids,stone henge, other megalithic structure the types that man that far back was not advance d enough to make. Also many ancient place are under water, and in the near future i would not be surprised if we found more and more. There is scientific evidence to suggest that, alot of the land mass that was before is under water now.

Also, regrding the manual on aircrafts, their refer to technolgy in use now and technology that we are trying to produce. how did they know of this back then, even if according to you they were writing some star trek episode.

Have you actually seen a picture of this? It is clearly not a footprint. A footprint has a heavier indentation at the ball and the toes - this isn't the case at all. It is clearly a fossilised indentation that is vaguely in the shape of a shoe. Not the same thing.



Nope, it shows that it is easy to misread myths as if they were fact, and pointless viewing an ancient document in a modern frame of reference. Take Ezekiel's vision for example:

As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze

Religious fervor from an individual (who's belief in the power of his god was so strong that it would put a modern fundamentalist to shame) manifesting itself in a scientifically explainable vision, OR a UFO? Which do you think is more likely?



Is that what it comes down to? The unexplained inclusion of the phrase "iron thunderbolt" is proof of an ancient nuclear war and advanced civilisations?

That simply isn't enough.



They are not historical accounts as there is no external thrid party proof of them being so. They are historical accounts of an ancient war, in the same way that the bible is a historical account of God's existance. You cannot have a document that is self-confirming. It isn't true just because it says it is. Again - this is not historically valid.

Well at last, you decided to join in...Im glad.


You say"Have you actually seen a picture of this? It is clearly not a footprint. A footprint has a heavier indentation at the ball and the toes - this isn't the case at all. It is clearly a fossilised indentation that is vaguely in the shape of a shoe. Not the same thing."

So yu amature analysis of the footprint are accurate. lol based on what, did you come up with this conclusion. Lets say i agree for argument sake, what about the other findings......


You say"Nope, it shows that it is easy to misread myths as if they were fact, and pointless viewing an ancient document in a modern frame of reference. Take Ezekiel's vision for example:

As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze

Religious fervor from an individual (who's belief in religion was so strong that it would put a modern fundamentalist to shame) manifesting itself in a scientifically explainable vision, OR a UFO? Which do you think is more likely?"

Maybe it was an aircraft, the account it refers to is way back in hisotry, put i understand the point your making, my point would be its consistent with other ancient writings "and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze", this part is interesting, as its from the bible, i will try and locate it from the Greek bible, for more authenticity and its closest aviable text to the original. That verse to me show a consistency in the ancients having seen similar things and experience similar things, and the hindu scriptures are even older than the biblical ones. Why cant there have been a advanced civilisations co-exsiting with primitives one like today, i think we call them the third world.

You say "Is that what it comes down to? The unexplained inclusion of the phrase "iron thunderbolt" is proof of an ancient nuclear war and advanced civilisations?

That simply isn't enough."

Not you for you i agree, nothing is normally enough for you. But it still needs an explanation, its occurs through the vedas etc, quite frequently, referign to it as a weopon of mass destruction, like the ones saddam was supposed to have i think. On its own its not enough, in conjunction with other verses refering to similar pehenomena, its supports the notion.

You say "They are not historical accounts as there is no external thrid party proof of them being so. They are historical accounts of an ancient war, in the same way that the bible is a historical account of God's existance. You cannot have a document that is self-confirming. It isn't true just because it says it is. Again - this is not historically valid"


Tghe vedas are an historical account and so are the archelogical evidence to support it and it refers to the time of the rama empire,which was a reality, as we still have temples etc made with great wonder in india and southern india etc. its tehre if you look, beyond your narrow mind. You will only accepet evidenc which fits in with the imaginary timeline you believe in.

Been busy.



I suspect you don't mean that.

I have read your earlier points i jsut dont think your claims have enough evidence. Archeologists do not base their data on the theory of evolution. I do not give credence to random claims. I have seen none of this apparent evidence presented anywhere other than your posts here. Basically I cannot simply take your word for it that this evidence exists and that you have interpreted it correctly when I know of others who would disagree that have studied archeology. It is nothing against your ideas but every book i have seen stating similar theories has been picking facts and twisting them to fit a conclusion. I would love it to be true but as yet i have seen no evidence prestented that stands up to detailed scrutiny. it is not a case of me saying you are wrong i am simply saying that there is not enough proven or verified evidence to claim these things to be true. The more established view to me seems the far more probable.

Oh i did, honestly, I believe you always have inteligent argumens to contribute. adds to the fun.

very good point. I udnerstand that some of the evidence i provide will not be sufficient to some, due to their adherence to mainstream science and historians, who whether you like it or not, stick with in the evolutionary timeline, i even provided a quote from a prominent biologist, to back this up. I agree history is down to interpretations, would reject one outright even if there is literal evidence, physical evidene for human advancement at alot earlier stage than we assume. The reason they reject it is, because it does not fit the mainstream model of history and science. like i said, let not even go that far back, lets say 9,000 yrs, man was making tools, and jewlery, in such ways and with precision, but evolutionist will have you believe that we were not even that advance back then. Some jewlery has tiny holes with precision, how can one do this with rudementary tools or by rubbing stones together. I am still building evidence, i will have more to come.

hmmm...........never thought of 'oh thats pure rubbish' as being an inteligent argument...............oh well

? you lost me here.

the real atlantis was told tobe found back jan 06 when i first come on here and i been fighting the blind ignorents ever since

This is, at best, a very troublesome translation of the following text (bolded portion):

Source: Srimad Bhagavatim (also known as the Bhagavata Purana), Canto 4, Chapter 12, verses 28-35

This section of this Purana is about the Maharaja Dhruva's death, i.e., his "return to the Godhead."

Not likely to be an eyewitness account, right? I mean, it's his journey into heaven. Who was it that went with him and then came back to tell the story?

Now, I don't think anyone here would claim that the Vedas do not mention flying vehicles.

Would you attribute the bright circle in the sky (the Sun) to the God Helios in his flying chariot? After all, the Greeks thought (and wrote) so. Yet we know today it is a star, and not a flying chariot.

I don't see the difference.


Ozi, this is a consequence of the lazy cut and paste method that you've been criticized for. Why? Because we've already established that Roy never translated the Mahabharata! Yet in one post you twice refer to Ganguli's translation as that of P.C. Roy.

You asked earlier about our explanation for the "Iron thunderbolt" weapon.

Of course, nobody here is obliged to proivide any information as it is not we who are making a claim here, but you. If you want the "Iron thunderbolt" to be a real weapon, you will need to provide some evidence for this claim.

However, I'm willing to guess if that's okay with you.

1) It's the cultural memory of an iron meteor

2) It's lightning.

Both guesses make far more sense than the completely unsubstantiated idea that it was an actual weapon wielded by god-like aliens, which is your assertion. After all, meteors and lightning are known to exist, and meteors are often high in iron content - verging on pure metal in some cases.

Harte

I'm willing to bet that by now Ozi suffers from a disease similar to Crystal Sage's: he cuts and pastes so very much, and does so without respect to coherency and context, that he simply doesn't remember all the [polite word for excrement] he plonks down, the points he's tried to make, or even when he's been proven wrong. Just look at Harte's last post.

--Jaylemurph

Your footprint is simply an inclusion. They are extremely commonplace in geology. It just happens to look like a shoe. Nothing more, nothing less. The hut you speak of, as you have already been told, is a simple windbreak and in no way conflicts with current thinking nor, certainly, is evidence of anything advanced. Your spheres are completely bogus and the only info about them is from a hack book called Forbidden Archeology that uses the Weekly World News, one the worst tabloids in history, as a source. Your pot in coal, like all these ooparts, is second hand information after the fact. Nobody saw it, nobody tested it so nobody can take it as evidence of anything. Also, realize conreations can happen quickly depending on what type of rock it is. There's nothing shocking about it. About complex 10,000 year old jewelry? We have evidence of human ornamentation going back as far as possibly 100,000 years. Who's claiming that we were dolts 10,000 years ago capable of only rubbing two rocks together?

You take the tack that stonehenge and other monuments couldn't be built by the cultures known to exist at that time? Isn't that contrary to your whole point? You're finding mysteries where they don't exist.

PS the whole basis of your Veda argument, the manual of aircrafts you speak of, the Vaimanika Sastra is a fake. It didn't show up until the fifties, supposedly channeled by some guy in the twenties from some other guy who lived in 4000BC. That's your evidence?

Good post harte...still aint dealt with artifcats like but hey, never mind. I know your on it. Again its down to translation, i refered to Chandras, translation although its is supposed be or is done by ganguli, how ever, why did not ganguli rectify the translation from the books chandra published. Im still tracking ganguli's quote, harder than i thought, but will get there eventually. The greeks could have been refering to it. but vivid details in the original sanksrit are more interesting and more detailed. regarding fuel type, type of aircraft etc.


The iron thunderbolt, is referred to something to be fearful of like a weapon. You say at a guess, maybe an iron meteor, how did they know its an iron meteor....its lighting you say, could be, but why refer to lighting as a iron thunderbolt, why not refer to it as lighting, like everywhere else in the texts lighting is refered to as lighting.

Also yu only came back with another version of one verse i posted not all of them have you. There are more verses about aircrafts too. i pose it to you, why is there no chance of an advanced civilisation living at the same time as primitive ones - co-existing. Like today.

Advanced civilizations living during the time the Vedas describe would still be painfully obvious today. There would be artifacts and structures left to at least to same degree, if not moreso, as all the other ancient civilizations we have great evidence of.

You see your all quick to reject the artifacts as bogus when you can find no credible evidence to refute them. its the norm i understand this. Well if ornamentation are avaible dating back to 100,000 yrs, this supports my notion further, that we have been around for ages and have had previous advanced civilisations. Technololgy, earthss development and human civilisation did not develop in a linear form as assumed in the west, its had ups and downs. things have been lost, technology has been lost and gained again, and in the process new things have been discovered too. im saying stone henge is not explained along with other monuments, like the one irlend, maybe the oldest building on earth. poeple must have bult them, must have had some advanced technology. if not how was it done, by mere chance or stone rubbing primitive man.


You say its all fake based on what, your whim.the reason it dint show until the fifities, is because india had independance, and works of translations done by colonialists, were accessible to them and their were still studying many other manu-scripts which had not been translated, or ignored by the priests, because they could not understand them. Because the release of the information was fairly new, does not mean its fake.

the point of the thread was to prove ancient nuke warefare in ancient india.....lets say it really did happen for argument sake, how much of the civilisation and building would stand, notmany. what we do have are ancient temples, and building which were apart of the rama empire in existence today. check them out and some of them have written information which has still not been deciphered.

Wow. I did refute them. You're the one who has to support your assinine assertions. Do you actually ever look at the histories of these objects you talk about? Do actually research anything you post before you post it? They've been debunked thirty years ago. I'm betting you're rather young. And look, you don't even examine my claim before adopting it as proof of your own. Perhaps you look at the "ornamentation" I spoke of. It's seashells with rough holes cracked into them. Does that support your advanced civilization argument?

Stonehenge is well explained as all these other monuments you keep bringing. Perhaps you need to read up on the archeology of these sites before claiming what is known and what isn't.

I don't believe you're even questioning the obvious bogusness of the Vaimanika Sastra. Josyer, the man who first published it (and that's a fact), made the ridiculous claims above, not me. Hindi linguists that have looked at say they believe the language is from 1920-1940 and uses none of the linguistic keys that would be concurrent with veda era writing. Josyer said it was dictated by a man who CHANNELED IT. The man who published it, not me. There is also no hindi versions of it prior to that time either. A little bit of research yourself and you would save yourself the time of bringing up things that are already known hoaxes.

Doctor Who on Ozi:

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views."
--Jaylemurph

The Rama Empire never existed. The epics aren't historical. You're having a hard time seperating that from actual history. It was supposed to have taken place in Kosala, an actual Indo-Aryan Kingdom, that shows no evidence of a nuclear war taking place there. Please point me to these buildings or temples you speak of, because I've never heard of them. The pre-vedic harappan culture, which is when the Vedas would be taking place if taken at face value, made mud-brick structures.

LOL. First of all hindi, and hindustan, hindi was the common language spoken which derives from urdu, and was named hindi by the arab rulers who rules for a long time, and they named it hindustan. I bet you dont even know that hindus dont call them selves that in the actual scripts, the name is something else, research it. I know your source for fact is from wikipedia, but thats place not be all and the end all of it.

Again, you say you have refuted, by simple saying their fakes, well show me, how, when and why? I did not need to look at the ornament thing is still supports my notion that man was advanced more than we think 1000's of yrs ago. back thn they used sea shells with crude holes made in them. so what, they bad tools man, there is plenty more ancient findings to support my view, and i will provide them. Secondly, the jewlery from 11000- 9000 yrs ago, has precision holes in them, like as though they have been drilled. but we are told, that after the last ice age, approx 10,000 yrs ago, we were still primitive, thats does not sound primitive to me.

Stone henge is explained, well why dont you enlighten us, in a nutshell tell me the estbalished fact on how it was built, what it is for and what other similar sites are.

I wil get your more vimana stuff, as for joyser, this is when it first came to public light, yeh there have been some rebuttals, but there has been additional proof since then and phenomena has occured in other texts which re-inforces it too.

Harrapp s just one site, there is also mahenjdaro, and others ...comin soon.

Oh what a beatiful day....i cant get enough of this, i love shocking you peeps.


The work “Vymanika Shastra” has appeared in twentieth century in Sanskrit transcript form and subsequently translated versions in Hindi and English have been derived. There are different versions with different titles leading to possible confusion among the readers and research scholars. We have therefore devoted some effort to place the facts in the right perspective.



In this process, it is appropriate to commence this topic with the narration front-lined on G.R. Josyer’s publication, which reads as follows.



“Maharshi Bharadwaja’s ‘Vymanika Shastra’ or ‘Science of Aeronautics’ as revealed to venerable Subbaraya Shastry and recorded in hand written Sanskrit script form, translated to English by G.R. Josyer.M.A [hons] FRES, MRSE.



Four variants with different titles are as follows:



A] Vymanika prakaranam



B] Vymanika shastra



C] Vimana shastra



D] Bruhad Vimana Shastra





We clarify here that the base work for all the four versions are common-sourced from the Sanskrit transcript of Pandit Subbaraya Shastry’s revelations and recorded by his close associate and Sanskrit scholar Sri. G. Venkatachala sharma. They were recorded in 23 exercise books during the period 1903 to1918. Manuscript copies of this were sent as Vymanika Prakaranam to two Oriental Institutes in India. One was sent to Oriental Library at Baroda on 3rd June 1919 and the second sent to Oriental Research Institute, Poona on 19th August 1919. Hence the work has been referred to by many as Vymanika Prakaranam even though only Sanskrit parts of the published versions carry this tittle. These exercise books suffered long hybernation. A work called “Vymanika shastra” in Sanskrit alone seems to have come out from Dayanand Bhavan, Delhi in 1943. This is the second variant.



The third variant is based on the copy of “Vymanika prakaranam” sent to Baroda Oriental Library. A Hindi translated version of this book titled ‘Brihad Vimana Shastra’ was edited by Swami Brahma Muni Parivrajak Gurukul Kangdi, Hardwar and published by Sarvadeshika Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Dayanand Bhavan, New Delhi in the year 1959. In the publication of this Hindi version, the initiative taken by Air commodore S. N. Goyal of the Indian Air force has been particularly appreciated. ‘Bruhad Vimana Shastra’ became the reference work for many researchers in North India.



The variant referred to as ‘Vymanika Shastra’ published in Sanskrit- English languages had its base on the copies sent to Oriental Libraries in 1919 and something more. The work remained in manuscript form till 1923 and even later. But between 1919 and 1923 there is evidence of ‘add on’ textual content to the work in the form of description and diagrams of four types of representative vimanas--Sundara, Shakuna, Rukma and Tripura vimana. The work of making drawings was entrusted to a draughtsman T.K. Ellappa working in an engineering school. The drawings were prepared by him and appended as approved by Sri Subbaraya Shastry on 2nd December 1923. This is the last occasion that any material went into the Sanskrit transcript. The transcripts remained in exercise-book-form for the next three decades under the joint custody of Sri Shastriji’s adopted son and Sri Venkatachala Sharma. It was in 1952 that the books found the light of the day when they were brought into an exhibition of antique works conducted by International Academy of Sanskrit Research, Mysore. Mr. G. R. Josyer, being the Honorary Director of the Academy showed tremendous initiative. Translation work took a long time and eventually “Vymanika Shastra” was published on 15th March 1973. This book became the reference work for many in South India & abroad.



A short brochure of about 30 pages was reportedly published by Acharya Charanathirtha Maharaj from Sri Bhuvaneshwari Ayurveda Vidya Peetha, Gondah in Sourastra in September 1952.



Swany Dayananda Sarswathi, a towering scholar of the last century, while referring to flying machines in his commentary on Rig-Veda Bhashya Bhumika, narrates certain aspects of propulsive thrust of vimanas in directional control. This was in 1875.



Another book called ‘Vimana vamanam’ authored by Nathumal Brahmachari, finds its place in Udaipur palace library.



For practical purposes, only “Vymanika Shastra” and ‘Bruhad Vimana shastra’ can be taken as reference, the other titles are only of academic nature. Sri Josyer’s publication is taken for reference by the study team.



Going into essential differences between the two variants, apart from English-Hindi translations, Maharshi Bharadwaja’s original version extracted from ‘Yantra Sarwaswa’ contained 500 Sutras {rules}, 8 Chapters and 10 Adikaranas. ‘Vymanika Shastra’ [English version] contains six chapters, 2972 verses. Bruhad vimana shastra contains 40 rules in 3 chapters and 2657 verses.

In substance, Bruhad Vimana Shastra has 315 verses less. This is possibly because of addition of descriptions of 4 vimanas that ‘Vymanika Shastra’ contains today. This difference will not matter as much as the difference we see from the original work to the transcripted work. The reasons for this could be ascribed to various factors:



The period of transcripting spanned for over 15 years and the manuscript copies waited in the freezer for 3 to 4 decades. As G. R. Josyer observes ‘The transcripts came in various forms of decay’. Loss of such literature through pests, quality of paper, loss during transit, change of hands could well be imagined. Further, such works that claimed to be of ancient Indian origin did not find recognition during the British colonial rule facing freedom struggle. It is said that even possession of such literature was considered Anti-British. The scholars who possessed such works had to keep them concealed. Loss of sheets, obliteration of manuscripts, environmental influences could have taken a heavy toll.

Oh boy. I know the origin of hindi. If that had anything to do with your point maybe I'd get into, but it doesn't.

You're second point is equally as senseless. Drilled holes that are perfectly circular can be made with any hard substance at the end of straight stick that's rubbed between your hands. Add a bow and capstone and it gets even easier. You see, when something spins, it makes a perfect circle.

Stonehenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

You obviously have no idea how easy it is to move large objects with the simplest usages of levers.

Did you actually read what you posted? I really have to ask because it supports exactly what I said. It never appeared before the 20th century. The preface of the book:

“Maharshi Bharadwaja’s ‘Vymanika Shastra’ or ‘Science of Aeronautics’ as revealed to venerable Subbaraya Shastry and recorded in hand written Sanskrit script form, translated to English by G.R. Josyer.M.A [hons] FRES, MRSE."

Shastry claimed to channel it and write it down. What don't you get about this? Here's a study based on linguistics from the India Institute of Science:

http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/Portals/0/P...nikaShastra.pdf

There conclusion. It couldn't have been written before 1904. The only shocking your doing is how shocked I am about how inept your research ability is.

EDIT: Also, don't copy and paste without citing sources. It's plagarism.

now that is just Wonderful, just Wonderful.....in 2007.
but now, the question is, did they know How to use these, or do that back then? we wont know

"his feats always draw a crowd...mostly family" haha that just made me laugh for like an hour.
also, did you know how he was preforming those on concrete? as opposed to dirt or grass, like they might have had to back then? convenient. but obviosly, im not saying he's a joke. im pretty fascinated hes able to do these things now. but you notice how they had to drag the stones muuuuuuuch farther, to where they wanted them to be to construct stone henge. wasnt their water to cross as well? im not sure

source

This evidence you are standing by was dictated by a medium. It is not an ancient text.

edit: capeo beat me to the reply and in fact stated it in more detail than I ever could.

Why wouldn't they? It simple use of leverage. Something you'd figure out by trying to move anything. These people did have the same ability to reason as we did.



The stones for the largest peices came from 24 miles away. I'm not sure about water but I wouldn't be surprised. The point of that exercise is to show how even one person can do amazing feats of leverage with stone age tech. Add a religious fervor to that and lots of manpower and there's precious little that can't be lifted.

You said the reason little evidence of these civilisations is because of nuclear war and submersion. You then cite stone henge as evidence for technology. This area clearly didn't get hit by a nuke or consumed by the ocean but NO evidence of high tech tools have been found near the site or any sites similar. This is far from the only ancient stone formation you sould think that if some forgotton tech was used to build them at least one itemn would have been uncovered by now.

They did. They found an iron cooking pot in 200 million year old coal in 1912 and though nobody witnessed it I still believe them! Do you know what you can do with an iron pot! Come on, that's seriously high tech stuff. It's just a tiny step from a pot to nuclear bombs and precision stone cutting lasers.

Okay, sarcasm off.

You're assuming there's some manner of logical thought process going on here, and I'm not sure there is.
Based on his activity, I think there's at least as much chance that Ozi is a high-order spam-bot for a chain of low-rent Indian pseudo-science publishers as he is a person.

--Jaylemurph

yeah, they tried doing it today..............the stone decided to sink itself in the water.

*edit* also, how do we know for sure it had to do with religion?

Huh? Anything will float so long as you're displacing sufficient water. That's how monstrous ships stay afloat.

apparently not when these people tried to 're-create' the whole thing. and using the same.....boats? as people back then might have used. i guess.

Who or what are you refering too?

Firstly, I'm not even positive they had to cross a river to build stonehenge. I'm just saying it's possible. The egyptians described and painted pictures of just that and we have found man-made canals from quarries to build sites.

thatks for the replies jeylemurph and capeo.. they amused me

At least we're good for something.

So, um, now that we're done preening, posturing, pointing fingers and making rediculous accusations, does anybody actually feel like answering the OP's question? I'm kind of curious if anyone has any information. and I've read through... what are we on now 12, 13 pages that have little to nothing to do with answering the OP's question.

In case we've forgotten the original purpose of this post, the OP was asking if anybody knew people or organizations that are investigating Atlantis and would be open to possibly new information or insights. personally, I find it a legitimate question. But if you all want to get your undies in a twist because they didn't feel like sharing their insight, perhaps we should simply close the thread.

I think if you want to fight over different translations of ancient Indian or Hindu texts, that would be the subject of its very own special thread. If you simply want to make stupid jokes and insult eachother, go somewhere else. There are chat rooms all over the internet that have no intellectual basis.

And I honestly wonder what some of you are doing on here anyway. I mean, do you actually have any interest in unexplained mysteries or are you just looking for another medium to show the world you have an answer to everything? I am so tired of people who have no intention of indulging anybody else's ideas but expect us to take their word on everything. Especially when neither party has tangible proof (your word is no more proof than mine). We're supposed to be discussing things on here, not being autocratic and holding court, calling out the inquisition on anybody whose ideas we don't like or agree with.

Personally, I joined on here looking for a think tank of intelligent individuals who had an interest in studying things that "popular science" chooses to ignore, sweep under the rug or whatever. And yes, whenever you have a bunch of intelligent individuals discussing things like this, there is bound to be a lot of bickering. But at least it's usually intelligent and not name-calling and finger pointing. I mean, really? who's going to take you seriously when the only things you have to say are mean?

However, while we're still here, I just want to make a quick comment to the person that said (some pages back, in reference to the Indian texts) that each word had only one meaning or something along those lines. I really wonder about your ability to make that statement so decidedly. Especially when the Eskimos, for example have how many different words that mean snow? And some will mean icy, hard snow; some will mean spring snow; some will mean heavy wet snow... but we say "snow" as if it covers everything and we translate each of those 20 or so words to mean exactly: "snow". There is this funny thing refered to as "the language barrier"... for a reason, really. Some words and ideas don't translate correctly from one language to the next that's WHY there are different translations of all kinds of things including the Christian Bible.... Which translation of the Oddessy did you read in Jr Highschool? Which translation of the Bible did you find in your last hotel room? Why would there be multiple translations of these things if it was true that one word means only one thing in each language and that they all translate exactly from language to language?? These are the kind of statements that confuse me because they are so obviously untrue statements yet they are presented by the author as a statement, not a question.

And to the person that stated so decidedly that if there had been an advanced civilization that we don't know about yet, the evidence would be there. Really? What's under the Parthenon? Don't know do you. Nobody does. Know why? We're not allowed to dig there. (Now, at the risk to stating something that might not always be 100% true just indulge me that this happens a lot and we can debate the times it doesn't later). When one civilization conquers another, especially when they are trying to convert the native populations to a new religion, new religous houses (churches, for example) are built ON TOP of the holy sites from the previous group. We see this all over the lands the Romans conquered and Christianized. In Britain new churches are built on top of old Celtic or Anglo-Saxon holy sites. The Greek governement has forbidden people to dig underneath the Parthenon so we don't know if there's proof or not of what Plato claims Solon was told about the previous developments of the Athenian civilization. It's akin to how the Christians absorbed dieties from other religions and made them "Catholic Saints" until five hundred to a thousand years go by and then nobody remembers them as anything more than Catholic Saints. Also, a overwhelmingly popular theory when you are conquering a new country: drestroy everything that threatens you. Topple temples, burn scrolls, kill religious leaders etc. etc. there are so many hundreds of ways that we erase our past. It's so easy to say for sure when you aren't allowed to check, isn't it?? Truth is, we don't know. And pretending you know when you don't simply furthers the multitude of misinformation when people actually believe you which is probably more counter-productive than spewing out insults when you have nothing better to say....

How about baby steps? hm? Let's not call anyone "stupid" for another three pages. See how far we get....