Originally posted by Gedanken:
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.
Did u read the articles and the subsequent ones i posted in that thread....Open yr eyes and see ..the things that u ask for are there..the article is definetly one of integrity of not the researchers wont be wasting time on it
The one about the rajastan site has already been proven to be radioactive...where di this radiation come from? or did US dropped A-bomb there during WW2? Do u in fact know what u are talking about?....The fact that research already has shown that the radiation there is around 8000-12000 years old......That independent bodies u were talking about who are Us scientists are already doing that research together with the indian scientists....I guess u guys need a crash course on how to read articles....