It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by El Davicho
I'm a bit new to this party, and haven't waded through all the responses. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I need ot ask if it's been addressed that the Vymanika Shastra is not in fact an ancient Sanskrit text, but is a channeled text from the early 20th century?
I just want to make sure no one jumping into this thread with no forehand knowledge thinks it was part of the original Sanskrit epics, or dug up in an old dusty urn.
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by El Davicho
I'm a bit new to this party, and haven't waded through all the responses. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I need ot ask if it's been addressed that the Vymanika Shastra is not in fact an ancient Sanskrit text, but is a channeled text from the early 20th century?
I just want to make sure no one jumping into this thread with no forehand knowledge thinks it was part of the original Sanskrit epics, or dug up in an old dusty urn.
El Davicho,
It's been addressed and summarily ignored, as will, I'm sure, be the case in this instance.
There's no educating the bull headed nor the self righteous. Or the lazy.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Hi Harte,
I'm new here and equally daunted by the hundreds of posts that have come before. From my sampling I somehow think I know what to expect.
Originally posted by mmiichaelI've known many people from India and have great respect for their culture and heritage. But I don't think there's anything ever discovered that even comes close to substantiating the stories of an ancient technologically advanced civilization in the Indian subcontinent 5-10,000 years ago or more.
Originally posted by mmiichaelTell me if you're familiar with this phenomenon. There are people groups who feel compelled to retroengineer a glorious past history for themselves that never actually happened. We've seen this in Africa and parts of the Middle East where tribes claim to be descended from Lost Tribes of Israel, or King Solomon, or wherever. The whole Mormon religion, embraced by 3.5 million people, is based on the supposed existence of Israelites who settled in the Americas 2500 years ago. Not a shred of archeological evidence exists.
Is this motivated by low self-esteem, a compelling need to dress up one's own heritage. Are people somehow embarrassed by the reality that they have no glorious cultural past and feel the need to invent one.
Mike
Heck, think of the meaning of the phrase "The Good Old Days."
When the hell was that? When you could catch cholera from the human excrement that lined the streets of every halfway large U.S. city? Please.
Originally posted by Kevat
First, I just wanted to mention that the collection of these Hindu texts was known as the "Ithihasa", which literally means history. To simply discredit it as a mythological text is the same as taking a current history textbook and calling it a mythological text.
You could argue that there is archeaological evidence which would support the current history textbooks, but I would argue that there is also archeological evidence supporting the Ithihasa. For example, the existence of Dwarka exactly where it was supposed to be
or the existence of green shards of glass and high levels of radioactivity around the area which is rumored to be the Kurukshetra
(these green shards of glass have only been seen near sites of nuclear explosions in the desert; the heat from the nuclear explosions converted the sand in the desert to glass).
Second and more importantly, I wanted to ask all of you (specially Indigo) why does no one remember how to make these things that once existed.
Second and more importantly, I wanted to ask all of you (specially Indigo) why does no one remember how to make these things that once existed. Its pretty obvious that Mahabharat, a world war, was the cause of decline of this great civilization. However, there were many who survived Mahabahrat, would have remembered the technology and remade it. Why then was it lost?
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
We have have flying vehicles described over and over again in ancient Indian literature. Now, for the first time, see an ancient Indian document of aeronautical science, the Vyanmaika Shastra(VS) that gives us technical and schematical information on propulsion, energy, weapons, flight tactics, pilots food and clothes and metallurgy. This is the the most groud-breaking document ever and has been studied by many scholars, engineers and scientists from Europe and India from the early 20th century and onwards. It is currently being studied on the highest level of the Indian government and scientifiic community, at the Aeronautical Development Agency(ADA) of the Indian Ministry of Defence.
A 1974 study by researchers at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore found that the heavier-than-air aircraft that the Vaimanika Shastra described were aeronautically unfeasible. The authors remarked that the discussion of the principles of flight in the text were largely perfunctory and incorrect, in some cases violating Newton's laws of motion. The study concluded
Any reader by now would have concluded the obvious – that the planes described above are the best poor concoctions, rather than expressions of something real. None of the planes has properties or capabilities of being flown; the geometries are unimaginably horrendous from the point of view of flying; and the principles of propulsion make then resist rather than assist flying. The text and the drawings do not correlate with each other even thematically. The drawings definitely point to a knowledge of modern machinery.
This can be explained on the basis of the fact that Shri Ellappa who made the drawings was in a local engineering college and was thus familiar with names and details of some machinery. Of course the text retains a structure in language and content from which its 'recent nature' cannot be asserted. We must hasten to point out that this does not imply an oriental nature of the text at all. All that may be said is that thematically the drawings ought to be ruled out of discussion. And the text, as it stands, is incomplete and ambiguous by itself and incorrect at many places.
The authors expressed puzzlement at the contradiction and errors in the Vaimanika Shastra text, especially since its compilers supposedly had access to publications that did not make such errors
J. B. Hare of the Internet Sacred Text Archive in 2005 compiled an online edition of Josyer's 1973 book, in the site's "UFOs" section. In his introduction, Hare writes
The Vymanika Shastra was first committed to writing between 1918 and 1923, and nobody is claiming that it came from some mysterious antique manuscript. The fact is, there are no manuscripts of this text prior to 1918, and nobody is claiming that there are. So on one level, this is not a hoax. You just have to buy into the assumption that 'channeling' works. ... there is no exposition of the theory of aviation (let alone antigravity). In plain terms, the VS never directly explains how Vimanas get up in the air.
The text is top-heavy with long lists of often bizarre ingredients used to construct various subsystems. ... There is nothing here which Jules Verne couldn't have dreamed up, no mention of exotic elements or advanced construction techniques. The 1923 technical illustration based on the text ... are absurdly un-aerodynamic. They look like brutalist wedding cakes, with minarets, huge ornithopter wings and dinky propellers. In other words, they look like typical early 20th century fantasy flying machines with an Indian twist.
Originally posted by CuteAngel
Why is it that man in this day and age with all the technology is unable to duplicate the same...
There is something to the ancient civilizations that we need to look further into.
Maybe there's nothing much in India, but proof exists in many places.
Originally posted by CuteAngel
reply to post by Harte
You're in denial, I guess for one or more twisted belief you've got. I gave you a fine example and all you did is give a lousy excuse. What about the pyramids???