posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 10:47 AM
Here, for what it's worth, is my take on the situation.
While there have been innumerable religious and non-religious texts over the millennia which have described flying machines, that information is of no
practical value for us at our present stage of development.
Much of what von Daniken wrote in his books still remains unexplained.
The problem, as I see it, is to turn it all into some sort of religion, as von Daniken did (in his case that of alien intervention). It is one thing
to place one's own interpretation upon a text (often translated from a dead language, and thus open to any number of interpretations) and quite
another to bend or fabricate evidence to support your theory. Von Daniken's real downfall was that he tried to bend virtually everything into his
theory in an attempt to have it accepted.
The major problem, for us, is that of scientific arrogance. A few years ago, as I recall, a Lockheed engineer, during a visit to New Zealand stated
that we can build anything, no matter how fantastic, given the appropriate funding. Now that's arrogant! Hey, go tell it to the folks who tried to
turn the Nimrod into an AWACs!
The fact that we should all consider is that information throughout history is lost and rediscovered. Consider the information and data lost to
civilization with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, an event known to us as history. What we do not know, and are never likely to know,
is how much of that knowledge we have re-discovered in our modern era. How many times has that happened throughout history and pre-history - who
knows! Therefore, I am not shocked by any theory that might indicate that the ancient Indians had flying machines, or anyone else for that matter.
Indeed, it is easy to make a case for cyclic 'light' and 'dark' ages.
To be shocked by such a suggestion, is an indication of one's own scientific arrogance - like, how could they have had such knowledge, when we have
only just gained it? This assumes that our state of scientific knowledge is supreme and paramount. By the same token, I think everyone here would
agree that scientifically we collectively learn something new every day!
Remember that an otherwise brilliant British scientist once (in the relatively recent past) said a train could not travel at a greater speed than 11
miles per hour (can't remember the exact speed, but something like that), otherwise the air would be sucked from the train and the occupants would
suffocate.
The important thing to remember from these ancient documentary interpretations is that we gain absolutely nothing from them unless we can understand
exactly what is being described and the method of propulsion (which we clearly cannot). So whether we just don’t understand, or if the text is
fantasy, or even as von Daniken would have it - a misunderstood description of an alien craft, the fact remains that such interpretation is of
virtually no value to us as a scientific community.
I guess I'm saying - If the children's story about Rip van Winkle was based on truth, so what, it doesn't advance our knowledge about anything at
all, really.
As an aside, I have often pondered the knowledge and breadth of thought of Da Vinci. Have you ever wondered how one person, even as brilliant as
Leonardo, could possibly have been so far in advance of contemporary knowledge on soooooooo many subjects? Working on the basis that attempting to
destroy something is seldom 100% effective, my personal little theory is perhaps the Library of Alexandria wasn't quite as destroyed as history
thinks. But I'm not going to start a thread on the subject, simply because I have no evidence and it really doesn't matter anyway!
Especially for esecallum…. I recommend that you actually read up on the Manhattan project and discover that it was scientists from all over the
world (in reality American scientists - and I make a distinction between scientists, administrators and engineers - were very much in the minority)
gathered together by the Americans and using American money in a place of safety and distance from the battlefields of WWII, to build the first
nuclear weapon. You didn't invent nuclear energy, you simply found a way to generate electricity from it (which may turn out to be the least
efficient way to liberate the power of the nuclear bond - who knows!) - nuclear energy has been around for … well let's see - er, since at least
the beginning of the universe, I'd say. Here's a question for you… Who first split the atom, and first achieved a sustained reaction, and why was
he not allowed to work at Los Alamos?
Also, just for your information, although there certainly is poverty in India, as there is in the USA, the Indians are now considered well ahead of
the US in IT. India, as other countries, is well endowed with brilliant scientists and engineers - what many of them lack is, of course, the money to
do the research - check out for yourself how many brilliant scientists are attracted, recruited (or poached) from other countries to do research work
in the USA, simply because America has the money to do it. This does not imply any superiority for America or Americans as far as I can see.
If you were implying that the India of 4000 years ago must have been even more impoverished that today, that is ridiculous - just compare ancient Rome
with present day Italy. Growth and prosperity (either economically or intellectually are not necessarily linear - even our short written history
proves that).
America is only a technological powerhouse at the moment because America has the money to fund the research. With the way the US economy is going,
one might well wonder just how long that situation is going to exist.
Just like the Greek, Roman, Persian and British empires before it, the US empire is based on money, and like all other empires before it, the US
empire will not last forever.
The Winged Wombat
[edit on 9/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]