(Historical cover up!) Earths 1st Nuclear War Will Be Her 2nd.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pfishy

Awesome. Thanks for clearing that up for me. So no nuclear explosions happened before 1945.

There's no evidence that any occurred, no. Although I was also pretty curious about what the Vedic texts described, myself. A year or two ago I did some research into it, and actually came across a pretty good hypothesis that they were describing bombardment from cometary debris produced in a collision near our orbital plane. I'll try and see if I can find a link to it, and post it for anyone who's interested to check out.

www.themeaningofvedas.com

This isn't the original site I found this idea on, but it's the same information

a reply to: pfishy

That sounds like a more likely explanation. Very violent skies. Fire balls flying everywhere. Then couple all that with a very superstitious people who don't know as much as we do today about the universe and suddenly you have a war of the gods.

The argument that these people probably saw something to inspire the story is a valid one, but that doesn't mean you ignore scientific and archaeological evidence to insist on a dynamic that couldn't have happened. Instead, you should look within the evidence for the most likely explanation. Heck, your hypothesis could be wrong as well, but at least it doesn't invent a narrative of "weapons that destroy things but don't leave residue we can detect".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pfishy

That sounds like a more likely explanation. Very violent skies. Fire balls flying everywhere. Then couple all that with a very superstitious people who don't know as much as we do today about the universe and suddenly you have a war of the gods.

The argument that these people probably saw something to inspire the story is a valid one, but that doesn't mean you ignore scientific and archaeological evidence to insist on a dynamic that couldn't have happened. Instead, you should look within the evidence for the most likely explanation. Heck, your hypothesis could be wrong as well, but at least it doesn't invent a narrative of "weapons that destroy things but don't leave residue we can detect".

There's that rusty old razor Occam keeps leaving lying around again.

originally posted by: FlySolo
OK, this video is very compelling.

S&F

Might you be willing to give a description of the video, despite the title seeming self-explanatory?
Not all of us are able to watch it.

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pfishy

That sounds like a more likely explanation. Very violent skies. Fire balls flying everywhere. Then couple all that with a very superstitious people who don't know as much as we do today about the universe and suddenly you have a war of the gods.

The argument that these people probably saw something to inspire the story is a valid one, but that doesn't mean you ignore scientific and archaeological evidence to insist on a dynamic that couldn't have happened. Instead, you should look within the evidence for the most likely explanation. Heck, your hypothesis could be wrong as well, but at least it doesn't invent a narrative of "weapons that destroy things but don't leave residue we can detect".

There's that rusty old razor Occam keeps leaving lying around again.

Yep, the key to unlocking the truth through the lies is to first whittle down all the assumptions until all you have left are the things that can be proven with evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pfishy

That sounds like a more likely explanation. Very violent skies. Fire balls flying everywhere. Then couple all that with a very superstitious people who don't know as much as we do today about the universe and suddenly you have a war of the gods.

The argument that these people probably saw something to inspire the story is a valid one, but that doesn't mean you ignore scientific and archaeological evidence to insist on a dynamic that couldn't have happened. Instead, you should look within the evidence for the most likely explanation. Heck, your hypothesis could be wrong as well, but at least it doesn't invent a narrative of "weapons that destroy things but don't leave residue we can detect".

There's that rusty old razor Occam keeps leaving lying around again.

Yep, the key to unlocking the truth through the lies is to first whittle down all the assumptions until all you have left are the things that can be proven with evidence.

Be careful with that sort of thought process. You might accidentally science.