Vyamanika Shastra: A discussion

reply to post by aethernaut

---

Good name there Aethernaut

The problem arise with whether it was really an old document or a new one written by someone aware of the rise of aviation the last nineteenth century and early twentieth. It would seem it was new.

Ah with your name Aethernaut, I must ask

"And where, pray, is Myrtle's head?"

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

Yes , and all that stuff could be why some ancient civilizations aren't still flying around in their spaceships , anymore. Newer civilization scoops up the spoils and heads down the same old , low road toward armageddon . History-repeats....different day , different faces , same old sh*t .

reply to post by Hanslune

---

I don't believe that is a 'problem'. 'When' it was written , doesn't matter , as long as it was sometime before nineteen hundred and twenty. (and) Who B myrtle ?



[edit on 10-12-2008 by aethernaut]

[edit on 10-12-2008 by aethernaut]

reply to post by aethernaut

---

He was a character in an early story of aeronautical adventure. Based on your name I thought you might know that obscure piece of trivia.

That story can be found here and is called The Horror of the Heights.

Terror of the heights

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Oh , well , most likely I saw the words "horror" and "terror" and had the sensibility to close the book and return it to the dust on the shelf.

reply to post by aethernaut

---

Not to worry its just a short story. A good example (in a fictional form) of how in the 1870-1920's a few people thought their would be unknown life forms in the upper atmosphere.

No.




An ancient text describing ancient aircraft is more valid than a 19th Century text describing ancient aircraft.




An example of relevant passages were recently posted by spacevisitor in my "Ancient Extraterrestrials" Thread.

Actually, no.

Spacevisitor merely quoted from a pro-Billy Meier website where these claims were being made.

Not that I dispute them, necessarily. But I myself wouldn't rely on a proven liar such as Billy Meier or his sidekicks to provide my evidence for me.

Spacevisitor, in his eagerness to please you, even quotes the Meier site's musings on James Churchward's "The Children of MU," claiming Churchward was "translating" "milleniums old" records.

It's an established fact that Churchward couldn't translate the Mayan he was attempting to translate that resulted in that book (the theory behind which Churchward arrived at prior to even visiting any ancient ruin) and these "millenium old" records actually date to the common era.

As I said, I don't necessarily dispute that the Mahabharata - and other Vedas - contains the phrases Spacevisitor's source attributes to them (in fact, regarding the Mahabharata, I'm certain it does,) but forgive me for not taking the word of a proven hoaxer that wants me to think he was visited by Pleiadians over a thirty year period, and then switched their origin to another universe (and their name to "Plejarens") upon discovering that the Pleiades are too young for what he has claimed these aliens told him.

BTW, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Drona Parva are all available online for free at Sacred-texts.com, among other Vedic literature.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

---

I know they are available at sacred texts. Thats where I re-read them (after already reading them as a teenager).

I really dont care where spacevisitor quoted those ancient texts from. I recognize their validity and understand why they are quoted on quirky UFO-sites.

Howdy Sky

Puzzling

You’ve stated that you believe this document, the VS is a hoax (which we agree on) However it is claimed to be a channelled document. Yet you also say that you don’t believe that channel documents are invalid- so how is this one invalid and others valid?

You then offer as your ‘criteria’, a statement: “An ancient text describing ancient aircraft is more valid than a 19th Century text describing ancient aircraft.”

Yes that might be true but we don’t have that here do we? So again under what criteria do use to determine which documents are real and which are hoaxes? Why in your eyes is the Channelled VS a hoax and other channelled materials true?

As Harte said, it is far, far better to check phrases from the original, far to often bogus translations are used to support belief. I mean you can provide evidence directly from the M & R? When people throw quotes at me from old documents, my first response is to check the primary source-you do that too don’t you? Or if it agrees with what you want to believe do you then just accept it and not checked

Lets have those quotes from the M & R.

I know they are there as I remember ones about flying humans.

Aside: One of great weaknesses of the fringe movement is its inability to separate itself from those who are obviously damaging to their own case. Billy comes to mind, along with Sitchin, Daniken and others. The AAT has been given such a bad reputation for poor scholarship - that it will take generations to recover.


[edit on 10/12/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

To be more precise: I give more credence to what was written on Vimana thousands of years ago than to what was written in the 19th Century. Why? Because its closer to the actual event.

And: Why is it so hard to accept that someone may see some channelings as valid and some not? Or does one HAVE TO see them ALL as valid?

That would be like saying "Since this bible passage is valid, ALL bible passages are valid".

Valid is what is usuable to good effect, experience-able or repeatedly perceivable.

Agreed, in general materials written near to the date of the event may contain better data. But what detailed information do we have on Vinama that makes us think they are not just human imagination?



Okay, some are valid and some are not but HOW do you determine that? What is your criteria to determine whether a channelling is made up nonsense or an accurate accounting of x, y and z? For what reason do you reject the VS but accept a new age channeller on Atlantis?



I presume this is some sorta of criteria? So how does VS fail the above and a new age Atlantis channeller pass? To me this seems like a fancy way of saying, "whatever fits what I believe".

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Remember when I told you of a channeling-experience regarding foreign languages that I once had? The one you dismissed as a lie? I viewed that as a valid channeling because it brought forth a real language I hadnt learned.

You may not believe me, which is OK, but here is something similar (albeit not channeling):

Czech wakes up speaking perfect English after car crash

If there is nothing useful or verifiable in a channeling, it is of no interest to me. Thats my criteria..

Im sorry I dont have the time to brush through the ancient indian texts looking for passages right now.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

I don't recalling saying it was a lie. I probably stated it was unproven. Why accept something as absolute truth that cannot be proven, and is provided by humans. Humans are well known todo odd things in regards to self deception and to deliberately deceive others?

So basically you have no criteria for determining what makes for a valid or invalid channelling claim.

I'd really be interested to know how and why you dismiss VS.

No time for R & M - that sir is your source document for what you are claiming. It should be the primary basis of your argument, not the hearsay and the third and fourth hand accounts you are using.

I'm sure at some later point you'll have time. Have a good evening.

Sky,

I certainly don't blame you for this. The dang Mahabharata is, what, over a thousand pages, and very difficult to wade through because of the sentence structure in the translation.

Given that we agree that these phrases (or similar ones) can be found there, IMO there's no need to check this.

However, my point was that Spacevisitor didn't check them either, but he did make the claim.

I never check the Mahabharata anymore unless the claimant gives the book and verse they're quoting from. It's just too time-consuming to be worth the effort.

Anyway, there's plenty of info on the Mahabharata right here at ATS, including links to particular pages, and book and verse given.

I like the story about the Czech man. I've heard of things like this before, but I believe they can be attributed to the weird nature of the way the brain works, and don't need some "otherworldly" (or whatever) explanation.

Harte

Good point and excellent suggestion Harte, the M & R is a daunting read.

You obviously didn’t read that post very well Harte because it weren’t quotes from Billy Meier website.
As stated there,
They were from the book: UFO CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES.
Written by Wendelle C. Stevens in 1983.



Did you come to that conclusion yourself after studying his work or do you say it just because so many others say it so it must be right then.



Why do you give this sneer Harte?

I didn't say it was Meier's website.

How do you quote what I say and then proceed to pretend that I didn't say that which is right there in the quote you provided?

Wendell Stevens is one of Meier's mouthpieces.

Ask Michael Horn about it. He's another one.


Do you think I never investigate any claims? You must skip many of my posts.

I started out debunking Meier's claims of "prophecy" myself. Got about halfway through them (they're listed at Horn's "They Fly" website) when I ran into Ike's pdf where he had done the same thing. Do you know this paper by this person "Ike?" A link to it is in several Meier threads here. I found it myself, this was before I joined ATS.

Skipped the rest.

There must be a hundred Billy Meier threads here at ATS. Check them out. Meier made the entire thing up. No question about it.


This is my perception.

Why did you link to a pro-Meier site? Can you not spend a few minutes to find a site that has at least a small possibility of being legitimate?

Are you not aware that you can quote from and link to any page of the Mahabharata you want through Sacred-Texts.com?

There are also many websites that give the same info Mr. Stevens did that actually include the book and verse of the quoted Mahabharata verse in question.

Including the very website we are on right now.

Harte

[edit on 12/11/2008 by Harte]

Professor Harte

Do you know of a non-UFO site that has a collect of the M & R quotes?

Skipped the beginning.



You are twisting the facts.
US Air Force Lt. Col., USAF (Ret) Wendelle Stevens is an investigator and sorely not a mouthpiece of Meier as you call it.
And he studied the case very thoroughly.





Billy Meier is not a proven liar, but much of his work is sorely falsified to make it look faked and him a liar.
I assume you aren’t interested in reading a brief written to Wendell Stevens in February 1989 by a security agent then whose name is not published in the book for obvious reasons of course about how and what measures where used to make Billy Meier look a liar.
Just as they done and still do with anyone who comes forward with so called interesting Ufo information.

I never can and even will claim here that all the things Meier said are 100% true, but who of which case is?
Look for instance to your own matter of interest, Egyptology, can you claim here that all what is said or written in books by the Egyptologists about the Egyptians is 100% true?
That all what Hawass and Co and those before them are telling and claiming is true?
I am convinced that that’s absolute not the case, and even worse, they definitely are twisting some facts, or as you mostly put it, they lie, no doubt about that.



Shore I have skip many of your post, just as you probably skipped many of mine.



Can you give me a link because I really don’t know of someone named “Ike”.



Not for me.



Then your perception is wrong because the reason why I linked to parts of the book from Wendelle Stevens was because the thread name is about Ancient Extraterrestrials and the book is also about Extraterrestrials and I was just reading it again.
So I found it a bit funny, nothing more.



Believe it or not but even my housecat is aware of that.



Really, you must be joking, right?