Comment by motohagiography | Hacker News Reader

Comment by motohagiography | Hacker News Reader

motohagiography

So what did the original writings state? I love that this person has taken the time to criticize AAT, but it's more about showing how AAT writers are frauds than asserting more direct facts that would provide more illumination of the fascinating original sources the AAT people use.

These artifacts exist. The academic experts have unanswered questions and cannot rule anything out. Could it be that our theory explains it? Ancient astronaut theorists say, yes.

It's propaganda for a sci-fi ideology, and it's one of my favourite shows to watch because it's so calming and stupid. I think what bothers people is that as a critical theory of archeology, it's just as rigorous and consistent as every other critical theory people use to explain history, and some people find that a bit close to home. You can apply AAT logic to anything, and the relief it brings is that it's like watching a satire of how some critical academics actually reason. Next on "Ancient Struggles..."

> These artifacts exist.

Not according to the original writings, as asserted in the article itself which it appears you did not read.

To quote (the article quoting the Ganguli translation of the Mahabharata)

    The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder.

Paraphrased as:

    Note that the supposed “bomb” is actually a bolt (like a scepter), that the king feared the bolt, and the king destroyed it before it could be used.

And to note context for the King, in the bronze age iron was essentially magic in how it could defeat the standard arms of the time....

Theres a reason the iron age comes after the bronze age, afterall...

What artifacts? That fictional story had fantastic, mythical weapon(s)? Mythical creatures that are super-powerful? Imaginary stories do not require any explanation.

On to your second point, there is a world of difference between plausible, possible and confirmed by multiple independent sources. It is the reason we say Atlantis is a myth.

> These artifacts exist. The academic experts have unanswered questions and cannot rule anything out. Could it be that our theory explains it? Ancient astronaut theorists say, yes.

I like how none of the followup commenters understood that this statement is the logical form of the entire inquiry that AAT uses and that they apply to literally everything. That's The Joke.

The follow on would be, "Given the evident uncertainty about something so important, are we morally obligated to investigate further? Do the only ones who would object have illigitimate status to preserve and something to hide?"

Maybe I'm the only one who finds their folksy harmlessness funny, but I think it's brilliant.

You are just reiterating what the AAT David Hatcher Childress claimed “The public needs scientists and the scientists need the public. However, many times the lay person is the better source of information”. That we should all believe everything we receive from the WhatsApp university - after all, it has been researched by the lay man!

...did you read the article? It does show what the original writings state.

"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So you didn’t read the article? Because it goes ahead to describe exactly what the original texts say, which (a) do not talk about projectiles etc. and anyways, the different effects described as a result of the “nuclear strike” are actually not part of the same chapter and are spread throughout the book and refer to consequences of different events.

"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com