Ancient astronaut theorists faked a Hindu nuclear explosion (2013) | Hacker News Reader

Ancient astronaut theorists faked a Hindu nuclear explosion (2013)

jasoncolavito.com

90 pointsastronads25 comments

The flashes fell upon them; some lay down
And hid their eyes and wept; and some did rest
Their chins upon their clenched hands, and smil'd;
And others hurried to and fro, and fed
Their funeral piles with fuel, and look'd up

With mad disquietude on the dull sky, The pall of a past world [1]

That is a cherry picked qoute from Byron's Darkness, it would be very easy given a few centuries, the fact that it is a poem, the loss of historical context, several changes to linguistics followed by selective editing to interpret Byron was talking about the ancient astronaut nuke of 1816 and not the eruption of Mount Tambora. [2]

In fact there is only a single instance of the word volcano in the entire poem, drop that and it reads like fallout because basically it was.

[1] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43825/darkness-56d222...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_(poem)

Edit: formatting & typo, duplicate link

I found it interesting to see how (mis)translation and biased researchers were able to put forth a false narrative, and for decades thereafter many took it at face value and continued to share the faulty information. It wasn’t a topic I was expecting to encounter today, and that’s why I’m sharing it!

I just watch the show for fun. It’s crazy how they make up shit and then “given that we’ve proven this”, build theories on top of it.

I guess the appeal of the show is that is raises more questions than it answers. I’m sure there are scientific explanations about most stuff they attribute to aliens, but just asking “how did they build those pyramids?” or “what really happened in that part of the world?” are interesting to think about.

What bothers me about it is that the false narratives created by these shows, and the inaccurate sources that they frequently cite, make it much harder to learn real information about these ancient cultures and their belief systems. I also suspect (but don't know for sure) that it may create a hostile environment for academics trying to research these topics -- once a topic is associated with quackery, that taint is hard to wash away.

OTOH these crazy shows can spark interest in finding and reading ancient texts.

The VO narrator is Robert Clotworthy, voice actor for Jim Raynor in all StarCraft games.

Because of this I like to imagine the "Ancient Astronauts" being either Protoss or Xel'naga.

Ok, I've studied Sanskrit (and the Egyptian Hieroglyphs for that matter, but far less so), and trust me when I say I am neither a physicist, a hindu nationalist, or a conspiracy theorist (check my comment history). I don't think the evidence being debunked in this article is very good however, there is such a vast quantity of highly destructive weapons described in ancient Indian and even ancient near-eastern texts (like the Epic of Gilgamesh) that we are really left with only two possibilities: either bronze-age people were very imaginative, or there really was this sort of ancient city of Atlantis type technologically advanced civilizations that collapsed during the bronze age and the peoples who came after them struggled to describe the scale of destruction in the stories that were passed down (there is a play based on this premise, Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play[0]). There's a lot we don't know about the ancient world but fortunately since we have such a wealth of Egyptian texts and evidence of material cultures, its far easier for us to separate the myths from their place in social life. But there is still a lot we don't know, and even if they are (very) fanciful I don't think it's fair to criticize people for coming to these far reaching conclusions unless, as argued in the article, the material they are working off of is partially or entirely fabricated. Even if its kind of crazy it does question established narratives of history, and I think there is some value there.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns,_a_Post-Electric_Pla...

Needs "2013" in title.

why? there's nothing date sensitive in it

It's just the convention to put the year in the title when the article is older than a year or so.

Historical material is always welcome on HN and it's fun for readers to know what year an article dates from.

Added. Thanks!

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..."

...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

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.

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...

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

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!

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com