[thechao]

> were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty

You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion.

Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before.

If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?

[phekunde]

> it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed

Please read the last line of my original post.

> If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?

I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts.

> Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them.

Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.

[thechao]

Off the top of my head "flying vehicles" and "body preservation" are well-attested in many other cultures (Ancient Egypt; Mayans) that I'm 100% certain had neither. You are for sure reading too much into this.

> And even if it is hokum

I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one.

> If there is no evidence to either support or refute it

There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.

[phekunde]

> I 99% believe that you think these things are real;

Again, go read the last sentence of my original post.

> There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent.

Hmmm.

[dr_dshiv]

I’ll bite!

The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive.

Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this.

Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?

[thechao]

Smoking is attested both archeologically, and historiographically dating back something like 7000 years in the old world. People have been smoking opium & marijuana in the middle east for probably 2000 years. Smoking culture in India goes back at least 3000 years. Anyone who's accidentally put the wrong thing on a fire will immediately recognize the source for "smoking".

This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.

[dr_dshiv]

Bro. Smoking is not the same as putting the wrong thing on a fire. And, while evidence of hotboxing cannabis in tents goes back 3000 years, there is minimal evidence of pipe smoking in the old world. Maybe a bit in Africa— but not conclusive.

No evidence for smoking pipes in India before 1500. Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking

[vanattab]

Nobody thinks smoking originated in the new world. Smoking TOBACCO originated in the new world, because at that time it was the only place tobacco grew.