I've read all about the Thule Society and the Ahnenerbe. It was a waste of time in search of evidence for a mythological "Aryan" civilization. I am professionally educated in nuclear science and rocket engineering. I did it for a living, so, in fact, it IS my business. There is NOTHING from the past that informed these sciences (except maybe Chinese black powder rockets)...and you can't produce any evidence for it. Your nutty belief does not make it so. It is all from the 20th century. There is no "narrative"...but there is history, which you seem to be ignorant of.
Not likely. It will be enough if you educate yourself about nuclear energy and rocketry, and learn to be a bit more humble about promoting nonsense fantasy.
Look, I've seen this so many times: When a disputant runs out of any basis for argument, they rely on sarcasm and insult. You are one more proof of that general rule. You were unable to back up an iota of what you were claiming---because there were no ancient writings of any pertinence. Nor do you have a clue what might have been the key to the ancient knowledge or recipe. Meanwhile, what I have on my wall is paint and bookcases. I have no "expensive papers"...but I do have a professional understanding of nuclear energy and rocketry (and deathrays). I can help you understand, but you must have a desire to know, not a pride in already knowing.
I'm not sure there is a better example of a circular argument and I've lost interest maybe 3 messages ago. Not because I have nothing more to add, I just stopped caring.
I could spend time bringing up my degree (fancy paper) as you did, my library walls filled with books as you did, and told you how ridiculous your statements are as you did. But for what, another round the block?
And to be clear, other than name drop the people that are attributed to these advancements, proclaim their intelligence, and say they conducted experiments, You provided nothing to prove what I said to be false. As for my original comment, yes, Oppenheimer had a personal Sanskrit tutor, he carried copies of the vedic texts, and he is famous for quoting this exact line. That isn't some fringe theory but fact. So thats where Im at with you, an impasse
Nothing circular. You make wild and unsupported claims, and I refute them by reference to the actual history. You can't even offer any evidence for your claims. (Oppenheimer's reading preferences are not even pertinent, as you have shown no connection to anything crucial in the work at Los Alamos. His quotation is historical, not a fringe theory, but so what?)
Since you are the one alleging, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that there was some ancient writing that provided the key secret of either nuclear energy or rocketry. You have empty hands; whereas the history books have the complete story----which you cannot disprove.
All I brought up is that I have professional expertise in this area. Evidently, you do not. Nor do you have a degree in the physical sciences, I surmise. No impasse. You have nothing. Dropping your argument at this point is only a form of "sour grapes."
I've read all about the Thule Society and the Ahnenerbe. It was a waste of time in search of evidence for a mythological "Aryan" civilization. I am professionally educated in nuclear science and rocket engineering. I did it for a living, so, in fact, it IS my business. There is NOTHING from the past that informed these sciences (except maybe Chinese black powder rockets)...and you can't produce any evidence for it. Your nutty belief does not make it so. It is all from the 20th century. There is no "narrative"...but there is history, which you seem to be ignorant of.
Maybe one day I can be a Smug and arrogant as you, maybe.. Im sure your expensive papers pn the wall serve you well.
Not likely. It will be enough if you educate yourself about nuclear energy and rocketry, and learn to be a bit more humble about promoting nonsense fantasy.
Look, I've seen this so many times: When a disputant runs out of any basis for argument, they rely on sarcasm and insult. You are one more proof of that general rule. You were unable to back up an iota of what you were claiming---because there were no ancient writings of any pertinence. Nor do you have a clue what might have been the key to the ancient knowledge or recipe. Meanwhile, what I have on my wall is paint and bookcases. I have no "expensive papers"...but I do have a professional understanding of nuclear energy and rocketry (and deathrays). I can help you understand, but you must have a desire to know, not a pride in already knowing.
I'm not sure there is a better example of a circular argument and I've lost interest maybe 3 messages ago. Not because I have nothing more to add, I just stopped caring. I could spend time bringing up my degree (fancy paper) as you did, my library walls filled with books as you did, and told you how ridiculous your statements are as you did. But for what, another round the block?
And to be clear, other than name drop the people that are attributed to these advancements, proclaim their intelligence, and say they conducted experiments, You provided nothing to prove what I said to be false. As for my original comment, yes, Oppenheimer had a personal Sanskrit tutor, he carried copies of the vedic texts, and he is famous for quoting this exact line. That isn't some fringe theory but fact. So thats where Im at with you, an impasse
Nothing circular. You make wild and unsupported claims, and I refute them by reference to the actual history. You can't even offer any evidence for your claims. (Oppenheimer's reading preferences are not even pertinent, as you have shown no connection to anything crucial in the work at Los Alamos. His quotation is historical, not a fringe theory, but so what?)
Since you are the one alleging, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that there was some ancient writing that provided the key secret of either nuclear energy or rocketry. You have empty hands; whereas the history books have the complete story----which you cannot disprove.
All I brought up is that I have professional expertise in this area. Evidently, you do not. Nor do you have a degree in the physical sciences, I surmise. No impasse. You have nothing. Dropping your argument at this point is only a form of "sour grapes."