Re: More by Bryant

----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:25 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] More by Bryant



> > Witzel whom I 'm ready to believe more than any astrogrpher or
>> astrographer explains that this date of 3102BC is an invention of
>> Va:ra:hamihira circa 500 AD, on the basis of a back-calculation.
>> This datation is therefore worthless.
>> Arnaud
> =========

> Mr. Arnaud Fournet

> http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ait/ch22.htm

> the astronomical date poses no problem for Renfrew's theory which you
> support.

> M. Kelkar

===========
M. Kelkar,

This reference does not address the issue of the irrelevance of the date
3102 BC.
I suppose Witzel's statement is a historical fact, that cannot be erased.
You implicitly agreed to this fact.

By the way, I notice this reference does not claim knowledge of Pluto or
Sedna and alias.

I also smiled when reading the last sentence :
"Hindu Astrologers were moderately successful".
You should focus on Out of India Humour.

The final point is : I do not support Renfrew's theory in many ways.

1. I think PIE split much earlier than - 7000 BC
I think it split around - 12 000 BC

2. The dispersal according to Renfrew was originally (in 1987) eastward,
which is absurd and conflicts with all knowledge we have on PIE dialectal
structure.
On the map 9 page 29 here, he seems to have changed the dispersal direction.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~traub/sloan/RenfrewXPM.pdf

Yesterday, I read the assessment by M. Witzel of OIT, which had been
forwarded by the excellent Francesco.
I suppose the OIT onslaught on science will have the positive influence of
making the regular theory even sharper and clearer.

Arnaud

=============