Post 31 (neelan):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A premier institute had made 91 boreholes in and around the site to ascertain the truth and the soil samples kept at the Sethu Project Office could be verified.
[...]
Further, Ms Uma Bharti held the Mines portfolio when the Geological Survey of India conducted a detailed survey of the area and concluded that the structure was a natural one.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How irrelevant.
(1) The most important point of the pro-Setu side is that the Ramar Sethu has specific meaning to Hindus. This is all that is required, even if there were no other arguments to be made.
Just like the sacred Uluru of the Australian Aboriginals, just like mount Fuji for the Japanese, just like a particular mountain for the Koreans (forgot the name), just like innumerable other manmade <i>or</i> natural formations.
(2) What, I'm supposed to accept this 'premier institute's' say-so as the be all and end all? Next someone will want me to accept the Bannerjee Report too, 'cause it's oh-so-official as well.
No one in power or those hired 'to investigate' by them care enough about the Ramar Sethu to ask the right kind of questions in their research, let alone try to find the answers. Like Ambika Soni said: she doesn't care whether there is a Ramar Sethu or not. She voiced what many another in the govt also feel. And whoever's got the money can pay to make their views published as fact.
The whole Ayodhya issue was the same, the communists and media certainly didn't want to know there was a temple there, so they merely ignored all the evidence for it.
I'd like to know the exact meaning of this:
"concluded that the structure was a natural one". As it stands it can be construed in many ways.
For example, as per the Hindu narrative, entirely natural substances were dropped there. So yeah, the structure is 'natural'.
Also, if any rocks were dropped into the ocean and lingered there for who knows how many thousands of years, they might turn out to meld with the local environment so that scientists many thousands of years later think it was entirely a natural formation. Example, I watched a doco where a ship from first half of last century had sunk to the ocean bed, and now it is very much a part of the local eco-system. (An entire mini-ecology was built around it.) So much a part of it, that the narrator said one would think it had always been a part of that environment. Of course, we know better, since the ship is a manmade object.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A premier institute had made 91 boreholes in and around the site to ascertain the truth and the soil samples kept at the Sethu Project Office could be verified.
[...]
Further, Ms Uma Bharti held the Mines portfolio when the Geological Survey of India conducted a detailed survey of the area and concluded that the structure was a natural one.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How irrelevant.
(1) The most important point of the pro-Setu side is that the Ramar Sethu has specific meaning to Hindus. This is all that is required, even if there were no other arguments to be made.
Just like the sacred Uluru of the Australian Aboriginals, just like mount Fuji for the Japanese, just like a particular mountain for the Koreans (forgot the name), just like innumerable other manmade <i>or</i> natural formations.
(2) What, I'm supposed to accept this 'premier institute's' say-so as the be all and end all? Next someone will want me to accept the Bannerjee Report too, 'cause it's oh-so-official as well.
No one in power or those hired 'to investigate' by them care enough about the Ramar Sethu to ask the right kind of questions in their research, let alone try to find the answers. Like Ambika Soni said: she doesn't care whether there is a Ramar Sethu or not. She voiced what many another in the govt also feel. And whoever's got the money can pay to make their views published as fact.
The whole Ayodhya issue was the same, the communists and media certainly didn't want to know there was a temple there, so they merely ignored all the evidence for it.
I'd like to know the exact meaning of this:
"concluded that the structure was a natural one". As it stands it can be construed in many ways.
For example, as per the Hindu narrative, entirely natural substances were dropped there. So yeah, the structure is 'natural'.
Also, if any rocks were dropped into the ocean and lingered there for who knows how many thousands of years, they might turn out to meld with the local environment so that scientists many thousands of years later think it was entirely a natural formation. Example, I watched a doco where a ship from first half of last century had sunk to the ocean bed, and now it is very much a part of the local eco-system. (An entire mini-ecology was built around it.) So much a part of it, that the narrator said one would think it had always been a part of that environment. Of course, we know better, since the ship is a manmade object.