yass

Here is the source for the complete evidence with sources in Archaeology i found it thru GOOGLE.com goto philipcoppens.com and type in search Archeologist Francis Taylor at his site or google com

I did that and here is what it says. Excerpt:

So, let us examine what might be the best evidence. The first question is whether the named archaeologist Francis Taylor existed. Alas, no-one has ever been able to identify him. There is a Francis Taylor, an American museum director, who died in 1957. He was, however, not an archaeologist. There is a “Franciscio Taylor”, but he is not the above quoted Francis Taylor.

Hence, not a good start. Sceptics have also wondered whether the ancient atomic warfare is not a modern invention, to deflect attention away from a serious – modern – atomic contamination. In 1998, it was reported that some Indian power stations had major problems. One had an incident in which 2000 workers became exposed to excess radiation, 300 of which had to be hospitalised.

Surendra Gadekar investigated the conditions of villagers at Rawatbhatta in Rajasthan and confirmed there were indeed gross radiation-related deformities. We note that Rawatbhatta is in the same region as the discovery of the “ancient warfare” site. But Gadekar did not find evidence of ancient warfare, but did find evidence of modern negligence: wood that had been used in the power plant, had then “somehow” made its way into the local community, where it was subsequently used as wood for a fire. This in itself was a minor incident, but could there have been more serious incidents, whereby a decision was made to create an “ancient enigma”? Though a possibility, there is no evidence to back up this conclusion at present.

Regrettably, we also find that there are no newspapers that carried the story of the discovery. The Indian archaeological authorities are not aware of the story. And as there is a government laboratory in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, the question is whether something might have gone wrong there.

With the above objections, the case for the best evidence has become more controversial than a straightforward case. Still, it is clear that the counterarguments have not demolished the potential of this evidence.

Alas, in this case, neither side of the debate has truly embraced trying to prove or disprove the allegations. Indeed, it is remarkable that this has not happened, noting the potential that resides within it, as well as the multi-disciplinary approach that this cause allows.

Are the proponents of the case unwilling to stake their “reputation” on it? Perhaps. But even if they were to fail, Rome was not built in one day, and arguing for or against the case of an ancient highly advanced civilisation will not take any less time.

 

 

Best Evidence?

I found the story posted today at a site with no source links and so I put some of the text into search and have been checking various sites and information posted about it. It's an interesting story. I have to agree that it lacks verifiable sources and therefore is dubious.