Mr. Nilesh Oak's recent post refuting Shri Nityanand Misra's articles
Raja Roy
As you know, I have written 10-part series refuting Mr. Nilesh Oak’s dating of Ramayana to 12209 BCE. Following that, Shri Nityanand Misra has written two articles refuting Mr. Nilesh Oak’s dating of Ramayana. Recently Mr. Natyabhushana Kalakendra questioned Mr. Oak about the articles written by Nityanand ji.
This was the response given by Mr. Oak
In this response, Mr. Oak
claimed support from Vartak for his interpretation of the Sun setting near Pushya
during Hemanta, but Vartak did not take that position.
Further in his refutation, Mr. Oak claims 500+ corroborations from Ramayana, but as members will recall Mr. Oak has not provided the exact list of 575+ corroborations for scrutiny despite repeated requests. Please also note that his numbers keep changing. I have gone through Mr. Oak’s book “The Historic Rama” and shown that he has exactly ZERO corroborations. https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/refutation-of-nilesh-oaks-astronomical-dating-of-the-ramayana-to-12209-bce-996ff1056199
Mr. Oak refutes Nityanand ji based on dates derived from Vartak-Oak hypothesis, for which there is no evidence. https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/refutation-of-nilesh-oaks-astronomical-dating-of-the-ramayana-to-12209-bce-d3b1385b57c.
I have shown that Mr. Oak’s Vartak-Oak hypothesis is wrong because it combines the natural phenomenon of precession with man-made months. https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/refutation-of-nilesh-oaks-astronomical-dating-of-the-ramayana-to-12209-bce-c01364d43c23
Mr. Oak is aware of my articles, but keeps on using his assertions without refuting my articles. I have been taught that contradicting information must be revealed and refuted. It is unethical to mislead people because they don’t have subject matter expertise. Mr. Oak is not following the norms of research.
Best regards,