Fact Check: The Mahabharata Debate( Sangam Talks) : 3067bc vs 5561bc (Dr Manish Pandit vs Nilesh Oak)

By Suhasini Devi dasi

Fact Check: The Mahabharata Debate: 3067BCE vs 5561BCE
Part 1

Hare Krishna

(Part Two and Three of my blog here:
(Link to Second Part of the Analysis) ( Link to the 3rd part of the Analysis of the Debate )

Recently I saw an exciting debate between two researchers: Dr Manish Pandit and Nilesh Nilkanth Oak which was hosted by Sangam Talks. Here is my effort to make sense of this exchange between the two researchers.

My Analysis of the Debate is here:

The points made by both researchers are as follows:

Dr Manish Pandit for 3067BCE claimed that he had proved Balarama's Pilgrimage while Nilesh Oak said that Dr Pandit's timeline is fraudulent. Which of the two researchers said the  truth?

In actual fact, although Nilesh Oak attempted to make people think that Dr Pandit had not proved the timeline of Balaram's pilgrimage, I got hold of three separate links which proved that Dr Pandit had in fact shown that the pilgrimage had been perfectly proved for 3067BCE.

Here is the first link proving that whatever Dr Pandit said was true:

Here is the second link to prove Dr Pandit's version of events:

https://astronomyofindia.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/balaramas-pilgrimage-corroborated-in-3067bce-2-different-methods/


Did Nilesh Nilkanth Oak prove Balarama's Pilgrimage?

I discovered this video a little later:

But was this video which was made by Dr Pandit true? (which proved that Nilesh Oak in fact sent Balarama the wrong way around)

I found out that it was true on Twitter, no less:
In Nilesh Oak's own words, he DOES NOT PROVE the pilgrimage while simultaneously claiming that nobody else can prove it or anybody can prove it. We can take our pick.

https://twitter.com/InfiniteUniver7/status/1276922989578158080?s=20

Is Balarama's Pilgrimage important?

Balarama's pilgrimage must indeed be very important, otherwise Nilesh Oak would not be trying to prove 3067BCE (as proposed initially by Dr Narahari Achar and Dr Raghavan) as fraudulent based on this single piece of evidence. It was rather unlucky for him that Dr Pandit has proved this timeline, that too on camera and then proved it in a separate video and on other places with screenshots.

Fact Check:

So the first Fact Check is that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak said that the 3067BCE theory was fraudulent on the basis of Balrama arriving 3 days later than the 18th day of the war in Dr Achar's theory but it was NOT FRAUDULENT as Dr Pandit modified the theory (last year according to his blog in October) and fixed the 18th day of the war as 12th Dec 3067BCE which also happen to be the 42nd day of the pilgrimage thereby fixing the problematic timeline. (I realised this only after the 1st and 3rd parts of the debate)

Conclusion: 
Where does that leave Nilesh Oak? Not sure. However this means that Nilesh Oak's war and pilgrimage timelines are broken from the Nakshatra point of view while Dr Pandit's are perfectly preserved according to the text. Why did Nilesh Oak call the timeline juvenile and fraudulent when they were correct? What was the purpose? We may never know why he did all this when he was unable to prove his own timelines.

This would also mean that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak's Bhisma Nirvana theory has also failed as he got the war and pilgrimage timelines wrong.


(Part Two of my blog here:
Link to the 2nd Part of the Analysis of the Debate)

(Part 3 of my Blog here:)

Link to the 3rd part of the Analysis of the Debate