By Suhasini Devi dasi
Part 3: Hare Krishna
(Link to the Analysis of the debate: Part 1
(Link to First part of the Analysis) (Link to Second Part of the Analysis)
Position of Pluto: Was it at Krittika (per Nilesh Oak 5561bc) or was it 30 degrees away as pointed out by Dr Pandit(3067bc) ?
The background:
In the 2nd part of the debate, Dr Pandit pointed out that Pluto cannot be Tivro graha.
He then said that Pluto could never blot out the light of the Kartika group of stars and hence this Tivro graha must be a comet and not a planet.
In the final part of the debate, Dr Pandit pointed out that Pluto is away from Krittika and is 30 degrees away but was ignored by Nilesh Oak. I looked for the relevant positions in 3067bc and 5561bc and found that Pluto was indeed 30 degrees away from Krittika in 5561bc. To make matters worse, Pluto was indeed at Krittika in 3067bc. Here is a video which I have checked with relevant software: Redshift/ NASA JPL and Cybersky all give the same answer as in the video below, hence I didn't see the point of posting the screen grabs here. But those who wish to check may go to either or all of the relevant softwares to fact check.
I think that I have to reluctantly agree with Dr Pandit that Pluto can never blot out the light of the Krittika group of stars, so this must Tivro graha must be a comet.
Conclusion: This means that Dr Manish Pandit's statement was again true and Nilesh Oak's statement was false.
Position of Saturn:
In the 2nd part of the debate, Dr Pandit pointed out that there are two comets at Vishakha.
The reasoning for thus was given as the verse preceding the verse giving grahas: Jupiter and Saturn at Vishakha for a year. This preceding verse says that the two grahas had hair and blotted out the light of the Great dipper.
Nilesh Oak response was: "Where are these two comets then in 3067bc?"
Dr Pandit response was that they could be long period comets. The answer is actually not very perfectly articulated by Dr Pandit which is why it comes across as less than accurate.
However, Nilesh Oak's response that Jupiter and Saturn were near Vishakha is very inaccurate too (and that was pointed out by Dr Pandit)
What Dr Pandit should have said is that actually those two grahas can only be comets and many comets are not seen for thousands of years.
Conclusion: We have to award 1 mark to both researchers but cut 1mark from both for the mistakes both made in the heat of the moment on the point. Nilesh Oak's marks are cut for pooh poohing the idea that these were comets (they are definitely comets as they have hair, whatever their exact identification, magnitude or paths and they are not Jupiter or Saturn. Secondly comet paths and brightness are difficult to predict in any case), Dr Pandit's marks are cut for not saying what he said in a more believable manner.
The main problem for Nilesh Nilkath Oak is that he has lost the positions of two of his major planets, Jupiter and Saturn, as Dr Pandit pointed out, Jupiter is 55 degrees away and Saturn is 25 degrees away from Vishakha. The point Nilesh Oak made about justifying his position using the word "equidistant from Vishakha" is completely wrong because the verse says "Sameepa" which means "near" and not "equidistant". Losing two of the theory's slow moving planets is the same as saying that the theory is no longer valid. Is 5561bc is not valid as a result? This is a question for all viewers.
The debate would have been won by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak had the fact check actually shown that whatever Nilesh Oak was saying was accurate. As it turned out, many crucial points in what Nilesh Oak was saying were made up or outright false. This meant that he has unfortunately lost.
However, I wish Nilesh Oak all the best with his Ramayan theory (I have not fact checked it and it may be as wrong as his Mahabharat theory) and I also congratulate Dr Pandit for having the courage to go and debate with somebody as formidable a debater as Nilesh Oak and pull off an unlikely win. I doubt anybody else would have had the courage to do so. Hare Krishna.
