D4=95;+=I)ED@CJFRYNJ^+K])F*W$<M+3K
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
D4=95;+=I)ED@CJFRYNJ^+K])F*W$<M+3K
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
Posted: 2025-06-13 16:28:15 UTC
This article contains some claims that remain unverified. While much of the content may be accurate, exercise care when relying on this information.
This article contains some claims that remain unverified. While much of the content may be accurate, exercise care when relying on this information.
Status
Last Updated
2025-06-13 16:28:23 UTC
Verified By
Rollup News
This thread debunks Nilesh Oak's Bhisma Moksha proposal of 5560BCE, which fails to meet the criteria specified in the text: Magha masa, Shukla Paksha, Astami tithi, and Rohini Nakshatra. Oak's claims of corroboration are refuted with evidence showing Krishna Paksha, Tritiya Tithi, and Vishakha Nakshatra, which are incorrect.
Nilesh Oak's Bhisma Moksha proposal of 5560BCE is incorrect.
Oak's claims of corroboration are false.
The proposal fails to meet the required criteria: Magha masa, Shukla Paksha, Astami tithi, and Rohini Nakshatra.
Inaccurate claims by Nilesh Oak regarding the corroboration of his theory.
Discrepancies between Oak's claims and the actual criteria specified in the text.