Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce


"Greg Neill" <gneillRE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49725942$0$23013$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Moshiachyozif wrote:


Since solar eclipses require a precise alignment of Earth, Moon, and
Sun, an accurate prediction (or postdiction) requires accurate models
for the movements of all three bodies. If the model for the position
of the Moon were inaccurate for luner eclipses, it would be similarly
inaccurate for solar ones. If the solar eclipse postdictions are
consistently accurate for the time period and beyond, it is unlikely
that other lunar positions will be off.

I totally agree. Unless there is a deliberate misrepresentation going on
related
to religious polemics that often affect "propaganda." But this is easily
observed by comparison with some of the texts. For instance, Ptolemy
clearly says the eclipse of Tammuz 14, 523 BCE was "one hour before
midnight." The SK400 also calculates the precise time to be within one
minute of 11:00 p.m. So you have two specific references for the
precise time of an eclipse event. But when you check the predicted eclipse
by the modern canons it does not occur at 11 p.m. at Babylon. It is off by
57 minutes.
So what gives?

In the meantime, as noted, the eclipse "interval" in the SK400 is a
reference
to the interval of 541 BCE. If we presume this and that the original
eclipses were
observed references for 541 BCE, then we must presume that the 541 BCE
eclipse
is actually the one that occurred one hour before midnight. To revise that
time is
far more than 57 minutes, it is 16 hours 14 minutes. As you noted, this
has to
be applied universally to changing all eclipse times. But when you do,
another
displaced ecilpse for year 2 of Nabonidus to 554 BCE, month 6 of his revised
chronology, based on the original event in 479 BCE garners another absolute
match!

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/479x541J.JPG

So the Babylonians themselves are telling us they revised their lunar
eclipse times. But this is the SK400, a text created later than the
VAT4956. The VAT4956 uses original star names and presumably was created
before the conspiracy to change lunar times to accommodate double-dating of
the Nabon 18 and the SK400 eclipses, and IF SO would represent the original
lunar positions as well. Thus in Line 8 of the text we have a reference for
the lunar position just before sunset which requires the moon to be 4 cubits
below beta-Geminorum. That position represents a 16-19 hour discrepancy
(+/1 3 hours) for sunset at Babylon/Bagdad. So of note, the discrepancies
are in the same direction. You have the SK400 and the Nabon 18 showing
events occurring 16 hours earlier, and you have a lunar position reference
in the VAT4956 showing a lunar position 16-19 hours earlier as well. Plus
the VAT4956 does not use the reference of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR
ar sa UR-A) for a reference to beta-Virginis as later Seleucid texts do. It
uses that term to refer to the natural reat foot of Leo, sigma-Leonis. Why
the name change?

Well the distance between beta-Virginis and sigma-Leonis is about 8 degrees.
At 2 hours lunar travel time per degree you are looking at a displacement of
16 hours. So it would appear the reason for the name change is to cover
their tracks for ancient references where the moon was near sigma-Leonis.
If you change the name to a star 16 hours down range then you would not
notice the 16-hour revision. It's QUITE CLEVER! In fact, it is quite
inventive.

Now I don't think translators Sachs/Hunger were particularly aware of
everything, but they deliberately misrepresented what was in the VAT4956
with an outrageous cover for the broken text clearly a reference to Venus
below beta-Virginis on the 15th. Instead, they placed the "moon" in this
place when the moon was long out of Virgo. They noted no "error" of 10 days
or anything as they did in other lines (i.e. Line 3) suggesting to the
casual reader this was an accurate reference for the moon there. Further,
during this month the moon traveled well bove beta-Virginis so would have
_never_ been "sap" (immediately below/proximal) beta-Virginis. That is such
a specific reference to Venus on that date is ridiculous!

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/4JUL568j.JPG

So it wasn't a mistake. These men are experts and had translated the entire
text so were familiar with the motion of Venus and the moon. In fact, two
previous lines note the lunar position in Libra and Scropio! So how is it
that the moon returns to be in Virgo and "below" beta-Virginis on the 15th?
There is no way! But Sachs-Hunger knew the common reference to
beta-Virginis in later Seleucid texts was, indeed, the "Rear Foot of the
Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A). So they rolled the dice. They didn't want to deal
with the discrepancy of the original star designations in the VAT4956,
proven by Line 18 in comparison to later texts likely. Their choices were
to leave it blank, which was a red flag to discover Venus was there. To
insert Venus there and make explanations. Or to put the "moon" there and
hope nobody noticed. Well, too bad, we did notice.

What possible motivation would there be? Well, if a scholar is Jewish, it
might be assumed that they understood the Persian Period was revised.
Rabbinical Jewish timelines sport a drastically reduced Persian Period.
That being the case, they might have recognized this text which aligns with
the final revisions as certainly fabricated but supportive of the defective
timeline. Why support the defective timeline? Anyone who is Jewish has an
automatic contradiction for supporting the true timeline because it is one
more indicator that Christ appeared at the prophesied time, 483 years after
the return from Babylon, which occurred in 455 BCE. Jewish policy was in
place around the 3rd Century CE to suppress this revision since we find they
re-wrote the Book of Esther, originally married to Artaxerxes in the LXX but
switched to marriage to "Ahasuerus" who substitutes for Xerxes. Clearly
accommodating the revised chronology. Of course, if you can establish as
legitimate the revised timeline where the 1st of Cyrus falls in 537 BCE, now
supported by the fake astronomical text the VAT4956, then you can claim
Christ is not the messiah because he did not appear 483 years after 537 BCE
in 54 BC. That is likely why Herod was a focus of the presumed "messiah"
especially since he did so much rebuilding of the temple. On the other
hand, if you have to correct the timeline based upon ancient records that
force us to do so and it turns out Jesus' baptism in 29 CE is exactly 483
years from the corrected timeline, then that tends to suggest Jesus is the
true messiah. So it is an understood "conflict of interest" to draw
attention to the original timeline, I would think. That or some other bias
was strong enough for them to lie about and misrepresent the text. Of
course, it suggests Sachs/Hunger knew prior to this the timeline from the
Persian Period was revised and that later astronomical texts were adjusted
to the new timeline. Now most of that is my own bias, but they did lie for
some reason.

In the meantime, the British Museum has not insisted on the correction as
far as I know and so the error remains on the books. So now those
researching the VAT4956 are still misguided by the errors purposely
introduced by Sachs/Hunger. Now the British Museum acknowledges the
"error" but have corrected it. That's understandable because that would
draw attention to the obvious deliberate misreprentation by Sachs/Hunger and
then you are dealing with academic fraud or ethics issues. Likely this
came up and the final decision was to keep this "in house" as long as they
could. But the correction is not possible without exposing the fraud. As
usual, the balance of their overall contribution to the field, which is
enormous outweighs calling them on this one misjudgment. But, still, be
that as it may, it remains uncorrected and holds the rest of us up with
using the VAT4956 for best astronomical application. So, the fact that
the British Museum and Hunger are still holding out shows they are just as
dishonest now as they were when they lied about what's in the text. They
just don't want to deal with the fall out.

But the price is EXTENSIVE that will affect lots of people and major
religions since an investigation will lead to more discoveries and
comparisons and that all will eventually lead to the forced redating of the
NB back to the original timeline where the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in
541 BCE, and based on the redated PPW eclipse in 402 BCE the 1st of Cyrus is
dated to 455 BCE. 455 BCE is the date Bible scholars following the prophecy
of the "70 weeks" use to confirm Jesus was the true messiah at his baptism
in 29 CE. That is, you can check Martin Anstey who in 1913 wrote "The
Romance of Bible Chronology" and noticed there were 82 years too many during
the Persian Period. Those 82 years are easily removed from this period
because the Persian Period is considered the "darkest period in human
history" and at one point is entirely dependent upon Greek historians, who
in turn were influenced by Persian money to revise their history.

ASTRONOMY comes to the rescue, though, because many original eclipses had to
be reset to the new timeline, sometimes awkwardly so. But that means a
substantial number of them are likewise confirmed with the accurate
redating, again and again. It's amazing, actually. It is as if the revised
eclipses are clues and codes to the original timelime if you persue the
discrepancy. Meaning? Meaning like the SK400 loosely fits 523 BCE
because it is a partial eclipse followed by a total eclipse the same year.
The eclipse times match-up doesn't really matter since you have various
theories out there and it is considered not absolute with various people
using their own delta-T formulas. But the precise time of both eclipses
establish a new parameter, which is 2 hours 46 minutes of interval between
the eclipse times. That eliminates the 523 BCE eclipse as a match for these
two eclipses because that interval is 4:46. Now at this point, you can
just claim, "Oh well, scribal error" rather than presuming this is a clue to
some other dating scenario. That is, is there any scenario where there are
two eclipses exactly 2:46 relevant to a scenario of "year 7"? Of course,
the answer is YES. 541 BCE sports the precise interval of 2:46 which when
the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455 BCE, is year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar!

So in effect, what we have here is a cryptic secret validity text to the
original chronology hidden in the specifics of these eclipses that is
created to appear on the surface as a "politically correct" text dated to
the original chronology. This is further confirmed because we have 5 extant
copies or fragments of this single text! Why so many copies? Obviously,
since it held the secret to the original timeline, the more copies created
the higher probability of survival. It all fits and makes sense.

It is also good to keep in mind that while the observation solar
eclipses requires a fairly precise location of the observer, lunar
eclipses are viewed by reflected light and can be seen over very wide
areas (the Moon just has to be in the sky); An astronomer located
in the far reaches of the land could send a report of an eclipse
seen everywhere could be entered into the record as though he
timed it locally, and no one would bat an eye.

True. But sometimes the narrative tells us with great precision the
location
of a solar eclipse. For instance, the eclipse that occurs during the 1st
year
of the Peloponnesian War. It is misdated to 431 BCE. The description of
the
eclipse is that the stars came out but a crescent remained. That is a
specific
phase of the eclipse observed very close to the totality track of a total
eclipse.
The 431 BCE eclipse was not total, it was annular and was only partial in
Athens. The primary eclipse track went over Asia Minor. The original event
dated to January, 402 BCE though, creates that effect noted since it was
close
enough but not over Athens so that the stars came out but a crescent
remained.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/403darkcomp.JPG

You can compare the January 402 BCE eclipse with the 431 BCE eclipse to see
the range of difference in location relative to Greece.

But having noted that, you have a very narrow range of the eclipse
observation to match this scenario of seeing darkness with the crest. It
requires being located just outside the eclipse track. So when we get a
couple of these rather specific references then we get great alignments.
I have the list of all the critical solar eclipses used in the current
revised timeline and how they are reset to the original timeline. There
are about six critical events that support the current history that
immediately default to better references in the original timeline, like this
PPW eclipse or the predicted Thales eclipse, or the eclipse occuring in the
spring of the year of Xerxes' invasion which does occur in 424 BCE the
original dating but not in the revised dating of 480 BCE.

A lunar eclipse totality is not nearly as spectacular as a solar one,
so the time attributed to it might be more vague.

Correct.

Moshi


.

Relevant Pages

  • David and Solomon vindicated: Fall of GREEK timeline
    ... DAVID AND SOLOMON VINDICATED: Fall of Greek timeline. ... on the wrong eclipse assignment of 763 BCE which should be 709 BCE. ... The Greek history has little to do with David ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • DAVID AND SOLOMON vindicated by Greek history
    ... DAVID AND SOLOMON VINDICATED: Fall of Greek timeline. ... on the wrong eclipse assignment of 763 BCE which should be 709 BCE. ... The Greek history has little to do with David ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Archaeologists: official vs non-official Biblical timeline
    ... only "biblical" archaeologists do. ... And when all you bible freaks agree on a single timeline get back to us. ... Akhenaten's first year is in 1378 or 1351 BCE. ... single eclipse misdated to 763 BCE. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • DESTROYING GREEK HISTORY: 10-POINT PLAN OUTLINE
    ... the Bible's timeline must prevail. ... Biblical chronology where the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE, ... Socrates is only 7 years older ... Doesn't work for 431 BCE as a total eclipse that caused ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • ANCIENT ASTRONOMY events limit corrected timeline options
    ... ANCIENT ASTRONOMY EVENTS LIMIT CORRECTED TIMELINE OPTIONS ... It had to be aligned with another eclipse. ... BCE when he was at least 20 years of age. ... The VAT4956 now is a key text dating the Babylonian Period. ...
    (sci.archaeology)