11638 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

The Puzzler, on 05 January 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

240BC is the earliest date they have of a possible Halley sighting, I used a calculator and backtracked 76 years from each date...

What year are you starting with?

1986 AD.

cormac

[Abramelin]

The Puzzler, on 05 January 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

Interesting, maybe subtracting 2 cycles of Halley's Comet is something or at least subtracting cycles of something, I like that idea. Don't forget Plato says like this too, that there had already been 2 flood events, Atlantis was the 3rd back - so 2 had occurred since Atlantis...it fits right, will think more on it.

I did the calculatiions myself on Halley before and the closest dates I got were 2140BC and 2216BC - on an average of 76 years. I read somewhere once about Proto-Enke being around c. 2193/4BC.

By the way I saw Halley's Comet in 1986, lucky my Dad knew where to look, it was tiny but I did see it through the binoculars at the time. I even kept a mint commemorative stamp from it  

I know where you read about Proto-Encke:

Abramelin, on 09 September 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

I think if there is a candidate impactor, then it's proto-Encke; it appears to be all over the internet in connection with what happened in the Middle East in the 4d and 3d millenium BC :



Here's something by someone who abviously read the OLB:

In 3113 BC, the comet, known as Proto-Encke, collided with asteroids in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, resulting in the Taurid meteors widely associated with the Bronze Age. As this comet then passed near to the earth it caused massive geological and climatological influences, including destroying an estimated half of the infrastructure of Atlantis. In 2193 BC, the comet Proto-Encke, converging with the comets Oljato and Hale-Bopp, again passed the earth and caused global seismic disturbances, enormous tsunamis and massive socio-cultural changes. In 1628 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato returned again, causing further destruction. Finally, in 1198 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato were pushed closer to the earth by Halley's Comet; Proto-Encke entered the planet's atmosphere and then impacted in the general region of the island of Atlantis. The towering volcano of Mt. Atlas exploded and Atlantis sank beneath the waves. To read more about these matters, consult the books by Frank Joseph, The Destruction of Atlantis, and Survivors of Atlantis.
http://www.newparadi...d-geography.htm
http://adsabs.harvar...CeMDA..69..149A

http://www.springerl...52683h4q15838g/

http://abob.libs.uga...c/cc060897.html


http://www.space.com...e_011113-1.html


====

Napier thinks multiple impacts, and possibly a rain of other smaller meteors and dust, would have been required. He and his colleagues have been arguing since 1982 that such events are possible. And, he says, it might have happened right around the time the first urban civilizations were crumbling.

Napier thinks a comet called Encke, discovered in 1786, is the remnant of a larger comet that broke apart 5,000 years ago. Large chunks and vast clouds of smaller debris were cast into space. Napier said it's possible that Earth ran through that material during the Early Bronze Age.

The night sky would have been lit up for years by a fireworks-like display of comet fragments and dust vaporizing upon impact with Earth's atmosphere. The Sun would have struggled to shine through the debris. Napier has tied the possible event to a cooling of the climate, measured in tree rings, that ran from 2354-2345 B.C.

http://www.space.com...e_011113-1.html


http://accidentofhis...ginning-of.html

http://www.amazon.ca...e/dp/0631169539

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 05 January 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

1986 AD.

cormac

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

It doesn't hit upon that date Abramelin, as both 75.32 and 76 are averaged estimates. And subtracting multiples of either from 1986 only gets to 1082 AD and 1074 AD, respectively. The dates given, per Wiki, vary from as low as 74 years to as high as 79 years, with no discernible pattern.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

See cormac's answer then:

Halley's orbital period over the last three centuries has been between 75 and 76 years, though it has varied between 74 and 79 years since 240 BCE

1P/−239 K1, −239 (25 May 240 BCE)
1P/−163 U1, −163 (12 November 164 BCE)
1P/−86 Q1, −86 (6 August 87 BCE)
1P/−11 Q1, −11 (10 October 12 BCE)
1P/66 B1, 66 (25 January 66 CE)
1P/141 F1, 141 (22 March 141)
1P/218 H1, 218 (17 May 218)
1P/295 J1, 295 (20 April 295)
1P/374 E1, 374 (16 February 374)
1P/451 L1, 451 (28 June 451)
1P/530 Q1, 530 (27 September 530)
1P/607 H1, 607 (15 March 607)
1P/684 R1, 684 (2 October 684)
1P/760 K1, 760 (20 May 760)
1P/837 F1, 837 (28 February 837)
1P/912 J1, 912 (18 July 912)
1P/989 N1, 989 (5 September 989)
1P/1066 G1, 1066 (20 March 1066)
1P/1145 G1, 1145 (18 April 1145)
1P/1222 R1, 1222 (28 September 1222)
1P/1301 R1, 1301 (25 October 1301)
1P/1378 S1, 1378 (10 November 1378)
1P/1456 K1, 1456 (9 June 1456)
1P/1531 P1, 1531 (26 August 1531)
1P/1607 S1, 1607 (27 October 1607)
1P/1682 Q1, 1682 (15 September 1682)
1P/1758 Y1, 1759 I (13 March 1759)
1P/1835 P1, 1835 III (16 November 1835)
1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c (20 April 1910)
1P/1982 U1, 1986 III, 1982i (9 February 1986)
http://en.wikipedia....ley's_Comet

Since I started at 240BC, I didn't get to see if I landed on 1066AD.

---------------------

Halley's [HAL-lee] Comet has been know since at least 240 BC and possibly since 1059 BC. Its most famous appearance was in 1066 AD when it was seen right before the Battle of Hastings.
http://www.solarview.../eng/halley.htm

May have been seen since 1059BC.

Edited by The Puzzler, 05 January 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[The Puzzler]

This is a bit off topic but sorry, I'm obsessing somewhat over these planetary alignments.
The date for both these images is 23rd September 2850, that is, the approximate time Wiki gives for the beginning of building the Pyramids. I read the stuff by Bauval etc, I don't think the Correlation they say is correct nor do I believe the Sphinx or Pyramid were built prior to when they say.

This time I have added the Zenith and have taken this from Cairo, looking for the Pyramid theory. I see that Cairo goes directly across the 30 degree line, it's a direct match.

Firstly, I noticed this amazing Planetary conjunction.



Secondly, I thought about them looking immediately UP, so added the Zenith for that reason...see the picture below...


Look where Leo is. Right on the Zenith. The planets in the pic above are shown rising at dawn in the East on the pic with Leo. It is right on the  Autumnal Equinox line, Mercury, the Sun and Venus rise, and it appears that Venus could even be transiting the Sun..
To me, with Leo right on the Zenith at the Autumn Equinox could be why the Sphinx would be built directly below, with building starting at c.2580BC.

[Van Gorp]

Van Gorp, on 05 January 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Yep, I know Abramelin (that's why I said if he believes it himself is antoher question).
If I understood him well, he explains it as a Greac/Latin version of the 'achter land', in a way like "land lying behind ..."

Interesting point here (at least for me, i accept if it's meaningless to others interests/queste), is
that 'behind' the word 'achter' there is a also the more 'hidden' meaning.
Even litteraly: "Als je er-achter, komt het te-voor-schijn" :-) You'll find out the origine of the aboriginal.

From the achterland, people come out.  That's obvious: f.e. when they come from behind their defense.
Certainly the indiginous people were always be considered to be living a bit hidden from sight.

Our past (where and how we used to live) is hidden, if you go back (in time) it's like looking for what is behind us.
But here I think we touch the subject of what you mean by Atlantis:
the country-land (if applicable to one single spot, open for debate), or the common (from commune) culture that was more widely spread by the migrations of the same people.

Achter-Grond
Back-Ground
is related

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 05 January 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

It doesn't hit upon that date Abramelin, as both 75.32 and 76 are averaged estimates. And subtracting multiples of either from 1986 only gets to 1082 AD and 1074 AD, respectively. The dates given, per Wiki, vary from as low as 74 years to as high as 79 years, with no discernible pattern.

cormac

I already knew that it would not work by simply hitting enter on your calculator until you end up somewhere around 2200 BC: it's an avarage, whether you use Halley's 75.5 number or the more exact 75.32 number (or either 76 or 75).

But as I showed you, it does work - using Halley's 75.5 avarage - when you work backwards from a date calculated with Biblical chronology.

And I think that is no coincidence when taking into account that many scientists ages ago considered those Biblical dates to be 'scientific facts'.


+++++++

Summary:

-1- The date of Creation: 3850 BC, using straightforward calculation, and no adjustments or re-interpretations of Biblical ages of the Patriarchs and intervals (like Ussher and others did)

-2- Substracting the generally accepted interval between the date of the Creation and the Flood, 1656 years, gives: 2194 BC

-3- Someone (one of the writers of the OLB?) wanted to know if their date, 2194 BC could be a date when the dreaded comet could also have appeared, and substracted the avarage Halley had calculated for the period of revolution from the generally accepted date for the Flood, 2345 BC, and again come upon 2194 BC (2345-75.5-75.5=2194).

It could all be just a coincidence, a result of happily playing with numbers, but I have seen no better explanation.

It's either this, or the 2194 BC stands for something that actually happened in 2194 BC and was then recorded.

++++

EDIT:

As a reminder:

Abramelin, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Noah's Flood: Bible Stories: Bible accuracy: bible calendars: Bible Patriarchs.
According to Antiquities 1:6:5 Abraham was born 292 ARTIFICIAL years after the flood. By this standard the flood occurred in 2184 BCE (unless the data was recorded in true solar years, in which case it will have occurred in 2205 BCE). Josephus reiterates the stipulated Biblical data of 292 years separating the Flood Event and the Birth of Abraham.

http://www.kingscale...=viewnews&id=29

http://www.kingscale...PPENDIX_17.html

The mean of 2184 and 2205 would 2194.5 BCE. That's what someone would do to be on the 'safe side'.

If anyone wants to check this guys calculations: be my guest, lol.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Abramelin]

Van Gorp, on 05 January 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Achter-Grond
Back-Ground
is related

Van Gorp, we still use the word "achterland". When we talk about 'achterland' when talking about commerce going through (the harbour of) Rotterdam, we mean the rest of Europe.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

~SNIP~

-1- The date of Creation: 3850 BC, using straightforward calculation, and no adjustments or re-interpretations of Biblical ages of the Patriarchs and intervals (like Ussher and others did)

-2- Substracting the generally accepted interval between the date of the Creation and the Flood, 1656 years, gives: 2194 BC

-3- Someone (one of the writers of the OLB?) wanted to know if their date, 2194 BC could be a date when the dreaded comet could also have appeared, and substracted the avarage Halley had calculated for the period of revolution from the generally accepted date for the Flood, 2345 BC, and again come upon 2194 BC (2345-75.5-75.5=2194).

It could all be just a coincidence, a result of happily playing with numbers, but I have seen no better explanation.

It's either this, or the 2194 BC stands for something that actually happened in 2194 BC and was then recorded.

~SNIP~

This is at the heart of the problem though Abe. You're accepting the 3850 BC date as if it has any meaning to Jewish Chronology, which is the basis of Christian Chronology. It doesn't, since the Jewish calendar starts with the year 3760 BC. They still use it today. All of the various Biblical Chronologies, of whatever length, were written AFTER the calendar was already in use. 3850 BC is just as meaningless as Ussher's 4004 BC.

cormac

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 05 January 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

This is at the heart of the problem though Abe. You're accepting the 3850 BC date as if it has any meaning to Jewish Chronology, which is the basis of Christian Chronology. It doesn't, since the Jewish calendar starts with the year 3760 BC. They still use it today. All of the various Biblical Chronologies, of whatever length, were written AFTER the calendar was already in use. 3850 BC is just as meaningless as Ussher's 4004 BC.

cormac

Lol, *I* am not accepting anything, I have been saying throughout these last 10 pages or so that there must have been people in the 19th century who did their own calculations, and ended up at 3850 BC.

We are not discussing what the Jews believed in or still believe in, this is about what many Christians believed in.

There was an Ussher who twisted and reinterpreted ages and intervals and ended up at 4004 BC as the date of Creation, there were others (apparently Frisians, for 2194 BC only shows up in Frisian almanacs) who straightforward added up any number they encountered in the Bible and arrived at 3850 BC.

But they all agreed upon the period between the Creation and the Flood: 1656 years.

3850 BC is not meaningless, it must have been the date some Frisians calculated and used to arrive at the date - their date - of the Flood.

We are trying to find out how that date of 2194 BC ended up in Frisian almanacs (and subsequently used in the OLB), not whether the Flood or Creation actually happend or even at that date.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Lol, *I* am not accepting anything, I have been saying throughout these last 10 pages or so that there must have been people in the 19th century who did their own calculations, and ended up at 3850 BC.

We are not discussing what the Jews believed in or still believe in, this is about what many Christians believed in.

There was an Ussher who twisted and reinterpreted ages and intervals and ended up at 4004 BC as the date of Creation, there were others (apparently Frisians, for 2194 BC only shows up in Frisian almanacs) who straightforward added up any number they encountered in the Bible and arrived at 3850 BC.

But they all agreed upon the period between the Creation and the Flood: 1656 years.

3850 BC is not meaningless, it must have been the date some Frisians calculated and used to arrive at the date - their date - of the Flood.

We are trying to find out how that date of 2194 BC ended up in Frisian almanacs (and subsequently used in the OLB), not whether the Flood or Creation actually happend or even at that date.

We are discussing chronologies that are based on Jewish writings, however. And no, they don't all agree as the Masoretic, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Samaritan texts give dates of 1656, 2262, 2242 and 1307 years respectively. Outside of Jewish belief there's no agreement on the date of Creation nor on the length between it and the flood.

cormac

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 05 January 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

We are discussing chronologies that are based on Jewish writings, however. And no, they don't all agree as the Masoretic, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Samaritan texts give dates of 1656, 2262, 2242 and 1307 years respectively. Outside of Jewish belief there's no agreement on the date of Creation nor on the length between it and the flood.

cormac

If you go back far enough, then yes: no agreement on the date for the Flood or for the Creation.

But I tried to focus on the 19th century or what was generally accepted in the 19th century (by Christians in northern Europe).

[Abramelin]

It's obvious no one who understands Dutch has been following my reasoning, sigh...

I talked about a generally accepted period of 1656 years between the date of Creation (3850 BC) and the Flood.

Well, some will remember this, an example from a Frisian almanac of 1839:



Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening: 5788
Sedert den Zondvloed: 4032

Translaton:
Creation of the world according to our time reckoning: 5788
Since the Flood: 4032

That results is 1756 years between the Creation and the Flood...

From Otharus' post 1411, page 95 ("FRIESCHE VOLKS-ALMANAK 1846):

5795 Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening
4039 Sedert den Zondvloed

Result: 1766



At least 1839 (publishing date for the almanac)-4032 (date for the Flood) still results in -2193 = 2194 BC.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[Abramelin]

Heh, all hope is not lost: if I find the (Frisian) almanac that has a time span between the Flood and the Creation of 1656 (and still has a date for the Flood of 2194 BC), we can maybe pin down the year someone started writing the OLB.