Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’

[Trelane]

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Been there before. Even if I present data the reaction would be the same. Not wanting to look... So I'll take my time to make up more stuff to explain the data.

 

That is my evaluation of all that has been presented. It's all made up.

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Nothing is infallible

Theories only last until they are falsified. Scientific method or the method of madness they are tools to approximate truth.

Too bad it isn't applied here. Here is how you can when it comes to the Bible..

Let's make it simple and use these 6 steps (simple google result)

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

1 question, 2 research, 3 hypothesis, 4 experiment, 5 data/analysis, 6 conclusion.

1 Could the Bible reflect astronomical phenomena within scripture? 2 Abraham/Phenomena connection, Confirmation of date, Confirmation of book of Jasher 3 a Major Biblical events are linked to astronomical phenomena. b the concept crosses cultural borders 4 Go through genealogy and major events (i.e. Cain/Able, Noah, Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, cross culturally Romulus/Remus) observe the skies of those periods 5 analyze the data, cross reference etc. make sure to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible. confirm commonly used terms etc 6 Accept hypothesis.

 

1)      Science is self-correcting.

2)      In science, a theory is an explanation for facts or natural phenomena that has been repeatedly confirmed through numerous methods. Despite the science-driven attempts to falsify major modern theories, they are rarely falsified. You may be confusing one of the principles of science. “Truth” is a matter not actually addressed in scientific research and the nebulous topic is best left to philosophers.

3)      To detail:

• ·         Question : Acceptable
• ·         Research: Your first reference is not accessible. Your second reference is a Wiki page. Your third reference includes a very vague and temporally typical allusion to an astronomical event that can in no way be considered to be definitive. Very poor research. Fail.
• ·         Hypothesis: Conditionally acceptable.
• ·         Experiment: Utilizing Biblical genealogies of the relevant time period are of no worth in regards to establishing a utilizable date due to the grossly inaccurate calibrations of individual lifespans. Fail.
• ·         Analysis: Due to the highly flawed “data”, any analysis is pointless. Fail.
• ·         Conclusion: No ability to definitively support hypothesis. No credible corroborative data. Very poor research skills. Fail.

It has been quite apparent that you are unfamiliar with legitimate research methodology. May this explain your fear of such?

Edit: Format.

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Swede

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

1)      Science is self-correcting.

True but it can also be stuck in a false paradigm for quite some time.

1 hour ago, Swede said:

2)      In science, a theory is an explanation for facts or natural phenomena that has been repeatedly confirmed through numerous methods. Despite the science-driven attempts to falsify major modern theories, they are rarely falsified. You may be confusing one of the principles of science. “Truth” is a matter not actually addressed in scientific research and the nebulous topic is best left to philosophers.

So then let's stick to the science. Explain the fact that the major stories fall in line with natural phenomena...

1 hour ago, Swede said:

3)      To detail:

• ·         Question : Acceptable
• ·         Research: Your first reference is not accessible. Your second reference is a Wiki page. Your third reference includes a very vague and temporally typical allusion to an astronomical event that can in no way be considered to be definitive. Very poor research. Fail.
• ·         Hypothesis: Conditionally acceptable.
• ·         Experiment: Utilizing Biblical genealogies of the relevant time period are of no worth in regards to establishing a utilizable date due to the grossly inaccurate calibrations of individual lifespans. Fail.
• ·         Analysis: Due to the highly flawed “data”, any analysis is pointless. Fail.
• ·         Conclusion: No ability to definitively support hypothesis. No credible corroborative data. Very poor research skills. Fail.

Here is where you go off on a tantrum. The whole point is to compare the Biblical narrative to the luminaries. It follows the question. How are individual lifespans inaccurate? Cannot a celestial cycle last for 600 years? The analysis of data is not for you but still privately held by me, keeping my powder dry so to speak.

when it comes to the research/sources what does it matter where a post is made or who posted it? It is about the content within. The dates can be verified by running computer software in the case of the wiki page, try: https://github.com/dildeolupbiten/ConjunctionFinder. When it comes to the first link my bad here I cleaned it up for you: https://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2007/08/astrology-of-grand-conjunction.html. The third, typical allusion... well that is the point now is it. If you struck gold then you struck gold, own it. I agree that it would be very hard to say something definitive about this but. This is about Abraham! The significance of this cannot be underestimated...

But then you can only see this once you accepted the fact. And from there on out you deconstruct the pages and everything falls into place. The process that comes after creates the confidence to say something definitive but you need to take the leap first. Do the experiment.

your conclusion is fine. unless you research the material yourself as I have given plenty of leads to do it on your own and prove it yourself. So one of two things needs to happen before you can accept. 1 do the research yourself by following my leads. 2 just wait until I present those topics in detail.

1 hour ago, Swede said:

It has been quite apparent that you are unfamiliar with legitimate research methodology. May this explain your fear of such?

 When honesty is lacking there is no sincere conversation. I'll get to the topic when I get there, it simply takes a bit of time.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

It pretty clear you are out of your depth and have take to relying on the children's favorite: 'I say so so I'm right', Chuckle - not a great methodology for someone trying to convince others he's legit.

You do know about the frequency of eclipses right?

Tell us since you are pretending to be an expert on this subject.

These folks at GT - how many would they have seen during a life time? Say sixty years?

Well it depends on where you are on earth better the farther north you go so how many is sage #1 going to see in his life time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Herbert Sanders]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

It pretty clear you are out of your depth and have take to relying on the children's favorite: 'I say so so I'm right', Chuckle - not a great methodology for someone trying to convince others he's legit.

You do know about the frequency of eclipses right?

Tell us since you are pretending to be an expert on this subject.

These folks at GT - how many would they have seen during a life time? Say sixty years?

Well it depends on where you are on earth better the farther north you go so how many is sage #1 going to see in his life time?

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/

But even if eclipses happen often that doesnt mean that they are visible within the region that often and in the same circumstances. Also not all is about eclipses. An eclipses is a single event there are others.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/

The link doesn't answer the question wanna try again before I just tell you?

Nay, you might blow a gasket and abuse the GT images some more. The average location on earth sees one eclipse every 375 years and an annular one every 224.

The guy didn't calculate partials, which would be more frequent but still vanishingly small for a life time. So without writing how did they pass all this information on?

 

 

[Herbert Sanders]

5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

The link doesn't answer the question wanna try again before I just tell you?

Nay, you might blow a gasket and abuse the GT images some more. The average location on earth sees one eclipse every 375 years and an annular one every 224.

The guy didn't calculate partials, which would be more frequent but still vanishingly small for a life time. So without writing how did they pass all this information on?

 

 

Mythology

When it comes to partial blood moons the most direct examples are the story of Cain murdering his brother Abel and Romulus killing his brother Remus. If you want I can project both accounts from their respective locations. Of course Cain/Able is a guess haha, still given the year that it was set to occur we can deduce the location by approximation.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

5 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Mythology

When it comes to partial blood moons the most direct examples are the story of Cain murdering his brother Abel and Romulus killing his brother Remus. If you want I can project both accounts from their respective locations.

So again you don't reply to what is being said but try to change the subject.

Let me paraphrase this then. Eighteen generations wouldn't see a full E but might see one or two partials, maybe. HG stay in fairly restricted ranges 100s of kilometers at best  especially if 'tied' to a sacred spot. Swede is probably more up on HG ranges.

You think those two stories were 'real' huh? Oh, wait you don't but for some reason people encoded 'dates' of these in later writings? For what purpose?

[Herbert Sanders]

32 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

So again you don't reply to what is being said but try to change the subject.

Let me paraphrase this then. Eighteen generations wouldn't see a full E but might see one or two partials, maybe. HG stay in fairly restricted ranges 100s of kilometers at best  especially if 'tied' to a sacred spot. Swede is probably more up on HG ranges.

You think those two stories were 'real' huh? Oh, wait you don't but for some reason people encoded 'dates' of these in later writings? For what purpose?

I'll answer you by providing the details to these two datapoint:

Cain/Abel

The Book of Jubilees (Chapter 4, verse 2): And in the first (year) of the third jubilee, Cain slew Abel.

A Jubilee is 7 x 7 = 49 years. First year of third Jubilee is 2 x 49 + 1 = 99 AM

Abraham is 1953 BCE, From Adam until the Flood is 1656 years, from the Flood to Abraham (by genealogy) is 35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70=290 years.

From Adam to Abraham is 1946 years. The year of Adam is therefore 1953 - 1946 = 3899 BCE. Abel was slain in 99 AM or 3800 BCE (-3799).

 

Romulus and Remus

"Dionysius himself provided calculations showing that Rome was founded in 751 BC (-750), starting with the Battle of the Allia, which he dated to the first year of the ninety-eighth Olympiad, 388/7 BC, then added 120 years to reach the date of the first consuls, Junius Brutus and Tarquinius Collatinus, 508/7 BC, then added the combined total of the reigns of the Kings of Rome (244 years) to arrive at his own date, 751 BC.^[14] Even the official Fasti Capitolini offers its own date, 752 BC.

The most familiar date given for the foundation of Rome, 753 BC, was derived by the Roman antiquarian Titus Pomponius Atticus, and adopted by Marcus Terentius Varro, having become part of what has come to be known as the Varronian chronology.^[15] An anecdote in Plutarch where the astrologer Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum provides an argument based on a non-existent eclipse and other erroneous astronomical details that Rome was founded in 753 BC suggests that this had become the most commonly accepted date.^[16] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome

The astrologer at the time made an oopsie... Dionysius was right!

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[docyabut2]

Sorry all  I just don't believe in  Göbleki Tepe as skymaps ,and figures of the stars,  just like Graham Hancocks`s  tries to figure out the decode in the Egypt `s pyramids. The problem is the stars are in different places almost  every night ,     

 

   

 

[Hanslune]

7 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I'll answer you by providing the details to these two datapoint:

Cain/Abel

The Book of Jubilees (Chapter 4, verse 2): And in the first (year) of the third jubilee, Cain slew Abel.

A Jubilee is 7 x 7 = 49 years. First year of third Jubilee is 2 x 49 + 1 = 99 AM

 

Ah, what? The book of Jubilees isn't even in the bible but is considered one of the pseudepigrapha.

""And in the first (year) of the third jubilee [99-105 A.M.], Cain slew Abel because (God) accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and did not accept the offering of Cain.""

Quote

Abraham is 1953 BCE, From Adam until the Flood is 1656 years, from the Flood to Abraham (by genealogy) is 35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70=290 years.

From Adam to Abraham is 1946 years. The year of Adam is therefore 1953 - 1946 = 3899 BCE. Abel was slain in 99 AM or 3800 BCE (-3799).

All of the above is just made up information, you are using previously made up information to make up newly made up stuff. Sorry but if you have no science you are pretty much wasting everyone's time with your self-delusions of having 'found' something...numerology isn't science.

You might want to read, John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975)

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Ah, what? The book of Jubilees isn't even in the bible but is considered one of the pseudepigrapha.

""And in the first (year) of the third jubilee [99-105 A.M.], Cain slew Abel because (God) accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and did not accept the offering of Cain.""

They might consider it bananas for all i care the information within is not entirely consistent with the Bible but in large parts it is. It did bring useful information so I use it.

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

All of the above is just made up information, you are using previously made up information to make up newly made up stuff. Sorry but if you have no science you are pretty much wasting everyone's time with your self-delusions of having 'found' something...numerology isn't science.

This isn't numerology lol. 

Genesis 11:

12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 

14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber

16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 

18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu.

20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 

22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 

24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah.

26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

 

Abraham at 1953 BCE was a given due to our hypothesis, a chosen variable. The Antediluvian years I am not going to list, it is boring. This is just the tip of the ice berg as there are more correlations then merely a lunar eclipse. Same for Romulus and Remus, more to that as well.

Remember the Flood myth aligned with phenomena observable in 2243 BCE which happens to be 1953 + 290. So now we have Cain/Flood/Abraham.

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

You might want to read, John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975)

Why? Reading that link it is rubbish. It proves what is false sure but it doesn't give any new direction. I don't see any value in reading it.

 

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

For what purpose?

My most grounded reason would be for the purpose of creating an anchor in time as it has served this purpose for me. Perhaps a great sense of prudence.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Herbert Sanders]

11 hours ago, Hanslune said:

The link doesn't answer the question wanna try again before I just tell you?

Nay, you might blow a gasket and abuse the GT images some more. The average location on earth sees one eclipse every 375 years and an annular one every 224.

The guy didn't calculate partials, which would be more frequent but still vanishingly small for a life time. So without writing how did they pass all this information on?

 

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

 

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Can you explain to me the odds please? Mr. Science guy. 

Or let me ask this. Do you agree that these shots depict partial lunar eclipses?

Do agree that they were visible between the First and Second Cataract 3800 BCE and Rome 751 BCE respectively?

Do you agree that the Book of Jubilee says Cain slew Able in 99 AM? Can you work out the year 3800 BCE for this event if Abraham is said to have been born in 1953 BCE?

Do you agree that Dionysius argued that Rome was setup in 751 BCE, do you agree that the ecliptic narrative was used to try and justify the date of 753 BCE. Now here comes the conjecture... Could it be that both statements were partially true but left wanting... Another interesting fact is when you follow the 753 narrative is that it is said to have happened on April 21st, the Parilia. 21st of April  which falls in the same week as April 19th, the date of the Roman partial lunar eclipse. The only number that is off here is the year given by popular opinion. Wiki has this to say: 

Quote

The ancient Romans were certain of the day Rome was founded: April 21, the day of the festival sacred to Pales, goddess of shepherds, on which date they celebrated the Par ilia (or Palilia). However they did not know, or they were uncertain of, the exact year the city had been founded; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome

So again, tell me the odds... do your eyes deceive you? Why so thickheaded? And again this is merely the tip of the iceberg there is much more to it then merely 'a lunar eclipse' you also need to take into account the other luminaries and the story itself.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Wepwawet]

I wonder, Orestes, that if after you have finished your deeply obscurantist Compendium Revelationum, you will then, after reflection and personal insight, present your Infelix ego.

[Herbert Sanders]

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I wonder, Orestes, that if after you have finished your deeply obscurantist Compendium Revelationum, you will then, after reflection and personal insight, present your Infelix ego.

I wonder when it will dawn on you that your frame of mind has you fooled. The obvious... not so obvious.

[Wepwawet]

No, you are trying to fool us with made up nonsense.

[cormac mac airt]

5 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Do you agree that the Book of Jubilee says Cain slew Able in 99 AM? Can you work out the year 3800 BCE for this event if Abraham is said to have been born in 1953 BCE?

Provide a verifiable source that is NOT your personal interpretation, showing that Abraham was born in 1953 BC. There isn’t one. Jewish chronology is based on Jewish belief and anything else must be similarly based or it’s completely irrelevant to anything the Jews had to say. 
 

cormac

[Herbert Sanders]

41 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Provide a verifiable source that is NOT your personal interpretation, showing that Abraham was born in 1953 BC. There isn’t one. Jewish chronology is based on Jewish belief and anything else must be similarly based or it’s completely irrelevant to anything the Jews had to say. 
 

cormac

H1: The 'birth' of Abraham was a celestial phenomenon (nonexclusive)
H0: It is not
 

Research and experiment -> conclusion accept H1, reject H0.

This also means rejecting what the Jewish people think they know about the timing of their own religion. Concentrate on post #463, you can do it!

More interestingly because the origin story of Rome was setup in the same way as the story of Cain and Abel perhaps the original Romans share the same cultural root branch as the Hebrews. Maybe we need to look into the Etruscans who are linked to Anatolian origins (nice rabbit hole here).

Quote

Etruscan culture was influenced by Ancient Greek culture, beginning around 750 BC...

The territorial extent of Etruscan civilization reached its maximum around 750 BC...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization

And when looking at the Etruscans perhaps the A-Group of Nubia might be of interest as well as it fits the Cain/Abel timeline.

Quote

The A-Group flourished until it was destroyed by pharaohs of Egypt’s First Dynasty around 3100 BC.

https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/ancient-nubia-group-3800–3100-bc

It is almost as if Egypt and Rome were seeded, but again wild speculation.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[cormac mac airt]

BS, if you reject what the Jewish people think then you reject their chronology as well. Thanks for being irrelevant to the discussion. 
 

cormac

[Herbert Sanders]

15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

BS, if you reject what the Jewish people think then you reject their chronology as well. Thanks for being irrelevant to the discussion. 
 

cormac

Of course I reject their chronology as it is incorrect. Their story is correct, they simply haven't used the correct anchor points same as with Rome. Popular opinion has its origin at 753 BCE, should be 751 BCE.

I'd like to refer you to post post #463, contemplate on it. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

8 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Can you explain to me the odds please? Mr. Science guy. 

""The analysis of data is not for you but still privately held by me, keeping my powder dry so to speak""

Well Mr. make stuff up guy. I've been waiting to use your dismissive comment you made to me above. Enjoy. The fact that you don't know something that is critical to your idea and that you haven't researched it is amusing

Quote

Or let me ask this. Do you agree that these shots depict partial lunar eclipses?

No they are computer recreations

 

Quote

Do agree that they were visible between the First and Second Cataract 3800 BCE and Rome 751 BCE respectively?

What what does this remotely have to do with Gobekli Tepe??

 

 

Quote

Do you agree that the Book of Jubilee says Cain slew Able in 99 AM? Can you work out the year 3800 BCE for this event if Abraham is said to have been born in 1953 BCE?

Do you agree that Dionysius argued that Rome was setup in 751 BCE, do you agree that the ecliptic narrative was used to try and justify the date of 753 BCE. Now here comes the conjecture... Could it be that both statements were partially true but left wanting... Another interesting fact is when you follow the 753 narrative is that it is said to have happened on April 21st, the Parilia. 21st of April  which falls in the same week as April 19th, the date of the Roman partial lunar eclipse. The only number that is off here is the year given by popular opinion. Wiki has this to say: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome

So again, tell me the odds... do your eyes deceive you? Why so thickheaded? And again this is merely the tip of the iceberg there is much more to it then merely 'a lunar eclipse' you also need to take into account the other luminaries and the story itself.

Why do you believe ancient sources are truthful? The ones you are using were written by non-scientists and relating supernatural tales. I'm "starting" to get the idea you might be some sort of irrational internet eccentric.

May I suggest you go to the  the Cosmoquest forum that is inhabited by rabid astronomers and other such scientists who are much better prepared to deal with your utter brilliant idea.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/

Edited September 19, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

BS, if you reject what the Jewish people think then you reject their chronology as well. Thanks for being irrelevant to the discussion. 
 

cormac

Cherry picking is wonderful to see in full color isn't it? I think we are getting to the end of this comedic routine.

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Of course I reject their chronology as it is incorrect. Their story is correct, they simply haven't used the correct anchor points same as with Rome. Popular opinion has its origin at 753 BCE, should be 751 BCE.

I'd like to refer you to post post #463, contemplate on it. 

If you reject their chronology then you CANNOT claim that ANYTHING based on it, whether that’s Abraham’s birth or the date of the Flood occurred which means you’re willfully lying. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Cherry picking is wonderful to see in full color isn't it? I think we are getting to the end of this comedic routine.

One can only hope. 
 

cormac

[Herbert Sanders]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Well Mr. make stuff up guy. I've been waiting to use your dismissive comment you made to me above. Enjoy. The fact that you don't know something that is critical to your idea and that you haven't researched it is amusing

I think you've misinterpreted my words there. My question to you is not for you to give an answer... The chances are slim to none. It is quite impossible for these dates to match up through a random occurrence. Contemplate the rarity of post #463 some more.

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No they are computer recreations

Do you enjoy weather forecasts? You can use multiple tools same conclusion. The opportunity is there.

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

What what does this remotely have to do with Gobekli Tepe?

Little side track no biggie. I'll stay on topic with next week's post.

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Why do you believe ancient sources are truthful? The ones you are using were written by non-scientists and relating supernatural tales. I'm "starting" to get the idea you might be some sort of irrational internet eccentric.

When a cook sees a recipe for a dish does he question the authenticity? No, he recognizes the ingredients and the process to make the dish. You simply got to break some eggs and try it out.

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Cherry picking is wonderful to see in full color isn't it? I think we are getting to the end of this comedic routine.

Why would you think that. I have a few more contributiona for GT, then Egypt, then Bible. Once I am in Bible territory confidence increases and claims are more concreate. GT is much more speculative obviously.

I have data points to fill a weekly contribution for a few years so don't worry there is much to criticize.

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

If you reject their chronology then you CANNOT claim that ANYTHING based on it, whether that’s Abraham’s birth or the date of the Flood occurred which means you’re willfully lying. 
 

cormac

I do not reject what is written only their interpretation of what is written. Think sola scriptura.

As always if you are not interested you can leave the thread.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Orestes_3113