Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Orestes_3113

Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’

462 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
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 connectionConfirmation of dateConfirmation 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 by Swede
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
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 by Orestes_3113
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
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 by Orestes_3113
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
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 by Orestes_3113
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
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).

stellarium-057.png

stellarium-055.png

 

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!

stellarium-059.png

stellarium-058.png

 

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ,     

 

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
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 by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Orestes_3113