Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’

[Wepwawet]

37 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

That said 3899 bce for creation, 2243 bce for the flood, 1953 bce for Abraham, 1448 bce for Exodus are years that are fixed in my narrative.
 

By this is it difficult not to come to the conclusion that you are a young earth creationist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. If so, no wonder you are adverse to things like science and evidence.

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

By this is it difficult not to come to the conclusion that you are a young earth creationist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. If so, no wonder you are adverse to things like science and evidence.

... No I am not a Bible believer in that sense. I believe there is a creation "story" or myth grafted on to an observable phenomena. This can all be reconstructed with modern tools. 

I am not at home for the the coming days so I cannot give a nice 3d projection but let me share an astro.com image of the creation of man in God's image... 

This is a partial solar eclipse (bite of an apple? The apple being the Sun, the Moon doing the biting). I use Aswan but the location isnt that important as long as it is the Middle East.

What we see is a conjunction of Sun/Moon/Mercury and Mars very near(Adam means red, Mars?) during this eclipse in what we come to understand as Leo(Lion, image of God. Regulus? ). Venus (Lucifer?) is near the space of Canis Minor, which if you look into Egyption myths is linked to the underworld through Anubis, and the serpent (Hydra)

At night there is a conjunction-cycle going on with Jupiter and Saturn (great significance that needs further explanation).

There are still some questions here for me to consider. That I shouldnt go into now.

I understand that I am reading into things at this point but... this is another eclipse that is contextually significant to the proposed story. Much like the lunar eclipse in 1448 BCE, there are more like these and there are different kinds of aspects that drive stories (stories and skies are interlinked, if (creation=3899bce, exodus=1448bce), then (flood=2243bce, abraham=1953bce)).

So you see im driving a story by interpreting the skies at a "known" time. This is not an exact science more like following a trail. Bottom line here, no, I am not a Christian fundamentalist . 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Swede]

23 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

What I have presented is merely a teaser and in no way would justify my claims on its own. So I will agree with you for now. However there is much more to it and I will remain in my position personally and will defend it at a later time.

Let me elaborate a bit. For you the legitimacy of sources is important, for me it is not. If I found a random message that hinted me to the conclusion of Abraham/quintuple conjunction then that would be enough for me. Even if someone said it in a joking manner...

The confirmation comes from other data sets that corroborate through scripture. And if so then the 1953 BCE date is confirmed indirectly

I understand that the book of jubilees carries the same problem as Jasher. So for now I have actually only showed Abraham(dirty) and Exodus(delta 505 yrs).

And then somehow claim that both are correct. If so then you should focus on Exodus 1448 BCE full lunar eclipse (blood moon) in opposition of Taurus (just after Aries, blood/lamb), in the sign of Scorpio just past Libra (judgement/death).

Of course this can be a random coincidence but I am telling you it is not. Next you will say these are greek astro concepts etc etc. I can understand that as it hasnt been attested before those times... nevertheless this is what I am finding.

1) Why, of course it is...

2) Obviously.

3) Of course you will. You have no choice. The information provided is quite clear. Your "reference" is rubbish.

4) Which is one of the glaring reasons that your presentation is, and will continue to be, a failure. Without utilizing credible resources, any further inferences are inherently incorrect.

The rest is just more of your fabrication and can be summarily dismissed along with everything else you have previously submitted.

Edit: Punctuation.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Swede

[Hanslune]

12 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

This is too much to show now in a single post.

Ahhh, most people with a point to make make it fully in a blog, website,  on line publication, or publish a book then link to it.

I guess you haven't thought of that use of advanced technology to solve your self made 'problem'?

 

 

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

... No I am not a Bible believer in that sense.

Two more denials and you'll be tied with Peter.

Harte

[Swede]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Ahhh, most people with a point to make make it fully in a blog, website,  on line publication, or publish a book then link to it.

I guess you haven't thought of that use of advanced technology to solve your self made 'problem'?

He has already rather heavily promoted his "blog". What he does not grasp is the concept of an abstract of the usual 150-200 words. This latter is, of course, consistent with his open disdain of credible research and the associated practices.

.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Two more denials and you'll be tied with Peter.

Harte

Dang I'd forgotten about that and had to look it up. For the edification of other mystified lurkers

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

[Hanslune]

16 minutes ago, Swede said:

He has already rather heavily promoted his "blog". What he does not grasp is the concept of an abstract of the usual 150-200 words. This latter is, of course, consistent with his open disdain of credible research and the associated practices.

.

I meant blog in the sense of, 'useful and filled with information on what he is talking about'.

[jaylemurph]

51 minutes ago, Swede said:

He has already rather heavily promoted his "blog". What he does not grasp is the concept of an abstract of the usual 150-200 words. This latter is, of course, consistent with his open disdain of credible research and the associated practices.

.

The only thing worse than writing an abstract is reading a dozen upper-level collegiate ones. “In this paper, I will...”

—Jaylemurph

[Harte]

53 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Dang I'd forgotten about that and had to look it up. For the edification of other mystified lurkers

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

Because, like Orestes, I am holier than thou.

Harte

[Hanslune]

47 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

The only thing worse than writing an abstract is reading a dozen upper-level collegiate ones. “In this paper, I will...”

—Jaylemurph

I once headed a committee that looked at 2,000+ abstracts of papers written by UAE college students who wanted to get scholarships to go over seas to study engineering and science at the MA/MS level.......

[Hanslune]

37 minutes ago, Harte said:

Because, like Orestes, I am holier than thou.

Harte

Well gosh darn a day old egg salad sandwich left out in sun is holier than me. So you're nothing special Mr. Harte!

[Herbert Sanders]

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Ahhh, most people with a point to make make it fully in a blog, website,  on line publication, or publish a book then link to it.

I guess you haven't thought of that use of advanced technology to solve your self made 'problem'?

Thought about it but prefer this. Waterfall vs iterative approach... I am getting good feed back here in between the ridicule.

Self made problem... never noticed a pattern on your own in life?

Don't you find it odd that at the right deltas eclipses happen for instance? In signs that are relevant to the story? You can't make this up (can you?), the odds are heavily against it.

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Thought about it but prefer this. Waterfall vs iterative approach... I am getting good feed back here in between the ridicule.

Self made problem... never noticed a pattern on your own in life?

Yes, and I used it to find a number of sites in Eastern Cyprus. Which were excavated.

I did the surface survey, obtain permission from the land owner, did test pits, then wrote it all up and worked that into the grant that paid to have the sites excavated two years later. What was learned from them was later incorporated into a later report on that part of Cyprus.

You mean like that? You'll note I didn't hide any of the information from anyone. The title was, 'Outlying sites associated with the Brandeis Kalavassos Excavation'. Not: here are some photos of pieces of land west of Choirokoitia guess what I found in that test pit? Please go find it and look.

Quote

Don't you find it odd that at the right deltas eclipses happen for instance? In signs that are relevant to the story? You can't make this up (can you?), the odds are heavily against it.

I don't know - you could just explain and present your data and research like a normal person instead of trying to make us unwilling parts of your attempt at a forum reality show to glorify you and give you attention?.

 

[Kenemet]

On 9/23/2020 at 7:00 PM, Hanslune said:

"Genealogy tells us that his birth was in 1946 A.M. and that it was 290 years after the supposed flood"

Geneaology isn't actually telling you that. Its just names and dates in a book. AM is also a fake number as was the fake flood number. So with all these fake numbers why do you think you are getting usable data? Again you are basing your idea that the Bible contains accurate information. By any measure it doesn't.

This is correct.

Genealogy doesn't tell you that.  You have to create a chain of evidence to the ancestor.  Now, there's some charts out there (like the ones connecting families to Joseph of Aramathea) that were done over 50 years ago and are known to be full of many mistakes.  And depending on the family tree you use, the birth year varies by several hundred years.

Genealogy would give a date that every single source agreed upon with a very small margin of error.  History would do the same.  As an example, there's a consensus on the birthdate of Nero... and Julius Caesar and many other figures.

[Kenemet]

11 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes, and I used it to find a number of sites in Eastern Cyprus. Which were excavated.

I did the surface survey, obtain permission from the land owner, did test pits, then wrote it all up and worked that into the grant that paid to have the sites excavated two years later. What was learned from them was later incorporated into a later report on that part of Cyprus.

You mean like that? You'll note I didn't hide any of the information from anyone. The title was, 'Outlying sites associated with the Brandeis Kalavassos Excavation'. Not: here are some photos of pieces of land west of Choirokoitia guess what I found in that test pit? Please go find it and look.

I don't know - you could just explain and present your data and research like a normal person instead of trying to make us unwilling parts of your attempt at a forum reality show to glorify you and give you attention?.

 

Having been on digs, I can absolutely confirm that this is the way it's done.

[Hanslune]

17 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

This is correct.

Genealogy doesn't tell you that.  You have to create a chain of evidence to the ancestor.  Now, there's some charts out there (like the ones connecting families to Joseph of Aramathea) that were done over 50 years ago and are known to be full of many mistakes.  And depending on the family tree you use, the birth year varies by several hundred years.

Genealogy would give a date that every single source agreed upon with a very small margin of error.  History would do the same.  As an example, there's a consensus on the birthdate of Nero... and Julius Caesar and many other figures.

In my research on 1830's India I'm always running into 'genealogies'

This fellow was born in 1805 an Indian Muslim in the Gujarat who learned English and went to London - interesting fellow but here is his rather typical and fanciful genealogy of that era. the last half dozen or so might be is actual relatives the rest are fanciful to say the least.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

5 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Having been on digs, I can absolutely confirm that this is the way it's done.

I had a great time doing that type of work. If I could have had a career just doing field survey I would have been happy camper. Oh that was 1981-83.

[Herbert Sanders]

42 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

You mean like that? You'll note I didn't hide any of the information from anyone. The title was, 'Outlying sites associated with the Brandeis Kalavassos Excavation'. Not: here are some photos of pieces of land west of Choirokoitia guess what I found in that test pit? Please go find it and look

When I present it all at once I get ridiculed all at once. Been there (here).

42 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I don't know - you could just explain and present your data and research like a normal person instead of trying to make us unwilling parts of your attempt at a forum reality show to glorify you and give you attention?

They idea is set out. I don't think it needs further explanations, if so then give a targeted question.

Glorification... so one was accusing with lofty words of me wanting to win souls, you say I am in it for the prestige. You don't think you a positioning yourself as a bad faith actor? At least I know see where you are coming from thanks.

35 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

This is correct.

Genealogy doesn't tell you that.  You have to create a chain of evidence to the ancestor.  Now, there's some charts out there (like the ones connecting families to Joseph of Aramathea) that were done over 50 years ago and are known to be full of many mistakes.  And depending on the family tree you use, the birth year varies by several hundred years.

Genealogy would give a date that every single source agreed upon with a very small margin of error.  History would do the same.  As an example, there's a consensus on the birthdate of Nero... and Julius Caesar and many other figures.

Or Hansel & Gretel... Can't digg the stars, can't excavate fairytales.

30 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Having been on digs, I can absolutely confirm that this is the way it's done.

Merely a subject of preference. Seeing that there is money involved changes things. That is completely different.

23 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I had a great time doing that type of work. If I could have had a career just doing field survey I would have been happy camper. Oh that was 1981-83.

Although unrelated fields but... iterative design came in the 90's in computer science as a means to cut cost/risk and gain agility. Concentrate on the hardest task first before slow betting to a point that you over extent your resources.

My blogging is cheap and agile and serves the purpose of addressing questions that arise during interaction here at UM. For my glorification of courss, and to claim souls.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Kenemet]

34 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

In my research on 1830's India I'm always running into 'genealogies'

This fellow was born in 1805 an Indian Muslim in the Gujarat who learned English and went to London - interesting fellow but here is his rather typical and fanciful genealogy of that era. the last half dozen or so might be is actual relatives the rest are fanciful to say the least.

 

It's not the only one out there, of course.  Classic examples are fictitious ancestral deities... as we both know.

 

[Herbert Sanders]

3 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

It's not the only one out there, of course.  Classic examples are fictitious ancestral deities... as we both know.

 

Don't know what you are talking about but I came down the line of Achilles myself.

[Thanos5150]

10 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

When I present it all at once I get ridiculed all at once. Been there (here).

Which begs the question-why do you keep doing it here? No matter how delusional you might be surely a few bells have gone off by now that no one is genuinely interested in you or your "work" beyond the joy of debunkery and ridiculing you. Do you just need attention even if its all bad or what exactly? As much as I do not understand what makes some interested in nothing else other than debunkery nor do I understand those who enjoy repeatedly subjecting themselves to it. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Which begs the question-why do you keep doing it here? No matter how delusional you might be surely a few bells have gone off by now that no one is genuinely interested in you or your "work" beyond the joy of debunkery and ridiculing you. Do you just need attention even if its all bad or what exactly? As much as I do not understand what makes some interested in nothing else other than debunkery nor do I understand those who enjoy repeatedly subjecting themselves to it. 

I get constructive criticism here, some have actually influenced me in a positive way. Do not be mistaken I am not here to convince anyone, just here to argue my point of view and gain insights that help me further.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

11 hours ago, Kenemet said:

It's not the only one out there, of course.  Classic examples are fictitious ancestral deities... as we both know.

 

Lots, I've probably seen nearly a score or more.  I remember the Roman and Greek ones usually went back to god relatives.

[Hanslune]

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

When I present it all at once I get ridiculed all at once. Been there (here).

Oh, so you've told us the point of all this already then, sorry I must have missed it. Can you link back to it then?

Quote

They idea is set out. I don't think it needs further explanations, if so then give a targeted question.

Don't think so if you had we might understand what you are doing. So one last attempt then I put you on ignore.

What is the point or purpose in your ID'ing dots in the sky and associating them with genealogical "information" from the bible? This tells you what or predicts or indicates what?