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 -

Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’


Herbert Sanders

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

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?

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?

Never connected them with Gobekli Tepe, as far as I can tell.  Just "dots mean this" and suddenly "Bible stories" and no connection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

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?

I think I removed the thread. So sorry, no can't do.

10 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

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?

First I stumbled upon the idea at first that Abraham might be asociated with... that got me thinking what if all this is merely astrotheology that is more precise than we imagined before.

Now with this date it is easy to navigate scripture you must agree... and so I did. What I found were signiciant aspects in the ecliptic that fall in lign with the narrative. And it is very precise if you go deeper into the story as long as you maintain the syntax. Births, burials, marriages the whole book of Genesis basically.

This tells me a lot about their way of viewing the planets (wandering stars), the way they have setup their theology and gives a frame through which we can look at the ordeals of the protagonists/antagonists.

This to me in itself is new/amazing

Edited by Orestes_3113
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I think I removed the thread. So sorry, no can't do.

First I stumbled upon the idea at first that Abraham might be asociated with... that got me thinking what if all this is merely astrotheology that is more precise than we imagined before.

Now with this date it is easy to navigate scripture you must agree... and so I did. What I found were signiciant aspects in the ecliptic that fall in lign with the narrative. And it is very precise if you go deeper into the story as long as you maintain the syntax. Births, burials, marriages the whole book of Genesis basically.

This tells me a lot about their way of viewing the planets (wandering stars), the way they have setup their theology and gives a frame through which we can look at the ordeals of the protagonists/antagonists.

This to me in itself is new/amazing

So the reason you didn't have a point is because you didn't have a point but you kept telling us you'd get to it at some point in the future?

Clever. i now have three people on ignore....a new record. Have fun.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hanslune said:

So the reason you didn't have a point is because you didn't have a point but you kept telling us you'd get to it at some point in the future?

Clever. i now have three people on ignore....a new record. Have fun.

 

I have no clue what you are on about. The point is very simple, astronomy is intricately related to antiquity and crossing cultural boundaries. That point is made from the start and throughout, else is mere further detail. 

Thank you for the ignore :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Never connected them with Gobekli Tepe, as far as I can tell.  Just "dots mean this" and suddenly "Bible stories" and no connection.

If you want causation... this can never be dont. Fictitious story correlated to an immaterial and fleeting moment. That is all it is, however  the correlation can be studied in detail and with high probability, so as to reasonably conclude... yes this is how things were viewed.

The debunking has always been in the causation realm, and I keep myself to the correlation realm. I cannot cross over, could you? (For discussion sake of course ;))

Edited by Orestes_3113
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours 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

Early on, the classic mistake of writing an abstract first was admittedly committed. When the abstract is the last thing written, it is actually quite straight forward, barring the usual necessary editing to match journal word-count parameters.

As to going through mass amounts of collegiate abstracts, you have my sincere sympathy.

.

.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hanslune said:

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.......

Ditto my comments to Jayle. The pain...

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

If you want causation... this can never be dont. Fictitious story correlated to an immaterial and fleeting moment. That is all it is, however  the correlation can be studied in detail and with high probability, so as to reasonably conclude... yes this is how things were viewed.

The debunking has always been in the causation realm, and I keep myself to the correlation realm. I cannot cross over, could you? (For discussion sake of course ;))

You haven't correlated a single thing.

We keep waiting for you to match up items with cultural evidence that shows a "chain of custody".   So far, you've just wandered from topic to topic ahd haven't shown an "a+b=c" link.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swede said:

Ditto my comments to Jayle. The pain...

.

I used a military inspired technique to make it easier as we only had a limited time 24 or 36 hours, I don't recall. I separated the stacks (back in the days of paper), there was a lot of paper, a table covered with them. I divided them into three sections.

The first section were the ones we would read first - they were LUCKY people and the kind of people we would want to send to foreign colleges.

The second section were people who weren't terribly lucky, we'd only look at them if we didn't find enough good folks in the LUCKY pile and would stop once we had enough.

The third section were UNLUCKY people, now who would want those types to represent you?

Sped the process up immeasurably.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I get constructive criticism here, some have actually influenced me in a positive way.

Apparently I am missing something-can you give some examples?

Quote

Do not be mistaken I am not here to convince anyone,

Obviously not which given resoundingly the exact opposite has happened, in lieu of the reason being merely attention-good or bad, your persistence is otherwise baffling. 

Quote

just here to argue my point of view and gain insights that help me further.

You argue with the leopard it has no spots. But insights that have helped you how exactly? If this were true it stands to reason you would have abandoned these beliefs by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Apparently I am missing something-can you give some examples?

Is it not for me to appraise the value of the responses?

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Obviously not which given resoundingly the exact opposite has happened, in lieu of the reason being merely attention-good or bad, your persistence is otherwise baffling. 

Like I said I have not really started yet. Only shown a few eclipses. You haven't been shown full stories yet like the jostling of Jacob and Esau within the womb, or Lot pairing with his daughters in a cave, the burrial of Sarah or Abraham. I know these stories, I know the dots and how they correlate.

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

You argue with the leopard it has no spots. But insights that have helped you how exactly? If this were true it stands to reason you would have abandoned these beliefs by now. 

The concept is not discussed here and is not up for discussion, I can only demonstrate... no room for debate. It is what it is.

In the margin however there is room for error and therefor discussion is welcome. I know when someone makes a point even if he didn't aim for it. I simply need to be honest to myself.

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

You haven't correlated a single thing.

We keep waiting for you to match up items with cultural evidence that shows a "chain of custody".   So far, you've just wandered from topic to topic ahd haven't shown an "a+b=c" link.

A: creation Adam (partial solar eclipse in Leo - 3899 BCE)

+

B: 1946 years (source: Bible)

=

C: birth of Abram (quintuple conjunction in Aquarius - 1953 BCE)

 

C

+

D: 505 years (source: Bible)

=

E: Exodus (blood moon in the first month, month of the lamb, Aries, month of Exodus - 1448 BCE)

 

The correlation is such: "As above, so below", when it comes to stories (myths). There will be no further items, no excavations, no eye witnesses, no nothing. Only more charts/sky projections and more quotations from scripture. Anything more does not add.

Any more questions about this?

I would like to know who was responsible for this document? When whas it written? How did they keep this information? Was it kept? Or antedated by calculation? If so, how? When? Just a few but I would have more.

The correlation itself is fact, you might think the probability is low near 0%, and I would deem it high near 100%. However these eclipses or conjunctions happened, and the deltas are recorded. You can't deny this. I think you need to consider the probability of this, knowing the paths of the planets, Sun and Moon

Edited by Orestes_3113
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The probability that you can cherry-pick some Bible stories, apply fictitious dates to them, and then find something in the sky that happened around the time of your dates, with those events in the sky completely unrelated to each other?

100%

How is a "conjunction" like an eclipse.

Harte

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harte said:

The probability that you can cherry-pick some Bible stories, apply fictitious dates to them, and then find something in the sky that happened around the time of your dates, with those events in the sky completely unrelated to each other?

100%

How is a "conjunction" like an eclipse.

Harte

I've shared the major markations in the story while I have dates that go page to page. Not cherry-picked but chronologically page by page and it follows a certain syntax.

The dates are not fictitious but follows the trail of the story. As long as you have 1 single confirmed point you can deduce the rest.

You say unrelated 100%, you cannot prove this, you only assume this is the case. But I would argue you are wrong and round and round we go.

An eclipse is a conjunction of the sun and moon. Conjunctions in general are when planets move past each other on the ecliptic. But I don't think I need to explain this.

Not only conjunctions are significant also the signs or retrogrades, basically early early "astrology".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

As long as you have 1 single confirmed point

You DON'T have even one confirmed point.

NO-ONE is buying this.  I just browsed back 4 pages (and started to lose the will to live), and in those pages you have received ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZIP, BUPKIS, DIDDLY-SQUAT, b*****-ALL, NAUGHT, NIL, NOTHING in the way of supporting posts, or even likes.

Your methodology is ludicrously flawed and non-objective, and it has rightly been rejected.  Did you not know that admitting error is the way to learn?

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

You DON'T have even one confirmed point.

NO-ONE is buying this.  I just browsed back 4 pages (and started to lose the will to live), and in those pages you have received ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZIP, BUPKIS, DIDDLY-SQUAT, b*****-ALL, NAUGHT, NIL, NOTHING in the way of supporting posts, or even likes.

Your methodology is ludicrously flawed and non-objective, and it has rightly been rejected.  Did you not know that admitting error is the way to learn?

 

Br'er Rabbit and the Tar-Baby

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2020 at 6:24 AM, Orestes_3113 said:

I've shared the major markations in the story while I have dates that go page to page. Not cherry-picked but chronologically page by page and it follows a certain syntax.

The dates are not fictitious but follows the trail of the story. As long as you have 1 single confirmed point you can deduce the rest.

You say unrelated 100%, you cannot prove this, you only assume this is the case. But I would argue you are wrong and round and round we go.

An eclipse is a conjunction of the sun and moon. Conjunctions in general are when planets move past each other on the ecliptic. But I don't think I need to explain this.

Not only conjunctions are significant also the signs or retrogrades, basically early early "astrology".

How is your "conjunction" of the planets relative to a solar (or lunar) eclipse?

Answer, it's not.

How many other "conjunctions" happened that you don't take into account?

Do you know how many eclipses happened over your time span? Why not stories about the others?

And lunar eclipses are visible to half the planet every time they occur, so you can't simply say they weren't visible like solar eclipses aren't visible to most of the planet.

Harte

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2020 at 9:24 PM, Orestes_3113 said:

An eclipse is a conjunction of the sun and moon. Conjunctions in general are when planets move past each other on the ecliptic.

Just for the sake of correctness, this, like the rest of the garbage he posts, is mostly wrong.

While an eclipse is a tiny subset of the broad group of events called conjunctions, no astronomer refers to an eclipse as a conjunction.  Conjunctions generally do not mean precise alignments where a shadow is created, which is what an eclipse is..  The correct term for that sort of event is, duh, eclipse or 'syzygy'.  (That's a great term to use in Hangman, by the way..)

The common usage of conjunction is to indicate a couple of bright objects that are near enough to look purty, usually within about 7-8 degrees (that's about 4 fingerwidths at arm's length), but that may vary especially if there are 3 or more objects.  It's all a bit SUBjective ... which, along with his patently incorrect attempt at manufacturing dates, is why you CANNOT do what Orestes has done and be expected to be taken seriously.

Also, conjunctions may involve retrograde motions, so the two objects do NOT have to 'pass each other'.

Seriously, Orestes, LEARN and understand the topics before you throw all this excreta at the fan.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Just for the sake of correctness, this, like the rest of the garbage he posts, is mostly wrong.

While an eclipse is a tiny subset of the broad group of events called conjunctions, no astronomer refers to an eclipse as a conjunction.  Conjunctions generally do not mean precise alignments where a shadow is created, which is what an eclipse is..  The correct term for that sort of event is, duh, eclipse or 'syzygy'.  (That's a great term to use in Hangman, by the way..)

The common usage of conjunction is to indicate a couple of bright objects that are near enough to look purty, usually within about 7-8 degrees (that's about 4 fingerwidths at arm's length), but that may vary especially if there are 3 or more objects.  It's all a bit SUBjective ... which, along with his patently incorrect attempt at manufacturing dates, is why you CANNOT do what Orestes has done and be expected to be taken seriously.

Also, conjunctions may involve retrograde motions, so the two objects do NOT have to 'pass each other'.

Seriously, Orestes, LEARN and understand the topics before you throw all this excreta at the fan.

You are only babbling. My wording was such that I confirm that an eclipse is a subset. I don't refer to an eclipse as a conjunction, I am only responding to those who cling to the word conjunction. Conjunctions indeed do not mean precise alignments we went into this... what is a conjunction? 10 degree? when can we agree, this is pretty much arbitrary. However when it comes to 27th of Feb 1953 BCE we can agree that it was very tight (less than 5 degrees for 5 planets, less than 1 for 4).

When I mention solar eclipses then we are dealing with syzygy  and more specifically occultation for that specific region. Although when it comes to a solar eclipse this does not mean that daylight is always diminished, you need about 90% blackening for that. I know this. But if you dare to stare into the sun (maybe they had UV-filtered sunglasses :lol:) then you can see the moon move in front of the sun.

Retrogrades also allow three conjunctions in a row. Everything good comes in three, no? One time passing direct, once by retrograde and once more before coming out of shadow, your point? I've been looking into these matters for over 13 years now. I am not coming here out of the blue like a twenty year old thinking I got something without any prior reservations, this has been a very long process.

Don't try to hammer me down like this, it achieves nothing! 

9 hours ago, Harte said:

How is your "conjunction" of the planets relative to a solar (or lunar) eclipse?

Answer, it's not.

How many other "conjunctions" happened that you don't take into account?

Do you know how many eclipses happened over your time span? Why not stories about the others?

And lunar eclipses are visible to half the planet every time they occur, so you can't simply say they weren't visible like solar eclipses aren't visible to most of the planet.

Harte

It doesn't really matter how many, what matters is how a particular conjunction relates to a story and how the story then progresses/evolves chronologically while being kept inline with the syntax of the stars and planets. Mercury always near the Sun like a good boy or prophet staying at home under the cloak of the Sun's tent and Mars wandering off like a wild hairy red man or hunter in the fields. There you have Jacob and Esau for example. And they live through a lot of adventures in the sky together. Not unlike Asterix and Obelix.

Asterix-and-Obelix-672x372.jpg&f=1&nofb=

 

Edited by Orestes_3113
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 1/16/2021 at 8:14 PM, Trelane said:

Not sure if this is a valid question but does the discovery of Karahan Tepe change affect this at all?

I havnt seen the pillars but I imagine them to be similar. This would not affect my theory of early astro-everything. If you have detailed images of the pillars feel free to share them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2020 at 11:17 AM, Hanslune said:

So the reason you didn't have a point is because you didn't have a point but you kept telling us you'd get to it at some point in the future?

Clever. i now have three people on ignore....a new record. Have fun.

 

I have Orestes_3113 on ignore and can't even remember why.  :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I havnt seen the pillars but I imagine them to be similar. This would not affect my theory of early astro-everything. If you have detailed images of the pillars feel free to share them.

...

Detailed, thoughtful analysis for sure. Methodology FTW!

—Jaylemurph

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I have Orestes_3113 on ignore and can't even remember why.  :lol:

It’s guaranteed to reduce un-asked-for problematic pseudohistory in your life by a solid 40%. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I havnt seen the pillars but I imagine them to be similar. This would not affect my theory of early astro-everything. If you have detailed images of the pillars feel free to share them.

A quick search of the site name will provide you with imagery, though do be cautious of the "interpretations" of characters such as Collins.

The research of this site is still in its early stages. And, as with Gobekli Tepe, it has nothing to do with your fancies.

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I have Orestes_3113 on ignore and can't even remember why.  :lol:

I do too - its his basic inability to understand that Cherry Picked Data and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy are not names for artisan cheese.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.