Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’

[jaylemurph]

4 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Much of time was previously based on reigns of great men and women. Probably because such people were well-known and were a basis for comparison. I was born in the second year of King Rubibge the unwise and my son in four year of the reign of Kinton the soft headed.

The Romans more or less did this, measuring years by the names of the annual consuls — Sulla Mario consulibus — and the international Greek community used the cycle of Olympic game years. 

No acknowledgment of this from Orestes — wonder why — or justification for the respective cultures eschewing their native measurements for... whatever this is. I guess they all saw how massively impractical it was and all just swore never to mention using it again and destroying all record of it. 

That said, the Pyramid debacle induced Them to do the exact same thing, so who knows?

—Jaylemurph

[ShadowSot]

14 hours ago, Hyperionxvii said:

If he could just get better at it and vary it up a little, so it would be more entertaining. I mean everything is astrologicalbologna something with a chart. 

Yeah, Gobekli is one of my favorite ancient sites, even buy the merch. 

 But to be honest the thread is too dull. 

[Hyperionxvii]

1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

Yeah, Gobekli is one of my favorite ancient sites, even buy the merch. 

 But to be honest the thread is too dull. 

Well, certainly just by it's age, it's quite an interesting site. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The Romans more or less did this, measuring years by the names of the annual consuls — Sulla Mario consulibus — and the international Greek community used the cycle of Olympic game years. 

No acknowledgment of this from Orestes — wonder why — or justification for the respective cultures eschewing their native measurements for... whatever this is. I guess they all saw how massively impractical it was and all just swore never to mention using it again and destroying all record of it. 

That said, the Pyramid debacle induced Them to do the exact same thing, so who knows?

—Jaylemurph

Yes, but when pushed people would still say “ohh a dozen summers ago”.

[Tom1200]

I've just watched a programme about Gobekli Tepe.  (Admittedly it was Ancient Aliens, but that doesn't make me a freak - there was nothing else on.)

What struck me was how slender some of the biggest pillars appear.

In fact the tallest ones look the most fragile.  I know (yeah - I can search Google too) there are many other slim ancient megaliths, but all the load-bearing ones I know of are much sturdier.

Possible explanations:

• I am wrong - the pillars are more robust than I imagine
• The pillars never supported a load
• Aliens built them
• The tall pillars supported a lightweight structure
• Aliens ordered men to build them
• Aliens genetically engineered the first humans in order to build them
• The pillars are Aliens - long-lived, slow-moving, stone-based Aliens

As you can see, more than half of all plausible explanations involve Aliens.  I think I'm on to something here...

Serious question: are the T-shaped pillars one section or two?  If they're all one piece - what's the current best explanation for that shape?  I'm not persuaded by an anthropomorphic design.  If they're two pieces the cross piece would be rather unstable.  Any ideas?  (Sensible ones, if possible.  Sorry, Orestes.)

[Hanslune]

18 hours ago, Swede said:

Apparently not, at least not yet. He can't even generate a rational connection to the Levant.

.

If his theory is that these motions in the sky are so compelling why aren't other civilizations also basing their mythology on them? Probably because he doesn't know anything about their mythology....and probably doesn't care as he is focused on Biblical stuff.

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

I've just watched a programme about Gobekli Tepe.  (Admittedly it was Ancient Aliens, but that doesn't make me a freak - there was nothing else on.)

What struck me was how slender some of the biggest pillars appear.

In fact the tallest ones look the most fragile.  I know (yeah - I can search Google too) there are many other slim ancient megaliths, but all the load-bearing ones I know of are much sturdier.

Possible explanations:

• I am wrong - the pillars are more robust than I imagine
• The pillars never supported a load
• Aliens built them
• The tall pillars supported a lightweight structure
• Aliens ordered men to build them
• Aliens genetically engineered the first humans in order to build them
• The pillars are Aliens - long-lived, slow-moving, stone-based Aliens

As you can see, more than half of all plausible explanations involve Aliens.  I think I'm on to something here...

Serious question: are the T-shaped pillars one section or two?  If they're all one piece - what's the current best explanation for that shape?  I'm not persuaded by an anthropomorphic design.  If they're two pieces the cross piece would be rather unstable.  Any ideas?  (Sensible ones, if possible.  Sorry, Orestes.)

One theory suggests these pillars actually supported a roof:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

 

[Hanslune]

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

One theory suggests these pillars actually supported a roof:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conjectural-reconstruction-of-the-roof-framing-of-structure-B-at-Goebekli-Tepe-with-a_fig2_259561913

 

Yeah, I would think it supported a frame work of stick covered by 'tents' or purpose made tarp or perhaps thatching. They may have lacked large pieces of timber or in fact had a wooden roof but no sign of that has shown up.

[Herbert Sanders]

On 23-1-2021 at 9:40 AM, President Wearer of Hats said:

We have records of ancient bureaucracy and record keeping. 
basicslly, nothings really changed, no matter the culture, why would time keeping be different?

“When did this happen?”

“Ohh seventeen winters ago, just before the fifth full moon”.

is more practical than “it happened when the wolf twins were suckling off the great goat as it molested the scorpion”  

17 winters ago from when? This method creates larger, generatial cycles. Abraham/Nimrod, Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Romulus/Remus. Just more of the same.

Born 40 years after so and so... died at age 175... 180... 147... 19...

Mercury/Mars calibrations, stored within doctrine (which is all hermetic).

On 23-1-2021 at 5:54 PM, Hanslune said:

Much of time was previously based on reigns of great men and women. Probably because such people were well-known and were a basis for comparison. I was born in the second year of King Rubibge the unwise and my son in four year of the reign of Kinton the soft headed.

Like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...

On 23-1-2021 at 5:58 PM, Hanslune said:

Having him on ignore works fine but I had a question. His 'discovery' seems to be based on the civilizations around the Levant has he coordinated this with Chinese, Indian and other sources such as the Paris Codex?

Levant simply because it is easy accessible. If I had detailed works/time to investigate other cultures then I would. Doesnt say the same would necessarily hold true, who knows...

On 23-1-2021 at 10:27 PM, jaylemurph said:

The Romans more or less did this, measuring years by the names of the annual consuls — Sulla Mario consulibus — and the international Greek community used the cycle of Olympic game years. 

No acknowledgment of this from Orestes — wonder why — or justification for the respective cultures eschewing their native measurements for... whatever this is. I guess they all saw how massively impractical it was and all just swore never to mention using it again and destroying all record of it. 

That said, the Pyramid debacle induced Them to do the exact same thing, so who knows?

—Jaylemurph

Olympiads... Romulus/Remus happened at the start of the seventh Olympiad I think. Perhaps they transitioned at this time. Atleast this branch of culture. Connection to the stars obviously was lost from a certain point in time, this can happen.

On 24-1-2021 at 9:49 AM, President Wearer of Hats said:

Yes, but when pushed people would still say “ohh a dozen summers ago”.

But from when? That is such a fragile statement. You can easily get lost in time. Olympiads are great, nice 4 year blocks, easy to number etc. If you never break the chain then great. Good improvement, I approve of this method for that period.

On 24-1-2021 at 4:27 PM, Hanslune said:

If his theory is that these motions in the sky are so compelling why aren't other civilizations also basing their mythology on them? Probably because he doesn't know anything about their mythology....and probably doesn't care as he is focused on Biblical stuff.

True I am focused on the Biblical stuff + Romulus/Remus. Once you understand what I am saying and can work it out on your own then feel free to investigate other cultures. But first start here as they are explored. If you have questions then ask, I will answer.

Acting as a naysayer, does not bring you any further.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Orestes_3113

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

17 winters ago from when? This method creates larger, generatial cycles. Abraham/Nimrod, Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Romulus/Remus. Just more of the same.

Born 40 years after so and so... died at age 175... 180... 147... 19...

However, we don't ever see this being used, even in civilizations where we know they had sophisticated astronomy and could (from their records) predict solar eclipses.  The ancient world used the "saros cycle" to predict eclipses, which is based on the lunar cycle and is about 6,585.3 days (18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours) long.

That doesn't hit any of your markers.  Furthermore, they didn't date from eclipse to eclipse but from king to king, since that was more important.

Olympiads... Romulus/Remus happened at the start of the seventh Olympiad I think. Perhaps they transitioned at this time.

A basic bit of googling will tell you that the Olympaiads began in 776 and Rome was founded around 750 BC, not 734 as you suggest.

Once you understand what I am saying and can work it out on your own then feel free to investigate other cultures.

We're perfectly capable of following your calculations.  But they don't match the evidence.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

17 winters ago from when?
 

17 winters prior to the moment you asked the question that the statement “17 winters ago” was a reply to. 

4 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

 

This method creates larger, generatial cycles.

It creates confusion that would inevitably lead to further “and when was that?” questions. 
 

“When were born, President of Hats?”

”Ohh .... during the Prime Ministership of Bob Hawke”

”when was that?”

”38 years ago”. 
 

 

“When were you born?”

”the ram was ascending into the house of Nimrod, and Medusa’s tears were falling in a southern direction”

”when was that?”

”ohh..... 30 winters ago”

[Swede]

4 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

17 winters ago from when?

stored within doctrine (which is all hermetic).

Doesnt say the same would necessarily hold true, who knows...

obviously was lost from a certain point in time, this can happen.

But from when?

Acting as a naysayer, does not bring you any further.

1) From the time of the question. Obvious.

2) You have not at all demonstrated the accuracy of this statement.

3) Waffling excuse.

4) Not proven. Waffling excuse.

5) From the time of the question. Obvious.

6) Nor does presenting unsubstantiated fantasy based upon fallacies.

.

[Herbert Sanders]

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

However, we don't ever see this being used, even in civilizations where we know they had sophisticated astronomy and could (from their records) predict solar eclipses.  The ancient world used the "saros cycle" to predict eclipses, which is based on the lunar cycle and is about 6,585.3 days (18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours) long.

Not ever? Well not if you refuse to look at my examples.

I know about saros that came later.

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

A basic bit of googling will tell you that the Olympaiads began in 776 and Rome was founded around 750 BC, not 734 as you suggest.

Have you even read my post on Romulus?

Summer 776 BCE is correct

Rome was founded per myth on April 19th 751 BCE 1st of the 7th Olympiad.

24+1 due to the summer.

6 hours ago, Swede said:

1) From the time of the question. Obvious.

Not that obvious. People have great difficulty piecing together a biblical timeline. There are certain fixed blocks of time but unsure of the beginning or end. Even when it comes to Rome they did not know their date of origin. Only when they pieced it together at a later time did they get it an approximation.

When a chain of events is broken you are lost. Heavens dont break.

6 hours ago, Swede said:

2) You have not at all demonstrated the accuracy of this statement.

I have but you are simply unwilling to consider. What part is unclear to you? The hermeticism/Hermes connection? Or that scripture holds information.

6 hours ago, Swede said:

3) Waffling excuse.

4) Not proven. Waffling excuse.

Simply beyond my scope, resource constraint.

Think... It was there before, then it was not, why not? 

6 hours ago, Swede said:

6) Nor does presenting unsubstantiated fantasy based upon fallacies.

You are simply not picking up the signal, I can only show a myriad if examples. But if they never stick then you will never see...

It is a language, you need to understand it then you will see it. You would be able to find what I have found, or even correct me if I had made any mistakes.

But first you need to accept the possibility that myths and astromomy are joined at the hip. Then ask real questions that serve to deepen your understanding instead of asking questions as a form of criticism. 

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Rome was founded per myth on April 19th 751 BCE 1st of the 7th Olympiad.

21 April, 753 BC. 
 

cormac

[jaylemurph]

13 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

21 April, 753 BC. 
 

cormac

The year is somewhat up in the air -- as Orestes correctly points out, ancient sources vary -- but nowhere is the date ever questioned. It was the date of the festival of Parilia, which was invariable.

I'm sure Orestes has some ridiculous reason to ignore what is a plain fact, but we all know they're deliberately altering data to fit his "calculations."

--Jaylemurph

[Swede]

17 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

17 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Not that obvious. People have great difficulty piecing together a biblical timeline. There are certain fixed blocks of time but unsure of the beginning or end. Even when it comes to Rome they did not know their date of origin. Only when they pieced it together at a later time did they get it an approximation.

I have but you are simply unwilling to consider. What part is unclear to you? The hermeticism/Hermes connection? Or that scripture holds information.

You are simply not picking up the signal, I can only show a myriad if examples. But if they never stick then you will never see...

But first you need to accept the possibility that myths and astromomy are joined at the hip. Then ask real questions that serve to deepen your understanding instead of asking questions as a form of criticism.

1) You are comparing a general allegory (Sir Wearer of Hats #744) to biblical texts. Makes perfect sense…

2) Your fantasy has been “considered” for 31 pages and found to be lacking in veracity and credibility.

3) Writing  in “signals” does not constitute a well-founded and supportable argument, particularly when your “signals” are based upon fabrications.

4) The readers are under no obligation to “accept” a possibility that has not been credibly demonstrated. You are asking that the readers “accept” a fantasy which is based solely on your discountable fabrications and unevidenced associations. You are conducting the opposite of qualified research by creating an “association” and then altering data to force-fit that data into your fantasy.

Edit: Format.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Swede

[ChrLzs]

To be fair, this thread is actually a very good example of many (if not most) logical fallacies.  So as a teaching aid, it could be useful...

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Swede said:

1) You are comparing a general allegory (Sir Wearer of Hats #744) to biblical texts. Makes perfect sense…

2) Your fantasy has been “considered” for 31 pages and found to be lacking in veracity and credibility.

3) Writing  in “signals” does not constitute a well-founded and supportable argument, particularly when your “signals” are based upon fabrications.

4) The readers are under no obligation to “accept” a possibility that has not been credibly demonstrated. You are asking that the readers “accept” a fantasy which is based solely on your discountable fabrications and unevidenced associations. You are conducting the opposite of qualified research by creating an “association” and then altering data to force-fit that data into your fantasy.

Edit: Format.

 

..and i thought he was just wrong.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

To be fair, this thread is actually a very good example of many (if not most) logical fallacies.  So as a teaching aid, it could be useful...

Yes, it is what happens when someone falls in love with an idea and won't let it go even when the evidence is against it.

[Swede]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

To be fair, this thread is actually a very good example of many (if not most) logical fallacies.  So as a teaching aid, it could be useful...

Chuckle! Quite so.

.

[Herbert Sanders]

4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

21 April, 753 BC. 
 

cormac

Nope Varro is off by two years.

4 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I'm sure Orestes has some ridiculous reason to ignore what is a plain fact, but we all know they're deliberately altering data to fit his "calculations."

--Jaylemurph

No I am not ignoring. 19th or 21st of April is not much of a difference. You can observe say a blood moon during the week and have a festival to commemorate it in the weekend... we dont have to be on the second precise.

What is important is what Mercury and Mars are doing in this time period. This all points to 751 BCE, even the solar eclipse mentioned to have been seen by Antimachus of Teos was visible in this year further east. Not exactly around the door but could easily have been second hand information.

3 hours ago, Swede said:

1) You are comparing a general allegory (Sir Wearer of Hats #744) to biblical texts. Makes perfect sense…

2) Your fantasy has been “considered” for 31 pages and found to be lacking in veracity and credibility.

3) Writing  in “signals” does not constitute a well-founded and supportable argument, particularly when your “signals” are based upon fabrications.

4) The readers are under no obligation to “accept” a possibility that has not been credibly demonstrated. You are asking that the readers “accept” a fantasy which is based solely on your discountable fabrications and unevidenced associations. You are conducting the opposite of qualified research by creating an “association” and then altering data to force-fit that data into your fantasy.

Of course you can choose to disregard as you wish it doesnt change facts. Not looking into it changes nothing. It only creates more work for me.

 

[Herbert Sanders]

On 25-1-2021 at 10:02 PM, Kenemet said:

We're perfectly capable of following your calculations.  But they don't match the evidence.

Stop looking at your evidence for a minute and look at mine. See that both hold true, else rethink what we know.

If my evidence conflicts with yours that does not necessarily invalidate mine. It simply means we need to adjust with respect to truth.

For a fact what I say is true also (when it comes to Roman myth/Biblical myth), easy to see, easy to dive into by those willing to do so.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Orestes_3113

[jmccr8]

Did you know there was one special bubble in every bottle of champagne?

jmccr8

[Hyperionxvii]

36 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Stop looking at your evidence for a minute and look at mine.

I actually did that. You don't have any evidence. Nothing you've said leads anywhere towards any type of logical conclusion. It's nothing but a bunch of non-sensical babbling with zero credibility. 

You'd better go work on your game, up your game. You're failing badly. Not trying to be mean or anything, but aren't you a little embarrassed by all this? Even if Von Daniken was a charlatan, and he was, at least he was somewhat convincing. He 'tried' to build his case. I don't even think you yourself are trying to understand what you are posting. It's just a bunch of disjointed cut and paste hackery. Just stop it.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hyperionxvii

[jaylemurph]

I said you’d find an inane reason to scotch the real date, and you delivered. 

—Jaylemurph