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’

949 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Orestes_3113
6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Scientists and non-scientists are known to 'fall in love with' an idea and become fixated on it to a point where they loose all objectivity. They become zealots and completely irrational on that specific subject however they are not insane or trolls just overly focused, misguided and stubborn.

I am guilty of that. But there is truth in it so shoot me. Misguided is just perception, you guys are stuck demanding things to fit your paradigm. Maybe it needs to break?

6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I wouldn’t include Orestes in the guise of scientist, more like fantasist. That said poster needs to reinterpret an entire cultures beliefs in support of a personal agenda while simultaneously utilizing sources that are not even original to said cultures early history are quite telling as well as quite damning IMO. 
 

cormac

Early history is not important for the earlier myths. They could have been (re)constructed at a later time. Antedating the years by calculating cycles.

40 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Similar to this thread, sometimes remarkably so in terms of the obduracy shown by the poster, is a thread in the miscellaneous section of ED titled Controversial Considerations, and started by maat. It looks like trolling at first, but it goes on and on in the most intricate, and utterly wrong detail about KV62.. Every point they make is wrong, and they dismiss all reality, and all commonsense, put before them. I believe some here are familiar with this bizzarre thread.

Obduracy shown by the critics... he said/she said.

Reality and common sense needs to be cast aside first. Focus on the pattern. Do you see it? Do you see how impossible it is to be coincidental?

If not, then you are blind.

If so then how strong is your conviction?

Yes it is a paradigm shift, what happens... happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I am guilty of that. But there is truth in it so shoot me. Misguided is just perception, you guys are stuck demanding things to fit your paradigm. Maybe it needs to break?

Early history is not important for the earlier myths. They could have been (re)constructed at a later time. Antedating the years by calculating cycles.

Obduracy shown by the critics... he said/she said.

Reality and common sense needs to be cast aside first. Focus on the pattern. Do you see it? Do you see how impossible it is to be coincidental?

If not, then you are blind.

If so then how strong is your conviction?

Yes it is a paradigm shift, what happens... happens.

890370B5-E4C4-4FDC-A269-60A6EEF08BCA.thumb.jpeg.0485c515163e407d048545b9f3c58b6c.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
11 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Them/they? I stand alone, I only noticed a pattern that I am sharing here.

Isn't that the problem - we can't see the pattern(s)?  Your images don't tell me anything useful.  They show an unlabelled x-axis, an unlabelled sinusoidal line, lots of stars, a handful of asterisms1 out of literally2 billions that could be drawn, and what I assume is a solar eclipse.  There's no date or annotation that I can decipher.

So - here's my concern: there are many websites that catalogue eclipses.  The ones I've looked at only go back to 3000 BC - I guess there's little call for detailed knowledge of earlier events.  But from the charts I've seen (e.g. Eclipses_R_Us) there are approximately 2.5 solar eclipses per year and a similar number of lunar ones.  So how do you choose which ones are significant?  Which ones fit your narrative and why are all the rest irrelevant?

The planets and stars follow predictable patterns.  I'm guessing humans have realised that for many thousands of years.  So it's possible they made up fanciful stories to explain the celestial dances they observed.  Isn't that why they identified the planets - the wandering stars - as gods?  And those gods had personalities, and fights, and they influenced or controlled us plebs, the weather, etc.

But you're saying that certain ancient peoples took this to the extreme - convinced there was only one god they had to create a narrative to explain all the other observations (even though they knew these followed measurable cycles).  Rather than tell stories about the same few dozen gods they invented generation upon generation of flesh & blood people.  As the years and centuries ticked by this story grew and grew into the 600 000+ words of the Old Testament.  None of which actually happened - it's all just a story woven around astronomical observations?

And your evidence for this is the time intervals you've identified between selected eclipses that match the time intervals listed in (one version of) the biblical texts?  And let's remind ourselves - you're not picky when it comes to choosing eclipses to match - 

17 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Not necessarily in Leo.

And (correct me if I'm wrong) I seem to recall you arguing that some of the biblical time periods might/must be wrong, so you've allowed yourself a few years either side?  Which takes in even more eclipses & alignments and allows literally2 billions of potential matches.

Can you see how this all looks to the incredulous observer?  

 

1 Yes - I had to look that word up.  I'm not an astronomer.

2 Yes - literally, used correctly.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
1 hour ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Reality and common sense needs to be cast aside first. Focus on the pattern. Do you see it? Do you see how impossible it is to be coincidental?

You know, you sound just like maat, and also like "M" before him, the same contempt for commonsense and for proven fact. Do you think it in any way shape or form reasonable to state that the mummies of Yuya, Thuya, Amunhotep III, Tiye, KV35YL, KV55, both KV21 mummies, Tutankhamun and the two foetuses found with him, are all "fake" in that not one of them is a royal or connected to the royal family, all to disgiuse the "true" location of Tutankhamun. A subterfuge, or in the words of maat, a diversion, that would need to have been put in place at least at the deaths of Yuya and Thuya, with their real mummies being substituted, and then all of the previously mentioned mummies, so that 3,400 years later they can all be conected by DNA, because the AE "knew" that the discovery of DNA thousands of years in the future would uncover their subterfuge, if they did not find a non royal family to be used as substitutes for the burials of the real people. When pressed on this, it was obvious that maat did not know about Yuya and Thuya, or KV35 or KV55 or KV21, only about KV62, so had to quickly come up with the fantasy that five generations of related mummies were all "servants", not the originals, in order to "prove" that the mummy in KV62 is, according to maat, not Tutankhamun. Every single thing he has said about KV62 is wrong, and has been proven to be wrong, but in his obduracy, he shrugs off all reality and common sense. Even to suggest that reality and commonsense should be discarded is, odd, to say the least.

 

Edited by Wepwawet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

Isn't that the problem - we can't see the pattern(s)?  Your images don't tell me anything useful.  They show an unlabelled x-axis, an unlabelled sinusoidal line, lots of stars, a handful of asterisms1 out of literally2 billions that could be drawn, and what I assume is a solar eclipse.  There's no date or annotation that I can decipher.

? Did you open the image and zoom in? Lower left corner you will find the dates. Remember to subtract 1 year for the 0 year as it is not counted.

The are screenshots of projections of the skies in Mercator style. It is not a graph but more of a photo. The white sinusoidal line is the Milky Way and the yellow horizontal line is the ecliptic. Along the ecliptic the wandering stars aka planets move. The crossings of the Milky Way and the ecliptic are focus points.

A solar eclipse is when the Sun is blackened by the Moon. Which is what these images have. Yes then there are asterisms and the asterisms or zodiacal signs carry meaning that gives color to the story when a planet moves into that sign. So the eclipse provides the beat but the situation is the sounds of that beat.

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

So - here's my concern: there are many websites that catalogue eclipses.  The ones I've looked at only go back to 3000 BC - I guess there's little call for detailed knowledge of earlier events.  But from the charts I've seen (e.g. Eclipses_R_Us) there are approximately 2.5 solar eclipses per year and a similar number of lunar ones.  So how do you choose which ones are significant?  Which ones fit your narrative and why are all the rest irrelevant?

But they move along the ecliptic. Next year's eclipses are not at the same spot as this year's eclipses. I am not too worried at precision with this tbh. But 30 degrees off would be way way off, 5 degrees not so. These eclipses in the antediluvian world are not possible in the postdiluvian word for example as the years are shortened.

When it comes to what is relevant and what is not. The story dictates. The people who wrote the story choose their narrative, if the narrative was different then perhaps the choice would have been different. Story trumps that decision. We can know by following this method that the crossing at Ophiuchus has negative connotations and the crossing at Orion has positive connotations. They are 180 degrees apart, there are 2 eclipse seasons a year 360/2=180. That means if the story is holy think Orion, unholy think Ophiuchus. Unless there is a righteous battle at Ophiuchus then it is positive but simply behind enemy lines. Themes like these carry the decision.

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

The planets and stars follow predictable patterns.  I'm guessing humans have realised that for many thousands of years.  So it's possible they made up fanciful stories to explain the celestial dances they observed.  Isn't that why they identified the planets - the wandering stars - as gods?  And those gods had personalities, and fights, and they influenced or controlled us plebs, the weather, etc.

Yes. And therefore if you were to reverse engineer the stories you would get the skies they have viewed (or calculated).

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

But you're saying that certain ancient peoples took this to the extreme - convinced there was only one god they had to create a narrative to explain all the other observations (even though they knew these followed measurable cycles).  Rather than tell stories about the same few dozen gods they invented generation upon generation of flesh & blood people.  As the years and centuries ticked by this story grew and grew into the 600 000+ words of the Old Testament.  None of which actually happened - it's all just a story woven around astronomical observations?

More or less. But don't disregard scripture is simply stories about the skies. To them this is all very real. The virtual dictates the reality. As above, so below kind of thing. So understanding the planets is like understanding the weather. When are revolutionary times coming up etc. So to them this is science, understanding the planets is to understand the laws of the Gods. The problem, theologically then is who are you rooting for? Mars, Mercury, Jupiter? or any derivative of it. Which one is God? 

The book of Jubilees gives a good insight into the reasoning of monotheism:

Jubilees 12:17-18 (Abraham)

Quote

17. And a word came into his heart and he said: All the signs of the stars, and the signs of the moon and of the sun are all in the hand of the Lord. Why do I search (them) out?

18. If He desires, He causes it to rain, morning and evening;
And if He desires, He withholds it,
And all things are in his hand.'

Original or not this internal discussion demonstrated the futility of astrology and simply accepting that we cannot know, without bypassing spirit guidance. And so the stories perhaps became overly complicated. Monotheism sliced everything back into one, but kept enough to sustain itself for spiritual doctrine to demonstrate proof for itself. A self-sustaining construct if you will.

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

And your evidence for this is the time intervals you've identified between selected eclipses that match the time intervals listed in (one version of) the biblical texts?  And let's remind ourselves - you're not picky when it comes to choosing eclipses to match - 

Partially yes (one version is for antediluvian), everyone agrees on Abraham/prophecies. But it goes much further then this. When considering the lives of Abraham/Isaac and Jacob basically their whole lives are written in the stars. There is not a single paragraph that is not related. Genesis is simply an astrotheological record.

But not only the Bible, the same holds true to Romulus/Remus and their "adventures". Suckled by a wolf in a cave, fighting Amulius, establishing Rome, Remus mocking Romulus, Remus' death. These are not solar eclipse cycles but Mars/Mercury conjunction cycles. Same technique only different luminaries at play. This same thing happens with Abraham/Isaac and Jacob btw... Mercury/Mars over and over again.

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

And (correct me if I'm wrong) I seem to recall you arguing that some of the biblical time periods might/must be wrong, so you've allowed yourself a few years either side?  Which takes in even more eclipses & alignments and allows literally2 billions of potential matches.  

There are some years in the antediluvian narrative that are unsure or paradoxical. Given that the methodology works elsewhere I concluded that the method trumps scripture on this. And so in these instances a let the method speak. This sides with a version of the story. For example genealogies of Noah is problematic. However the Flood itself is established.

No there are not that many possibilities if that would be the case then simply show me! There are two eclipse seasons in a year on opposite ends. If lucky you have 2 eclipses at one side. However because of positive/negative the story allows us to disregard one. This leaves one. Now for other years the eclipse would have moved way beyond the borders of what the story allows. Scroll through the eclipses again, they are grouped. If this was all random then you would not have these groupings.

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

Can you see how this all looks to the incredulous observer?  

Sure, but this takes time, this is new material to which no one is adapted. I simply need to remain calm, patient and answer questions like the ones you asked just now.

 

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
26 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

You know, you sound just like maat, and also like "M" before him, the same contempt for commonsense and for proven fact. Do you think it in any way shape or form reasonable to state that the mummies of Yuya, Thuya, Amunhotep III, Tiye, KV35YL, KV55, both KV21 mummies, Tutankhamun and the two foetuses found with him, are all "fake" in that not one of them is a royal or connected to the royal family, all to disgiuse the "true" location of Tutankhamun. A subterfuge, or in the words of matt, a diversion, that would need to have been put in place at least at the deaths of Yuya and Thuya, with their real mummiies being substituted, and then all of the previously mentioned mummies, so that 3,400 years later they can all be conected by DNA. When pressed on this, it was obvious that maat did not know about Yuya and Thuya, or KV35 or KV55 or KV21, only about KV62, so had to quickly come up with the fantasy that five generations of related mummies for were all "servants", not the originals. So cast aside reality and common sense, and the bizzarre posts of maat is what you get, and it is not just him, is it.

I don't know maat, or M. I do understand your point about pressing and then simply coming up with a different story to basically double down on the theory. Yes that is true. But you must understand that I started with the simple acknowledgement that 27th of February 1953 BCE could actually have been this anchor for the story of Abraham. Then if that is true, then... ... ... ... 

All this comes out. Because that would mean ... ... ...

Now this process is trial and error. I do understand that there are errors here and there, however the pattern is convincingly enough to keep at it and coming back for it. Sometimes I read good critiques from you guys which helps me out quite a lot. But I will never concede that this is all nothing... and this is where you want me to go. That simply is not true. So the pressure you give refines, hones and makes the theory hardened. That is a good thing.

Now I know nothing of archeology, I am not even an astrologer let alone an astronomer. I am just a guy with time on his hands that noticed something interesting and found it to be true.

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
7 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

I don't know maat, or M. I do understand your point about pressing and then simply coming up with a different story to basically double down on the theory. Yes that is true. But you must understand that I started with the simple acknowledgement that 27th of February 1953 BCE could actually have been this anchor for the story of Abraham. Then if that is true, then... ... ... ... 

All this comes out. Because that would mean ... ... ...

Now this process is trial and error. I do understand that there are error here and there, however the pattern is convincingly enough to keep at it and coming back for it. Sometimes I read good critiques from you guys which helps me out quite a lot. But I will never concede that this is all nothing... and this is where you want me to go. That simply is not true. So the pressure you give refines, hones and makes the theory hardened. That is a good thing.

Now I know nothing of archeology, I am not even an astrologer let alone an astronomer. I am just a guy with time on his hands that noticed something interesting and found it to be true.

But, you have made a clear statement that "Reality and common sense needs to be cast aside first". Looking at something with fresh eyes is of course a good thing to do, but reality is still reality, not an opinion, and common sense can never be discarded at any time, because otherwise you end up falling down a bottomless pit like maat, and many others of the fringe, all shouting their hatred of Hawass as they fall, as this lunacy is most prevalent with anything to do with Ancient Egypt.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
11 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

But, you have made a clear statement that "Reality and common sense needs to be cast aside first". Looking at something with fresh eyes is of course a good thing to do, but reality is still reality, not an opinion, and common sense can never be discarded at any time, because otherwise you end up falling down a bottomless pit like maat, and many others of the fringe, all shouting their hatred of Hawass as they fall, as this lunacy is most prevalent with anything to do with Ancient Egypt.

What is reality though... There are different realities. But we understand each other in this. Fresh eyes. Keep common sense. But common sense needs guidance as well or reasonable ideas will be cast aside. So what are the rules of this "game". Myth and time based stars only. History as we know it doesn't exist. In this laboratory setting we only look for patters, having Abraham as an anchor.

Objections within these boundaries are welcome, anything that is outside of it, I leave outside of it. It serves nothing. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
11 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

What is reality though... There are different realities. But we understand each other in this. Fresh eyes. Keep common sense. But common sense needs guidance as well or reasonable ideas will be cast aside. So what are the rules of this "game". Myth and time based stars only. History as we know it doesn't exist. In this laboratory setting we only look for patters, having Abraham as an anchor.

Objections within these boundaries are welcome, anything that is outside of it, I leave outside of it. It serves nothing. 

"having Abraham as an anchor". If you have a figure from myth as your anchor, then you are adrift on a formless and dark sea. You need to first prove the existance of Abraham, and when he lived. If you can do that, then proceed by all means, but otherwise what you are doing is no different to me making up a date for the events told in the Book of the Heavenly Cow, and so dating all of Egyptian history from that event irrespective of the inconveniances of the archeological record, vide the "Exodus", and common sense.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

"having Abraham as an anchor". If you have a figure from myth as your anchor, then you are adrift on a formless and dark sea. You need to first prove the existance of Abraham, and when he lived. If you can do that, then proceed by all means, but otherwise what you are doing is no different to me making up a date for the events told in the Book of the Heavenly Cow, and so dating all of Egyptian history from that event irrespective of the inconveniances of the archeological record, vide the "Exodus", and common sense.

Abraham never existed. Only as a fictional character how often do I need to state this? But the character was created alongside this timely "event" in the skies. This is where the pattern is substantiated, in time. I have no regard for archeology in this case, cast it aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
7 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Abraham never existed. Only as a fictional character how often do I need to state this? But the character was created alongside this timely "event" in the skies. This is where the pattern is substantiated, in time. I have no regard for archeology in this case, cast it aside.

If Abraham never existed - then who is Grandpa Simpson named after?

Sad Season 10 GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
15 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Abraham never existed. Only as a fictional character how often do I need to state this? But the character was created alongside this timely "event" in the skies. This is where the pattern is substantiated, in time. I have no regard for archeology in this case, cast it aside.

What we have is a mythical character invented by ancient Hebrews, and you are trying to say that they invented him on the basis of ancient astronomical events. You need to prove this event is the basis for Abraham. It doesn't matter if he is real or myth, or a mix of both, he exists in the written record, and you are using the written record to base your idea upon by essentially fitting patterns in the ancient night sky to written accounts that do not have a start date. This is why I mentioned the Book of the Heavenly Cow as it does not come with a date, but I bet using your methodology I could come up with one, or for any mythological event. You still need to prove at what time Abraham, mythical or not, appeared, and connect this to an astonomical event so strongly that you can use it as "your anchor".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

What we have is a mythical character invented by ancient Hebrews

Correct

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

and you are trying to say that they invented him on the basis of ancient astronomical events.

Basically but this is a chicken/egg kind of deal. What came first? The need for the story, or the story?

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

You need to prove this event is the basis for Abraham.

This happened to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. Christ. Romulus/Remus. The prophecies of Daniel. etc etc. They are are consistent. The pattern proofs it. Feb 27th 1953 BCE belongs to Abraham.

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

It doesn't matter if he is real or myth, or a mix of both, he exists in the written record, and you are using the written record to base your idea upon by essentially fitting patterns in the ancient night sky to written accounts that do not have a start date.

Partially correct. If a pattern fits then you have starting dates that is the point. Many dates are like pebbles but Abraham in an anvil so, so heavy. There is not as rare as an event as this. And in they myth none is bigger than Abraham. 

Galatians 3:7

Quote

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

The best you can hope for within doctrine is to be called child of Abraham. What event would be more fitting then the rarest of them all? Matching Abraham then gives a starting date and an end date (June 22nd 2085 CE).

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

This is why I mentioned the Book of the Heavenly Cow as it does not come with a date

It is about pattern recognition. You can start in the middle and work your way out.

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

but I bet using your methodology I could come up with one, or for any mythological event.

I will take that bet. Prove it.

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

You still need to prove at what time Abraham, mythical or not, appeared, and connect this to an astonomical event so strongly that you can use it as "your anchor".

What? I have posted it time and time again...

stellarium-004_-_Copy.jpg

Zoom in on the date. My hypothesis is that this "is" the birth of Abraham as described in the book of Jasher 8

That is the H0. I do not need to prove it in advance, it is the assumption which is proven by the test as a conclusion. You want me to start with a prove and then blindly do the rest. No, no, no, first an assumption then the testing then the conclusion. H0 is justified.

The testing is done through the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. The antediluvian solar eclipses. The prophecies of Daniel's eclipses or "events". The Roman myth of Romulus and Remus. And everything else that will be produced. They all work in concert to proof h0 which is that February 27th 1953 BCE is the date of Abraham's birth as a character.

There will be no direct evidence other then inferred from pattern recognition. 

What is the starting point of your face? In facial recognition? Proof me to me where your face begins or it doesn't exist... ludicrous.

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
6 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Feb 27th 1953 BCE belongs to Abraham.

This needs to be proven, and despite your protestations, you have not proven anything at all, simply given a slide show, always a potentially bad sign, and stated that you are correct.

That date is way way before the first appearance of Hebrews in the record, so apart from your astronomical slide show, you need to show the existance of Hebrews at this date in time, can you do this beyond just stating that they existed. Certainly their ancestors existed, but in the general population of "Caananites", can you discern them in this population.

I say that slide shows are potentially a bad sign because while a picture can be worth a thousand words, pictures can be misused if they are not clearly explained, and as a form of smoke and mirrors to distract from a lack of meaningful text. A list of names and dates, all of which are spurious, does not constitute meaningful text unless those names and dates can be proven, which they cannot.

Chicken and egg, horse and cart, yep, all valid, so is the phrase circular reasoning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

This needs to be proven, and despite your protestations, you have not proven anything at all, simply given a slide show, always a potentially bad sign, and stated that you are correct.

Can you accept pattern for proof? What is proof to you? What would it possibly look like for you to be admissible?

8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

That date is way way before the first appearance of Hebrews in the record, so apart from your astronomical slide show, you need to show the existance of Hebrews at this date in time, can you do this beyond just stating that they existed. Certainly their ancestors existed, but in the general population of "Caananites", can you discern them in this population.

I am not even sure that they existed around then. I do not claim that at all. What are you talking about? I am totally open to the possibility of this being antedated at a much later time. Maybe the Hebrews are just a bunch of brainwashed fools running errands for those lurking behind a curtain. 

All I know is that the myths carry a pattern. The pattern belongs to the planetary motions. All else is questionable including your paradigm.

8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I say that slide shows are potentially a bad sign because while a picture can be worth a thousand words, pictures can be misused if they are not clearly explained, and as a form of smoke and mirrors to distract from a lack of meaningful text. A list of names and dates, all of which are spurious, does not constitute meaningful text unless those names and dates can be proven, which they cannot.

Bla bla bla. Focus on the pattern, ask questions, get answers. I will provide more commentary you only need to ask.

8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Chicken and egg, horse and cart, yep, all valid, so is the phrase circular reasoning.

Nothing wrong with circular reasoning if it creates greater detail. Like cycle thresholds on the PCR tests. What matters is if we can find suitable matches, this is possible.

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
7 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Can you accept pattern for proof? What is proof to you? What would it possibly look like for you to be admissible?

I am not even sure that they existed around then. I do not claim that at all. What are you talking about? I am totally open to the possibility of this being antedated at a much later time. Maybe the Hebrews are just a bunch of brainwashed fools running errands for those lurking behind a curtain. 

All I know is that the myths carry a pattern. The pattern belongs to the planetary motions. All else is questionable including your paradigm.

Bla bla bla. Focus on the pattern, ask questions, get answers. I will provide more commentary you only need to ask.

Nothing wrong with circular reasoning if it creates greater detail. Like cycle thresholds on the PCR tests. What matters is if we can find suitable matches, this is possible.

So you cannot provide any proof of anything beyond you saying that you are right because you say that you are right.

You've been asked by several posters to provide some proof that can be understood by anybody with reasonable intelligence, will you provide clear evidence?

You seem to be saying, multiple times, that your evidence is not understood due to the rest of us not having an "open mind", and being stuck in a paradigm. What paradigm would that be, the one that goes with reality and common sense, concepts that you do not go with. Do you get how bad that attitude comes across, of how much of a bar to even trying to understand you that is.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
28 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So you cannot provide any proof of anything beyond you saying that you are right because you say that you are right.

You've been asked by several posters to provide some proof that can be understood by anybody with reasonable intelligence, will you provide clear evidence?

You seem to be saying, multiple times, that your evidence is not understood due to the rest of us not having an "open mind", and being stuck in a paradigm. What paradigm would that be, the one that goes with reality and common sense, concepts that you do not go with. Do you get how bad that attitude comes across, of how much of a bar to even trying to understand you that is.

Perhaps. But how can it be anything else? You cannot expect me to show material proof when all I am stating is liturgy and timestamps. I continue to state that it is about the inherent logic, the patters. Yet you want to have substance when all there is is abstract. If you want to play a game then you need to understand the rules else you cannot play. But I will play by the rules and not cheat. So accept that there are rules to it or simply do not play and sit this one out. 

The bar of entry for a game of monopoly is that you know the rules... simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200

I would like to nominate myself for the title of "most bored person online at this moment".  Any challengers?

822856669_newconstellation.thumb.gif.0884363de2935771b51a5e7478b097ee.gif

Also - I've checked the records and it was pouring with rain at that time in Canaan.  So they wouldn't have been able to see this.

Also, also - I asked my dad who's really old, and he says there probably was a person called Abraham.  He can't remember the details, but it was a while ago.  Orestes - you calling my dad a liar?

Please don't reply - I'm supposed to be working.  XxX

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
9 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

I would like to nominate myself for the title of "most bored person online at this moment".  Any challengers?

822856669_newconstellation.thumb.gif.0884363de2935771b51a5e7478b097ee.gif

Also - I've checked the records and it was pouring with rain at that time in Canaan.  So they wouldn't have been able to see this.

Also, also - I asked my dad who's really old, and he says there probably was a person called Abraham.  He can't remember the details, but it was a while ago.  Orestes - you calling my dad a liar?

Please don't reply - I'm supposed to be working.  XxX

Rain or not doesn't matter if you are aware of the planet's trajectory. It would have been expected and simply a shame to not have been visible much like we can be disappointed in missing out on an eclipse. Also it could have been antedated although for an even like this I find it unlikely.

If there was or was not a person called Abraham does not matter. To truths can co-exist. My point is that there doesn't have to have been a person called Abraham. So finding evidence that he did not exist does not proof the story is not real, capeesh? Your dad can believe whatever he wants to believe.

If I can be an entertaining distraction then cool with me B) 

love your image btw, nicely done!

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
35 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Perhaps. But how can it be anything else? You cannot expect me to show material proof when all I am stating is liturgy and timestamps. I continue to state that it is about the inherent logic, the patters. Yet you want to have substance when all there is is abstract. If you want to play a game then you need to understand the rules else you cannot play. But I will play by the rules and not cheat. So accept that there are rules to it or simply do not play and sit this one out. 

The bar of entry for a game of monopoly is that you know the rules... simple as that.

That all sounds rather cultic, and is why I likened you, rightly or wrongly, to maat, as you are both singing from the same hymn sheet. I don't see too many members lining up to make more than a one line post to debate with you on your terms, do you. So if all those who do not want to play by your "rules" exit, this will all get very quiet, except for the sound of your own voice, which is what happened to maat. The only rules here are the forum rules, not ad hoc rules made up by a member in order to control debate, and control is what you are trying to do.

You say that this is abstract, yet you present a slideshow that is certainly not abstract as you are stating that this is what was in the night sky in the past. It becomes abstract when you say that ancient peoples saw this that or the other in these celestial events, something that as they themselves make no mention of, can never be proven, and all you are doing is joining up dots to fit a pattern that you have pre-ordained, and you have not denied your circlular reasoning.

I think that if you had any real faith in what you are proposing, then you would welcome any engagement as it is human nature to tell everybody about their great idea, yet you want to restrict engagement to those that are aleady pre-disposed to agree with you, ie, the fringe. Yet doing that would just put you, and them, into the usual downward spriral of mutual confirmation, and the accretion of more and more error.

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Them/they? I stand alone, I only noticed a pattern that I am sharing here.

Science and rigor is what keeps you from understanding. Cast it aside.

Although confirmarion bias is a problem but it should be dealt with intuitively. The idea needs to grow first, more details need to emerge. Positions corrected.

My writing last year was different then this year. Why? Because I am off my socks? No, the theme is correct, it is what it is. But I had to understand that direct visibility is not required before the times of Abraham.

I have only shared little still. There is much more to come.

I used they/them pronouns so as not to deliberately misgender you, not for any other reason. 

As to abandoning a skeptical, rational mindset? No thanks. I’m a medievalist: I know all too well what happens when reason and practicality are subsumed by magical thinking.  People have a nasty tendency to get tied to stakes and burnt...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orestes_3113
13 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

That all sounds rather cultic, and is why I likened you, rightly or wrongly, to maat, as you are both singing from the same hymn sheet. I don't see too many members lining up to make more than a one line post to debate with you on your terms, do you. So if all those who do not want to play by your "rules" exit, this will all get very quiet, except for the sound of your own voice, which is what happened to maat. The only rules here are the forum rules, not ad hoc rules made up by a member in order to control debate, and control is what you are trying to do.

You say that this is abstract, yet you present a slideshow that is certainly not abstract as you are stating that this is what was in the night sky in the past. It becomes abstract when you say that ancient peoples saw this that or the other in these celestial events, something that as they themselves make no mention of, can never be proven, and all you are doing is joining up dots to fit a pattern that you have pre-ordained, and you have not denied your circlular reasoning.

I think that if you had any real faith in what you are proposing, then you would welcome any engagement as it is human nature to tell everybody about their great idea, yet you want to restrict engagement to those that are aleady pre-disposed to agree with you, ie, the fringe. Yet doing that would just put you, and them, into the usual downward spriral of mutual confirmation, and the accretion of more and more error.

blabla. All that matters is the pattern. Is it there or not. You say no, I say you are blind.

13 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I used they/them pronouns so as not to deliberately misgender you, not for any other reason. 

As to abandoning a skeptical, rational mindset? No thanks. I’m a medievalist: I know all too well what happens when reason and practicality are subsumed by magical thinking.  People have a nasty tendency to get tied to stakes and burnt...

—Jaylemurph 

Wut? Misgender? Lol that is loony. Who would actually care about that?

Which is why you are the one holding the stakes and torches... got ya.

Remember none of what I am saying is supernatural or magical...

Edited by Orestes_3113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Similar to this thread, sometimes remarkably so in terms of the obduracy shown by the poster, is a thread in the miscellaneous section of ED titled Controversial Considerations, and started by maat. It looks like trolling at first, but it goes on and on in the most intricate, and utterly wrong detail about KV62.. Every point they make is wrong, and they dismiss all reality, and all commonsense, put before them. I believe some here are familiar with this bizzarre thread.

Please share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Isn't that the problem - we can't see the pattern(s)?  Your images don't tell me anything useful.  They show an unlabelled x-axis, an unlabelled sinusoidal line, lots of stars, a handful of asterisms1 out of literally2 billions that could be drawn, and what I assume is a solar eclipse.  There's no date or annotation that I can decipher.

So - here's my concern: there are many websites that catalogue eclipses.  The ones I've looked at only go back to 3000 BC - I guess there's little call for detailed knowledge of earlier events.  But from the charts I've seen (e.g. Eclipses_R_Us) there are approximately 2.5 solar eclipses per year and a similar number of lunar ones.  So how do you choose which ones are significant?  Which ones fit your narrative and why are all the rest irrelevant?

The planets and stars follow predictable patterns.  I'm guessing humans have realised that for many thousands of years.  So it's possible they made up fanciful stories to explain the celestial dances they observed.  Isn't that why they identified the planets - the wandering stars - as gods?  And those gods had personalities, and fights, and they influenced or controlled us plebs, the weather, etc.

But you're saying that certain ancient peoples took this to the extreme - convinced there was only one god they had to create a narrative to explain all the other observations (even though they knew these followed measurable cycles).  Rather than tell stories about the same few dozen gods they invented generation upon generation of flesh & blood people.  As the years and centuries ticked by this story grew and grew into the 600 000+ words of the Old Testament.  None of which actually happened - it's all just a story woven around astronomical observations?

And your evidence for this is the time intervals you've identified between selected eclipses that match the time intervals listed in (one version of) the biblical texts?  And let's remind ourselves - you're not picky when it comes to choosing eclipses to match - 

And (correct me if I'm wrong) I seem to recall you arguing that some of the biblical time periods might/must be wrong, so you've allowed yourself a few years either side?  Which takes in even more eclipses & alignments and allows literally2 billions of potential matches.

Can you see how this all looks to the incredulous observer?  

 

1 Yes - I had to look that word up.  I'm not an astronomer.

2 Yes - literally, used correctly.

Yes, "I have 100,000 dots and dots 86,324, 17, 32,456, 111,112 and 21,566 are important because i say so, the rest are dismissed based on whimsy."

Which is the madder and most quixotic;  claiming that the crowd cannot see he is a genius and that they are blind or he who continues to try and convince them that they are wrong

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Wut? Misgender? Lol that is loony. 

I’m not discussing the matter. Take the respect offered or don’t. Your reaction says more about you than me. 

6 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Remember none of what I am saying is supernatural or magical...

It is precisely that: magical thinking. If you’re unfamiliar with the specific term, Google exists for that very reason. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.